free appropriate public education | Littman Krooks, LLP
(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

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.