p fails to address lizzie's behaviors that interfere with her ability to learn in order lizzie fate and then finally sorry the school district failed to properly consider or determine for extended school year services yes wire services as required by the id so st the service delivery the educational plan that's required to be in the in the ip the id is clear dollars learning lab where lizzie attended half days during the fall of two thousand and fifteen the placement program at the lab consisted of one on one a b a instruction supervised in strike the ivy essentially as you're asking us to do there's no practical effect because the parents have already decided not to send the child to the public schools they don't contest that on it doesn't appear that they have any actual loss the parents had a loss they paid the tuition here my understanding is there's a man kate waiver that covers the cost of the child's tuition at that out partying so i'm not seeing where there's an actual loss which there is a case on requiring that there's got to be an actual austereo there is an actual not just in damages there is an actual loss my understanding is that the medicaid waiver paid for a half day at alpine and the  parents were going to pool together from from family members and themselves to pay for the other half of alpine in addition the parents have claimed and it's going to be that in your brief in your reply brief responding i i thought you did you suggest that they weren't meant the medicaid waiver ones covering the cost of the tuition well i'm not sure whether that was specifically mention or not from from from those that was asserted by the district and well the what's asserted by the district is sort of no harm no foul what the district doesn't provide is a free appropriate public education much of the law is clear that i saw your response to be was that th might be even though there was a medicaid waiver they might suffer a loss anyway because of the potential depletion of insurance plans right and that didn't make sense to me in light of the medicaid waiver and i didn't see any i didn't i'm just one seeing the connection between depleting their own frightened surance funds well well believe that the case was clear that the amount of reimbursement is is inconsequential to to the move this issue whether it's provide a free appropriate public education was that it wasn't provided here you know the last is is that is the parents have made a claim and it's in our complaint as well for reimbursement of transportation costs transportation is a related service under the under the ip and the by the school district refusing or the school districts failure to offer a free appropriate public education not only fail to pay the twisted expenses at alpine fail to pay the related services necessary for lizzie to obtain a free appropriate public education but also fail to pay for the transportation  and so there is a financial loss and i would assert that the amount of that that loss that was not developed in the the due process hearing and i would i would say that e advocates i started representing the parents asked it's not that this record stage i don't believe that there was evidence of the costs associated with with alpine at the administrative hearing i believe we did address that in our priests certainly to the u s district court i believe to the th circuit as well that that an l j is not in a position necessarily to issue a financial award to the parents and that typically in my experience anyway that that those costs are not certain the cases that i've done are not admitted as evidence at the day but rather the relief is awarded by the the i e p that in fact what happened at the school district is that you point that's exactly right that anybody that you or me or if the parents moved to texas or if they moved to a separate school district or anybody outside of the personnel who develop the ip has to be able to read the service delivery statement and say this is these are the special education and related services that need to be provided to these try this child not only the description of the placement program but also the actual number of hours the type of hours and where those hours are going to be provided whether it's in the class outside of class that has to be accurately set persuaded by witness statements at trial not on the written word that's in the ip but rather the that the testimony of witnesses to explain so the st you know the every statement says elizabeth will be provided transmittal supervision for safety except for a constant adult supervision what is that of course a child who's in kindergarten or st grade is going to be supervised by an adult no where in the ip does interpreted the testimony as to how these personnel were going to implement the site she said well it's close enough you know adult supervision means that there's going to be somebody with her but are they going to be instructing her is there somebody dedicated like there was at the lab again how this you know this she was was formulated is we're going to replicate the lab apt description that means one on one instruct one on one  court in reviewing an offer of faith can only look at the four corners of the written document so in this as adult supervision for safety you know one can read that and say that provides one on one instruction supervised by the cia even in the service delivery grid it doesn't provide any hours any direct service hours for lizzie certainly not one on one instruction believe in our reply brief we cited judge majors decision insights and on remand from the th circuit where it's almost on all fours to what we're dealing with in this case where that let me change the situation on you a little bit say say that instead of the situation we have here we have a child that's that's in sort of a state but situation there's a dispute over the i e but as a practical matter as a matter of implementation the school district is providing all of the things that the parent wants in the i e be but it's just not in there what's the situation in that case i think that youth in that if i understand your question correctly would be you know has there been a denial of faith sort of a retroactive denial of faith yes yeah a p says one thing but what the school district is actually providing on the ground is something completely different or it's more whatever and so disputes would be yes the ip is is technically not correct but the child has not been deprived of anything because  experience shows that that are not experience but on the ground they're providing one on one so in that in that case the parents wouldn't have a case the parents would have you know they would have a case because the ip too has to to provide a set forth what the school district is committed to providing now if you but if you're looking at past harm if the school district didn't comply with the i p but provided something completely different then technically the child hasn't been harmed but that does not satisfy the the deficiency the failure of the ip is the documents provide provide a fa that beyond that that case we looked at what the complaint that just and the complaint alleged in that case the allegations were very narrow and we looked at that and we looked at where we were and the passage of time and what had been provided and said there's nothing again hearkening back to the complaint that we can give you that you haven't already seen now here we have let's just talk about the detail and maybe it's enough of transportation costs there and their plan there requested they haven't gotten so no longer move right you honor we disagree with that the issue of transportation costs was never raised in the o j proceeding and it was never to my recollection was never raised in the  court as any kind of separate issue there's never been any evidence that there were out of pocket transportation costs in the prayer and the prayer that was filed in district court what did they request attending opines is my recollection wouldn't transportation costs be related to her attending out on an argument could be made but my but the again the record shows that there's never been anything specific stated about transportation or that there were out of pocket transportation costs but the record does show your honor is that lizzie's mother was also paid by medicaid to serve as lizzie's c n a and it could well be that that's why  that the case could be decided on the record and no new evidence would be required and there's nothing in the record about any expenses borne by lizzy's parents or their private insurance and we submit that's the critical difference although i have started by arguing mootness let me be clear that the district is not shying away from the merits both the o j and judge jackson found that the disputed i p s provided a free appropriate education to lizzie in the least restrictive environment and neither of them suggested that it was a close call book but also went out of their way to agree with the district that the evidence shows that lizzie can and should be served in a school setting that allows that that is more of a subjective analysis it seemed that housefull risks are going specifics that is not to ask well is she getting something rather he's saying she is not getting exactly what two thousand and fifteen i p that quote services will include strategies and techniques consistent with those demonstrated in the twenty training and i'll insert there that there is no question no dispute that a b a services type progress for example be able to concluded quote the disprove it established that this language amounted to a description of a b a methodology and the ip represented a reasonable attempt to integrate the student into the regular terms and while the ip does not use the specific term a b a methodology it does describe techniques that are considered to be a b a approaches and have been shown to be  and i think the point is that everyone seemed to agree she was apparently getting one on one supervision in the lab and we're trying to replicate that so how does adult supervision which w e as counsel sent all kindergartners receive a need how does that equate to one on one supervision when she apparently need it you're either and that was extensively argued in the administration proceeding but it was on a slightly different issue and i think in the appeal the tempest conflate the two issues but the issue there was for lizzie safety there and one or two times that she had left the adult supervision and the reason only reason it didn't say one on one is that one on one terminology has come to mean the very same person all day and the district believed that it was not appropriate or w not benefit lizzie if it were required that the that she only deal with one person throughout the school day it would benefit her more if if if more than one person worked with remembering that is now how this is supposed to work i mean what is the p really i mean what's the purpose of it if it doesn't give the school district specific direction as to how the child will be taught and that the district then can just sort of well you know we don't we're not going to use that methodology rethink we have a better idea so we're going to do something else now and then there then you're varying from the iraqi people are not well again your honor how we believe that the language that spells out the specific services that will be provided by special add personnel which means they have to have the special training and that it's undisputed given the evidence that they laid with each written in the ip requires talking more about a b a certified individuals providing one on one instruction yes your honor and on that point that's the language that i quoted specifically from the ip that details the services that will be provided to lizzie and is that presume that it's want to own one where there is the same person or not is that a language that you just spelled out discussed does that necessarily mean that lizzie would receive one on one services and i alpine were charged with implementing that very same i e in other words he conceded that the services outlined in the december two thousand and fifteen i p are sufficient to provide a fate but he evidence at the hearing showed that alpine provides no opportunity for lizzie to interact interact with neural typical peers that l j concluded quote the alternative private placement proposed by the student's parents did not conform to the requirement of special education being provided in the least restrictive environment appropriate to the student's needs close and judged actually agreed holding quote in providing an environment with no interaction with not to signal here's the proposal through the placement that alpine would thompson are to j decision and the court there found that it did not need to pass on that argument because the parents claim failed on the antecedent issue of whether the district had violated the idea we believe the same thing would thank you both for your arguments this morning case submitted