On November 8, 2010, the Department of Public Instruction received a complaint under state and federal special education law from XXXXX against the Kenosha Unified School District. This is the departments decision regarding that complaint. The issue is whether the district, between September 1 and September 27, 2010, properly implemented the students individualized education program (IEP) with respect to positive behavioral interventions, supports, and strategies, and modification of assignments.
Special education law requires the district to ensure student IEPs are in effect at the beginning of each school year for each student with a disability. The students April 16, 2010 IEP in place at the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year states the student will need verbal prompts to stay focused, a fidget toy to hold while listening to instruction, partnering with a peer, positive praise, preferential seating, firm voice for corrections, and motivation to stop his peer-distracting behaviors by telling him he will be moved away from friends as a consequence. Supplemental aids and services are preferential seating, a pencil grip to aid in the writing process, participation grading in science and social studies, and modified assignments in math, reading, and language arts when material is above the students level.
On September 17, 2010, an IEP team meeting was conducted to review and revise the students IEP, conduct a functional behavioral assessment, and review and revise the behavior interventions. The students mother and a parent advocate attended the meeting. The students mother expressed her concern about her sons behavior at school. A more detailed behavior intervention plan (BIP) was developed including the use of a visual schedule, a visual timer, visual cards, a working towards schedule, movement breaks, behavior chart, pass cards, silent time out with no attention, social stories, and a reduction in transitions. The revised IEP also provided for modified assignments. The implementation date for the IEP, including the revised behavior interventions, was September 27, 2010. On September 22, the students mother observed her son at school, and on September 24, 2010, the parents advocate observed the student. They did not observe the use of the interventions and supports determined during the September 17, 2010, IEP team meeting. However, the implementation date for the revised IEP was September 27, 2010. On September 27, the students mother removed him from the school and enrolled him in a different district school.
On September 29, an IEP team meeting was conducted to review and revise the students IEP and determine placement. The students mother and a parent advocate attended the meeting. The students mother states that the student is doing well at his new school. The September 17 IEP was reviewed and revised, and placement was changed to the students new school. The district properly implemented the students IEPs in effect between September 1 and September 27, 2010.
This concludes our review of this complaint which we are closing.
//signed CST 12/14/2010
Carolyn Stanford Taylor
Assistant State Superintendent
Division for Learning Support: Equity and Advocacy