NYC Special Education Appeals Have Exploded. One Attorney Has the Data.

Did you know you don’t actually need a lawyer to navigate the DOE’s process of getting your child the support they need? That might work for some people. And I’ve heard of parents doing it on their own and losing their case. For my wife and me, the abundance of acronyms was just the beginning. Over the years, “lawyering up" has given us insights into a troubled system. How troubled? Due process claims — formal complaints parents file when the DOE fails to provide legally required special education services — have exploded from 6,000 in 2016 to 26,000 in FY 2024.

And even winning your case might mean nothing.

I spoke to Lloyd Donders, a special education law attorney. He's done some research on why there's such a backlog. And what he found is surprising even among the lawyers who have been doing this for many years: while appeals represent only a fraction of those 26,000 cases, the number of families forced to appeal is skyrocketing.

When parents lose their due process hearing — maybe the DOE denied their child's placement or refused to pay for speech therapy — they can appeal to the Office of State Review. Most appeals come from parents, not the DOE, because most of the time, it's the parents who lose at the hearing level.

"We [lawyers] have a parlor game," Lloyd said, with the kind of dark humor that comes from watching too many kids wait too long. "Who has the oldest pending appeal?"

The winner had been waiting 11 months. For a decision. While their child went without services. Lloyd took the time to explain to me what's happening—and why.

Lighthouse: So there's been a huge surge in appeals. What do the actual numbers look like?

Lloyd Donders: The numbers are staggering. I pulled the exact data from the Office of State Review:

That's a nearly 700% increase in just four years. And at this point, it's not about COVID—COVID is ancient history for these purposes.

Q: What exactly is an "appeal"? Help parents understand what this means.

A: When parents bring a due process case—maybe the DOE denied their child's placement, or refused to pay for speech therapy, or wouldn't provide an independent evaluation—they get a decision from a hearing officer. If they lose, they can appeal to the Office of State Review, an agency in the State Education Department.

Q: How long are families waiting for appeal decisions now?

A: This is devastating. Previously, you might get an appeal decision within 2-3 months. Now I'm seeing 10, 11, even 12-month waits.

Every one of those cases is a child who desperately needs services. While the case sits at the state level, the child is not getting what they're entitled to. And there's basically nothing we can do to speed it up.

Q: Those expected 1,400 appeals this year are a lot. But there are still 25,000 other due-process cases. Why so much of an increase?

A: One factor is the growth in IESP cases. You've got more families who have placed their kids in private schools but are still seeking services through the DOE. Those cases have definitely added to the volume of due process filings and appeals, though they're not the majority of the docket.

Q: What else is fueling the increase in due-process cases?

A: This is where it gets concerning. A few years ago the city moved all special education hearings to OATH (Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings) to handle the backlog. But when hearing officers work for a city agency, and their paychecks are essentially signed by the city, it raises real questions about independence.

Some of the new impartial hearing officers at OATH are excellent—everyone knows who they are, they understand the law, and if you prove your case you can trust the decision.

The problem is the other group: officers who don't really understand the law or who clearly have strong personal feelings against these cases. With those officers, it almost doesn't matter how strong your case is or how weak the DOE's case is. You can point to statutes, regulations, prior decisions—it doesn't matter. They're going to rule against you. At that point, you go into the hearing knowing you're really preparing for an appeal.

I FOILed all the decisions going back to 2000 and put them into a spreadsheet. What you see is a small cluster of hearing officers who have an enormous number of their decisions appealed—40, 50 decisions in a relatively short period—while most others might have 5 or 10. And those names are exactly who you'd expect if you practice in this area: they're known for being hostile to parents.

Q: Can you give an example of what "hostile to parents" looks like?

A: I've seen cases where a child has numerous, severe issues. Everyone—including the DOE—agrees the child needs services. The hearing officer's decision will actually say things like "This child is in very bad shape" and "The child clearly needs ABA."

And then at the end of the decision, the officer awards nothing. No relief at all. That's very hard to reconcile.

Q: The Manhattan Institute says if the DOE just did more evaluations in-house, as opposed to using outside vendors, due-process disputes would decrease. Would that help?

A: A few colleagues and I actually laughed when we saw that recommendation. Though the quality of an evaluation is very important, the real issue isn't who does the evaluation—it's what happens after.

I can't tell you how many times I see DOE evaluations that go on at length about how far behind a child is in speech and language, and then the CSE recommends something like one group speech session per week. It's a joke. There's no way this kid's going to make progress.

Evaluations are only as good as the people looking at them and utilizing them. And they don't. So I think it's very simplistic to say that it's just the evaluations going in-house that's going to make a difference.

Q: The Manhattan Institute also argues that New York City rarely uses mediation and suggests requiring families to try mediation first could reduce the number of hearings. Would that help?

A: Mediation definitely plays a bigger role in other parts of the country than it does here. In New York, it's not a major tool in special education disputes, and very few of my colleagues lean on it.

One big reason is how parents fare at hearings in different states. In a lot of places, even in really troubling situations, their version of impartial hearing officers still tends to side with school districts. If you're a parent in one of those states, mediation might be your only realistic option to get anything for your child.

New York City is different. Here, if you have a strong case, you actually have a real chance of winning at hearing. That changes the strategic calculus. If I know a case is solid—and I try to bring only strong cases—there isn't much incentive to go through mediation unless the DOE is prepared to offer something very close to what we're asking for.

Otherwise, mediation can just become an extra procedural step that burns time without changing the outcome. Meanwhile, the child is still waiting for services.

So no, I don't think forcing "mediation first" would meaningfully reduce disputes in New York City. The core problem isn't that we lack a forum to talk; it's that the underlying IEPs and services are inadequate, and parents know it. As long as that remains true, parents will keep filing for due process, whether or not they're required to sit through a mediation session first.

Q: So what does this mean for parents entering the system now?

A: Be prepared for a long fight. With certain hearing officers, I know going in: I will probably lose at hearing no matter what. I just have to build the record and prepare for appeal.

Q: Can a new mayor fix this?

A: The system is enormous, and I've watched it through several administrations. The basic problem is that they simply don't have enough providers to deliver the services kids need. A very common pattern is the DOE issuing RSAs—Related Services Authorization. It's a document the NYC DOE issues when it cannot provide a mandated related service (like speech, OT, PT, counseling) with its own staff.

The RSA authorizes the parent to find a private provider and have those services paid for (within DOE rules/rates). So, essentially, it's the DOE saying 'we can't find a speech therapist; here's an RSA, you go find one.'

On top of that, I still see the same poor-quality IEPs and lack of adequate resources. So no matter who the mayor is, I don't really see the fundamentals changing unless there are deep structural reforms inside the DOE itself.

IEP – Individualized Education Program
A legally binding plan for a child with a disability enrolled in public school.

IESP – Individualized Education Services Program
A services plan for a child whom parents have placed in private school on their own, but who still may be entitled to related services from the DOE.

CSE – Committee on Special Education
The DOE team that meets to evaluate a student and write the IEP (or IESP in NYC).

RSA – Related Services Authorization
A voucher-like authorization the DOE issues when it can't provide a required service itself.

OSR / SRO – Office of State Review / State Review Officer
The state-level appeal system for special ed cases in New York.

OATH – Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings
A New York City agency that now runs most special education due process hearings.

Lighthouse covers the NYC special education system — what parents need to know. Free and monthly.

If you know a family navigating the NYC special education system, please forward this.