was so very bad is that is exactly that's exactly right there are certain mandatory pieces of the id p if all those mandatory pieces of the i p r d and in this case using language that the state of maine dictates them to use specialized instruction that was what the pick up for the court a row and they found that language bay but it it's it's actually defined term under the state rules going on for a good or a graph as to what was going on in this case if if i understand it correctly it's your view that the notice is simply a notice of one trans hired at a previous meeting and it says  big the this itself can say a lot of things without saying this is part of the i know this could have said we will provide reading instruction in room two twenty two by mrs smith on monday tuesday and wednesday because we want to tells you about what the parties agreed to at the at the meeting and intended to be there now again just because they didn't notice says something doesn't mean they intended it to be in the i p the written material benefit in the case one last question was is there any a thing in the record that explains why the school district was telling her it would provide speier when no one in the school district was qualified to hearing challenging the reading program which a whole bunch of stuff was happening making clear she was not happy with the things that had been decided down with trying to be responsive to what her concerns were and work it out in a me you just had a nice discussion with mr one about a lot of the facts but i need to remind the court these are all factual findings and we've had factual findings by an independent hearing officer recommended by a magistrate judge and then co and all three of them all three rivals have found that the spying program became part of the audi november that the school district failed to implement the idea and that the mother's e mail afterwards complaining that spiraled was not research based which the idea requires did not obstruct the provision aspire to this do it so all three thousand fighters have agreed and it's a clear ever with new team coming to th process works that mr holt i think has misrepresented it it doesn't work just by agreement all right it asks for consensus but in the absence of consensus the written notice tells the parent what is going to be provided for the child the parent action right the paper copy arrived on nov twentieth i believe however the team decided what was going to go into the ip on october thirty first and the written notice documented on november fifth year and a half for her daughter but she now found with continue not to do one and a structured reprogram that's one that has a sequence of phonetic lessons that go through the entire range of products that are needed as arithmetic and then you just say you s the continue not to deliver one and her daughter's reading continued not to progress she was all for the start of third grade was to be at level sixty and of this development a really good assessment and she was at level which is a safe place she had which program it just said it found the proposals and will deliver a structured reading program which was not what they were doing and then later in october they meet and they propose speier as the selection and the patent did not know about spire at the time c is the response to the parents twenty four questions including the description of the room services they would actually be described and he's got it wrong because he may not know but i take it he's tracing it back to the meeting as opposed to the actual paper that you're having factually you don't know i don't know i don't know and i also takes issue with the concept of big green we look if we're going to look at