Bill
HB 2337
Prohibits broad prospective waivers of FAPE in special-education settlement agreements; only narrow, claim-specific, time-limited waivers allowed to protect students' rights.
Status: Enacted (Public Act 104‑0211). Governor approved 08/15/2025; effective 08/15/2025. Introduced: Feb 2025.
Note: Multiple unrelated bills numbered HB 2337 exist in other states (e.g., Kansas bill on wire‑transfer fees; Arizona bill on rent regulation). This summary covers the Illinois measure enacted as Public Act 104‑0211, which amends the School Code (Children with Disabilities article), Sec. 14‑8.02a.
Purpose and intent
- To clarify and limit what parties may waive in special‑education settlement processes and to refine procedures for impartial due process hearings under the Illinois School Code. The bill aims to protect parents’ and students’ rights to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and to improve transparency, timeliness, and impartiality in dispute resolution.
Key provisions and changes
- Prohibits certain prospective waivers in settlement agreements:
- The bill prevents mediation agreements, resolution agreements, or settlement agreements from including a prospective waiver by a parent, student (18+ or emancipated), legal guardian, or designated representative that would broadly waive FAPE rights or the right to assert claims for non‑implementation of FAPE.
- House amendments refined the rule to permit only narrow, limited prospective waivers tied directly to the specific legal claims being settled and for a reasonable duration (for example, not exceeding the duration of the settlement agreement). (See amendments House Amendment 001 & 002.)
- Agreements containing impermissible prospective waivers are unenforceable in administrative proceedings and in State or federal court.
- Due process hearing administration and timeline changes:
- The State Board of Education administers an impartial due process hearing system and may promulgate implementing rules.
- Filing deadline for hearing requests: within 2 years after the party knew or should have known of the events giving rise to the request.
- The State Board must appoint a hearing officer within 3 days of receiving a hearing request using a rotating appointment system.
- Parties are allowed one substitution of a hearing officer as a matter of right; the Board must appoint a replacement within 3 days of a valid substitution request.
- Hearing officer conflict rules: disclosure and recusal required for current/former employment or other conflicts; parties may move for recusal at any time.
- School‑district response requirements: if the district has not previously given prior written notice about the subject matter, it must provide a written response within 10 days to parent‑initiated hearing requests that explains the district’s rationale, alternatives considered, evaluation materials used, and relevant factors.
- Hearing practice: hearings are closed unless parents request otherwise; the student may be present; hearings should be held at mutually convenient or neutral locations.
- Administrative and procedural specifics retained or restated: computation of days under Statute on Statutes, limits on communications with Board, retention of jurisdiction by officers in certain withdrawal/reauthorization circumstances, and other standard due‑process safeguards.
Who is affected
- Primary: students with disabilities, parents/legal guardians, and designated representatives involved in special education disputes.
- Secondary: school districts and superintendents (notice/response duties), State Board of Education (administration and rulemaking), appointed hearing officers.
- Practical effect: strengthens protection against broad, future waivers of FAPE in settlements; clarifies procedural timelines and impartiality safeguards for due process hearings.
Procedural/timeline notes
- Introduced in early 2025; underwent committee amendments refining waiver language (House Amendments 001 & 002).
- Passed both chambers and was enrolled as Public Act 104‑0211.
- Effective date: August 15, 2025 (Public Act effective date as recorded).
Implications
- Parents and districts negotiating settlements must ensure any waiver language is narrowly tailored to the settled claims and duration limits established by the law and rules; broad prospective waivers of FAPE or enforcement rights are invalid.
- School districts should review dispute‑resolution practices, revise settlement templates, and prepare to meet the enhanced response and notice timelines.
- Hearing officers and the State Board will need to follow the clarified appointment, conflict, and substitution procedures.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
