BILL NUMBER:  S5636

 TITLE OF BILL :  An act

to amend the education law and the public health law, in relation to
the provision of special education programs and services and
implementation of the federal individuals with disabilities education
improvement act of 2004; to amend chapter 352 of the laws of 2005,
amending the education law relating to implementation of the federal
individuals with disabilities education improvement act of 2004, in
relation to making certain provisions thereof permanent; to amend
chapter 378 of the laws of 2007, amending the education law relating
to implementation of the federal individuals with disabilities
education improvement act of 2004, in relation to making the
provisions thereof permanent; to repeal subdivision 17 of section 1950
of the education law relating to development of special education
facilities plans by boards of cooperative educational services, and to
repeal subdivision (a) of section 8 of chapter 430 of the laws of
2006, amending the education law relating to implementation of the
federal individuals with disabilities education improvement act of
2004, in relation to making the provisions thereof permanent


 PURPOSE OF THE BILL :

The purpose of the bill is to conform the provisions of the Education
              

Law and to make supporting amendments to the Public Health Law, to
ensure compliance with the federal Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), as amended by the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-446) and the final
federal regulations implementing IDEA 2004 (34 C.F .R. Part 300) and
to provide mandate relief to school districts by eliminating
unnecessary costs relating to the provision of special education
programs and services. This bill is necessary in order to assure that
New York State (NYS) will continue to be in compliance with the new
requirements of IDEA in the 2009-10 school year.  As a condition of
federal funding under Part B of IDEA, the United States Department of
Education (USED) has required that states provide an assurance that
the State and its local educational agencies (i.e., school districts)
will, by July 1, 2009, be in compliance with the requirements of the
amended IDEA.

 SUMMARY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL :

This bill proposes to make permanent the series of amendments to the
Education Law made by Chapter 352 of the Laws of 2005, Chapter 430 of
the Laws of 2006 and Chapter 378 of the Laws of 2007 relating to New
York's compliance with IDEA. Specifically, the bill contains the
following provisions:

Section 1 of this legislation would repeal subdivision 17 of section
1950 of the Education Law to provide mandate relief to school
districts by eliminating the requirement for five-year BOCES Special
Education Space Requirements Plans.

Section 2 would amend §2215 of the Education Law to replace the BOCES
special education plan requirement with a general provision placing
responsibility for determining the adequacy and appropriateness of the
facilities space available to house special education programs within
the geographic area served by the BOCES consistent with the least
restrictive environment requirement, with the District Superintendents
of Schools.

Section 3 would amend Education Law §2856(1) to codify the formula
used to compute the State aid attributable to a student attending a
charter school in light of the shift to total Foundation aid. The
amount of aid is the sum of the Foundation aid attributable to the
student with a disability, computed by formula in the manner used to
determine that portion of Foundation aid which a school district must
set aside and use for special education programs and services, plus
any high cost excess cost aid attributable to the student, plus any
supplemental public excess cost aid attributable to the student.

Section 4 would make a series of amendments to §3602-c of the
Education Law, relating to the provision of special education programs
and services to students parentally placed in nonpublic schools
through dual enrollment in the public schools.

The definition of "services" in paragraph a of subdivision 1 of
§3602-c would be amended to provide for special education services in
July and August for parentally placed students with disabilities
enrolled in nonpublic schools through school districts of location
pursuant to §3602-c and § 4408 of the Education Law relating to July
and August services. A new paragraph e would be added to prescribe the
conditions under which special education services would be available.
As with public school students, a nonpublic school student whose
disability is severe enough to exhibit the need for a structured
learning environment of twelve months duration to maintain
developmental levels shall be eligible to receive special education
programs and services in July and August. However, this bill would
specify that a nonpublic school student shall not be entitled pursuant
to section 3602-c to placement in a special class or integrated
co-teaching services, as such terms are defined in the regulations of
the Commissioner, in July and August. The bill would also provide that
the school district of location shall be eligible for state aid for
such services exclusively pursuant to § 4408 of the Education Law.

Paragraph a of subdivision 2 would be amended to require parents to
file a request for services with the district of location on or before
the first of April of the preceding school year where the child has
previously had an individualized educational service program developed
and implemented or by June first of the preceding school year for
those students first receiving special education services in the
following school year or for whom an individualized educational
service program is first developed and implemented on or after April
first and on or before June first. The bill would also clarify that if
a student is first identified as a student with a disability after
June 1, the parent will have thirty days from the development of the
individualized education services program to file a request for
services with the district of location.

Subparagraph (1) of paragraph b of subdivision 2 of § 3602-c is
amended to specify that a student has no entitlement under § 3602-c to
placement in a special class or integrated co-teaching services, as
such terms are defined in the regulations of the Commissioner, by the
school district of location for all or part of the school day.

Finally, subparagraph (1) of paragraph b of subdivision 2 is also
amended by section four to make mediation mandatory when due process
complaints are brought to enforce rights created under State law under
§3602-c. For due process complaints presented on or after 9/1/09, this
bill would require that the matter be submitted to mediation and that
at least one mediation session be held prior to making a request for
an impartial hearing.

Section 5 would amend §3602-c(7) relating to the charge back of costs
by school districts of location to school districts of residence. The
bill would require the Commissioner of Education to establish regional
rate methodologies for use by school districts in computing regional
rates for the following three categories: costs of services,
evaluations and special education administration. School districts of
location would be able to elect to use these rate methodologies to
compute regional rates for billing for all nonresident students
receiving services under §3602-c(2) or could choose to compute actual
costs on an individual student basis for all qualified nonresident
students. The school district of location would have the flexibility
to use the regional rates for one or more of the categories of costs
and not for the other categories.  Further, this section would
establish a statute of limitations on claims for reimbursement, by
requiring a school district of location to submit such claim to the
school district of residence within one year from the end of the
school year in which the costs were incurred or within 60 days of the
effective date of this section, whichever is later.

In addition, section 5 would make a technical correction to delete
language inadvertently added to paragraph c of subdivision 7 of §
3602-c that suggests that a charge back may be made for due process
costs, when a charge back for due process costs is not authorized by
paragraph b of subdivision 7.

Section 6 would amend §4402(2)(a) of the Education Law to remove the
requirement that school districts obtain the written consent of the
parent prior to the initial placement of the student in a July/August
program recommended by the Committee on Special Education.

Section 7 would amend §4402(4)(d) of the Education Law to provide that
where the board of education of a student's school district of
residence provides transportation up to a distance of fifty miles to
and from a nonpublic school which a student identified with a
disability attends for the purpose of receiving services or programs
from the nonpublic school which are similar to special education
programs and services recommended for the student by the district of
residence, the student would not be entitled to special education
programs and services from the school district of location pursuant to
§ 3602-c of the Education Law. As a condition of eligibility for such
transportation, the parent or person in parental relation to the
student would be required to consent to the provision of notice by the
school district of residence to the chairperson of the committee on
special education of the school district in which the nonpublic school
is located. Such notice must be provided by the district of residence
no later than thirty days after commencing transportation services.

Section 8 would amend § 4404(1)(a) of the Education Law to create an
exception to the two year statute of limitations for due process for
tuition reimbursement claims for unilateral parental placements. The
bill would require that a complaint seeking tuition reimbursement for
the unilateral parental placement of a student in a private school be
presented not more than one hundred and eighty days from the
unilateral placement by the parent or person in parental relation in
the private school.

Section 9 would amend Education Law § 4410(1)(f) to allow parents the
option of having their child remain in an early intervention (EI)
program until the last day of the school year in which the child turns
age three.

Section 10 would amend § 2541(8) of the Public Health Law to allow a
parent the option to have their child remain in an early intervention
program until the last day of the school year in which the toddler
with a disability turns age three. This bill also would clarify that
"school year" means the period commencing July 1 and ending June 30.

Section 11 would amend section 22 of Chapter 352 of the Laws of 2005
relating to implementation of the federal Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 to prevent the sunset
of such act on June 30, 2009 by repealing the expiration of the
effective date to make such provisions permanent.

Section 12 would repeal section 8 of Chapter 430 of the Laws of 2006
relating to implementation of the federal Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 to prevent the sunset
of portions of amendments made by sections 1,2,3,5, and 6 of such act
on June 30, 2009 by repealing the expiration of the effective date to
make such provisions permanent.

Section 13 would amend section 27 of Chapter 378 of the Laws of 2007
relating to implementation of the federal Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 to prevent the sunset
of such act on June 30, 2009 by repealing the expiration of the
effective date to make such provisions permanent.

Section 14 would be the effective date.

 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL :

This bill would conform the Education Law to the IDEA by permanently
adopting amendments to align state requirements with IDEA as amended
by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004
(Public Law 108-446) and the final federal regulations implementing
IDEA 2004 (34 C.F.R. Part 300). Failure to permanently conform
provisions of Education Law to the reauthorized IDEA and all
provisions of the federal Part 300 regulations, which became effective
on October 13, 2006, would result in a conflict between New York law
and federal law and regulations that could expose both the state and
school districts to legal challenge and possible loss of federal funds
and would deny students with disabilities, parents and school
districts the benefits they are intended to receive from the reforms
made by IDEA.

The United States Department of Education (USED) requires the State to
assure compliance with the new IDEA that went into effect on July 1,
2005. States were given until June 30, 2007 to conform their state
laws to the new IDEA and the new Part 300 regulations.  Chapter 352 of
the Laws of 2005, Chapter 430 of the Laws of 2006 and Chapter 378 of
the Laws of 2007 were enacted to bring New York into compliance with
the IDEA, but all three acts will sunset on June 30, 2009.

Failure to continue the alignment of New York law with the new IDEA
could result in a loss or delay of funding under Part B of IDEA. The
United States Department of Education (USED) requires the State, prior
to expenditure of its use of federal funds for state-level activities,
to certify that arrangements to establish responsibility for services
pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(12)(A) are current.  Therefore, to
ensure that the State is not prohibited from expending its federal
state administration funds of more than $13 million to implement the
IDEA or subject to more drastic sanctions for noncompliance with the
IDEA, the provisions in Education Law enacted by these three prior
acts must be extended or made permanent as proposed in this bill.

The provisions of Chapter 352 of the Laws of 2005, Chapter 430 of the
Laws of 2006 and Chapter 378 of the Laws of 2007 that would be
permanently adopted by this bill would conform New York State law to
IDEA and the final federal regulations implementing IDEA and support
the State's goals to: promote less adversarial mechanisms to resolve
disputes between parents and school districts; ensure safe schools
while protecting the rights of students with disabilities; and ensure
that students who need special education, including students who are
homeless, wards of the State, or who are enrolled in nonpublic
elementary and secondary schools by their parents receive timely and
appropriate services; and would increase accountability for results
through proposed amendments that would require additional student data
collection consistent with federal law. With the exception of the
amendments to § 3602-c of the Education Law, which because of the
complexities caused by shifting fiscal and programmatic responsibility
for providing special education services to students parentally placed
in nonpublic schools has caused confusion and ongoing disputes, there
have been few issues raised with the provisions that were enacted in
these three acts, and we are not proposing amendments to those
provisions.

Because of concerns expressed by the field with how the provisions of
§ 3602-c relating to services for parentally placed students with
disabilities attending nonpublic schools are being implemented, the
State Education Department convened a Roundtable with representatives
of nonpublic schools, parents, teachers, superintendents of schools,
school administrators and school board members to discuss how the
changes made to §3602-c by Chapter 378 of the Laws of 2007 are working
and what changes should be made based on the experience of the past
two years. The amendments to section 3602-c of the Education Law
proposed are an outgrowth of the discussions at the Roundtable, and
are based on the recommendations of these various constituency groups.
The series of changes to § 3602-c proposed in this bill are intended
to assure that students with disabilities attending nonpublic schools
continue to receive the special education services they need from
their school district of location, while balancing the need of school
districts to avoid unnecessary costs, reduce disputes over billing
issues and due process complaints that go to an impartial hearing and
have timely notice that they must budget and make arrangement for
services to dually enrolled students with disabilities.

First, this bill would amend § 3602-c to authorize the provision of
services for students with disabilities in July and August by the
school district of location in an individualized educational services
program (IESP). Presently, the definition of "services" in Education
Law §3602-c(1)(a) is limited to services provided in the regular
school year. A student with a disability enrolled in a nonpublic
school who needs a twelve month program must re-enroll in their school
district of residence for the summer and receive July and August
services through an individualized education program (IEP) developed
by the Committee on Special Education (CSE) of the school district of
residence. The school district of residence then contracts for such
services and receives aid pursuant to Education Law § 4408.
Recognizing the unnecessary burden this places on parents and the
school district of residence, as well as the illogic and inefficiency
of forcing the CSE of the school district of residence to develop an
IEP for July and August for a parentally placed student with a
disability, when another district's CSE is developing an IESP for the
students, this bill would empower the school district of location to
provide summer services through the student's IESP and to contract for
and receive aid for such services pursuant to § 4408 of the Education
Law.

This bill would also amend § 3602-c relating to the existing June 1st
deadline for submission of a request for services by parents of
parentally placed nonpublic students. For those students who have
previously received services pursuant an IESP, this bill would require
that a request for services be filed by April 1st which is the
deadline for submission of requests for transportation by nonpublic
school students and is better aligned with the budget cycle of the
affected school districts. The June 1st deadline would be retained for
students who have not previously had an IESP developed and
implemented, particularly those who will be receiving special
education services pursuant to an IESP for the first time in the
following school year.  This would assure that parents who are first
placing their child in a nonpublic school have more time to decide
whether to request services, while those whose parents have previously
made a request for services are required to submit their request
simultaneously with their transportation, to give the affected school
districts time to plan and budget for the costs of services. In
addition, this bill would clarify the provision that allows parents
whose child is first identified as a student with a disability after
June 1st to submit a request within 30 days of identification. In New
York, the student would be identified when an IESP is developed, so
this bill would clarify that the 30 day period runs from the
development of the IESP.

This bill would also add language to clarify, both for July and August
services and services provided during the regular school year, that a
student parentally placed in a nonpublic school has no entitlement
under § 3602-c to the provision of a special class or integrated
co-teaching services. Section 3602-c is intended to authorize the
provision of special education programs and services to supplement the
regular education instruction provided by the nonpublic school.
Unlike related services, resource room services, consultant teacher
services and supplementary aids and services, which are designed to
supplement regular education instruction, a special class or
integrated co-teaching services necessarily involves a teacher
providing a portion of the core regular educational program of the
student. Such core instruction should be provided by the nonpublic
school, and would be both costly and burdensome for the school
district of location to provide.

To address concerns that too many disputes under Education Law §
3602-c are proceeding to due process hearings, which are costly to
school districts and burdensome on both school districts and parents,
this bill would make mediation mandatory prior to commencement of a
due process hearing, whenever a due process complaint involves a
dispute over rights under State law under § 3602-c. Where a due
process complaint involves child find requirements, the federal rules
would apply and mediation would continue to be optional. This bill
would provide that at least one mediation session must be held prior
to making a request for an impartial hearing. Prompt resolution of
disputes is in the interest of the parents and the school districts
and mediation can be an effective means of dispute resolution. The
more disputes that are resolved by agreement through mediation, the
sooner appropriate services are provided to students and lower the
costs to the school district of location for due process hearings and
subsequent appeals.

Finally, this bill would amend §3602-c(7) of the Education to permit
the Commissioner to establish regional rate methodologies for
computing regional rates for the following three categories: costs of
services, evaluations and special education administration. The school
district of location would have the option of using the regional rate
methodology for one or more categories of costs or computing actual
cost on an individual student basis, but would be required to do so
consistently for all nonresident nonpublic school students served in
any school year.  Thus, the school district of location could opt to
use the regional rate methodology only for evaluations and/or CSE
administration and compute the actual costs of services on an
individual child basis. By providing the option of regional rates,
this bill would address concerns expressed by school officials about
the burden and costliness of having to compute costs on an individual
basis. Over time, the State Education Department would develop
methodologies for computing regional rates for various services plus
evaluations ad CSE administration, and once developed, they would be
available to school districts of location as a ready means of
determining actual costs.  If because of local conditions, a school
district of location were to decide that a regional rate would not
accurately reflect actual costs for one or more categories of costs,
it would be free to continue to compute actual costs using its own
methodology. Thus, school districts of location would ,have the
benefit of the availability of a regional rate methodology that would
reduce their administrative costs, but would not be locked into a
regional rate methodology if local conditions indicate that a regional

rate would not accurately reflect actual cost for one or more
categories of costs.

In addition, Education Law § 3602-c(7) would be amended to add a
one-year statute of limitations on submission of claims for
reimbursement of the costs of services, evaluations and CSE
administration to the school district of residence. Districts of
location would have one year from the end of the school year in which
costs are incurred to bill for the costs, or 60 days from the
effective date of this act, whichever is later. By establishing a
reasonable time within which claims must be presented, this bill would
assure that claims are processed in a timely manner and that districts
of residence are not confronted by claims for multiple years that are
difficult to verify because of the passage of time.

The bill would also make a related amendment to Education Law §
4402(4)(d), which authorizes transportation from a nonpublic school
student's school district of residence for up to 50 miles, where the
student attends a nonpublic school for the purpose of receiving
special education services comparable to those recommended in the
student's IEP. First of all, this bill would clarify that the
comparable special education services must be provided by the
nonpublic school and not the school district of location pursuant to §
3602-c. Beyond that, this bill would provide that a student with a
disability who receives such transportation is not entitled to receive
special education services pursuant to § 3602-c and that as a
condition of receipt of such transportation, the parent must consent
to the provision of notice by the school district of residence to the
CSE chairperson of the school district of location identifying such
student, by name, address and school of attendance, as a student
receiving transportation pursuant to Education Law § 4402(4)(d). The
school district of residence would be required to provide such notice
within 30 days after commencing such transportation. These changes are
proposed in response to concerns raised by school officials that some
parents of nonpublic school students may seek to use Education Law §
4402(4)(d) inappropriately to receive transportation for a longer
distance than would otherwise be allowable under the transportation
mileage limitations approved by the voters of the school district when
in fact their child is receiving comparable special education services
from another school district pursuant to § 3602-c. This bill would
foreclose that possibility, which isn't what was intended when §
4402(4)(d) was enacted.  Section 4402(4)(d) was intended to authorize
transportation to a private special education school in which the
parent placed their child up to 50 miles, provided it offers
comparable services. In the situation contemplated by § 4402(4)(d),
the school district would bear the cost of this additional
transportation, but would not be paying for the special education
services provided the student by the nonpublic school. By preventing
the imposition of costs for transportation under § 4402(4)(d) in
addition to the cost of services under § 3602-c that would be charged
back to the school district of residence, this bill would reduce costs
to school districts.

This bill also proposes additional changes in the law relating to
special education intended to provide mandate relief and reduce costs
to school districts.

This bill would eliminate the requirement of a Board of Cooperative
Educational Services (BOCES) special education facilities plan, which
currently must be prepared every five years.  Such plan involves an
exhaustive review of all school districts, approved private schools
and BOCES facilities in a BOCES region, as well as an analysis of the
future need for space to house special education programs. In lieu of
the BOCES space plan, this bill would impose a general responsibility
upon the BOCES district superintendent of schools to determine the
adequacy and appropriateness of the space available to house special
education programs within the supervisory district of the BOCES. This
would allow the district superintendents of schools to monitor the
availability of facilities to serve students with disabilities in the
least restrictive environment within the BOCES region, while
eliminating the cost and burden upon component school districts and
BOCES of preparing and periodically updating a detailed BOCES space
plan.

This bill would also amend § 4402(2)(a) of the Education Law to
eliminate an unnecessary parental consent requirement under State law
that applies to an initial recommendation for twelve month services.
Under federal law, parental consent is required upon the initial
provision of special education services to a student, and the federal
IDEA regulations now provide for the revocation of such consent to
services by the parent. Where July and August services are recommended
in the student's initial IEP, parental consent to the initial
provision of services would be required under federal and State law in
any event.  However, § 4402(2)(a) exceeds federal law by requiring
parental consent specific to the initial provision of July and August
services. Thus, if a school district CSE recommends twelve month
services after a student has previously been identified and provided
IEP services, §4402(2)(a) would require parental consent prior to the
initial provision of twelve month services, when federal law would
not. This additional consent is unnecessary and potentially burdensome
and costly for school districts, which are required to make diligent
efforts at obtaining consent, even where the parent may not be easily
contacted. This is the only instance in which parental consent to a
particular type of service is required-otherwise parents may pursue
due process if they disagree with an IEP or may withdraw consent to
the provision of special education altogether.  Allowing a parent to
block the provision of twelve month services to their child, when he
or she has been determined to need twelve month services to prevent
substantial regression is inappropriate. To protect the interests of
students with disabilities who need twelve month services and to
reduce the burden and costs to school districts, this unnecessary
parental consent requirement should be eliminated.

The bill also would amend subdivision 1 of § 4404 of Education Law to
establish a 180 day statute of limitations for due process complaints
seeking tuition reimbursement for the unilateral parental placement of
a student in a private school. Chapter 430 of the Laws of 2006 amended
§ 4404(1) to adopt a two-year statute of limitations for due process
complaints generally. This bill would carve out an exception for due
process complaints involving claims for tuition reimbursement for
unilateral parental placements, which involve an intentional decision
by a parent to enroll their child in a private special education
school, rather than receive special education services from their
school district of residence. In this situation, delay by the parent
in bringing an impartial hearing can result in substantial costs to
the school district, which could under current law be faced with
defending against a claim involving two years of tuition costs before
it has an opportunity to begin litigating over the merits of the
parents' claim. When a claim encompasses multiple school years, the
record in an impartial hearing can become voluminous and the cost of
defending the complaint rises. To avoid these unnecessary costs on
school districts, a 180 day statute of limitations should be imposed
on tuition claims for a unilateral parental placement. Where the
parent knows or should know that he or she will be seeking tuition
reimbursement, it is not fair to the school district or its taxpayers
to allow the parent to delay presenting their claim for almost two
years.

This bill also would make amendments relating to the transition of
toddlers with disabilities to preschool special education that are
intended to aid our State in meeting the targets under our State
Performance Plan for timely evaluation and placement of students at
transition from the early intervention (EI) program. The bill proposes
amendments to Education Law §4410(1) (f) and Public Health Law §
2541(8), to allow parents to opt to have their children who reach age
three while being served in an early intervention program to remain in
the EI program until the end of the school year in which the child
turns three, as a number of other states currently do.  Currently,
Public Health Law §2541(8) requires that children whose 3rd birthday
occurs on or before August 31st enter a 4410 program in September and
children whose 3rd birthday occurs on or after September 1 enter a
4410 program on January first of the succeeding calendar year. From a
pedagogical standpoint, moving a child to a new program on their 3rd
birthday makes little sense when the child is born late in the school
year. Giving the parent the option to have their child remain in the
EI program through the end of the school year in which they turn three
would benefit the child by allowing the child to transition when the
program starts in September.

Finally, the bill would amend Education Law §2856 to codify the
formula currently used to compute the State aid attributable to a
student with a disability, which must be paid to a charter school that
opts to serve such student with a disability. Until the Foundation aid
formula is fully phased in and all school districts are receiving
Foundation aid, it is not possible to compute the amount of aid that a
student with a disability would generate using the Foundation aid
formula without making unwarranted assumptions and causing serious
anomalies. This bill would place the formula currently used, which is
based upon the amount of Foundation aid that a school district must
use for special education programs and services, in statute.

 BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS OF THE BILL :

Failure to comply with IDEA could place New York's allocation of funds
under Part B of IDEA (approximately $13 million in funds for state
administration in 2007-08 and $699 million in toto) in jeopardy. This
bill would not result in any increased costs to the State. The only
provision of this bill that may result in additional costs to school
districts is the provision authorizing the provision of July and
August services to nonpublic students through the school district of
location. It should not result in significant increases in costs,
however, since the school district of residence is currently required
to provide July and August services to pursuant to section 4408 to
those nonpublic students with disabilities who re-enroll in the school
district for the summer. On balance, however, this bill will result in
cost savings to school districts.  The provisions of this bill
allowing parents to opt to have their children remain in an early
intervention program until the end of the school year in which they
turn age 3 could result in additional costs to counties depending upon
the relative State reimbursement rates under the EI program and 4410
program. Counties would incur additional costs under EI that would at
least be partially offset by reduced costs under section 4410. The
amount of such additional costs to counties, if any, is not known.

 PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY :

This is a new bill.

 EFFECTIVE DATE :
This act would take effect June 30, 2009 and in the event that it
would become a law after this date, it would take effect immediately
and would be deemed to have been in full force on and after June 30,
2009, provided that the amendments to paragraph a of subdivision 1 of
section 3602-c of the Education Law, paragraph e of subdivision 2 of
section 3602-c of the Education Law shall first apply to July and
August programs for nonpublic students with disabilities in July
10

and August 2010; the amendments to subdivision seven of section 3602-c
of the Education Law would first apply to charges for costs of
services, evaluation and CSE administration that relate to the
provision of special education programs and services to students
attending nonpublic schools for the 2009-2010 school year; and the
amendments to paragraph a of subdivision 1 of section 4404 of the
Education Law would first apply to due process complaints for tuition
reimbursement presented on or after September 1,2009.
II