California OAH special education order · August 6, 2025
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2025070906 · ALJ Paul H. Kamoroff
OAH denied Student's request for stay put at Hope Technology School because the prior decision awarded Hope reimbursement only as compensatory education and never found Hope offered a FAPE or named it the stay put placement.
This case went to decision
Student v. Palo Alto Unified School District: Palo Alto Unified must reimburse private school tuition and fund 20 hours of staff training after predetermining a repeat IEP offer. (2026)
Summary
Student asked OAH to order Palo Alto to fund Hope Technology School, a private school, as Student's stay put placement. Student relied on a July 11, 2025 OAH decision that found Palo Alto denied Student a FAPE and ordered reimbursement for Hope for the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years. Palo Alto opposed. OAH denied the motion because the earlier decision awarded Hope reimbursement only as compensatory education, found Hope appropriate only for reimbursement purposes, never analyzed whether Hope offered a FAPE, and did not name Hope as Student's current or stay put placement.
Why it matters
Winning reimbursement for a private school does not by itself make that school stay put. Parents who want a unilateral placement to become stay put should ask the ALJ to expressly find that the private placement is appropriate and offers a FAPE, and to name it as the current educational placement.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a), (d)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (d)
- Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618
- K.D. v. Dept. of Educ. (9th Cir. 2011) 665 F.3d 1110
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 2025070906
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PUT
AUGUST 6, 2025
On July 24, 2025, Student filed a motion for stay put. On July 30, 2025, Palo Alto Unified School District, called Palo Alto, filed an opposition.
Student asserts Hope Technology School, called Hope, a private school, is Student’s stay put placement because a July 11, 2025 Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, decision determined Palo Alto denied Student a free appropriate public education, called FAPE, and ordered reimbursement for Hope for the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years. As a result of this decision, Student contends Hope is Student’s current educational placement and therefore Palo Alto is obligated to fund Hope as Student’s stay put placement.
Palo Alto asserts OAH’s July 11, 2025 decision awarded reimbursement for Hope solely as compensatory education and did not name Hope as Student’s current educational or stay put placement.
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.)
Where a parent unilaterally changes the placement of a child, but a subsequent administrative or judicial decision confirms the parental placement is appropriate, the placement must be treated as an agreement between the State and the parents to a change in placement, and the placement becomes the current educational placement for purposes of stay put. (See 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(d).) However, such a favorable decision for a parent must expressly find that the private placement was appropriate.
(K.D. v. Dept. of Educ. (9th Cir. 2011) 665 F.3d 1110, 1118-21 [holding that, regardless of a potential for reimbursement, the parent’s unilateral placement was not stay put because the Department of Education “never affirmatively agreed to place [student there].”)
On July 11, 2025, OAH issued a decision for OAH case number 2025030845, wherein it determined, in part, that Palo Alto denied Student a FAPE during the 2023- 2024 and 2024-2025 school years, based on various grounds. As compensatory education, OAH awarded Parents reimbursement for costs and tuition related to Student’s attendance at Hope during that time frame. OAH determined Hope was an appropriate placement for purposes of a reimbursement award but did not analyze whether Hope offered Student a FAPE. As part of the decision, OAH did not name Hope as Student’s current educational or stay put placement.
Thus, Palo Alto is not obligated to fund Hope as Student’s stay put placement for the 2025-2026 school year as it was not deemed a FAPE by OAH. Student’s request for stay put at Hope is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Paul H Kamoroff Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings