California OAH special education order · August 31, 2026
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2026080228 · ALJ Jeanie Min
OAH denied Student's stay put request because Saratoga agreed Student's last agreed-upon program continues at Foothill Elementary, leaving no actual stay put dispute to resolve.
Summary
After Saratoga filed a due process complaint, Student asked for a stay put order at Foothill Elementary, including a one-to-one registered behavior technician and board certified behavior analyst support. Saratoga opposed only the specific registered behavior technician credential. It argued Student's last agreed-upon IEP, dated December 17, 2024 and amended August 13, 2025, gives him a one-to-one behavioral aide. In reply, Student said the credential references were shorthand for his IEP behavior supports and that he no longer needed an order. OAH denied the motion because the parties agreed the program would continue and no dispute existed.
Why it matters
OAH will not issue a stay put order when the district agrees the current program continues, and how a requested aide is described (such as by a specific credential) can trigger opposition. A family can file a new stay put request if a real dispute over implementation comes up later.
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:
SARATOGA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT,
v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026080228
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PUT
AUGUST 31, 2026
On August 5, 2026, Saratoga Union School District filed a request for due process hearing, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Student. On August 6, 2026, Student filed a request for stay put.
On August 10, 2026, Saratoga filed an opposition to Student’s request. On August 13, 2026, Saratoga filed a motion to amend the complaint and an amended complaint. On August 13, 2026, Student filed a reply to Saratoga’s opposition to his stay put request.
On August 21, 2026, OAH granted Saratoga’s motion to amend the complaint.
The hearing is scheduled to commence on September 15, 2026.
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).
Student asserts his stay put placement during the pendency of this proceeding is at Foothill Elementary School, pursuant to a December 4, 2025 settlement agreement between the parties, attached as a copy to Student’s motion. Student contends stay put also includes a one-to-one registered behavior technician and board certified behavior analyst support, accommodations, and services provided at Foothill Elementary.
Saratoga asserts Student’s program and services will continue in Student’s current educational placement, at Foothill Elementary. However, Saratoga opposes Student’s specific request for a registered behavior technician. Saratoga contends Student’s last agreed-upon and consented to IEP is dated December 17, 2024, as amended on August 13, 2025, attached as a copy to Saratoga’s motion. Saratoga argues that Student is entitled to one-to-one behavioral aide support, but the specific qualification as a registered behavior technician is not a component of stay put.
In Student’s reply to Saratoga’s opposition, Student clarified that the references to a registered behavior technician or board certified behavior analyst were “shorthand”
for Student’s behavioral supports under his last agreed-upon and implemented IEP, not an attempt to add an unagreed credentialing requirement. Student further acknowledged that, because Saratoga stated that Student remains at Foothill Elementary, he is no longer requesting an affirmative order for stay put from OAH.
The parties agree that Student’s last agreed-upon and implemented program and services will continue at Foothill Elementary. Student has not alleged that a dispute exists. If a dispute exists, Student may file a request for stay put as to the nature of the dispute and the terms of stay put. The motion for stay put is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Jeanie Min Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings