We Fact-Checked Dozens of IEP Claims With NYC Attorneys

IEP parent rights are an often misunderstood aspect of the special ed maze. A parent on Facebook or Reddit or WhatsApp swears the school told them their kid can't be in an ICT class until they're potty trained. Another says they got extra speech sessions once they explained the real cause of a writing problem. Who knew? Some of it is true. Some of it is half true, worded in a way that makes it sound like a rule when it's really a negotiating tactic. Some of it is just wrong.

We took a list of these claims to attorney Jonathan Saul, who represents families in comp ed and tuition reimbursement cases across the city. He told us if they were true or false and then he told us why. And in a few cases, he told us we were thinking about it wrong entirely. We also got comment from Mark Gutman, who handles due process cases, and parent advocate Jenn Choi of Jenn Choi Advocates, LLC.

1. An IQ test isn't required to establish an IEP — and if one is used, you can ask which method, or request an alternate one.

Jon says: Likely true, with a caveat. "I don't know the answer of whether you can do that," Saul admitted. But he stressed that different evaluation methods produce different results, and said it's often worth pushing for more comprehensive testing — "a lot of these [evaluations] are not comprehensive enough."

Parent advocate Jenn Choi confirms this. "I actually do not know where in any law or regulation that says one must use an IQ test," she said, "but it is a standard practice at least in NYC to at least attempt to do one" — because, she noted, "all aspects of disability need to be investigated. That is a requirement for school districts."

Her practical advice: ask the evaluator, before the evaluation happens, which IQ assessment they plan to use — and what they'll do if the child struggles to answer using that test. A prepared evaluator should have a backup ready. If an evaluation comes back with an IQ test attempted but not completed, and no alternate test was tried, she said "it's good to seek another assessment with someone who has more expertise" — and if it was a district evaluation, a parent can request an independent neuropsychological evaluation at public expense.

2. You always have a right to at least an evaluation — a provider's informal judgment can't be used to deny you one.

Confirmed — by a second attorney, Mark Gutman. When a parent requests an independent evaluation, Gutman said, the district legally has only two options: "say yes, I will grant it... or they can file for a due process hearing themselves to defend their evaluations." He said the district almost never chooses to fight it in a hearing.

What he flagged as the real problem: the DOE frequently tries to talk parents out of that right instead of honoring it. "In the majority of cases in New York City, when you ask for an IEE, the district will try and negotiate with you. They'll say, 'Well, we won't agree to this. We will give you this.'" That negotiation, he said, isn't legal — the district doesn't get to offer a partial or alternate evaluation as a substitute. "They're not allowed to do that legally. They have two options only: grant it, or file for a due process hearing."

Jon Saul, asked about this separately, pointed to a different reason parents don't push back: they don't realize they're allowed to. "Parents don't know that," he said. "I don't know a parent who does" — the first time they're going through this. He said many assume "these are the experts" and don't know they can disagree.

3. You don't have to agree to what's offered. Ask them to write your disagreement into the parent-concerns section — that creates a legal record; verbal or email assurances don't.

Jon says: False — on the "email doesn't count" part specifically. The parent-concerns section does matter, Saul said, but the claim that verbal or email disagreement doesn't create a record is backwards. Follow-up emails matter enormously, because an IEP is written by the team — and a parent's objection doesn't always make it onto the page. "I always have the parent, if they disagree with something, send a follow-up email," he said. "I just want it to be known and on the record that I disagree with this and that."

That distinction matters most if a case ever reaches a hearing. "IHOs will definitely rely on those contemporaneous emails, as well as contemporaneous notes by meeting," Saul said — "not just the parent concern section." His advice: don't rely on a verbal objection at the meeting, or on what's captured in that one section of the IEP. "You really have to send that email."

4. An IEP doesn't have to wait a year to be revised. It can be reopened any time.

True.

5. If you disagree with the outcome of a meeting, you can request a reconvene — bring documentation (evaluations, records) to support the ask.

Jon says: True, with a practical catch. "A lot of times, before the reconvene, you might want an evaluation," Saul said. "If you're reconvening with nothing new — what are you reconvening with? It's kind of pointless."

6. The Procedural Safeguards booklet must be provided to parents.

Jon says: True. "When a case comes to me," Saul said, "a lot of that is out the window."

7. The meeting date has to be agreed on by everyone, including the parent — not just scheduled at the school's convenience.

True.

8. If the IEP isn't being implemented as written, a parent can file a state complaint or request mediation or an impartial hearing.

Jon says: True. Mediation is the cheapest first step — "that doesn't cost anything" — but he was candid about its limits: "The DOE can say, yeah, we'll do it, and then they don't. There's no real accountability."

He also drew a distinction most parents miss: mediation involves a neutral, trained mediator; a resolution meeting happens directly with the school's own CSE, within 30 days of a filed complaint, with no mediator present. In one of his own resolution meetings, the DOE agreed to 1,000 hours of private tutoring at Lindamood-Bell, at $250 an hour — a result that even surprised him. "Shocked," he said, when asked how he reacted.

That reaction lines up with what a second attorney says is the norm. Mark Gutman, who handles due process cases full time, put it flatly: "I've never in my life seen a resolution meeting result in a proper settlement for the family. I've never seen that happen." In other words — Jon's win wasn't a routine outcome. It was rare enough to surprise even the lawyer who got it.

Gutman described how these meetings actually tend to go. The DOE no-shows about 10% of the time. The rest of the time, it's often "somebody trying to get more information out of the parents" — which is why he coaches families in advance not to explain their reasoning or evidence.

For families seeking a private school placement specifically, he called the meetings "completely pointless": the DOE rep will often say, "I looked at your DPC. Unfortunately, I'm not able to offer tuition. That's beyond my authority."

He also flagged a trap for parents without a lawyer: the DOE will sometimes offer a new IEP meeting as the "resolution." A parent may think that's a real win — "finally, they're going to listen to me" — but Gutman said it's usually the same team, with no new guidance, and the parent walks away with nothing. His own approach after a resolution meeting: thank them, ask for any offer in writing, and never agree to anything on the call itself.

The takeaway for parents: don't walk into a resolution meeting expecting a Jon-Saul-style result. Expect a settlement discussion with a low hit rate — and treat anything better than that as a genuine surprise, not the standard.

9. If an IEP team member won't be attending, the parent must be told in advance.

Jon says: True, and it goes further than that. Saul said "there's got to be a written consent" from the parent allowing a mandated team member to skip the meeting. Without it, he said, "that's a violation" — and "something we could probably win on" in a hearing.

10. Parents can invite anyone to the meeting — a private therapist, a family member — as long as the team gets advance notice of who's attending.

Jon says: True. "They can request anyone, as long as they do it a day in advance," Saul said.

11. If someone not listed on the meeting notice shows up, a parent can request they be dismissed from the meeting.

Jon says: False. "Either party may bring individuals with relevant knowledge or specialized expertise," Saul said. "The party inviting the guest decides whether they are relevant." The district isn't required to remove them. His advice: object on the record anyway, and note that the person wasn't listed on the meeting notice. If their presence ends up affecting the IEP decision, that objection could become the basis for a procedural claim later.

12. There's no time limit on an IEP meeting — if you don't get through everything, you can request another session, and the IEP can be spread across several meetings.

Jon says: True. "A lot of times they'll say 'we only have 30 minutes,'" Saul said. "But if you're not done, you're not done." He pointed to Jenn Choi as an example, saying he's watched her split a single IEP meeting across as many as five sessions when the team needed that much time to get it right.

14. Can I record an IEP meeting? NYC DOE's own procedures manual states a parent can request written permission to audio-record a meeting with one business day's notice, and the school will then also record it.

Jon says: True as DOE policy — but not as a matter of law. "New York is a one-party consent state, and that trumps the SOPM," Saul said. "As a matter of policy, no, you're not supposed to. But not as a matter of law. That's the distinction parents should know." He said he's had recordings in his files but has "never found them to be something I've used" as evidence — except when there's an actual dispute over who said what.

15. Older kids can attend and participate in their own IEP meetings — worth considering as they get older, so they have a say.

Jon says: True. Saul hasn't personally counseled a teenager through the process himself, he said, "but I've had young teenagers testify about what occurred at the IEP meeting" — and called the practice "very empowering."

16. A behavior plan should be developed by the full team and actually presented to parents before the meeting — not promised and never delivered.

17. Progress-monitoring reports should come from every therapist a few times a year, tied specifically to stated goals.

Jon says (on both 16 and 17): True in theory, rare in practice. "Absolutely, and it rarely happens," Saul said. "I don't see it."

18. Academic goals (math, reading, writing) should use norm- or criterion-referenced baseline testing with frequent, consistent progress monitoring — not just a teacher's informal read on "progress." Parents can request the actual completed test results.

Jon says: True — "absolutely."

19. Ask specifically whether progress is being measured against neurotypical peers or against other kids with similar needs — the answer changes what "progress" actually means.

Jon says: True. He also raised something not on the original list: parents can inspect the actual test protocols used. "They can look at copies of the test, the publisher, the copyright," Saul said. "They can inspect the entire test and the scored results. They're entitled to those. The school district has to produce copies."

20. Bring someone to take notes, and send a summary to the team right after the meeting to create a written record — if it isn't written down, it didn't happen.

Jon says: True, and it's the whole game. "For me, it's so important," Saul said. "When I have contemporaneous notes, those are going into my evidence to prove A through Z." If something important was discussed but never made it into the IEP, he said, ask for it to be added — or ask for a written addendum.

21. Strength-based and advanced-level goals can be requested too, not just remedial ones, though schools may push back that gifted-level support isn't part of the IEP framework.

Jon says: True — and he's dealt with this often representing twice-exceptional students. “New York doesn't mandate gifted education, but goals must be appropriately ambitious given the child's circumstances,” he said. “For a gifted child with disabilities, grade-level remedial goals may not be appropriate; you can request advanced goals instead. If they are not provided, this could be used in a tuition reimbursement claim to argue that the goals were not sufficiently ambitious.”

22. A scribe can be requested for a child during testing, and a parent can request to know who that scribe is.

Jon says: True.

23. A child does not need to be potty-trained to be placed in a General Education or ICT setting.

Jon says: True. "That's a misnomer," Saul said. "That's something the DOE will try to make you believe." Placement is determined by educational needs, he said — toileting needs are handled through support staff, like a health para or toileting para. "If you go to an IEP meeting, they'll say, 'Oh, ICT is not available,' but that's not true."

24. If a child uses an AAC device, a parent can request that the teacher and para receive training in using it correctly.

Jon says: True, but understated. It's not just something a parent can ask for, Saul said — staff being trained to use the device is a legal requirement.

25. SETSS can be requested even for a child in an ICT class, typically by trading some ICT minutes for SETSS time — schools may claim this isn't possible, but it is.

Jon says: Technically true, but he pushed back on the framing. "My feeling is, if the child needs ICT and needs SETSS, that's what they should get," Saul said. "It's not something that parents should be bartering." Denying a needed service — traded for or not — is a FAPE violation, he said, if the child is entitled to both.

26. If a specific service request is denied, consider whether a related service could address the same underlying need — one parent got more speech-language sessions approved after SETSS was denied for a writing issue rooted in language processing.

Jon says: Same answer as above. "In my mind, as an attorney, I would look at it differently," he said. "I would say this is a violation" — not something to negotiate around.

27. There are different categories of para support — 1:1 vs. shared, and specific to health, mobility, toileting, or behavior needs — worth knowing which category actually fits.

Jon says: True, and a common point of failure. Para training is minimal, Saul said — "you pass the test, and you're a para." He warned against letting a 1:1 para stand in for an appropriate program: "I don't want a one-to-one para to be a substitute for a supportive program." Sometimes, he said, "the kid's not learning" and "schools lose track" of that.

28. Testing accommodations can go well beyond extended time: adaptive seating, fidgets, standing desks, speech-to-text, a separate room, questions read aloud, breaks, even a reduced number of questions on a test.

Jon says: Mostly true, with one real exception. "One caveat would be if it's a state test, like a Regents," Saul said. A modification like reading a section aloud may not be allowed if that section is specifically testing reading skill — "because the state is different than the New York City local."

29. Travel training can be added to the IEP for older students.

Jon says: True, and underused. "It doesn't happen," Saul said. "It's something the parents should always know about and ask for. I rarely see it, and it's really helpful."

30. Inclusion opportunities can be written in beyond academics — "inclusion lunch" with general-ed peers is a real example, even for a child in a self-contained class.

Jon says: True. "LRE and extracurricular activities — yes, it can be," Saul said, referring to a child's right to the Least Restrictive Environment.

DISCLAIMER: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.