California OAH special education order · August 20, 2024
Order Requiring Additional Evidence for Stay Put Determination
OAH Case No. 2024080524 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH deferred ruling on Student's stay put motion and ordered Student to file the last signed and implemented IEP, because the motion attached no IEP to show the current placement.
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint and a motion for stay put against Palo Alto, and Palo Alto opposed the motion. OAH found it could not decide what Student's last agreed-upon and implemented placement was, or whether any exception applied, because no IEP documents were attached. OAH ordered Student to file a document titled Stay Put Motion Evidence containing the most recent signed and implemented IEP and any signed amendments, with no further argument. Palo Alto may then respond within three business days, but only to challenge the accuracy or authenticity of the documents.
Why it matters
A stay put motion needs the last signed and implemented IEP, including signed amendments, attached as evidence. Without it, OAH cannot identify the placement to protect and will take no action on the motion.
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, subd. (a)
- Johnson v. Special Education Hearing Office (2002) 287 F.3d 1176
- Ms. S. v. Vashon Island School Dist. (9th Cir. 2003) 337 F.3d 1115
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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024080524
ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
FOR STAY PUT DETERMINATION
AUGUST 20, 2024
On August 12, 2024, Parent, on behalf of Student, filed a request for due process hearing, also called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming, Palo Alto Unified School District as respondent. On August 12, 2024, Student also filed a Motion for Stay Put. On August 15, 2024, Palo Alto filed an opposition to the Stay Put motion. Student replied to Palo Alto’s opposition on August 16, 2024.
COPY OF LAST CONSENTED TO AND IMPLEMENTED IEP REQUIRED
Until due process hearing procedures are complete, a special education student is entitled to remain in his current educational placement, unless the parties agree otherwise. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56505 subd. (d).)
This is referred to as “stay put.” 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, subd. (a).) All elements of placement are included in the IEP.
Student’s motion seeks Stay Put, but does not provide evidence of the basis for the Stay Put order sought. Student did not attach the last, signed and implemented IEP to her motion.
For purposes of stay put, the current educational placement is typically the placement called for in the student’s most recently implemented individualized education program. (Johnson v. Special Education Hearing Office (2002) 287 F. 3d 1176, 1180.) However, some exceptions apply to that rule. (Johnson, supra, 287 F. 3d at p.
1181; Ms. S. ex rel. G. v. Vashon Island School Dist. (9th Cir. 2003) 337 F.3d 1115, 1133 [rev’d on other grounds].) In this case, no IEP documents are attached to the Stay Put motion. Thus, there is no basis on which to determine what the most recently agreed and implemented IEP placement is, or whether exceptions apply.
Student is ordered to file a document entitled Stay Put Motion Evidence that attaches a copy of the most recent, signed and implemented IEP document, including any signed amendments to that IEP. Student is ordered to limit this filing to only the evidence requested. If the requested evidence is not filed, no action will be taken on the Stay Put motion. No further argument is necessary.
Following Student’s filing, Palo Alto shall have three business days to file any response challenging the accuracy or authenticity of the document(s) identified as the last consented to and implemented IEP Student files. Palo Alto is directed to refrain from reiterating arguments it has already made in its opposition to Student’s Stay Put motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings