34 C.F.R. § 76.655
[Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1995–1997 · leading case: Fowler Ex Rel. Fowler v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 259, 900 F. Supp. 1540 (D. Kan. 1995).
Fowler Ex Rel. Fowler v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 259, 900 F. Supp. 1540 (D. Kan. 1995). “” 34 C.F.R. § 76.655 . The plain language of the regulation shows that the primary factor in determining what services to provide students in either public or private schools is the need of each student, not the cost of the service.”
K.R. Ex Rel. M.R. v. Anderson Cmty. Sch. Corp., 887 F. Supp. 1217 (S.D. Ind. 1995). “In fact, 34 C.F.R. § 76.655 (b) provides: The subgrantee [local school corporation] shall spend a different average amount on program benefits for students enrolled in private schools if the average cost of meeting the needs of those students is different from the average cost…”
Cefalu ex rel. Cefalu v. East Baton Rouge Par. Sch. Bd., 103 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 1997). “34 C.F.R. § 76.655 . It is in this context that the obligation of the agency arises to “set forth policies and procedures to assure that, to the extent consistent with the number and location of handicapped children in the State who are enrolled in private elementary and…”
Fowler v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 259, 107 F.3d 797 (10th Cir. 1997). “Our selection of the average amount as the guiding principle finds support in the regulations, as 34 C.F.R. § 76.655 (a) provides that a LEA “shall spend the same average amount of program funds on [a] student enrolled in a private school who receives benefits under the…”
Natchez-Adams Sch. Dist. v. Searing, 918 F. Supp. 1028 (S.D. Miss. 1996). “34 C.F.R. § 76.655 . In addition, the public school district must give the private school representatives notice and an opportunity to be heard before any decision is made regarding the program.”
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.