power imbalances in the special education ... - tamara...

Running head: POWER IMBALANCES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION DISPUTE 1

Power Imbalances in the Special Education Dispute Resolution Processes

Tami Handy

University of Kansas

Draft

POWER IMBALANCES IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION 2

Abstract

Current dispute resolution processes (DRPs) in special education include mediation, state

complaints, resolution session, and due process hearings. Extant research points out that these

processes minoritize parents of children with disabilities. This article argues that these

disadvantages are due to power imbalances that are inherent and induced by these processes. The

purpose of this paper is to examine and explain the multiple ways, power impacts relationships

between parents and school districts during dispute resolution processes.

Key words: dispute resolution, power imbalances, special education


Power Imbalances in the Special Education Dispute Resolution Processes

Special education dispute resolution processes (DRPs) are an integral part of special

education policy and practice. These dispute resolution processes rest on the shoulders of the 5th

and 14th amendments, which constitute the right to the due process of law for all citizens. The

specific procedures governing this right for children with disabilities and their parents was

solidified through the Civil Rights Act (1964), Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), and the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004). This is a pivotal juncture in

special education, with the impending reauthorization of the IDEIA. Thus, creating an opportune

time to address existing concerns with regards to DRPs.

Extant research suggests that disputes often begin at IEP meetings. Overall, parent’s

views on IEP meetings are negative, where parents describe their experiences as being treated

disrespectfully and filled with feelings of helplessness ((Hess, Molina, & Kozleski, 2006;

Kozleski et al., 2008; Reiman, Beck, Coppola, & Engiles, 2010; Turnbull, Turnbull, Erwin, &

Soodak, 2006). It could be argued that if IEP meetings that are meant to be collaborative have

such a poor reputation, these negative experiences only increase when disputes arise. Typically,

disputes occur due to disagreements between schools and families on what services are to be

provided, and how they are to be provided to children. Parents find that schools fail to implement

the IEP, and or place their children in inappropriate settings (Edwards, 2005; Fish, 2006). In

order to address these conflicts parents are offered procedural safeguards, a key principal of the

IDEIA, which includes parent’s right to make complaints about the LEA (Wakelin, 2008).

Through multiple reauthorizations of the IDEIA over time, it is evident that Congress

increasingly recognized the struggles parents face when dealing with school districts (Hess,

Molina, & Kozleski, 2006; Turnbull, Turnbull, Stowe, & Huerta, 2000). Not only was Congress

Kozleski, Elizabeth B� 11/12/2014 7:17 AMComment [1]: See Hess, R., Molina, A., & Kozleski, E. B. (2006). Until somebody hears me: Parental voice and advocacy in special education decision-making. British Journal of Special Education, 33, 3, 148-157. Kozleski, E. B., Engelbrecht, P., Hess, R., Swart, E., Eloff, I., Oswald, M., Molina, A., & Jain, S. (2008). Where differences matter: A cross-cultural analysis of family voice in special education. Journal of Special Education, 42, 1, 26-35.

Grace Handy� 11/21/2014 8:58 AMComment [2]: Kozleski, Elizabeth B� 11/12/2014 7:25 AMComment [3]: These opening sentences don’t coincide with the title of this section. Kozleski, Elizabeth B� 11/12/2014 7:16 AMComment [4]: Capitalize throughout Kozleski, Elizabeth B� 11/12/2014 7:16 AMComment [5]: No initial here


cognizant of these difficulties, but increasingly understood the power imbalances that negatively

impacted parents. Therefore, these reauthorizations have attempted to strengthen the role of

parents (Mueller, Singer, & Draper, 2008; Nowell & Salem, 2007). For example, the IDEIA was

reauthorized four times (1986, 1990, 1997 and 2004), and each time introduced tenets in order to

increase parent participation. These measures have included increased participation in IEP

meetings, continuous enforcement of procedural safe guards, and increased parental decision

making (IDEIA 34 C.F.R. 300.345 (a)-(f); IDEIA 20 U.S.C § 1415). Specifically, these measures

included parent participation in the evaluation process, IEP meetings, access to records, private

school options, resolution of disputes, and due process (Turnbull et al., 2000). In terms of dispute

resolution, IDEIA promoted participation, discussion, compromise and agreement by adding to

its repertoire new and refined processes as alternatives to due process hearings (Blau, 2007;

Rosenfeld, 2013). Currently parents and schools have four dispute resolution processes made

available to them through the IDEIA (2004): voluntary mediation, state complaint procedures,

mandatory resolution session and due process hearings (IDEIA C. F. R § 300. 306-511). Despite

having these procedures in place, research on DRPs indicate significant difficulties faced by both

parents and school districts in resolving disputes. Current research is clear that though the

intention of Congress was to strengthen parent relationships, these intentions have been poorly

actualized (Blau, 2007;Mueller, 2014; Zirkel & Scala, 2010). Regretfully, the overall consensus

is that these process are adversarial, emotionally overwhelming, expensive and time consuming

(Kozleski et al., 2008; Mueller et al., 2008; Turnbull et al., 2006; Zirkel & Scala, 2010).

DRPs show interesting trends. First, the number of disputes varies widely by state. Zirkel

and Scala (2010) found that between the years 2008 and 2009, 91% of hearings took place in ten

regions: The District of Columbia, New York, California, New Jersey; Pennsylvania, Maryland,


Hawaii, Texas, Massachusetts, and Illinois. Explanations given in this regard suggest, a culture

of increased propensity for litigation, access to pre procedural due process hearings, efficiency of

hearing officers, the availability of non-attorney parent advocates, or the availability of

alternative dispute resolution processes. It is indeed interesting that the availability of dispute

resolution processes are suggested as an explanation for the variability between states.

Second, and perhaps most importantly is that despite parents initiating dispute related hearings

85% of the time, approximately 80% of the time decisions are made in favor of school districts

(Mueller & Carranza, 2011; Zirkel & Gischlar, 2008). This trend will be discussed later in this

paper. Third, the issue of dispute resolution attracts nationwide attention especially due to the

magnitude of finances involved. For example, it is estimated that in the year 2000 alone school

districts spent approximately one hundred and forty six million dollars in dispute resolution

(Mueller et al., 2008). This is seen as a great waste of tax money as these resources can be used

instead for educating children (Blau, 2007;Edwards, 2005). The average legal fees for a district

involved in a due process hearing was approximately $10,512.50 and districts that chose to settle

with a parent prior to the adjudication of the due process hearing, the settlement costs averaged

$23,827.34 (Pudleski, 2013, p. 3).Costs are not only related to finances, but also human capital.

For instance, research reports high levels of teacher stress, extensive time spent on paper work

related to dispute resolution (Pudelski, 2013).

Existing literature points out multiple difficulties faced by schools and parents in DPRs.

Specifically, they point out that power imbalances exist at all levels DPRs made available by the

IDEIA (Edwards, 2005; Massey & Rosenbaum, 2004; Mueller, 2014; Mueller & Carranza, 2011;

Mueller et al., 2008). Power imbalances between conflicting groups are an obstacle in achieving

fair outcomes. This imbalance of powers typically favor the party with the most power, by way Kozleski, Elizabeth B� 11/12/2014 7:22 AMComment [6]: Here’s a good place to unpack the concept of power imbalance – define it and explain why it matters…


of rewarding them with the outcome they desire (Molm, 1990). Here the outcomes are not based

on what is right or what is fair. Rather, it is based on the extent of power one holds, thus, being

inherently inequitable to the party with relatively lower power. Issues concerning power

imbalance must be discussed candidly, in terms of how it impacts families, especially since

DRPs aspire to resolve conflicts by making fair decisions. Turnbull et al., (2000), noted that, “it

is an axiom of law that fair procedures tend to produce acceptable, correct and fair results. And

fairness is one of the social goals that the law pursues” (p. 251). This axiom is problematized,

with regards to the inherent power imbalances seen in DRPs. By relying on the assumption that

following fair processes bring fair outcomes, current dispute resolution mechanisms fail to

consider the influence of power, which make these processes unfair. Therefore, there is an urgent

need to reevaluate this assumption in terms of recognizing the influence of iniquitous power

imbalances embedded in these processes. Power imbalances vary in nature and intensity within

the four current practices. Nonetheless, none of them are devoid of power imbalances.

Importantly, this lack of parity in power subjugates and minoritizes parents.

Currently there is little analysis by way of understanding the nature of these power

imbalances and how they create inequities in DRPs. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to two

fold. First it seeks to examine the types of power that are at play in parent school relationships.

Then it seeks to explain how these various types of power impact existing DPRs. This paper

stresses that these power imbalances have to be addressed directly in order to create an equitable

DRP. In this light, this article argues that power imbalances within the existing DPRs are

inequitable to families of children with disabilities and as a consequence minoritize them.

This paper draws upon the theoretical framework of power, proposed by French and

Raven (1959). This theory of bases of power, identifies the different types of power that is


situated within relationships in systems. For the purpose of this study, this theory not only

highlights the different types of power seen in DPRs, but also helps explicate their

disempowering nature. This theory is has its limitations, nonetheless is useful in understanding

the power relations addressed in this paper. Based on this theory, this paper provides a brief

description of the current processes and suggested processes and highlight the sources of power

and their role in creating inequity.

In advancing the argument made in this paper, I introduce the concept of minoritization

as conceptualized in this paper. Minoritization holds that in situations where there is an

imbalance of power, there is always party that is minoritized. The term minoritization is used in

many different social contexts by researchers to explain the disadvantages some groups face in

varied social settings (De Finney, Dean, Loiselle, & Saraceno, 2011). By using the term

minoritization, this paper recognizes that parents are marginalized in this specific context of

dispute resolution. Here the accumulation of power benefits the dominant group (the school

districts) that wields higher power. The process of minoritization worsens when parents are

perceived as lacking knowledge or skills, belong to minoritized races, and are from low socio-

economic backgrounds (Artiles, 2014; Harley, Jolivette, McCormick, & Tice, 2002; Harper,

2012). In the first section of this article, I describe the sources of power and how they relate to

parent, school district relationships. Then, I discusses how power impacts current DRPs. Next, I

highlight the alternatives that are suggested by researchers in response to the limitations of the

DRPs. In this section I argue that these alternatives are limited, in that they do not explicitly

address the issue of power. I conclude by offering some thoughts on why power imbalances

continue to exist and how we might seek to address these issues in future.


Method

For the purpose of this paper a systematic search of the literature was conducted. The

inclusive criteria for this study were (a) articles published after the year 2004 (b) addressed one

or dispute resolution processes and (c) were from peer reviewed journals. The year 2004 was

chosen as it was the most recent reauthorization of the IDEIA, thus fully appreciating the

provisions made by this reauthorization in terms of dispute resolution. The search engines used

were EBSCO, ERIC, GoogleScholar, HeinOnline and Sage. Key terms included special

education, conflict resolution, disputes, mediation, and due process. The search produced articles

from key journals such as the Journal of disability policy studies, Remedial and special

education, Journal of special education leadership and the Journal of national association of

administrative law judiciary. This paper did not consider specific state policy documents. This

was due to the high variability seen in policy and reporting criteria of different states. Since the

purpose of the study was to understand overall dispute resolution processes, the evidence

provided by peer reviewed journal articles were deemed sufficient.

The Pesky and Under-Acknowledged Role of Power in Current Dispute Resolution

Faulty assumptions undergirds all dispute resolution mechanisms. Of them, the most

pernicious, is that parents and school districts have equivalent knowledge about special

education processes and special education law (Massey & Rosenbaum, 2004). This assumption,

fails to recognize the power differentials that exist between families, and public education

entities. Therefore, in order to understand the power dynamic between families and the public

education system, I draw from French and Ravens power typology (1959). They identify six

bases (sources) of power: (a) reward power: one party’s ability to provide the other with a


reward, (b) coercive power: one party’s ability to punish the other, (c) legitimate power: where

one party has the legitimate legal right to demand a certain type of behavior from the other, (d)

expert power: where one party possesses more specialized knowledge or expertise than the other,

(e) referent power: the extent to which one party sees the other as valuable and caring, (f) and

information power: where one party’s knowledge regarding the inner workings of an institution

in relation to the environment are superior to the other. It is assumed that by using these powers

exclusively or in combination one party can control or manipulate the actions of others. This

paper asserts that all the power bases are at play in current DRPs, thereby making them

inherently inequitable to parents, consequently memorizing them within the context of DRPs. Put

differently, when one or more power bases are concentrated with one party in a DRP, it greatly

disadvantages the party with less power. This analysis is cognizant that these powers are

dynamic, and that they interact and impact relationships in varying degrees. However, for the

purpose of this paper, they are analyzed separately to provide a better understanding of the

sources of power, and how they impact dispute resolution processes.

Expert Power

A study conducted by Hess, Molina and Kozleski (2006), found that education

professionals had immense power over educational planning and placement of children.

Educational personnel exercise their power by making educational decisions on behalf of their

students, and these decisions are typically based on the provision of FAPE and LRE (Blau,

2007). Education personnel, use their expertise in making these decisions. Expertise is often

gained by professional, academic qualifications and or experience. Clearly, school personnel

possess this expertise based on their qualification and experiences, whereas parents possess

expertise about their children based on their experiences. Unfortunately, the latter expertise is not

Kozleski, Elizabeth B� 11/12/2014 8:03 AMComment [7]: fix the rest of this

Kozleski, Elizabeth B� 11/12/2014 8:03 AMComment [8]: In the next sections I examine the mediation process through these lenses. You need some more commentary here about power – are you taking the position that power differentials can be eliminated or, in examining how they operate in any given situation, the impact of power differentials can be attenuated through appropriate attention to process? Or some other explanation – you haven’t an argument about power.


given the same value as the former. Nonetheless, as McCall & Skrtic (2009) explain, parents are

supposed to advocate for their children by engaging in what they called expert discourses, which

require profession based expertise. This expertise is considered a strong power base, which

systematically disempowers the group that possess little of it (French & Raven, 1959). Of further

concern is that the knowledge and skills experts hold are considered superior to the expertise

parents possess about their children. Thus, parents are not considered equal contributors to

decision making, rather they are considered consumers of the superior expertise of the

professionals (Harry & Klingner, 2014; Kalyanpur & Harry, 2004). It could be argued that in

dispute resolution, the ability for parents to assert themselves is further diminished due to this

lack of power. This perceived superiority of expertise is further exacerbated with current

education reforms calling for “highly qualified teachers” of the No Child Left Behind Act of

2001 ( P.L 107-110, section 1119 (a)(1-2)). This carries an implicit notion that decisions made

by school personnel are based on their high qualifications causing further elevation of the value

of their expertise over parents.

It can be assumed that expert power is especially at play when disputes arise between

parents and education personnel. Parents describe this situation as being othered; an

uncomfortable position parents face when education personnel make decisions on behalf of their

children to which they disagree, hence are viewed as adversaries (Johnson & Duffett, 2002).

When disputes arise, the need to engage in expert discourses may become more pronounced.

Whereas, School personnel are well versed in the IDEIA, and are at an advantage in terms of

expertise that is needed to engage in expert discourses. As a result, parents are compelled to

acquire expertise from outside sources. Unfortunately, these “experts” are an expensive

commodity (Waklin, 2008). This advantages the school such that, not only does the school


districts possess experts within their professional staff, they also have the finances to obtain these

resources from outside if necessary. Turnbull et al., (2000), explained expert power as the

“home-court” advantage as they have the “larger talent bank” (experts) than parents, and “deeper

pockets” that can afford them (p. 287).

This necessity to obtain experts is worsened by a phenomenon Zikel, Karanxha and

D’Angelo (2007) explain as creeping judicialization. A condition where the processes of

resolving conflicts made available to parents are becoming increasingly court like (over

legalization) requiring more and more technical legal skills. Therefore, even though parents are

allowed to represent themselves, it usually works to their detriment (Wakelin, 2008).Thus

families seek the expertise of lawyers, witnesses, and professionals who can give expert

testimony (Mueller & Buckley, 2014). Moreover, Ong-Dean (2009) argued that the special

education system favored privileged parents. This is evident in dispute resolution processes as

well. These experts come with heavy price tags. This is evident in that the major complaint

parents have about current DRPs is their inability to afford them (Mueller, 2014; Nowell &

Salem, 2007; Rawe, 2006; Zirkel & Scala, 2010). As such, expert power is closely linked to

financial resources. Even parents who may be able to handle the dispute at initial stages, may be

unable to do so as the process becomes increasingly technical. Even of parents who were

considered “well-grounded” and “reasonably sophisticated” to navigate the system in terms of

skills and knowledge, only 1% could afford due process (Edwards, 2005). As finances are an

important means of obtaining expert power, the lack of finances means the lack of expert power.

For example, a study conducted by SEEP in 2003 found that, 52% of due process hearings were

filed by high income families, with a statistical difference between all dispute resolution

practices between high, middle and low income districts as high as a 70% variance from high


income districts (Edwards, 2005). Therefore families from low income groups are further

minoritized in this respect.

Expert power, that requires a certain superior “know-how” of the system further

disadvantages ethnically and linguistically diverse populations. Context and culture of parents

inform how they understand and interact with special education systems in their child’s school

(Kozleski et al., 2008). Therefore, within the aforementioned parent groups there are some that

face even greater challenges due to race, socio economic status and gender disparities

( Kalyanpur, Harry & Skrtic, 2000; Harry, Klinger & Hart, 2005; McCall & Skrtic, 2009;Ong-

Dean, 2009;Skiba et al., 2008;Wakelin, 2008). Parent participation is challenging for these

parents even during annual IEP meetings due to poor translation, time constraints, inflexible

scheduling and use of jargon (Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Fish, 2006; Hess et al., 2006; Lo, 2008;

Mueller & Carranza, 2011). Therefore, there is no doubt that they are challenged further when

disputes need to be resolved.

Considering the general trend in special education where a large percentage of children

are from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are over represented (Harry, 2007; Lo,

2008;Skiba et al., 2008), it is disheartening to know that though these parents represent the

significant majority, they are possibly the most minoritised in gaining access to resources that

protect their rights (Hess et al., 2006; Massey & Rosenbaum, 2004;Turnbull et al., 2006). Even

though there are advocacy groups that support parents, they are unable to meet the demands of

all parents from disadvantaged groups who require assistance. For instance, advocacy groups

such as Protection and Advocacy Inc., Community Alliance for Special Education all admit that

they struggle to meet these demands due to limited staff and limited funding (Massey &

Rosenbaum, 2004).Finally, expert power disempowers parents, even at court proceedings. Courts


often defer their judgments based on professional opinion (Turnbull et al., 2000). As such the

courts rely on experts and their expertise to make decisions. These experts may be part of school

districts or may be closely connected to them. Clearly, this is a double whammy situation for

parents, who essentially go to courts against the very experts courts rely on to make decisions.

Beyond doubt, the imbalances in expert power disempower parents creating and inequitable

system for resolving conflict.

Reward and Coercive Power

In a comprehensive analysis of the problems in current DRPs James Rosenfeld (2013)

pointed out, that these processes do not satisfy the parties involved, especially parents. This

could be attributed to the strong pattern seen in who is favored in DRP decisions. A study done

in Iowa in the years 2004-2005 showed, that of the total hearings conducted in that period, only

32% of the parents prevailed (out of whom 82% had attorneys) while 60% of the time school

districts prevailed (out of which 90% had attorneys)(Zirkel, Karanxha, & D'Angelo, 2007). This

signals a power imbalance that goes beyond expert power, as seen in this example. Here, despite

both parties having similar expert input, school districts won at higher rates. I argue that this may

be due to reward and coercive power, where parents may be punished in numerous ways.

First, the above statistic suggests that parents lose most cases. Consequently, parents may

be punished emotionally, whereas schools are rewarded in terms of being allowed to continue

practices as before (Nowell & Salem, 2007). Second, parents are punished with insurmountable

legal fees both theirs and, potentially, the prevailing party’s as well. There are instances where

the lawyers representing parents may be assessed legal fees as well. This s fee-shifting

mechanism, deters lawyers from taking on such cases (Wakelin, 2008). Interestingly, even if

parents prevail, they may or may not be able to recover legal fees from the school district. For


instance, many restrictions are placed on parents with regards to the right to recover fees. They

include dubious criterion such parents making frivolous and unreasonable claims. On the other

hand, if the district prevails (as they often do) parents may be liable to pay the districts attorney’s

fees if the parents are found to have harassed the school district (Massey & Rosenbaum, 2004; H.

Turnbull et al., 2000; Wakelin, 2008). Incidentally, these criteria are not defined by the IDEIA,

thus only serve as another avenue for penalizing parents. These regulations are often justified by

citing the need to deter costly litigation. Yet they fail to consider the disproportionality of the

punishments parents incur as opposed to school districts (Edward, 2005). Thus, this

disproportionality could be viewed as a form of coercive power, which is used to deter parents

from approaching due process, through the threat of insurmountable sanctions. Although, there is

significant loss of resources to both parties, it seems that parents are far worse off than the school

districts. As Turnbull et al. (2000), noted, school districts have public funds and insurance

policies (p. 287) that acts as a safety net regardless of winning or losing cases. Finally, reward

and coercive power can be attributed to another dimension as well. Parents are reluctant to take

on a school head on, fearful that their children will be mistreated or penalized. Particularly

because the stay put rule asserts that the child must be educated in the same place by the same

professionals until the dispute is resolved. This fear may add to a parent’s sense of powerlessness

as well (Blau, 2007; Massey & Rosenbaum, 2004; Wakelin, 2008).

Information Power

Although the IDEIA (2004) and FERPA provide parents unlimited access to their child’s

education records parents are unable to utilize this information fully. This is partly due to the

lack of overall information available within schools, as a result of advocating for less paper

work. However, access to information is made even more complex as parents are unable to


decipher what is relevant within information provided (Pudelski, 2013; Wakelin, 2008). For

example, information in school records maybe complicated due to the use of jargon and low

readability. Research suggests that of parents from low income families who have children with

disabilities, one third of mothers did not complete high school (Massey & Rosenbaum, 2004;

Mueller, 2014;Wakelin, 2008). Nonetheless, evidence suggests that average reading grade level

of the documents such as procedural safeguards, ranged from high school to graduate range.

Specifically, studies found that approximately 16 % of the material were at the high school

range, 55% at the college range, and 39% in the graduate or professional range (Fitzgerald &

Watkins, 2006; Mandic, Rudd, Hehir, & Acevedo-Garcia, 2012).Even when parents were able to

access information, most parents that work and had no time to navigate through the copious

amount of information needed to successfully participate in DRPs (Mueller et al., 2008).

The situation is made even more unequal to parents, as they bear the burden of proof in

these hearings (Schaffer v.Weast, 2005). Not only are they required to use the complex

information provided by schools, they are also required to use them to build their cases. Building

strong cases require parents to differentiate and use technical legal jargon, and present them

adequately within a rigid legal protocol (Wakelin, 2008). The current system further complicates

this by increasing technical requirements. Consequently, parents cannot bring a complaint

against a school for procedural violations but could do so for substantiative violations (no harm-

no foul). Little or no support is provided by way of explaining to parents what these mean. Of

further concern, parents are required to prove that the school district did not provide FAPE in the

LRE and report on : (a) how the school was non-compliant, (b) prove the child’s lack of progress

was due to non- compliance, (c) and challenge the schools position that they did provide “some”

educational benefit (Massey & Rosenbaum, 2004). Finally, most official records that could be


used in a court of law are maintained by the school district. Parents are required to use this

information with no assurance that schools did not tamper with or withhold important

information (Fish, 2008). The lack of information and the difficulties parents face in using this

information is a clear imbalance of informational power between families and schools. Therefore

it is evident that information is a key area where parents are disempowered and in turn are

treated inequitably within the system.

Referent Power

Parent’s sense of powerlessness is also attributed to the people who attended these

dispute resolution proceedings. Often parents complain that school officials they do not know or

recognize attend these meetings. Thus, they lose sympathetic school officials who know and care

for children and their families. (Nowell & Salem, 2007). This is a good example of referent

power, which depends on the empathy of those present at the meetings. Empathy fosters

collaboration and trust. Referent power enables parties to utilize their relational networks in

gaining favorable outcomes. In the case of DRPs, regulations require that a person with authority

and decision making power from the school districts must attend the meeting (Fritz, 2008).

Therefore, teachers and other personnel who work closely with the child and parents may not be

able attend these meetings. Furthermore, parents are deprived of their own networked

relationships at meetings, typically where it is only the parents who attend. This arrangement

gives an upper hand to the school districts, as the professionals present at these meetings possess

referent power, where most people who represent the school are colleagues. They usually

support the schools point of view and each other’s views showing strength in numbers. Often this

phenomenon is described by parents as professionals “ganging up” against them (Fish, 2006;


Nowell & Salem, 2007; Reiman et al., 2010). This limitation with regards to referent power

minortizes families.

Legitimate Power

The IDEIA gives legitimate power to the SEA and LEA’s to provide FAPE for children

with disabilities. This power is often seen in forms of job responsibilities school representatives

have, that allow them to act under the direction of the law or the color of law (Winter, 1992).

This power is vested in institutions and its personnel, with few mechanisms in place to monitor

compliance. Consequently the IDEIA places the burden of enforcing the law entirely on parents,

by placing the duty of ensuring compliance. This is required despite the fact that parents do not

have any legitimate authority within a school district to enforce compliance of the law (Massey

& Rosenbaum, 2004; Wakelin, 2008).

Although it is important for federal agencies to allow the autonomy of decisions to the

States in order to meet specific needs of their population (Wakelin, 2008) the downside of this is

that it allows significant latitude for SEA’s to exercise their powers. For example, agencies have

full control over the budgets, writing and implementing regulations and designing protocols for

implementation. The potential for the abuse of such power is heightened as the penalty for non-

compliance go without significant penalty. The National Council for Disability found that all

states are noncompliant to varying degrees. Yet, only one district has been penalized since the

inception of the law in 1975 (Wakelin, 2008). Further, the Federal governments rely of SEA’s to

monitor compliance, and SEA’s rely on self-monitoring reports of the school districts to evaluate

implementation (Wakelin, 2008). Due to the lack effective monitoring, parents are left with no

choice but to use whatever limited enforcement practices provided by the IDEIA and other

similar laws to ensure that the law is implemented.


This potentially gives LEA’s significant leeway to (mis)use their legitimate power. With

no strong powers awarded to parents by the federal government to enforce compliance, parents

are disadvantaged in terms of legitimate power. At most, all that the IDEIA awards are rights.

However, these rights without the power to legitimate implementation is futile. Put differently,

rights alone are limited. Skirtc (2012) argued that rights are not fully enforceable in public

education, due to the institutional context of special education, which is essentially bureaucratic.

Others stated that these rights don’t come with powers, such as the ability to veto decisions made

by schools, thus are inherently limited (Blau ,2007) Unfortunately, since none of the Acts

provide sufficient legitimate powers to parents, parents are disadvantaged. Conversely, current

special education polices award most legitimate powers to one party (schools), thereby

increasing their power platform, leaving parents with only dispute resolution as a means of

pursuing rights.

Power Related Limitations in Current Dispute Resolution Processes

The provisions made by the IDEIA in its most recent reauthorization in 2004 includes

four dispute resolution processes: mediation, state complaints, resolution session and due process

hearing. In trying to fulfill Congresses intent to improve parent participation in special

education, the reauthorization introduced additional mechanisms such as a detailed notice of

pleading and mandatory resolution session (Zirkel et al., 2007). Nonetheless, current literature

finds that these policies have done little in terms of fulfilling Congresses intent for better

relationships between schools and parents (Blau, 2007; Mueller, 2009; Nowell & Salem, 2007;

Zirkel et al., 2007). In line with the argument of this study, the reasons for these processes to fail

is due to the under acknowledgement of the impact of power imbalances. Therefore it is


necessary to explore the provisions of the IDEIA dispute resolution mechanisms, and the role of

power in order to fully understand its negative impact on parents.

Mediation

Congresses strong intent was that mediation becomes the norm, as it was shown to be a

better mechanism for strengthening parent school relationships. (Edwards, 2005; Fritz, 2008;

Mueller & Carranza, 2011; Nowell & Salem, 2007). Nonetheless, this intention is poorly

materialized. First, the role of the mediator is ambiguous, especially in terms of equalizing

power. While some suggest that mediators could intersect and equalize discussions in case of an

imbalance of power between the parties (Edwards, 2005), others believe that their role is to

facilitate meetings and remain neutral (Nowell & Salem, 2007). In this sense, the power

imbalances between parents and schools may remain the same despite the presence of a

mediator. Further complicating the presumption of neutrality, critics point out that in some states

that these mediators are hired by the state (Fritz, 2008). This raises a potent question of the

impartiality of their decisions. Again power imbalances may ensue pertaining to reward and

coercive power of the school districts who can use this power to sway the mediator’s decision.

Pu differently, who pays the mediator might significantly impact the mediators decisions.

Furthermore, the process of mediation is geared toward compromise between the two

parties (Mueller et al., 2008). Edwards (2005), pointed out that this approach is troublesome,

since parents were most likely to compromise. This is expected as parents are have less power in

terms of expertise and legitimate power to assert demands. Expert power is further diminished

when parents are unable to afford services. Rosenfeld (2013) pointed out the way mediation is

conducted is often seen as a poor man’s alternative to due process, with little consideration for

the desired outcomes. Furthermore, parents lack referent power as people who are sympathetic


toward their goals most often do not attend these meetings. Blau (2007), while insisting that

there is potential for mediation to meet its desired goals, pointed out that mediation as it is

practiced currently does little to transform power inequalities between parents and schools. I

extend this argument further by pointing out that it is not only the practice that creates power

imbalances. Rather it is that mediation processes were never intended to equalize power, but to

come to consensus through compromise, thus leaves power imbalances intact.

State and OCR Complaints

Wakelin, (2008) pointed out that making a complaint to the SEA requires parents to have

thorough knowledge of procedural safeguards, and the IDEIA. Further, they needed to possess

strong advocacy skills and technical skills, such as to identify what a procedural violation from

one that is not. She suggested that these requirements seem to deter them from using the SEA

complaint provision. The same analysis could be applied to the OCR complaint process as well.

For instance, parents are required to make their complaints based on technical accuracies, such as

knowing what a substantiative violation is. Making such a claim would require the assistance of

an expert such as an attorney that leaves parents limited in expert power. In addition. The SEA’s

do not hire a neutral outside party to investigate the matter. This creates the risk of a referent

power imbalances. The LEA can be considered the employer of the SEA, a part of the same

professional network. As such, the SEA maybe biased toward the LEA. This may leave parents

at a power disadvantage, as the SEA will weigh parent’s allegation against the defenses made by

their own employee (the LEA). This may put the SEA under obligation to lean towards or defend

the position of the LEA, against the parent’s position.


Resolution Session

The 2004 reauthorization of the IDEIA mandated that a compulsory resolution session

must be conducted by the LEA within fifteen days of receiving a parent complaint. The purpose

of the resolution session was not only to give parents and schools a final opportunity to discuss,

clarify, and settle disputes, but also to give the school district an opportunity to resolve the

complaint (within thirty days) before proceeding to due process. Although, the resolution session

is considered the last stop before due process, most parents view this as yet another burden; a

delay and pressure tactic schools use to force parents into a settlement (Edwards, 2005; Nowell

& Salem, 2007). Similar to the processes discussed above, this option does not address power

imbalances. In this process too, parents are at a disadvantage in terms of expert power, as it is the

same legal and school staff that attend this as well. However, it seems that coercive power is at

play as parents feel this was yet another pressure tactic, coercing them to give up (Nowell &

Salem, 2007). This process does not give parents any legitimate power. For instance, if this

option gave parents the authority to overturn a decision made by the school, the resolution

session might hold some promise. Finally, this process ignores that fact that parents and school

districts have met many times before to resolve conflicts and due process was the last resort

(Edwards, 2005; Mueller, 2014). Therefore, adding more opportunities to meet may not result in

resolved conflicts. In this regard, there is no noticeable advantage with regards to referent power.

Due Process Hearings

Historically, keeping in line with Congresses democratic intentions, due process was

intended to be a hearing that was open to the public, with nonprofit organizations representing

collective interests of children with disabilities and their families (Kirp, Buss, Kuriloff, 1974).


Further, the purpose of due process was not limited to resolving individual conflicts but were

aimed and resolving collective conflicts in ways that could improve the overall special education

system (Skrtic, 2012). The current system is far removed from this IDEIAl. Today, due process

hearings are quasi-judicial forums designed to resolve conflicts between individual families and

school districts (Edwards, 2005; Mueller & Carranza, 2011; Zirkel et al., 2007).

Current research on due process hearings find due process hearings inequitable to parents

(Fletcher, 2006; Fritz, 2008; Mueller & Buckley, 2014; Nowell & Salem, 2007) For example,

findings suggest that hearing officers and the decisions made are partial to schools (Blau, 2007;

Mueller, 2014). Some studies estimated that 60 to 80% of the times school districts prevailed

(Mueller & Carranza, 2011) . Parents often are described their experiences as “nasty” and

“brutish”. Their relationship with school districts described are as “David and Goliath” often

echoing a sense of powerlessness, judgment, fear, anxiety and inadequacy (Nowell & Salem,

2007; Rosenfeld, 2013; Wakelin, 2008). Due to these experiences it was not uncommon that

parents were pressured and manipulated to settle for verdicts that are disadvantageous to their

children (Rosenfeld, 2013). This is unsurprising as the argument asserts, no dispute resolution

mechanism could be successful if power imbalances are not addressed.

Limitations of Suggested Alternatives

Considering the limitations of the current dispute resolution mechanisms, many have

suggested alternatives (Wakelin, 2008). Some have suggested preventative measures such as,

collaboratively well written IEP’s, informal discussions and IEP negotiations (Blau, 2007).

Others have argued for alternatives to be used during ongoing disputes, such as arbitration

(Rosenfeld, 2013) Although these suggestions try to mitigate problems found in the current


processes, I contend that they have two significant approach based and process based limitations

that disregard power. Thus, will be as equally ineffective as the prevailing dispute resolution

processes.

Approach-Based Limitations

The discussion on limitations of alternative dispute resolution mechanism must address

the motives of such measures. Most alternative dispute resolution systems were sought, with the

motive of reducing due process hearings (Wakelin, 2008; Yell et al., 2011). Although this is

necessary when considering the potential waste of resources, it could be argued that the motive

instead should be geared toward creating an equitable system. A system where an equal platform

for parents and school districts to objectively resolve disputes are created. Arguably, in

approaching dispute resolution as a way to conserve resources, undermines it purpose of creating

a fair process. From its very inception alternatives seek to deter parties from due process instead

of focusing on providing and equitable system. Thus, these alternatives and the processes they

prescribe are mere deterring mechanisms with little focus on fair outcomes.

More importantly, the suggested approaches leaves untouched the topic of power. An

example of this can be seen clearly as all alternatives that were proposed and subsequently

became a part of the law (such as resolution session and mediation) became increasingly

legalized beyond the reach of parents lowering their power platform (Pudelski, 2013; Zirkel et

al., 2007). It is important to reassess these alternatives in terms of what due process intended to

do in the first place, which is provide fair outcomes and protect the rights of children. However,

by focusing on creating alternatives as deterrents to due process, which don’t address power

imbalances will continue to disadvantage parents.


Process-Based Limitations

Considering the significant difficulties experienced in the current dispute resolution

processes, many advocates, lawyers and researchers have suggested alternatives that could

mitigate existing problems (Mueller & Carranza, 2011; Zirkel & Scala, 2010). For example,

these include federally funded organizations such as CADRE (Center for appropriate dispute

resolution in special education) to provide resolution services, facilitated IEP’s, arbitration and

even insisting that an attorney be present at IEP meetings (Fletcher, 2006; Mueller & Carranza,

2011; Pudelski, 2013; Samuels, 2008; Wakelin, 2008). Although these suggestions attempt to

mitigate some problematic aspects of the existing procedures, they are limited in that they too do

little to address power imbalances

To illustrate, Rosenfeld (2013), suggested arbitration as a way of creating balanced

access to justice. Here unlike mediation both parties agree to adhere to the decision of the

arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. Advocates of arbitration suggest that the process is equitable as

it eliminates attorneys, the decision is made by consensus of unrelated third parties and require

implementation and monitoring guidelines (Zirkel et al., 2007). Here the arbitration panel is

comprised of a lawyer, an educator and a disability expert who unlike mediators are concerned

about doing what is right instead of focusing on settlement. Although arbitration seeks to

mitigate problems seen in mediation, it is not without significant problems. Edwards (2005),

pointed out that arbitrators are not obligated to act within the limits of existing laws, thus run the

risk of violating other laws. Further, the panel is comprised of experts, and as discussed, experts

induce power imbalances (expert power) as there is no parent representation in the panel. Even

though decisions are made by the panel voting, the fact that the panel has only professionals and

no parent representative puts parents at a disadvantage. As a final limitation, arbitration is to be


conducted by the SEA as IDEIA holds it responsible for providing FAPE, leaving the legitimate

power advantage safely in the hands of the LEA that works for the SEA (Rosenfeld, 2013).

Examples of preventative measures show similar shortcomings. One of the major

criticisms of present processes is that they do not on proactive measures (Nowell & Salem, 2007;

Turnbull et al., 2006). Therefore alternatives focus on parent to parent mentorship, facilitated

IEP meetings and conducting special education clinics (Blau, 2007; Massey & Rosenbaum

2005). To illustrate, Blau (2007) suggested a well written IEP that is based on principles of self-

determination and active collaboration. She argued that since the IEP is a legally binding

document, the technical accuracy of the document would reduce conflicts. Nonetheless, she fails

to account for the fact that the accuracy of a document does not ensure implementation, which

will bring parents back to due process to ensure implementation. Further, it is the very failure of

“active collaboration” that necessitated dispute resolution processes. Furthermore, active

collaboration requires sharing equal power in order to be successful. This failure to account for

the power imbalances consequently diminish its utility as a preventative alternative

Discussion

Discussions pertaining to the minoritization of parents of children with disabilities have

been discussed for over thirty years (Harry & Klingner, 2014; Kalyanpur & Harry, 2004). In

view of the power disparities in DRPs discussed above, it is prudent to examine what condition

inhibit equitable distribution of power. A possible reason maybe that LEA’s and SEA’S are

charged with the responsibility of educating all children, not just children with disabilities. Thus,

during disputes, schools may present a legitimate claim for higher authority and power in

ensuring services to all children. It was the intention of early advocates of the IDEIA to make


dispute resolution a part of a collective mechanism whereby parents disputed along problems

that pertained to all children with disabilities (Kirp, Buss & Kuriloff, 1974). However, the

prevailing systems forces parents to fight for the individual rights of their own children. This

creates an uncomfortable situation for parents who are forced to weigh their own child’s rights

against the greater good of all children in a school district. In addition, IDEIA has always been

underfunded, thus schools are forced to work within tight budgets. Special education services are

expensive (Shaw, 2006). Thus, Special education services may be seen as only serving a small

percentage of children at a high cost. This approach inadvertently legitimizes the higher powers

schools hold in order to ensure that their resources are used equitably for all students. These

arguments need to be evaluated in terms of understanding, that equal treatment is not always fair

treatment (Turnbull et al., 2000).

Schools are essentially bureaucratic in nature (Skrtic, 1991). This structure usually allows

for power to be concentrated in one part of the organization (usually at the top) which is required

to lead people at the lower levels of power. This leaves little room for shared power and decision

making. This structure is non-conducive to equalizing power. It can be argued that schools wield

this power due to the structure of education institutions, which expect decisions to be made by

people at the top. Furthermore, these institutions also create spaces for professional

bureaucracies (Skrtic, 1991) that follow the medical model of “doctor knows best” mechanisms

that disseminate information and decisions made about children as a show of expert power by

professionals. Therefore, in order to maintain control and legitimacy, schools may be reluctant to

share power with parents.

Finally, I find that current DRPs are essentially situated in within a legal framework. This

framework is typically based on traditional conflict management and conflict resolution models


(Lind, Erickson, Friedland & Dickenberger, 1978). Legal systems are designed to make

decisions based on facts, laws, regulations and other rigid protocols that do not take into

consideration other factors such as practicability, emotions and time (Rosenfeld, 2013).

Therefore, I contend that there are inherent limitations within the legal framework that is not

conducive to equalizing power.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

The purpose of this article was to examine closely the power disparities that minorities

families of children with disabilities in DRPs. This paper explored the complex ways in which

power disparities are instantiated within DRPs. This paper is limited in that, while it explored

power disparities, it did not seek to provide a viable alternatives. Therefore, research must

expand existing theoretical frameworks and tools that can address power issues. The theory used

in the conceptual framework of this paper is dated and limited. While it was useful in explaining

some of the nuances of power, it under-theorized the interactions between the sources of power.

Therefore, future research should consider newer theories that highlight the interactions between

these and other power typologies. Additionally, this article based its assertions on existing data,

and made its arguments at a conceptual level. Therefore, it is imperative that future research uses

these conceptualizations to gather empirical data that could advance the field.

Conclusion

Existing DRPs are rife with power imbalances that minoritize families of children with

disabilities. While it is widely accepted that power imbalances exist in DRPs, few studies

explored the source and nature of power. This paper sought to make explicit these sources of

power and how they impact DRPs. In doing so, this paper framed the sources of power using

French and Raven’s (1959) theory of the bases of power. It was evident that all these sources of


power impacted DRPs in multiple, complex ways. Furthermore, the power imbalances that were

identified were discussed in terms of the DRPs mandated by IDEIA (2004). This discussion was

extended to the alternatives suggested to current DRPs. It was argued that these alternatives were

limited as they did not address issues of power. The impending reauthorization of the IDEIA,

provides an excellent opportunity for power related issues revolving DPRs to be addressed.

Therefore, it is hoped that the concerns raised in this paper would be considered by fellow

researchers and policy makers.

References

Artiles, A. J. (2014). Beyond responsiveness to identity badges: future research on culture in disability

and implications for Response to Intervention. Educational Review, 67(1), 1-22.

Blau, A. F. (2007). Available Dispute Resolution Processes within the Reauthorization Individuals with

Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004: Where Do Mediation Principles Fit

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Journal, LJ, 7, 65.

Cho, S. J., & Gannotti, M. E. (2005). Korean-‐American Mothers’ Perception of Professional Support in

Early Intervention and Special Education Programs. Journal of Policy and Practice in

Intellectual Disabilities, 2(1), 1-9.

De Finney, S., Dean, M., Loiselle, E., & Saraceno, J. (2011). All children are equal, but some are more

equal than others: Minoritization, structural inequities, and social justice praxis in residential

care. Retrieved from http://dspace.library.uvic.ca/handle/1828/5391.

Edwards, D. (2005). New amendments to resolving special education disputes: Any good IDEIAs.

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Journal, LJ, 5, 137.


Fish, W. W. (2006). Perceptions of parents of students with autism towards the IEP meeting: A case

study of one family support group chapter. Education-Indianapolis then Chula Vista, 127(1), 56.

Retrieved from http://home.sandiego.edu/~joi.spencer/EDUC%20500%20SPR%202007

Fish, W. W. (2008). The IEP meeting: Perceptions of parents of students who receive special education

services. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53(1), 8-14.

Fitzgerald, J. L., & Watkins, M. W. (2006). Parents' rights in special education: The readability of

procedural safeguards. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 497-510.

Fletcher, F. (2006). Interview with the Assistant Policy Scientist with responsibility for special

education mediation. Conflict Resolution Program of the Institute for Public Administration,

University of Delaware, 30.

French Jr, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. University of Michigan, Institute for

Social Research.

Fritz, J. M. (2008). Improving special education mediation. International Review of Sociology, 18(3),

469-480. doi: 10.1080/03906700802376578

Harley, D. A., Jolivette, K., McCormick, K., & Tice, K. (2002). Race, class, and gender: A constellation

of positionalities with implications for counseling. Journal of multicultural Counseling and

Development, 30(4), 216-238.

Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist

institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 9-29.


Harry, B. (2007). The disproportionate placement of ethnic minorities in special education. In L. Florian

(Ed.), The SAGE handbook of special education. (pp. 68-86). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607989.n7

Harry, B., & Klingner, J. K. (2014). Why are so many minority students in special education?

Understanding race & disability in schools: NY: Teachers College Press.

Hess, R. S., Molina, A. M., & Kozleski, E. B. (2006). Until somebody hears me: Parent voice and

advocacy in special educational decision making. British Journal of Special Education, 33(3),

148-157.

Horowitz, D. L. (1977). The courts and social policy: Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press.

Johnson, J., & Duffett, A. (2002). When It's Your Own Child: A Report on Special Education from the

Families Who Use It. Public Agenda, 6 East 39th St., New York, NY 10016.

Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (2004). Impact of the Social Construction of LD on Culturally Diverse

Families A Response to Reid and Valle. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 530-533.

Kozleski, E. B., Engelbrecht, P., Hess, R., Swart, E., Eloff, I., Oswald, M.,Jain, S. (2008). Where

Differences Matter A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Family Voice in Special Education. The

Journal of Special Education, 42(1), 26-35.

McCall, Z., & Skrtic, T. M. (2009). Intersectional needs politics: A policy frame for the wicked problem

of disproportionality. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 11(2), 3-23.

Molm, L. D. (1990). Structure, action, and outcomes: The dynamics of power in social exchange.

American Sociological Review, 427-447.


Mueller, T. G. (2009). A New Agenda for Special Education Policy. Journal of Disability Policy

Studies, 20(1), 4-13. doi: 10.1177/1044207308315285

Mueller, T. G., & Carranza, F. (2011). An Examination of Special Education Due Process Hearings.

Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22(3), 131-139. doi: 10.1177/1044207311392762

Mueller, T. G., Singer, G. H., & Draper, L. M. (2008). Reducing parental dissatisfaction with special

education in two school districts: Implementing conflict prevention and alternative dispute

resolution. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 18(3), 191-233.

Nowell, B. L., & Salem, D. A. (2007). The Impact of Special Education Mediation on Parent—School

Relationships: Parents' Perspective. Remedial and Special Education, 28(5), 304-315. doi:

10.1177/07419325070280050501

Ong-Dean, C. (2009). Distinguishing disability: Parents, privilege, and special education:

London:University of Chicago Press.

Pudelski, S. (2013). Rethinking special education due process: AASA IDEIA Reauthorization proposals

Part 1: Alexandria, VA: American Association of School Administrators. Retrieved from:

http://www. aasa. org/uploadedFiles.

Rawe, J. (2006). Who pays for special ed? Parents want the best for their disabled kids, public schools

say they can’t handle the cost. Time Magazine, 62-63.

Reiman, J. W., Beck, L., Coppola, T., & Engiles, A. (2010). Parents' Experiences with the IEP Process:

Considerations for Improving Practice. Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special

Education (CADRE).


Rosenfeld, S. J. (2013). It's Time for an Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure. Journal of the

National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary,32(2), 4.

Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. K., Cuadrado, J., & Chung, C.-G.

(2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges.

Exceptional Children, 74(3), 264-288.

Skrtic, T. M. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard

educational review. 61(2), 148-206.

Skrtic, T. M. (2012). Strong Democratic Leadership for Undemocratic Times. Handbook of Leadership

and Administration for Special Education. New York, NY: Routeledge.

Turnbull, A., Turnbull, H., Erwin, E., & Soodak, L. (2006). Families, professionals and exceptionality.

Upper Saddle River,NJ : Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R. (2001). Families, professionals, and exceptionality: Collaborating for

empowerment (Vol. 4): Upper Saddle River. NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall,

Turnbull, H., Turnbull, A., Stowe, M., & Huerta, N. (2000). Free appropriate public education: The law

and students with disabilities: Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.

Turnbull, H. R., & Stowe, M. J. (2001). Five Models for Thinking About Disability Implications for

Policy Responses. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 12(3), 198-205.

Wakelin, M. M. (2008). Challenging Disparities in Special Education: Moving Parents from

Disempowered Team Members to Ardent Advocates. Northwestern Journal of Law and Social

Policy, 3(2), 263-288.

Winter, S. L. (1992). The Meaning of" Under Color of" Law. Michigan Law Review,91 (3), 323-418.


Yell, M. L., Thomas, S. S., & Katsiyannis, A. (2011). Special education law for leaders and

administrators of special education, New York, NY: Routledge.

Zirkel, P. A., & Gischlar, K. L. (2008). Due Process Hearings under the IDEIA: A Longitudinal

Frequency Analysis. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 21(1), 22-31.

Zirkel, P. A., Karanxha, Z., & D'Angelo, A. (2007). Creeping Judicialization in Special Education

Hearings: An Exploratory Study. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law

Judiciary, 27(1), 1-27.

Zirkel, P. A., & Scala, G. (2010). Due process hearing systems under the IDEIA: A state-by-state

survey. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(1), 3-8.

power imbalances in the special education ... - tamara...

Documents