California OAH special education order · August 3, 2015
Order for Supplemental Briefing on Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2015030166 · ALJ B. Andrea Miles
OAH deferred ruling on Student's stay put motion and ordered Sacramento City to file supplemental briefing, because the only IEP submitted offered a public placement for 2014 extended school year, not a non-public school.
Summary
Student asked OAH for stay put at a non-public school, Sierra School, for the 2015 extended school year, with funding from either Walnut Valley or Sacramento City. Both districts opposed. Student's evidence was an unsigned November 4, 2013 IEP that offered a public integrated facility placement for the 2014 extended school year, not Sierra. Sacramento City's declaration said Student had attended Sierra since fall 2013 under an IEP team decision but did not say which IEP. Because the key information is in Sacramento City's control, OAH ordered it to file sworn declarations and documents within three business days answering specific questions, and gave Student and Walnut Valley three business days to respond.
Why it matters
Stay put depends on the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP, so families should submit the signed, implemented IEP that actually shows the placement they claim. When the records are held by the district, OAH may order the district to clarify them before ruling.
People named in the order
- Becky Bryant, Director of Special Education and SELPA, Sacramento City Unified School District
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. 2015030166 v. ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING ON MOTION FOR STAY
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL PUT
DISTRICT AND WALNUT VALLEY
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On July 17, 2015, Student filed a Motion for Stay Put, asserting that during the pendency of this proceeding that Student should be allowed to remain in her “current educational placement.” Student argues that her current placement constitutes placement at a non-public school for the 2015 extended school year and that either Walnut Valley or Sacramento City should be responsible for funding that placement.
On July 21, 2015, Sacramento City filed an opposition to the motion and on July 30, 2015, Walnut Valley filed its opposition to the motion.
Student provided a declaration from Student’s mother stating that during the 2014 extended school year Student was placed pursuant to her IEP at the non-public school, Sierra School. However, Student’s Motion for Stay Put did not include a copy of a signed and implemented individualized education program which placed Student at Sierra for the 2014 extended school year. Instead, Student provided an unsigned copy of Student’s November 4, 2013 IEP that offered Student 4800 minutes of specialized academic instruction in a separate classroom in a public integrated facility and speech and language services in a separate classroom at a public integrated facility for the 2014 extended school year.
Included with its opposition, Sacramento City provided a declaration from Becky Bryant, Director of Special Education and Special Education Local Plan Area for Sacramento City Unified School District. In her declaration, Ms. Bryant states that Student “has been attending Sierra School since the fall of 2013 pursuant to an IEP team decision”
and with Parents’ consent. Although, she explains that the IEP documentation is unsigned due to a clerical error that resulted in the IEP’s signature page not being uploaded in the electronic document management system, Ms. Bryant did not specify the date of the IEP she is referencing.
The extended school year placement offered by the November 4, 2013 IEP appears inconstant with Student’s assertion that Student attended a non-public school during the 2014 extended school year. Therefore, additional information is required before a ruling may be made on the pleadings. The necessary information is within the control of Sacramento City.
Accordingly, Sacramento City shall provide additional briefing regarding the following issues:
1. Whether Ms. Bryant was referencing the November 4, 2013 IEP or a different
IEP in her declaration.
2. Whether the intent of Student’s November 4, 2013 IEP was to place Student at
a non-public school for the ESY 2014 or at another type of placement.
3. Whether Student’s November 4, 2013 IEP was implemented.
4. Whether there were any subsequent implemented IEPs or amendments to
Student’s November 4, 2013 IEP which placed Student at a non-public school for the 2014 extended school year.
ORDER
1. Within three business days of the issuance of this order, Sacramento City shall
provide briefing regarding:
a. Whether Ms. Bryant was referencing the November 4, 2013 IEP or a
different IEP in her declaration.
b. Whether the intent of Student’s November 4, 2013 IEP was to place
Student at a non-public school for the ESY 2014 or at another type of placement.
c. Whether Student’s November 4, 2013 IEP was implemented.
d. Whether there were any subsequent implemented IEPs or amendments
to Student’s November 4, 2013 IEP which placed Student at a non-public school for the 2014 extended school year.
2. Sacramento City shall include sworn declarations and documentation
supporting any factual assertions included in its briefing.
3. Student and Walnut Valley shall have three business days from the day
Sacramento City files its supplemental brief to file any responsive documents.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: August 3, 2015
/S/
B. ANDREA MILES
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings