ÿWPC, )„ò<ýSÈHº¯tŒÕ¥à ~ ¯ÅØ Ö³G}'‡¢7€uú“›ˆRþB‘óB 7¨TôÌ…:QØ#UIÈîÔAÐsë”ì  ùŽDtÅ 2Ïêá9zf85qiØ$­bq¢#sišE :-—§Iñfî_šÖË{œÌ8jLJþí׃6®»Zv¥eg&vÛÕöÚ]rM¶ºÕL-ʵÀa£’ÁoŒº¨#ö%ý 4¾&Ór\Û¶u&´Y;Lý5xƒ¦Ÿ/Ê©.3ÏëZ¿VRý–H‡ ý’/Y‰²]™’ÈÌ1÷OþR¸mŸ”Å +(œüØnAá·è»_¸XÑ~—ŽÓ+ûBdQ¤€MŸ®S4›Go·[þùeÀrœP‰tr ,¯gµð4µ‰†Øñ-ޤnG8}»íÉýæè´f„³åÈÑzÄ®P{›sd\„v·c%ÿöY•;†#ëáàÑK*®¶÷£2køW8ðcsm)—Fš¢9.å’ ©ŸÍÓÿâ–i¨%Ѐ*9Œq?b^A´±ï£ª¦¢c°ãUÖ*åe¢b˃tÿmQ߸±à¬ªgñŒ[¸}f|oë6©×šÕ,E<Ÿ^K ( %0 0D6 0GzU:ÁU 8û 0¨3UNÛnT)N}U F^ ÅwÑ4Õéø múEfaUB)bkk#Ás»4 ®ï Ü¥¥‚¸T»»»»»» BX(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡Ô€Xœ·XXXÔ<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT<4šÛ 9Z+‹ Courier New (F:2£!$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€XXXXÔÝ  ÝÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÎáA Z‹6Times New Roman Regular«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`(CourierTTXXwþ6X@ÉüQX@´¾½Q 9Z+‹.Courier New RegularmŒr0s ´P/0y File3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀøÀTABLE A<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- ù-˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 ±Ý ƒ£!$ÝÔ€X„XXXÔÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àThe€hearing€officer€also€justified€the€tuitionÐ ° Ðreimbursement€order€on€the€ground€that€the€school€system€hadÐ †Ö Ðviolated€its€"stay€put"€obligations,€ò òó óbut€all€parties€agree€this€wasÐ \¬ Ðin€error€and€should€be€disregarded. ¤Ý ƒ£!$ÝÔ€X„XXXÔÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àSpecifically,€the€Hearing€Officer€found€Warwick'sÐ ° Ðproposed€Ô_ÔIEPÔ_Ô€to€be€inappropriate€and€the€Pathways€programs€to€be€anÐ †Ö Ðadequate€substitute.€€She€then€gave€Warwick€45€days€to€complete€aÐ \¬ Ðfull€initial€evaluation€of€N.B.€€At€that€point,€if€Warwick€stillÐ 2‚ Ðfailed€to€come€up€with€an€adequate€Ô_ÔIEPÔ_Ô,€it€would€be€obligated€toÐ X Ðpay€N.B.'s€tuition€at€Pathways€thereafter.  ÒÝ ƒ£!$ÝÔ€X„XXXÔÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àThis€statement€is€puzzling€because€the€school€districtÐ ° Ðalways€bears€the€burden€in€the€due€process€hearing€of€showing€thatÐ †Ö Ðits€proposed€Ô_ÔIEPÔ_Ô€is€adequate.€€òòSeeóó€òòGrimóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔRhinebeckÔ_Ô€Cent.€Sch.Ð \¬ ÐDist.óó,€346€F.3d€377,€379€(2d€Cir.€2003);€òòÔ_ÔE.S.Ô_Ôóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔIndepÔ_Ô.€Sch.€Dist.,Ð 2‚ ÐNo.€196óó,€135€F.3d€566,€569€(8th€Cir.€1998);€òòóóòòClyde€K.óó€v.€òòÔ_ÔPuyallupÔ_ÔÐ X ÐSch.€Dist.,€No.€3óó,€35€F.3d€1396,€1398€(9th€Cir.€1994);€òòÔ_ÔFuhrmannÔ_Ôóó€v.Ð Þ. ÐòòEast€Hanover€Bd.€of€Educ.óó,€993€F.2d€1031,€1035€(3d€Cir.€1993).€ Ô+ ' Turner0Turner .    ®Ý ƒ£!$ÝÔ€X„XXXÔÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ X„XXX„Ôà ` àHere,€the€district€court€successfully€avoided€thisÐ ° Ðdanger.€€Warwick€expressed€an€educational€policy€choice€in€its€Ô_ÔIEPÔ_Ô,Ð †Ö Ðwhich€the€hearing€officer€rejected€largely€on€procedural,€notÐ \¬ Ðsubstantive,€grounds.€€In€the€end,€by€reversing€the€hearingÐ 2‚ Ðofficer's€decision,€the€district€court€reinstated€the€policy€choiceÐ X Ðof€the€school€system.€€Ô#†X„XX X„#Ô JÝ ƒ£!$ÝÔ€X„XXXÔÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àThe€hearing€officer€also€relied€on€Dr.€Ô_ÔMesibovÔ_Ô'sÐ ° Ð"admission"€that€he€"would€not€recommend€a€program€without€meetingÐ †Ö Ðboth€[the€child€and€his€or€her€parents]."€€ò òó óBut€Dr.€Ô_ÔMesibovÔ_ÔÐ \¬ Ðclarified€later€in€his€testimony€that€he€meant€that€although€heÐ 2‚ Ðpersonally€would€not€recommend€òòplacementóó€of€a€child€without€suchÐ X Ðinformation,€he€felt€that€he€had€sufficient€information€here€toÐ Þ. Ðevaluate€whether€N.B.'s€placement,€which€had€already€beenÐ ´  Ðdetermined€by€others,€was€appropriate.ò òó ó dÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€X„XXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€„ÐXdÐd=ÓÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !ÙÔ€XèéXXX„ÔÔ€°$°XXèéÔò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÔ€„˜@„°°$ÔÐ ° ÐFor€the€First€Circuitó óÔ€ „¢Ü„„„˜@ÔÔ€ X„X„ „¢ÜÔÐ „Ô ÐÓSÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE< ` AßÐ  à ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌNo.€03„1988Ð K › ÐÌà@ ìàLT.€T.B.€and€E.B.,€on€behalf€of€their€minor€son€N.B.;€N.B.,ˆÐ ÷ G  ÐÌà@ˆˆìàPlaintiffs,€Appellants,ˆÐ £ó  ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ OŸ  ÐÌÓ  Óà@@ ìàWARWICK€SCHOOL€COMMITTEE;€WARWICK€SCHOOL€DEPARTMENT;€ROBERTÐ ûK  ÐCUSHMAN,€FRANK€PICOZZI,€JOYCE€LYNN€ANDRADE,€JOHN€F.€THOMPSON,Ð Ñ! ÐPH.D.,€ROBERT€J.€SHAPIRO,€and€JOSEPH€A.€HARRINGRON,€in€theirÐ §÷ Ðcapacity€as€members€of€the€Warwick€School€Committee,Ð }Í ÐÓ²ÓÌà@ÄÄìàDefendants,€Appellees.ˆÐ )y ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<Ô` AßÐ Õ% ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ º  Ðà@l l ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€RHODE€ISLANDˆÐ à ÐÌà@44ìà[Hon.€Ernest€C.€Torres,€òòChief€U.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ <Œ ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<ç` AßÐ è8 ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ Í ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Boudin,€òòChief€Judgeóó,Ð yÉ! ÐCampbell,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeóó,Ð O Ÿ" Ðand€Lynch,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.Ð %!u# ÐÌÌßA€') °°` dE<¦#` AßÐ §#÷& ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòPeter€F.€Carr,€IIóó,€with€whom€òòEckert€Seamans,€Cherin€&€MellottÐ Œ$Ü( ÐLLCóó,€òòJames€T.€Murphyóó,€and€òòHanson€Curran€LLPóó€were€on€brief,€forÐ b%² ) Ðappellants.Ð 8&ˆ!* ÐÌà  àòòJon€M.€Andersonóó,€with€whom€òòDarlene€K.€Altóó€and€òòEdwards€&€AngellÐ ä'4#, ÐLLPóó€were€on€brief,€for€appellees.Ð º( $- ÐÌÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ <+Œ&0<+Œ& ‹‹ÐÓX ÓÐ SI +ð&1 à•â@38063„„‰à•â@‰‹‹SÐÌâ âMarch€18,€2004Ð v,Æ'3 ÐÐ RHCL-œ(4" à•â@38063 à•â@ ‹‹RÐâ âÐ,"  +ð&5 ? ,ÐÙ* !ÙÔ‡XèéXX X„ÔÔ‡‹Ú°‹XXèéÔÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€„XXdÖdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òòòóóÔ#† ‹”Ï ‹‹‹Ú°. #ÔÔ#† X„X ‹ ‹”ÏM #ÔLYNCH,€òòCircuit€Judgeó óóó.€€This€case€concerns€a€claim€underÐ ° Ðthe€Individuals€with€Disabilities€Education€Act€(IDEA),€20€U.S.C.Ð xÈ Ððð€1400€òòet€seq.óó,€for€tuition€reimbursement€for€the€private€schoolÐ $t Ðplacement€of€an€autistic€child€after€his€parents€rejected€the€planÐ Ð  Ðoffered€by€the€public€school.Ð | Ì Ðà@tt)ìàò òI.ó óˆÐ ( x  Ðà ` àThe€B.'s€moved€to€Warwick,€Rhode€Island€from€Georgia€onÐ ð@  ÐApril€11,€2000,€when€Lt.€T.B.,€an€officer€in€the€United€StatesÐ œì  ÐNavy,€was€reassigned.€€ò òó óOne€of€the€children,€N.B.,€suffers€fromÐ H˜  Ðautism.€€N.B.€had€been€in€a€special€needs€kindergarten€program€inÐ ôD ÐGeorgia€ò òó óand€was€almost€seven€at€the€time€of€the€move.€ò òó ó€Mrs.€B€firstÐ  ð Ðcontacted€the€Warwick€School€District€on€March€29,€2000€to€find€outÐ Lœ Ðwhat€special€educational€services€would€be€available€for€N.B.€inÐ øH ÐWarwick.Ð ¤ô Ðà ` àWarwick€acted€quickly.€€It€sent€a€letter€to€Mrs.€B€onÐ P  ÐApril€4€to€schedule€a€meeting,€ò òó óreviewed€N.B.'s€records,ò òó ó€andÐ üL Ðassembled€a€team,€which€met€on€April€13€with€Mrs.€B€and€herÐ ¨ø  Ðadvocate€from€Families€for€Early€Autism€Treatment.ò òó ó€€ò òó óOn€April€13,Ð T!¤" ÐWarwick€proposed€an€initial€Individualized€Educational€ProgramÐ #P$ Ð(IEP)€for€N.B.,€which€would€be€subject€to€review€several€weeksÐ ¬$ü& Ðafter€N.B.€started€school.€€ò òó óThe€IEP€would€have€kept€N.B.€in€a€self„Ð X&¨!( Ðcontained€Warwick€classroom€that€had€been€recently€established€forÐ (T#* Ðautistic€children€of€his€age€and€that€used€a€modified€version€ofÐ °)%, Ðeducational€techniques€known€as€Treatment€and€Education€of€AutisticÐ \+¬&. Ðand€Communication„Handicapped€Children€(TEACCH)ò òó ó.€€ò òó óThe€B.'s€rejectedÐ ° Ðthe€IEP€and€gave€notice€of€their€intent€to€enroll€N.B.€instead€inÐ \¬ Ða€private€school,€the€Pathways€Strategic€Learning€Center,€whichÐ X Ðuses€a€different€technique€known€as€Discrete€Trial€Training€(DTT).€Ð ´  ÐOn€May€4,€Warwick€proposed€another€IEP€to€the€B.'s,€who€wereÐ ` ° Ðaccompanied€by€counsel€at€the€meeting.€€ò òó óThe€B.'s€rejected€that€IEP,Ð  \  Ðenrolled€N.B.€at€Pathways,€and€requested€a€due€process€hearing.ò òó óÐ ¸  Ðà ` àThe€hearing€officer,€after€a€twenty„day€evidentiaryÐ d´  Ðhearing€in€late€2000€and€early€2001,€sided€with€the€B.'s.€€In€aÐ `  ÐMarch€5,€2001€order,€the€hearing€officer€determined€that€WarwickÐ ¼  Ðhad€violated€its€procedural€obligations€under€the€IDEA.€ò òó ó€òòSeeóó€20Ð h¸ ÐU.S.C.€ðð€1415.€€This€finding€primarily€reflected€two€concerns:€(1)Ð d Ðthat€Warwick€lacked€sufficient€knowledge€of€N.B.€to€determine€thatÐ À Ðnon„DTT€techniques€would€work€for€him€when€it€proposed€its€IEP€andÐ l¼ Ð(2)€that€Warwick€had€pre„determined€that€N.B.€would€be€placed€inÐ h Ðthe€Warwick€school€system.€€ò òó óAs€a€result,€the€hearing€officerÐ Ä Ðreasoned€that€the€burden€shifted€from€the€parents€to€the€schoolÐ pÀ  Ðsystem€on€the€issue€of€the€substantive€adequacy€of€the€IEP׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€andÐ !l" Ðthen€concluded,€based€on€a€very€brief€analysis,€that€the€schoolÐ È"$ Ðsystem€had€not€met€its€burden.ò ò€€ó óThe€hearing€officer€ordered€WarwickÐ t$Ä& Ðto€pay€the€costs€of€N.B.'s€tuition€at€Pathways€henceforth׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€toÐ ° Ðreimburse€the€parents€for€the€tuition€they€had€paid€from€SeptemberÐ \¬ Ð21,€2000,€when€Warwick€received€notice€of€the€due€process€hearing,Ð X Ðthrough€the€date€of€the€hearing.ò òó ó׃”×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò òó óÐ ´  Ðà ` àArmed€with€their€victory,€the€B.'s€went€to€federal€courtÐ ` ° Ðseeking€attorneys'€fees€and€costs€under€20€U.S.C.€ðð€1415(i)(3)(B).€Ð  \  ÐWarwick€counterclaimed,€challenging€the€hearing€officer's€findingsÐ ¸  Ðthat€it€had€committed€material€procedural€violations€and€had€deniedÐ d´  ÐN.B.€a€Free€Appropriate€Public€Education€(FAPE)€in€its€proposedÐ `  ÐIEP.€€ò òó óThis€time,€the€school€system€won.€€On€June€6,€2003,€theÐ ¼  Ðdistrict€court€issued€a€careful€46„page€opinion,€finding€that€anyÐ h¸ Ðprocedural€violations€were€not€sufficiently€material€to€justifyÐ d Ðrejection€of€the€IEP€or€tuition€reimbursementò ò€ó óand€that€the€proposedÐ À ÐIEP€did€not€substantively€deny€N.B.€FAPE.ò òó ó€€Judgment€was€entered€inÐ ˆØ Ðfavor€of€Warwick€on€its€counterclaim,€and€the€parents'€request€forÐ 4„ Ðattorneys'€fees€was€dismissed.ò òó óÐ à0 Ðà ` àOn€appeal,€the€B.'s€argue€that€the€district€court€gaveÐ ŒÜ  Ðinsufficient€deference€to€the€hearing€officer€and€that,€in€anyÐ 8!ˆ" Ðevent,€the€court's€conclusions€were€not€supported€by€the€record.€Ð ° ÐAt€stake€is€whether€Warwick€must€continue€to€pay€N.B.'s€tuition€atÐ \¬ ÐPathways€and€whether€it€must€reimburse€the€B.'s€for€the€tuitionÐ X Ðthat€they€paid€Pathways€from€September€21,€2000,€when€WarwickÐ ´  Ðreceived€notice€of€the€due€process€hearing,€until€March€5,€2001,Ð ` ° Ðwhen€the€hearing€officer€issued€her€decision.€€Since€the€hearingÐ  \  Ðofficer's€decision,€Warwick€has€been€paying€N.B.'s€Pathways€tuitionÐ ¸  Ðduring€the€pendency€of€this€action€under€IDEA's€stay„put€provision,Ð d´  Ð20€U.S.C.€ðð€1415(j).Ð `  Ðà@88)ìàò òII.ó óˆÐ ¼  Ðà ` àWe€find€no€basis€to€upset€the€district€court's€carefulÐ „Ô Ðanalysis€and€affirm€largely€on€the€basis€of€its€opinion,€with€theseÐ 0€ Ðcomments.Ð Ü, Ðà ` àAutism€is€very€difficult€for€parents,€as€well€asÐ ˆØ Ðteachers,€to€handle,€and€there€are€divergent€theories€as€to€theÐ 4„ Ðbest€treatment.€€The€B.'s€are€firm€in€their€belief€that€their€sonÐ à0 Ðwill€benefit€only€from€the€treatment€program€available€at€PathwaysÐ ŒÜ  Ðand€are€admirable€in€their€efforts€to€do€what€they€think€is€bestÐ 8!ˆ" Ðfor€their€son.€€Nonetheless,€under€the€Supreme€Court's€decision€inÐ ä"4$ ÐòòÔ‡X„XX X„ÔBoard€of€Educ.óó€v.€òòRowleyóó,€458€U.S.€176€(1982)Ô#† X„XXX„§)#Ô,€IDEA€does€notÐ $à& Ðrequire€a€public€school€to€provide€what€is€best€for€a€special€needsÐ <&Œ!( Ðchild,€only€that€it€provide€an€IEP€that€is€"'reasonably€calculated'Ð è'8#* Ðâ âto€provide€an€'appropriate'€education€as€defined€in€federal€andÐ ”)ä$, Ðstate€law."€€òòRoland€M.óó€v.Ô‡X„XX X„Ô€òòConcord€Sch.€Comm.óó,€910€F.2d€983,€992„93Ð ° Ð(1st€Cir.€1990)€(quoting€òòRowleyóó,€458€U.S.€at€207€(1982)).Ô#† X„XXX„p+#ÔÐ \¬ Ðâ âà ` àÔ‡X„XX X„ÔThe€B.'s€argue€that€the€1997€amendments€to€IDEA,€Pub.€L.Ð X ÐNo.€105„17,€111€Stat.€37€(1997)Ô#† X„XXX„`,#ÔÔ‡X„XX X„Ô,€changed€this€standard€to€requireÐ ´  Ðschool€districts€to€provide€the€"maximum€benefit"€to€special€needsÐ ` ° Ðchildren.€€ò òó óThey€point€out€that€the€IDEA€now€contains€legislativeÐ  \  Ðfindings€emphasizing€the€importance€of€training€teachers€to€helpÐ ¸  Ðspecial€needs€children€"meet€.€.€.€,€to€the€maximum€extentÐ d´  Ðpossible,€those€challenging€expectations€that€have€been€establishedÐ `  Ðfor€all€children"€and€prepare€them€to€"lead€productive,Ð ¼  Ðindependent,€adult€lives,€to€the€maximum€extent€possible."€€20Ð h¸ ÐU.S.C.€ðð€1400(c)(5)(E).Ð d Ðà ` àWe€do€not€interpret€this€statutory€language,€which€simplyÐ À Ðarticulates€the€importance€of€teacher€training,€as€overrulingÐ l¼ ÐòòRowleyóó.€€This€court€has€continued€to€apply€the€òòRowleyóó€standard€inÐ h Ðcases€following€the€1997€amendments,€òòsee,€e.g.óó,€òòRome€Sch.€Comm.óó€v.Ð Ä ÐòòMrs.€B.óó,€247€F.3d€29,€33€(1st€Cir.€2001),€as€have€several€of€ourÐ pÀ  Ðsister€circuits,€òòseeóó€òòMo.€Dep't€of€Elem.€&€Secondary€Educ.óó€v.Ð !l" ÐòòSpringfield€R-12óó,€No.€02-3765,€2004€U.S.€App.€LEXIS€3883,€at€*14Ð È"$ Ðn.7€(8th€Cir.€March€1,€2004);€òòEvanston€Cmty.€Consol.€Sch.€Dist.€No.Ð t$Ä& Ð65óó€v.€òòMichael€M.óó,€356€F.3d€798,€802,€804€(7th€Cir.€2004);€òòA.B.€exÐ  &p!( Ðrel.€D.B.óó€v.€òòLawsonóó,€354€F.3d€315,€319€(4th€Cir.€2004)òòóó.€€And€thatÐ Ì'#* Ðis€for€good€reason.€€The€òòRowleyóó€standard€recognizes€that€courts€areÐ x)È$, Ðill„equipped€to€second„guess€reasonable€choices€that€schoolÐ $+t&. Ðdistricts€have€made€among€appropriate€instructional€methods.€Ð ° ÐòòRoland€M.óó,€910€F.2d€at€992;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòRowleyóó,€458€U.S.€at€207„08.Ô#† X„XXX„-#ÔÐ \¬ ÐÓ3°,XƒX¨ ƒX°,X°` ¨ ƒX3Óò òA.à  àStandard€of€Reviewó óÐ X ÐÓ7°,X°` ¨ ƒX°,XƒX¨ ƒX57Óà ` àThe€parties€disagree€over€our€standard€of€review.€Ð Ð  ÐWarwick€argues€that€our€review€is€for€clear€error,€whereas€theÐ | Ì Ðplaintiffs€argue€that€our€review€of€the€district€court€opinion€isÐ ( x  Ðde€novo€and€must€accord€"due€weight"€to€the€hearing€officer'sÐ Ô$  Ðdecision.€€We€attempt€to€clarify€the€standard€of€review€here.€Ð €Ð  ÐThere€is€a€distinction€between€the€standard€applied€on€the€districtÐ ,|  Ðcourt's€review€of€the€hearing€officer's€decision€and€that€appliedÐ Ø( Ðon€this€court's€review€of€the€district€court's€decision.Ð „Ô Ðà ` àThe€district€court€reviews€the€administrative€record,Ð 0€ Ðwhich€may€be€supplemented€by€additional€evidence€from€the€parties,Ð Ü, Ðand€makes€an€"independent€ruling€based€on€the€preponderance€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðevidence."€€òòRoland€M.óó,€910€F.2d€at€989€(quoting€òòTown€of€BurlingtonóóÐ 4„ Ðv.€òòDep't€of€Educ.óó,€736€F.2d€773,€790€(1st€Cir.€1984)).€€ThatÐ à0 Ðindependence€is€tempered€by€the€requirement€that€the€court€giveÐ ŒÜ  Ð"due€weight"€to€the€hearing€officer's€findings.€€òòId.óó€(quotingÐ 8!ˆ" ÐòòRowleyóó,€458€U.S.€at€207,€and€òòColin€K.óó€v.€òòSchmidtóó,€715€F.2d€1,€5Ð ä"4$ Ð(1st€Cir.€1983)).€€This€intermediate€level€of€review€reflects€theÐ $à& Ðâ âconcern€that€courts€not€substitute€their€own€notions€of€educationalÐ <&Œ!( Ðpolicy€for€that€of€the€state€agency,€which€has€greater€expertise€inÐ ° Ðthe€educational€arena.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòRowleyóó,€458€U.S.€at€207).€€Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àIn€the€absence€of€a€mistake€of€law,€the€court€of€appealsÐ X Ðmust€uphold€the€district€court's€conclusion€about€the€adequacy€andÐ ´  Ðappropriateness€of€an€IEP€so€long€as€that€conclusion€is€not€clearlyÐ ` ° Ðerroneous€on€the€record€as€a€whole.€€òòId.óó€at€990;€òòLennóó€v.€òòPortlandÐ  \  ÐSch.€Comm.óó,€998€F.2d€1083,€1087€(1st€Cir.€1993).€€òòóóThe€adequacy€ofÐ ¸  Ðan€IEP€is€a€mixed€question€of€fact€and€law.€€òòRoland€M.óó,€910€F.3d€atÐ d´  Ð990.€€Because€this€determination€is,€inòòóó€essence,€a€judgment€call,Ð `  Ðthis€court€applies€the€clearly€erroneous€standard€of€review€evenÐ ¼  Ðwhen€the€district€court€does€not€hear€evidence€on€its€own.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óóÐ h¸ Ðat€990€(expressly€rejecting€the€argument€that€clear€error€reviewÐ d Ðshould€not€apply€when€the€district€court€decides€the€case€entirelyÐ À Ðon€the€basis€of€the€administrative€record).Ð l¼ Ðò òÓ3°,XƒX¨ ƒX°,X°` ¨ ƒX3ÓB.à  àProcedural€Violationsó óÐ h ÐÓ7°,X°` ¨ ƒX°,XƒX¨ ƒXA7Óà ` àThe€plaintiffs€argue€that€the€hearing€officer€correctlyÐ à0 Ðfound€that€Warwick€had€an€inadequate€basis€on€which€to€evaluate€theÐ ŒÜ  Ðchild.€€In€particular,€they€focus€on€the€fact€that€Warwick€had€notÐ 8!ˆ" Ðmet€with€N.B.€and€did€not€have€a€complete€set€of€records€at€theÐ ä"4$ Ðtime€it€met€with€Mrs.€B.€€ò òó óIDEA€regulations€require€that€the€teamÐ $à& Ðmembers€be€"knowledgeable€about€the€child,€the€meaning€of€theÐ ° Ðevaluation€data,€and€the€placement€options."€€34€C.F.R.€ððÐ \¬ Ð300.552(a)(1).€€Whether€the€team€must€meet€the€child€to€perform€anÐ X Ðevaluation€surely€depends€on€the€situation,€particularly€theÐ ´  Ðavailability€of€other€information.€€There€is€no€per€se€rule€thatÐ ` ° Ðunless€the€child€is€seen€and€heard€by€the€team,€the€procedures€forÐ  \  Ðpreparing€an€IEP€have€been€violated.€€òòSeeóó€òòHollandóó€v.€òòD.C.óó,€71€F.3dÐ ¸  Ð417,€422„23€(D.C.€Cir.€1995);€òòCarrollóó€v.€òòCapalboóó,€563€F.€Supp.Ð d´  Ð1053,€1058€(D.R.I.€1983)€("Nowhere€in€the€regulations€is€there€aÐ `  Ðrequirement€that€school€personnel€must€themselves€perform€theÐ ¼  Ðevaluation.").€€Here,€Warwick€did€ask€to€meet€with€N.B.,€but€Mrs.Ð h¸ ÐB.€did€not€receive€the€request€in€time€to€allow€the€team€to€meetÐ d ÐN.B.€before€the€April€13€meeting.ò òó óÐ À Ðà ` àAs€to€the€availability€of€other€information,€on€March€30,Ð l¼ Ðbefore€the€family€moved€to€Rhode€Island,€Mrs.€B.€delivered€toÐ h ÐWarwick€a€packet€of€materials€that€contained€evaluations€of€N.B.Ð Ä Ðmade€in€Georgia€within€the€last€year€by€experts€in€the€variousÐ pÀ  Ðfields€in€which€N.B.€had€special€needs.ò òó ó€€The€school€system€reviewedÐ !l" Ðthe€materials€and€asked€her€to€sign€a€release€so€they€could€getÐ È"$ Ðmore€materials.€€ò òó óMrs.€B.,€who€was€in€the€process€of€moving,€saidÐ t$Ä& Ðshe€did€not€get€the€request.ò òó óÐ  &p!( Ðà ` àWarwick€reviewed€all€the€records€available€at€the€time,Ð Ì'#* Ðmet€with€Mrs.€B.€for€six€hours€over€two€different€days€(April€13Ð x)È$, Ðand€May€4),ò òó ó€and€assembled€a€team€with€considerable€expertise€inÐ $+t&. Ðautism.€€ò òó óThe€team€read€the€prior€evaluations€of€N.B.,ò òó ó€along€withÐ ° Ðadditional€evaluation€materials€provided€by€Mrs.€B.€at€the€April€13Ð \¬ Ðmeeting,€ò òó óand€heard€from€his€mother€and€her€special€education€lawyerÐ X Ðabout€various€educational€techniques€that€N.B.€had€tried.€€TheÐ ´  Ðrecord€also€supports€Warwick's€contention€that€the€IEP€proposed€onÐ ` ° ÐApril€13€was€an€interim€one,€which€would€be€reviewed€one€monthÐ  \  Ðlater,€after€Warwick€could€study€how€N.B.€responded€to€it.ò òó ó€€TheÐ ¸  Ðdistrict€court€was€warranted€in€finding€that€there€was€adequateÐ d´  Ðinformation,€in€context,€to€prepare€an€interim€IEP.€€If€no€furtherÐ `  Ðinformation€developed,€that€was€because€N.B.€was€never€presented€toÐ ¼  Ðor€placed€in€the€Warwick€school€system;€he€was€instead€enrolled€inÐ h¸ ÐPathways.Ð d Ðà ` àThe€other€argument€stressed€by€the€plaintiffs€is€thatÐ À ÐWarwick€never€had€an€open€mind€about€placements€for€N.B.€€TheyÐ l¼ Ðpoint€to€a€statement€by€a€teacher,€Ms.€Brennan,€that€"[i]t€was€myÐ h Ðunderstanding€that€[N.B.]€was€coming€to€my€classroom€so€we€wouldÐ Ä Ðsee€him€on€April€13th,€the€day€of€the€IEP€meeting."ò ò€€ó óThe€districtÐ pÀ  Ðcourt€found€the€plaintiffs'€"pre„determined€outcome€argument"€to€beÐ 8!ˆ" Ðan€over„reading€of€the€teacher's€statement,€which€could€be€read€toÐ ä"4$ Ðmean€only€that€she€thought€that€N.B.€was€coming€to€her€classroom€toÐ $à& Ðbe€evaluated€before€the€IEP€meeting.€€This€conclusion€was€notÐ <&Œ!( Ðclearly€erroneous.€€Even€if€Ms.€Brennan's€statement€is€read€as€theÐ è'8#* ÐB.'s€urge,€it€is€hardly€surprising€that€Warwick€expected€to€seeÐ ”)ä$, ÐMrs.€B.'s€child€in€the€classroom.€€Mrs.€B.€herself€told€the€schoolÐ @+&. Ðsystem€in€her€March€30€letter€that€her€children€would€be€"ready€toÐ ° Ðattend€school€as€of€Tuesday,€April€11,€2000."ò òó ó€€In€any€event,€Ms.Ð \¬ ÐBrennan€was€just€one€member€of€a€multi„member€team,€and€the€IEP€wasÐ X Ðnot€solely€her€effort.Ð ´  ÐÓ3°,XƒX¨ ƒX°,X°` ¨ ƒX3Óò òC.à0  àWhether€the€Proposed€IEP€Provided€FAPEó óÐ` °(#(# ÐÓ7°,X°` ¨ ƒX°,XƒX¨ ƒX‰T7Óà ` àA€major€theme€of€the€plaintiffs'€oral€argument€was€thatÐ ( x  Ðthe€IEP€proposed€by€Warwick€was€not€significantly€different€from€aÐ Ô$  Ðpre„school€program€that€N.B.€had€attended€in€Georgia€(a€"multi„Ð €Ð  Ðmodality€eclectic€classroom,"€according€to€Mrs.€Bò òó ó.),€which€had€notÐ ,|  Ðworked.€€That€experience,€they€say,€taught€N.B.'s€parents€that€heÐ Ø( Ðneeds€constant€one„on„one€attention.€€As€a€result,€they€argue,€onlyÐ „Ô ÐPathways€comes€close€to€meeting€his€needs.€€At€the€administrativeÐ 0€ Ðhearing,€they€provided€expert€evidence,€in€the€form€of€an€affidavitÐ Ü, Ðfrom€Dr.€Mozingo,€of€Pathways,€that€Warwick's€proposed€IEP€wasÐ ˆØ Ðinadequate.€€They€argue€that€the€district€court€improperly€rejectedÐ 4„ Ðthis€expert€evidence,€on€"credibility"€grounds,€in€favor€ofÐ à0 Ðevidence€presented€by€Warwick's€expert,€despite€reviewing€only€theÐ ŒÜ  Ðadministrative€record€and€not€hearing€the€competing€expertÐ 8!ˆ" Ðwitnesses€for€itself.Ð ä"4$ Ðà ` àWarwick€replies€that€its€proposed€IEP€was€different€fromÐ $à& Ðthe€failed€program€in€Georgia.€€Furthermore,€if€the€proposed€IEPÐ <&Œ!( Ðdid€not€work,€Warwick€says,€it€would€have€made€adjustments,€had€itÐ è'8#* Ðâ âbeen€given€the€opportunity€to€do€so.Ð ”)ä$, Ðà ` àNeither€the€hearing€officer€nor€the€district€courtÐ ° Ðâ âaddressed€the€contention€that€the€proposed€IEP€was€no€differentÐ \¬ Ðthan€the€failed€program€in€Georgia.€€From€the€materials€availableÐ X Ðto€us,€it€is€far€from€clear€that€the€programs€were€the€same.€€TheÐ ´  ÐGeorgia€class€was€twice€as€large€as€the€class€in€Warwick's€proposedÐ ` ° ÐIEP.€€ò òó óIn€addition,€unlike€Warwick's€program,€the€Georgia€class€wasÐ  \  Ðnot€specifically€structured€to€address€the€needs€of€autisticÐ ¸  Ðchildren.€€ò òó óMoreover,€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€teachers€in€theÐ d´  Ðfailed€Georgia€program€had€the€same€extensive€experience€andÐ `  Ðtraining€in€working€with€autistic€children€that€the€WarwickÐ ¼  Ðteachers€have.ò òó óÐ h¸ Ðà ` àThe€hearing€officer's€opinion€devoted€roughly€one€page€toÐ d Ðthe€substantive€issue€of€whether€the€IEP€provided€FAPE.€€SheÐ À Ðrejected€the€testimony€of€Warwick's€expert,€Dr.€Mesibov,€on€theÐ l¼ Ðgrounds€that€he€had€not€met€personally€with€N.B.€and€that€he€didÐ h Ðnot€observe€one€of€Ms.€Brennan's€classes€until€several€months€afterÐ Ä Ðthe€IEP€was€proposed.ò òó ó€€Neither€of€those€grounds€was€a€reasonableÐ pÀ  Ðbasis€on€which€to€find€the€IEP€inadequate.€€Dr.€Mesibov,€whoseÐ !l" Ðcredentials€were€considerable,€testified€based€on€his€review€ofÐ È"$ ÐN.B.'s€prior€educational€history€in€Georgia,€the€progress€reportsÐ t$Ä& Ðfrom€Pathways€(where€N.B.€had€started€school),€the€testimony€ofÐ  &p!( Ðâ âothers,€and€his€observations€of€Ms.€Brennan's€class€for€autisticÐ Ì'#* Ðchildren.׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ò òó óThe€district€court€reasonably€relied€on€Dr.€Mesibov'sÐ ° Ðâ âtestimony€and€on€Warwick's€well„trained€teaching€staff€and€trackÐ \¬ Ðrecord€of€success€with€autistic€children.Ð X Ðà ` àAs€for€the€plaintiffs'€expert,€Dr.€Mozingo,€the€districtÐ ´  Ðcourt's€opinion€simply€said€that€Warwick's€expert,€Dr.€Mesibov,€hadÐ ` ° Ðconsiderably€more€expertise€in€the€field€and€so€his€views€would€beÐ  \  Ðafforded€more€weight.€€ò òó óThe€record€is€clearly€sufficient€to€supportÐ ¸  Ðthat€conclusion.Ð d´  Ðà ` àThe€district€court€also€found€that€many€elements€of€DTT,Ð `  Ðthe€method€that€the€B.'s€advocated,€would€be€available€through€theÐ ¼  ÐWarwick€program's€use€of€the€TEACCH€techniques,€including€aÐ h¸ Ðconsiderable€amount€of€one„on„one€instruction.ò òó ó€€There€was€no€clearÐ d Ðerror€in€the€district€court's€finding€that€the€IEP€was€adequate.Ð À Ðà ` àOnce€the€determination€is€made€that€the€IEP€was€adequate,Ð l¼ Ðthat€ends€the€inquiry.€€We€need€not€consider€whether€other€programsÐ h Ðwould€be€better.€€òòG.D.óó€v.€òòWestmoreland€Sch.€Dist.óó,€930€F.2d€942,Ð Ä Ð948„49€(1st€Cir.€1991).ò òó óòòóóÐ pÀ  Ðà@ìì*ìàò òˆÐ  !l" ÐÓ  ÓIII.ó óÐ ° ÐÓYhÓà ` àFor€these€reasons,€we€òòò òaffirmó óóó€the€judgment€of€the€districtÐ xÈ Ðcourt.