In re Special Educ. Complaint 22-027C ex rel. V.S.

981 N.W.2d 201

SPECIAL EDUCATION COMPLAINT 22-027C ON BEHALF OF V.S., L.S., and G.S. from Waconia ISD 0110-01.

A22-0250

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Filed October 10, 2022

Amy E. Mace, Ryan P. Supple, Rupp, Anderson, Squires, Waldspurger & Mace, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for relator Independent School District No. 110, Waconia Public Schools)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Kathleen Li Reitz, Martha J. Casserly, Assistant Attorneys General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Minnesota Department of Education)

N.S., Waconia, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and Gaïtas, Judge.

OPINION

GAÏTAS, Judge

In this case, we must decide whether respondent Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) improperly issued a corrective-action order requiring relator Independent School District No. 110, Waconia Public Schools (the district) to provide compensatory services to three students with disabilities whose parent¹ rejected special-educational services that the district made available to the students in conformity with their existing IEPs and refused to cooperate with the district in developing new IEPs. MDE found no wrongdoing on the district's part. But MDE nonetheless concluded that the district violated state and federal law, warranting corrective action, because it failed to ensure that the students were provided with educational services that the students’ parent refused to accept.

The district argues that MDE incorrectly interpreted Minnesota Statutes section 125A.08(b)(1) —which requires a school district to ensure that "all students with disabilities are provided the special instruction and services which are appropriate to their needs"—and the corresponding federal regulation. According to the district, MDE erroneously construed the statutory term "students ... are provided" to mean "students ... have received." And the district argues that it cannot ensure that students receive educational services that a parent refuses. But MDE asks us to defer to its interpretation of what it means to "provide" special education and related services under state and federal law. It contends that the district's good faith and parent's lack of cooperation does not change the fact that the students did not receive the instruction and services they needed, which necessitates corrective action.

We agree with the district that MDE's decision and corrective-action order rest on an incorrect interpretation of section 125A.08(b)(1) and the corresponding federal regulation. Because the students’ parent refused to allow the students to receive appropriate special-educational services that were offered and made available by the school district, MDE erred in concluding that the district failed to provide such services. We therefore reverse MDE's decision and corrective-action order.

FACTS

Respondent-parent has three young students with disabilities—V.S., L.S., and G.S.—who were enrolled in schools in the district and eligible for special education and related services.² In September 2021, parent filed a complaint against the district with MDE. Parent alleged that, for the preceding calendar year, the district had failed to provide the students with special education and related services and had failed to consider parent's concerns for enhancing the students’ education. After an investigation, MDE issued a decision on parent's complaint. Although MDE determined that the district had made special education and related services available to the students during the 2020-21 school year and had considered parent's concerns for enhancing the students’ education, it concluded that the district violated federal and state law "when it failed to provide the students with special education and related services" during part of the 2021-22 school year.

MDE's decision acknowledged the district's extensive efforts to develop new IEPs for the students and to provide the students with special education and related services during the first half of the 2021-22 school year. It also recognized that parent refused to cooperate with the district and rejected all of the educational services that the district offered. But the decision stated that "merely making services available" was not enough. Instead, according to MDE, services must be "provided," and that did not occur because the students did not "receive" the services. Based on this decision, MDE ordered corrective action, requiring the district to meet with parent to "determine an appropriate amount of compensatory services to compensate the students for the lost educational opportunity," which could include reimbursing parent to obtain private services.

The district filed a certiorari appeal from MDE's decision. On appeal, the district asks us to reverse MDE's corrective-action order, arguing that MDE erred in concluding that the district failed to provide the students with special education and related services. Alternatively, the district argues that MDE erred in considering the issues in parent's complaint because these issues were also the subject of a separate due-process proceeding that the district had initiated and were not properly before MDE.

Background³

The events in this case occurred against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, which widely disrupted education beginning in March 2020. Emerg. Exec. Order No. 20-02, Authorizing and Directing the Commissioner of Education to Temporarily Close Schools to Plan for a Safe Educational Environment (Mar. 15, 2020) (directing schools to close to students and for school and district staff to engage in a ten-day planning period); Emerg. Exec. Order No. 20-19, Authorizing and Directing the Commissioner of Education to Implement a Distance Learning Period and Continue to Provide a Safe Learning Environment for Minnesota's Students (Mar. 25, 2020) (directing the Minnesota Commissioner of Education to implement a month-long distance learning period); Emerg. Exec. Order No. 20-41, Authorizing and Directing the Commissioner of Education to Extend the Distance Learning Period and Continue to Provide a Safe Learning Environment for Minnesota's Students (Apr. 24, 2020) (extending the distance learning period until the end of the 2019-20 school year); Emerg. Exec. Order No. 20-82, Authorizing and Directing the Commissioner of Education to Require School Districts and Charter Schools to Provide a Safe and Effective Learning Environment for Minnesota's Students during the 2020-21 School Year (July 30, 2020) (establishing parameters for school districts and charter schools to safely implement in-person, hybrid, and distance-learning models in the 2020-21 school year). Here, the relevant time periods are the 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years. The district began the 2020-21 school year with in-person instruction but switched to distance learning for all students on December 1, 2020, due to the pandemic. On January 19, 2021, the district returned to in-person instruction for the remainder of the 2020-21 school year. The district continued in-person instruction during the 2021-22 school year.

Federal and state law require school districts to have in effect an IEP for each child with a disability at the beginning of every school year. 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(2)(i) (2021) ; Minn. Stat. § 125A.08(a) (2020). During the 2020-21 school year, the district, the students’ parents, and other IEP team members created or modified separate IEPs for V.S., L.S., and G.S. The last agreed-upon IEPs for the students were dated December 10, 2020 for V.S.; May 5, 2021 for L.S.; and May 12, 2021 for G.S.

The IEPs specifically addressed the COVID-19 pandemic. Each student's IEP provided that if the general student population returned to in-person instruction, the student would also return to in-person education.

Planning for the 2021-22 School Year

In August 2021, the district decided that face coverings would not be mandated for students or staff at any district schools during the 2021-22 school year. Given this policy, parent was concerned about the students’ health, noting that at least one student was immunocompromised.⁴ On August 11, 2021, district administrators met with parent to discuss her concerns.

Following the meeting, parent sent an email on August 20, 2021, to various district administrators stating that she did not "consider [her] kids district ... students anymore." On August 27, parent notified the district in another email that she was withdrawing the students from the district "with no plans to return."

The District's Attempts to Prepare 2021-22 IEPs

The 2021-22 school year began on August 30. Parent again communicated to district staff on September 1 that the students would not be coming back to the district, but also admitted that she had no plan for the students to receive educational services elsewhere. Because the district was required to provide services while the students were homeschooled or until they were enrolled in another district, district staff invited parent to a meeting. District staff hoped to develop new IEPs at the meeting, which was scheduled for September 16.

During that meeting, district staff acknowledged that COVID-19 was a concern for parent and discussed different "service model options," requesting parent's input. One option was to bring the students to school in an environment where anyone who interacted with them would be masked. Another option was for the students to receive homebound services.⁵ Parent immediately rejected the in-person model. When district staff asked parent for input on possible homebound services, parent stated that it was not her job to create a homebound education plan.

The district then offered two proposals for homebound education. It proposed sending teachers to the students’ home for in-person, at-home instruction. Alternatively, it offered to facilitate remote learning via video technology. Parent refused any plan that would allow a teacher to enter the home...