Opinion ID: 3029856
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whenever appropriate, the child with a

Text: disability. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B). [2] The IDEA also provides that “[t]he regular education teacher of the child, as a member of the IEP Team, shall, to the extent appropriate, participate in the review and revision of the IEP of the child.” 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(4)(B). The regulations drafted to implement the IDEA contain the following provisions: The public agency shall ensure that the IEP team for each child with a disability includes—

the child (if the child is, or may be, partici- pating in the regular education environ- ment) . . . . 34 C.F.R. § 300.344(a). In Appendix A to Part 300 of Title 34, the following commentary explains the critical role of a regular education teacher in developing an IEP: Regular Education Teacher Participation in the Development, Review, and Revision of IEPs Very often, regular education teachers play a central role in the education of children with disabilities (H. Rep. No. 105-95, p. 103 (1997); S. Rep. No. 105-17, p. 23 (1997)) and have important expertise regarding M.L. v. FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT 607 the general curriculum and the general education environment. Further, with the emphasis on involvement and progress in the general curriculum added by the IDEA Amendments of 1997, regular educa- tion teachers have an increasingly critical role (together with special education and related services personnel) in implementing the program of FAPE for most children with disabilities, as described in their IEPs. Accordingly, the IDEA Amendments of 1997 added a requirement that each child’s IEP team must include at least one regular education teacher of the child, if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment (see § 300.344(a)(2)). (See also §§ 300.346(d) on the role of a regular education teacher in the development, review and revision of IEPs.). 34 C.F.R. 300 app. A. Prior to 1997, the IDEA provided that the school district was obligated to include the student’s current teacher as a member of the IEP team. In 1997, Congress revised the IDEA to require the inclusion of “at least one regular education teacher of such child (if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment)” and “at least one special education teacher, or where appropriate, at least one special education provider of such child.” 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d) (1)(B) (2003) (emphasis added). [3] The plain meaning of the terms used in section 1414(d)(1)(B) compels the conclusion that the requirement that least one regular education teacher be included on an IEP team, if the student may be participating in a regular classroom, is mandatory—not discretionary. Thus, the district court’s finding that the IEP team was properly constituted under the IDEA without at least one regular education teacher 608 M.L. v. FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we must decide whether the FWSD’s failure to comply with the requirement of the IDEA that at least one regular education teacher evaluate the unique needs of a disabled student fatally compromised the integrity of the IEP and compels us to reverse the district court’s judgment without considering whether the error was harmless or whether the findings of the ALJ and the district court that the IEP meets the substantive requirements of the IDEA are clearly erroneous.