Opinion ID: 693035
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tyler's Educational Progress Since the Due Process Hearing

Text: 43 The Murrays also argue that the district court should have heard additional evidence of Tyler's educational progress since the due process hearing before ruling on the parties' motions for summary judgment. 44 There is a division between the circuits on the meaning and scope of section 1415(e)(2)'s directive that a district court in an IDEA case shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party. 15 Even under the more restrictive interpretation taken of additional evidence by the First and Ninth Circuits, arguably evidence relating to a child's educational progress subsequent to the due process hearing would be relevant to a determination of appropriate placement pursuant to an IEP. It would be evidence concerning relevant events occurring subsequent to the administrative hearing. Town of Burlington, 736 F.2d at 790. Other courts have admitted such evidence. See, e.g., Lenn, 998 F.2d at 1088; Greer, 950 F.2d at 698; Mavis, 839 F.Supp. at 980. 45 However, we need not remand this case for such additional evidence because we agree with the District's contention that any necessity for doing so has been rendered moot by the evaluation and review of Tyler's IEP conducted in November 1993, pursuant to which Tyler was placed at Olathe. 16