34 C.F.R. § 300.530

Section 300.530 permits removal for up to ten consecutive school days and allows the same discipline as for nondisabled students when the conduct is not a manifestation, but continuing educational services remain required.

Opinion Number · filed 2006-12-19(b), (c), (d), and (e)(1)

However, if the behavior that gave rise to the violation of the school code is determined to not be a manifestation of the child's disability, school personnel may apply the relevant disciplinary procedures to a child with disabilities in the same manner and for the same duration as the procedure would be applied to a child without disabilities.

Section 300.530(c) requires educational services during a suspension exceeding ten days so the child can continue in the general curriculum and progress toward IEP goals; when a change of placement has been agreed to, § 300.530(d)(5) assigns the IEP Team responsibility for determining those services, subject to the parent's agreement while stay-put applies.

M.M. Ex Rel. L.R. v. Special School District No. 1 · filed 2008-01-04(c), (d)(1), (d)(5)

When a disabled child has been suspended for more than ten days without a change in placement, the ■-regulations provide that the child must continue to receive educational services “so as to enable the child to continue to participate in the general education curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the child’s IEP.” 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.530(c), (d)(1)® (effective Oct. 13, 2006). ... In that situation, “the child’s IEP Team determines appropriate services under paragraph (d)(1).” 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(d)(5). Because the stay-put provision is in effect, the parent must agree to any change in education services. Here, L.R. refused the District’s offers of additional home schooling services. The ALJ made no finding that these offers, if accepted by the parent, would not have met the requirements of 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(d)(1)® or failed to provide M.M. with a FAPE.

Section 300.530(c) requires a disabled child suspended for more than ten days, without a change in placement, to continue receiving educational services that allow participation in the general education curriculum and progress toward the IEP goals.

M.M. v. Special School Dist. · filed 2008-01-04(c)

When a disabled child has been suspended for more than ten days without a change in placement, the regulations provide that the child must continue to receive educational services “so as to enable the child to continue to participate in the general education curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the child’s IEP.” 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.530(c), (d)(1)(i) (effective Oct. 13, 2006).

After a child with a disability has been removed for 10 school days in the same school year, the public agency must provide services during subsequent removal days; here, compensatory services were required only for the six days beyond ten.

Whitaker v. Board of Education for Prince George's County Public Schools · filed 2020-08-25(b)(2)

The IDEA and applicable regulations provide that “[a]fter a child with a disability has been removed from his or her current placement for 10 school days in the same school year, during any subsequent days of removal the public agency must provide services . . . .” 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(b)(2). ... Because the Student was disciplinarily removed for a total of sixteen days, compensatory services were only required to remedy the six additional removal days beyond the ten permitted by regulation. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(b)(2).

A technical violation of § 300.530 does not require vacating a manifestation determination unless the violation also deprived the child of a free appropriate public education.

Fitzgerald v. Fairfax County School Board · filed 2008-05-23(f)(2)

a procedural violation of the IDEA is not alone sufficient to show a school failed to provide a child with a FAPE.

Section 300.530(d)(5) requires the interim alternative educational setting to be determined by the IEP team.

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Todd County School District · filed 2010-11-12(d)(5)

Once the IEP team changed Doe’s placement with Dorothy Doe’s consent, the IEP team, not the school board, became the decision-maker authorized to change his placement again. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.530(d)(5).

After ten days of removal in the same school year, § 300.530(b)(2) requires the public agency to provide the services specified in paragraph (d), and § 300.530(d)(5) assigns service decisions to the IEP Team when the removal changes placement.

Shelton v. Maya Angelou Public Charter School · filed 2008-09-26(b)(2), (c), (d)(1), and (d)(5)

After a child with a disability has been removed from his or her current placement for 10 days in the same school year, during any subsequent days of removal the public agency must provide services to the extent required under paragraph (d) of [34 C.F.R. § 300.530].

When a student's conduct is found not to be a manifestation of the disability, the school may use the same disciplinary procedures as for students without disabilities, but must provide services enabling progress toward the student's IEP goals, potentially in an alternative educational setting.

G.R. ex rel. Russell v. Dallas School District No. 2 · filed 2011-10-04(c), (d)(1) and (2)

Because the Manifestation Determination Hearing concluded that G.R.’s behavior concerning J.S. was not a manifestation of his disability, the District may use the same disciplinary procedures as used with children who do not have a disability. 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(c). G.R. is entitled, however, to receive educational services to enable him to progress toward the goals in his IEP. The services may be at an alternative educational setting. 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(d)(1) and (2). Plaintiffs provide no legal authority that Oregon’s minimum instructional time regulation applies to expelled students.

When a disciplinary removal changes placement, § 300.530(d)(5) requires the IEP Team to determine appropriate services, including the services needed for the child to participate in the general curriculum and progress toward IEP goals.

School Bd. of the City of Norfolk v. Brown · filed 2010-12-13(d)(5), (d)(1)(i)

If the removal is a change of placement under § 300.536, the child’s IEP Team determines appropriate services under paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

Section 300.530(d)(1)(ii) requires an FBA, as appropriate, when a child is removed from the current placement for more than ten days because of disciplinary infractions.

R.P. v. Alamo Heights Independent School District · filed 2012-12-27(d)(1)(ii)

An FBA is required, “as appropriate,” when a child has been “removed from the child’s current placement” for more than ten days due to disciplinary infractions. 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(d)(1)(ii). The record contains ample evidence and testimony that R.P. was a well-liked, well-behaved student. There is no evidence that R.P. was removed from her educational placement due to disciplinary infractions. Therefore, AHISD complied with the federal statute.

Subsection (g) limits a school’s unilateral removal of a student for serious bodily injury to 45 days; after that period, stay-put controls unless a hearing officer orders a prospective alternative placement.

Olu-Cole ex rel. M.K. v. E.L. Haynes Pub. Charter Sch. · filed 2018-02-23(g)

That 45 day period expired on January 31, 2018, and the School cannot unilaterally continue to exclude M.K.

The 45-day limitation in § 300.530(g) is consistent with the IDEA’s expedited hearing framework and does not permit a school to extend the exclusion beyond that limit by delaying a hearing request.

Olu-Cole v. E.L. Haynes Public Charter Sc · filed 2019-07-19(g)

The challenged regulation reads the statutory provisions together, consistent with the IDEA’s expedited 30-day hearing schedule.

Subsection (g) permits school personnel to remove a student to an interim alternative educational setting for no more than 45 school days when the student has inflicted serious bodily injury on another person at school.

Olu-Cole v. E.L. Haynes Public Charter School · filed 2018-02-23(g)

The import of these sections is that the School was permitted to place M.K. in an interim alternative educational setting due to his violent behavior for up to 45 days. That 45 day period expired on January 31, 2018, and the School cannot unilaterally continue to exclude M.K. ... Thus, upon expiration of the School’s authority to remove pursuant to Section 300.530(g), the stay put provision governs until such time as the hearing officer issues a determination in the administrative hearing. Should the hearing officer order that the child be in an interim alternative educational setting, that determination would apply prospectively, and not function to ratify additional time already spent in an alternative education setting in excess of the 45 days permitted by Section 300.530(g).

Section 300.530(c) permits disciplining a student like a nondisabled student after a non-manifestation finding, based on review of the student’s file, IEP, teacher observations, and parent information.

Doe v. Osseo Area Sch. Dist. · filed 2017-10-31(c), (e)(1)

Under this regulation, determining whether the behavior that gave rise to the violation is a manifestation of the student's disability demands that the school, parent, and the relevant members of the child's IEP Team, “review all relevant information in the student's file, including the child's IEP, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parents.”

Section 300.530(f)(1) applies when a child with a disability is removed from the current educational placement for more than ten school days for conduct that is a manifestation of the child's disability.

Albright v. Mountain Home School District · filed 2018-11-05(f)(1)

Student was never removed from her then-current educational placement for more than ten school days for misbehavior that was a manifestation of her disability, see 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(f)(1), and was never placed in an alternative educational placement due to behavior involving weapons, drugs, or the infliction of serious bodily injury on another person, see 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(g).

Section 300.530 permits discipline of a student with a disability whose conduct is not a manifestation of the disability in the same manner and for the same duration as a student without a disability, while its interim-placement obligations apply within the same school year and do not automatically continue into a later year when another LEA is available.

D.P. v. Washington Leadership Academy Pcs · filed 2019-03-22(b)(1), (b)(2), (c)

For much the same reasons as those articulated in the HOD, it agrees with the Hearing Officer’s determination that WLA is under no continuing obligation to provide D.P. a FAPE in an academic year subsequent to his expulsion, provided that he has access to another local educational agency. As the Hearing Officer noted, the regulation governing the school’s duty to provide such a placement repeatedly refers to actions that occur in the “same school year.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(b)(1), (b)(2), (d)(4); ... The logical implication is that a school’s obligation to a student in a particular academic year following the imposition of disciplinary measures does not automatically extend to a subsequent year. ... This would result in some tension with the regulation’s decree that school personnel may discipline a student with disabilities “in the same manner and for the same duration” as a student without disabilities, provided the problematic behavior is not a manifestation of the student’s disability. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(c).

Section 300.530(a) permits, but does not require, school officials to consider unique circumstances when deciding whether a change in placement is appropriate; omitting an express authorization from a district policy does not by itself violate federal law or the Constitution.

Sims v. Dallas Independant School District · filed 2024-02-07(a)

a case-by-case basis when determining whether a change in placement . . . is appropriate for a child with a disability who violated a code of student conduct.” ... Even taking the allegations contained in the complaint as true, that DISD’s policy does not include a provision expressly authorizing school officials to use considerations that are allowed, but not required, by federal regulations does not itself show that the DISD policy violates federal law or is unconstitutional.

Section 300.530(f)(1) requires a written behavioral intervention plan when a school imposes the specified disciplinary sanctions on a disabled child, but does not otherwise require one.

Coleman v. Wake County Board of Education · filed 2020-02-03(f)(1)

Though development of a written BIP is an acceptable way of considering a child’s behavioral needs, it is not required under the IDEA unless the school imposes certain disciplinary sanctions on a disabled child. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(F); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(f)(1); R.P. ex rel. R.P. v. Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist., 703 F.3d 801, 813 (5th Cir. 2012); Park Hill Sch. Dist. v. Dass, 655 F.3d 762, 766 (8th Cir. 2011); Lessard v. Wilton Lyndeborough Coop. Sch. Dist., 518 F.3d 18, 25 (1st Cir. 2008); Alex R., ex rel. Beth R. v. Forrestville Valley Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 221, 375 F.3d 603, 614–15 (7th Cir. 2004).

Section 300.530(f)(1) requires the IEP team, after a manifestation determination, either to conduct an FBA and implement a BIP or, if a BIP already exists, review and modify it as necessary.

Farmer v. Union County Board of Education · filed 2025-01-15(f)(1)

The regulation directs local educational agencies to either conduct an FBA and implement a BIP or review the existing BIP and modify its terms if necessary. 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(f)(1). Plaintiffs briefing selectively cites only one portion of the regulation. (Doc. No. 53, p. 15.) The IEP team reviewed S.F.’s BIP at the MDR and determined revisions were not appropriate at that time. (Doc. No. 30-2, p. 141.) Plaintiffs disagree with that conclusion, but Defendant took the required steps under the IDEA.

The regulation requires a manifestation determination review to consider all relevant information and requires the school district to continue implementing the student's IEP during disciplinary placement.

H v. Riesel Indep Sch Dist · filed 2021-11-22(e)(1), (d)

This ‘manifestation determination review’ must include the student’s parent(s) and the committee that created the student’s individualized education program, and it must “review all relevant information in the student’s file, including the [student’s] [individualized education program], any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parents.” Id. § 1415(k)(1)(E)(i); 30 C.F.R. § 300.530(e)(1). ... RISD remained obligated to implement K.S.’s individualized education program at the disciplinary alternative education center and confirmed that it would be able to do so there. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(D)(i); 30 C.F.R. § 300.530(d).

The regulation requires the manifestation-determination team to review all relevant information in the student's file, including the IEP, teacher observations, and parent-provided information, and to determine whether the conduct resulted from a failure to implement the IEP.

Lemus v. Shaffner · filed 2023-03-27(e)(1), (e)(1)(i)-(ii)

Both the IDEA and the corresponding regulations require that the MDR Team "review all relevant information in the student's file, including the child's IEP, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parents20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(l)(E)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e)(l). The focus of such an inquiry is to determine "if the conduct in question was the direct result of the local education agency's failure to implement the IEP." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(l)(E)(i)(l)-(II); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e)(l)(i)-{ii).

Section 300.530 requires a timely manifestation determination after a disciplinary removal becomes a change in placement, and subsection (e) requires deciding whether the conduct was related to the disability or resulted from failure to implement the IEP.

L. v. East Stroudsburg Area School District · filed 2023-10-20(e)

A manifestation determination review was properly scheduled and conducted within ten (10) days following the date when the student exceeded the fifteen (15) day threshold. Therefore, under 34 C.F.R. § 300.530, the District complied with the requirement that it timely conduct a manifestation determination review. ... The questions that are legally relevant to procedural sufficiency are whether the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the child’s disability or if the conduct in question was the direct result of the LEA’s failure to implement the IEP. 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e). Plaintiffs conclusion that the manifestation determination forms were inadequate as a matter of law is without merit.

Section 300.530(e) requires the LEA, parent, and relevant IEP Team members to review the child's relevant records within 10 school days of a placement change and determine whether the conduct was caused by or substantially related to the disability or resulted directly from failure to implement the IEP.

Boggs v. Board of Education of Fayette County, Kentucky · filed 2025-06-30(e)

The procedure for manifestation determinations is outlined in Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations § 300.530(e). It provides, in relevant part: ... (1) Within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a child with a disability because of a violation of a code of student conduct, the LEA, the parent, and relevant members of the child's IEP Team (as determined by the parent and the LEA) must review all relevant information in the student’s file, including the child's IEP, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parents to determine— ... (i) If the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the child's disability; or ... (ii) If the conduct in question was the direct result of the LEA’s failure to implement the IEP. 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e). ... The school made straightforward and repeated attempts to notify Boggs and his parents. No procedural deficiencies existed regarding notice.

Section 300.530(e) requires the manifestation-determination team to review relevant student information and determine whether the conduct was caused by or substantially related to the disability or resulted from failure to implement the IEP; if either condition is met, the conduct is a manifestation. The court affirmed the contrary determination on this record.

Z.M. · filed 2025-11-17(e)(1)-(2)

The term “relevant information” includes the student’s “IEP, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parents[.]” ... If the review team determines that (1) the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the student’s disability; or (2) the conduct was the direct result of the district's failure to implement the student’s IEP, then the student’s conduct “shall be determined to be a manifestation of the child's disability.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(E)(1); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e)(2); Doe v. Maher, 793 F.2d 1470, 1480 n. 8 (9th Cir. 1986) (in a case arising under the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400(b), a direct and substantial relationship to child's handicap requires the handicap significantly impairs the child's behavioral controls and excludes conduct that bears only an attenuated relationship to the child's handicap).