context: In both cases, "[t]he DOE and SRO effectively cast the Parent's argument as an objection that the CSE did not adopt her opinion, rather than one related to her meaningful participation."
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 2016 WL 5806859, at *9
citation_a.parenthetical: finding procedural violation of the IDEA where the Department failed to "g[i]ve due consideration" to the parents view that the student required a more restrictive ratio than was recommended by the DOE
citation_a.sentence: E.H., 164 F.Supp.3d at 552; see also S.Y., 210 F.Supp.3d, at 573, 2016 WL 5806859, at *9 (finding procedural violation of the IDEA where the Department failed to “g[i]ve due consideration” to the parents view that the student required a more restrictive ratio than was recommended by the DOE).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 2015 WL 4597545, at *8
citation_b.parenthetical: and to refer J.G.'s case to the CBST if so
citation_b.sentence: Id. at 552. While it is true that “[m]ere parental disagreement with a school district’s IEP and placement recommendation does not amount to a denial of meaningful participation,” A.P., 2015 WL 4597545, at *8, the CSE still has a procedural obligation to consider whether a student requires a more restrictive ratio than is available through public schools (and to refer J.G.’s case to the CBST if so). “If the CSE refused to consider a more restrictive ratio than its public offerings were able to provide, that would amount to predetermination of [J.G.’s] education program regardless of what [J.G.] needed or what [her] Parent contributed to the process.”