NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
STUDENT, a minor, by and through his Parent(s), [1]
Petitioners,
AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case No: 250853
-against-
NEW YORK CITY DOE, CSE REGION [REDACTED]
Respondent.
Jennifer Mazzei, Esq.
Hearing Officer
INTRODUCTION
This matter comes to your undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer on Parent’s Due Process Complaint (hereinafter, “DPC”), filed on or about July 5, 2023 (P-Ex. A[2]). Your undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (hereinafter IHO) was appointed on July 11, 2023. A Prehearing Conference in this matter was scheduled for, and held on, August 14, 2023, and there was no request for extension of the compliance date at that time. There was a pendency hearing held on August 21, 2023, Pendency was Ordered thereafter, and an extension of the compliance date was granted upon a joint application. On September 26, 2023, a status conference was held, and a hearing was requested with no extension of the compliance date requested. On October 2, 2023, an impartial hearing commenced, and an extension of the compliance date was granted upon application of the Department of Education (hereinafter DOE) and over the objection of Parents. On October 23, 2023, the hearing was concluded with the submission of closing briefs.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the hearing and all conferences were held via the Escribers Conferencing Platform, without objection from either party. Exhibits were pre-marked, and Parent offered into the record as evidence Exhibits A-K, with Exhibit K being the closing brief, and which were entered into the record without objection. Respondent (hereinafter DOE or District) did appear at the Impartial Hearing but did not submit any evidence and did not defend an offer of FAPE, though also did not officially concede a denial of FAPE. The DOE did submit a closing brief, which is marked as DOE Exhibit 1. Your undersigned IHO did not enter any exhibits into the record as IHO Exhibits. Parent called two (2) witnesses; Student’s Parent (hereinafter “Parent”), and the Deputy Director of Special Education at Student’s Private School (hereinafter “Deputy Director”) The District did not call any witnesses.
JURISDICTION
The Due Process Hearing was held, and a decision in this matter is being rendered, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (hereinafter, “IDEA”),[3] 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300 et seq., and the New York State Education Law, Educ. Law Art. 89 § 4404 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 8 NYCRR § Part 200.
BACKGROUND
Student is a [REDACTED] year old that attends the Private School for the 2023-2024 extended school year, which is the school year at issue in the instant matter. Student is classified by the DOE as having a [REDACTED] (P-Ex: D-73). For the School year at issue, the DOE convened a Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) on March 17, 2023. The CSE noted Student’s diagnoses and her intensive management needs and recommended an 8:1:1 classroom in a District 75 school, which Parents did not believe would provide the one-to-one attention that Student requires (P-Ex.: D, H). Parent expressed concerns about the DOE’s failure to recommend music therapy (“MT”) for Student (P-Ex: 2, H). The DOE also recommended Occupational Therapy (“OT”), Physical Therapy (“PT”), Speech-Language Therapy (“SLT”), and Vision Education Services (“VES”), all in 30-minute sessions, which Parent felt would not be sufficient for Student to make substantial progress. (P-Ex: D-66-67).
At the start of the 2023-2024 school year, Parent indicated that the CSE failed to provide Student with a final IEP and failed to provide a Prior Written Notice (“PWN”) or a School Location Letter (“SLL”) to Parent. (P-Ex: A, H).
Thereafter, Parent advised the DOE, via a Ten-Day Notice, of their intent to enroll Student at the Private School. (P-Ex: B). Said Ten-Day Notice also expressed concerns with a District 75 school’s ability to implement Student’s IEP mandates, including: a too-large class size ratio, inappropriate class functional and academic grouping, inadequate staffing, non-accessibility, unavailability of adequate resources, and the lack of individualized attention and support (Id).
ISSUE
The DPC alleges that the DOE denied the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) by not providing an appropriate program and placement for the 2023-2024 school year (P-Ex. A). Parents have requested the following:
1. An Order declaring that DOE denied Student a FAPE during the 2023-2024 ESY;
2. A determination that the Private School is an appropriate placement for Student;
3. An Order directing payment by DOE directly to the Private School for the cost of Full Tuition for the 2023-2024 ESY in addition to the costs of related services, and a 1:1 paraprofessional, as needed;
4. Direct payment/prospective funding of special education transportation with limited travel time, a 1:1 transportation nurse and/or paraprofessional, air conditioning, a lift bus, porter services, and a regular-sized wheelchair;
5. Reconvene a new IEP meeting to address changes if necessary;
6. An Order directing DOE to fund an independent neuropsychological evaluation.
FINDINGS OF FACT
After considering all the evidence and arguments of counsel, the Findings of Fact are as Follows: Parent was present at the Impartial Hearing and testified by way of Affidavit and through a translator, that Student has attended the Private School since the 2018-2019 school year and is presently [REDACTED] years old and suffers from [REDACTED] which has resulted in severe impairments in many areas including language, memory, physical functions, information processing, and speech (P-Ex: H-1), Student is also non-verbal, non-ambulatory and has intensive management needs (P-Ex: H-1).
During the 2023-2024 school year IEP meeting, the DOE recommended a District 75 school, with which Parent strongly disagreed due to Student’s lack of safety awareness and her inability to communicate and ambulate on her own (P-Ex:H-2). Parent also felt that Student required a 1:1 travel nurse or paraprofessional, and very specific transportation, which the DOE did not recommend. Parent further testified that they never received a school location letter or prior written notice and therefore could not have evaluated any public school for Student without this information (P-Ex: 2).
Consequently, Parent sent a 10-day notice to the DOE of their intention to enroll Student at the Private School and seek public funding for said placement, all the while being open to a public placement for Student (P-Ex: H-2, P-Ex:B). Parent then placed Student at the private school and testified that she has made progress there (P-Ex: H-3).
Also testifying for the Parent by way of Affidavit was the Deputy Director of Special Education at the Private School. He testified that the Private School is a highly specialized educational program in New York City created for children who suffer [REDACTED]. The Private School has an extended 12-month school year and offers all services during its extended school day, which runs from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm (P-Ex: J-2).
The Private School is an interdisciplinary program for students, many of whom are nonverbal and non-ambulatory. Each student at the private school requires a 1:1 paraprofessional to assist with activities of daily living and to have access to and benefit from the educational program. Many students also require a 1:1 nurse to attend to the students’ health needs (P-Ex:2-5). Every student at the Private School has their own IEP, which was curated by the Private School (P-Ex: J-2). Students at the Private School are given direct instruction, cognitive strategies, and compensatory education (using diagnostic-prescriptive approaches), behavioral management, physical rehabilitation, therapeutic intervention, social interaction, and transition services (P-Ex: J-2). The Private School offers numerous related services to Students, including occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech language therapy, vision education, assistive technology services, music therapy, parent counseling and training, and hearing education services, usually in 60-minute increments (P-Ex: J-3).
At the Private School, Student is placed in a small 8:1:1 class, with direct and small group instruction, as well as individual OT 4x per week, individual PT, 5x per week, individual SLT 4x per week, and 1x per week in a small group, vision education services 2x per week, Assistive Technology 1x per week, and music therapy 2x per week individually and 1x per week in a small group, all delivered in 60 minute sessions (P-Ex: J-4). Student also has the assistance of a 1:1 paraprofessional throughout the day. (P-Ex: J-4).
The Deputy Director testified that Student has made progress across both academic and related service domains while enrolled at the Private School and the Deputy Director further testified that he anticipates that Student will continue to make progress at the Private School (P-Ex: J-4). Parent also testified that he felt Student has made progress at the Private School (P-Ex: J-H-3)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISCUSSIONS
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, the arguments of counsel, as well as this Hearing Officer’s own legal research, the Conclusions of Law are as follows: The Individuals with Disability Education Act (“IDEA”) is a comprehensive statutory framework established by Congress to ensure that students with disabilities are afforded a FAPE. See: 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 US 49 (2005). A “free appropriate public education consists of educational instruction that is designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from the instruction.” Bd. of Ed. Hendrick Hudson CSD v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 188 (1982). To demonstrate that FAPE is being provided, the school district must show “that it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and that the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits.” See: Application of Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-061, quoting, Rowley at 206. The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment with non-disabled peers. See: Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dt., 142 F.3rd 119 (2nd Cir. 1998). Two purposes of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a 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 (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B]; see generally, Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2491 [2009]; Rowley, at 206-07). An appropriate program begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the results of the 1) student’s present levels of performance; 2) provides for the use of appropriate special education services to address the child's special education needs; 3) establishes annual goals which are related to the child's educational deficits; 4) identifies transitions services; 5) provides a start and end date to the recommended program and services; and 6) criteria and evaluation procedures for the measurement of goals. See: Walzczak, supra; Id., Appeal No. 00-005. “The initial procedural inquiry is no mere formality.” Walczak, at 129. “Adequate compliance with the procedures prescribed [by IDEA] would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP.” Rowley at 206. For an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression. This progress must be meaningful, i.e., more than mere trivial advancement. Walczak, supra.
In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. __, 14 (2017), the Court held that, “[t]o meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances, as a focus on the particular child is at the core of the IDEA. The instruction offered must be “specially designed” to meet a child’s “unique needs” through an “individualized education program.” §§1401(29), (14) (emphasis added), to reflect the fact that a contemplated IEP must be focused on the “particular child that is at the core of the IDEA”. In such case, the school is still required to ensure the student is given an IEP that requires not just academic but also functional progress and, although the goals may differ for students, each child must have an IEP that includes goals and services to enable a child to make both academic and functional progress. The court further stated that an IEP “is not a form document. It is constructed only after careful consideration of the child’s present levels of achievement, disability, and potential for growth” §§1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)–(IV), (d)(3)(A)(i)–(iv), and that “a student offered an educational program providing “merely more than de minimis progress” from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.”
The Court in Endrew further stated that, “t]he IDEA demands more. It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Although the Supreme Court declined to elaborate on the definition of “appropriate progress” from case to case, it stated that, “the adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created.” Finally, The Supreme Court in Endrew declined to hold, as it declined to hold in Rowley, that “every handicapped child who is advancing from grade to grade . . . is automatically receiving a [FAPE].” Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 203, n. 25 (1982). A Student’s “IEP need not aim for grade-level advancement. But his educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances, just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for most children in the regular classroom. The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives.” Endrew F. v. Douglas 580 U.S. ___ (2017). “It cannot be the case that the Act typically aims for grade-level advancement for children with disabilities who can be educated in the regular classroom but is satisfied with barely more than de minimis progress for those who cannot.” Id.
DISTRICT’S BURDEN:
The DOE did not offer any exhibits into the record either testimonial or documentary save for a closing brief, which is not evidence (DOE- Ex:1).
The Supreme Court has found that “[a] reviewing court may fairly expect those authorities be able to offer a cogent and responsive explanation for their decisions that shows the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of his circumstances,” Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 137 S.Ct. at 1002 (2017). Here, the District provided no defense of FAPE at all.
Based upon the lack of evidence above, I find that the DOE failed to meet their burden and thus I must find the DOE did not provide the Student with a FAPE for the 2023-2024 extended school year.
PARENT’S BURDEN:
Parents seeking reimbursement “bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate” Gagliardo, at 112; see M.S. v. Bd. Of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 104 [2d Cir. 2000]). “Subject to certain limited exceptions, ‘the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the school district's placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents’ placement…’” Gagliardo, at 112, quoting Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006). Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65). When determining whether the parents' unilateral placement is appropriate, ultimately, the issue turns on whether that placement is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits” (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115). A private placement is only appropriate if it provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student (20 U.S.C. § 1401[29]; 34 CFR 300.39[a][1]; Educ. Law § 4401[1]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[ww]; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-89).
A Private School placement must be “proper under the Act” (Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), i.e., the Private School must provide an educational program which meets the student's special education needs. See, Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129. A parent's failure to select a program approved by the State in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement (Carter, 510 U.S. at 14). The Private School need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student (id. at 14). The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement.
“Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child’s individual needs. To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child’s potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.” (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, quoting Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65).
Finding that the DOE did not provide FAPE to the student during the 2023-2024 school year, the burden now shifts to Parent to prove the appropriateness of the Private School. After reviewing the testimony and evidence provided, I find that Parent has met that burden. The Private School appears to have provided educational instruction specially designed to meet Student’s physical and educational needs. Student has been placed in a small and supportive setting, with a 1:1 paraprofessional in a school that specializes in students with [REDACTED] disorders (P-Ex:J). The Private School provides a multitude of related services as well as direct and small group instruction in order to minimize Student’s distractions and work with Student (P-Ex: J-4).
With respect to Student’s progress at the Private School, a finding of progress is not required for a determination that a student's unilateral placement is adequate, but it is a relevant factor to be considered (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115, citing Rafferty v. Cranston Pub. Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 26-27 [1st Cir. 2002]). However, here Student has made progress as characterized by both the Parent and the Deputy Director.
Based upon all of the above, I find that the Private School was an appropriate placement for Student for the 2023-2024 school year.
EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS:
Equitable considerations are relevant in determining relief “because the authority to grant reimbursement [under the IDEA] is discretionary.” Frank G., 459 F.3d at 363-64 (quoting, Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374). In balancing the equities, I find in favor of Parent. Parent has provided appropriate notice to the DOE of their intent to unilaterally place Student in the Private School and seek reimbursement (P-Ex: B). To the extent possible, the Parent has participated in all aspects of the special education process and there was no evidence presented that would operate to preclude or otherwise diminish a reimbursement award. Additionally, Parent signed a contract with the Private School for which he is personally liable should the DOE decline to reimburse him, or should he not prevail in the within decision (P-Ex. F). Parent also testified that he would be unable to pay for the tuition up front. Based on the foregoing, the credible evidence presented supports a finding that Parent was financially obligated to, and could not afford to, fund the costs of tuition for Student at the Private School during the 2023-2024 extended school year.
STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A PUBLICALLY FUNDED INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION:
Parent is further requesting in their Due Process Complaint for an independent neuropsychological evaluation.
State and Federal regulations clearly guarantee that such a right to obtain an independent evaluation exists for parents. See: 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (b)(1); 34 C.F.R. 300.502; 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.5(g). However, regarding reimbursement there must be some level of disagreement with the official evaluation conducted by the school district. See: R.L. v. Plainville Bd. Of Educ., 363 F. Supp. 2d 222 (D. Conn. 2005). The case law interpreting the IDEA does leave the nature of said disagreement somewhat amorphous. It certainly does not need to take any form of formalized notice. See: Glen v. New Haven Bd. Of Educ., 219 F. Supp. 3d 296, 317 (D. Conn. 2016) stating “all a parent must do is disagree with an evaluation obtained by the public agency.” D.S. v. Trumbull, 975 F.3d 152, 168 (2d Cir. 2020). So, the gravamen of the issue presented is whether the Parent in the present case “disagreed” with the formal assessment conducted by the local educational agency. Furthermore, a parent has a right to an Independent Educational Evaluation at public expense unless the LEA decides to initiate an impartial hearing to defend its present evaluation. See: 34 C.F.R. §300.502(b)(2); Letter to Baus, 65 IDELR 81 (OSEP 2015). The Parent simply must “disagree” with the presently conducted evaluation and notify the Department of Education of such disagreement.
As stated above, such disagreement does not need to take on any specific format or formalized notice. See: Glen v. New Haven Bd. of Educ., Id. Thus, we can infer that even a verbalized request or displeasure could be sufficient. In the present case, there was a formal request in the form of Due Process Complaints filed for the 2023-2024 extended school year (P-Ex: A), which can easily be interpreted as a “disagreement” with whatever, if any, formal assessment had been conducted. Further, an impartial hearing was conducted in this matter, and no formal defense was made of the DOE’s Evaluation, or if there even was any evaluation. Student is therefore entitled to a full independent neuropsychological evaluation at public expense.
STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM THE PRIVATE SCHOOL:
Entitlement to the provision of transportation to and from school by the DOE is warranted where “a student lives within 50 miles of a nonpublic school which a child with a handicapping condition attend, if such child has been so identified by the local committee on special education …”. New York State Education Law § 4402 (2)(d). It is undisputed that Student falls within the confines of that statute because Student is a child with a handicapping condition who has been identified as such by the applicable CSE. (P-Ex. A).
Moreover, Student resides less than 50 miles as required by the applicable statute (P-Ex. A) Therefore, Parent has established that Student meets the statutory geographic and distance requirement and thus, a claim for transportation to and from School for the 2023-2024 extended school year.
DECISION:
Based on a review of the record and the facts mentioned above, I find that the DOE failed to provide the Student FAPE during the 2023-2024 extended school year. I further find that the Parent’s unilateral placement at the Private School was appropriate. I further find that the Parent is entitled to reimbursement and/or funding of tuition at the private school and further Order the following:
ORDERED:
1. The DOE denied Student a FAPE during the 2023-2024 extended school year;
2. The Private School is an appropriate placement for Student;
3. The DOE must directly pay, to the Private School, the cost of full tuition for the 2023-2024 extended school year;
4. The DOE must directly pay, to the Private School, the costs of related services, and a 1:1 paraprofessional, as needed;
5. The DOE must directly pay/prospectively fund/reimburse special education transportation with limited travel time, a 1:1 transportation nurse and/or paraprofessional, air conditioning, a lift bus, porter services, and a regular-sized wheelchair pursuant to the terms of the contract between Parent and Sisters Travel and Transportation Services, LLC, in an amount not to exceed Two Hundred and Nineteen Thousand ($219,090.00) Dollars.
6. The DOE is directed to reconvene a new IEP meeting to address changes if necessary;
7. The DOE is directed to fund an independent neuropsychological evaluation for Student.
ORDERED
DATED: October 26, 2023
Jennifer Mazzei
Impartial Hearing Officer
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Within 40 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 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
If either party plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally served upon the opposing party no later than 25 days after the date of decision sought to be reviewed.
An appealing party’s request for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party within 40 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing party shall file the notice of intention to seek review, notice of request for review, and proof of service with the Office of State Review of the State Education Department within two days after the service of the request for review is complete. The rules of procedure for appeals before an SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part 279 and model forms are available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov.
APPENDIX A – PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION
[REDACTED], a minor, by and through her parent, [REDACTED] v. New York City DOE, CSE Region [REDACTED]
Student[REDACTED]
Parent [REDACTED]
Private School [REDACTED]
The Deputy Director [REDACTED]
APPENDIX B – ADMITTED EXHIBITS
[REDACTED], a minor, by and through her parent, [REDACTED] v. New York City DOE, CSE Region [REDACTED]
PARENT EXHIBITS
PARENT EXHIBIT DATE DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF PAGES
A 07/05/2023 Due Process Complaint IH # 250853 8
B 06/20/2023 Ten Day Notice 2023-24 SY 2
C 03/23/2022 [REDACTED] 2022-23 School Year 95
D 03/17/2023 DOE IEP 2023-24 School Year 77
E 03/28/2022 DOE IEP 2022-23 School Year 75
F 07/05/2023 [REDACTED] Contract 2023-24 School Year 6
G 07/01/2023 Transportation Agreement 2023-24 School Year 6
H 09/19/2023 [REDACTED] Affidavit 3
I 09/19/2023 [REDACTED] Affidavit (Spanish Translation) 3
J 09/19/2023 [REDACTED] Affidavit 5
K 10/17/2023 Closing Brief- Parent 16
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EXHIBITS:
1. Closing Brief Dated: October 17, 2023, 9 pages
IHO EXHIBITS:
NONE/NOT APPLICABLE
Footnotes
[1] Personally identifiable information is attached as Appendix A to this decision and must be removed prior to public distribution.
[2] Exhibits shall be referred to as follows: “P” for Parent Exhibit; “D” for the District’s or Department’s Exhibits; and “IHO” for the Impartial Hearing Officer’s exhibits. Reference to the Transcript shall be referred to as “T”.
[3] In 2004, Congress reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. See Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (Dec. 3, 2004), effective July 1, 2005. The amendments provide that the short title of the reauthorized and amended provisions remains the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. See Pub. L. 108-446, § 101, 118 Stat. at 2647; 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2006) (“This chapter may be cited as the ‘Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.”).