Opinion ID: 792261
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Compliance with IDEA's Procedural Requirements

Text: 24 In considering whether the District fulfilled IDEA's procedural obligations, we focus on whether the Cerras had an adequate opportunity to participate in the development of Kathryn's IEP. To ensure parental participation, the Act requires, inter alia, 25 [a]n opportunity for the parents of a child with a disability to examine all records relating to such child and to participate in meetings with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child, and the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child, and to obtain an independent evaluation of the child. 26 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1). The regulations governing parental participation provide that [e]ach public agency shall take steps to ensure that one or both of the parents of a child with a disability are present at each IEP meeting or are afforded the opportunity to participate[.] 34 C.F.R. § 300.345(a). The regulations go on to state that [t]he public agency shall give the parent a copy of the child's IEP at no cost to the parent. 34 C.F.R. § 300.345(f). [T]he importance Congress attached to these procedural safeguards cannot be gainsaid. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 205, 102 S.Ct. 3034. 27 The district court concluded that the proposed IEP for Kathryn's 2002-2003 school year was procedurally inadequate because the District fail[ed] to provide Plaintiffs with the requested documents concerning her proposed classes, and [failed] to provide the IEP in a timely fashion which would have afforded Plaintiffs an opportunity to evaluate the proposed program. By contrast, the SRO found that IDEA's procedural requirements were satisfied because the Cerras were significantly involved in developing Kathryn's special education plans, as evidenced by Mrs. Cerra's participation at the May 17, 2002 and June 14, 2002 meetings. The SRO noted that the transcripts of the two meetings reflected that Mrs. Cerra actively participated in discussing Kathryn's needs, the goals of her 2001-02 and 2002-03 IEPs, and her teachers' concerns. 28 We agree with the SRO that the District fulfilled the Act's procedural obligations. The Cerras had numerous opportunities to participate in meetings with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child throughout the 2001-02 school year, as well as in preparation for the 2002-03 school year. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1). In addition to attending meetings on October 23, 2001, March 20, 2002 and May 17, 2002, Mrs. Cerra participated actively in the June 14, 2002 CSE meeting, which was specifically focused on developing Kathryn's 2002-03 IEP. The transcript of that meeting shows that the group discussed Kathryn's educational progress, her health, and the goals and objectives she should be achieving, and that Mrs. Cerra was frequently consulted for input about the CSE's proposed plan. Moreover, as soon as the District found out that the Cerras intended to send Kathryn to a private residential school, it scheduled another meeting to discuss the IEP before the school year began. 29 Although the district court acknowledged Mrs. Cerra's participation in the June 14, 2002 meeting, it suggested that her participation in that meeting was not meaningful because she could not understand the coded document Mrs. Schreiber gave her toward the end of the meeting. The U.S. Department of Education has instructed that when a school district bring[s] drafts of some or all of the IEP content to the IEP meeting, [the relevant inquiry is whether there was] a full discussion with the child's parents, before the child's IEP is finalized, regarding drafted content and the child's needs and the services to be provided to meet those needs. 34 C.F.R. § 300, App.A—Notice of Interpretation, Question 32. When Mrs. Schreiber gave Mrs. Cerra the draft document near the end of the meeting—after a lengthy discussion of Kathryn's past performance and future goals—the teacher explained that she was giving her the draft so that she could compare it against the final IEP later in the summer. The document was clearly given to Mrs. Cerra as a supplement to the discussion and the IEP, not in place of either one. Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that Mrs. Cerra's participation in the meeting was meaningful despite her initial confusion about the draft. 30 The district court also faulted the District for failing to provide the IEP in a timely fashion. However, the Cerras have not directed us to any statutory provision or regulation requiring that an IEP be produced at the time parents demand. Instead, school districts must only ensure that a child's IEP is in effect by the beginning of the school year and that the parents are provided a copy. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.342(a) (At the beginning of each school year, each public agency shall have an IEP in effect for each child with a disability within its jurisdiction.); 34 C.F.R. § 300.345(f) (The public agency shall give the parent a copy of the child's IEP at no cost to the parent.). Although the Cerras might have preferred to receive the IEP sooner, and we are sympathetic to the frustration they undoubtedly felt in not receiving it sooner despite repeated requests, the District fulfilled its legal obligations by providing the IEP before the first day of school. 4 31 The District also was not obligated to provide student profiles for Kathryn's special education classes, particularly when they did not yet exist. Unlike an IEP, the Act's statutory and regulatory provisions do not expressly require school districts to provide parents with class profiles. The district court indicated that the District's failure to provide the profiles violated the requirement that parents have an opportunity to [i]nspect and review all education records with respect to (i)[t]he identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child; and (ii)[t]he provision of [a free appropriate public education] to the child. 34 C.F.R. § 300.501(a)(1). However, the Act defines education records as those records that contain information directly related to a student and are maintained by the school district. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(A). The Cerras requested the class profiles in a letter dated June 19, 2002, but as Ms. Schepperly testified during the impartial hearing, she would not have determined class groupings and prepared class profiles until the end of August. Consequently, the class profiles were not maintained by the District at the time the Cerras requested them, and thus do not fall within § 1232g(a)(4). 5 For these reasons, we cannot conclude that the District defaulted on its procedural obligations by failing to provide the requested profiles. 32 In sum, given Mrs. Cerra's extensive participation in the June 14, 2002 meeting and the District's compliance with the requirement of providing an IEP before the first day of the 2002-03 school year, we are satisfied that it fulfilled IDEA's procedural obligations. While the Cerras may have been dissatisfied by the District's slow pace, we cannot conclude that they were denied a meaningful opportunity to participate in the formulation of their daughter's IEP.