On December 11 and December 18, 2008, the Department of Public Instruction received a complaint under state and federal special education law from XXXXX against the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS). This is the departments decision regarding that complaint. The issue is whether the district, during the 2008-2009 school year, ensured an individualized education program (IEP) team properly determined services for a student with a disability.
On December 10, 2008, an IEP team met to determine continuing eligibility, develop an annual IEP, and determine continuing placement for a child with a disability. The students grandmother attended the IEP team meeting with a child advocate. The IEP team determined the student continued to meet the criteria for a speech and language disability and did not meet the criteria for other health impairment and specific learning disabilities. The IEP team discussed the students grandmothers concerns about the students delays in reading and math, which is documented in the students IEP. The IEP includes a description of the students present levels of educational performance indicating how the student learns and the students learning abilities including reading, math and learning needs. IEP team members, including the students grandmother, recall discussing the reading curriculum Language! and determining the student would continue in her regular education reading curriculum in the regular education environment. The IEP provides that the student will be involved full-time in the general education curriculum. The student would be removed from participation with nondisabled peers in regular education classes for specialized instruction in speech and language thirty minutes three times a week.
On January 15, 2009, the students grandmother requested an IEP team meeting to review and revise her granddaughters IEP and consider adding enrollment in the Language! reading curriculum. On January 30, an IEP team met to review and revise the students IEP, determine continuing placement, and to discuss the Language! reading program. The childs grandmother participated in the IEP team meeting by telephone and a child advocate attended the meeting in person. IEP team members including the students grandmother recall discussing the reading curriculum, Language!, and the students present reading performance. The IEP team determined the student would continue in her regular education reading curriculum in the regular education environment. The IEP team reviewed the students progress in reading, including passing progress monitoring checks, and determined the student was making significant progress in the regular education curriculum. The IEP team properly determined services for the student based on the identified needs of the child.
This concludes our review of this complaint, which we are closing.
//signed CST 2/2/09
Carolyn Stanford Taylor
Assistant State Superintendent
Division for Learning Support: Equity and Advocacy