Several respondents raise a procedural argument which I will address first. They argue that, to the extent that they have scheduled impartial hearings pursuant to petitioners' requests, that part of petitioners' appeals should be dismissed as moot. However, as noted above, each respondent asserts that petitioners are not legally entitled to such hearings under the facts presented herein, based on respondents' contention that a change in placement has not occurred. Because of the importance of the issue presented to the education of students with disabilities and because respondents' position on the merits of this claim renders it capable of repetition, I will not dismiss it as moot but, instead, will address it. Both Federal and State law set forth a comprehensive procedural scheme for challenging CSE recommendations.
Petitioners challenge respondents' relocation of the resource room services on two grounds.
They also argue that the change in location constitutes a change in their children's educational placement because it significantly affects their children's special education program and adversely impacts upon their participation in the education program offered at the parochial schools. Consequently, petitioners claim that they are entitled to a due process hearing to challenge the change in location. Petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the effect of changing the location of the special education services their children receive - both with respect to its impact on their regular education program and with respect to their right to an education in the least restrictive environment. Petitioners also seek an order directing respondents to continue to provide the resource room services at the parochial schools, where they had previously received them, during the pendency of the impartial hearings. Respondents object on two grounds.