to address this issue is KDM v. Reedsport School Dist., 196 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir.1999). In RDM, the Ninth Circuit made a point to stress the uniformity with which courts have upheld the permissiveness of,the IDEA. See id. at 1049 (“Every circuit that has considered whether the IDEA ... requires services to be provided on site at a private school has concluded it does not.”). In light of KDM’s guidance, and after making an in dependent review of the relevant case law, this Court makes a similar determination. See, e.g., Russman v. Board of Educ., 150 F.3d 219, 222 (2d Cir.1998) (“[T]he statute does not require a school district to provide on-site services to a disabled child who is voluntarily enrolled in a private school.”); Foley v. Special Sch. Dist., 153 F.3d 863, 865 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Fowler v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 259, 128
holding that a void decree has no legal effect holding that a motion to terminate a consent decree was moot because there was no  consent decree left to be terminated holding that parents had no right to a federal court decree mandating resource services be provided at a particular location holding that the trial judge had the power to incorporate a settlement agreement in a decree following the entry of a decree of divorce holding that a motion to terminate a consent decree was moot because the challenged provisions of the decree had expired