» 2012 » October
(914) 684-2100
Home  |  Our Firm  |  Attorneys  |  Staff  |  Blog  |  Contact  |  Employment  |  Directions

New Proposed Regulations Thwart Allocation of Burden of Proof in Impartial Hearings in New York

October 26th, 2012

The New York State Board of Regents is considering amendments to Part 200 Regulations which will effect how special education impartial hearings are conducted in  New York.  When parents of students with disabilities disagree with the placement or services for their child, they have the right to initiate a due process complaint for a  hearing, in front of a trained Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”).  As advocates for students with disabilities, we have concerns that that the Proposed Regulations make settlements more difficult and make the process of a hearing more cumbersome, particularly for pro se litigants.

The Proposed Regulations mandate pre-hearing conferences even in cases in which the parties inform the IHO that they are engaged in settlement discussions.   Even more significantly, this imposition of a pre-hearing conference has the potential to thwart the allocation of the burden of proof in New York State.   New York Education Law clearly places the burden of proving a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) on the school district.  Parents initiating a complaint have the responsibility to frame the issues and the proposed problems.   However,  if the law now mandates a prehearing conference that requires the IHO to review the issues framed in the complaint and empowers him or her to modify the issues before the school district has meet its prima facie burden, this will interfere with the parents’ responsibilities in framing the issues and the school district’s in responding to it.  For example, in an impartial hearing request, suppose a parent claims that a school district denied her child a FAPE by failing to provide ABA services.  In the hearing, the school district would have the burden of proving that it offered a FAPE and that the child was receiving educational benefit from the existing program.  But it is possible that an IHO could “simplify” the issues and essentially override the burden of proof and frame the issues to simply to determine if the child needed ABA services to progress.  Legally this would be reversible error, but many parents cannot afford a costly appeal.

Thus, we recommend that parents and students advocate against the adoption of the Proposed Regulations. The Regents will make a final decision on SED’s latest attempt at their meeting on November 5 and 6.  It is important to get to the Regents prior to that meeting in any way possible but at least send/email your comments directly to them.  Individuals can go to http://www.regents.nysed.gov/members/ for contact information.  Here is a statement to consider sending to the Board of Regents:

I oppose the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Proposed Regulations on governing impartial hearings at this time, on prehearing conferences. I believe that they should be withdrawn for comprehensive review in light of the law’s principals which favor settlement and support pro se litigants.  I am particularly concerned that the proposed amendments could allow an Impartial Hearing Officer to frame the issues in a hearing in such a way as to thwart the proper allocation of the burden of proof in impartial hearings in New York.  Thus, I am respectfully requesting that the Board of Regents not adopt the proposed regulations on prehearing conferences at this time. Thank you for your consideration.

Share

Parents Planning for College Expenses Should Consider a 529 Plan

October 17th, 2012

For parents, the cost of college is a big consideration in financial planning.  One option to help with college savings is a 529 plan, but it is important to understand the risks and benefits before getting started.

The 529 plan is named after the section of the Internal Revenue Code that describes it, and the ability to save on federal income tax is one of its prime advantages.  When you take advantage of a 529 plan, you are creating a college savings investment account, from which money can later be withdrawn for tuition, books or other expenses related to higher education, tax-free.

In New York, the 529 College Savings Program Direct Plan is administered by Upromise Investments and the Vanguard investment company.  Investors may open an account with as little as $25, and can invest for the benefit of a child, grandchild or even for themselves.  Vanguard manages the investment portfolio and charges a fee of 0.17 percent of account assets annually.

Earnings are federally deferred and can be withdrawn tax-free for the education expenses of the beneficiary.  In New York, investors can also deduct up to $5,000 in contributions to the 529 plan from their state income taxes.  Contributions can be made to the plan through an automatic payment plan or payroll deduction, as well as by check or wire transfer.

Of course, investments are not guaranteed, and depending on the performance of the stock portfolio, it is possible to lose money with a 529 plan.  Contributors have the ability to manage their own portfolio, but parents should consider the inherent risk in market investments before choosing a 529 plan.

For more information, visit www.littmankrooks.com or www.specialneedsnewyork.com.

Share

Funding Helps Inclusion Education For Special Needs Students

October 11th, 2012

As part of the overhaul process of special education in New York City public schools, one of the goals is increased student inclusion, both in individual schools and system-wide. Though inclusive classroom placement for students with disabilities has been the national education policy for some ten years, in New York City public schools, of the approximately 165,000 students with disabilities, some 40 percent of them currently spend all or most of their school day in separate classes from students without disabilities.

According to numerous studies, children with disabilities who are educated with their peers without disabilities in inclusive classrooms show a variety of academic gains, including mastery of  IEP goals, improved standardized test performance, increased motivation, and better on-task behaviors. [1]  In contrast, students with disabilities who are educated in separate classes show a graduation rate of 5 percent, which is far below the citywide overall graduation rate of 65 percent.

Now, as part of the overhaul process, New York City schools will begin incorporating students into inclusive classrooms for grades kindergarten, sixth and ninth. Administrators, including principals, teachers and aids, have been training to work with all levels of learners, their families, and individualized education plans (I.E.P.s), and teachers with special needs students in their classrooms. [2]

Prior to 2012, rather than have every school able to accommodate every student,  New York City students with special needs would often be transferred from their neighborhood school, or even their district school, to attend a school with special needs services in place. These reform plans are one part of a push to comply with the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 for all 1,700 New York public schools. And while advocates and parents have been working for a broader acceptance of students with special needs in the public school system, some have voiced concern that mainstream educators do not have the necessary resources and training to meet students’ needs effectively, and that some special needs students will be placed in inclusive classrooms when they would be better served working with education specialists. [3]

This past May, The Panel for Education Policy voted to alter New York city’s financing formula to help restructure the city’s special education program by allotting money to the students rather than to special education classes. [4]

For more information, visit our website at www.specialneedsnewyork.com.

  1. http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/lre.incls.rsrch.whitbread.htm
  2. http://schoolbook.org/2012/05/24/city-panel-approves-special-education-inclusion-plan
  3. http://www.nytimes.com/schoolbook/2012/08/09/special-ed-reform-brings-city-more-in-line-with-national-trend/
  4. http://eservices.nysed.gov/sepubrep/
Share

Time for a Change to the Rowley Standard

October 3rd, 2012

By Marion M. Walsh, Esq.

A little over thirty years ago, on June 8, 1982, the United States Supreme Court set forth the seminal standard for a free appropriate public education in  Board of Education v.  Rowley for students with disabilities.   In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that a school district provided a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) to a child by providing an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) “reasonably calculated” to produce educational benefit.  In the Second Circuit, which covers New York, Connecticut and Vermont, the courts have refined Rowley to require “meaningful educational benefit,” still a vague term, and look to evidence of passing grades and regular advancement from grade to grade as evidence of FAPE.  While courts will examine objective data, such as progress in standardized test scores,  Rowley does not deem this essential.

Few courts have questioned Rowley’s basic premise or updated the standard to comply with the mandates of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act  (“IDEIA”) or the No Child Left Behind Act, both of which require scientifically-based research strategies in instruction and explicit evidence of progress in the general education curriculum for students with disabilities.   Rowley made sense in 1982, based on the statute it was interpreting, the Educational for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, in an era when children with disabilities were systematically denied access to education and generally excluded from standardized assessments.  In the decision, Justice Rehnquest did not examine specific student achievement or test scores.  Clearly, in the thirty years since the Rowley decision, the educational landscape and the expectations on the methodology that school districts utilize has drastically changed.   NCLB requires data driven decisions and requires school districts to demonstrate progress for all subgroups of students, including students with disabilities, measured by a precise formula for “adequate yearly progress.”   Moreover, school districts must keep this data and chart individual student progress.

Courts have applied the Rowley standard universally to all cases, although the Rowley case involved the specific issue of whether a student with deafness, with above-average intelligence, who was doing well in a classroom required the additional service of a sign language interpreter.  The Court found that because the student was progressing, the school was not required to maximize her potential by having a sign language interpreter.   In many cases, the vague standard clearly harms students.   Most IDEIA cases indeed do not deal with parent claims that a school district must maximize potential, but rather with programs that have failed students, but which courts deem appropriate because the school district set forth an IEP that was “good enough.”  Parents know that passing grades are necessarily subjective, but grade inflation can be very difficult to prove.

In addition, Rowley discouraged courts from carefully reviewing and questioning educational methodology and substituting their judgment. For example, in Grim v. Rhinebeck Central School District, in 2003,  the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the challenged IEPs were substantively inadequate because, among other reasons, they did not provide sufficient services to address the student’s decline in test scores from the preceding year. The Second Circuit, reversed this decision, based on Rowley, because the Impartial Hearing Officers and State Review Officer had held that the IEPs were appropriate.  The Second Circuit held that adopting expert opinion on dyslexia was inappropriate for a court reviewing administrative determinations under the IDEA.

Thus, based on the applicable legal standard set by the courts for FAPE, parents must be proactive at the CSE level to understand the IDEIA and ensure their child is making meaningful progress.   In conformance with the IDEIA, parents should expect and school districts should deliver:

  • Scientifically-based instructional and positive behavioral support strategies;
  • Training and professional development for staff targeted for a student’s disability;
  • Supporting the use of assistive technology devices and services to maximize accessibility for students;
  • Precise measurement and objective evidence of student progress and outcomes;
  • Goals and objectives that are individualized, measurable and based on knowledge of a student’s abilities and scientifically-based, rather than vague and cookie- cutter;
  • An examination of whether passing grades reflect students’ ability, as measured by careful attention to standardized test scores and student work product;
  • Transition services designed to help students lead productive and independent adult lives, to the maximum extent possible.

When parents expect this level of progress and document, in a careful record, if it is not occurring under the IDEIA, the Rowley standard will eventually evolve. Due to the substantial deference standard used by the Second Circuit, Impartial Hearing Officers and the State Review Officer, rather than the federal courts, will be on the forefront of this evolution.

Indeed, the Rowley “reasonably calculated” standard does not serve school districts well either, particularly with the new annual professional performance review (“APPR”) model that New York State has required for teachers and principals, including special education teachers.  The adoption of a lackadaisical “C” standard actually encourages a lack of vigilance and attention to the details, training and monitoring needed to identify and serve students with disabilities, under the IDEIA.  Given the extensive resources that school  boards devote to providing special education services and to the instructional staff employed, high expectations and precise measurement of progress, will better serve students and ensure that school districts are effectively using their vast resources to identify student needs and to educate students.

Share
New York City Office
655 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10017
(212) 490-2020 Phone
(212) 490-2990 Fax
Westchester Office
399 Knollwood Road
White Plains, New York 10603
(914) 684-2100 Phone
(914) 684-9865 Fax
Attorney Advertising | New York Estate Planning | New York Elder Law | Website by SEO | Law Firm™, an Adviatech Company
This article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. If you need legal advice concerning this or any other topic please contact our offices to schedule a consultation with one of our attorneys at 914-684-2100 or 212-490-2020.