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. § 300.506

Mediation

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

(a) General. Each public agency must ensure that procedures are established and implemented to allow parties to disputes involving any matter under this part, including matters arising prior to the filing of a due process complaint, to resolve disputes through a mediation process.

(b) Requirements. The procedures must meet the following requirements:

(1) The procedures must ensure that the mediation process—

(i) Is voluntary on the part of the parties;

(ii) Is not used to deny or delay a parent's right to a hearing on the parent's due process complaint, or to deny any other rights afforded under Part B of the Act; and

(iii) Is conducted by a qualified and impartial mediator who is trained in effective mediation techniques.

(2) A public agency may establish procedures to offer to parents and schools that choose not to use the mediation process, an opportunity to meet, at a time and location convenient to the parents, with a disinterested party—

(i) Who is under contract with an appropriate alternative dispute resolution entity, or a parent training and information center or community parent resource center in the State established under section 671 or 672 of the Act; and

(ii) Who would explain the benefits of, and encourage the use of, the mediation process to the parents.

(3)(i) The State must maintain a list of individuals who are qualified mediators and knowledgeable in laws and regulations relating to the provision of special education and related services.

(ii) The SEA must select mediators on a random, rotational, or other impartial basis.

(4) The State must bear the cost of the mediation process, including the costs of meetings described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

(5) Each session in the mediation process must be scheduled in a timely manner and must be held in a location that is convenient to the parties to the dispute.

(6) If the parties resolve a dispute through the mediation process, the parties must execute a legally binding agreement that sets forth that resolution and that—

(i) States that all discussions that occurred during the mediation process will remain confidential and may not be used as evidence in any subsequent due process hearing or civil proceeding; and

(ii) Is signed by both the parent and a representative of the agency who has the authority to bind such agency.

(7) A written, signed mediation agreement under this paragraph is enforceable in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States.

(8) Discussions that occur during the mediation process must be confidential and may not be used as evidence in any subsequent due process hearing or civil proceeding of any Federal court or State court of a State receiving assistance under this part.

(c) Impartiality of mediator. (1) An individual who serves as a mediator under this part—

(i) May not be an employee of the SEA or the LEA that is involved in the education or care of the child; and

(ii) Must not have a personal or professional interest that conflicts with the person's objectivity.

(2) A person who otherwise qualifies as a mediator is not an employee of an LEA or State agency described under § 300.228 solely because he or she is paid by the agency to serve as a mediator.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0600) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(e)) [71 FR 46753, Aug. 14, 2006, as amended at 72 FR 61307, Oct. 30, 2007]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Johnson v. Boston Public Schools
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Johnson v. Boston Public Schools (2018) ca1 “"); 34 C.F.R. § 300.506 (b)(iii) (same). Here, the negotiations were before a hearing officer who convened the parties for a prehearing conference.”
I.L. ex rel. Taylor v. Knox County Board of Education (2017) tned “§ 1415 (e); 34 C.F.R. § 300.506 , Mediation is voluntary.”
Megan C. v. Independent School District No. 625 (1999) mnd · cites it 3× “at 436 (citing 34 C.F.R. § 300.506 n.) Upper Valley’s reliance of recovery of attorneys’ fees during mediation to enforce provisions of the IDEA is, however, unpersuasive for two fundamental reasons.”
TC v. Valley Central School District (2011) nysd “1992); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.506 -.507. Plaintiffs argue that the exhaustion requirement should be excused because DC was to graduate high school shortly after these issues arose and resorting to administrative remedies would have been futile.”
Clifford Burr, by His Parents and Next Friends, Kenneth Burr, Betty Burr v. Gordon Ambach, as Commissioner of the New Yo (1988) ca2 “34 C.F.R. §§ 300.506 and 300.512. Despite this clear command, the hearing regarding Clifford did not even commence until over four months after the request for it, and the hearing officer’s decision came over a year after the request.”
Anika Cox v. Dr. Andrew Jenkins (1989) cadc “§ 1415 (1982); 34 C.F. R. § 300.506 (1988); D.C.Mun.Regs.”
West Chester Area SD v. A.M. and K.M., individually and as parents and natural guardians of C.M. and C. Jelley, Hearing (2017) pacommwct “The argument against jurisdiction finds support in two regulatory provisions: 34 C.F.R. § 300.506 (b)(7) and § 300.510(d)(2).”
J.K. v. Council Rock School District (2011) paed “) (“[Njeither of these provisions [ 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.506 (b)(7) and 300.510(d)(2), implementing the IDEA] precludes a hearing officer from reviewing a settlement agreement’s terms.”
Flour Bluff Independent School District v. Katherine M. Ex Rel. Lesa T. (1996) ca5 “§ 1415 (b)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.506 (a). 13 . 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.”
David Abney, by Next Friend Margaret Kantor v. District of Columbia (1988) cadc “§ 1415 (b)(1)(E) to (d); 34 C.F.R. § 300.506 -.510. In the instant case, there is no question that the District failed to comply with these statutory provisions during September and October 1985.”
Weast v. Schaffer Ex Rel. Schaffer (2004) ca4 · cites it 2× “34 C.F.R. § 300.506 . The school system must also advise the parents "of any WEAST v.”
K.P. v. Juzwic (1995) ctd · cites it 2× “§ 1415 (b)(1)(E), (b)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.506 (a); Conn.Gen.Stat. § 10 — 76h; ConrnBd.”
Show all 49 citing cases →
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.