The court primarily relied on an OSEP statement formerly appearing in Appendix C of the IDEA regulations that so long as there was no change in the overall amount of service, some adjustments in scheduling were possible without convening another IEP meeting. The court concluded that FAPE is provided if significant provisions of the IEP are implemented and the student receives educational benefit. On the fourth factor, the court found the student had in fact received educational benefit from his IEP in most areas. Having thus concluded that the district provided FAPE, the parents' claim for reimbursement was also denied. If the answer is yes, the courts have found that FAPE was provided and denied compensatory education or reimbursement.
Situations do arise, however, that sometimes make full implementation impossible.
There may be an unanticipated lengthy staff absence because of illness or the district may be unable to fill a position. When these situations occur, the IEPT should reconvene and develop an alternative means of addressing the need. In this case, the district used itinerant staff when it was unable to hire a permanent teacher. Compensatory education should be offered for services missed due to staff absence. The case also illustrates the problem with agreeing to a specific methodology.