six minutes for rebuttal and i will keep track of my time this case involves the denial of the child's right to a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment under the offered an educational programs that would have segregated gabriella and in fact would have been a step backwards from her prior placement as a result have reality has been denied her like two or three appropriate education under the law gabriella has been home schooled and a determination of whether that met the standard of a free appropriate education and second for an immediate ip meeting for an immediate reassessment and reimbursement  a and by many accounts gabriela was successful in the environment in which she was placed in the ninety three to ninety four school year specifically that environment was a class of twenty three students five of whom receive special education services the rest of whom were regular education students it was in malta each sending it was taught by a certified special education teacher however there is nothing in gabriella's i p that  forth specific guidelines specific goals and objectives we argued that that i could have been met in a variety of different settings so not only within that one school that in fact if if we take a look at the fifty special education minutes what this means when this court looks at it because this court does look at the provision of a of a free appropriate public education to nova this court can look at that i p and determined that there is no way that a school could provide both one hundred percent regular education minutes and one hundred percent special education minutes so in the special education segregated context because that would limit gabriella's regular education time the only way that could be provided was similar to a situation at a last one in the one thousand nine hundred ninety three ninety four school year but could have been provided in vast one island in the regular education classroom with one hundred percent support for got real a special education needs that's when i learned when when gabriella came into the school district the highland started at the wrong end continuum under under the i d e a a school district must have a continuum of alternative services in placements available for children with disabilities that continuum is the rebuttable presumption that they will start at the regular education and of the continuum and if a child with disabilities camera be educated within the regular classroom they will look at what supplemental aids and services can be provided so that child can still be mainstreamed in this situation in this situation fashion started at the wrong end of the continuum they started by placing gabriella in a segregated special education classroom and then offering and  day of regular education interaction and that only included nonacademic a is that you will see within your records the ip that we would point to is the one that fashion actually proposed was the i p that was proposed on october thirty first one thousand and you can find that in question sixteen and when when a child isn't rolled in both regular and special education services as we have here the regulations that a parent may all sound and determine who should be present at that i normally it is at the discretion of the district when the child receives both regular and special education services but the parent also has a role in determining who should be present the parent is seen as their role in the meeting is as an equal participant there there is there there is a forty under the rules that allow for a school district to determine an interim placement however in this instance and i need a proper ip meeting was not held until to show that a prior proposed by p was proper and we contend that this was not only retaliatory but but improper under under the procedures because the ip that they parent in this situation as well when the school district when the school district plows were due process hearing on november seventh the quote unquote stay put provisions of the i d e a i kicked in at that point and that's that it's twenty u s c fourteen fifteen subspecialty that provides that pending any administrative procedure there the school district is obligated to implement the child's then current as occasional placement in this additional interpretation not subject to additional interim one as a chance to determine how they could put down implement that within their school district but no that was to be implemented on its face and on it terms the school district does have an affirmative duty to a child in this case fashion has argued that the parent has attempted to frustrate the process that and i p needing was not held because  could for her child and simply attempting to protect her rights and her child's rights under the law at this time i would like to reserve my remaining time for a battle unless there are questions thank you very differently your honor is from the way that petitioners are this case is driven by five key factors in our view number one the standard of review and as we're confident your honour's are aware of the standard of review requires this court to review the findings of fact judge william dwyer and because he found that the records accorded all of the findings of fact of the administrative law judges the findings of fact of those administrative law judges for clear air we also are confident this court this aware that judge wired and denied the parents request for reimbursement expenses and care for his decision to exercise his discretion to deny that re t during the proceedings and so i can't answer that other than to indicate that his decision does not answer the question one way or the other there for a minute did he say i do this within my discretion he did not say those words he just said he denied really as entitled to she was asking to change the educational placement and setting for this child from full time specially designed instruction to regular education and and arguments of of the petitioner to the contrary or simply p from seattle school district during the ninety three ninety four school year and it checks the box number for saying that the student was inside a specialized self contained service and that was described by fr the director special education at seattle school district at the time but that meant she was in full time special education the parent demanded to move to regular education she had none of the previous year in seattle school district as judged where found in his finding number two and three and sell school districts based on its immediate and first hand experience with this child had determined that it was not appropriate because her needs could not be met in regular education nevertheless the parent then holds the child out for the entire balance of the ninety four ninety five school year and moved to bash on at the end of september of ninety five and demands that passion do the same thing fortunately vashon understood that because this was a transfer case and the parent was asking for something that wasn't currently in existence for the child that its obligations were to get hold of a correct copy of the student's i e p the parent made this difficult and we are not here to say that if the district had failed obligations to the student that that would have been excused by the parent making the process difficult the law is very clear certainly as now maybe not at the time but since then the target range decision the shapiro decision that we've cited to you and has this petitioner make it clear that it's not an excuse for a school district to fail to satisfy its duty to a student because the parent makes the process difficult what judge why or found was that it extended the process fortunately though this district did not use that as an excuse and despite make the parents conduct making it very difficult proceeded forward and offered an ip that was found by both judged wire and in i judge to be in substantial conformance with the last i he from seattle now in response to the question that judge wright heart asked of opposing counsel first wire and administrative law judge both found that the seattle school district program was unique and so then we get to the notion of this transfer rule the family moved to bash on we say on september twenty eight that's what the by the way i want to talk about this residence question just briefly it's really clear under idea that idea itself does not answer the question of residency and idea of he says have routinely said including union school district which is smith of this or that that we look at the state law for such questions we've cited to you what the state law says it's where the child lives the majority of the time i the fact that she was planning to move to bash on doesn't make her anymore irrelevant prior to september twenty eighth one thousand nine hundred five of ash and then if i plan to think someday that i can move back into the city from the suburbs doesn't make me a resident of the city of seattle that i plan to do that now that my children are gone we get to the transfer issue the transfer issue in is very important not only for this case but guidance there's a real opportunity for this court to give guidance to school districts throughout this jurisdiction we are unaware of any court of appeals decision that has dealt with the transfer issues one of education versus raleigh says the policy making decisions about education to the educators and the experts we've got the experts have the office of special education programs issuing what we call the letter to campbell which we've asked for our materials saying that in the case of a transfer that the school districts obligation is to implement the maximum of standard can the existing ip from the previous school district and if it doesn't have an identifier then a program to come as close through up the evidence has its elementary transition program the ip that was written was written to indicate that the student would have at least three hundred minutes a week of contact with regular regular students in various classes and other opportunities and that was the minimum and the to the extent that she was able to tolerate more contact with her peers that the district was prepared to allow her to do that and this was an interim i e p just as the letter to campbell says so that the the district could have an opportunity to reassess the child because her assessment was dubai and we would have the parent and the school district answer view her in this interim program to determine what a longer term program should look like this district  not commit procedural violations in this instance and i'd like to tell you how i get there this family moved in late september to the vashon island school district the district learned of it in early october immediately try to schedule a meeting with the parents and the parents cancelled the district again gadgil a meeting with the parent and to try to get records from seattle school district to implement it understood was the transfer rule the parent would sign a consent for exchange of records that made it more difficult for them said they couldn't have direct one on one conversation the seattle school nevertheless that an island realized that it could do program that would have nearly that i ask the parent to come in to to meet schedule and i need him for october thirty one and a parent refused with him now if she later claims that it was because she wanted a regular education teacher there well what the district did then at that meeting is what this court has endorsed is when a parent declines to attend a target range for example then it needs to continue to press forward and that's precisely what this district do it when the parents finally will meet with the district and how did how did the mistake come to be revised becomes to be realized when when the district or else the october thirty one meeting sends out a draft i the parent says and they asked the parent to meet to discuss this raft i v then on november seventh because the parent won't respond it does what this court is that they need to do it files review process hearing to force the matter along the parent then does agree to meet with the family on november thirteenth she comes and says why are you looking at this site it's not the most recent one just a parent who finally draws the districts that's correct that's correct and then what the district does is immediately get in touch with seattle  occurs and the draft i e that is before you it was proposed by the district in december one is the one that we're arguing about and i would have need of that meeting december first nine hundred ninety five and the only reason it took that long  in this district then did as your honour's have for this court excuse me has previously said they need to keep pressing the matter forward so we urge this court to endorse and embrace the transfer rule because it makes it sound educational policy a district receiving a student from another district needs to have clear guidance that has clear guidance from the letter of camp to campbell that is before you from the office of special education programs which has been also endorsed by the office of the for civil rights real carefully writer has addressed anything about what a district obligation is concerning the transfer rule in fact the only district court decision i'm aware of concerning that issue is judge white  and that's my understanding your honor and we look very carefully so i say that with some confidence the next thing that i would point out is we're not hiding behind this transfer rule even though there are clear findings by the administrative law judge hand by judge wire that the the i he developed by vashon island school district met its obligation to comply with this transfer rule we're not hiding behind that and saying and that's ok that should solve a program that isn't substantively correct that program was substantively correct for this child the testimony of the last special education teacher to teach this child kathy titus from seattle school district is that this child cannot be appropriately served in a regular education environment how can we get around that finding which was made by both judge dwyer again and the ministry of law judge grant when that's the testimony that supports it can't be clearly erroneous it's the only expert testimony you have it's the last special education teacher this district properly refused to try to educate this child in a regular education classroom we also have in this record the child last time the child the served in regular education was during the ninety two ninety three school year in bagley elementary in seattle school district in a nap circumstance she did not receive meaningful educational benefit and in changed in behaviors that were disruptive she engaged in behaviors that were she doesn't understand the car at least at that time didn't understand the concept of space with her peers so it was disruptive to her interactions her ability to interact with her peers she needed to be taught how to interact with her peers through a program like the elementary transition program vashon proposed and she demanded not just required demanded under the amount of time and attention from the regular education teacher and one of the things this court has indicated is not only whether it can be achieved adequately academically in the regular environment in the rachel holland versus sacramento school district case but whether the student engages in behaviors that will detract from the an educational environment in the regular classroom and that's precisely what this student did the last time she was in regular education so there are lots of evidence in this record more than ample evidence in this record to support the notion that the district's insistence that this child be served in a more restrictive environment namely its elementary transition transition kompany i see that i'm out of time or i've been feeling the yellow light in summary our view is that this court has a real opportunity to help school districts and disabled students with meaningful guidance in this case on and we hope that you will expand the motions of target range and shapiro by indicating well this is one in the one time when the school district did meet its obligations because it despite difficulties continued to push forward and any delays were caused by those difficulties generated by the parents and the second major issue that we hope you'll fight to provide guidance to public school districts with yes the notion that the transfer rule makes sound educational policy that you will give the difference that the courts have indicated those i'm only aware of the guidance the official guidance from zero seven office special education programs and o c are saying that it makes sense to them and i also do a lot of special ed work personally and it is everything that i understand educators follow that rule may please the court my name is david stoli a assistant attorney general representing that washington state superintendent of public instruction in this case and again i found myself thinking the court's time responding to an argument that was  against us as we did in our in the briefing i'm going to expand my limited time dressing the independent alternative bases upon which the court can and should affirm the district court's dismissal of the superintendent in this case claims against the superintendent are predicated on a failure of the superintendent to intervene in the dispute between the school district and the parent over the appropriate interim placement i think the question what is meant by interven and the appellant has never explicated on exactly what they believe the duty to intervene entails if it means that the state agency needs to listen to the parent advice apparently her submission of a complaint or provided you process hearing the record establishes that the superintendent's office did all those things if on the other hand intervene as intended to me that the state agency has to make an independent judgment and order the school district to place the students in a setting contrary to what a due process in history of law judge has decided there's no support in the law for a significant breach by the school district and the state agency has an opportunity to compel compliance and in this case the superintendent was never been away made aware of any significant breached by the school district  we had to due process hearings in this case establishing that the district was in full compliance the parent claims that three letters that were copied to the state in november of one thousand nine hundred five should have put the state on notice that the school district was in breach but those letters really if you look at them they established that there was disagreement between the parents in the was a due process proceeding in place at that point it would not be reasonable for the status staff and terminate the proceedings or to do anything other than let them run their course of parent also relies on some discussions that she had with the officials of the superintendent's office to meet with the special education director she met with the assistant superintendent and  host of others in the superintendent's office she was provided with the same access that a school district superintendent might get if the school superintendent complained to the state about the outcome of the due process p conclusion of the law and because he did not articulate specific specifically how he reached that conclusion second on the issue of transfer there there is some guidance in the district must implement and was number must wonder number one hold an ip meeting if the district where the parents believe that the that is that the placement of the child last had was not appropriate that would be true in this instance that i need this to take place as soon as possible after the child and roles in the district and the regulations provide within a week keira knightly meeting did not take place until if you take be implemented if the ninety three ninety four i needed to be implemented to the greatest extent possible when gabriella entered the school district obviously we argue that it was not implemented on its trams to the greatest extent there slows things down so much and in that instance which occurred here we would we would argue that that last agreed upon a p needs to be implemented again thousands argue that they attempted to do that i p the placement that was offered for gabriella in this case when governor ella came into the school district there was an informal meetings before any meeting where ms last met with people from the district at that time the placement that was offered for was a segregated self contained special education class with us to three hundred minutes of regular education per week once there was an october thirty first eighteen meeting the placement that was offered for gabriel that as an advocate for her child the last placement that gabriella received included one hundred percent regulated cation interaction as well as one hundred percent consideration for those that her special education needs across the curriculum and as was the case in ninety three ninety four was provided across the cricket one one hundred percent of the time with gabriella's normally developing peers your honour's as as i run out of time here i would like to