Due process is a key dispute resolution feature approved by Congress in accordance with the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, whose goal is to facilitate resolution and minimize conflict. Nonetheless, despite 35 years of use, due process has become a difficult emotional and financial problem. Consequently, there is a need to evaluate due process and develop less adversarial resolution practices. The goal of the study herein is to place in perspective a descriptive analysis of 575 due process hearings that occurred in 41 states in 2005 to 2006 by analyzing the petitioner, disability, dispute, and outcome including hearings of specific learning disabilities (26%), autism (20%), and health impairments (15%). The most common sources of dispute were placement (25%) and Individualized Education Program and program appropriateness (24%). Parents initiated 85% of the hearings, but school districts prevailed in 59%. Interestingly, the majority of states lacked easy retrieval and consistency with reporting their own published hearings.
AhearnE. (2001). Due process hearings 2001 update: Quick turn around forum. National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Retrieved from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eric/200301/ed466060.pdf
2.
Bar-LevN. B.NestadtS.PeterM. (2007). Considering mediation for special education disputes: A school administrator’s perspective. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 304–315.
3.
ConoverW. J. (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
DussaultW. (1996). Avoiding due process hearings: Developing an open relationship between parents and school districts. In KoegelL. K.KoegelR. L.DunlapG. (Eds.), Positive behavioral support (pp. 265–279). London, UK: Brookes.
6.
FeinbergE.BeyerJ. M.MosesP. (2002). Beyond mediation: Strategies for appropriate early dispute resolution in special education. Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education. Retrieved from http://www.directionservice.org/cadre/beyond_med2002.cfm
7.
FleissJ. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 378–382.
8.
FolgerJ.PooleM. S.StutmanR. K. (2000). Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
9.
General Accounting Office. (2003, September). Special education: Numbers of formal disputes are generally low and states are using mediation and other strategies to resolve conflicts (GAO-03–897). Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03897.pdf
10.
GoldbergS. S.KuriloffP. J. (1991). Evaluating the fairness of special education due process hearings. Exceptional Children, 57, 546–555.
11.
HarryB.AllenN.McLaughlinM. (1995). Communication versus compliance: African American parents’ involvement in special education. Exceptional Children, 61, 364–377.
12.
HowellC. H. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 34 C.F.R. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(II) (2004).
20.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Data Accountability Center (2010). Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Data. Retrieved from https://www.ideadata.org/PartBData.asp
21.
LakeJ. F.BillingsleyB. S. (2000). An analysis of factors that contribute to parent-school conflict in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 240–256.
22.
LaniganK. J.AudetteR. M.DreierA. E.KobersyM. R. (2001). Nasty, brutish . . . and often not very short: The attorney perspective on due process. In FinnC. E.RotherhamA. J.HokansonC. R. (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 213–231). Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute: Washington, DC.
23.
LupiniW. H.ZirkelP. A. (2003). An outcomes analysis of education litigation. Educational Policy, 17, 257–279.
24.
MarkowitzJ.AhearnE.SchragJ. (2003). Dispute resolution: A review of systems in selected states. Alexandria,VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED480755)
25.
MenackerJ. (1992). The “due weight” standard for special education hearing appeals. West’s Education Law Quarterly, 1, 242–250.
26.
MuellerT. G. (2009). Appropriate dispute resolution: A new agenda for special education policy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20, 4–13.
27.
MuellerT. G.SingerG. H. S.DraperL. (2008). Reducing parental dissatisfaction with special education in two school districts: Implementing conflict prevention and alternative dispute resolution. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 18, 191–233.
28.
NewcomerJ. R.ZirkelP. A. (1999). An analysis of judicial outcomes of special education cases. Exceptional Children, 65, 469–480.
29.
NowellB. L.SalemD. A. (2007). The impact of special education mediation on parent-school relationships. Remedial & Special Education, 28, 304–315.
30.
OpudaM. A. (1997). A comparison of parents who initiated due process hearings and complaints in Maine (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.
31.
ReimanJ.BeckL.PeterM.ZellerD.MosesP.EngilesA. (2007). Initial review of research literature on appropriate dispute resolution (ADR) in special education. Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education. Retrieved from http://www.directionservice.org/cadre/raisedoc.cfm
32.
ShorttT.DouglasJ.McLainJ. (2000). Building a foundation for special education mediation in Virginia’s high schools. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 35–40.
33.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002, July). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families (President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
34.
WisslerR. (2010). Representation in mediation: What we know from empirical research. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 37, 419–472.
35.
ZirkelP. A. (2005). The over-legislation of special education. West’s Education Law Reporter, 195, 35–40.
36.
ZirkelP. A.D’AngeloA. (2002). Special education law: An empirical trends analysis. West Education Law Reporter, 161, 731–753.
37.
ZirkelP. A.GischlarK. L. (2008). Due process hearings under the IDEA: A longitudinal frequency analysis. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 21, 22–31.
38.
ZirkelP. A.ScalaG. (2010) Due process hearing systems under the IDEA: A state-by-state survey. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21, 3–8.
