CADRE Resources
Five Year State and National Summaries of Dispute Resolution Data
Prepared by CADRE March 2010
(with "Cautions for Those Who Would Interpret
State Dispute Resolution Data Reports")
Dick Zeller, Senior Policy Analyst, CADRE
Updated March 2010
The down-loadable documents available at the bottom of this page report on the second through the sixth years (2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08) of national dispute resolution data collection that began with the Part B and Part C Annual Performance Reports (APRs) 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 several years to stabilize and that has been the case with these data. For the 2003-04, the reported 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.”
These data were submitted as Table 7 (Part B) or Table 4 (Part C) of each state’s/entity’s respective Annual Performance Report for 2003-04 through 2005-06, and in Section 618 reports submitted by each state/entity on November 1, 2007 (for 2006-07 data) and 2008 (for 2007-08 data). The files are in PDF format, and will require Adobe Acrobat Reader to open.
The Part B Summary (2003-04 through 2007-08 Dispute Resolution Data) contains 38 one page summaries. Each summary page contains either the numbers of reported events or the rates (events per 10,000 in state child count) for each year and for each of the four dispute resolution reporting areas: written state complaints, mediations, due process complaints and expedited due process complaints. (Expedited due process reports were not filed for 2003-04 nor 2004-05.) Nationally, the number of complaints filed peaked in 2004-05 and has declined by about 10% since then. The number of mediations peaked in 2004-05, then declined sharply in 2005-06 as the resolution process was implemented; in the last two years, the number of mediations held and agreements reached have increased again. Due process complaint filings have shown a very slight decline on average but with variability from year to year. The reported number of due process hearings fully adjudicated peaked in 2004-05 but has declined sharply over the last four years.
The Part C Summary (2003-04 through 2007-08 Dispute Resolution Data) contains 15 one page summaries. Each summary contains the numbers of reported events for each year and for each of the three dispute resolution reporting areas (written state complaints, mediations and due process complaints). Event rates have not been calculated for Part C data. Some increases in dispute resolution activity are evident over this five year period. Complaints filed have increased slightly, mediations held and mediation agreements have increased more substantially and due process complaint filings have dropped by more than a third. The number of states receiving complaints has also shown an increase (from 23 in 2003-04 to 29 for the past three years). The number of states receiving due process complaints has shown a slight decline, with 13 states receiving complaints in 2004-05 to 10 states for 2007-08. The number of states holding mediations has also declined, from 13 in 2003-04 to 10 each year in 20045-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
The data elements displayed have been referenced to those used for the most recent report (2007-08). Although differences in reporting have been present across these five years, the definitions and data elements retain the same meaning as those used for the most recent Table 7 and Table 4 forms. For a crosswalk of the Table 7 data elements, see the downloadable file below (Data Element Crosswalk 2004-05 thru 2007-08).
A more complete analysis of these data are underway by CADRE and will be available in June 2010.
CADRE has made every attempt to ensure that these data accurately represent what states reported to OSEP or have corrected through a verification process with CADRE and through error checking by and in collaboration with Westat’s Data Accountability Center for the 2006-07 and 2007-08 data. Where applicable, we have added notes particular to a table or state. If, at any time, a state identifies inaccuracies in these data, or wish to add an explanatory note to any CADRE report, they are encouraged to contact Dick Zeller (rwzeller@directionservice.org).
State Experiences with Dispute Resolution: "Cautions for Those Who Would Interpret State Dispute Resolution Data Reports"
There is wide variability in the rates of dispute resolution activity across states. For example, in Part B submissions:
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 five 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 three years of data on “resolution meetings” (held in response to due process complaints) have been collected because the requirement did not go fully into effect until after the passage of IDEA 2004. In response to adjustments in data reporting, CADRE worked closely with OSEP and the Data Accountability Center 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 2007-08” for a display of how the reporting requirements have changed over these years. The tables for all years use the current data labels and the data reporting categories that have been used for the past three years and that match the data definitions for all years.
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 or mediation 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.
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 only five years of data, it is very difficult to say what that impact may be. CADRE will be preparing additional analyses of these data and will post them as they become available.
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 2003-04 and 2004-05, some states submitted estimates for some data elements, rather than an actual tally. In a few cases, states were unable to provide the data for specific elements. In these cases, reports will either show blanks or zeros.
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.
Questions or comments about these reports may be addressed to:
Dick Zeller, Senior Policy Analyst, CADRE
rwzeller@directionservice.org
Direct line, 541-284-4740
CADRE reception, 541-686-5060
