the court i'd like to reserve five minutes pleas for report on the posture of this case is somewhat unusual in that appellant's were deemed the prevailing party following the administrative proceedings however plaintiffs did not prevail as to the august two thousand and eleven i p and that is the offer that is at issue in this proceeding i did provide now as i understand it on the other i that's correct the one in  right correct now i'd like to step back and just point out that the context of the august offer is important in this case because this is the third time that laney has been found eligible for special education she was twice previously found eligible the department rescinded her eligibility they tried to have her proceed without supports and those efforts failed so parents in september and ten asked for an i p they wanted to again continue trying supports before the january i developed the january those were not working parents again asked in november she didn't get an ip until and eleven once that was implemented parents were troubled that it wasn't meeting her needs another i p was held in june that is that was not an issue at the administrative proceeding another i e peep parents eventually pulled her out into the summer of two thousand and eleven play straight american renaissance academy a r a and the school asked to develop have one more chance of developing a knife the parents agreed to that so now this is almost a year after the request for an i p it's now august of two thousand and eleven she's been denied a faith as to the january i p there was a finding at the hearing on that the august i did as i understand district court road those findings well i believe that the district court was overly deferential the judge had serious concerns with the administrative decision and suspend said so throughout the the hearing on the on the merits and she said it was a conclusory decision and there just was not enough there for her to even review she asked for supplemental briefing she was she was struggling very much i mean she was at one point wanted to send it back down to have the hearing officer say what he had because as i understood it she asked for some promotional briefing on five issues because she could not find that the hearing officer and never been presented those issues and wanted you to come up with if you will the places in the record where the hearing officer would have been presented those issues well then after finding that she went further to suggest that she could find they've been presented either well page nineteen of the administrative decision the hearing officer well both at pages twelve and one thousand the hearing officer lays out what the issues are and at page nineteen the heading is the appropriateness of the program and placement offered in the august fourth two thousand and eleven i so clearly the offer of faith pursuant to that i was exhausted before the hearing officer well but as i understood it what the district georgia judge with looking at is there are five issues in fact to destroy call to identify those five is if they're not administratively exhausted i can't even get into and then went even further and requested supplemental briefing and question that the hearings to determine the issues that were properly before it and then said those issues were properly before us the key issues well i can tell you as i've outlined of maybe you can tell me if i'm wrong i outlined them that they were where the august ip academic goals were not based on adequate p l e p's whether the i p in august failed to include goals addressing laney's behavioral needs autism and expressive receptive language tensioners next assert that the obvious this is the second rather third to the last paragraph petitioners next assert that the august fourth two thousand and eleven ip lacked goals are contained in appropriate goals to address students lack of socialization skills and sensory issues specifically petitioners claimed that the one goal addressing students frustration and lack of personal space did not address students unique educational i think you also said that in you brief but i guess my worry is that after signing this passage it doesn't seem to me there's any argument or at least i can't find any argument in your brief concerning which of these students lack of socialization skills and sensory issues the academic goals were inappropriate as a student has grade level academic abilities stated another way that statement about academic abilities there was nothing in the plot up and the special education teacher mr passy acknowledged that that there was nothing in the pledge to support the addition of the academic goals so it's sort of the reverse way of saying that the academic goals are based on the plump the pope would say that she had grade level ability so if they're going to add academic goals the pledge needed to reflect what her academic needs were in order to build on those goals i think the key issue in the case is this lack of a socialization program or any sort of socialization program is something that the district court did consider right that's right it's at the merits of the argument and that's really the central issue in this case ok that is the most important issue facing this child that's what all of the experts dr arnot meant dr paul that dr fitzgerald all agreed that was her greatest area of deficit so as i look at a violation of the guardian a like this and i'm sorry monopolize my time my two colleagues could break in and cause me to be quiet a little bit but as i look at that there's two ways the idea could valid one is that it could be violated by failing to comply with procedures that's correct and two is that the ip developed by the school district does not reasonably is not really dark elaine and to enable the child to receive educational benefits that's correct now when i look at those two then it seems to me that what you're really going to is to the second of those arguments which is as a relates to the socialization that's great yes ok so you're saying that it fails to address socialization needs well the interesting thing about the case is the one goal that was presented in the january i was found to be a denial of faith it lacked measurability it was repeated verbatim in the sec in the august i p f another almost identical goal was added another health goal the words death deficient and weak were substituted but other than that they were identical or were really arguing that the socialization accommodations had already been prep so that the one that your argument that's the one thing that they were providing that had anything to do with socialization was a group training program and that had been tried and failed lady went one time after the january i was not effective this is a child with significant socialization needs to impose a child like this on a regular peers and expect that they're going to train that child and teach that child how to socialize is unreasonable it's not in the past that it's necessarily inappropriate for inclusion in the future ip especially when there are a lot of other accommodations in the second i p r around it that might help the one that was tried before work better this time well the the social skills group you know isn't enough itself the problem if she had a one on one that was teaching her how to socialize if she had measurable objective criteria based goals and objectives that were teaching her how to socialize that she was building a repertoire of socialization and that she could then go into a social skills thirty minutes a week and kind of try out what she had learned that wouldn't be a problem but where that is the only thing that's being offered there are other things but with respect to socialization that was really all that was being offered those two health goals do not provide objectively measurable basis for tracking these progress and hence they include the language in hansen behaviors and reducing health risks those are extremely vague goals for developmentally disabled child with significant socialization needs well go ahead but does so you're saying there are no measurable goals but on the socialization issues isn't the goal of refraining from inappropriate comments eighty percent of the time for five consecutive occasions a measurable goal and is not related to socialization not according to i'm sorry you are how many are sixty three measurable he was the care coordinator and the special education teacher he was responsible for the ip that's transport for ninety four he says he makes the admission that it's measurable the the author of the goal was not  a special education teacher it was shelley dahl tip she wrote it pursuant to the behavior support plan and when she was cross examined she said my whole focus was behavior was not socialization it was taken verbatim from the behavior to interrupt my colleague but i worry was the district court found that the challenges concerning measurability had not been raised and therefore were not administrative really exhausted well so what you're arguing here is a whole different argument than you raised in front of the ministry of montana well i said that they were inappropriate goals they didn't address socialization you don't expect to while one here i am in front of the judge i've got a district court judge who i have to i can only undo his if you will factual conclusions placed on clear error i can go forth on a legal basis to much more on other appropriately applying the law or on dying or and or giving the fan but when i have to go all the factual considerations the judge frowned i have to find them clearly erroneous frankly it worries me that challenges concerning the measurability of the goals were not raised in front of the administrative law judge well at page twenty of the administrative decision assert that the august fourth two thousand and eleven lacked goals are contained in appropriate goals i don't ever expect to hear from the special education teacher and care coordinator who is responsible for the ip that they're in measurable you don't you know it's for me to guess that when i file for hearing you know you have to see into the future but it was unexpected admission and both on a bit of difference from of goals and all to having goals but not measurable goals well if if what they're saying is that in line with what judge friedland was suggesting was that those two health goals addressed socialization o the second of the two address socialization then i'm trying to address that that that it's a measurable that it's not an appropriate goal for measurability sake i didn't expect that the care coordinator or the author of that goal although she didn't expect it to become a stand alone goal or objective would say that it was a measurable i mean that's an important admission and pursuant to the statute the statutory command says that the ip must contain good morning your honour's the case before you today is an appeal from the district court which affirmed the findings of fact and conclusions of law of march twenty seventh two thousand and twelve issued person so if we go step back and look at what the district court had to work with i think the district court to great indulgence in trying to decipher what were the actual issues that were being raised on appeal because they were not consistent and compatible with the issues that were raised in their request for due process hearing as this clearly stated by law as well as case law only issues raised in the request for due process can be properly considered and decided by the hearings officer and if i can point out deer we fail to assess student in all areas of suspected disability the really that the mainstreaming placement offer to student is inappropriate due to students in a tent tension and lack of snake now if the appellate raised issues in front of the administrative hearing officer and he just didn't put them in his list and he's commented they're after on those we still wo colleague who argued the other side the five things the district court did not believe was put in front of the administrative hearing officer and it seems to me that then i have to go through the administrative hearing officers decision and i have to look at what he said in his decision and see if those in fact were addressed correct that's correct because whether he puts him in a list or not is not that important would you agree court that the academic goals are not appropriate because they are not linked to any baseline information in the plan it was however with respect to to the ip despite the fact that this is cool was that all the information and was going to be moved that goal parents are in and ted role a member of the inappropriate goals to address the student's lack of socialization skills and sensory issues why is that not addressing academic goals were not based on adequately adequate la going back if you're just with respect to the social goals aspect i would argue to the contrary a review of the august two thousand and eleven i clearly showed was also evident in the decision by the hearings officer that there were multiple goals with short term objectives and i would be the following including working independently remaining attentive to be organized and following organizational checklist and also to participate appropriately in large academic group settings additionally other short term goals are added such as uniting coping skills by asking for a break or asking for assistance the actual august two thousand and eleven i p contains six pages of goals and objectives to address a solicitation communication needs for example one of the goals and objectives hall for student to work independently have necessary materials follow an organizational checklist as well as participate in group settings another goal call for student to use coping skills appropriate personal space to take on the perspective of others to control exhausted whether the august ips academic goals were not based on adequately adequate play ups i say playoffs only because that's what you  determine the actual issues that were presented that that judge moore we found one of the issues that were perhaps not exhausted the response including trying saying our man at back to find out including saying i'll give you supplemental briefing to find out and after all of those then she said these issues are not exhausted all i'm trying to do is allow you to respond if you will to the appellate argument that what the period or what the administrative hearing officers decision says is that the august fourth two thousand and eleven i be like goals and contain the inappropriate goals is in fact exhausting the first of those that the district court says was not exhaustive careful review p i would like to quickly point out that is not in fact what the hearings officer found the hearings officer found that in the january two thousand and eleven i p that one hell of a goal in and of itself was not enough do you is it your response to judge smith though about the academic goals and whether they were based appropriate appropriately on plops that the hearing officer did not address that because it was not raised that is correct that it was not raised but i also wanted to point out the fact that with respect to the academic cause if no one has wanted some clarification or information that in fact at the time of the ip with respect to the academic goals and as well as what was brought on forth by way of written test and oral testimony was that parents were the ones that were adamant about keeping those academic goals in place despite the fact that now they are countering that insane it should have been removed it was was there any challenge to academic goals before the hearing officer  there are being argued that if there is any disagreement with the hearings officer that it be kind of find to what are level judge moore we nonetheless i would say was you know very generous in trying to perhaps resurrect or rehabilitate should not entertain any of those issues but beyond that point is the fact that clearly based on the record before you there is more than ample evidence to show that the hearings office balanced the credibility as well as all of the evidence presented as is evident in his decision because he looked at all of the documentation written as well as oral in his in his decision which y your argument for used all your time the first time and when even into the thread but i'm in hawaii and i'm in a good mood so that you have thirty seconds i would like to address the exhaustion issue as to the academics that you raise judge at excerpt of record one twenty six the hearing request petitioner said that the information in the plat indicates that laney has grade level academic abilities ye three of the five annual goals of the eight four eleven i p r academic at page twenty one of the hearing decision the hearing officer says although petitioners not the first thing you just read sounds like you're saying there don't need to be academic goals well basically academic goals are based on the pledge there didn't need to be if they needed to have academic goals then this should have been something in the pledge to ground them what were her academic and if you were arguing that there shouldn't have been academic goals at all then that's not a great position to be in to now be saying that the goals that there are well it's not that they shouldn't have been at all but the information in the plant was inadequate that's what we were say that the plop lacked the information to support the academic goals and you know the argument that the hearing officer page twenty one of the decision says that you know it's unfair for parents to now complain about the inappropriateness of academic goals when this is what the previously asked for to be included in the ip it's almost like you'll get nothing and like it you know will throw in academic goals with nothing to ground them in the plat if the pledge said what her levels were then those academic goals could be measurable again those are immeasurable because they lack the foundation in the platt a starting point we don't know where she's starting from where they're trying to get her to or how how will we know when she's arrived so the academic goals are inappropriate i don't see how that's not exhausting academic issues i would disagree that that is that the main issue the academics for this child really are not the main issue it's the socialization issue i understand but it's my understanding that when i faced you with the five is good district judge said we're on exhausted that you concentrated on the first ok as a related to the paragraph you stated it for me so i wanted her to respond i see oh i am but i wasn't on to the socialization and she gave quite a