Experiences and perceptions of special education directors regarding the due process hearing system

In 1975 Congress authorized Public Law 94-142, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA). The law explicitly set out to assure all children with disabilities access to a free appropriate public education and to guarantee the educational rights of children with disabilities. As part of this guarantee, Congress enacted an impartial due process hearing in a neutral forum by which parents could challenge the appropriateness of their child's education. The law has been reauthorized several times since it was originally enacted and is currently known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Congress is presently considering iteration of the law once again and, as part of the reauthorization, there has been debate regarding the role of the due process hearing system. The President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education noted in its report that while the current due process hearing system appears to adequately ensure access to public education, it is questionable as to whether or not it helps to ensure changes in the educational system that lead to educational progress for students with disabilities. While there is much discussion related to the value of due process hearings, little research exists documenting the benefit of the due process hearing system for students with disabilities in the public schools, or its influence on educational programs for these students.; This case study delved into three areas specifically related to the perceptions and experiences of special education directors regarding the due process hearing system in Texas. First, the study sought to determine what, if any, benefits to special education programs Texas special education directors perceived are derived from the current due process hearing system required by IDEA. Second, what experiences did special education directors have related to the due process hearing system. Third, it explored the question of whether special education directors implemented changes in educational programs for students with disabilities in an attempt to avoid due process hearings.