(a) The State must—
(1) Monitor the implementation of this part;
(2) Make determinations annually about the performance of each LEA using the categories in § 300.603(b)(1);
(3) Enforce this part, consistent with § 300.604, using appropriate enforcement mechanisms, which must include, if applicable, the enforcement mechanisms identified in § 300.604(a)(1) (technical assistance), (a)(3) (conditions on funding of an LEA), (b)(2)(i) (a corrective action plan or improvement plan), (b)(2)(v) (withholding funds, in whole or in part, by the SEA), and (c)(2) (withholding funds, in whole or in part, by the SEA); and
(4) Report annually on the performance of the State and of each LEA under this part, as provided in § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A) and (b)(2).
(b) The primary focus of the State's monitoring activities must be on—
(1) Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities; and
(2) Ensuring that public agencies meet the program requirements under Part B of the Act, with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to improving educational results for children with disabilities.
(c) As a part of its responsibilities under paragraph (a) of this section, the State must use quantifiable indicators and such qualitative indicators as are needed to adequately measure performance in the priority areas identified in paragraph (d) of this section, and the indicators established by the Secretary for the State performance plans.
(d) The State must monitor the LEAs located in the State, using quantifiable indicators in each of the following priority areas, and using such qualitative indicators as are needed to adequately measure performance in those areas:
(1) Provision of FAPE in the least restrictive environment.
(2) State exercise of general supervision, including child find, effective monitoring, the use of resolution meetings, mediation, and a system of transition services as defined in § 300.43 and in 20 U.S.C. 1437(a)(9).
(3) Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to the extent the representation is the result of inappropriate identification.
(e) In exercising its monitoring responsibilities under paragraph (d) of this section, the State must ensure that when it identifies noncompliance with the requirements of this part by LEAs, the noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year after the State's identification of the noncompliance.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0624)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1416(a))
[71 FR 46753, Aug. 14, 2006, as amended at 73 FR 73027, Dec. 1, 2008]
Notes of Decisions
Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247 (3rd Cir. 2014).
· cites it 2× “§ 1983 , all premised on the theory that plaintiffs had learning disabilities for which LMSD had not made adequate provisions.”
Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 262 F.R.D. 481 (E.D. Pa. 2009).
· cites it 2× “, and 34 C.F.R. § 300.600 , the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.”
Mundo Verde Pub. Charter Sch. v. Sokolov, 315 F. Supp. 3d 374 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
“'s Opp'n at 6-7 (citing 34 C.F.R. § 300.600 ). In carrying out these monitoring and enforcement responsibilities, OSSE tracks and reports findings made through due process hearings and uses those findings in making annual determinations about an LEA's performance.”
Cordero Ex Rel. Bates v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Educ., 795 F. Supp. 1352 (M.D. Penn. 1992).
· cites it 2× “§ 1412 (6); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.600 . The Department of Education is further required, so that some weight is given to its oversight function, to adopt enforcement procedures “including sanctions.”
K.P. v. Juzwic, 891 F. Supp. 703 (D. Conn. 1995).
· cites it 3× “§ 1412 (6); 34 C.F.R. § 300.600 ; S.Rep. No. 168, 94th Cong.”
Parks v. Pavkovic, 536 F. Supp. 296 (N.D. Ill. 1982).
“Under the EHA, while the ultimate responsibility for assuring compliance with federal law rests with ISBE, see 34 C.F.R. § 300.600 (1981), the Act’s requirements also apply to all other state and local departments involved with the education of handicapped children.”
Straube v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F. Supp. 1164 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).
“, at § 1414(d) (if local educational agency is unable to furnish free appropriate education, state shall provide appropriate programs); 34 C.F.R. § 300.600 . The IDEA states that “ ‘free appropriate public education’ means special education and related services that-a) have been…”
Fetto v. Sergi, 181 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D. Conn. 2001).
“” 34 C.F.R. § 300.600 n. 3; see also Naugatuck Board of Educ.”
Max M. v. Thompson, 592 F. Supp. 1450 (N.D. Ill. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Turning to the State Defendants’ argument that they, in their official capacity, carry no responsibility for the alleged violations of the EAHCA committed by District 203, this Court directs the State Defendants’ attention to 34 C.F.R. § 300.600 (1983) which states: (a) The…”
William S. v. Gill, 98 F.R.D. 463 (N.D. Ill. 1983).
· cites it 2× “§ 1412 (6), 34 C.F.R. § 300.600 (a)(2)) and 2. all handicapped children living in Illinois receive a free, appropriate public education ( 20 U.”
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.