Charter School Ignored Two IEE Requests for Nearly a Year While Student Regressed

What Happened

A student with disabilities attended Options for Youth, a charter school in California. The parent disagreed with the charter school's assessments and made two separate requests for independent educational evaluations at public expense.

The charter school did not respond to either request. It did not agree to fund the evaluations. It did not file for due process to defend its own assessments. For nearly a full year, the parent's IEE requests went unanswered while the student continued in a program that may not have been meeting their needs.

What the District Did Wrong

Two Requests, Zero Responses

The first IEE request triggered the charter school's legal obligation to act. When the school failed to respond, the parent made a second request — essentially giving the school a second chance to comply with the law. The school ignored that request too.

This was not a case of miscommunication or a request falling through the cracks. Two formal IEE requests over the course of nearly a year represent a pattern of deliberate noncompliance with a fundamental parent right.

Charter Schools Are Not Exempt

Options for Youth appeared to operate as though IEE obligations either did not apply to charter schools or could be deferred indefinitely. Neither is true. Charter schools that enroll students with disabilities have the same IDEA obligations as traditional public school districts.

What the Judge Found

ALJ Jennifer Kelly-Gard found that Options for Youth violated the IDEA by failing to respond to both IEE requests without unnecessary delay. The ALJ concluded that nearly a year of inaction on two separate requests far exceeded any reasonable interpretation of the "without unnecessary delay" standard in 34 C.F.R. section 300.502.

The ALJ found that the charter school's failure to respond to the IEE requests was a procedural violation that denied the parent meaningful participation in educational decision-making. Without independent evaluation data, the parent could not effectively challenge the charter school's assessment findings or advocate for appropriate services at IEP meetings.

The ALJ also found that the failure to respond constituted a denial of FAPE because it deprived the student of the independent information needed to develop an appropriate educational program.

What Was Ordered

1. Options for Youth must fund the requested independent educational evaluations at public expense

2. The evaluations must be conducted by qualified evaluators of the parent's choosing who meet the applicable IEE criteria

3. The charter school was ordered to ensure the evaluations were provided without further delay

Why This Matters for Parents

This decision is significant for families whose children attend charter schools, and for any parent whose IEE request has been ignored.

1. Charter schools must follow IEE rules. Some charter schools operate with less administrative infrastructure than traditional districts, but that does not excuse them from IDEA compliance. If your child attends a charter school and you request an IEE, the charter school has the same "without unnecessary delay" obligation as any district.

2. Repeated requests strengthen your case. When this parent made a second IEE request after the first was ignored, it eliminated any argument that the school was unaware of the request or that it was ambiguous. If your first request goes unanswered, send a second one — by certified mail — citing 34 C.F.R. section 300.502 and noting the date of your original request.

3. A year of silence is indefensible. Districts and charter schools sometimes argue that "without unnecessary delay" is vague and does not set a specific timeline. While that is technically true, nearly a year of complete inaction is indefensible by any standard. Even a few weeks of delay without explanation can be problematic.

4. Silence is not a valid response. A district cannot respond to an IEE request by simply doing nothing. The IDEA requires an affirmative response — either agreeing to fund the IEE or filing for due process. Silence is itself a violation.

If your IEE request has gone unanswered for more than two weeks, send a written follow-up referencing this decision and 34 C.F.R. section 300.502(b)(2). If the silence continues past 30 days, consider filing a compliance complaint with the California Department of Education or a due process request.