California OAH special education order · August 28, 2014
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2014080873 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH denied Student's stay put motion because Student showed no dispute over placement, and District swore it would keep implementing the May 5, 2014 IEP during the case.
Summary
Student asked OAH for a stay put order while the due process case against Inglewood Unified School District was pending. District opposed, saying it was not trying to change Student's placement. It backed this up with a sworn declaration from its Interim Director of Special Education promising to keep providing the placement and services in the May 5, 2014 IEP. OAH denied the motion because Student did not show any actual dispute over placement, though Student may file a more specific stay put request if a dispute comes up later.
Why it matters
A stay put order is generally not needed unless there is a real dispute over the student's current placement. Parents seeking stay put should show specifically how the district is changing or refusing to provide the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP.
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
- Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618
People named in the order
- Peggy Mazzarella, District Interim Director of Special Education (declarant)
- Peter Paul Castillo, Administrative Law Judge
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. 2014080873 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
STAY PUT
INGLEWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On August 21, 2014, Student filed a motion for stay put with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming the Inglewood Unified School District. On August 27, 2014, District filed an opposition on the grounds that it is not seeking to change Student’s placement during the pendency of the litigation.
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, 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.)
DISCUSSION
Student is entitled to remain in his last agreed upon and implemented placement while a dispute is pending and an order for stay put is generally not required unless a dispute over All references to the Code of Federal Regulations are to the 2006 edition, unless otherwise indicated.
placement exists. Here, Student has not demonstrated that a dispute exists as to Student’s placement and services while the dispute is pending. District has pledged by sworn declaration of Peggy Mazzarella, District’s Interim Director of Special Education, to continue providing services and placement within Student’s current educational placement, the May 5, 2014 IEP. If there is a dispute that exists as to that educational program in the future, Student may file a request for stay put with more specificity as to the nature of the dispute and the terms of stay put. Therefore, the motion for stay put is denied.
ORDER
Student’s motion for stay put is denied.
DATE: August 28, 2014
/S/
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings