Issues in 1998 IDEA Complaint Decisions

98-001

  1. Did the district fail to provide the complainants timely access to their child's education records after their October 1997 request to access the records?
  2. Did the district fail to safeguard the confidentiality of the child's education records?

98-002

Did the district, during the 1997-98 school year, fail to implement the provisions in the complainant's child's IEP concerning occupational therapy services?

98-003

Did the district fail to implement the following components of the complainants' children's current IEPs: a) individual or small group instruction; b) informal testing and quarterly evaluation in the areas of addition and substraction, telling time, vocabulary, and money value; also, regrouping exercises have not been utilized to teach addition and substraction, as required by the IEPs; c) language instruction, specifically cursive writing; d) charting of goals and objectives and quarterly evaluations; e) reading instruction and textbook was not provided for a complainant's child until the third week of school?

98-004

This case was withdrawn.

98-005

This case was withdrawn.

98-006

Did the district, during the 1997-98 school year, fail to implement the provisions in the child's IEP concerning the administration of medications to the child, and the supervision of the child?

98-007

  1. Did the district fail to provide specially designed physical education programming through consultation and itinerant services for 45 minutes per week, and specially designed art and music programming through consultation with the special teachers by the teacher of the emotionally disturbed (ED) consistent with the child's individualized education program (IEP) for the 1997-98 school year?
  2. Did the district fail to implement the following short-term objectives and associated evaluation procedures as described in the child's IEP for the 1997-98 school year: When (child) is verbally and/or physically acting out, he will accept verbal and/or gentle physical cues and move to the designated area(s) within the area assigned: ED room, Regular room; Given two designated areas (previously agreed upon by (child) and his teacher) within the ED classroom, (child) will go to the quiet area to calm himself; and Given the choice of tasks (child) is familiar with or likes, (child) will complete one of tasks: Independently (1:1), Small group, Large group.
  3. Did the district fail to provide the positive reinforcement as described in the "Strategies for (child)" page of the child's 1997-98 IEP?
  4. Did the district fail to follow the required procedures when it changed the child's placement during the 1997-98 school year?

98-008

  1. Did the district, during the 1996-97 school year, fail to conduct a review of the child's IEP within 12 months of the last IEP review?
  2. Did the district fail to provide special education to the child for a period during the 1996-97 school year consistent with a current IEP?
  3. Did the district fail to include a representative of the school district in IEP meetings held in March and April 1997?
  4. Did the district fail to include in the invitation to the child's February 1998 IEP meeting the names and titles of all those who attended the meeting?
  5. Did the district include improper statements of present levels of educational performance, annual goals, short-term instructional objectives, short-term instructional objective evaluation procedures and schedules, and specific special education services in the child's current IEP?
  6. Did the district fail to send the child's parent a proper notice following refusal of the parent's request for an assistive technology evaluation of their child?
  7. Did the district fail to implement provisions in the child's April 1997 IEP concerning special education services in science and Spanish, and accommodations regarding breaks and varying activities, movement and situational change, assignments requiring copying, study guides, the shortening of assignments, the provision of prior tests for practice, checks for understanding and review, monitoring the amount of time spent on homework, and scheduled student conferences concerning progress?

98-009

  1. Did the district, during January through June 11, 1997, fail to provide the complainant's son with speech therapy in accordance with the student's individualized education program (IEP)?
  2. Did the district, during the 1997-98 school year, fail to have an IEP in effect at all times for the complainant's son?
  3. Did the district conduct an IEP meeting on October 22, 1997, for the complainant's son without a representative of the local education agency authorized to commit the resources of the district?
  4. Did the district, fail to provide in a timely manner a copy of the complainant's son's IEP which she requested at a meeting on December 17, 1997?
  5. Did the district, between August 27, 1997, and February 5, 1998, fail to implement or evaluate the following four goals and corresponding objectives for the complainant's son's 1997-98 IEPs: Improve self identifying skills and peer interactions; Improve reading skills by one year; Develop appropriate interactions with others; and Develop skills necessary for dressing and undressing?

98-010

This case was withdrawn.

98-011

  1. Did the complainant's child's IEP dated November 11, 1997 fail to provide special education and related services to meet the child's individual needs, as determined by his most recent evaluation?
  2. Did the district violate the law by making changes to the child's November 11, 1997 IEP after the IEP meeting without the participation of the entire IEP team?
  3. Did the district fail to implement the child's November 1997 IEP by not allowing him extended time to take tests?

98-012

Does the 1997-98 IEP for the complainant's child fail to provide special education to meet his individual needs and modifications to regular education programs required to allow him to participate in regular education, as determined by his most recent evaluation?

98-013

Did the district fail to implement the complainant's child's current IEP by not allowing him to take tests in the learning disabilities (LD) classroom?

98-014

Did the district fail to implement the complainant's child's current IEP by not allowing him to take tests in the learning disabilities (LD) resource room?

98-015

  1. Did the district fail to follow proper procedures relating to parent participation in an October 2, 1997, multidisciplinary team (M-team) meeting?
  2. Did the district fail, during the period March 1, 1997, to March 1, 1998, to secure the complainant's written consent before sharing personally identifiable information about the complainant's daughter with the child's stepmother?
  3. Did the district fail to include a statement of transition services in the current IEP for the complainant's daughter?

98-016

This case currently is in abeyance.

98-017

  1. Did the district fail to provide the complainants, upon request, with a copy of their child's 1997-98 IEP at the May 14, 1997 IEP meeting?
  2. Did the district treat the complainant who attended the May 14, 1997 IEP meeting as an equal participant?
  3. Did the district fail to implement the 1997-98 IEP of the complainants' child by not providing adaptive physical education and 32 weeks of occupational therapy (OT)?

98-018

This case was dismissed.

98-019

This case was withdrawn.

98-020

  1. Did the district fail to honor the complainant's January 1998 request for an individualized education program (IEP) meeting to revise her child's IEP in a timely manner?/li>
  2. Did the district fail to honor complainants' April 13, 1998, request for a complete set of their child's behavioral records, when the district provided copies of records on April 22, 1998?
  3. Did the district improperly deny the complainant an independent educational evaluation (IEE) of her child's auditory processing and other sensory needs at public expense as requested on December 8, 1997?
  4. Did the district improperly hire a homebound instructor who was not licensed during the 1995-96 and 1996-97 school years?
  5. Did the district refuse to provide the complainant's child with transportation to and from the child's home to a private school during the 1997-98 school year?

98-021

  1. Did the district fail to maintain the child's complete individualized education program (IEP) developed in November 1997 as part of the child's educational record?
  2. Did the district fail to implement a list of provisions in the child's November 1997 IEP concerning contraindications and accommodations?

98-022

  1. During the 1997-98 school year, did the district fail to provide two students at Glendale School the amount of service from a teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing required by each student's individualized education program (IEP)?
  2. Did the district fail to provide three students at Glendale School with educational interpreter services in the regular education classroom, as required by each student's IEP?
  3. Did the district fail to provide one student at Glendale School with access to an extracurricular activity on February 16, 1998, as required by the student's current IEP.

98-023

Did the district fail to timely refer the student for a multidisciplinary team (M-team) evaluation during the 1995-96 school?

98-024

  1. Did the district fail to have an individualized education program (IEP) and a placement offer in effect for the complainant's daughter by her third birthday?
  2. Did the district improperly divulge personally identifiable information concerning the child to the birth to three program?

98-025

  1. Did the district fail to implement the provisions in the child's current IEP which address the child's inappropriate behavior?
  2. Did the district deny the complainant's son a free appropriate public education (FAPE) during the 1997-98 school year by repeatedly suspending him from school?

98-026

This case was withdrawn.

98-027

  1. Did the district fail to timely implement the child's freshman year IEP, which called for tutoring outside a public school setting?
  2. Did the district fail to provide the amount of special education indicated in the child's IEP during the period from his freshman year through April 24, 1998?

98-028

  1. Did the district fail to implement the provisions of the child's 1997-98 school year individualized education program (IEP) concerning time outs, participation in music class, rewards systems, and suspensions?
  2. Did the district fail to provide the complainant a copy of his child's IEP within 45 days of his January 1998 request.

98-029

  1. Did the district fail to review the child's individualized education program (IEP) on an annual basis (by April 17, 1998)?
  2. Did the district fail to reevaluate the complainant's child within three years of his last evaluation?

98-030

Did the district fail to schedule the required number of hours of instruction for the complainant's daughter for the 1997-1998 school year?

98-031

  1. Did the district fail to reevaluate child A within the required three-year time period?
  2. Did the district fail to properly respond to September and October 1997 parent requests for a reevaluation of child A?
  3. Did the district reevaluate child A in March 1998 prior to obtaining the parent's consent?
  4. Did the district fail to provide the parent proper notice when it ceased the M-team evaluation of child A during the 1997-98 school year?
  5. Did the district stop providing special education services to child B during the 1997-98 school year without determining in a reevaluation that the child was no longer a child with a disability?
  6. Did the district fail to initiate a reevaluation for child C when it had reason to believe that the child had a handicapping condition that had not been identified?
  7. Did the district fail to provide proper notice of its refusal of the parent's 1997-98 school year requests to evaluate child B's sensory integration and fine motor needs?
  8. Did the district fail to use sensory integration evaluation materials with child B in accordance with their instructions in the spring of 1996 and the spring of 1997?
  9. Did the district implement policies concerning "Early Bird" class scheduling that precluded individual consideration of child A's needs during the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years, and policies concerning sensory integration testing that precluded individual consideration of child B's needs during the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years?
  10. Did the district fail to provide special education services consistent with a current IEP to child B during the 1996-97 school year and to child D during the 1997-98 school year?
  11. Did the district fail to implement the provisions in child A's 1997-98 school year IEP concerning EEN support in regular education classes, taped materials for reading assignments, an electronic spell checker, a computer-compatible word processor, and monthly conferences with parents and EEN staff; in child B's 1996-97 school year IEP concerning testing of sensory integration needs and his 1997-98 school year IEP concerning direct instruction in reading and math in the Partner's Program; in child C's 1997-98 school year IEP concerning participation in the Title One Reading Program, and in child D's 1997-98 school year IEP concerning EEN support in regular education classes; and fail to provide notice of a change in the provision of FAPE to the children's parents?
  12. Did the district revise child A's May 1996, February 1997, and June 1997 IEPs, and child B and C's February 1997 IEPs without conducting IEP meetings?
  13. Did the district fail to include child A's teacher in the child's June 12 and June 18, 1997, IEP meetings, and child B's teacher in the child's February 19, 1997, IEP meeting?
  14. Did the district violate the parental participation requirements in the law when it held IEP meetings for child B during the 1996-97 school year and when it scheduled an IEP meeting for child A on May 6, 1998?
  15. Did the district, during the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years, fail to include proper statements of annual goals and short-term objectives in the IEPs of all the complainant's children and child E, proper statements of the extent of participation in regular education in the IEPs of children A, B, C, D and E, proper statements of specific special education and related services in the IEPs of children A, B, and C, proper transition statements in the IEPs for children A and E, and proper evaluation schedules in the IEPs of children B and D?
  16. Did the district fail to have a group develop placement offers for child A in the 1997-98 school year and for child B in the 1996-97 school year, and fail to provide their parents proper notice of the placement decisions?
  17. Did the district fail to document that the least restrictive environment requirements were considered for children A, C, and E for the 1996-97 school year?
  18. Did the district improperly deny the parents request for extended school year services for child A during the summer of 1997?
  19. Did the district change child B's educational placement in August 1996 without providing proper notice to this parents?

98-032

  1. During the 1997-98 school year did the school district fail to initiate a multidisciplinary team evaluation of the complainant?
  2. During the 1997-98 school year, did the school district fail to consider a parent-initiated independent educational evaluation?

98-033

Did the district fail to provide the complainant's son with special education services consistent with the child's individualized education program (IEP) between November 17, 1997, and May 22, 1998, concerning: a) having all testing done in the behavior disorders classroom, b) having the support of an aide during science labs, and c) teachers providing a copy of notes?

98-034

  1. Did the district fail to follow proper procedures, including requirements relating to parental participation, when it placed the complainant's child at an alternative site in February 1998?
  2. Did the district fail to determine whether the child's behavior that resulted in the change of placement was a manifestation of the child's disability when it placed the complainant's child at the alternative site?
  3. Did the district fail to develop a behavior intervention plan to address the child's behavior that resulted in the change of placement when it placed the complainant's child at the alternative site?
  4. Did the district fail to provide the child with access to the general education curriculum and with instruction to address disability-related needs when it placed the complainant's child at the alternative site?
  5. Did the district maintain the child in an interim alternative educational setting for more than 45 days when it placed the complainant's child at the alternative site?

98-035

  1. Did the district fail to complete a reevaluation of the complainant's daughter within three years of her previous multidisciplinary team (M-team) evaluation?
  2. Did the district fail to observe the parental participation requirements of the law when it conducted a reevaluation of the child?

98-036

  1. When the school district conducted a multidisciplinary team (M-team) evaluation of their daughter, did the district improperly deny her an occupational therapy assessment?
  2. Did the school district fail to consider an independent educational evaluation obtained at the parents' expense?

98-037

Did the district during the 1997-98 school year fail to provide a free and appropriate public education to the student by repeatedly suspending him from school?

98-038

  1. Did the district during the 1997-98 school year fail to provide a free and appropriate public education to the student by excluding him from school?
  2. Did the district fail to provide to the complainant, in a timely manner following May and June 1998, requests, access to a student's education records?

98-039

This complaint is in abeyance.

98-040

  1. Did the district fail to provide the student with instruction in science and social studies consistent with her individualized education program (IEP) during the 1997-98 school year?
  2. Did the district fail to notify the student's mother of a change in the provision of free appropriate public education (FAPE) when it changed the extent to which the student participated in the regular education program during the 1997-98 school year?

98-041

  1. During the 1997-98 school year, when child A attended Schenk Elementary School, did the school district fail to evaluate him for a suspected disability after requests from his parents?
  2. During the 1997-98 school year, did the district fail to manage the behavior of child B consistent with his individualized education program (IEP)?
  3. During the 1997-98 school year, did the district fail to administer medication to child B as required by his IEP?

98-042

  1. Did the district fail to provide the complainant's child with instruction in vocational classes; transition work skills; social skills, including peer partnering; and specially designed physical education consistent with her 1997-98 individualized education program (IEP)?
  2. Did the district fail to evaluate the short-term instructional objectives related to increasing community awareness and independence and related to transition work skills in the child's 1997-98 IEP?

98-043

  1. Did the district fail to have an individualized education program (IEP) in effect for the complainants' foster child at the beginning of the 1997-98 school year?
  2. Did the child's 1997-98 individualized education program fail to include the specific amount of special education services to be provided to the child?
  3. Did the district fail to complete the child's October 1997 reevaluation in a timely manner?

98-044

Did the district during the 1997-98 school year violate the child's privacy rights when the district improperly disclosed personally identifiable information about the child?

98-045

During the current school year, did the district fail to provide the complainant's daughter special transportation and school nursing services consistent with the child's individualized education program (IEP)?

98-046

This complaint is in abeyance.

98-047

Did the district fail to provide free appropriate public education (FAPE) this fall (1998-99) for two students at Edison Middle School when they transferred from another school within the district?

98-048

Did the district fail to provide services consistent with the child's current IEP, including the amount of special education and the daily reporting of the student's conduct during the 1998-99 school year?

98-050

Did a district individualized education program (IEP) team fail to complete the evaluation of two children in a timely manner in accordance with ' 115.78(3), Wis. Stats.?

98-051

Did the DPI fail to ensure that the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) timely evaluates children with suspected disabilities after the DPI found in a state IDEA complaint that the MPS did not complete evaluations of children with suspected disabilities in a timely manner.

98-052

  1. Did the district fail to implement transition provisions in the child's 1997-98 school year IEP concerning post-secondary school shadowing experiences, practice for interviews, review of short-term objective evaluation criteria and procedures during monthly conferences with school staff, and IEP provisions concerning achievement testing; and fail to send the child's parent a proper notice of a change in the provision of FAPE to the child and conduct an IEP meeting to change the child's IEP?
  2. Did the district fail to hold an IEP meeting to review the child's June 18, 1997, IEP within twelve months?
  3. Did the district fail to provide special education and related services to the child during the 1998-99 school year consistent with a current IEP?
  4. Did the district fail to implement the provisions in the law concerning participation of special and regular education teachers in IEP team meetings during IEP team meetings held for the child on July 15 and 17, and August 6, 1998?
  5. Did the district violate the parental participation provisions in the law when it failed to provide the parent proper notice prior to the child's July 17, 1998, and October 22, 1998, IEP team meetings?
  6. Did the district fail to provide the parent proper notice prior to testing the child's speech and language on August 3 and 4, 1998, his achievement on August 10, 1998, and his intelligence on September 29, 1998?
  7. Did the district fail to provide the parent proper notice of its placement decisions for the 1998-99 school year?
  8. Did the district fail to comply with the least restrictive environment provisions in the law when it determined the child's special education placement for the 1998-99 school year?
  9. Did the district evaluate the child's intelligence on September 29, 1998, without the parent's consent?
  10. Did the district fail to provide the parents a copy of the child's August 24, 1998, IEP prior to the implementation of the IEP?
  11. Did the district revise the child's August 24, 1998, IEP without conducting an IEP team meeting?
  12. Did the district fail to make available to the parents at an IEP team meeting a written summary of the findings of the LD teacher's August 1998 evaluation of the child?
  13. Did the district fail to include proper statements of present levels of performance, annual goals, special education services, supplementary aids and services, program modifications or supports for school personnel, and transition services in the child's October 22, 1998, IEP, and proper statements of annual goals in the child's July 17, 1998, extended school year IEP?
  14. Did the district fail to implement provisions in the child's August 24, 1998, IEP concerning one-on-one instruction in special education English and provisions in the child's October 22, 1998, IEP concerning special education reading for 60 minutes each day, and fail to provide the parent with a notice of a change in the provision of a free and appropriate public education to the child and conduct an IEP team meeting to change the child's IEP?
  15. Did the district improperly deny the parents' July 29, 1998, request for an assessment as part of the child's reevaluation to determine if the child continued to be a child with a learning disability?
  16. Did the district improperly deny the parents' November 5, 1998, request for an IEP team meeting to review and revise the child's IEP?

98-053

Did the Stratford School District fail to implement provisions of the complainants' son's current school year IEP relating to the extent to which the child would participate in the regular educational program?

98-054

  1. Did the district fail to initiate a multidisciplinary team (M-team) evaluation during the fall of 1997?
  2. Did the district fail to consider the criteria for the handicapping condition of other health impaired during the M-team evaluation?
  3. Did the district fail to notify the child's mother of the M-team meeting?
  4. Did the district fail to provide a copy of the child's M-team report to the child's mother after she requested a copy?

98-055

This complaint was withdrawn.

98-056

During the 1997-98 school year, did the district improperly deny the parent's request for an emotional disturbance (ED) evaluation for her child?

98-057

  1. Did the district, during the 1997-98 school year, fail to identify the complainants' son as a child with a disability?
  2. Did the district fail to provide the complainants with a copy of their child's education records prior to a November 2, 1998, individualized education program (IEP) team meeting?

98-058

Did the district improperly deny the parents' request for an independent educational evaluation of their child during the 1998-99 school year?

98-059

During the fall of 1997, did the school district fail to evaluate the child for a suspected disability, in a timely manner when it was requested by the child's mother?

98-060

During the 1998-99 school year, did the school district fail to make free appropriate public education available to students in a middle school classroom at Malcolm X Academy when the district provided special education to the children without current IEPs?

98-061

This complaint was withdrawn.

98-062

Did the district fail to obtain parental consent for the disclosure to a district staff member of personally identifiable information from a student education record?

98-063

  1. Did the district fail from April through October 1997 to provide the child with transportation to and from the Wisconsin School for the Deaf, resulting in the child not receiving high school credit?
  2. During the 1998-99 school year, did the district fail to implement provisions of the child's IEP regarding: notifying the parents of the child's progress towards his annual goals; completion of math assignments; daily exercise sessions; supplementary aids and services; and observations and quarterly reporting of the observations by an occupational therapist?
  3. Has the district failed, since December 2, 1998, to provide 60 minutes of physical therapy per week as required by the child's IEP?

98-064

Did the district fail to identify, locate, evaluate, and make available a free appropriate public education to child with a disability?

98-065

Did the district fail to respond in a timely manner to requests for an individualized education program (IEP) meeting for a student, after requests for a meeting were made in November 1998?

98-066

  1. Did the district deny the child a free appropriate public education by excluding him from school during the 1998-99 school year?
  2. Did the district improperly change the child's placement during the 1998-99 school year?

98-067

  1. Did the district refuse to accept a referral for evaluation of a suspected disability at Longfellow School in the fall of 1997 and at the beginning of the 1998-99 school year?
  2. Did the district fail to evaluate the child in a timely manner during the current school year?

98-068

  1. Did the district fail to convene quarterly IEP meetings as required by the child's August 18, 1998, IEP?
  2. Did the district fail to provide the complainant with prior written notice of the November 5 and 11, 1998, IEP team meetings for the complainant's child?
  3. Did the district fail to ensure that the November 5 and 11, 1998, IEP team meetings included the child's teacher?
  4. Did the district fail to implement timely a benchmark or short-term objective in the complainant's child's August 18, 1998, IEP relating to multiple meaning words, and fail to provide the following supplementary aids and services on behalf of the student in regular education: "Graded level written materials recorded on audio when extensive reading is required (e.g., books) and class outlines, notes and aids provided to parents for home review?
  5. Did the district's three-year Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) flow-through application fail to include procedures for the implementation and use of the comprehensive system of personnel development established by the department?

98-069

  1. After February 7, 1998, did MPS fail to provide a child with free appropriate public education because it did not have in effect a current individualized education program (IEP) for the child?
  2. During the current school year, did MPS fail to provide the child's mother with notice of the special education procedural safeguards when it reevaluated her child?
  3. During the current school year, did MPS improperly determine that the child does not have a health impairment because of an attention deficit disorder?
  4. When MPS reevaluated the child during the current school year, did the team conducting the evaluation refuse to review information provided by the parent?

98-070

  1. Between October and December 1998, did the district fail to transport the complainant's son to school in a timely manner?
  2. Between October and December 1998, did the district fail to provide a trained attendant to ride the van with the child, as required by the child's individualized education program (IEP)?

98-071

This complaint was withdrawn.

98-072

  1. During the 1998-99 school year, did the district fail to include a regular education teacher as part of the team that evaluated a child for a suspected disability?
  2. During the 1998-99 school year, did the district team that evaluated a child suspected of a disability improperly determine that the child did not have the disability of other health impairment?
  3. During the 1998-99 school year, did the district team that evaluated a child suspected of a disability fail to consider that the child may have a learning disability?
  4. During the 1998-99 school year, did the district improperly deny a request for additional testing of a child?

98-073

  1. Did the district fail to provide a free appropriate public education to a child when the child transferred from another school district during the 1998-99 school year?
  2. Did the district fail to provide the child's advocate timely access to education records?

98-074

  1. Did the district during October 1998 through January 1999 fail to provide a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) to the student by improperly excluding him from school?
  2. Did the district during October 1998 through January 1999 fail to schedule meetings required under IDEA at a time and place mutually agreed to by the district and the child's parents?
  3. Did the district during October 1998 through January 1999 fail to consider in the development of the child's IEP strategies, including positive behavioral interventions, and supports to address the child's behavior?
  4. Did the district during January 1999 fail to implement provisions in the child's December 14, 1998, IEP concerning suspensions?
  5. Did the district during January 1999 fail to implement provisions in the child's IEP concerning participation in his swim class?