The increasing number of special education–related lawsuits has become costly, time-consuming, and a strain on school-community relations—in short, an issue of growing concern to U. S. school systems. To identify factors associated with this type of litigation, this study analyzed data from one state’s 10-year experience with due process special education cases. Interviews with special education directors provided further insight on conditions that seem to foster special education litigation and on strategies that could prevent it.
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (1990).
2.
ApplequistK. L. (2009). Parent perspectives of special education: Framing of experiences for prospective special educators. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28(2), 1-15.
3.
Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy, 548 U.S. (2006).
4.
Board of Education of Henrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 102 S. Ct. 3034 (1982).
5.
Board of Education of the City School District of New York v. Tom F., 552 U.S. (2007).
6.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
7.
BursztynA. (Ed.). (2007). The Praeger handbook of special education. Westport, CT: Praeger.
8.
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret, 526 U.S. 66 (1999).
9.
Doe v. Board of Education Tullahoma City Schools, 9 F.3d 455 (1993).
10.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-142 (S 6), 89 Stat. 773 (1975).
11.
Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27, 20 U.S.C. (1965).
12.
FlickU. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
13.
Florence County Sch. Dist. IV v. Shannon Carter (91-1523), 510 U. S. 7 (1993), 950 F 2d. 156 (4th Cir. 1991).
14.
GettyL. A.SweeneyS. E. (2004). The course of due process. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(3), 40-43.
15.
HardmanM. L.DawsonS. (2008). The impact of federal public policy on curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities in the general classroom. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 5-11.
16.
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988).
17.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U. S. C. § 1400 et seq. (1990).
18.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq. (2004).
19.
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883, (1984).
20.
ItkonenT. (2007). P.L. 94-142: Policy, evolution, and landscape shift. Issues in Teacher Education, 16(2), 7-17.
21.
KatsiyannisA.YellM. L.BradleyR. (2001). Reflections on the 25th anniversary of the individuals with disabilities education act. Remedial and Special Education22, 324-334.
22.
KeoghB. K. (2007). Celebrating P.L. 94-142: The education of all handicapped children act of 1975. Issues in Teacher Education, 16(2), 65-69.
23.
LortiellaC. (2008). Resolving disagreements with a mediation meeting. Exceptional Parent, 38(7), JI.
24.
MandlawitzM. R. (2002). The impact of the legal system on educational programming for young children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Development Disorders, 32, 495-508.
25.
Mills v. Board of Education, DC, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D. DC 1972).
No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
28.
OsborneA. (2009). Students with disabilities. In RussoC. (Ed.), The yearbook of education law 2009 (pp. 103-150). Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.
29.
OsgoodR. L. (2008). History of special education: A struggle for equality in American public schools. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
30.
PattonM. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
31.
PengC. J.LeeK. L.IngersollG. M. (2002). An introduction to logistic regression analysis and reporting. Journal of Educational Research, 96, 3-14.
32.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. PA 1972).
33.
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
34.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C. § 794 (1973).
35.
Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005).
36.
School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985).
37.
SkibaR. J.SimmonsA. B.RitterS.GibbA. C.RauschM. K.CuadradoJ.ChungC. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Council for Exceptional Children, 27, 264-288.
38.
SmithT. E. C. (2004). Section 504, the ADA, and public schools: What educators need to know?Remedial and Special Education, 22, 335-343.
39.
SmithT. E. C. (2005). IDEA 2004: Another round in the reauthorization process. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 314-319.
40.
Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, (1984).
41.
Springdale School District v. Grace, 656 F.2d 300 (1981).
42.
StonerJ. B.BockS. J.ThompsonJ. R.AngellM. E.HeylB. S.CrowleyE. P. (2005). Welcome to our world: Parent perceptions of interactions between parents of young children with ASD and education professionals. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 39-51.
43.
ThomasR. M. (2003). Blending qualitative & quantitative research methods in theses and dissertations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
44.
Timothy W. v. Rochester N. IL School Dlis’Mict, 875 F. 2d 954 (1st Cir., 1989).
WeberM. C.MawdsleyR.RedfieldS. (2004). Special education law: Cases and materials. Danners, MA: LexisNexis.
47.
Winkleman v. Parma City School District, 550 U.S. (2007).
48.
YellM. L.RyanJ. B.RozalskiM. E.KatsiyannisM. (2009). The U. S. Supreme Court and special education: 2005 to 2007. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(3), 68-75.
49.
ZirkelP. A. (2005). What does the law say?Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(2), 60-61.
50.
ZirkelP. A. (2007). Legal options for resolving disputes in special education. Exceptional Parent, 37(11), 48-49.
