Complaint Decision File 24-043C on behalf of Students from Minnetonka ISD 0276-01.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A24-0229

Complaint Decision File 24-043C on behalf of Students from Minnetonka ISD 0276-01.

Filed November 4, 2024
Affirmed
Schmidt, Judge

Minnesota Department of Education
File No. 24-043C

Laura Tubbs Booth, Adam J. Frudden, Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A., St. Paul,
Minnesota (for relator Independent School District No. 276, Minnetonka Public Schools)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Martha J. Casserly, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent Minnesota Department of Education)

S.K., Excelsior, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Considered and decided by Schmidt, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Ede, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SCHMIDT, Judge
In this certiorari appeal, relator Independent School District No. 276, Minnetonka
Public Schools (the District) challenges a decision by respondent Minnesota Department
of Education (the Department) that the District violated the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq (2018). The District argues (1) it did not violate
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; (2) any violation was harmless and,
therefore, the Department improperly imposed corrective action; and (3) the Department’s
investigation did not comply with federal regulations. We affirm.
2
FACTS
At the beginning of the 2022– 23 school year, the District informed parents that
October 13 would be an asynchronous instruction1 e-learning day to facilitate parent-
teacher conferences. Self-represented respondent S.K.’s (Mother) son (Student 1) attended
a school in the District. Student 1 had an individualized education program (IEP ) that
required “specialized direct instruction” in several different subjects.
Mother emailed her son’s principal, his case manager, and his special education
teachers to express concern about Student 1’s IEP direct services for the asynchronous
e-learning day. Student 1’s IEP contained no mention of procedures for asynchronous
e-learning days. After several emails between Mother and the District employees, the
District held the asynchronous e-learning day as planned. On the e-learning day, Student 1
completed one assignment and informed his teacher he ran out of time to finish the second
assignment. Student 1 completed the second assignment on his next in-person day of class.
Mother filed a complaint with the Department about the e-learning day on behalf of
her son and 299 similarly situated students. Mother alleged the District “failed to deliver
IEP direct service minutes to all 6th, 7th, and 8th” grade students in the district on the
e-learning day. The District denied the allegations in Mother’s complaint, insisting it
complied with all obligations to provide Student 1—and other similarly situated students—
with a free appropriate public education and complied with Student 1’s IEP. As part of its
investigation, the Department interviewed Mother and the District’s special education

1 For “asynchronous instruction” e-learning, students work independently online without
live instruction.
3
director. The Department also requested that the District provide a description of the
asynchronous e- learning day, a timeline of events, “[a] list of all eligible students,”
Student 1’s IEP, any other student’s IEPs that included an asynchronous instruction
provision, a school calendar, and “[a]ny additional educational records reviewed when the
District prepared its response to [the] complaint.”
The Department issued its decision , determining that the District violated the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by not ensuring “the Students’ IEPs were
developed, reviewed, and revised, as appropriate, to describe the special education and
related services to be provided during planned asynchronous learning.” The Department
noted that no additional asynchronous e-learning days should be added until the District
ensures that each student with a disability is provided a free appropriate public education.
The Department required the District to plan and implement a corrective action.
The District asked the Department to reconsider.
2 The Department issued a
clarification letter, recommending that the District could satisfy the corrective action by
allowing “the parents/guardians of eligible students the opportunity to discuss the impact
of planned asynchronous online learning days of instruction on their student.” The
Department suggested that the District could alert parents and guardians of this opportunity
by adding a sentence in the announcement about any future asynchronous e-learning day
that reminded parents and guardians about their right to meet with their child’s IEP team.
The District petitioned for writ of certiorari.

2 Mother also asked the Department to reconsider, but no petition for writ of certiorari
relating to that request is before us.
4
DECISION
When reviewing the Department’s quasi-judicial decision, we presume the decision
is correct, deferring to its “expertise and special knowledge in its field.” Special Educ.
Complaint 22-027C ex rel. V.S., 981 N.W.2d 201, 210 (Minn. App. 2022). We will only
reverse the Department’s decision if it “reflects an error of law, the determinations are
arbitrary and capricious, or the findings are unsupported by the evidence.” Id. at 210-11.
“Whether an administrative agency has acted within its statutory authority is a
question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.” In re Application of Otter Tail
Power Co., 942 N.W.2d 175, 179 (Minn. 2020) (quot ation omitted). We will affirm an
agency’s decision as long as it is supported by substantial evidence, which addresses “the
reasonableness of what the agency did on the basis of the evidence before it.” In re
Expulsion of A.D., 883 N.W.2d 251, 259 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).
I. The Department properly determined the District violated the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act.

The District argues that the Department’s decision is not supported by substantial
evidence because the evidence only shows that the District complied with the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. The District further asserts that the Department’s decision
runs afoul of the plain language of the Act.
One of the main purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is “to
ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public
education [FAPE] that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet
their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent
5
living[.]” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A) (2018). The Act established the IEP as a resource to
accomplish that goal. Id. § 1414(d) (2018).
An IEP describes the programs and services that will be used to help an individual
student reach measurable goals. Id. An IEP is “developed, reviewed, and revised in
accordance with” the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act mandated standards. Id.
§ 1414(d)(1)(A)(i) (2018). The applicable IEP requirement in this appeal concerns “the
projected date for the beginning of [special education and related services/modifications],
and the anticipated frequency, location, and duration of those services and
modifications[.]” Id. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VII) (2018); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(7) (2023).
An IEP should be revised “as appropriate” to address a “child’s anticipated needs[.]”
20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(4)(A)(ii)(IV) (2018); 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(b)(1)(ii)(D) (2023). A
parent must receive written notice before the District proposes to change “the
identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free
appropriate public education to the child.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(3) (2018).
Congress enacted these procedures to “guarantee parents and guardians a large
measure of participation in the IEP process[.]” K.E. ex rel. K.E. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 15,
647 F.3d 795, 804 (8th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). A district fails to provide a free
appropriate public education if “procedural inadequacies . . . significantly impeded the
parents’ opportunity to participate in the decisionmaking process regarding” their child’s
education. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii)(II) (2018). Minnesota also protects a “parent’s
right to notice, participation, [and] due process” for their child’s educational progress.
Minn. Stat. § 125A.091, subd. 28 (2022).
6
The District contends the Department’s decision is not supported by substantial
evidence because the parents and guardians received notice of the asynchronous e-learning
day. The District correctly notes that parents and guardians were given notice that an
asynchronous e-learning day would occur, but the Department’s decision was based on the
lack of notice to parents and guardians about how the asynchron ous e-learning day might
impact services provided under a child’s IEP. The Department determined that the District
violated the right of parents and guardians to notice and participation. We conclude that
the Department’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.
The Department’s factual findings show that Mother, like other parents and
guardians of children with IEPs, received notice of the asynchronous e-learning day. But
the District’s initial communication included no notice that M other could schedule a
meeting with her child’s support team to discuss the impact of an asynchronous e-learning
day on Student 1’s IEP , which included direct services. Mother received notice about
scheduling a meeting with the support team only after she affirmatively contacted the
District to inquire about her child’s IEP in relation to the asynchronous e-learning day. The
District anticipated, planned, and executed the asynchronous e-learning day without
informing the parents and guardians about their right to participate in an alteration to their
child’s IEP services. Such a notification would have initiated all the procedural safeguards
embedded in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (2018).
The Department’s conclusion that the District unilaterally altered S tudent 1’s IEP by not
ensuring that the IEP was “developed, reviewed, and revised, as appropriate” is supported
by substantial evidence.
7
The District also argues that the Department’s determination that a violation
occurred is not supported by the plain language of the statute because the Department did
not find any student was denied a free appropriate public education. But the Department
did find violation s of two federal regulations. The Department may impose a corrective
action based on those violations, even when no student has been denied a free appropriate
public education. See Special Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. E.N., 620 N.W.2d 65, 71 (Minn. App.
2000). Moreover, the Department has the authority to issue a corrective action after finding
that a unilateral policy that impacts the services of children with IEPs violates the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. See Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 281 v. Minn. Dep’t
of Educ., 743 N.W.2d 315, 327 (Minn. App. 2008); 34 C.F.R. § 300.151(b)(1) (2023). The
Department’s decision adheres to the statute, the regulations, and the caselaw.
II. The District’s actions were not harmless “technical” violations.
The District argues that the Department exceeded its authority by imposing
corrective actions because the violations, if any, were harmless technical violations. “ A
district is not liable for harmless technical violations of federal or state laws, rules, or
regulations governing special education if the school district can demonstrate that the
violations did not harm a student’s educational progress or the parent’s right to notice,
participation, or due process.” Minn. Stat. § 125A.091, subd. 28.
If the Department finds a denial of services, the Department must address: “(1) The
failure to provide appropriate services, including corrective action appropriate to address
the needs of the child (such as compensatory services or monetary reimbursement); and
(2) Appropriate future provision of services for all children with disabilities.” 34 C.F.R.
8
§ 300.151(b)(1), (2) (2023). The corrective action “must be calculated to remediate the
services that the school district failed to provide.” Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 192 v. Minn. Dep’t
of Educ., 742 N.W.2d 713, 723 (Minn. App. 2007), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 18, 2008).
Because we have concluded that the Department’s determination that the District
violated the parents’ and guardians’ right to notification was supported by substantial
evidence, we likewise conclude that the violation was not a harmless technical violation.
Federal law requires written notice to parents and guardians of students with IEPs before
the District “proposes to initiate or change . . . the identification, evaluation, or educational
placement of the child[.]” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(3)(A).
Had the District provided appropriate notice when first announcing the
asynchronous e-learning day, the procedural safeguards would have been triggered,
thereby protecting the rights of parents, guardians, and the District. Id. § 1415. A proper
notice, for example, would have invoked the parents’ and guardians’ right to “participate
in the education of their children at school and at home.” Id. § 1400(c)(5)(B) (2018).
The District also contends no corrective action was warranted because Student 1 did
not regress. See Glazier v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 876, 558 N.W.2d 763, 768 (Minn.
App. 1997) (concluding technical violation was harmless because student did not regress).
Although the record does not show that Student 1 regressed, the student’s parents were not
afforded the appropriate notice under federal law, which violated the parents’ right to
participate in their child’s education. 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2018). These were not “harmless
technical violations” because the Department determined that the District’s actions harmed
the parents’ right to notice and participation. See Minn. Stat. § 125A.091, subd. 28.
9
III. The Department conducted an appropriate investigation.
The District argues the Department’s investigation was arbitrary and capricious
because it failed to “[r]eview all relevant information and make an independent
determination as to whether” the District violated a requirement of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(4) (2023). An agency’s ruling is
arbitrary and capricious if:
the agency (a) relied on factors not intended by the legislature;
(b) entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the
problem; (c) offered an explanation that runs counter to the
evidence; or (d) the decision is so implausible that it could not
be explained as a difference in view or the result of the
agency’s expertise.

Citizens Advocating Responsible Dev. v. Kandiyohi County Bd. of Comm’rs, 713 N.W.2d
817, 832 (Minn. 2006). But an agency’s conclusions are not arbitrary and capricious so
long as there is a “rational connection” between the facts found and the ruling. In re Rev.
of 2005 Ann. Automatic Adjustment of Charges for All Elec. & Gas Utils., 768 N.W.2d
112, 120 (Minn. 2009).
The Department’s investigation included interviews of Student 1’s Mother and the
District’s special-education director. The Department also requested that the District
provide documentation, which included (among other things): a timeline of events, a list
of eligible students, Student 1’s IEP, a school calendar, and any students’ IEP s that
included an asynchronous instruction provision.
The District argues the Department “neither requested nor reviewed any educational
records or individual communications regarding 299 of the 300 relevant Students.” The
10
District also asserts that the Department did not conduct any interviews with District
personnel who worked on IEPs or obtain any information about District personnel that
worked with students or families before, during, or after the asynchronous e-learning day.
But the Department determined that the District’s blanket policy for the
asynchronous e-learning day violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The
Department’s factual findings established that the District failed to notify all parents and
guardians of students with IEPs, which violated their right to notice and participation in
their child’s education. The Department’s investigation reviewed the necessary
information to conclude that the District’s blanket policy decision violated the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act as to all students with IEPs. 3 Thus, the Department’s
decision was not arbitrary and capricious.
Affirmed.

3 The District relies on Independent School District No. 192 v. Minnesota Department of
Education as an instructive case of a “fundamentally flawed” investigation. 742 N.W.2d
at 720. In District No. 192, the Department found an individual student was denied a free
appropriate public education because of procedural and substantive issues with the
student’s IEP. Id. at 718. This court concluded that the decision was arbitrary and
capricious because the investigation itself was fundamentally flawed. Id. at 720. In
District No. 192, the Department failed to interview the student’s special education teacher
and other relevant school district personnel. Id. at 720-21. The lack of those interviews
was especially important in that case because “ key credibility determinations play[ed] a
significant role in sustaining the complainant’s principal allegations.” Id. at 721. This
situation differs from District No. 192 because there is no question of credibility here—as
the facts are not disputed—and this case involves all students with IEPs in the District, not
one student’s specific IEP plan. See id. at 716-18.