Supreme Court Scheduled To Hear IDEA Case
Posted on January 22, 2025
A.J.T. is a student with a rare form of epilepsy that causes her to have seizures in the morning. Because of this, A.J.T. cannot attend school before noon. A.J.T. is alert and ready to learn from noon until around 6 p.m.
A.J.T. moved to Minnesota in 2015. Before this, she lived in Kentucky and had an individualized education program (IEP) that included evening instruction at home. A.J.T.’s parents requested this same type of instruction from Osseo Area Schools (the District) in Minnesota. The District refused to provide evening at home instruction. The District gave various reasons, including that the law does not require it, that they wanted to avoid setting an unfavorable precedent, and that the home environment would be too restrictive. The District stated they needed data do substantiate this programming change.
From 2015-2018 A.J.T. was in elementary school and the District provided one-on-on instruction for 4.25 hours each school day. In 2018 A.J.T. entered middle school. The middle school’s day ended earlier at 2:40 p.m., so the District proposed that A.J.T. only be in school about 3 hours a day. The District denied the parent’s request for evening instruction and for a continuation of 4.25 hours a day.
A.J.T.’s parents filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Education. This complaint kept A.J.T.’s school day at 4.25 hours under the “stay-put” provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). After a due process hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the District had denied A.J.T. FAPE. The District was ordered to provide 495 hours of compensatory education and add at-home instruction from 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. every school day.
The District appealed the finding to District Court, and the District Court agreed with the ALJ. The District then appealed the issue to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals (the Court). The 8th Circuit also upheld the ALJ’s decision. The Court said that the IDEA is not limited to the regular hours of the school day. There is nothing in the IDEA implying or stating that a school district is only obligated to provide FAPE if it can do so during normal school hours. The Court then examined whether A.J.T. received FAPE despite having a shortened school day. The Court held that A.J.T. did not receive FAPE.
A.J.T. made de minimis, which means minimal, progress overall once she moved from Kentucky to Minnesota. A.J.T. met none of her annual goas in 2016 or 2017. In 2018, she had only met a few short-term objectives and no annual goals. The District provided no progress reports for 2019 and in 2020 she still did not meet any annual goals. The Court explained that FAPE requires that a student make more than de minimis progress from year to year.
The Court was also concerned that A.J.T. had regressed in some areas. A.J.T. regressed in toileting, never meeting her Goal. In 2017, the District removed the toileting goal from her IEP because they did not have enough time to work on it during the shortened day. The Court held that toileting is essential for A.J.T. to live a healthy and dignified life, and the District’s failure to take steps to address that goal violated its obligation to provide FAPE.
The Court held that A.J.T. would have made more progress with evening instruction. The parents provided expert testimony that the District’s choice not to provide evening instruction at home had a negative impact on A.J.T.’s learning. Because the District only provided partial day instruction, A.J.T. only made de minimis progress, which equates to a denial of FAPE.
This case has been appealed to the Supreme Court and oral arguments are scheduled to be heard in April 2025. We will keep you updated as the decision is rendered later in the year.
What this means: In the 8th Circuit, courts have held that the requirement for FAPE under the IDEA is not limited to regular school time and a student is denied FAPE if they are only making de minimis progress under their IEP. The requirement for more than de minimis progress is longstanding all over the county, but how the Supreme Court rules on the other issues may impact how schools in Montana must respond.
Osseo Area Schools v. A.J.T., 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, March 21, 2024. Read it here.
Please contact Bea, Megan, Kevin, Beth, or Kali if you have any questions.