← All hearing tools

Hearing Tool 66: Compensatory education: proving the make-up your child is owed

THE RULE

A New York hearing officer may award compensatory education as an equitable remedy for a denial of FAPE when the relief is supported by the record. Current official State Review Officer decisions describe the remedy as fact-specific and aimed at placing the student in the position the student would have occupied absent the violation (Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 25-280, official decision checked July 25, 2026). Do not use 34 C.F.R. § 300.516(c)(3) as the source of an IHO's power: that provision authorizes a reviewing court to grant appropriate relief. A state complaint can also result in compensatory services or monetary reimbursement when the SEA finds a failure to provide appropriate services (34 C.F.R. § 300.151(b)), but that is a separate route.

Current New York SRO practice uses a flexible, fact-specific make-whole inquiry rather than a mandatory hour-for-hour formula. Appeal No. 25-280 cites controlling Second Circuit authority and cites Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2005), as persuasive support for asking what educational benefits likely would have accrued absent the violation. Missed hours remain relevant evidence, but they are neither an automatic floor nor an automatic measure of the award.

Accepted-open caveat, July 25, 2026: In Appeal No. 25-180, issued December 9, 2025, the SRO placed the burden on a parent seeking parent-selected private compensatory services to prove that those services were appropriate, while stating that no court or other authoritative body had resolved that allocation. Treat this as current SRO practice, not a settled rule from higher authority, and build affirmative proof of the proposed provider, services, amount, and fit for the child.

WHY IT MATTERS

Compensatory education is where a parent who proved the denial can still walk away with too little, because the award is only as good as the proof of what the child needs to catch up, and that proof is easy to leave out.

The mechanical request feels safe and is usually weak. It is tempting to add up the missed speech sessions and ask for that many back. But the hearing officer is being asked to make the child whole, and an equal number of the same sessions rarely does that, especially where the goals stayed flat across years (H-Tool 53). The number that persuades is the number tied to what the child needs going forward, and that number comes from an evaluation or an expert, not from arithmetic.

The record for the amount is the part parents skip. You proved the denial; now you have to prove the size of the make-up, and that is a separate evidentiary job. It is built from the timeline of missed or inadequate services (H-Tool 53) and, most powerfully, from an evaluator or clinician who can say what quantity and kind of service would move the child from where they are to where they should be (H-Tool 55). Without that, the hearing officer is left to guess, and a guess is usually smaller than what you could have proved.