California OAH special education order · June 25, 2025
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2025060740 · ALJ Rommel P. Cruz
OAH denied Student's stay put motion seeking continued placement at Change Academy at the Lake of the Ozarks because Los Banos Unified agreed it would keep implementing that placement, so no actual dispute existed.
Summary
Parents asked OAH to order stay put at Change Academy at the Lake of the Ozarks (CALO), Student's current residential program. They pointed out that Los Banos Unified's contract with CALO expires August 15, 2025 and has not been extended. Los Banos Unified opposed, saying the placement was undisputed and would continue. OAH denied the motion because the district promised to keep implementing the CALO placement and had not sent prior written notice ending it, so there was no actual stay put dispute. Student may refile if a real dispute arises.
Why it matters
OAH generally will not issue a stay put order just because a contract is ending or a future disruption is possible. There must be an actual dispute, such as the district failing to implement the placement or giving prior written notice that it will end. A district's written promise to continue the placement can defeat the motion, but parents can refile with specifics if the district later changes course.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (d)
- Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3042, subd. (a)
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.
LOS BANOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025060740
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PUT
JUNE 25, 2025
On June 19, 2025, Parents on behalf of Student filed a motion for stay put seeking continued placement of her current program at Change Academy at the Lake of the Ozarks, referred to as CALO. On June 24, 2025, Los Banos Unified School District filed an opposition contending an order for stay put is not necessary because the last agreed upon and implemented program at CALO is not disputed by the parties, and is being implemented by Los Banos Unified. Student filed a response on June 25, 2025.
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); Ed. Code, § 56505 subd. (d).)
This is referred to as stay put. For purposes of stay put, the current educational placement is typically the last agreed upon and implemented individualized educational program, called IEP, placement 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 the 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).)
Student contends a dispute exists regarding her stay put placement beyond August 15, 2025, because Los Banos Unified’s contract with CALO for Student’s program expires on August 15, 2025, and Los Banos Unified has yet to extend the contract.
However, Los Banos Unified represents in its opposition that it will continue to implement Student’s program at CALO. Further, Student does not allege Los Banos Unified is not implementing her placement at CALO, or that Los Banos Unified has provided Student prior written notice to discontinue her placement at CALO. Therefore, an actual dispute does not exist about Student’s stay put placement pending the completion of this due process matter. If a dispute does arise during the pendency of this matter, Student may file a request for stay put with more specificity as to the nature of the dispute and the terms of stay put. Accordingly, the motion for stay put is denied.
ORDER
Student’s Motion for Stay Put is denied.
Rommel P. Cruz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings