In In re Complaint Decision File 24-043C, No. A24-0229, 2024 WL 4664194, 124 LRP 38498 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2024) (not precedential), the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a state education department decision requiring corrective action after a school district conducted instruction remotely and asynchronously for a planned e-learning day without addressing how that change affected students’ individualized education programs (IEPs). The appeal arose from a complaint brought on behalf of a student and 299 similarly situated students.
The complaint challenged the district’s decision to designate October 13, 2022, as an asynchronous e-learning day to facilitate parent-teacher conferences. The student’s IEP required specialized direct instruction in multiple subject areas, and the complaint alleged that the district’s use of asynchronous instruction was inconsistent with those requirements. The complaint review process focused on whether the district complied with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when implementing the e-learning day.
Following an investigation, the state education department concluded that the district violated IDEA by failing to ensure that students’ IEPs were developed, reviewed, or revised, as appropriate, to describe the special education and related services to be provided during planned asynchronous learning. The department determined that no additional asynchronous e-learning days should be scheduled until the district ensured that students with disabilities were provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE). It ordered the district to plan and implement corrective action.
The department later clarified that the corrective action requirement could be satisfied by providing parents and guardians with the opportunity to meet with their children’s IEP teams to discuss the impact of planned asynchronous learning days. The clarification explained that the district could notify families of this opportunity by including language in announcements for future asynchronous e-learning days reminding parents and guardians of their right to request an IEP meeting.
On appeal, the court affirmed. It agreed that the department correctly determined that the district violated IDEA by failing to notify parents that they could schedule meetings with support teams to discuss the effect of the asynchronous e-learning day on their children’s IEP services. The court emphasized that the district acted without informing parents and guardians of their right to participate when changes were made to how IEP services were delivered.
The court rejected the district’s argument that the violation was merely technical or harmless. It explained that IDEA provides parents with a statutory right to notice when a district proposes to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of a child, or the provision of FAPE. The court further noted that corrective action may be required even in the absence of a specific finding that a student was denied FAPE. It concluded that the department’s investigation was appropriate, that the factual findings were supported by the record, and that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
The decision reflects that planned shifts to asynchronous or remote instruction implicate IDEA’s notice and procedural protections, that districts must address how such changes affect the delivery of IEP services, and that corrective action may be required where parents are not informed of their right to participate in decisions affecting implementation of those services.