protracted resolution of this dispute. 14 . In considering this question, we note that extended litigation under the IDEA is disfavored because it imposes heavy costs on the litigants and delays implementation of an appropriate educational plan for children with disabilities. See Schaffer, 546 U.S. at 58-59, 126 S.Ct. 528 (discussing the costs of litigating IDEA disputes and Congress’s intent to reduce IDEA litigation). 15 . See, e.g., Doe v. Boston, 358 F.3d at 29-30 (" Consistent with each of the circuit courts that have considered the application of Buckhannon to the IDEA, we hold that IDEA plaintiffs who achieve their desired result via private settlement may not, in the absence of judicial imprimatur, be considered 'prevailing parties.’ ”); T.D. v. LaGrange, 349 F.3d at 476-78 (<HOLDING>); John T., 318 F.3d at 557 (same). 16 . See,
holding that successful party is one who is the ultimate prevailing party in the litigation holding that prevailing party status may be conferred by interim judicial relief that alters the parties legal relationship holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees holding that prevailing party has no standing to appeal recognizing that a private settlement without judicial imprimatur is insufficient to convey prevailing party status