good morning your honest my name is james love sense and i represent the parents of the child and how and how i did receive the court's directive that two days ago i guess it was to be prepared to guidance from hunger's about hoover should be on and i u p d team before nine hundred ninety seven in the statutes the only thing that mentioned any teacher of the child was in section fourteen zero one which is the definition section at that time the definition of the term individualized educational program or i d p was in subsection eight twenty of fourteen  time that statute was defining the i e pete was defining a written document about the child and it said and i mean zur written statement for his child with a disability developed in a meeting by and then  d a number of types of people who were going to be in this meeting one of which was the teacher the teacher unadorned not in say the past teacher the present teacher the possible future teacher didn't say special say regular education teacher and there was a regulation at that time three hundred point three four four which gave guidance to school districts across the country about what that meant the statute also didn't buy the terms of the statute the statute didn't mandate that these people be on this team because this actually was actually just defining a written document and was drastically changed by drastically shortening it and cutting out all kinds of stuff that had been in it and putting in instead a cross reference to a new section fourteen fourteen v so fourteen zero one eight twenty changed to read the term individualized education program or i e feed means a written statement for each child with a disability that's developed reviewed and revised in accordance with section fourteen fourteen d of this title a written statement developed and they added words reviewed reviewed and revised because in fourteen fourteen they talk about how it has to be periodically reviewed and revised fourteen fourteen v was a very long complicated new previously been used statute before and i don't think it had been used in regulation before and it defined this team with great specificity so the team means a group of individuals composed opportunity so my question for you is can you demonstrate in your argument what was the last if any of an educational opportunity for this particular child years give or take at this very short period of time and one of those years when the child was in another class to use the preschool right yes i mean the preschool one preschool two preschool three and then the this is for kindergarten the parents wanted the child to be in a regular has almost three years worth of knowledge about the success that this child have in a regular education class and in stead what they get is a team composed of people no one has ever taught this child on one and the only person on the team who has ever met the child is an administrator high level administrator with many actually impressive credentials a ph d and something else she met the child for two hours thats it that i don't think any case that this court has ever decided or any other circuit has decided cannot be treated as some minor technical deficiency  so i hope that's something of an answer and i'll sort of return to my thank you well let me just a couple of questions on that to the teacher at the top while a school district was a preschool as she did three years of primary pre kindergarten process out and then five years gone by and now we're talking about whether he should be in a regular or special education fifth grade i think they would be more concerned about business with the teachers very very very very small children is her input going to be very important about the fifth grade but every year i mean teachers at the end of one year make recommendations about where a child should be the next year and the child's only going to be after s four months older and they are familiar with the actual children of that age and she has been teaching for a regular education class so i don't think in this situation there's any reason to think that her input wouldn't be highly useful second if they had included a regular education kindergarten teacher they would have at least come closer to complying with the statute however the statute added there on the school correct and so they were left with with options none of which were ideal unless they were to reach out and bring in the teacher from the prior school district well your honor may sound funny but if they had included this ramsey who was the regular education kindergarten teacher of the child for five days then they would be standing here saying we complied with the statute and i probably would have raised a completely different argument based on a different regulation which says ninety seven amendments when they added the specificity they also are the words of such child in each of these places a regular education teacher of the first trial a special education teacher of such child so they wanted more congress made if they had included that teacher they would certainly have a stronger argument here and i'd be making a different argument they didn't include that one either they obviously have large suggests that the district is not required education teacher congress gave guidance as to what their regular education teacher was supposed to do and he and d three c and d for b in two places they specifically said these are the things we want the regular education teacher increasingly critical role in the affective date of the ninety seven amendments with the way by one year because these were massive changes so they delayed it giving people a whole year to learn about get familiar with these new requirements but this is a e p this is a team meeting was in the year two thousand two and a half years after it had gone into effect to address the case law none of this court's prior decisions have involved cases governed by the ninety seven amendments they are all cases governed by pretty nine hundred ninety seven lot so they are all cases that focused on the old forking over one eight twenty reference to simply that future with no elaboration and they all go off on regulations three hundred point three four four primarily which is completely different after one thousand nine hundred seven and it's still there there's a regulation by that number but it's completely different and this court did in clyde k have to figure out how to apply that regulation three hundred point three four four on the facts of that case which involved in one nine eighty seven amendments took effect the issue as to who needs to be on the i e v team was not raised in the opening brief i just i obtained the briefs of all parties from counsel in the last few days and read them  was not raised in the opening for if they did raise for alleged procedural violations in the open brief which this court addresses seriatim in its opinion one two three four and then the court says further issues and does begin to talk about an reports and if they think there's something here i appreciate them very much and i would have been shocked because i wouldn't have known about something if there's really but the short answer again is it doesn't have any if any of this is a perceptive part of that question but i they should have had a regular education teacher there and i think that's a very important provision it's not a little thing like ality but still it seems to me the crux of the fairly consider whether to be in a regular education class he was denied meaningful input into the whole ip process because the people who knew the most about him weren't there and under predict prien nine hundred ninety seven law i mean it requires me to sort of spin a hypothetical world but if the nine hundred ninety seven amendments had never been enacted i still think under your decisions in both target range and the shapiro case which i filed a supplemental statement of authority because that was decided violation of the idea because nobody knowledgeable about these children was on the ip team so i would submit that we would win even if the law had never changed i would just be pointing to different  use more than time and i thought i would i did i did wish to address one other issue today which was the issue about whether the failure correction cheating of a disabled child  a district court action an hour before the ninth circuit the students long ago of rough treadway school district is no longer within the boundaries of the district the second thing the second fact i think the the th qualified but then the participation of that person is qualified to the extent practical or something like that six to the extent appropriate and that's exactly my point so there is technical compliance with the technicality  special education is to be decided on a case by case basis by the i mean reimbursed at the meeting and mother mother didn't show up she refused to show our city she didn't get their input in a meeting to go to want to attend the meeting and so she refused to attend so she wasn't available which was clearly a lie the record disclosed that she was available at the kind of the meeting and her husband was available and she had modified for a particular child the able to be accommodated into the classroom in this case there is no question that this child will not involved in any general curriculum even in his prior knowledge of general curriculum which was an apple in this case the second one is a critical role of their implementation of the ip that finally created in this case there is no regular feature has absolutely no out to the extent that the child is in the mainstream environment the special ed staff comes with the child into that environment because the purpose of going into that general environment is to generalise the skills that are being taught in a very restrictive one on one two on one setting in the in the self contained program to generalize them into different environments so it's programmed for the child to go into these environments and to take what they've learned in that that self contained program and to be able to expand on that particular skill in other environments with other people and that's programmed delivered monitored supervised by the special ed teacher who goes with the child the speech and language her talent is to goes with the child the occupation of therapist the goals of the child or the instructional assistant there's one on one instructional system of the child in the special information that were that was involved in the project or i mean meeting and so there was there was a need for more knowledge and that knowledge was supplanted by having people from the private schools we had just completed a url of a wish in the university of washington only quote if the procedural because these results in the loss of educational opportunity are seriously and free and the parents opportunity to participate in the i e the formulation process she described in this article and required they were required to be available to the students so we have a very highly qualified much more much more highly qualified program that if this in the previous district it also have in the three other people members of the team were experts in writing programs and implementing programs for artistic children so you have those three differences that make sure the program that's being operatives appropriate and the right amount of they have now four people you have dramatic changes to the program that's being offered in shapiro you've had two years in a residential program for a child for with coffee or implant think rightfully the nights are going to stand that required different people there if you're going to make those dramatic of changes of a program in sao gidgee i think there were four or five years of the school district showing that they could not even telephone the child is disabled when he was finally disabled the recommendation was for an intense programming in reading in the school district and consistent with the previous night he wasn't really disabled he offered a it was replicating the previous program so there wasn't a direct difference as cases in this case there's also not to generic difference between program that this child is being offered in the one child hand in his previous school as far as mainstreaming g from the from the school so the five hours of of programming in the general unfairness comparable to the eight hours here but what i want to make point my final point is that program had twelve hours of the most restrictive full placement you can possibly have it was a home violation and forget about it i think i will appreciate i think that the record before judge can our in the supplemental record before you both indicate that the district given the teacher three books to read to try and explain the child's disability to the classroom and the teacher in the first week of school read those three books and chose a book and change and told mother she relevant for the whether or not the child should be in a regular environment or not in a regular environment in that case they stated the fact that the child was teased was a reason for putting the child in a more restrict anywhere and that argument has never been made by the school district not in the district court not in the briefs filed in this court and i'm a total loss to understand how suddenly here at oral argument there can in the last page of my statement of supplemental authority i have quoted this language the paradise valley school district failure to include the persons most knowledgeable about tori's educational levels and needs resulted in lost educational opportunity for it met the last educational opportunity because if people without knowledge are there they don't have any opportunity to get what they want for dory it also seriously infringes the parent participation if you say the parents could come but they can't talk to anybody who has any knowledge of their child or who's a regular education teacher of their child still seriously infringes their participation their left saying to this roomful of experts we know better because it's our child but you won't let us have the people on the team that are supposed to be on the team and the people who know our child and the person who's taught our child for three years they say that's that's ok and that that isn't a major violation