See You in Court! How to Avoid IDEA Transition–Related Mediations and Due Process Hearings

Abstract

School compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) transition services language requirements in this country has been an issue of concern to parents of students with disabilities as well as special education attorneys and advocates for quite some time. Evidence exists in special education case law about court rulings regarding poor transition programming and services provided by school districts to students with disabilities. The purpose of this article is to review literature on these legal cases, describe a small-scale study that investigated the most common transition-related issues mediated by special education attorneys in the state of California, and make recommendations to public school districts on how to avoid transition-related legal disputes on the IDEA transition services language requirements.

Keywords

IDEA law/legal issues transition mediations due process hearings

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Benitez

Morningstar

M. E.

Frey

(2009). A multi-state survey of special education teachers’ perceptions of their transition competencies. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 6–16.

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176. (1982).

Eggert

D. B.

Minutelli

A. M.

(2011). That’s all folks: A closer look at transition services and graduation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Manchester, NH: Wadleigh Starr & Peters. Available from www.wadleigh.com

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U.S. _____. (2017).

Greene

(2018). The emperor has no clothes: Improving quality and compliance of the transition portion of IEPs. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 41, 146–155.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004, PL 108-446, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

Katsiyannis

Losinski

Prince

A. M. T.

(2012). Litigation and students with disabilities: A persistent concern. NASSP Bulletin, 96, 23–43.

Mazzotti

V. L.

(2018). Status of personnel preparation in secondary transition [Special series]. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 41(1), 3.

Morningstar

M. E.

Clavenna-Deane

(2014). Preparing secondary special educators and transition specialists. In Sindelar

P. T.

McCray

E. D.

Brownell

M. T.

Lignugaris/Kraft

(Eds.), Handbook of research on special education teacher preparation (pp. 405–419). New York, NY: Routledge.

10.

Morningstar

M. E.

Hirano

K. A.

Roberts-Dahm

L. D.

Teo

Kleinhammer-Tramill

(2018). Examining the status of transition-focused content within educator preparation programs. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 41, 4–15.

11.

Newman

Wagner

Cameto

Konkey

A.-M.

(2009). The post-high school outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

12.

Prince

A. M. T.

Plotner

A. J.

Yell

M. L.

(2014). Postsecondary transition and the courts: An update. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25, 41–47.

13.

Wagner

Newman

Cameto

Garza

Levine

(2005, April). After high school: A first look at post-school experiences of youth with disabilities (SRI Project P11182). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

14.

Wagner

Newman

Javitz

H. S.

(2014). The influence of family socioeconomic status on the post high school outcomes of youth with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 37, 5–17.