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. § 300.325

Private school placements by public agencies

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

(a) Developing IEPs. (1) Before a public agency places a child with a disability in, or refers a child to, a private school or facility, the agency must initiate and conduct a meeting to develop an IEP for the child in accordance with §§ 300.320 and 300.324.

(2) The agency must ensure that a representative of the private school or facility attends the meeting. If the representative cannot attend, the agency must use other methods to ensure participation by the private school or facility, including individual or conference telephone calls.

(b) Reviewing and revising IEPs. (1) After a child with a disability enters a private school or facility, any meetings to review and revise the child's IEP may be initiated and conducted by the private school or facility at the discretion of the public agency.

(2) If the private school or facility initiates and conducts these meetings, the public agency must ensure that the parents and an agency representative—

(i) Are involved in any decision about the child's IEP; and

(ii) Agree to any proposed changes in the IEP before those changes are implemented.

(c) Responsibility. Even if a private school or facility implements a child's IEP, responsibility for compliance with this part remains with the public agency and the SEA.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(10)(B))
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: Chaya Loffman v. California Dep't of Educ., 119 F.4th 1147 (9th Cir. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chaya Loffman v. California Dep't of Educ., 119 F.4th 1147 (9th Cir. 2024). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.325 (c). A representative of the LOFFMAN V.”
J.T. v. Dist. of Columbia (D.D.C. 2020). · cites it 16× “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.325 (a)(1). “The agency must ensure that a representative of the private school or facility attends the meeting.”
R.A. Ex Rel. Habash v. West Contra Costa Unified Sch. Dist., 696 F. App'x 171 (9th Cir. 2017). “34 C.F.R. § 300.325 (a)(1)-(2). R.A.’s parents, however, provide no developed argument advancing how and why the absence of an Anova representative directly affected their rights.”
J.T. v. Dist. of Columbia (D.D.C. 2023). · cites it 2× “I, ‘[the defendant] did not convene [ ] a meeting attended by both [the] plaintiff and representatives of [Sheppard Pratt]’ before the location assignment was made.”
Spurwink Servs. Inc v. Doe (D. Me. 2025). · cites it 2× “§ 1412(a)(10)(B)(ii); see also, 34 C.F.R. § 300.325 (c) (“Even if a private school or facility implements a child’s IEP, responsibility for compliance with this part remains with the [local] agency and the [state agency]”).”
Jgl, Francine Gomez-lee, & Mark a. Lee v. Brett Bottorff, the Chaddock Sch., Susan Holtsclaw, Gregory Kellett, Madel (C.D. Ill. 2026). · cites it 2× “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.325 (c) (“Even if a private school or facility implements a child’s IEP, responsibility for compliance with this part remains with the public agency and the [State educational agency].”
J.L. v. Williamson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. (M.D. Tenn. 2023). “§ 1412 (a)(10)(B)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.325 (c); see also St. Johnsbury Acad.”
J. L. v. Williamson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 2024). “§ 1412 (a)(10)(B)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.325 (c). But unlike their earlier Honig Settlement, the parties expressly disclaimed any notion that their “Robson Agreement” created a stay put placement under the IDEA.”
J.N. v. Pittsburgh City Sch. Dist., 536 F. Supp. 2d 564 (W.D. Pa. 2008). “§ 1412 (a)(10) (B) or 34 C.F.R. § 300.325 , which relate to children placed in, or referred to, private schools by public agencies.”
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.