Schools and service providers play a critical role in explaining how this proposal would destabilize special education delivery. 

Letters from professionals add valuable system-level insight — especially when written in a professional, factual tone. 

Below are key points you may wish to include in your comment: 

 1. Impact on Service Delivery and Program Stability 

  • Impartial hearings for IESP implementation currently serve as a vital backstop — ensuring that districts ultimately fulfill their legal obligations. 
  • Without this enforcement tool, districts face fewer consequences for non-implementation, and many services will remain “on paper only.” 
  • The result: greater uncertainty for families, providers, and schools, and more children going without essential supports. 

 

2. Provider Shortages and Market Effects 

  • There are already serious shortages of qualified providers, especially in areas such as: 
  • Speech therapy 
  • Occupational and physical therapy (OT/PT) 
  • Bilingual services 
  • Low-incidence specializations such as vision and hearing 
  • Removing due process protections will further discourage providers from contracting with districts, worsening shortages and reducing service continuity. 
  • Schools will find it even harder to secure and retain consistent, qualified professionals. 

3. Limitations of ERES and NYSED’s State Complaint Process 

  • The Enhanced Rate and Equitable Services (ERES) unit is run by NYCDOE’s Office of General Counsel, staffed by the same attorneys who represent the district against parents in impartial hearings — creating an inherent conflict of interest. 
  • ERES decisions are made on paper only and typically take about 60 days. Parents who disagree are then referred to the state complaint process, which can take another 60 days or more. 
  • During these months, students remain without services. 
  • The NYSED complaint process: 
  • Is not an oral hearing, disadvantaging parents who struggle to communicate in writing. 
  • Is procedurally complex and often referred back to the same district that denied services. 
  • Is rarely effective for individual cases and typically limited to broad systemic issues. 

 

4. Administrative Burden and Litigation Risk 

  • Removing due process for implementation disputes will not reduce conflict — it will shift it to the courts. 
  • Families will turn to judicial actions and complex litigation, creating more cost, delay, and administrative burden for both schools and districts. 
  • The absence of a clear, enforceable process will leave schools caught between compliance mandates and family needs. 

Simple Message from Schools and Providers:

You can state plainly that this proposal will: 

  • Reduce access to services for children with disabilities 
  • Increase instability in staffing and programming 
  • Shift costs and burdens onto families and schools — instead of fixing the system