{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/38369"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/38369","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Special education due process hearings: state differences","abstract":"Although some literature exists that examines special education due process practices, the studies have been done in different ways and consequently result in different outcomes. Therefore the purpose of this study was to examine the one-and two-tier due process system in the United States. The study focused on national practices of due process, issues disputed, and disability categories involved in special education conflicts. A survey of the 50 state directors of special education and the director from the District of Columbia was conducted to obtain information concerning due process hearings and dispute resolution for the time period 1986-1987 to 1990-1991. Records of all reported special education litigation for the same time period were obtained from the Law Offices of Charles L. Weatherly in Atlanta, Georgia. Data from the states providing due process information were analyzed with a t-test. The remaining data, both from the survey instrument and litigation records, were analyzed using qualitative analysis, frequency counts, and percentages of the raw data. Findings of the study reveal a slight national trend toward a one-tier due process system for special education dispute resolution. Furthermore, placement remains the most frequently litigated issue, and specific learning disability the most frequently involved category in special education disputes. Finally, there is no predictable relationship between the size of the disability population and the volume of special education litigation. The results of the study evidenced the need for continued research of national practices of due process. Additional research is also needed in the areas of mediation, the costs of due process hearings, and hearing officer's authorization to award attorney fees.","abstract_html":"Although some literature exists that examines special education due process practices, the studies have been done in different ways and consequently result in different outcomes. Therefore the purpose of this study was to examine the one-and two-tier due process system in the United States. The study focused on national practices of due process, issues disputed, and disability categories involved in special education conflicts. A survey of the 50 state directors of special education and the director from the District of Columbia was conducted to obtain information concerning due process hearings and dispute resolution for the time period 1986-1987 to 1990-1991. Records of all reported special education litigation for the same time period were obtained from the Law Offices of Charles L. Weatherly in Atlanta, Georgia. Data from the states providing due process information were analyzed with a t-test. The remaining data, both from the survey instrument and litigation records, were analyzed using qualitative analysis, frequency counts, and percentages of the raw data. Findings of the study reveal a slight national trend toward a one-tier due process system for special education dispute resolution. Furthermore, placement remains the most frequently litigated issue, and specific learning disability the most frequently involved category in special education disputes. Finally, there is no predictable relationship between the size of the disability population and the volume of special education litigation. The results of the study evidenced the need for continued research of national practices of due process. Additional research is also needed in the areas of mediation, the costs of due process hearings, and hearing officer's authorization to award attorney fees.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Robinett, Melinda Kathleen"],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Doctor of Education","degree_level":"doctoral","degree_discipline":"Administration and Supervision of Special Education","degree_department":"Administration and Supervision of Special Education","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":["Jones, Philip R."],"committee_members":["Alexander, M. David","Salmon, Richard","Fortune, Jimmie C.","Engelhard, Judy B."],"year":1993,"date_issued":"1993","date_published":"1993","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:19:10Z","subjects":[],"languages":["en"],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-06062008-165959"],"render_values":[{"text":"etd-06062008-165959","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/38369","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.committeechair","label":"Committee Chair","values":["Jones, Philip R."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Alexander, M. David","Salmon, Richard","Fortune, Jimmie C.","Engelhard, Judy B."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Administration and Supervision of Special Education"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Robinett, Melinda Kathleen"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2014-03-14T21:14:04Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2014-03-14T21:14:04Z","2008-06-06"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["1993"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"dc:type.dcmitype","label":"Dc Type Dcmitype","values":["Text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Administration and Supervision of Special Education"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["doctoral"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Education"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-06062008-165959"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/38369"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Although some literature exists that examines special education due process practices, the studies have been done in different ways and consequently result in different outcomes. Therefore the purpose of this study was to examine the one-and two-tier due process system in the United States. The study focused on national practices of due process, issues disputed, and disability categories involved in special education conflicts. A survey of the 50 state directors of special education and the director from the District of Columbia was conducted to obtain information concerning due process hearings and dispute resolution for the time period 1986-1987 to 1990-1991. Records of all reported special education litigation for the same time period were obtained from the Law Offices of Charles L. Weatherly in Atlanta, Georgia. Data from the states providing due process information were analyzed with a t-test. The remaining data, both from the survey instrument and litigation records, were analyzed using qualitative analysis, frequency counts, and percentages of the raw data. Findings of the study reveal a slight national trend toward a one-tier due process system for special education dispute resolution. Furthermore, placement remains the most frequently litigated issue, and specific learning disability the most frequently involved category in special education disputes. Finally, there is no predictable relationship between the size of the disability population and the volume of special education litigation. The results of the study evidenced the need for continued research of national practices of due process. Additional research is also needed in the areas of mediation, the costs of due process hearings, and hearing officer's authorization to award attorney fees."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Ed. D."]},{"key":"dc:format.medium","label":"Dc Format Medium","values":["BTD"]},{"key":"dc:format.mimetype","label":"Dc Format Mimetype","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Special education due process hearings: state differences"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.committeechair":["Jones, Philip R."],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Alexander, M. David","Salmon, Richard","Fortune, Jimmie C.","Engelhard, Judy B."],"dc:contributor.department":["Administration and Supervision of Special Education"],"dc:creator":["Robinett, Melinda Kathleen"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2014-03-14T21:14:04Z"],"dc:date.available":["2014-03-14T21:14:04Z","2008-06-06"],"dc:date.issued":["1993"],"dc:description.abstract":["Although some literature exists that examines special education due process practices, the studies have been done in different ways and consequently result in different outcomes. Therefore the purpose of this study was to examine the one-and two-tier due process system in the United States. The study focused on national practices of due process, issues disputed, and disability categories involved in special education conflicts. A survey of the 50 state directors of special education and the director from the District of Columbia was conducted to obtain information concerning due process hearings and dispute resolution for the time period 1986-1987 to 1990-1991. Records of all reported special education litigation for the same time period were obtained from the Law Offices of Charles L. Weatherly in Atlanta, Georgia. Data from the states providing due process information were analyzed with a t-test. The remaining data, both from the survey instrument and litigation records, were analyzed using qualitative analysis, frequency counts, and percentages of the raw data. Findings of the study reveal a slight national trend toward a one-tier due process system for special education dispute resolution. Furthermore, placement remains the most frequently litigated issue, and specific learning disability the most frequently involved category in special education disputes. Finally, there is no predictable relationship between the size of the disability population and the volume of special education litigation. The results of the study evidenced the need for continued research of national practices of due process. Additional research is also needed in the areas of mediation, the costs of due process hearings, and hearing officer's authorization to award attorney fees."],"dc:description.degree":["Ed. D."],"dc:format.medium":["BTD"],"dc:format.mimetype":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier.other":["etd-06062008-165959"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/38369"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:title":["Special education due process hearings: state differences"],"dc:type":["Dissertation"],"dc:type.dcmitype":["Text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Administration and Supervision of Special Education"],"thesis:degree_level":["doctoral"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Education"],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:19:10Z"}