Menu of Options or Cumulative Mandates? Interpreting New York’s IDEA Class-Size Regulations in Cruz v. Banks

Introduction

Cruz v. Banks is a 2025 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that raises a critical question under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and New York’s special-education regulations: when two separate state class-size rules both apply to a disabled student, do they operate as independent, cumulative requirements or as alternative placement options from which the school district may choose?

Background: Neysha Cruz challenged the New York City Department of Education’s 2021 Individualized Education Program (IEP) for her son, O.F., who has severe multiple disabilities and highly intensive management needs. New York regulations cap class size at six students for one category of needs (§ 200.6(h)(4)(ii)(a)) and at twelve students for another (§ 200.6(h)(4)(iii)). The central dispute was whether the DOE could place O.F. in a 12:1:4 class (twelve students, one teacher, four aides) even though he met the six-student definition as well.

Key Issues:

Interpretation of overlapping New York class-size regulations under IDEA.
Deference to state administrative determinations versus federal court review.
Proper procedure for resolving questions of unsettled New York law.

Parties:

Plaintiff-Appellant: Neysha Cruz, on behalf of her son, O.F.
Defendants-Appellees: David C. Banks and the New York City Department of Education.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit panel, by a 2–1 vote, held that the conflict between New York’s six-student rule (§ 200.6(h)(4)(ii)(a)) and twelve-student rule (§ 200.6(h)(4)(iii)) presented an unresolved question of state law. Rather than resolve it itself, the majority certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question whether both limitations must be satisfied cumulatively or whether school districts may choose the more favorable option when both apply.

The court declined to reach the other IDEA reimbursement issues once it determined that this state-law question was dispositive of the “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) prong of the Burlington/Carter test.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Burlington/Carter Test: Burlington School Committee v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (1985) and Florence County School District Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993) (the three-part FAPE reimbursement framework).
IDEA Standards: Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982); Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist., 580 U.S. 386 (2017) (defining FAPE and progress obligations).
Second Circuit IDEA Jurisprudence: M.O. v. New York City Department of Education, 793 F.3d 236 (2d Cir. 2015); M.H. v. New York City Department of Education, 685 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2012) (standards of deference to state administrative findings).
State-Law Certification: Nitkewicz v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Co., 49 F.4th 721 (2d Cir. 2022); In re Peaslee, 547 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2008) (criteria for certifying unsettled questions of New York law).

2. Legal Reasoning

• Federal vs. State Interpretation: The IDEA incorporates state educational standards, but interpretation of state regulations is a question of state law.

• Deference to State Courts: When a state regulation is ambiguous or unsettled, federal courts may certify a question to the state’s highest court rather than create a novel rule.

• Certification Criteria: Because no New York appellate decision construed § 200.6(h)(4)(ii)(a) and (iii) together, and because the answer will significantly affect future special-education placements, the court invoked Local Rule 27.2(a) and 22 NYCRR § 500.27(a) to certify the dispositive state-law question.

3. Potential Impact

Clarify whether New York school districts must meet both size caps or may select the smaller student-to-adult ratio when a disabled student triggers multiple categories.
Guide IEP teams and Impartial Hearing Officers in proper class placement under overlapping regulations.
Shape how federal courts handle unsettled questions of state education law—potentially increasing certifications under IDEA disputes.
Influence resource allocation decisions in public special-education programs statewide.

Complex Concepts Simplified

IDEA and FAPE: Federal law guaranteeing a “Free Appropriate Public Education” for students with disabilities, documented in an IEP tailored to each child’s needs.
6:1:1 vs. 12:1:4 Class Ratios: A “6:1:1” class has six students, one teacher, one aide; a “12:1:4” class has twelve students, one teacher, and four staff. New York law draws separate lines for “highly intensive management needs” and “severe multiple disabilities.”
Deference vs. Certification: Federal courts usually defer to state IHO/SRO decisions on educational expertise. When state law is unsettled, they may certify a legal question to the state’s highest court for an authoritative ruling.
Burlington/Carter Test: To recover private-school costs, parents must show (1) the public school’s program was inadequate, (2) the private placement was appropriate, and (3) equitable factors favor reimbursement.

Conclusion

Cruz v. Banks establishes a key procedural precedent: where New York’s special-education regulations appear to overlap or conflict, federal courts may certify the question to the New York Court of Appeals rather than resolve it themselves. The case underscores the collaborative federal-state framework of the IDEA, balancing federal standards with state regulatory detail. The forthcoming decision from New York’s highest court will provide definitive guidance on whether overlapping class-size limits must both be met or whether school districts may choose the more supportive placement when multiple categories apply.

Once the state court issues its interpretation, the Second Circuit retains jurisdiction to apply that ruling and resolve the ultimate IDEA reimbursement dispute. In the meantime, school districts and parents await clarity on how to balance class size, staff ratios, and individualized education under New York law.