the idea provides that every student is entitled to a free appropriate public education or faith from their resident school district minnesota special education law also requires that a student's district of resident provide that state law requires that the resident district always afford the student of faith under minnesota's open enrollment statute any minnesota student can attend a school district where they don't live i'm not a resident district as long as they are transported to the district boundary they open enrollment statute expressly states of enrolling district in this case is not responsible to transport the student to the district if the student request student with a disability transportation is within the enrolling district it goes on to state that if a parent's income is below the poverty level that parent can be reimbursed for transportation from their residence to the boundary and finally the rule says that the responsibility for transportation costs between the child's home and the boundary of the open role district is subject determined by minnesota statutes but the question here is whether federal law requires something different the question here is whether federal law requires something different that is true and what do you say about that minnesota's open enrollment statute does not enlarge a student with child with a disability rights minnesota could have done that it could have used that open enrollment statute to say child with a disability you're going to have rights beyond what a resident student has it did not do that get to a federal level i'm sorry to get to a federal law that you went back to minnesota law in response to judge college question i think the so the  corollary to that is the individual disabilities education act doesn't contemplate open enrollment this is purely a state statute that allows students to open and roll into a nonresident district again right  transportation because the idea would be that the federal law requires the in rolling district to provide faith and how would you deal with that the current the premise your honor that the district court makes that we believe is in the air is that the child required the child was required to be in the osteo district in order to receive fate she wasn't placed there by her team she wasn't placed there because she needed to be an receive a free appropriate publication public education she had that available in her resident district both timothy age and the fiqh case a student a school rather does not violate either section i will for or the individuals with disabilities education act when a parent asked for transportation  that's an exception to the general rule the district court in this case said that once he came to osseo she was to be treated like a resident student while asio wouldn't transport a residence student outside of its boundaries unless the i e determined that was necessary so in essence you think that history course just saying you just look at the faith and it says transportation wherever that lands is minnesota's a defendant was the district where the student was living right correct and so the court the student chooses to go to a different school in the district the student has to pick up the tab for their because the district was already providing the faith but the defendant here is the o c o district and it wasn't providing  the program or grade level is full and her grade level was not full so they had no choice but to accept her and they willingly accepted her with the cappy at that like any other student she would be transported to the boundary and then her fate would begin within the osteo district just like it would be for any other student in that district i guess the question does make sad some go just go on it well rather it's a good point the minnesota special education rule specifically says if a parent is indigent well the unrolling district will reimburse so it's contemplating may though right minnesota says they may transport they may and in and in most minnesota school districts they choose not to because it is actually a minnesota law i still have trouble grasping how we take a federal standard applied here because the federal statute the individuals with disabilities education act doesn't contemplate at all that a student might enroll in another district it's not a federal trial and it's  creates that opportunity then does the state basically buy in to funding this transportation no your honor because the state law doesn't enlarge what the rights are under the individuals with disabilities education act well the state law though enlarges it in the sense that it says you can go to a district other than where you live and if the federal law requires transportation from home to school the state effectively has expanded it so the question is whether there's something in the federal law that would limit the district's responsibility to its own jurisdiction the federal law  silent on that aspect the federal law doesn't say that the child isn't titled to transportation from home to school it says to and from school so if you tend to eventually individually to and from school in her case individually to and from school to and from school where else would it be from if not the where the kid a starting well it's from in the allegheny case that this court cites and timothy h it could be  from others home within the resident district or it could be from father's home outside the district it could be from a daycare that the child attends as happened in fact and so what the district is doing here is not limiting the rights under the individuals with disabilities education act but saying just as the district court did when you come to asio as a as a student who's going to get faith here you're going to get it within our boundaries just like a resident student would if you take the district court's analysis to its logical conclusion it would allow let's say the student had a parent who lived in another district we would be transporting to that district as well if not the intent of the school districts where the nicaean the school case to limit the rights of a child with a disability but to use the resources that it has to educate the students who are part of their system was afforded in high school and it was afforded in high school be you know i suppose you have an obligation if the fates available a big like because once they accept her they have to provide a free appropriate public education to her as a nonresident student big lake remains her resident district and this might be different than some of the sister states and our school and the a circuit but we'd like also remains responsible for the cost transportation that's correct and the and the school districts big lake and osseo get some reimbursement but they don't get full reimbursement forte and as we say in our briefs the the issue is were you're transporting one child on one bus across several school districts sometimes with a paraprofessional and pulling and adding to that child state for one thing i get all your practical problems i even get all the problems you have with the minnesota law you know i understand all those but i still have trouble connecting it to the federal law the federal law gives us a a neutral principle to apply to this case so i'm trying to say i would agree with you your honor i think that where the district court erred is it determined that the child had to be in the osseo district to get fate the child was at the osseo district only because her parent chose it given and the question now is how does she get her faith while she needs transportation to and from school and state and eyes and that the way to look at it that is how the district court looked at it the problem with that analysis is it's making it's based on the premise that she needs to be enrolled in arceo to receive a free appropriate public education this is a choice that the parent makes just like in the timothy h case the parent made a a different school and the transportation requirement by that district was found by this court to be appropriate we'd like to save any time i w stuart will hear from you today is the parent of the student your honor to the district court was correct the decision should be affirmed because state and federal law guarantee phone free access to special education services listed on a student's i e p even in cross district open enrollment situation regardless of what it costs the word is right judge that's correct yes but surely the district court's wrong in its footnotes seven when the district court says the fact that im in b may also have been able to receive a think it's important to look at the record here because in the record there is no evidence of big lake offering faith the student is not enrolled in big lake there's no i don't know how this proceed to get bin as that faith you know it's no obligation with regards to faith there is cause for because the parents move the child but if parents kept the child there then big lake would have had to go through the process certainly yeah so there would have been what about the fact that the federal statute says the local education agency and providing for education of children with disabilities which in its jurisdiction must have an effect procedures that are consistent with section  on the open and will district so i think that what you think congress meant by the word jurisdiction that's what we're concerned about you can you all keep telling us minnesota stuff right out of congress mean when they said child within its jurisdiction i think it's a governing again i think it's important to remember the governing principle that a student has to have access to a free appropriate public education and the jurisdiction is one way of allocating where and what jurisdiction actually has that responsibility so here in minnesota  which would be consistent with the district's position here that we're responsible for within our jurisdiction getting the child to and from school but not outsiders diction yesterday but us what congress meant and you know when they framed it that way well i think congressman that but it also provided exceptions for states to determine what works in their state you know that's exactly what we have here but i also think that all right if that i'm sorry i saw you say that about the states having flexibility but why would a state allow open a roman if it were going to trigger all these costs because it wants to insure faith and i think that's the underlying purpose of soda statues clearly think that thinking about it is that the minnesota law is making sure that students do not have to bear the burden of a free property public education and that's exactly what else he was doing here they're putting that responsibility onto the parent  because the parent chose to go outside of word child lives judge of the parents selected an option but i think it's also stayed with minnesota open our own process but i think it's also important to know that once the parents selected the district asio selected the school and so once we have us here selecting the school we're simply trying to get access to that school through a free property public education through specialized transportation i in a very broad meaning of the word choice the parent has selected but also school district but i think it's also a point to look at the record when we're talking about whether or not there was a concurrent offer of fate in the record there was none big like us not offering this district would have you believe that our c e o has this offer of frank ready to go but we don't have anything in the record to actually get and i think the law requires more than the hypothetical offer of faith but we need to have a real offer of feet and that's dr with thirty and the record is that which school districts that by excess think there's document thirty in the record that's a district court docket number it's what i've been looking at is the as the fight the services for the state and that location of services was also outside of the osteo district and were asking for transportation from home to the school case those cases really have to do with ensuring meaningful access to faith for related services and what we're thinking about transportation is a related service that part and parcel of faith and that's why we think it's and i really think that when we look at this underlying case you have a concern that if you win this case the state will change its open enrollment rules in order to avoid these additional costs being placed on receiving districts well st of there's some funding but it wouldn't cover the entire cost right and i think that in the in the broad budget picture there are always going to be some funds for special education services that are not funded by any source but the minnesota legislature has repeatedly and partial payment system right it is a partial payment system but that's very similar to mine can you say no car no additional car no additional fee there's no additional cost no additional costs from past practice because this is the way it has been for many many years and so this has been the legislative structure for a while the interests of your previous question i think it is a possibility that the legislature or the department of education could change the regulatory structure that's part of the process and that's how we got to these laws and rules begin with so that is a possibility we have concerns about but that's really the judgment that the minnesota legislature in the policy question really a legal question i just would i would also i would also maintain that if there are additional cost your district is free to lobby the legislature for additional cost to address the partial issue or they can say to the legislature you funded this but you haven't funded enough you can do that but the point is that the parents should not bear the burden of a free probably a public education guaranteed other students in minnesota i'm sorry what is guaranteed to other students in minnesota and accepting the right to use them up in a roman process so just like any other student can yes but i wouldn't other students have to drive their own way to the other district and pay their own way right but what the differentiating factor here is that the students i determined that specialize transportation was necessary for her to access a free appropriate public education that's not unlike all the other or you may just finish at that point thank you they school district is not making an argument there are concurrent offers of faith of vailable or free appropriate public education were saying as a matter of law the big lake public school district was required to provide faith herring because big lake as a matter of law must always stand ready to provide her with a faith and there's nothing in this record to suggest that big like wasn't ready to do that the point that your honour's made about the l  a free of proper public education available it's a state obligation and again this child had faith available in her home district and in any district throughout minnesota where she chose to enroll   our point really here is that the parent chose this as an option and as a result because i d e a does not require transportation to the open unrolled school district she wasn't entitled  to that how much money are we talking about here what's the annual cost of transporting this child from the home to the border the boundary you know i don't know off hand it's it may case the last point is that you asked mr stewart if the parent wins will the state change open enrollment and i know you are mindful of the fact that missouri nebraska arkansas iowa south dakota north that's true but requiring that the parent transport the child to the boundary missouri statute even if the child is more than ten miles away from the enrolling district you may not enroll we ask that the court overturn the district court thank you very well thank you for your argument thanks