California OAH special education order · December 22, 2025
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2025111004 · ALJ Thanayi Lindsey
OAH denied Student's stay put motion because Parents consented on November 6, 2025 to amended IEPs adding 420 weekly pull-out minutes, and Buckeye implemented them before the complaint was filed.
Summary
Student asked OAH to set stay put as the March 31, 2025 IEP without the 420 minutes per week of pull-out specialized academic instruction added in the October 27 and November 4, 2025 amendments. Buckeye opposed. It argued that Parents consented to the amendments on November 6, 2025 and that Buckeye implemented them. OAH found it undisputed that Parents gave written consent and that Buckeye implemented the amended terms before the November 24, 2025 complaint, so the amended IEP is stay put. Parents' later revocation of consent supported the finding that consent existed. Their arguments about whether that consent was valid, including the claim that the instruction was a 'trial basis,' were left for the hearing.
Why it matters
Stay put follows the last IEP the parent agreed to and the district implemented. Consenting to an amendment, even briefly, and then revoking it before filing may lock the amended services in as stay put. Parents should be careful before signing consent to IEP amendments they may later want to dispute.
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
- Honig v. Doe (1988) 484 U.S. 305
People named in the order
- Nicole Schraeder, Declarant for Buckeye
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.
BUCKEYE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025111004
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PUT
DECEMBER 22, 2025
On November 24, 2025, Parents on Student’s behalf filed a request for due process hearing, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Buckeye Union School District. The Office of Administrative Hearings is called OAH.
Buckeye Union School District is called Buckeye.
On December 1, 2025, Student filed a motion for stay put and attached exhibits 1 to 10 in support of their motion. Student’s exhibit 1 was a copy of the March 31, 2025, individualized education program, called IEP, and exhibit 2 was a copy of Parents’ consent to the IEP. Student contends that the last agreed upon IEP, was the annual IEP dated March 31, 2025. On April 24, 2025, Parents consented to the following free appropriate public education, called FAPE, offer of:
a. a general education program at Charter Montessori Valley View Campus in
the regular classroom setting with 4 percent outside the regular classroom and 96 percent inside the regular classroom; and
b. special education related services of:
i. 60 minutes per month of individual occupational therapy, ii. 20 minutes per week of individual or group language and speech therapy, and iii. 30 minutes per week of group specialized academic instruction.
On October 27 and November 4, 2025, Buckeye held IEP team meetings to amend the March 31, 2025, IEP. The FAPE offer was:
a. a general education program at Charter Montessori Valley View Campus
with 26 percent outside the regular class and 74 percent inside the regular class; and
b. special education related services of:
i. 60 minutes per month of individual occupational therapy, ii. 20 minutes per week of individual or group language and speech therapy, and iii. 420 minutes per week of group specialized academic instruction in a pull-out model.
On December 3, 2025, Buckeye filed an opposition to the motion for stay put, supported by a declaration by Nicole Schraeder, and exhibits A, B, and C. Buckeye contends the last agreed upon and implemented IEP was March 31, 2025, as amended on October 27 and November 4, 2025. Buckeye contends Parents gave consent to the amended provisions on November 6, 2025, and Buckeye implemented the amended IEPs’ placement and services.
On December 4, 2025, Student filed a reply in support of the motion for stay put.
Student further contends in its reply that the specialized academic instruction was implemented on a “diagnostic or trial basis,” as referenced by Student’s exhibits 9 and
10. Also on December 4, 2025, Buckeye filed an amended opposition to the motion for
stay put.
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 IEP placement prior to the dispute arising. (Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618, 625.) The U.S. Supreme Court has called this language "unequivocal," meaning that a district cannot remove a student with a disability from his current educational placement during a FAPE dispute unless a specific exception applies. (Honig v. Doe (U.S.
1988) 484 U.S. 305 [108 S.Ct. 592].)
Student’s motion focused on whether the 420 minutes of specialized academic instruction was stay put. Stay put provisions focus on parental consent and a school district’s implementation of the consented to FAPE terms. Here, Parents’ and Buckeye’s declarations stated Parents gave written consent to the amended October 27 and November 4, 2025, IEPs that included occupational therapy, language and speech therapy, and the increased minutes for specialized academic instruction on November 6,
2025. Also, Parents’ declaration confirmed Buckeye implemented each of the amended
terms prior to the date of Student’s complaint with OAH. Furthermore, Parents’ declaration stated they revoked the November 6, 2025, consent which supports the existence of parental consent on November 6, 2025. The undisputed facts are Parents gave consent to the amended IEPs and Buckeye implemented the IEPs before Student filed the complaint on November 24, 2025. Therefore, the placement and services in the March 31, 2025, IEP, as amended on October 27, and November 4, 2025, are Student’s stay put.
Parents’ arguments about the validity of the November 6, 2025, consent and revocation on November 17, 2025, along with Student’s attached exhibits 3 to 10 and reply brief raise legal issues relevant to issues 1, 2, and 3 of Student’s complaint and must be decided at hearing.
ORDER
1. Student’s motion for stay put to exclude 420 minutes of specialized academic
instruction pull-out model is denied.
2. Student’s stay put shall be the placement and related services in the March 31,
2025, IEP, as amended on October 27, and November 4, 2025.
Thanayi Lindsey Thanayi Lindsey (Dec 22, 2025 11:11:13 PST)
Thanayi Lindsey Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings