34 C.F.R. § 300.321

IEP Team

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

(a) General. The public agency must ensure that the IEP Team for each child with a disability includes—

(1) The parents of the child;

(2) Not less than one regular education teacher of the child (if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment);

(3) Not less than one special education teacher of the child, or where appropriate, not less than one special education provider of the child;

(4) A representative of the public agency who—

(i) Is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities;

(ii) Is knowledgeable about the general education curriculum; and

(iii) Is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the public agency.

(5) An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results, who may be a member of the team described in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(6) of this section;

(6) At the discretion of the parent or the agency, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related services personnel as appropriate; and

(7) Whenever appropriate, the child with a disability.

(b) Transition services participants. (1) In accordance with paragraph (a)(7) of this section, the public agency must invite a child with a disability to attend the child's IEP Team meeting if a purpose of the meeting will be the consideration of the postsecondary goals for the child and the transition services needed to assist the child in reaching those goals under § 300.320(b).

(2) If the child does not attend the IEP Team meeting, the public agency must take other steps to ensure that the child's preferences and interests are considered.

(3) To the extent appropriate, with the consent of the parents or a child who has reached the age of majority, in implementing the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the public agency must invite a representative of any participating agency that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services.

(c) Determination of knowledge and special expertise. The determination of the knowledge or special expertise of any individual described in paragraph (a)(6) of this section must be made by the party (parents or public agency) who invited the individual to be a member of the IEP Team.

(d) Designating a public agency representative. A public agency may designate a public agency member of the IEP Team to also serve as the agency representative, if the criteria in paragraph (a)(4) of this section are satisfied.

(e) IEP Team attendance. (1) A member of the IEP Team described in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(5) of this section is not required to attend an IEP Team meeting, in whole or in part, if the parent of a child with a disability and the public agency agree, in writing, that the attendance of the member is not necessary because the member's area of the curriculum or related services is not being modified or discussed in the meeting.

(2) A member of the IEP Team described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section may be excused from attending an IEP Team meeting, in whole or in part, when the meeting involves a modification to or discussion of the member's area of the curriculum or related services, if—

(i) The parent, in writing, and the public agency consent to the excusal; and

(ii) The member submits, in writing to the parent and the IEP Team, input into the development of the IEP prior to the meeting.

(f) Initial IEP Team meeting for child under Part C. In the case of a child who was previously served under Part C of the Act, an invitation to the initial IEP Team meeting must, at the request of the parent, be sent to the Part C service coordinator or other representatives of the Part C system to assist with the smooth transition of services.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(B)-(d)(1)(D)) [71 FR 46753, Aug. 14, 2006, as amended at 72 FR 61307, Oct. 30, 2007]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 52 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: Gibson Ex Rel. Gibson v. Forest Hills Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 655 F. App'x 423 (6th Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gibson Ex Rel. Gibson v. Forest Hills Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 655 F. App'x 423 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 7× “*430 The court found that Forest Hills compounded this error by failing to take other steps to consider Chloe’s transition-related preferences and interests, as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.321 (b)(2) and Ohio Admin.”

Pitta v. Medeiros, 90 F.4th 11 (1st Cir. 2024). “§§ 1414 (d)(1)(B), 1414(d)(1)(C) (defining the members of the IEP team and policies for IEP Team attendance); 34 C.F.R. 300.321 (outlining policies for IEP Team composition and attendance).”

Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Woody Ex Rel. K.W., 865 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2017). “§ 1414 (d)(1)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.321 . Texas calls such a team the ARD Committee.”

L.J. ex rel. Hudson v. Pittsburg Unified Sch. Dist., 850 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2016). “34 C.F.R. § 300.321 (a)(6), L.J.’s mother had the right to have L.”

T.B. v. Prince George's Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 897 F.3d 566 (4th Cir. 2018). “PGCPS also failed to include, as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.321 (a)(2) and Reg. 13A.05.”

GB v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 145 F. Supp. 3d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). · cites it 2× “§ 1414 (d)(l)(B)(iv); 34 CFR 300.321(a)(4); 8 NYCRR 200.3(a)(l)(v), who must be “(I) qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities; (II) knowledgeable about the general education…”

Anchorage Sch. Dist. v. M.P., 689 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2012). “The team that develops an IEP must consist of, at a minimum, the parents, at least one of the child’s regular education teachers, at least one special education teacher, and a qualified representative of the local educational agency.”

Doug C. Ex Rel. Spencer C. v. State of Hawaii Dep't of Educ., 720 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2013). “Indeed, the Supreme Court has stressed that the IDEA’S structure relies upon parental participation to ensure the substantive success of the IDEA in providing quality education to disabled students: [W]e think that the importance Congress attached to these procedural safeguards…”

C.W. v. City Sch. Dist., 171 F. Supp. 3d 126 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.321 (b)(1). The DOE offers no excuse for its failure to invite W.”

Turner v. Dist. of Columbia, 952 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2013). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.321 (a)(3). Plaintiff alleges that defendant convened an improperly constituted IEP team because none of B.”

Fitzgerald v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 556 F. Supp. 2d 543 (E.D. Va. 2008). · cites it 2× “” Questions and Answers on Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), Evaluations, and Reevaluations, 47 IDELR 166, at *4-5 (Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 2007) (interpreting 34 C.F.R. § 300.321 ). Guidance from the Office of Special Programs (“OSEP”)…”

A.M. ex rel. Y.N. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 964 F. Supp. 2d 270 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “As relevant here, the statute and regulations require that the special education teacher participating on the CSE be the special education teacher “of the child,” 34 C.F.R. § 300.321 (a)(3); see also 20 U.”

Show all 52 citing cases →

— 34 C.F.R. § 300.321(a) — 1 case

Horen v. Bd. of Educ. of Toledo Pub. Sch. Dist., 948 F. Supp. 2d 793 (N.D. Ohio 2013).

— 34 C.F.R. § 300.321(a)(2) — 1 case

R.G. ex rel. F.G. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 980 F. Supp. 2d 345 (E.D.N.Y 2013).

— 34 C.F.R. § 300.321(a)(4) — 1 case

GB v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 145 F. Supp. 3d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). “§ 1414 (d)(l)(B)(iv); 34 CFR 300.321(a)(4); 8 NYCRR 200.3(a)(l)(v), who must be “(I) qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities; (II) knowledgeable about the general education…”

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.