(a) States. This part applies to each State that receives payments under Part B of the Act, as defined in § 300.4.
(b) Public agencies within the State. The provisions of this part—
(1) Apply to all political subdivisions of the State that are involved in the education of children with disabilities, including:
(i) The State educational agency (SEA).
(ii) Local educational agencies (LEAs), educational service agencies (ESAs), and public charter schools that are not otherwise included as LEAs or ESAs and are not a school of an LEA or ESA.
(iii) Other State agencies and schools (such as Departments of Mental Health and Welfare and State schools for children with deafness or children with blindness).
(iv) State and local juvenile and adult correctional facilities; and
(2) Are binding on each public agency in the State that provides special education and related services to children with disabilities, regardless of whether that agency is receiving funds under Part B of the Act.
(c) Private schools and facilities. Each public agency in the State is responsible for ensuring that the rights and protections under Part B of the Act are given to children with disabilities—
(1) Referred to or placed in private schools and facilities by that public agency; or
(2) Placed in private schools by their parents under the provisions of § 300.148.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412)
Notes of Decisions
Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247 (3rd Cir. 2014).
· cites it 2× “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.2 (a). 40 A FAPE consists of educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from the instruction.”
Michigan Prot. & Advocacy Serv., Inc. v. Caruso, 581 F. Supp. 2d 847 (W.D. Mich. 2008).
· cites it 7× “Plaintiff MPAS points to a federal regulation, 34 C.F.R. § 300.2 . That regulation, entitled Public Agencies within the State, provides, in pertinent part, (a) States.”
V.W. ex rel. Williams v. Conway, 236 F. Supp. 3d 554 (N.D.N.Y. 2017).
“34 C.F.R. §§ 300.2 (b)(1)(ii)-(iii). And with specific, limited exceptions for children with disabilities “who are convicted as adults under State law and incarcerated in adult prisons,” all age-eligible students with disabilities are entitled to a FAPE.”
In Re C.S., 804 A.2d 307 (D.C. 2002).
· cites it 2× “34 C.F.R. § 300.2 (b)(1)(iv); 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401 (27), and 1411 (2000).”
James v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist., 918 F. Supp. 772 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
· cites it 3× “34 C.F.R. § 300.2 (b) (emphasis added). While local social services departments are not explicitly mentioned among the listed agencies, that list is not exclusive.”
Parks Ex Rel. Parks v. Pavkovic, 557 F. Supp. 1280 (N.D. Ill. 1983).
· cites it 5× “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.2 (b) (1981). DMHDD surely is involved in the education of handicapped children; it pays for the education of Lester and hundreds of handicapped children like him each year.”
J.M. v. Montana High Sch. Ass'n, 875 P.2d 1026 (Mont. 1994).
· cites it 2× “§§ 1401 (a)(7)&(8), 1412(6), 34 C.F.R. § 300.2 (b) (1992). The State and local education agencies are required to guarantee procedural safeguards for handicapped children, in providing a free and appropriate public education.”
A.W. v. Jersey City Pub. Schs., 341 F.3d 234 (3rd Cir. 2003).
“, 34 C.F.R. § 300.2 (“This part applies to each State that receives payments under Part B of Act”); Town of Burlington v.”
BARRON EX REL. DB v. South Dakota Bd. of Regents, 655 F.3d 787 (8th Cir. 2011).
“24 :05:15:05 (entitled, “Complaint against a school district”); 24:05:21:01 (“Each local education agency must have a current comprehensive plan approved by the school board on file with the district superintendent or designee.”
Alexander S. Ex Rel. Bowers v. Boyd, 876 F. Supp. 773 (D.S.C. 1995).
“34 C.F.R. § 300.2 (b)(4). *801 Section 504 Section 504 provides that no otherwise qualified individual with a disability shall, solely because of that disability, be excluded from participation in or subject to discrimination “under any program or activity” receiving federal…”
Hester v. Dist. of Columbia, 505 F.3d 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
“See 34 C.F.R. § 300.2 (applying IDEA to state and local correctional facilities); see also 20 U.”
Cmty. Consol. Sch. v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 576 N.E.2d 250 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991).
“The EHA enforcing regulations specifically provide that its requirements and obligations extend to all political subdivisions involved in the education of handicapped children ( 34 C.F.R. §300.2 (b) (1990)) including: (1) The State education agency; (2) Local education agencies…”
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.2(b) — 1 case
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.2(b)(iii) — 1 case
BARRON EX REL. DB v. South Dakota Bd. of Regents, 655 F.3d 787 (8th Cir. 2011).
“24 :05:15:05 (entitled, “Complaint against a school district”); 24:05:21:01 (“Each local education agency must have a current comprehensive plan approved by the school board on file with the district superintendent or designee.”
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.