NYC DOE

The “Calendar Year Rule” for Kindergarten Needs to Go

school stroller sign.png

by Regina Skyer

On February 4, the popular online newspaper Chalkbeat published an excellent article entitled: Your child’s birth month matters: NYC students born in November and December are classified with learning disabilities at higher rates.

This article focuses on what I like to call the “Calendar Year Rule,” which requires children to begin kindergarten in September of the calendar year they turn five, regardless of their level of readiness or maturity. This means that a child born at 12:01 am on January 1st 2015 and a child born at 11:59pm on December 31st 2015 are both considered “turning five” children for 2020 and would be required to begin kindergarten in September of this year.

This inflexible policy runs counter to the consensus position of most child development experts and is not followed by the vast majority of New York City’s private schools; nor is it the policy of scarcely any other school districts in the United States. In my book about special education kindergarten transition, How To Survive Turning Five, I discuss how this policy is particularly harmful for children who have been identified with a learning delay or disability.

My friend, the esteemed Dorothy Siegel, Director and co-founder of the ASD Nest Program, favors changing the December 31st deadline. In the Chalkbeat article she says that changing the cutoff “would reduce the misery of children who are labeled something because they’re not learning at grade-level expectations, when the truth is, they’re too young to learn at that level.” I echo her sentiments.

At our firm, we handle over 100 cases each year that involve parents seeking to maintain the services on their child’s preschool IEP for one simple reason: most children with special needs are simply not ready to enter kindergarten in the calendar year they turn five.

Because of this reality, the Stay-Put (or “Pendency”) provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is one of the most valuable legal tools we have for a “turning-five” special needs child.

Pendency can provide another year of a preschool program and services, and facilitate the development of a more stable foundation for the school years ahead. In NYC, to use pendency, parents must challenge the kindergarten program proposed by the DOE using their due process rights. An impartial hearing officer (a judge) issues the pendency order. It is not something that can be requested at an IEP meeting. (To learn more about this topic, read Skyer Law attorney Magda Labonté-Blaise’s excellent article, “What is Pendency?” from our blog.) 

The biggest problem our firm sees with preschool pendency programs arises when families want a child to attend public school the following year. The DOE insists on placing these children in first grade, despite the reasonable position taken by parents and professionals that if a child has missed kindergarten they will not be ready for these demands. Whether to place a child coming from an “extra” year of preschool in kindergarten or first grade used to be at the discretion of the public school’s principal. However, principals are now forced to register students for first grade at the start of the year and may only move students back to kindergarten if a child is failing—and there is room in a kindergarten classroom. This is something I always warn parents about, and it’s something else that needs to be addressed. Too many families end up breaking the bank for private school tuition because of this when their children would do just fine in an appropriate kindergarten class.

It’s far past time for the city to change these archaic policies. They are not based in sound pedagogical practices or in evidence. The “Calendar Year Rule” needs to go.

Due Process Denied: NYC Has Stopped Assigning Hearing Officers

Yesterday, in a jaw-dropping first, one of our cases was not assigned a hearing officer because there are currently none available to hear cases in NYC. In a form letter, the Impartial Hearing Office alerted us that it has instituted what amounts to a waitlist for its backlogged cases. This is a violation of the civil rights of students with disabilities.

We are taking immediate action. Today, we wrote to government officials in New York State and at the New York City Council to enlist their urgent attention and assistance. We are examining all legal options for our affected clients. We will keep you updated.


 

NYC Must Address Tuition Reimbursement Delays

Image: A piggy bank drowning.

Image: A piggy bank drowning.

In 2014, Mayor Bill De Blasio announced his Special Education Initiative, pledging to ease the burden on parents with private special education tuition and fee claims by expediting decisions, reducing extended legal battles, reducing paperwork, and expediting payments.

We were cautiously optimistic. But four years later, we are heartbroken for our families. The city took something already broken and found new ways to shatter it.

The best thing you can say about the change we’ve seen since 2014 is that the DOE’s decision to settle on a ten-day notice is being made a little more quickly than in the past. However, the execution of settlement agreements is far too often deferred for many months longer. Depressingly, paperwork requirements have actually increased with the supposed move to “monthly” payments. And, most disastrously for our modest income families (and schools accepting Connors or pendency placements), payments to parents and schools are more delayed than ever.

This is a citywide problem affecting every lawyer in our bar and every school and private provider of special education services. Schools, parents, and attorneys can dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t,’ and call with polite reminders until they are hoarse, but the only thing dividing the parent or provider who receives a timely payment from the one who must refinance their loan is luck of the draw. It isn’t fair, and it isn’t right.

Last year, Council Members Dromm, Kallos, and Garodnick wrote to the Mayor to describe how these systemic delays were impacting their constituents. The DOE's General Counsel Howard Friedman wrote back and acknowledged the delays, but pointed the finger at the NYC Comptroller and “new administrative systems.”

We began the 2017-18 school year hopeful, but sober, and unfortunately we have not seen any real effort to address these issues. Earlier this week, we wrote to Mayor De Blasio and Chancellor Carranza to once again detail our concerns and demand that the City make good on its promises to the families of special needs children in New York City. We will keep you updated on any replies we receive. If you wish, you can forward this letter to your local City Council Member with a personal note about your own family’s experience. Every bit of advocacy helps.

Update on the DOE’s New “3-Year Agreements”

We wrote to our clients about the DOE's new 3-year settlement agreements in February after we became aware that the City might start offering them to some clients who sue for private school tuition reimbursement. At the time, we had just received our first of such offers on behalf of a client and we weren’t thrilled with the language of the offer.

Since then, more of you have heard from us letting you know that the DOE is offering you one of these “deals.” Understandably, clients have a lot of questions about the pros and cons, and each family’s situation is unique. For some, the risks and downsides outweigh the benefits. For others, the reverse is true and taking the deal makes a lot of sense.

Now that we’ve seen more of these offers come in, we want to revisit this issue again on the blog, clearly listing the pros and cons. Please note that this is based on the language of the offers we have seen thus far. The DOE could always change the terms in the future.

Pros:
•    Might speed up the tuition reimbursement process in years two and three of a 3-year agreement.
•    Might secure a settlement amount you are happy with for two additional years.

Cons:
•    If tuition increases, you are basically locked into the dollar amount you agreed to; we are only allowed to negotiate a small Consumer Price Index adjustment. Further, any negotiation of the dollar amount of your settlement completely negates the promise of a “speedier” process.
•    The agreement is void if the parent is not fully cooperating with the IEP process or if the IEP changes “significantly.”
•    The child can’t change schools without voiding the agreement.
•    The settlement must still be approved each year by the NYC Comptroller’s office—usually the slowest part of the reimbursement process.
•    Even with this agreement, the family must still go through nearly the same process: private evaluations/updates as needed, IEP meeting, ten-day notices prepared by an attorney, submission of payment and other records, and, as mentioned above, comptroller approval each year.
•    And finally: Nothing in the agreement guarantees that the DOE will settle your case in years two and three. 

That last bolded bullet point is a big one. The city could sign one of these three-year agreements with you and still decide to litigate and take your case to an impartial hearing; they aren’t promising to settle, they are promising to pay you a certain dollar amount if they decide to settle. 

In his 2014 Special Education Initiative, the Mayor promised, among other important things, to improve the speed of the tuition reimbursement process.  In politics, it’s important to be able to say you are doing something, and while we applaud any effort to make the process for reimbursement move more quickly, the greatest inefficiencies in the speed of reimbursements seem to reside in the approval process with the NYC Comptroller’s office, and the nature of this problem has yet to be fully explained or addressed. 

One final note: Some people have called to ask how they can get a 3-year agreement for their child’s case. Unfortunately, these settlement agreements can’t be requested by a parent; they are offered by the DOE on a case by case basis. It remains unclear at this early stage what criteria the DOE is using to decide who to offer them to and who not to.

    If we receive a renewable agreement offer from the DOE for your case, we will reach out to talk about the particulars of your situation. 

DOE responds to NYC Council Members on Tuition Reimbursement Delay Issue

We have reported to you extensively about our efforts to advocate for an end to the unacceptable delays in tuition reimbursement payments to our clients. When we last updated you, we reported that, at our request, City Council Education Committee Chair Daniel Dromm, along with Council Members Ben Kallos and Daniel Garodnick, sent a powerful letter to Mayor De Blasio, asking him to honor the commitments his administration made back in 2014 to special needs students and their families.

The Department of Education has now responded to the Council Members' letter, admitting that there have been problems and that there is room for further improvement. It's good to hear that the DOE is cognizant of this and we are hopeful that they will improve their process for 2017-18 based on this stated understanding. The full DOE response is embedded at the bottom of this article. (If you are reading this via our email list, you will need to visit our website to view the letter.)

In its letter, the DOE also made it clear that a significant factor contributing to delays is out of their direct control. Namely, they pointed to rules governing NYC Comptroller approval. Here is what they said:

As noted, as part of the settlement process in each case, DOE submits memoranda and supporting documentation to the New York City Comptroller in which it seeks settlement authority from the Comptroller. One of the challenges of the new process and its subsequent expansion had been a significant increase in the volume of requests to the Comptroller's office, in a concentrated period, resulting in lengthened review time. The Comptroller's office has since built administrative systems to speed up its review process. However, such systems have resulted in new, and more complex requirements that must be followed by the DOE.

We are very grateful to our elected officials for taking action on behalf of our client families. If you have a moment, particularly if you happen to be a constituent of Council Members Dromm (District 25, Queens), Kallos (District 5, Manhattan), or Garodnick (District 4, Manhattan), please take a moment to thank them for their efforts on behalf of New York's special education families.

We will continue to update you as we move forward with our advocacy efforts.