-1- UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, P la in t if f, v. Ci vilAc ti on N o. 08 -2 25 1 ( JD B) EV AU DN EE BR

YA NT -JAM ES, Motherand Next F riend of E.T., a Minor, Defendan t.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION Plaintiff District of Columbia brings this ac tion ag ainst Evaudnee Br y ant-James, mother and next friend of he r minor son E.T., pursua nt to the I ndividuals with Disabilit ies Education Act (" I DEA" ), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. The D istrict challeng es an a dverse administrative dec ision ho ldi ngthat it

de nie d E .T . a

fr e e a pp ro pr iate pu

bli c e du c atio n b y

fa ili ngto p la c e him

in a fu lltim e sp e c ia l e du c atio n p ro g ra m. C ur re ntl y be fo re the Court

are [11, 14 ] the pa

rt ie s'
c ro ss- mot ion s f

or summa ry jud g me nt. Up on

c on sid e ra

tio n o f t he mot ion s, the pa

rt ie s' memoranda , the administrative re cord, the applicable law, and the entire r ecor d here in, and for the re asons set for

th below, the Court will deny the District' s motion for summary judgme nt and wi ll gra nt B ryant- Jame s' c ro ss- mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. BACK GR OUND I. The In divid uals w ith Disabi lities Edu cation Act Under I DEA, a ll states that rec eive f eder al educ ation assistance , which includes the Di str ic t of

Col umb ia , mu st e sta

bli shpo lic ie s a

nd pr oc e dure s to e ns ur e that " [a] f re e a pp ro pr iate-2-

publ ic e du cat io n [ "FAPE "] is avai lab le t o al l ch il dren wi th di sab il it ies res id in g in t he S tat e . . . . " 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1) (A). T he law de fines a F APE as " specia l education and related servic es that (A) ha

ve bee n provided at public expense, under public supe rvision and direc tion, and without charg e; (B ) mee t the standards of the State educ ational ag ency ; (C) include a n appropr iate pre school, eleme ntary school, or sec ondary

school educ ation in the State involved; and (D ) ar e provide d in conformity with the individualiz ed educ ation prog ram re quired unde r [l aw]." I d. § 1401(9). Onc e a c hild is found to qualify for a FAPE, the sc hool district is required to develop and implement a n individualiz ed educ ation prog ram (" I EP") f or him or her . I d. § 14 14 (d )( 2) (A ). Th e I EP c omp re he ns ive ly de sc ri be s th e stu de nt' s p re se nt a c a de mic le ve l, d e ta ils
measura ble annua l goa ls for the student, spec ifies nec essar y educational and re lated ser vices, a nd establishes the e x tent to which the student will participate in a re g ular e ducation cla ssroom. I d. § 1414(d)( 1)(A) (i). To deve lop the I EP, a team de termines whe re the student should be place d. I d. § 1414(e)
. I f no public school ca

n meet the c hild's ne eds, the state is re quired to plac e him or her at an appropr iate private school and pa y the tuition. I d. § 1412(a) (10)( B) (i); see also Sch. Comm. of Bur lington v. De p' t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369 (1985) . I f a pa rent disagree s with the I EP or the
s u b s equ en ts ch o o l p l ac em en t , h e o r s h e i s en t i t l edt o an "i mp art i al d u e p ro ce s s h ea ri n g" conducte d by

the state or loc al educ ational ag ency . 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1) (A). Any party may bringa civil ac tion challeng ing the hear ing of fice r' s decision. I d. § 1415(i)(2) (A). II. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound E. T. is a thi rt e e n- y e ar- old

e ig hth g ra de stu de nt who atte nd e d I de a l A c a de my Pub lic Charter School from pre -kinderg arte n throug h the 2007-08 school year . Administrative Record-3-

(" AR") , at 5-6. E. T. ' s p are nts fi rs t a sk e d th e Di str ic t of Col umb ia

Pub lic Sc ho ols (" DC PS" ) t o a dd re ss difficulties their son wa s havingwith rea ding in 2003. I d. at 6. In May of 2007, DCPS st ill had
no t a c te d o n th e se re qu e sts , a nd E. T. ' s p are nts fi le d a

n a dmi nis tr ativ e du e pr oc e ss c omp la int to obtain evaluations of their son. I d. at 99. The pa rties settled, and D CPS ag ree d to fund
numerous eva luations of E.T. I d. at 255-56 These e valuations beg an in ea rly 2008. A psy choeduc ation evaluation concluded that E.T. " suffe rs from diff

iculties with readingand proc essingspeed," defic iencies which " interfe re with his acade mic perf

ormanc e and the ref

ore pr eclude [] him from perf orming at his ' rea l' le vel of intellectual ability ." I d. at 123. The e valuator de termined that E.T. " would benef it from being place d in a classr oom setting whe re he would rec eive instructions that ar e commensur ate with the rate at which he lear

ns." I d. at 124. E.T. also under

went a c linical psy cholog ical eva luation. The eva luator found that E.T. "ha s signific ant proc essingspeed diff iculties that neg atively

influence his perfor

mance in the
sc ho ol e nv ir onme nt, " and de te rm ine d th at E .T . s ho uld be g ive n s ho rt e r a ssi g nme nts and te st questions, as well as e x tra time to complete his wor k. I d. at 141. She also conc luded that E.T. "requ ir es s up po rt iv e th erap y to add res s[ , i nt er al ia, ] emo ti on al r eact io n t o acad emi c di ffi cul ti es. " She wrote, thoug h, that E.T. " is not curre ntly considere d as a student r equiringspecia l education service s." I d. E.T. had a

speec h and languag e eva luation as well. The e valuator a ssessed E.T. a s having "sig nificant de ficits in auditory and phonolog ical proc essingaff ectinghis rece ptive languag e and
re a din gsk ill s. " I d. at 13 5. She re c omm e nd e d th at E .T . b e pla c e d in a str uc tur e d a nd sy ste matic-4-

re a din gpr og ra

m, a nd that hi s te a c he rs br e ak c omp le x dir e c tio ns int o s imp le r f or m and g ra nt h im extra time to complete assig nments. I d. She further sug g ested that E.T. r ece ive spee ch and languag e ther apy

twice a wee k for 30 minutes. I d. E.T. also re ceive d a socia l history evaluation. I d. at 162-63. The evaluator conc luded that "[c]ontinuation in a regular e ducation settingcould furthe r dela y [E.T.'s] prog ress rate and
cause social-e motion st ress." I d. at 163. He f ound that E.T. nee ded a " small structured se tting with a low teac her to student ratio to facilitate spec ialized inst ruction," "[i]ndi vidual counseling
once a wee k," a s well as re medial assistance . I d. In April 2008, a multidisciplinary team met to re view E.T.' s evaluations. Recog nizi ng that E .T . h a d s pe e c h a

nd langua g e de fi c ie nc ie s, the te am de ve lop e d a n I EP whe re by

E. T. wo uld be g iven extended time to complete assig nments, id. at 244, and would re ceive two hours of counselingand two half

-hour se ssions of speec h/lang uag e ther apy per w eek, id. at 235. E.T. was to r e ma in f

ull -t ime in I de a l A c a de my ' s g e ne ra l e du c atio n p op ulatio n. I d. at 24 0. E. T. ' s p are nts ag ree d with the I EP. I d. at 235. E. T. re c e ive d tw o a dd iti on a l e va luatio ns ov e r t he ne xt two months . T he fi rs t w a s a neuropsycholog ical eva luation. I d. at 145-56. The evaluator judg ed that E.T. wa s functioning "be low" or

"w ell below expectation" in a number of are as, and that he would " require fre quent
mon ito ri ng , f

re qu e nt r e phra sin gof

qu e sti on s, and

de mon str atio n o f t a sk s in or de r t o g e t hi m to do wh at is e xpe c te d o f h im. [His ] ina de qu ate c omp re he ns ion and imp uls ivi ty

su g g e st t hat he is likely to have diff

iculty completingtasks . . . without one-on-one attention . . . ." I d. at 151. Concluding that E.T. "w ill need intensive ac ademic se rvice s," the evaluator sug g ested that E.T.
rec eive c ounseling , and be pla ced " in a school environme nt where eff orts are made to simplify-5-

information and tasks," and whe re he would g et extra time to complete assig nments. I d. at 152. The sec ond evaluation was an a uditory proce ssing e valuation per formed by Dr. Jay Luc ke r. I d. at 16 5- 72 . D r. Luc ke r c on c lud e d th at E .T . " is d e sp e ra te ly in n e e d o f i nte rv e nti on s to help him deal with and ove rcome " his numer ous and sig nificant de ficits in auditory information proce ssing. I d. at 169. He r ecommende d that E.T. be g iven quiet lear ning, study , and testing
e nv ir onme nts , b e ta

ug ht u sin gvis ua l c ue s, and re c e ive " pr e -t e a c hin g ." I d. at 17 0- 71 . H e a lso sug g ested seve ral dire ct treatment educational prog rams. I d. at 171. On J uly 30, 2008, the multidis ciplinary team re viewed E .T.' s more re cent e valuations and issued a new

I EP. The team a g ree d that E.T. should rec eive one -on-one instruction, that assig nments should be prese nted in smaller piec es, and that teache rs would re peat dire ctions. I d. at 56. The te am also dete rmined that, in addition to the therapy he wa s alrea dy

rec eiving , E.T. would rec eive se ven hours pe r we ek of spe cialized instruction. I d. at 51. He w as to rema in at I deal Ac ademy , but would be out of the g ener al educ ation population 21-60% of the time. I d. E
. T
. 's p ar en t s fe l ta f

u l l -t i m e s p ec i al i z ededu ca t i o n al s et t i n g wa s n ec es s ary t o ad dre s s E
. T
. 's needs, id. at 59-60, and did not ag ree to the updated I EP, id. at 51. Th e fo llo wi ngwe e k, Dr . L uc ke r a dd e d a

n a dd e nd um t o h is r e po rt

to " c lari f[y]" his
rec ommendation. I d. at 176-77. He wrote that E.T. "is in nee d of intensive interve ntions. He require s a small class settingthat is quiet and distraction fr ee. . . . [S] ervic es must be provided ind ivi du a lly , o n a

pu ll o ut b a sis at le a st thr e e tim e s a we e k. " I d. at 17 6. He the n o bs e rv e d th at, "[b]ecause [E.T.'s] problems are related to listening a nd communication skills, the classroom has to b e a ve ry highly str uc tur e d, c omm

un ic atio n b a se d c la ssr oo m e nv ir onme nt i n whic h la ngua g e is
c on tr oll e d a

nd no ise le ve ls a

re ke pt v e ry

low ." I d. F ina lly , h e of

fe re d th at " sin c e [E. T. ' s]-6-

problems will affe ct his learning , he nee ds learningsupport service s from a spe cial educ ation teac her or a spec ial educa

tion learningenvironment." I d. Severa l day s later, E.T.' s pare nts filed an administrative due proce ss complaint alleg ing that DCPS denied E.T. a

FAPE. I d. at 39-50. The y insisted that E.T.'s July

I EP was inappropriate, and that I deal Ac ademy was a n inappropriate place ment. I d. at 45-46. The y asked DCPS to place a

nd fund E.T. " at the par ent' s place ment of choic e." I d. at 48. A hea ringoffice r held a

due proc ess hea

ringon September 4 a

nd 5, 2008, with testimony g iven by , amongothers, Dr . Lucker and Azalee Webster, I deal Ac ademy ' s special e ducation coordinator. A we ek later , the hea ringoffice r conc luded that E.T.' s J uly 30 I EP and place ment at I deal Ac ademy

wer e inappr opriate, a

nd order ed DCPS to fund E.T. at King sbury Aca demy , a fu ll- tim e sp e c ia l e du c atio n f a c ili ty . I d. at 14 . T he Di str ic t a pp e a le d to thi s Co ur

t. STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW Under the I DEA, " [a] ny

party ag g rieve d by

the finding s and dec ision" re ndere d during
a dmi nis tr ativ e pr oc e e din g s ma y " br inga c ivi l a c tio n" in s tate or

fe de ra l c ourt

wi tho ut r e g ard

to the amount in controve rsy . 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2), (i) (3)( A); ac cord 34 C.F .R. § 300.516(a). Th e re vie wi ngc ourt

" (i ) s ha ll r e c e ive the re c or ds of the a dmi nis tr ativ e pr oc e e din g s; ( ii) sh a ll hear additional evidenc e at the r equest of a party ; and (iii) basingits decision on the preponde ranc e of the evidenc e, shall g rant such r elief a s the court de termines is appropr iate." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C); a ccor d 34 C.F.R. § 300.516(c)
. The pre pondera

nce- of-the- evidenc e standa rd of r eview doe s not authorize unfettere d de novo revie w. See B d. of Educ. of Hendr ick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley , 458 U.S. 176, 20 6 ( 19 82 ). Rathe r, c on sid e ratio n o f t he re c or d im

pli e dly re qu ir e s c ourt s to g ive " du e we ig ht" to-7-

the administrative proc eeding s, id., and " [f] actua l findings f rom the administrative proc eeding
are to be consider ed prima f acie corr ect," S.H. v. State-Oper ated Sch. Dist. of Ne war k, 336 F.3d 260, 270 (3d Cir. 2003). The ref ore, c ourts may

not substit ute their own vie ws for those of the hear ing of

fice r, see Rowley , 458 U.S. at 206, and a c ourt upsetting a hear ing of

fice r' s decision "must at lea st ex plain its basis for doing so," K erka m v. McKenzie, 862 F .2d 884, 887 (D.C. Cir. 19 88 ). At the same tim e , " the dis tr ic t c ourt ' s a uth or ity to ' he ar a dd iti on a l e vid e nc e at th e re qu e st of a pa rt y ,' and ' ba s[e ] its d e c isi on

on the pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e '
. . . ' pla inl y su g g e st[s ] less defe renc e than is conve ntional' in a dminist rative pr ocee dings." Reid ex rel. Reid v. Dist. of Columbi a, 401 F .3d 516, 521 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quotingKer kam, 862 F.2d a

t 887). On re view of a hea ringoffice r' s decision, the burde n of proof falls upon the par

ty challeng ing the administrative deter

mination, who must "' at least take on the burde n of per suadingthe cour t that the hea ringoffice r wa s wrong .' " Re id, 401 F.3d at 521 ( quoting Ke rkam). AN AL YSI S To e ns ur e that a

stu de nt w itha

dis a bil ity re c e ive s a

F APE , th e sc ho ol d istri c t mu st provide the student with both an a ppropriate I EP and an a

ppropriate school place ment. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9). The District c halleng es the he aringoffice r' s conclusion that neither E.T.' s I EP nor his place ment was a

ppropriate . The Court take s eac h in turn. I. Was E.T.' s IEP appropriate? "T he Supreme Court has held that a state fulfills its obl iga tion to provide a fr ee
a pp ro pr iate pu

bli c e du c atio n to a

ha nd ic a pp e d c hil d ' by

pr ov idi ngpe rs on a lize d in str uc tio n w ith
su ffi cie ntsupp ortservi ces t o p erm itth e chi ldto ben efi t educat io nal ly fro m t hatin st ruct io n. '" Shaw v. D.C., 238 F. Supp. 2d 127, 139 (D.D .C. 2002) (quoting Rowley , 458 U.S. at 203).-8-

"' I mplicit' in the I DEA' s g uara ntee of a fr ee a ppropriate education 'is the re quirement that the education to which acc ess is provided be suf ficient to conf

er some e ducational be nefit upon the handica pped child.' " I d. (quoting Rowley , 458 U.S. at 200). Thus, for an I EP to be appropr iate, i tmu s tb e " r e a s o n a

b l y c a l c u l at e d

t o e n a b l e th e c h i l d

t o r e c e i v e e d

u c at i o n a l b e n e f

i t s . " R o w l e y, 458 U.S. at 206-07. The pa rties' disag ree ment over E.T .' s J uly I EP is relatively

narr ow. Neither

side disputes the validity

of the two e valuations perf ormed a fter E .T.' s April 2008 I EP. And neither side takes issue with the expertise or the sug g estions offer ed by those eva luators, primarily Dr. L ucker . The
on ly qu e sti on , th e n, is whe the r t he July I EP r e fl e c ts tho se e va luator s' re c omm e nd atio ns . The Court conc ludes it does not, as it fails to address Dr . Lucker ' s chief c oncer ns. Dr. L ucker was quite c lear

that E.T. " require s a small class settingthat is quiet and distraction fre e." AR at 176. His "c lassroom has to be a very highly structure d, communication base d classroom e nvironment in which languag e is controlled a nd noise levels ar e kept ve ry low." I d. Thus, E.T. " needs a

n environment whe re [ambient sounds are ] even below that" of a nor mal classroom. Sept. 4, 2008, He aringTransc ript (" HT" ) at 49-50 ( Testimony of Dr. L ucker); see also id. at 32-33 (" Placement- wise, he ne eds a quie t environment, a noise- controlled environment, a

languag e-c ontrolled environment whe re the languag e used is we ll understood by him , b y the c la ss. " ); id. at 34 (E .T .' s e nv ir onme nt m us t be " qu ie t and

no ise -c on tr oll e d a

nd no ise fr e e " ). E. T. a lso ne e ds a

c e rt a in, un iqu e kin d o f i ns tr uc tio n: h is " [t]ea c he rs are g oin gto n e e d to go s l o wl y . . . . [ T h ey ] n ee d t o wa t ch h i s ex p re s s i o nt o m ak e s ure h e ge t s th i n gs , s o th ey d o n 'tgo
on to n e w i nf

or matio n b e fo re the y

kn owhe ' s g ott e n th e pr e vio us inf or matio n. " I d. at 33 ; se e a lso id. (E.T.' s teac hers must " make sure that [t hey ] checke d that he under stands and compr ehendsDCPS argues that, under the I EP, "E.T. w as to be plac ed in a small g roup settingand 1 g ive n p re fe re nti a l se atin g , whic h w ou ld h ave pr ov ide d h im w itha c la ssr oo m e nv ir onme nt w ith low no ise le ve ls. " Pl. ' s O pp ' n to De f. ' s Mo t. f or Summ. J. [D oc ke t E ntr

y 15 ], at 5. B ut a

sma ll class size on its own in no way g uara ntees a low noise level, a

nd cer tainly not one at the leve l require d by

E.T. In any

event, E.T.' s mother testified at the he aringthat she visited E.T.' s class at I d e a l A c a d e my

" a ll th e ti me , " an d

th at " a lt h o u g hth e c la s s r o o m s e tt in gis s ma ll [e le v e ns tu d e n ts ], the y do have so me kid s th at are ve ry , v e ry dis ru pti ve to t he po int wh e re the te a c he r i s a c tua lly stopping the e ntire cla ss." HT at 184-85. B ut see id. at 131-32 ( testimony of Azalee Webster) (desc ribing the sound levels in E.T.' s classroom as " very comforta ble" ). The D istrict has offe red no argument for why

the Court should acc ept Ms. Webster' s testimony over B ry ant-James' , and the re fo re c ann ot m e e t it s b ur de n to pe rs ua de the Court that th e he ari ngof

fi c e r w a s w ro ngon

thi s point. See Reid, 401 F.3d at 521. -9- befor e [they ] go on to the next information"). Dr . L uc ke r w a s a lso wo rr ie d a

bo ut h owE. T. ' s e du c atio na l ne e ds wo uld a ff e c t hi s
c la ssm ate s. He te sti fi e d th at E .T . " ne e ds to b e in a c la ssr oo m w he re the te a c he r i s g oin gslo wl y and simplifying the languag e is not g oing to impac t his peers." I d. at 73; see a lso id. at 71 (a pu bli c sc ho ol e nv ir onme nt c ou ld b e a pp ro pr iate , b ut o nly

wh e re " the te a c he r k

no w[s ] how

to sp e ak a nd pr e se nt v e rb a l in fo rm atio n to [E. T. ], and [wh e re ] it a

pp e ars a s if

oth e r p e op le
. . . a lso would need the teac her to spea k slowly ") ; id. at 73-74 (" it's not an a ppropriate place ment" f

or E.T. to be in " a re g ular e ducation cla ssroom where y ou have c hildren who look at a teac her or listen to a teac her who is speakingslowly and ver y distinctly , and bre akingthings down a nd the kids are be ing tur

ned off ")
. But the July

I EP did not deal with these conc erns. The I EP say s nothing a bout providing E. T. wi th a

no ise -c on tr oll e d e nv ir onme nt, no r d oe s it a dd re ss E .T .' s c la ssm ate s, e ve n th ou g h it anticipates that E.T. will remain larg ely within I deal Ac ademy ' s g ener al educ ation population. AR at 22 1. Un de r t

he July I EP, the n, E. T. wo uld

be pla c e d, on

a da ily or ne ar- da ily

ba sis , in prec isely the educ ational setting that Dr. L ucker deeme d inappropriate. 1As pa rt of its ana ly sis , th e he ari ngof fi c e r wro te tha

t " DC PS mis un de rs tand s [E. T. ' s] 2 needs." I d. at 12. The D istrict objects that this statement is based on a mischa rac terization of the District' s leg al position and of Azalee Webster ' s testimony . See Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J . [Docket Entry 11], at 19-20. The Court nee d not addre ss this specific point, howeve r, as it does not bea r on whether

E.T.' s I EP was " appropr iate" under I DEA. -10- As the District points out, the J uly I EP is responsive to some of the c oncer ns expressed by E.T.' s evaluators. For

example, the J uly

I EP significa

ntly incre ased the specia liz ed educ ation E. T. wa s to re c e ive , a dd ingse ve n h ours of ind ivi du a lize d te a c hin g . A R at 22 1. Th is c omp or ts wi th D r. Luc ke r' s r e c omm e nd atio n th at E .T . r e c e ive ind ivi du a lize d s e rv ic e s at le a st thr e e tim e s a
wee k. I d. at 176. Moreove r, E.T.' s class wa s only eleve n students, within the rang e Dr . Lucker
rec ommended. See H T 147 (Te stimony of Azalee Webster); see also id. at 50-51 (Te stimony of Dr. L ucker) (a n appropr iate cla ss siz e would be e ight to twelve students). But de spite beingpartially responsive to E.T.' s evaluators' rec ommendations, the J uly I EP would nonetheless ke ep E.T. in a substantially inappropriate educ ational setting . As the hea ring office r stated in her

written opinion, "e very

evaluation and the testimony of Dr. L ucker makes
c le ar t hat th e stu de nt m

us t be ins tr

uc te d d if fe re ntl y fr om o the r s tud e nts in o rd e r t o a c c e ss
e du c atio na l in fo rm atio n. . . . [H ]e m us t be ta ug ht i n a sma ll, str uc tur e d c la ssr oo m. T his is
e xtre me ly dif fi c ult in a g e ne ra l e du c atio n c la ssr oo m." AR at 13 . E .T .' s July

I EP f a ils to a dd

re ss this iss ue. Ac cording ly , the Court finds that the hea ringoffice r cor

rec tly conclude d that "[t]here is no question but that . . . the student's nee ds are not beingmet by his present I EP." I d. at 12. 2 And the District off

ers no c onvincingrea son why the hea ringoffice r' s assessment wa s wrong . There fore , the Court aff

irms the hear ing of

fice r' s conclusion that E.T.' s I EP was inappropr iate,
and that " the stu de nt d oe s r e qu ir e a fu ll- tim e out of

g e ne ra l e du c atio n p la c e me nt t o me e t hi sTh e Di str ic t do e s n ot a rgue that, e ve n if

E. T. ' s I EP w a s in a

pp ro pr iate , th e Court

sh ou ld 3 still find that the hea

ringoffice r er

red in c oncludingthat E.T. re quires a f ull-time special education prog ram. The District a lso does not dispute that Kingsbur y , E.T.' s prese nt school, is an 4 appropr iate plac ement for a full-time spec ial education student.

-11- needs." I d. 3 II. Was E.T .'s pl acem ent at Ideal Ac adem y appropriate? Even whe re a

student' s I EP is rejecte d, as her e, the Court must still deter mine whether

the student' s initi al school plac ement is nonethele ss appropriate for the students' ne eds. See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9). The District doe s not dispute, however , that I deal Ac ademy cannot pr ovide E.T. with the full-time spec ial education prog ram that the he aringoffice r conc luded E.T. nee ded. S ee HT at1 5 8 -5 9 (T es t i m o n y o f A z al ee W eb s t er ). Ac co rd i n gl y , th e C o urtco n cl u d es th atE
. T
. 's 4 place ment at I deal Ac ademy is inappropriate to addre ss his educational ne eds.

CO NC LU SION Fo r t h e f o re go i n g re as o n s , th e C o urtwi l l af fi rm th e h ea ri n g o ff

i ce r's fi n d i n g th atE
. T
. 's I EP and ac ademic pla ceme nt are inappropriate, and that DCPS has thus denied E.T. a FAPE. A separ ate or der a ccompa

nies this memorandum opinion.

/ s / J OHN D. B ATES Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge Dated: De cembe r 28, 2009