AASA IDEA Proposal: Special Education Due Process Reform

Introduction

The conflict between parents of students with disabilities and members of school districts is an ongoing issue that has persisted for many years. More often than not, special education administrators are called upon to study these conflicts and find solutions acceptable to all parties. If no resolution is reached, conflict can set in motion due process inquiries that divert valuable time and money away from general district resources (Mueller & Piantoni, 2013).

Understanding the ways in which administrators typically address such conflict can offer guidance to leaders as they encourage partnership and collaboration between home and school (Mueller & Piantoni, 2013). About four decades ago, only twenty percent of all students with disabilities in the United States were able to access education in public schools. Today, that number has significantly increased to ninety-five percent. This is widely regarded as a major success for advocates in both the educational and civil rights sectors — the achievement of placing students with disabilities in every school across the nation (Pudelski, 2013).

Overview of the AASA IDEA Proposal

The American Association of School Administrators (AASA) holds that the present moment is the right time to reconsider the way in which parents and districts reach resolution over a student's Individualized Education Program (IEP). After six months of meetings and discussions, the organization established this particular proposal (Pudelski, 2013).

The proposal took into consideration the perspectives of special education administrators, education policy specialists, special education hearing officers, and special education lawyers. The IDEA proposal is intended to encourage an exchange of ideas and serve as a channel of communication among educational institutions, parent and disability support groups, and policymakers (Pudelski, 2013).

History of Special Education Law and Due Process

The history of special education law as it relates to contemporary legislation and due process is largely owed to the federal courts. Three decades ago, the enactment of federal education legislation made the far-reaching restructuring of American classrooms possible. The federal courts played a significant role in increasing the number of students receiving an education in public schools (Pudelski, 2013).

In 1975, under growing pressure from disability rights advocates, educators, and parents, the U.S. Congress approved the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA). This act guaranteed an accompanying set of rights to children classified as handicapped, including the fundamental right to an appropriate education in the least restrictive environment, along with the provision of related services (Pudelski, 2013).

Under this act, parents were permitted to appeal a special education evaluation for their child and to grant or withdraw consent to special education services. Parents were also granted the right to request an independent educational evaluation at public expense when they disagreed with the school district's special education assessment. Importantly, if parents believed their child was not receiving an appropriate education, they had the option of requesting a due process hearing administered by an independent hearing officer. Parents could be represented by counsel, call and cross-examine witnesses, and review records pertaining to the child (Pudelski, 2013). The due process provisions contained in the EAHCA — now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) — were largely consistent with the standards established by the courts.

In addition, the No Child Left Behind Act, enacted by the U.S. Congress in 2001, was designed to close the achievement gap through accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child would be left behind in obtaining an education (Public Law, 2002). Every school is entitled to consult with the local educational agency and its support team in order to develop programs for how the school will use its resources to provide education (Public Law, 2002). The federal No Child Left Behind Act also takes into account various factors such as income levels, disabilities, race, and English language proficiency, in order to ensure consistency, validity, and equity in student assessments.

Conclusion

Due process hearings concerning children with disabilities are adversarial, costly, and disruptive. The AASA IDEA proposal encompasses a new procedure that would bring in an external consultant to generate an educational plan that parents and a school would both have to follow for an agreed-upon period of time before any lawsuits could be filed. At present, when schools and parents cannot reach an agreement over a student's IEP, national special education regulation requires a due process hearing — a process that allows both parties to bring specialists and have their cases decided before an independent hearing officer (Samuels, 2013).

References

Mueller, T. G. (2014). Litigation and special education: The past, present, and future direction for resolving conflicts between parents and school districts. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 1044207314533382.

Mueller, T. G., & Buckley, P. C. (2014). Fathers' experiences with the special education system: The overlooked voice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(2), 119–135.

Mueller, T. G., & Piantoni, S. (2013). Actions speak louder than words: How do special education administrators prevent and resolve conflict with families. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 2(2), 1–15.

Public Law. (2002). An act. 107th Congress.

Pudelski, S. (2013). Rethinking special education due process. Retrieved October 20, 2015, from http://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Policy_and_Advocacy/Public_Policy_Resources/Special_Education/AASARethinkingSpecialEdDueProcess.pdf

Samuels, C. A. (2013). Alternative proposed to IEP due process system. Education Week. Retrieved October 20, 2015, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/05/08/30iep.h32.html