Doctoral Programs in Educational Leadership: A Duality Framework of Commonality and Differences

In recent years, doctoral programs in education leadership have been subject to notable criticism and proposals for reform

Over-Due Process Revisions for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Over-Due Process Revisions for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Ac

State Laws for Due Process Hearings Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act II: The Post-Hearing Stage

A recent issue of this journal contained an article that canvassed state laws that added to the basic requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for due process hearings (DPHs). The purpose of this follow-up analysis is to supplement the earlier article by canvassing state law provisions specific to the post-hearing stage of IDEA DPHs. The length is relatively brief because (1) the springboard article on the hearing stage provided the detailed foundation, (2) the scope of the post-hearing stage is much more limited, and (3) the previous literature has largely unexplored this stage. Otherwise in accordance with the format of the original article, Part I provides the template of IDEA requirements for the post-hearing stage. Part II tabulates the state law provisions that supplement the federal template. Part III provides a discussion of the results along with recommendations for future policymaking and scholarship

The Legal Boundaries for Impartiality of IDEA Hearing Officers: An Update

Special education has become a significant area of litigation in the K-12 school context. The impartial hearing officer (“IHO”) is the fulcrum of the adjudicative process under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (“IDEA”). However, the IDEA only provides for two standards for impartiality while the framework of remaining standards are left—via the IDEA’s structure of “cooperative federalism”—to state laws. Ultimately, the courts serve as the chief cartographer for the legal boundaries of IDEA IHO impartiality in their interpretation, gap-filling, and application of the federal and state framework. The previous research relating at least in part to IDEA IHO impartiality is notably limited in date, location, and focus. In the predecessor of the present analysis, Maher and Zirkel synthesized the cumulative court decisions, RO decisions, and federal agency interpretations as of 2007 into a checklist template consisting of a table that in its rows identified various specific categories that had arisen in this cumulative body of law. The purpose of this article is to provide an update of the Maher and Zirkel case law analysis, with limited appropriate adjustments. Overall, this update shows that the impartiality of IHOs under the IDEA merits further customization so as to facilitate the prompt completion of the hearing process

Impartial Hearings Under the IDEA: Legal Issues and Answers

This updated question-and-answer document is specific to impartial hearing officers (IHOs) and the hearings that they conduct under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The coverage does not extend to the alternate third-party dispute decisional mechanism under the IDEA, the complaint resolution process (CRP) except to the extent that this alternative mechanism intersects with IHO issues. Similarly, the scope only extends secondarily to the IHO’s remedial authority, which is the subject of separate comprehensive coverage. The sources are largely limited to the pertinent IDEA legislation and regulations, court decisions, and the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education’s (OSEP) policy letters. Thus, the answers are subject to revision or qualification based on (1) applicable state laws; (2) additional legal sources beyond those cited; and (3) independent interpretation of the cited and additional pertinent legal sources. The author welcomes corrections and additions from interested parties so that the document is as accurate, comprehensive, and current as possible. Intended primarily for IHOs but ultimately for any interested individuals, this article organizes the items into various subject categories within two successive broad groups. Its purpose is to be a useful reference as a starting point for applicable authority, subject to the interpretation of the IHO or other interested individuals. For the specific overall organization, see the Table of Contents on the previous page, although presumably the “Find” feature will be the usual way of locating the applicable question and answer