In Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, U.S. 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982), the Supreme Court reviewed the policies, procedures and objectives of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. It also specifically identified and delimited a court's obligation in actions instituted pursuant to Sec. 1415(e)(2). The Court stated: A court's inquiry in suits brought under Sec. 1415(e)(2) is two-fold. First, has the State complied with the procedures set forth in the Act? And second, is the individualized educational program developed through the Act's procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits? If these requirements are met, the State has complied with the obligations imposed by Congress and the courts can require no more. Id. at 102 S.Ct. at 3051. In Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 186 n. 9, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3041 n. 9, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982), where it was claimed that an individualized educational program (IEP) for a handicapped child for the school year 1978-79 was inadequate, the Supreme Court noted that "Judicial review invariably takes more than nine months to complete, not to mention the time consumed during preceding state administrative hearings." It held that the IEP's shortcomings were capable of repetition as to the parties before it, yet evaded review. The Court stated: When the elaborate and highly specific procedural safeguards embodied in 20 U.S.C. 1415 are contrasted with the general and somewhat imprecise substantive admonitions contained in the Act ... it seems to us no exaggeration to say that Congress placed every bit as much emphasis upon compliance with procedures giving parents and guardians a large measure of participation at every stage of the administrative process ... as it did upon the measurement of the resulting IEP against a substantive standard. (Id. at 205-06, 102 S.Ct. 3034.)