NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number:
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: April 2, 2013
April 16, 2013
April 26, 2013
Actual Record Closed Date: April 26, 2013
Hearing Officer: Jeffrey J. Schiro, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 2, 2013
Advocate — Student
Parents
Parents
DR., Psychologist — Student
ESQ., Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 16, 2013
Advocate — Student
Parents
Student
Representative — Student
ESQ., Attorney — DOE
Special Education Administrator — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 26, 2013
Advocate — Student
Parents
Student
ESQ., Attorney — DOE
School Psychologist — DOE
I. JURISDICTION - OVERVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
This impartial due process proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482, and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law. This hearing was originally requested by the advocate for the student and the parents in a due process complaint notice dated February 6, 2013, later amended on March 19, 2013. The primary issues to be determined at this hearing are whether or not the Department of Education (the “DOE”) shall be ordered to classify the student as one with an educational disability and place the student in a residential treatment center (Exs. P-D at 11, P-E at 11).[1]
When a student in New York is eligible for special education services, the IDEA calls for the creation of an individualized education program (“IEP”), which is delegated to a local Committee on Special Education (the “CSE”) that includes, but is not limited to, parents, teachers, at least one psychologist, and school district representatives. See N.Y. Educ. Law § 4402; see also 20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(d)(1)(A)-(B); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320, 300.321; 8 NYCRR §§ 200.3, 200.4(d)(2). If disputes occur between parents and school districts, incorporated among the procedural protections is the opportunity to engage in mediation, present State complaints, and initiate an impartial due process hearing. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1221e-3, 1415(e)-(f); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151 - 300.152, 300.506, 300.511; N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1); 8 NYCRR §§ 200.5(h)-(l).
New York State has implemented a two-tiered system of administrative review to address disputed matters between parents and school districts regarding “any matter relating to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of a student with a disability, or a student suspected of having a disability, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such student.” See 8 NYCRR § 200.5(i)(1); see also 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(b)(6)-(7); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.503(a)(1)-(2), 300.507(a)(1). An impartial hearing officer (“IHO”) typically conducts a trial-type hearing regarding the matters in dispute in which the parties have the right to be accompanied and advised by counsel and certain other individuals with special knowledge or training; present evidence and confront, cross-examine and compel the attendance of witnesses; prohibit the introduction of any evidence at the hearing that has not been disclosed five (5) business days before the hearing; and obtain a verbatim record of the proceeding. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(f)(2)(A), (h)(1)-(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.521(a)(1)-(4); 8 NYCRR §§ 200.5(j)(3)(v), (vii), (xii). The IHO must render and transmit a final written decision in the matter to the parties not later than 45 days after the expiration of the resolution period. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.510(b)(2), (c), 300.515(a); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(5). A party may seek a specific extension of time of the 45-day timeline, which the IHO may grant in accordance with State and federal regulations. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(5). If extensions have been granted, the decision shall be rendered and transmitted to the parties no later than 14 days from when the record is closed. See 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(5). The decision of the IHO is binding upon both parties unless appealed. See N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1). A party aggrieved by the decision of an IHO may subsequently appeal to a State Review Officer (“SRO”). See N.Y. Educ. Law § 4402(2); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1415(g)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.514(b)(1); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(k).
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I was appointed by the DOE to hear this matter on February 12, 2013 following the recusal of another hearing officer. A pre-hearing conference with the parties was held on March 18, 2013 to clarify the issues and set a date for the hearing. See 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(3)(xi). Hearings in this matter were held on April 2, 2013, April 16, 2013, and April 26, 2013.[2] Appended to this decision are: a statement of appeal rights; a list of the persons in attendance at the hearings; and a list of the documents received into evidence. See 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(5)(v).
III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
At the time of the March 19, 2013 amended hearing request, the student was a fifteen (15) year old general education student enrolled in (Exs. P-E, P-Z).
The student by his parents at the from and brought to the United States in . The student . The student was from birth. At the time of his admission to the , and delays (Exs. P-H at 4-5, P-L at 1).
Upon his arrival to the United States, the student was examined by a pediatrician who found the student . The doctor did not . The student of his developmental domains and made all of on time. The student had and was able to make friends and play well with other children (Ex. P-L at 1).
According to the student’s , his formal schooling began , where he socialized well with other children. He went to through , and then transferred to for grades He went to . He had no behavioral or academic issues from grade, at which time he was in general education and on the honor roll (Exs. P-H at 5, P-I at 1, P-L at 2-3).
The student’s behavior at home has since He as with his parents and has become , prompting an . He has been socializing with individuals who are much older than him and . It is known that the and, with his “friends.” The parents have made attempts to get him and a therapist, but the student has refused to go (Ex. P-H at 6, P-L at 2, P-KK, P-LL).
The student failed to earn any credits school year (2011/12) due to his repeated classes. His teachers commented that he and when he did attend class, he up to his ability and . His teachers acknowledged and attributed to his and lack of motivation. The parents requested a comprehensive evaluation from the DOE for the provision of special education services to the student (Exs. P-H at 6, P-I at 1, P-L at 3, P-N, P-V, PW).
As part of a January 24, 2012 evaluation, the student was administered the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Fourth Edition (“WISC-IV”) by , a school . The student received a Full Scale IQ score of which indicated that his general thinking and reasoning skills were in . The student was also administered the Woodcock Johnson Testes of Achievement - Third Edition (“WJ-III”). When compared to others in his grade, the student’s academic achievements scores were in the average range in broad reading, broad math, and math calculations skills. , Ms. found the student to be pleasant, cooperative and age appropriate (Exs. P-I at 3-5, P-M). A classroom observation could not be conducted due to the student’s from class (Ex. P-J).
At a meeting held on February 3, 2012, the CSE concluded that the student was ineligible for classification as a student with and educational disability. The CSE related that the student had expressed a dislike of his current school, i.e., and that he wanted to transfer to another school . The CSE noted that the student’s Full Scale IQ score was in the and that academically, he scored at or above grade level in ) and ( ). The CSE stated that the parent had refused evaluation of the student, and without such an evaluation, it recommended that the student remain in general education (Exs. P-U, PAA).
Following the CSE’s February 3, 2012 determination that the student did not have an educational disability, the parents secured a private combined developmental, neuropsychological and educational assessment, conducted by Dr. in March 2012. From assessments conducted by the DOE and Dr , the student’s general measured in the solidly average to high average range. Dr. concluded that the student suffers from due to in his pre-adoption years. Based on his evaluation and a review of the student’s developmental history, Dr. diagnosed the student , and a . Dr. stated that while the student does not have a per se, his and lack of intrinsic motivation to achieve in school constitutes an educational handicap, preventing his acquisition of instruction at a pace and level commensurate with his (Ex. P-H at 18, 24-25).
At a school meeting held on January 9, 2013, at which the student’s mother and advocate attended, the school participants suggested that the student transfer to the , a District school housed in a , when a seat becomes available and receive . The meeting concluded with an understanding that an evaluation by Ms. , and a January 22, 2013 CSE meeting, would be scheduled (Ex. SD-13).
On a January 9, 2013 social history update, it was noted that the student of his classes, is his parents, and frequently (Ex. P-O) On a January 20, 2013 educational evaluation conducted by Ms. , she stated, in relevant part:
[The student’s] broad reading is on level and broad math on the grade level. When compared to others at his grade level, [the student’s]
performance in broad reading, mathematics, and math calculations skills.
[The student] understands issues of right and wrong. Yet, he continues to in all classes and completing assignments. His shows he is in school regularly. However, . It is suggested that his family consider family counseling to that may be causing him to spend time with this friends instead of (Ex. P-X at 2
At a meeting held on January 14, 2013, the CSE concluded that the student was ineligible for classification as a student with and educational disability. The CSE ruled out a based, in part, on Ms. ’s academic testing. , the student did not (at that time) have a dean’s file at school and had not shown any aggression (verbally or physically) toward other students or staff. The student’s academic performance was attributed to regularly attend his classes (Exs. P-P, P-Q, P-R, P-X).
At a meeting held on February 5, 2013, the CSE again concluded that the student was ineligible for classification as a student with and offered the at the . The CSE noted that the student presented with at home, but that his cognitive ability had been assessed in the average range and his academic skills in math and reading were at, or above, grade level (Ex. SD-14). In a note dated February 5, 2013, the student’s mother for the student (Ex. SD-12).
Following the filing of the original February 6, 2013 due process complaint, the student , on or about March 18, 2013, and of (Ex. P-HH).
IV. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. The DOE
The DOE concedes that the student was denied a free appropriate public education and recommends that the IHO order the student to special education teacher support services (as the DOE had previously agreed to in a resolution session on a prior, related claim) as compensatory education (Exs. P-A, P-B, P-C, P-BB).
B. The Parents
The DOE should be ordered to classify the student as one with and that the student be placed in a residential treatment center (Exs. P-D, P-E).
V. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. General Legal Standards
Two purposes of the IDEA are: (1) to ensure that students 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 living; and (2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected.[3] See 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A)-(B); see generally Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2491 (2009); Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 (1982).
A FAPE is offered to a student when: (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA; and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA’s procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 (2d Cir. 2005). While school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render and IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA. See A.C. v. Board of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 553 F.3d 165, 172 (2d Cir. 2009); Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 (2d Cir. 2003). Under the IDEA, if a procedural violation is alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies: (a) impeded the student’s right to a FAPE; (b) significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student; or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(2); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(4)(ii).
The IDEA directs that, in general, an impartial hearing officer’s decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(I). A school district offers a FAPE “by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction.” See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203. However, the “IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP.” Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 (2d Cir. 1998); see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189. The statute ensures an “appropriate” education, “not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents.” Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 (2d Cir. 1989). Additionally, school districts are not required to “maximize” the potential of student with disabilities. See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132. Nonetheless, a school district must provide “an IEP that is ‘likely to produce progress, not regression,’ and . . . affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere ‘trivial advancement.’” Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130; see also P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 (2d Cir. 2008). The IEP must be “reasonably calculated to provide some ‘meaningful’ benefit.” Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 (2d Cir. 1997), quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192.
The student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (the “LRE”). See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114(a)(2)(I), 300.116(a)(2); 8 NYCRR §§ 200.1(cc), 200.6(a)(1); Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir. 2007); Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132. Also, a FAPE must be available to an eligible student “who needs special education and related services, even though the [student] has not failed or been retained in a course or grade, and is advancing from grade to grade.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.101(c)(1); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(c)(5).
An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student’s needs, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(1); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(d)(2)(I), establishes annual goals related to those needs, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(2); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(d)(2)(iii), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(d)(2)(v).
The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement. See N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c).
B. Eligibility
The parents assert that the student met the criteria for classification as a student with under State and federal regulations, and consequently, upon evaluation by the DOE, should have been found eligible to receive special education program and related services.
According to State and federal regulations, a student with must meet one or more of the following five characteristics:
(A) An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors;
(B) An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers;
(C) Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances;
(D) A general pervasive ;
(E) A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems.
34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(4); see also 8 NYCRR § 200.1(zz)(4). Additionally, the student must exhibit one or more of the five characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects the student’s educational performance. See id; see also N.C. v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist., 2008 WL 4874535 (2d Cir. 2008); Maus v. Wappingers Cent. Sch. Dist., 688 F. Supp. 2d 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); A.J. v. Board of Educ., 679 F. Supp. 2d 299 (E.D.N.Y. 2010). While the term emotional disturbance includes schizophrenia, the term does not apply to students who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined that they otherwise meet the criteria above. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(4); 8 NYCRR § 200.1(zz)(4).
The evidence in the hearing record, reviewed carefully and taken as a whole, demonstrates that the student’s were the conditions. Dr. diagnosed the student with which from acquiring instruction at a pace and level commensurate with his cognitive abilities (P-H at 18, 25-26). Since his enrollment in high school in September 2011, the student has engaged in under normal circumstances, including and parents which have led to his failure to achieve any high school credits toward graduation (R. 45-46; Exs. H at 6, P-I at 1, P-L at 2-3, P-N, P-V, P-W, P-KK, P-LL).
C. Residential Placement
The IDEA requires “appropriate” relief, and “the only possible interpretation is that the relief is to be ‘appropriate’ in light of the purpose of the Act.” Burlington, 471 U.S. at 369. “‘Equitable considerations are relevant in fashioning relief,’ Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374, and the court enjoys broad discretion in so doing.” Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 16 (1993).
A prospective order that requires a placement in a private school is appropriate “beyond cavil” when an educational program “calling for placement in a public school [is] inappropriate.” Burlington, 471U.S. at 370. “[A] disabled student is not required to demonstrate that he cannot be educated in a public setting. Under [the Act], the relevant question is not whether a student could in theory receive an appropriate education in a public setting but whether he will receive such an education.” Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E., 172 F.3d 238, 248-249 (3d Cir. 1999). “Although it ordinarily has a structural preference for special education in public schools, the Act does not foreclose a compensatory award of placement in a private school.” Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1286 (11th Cir. 2008).
Based on the credible testimony and analysis of Dr. I find that a residential treatment center with a full-day specialized self-contained educational environment with integrated special education remedial and therapeutic services over a twelve (12) month period will provide the student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment (R. 46-47, 80-82; Ex. P-H at 27). After it develops an appropriate IEP for the student, the CSE will be directed to refer the matter to the DOE’s Central Based Support Team (“CBST”) for selection of an appropriate State-approved nonpublic school placement. See, e.g., Application of a Child with a Disability (New York City Dep’t of Educ.), Appeal No. 07-049 at 10 (SRO July 12, 2007) (“the assignment of a particular school is an administrative decision provided it is made in conformation with the CSE’s educational placement recommendation”).
VI. ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF FACT, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) within 30 days of the date of this Order, the CSE shall convene a meeting to educationally classify the student as one with an and develop an IEP for the student which shall recommend a program of a full-day specialized self-contained residential educational environment with integrated special education remedial and therapeutic services on a twelve (12) month basis; and
(2) within 30 days of the date of this Order, the CSE shall refer the student’s program to the DOE’s CBST for selection of an appropriate State-approved nonpublic school placement which is capable of implementing the CSE’s program recommendations for the student. Dated: May 10, 2013
JEFFREY J. SCHIRO, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer
JJS:gc
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
“The notice of intention to seek review shall be served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petition for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. The petition for review shall be served upon the school district within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period.”
(8NYCRR279.2[b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.
Directions and sample forms for filing an appeal are included with this decision. Directions and forms can also be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm.
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
PARENT
A. Due Process Complaint Notice/Impartial Hearing Request, 5/7/12, 8 pgs.
B. [Reserved]
C. Due Process Complaint Notice/Impartial Hearing Request, 7/30/12, 8 pgs.
D. Due Process Complaint Notice/Impartial Hearing Request, 2/26/13, 12 pgs.
E. Amended Due Process Complaint Notice/Impartial Hearing Request, 3/19/13, 12
pgs.
F. [Reserved]
G. [Reserved]
H. Combined Developmental, and Educational Evaluation, 3/17/12, 30 pgs.
I. Confidential Psychological Report, 1/24/12, 6 pgs.
J. Classroom Observation, 2/2/12, 1 pg.
K. Notice of IEP Meeting, 1/25/12, 1 pg.
L. Social History Evaluation, 12/12/11, 3 pgs.
M. WISC-IV Interpretive Report, 1/24/12, 10 pgs.
N. Classroom Teacher Evaluations, 1/22/13, 3 pgs.
O. Social History Update, 1/9/13, 2 pgs.
P. Prior Written Notice, 1/14/13, 3 pgs.
Q. Student Readmit Form, 2/1/13, 1 pg.
R. Letter to parents from (Guidance Counselor), 3/8/13, 1 pg.
S. E-mail to from , 1/26/12, 1 pg.
T. [Reserved]
U. CSE Review Summary, 2/3/12, 2 pgs.
V. Student Report Card ( grade), 1/9/13, 1 pg.
W. Student Report Card ( grade), 1/31/13, 1 pg.
X. Educational Evaluation Report, 1/10/13, 2 pgs.
Y. Letter to from , 1/2/13, 1 pg.
Z. Student Report Card ( grade), 8/2/12, 1 pg.
AA. Notice of Recommendation, 2/3/12, 1 pg.
BB. Letter to , 10/9/12, 1 pg.
CC. E-mail to , 10/10/12, 2 pgs.
DD. E-mail to , 10/15/12, 1 pg.
EE. E-mail to , 10/20/12, 1 pg.
FF. Letter from Parents, 10/22/12, 1 pg.
GG. E-mail to , 1/2/13, 2 pgs.
HH. Family Court Petition, 3/18/13, 4 pgs.
II. Superintendent’s Notice, 3/14/13, 6 pgs.
JJ. Letter to (ACS Caseworkers), 4/11/08, 2 pgs.
KK. Letter to (ACS Caseworkers), 5/8/12, 2 pgs.
LL. Letter to (ACS Caseworkers), 2/5/13, 2 pgs.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
1. [Reserved]
2. [Reserved]
3. [Reserved]
4. [Reserved]
5. [Reserved]
6. [Reserved]
7. [Reserved]
8. Student Attendance Record (2012/13), 3/25/13, 1 pg.
9. Notice of IEP Meeting, 1/14/13, 1 pg.
10. [Reserved]
11. [Reserved]
12. Parent Consent, 2/5/13, 1 pg.
13. Meeting Summary, 1/9/13, 3 pgs.
14. CSE Review Summary, 2/5/13, 1 pg.
15. Consent for Release of Information, 4/18/12, 2 pgs.
IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER
None
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD FOLLOWING THE HEARING
PARENT
None
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
None
IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER
I. Confirmation of Extension, 3/7/13, 1 pg.
Footnotes
[1] References to the hearing transcript are noted as “R.” References to exhibits admitted into evidence are noted as “Ex.”
[2] Following my appointment to this case, the parties moved to extend the case compliance date in this matter once in order to allow the parties adequate time to present their available witnesses on the extensive issues raised in the parents’ due process complaint. In considering that request, I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that allowing the parties adequate to present their available witnesses on the extensive issues raised in the parents’ due process complaint justified the delay in the resolution of the matter and was in accordance with the requirements of due process. Accordingly, the request for an extension of the case compliance date was granted (Ex. IHO-I).
[3] The term “free appropriate public education” means special education and related services that – (A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; (B) meet the standards of the State educational agency; (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and (D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under section 1414(d) of this title. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17.