half years despite having an average ability to learn and an average ability to make progress as he is entitled to remedy the five issues raised by the appellants over the sport will be distressing to urge the court erred in finding consent which she signed the very same day yet an evaluation was not completed and so may have twenty team and the a p team didn't meet until september of the next year to determine its he requires specialized instruction for his rating disabilities similar to the student impress the other person's board of education i mean that i'm sorry i mean back that way t p started as rd grade year he was placed in the wilson reading program due to his disability but similar to the student press the auto versus board of education the teaching of the wilson program was not recently calculated it's improved his rating nor did it her by him with appropriate individual life support the sickly his reading teacher mr own testified in the underlying hearing that she was not trained to teach wilson in a group setting she could not provide individualized instruction due to the larger size the student group she made all of the children and the program through a levels regardless of any student mastery she did not provide any progress b could already read at an independent level a much higher level with ninety four percent accuracy meaning he had already mastered this full prior to the goals inception consequently because congress co delay evaluation provision of services because wilson was not individual life city needs and because i e p was not appropriate for tb it should be no surprise that he only made four months worth of progress over the course of a year and a half despite his average ability to learn there is no reason in this case to delay his reevaluation and provision of services by using a screener during the underlying hearing long process and we don't like to do that to students unless they really need to see if they probably do all or if they might qualify however congress guy was aware of the importance of the data and results they consistently showed he was not making adequate progress and reading certainly congress was aware in december when it conducted its middle of the year assessments that he was not making progress and they were absolutely aware of the need to grade school year was last year or he they were on notice not terrible when they completed the st screeners that he requires specialized instruction because he was a year behind at that point in december he was still a year and a half if you use the parents evaluation request and that would put them at the moment so what happened in that period of time was you say he had four months worth of progress in a year and a half the fine just something else data shows he only made four months tepees case we're actually expanding the gap not only let's see not making progress man start with this out abilities but he wasn't even making progress i would ever cast him up and ever allow him to meet the goals of the  because his his his program really did nothing to help address as reading disability is one of your concerns that he should have been put in a summer school where their summer when the spring w them i think that for the e s i as extended school your services yes at that point they had plenty of information that he was likely to regress in his reading skills and that would have been their opportunities for by that individualized misread or misunderstood it was up on our with something about his brave being high end up that he wouldn't have been eligible for some school that so that was for general education summer school and even when looking at the grades the case manager and the teachers were even aware that those grades that were reported on his great report on his report card were not actually accurate indicators of progress is actual mastery using his true to say this is the argument of the grades who is slated grady with his teachers or so in nd grade his teachers made a determination that they would not report any failing grades in the great sales for example example in nd grade is average was actually a fifty two dollars based on his actual spores but the teachers reported it i believe is a seventy six dollars on the report card which made him ineligible for summer school parent was not aware that he was actually failing and not mastering the content in those horses to cater to comprehend the problem so while the district court and congress criticized parent for not using magic words when requesting an evaluation a request for evaluation is implied when a parent informs the school district that the child may have special needs so delaying the evaluation or delaying seeking consent from the parents after she made the request in january which delayed the evaluation and delayed the provision of services was a clear violation of the i d e a and there was no justification that these the ice could provide short of the parent not comply which she did because she signed the consent form the very same day the district court then went on to say rely on rally may please the court my name is ellen save men and i'm here today on behalf of coppa the council of parents attorneys and advocates amicus curiae we have more than three hundred and seventy five members in the th circuit and we're here today because we believe the th circuit michael of standard needs to be tweaked to cooperate the substantive standards set out in the supreme court's andrew f decision that way school districts will know they need to set ambitious program challenging goals so that students can make effective progress and not allow low expectations to yield inadequate programs that lead children fall behind for their every day the st michael of factor individualisation needs to include the requirement that the program be appropriately ambitious for the student with challenging objectives in this case ringback district court did not specifically address whether the ip in this case had ambitious goals and challenging objectives instead of the  standard should be tweaked in the e r case the court said that n g o s did provide greater clarity to the standards and so this would merely pick up on the case and incorporate the standards in the michael f test so this court has the opportunity to clarify the standard it's really important because in this case as you can see the district court followed the sort of chip procedural checklist approach to the into the individualisation and to not specifically address whether the specific goals and objectives in the i p were sufficiently ambitious which is really the question andrew asked for whether a student with those students disabilities and abilities had the should or should have been expected to make more progress and i think the point that an ambitious goal or objective st student with average ability like this student here at least a year's worth of educational progress in a school year would be reasonable to expect and you know our concern is that if the cook this if this courts use the michael f standard clarified it tweaked it a little bit to incorporate the standards from n g o s it would make clear to the district courts and also to school districts and hearing officers that when they analyze these standards they have to look not only at whether the school district followed the procedural test you know about what procedures were followed and whether there was a reading go but looked at the substantive reading go and asked was this reading go sufficiently ambitious for this particular student based on his abilities so we think this clarification is important and it's certainly well indicated  in the school district the district court did not abuse its discretion and nine plan to request for additional evidence of a district court did not air and finding the school district complied with the individuals with disabilities identified and placed t p the district court correctly held that the school district did not violate i d s procedural requirements did not commit any substantive violations and the plaintiffs are not  there is no reversible error st the district court properly exercised its broad discretion in the nine planets request for additional evidence observing that the administrative record was extensive consisted of over a thousand pages of documents and was best and detailed the district court correctly determined that four of the found documents minus proffered as additional evidence work actually improper  on the issue of eligibility as the district court correctly observed at page four hundred and fifty three of the record on appeal the main issues before the hearing officer at the due process hearing in december two thousand and eighteen were what the school district properly evaluated t p and failed to find him eligible as a student with a specific learning disability or s l b as the district court noted that determination can be easily discerned by reviewing the issues for decision at page six  eligibility determinations because such findings are based on a snapshot in time and what information the school district had to inform its decision regarding a student's eligibility as this court stated  quote at the eligibility determination moment therefore incorporating advance that occur afterwards would be in congress and indeed can only in bought money monday morning quarterbacking in quote the district court though that may is inappropriate evidence your honor because the determination of whether the school district properly assessed the student has to be viewed with the information known to the school district at that and therefore some cases may refer to it as later acquired evidence or nonexistence evidence and use different factors similarly to properly excluding the four documents that observed it was completely inconsistent for planas to proffer the private speech of valuation mondas when i so adamantly and successfully fought to keep all speech about when she was out of evidence throughout the entire due process proceedings prior to the due process hearing planas file the motion to strike when the school district offered in november two thousand and eighteen speech about a way sion arguing that the hearing officer lacked subject magid matter jurisdiction to consider the evaluation of planets climbed that t p speech eligibility was not raised by playing this in their request for special education to process here and find this objected to the hearing officers consideration of t p additional evidence provision is not meant to further the top of inappropriate gamesmanship slyness exhibited when they successfully excluded from evidence the school district's competing speech of valuation so they could then turn around and ask the district court to consider their and timely proffered speech about a weston the district court correctly determined that allowing evidence which was a battle at the time of the due process hearing but strategically withheld in order to convince the special education hearing officer to disallow the school districts competing speech about why should as well as the elicitation of testimony regarding the speech of my wife would turn the administrative hearing into a mere dress flawed that provision is not a political as it addresses full and individual and mischel evaluations not re evaluations like t p s dyslexia testing it is undisputed that when t p in wrote in in the fall of two thousand and seventeen from white county north carolina he already had in place and i biased on an id a compliant fool and individual an initial evaluation conducted by white county even if section eighty nine one thousand and eleven work clickable here which it is not mine is alleged timelines are incorrect because the forty five day deadline to complete testing would not be triggered by the parents request for an evaluation instead it would be triggered by parental consent moreover school day permit moreover days are defined as school days which excludes intervening school holidays and the school district summer break in addition there was no unreasonable delay colace caused by the school districts use of a dyslexia spraining to assess t p s reading deficiencies while t p had problems with reading that is precisely  was rolled in new letters was able to read small sentences was not reversing letters and was doing well and was able to track what was being read the dyslexia screener was performed two weeks after the parents request for dyslexia testing when the district sought and received consent for further dyslexia testing in april two thousand and eighteen the explicit goal was to complete testing by august rd two thousand and eighteen that was communicated to the parent and in our meeting and  comments the testing was completed much earlier on may th two thousand and eighteen the testing included the woodcock reading mastery tests great oral reading test comprehensive test of fun a logical processing cats a written spelling an edited writing sample and academic skills meanwhile t p continue to receive special education reading services in combination with general education support and language arts and writing as well as a host of other accommodations in this case the district court did not air when it concluded that the facts provided to the court suggest reasonable  in addition the court correctly concluded that the school district did not act with unreasonable delay further plunge desire for an s l deal liable does not even state a climb for violation of the i d e a which does not require school districts to classify students by disability or create an appropriate label to identify a student with a disability indeed as this court articulated in lawrence a versus lewisville i  a requires appropriate services not particular disability labels in this case there is no dispute that throughout t p a nd grade year even before dyslexia services were implement also received instruction in the wilson program called foundations which assisted with reading in phonics t p also received special education support and accommodations during that time in nd grade reading work with flashcards participated in bed reading home group reading and was frequently asked comprehension questions rd the district court did not air and concluding that the school district did not individualized educational program that was reasonably calculated to enable him to make progress in a lot of his circumstances the district court also correctly found that all four model f factors weighed in favor of the school district because tepees educational program was one individual asked to administered in the least restrictive environment three coordinated and collaborative and four provided t p positive academic and non academic benefits that evidence supports the district court's findings that the educational program was individualized on the basis of tepees assessments and performance and it was reasonably calculated to enable t p to make appropriate progress in lot of his individual circumstances the district court correctly found that when appropriate copperas cove biased a properly modified tepees goals and provided different services like was the district court did not clearly err in finding that sufficient coordination and collaboration took place in implementing tepees educational services as the court observed the record indicates participation in tepees educational plan various professionals within the district and he piece parent and i piece for t p incorporated in put in collaboration of all individuals involved even when asserting even while asserting t p did not make meaningful progress planets themselves and man that t p might some progress this court recently addressed how courts are to evaluate this th and critical michael f factor in its two thousand and twenty decision in r m s vs how the park honesty this court held that while the student could not catch up to his bread long peers he demonstrated progress appropriate in lot of the child circumstances and courts may determine that i mean for small amounts of progress is appropriately ambitious given the child's unique needs based upon these standards and the entire record before the district court not only was key piece i reasonably calculated for him to receive educational benefit but he might academic behavioral and social progress appropriate in lot of his unique circumstances decisions such as whether student obtained an educational benefit from a school district special education services are underlined findings of fact which are provided deference and reviewed for clear error this progress the district courts underline factual findings are well supported by the record and certainly are not erroneous for all the reasons articulated in the school districts brief as well as those discussed during oral argument today and which will be discussed by the attorney for the emphasis ciara the texas association of school board's legal assistance on this court should affirm the judgment of the district recognition of what idea is demanded of public schools for many years meaningful educational benefit microsoft codified this court's complete understanding of the high i d e a guarantee the supreme court's decision enjoy t michael effectors a well reasoned litmus test of whether students program meets the parameters of a free appropriate public education and those factors remain appropriate today this record in this case dutifully appropriately applied to michael of factors i start with the most critical factor the th factor which demands a positive academic nonacademic benefits are demonstrated no the absence of the word meaningful amounts attempt to work at the word in word meaningful into this prong misapplies the correct standard and such an interpretation completes the holding of michael as true michael of the man's examination but i need to determine whether or not it's reasonably calculated to confer meaningful educational benefit to michael the factors are then utilized as a tool to make this determination meaningful benefit need not be there are four factors that service indicators of whether an ip is reasonably calculated to provide meaningful educational benefit and quote this record here especially hard the student demonstrated positive academic nonacademic benefits using the exact rigid formula this recording examine this factor and down the program properly and its entirety outline the student's needs and the plans to be in addressing those me running the program sufficiently individualised the district court did not evidence presented against michael as factors are guideposts used by the courts to evaluate my p and rigid application of michael as is unnecessary departure from existing precedent for michael a factor demand services are provided in a coordinated and collaborative manner by key stakeholders put differently it requires one that services be provided and to be provided in a collaborative manner the district court here made such analysis and while talents challenge focus on the collaboration the court nevertheless properly examined both aspects as demanded by the rd factor the nd factor is of course not relevant taken together the district court found that all factors were self were satisfied under michael s and further finding is completely unnecessary under this court's precedent it's not necessary for the michael f factors are properly applied micro left is sufficient analysis for the purposes of ensure that alteration to the factors is wholly unnecessary i encourage this court to review carefully the demands of michael s and uphold the district court's due to flop occasion this court's well developed test and i respectfully request this court avoid finding a justification to engage in additional activism to expand or alter the michael of standard any further march st in this case the evaluation was not finalized until the following school year and even then c c i is the only placed this child in the wilson reading program after it had completed the evaluations are not just to determine eligibility but they also drive the provision of services and the individualized instruction given that this district was on notice really the entirety of his nd grade school year that he required individualized instruction and it is a tragedy that the delay in a valuation caused him to miss a year where of critical early intervention here in terms of progress e a demands more and while the talents are aware that the i d e a doesn't require the furnishing of every special education service necessary to maximize tv's potential it can hardly be said that he was offered any education at they're for it's t p was entitled to an appropriate and meaningful program which he was denied as to the delay that it cause and terms of getting as wilson a reading program this information as early as october of a nd grade year but failed to offer individualized a service to build off of the wilson program i don't know that it was individualized given missteps testimony is a travesty and g p is entitle to remedy an