District Wins: No 'Basis of Knowledge' Found for Student Expelled After Drug Sale

What Happened

Student was a gifted 10th-grader who had not been in special education since being exited for a speech articulation issue in 6th grade. Over the course of his sophomore year, he had a series of serious incidents involving drug and alcohol use — cutting class to buy alcohol, binge drug use including Xanax and Adderall, high-speed late-night driving while under the influence, and truancy. His parent repeatedly emailed school administrators about these behaviors, framing them largely in the context of a bitter, years-long custody dispute, and at one point wrote that the student would "kill himself" — prompting the school to conduct a suicide risk assessment, which found no suicidal ideation. The school repeatedly offered to enroll the student in its drug education program (READI), but the parent blocked this effort, insisting instead on suspension, expulsion, or arrest as the appropriate response.

On January 24, 2018, the student was accused of selling marijuana and Xanax on campus and being under the influence himself. He was suspended and ultimately expelled. Only after the disciplinary incident did the parent — at the suggestion of an attorney — request a special education evaluation, citing emotional disturbance. No manifestation determination review (MDR) was ever held. The parent argued that the district had a "basis of knowledge" before the January 24 incident that the student might be a child with a disability, which would have entitled him to IDEA disciplinary protections including an MDR. The ALJ disagreed.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district, finding that the student failed to prove any of the three legal pathways that would establish the district's "basis of knowledge" that he was a child with a disability before the January 24, 2018 disciplinary incident:

1. No written expression of need for special education services. The parent's many emails to school administrators described the student's drug use, referenced a prior diagnosis of "anhedonic personality," and even warned that the student might harm himself — but none of these communications asked for special education services. The ALJ found they were written to pressure the school into imposing punishment, not to seek educational supports. Describing a child's personality or mental health history is not the same as requesting special education.

2. No request for a special education evaluation before the incident. The parent only requested an evaluation after the disciplinary incident and after consulting an attorney. Student's counsel conceded this prong did not apply.

3. No district staff expressed specific concerns to special education supervisors. Assistant Principal Mr. B forwarded the student's candid "making decisions" essay to the principal and others, and the school conducted a suicide assessment — but neither action involved district personnel raising specific concerns about a pattern of behavior indicating educational disability directly to the special education director or supervisory staff. The ALJ found the district's concerns were focused solely on drug use, not on any potential educational disability.

4. CWS referral did not establish basis of knowledge. Even assuming a district employee made the Child Welfare Services referral (which was not definitively established), the ALJ found the referral appeared designed to pressure the parent into consenting to the drug program — not to flag concerns about the student's potential disability status. The CWS investigation itself found no safety concerns beyond the parent's refusal to cooperate with the school's drug program.

What Was Ordered

1. All relief requested by the student and parent was denied.
2. The district was found to be the prevailing party on the single expedited issue presented.
3. No manifestation determination review was required, and the expulsion was allowed to stand without IDEA procedural challenge.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. The "basis of knowledge" standard is strict and specific. Under federal law (IDEA § 1415(k)(5)), a school district only has a legal obligation to treat a non-special-education student with IDEA disciplinary protections if certain things happened before the incident. General knowledge of drug use, emotional struggles, or even suicide threats does not automatically count. The bar is high.

2. Emails must explicitly request special education services to count. If you believe your child may have a disability, saying so in emails — even urgently — is not enough unless you specifically ask for special education evaluation and services in writing. Describing your child's mental health history or behavior without connecting it to a request for educational support will not create legal protection.

3. Request a special education evaluation in writing before a crisis. If your child is struggling emotionally, behaviorally, or with substance use, and you believe a disability may be involved, put a formal written request for a special education evaluation on the table before a disciplinary incident occurs. That request itself can create a district's "basis of knowledge."

4. Refusing district assessments can undermine your child's protections. In this case, the parent blocked or delayed the district's attempts to assess the student at multiple points. While post-incident refusal did not legally strip the student of protection here, obstructing assessments weakens your legal position and delays your child getting help.

5. Contentious family dynamics can complicate your child's school rights. When school communications become dominated by custody disputes, civil lawsuits, and personal grievances, the educational needs of the child can get lost — both practically and legally. Keep school communications focused on your child's educational needs, not on family conflict, so that any expression of concern about disability is clear and unambiguous.