Court Opinion

ID: 9692117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:42:58.586296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:31.609395
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, G. Barry, Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in the opinion of the court insofar as it holds that the responsibility of determining which activities are appropriate for a student rests with the IEP team, but I disagree that the statutes and regulations do not require some consideration of the connection of an extracurricular activity to the educational needs of a student.
The majority states that “the plain language of sections 300.320(a)(4)(ii), 300.107, 300.117 does not limit extracurricular and nonacademic activities for inclusion in an IEP to those required to educate the disabled student.” Supra at 914. That is true; those words are not found there. The majority further states that “[rjequir-ing disabled students to prove an educational benefit, when nondisabled students need not, does not afford disabled students an equal opportunity to participate in extracurricular and nonacademic activities.” Supra at 915.
After underscoring the requirement of equal opportunity to participate in extracurricular and nonacademic activities, however, the majority states that “[t]he plain language of the IDEA regulations indicates that the IEP team is designated to determine which activities are ‘appropriate.’ ... Accordingly, ... the IEP team must determine whether an extracurricular and nonacademic activity is appropriate for a disabled student.” Supra at 915. Thus, equal opportunity to extracurricular activities is not equal opportunity to any and all activities, but only those activities that the IEP team deems appropriate. This begs the question of what is appropriate and how the IEP team is to go about making such a determination.
In assigning this gatekeeper duty to the IEP team, the majority relies in part on section 300.117, which refers to appropriateness “to the needs of that child.” To me, it is necessary for the IEP team in making its assessment of appropriateness to look at the needs of the child. This, of course, requires asking what the needs of the child are and what sort of needs the IEP team is supposed to consider. Section 300.324 provides some guidance by stating that “[i]n developing each child’s IEP, the IEP Team must consider ... [t]he academic, developmental, and functional needs of the child.” I view these, generally speaking, as “educational” needs. Therefore, I would hold, like the majority, that parents of a disabled child cannot unilaterally dictate the content of an IEP, *917and that when an IEP team is determining which supplementary aids and services are appropriate and necessary for nonacademic and extracurricular services, the team must first consider whether the nonacademic and extracurricular services are appropriate. But I would further hold that the IEP team’s determination of which nonacademic and extracurricular services are appropriate necessarily involves consideration of the child’s educational needs. The use of the word “appropriate” indicates that not all nonacademic settings or extracurricular activities are suitable.
IDEA is an ambitious piece of legislation laudably aimed at securing and furthering the education of disabled children, and IDEA has far-reaching effects. In Minnesota alone, 14.7% of students are receiving special education services under an IEP. Given that high number, coupled with the fact that section 300.324(b)(i) requires periodic review of each child’s IEP, it is easy to see that any interpretation of the regulations and statutes requires a delicate balance of furthering the education of disabled children with feasible requirements for school districts.