School district’s proposed extended school year education plan comported with requirements of IDEA.

Respondent school district proposed that Petitioner, a child with special needs, receive extended school year (ESY) programming at the rate of 4.5 hours per day, three days per week, and assigned a different lead teacher than was assigned to Petitioner during the regular school year. Petitioner’s mother filed a Due Process Complaint, seeking four days a week of ESY led by the regular school year teacher. The Court upheld the school district’s proposal, holding that no procedural or substantive safeguards had been violated.