but i'd like to clarify that we're not appealing in entirety specifically we're not appealing the ruling regarding the prospective compensatory education recommendation that the parents do have the opportunity to supplement the record to support an award for stay put provision requires the board to continue to pay two thousand five hundred dollars a week if it provided i mean look i mean i understand that the parents might the of the argument made by if you look at it in its totality the directive from this court was simply to calculate the total value of the whole program with that the side of the settlement agreement which was for a poor services to be provided now and in that settlement agreement for those four services the th agreed on the two thousand five hundred dollars per week now what happened after that the board with that what's wrong with that is nothing wrong within an agreement however what happened after that was that the that the agreement was with broken you know the one the board refused to reimburse for the but for at the settlement agreement course they put certain what were the services what with the whole program in effect a functioning gram in effect at the time and that was for core services and ok what is the value that the educational agency was required to fund not the lesser value of the services the parent was able to afford so that's that's what i'm think so if you're if that's not the appropriate standard to look at under d it's what the parent was able to afford them we have to look back at what was the value of the home based program according to the agreement it was two thousand five hundred dollars per week now if you're going to look at the burlington carter thing and go into all the details and shift the burden to the parent ok what was the parent able to afford while she was only able to afford x number of dollars so that's all we're going to tell you that's a different standard and that's not under state but that's not not is not what calls for it's not the purpose of idea understood they put it to provide the services during the pendency of the dispute and that would obligation that not a parent obligation and so the district court a did not the what the this court mandated to calculate the full value of the home based program in place at the time which was the word responsibility under state put during the pendency period and then and the district court did not look until the dispute was over and i believe the court and the parties have all use the august th seen date of the order from this court and the date for when the dispute was over but the important the important and salient provision or salient mandate was the order to calculate the home program based upon as specified in the settlement agreement and as this court has noted in the argument before with blankets counsel  agrees the board agreed to reimburse the parents in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars a week for the cost of speech occupational therapy a b a services and autism consulting services that is exactly through three dollars days of trial that the district court evaluated and determined by looking at what the actual costs were that were paid by the parent and in order to reimburse as specified in the settlement agreement was given and the decision of the district court for those services that we have to this supposed suppose interesting document the services that were being provided and the service providers were all chosen by the parents there was a unilateral placement of the student into the home based program that's what paragraph three so if you can't pay the service provider no students are provided by correct well yes and that hypothetical it would be correct however the district court file that at no time  parent submit an invoice or a cancelled check after the commencement of due process to the stafford the the bucks county decision among other things the court noted based upon the proof that was presented nor is the court persuaded by plaintiff's argument that she was worse to provide home base because she was unable to pay qualified providers the court rejected that there was no finding here that this parent couldn't pay there was no finding here that qualified providers were not available  the nor was there a breach of the idea here unlike the bucktown decision the request here was different than the argument you just heard the request  here was for the parent to be reimbursed for her time and as this court knows compensatory damages are not available under i d e a nor is she a qualified provider nor unlike bucks county was there a violation of the ideate nor was there a breach of the two thousand and nine settlement agreement by the board also unlike bucks county the parent was not supervised by qualified providers nor was she trained she only received training for generalization services by a doctor bader as a parent and the court the district court after three days of testimony expressly rejected the equivalent services argument that that was part of the analysis if you will in bucks county this is a very that's really different case than bucks county and the net and the reman was very narrow as specified in the settlement agreement that service providers were chosen by the parent they didn't submit for reimbursement indeed they didn't submit for reimbursement until we were back in the district court  back and inquire so assuming that the compensatory education issue was still in this case i would say it was never properly in this case because one it wasn't part of the re man it wasn't part of the of the of the home based program number that wasn't part of the now re man number two there was absolutely no proof of any kind with respect to there was no  three days of testimony there was no compensatory education plan proposals i know evidence as to the current academic state of this of the student i gather everyone agrees that it's not in the case at the moment ye dollars our position was it didn't fit into the narrow categories in the settlement agreement and dr bader specifically rejected that she was providing any of those services she said she was providing family therapy and she quoted her bills for  payment purposes as family therapy and in fact she said she was teaching what about communications clinic of connecticut also provided i think were directed to the family and that was they are they are if that's the speech your honor and i think it is that's included within the court's order on the thirty something one thousand dollars the board has been ordered reimburse we did we did test the speech services to the extent the invoices were provided and we certainly didn't with respect to the a b a providers or dr fierro really the board certified behavior and i don't understand why that wouldn't be included you know because we want to them consulting services it seems like that the papers work whether it's directed at the family or or not it was directed towards behavioral issues th categories and and i never said it was coded it was coded it's family therapy that i heard you say yes it was coded as family therapy she agreed that that's what she was provided she wasn't providing the services that are set forth in the settlement agreement you're right it is a relatively modest dollar figure but it wasn't it was one of the categories within the settlement agreement that the board agreed to reimburse the parent for but in terms of  the doctor worked with the family with regard to how to deal with certain in home act out behaviors dial up the right well yes but but but that's not the way we saw the record it was about providing your position if it was not it was not providing an education know what it was it was more about providing parenting skills let me say it like that and that's the distinction it was more focused on how the parents should deal with certain issues versus how to deal helping the student helping helping the child so that that was clearly outside the scope of the two thousand and nine settlement agreement and that's why the court threw that the sanctions and and not only that dr better didn't contest that dr bader testified that she was providing parenting skills generalization services i think was the term she used that to be already been paid so i don't know i don't know why she would get done well and she didn't dispute  that she was providing something other than family therapy ok so so if i think if i may summarize it if there are no further settlement agreement plus transportation as thirty seven thousand and twelve dollars eighty seven cents and we would urge this court to affirm the decision of the lower court we haven't talked about transportation but just like she's the plaintiff the parent made a claim for her time and she isn't a qualified provider she also made a claim for something other than mileage are decisions cited in our brief that the parent is entitle to cost reimbursement not wages so for all those reasons we would urge this court to affirm the decision of the district court able to go back or compensatory education to supplement the record for that claim that understates put another fate that under that they put growth violation of six years of not providing any services the state put violation for reimbursement again not under the burlington card or a conditional model of reimbursement that is or something entirely different what is happening here is  stay put we in britain it was valid under the agreed upon contract which the council just agreed was a two hundred and fifty dollars per week for the duration until the august th two thousand and sixteen decision particular time period but in the meantime while that dispute over free under that i e p was being adjudicated they put absolutely came with the fly and that was aboard obligation was what we were testing when when when you were talking about the the application of stay put remedies until the resolution of the of the case that you're  know the question is when does it and why and what i mean i agree with everything you say but i need an answer to the question of what does the statute say as to when the state puts remedies and