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. § 300.148

Placement of children by parents when FAPE is at issue

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

(a) General. This part does not require an LEA to pay for the cost of education, including special education and related services, of a child with a disability at a private school or facility if that agency made FAPE available to the child and the parents elected to place the child in a private school or facility. However, the public agency must include that child in the population whose needs are addressed consistent with §§ 300.131 through 300.144.

(b) Disagreements about FAPE. Disagreements between the parents and a public agency regarding the availability of a program appropriate for the child, and the question of financial reimbursement, are subject to the due process procedures in §§ 300.504 through 300.520.

(c) Reimbursement for private school placement. If the parents of a child with a disability, who previously received special education and related services under the authority of a public agency, enroll the child in a private preschool, elementary school, or secondary school without the consent of or referral by the public agency, a court or a hearing officer may require the agency to reimburse the parents for the cost of that enrollment if the court or hearing officer finds that the agency had not made FAPE available to the child in a timely manner prior to that enrollment and that the private placement is appropriate. A parental placement may be found to be appropriate by a hearing officer or a court even if it does not meet the State standards that apply to education provided by the SEA and LEAs.

(d) Limitation on reimbursement. The cost of reimbursement described in paragraph (c) of this section may be reduced or denied—

(1) If—

(i) At the most recent IEP Team meeting that the parents attended prior to removal of the child from the public school, the parents did not inform the IEP Team that they were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide FAPE to their child, including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in a private school at public expense; or

(ii) At least ten (10) business days (including any holidays that occur on a business day) prior to the removal of the child from the public school, the parents did not give written notice to the public agency of the information described in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section;

(2) If, prior to the parents' removal of the child from the public school, the public agency informed the parents, through the notice requirements described in § 300.503(a)(1), of its intent to evaluate the child (including a statement of the purpose of the evaluation that was appropriate and reasonable), but the parents did not make the child available for the evaluation; or

(3) Upon a judicial finding of unreasonableness with respect to actions taken by the parents.

(e) Exception. Notwithstanding the notice requirement in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the cost of reimbursement—

(1) Must not be reduced or denied for failure to provide the notice if—

(i) The school prevented the parents from providing the notice;

(ii) The parents had not received notice, pursuant to § 300.504, of the notice requirement in paragraph (d)(1) of this section; or

(iii) Compliance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section would likely result in physical harm to the child; and

(2) May, in the discretion of the court or a hearing officer, not be reduced or denied for failure to provide this notice if—

(i) The parents are not literate or cannot write in English; or

(ii) Compliance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section would likely result in serious emotional harm to the child.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0030) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(10)(C))
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 91 cases (30 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: Dallas Independent School District v. Woody Ex Rel. K.W.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dallas Independent School District v. Woody Ex Rel. K.W. (2017) ca5 · cites it 2× “132 , 34 C.F.R. § 300.148 (a). Under IDEA, Kelsey should be given greater rights than a parentally placed student in private school Sam K.”
L. H. v. Hamilton Cty. Dep't of Educ. (2018) ca6 · cites it 2× “34 C.F.R. § 300.148 ("A parental placement may be found to be appropriate by a hearing officer or a court even if it does not meet the State standards that apply to education provided by [state and local education agencies].”
Bd. of Educ. of the Yorktown Cent. Sch. Dist. v. C.S. (2021) ca2 · cites it 2× “The statute and regulations do not affirmatively require such notice or bar parents from enrolling their child in another school without such notice, but they establish a powerful incentive to give such notice by providing that reimbursement may be “reduced or denied” if parents…”
Endrew F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. Re 1 (2018) cod · cites it 6× “§ 1412 (a)(10)(C)(ii) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.148 (c). The initial Administrative Courts Agency Decision, issued by an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") following a due process hearing, concluded that Petitioner and his parents were not entitled to reimbursement on the basis that the…”
M.G. v. District of Columbia (2017) dcd · cites it 2× “at 17-18, 20 (quoting 34 C.F.R. § 300.148 (c))), insofar as the private school did not “provide some element of special education services to the student” (id.”
Rockwall Independent School District v. M.C. ex rel. M.C. (2016) ca5 · cites it 3× “upon a judicial finding of unreasonableness with respect to actions taken by the parents”); 34 C.F.R. § 300.148 (d)(3). (same). I. A.”
Forest Grove School District v. T.A. (2008) ca9 · cites it 2× “[3] In the latter situation, the cost of reimbursement may be reduced or denied if the parents at the latest IEP meeting failed to tell the IEP team they were rejecting the public agency's proposed placement, or the parents had not given 10 days notice to the district prior to…”
O.O. Ex Rel. Pabo v. District of Columbia (2008) dcd · cites it 3× “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.148 (a). C. Strategic Decisions by Counsel The Hearing Officer concluded that plaintiffs’ counsel made “strategic decisions” that preclude plaintiffs from receiving tuition reimbursement.”
Klein Independent School Dist v. Per Hovem (2012) ca5 · cites it 2× “359, 369 (1985); see also, 34 C.F.R. 300.148(c); Forest Grove Sch. Dist.”
M.M. v. Lafayette School District (2014) ca9 · cites it 2× “§ 1412 (a)(10)(C)(ii); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.148 (c). During the OAH hearing and at the district court, the parents sought reimbursement for C.”
M.L. Ex Rel. Leiman v. Smith (2017) ca4 · cites it 2× “§ 1412 (a)(10)(C)(i); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.148 (a). A court may order the public school to pay the private school tuition only if it finds the public school did not provide the student with a FAPE, 20 U.”
Sam K. Ex Rel. Diane C. v. State of Hawaii Department of Education (2015) ca9 · cites it 2× “§ 1412 (a)(10)(C)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.148 (c). The federal statute provides that the parent must seek a hearing within two years of an alleged denial of a FAPE, but permits states to set a different limitations period.”
Show all 91 citing cases →
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(c) — 5 cases
Klein Independent School Dist v. Per Hovem (2012) ca5 “359, 369 (1985); see also, 34 C.F.R. 300.148(c); Forest Grove Sch. Dist.”
James M. Ex Rel. Sherry M. v. Hawai'i (2011) hid
PERKIOMEN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT v. R.B. (2021) paed
LE v. Methacton School District (2024) paed
A.L., on behalf of his minor child, E.L. v. Manhattan Beach Unified School District (2025) cacd
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(d) — 1 case
Melendez v. Porter (2023) nyed
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.