November 2007 - Parent participation

Case of the Month: E.P. v. San Ramon Valley Unified School District

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When can a district proceed with an IEP meeting without the parents present? Here, the district provided a first grade student with autism with a general education classroom for 80% of his school day, a special classroom for the rest of the school day, a one-to-one assistant, and in home services (ten hours per week). When a dispute arose towards the end of first grade, the district held three IEP meetings in June and August with the parents and their attorney. At the third meeting, the IEP team was unable to complete the student's IEP, and the district attempted to schedule a fourth meeting for August 30, the day before school started. After a period of argument, the parent's attorney said she wouldn't be available and the parents would not be available either. The district held the meeting anyway, and hand-delivered the resulting IEP to the parents that evening. The final IEP, based on all of the meetings, did not include the in home services.

Distinguishing this situation from Shapiro v. Paradise Valley USD (a 2003 9^th Cir case),the court found the district did not deny the parents an opportunity to participate in the formulation of the IEP. Here, "at least one parent chose not to attend a critical IEP meeting on the last possible day" to complete the IEP before school started and the district had a statutory obligation to have an IEP in effect at the beginning of the school year. The district offered an alternative (a "stay put" placement from a previous settlement) which the parents rejected. Therefore, the district was not simply "prioritizing its representatives' schedules over that of [the] parents, as in Shapiro." E.P. v. San Ramon Valley Unified School District, 48 IDELR 66 (N.D. Cal., June 21, 2007).

Lesson learned: Here, the district had a record of its substantial efforts to schedule a meeting time before school started, and also offered an alternative (the "stay put" placement), which the parents rejected. Also, the parents' reasons for not being available appeared flimsy to the court. This case still sets a high threshold for accommodating parents' scheduling needs, but draws the line when parents' refusal to attend an IEP meeting appears to be a manipulation of the process.

Note: This case may be instructive but is not direct precedent in Oregon.