CADRE Resources
Dick Zeller, Senior Policy Analyst, CADRE
January 16, 2008
The tables listed at the bottom of this page report on the second, third and fourth years (2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06) of national dispute resolution data collection that began with the Part B Annual Performance Report submitted March 2004. The data for the first year (2002-03) are not provided here as they are of limited value for state-to-state comparisons. It is normal for a new data reporting requirement to take three years or so to stabilize and that has been the case with these data. For the 2003-04 reports, the complaints timeline data are suspect; it is impossible to tell whether states submitted data that matches the definitions of “completed within timelines” and “completed within extended timelines.” Rather than risk faulty comparisons, we have not included those data in the 2003-04 tables.
A total of 18 National summaries are posted below for downloading. There is one summary each showing numbers reported for state written complaints, mediation, and due process hearings for each of the three years and another set for event rates per 10,000 (10K) students in special education (based on 12/1 child count for the respective year) for each dispute process and for each of the three years.
CADRE has made every attempt to ensure that these data accurately represent what states reported to OSEP or corrected through a verification process with CADRE during the summer of 2007. We have not included data where states reported impossible values that could not be verified through review with the state. Where applicable, we have added notes on each Table, bolding the state’s name, where specific conditions were reported by regarding those data.
State Experiences with Dispute Resolution:
There is wide variability in the rates of dispute resolution activity across states. For example:
It seems unlikely that these variations result solely from real differences in educational programs across these states. While they may reflect some program differences, other factors (e.g., differences in culture, history, system and advocate approaches to conflict) are more likely the source of large differences in the use of dispute resolution options.
States also differ in the level of support they provide for alternate dispute resolution processes. Some states have invested heavily in early dispute resolution and dispute prevention efforts and may have far less formal dispute resolution activity than others.
Limitations of the Data:
The three years of data included in these tables were collected over a period during which the reporting format changed twice: in 2003-04 from the prior year (2002-03), and again in 2004-05 when the IDEA 2004 State Performance Plan requirements were first put in place. Only one year of data on “resolution meetings” (held in response to due process complaints) were collected because the requirement did not go fully into effect with the passage of IDEA 2004. In response to adjustments in these data, CADRE worked closely with OSEP to provide states with information that would increase the likely comparability of data across years (e.g., error checking software, cross-walks of definitions and reporting form elements, methods of calculating some values not reported, etc.). See the “Summary of Data Element Changes from 2003-04 through 2005-06” for a display of how the reporting requirements have changed over these years. No further changes are currently anticipated in the collection process, although proposed clarifications to some item's definitions are under consideration.
Changes in policy (e.g., the addition as of July 1, 2005 of the resolution process and the specification of the contents of a settlement agreement) are also likely to have affected how schools and parents resolve disputes. With such limited data and so few years of baseline data, it is very difficult to say what that impact may be. To draw any grand conclusions from these data at this point would be ill-advised. The data do provide, however, a partial look at what each reporting state has experienced and comparisons of a single state over the three years may have value. CADRE will be compiling and publishing comparator reports for each state, showing how a given state’s experience compares to states of like size, states in the same RRC/RPTAC region, and states serving about the same percentage of students in special education.
What these reports do not provide is a complete view of what happens with dispute filings each year. Only dispute resolution activity initiated during the reporting year is included. Thus, pending hearings, complaints that were not finished, mediation requests that did not result in a mediation held before the reporting period ended, mediations or hearings held that were initiated in a prior year, etc., are lost in this data reporting process. For “Written State Complaints” the number of complaints completed within 60 days after the end of the reporting period are included, but no due process activity occurring after the end of the reporting period is included. Since many states report anecdotally that they receive a disproportionate number of dispute filings/requests in the final quarter of the school year, the data may fail to adequately reflect the outcomes of these late filings.
State variance in meeting reporting requirements:
Because this is a relatively new data collection and because some states have transformed their dispute resolution systems during the years represented by these data collections, not all data could be reported by all states. In some cases, states submitted estimates for some data elements, rather than an actual tally. In other cases, the state was unable to provide the data for specific elements. In these cases, reports will either show grayed blanks or zeros. Where available, specific notes are included.
In addition to the shifting landscape for reporting and policy, the level of activity some states had from year to year varied quite substantially. Data systems have also been in transition in many states, so the method of data collection has not necessarily been consistent over the three years in all states. Some states have data systems that were not designed to collect all the required elements and are not easy to change (e.g., some state mediation systems are operated by offices other than the Department of Education). In some of these cases, the data collection processes of those agencies have been slow to accommodate the data reporting requirements of the SPP/APR.
Dick Zeller, Senior Policy Analyst, CADRE
Direct line, 541-284-4740
CADRE reception, 541-686-5060
Comparison of National ADR Database Elements for 2003-2004 through 2005-2006
ADR Elements for 2003-2004 through 2005-2006
Summary of National Dispute Resolution Data for 2003-2004
Due Process Complaints 2003-2004
Written State Complaints 2003-2004
Due Process Complaints per 10K 2003-2004
Written State Complaints per 10K 2003-2004
Summary of National Dispute Resolution Data for 2004-2005
Due Process Complaints 2004-2005
Written State Complaints 2004-2005
Due Process Complaints per 10K 2004-2005
Written State Complaints per 10K 2004-2005
Summary of National Dispute Resolution Data for 2005-2006
Due Process Complaints 2005-2006
Written State Complaints 2005-2006
Due Process Complaints per 10K 2005-2006
Written State Complaints per 10K 2005-2006
