Complaint Decisions

Recent Complaint decisions are posted here for 30 days. After that time, they will be found on our Data Reports and Analytics page.

Please note: Decisions issued prior to March 1, 2016, can be found on our Compliance Search page.
  • 19-039C - 4/9/19
    The District violated special education law when it failed to provide prior written notice within a reasonable time of, and procedural safeguards upon, the Complainant's requests for a special education evaluation of the Student.
  • 19-028C - 4/2/19
    The District did not violate special education law when it did not provide educational services to a student placed in the district for care and treatment for less than 15 school days.
  • 19-013C - 4/2/19
    The District violated special education law when it failed to provide the Student special education and related services in conformity with the Student's IEP during the first weeks of the 2018-19 school year.
  • 19-016C - 4/2/19
    The District violated special education law when it failed to provide a FAPE to Students during the 2017-18 school year and failed to consistently provide IDEA due process procedures.
  • 19-018C - 4/2/19
    The District violated special education law when it failed to provide to the Student specially designed instruction to meet the Student's unique needs and failed to consider the Student's regression and recoupment when determining the Student's eligibility for ESY.
  • 19-009C - 4/2/19
    The District did not violate special education law during the 2017-2018 school year, when it provided accommodations and modifications in science and Spanish classes in accordance with the Student's April 2017 IEP, and in science in accordance with the Student’s April 2018 IEP.
  • 19-032C - 3/29/19
    The District violated special education law when it failed to offer conciliation conferences or other administrative remedies following objections to proposed IEPs and a reevaluation plan, and when it failed to propose special education services in a prior written notice.
  • 19-028C - 3/29/19
    The District did not violate special education law when it did not provide educational services to a student placed in the district for care and treatment for less than 15 school days.
  • 19-027C - 3/29/19
    The District violated special education law when it failed to meet to predict how long a student would be absent due to care and treatment and review and revise the student's IEP to address the student's medical-related absences.
  • 19-007C - 3/29/19
    Pursuant to its authority established by 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(c)(3), MDE finds that the District failed to implement one provision of a July 2018 due process hearing decision when it proposed an IEP for the Student that provided for instruction and related services during breaks in programming lasting more than three school days, instead of instruction and related services during breaks in programming lasting more than three (calendar) days.
  • 19-047C - 3/29/19
    The District violated special education law when it failed to provide speech language services in conformity with the Students' IEPs due to a staffing shortage for the fall semester of the 2018-19 school year, from August 27, 2018 to December 10, 2018.
  • 19-044C - 3/29/19
    The District violated Minn. Stat. § 125A.0942, subd. 2(c) when it failed to afford the Complainant the opportunity to participate in meetings held in response to the use of restrictive procedures on the Student, and violated Minn. Stat. § 125A.0942, subd. 3(a)(6)(vi) when it placed the Student into seclusion in a room that had objects that the Student may use to injure himself or others within it.
  • 19-031C - 3/29/19
    The District violated special education law during the 2017-18 school year when it relied on District policy instead of allowing the Student’s IEP team to determine on an individualized basis, the Student’s need for special education and related services to ensure access to the general education curriculum.
  • 19-014C - 3/29/19
    The District violated special education law during the 2018-19 school year, when it failed to provide technology services and daily communication logs in conformity with the Student's May 2018 IEP.
  • 19-036C - 3/28/19
    The District violated special education law when it failed to inform the Student's teachers and providers of their specific responsibilities related to implementing the Student's 2017 IEP and failed to afford the Complainant an opportunity to participate in the identification, evaluation, and education placement of, and the provision of FAPE to, the Student.
  • 19-035C - 3/28/19
    The District provided accommodations, modifications, and supports to the Student in conformity with his IEP. The District violated special education law when, after determining the Student’s behavior resulting in removal from school was a manifestation of his disability, the District failed to return the Student to his educational placement, removed the Student from school for more than ten consecutive days, unilaterally placed the Student in an interim alternate educational setting without the requisite special circumstances, and failed to either conduct an FBA and develop a BIP or review and modify the Student’s existing BIP, as necessary, to address the Student’s behavior resulting in removal. The District further violated special education law when the IEP team failed to meet and determine the extent to which the Student needed, and ultimately provide to the Student, services following his removal from school for more than five consecutive days, and failed to serve timely prior written notice on the Complainant following the District’s refusal of her request for a reevaluation and FBA of the Student.
  • 19-024C - 3/28/19
    The District violated special education law when it failed to conduct an initial evaluation of the Student in the Student's native language, failed to conduct a sufficiently comprehensive evaluation of the Student, failed to have a group of qualified professionals and the Student's parents determine whether the Student is a child with a disability, and failed to ensure the information it obtained from a variety of sources was documented and carefully considered in interpreting the evaluation data. Additionally, the District failed to provide criteria under which an IEE must be obtained to the Student's parents, imposed criteria inconsistent with the parent's right to obtain an IEE at public expense, failed to provide an IEE at public expense, and failed to consider an IEE obtained at private expense.
  • 19-043C - 3/26/19
    The District violated special education law when it failed to provide special education and related services in conformity with Students' IEPs by failing to administer the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCA) with the accommodations listed in the Students' IEPs and instead administered the Minnesota Test of Academic Skills (MTAS) to the Students, and failed to properly apply the MTAS Eligibility Guidelines in determining Students' eligibility to participate in the spring 2018 MTAS, and document in the Students' IEPs why the Student cannot participate in the MCA and why the MTAS is appropriate for the Student.
  • 19-040C - 3/26/19
    The District violated special education law when it failed to either timely propose an evaluation plan, or provide the Complainants timely prior written notice refusing their December 2017 request for a special education evaluation, and when it used the lack of documented instructional strategies to deny the Student's right to a special education evaluation.
  • 19-034C - 3/26/19
    Because the District provided supplementary aids and services to enable a student to be educated and participate with other children with disabilities in activities, the District is not in violation.
  • 19-026C - 3/26/19
    The District violated special education law in September 2018 and October 2018 when it failed to provide timely prior written notice of its proposed services and then implemented verbally-agreed upon services before obtaining the Complainant's written consent or waiting for 14 days to elapse without a written objection.