34 C.F.R. § 300.613

Access rights

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

(a) Each participating agency must permit parents to inspect and review any education records relating to their children that are collected, maintained, or used by the agency under this part. The agency must comply with a request without unnecessary delay and before any meeting regarding an IEP, or any hearing pursuant to § 300.507 or §§ 300.530 through 300.532, or resolution session pursuant to § 300.510, and in no case more than 45 days after the request has been made.

(b) The right to inspect and review education records under this section includes—

(1) The right to a response from the participating agency to reasonable requests for explanations and interpretations of the records;

(2) The right to request that the agency provide copies of the records containing the information if failure to provide those copies would effectively prevent the parent from exercising the right to inspect and review the records; and

(3) The right to have a representative of the parent inspect and review the records.

(c) An agency may presume that the parent has authority to inspect and review records relating to his or her child unless the agency has been advised that the parent does not have the authority under applicable State law governing such matters as guardianship, separation, and divorce.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(8); 1417(c))
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2012–2026 · leading case: Woods Ex Rel. T.W. v. Northport Pub. Sch., 487 F. App'x 968 (6th Cir. 2012).
Woods Ex Rel. T.W. v. Northport Pub. Sch., 487 F. App'x 968 (6th Cir. 2012). “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.613 (b) (“The right to inspect and review education records under this section includes .”
J.A. v. Monroe Twp. Bd. of Educ. (D.N.J. 2024). · cites it 4× “) The Board responds, as to the Consolidated Cases, that plaintiffs’ claim is really that they did not receive records with sufficient time before the hearing, not that they were denied records within the timeframe required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.613 . (Board’s Mot. Br. 21–06283 p.”
D.o., Individually, & on Behalf of M.o., Etc. Vs. Jackson Twp. Bd. of Educ. (l-1738-16, Ocean Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021). · cites it 3× “'s student records "as required by 34 C.F.R. 300.613," an IDEA regulation. She sought "access to a complete copy" of the records, as well as a certification from defendant confirming that it has produced a complete copy "as required by 34 C.”
G.C. (D. Del. 2026). · cites it 3× “34 C.F.R. § 300.613 (a) (emphasis added).”
T. v. Dist. of Columbia (D.D.C. 2018). “is authorized to make a records request in connection with the impending due process hearing, see 34 C.F.R. § 300.613 (a), nothing suggests that such a request is exempt from the exhaustion requirement in seeking judicial review.”
J.T. v. Dist. of Columbia (D.D.C. 2023). ““When a parent requests such records, ‘[the school district] must comply [ ] without unnecessary delay and before [ ] any [due process] hearing,’ 34 C.F.R. § 300.613 (a), and a failure to do so ‘is a procedural violation of the IDEA[.”
Briscoe v. Dist. of Columbia (D.D.C. 2024). “See 34 C.F.R. §300.613 (a). Pursuant to the District of Columbia Municipal 16 Regulations (“DCMR”), DCPS must honor the records request as soon as possible, but in no case more than 45 calendar days, 5E DCMR §2600.”
Thomas (N.D. Ohio 2025). “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.613 (a) (providing 45 days for an educational agency to respond to reasonable requests).”
G.C. (D. Del. 2026). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.613 (a) (emphasis added).”
Am (E.D. Pa. 2026). “”); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.613 (a) (“Each participating agency must permit parents to inspect and review any education records relating to their children that are collected, maintained, or used by the agency .”
Boyd v. Idea Pub. Charter Sch., 42 F. Supp. 3d 217 (D.D.C. 2014). “” 34 C.F.R. 300.613(b)(3) (emphasis added).”
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.613(b)(3) — 1 case
Boyd v. Idea Pub. Charter Sch., 42 F. Supp. 3d 217 (D.D.C. 2014). “” 34 C.F.R. 300.613(b)(3) (emphasis added).”
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.