(a) Except as provided in § 300.533, during the pendency of any administrative or judicial proceeding regarding a due process complaint notice requesting a due process hearing under § 300.507, unless the State or local agency and the parents of the child agree otherwise, the child involved in the complaint must remain in his or her current educational placement.
(b) If the complaint involves an application for initial admission to public school, the child, with the consent of the parents, must be placed in the public school until the completion of all the proceedings.
(c) If the complaint involves an application for initial services under this part from a child who is transitioning from Part C of the Act to Part B and is no longer eligible for Part C services because the child has turned three, the public agency is not required to provide the Part C services that the child had been receiving. If the child is found eligible for special education and related services under Part B and the parent consents to the initial provision of special education and related services under § 300.300(b), then the public agency must provide those special education and related services that are not in dispute between the parent and the public agency.
(d) If the hearing officer in a due process hearing conducted by the SEA or a State review official in an administrative appeal agrees with the child's parents that a change of placement is appropriate, that placement must be treated as an agreement between the State and the parents for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(j))
Notes of Decisions
M. R. v. Ridley Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 112 (3rd Cir. 2014).
· cites it 4× “Also, importantly, a decision favorable to the parents during the administrative review process “must be treated as an agreement between the State and the parents,” 34 C.F.R. § 300.518 (d); see also Burlington, 471 U.”
C.H. v. Cape Henlopen Sch. Dist., 606 F.3d 59 (3rd Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “§ 1415 (j); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.518 (a). 11 Commonly referred to as *72 the “stay-put” provision, § 1415(j) protects the status quo of a child’s educational placement while a parent challenges a proposed change to, or elimination of, services.”
Dist. of Columbia v. Vinyard, 901 F. Supp. 2d 77 (D.D.C. 2012).
· cites it 3× “Commonly referred to as the “stay-put provision,” this section requires the educational agency to maintain a disabled child in his “current educational placement” through both administrative and judicial proceedings, including an appeal from an administrative decision following…”
Anchorage Sch. Dist. v. M.P., 689 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “§ 1416Q); 34 C.F.R. § 300.518 (a). State and local educational agencies must also satisfy the IDEA’S substantive requirements by providing all eligible students with a free appropriate public education, or FAPE, which is defined as: special education and related services that —…”
S. C. v. Lincoln Cnty. Sch. Dist., 16 F.4th 587 (9th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 3× “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.518 (d). Stay put functions as “an ‘automatic’ preliminary injunction,” and the moving party need not show the traditionally required preliminary injunction factors to obtain relief.”
G. v. Harrison Sch. Dist. No. 2, 40 F.4th 1186 (10th Cir. 2022).
· cites it 2× “§ 1415(j); 34 C.F.R. § 300.518 (a) (“[D]uring the pendency of any administrative or judicial proceeding regarding a due process complaint notice requesting a due process hearing .”
Doe v. E. Lyme Bd. of Educ., 962 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2020).
“§ 1415 (i), (j); 34 C.F.R. § 300.518 ). Doe’s attempt to revive this argument is barred by the law of the case doctrine.”
D.M. v. New Jersey Dep't of Educ., 801 F.3d 205 (3rd Cir. 2015).
· cites it 2× “34 C.F.R. § 300.518 (a). The regulatory “stay-put” rule uses the same term, “educational placement,” that the statute uses.”
Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. East Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440 (2d Cir. 2015).
“34 C.F.R. § 300.518 (“[D]uring the pendency of any administrative or judicial proceeding regarding a due process complaint notice requesting a due process hearing under § 300.”
Johnson v. Dist. of Columbia, 839 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.D.C. 2012).
· cites it 2× “” § 1415(k)(4); accord 34 C.F.R. § 300.518 (a). B. Factual Background M.”
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a) — 5 cases
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(b) — 1 case
M. R. v. Ridley Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 112 (3rd Cir. 2014).
“Also, importantly, a decision favorable to the parents during the administrative review process “must be treated as an agreement between the State and the parents,” 34 C.F.R. § 300.518 (d); see also Burlington, 471 U.”
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(d) — 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.