Centennial v. Minn. Dep't Of Educ.

Decision Date07 October 2010
Docket NumberNo. A08-1600.,A08-1600.
Citation788 N.W.2d 907
PartiesINDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 12, Centennial, Respondent, v. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Appellant.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus by the Court

Federal regulations 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.107, 300.117, and 300.320(a)(4)(ii) (2010), promulgated under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act do not limit extracurricular and nonacademic activities included in an Individual Education Program (IEP) to extracurricular and nonacademic activities required to educate a disabled student.

A disabled student's IEP team determines the extracurricular and nonacademic activities appropriate for inclusion in a disabled student's IEP.

A disabled student's IEP team determines which supplementary aids and services are appropriate and necessary for the student to participate in extracurricular and nonacademic activities.

Paul C. Ratwik, Erin E. Ische, Christian R. Shafer, Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent.

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Martha J. Casserly, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, for appellant.

Joseph E. Flynn, Peter A. Martin, Knutson, Flynn & Deans, P.A., Mendota Heights, MN, for amicus curiae Minnesota School Boards Association.

Daniel J. Stewart, Minneapolis, MN, for amicus curiae Minnesota Disability Law Center.

OPINION

MEYER, Justice.

This case addresses the scope and operation of a school district's obligation under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to provide disabled students an equal opportunity to participate in extracurricular and nonacademic activities. Here, the parents of a disabled student in Independent School District No.12, Centennial (the School District), respondent, requested that the student's Individual Education Program (IEP) team consider supplementary aids and services to enable the student to participate in extracurricular and nonacademic activities. The School District refused to consider the requested supplementary aids and services at the student's IEP team meetings. The parents filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Education (the Department), appellant. In its complaint decision, the Department concluded that the School District violated IDEA by refusing to consider the requested supplementary aids and services for inclusion in the student's IEP. The School District appealed.

The court of appeals held that IDEA requires that an IEP team consider whether an extracurricular and nonacademic activity is appropriate for a disabled student and, if so, provide supplementary aids and services necessary for participation. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12, Centennial v. Minn. Dep't of Educ., 767 N.W.2d 478, 486 (Minn.App.2009). But the court further held that an IEP need only consider extracurricular and nonacademic activities “required for the education of the [disabled student].” Id. The Department petitioned our court for review. We granted review to determine whether the IDEA regulations limit the extracurricular and nonacademic activities included in an IEP to only those “required for the education” of disabled students. We hold that the IDEA regulations contain no such limit.

This case involves a fifth-grade student diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. As part of her condition, the student experiences tics when feeling anxiety that prevents the student from working. The condition also creates “strong sensory needs” in the student, who must occasionally have “motor breaks” to “move about in the classroom.” The student has also been recently diagnosed with Tourette Syndrome and frequently struggles with motor, vocal, and facial tics, especially when anxious.

Because the student met the state eligibility criteria, the student was determined eligible for, and in need of, special education and related services. Like all public school children who receive special education and related services, the student's educational needs are met through development of an IEP. An IEP is a personalized plan detailing a disabled student's unique educational needs and identifying necessary accommodations. See generally 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d) (2006). A team consisting of the student's teachers, parents, school administrators, related service personnel, and, when appropriate, the student creates the IEP. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B). The IEP must be reviewed at least annually but can be reviewed more frequently if the student's parents or school asks for a review. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(4).

In February 2008, the student's parents e-mailed a list to the school psychologist of supplementary aids and services they believed were necessary for the student to participate in extracurricular and nonacademic activities, to be discussed at the student's upcoming IEP team meeting. The list included that the student be allowed to miss some practices and games to manage health concerns and stress, be provided adult supervision after the activity until an adult or the activity bus picked her up, and have access to her cell phone during the activity. The student's IEP team convened twice during February and March 2008. The parents allege that the School District refused to discuss the proposed supplementary aids and services at either meeting. The parents further allege that the School District told the parents that Section 504 plans, not IEPs, address participation in extracurricular and nonacademic activities. 1 The School District alleges that the parents asked the School District to hold a Section 504 meeting to discuss supplementary aids and services for extracurricular activities, which the parents dispute. 2 Two Section 504 meetings occurred in April and May of 2008. In April, the parents met with the middle school activities director and special education coordinator to discuss the student's participation in volleyball and after-school clubs. The Section 504 draft plan that resulted did not include the parents' suggested supplementary aids and services. In May, the parents met with the special education coordinator and Section 504 coordinator to determine what supplementary aids and services were required for the student to attend a class graduation party. The School District asserted it was not responsible for accommodating the student's attendance at the party because the party took place off-site, outside the normal school day, and was hosted by the parent-teacher organization, a private group. 3

The parents filed an IDEA complaint with the Department. On July 15, 2008, the Department issued a complaint decision concluding that the School District violated the IDEA regulations when it failed to convene an IEP team to consider the student's participation in volleyball, after-school clubs, and the graduation party. 4 The Department ordered the School District to convene the IEP team to discuss and document the IEP supplementary aids and services that the team determined appropriate and necessary for the student to participate in the extracurricular and nonacademic activities requested by the parents.

The School District appealed the Department's order. The court of appeals upheld the Department's decision in part. ISD No. 12, 767 N.W.2d at 491. The court affirmed the Department's determination that the IEP team must consider whether an extracurricular and nonacademic activity should be included in the IEP and, if so, what supplementary aids and services are necessary to enable the student's participation. Id. But the court reversed the Department's determination that supplementary aids and services for an extracurricular or nonacademic activity may be included in an IEP “regardless of a nexus between the activity and an appropriate education for the child.” Id. Rather, the court held that an IEP need include supplementary aids and services necessary for the student's participation only in “such activities as are required for the education of the child.” Id. at 486. The Department petitioned for review, arguing that the IDEA regulations require an IEP team to consider supplementary aids and services for participation in extracurricular and nonacademic activities regardless of an activity's relationship to an educational objective.

I.

Originally enacted in 1975 as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) governs how states and agencies that receive special education funding from the federal government provide education to disabled students. See generally Pub.L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773 (1975) (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482 (2006)). The purposes of IDEA are to provide a free appropriate public education, ensure and protect the rights of disabled students, assist states and localities to provide special education, ensure that educators and parents have the tools needed to improve results in special education, and assess and ensure effectiveness of special education. 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d) (2006). To be eligible to receive IDEA funds, states must establish policies to ensure that the state provides a free appropriate public education, establishes a [f]ull educational opportunity goal,” executes IEPs according to statutory requirements, and educates the disabled student to the maximum extent appropriate with other children. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)-(2), (4)-(5) (2006).

A free appropriate public education is defined as special education and related services that are provided without charge at public expense and under public supervision, meet state educational standards, include appropriate education at all levels in the state, and are provided in conformity with an IEP. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9) (2006). An IEP is a written statement provided for each special education student. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(14) (2006). Each IEP must be developed, reviewed, and revised in accordance with IDEA requirements. Id. Under IDEA, an IEP includes the following: (1) a statement of the child's present academic achievement and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Tveter v. Pinkerton Acad.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire
    • November 2, 2020
    ...come to the same conclusion based on the plain language of the IDEA's implementing regulations. See Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12 v. Minn. Dep't of Educ., 788 N.W.2d 907, 914 (Minn. 2010); Meares v. Rim of the World Unified Sch. Dist., 269 F. Supp. 3d 1041, 1056-57 (C.D. Cal. 2016). As the Minne......
  • Paquin v. Kay Mack, No. A10-1177.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • October 7, 2010
    ... ... Because Minn.Stat. 204B.07 (2008) requires a person signing a petition nominating a ... ...
  • Zych v. Haugen
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • July 31, 2017
    ...was entitled)[.]Id. When the words of a regulation are clear and unambiguous, we apply them as written. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12 v. Minn. Dep't of Educ., 788 N.W.2d 907, 912 (Minn. 2010). We do not go beyond the regulation's language unless the language is ambiguous, that is, subject to mor......
  • In re Stewart, A16-1309
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • July 26, 2017
    ...a regulation, the court first determines whether the regulation is clear or ambiguous on its face." Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12 v. Minn. Dep't of Educ. , 788 N.W.2d 907, 912 (Minn. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Cities of Annandale & Maple Lake , 731 N.W.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT