## Facts

- A fifth-grade student with disabilities (including autism spectrum disorder and Tourette syndrome) received special education services under an Individualized Education Program (IEP).
- The student’s parents asked the district’s IEP team to consider supplementary aids and services so the student could participate in extracurricular and nonacademic activities (e.g., volleyball, after-school clubs, and a fifth-grade graduation party).
- The school district refused to consider those requested supports during IEP meetings, asserting that extracurricular/nonacademic supports were outside the IDEA IEP process and, if anything, were matters for § 504.
- The parents filed an IDEA complaint with the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE).
- MDE found the district violated IDEA by refusing to consider supplementary aids and services for extracurricular/nonacademic participation and ordered corrective action, including convening an IEP team meeting to determine necessary aids and services.
- The court of appeals agreed IDEA reaches extracurricular/nonacademic participation but limited IEP coverage to activities “required for the education” of the student; it also addressed whether the district was responsible for supports related to a PTO-sponsored graduation party.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review to decide whether IDEA regulations impose the court of appeals’ “required for education” limitation and to clarify decision-making authority.

## Issues

1. Whether IDEA regulations (34 C.F.R. §§ 300.107, 300.117, 300.320(a)(4)(ii)) limit extracurricular and nonacademic activities addressed in an IEP to those “required for the education” of a student with a disability.
2. Whether, under those regulations, the IEP team (rather than the state agency or unilateral district action) determines which extracurricular/nonacademic activities and which supplementary aids and services are appropriate and necessary.
3. Whether a district violates IDEA by categorically refusing to consider requested supplementary aids and services for extracurricular/nonacademic participation through the IEP process.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court held that IDEA regulations do not limit extracurricular and nonacademic activities in an IEP to those “required for the education” of the student.
- The court rejected the court of appeals’ added “required for education” constraint as inconsistent with the text and purpose of the regulations.
- The court held that the student’s IEP team determines which extracurricular and nonacademic activities are appropriate for inclusion in the IEP and which supplementary aids and services are appropriate and necessary for participation.
- The court clarified that MDE may enforce IDEA compliance (including requiring the district to convene the IEP team and consider the requests), but may not substitute its judgment for the IEP team’s determinations on specific activities and supports.
- The court reversed the court of appeals to the extent it imposed the “required for education” limitation.

## Legal Principles

- Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.107, public agencies must take steps, including providing supplementary aids and services determined appropriate and necessary by the IEP team, to afford students with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities.
- Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.117, public agencies must ensure each student with a disability has supplementary aids and services determined by the IEP team to be appropriate and necessary to participate with nondisabled peers in nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities.
- Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4)(ii), an IEP must include supplementary aids and services to enable participation in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; the regulation contains no “required for education” qualifier.
- A district violates IDEA when it refuses to use the IEP process to consider whether supplementary aids and services are needed for extracurricular and nonacademic participation.
- A state education agency may require corrective action to ensure IDEA procedures and obligations are followed, but determinations about appropriate activities and necessary supports are committed to the IEP team.

## Conclusion

The court held that IDEA’s implementing regulations require IEP teams to consider and, when appropriate, include supplementary aids and services for extracurricular and nonacademic participation to provide equal opportunity, without limiting IEP coverage to activities deemed “required for education,” and it confirmed that these determinations belong to the IEP team rather than being dictated by the state agency.


Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12 v. Minn. Dep’t of Educ., 788 N.W.2d 907 (Minn. 2010)