34 C.F.R. § 300.533
Placement during appeals
When an appeal under § 300.532 has been made by either the parent or the LEA, the child must remain in the interim alternative educational setting pending the decision of the hearing officer or until the expiration of the time period specified in § 300.530(c) or (g), whichever occurs first, unless the parent and the SEA or LEA agree otherwise.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34
cases, 1982–2019 · leading case: Velma Olu-Cole v. E.L. Haynes Pub. Charter Sc, 930 F.3d 519 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
Velma Olu-Cole v. E.L. Haynes Pub. Charter Sc, 930 F.3d 519 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.533 (explaining that "the child must remain in the interim alternative educational setting pending the decision of the hearing officer or until the expiration of the time period specified in § 300.”
Doss v. State, 19 So. 3d 690 (Miss. 2009). “34 C.F.R. § 300.533 (a)(2) (1986). Moreover, a reevaluation of a child was to be conducted every three years, or more frequently if warranted or requested by the child's parent or teacher.”
G.D. Etc. v. Westmoreland Sch. Dist., 930 F.2d 942 (1st Cir. 1991). “” See also 34 C.F.R. § 300.533 (a)(3). E.D., who was present at the September LEPT placement meeting, claims that the Carroll School was not discussed as an option.”
R.B. Ex Rel. F.B. v. Napa Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 496 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2007). “]” 34 C.F.R. § 300.533 (a)(ii)-(iii) (2003).”
J.W. ex rel. J.E.W. v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 431 (9th Cir. 2010). “3d at 943 (quoting 34 C.F.R. § 300.533 (a)(ii)-(iii)). Accordingly, the ALJ did not err to find that District provided Student a FAPE for the 2003-2004 school year, based on the 2.”
Joseph Park, by & Through His Guardian Ad Litem, Kyung Hee Park Kyung Hee Park v. Anaheim Union High Sch. Dist. Greater Anaheim Selpa, 464 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2006). “2d at 1484 ; 34 C.F.R. § 300.533 (a)(1). A qualified administrator conducted a thorough hearing to review the individual education plan and, after considering testimony from Joseph’s mother and the child’s personal physician, largely approved of the District’s proposal but…”
Mary P. v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 919 F. Supp. 1173 (N.D. Ill. 1996). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.533 (a)(1). If a student is deemed eligible at the MDC, then the participants determine precisely what services are appropriate.”
W.G. B.G., Individually & as Parents of R.G., a Minor v. Bd. of Trs. of Target Range Sch. Dist. No. 23, Missoula, Montana, 960 F.2d 1479 (9th Cir. 1992). “, as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.533 . See Taylor by Holbrook v.”
Floretta McKenzie Superintendent, D.C. Pub. Schs. v. Christopher Smith, by His Parents, 771 F.2d 1527 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “persons knowledgeable about, the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options,” 34 C.F.R. § 300.533 (3), and to provide appropriate written notice to the Smiths.”
Genn ex rel. Genn v. New Haven Bd. of Educ., 219 F. Supp. 3d 296 (D. Conn. 2016). “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.533 and § 300.344. The Board listened to a summary of the report at the PPT meeting for approximately thirty minutes.”
Flour Bluff Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Katherine M. Ex Rel. Lesa T., 91 F.3d 689 (5th Cir. 1996). “In Appendix C of Part 300 of the Regulations entitled “Notice of Interpretation,” the commissioner answered the question of whether a "public agency itself [must] provide the services set out in the IEP” as follows: The public agency responsible for the education of a child with…”
Bd. of Educ. of Frederick Cnty. v. I.S. Ex Rel. Summers, 325 F. Supp. 2d 565 (D. Maryland 2004). “40 (“IDEA placement procedures as outlined at 34 C.F.R. § 300.533 (2), require the public agency to carefully consider information from a variety of sources and to ensure that information obtained from all of these sources is documented and carefully -considered.”
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.