California OAH special education order · August 10, 2015
Order for Supplemental Briefing on Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2015070576 · ALJ Theresa Ravandi
OAH deferred ruling on Student's stay put motion and ordered both sides to brief what Student's last agreed-upon and implemented IEP was and how grade advancement affects stay put.
Summary
Student asked OAH to name his home applied behavior analysis program under a July 2014 settlement agreement as his stay put placement. New Haven opposed, saying stay put was the nonpublic school placement in Student's January 11, 2013 IEP. OAH found it needed more information before ruling. It ordered both parties to file supplemental briefs within five days, supported by declarations under penalty of perjury, identifying Student's last agreed-upon and implemented IEP placement and addressing whether advancing from a preschool-level placement to a higher grade changes what stay put requires.
Why it matters
A stay put motion should include the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP, not just a settlement or a new unsigned offer. When that IEP is old, especially from preschool, be ready to explain how grade advancement affects the placement and services that stay put protects.
Key authority cited
- Van Scoy v. San Luis Coastal Unified Sch. Dist. (C.D. Cal. 2005) 353 F.Supp.2d 1083
- Beth B. v. Van Clay (N.D. Ill. 2000) 126 F.Supp.2d 532
- 64 Fed.Reg. 12616 (Comment on 34 C.F.R. § 300.514)
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. 2015070576 v. ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING ON MOTION FOR STAY
NEW HAVEN UNIFIED SCHOOL PUT
DISTRICT.
On August 3, 2015, Student filed a motion for stay put with the Office of Administrative Hearings which he served on New Haven Unified School District on July 28,
2015. On July 30, 2015, New Haven filed an opposition to Student’s motion. Student seeks
an order that his stay put placement should be his current home applied behavior analysis program and services pursuant to a settlement agreement signed July 31, 2014. Student attached a copy of the current individualized education program offer for the 2015-2016 school year dated May 13, 2015, to which Parent has not consented. Student did not provide a copy of his last agreed-upon and implemented IEP. New Haven contends that Student’s last implemented and agreed-upon IEP is from January 11, 2013. New Haven alleges this IEP provides for a nonpublic school and that this constitutes Student’s stay put placement.
Additional information is required before a ruling can be made on Student’s motion.
If it is determined that the settlement agreement does not constitute Student’s stay put placement, it will be necessary to hear from Student as to his position of what constitutes his last agreed-upon and implemented IEP. Further, given that Student’s last agreed-upon and implemented IEP may have provided for a preschool level placement and services, the parties will need to brief what effect, if any, Student’s grade-level advancement may have had on the stay put placement and the offer of instructional hours and services. (Van Scoy v.
San Luis Coastal Unified Sch. Dist. (C.D. Cal. 2005) 353 F.Supp.2d 1083, 1086 [“stay put”
placement was advancement to next grade]; see also Beth B. v. Van Clay (N.D. Ill. 2000) 126 F. Supp.2d 532, 534; Fed.Reg., Vol. 64, No. 48, p. 12616, Comment on § 300.514 [discussing grade advancement for a child with a disability.].)
ORDER
Within five days of this Order, the parties shall submit supplemental briefing, supported by declarations under penalty of perjury, specifying what constitutes Student’s last agreed-upon and implemented IEP placement and address the effect, if any, of any grade- level advancement on Student’s stay put placement. Any additional attachments shall be authenticated. No reply briefs or other additional briefing will be considered.
DATE: August 10, 2015
/ S/
THERESA RAVANDI
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings