07/17/2026
One trend I’ve noticed in several school districts is the belief that if they’ve attempted to schedule an IEP meeting twice, they can then set the meeting for any date and time they choose. That is not what the law requires.
IDEA requires schools to make reasonable efforts to ensure parent participation. If a parent is actively communicating, responding to scheduling requests, and working toward a mutually agreeable meeting time, there is no legal limit on the number of scheduling attempts that can be made. The focus is on making genuine, documented efforts to involve the parent in the process.
Yes, school districts must meet important timelines, such as annual IEP reviews and reevaluations. However, those obligations do not eliminate the requirement to meaningfully include parents in educational decision-making. A couple of scheduling emails alone does not automatically satisfy that obligation if the parent is engaged and making reasonable efforts to participate.
Every situation is unique, but it’s important for both schools and families to understand that meaningful parent participation is a cornerstone of the IDEA process, not simply checking a box after two scheduling attempts.
Parents are a mandated member of the IEP team — districts can't hold a meeting without inviting you. But "no parent in attendance" doesn't always mean your rights were violated.
Under 34 CFR 300.322(d), a district can proceed without you if they can show they made real efforts to get you there at a mutually agreeable time. That means documented attempts: phone logs, emails, even records of home/workplace visits.
⭐️ Bottom line: if a district can prove they tried in good faith and you didn't engage or collaborate on a time to meet, the meeting can move forward without you. Know your rights and your responsibilities as a team member.
👉 EXAMPLE: White Bear Lake Independent School District #624, 64 IDELR 288 (SEA MN 2014):
A father claimed his rights to participate in the IEP meeting were violated when the district refused to meet after work hours and proceded to meet without him in attendance. The district was able to defend their actions with documentation of their efforts. They submitted emails to show that the student's case manager asked the father whether he could attend a 7:30am meeting, at the very start of the staff's contracted hours for the day, before school started. Testimony also revealed that the principal offered to schedule the meeting during the father's lunch break so he could participate virtually. The father declined those offers and the district was not found to be at fault.
