educational program for the two thousand and twelve to two thousand and thirteen school year this is a child who has all of the difficulties that are generally generally associated with a child with autism such as very limited and  very limited verbal abilities she becomes easily overstimulated frustrated and her frustration causes her to cry and scream and engage in other activities that that most people are going to target as misbehavior when it's really that she cannot help herself she has throughout her school tie or throughout her time in school consistently responded positively to only one specific educational methodology the d i r methodology and when when she was placed by the d in a program in which she did not start when she was placed by the new york city department of education in a program where she did not receive receive d i r she regressed significantly so this is a case that's about the educational methodology it's also a case though about the department of education new york city department education not dealing in a straightforward manner with the parents when i e p's individual education plans are developed the process is supposed to be collaborative the the individuals with disabilities education act requires school districts provide parents with a genuine and meaningful role in planning for their children's education it is our position in our belief that that's not what happened in this case specifically there was a committee on special education meeting in i e p meeting in may of two thousand and twelve to plan for this trial to education the father attended the meeting and along with him were two individuals from the school with the child was attending at the time a social worker who'd been working with the family as well as the child's classroom teacher also were present at the meeting were three individuals from the new york city department of education none of whom had ever met or worked with the child so the only e team had to consider when planning for the child's education was one report that it pulled from her file from the rebecca school the school that she was attending at the time and the information that was provided by the three individuals who knew her although it had a full file with other reports nothing else was looked at so it was only that information that was considered based on that how do you know that nothing else was looked at we have the testimony is a representative of the new york city department of education who testified during the impartial hearing and stated that the only document that was being reviewed was the i believe it was a d sembler two thousand and eleven progress her decision below the goals although there were certain language that was removed from the goals the goals that seemed to adopt and follow a methodology that's used at the rebecca school called the d i r methodology there was testimony that that method on methodology could only be implemented in a certain type of environment in which the student was provided with a two to one adult to student ratio which is not the type of environment that the g o p provided to her i know that you think that using a lot of the report from rebecca school means they meant to adopt those methodology not just the goals but you know the goals were this individualized attention so the school the classroom setting is really three to one but then there's all these other things that are happening right there's occupational therapy and speech therapy i mean those are individual right so it's not just in adult interaction being three to one in the classroom there's more than that there is more than that your honor however for most of the day the child is in that classroom which would be in that classroom that the department of education recommended with the three to one ratio the related services the occupational therapy the speech therapy the counseling only took up a part of her day in addition the rebecca school report in the information that was provided to the parent we're looking at goals here so what you're saying is that you want to have a certain methodology where as dio we wants it more open than that and isn't it a good thing that if something else is working that you do that something else to get to the goal i would agree that it's a good thing that if something else is working however there was no indication in this child's file or in anything that was provided to the department of education's committee that anything else was working in addition judge torahs found in her decision that the goals although they scrubbed the language of d i r from the actual law e p the goal still seemed to indicate that d i r that methodology is what was needed there was no indication anywhere in the record that that's the methodology that could or would have been provided to this child at the school we also have a record showing that these are concerns that were raised by the parent and the teachers of the school talking about the need for that methodology their right to challenges to the i p r no d i r required and wrong class size ratio and then your other challenges relate to whether the school could accomplish some the rest of the goals but that's a it's that's what it really is is that it's the i e p we believe actually recommended d i r which could not be implemented at the school in addition and the class size in my read of the record i would have to double check i believe that you are right about ms move to reno but everybody else that testified to that the d i r methodology can only be implemented with a two to one ratio  addition one i excuse me in addition as i started to say with some of the other challenges that go to the school the way the dhea we argues in its papers and its reply it's saying that because the thing because the other issues the sensory issues and some of the other things the i e p didn't mandate that they be accommodated the school doesn't have to respond to them the issue is though it's they had to be addressed somewhere if they weren't addressed in the i e p that makes  to difficult questions of educational policy in particular here to two questions your honor in probing already the question of a particular educational methodology and the question of the appropriate class size and staffing ratio arose findings on these difficult questions are entitled to substantial deference here the ip recommended a six to one to one small classroom setting as well as many hours per week of individualized services including speech therapy and occupational therapy and additional supports such as small speech speech therapy sessions the recommendations in the i p s did not represent a major deviation from what the student had at the private school where she was making substantial progress and focusing on the ip years itself the panel's right that the only challenges made to the ip on this appeal are with respect to the classroom staffing ratio six to one to one versus eight to one to three and whether it was appropriate for the ip not to recommend the specific educational methodology that the parents now argue for but instead to leave it to the discretion of the classroom teacher to use any and all methodology is that are appropriate for the students and on those two points the student teacher ratio question and the recommendation of a particular educational methodology the s r o issued a cogent well reason the most supported decision addressing those issues and he concluded that the ip was indeed reasonably calculated to provide the student with an opportunity for meaningful and appropriate educational progress on the question of educational methodology d s r looked at the student's needs looked at the eyepiece goals and based upon his experience and expertise he explicitly rejected the argument that this particular methodology was needed to implement the ips goals here he also recognize that there was what the records show that the child did well with this methodology and that nothing else had worked well that's not precisely right you litigation showing that the a b a methodology provided meaningful progress with the student here yes your honor judge john is right that it's not clear at all what's precisely before the c s e the judge judge who was right with this question and it's not clear what was before the c s e here that the psychologist testimony was that he recalled reviewing a private school report so there's no question that the private school report was there but the only questions that were asked of him or did so did the deal lead to another a valu on that year and he said in the so that psychological report from two thousand yes it's clear to me that that was considered the c s e by rebel that's right it's not clear that it was considered what is clear is that in trying to show that there was a clear consensus on this question that parents are the ones who submitted that report others to the i show and the s r o so they cannot now say the s r o should not have considered these reports they were the ones who realized that they didn't have the evidence they needed to show clear consensus put in these additional reports and what these reports show is that there was no consensus at all about the student needing this one particular methodology you know it's very telling if you look at page three seventy two of the record which was the parents petition to  argue there that the student needed floor time or something similar they don't say he needed just for a time full stop and i think that is sort of a tacit concession that they even recognise before the c s o in advocated before th that it wasn't floor time and only for a time that worked and so based on this evidence including the report saying a b a works the s r o properly determines based on his education experience that this student did not need this one particular methodology to make progress in the rb case which is before a judge johnny is really on point here that's that's a case where like here that the student attended the same school that was here the ip again copied almost verbatim the goals from that private school report the parent there argued it was inappropriate to copy the goals but not to not to mandate this particular methodology just like this case district court rejected that argument largely because just like here there was evidence in the record that the student was able to make appropriate progress under the a b a methodology and this court affirms finding that the s r s decision was well reason and all supported just like the s decision was hear the parents not even discuss or try to distinguish that case in their in their reply even though it's directly on point so because we have an escrow decision that's the reason i'm also ported on this issue it's entitle to substantial least one paraprofessionals the s r o explains that the six to one to one classrooms are designed for students with highly intensive needs who require a high degree of individual individualized attention and intervention so that the notion any one on one attention and four students working independently there's just there's no doubt that here both in the sixty one two one classroom and with respect to the additional one on one therapy sessions the student is going to get ample individualized attention and the s based on his experience and expertise based on his awareness of how the six to one one classrooms function and what they're designed to do found that those who have classroom would meet the students needs here one particularly compelling piece of evidence th o relied on was a different psychological report again presented by the parents to the s r o that had been written after the student had been a six to one to one to a classroom for over a year the psychologist there recognized that the student the school the psychologist even discussed the services provided the school and concluded that the student should continue to attend a small and highly structured academic environment nothing from the parents witnesses contradicted the conclusion that a six to one to one classroom setting would be appropriate for the student rather we have teachers in the private school who are saying that eighty one to three would be more appropriate or prefer a ball and that's not the legal test year rally makes clear that as much as we all want to provide the absolute best for our children what what we what we need is what's appropriate for the child and reasonably calculated to provide meaningful and appropriate educational deference warrants it here to the us r o the first is that the us or relied on the documents of the parents themselves provided to the us are all i think that we have already covered that at length their second argument is that there's a clear consensus as to what the student needed  i think that the record does not bear that out the am decision from this court which was also before judge droney clearly sets forth the sort of evidence that you need for a clear consensus and in that case there were four different experts all who said things like the student needed a b a methodology or maybe a month dodgy was imperative and and that sort of language that sort of mandatory language is found nowhere in the record here and when we pointed that out in our in our brief the parents came back with nothing in reply pointed to such language in the record because it does not exist so what they're trying to do is to cobble together a clear consensus where there is none and what there is instead is there's ample evidence showing differing opinions as to both the methodology that would enable the students are at rest stops student to progress and the appropriate classroom ratio i've mentioned some of these already we have the you know psychological report noting progress under the a b a we have the parents arguing  papers for a floor time or a similar approach we have the psychological report when a student was in the sixty one to one classroom recommending that the student continue in such a setting we have a prior s r o decision at one of six to one of seven were a teacher testifies to progress made in a six to one to one classroom and we have the parents own witnesses declining to say the student needs these things to progress but instead saying that is prefer a more appropriate finally  briefly address the the placement issue you know almost all of things is that the parents are complaining about with respect to the school placements are things that are not in the ip and you know under the m o decision you cannot  report that the deal he is referring to works of the child should remain a similar type of placement noted at that time she was although she was in a six to one to one placement she also had a one to one paraprofessional assigned specifically are so again she was essentially in a classroom with either one to want to tension or eight to one adult to student ratio also there was some talk about when the parent visited the school that the deal we recommended about how the children were being treated the only testimony on this issue was from the deal we could have brought somebody here in europe but the parents testimony and his testimony was that when he did visit the school he did so i did see two children getting individual attention and the other four seemed to be left alone in their own worlds and really weren't doing much of anything not interacting with one another not doing any work nothing else was going on from what he said in terms of the report that the dia we refer to that says it's uncontroverted nabi a work that was a report from two thousand and nine there was never any argument in the case below war or prior to coming here that a b a or another a b a was offered the only talk about methodology from the dia we was either we don't put methodology and i e p which judge t found to found out right to be an error on the part of the deal we end the talk about d i r from the parents that report that talks about a b a was from two thousand and nine subsequent to that or for the two thousand and nine to ten in two thousand and ten to eleven school years the child was in india we school where she had the d i r taken away from her and she did not make any progress the testimony that site in the prior s r s decision is just a summary of the teacher's testimony the yes or no neither credited nor discredited it the only reason that asteroid decision was submitted into evidence is because we were required to in order to get the dio we to agree to honor the child's pendency entitlement during this hearing we would submit that the prior teacher's testimony because she wasn't cross examined in this year and because the current hearing officer and the us or did not have an opportunity to assess her credibility is not something that would be relevant to this hearing again judge torres found that the he didn't for that the d i r methodology should be used with the student there was no evidence that said that the d i r methodology was going to be employed at p s three sixty nine and if we are just going to stick to  i r is necessary to be used she was all the child was only offered a two to one students or a three to one to student a three to one teacher to student student to teacher ratio at three sixty nine where is all of the testimony said that she would need to want in order for d i r to be implement regardless of the methodology being used at the deal he's offered placement school it seems that there was no way that she could have been provided with the methodology in the