Opinion ID: 4541297
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Modification of IEP

Text: Under Texas law, “[s]tudents with disabilities must have available an instructional day commensurate with that of students without disabilities. The ARD committee must determine the appropriate instructional setting and 25 Case: 18-20274 Document: 00515451413 Page: 26 Date Filed: 06/12/2020 No. 18-20274 length of day for each student, and these must be specified in the student's IEP.” 19 Tex. Admin. Code § 89.1075(e). Both the district court and the hearing officer determined that the shortening of O.W.’s school day violated O.W.’s IEP (and thus the IDEA) because the shortened school day was not provided for in O.W.’s IEP. The School District submits the IEP was modified by Ms. W and school officials. “In making changes to a child's IEP after the annual IEP Team meeting for a school year, the parent of a child with a disability and the public agency may agree not to convene an IEP Team meeting for the purposes of making those changes, and instead may develop a written document to amend or modify the child’s current IEP.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(4)(i). Unless the IEP is modified by agreement in accordance with paragraph (a)(4), it may be modified only “by the entire IEP Team at an IEP Team meeting.” Id. § 300.324(a)(6). By its terms, § 300.324(a)(4) provides an agreement may be modified without a meeting when the parent and LEA (1) agree as to the modification; (2) agree not to convene an IEP meeting; and (3) develop a written document to amend or modify the IEP. While the district court and hearing officer focused on the general fact that the IEP was modified to shorten O.W.’s school day, there were two modifications—the initial modification from a 7:30 start time to a 9:00 start time, and the subsequent modification to a three-hour school day. The initial modification, which included a formal written document prepared by Ms. W. and the LEA that set forth the modification and did not contemplate further IEP team action, satisfies § 300.324(a)(4)’s three requirements. However, the subsequent modification, which did not include a formal written document produced by the parent and the LEA, and which 26 Case: 18-20274 Document: 00515451413 Page: 27 Date Filed: 06/12/2020 No. 18-20274 internal documents reflect presupposed a subsequent ARD meeting, 18 did not meet the regulation’s requirements. It follows, therefore, that only the initial modification was effective and that the subsequent shortening of O.W.’s school day violated the IEP. This modification, which approximately halved O.W.’s school day, was a substantial and significant deviation from the IEP which indisputably resulted in a loss of academic benefits. Thus, the district court erred in finding the May 6, 2015, modification represented an actionable failure to implement O.W.’s IEP. The district court, however, correctly concluded the May 18, 2015, modification rose to the level of an actionable violation.