Procedural Safeguards
The Bottom Line
The procedural safeguards are a summary of the due process rights parents are entitled to. We must provide them:
At least once per year (i.e., annual IEP meeting)
Upon initial referral or parent request for evaluation
Upon request by a parent
On the date the decision is made to change the placement of a child with a disability due to a violation of a code of student conduct (i.e., when manifestation determination is needed)
Upon receipt of the first state complaint to MDE in a school year
Upon receipt of the first due process complaint in a school year
We can't just offer a copy, they need to be explained. The school is responsible for the parent's understanding of their contents.
Go-To Tools
These are your day-to-day useful tools. The rest of this page (below this section) is guidance.
Procedural Safeguards Part B.pdfSummary Cover Sheet: This handy cover sheet was created by Barb Anderson, a case manager in Chisago Lakes. Stapling a copy to the safeguards packet helps her remember the basic information that needs to be reviewed, and it also provides the parent(s) with a helpful summary.
It is highly recommended that the cover sheet be printed on colored paper to clearly indicate that it is not part of the MN procedural safeguards.
Verbal Explanation to Parents
Example Explanation:
“Before we begin the meeting, I would like to offer you a copy of the Minnesota procedural safeguards. This packet explains the legal rights and protections you have as a parent of a child receiving special education."
Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) & Least Restrictive Environment (LRE):
"Jill has the right to receive a free and appropriate public education within the least restrictive environment."
"This means that the school is legally obligated to propose a plan that will provide Jill with a reasonable opportunity to make meaningful progress while also providing her with as much access to non-disabled peers as we can."
"The school is not obligated to provide Jill with the best services possible or an opportunity superior to what other students receive."
Parent participation in decision making + Written notice and consent/objection to proposals (including the dispute resolution process):
"We will provide you with written notice whenever we propose changes to Jill's programming."
"As her parent, you have the right to participate in those decisions and to consent or deny consent for any proposals."
"If you disagree with a proposal, we will participate in a dispute resolution process, which is a formal way of resolving disagreements between parents and schools."
Records (i.e., confidentiality):
“You also have the right to view or request copies of Jill's school records. Before we proceed with the meeting, do you have any questions about your rights and protections?"
Afterward:
Take notes on any questions using your meeting agenda.
Have the parent initial the Record of Team Meeting form indicating “Procedural Safeguards brochure given to parent.”
Offer to answer any questions about the procedural safeguards that the parent thinks of after the meeting.
Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
Under the IDEA, school districts are required to provide a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to students with disabilities in each student's Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). Following the 2017 Supreme Court Decision in Endrew F. vs. Douglas County a FAPE was redefined to include the following characteristics:
An IEP that is reasonably calculated
Opportunities to make progress appropriate in light of the child's unique circumstances
The chance to meet challenging objectives
Parents are engaged in IEP planning in meaningful ways
This is the standard that school districts will be held to in any future legal proceedings regarding the provision of special education services.
✋ FAQ: How much progress/benefit constitutes an "appropriate" education? "Just-Above-Trivial" vs. "Meaningful" vs. "Best Possible"
The Endrew F. decision replaced the previous "just-above trivial" educational benefit standard (from the Rowley case of 1982) with a standard that requires schools to offer IEPs that represent a reasonable opportunity for meaningful educational benefit. The U.S. Department of Education's guidance indicates that decisions about what meets this standard should be made by: the IEP team’s expertise, the progress of the child, the child’s potential for growth, and the views of the child’s parents. The IEP team should consider:
Special education and related services
Effectiveness of specific instructional strategies, supports and services
The child’s previous rate of academic growth
Whether or not the child is on track to achieve or exceed grade-level proficiency
Behaviors interfering with the child’s progress
Additional input provided by the child’s parents
While the school must offer programming that is "reasonably calculated" to help the student make meaningful progress, the school is not obligated to maximize the child's potential or to provide the student with an opportunity superior to that offered to general education peers. The right to FAPE does not guarantee a child and their parents a specific educational program, and as long as the school is proposing programming that meets Endrew F.'s "reasonably calculated" standard, it will be meeting its obligations under the IDEA. FAPE also doesn’t give the student a right to preferential treatment for clubs and sports. However, the school must provide the student with an equal opportunity to participate.