34 C.F.R. § 300.43

Transition services

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

(a) Transition services means a coordinated set of activities for a child with a disability that—

(1) Is designed to be within a results-oriented process, that is focused on improving the academic and functional achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the child's movement from school to post-school activities, including postsecondary education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation;

(2) Is based on the individual child's needs, taking into account the child's strengths, preferences, and interests; and includes—

(i) Instruction;

(ii) Related services;

(iii) Community experiences;

(iv) The development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives; and

(v) If appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and provision of a functional vocational evaluation.

(b) Transition services for children with disabilities may be special education, if provided as specially designed instruction, or a related service, if required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(34))
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Renee J. v. Houston Indep Sch. Dist., 913 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 2019).
Renee J. v. Houston Indep Sch. Dist., 913 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “" 34 C.F.R. § 300.43 (a). This court uses a four-factor test established in Michael F .”
K.C. Ex Rel. Her Parents v. Nazareth Area Sch. Dist., 806 F. Supp. 2d 806 (E.D. Pa. 2011). “§ 1401 (34)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.43 . “The Third Circuit has not defined what amount of transition planning is required in an IEP to ensure FAPE.”
Coleman v. Pottstown Sch. Dist., 983 F. Supp. 2d 543 (E.D. Pa. 2013). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.43 ; see also id. § 300.321.”
Garris v. Dist. of Columbia, 210 F. Supp. 3d 187 (D.D.C. 2016). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.43 (a)(1). Like the Hearing Officer, Judge Kay found that, although D.”
E. Z.-L. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 763 F. Supp. 2d 584 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “§ 1414 (d)(l)(A)(i)(VIII)(aa)-(bb); 34 C.F.R. § 300.43 (a), a situation inapplicable to this action.”
H v. Riesel Indep Sch Dist, 18 F.4th 788 (5th Cir. 2021). “; 34 C.F.R. § 300.43 ; see also Renee J., 913 F.”
Jerry M. v. Riesel Indep. Sch. Dist., 379 F. Supp. 3d 570 (W.D. Tex. 2019). · cites it 2× “" 34 C.F.R. § 300.43 (a)(1). These services should be "focused on improving the academic and functional achievement of the child .”
['capital City Pub. Charter Sch. v. Gambale'], 27 F. Supp. 3d 121 (D.D.C. 2014). “§ 1414 (d)(l)(A)(i)(VIII) (first IEP after student turns sixteen-years-old must contain "appropriate measurable post[-]secondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments related to training, education, employment, and, where appropriate, independent living…”
Evans v. Evans, 818 F. Supp. 1215 (N.D. Ind. 1993). “34 C.F.R. § 300.43 provides that “[e]ach public agency is responsible for initiating and conducting meetings for the purpose of developing, re *1223 viewing, and revising a handicapped child’s individualized education program.”
Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Lolita S. ex rel. M.S., 977 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (N.D. Ala. 2013). “See also 34 C.F.R. 300.43 (defining transition services as a “coordinated set of activities .”
Patterson Ex Rel. A.P. v. Dist. of Columbia, 965 F. Supp. 2d 126 (D.D.C. 2013). “§ 1414 (d)(l)(A)(i)CVTH); 34 C.F.R. § 300.43 . Thus, the IEP included such a transition plan (2012 Transition Plan) indicating that A.”
Klein Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Hovem, 745 F. Supp. 2d 700 (S.D. Tex. 2010). · cites it 2× “Rosenburg, even though a transition plan must be based upon the child’s needs in view of his strengths, preferences, and interests, pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 300.43 (a)(2). Id. at 13 . It must also contain measurable goals that are results-oriented.”
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.43(b) — 1 case
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.