Exploring Parents’ Experiences With Dispute Resolution Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in Schools

Abstract

Given the broad nature of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973), it is likely that families and school professionals may have disputes about the receipt of accommodations. Although over a million children have Section 504 plans from their schools, to date, no research has examined family experiences with dispute resolution under Section 504. By characterizing families’ experiences, targeted proactive, district- or state-level interventions can be developed to improve the formulaic conflict resolution process. This study explored family experiences with dispute resolution under Section 504. Ten mothers of children with Section 504 plans who engaged in dispute resolution procedures were interviewed for this study. Participants reported disputes often related to eligibility and the plan quality; several disputes related to the provision of individualized educational plans (IEPs) under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA), the federal special education law. Most participants reported negative relationships with school professionals but positive relationships with other families of children with Section 504 plans, external service providers, advocates, and attorneys. While most participants reported favorable outcomes from the resolution process, they also often characterized the process as lengthy, frustrating, and costly. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

Section 504 dispute resolution advocacy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments. 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (2008).

Brantlinger

Jimenez

Klingner

Pugach

Richardson

(2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205

Burke

M. M.

Goldman

S. E.

Hart

Hodapp

R. M.

(2016). Evaluating the efficacy of a special education advocacy training program. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 13, 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12183

Burke

M. M.

Hodapp

R. M.

(2014). Relating stress of mothers of children with developmental disabilities to family–school partnerships. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 52(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-52.1.13

Burke

M. M.

Rios

Lee

(2019). A pilot evaluation of an advocacy program on knowledge, empowerment, family–school partnership and parent well-being. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 63, 969–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12613

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund. (2025). Disability community briefing: Defending Section 504 & civil rights. https://dredf.org/disability-community-briefing-defending-section-504-and-civil-rights/

Dragoo

K. E.

Graber

A. A.

(2025). The rights of students with disabilities under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA (CRS Report No. R48068). Congressional Research Service. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48068

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. J.

Glick

(2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005

Flinn

M. W.

(2006). Evaluation and ontogeny of stress response to social challenges in the human child. Developmental Review, 26, 138–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.02.003

10.

Friend

Cook

(2017). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (7th ed.). Pearson.

11.

Goldman

S. E.

(2020). Special education advocacy for families of students with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Current trends and future directions. In Hodapp

R. M.

Fidler

D. J.

(Eds.), International review of research in developmental disabilities (pp. 1–50). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.irrdd.2020.07.001.

12.

Guest

Bunce

Johnson

(2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903

13.

Holler

R. A.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2008). Section 504 and public schools: A national survey concerning “Section 504-only” students. NASSP Bulletin, 92(1), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636508314106

14.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

15.

Lewis

M. M.

Muñiz

(2023). Section 504 plans: Examining inequitable access and misuse. National Education Policy Center. https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/504-plan

16.

Madaus

J. W.

Shaw

S. F.

(2008). The role of school professionals in implementing Section 504 for students with disabilities. Educational Policy, 22(3), 363–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904807307069

17.

Markow

Macia

Lee

(2013). The MetLife Survey of the American teacher: Challenges for school leadership. MetLife.

18.

Mason

C. Q.

Goldman

S. E.

(2017). Facilitated individualized education planning: The state of implementation and evaluation. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 27(4), 212–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207316660828

19.

Massey

P. A.

Rosenbaum

S. A.

(2005). Disability matters: Toward law school clinical model for serving youth with special education needs. Clinical Law Review, 11(2), 271–334. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=425127e7-eb72-34b3-a6aa-13c77abf42c2

20.

McMurtrey

(2016). The IDEA and the use of mediation and collaborative dispute resolution in due process disputes. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2016, 12. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=f9d76dad-47b5-3cb6-adf0-42fa1e73d60d

21.

Mueller

T. G.

(2015). Litigation and special education: The past, present, and future for resolving conflicts between parents and school districts. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 26(3), 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207314533382

22.

Oettinger

(2025, February 13). Office for Civil Rights Hits Record Low for resolutions released in January; over 5,000 disability discrimination complaints remain pending. Special Education Action. https://www.specialeducationaction.com/p/office-for-civil-rights-hits-record

23.

O’Toole

(2013). Disclosing our relationships to disabilities: An invitation for disability studies scholars. Disability Studies Quarterly, 33(2), . https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v33i2.3708

24.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage.

25.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (1973).

26.

Sanderson

K. A.

(2023). “Be prepared to fight like hell”: Parent advice for IEP meetings. Exceptionality, 31(5), 344–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2023.2184819

27.

The School Superintendents Association. (2013). Rethinking special education due process. https://www.aasa.org/docs/default-source/resources/reports/aasarethinkingspecialeddueprocess.pdf

28.

Section 504 regulations. 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.33(b)-(c)

29.

Tesch

(1990). TEXTBASE ALPHA: A different approach to the management of qualitative data. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 3(3), 285–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839900030306

30.

Trainor

A. A.

(2010). Diverse approaches to parent advocacy during special education home— school interactions: Identification and use of cultural and social capital. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508324401

31.

Turnbull

H. R.

Francis

G. L.

Burke

M. M.

Kyzar

Haines

Gershwin

Sherpherd

K. G

Holdren

Singer

G. H. S.

(2021). Families and professionals: Trusting partnerships in general and special education. Pearson.

32.

United States Department of Education. (2025). Questions and answers on the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 for students with disabilities attending public elementary and secondary schools. https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/individuals-disabilities/section-504/questions-and-answers-on-the-ada-amendments-act-of-2008-for-students-with-disabilities

33.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2016). Parent and educator resource guide to Section 504 in public elementary and secondary schools. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/504-resource-guide-201612.pdf

34.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2024). Profile of students with disabilities in U.S. public schools during the 2020–21 school year: 2020–21 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) Data Snapshot [Data Snapshot]. https://www.ed.gov/media/document/crdc-student-disabilities-snapshotpdf-21420.pdf

35.

Weber

M. C.

(2012). Procedures and remedies under Section 504 and the ADA for public school children with disabilities. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 32(2), 611–647. https://research.esco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=d8fb5072-45c6-3d90-a0f3-7466556e704d

36.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2012). The public schools’ obligation for impartial hearings under Section 504. Widener Law Journal, 22 (1), 135–182. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=86d12a18-3866-3201-9fe1-1f8699ee5c63

37.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2023). How good must a 504 plan be to pass legal muster? Journal of Special Education Leadership, 36(1), 43–51. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=cf967c1e-80c9-348a-b512-d106e8c76817

38.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2024). An analysis of due process hearing decisions for “Sec. 504-only” students. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 45 (1), 12–36. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=f43e1340-1d26-383c-8895-34d57e811418

39.

Zirkel

P. A.

McGuire

B. L.

(2010). A roadmap to legal dispute resolution for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23(2), 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207314543560

40.

Zirkel

P. A.

Weathers

J. M.

(2015). Section 504-only students: National incidence data. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 26(3), 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207314543560

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB