Schaffer v. Weast’s Effects on California Special Education Hearing Decisions

This research examined the associations between Schaffer v. Weast (2005) and special education due process hearing decisions in California. Using a database we coded from the state’s due process hearings for cases which reached a decision (years 1995–2019), this study analyzed (1) how legal representation and the filing party affected the probability of the student fully or partially prevailing in these cases, and (2) how Schaffer affected student representation and the prevailing party before and after this ruling. The results indicate that while students were statistically as likely to be plaintiffs and/or represented by an attorney before and after the 2005 time break in the study, the decision raised the bar for students as the likelihood of favorable outcomes for students fell significantly in the wake of the ruling.

Rights, Wrongs, and Remedies for Inclusive Education for Students with Significant Support Needs: Professional Development, Research, and Policy Reform

The purpose of this article is to respond to the perspectives of Agran and colleagues concerning barriers to general education placement for students with significant support needs from an “on the ground” lens of participation in mediations and due process hearings, as well as conversations with parental inclusion advocates throughout the country. We focus on rights, wrongs, and remedies regarding three key issues: (a) strengthening professional development, (b) conducting and disseminating research on inclusive practices, and (c) reforming policy for stronger implementation and accountability.

Seclusion of Students with Disabilities: An Analysis of Due Process Hearings

In the last several years, there has been growing concern about the use of seclusion in schools. Little is known about its use, particularly with students with disabilities. This article presents the findings from an analysis of 26 due process hearings taking place nationwide over a 12-year period containing a description of the use of seclusion. For the purpose of this study, seclusion is defined as “the involuntary confinement of a student alone in a room . . . from which the student is physically prevented from leaving” (Council for Children With Behavioral Disorders, p. 1). Findings from this analysis include the following: (a) students of all ages and both genders with significant cognitive and behavioral disorders were subject to seclusion, (b) the rationale for the use of seclusion did not always involve a safety concern, and (c) students experienced an escalation in behavior upon being placed in seclusion, along with high frequencies and long duration of the seclusion event. Most of the students in the study had physical and mental health conditions that may affect the safety and efficacy of seclusion, and long-term effects of unknown etiology occurred for students in the sample, including transition into more restrictive school settings.

An Examination of Special Education Due Process Hearings

Due process is a key dispute resolution feature approved by Congress in accordance with the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, whose goal is to facilitate resolution and minimize conflict. Nonetheless, despite 35 years of use, due process has become a difficult emotional and financial problem. Consequently, there is a need to evaluate due process and develop less adversarial resolution practices. The goal of the study herein is to place in perspective a descriptive analysis of 575 due process hearings that occurred in 41 states in 2005 to 2006 by analyzing the petitioner, disability, dispute, and outcome including hearings of specific learning disabilities (26%), autism (20%), and health impairments (15%). The most common sources of dispute were placement (25%) and Individualized Education Program and program appropriateness (24%). Parents initiated 85% of the hearings, but school districts prevailed in 59%. Interestingly, the majority of states lacked easy retrieval and consistency with reporting their own published hearings.