Judicial Appeal of Due Process Hearing Rulings: The Extent and Direction of Decisional Change

Abstract

Extending the scope of two exploratory single-state studies, this empirical analysis determined the extent and direction of the outcome change from the impartial hearing officer (IHO) decision to the final court decision for a national sample of cases under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Based on a random sample of 116 published court decisions from 1998 through 2016, the authors identified the rulings for “issue categories,” such as eligibility, free appropriate public education, and tuition reimbursement, in the final court decision and, via its published opinion, the preceding adjudicative levels down to the IHO. The primary finding for the 183 issue category rulings was that 70% had only slight or no change from the IHO to the final court level. Other findings included the following: (a) the net change was higher for states with a second administrative tier, which is a review officer, than for those with only the single tier of an IHO; (b) the net change was also higher for cases reaching the appellate rather than only the trial court level; and (c) the most frequent issue categories were free appropriate public education (55%) and tuition reimbursement (18%), both with a slight net outcome change in the district’s direction.

Keywords

law/legal issues litigation dispute resolution

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

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

Bon

Zirkel

P. A.

(2014). The time-out and seclusion continuum: A systematic analysis of case law. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 27, 35–45.

C.G. v. New York City Department of Education, 752 F. Supp. 2d 355 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

Cope-Kasten

(2013). Bidding (fair)well to due process: The need for a fairer final stage in special education dispute resolution. Journal of Law & Education, 42, 501–540.

Davis v. District of Columbia, 244 F. Supp. 3d 27 (D.D.C. 2017).

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017).

Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017).

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400–1419 (2013).

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Regulations, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.1–300.818 (2014).

10.

Karanxha

Zirkel

P. A.

(2014). Trends in special education case law: Frequency and outcomes of published court decisions 1998–2012. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 27, 55–65.

11.

McMahon

G. K.

(2011). NYS special education impartial hearing outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.specialedlawadvocacy.com/NYS%20Special%20Education%20Impartial%20Hearing%20Outcomes.pdf

12.

Menacker

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

13.

Morton-Bentley

(2016). The Rowley enigma: How much weight is due to state administrative proceedings in federal court? Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 36, 428–468.

14.

Mueller

T. G.

Carranza

(2011). An examination of special education due process hearings. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22, 131–139.

15.

Newcomer

Zirkel

P. A.

(1999). An analysis of judicial outcomes of special education cases. Exceptional Children, 65, 469–480.

16.

Rickey

(2003). Special education due process hearings: Student characteristics, issues, and decisions. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 14, 46–53. doi:10.1177/10442073030140010601

17.

R.K. v. New York City Department of Education, 56 IDELR ¶ 168 (E.D.N.Y. 2011), adopted, 56 IDELR ¶ 212 (E.D.N.Y. 2011), affirmed on other grounds, 694 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2012).

18.

Rosenfeld

S. J.

(2012). It’s time for an alternative dispute resolution procedure. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 32, 544–567.

19.

Schultz

G. E.

McKinney

J. R.

(2000). Special education due process: Hearing officer background and case variable effects on decision outcomes. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2000, 17–31.

20.

Weber

M. C.

(2014). In defense of IDEA due process. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 29, 429–523.

21.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2002). The autism case law: Administrative and judicial rulings. Focus on Autism, 17, 84–93. doi:10.1177/10883576020170020301

22.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2012a). Judicial appeals of hearing/review officer decisions under the IDEA. Exceptional Children, 78, 375–384.

23.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2012b). Tuition and related reimbursement under the IDEA: A decisional checklist. West’s Education Law Reporter, 282, 785–794.

24.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2013). Adjudicative remedies for denials of FAPE under the IDEA. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 33, 214–241.

25.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2016a). Case law under the IDEA: 1998 to the present. Retrieved from http://nasdse.org/publications-t577/a-national-update-of-case-law-1998-to-the-present.aspx

26.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2016b). Compensatory education: The next annotated update of the law. West’s Education Law Reporter, 336, 654–666.

27.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2017a). The complaint procedures avenue of the IDEA: Has the road less traveled by made all the difference? Journal of Special Education Leadership, 30, 88–97.

28.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2017b). The two competing approaches for calculating compensatory education under the IDEA: An update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 339, 10–22.

29.

Zirkel

P. A.

D’Angelo

(2002). Special education case law: An empirical trends analysis. West’s Education Law Reporter, 161, 731–753.

30.

Zirkel

P. A.

Hetrick

(2016). Which procedural parts of the IEP process are most judicially vulnerable? Exceptional Children, 83, 219–235.

31.

Zirkel

P. A.

Johnson

B. L.

(2011). The “explosion” in education litigation: An updated analysis. West’s Education Law Reporter, 265, 1–8.

32.

Zirkel

P. A.

Karanxha

D’Angelo

(2007). Creeping judicialization of special education hearings: An exploratory study. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 27, 27–51.

33.

Zirkel

P. A.

McGuire

B. L.

(2010). A roadmap to legal dispute resolution for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 28, 100–112.

34.

Zirkel

P. A.

Scala

(2010). Due process hearing systems under the IDEA: A state-by-state survey. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21, 3–8. doi:10.1177/1044207310366522

35.

Zirkel

P. A.

Skidmore

C. A.

(2014). National trends in the frequency and outcomes of hearing and review officer decisions under the IDEA: An empirical analysis. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 29, 525–576.