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 E—Procedural Safeguards Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children

34 C.F.R. § 300.502

Independent educational evaluation

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

(a) General. (1) The parents of a child with a disability have the right under this part to obtain an independent educational evaluation of the child, subject to paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.

(2) Each public agency must provide to parents, upon request for an independent educational evaluation, information about where an independent educational evaluation may be obtained, and the agency criteria applicable for independent educational evaluations as set forth in paragraph (e) of this section.

(3) For the purposes of this subpart—

(i) Independent educational evaluation means an evaluation conducted by a qualified examiner who is not employed by the public agency responsible for the education of the child in question; and

(ii) Public expense means that the public agency either pays for the full cost of the evaluation or ensures that the evaluation is otherwise provided at no cost to the parent, consistent with § 300.103.

(b) Parent right to evaluation at public expense. (1) A parent has the right to an independent educational evaluation at public expense if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the public agency, subject to the conditions in paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) of this section.

(2) If a parent requests an independent educational evaluation at public expense, the public agency must, without unnecessary delay, either—

(i) File a due process complaint to request a hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate; or

(ii) Ensure that an independent educational evaluation is provided at public expense, unless the agency demonstrates in a hearing pursuant to §§ 300.507 through 300.513 that the evaluation obtained by the parent did not meet agency criteria.

(3) If the public agency files a due process complaint notice to request a hearing and the final decision is that the agency's evaluation is appropriate, the parent still has the right to an independent educational evaluation, but not at public expense.

(4) If a parent requests an independent educational evaluation, the public agency may ask for the parent's reason why he or she objects to the public evaluation. However, the public agency may not require the parent to provide an explanation and may not unreasonably delay either providing the independent educational evaluation at public expense or filing a due process complaint to request a due process hearing to defend the public evaluation.

(5) A parent is entitled to only one independent educational evaluation at public expense each time the public agency conducts an evaluation with which the parent disagrees.

(c) Parent-initiated evaluations. If the parent obtains an independent educational evaluation at public expense or shares with the public agency an evaluation obtained at private expense, the results of the evaluation—

(1) Must be considered by the public agency, if it meets agency criteria, in any decision made with respect to the provision of FAPE to the child; and

(2) May be presented by any party as evidence at a hearing on a due process complaint under subpart E of this part regarding that child.

(d) Requests for evaluations by hearing officers. If a hearing officer requests an independent educational evaluation as part of a hearing on a due process complaint, the cost of the evaluation must be at public expense.

(e) Agency criteria. (1) If an independent educational evaluation is at public expense, the criteria under which the evaluation is obtained, including the location of the evaluation and the qualifications of the examiner, must be the same as the criteria that the public agency uses when it initiates an evaluation, to the extent those criteria are consistent with the parent's right to an independent educational evaluation.

(2) Except for the criteria described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a public agency may not impose conditions or timelines related to obtaining an independent educational evaluation at public expense.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(b)(1) and (d)(2)(A))
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 191 cases (75 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Seth B. Ex Rel. Donald B. v. Orleans Par. Sch. Bd., 810 F.3d 961 (5th Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Seth B. Ex Rel. Donald B. v. Orleans Par. Sch. Bd., 810 F.3d 961 (5th Cir. 2016). · cites it 42× “§ 1415 (b)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.502 . 4 34 C.F.R. § 300.502 (e)(1).”
Schaffer Ex Rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005). · cites it 2× “" 34 CFR § 300.502 (b)(1) (2005). IDEA thus ensures parents access to an expert who can evaluate all the materials that the school *61 must make available, and who can give an independent opinion.”
D.S. v. Trumbull Bd. of Ed., 975 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2020). · cites it 6× “As another procedural safeguard, the parent of a child with a disability has an absolute right to obtain an IEE of their child, 34 C.F.R. § 300.502 (a)(1), and the school must consider that IEE “in any decision made with respect to the provision of FAPE to the child,” id.”
Phillip C. Ex Rel. A.C. v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 701 F.3d 691 (11th Cir. 2012). · cites it 15× “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.502 (b)(1) (1999) (stating that a parent “has the right to an independent educational evaluation at public expense if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the public agency”).”
C.W. Ex Rel. K.S. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 784 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 5× “if the parent or guardian disagrees with an assessment obtained by the public education agency”); 34 C.F.R. § 300.502 (a) (same). K.S. refused to consent to the OT portion of the IEP because the District failed to include in C.”
Horne ex rel. R.P. v. Potomac Preparatory, 209 F. Supp. 3d 146 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 8× “If a parent or guardian objects to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the student, or the provision of a FAPE, the parent or guardian may seek an impartial, due process hearing.”
Damarcus S. Ex Rel. K.S. v. Dist. of Columbia, 190 F. Supp. 3d 35 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 4× “” See 34 C.F.R. § 300.502 (b). It is undisputed that the Distinct did neither, and therefore, the District shall reimburse plaintiffs for the neuropsychological IEE that they obtained at their own expense.”
Cornelius J. J. v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 333 F. Supp. 3d 674 (S.D. Tex. 2017). · cites it 8× “" 34 C.F.R. § 300.502 (b)(1). In response to a request for an independent evaluation at public expense, a district must, without unnecessary delay, either file a due process complaint to request a hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate, or ensure that the independent…”
T.P. Ex Rel. T.P. v. Bryan Cnty. Sch. Dist., 792 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2015). · cites it 5× “If they had, they could have requested a so-called “due process hearing” before a state administrative officer. See id §§ 1415(b)(6), (f)(1)(A). 4 Nor did they disagree with the initial evaluation.”
Harris v. Dist. of Columbia, 561 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.D.C. 2008). · cites it 4× “) Plaintiff felt that the DCPS-sanctioned FBA was inadequate, so she requested funding on February 8, 2007 for an independent FBA in accordance with her rights under 34 C.F.R. § 300.502 (b) 1 . (Id. ¶ 7.) DCPS failed to act *65 on the request, and plaintiff in response filed an…”
Wall Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. C.M., 534 F. Supp. 2d 487 (D.N.J. 2008). · cites it 6× “) 34 C.F.R. § 300.502 (e)(1). The ALJ explained that the Board did not file its first due process petition until nearly three months after CM.”
Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006). “—————— 3 Under 34 C. F. R. §300.502 (b)(1) (2005), a “parent has the right to an independent educational evaluation at public expense if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the public agency.”
Show all 191 citing cases →
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b) — 3 cases
A.L. v. Jackson Cnty. Sch. Bd., 635 F. App'x 774 (11th Cir. 2015).
T.G. ex rel. T.G. v. Midland Sch. Dist. 7, 848 F. Supp. 2d 902 (C.D. Ill. 2012).
Hopewell Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. C.B. (D.N.J. 2020).
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(1) — 5 cases
T.G. ex rel. T.G. v. Midland Sch. Dist. 7, 848 F. Supp. 2d 902 (C.D. Ill. 2012).
Sch. Bd. of Manatee Cnty., Fla. v. Lh, 666 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (M.D. Fla. 2009).
Sch. Bd. v. L.H. ex rel. D.H., 666 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (M.D. Fla. 2009).
Hopewell Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. C.B. (D.N.J. 2020).
Briscoe v. Dist. of Columbia (D.D.C. 2024).
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2) — 2 cases
J. R. v. Ventura Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2026).
Briscoe v. Dist. of Columbia (D.D.C. 2024).
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2)(i) — 1 case
T.G. ex rel. T.G. v. Midland Sch. Dist. 7, 848 F. Supp. 2d 902 (C.D. Ill. 2012).
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(5) — 1 case
B.D. v. Eldred Cent. Sch. Dist. (S.D.N.Y. 2023).
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(c) — 2 cases
T.G. ex rel. T.G. v. Midland Sch. Dist. 7, 848 F. Supp. 2d 902 (C.D. Ill. 2012).
N.K.M. v. Rye City Sch. Dist. (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(c)(1) — 2 cases
Upper Darby Sch. Dist. v. K.W. (E.D. Pa. 2023).
W. v. Upper Darby Sch. Dist. (E.D. Pa. 2023).
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.