Skip to content

Citation:  Educational Equity Compliance Office, Los Angeles Unified School District, n.d. “Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Fast Track to Resolving California Department of Education (CDE) Special Education Compliance Complaints?” (brochure). Los Angeles, CA:Educational Equity Compliance Office.


Description:  This brochure, developed by Los Angeles Unified School District, outlines three options to resolve CDE Special Education Compliance Complaints.  ADR is described as a "fast track" to resolution (within 20 days) versus the CDE process that takes approximately 60 days to resolve.


URL:  Access Document


 

Citation: Zirkel, P.A. 2013. “The Hale Position for a ‘Third Method’ for Specific Learning Disabilities Identification: A Legal Analysis.” Learning Disability Quarterly 36 (2): 93-96.


Resource Description: This article provides information regarding identification of students under the category of specific learning disability. The conclusion is that the positions presented in the white paper are not aligned with the law. As a result, the position is justifiable only as advocating revisions to the process of SLD identification.


URL: View Abstract


 

Citation: Zirkel, P. A. 2012. “Special Education Hearing Officers: Balance and Bias.” Journal of Disability Policy Studies 24 (2): 67-74.


Resource Description: This article analyzes IDEA amendments, revisions, court decisions, and state system changes to be considered when measuring the impartiality of hearing officers and court decisions.


URL: View Abstract


 

Citation: Pudelski, S. 2016. “Rethinking Special Education Due Process.” American Association of School Administrators. http://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Policy_and_Advocacy/Public_Policy_Resources/Special_Education/AASARethinkingSpecialEdDueProcess.pdf (accessed January 5, 2016).


Resource Description: This publication is a compilation of recommendations from American Association of School Administrators (AASA) for the next reauthorization of IDEA and the due process system. This series is intended to spark dialoged regarding changes in ADR and due process hearings.


URL: Access Document


 

Citation: Wissler, Roselle. 2010. “Representation in Mediation: What We Know from Empirical Research.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 37: 419-471.


Resource Description: This article reviews an overview of original research and existing studies on mediation. It examines different mediation programs’ benefits and costs and levels of satisfaction. Also, the article also looks at the impacts of attorney involvement on contention and relational issues.


URL: Access Article


 

Citation: DeNisco, A. 2013. “Navigating Special Education Disputes in Schools.” District Administration 49 (10): 34-38.


Resource Description: This article examines the ways that schools and families can work together towards positive outcomes through the views of two special education attorneys. The author reviews ways to avoid adversarial situations.


URL: Access Article


 

Citation: Office of Administrative Hearings, California Department of General Services. 2008.  “Mediation: What is Mediation?” Sacramento, CA: California Department of General Services. https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/oah/SE/Forms/OAH%2075,%20rev.%2007-08.pdf (accessed January 5, 2016).


Resource Description: This short, two-page document provides a good overview of the role of a mediator within the context of due process and the Office of Administrative Hearings.


URL: Access Document


 

Citation: Turnbull, R., and A. Turnbull. 2015. “Looking Backward and Framing the Future for Parents’ Aspirations for Their Children With Disabilities.” Remedial and Special Education 36 (1): 52-57.


Resource Description: This academic article examines the role of parents of students with special needs to foster parent professional trust-based relationships. It looks back at the past to determine effective ways of meeting future aspirations for students with special needs.


URL: View Abstract


 

Citation: Zirkel, P. A. 2014. “Longitudinal Trends in Impartial Hearings under the IDEA.” West’s Education Law Reporter 302 (1): 1-11.


Resource Description: This article examines the lower number of due process hearings between 2006 and 2012 and looks at possible contributing factors. One of the important factors was changes in services in the District of Columbia, which accounted for most of the overall reduction of cases nationally.


URL: Access Article


 

Citation: 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 26 (3): 135-43.


Resource Description: This article provides a discussion of the changing relationships between lititgation and special education through the interpretation of IDEA regulations, national data and research. Recommendations for future research, policy, and practice are presented.


URL: View Abstract


 

CITATION: Rosenfeld, S.J. 2012. “It’s Time for an Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure.” Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary 32 (2): 361-384.

DESCRIPTION: This article looks at using arbitration for resolving special education disputes. The article reviews some weaknesses of the current ADR process and then discusses the ways the arbitration could work to resolve conflict.


URL: View Article


CITATION: Zirkel, P. A. 2013. “Impartial Hearings Under the IDEA: Legal Issues and Answers. The National Association of State Directors of Special Education.” http://www.nasdse.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=nTeBfmZi_Aw%3d&tabid=36 (accessed January 5, 2016).


DESCRIPTION: This is a question and answer document that looks at the hearings that are conducted by Impartial Hearing Office (IHO) staff.  The article looks at IHO issues and hearing or decision issues.


URL: Access Article


CITATION: Hedeen, T., M. Peter, P. Moses, and A. Engiles. 2013. “IEP/IFSP Facilitation: Practical Insights and Programmatic Considerations.” Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education.

DESCRIPTION: This document gathers information collected from literature regarding the appropriate facilitation of IEP and IFSP meetings.


URL: Access Article


CITATION: Burke, Meghan M., and Samantha E. Goldman. 2014. “Identifying the Associated Factors of Mediation and Due Process in Families of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 45 (5): 1345-353.

DESCRIPTION: This article looks at families of students with Autism and other disabilities to determine which families are more likely to enact their rights to mediation and due process. Using a web-based survey, it identifies factors that may contribute to use of due process or mediation, such as poor family-school partnerships, older children, and greater household incomes.

CITATION: Shaver, E.A. 2015. “Every Day Counts: Proposals to Reform the IDEA’s Due Process Structure.” Case Western Reserve Law Review 66 (1): 143-208.

DESCRIPTION: The article presents the results of a nationwide survey in which over three hundred and fifty special education attorneys voiced their opinions about current ADR practices, including perceived inefficiencies, proposed remedies, and proposed reforms. Finally, the article recommends structural changes to IDEA due process that are designed to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of special education dispute resolution.

URL: View Article


CITATION: Moses, P., and T. Hedeen. 2012. “Collaborating for our Children’s Future: Mediation of Special Education Disputes.” Dispute Resolution Magazine 18 (4): 4-9.

DESCRIPTION: This article gives a history of mediation from the 1970s to current day and then looks into the future of mediation including expanded facilitation of IEPS and IFSPs.

CITATION: Feinberg, E., J. Beyer, and P. Moses. 2002. “Beyond Mediation: Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education.” Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education.


DESCRIPTION: This handbook provides information to support early resolutions to cases brought to mediation, including information about building relationships and other positive strategies. Specifically, this publication explains the causes of conflict and identifies a number of effective early dispute resolution strategies already being used to resolve disagreements between families and schools about students’ educational programs, supports, and services. The prevention strategies presented are practical and implementable.


URL: View Handbook


CITATION: Calstat. 2011. “Alternative Dispute Resolution Solving Problems and Resolving Conflict: Another Way.” Special EDge Newsletter 24 (2).

DESCRIPTION: This article looks at issues of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), problem-solving in a light that goes beyond simple compliance and towards problem-solving in other ways.

CITATION: California Department of Education. 2012.  “Alternative Dispute Resolution.” http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/profile.asp?id=2169 (accessed January 5, 2017).

DESCRIPTION: This webpage offers information from the California Department of Education regarding the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) funding description used by Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and Special Education Local Plan Areas (SELPAs).



CITATION: Mueller, T.G., and S. Piantoni. 2013. “Actions Speak Louder than Words: How Do Special Education Administrators Prevent and Resolve Conflict with Families?” Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship 2 (2): 1-15.

DESCRIPTION: This paper examines the experience of special education administrators in resolving and avoiding conflict. The paper looks at action-based strategies with implications for practice and potential research.