The purpose of this study was to investigate state practices in meeting the requirements of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94–142) on administrative due process hearings. Issues addressed in the literature were used to examine current state practices. A summary of findings and recommendations for better practice is provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Angela L. v. Pasadena Independent School District 16 EHLR 74 (S.D. TX 1989).
2.
Board of Education of the Hendrick Central School District v. Rowley, 102 S. Ct. 3034 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1982).
3.
Boscardin, M.L. (1987). Due process hearings: Cost issues surrounding individual student differences. Journal of Education Finance, 12(3), 391–402.
4.
Boulder Valley (CO) School District RE-2 (OCR 1980), EHLR 257 297.
5.
Brandon E. v. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 555 F. Supp. 740 (E.D. WI 1984), EHLR 557 322.
6.
Burr by Burr v. Ambach, 863 F.2d 1071 (2d Cir. 1988), EHLR 441 314.
7.
Danielson, L.C., & Bellamy, G.T. (1989). State variation in placement of children with handicaps in segregated environments. Exceptional Children, 55, 448–456.
8.
East Brunswick Board of Education v. New Jersey State Board of Education, (D NJ 1982), EHLR 554 122.
9.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94--142), 20 U.S.C. sec. 1401.
10.
Fink, A., & Kosecoff, J. (1985). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
In re Portland School District #1 (SEA OR 1982), EHLR 503 232.
14.
Kammerlohr, B., Henderson, R.A., & Rock, S. (1983). Special education due process hearings in Illinois. Exceptional Children, 49, 417–422.
15.
Katsiyannis, A. (1990). Provision of related services: State practices and the issue of eligibility criteria. The Journal of Special Education, 24, 246–252.
16.
Kirp, D.L., & Jonson, D. (1983). "What does due process do?" Parc v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, California Institution for Research on Educational Finance and Governance. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 229 878)
17.
Louis M. by Velma M. v. Ambach, 714 F. Supp. 1276 (N.D.N.Y. 1989), EHLR 441 606.
18.
Moore v. District of Columbia, 16 EHLR 951 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
19.
Muth v. Smith, 646 F. Supp. 280 (E.D. PA 1986). EHLR 557 322).
20.
Nissen, E.R. (1984). Mediating evaluation and placement of handicapped students. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 261 475)
21.
Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. (1989). To assure a free appropriate public education of all handicapped children. Eleventh annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Education of All Handicapped Act. Washington, DC: Author.
22.
Pacer Center. (1981). Parents can be the key… to an appropriate education for their handicapped child. Minneapolis; Pacer Center, Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 223 028)
23.
Salend, S.J., & Zirkel, B.A. (1984). Special education hearings: Prevailing problems and practical proposals. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19(1), 29–34.
24.
Spielberg v. Henrico County Public Schools, F. 2d 256 (4th Cir. 1988).
25.
Taylor (EHA 1989), EHLR 213 218.
26.
Turnbull, H.R., & Fiedler, G.R. (1984). Judicial interpretation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Special Education in America: Its legal and governmental foundations series. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 244 406)
27.
United States General Accounting Office. (1989). Special education: The Attorney Fees Provisions of Public Law 99--372. Washington, DC: Author.
28.
Vogel v. School Board of Montrose R-14 School District, 491 F. Supp. 989 (W.D. MO 1980), EHLR 552 202.
29.
West Virginia Department of Education, 16 EHLR 97 (OCR 1989).
