Impartial Hearing Decision

KAKKKAKAKAKAEKAKAKKKAKEKEKRAKEREAEK ERE AEE KEKE * In the Matter of the Appeal of * * Mr ond Ms * On Behalf Of * * eT * From Action Of * * * * a Pe SEP ELLE SELLE LL LES SEL ELS EEE LE ESET SEL TET eee ESS HEARING OFFICER’S FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER August 13, 2014

DATES HEARINGS WERE HELD A Pre-Hearing Conference was held on March 6, 2014. Hearings were held in 2014 on April 2, 3, 9, 21, and June 6. INDIVIDUALS WHO APPEARED AT THE HEARINGS For the Parent Name Title The parents did not have any witnesses. Representing the Parents: The parents were represented by ve a Parent Advocate. For the District (All witnesses for the District were members of the staff of the District) 4"" Grade general Education Teacher, Integrated Classroom 4" Grade Integrated Teacher Reading Teacher School Psychologist Mss Director of Special Education and Pupil Personnel Services Representing the School District: The District was represented by Mr. F | Esq. and Mr. po Esq. WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED Parent Exhibits: A. IEP, dated 112/9/13 (13 pp)

B. Reevaluation by Multi-Disciplinary Team, dated 9/21/12 (8 pp) C. Reading Evaluation, dated 11/19/13 (2 pp) D. WADE Summary of Scores, dated 12/7/13 (1 p) E. i Grade Report Card, dated 12/6/13, (2 pp) F. Progress Report for Goals and Objectives, dated 3/6/14 (8 pp) G. “Request for Impartial Hearing, Disputed Issues, and Proposed Resolution,” dated 1/15/14 (4 pp) District Exhibits 1. IEP, 12/9/13 (13 pp) 2. Language Arts Portfolio, various dates, (46 pp) 3. IEP, 4/4/13 (11 pp) mi 4. Progress Report for Goals and Objectives, 2013-2014, 3/6/14, (8 pp) 5. Reading Evaluation, 11/19/13, (2 pp) 6. Report Card 2013-20114, 3/21/14, (7 pp) 7. TEP, 11,15 12, (10 pp) 8. WISC-IV , 9/19/12, (8 pp) 9. Teacher Rating Scales Report-Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition, 11/9/12, (10 pp) 10. CSE Meeting Request, 11/12/13 (1 p) 11. Reading Assessment Summary, 11/19-25/13 (5 pp) 12. CELF-4, 10/1/12, (7 pp) 13. Test of Auditory Processing Skills-Third Edition: TAPS-3 Scoring Summary, 2/6/14, (3 pp) 14. “District’s Response to Due Process Complaint,”, (4 pp) 15. “List of School District Exhibits, (4 pp)

16. District Binder l. Functional Behavior Assessment, 11/12/08, (6 pp.) 2. Functional behavioral Assessment, 12/17/07, (8 pp.) 3. > aePnNnu 0. 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Proposed Reevaluation/Additional Assessment and Request for Consent, 1/13/14, (6 pp) Proposed reevaluation/ Additional Assessment and request for Consent, 11//1813, (2 pp.) CSE Meeting Request, 11/12/13, (one page) Meeting Notice CSE, 11/2/11, (2 pp) CSE Meeting Request, 11/14/11, (one page) Consent for Special Education Placement, 3/22/11, (one page) Progress Report for Goals and objectives 2012-2013, 3/12/14, (10 pp) Progress Report for Goals and Objectives 2011-2012 and 2010-2011, (11 pp) Progress Report for Goals and Objectives 2013-2014, 3/6/14, (8 pp) Measurable Annual goals, short Term Objectives and Quarterly Progress Report, 10/30/06, (7 pp) TEP, 12/9/13, (13 pp) IEP, 4/4/13, (11 pp) TEP, 11/15/12, (10 pp) IEP, 3/8/11, (10 pp) TEP, 12/8//11, (10 pp) IEP, 3/22/11, (10 pp) IEP, 6/23/10, (6 pp) IEP, 7/14/09, (10 pp) IEP, 4/24/09, (7 pp) Preschool IEP, 2/10/09, (11 pp) . Preschool IEP, 4/30/08, (11 pp) Preschool IEP, 5/18/07. (17 p) Preschool IEP, 12/4/06, (6 pp) Student Benchmark, 3/18/1/4, (46 pp) Report Card 2013-2014, (2 pp) Report Card 2012-2013, (2 pp) Report Card, 2011-2012, (2 pp) Report Card 2010-2011, (2 pp) Report Card 2009-2010, (2 pp) Explanation of Grades, (1 page) Transition Plan. 9/12/06, (7 pp) WISC-IV Interpretive Report, 3/12/14, (8 pp)) Test of Auditory Processing Skills-Third Edition TAPS-3, Scoring Summary, 2/6/14, (3 pp) Reading Assessment Summary, 11/19-25/13. (5 pp) Reading Evaluation, 11/19/13, (2 pp) I Review Elementary, 6/1/12, (7 pp)

39. Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition, 11/9/12, (10 pp) 40. Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Fourth Edition, 10/1/12, (7 pp) 41. Reevaluation by Multi-Disciplinary Team Elementary 9/21/12, (9 pp) 42. Po therapy Annual review, 2/15/12, (9 pp) 43. Practice of Optometry Summary, 12/7/11, (1 page) 44. Summary of Standard Scores, 12/2/11, (1 page) 45 ERE crap Annual Review, 2/15/11, (121 pp) 46 BEE Therapy Evaluation, 2/22/10, (5 pp) 47. BM herapy Annual Review, 3/3/10, (11 pp) 48. Reevaluation by Multi-Disciplinary Team Elementary, 10/20/09, (20 pp) 49. Nt Report, 6/17/09, 6 pp) 50. herapy Evaluation, 6/8/09, (6 pp) 5), es | ducation Report, 1/31/09, 93 52. Annual Eh crapy ee se oe) . TM 53. | ; gam Evaluation, 7 10/30/08, (9 pr 54, WE 1/29/07, (5 pp) 55. ACLD herapy Evaluation, 7/13/07, (4 pp) 56. ADLD Annual Review 2007-2008, ((12 pp) 57. ACLD ; herapy Evaluation, 11/20/06, (4 pp) 58. ACLD Structured Observation, 11/16/06, (2 pp) 59. ACLD Preschool Student Evaluation Summary Report, 10/30,06 (5 pp) 60. ACLD Psycho-Educational Evaluation, 103006, (6 pp) 61. Child Outcomes Summary Form, 10/30/06, (5 pp) 62. ACLD EEE valuation, 10/30/06, (5 pp) 63. ACLD Social History Evaluation Family Based Interview, 10/3/06, (5 pp) In addition to the exhibits listed above, both arties submitted Post-Hearing Briefs. The parents submitted an 8-page statement. Mr Eb mitted a 28-page statement. STATEMENT OF FACTS At the time of these Hearings Po who was born on 03/29/2004, was attending = ntegrated, co-teaching classroom in ra chool District [District Exhibit 1]. His IEP, dated 12/9/13, indicates a classification of AN (D-1].

Ay s annual review meeting, held on April 4, 2013, the District’s Subcommittee on Special Education developed an IEP [D-1], which included the following services: 1. Special class 15:1 one hour per day for 5 days per week; 2. Integrated co-teaching services program, five hours a day, five times per week: 5. sessions, two times per week for thirty minutes per session. The IEP also listed 16 Evaluation Reports, 18Test Results, and Academic Achievement, Functional Performance and Learning Characteristics in the areas of reading, writing, speech/language and mathematics. Seventeen Measurable Annual Goals are also described in some detail. In addition to his special education services shown on his IEP.4 eived academic intervention services in reading in a small group setting during the 2013-2014 school year. The “Comments” section of the IEP states, in part: has made gradual but steady progress this year. He responds well to the additional classroom and pull-out . | the He is increasingly independent and responsible. is well-liked by his classmates and is benefiting from the group counseling service. Ins therapy, as made appreciable strides in expressive and receptive language. 12/09/13-Today’s meet s held at the request of Mr. and Mrs. P| They expressed concern withiiE s r' . In the classroom, @giiart is gaining confidence and he is a frequent participant n class. With regard to esults on theliifififind reading assessment indicate that a functioning on an independent. Instructional, which are two levels higher iii oe of the school years. Although results on the | the 1* percentile (Oral Reading Quotient), Mr. xplained that this assessment does not allow utilize reading strategies thaslfften employs when Milis in the classroom. MME reading teacher, as well as his classroom and support skills teacher, view ERs functioning at a low Mndependent level” [D-1]. The following month, the parents filed a “Request for an Impartial Hearing,” dated 1/15/14 [Parent Exhibit G]. PARENT’S POSITION

Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]). Ifa procedural violation has occurred, relief is warranted only if the violation affected the student’s right to a FAPE (J.D. v. Pawlet Sch. Dist., 224 F.3d 60, 69 [2d Cir. 2000]). A denial of a FAPE occurs when procedural inadequacies either result in a loss of educational opportunity for the student, or seriously infringe on the parents’ opportunity to participate in the IEP formulation process (see Werner v. Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F.Supp. 2d 656m 659 [S.D.N.Y. 2005]; W.A. Pascarella , 153 F. Supp. 2d, 144, 153 [D. Conn. 2001]; Briere v. Fair Haven Grade Sch. Dist., 948 F. Supp. 1242, 1255 [D.Vt. 1996], or compromise the development of an appropriate IEP in a way that deprives the student of educational benefits under that IEP (see Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. v. D.K., 2002 WL 31521158 [S.D.N.Y. 2002]). In evaluating the substantive program developed by the SCS, the Second Circuit has observed that “’for an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive the educational benefits, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression”’ (Weixel v. Bd. Of Educ., 287 F.3d 138, 151 [2d Cir. 2002], quoting M.S. v. Bd. Of Educ., 231 F.3d 96m103 [2d Cir. 1998] [citation and internal quotation omitted]). To do this, the record must be examined for “any objective evidence indicating whether the child is likely to make progress or regress under the proposed plan” (Grim, 346 F.3d at 383 [citation and internal quotation omitted]; Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir. 1998]). This progress, however, must be meaningful; i.e., more than mere trivial advancement (Walczak, 142F3d at 130). The IDEA, however, does not require school districts to develop IEPs that maximize the potential of a student with a disability (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 197 n.21, 199: See Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d.at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132; Antonaccio v. Bd. Of Educ., 281 F. Supp. 2d 710, 726 [S.D.N.Y. 2003]). An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student’s needs, establishes annual goals and short-term instructional objectives related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 020-014; Application of a Child with a disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9). An IEP must include a statement of the student’s present levels of educational performance, including a description of how the student’s disability affects his or her progress in the general curriculum (34 C.F.R. Sec. 300.347[a] [1]; see also 8 NYCRR 200.4[d] [2] [i]). School districts may use a variety of assessment techniques such as criterion-referenced tests, standard achievement tests, diagnostic tests, other tests, or any combination thereof to determine the student’s present levels of performance and areas of need (34C.F.R. Part 300, Appendix A, Section 1, Question 1).” Expectations A free and appropriate public education (FAPE) is offered to a student when (a) a school district 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. Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176,207-207 (1982); Cerra v. Pawling Central School District, 427 F.3d 186, 192 (2d Cir. 2005). In Board of Education v. Rowley, the Supreme Court established the two-part test for FAPE. The Second Circuit and federal district courts in New York have maintained, with various wording, the substantive standard of whether the IEP “is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits” (p. 206-207). For the procedural standard, the latest amendments and regulations of the IDEA have codified this view of the post-Row/ey progeny: In matters alleging a procedural violation, a hearing officer may find that a child did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies— (i) Impeded the child’s right to a FAPE; (ii) Significantly impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the parent’s child: or (iii) | Caused a deprivation of educational benefit. 20 U.S.C. section 1415 (f)(3)(E): 34 C.F.R. Section 300.513(a)(2) IDEA “does not require the School district to develop IEPs that maximize the potential of the student with a disability,” Board of Education v. Rowley 458 U.S. 176, 189 (1982). What the statute guarantees is an “appropriate education, not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents.” Id. See also, Grim v. Rhinebeck Central School District, 346 F.3d 377, 379 (2d Cir. 2003); Walczak v Florida Union Free School District, 142 F.3d 119, 132 (2d Cir.1998). The District must provide IEPs that are “likely to produce progress, not regression” or that afford the student with an opportunity greater than mere “trivial advancement.” Walczak v. Fl. Union Free School Dist. 142 F. 3d 119, 130 2d Cir. 1998); U.S.C. sections 1401(34)(A); see also 24 C.F.R. Section 300.43. The student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE)(20 U.S.C. Section 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. Sections 300.1 1[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.6[a][1]; see Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132. The LRE is defined as “one that, to the greatest extent possible, satisfactorily educates the disabled children together with children who are not disabled, in the same school the disabled child would attend if the child were not disabled” (Carlisle Area Sch. v Scott P., 62F.3d 520, 535 [3d Cir. 1995]). The LRE requirement is also applicable in assessing the appropriateness of unilateral parental placements. See M.S., on behalf of S.S., v. BOE of City School District of the City of Yonkers, 231 F.3d.96 (2d Cir. 2000). DECISION Based on the evidence and testimony presented during this case, I find that:

1. The Public Schools provided Robert with a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, and; 2. The testimony and evidence presented during this case does not support a need for a EEE ication and; 3. The testimony and evidence presented during this case does not support the need for additional reading instruction. District Witnesses The District presented five witnesses wh of the District’s position that there was no need for a ini for an additional d that the District offered APE. Each spoke confidently and demonstrated an understanding of the student’s needs and how to best achieve the goals and objectives shown on the student’s IEP. They clearly understood their role in the team effort to provide the student with a free and appropriate public education. They were professional and convincing in their testimony. The cross-examination of the District’s witnesses did nothing to shake their testimony. In fact, their cross-examination was not always directly related to their testimony. Often, al went far afield. However, inasmuch as he was not an attorney, he was given wide latitude in his questioning. — At times, he went too far. For example, vs testified at length as to the strategic@—sed in instructingii—i# testing procedureslfiltilized, books that Robert read, and the functioning of the co-teaching team [April 2, T- 29-59]. She concluded stimony, on dire e District’s position in this case. Wherlifiiilas turned over to ill cross-examination, they stated, “I have no questions now” [T-p.61]. He made no attempt to confront gf on her testimony. Later, he changed his mind and did cross-examinefJ However, his questions weren’t always related to her testimony. For example, he asked J§fabout report cards even though thei had made no mention of report cards in his direct examination | April 2, T-59]. Then he asked the witness a lengthy series of questions about owledge of syllables, as if he were givin lil test [April 2, T-pp. 73-78]. He began by asking at a syllable was. Then he asked ifffknew what a closed syllable was. Then, he asked MMF she knew what an open syllable was. Two syllable words? Three syllables words? How this related to the issues in this case was never made clear. Another example of cross-examination that was not directly related to the issues in this case was the ste of| who was an articulate and credible witness for the District. concluded lilidetailed testimony by stating that, not only did ————-~-y = o Bi clicve that a EESs not needed and that additional ee KKK GE ated that “The act of participating EEEECOuld actually harm Ai | in testing is not free of charge. A child comes down and understands either explicitly or implicitly that something is wrong with his functioning”... [April 21, T-p. 64]. Asked if additional evaluations could have an effect on the student’s self-esteem Ai _ replied: “Yes, you know, I do. That is one potential outcome. Nobody goes for psychological tests or a test of any sort working with a special education teacher and believes that everything is okay” [April 21, T-64]. instruction could be harmful ( A onsistent with the peers taken by other botrict’ meee stified that i urrently receives s part offfffeneral education and special education placement [April 3, T-p.66]. He explained that additiona could actually be harmful tolls education. Milkestified that: “T think the amount of time tha taken out of the classroom does hindeliflperformance in some ways. Sometimesllllllflltomes back into the classroom unaware of what is going on an@ilifilileeds to be redirected, and sometimedifihisses a lot of key taught information. EE isses information that is taught” [April 3, T-p.66]. Afte ummed up Mbcliefs in support of the District’s position, he was turned over to the Parent Advocate for cross-examination. Instead of confrontingiiii//////i/bn[very damaging testimony in opposition to the parents’ position, the (MME asked, “What is autism” [April 21, T-p.68]. A whole series of questions about iilllensued to the point where the witness himself asked, “Is the student’s classification at issue? I was not aware’ [April 21, T-p.70]. The MR | not respond but continued his questioning about autism as if he were challenging the classification. Finally, as the Hearing Officer, trying to get this case back on the issues in the “Request for Impartial Hearing,” I asked the Advocate if, in fact, the classification ofdvas an issue in this Hearing. He replied, “Yes, and I am getting there, but I am not there yet” [April 21, T-p.72]. He continued:the same line of questioning at some length. Finally, as I was fairly certain that the “Request for an Impartial Hearing” had not made any reference to a challenge ofMEEs classification, I asked the Advocate when a been classified as . The MBE i dnt know and had to check with the parents [April 21, T-p. 78]. The final result of additional questioning was that HB ad been classified autistic in pre-school testing and that his classification had not been in dispute in the past and was not an issue now [April 21, T-78-84]. Instead of cross- xan a, his damaging-testimony, (spent an inordinate amount of time on an issue which, it turned out, was not even in dispute.

In summary, the District witnesses were professional and credible in their —e with the District’s exhibits, they made a strong case that the District rovided with | Um there was no ewidence that tt nd NCCA Cee Disagreement with District’s Psychological Evaluation It must be noted that the parents have not disputed the District’s ither in their “Request for an Impartial Hearing,” testimony of witnesses or evidence submitted during the Hearings. It is true that the Commissioner’s Rules and Regulations grant the parents the right to an independent edycational evaluation each time the District conducts an evaluation with which the parents disagree. 8N 200.5(g). However, there is no evidence that the paren the District. Therefore, the parents are not entitled to a evaluation as a matter of law. Further, in Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-040, the State mina a request for Po explaining that the ‘stated that the district personnel! had enough information to know what worked in dealing with the student, and that ~~ additional testing that would be helpful.” That was exactly what ad testified. PARENTS’ CASE After the final District witness testified, the District rested. As the Hearing Officer, I turned to the @@and asked him to present his first witnesses. He replied, “We rest. We’re ready to submit our date for the brief” [June 6, T-p.23]. Thus, no witnesses testified on behalf of the parents at any time during this case. Concerned that no one would explain why a Re. :: needed and why ; a .:. required, J asked to have at least the parents speak to this issue. ne response was negative. No one would testify on behalf of the parents, including the parents. It should be noted that, while the parents did submit a number of documents in evidence at the Pre-Hearing Conference, the parents did not provide any witness or testimony explaining those documents or their relevancy to this case. Parents’ Post-Hearing Brief cme The.only document which provides some information about the parents’ point of view is the parents’ Post-Hearing Brief. However, there are two major problems with the Brief.

1. 2. find that: A number of issues are raised in the Brief that were not listed in the parents’ “Request for an Impartial Hearing.” The State Review Officer has consistently held, “a party requesting an impartial hearing may not raise issues at the impartial hearing that were not raised in its original due process complaint notice unless the other party agrees...or the original due process complaint is amended prior to the impartial hearing per permission given by the impartial hearing officer at least five days prior to the hearing. Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-111, citing 8 NYCRR 200,5(j)(1)(ii)and 200.54)(7)(b) (additional citations omitted). The Due Process Complaint notice in this case does not include any allegations (hot defective with regard to the accommodations on the IEP, the goals on the IEP, or the District’s implementation of those portions of the IEP. Further, the Due Process Complaint notice was not amended to include any additional allegations. With regard to the Brief itself, the State Review Officer has explained, in Appeal No. 11-111, that even where additional issues are raised through testimony and/or a post-hearing brief, if there is no agreement to expand the scope of the issues by the parties, those additional allegations must not be considered. : In their Brief, the parents quote statements made by someone named, Se | Parent’s Brief- page 7]. However, EE was not a witness in this case and never testified. I have no knowledge as to whois. Since my Decision must be based on the evidence and testimony presented during the Hearings, statements made by e not admissible. Further, the parents ask me to order that s report and recommendations be implemented and added togijgaigmppaedilll[Parents’ Brief — page 7].. However, a and recommendations were never admitted into evidence. I have not seen his report and [ have no idea as to what his recommendations are. Again, since they were not presented during the Hearings, his report and recommendations are not admissible. CONCLUSION Based on the evidence and testimony presented during this case, I must ublic Schools provided ij with i _ _ and 2. The —_— and evidence do not support the need for a \ — — = 3. The a and evidence do not support the need 70 1. The

SO ORDERED THIS THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST 2014 Arthur J. Venezia, Ed.D. Impartial Hearing Officer NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Public School District has a right to appeal the decision to a State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. if the parent plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shail be personally 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 so that a certified copy of the hearing record may be prepared for submission by the school district. If a school district plans to appeal the decision, the district shall file a certified copy of the hearing record together with its petition. An appealing parties’ petition for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party 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. (8 NYCRR § 279.2(b))

Since the parents’ “Request for an Impartial Hearing” was not clear, a Pre- Hearing Conference was held at which time the parents were asked to clarify the issues in this case. At that time, the Parent Advocate stated that some of the items listed in the “Request for an Impartial Hearing” had been resolved and that the only outstanding issues were Items B and C [Transcript of Pre-Hearing Conference —page 8]. Items B and C, as shown on Parents “Request for an Impartial Hearing” [Parents Exhibit G-page 4] are: DISTRICT’S POSITION The District*took a strong position t a . Sor for an ay The District believes it has provided Miwith a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. pease ISSUES The issues in this case are relatively clear: “" 1. Did the District provide FAPE fosiind: 2. Does the nn and evidence in this case a the need for a = ~ —~ INTRODUCTION “The purpose behind the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400-1487) is to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education (FAPE) (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400[[d] [1] [A]; Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S. Ct. 528 [2005]. A FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet the student’s unique needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401[8]; 34 C.F.R. Sec. 300.13; see 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1414[d]. A FAPE is offered to a student when the board of education (a) complied 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 education benefits (Bd. Of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206, 207 [1982]. While school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch.