California OAH special education order · July 9, 2015
Order Denying Student's Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2015061180 · ALJ Robert Martin
OAH denied Student's stay put motion for extended school year services at Cleta Harder because District agreed in a sworn declaration to provide that placement, so there was no placement dispute.
Summary
Student turned 22 in June 2015 and was attending Cleta Harder, a non-public school, under his IEP. Student asked OAH to order District to provide extended school year services there, because District had not yet contracted with the school. District's opposition agreed Student was entitled to those services at Cleta Harder. It included a sworn declaration from its Director of Special Education saying District was completing a contract and intended to keep the placement. OAH denied the motion because there was no dispute about Student's right to stay put or what the placement was, and no reason to order District to provide a placement it had already agreed to.
Why it matters
A stay put order is generally issued only when the parties actually disagree about the current placement. If a district commits under oath to keep the placement, OAH may decline to issue an order. Families should hold the district to that sworn commitment and can return to OAH if services are not actually delivered.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (d)
- Ed. Code, § 56026
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3042
- Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618
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. 2015061180 v. ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S
MOTION FOR STAY PUT
LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On June 24, 2015, Student filed a request for due process hearing (complaint) and a motion for stay put. On June 29, 2015, District filed an opposition to Student’s motion.
Student filed a reply in support of his motion on June 29, 2015, and District on July 30, 2015 filed a reply in opposition to Student’s reply.
APPLICABLE LAW
Until due process hearing procedures are complete, a special education student is generally 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.)
If a dispute exists concerning a student’s right to stay put, or concerning the specific educational placement constituting stay put, either party may file a motion for stay put seeking a determination of the student’s stay put placement.
All references to the Code of Federal Regulations are to the 2006 edition, unless otherwise indicated.
DISCUSSION AND ORDER
Student’s complaint alleged that Student turned 22 on June 15, 2015, and was attending Cleta Harder, a non-public school, under Student’s existing individualized education program. The complaint alleged that Student and District agreed that Student was entitled to extended school year services in summer 2015, to be provided at Cleta Harder pursuant to his IEP and Education Code section 56026, but that District at the time of the complaint had not contracted with Cleta Harder to provide extended school year services to Student. Student’s motion for stay put seeks an order directing District to provide Student extended school year services at Cleta Harder.
District’s opposition to Student’s motion agreed that Student is entitled to receive extended school year services at Cleta Harder. District submitted the sworn declaration of District’s Director of Special Education stating that District intends to maintain Student’s extended school year placement at Cleta Harder, is completing a contract with Cleta Harder, and has received assurances that student will be allowed to remain at Cleta Harder during the 2015 extended school year.
Student’s complaint and stay put motion, and District’s opposition and supporting sworn declaration, all agree that District is obligated to provide Student extended school year services at Cleta Harder, and District has stated that it will provide those services. 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 placement exists. There is no dispute as to Student’s right to stay put or what combination of facilities, personnel, location or equipment are necessary to provide Student an appropriate stay put placement, and no basis for an order directing District to provide Student a placement to which it has already agreed. Accordingly, Student’s motion for stay put is denied.
ORDER
Student’s motion for stay put is denied.
DATE: July 9, 2015
/S /
ROBERT MARTIN
Administrative Law Judge - Challenged Office of Administrative Hearings