my name is sonia curry and i represent appellant p p who is the student in this case we are here requesting the court to affirm the district court in part and reversed the district court in part at the time of the underlying administrative hearing p p was in th grade yet she was counting on her fingers to do her math and she was not able to read all of her courses for her teachers were reading to her how how did this happen well this happened because the district wrongly delayed child find or in other words evaluating the student for special education instead she was in section five hundred and four or r t i or dyslexia services depending on what the school district called them at the time that was for about three and a half years which is contrary to this court's holding in o w the other reason this happened is because the school district delayed developing an i p for p p that was compliant even after they had evaluated her and found her i d e a eligible we are asking that this court raise reversed the district court in terms of its finding of no remedy for these egregious violations as the e p is the centerpiece of the entire special ed system and as a child if ferment of duty of the school districts and critical so that children can timely be obtaining peace this court must reverse that aspect the court should be affirmed in the finding of a child of course looking at the triggering point when should the district have now in this case the district knew this child had dyslexia in nd corps a they didn't offer special education evaluation until th grade that is unreasonable under the o w test in addition it's not just looking at the period of time it's looking out what happened during that period of time during the period of time when this child was in what we call generic dyslexia services in texas she was not making progress she was failing state tests she was not improving in her reading the parent was requesting for additional help of some kind but the parent was not aware of or was not given notice about her special education rights until th grade so we believe the court must consider all of these factors in looking at whether or not the district court correctly refused to provide any compensatory education for the student when there is no i as there was not here for nd grade rd grade th grade and th grade until the very last day the court has a duty to return th matter to the district court for reconsideration the facts are plentiful in this case the district court rely upon the administrative law judge as factual finding but unfortunately drew incorrect conclusions with respect to the child find a period of time the hearing officer said there was a child fine violation of six months or more but the district court looked only at the two thousand and sixteen and two thousand and seventeen school year and only then and that was on reconsideration there was no i p compliant with the idea until the last day of th grade so understand explicitly how compensatory education was to be determined and it looked at the fact that the school district had created an id pay for the student and i that that i was the sufficient remedy but the case law does not suggest that neither draper nor read which this court has sided in o w nor other cases in other circuits like i s d two hundred and eighty four case which was citing their brief or the somber case none of those cases stand for the suggestion that just by creating an i e pity you have solved the compensatory education some period of time to suggest that simply creating an i e pay would evaporate in a vis the rate compensatory education in in ways i cannot even begin to imagine because compensatory had is this court has said this court adopted draper and sad compensatory a compensates it's something more it's to bring the child back to the point the child would be if the child  not suffered the harm surely that would not be a child in th grade counting on her fingers and having to be read to by her teachers so that is why we say that the compensatory education determination of the court was in correct it cannot be a zero order it must be appropriate relief and as their order is not appropriate whether the district the school district can provide a free appropriate public education in an i p after they've violated child find and delayed and i p is not relevant to determining if the child receives compensatory education the court must look at what the child lost and determine if there should be around lady and here there is no question even the least can see there is at least some child fine violation but so to award no remedy in light of that is not correct the district may raise the issue of the statute of limitations as to the remedy and i want to address just briefly with respect to the statute of limitations texas has a one year filing deadline of the question becomes when does the deadline starts and as the discovery roll as explained by the th circuit in the st circuit and the other circuits when the parent knew so this karen according police received her st notice of procedural safeguards in october of twenty six team she filed for hearing within that one year the issue about the statue of limitations is the remedy and the court should consider adopting the reasoning in the legionnaire case so in legionnaire the court's claim that the one that the statue of limitations period for filing is not limited to the period or the compensatory of is not limited to the period of the filing that would not make sense and it is consistent with this court's decision in draper in o w which adopted draper and worried to realize that if we have a child who's been deprived for more than one year which we have here that child gets a remedy that is not cut off at the knees by the statue of limitations because the texas one year provision is a filing provision it is not cannot be in contradiction to the federal law and that is what the legionnaire case decides so we believe d that the court should  the district court finding that this child was denied timely child fine and eligibility affirm the district court's finding that this child was denied and eighteen remand this matter to the district court for a specific determination of the amount of compensatory education that should be awarded to the you know the i d e a authorizes the grant of quote such relief is the court determines is appropriate this statute has been read in all circuits including this one in spring grove verses o w as including an the purpose of compensatory education is to provide prospect of relief to remedy a past harm this is different from whether or not a new i p developed after school has of compensatory education because compensatory education is back with looking the purpose of compensatory education is restored to it in this case if the parent had paid for services there would be not be any question that the expenditure would be on the table this is been the state of the law since one thousand nine hundred and five in town of burlington which clearly establishes a right to reimbursement that a parent for whatever reason there is not place the child in the private service compensatory education does not obviate the requirement i mean reimbursement does not obviate the requirement there are many reasons  parent might not purchase services and as far as i am aware none of these reasons are on record compensatory education may be awarded for a student who has been child for it there has been  geisha made that this was denied because the parent denied services we fuse services assuming even that that is true there is no case law which i am where that there has been a waiver of the student's right to compensatory education because of an alleged fusil of services nor has the court cited any thank you very much your honour's th the on the destruction of organizations in this matter that reach starts stops in march of two thousand and six when you look at the next time period that's relevant in this matter it's the know yes thank you st to respond quickly to the school district suggestion about the statute of limitations in pleadings before the the administrative hearing officer  p p preserve this issue of relief as opposed to the one you're stitching of limitations filing and that is in a pleading that is that respondent record on appeal one thousand deaths one thousand which is the notes from the meeting in may of two thousand and seventeen when people go to these meetings the school district writes notes and in these notes which are called deliberations it states that the discuss that the dyslexia program is established by the district and the committee asked if they wanted to have a child go back into the program she had been any and had not made progress in which was why she was in special ed and  the parents said they want to quote an effective they wanted an appropriate program they did not want the same program so it's and they also according to the district specifically requested about the dyslexia service is this important because these generic dyslexia services are not the same as carefully tailored individualized specially designed instruction and that this court addressed that in the cold case  and that's what really this allegation about declining is about i also wanted to mention that the parent asked about special education in may that record on the pill twenty four team so two thousand and fourteen is h r it's something that will help the court understand these various numbers about reading that are throughout the wrapper so we have numbers that are called