Special education due process hearings: state differences

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorRobinett, Melinda Kathleenen
dc.contributor.committeechairJones, Philip R.en
dc.contributor.committeememberAlexander, M. Daviden
dc.contributor.committeememberSalmon, Richarden
dc.contributor.committeememberFortune, Jimmie C.en
dc.contributor.committeememberEngelhard, Judy B.en
dc.contributor.departmentAdministration and Supervision of Special Educationen
dc.date.accessioned2014-03-14T21:14:04Zen
dc.date.adate2008-06-06en
dc.date.available2014-03-14T21:14:04Zen
dc.date.issued1993en
dc.date.rdate2008-06-06en
dc.date.sdate2008-06-06en
dc.description.abstractAlthough some literature exists that examines special education due process practices, the studies have been done in different ways and consequently result in different outcomes. Therefore the purpose of this study was to examine the one-and two-tier due process system in the United States. The study focused on national practices of due process, issues disputed, and disability categories involved in special education conflicts. A survey of the 50 state directors of special education and the director from the District of Columbia was conducted to obtain information concerning due process hearings and dispute resolution for the time period 1986-1987 to 1990-1991. Records of all reported special education litigation for the same time period were obtained from the Law Offices of Charles L. Weatherly in Atlanta, Georgia. Data from the states providing due process information were analyzed with a t-test. The remaining data, both from the survey instrument and litigation records, were analyzed using qualitative analysis, frequency counts, and percentages of the raw data. Findings of the study reveal a slight national trend toward a one-tier due process system for special education dispute resolution. Furthermore, placement remains the most frequently litigated issue, and specific learning disability the most frequently involved category in special education disputes. Finally, there is no predictable relationship between the size of the disability population and the volume of special education litigation. The results of the study evidenced the need for continued research of national practices of due process. Additional research is also needed in the areas of mediation, the costs of due process hearings, and hearing officer's authorization to award attorney fees.en
dc.description.degreeEd. D.en
dc.format.extentx, 108 leavesen
dc.format.mediumBTDen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.otheretd-06062008-165959en
dc.identifier.sourceurlhttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-06062008-165959/en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/38369en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherVirginia Techen
dc.relation.haspartLD5655.V856_1993.R623.pdfen
dc.relation.isformatofOCLC# 29985683en
dc.rightsIn Copyrighten
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en
dc.subject.lccLD5655.V856 1993.R623en
dc.subject.lcshDue process of law -- United Statesen
dc.subject.lcshSpecial education -- Law and legislation -- United Statesen
dc.titleSpecial education due process hearings: state differencesen
dc.typeDissertationen
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten
thesis.degree.disciplineAdministration and Supervision of Special Educationen
thesis.degree.grantorVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universityen
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen
thesis.degree.nameDoctor of Educationen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
LD5655.V856_1993.R623.pdf
Size:
4.45 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download

Collections

Doctoral Dissertations