34 C.F.R. § 300.536
Change of placement because of disciplinary removals
(a) For purposes of removals of a child with a disability from the child's current educational placement under §§ 300.530 through 300.535, a change of placement occurs if—
(1) The removal is for more than 10 consecutive school days; or
(2) The child has been subjected to a series of removals that constitute a pattern—
(i) Because the series of removals total more than 10 school days in a school year;
(ii) Because the child's behavior is substantially similar to the child's behavior in previous incidents that resulted in the series of removals; and
(iii) Because of such additional factors as the length of each removal, the total amount of time the child has been removed, and the proximity of the removals to one another.
(b)(1) The public agency determines on a case-by-case basis whether a pattern of removals constitutes a change of placement.
(2) This determination is subject to review through due process and judicial proceedings.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: Herbin Ex Rel. Herbin v. Dist. of Columbia, 362 F. Supp. 2d 254 (D.D.C. 2005).
Herbin Ex Rel. Herbin v. Dist. of Columbia, 362 F. Supp. 2d 254 (D.D.C. 2005). “) After interpreting 34 C.F.R. § 300.536 (b), an implementing regulation of the IDEA, to require that a party requesting a reevaluation show that “conditions warrant” one, the hearing officer noted that there were “no time limitations provided by [the] IDEA by which a school…”
Shelton v. Maya Angelou Pub. Charter Sch., 578 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D.D.C. 2008). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.536 (a). The regulations also clarify that “[a]fter a child with a disability has been removed from his or her current placement for 10 days in the same school year, during any subsequent days of removal the public agency must provide services to the extent…”
Moorestown Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. S.D. & C.D. ex rel. M.D., 811 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (D.N.J. 2011). “The agency responded that LEAs need not perform new evaluations for each privately enrolled child each year, but laid out, inter alia, three separate situations in which LEAs must evaluate and develop an IEP: (1) Where the child is enrolled in public school; (2) Where the child…”
Cartwright v. Dist. of Columbia, 267 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D.D.C. 2003). “34 C.F.R. § 300.536 (b) (2003). On February 19, 2002, the plaintiff filed a *85 request for a due process hearing against DCPS for failing to evaluate Caleb in a timely manner.”
M.M. Ex Rel. L.R. v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 512 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2008). “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.536 (effective Oct. 13, 2006).”
Sch. Bd. of the City of Norfolk v. Brown, 769 F. Supp. 2d 928 (E.D. Va. 2010). “Pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 300.536 , a “change of placement” occurs where, inter alia, “[t]he removal is for more than 10 consecutive school days.”
Pachl Ex Rel. Pachl v. Seagren, 373 F. Supp. 2d 969 (D. Minnesota 2005). “The memo states that, when a disabled child receiving special education services is reevaluated pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 300.536 , “[i]t is not necessary for the child to meet initial eligibility criteria in order to continue to receive services.”
Pitchford Ex Rel. M. v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist. No. 24J, 155 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (D. Or. 2001). “34 C.F.R. § 300.536 provides that a reevaluation be "conducted every three years, or more frequently if conditions warrant, or if the child’s parent or teacher requests an evaluation.”
Gregory R. Ex Rel. Gregory R. v. Penn Delco Sch. Dist., 262 F. Supp. 2d 488 (E.D. Pa. 2003). “Even according to OSEP Memorandum 00-14, Question 9, which in turn relies on 34 CFR § 300.536 , periodic reevaluation requirements would not apply in this case because “before additional assessments are conducted, parents must give informed consent.”
Moorestown Tp. Bd. of Educ. v. SD, 811 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (D.N.J. 2011). “The agency responded that LEAs need not perform new evaluations for each privately enrolled child each year, but laid out, inter alia, three separate situations in which LEAs must evaluate and develop an IEP: (1) Where the child is enrolled in public school; (2) Where the child…”
Jane Doe v. Alpena Pub. Sch. Dist. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “, 34 CFR 300.536. Defendants cited to the statutory provisions under the Revised School Code that govern schools’ response to student behaviors.”
Lemus v. Shaffner (D.D.C. 2023). “In reply, Odin's counsel cites to an existing and possibly applicable regulatory provision, 34 C.F.R. § 300.536 . Pl.'s Reply at 2. However, arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief will not be considered, primarily out of fairness to the opposing party, who lacks an…”
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.536(b) — 1 case
Cartwright v. Dist. of Columbia, 267 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D.D.C. 2003). “34 C.F.R. § 300.536 (b) (2003). On February 19, 2002, the plaintiff filed a *85 request for a due process hearing against DCPS for failing to evaluate Caleb in a timely manner.”
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.