Complaint Decision File 24-170C on behalf of L.L.B. from Delano 0879-01.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A24-1182

Complaint Decision File 24-170C on behalf of L.L.B. from Delano 0879-01.

Filed April 21, 2025
Reversed and remanded
Larson, Judge

Minnesota Department of Education
File No. 24-170C

Michael J. Waldspurger, Craig W. Hardie, Squires, Waldspurger & Mace, PA,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for relator Delano Public Schools, ISD No. 879)

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

Amy J. Goetz, School Law Center, LLC, Stillwater, Minnesota (for respondent L.L.B.)

Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and Larson,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
LARSON, Judge
Relator Delano Independent School District No. 879 (the district) challenges
respondent Minnesota Department of Education’s (MDE) decision that the district violated
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482 (2018),
in the manner that it handled the parents’ (parents) request for a publicly funded
independent educational evaluation (IEE) for their child (student). Because MDE made a
decision contrary to its prior decision without any explanation, and failed to adequately
2
investigate parents’ claims, we conclude MDE engaged in arbitrary decisionmaking.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand.1
FACTS
Student is enrolled in Delano High School, a public high school in the district. The
district performed an initial evaluation of the student in fall 2015 to determine if student
had a disability entitling student to special-education services. The district determined that
student met the criteria for qualifying conditions, and student was deemed a child with a
disability in need of special-education and related services. Based upon this initial
evaluation, the district created student’s individualized education plan (IEP), and student
began receiving special-education services. “An IEP is a written statement prepared for
each student with a disability that includes academic and functional performance and goals,
as well as the services and accommodations to be provided to the student.” Special Educ.
Complaint 22-027C ex rel. V.S., 981 N.W.2d 201, 211 (Minn. App. 2022).
The district reevaluated student triennially and determined student had a continuing
need for special-education services. The reevaluation the district performed in
January 2022 highlighted new areas of concern. The January 2022 reevaluation included

1 We are simultaneously releasing a related opinion which addresses a different question.
See A24-1167. In A24-1167, the school district, after agreeing to an IEE at public expense,
included a condition in its criteria that was not the same as the criteria for the initial
evaluation. We therefore affirmed MDE’s decision that the school district violated 34
C.F.R. § 300.502(e) (2024). In this case, we examine MDE’s decision that the school
district violated federal law when it proposed a reevaluation in response to parents’ IEE
request and conclude that MDE’s decision was arbitrary.
3
a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) 2 that concluded student had improved on some
problem behaviors, but other behaviors continued to impact student’s learning.
In February 2022, the district sent a notice to parents, proposing to implement a new
IEP to address the concerns highlighted in the January 2022 reevaluation. Parents
affirmatively consented to the district implementing the new IEP. Student’s IEP was
thereafter reviewed in January 2023 and amended again. Parents affirmatively consented
to the January 2023 amendments as well.
In May 2023, the district amended the IEP again, this time in response to student’s
behavioral struggles, which “differ[ed] from what [the district had] seen in the past.”
Parents were deemed to have consented to the district implementing the IEP when they did
not object in writing within 14 days. As part of these amendments, student’s IEP team3
agreed to complete another FBA in fall 2023. Parents consented to the FBA, which
identified several target behaviors . Accordingly, the district amended student’s IEP to
include an updated “positive behavior plan” derived from the results of the 2023 FBA.
Parents consented to those amendments.
In January 2024, student’s IEP team met for an annual meeting, where “[ p]arents
reported that [the] term ha[d] gone significantly better” but “[t]here were still concerns.”

2 An FBA is “a process for gathering information to maximize the efficiency of behavioral
supports.” Minn. R. 3525.0210, subp. 22 (2023). It “includes a description of problem
behaviors and the identification of events, times, and situations that predict the occurrence
and nonoccurrence of the behavior.” Id.
3 An “IEP team” is the group of individuals who prepare a student’s IEP, which includes
teachers, school representatives, and the student’s parents or guardians. See 20 U.S.C.
§ 1414(d)(1)(B).
4
The district proposed continuing the IEP because, despite student’s progress, student still
“demonstrate[d] a need for special education and related services.” Several days after the
annual meeting, student intentionally broke a sink in the school bathroom. In response to
this incident, the district placed student on in -school suspension and implemented a no-
trespass order against student, restricting student from being on school property except
during regular school hours and to attend certain extracurricular activities.
On February 15, 2024, the district received an email from parents stating that they
were “formally disagreeing with the latest IEP evaluation” and requesting that the district
“provide an [IEE] that will be paid for by the [d]istrict for [student].” An IEE is “an
evaluation conducted by a qualified examiner who is not employed by the” district.
34 C.F.R. § 300.502(a)(3)(i) (2024). The district responded on February 21, 2024, and
denied parents’ IEE request, reasoning that it had the right to reevaluate student before
parents were entitled to an IEE because the prior reevaluation was over two years old.
The district contacted parents again on February 23, 2024, to discuss scheduling a
reevaluation planning meeting for student. Parents declined to schedule the meeting.
Parents sent correspondence to the district on March 1, 2024, again requesting an IEE and
stating that parents did not consent to the proposed reevaluation. Parents also indicated
that they expressly disagreed with the January 2022 reevaluation and that this disagreement
stemmed from their “discover[y] [of] serious inadequacies in the [d]istrict’s last evaluation
of [student].”
On March 5, 2024, the district sent correspondence to parents to supplement its
earlier response to the IEE request. In that correspondence, the district indicated its belief
5
that parents were barred from challenging the January 2022 reevaluation under the IDEA’s
two-year statute of limitations. The district then admitted that the January 2022
reevaluation was “no longer a current or accurate representation of [student] or [student’s]
educational needs.” The district again requested that parents consent to a reevaluation.
Parents responded the same day that they intended to file an administrative complaint with
MDE.
The district replied on March 7, 2024, reiterating its request for parents to consent
to a reevaluation and offering to conduct the reevaluation “in an expedited manner.” On
March 11, 2024, p arents responded that because the district refused to publicly fund an
IEE, parents would privately obtain an IEE and seek an order for repayment from MDE.
On March 18, 2024, p arents filed an administrative complaint with MDE, alleging
the district violated their right to a publicly funded IEE because it imposed improper
limitations and engaged in unnecessary delay. The next day, after an IEP team meeting,
the district sent parents a “[n]otice for [r]eevaluation,” formally proposing the district
reevaluate student. Parents objected to the proposed reevaluation on March 20, 2024.
On April 4, 2024, the district filed and served a due-process complaint requesting a
hearing before the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings. MDE put parents’
administrative complaint on hold until the due-process complaint was resolved. However,
the district withdrew its due-process complaint shortly thereafter. The district then
submitted a response to the administrative complaint. Parents submitted a reply to the
district’s response. In their reply, parents clarified that they sought an IEE as to student’s
current condition: “[Parents] do not seek ‘an IEE to determine whether [the] district’s
6
evaluation was appropriate at the time it was completed.’. . . [Parents] seek an IEE to
determine [student’s] disabilities and needs because the [d]istrict’s last evaluation missed
the boat.”
As part of its investigation, MDE had a phone conversation with the district’s
special-education director on March 19, 2024. The call notes from that conversation
provide: “Just got complaint info. IEP mtg this afternoon. Parents are coming in person.
Working to preserve relationship so that [student] can get [a free appropriate public
education]. Multiple team mtgs on accoms/mods for extracurriculars. District may request
a hearing.” Emails between MDE, the district, and parents reflect an exchange of relevant
documents. The record does not contain any other communications between MDE, the
district, and parents.
On May 29, 2024, MDE issued a decision in favor of parents. In reaching its
decision, MDE interpreted 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2) (2024) to allow only two options for
school districts when responding to a parent’s request for a publicly funded IEE: (1) “[f]ile
a due process complaint to request a hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate”; or
(2) “[e]nsure that an [IEE] is provided at public expense.” Accordingly, MDE concluded
that the district violated federal law when it proposed a reevaluation in response to parents’
IEE request, rather than taking one of the two prescribed options. MDE ordered the district
to either file a due-process complaint or pay for the IEE. The district opted to pay for the
IEE, but informed parents that it would seek reimbursement if successful on appeal.
The district petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review MDE’s decision.
7
DECISION
The district raises a number of challenges to MDE’s decision. As relevant here, 4
the district asserts that MDE engaged in arbitrary decisionmaking because it: (1) departed
from its prior decisions without an adequate explanation and (2) conducted an inadequate
investigation into parents’ claims. We begin by addressing the law governing this appeal
and then address the district’s arguments.
A.
We begin with a description of the laws governing this dispute. First, we discuss
the IDEA provisions relevant to this case. Second, we address how special-education
disputes are resolved in Minnesota.
1. The IDEA
Under the IDEA, Congress set minimum requirements for the education of public-
school students with disabilities. V.S., 981 N.W.2d at 211. “States may impose greater
requirements for special education than federal law.” Id. But “Minnesota’s special-
education requirements largely mirror the federal requirements.” Id.
The IDEA “ensure[s] that all children with disabilities have available to them a free
appropriate public education [or (“FAPE”)] that emphasizes special education and related

4 Because we agree with the district that MDE acted arbitrarily, we do not reach the broader
legal challenges in this appeal. See In re Denial of Contested Case Hearing Requests, 993
N.W.2d 627, 660 (Minn. 2023) ( declining to reach substantive issues and remanding to
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency after concluding agency engaged in arbitrary and
capricious decisionmaking).
8
services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education,
employment, and independent living.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). A FAPE means
special education and related services that—
(a) Are provided at public expense, under public
supervision and direction, and without charge;
(b) Meet the standards of the [state educational agency],
including the requirements of this part;
(c) Include an appropriate preschool, elementary
school, or secondary school education in the State involved;
and
(d) Are provided in conformity with an [IEP] that meets
the requirements of [34 C.F.R.] §§ 300.320 through 300.324.

34 C.F.R. § 300.17 (2024).
IEPs are “the centerpiece of the [IDEA]’s education delivery system” for children
with disabilities. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988). As explained above, “[a]n IEP
is a written statement prepared for each student with a disability that includes academic
and functional performance and goals, as well as the services and accommodations to be
provided to the student.” V.S., 981 N.W.2d at 211. School districts create IEPs using IEP
teams that include teachers, school representatives, and the student’s parents or guardians.
See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B).
IEPs are largely based on the results of statutorily required evaluations. See, e.g.,
id. § 1414(b)(2)(A)(ii), (c)(1)-(2), (d)(3)(A), (d)(4)(A). “[A]n evaluation [is] a
comprehensive assessment of the child that follows the mandatory procedures outlined in
. . . the IDEA, including assessing the child in all areas of their disability.” D.S. by M.S. v.
9
Trumbull Bd. of Educ., 975 F.3d 152, 163 (2d Cir. 2020). 5 As part of an evaluation, the
school district must “review existing evaluation data,” including “evaluations and
information provided by the [student’s] parents,” the student’s classroom-based
assessments, and teacher observations. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(c)(1)(A).
Students with suspected disabilities first receive a “full and individual initial
evaluation” to determine whether they are entitled to special-education and related
services. Id. § 1414(a)(1)(A). This evaluation involves the school district determining
“whether a child is a child with a disability” and “the educational needs of such child.” Id.
§ 1414(a)(1)(C)(i). To do so, the school district must “use a variety of assessment tools
and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information
about the child, including information provided by the parent.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(b)(1)
(2024); see also Minn. R. 3525.2710, subp. 3(B)(1) (2023) (substantially similar). And
school districts must comply with numerous procedural requirements when employing
these assessment tools and strategies. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c) (2024); Minn.
R. 3525.2710, subp. 3(C) (2023).
Following the initial evaluation, the student receives triennial reevaluations by the
school district, unless (1) it is determined that an earlier reevaluation is necessary or (2) the

5 Although we are bound only by U.S. Supreme Court and Minnesota Supreme Court
decisions interpreting the IDEA, other federal court decisions provide persuasive authority
when interpreting a federal statute . See Citizens for a Balanced City v. Plymouth
Congregational Church, 672 N.W.2d 13, 20 (Minn. App. 2003) (recognizing that we are
“bound by decision[s] of the Minnesota Supreme Court and the United States Supreme
Court,” but not “by any other federal courts’ opinion[s]” though such opinions “are
persuasive and should be afforded due deference”).
10
school district and parents agree that the triennial reevaluation is unnecessary. See 34
C.F.R. § 300.303(a), (b)(2) (2024). Some circumstances where an earlier reevaluation is
necessary include if the school district “determines that the educational or related services
needs . . . of the child warrant a reevaluation” or a reevaluation is requested by the student’s
parent or teacher. Id. § 300.303(a).
For school-district performed evaluations and reevaluations under the IDEA, certain
procedural safeguards are in place for parents given a school district’s “natural advantage”
in both “information and expertise.” Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 60
(2005). These safeguards “attempt[] to level the playing field between” the parent and
school district. D.S., 975 F.3d at 158.
One procedural safeguard is that a parent may request an IEE at public expense.
34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(1) (2024). As explained above, an IEE is an evaluation performed
“by a qualified examiner who is not employed by the” school district. Id.
§ 300.502(a)(3)(i). The right to request an IEE at public expense 6 triggers “if the parent
disagrees with an evaluation” or reevaluation the school district performed. Id.
§ 300.502(b)(1); see also G.J. ex rel. G.J. v. Muscogee Cnty. Sch. Dist., 668 F.3d 1258,
1266 (11th Cir. 2012) (“The right to a publicly funded [IEE] does not obtain until there is
a reevaluation with which the parents disagree.”). “Informing a school that, subsequent to

6 Parents always have a right to obtain an IEE at private expense. See 34 C.F.R.
§ 300.502(c), (e)(1) (2024). If parents obtain a privately funded IEE and share it with the
school district, the results of that evaluation “[m]ust be considered by the [school district],
if it meets agency criteria, in any decision made with respect to the provision of FAPE to
the child.” Id. § 300.502(c)(1).
11
an evaluation [or reevaluation], a child’s condition has changed is not the same thing as
disagreeing with the evaluation.” N.D.S. by de Campos Salles v. Acad. for Sci. & Agric.
Charter Sch., No. 18-CV-0711, 2018 WL 6201725, at *2 (D. Minn. Nov. 28, 2018).
If a parent “disagrees” with a prior evaluation or reevaluation and “requests an [IEE]
at public expense,” the IDEA’s implementing regulations provide that the school district
must either:
(i) File a due process complaint to request a hearing
to show that its evaluation is appropriate; or
(ii) Ensure that an [IEE] is provided at public
expense, unless the agency demonstrates in a hearing . . . that
the evaluation obtained by the parent did not meet [the school
district’s] criteria.

34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2). When making its decision, the school district may ask the
parent why they disagree with the evaluation or reevaluation, but the school district “may
not require the parent to provide an explanation” or “unreasonably delay” making its
decision. Id. § 300.502(b)(4) (2024). No Minnesota state court has addressed whether a
school district violates the IDEA and the attendant regulations if they do not employ one
of the two options in 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2), no matter the circumstances that bring
about the IEE request (including when a parent seeks an IEE due to changed
circumstances). And federal authority is split on this question.
7

7 Compare G.J., 668 F.3d at 1261, 1266 (concluding that parents were not entitled to IEE
when parents refused to first consent to triennial reevaluation for which their child was
due), and N.D.S., 2018 WL 6201725, at *4 (concluding that parents were not entitled to an
IEE on the basis that a prior reevaluation “was no longer accurate”), and Derek B. ex rel.
Lester B. v. Donegal Sch. Dist., Civ., No. 06-2402, 2007 WL 136670, at *14 (E.D. Pa. Jan.
12, 2007) (concluding that parents were not entitled to reimbursement from school district
for a private IEE when purpose of private IEE was to compare student’s current condition
12
2. Dispute Resolution
In Minnesota, there are two methods for resolving disputes over special-education
laws: (1) file a due- process complaint under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f) and Minn. Stat.
§ 125A.091, subd. 12 (2024), or (2) file an administrative complaint with the state
educational agency, which, in Minnesota, is MDE. 8 Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 281 v. Minn.
Dep’t of Educ., 743 N.W.2d 315, 322 (Minn. App. 2008). The due-process-complaint
process results in a hearing in which the parties submit evidence before an impartial hearing
officer who decides the case based upon the evidence presented at the hearing. See Minn.
Stat. § 125A.091, subds. 16-18, 20 (2024). The hearing officer’s decision can be appealed
either to our court or the federal district court. Id., subd. 24 (2024). In the administrative-
complaint process, MDE investigates complaints that a school district is not providing
required services to children with disabilities. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151-.153 (2024 ).

with his condition when last evaluation occurred two years prior), with Evans v. Dist. No.
17 of Douglas Cnty., Neb., 841 F.2d 824, 830 (8th Cir. 1988) (concluding that parents were
entitled to reimbursement for IEE after school district did not employ one of two options
in 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2) in response to their IEE request), and William S. Hart Union
High Sch. Dist. v. Romero ex rel. G.G., No. CV-13-3382-MWF (PLAx), 2014 WL
12493766, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2014) (concluding that school district must employ one
of two options in 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2) even though parents did not request IEE until
14 months after evaluation), and MP by VC v. Parkland Sch. Dist., No. 5:20- CV-04447,
2021 WL 3771814, at *3, *5, *17 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2021) (concluding that school district
must employ one of two options in 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2) even though parents did not
request IEE until 11 months after evaluation).
8 MDE “supervis[es] local school districts’ compliance with federal and state special -
education law,” and has the “authority to remediate the denial of special -education
services.” Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 192 v. Minn. Dep’t of Educ., 742 N.W.2d 713, 723 (Minn.
App. 2007) (Farmington), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 18, 2008).
13
MDE’s decision is reviewable by a petition for a writ of certiorari in our court. See Minn.
Stat. § 480A.06, subd. 3 (2024).
While implicating the due-process-complaint process, this appeal arises from
MDE’s decision on parents’ administrative complaint. When MDE receives an
administrative complaint, within 60 days, it must: (1) determine whether an investigation
is necessary, and if so, “[ c]arry out an independent on-site investigation”; (2) give the
parents an “opportunity to submit additional information”; (3) give the school district an
“opportunity to respond to the complaint”; (4) “[ r]eview all relevant information” ; and
(5) “[i]ssue a written decision . . . that addresses each allegation in the complaint.”
34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a). If MDE determines a school district violated the IDEA, MDE
must outline “corrective action” for the school district “appropriate to address the needs of
the child.” Id. § 300.151(b)(1).
With these provisions in mind, we turn to the district’s arguments.
B.
The district argues MDE acted arbitrarily when it determined that the district
violated 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2) when, in response to parents’ IEE request, it failed to
either file a due-process complaint or provide student with an IEE at public expense.
Specifically, the district submits that MDE failed to conform to its prior decisions or
conduct a thorough investigation into the situation before issuing its decision.
MDE issued a quasi-judicial decision not subject to the Minnesota Administrative
Procedure Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 14.001-.69 (2024). See Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, 811
N.W.2d 162, 165 (Minn. App. 2012), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 17, 2012). Accordingly, our
14
review is limited “to questions affecting . . . jurisdiction[,] . . . the regularity of [MDE’s]
proceedings, and, as to merits of the controversy, whether the order or determination . . .
was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or
without any evidence to support it.” Dietz v. Dodge County, 487 N.W.2d 237, 239 (Minn.
1992) (quotation omitted). An agency engages in arbitrary decisionmaking if it (1) “relied
on factors which the legislature had not intended it to consider”; (2) “entirely failed to
consider an important aspect of the problem”; (3) “offered an explanation for the decision
that runs counter to the evidence”; or (4) made a decision that “is so implausible that it
could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Minn.
Transitions Charter Sch. v. Comm’r of Minn. Dep’t of Educ., 844 N.W.2d 223, 235 (Minn.
App. 2014) (quoting Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. Minn. Dep’t of Agric., 528 N.W.2d 903, 907
(Minn. App. 1995), rev. denied (Minn. May 28, 2014)).
We begin with the district’s argument that MDE engaged in arbitrary
decisionmaking because it did not follow its prior decision and failed to explain the reason
for its departure. It is well-established that an agency acts arbitrarily when it fails to
“conform to its prior norms and decisions or, to the extent that it departs . . . set forth a
reasoned analysis for the departure.” In re Rev. of 2005 Ann. Automatic Adjustment of
Charges for All Elec. & Gas Utils., 768 N.W.2d 112, 120 (Minn. 2009) (In re Adjustment).
We agree with the district that, based upon the record, MDE did not follow its prior
decision. In 2019, MDE released its order in Complaint Decision 19-032C. There, the
parents filed an administrative complaint after the school district refused to pay for an IEE.
The parents asserted that they “disagreed” with a two-year -old evaluation. The school
15
district responded that, because the evaluation was two years old, it would not provide an
IEE at public expense, but would conduct an early reevaluation. The parents responded
that they would consent to the reevaluation if certain conditions were met. But when the
school district proposed a reevaluation plan, the parents did not consent. MDE determined
the school district complied with 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2) even though the school district
did not file a due-process complaint or provide a publicly funded IEE prior to reevaluation.
MDE reasoned that the parents had waited for over two years since their child’s last
evaluation to request an IEE and “used this request as a bargaining tool when negotiating
with the [school] [d]istrict.” MDE relied on the N.D.S. decision to support its decision.
Specifically, MDE quoted the following language from N.D.S.:
Congress specifically contemplated that a disabled child’s
circumstances would change. It gave the parents of a disabled
child the right to request a reevaluation, and it imposed an
obligation on the school to perform that reevaluation. If the
parents then disagree with the reevaluation, they can force the
school to defend it or pay for an IEE— but not until the school
first conducts a reevaluation.9

2018 WL 6201725, at *6 (citation omitted). Accordingly, MDE concluded that the school
district was not in violation of the IDEA for refusing to pay for an IEE until the child was
reevaluated. MDE noted that the parents could “revisit their request for an IEE” should
they disagree with the reevaluation.

9 The central legal issue in N.D.S. involved whether the parents’ due-process complaint
was barred by the IDEA’s statute of limitations. 2018 WL 6201725, at *3-4. The federal
district court ultimately remanded the case on that issue. Id. at *4. Accordingly, this
language is dicta. State v. Rainer, 103 N.W.2d 389, 396 (Minn. 1960) (“[A] ruling not
necessary to the decision of a case can be regarded as only ‘dictum.’”).
16
This case has striking similarities to Complaint Decision 19-032C. Parents sought
an IEE based on their disagreement with an over two-year-old reevaluation. The district
concluded that parents did not have a disagreement with the prior reevaluation, but rather
that circumstances had changed that warranted a new reevaluation. Parents refused to
allow a reevaluation and, instead, filed an administrative complaint. Despite these
similarities, MDE reached the opposite conclusion and decided the district vi olated
34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2) because, in response to the IEE request, the district did not either
file a due-process complaint or provide the publicly funded IEE. This is directly contrary
to Complaint Decision 19-032C in which MDE specifically concluded that the school
district had a third option where the parents waited for over two years to request an IEE:
refuse to pay for the IEE on the basis that the parents must first consent to a reevaluation.
We therefore conclude that MDE failed to follow its prior decision when it applied the
IDEA to disallow a school district from proposing a new reevaluation when a parent seeks
an IEE on an evaluation or reevaluation that is over two years old.
We also conclude that MDE did not adequately explain its reason for departing from
its prior decision. See In re Adjustment, 768 N.W.2d at 120. To reach its decision, MDE
noted the absence of “binding precedent” and that persuasive authority is contradictory
regarding the options available to a school district when it receives this kind of IEE request.
But MDE did not, then, explain why it was reaching the opposite legal conclusion that it
reached in Complaint Decision 19-032C. In so doing, MDE “abandon[ed] its own
precedent without reason or explanation.” In re Qwest’s Performance Assur. Plan, 783
17
N.W.2d 571, 578 (Minn. App. 2010) (quotation omitted). Under such circumstances, we
conclude MDE acted arbitrarily when it decided the district violated the IDEA. 10
The district also argues that MDE acted arbitrarily because it failed to investigate
whether parents actually “disagreed” with the reevaluation. The district cites Farmington
to support its argument. 742 N.W.2d at 720-22. There, we concluded that “[i]n complex
cases,” MDE’s investigation must include interviews and “substantive inquiries” with both
parties. Id. at 720-21. We noted that, although “credibility determinations play[ed ] a
significant role in sustaining the complainant’s principal allegations,” MDE only
interviewed the parent and the parent’s witnesses. Id. at 721. MDE did not interview
relevant school-district staff or make any “substantive inquiries” with school-district staff.
Id. at 720-21. We therefore concluded that MDE’s failure to conduct a more balanced
investigation resulted in an arbitrary decision. Id. at 722.
We agree with the district that this case presents a similar situation to Farmington.
The record reflects that MDE’s investigation included a review of the parties’ written
responses and exhibits, and one phone call with the district’s special-education director.11
But a parent must “disagree[]” with a prior evaluation or reevaluation before obtaining a

10 MDE argues that these cases are not factually similar because the parents in Complaint
Decision 19-032C used their consent to a reevaluation to bargain with the school district.
But the relevant question is whether school districts have a third option when a parent
requests an IEE even though only two options are listed in 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2).
Complaint Decision 19-032C plainly provided that a school district had a third option when
presented with an IEE request on a two-year-old evaluation.
11 MDE’s decision indicates that its investigation included discussions with parents and
district staff. But it does not appear from the record that MDE interviewed parents as part
of its investigation. The call log shows only one phone call with the district’s special-
education director.
18
publicly funded IEE. 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(1); see also G.J., 668 F.3d at 1266 (“The
right to a publicly funded [IEE] does not obtain until there is a reevaluation with which the
parents disagree.”). And the fundamental dispute between parents and the district was
whether parents “disagreed” with the prior reevaluation or if changed circumstances
required a new reevaluation. Despite this factual dispute and the “significant role” that
“credibility determinations” would play in resolving it, MDE did not have a single
conversation with parents. 12 See Farmington, 742 N.W.2d at 721-2 2. And, because the
district cannot require parents to provide an explanation, see 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(4), it
is significant that only an MDE investigator could develop the record to ascertain whether
parents genuinely disagreed with the January 2022 reevaluation. See 34 C.F.R.
§ 300.502(b)(4) (stating that “the public agency may not require the parent to provide an
explanation” for their disagreement with an evaluation). We therefore conclude that
MDE’s failure to conduct a more balanced investigation resulted in an arbitrary decision.
13

12 MDE asserts that, because parents used the buzz word “disagree” in their written
submissions, MDE did not need to engage in any further inquiry as to the nature of parents’
disagreement. But when, as here, credibility is crucial to determining whether a statutory
standard is met, MDE does not comply with the IDEA when it merely relies on one party’s
averments in written submissions. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a); Farmington, 742 N.W.2d
at 721-22.
13 We further note that requiring this balanced investigation is consistent with MDE’s prior
practice. In Complaint Decision 19 -032C, MDE determined that, consistent with the
IDEA, the school district could refrain from providing an IEE until the parents consented
to a reevaluation, reasoning that the parents waited over two years to request an IEE and
used their consent to a reevaluation as a “bargaining tool.” To make this finding, MDE
conducted an on- site visit and interviewed the student’s special-education case manager
who provided MDE with information supporting MDE’s “bargaining tool” finding. Here,
no on-site visit occurred, and MDE only contacted the district’s special-education director,
who is not a member of student’s IEP team. MDE did not contact any other district staff
or parents.
19
For these reasons, we conclude MDE acted arbitrarily when it issued its decision
that the district violated 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2) when it failed to either file a due-process
complaint or provide a publicly funded IEE. Accordingly, we reverse MDE’s decision and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.