In A.M-G. v. Salem Keizer Public Schools, Nos. 6:24-cv-01517-MC, 6:24-cv-01575-MK, 2024 WL 4867060, 124 LRP 40061 (D. Or. Nov. 22, 2024), the district court denied motions for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions seeking to require a school district and an educational service district to reopen and maintain a specialized deaf and hard of hearing program during the pendency of due process proceedings. The dispute arose after the planned closure of a regional program serving deaf students.
The case involved two deaf students in the Salem Keizer Public School District (SKPS), identified as A.M-G. and K.B., who attended a regional Deaf/Hard of Hearing (D/HH) Center Site Program operated by the Willamette Educational Service District (WESD) and housed at Crossler Middle School. The students used American Sign Language and relied on teachers of the deaf and related supports. SKPS and WESD maintained an inter-district agreement under which WESD provided services for deaf and hard of hearing students at multiple sites. In March 2024, WESD notified families that the Crossler and Sprague High School D/HH programs would close at the end of the school year and that students would return to neighborhood school settings with individualized education program (IEP) services remaining in effect.
The families initiated due process proceedings and sought stay-put relief, asserting that closure of the Center Site Program constituted a change in educational placement. The administrative law judge denied stay-put relief and dismissed the due process complaints as unripe because they alleged only future harm. The families then sought injunctive relief in federal court.
In denying the requested injunctions, the court concluded that there had been no change in the students’ current educational placements for purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The court explained that the operative placement is defined by the student’s last-implemented IEP, not by a specific school building or program. For both students, the prior and proposed IEPs reflected the same placement determination—access to special education in or outside the general education setting for up to 20 percent of the school day—and continued primary education alongside nondisabled peers. The court found that the IEPs were substantially similar and that the students would be educated with nondisabled students to the same extent under both sets of IEPs.
The parents argued that the Center Site Program offered centralized services, daily access to teachers of the deaf, direct instruction in American Sign Language, on-site technology support, and a cohort of deaf peers, and that these features could not be replicated in neighborhood schools. The court held that these concerns went to whether the proposed programs offered a free appropriate public education (FAPE), not whether the students’ placements had changed for stay-put purposes. It rejected arguments that the absence of other deaf peers rendered the neighborhood placements more restrictive or demonstrated a failure to consider communication needs.
The court further stated that even if the Center Site Program had constituted the students’ current placements, stay-put would not require reopening the program. It reasoned that responsibility for providing FAPE rested with SKPS, that WESD operated and chose to close the program, and that neither SKPS nor the court could compel WESD to reinstate it. The court noted that the claims before it concerned stay-put under IDEA and did not address other statutory obligations.
The decision reflects that program closure does not necessarily constitute a change in educational placement where students’ IEP placement determinations remain unchanged, that disputes about the adequacy of services are distinct from stay-put analysis, and that injunctive relief may be denied where the record shows continuity of placement under the last-implemented IEP.