Charter School's Special Ed Obligation Ends When Student Stops Attending

A parent sought to hold Discovery Charter School II and the Santa Clara County Office of Education responsible for their autistic child's special education after removing him from the charter school and placing him in a private school. The ALJ ruled that charter schools' special education obligations are tied to student attendance and enrollment, not residency — and that the parents had waived prior claims through a settlement agreement. The district prevailed, and Sunnyvale School District (the district of residence) was identified as the appropriate entity to pursue for future FAPE obligations.

What Happened

Student, a 14-year-old with autism and emotional disturbance, began attending Discovery Charter School II in second grade and continued through the first half of fifth grade. In early 2017, a dispute arose over his special education services, and Student stopped attending Discovery around January of that year. His IEP had not been completed and no formal FAPE offer had been made for the upcoming school year. In May 2017, Parents gave formal notice that they were unilaterally placing Student at Helios, a private school, at public expense. Discovery then reported Student as transferred and dropped him from its enrollment rolls.

In June 2018, Parents filed a due process complaint against Discovery. The parties reached a full settlement agreement in September 2018, in which Parents received reimbursement for private school tuition, camp, and counseling costs through the settlement date — and waived all past educational claims. After the settlement, Discovery offered to hold a new IEP meeting and develop a new FAPE offer, but Parents declined. Student continued attending Helios. Parents then filed a new due process complaint in August 2019, arguing that Discovery and the Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE) remained legally responsible for Student's special education — and that dis-enrolling him without proper procedures was itself a violation of the IDEA.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ rejected Parents' argument and ruled in favor of Discovery and SCCOE on the sole issue before her: whether these entities remained the responsible LEA for Student's FAPE from September 14, 2018, through March 10, 2020.

The ALJ drew a critical legal distinction between school districts and charter schools. A school district is responsible for all eligible students who reside within its boundaries, whether or not those students attend district schools. A charter school's obligations work differently: parents choose to send their children to charter schools, and the law repeatedly ties charter school special education duties to students who are attending the charter school. Because Student had not attended Discovery since January 2017 — nearly 20 months before the relevant period — and had been placed at a private school by Parent's own choice, Discovery's jurisdiction over Student had ended.

The ALJ also found that the September 2018 settlement agreement was a complete bar to claims arising before that date. Parents had knowingly settled all disputes, received compensation, and waived even unknown claims under California Civil Code section 1542. Crucially, Parents also had the opportunity to negotiate Student's future enrollment status or a prospective FAPE offer during settlement talks, but did not do so. When Discovery offered to hold a new IEP meeting after the settlement, Parents refused. The ALJ found that allowing Parents to now assert ongoing LEA responsibility would effectively allow parties to endlessly delay resolving unilateral placement disputes — defeating the purpose of settlement agreements entirely.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied. The ALJ found that Discovery and SCCOE were not the responsible LEAs for Student's FAPE from September 14, 2018, through March 10, 2020. No remedies or compensatory services were ordered against Discovery or SCCOE. The case against Sunnyvale School District — the district of residence — was not resolved in this bifurcated decision and remained pending.

Why This Matters for Parents

Charter schools and school districts operate under different legal rules. A school district must serve all eligible students who live within its boundaries, even if those students attend private school. A charter school's obligation is tied to attendance and enrollment — once your child stops attending, the charter school's responsibility may end. If you are considering a unilateral placement from a charter school, understand that your district of residence (not the charter school) may become the responsible agency going forward.
Settlement agreements are binding — and what you don't negotiate away, you lose. When Parents settled the 2018 case, they received reimbursement but did not negotiate for Student's continued enrollment status or a future FAPE offer from Discovery. The ALJ found that failure fatal. Before signing any settlement agreement, make sure it addresses your child's ongoing rights, including enrollment status, future IEP obligations, and what happens next.
Refusing an IEP meeting offer can hurt your case later. Discovery offered to hold a new IEP meeting and develop a fresh FAPE offer — twice. Parents declined both times. The ALJ noted this as evidence that Parents had no real intent to reenroll. If you are in a placement dispute, staying engaged in the IEP process (even under protest) can preserve your legal options.
Know who your district of residence is — and keep them in the loop. When a charter school is no longer responsible, the responsibility for child find and FAPE shifts to the school district where you live. In this case, that was Sunnyvale School District. Parents had named Sunnyvale as a party, and that piece of the case was still pending. If your child attends or attended a charter school, identify your resident district early and make sure they are aware of your child's needs.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Why This Matters for Parents

Charter schools and school districts operate under different legal rules. A school district must serve all eligible students who live within its boundaries, even if those students attend private school. A charter school's obligation is tied to attendance and enrollment — once your child stops attending, the charter school's responsibility may end. If you are considering a unilateral placement from a charter school, understand that your district of residence (not the charter school) may become the responsible agency going forward.
Settlement agreements are binding — and what you don't negotiate away, you lose. When Parents settled the 2018 case, they received reimbursement but did not negotiate for Student's continued enrollment status or a future FAPE offer from Discovery. The ALJ found that failure fatal. Before signing any settlement agreement, make sure it addresses your child's ongoing rights, including enrollment status, future IEP obligations, and what happens next.
Refusing an IEP meeting offer can hurt your case later. Discovery offered to hold a new IEP meeting and develop a fresh FAPE offer — twice. Parents declined both times. The ALJ noted this as evidence that Parents had no real intent to reenroll. If you are in a placement dispute, staying engaged in the IEP process (even under protest) can preserve your legal options.
Know who your district of residence is — and keep them in the loop. When a charter school is no longer responsible, the responsibility for child find and FAPE shifts to the school district where you live. In this case, that was Sunnyvale School District. Parents had named Sunnyvale as a party, and that piece of the case was still pending. If your child attends or attended a charter school, identify your resident district early and make sure they are aware of your child's needs.