the core question of this case as it has been refined most recently by the courts request for supplemental briefing comes down to this does the i d e a require then i identify the school at which an educational agency proposes to provide special education services the white dio he says second page of their answering brief quote there is nothing in the i d e a or its regulations requiring school districts to prepare a school specific i e p s that identify the specific school or location where the ip will be implemented and parents have also failed to cite any case law interpret such a requirement under the id with all due respect to the hawaii that appears to be wrong and wrong again the id has an explicit location requirement that is found in twenty u fourteen fourteen do you want a one seven and numerous court decisions including the ninth circuit's two thousand and eleven decision in k g vs the department of education state of hawaii as well as the four circuits two thousand and seven decision in a case against alexandria city school board say exactly the opposite of what the d o b argues in this case and has argued the question is what does location me we're aware of all that what does it mean what and how do we how do we derive a proper meaning from well judge i will tell you first what it has to do it has to mean something different than placement parent representative whatever who has sat through and i p meeting whether with the state of hawaii or anybody else what location means is very clear because the dio years in that meeting and this is the facts are in the record about the ip meeting at which the may two thousand and twelve ip was developed the school is in there with people from the dio is in there with people from a specific school selling a specific school they are your honor once this july thirty letter is sent and received which we read as saying that the dio he was proposing to take the what we understood up to that correct the record reflects that we have your understanding as you know the right to do so does so i understand is your argument there's a procedural per se failure because they didn't of the word location correct ok and and well based on the use the word location and the statute the regs yes and what what this court has said location means as i understand ok and so when you move to a different district i mean a different school location an hour away there are two high schools  you didn't provide that information ok and the nature of the i e p kalani provided for various services your honor if i may i want to back up a minute that the why do you know we sent a letter saying tell us your new home address so that we can determine your new home school understand that what about the high e p is not transferable in other words let's assume hypothetically that the the construct ok so you move to a different high school and the i e p therefore they'd like to know where the addresses so i'm trying to find out if the only thing in the i p word this additional time school the during the ip meeting there was extensive discussion about the physical layout of colony high school how the school itself was broken down into specific uni among other things rachel she is she's very small she's four foot eight and she has motor issues as well as other things it takes her longer to get from one place to another so the physical size of  campus is an issue that was something i believe it was certainly addressed in the meeting i don't recall specifically if it's in the ip or not but extensively discussed at the ip meeting and again this is in the record was the concern about the schools experience with full inclusion of differently abled kids period kids with down syndrome in general experience with sending a child with down syndrome  on diploma track that was all talked about with the kalani folks and they said we can do this for the do you know we simply to say we can just ignore all that specific discussion we were selling you want to specific school but now because we wrote up the ip in such a way that it doesn't actually say kalani we can just take that i plug it in the new school and not call an i p a new i first to see or any of these kind of like kailua schools capable of satisfying the same things that we read me and why why why wouldn't a parent i mean i understand you know the feelings that are involved in this area but why wouldn't it be responsible also on the parent's part to just say look we think we need another i p session to see if this new current school the services that were identified to be provided to kalani highschool could be provided at the current school what why would you just assume that well they wouldn't make any further accommodations or say well you know we need to do this in this and maybe this isn't use to tell the educational agency you need to call a new ip meeting that is the educational agency's job and if they're supposed to do it and they don't do it they don't get to say oh pell yes but you know parents do move people do change schools all the time and so you're what you're saying is that the parent could just move into a new location and the old i p is just out the  door if the ip is school specific which it is supposed to be by law how is the school ever supposed to however supposed to deal with that i don't quite understand your your i mean i'm having a hard time sort of taking your argument and laying it over the statutory scheme or the regulatory scheme there are actually i policies if i'm not being clear you're not i don't i don't understand the confusion because we gave the school notice that we were moving where we were moving to but didn't tell them where you were move it in telling me you just said there were three schools in the new area they asked for your address you didn't give it to him and your honor as it's in the record we had bought a  house yes we were moving someplace temporary there was no permanent home address to give them until two months into the school year and how would there be a  among others kind of no way that then we told them we're going to we don't know where exactly yet but that puts the i e p responsibility into faculty and staff with down syndrome children being mainstream ok so in those they know which of the three high schools that  you're going to be closest to what are they supposed to do convene a i p session with all three schools well because you're saying  me well wait a minute i'm looking at the july a letter and so the i e e e p is not specific to call on me inform us of your new address as now we'd like to implement it in the new home school and you won't give them the address so i don't see them refusing modified and your honor if if the court can find anywhere in that well let me say that what would should that letter of said that we want they said we don't need to do that because we're just going to transplant kalani developed ip because we think we can do that in fact mr otani put in a declaration of principle economy that said essentially it's white deal policy to make non school specific piece precisely so they can just pick these up and transfer them and the letter says just whatever your new home school is that's where rachel's existing is going to be implemented and that is respectfully in our view pre determination ultimately the question you're posing can may have a generic  defended against that motion by saying no actually that's what you just said that's wrong they said that wasn't actually it was developed with input for a colony but it was intended to be generic any public high school that is what they have defended this i mean even there but you don't contest the substance of them may i e p and not until they said because your honor you're absolutely right which he has before we reasonably understood at the time based on the meeting and based on you get i and i p document this says it's from mitchell of tiny principle kalani highschool you think you've gotten a  violates the id it's not so much that they didn't specify in writing in the quantity it's one who or the other they can't transfer the and again these districts within the states or if you're moving when word let's go let's convene a windward i p meeting and sit down and figure out if any of the three when we're high schools can meet the requirements in the existing and you modify or you write up a new ip it's done all the time and in the interim then do the terms of the old ip get implement that new setting presumably for the benefit of the child right you wouldn't want that gap  services so you've got a situation i mean look at it interpret ing the that the entire such choice came in a practical sense if you lose the idea as i understand it is that the i e e e p c is then transferred and the services are immediately implement that there isn't a gap in services just because a new ip meeting may not happen you know had a chance that to get set up and take place right it's not practicable to convene a new  meeting it's sort of the movies for example right smack in little the school year correct if the if the move is before the start of the school year the school it's incumbent upon the school district to convene a new ip meeting and figure out and maybe they have the new ip meeting and they say you know what we think everything here is we think colorado can do this then they've they've satisfy their obligations on the i d e a but for them simply to say send the new would send the new address that a literal in your new home school and that school will implement the existing i i put that that gets back to the line of questioning by just fisher without knowing the school how can the process even begin so why not just implement what was meant the originally kalani high school until we figure out what the new school is going to be to see if the services can can mirror what was contemplated kalani why isn't that a practical commonsensical way to look at it because again the way hawaii sets these things up when we're townsite they are different districts there are different administrative people involved so as soon as as we said they knew that was windward and ms really beverly  can walk my ip meeting we can walk through the abilities experience physical layout and so forth of the different kind of a high schools and figure out if any of this works they'd jump straight to we're just going to plug in the old one and ok i think we've got yours ok thank you thank failure to communicate with the dio we are to respond to the due easing numerous requests for information until five months into the school year first your honor i'd like to briefly know that this school specific argument that the appellant's raised before this court was not raise of the initiative level in their due process requires to hear they contend among other things that the ip was deficient by failing to specify a school at which it was to be implemented but before the administrative hearings officer they instead contended that the later july thirtieth two thousand and twelve letter from principal tiny was filed of because it allegedly took the position of the i e p could be implemented at any public high school there is a distinction between  even if the court were to consider it however we believe it should be rejected first i want to be clear with this claim really is the opponents are not contending that they couldn't identify where the ip was to be implemented they're not arguing that they were left to fend for themselves to find a school for implementation of the e p they're not arguing that they had no offer to let me just clarify your point your break here so is it your view or the department's view school pursuant to a settlement agreement and so naturally when you have an a p meeting in that type of concept there's going to be discussion of well these are the things about clowney that we think are important but it's not as if you look at the document would understand that this is to be implemented the county high school yes and the opponents have conceded that they knew and understood that i think there isn't any obligation though or anything so that bars and i p which is develop it refer to a specific school and in response of the us to a stated location refers to a type of environment given as examples the resource room or a regular classroom indicating that location does not equate and later pronouncements agency again in two thousand and sixteen at that location refers to the physical surroundings such as the classroom in which a child with a disability receive special education and related appeared to assume that the the kalani develop i p was transferable to were the home school would be in the windward district and what should have happened in the water was we need your address so we can decide which of the what you should have done is have been moved from one district to the other rachel wilson titled to the district or w clear that a local educational agency can adopt a previously held by p v when pointed out if that were not the case it would be an impractical system most students would be left with this gap when you changes so unless there was some other circumstance there wouldn't be a need to i don't really have found that i agree with you about services or accommodations don't change if the be the child must be in a certain type of environment with these certain circumstances i don't believe the ip here is states but if it did then certainly the deal we would have to find as well there was able to to meet her or  to satisfy those needs and it's not that the always position here but it could implement the ip and any public high school no matter whether it could that were about school was actually capable of doing so if you looked at the declaration of  really at year one fifty that makes clear the process the deal we would have undertaken once it received the student's new address and that's the portion that appellant's here refused to provide the deal we would do is obligated to offer services as i think appellant argument is also based on a misunderstanding of the term home school principal time it was referring to homeschool or he wasn't saying we're just going to put you on whatever scores course students it doesn't matter the home school is the nearest school that is capable of implementing the a p but with there being an interactive process at that point yes i think as a practical matter it's best practice we believe for an educational and agent series school district when the student moves to have a meeting with the parents to discuss the student to discuss the transition we're simply saying that there isn't anything any reason why it would have to be an i p meeting with an i p a team to mere change in address wouldn't trigger an obligation or or mean it's necessary to re evaluate an ip what would be wrong or what would be impractical about specified  or sort of heaters them to be based on the capabilities of a particular school rather than the unique needs of a child and schools also must school districts must also have the flexibility to determine after a naive he is developed and after it's clear what that child needs where those services can be offered but sort of the natural logical progression especially in cases where a private placement may be necessary and so the department has to have the flexibility to sort of say ok this is what we need now we need to figure out what private school can offer this this plan and what role does the parent happen there other parent is certainly entitled to participate in the i p process but other cases namely the fifth circuit case and white make clear that parents do not have a veto power over the specific school they have certainly have input into the services the accommodations the program that the student needs but they don't have a power in the determination of school it's more of an administrative matter they don't have a veto power to say no we're not going to send our child here and force that you know we just send the child to some other that but you would agree with judge fisher was trying to i think  that not all schools can beat the needs of a particular child press that's certainly true and the deal here was ready willing and able to find a school for implementation of this i e pete to ensure that the services and those one tiny itself stated that he needed a new address so that so he could determine where i can be implemented i think it's clear from that statement he's looking to get more information to try to figure out where the ip can be implemented he's not saying that you don't you know we're just going to do whatever we want he's explicitly asking for more information and and the opponents here simply prevented that process from playing out by not providing the address until five months into the school year i'll give you a minute for rebutt him the state says this wasn't raised in the due process petition the petition said challenge to the d always pick a school any school approach has not satisfying the requirements of either in individualized education program or offer free appropriate public education that is precisely this issue and in any event in defending the due process case and they injected this issue into it by saying we can just freely transfer eyepiece from one place to another without checking first they're not school specific so they've agreed to the issue being litigated under twenty u s c fourteen fifteen have three be  they would propose to define location to mean exactly what the us dio iis regs and this court in the in the n t case said the word placement means and placement and location are different words used differently there to different requirements under the i d e a placement and location location cannot mean the same thing as placement it violates all principles of statutory construction it would render the word location completely redundant explain in the supplemental briefing why that that page in the federal register is not entitle to skidmore deference skidmore's by the way a case that does not appear in the state's brief they thought this was chevron our deference  and finally your honour's i would simply say if the deal we personnel had been cross examined let's just say hypothetically that this was actually put to  an evidentiary hearing and were cross examined and said you know those hanlon's we think they're a pain in the neck and we just decided that we're going to send rachel to a public high school no matter what and we didn't care which if they said that well i think even the state would agree that that's unlawful pre determination that issue we never got to that because the hearings officer granted the state summary judgment on a motion it had not made and we never got to questions about o time in this letter so even if the court thinks that the appellants are wrong on the issues about this the idea require a specific school i think the pre determination issue is not something that can be determined against the