Opinion ID: 2647113
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: IEP Amendments

Text: All members of the IEP team, including K.A.’s parents, agreed on the first grade IEP that they established during the spring of K.A.’s kindergarten year. The school district sought to amend K.A.’s IEP about a month after she started first grade. K.A.’s parents did not agree to the amendment. The school district held a team meeting and the team adopted the amendment. The school district told the parents that the amendment would go into effect, unless the parents presented a complaint and requested a due process hearing. The statute provides that an individualized education program may be amended either by the “entire IEP Team,” or without a team meeting if the parents agree.32 The amendment procedures are set forth in 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)(D) and (F). Section 1414(d)(3)(D) provides: 32 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)(D), (F). 19 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 20 of 33 Agreement: In making changes to a child’s IEP after the annual IEP meeting for a school year, the parent of a child with a disability and the local educational agency may agree not to convene an IEP meeting for the purposes of making such changes, and instead may develop a written document to amend or modify the child’s current IEP. Section 1414(d)(3)(F) states: Amendments: Changes to the IEP may be made either by the entire IEP Team or, as provided in [§ 1414 (d)(3)(D)], by amending the IEP rather than by redrafting the entire IEP. The school district argues that the IEP team can amend an IEP at a team meeting even if the parents do not consent to the proposed change. K.A.’s parents apparently agree with the school district, because they do not claim a right to veto a proposed amendment. They concede that “neither side has a ‘veto’ in a collaborative process mid-year, and each has the right to decide the importance of the change and use the dispute resolution mechanism to resolve it.” We agree, and read the statute to mean that the IEP team can amend an individualized education program at a team meeting, even if the parents do not consent. The statute expressly requires parental consent for a written amendment when there is no team meeting, and conspicuously omits a requirement of parental consent if the IEP is amended at a team meeting. This omission is best read as 20 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 21 of 33 implying a negative pregnant, that parental consent is not required if the team adopts an amendment at a team meeting. The fact that parental consent is explicitly required elsewhere in section 1414 supports our interpretation. Parental consent is required before a school district can evaluate a child for the first time,33 before a school district can reevaluate a child,34 and before an IEP team member can be excused from attending an IEP team meeting.35 “As this Court has emphasized, ‘[w]here Congress knows how to say something but chooses not to, its silence is controlling.’”36 We agree with the Seventh Circuit (and K.A.’s parents do not dispute) that the parents do not have a veto.37 But this is not the end of our analysis. K.A.’s parents argue that, if the parents do not agree to an amendment, the school district must present a complaint, request a due process hearing, and bear the burden of proof at the hearing before the amendment can be implemented. We disagree. 33 Id. § 1414 (a)(1)(D). 34 Id. § 1414 (c)(3). 35 Id. § 1414(d)(1)(C)(ii)(I). 36 United States v. Webb, 655 F.3d 1238, 1257 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Griffith, 206 F.3d 1389, 1394 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc)). 37 Hjortness ex rel. Hjortness v. Neenah Joint Sch. Dist., 507 F.3d 1060, 1066 (7th Cir. 2007). 21 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 22 of 33 We are unable to identify anything in the statute that suggests Congress intended to require school districts to present a complaint and prevail at a due process hearing in order to amend an IEP if the parents do not consent. The regulations are also silent on this issue. In light of the IDEA’s lengthy and excruciatingly detailed procedural protections, we decline to read into the statute a significant procedural requirement that Congress did not express. Section 1415(b)(6) provides that a State must give: An opportunity for any party to present a complaint – (A) with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child; and (B) which sets forth an alleged violation that occurred not more than 2 years before the date the parent or public agency knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint. Section 1415(f)(1)(A) says that: [w]henever a complaint has been received under subsection (b)(6) . . . the parents or the local educational agency involved in such complaint shall have an opportunity for an impartial due process hearing, which shall be conducted by the State educational agency or by the local educational agency, as determined by State law or by the State educational agency. 22 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 23 of 33 Congress amended the IDEA in 2004 to clarify that both a parent and a local educational agency have “an opportunity” to present a complaint and have a due process hearing.38 While the statute says that a school district may present a complaint, it does not say that school districts are ever required to do so. The IDEA specifically states that school districts can present a complaint and request a due process hearing in certain circumstances. When “the parent of [a child who may be disabled] does not provide consent for an initial evaluation . . . or the parent fails to respond to a request to provide the consent, the local educational agency may pursue the initial evaluation of the child by utilizing the procedures described in section [1415] of this title.”39 The statutory provisions that specifically address IEP amendment procedures allow a school district to amend an IEP at a team meeting without parental consent. The statute is silent as to whether the school must first present a complaint and prevail at a due process hearing before the amendment is valid. The parents’ proposed interpretation has no support in the complex and detailed statutory provisions enacted by Congress and would effectively foreclose any changes to the IEP by the team without the 38 S.Rep. No. 108-185, p. 36-37 (2003) (emphasis added). 39 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(D)(ii)(I). 23 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 24 of 33 parents’ consent. That result would be inconsistent with the absence of a requirement of parental consent if the team amends the IEP. K.A.’s parents argue that the Supreme Court’s decision in Schaffer v. Weast40 resolves this question in their favor. In Schaffer, parents were dissatisfied with the initial IEP that a school district proposed for their son, so they enrolled him in private school and sought compensation for the private school tuition by challenging the proposed IEP for denying their son a free appropriate public education. The issue in Schaffer was whether the parents or the school district bore the burden of proof to show the inadequacy of the IEP.41 The Supreme Court held that the “burden of persuasion lies where it usually falls, upon the party seeking relief.”42 The parents claimed that the IEP was inadequate and sought compensation for private school tuition, so they had the burden of proof. 40 546 U.S. 49 (2005). 41 Id. at 56, 62. 42 Id. at 56. 24 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 25 of 33 The parents in Schaffer were the “party seeking relief,” because they challenged the IEP.43 Likewise, K.A.’s parents are the party challenging the IEP amendment and claiming that the school district violated the IDEA’s procedural requirements. They are the “party seeking relief,” because they asked the hearing officer to set aside the amended IEP. For the parents to have the burden of presenting a complaint, requesting a due process hearing, and proving their case is consistent with the holding in Schaffer. K.A.’s parents, though, do have a colorable argument under dicta in Schaffer that says: If parents believe that an IEP is not appropriate, they may seek an administrative “impartial due process hearing.” § 1415(f). School districts may also seek such hearings . . . They may do so, for example, if they wish to change an existing IEP but the parents do not consent, or if parents refuse to allow their child to be evaluated.44 We reject K.A.’s parents’ argument that the language above means that school districts must always seek a due process hearing if they want to amend an IEP over parents’ objections. The question at issue in Schaffer was which party bears the 43 Id. at 62. 44 Id. at 53. 25 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 26 of 33 burden of proof, not which party must present a complaint and seek a due process hearing. Whether the parents could recover private school tuition turned on whether they could prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the IEP did not provide an appropriate education for their child. The Court had no reason to address whether the school district or the parents had the burden of proving noncompliance with amendment procedures. Requiring the school to make a complaint about the team’s amendment would be inconsistent with the authority the statute confers on the team to make an amendment. This reading of the IDEA does not deprive parents of a voice in their child’s education. K.A.’s parents were notified of the proposed change and given an explanation for the amendment, they participated extensively in the team meetings, they received K.A.’s educational records, and they were notified of their procedural rights, including the right to challenge the amendment by presenting a complaint and requesting a due process hearing. The parents presented a complaint to invoke the “stay-put” provision, and K.A. remained at her old school. We are unable to identify any error in requiring the parents to present a complaint and demand a due process hearing, since they disagreed with the team decision. 26 Case: 12-15483 Date Filed: 12/20/2013 Page: 27 of 33