The major purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its legislative predecessors has shifted in the past 25 years from simply providing access to educational services to an emphasis on providing meaningful, measurable, and accountable programs to students with disabilities (Katsiyannis, Yell, & Bradley, 2001). These changes have resulted in more students seeking services and legal protection under IDEA. These changes have also made school districts and particularly rural districts more vulnerable to parent initiated due process proceedings. A qualitative case study was conducted using data from several rural school districts in Kansas. Data were triangulated and summarized into five key principles. These five principles are offered to guide rural school districts in avoiding special educational due process proceedings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bartlett,L. (1993). Economic cost factors in providing a free appropriate public education for handicapped children: The legal prospective.Journal of Law and Education, 22, 27–60.
2.
Beekman,L. E. (2001). ADR options to resolve the “real” problems underlying disputes.Okemos, MI.: Special Education Solutions.
3.
Christie,K. (2001). The rural bellwether.Phi Delta Kappan, February.
4.
Collins,B. C., & Schuster,J. W.(2001). Some thoughts on the history of rural special education: A first hand account.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 20(1), 22–30.
5.
Davidson,D. N., & Algozzine,B.(2002). Administrators' perceptions of special education law.Journal of Special Education Leadership, 15(2), 43–48.
6.
Drasgow,E., Yell,M. L., & Robinson,T. R.(2001). Developing legally correct and educationally appropriate IEPs.Journal of Remedial and Special Education, 22(6), 359–373.
7.
Feagin,J., Orum,A., & Sjoberg,G.(1991). A case for case study. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
8.
Fitz,J., Taylor,C., & Gorard,S.(2002). Local educational authorities and the regulation of educational markets: Four case studies.Research Papers in Education, 17(2), 125–146.
9.
The Freedom of Information Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. § 552, P.L. 104–231, 110 Stat. 3048.
10.
Gallagher,P. A., Vail,C. O., McCormick,K., & Malone,D. M.(2001). The Georgia Higher Education Consortium: A model for linking early intervention faculty.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 20(3), 24–33.
11.
Giacobbe,A. C., Livers,A. F., Thayer-Smith,R., & Walther-Thomas,C. (2001). Raising the academic standards bar: What states are doing to measure the performance of students with disabilities.Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 12(1), 10–17.
12.
Honeyman,E. G. (2002). The proactive practice of special education administration.Journal of Special Education Leadership, 15(1), 33–35.
13.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 - P.L., 105–17, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
14.
Johnson,G., Elrod,G. F., Davis,D. C., & Smith,J. C.(2000). The provision of special education services in rural high wealth and low wealth.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 19(1), 9–16.
15.
Johnson,J., Duffett,A., Farkas,S., & Wilson,L.(2002). When it's your own child: A report on special education from the families who use it.New York: Public Agenda.
16.
Katsiyannis,A., Yell,M. L., & Bradley,R.(2001). Reflection on the 25th anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.Journal of Remedial and Special Education, 22(6), 324–334.
17.
Lauritzen,P. (1991). Teachers for children with emotional/behavioral disorders.Preventing School Failure, 35(2), 11–14.
18.
Ludlow,B. (2002). Riding Fences.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 21(1), 2–3.
19.
Ludlow,B. L., Foshay,J. D., Brannan,S. A., Duff,M. C., & Dennison,K. E.(2002). Updating knowledge and skills of practitioners in rural areas: A web-based model.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 21(1), 33–44.
20.
Margolis,H. (1998). Avoiding special education due process hearings: Lessons from the field.Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 9(3), 233–260.
21.
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866. (D.D.C. 1972).
Rickey,K. (2003). Special education due process hearings: student characteristics, issues, and decisions.Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 14(1), 46–54.
25.
Scheuermann,B., Webber,J., Boutot,E. A., & Goodwin,A.(2003). Problems with personnel preparation in Autism Spectrum Disorders.Focus on Autism and other Developmental Disabilities, 18(3), 197–207.
26.
Schwartzbeck,T. D., Redfield,D., Morris,H., & Hammer,P. C.(2003). How are rural school districts meeting the teacher quality requirements of No Child Left Behind.Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory & The American Association of School Administrators.
27.
Stake,R. E. (1995). The art of case study research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
28.
Tate,J. O. (2000). Court decisions and IDEA 1997 compliance issues that affect special education programs in rural schools.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 19(1), 3–8.
29.
Tellis,W. (1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report: Nova Southeast University Library.
30.
Trotter,A. (1997). Rural districts less connected to the Internet.Education Week, 16(31), 14–15.
31.
Wilcox,D. A., Dowrick,P. W., & Ward,K. M.(2001). Effectiveness of a model for training direct service personnel in rural and remote locations.Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 26(4), 311–323.
32.
Yin,R. (1993). Applications of case study research.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishing.
