You don’t need to be a lawyer to reference key legal and policy points. 

Use clear, plain language — even one or two of these arguments can make your letter stronger. 

 1. Violates New York’s Promise of Equal Treatment 

Legal basis: 

New York Education Law § 3602-c requires that the district of location develop an Individualized Education Services Plan (IESP) for a parentally placed nonpublic school student “in the same manner and with the same contents as” a public-school IEP, and it explicitly cross-references § 4404, which governs due process hearings. 

By removing implementation disputes from due process for IESPs — while retaining full due process rights for IEPs — this amendment breaks that parity and contradicts the law’s cross-reference to § 4404. 

Simpler version you can use: 

New York law says private-school students with disabilities are supposed to get services in the same way, and with the same protections, as public-school students. 

Public-school students will still be able to go to a hearing when services aren’t provided. Private-school students will not. 

You can’t remove the enforcement tool for one group of children and still call it equal treatment. 

2. Defies Decades of Decisions and Practice 

  • For decades, State Review Officers (SROs) — the state’s special education appeals body — have consistently recognized that parents can bring impartial hearings when districts fail to implement IESP services. 
  • No SRO decision has ever ruled that IESP students lack implementation rights. 
  • A new regulation cannot simply erase rights long recognized in law, guidance, and established practice. 

3. ERES Is Not a Real Replacement 

  • The Enhanced Rate and Equitable Services (ERES) process is run by the district’s Office of General Counsel — the same office whose attorneys represent the district against parents in hearings. 
  • This is a built-in conflict of interest. 
  • ERES outcomes overwhelmingly favor the district, and families face: 
  • Long delays (often 60+ days) 
  • No independent, neutral decision-maker 
  • No guaranteed right to appeal 
  • For most families, ERES is not a path to services — it’s an exercise in futility. 

4. The NYSED Complaint Process Doesn’t Protect Individual Children 

  • NYSED frequently refers complaints back to the district that denied the services in the first place. 
  • The process is paper-only, disadvantaging parents who are not strong writers or whose first language isn’t English. 
  • It is complex, slow, and inaccessible for most families who can’t afford legal help. 
  • At best, it can address broad systemic problems, not individual students’ urgent needs. 

5. Creates a Second-Class System for Children with Disabilities 

  • Public-school students will continue to have full due process protections. 
  • Nonpublic-school students — with the same disabilities and needs — will lose those protections entirely. 
  • This creates a two-tier system that conflicts with basic principles of equal protection and educational equity. 
  • The amendment doesn’t fix the real problems — provider shortages, payment delays, and administrative inefficiency. 
  • Instead, it hides those problems by making it harder for families to enforce the law. 

Stripping parents of these rights sends a message that saving money matters more than protecting children with special needs. 

 

 Final Summary You Can Adapt 

The proposed amendment to Section 200.5 is inconsistent with Education Law § 3602-c, contradicts decades of SRO precedent, and would materially weaken enforcement of IESP services for tens of thousands of students with disabilities. 

ERES and the NYSED state complaint process are not adequate substitutes for impartial hearings and do not provide the independence, remedies, or accessibility that due process guarantees. 

For these reasons, the amendment should not be adopted in its current form.