please the court my name is pamela cleary and i am the attorney for the appellants chillen jason osby and their son jacob who is now a nine year old's third grade student at anna macdonald elementary school pursuant to the individuals with disabilities education act and its illinois state counterpart the hearing now based the standard of for a few who at this stage is highly  eferential to the findings of the impartial hearing officer and just record can you for us identify the most significant factual or legal made in those forums that would be helpful yes i will the issue here is whether the school district violated the individuals with disabilities education act when it decided to remove jake up from his home school kindergarten program and transfer them to a self contained classroom in another school district ten miles away that is there is a question that we're here on and part of that depends on the i e p that was in place our position and it has to do with least restrictive environment the least restrictive environment requires to the maximum extent appropriate children with disabilities are educated now we know all of that what i'm trying to get to is what was year it is the twenty thirteen twenty fourteen school year where he started attending general education at wilson creek elementary jacobs started experiencing some behavioral difficulties and a behavior intervention plan was not actually created and implemented until march twenty sixth of two thousand and fourteen at that time it's pretty late in the school year the  between the school districts spring break there was i believe a a day off for snow and the mother's mother's a teacher in another school district mother had a different spring break between the implementation from march twenty sixth of twenty fourteen until the end of the school year and the following i e p meeting on june fifth of twenty fourteen the behavior intervention flan that was developed by the school in the parents was basically in effect for twenty days twenty school days during that time that twenty school days the the school district was changing the terms of that behavior program and increasing the percentages that jake up needed to meet in order to get a passing mark for that day jacob was required to have point and every day except with the exception of it i believe two days he made his his emotion has social and emotional goal for that time what we're looking at there the district court was in booking and the child needed to meet all of these guidelines all of these expectations between april twenty sixth two thousand and fourteen and shoon fifth of twenty school that's how it's to me like it might be a regular classroom can you update us on the status of negotiations and if they came to agreement  with this matter being moot yes i would like to address that jake up does remain in the general education classroom he is at a different school now an mcdonald because the wilson creek elementary school ended at second grade i believe they have kindergarten first and second and then at third grade they move on to another another school within the district so yes he remains and general education for two reasons number one number one was stay put he was and stay put for quite a long period of time and secondly yes the school district and the parents he had later agreed that the the change was not going to be implemented that he has to do with the behavior intervention plan that was proposed by those school district at this matter new oh i don't believe so because the case of least restrictive environment has never really been decided by the court the way the district court case stand s it approves the hearing officers findings they are even though the child is on grade level doing well and in fact above grade level ananth that the district can still move them  and we believe that is the clearly erroneous and check out any time i suppose after going through all of this well yes but there is a series there's a process that has to be decided we have t least restrictive environment they had ensures that special education is a service for children instead of a place where they are sent the least restrictive environment requires the public agency under thirty four c f r three hundred point one one for each public agency it must ensure that to the man some extent appropriate children with disabilities are educated with children who are non disabled the place well that's her now that that is correct that's where he's at now but that was only the benefit of stay put and later arguments he had the parents not appealed the hearing correct the issue was waived and if the test record is not where was it preserved well we believe it was in the arguments for the least restrictive environment your honor the child is not to be removed unless special classes or removal of children with disabilities occurs only when the nature or severe a t of their disability is such that the education in the regular classes with the  supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily we believe that as part of the least restrictive environment there were certain issues in the underlying i mean how long has he now been in the general population so to speak there a great i'm sorry he's in third grade right now and this case started out when he was in the general education kindergarten ok what well where was he in first grade where was he in second grade general at general and so he's always been the general ed right and that was only because the parents had filed their legal granted and where's the damage the damage to this child who was it was the continuing litigation but ok ok i think from what you just said that there  serious probability that this lawsuit is moot and we will ask both sides to follow within fourteen days of today shocking little memoranda addressing the question whether this will explore this in the most question but it is if he has never been moved and if there is no pending proposal to move him it certainly looks like the parties are asking for an advisory opinion is there and in response to the inquiries are presented by judge of merit i submit to you that there when you review this case and look for errors either of law or of fact in the hearing and the hearing officer decision or the district court decision you will find none and therefore i ask that you are firm the decision that was made by the district court that in june of two thousand and fourteen the least restrictive environment that was appropriate for jacob was the self program the court applied the correct legal standard in analyzing what the least restrictive environment should be for any student who receives special education related services under the i d e a the court specifically cited to this court's decision in bad b which was the two thousand and two decision and then reaffirm d in the ross decision and in two thousand and seven and in that case the court essentially has instructed hearing officers and courts to i ask has the child's education in the general education environment been satisfactory and if not was the remove of that child from the general education environment at that allow for the student to participate in the general education in general education as much as is appropriate and that is the standard that the court applied and spent extensive time from review of the decision which i'm sure you have the sixty page decision which reveals in detail both the hearing officers findings of facts and credibility and analysis as well as his own the judge's own independent verification and analysis  critical elements of testimony in there and the record that was before the court with regard to the allegations of the plainest have made with three respect to jacob's education being satisfactory i submit to you that those are not accurate  when reviewing the decision before the court jacob's education was not satisfactory either behavior when looking at that assessment from a behavioral or social emotional perspective or an academic perspective and this court h not implemented on top april of that year when there were only twenty one days left in the school year can you resolve that that factual yes absolutely i certainly can during the course of pitch a cup skinner and school year there were several i t meetings that were held by the parties during which behavioral strategies and interventions were reviewed the i d e a provision provides that if a child his learning or the learning of others the i q must include behavioral strategies including positive behavioral interventions designed to address that behavior so that it does not interfere with that students learning or the learning of others if you look at the eyepiece that were held in october october and thirteen nov ninth two thousand and thirteen and january ninth twenty third twenty fourteen all of those included reviews of behavioral stright significant behavioral strategies that were in place for the student the student had a very much individualize behavioral support plan that was included in his in his educational programming from the very beginning so you when you look in october you will see that the classroom behavior intervention plan was significantly modified herad for regular and routine and more frequent reinforcement for jacob that he had a specific sensory diet meaning that he was engaging in specifically planned activities designed to address his behavior and allow him to receive the appropriate interventions in order to more more appropriately regulate his behavior it was a before school activity there were three breaks that were given during the school day there was frequent reinforcement in october his behavior his eye he was amended to provide that he was also going to receive an additional thirty minutes per week of social services so he went from thirty minutes a week to sixty minutes per week they also assigned the assistant in his program as a one to one in those support routine in november and then in january additional supports reviewed and discussed as a part of his educational the january ip meeting in addition jacob site he a social services were again doubled so that he was receiving one hundred twenty minutes per week of social work intervention and additional supports were put into place to allow for a break card and a variety of different activities that were designed to address his behavior yes his ip was reviewed again in march march twenty four of twenty sixteen or twenty fourteen i apologize and at that time further at that time the team again reviewed the behavioral intervention plan and the function analysis interesting legal what i would submit to you is when you review those two documents from january and again from march you'll see that the same target behaviors were identified meaning that the team had still identified and consistently said that physical aggression and non compliance are the most significant behaviors that read if you're in the jacob's learning in the learning of others and continue to adopt the same sorts of interventions for this for the student with some additional modifications and and supports for the student one of the primary issues that i want to call to your attention though is that jacob's i p includes five goals each of these schools is behavioral or social notional in nature there are no academic goals included in jacob's of the five goals that were included in jacob's a p jacob did not make any of the bend did not meet any of the benchmark expectations for those behavioral goals or social notional bulls during the course of his kindergarten year and when you review the final report the goal updates that are included as part of the june five twenty fourteen nineteen meeting and you'll see specific percentages and specific number of incidents of either non noncompliance or aggression all of which fall below the expectations that were established by his i p team four of those goals were established in january and one additional goal relating social skills was added in march and so i submit to you that during that entire six month period when the staff was working intensely and trying to model and shape and improve jacobs behavior he was not demonstrating the expected growth or the or factory progress under the under his educational program and also but he's doing now to do ok in general education right at this point in time is that you question are yes the district has not is not recommending that jacob at his most recent meeting be placed in the self program that is correct but the decision that you all have to make is your view of the tune for twenty  fourteen and considering the information that the ip team had at that point in time the decision that they made was reasonable which is the sooner that this court applies and at that end that the they were appropriate in the trunk of the jacob not being satisfactorily in the general education environment when you look at evaluating that environment for implementation of jacob specific i e p t you will see that he was not as i said making progress towards any of his his behavioral goals and those are the only goals that were included in the i p and there's no suggestion that that a p in that those schools were inappropriate for him that's never been an allegation so i submit to you that ultimately the behavioral intervention plans susan jacob's behaviors were impeding his learning and in preventing him from attaining a satisfactory education plaintiffs point to the to the point sheet the take up received and alleges one that that shows evidence that jake up was making progress appropriate progress under his behavior intervention plan and two that the district was unilaterally changing something in appropriately and i submit to you the plaintiff is confused as to what the behavior intervention plan addresses and what the point she addresses the point she was a reinforcement system that allowed for jacob to receive frequent positive reinforcement from staff as to how his behaviors work during the school day and that that