Charter School vs. School District: Who Is Responsible for Your Child's Special Ed?

What Happened

Student was a 12-year-old entering seventh grade who had attended Accelerated Charter Elementary School (ACES) since kindergarten. Student was eligible for special education under the category of "other health impairment" related to an ADHD diagnosis, and also reportedly had dysgraphia (a disorder of written expression). Student struggled with attention, executive functioning, reading, writing, and behavior. In October 2022, an IEP was developed for Student; by June 2023, the IEP team concluded Student was no longer eligible for special education at all.

In February 2024, Parent filed a due process complaint against both ACES and Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), alleging both had denied Student a FAPE related to the October 2022 IEP and the 2023 eligibility termination. Parent settled with ACES separately and had that school dismissed from the case. The hearing then focused entirely on one threshold question: Was LAUSD legally responsible for Student's special education, even though Student had always attended the charter school?

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled that LAUSD was not the local educational agency (LEA) responsible for Student's special education and dismissed LAUSD from the case entirely.

ACES is operated by a nonprofit corporation called The Accelerated Schools and is classified by the California Department of Education as a "directly funded" charter school — meaning it qualifies as its own LEA under state law. Under a memorandum of understanding with LAUSD, ACES had chosen "Option 3," which means ACES kept 80% of its special education funding and was fully responsible for all special education programming, assessments, IEPs, related services, and most placement decisions. LAUSD's only financial role was to cover the cost of residential treatment center placements if a student ever required one — a situation that never arose for Student.

Parent argued LAUSD should be held responsible for several reasons: LAUSD's name and logo appeared on IEP documents and procedural safeguard notices; IEP service logs were stored in a LAUSD computer database (Welligent); LAUSD had granted ACES its charter; and LAUSD failed to immediately deny responsibility when it responded to the complaint in February 2024. The ALJ rejected every one of these arguments. The use of LAUSD's forms and databases was simply a condition of ACES's agreement with LAUSD's SELPA — it did not transfer legal responsibility for Student's education to LAUSD. The ALJ also rejected Parent's argument that LAUSD "waived" its defense by not denying responsibility sooner, noting that parents cannot create legal liability through a procedural argument when none actually exists under the law.

The ALJ further found that LAUSD was not "involved in any decisions" regarding Student, which is the legal standard required for OAH to have jurisdiction over an agency. All IEP team members at the disputed meetings appeared to be ACES employees, and the person Parent identified as being "in charge of special education at ACES" was a corporate officer of The Accelerated Schools — not a LAUSD employee.

What Was Ordered

1. Los Angeles Unified School District was dismissed as a party from this case.
2. With no remaining respondent, the entire case was dismissed.
3. All future hearing dates were vacated.

The student's requests for relief against LAUSD were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Know which agency is actually running your child's special education before you file. Charter schools in California can be their own LEAs, fully responsible for special ed — even if your district chartered them. Before filing a complaint, find out whether the charter school is "directly funded" and what option it has chosen with the SELPA. The California Department of Education website lists this information publicly.

2. A school district's name on your IEP paperwork does not mean the district is legally responsible. LAUSD's name and logo appeared on Student's IEP and notices, but that was simply because ACES used LAUSD's standard forms as required by their agreement. Do not assume the entity whose name appears on documents is the one you should be filing against.

3. Settling with the charter school first — without preserving claims against the district — can end your entire case. In this case, once Parent settled with ACES and the ALJ ruled LAUSD wasn't responsible, there was no one left to hold accountable. If you believe multiple parties share responsibility, consult an attorney before signing any partial settlement.

4. A district's failure to deny responsibility in its initial response does not lock it into being a party. Parent argued LAUSD should be stuck because it didn't immediately say "not our problem." The ALJ disagreed — in special education administrative hearings, civil court procedural rules about waiving defenses do not automatically apply. The parent still bears the burden of proving which agency is actually responsible.