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.
As districts adopt inclusion of special education qualified students across the state, in many instances the rules that dictate the provision of special education services are misunderstood. As a result, we have received a number of concerns and questions, which tend to fall into four general areas:
- Provision of Specially Designed Instruction
- Maintaining a Continuum of Placement Options
- Provision of SDI and Supports for Students with Behavioral Complexities
- Lack of Student Progress
It should be noted that the complaints displayed below 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-19-65
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-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-18-91R
District: district name redacted
Issue: Did the District implement the Student’s individualized education program (IEP), including the one-to-one-paraeducator and the behavioral intervention plan (BIP)? 2. Did the District follow procedures in addressing the Student’s seizures and safety issues? 3. Did the District follow procedures for placing the Student in the least restrictive environment? Paraeducator, Behavior Intervention Plan BIP, Safety, Least Restrictive Environment LRE
Response: An IEP must be written so that it is “clear to all who are involved in both the development and implementation of the IEP,” and must include sufficient information about the number of services that will be provided so that the agency's level of commitment to the student will be clear. An IEP must be written so that it is “clear to all who are involved in both the development and implementation of the IEP,” and must include sufficient information about the number of services that will be provided so that the agency's level of commitment to the student will be clear. OSPI finds the District failed to properly implement the Student’s BIP. No violation of LRE.
SECC-22-03
District: Mount Baker
Issue: Did the District follow the required procedures when restraining and isolating the Student? Did the District provide appropriate behavior interventions, strategies, and supports to the students eligible for special education in the Student’s classroom, including whether students were required to “earn their chair”? Restraint, Isolation, Behavior Interventions, Paraeducator
Response: Denying the 1:1 paraeducator might have been a reasonable decision to give the Student time to acclimate to the new personnel and placement had there been no repeated restraints. However, the frequency of the restraints demand consideration of supports to address the behavior that led to an imminent likelihood of harm. Overall, based on the District’s failure to consistently follow restraint and isolation procedures, a violation is found.
Issue: Did the District follow the required procedures when restraining and isolating the Student? 2. Did the District implement the Student’s individualized education program (IEP), specifically giving the Student time to calm down before being approached? 3. Did the District provide appropriate behavior interventions, strategies, and supports to the students eligible for special education in the Student’s classroom, including whether students were required to “earn their chair”? Paraeducator
Response: Notably, the restraint and isolation documentation did indicate that the District was attempting multiple interventions prior to using restraint. Yet, the documentation shows the District was not implementing each of the required procedures following a restraint. OSPI finds that even though there were instances of restraint and isolation, the BIP was materially being implemented. No violation was found.
SECC-22-01
District: Seattle
Issue: Did the District respond to any need resulting from the Student’s disability in the following areas: a. Elopement concerns; and, b. Transition challenges and/or transportation needs related to the Student’s arrival at school? Paraeducator, Transportation, Behavior Intervention Plan BIP
Response: OSPI cannot conclude that failing to provide this service on 6 of 70 days represents a material failure to implement the Student’s services in this area. Thus, there has not been a violation of the IDEA. Still, it does appear the fact that more than one individual served as the Student’s 1:1 paraeducator did impact the Student’s ability to make progress on at least one annual measurable goal: Compensatory education ordered.
SECC-19-48
District: Spokane
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for responding to the Parent’s requests for services and/or accommodations to address the Student’s behaviors, including requests for a behavior plan? 2. Did the District use restraint on the Student consistent with the requirements. Restraint, Accommodations, Behavior Plan
Response: While OSPI generally defers to the decisions and expertise of IEP teams, the documentation here—including the District’s own evaluation and the District’s decision to develop a BIP for the Student—overwhelmingly show that the Student’s behaviors were interfering with his learning and/or the learning of others and that the Student required behavior supports to receive a FAPE. Accordingly, the Student’s IEP should be revised to reflect this. Additionally, ordered compensatory education.
SPED Topic: Isolation and Restraint
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for responding to the Parent’s requests for services and/or accommodations to address the Student’s behaviors, including requests for a behavior plan? 2. On April 23, 2019, did the District use restraint on the Student consistent with the requirements in WAC 392-172A-02110, including documentation and reporting requirements? Behavior Plan, Accommodations
Response: (pg. 24) districts remain obligated to provide students with disabilities who have an IEP a FAPE. When a student with a disability’s needs change or it is anticipated that their needs may change such that the student’s IEP may no longer be appropriate or they are no longer making appropriate progress in light of their circumstances—even if they are making grade level progress—the IEP team should convene to determine whether a child requires behavioral supports as part of their IEP, regardless of the student’s specific disability. The IEP team should also consider whether the student requires a reevaluation in the area of social/behavior. Compensatory Education required along with re-writing the IEP. The District is in violation and will be required to provide training to school involved in this complaint on the use of isolation, including on the reporting requirements of isolation.
SECC-19-14
District: Vancouver
Issue: Did the district follow procedures for developing and implementing the student’s IEP, including paraeducator support and intervention plan? Did the District use restraint and /or isolation consistent with regulations? Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA), Behavior Intervention, Restraint and Isolation, Paraeducator
Response: The District failed to implement the paraeducator as a 1:1 support as required by the current IEP and is in violation. 1:1 paraeducator support was arranged for the Student only after the Student had “earned” his general education time following demonstration of consistent behavior for a specified amount of time determined by the special education teacher, and after the Student had agreed to visit the general education setting when asked. The District failed to follow the Behavior Intervention Plan. Requires compensatory education.
SPED Topic: Para-Educators
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for developing and implementing the Student’s individualized education program (IEP), including any paraeducator support, accommodations, related services, and functional behavioral assessments (FBAs)/behavioral intervention plans (BIPs)
Response: The service matrix of the Student’s March 2018 IEP lists “adult support” to be provided by a “paraeducator.” It accordingly did not specify “1:1 paraeducator;” however, language throughout the Student’s IEP almost exclusively refers to the Student’s need for a “1:1 paraeducator.” Thus, while the service matrix does not specify “1:1 paraeducator,” the Student’s IEP and related documents, as a whole, do. The District therefore failed to implement the paraeducator as a 1:1 support as required by the current IEP, and is in violation.