The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of selected characteristics on the outcomes of those special education due process hearings brought forth in the state of Texas from September 1, 1983, to September 1, 1992. A further purpose was to determine if district characteristics of size or location affect the likelihood of a district's becoming involved in a special education due process hearing. Data for the study was collected for all special education due process hearings conducted in the State of Texas from September 1, 1983, to September 1, 1992. A coding system was used to record the data for the study and the Chi-square test of independence was used to determine whether a relationship existed between the selected variable (hearing issue, disability classifications and restrictiveness of placement) and hearing outcome. The frequency of involvement in hearings for districts of various size and urban characteristics was displayed as a percentage.

This study reviews due process hearing decisions from the years 2014 and 2015. This is primarily a legal analysis, specifically looking at legal and regulatory patterns regarding the provision of one-on-one special education aides for students with disabilities in general education settings. Our findings from the due process hearing decisions reveal that one-on-one aides for students with a wide variety of disabilities are being provided with greater frequency than we anticipated and that, specifically, behavioral aides are being provided for students with autism. Decisions of disabilities such as hearing impairment have higher provision rates, while other disabilities like autism and emotional disturbance do not see the same rate of provision. There are clear patterns of differences between the states in the number of cases that reach due process hearings and in the number of one-on-one aides provided.

This research analyzed all available hearings from 2013 to 2015 in a national database of due process hearings regarding placement issues and determinations of the least restrictive environment for individual students with significant disabilities. The main research question was whether parents/guardians and due process hearing officers sought placements for these children with significant disabilities that considered creatively and holistically a range of options rather than just a dialogue between already extant possible programmatic offerings. The research resulted in a description and taxonomy of the types of issues and factors arising in the hearings for students with significant disabilities from 2013 to 2015. This research shows almost no evidence of creative or holistic thinking in these due process decisions, and there was little evidence of parent advocacy for general education classes and creative options for their students with significant disabilities beyond existing offerings. The most unique placements to be found in public school settings for these students were in general education classes. Twenty-four students in this analysis were offered general education classes with their typically achieving peers. In general, though, for this unique group of students with significant disabilities, very few due process hearings could be found to have demonstrated creativity, or the consideration of holistic options, for such students. In general, in due process hearings for students with significant disabilities from 2013 to 2015, parents were overwhelming advocating for, and due process hearing officers were deciding among, options on the continuum of placements already traditionally considered for students with significant disabilities.