POLICY LETTER: October 18, 2012 to Steven L. Goldstein, Esq.

October 18, 2012Steven L. GoldsteinAttorney at Law111 John Street, Suite 800New York, New York 10038Dear Mr. Goldstein:This is in response to your January 24, 2012 letter to me requesting clarification from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) regarding the maintenance of current educational placement provision in Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In your correspondence, you allege that during the pendency of a due process complaint where the parent invokes his or her right in the impartial hearing request to have the student at issue remain in his or her pendency placement (i.e., the current educational placement), the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) does not advise the parent as to whether NYCDOE agrees with the parents' assertion of what constitutes the current educational placement and does not a(d) If the hearing officer in a due process hearing conducted by the SEA or a State review official in an administrative appeal agrees with the child's parents that a change of placement is appropriate, that placement must be treated as an agreement between the State and the parents for purposes of 34 CFR 300.518(a). 34 CFR 300.518(a) and (d). Under certain circumstances, judicial enforcement of the current placement also may be an appropriate mechanism. As one court noted, the IDEA's pendency or stay-put provision functions as an automatic preliminary injunction, creating an absolute rule in favor of the status quo. Zvi D. v. Ambach, 694 F.2d 904, 906 (2d Cir. 1982). The IDEA and its implementing regulations do not specify a specific timeframe or specific process for identifying a school district's agreement or disagreement regarding what const