¿Prefieres el boletín en español? No hay problema. Haz clic en este enlace.

When the System Stalls, Advocacy Moves Forward

October brings both progress and pressure points in New York’s special education landscape. From a landmark federal ruling confirming that religious instruction can be part of a reimbursable special education program, to troubling DOE practices pushing families into hearings without IEPs or fighting long-settled pendency rights, one thing is clear: advocacy matters more than ever.

At AZ & CB Law & Consulting, we continue to track, and challenge, these systemic patterns while equipping families to stand firm in their rights. Whether the issue is tuition reimbursement, transportation breakdowns, or last-minute calls demanding quick “agreements,” informed parents remain the most effective force for accountability.

This month’s issue highlights the latest legal victories, outlines trends to watch, and reminds every parent: when the wheels on the bus don’t go round and round, persistence and documentation keep your child’s education on track.

-Ariel & Chris

In Your Advocacy Backpack

Newsletter Update: DOE v. E.L. — SDNY Confirms Full Tuition Funding for Religious Special Education Programs

In our July newsletter, we celebrated key hearing victories where families prevailed against the DOE’s attempts to reduce tuition reimbursement because their children’s programs included religious studies. Those administrative wins have now been powerfully validated in an unrelated federal court decision.

On September 30, 2025, the Southern District of New York issued a landmark decision in Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York v. E.L., affirming that the DOE must pay the full cost of tuition, including religious instruction, for a child with disabilities attending a Jewish special education program.

Judge Jessica Clarke rejected the DOE’s argument that funding Judaic Studies violated federal or state constitutional limits, finding instead that the IDEA is a neutral benefits program—and reimbursement flowing through parents’ private choice does not amount to government endorsement of religion. The Court also found that Judaic Studies at the SINAI School directly advanced the child’s expressive language and comprehension skills, making it part of the student’s FAPE.

This decision cements what we’ve long argued: families should not be penalized for choosing an appropriate special education placement simply because it is faith-affiliated. When instruction supports a child’s learning needs, it remains reimbursable under the IDEA.

Bottom line: SDNY’s ruling in E.L. brings judicial weight to the principle our July issue spotlighted—religious content does not disqualify a child’s right to a free appropriate public education or tuition reimbursement.

The NYC DOE has increasingly been advancing cases to hearing even when it has not developed a current IEP or offered a placement for the child. This practice forces parents into litigation simply to secure the most basic procedural entitlements. Without an IEP or placement, there is no program to evaluate—yet the DOE proceeds as if the parent must prove the inappropriateness of a nonexistent offer. This tactic delays services, burdens impartial hearing officers, and undermines the collaborative intent of the IDEA. Parents and advocates should document every missed IEP meeting, lack of placement offer, and delay in receiving mandated services, as these omissions go directly to procedural compliance and FAPE denial.

The DOE is increasingly contesting pendency placements that were once undisputed. Instead of honoring a child’s last agreed-upon program, the DOE is filing motions and appeals aimed at limiting or eliminating pendency altogether—particularly when private programs or extended services are involved. This delays critical continuity of services and strains families financially, as schools may require tuition payments while pendency is litigated. Parents should maintain copies of prior IEPs, settlement agreements, and hearing decisions establishing pendency rights, and counsel should be ready to move for interim relief if the DOE refuses implementation.

Another emerging pattern involves DOE staff cold calling parents directly to “discuss” IEP changes, service reductions, or placements, and then asking for verbal agreement or waiver of notice on the spot. In addition to these calls coming with little to no notice, there is also no documentation provided. Parents are told that written confirmation or notice will follow, but in many cases it does not. This practice erodes procedural protections and makes it harder to prove what was said or agreed upon. Parents should never agree to any IEP or placement changes over the phone and on the spot. Always insist on written notice and follow up by email to confirm the substance of any telephone discussion. Written records preserve your rights and create an accurate trail for future disputes.

Upcoming Events

Special Education: Know Your Rights - Free Virtual Workshop

Gersh Autism Academy is excited to host an empowering evening workshop designed to help parents and families better understand their children’s educational rights.

October 21 at 7pm   Register to Join Us

This special event will feature two of New York’s leading special education law firms:

AZ & CB Law & Consulting and Lieb at Law P.C.

What You’ll Learn

• A clear understanding of IDEA, FAPE, and IEP rights in plain language.

• Real-world case examples to guide how to request services and handle resistance.

• Tips on keeping documentation and knowing when legal help is needed.

• Practical questions to ask in IEP meetings.

• A live Q&A session, with Gersh Autism Academy available as an ongoing resource.

 Register to Join Us!

For more accessibility tips, events and resources, follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn!

No one knows your child like you do. You see their strengths, challenges, and the small victories that never make it into a report. In special education, that knowledge is power. Schools and agencies may change staff, policies, or priorities—but you remain the constant voice for your child’s needs.

Being an effective advocate means asking questions, keeping records, and insisting on clarity. Don’t accept vague assurances that “services are coming” or “we’ll revisit that later.” Request information in writing, review every IEP carefully, and speak up when something doesn’t feel right. You are not being “difficult”—you are ensuring your child receives what the law guarantees: a free appropriate public education tailored to their unique needs.

Remember: advocacy is not about confrontation; it’s about partnership and accountability. When you stay informed, organized, and persistent, you make it harder for the system to overlook your child—and easier for them to thrive.