relative to assessments and development of a child's individualized education program results in the denial of a free enterprise the public education guaranteed under the act this appeal does not challenge the lower court's finding that the school district had korean language issue does relate to the testing which the assessment and the verbal testing in particular is my understanding is there was a translator his primary language that is in korean but the school district provided in response to that in responding to the legal mandate as well as by their contractual agreement is that yes we will assess this child and his primary language of korean and in complying with that they brought a korean speaking bilingual a school psychologist and instead of having that bilingual psychologist assessed the child in the primary language that assessor was not did not assess the child did not even speak a word to the child and we the student hired a bilingual speech pathologist to assess the child and ballingall switch the college history noted numerous korean words as well as including which words that the child spoke but some of those words because of the according to the number of issues or it based on the significance of each of the issues to the extent that the issues as a whole are are one and the same of the overall relief that is being sought by the litigant in the only d mandate school districts to provide special education and related services to special education is if it includes limited services in fact the cases in the statute that are before this court emphasized the importance of letting services to children with severe accepted in acting the act and in action the act congress did not give discretion to the school district to say well this is the law and if you feel the child is necessary to receive the services you can make a decision it did not say that it mandated school districts to hire these qualified personnel such as speech pathologist occupational therapist and physical therapist knowing that children like yourself would require a direct service of these professionals now what is really interesting is the district's response in denying their latest service their response is simply that we recognize it was it has all this this dispute and in fact we're willing to stipulate on the record which they did that was right joseph unique areas of need however it's our opinion that he has not needed directly services to benefit from special education that argument is inconsistent and it's a flawed argument and it goes directly against the type of mandatory service that i compressor education would somehow provide that service to just up but more important than that this is a case where the jaws of news directors of the professional now through are someone who's unqualified so who does not know the field of occupational therapy or speech therapy and somehow be expected that untrained persons training received from a trained personnel would somehow be sufficient to provide the benefit to officer and the district courts appropriately found that the assessments by the school district or appropriately performed the assessments were complete they were the plainest were able to assist in development of the assessment people who spent less time with the child and said they prefer to attack the competency and integrity of the district teachers and specialists who did the assessments some of them had actually worked with the plaintiff in a prior school district for several years also both the hearing officer and district court found that accordingly the district had prepared my e p with the participation of the plaintiffs that offered faith free appropriate public education to the students with were designed to offer some measure of self sufficiency in everyday activities like cleaning up following directions communicating interacting with others communication particular was an issue this child had responses back that are normed of back into the english test flight you have to have a timing test because the words are not analogous in english in korean at all times some of the same words have multiple meanings in korean minimal are limited verbal ability or about his understanding maybe one thing healing can speak words how many words could he understand you could understand a little more and and his understanding was often through visual means or  body language rather than by speaking and that was what the district felt that they should move in the direction of giving him a picture of the feister flashcard device where he could communicate his needs using pictures but she seemed to understand better than words and there seem to be no no reasonable prospect that a thirteen year old with twenty words ok valarie was going to get anywhere with speech a speech develops at the age of three or four or five and if it hasn't developed by five or six a testimony wh said it's not going to develop sixteen now yes he's still at your school district yes he's not out of high school he's still never in a mainstream program in a high school now intense grade level but here in a special day class genetic defect thankfully when they reach a teen they will go into other programs offered by social services agencies that will try to continue to train them to have some degree of self sufficiency but this is a person  well the they they went around about that in the hearing on the hearing officer put a detail footnote in his decision about that but both sides decided that that they were going to respect that confidentiality and not get into severely disabled we're also probably provided by the special day teacher and the way to assist with compensatory education was to have essentially a specialist or coach to help that special day teacher every way to some advice and training on how to approach the child that's how they structured the compensatory execution i would say that was for the benefit of the district or for the benefit of the teachers for the benefit of joseph through the teacher district prevailed entirely on the issue of the appropriateness of the assessments the little related issues the reimbursement for plans assessments and independent assessments and the district substantially prevailed on the  issue of the free appropriate public education offered by the i e p they were two very theory it's a time that they found had not met the standard of free appropriate public education the summer term when he was transitioning from the elementary to the high school district there were some laughs there and the first two months when the i p n e assessments were being done and they weren't just weren't done yet but there's no showing of any harm to the plaintiff thereby also the district substantially prevailed with respect to the least restrictive environment in the district felt that it's specialized special education school within better for this child given the severity but the plaintiffs insisted that he remain a life sentence will be mainstreamed there and he stayed there and again that was found to be the least restrictive environment so again it's hard to see any harm from that and then just as i noted he went on to a high school which is also a mainstream school  mainstream a child like this well it's difficult they have a special day class and me in junior high school or the high school which is a separate classroom the small class of about ten students with in this case a teacher in three a so there was almost a one the water one to two relationship available and the obviously a child with these deficits can't participate in any seven to twelfth grade classes they have their own classes in this little classroom but they will go out and play to the extent they can with the other students or they will go to the cafeteria and things like that there's a high tech at least with peers of the same age rather than being in a entirely special education school we feel that both the hearing officers decision and district courts of station were thorough and careful using the terminology of the ca problem that we see with many cases in the district courts of planners claiming that they're entitled to the entire fee every dollar it's been on the case if they have possibly for failed in just any extent on any of the the hussle one case i think was mentioned and i talked about having substantially prevailed or significantly prevail and or interest a face we don't feel is a significant way or substantially prevail or anything in this case that's true and if there's a legal issue that's changed as a result of the case then the fee might be appropriate we don't feel there's any real legal issues here these are these are factual issues regarding this particular child mental retardation in fact the evidence is to the contrary school psychologist stated that she gave up on her even her attempt to assess the child and her opinion is simply based on her observation of joseph's behavior and those behaviors as she and we and we proceeded as though we had the burden of proving that their assessments what you know how to quit and in proving that we pointed out that the school district not only did not follow the assessment with quietness that a clearly set forth in the act as well as in the california code but the suspected double vision and nerve damage with a limited vision or loss of vision in one eye which records were clearly noted in the past school records the school district refused to look at that issue but i submit that in that the obligation to employ the medical service for yes presents very important legal questions that will have state wide implications with respect to the scope of educational agency's responsibilities under the act and those questions include what is the scope of compliance required under the act with respect to assessments is there any room for substantial compliance when the facts surrounding the district assessment clearly violate the facts mandate second question what is the legal standard by which a school district and you know that only reject the need for related services that your speech and speech therapy occupational therapy and and physical therapy even if the school district stipulates on the record that the child has unique needs in these areas and that we believe the school district's argument that child's disability or the severity of the disability should be the basis for quickly into the services is totally