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. § 300.117

Nonacademic settings

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

In providing or arranging for the provision of nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities, including meals, recess periods, and the services and activities set forth in § 300.107, each public agency must ensure that each child with a disability participates with nondisabled children in the extracurricular services and activities to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of that child. The public agency must ensure that each child with a disability has the supplementary aids and services determined by the child's IEP Team to be appropriate and necessary for the child to participate in nonacademic settings.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0030) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(5))
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: Dist. of Columbia v. Masucci, 13 F. Supp. 3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dist. of Columbia v. Masucci, 13 F. Supp. 3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “116 (c), (e); 34 CFR § 300.117 . The Court does not agree that the placement is necessarily violative of the IDEA, as the "least restrictive environment” requirement does not apply to a parent-initiated placement.”
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12 v. Minnesota Dep't of Educ., 767 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.117 (2008) (emphasis added).”
Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. S.B. ex rel. J.B., 788 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (N.D. Ala. 2011). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.117 provides 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 extent appropriate to the needs of that child.”
Elizabeth Tveter v. Pinkerton Academy, 2020 DNH 193 (D.N.H. 2020). “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.117 . 24 interpretive tools where they do not “undo or limit that which the text makes plain”).”
Tveter v. Derry Coop. Sch. Dist. SAU 10, No. 1:16-cv-00329 (D.N.H. Nov. 2, 2020). “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.117 . interpretive tools where they do not “undo or limit that which the text makes plain”).”
JA v. Royal Oak Sch. Dist., No. 4:23-cv-13106 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 4, 2025). “was afforded an equal opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities The IDEA’s implementing regulations require that disabled students have equal access to extracurricular activities.”
N. T. v. Galesburg Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 205, 174 F.4th 1044 (7th Cir. 2026). “” 34 CFR § 300.117 ; see also § 300.107. But the preference for mainstreaming students with disa- bilities is not absolute.”
Dist. of Columbia v. Masucci, No. 2013-1008 (D.D.C. Jan. 30, 2014). “116 (c),(e); 34 CFR § 300.117 . The Court does not agree that the placement is necessarily violative of the IDEA, as the “least restrictive environment” requirement does not apply to a parent-initiated placement.”
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.