(a) Comparable benefits. The program benefits that a subgrantee provides for students enrolled in private schools must be comparable in quality, scope, and opportunity for participation to the program benefits that the subgrantee provides for students enrolled in public schools.
(b) Same benefits. If a subgrantee uses funds under a program for public school students in a particular attendance area, or grade or age level, the subgrantee shall insure equitable opportunities for participation by students enrolled in private schools who:
(1) Have the same needs as the public school students to be served; and
(2) Are in that group, attendance area, or age or grade level.
(c) Different benefits. If the needs of students enrolled in private schools are different from the needs of students enrolled in public schools, a subgrantee shall provide program benefits for the private school students that are different from the benefits the subgrantee provides for the public school students.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
Notes of Decisions
Cefalu ex rel. Cefalu v. East Baton Rouge Par. Sch. Bd., 103 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 1997).
· cites it 5× “” 34 C.F.R. § 76.654 (a). It is clear, therefore, that the IDEA differentiates among three categories of disabled students: (1) those attending public schools; (2) those placed in private schools by local school districts; and (3) those attending private schools voluntarily.”
Krista Westendorp v. Robert Wedl, 155 F.3d 992 (8th Cir. 1998).
· cites it 9× “" 34 C.F.R. § 76.654 (a) (1996). Consistent with IDEA, the availability of these services was nevertheless limited by the "number and location" of disabled children in the state.”
McNair v. Cardimone, 676 F. Supp. 1361 (S.D. Ohio 1987).
“The second issue before us is whether the School District’s refusal to provide Kelly with free public transportation violates 34 C.F.R. § 76.654 . Pursuant to 34 C.F.R.”
Peter v. Johnson, 958 F. Supp. 1383 (D. Minnesota 1997).
“” 34 C.F.R. § 76.654 (a).' Defendants argue that the statute and its implementing regulations provide the state and the local school districts with broad discretion in determining whether to provide special education to students voluntarily attending private schools.”
Nieuwenhuis v. Delavan-Darien Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 996 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Wis. 1998).
· cites it 2× “The plaintiffs zero in on 34 C.F.R. § 76.654 (a) which requires the provision to private school students of “comparable benefits” to those provided public school children.”
Russman v. Sobol, 85 F.3d 1050 (2d Cir. 1996).
· cites it 2× “” 34 C.F.R. § 76.654 (a). They also require that each local educational authority “provide special education and related services designed to meet the needs of private school children with disabilities.”
Felter v. Cape Girardeau Sch. Dist., 810 F. Supp. 1062 (E.D. Mo. 1993).
· cites it 2× “The Department has also issued 34 C.F.R. 76.654, entitled "Benefits for private school students.”
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.