Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Special education disputes continue to be a daily concern for public school administrators, a source of anxiety for parents, and a growth industry for attorneys. The filing of a civil suit acknowledges a failure to resolve disputes in local and state administrative forums. To proceed to court represents a significant step in terms of public and parental resources and relationships. Tracking a sample of court cases through the administrative and judicial venues, this study recorded wins and losses at each level in relation to various factors, including the deference accorded by judges to the earlier administrative proceedings. While district wins exceeded parent wins in due process hearings and appeals, the margin narrowed through litigation. The most predominant issue in dispute was placement in terms of parents seeking more restrictive settings. Although ambiguous, the Supreme Court's language in Board of Education v. Rowley (458 U.S. 176, 1982) concerning deference guided court outcomes. Success rates provide useful insights to parents and school districts as they address the special education question at the end of administrative hearings: to court or not to court.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).

Burlington School Committee v. Massachusetts Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359 (1984).

Davis

M. S.

(1988). A basic guide to standards of judicial review. South Dakota Law Review, 33, 469–483.

Doyle v. Arlington County School Board, 953 F.2d 100 (4th Cir. 1991).

Education for the Handicapped Law Report. (1978–1989). Alexandria, VA: CRR [LRP].

Education for the Handicapped Law Report. (1990–1991). Horsham, PA: LRP.

Florence County v. Carter, 114 S.Ct. 361 (1993).

Henderson

E. W.

(1982). Procedural due process in special education: An analysis of the hearing process and survey of school administrators. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 3871A.

Huefner

D. S.

(1991). Judicial review of the special education program requirements under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act: Where have we been and where should we be going? Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 14, 483–516.

10.

Individual with Disabilities Education Act of 1997. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et. seq. (1997).

11.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Law Report. (1992–1995). Horsham, PA: LRP.

12.

Jonckheere Tests for Ordered Alternatives. (1983). In Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (Vol. 4, pp. 315–318). New York: John Wiley & Sons.*

13.

Kammerlohr

Henderson

R. A.

Rock

(1983). Special education due process hearings in Illinois. Exceptional Children, 49, 417–422.

14.

Kerkam v. McKenzie, 862 F. 2d 884 (d.C. Cir. 1988).

15.

Krejcie

R. V.

Morgan

D. W.

(1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607–608.

16.

Kuriloff

P. J.

(1975). Law, educational reform, and the school psychologist. Journal of School Psychology, 13, 335–348.

17.

Kuriloff

P. J.

Kirp

D. L.

Buss

(1979). When handicapped children go to court: Assessing the impact of the legal reform of special education in Pennsylvania. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 196 256).

18.

Leas

(1989). Evolution of the doctrine of academic abstention in American jurisprudence. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 3863A. (University Microfilms No. 90-12, 921).

19.

Maloney

(1995). What the numbers say about special education litigation. The Special Educator, 10, 325, 334–335.

20.

Menacker

(1992). The “due weight” standard for special education hearing appeals. West's Education Law Reporter, 73, 11–19.

21.

Newcomer

Zirkel

P. A.

Tarola

(1998). Characteristics and outcomes of special education hearing and review officer cases. West's Education Law Reporter, 123, 449–457.

22.

Rhen

(1989). An analysis of special education due process hearings in Pennsylvania (1977–1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 922A. (University Microfilms No. 89-12. 469).

23.

Robinett

M. K.

(1993). Special education due process hearings: State differences. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 02A. (University Microfilms No. 93-16, 826).

24.

Tarola

(1991). The relationship between selected characteristics of special education due process hearings, their outcomes, and the outcomes of subsequent appeals. (Doctoral dissertation, Lehigh University, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 1604A.*

25.

Winnick

B. M.

(1987). Congress, Smith v. Robinson, and the myth of attorney representation in special education hearings: Is attorney representation desirable? Syracuse Law Review, 37, 1161–1187.

26.

Zirkel

P. A.

(1994). The standard of review applicable to Pennsylvania's special education appeals panel. Widener Journal of Public Law, 3, 871–894.

27.

Zirkel

P. A.

(1997). The “explosion” in education litigation. West's Education Law Reporter, 114, 341–351.

An Analysis of Judicial Outcomes of Special Education Cases

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References