LOYAL ZOOMERS!  WE’RE CHANGING THE DATES FOR THE ZOOMING WITH THE DAWG THIS MONTH.  MARK YOUR CALENDAR FOR THURSDAY, JUNE 23.  HOPE TO SEE YOU THAT DAY AT 10. 

The IEP promised “door to door” transportation.  But the student lived at the end of a dead end street and the state’s transportation guidelines prohibited school buses from entering a dead end street where the bus would have to back up.  What to do?

The district informed the parent that they would have to walk the student down the block to the corner (eight houses down) where the bus would stop.  The parents filed a complaint with the state agency, alleging that the district was not implementing the IEP as it was written.  What do you think will happen?

The agency slapped the district on the wrist. This was not in Texas but the result would have been the same in Texas. That’s because state agencies don’t have any leeway in situations like this.  They are charged with the faithful execution of IDEA. That means that when an IEP is not being implemented as written, the district will be charged with an error.

After that, the school convened an IEP Team meeting and made a change in the IEP over parental objection. The parents would have to walk the child to the end of the block.  The parents challenged this in a due process hearing.  The hearing officer ruled in favor of the district and the federal court affirmed that decision.    The court held that the district failed to implement the IEP but only in a “de minimis” manner. There was no indication that the student needed to be picked up at the home; the issue had never been discussed at an IEP Team meeting; and the student still had access to education.  No harm, no foul.  The court also held that the change in the method of transportation was not a “change of placement” and thus it did not trigger “stay put.”

Not every change to a student’s IEP is a “change of placement.”  This is a good example of that.  Remember, though, that every change to an IEP must be approved by the ARD Committee, or by a written amendment to the IEP agreed to with the parent.  Also, the school should produce a Prior Written Notice about a change like this.  Remember that PWN is required to document every IEP change made at an ARD—not just those done over parental objection. However, you can expect more scrutiny to follow a change that is made, like this one, in the face of parental opposition 

We also learn that courts will apply the “de minimis” standards under some circumstances. Unfortunately, it’s hard to predict this.  Some courts probably would have taken a more rigid view regarding IEP compliance.   Perhaps the judge thought that walking past eight houses to the end of the block was no big deal.

It’s S.W. v. Elizabeth Board of  Education, decided by the federal court for the state of New Jersey on March 17 2022. It’s published in Special Ed Connection at 80 IDELR 227.

DAWG BONE: DO PEOPLE REALLY LITIGATE OVER STUFF LIKE THIS?  THEY DO!

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

Tomorrow: Toolbox Tuesday!!