Search

There is little question that today's society is a litigious one, and few professions can escape the realities of such. Although there is no mandate for national data collection on special education due process hearings (Ahearn, 2002), Chambers, Harr, and Dhanani (2003) estimate that more than 9,000 requests for dispute resolution are made per year. The hearings that result from unresolved disputes between parents and school district personnel are often stressful (Lombardi & Ludlow, 2004; O'Shea, Bateman, Algozzine, & O'Shea, 2004), and the outcomes are frequently disappointing to both parties (Mills & Duff-Mallams, 2004; Vitello, 1990). In this article, the authors attempt to broaden discussion about due process by pointing out potential benefits frequently overlooked in practice and in the professional literature. They begin by offering a redacted or summarized version of a due process case as example. They present reasons why education professionals should view due process hearings as instructive, and then they follow up with suggestions about how educators can best use legal reviews of decision summaries. (Contains 4 tables.)

A clinical progress report is presented concerning how the infants and children of Harlem (New York City) have endured the past six years. Crack abuse, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, social disorganization, and violence have been added to the traditional concomitants of poverty. Proposals are made for improvement. (SLD)

This article presents a due process hearing case study of a mother who contended that his son, D.J., has been denied of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) of his School District after being suspended from school. D.J., an elementary student, had been described as hyperactive, inattentive, defiant, and often volatile. He was identified by the school counselor as having "a behavior problems so out of control that his presence threatened the safety of the other students." After a particularly violent incident that sent D.J. and another boy to the hospital, D.J. was suspended. His mother argued that the District failed to evaluate and program appropriately her son's behavioral and learning disabilities and that it restricted his access to education for an excessive period. The District contended that suspending D.J. was justifiable, and that a suitable alternative school for D.J. had been identified, but the mother failed to cooperate. However, after a thorough study, the hearing officer determined that it was clearly a denial of FAPE; the student is entitled to compensatory education equal to the period of deprivation.