good morning your honors there please the court i'm carol melnyk for the clarkstown central school district i'm here in support of the district's position that the district court was wrong in finding that the district failed to provide a free appropriate public education for this student and that it miss a bully applied standards and ignored the judgment of the impartial hearing officer and s r o who are mandated to hold hearings and assess these types of cases the right to the end of the argument and the question of whether or not the right well let me start with the fact that this student requires specialized instruction in order to gain educational progress in order to meet his goals that are unique for him because of that he requires a special education program at that time hawk meadow is not as special education school education program and i think that we have cases that simply say that the the alternative school must address the particular deficiencies and and have a special education that is correct however hawke meadow did not address this youngster's deficiencies they are primarily at that time they were eighty and even montessori program that had a toddler program a lower elementary and only five kids in its upper elementary program the student was the only child in fifth grade the teachers were not qualified in special education they were not necessarily even new york state certified teachers the teacher who was responsible for teaching him reading writing and  guidance counselor with an expired license the teacher who was the head teacher of the group had a new york state certification in math and science had nothing to do with english just focused twelve page analysis suggesting that might not have been sufficient but could you address those two factors as if you have special classes utilize multisensory approaches as do general education classrooms in regular public school districts to say that you utilize a multi sensory approach still does not get at whether or not you are addressing the specific needs of the child the most relevant i think evidence in all of this is that after only one year at hawk meadow the student's reading comprehension declined from the sixty seventh percentile all the way down to the thirty seventh percentile his math scores declined to the deficient range he went from being a student who had finally made gains in the district had achieved average ability in reading comprehension in math and now lost all of those gains in only one year at hawk meadow down to the first percentile for math which has which has come to light that that is his most specific disability hawk meadow has no scientific based program for math no special language from none whatsoever local school districts the local school district to reproach him there are scientific base programs such as the one that the school district used which is touch math this student was a youngster who did not want to utilize the special programs that were available to him in the general ed setting that is why the district offered him an education in the fifteen to one class size because in that class he was willing to use his scientific based methods of a wilson reading board of the touch map that's how this child made progress he made no progress no quantifiable objective progress at i mean i don't know we have some cases like somoza but that was in a very strange situation of an injunction and i just i'm i'm worried about whether this is a case in which we have honor i can answer that i can tell you that when the case was remanded back what that hearing officer focused on was the fact that throughout this process once the parent decided to place her child at hawk meadow record does not apply to that understand all that i just wonder whether the case is properly before us given that the district court sent it back for a determination of an issue which may move the whole before you the hearing officer and s r o has looked at the issue every man and they have they have made their decisions with respect to two that remained the hearing officer once again after holding  eighteen day hearing and writing it one hundred ninety one page decision determined that the equities do not support payment for the parent parents may choose to place their child in private school and many do but reimbursement is only warranted if the district hasn't provided faith which it did if the parents program is appropriate which it is clearly not and if equity support that payment which they do not what i would encourage is that if that if you look back at that initial hearing officer decision that decision carries with it all of the evidence that i'm speaking of it was all looked at very carefully very succinctly and it was a very well reasoned decision the district court's decision completely substituted the judgment of the hearing officer in the us a row for his own came up with his own methodology and not only that what he based it on was a record that was not before the c s c when it met for the two thousand and twelve thirteen school year or the thirteen fourteen school year the parent had had the child privately evaluated and did not share that report with the district until more than a year later it also goes to it goes to the district court's decision of what the program the district should have provided it went to the issue of fa should not have i agree but it did go to the judge finding that what the district did was not appropriate because look what this other decision said the district had not have a copy of that decision for either of the piece in you ation of the child in may of two thousand and twelve she was a neuro psychologist who produced ten single spaced pages with instructional recommendations and his and reject it that in said there is nothing here to show the viewers is particularly qualified and the evidence is it the child regress so isn't this not really an issue about any of that it isn't about multisensory because that never came up until the district court really focused on it it's about the fact that this kid was warmly in the public school and this was not when he entered meadow evidence showed that even though he was a fifth grader he was performing reading at a second or third grade level and when and after some time that hawk medal he was he regre witnesses from hot meadow showed that that's a totally distorted picture of what was going on and hawk battle judge let me let me let me put it this way you have a parent who's got a child in a public school district who is coming home his room all talking about killing himself he is in a self contained classroom judge if i could just finish this point he goes to hock meadow his emotional well being without any dispute increases why because he was bullied but that was not gay or before and he goes to hot medal in the finds himself very happy and that any parent would want to do that no doubt about that's not that's not a judge that's not what we're relying on what we're relying on among other things is that his word fluency increased from thirty second from its thirty second percentile to the fiftieth while he was a hawk medal in other words kind of an intensive education in a fifteen to one classroom it's too large and judge ms grant whom the s r o and the i e chose very heavily relied on in their opinion ms granted  classroom observation in this fifteen to one classroom she found the child easily distracted not taking oral instructions responding very positively however to visual presentations so their own witness if you look at this evidence farrow as judge woman did and not as the i h o did if you look at the evidence farrow what it shows is that fifteen to one was too big for this kid he couldn't learn yes he progressed but it wasn't tailored in the way that the idea requires as a matter of law on the other hand did exactly that it was a more ties sensory program to the core was what was available to every student there but that's true that's true george but it just turned out that that's exactly what he needed that's what dr brandegee said he needed was a multisensory approach with one on one instruction all and that and that's what the district's own general and teacher ms graham have testified that he needs one on one sensory and that is what the evidence of hot meadow witness is abundantly laid out none of which know absorbed took into account and discounted for reasoned bases it was a result oriented decision and i do agree with mismo nigam one thing please do read the i chose opinion it's very long with respect to just reciting the testimony of the came before her but when she actually analyzes whether the fifteen to one was adequate there is no mention of multi sensory or there's no certainly no effort to analyze what that means for her there is no effort to talk about what ms graf's testimony what its implications her and also judge final thing judge from on focus very much on the fact that this was not the least restrictive environment as the i d e a requires it's too large it's a self contained special ed class trial the law requires that the district provide a continuum of alternative placements so that the child special needs are addressed in the context of a mainstreamed environment and what was required that was legally required and the judge said that's not even addressed by the show nor is it addressed by the s r o so i agree with me just depart slightly from the record to just explain to the court to address your question where we are right now with that issue it was remanded to do the same show she she found that the equities did not favor the parent so start again it's actually more complicated than that because the s r o actually reversed the i h o as to one of the years saying that equity is actually required to which it but it's to the other so there's white cross complaints in cross  it might be helpful if the two of you since it wasn't addressed in the briefing were to provide us letters addressing this issue maybe five page letter is now no more than five pages and  have become aware that the kid could do better in a different setting and that clearly did not happen until she saw a doctor brainiac is very specific evaluation and recommendations that  he apply multisensory in a one on one setting that was not present to the parent and so here really it's almost a policy question for this court to suggest that the parent as soon as she becomes aware that maybe there's good problematic classification going on that she has to get on the stick in some of the school district i don't think that's the law judge nor do i think that should be the law and can i just and on one note as to both the statue limitations and the section one nine hundred eighty three claims our position is quite simple the court the district court simply construed all of the evidence against the non movement in a summary judgment you can't do that it's entirely flipped for that reason we believe we submit judge from on aired and those two claims should be sent back i sure wish we had more time with you first i want to address that there not only was there no evidence that this student was bullied in clarkstown school district there was evidence from his fourth grade teacher that he was very happy in school that he got along well with his teachers with his peers he had friends he was social this was a happy youngster there was no evidence of what the parent is claiming from the district's perspective when he was in clark's town he spent two and a quarter hours in his special ia way a math class because that's where he needed to be to learn the remainder of his day was in the general education program with the with his peers at hawke meadow the fiction of hawk meadow is that it's not a general education school more than half of the children in our sorry  the students class in grade five three of the five were children with disabilities in grade six five of the children five of the nine children were students with disabilities and yet there was no one who was qualified to teach these children not only were they not qualified to teach these children but the local school who was mandated to provide some special ed support to these children failed they did not even provide the minimum amount of special education these children should have it's no wonder that this student declined and lost the gains he had made in the clarkstown school district there he had highly qualified trained special ed teachers not at hawk meadow thank you thank you and we'll take it under submission