Ahhh, 2024. So much optimism. So many opportunities to achieve our resolutions. [Bobby’s resolution to learn a new skill (move over golfing - we are picking up pickleball). Jordan’s resolution to become more organized (Sayonara to a desk littered with water bottles). Steve’s resolution to attempt to break a Guinness record (which record has yet to be determined, ideas can be submitted to ksb@ksbschoollaw.com). Reader, please note it is up to you to determine whether these resolutions may or may not be accurate.] With the new year and second semester ahead of school administrators, now is the perfect time to reflect on sticky situations you may be faced with in a special education context. (Potential New Year’s resolution for school administrators: Do not acquiesce to parent requests impacting special education students without determining if the request is educationally appropriate based on data!)
In a recent state educational agency decision from New Mexico, a school district was required to provide 300 hours (YES, YOU READ THAT NUMBER RIGHT) of compensatory education and revise its policies. The student was eligible under OHI for special education due to a variety of medical conditions which required ongoing treatment. The student was attending in-person classes during the first semester of 2021-2022. However, during the second semester, the student transitioned to at-home learning for one hour per day. The District proposed the student receive in person instruction for twenty hours per week for the 2022-2023 school year while the student’s parent requested the student continue at-home instruction. The school district granted the parent’s request and educated the student in a homebound setting. The parent subsequently filed a state special education complaint alleging the student was not educated in the student’s least restrictive environment and was denied a free appropriate public education.
The complaint investigator noted the district “followed a policy of permitting Parent unbound flexibility in maintaining remote instruction at home.” The District failed to mainstream the child, failed to educate the child in the least restrictive environment, and failed to provide the student a free appropriate public education. The decision went on to state “[The District] bears the legal responsibility for this denial of FAPE.”
This case illustrates the frustrating truth that a parent can sue a school when the school does what the parent wants! Remember, our educational obligation is owed to the student, even if the parent exercises many IDEA rights. If a request by a parent is educationally inappropriate or is not supported by data, do not just give in and implement the requested service or placement. Districts have an obligation to provide eligible students FAPE. If you have any questions regarding this or any other special education related matter, please do not hesitate to contact us at ksb@ksbschoollaw.com or give us a call at 402-804-8000.