Every Day Counts: Proposals to Reform the Idea's Due Process Structure

E. Shaver
{"title":"Every Day Counts: Proposals to Reform the Idea's Due Process Structure","authors":"E. Shaver","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2600654","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is a core principle of special education legislation that the parents of children with disabilities can challenge the child’s educational programming through an administrative due process hearing. Yet, for years the special education due process structure has been criticized as inefficient, anti-collaborative, and prohibitively expensive. Those criticisms have given rise to widely varying proposals to reform special education due process, proposals that range from adding certain alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to a wholesale replacement of the due process structure. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of special education dispute resolution. The article first examines the lively debate among scholars and special interest groups about perceived deficiencies of IDEA due process and various proposals to remedy those deficiencies. The article then sets forth the results of a nationwide survey in which over three hundred and fifty special education attorneys voiced their opinions about the current structure and some proposals for reform. Finally, the article recommends certain structural changes to IDEA due process that are designed to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of special education dispute resolution.","PeriodicalId":80897,"journal":{"name":"Case Western Reserve law review","volume":"66 1","pages":"143"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Case Western Reserve law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2600654","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

It is a core principle of special education legislation that the parents of children with disabilities can challenge the child’s educational programming through an administrative due process hearing. Yet, for years the special education due process structure has been criticized as inefficient, anti-collaborative, and prohibitively expensive. Those criticisms have given rise to widely varying proposals to reform special education due process, proposals that range from adding certain alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to a wholesale replacement of the due process structure. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of special education dispute resolution. The article first examines the lively debate among scholars and special interest groups about perceived deficiencies of IDEA due process and various proposals to remedy those deficiencies. The article then sets forth the results of a nationwide survey in which over three hundred and fifty special education attorneys voiced their opinions about the current structure and some proposals for reform. Finally, the article recommends certain structural changes to IDEA due process that are designed to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of special education dispute resolution.
每一天都很重要:改革思想的正当程序结构的建议
残疾儿童的父母可以通过行政正当程序听证会对儿童的教育计划提出质疑,这是特殊教育立法的核心原则。然而,多年来,特殊教育的正当程序结构一直被批评为效率低下、反合作、成本过高。这些批评引起了各种各样的改革特殊教育正当程序的建议,这些建议的范围从增加某些替代性争端解决机制到全面取代正当程序结构。本文对特殊教育纠纷解决进行了全面分析。本文首先考察了学者和特殊利益集团之间关于IDEA正当程序缺陷的激烈辩论,以及弥补这些缺陷的各种建议。文章随后阐述了一项全国性调查的结果,在调查中,350多名特殊教育律师表达了他们对当前结构的看法和一些改革建议。最后,本文建议对IDEA正当程序进行一些结构性改革,以提高特殊教育纠纷解决的效率并降低成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书