ok this is one of those cases where you have more than one party on a side is there an agreement as to how the time is going to be divided up ok and the eight minutes is it is entirely you yes so i will hear from you for eight minutes we'll hear from the school district for their time and then they'll be a fifteen minute show in there you're planning to take eight of it so seven becomes the magic number you're looking for ok got it ok thank your honor this is a case where hundreds of moderately to severely disabled students were up rooted from their placements on special education centers and forced on to general education campuses beginning in the two thousand and thirteen two thousand and fourteen school year many of these students were moved from their placement without parent consenting to the change in placement and the i e peace these are moderately to severely disabled students are the most vulnerable of our community these are students who are cognitively impaired non verbal and many of them are blind and visually impaired yet don't you know what your opponent is going to argue in what you want but you well i'm presuming that they're going to argue that integration is because that has been consistently what they're arguing but integration alone is not something that can be you know have to look at the individual child the snowden i don't think that's what they're going to argue you're appealing from the judgment of the district court the judgment and i your motion to intervene the reason why it is timely is because the movement of the students from the special education centers on to general education placement completely change the stage of the proceedings before this special education centers the children that was part of the continuum of placement options as stipulated to and the modified consent decree let's suppose that you're absolutely correct yes there was a change in circumstances which set the timeliness clock running and you yes what was wrong with judge lose determination that you knew about the revised outcome number seven as of august two thousand and thirteen yes and the petitions to intervene were not filed until seventy one and seventy nine days later which she found was reasonable the lay and grounds for denying the petition what's wrong with his determination his determination was incorrect in our position because you can't take timeliness in a vacuum first mouse secondly timeliness shouldn't be an element to punish the dilatory so what realistically happened from august to october was  mr amster and mr jacobson had collected multiple declarations from families current families many of whom speak spanish only declarations from current staff members present past staff members i would like to follow your argument better if there were some evidence in the record on the motion to intervene from the attorneys stating what they did between august and october twenty third teen and why it took so much time to do that but there isn't well your honor and with with all due respect the other element that we believe consider was that there was no prejudiced so the los angeles or the fight school district what i'm trying to get i had is this help me if you would ok point to me some evidence in the record which explains or justifies the delay from august twenty third t until october twenty third in in filing the motion for instance a declaration by an attorney saying the cost of the live a geisha was figured at l amount of dollars and we had to go out and get this money and it took time to get that sort of thing isn't in the record w pictures pictures of harm and i guess what i would ask the court to consider is that instead of focusing narrowed narrowly on the seventy one days and the seventy nine days which at some point become those attorneys who have full time practices and are doing this pro bono and instead look at the harm to the students which could have been mitigated had class counsel asked for an urgent action under section fourteen of the modified consent decree had he done that the office of the independent monitor could have ordered a cease and desist order preventing the los angeles unified school district from moving all these students is the intent to the motion to intervene i guess what you're telling me is that there's really nothing in the record that tells us in the record what i am sure and what the other attorneys were  doing tween august and october two third's to fully thirteen right i i believe that the record does show several documentation but there is not a declaration that stated the record doesn't show it if it's only stated a period of time well i don't believe there is your honor thank you ok so you've referred to the fruits of that effort that is you're asking us to look to the actual evidence that was submitted and infer from that that some degree of time was needed yes and we would also ask the court to consider that two proposed intervenors acting independently independently of each other filed motions relatively with then the same period we would also ask the because it seems to me are we talking about the students who are actually proposed as the area enters or is this something of a class proceeding it's a class proceeding it's the students who we sought intervention as a class for those families who wanted to have their placement remain special education centers but was denied via as usurps and of their power from the los angeles unified school district and it is my understanding we get a lot of i d e a cases the i e p is is the governing document is there any evidence of specific p process i would also like to point out that collectively these parents don't have standing unless they're represented by class council they had asked for representation her class council class council said no they weren't going to represent them because he believes special education centers even though they're stipulated to in the modified consent decree were illegal what is further  concerning is that a year later class counsel did file and request with the office of the independent monitor to take action against the los angeles unified school district doing the very thing that we asked him to to raise a year before which was that the los angeles unified school district was systemically making placement decisions for students who are and a more restrictive environment to a less restrictive environment without parental involvement just i just want to add that something's very wrong where parents of severely to moderately disabled students have to rely on class counsel to pick and choose which most restrictive environment he's going to file against our clients he didn't file against them and as a result they were moved without parental consent and we argue that there is harm and that should be weighed against any factor of timeliness thank you honors i just want to focus on i introduce yourself all right so i may please the court very clean for the school district i want to focus on some of the things that were raised just now in the argument and the timeliness one thing in addition to what came up in the argument is is where are we in the stage of the proceedings i mean this is a class a consent decree that's been going on for twenty years is not totally irrelevant of judge lou to mention this is going on for twenty years when these children weren't even born know it isn't honor and one of the reason it's not a relevant is that there's always been a key component of the consent decree that says that integration least restrictive environment is the law and that the problem before they were involved is that there was not it wasn't there was a sizable and totally unprecedented change in twenty thirteen when a strict quota not a goal a strict quota of thirty three percent decrease in children to be in as easy as special education centers that was a change of circumstance you'll agree right no your honor oath is just another modification well your  what i think it's really important that the idea is that it is a unique every student is unique and that's why what is unique about thirty three percent who have not been examined individual lead and are locked inconsistently with the i had allegations on the table well i don't think the evidence actually supports that if you like so you accept the proposition the i e p should rule well the ip should rule where there's a dispute there's due process hearing that's how it works the problem that i have here and i don't know that the is going to be answered by this case is that i share judge perry is concerned where does this thirty three percent number comes from because it seems to me what's happening here is that there's an agreement and it's driven by the statute that we're trying to mainstream students and so we're going to shift more students there's an agreement to do this number and i'm going to ask you in a moment where they have thirty three percent came from and what's going to happen is that the students whose parents aren't engaged in the process and sadly  acknowledge there are thousands of students in the district whose parents really aren't very engaged and those are the ones that have got it most affected because if if their families aren't fighting for them those are the ones that are going to get transferred because the school district has to meet the quota so where's the quota come from i'm not sure where the exact number came from doesn't that damning though your honor let me explain why wait a minute you're telling me we don't know where this thirty three percent came from but we're going to shift thirty three percent of the students from one to another you know it's quite ironic  we're arguing about this issue because ninety nine percent of cases involving the idea are parents who are dying for integration and they school district is saying it's too expensive so the idea that would like the world is upside down in this  we're all complaining or the other side's complaining about how it's so one fear that these children are being integrated into the regular environment let me add something here on the special ed centers aren't even a requirement under the law there's nothing in the idea about continuum of services a special ed centers all special it centers are our special day classes that happen to be in their own campus ninety five percent of school districts don't have special at centers if you need a nonpublic school because you can't be with any children who are  disabled that's available also so this idea that these poor children who are being segregated we should we should not move them into the into the mainstream and that we're punishing them by moving them in i mean it's just all upside down your hon certainly not the majority because we see cases like you just described but there are at least some families that have a different view and their complaint is that to meet this quota their kids are being shuttled someplace where they don't want to go i'm happy brought that up because what's critical about the idea is the uniqueness of each child what the plaintiffs already interveners are doing in this case is trying to lump everybody together not only well yes but no because their complaint is that the class council has done exactly that and is not willing to consider their particular objection your honor i will tell you i would guarantee you that if these if you look in this direction don't worry about the if these interveners if these interveners were allowed to succeed and get their way you will have picketing outside this court room from all of the all you're hearing is one sub centers of the proposed interview her class i mean i take as a given if your name's on the paper then you're probably supporting the position whose names on the base are seven and every one of those persons as a right to bear a unique parents i checked and almost every parent in this case has filed as you process hearing at some point or other in the past probably represented by the same attorneys they know exactly how the system works if they don't like a placement proposed by the ip team there's a due process hearing and it comes right back to this court you have every right which is why my concern is that i board boys before what about the kids whose parents really don't care and don't get engaged well i think and we have a reason to believe that one third of the students in the special education centers should be shifted if we don't know where that one third number came from but you know i can point out that in the case that judge ferris and you were on in the white case it cites to the concerned parents case where they say it doesn't matter where the actual class is located so if you have a special day class that happens to be in a special ed center and you co located it with a regular ed school and you have all the supports there's no shifting at all it's not like they've been kicked out so that also is misleading to say that special ed sanders or they're being kicked out of the special is that it's not the location it's the services and they have every right to complain about it i have one minute before i pass the torch i don't know if question a question and it's it's  nobody's said it but i think it's a fact this series to how better the handle the situation so i think they should be special education special classes others think they should be integrated into the regular classroom and the and the battle was fought and unfortunate for the ones who felt strongly that there should be special education classes the decision was integrate them to the extent you can into the regular classroom now the problem i have is i read it and i think we all know i'm fairly certain in the judge would read it sympathetically but how do we make the call how do we decide this is wrong and that would be right absolutely this reckon the answer is that this record does not support taking all those parents and children who want the mainstreaming which is congress's desire and giving them the way of the interveners in this case the record supports saying if you have an individual child and you don't like your placement and you believe in don't believe in integration you pursue your own yes at the beginning of this case the same argument could have been made this shouldn't be a class action every individual parent had a due process hearing right yet the court found that the class action was a more suitable method of achieving the relief class wide then these individual actions why doesn't the same argument mean that these individual actions are not adequate relief at the present time because throughout the consent decree you see one in premature which is that integration was not being carried out effectively you don't see the opposite you don't see in that consent decree oh we want to segregate more in the districts being ineffective well that would then why wasn't the class action dismissed and said every everybody's soothe their own because there's a number of outcomes and not all of them have been met almost all of them because the number of outcomes was necessary to achieve the relief that was requested for the class i think you one thing my apologies because i don't want to take on mr jones i was want to add one thing because there was a statement made that the only grounds of the district court was timeliness but i wanted to clarify that the record also found the third ground practical impairment was not met and i believe the evidence evidence heavily supports that on grounds that these interveners can seek their own remedy through to do process hearing process thank you district's course this is or it was an abuse of discretion i think it's important to there's facts in the record which which can kind of frame this question in a way that shows that it really wasn't a change in circumstances the process of reducing the district's unnecessary reliance on segregated schools beg decades ago proposed intervenors describe cataclysmic consequences to revise outcomes seven but the record simply does not support the fact that we're just a thirty three percent figure come from school district apparently doesn't know you know i i wasn't in the room but i can explain how that makes you have a thirty three percent makes perfect sense if we go if you go back to frederick weintraub the previous independent monitors declaration he believes the reason the outcome was revised in the first place the reason they said hey let's let's take a break and take a look at this get some papers have some meetings about this was because there was a fear that continuing on this with the same version of the revised outcome that had been in place since two thousand and seven two thousand and eight would require the arbitrary transfer of some of the students on on those sites documents that there would be arbitrary transfer in to that was what they were concerned about was that there might be with the old version and so they they did all the about thirty three percent well give me a second let me let me play it out a little bit to the district has historically had a hugely disproportionate reliance on the use of segregated campuses to educate students with moderate to severe disabilities this over steadily been reduced but as noted in footnote six of the district's brief the did at the time this motion was considered the district still had twice the percentage of students on segregated sites that the state chart the state seeking as it is an average when this case started students with moderate to severe severe disabilities who were entering the district were always tracked into segregated sites there was no consideration that they might be educated in integrated environment and those kids stayed there they stayed in a separate system all the way through from the time they were three until they were twenty two that has changed and i now start with the premise that most students with substantial disability related needs can and should be educated in programs located in the same buildings as their non disabled peers because appropriate classrooms are now established in local general education schools across the district kids can be kids with pretty substantial needs can be educated in the schools that their brothers and sisters in their neighborhood the only explicit preference in the idea for where kids go to school where placements are is it should be as close as possible to their neighborhood school with their non disabled peers it was inevitable that over time you have you know ten fifteen twenty years of taking this idea seriously that kids should be given a chance to be educated with their peers when they're not secure before they're sent off into the segregated system for because they don't come back right before they're sent off in the segregated system for eighteen years of education taking that seriously letting ip teams make the decision about whether young children can be effectively educated with their non disabled peers inevitably over time if you stop the number of people entering because you're giving them general education placements completely in accord with the law or not general education place i apologise displacements yes sir these people just want to have a voice in the decision they disagree with with your ideological commitment to integration of the it's not my idea well i mean your honor it's congress's it's congress is there but it's the but there's also congress also provided for special education it's a question of degree they want to they want a voice in the outcome and they're not being allowed to be a member of the class is affected it's absolutely not true they're members of the class but they don't speak separately f your children are sent book to paragraph ninety three ninety three b of the consent decree explicitly holds there is no issue preclusion for cases bring for individual ok and do speaker thirty three percent and ok when it goes over time because it's important for us to hear ok so given the established pace of ongoing i mean so this is been going on for a long time right they really had changed when this case started kids didn't enter they had no chance to enter  non segregated sites and this is really changed so the thirty three percent reduction was actually not a change in the pace at all but the integration and i'm just going to use figures within the record that have been cited by i'm going to use the most conservative figures cited by proposed intervenors to show you why there hasn't been a change in the stage of the proceeding in outcome number seven before two thousand and twelve had two classes fifty one percent of those of the moderately severe disabled would spend sixty percent of their time in cation and forty nine percent would spend zero time in special education in general education facilities now they are because it is a piece of the case you know there are still roughly fifteen hundred students on segregated sites and there's a massive number of kids three four thousand kids on in nonpublic schools contracted by the district there are dozens of nonpublic schools contracted by the district to fulfill the same place on the continuum there is no requirement that any just realistic strict have no segregated states that they maintain by themselves no thirty three percent of those who were before in that forty nine percent will be one hundred percent in germany cation campuses right now because of the reduction but the quarter we're not necessarily because it's not the same kids let me let me it's not necessarily that thirty three percent it's a reduction in let me give me one second to pull this out and then i'll get back to so if you if you take the two thousand to intervention motion supported by some of the attorneys for a proposed intervenors they cited a figure forty six hundred students in two thousand and two that were on segregated campuses that number had been reduced by the time revised conception was adopted in september of two thousand and twelve to two thousand one hundred ninety that works out to a reduction over the course of a decade of two hundred forty one students a year the thirty three percent number requires two hundred forty one students to be moved over the course of a year so that is just basically an approximation of what the natural attrition would be they also cite at several places throughout the record i can give you the cite thirty three percent of two thousand is two hundred i think it's six hundred it's two hundred forty one students a year for three years or three years and this was actually the pace that it happened they also say at several places throughout the record a figure of five thousand students in two thousand and two so that would have meant that over the decade prior to revise that come seventh being adopted there were two hundred eighty one an average of two hundred eighty one students a year who left these sites and that for the three years after there were there was a requirement that the district aim at two hundred forty one students or so is actually reduction in the pace and the way that the way that these happen the way that this reduction happens is there are very few students entering the sites since age out every year and the district is making the investment to put it cus a huge amount of money and work to get an appropriate classroom opened under general education campus because what happens what they're talking about is taking the entire infrastructure of a classroom for children would very substantial disability and moving it onto a general education site so they're saying it's not that they're stuck in a class with kids without disabilities they're moving some of the class to state that all these sites and most of these sites even the ones that they have alleged have been closed many of the classrooms are still open in their original room  severe disabilities on the other side there's a school for everybody else and right down the middle there's a big chain link fence all that they're trying all that the district and players camps were trying to do with revised support the district's decision to take the fence down and allow those children the chance to interact somewhat they're not changing their program they're not saying we're not going to give you the huge amount of support that you need and all the supplemental services and aids on those two sites which have been conveyed combined some of the students with disabilities that were previously in the segregated state state they're still in their exact same classroom the only change with the same services everything the only change is that in their building there are now classrooms that have children without disabilities and that is exactly what the law anticipates that you don't have to you have to provide everything it's but you don't have to lock children away they can be near each other and the students you know all that much or that's telling me there's a logic behind the thirty three percent figure i don't know they're evenly a quota it's saying that we can achieve that without really affecting anybody it's not something different well this is an outcome base you know there's eighteen kind of numerically best outcomes right there were these are just indications of you know have we sufficiently reached a level of there was a last one was because they decided to revise it was because of a fear that the way they had it set up before would create an arbitrary transfer of one student they were concerned one student one or more students would have to be moved arbitrarily just the same problem posed by the us but i think i think that's part of it is that you know the idea that they you know did all these studies had all these meetings and then ended up adopting something which inevitably required the exact same thing it doesn't make any sense and that the way the record was just represented that there are students who have been whose ip say one thing and they've been they've been forced to move somewhere else this is not a case like andy this is not a case like the new york case in citizens  saying the kids classrooms are moving and that's not what happened here here there were meetings for every single kid what they're saying when they say people were moved against the their ip is not that district didn't make an offer o and it's that they didn't get what they want it and that happens all over the place that the district will offer a placement that a parent feels is inappropriate and we get lots of case right in the way you out of that work we're really aware of that way to and what they sort of over and over again in their briefs is that the record doesn't show that revised outcome seven entails any dramatic changes on the face of it it doesn't require them to do anything they're saying once revise that can seven happen all these things happened but really the truth of the matter is you know this is been happening for fifteen years at some point there's some kind of tipping point where you know eighteen standalone special education centers with each with fifteen kids in it is not a viable all viable thing to require the district to do there's no there's nothing the law that says they have to maintain this massive system if you look at the declarations of the experts they were submitted in the district court i mean this district has relied far more heavily than the other major urban school districts on this segregated system there's no need to well well that's the position this meant taken by class counsel the issue before us now is whether somebody else should be allowed to step forward right to speak to the contrary and actually raises one question because this case has been around for so long but are any of the plaintiffs still directly involved or they have children in schools well that there still are i believe you know i can't speak i believe that there still are members of the parent council whose children have passed away who had quite severe disabilities who are part of the original class and have been involved since day one and here's my concern and this speaks to the intervention issue you've got parties in a room negotiating these terms and and the class council represents a view that is certainly endorsed by by the legislation but is not the only view of parents and the question is should somebody who has a different view be allowed to step in or they are required except the representation of class council who's not interested in asserting the view that they want to assert even if we did assert that view it wouldn't get them anything the way to get the their argument this structural that this structural change should be stopped before this court is to do exactly what the people in deed the consent decree is not does not have precludes the fact just like and indeed they could have come in and injunction but the question i posed a while ago was isn't this isn't the problem that's hidden here the families that don't participate i mean if you've got somebody who's a vigorous advocate they will pursue the i e p they will pursue the due process hearing they will look out for their child but a lot of parents aren't sufficiently engaged seems to me one of the problems with this plan is that invites the school district to satisfy its quota obligation by dealing with the students whose parents aren't going to fight back you know so so shouldn't there be another voice in the room before quota is imposed or that it's like you and me agreed to have this person's life be changed and  that person's parent isn't engaged that person's life is changed or why shouldn't somebody looking out for that person be involved in the discussion as well and i think that's what the intervention proposal was about how there been any any sense by class council that they were going to do this arbitrarily they were not going to invest the resources they were not going to be bound by their obligations they had a different view from the blade of well but you know s of your twelve minutes and fifty seconds over but if we got you there if i could make one more point one more point i mean i really believe that the the what we've been talking about is what is the legal question that the court addressed in n d versus a why that legal question was you know do these things do these administrative actions by a district constitute a change in placement and that simply never got before this court because they didn't take the opportunity to file they didn't have to wait seventy days or however long to get declarations they could've gone in with one plaintiff said stop it and it would have gotten right before the court and it would be here now or here a long time ago you wouldn't and so so it's not purely a matter of you can tell us you're not stopping the district from doing anything and obviously you're not but the district is being motivated to do something because they're getting pushed hard and been pushed  hard for twenty some years by this lawsuit and the law and that is to the credit of the lawsuit and the efforts of class council but to suggest that this is simply the school district acting on its own and there's no reason of anybody talking to them including whether or not we get integration we just want this we want to better school right where our school was and we want the same and i share your obvious stance that the position is not meritorious ok but why shouldn't the position be heard  two since they're referring to they referred to a complaint that we filed about you know some of the procedural issues that they're concerned about in that exact same document an independent owners report in two thousand and fifteen they said the independent monitor certified that all of the things he had found in twenty fourteen that he you know that he required them to fix how defect and fixed and that they had met this outcome so there was no further motion occurring then that outcomes seven both parts of the south were sold no right  i only i only bring that up because they refer to a document extensively where that determination was made and it's a public document thank you you thank  honour's i want to address some point straight off the thirty three percent declaration of april munoz declaration of stephen massada now i'm going to be stating my arguments based on decorations factual in the record i can go outside the record and counter everything that counsel stated but all the principals know us he would disagree with but i want to stay with our factual record is at the meeting in august where you had all the stakeholders you t l a local di di di parents and council complaining about how these children were at extreme risk and danger and the question was asked of mr meyers how did you come star how did you come up with the thirty three percent figure he said we just basically pulled it out of the air there was no negotiations there was no data behind it there was nothing why did they have to pull it out of the air because they had to force children that were in the special education centers on the general education campuses now remember each of these children were on a special education center after an eye epeat team had concluded the individual eyes needs of the child well with the the i e is custom speak of the immediate context but is the immediate context have to be at a special education center or can it be with an integrated facility the ip could consider both so your answer is yes except we get a lot of idea cases and it's it's pretty unusual to have these these days to have the kind of special education centers you have described to us i understand and this was the unusual situation we're talking about a small class of children that needed the special education center so you had a history of the special education center always being determined appropriate by your i e p team and it's only when revised outcome seven goes into effect a generalized plan that there is a means of changing the play decision not based upon the individual needs of the child but based upon the outcome and if you look at michael colonus declaration and others you will see where you had the i e before revised outcome seven same special sent center and the same exact individual i situation the child now with revised outcome seven same placement on the general education campus as the i p s a special education center because that's where the special education program is located or is there a unique need to be segregated facility ok so expect a good number of them or the former ok so i will address both your issues the special education center one does not have to be a segregated facility you could have general education children on a special education center this is not about segregation they want to make it about segregation it is not it's about safety a special education center is designed so that a child cannot get out of that facility because all doors are locked and secured our children run our children don't understand when you go through a door into the street this is why we have victor pinay does declaration of where we had a child on a general education campus found five miles away on period alone and as the father says only the virgin mary saved him from being dead this is about safety your honour's when you had the inclusion ok of the colocated campuses  talked the fence down there was a reason for the fence not to keep the kids divided there was nothing stopping bringing the general education children over to the special education center our parents welcome that but when you take the special education center children over to a general education campus because of budgetary cuts you don't have a nurse there every single day and a child when you still don't have a seizure and you can't get that nurse there fast enough you got to find a like locked gate and this was what the parents were complaining about that's the talk ration of julia force you had these children being held at a locked gate for fifteen minutes prone to sunstroke and seizures with no nurse it i want to address the issue of august two october ok if you look at the decorations of rhonda goldberg she states things that happen october eighth that's why wait to october on this fozzie the day you had want to hernandez who states the aspect of it was only in late september early october that administrator finally admitted to her that the bruises to her sister were happening because of the inclusion activities you also have the statements from the parents from francis blan about not knowing that they would transfer children visually impaired to a school where there are hills and barriers who would imagine a school district would transfer a vision and through that your point even though the revise come number seven was made known publicly televised in august of two thousand and thirteen the plead of seeking intervention and did not know about it until it affected their children they did not correct they did not know that the district was not going to fulfill their promises and transfer their children to a safe facility but that's not the finding of the judge lou many he found in august but at least by august twenty third teen  overbroad completely but the issue here was harm in another words what you had was representations being made to these parents everything's going to be fine the entire facility is going to be transferred onto the general education campuses so when august you had the meeting at avalon in banneker that is in the declaration of april flores where comes out oh we're going to transfer the kids or not but we don't have the rooms ready or anything else then you have in september this is to say if i understand is yes the overall plan was made known to them but at the same time there were representations that it would all work and would be fine and as what happened between august and october was that the parents found that it wasn't fine that the safety of the children that is correct and that's what our declaration show and that's why the independent monitors report a year later is so important because then the validates the parents were right i've got goldberg here who what who else ok so we have rhonda least restrictive environment to a most restrictive environment basically just locking a child in a classroom and bungalows and having them eat and not have them somebody says the interviews here didn't really appreciate or had no worries new reasonable ground to appreciate the harm the revised outcomes would do until they saw it on their faces of their children that is correct and that you have that with the declarations and you see the comparison of the pictures between the general facility so this was this is valid we are asking for that the law be followed individual law is education plants you can't make a generalized rule that you're going to transfer thirty three percent of the children someplace without intervention i'm asking for intervention ok i completely out of answering the question but i want you to follow the procedural rules that you're allowed to do so i really want to address is this is not about parents arguing that we don't want inclusion that's not what it is about it's about an individual ice education plan period should be happening no matter what happens in this lawsuit but it is not and in this in that i mean what this illustrating is that the class treatment may not be a particularly good fit for the problems because the problems are all and the assessments of individuals are all something that needs to happen on an individual basis so let me go point blank motion gets granted shonda smith and fast the motion does not get granted you're still here twenty years the interviewers have an incentive to bring this to an end and it has to be brought to an end you have in the declarations the fact that i am interacting with principals with my non profit and every single school practically because the superior corteen court program that's in there i know what the principals want i know what's happening i you know i'm sorry but representations have been made here they're not true scientists myth is killing us we need individualized education plan we need ida followed we need faith followed that's all we need well but all of that gets to gets dealt with in individual i e p s and in due process hearings involving those individuals not when you have a revised outcome seven that's mandating placement and you have i e piece in front of you in the record where you can see that the placement option was solely made because of a revised outcome seven know a ministry if that's factually true it's not hard to predict the outcome of the individual litigation administrate a judge can not place a child back at a program where the school district no longer has and that's the district to pay for attendance at a private school that is maintained in that fashion because i wanted to address two issues number one the specialist centers are still around it's just the enrollments not being allowed but it's got to be done on a class situation systematically and the problem that we have so many parents in the south east area don't know what to do and really what's happening is they're abrogating from the system they're just keeping their kids at home that's where you are truancy issue and that's the most dangerous thing here you need a systematic change it's what is this about this is about class council representation so what you're saying is class council puts in a systematic effect and now you're asking the parents to undo what the individual who is supposed to be representing them dead so the represented or of them creates a harm and you now want the parents to go through an extra procedure that's not the purpose of a class action and that creates exceptional circumstances class counsel should be representing all of his parents interest and never create a barrier problem is that class doesn't have the democrat views as to how this should play out but i believe that identical views can be created by individual education plans that's what i'm trying to say yes we should do with the class that's right it's so fine dismiss shonda smith that's fine the problem that you have is and you addressed it properly in your questions class council does not represent any parents right now they can get a single declaration from a parent who has a child in l a u s t right now only the original individuals that they're out of touch they're doing what they think is proper not what the parents want parents all owing to confirm that based on the lawsuits that we see there are parents who want their children moved into integrated settings yes a lot of those i and there's no problem with that with the proper resources come in you can move a program when you move the resources to most districts and again based on what i see most school districts aren't as large as las and i haven't seen special education centers of the kind of los angeles has now that may be a plus for los angeles but it can't be the case that an education of a child compels the existence of special education centers because too many school districts don't have anything like that ok so i would suggest you examine ventura county what you have on the other school districts is this you have the special education center setting in  general education campuses you have had the construction can be accomplished without maintaining the satyrs we haven't lost the ability to provide the kind of security that you think is necessary in a general education setting at millions of dollars that's why you're asking the question what do we want i go i'm trying to create something that doesn't keep this litigation going but it's time to come to an end where class council has no incentive on that i eat peas there should never be a generalized rule like revised outcome seven that takes the power away of an individual education plan this is what happened here and at the same time every so every thing that is being suggested by the posing side is antithesis to their position because they're talking about segregation they think that the special ed children should be involved in general education children were not disagreeing with that we want inclusion is going to be with safety we want the resources we want these children to be safe we want a parent to be able to drop their child off at school or had that child leave the house and come home without the parent warning about that child leaving about that child not getting the resources by that child being bruised by general education child because the proper on teachings wasn't done in a general education child or there wasn't enough individuals like aids being present that is the point this is about safety address counsel's argument that we have a due process and i would just want to note that california law as different california education code requires as this court determined it back on i or versus district that needs to file the due process plate there's been no due process complaint filed by l a u s d l against and the failure of the school district in that case to file gave the parents a victory on that particular piece even though the parents lost on most of the substantive pieces that suggest that the solution for your clients is to pursue their rights via due process but your honor what happens is that the due process we might win but it's empty because what are we winning first of all it's systemic so we'd have to take several several cases to trial most of these families can't afford attorneys these are families or very low income families think they can't afford it and due process expensive the other the other thing is that let's say you know h judge agrees with us where are they going to place that child if the program spend moved onto a special onto a general education campus most programs are on general education campuses in most of the school districts where i see these cases and a lot of those placements wind up being in much more expensive private schools paid for by the school district if that's the alternative what is there  granted i agree that special education centers are special arse national and unique to l a u s d and they're also unique to the modified consent decree it states in there on page thirteen that special education center shall remain part of the continuum of placement options for parents and this is being taken away without recourse by the families unilaterally and systematically  fell for your helpful arguments in this complicated and difficult case the case just argued is submitted