or related services offered. This plan must be developed with a representative of the private school. Such services may be provided on the premises of the private school or religious school. See 34 C.F.R. 300.133. In support of its motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs IDEA claim, defendant had argued, first, that it is not subject to liability under the IDEA because the Act provides only for liability of state and local educational agencies, and not private entities, so that any complaint plaintiff may have had for alleged violation of the obligations imposed by the IDEA were properly directed against Jackson Public School District, the local educational agency (LEA). See J. v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, Civil Action No. 06-3866, 2007 WL 1221216, 2-4 (E.D.Pa. Apr. 25, 2007) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Defendant further argued
holding that an individualized educational program that merely provided for educational services as appropriate did not result in the denial of a free appropriate public education holding that because the idea contemplates a remedy that seeks changes to a students special education program compensatory damages therefore are not available holding that damages are not relief that is available under the idea recognizing that the idea authorizes courts to order reimbursement of the costs of private specialeducation services in appropriate circumstances holding that the local educational agency is the appropriate target of a suit under the idea and that private entities cannot be held liable under the statute as the idea obligates the statenot the private schoolto ensure that such children are provided special education and related services in accordance with an individualized education program 