California OAH special education order · June 1, 2026
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2026050488 · ALJ Jeanie Min
OAH denied Student's stay put motion seeking unrestricted phone access because the last agreed-upon IEP only provided phone access for calendar, journal, and time use, not full-time unrestricted use.
Summary
Student asked OAH to order Bonita to stop restricting Student's phone accommodation and let Student keep a phone on his person at all times without staff permission. Bonita opposed. OAH found the May 6, 2025 IEP, the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP, gave Student daily access to a phone only for calendar, journal, and time use, with no promise of full-time or unrestricted use. OAH also found the motion really asked it to decide Student's failure-to-implement claim early, which stay put is not meant to do, so it denied the motion without deciding that hearing issue.
Why it matters
Stay put keeps the status quo as written in the last agreed-upon IEP. It cannot expand a service beyond the IEP's plain language or be used to get an early ruling on a failure-to-implement claim. Families should press implementation disputes as hearing issues, and be precise when drafting accommodation language in the IEP.
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)
- Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618
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.
BONITA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026050488
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PUT
JUNE 1, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Student filed a motion for stay put. On May 14, 2026, Bonita Unified School District filed an opposition to the motion. On the same day, Student filed a reply to Bonita’s opposition.
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 “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).)
The last agreed-upon and implemented IEP is dated May 6, 2025. Bonita submitted a copy of the signed IEP. The May 6, 2025 IEP includes several “other supports” for Student, including “access to phone for calendar, journal, and time use” on a daily basis, per enrolled class or program, at the school site.
Student contends Bonita is not implementing this support appropriately. Student argues Bonita has unilaterally restricted this support by requiring Student to seek staff permission prior to using the phone. Student argues Bonita has stored the phone in a designated location, limited phone use to designated instructional times, and monitored text messages. Student also contends Bonita implemented a “Student behavior contract” or “phone contract” dated April 20, 2026, restricting phone use and imposing eight days of removal. Student contends he should be given full, unrestricted phone access pursuant to the May 6, 2025 IEP. Student requests Bonita be ordered to cease any restrictions on Student’s phone accommodation and make available a phone for Student to have on his person at all times, without requiring staff permission.
The May 6, 2025 IEP provides only for access to a phone to use for the calendar, journal, and time use on a daily basis, per enrolled class or program. It does not specify that phone access shall be full-time or without any restrictions. Student’s request to always have a phone on his person and have full, unrestricted phone access and use is seeking a determination that would change the plain language of the May 6, 2025 IEP.
Moreover, stay put is intended to preserve the status quo during a dispute.
Student’s complaint alleges, in part, that Bonita materially failed to implement the phone accommodation in Student’s IEP, in that Bonita did not provide unrestricted access to a phone. The requested relief in Student’s stay put motion effectively requests OAH to resolve this issue.
Student’s motion is denied. Nothing in this Order is determinative of the issue Student intends to bring to hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Jeanie Min Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings