In Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 v. A.J.T., 96 F.4th 1062, 124 LRP 9021 (8th Cir. Mar. 21, 2024), the Eighth Circuit addressed whether a shortened school day satisfied the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for a student whose medical needs prevented her from attending school during typical morning hours. The case focused on whether a free appropriate public education (FAPE) could require instruction outside the ordinary school day when a student’s disability limited access to traditional schedules.
The student had a rare form of epilepsy that required assistance with basic daily tasks, including walking and toileting. Her seizures occurred most frequently in the morning, making it impossible for her to attend school before noon, but she could remain alert and available for instruction from noon until approximately 6:00 p.m. Before moving to Minnesota in 2015, the student’s Kentucky school district provided evening instruction in the home.
After the family relocated, the Minnesota district declined repeated parental requests for evening instruction. From 2015 through 2018, the district instead provided one-on-one instruction in the afternoon totaling approximately 4.25 hours per school day. When the student entered middle school, where the standard school day ended at 2:40 p.m., the district proposed reducing her instructional time to roughly three hours per day. The parents filed a due process complaint, which resulted in the student remaining at approximately 4.25 hours per day under stay-put.
An administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the district had prioritized maintaining regular faculty hours rather than responding to the student’s educational needs. The ALJ ordered compensatory education and required the district to add daily home instruction from 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. to the student’s individualized education program (IEP). The district court affirmed, finding that although the student made some progress, her overall progress was de minimis and that she regressed in areas such as toileting and communication. The court found that the student could have made greater progress with evening instruction and that a three- to four-hour school day was insufficient to address many of the goals recommended by experts.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court stated that IDEA’s protections are not limited to the ordinary school day and agreed that the student’s progress was minimal. It noted that the student failed to meet any annual goals in 2016 and 2017, met only a few short-term objectives in 2018, had no progress reports for 2019, and met only one objective and no goals in 2020. The court also pointed to regression in toileting skills after the move to Minnesota, with success rates declining significantly and the toileting goal at times removed due to the limited length of the school day. Expert testimony supported the conclusion that the student would have made more educational progress with evening instruction, and the district’s reasons for refusing such instruction were not tied to the student’s needs.
The decision reflects that providing FAPE may require school districts to depart from standard scheduling practices where a student’s disability prevents access to education during conventional school hours and the record shows that meaningful progress cannot otherwise be achieved.