Respondents object to the necessity of scheduling an impartial hearing, claiming that by merely changing the location of the resource room they did not change the students' placements. In addition, respondents rely on Aguilar, et al. Petitioners claim that the Zobrest decision overrules Aguilar and permits the provision of such services on site. Because the appeals present identical issues of law and similar issues of fact, they are consolidated for decision. 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.