OPINION & ORDER Parents AR and KR (“Plaintiffs”) brought this Action individually and on behalf of their son, MR, against the Katonah Lewisboro Union Free School District (“Defendant” or “the District”) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (See Compl. (Dkt. No. 4).) The dispute arises out of the decisions of the Independent Hearing Officer (“IHO”) and the State Review Officer (“SRO”) who adjudicated Plaintiffs’ administrative claims for relief arising out of Defendant’s alleged failure to provide MR appropriate Individualized Education Programs (“IEP”s) during the 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 school years. Before the Court are both Parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment. (Not. of Mot.; Not. of Cross Mot. (Dkt. Nos. 15, 23).) For the following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and grants Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. I. Background A. Factual Background1 Plaintiffs are the parents of MR, who was diagnosed with apraxia during MR’s preschool years and began receiving speech-language therapy services before the age of two. (Def.’s 56.1 Statement in Supp. of Cross Mot. for Summ. J. (“Def.’s 56.1″) 3 (Dkt. No. 24).) Apraxia is a “neurological developmental condition where the motors center of the brain is affected” in a way that causes individuals to have “difficulty formulating words, articulating words, pronouncing words, [and] retrieving words and word sounds.” (Id. 4.) From kindergarten through fifth grade, MR attended the District’s public schools. (Id. 5.) While attending the District’s schools, the Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) developed IEPs for MR. (Id. 6.) At the start of MR’s sixth grade year, the 2015-16 school year, however, Plaintiffs unilaterally placed MR at Eagle Hill School (“EHS”), a private school. (Id. 7.) Plaintiffs continued to unilaterally place MR at EHS for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years. (Id.
8-9.) In this Action, Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for the tuition paid to EHS as a result of those three years of unilateral placement. (Id. 10.) 1. 2012-15 IEPs Although not directly pertaining to the amount of requested tuition reimbursement, MR’s IEPs in the years prior to 2015, when MR attended school within the District, are relevant to the extent they inform the inquiry into how reasonable the District’s subsequent IEPs were. Accordingly, the Court provides a brief summary of MR’s progress leading up to 2015. As part of MR’s triennial evaluation for the 2011-12 school year, MR participated in cognitive testing, which revealed extremely low scores in cognitive tests known as the Woodcock Johnson III Cognitive Tests (“WJCT”), Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals — Fourth Edition (“CELF-4″), and the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children- 2 (“KABC-II”). (See Ex. 3 (“2013-14 CSE Meeting”) 4.) For example, the tests showed that MR scored in the first percentile or below in core language, expressive language, cognitive fluency, processing speed, and fluid-crystallized index. (Id.) For the 2012-13 school year, MR was originally placed in a general education class; however, due to significant struggles, MR was placed in a self-contained special education class beginning mid-year. (See IHO Hr’g Tr. 22- 24.) Plaintiffs were concerned about how “restrictive and…appropriate” that setting was “due to the level of disability of the other children,” and “insisted on opportunities for mainstreaming.” (Ex. D (“Dr. Dietrich Evaluation”) 2.) For the following school year, 2013-14, the CSE recommended placement in special education classes for most subjects, and related services of occupational therapy, speech-language therapy, and both small group and individual counseling. (See 2013-14 CSE Meeting 1.) At the CSE for the next school year, the 2014-15 CSE meeting notes indicate that MR’s special education teacher reported that MR was making “good progress in the reading program,” and that MR was beginning to read at the second-grade level. (Ex. 4 (“2014-15 CSE Meeting”) 1.) The report also indicates, among other things, that MR was “writing paragraphs on specific topics,” “doing multiplication” in math, and that AR stated that she “sees that [MR] is finally really getting it and understands with better math sense.” (Id.) The meeting notes also indicate, however, that MR was still struggling to answer “higher level questions” and that when MR was “unsure,” MR was less willing “to take risks.” (Id.) Taking all of this into account, the CSE meeting record indicates that MR had nevertheless “achieved all of [MR's] IEP goals” from that year, so the CSE recommended a similar placement for the 2014-15 school year, MR’s fifth grade year. (See id. at 1-2.) In October 2014, Plaintiffs hired a tutor, Denise Racanelli (“Racanelli”), to help MR with reading and writing skills. (IHO Hr’g Tr. 1158-64.) Racanelli testified that it was “very hard to pick independent reading books for [MR],” and that she attempted to maintain “continuity” with what MR’s special education teacher was doing at school, because Racanelli did not want to “have too many different…pieces of learning and…strategies going on at the same time.” (Id. at 1169-70.) 2. Spring 2015 Triennial Review In Spring 2015, as part of a triennial review of MR’s performance level and individual needs, the CSE referred MR for a psychological evaluation, an educational evaluation, and a speech-language evaluation. (Def.’s 56.1 11.) In addition, at Plaintiffs’ request, MR was referred for an audiological evaluation and a private psychological evaluation. (Id. 12.) Plaintiffs testified that they requested these psychological evaluations because MR was entering middle school and they “were very worried about how [MR] was going to handle” it, and because they “were looking for answers.” (IHO Hr’g Tr. 518-19.) The speech-language evaluation involved the administration of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals — Fifth Edition (“CELF-5″), which seeks to evaluate “core language, expressive and receptive language, language content, and language memory.” (Def.’s 56.1
