This study provides an analysis of case law concerning applied behavior analysis (ABA) for students with autism to determine outcome-related factors. The authors classified the 68 pertinent hearing/ review officer and court decisions published in EHLR (Education for Handicapped Law Report) and IDELR (Individuals with Disabilities Education Law Report) into 2 groups representing the central issues of contention between parents and districts—program selection (e.g., instructional approach) and program implementation (e.g., its location, duration, or frequency). For both groups, the outcomes, in terms of who won, did not favor either parents or districts. The three factors predominantly associated with wins by either party for both groups of decisions were testimony of witnesses, documentation of progress, and Individualized Education Program elements.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams v. State of Oregon, 195 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 1999).
2.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author .
3.
Anderson, S.R., & Romanczyk, R.G. (1999). Early intervention for young children with autism: Continuum-based behavioral models. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 162—173.
4.
Asbury v. Missouri Dep't of Elementary and Secondary Educ., 29 IDELR 877 (F.D. Mo. 1999).
5.
Board of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Central Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
6.
Burilovich v. Bd. of Educ. of the Lincoln Consol. Sch., 32 IDELR ¶ 85 (6th Cir. 2000).
Carlisle Area Sch. Dist. v. Scott P., 62 F.3d 520 (3d Cir. 1995).
10.
Choutka, C.M. (1999). Experiencing the reality of service delivery: One parent's perspective. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 222—226.
11.
CM v. Bd. of Educ. of Henderson County, 34 IDELR ¶ 57 (4th Cir. 2001).
12.
Cobb County Sch. Sys., 24 IDELR 1113 (Ga. SEA 1996).
13.
Dawson, G., & Osterling, J. (1997). Early intervention in autism. In M. Guralnick (Ed.), The e fectiveness of early intervention (pp. 307—326). Baltimore: Brookes.
14.
De Mora v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 34 IDELR ¶ 85 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001).
15.
Dong v. Bd. of Educ. of the Rochester Cmty. Sch., 31 ¶ 157 (6th Cir. 1999).
16.
Fairfax County Pub. Sch., 22 IDELR 80 (Va. SEA 1995).
17.
Filapek, P.A., Accardo, P.J., Baranek, G.T., Cook, E.H., Dawson, G., Gordon, B., et al. (1999). The screening and diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , 29, 439— 484.
18.
G v. Fort Bragg Dependent Sch., 34 IDELR ¶ 176 (E.D. N.C. 2001).
19.
Greer v. Rome City Sch. Dist., 950 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. 1991).
20.
Gresham, F., Beebe-Frankenberger, M., & MacMillan, D. (1999). A selective review of treatments for children with autism: Description and methodological considerations. School Psychology Review, 28, 559—575.
21.
Gryzwacz, P., & Lombardo, L. (1999). Serving students with autism: The debate over e fective therapies. Horsham, PA: LRP.
22.
Heflin, L.J., & Simpson, R. (1998). Interventions for children and youth with autism: Part 2. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities , 13, 212—220.
Koegel, L.K., Koegel, R.L., Harrower, J.K., & Carter, C.M. (1999). Pivotal response intervention I: Overview of approach . Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps , 24, 174—185.
25.
Koegel, L.K., Koegel, R.L., Shoshan, Y., & McNerney, E. (1999). Pivotal response intervention II: Preliminary long-term outcome data. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 186—198.
26.
Lovaas, O.I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 165—167.
27.
Lupini, W., & Zirkel, P.A. (2003). An outcomes analysis of education litigation. Educational Policy, 17, 257—279.
28.
Malkentzos v. DeBuono, 25 IDELR 36 (2d Cir. 1996).
29.
Mauk, J., Reber, M., & Batshaw, M. (1997). Autism and other developmental disorders. In M. Batshaw (Ed.), Children with developmental disabilities (pp. 425—447). Baltimore: Brookes.
30.
Maurice, C. (1993). Let me hear your voice: A family's triumph over autism. New York: Ballentine.
31.
McGee, G.G., Morrier, M.J., & Daly, T. (1999). An incidental teaching approach to early intervention for toddlers with autism. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 133—146.
32.
National Research Council. (2001). Educating children with autism. Committee on Educational Interventions for Children with Autism, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33.
Newcomer, J., & Zirkel, P. (1999). An analysis of judicial outcomes of special education cases. Exceptional Children, 65, 469—480.
34.
Schopler, E., Mesibov, G., & Baker, A. (1982). Evaluation of treatment for autistic children and their parents. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 21, 262—267.
35.
Schopler, E., & Reichler, R.J. (1971). Parents as cotherapists in the treatment of psychotic children. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 1, 87—102.
T.H. v. Bd. of Educ. of Palatine Cmty. Consol. Sch. Dist. 15, 29 IDELR 471 (N.D. Ill. 1998) and 30 IDELR 764 (N.D. Ill. 1999).
39.
Union Sch. Dist. v. Smith, 20 IDELR 987 (9th Cir. 1994).
40.
Yell, M., & Drasgow, E. (2000). Litigating a free appropriate public education: The Lovaas hearings and cases. The Journal of Special Education , 33, 205—214.
41.
Zirkel, P.A. (1998). National trends in education litigation: Supreme Court decisions concerning students. Journal of Law and Education , 27, 235— 248.
42.
Zirkel, P.A. (2001). Autism and the law: Rulings and expert analysis . Horsham, PA: LRP.
