i mean are they placed in maryville pursuant to the board's recommendation ultimately so that they have a separate payment just for the housing portion of their life the i think the catholic church provided for the residential then it was the parents of these girls who placed in that very real not the board they were in special ed classes and chicago public schools and their parents couldn't control them so they pla residential means i was in that they were never housed there again we were charged as if they were full why does it mean housing because i think i'm looking at the the structure of this particular system where they have day school attendance and residential school attendance as a way of differentiating what is the called and this would i'm not suggesting as a higher being into e p that wouldn't work because that would be certainly inappropriate still mr parent principal parent said he used a commonsense approach to decide the fate needed to charge more and he said it should be a common since eight to ten percent and yet it was actually four to ten times that much in the last year they were charging eighty one percent higher in the first year sixty three percent higher the second year thirty six percent higher where's the rationale and math well where there are costs associated with these  testify that every child at dillard wasn't misled kid ok so let's look at their documentation and it's sorely missing and i'm going to show you five holes in their documentation that shows that there is no basis for this charge the first is the missing data information forms now miller who was the business manager at the co op testified that teachers and supervisors prepare these data information forms to show what kind of services they're providing to the kids and those are so to be attached to the  they were turned over to us so we don't know in fact what we do know because mr parent testified that the day school students and residential students since they get to the exact same classes they have the same teachers the second missing set of documents was the personal reimbursement claim forms now duran tests to submit those to the only state board of education every year but they didn't provide them to us the third said the same document is missing schedules to form beat now miller testified that these were very important to the building process because they had to do with setting the personal cost the cost of instruction but they were provided to us now miller said that she had seen those from other districts but she'd never seen them from the brand the fourth category of missing documents is the bills from the co op now you think if these kids require higher intensity level of services they might need more psychological help social work maybe speech therapy they didn't attach those bills either so those are so good why he was the reason this these documents were not provided i don't know we asked for them we asked for them three years before the hearing and  counsel said think provided all the documents but they didn't provide these documents well and i think that you can infer from that that does documents would not have supported their case and so you're looking for documents from two thousand and five six two thousand six seven and two thousand seven eight right that because you're hearing was in april of two thousand and eight for something in that vicinity well the original period was but there was no hearing on damages then rest the hearing that damages came after the remember from this court was there a new request for documents on the issue of damages that i don't believe so but there was no reason to because all this it happened in the past it was the kids were not there anymore or the kids all left at the time that  be rules and regulations prohibit the district from dividing students with special education classes into more than one room and then a looking cos of on those groups are you saying they can't do that or you simply question the competition that they're prohibited from doing that can learn pointed to the statute that says residential means housing home will never reimburse mirabelle for any healthy dolan no i don't believe so i believe the catholic church and the parents paid for that for the housing component of the placement did they send indeed because the students were apparently were high risk at least that's according to the principle parent right did personnel from dolan occasionally visit the children and marry you know because there was an emergency and because they needed the additional services there was no evidence of that in the fact let's talk about the higher intensity need for services because the principle parent said they were five times more likely to be hospitalized or placed in juvenile detention but none of that go none of this for a chicago girls was ever placed in detention two of the chicago girls start back there were three of them that were hospitalized two rather significantly and the third one not as often but still had at least one maybe two hots ones i know two of the girls were never hospitalized and those were the manta and so right he said that those who want to show those behavior sheets that were sent home to the parents or caregivers every day would show that the kids were banging their heads against the wall or they were cutting themselves or cerium threatening suicide those documents were turned over to the fourteen year so there's no basis in this record just show that these kids or any kids needed that because they didn't turn over those records of the behavior in from you know behavior point sheets either w correct we were notified of that we took the position that the parents didn't have the right to unilaterally make that placement we've lost that argument in the first appeal so nobody tended nobody had a  the particular i e piece of those four girls for i know one from the chicago public schools that tend to project notwithstanding the failure to attend the servicing school has an obligation to make occurred show five or six different goals and the possible attainment of those schools additional services isn't that correct there was only one i pay for these kids why not a p that was prepared so my experience that i piece where the progress report is every six months but there was only one i p provided for each of these kids even though they were there for four years or three years well there was a three you two were there for three years and two were there for one  was a hearing on damages and it's our contention that the evidence did not support the awarded damages that this residential commission rate first i mean the children went to the same school they were in the same classes they had the same teachers even though their id piece called for an individual name appeared to me that they didn't have an individual and if so what was the reason for the eight thousand dollars disparity and the cost there and then know that this chicago is the residential students who didn't reside there were charged way more for the principal salary more for even the computers that were used by administrator three times more for those computers that were use going to call them to differentiate some from others they have a checklist as at work i don't think that has to be i mean although you may not know in this case i know the city the board must know in other cases the state board had sets they have to show how much of the time of an administrator or they have to allocate how much of the tyra of an administrator is involved in the industry she requires supplies it requires computers it requires the corners of this process and the school district feels in the blanks isn't that correct there if there was nothing that should want that allocation should have been nothing that we could see that show that we should be charged you know the city never saw if any are you speak records we did not see their records we saw what duran's admitted to by his feet but this there was nothing prohibiting the board either records correct i don't think the i used the would have records different from duran i think if their information about what services are provided for that local district but those documents could have is there anything preventing them from being secured from miley's b by the district who is i'm responsible for the child's nose but i don't think there's anything that we needed from them because i think that duran should test showed us their personnel  there's a reasonable basis for that at least there hasn't been one prove it provided for by direct keep the parents didn't feel that their children were being given the appropriate education for something in t for the child is special and wasn't being fulfilled don't they have the right to see education and doesn't anymore not just chicago but elgin during doesn't anyone have an obligation until those children are old enough to make sure that their i e p's are being mapped well in this case the parents were said that they couldn't handle the kids and one of the parents actually wasn't even in touch with  and they sent him seven letters and he never responded so at the parents i can answer for them whether the board had an obligation to be sure that these kids were receiving an adequate education i don't think that we're saying that they didn't receive an adequate education due to the duran school district or educating the four students from the chicago public school system the primary problem is that it is just presented in your argument although there are several others identified in the briefing is releasing documents and through the hearing process and i submit to you that the information that they needed was certainly produced in order to determine the appropriateness of the calculations with regard to schedules a and b with relating to the all relate to that fifty sixty six a b and c forms that you probably have not seen at this point that formation was provided to the district in multiple formats schedule a related to the student's attendance and enrollment and that information was provided through through the through attendance reports that were submitted through discovery through enrollments reports that were submitted through discovery their higher costs rising as to what they think this information could suggest but they have produced no witnesses as to what those forms should produce they produce no documentation or evidence ultimately just the amount of money being requested and counsel is saying that there were no personnel compensation sheets and how are those compensations  services and programs that are operated by district three twenty two the dolphin education center is not the only special education and the only place for special education services are delivered so in on the forms that were produced both in discovery and th education they approved certain person our reimbursements for these individual employees but there's nothing that's really down but there's nothing that requires it to be broken down on there so there's no requirement thing they seem to be and in their arguments they come up with all sorts of additional information they would like additional breakdowns additional data but the regulations themselves the statute itself the forms themselves don't require that those breakdowns be provided there there is no prohibition in response to your question that would compared to the day school students who were not just around students there were sounder incidents but there were students from all over the county who attend the don't center who require that level of intensity were there any students bused from chicago to duran there were no students who were b correct and i would submit to you and that one of the allegations of the failure to produce documentation relates to the daily behavior sheets those were produced to c p s in discovery in february of two thousand and eight it was over a thousand pages of material that related to progress reports incident reports daily behavior sheets there and there i e peas all of that it was over twelve hundred pages of documents that were produced at that with that particular piece of discovery that was produced there were of pages of documentation that was produced to c p s in response to their requests for discovery and they don't even know what they have apparently because they have every one of those daily behavior documents which shows when they were in attendance which shows how they performed on those given days objection at that point in time before the hearing and in april two thousand and twelve so c p s is at this point in time this is taking potshots at the evidence and documentation that was presented but the other seventy percent it satisfied judge to shock and his court in those twelve hundred pages that were submitted in february of two thousand the more the artist be forms actually submitted within the schedules the more they need to be submitted  was it just the approval letter so to speak that those one hundred pages were all students specific records that i was referring to it was in february eighth i believe was also february and march of two thousand and eight it could have been two thousand and i apologize over the course of the years that all the documentation that applies relating to the fifty sixty sixty eight d n c forms plus what i'll call the back up the budget forms the personnel claims the evidence seven roll and all of that was produced at that point in time so there was a time when standing anticipation of the damages hearing because the liability hearing for what ultimately became the liability hearing by this court order was april of two thousand and eight correct so it was i believe it was in two thousand and eight that point in time there were no confidentiality issues concerning these records correct because the parents would have had to sign documentation allowing it to be sure that we have providers as well as the c p s said with regard  never said we can't give you that information because we don't have the parental permission to do so now never is your number cited a confidentiality concern with regard to disclosure of documents to c p s and with regard to the programming and services that the students  receive one of the questions the court had asked was whether c p s have been involved in any of those to terminations and on an annual basis including in october of two thousand and five from october two thousand time moving forward they received multiple notices in multiple cases requests for their participation in the process but c p s his counsel has indicated believe that it was not their responsibility to be responsible for these students and therefore chose not to participate so their rights to to to now object to the level of service of the services that were provided i submit would be waived because they had the right to participate in the secessions and never did the children came to you with any piece from c p s just that had already been identified correct do you know i mean does the record reflect that those i eat student but several of them i would say but again that was a determination that was made by that i p teen working with the parent and the student and making a determination as to what level of need those students had and c b s chose not to participate in any of those outside of durian school district and so those students i assume of the as i said i did not ask the question were the days paid the days too great i don't know if any of the students paid an increased rate and paid the residential really judge her chest they couldn't really get a be on but say student in the day program who has civil problems to valerie who we know is a residential program but we had access the day program books i think i know why but how many school districts participate in the durham program to your knowledge i don't know the answer to that i know throughout the county they do but i don't know how many different school districts are represented i made the point there was we never got some point out whether there was a concern over confidentiality and whether certain records or information could be shared because it was never asked it wasn't asked for did in documentation nor was it pursued in the depositions of bill de mint on our parent the two individuals they did the we have established a reasonable basis for that is just well through the forums the law the statute and then the testimony and that's the last piece and i'm on the view with the courts are very clear that not all evidence and not on all evidence supporting images is going to be documentary evidence and that the court can and should rely upon opinions as long as they are well based on the law and i submit to you that those opinions submitted by marc parent certainly were well based in the law in his excuse me in fact  evidence that supports that higher need and i submit to you there was no there was no contradictory evidence there was no challenge to that there was no other opinion that was offered to the court that would suggest in any way that mr parent's testimony and experience was not one hundred from the county they might be from rockford being bussed in we know they're not bussed in from chicago because chicago due to rain is just too far right under the rules so we think you never saw any sort of review of those other twenty one and then the rest of the day students who are no we didn't think we would have been entitle to them because they're not her students no but you're trying to say that you're paying too much but we don't know what services these other twenty one inference should be drawn from the fact that you don't have the breakdown you're looking for because look i'd like to that's the second point i'd like to address them out in the kellys brief they didn't say where any of these documents were i'd like you to know and that's because the documents are not there those dated information sheets they tried to at the hearing submit those as their group exhibits six and a quarter to nine down because they had not submitted to them to us in discovery so it's simply not true that these documents were coverage challenge good fundamental underlying rationale yes we challenge him by saying that there was no period money just a concept alone are you saying that his testimony bases experience if the we needed to come forward with evidence when they didn't couldn't get their story straight themselves but parent determined who was residential and who was day don't you pretty see which makes each human gets a huge piece of this equation correct right and when it comes down to it parents sit these kids in their eye piece it says day they needed a school so that's what parents said based upon your behavior sheets that they didn't give us so i don't think they're no