Please update your browser

You're using a version of Internet Explorer that isn't supported by Questia.
To get a better experience, go to one of these sites and get the latest
version of your preferred browser:

Bidding (Fair)well to Due Process: The Need for a Fairer Final Stage in Special Education Dispute Resolution

By Cope-Kasten, Cali | Journal of Law and Education, Summer 2013 | Go to article overview

Bidding (Fair)well to Due Process: The Need for a Fairer Final Stage in Special Education Dispute Resolution


Cope-Kasten, Cali, Journal of Law and Education


I. INTRODUCTION

"What we have here is a failure to communicate."1 With these words, Administrative Law Judge Brian K. Hayes summed up the relationship between a mother and school district after the mother sued the district when a teacher broke her son's arm. At the time, her son, a seventeenyear-old student with a severe cognitive disability and oppositional defiant disorder, was having a violent outburst and the teacher was attempting to restrain him. Following the incident, the mother filed for a due process hearing because the school district refused to comply with her request that her son be transferred to a different school within the district. During the due process hearing, it became clear that the mother and the district officials not only disagreed about what disciplinary measures were appropriate for the student, but they had completely different understandings of the nature of the student's disability. At the end of the hearing, Judge Hayes determined that while the teacher broke the student's arm, the district did not break any laws; therefore, the student should attend the school chosen by the district officials. After months of battling the district, the mother lost the case.

Between 2000 and 2011, another 209 special education disputes in Wisconsin and Minnesota resulted in due process hearings. In all 210 cases, a failure to communicate and cooperate led parents and school districts to seek a third party ruling on their conflict. All of these cases shared a commonality: the parties could not reach an agreement without resorting to the final and most legalized form of dispute resolution available in special education conflicts. Most of the cases also shared a second commonality: the school district prevailed in the due process hearing.

Is due process the best way to guarantee that children with disabilities receive a good education? In the United States, we understand education to be both a fundamental and legal right. Until 1975, however, many states had laws barring disabled children from attending public schools.2 In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990), which required states to educate disabled children in public schools. In an effort to guarantee that schools respected the law, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act also gave parents of disabled children the right to challenge "inadequate" schools by pursuing a due process hearing. Now, thirty-eight years later, we need to reevaluate due process as the mechanism for dispute resolution in special education conflicts.

In this article, I argue that due process is not a fair mechanism for special education dispute resolution. Due process fails to consistently ensure that students receive a good outcome and that parents and school districts feel fairly treated by the process. Ultimately, the system fails to hold school districts accountable for providing a good education to all disabled children, and along the way due process exacts a heavy emotional toll on all parties involved.

I begin by offering a framework for interpreting fairness as a multidimensional concept. Building on the existing literature, I identify three types of fairness (objective, subjective, and outcome) and analyze due process hearings with regard to those three. After considering the hearings with respect to objective fairness (the traditional procedural elements of due process), subjective fairness (the parties' perceptions of fairness), and outcome fairness (the fairness of the outcome for the student), I conclude that due process hearings are not a fair mechanism for dispute resolution in the context of special education.

II. A CONTEXT FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION DUE PROCESS

Before discussing the fairness of special education due process hearings, it is necessary to understand the sphere in which these hearings take place. In the highly regulated world of special education, rules dictate not only which procedures must be followed but also which people must follow them.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Bidding (Fair)well to Due Process: The Need for a Fairer Final Stage in Special Education Dispute Resolution
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.