Online ISSN: 2325-7466
2006
Triannual
National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET)
United States

Articles

Due Process: A Primer for Special Education Teachers

DOI
https://doi.org/10.64546/jaasep.71
Abstract
The threat of special education due process has set the tone for the way IEP meetings are conducted and IEP decisions are made. This threat has eroded relationships and trust between families and district personnel. This article reviews the background, history and current status of special education due process and offers suggestions to teachers about how their work can help restore the much needed trust that is the bedrock for all the primary relationships assisting students in need of special services.
Keywords
Special Education Teachers, Special Education, Court Litigation, Individualized Education Programs, Civil Rights
References

Blau, M. (2003, June 9). Learning curve. New York Magazine. 31-35&79.

Getty, L.A. & Summy, S.E. (2004). The course of due process. Teaching Exceptional Children. 36(3). 40-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990403600305

Goldberg,S.S. (1986). Reimbursing parents for unilateral placements in private Special education schools. Exceptional Children. 52, 390-394. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298605200412

Groeschel, R.L. (2002, March). Bulletproof your IEPs: How to overcome common roadblocks in the process. The Special Educator. 17, 8-9.

Keith, J.A. (2002). The attorney’s guide to due process: Preparation equals success. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.

Kelman, M. (2001). The moral foundation of special education law. In Finn,E.,Rotherham, A.J., & Hokanson, C.R. (Eds.) Rethinking special education for a new century. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute.

Lake, S.E. (2002). The top 10 IEP errors: How to avoid then, how to fix them. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.

Lanigan, K.J., Audette, R.M., Dreier, A.E., & Kobersy, M.R. (2001). Nasty, brutish…and often not very short: The attorney perspective on due process. In Finn,E.,Rotherham, A.J., & Hokanson, C.R. (Eds.) Rethinking special education for a new century. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute.

Martin, J.L. (2001). 10 effective stategies to resolve special education disputes without due process. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.

McGroarty, D. (2001). The little-known case of America’s largest school choice program. In Finn,E.,Rotherham, A.J., & Hokanson, C.R. (Eds.) Rethinking special education for a new century. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute.

Katsiyannis, A. & Herbst, M. (2003).Legal and policy trends in special education. National Association of Secondary School Principals, A Legal Memorandum.

Richards, D.M. (2002), Settlement agreements and special education: The essentials for successful dispute resolution. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications. Rotter. K. (2001, Nov.). Coordinate staff communication with parents during due process cases. The Special Educator. 17, 8. Weatherly, J.L. (2003, July). Eight promising practices to keep schools out of “Deep Due” process. In CASE. 6-7.

Weintraub, F. (2005, February). IDEA amended. In CASE, p. 1-2.

Zurko, L.G. (2002). Preparing your staff for due process: An administrator’s guide. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications

There are 14 references in total.
How to Cite
Wiener, R. (2009). Due Process: A Primer for Special Education Teachers. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 4(1), 106-109. https://doi.org/10.64546/jaasep.71

Winter 2009

Article Information

  • Article Type Articles
  • Submitted January 14, 2009
  • Published February 15, 2009
  • Issue Winter 2009
  • Section Articles
  • File Downloads 0
  • Abstract Views 0
  • Altmetrics
  • Share
Download data is not yet available.