California OAH special education order · August 11, 2014
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2014080277 · ALJ Robert Helfand
OAH denied Student's stay put motion to keep the discontinued ICAP autism preschool class, finding LAUSD's replacement PSC class at the same school closely replicates it given changed circumstances.
Summary
Student asked OAH to order LAUSD to keep him in the Intensive Comprehensive Autism Program (ICAP) at Utah Elementary School, the placement in his last agreed IEP. LAUSD opposed. It submitted a declaration that it had restructured its preschool autism programs and replaced ICAP with the Preschool Comprehensive Program (PSC), which has the same class size, staff ratio, and instructional time. OAH found that the PSC class at Utah Elementary closely replicates the closed ICAP and is the stay put placement under the changed circumstances, so it denied the motion.
Why it matters
Stay put does not guarantee a program by name. When a district discontinues a program, stay put can be met by a comparable replacement that closely replicates class size, staffing, ratio, and instructional time. Parents challenging a replacement need concrete evidence of meaningful differences.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (d)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3042
- Van Scoy v. San Luis Coastal Unified School Dist. (C.D. Cal. 2005) 353 F.Supp.2d 1083
- Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618
People named in the order
- Karen Krische, Program specialist, Early Childhood Department, LAUSD Special Education Division (declarant)
Topics
Full text of the order
Published text of the OAH order. Page headers and numbers from the original PDF have been dropped.
BEFORE THE
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2014080277 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
STAY PUT
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On August 4, 2014, Parent on behalf of Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Request for Due Process Hearing naming the Los Angeles Unified School District as respondent. Also on August 4, 2014, Student filed a motion for stay put.
On August 12, 2014, LAUSD filed an opposition.
APPLICABLE LAW
Until due process hearing procedures are complete, a special education student is entitled to remain in his or her current educational placement, unless the parties agree otherwise. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a) (2006) 1; Ed. Code, § 56505 subd.
(d).) This is referred to as “stay put.” For purposes of stay put, the current educational placement is typically the placement called for in the student's individualized education program (IEP), which has been implemented prior to the dispute arising. (Thomas v.
Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618, 625.)
In California, “specific educational placement” is defined as “that unique combination of facilities, personnel, location or equipment necessary to provide instructional services to an individual with exceptional needs,” as specified in the IEP. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3042.)
It does not violate stay put if a school is closed for budget reasons and the child is provided a comparable program in another location. (See McKenzie v. Smith (D.C. Cir.
1985) 771 F.2d 1527, 1533; Knight v. District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 1989) 877 F.2d 1025, 1028; Weil v. Board of Elementary & Secondary Education (5th Cir. 1991) 931 F.2d 1069, 1072-1073; see also Concerned Parents & Citizens for Continuing Education at Malcolm X (PS 79) v. New York City Board of Education (2d Cir. 1980) 629 F.2d 751, 754, cert. den.
All references to the Code of Federal Regulations are to the 2006 edition, unless otherwise indicated.
(1981) 449 U.S. 1078 [101 S.Ct. 858, 66 L.Ed.2d 801]; Tilton v. Jefferson County Bd. of Education (6th Cir. 1983) 705 F.2d 800, 805, cert. den. (1984) 465 U.S. 1006 [104 S.Ct. 998, 79 L.Ed.2d 231].) Stay put entitles the student to receive a program that is as closely as possible replicates the program which existed at the time the dispute arose taking into account changed circumstances. (Van Scoy v. San Luis Coastal Unified School District ( 9th Cir.2005) 353 F.Supp.2d 1083, 1086.)
DISCUSSION
In his motion, Student requests an order mandating that LAUSD continue his placement in the Intensive Comprehensive Autism Program (ICAP) at the Utah Elementary School, which Student attended during school year 2013-2014 pursuant to the last agreed
IEP.
LAUSD contends that the stay put placement should be in the Preschool Comprehensive Program (PSC) as this program replaced the ICAP, which had been discontinued. LAUSD submitted a declaration by Karen Krische, a program specialist in the Early Childhood Department of the Special Education Division of LAUSD. Ms. Krische declared that LAUSD restructured preschool autism programs for the 2014-2015 school year.
As part of this restructure, the ICAP was discontinued and replaced by PSC. Both programs have 10 students per class, a two-to-one student to staff ratio, and the same amount of instructional time. The PSC class staff includes a special education teacher, a special education assistant, a speech and language pathologist assistant, and a behavior intervention specialist. Additionally, the ICAP class at Utah Elementary was replaced by a PSC class.
Placement in the PSC class at Utah Elementary closely replicates the closed ICAP and constitutes the stay put placement in light of the changed circumstances.
ORDER
Student’s motion for stay put is DENIED.
DATE: August 11, 2014
/S/
ROBERT HELFAND
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings