District Wins Manifestation Dispute: Short Timeframe and ELOP Not Covered by IDEA Discipline Rules

A parent filed an expedited due process complaint against Cupertino Union School District arguing that the district failed to hold a manifestation determination review before removing a transitional kindergartener from cooking class, a Stegel activity, and an afterschool program. The ALJ found that the district did have knowledge the student was a child with a disability, but ruled that the removals did not add up to enough school days to trigger a required manifestation determination. No remedies were awarded.

What Happened

Student was a five-year-old in transitional kindergarten (TK) at a Cupertino Union School District school. Student had previously been found eligible for special education in January 2023, but Parents revoked their consent for special education services in writing in November 2024, making Student a general education student. In early 2025, Parents consented to a new assessment plan, and evaluations were underway when the dispute arose. Parent filed an expedited due process complaint on April 29, 2025, arguing that the district had removed Student from cooking class, a physical activity called Stegel, and the last hour of the afterschool Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP) — without first holding a manifestation determination review as required under federal special education law.

Importantly, the parties had also signed a settlement agreement on April 10, 2025, resolving three prior due process cases. That agreement included a broad waiver of all claims through April 10, 2025. This meant the ALJ could only consider events from April 11 through April 29, 2025 — a narrow 13-school-day window, and even fewer days within which Student could have actually attended the disputed activities.

What the ALJ Found

On Issue 1 — Basis of Knowledge: The district actually conceded during the hearing that it had a "basis of knowledge" that Student was a child with a disability during the relevant period. This matters because federal law provides that even a student who is not currently eligible for special education may be entitled to certain disciplinary protections if the district had reason to know the student had a disability before the behavior occurred. Because assessments were underway and the district acknowledged this knowledge, the ALJ ruled in the parent's favor on this threshold question. However, winning this issue alone did not entitle Student to any remedy.

On Issue 2 — Manifestation Determination: The ALJ found that the IDEA's disciplinary protections did not apply to ELOP. Under California law, ELOP is an afterschool enrichment program — not an extension of the school day — and students are not required to attend. Because Student had no active IEP that included ELOP as part of his special education program, the IDEA's discipline rules simply did not cover that program. The ALJ also found that ELOP being closed during spring break did not count as a disciplinary removal.

As for cooking and Stegel, both activities occurred only once a week on alternating schedules. After accounting for spring break and the settlement agreement's cutoff date, Student could only have missed those activities on four school days total (two Mondays for cooking, two Tuesdays for Stegel). Federal law requires more than 10 school days of removal before a manifestation determination is triggered — four days falls far short of that threshold. The ALJ therefore found no obligation to hold a manifestation determination review, and no violation of the IDEA.

What Was Ordered

The district was found to have had a basis of knowledge that Student was a child with a disability between April 11 and April 29, 2025.
Student was not entitled to a manifestation determination review.
Student did not prevail on any other issues.
All requested relief was denied. No compensatory services or other remedies were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

Winning a threshold issue does not automatically mean you win remedies. The parent successfully proved the district knew Student had a disability — but because the remaining disciplinary claims failed, that legal victory resulted in no practical relief. Parents should understand that process arguments and outcome arguments are separate hurdles.
Settlement agreements reset the clock on disciplinary day counts. The broad waiver signed on April 10, 2025 meant that any removals before that date could not be counted toward the 10-school-day threshold. If you are settling a case while an active behavioral situation is ongoing, carefully consider whether the waiver language could block future disciplinary claims — and ask for a specific carve-out if needed.
Afterschool programs like ELOP are generally not covered by IDEA discipline rules. Unless your child's IEP specifically includes an afterschool program as part of their special education, removal from that program likely does not trigger special education protections. If your child depends on an afterschool program, work with the IEP team to include it as a required service in the IEP itself.
Revoking special education consent has serious consequences for disciplinary protections. Once Parents revoked consent, Student lost IEP protections entirely. Even though assessments were underway and the district had knowledge of a possible disability, Student's eligibility gap narrowed the protections available. Think carefully before revoking consent, especially if behavioral concerns are ongoing.