Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Analysis of Special Education Due Process Hearings in Texas:

Analysis of Special Education Due Process Hearings in Texas: In total, 139 Texas special education due process hearings that occurred between 2011 and 2015 were examined. Cases were coded with regard to the student’s special education disability category; the number of hearings in which a specific party prevailed; the primary, secondary, and/or tertiary issues of the case; the number of issues in these hearings held for the student/family, the district, and issues held in part for the student/family and in part for the district. Overall, the primary student eligibilities involved in these cases were autism, emotional disturbance, and other health impairment. In addition, the most common issues involved in the dispute included the Individualized Education Program (IEP), evaluation, and placement. Districts prevailed in approximately 72% of cases. Findings are compared with previous data, and implications are discussed. Keywords due process, special education, parents, school districts The Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Given the complexity of this process and the many issues Act (IDEIA; 2004) requires school districts to identify stu- that arise, it is safe to say that there can be conflict and differ- dents with disabilities and provide identified students with a ing opinions. As Zirkel and Gischlar (2008) pointed out, in free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restric- some cases the school district and parents disagree with the tive environment (LRE). This process is quite involved, and decisions of the IEP team which may include eligibility con- actually begins prior to a referral for special education clusions or proposed services recommended by the team. assessment, in that resources and interventions delivered in When such disagreements occur, various forms of dispute general education are attempted and documented regarding resolution are used to try and resolve the conflict. Blackwell student progress. Once a student is suspected of having a dis- and Blackwell (2015) explained that “there are three formal ability, that student is referred and the process begins with a procedures for resolving special education disputes: media- Full Individual Evaluation (FIE). If a student is eligible, the tion, resolution meetings, and due process hearings” (p. 1). process culminates in the development of an Individualized Due process is a procedural safeguard under Individuals Education Program (IEP). The IEP team, composed of a vari- With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 2004), and Code of ety of school personnel and the student’s parents, makes Federal Regulations (CFR) §300.507 of the IDEA specifi- decisions regarding eligibility (e.g., Does the student qualify cally addresses this right: “a parent or a public agency may for special education? Specifically, does he or she meet the file a due process complaint on . . . the identification, evalu- criteria for a disability condition, and by reason thereof, does ation or educational placement of a child with a disability, or he or she need specialized instruction?), educational pro- the provision of FAPE to the child.” gramming (e.g., What are the student’s needs regarding Blackwell and Blackwell (2015) noted that due process accommodations and modifications, including modified hearings are more costly, not only in monetary terms but also standards with specific goals and objectives for various in the amount of time spent and in the impact on relationships. courses, assistive technology, various related services such In 2013, the American Association of School Administrators as counseling, speech/occupational/physical therapy?), and placement (e.g., In what type of program or class will the University of Houston–Clear Lake, TX, USA student be educated, and how many minutes will be spent in Corresponding Author: such classes, including access to general education?). G. Thomas Schanding, Department of Clinical, Health, and Applied Numerous other issues are addressed, and many decisions Sciences, University of Houston–Clear Lake, 2700 Bay Area Blvd., Box are made in the IEP meeting; the ultimate outcome is the #21, Houston, TX 77058-1002, USA. student’s total educational program. Email: schandingjr@uhcl.edu Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open (AASA; Pudelski, 2013) issued a report based on the results district victories was narrowed (49% for districts to 41% for of a survey of 200 school superintendents. They identified parents)” (Newcomer & Zirkel, 1999, p. 479). In a study by cost and emotional burden as major factors in deciding Archer (2002), 343 hearings in Illinois were reviewed from whether to move forward to a hearing. Regarding cost, the the time period of July 1997 through June 2002. The district AASA report noted that “school districts across the United prevailed in 69.5% of the hearings. Rickey (2003) examined States spend over 90 million per year in conflict resolution” 50 hearing decisions in Iowa between 1989 and 2001, and (Pudelski, 2013, p. 23). Almost all superintendents (95%) districts prevailed in 63% of the hearings. indicated that due process hearings resulted in high levels of More recent studies are consistent with the trend of dis- stress. About one fourth of the superintendents (24%) also tricts prevailing in the majority of hearings. Mueller and indicated that teachers who have been involved in some form Carranza (2011) conducted a descriptive analysis of 575 of litigation (a due process hearing or similar proceeding) hearings that occurred in 41 states in 2005 to 2006. Parents either leave the district or request transfers out of special edu- initiated 85% of hearings, and districts prevailed in 59% of cation 10% to 25% of the time. the hearings. Cope-Kasten (2013) reviewed 210 hearings in There have been numerous studies on various aspects of Wisconsin and Minnesota that occurred between 2000 and due process hearings (e.g., cost, perceptions by different edu- 2011, and found that districts prevailed in 90% of the hear- cation groups and parents, number of issues and outcomes ings. Yocom (2010) examined 122 hearings in Texas from regarding the party who prevailed in the hearing, legal repre- 2006 to 2008 that included 480 separate issues or disputes. sentation for parents, disability category), and most relevant Of these 480 issues, 82% (393) were ruled in favor of the to this investigation are the aspects of disability category, school district. Blackwell and Blackwell (2015) examined issues, and outcomes. 258 hearings over an 8-year period in Massachusetts from Regarding disability category, Yocom (2010) found that 2005 to 2013, and “districts prevailed in 55% of hearings and the autism disability category was overrepresented in due received a mixed decision in an additional 24.4%” (p. 8). process hearings in Texas. Mueller and Carranza (2011) There were 496 issues in these hearings, and “districts pre- found the most frequent disability categories to be learning vailed on 62.5% of all issues and received a mixed decision disability, autism, and health impairments. Shuran and in an additional 10.3%” (Blackwell & Blackwell, 2015, p. 8). Roblyer (2012) noted autism, low-incidence disabilities, The issue of legal representation for parents is important multiple disabilities, and learning disability to be the most to note. In the Blackwell and Blackwell (2015) study, parents common disabilities in hearings. Blackwell and Blackwell with attorneys prevailed in 30.8% of hearings, but this num- (2015) found the most common disability categories to be ber declined to 20.5% when representing themselves with multiple disabilities, learning disabilities, autism, and emo- advocate support and 10.7% when representing themselves tional/behavioral impairment. These authors note that when without any support. In the Cope-Kasten (2013) investiga- one disability category was not clear as the primary category, tion, 0% of parents prevailed if unrepresented by an attorney. they coded the case as multiple disabilities; thus, multiple In a review of hearings from January 1, 1978, to December disabilities had the highest percentage. 31, 2012, Zirkel (2015) noted that parents won 58% of cases Regarding issues, there are usually multiple issues in a in which they had legal representation versus 14% of cases specific case, making the percentages noted by various when they were not represented. It is clear from these inves- researchers not equal to 100. In general, the major categories tigations that parents fare much better if represented by an of issues are relatively consistent across hearings. Mueller attorney. and Carranza (2011) found that the most common issues Zirkel and Gischlar (2008) documented the number of were placement (25%) and IEP and program appropriateness adjudicated hearings in the 50 states from 1991 to 2005. (24%). Shuran and Roblyer (2012) found that FAPE was the They noted that hearings increased between 1991 and 1997, most frequent issue (78.6%), and 50% of hearings had mul- and plateaued at a relatively high level from 1997 to 2005. tiple issues. Cope-Kasten (2013) found that the most fre- Texas ranked eighth in total number of hearings, but 28th quent issues in hearings were IEP (47%), service provision based on per capita rate (adjusted totals in relation to the (42%), evaluation (38%), and placement (35%). Blackwell annual special education enrollments). In the table presented and Blackwell (2015) found the most common issues to be on page 31 of the Zirkel and Gischlar article, Texas had 902 IEP (34.3%), placement (30.4%), procedural safeguards hearings during the 15-year period reviewed. That is approx- (10.3%), and evaluation (8.5%). imately 60 hearings per year. Since 2005, the number of Regarding outcomes, Newcomer and Zirkel (1999) exam- hearings has been greatly reduced. It should be noted that the ined a random sample of 200 published court cases from IDEA was substantially amended in 1997 and 2004 which January 1975 to March 1995 in which the decisions of the may be factors in the plateau and subsequent decline of due due process hearings were appealed to either a federal or process hearings. In Yocom’s (2010) dissertation, which state court (the population of hearings from which this sam- examined hearing decisions in Texas from 2006 to 2008, ple was derived was 414). According to the authors, districts there were 122 cases (approximately 40 hearings per year). won in 60% of the cases, but on appeal, “the margin of Zirkel (2014) updated the longitudinal analysis of the Schanding et al. 3 frequency of hearings by examining the number of filings was determined by the two principal investigators as noted and adjudications for the time period 2006-2011. Texas was below: ranked eighth in total adjudications (average 27) and ninth in filings (total 318). Although Texas has reduced the number 1. Attorney representation of student/family: The repre- of hearings, Texas remains within the top 10 for both number sentation of the student/family by an identified attor- of adjudications and number of filings. ney during the due process hearing. Within this The purpose of the present investigation was to review category, some families also had parent advocates due process hearings in Texas over a 5-year period from 2011 during the case; however, those students/families through 2015. Of particular interest were the disability cate- represented solely by advocates were not included in gories of students, the number and types of issues in the hear- this category. ings, and the outcomes. Regarding outcomes, there is an 2. Issues held for school: The number of issues held for important concept to consider which involves the type of due the school district by the hearing officer. process system used in the state. In states with a two-tier sys- 3. Issues held for student/family: The number of issues tem, the hearing officer decision, if appealed, is reviewed at held for the student/family by the hearing officer. 4. Issues held in part for district and in part for student/ the state level prior to entering the court system. Texas is a family: The number of issues where a split occurred, one-tier state, which means that the decisions of the hearing indicating that a portion of the issue was held for the officer, if appealed, go directly to the court system. In this district and a portion of the issue was held for the study, the authors examined the actual due process hearing student/family. decision and did not examine whether any of these hearings 5. Prevailing party: The party (either student/family or were appealed. The following research questions were district) with the majority or substantial number of addressed: issues that prevailed in the case based on the hearing officer’s decision. Research Question 1: What were the primary student 6. Primary special education eligibility: The primary disability categories involved in the due process disability of the student as noted in the hearing deci- hearings? sion. These disability categories are based on the spe- Research Question 2: What were the main issues (pri- cial education regulations of Texas. For those students mary, secondary, and/or tertiary issues) involved in the without an identified special education eligibility, the due process hearings? student was coded as “not eligible.” Some students Research Question 3: How often did students/families had protections afforded under Section 504. and school districts prevail on the overall decision (unani- 7. Issues: Up to three (primary, secondary, and tertiary) mous vs. substantial/majority issues) of the due process issues were identified for each case. The categories for hearing? issues were coded based on criteria adapted from Blackwell and Blackwell (2015) and were as follows: Method a. Evaluation: Evaluation process and procedures for determining areas of need and potential services, Data Source including independent education evaluations and The data set for the current study included 140 special educa- the selection/qualifications of evaluators. tion due process hearings issued by the Texas Education b. Extended School Year Services (ESYS): Special Agency (TEA) between January 1, 2011, and December 31, education and related services provided to eligible 2015. All hearings were available from the TEA’s website students beyond the typical academic calendar. (http://tea.texas.gov). All due process hearing decisions were c. Identification: Eligibility determination for spe- downloaded and reviewed. A database was created to assist cial education services. with coding, data entry, and data analysis. One due process d. IEP: Components and development of the IEP, hearing was excluded from the analysis as the case was commonly examined to determine the extent to related to a previously filed hearing. which the IEP was calculated to provide a FAPE in the LRE. Predominantly, this category addressed the goals, objectives, accommodations, and modi- Coding and Analysis fications made to a student’s program of services. Upon reviewing each case, trained raters logged each case in e. Placement: Location of special education ser- the database. Coding procedures were similar to those out- vices for a student, including services provided in lined by Blackwell and Blackwell (2015). Initial codes were general education settings and specialized set- identified and refined during the establishment of interrater tings that will provide the student access to the reliability training. Trained graduate students assisted with general education environment to the appropriate reviewing the cases and coding. The final coding scheme extent; included unilateral placement by parent. 4 SAGE Open f. Procedural safeguards: Procedural protections Table 1. Students’ Special Education Primary Eligibility for Due Process Hearing. afforded to students, parents, and schools through federal and state special education laws Primary special education eligibility Frequency % of cases and regulations; included timelines, parental Autism 36 25.90 consent, and written notices. Emotional disturbance 28 20.14 g. Related services: Developmental, rehabilitative, Other health impairment 27 19.42 corrective, and supportive services that are neces- Not eligible 18 12.95 sary to assist a student in accessing and benefiting Specific learning disability 11 7.91 from special and general education services; Intellectual disability 7 5.04 included specialized transportation, occupational Auditory impairment 5 3.60 therapy, physical therapy, and orientation and Speech impairment 4 2.88 mobility services. Multiple disabilities 1 0.72 h. Discipline: Removal of a student from the agreed- Orthopedic impairment 1 0.72 upon placement due to disciplinary actions; Special education (not defined) 1 0.72 included both in-school and out-of-school sus- pensions. Also included manifestation determina- tion review (MDR) disputes involving disciplinary of 139). It should be noted that at times families employed actions or issues related to restraint/seclusion. the use of advocates in addition to attorneys and sometimes i. Transition: Practices and procedures related to solely advocates. This investigation did not code parents’ use transition planning for secondary students to of only advocates during the due process hearing. assist in developing the knowledge, skills, and strategies for accessing and benefiting from Primary Special Education Eligibility of Students postsecondary opportunities such as college, Involved in Due Process Hearings employment, independent living, and commu- nity participation. As stated previously, each special education due process hearing was coded to analyze the student’s primary special A total of 46 cases (~33% of due process hearings) were education eligibility category. Within the time period randomly chosen and coded by another rater to determine reviewed, approximately two thirds of all cases involved stu- interrater reliability. Interrater reliability was calculated dents with a primary eligibility of autism (25.90%), emo- using the following formula: Reliability = (number of agree- tional disturbance (20.14%), or other health impairment ments) / (total number of agreements plus disagreements). (19.42%). While not all cases specified the student’s eligibil- Agreement for most fields involved matching frequency ity for other health impairment, many times attention-deficit/ counts (e.g., number of issues held for a party). For the issues hyperactivity disorder was identified in the hearing and category, agreement was counted when any category among recorded anecdotally in the database. These data are pre- the primary, secondary, and tertiary subcategories matched. sented in Table 1. This was based on the difficulty in deciding at times what may be considered primary, secondary, or tertiary, but desir- Predominant Issues Involved in Due Process ing to identify the most pressing issues involved in each hearing. The interrater reliability calculation was 92.49% for Hearings the total coding of data. Additional interrater reliability per- In examining the predominant issues involved in the due pro- centages are as follows: (a) attorney representation of stu- cess hearings, hearings were coded with regard to the top dent/family = 97.83%, (b) issues held for school = 86.96%, three (primary, secondary, and tertiary) issues involving the (c) issues held for student/family = 93.48%, (d) issues held in case as coded by the raters. Overall, the majority of issues part for district and in part for student/family = 95.65%, (e) within the due process hearings involved disputes regarding prevailing party = 93.48%, (f) primary special education eli- the IEP (62.86%), evaluation (40%), placement (37.86%), gibility = 91.30%, and (g) issues = 93.20%. All data were and identification (32.14%) (see Table 2). analyzed using descriptive statistics, as the purpose was to describe the cases. Prevailing Parties for Issues and Due Process Hearings Results Within the cases, the various issues were outlined by the Attorney Representation of Student/Family hearing officer. Of the 139 cases reviewed, a total of 610 In the cases coded for this investigation, approximately 71% issues were decided. Overall, the various school districts pre- of students and families were represented by an attorney (99 vailed on 479 issues (78.52%), students/families prevailed Schanding et al. 5 Table 2. Issues Identified Within the Special Education Due state of Texas. Across the 5-year period of review, the mean Process Hearings. percentage of special education students identified with autism is 9%; however, approximately 26% of due process Issue Frequency % cases involved a primary eligibility of autism. This is due to IEP 88 62.86 both identification and programming issues. Several hear- Evaluation 56 40.00 ings involved differentiation between autism and other con- Placement 53 37.86 ditions, with parents potentially seeking the autism label. Identification 45 32.14 Texas has an autism supplement (Texas Education Agency Procedural safeguards 39 27.86 Commissioner Rules, §89.1055, 2016) which lists 11 strate- Related services 21 15.00 gies/services that must be considered in educational pro- Discipline 11 7.86 gramming for this group. This supplement is not used with Extended school year services 6 4.29 other disability categories and creates issues such as student– Transition 2 1.43 teacher ratio, methods for instruction, and related services. The results of the present investigation are consistent with Note. IEP = Individualized Education Program. other investigations indicating that school districts prevail in the majority of hearings. In this investigation, school dis- on 111 issues (18.2%), and 20 issues were split (3.28%). In tricts prevailed in 71.94 % of the hearings. Many believe that considering the overall case for which party won on the this is due to the resources that districts have (e.g., monetary, majority or substantial issues, districts prevailed in 100 cases attorneys; Blackwell & Blackwell, 2015). However, given (71.94%) and students/families prevailed in 39 cases the negative impact of hearings (e.g., costs, relationships), (28.06%). When considering the factor of attorney represen- districts may choose to settle those cases that are less likely tation of the student/family during the hearing, families that to be won and go to hearings on those cases where they antic- were represented by an attorney prevailed 34% of the time ipate a favorable outcome. In the current data, the majority of (34 of 99 cases). Families that were not represented by an parents (~71%) elected to employ attorneys during the due attorney prevailed in only 12.5% of hearings (five of 40 process hearing—a higher percentage than that reported by cases). Blackwell and Blackwell. While more parents in Texas opted to hire an attorney for these cases, parents prevailed in a majority of issues for only 34% of those cases—highly simi- Discussion lar to the percentage of parents prevailing in cases reported Based on the data reviewed, students with the primary dis- by Blackwell and Blackwell (~30%) but lower than the 58% ability conditions of autism, emotional disturbance, and reported by Zirkel (2015). other health impairment account for the majority of due pro- Consistent with other investigations (Blackwell & cess hearings. This is somewhat consistent with data from Blackwell, 2015; Cope-Kasten, 2013; Mueller & Carranza, other studies identifying these disability categories 2011; Shuran & Roblyer, 2012), most hearings have multiple (Blackwell & Blackwell, 2015; Shuran & Roblyer, 2012; issues. The two major categories of issues in these hearings Yocom, 2010); however, other investigations also have learn- include programming (IEP and placement) and eligibility ing disability as a prominent condition. Blackwell and (evaluation and identification). This suggests that the disabil- Blackwell found the top two eligibility categories repre- ity classification and identification as a student in need of sented in due process hearings were multiple disabilities special education services are often in dispute. In the hear- (29.1%) and specific learning disabilities (23.6%); however, ings reviewed, there were many Child Find issues—issues it should be noted that multiple disabilities encompassed stu- where a student was found not eligible for services—and dents presenting with more than one disability code. The pri- issues involving the actual diagnostic label. Regarding place- mary category of learning disability only accounted for ment and programming, many disputes involved the LRE approximately 8% of the hearings in this review. It is impor- issue and related services. The issue of procedural safeguards tant to note that in Texas, autism, emotional disturbance, and was also common. These issues usually involved parents other health impairment eligibilities make up approximately indicating that they had not been given the opportunity for 29% of the special education population (Texas Education meaningful participation in the IEP process. Agency PEIMS Standard Reports Overview, 2016); how- Under this set of hearings, school districts were required ever, they account for approximately 65% of all hearings. to provide “appropriate” education, not ideal education. This Students with these conditions often have both learning and issue of the level of educational benefit was recently decided behavioral challenges which can lead to more complex and by the Supreme Court of the United States in Endrew F. v. contentious IEP meetings. Behavior is a major theme across Douglas County School District RE-1 (2017), with parents the hearings. advocating for a higher standard of “meaningful educational As noted by Yocom (2010) and further supported in this benefit” rather than “some educational benefit.” The Supreme investigation, autism is overrepresented in hearings in the Court decided on March 22, 2017, that districts must give 6 SAGE Open students the opportunity to make meaningful “appropriately Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U.S. ___. Supreme Court of the United States. 2017. ambitious” progress in light of the students’ circumstances. Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 The impact of this decision is unknown at present but has the U.S.C. §1400 (2004). potential to lead to more disputes over private versus public Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, C.F.R. placement, the need for related services, special education §300.507 (2004). versus general education settings, and the goals, objectives, Mueller, T. G., & Carranza, F. (2011). An examination of special and measurable progress of students receiving special educa- education due process hearings. Journal of Disability Policy tion services. Studies, 22, 131-139. doi:10/1177/1044207310392762 It is important to consider the potential limitations of the Newcomer, J. R., & Zirkel, P. A. (1999). An analysis of judicial current study. First, only cases from Texas were utilized, so outcomes of special education cases. Exceptional Children, results may not generalize to other states. In addition, there 654, 469-480. doi:10.1177/001440299906500403 were 21 various hearing officers writing the final hearing Pudelski, S. (2013, April). Rethinking special education due process: AASA IDEA reauthorization proposals Part, 1. Alexandria, decisions. Officers did not follow a set format for outlining VA: American Association of School Administrators. information such as the issues and findings. Given these con- Available from http://www.aasa.org straints, the data are likely to still be useful for comparison Rickey, K. (2003). Special education due process hearings: Student and discussion of due process hearings around the country to characteristics, issues, and decisions. Journal of Disability further consider the various issues in dispute and the associ- Policy Studies, 141, 46-53. ated outcomes. Shuran, M. B., & Roblyer, M. D. (2012). Legal challenge: Addressing the special education service needs of youth Characteristics of special education litigation in Tennessee with disabilities requires a collaborative school–family schools. NASSP Bulletin, 961, 44-66. approach that carefully considers the opinions of both parties Texas Education Agency Commissioner Rules, §89.1055. (2016, and ultimately acts in the best interest of the student with November 22). Retrieved from ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/ regard to eligibility and programming recommendations. chapter089/ch089aa.html Texas Education Agency PEIMS Standard Reports Overview. Due process hearings provide an important avenue for fami- (2016, October 24). Retrieved from http://tea.texas.gov/ lies and schools to remedy disagreements in educational Reports_and_Data/Student_Data/Standard_Reports/PEIMS_ planning. Future studies may wish to examine the more sub- Standard_Reports_Overview/ stantial issues and decisions affecting families and schools, Yocom, S. S. (2010). Special education hearings in Texas: An anal- such as reimbursement for private placement, in-home ser- ysis of trends and decisions from 2006-2008. (Doctoral disser- vices, and private remediation of academic skills. Further tation). Retrieved from ERIC. (ED517107) investigations may also wish to more closely examine the Zirkel, P. A. (2014). Longitudinal trends in impartial hearings specific types of cases in which families or districts prevail under the IDEA: A follow-up analysis. West’s Education Law and the relief provided. In addition, future studies may wish Reporter, 303, 1-21. to examine differences in prevailing rates of families based Zirkel, P. A. (2015). Are the outcomes of hearing (and review) on eligibility categories. officer decisions different for pro se and represented parents? Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 34, 264-282. Declaration of Conflicting Interests Zirkel, P. A., & Gischlar, K. (2008). Due process hearings under the The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect IDEA: A longitudinal frequency analysis. Journal of Special to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Education Leadership, 211, 22-31. Funding Author Biographies The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- G. Thomas Schanding is an associate professor of school psychology ship, and/or publication of this article. at the University of Houston - Clear Lake. His primary research inter- ests include the social-emotional and behavioral health of students. References Gail M. Cheramie is an associate professor of school psychology Archer, M. (2002). Access and equity in the due process system: at the University of Houston - Clear Lake. Her area of specialization Attorney representation and hearing outcomes in Illinois: is assessment of students exhibiting developmental, behavioral, and 1997-2002. Retrieved from http://www.dueprocessillinois.org/ emotional difficulties. Access.pdf Blackwell, W. H., & Blackwell, V. V. (2015). A longitudinal study Hannah Hyatt is a current graduate student in the school psychol- of special education due process hearings in Massachusetts: ogy program at the University of Houston - Clear Lake. Issues, representation, and student characteristics. Sage Open, Sarah E. Praytor is a current graduate student in the school psy- 51(1), 1-11. doi:10.1177/2158244015577669 chology program at the University of Houston - Clear Lake. Cope-Kasten, C. (2013). Bidding (fair)well to due process: The need for a fairer final stage in special education dispute resolu- Jessica R. Yellen is a current graduate student in the school psy- tion. Journal of Law & Education, 423, 501-540. chology program at the University of Houston - Clear Lake. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png SAGE Open SAGE

Analysis of Special Education Due Process Hearings in Texas:

Download PDF
6 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/analysis-of-special-education-due-process-hearings-in-texas-Ah2m0bK4ZQ

References (11)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 by SAGE Publications Inc, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses.
ISSN
2158-2440
eISSN
2158-2440
DOI
10.1177/2158244017715057
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In total, 139 Texas special education due process hearings that occurred between 2011 and 2015 were examined. Cases were coded with regard to the student’s special education disability category; the number of hearings in which a specific party prevailed; the primary, secondary, and/or tertiary issues of the case; the number of issues in these hearings held for the student/family, the district, and issues held in part for the student/family and in part for the district. Overall, the primary student eligibilities involved in these cases were autism, emotional disturbance, and other health impairment. In addition, the most common issues involved in the dispute included the Individualized Education Program (IEP), evaluation, and placement. Districts prevailed in approximately 72% of cases. Findings are compared with previous data, and implications are discussed. Keywords due process, special education, parents, school districts The Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Given the complexity of this process and the many issues Act (IDEIA; 2004) requires school districts to identify stu- that arise, it is safe to say that there can be conflict and differ- dents with disabilities and provide identified students with a ing opinions. As Zirkel and Gischlar (2008) pointed out, in free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restric- some cases the school district and parents disagree with the tive environment (LRE). This process is quite involved, and decisions of the IEP team which may include eligibility con- actually begins prior to a referral for special education clusions or proposed services recommended by the team. assessment, in that resources and interventions delivered in When such disagreements occur, various forms of dispute general education are attempted and documented regarding resolution are used to try and resolve the conflict. Blackwell student progress. Once a student is suspected of having a dis- and Blackwell (2015) explained that “there are three formal ability, that student is referred and the process begins with a procedures for resolving special education disputes: media- Full Individual Evaluation (FIE). If a student is eligible, the tion, resolution meetings, and due process hearings” (p. 1). process culminates in the development of an Individualized Due process is a procedural safeguard under Individuals Education Program (IEP). The IEP team, composed of a vari- With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 2004), and Code of ety of school personnel and the student’s parents, makes Federal Regulations (CFR) §300.507 of the IDEA specifi- decisions regarding eligibility (e.g., Does the student qualify cally addresses this right: “a parent or a public agency may for special education? Specifically, does he or she meet the file a due process complaint on . . . the identification, evalu- criteria for a disability condition, and by reason thereof, does ation or educational placement of a child with a disability, or he or she need specialized instruction?), educational pro- the provision of FAPE to the child.” gramming (e.g., What are the student’s needs regarding Blackwell and Blackwell (2015) noted that due process accommodations and modifications, including modified hearings are more costly, not only in monetary terms but also standards with specific goals and objectives for various in the amount of time spent and in the impact on relationships. courses, assistive technology, various related services such In 2013, the American Association of School Administrators as counseling, speech/occupational/physical therapy?), and placement (e.g., In what type of program or class will the University of Houston–Clear Lake, TX, USA student be educated, and how many minutes will be spent in Corresponding Author: such classes, including access to general education?). G. Thomas Schanding, Department of Clinical, Health, and Applied Numerous other issues are addressed, and many decisions Sciences, University of Houston–Clear Lake, 2700 Bay Area Blvd., Box are made in the IEP meeting; the ultimate outcome is the #21, Houston, TX 77058-1002, USA. student’s total educational program. Email: schandingjr@uhcl.edu Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open (AASA; Pudelski, 2013) issued a report based on the results district victories was narrowed (49% for districts to 41% for of a survey of 200 school superintendents. They identified parents)” (Newcomer & Zirkel, 1999, p. 479). In a study by cost and emotional burden as major factors in deciding Archer (2002), 343 hearings in Illinois were reviewed from whether to move forward to a hearing. Regarding cost, the the time period of July 1997 through June 2002. The district AASA report noted that “school districts across the United prevailed in 69.5% of the hearings. Rickey (2003) examined States spend over 90 million per year in conflict resolution” 50 hearing decisions in Iowa between 1989 and 2001, and (Pudelski, 2013, p. 23). Almost all superintendents (95%) districts prevailed in 63% of the hearings. indicated that due process hearings resulted in high levels of More recent studies are consistent with the trend of dis- stress. About one fourth of the superintendents (24%) also tricts prevailing in the majority of hearings. Mueller and indicated that teachers who have been involved in some form Carranza (2011) conducted a descriptive analysis of 575 of litigation (a due process hearing or similar proceeding) hearings that occurred in 41 states in 2005 to 2006. Parents either leave the district or request transfers out of special edu- initiated 85% of hearings, and districts prevailed in 59% of cation 10% to 25% of the time. the hearings. Cope-Kasten (2013) reviewed 210 hearings in There have been numerous studies on various aspects of Wisconsin and Minnesota that occurred between 2000 and due process hearings (e.g., cost, perceptions by different edu- 2011, and found that districts prevailed in 90% of the hear- cation groups and parents, number of issues and outcomes ings. Yocom (2010) examined 122 hearings in Texas from regarding the party who prevailed in the hearing, legal repre- 2006 to 2008 that included 480 separate issues or disputes. sentation for parents, disability category), and most relevant Of these 480 issues, 82% (393) were ruled in favor of the to this investigation are the aspects of disability category, school district. Blackwell and Blackwell (2015) examined issues, and outcomes. 258 hearings over an 8-year period in Massachusetts from Regarding disability category, Yocom (2010) found that 2005 to 2013, and “districts prevailed in 55% of hearings and the autism disability category was overrepresented in due received a mixed decision in an additional 24.4%” (p. 8). process hearings in Texas. Mueller and Carranza (2011) There were 496 issues in these hearings, and “districts pre- found the most frequent disability categories to be learning vailed on 62.5% of all issues and received a mixed decision disability, autism, and health impairments. Shuran and in an additional 10.3%” (Blackwell & Blackwell, 2015, p. 8). Roblyer (2012) noted autism, low-incidence disabilities, The issue of legal representation for parents is important multiple disabilities, and learning disability to be the most to note. In the Blackwell and Blackwell (2015) study, parents common disabilities in hearings. Blackwell and Blackwell with attorneys prevailed in 30.8% of hearings, but this num- (2015) found the most common disability categories to be ber declined to 20.5% when representing themselves with multiple disabilities, learning disabilities, autism, and emo- advocate support and 10.7% when representing themselves tional/behavioral impairment. These authors note that when without any support. In the Cope-Kasten (2013) investiga- one disability category was not clear as the primary category, tion, 0% of parents prevailed if unrepresented by an attorney. they coded the case as multiple disabilities; thus, multiple In a review of hearings from January 1, 1978, to December disabilities had the highest percentage. 31, 2012, Zirkel (2015) noted that parents won 58% of cases Regarding issues, there are usually multiple issues in a in which they had legal representation versus 14% of cases specific case, making the percentages noted by various when they were not represented. It is clear from these inves- researchers not equal to 100. In general, the major categories tigations that parents fare much better if represented by an of issues are relatively consistent across hearings. Mueller attorney. and Carranza (2011) found that the most common issues Zirkel and Gischlar (2008) documented the number of were placement (25%) and IEP and program appropriateness adjudicated hearings in the 50 states from 1991 to 2005. (24%). Shuran and Roblyer (2012) found that FAPE was the They noted that hearings increased between 1991 and 1997, most frequent issue (78.6%), and 50% of hearings had mul- and plateaued at a relatively high level from 1997 to 2005. tiple issues. Cope-Kasten (2013) found that the most fre- Texas ranked eighth in total number of hearings, but 28th quent issues in hearings were IEP (47%), service provision based on per capita rate (adjusted totals in relation to the (42%), evaluation (38%), and placement (35%). Blackwell annual special education enrollments). In the table presented and Blackwell (2015) found the most common issues to be on page 31 of the Zirkel and Gischlar article, Texas had 902 IEP (34.3%), placement (30.4%), procedural safeguards hearings during the 15-year period reviewed. That is approx- (10.3%), and evaluation (8.5%). imately 60 hearings per year. Since 2005, the number of Regarding outcomes, Newcomer and Zirkel (1999) exam- hearings has been greatly reduced. It should be noted that the ined a random sample of 200 published court cases from IDEA was substantially amended in 1997 and 2004 which January 1975 to March 1995 in which the decisions of the may be factors in the plateau and subsequent decline of due due process hearings were appealed to either a federal or process hearings. In Yocom’s (2010) dissertation, which state court (the population of hearings from which this sam- examined hearing decisions in Texas from 2006 to 2008, ple was derived was 414). According to the authors, districts there were 122 cases (approximately 40 hearings per year). won in 60% of the cases, but on appeal, “the margin of Zirkel (2014) updated the longitudinal analysis of the Schanding et al. 3 frequency of hearings by examining the number of filings was determined by the two principal investigators as noted and adjudications for the time period 2006-2011. Texas was below: ranked eighth in total adjudications (average 27) and ninth in filings (total 318). Although Texas has reduced the number 1. Attorney representation of student/family: The repre- of hearings, Texas remains within the top 10 for both number sentation of the student/family by an identified attor- of adjudications and number of filings. ney during the due process hearing. Within this The purpose of the present investigation was to review category, some families also had parent advocates due process hearings in Texas over a 5-year period from 2011 during the case; however, those students/families through 2015. Of particular interest were the disability cate- represented solely by advocates were not included in gories of students, the number and types of issues in the hear- this category. ings, and the outcomes. Regarding outcomes, there is an 2. Issues held for school: The number of issues held for important concept to consider which involves the type of due the school district by the hearing officer. process system used in the state. In states with a two-tier sys- 3. Issues held for student/family: The number of issues tem, the hearing officer decision, if appealed, is reviewed at held for the student/family by the hearing officer. 4. Issues held in part for district and in part for student/ the state level prior to entering the court system. Texas is a family: The number of issues where a split occurred, one-tier state, which means that the decisions of the hearing indicating that a portion of the issue was held for the officer, if appealed, go directly to the court system. In this district and a portion of the issue was held for the study, the authors examined the actual due process hearing student/family. decision and did not examine whether any of these hearings 5. Prevailing party: The party (either student/family or were appealed. The following research questions were district) with the majority or substantial number of addressed: issues that prevailed in the case based on the hearing officer’s decision. Research Question 1: What were the primary student 6. Primary special education eligibility: The primary disability categories involved in the due process disability of the student as noted in the hearing deci- hearings? sion. These disability categories are based on the spe- Research Question 2: What were the main issues (pri- cial education regulations of Texas. For those students mary, secondary, and/or tertiary issues) involved in the without an identified special education eligibility, the due process hearings? student was coded as “not eligible.” Some students Research Question 3: How often did students/families had protections afforded under Section 504. and school districts prevail on the overall decision (unani- 7. Issues: Up to three (primary, secondary, and tertiary) mous vs. substantial/majority issues) of the due process issues were identified for each case. The categories for hearing? issues were coded based on criteria adapted from Blackwell and Blackwell (2015) and were as follows: Method a. Evaluation: Evaluation process and procedures for determining areas of need and potential services, Data Source including independent education evaluations and The data set for the current study included 140 special educa- the selection/qualifications of evaluators. tion due process hearings issued by the Texas Education b. Extended School Year Services (ESYS): Special Agency (TEA) between January 1, 2011, and December 31, education and related services provided to eligible 2015. All hearings were available from the TEA’s website students beyond the typical academic calendar. (http://tea.texas.gov). All due process hearing decisions were c. Identification: Eligibility determination for spe- downloaded and reviewed. A database was created to assist cial education services. with coding, data entry, and data analysis. One due process d. IEP: Components and development of the IEP, hearing was excluded from the analysis as the case was commonly examined to determine the extent to related to a previously filed hearing. which the IEP was calculated to provide a FAPE in the LRE. Predominantly, this category addressed the goals, objectives, accommodations, and modi- Coding and Analysis fications made to a student’s program of services. Upon reviewing each case, trained raters logged each case in e. Placement: Location of special education ser- the database. Coding procedures were similar to those out- vices for a student, including services provided in lined by Blackwell and Blackwell (2015). Initial codes were general education settings and specialized set- identified and refined during the establishment of interrater tings that will provide the student access to the reliability training. Trained graduate students assisted with general education environment to the appropriate reviewing the cases and coding. The final coding scheme extent; included unilateral placement by parent. 4 SAGE Open f. Procedural safeguards: Procedural protections Table 1. Students’ Special Education Primary Eligibility for Due Process Hearing. afforded to students, parents, and schools through federal and state special education laws Primary special education eligibility Frequency % of cases and regulations; included timelines, parental Autism 36 25.90 consent, and written notices. Emotional disturbance 28 20.14 g. Related services: Developmental, rehabilitative, Other health impairment 27 19.42 corrective, and supportive services that are neces- Not eligible 18 12.95 sary to assist a student in accessing and benefiting Specific learning disability 11 7.91 from special and general education services; Intellectual disability 7 5.04 included specialized transportation, occupational Auditory impairment 5 3.60 therapy, physical therapy, and orientation and Speech impairment 4 2.88 mobility services. Multiple disabilities 1 0.72 h. Discipline: Removal of a student from the agreed- Orthopedic impairment 1 0.72 upon placement due to disciplinary actions; Special education (not defined) 1 0.72 included both in-school and out-of-school sus- pensions. Also included manifestation determina- tion review (MDR) disputes involving disciplinary of 139). It should be noted that at times families employed actions or issues related to restraint/seclusion. the use of advocates in addition to attorneys and sometimes i. Transition: Practices and procedures related to solely advocates. This investigation did not code parents’ use transition planning for secondary students to of only advocates during the due process hearing. assist in developing the knowledge, skills, and strategies for accessing and benefiting from Primary Special Education Eligibility of Students postsecondary opportunities such as college, Involved in Due Process Hearings employment, independent living, and commu- nity participation. As stated previously, each special education due process hearing was coded to analyze the student’s primary special A total of 46 cases (~33% of due process hearings) were education eligibility category. Within the time period randomly chosen and coded by another rater to determine reviewed, approximately two thirds of all cases involved stu- interrater reliability. Interrater reliability was calculated dents with a primary eligibility of autism (25.90%), emo- using the following formula: Reliability = (number of agree- tional disturbance (20.14%), or other health impairment ments) / (total number of agreements plus disagreements). (19.42%). While not all cases specified the student’s eligibil- Agreement for most fields involved matching frequency ity for other health impairment, many times attention-deficit/ counts (e.g., number of issues held for a party). For the issues hyperactivity disorder was identified in the hearing and category, agreement was counted when any category among recorded anecdotally in the database. These data are pre- the primary, secondary, and tertiary subcategories matched. sented in Table 1. This was based on the difficulty in deciding at times what may be considered primary, secondary, or tertiary, but desir- Predominant Issues Involved in Due Process ing to identify the most pressing issues involved in each hearing. The interrater reliability calculation was 92.49% for Hearings the total coding of data. Additional interrater reliability per- In examining the predominant issues involved in the due pro- centages are as follows: (a) attorney representation of stu- cess hearings, hearings were coded with regard to the top dent/family = 97.83%, (b) issues held for school = 86.96%, three (primary, secondary, and tertiary) issues involving the (c) issues held for student/family = 93.48%, (d) issues held in case as coded by the raters. Overall, the majority of issues part for district and in part for student/family = 95.65%, (e) within the due process hearings involved disputes regarding prevailing party = 93.48%, (f) primary special education eli- the IEP (62.86%), evaluation (40%), placement (37.86%), gibility = 91.30%, and (g) issues = 93.20%. All data were and identification (32.14%) (see Table 2). analyzed using descriptive statistics, as the purpose was to describe the cases. Prevailing Parties for Issues and Due Process Hearings Results Within the cases, the various issues were outlined by the Attorney Representation of Student/Family hearing officer. Of the 139 cases reviewed, a total of 610 In the cases coded for this investigation, approximately 71% issues were decided. Overall, the various school districts pre- of students and families were represented by an attorney (99 vailed on 479 issues (78.52%), students/families prevailed Schanding et al. 5 Table 2. Issues Identified Within the Special Education Due state of Texas. Across the 5-year period of review, the mean Process Hearings. percentage of special education students identified with autism is 9%; however, approximately 26% of due process Issue Frequency % cases involved a primary eligibility of autism. This is due to IEP 88 62.86 both identification and programming issues. Several hear- Evaluation 56 40.00 ings involved differentiation between autism and other con- Placement 53 37.86 ditions, with parents potentially seeking the autism label. Identification 45 32.14 Texas has an autism supplement (Texas Education Agency Procedural safeguards 39 27.86 Commissioner Rules, §89.1055, 2016) which lists 11 strate- Related services 21 15.00 gies/services that must be considered in educational pro- Discipline 11 7.86 gramming for this group. This supplement is not used with Extended school year services 6 4.29 other disability categories and creates issues such as student– Transition 2 1.43 teacher ratio, methods for instruction, and related services. The results of the present investigation are consistent with Note. IEP = Individualized Education Program. other investigations indicating that school districts prevail in the majority of hearings. In this investigation, school dis- on 111 issues (18.2%), and 20 issues were split (3.28%). In tricts prevailed in 71.94 % of the hearings. Many believe that considering the overall case for which party won on the this is due to the resources that districts have (e.g., monetary, majority or substantial issues, districts prevailed in 100 cases attorneys; Blackwell & Blackwell, 2015). However, given (71.94%) and students/families prevailed in 39 cases the negative impact of hearings (e.g., costs, relationships), (28.06%). When considering the factor of attorney represen- districts may choose to settle those cases that are less likely tation of the student/family during the hearing, families that to be won and go to hearings on those cases where they antic- were represented by an attorney prevailed 34% of the time ipate a favorable outcome. In the current data, the majority of (34 of 99 cases). Families that were not represented by an parents (~71%) elected to employ attorneys during the due attorney prevailed in only 12.5% of hearings (five of 40 process hearing—a higher percentage than that reported by cases). Blackwell and Blackwell. While more parents in Texas opted to hire an attorney for these cases, parents prevailed in a majority of issues for only 34% of those cases—highly simi- Discussion lar to the percentage of parents prevailing in cases reported Based on the data reviewed, students with the primary dis- by Blackwell and Blackwell (~30%) but lower than the 58% ability conditions of autism, emotional disturbance, and reported by Zirkel (2015). other health impairment account for the majority of due pro- Consistent with other investigations (Blackwell & cess hearings. This is somewhat consistent with data from Blackwell, 2015; Cope-Kasten, 2013; Mueller & Carranza, other studies identifying these disability categories 2011; Shuran & Roblyer, 2012), most hearings have multiple (Blackwell & Blackwell, 2015; Shuran & Roblyer, 2012; issues. The two major categories of issues in these hearings Yocom, 2010); however, other investigations also have learn- include programming (IEP and placement) and eligibility ing disability as a prominent condition. Blackwell and (evaluation and identification). This suggests that the disabil- Blackwell found the top two eligibility categories repre- ity classification and identification as a student in need of sented in due process hearings were multiple disabilities special education services are often in dispute. In the hear- (29.1%) and specific learning disabilities (23.6%); however, ings reviewed, there were many Child Find issues—issues it should be noted that multiple disabilities encompassed stu- where a student was found not eligible for services—and dents presenting with more than one disability code. The pri- issues involving the actual diagnostic label. Regarding place- mary category of learning disability only accounted for ment and programming, many disputes involved the LRE approximately 8% of the hearings in this review. It is impor- issue and related services. The issue of procedural safeguards tant to note that in Texas, autism, emotional disturbance, and was also common. These issues usually involved parents other health impairment eligibilities make up approximately indicating that they had not been given the opportunity for 29% of the special education population (Texas Education meaningful participation in the IEP process. Agency PEIMS Standard Reports Overview, 2016); how- Under this set of hearings, school districts were required ever, they account for approximately 65% of all hearings. to provide “appropriate” education, not ideal education. This Students with these conditions often have both learning and issue of the level of educational benefit was recently decided behavioral challenges which can lead to more complex and by the Supreme Court of the United States in Endrew F. v. contentious IEP meetings. Behavior is a major theme across Douglas County School District RE-1 (2017), with parents the hearings. advocating for a higher standard of “meaningful educational As noted by Yocom (2010) and further supported in this benefit” rather than “some educational benefit.” The Supreme investigation, autism is overrepresented in hearings in the Court decided on March 22, 2017, that districts must give 6 SAGE Open students the opportunity to make meaningful “appropriately Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U.S. ___. Supreme Court of the United States. 2017. ambitious” progress in light of the students’ circumstances. Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 The impact of this decision is unknown at present but has the U.S.C. §1400 (2004). potential to lead to more disputes over private versus public Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, C.F.R. placement, the need for related services, special education §300.507 (2004). versus general education settings, and the goals, objectives, Mueller, T. G., & Carranza, F. (2011). An examination of special and measurable progress of students receiving special educa- education due process hearings. Journal of Disability Policy tion services. Studies, 22, 131-139. doi:10/1177/1044207310392762 It is important to consider the potential limitations of the Newcomer, J. R., & Zirkel, P. A. (1999). An analysis of judicial current study. First, only cases from Texas were utilized, so outcomes of special education cases. Exceptional Children, results may not generalize to other states. In addition, there 654, 469-480. doi:10.1177/001440299906500403 were 21 various hearing officers writing the final hearing Pudelski, S. (2013, April). Rethinking special education due process: AASA IDEA reauthorization proposals Part, 1. Alexandria, decisions. Officers did not follow a set format for outlining VA: American Association of School Administrators. information such as the issues and findings. Given these con- Available from http://www.aasa.org straints, the data are likely to still be useful for comparison Rickey, K. (2003). Special education due process hearings: Student and discussion of due process hearings around the country to characteristics, issues, and decisions. Journal of Disability further consider the various issues in dispute and the associ- Policy Studies, 141, 46-53. ated outcomes. Shuran, M. B., & Roblyer, M. D. (2012). Legal challenge: Addressing the special education service needs of youth Characteristics of special education litigation in Tennessee with disabilities requires a collaborative school–family schools. NASSP Bulletin, 961, 44-66. approach that carefully considers the opinions of both parties Texas Education Agency Commissioner Rules, §89.1055. (2016, and ultimately acts in the best interest of the student with November 22). Retrieved from ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/ regard to eligibility and programming recommendations. chapter089/ch089aa.html Texas Education Agency PEIMS Standard Reports Overview. Due process hearings provide an important avenue for fami- (2016, October 24). Retrieved from http://tea.texas.gov/ lies and schools to remedy disagreements in educational Reports_and_Data/Student_Data/Standard_Reports/PEIMS_ planning. Future studies may wish to examine the more sub- Standard_Reports_Overview/ stantial issues and decisions affecting families and schools, Yocom, S. S. (2010). Special education hearings in Texas: An anal- such as reimbursement for private placement, in-home ser- ysis of trends and decisions from 2006-2008. (Doctoral disser- vices, and private remediation of academic skills. Further tation). Retrieved from ERIC. (ED517107) investigations may also wish to more closely examine the Zirkel, P. A. (2014). Longitudinal trends in impartial hearings specific types of cases in which families or districts prevail under the IDEA: A follow-up analysis. West’s Education Law and the relief provided. In addition, future studies may wish Reporter, 303, 1-21. to examine differences in prevailing rates of families based Zirkel, P. A. (2015). Are the outcomes of hearing (and review) on eligibility categories. officer decisions different for pro se and represented parents? Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 34, 264-282. Declaration of Conflicting Interests Zirkel, P. A., & Gischlar, K. (2008). Due process hearings under the The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect IDEA: A longitudinal frequency analysis. Journal of Special to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Education Leadership, 211, 22-31. Funding Author Biographies The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- G. Thomas Schanding is an associate professor of school psychology ship, and/or publication of this article. at the University of Houston - Clear Lake. His primary research inter- ests include the social-emotional and behavioral health of students. References Gail M. Cheramie is an associate professor of school psychology Archer, M. (2002). Access and equity in the due process system: at the University of Houston - Clear Lake. Her area of specialization Attorney representation and hearing outcomes in Illinois: is assessment of students exhibiting developmental, behavioral, and 1997-2002. Retrieved from http://www.dueprocessillinois.org/ emotional difficulties. Access.pdf Blackwell, W. H., & Blackwell, V. V. (2015). A longitudinal study Hannah Hyatt is a current graduate student in the school psychol- of special education due process hearings in Massachusetts: ogy program at the University of Houston - Clear Lake. Issues, representation, and student characteristics. Sage Open, Sarah E. Praytor is a current graduate student in the school psy- 51(1), 1-11. doi:10.1177/2158244015577669 chology program at the University of Houston - Clear Lake. Cope-Kasten, C. (2013). Bidding (fair)well to due process: The need for a fairer final stage in special education dispute resolu- Jessica R. Yellen is a current graduate student in the school psy- tion. Journal of Law & Education, 423, 501-540. chology program at the University of Houston - Clear Lake.

Journal

SAGE Open – SAGE

Published: Jun 14, 2017

Keywords: due process; special education; parents; school districts

There are no references for this article.