Special Education Due Process Hearings Part 4: Appealing Due Process Decisions

This is the fourth article in a series about special education due process hearings.

After a due process hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) or hearing officer weighs the merits of each party’s argument, evidence, and witnesses, in light of what the IDEA, state law, and their implementing regulations require, and keeping in mind the legal interpretations of the courts in regard to their provisions. As set forth in the IDEA regulation concerning hearing decisions, 34 C.F.R. §300.513 states:

(a) Decision of hearing officer on the provision of FAPE. (1) Subject to paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a hearing officer’s determination of whether a child received FAPE must be based on substantive grounds.

(2) In matters alleging a procedural violation, a hearing officer may find that a child did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies—

(i) Impeded the child’s right to a FAPE;

(ii) Significantly impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the parent’s child; or

(iii) Caused a deprivation of educational benefit.

(3) Nothing in paragraph (a) of this section shall be construed to preclude a hearing officer from ordering an LEA to comply with procedural requirements under §§300.500 through 300.536.

It’s important to understand the meanings of two words used above: "substantive" and "procedural." Substantive law is the law governing rights and duties (e.g., timely provision of special education services set out in the IEP), while procedural law governs the technical procedures (e.g., giving of meeting notice) involved in implementing and enforcing laws.

An party to the due process proceeding who disagrees with the decision of the ALJ has the right to bring a civil action in state or federal district court with regard to the outcome of that decision.

However, if the decision is not appealed within the time limit allowed by law, the ALJ’s decision is final. Under §300.516(b), in a one-tier due process system (the vast majority of the states), the party must bring the civil action within 90 days of the date of the decision (or within the state’s time frame if the state’s law has established a different one).

In a civil action, when an appeal has been filed, the court receives the records of the administrative proceedings and, at the request of either party, may hear oral arguments. The district court bases its decision on the preponderance of the evidence and grants the relief that it determines to be appropriate.

AASA, the Emperor's New Clothes, Special Education Mediations and Due Process Hearings

In Hans Christian Andersen's story, The Emperor's New Clothes, a vain king with an insatiable appetite for fine clothing, finds himself marching in a parade wearing nothing but his birthday suit. He is the victim of his obsession with sartorial splendor, and of a pair of swindlers who have told him that his "new clothing" is made from such wonderful stuff that it is invisible to anyone who is incompetent or stupid. After an elaborate charade in which the king is "dressed" in the new garments, his lord chamberlain, ministers and advisors who are fearful of losing their jobs, public recognition, and authority, heartily engage in the fraud proclaiming, "How beautiful the Emperor's new clothes are!" Notwithstanding their falderal, upon seeing the king walking naked in public, a small child says, "He doesn't have anything on!" Although the king knew the child was right, he decided that the parade would go on, and holding himself even more proudly, he continued the procession with the lord chamberlain walking along behind him carrying the train of his nonexistent coat.

This story came to mind when I read the 30 page paper issued on April 8, 2013, by the AASA (American Association of School Administrators). In it, the AASA recommends that Congress completely eliminate special education due process hearings and remove the provisions of the IDEA that make mediation agreements legally binding and allow attorneys to represent parents at those mediations. The AASA proposes to replace the procedures with state-approved IEP meeting facilitators, non-binding mediation, and provisions allowing parents to file law suits directly in federal court (think $$$ for the parents) without an opportunity to resolve disputes through state department of education administrative hearings.  Since due process hearings are less expensive than federal court proceedings, this would place an additional burden on parents who need to challenge school decisions.

What kind of thinking underlies proposals that would essentially place the fox in charge of the hen house? Are the AASA’s recommendations merely based on an arrogant and naive assumption that public education systems and their personnel are so highly expert and scrupulously thorough that they identify and accurately evaluate each and every child with a disability in every area of their suspected disabilities, write IEPs in a manner that will meet each child’s unique needs and conforms to the law, and that the school personnel who implement them are all equally competent and effective, and neither harbor prejudices nor have their hands tied by restrictions in regard to the assistance they are allowed to recommend or provide?

I don’t think so.

It seems more likely that like the king in the story above, the AASA and its members know when the education systems and personnel they represent aren’t appropriately garbed. But instead of acknowledging and taking responsibility for the nakedness of those systems and personnel, they prefer to advocate for the elimination of the mediation and due process hearing procedures that have an inconvenient tendency to reveal that public education agencies and school districts don’t always operate in compliance with the IDEA and its implementing regulations. By extension, the AASA would probably also support the elimination of studies, such as the one conducted by the federal Department of Education in 2009, which found that only twenty-eight states met the IDEA’s compliance standards.

If the AASA’s proposals demonstrate anything, they demonstrate the kind of overreaching on the part of public school agencies that Congress anticipated when it enacted the portions of the IDEA which afford procedural protections to the parents of children with disabilities.  I join with COPAA (Counsel of Parent Attorneys and Advocates) which has stated that the AASA document is nothing more than a shameful attack on parent and student civil rights.  See COPAA's statement at:  http://www.copaa.org/news/121292/AASA-Document-Nothing-More-Than-A-Shameful-Attack-on-Parent-and-Student-Civil-Rights-.htm

Parental Rights in Special Education - Prior Written Notice

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's (IDEA) implementing regulations require that a school district give written notice to the parent of a child with a disability within a reasonable time before:

(1) the school plans to take (or refuses to take) actions proposed by either the parent or the school district related to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child; or

(2) the school plans to take (or refuses to take) actions proposed by either the parent or the school district related to the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the child. (34 CFR §300.503(a)).

Prior written notice must include:

• a description of the action proposed or refused by the school;
• an explanation of why the school proposes or refuses to take the action;
• a description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report the school used as a basis for its decision;
• a statement that the IDEA’s procedural safeguards provide the parents of the child with a disability with rights and procedures for resolving disputes related to the subject matter of the prior written notice, and how the parents can obtain a copy of them;
• resources for parents in order to obtain assistance in understanding these procedures;
• a description of other options that the IEP Team considered and the reasons why those options were rejected; and
• a description of other factors relevant to the school’s proposal or refusal. (§ 300.503(b))

For example, a parent must receive this notice:

1. when the school wants to conduct an initial evaluation of the child;
2. when the parent has asked for the child to be evaluated and the school denies the request;
3. when the school wants to initiate or change the child’s identification as a "child with a disability;"
4. when the school proposes or refuses to provide a particular educational placement for the child;
5. when the school wants to change the child’s educational placement;
6. when the school wants to change aspects of the special education or related services that the child is receiving; and
7. when the school refuses a parent’s request in regard to the educational services the child is receiving.

If a parent has made a request of the school, or the school has proposed or refused to take action, and the parent has not received the required prior written notice, the parent should ask the school to provide it.  I recommend that parents do this by email, and retain both that email and the school district's response in order to create a record.