C.F.R. » Title 34 » CHAPTER III—OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION › PART 300—ASSISTANCE TO STATES FOR THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES › Subpart B—State Eligibility

34 C.F.R. § 300.107

Nonacademic services

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The State must ensure the following:

(a) Each public agency must take steps, including the provision of supplementary aids and services determined appropriate and necessary by the child's IEP Team, to provide nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities in the manner necessary to afford children with disabilities an equal opportunity for participation in those services and activities.

(b) Nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities may include counseling services, athletics, transportation, health services, recreational activities, special interest groups or clubs sponsored by the public agency, referrals to agencies that provide assistance to individuals with disabilities, and employment of students, including both employment by the public agency and assistance in making outside employment available.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0030) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(1))
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2025 · leading case: K.N. ex rel. J.N. v. Gloucester City Bd. of Educ., 379 F. Supp. 3d 334 (D.N.J. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
K.N. ex rel. J.N. v. Gloucester City Bd. of Educ., 379 F. Supp. 3d 334 (D.N.J. 2019). “An ADA regulation, 34 C.F.R. § 300.107 (a) requires: Each public agency must take steps, including the provision of supplementary aids and services determined appropriate and necessary by the child's IEP Team, to provide nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities in…”
Meares v. Rim of the World Unified Sch. Dist., 269 F. Supp. 3d 1041 (C.D. Cal. 2016). · cites it 2× “Specifically, Plaintiff relies on 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.107 (a) and 300.117 as imposing requirements above the demands of FAPE.”
Jennifer D. Ex Rel. Travis D. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 550 F. Supp. 2d 420 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.107 , 300.117, the plaintiff has not challenged the January 31, 2006 IEP on this basis.”
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12 v. Minnesota Dep't of Educ., 767 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “34 C.F.R. § 300.107 (a) (2008). The regulations explain that the duty to provide an equal opportunity means that “each public agency must ensure that each child with a disability participates with nondisabled children in the extracurricular services and activities to the maximum…”
A.J. ex rel. C.L.J. v. Bd. of Educ., 679 F. Supp. 2d 299 (E.D.N.Y 2010). · cites it 2× “For example, 34 C.F.R. § 300.107 (a) provides that once a district determines eligibility, the district must provide “nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities in the manner necessary to afford children with disabilities an equal opportunity for participation in…”
Ruby J. v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 122 F. Supp. 3d 1288 (N.D. Ala. 2015). “34 C.F.R. 300.107; 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (a)(1); 290-8-9.”
Elizabeth Tveter v. Pinkerton Academy et al., 2020 DNH 193 (D.N.H. 2020). · cites it 4× “180-1 at 10-11 (citing 34 C.F.R. § 300.107 ). The defendants also argue that no reasonable jury could find, based on the summary judgment record, that they are 14 liable on any of the remaining claims.”
Aj Ex Rel. Clj v. Bd. of Educ., 679 F. Supp. 2d 299 (E.D.N.Y 2010). · cites it 2× “For example, 34 C.F.R. § 300.107 (a) provides that once a district determines eligibility, the district must provide "nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities in the manner necessary to afford children with disabilities an equal opportunity for participation in…”
Tveter v. Derry Coop. Sch. Dist. SAU 10 (D.N.H. 2020). “” See 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.107 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (a)(1)), 300.”
JA v. Royal Oak Sch. Dist. (E.D. Mich. 2025). “The ALJ briefly concluded that the evidence surrounding the dance was insufficient to show a denial of equal access under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.107 (a) and 300.117. In this court’s view, that (admittedly limited point) was error.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.