legitimate basis exists for the court to reject the determination of the state review office or that the admissible evidence introduced at the impartial hearing demonstrated that the district to developed and modified an appropriate educational program to meet this student's needs arising from his multi faceted disability and therefore afforded him a free appropriate public education while it's undeniable that the parents were and are zealous advocates for their spawn the i d e a guaranteed inappropriate education not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents stated somewhat differently by the supreme court and its two thousand and seventeen andrew asked decision the relevant in korea is whether the ip is reasonable or not whether the court regards it as ideal the district worked collaboratively with the parents and devised revised and supplemented the services in the students ip to ensure that it was reasonably tailored to meet his complex needs a critical event in the timeline of events in this case is that approximately six months before the parents unilaterally enrolled the student in a local private school his ip was amended to add individualized reading instruction under the sunday program and that was pursuant to a consent decree between the parties dated june two thousand and twelve that resolved concerns raised by the parents approximately halfway through the student's th grade school year the period from july two thousand and twelve when the student began receiving those intensive sunday reading services during the district's summer programming through january th well of when the parents issued their notice of intent to enroll the student at private school is the critical period in terms of the thought thing whether the stipulated services were working and whether they were providing him with meaningful educational benefits the data from the curriculum based monitoring probes which was were actually recommended by the parents reading consultant as a means to track his progress under the sunday program which was also by the way recommended by the parents can fall and those probes during that period demonstrated unequivocal progress in the student's reading fluency and the reading and his reading comprehension skills he began the year at the rd grade fluency per and went through that so quickly that he was placed on the th grade probe within two months he made considerable progress as well in the th grade reading comprehension probe and the parents of knowledge that the student w making progress although they did question whether it was enough but they also acknowledged that the student felt like he was learning while he was receiving these the individualized sunday instruction which is consistent with the fact that during the same period of time he achieved nine reading levels and twelve spelling levels in the sunday program these objective academic achievements are on contradicted in the record and certainly not trivial or demand of us they're actually quite impressive when considering that the student suffers from double deficit dyslexia which is a more severe form that the com more commonly known dyslexia he also has a poor  memory skills and also has a below average i q excuse me you have one more minute your honor walker authored the court's opinion in are you in two thousand and twelve which  that when the after all reaches a different result than might show the court must defer to the astros decision as the final decision of state authorities on matters requiring educational expertise unless the court concludes that the astros decision w that precedent here the court should find that the district court exceeded its authority in reversing that sorrow although the district court paid lip service to the deference standard and articulated suppose it grounds for why the y not the case the court also substituted its own credibility that herman ations as to the parties respective reading intervention experts as this court held and the  case this is impermissible this is a clear error that this record is not permitted to choose between the views of conflicting experts on a controversial issue of educational policy thank you miss you very much so let me turn to my colleagues judge curious on the questions no question judge walker no i have no questions thanks very much i will reserve decision and will turn to the next case to be heard disability i take a differing we take a differing view as to this of the issue presented to this court the issue presented to this court is whether the district court properly identified and stated the governing that brant standard and in doing so did he properly apply that deference standard to the atheros decision and finally after applying the proper deference standard and finding that the astros decision was inadequately reason and not supported by the record that the the district court properly  and contrary to the district position throughout this entire taking it is not a rubber stamp an exercise the court must independently review the basis of the determination how that said look at the standard measure look at the standard score and if we look at that the two you either going down and get standard score over the years or she staying stale in nearly every single measure of reading and math it that that really is true even for the area where the yes are all found some progress which was in reading comprehension but if you actually look at the standard scores it stayed the same or went  know the standard for the provision of a free appropriate problem education is a program likely to produce progress math regression student had demonstrated the after row of his decision was wrong the student had not made progress and that was his finding his finding was this program was basically the same as to what he had been provided then he was making progress and that's not true so what was the district court to do the district court under the deference standards which is not absolute it does require that analysis of those nonsense standardized measures the curriculum based measures the great more analysis on the i p goals and she analyzed those extensively and then decision and found that those pieces of non standardized assessments did not support a finding of progress with that determination the court had to go on and look at the program that was changes were not and the district added a new reading program but didn't describe how that was going to benefit the student the only description of the program is basically what radio stands for what the acronym stands for it didn't talk about recommendations of service levels it didn't talk about whether that should be provided in conjunction with another program sunday it didn't talk about how continuing a program that the student w for six years sunday was not new it had been started and nd grade was going to do anything different than what it had have the students stagnate or not make progress this student had the ability to learn t supported in our response the district and the district has repeatedly come up with these arguments about that are simply not correct they're there they're not what the final record question to clarify the relief you're requesting is retroactive reimbursement the services provided during half of the academic years that right back correct to my colleague's contention that the i show decision here was it was better reasoned that's that's can't be the case because the district court actually district court in many instances adopting the i chose views of the evidence is never even addressed that those views had been expressly rejected by the s r o and therefore didn't even did not address why the aster all was perhaps wrong on in coming to a different resolved and with respect to the standardized testing as i said on my  principal argument the a critical change to the student's programming was in july of two thousand and twelve there was no relevant standardized testing from that point to one he was pulled to put into private school and there's no dispute even the parents witnesses all testified that curriculum based measures are all are legitimate and probative means and an objective means to identify whether a student is making progress here the one on one individual i was reading instruction that had been added six months prior was on a quickly leading to progress for him in multiple respects you before the c s e at the time of the january rd team meeting and he also recounted specifically the student's progress which was demonstrated by the sunday mastery tracks which i mentioned also on my principal argument were