Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-10-606 (2026)

Conducting special education due process cases

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Special education due process cases shall be heard by administrative law judges employed by the secretary of state. In addition, the secretary of state may contract with no more than three (3) administrative law judges who are currently serving under an appointment by the department of education to hear special education due process cases, to serve as part-time administrative law judges to hear special education due process cases. Administrative law judges shall have jurisdiction to hear complaints arising under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.), and state special education laws.

(b) The administrative law judges assigned to hear special education due process cases shall receive training in special education law to comport with the requirements of 20 U.S.C. § 1415. Before hearing any special education due process cases, an administrative law judge shall receive intensive training in special education law. After receipt of this initial training, all administrative law judges hearing special education due process appeals shall undergo annual training in special education law.

(c) All training in special education law for the administrative law judges provided for in this part must be approved by the administrative office of the courts in consultation with the department of education. The training must be paid for by the department of education.

(d) The LEA shall provide a photocopy of all of the education records of the student in question within its control according to orders issued by the administrative law judges, but in no case later than ten (10) school days following the failure to resolve the dispute following the federal resolution process or mediation between the parties.

(e) Final orders in special education cases shall include detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The findings of fact shall include a determination by the administrative law judge regarding meaningful participation by the parent in the development of the individualized education plan (IEP) for the student.

(f) Final orders include a determination of prevailing party status on an issue by issue basis.

(g) Administrative law judges shall provide a written final order signed by the judge. Final orders shall also be provided on electronic data disc or via electronic mail at the request of any party.

(h) An administrative law judge shall render a decision within the timelines established by federal law, unless the parties request an extension of time to attempt mediation or in the event of extraordinary circumstances determined acceptable by the administrative law judge.

(i) All decisions regarding special education due process hearings shall be published on the official state website of the department of education. All student identifying information shall be excised from the publication.

Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 107,Secs.s27, s28, s29 eff. 4/11/2019.

Acts 2007, ch. 598, § 5; 2008, ch. 678, § 4.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2017–2024 · leading case: J.A. v. Smith Cnty. Sch. Dist., 364 F. Supp. 3d 803 (M.D. Tenn. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

J.A. v. Smith Cnty. Sch. Dist., 364 F. Supp. 3d 803 (M.D. Tenn. 2019). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-10-606 ; 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (f)(3)(A).”

I.L. ex rel. Taylor v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 257 F. Supp. 3d 946 (E.D. Tenn. 2017). “§ 49-10-606 (a); 34 C.F.R. § 300.511 (b).”

A. v. Clarksville-Montgomery Cnty. Schs. (M.D. Tenn. 2024). · cites it 3× “The ALJ unambiguously possessed jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs’ IDEA claim pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-10-606 (a). The relevant inquiry, then, is not jurisdictional, but substantive—involving not whether the ALJ had jurisdiction to consider a Say Dyslexia Act…”

G.S. v. Clarksville Montgomery Cnty. Sch. Sys. (M.D. Tenn. 2022). · cites it 2× “§ 1415 ; Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-10-606 . Following exhaustion of this administrative remedy, the ALJ’s decision may be appealed in federal court.”

L.H., a minor v. Tennessee Dep't of Educ. (M.D. Tenn. 2019). “App’x 605 , 608 (6th Cir. 2018). Moreover, whatever route was initially taken, L.”

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.