The procedural safeguards of Part H of the Education of the Handicapped Act are compared with those of Part B. Potential problems under Part H are pointed out in light of the ways in which Part B has been interpreted. Suggestions are made for implementing Part H safeguards.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agard, J.A. (1980). Dispute settlement. In S.I. Mopsik & J.A. Agard (Eds.), An education handbook for parents of handicapped children (pp. 233–252). Cambridge, MA: ABT Books.
2.
Alper, B.S., & Nichols, L. T. (1981). Beyond the courtroom: Programs in community justice and conflict resolution. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
3.
Boscardin, M.L. (1987). Local-level special education due process hearings: Cost issues surrounding individual student differences. Journal of Education Finance, 12, 391–402.
4.
Budoff, M. (1979). Implementing due process safeguards: From the user's point of view. In Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Due process: Developing criteria for the evaluation of due process procedural safeguard provisions. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.
5.
Budoff, M., & Orenstein, A. (1982). Due process in special education: On going to a hearing. Cambridge, MA: Ware Press.
6.
Daynard, C. (1980). Due process: The appeals hearing under chapter 766. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University.
7.
Essex, L.N. (1979). The development and evaluation of an inservice workshop training program in conflict management for school administrators. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 4822. (University Microfilms No. 8006605)
8.
Fiedler, C.R. (1985). Conflict prevention, containment, and resolution in special education due process disputes: Parent's and school personnel's perception of variables associated with the development and escalation of due process conflict. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Special Education, The University of Kansas.
9.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Viking-Penguin.
10.
Folberg, J., & Taylor, A. (1984). Mediation: A comprehensive guide to resolving conflicts without litigation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
Gallagher, J., Trohanis, P., & Clifford, R. (1989). Policy implementation and PL 99–457: Planning for young children with special needs. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
12.
Hassell, C.M. (1982). A study of the consequences of excessive legal intervention on the local implementation of P.L. 99–142. Dissertation Abstracts, 42, 7.
13.
Hearings, Subcommittee on Select Education, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 99th Congress, 2d Session, on S.1 2294, The Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986, July 22, 23, and 29, 1986.
14.
Kammerlohr, B., Henderson, R.A., & Rock, S. (1983). Special education due process hearing in Illinois. Exceptional Children, 49, 417–422.
15.
Kauffman, J.M. (1984). Saving children in the age of big brother: The moral and ethical issue in the identification of deviance. Behavioral Disorders, 10, 60–70.
16.
Lay, C.A. (1977). Due process in special education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 7687A.
17.
Losen, S.M., & Diament, B. (1978). Parent conference in the schools: Procedures for developing effective partnerships. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
18.
McGinley, K.H. (1987). Evaluating the effectiveness of mediation as an alternative to the sole use of the due process hearing in special education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Kansas.
19.
NASDSE. (1978). The implementation of due process in Massachusetts. Washington, DC: Author.
20.
Palenski, J.E., & Launer, H.M. (1986). Mediation: Contexts and challenges. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
21.
Singer, L.R., & Mace, E. (1985). Mediation in special education: Two states' experience. Washington, DC: Center for Community Justice.
22.
Strickland, B. (1982). Perceptions of parents and school representatives regarding their relationships before, during, and after the due process hearing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Division for Special Education, The University of North Carolina.
23.
Turnbull, A.P., & Strickland, B. (1981). Parents and the educational system. In J.L. Paul (Ed.), Understanding and working with parents of children with special needs (pp. 231–263). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
24.
Turnbull, A.P., & Turnbull, H.R. (1990). Families, professionals, and exceptionality: A special partnership (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
25.
Turnbull, H.R. (1990). Free appropriate public education: Law and interpretation. Denver: Love Publishing.
26.
Turnbull, H.R., & Barber, P. (1984). Perspectives on public policy. In E.L. Meyen (Ed.), Mental retardation: Topics of today—issues of tomorrow (pp. 5–24). Reston, VA: Division on Mental Retardation, Council for Exceptional Children.
27.
Winer, M.E. (1982). Parental involvement in special education decision-making: Access and alienation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 1116A. (University Microfilms No. DA8220975)
28.
Yoshida, R.K. (1979). Developing assistance linkages for parents of handicapped children. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Bureau of Education for the Handicapped.
29.
Davis v. Maine Endwell Central School District, 542 F. Supp.—, affd. in part, rev'd. in part, 646 F. 2d 560 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. den. 452 U.S. 938 (1981).
30.
Dima v. Macchiarola, 513 F. Supp. 565 (E.D.N.Y. 1981).
31.
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
32.
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S.—; 108 S. Ct. 592, 98 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1988).
33.
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970).
34.
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951).
35.
Kotowicz v. Mississippi State Board of Education, 630 F. Sup. 925 (M.D. Miss. 1986).
36.
Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).
37.
Mayson v. Teague, 749 F.2d. 652 (11th Cir. 1984).
38.
Miener v. Missouri, 498 F. Supp. 944 (E.D. Mo. 1980) aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 671 F. 2d 969 (8th Cir. 1982), 673 F. 2d 969 (8th Cir. 1982) further proceedings, 580 F. Supp. 562 (E.D. Mo. 1984), 607 F. Supp. 1425 (E.D. Mo. 1985), 800 F. 2d 749 (8th Cir. 1986).
39.
Robert M. v. Benton, 622 F. 2d 370, 634 F. 2d 1139, 671 F. 2d 1104 (8th Cir. 1980, 1982).
40.
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).
41.
Sessions v. Livingston Parish, 501 F. Supp. 251 (M.D. La. 1980).
42.
Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 104 S. Ct. 3457, 82 L. Ed. 2d 746 (1984).
43.
Tilton v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 705 F. 2d 800 (6th Cir. 1983).
44.
Windward School v. State, 551 EHLR 219, 221, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).
