(a) Finality of hearing decision. A decision made in a hearing conducted pursuant to §§ 300.507 through 300.513 or §§ 300.530 through 300.534 is final, except that any party involved in the hearing may appeal the decision under the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section and § 300.516.
(b) Appeal of decisions; impartial review. (1) If the hearing required by § 300.511 is conducted by a public agency other than the SEA, any party aggrieved by the findings and decision in the hearing may appeal to the SEA.
(2) If there is an appeal, the SEA must conduct an impartial review of the findings and decision appealed. The official conducting the review must—
(i) Examine the entire hearing record;
(ii) Ensure that the procedures at the hearing were consistent with the requirements of due process;
(iii) Seek additional evidence if necessary. If a hearing is held to receive additional evidence, the rights in § 300.512 apply;
(iv) Afford the parties an opportunity for oral or written argument, or both, at the discretion of the reviewing official;
(v) Make an independent decision on completion of the review; and
(vi) Give a copy of the written, or, at the option of the parents, electronic findings of fact and decisions to the parties.
(c) Findings and decision to advisory panel and general public. The SEA, after deleting any personally identifiable information, must—
(1) Transmit the findings and decisions referred to in paragraph (b)(2)(vi) of this section to the State advisory panel established under § 300.167; and
(2) Make those findings and decisions available to the public.
(d) Finality of review decision. The decision made by the reviewing official is final unless a party brings a civil action under § 300.516.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(g) and (h)(4), 1415(i)(1)(A), 1415(i)(2))
Notes of Decisions
I.L. ex rel. Taylor v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 257 F. Supp. 3d 946 (E.D. Tenn. 2017).
· cites it 3× “§ 1415 (b)(7)(A), (f); 34 C.F.R. § 300.514 . An administrative law judge conducts the hearing, under the authority of either the school district or the state educational agency.”
Murphy v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 86 F. Supp. 2d 354 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
· cites it 4× “This holding was later carried into the regulations as 34 C.F.R. § 300.514 (c). 3 Turning to the case at bar, once the SRO issued its decision in December 1999 determining that Kildonan offered an appropriate program, there was an “agreement” under § 300.”
Gabel Ex Rel. LG v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 368 F. Supp. 2d 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
· cites it 2× “’s Pendency Placement The pendency provisions of IDEA and the New York State Education Law require that a student remain in his or her then current educational placement, unless the student’s parents and the board of education otherwise agree, during the pen-dency of any…”
Brennan v. Reg'l Sch. Dist. No. 1 Bd. of Educ., 531 F. Supp. 2d 245 (D. Conn. 2008).
· cites it 3× “§ 1415 (j); 34 C.F.R. § 300.514 (a) (2006), and an administrative decision upholding a unilateral placement is a qualifying “agreement” by the state.”
C.H. v. Cape Henlopen Sch. Dist., 606 F.3d 59 (3rd Cir. 2010).
“In actuality, the Parents mistakenly cite 34 C.F.R. § 300.514 for the proposition that "[n]o change in identification, evaluation, program, educational placement or IEP may be made during the process of a hearing unless agreed to by both parties.”
Bd. of Educ. of the Yorktown Cent. Sch. Dist. v. C.S., 990 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2021).
“See 34 C.F.R. § 300.514 (b) (requiring that decisions on appeal be made based upon “the entire hearing record” as well as “additional evidence if necessary,” resulting in “an independent decision”); N.”
Thomas Mackey v. Bd. Of Educ. For The Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 386 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004).
“The SRO then said, "Maplebrook became the student's pendency placement for the 2000-01 school year, by virtue of [that] decision (34 CFR 300.514[c])." 2 C. The Federal Court Action 11 On October 21, 2002, the parents brought the instant action against the District and the State,…”
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.514(b)(2) — 1 case
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.514(b)(2)(iii) — 1 case
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.514(c) — 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.