Special Education: Numbers of Formal Disputes Are Generally Low  
and States Are Using Mediation and Other Strategies to Resolve	 
Conflicts (09-SEP-03, GAO-03-897).				 
                                                                 
In the 2001-02 school year, about 6.5 million children aged 3	 
through 21 received special education services under the	 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). On occasion, 
parents and schools disagree about what kinds of special	 
services, if any, are needed for children and how they should be 
provided. Conflicts between school officials and families	 
sometimes become costly, both financially and in terms of the	 
harm done to relationships. As requested, GAO determined the	 
kinds of issues that result in formal disputes, the extent to	 
which the three formal mechanisms (due process hearings,	 
mediations, and state complaints) are employed for resolution,	 
the role of mediation and other alternative dispute resolution	 
strategies in selected locations, and whether local education	 
agencies received adequate and timely complaint notifications	 
from states. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed available 
national data and conducted site visits to state and local	 
education agencies in four states--California, Massachusetts,	 
Ohio, and Texas.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-897 					        
    ACCNO:   A08347						        
  TITLE:     Special Education: Numbers of Formal Disputes Are	      
Generally Low and States Are Using Mediation and Other Strategies
to Resolve Conflicts						 
     DATE:   09/09/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Children with disabilities 			 
	     Elementary schools 				 
	     Hearings						 
	     Parents						 
	     Secondary schools					 
	     Special education					 
	     Students						 
	     Dispute resolution 				 
	     Mediation services 				 
	     California 					 
	     Massachusetts					 
	     Ohio						 
	     Texas						 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-897

Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions, U. S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

September 2003 SPECIAL EDUCATION

Numbers of Formal Disputes Are Generally Low and States Are Using
Mediation and Other Strategies to Resolve Conflicts

GAO- 03- 897

Officials in four states told GAO that disagreements usually arose between
parents and school districts over fundamental issues of identifying
students* need for special education, developing and implementing their
individualized education programs, and determining the appropriate
education setting.

While national data on disputes are limited and inexact, the available
information showed that formal dispute resolution activity, as measured by
the number of due process hearings, state complaints, and mediations, was

generally low. According to the National Association of State Directors of
Special Education, while requests for hearings increased from 7,532 to
11,068 over a 5- year period, the number of due process hearings held
decreased from 3,555 to 3, 020; much of the 5- year decline occurred in
New York. Additionally, most due process hearings were concentrated in
five states* California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania*
and

the District of Columbia.

Numbers of Due Process Hearings Requested and Held Nationwide from 1996
through 2000

Overall, dispute resolution activity was generally low relative to the
number of students with disabilities. About 5 due process hearings were
held per 10,000 students with disabilities. National studies also reported
no more than an estimated 7 mediations per 10, 000 students and about 10
state complaints per 10, 000 students.

States GAO visited emphasized mediation in resolving disputes and made it
more available than federal law required. Some locations had developed
additional strategies for early resolution of disagreements between
parents and school districts. Finally, school district officials in the
four states said they had few problems with state complaint notifications,
and problems encountered had little impact on the timeliness of the
complaint process: state and local education officials appeared to be
working together to overcome them. In the 2001- 02 school year, about

6. 5 million children aged 3 through 21 received special education
services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

On occasion, parents and schools disagree about what kinds of special
services, if any, are needed for children and how they should

be provided. Conflicts between school officials and families sometimes
become costly, both financially and in terms of the harm done to
relationships.

As requested, GAO determined the kinds of issues that result in formal
disputes, the extent to which the three formal mechanisms (due process
hearings, mediations, and state complaints) are employed for

resolution, the role of mediation and other alternative dispute resolution
strategies in selected locations, and whether local

education agencies received adequate and timely complaint notifications
from states. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed available national
data and conducted site visits to state

and local education agencies in four states-- California, Massachusetts,
Ohio, and Texas.

www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 897. To view the full product,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Marnie Shaul at (202) 512- 7215 or shaulm@ gao. gov.
Highlights of GAO- 03- 897, a report to the

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions, U. S. Senate

September 2003

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Numbers of Formal Disputes Are Generally Low and States Are Using
Mediation and Other Strategies to Resolve Conflicts

Page i GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA Letter 1 Results in
Brief 2 Background 4 In Selected Locations, Disputes between Schools and
Families

Were Usually over Student Identifications, Education Programs, and
Placements 10 Available Data Indicate That Dispute Resolution Activity Was
Generally Low; Due Process Hearings Were Concentrated in a Few Locations
12 States We Visited Were Emphasizing Mediation, and Some

Locations Used Additional Strategies 16 State Notification Problems Were
Generally Minor and Had Little Effect on Timeliness 21 Concluding
Observations 22 Agency Comments 22 Appendix I Scope and Methodology 24

Appendix II Levels of Dispute Resolution Activity in the Four Urban and
Four Rural School Districts Visited 28

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Education 29

Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 31 GAO Contacts 31
Staff Acknowledgments 31 Tables

Table 1: Key Differences in Formal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms 7 Table
2: Dispute Resolution Activity in California, Massachusetts,

Ohio, and Texas, Fiscal Years 2000- 02 17 Contents

Page ii GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA Table 3: Dispute
Resolution Activity in Urban and Rural School Districts over a 3- Year
Period, Fiscal Years 2000- 02 28 Figures

Figure 1: Numbers of Due Process Hearings Requested and Held Nationwide
from 1996 through 2000 13 Figure 2: Numbers of Due Process Hearings Held
in 5 States and

the District of Columbia Compared to the Rest of the United States, 1996-
2000 14 Abbreviations CADRE Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution
in

Special Education IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act IEP
individualized education program LEA local education agency NASDSE
National Association of State Directors of Special Education

OSEP Office of Special Education Programs SEA state education agency SEEP
Special Education Expenditure Project SLIIDEA Study of State and Local
Implementation and Impact

of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

This is a work of the U. S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

Page 1 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

September 9, 2003 The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Health, Education,

Labor and Pensions United States Senate

Dear Senator Kennedy: In the 2001- 02 school year, about 6.5 million
children aged 3 through 21 received special education services under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) at a federal cost of
approximately $8 billion and more than $48 billion in state costs. 1 On
occasion, parents and schools disagree about what kinds of special
services, if any, are needed for children and how they should be provided.
Disagreements between school officials and families that cannot be
resolved quickly sometimes become formal disputes that can be costly, both
financially and in terms of the harm done to relationships. In May 2003,
the Special Education Expenditure Project (SEEP) reported that school
districts spent at least $90 million on resolving such disputes in the
1999- 2000 school year. School districts and families have at least three
formal mechanisms for

resolving disputes: state complaint procedures, due process hearings, and
mediation. 2 A state complaint procedure is a review by the state
education agency (SEA) to determine whether a state or a local school
district has violated IDEA. A due process hearing is an administrative
agency process, in which an impartial hearing officer receives evidence,
provides for the examination and cross- examination of witnesses by each
party, and then issues a report of findings of fact and decisions. To
provide an alternative mechanism for resolving conflicts in a way that may
be less costly and less

1 Source of cost data: Congressional Research Service Report for Congress,
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Current Funding
Trends, RS21447, updated March 3, 2003. 2 Parties that are not satisfied
with a due process hearing decision may bring a civil action in federal or
state court but such actions are uncommon and were not included in our
review.

In the 1998- 99 school year, an estimated 301 civil actions were initiated
nationwide.

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

adversarial, the 1997 amendments to IDEA required that states offer
voluntary mediation when a request for a due process hearing is filed.
Mediation is a negotiating process that employs an impartial mediator to
help the parties in conflict resolve their disputes with a mutually
accepted written agreement. While school districts and families are not
required to choose this option, the legislation strongly encouraged states
to promote the use of mediation to resolve disagreements.

This report responds to your request that we determine (1) the kinds of
issues that result in formal disputes, (2) the extent to which the three
formal mechanisms are employed for resolution, (3) the role of mediation
and other alternative dispute resolution strategies in selected locations,
and (4) whether local education agencies received adequate and timely
complaint notifications from states. To identify what kinds of issues
result in formal disputes between parents and school districts, we made
site visits to SEAs and local education agencies (LEA) in California,
Massachusetts, Ohio, and Texas. We selected these states, in part, because
they varied in their volume of formal dispute activity and were
geographically diverse. To determine the extent to which various dispute
resolution mechanisms were employed, we reviewed data from four nationwide
studies. 3 These studies employed somewhat different measures for due
process and mediations, which contributed to the variation in the findings
reported. We collected information from each of the four states we
visited, and also interviewed state education officials, educators in
local school districts, and parent resource and advocacy groups. We also
met with SEA officials and other experts in Iowa to obtain information

about their mediation system and other alternative dispute resolution
strategies. 4 To determine whether LEAs have received timely notifications
from states that a complaint has been filed, we interviewed educators in
one urban and one rural school district in each of the four states we

visited. Appendix I contains a more detailed description of our
methodology.

The four states we visited reported that disputes between school districts
and families have often centered on fundamental issues of identifying

3 These studies covered various periods of time from 1991 to 2000. See
app. I for a listing and brief discussion of these studies. 4 Iowa was
recommended to us because it was viewed as using innovative dispute
resolution practices. Results in Brief

Page 3 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

students* need for special education, the development and implementation
of their individualized education programs (IEP), and the educational
setting in which they were placed. For example, school officials and
parents sometimes disagreed about what setting would afford the
appropriate educational placement for a student* a regular classroom, a
special needs classroom, or a specialized school. Such conflicts can lead
to formal disputes. Officials in six of the eight school districts we
visited

mentioned that disputes had resulted from decisions over students*
educational placements. While data are limited and inexact, four national
studies indicate that the

use of the three formal dispute resolution mechanisms has been generally
low relative to the number of children with disabilities. Due process
hearings, the most resource- intense dispute mechanism, were the least
used nationwide. Using data from the National Association of State
Directors of Special Education, we calculated that nationwide, in 2000,
about 5 due process hearings were held per 10,000 students with
disabilities. According to the these data, over three- quarters of the due
process hearings had been held in five states* California, Maryland, New
Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania* and the District of Columbia.
Mediation activity was also low. Another national study reported in 2003
that the median number of mediations for states was 4 for every 10,000
students with disabilities in school year 1999- 2000. In May 2003, SEEP
estimated that 4,266 mediation cases occurred during the 1998- 99 school
year, which we calculated as a rate of about 7 mediations per 10,000
students with disabilities. Also, using the latter study, we calculated
that about 10 state complaints were filed for every 10,000 students with
disabilities in the 1998- 99 school year.

Officials in all four states we visited were emphasizing the use of
mediation to resolve disputes between families and school districts, and
some states had developed additional approaches for early resolution.
State officials told us they found that mediation was successful in
resolving disputes, strengthening relationships between families and
educators, saving financial resources, and reaching resolution more
quickly. The University of the Pacific reported that 93 percent of the
mediation cases in California resulted in agreements between families and
schools during the 2001- 02 fiscal year; the cost of a mediator was about
one- tenth that of a hearing officer. In addition, there were a variety of
alternative strategies in place in several states and localities to
resolve disputes earlier and with less acrimony. For example, Iowa
exceeded IDEA requirements by allowing parties to request a pre- appeal
conference to mediate disputes prior to filing for a due process hearing.
This

Page 4 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

conference was used five times more often by families and educators than
mediation in conjunction with a filing for a due process hearing. Ohio, on
the other hand, developed a parent mentor program in which parents of
students with disabilities were hired to provide training and information
about special education to educators and other parents of children with
disabilities and to attend IEP meetings at parent or staff request. Data
for measuring the cost- effectiveness of this and other such programs,
however, were limited.

Officials in the eight local school districts we interviewed said they had
few problems responding to state complaint notifications in a timely way;
and those problems were generally minor, causing modest delays. For
example, Los Angeles Unified School District officials said that complaint
notifications sometimes lacked supporting information, such as copies of

the specific IEP in question or relevant mediation agreements or
evaluations. In some cases, the notifications did not identify a child*s
school or date of birth. These shortcomings, officials indicated,
generally caused only a few days* delay in responding appropriately to the
state.

In 1975, a new federal law, now called IDEA, established a federal
commitment to identify children with disabilities and provide special
education and related services such as speech and language services,
psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, and
transportation. 5 The cornerstone principle of IDEA is the right of
children with disabilities to have a free appropriate public education.
Under the

law, school districts must provide special education and related services
without charge to parents and the services must meet the standards of the
SEA. The services for and placement of each child must be based on the
child*s unique needs, not on his/ her disability. IDEA also stipulates
that children with disabilities are to be educated in the *least
restrictive environment,* that is, the law requires that children with
disabilities are educated with children who are nondisabled to the maximum
extent appropriate. 5 IDEA contains four parts (A through D) and this
report primarily focuses on part B of the

legislation. Part B contains provisions relating to the education of
children ages 3 through 21 and includes the funding formula, use of funds,
provisions relating to evaluations, eligibility determinations,
individualized education programs, educational placements, and detailed
requirements for procedural safeguards. Background

Page 5 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

About 13 percent of students in federally supported programs, or about 6.5
million children, receive special education services under IDEA. These
students have a wide variety of needs that range from mild to severe.
Children with speech or language impairments, specific learning
disabilities, emotional disturbance, hearing impairments (including
deafness), visual impairments (including blindness), orthopedic
impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or
mental retardation, and who need special education and related services
are eligible under IDEA.

School districts are responsible for identifying students who may have a
disability and evaluating them in all areas related to the suspected
disability. 6 The evaluation process is intended to provide information
needed to determine if the student is eligible as defined under IDEA. The
IEP team decides on, among other things, special education and related
services that will be provided for the child and on the frequency,
location, and duration of the services to be provided. 7 The law requires
two steps for an IEP: (1) a meeting by the IEP team to

agree about an educational program for a child with a disability and (2)
preparing a written record of the decisions reached at the meeting.
Development of the IEP is designed to facilitate communication between
parents and school personnel and provide an opportunity for resolving any
differences concerning the special education needs of a child. The IEP
also documents a commitment of resources for providing special education
and related services, and schools are responsible for ensuring that the
child*s IEP is carried out as it was written.

6 Parents may also obtain an independent educational evaluation of their
child at any time at their own expense. The results of this evaluation
must be considered in any decision in providing a free appropriate public
education for that child, and may also be presented, if needed, as
evidence at a due process hearing. 7 IDEA requires that an IEP team
include (1) the child*s parents; (2) at least one regular education
teacher of the child, if the child is, or may be participating in the
regular

education environment; (3) at least one special education teacher, or if
appropriate, at least one provider of the child*s special education; (4) a
representative of the public agency qualified to provide, or supervise,
special education and who is knowledgeable about the general curriculum
and the resources available from the public agency; (5) an individual who
can interpret the instructional implications of educational results; (6)
at the discretion of the parent or the agency, other individuals with
knowledge or expertise about the child; and (7) the child, if appropriate.
Public agencies include SEAs, LEAs, Departments of Mental Health and
Welfare, state schools for children with deafness or children with

blindness, and any other political subdivisions of the state that are
responsible for providing education to children with disabilities.

Page 6 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

Disagreements over eligibility determinations about a child and over an
IEP can be contentious and occasionally result in disputes. 8 Many
disagreements between families and local schools are resolved informally,
during initial or follow- up IEP meetings at the local schools, or in
other venues such as conferences with principals or other administrators.
On occasion, however, parties have been unable to resolve their
differences. In these instances, under IDEA, procedural safeguards 9
afford parents recourse when they disagree with school district decisions
about their children.

Disagreements can be formally resolved through state complaint procedures,
through a due process hearing, or through mediation. A state complaint is
initiated through a signed written complaint that includes a statement
that a public agency has violated a requirement of IDEA and the facts on
which the statement is based. If the complaint is against a school
district, the SEA typically informs the school district of the complaint
by formal notification, requests documentation from the local education
officials, and, when necessary, conducts an on- site investigation. The
SEA must issue a written decision to the complainant that addresses each

allegation in the complaint and contains findings of fact and conclusions,
and the reason for the SEA*s final decision. If violations are found, the
decision specifies the corrective actions to achieve compliance. A due
process hearing is an administrative agency process initiated by a written

request by one of the aggrieved parties to either the SEA or the LEA,
depending on the state*s process. An impartial hearing officer listens to
witnesses, examines evidence, and issues a written decision. In the
decision, the hearing officer determines whether violations occurred and
issues remedies. Mediation is a voluntary process whereby parents and

8 In the states and localities we visited, some educators and advocates
alike provided a variety of reasons that parents may not take formal
actions to resolve issues with schools. These reasons included the lack of
information about how to file formal complaints, a perception that the
available remedies were ineffective, and a parent*s reluctance to have
conflict with school officials. 9 The procedural safeguards afforded
parents include the right to written prior notice whenever the education
agency proposes to initiate or change, or refuses to initiate or change,
the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or
the provision of a free appropriate public education to the child; the
right to provide consent to an evaluation to determine whether the child
has a disability as defined under the law before the evaluation is
conducted; and the right to an impartial due process hearing when the
parent has presented a complaint related to the identification,
evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the provision of a
free appropriate public education to the child.

Page 7 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

school districts agree to meet with an impartial third party in an
informal setting to reach a resolution that is mutually agreeable.
Agreements are mutually designed, agreed to, and implemented by the
parties. While the processes used for resolving disputes vary, 10 other
important key differences exist among these three mechanisms as well.
Table 1 identifies some of the key differences in formal dispute
resolution mechanisms

offered by SEAs.

Table 1: Key Differences in Formal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms State
complaint Due process

hearing Mediation

Who can request Any organization or individual A parent, public agency, or
the child

(at age of majority) A parent, public agency, or the child

(at age of majority) Who decides State education agency

officials Impartial hearing officer Mutually between the

parties Federally prescribed timeline

60 calendar days 45 calendar days None prescribed but generally less than
30 days

Relative financial cost to LEAs and parents

No cost to parents or LEAs Generally expensive

for LEAs and for parents if they hire an attorney a Generally much less

expensive than due process hearings b Relative financial

cost to SEAs Generally much less expensive than due

process hearings, primarily consists of staff cost to resolve the
complaint

Generally expensive for SEAs, primarily for the cost of a hearing officer
Generally much less

expensive than due process hearings, primarily for the cost of a mediator

Source: Information on who can request the three mechanisms was obtained
from 34 C. F. R., Ch. III, sections 300.662, 300. 507, and 300.517; who
decides the three mechanisms was obtained from 34 C. F. R., Ch. III,
sections 300. 661, 300. 508, and 300.506; federally prescribed timelines
for complaints and due process hearings were obtained from 34 C. F. R.,
Ch. III, sections 300.661 and 300.511, information about the timeline for
mediation was obtained from state education officials in the states
visited; and information about relative financial cost were obtained from
state and local education officials in the states visited.

a If parents prevail, they may be awarded reasonable attorney*s fees. b
Attorneys are more often used during due process hearings, but, in most
states, parties are allowed legal representation during mediation.
However, the parents would typically be responsible for their attorney*s
fees during mediation.

10 There are variations in how certain procedures may be carried out. For
example, in some LEAs, parents may file complaints either to the school
district or with the state. Also, SEAs varied in employing hearing
officers and mediators; some SEAs contracted out for these

positions and other states had a cadre of full- time employees in an
administrative unit not involved in the education or care of the child.

Page 8 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

Parents and other parties can generally choose which mechanism to use to
resolve their dispute. Parents have the right to request a due process
hearing at any time over any issue related to the identification,
evaluation, or educational placement or the provision of a free
appropriate public education to the student. They may also file both due
process requests and written state complaints simultaneously, but the SEA
must set aside any part of the state complaint that is addressed in the
due process hearing

until the conclusion of the hearing. Any issue in the complaint not
addressed in the due process hearing must be resolved within the time
frames and procedures consistent with the state complaint requirements.
Finally, although either parents or school districts can file a request
for a due process hearing, this mechanism is potentially very costly to
both parties, in terms of financial expenses and relationships. While
school districts and parents are responsible for their own attorney*s fees
and other associated expenses, the hearing officer is paid for by the
state. 11 According to the National Association of State Directors of
Special

Education (NASDSE), due process systems are structured similarly across
the states with one major distinction* about two- thirds of the states use
a one- tier system in which the hearing is held only at the state level.
About one- third of the states use a two- tier system in which a hearing
occurs at a local level, usually the school or district with the right to
appeal to a statelevel hearing officer or panel. 12 Even though the 1997
amendments to IDEA required states to make mediation available as a
voluntary alternative to parents or school districts when they request a
due process hearing, most states had mediation systems in place much
earlier. In September 1994, NASDSE reported that Connecticut and
Massachusetts were the first states (in 1975) to implement formal
mediation systems. By 1985, 15 more states had implemented mediation, and
over the next decade 22 additional

states had mediation systems. Education*s Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) is responsible for overall administration and allocation
of federal funds for states* implementation of IDEA programs. In addition,
OSEP is charged with

11 In cases where families prevail in due process hearings, they may be
entitled to attorney*s fees. In some states, the hearing officer can make
the determination of reasonable attorney*s fees and order the school
district to pay. In other states, parents must seek attorney*s fees in a
district court.

12 Eileen Ahearn, Due Process Hearings: 2001 Update (Project Forum,
NASDSE), April 2002.

Page 9 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

assessing the impact and effectiveness of state and local efforts to
provide a free appropriate public education to children and youth with
disabilities. OSEP has contracted for two major research studies that
focus, in part, on dispute resolution activities. One of these, conducted
by Abt Associates,

the Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (SLIIDEA) will include nationwide data
over a 5- year period (2000- 04); a report on selected findings was
published in January 2003. The second study, SEEP, is being conducted by
the American Institutes for Research. In May 2003, this project reported
on procedural safeguards and related expenditures for dispute resolution
from survey data of a nationwide sample of LEAs. Since states are not
required to collect or report data on dispute resolution activity, these
studies, along with two studies by NASDSE, provide the most recently
available information on the prevalence of formal dispute activity. 13
However, each of these studies has limitations, which are discussed in

appendix I. Under IDEA, Education also provides funds to grantees for
parent centers. The parent training and information centers and community
parent resource centers provide a variety of services, including helping
families obtain appropriate education and services for their children with
disabilities, training and information for parents and professionals,
connecting children with disabilities to community resources that can
address their needs, and resolving problems between families and schools
or other agencies. Each state has at least 1 parent center and, currently,
there are 105 parent centers in the United States. According to the
Technical Assistance Alliance for Parent Centers, the national

13 OSEP plans to obtain consistent information, through performance
reporting, from states. Part of this reporting system is expected to
include data on numbers of complaints, due process hearings, and
mediations. Initial state reports of this information are proposed to be
due by March 31, 2004.

Page 10 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

coordinating office, parent centers provided assistance to nearly 1
million parents and professionals during the 2001- 02 school year. 14
Formal disputes between schools and families in the 4 states we visited

ranged from identifying a student*s disabilities to developing and
implementing the IEP and the student*s placement. Officials in these
states told us that disputes frequently arose between families and school
districts over (1) identifications, that is, whether children were
eligible for IDEA services and how their eligibility determinations were
made; (2) the types of special education and related services, if any,
they needed; (3) whether

schools carried out the education programs as written; and (4) whether
schools could provide an appropriate educational environment for certain
students. 15 SEA and LEA officials told us that schools and parents
occasionally

disagreed about whether or not a child needed special education services.
On the one hand, a school may want to evaluate a child because it believes
he or she may have a disability and, in this case, the school must
evaluate the child at no cost to the family. A parent may also ask for the
child to be evaluated, but if the school does not think the child has a
disability it may

refuse to evaluate him or her. Parents who disagree must take appropriate
steps to challenge the school*s decision. Conversely, for a variety of
reasons, parents may not want the child to receive special education
services. For example, the family may disagree with the school*s decision
14 OSEP also funded a 5- year national center on dispute resolution, the
Consortium for

Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE), for the
purpose of providing information and assistance to state agencies on
implementation of the mediation requirements under the 1997 amendments to
IDEA. In addition, CADRE supports parents, educators, and administrators
to benefit from the full continuum of dispute resolution

options that can prevent and resolve conflicts. The national center works
with its core partners, including NASDSE; the Academy for Educational
Development/ National Information Center for Children and Youth with
Disabilities, and the Technical Assistance Alliance for Parent Centers
(The Alliance). CADRE is a project of Direction Service, Inc., located in
Eugene, Oregon.

15 In the states we visited, SEA officials told us disagreements that
involved potential technical violations of federal or state law or
regulations were generally pursued through the state complaint procedures,
while disagreements involving judgment such as student identification and
educational placements were generally resolved through due process
hearings or mediations. An OSEP memorandum, dated July 17, 2000, Subject:
Complaint Resolution Procedures under Part B of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (Part B), directs states to make their
complaint procedures available for resolving any complaint, including (1)
those that raise systemic issues and (2) individual child complaints. In
Selected Locations,

Disputes between Schools and Families Were Usually over Student
Identifications, Education Programs,

and Placements

Page 11 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

about whether or not the child has a disability, or the parent may be
concerned about the possibility of negative perceptions about special
education identification. Officials in five of the eight school districts
we visited mentioned that disputes occurred because parents wanted or did
not want their children identified for special education.

Another issue that existed in some school districts was over the
availability of related services, such as speech and language services and
occupational therapy. Disputes sometimes occurred as a result of problems
in providing related services, including the types, amounts, methods, or
the failure to provide services. Speech and language services, for
example, were mentioned as a recurring problem in some areas

because of the shortage of specialists available to provide these
services. Officials in six of the eight school districts we visited
identified having disagreements with parents regarding the provision of
speech and language services.

SEA and LEA officials also identified a number of issues related to the
IEP that caused disagreements between parents and school districts. For
example, we were told that disagreements had occurred because parents
believed the school had not implemented the IEP as agreed upon. Moreover,
parents and schools also disagreed about whether the school had chosen the
appropriate instructional methods for a child. For example, parents may
want a child with autism to receive an intensive behavioral interventions
program that consists of one- on- one instruction with a trained
therapist. Because this type of instruction could be very costly to the
LEA, school officials told us they would like the flexibility to

consider a less expensive but suitable alternative approach as part of the
student*s IEP. Officials in five of the eight school districts we visited
mentioned that disputes with parents resulted from the instructional
methods chosen or preferred by the school, particularly for students with
autism.

We also found that school officials and parents sometimes disagreed about
whether a placement was the appropriate and least restrictive environment
for a child. For instance, some educators have contended that a child
should attend classes primarily for students with disabilities, while
parents believed their children would perform better in a regular
classroom. Some disputes about placement also resulted from the parents*
desire to have their children taught outside the public school system.
Because serving a child outside the school district can be very expensive,
school districts preferred, whenever feasible, to keep a child within the

Page 12 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

district. Officials in six local school districts we visited mentioned
that disputes had occurred over decisions about a child*s educational
setting.

While national data on disputes are limited and inexact, the reported
available information indicates that formal dispute resolution activity,
as measured by the number of due process hearings, state complaints, and
mediations, was generally low. According to a 2002 NASDSE report, the
nationwide number of due process hearings held* the most expensive form of
the three dispute resolution mechanisms* was generally low for a 5- year
period that ended in 2000, with most hearings occurring in a few
locations. 16 Finally, based on national data from three studies, the
rates of mediations and state complaints were also low, but somewhat
higher than due process hearings.

While the total number of due process hearings held nationally was low
over a 5- year period from 1996- 2000, most hearings were concentrated in
a few locations. In April 2002, NASDSE reported that, over the 5- year
period, requests for hearings steadily increased from 7,532 to 11, 068. 17
Because requests for due process hearings are frequently withdrawn or the
parties resolve their issues through other means, most requests do not
lead to formal hearings. NASDSE reported that the number of due process
hearings held was low and had decreased from 3,555 to 3,020. 18 * 19 We
calculated that due process hearings occurred at a low rate of about

16 Similar state level data on mediations and complaints were unavailable.
17 These totals do not include data from New York state, which were not
reported to NASDSE. 18 These totals do not include state level appeals in
two- tier states. Over the same 5- year period (1996 through 2000), 1, 355
hearings were held in states that offered this review process. The number
of hearings declined from 288 to 254 (12 percent) over the last 3 years.

19 In May 2003, SEEP reported that an estimated 6,763 due process cases
were initiated during the 1998- 99 school year. The number of due process
hearings reported in this study was greater than that in NASDSE*s report
because the SEEP survey did not distinguish between due process hearings
requested and due process hearings held but included both in their count
of due process cases. Moreover, the data in SEEP may include dispute
resolution activity in addition to the procedural safeguards under IDEA,
such as those provided for by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, which prohibits discrimination based on disability, as well as other
activities made available by states.

Consequently, the number of due process hearings in the SEEP report would
be expected to be higher than in NASDSE*s. Available Data

Indicate That Dispute Resolution Activity Was Generally Low; Due Process
Hearings Were Concentrated in a Few Locations

The Number of Due Process Hearings Held Nationwide Was Low and Most
Occurred in a Few States and the District of Columbia

Page 13 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

5 per 10,000 students with disabilities in 2000. (See fig. 1 for the
number of hearings requested and held nationwide from 1996 through 2000.)
20 Figure 1: Numbers of Due Process Hearings Requested and Held Nationwide
from 1996 through 2000 Note: This figure does not include data on hearings
held at tier 2.

However, while the number of due process hearings held nationwide
decreased over the 5- year period, much of the decline occurred in New
York, which experienced a substantial reduction in due process hearings
held. Over the 5- year period, the number of due process hearings held in
New York declined from 1,600 to 1, 052. In addition, according to the

NASDSE study, most due process hearings were held in a few locations.
Nearly 80 percent of all hearings were held in 5 states* California,
Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania* and the District of

20 SLIIDEA reported that the median number of due process hearings for
states was 2.3 per 10,000 students with disabilities in the 1999- 2000
school year.

Page 14 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

Columbia. 21 The rates of due process hearings per 10,000 students in
these states ranged from 3 in California to 24 in New York; in the
District of Columbia the rate was 336 due process hearings per 10,000. See
figure 2 for the total numbers of due process hearings held in the 5
states and the

District of Columbia compared with the rest of the nation over a 5- year
period.

Figure 2: Numbers of Due Process Hearings Held in 5 States and the
District of Columbia Compared to the Rest of the United States, 1996- 2000

21 Two states received grants from Education that were used for programs
related to dispute resolution, one of which focused on building dispute
resolution skills in parents, educators, and other child- serving
providers. In 2001, Pennsylvania received about $558,000 to expand a pilot
training program to provide stakeholders with the tools to resolve their
disputes in a more timely and effective manner, thereby obviating the need
for more formal means of dispute resolution. According to a state
education official, as of May 2003, approximately 150 people have received
the 1- day training program. In 2002, New York state received $604,000 to
use for the development and implementation of a Web based system that will
allow educators and families access to information about dispute
resolution activity. The state plans to have the information system
operational by June 2004.

Page 15 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

Using data from its nationwide sample survey of the 1998- 99 school year,
SEEP reported that the prevalence of dispute activity among school
districts varied by certain demographic characteristics. For example, the
percentage of urban school districts that reported having at least 1 due
process case* request or hearing* for the year was significantly higher

than either suburban or rural districts (an estimated 50 percent, 20
percent, and 9 percent, respectively). Similarly, large school districts
reported significantly more due process cases, compared with smaller
districts. However, when the study made adjustments for the number of
students served by examining the rate of due process cases per 10,000
special education students, no statistically significant differences were
found in rates for either urbanicity or size. SEEP also analyzed due
process data by district income levels and found a significant difference*
an estimated 52 percent of the highest income school districts reported at
least 1 due process case, 13 times the percentage of lowest income
districts (4 percent). 22 According to limited national data available
from three studies, the rates of mediations and complaints per 10,000
students with disabilities were

generally low, but somewhat higher than the rates of due process hearings.
SLIIDEA reported that in the 1999- 2000 school year more formal disputes
between parents and schools were resolved through mediation than due
process hearings. 23 Based on survey results from all 50 states and the
District of Columbia, this study reported that the median number of
mediations for states was 4 for every 10,000 students with disabilities.
The study also reported that 87 percent of the school districts surveyed
said they did not have any mediation cases in the 1999- 2000 school year.

Two other studies also reported low numbers nationally of mediation cases
and complaints. In May 2003, the SEEP study reported that 4,266 mediation
cases were held during the 1998- 99 school year, from which we calculated
a rate of about 7 per 10,000 students. In February 2003, a NASDSE study
reported that 6,094 complaints were filed

22 NASDSE*s study, Dispute Resolution Procedures, Data Collection, and
Caseloads, also reported that a significant relationship existed between
median household incomes and the number of disputes. Households with
higher median incomes were more likely than households with lower median
incomes to have filed a state complaint or requested mediation or a due
process hearing.

23 In the SLIIDEA report, the term parent refers to parent or guardian.
Rates of Mediations and

State Complaints Were Also Low

Page 16 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

nationwide during the 2000 school year or 2000 calendar year. 24 Similar
results were found in the SEEP study, which reported that 6,360 state
complaints were filed during the 1998- 99 school year. Given that roughly
6 million students with disabilities were served in these school years, we

calculated that about 10 complaints were filed for every 10,000 students
with disabilities. 25 SEEP*s survey also revealed that an estimated 62
percent of districts reported having no cases involving complaints, due

process hearings requested or held, or mediations during the school year.
(See app. II for information on the levels of formal dispute resolution
activity in the urban and rural school districts we visited.)

In the 4 states in our review, and in Iowa, where we examined alternative
dispute resolution strategies, officials told us they emphasized mediation
in resolving disputes, and some locations had developed additional
strategies for early resolution of disagreements between families and
school districts. Officials saw mediation as a major resource for
achieving agreements, strengthening relationships, resolving disputes more
quickly,

and reducing cost. The states we visited had implemented formal mediation
by 1990 and, in varying degrees, exceeded minimum federal requirements by
not tying it to a request for a due process hearing. In addition, 3 states
we visited had established additional early dispute resolution strategies
that were less formal and less adversarial.

All 4 of the states we visited encouraged mediation as the mechanism for
resolving disputes between schools and parents. All 4 states reported that
parents and school districts could request mediation at anytime for any

issue related to the identification, IEP development and implementation,
placement, or the free appropriate public education of a student; but the

24 Forty- nine states provided data on the number of complaints. In this
study, it was reported that state agencies used different procedures for
gathering and recording information on dispute resolution activity,
consequently, there was a lack of consistency in

the data provided by states. Also, two SEAs* Iowa and Maine* were able to
track disputes across the complaint, mediation, and due process hearing
systems to determine the number of families using more than one mechanism
for the same issue. The lack of integrated database systems results in an
unknown number of disputes being counted more than once. 25 The margin of
error for the calculated rate of 7 mediations per 10,000 students is (+/-
5

mediations per 10,000) at the 95 percent confidence level. The margin of
error for the calculated rate of 10 complaints per 10, 000 students is
(+/- 4 complaints per 10, 000) at the 95 percent confidence level. States
We Visited

Were Emphasizing Mediation, and Some Locations Used Additional Strategies

States Encouraged the Use of Mediation to Resolve Disagreements

Page 17 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

degree to which it was specifically offered and used varied. In 2 of the
states we visited, California and Massachusetts, mediation was used more
frequently in dispute resolution in fiscal year 2002 than complaints and
due process hearings combined. Mediation was used less often than state
complaint procedures in Ohio and Texas, but both states had taken steps to
expand their mediation programs. Table 2 provides the numbers of mediation
cases over a 3- year period compared with complaints and due process
hearings in the 4 states we visited.

Table 2: Dispute Resolution Activity in California, Massachusetts, Ohio,
and Texas, Fiscal Years 2000- 02

Fiscal Year Type of dispute resolution activity 2000 2001 2002 California
Complaints 897 1,191 989

Due process hearings 180 242 316 Mediations 1,357 1,511 1,774

Massachusetts Complaints 300 367 524 Due process hearings 39 35 33
Mediations 636 570 565

Ohio Complaints 113 137 162 Due process hearings 48 29 50 Mediations 92
125 91

Texas Complaints 158 158 152 Due process hearings 71 72 97 Mediations 147
142 139 Source: State education agencies in Massachusetts, Ohio, and
Texas; and, for California, we obtained complaint data from the SEA and
due process hearing and mediation data from the Special Education Hearing
Office, University of the Pacific. While mediation was used less often in
Ohio and Texas, SEA officials in

both states expected the numbers of mediations to increase with recent
changes in their mediation systems. In Ohio, a state education official
told us and advocates confirmed that concerns about the objectivity of the
mediation process in that state had made parents reluctant to use the
state

mediation system. As of June 2003, the Ohio SEA had contracted with four
mediators and was in the process of adding four more across the state, and

Page 18 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

the state also expected to provide on- going evaluation of the mediation
process. In Texas, state officials told us they expected an increased
reliance on mediation because the SEA had expanded the use of voluntary
mediation as a means to resolve disputes quickly by offering it to parties

involved in state complaints, although states are not required to offer
mediation in conjunction with state complaints.

Officials in all 4 states we visited said mediation offered benefits to
all parties. Three of the 4 states reported that a high percentage of
mediations resulted in agreements. The University of the Pacific reported
that 93 percent of mediations in California resulted in agreements between
families and schools during the 2001- 02 fiscal year. Similarly,
Massachusetts and Ohio reported success rates of 85 percent and 89
percent, respectively, for the same time period. 26 Further, state
education officials told us that mediation helped to foster communications
between schools and parents and strengthen relationships. They also told
us that mediations generally resolved disputes more quickly than state

complaints or due process hearings. According to SEA officials in Ohio,
for example, most mediations occurred within 2 weeks of the request. Texas
state education officials also reported that mediations typically took
place within 30 days upon receipt of the complaint. On the other hand, an
administrator and some advocates told us that mediation agreements were

not always implemented or enforced. However, no data were available on the
extent to which this occurred.

Additionally, 3 of the states reported that mediations were less costly
than due process hearings. 27 The Texas SEA estimated that over the past
decade it had saved about $50 million in attorney fees and related due
process hearing expenses by using mediation rather than due process
hearings. The state also reported that it spent an average of $1,000 for a
mediator*s services compared to $9,000 for a hearing officer*s services.
28 Similarly, the University of the Pacific reported in January 2003 that
in California, the average cost to the state for mediation was $1,800,
while the average cost of a due process hearing was $18,600. These data
are consistent with SEEP*s recent nationwide findings that of 4,312
districts reporting on cost

26 Texas SEA officials reported that mediations resulted in an agreement
in 65 percent of the cases in 2002. 27 SEA officials in Massachusetts were
unable to provide cost data for hearing officers and mediators. 28 These
estimates do not include costs, such as attorney fees, paid by the LEA.

Page 19 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

effectiveness, 96.3 percent of the respondents perceived mediation to be
more cost- effective than due process hearings.

All 4 of the states we visited had created additional opportunities for
offering mediation as a means to resolve disputes. 29 In Texas and Ohio,
affected parties in a state complaint were immediately offered mediation
to resolve their dispute. 30 In Massachusetts, it was offered when parents
and educators disagreed over a student*s proposed IEP and failed to reach
consensus. These cases were automatically referred to the Bureau of

Special Education Appeals for resolution, where mediation and due process
hearings were offered. In fiscal year 2002, Massachusetts state officials
estimated that approximately 10 percent of these IEP- related disputes
resulted in mediation; most of the remaining cases were resolved less
formally. In California, parties can request *mediation only* without

filing a request for due process hearings. In this option, California
state law specifically excludes attorneys* for parents or school
districts* from participating. Although state and local education
officials and advocates viewed the option as a viable and less adversarial
alternative for dispute resolution, it was used in California 208 times,
compared with 1,774 mediations tied to due process hearings in fiscal year
2002.

States and localities we visited also used a variety of additional dispute
resolution strategies that showed potential to help resolve disputes
early, but limited data were available to assess their effectiveness. Iowa
developed and promoted several strategies as part of a continuum of
options for resolving disputes between parents and schools. One of these
options, the Parent- Educator Connection, was created to resolve
differences between parents and schools at the earliest point. This effort
was designed to provide each of the 15 area education agencies with staff
who were trained in conflict resolution. These parent- educator
coordinators attended meetings, including IEP meetings at either parent or

educator request. According to an SEA official, parent- educator 29 In
addition to providing mediation when a request for a due process hearing
has been made, many states offer mediation on other occasions. In May
2003, NASDSE reported that based on a survey of all state special
education directors, mediation was offered (1) anytime parents or school
districts requested it in 43 states, (2) when the SEA learned of a problem
even before a formal complaint had been filed in 25 states, and (3) in
connection with the filing of a state complaint in 20 states.

30 In California, parties can also obtain mediation by filing a state
complaint, but a state education official told us that this option was
rarely used. Some States and Localities

Had Developed Additional Strategies for Early Dispute Resolution

Page 20 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

coordinators attended 896 meetings during the 2001- 02 fiscal year.
Another option focused on increasing the availability of individuals with
mediation skills to resolve more serious conflicts between parents and
schools. These individuals, called resolution facilitators, were often
regional education staff who were trained to assist families and schools
in resolving their differences by discussing the problems and helping the
parties work toward an acceptable agreement before it resulted in a more
formalized dispute that involved the SEA. According to these state
officials, another goal of the program is to teach others, including
administrators, educators, and parents, about mediation, negotiation, and
conflict resolution. In 2001, 238 participants, including 65 parents,
received training, but no data had been collected by the SEA about how
often

resolution facilitators were used or about the results of informal
mediation processes that had occurred.

Iowa also promoted the availability of a somewhat more formal mediation
called a pre- appeal conference that was not tied to a request for a due
process hearing. According to state officials, the rationale for
establishing the pre- appeal conference was to allow the parties another
opportunity to resolve their dispute early before it became acrimonious
and a formal request for a due process hearing was filed. Officials told
us that the preappeal conference was conducted in a similar manner to
mediation, that is, in connection with a due process hearing. In 2002, the
pre- appeal conference was used five times more often by families and
educators than mediation and usually resulted in an agreement. Iowa
advocated and actively promoted the availability of the pre- appeal
conference and resolution facilitators to educators and parents.

In Ohio, the state funded a pilot parent mentor program whereby parents of
students with disabilities were hired to help school districts and other
families by providing training, support, and information services. One of
their most important duties was to attend IEP meetings and other meetings
at parent or school staff request. While no data were available on the
cost- effectiveness of this program in resolving disputes at the local

level, the state increased funding for the program and expanded the number
of parent mentors from 10 pilot sites in 1990 to 70 project sites that
afford 96 parent mentors for approximately one- third of Ohio*s school
districts. 31 During the 2001- 02 school year, parent mentors attended

31 According to an Ohio parent center official, 10 of these projects are
funded by federal funds through IDEA.

Page 21 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

2,685 IEP meetings and had contact with 12,538 families of the 239,000
students with disabilities in Ohio.

California has an alternative dispute resolution grant program that
provided limited funding in 2001 to 18 of the 119 regional education
agencies within the state to establish strategies to prevent or address
disagreements. Each region, typically consisting of more than one school
district, selected several strategies and developed its own program for
dispute resolution. One of these strategies, called facilitated IEPs, was
used by 12 regions and involved one school district borrowing an expert
trained in mediation from another school district to facilitate the IEP
meeting. To become facilitators, staff participated in 4- day training
programs that emphasized facilitation skills within an IEP process. The
training was intended to provide facilitators with the tools to conduct
IEP meetings in a way that enabled the team to (1) focus the IEP content
and process on students* needs, (2) use a collaborative process, (3) build
and

improve relationships, and (4) reach consensus. An overall goal of this
alternative grant program was to reduce the numbers of due process
hearings requested in certain areas of the state. While there were no
impact data for this program or any of the other strategies, 12 of the
regions that participated showed an overall decrease of 42 percent in
requests for due process hearings from 2001 to 2002.

In general, officials in the school districts we visited told us they had
few problems with responding to state complaint notifications. The
problems they encountered had little impact on the timeliness of the
complaint process; state and local education officials appeared to be
working together to overcome them.

According to the local school district officials we interviewed, complaint
notifications generally provided sufficient information to allow them to
respond within the states* required time frames. Both the state and local
officials told us the amount of time local school districts were given to
respond to the notification letter ranged from 3 to 10 days. To allow them
to respond to complaints, the notification letter typically (1) identifies
the student, (2) identifies the student*s school, (3) describes the nature
of the complaint, and (4) specifies the relevant documents needed for the
state to resolve a complaint and conduct an independent on- site
investigation, if

determined necessary. Los Angeles Unified School District officials said
they experienced a few problems with notifications because on occasion,
the state did not include State Notification

Problems Were Generally Minor and Had Little Effect on Timeliness

Page 22 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

the supporting documentation for the complaint, such as a copy of the
relevant IEP or evaluation along with the notification letter. Also, these
school district officials told us that the notification sometimes did not
include the name of the school or the child*s date of birth, which
initially made it difficult to identify the student. While these problems
may have resulted in several days* delay, Los Angeles Unified School
District officials said that some of these administrative issues will be
resolved once the district has implemented its Web based IEP system, which
it expects to complete in January 2004. According to an SEA official, the
state was generally flexible and allowed the school district additional
time

to provide the requested documents. In addition, officials of the Austin
(Texas) Independent School District and Hamilton (Ohio) Local School
District told us the state notification included a summary of the parents*
allegations. However, they were sometimes unable to discern the nature of
the parents* complaint from this account. To better understand the nature
of the parents* complaint, Austin school district officials formally
requested a copy of the parent*s signed letter from the SEA. According to
SEA officials, Texas had recently begun to include a copy of the parents*
letter as part of the notification.

Overall, the numbers of formal disputes between parents and school
districts were generally low compared to the 6.5 million students between
3 and 21 years old served during the 2001- 02 school year, but the
thousands of disputes that occur threaten relationships and can result in
great expense. The concentration of due process hearings in a few
localities suggests that many factors may well be at play, including local
attitudes about conflict, when parents or others dispute a school
district*s decisions. The states we visited viewed mediation as a valuable
tool for parents and schools to resolve many disputes before they become
acrimonious. The fact that the states we visited were emphasizing
mediation and made it more widely available than IDEA requires* along with
other options for early dispute resolution* may hold promise for reducing
contentious and expensive forms of dispute resolution, such as due process
hearings.

We provided a copy of this report to Education for its review and comment.
Agency comments are reprinted in appendix III. Education agreed with our
findings and stated that the report would be of great interest and highly
relevant to the present congressional consideration of IDEA. Education
said that it will assess the administration of dispute Concluding

Observations Agency Comments

Page 23 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

resolution procedures in the six high incidence jurisdictions identified
in our report through a combination of monitoring and technical
assistance. Education also provided technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate. Copies of this report are being sent to the
Secretary of Education,

appropriate congressional committees, and interested parties. Copies will
be made available to others upon request. The report is also available on
GAO*s Web site at http:// www. gao. gov.

Please contact me on (202) 512- 7215 if you have any questions about this
report. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in
appendix IV. Sincerely yours,

Marnie S. Shaul Director, Education, Workforce,

and Income Security Issues

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 24 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution
under IDEA

In conducting our review, we obtained and analyzed information from the
Department of Education, state education agencies (SEA), local school
districts, and the McGeorge School of Law at the University of the
Pacific. We visited 5 states, and in 4 of these states we interviewed
staff from SEAs and local education agencies (LEA), including one urban
and one rural

school district in each state* for a total of eight school districts. At
the district level, we performed our fieldwork at the Los Angeles Unified
and Salinas Union High School Districts in California, Boston Public and

Southbridge School Districts in Massachusetts, Cleveland Municipal and
Hamilton Local School Districts in Ohio, and Austin Independent and Goliad
Independent School Districts in Texas.

In selecting the states for our fieldwork, we considered states that (1)
varied in volume of formal dispute resolution activity, (2) used one- or
two- tier due process hearing systems, (3) had developed alternative

dispute resolution strategies, (4) were visited by the Department of
Education*s Office of Special Education Programs over the past few years,
(5) included large urban school districts, and (6) were geographically
diverse. We met with SEA officials in Iowa because the state was
identified by experts in the area for having innovative strategies in
alternative dispute resolution. In addition, we met with representatives
of other professional organizations, including the National Association of
State Directors of Special Education and the Consortium for Appropriate
Dispute Resolution in Special Education. We also interviewed members of
parent resource and advocacy groups (federally funded and other
nonprofits) in each of the states visited; these organizations employed
parents of children with disabilities and we obtained their views.

To identify what kinds of issues resulted in formal disputes between
parents and school districts, we interviewed state and local education
officials, parent resource and advocacy groups, and obtained data during
our site visits to California, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Texas. To
determine how much formal dispute resolution activity occurred, we
collected and reported data from each of the 4 states and reviewed and
reported the results of four nationwide surveys, each affected by
different data and research limitations:

 Dispute Resolution Procedures, Data Collection, and Caseloads Study.
This study was conducted by the National Association of State Directors of
Special Education (NASDSE) of state dispute resolution activities between
February and April 1999. All 50 SEAs responded and provided some
information on their state dispute resolution systems, including data on
complaints, mediations, and due process hearings for Appendix I: Scope and
Methodology

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 25 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution
under IDEA

the 1999- 2000 school year or 2000 calendar year. The study authors
cautioned that the state data are variable and are gathered and recorded
using different approaches. Also, to make the data more usable, when data
were unavailable, the missing data were replaced by data from the previous
year*s experience or data were calculated and derived from the 30 states
with complete information.

 Due Process Hearings: 2001 Update. Annually, Project FORUM at NASDSE
surveyed special education directors to obtain nationwide data on the
numbers of due process hearings requested and held over a 10- year period
(1991 through 2000). The most recent survey also obtained information on
the due process hearing systems used in all states and the District of
Columbia to determine whether they were one- or two- tier hearing systems.
The study authors noted that because state data vary in the way data are
collected and maintained, the data were reported as a comparison of annual
incidence even though the

specific year of collection does not cover the same months. Further,
short- term changes in the reporting of these data might be due to factors
other than a change in a state*s policy. But, multiyear changes in
national totals could indicate trends in the due process system.

 Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (SLIIDEA). This study, funded by the
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), is collecting data over a 5-
year period by means of mailed surveys at the state, district, and school
levels, and through case studies of the implementation of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in selected school districts on
selected topics. In January 2003, one report was issued from this study,
Final Report on Selected Findings, and included data on due process
hearings and mediations. This report provides data on dispute resolution
activity obtained from state and district surveys that were administered
during the 1999- 2000 school year. The estimates of dispute activity in
this study were based on a survey of school districts with a response rate
of 31 percent. Abt Associates conducted a nonresponse survey with eight of
the original survey items primarily by telephone to determine potential
bias between survey respondents and nonrespondents. Because some
differences were found, data from the nonresponse survey were used to
adjust the estimates based on the originally interviewed districts. An
assumption was made in this analysis that

nonresponding districts are similar to responding districts in the way
they would answer the survey items.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 26 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution
under IDEA

 What Are We Spending on Procedural Safeguards in Special Education,
1999- 2000? This series of reports is based on descriptive information
derived from the Special Education Expenditure Project (SEEP), a national
study funded by OSEP and conducted by the American Institutes for
Research. This report provides estimates of school district expenditures
on special education mediation, due process, and litigation activities for
the 1999- 2000 school year; the prevalence of dispute activity (state
complaints, mediations, due process hearings, and litigations) for the
1998- 99 school year; demographic characteristics of school districts with
and without dispute activity; and other related information. Data were
collected from a sample of school districts to generalize to all districts
in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. However, no overall
response rate was cited in this study. Therefore, the level of nonresponse
and its effect on data quality are unknown from this survey. Because of
the survey design, the SEEP data on due process hearings did not
distinguish between due process hearings requested and due process
hearings held. Also, the SEEP data may include dispute resolution activity
in addition to the procedural safeguards under IDEA, such as those
provided for by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as well as
other activities made available by states.

Inconsistencies in the way states define and collect data on dispute
resolution activities could affect the validity of the estimates, as well
as make between- state comparisons difficult. No national reporting system
exists to identify and quantify the various causes of special education
disputes or the prevalence of dispute resolution activity among the
states. States have developed their own database systems that have a wide
variety of categories and definitions of disputes with many different
allowable entries. For example, in cases that involved the simultaneous
filing of a state complaint and a request for mediation, some SEAs only
record the procedure that was used to resolve the dispute while other
states record both the filed complaint and request for mediation. As a
result, the data reported in national studies as well as that reported
from our site visits are

of varying quality, resulting in inexact numbers of dispute resolution
activity.

To determine what mechanisms (formal and informal) were used to resolve
disagreements, we interviewed state education officials and local school
district administrators and obtained and reviewed documents that

described these mechanisms.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 27 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution
under IDEA

To determine whether LEAs had problems responding to dispute notifications
from states, we interviewed special education administrators in each of
the eight school districts we visited and reviewed SEA procedures and
related documents.

We conducted our work between November 2002 and September 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Levels of Dispute Resolution Activity in the Four Urban and
Four Rural School Districts Visited Page 28 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute
Resolution under IDEA

The school districts we visited varied in their use of the dispute
resolution mechanisms, and generally reflected the national trends in that
complaints and mediation were used more often than due process hearings to
resolve disputes between families and schools. Table 3 summarizes the
levels of formal dispute resolution activity over a 3- year period in the
eight school districts we visited in California, Massachusetts, Ohio, and
Texas.

Table 3: Dispute Resolution Activity in Urban and Rural School Districts
over a 3- Year Period, Fiscal Years 2000- 02 School district Geographic
area Number of students with disabilities a

(2000- 01) Number of state complaints

Number of due process hearings Number of

mediations Total number of formal

disputes Los Angeles Unified, Calif. Urban 73,936 466 57 1,687 2,210
Salinas Union High, Calif. Rural 1,052 3 1 9 13 Boston Public, Mass. Urban
12,290 b 62 25 62 c 149 Southbridge, Mass. Rural 522 b 2 0 9 11 Cleveland
Municipal, Ohio Urban 12,727 24 1 7 32 Hamilton Local, Ohio Rural 345 2 0
1 3 Austin Independent, Tex. Urban 9,509 8 3 13 24 Goliad Independent,
Tex. Rural 208 0 3 0 3 Source: SEAs in Massachusetts, Ohio, and Texas; and
for California, we obtained complaint data from the SEA, and due process
hearing and mediation data from the Special Education Hearing Office,
University of the Pacific.

a Based on kindergarten through grade 12 enrollment figures except for
Salinas Union High (grades 7 through12) and Boston Public (includes pre-
kindergarten students). b Estimates based on total enrollment and
percentage of students in special education.

c The number of mediations for Boston Public Schools is incomplete. The
state changed its data system during the 2000 fiscal year and could
provide data for only part of the year.

Appendix II: Levels of Dispute Resolution Activity in the Four Urban and
Four Rural School Districts Visited

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education

Page 29 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education

Page 30 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 31 GAO- 03- 897 Dispute Resolution under IDEA

Deborah L. Edwards (202) 512- 5416 Tim Hall (202) 512- 7192 The following
people also made important contributions to this report: Ellen Soltow,
Susan Bernstein, Luann Moy, Kris Braaten, Roger Thomas, and Richard
Burkard. Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Staff Acknowledgments

(130208)

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to
good government

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and
reliability. The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents
at no cost is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov)
contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and
an expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can
print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports,
testimony, and

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov
and select *Subscribe to e- mail alerts* under the *Order GAO Products*
heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to: U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D. C. 20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD:
(202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202) 512- 6061 Contact:

Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail: fraudnet@ gao.
gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470 Jeff
Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U. S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D. C.
20548 GAO*s Mission Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and Test i mony Order by Mail or Phone

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***