C.F.R. » Title 34 » CHAPTER III—OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION › PART 300—ASSISTANCE TO STATES FOR THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES › Subpart D—Evaluations, Eligibility Determinations, Individualized Education Programs, and Educational Placements

34 C.F.R. § 300.324

Development, review, and revision of IEP

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

(a) Development of IEP—(1) General. In developing each child's IEP, the IEP Team must consider—

(i) The strengths of the child;

(ii) The concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child;

(iii) The results of the initial or most recent evaluation of the child; and

(iv) The academic, developmental, and functional needs of the child.

(2) Consideration of special factors. The IEP Team must—

(i) In the case of a child whose behavior impedes the child's learning or that of others, consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior;

(ii) In the case of a child with limited English proficiency, consider the language needs of the child as those needs relate to the child's IEP;

(iii) In the case of a child who is blind or visually impaired, provide for instruction in Braille and the use of Braille unless the IEP Team determines, after an evaluation of the child's reading and writing skills, needs, and appropriate reading and writing media (including an evaluation of the child's future needs for instruction in Braille or the use of Braille), that instruction in Braille or the use of Braille is not appropriate for the child;

(iv) Consider the communication needs of the child, and in the case of a child who is deaf or hard of hearing, consider the child's language and communication needs, opportunities for direct communications with peers and professional personnel in the child's language and communication mode, academic level, and full range of needs, including opportunities for direct instruction in the child's language and communication mode; and

(v) Consider whether the child needs assistive technology devices and services.

(3) Requirement with respect to regular education teacher. A regular education teacher of a child with a disability, as a member of the IEP Team, must, to the extent appropriate, participate in the development of the IEP of the child, including the determination of—

(i) Appropriate positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies for the child; and

(ii) Supplementary aids and services, program modifications, and support for school personnel consistent with § 300.320(a)(4).

(4) Agreement. (i) In making changes to a child's IEP after the annual IEP Team meeting for a school year, the parent of a child with a disability and the public agency may agree not to convene an IEP Team meeting for the purposes of making those changes, and instead may develop a written document to amend or modify the child's current IEP.

(ii) If changes are made to the child's IEP in accordance with paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section, the public agency must ensure that the child's IEP Team is informed of those changes.

(5) Consolidation of IEP Team meetings. To the extent possible, the public agency must encourage the consolidation of reevaluation meetings for the child and other IEP Team meetings for the child.

(6) Amendments. Changes to the IEP may be made either by the entire IEP Team at an IEP Team meeting, or as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, by amending the IEP rather than by redrafting the entire IEP. Upon request, a parent must be provided with a revised copy of the IEP with the amendments incorporated.

(b) Review and revision of IEPs—(1) General. Each public agency must ensure that, subject to paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section, the IEP Team—

(i) Reviews the child's IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved; and

(ii) Revises the IEP, as appropriate, to address—

(A) Any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals described in § 300.320(a)(2), and in the general education curriculum, if appropriate;

(B) The results of any reevaluation conducted under § 300.303;

(C) Information about the child provided to, or by, the parents, as described under § 300.305(a)(2);

(D) The child's anticipated needs; or

(E) Other matters.

(2) Consideration of special factors. In conducting a review of the child's IEP, the IEP Team must consider the special factors described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

(3) Requirement with respect to regular education teacher. A regular education teacher of the child, as a member of the IEP Team, must, consistent with paragraph (a)(3) of this section, participate in the review and revision of the IEP of the child.

(c) Failure to meet transition objectives—(1) Participating agency failure. If a participating agency, other than the public agency, fails to provide the transition services described in the IEP in accordance with § 300.320(b), the public agency must reconvene the IEP Team to identify alternative strategies to meet the transition objectives for the child set out in the IEP.

(2) Construction. Nothing in this part relieves any participating agency, including a State vocational rehabilitation agency, of the responsibility to provide or pay for any transition service that the agency would otherwise provide to children with disabilities who meet the eligibility criteria of that agency.

(d) Children with disabilities in adult prisons—(1) Requirements that do not apply. The following requirements do not apply to children with disabilities who are convicted as adults under State law and incarcerated in adult prisons:

(i) The requirements contained in section 612(a)(16) of the Act and § 300.320(a)(6) (relating to participation of children with disabilities in general assessments).

(ii) The requirements in § 300.320(b) (relating to transition planning and transition services) do not apply with respect to the children whose eligibility under Part B of the Act will end, because of their age, before they will be eligible to be released from prison based on consideration of their sentence and eligibility for early release.

(2) Modifications of IEP or placement. (i) Subject to paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section, the IEP Team of a child with a disability who is convicted as an adult under State law and incarcerated in an adult prison may modify the child's IEP or placement if the State has demonstrated a bona fide security or compelling penological interest that cannot otherwise be accommodated.

(ii) The requirements of §§ 300.320 (relating to IEPs), and 300.114 (relating to LRE), do not apply with respect to the modifications described in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(1), 1412(a)(12)(A)(i), 1414(d)(3), (4)(B), and (7); and 1414(e)) [71 FR 46753, Aug. 14, 2006, as amended at 82 FR 29761, June 30, 2017]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 85 cases (26 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: L.O. ex rel. K.T. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 822 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
L.O. ex rel. K.T. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 822 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “§ 1414 (c)(1)(A); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.324 (a)(l)(iii) (“In developing each child’s IEP, the IEP Team must consider .”
D.Z. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 2 A.3d 712 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “[5] See 34 C.F.R. § 300.324 (2006) (providing for, at a minimum, annual review of a student's IEP); 34 C.”
Brown v. Dist. of Columbia, 179 F. Supp. 3d 15 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 2× “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.324 . After plaintiffs IEP was- drafted but before he was assigned to Anacostia HS, plaintiff was shot eight times, sustaining serious physical and emotional injuries.”
Ms. M. v. Falmouth Sch. Dep't, 847 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2017). “TEP’ means a written statement” (emphasis added)); 34 C.F.R. § 300.324 (a)(4)(i) (stating that any change or modification to a child’s IEP should be made via a “written document” (emphasis added)).”
T.R. v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 223 F. Supp. 3d 321 (E.D. Pa. 2016). · cites it 2× “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.324 (a)(2)(ii); see 20 U.”
Middleton v. Dist. of Columbia, 312 F. Supp. 3d 113 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “" 34 C.F.R. § 300.324 (a)(2)(i). Courts in this jurisdiction have assumed that a student may be denied a FAPE if his educational plan does not contain sufficient interventions to adequately address attendance issues.”
C.F. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 746 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2014). “§ 1414 (d)(3)(B)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.324 (a)(2)®. For students with autism, Committees shall include provisions for parent counseling and training.”
V.W. ex rel. Williams v. Conway, 236 F. Supp. 3d 554 (N.D.N.Y. 2017). “101-102 , with 34 C.F.R. § 300.324 (d)(1) (emphasis added).”
Bd. of Educ. of the Yorktown Cent. Sch. Dist. v. C.S., 990 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2021). “34 C.F.R. § 300.324 (a)(1)(ii). Further, among other required features, an IEP must set forth in writing the effects of the child’s disability on the child’s ability to learn and list any special services that the school district commits to providing the child to address those…”
N.W. v. Dist. of Columbia, 253 F. Supp. 3d 5 (D.D.C. 2017). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.324 (1)(ii). Schools are required to involve parents at the IEP meeting.”
I.L. ex rel. Taylor v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 257 F. Supp. 3d 946 (E.D. Tenn. 2017). “To shore up her argument, Taylor cites 34 C.F.R. § 300.324 (a)(3). But this passage is concerned only with the regular-class teacher’s participation as a member of the IEP team.”
Spring Branch Indep Sch Dist v. O.W., 961 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 2020). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.324 (a)(4)(i). Unless the IEP is modified by agreement in accordance with paragraph (a)(4), it may be modified only “by the entire IEP Team at an IEP Team meeting.”
Show all 85 citing cases →
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a) — 1 case
N.K.M. v. Rye City Sch. Dist. (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(b) — 1 case
P.M.B. v. Ridgefield Bd. of Educ., 944 F.3d 473 (2d Cir. 2019).
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(b)(1)(i) — 1 case
L.H. v. Chino Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 944 F. Supp. 2d 867 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(b)(1)(ii)(D) — 1 case
A.T. v. Oley Valley Sch. Dist. (E.D. Pa. 2021).
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(b)(ii) — 1 case
Coleman v. Dist. of Columbia (D.D.C. 2026).
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.