child from in general education classroom in less than a child cannot be provided a meaningful educational benefit with the filming inch of supplementary aids and services and  by feeling to require that needed seed to modify the curriculum in the general education class ignored educate cd in that environment and third the district court here your matter of the law up to probably are too late and the balancing which must occur between the penalty of benefits and the general education classroom as compared to the to consider whether it be proposed i see an individual lies education program violated the act because you propose removing a child from a general education classroom rather than pieces in which th restrictive environment so with that factual finding seems to me that's what the aim of the statute is and the hearing officer is saying that's precisely what they did i don't see you pointing to anything in the record that shows they didn't do it and said when i read the records and find a statement by i think it's sovereign and one of the school officials that there again was to go  the aim of having her contained or restricted as little as possible so he would have the school saying that they their aim was to have a restricted as well as possible and you have a fact finding by the hearing officer whose experience in that but when you read in the context of the other findings pacifically the one that he specifically found that this was the least restrictive environment how do you draw that negative inference you know try to say it's mandatory that we draw  possible they they felt their pain should be to tap eyes on her ability to make connections with other students and that's what they were trying to do it it sounds like you had school officials here if we deem them credible as the hearing officer did to the specific questions that the judge asked cosigner standard the judge actually went back the hearing officer here and asked for a clarification you are now telling us that the judge and when he did that because there was a specific question about aids in the relinquished difficulty answering your creation she aspiring major based instruction that is not an instruction that can be provided in a general education classroom present as i understand the key argument from the from the other side is that in determining that she could not sufficiently benefit in the least restrictive environment they are claiming that the school officials failed to consider the possibility of having additional services and specifically aids present in the classroom as she had in earlier years for education so what to say to that that the school failed to even consider that and therefore and narrowly too narrowly defined the girl who was going into high school earlier cases maybe you want to take the opportunity to clear up that sound like the obligations to provide to minimize services i don't actually read with services unaids provide a sufficiently enhanced and quality education that exceeds your meets or exceeds the andrew f standard it's challenging in and whatever but that in an unarmored him in a more restrictive environment it could provide even better educational bottom and what do you regard case for saying that the district should do in that situation should  actually could provide a more mainstream but lesser educational benefit and could provide a medicine mainstream greater educational benefit