Per Paul Ratwick, Fall MASE Conference – 10/28/10
Centennial Case:
- Parent had NO problems with the IEP, but was concerned with the provision of FAPE
- The Department decided that, because such activities were mentioned in statute, then they
were subject to the procedural safeguards afforded by IDEA
- The Court of Appeals supported school district; noted that the IEP team is limited to looking at
those services needed to provide FAPE; they can consider extra-curric. activities, but the team
does not have jurisdiction to
- The district contended that section 504 has been moved into IDEA
- The Department appealed to the MN Supreme Court.
o Their ruling did not overturn the decision of the Appeals court
o BUT… final ruling was that they didn’t find plain language in statute… that does not limit
extra curric activities for inclusion in the IEP
o It took 8 months for the decision to be reached
o There was dissent, but it was very hard to follow
- What does it mean; what are the implications; what are the long-run implications
-
It does NOT team that the standard has changed – just that the decisions will be made by the
IEP team regularly
The court noted that the administrative burdens, but basically said they were reading the plain
language of the regulation.
The argument was really about the function of the IEP team
o The legal team argued that the team was about securing FAPE for the child
o The decision implied that this is much broader
 Questions need to be asked at IEP meetings:
 Does this child need to receive extra curric activities in order to receive
FAPE?
 In situations where it is necessary
 Ask to parent: Do you have particular extra curriculars in mind?
 Then… it becomes up to the team to determine whether an activity
 Recommends that for these issues, the IEP team should function like an
IEP team: Ask - What’s the nature of the student’s abilities, needs, and
the activity; can a reasonable accommodation be provided to secure a
level playing field (reasonable opportunity to succeed or fail, not
guarantee success) – in this lens, accommodations are reasonable if
they do not substantially alter the nature of the activity….
 The question arises: if a parent disagrees, do they have the right to have
a due process hearing on a non-FAPE issue?
o You are going to have to have a person at the IEP meetings who are familiar with
available activities so you can address these issues
o There MUST be a record of the discussion about extra-curriculars and appropriate
accommodations
o Consider accommodations as “non-FAPE accommodations” – consider a separate
document entitled non-FAPE accommodations
 NOTE: My question – can we just attach a 504 plan to the IEP?
o Standards are that the most likely challenges

-
This is the only case in the country about this type of thing that has reached a
conclusion
o Some possible next steps:
 Joint letter from Centennial and MASE to US Dept of Ed inquiring whether this
 Have MASE forward legislation that would specifically define the role of the IEP
team as pertaining to FAPE-based activities
o Consider enlisting personnel from MDE
o More IEP meetings; larger IEP meetings; and members present who know about range
of available activities
o There should not be a change from what 504 teams have been asked to consider
o Re: Transportation – if the activity is not deemed necessary to secure FAPE, then the
cost would come out of the general fund
Need to firm up lines between who offers activities – those activities offered by a non-school
entity are not subject to this; activities offered by any part of the school (including CE) are –
regardless of WHERE they occur.
Thursday 3:00-4:00: Per Susan Torgerson, Atty at Law; has MS in special education
First some comments on the Centennial Ruling:
- Consider first asking whether involvement in the extra-curricular was essential for accessing
FAPE
- In a case she had worked on before, they had added a statement to the IEP accommodation
section that, if activities arose, he/she would contact the family to talk about needed
accommodations
- You cannot write, “student will participate in XXX with accommodation.” We need to be
CAREFUL!!!
o She suggested that we come up with a worksheet for helping staff ask the RIGHT
questions
 Question #1… Question #2….
 She may do a newsletter and think about doing a flowchart or something to
support this.
o The ruling is not meant to change the IEP standard or the 504 standard
o We should be having this same conversation as part of our 504 processes, too