34 C.F.R. § 300.307

Specific learning disabilities

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

(a) General. A State must adopt, consistent with § 300.309, criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in § 300.8(c)(10). In addition, the criteria adopted by the State—

(1) Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in § 300.8(c)(10);

(2) Must permit the use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention; and

(3) May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in § 300.8(c)(10).

(b) Consistency with State criteria. A public agency must use the State criteria adopted pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section in determining whether a child has a specific learning disability.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 1401(30); 1414(b)(6))

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: Michael P. v. Dep't of Educ., 656 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Michael P. v. Dep't of Educ., 656 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 16× “14, 2006) (to be codified at 34 C.F.R. § 300.307 ). The amended regulations provide that an evaluation team may find a child eligible for special education under the "specific learning disability" classification if the child demonstrates (1) inadequate *1062 achievement relative…”

Davis v. Dist. of Columbia, 244 F. Supp. 3d 27 (D.D.C. 2017). · cites it 3× “See 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.307 , .309(a); 5-E D.C. Mun.”

Diaz-Fonseca v. Commonwealth of PR, 451 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2006). “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.307 (a) (“Physi *21 cal education services, specially designed if necessary, must be made available to every child with a disability receiving FAPE.”

D.B. v. Bedford Cnty. Sch. Bd., 708 F. Supp. 2d 564 (W.D. Va. 2010). · cites it 5× “34 C.F.R. § 300.307 (a). A public agency must use the state criteria adopted pursuant to 34 C.”

Myles S. Ex Rel. SS v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 824 F. Supp. 1549 (M.D. Ala. 1993). · cites it 2× “” The hearing officer found that another regulation, 34 C.F.R. § 300.307 , provides that physical education must be .”

Mifflin Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Special Educ. Due Process Appeals Bd., 800 A.2d 1010 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002). “34 C.F.R. § 300.307 . Because the physical and occupational therapy was sufficient, the Panel denied the Fishers’ request for 282 hours of compensatory education based on the inadequacy of this therapy.”

Dr. P. Schellbach v. Colonial IU 20 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “To support her disagreement with the eligibility criteria used by the District, Appellant observes that under 34 CFR §300.307 , state criteria “must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and 8 achievement for determining whether a child has a…”

Reynolds v. George Cnty. Sch. Dist. (S.D. Miss. 2022). “at 1556 (citing 34 C.F.R. § 300.307 (c) (“[The Act] contemplates that the determination whether special education is necessary will be determined by the [plan].”

J.M. v. Summit City Bd. of Educ. (D.N.J. 2020). “2; see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.307 (a). The Parents argue that they presented evidence showing a severe discrepancy between C.”

P.F. v. Ocean Twp. Bd. of Educ. (D.N.J. 2022). “2; see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.307 (a). Applying the severe discrepancy approach, I find that the District, as it was required to do, considered a variety of assessments in addition to the results of the UTAH Estimator, when making its Eligibility Determination.”

G.M. v. William J. Barnes (4th Cir. 2024). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.307 (a). Maryland has done so.”

— 34 C.F.R. § 300.307(a) — 1 case

D.B. v. Bedford Cnty. Sch. Bd., 708 F. Supp. 2d 564 (W.D. Va. 2010). “34 C.F.R. § 300.307 (a). A public agency must use the state criteria adopted pursuant to 34 C.”

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.