Full opinion text
AMENDED RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. NO. 28]; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXPEDITE [DOC. NO. 31]; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. NO. 66]; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. NO. 64]; CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE [DOC. NOS. 45 & 56]; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE [DOC. NO. 77]; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. NO. 82] JANET C. HALL, District Judge. This case involves two consolidated actions, both of which arise primarily under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Joseph Brennan and Chris Brennan, on their own behalf and on behalf of their son J.B., brought an administrative proceeding against the Regional School District No. 1 Board of Education (“District 1”). The Brennans argued that District 1 did not comply with IDEA because it failed to provide a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for J.B. The Hearing Officer (“HO”) agreed in part: she concluded that District 1 had not provided J.B. with a FAPE during the 2003-2004 school year, as well as during two summers. However, the [¶] also concluded that District 1 had provided a FAPE during the 2002-2003 school year and during the 2004-2005 school year. Shortly after the HO’s decision was issued, the parents filed suit in this court seeking, inter alia, to appeal the portions of the decision that were adverse to them, and to enforce the portions of the decision that were favorable to them. Doc. No. 1 Nine months later, District 1 filed its own action in this court, purporting to appeal the portions of the administrative decision (as later clarified by the HO) that were favorable to the parents. Doc. No. 2 in Case No. 07-cv-867. The parents have filed three different motions for summary judgment on their Complaint, while District 1 has filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Additionally, the parents have filed what they term a “Motion to Strike” the Complaint in the District’s suit. For the reasons that follow, the court treats the parents’ “Motion to Strike” as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and GRANTS that motion. The court DENIES the parents’ first motion for summary judgment and instead DISMISSES the parents’ enforcement claim due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the parents’ second motion for summary judgment. The court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART District l’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The court DENIES the parents’ third motion for summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND At all times pertinent to this lawsuit, J.B. and his parents resided in Salisbury, Connecticut. By virtue of his residence, J.B. was a student in District l’s public schools from pre-kindergarten through his freshman year of high school. J.B. is and was mentally disabled at all relevant times. Specifically, J.B. has been diagnosed as having an intellectual disability, right brain impairment, and pervasive developmental delays. These affect J.B.’s ability to process spatial information, to do linguistic processing, to do social/emotional processing, and to integrate visual and verbal information. The parties agree that J.B.’s disability renders him eligible for special education and related services under IDEA. District 1 accordingly provided J.B. with special education services throughout his educational career. Under Connecticut and federal law, a Planning and Placement Team (“PPT”) is the entity empowered to make educational decisions for J.B. Pursuant to a recommendation from the PPT, and with the agreement of his parents, J.B. spent the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 school years in a specialized “TOTAL” program at the Sharon Central School that is specifically designed for special education students. “TOTAL” is an acronym that stands for “Teaching Opportunities To All Learners;” students in TOTAL take academic classes together taught by a special education teacher. 7/12/05 Hearing Tr. at 56-61. The TOTAL program provides students with pragmatic language skills and speech therapy throughout the day. 7/22/05 Hearing Tr. at 91-92. The school district describes the TOTAL program as a “multi-age non-graded program,” and it contends that the children in the TOTAL program span the fourth through eighth grades. See District l’s 8/1/07 Loe. R. 56(a)(2) Statement (“District l’s 8/1 56(a)(2) Stat.”) at ¶ 14. On May 31, 2002, the PPT met and created an Individualized Education Program (IEP) recommending that J.B. again participate in the TOTAL program for the upcoming 2002-2003 school year. J.B. did so, and his academic classes were in the self-contained TOTAL classroom. Hearing Exh. B-7 at 1, 30. Within the TOTAL program, J.B. was also given 30 minutes per week of motor planning from an occupational therapist. 7/8/05 Hearing Tr. at 65-66; Hearing Exh. B-7 at 30. Outside the TOTAL program, J.B. took mainstream classes in Band, Music, Art, and Gym. Hearing Exh. B-7 at 1. The parents believe that during this year J.B. was enrolled in the sixth grade. See Parents’ 6/20/07 Loe. R. 56(a)(1) Statement (“Parents’ 6/20 56(a)(1) Stat.”) at ¶ 14. J.B. was born in October 1987; by Spring 2003 he was 15 years old. Towards the end of the 2002-2003 school year, the PPT met on at least two occasions to discuss J.B. Those meetings took place on April 25, 2003 and June 9, 2003, and they concerned J.B.’s IEP for 2003-2004. The PPT’s recommendations from those meetings do not expressly include a statement that J.B. should be transferred to the Housatonic Valley Regional High School (“HVRHS”), although the IEP plainly contemplated such a transfer for 2003-2004. See Hearing Exh. B-10 at 1-2; Hearing Exh. B-12 at 1. The PPT did not offer J.B. any placement for Summer 2003. Id. at 12. J.B. went on to attend HVRHS for 2003-2004, taking a modified ninth grade curriculum. He received special education instruction in English, Math, and Social Studies. Additionally, J.B. was enrolled in an Agricultural Technology course at HVRHS that included a “supervised agricultural experience.” Hearing Exh. B-12 at 12. The remainder of his schedule involved mainstream courses, as well as additional time for academic support in a self-contained resource room. See District l’s Loe. R. 56(a)(1) Statement (“District l’s 56(a)(1) Stat.”) at ¶ 27; Parents’ Loe. R. 56(a)(2) Statement (“Parents’ 56(a)(2) Stat.”) at ¶ 27; Hearing Exh. B-10 at 1-2; Hearing Exh. B-12 at 1-2, 12. The 2003-2004 IEP did not have a formal speech and language component. In March 2004, the parents notified school officials that they believed that J.B. had been the subject of bullying at HVRHS. 8/10/05 Hearing Tr. at 25. School officials investigated, and based on this investigation they concluded that no bullying was taking place. See District l’s 56(a)(1) Stat. at ¶ 28. The parents were apparently not satisfied with the school’s response, and they continued to believe that J.B. was at risk of being subjected to future bullying incidents. On April 19, 2004, the PPT convened for another meeting regarding J.B. The parents asked District 1 to place J.B. at a private school for Summer 2004, and for the 2004-2005 school year. Specifically, the parents requested that J.B. be placed at the Maplebrook School in Amenia, NY; Maplebrook is a school specifically designed for students with disabilities, and most students who attend there suffer from ADD or ADHD. See Hearing Tr. 5/23/05 at 113; District l’s 56(a)(1) Stat. at ¶ 54; Parents 56(a)(2) Stat. at ¶ 54. The parents informed District 1 that, if their request was denied, they would unilaterally enroll J.B. at Maplebrook. The PPT denied the parents’ request. Nonetheless, in April and May 2004, District 1 proceeded to examine additional reports and to conduct additional testing on J.B. The PPT then reconvened on June 10, 2004, and it offered to place J.B. in a four week summer program at the Litch-field County Association of Retarded Citizens. It also proposed a new IEP for J.B. at HVRHS for the 2004-2005 regular academic year that contained a significant amount of special education services — approximately 18.75 hours a week, which was more than J.B. had been given under his previous IEP. See District l’s 56(a)(1) Stat. at ¶¶ 37, 39; Parents 56(a)(2) Stat. at ¶¶37, 39. The only regular education classes on J.B.’s schedule would be Biology, Vocational Education, Physical Education, and Lunch. Hearing Exh. B-25 at 42. The proposal also contained 45 minutes a week of speech and language services, id,, and it required that an occupational therapist and a physical therapist consult with J.B.’s teachers for one hour each month. Id. at 1, 45. In all classes, J.B. was to be given a number of special modifications, including specially modified testing, modified lesson content, and modified instructional methods designed to reduce reliance on visual information. Id. at 45. The parents were apparently unsatisfied with this IEP, and at the June 10 meeting the parents again requested that J.B. be placed at the Maplebrook School. District 1 again refused. The next day, June 11, 2004, the parents sent school officials a note stating that J.B. “is not in a safe environment at [HVRHS]. We need to remove him immediately for his safety.” Hearing Exh. B-26. Two days later, the parents sent a more detailed letter to the school in which they asserted that on June 9, 2004, an individual had dropped a firecracker at J.B.’s feet. Hearing Exh. B-27. The letter went on to state that on Friday, June 11, 2004, the parents had removed J.B. from HVRHS. Id. The letter concluded by requesting information on the safety measures that the school planned to put into place. Id. J.B. returned to school the following Monday. Hearing Tr. 8/29/05 at 28. At the request of his parents, school officials proceeded to ensure that a staff member followed J.B. around school at all times. Id. This supervision continued for the remainder of the 2003-2004 school year. Id. That school year was J.B.’s last in the District 1 schools. At some time in May or June of 2004 (the parties dispute the exact date), J.B.’s parents proceeded to enroll him at Maplebrook for Summer 2004 and for the regular 2004-2005 school year. See Parents’ 6/20 56(a)(1) Stat. at ¶¶ 28-29; District l’s 8/1 56(a)(2) Stat. at ¶¶ 28-29. J.B. also attended Maplebrook for Summer 2005, and for the regular 2005-2006 school year. At the parents’ request, the PPT convened another meeting on November 30, 2004. Hearing Exh. B-35 at 2. The parents requested that District 1 reimburse them for J.B.’s tuition at Maplebrook for 2004-2005. The parents also stated their intention to keep J.B. at Maplebrook for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 (ie. through J.B.’s twelfth grade year), and they requested that District 1 pay for those years as well. Id. They further requested that District 1 pay for J.B. to have three years of post-secondary education at Maplebrook (ie. through the 2009-2010 school year). Id. The PPT refused, but it did renew its offer to implement the IEP offered at the June 2004 meeting. The parents again declined. On or about February 4, 2005, the parents requested a due process hearing before the Connecticut State Board of Education (“BOE”). Admin. Rec. (“A.R.”) 3; District l’s 56(a)(1) Stat. at ¶ 55; Parents’ 56(a)(2) Stat. at ¶ 55. The matter was assigned to Hearing Officer Kearns. A.R. 4 at 1. On February 22, 2005, the parents sent a letter to the [¶] identifying the issues they would be raising at the hearing. In full, the parents identified the issues as follows: 1. [District 1] failed to provide [J.B.] with an appropriate education for the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 school years. a. [District 1] provided inappropriate academic benefit, physical education, extracurricular activities, speech skills, transitional services, vocational services, and prosocial services. b. [District 1] violated certain state constitutional [provisions], state and federal statutes and administrative regulations in failing to provide an appropriate education, i.e. inter alia, regarding notice to the parents, parental participation in IEP and placement decisions, evaluation of the child, content of the IEP, and provision of an appropriate education. 2. [District 1] took inappropriate or ineffective action in preventing bullying of the child while in school, and in enabling the child to participate in the benefits of an appropriate education, such that [J.B.] was excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination on the basis of his handicap. 3.[District 1] improperly denied the parent[s’] request to place the child in the Maplebrook School and request for the district to pay for [J.B.] to attend Maplebrook School for his sophomore, junior and senior years of high school, including summer school, and a post secondary program to fully integrate living skills and vocational training. A.R. 14 at 1-2. The [¶] convened an initial hearing for the case in March 2005. However, the full administrative process spanned more than twenty different hearing dates, and it involved the testimony of 17 witnesses. Both sides also presented a number of exhibits. The final hearing date was November 16, 2005, and the mailing date for the HO’s decision was August 10, 2006. In her final Order, the [¶] offered a number of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Her first key conclusion was that District 1 had provided a FAPE during the 2002-2003 school year. Although the parents had claimed that the evaluations underlying the 2002-2003 IEP were procedurally deficient, the [¶] rejected this claim as time barred and because she apparently thought that any errors did not prejudice the student. A.R. 1 at 13-14. The [¶] also went on to reject the parent’s substantive arguments for inadequacy, concluding that the child “made a reasonable amount of progress and benefitted from the [TOTAL] program” in 2002-2003. Id. at 14-15. Next, the [¶] turned to the 2003-2004 IEP and concluded that it was inadequate. In particular, she pointed to the fact that the IEP called for several mainstream classes while providing insufficient additional support services. Id. at 15-16. She also criticized the IEP’s failure to provide speech and language instruction, and she found that the relatively sudden transition to high school had a significantly negative impact on J.B.’s social development. Id. at 16. Finally, the [¶] reviewed the progress J.B. had made during 2003-2004, and she concluded that this progress had been trivial. Id. at 16-17. The [¶] also agreed with the parents’ claim that J.B. had been denied a FAPE during Summer 2004. The [¶] explained that J.B.’s extremely poor performance during 2003-2004 should have triggered the provision of extended year services. Although the PPT did offer a summer program for 2004, the [¶] found that this program was not academic enough, and she concluded that the parents were justified in enrolling J.B. at Maplebrook for Summer 2004. Id. at 17. The [¶] next turned to the 2004-2005 IEP, and she noted that it reflected significant improvements over the previous year’s proposal. Based on these improvements, the hearing officer found that “[t]he IEP is reasonably calculated to provide the child with skills necessary for the world of work, job-interviewing, self-advocacy, [and] give and take conversations with co-workers and peers.” Id. at 17. Accordingly, she concluded that the 2004-2005 IEP could provide J.B. with a FAPE. The [¶] then offered her further conclusion that the Summer 2005 program had denied J.B. a FAPE, though she did not explain why. Id. at 18. She also concluded that Maplebrook provided an appropriate placement for J.B. for any years in which District l’s IEP was deemed inadequate. At the end of her decision, the [¶] listed five final orders: 1. [District 1] had an individualized education program for the 2002-2003 school year that could provide the child with a free and appropriate public education. The parents’ request for reimbursement is denied. 2. [District 1] did not have an individualized education program for the 2003-2004 regular school year that could provide the child with a free and appropriate public education. The parents shall receive a compensatory payment for the cost incurred for the 2004-2005 regular school year. 3. [District 1] did not have an individualized education program for the summer 2004 extended school year that could provide the child with a free and appropriate public education. The parents shall receive a payment for cost incurred for the 2004 extended school year program. 4. [District 1] had an individualized education program for the 2004-2005 regular school year that could provide the child with a free and appropriate public education. The parents’ request for reimbursement is denied. 5. [District 1] did not have an individualized education program for the summer 2005 extended school year [that] could provide the child with a free and appropriate public education. The parents shall receive a payment for cost incurred for the 2005 extended school year program. A.R. 1 at 19. Fifteen days after the [¶] issued her decision, an official in the BOE, Thomas Badway, began taking steps to enforce the parts of the decision that favored the parents. By letter dated August 25, 2006, Badway informed counsel for both sides that Connecticut law required the BOE to “take appropriate action to enforce the decision of the hearing officer, if the ... school district ... does not take action on the decision” within 15 days. A.R. 72; see also Conn. Gen.Stat. § 10-76h(d)(2). Bad-way requested both parties to “inform [the BOE] immediately [regarding] in what manner the decision of the hearing officer has been implemented.” A.R. 72. On the same date that Badway sent this letter, the parents filed a motion with the [¶] requesting reconsideration of the parts of the decision that were adverse to them. A.R. 74. This motion was accompanied by another motion from the parents requesting clarification on exactly what compensatory costs the parents would be awarded for 2003-2004, as well as clarification on the rationales for the parts of the decision that were adverse to the parents. A.R. 73. Then, by letter dated August 31, 2006, the parents’ attorney responded to Bad-way’s letter about enforcement. The parents’ attorney stated that District 1 “ha[d] not taken any action at all” regarding the HO’s decision, and the attorney requested that the BOE enforce the parents’ award. A.R. 74. There is no indication in the record that District 1 ever filed a response to the BOE’s letter. However, on September 8, 2006, District 1 did file its own motion for clarification with the HO. The school district questioned the HO’s finding regarding Summer 2005, pointing out that the last education programs in evidence were the ones for Summer 2004 and for the 2004-2005 school year. Before the [¶] or the BOE had responded to any of these filings and letters, and also on September 8, 2006, the parents filed a Complaint in federal court. In their Complaint, the parents sought to appeal from the portions of the HO’s decision that were adverse to them, and they also sought to enforce the portion of the decision in which the [¶] gave them a monetary award. In addition, the parents raised a variety of other claims: (1) that District 1 discriminated against J.B. in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794; (2) that District 1 discriminated against J.B. in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 et seq.; (3) that District 1 discriminated against J.B. in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1983; and (4) that the [¶] had failed to rule on a variety of issues that were properly before her, including a claim that Maplebrook should appropriately be regarded as J.B.’s “stay-put” placement for purposes of 20 U.S.C. § 1415© (2000) (current version at 20 U.S.C. § 1415(5) (West Supp.2007)). Approximately one month after the parents filed their lawsuit, the BOE responded to the parents’ request for enforcement. In its letter, the BOE noted that the parents had filed a lawsuit in federal court that sought enforcement of the HO’s decision. In light of this, the BOE stated that “the enforcement of the decision by this office will be held in abeyance pending the decision of the court.” A.R. 76. Meanwhile, as of April 17, 2007, the [¶] had still not yet ruled on either side’s motion for clarification, nor had she ruled on the parents’ motion for reconsideration. On that date, the parents filed a motion in this court seeking partial summary judgment on their Complaint. They argued that they were entitled to enforcement of the parts of the administrative order that were favorable to them, and they requested that the court order District 1 to pay them a total of $34,968.56 for the 2004-2005 school year, the 2004 summer program, and the 2005 summer program. Approximately one month later, on May 22, 2007, the [¶] finally filed her response to the parties’ motions for clarification. The [¶] stated that, at the time the parents had requested a due process hearing, District 1 had not yet proposed an educational program for summer 2005, and for the 2005-2006 school year. The officer concluded that she had therefore erred in finding the proposal for Summer 2005 to be inadequate, and she amended her order so that it found summers 2003 and 2004 inadequate, rather than summers 2004 and 2005. No other substantive changes were made to the final order. The next day, May 23, 2007, District 1 filed a motion for extension of time to file a cross-motion for summary judgment on the parents’ complaint — a deadline that the Court had previously determined would be May 31, 2007. In partial support of their motion for the extension, the defendants represented that District 1 intended to file an appeal from the hearing officer’s amended decision. The court proceeded to grant the motion in part on May 24, giving the defendants until June 21, 2007 to oppose the parents’ motion for partial summary judgment, and to file their own cross-motion for summary judgment. The court’s order also stated that, “[t]o the extent defendants seek any other relief in their motion for extension, it is denied.” On June 1, 2007, District 1 filed a Complaint in this court purporting to appeal from the hearing officer’s “clarified” decision. District 1 argued that the [¶] erred in concluding that the district’s proposals for the 2003-2004 regular school year, and for Summer 2004, were inadequate. District 1 also sought a declaratory judgment that the parents were not prevailing parties on the issues related to those years. The Complaint did not purport to challenge the HO’s finding that the 2003 summer program had been inadequate. The parents quickly responded to the district’s suit with what they termed a “motion to strike the complaint.” This motion primarily rested on two grounds. First, the parents argued that the suit was untimely. Second, they argued that the filing of the Complaint was foreclosed by this court’s May 24 Order — an order that the parents described as having “denied [District l’s] request ... to file an appeal of the Hearing Officer’s Decision.” Doc. No. 45 at 2. Meanwhile, both parties proceeded to file cross-motions for summary judgment in the parents’ suit. The parents filed for summary judgment for some of the claims in their Complaint, while District 1 cross-moved for summary judgment on all of the claims in that Complaint. District 1 also filed its opposition to the parents’ earlier-filed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The court subsequently held oral argument. It permitted the parents to file a supplemental summary judgment motion regarding additional claims in their complaint. The court clearly informed the parents that, given that all parties had agreed the case would be decided on the administrative record, failure to affirmatively move for summary judgment on a claim would be deemed an abandonment of that claim. II. PARENTS’ “MOTION TO STRIKE” The parents have not yet filed an answer to the district’s Complaint. Because the “motion to strike” is in essence a claim that District 1 has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court will treat the parents’ motion as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). As a threshold matter, the court rejects the parents’ contention that this court’s May 24 Order precludes District 1 from filing its appeal. Even assuming that the May 24 Order can be read as denying, with prejudice, all relief that District 1 had requested (other than the relief the court had already granted), the court finds that District 1 did not actually request leave to file a belated appeal of the hearing officer’s decision. Instead, to the extent that District 1 can be said to have touched on the issue at all, it simply requested a “twenty-one (21) day extension of time” to, inter alia, “enable [District 1] to file its appeal” of the hearing officer’s decision. Doc. No. 39 at 1; see also id. at 7-8. District 1 did not request leave of the court to file an appeal that was otherwise timely (nor would District 1 have needed to request such leave), and the court’s Order did not intend to prevent District 1 from filing such an appeal. The court does, however, agree with the parents that District l’s appeal is untimely. Under IDEA, if a party is dissatisfied with the outcome of a state educational agency’s due process hearing, that party may take an appeal by filing a civil action in federal district court. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(f), (i)(2)(A). If state law provides a time limit for bringing appeals in IDEA cases, that time limit must govern. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(B) (West Supp.2007). Connecticut law has such a time limit. See Conn. Gen Stat. § 10-76h(d)(4) (explaining that “[ajppeals from the decision of a hearing officer ... [in an IDEA case] shall be taken in the manner set forth in [Conn. Gen.Stat. § ] 4-183”); id. § 4—183(c) (providing general time limits for the taking of an appeal from an administrative decision). Accordingly, this court must apply Connecticut’s time limits, as laid out in Conn. Gen.Stat. § 4-183(c). Section 4—183(c) is part of Connecticut’s Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA). That section provides, in relevant part, that an appeal must be taken (1) Within forty-five days after mailing of the final decision under section 4-180 or, if there is no mailing, within forty-five days after personal delivery of the final decision under said section, or (2) within forty-five days after the agency denies a petition for reconsideration of the final decision pursuant to subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of section 4-181 a, or (3) within forty-five days after mailing of the final decision made after reconsideration pursuant to subdivisions (3) and (4) of subsection (a) of section 4-181a or, if there is no mailing, within forty-five days after personal delivery of the final decision made after reconsideration pursuant to said subdivisions, or (4) within forty-five days after the expiration of the ninety-day period required under subdivision (3) of subsection (a) of section 4-181 a if the agency decides to reconsider the final decision and fails to render a decision made after reconsideration within such period, whichever is applicable and is later.... Thus, unless reconsideration is sought pursuant to Conn. GemStat. § 4-181a, an appeal from the hearing officer’s decision must be filed within 45 days of the mailing of the final decision. In practice, this means that an IDEA appeal must always be filed within 45 days, as reconsideration pursuant to Section 4-181a is impossible in an IDEA case. See id. § 4—186(g) (specifically exempting IDEA hearings from the provisions of Section 4-181a). District l’s appeal would thus appear to be untimely, as that appeal was filed more than 45 days after August 10, 2006. District 1 nonetheless challenges this result by relying on the state BOE’s regulations. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-8 states: A party may file a motion for clarification of the findings or decision- of the hearing officer no later than 20 business days after the decision is issued, after which no such motion shall be considered by the hearing officer. The hearing officer shall have 10 business days to mail a written response to the motion. The motion to clarify shall not serve to stay the implementation of the hearing officer’s decision. A motion for clarification shall serve to toll the time for appeal of the hearing officer’s final decision. The time to appeal shall run from the date of mailing of the decision of the hearing officer on the motion to clarify. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-8 (emphasis added). District 1 contends that it timely filed a motion to clarify, and that the time to appeal was therefore tolled until the hearing officer mailed her written response to this motion on May 22, 2007. One problem with the district’s argument, however, is the language in the regulation stating that the “hearing officer shall have 10 business days to mail a written response to the motion.” Id. Thus while the agency’s regulation would seem to toll the appeal period while a motion to clarify is pending, the regulation also seems to require that the motion for clarification be decided within 10 business days. The regulation is not clear on what happens in a situation, like this one, in which the motion for clarification remains pending for more than the required 10 days. Is the appeal period tolled indefinitely until the [¶] finally gets around to making a ruling, no matter how long she waits to do so? Or is the appeal period tolled for only the required 10 days, after which point the clock resumes running? The court concludes that the appeal period is tolled for only the required 10 days. First, when faced with a conflict between the terms of the UAPA and an arguably contrary agency regulation, the Connecticut Supreme Court has been hesitant to read such a regulation as modifying the UAPA when the regulation does not “specifically address the situation posed by the facts of’ the case at hand. Comm’n on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Windsor Hall Rest Home, 232 Conn. 181, 653 A.2d 181, 190 (1995). Here, the regulation’s provision for tolling the appeal period would seem to conflict with section 4-183(c)’s requirement that an appeal in an IDEA case be taken within 45 days. Putting aside the question of whether the regulation’s tolling provision is even a valid exercise of administrative power in the first place, the court will not interpret an ambiguous state regulation in a way that exacerbates a conflict with the statutory language in section 4-183. Furthermore, adopting the school district’s interpretation of the regulation would allow IDEA cases to remain in limbo indefinitely if a hearing officer failed to promptly rule on motions for clarification — no matter how minor or frivolous the motion. If this were a run of the mill administrative case, such a concern in itself would be a reason to doubt District l’s interpretation. See id. at 187, 653 A.2d 181. But this concern carries special weight in an IDEA case, where prompt resolution of the issues is of special value. See M.D. v. Southington Bd. of Educ., 334 F.3d 217, 224 (2d Cir.2003) (“One of the fundamental goals of the statutory scheme codified in the IDEA is to promote the expeditious resolution of educational programming disputes.”). Indeed, the Connecticut legislature seems to have been especially concerned with promptness in IDEA cases, as it exempted IDEA hearings from the statutory provision that permits parties to file motions for reconsideration. See Conn. Gen Stat. §§ 4-181 a(l)(a), 4-186(g). The BOE was plainly also concerned with promptness, as its regulation required hearing officers to respond to motions for clarification within 10 days. Taken together, these factors favor the parents’ interpretation of the regulation. District 1 nonetheless argues that, if the drafters of the agency regulation had wanted to toll the appeal period for only 10 business days, those drafters could have explicitly said so. Response to Mot. to Strike Compl. at 10. In support of its argument, the district points to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183(c)(4). That statutory section deals explicitly with a contingency in which the agency fails to rule on a post-hearing motion in a timely manner, and the section clearly specifies how such a failure affects an aggrieved party’s time to appeal. See id. §§ 4-181a(3);-183a(c)(4). District 1 asks the court to infer that the lack of a similar provision in the BOE’s regulation reflected a conscious choice to toll the appeal period indefinitely. The court declines to make this inference. First, the drafters of the regulation and the drafters of Section 4-183 are different entities — one is the Connecticut legislature and one is an administrative agency. This makes District l’s argument especially weak. Second, the two provisions are not even perfectly analogous. The relevant portion of Section 4-183 deals with the situation in which an agency is given two time limits (i.e. a deadline to indicate whether it will engage in reconsideration, and then a deadline for actually rendering the decision), and the agency is only untimely as to the latter deadline. See id.; id. § 4-181a(a). That is quite different from the situation in this case, in which the hearing officer gave no indication, for over eight months, that she was even considering any party’s motion for clarification. The court concludes that District l’s argument is not enough to overcome the factors favoring the parents’ interpretation of the regulation. Because the court concludes that District l’s appeal is untimely, the court will dismiss those aspects of District l’s Complaint that seek to appeal the hearing officer’s August 10, 2006 decision. District l’s Complaint also seeks a declaratory judgment that the parents are not prevailing parties on the issues of the 2003-2004 school year, and the summer 2004 extended school year. Because District l’s appeal was untimely, the court dismisses District l’s claim for declaratory relief. The parents obtained a final judgment in their favor on those issues, which makes them prevailing parties. III. PARENTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT In the parents’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, they argue that they are entitled to relief on the portion of their Complaint that seeks enforcement of the HO's award to them. Specifically, the parents seek to compel District 1 to reimburse them for J.B.’s education at Maplebrook during 2004-2005, and during the summers of 2004 and 2005. The court denies the parents’ motion, and it instead dismisses this portion of the parents’ suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Under IDEA, a party who is aggrieved by the findings and decision made under [20 U.S.C. § 1415](f) ... shall have the right to bring a civil action with respect to the complaint presented pursuant to this section, which action may be brought in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States.... 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A) (2000). Section 1415(f) is the subsection that allows parents the opportunity to present claims in “an impartial due process hearing, which shall be conducted by the State educational agency ... as determined by State law....” The problem with the parents’ enforcement claim is that the parents are not “aggrieved” by that portion of the “findings and decision” made by the [¶] during the impartial due process hearing and which are the subject of the partial summary judgment motion. Rather, they are “aggrieved” with the steps that the state BOE has taken (or failed to take) to enforce the HO’s decision pursuant to state law. Nothing in IDEA authorizes the parents’ enforcement suit. Accord C.C. v. Granby Bd. Of Educ., 453 F.Supp.2d 569, 577 (D.Conn.2006). The parents protest that this result leaves them without a remedy. Doc. No. 54 at 6-7. That is simply not true. Pursuant to its statutory duty, see Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-76h(d)(2), the state BOE began enforcement proceedings on August 25, 2006, by asking both sides to report on the status of District l’s compliance. Six days later, the parents responded with a written request that the BOE enforce the HO’s decision. A.R. 74. The administrative record shows that the agency received this letter on September 6, 2006. Id. Yet a mere two days later, without any further communication with the BOE, the parents filed this lawsuit. Although by all indications the BOE had been prepared to act on the parents’ request, the parents’ lawsuit has prompted the BOE to hold its enforcement proceedings “in abeyance pending the decision” of this court. A.R. 76. The parents’ remedy is clear: they must simply inform the BOE of this court’s decision. Id. Accordingly, insofar as the parents’ suit seeks to enforce the hearing officer’s decision, that portion of the suit is dismissed. IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD The court next turns to the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on the claims in the parents’ Complaint. Ordinarily, a party is entitled to summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The moving party has the burden of showing that the material facts are not in dispute, although the non-moving party must shoulder his own burden of pointing to the evidence that would support a verdict in its favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The normal summary judgment standard does not, however, apply in this case. On March 26, 2007, this court held a status conference with the parties. At that conference, both sides agreed that this case would be briefed and decided solely on the administrative record. 3/26/07 Status Conf. Tr. at 3-4, 7. Indeed, it is standard for IDEA cases to be definitively resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment. That is because the case is essentially an appeal from a hearing officer’s decision, to be decided on the administrative record, and so the court’s task on a motion for summary judgment is not really one of identifying disputed issues of material fact. Rather, the parties’ summary judgment motions provide “a ‘pragmatic procedural mechanism’ for reviewing a state’s compliance” with IDEA. Lillbask ex. rel. Mauclaire v. Conn. Dept. of Educ., 397 F.3d 77, 83 n. 3 (2d Cir.2005) (quoting Warton v. New Fairfield Bd. Of Educ., 217 F.Supp.2d 261, 270 (D.Conn.2002)). It is less clear whether the parents’ non-IDEA claims should necessarily be decided on the administrative record. Here, however, based on comments made at both the March 26 phone conference and at oral argument, the court understands both parties to have agreed to submit the entire case to be decided solely on the administrative record. The court further notes that neither party has demanded a jury trial on any issues. Even if the non-IDEA claims were analyzed under traditional summary judgment principles, however, the result would be the same. As further discussed below, there are no disputed issues of material fact regarding the non-IDEA claims. V. CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT A. Scope of the Dispute Before examining the substance of the parties’ arguments, the court must first determine exactly which claims are properly before the court for resolution. That in turn requires some additional discussion of the procedural history of this case. As noted above, on March 26, 2007, both sides agreed that this case would be briefed and decided solely on the administrative record. 3/26/07 Status Conf. Tr. at 3-4, 7. Accordingly, the court set a deadline for both parties to file cross-motions for summary judgment, and then the court set a later deadline for the parties to oppose the motions that had been filed. Id. at 6. The court stated that it would not allow the parties to file replies to the opposition. Id. The court’s comments also indicated that it expected each side to set out its position in its summary judgment motion; this meant that when the parties each wrote their oppositions, they would in effect be writing “replies” because they would have seen the other side’s argument. Id. at 6-7. In light of this, it should have been clear to the parents that, if they wished to pursue the substantive claims in their Complaint, it was their responsibility to affirmatively move for summary judgment on those claims. Despite this, the parents’ cross-motion for summary judgment pursued only two claims: (1) a claim that Maplebrook was J.B.’s “stay-put” placement, and (2) a claim that District 1 violated the Rehabilitation Act during 2003-2004, and during summers 2004 and 2005. Doc. No. 66. At oral argument, the court informed the parents that it would deem them to have abandoned any claim on which they had not affirmatively moved for summary judgment. The parents objected, and upon their oral request, the court granted the parents leave to file a third motion for summary judgment, with an opportunity for the district to respond, and with an opportunity for the parents to file a Reply. In their third summary judgment motion, the parents sought summary judgment on the following additional claims: (1) under IDEA, denial of FAPE to J.B. during 2002-2003, Summer 2003, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and later periods; (2) violations of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for those same years; (3) violations of the ADA for these same years, as well as during 2003-2004, Summer 2004, and Summer 2005; and (4) the HO’s failure to rule on a number of claims properly before her, in violation of a consent decree that various state officials had entered into in a different federal case. The court deems the parents to have abandoned all other substantive claims for relief. Additionally, the court will not consider any of the parents’ claims based on the 2005-2006 school year (or later). When a party’s grievances concern school actions potentially encompassed by IDEA, the party is required to exhaust its administrative remedies. See Polera v. Bd. of Educ., 288 F.3d 478, 486-88 (2d Cir.2002); 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l) (2000). In this case, the parents filed their administrative complaint in February 2005, well before any IEP had been (or was required to be) proposed for the 2005-2006 school year, or for any school year beyond. See Cerra v. Pawling Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 194 (2d Cir.2005); 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(2) (requiring only that an IEP be in effect “[a]t the beginning of each school year”); id. § 1414(d)(4)(A)(I) (requiring that reviews of an IEP occur “not less than annually”); Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76dll (a) (requiring only that an IEP be developed “prior to the beginning of the school year”). Although the parents raised issues about 2005-2006 and beyond in their initial presentation of the issues to the HO, their claims for those years were plainly premature, and the parents should instead have brought those claims in separate administrative proceedings (which they have apparently now done). A party surely cannot be said to have “exhausted” administrative remedies by prematurely bringing a claim to an agency. Therefore, the parents’ claims based on 2005-2006 and later periods are dismissed for lack of exhaustion. B. Stay-Put Claim The parents first argue that the [¶] erred when she failed to designate the Maplebrook School as J.B.’s “stay-put” placement pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415© (2000). Section 1415© states: “during the pendency of any [IDEA] proceedings ..., unless the State or local educational agency and the parents otherwise agree, the child shall remain in the then-current educational placement of such child.... ” Id. The parents contend that, as of the time they initiated their claim with the HO, and until their dispute is finally resolved, Maplebrook School is J.B.’s “then-current educational placement” — ie. his “stay-put” placement. Because of this, the parents seek to be reimbursed for J.B. expenses at Maplebrook from February 2005 onward. The court agrees with the parents that Maplebrook eventually became J.B.’s stay-put placement, but it concludes that Maplebrook acquired this status only as of the date of the hearing officer’s decision. To understand the parents’ claim, some additional background about IDEA is helpful. Under IDEA, states that receive certain federal grants (including Connecticut) are required to provide disabled children with a FAPE. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A) (2000). Procedurally, this is accomplished by having parents and school administrators jointly develop an IEP for each year of the student’s education. Polera, 288 F.3d at 482. An IEP is memorialized in writing, and it sets forth the specific elements that will be included in the child’s education during the coming year. If an IEP does not provide a FAPE, and the parents wish to remedy this by sending their child to private school at public expense, IDEA provides the parents with two remedial mechanisms. The first of these is reimbursement, which is set in motion when the parent unilaterally enrolls the student in private school. The parents then sue, and they are reimbursed for their expenses in a given year if the court agrees that the IEP for that year denied a FAPE, and that the private school placement was appropriate. See Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70, 105 S.Ct. 1996, 85 L.Ed.2d 385 (1985); Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist, 489 F.3d 105, 111-12 (2d Cir.2007). In this case, the HO denied the parents’ request for reimbursement for 2004-2005 because she concluded that District l’s IEP for that year provided a FAPE. The second IDEA remedy is compensatory education, which is designed to compensate a student who was actually educated under an inadequate IEP. Compensatory education is a prospective award of educational services designed to catchup the student to where he should have been absent the denial of a FAPE. See Reid ex. rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 522 (D.C.Cir.2005); Burr v. Ambach, 863 F.2d 1071, 1078 (2d Cir.1988), vacated and remanded sub. nom. Sobol v. Burr, 492 U.S. 902, 109 S.Ct. 3209, 106 L.Ed.2d 560 (1989), reaff'd after remand 888 F.2d 258 (2d Cir.1989). In this case, the HO concluded that J.B. was deprived of a FAPE during his 2003-2004 school year at HVRHS. Accordingly, the HO awarded one year of compensatory education at Maplebrook to make up for the harm to J.B.’s education. The HO specifically identified the 2004-2005 school year at Maplebrook as J.B.’s “compensatory” year. Because the parents had already paid J.B.’s Maplebrook tuition for 2004-2005, the HO concluded that District 1 was required to compensate the parents for the amount they had spent on that year. Awards of compensatory education and reimbursement are both awards that are given at the end of a long litigation battle. But before the litigation ends, both sides must figure out exactly where to place the student during the pendency of a dispute. This is where the “stay-put” provision comes in: it tells the parties to maintain the status quo until potentially lengthy administrative proceedings have run their course. See Burlington, 471 U.S. at 373, 105 S.Ct. 1996; Zvi D. v. Ambach, 694 F.2d 904, 906 (2d Cir.1982). In its most common application, the stay-put provision simply prevents the school district from unilaterally excluding a disabled child in response to a dispute. See Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 327, 108 S.Ct. 592, 98 L.Ed.2d 686 (1988). But in some circumstances, the stay-put provision requires that the child be placed in a private setting. In those cases, the parents are entitled to reimbursement for their expenses, even if the parents are unsuccessful in their claim for reimbursement based on a denial of a FAPE. See Mackey v. Bd. of Educ. for the Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist, 386 F.3d 158, 160-61 (2d Cir.2004). The key inquiry in this case is thus to determine if and when Maplebrook became J.B.’s stay-put placement. Generally, the stay-put placement will be the placement that was in effect at the time of the student’s last-implemented IEP. See id. at 163 (collecting cases). Here, that was J.B.’s 2003-2004 placement at HVRHS, and so District 1 contends that J.B.’s stay-put placement was at HVRHS. Doc. No. 71 at 12. District 1 is correct insofar as it is referring to J.B.’s proper placement at the commencement of administrative proceedings. However, a student’s stay-put placement can change once the parents persuade an [¶] that the district’s IEP is inadequate. This is because the state and the parents are free to agree on an alternate stay-put placement, see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); 34 C.F.R. § 300.514(a) (2006), and an administrative decision upholding a unilateral placement is a qualifying “agreement” by the state. Mackey, 386 F.3d at 163; Bd. of Educ. v. Schutz, 290 F.3d 476, 484 (2d Cir.2002). Indeed, federal regulations specifically provide that, “[i]f the decision of a hearing officer in a due process hearing ... agrees with the child’s parents that a change of placement is appropriate, that placement must be treated as an agreement between the State ... and the parents for purposes of’ the stay-put provision. 34 C.F.R. § 300.514(a) (2006). Because the [¶] concluded that J.B. should be educated at Maplebrook for 2004-2005 (and for summers 2004 and 2005), Maple-brook became J.B.’s stay-put placement as of the date of the HO’s decision. District 1 responds by claiming that the [¶] did not actually order that J.B. be placed at Maplebrook; it characterizes the HO’s award as merely an. “equitable remedy for the parents [that] provid[es] them with a cash payment for the cost incurred for the 2004-2005 school year[, and] that had no legal affect on J.B.’s placement for the 2004-2005 school year.” Doc. No. 71 at 17. The district further points out that the compensatory award in this case stands in contrast to the reimbursement awards that previous cases have deemed sufficient to constitute a change in placement for “stayput” purposes. See, e.g., Mackey, 386 F.3d at 161; Schutz, 290 F.3d at 478. Although the HO’s award was one of compensatory education, it is plain that she understood her decision to be one that specifically approved of J.B.’s placement at Maplebrook for the 2004-2005 school year. See A.R. 1 at 18-19 (evaluating whether Maplebrook School provides an appropriate placement for J.B.). That is all that matters. Indeed, the relevant federal regulation does not distinguish between placement changes effected by compensatory education awards and those effected by reimbursement awards. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.514(a) (2006). To nonetheless import such a distinction would lead to the anomalous conclusion that J.B.’s stay-put placement is one based on an IEP that both the state and the parents agree to be inappropriate. Nor does it matter that the [¶] concluded that the 2004-2005 IEP was appropriate. See Mackey, 386 F.3d at 160-61 (explaining that the stay-put provision reflects a congressional choice “that all handicapped children, regardless of whether their case is meritorious or not, are to remain in their [stay-put] placement until the dispute with regard to their placement is ultimately resolved” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Susquenita Sch. Dist. v. Raelee S. ex rel Heidi S., 96 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir.1996))). Here, the validity of the 2004-2005 IEP remained in dispute even after the hearing officer issued her decision; it would be anomalous to use this disputed IEP as the “stay-put” placement since the dispute over this IEP was what triggered the stay-put provision in the first place. The court accordingly concludes that Maplebrook constitutes J.B.’s stay-put placement from August 10, 2006, onward. District 1 is ordered to reimburse J.B.’s tuition at Maplebrook from that date through the date that the parents’ dispute over the 2004-2005 school year is no longer pending (or the date that there is a new agreement over J.B.’s placement, if such an agreement occurs first). C. Alleged FAPE Denials The parents’ next set of claims suggest that J.B. was denied a FAPE during the 2002-2003 school year, Summer 2003, and the 2004-2005 school year. The parents seek an award of compensatory education for the former two periods, and a reimbursement award for the latter period. The HO did not issue a timely ruling regarding the parents’ Summer 2003 claim. The HO rejected the parents’ claim for the other two time periods. In considering the parents’ claims, the court must be mindful that judicial review of the administrator’s decision is “strictly limited.” D.F. v. Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist., 430 F.3d 595, 597-98 (2d Cir.2005). This reflects the expectation that federal courts will give “due weight to [administrative] proceedings, mindful that the judiciary generally lacks the specialized knowledge and experience necessary to resolve persistent and difficult questions of educational policy.” Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 129 (2d Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). Apart from any considerations of administrative deference, however, there is a separate question of which side has the burden of proof in establishing its claims. As a general matter, the parents have the burden of proof when they file for a due process hearing. See Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 51, 126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387 (2005). But it is not clear if that general rule holds true when state law specifically allocates the burden of proof to the school district. See id. at 61, 126 S.Ct. 528. Connecticut falls into this grey area. See Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h~14(a) (stating that in a due process hearing “the public agency has the burden of proving the appropriateness of the child’s program or placement, or of the program or placement proposed by the public agency”). The court finds persuasive Justice Breyer’s analysis in Schaffer (which the Supreme Court majority did not address given its disposition of the case), which concluded that IDEA’S model of cooperative federalism did not intend to preempt states’ abilities to determine the burden of proof for themselves. See Schaffer, 546 U.S. at 67-71, 126 S.Ct. 528 (Breyer, J., dissenting). Thus, in light of Connecticut law, District 1 bears the burden of proving the appropriateness of its IEPs by a preponderance of the evidence. Even under Connecticut law, however, the parents retain the burden of production. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-14(a). This means that the parents retain the obligation to come forward with evidence in support of their claim that District 1 denied J.B. a FAPE during a given period. When a party asserts that a particular IEP denied a FAPE, the court must apply the two-part inquiry under Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982). First, the court must determine whether the school district has complied with IDEA’S procedural requirements in developing that IEP. See id. at 206, 102 S.Ct. 3034. Second, the court must determine if the IEP is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” Id. If the IEP fails either prong of the Rowley test, the school has not met its statutory obligation to provide a FAPE. See Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 (2d Cir.2005). If an IEP is deficient along one or more prongs of the Rowley test, however, that does not automatically mean that the parents are entitled to a remedy. This is especially true with regards to the procedural prong. Because the remedies of reimbursement and compensatory education are essentially equitable ones, see Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356, 363-64 (2d Cir.2006); Mrs. C. v. Wheaton, 916 F.2d 69, 75 (2d Cir.1990), courts will grant relief for procedural flaws only when those flaws actually affect a child’s educational opportunity. See J.D. ex rel. J.D. v. Pawlet Sch. Dist., 224 F.3d 60, 69 (2d Cir.2000); Burke County Bd. Of Educ. v. Denton, 895 F.2d 973, 982 (4th Cir.1990). Additionally, when parents seek a reimbursement remedy following their unilateral placement in private school, that remedy may only be awarded if the private placement is deemed “appropriate.” Burlington, 471 U.S. at 369-70, 105 S.Ct. 1996; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 111-12. In evaluating the parents’ various claims regarding denial of FAPE, the court will consider each relevant time period separately. 1. Compensatory Education Request for 2002-2003 The parents attack the 2002-2003 IEP on both the procedural and substantive prongs. On the procedural front, parents first contend that J.B.’s 2002-2003 IEP was not based on an evaluation that had been conducted within the preceding three years. Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2), school districts must conduct a comprehensive evaluation of disabled children every three years—a so-called “triennial evaluation.” The parents claim that J.B.’s IEP was developed on April 26, 2002, and that as of that date the most recent triennial evaluation had been an April 1998 evaluation conducted by Boston Children’s Hospital (“BCH Evaluation”). Doc. No. 85 at 2. It is true that the 2002-2003 IEP was first proposed on April 26, 2002. See Hearing Exh. B-7. But as District 1 correctly points out, the IEP was not actually finalized until a PPT meeting on May 31, 2002. Hearing Exh. B-9 at 2. That second meeting occurred after J.B. was the subject of a triennial evaluation by school psychologist Hal Tingley in early May 2002. See Hearing Exh. B-8. And the May 31 IEP states that it was implementing the April IEP because the results of the Tingley evaluation supported that decision. Id. at 2. Thus, even if District 1 waited more than three years to conduct a reevaluation of J.B., it did reevaluate him shortly before it formally implemented the 2002-2003 IEP. Any delay in testing did not affect J.B.’s educational opportunities, and the parents are not entitled to relief for this alleged procedural violation. The parents next argue that the Tingley evaluation was insufficiently comprehensive. Under IDEA, a triennial evaluation must “use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional and developmental information ... that may assist in determining ... the content of the child’s [IEP].” 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(2)(A). The tests may not rely on only “a single procedure as the sole criterion” for determining the appropriate IEP. Id. § 1414(b)(2)(B). Additionally, the student must be tested “in all areas of suspected disability.” Id. § 1414(b)(3)(C). The parents contend that these requirements were not met because the Tingley evaluation included only cognitive and achievement tests. Doc. No. 85 at 5. Based on deficiencies identified in the 1998 BCH evaluation, the parents believe that Tingley also should have evaluated J.B.’s motor skills, speech/language skills, social/emotional skills, pragmatic skills, visual abilities, vocational/life skills, and adaptive behavior. Id. at 9. The [¶] appears to have rejected the parents’ argument as time-barred. A.R. 1 at 14. This conclusion was based on the fact that the allegedly improper evaluation occurred in May 2002, more than two years before the parents requested a due process hearing. See Conn. GemStat. § 10-76h(a)(3) (2002) (current version at Conn. Gen-Stat. § 10-76h(a)(4) (2007)) (setting a two-year statute of limitations for IDEA claims); M.D., 334 F.3d at 221-222 (holding that in an IDEA case, state law sets the relevant limitations period). The HO’s conclusion was correct. Without citing any authority, the parents argue that their claim is timely because it was used as a basis for the 2002-2003 IEP.