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[.]”); School Comm. of Town of Burlington, Mass. v. Dep’t of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359, 372, 105 S.Ct. 1996, 85 L.Ed.2d 385 (1985) (“The [administrative bureau]’s decision in favor of the [parents] ... would seem to constitute agreement by the State to the change of placement.”); District of Columbia v. Vinyard, 901 F.Supp.2d at 85. Here, the hearing officer granted the parents’ request to place M.M. at a private school that primarily serves students with autism for the 2013-14 school year, and this order constituted an agreement to a temporary change of M.M.’s educational placement. See District of Columbia v. Vinyard, 901 F.Supp.2d at 85-86 (<HOLDING>). Although the District believed that the
recognizing districts obligation to maintain special needs student at specific private school where hearing officer had directed district to place and fund student pending development of iep holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school holding that no special relationship existed between the school and student holding that a school district owed the highest degree of care to a student on a school bus such that the district could be liable for the sexual abuse of the student by the school bus driver holding that a students private school tuition should be reimbursed where parent did not unilaterally place student in private school because the school district tacitly consented to the private school attendance before proposing a different placement