The residential treatment of persons with mental retardation has gone through a tremendous transformation in recent years. The increasing concern about the adequacy of institutional care has been challenged through the judicial system. Advocacy groups, professionals and people with mental retardation believed that institutional care should be replaced with community-based residences. Class action litigation is a mechanism that has been used to pressure mental retardation bureaucracies into improving institutional care and developing community-based residential options. The focus of litigation surrounds whether or not an institutionalized person with mental retardation has the right to live within community-based residences. The judicial system has become instrumental in the development of community-based residential alternatives for people with mental retardation. The conclusion of class action litigation can be the establishment of a consent decree. A consent decree typically outlines how the defendant organization will rectify faults within the human service delivery system. Monitoring organizations have been established to oversee the implementation of some consent decrees. This study was designed to gather information regarding how individuals assigned the task of monitoring the implementation of a consent decree perceive their roles along with the organizations' effectiveness. The study consisted of two elements. A four person case study and a national questionnaire was completed with individuals who monitor the implementation of deinstitutionalization consent decrees. This study was completed in November 1988. Thirty-two individuals were registered members of the Special Masters and Monitors Organization. A fifty percent response rate was obtained. Conclusions from the data include that individuals who monitor the implementation of deinstitutionalization consent decrees have an important role in ensuring class members rights and protections. Mediation is of importance to the oversight organization. Assisting in the development and implementation of policies, is a vital component to the monitoring organization. The primary strength of the organization was the integrity and commitment it displayed. Consent decree implementation barriers were the defendant organizations' defensiveness to act upon suggestions made by the monitoring organization. Whether or not the newly established policies would remain in operation after the discontinuation of the outside monitoring organization was unclear.

With the re-authorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the federal mandates of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the role of the principal has new implications regarding the free and appropriate education of students with disabilities. As a result of the inclusion model of special education instruction being supported as the most effective learning environment for students with disabilities, principals now need to know the definitions of types of disabilities, appropriate placements, how to provide correct feedback for parents and at a minimum, the basics of special education law. The literature review focused on principals’ attitudes and concerns for special education placements and how knowledgeable school principals are with regard to issues of special education law and the possibility of litigation when planning for the free and appropriate education of special education students. Few U.S. studies have focused exclusively on the actual principals’ knowledge of special education law. This study researched the knowledge of Virginia principals on special education. A geographical random sample of 462 principals from the state of Virginia were asked to complete an on-line survey of 24 hypothetical scenarios based on the following components of IDEA: free and appropriate public education, due process, individualized education plans, least restrictive environment, related services, student discipline and liability for reimbursement of parents.. Experts, practitioners, and researchers in the field reviewed these scenarios. The survey was e-mailed to the principals from October 1st to November 1st, 2006. A follow up e-mail was sent two weeks after the initial contact as a reminder to complete the survey. From November 2nd to November 15th 10% of the respondents who did not respond were contacted by phone and asked why they did not respond. Out of 49 phone calls, 12 principals responded. The instrument was anonymous and color coded according to the eight Superintendents’ Study Groups across the state of Virginia in order to identify the number of schools that participated. A total of 236 principals responded resulting in a 51% response rate. Upon completion of the questionnaire principals were provided correct responses. Using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on all demographic variables and the principals’ test score. An item analysis of each of the hypothetical scenarios determined the areas of deficiencies in the principals’ knowledge base. Results of this study show that there is no significant difference between principals’ test scores and each of the demographic variables. Seven areas of special education law were tested: free and appropriate public education (FAPE), individualized education plan (IEP), least restrictive environment (LRE), student discipline, related services, due process and liability for reimbursement of parents This study identified two significant areas of weakness: related services and FAPE. The information from this study will be beneficial in determining school districts’ professional development needs and coursework in university education programs that addresses special education law. / Ph. D.

School administrators are responsible for ensuring state and federal special education laws and regulations are being implemented properly. This study examined the amount of training a Virginia school principal receives while attending principal preparation programs as well as professional development offered by their school division on how to handle any legal issues that may arise pertaining to special education. In 1975 Congress enacted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142) and amended in 1997 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Education for All Handicapped Children Act was introduced in Congress to ensure that students with disabilities were provided the same opportunities as general education students. This legislation was later renamed IDEIA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, in 2004. A web-based survey was used to obtain information from principals in school divisions with high or no incidences of special education complaints. The survey was sent to 12 school divisions with 189 schools and 21 divisions with 189 schools respectively. The data collected from participants was analyzed with JMP software to determine patterns in principal responses based on their employment in divisions with high or no incidences of special education complaints. Statistical analysis included measures of central tendency (mean, median, and mode), frequencies, and percentages of the data collected at the state and regional level, by high or no incidence groups to determine if better prepared, more experienced, more informed principals that have had on-going training are able to administer special education programs effectively and therefore have fewer parent complaints. The results of the study indicated a need for higher education institutions (colleges and universities) to increase course offerings at the principal preparation level in the area of special education. Additionally there is a need for superintendents and division leadership to continue to develop and seek partnerships to deliver relevant ongoing professional development, as well as for principals to explore special education networking opportunities external to the division. / Ed. D.

As the inclusion of students with special needs in general education classrooms becomes more prevalent, it is imperative that all teachers possess a solid understanding of special education law and procedures. This thesis presents the results of a survey conducted among general education teachers, aiming to assess their level of knowledge regarding special education law, explore how they acquired this knowledge, and investigate instances in which they applied it. The study underscores the shift in responsibility from specialized educators to general teachers and seeks to pave the way for enhanced educational outcomes for students with special needs. The implications of this research extend to teacher preparation and training, advocating for potential changes in educational policies and teacher training programs. By shedding light on the current state of knowledge among general education teachers, this study aspires to stimulate further research and contribute to a more inclusive and effective educational environment for students with special needs.

This study investigated the knowledge of special education directors or division designees in school divisions across the Commonwealth of Virginia. One-hundred-twenty-nine Virginia special education directors or division designees were sent an on-line assessment describing 22 hypothetical scenarios representing current legal issues in the area of special education law as prescribed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The instrument used in this study was adapted from the Power (2007) study with a revision of response choices to provide more definitive results. A demographic questionnaire was adapted to determine individual and school division characteristics pertinent to the study. A total of 87 division special education administrators responded, a 67% response rate. After initial analysis, 84 assessments were usable. The statistical package JMP-Software for Univariate and Multivariate Statistics (2005) was used to tabulate the responses and to examine the relationships between demographic variables and respondents' knowledge of special education law. Descriptive statistics were applied to identify deficiencies in the respondents' knowledge base. Results of this study yielded a mean total score of 80.3% on the online assessment. Respondents scored below the mean in the areas of free and appropriate education, related services, student discipline, and liability for reimbursement to parents. There was no statistically significant relationship between knowledge of special education law and any of the following demographic characteristics: size of the school division, previous special education teacher experience, number of years as a special education director, highest degree attained, percent of time devoted to special education responsibilities, and attendance at special education law workshops. Respondents who belonged to professional organizations scored significantly higher on the assessment than those who did not. The assessment also compared methods of remaining current with special education law and the respondents' knowledge of the law. The following methods yielded a statistically significant relationship with knowledge of special education law: reading professional organization bulletins, attending professional development seminars, and using "other" means. The results of this study will be used to recommend professional development on the interpretation and implementation of special education law at the school-division and college/university levels. / Ph. D.

The purpose of this study is to make a survey of state legislation for establishing special education programs for exceptional children to determine the extent to which it meets basic principles for special education of this type.

Book Summary: The purpose of this book is to assist readers to use better practices when developing educationally meaningful and legally sound Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). Beginning with the history and purpose of IEPs, this book examines the context and reasons IEPs were first created. The core chapters address better practices in conducting assessments, developing present levels of academic achievement and functional performance statements, crafting measurable annual goals, determining special education services, and monitoring and reporting on students’ progress. The authors also discuss placing students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment (LRE) and provide forms and graphics to assist in developing students’ special education programs.

No description available.

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. / Ed. D.

In the 27 years since the establishment of federal law mandating special education, no state has been fully in compliance. In addition, the voices of school personnel (special education teachers, speech and language pathologists, and school psychologists) charged with implementing these laws and regulations have been largely silent in the national research. A review of 1306 references concerning the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) did not find studies that included these front line school district personnel who serve as "intermediaries" and have responsibility to implement special education policy. This is the first study that provided a forum for Oregon professionals to share their concerns and suggestions regarding implementation of the IDEA. The study went beyond the enumeration of noncompliance areas, asked questions about why compliance is problematic, and compared what study participants view as problematic to litigated areas at the Oregon complaint investigation and due process hearing levels. Multiple methods in the data collection process included surveys (n=169), semi-structured interviews (n=11), and document analysis (n=147). To provide baseline information, quantitative analysis provided ordinal ranking of responses and statistical comparisons among participants from the different specialty areas, different years of experience, and different district sizes. It also compared participant responses to Oregon litigation. Part of the study used an exploratory and descriptive approach to obtain accurate and thick description of participant experiences. Participants' rankings differed significantly from identified areas in the literature and alleged violations brought in due process hearings and complaint investigations. Participants ranked least restrictive environment and evaluation concerns highest while the literature and reviewed litigation identified the individualized education program as most problematic. Differences existed among participants based on district size and their disciplines. No differences were found based on experience. A thorough review of policy and funding are indicated. Implications for practice include increased focus on the emphasis of training programs and technical support. Increasing placement options, consistency of information, streamlining of the individualized education program, and assistance in the evaluation and eligibility process are also needed. Because the study included participants from Oregon, generalizability is limited to the state. / Graduation date: 2003