34 C.F.R. § 300.18
[Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1995–2020 · leading case: J.B. v. Killingly Board of Education
J.B. v. Killingly Board of Education (1997)
“She found that the transition services did not meet the requirements of 34 C.F.R. § 300.18 (b)(2)(i)-(iii) (1997) and that there was “no coordinated set of outcome-oriented activities that could promote movement towards independent living.”
B.R. v. New York City Department of Education (2012)
“Janelly Nieves, was not a “highly qualified special education teacher” pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 300.18 (b)(1). Id. ¶ 36 . The IHO, finding the Rebecca School had an appropriate program and that the equitable factors weighed in favor of the plaintiffs, ordered the Department to…”
Doe ex rel. Doe v. East Lyme Board of Education (2017)
“Plaintiffs speculate that perhaps Defendant intended to refer to 34 C.F.R. § 300.18 , which concerns "[h]ighly qualified special education teachers.”
Yankton School District v. Harold (1995)
“) The note to 34 C.F.R. § 300.18 (1994), reads in pertinent part: Transition services for students with disabilities may be special education, if they are provided as specially designed instruction, or related services, if they are required to assist a student with a disability…”
Mandy S. Ex Rel. Sandy F. v. Fulton County School District (2000)
“1996)(identifying three areas specified in 34 C.F.R. § 300.18 (b)(2)). Mandy was given an open referral to Vocational Rehabilitation where she was referred for and received a neuropsychological evaluation in preparation for the development of a vocational plan.”
Doe v. East Lyme Board Of Education (2020)
“14 Plaintiffs speculate that perhaps Defendant intended to refer to 34 C.F.R. § 300.18 , which concerns “[h]ighly qualified special education teachers.”
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.