Okay, found the case you linked to:
STUDENT is four and one-half years old and eligible for special education
services as a result of a severe to profound sensori-neural hearing loss in both
ears. In July 1994, when STUDENT was approximately fourteen months old,
his hearing loss was first diagnosed by an audiologist, Dr. Robin Vaughn. Dr.
Vaughn concluded that STUDENT had a "severe to profound hearing loss in
the left ear and a probable moderate hearing loss in the right ear." (Pet. Exh.
48.) On September 7, 1994, STUDENT's mother contacted the District to
request services for him.
In late September 1994, an initial assessment of STUDENT was performed by
the District's school nurse and a special education teacher. Although
STUDENT was 16 months old, he was able to use only one word, and was
functioning at the 12-month age level in language. STUDENT's development in
all other areas was noted to be within normal limits. The assessors relied on Dr.
Vaughn's report of STUDENT's hearing loss, and stated that STUDENT was
"deaf in one ear" and had "a profound hearing loss in the other." (Pet. Exh. 5.)
STUDENT was found eligible for the District's parent/infant services, known as
the Early Start in-home program, based on his severe language delay and
This is about early intervention services. Early intervention services are funded differently than K-12. We already went through this. The parents in the OP have already had EI services. Now they are attempting to get taxpayers to pay for their child's placement in elementary school. Do, this case, as well, is not comparable to the situation in the OP.