This empirical analysis of 290 published administrative (i.e., by hearing or revieW officer) and court decisions concerning students With autism reveals that the volume of autism litigation is on a steadily and steeply rising slope and that the outcomes of the cases across a Wide variety of issues have favored school districts to a slight extent. On the other hand, the statistically significant differences betWeen the outcomes (i.e., Which side Won) With the hearing/revieW officer and those in the judicial forum are feW. The rather dramatic groWth of these cases, the relatively balanced average of the outcomes, and the largely redundant pattern of the judicial—as compared to hearing/ revieW officer—decisions suggest that this area merits the careful and creative attention of both practitioners and researchers, With emphasis on prompt dispute resolution.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author .
2.
Brown, F., & Bambara, L. M. (Eds.). (1999). Special series on interventions for young children with autism. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 129—243.
3.
Burilovich v. Board of Educ. of Lincoln Consol. Sch., 28 IDELR 277 (E.D. Mich. 1998), aff'd, 208 F.3d560 (6th Cir. 2000).
4.
Columbia Reg'l Programs and Portland Sch. Dist., 24 IDELR 98 (Or. SEA 1996).
5.
Dong v. Board of Educ. of Rochester Community Sch., 29 IDELR 196 (E.D. Mich. 1998), aff'd, 197 F.3d 793 (6th Cir. 1999).
6.
Drager, E., & Zirkel, P. (1994). Impartiality under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. West's Education Law Reporter, 86, 11—40.
7.
Due process hearings: 1999 update. (1999, December). NASDSE Forum, pp. 1—6.
8.
Feinberg, E., & Beyer, J. (1998). Creating public policy in a climate of clinical indeterminancy: Lovaas as the case example du jour. Infants and Young Children, 10, 54— 66.
9.
Gresham, F., Beebe-Frankenberger, M., & MacMillan, D. (1999). A selective review of treatments for children with autism: Description and methodological considerations. School Psychology Review, 28, 559— 575.
10.
Gryzwacz, P., & Lombardo, L. (1999). Serving students with autism: The debate over effective therapies. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.
11.
Heflin, H.J., & Simpson, R. (1998). Interventions for children and youth with autism . Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,13, 212—220.
12.
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988).
13.
In re G., 27 IDELR 451 (DDDLSA 1997).
14.
Intensive programs must meet increasing autism-related demand. ( 2000, July 28). The Special Educator, p. 7.
15.
Lincoln Consol.Sch., 25 IDELR 92 (Mich. SEA 1996).
16.
Lovaas, O.I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 165—167.
17.
Lupini, W., & Zirkel, P. (in press). An outcomes analysis of education litigation. Educational Policy.
18.
Maloney, M., & Shenker, B. (1995). The continuing evolution of special education law. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications .
19.
Martin, R. (2000, September). Special education law update. Paper presented at the 17th annual Northwest Institute on Special Education and the Law, University of Washington, Seattle.
20.
Mauk, J., Reber, M., & Batshaw, M. (1997). Autism and other developmental disorders. In M. Batshaw (Ed.), Children with developmental disabilities (pp. 425—447). Baltimore: Brookes.
21.
Mayes, T., & Zirkel, P. (2001). Special education tuition reimbursement claims: An empirical analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 350—358.
Sacks, J. (1999, October 10). Sharp rise seen in identification of autistic pupils. Education Week, p. 1.
26.
Schopler, E., Mesibov, G., & Baker, A. (1982). Evaluation of treatment for autistic children and their parents. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 21, 262—267.
27.
Seneca Falls Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Liverpool Cent. Sch. Dist., 16 EHLR 494 (W.D.N.Y. 1990).
28.
Student with a Disability, 30 IDELR 408 (DDESS 1998).
29.
T.H. v. Board of Educ. of Palatine Community Consol. Sch. Dist. 15, 29 IDELR 471 (N.D. Ill. 1998), further proceedings, 55 F. Supp. 2d 830 (N.D. Ill. 1999).
30.
Whaley v. State of Washington Dep't of Social and Health Serv., 28 IDELR 158 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
31.
Yell, M., & Drasgow, E. (2000). Litigating a free appropriate public education: The Lovaas hearings and cases. The Journal of Special Education , 33, 205—214.
32.
Zirkel, P. (1994). Over-due process revisions for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. MontanaLaw Review, 55, 403— 414.
33.
Zirkel, P. (1997). The “explosion” in education litigation: An update. West's Education Law Reporter , 114, 341—351.
34.
Zirkel, P. (1998). National trends in education litigation: Supreme Court decisions concerning students. Journal of Law and Education , 27, 235—248.
35.
Zirkel, P. (2001). Autism and the law: Rulings and expert analysis . Horsham, PA: LRP Publications .
36.
Zirkel, P., & D'Angelo, A. (in press). Special education case law: An empirical trends analysis . West's Education Law Reporter.
