Thoughts of Our Departed Friend, Larry Kotin

by Robert K. Crabtree, Esq.

I write with sadness at the passing of my friend and colleague Larry Kotin on May 12 at the age of 81, and also with deep gratitude for our personal and working relationship of more than 52 years.

Read more

I met Larry in 1970 when he worked with the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute (MLRI). I was in my first year as Research Director for the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Education. Larry came by with a proposal to provide for community control of schools within urban districts – a mechanism by which residents could assume some share of governance over their local schools.  Though we talked a few members into signing on, the legislation quickly foundered on the rocks of complexity, squabbles over power-sharing in school districts, and cost. 

But the relationship that began with that undertaking was just the beginning!  Larry’s purposeful enthusiasm and sense of mission and his facility with the language of law and policy struck quite a responsive chord in me that led to a collaboration we proceeded to enjoy for more than fifty years. That working relationship was marked throughout by Larry’s deep kindness, sharp creativity, and enduring commitment to finding ways to direct governmental resources toward effectively serving the needs of underserved populations. 

Chief among the products of our early collaboration was the signing of Chapter 766 into law by Governor Frank Sargent on July 17, 1972 – 50 years ago. Working through MLRI, Larry had been assigned to the Massachusetts Advisory Council on Education (MACE). His mission was to analyze the patchwork of statutes then in effect concerning special education in the Commonwealth and to design model legislation to reform that deeply flawed system. Larry’s proposed statutory models served as the proto-drafts for an entire new structure which aimed to ensure that the teaching and supports that a child receives would be based on individualized expert evaluation of the child’s particular needs and potential and would be designed according to the best current pedagogical science. More, in a turn that was much in keeping with the “power to the people” spirit of those years, Larry’s drafts sought to establish a powerful set of parental rights: (1) to participate throughout the evaluation, planning, and implementation of special education services; (2) to secure publicly funded second opinions by independent experts when parents did not agree with the school’s own evaluations; and (3) to appeal a school system’s actions or failures to act to independent adjudicators (BSEA hearing officers) when necessary.   

At the same time, my boss, Rep. Mike Daly of Brighton, who was sitting as a member of the Task Force on Children Out of School (now the Massachusetts Advocates for Children), assigned me to research special education reform options from the MACE study and other resources around the country and to piece together a draft proposal to rebuild from the ground up the Commonwealth’s system for educating and supporting children with disabling conditions. The resulting draft legislation was filed by Rep. Daly with Speaker David Bartley. After an extensive vetting involving numerous meetings with stakeholders across the Commonwealth and the adoption of a number of key amendments (including a “purpose” section that I recall drafting on the floor of my apartment at the time!), it was signed to become Chapter 766. That statute changed lives not only in Massachusetts but across the nation, as it became the model for the federal special education law now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

The core of Larry’s ideas survived the meat-grinder of the legislative process intact, and the changes that grew out of the legislative process leading to enactment greatly strengthened the resulting statute. In that process, as his original work was altered amendment by amendment, Larry and I conferred countless times with each other and with other key advocates, especially including Speaker Bartley’s staff member Connie Kaufman and, leading the charge for parent advocacy groups, Martha Ziegler, who became the founder of the Federation for Children with Special Needs, and equally eloquent and passionate members of the Task Force, Larry Brown and Hubie Jones. Throughout this process Larry put ego aside and never second-guessed the changes that had to be made to satisfy the competing demands of the initiative’s many stakeholders in order for the bill to reach the Governor’s desk. As he sometimes observed during lunchroom conversations over current affairs, the perfect is too often the enemy of the good. In the case of Chapter 766 the great good wrought by its robust overhaul of special education law was certainly worth the price of a few concessions.

Skipping ahead to 1980, Larry found me working at a large corporate law firm and invited me to lunch on the Boston Common one day to discuss an idea he had for creating a new general practice law firm. His vision was that it would not be a “boutique” serving only the needs of families with children or adults struggling with disabilities but would provide quality legal services of all kinds – real estate, corporate, employment, estate planning, intellectual property, and so forth.  The idea was brilliant, as it turned out. As we have found over some 41-plus years as Kotin, Crabtree & Strong, LLP, maintaining a core practice in special education and disability law has provided a great cross-fertilization of legal skills and, frankly, business appeal that has served our clients and our attorneys extremely well. I credit Larry with the amazing foresight to imagine this business model could work. Perhaps his young years helping his dad delivering milk and collecting bills in upstate New York seeded a unique array of skills and interests in Larry that helped him marry his commitment to education reform and equal justice to a practical business sense that was key to our firm’s success.

As an advocate, Larry modeled kindness, humor, and sharp intelligence in the service of our clients. With adversaries, clients, expert witnesses, and fellow advocates alike, he was unfailingly positive, respectful, and creative in the search for solutions to our clients’ needs. He also brought a quirky sense of humor to the work that often enabled people in difficult conversations to move to solutions. 

Larry had a charming, wry, and self-effacing sense of humor. He loved to tell of receiving a report card in elementary school on which the teacher wrote “Lawrence tries hard!” He frequently offered diagnoses, albeit unlicensed – of himself, of his colleagues … of anyone, really, with whatever arm-chair psychiatric label he thought fit the subject – tongue in cheek, of course. Working with law students and young attorneys, he insisted, also tongue-in-cheek we supposed, that one was not sufficiently committed to the work of an attorney if s/he was not waking at three in the morning to worry about a case. With all that, he put family above all other priorities and guarded his time with them and in pursuit of activities to refresh his soul (he tried the trombone, he danced, he ice-skated, he developed a stand-up comedy routine …). In that light, he sometimes reminded his colleagues, as we aged, of Mark Twain’s observation that “the graveyards are full of indispensable people.”

Even at this length, I have only touched the surface of our friend’s many ways of making this a better world. He did – always – “try hard” … and by God, he succeeded. 

With love and gratitude, I wish him rest and peace.

Bob

Robert K. Crabtree is of counsel within the Special Education & Disability Rights practice group at Kotin, Crabtree & Strong, LLP in Boston, Massachusetts.  He is a founding member of the firm.

COVID-19 Compensatory Services: What Are They and Will Your Child Receive Them?

Compensatory education is a well-established remedy for deprivations of special education services, recognized in Massachusetts at least since Pihl v. Massachusetts Dep’t of Educ., 9 F.3d 184 (1st Cir. 1993).  The purpose behind compensatory relief is to make the student whole by providing services that place the student in the position that he or she would have occupied if the services been delivered in a timely manner.  The remedy is an equitable one that has been characterized as broad and flexible.  In some cases, school districts (or, when disputes occur, courts, administrative hearing officers, and state complaint agencies) have used a “one-for-one” approach, calculating the hours or days of services that the student missed and ensuring that the student receives compensatory services of the same type and in the same amount.  At other times, compensatory services may differ in type or amount from those the student missed, with the goal of redressing the deprivation by meeting the student’s current needs. Continue reading

A Concerning Trend: Massachusetts Districts Asking Parents to Waive Special Education Rights

In a recently published article, the Boston Globe reports that during this past spring, many school districts across the state asked parents to forgo their children’s special education rights by signing waivers releasing the districts from important special education obligations. These waivers have included releasing districts from providing IEP-related services and programming, conducting special education assessments, and issuing IEPs within state and federal timelines. That districts would request such waivers is concerning enough, in light of clear federal and state guidance that districts must adhere to these obligations despite the COVID-19 crisis. Further concerning is how districts have presented these waivers. Attorneys, parents, and advocates have stated that districts have portrayed the signing of these waivers as a necessary condition for parents to get IEP Team meetings scheduled or for certain services to continue. As a result, many less informed or less assertive parents consented to the waivers, misled by the districts to believe that they had no choice but to do so if they wanted their children to receive assessments, services, or meetings to which the families were in fact already entitled. Continue reading

Uncharted Territory: What Will School Look Like for Special Education Students in the Summer and Fall of 2020?

As most Massachusetts residents know, on March 15, 2020 Governor Charlie Baker ordered all public and private schools in the Commonwealth to cease in-person instruction through April 6, 2020.  That restriction was later extended through the end of the 2019-2020 school year.  The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (“DESE”) directed school districts to provide students (including special education students) with remote instruction during that time.  With the 2019-2020 school year drawing to a close, DESE been considering summer school programs and looking toward the reopening of school in the fall.  DESE has issued the following guidance on those subjects:

All four documents may be found at http://www.doe.mass.edu/covid19/on-desktop.html. Continue reading

BSEA Issues New Standing Orders Addressing COVID-19-Related Issues

The Bureau of Special Education Appeals (“BSEA”), the state’s administrative body that handles special education cases, has recently issued Standing Orders to address the challenges presented by COVID-19. In order to comply with federal and state mandates requiring that special education timelines be maintained during this global pandemic, the BSEA has ordered that it will continue to hold resolution proceedings (which include Due Process Hearings). In light of the state’s closure and re-opening plans, these resolution proceedings shall be done remotely or virtually and not in-person until further notice. Any requests for a change in date of the resolution proceedings, location of the proceedings, and/or mediums from which to conduct these proceedings must be made to the individual Hearing Officer assigned to the case. Continue reading

Reversing a FAPE Freefall? U.S. DOE Upholds Students’ Rights to Special Education During Coronavirus Crisis

On March 21, 2020, the United States Department of Education (“USDOE”), through its Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) and Office for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (“OSERS”), issued a Supplemental Fact Sheet, “Addressing the Risk of COVID-19 in Preschool, Elementary and Secondary Schools While Serving Children with Disabilities.”  This guidance provides a necessary corrective to earlier guidance issued by USDOE on March 12, 2020 and by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (“DESE”) on March 17, 2020. Continue reading

Issues in Special Education that Candidates Should Address

We are posting a link here to an article written by Bob Crabtree, of counsel with KC&S, regarding some of the critical issues surrounding special education and disability rights that candidates running for legislative and executive offices should address.  Though IDEA is a federal law, states can establish increased requirements for special education and these are therefore issues to discuss with candidates for state office as well.  The issues discussed in the article include: inadequate special education funding; the weakening of required standards governing IEPs; judicial decisions about recovery of attorneys’ fees and related costs; and the burden of proof in special education proceedings. 

Special Education Today is a publication of the Special Education & Disability Rights practice group at Kotin, Crabtree & Strong, LLP in Boston, Massachusetts.

New First Circuit Opinion Elucidates Exhaustion Requirement for School-Related Claims Under Sections 504 and 1983

The First Circuit has recently clarified the exhaustion requirements for school-related Section 504 and Section 1983 claims in light of Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017).  In Doucette v. Georgetown Public Schools, #18-1160 (1st Cir. Aug. 26, 2019), a divided panel reversed a District Court decision that dismissed parents’ Section 504 and Section 1983 claims for failure to exhaust IDEA’s administrative process. Continue reading

Providing Notice of a Unilateral Placement

Pursuant to both state and federal law, students with special needs are entitled to a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”).  If parents are dissatisfied with the appropriateness of the school district’s programming, parents have the right to place a student in a private school program at their own expense and seek reimbursement from the district.  This is called making a “unilateral placement.”  Whether or not a lawsuit seeking reimbursement will ultimately be successful depends on a number of complex factors that are beyond the scope of this post, but it is important to provide adequate notice to the school district of a student’s new placement. Continue reading

House 518 Would Require Transportation and Increased Funding for Recovery High Schools – a Proven Resource in a Troubled Time

Readers may recall a number of posts we have entered over the past few years regarding Recovery High Schools. Massachusetts currently has five such high schools – in Boston, Brockton, Beverly, Worcester and Springfield – and they have each proven to be an excellent support for high school age students who are struggling to disengage from drug and/or alcohol dependence/abuse. A Recovery High School’s ability to provide a solid high school education along with appropriate services and supports to such students, in the company of peers who are struggling with the same issues, is critical to the success of this resource. The alternative – returning to the student’s home high school – is all too often disastrous, as a student’s fragile beginning toward recovery can so easily be crushed by a school district’s lack of supports while a user subculture of peers eagerly draws the student back into its mix. Continue reading