Special Education Community Complaints Archive
The SESC has identified several resolved Community Complaints covering topics about which we have received numerous queries. For your convenience we have organized the selected complaints by topic. You can search by topic, school district, or do a full-text search. Each complaint is assigned a number that consists of the year and complaint number. For instance, SECC-19-108 is the 108th complaint filed in 2019. Each item displays the issue(s) raised and the OSPI response. You also have the option of clicking on the complaint number to read the entire document. Many of the documents have been highlighted to draw attention to specific aspects of the decision, but it is worthwhile to read the entire complaint to understand the nuances leading to the decision.
It should be noted that these represent a sampling of the complaints available on the OSPI website where you can search the complaints by topic. The OSPI website also provides relatively easy instructions for filing complaints.
Search Community Complaints
Special Ed Topics
District
SECC-19-12
District: Bellevue
SPED Topic: Accommodations
Issue: Did the district implement the accommodations in the student’s IEP?
Response: “the documentation provided by the District indicates that the accommodations were implemented as written. In interviews with District staff, staff were able to describe how they worked with the Student in a manner consistent with the Student’s IEP, including the paraeducator who explained how she provided support to the Student. Significantly, the two incidents cited by the Parent as a basis for his complaint could not be substantiated.”
SECC-16-69R
District: district name redacted
SPED Topic: Accommodations
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for implementing the Student’s individualized education programs (IEPs) in place from September 30, 2015 through September 29, 2016, including providing assistive technology and accommodations?
Response: The IEP team will also review the Student’s accommodations, including the need for assistive technology, to ensure they are appropriate for the Student.
SECC-17-82R
District: district name redacted
SPED Topic: Accommodations
Issue: Did the District implement the Student’s individualized education program (IEP) during the 2017-2018 school year, including providing a scribe and notifying the Parent and Student that there was a substitute teacher?
Response: IEP team will review and clarify the Student’s IEP accommodations, and if determined necessary, amend the Student’s IEP to include additional accommodations.
SECC-22-09
District: Edmonds
SPED Topic: Accommodations
Issue: Since January 28, 2021, has the District followed proper procedures to implement the Student’s individualized education program (IEP)?
Response: (1) OSPI finds that while there was some inconsistency with a few accommodations, that is a minor deviation and not a material failure to implement the IEP. (2)While there was some confusion around whether the Parent was revoking consent for special education services and next steps in the fall of 2021, OSPI notes that missing approximately 750-800 minutes of services represents a material failure to implement this portion of the IEP.
SECC-19-64
District: Evergreen
SPED Topic: Accommodations
Issue: Did the District follow procedures to implement the Student’s individualized education program (IEP), including providing accommodations, the Student’s FM device, and social skills group during the 2018-2019 school year?
Response: The inconsistency in the Student’s IEPs, and the documentation that the provision of the accommodation was inconsistent, OSPI finds the District in violation regarding this accommodation.
SECC-19-65
District: Federal Way
SPED Topic: Accommodations
Issue: Did the district implement the student’s IEP, including accommodations?
Response: The district failed to implement accommodations as outlined on the IEP.
Issue: Did the District follow procedures to respond to the Student’s behaviors related to his disability? Did the Student experience bullying that resulted in a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE)? Bullying, Functional Behavior Assessment, Behavior Intervention Plan, Assistive Technology. LRE Least Restrictive Environment
Response: (pg. 26) It is recommended that if the use of breaks are not effective, or if the Student is continuing to become overwhelmed in class or continuing to have behaviors that interfere with his learning or the learning of others which require removal from class, that the District and Complainant consider whether the Student’s current placement and setting is appropriate. OSPI finds the District to be in violation because it did not develop a new FBA for the Student until February 2019 despite having knowledge of the Student’s new diagnosis of TS. The District will be required to hold an IEP meeting with the Complainant to address 1:1 paraeducator support, including what training the paraeducator requires. The District will also be required to document the training required of paraeducators in the Student’s IEP.
SECC-19-85
District: Highline
SPED Topic: Accommodations
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for implementing the Student’s individualized education program (IEP), specifically accommodations related to study guides, outlines, organizers, written instructions, and visual supports during the 2019-2020 school year?
Response: OSPI will require the Student’s IEP team to meet to answer the question: what are the Student’s needs resulting from the Student’s disability in regard to assistance with math homework?
SECC-22-153
District: Highline
SPED Topic: Accommodations
Issue: Did the District implement the accommodations in conformity with the Student’s IEP according to WAC 392-172A-03105 during the 2022–2023 school year?
Response: Based on the information provided by the Parent and the District, there was insufficient evidence to support a violation.
SECC-15-46
District: Issaquah
SPED Topic: Accommodations
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for implementing the Student’s IEP in effect for the 2014-2015 school year, including providing specially designed instruction, accommodations, and modifications?
Response: District was in violation ordered to provide the Student with 20 hours of tutoring for skills related to executive functioning.
SECC-15-46
District: Issaquah
SPED Topic: Accommodations
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for implementing the Student’s IEP in effect for the 2014-2015 school year, including providing specially designed instruction, accommodations, and modifications?
Response: District was in violation ordered to provide the Student with 20 hours of tutoring for skills related to executive functioning.
SECC-19-100
District: Kennewick
SPED Topic: Accommodations
Issue: Did During the 2019-2020 school year, did the District properly implement the following portions of the Student’s Individualized Education Programs (IEPs): a. Minutes of specially designed instruction in executive functioning and social; and b. Accommodations?
Response: District ordered to conduct an IEP meeting to consider accommodations.
Issue: Did the District follow proper IEP development procedures in developing the Student’s postsecondary goals and transition services, including a. Obtaining (or seeking to obtain) the input of the Student on the same (WAC 392-172A03095(2)(a)-(b)); and, b. Ensuring the IEP team’s determinations were based on sufficient, relevant, and accurate data.
Response: The District, though, stated that “the IEP team’s determinations regarding postsecondary goals and transition services were not based on sufficient, relevant, and accurate data, as the information collected [during the interview] was minimal.” The March 2019 IEP does not detail the “courses of study” needed to assist the Student in reaching his postsecondary goals. District ordered to complete a thorough evaluation and develop a new IEP.
SECC-18-82
District: North Kitsap
SPED Topic: Accommodations
Issue: Did the District implement the accommodation regarding algebra during the 2017-2018 school year?
Response: No violation found.
SPED Topic: Appropriate Instruction
Issue: Did the District implement the specially designed instruction in accordance with the Student’s IEP during 2018-2019 school year?
Response: Here, the Student’s September 2017 IEP provided for specially designed instruction in math to be provided in the general education classroom and the District’s documentation (progress reporting) indicated the Student was receiving his specially designed instruction. No corrective action.
SPED Topic: Appropriate Placement (LRE)
Issue: Did the District predetermine the Student Placement at the June 2018 IEP meeting?
Response: The complaint stated the Parent “arrived at the June 18, 2018 IEP meeting with a predetermined schedule placement for child’s IEP.” There can be no predetermination if no decision was made, and even if a decision about the Student’s class schedule was made, it was not a special education issue since it did not affect the implementation of special education services or placement (pg. 5).
SECC-19-45
District: Richland
SPED Topic: Accommodations
Issue: Did the District follow procedures to respond to the Parents’ request for the addition of accommodations and/or modifications to the IEP during the 2018-2019 school year— including requests that the Student receive accommodations and modifications to remain in Math 3?
Response: The District is in violation and will be required to review its policy for how it implements IEP accommodations and modifications in the general education setting.
SPED Topic: Amendments
Issue: Did the District follow procedures to develop the Student’s IEP during the 2018-2019 school year, including offering the Student a continuum of special education supports and services based on the Student’s needs and in the least restrictive environment?
Response: The District is in violation by making determinations about the Student’s specially designed instruction based on the high school schedule instead of on the Student’s needs.
SPED Topic: Appropriate Instruction
Issue: Did the district provide specially designed instruction?
Response: The District often confused the curriculum being provided to all students in the Student’s special education classes, and the accommodations the Student received, with specially designed instruction. The District is in violation and will be required to complete training on specially designed instruction, including what specially designed instruction is, how it differs from accommodations and modifications, and best practices for the documentation of the provision of specially designed instruction.
SPED Topic: Appropriate Placement (LRE)
Issue: Did the District offer the Student a continuum of special education supports and services based on the Student’s needs and in the least restrictive environment? Continuum of placement options
Response: Special education placement is based on a student’s unique, disability-related needs, not determined based on a student’s schedule or the availability of a particular program. An IEP must accurately reflect the IEP team’s placement decision, and the IEP team must consider a full continuum of placement options when making this decision. Found the district in violation and ordered a new IEP (pg. 26).
SECC-19-58
District: Richland
SPED Topic: Accommodations
Issue: Did the District provide appropriate accommodations and modifications for tests and assessments?
Response: No violation. The District provided documentation that the Student was regularly provided study guides and outlines.
SPED Topic: Amendments
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for developing and/or amending the Student’s individualized education program (IEP) during the 2018-2019 school year to address any lack of progress towards measurable annual goals?
Response: The District concluded it did not adequately determine the Student’s present levels when developing the IEP, or ensure the Student’s IEP contained measurable annual goals based on the present levels in the areas of adaptive behavior, math, reading, and written expression. OSPI adopts the District’s proposal for compensatory instruction, which includes 10 hours in reading, 6 hours in written expression, 8 hours in math, and 10 hours in adaptive.
SECC-18-83
District: Sedro-Woolley
SPED Topic: Accommodations
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for implementing the Student’s individualized education program (IEP), including providing accommodations in the general education setting?
Response: Based on the documentation, OSPI finds that the District substantiated that it implemented the Student’s IEP, and specifically that it provided the Student with the accommodations listed in his IEP in the general education setting a major portion of the time.
SECC-18-111
District: Tacoma
SPED Topic: Accommodations
Issue: Did the District implement the Student’s individualized education program (IEP) in place during the 2018-2019 school year, including providing the special education and related services, as well as accommodations?
Response: OSPI found several accommodations were not provided according to the IEP.
SECC-22-26
District: West Valley
SPED Topic: Accommodations
Issue: During the 2021–2022 school year, did the District materially implement the Student’s individualized education program (IEP)?
Response: OSPI found the district in violation of accommodations in general and those included in the BIP.
Issue: Did the district implement the student’s IEP including Behavior Intervention Plan? Did the student receive SDI in the general education classroom? Inclusion, Specially Designed Instruction, Behavior Intervention Plan
Response: OSPI found that the district failed to provide specially designed instruction, activate the behavior intervention plan and ordered compensatory education.
SPED Topic: IEP Team
Issue: During the 2021–2022 school year, did the District materially implement the Student’s individualized education program (IEP)?
Response: OSPI did not find evidence that the District properly responded to the Parent’s requests for IEP team meetings on November 28, 2021 and February 16, 2022. OSPI did not find that the District convened any IEP team meetings between the time the Student transferred into the District on August 19, 2021 through March 7, 2022, when the Parent filed this complaint. Compensatory education required.
SECC-18-86R
District: district name redacted
SPED Topic: Amendments
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for amending the Student’s secondary transition plan, course of study, and graduation requirements, based on his individual needs?
Response: No violation or corrective action.
SPED Topic: Appropriate Placement (LRE)
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for determining the Student’s placement for the 2018-2019 school year? Continuum of Placement Options
Response: OSPI finds that the Student’s IEP team properly considered a continuum of placements and thoroughly discussed the implications of changing the Student’s LRE. OSPI finds no violation. The District followed all the procedures to determine the Student’s placement and LRE (pg. 18).
SECC-13-67
District: Grandview
SPED Topic: Amendments
Issue: The district amended IEP’s of middle school students in order to place them in the general education setting.
Response: The record shows that the decision to amend all 34 students IEPs was not driven by the students’ educational needs, but instead by the District’s unilateral decision that all middle school student who receive special education, would benefit from attending general education math and language. Staff training and compensatory education.
SPED Topic: Appropriate Instruction
Issue: Can the district change the amount of SDI and the service location in the absence of an evaluation? Inclusion.
Response: The record shows that the District conducted reevaluations in the form of assessments revisions, not based on student need, but instead to justify the District’s plan to amend student IEPs to support the service model the District decided to adopt. The record further shows that the decision to amend all 34 students IEPs was not driven by the students’ educational needs, but instead by the District’s unilateral decision that all middle school student who receive special education, would benefit from attending general education math and language arts block courses. Compensatory education ordered (pg. 19).
SPED Topic: Appropriate Placement (LRE)
Issue: Can the district change the amount of SDI and the service location in the absence of an evaluation? Inclusion. Amendments. Re-evaluation.
Response: The record shows that the District conducted reevaluations in the form of assessments revisions, not based on student need, but instead to justify the District’s plan to amend student IEPs to support the service model the District decided to adopt. The record further shows that the decision to amend all 34 students IEPs was not driven by the students’ educational needs, but instead by the District’s unilateral decision that all middle school student who receive special education, would benefit from attending general education math and language arts block courses. Compensatory education ordered (pg. 19).
SECC-23-28
District: North Thurston
SPED Topic: Amendments
Issue: Can the student’s IEP be unilaterally changed?
Response: if a student’s IEP needs to be revised: that change should be made following communication between the IEP team members, including the Parent; the change should be based on relevant, sufficient data on the student’s needs resulting from the student’s disability.