Special Education: Numbers of Formal Disputes Are Generally Low and States Are Using Mediation and Other Strategies to Resolve Conflicts
Published: 2003-09-09T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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. 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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  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. 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. 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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. 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.
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.
Disagreements over eligibility determinations about a child and over an  IEP can be contentious and occasionally result in disputes. 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 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  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, 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.
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.
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 state- level hearing officer or panel. 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  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.  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  coordinating office, parent centers provided assistance to nearly 1 million  parents and professionals during the 2001-02 school year.
section_title: In Selected Locations, Disputes between Schools and Families Were Usually over Student Identifications, Education Programs, and Placements
paragraphs: 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.
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  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  district. Officials in six local school districts we visited mentioned that  disputes had occurred over decisions about a child’s educational setting.
section_title: Available Data Indicate That Dispute Resolution Activity Was Generally Low; Due Process Hearings Were Concentrated in a Few Locations
paragraphs: 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. 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.
subsections: section_title: The Number of Due Process Hearings Held Nationwide Was Low and Most Occurred in a Few States and the District of Columbia
paragraphs: 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. 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.’ We  calculated that due process hearings occurred at a low rate of about   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.)
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  Columbia. 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.
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).
section_title: Rates of Mediations and State Complaints Were Also Low
paragraphs: 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. 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  nationwide during the 2000 school year or 2000 calendar year. 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. 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.)
section_title: States We Visited Were Emphasizing Mediation, and Some Locations Used Additional Strategies
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: States Encouraged the Use of Mediation to Resolve Disagreements
paragraphs: 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  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.
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  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. 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. 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. 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- 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. In Texas and Ohio,  affected parties in a state complaint were immediately offered mediation  to resolve their dispute. 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.
section_title: Some States and Localities Had Developed Additional Strategies for Early Dispute Resolution
paragraphs: 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  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 pre- appeal 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. During the 2001-02 school year, parent mentors attended   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.
section_title: State Notification Problems Were Generally Minor and Had Little Effect on Timeliness
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: 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  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.
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.
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.
section_title: Appendix II: Levels of Dispute Resolution Activity in the Four Urban and Four Rural School Districts Visited
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: The following people also made important contributions to this  report: Ellen Soltow, Susan Bernstein, Luann Moy, Kris Braaten,  Roger Thomas, and Richard Burkard.