the second people coming in and out progress and when you look at the record the undisputed facts in this case the progress was barely more than ten minutes so my concern is that your briefs seem to focus on the outcome age and your formulation still to come up with the idea that because some of the standards should hit some benchmarks some of the benchmarks the best aspirations you could hope for the next year over the bat meant potential for growth then everyone agreed that k d had significant potential for growth both know about the school psychologist and then there are psychologist agree that katie had average to about that bridge skills in certain areas she also also over the course of time they were willing to a one on one a i understand what parents said with regard to one on one he but certainly the suggestion school is reading and if they're trying different reading programs they help or she that's not making things stay the same static no your honor what they changed at all times well in downingtown w katie had in her area of need in reading was a combination of a general education curriculum with some parts of the special education curriculum they didn't change the types of special education curriculum curriculum but they never  provided more intensity of services and in terms of the amount of time a special education struction actually received through the trade at least three different reading protocols they tried three different breeding programs a combination of general education and special education and in two thousand and fourteen they had input from the parents expert but said what she needs to make progress commensurate with her potential is a specialized school where she can get instruction in reading throughout the while the district court did say some things remained unchanged in the id certainly some things did not and substantive things which were side of the opinion which i don't need to cite now is it your point that the the the program was mainly substantively on changes in goals and in programming for the entire time she was in the district in mission just to address that point on progress the progress that the district court cited areas of strength picture we'll have you here and there was another comprehension which always were areas of strength for her and he says aside he says he she did worse in some areas where she did worse in all areas where she she that the special education and related services and programming was big it says in the decision they were not aiming to do anything more than address foundational skills and i think there are two issues one issue is whether in the past the programming from two thousand and twelve to two thousand and fourteen was sufficient because there's a compensatory education plan for that but there is another issue which is in two thousand and fourteen when the parents go to the school certified wills certified in specially designed instruction reading and they can provide a level text for her throughout the day and give critiques exposure to text that she needs at that point in time we're not fa g the school district for not providing her with that private school prior to that point but that point in time when dr kelly comes in and says she needs this the research shows that students like katie who receive of repetition that was needed in very low levels was in fact what she needed a letter of meaning fluency and sounds that there's this fundamental things that have to be built on so i have a hard time seeing this have the hearing officer himself said but the program of the substantively unchanged in this fashion they were making changes but they weren't providing more intensity and they weren't providing she didn't want to work on foundational skills but if you look in their record at after four months at the at the ame academy which is the private school for students with learning disabilities and were attacked which is one of the foundational skills that the school district was working on she went from a standard school are eighty one which is below average and the first grade i was one point five to a standard score of ninety three which is average and agreeable with two point eight so after four months of the intensive instruction a dr kelly said she needed she gone up one point three she increased almost as much as she had the whole time she was in the school district when you speak to this notion of intensity as i understood is correct prayer in the pull out in the pullout setting she was not receiving only a special education curriculum in that setting she was receiving some general education curriculum and some special education curriculum so so if i if i if i hear you right one of the results of the analysis that we do here is if if parents come to the conclusion that a private setting provided the  same or were some improve increased opportunity for their child then that private setting should be what's provide  i believe your honor i would say that if parents provide to the school district and to the hearing other evidence that the private set name can provide her with progress appropriate in light of her intellectual potential or in light of potential or potential for growth and the public school setting cannot then the parents are entitled to reimbursement pretty private school setting but here's the question i have right off that point as i understood it when dr kelly came on the scene if you will you know that her work and then produced the report was that the school district was not recalcitrant to dr kelly made very detailed recommendations and they never provide the research supports dr kelly's recommendations that a student like katie can make more progress in reading then she did that that programming was not appropriate and might  her potential for growth and it was never there was never a response to the fact that you know dr kelly said to them to add a school like again they can provide her access to text throughout the day which is what she needs at this point there was no response to the fact that she had become so deficit big because of the programming prior that she really needed this intensity of instruction and it's not true that every time a school a parent's expert says a student needs a private school  change at the programming but they didn't change the goals they have or carry on with the same goals for several years with incremental progress progress in objectives and if you look at the end continuing the same goals here after year this is not a student who should have been in this absurdly this case is different is due for a change in the well that's and that's part of the point of the idea of decision is that all of these students are going to be different the student and you have had have different set of challenges and he but but but the the same the fact remains that in her was instead of using adjectives like meaning for some educational benefit it said you have to look at these things and the things are the present levels achievement the disability and the potential for growth i p has to take that into account you also have to look at whether the school district complied with fourteen fourteen which and make course corrections when provided with evidence changed evidence or provided information from the parents or when provided with information the view of the district and the parents diverge but not before as i understood before years before dr kelly's report the parents were relying upon the school district to propose appropriate programming and they did not say they believe they didn't have any evidence that the programming was not appropriate they're not professionals when dr kelly came in there are two points to remember about going back to terry came in the first point isn't december  parents said we still think this is an intense enough and they made the unilateral placement so that point in time there's a clear divergence in what the parents want and what the schools are providing the second point is in may of two thousand and fifteen when the parents come back and they share with downingtown the report from dr kelly from a two thousand and fifteen which is the last item in the joint appendix and what that says is that she started to make some really big  foundational goals that they've been working on for three years and at that point in time this is down in terms of not keeping an eye pinging they did not know what fourteen fourteen says but that's new information from the parents they're supposed to do something to respond to that instead they just said those are substantive requirements ok excuse me liability follows the bread the school district in this sort of negligence or even worse just doesn't react that we know we all know cady did not make the progress that everyone would have is not agreement on either what needs to be done in district that katie is removed and then there's a progress report about what's happened in the another change to her program dr kelly's first report comes in that report recommends abandoning the program so in that sense it's stronger words but at the same effect the school district folks are considering was doing in her private school and it says what it says as i understand the claim that is being presented is that the notice from the parents was to say we are considering coming proceeded right i mean that the focus is on the substance and the question really and it is as as we look at the cases that were bound by our own on the substance of the ips want to be arguments she makes is there's no there's no progress noted in the eye piece and there's no change and you know obviously the brits focus on your grade level like that unique circumstances comport with a child this child is learning letter sound relationship you can't just skip that and go to the next thing when you're learning to read and that's what the teachers explain that we here a if would you agree with the proposition that i think your adversary would put forward and that is that if there isn't progress by v i p's in the form that they took my recollection is her special education consisted of english language arts and reading and that the other things would be regular read he was not appropriately ambitious because it did not give their case him in this case her the chance to meet the challenging objectives under particular circumstances this is a good guy he proposed by the district was not r seems to be aspirational and so how do we caressed both be the on the ground facts and still capture this aspirational notion sure and we're on the ground facts accumulate focus on the period of time your adversary just focused on and that is post dr kelly's involvement the suggestions made for change by the school district are you saying that despite those of the amount of time per day that she was in the special education instruction was the same and if you look at the time there was no additional time i do not believe the record reflects that there was an additional time there was a change in programming and if you read the testimony regarding their sorry correct the reading there were issues about whether there was anyone trains even implemented that program but those are facts what i want to focus on is what dr kelly said she needed to make progress appropriately with her potential was a program and this skating more than anyone else needs to be accessing text and reading that's part of the way that you're going to remediate her disability and that can be done in small so when the content their classes are in a small setting and when their teachers there are trained in the special education reading programs not every student with a specific learning disability in reading is going to need a private school but i think the evidence in this case is that katie did i i think the evidence in this case is that the changes to the programming were were maybe changes in brand names but in mixing different general education programs with different special education programs but they were creasing the intensity of the programming and again the hearing officer noted that this program exists ten substantively unchanged in addition kind lesions itself is not a special education program i just