Charter School Expels Student with ADHD for Knife, Then Fails to Offer Any Educational Services

What Happened

Student was a 13-year-old boy eligible for special education under the categories of specific learning disability and other health impairment, with a diagnosis of ADHD, inattentive type. He attended High Tech Middle North County, a charter school that operates as its own local educational agency. On June 10, 2014, Student was found to have brought a folding knife to school. His mother explained that Student was a Boy Scout who had accidentally put the knife in his pocket that morning — before taking his ADHD medication — and forgotten it was there. School staff told a different story: another student reported that Student took the knife out, opened it to show him, and then put it away. When confronted, Student denied having the knife, fabricated a story about showing a classmate a pen, and hid the knife in a bathroom stall before finally admitting he had it.

High Tech held a manifestation determination review (MDR) meeting on June 18, 2014. Student's mother brought four letters from health care professionals — including Student's psychiatrist, medical doctor, psychologist, and a therapist — arguing that Student's forgetfulness and inattention caused him to accidentally bring the knife to school. The team reviewed the letters and heard from Student's mother, but ultimately concluded the behavior was not a manifestation of his disability. Student was expelled. After the expulsion, High Tech offered Student no educational services, held no IEP meeting, and simply notified the school district where Student's parents lived — apparently believing its legal responsibility ended there. Student filed a due process hearing request on August 26, 2014.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled against Student on the manifestation determination issues. The evidence strongly supported the conclusion that Student deliberately brought the knife to school: he opened it to show another student, lied multiple times to staff, and cleverly hid the knife in a bathroom stall cover dispenser. The ALJ found that the MDR team did properly consider the four expert letters — each team member was able to recount specific information from the meeting, including details from Student's mother's verbal input. The letters themselves were found to use tentative, hedging language ("it is very possible," "apparently inadvertently forgot") that did not rise to the level of showing a direct and substantial relationship between the ADHD and the conduct. The expert witnesses who testified at hearing were credible, but one had only seen Student for one month before the hearing, and neither had spoken to any school staff. The ALJ concluded that the team's determination was objectively reasonable given the information before them.

However, the ALJ found that High Tech violated federal law after the expulsion. Under the IDEA, even when a special education student is expelled for conduct that is not a manifestation of their disability, the school must still provide a free appropriate public education — typically in an interim alternative educational setting — determined by the IEP team. High Tech's position that its only obligation was to notify the resident school district was flatly rejected. A charter school operating as its own local educational agency cannot claim the benefits of that status while avoiding the responsibilities it carries. By failing to hold an IEP team meeting and make any offer of educational services, High Tech denied Student a FAPE and foreclosed the parents' right to participate in educational decision-making.

What Was Ordered

1. High Tech Middle North County was ordered to hold an IEP team meeting within 30 days of the decision date (or another date agreed upon by both parties) to develop an appropriate educational program for Student.
2. The program must enable Student to continue participating in the general education curriculum and to make progress toward his IEP goals, and may be provided in an alternative educational setting.
3. All other requests for relief by Student were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Charter schools have the same special education obligations as traditional school districts. If your child attends a charter school that operates as its own local educational agency, it cannot simply expel your child and walk away. Federal law requires the school to keep offering FAPE — even after expulsion — through an IEP team meeting to determine appropriate services in an alternative setting.

2. A manifestation determination team must genuinely consider all input you bring — but disagreeing with your evidence is not the same as ignoring it. The ALJ found the team did review the expert letters, even though they were not persuaded by them. To strengthen your position, bring experts who can speak specifically and confidently about the direct connection between the disability and the specific conduct — vague or tentative language in letters can undermine your case.

3. Your child's behavior surrounding the incident — not just the incident itself — can be considered. The ALJ rejected the argument that the MDR team should only look at the act of bringing the knife, not what happened afterward. Lying, hiding evidence, and deliberate cover-up are relevant to whether a behavior was truly impulsive or accidental. This is an important reality for parents to understand when building a manifestation determination argument.

4. If your child is expelled, demand an IEP meeting immediately. Do not assume the school's responsibility ends at expulsion. Federal law requires an IEP team meeting to determine what educational services your child will receive going forward. If the school refuses, document the refusal and consider filing a complaint or due process request — the failure to hold that meeting is itself a violation of your child's right to FAPE.