No abstract

No abstract

Special education disputes continue to be a daily concern for public school administrators, a source of anxiety for parents, and a growth industry for attorneys. The filing of a civil suit acknowledges a failure to resolve disputes in local and state administrative forums. To proceed to court represents a significant step in terms of public and parental resources and relationships. Tracking a sample of court cases through the administrative and judicial venues, this study recorded wins and losses at each level in relation to various factors, including the deference accorded by judges to the earlier administrative proceedings. While district wins exceeded parent wins in due process hearings and appeals, the margin narrowed through litigation. The most predominant issue in dispute was placement in terms of parents seeking more restrictive settings. Although ambiguous, the Supreme Court's language in Board of Education v. Rowley (458 U.S. 176, 1982) concerning deference guided court outcomes. Success rates provide useful insights to parents and school districts as they address the special education question at the end of administrative hearings: to court or not to court.

A comprehensive search identified 31 state statutes and regulations specific to functional behavioral assessments (FBA) and behavior intervention plans (BIP) in the special education context. A systematic tabulation of the state law provisions that exceed the rather narrow foundation requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) revealed that most of these additions were of notably limited scope and specificity, with California being the leading exception. For example, contrary to recommendations in the special education literature, neither the IDEA nor any state special education law requires both a FBA and a BIP when the behavior of a child with a disability interferes with the learning of the child or others. As another example, only 17 state laws provided definitions of FBAs and/or BIPs, and the vast majority of these definitions merely mentioned some of the key elements in the special education literature, such as “function” for FBAs or “interventions” for BIPs. The discussion explores the disparity between the professional literature and the legal requirements, suggesting the need for more scholarship to recognize and address this differentiation.

The primary mechanism for dispute resolution under IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) is a due process hearing. The total number of adjudicated hearings under IDEA has dropped from the high level during the latter part of the 1990s and the early part of the current decade. Yet relatively few jurisdictions, led by the District of Columbia and New York, account for the overwhelming majority of these decisions. This article presents the results of a state-by-state survey of the hearing officer system. This current "snapshot" identifies the key features, including (a) whether the system is onetier or two-tiered; (b) whether the IHOs are part-time or full-time; (c) whether their legal background is primarily in law or special education; (d) which agency assigns them and its procedures for the assignment; and (e) what is the updated volume of adjudicated hearings-i.e., those conducted to completion resulting in a written decision.