Issues in 1996 IDEA Complaint Decisions

96-001 Greenfield School District: Did the district fail to protect the confidentiality of personally identifiable information regarding the complainant's daughter?
96-002 Elkhorn School District: Did the district fail to initiate a multidisciplinary team (Mteam) evaluation of the child when it was requested by the child's mother at the beginning of the current school year? This issue held in abeyance.; Did the district continue the expulsion of the child during the current school year after determining that the behavior for which the child was expelled was a manifestation of his disability?; Did the district, during the period of expulsion, use unqualified staff to provide special education to the child? This issue also held in abeyance.
96-003 Kewaunee School District: Did the district fail to follow proper procedures when it expelled the complainant's son in January 1996?
96-004 Milwaukee Public Schools: Did the district fail to provide required transportation during the current school year to the child who is the subject of this complaint?; Did the district fail to conduct an M-team reevaluation and review and, if necessary, revise the child's IEP as required by law?
96-005 Milwaukee Public Schools: Did the child's current IEP fail to specify the teacher aide time that the child needs?; Did the district fail to revise the child's current IEP in a timely manner to address the teacher aide time required?
96-006 West Allis School District: Did the district fail to obtain the complainant parent's informed consent prior to conducting an M-team evaluation of their son?
96-007 Fond du Lac School District: This complaint was resolved through a settlement agreement as part of the hearing process.
96-008 Omro School District: Did the district, during the current school year, suspend a child excessively in violation of the law?
96-009 Waupun School District: Did the district violate the law by suspending the complainant's son in excess of 20 days?; Did the district deny the complainant's son participation in extra-curricular activities?
96-010 Madison Metropolitan School District: During the current school year, did the district fail to follow provisions of the child's IEP relating to management of the child's behavior?
96-011 Milwaukee Public Schools: Did the district terminate a child's services from a Spanish-speaking paraprofessional based solely upon the availability of resources and without following proper procedures?; Did the district fail to employ a paraprofessional after the child's multidisciplinary team (M-team) re-evaluation?; Did the district use an unqualified individual to provide special education leadership?
96-012 Fond du Lac School District: Did the district fail to comply with an April 21, 1993, IRO's order requiring OT for the complainant's son and requiring that the district have on staff personnel knowledgeable in the handicapping condition of autism?; Did the district fail to comply with the complainant's January 13 and 23, 1995, requests for copies of education records relating to the provision of S/L services to her son?
96-013 River Falls School District: Did the district fail to ensure a timely hearing in response to the complainant's August 1995 request?; Did the district fail to inform the complainant of free or low cost legal or other services when he requested the hearing?; Did the hearing officer improperly rule that the hearing would not address events prior to August 1995?; Did the hearing officer act without authority when ordering the complainant's child to be kept out of school while a consultant developed a behavior management plan?
96-014 Beloit School District: Did the district violate the law when an employee of the district disclosed personally identifiable information from the complainant's child's educational records without the parent's consent?
96-015 West Allis School District: Did the district fail during the current school year to respond in a timely manner to the complainant parent's request for copies of her daughter's education records?; Did the district fail to follow proper procedures relating to parent participation in a 11/16/95 meeting to develop an IEP for the complainant's daughter?
96-016 Unity School District: During the current school year, when the district conducted an M-team evaluation of the complainant's son, did the district fail to evaluate him in all areas of need?; Did the district fail to have a representative of the board participate in a 2/21/96 meeting to develop an IEP for the child?
96-017 Superior School District: During the current school year, did the district deny the complainant's son a free appropriate public education by repeatedly suspending him from school?
96-018 Milwaukee Public Schools: Did the district violate the law when in June 1995 it denied a youth with EEN a diploma because he had not passed a writing proficiency examination?
96-019 Glidden School District: Did the district during the current school year, exclude the complainant's son from needed special education and related services when the child was repeatedly suspended from the school bus or from school, and when the child remained at school instead of participating in field trips?; Did the district fail, during the current school year, to make a free appropriate public education available when the child's parent and other individuals provided the child with transportation to and from school?; Did the district fail to protect the confidentiality of personally identifiable information about the child when it conducted a conference on April 18, 19996, with the child's mother and other parents concerning their children's misbehavior?; Did the district fail, during the 1994-95 school year, to conduct a timely M-team reevaluation of the child to consider his need for OT?; Did the district, during the 1994-95 school year, fail to make a free appropriate public education available when the child's mother obtained an OT assessment for her son?; Did the district fail, during the 1994-95 school year, to provide the child with the services of an aide, as required by his IEP?
96-020 River Falls School District: Did the district deny the complainant's son a free appropriate public education by repeatedly excluding the child from school?; Did the district fail to provide services consistent with the child's IEP?
96-021 Milwaukee Public Schools: Did the district on November 16, 1995, refuse to accept a foster parent's written request for help for her foster child as a referral for M-team evaluation?; In May 1996, did the district fail to provide the foster parent with copies of M-team members' individual reports in a timely manner?; Did the district fail to send the child's foster parent and the complainant notice of a 5/13/96 M-team meeting?
96-022 Washburn School District: Did the district fail to comply with the complainant parent's request for a copy of an audiotape of a 12/3/93 meeting regarding her son?
96-023 Antigo School District: Did the district improperly divulge personally identifiable information from the education records of children with EEN?
96-024 Union Grove Jt 1 School District: This complaint was withdrawn.
96-025 Chippewa Falls School District: Did the district fail to provide the complainant's daughter with needed speech therapy during the 1994-95 and 1995-96 school years?
96-026 Racine Unified School District: During the 1995-96 school year, did the district deny a free appropriate public education to children with EEN by repeatedly suspending them from school?; During the 1995-96 school year, did the district suspend children with EEN for periods longer than five school days without sending notices of expulsion hearings?; During the 1995-96 school year, did the district fail to offer alternative forms of transportation to children with EEN during periods of bus suspension?; During the 1995-96 school year, did the district repeatedly suspend children with EEN without determining whether the behaviors for which each child was suspended was a manifestation of the child's disability?; Did the district conduct a central office hearing in May 1996 to determine whether to recommend the expulsion of a child with EEN after determining that the child's behavior in question was a manifestation of the child's disability?; During the 1995-96 school year, did the district fail to provide required notices to a Spanish-speaking parent in her native language and fail to provide her an interpreter when she participated in hearings and meetings?; During the 1994-95 school year, did the district fail to complete an M-team evaluation of a child within the period of time prescribed by state law?; During the 1995-96 school year, did the district fail to integrate two children with EEN with non-disabled peers at lunch and recess, as required by their IEPs?
96-027 Racine Unified School District: Did the district fail during the 1994-95 school year to honor the complainant's request to have their son referred for a suspected EEN?; Did the district fail to evaluate, develop and IEP, and offer placement to the complainants' son in a timely manner?; Did the district deny the complainants' son a free appropriate public education by repeatedly excluding him from school during the 1995-96 school year?; From 2/19/96, did the district change the provision of a free appropriate public education to the complainants' son and his placement without providing the complainants with prior written notice?; From 2/19/96, did the district fail to provide the complainants' son with special education consistent with provisions of his current IEP?; Did the district fail to place the complainants' son in the least restrictive environment when he returned to school on 2/19/96?
96-028 Sevastopol School District: At the beginning of the 1995-96 school year, did the district change the child's program without providing the parents with prior written notice of the change and fail to obtain parental consent for the change after the parents requested a due process hearing?
96-029 DPI/Sevastopol School District: Did the department act improperly when in August 1995 the department told the complainant parents to address alleged violations of federal law at a due process hearing?; Did the department fail to insure that the parents had a due process hearing?
96-030 Kimberly School District: Did the district fail to inform student A's parents of their rights, specifically with regard to maintenance of records in August 1995?; Did the district fail to implement provisions of student B's 1995-96 IEP, regarding a progress staffing at the end of the first quarter and consultation and monitoring?; Did the district fail to complete an M-team evaluation of student B in a timely manner?; Did the district fail to release information to UW-Oshkosh when requested to do so by student C's parent?; Did the district fail to develop an IEP for student C for 1995-96?; Did the district fail to appoint a properly constituted M-team to evaluation student D on three occasions since 4/25/94?; Did the district fail to properly revise the IEP for student E following his September 1995 M-team evaluation?; Did the district fail to provide for weekly spelling quizzes by student E's peers, as specified in his 1995-96 IEP?
96-031 Janesville School District: Did the district improperly expel the student prior to completing required M-team evaluations?; Did the board act improperly when it appointed a hearing officer?; Did the district fail to conduct a hearing in a timely manner?
96-032 Racine Unified School District: This complaint has been withdrawn.
96-033 Weyauwega-Fremont School District: Did the district during the 1995-96 school year fail to complete a reevaluation of the complainant's son within the time period allowed by the law?
96-034 Mount Horeb School District: Was the school district's placement of the complainant's son at Dane Co. Transitional School based upon a proper IEP?; Did the placement committee offer a special education program for the student in the least restrictive environment?
96-035 Washburn School District: Did the district during the 1994-95 and 1995-96 school years deny the complainant's child a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment for the services of OT, PT, and speech therapy?
96-036 Milwaukee Public Schools: Did the district fail to provide special education and related services, including psychological and transportation services, consistent with the child's IEP developed in April 1995?; Did the district deny the complainant's child a free appropriate public education by repeatedly excluding the child from school during the 1995-96 school year?; Did the district fail to follow required procedures when it changed the child's placement through a disciplinary reassignment during the 1995-96 school year?; Did the district fail to review the child's IEP on an annual basis?
96-037 Madison Metropolitan School District: Did the district fail to disclose statements which the complainant had requested to be inserted into her son's educational records when such records were provided to school personnel at the beginning of the 1996-97 school year?; Did the district fail to provide a free appropriate public education to the complainant's son when they did not follow the IEP developed at the 9/3/96 IEP meeting?
96-038 Luck School District: Did the district fail to observe notice and parental participation requirements when the district developed the complainant's son's 11/11/94 and 11/20/95 IEPs?; In developing the 11/11/94 and 11/20/95 IEPs, did the district fail to consider the child's special education and related service needs and properly determine the amount of special education and the extent to which the child would participate in the regular educational program?; During the term of the 11/11/94 and 11/20/95 IEPs, did the district fail to provide the child with support in the regular educational program as required by these IEPs?
96-039 River Falls School District: Did the district improperly disclose personally identifiable information about the complainant's son to county officials?; Did the district disclose personally identifiable information about the complainant's son to the press without the complainant's permission?
96-040 Superior School District: Did the district fail to provide transportation services as required by the complainants' son's IEP during the 1996-97 school year?; Did the district fail to reimburse the complainants for providing transportation to and from school for their son during the 1996-97 school year?; Did the district fail to provide the complainants' son with assistive technology consistent with his current IEP?
96-041 River Falls School District: Did the district fail to provide the complainant's son a free appropriate public education by repeatedly excluding the student from school during the 1995-96 school year?; Did the district fail to follow proper procedures in developing an IEP for this student for the 1996-97 school year?
96-042 Neenah School District: This complaint was withdrawn.
96-043 Madison Metropolitan School District: Did the district base current placements of children enrolled in cognitive disabilities (CD), learning disabilities (LD), and emotional disturbance (ED) programs at Emerson, Lowell, and Mendota Elementary Schools solely on the availability of space and the configuration of the delivery system?; Did the district during the 1995-96 school year fail to provide children enrolled in CD, LD, and ED programs at Mendota Elementary School with the handicapped children's aide services required by their IEPs?
96-044 Oshkosh Area School District: Did the district during the current school year deny the complainant's son and daughter a free appropriate public education when note takers were not provided for the children during class periods when educational interpreters were not available?; Did the district during the current school year deny the complainant's son a free appropriate public education when the television equipment necessary to view close-captioned television programs was not provided for the child in his science and social studies classes?
96-045 Sheboygan Falls School District: Did the district fail to observe the requirements relating to parent participation in IEP meetings, when the district conducted a 9/25/96 IEP meeting?; Did the district reduce the amount of special education provided to the complainant's son in eighth grade, based solely on district resources?
96-046 Green Bay Area School District: Did the December 1993 M-team inappropriately fail to recommend needed PT and OT for the complainant's child?; Did the district fail to complete a reevaluation of the complainant's child in a timely manner?
96-047 Kimberly School District: Did the district fail to send a written notice to the parents within a reasonable amount of time prior to the 8/22/96 IEP meeting for the complainant's son?
96-048 Sevastopol School District: Did the district violate the law when, at the beginning of the 1995-96 school year, the district unilaterally abrogated a March 23, 1994, settlement agreement with the parents of the child who is the subject of this complaint?; Did the district violate the parental participation requirements of the law when the district developed the child's 5/14/96 IEP?; Did the district fail to meet the parental participation requirements relating to a 1/17/95 IEP meeting?; Did the district violate the law when it included in the child's 1/17/95 IEP a provision that the child be suspended automatically because of behavioral problems?
96-049 River Falls School District: Did the district deny the complainant's son a free appropriate public education by repeatedly excluding the child from school during the 1995-96 and 1996-97 school years?; Did the district fail to provide services consistent with the child's 1995-96 and 1996-97 IEPs?
96-050 River Falls School District: This complaint was withdrawn.
96-051 Madison Metropolitan School District: This complaint was withdrawn.
96-052 Brown Deer School District: Did the district violate the law when it failed to request a new due process hearing regarding the completion of a multidisciplinary team (M-team) evaluation of the child who currently is the subject of a due process hearing? This complaint is being held in abeyance.
96-053 Milwaukee Public Schools: This complaint was withdrawn.
96-054 Madison Metropolitan School District: During the summer of 1994, did district staff fail to refer the youth, who is the subject of this complaint, for a multidisciplinary team (M-team) evaluation in a timely manner when staff had reason to believe she was a child with EEN?; Did the district fail to pay for an educational evaluation recommended by the district in the summer of 1994?; Did the district fail to provide the youth's parents with information regarding their rights relating to special education when the district requested parental consent for an M-team to evaluate the youth?; Did a regular education teacher assigned to the youth's M-team fail to complete an individual report or participate in a November 15, 1994, M-team meeting?; Did the district evaluate the youth for a speech and language impairment without prior notice to her parents?; Did the school psychologist assigned to the M-team fail to assess the youth?; Did the youth's November 15, 1994, M-team report fail to include her ability to acquire information via different media?; Did the district develop a December 12, 1994, individualized education program (IEP) without proper parental participation?; Did the district fail to complete the youth's M-team evaluation process within the required 90-day time period?; During the 1994-95 school year, did the district fail to provide the youth with an assistive technology assessment in a timely manner?; Did the district fail to include IEP proper goals and short-term objectives, assistive technology, and a transition statement in the youth's December 12, 1994?; Did the district fail to provide the youth with a tape recorder and testing accommodations included in her December 12, 1994, IEP at no cost to her parents?
96-055 Whitewater School District: Did the district fail to ensure the provision of a free appropriate public education to the complainant's daughter when it did not ensure the provision of note taking, special testing, and transportation services as supplementary aids and services necessary for her to participate in a post-secondary enrollment options (PSEO) program at the University of Wisconsin Whitewater?
96-056 Kimberly School District: Did the district fail to provide the complainant's son with special education and related services consistent with the child's IEP during the 1996-97 school year?
96-057 River Falls School District: This complaint was combined with complaint 96-039.
96-058 Milwaukee Public Schools: Did the district fail to provide, in a timely manner following a September 1996 request, copies of the child's education records to the child's parent?

We welcome feedback and suggestions for DPI's Special Education website.
Feedback and technical problems with this site should be reported to:
Anita Heisig, 608-267-9167or Debbie Gaffney-Dilley, 608-266-1787

For questions about this information, contact Patricia M. Williams (608) 267-3720

Last updated on 3/24/2008 10:57:19 AM