Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 115.81 (2026)
Children in residential care centers
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
115.81(1)(b)(b) “Responsible local educational agency” means the local educational agency that was responsible for providing a free, appropriate public education to the child before the placement of the child in a residential care center for children and youth except that if the child resided in an institution or facility operated by the department of health services, a Type 1 juvenile correctional facility, as defined in s. 938.02 (19), or a Type 1 prison, as defined in s. 301.01 (5), before the placement of the child in a residential care center for children and youth, “responsible local educational agency” means the school district in which the residential care center for children and youth is located.
115.81(2)(2) Establishment of program. Subject to the approval of the division, a residential care center for children and youth may establish and maintain special education and related services for children with disabilities.
115.81(3)(a)(a) Whenever a county department recommends to a court that a child be placed in a residential care center for children and youth or whenever a state agency anticipates placing a child in a residential care center for children and youth, the county department or state agency shall notify the responsible local educational agency.
115.81(3)(b)(b) For each child identified in a notice under par. (a), the responsible local educational agency shall do all of the following:
115.81(3)(b)1.1. If the child is a child with a disability, as soon as reasonably possible and after consulting with a county department or a state agency, as appropriate, appoint an individualized education program team to review and revise, if necessary, the child’s individualized education program and develop an educational placement offer.
115.81(3)(b)2.a.a. Appoint staff to review the child’s education records and develop a status report for the child and send a copy of the report to the county department or state agency, as appropriate, within 30 days after receiving the notice under par. (a).
115.81(3)(b)2.b.b. If the responsible local educational agency has reasonable cause to believe that the child is a child with a disability, appoint an individualized education program team to conduct an evaluation of the child under s. 115.782. The responsible local educational agency may include appropriately licensed staff of the residential care center for children and youth in the team if that staff is available. The individualized education program team shall conduct the evaluation. If the individualized education program team determines that the child is a child with a disability, the individualized education program team, in consultation with a county department or a state agency, as appropriate, shall develop an individualized education program and an educational placement offer.
115.81(4)(4) Responsibility for educational placement. Whenever the responsible local educational agency offers an educational placement in a residential care center for children and youth under sub. (3) (b) 1. or 2. b., all of the following apply:
115.81(4)(a)2.2. Ensure that the child’s treatment and security needs are considered when determining the least restrictive environment for the child.
115.81(4)(a)3.3. While the child resides at a residential care center for children and youth, appoint an individualized education program team to conduct reevaluations of the child in the manner provided under s. 115.782 (4).
115.81(4)(a)4.4. While the child resides at a residential care center for children and youth, after consulting with the residential care center for children and youth and a county department or a state agency, as appropriate, refer the child to another local educational agency if the responsible local educational agency determines that the child’s special education needs may be appropriately served in a less restrictive setting in the other local educational agency.
115.81(4)(a)5.5. If the child is leaving the residential care center for children and youth, assign staff or an individualized education program team to develop a reintegration plan for the child in cooperation with a county department and staff of the residential care center for children and youth.
115.81(4)(b)(b) The county department or state agency, as appropriate, shall do all of the following:
115.81(4)(b)1.1. Consider the child’s educational needs when selecting a residential care center for children and youth for the child.
115.81(4)(b)2.2. In cooperation with the responsible local educational agency and staff of the residential care center for children and youth, participate in the individualized education program team evaluation of the child and the development of the individualized education program for the child.
115.81(4)(b)3.3. Notify the local educational agency that will be responsible for providing a free, appropriate public education to the child whenever the county department or state agency anticipates removing the child from the residential care center for children and youth.
115.81(4)(b)4.4. In cooperation with the responsible local educational agency and staff of the residential care center for children and youth, develop a reintegration plan for the child if the child is leaving the residential care center for children and youth.
115.81(4)(b)5.5. Pay all of the residential care center for children and youth related costs of educating the child while the child resides in the residential care center for children and youth.
115.81(4)(c)(c) Whenever a local educational agency receives a referral under par. (a) 4., the local educational agency shall assign staff to determine whether the child can appropriately receive special education and related services provided in the local educational agency. If the assigned staff determine that the child can appropriately receive special education and related services in the local educational agency, the local educational agency shall provide such services for the child and is eligible for state tuition payments under s. 121.79 (1) (a). If the assigned staff determine that the child cannot appropriately receive special education and related services in the local educational agency, the local educational agency shall keep a written record of the reasons for that determination.
115.81 HistoryHistory: 1997 a. 164, 237, 252; 2001 a. 59; 2005 a. 258, 344; 2007 a. 20 s. 9121 (6) (a).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1974–2002 · leading case: State v. Trent N., 569 N.W.2d 719 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Trent N., 569 N.W.2d 719 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Section 615 of the enacted amendments relates to procedural safeguards and provides: 7 We note that in this case, Trent's mother had commenced a review of Trent's individual education program (IEP) under the IDEA and § 115.81, Stats., at the time the juvenile court proceedings…”
Anderson v. Thompson, 495 F. Supp. 1256 (E.D. Wis. 1980). “The Andersons refused the placement offered for Monica and, pursuant to § 115.81, Wis.Stats., appealed the placement offer to the local school board.”
M.R. v. Milwaukee Pub. Schs., 584 F. Supp. 767 (E.D. Wis. 1984). “Rather, their claim at the commencement of this action was that the defendants were not following this statute in connection with the termination of day treatment programs. However, even if it is assumed that MPS improperly biased the evaluations made by multi-disciplinary teams…”
Nieuwenhuis v. Delavan-Darien Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 996 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Wis. 1998). “512 , and Wis.Stat. § 115.81 all empower a hearing officer to grant extensions, the statutory and regulatory provisions are silent as to whether such extensions can be granted retroactively.”
Brandon E. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Pub. Instruction, 595 F. Supp. 740 (E.D. Wis. 1984). “Under Wis. Stat. § 115.81 , parents have a right of access to all records, reports, and evaluations relating to their child’s educational program.”
Daniel B v. Wisconsin Dep't of Pub. Instruction, 581 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. Wis. 1984). “However, their objections have not been investigated or reviewed under the procedures established in § 115.81, Wis.Stats. The kind of probing review which the exhaustion doctrine requires was never undertaken before the 1982-83 school year.”
Anderson v. Thompson, 658 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir. 1981). “Plaintiffs next appealed to State Superintendent Thompson pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 115.81 . On October 7, 1977 Thompson issued her decision finding that Monica had exceptional educational needs in the areas of speech and language and learning disabilities but that she was not…”
M. R. v. Milwaukee Pub. Schs., 495 F. Supp. 864 (E.D. Wis. 1980). “§ 115.81, Wis.Stats. The parties dispute the actual number of evaluations which the defendants have performed on members of the proposed class.”
Panitch v. State of Wisconsin, 390 F. Supp. 611 (E.D. Wis. 1974). “caused by the Department’s interpretation of Section 115.81 of the Statutes [entitled “Parental Appeals”].”
In Re Suzawith v. Green Bay Area Sch. Dist., 132 F. Supp. 2d 718 (E.D. Wis. 2000). “PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This action was commenced on March 25, 1999, when the petitioners, Bucky and Donna Suzawith (“the Suzawiths”) filed a “Petition for Review”, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 115.81 (8), in the Brown County Circuit Court naming the Green Bay Area School District…”
Williams v. Overturf, 580 F. Supp. 1365 (W.D. Wis. 1984). “§ 115.81(3). It might be argued that the imposition of the change in IEP without the parents’ consent deprived them of liberty with finality.”
Secor v. Richmond Sch. Jt. Dist. No. 2, 689 F. Supp. 869 (E.D. Wis. 1988). “§§ 1415 (b), 1415(c), 1415(e)(2). When an action is properly filed, the court reviews the records of the administrative proceedings and hears additional evidence at the request of a party.”
— Wis. Stat. § 115.81(1) — 1 case
Anderson v. Thompson, 495 F. Supp. 1256 (E.D. Wis. 1980). “The Andersons refused the placement offered for Monica and, pursuant to § 115.81, Wis.Stats., appealed the placement offer to the local school board.”
— Wis. Stat. § 115.81(2) — 1 case
State v. Trent N., 569 N.W.2d 719 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Section 615 of the enacted amendments relates to procedural safeguards and provides: 7 We note that in this case, Trent's mother had commenced a review of Trent's individual education program (IEP) under the IDEA and § 115.81, Stats., at the time the juvenile court proceedings…”
— Wis. Stat. § 115.81(3) — 2 cases
State v. Trent N., 569 N.W.2d 719 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Section 615 of the enacted amendments relates to procedural safeguards and provides: 7 We note that in this case, Trent's mother had commenced a review of Trent's individual education program (IEP) under the IDEA and § 115.81, Stats., at the time the juvenile court proceedings…”
Williams v. Overturf, 580 F. Supp. 1365 (W.D. Wis. 1984). “§ 115.81(3). It might be argued that the imposition of the change in IEP without the parents’ consent deprived them of liberty with finality.”
— Wis. Stat. § 115.81(6) — 2 cases
Nieuwenhuis v. Delavan-Darien Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 996 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Wis. 1998). “512 , and Wis.Stat. § 115.81 all empower a hearing officer to grant extensions, the statutory and regulatory provisions are silent as to whether such extensions can be granted retroactively.”
Secor v. Richmond Sch. Jt. Dist. No. 2, 689 F. Supp. 869 (E.D. Wis. 1988). “§§ 1415 (b), 1415(c), 1415(e)(2). When an action is properly filed, the court reviews the records of the administrative proceedings and hears additional evidence at the request of a party.”
— Wis. Stat. § 115.81(7) — 3 cases
Anderson v. Thompson, 495 F. Supp. 1256 (E.D. Wis. 1980). “The Andersons refused the placement offered for Monica and, pursuant to § 115.81, Wis.Stats., appealed the placement offer to the local school board.”
M.R. v. Milwaukee Pub. Schs., 584 F. Supp. 767 (E.D. Wis. 1984). “Rather, their claim at the commencement of this action was that the defendants were not following this statute in connection with the termination of day treatment programs. However, even if it is assumed that MPS improperly biased the evaluations made by multi-disciplinary teams…”
Williams v. Overturf, 580 F. Supp. 1365 (W.D. Wis. 1984). “§ 115.81(3). It might be argued that the imposition of the change in IEP without the parents’ consent deprived them of liberty with finality.”
— Wis. Stat. § 115.81(8) — 2 cases
State v. Trent N., 569 N.W.2d 719 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Section 615 of the enacted amendments relates to procedural safeguards and provides: 7 We note that in this case, Trent's mother had commenced a review of Trent's individual education program (IEP) under the IDEA and § 115.81, Stats., at the time the juvenile court proceedings…”
Anderson v. Thompson, 495 F. Supp. 1256 (E.D. Wis. 1980). “The Andersons refused the placement offered for Monica and, pursuant to § 115.81, Wis.Stats., appealed the placement offer to the local school board.”
— Wis. Stat. § 115.81(l)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Trent N., 569 N.W.2d 719 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Section 615 of the enacted amendments relates to procedural safeguards and provides: 7 We note that in this case, Trent's mother had commenced a review of Trent's individual education program (IEP) under the IDEA and § 115.81, Stats., at the time the juvenile court proceedings…”
M.R. v. Milwaukee Pub. Schs., 584 F. Supp. 767 (E.D. Wis. 1984). “Rather, their claim at the commencement of this action was that the defendants were not following this statute in connection with the termination of day treatment programs. However, even if it is assumed that MPS improperly biased the evaluations made by multi-disciplinary teams…”
— Wis. Stat. § 115.81(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Trent N., 569 N.W.2d 719 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Section 615 of the enacted amendments relates to procedural safeguards and provides: 7 We note that in this case, Trent's mother had commenced a review of Trent's individual education program (IEP) under the IDEA and § 115.81, Stats., at the time the juvenile court proceedings…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.