34 C.F.R. § 300.531

Determination of setting

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

The child's IEP Team determines the interim alternative educational setting for services under § 300.530(c), (d)(5), and (g).

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(2))

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case: JG v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 552 F.3d 786 (9th Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

JG v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 552 F.3d 786 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “34 C.F.R. §§ 300.531 , 300.532 (1999). In Hellgate, we determined that the IEP team could not develop a plan reasonably calculated to provide the child with a meaningful educational benefit for the school year without an autism evaluation.”

Georgia State Conf. of Branches of Naacp, Mary Alice Covin, Mary Laurant, Sylvia Dennis, & Naomi Tucker v. State of Georgia, 775 F.2d 1403 (11th Cir. 1985). “, 34 C.F.R. § 300.531 and State Exhibit 158, Georgia Department of Education Regulations and Procedures, Program for Exceptional Children IDDFd3-8, § 111(B)(4) (requiring full individual evaluation before placement) [hereinafter cited as “Georgia Regulation”]; 34 C.”

J.M. v. Montana High Sch. Ass'n, 875 P.2d 1026 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 2× “In summary, that process includes: (1) the identification of the student potentially in need of special education services; (2) the appointment of a Child Study Team (CST) which determines whether the student qualifies for such services, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.531 , .532, .540 (1992);…”

Carroll Ex Rel. Carroll v. Capalbo, 563 F. Supp. 1053 (D.R.I. 1983). · cites it 2× “34 C.F.R. § 300.531 . Accord State Regulations, IV, 1.”

Jason Babb, a Minor, Through His Parents & Next Friends, Joe & Sharon Babb v. Knox Cnty. Sch. Sys., 965 F.2d 104 (6th Cir. 1992). “532 (f) specifically requires school systems to assess a child “in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, where appropriate, health, ... social and emotional status, general intelligence, [and] academic performance.”

A.B. Ex Rel. D.B. v. Lawson, 354 F.3d 315 (4th Cir. 2004). “§ 1414(a)(1)(a); 34 C.F.R. § 300.531 . Upon a determination that a student is learning disabled and thus eligible for special education services, the school district is to develop an IEP through cooperation between parents and school officials.”

Noyes v. Grossmont Union High Sch. Dist., 331 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (S.D. Cal. 2004). “3d at 1523 (quoting 34 C.F.R. § 300.531 ); accord Vasheresse v.”

Mifflin Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Special Educ. Due Process Appeals Bd., 800 A.2d 1010 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002). “123, incorporating 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.531 — 300.535. Pursuant to 34 C.”

Shapiro ex rel. Shapiro v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69, 317 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2003). “§ 1412 (2)(C); 34 C.F.R. § 300.531 ("Before any action is taken with respect to the initial placement of a child with a disability in a program providing special education and related services, a full and individual evaluation of the child’s educational needs must be conducted.”

Oberti Ex Rel. Oberti v. Bd. of Educ., 789 F. Supp. 1322 (D.N.J. 1992). “See 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.531 & 300.532. 9 . This requirement is met when a child with a disability becomes a full member of a regular class or when a child who cannot be fully included is mainstreamed to the "maximum extent appropriate.”

Union Sch. Dist. v. Smith, 15 F.3d 1519 (9th Cir. 1994). “The District must make “a full and individual evaluation of the child’s educational needs,” 34 C.F.R. § 300.531 , and must “ensure ..”

Stacey G., Etc. v. Pasadena Indep. Sch. Dist., 547 F. Supp. 61 (S.D. Tex. 1982). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.531 (1981). See also Tex.”

Show all 17 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.