To provide a missing piece to the legal foundation of professional development and practice for the individualized education program (IEP) process, the authors report the results of a comprehensive systematic analysis of court decisions specific to IEP-related procedural violations after the 2004 amendments of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Research questions focused on the frequency and outcomes of alleged procedural violations in the following categories: (a) IEP components, (b) IEP team, (c) parent participation, and (d) IEP development. Procedural violations in the parent participation category were the most frequently adjudicated; the outcomes ratio in court averaged approximately 3:1 in favor of school districts for cases across all four categories. Implications for practice include reconsideration of current policies and practices to whatever extent that they were based on case law rather than proactive priorities, per the lack of differentiation in prevailing publications and presentations in special education.
BeattyM. (2013). Not a bad IDEA: The increasing need to clarify free appropriate public education under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Suffolk University Law Review, 46, 529–549.
3.
Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
4.
BonS. C.ZirkelP. A. (2014). The time-out and seclusion continuum: A systematic analysis of case law. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 27(1), 35–45.
5.
ChoppD. (2012). School districts and families under the IDEA: Collaborative in theory, adversarial in fact. Journal of National Association of the Administrative Law Judiciary, 32, 426–460.
6.
ChouhoudY.ZirkelP. A. (2008). The Goss progeny: An empirical analysis. San Diego Law Review, 45, 353–382.
7.
ChristleC. A.YellM. L. (2010). Individualized education programs: Legal requirements and research findings. Exceptionality, 18, 109–123. doi:10.1080/09362835.2010.491740
8.
CrockettJ. B.YellM. L. (2014). Without data all we have are assumptions: Revisiting the meaning of free appropriate public education. Journal of Law and Education, 37, 381–392.
9.
Dawn G. v. Mabank Indep. Sch. Dist., 63 IDELR ¶ 63 (N.D. Tex. 2014).
10.
DrasgowE.YellM. L.RobinsonT. R. (2001). Developing legally correct and educationally appropriate IEPs. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 359–373. doi:10.1177/ 074193250102200606
11.
GrossS. R.SyverudK. D. (1991). Getting to no: A study of settlement negotiations and the selection of cases for trial. Michigan Law Review, 90, 319–393. doi:10.2307/1289558
J.D. v. Kanawha Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 571 F.3d 381 (4th Cir. 2009).
19.
J.T. v. Dep’t of Educ., 63 IDELR ¶ 3 (D. Haw. 2014).
20.
KaranxhaZ.ZirkelP. A. (2014). Trends in special education case law: Frequency and outcomes of published court decisions 1998–2014. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 27(2), 55–65.
21.
LaBrosseM. (2013). A FAPE revolution: Reforming the FAPE standard under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Whittier Journal of Child and Family Advocacy, 12, 87–109.
22.
LambethA. G. (2014). Writing effective and legally defensible IEPs: What teachers need to know about the most essential elements in the individualized education program. Retrieved from https://www.adams12.org/files/dms/Legally_Defensible_IEPs.pdf
23.
Lauren G. v. W. Chester Area Sch. Dist., 906 F. Supp. 2d 375 (E.D. Pa. 2012).
24.
LedermanL. (1999). Precedent lost: Why encourage settlement and why permit non-party involvement in settlements?Notre Dame Law Review, 99, 221–268. doi:10.2139/ssrn.163432
25.
L.M. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 556 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009), further proceedings, 462 F. App’x 745 (9th Cir. 2011).
26.
LupiniW.ZirkelP. A. (2003). An outcomes analysis of education litigation. Educational Policy, 17, 257–279. doi:10.1177/089590480 2250746
27.
MaygerL.ZirkelP. (2014). Principals’ challenges to adverse employment actions: A follow-up empirical analysis of the case law. West’s Education Law Reporter, 308, 588–596. doi:10.1177/0192636514542872
28.
MuellerT. G. (2015). Litigation and special education: The past, present, and future direction for resolving conflicts between parents and districts. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 26, 135–143. doi:10.1177/1044207314533382
OsborneA. (2004). To what extent can procedural violations of the IDEA render an IEP invalid?West’s Education Law Reporter, 185, 15–29.
31.
PaigeM.ZirkelP. A. (2014). Teacher termination based on performance evaluations: Age and disability discrimination?West’s Education Law Reporter, 300, 1–22.
32.
PasachoffE. (2013). Special education, poverty, and the limits of private enforcement. Notre Dame Law Review, 86, 1413–1493.
33.
Patterson v. Dist. of Columbia, 965 F. Supp. 2d 126 (D.D.C. 2013).
34.
RombergJ. (2011). The means justify the ends: Structural due process in special education. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 48, 415–466.
35.
SamuelsC. (2016, February10). Equipping parents on spec. ed. Education Week, pp. 1, 13.
W.D. v. Watchung Hills Reg’l High Sch. Bd. of Educ., 62 IDELR 299 (D.N.J. 2014), aff’d, 602 F. App’x 563 (3d Cir. 2015).
40.
WeatherlyJ. (2008). IEP disasters: Common procedural and substantive mistakes to avoid. Presentation at Nebraska/Kansas Regional Special Education Conference. Retrieved from http://www.therashare.net/files/KSDEIEPDisasters.pdf
41.
YellM. LKatsiyannisA.EnnisR. P.LosinskiM. (2013). Avoiding procedural errors in individualized education program development. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 46(1), 56–64. doi:10.1177/004005991304600107
42.
YellM. L.PlotnerA. J.ShrinerJ. G. (2014). Developing educationally meaningful and legally sound individualized education programs. In YellM. L.MeadowsN. B.DrasgowE.ShrinerJ. G. (Eds.), Evidence-based practices for educating students with emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 187–214). Boston, MA: Pearson.
ZirkelP. A. (2012). Judicial appeals of hearing/review officer decisions under the IDEA. Exceptional Children, 78, 375–384. doi:10.1177/001440291207800307
45.
ZirkelP. A. (2013a). “Appropriate” decisions under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 33, 243–260.
46.
ZirkelP. A. (2013b). Is it time for elevating the standard for FAPE under IDEA?Exceptional Children, 79, 497–508. doi:10.1177/0014402 91307900407
47.
ZirkelP. A. (2014). Case law under the IDEA: 1998 to the present. In IDEA: A handy desk reference to the law, regulations, and indicators (pp. 709–790). Albany, NY: LexisNexis.
48.
ZirkelP. A. (2015). Special education law: Illustrative basics and nuances of key IDEA components. Teacher Education and Special Education, 38, 263–275. doi:10.1177/0888406415575377
49.
ZirkelP. A. (2016). Parental participation: The paramount procedural requirement under the IDEA?Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, 15, 1–29.
50.
ZirkelP. A.JohnsonB. L. (2011). The “explosion” in education litigation: An updated analysis. West’s Education Law Reporter, 265, 1–8.
51.
ZirkelP. A.LyonsC. A. (2011). Restraining the use of restraints with students with disabilities: An empirical analysis of the case law. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, 10, 323–354.
52.
ZirkelP. A.MachinA. (2012). The special education case law “iceberg”: An initial exploration of the underside. Journal of Law and Education, 41, 483–512.
53.
ZirkelP. A.McGuireB. L. (2010). A roadmap to legal dispute resolution for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23(2), 100–112.
54.
ZirkelP. A.SkidmoreC. A. (2014). National trends in the frequency and outcomes of hearing and review officer decisions under the IDEA: An empirical analysis. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 29, 525–576.
