Listing of Issues in 2000 IDEA Complaint Decisions

00-001

  1. Did the district fail to implement provisions of the child’s current individualized education program (IEP) related to: the amount and frequency of special education, providing classroom notes to the child, providing sentence starters to the child for written assignments, and providing written progress reports to the child’s parent?
  2. Did the district fail to include a proper statement of transition service needs in the child’s current IEP?

00-002

Did the district fail to provide services consistent with the child’s IEP during the fall semester of the 1999-2000 school year with regard to testing modifications, seating accommodations, and assistance on long-range assignments?

00-003

During the 1999-2000 school year, did the district fail to conduct a timely three-year reevaluation of the child?

00-004

  1. Did the district fail to have in effect current individualized education programs (IEPs) for three children with disabilities during the 1999-2000 school year?
  2. Did the district fail to have the IEPs of three children with disabilities accessible to district staff responsible for implementation of each child’s IEP during the 1999-2000 school year?
  3. Did the district deny a child with a disability a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by repeatedly excluding him from school during the 1999-2000 school year?
  4. Did the district, in the development of IEPs for three children with disabilities whose behavior impedes their learning or that of others, fail to consider strategies to address their behavior?

00-005

  1. Did the district (after all IEP team meetings since February 3, 1999) fail to provide to the parent copies of the IEP to be implemented because it either provided several substantively different copies of the IEP to the parent or it failed to provide copies at all?
  2. Did the district fail to provide services consistent with the child’s IEP when it failed to provide the student access to the computer lab between February 1, 1999, and February 3, 1999?
  3. Did the IEP team fail to consider, at IEP team meetings after February 1, 1999, the unique needs of the child due to his medication?
  4. Addressed by a due process hearing.
  5. Addressed by a due process hearing.
  6. Addressed by a due process hearing.
  7. Addressed by a due process hearing.
  8. Did the district fail to provide requested copies of the child’s educational records (specifically, the last report card and the last assessment) to the parent during the spring semester of the 1998-99 school year?
  9. Did the IEP team fail to consider the child’s transition needs during all IEP team meetings held after February 3, 1999?

00-006

Did the district fail to provide the complainant with an independent educational evaluation at public expense when she disagreed with the district’s evaluation of her child? This complaint was withdrawn.

00-007

Did the district fail to refer the child for a special education evaluation in a timely manner when district staff had reason to believe he is a child with a disability?

00-008

  1. Did the district refuse to schedule an individualized education program (IEP) meeting or provide a written notice to the parent in a timely manner regarding the parent’s request on February 9, 2000, for an IEP meeting?
  2. Did the district fail to provide the child with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by excluding him from school during the 1999-2000 school year?

00-009

  1. Did the district fail to provide services consistent with the child’s IEP between August 1999 and March 3, 2000?
  2. Did the district deny a child with a disability a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by repeatedly suspending him from school during the 1999-2000 school year?

00-010

Did the district improperly change the child’s placement because an IEP team did not determine the placement of the child at Andrew Douglas and did the district fail to provide notice to the parents of the new placement?

00-011

Did the district improperly deny the consideration of speech and language services as related services during the reevaluation of the complainant’s child?

00-012

Did the district fail to provide the complainants with written notice explaining why the district refused to provide their son with extended school year (ESY) services during the summer of 1999?

00-013

Did the district fail, during the 1998-99 school year, to refer the child for an evaluation to determine the child’s eligibility for special education?

00-014

  1. Did the district fail to provide a parent, upon request, access to the education records of her son?
  2. Did the district fail to provide the parent with proper notice of her son’s individualized education program (IEP) team meeting held in March 2000?
  3. Did the district fail to provide the child a free appropriate public education (FAPE) between March 2, 2000, and May 19, 2000, when the child had a significant number of school absences?

00-015

  1. Did the district fail to provide a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) to a child with a disability by repeatedly excluding the child from school? This complaint was withdrawn.
  2. Did the district fail to provide the child FAPE by only allowing him to attend school for half days without following required procedures when it changed the child’s placement? This complaint was withdrawn.

00-016

Did the district fail, during the period of expulsion, to determine and provide services to the extent necessary to enable the child to appropriately progress in the general curriculum and appropriately advance toward achieving individualized education program (IEP) goals? This complaint was withdrawn.

00-017

  1. Did IEP teams determine the special education services to include in four children’s 1999-2000 individualized education programs (IEPs) based upon the resources available at the applicable school building, rather than upon each child’s needs?
  2. During the 1999-2000 school year, did the district improperly subject IEP teams’ placement determinations for ten children to administrative approval?
  3. Did special education supervisors direct staff to alter the content of the same ten students’ IEPs, including IEP cover sheets and IEP meeting invitations after IEP team meetings were completed?
  4. With regard to those same ten children, did the district fail to provide the parents of each child with notice of placement and a copy of the child’s IEP prior to implementation of the IEP and placement?
  5. During the 1999-2000 school year, did the district fail to provide 21 children with disabilities with the amount and frequency of special education services specified in each child’s IEP?

00-018

Does district policy improperly deny parents the right to an independent educational evaluation at public expense on request if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the district?

00-019

Does district policy improperly deny parents the right to an independent educational evaluation at public expense on request if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the district?

00-020

Does district policy improperly deny parents the right to an independent educational evaluation at public expense on request if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the district?

00-021

Does district policy improperly deny parents the right to an independent educational evaluation at public expense on request if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the district?

00-022

Did the district fail to provide services consistent with the child’s IEP, since April 27, 1999; specifically, the complaint alleges that the district did not provide the required emotional disturbance special education services? This complaint was resolved by due process.

00-023

Did the district fail to provide the following supplementary aids and services: "One—on-one assistant in physical education and English class due to behavior-coaching/cueing in structured and unstructured classes," as described in the student’s March 27, 2000, IEP?

00-024

  1. Did the district fail to refer the child for a special education evaluation in a timely manner when the high school guidance counselor had reason to believe he was a child with a disability?
  2. Did the district fail to initiate an evaluation of the child in response to the complainant’s written request for a special education evaluation on February 7, 2000?
  3. Did the district fail to provide the complainant with proper written notice of its refusal to initiate an evaluation of the child in response to the complainant’s February 7, 2000, request for an evaluation?

00-025

  1. During the 1999-2000 school year, did the district fail to provide the related service of transportation consistent with a child’s April 13, 2000, individualized education program (IEP)?
  2. At an IEP team meeting on April 13, 2000, did the district fail to include in a child’s IEP a provision determined by the IEP team, that if the child attended summer school classes the child’s IEP would be in effect?

00-026

This complaint was withdrawn.

00-027

  1. Did the district fail to implement the complainant’s daughter’s 1999-2000 individualized education program (IEP) goal: "(Daughter) will increase her use and knowledge of assistive technology devices," and related short-term objectives: "(1) (Daughter) will participate in training to become familiar with the Dragon Dictate and WYNN software; (2) (Daughter) will become familiar with the Dragon Dictate software and will be able to explain how to use it to other students; (3) (Daughter) will become familiar with the WYNN (What You Need Now) software and begin to use it to assist with completion of her academic tasks; and (4) (Daughter) will become familiar with a modified keyboard and use it to type in information for her classes?
  2. Did the district fail to include procedures for measuring the daughter’s progress toward the annual goal relating to assistive technology?

00-028

Did the district, between March 27, 2000, and May 1, 2000, fail to provide homebound instruction to the complainants’ son as required by his March 27, 2000, individualized education program (IEP)?

00-029

  1. Did the district fail to provide homebound services to the complainants’ daughter consistent with a proper individualized education program (IEP) during the 1999-2000 school year?
  2. Did the district improperly apply the eligibility criteria for the impairment of emotional disturbance during an October 1999, IEP team evaluation of complainants’ daughter?

00-030

  1. Did the district fail to implement the IEP by not providing parents with any test/project grade when the student received a D or below and by not providing a quiet place for the student when he became over-stimulated?
  2. Did the district fail to make the child’s current IEP accessible to district staff responsible for implementation of the IEP during the 1999-2000 school year?

00-031

Did the district fail to evaluate his child for a suspected disability in a timely manner when requested by the child’s father during the 1999-2000 school year? This complaint was withdrawn.

00-032

  1. During the spring semester of the 1998-99 school year, did the district fail to provide the complainant with proper notice of her child’s educational placement within 90 days of referral?
  2. Did the district fail to provide the complainant with prior written notice of IEP team meetings held from March through May 1999?

00-033

  1. Did the district fail to implement provisions of the child’s individualized education program (IEP) because of a lack of qualified personnel during the 1999-2000 school year?
  2. Did the district fail to respond in a timely manner to the parents’ requests for a meeting of the IEP team for their child?

00-034

  1. Did the district fail to include the parent as an equal participant in the development of her son’s February 24, 2000, IEP, as the special education services, supplementary aids and services and placement were predetermined by district staff and presented to the parent at the IEP team meeting?
  2. Did the district fail to provide the monthly monitoring of speech services as described in son’s IEP for the 1999-2000 school year?
  3. Did the district fail to inform the parent of her son’s progress toward his annual goals and the extent to which that progress is sufficient to enable the student to achieve the goals by the end of the 1999-2000 school year?
  4. Did the district fail to inform the parent of her right to additional time at the beginning of the February 24, 2000, IEP team meeting?
  5. Did the district fail to implement selected short-term objectives in the student’s February 24, 2000, IEP, relating to the annual goals dealing with written language and spelling skills? Specifically, did the district fail to implement the following short-term objectives: (a) When given a journal entry or story starter, student will complete the writing assignment using correct punctuation spelling and usage with 80% accuracy or better; (b) When given new spelling words at the beginning of the week (student) will write down his words in ABC order with 80% accuracy or better; (c) When given his spelling words (student) will examine similarities and differences among them using a variety of activities with 80% accuracy or better; (d) When given his spelling words (student) will use dictation activities in order to further enhance his ability to understand and spell words in context with 80% accuracy or better; (e) When given his spelling words (student) will use a variety of activities to increase language comprehension with 80% accuracy or better; and (f) When given his final spelling test (student) will spell his words with 80% accuracy or better?
  6. Did the district fail to reevaluate the student at least once every three years?
  7. Did the district fail to provide the parent with a copy of her son’s evaluation report with the February 23, 2000, notice of placement?

00-035

  1. Did the district fail to provide the student with positive reinforcement as described in May 18, 1999, and April 17, 2000, behavior intervention plans?
  2. Did the district fail to provide the student with copied notes as described in the supplementary aids and services section of his IEPs for the 1999-2000 school year?
  3. Did the district improperly hire a special education teacher who was not licensed to provide services to the student during the 1999-2000 school year?
  4. Did the district fail to implement short-term objectives in the student’s 1999-2000 IEP, relating to the annual goal dealing with the student’s goals for life after secondary school?
  5. Did the district fail to individualize the student’s IEPs, as they were copied from year-to-year?
  6. Did the district fail to include the parent as an equal participant in the development of her son’s IEPs for the 1999-2000 school year, as the special education services and placement were predetermined by district staff and presented to the parent at the IEP team meetings?

00-036

  1. Did the district fail to implement the following annual goal in the child’s 1999-2000 individualized education program (IEP): To continue the picture exchange communication book so that (student) could take a picture of chocolate milk and learn to say drink?
  2. Did the district fail to inform the parent of the child’s progress toward his annual goals and the extent to which that progress is sufficient to enable him to achieve the goals by the end of the 1999-2000 school year?

00-037

  1. Did the district improperly determine whether the child is a child with a disability by reason of a speech and language impairment?
  2. Did the district improperly deny the consideration of speech and language services as a related service?

00-038

  1. Did the district fail to implement the provisions of the child’s individualized education program (IEP) requiring the district to provide the following: music therapy; swimming; CD leisure time, functional academics, and applied academics; adaptive physical education; and VI Services on a regular basis? This complaint was withdrawn.
  2. Did the district fail to ensure that special education required by the child’s IEP was provided by qualified staff? This complaint was withdrawn.

00-039

  1. Did the district fail to ensure that her client was referred for a special education evaluation prior to January 2000?
  2. Did the district fail to provide the child the protection of the IDEA during the 1999-2000 school year when the district repeatedly suspended the child from school?
  3. Did the district fail to ensure that the district employee who submitted a referral for a special education evaluation of the child in January 2000 informed the child’s parent, prior to submitting the referral?
  4. Did the district fail to provide the child’s parent in January 2000 with a procedural safeguards notice as required by § 115.792(3), Wis. Stats.?

00-040

In May 2000, did district administrative staff refuse to provide a transportation aide for the child without a determination by the IEP team of the child’s need for a transportation aide? This complaint was withdrawn.

00-041

  1. Did the district deny a free appropriate public education to two children with disabilities by refusing to enroll them in school from February 21, 2000, when they moved from South Milwaukee to the Milwaukee Public Schools district, until March 27, 2000?
  2. At an IEP meeting held on June 1, 2000, did the district improperly deny the two children extended school year (ESY) services by basing the decision only on regression and recoupment factors and by refusing to allow the foster parent and the foster parent’s advocate to equally participate in the IEP team’s discussion and decision?
  3. Did the district fail to provide the parent with prior written notice of its refusal to provide ESY services to the two children this summer?

00-042

Did the district, during the 1999-2000 school year, fail to conduct an annual review of the child's individualized education program (IEP)?

00-043

  1. Did the district fail to conduct an annual review of the child’s individualized education program (IEP) prior to its expiration in January 2000?
  2. Did the district provide special education services to the child from January through May 2000, without a valid IEP in effect?
  3. Did the district fail to provide the parent with prior written notice of the May 30, 2000 IEP team meeting?
  4. Did the district fail to provide prior written notice to the parent that her child was being reevaluated?
  5. Did the district fail to ensure that the IEP team prepared an evaluation report that included documentation of the determination that the child meets the criteria for the other health impairment (OHI) disability?

00-044

Did the district improperly change the placement of a child with a disability in June 2000 without an individualized education program (IEP) team meeting?

00-045

  1. Did the district improperly change the placement of a child with a disability in June 2000 without an individualized education program (IEP) team meeting?
  2. Did the district fail during a June 9, 2000, IEP team meeting, to consider the child’s educational needs resulting from autistic-like behavior and from speech and language needs?
  3. Did the district fail to include the proper participants at an IEP team meeting held on June 9, 2000, to revise a child’s IEP?

00-046

  1. Did the district fail to provide the parents with a final type-written copy of their son’s individualized education program (IEP) that was revised at an April 18, 2000, IEP team meeting?
  2. Did the district fail to implement provisions of the son’s 1999-2000 IEP with respect to transportation services?

00-047

Did the district fail to provide special education transportation as required by the child’s current ESY individualized education program?

00-048

Did the district fail, as part of an initial evaluation of a child during the 1999-2000 school year, to use a variety of assessment tools and strategies and to consider information provided by the child’s parents?

00-049

  1. Did the district fail to follow proper procedures concerning parent participation at individualized education program (IEP) team meetings? This complaint was withdrawn.
  2. Did the district fail to implement the provisions of the child’s IEP relating to regularly providing unit objectives, content, evaluation tools, and rubrics for evaluation at the beginning of each unit? This complaint was withdrawn.
  3. Did the district fail to provide prior written notice to the complainant and to comply with parent consent requirements prior to administering tests or other evaluation materials as part of a reevaluation of the complainant’s child? This complaint was withdrawn.
  4. Did the district fail to discuss private counseling for the student at an IEP team meeting prior to including it in the student’s IEP? This complaint was withdrawn.

00-050

Did the district fail to make available to complainants’ child a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment following a meeting of an individualized education program team on July 10, 2000? This complaint was withdrawn.

00-051

Did the district improperly deny a parent the right to an independent educational evaluation at public expense on request when the parent disagreed with an evaluation obtained by the district?

00-052

During the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years, did the district fail to implement the provisions of the child’s individualized education program (IEP) requiring full-time sign language interpreter assistance?

00-053

Did the district fail to conduct an individualized education program (IEP) team meeting in a timely manner following a July 20, 2000, parent request for an IEP team meeting?

00-054

Did the district hold an IEP team meeting for the complainant’s child without all required IEP team participants in attendance?

00-055

  1. Did the district fail to provide a parent advocate, upon request in June and July 2000, access to the education records of a student?
  2. Did the district fail to provide a free and appropriate public education to the child when it shortened his school day during the 1999-2000 school year?
  3. Did the district fail to provide homebound services consistent with the child’s IEP during the 1999-2000 school year?
  4. Did the district, during the 1999-2000 school year, fail to consider and, as appropriate, include in the child's IEP services to address his needs related to behavior?

00-056

  1. Did the district, during the 1999-2000 school year, fail to implement provisions of the child’s individualized education program (IEP) requiring individual occupational therapy?
  2. Did the district fail to have the proper participants attend an IEP team meeting on May 30, 2000, by not ensuring the attendance of a local education agency (LEA) representative and a regular education teacher of the child?
  3. Did the district improperly determine at the May 30, 2000, IEP team meeting that the child does not require physical therapy services?
  4. Did the district fail to include a proper statement of needed transition services in the child’s IEP developed on May 30, 2000?
  5. Did the district fail to include in the child’s current IEP the amount of special education services to be provided to the child?
  6. Did the district fail to include in the child’s current IEP a proper explanation of the extent to which the child will not participate in the general curriculum and with nondisabled children in the regular class?
  7. Did the district improperly deny the complainants’ request for extended school year services for the child during the summer of 2000?
  8. Did the district fail to include the complainants in the child’s placement determination during the May 30, 2000, IEP team meeting and fail to provide the complainants with proper notice of placement?
  9. Did the district fail to provide the complainants, following their request, with a copy of their child's education records in a timely manner?
  10. Did the district complete pages 5 and 6 of the child’s current IEP prior to the IEP team meeting without the participation of the IEP team?
  11. Did the district fail to include in the child’s current IEP a proper statement of the child’s present level of educational performance on page 5 that relates to the annual goal on page 6?
  12. Did the district fail to attach a document by M. LaPierre to the child’s current IEP as stated on page 5 of the IEP?
  13. On the cover page of the child’s current IEP, did the district fail to indicate that the IEP team would develop a transition statement and incorrectly stated the child’s grade level?

00-057

  1. Did the district fail to properly notify the parents of their son’s May 10, 2000, individualized education program (IEP) team meeting?
  2. Did the district conduct a May 10, 2000, IEP team meeting and amend the complainants’ son’s March 15, 2000, evaluation report and IEP without the required participants?

00-058

For one week in October 2000, did the district fail to implement the current IEP of the complainants’ child when he was sent to the resource room for the entire week?

00-059

  1. Did the district fail to include complainant’s son in regular education activities on October 18, 2000, as required by his individualized education program (IEP)? This complaint was withdrawn.
  2. Did the district fail to review the child’s IEP within 30 days following a September 29, 2000, IEP team meeting, as required by his IEP? This complaint was withdrawn.
  3. Did the district fail to respond in a timely manner to complainants’ request, on or about October 3, 2000, for an IEP team meeting? This complaint was withdrawn.
  4. Did the district fail to provide speech and language services to the child, as required by his IEP? This complaint was withdrawn.
  5. Did the district fail to ensure that staff who provide education services to the child receive sign language training, as required by his IEP? This complaint was withdrawn.
  6. Did the district fail to ensure that the child attends classes with children he knew in the previous school year, as required by his IEP? This complaint was withdrawn.

00-060

  1. Did the district, during the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years, deny a child with a disability a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by repeatedly suspending him from school?
  2. Did the district, during the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years, fail to permit the child to use a room that his IEP provided is to be available to him?

00-061

Did the district(s) fail to evaluate the complainants’ child for a suspected disability, develop an individualized education program, and determine a placement in a timely manner?

00-062

  1. Did the district, on or about November 15, 2000, fail to afford the complainants the opportunity to participate in an IEP team meeting regarding their child?
  2. Did the district, on or about November 15, 2000, fail to ensure that an IEP team conducted a manifestation determination review relating to the child and determine the child’s special education program and placement?
  3. Did the district, on or about November 15, 2000, fail to provide the complainants with proper notice of their child’s placement?

00-063

  1. Did the district fail to provide speech and language services to complainant’s child during March and April 2000, as required by his IEP?
  2. Did the district, following a referral for a special education evaluation in January 2000, fail to include required participants on an IEP team to determine whether the child is a child with a disability?
  3. Did the district, following a referral for a special education evaluation in January 2000, fail to determine whether the child is a child with a disability and send proper notice of the determination to the parent within required time limits?
  4. Did the district, following a referral for a special education evaluation in January 2000, fail to use proper criteria when determining whether the complainant’s son is a child with a disability by reason of other health impairment?

00-064

  1. Did the district fail to implement a child’s October 2000 individualized education program (IEP) with regard to providing a harness to be used during transportation?
  2. Did the district improperly change the placement of a child with a disability to another elementary school without conducting an individualized education program team meeting and without providing the parent with notice of the placement?

00-065

Did the district, during the 2000-2001 school year, fail to provide complainant's child with special education homebound instruction as required by the child's individualized education program (IEP)?

00-066

Did the district in August 2000, improperly change the placement of a child with a disability without conducting an individualized education program team meeting?

00-067

Did the district, during the 2000-2001 school year, improperly change the placement of a child with a disability without conducting an IEP team meeting?

00-068

Did the district fail to provide a free appropriate public education to a child with a disability following his suspension from school on October 12, 2000, and his expulsion by the district on November 2, 2000?

00-069

  1. Did the district fail to respond in a timely manner to complainants' requests for a meeting of the IEP team for their child?
  2. Did the district fail, in developing the child's IEP, to consider complainants' concerns for enhancing the education of their child/
  3. Did the district fail, following parent request, to provide the parents with proper written notice of the district's refusal to revise the child's IEP goals and program modifications and supports, and to administer a particular assessment?
  4. Did the district fail regularly to inform complainants of the extent to which their child's progress toward his annual goals is sufficient to enable him to achieve the goals by the end of the year?