Special Education: Improved Performance Measures Could Enhance Oversight of Dispute Resolution
Published: 2014-08-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: States receiving IDEA funds must ensure that a free appropriate public education is made available to all children with disabilities, and IDEA has long incorporated formal methods to resolve disputes between parents and school districts. The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA expanded the availability of alternative dispute resolution by broadening the use of voluntary mediation and requiring resolution meetings prior to due process hearings. GAO was asked to examine the use of dispute resolution methods since 2004. In this report GAO (1) examines recent trends in dispute resolution methods, (2) reports stakeholders' views on alternative methods, and (3) assesses Education's related performance measures for states. GAO analyzed federal dispute resolution data from 2004 to 2012, conducted a national survey, compared Education's performance measures to leading practices, and interviewed Education officials and stakeholders selected for their knowledge of dispute resolution.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: From 2004 through 2012, the number of due process hearings—a formal dispute resolution method and a key indicator of serious disputes between parents and school districts under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)— substantially decreased nationwide as a result of steep declines in New York, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Officials in these locations largely attributed these declines to greater use of mediation and resolution meetings—methods that IDEA requires states to implement. Despite the declines, officials in these locations said that higher rates of hearings persisted because of disputes over private school placements or special education services. GAO did not find noteworthy trends in the use of other IDEA dispute resolution methods, including state complaints, mediation, and resolution meetings. States and territories reported on GAO's survey that they used mediation, resolution meetings, and other methods they voluntarily implemented to facilitate early resolution of disputes and to avoid potentially adversarial due process hearings.
States, territories, and other stakeholders generally reported on GAO's survey or in interviews that alternative methods are important to resolving disputes earlier. Some stakeholders cited the potential of these methods to improve communication and trust between parents and educators. Some state officials said that a lack of public awareness about the methods they have voluntarily implemented was a challenge to expanding their use, but they were addressing this with various kinds of outreach, such as disseminating information through parent organizations.
The Department of Education (Education) uses several measures to assess states' performance on dispute resolution but lacks complete information on timeliness and comparable data on parental involvement. Education requires all states to report the number of due process hearing decisions that were made within 45 days or were extended; however, it does not direct states to report the total amount of time that extensions add to due process hearing decisions. Similarly, Education collects data from states on parental involvement—a key to dispute prevention—but does not require consistent collection and reporting, so the data are not comparable nationwide. Leading performance measurement practices state that successful performance measures should be clearly stated and provide unambiguous information. Without more transparent timeliness data and comparable parental involvement data, Education cannot effectively target its oversight of states' dispute resolution activities.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that Education improve measures for overseeing states' dispute resolution performance, including more transparent data on due process hearing decisions and comparable parental involvement data. Education neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations and proposed alternative actions. GAO does not believe these proposals will address the weaknesses in Education's performance measures and continues to believe the recommendations remain valid.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of Education (Education) reported that in school year  2010-11, approximately 6.4 million children and youth aged 3 through 21  received special education and related services under the Individuals with  Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B. First enacted in 1975 as the  Education for All Handicapped Children Act, IDEA was last reauthorized  in 2004. Its purposes include ensuring that a free appropriate public  education is available to children with disabilities, protecting their and  their parents’ rights under the Act, and assisting states and local  educational agencies (LEA) in financing their education. To accomplish  these purposes, the Act requires that states accepting IDEA funds ensure  that schools develop, with input from parents, an individualized education  program (IEP) for each eligible child and implement certain procedural  safeguards, including the opportunity to present a complaint with respect  to matters related to the identification, evaluation, or educational  placement of children with disabilities or the provision of a free  appropriate public education to the child. IDEA and its implementing  regulations provide formal methods—due process complaint and hearing  procedures and state complaint procedures—for resolving disputes  between parents and school districts, which represent important  protections for families under IDEA. However, federal policymakers have  recognized the often adversarial and costly nature of escalated disputes  between parents and school districts—especially those that involve due  process hearings. Similarly, Education has observed that due process  hearings generally are expensive for all parties, time-consuming, and are  universally understood to be a marker of serious unresolved differences  about a student’s need for special education and related services or the  nature or location of services. Reauthorizations of IDEA have included  provisions to promote early and less costly methods of dispute resolution.  In 1997, IDEA was amended to require states to offer parties to a dispute  the opportunity to voluntarily use mediation, whenever a due process  complaint was filed. The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA required states to  expand the availability of mediation, allowing parents and districts to use  it at any point; that is, before or after filing a due process or state  complaint. It also required parties to attend a resolution meeting within 15  days of when a parent files a due process complaint to encourage them  to resolve disputes prior to due process hearings, unless both parties  agree to waive the meeting or use IDEA’s mediation process. Resolution  meetings and mediation are regarded by Education as alternative dispute  resolution methods.
In preparation for the next reauthorization of IDEA, you asked us to  examine the use of dispute resolution methods, including mediation and  resolution meetings, since the 2004 reauthorization. This report examines  the following questions:  1.  What are the recent trends in methods used to resolve IDEA disputes  between parents and school districts?  2.  What are the views of stakeholders regarding the value of alternative  methods for resolving disputes?  3.  How do Education’s performance measures related to dispute  resolution compare to leading practices in performance  measurement?
To describe the recent trends in methods used to resolve IDEA disputes,  we analyzed data collected by Education and compiled by the National  Center on Dispute Resolution in Special Education operated by the  Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education  (CADRE) for all states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories from  school year 2004-05 through 2011-12—the most recent data available at  the time we did our work. We reviewed relevant federal laws and  regulations, as well as Education’s policies, procedures and guidance to  gain an understanding of requirements related to dispute resolution. We  assessed the reliability of dispute resolution data by (1) performing  electronic testing of required data elements, (2) reviewing existing  information about the data and the system that produced them, and (3)  interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We  determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this  report. We supplemented trend data with information on dispute  resolution that we collected in a web-based, self-administered survey of  special education directors (or other officials performing that role) in all  states and U.S. territories (60 entities in total).the questionnaire in consultation with subject matter specialists, special  education stakeholders, and state special education directors, which we  selected for their knowledge of special education dispute resolution. For  example, we consulted two organizations that collaborated on a prior  survey of state directors of special education on dispute resolution.  Survey data collection took place from late 2013 through January 2014  and we obtained a 100 percent response rate.
We designed and tested  To describe the views of stakeholders regarding the value of alternative  methods for resolving disputes, we collected responses in a survey of  state and territory special education directors and conducted other  activities. We asked survey questions about the perceived importance of  alternative methods for resolving disputes as well as challenges faced  and assistance received in implementing these methods. In addition to  states’ views on alternative dispute resolution, we also collected  information from national organizations and subject matter specialists in  special education, including organizations representing states, school  districts, parents, and students, which we selected based on their  knowledge of special education dispute resolution. To obtain the  perspective of parents of children with disabilities, we gathered the  perspectives of organizations representing the views and rights of these  parents. We also held discussion groups with 14 parents identified by the  state educational agency (SEA) and Parent Information and Training  Centers in one state regarding their recent experiences in using  alternative methods for resolving disputes. The views of these parents  are not generalizable but still provide valuable information to illustrate the  range of parent views on alternative methods to resolving disputes in  special education. Additionally, we conducted a search of related  literature and reviewed prior GAO work on this topic.
To evaluate how Education assesses states’ performance in IDEA  dispute resolution, we reviewed Education’s state performance measures  related to dispute resolution and compared them to nine attributes of  successful performance measures previously identified by GAO, such as   In assessing  whether performance measures are designed to be clear.Education’s measures against these attributes, we analyzed Education  dispute resolution performance data and spoke with Education officials  about performance measures and monitoring of dispute resolution. We  reviewed methodological issues as necessary to assess whether a  particular measure met the overall characteristics of a successful  performance measure. To inform all of our objectives, we reviewed  relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance and interviewed officials  with Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), CADRE,  SEAs, and national stakeholders and subject matter specialists in special  education and IDEA dispute resolution. We selected national  stakeholders and subject matter specialists based on their knowledge of  dispute resolution issues in special education.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2013 to August 2014 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: A special education dispute may involve a variety of issues. According to  an Education study published in 2011, the most common topics of  disputes were (1) whether schools were providing an appropriate  educational environment for certain students; (2) whether schools carried  out the education programs as set forth in the IEP; (3) the types of special  education and related services, if any, specific children needed; and (4)  children’s eligibility for IDEA services and whether eligibility  determinations were properly made.
A range of methods exists to resolve special education disputes, ranging  from formal hearings and state complaint procedures to less formal,  alternative methods.
subsections: section_title: Due Process Hearings and State Complaints
paragraphs: IDEA and its implementing regulations have long required states to  provide two formal methods—due process hearings and state complaint  resolutions—for resolving disputes between parents and school districts.  Although both methods provide avenues for resolving such disputes,  these processes differ with respect to who can file each type of complaint,  subject matter, timing, procedures, and appeal processes.
subsections: section_title: Due Process Hearings
paragraphs: IDEA provides that parents and school districts have the right to file a due  process complaint notice to request a due process hearing on any matter    relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of a  child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to a child with  a disability. For example, a parent might file a due process complaint  over whether a school district is using the appropriate instructional  methods for a child. After filing a complaint but prior to holding a hearing,  IDEA requires parties to a dispute to attend a resolution meeting where  parents discuss their complaint and the facts that form the basis of the  complaint and the LEA is given the opportunity to resolve the complaint,  unless the parent and the LEA agree in writing to waive the meeting or  use IDEA’s mediation process. The purpose of the resolution meeting is  to achieve a prompt and early resolution of a parent’s due process  complaint to avoid a more costly and adversarial due process hearing and  the potential for civil litigation. If the parties reach an agreement at the  resolution meeting, then a due process hearing is not necessary. If the  parties do not reach an agreement or choose to waive this meeting, a due  process hearing is held. A due process hearing is an administrative  proceeding 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 a decision.  Either  party can appeal a hearing officer’s decision in any state court of  competent jurisdiction or in federal court without regard to the amount in  controversy.
section_title: State Complaints
paragraphs: Education’s regulations pertaining to state complaint procedures permit  parents and organizations and individuals, including those from another  state, to file a complaint with the SEA alleging that a public agency has  violated a requirement of IDEA, Part B. This differs from a due process  complaint in part because, while only parents and public agencies can file  due process complaints, any organization or individual, including one  from another state, may file a written state complaint. Once the complaint  has been filed, the SEA must carry out an independent on-site  investigation if the SEA determines that an investigation is necessary.must then make a determination and issue a written decision that may  include specific procedures for implementation of its decision. In contrast  to due process procedures, parties cannot file an appeal in state or  federal court.
See figure 1 for a comparison of the steps involved in due process and  state complaint process under IDEA.
Education established specific timelines for issuing decisions resulting  from due process hearings and state complaint resolutions and set terms  by which these timelines can be extended (see table 1).
section_title: Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods
paragraphs: A variety of alternative dispute resolution methods exist that provide  opportunities for parties to resolve disputes prior to due process hearings  or state complaint resolutions. These include two methods states are  required to provide under IDEA—mediation and resolution meetings—as  well as others that states have voluntarily implemented.
subsections: section_title: Mediation and Resolution Meetings
paragraphs: Either a parent or a school district can initiate the mediation process,  which must be voluntary for each party. Mediations are conducted by a  qualified and impartial individual who is trained in effective mediation  techniques and knowledgeable in laws and regulations about special  education and related services. If the parties reach an agreement through  the mediation process, they must execute a signed, written agreement.  According to Education the agreement is enforceable in any state or  federal district court or by the SEA if the state has other procedures that  permit parties to seek enforcement of mediation or resolution  agreements.
Resolution meetings allow parents and districts an opportunity to resolve  a dispute without due process hearings by providing an opportunity for  them to discuss the due process complaint and the facts that form the basis of that complaint without necessarily having attorneys present.Similar to mediation, if the parties reach agreement in a resolution  meeting, they must execute a signed written agreement that is  enforceable in state or federal court.
section_title: Other Alternative Methods
paragraphs: Alternative methods that states have voluntarily developed and  implemented are generally meant to help to facilitate early resolution of  disputes before they proceed to a due process hearing and to preserve  relationships between families and educators. Examples of early  resolution practices include educator training in conflict resolution, which  is designed to equip individuals with skills to better communicate and  negotiate their positions and interests, and facilitated IEP meetings in  which a facilitator helps keep members of the IEP team focused on the  development of the IEP while addressing conflicts and disagreements  that may arise during the meeting.
section_title: Education’s Oversight and Technical Assistance
paragraphs: To ensure states comply with the requirements of their IDEA grants,  Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) conducts a  variety of activities to oversee and assist them, including monitoring  states’ performance on a variety of indicators. We have previously  reported that agencies need to have performance measures that  demonstrate results, are limited to a vital few, cover multiple priorities,  and provide useful information for decision making in order to track how  their programs and activities can contribute to attaining the agency’s  goals and mission. Further, past GAO work has shown that agencies  successful in measuring performance had performance measures  reflecting a range of attributes, such as clarity in how measures are stated  and defined. Education uses four performance measures for dispute  resolution as part of a system of performance measures to guide SEAs in  their implementation of IDEA and in how they report their progress and  performance to the department (see table 2).
Education established a new IDEA data center to help states, school  districts, and other entities build capacity for collecting high quality IDEA  performance data, including dispute resolution data, and makes these  data available to the public on the center’s website. Education uses a  variety of tools, including analyzing states’ performance data and  conducting desk audits and on-site visits to monitor states’ compliance  with IDEA’s dispute resolution requirements and target technical  assistance.
Education has also recognized that involving parents in the education of  their children with disabilities is important to preventing or mitigating  disputes with school districts. In addition to data on dispute resolution,  Education also requires states to provide data on the extent to which  parents report that schools facilitated parent involvement to improve  services and results for children with disabilities.
Education provides several forms of technical assistance to help states  implement informal early resolution methods to facilitate the timely  resolution of disputes. For example, Education funds the National Center  on Dispute Resolution in Special Education to provide states with  assistance in implementing a range of dispute resolution options,  including those that provide opportunities for early, less costly, and less  adversarial dispute resolution. Education also funds a national network of  Parent Training and Information Centers that provide parents in each  state with information about their rights under IDEA and the options  available to them for resolving special education disputes. Lastly,  Education provides written guidance on dispute resolution procedures  under IDEA.
section_title: Due Process Hearings Have Substantially Decreased, and States and Territories Use a Range of Other Methods to Resolve Disputes
subsections: section_title: The National Decline in Rates and Numbers of Due Process Hearings Has Been Driven by Steep Rate Declines in New York, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico
paragraphs: Since 2004, the nationwide rates of due process hearings—a key  indicator of serious disputes between parents and school districts and a  formal method for resolving disputes—have decreased substantially (see  fig. 2). As shown in figure 2, this trend was largely driven by steep rate  declines in New York, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico—three  locations that have relatively high rates of due process hearings. SEA  representatives in these locations cited the use of mediation or resolution  meetings as key among the reasons for the declines. Additionally, a New  York official told us that the use of settlement agreements prior to due  process hearing decisions may have also contributed to declines in  hearings, while a District of Columbia official pointed to improvements in  identifying students with special education needs earlier and delivering  services more efficiently. Lastly, a representative for Puerto Rico told us  that improvements in how the SEA handles due process complaints and  the use of technology have resulted in a decline in hearings.
Despite such substantial declines, due process hearings in these  locations still comprised over 80 percent of due process hearings  nationally in 2011-2012. For trends in the numbers of due process  hearings in these locations and all other states, see figure 3.
Outside of these three locations, the rate of due process hearings has  remained consistently low, ranging from 1.5 hearings per 10,000 special  education students in 2004-2005 to 0.7 hearings in 2011-2012. These  overall low rates of due process hearings are slightly lower than  observations we made over a decade ago, when we found that due  process hearings occurred at a low rate of about 5 per 10,000 special   Education officials told us that reducing the  education students in 2000.occurrence of due process hearings was generally positive—considering  that hearings can be protracted, adversarial and costly. However, they  suggested that a low number of due process hearings may not  necessarily indicate a lack of problems associated with delivering special  education services. They suggested that dispute resolution trends should  be understood in combination with other information on individual states,  such as parents’ awareness of the procedural safeguards under IDEA.
According to state education officials, certain types of complaints have  been associated with the substantially higher rates of due process  hearings in New York, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. For  example, state education officials in these locations told us that that many  due process hearings were held because parents and officials from their  children’s school districts disagreed on whether to place the students in  private schools. In addition, a state education official in Puerto Rico told  us many due process hearings were held because parents and officials  disagreed about the need to provide services related to special education,  such as physical therapy or special classroom accommodation. Further,  Education officials told us that higher rates of due process hearings in  District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have been driven, in part, by  consent decrees, which are agreements entered into by parties to a  lawsuit under the supervision of a court. For example, lawsuits were  initiated against District of Columbia public schools in 1997, alleging that  District of Columbia failed to provide timely due process hearings and  implementation of hearing officer determinations and settlement  agreements. The latest consent decree was approved under this litigation  in 2006 by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, with one of  its goals being for District of Columbia to achieve and maintain timely due  process hearings.
section_title: States and Territories Use a Range of Alternative Methods for Early Dispute Resolution
paragraphs: Regarding the two alternative methods states are required by IDEA to  make available, the rate of mediations held decreased slightly from 2004  to 2012, and the rate of resolution meetings held more than doubled from  2005-06—when states were first required to implement them—to 2006-07  and declined slightly from 2006-07 to 2011-12 (see fig. 4). The slight  overall decline in mediations may have resulted, in part, from the  decrease in due process complaints filed. According to Education  officials, the low rate of resolution meetings in 2005-2006 (6.9 per 10,000  students) can be explained primarily by the lack of awareness about this  new requirement among school districts at that time.
We found that while mediations occurred less frequently than resolution  meetings in 2011-2012, mediations were more likely than resolution  meetings to result in agreements. That is, over two-thirds (69 percent) of  mediations resulted in agreements while less than a quarter (22 percent)  of all resolution meetings resulted in agreements. These differences may  be due to the fact that resolution meetings are required prior to a due  process hearing, unless waived by both parties, while mediations are  voluntary for the parties, and the parties may therefore be more open to  agreement.
In addition to mediation and resolution meetings, states and territories we  surveyed reported voluntarily offering a variety of other alternative dispute  resolution methods, with two-thirds (33 out of 51) of them reporting  offering three or more such methods. Among the most common of these  were (1) dispute resolution helplines, (2) facilitated IEP meetings, (3)  facilitated resolution meetings, (4) parent-to-parent assistance, and (5)  conflict resolution skills training (see fig. 5). These methods are briefly  described as follows:  We surveyed a total of 60 states and territories and received a 100  percent overall response rate. However, not all 60 states and territories  answered every question. The total number of responses to questions  related to the individual dispute resolution methods above was 59 of 60  states/territories completing the survey.
Dispute resolution helplines. Dedicated staff in the SEA or through  an SEA-contracted service provider available to respond to calls or e- mails from the public about dispute resolution options and procedures.  For example, California reported maintaining a toll free number to  allow both parents and school staff to contact them for advice. The  service is provided in English and Spanish and helpline personnel  may refer parents to support services such as parent centers, family  empowerment centers, or technical assistance units. New York  reported operating six regional offices staffed by state education  personnel who provide parents and other parties with information  regarding dispute resolution options and technical assistance.
Facilitated IEP meetings. Facilitators who are not part of the IEP  team are used when an adversarial climate exists or when an IEP  meeting is expected to be particularly complex or controversial. Texas  reported it promotes facilitated IEP team meetings by developing a  statewide facilitated IEP meetings project to be implemented in the  2014-15 school year.
Facilitated resolution meetings. Facilitators are used to help parties  resolve a dispute during a resolution meeting. Michigan reported that  resolution meetings are facilitated by special education attorneys and  help encourage parties to resolve a dispute before it goes to a due  process hearing.
Parent-to-parent assistance. An SEA-supported service in which  parents assist other parents and school district personnel, especially  in addressing emerging or active complaints. Maryland reported it  maintains family support specialists who work informally with families  and school systems to resolve special education disputes.
Conflict Resolution Skills Training. Training to enhance the  capacity of parents and school, district, and state personnel to  communicate, negotiate, and prevent conflict from evolving and  becoming problematic. For example, in Iowa, the SEA conflict  resolution skills training for state administrators, LEA representatives,  and parents.
section_title: States, Territories, and Other Stakeholders Reported Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods Helped Resolve Disputes without Resorting to Due Process Hearings
subsections: section_title: States, Territories, and Other Stakeholders Considered Alternative Methods Important for Resolving Disputes without Resorting to Due Process Hearings
paragraphs: On our survey, a large majority of state officials reported mediation and  resolution meetings—methods that IDEA requires states make  available—as extremely, very or moderately important to resolving  disputes early. Many states also reported methods they have voluntarily  implemented as extremely, very or moderately important. Some  stakeholders cited the potential of these methods to improve  communication and trust between parents and schools.
subsections: section_title: Mediation
paragraphs: 55 states and territories reported that mediation was extremely, very or  moderately important to resolving disputes,commented on our survey or in follow up discussions that it provides  parties with an opportunity to reduce tension, preserve or enhance  relationships, and having a third party facilitate the discussion is  beneficial. For example, an Iowa official explained that mediation can  allow for more expedient dispute resolution and help to preserve or  enhance relationships between parents and schools. Several officials   and some officials  expressed positive views about mediation and noted that there was a  high likelihood that mediation resulted in agreements between parents  and schools in their states. For example, officials from Rhode Island and  Connecticut commented that a majority of mediations resulted in  agreements in 2012-13 in their states, and one noted that most of them  were reached on the day of the mediation between parents and school  districts. Some state officials described on our survey and in follow up  discussions difficulties they encountered in expanding the use of  mediation in their state. An Oklahoma official commented that many  schools are resistant to the idea of mediation before the filing of a due  process complaint because of legal concerns about mediation  agreements. New York and D.C. officials told us in follow up discussions  that mediation is underutilized despite its availability, in part because not  all parents know that mediation is available for dispute resolution but also  because parents may question the independence of mediators in their  state. Some parents in one state told us they were not satisfied with the  competency or independence of mediators. A national advocacy  organization for people with disabilities, told us its organization  recommends families to pursue mediation rather than filing a due process  complaint because a trained mediator can have a positive impact of  bringing parents and schools together. Education’s guidance on dispute  resolution similarly recognizes that the success of mediation is closely  related to the mediator’s ability to obtain the trust of both parties and  commitment to the process.
section_title: Resolution Meetings
paragraphs: Forty-five states and territories reported that resolution meetings are an  extremely, very, or moderately important method to resolve disputes.  Some officials also commented that meetings such as these give parents  and the school district a chance to discuss the basis of the dispute and  work together to avoid a potentially adversarial due process hearing,  which can also lead to improved relationships between parents and their  school districts. A few state officials cited a high number of agreements  as the result of resolution meetings. For example, a West Virginia official  noted that during 2012, all of their requests for due process hearings  were resolved at resolution meetings, and a Rhode Island official wrote  that over half of its resolution meetings resulted in written agreements in  the same year. However, several state officials commented on our survey  or in follow up discussions that some parties prefer to waive the resolution  meeting or that by the time the resolution meeting occurs parties are  already entrenched which limits the ability of parties to reach an  agreement before a due process hearing. For example, a Pennsylvania  official told us that often parents who file due process complaints have  legal representation and generally attorneys in her state have little  incentive to resolve a dispute prior to a due process hearing. Similarly,  attorney members of a national organization representing school boards  told us in an interview that, when parents are not represented by an  attorney, most disputes are resolved before they proceed to due process;  however if parents are represented by attorneys, disputes are rarely are  disputes resolved before a due process hearing.
Officials from an organization representing children with disabilities  commented that resolution meetings are not as effective as facilitated  methods where an independent third party assists parents and schools in  finding a solution. IDEA does not require that resolution meetings be  facilitated; however, several state officials commented on our survey and  in follow up discussions that third party facilitation for resolution meetings  is helpful in bringing about a resolution without resorting to a hearing. For  example, an Oklahoma official commented that state officials had found  facilitated resolution meetings useful to resolve disputes earlier and noted  that without facilitation, parties often found it difficult to reach an  agreement.
section_title: Other Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods
paragraphs: When we asked survey respondents to comment on the alternative  dispute resolutions they voluntarily implemented—that is, those not  required by IDEA—more than half of state officials reported that their  states offer dispute resolution helplines while about half offer Facilitated  IEP meetings, Conflict resolution skills training, and parent-to-parent  assistance (see table 3).
A majority of states and territories reported that the guidance and  assistance provided by CADRE—which serves as Education’s technical  advisor and resource on special education dispute resolution—was  extremely, very or moderately useful to their efforts to successfully  implement and expand their early dispute resolution methods. For  example, a Pennsylvania official told us in a follow up discussion that  CADRE is the first resource they turn to for information and to obtain a  national perspective on alternative dispute resolution issues, and an  official from Florida commented that the technical assistance they  received from CADRE was excellent. An Illinois official also reported their  state frequently uses CADRE’s services, which were instrumental to the  development and implementation of facilitated IEP meetings in their state.
Over half of the states surveyed reported no challenge or only a slight  challenge in implementing or expanding dispute resolution methods due  to, for example, lack of expertise or parent or school district resistance to  using such methods. In follow up discussions, some state officials said  the lack of public awareness as a challenge to implementing or expanding  the use of alternative dispute resolution methods they have voluntarily  implemented, and that they are addressing this challenge with various  strategies. For example, a Pennsylvania state official told us about the  difficulty of reaching out to and educating parents in rural and highly  urban areas about alternative dispute resolution methods they have  voluntarily implemented because they have less access to online  information, and said the state partners with parent education networks  and a statewide stakeholder council of parent advocates to raise  awareness. Connecticut officials added that the state communicates with  various parent groups throughout the year, publicizes alternate dispute  resolution methods in its special education bulletins, and disseminates  informational materials among parent groups and other state agencies. A  Texas official said the state offers workshops at conferences and parent  meetings to raise awareness of the states’ methods for resolving  disputes.
section_title: Education Lacks Key Information on the Timeliness of Due Process Hearing Decisions, and the Parental Involvement Data It Collects Are Not Used for Oversight
subsections: section_title: Education’s Method for Measuring the Timeliness of Due Process Hearing Decisions Does Not Reflect Time Added by Extensions
paragraphs: Education assesses states’ performance on dispute resolution using  several different measures (see table 2) but lacks key information about  the timeliness of due process hearing decisions, which reduces its ability  to monitor dispute resolution effectively. Under its regulations, Education  requires states and school districts, where applicable, to ensure that  decisions are reached in due process hearings within 45 days after the  expiration of the 30-day resolution period or adjusted resolution periods.These regulations also permit a hearing officer to grant specific  extensions of this 45-day timeline, at the request of either party to the  hearing. According to Education’s guidance on performance measures,  all states are required to report the number of due process hearing  requests that were adjudicated within 45 days, or a timeline that includes  any approved extensions. However, this guidance does not direct states  to report the amount of time that extensions add to due process hearing  decisions. Leading performance measurement practices identified in our  past work state that successful performance measures should, among  other things, be clearly stated and provide unambiguous information.
As shown in figure 6, nearly half of all due process hearing decision  timelines were extended in school year 2011-12; in California, New York,  and Pennsylvania, the large majority of hearing decisions were made  under extended timelines. The decisions in these three states accounted  for more than 65 percent of all hearing decisions nationally. Despite the  more frequent use of extensions in California and New York, in 2011 they  achieved about 99 percent and 86 percent, respectively, of the 100  percent performance target that Education established for hearing  decision timeliness. Education’s current performance measure creates  the appearance that most hearing decisions in California and New York  were timely even though extended hearings took an unknown amount of  time, and no information is available about whether these extended  timeframes affected the provision of services to children with disabilities.
Education officials told us that, while they were aware of the use of  extensions in states, they did not know how much time extensions add to  hearing decisions because they do not collect this information. They  stated they were not concerned specifically about the effect of extensions  on the timeliness of dispute resolution because they believe extensions  are generally used for appropriate reasons, such as providing additional  opportunities for resolving disputes prior to a hearing, accommodating  parties’ schedules, and affording parents sufficient time to resolve  disputes.
A range of special education stakeholders, including state education  officials and officials from national organizations that represent parents,  students, and school systems, agreed that extensions to hearing  decisions are requested by parties for a variety of reasons, including  when (1) weather and school vacations result in school closures; (2)  some or all parties (parents, district personnel, attorneys, and expert  witnesses) are not available; (3) attorneys or parents require additional  time to prepare cases; and (4) the parties involved want to allow  additional time to schedule a mediation.
Though Education does not gather data on how much time extensions  add on average to the dispute resolution process, some stakeholders we  spoke with provided examples of extensions that typically ranged from a  few weeks to several months. Several, including disability advocates and  a state education official, stated that some decisions are extended by up  to a year or more. Another noted that timelines for hearing decisions in  one state typically get extended four or five times.
Stakeholders differed in their views on the extent to which the time added  to due process decision timelines by extensions affected the education of  children with disabilities. Some stakeholders stated there is likely to be  little or no negative effect on children’s education because of IDEA’s “stay  put” provision, which generally ensures that children will stay in their  current educational placement until a dispute resolution proceeding is  completed. However, other stakeholders pointed out that extensions  could cause some children not to receive appropriate educational  services in a timely manner. For example, one stakeholder commented  that for children currently placed in a program under the “stay put”  provision, an extended hearing decision could mean the child would  continue to receive educational services that may be inappropriate.  Another stakeholder commented that extended decisions could also  adversely affect children for whom “stay put” does not apply, such as  those waiting to be identified for educational services.
Because Education’s current measures do not provide clear and  complete information on the total amount of time that due process hearing  decisions take or the reasons for any time extensions, Education and  other stakeholders, such as Congress, lack information about when and  whether extended decisions could adversely affect the education of  children with disabilities. Further, Education lacks information that could  be used to identify trends and patterns within a state or across states that  could help Education better target its oversight or monitoring. Lastly, as  currently reported, states’ results on this measure may provide Congress  with a misleading picture of the amount of time that hearing decisions  take, particularly in states with high rates of extensions.
section_title: Parental Involvement Performance Data Do Not Support Dispute Resolution Oversight
paragraphs: Education collects data from states on parental involvement in the  education of children with disabilities, but these data are not comparable  across states, and as a result Education cannot use these data to target  its oversight of states’ dispute resolution activities. One of Congress’  findings in passing IDEA was that decades of research had demonstrated  that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective  by strengthening the role and responsibility of parents, and Education  has recognized the importance of parental involvement in fostering  relationships between parents and educators and preventing special  education disputes. Accordingly, Education developed a performance  measure for parental involvement and requires states to collect and report  the results of this measure annually. Its measure is defined as the  percentage of parents with a child receiving special education services  who report that schools facilitated parental involvement as a means of  improving services and results for children with disabilities, but states  collect and analyze this information in different ways. According to  Education officials, although IDEA does not specifically require Education  to collect parental involvement data, parental involvement is such a  critical factor in ensuring children needing special education services are  provided such services that they believe it is important for states to collect  and report such data. In 2002, the National Center for Special Education  Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM)—a national technical assistance  center funded by Education—developed and validated a scale for states  to use to measure parental involvement because of the lack of survey  instruments designed to obtain parents’ perceptions of schools’ facilitation  of their involvement. To date, over half of states and territories use the  NCSEAM scale to collect and report data for this measure. Education  officials told us they believed states gather data that is meaningful and  useful for their own efforts. However, these officials said that Education  cannot determine which states provide high quality parental involvement  data, nor does Education use these data to monitor and oversee states’  performance in this area and is unable to compare state performance  because states have considerable latitude to determine the  methodologies they use to collect the data and these methodologies  consequently vary across states. As a result, Education is unable to  assess the performance of individual states or compare states’  performance on this measure.
The lack of comparable parental involvement data from states can be  attributed to a variety of factors, according to PACER Center (Parent  Advocacy Coalition for Educational Rights), which recently operated the  National Parent Technical Assistance Center and conducted annual  analyses of states’ parent involvement data for Education. PACER  officials stated they found significant variability among states in their  survey instruments, sampling and analysis methods, and the performance  targets states set for parental involvement. In previous analysis, PACER  reported that in 2011, 34 states used a version of the parental  involvement surveys developed by NCSEAM, 10 states used their own  state-developed instrument, 10 states adapted questions from the  NCSEAM or other parent surveys to develop their own surveys, and 3   According to PACER officials,  states used a combination of surveys.states’ use of different survey instruments results in parents responding to  questions that may represent varying types of parental involvement. They  also noted that states varied in how they analyze survey results for the  purposes of reporting on Education’s measure. For example, in some  states only half of the questions require positive responses for the survey  to be scored positive overall for parental involvement on Education’s  measure; in others, a much higher percentage of questions require  positive responses to be scored positive overall for parental involvement.  Ultimately, PACER officials suggested that the meaningfulness of parent  involvement data depends on the ability to use it to make valid  comparisons across states and this requires that Education establish and  require states to adopt consistent data collection and analysis methods.  Others have also noted that the lack of consistency in data collection  compromises the meaningfulness of the data. For example, a subject  matter specialist noted that recent parental involvement data show a wide  range of state performance on this measure—from below 20 percent to  above 90 percent—raising important questions about validity that may  undermine the public’s confidence in the data. The specialist noted the  lack of comparability in state data and the recognition among states that  Education does not use the data for oversight may discourage states from  improving their parental involvement measures and practices.
Education officials said they explored the option of revising its parental  involvement measure when some states raised issues about the burden  of collecting the data but ultimately decided not to change it after  encountering significant resistance from parent and advocate groups.  Specifically, officials said they informally proposed that states report  information about how they address and measure parental involvement in  their state without requiring states to use a quantitative measure or  targets. Education presented this proposal to a range of stakeholder  groups, including state officials, Parent Training and Information Centers,  advocates, and parents, among others. Education officials said parents  and advocates were strongly opposed to the proposal to eliminate the  current measure, suggesting instead that the department require that all  states take a standard approach to collecting parent involvement data.  For example, one parent advocacy organization stated that comparability  of parental involvement data across states is critical and that Education  should require a consistent approach to data collection for all states to  ensure that the status of parental involvement for all families of children  receiving special education services is reflected in their results. However,  one organization representing states commented on the burdens of  collecting data for the measure, pointing to the costs to states of mailing  out parent surveys and noting that most surveys are not returned. On the  other hand, conducting parent surveys does not necessarily entail high  costs, according to one subject matter specialist who provided comments  to Education. She noted that Florida took a number of steps to lower  survey costs without compromising data quality, including moving to a  web-based survey, with printed survey forms available to parents on  request, and suggested that alternatives to costly survey mailings exist  and should be considered. Also, PACER officials have stated that  requiring a consistent approach to collecting parental involvement data  may decrease some of the data collection burden associated with  Education’s measure because states would not need to develop their own  approaches.
Education officials told us they question the usefulness of comparable  parental involvement data across states for oversight and pointed to data  on the overrepresentation of racial and ethnic groups in special  education, among other IDEA measures, that are also not comparable  across states. However, in 2013 GAO found these data do not provide a  consistent picture on overrepresentation. Specifically, we found that the  flexibility to define how states measure overrepresentation resulted in  inconsistent definitions and data collection methods across states and  recommended that Education adopt a standard approach to  measurement for all states. In responding to this recommendation,  Education said that it did not have all the information necessary to  determine whether it is appropriate to develop a single standard for  overrepresentation. Education began soliciting public comments from  stakeholders beginning in June 2014 to assist the department in  considering the development of such a standard.
Leading performance measurement practices state that organizations that  have progressed toward results-oriented management use performance  information as a basis for decision making and that full benefit of  collecting such information is realized only when managers actually use it   Uses of performance information to improve results include  to manage. monitoring, resource allocation, and identifying and sharing effective  practices, among others. The usefulness of performance information also  depends, in part, on the extent to which the data are collected using  consistent procedures and definitions.
Without comparable parental involvement data across states, Education  lacks important performance information which limits its ability to oversee  states’ dispute resolution activities, including monitoring and identifying  problems with parental involvement in states and recommending  improvement activities for states to take; recognizing and incentivizing  high performance; assessing states’ needs for technical assistance on  parental involvement and making appropriate resource decisions; and  identifying and helping to share promising parental involvement practices  among states.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Both IDEA and Education recognize the importance of parental  involvement in the education of children with disabilities. Having parents  who are appropriately informed and involved in decision-making  regarding the education of students with disabilities can lead to the  resolution of disputes in a more collaborative manner without the use of  formal dispute resolution methods and may result in greater trust between  parents and school districts, and earlier, less adversarial dispute  resolution. In addition, resolving disagreements before they escalate and  become adversarial is in the collective best interest of parents, students,  and districts.
It is also important for Education to hold states accountable for timely  dispute resolution to protect the educational interests of children with  disabilities. In particular, it is important that Education have an effective  measure of hearing decision timeliness for monitoring states’ dispute  resolution performance. However, Education’s measure does not provide  clear, complete information about the duration of this process, information  which is useful for ensuring effective program monitoring and targeted  technical assistance. While Education tracks the number of hearing  decisions made within 45 days, without information on the amount of time  added to decisions timelines by extensions, Education is limited in its  ability to monitor in this area, which could negatively affect children and  their families by, for example, delaying the provision of appropriate  special education services.
Additionally, Education views parental involvement as a critical factor in  ensuring children needing special education services are provided such  services and for this reason collects parental involvement data from  states. However, without making the data more comparable across  states, Education may be prevented from rigorously evaluating states’  performance in this area and may be limited in its ability to identify  promising practices and effectively target assistance to states in their  efforts to resolve disputes at an early state. Additionally, unless Education  uses the data it collects, it will not reap their potential benefits in  improving performance for the benefit of students and parents.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: Based on our review, we recommend the Secretary of Education direct  the Office of Special Education Programs take the following two actions:  1.  To increase transparency regarding the timeliness of due process  hearing decisions for Congress and better target its monitoring and  technical assistance to states, revise its performance measure to  collect information from states on the amount of time that extensions  add to due process hearing decisions.  2.  To assist its oversight of dispute resolution, take steps to improve the  comparability of parental involvement data while minimizing the  burden to states, and use the data for better management decision  making. Steps to consider could include establishing and requiring  that states follow standard data collection and analysis procedures.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment.  Education’s comments are produced in appendix I. Education also  provided technical comments, which we incorporated into our report  where appropriate. Education neither agreed nor disagreed with our  recommendations but proposed alternative actions. However, Education’s  proposed actions will not effectively address the weaknesses we  identified in Education’s performance measures and we continue to  believe our recommendations are valid.
In its comments, Education recognized the importance of promptly and  fairly resolving special education disputes between parents and school  districts and agreed that additional information on extensions could be  useful in targeting its monitoring and technical assistance activities in  states with large numbers of hearings issued within extended timelines.  However, Education stated that collecting data from all states and  territories on the amount of time that extensions add to hearing timelines  would not necessarily improve its capacity to ensure that states and  territories are properly implementing IDEA’s dispute resolution  procedures. Instead, Education proposed that it conduct follow up  monitoring with any state that reports 10 or more fully adjudicated  hearings in a given year where at least 75 percent of the decisions are  issued with extended timelines. While this approach might be useful for  Education’s targeting of monitoring and assistance to states—particularly  if monitoring includes collecting information about the duration of  extensions, why parties request extensions and the effects of extended  timelines on children’s education—we believe Education’s proposal alone  will not correct the potentially misleading picture its timeliness measure  creates regarding of the amount of time that hearing decisions actually  take. As noted in the report, some stakeholders pointed out that  extensions could cause some children not to receive appropriate  educational services in a timely manner. Thus, we continue to see  advantages in addressing the core weakness of its measure by collecting  information from all states on the amount of time that extensions add to  hearing decision timelines. Further, Education noted that only 12 states  and territories had 10 or more fully adjudicated hearings in 2011-12 and  stated that it is not appropriate or efficient to burden all states in collecting  these data. However, requiring states with fewer hearings to report this  information is unlikely to create significant administrative burden for them,  as they would be providing information on a small number of decisions.  Without reliable performance information, the public lacks a clear picture  of the time required to reach due process hearing decisions and the  potential impact on affected children.
Regarding our recommendation that it improve the comparability of  parental involvement data it collects and use the data for better  management decision making, Education stated it does not believe there  is a need to improve the comparability of states’ parental involvement  data. More specifically, Education said that these data are designed to  measure state performance against targets that each state sets, based on  state-specific needs and circumstances. To improve the quality of  parental involvement data, Education said it will work with states through  its technical assistance centers to help build their capacity to collect high  quality data. We commend Education’s proposal to assist states in this  way; however, its approach will continue to require states to report  parental involvement data that Education cannot use to assist with  oversight and manage for results related to dispute resolution. For  example, absent comparable performance information across states,  Education could not monitor states with weak performance on parental  involvement or identify and assist states in sharing promising parental  involvement practices that may help prevent disputes from developing.  One approach Education could consider to improve the comparability of  parental involvement data would be to establish and require that states  follow standard data collection and analysis procedures in reporting the  existing measure. Education stated that standardizing the collection of  parental involvement data among states would result in increased  administrative burden on some states. However, in our report we note  that Education’s former national technical assistance center on parental  involvement suggested that consistent data collection may, in fact,  decrease administrative burden because states would not need to  develop their own approaches. Until Education collects data that it can  use to effectively manage this effort, it will likely be limited in its ability to  enhance collaboration between parents and educators, which facilitates  resolving disputes earlier through less formal and costly means.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Education, and  other interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no  charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs can be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report  are listed in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Comments from the U.S. Department of Education
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: Jacqueline M. Nowicki, (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov.
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Betty Ward-Zukerman, Assistant  Director; Edward F. Bodine, Analyst-in-Charge; Grace E. Cho, and John  S. Townes made significant contributions to this report. Also contributing  to this report were James E. Bennett, Deborah K. Bland, David M.  Chrisinger, Lara L. Laufer, Benjamin T. Licht, Ying Long, Cady S.  Panetta, James M. Rebbe, Carl M. Ramirez and Walter K. Vance.