20 U.S.C. § 1402

Office of Special Education Programs

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 20 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Establishment

There shall be, within the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in the Department of Education, an Office of Special Education Programs, which shall be the principal agency in the Department for administering and carrying out this chapter and other programs and activities concerning the education of children with disabilities.

(b) Director

The Office established under subsection (a) shall be headed by a Director who shall be selected by the Secretary and shall report directly to the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, the Secretary is authorized to accept voluntary and uncompensated services in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 91–230, title VI, § 603, as added Pub. L. 108–446, title I, § 101, Dec. 3, 2004, 118 Stat. 2659.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 1402, Pub. L. 91–230, title VI, § 603, as added Pub. L. 105–17, title I, § 101, June 4, 1997, 111 Stat. 46, related to the Office of Special Education Programs, prior to the general amendment of subchapters I to IV of this chapter by Pub. L. 108–446.

Another prior section 1402, Pub. L. 91–230, title VI, § 603, Apr. 13, 1970, 84 Stat. 177; Pub. L. 93–380, title VI, § 612(a), Aug. 21, 1974, 88 Stat. 579; Pub. L. 98–199, § 3(a), Dec. 2, 1983, 97 Stat. 1357; Pub. L. 101–476, title IX, § 901(b)(21), Oct. 30, 1990, 104 Stat. 1143; Pub. L. 102–119, § 25(b), Oct. 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 607, related to the Office of Special Education Programs, prior to the general amendment of subchapters I to IV of this chapter by Pub. L. 105–17.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: JG v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 552 F.3d 786 (9th Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

JG v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 552 F.3d 786 (9th Cir. 2008). “Programs, to Jerry Saperstone, Mental Health Services System, 21 IDELR 1127 (OSEP 1994); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1402 (2000). That Office also noted that the determination of whether a school district did not conduct a timely evaluation according to IDEA and applicable state…”

St. Johnsbury Academy v. D.H., 240 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “See 20 U.S.C.A. § 1402 (a) (West 2000); 20 U.”

RYAN M. v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 731 F. Supp. 2d 776 (N.D. Ill. 2010). “) The Board is a body politic and corporate organized to maintain Chicago Public School District 299; it is also the relevant Local Education Agency as defined in 20 U.S.C. § 1402 (15). (Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 3; Def.”

Bowman v. Dist. of Columbia, 496 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D.D.C. 2007). “20 U.S.C. § 1402 (a). 5 . Rule 17(c) also states that only "an infant or incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem.”

Virginia Dep't of Educ. v. Riley, 106 F.3d 559 (4th Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1402 (a), 1416, 1417(b). The Secretary's interpretive rule in this case -- that even children expelled for misbehavior unrelated to their disabilities be provided educational services -- was published well before Virginia submitted its application for…”

Mary P. v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 919 F. Supp. 1173 (N.D. Ill. 1996). “The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (formerly entitled Office of Special Education Programs or “OSEP”), which is the principal agency empowered to administer the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1402 , abides by the same interpretation.”

Ringwood Bd. of Educ. v. K.H.J. ex rel. K.F.J., 469 F. Supp. 2d 267 (D.N.J. 2006). “20 U.S.C.A. § 1402 (a). The amount of deference given to administrative interpretations depends on their persuasiveness.”

McLaughlin v. Holt Pub. Schs. Bd. of Educ., 320 F.3d 663 (6th Cir. 2003). “Because of this condition, Emma is a “child with a disability” as defined in the Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1402 (3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.7 , and she has received special education services since she was two months old.”

Commonwealth of Virginia Dep't of Educ. v. Riley, 86 F.3d 1337 (4th Cir. 1996). “20 U.S.C. § 1402 (a) (Supp. 1996). To receive IDEA-B funds, a state must do two things.”

Michael C. Ex Rel. Stephen C. v. Radnor Twp. Sch. Dist., 202 F.3d 642 (3rd Cir. 2000). “20 U.S.C. § 1402 (a). The portion of OSEP Policy Memorandum 96-5 relevant to this case is properly characterized as an interpretive rule because it imposes no substantive obligations, but rather clarifies that the IDEA’S pendency provision does not apply to situations where a…”

Hooks v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 228 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2000). “We merely conclude that the plain language does not compel such a broad definition.”

Ringwood Bd. of Educ. v. KHJ Ex Rel. KFJ, 469 F. Supp. 2d 267 (D.N.J. 2006). “20 U.S.C.A. § 1402 (a). The amount of deference given to administrative interpretations depends on their persuasiveness.”

Show all 18 citing cases →

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.