34 C.F.R. § 300.152

Minimum State complaint procedures

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

(a) Time limit; minimum procedures. Each SEA must include in its complaint procedures a time limit of 60 days after a complaint is filed under § 300.153 to—

(1) Carry out an independent on-site investigation, if the SEA determines that an investigation is necessary;

(2) Give the complainant the opportunity to submit additional information, either orally or in writing, about the allegations in the complaint;

(3) Provide the public agency with the opportunity to respond to the complaint, including, at a minimum—

(i) At the discretion of the public agency, a proposal to resolve the complaint; and

(ii) An opportunity for a parent who has filed a complaint and the public agency to voluntarily engage in mediation consistent with § 300.506;

(4) Review all relevant information and make an independent determination as to whether the public agency is violating a requirement of Part B of the Act or of this part; and

(5) Issue a written decision to the complainant that addresses each allegation in the complaint and contains—

(i) Findings of fact and conclusions; and

(ii) The reasons for the SEA's final decision.

(b) Time extension; final decision; implementation. The SEA's procedures described in paragraph (a) of this section also must—

(1) Permit an extension of the time limit under paragraph (a) of this section only if—

(i) Exceptional circumstances exist with respect to a particular complaint; or

(ii) The parent (or individual or organization, if mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution is available to the individual or organization under State procedures) and the public agency involved agree to extend the time to engage in mediation pursuant to paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, or to engage in other alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State; and

(2) Include procedures for effective implementation of the SEA's final decision, if needed, including—

(i) Technical assistance activities;

(ii) Negotiations; and

(iii) Corrective actions to achieve compliance.

(c) Complaints filed under this section and due process hearings under § 300.507 and §§ 300.530 through 300.532. (1) If a written complaint is received that is also the subject of a due process hearing under § 300.507 or §§ 300.530 through 300.532, or contains multiple issues of which one or more are part of that hearing, the State must set aside any part of the complaint that is being addressed in the due process hearing until the conclusion of the hearing. However, any issue in the complaint that is not a part of the due process action must be resolved using the time limit and procedures described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

(2) If an issue raised in a complaint filed under this section has previously been decided in a due process hearing involving the same parties—

(i) The due process hearing decision is binding on that issue; and

(ii) The SEA must inform the complainant to that effect.

(3) A complaint alleging a public agency's failure to implement a due process hearing decision must be resolved by the SEA.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 1820-0030 and 1820-0600) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case: I.L. ex rel. Taylor v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 257 F. Supp. 3d 946 (E.D. Tenn. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

I.L. ex rel. Taylor v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 257 F. Supp. 3d 946 (E.D. Tenn. 2017). · cites it 3× “34 C.F.R. § 300.152 . Meanwhile, the school convenes a preliminary meeting between the parents, school officials,'and the child’s IEP team.”

M.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “34 C.F.R. § 300.152 (c)(1) (“If a written complaint is received that is also the subject of a due process hearing .”

S.B. v. Cal. Dep't of Educ., 327 F. Supp. 3d 1218 (E.D. Cal. 2018). “" Rather, the claim involved a challenge to CDE's oversight of OAH hearings and CDE's decision to stay its investigation of the parents' complaint under 34 C.F.R. § 300.152 pending the outcome of a due process hearing.”

R.V. v. Rivera, 220 F. Supp. 3d 588 (E.D. Pa. 2016). · cites it 2× “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.152 (c)(1) (where a state complaint is filed that is already the subject of a due process complaint, the SEA must stay the portion of its investigation that is subject to IDEA due process until the due process hearing concludes); 34 C.”

Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272 (5th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “104 34 CFR § 300.152 . -45- the construction changes were made in response to Pace’s IEP facilitator’s instructions.”

Millay Ex Rel. YRM v. Surry Sch. Dep't, 584 F. Supp. 2d 219 (D. Me. 2008). · cites it 3× “Although a due process hearing officer’s resolution of an issue is binding on the CRP where the issue is resolved in both fora, 34 C.F.R. § 300.152 (c)(2), the CRP is not a procedure without substance.”

A. ex rel. A. v. Hartford Bd. of Educ., 976 F. Supp. 2d 164 (D. Conn. 2013). · cites it 4× “5 A second statutory argument could also be made that Plaintiffs did not have a right to seek this Court’s enforcement of the administrative hearing officer’s decision under both 34 C.F.R. § 300.152 and C.G.S.A. § 10-76h.”

Fetto v. Sergi, 181 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D. Conn. 2001). “§ 1413 (a); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.152 . Further, the duty of the state educational agency to comply with the IDEA does not “limit the responsibility of agencies other than educational agencies in a State from providing or paying for some or all of the costs of a free…”

K.W. v. Dist.. of Columbia, 385 F. Supp. 3d 29 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “See 34 C.F.R. 300.152(c) ; see generally 20 U.”

Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Ass'n v. California Dep't of Educ., 258 F. Supp. 3d 1114 (E.D. Cal. 2017). “34 C.F.R. § 300.152 (a). The IDEA and its regulations do not specify whether a party who is dissatisfied with the state’s decision in this respect may obtain further review in federal court.”

C.C. Ex Rel. Mrs. D. v. Granby Bd. of Educ., 453 F. Supp. 2d 569 (D. Conn. 2006). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.152 (c)(3) (effective Oct.”

B.D. Ex Rel. Davis v. Dist. of Columbia, 75 F. Supp. 3d 225 (D.D.C. 2014). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.152 (c)(3) (emphasis added).”

Show all 25 citing cases →

— 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(c) — 2 cases

K.W. v. Dist.. of Columbia, 385 F. Supp. 3d 29 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “See 34 C.F.R. 300.152(c) ; see generally 20 U.”

K.W. v. Dist. of Columbia (D.D.C. 2019).

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.