we will turn to the day calendar congratulations the first case on calendar is jay or versus the new york city department of education thank you to tuition reimbursement at the winston school this was for the thirteen fourteen school year and that's the only year that's in the spirit and surprisingly the two previous school years were funded by deal we and every year since including the present time crewing just has no legal significance and it doesn't it doesn't judge but it does odd case usually such cases have questions about whether the procedure in which we i was made that qualification of us was none of that is here here is just a from one one to the individuals but there's nothing in the record to support that is well there's there's sadly for jr back in those days of his life there's plenty to support that he had been  program with two or three teachers in the classroom and was struggling his learning issues are extremely severe his processing issues and this is a student who really wants to excel the many many students shy away but he really wants to excel so the that the pressure that he puts on himself when he is not capable of keeping up with the lessons leads to and he has been diagnosed with depression and total isolation and this is brought out the at the c s e review itself the teachers who had worked with him at the time said that the one to one teacher instruction is crucial crucial for this child to be able to succeed and most of the experts spoke did not say that it needed to absolutely there but there is the evaluation from mt sinai hospital which was utilized by the c a c specifically said that teachers should check in for understanding after instructions have been given or material has been taught the district court somehow left out the word teachers when when reviewing the evaluation itself and then later left out that whole concept and saying student's attention and to do some repetition why do you need someone with an education degree well because of all first of all the weren't more certification for that matter it paraprofessional is is a high school graduate not a teacher this this student his difficulty was in actually processing and understanding the information he needed to have taught the same way that it was initially taught in the classroom where he would fall behind very very quickly because his mind functions that way and the evaluation not every certified teacher qualified to do that access the information and also the understanding just like to get the word and there's nothing in the record that indicates that the paraprofessional is capable of doing that we're trained to do that on the views of all sullivan which were against the clear consensus of the substance of the evaluative materials present at the c a c same thing here we are and we don't have we don't have a clear consensus on the other side we have we have people disagreeing there's one person this same message o'sullivan who has been specifically called out by this court very recently because all he does is he testifies the same way in case frequently say the same thing in every case because they have to are consistent no no just mean if they said a different thing in every case they would be called out for that as we have to look at the individual needs of a child we're not dealing with it we're not dealing with a manufacturing issue correctly everybody seemed to agree on the problem here the problem is that everybody does it we with the with the problem and the i h o specifically yup that's why i age aches came up with the conclusion that that the pointed out by judge walker but there is agreement on the underlying documents the testimony is all pretty much the air and all that you have is a reading of this and their this is such a case and it's clear as can be and any analysis of the i h o the situation it's it's really flawless in terms of saying what jr is needs are and what he will need from it's not a coincidence that the that the department of education has continued to fund his education at the winston school i mean we were asked to says we have an argument you reserve three and i don't quite know what to do with it you're not you're right the judge towns i think as i see it as saying discerns decision is not perfect and could be better reasoned that's not the standard to apply here and as far as i o very carefully set forth and had a very strong understanding of not not doing everything that could have to link those needs to what was on the face of the ip but as judge towns held and correctly so particularly important that was a phrase used in that decision and the narrow challenge raised by the appellants here is the question of what level of one someone support is appropriate is to enable meaningful progress there is absolutely no evidence to support that view and there's certainly no clear consensus as is required under am to overturn the s r o sound decision here i do want to touch on the i show decision for a few minutes just because so much of that was discussed when my colleague was speaking i think it's clear from our brief of pages forty four forty six that there are at least two serious flaws with the ice show decision  one which honors discussed which was this idea that the ice show relied on heavily that the one to one pull out sessions right the individual support that they're now complaining about it was just for a speech language therapists and counselors but that would cause undue embarrassments now the mother admitted at the impartial hearing that she believed the ones who want support in the eye were appropriate so any arguments that they did not raise on appeal would be waived in any event the mother admitted that those ones who want interventions were appropriate so the i chose really going very far afield of the evidence before him in sort of sue a sponsor a raising this issue which you know  right i'm not altogether sure that that a parent's professional views on education matter i mean the focus is on the trial not with the parents are happy that that's right your honor and i think that abundantly clear is nor did the lawyers nor did any experts did anybody testify about embarrassments and no one's made that argument i was rich sue a spontaneous the i'd show is never made before or after it's not nice on appeal either right so that ground for the iges decision has never been advocated by anyone either a lawyer or an educational expert or anybody and and that's one flaw on the actions of section and the second feeling from reading this case that this kid length was you know this is a student who is showing a great deal of promise and deal he under its obligation to put him in the least restrictive environment doesn't want to put him in a situation where he doesn't have enough social experiences where you know the do you have school psychologist who again is the only educational experts who have testified here testified at length about this issue that's now raised on the peel the only issue which was whether one's one teacher support as opposed to one to one support from speech therapists from counselors support from a paraprofessional is appropriate he testified at pages ca fifty four to fifty five sixty four eighty two eighty three and one twenty nine to thirty on that very issue and the notion the notion that mr o'sullivan is somehow getting up and and reciting what is called boilerplate in the reply brief is completely belied by the record he testified for hours for more than one hundred pages of testimony in the transcript indeed it's the only transcript that the appellant's agreed to even put in the record the suggestion that he put in the mother's testimony is again false the deal we had to put the mother's testimony in because the appellant's insisted it was  relevant to the issues on appeal even that was a primary basis for the i chose decision so mr o'sullivan testified at length about the students needs and about why those needs were met by the ip that was by any other witness at the hearing and therefore this is you know the deal is certainly minutes burden of showing the appropriateness of the ip with that testimony the mesereau is entitled to credit that testimony and there is no clear consensus at all in any other evidence that would compel a reversal here i think it just bears a little bit of discussion of why the ip on its face is appropriate and the evidence underpinning the s arose determination on that point the mt sinai report which was a report that i believe was commissioned by the parents are sort of you know that the parents in this report recommended the spall a small special education program which is what deal he offered here ever commanded counseling which is what do you he offered here in recommended specific interventions and supports that were placed in the ip and which dr o'sullivan testify that the perfection all would assist in implementing the appellants talk a bit about how the montana report talks about teacher check in and seems to suggest that the district court is either intentionally or mistakenly sort of misrepresenting that point i think the one of your honors touched on an important point on on that issue which is that there's first of all nothing about one to one teacher supports in the in the mt sinai report teacher check in for understanding as i understand it and my wife's been an educator for quite some time means checking in with students to make sure they understand that can be done in a class of thirty students you can say you know jonathan can you repeat back the instructions to the class things like that there's nothing about teacher check in that is inherently ones who won ever  also that list of interventions in the mountain or report were simply things that the author of the report thought would be likely to be beneficial to the student listed as being necessary in that on the same page there it's page ca one seventy four so it's page one seventy four of the confidential appendix there is a list of interventions and accommodations that the report concludes would likely benefit the student in his comprehension of lessons and one of those talks about teacher check ins it does not say ones who wants the church check ins but it's says teacher check in for understanding which there's no testimony about because no witness was called but my understanding of teacher check in  for understanding is you ask students if they are understanding you make sure they're following the instructions it doesn't say one to one of the report and the appellant faults the district court for when when summarizing or quoting are paraphrasing that report it just says check in for understanding without talking about teachers again going back to the already decision this distinction between supports provided by teachers and support by per professionals is precisely the sort of question upon which deference is bowed to the s r o high school graduates of the can they can be college graduates i assume as well they certainly could be and i think not they're not they don't have teacher because i think it is very important here in which he wrote the i have changed his mind you know if you have please let me know before while i still have time to respond the adequacy i'm ok i'll put in a  letter the adequacy of a one to one para professional support as opposed to once one teacher support is precisely the kind of educational policy judgment to which we owe the state deference thank you thank you  brief that she had reasons and good reasons and that she was advised that her son needed that level of support the teachers who participated the c s e meeting from the west and a school they all said they all said that one to one for the students was crucial they they the teachers who then appeared at the hearing because it came after a full year at the winston school they all said that he absolutely needs that one to one focus because if he doesn't understand the material and it's not a matter of having a bad day or something if he doesn't understand the material slowly but surely he shuts down and what could be worse from an educational point of view than having a student who shuts down isolate some sort of pulls back from the entire learning experience these were the needs of this student the law provides to look at the unique needs of each student not taught in generalities but i just want to bring one thing to the court's attention which i wasn't aware of once all read the papers the  well accessing is in quote speak that was mr solvents testimony that he would help and accessing comprehend ing though that's a little trick they are trying to do this time is trying to tell you the parents going to help him comprehend and that's can only hope access the they don't teach and the reason that this word comprehending is in here is because the evaluation says that the teacher should check in for understanding of the lessons taught understanding comprehending that they're trying to get by that put that in the brief but in fact the if there were another teacher of the help and that would be a different program that's a different program and ari is very