IHESl: LIBRARY Michigan State Unlvmlty This is to certify that the dissertation entitled PARENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE SPECIAL EDUCATION DUE PROCESS HEARING IN MICHIGAN, l980-l98l presented by Cherie Nan Simpson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education Major professor MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 * MSU LIBRARIES “ ‘- 3';- RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. ’w‘ -\.~ u‘. ‘ 'w - In,“ ‘31:}! I I 8?} “:3 P . ocim £2151 PARENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE SPECIAL EDUCATION DUE PROCESS HEARING IN MICHIGAN. 1980-1981 By Cherie Nan Simpson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling. Educational Psychology. and Special Education 1984 :3“ i 3‘ I716 $.42}; © Copyright by CHERIE NAN SIMPSON 1984 ABSTRACT PARENT PERCEPTIONS or THE SPECIAL EDUCATION DUE PROCESS HEARING IN MICHIGAN. 1980-198l By Cherie Nan Simpson This study presents the results of in-depth personal interviews conducted with 15 of the 41 Michigan parents known to have been involved in special education due process hearings between September 1. 1980. and August 3l. l981. The intention was to determine whether these parents felt the hearing process was a fair and effective mechan- ism for resolving conflict and whether they had found it possible to work cooperatively with the school after the hearing. Parents were asked what caused the hearing request. what their relationship with the school was before and after the hearing. how they perceived the hearing process. how the decision was implemented. what the effect was on child and educational program. and what suggestions they had for schools and parents who face the prospect of a hearing. A slim majority. although finding fault with its implementation. felt the hearing process was basically fair. Expressed concerns regarded length of time the process takes. unnecessary time delays. inadequate parental knowledge of procedural requirements. the schoolus greater resources. questionable professional ethics. suspected hearing Cherie Nan Simpson officer bias. unclear written decisions. the need for parents to personally monitor implementation of the decision. and poor parent- school communication. Only one parent reported a cooperative relationship with the school involved in the hearing. Most parents would use the hearing again. Over a third reported their child had benefited from the decision. Recommendations were made for schools to strive for improved communication with parents in an effort to avoid impasse and resultant hearing. that parent education programs and materials be provided. that nonbinding third-party opinions be available to parents and schools. that less adversarial methods of resolving conflict be sought. that a more equitable means of hearing officer selection be determined. that pre—hearing conferences be held well in advance of the hearing. and that parents be relieved of the responsibility for monitoring implementation of the decision. The results of this study. although limited because of the small number of parents interviewed. appear to indicate that intense feelings regarding the issue of the hearing do not subside quickly and that the adversarial nature of the hearing does long-term and possibly permanent damage to the parent-school relationship. To my husband. Del. for his unending faith and encouragement. for his love and understanding. and for his hours of proofreading. To my parents. Pat and Guy Littleson. who taught me the Joy of learning and accomplishing. and who instilled in me the belief that no goal was high enough to be unattainable. And to my children. Lori and Jim. for without them I may only have viewed the role of a parent through the eyes of a professional. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A very special thank-you is extended to the parents who gave hours out of their busy lives to share memories and feelings about their experience with the special education due process hearing. Their desire and willingness to help and their openness with the interviewer have made this study possible. Without them there would have been no study. Sincere thanks are also extended to the school administrators who provided access to the parents interviewed. They have shown their respect for the parents of the handicapped children in their districts and for the rights of those parents by providing them the opportunity to be heard. The cooperation and interest of parent advocates and attorneys is also genuinely appreciated. The assistance and encouragement provided by Dr. Charles Mange as chairman of my doctoral committee are most gratefully acknowledged. He has served not only as an extremely helpful advisor. but as a source of faith in the intended equity and value of the special education process. Thanks 90 also to Dr. Charles Henley and Dr. Richard Feather- stone for their suggestions and their support. and to Dr. Daniel Kruger. who provided a much-needed view from outside the field of education. I am also indebted to Dr. Herbert Baker. Director of Guidance and Pupil Personnel. and Bernard Maslanik. Coordinator of Special Educa- tion. Birmingham Public Schools. for their interest. counsel. and support throughout this doctoral program. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Vii Chapter I. INWODUCIION O O O O O I O O I O O I O O O O O O O O O O 1 Historical Background of the Special Education Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Michigan's Mandatory Special Education Act . . . . . 2 Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Constitutional Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Property and Liberty Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Due Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll P.L. 94-142 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll Parental Rights and the Hearing Process . . . . . . 12 Hearings in Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l6 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 II. REV IE" OF LITERAWRE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2] III. WWODOLWY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 39 Description of Population and Sample . . . . . . . . . 39 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Development of Interview Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 IV. PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Parent Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Characteristics of Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 The Child and Special Education . . . . . . . . . . . 59 The Parents and Special Education . . . . . . . . . . 66 The Issue of the Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Requesting the Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 The Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . llS After the Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lSO Parents Evaluate the Hearing Process . . . . . . . . . 157 Effect on the Child . . . . . . . . . Effect on the Child's Educational Program Effect on Parent-School Relationship . Current Special Education Programing . Advice to Parents From Parents . . . . Advice to Schools From Parents . . . . Parents Recommend Changes in the Hearin Parents Evaluate the Interview . . . . V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . Overview of the Study . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Discussion of Findings . Characteristics of Parents . . . . Characteristics of Children . . . Referral to Special Education . . Parent Involvement Before the Hearing Why Hearings Were Requested . . . . Conflict-Resolution Techniques . . . Requesting and Preparing for the Hearing The Hearing and Decision . . . . . . The Hearing as a Conflict-Resolution Parents Evaluate the Process . . . . Parents Give Advice . . . . . . . . Implications and Recommendations . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. MICHIGAN SPECIAL EDUCATION RULES PERTAINI PROCESS HEARINGS AND APPEALS . . . . . B. INTERVIEW GUIDE . . . . . . . . . . . . C. LETTER TO DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION D. LETTER TO PARENTS . . . . . . . . . . . E. PARENT RESPONSE FORM . . . . . . . . . . F. DIRECTOR RESPONSE POSTCARD . . . . . . . REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O I O C O O 0 vi 9 o O. o o o o e O a Q. o o e o o in a mo 0 o o o o 0'00... 1 Techniu 000.200.000.000. 000500000000... NG TO DUE Page 165 167 170 173 176 180 185 190 193 193 194 200 200 201 202 202 204 205 207 210 215 216 220 223 240 241 2%? 268 271 27k 276 278 13. 14. LIST OF TABLES Response to Question 5: Do you have other children who have received special education? . . . . . . . Hearing Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 144: Are you or have you ever been a member of the PAC? . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 145: Are you an active member of any parent organization? . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 148: What is the highest level of education that you or your spouse have completed? . . . . Response to Question 149: What was your approximate family income from all sources. before taxes. at the time of the hearing? . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 146: Did you or family members suffer from any illness during this time of attempted resolution with the school? . . . . . . . . . sex Of Ch11dren O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 Student Age at Time of Hearing . . . . . . . . . Student Age at Time of Interview . . . . . . . . Primary Disability as Reported by Parent . . . . conflict Response to Question 12: Was your child enrolled in school prior to the time the hearing was requested? . Response to Question 2: Was your child in a public or private school program . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 3: Was your child receiving any special education services at the time the hearing was rmuested? O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 0 vii Page 52 53 S3 54 54 55 56 56 57 57 58 59 59 60 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Response to Question 15: When did your child first enter special education? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 10: Grade level at time of hearing Response to Question 18: Under what label was your child originally found eligible for special education? . . . Response to Question 19: What was your child's original special education placement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 20: What other special education services were provided? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 21: In what special education placement was your child enrolled at the time of the hearing request? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 23: At the time of the hearing request what portion of the day was your child in spec1a1 education? 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0 Response to Question 22: What special education services was your child receiving at the time of the hearing rm "est? 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O 0 Response to Question 24: Did your child's placement remain the same during the time between the request for a hearing and the hearing decision? . . . . . . . . Response to Question 25: By whom was your child orig- inally referred for special education? . . . . . . . . Response to Question 26: Who explained what would have to be done to determine whether your child would be eligible for special education and how it would be decided what services would be provided? . . . . . . . Response to Question 27: How was this evaluation/ identification/placement process explained to you? . . Response to Question 28: Did you feel that you were expected to be involved in any decisions the school would make regarding your child's educational future? . Response to Question 29: Who provided you with the results of the evaluation conducted by the school? . . viii Page 61 61 62 63 64 64 65 66 66 67 69 7O 72 75 Page Response to Question 30: When were the results of the evaluation explained to you? . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Response to Question 31: How were the results of the school's evaluation explained to you? . . . . . . . . . . 77 Response to Question 32: Did you feel the evaluation done by the school accurately described your child? . . . 77 Response to Question 33: Did you feel the school person who explained the evaluation results was sensitive to your feelings regarding your child's handicapping condition? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Response to Question 34: Did you obtain an independent eva1uat10n? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 79 Response to Question 35: Who paid for the independent eva1uat10n? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 80 Response to Question 36: Who explained what would happen at the IEPC to YOU? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 80 Response to Question 37: How did you learn about the procedure to be followed at the IEPC? . . . . . . . . . . 81 Response to Question 38: Were you told what school personnel would be attending the IEPC? . . . . . . . . . 82 Response to Question 26: Was there some one member of the school staff with whom you felt you could share your concerns regarding your child and his/her educational progress? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Response to Question 27: With whom could you share your Conce rnS? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 84 Response to Question 41: Did you trust any school per- son to recommend what was in the best interests of your Ch11d? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 85 Response to Question 42: Were you pleased with previous educational plans developed for your child? . . . . . . . 86 Response to Question 30: How would you describe your relationship with the school prior to the dispute that led to the hearing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. Response to Question 45: Would you have settled for anything 6156? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Response to Question 44: What did you actually want for your child when the hearing was requested? . . . . . . . Response to Question 47: Why do you believe the school opposed your position? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 48: All issues brought to hearing must fall under one of four broad categories. As you understand it. was yours an issue of ... . . . . . . . . Response to Question 49: Who requested the hearing? . . . Response to Question 50: What methods of resolving the conflict were used before requesting the hearing? . . Response to Question 51: From which of the following sources did you learn about the right to request a hear1ng? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Response to Question 52: Did you realize you could have requested arbitration rather than a hearing? . . . . . . Response to Question 55: Do you think an impartial third party could have helped to resolve the conflict without a hearing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 56: Did you believe the issue would be resolved before the time of the hearing? . . . . Response to Question 57: Did you expect that if the issue did go before the hearing officer that the decision would favor your position. that you would win? . . . . . Responses to Questions 59 through 58: Response of school district to hearing request . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 70: How many days were there between the time the hearing was requested and the date 1t was he‘d? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Response to Question 71: How was the date for the hearing set? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Response to Question 72: How was the hearing officer 581 mad? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 88 94 95 97 98 98 100 100 105 105 106 107 107 109 109 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. Response to Question 73: Were any attempts made to resolve the conflict between the time you requested the hearing and the hearing date? . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 74: Who helped you to prepare for the hear1ng? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Response to Question 75: Had the person who helped you prepare for the hearing attended any of your meetings with the SChoo1 ? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Response to Question 77: Was there a prehearing confer- ence with the hearing officer? . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 78: If there was a prehearing conference) Who attended? 0 o o o o o e a o o a a a a o 0 Response to Question 64: Did the prehearing conference reduce. increase or not change the intensity of the conflict between you and the school? . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 80: Who presented your case at the hear1ng? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Response to Question 81: Who presented the school's case at the hearing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Representatives for Parent and School and Hearing DeC‘Is'Ion I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Response to Question 82: Were you aware. prior to the hearing. of who would be representing the school? . . . . Response to Question 83: Did this influence your decision regarding who would represent you? . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 86: Would you advise others to have someone other than themselves present their case at the hear1ng? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Response to Question 87: If you would advise parents to have someone other than themselves represent them at the hearing who would that be? . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 88: How did you feel when you actually arrived at the hearing? . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Page 111 111 113 113 114 115 116 116 117 118 118 120 122 124 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 81. 82. 87. 88. Response to Question 89: Did you feel differently after the hearing officer's opening statement? . . . . . . . Response to Question 91: Did you feel confident that the hearing officer would resolve the issue fairly? . . Response to Question 92: What was the occupation of the hearing officer? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 80: What witnesses were called to t65t1 fy for YOU? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Response to Question 94: Did you have to pay any of these witnesses? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 99: What witnesses testified for the SChOO] ? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Number of Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 95: Did you testify at the hearing? Response to Question 96: If you testified did you feel better. worse or no different after having done so? . . Response to Question 97: Did you feel there was adequate opportunity to present your side of the issue? Response to Question 98: Did you feel you were really heard and understood by the hearing officer? . . . . . Response to Question 100: Was the testimony of the school what you expected? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 101: Did you feel that you were personally attacked by the school? . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 103: How did you feel about the degree of formality? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 103: Did you feel the hearing was conducted fai r1Y? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Response to Question 104: Did you feel the hearing officer was impartial during the proceedings? . . . . . Response to Question 106: How upsetting was it to participate in the hearing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii Page 125 126 127 128 128 129 130 131 131 131 132 134 136 138 138 140 142 89. 9]. 92. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. Response to Question 107: Did you feel you had as great a chance to win as the school did? . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 108: Why did you feel that way? . . . Response to Question 112: Were changes required in your child's educational program as a result of the local hearing officer's decision? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 116: How soon was the program ordered by the hearing officer implemented? . . . . . . . Response to Question 117: Did you feel there were unnecessary time delays at any time during the process? . Response to Question 118: Did the hearing end the conflict between you and the school regarding this 1551-16? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Response to Question 119: Was there a state-level appea1? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Response to Question 120: Who requested the state-level appea1? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Response to Question 121: What was the result of the State-IOVQIdBC‘IS‘IOfl?....-...........o. Response to Question 122: Did either you or the school initiate civil action with regard to this issue? . . . . Response to Question 123: Was an official special edu- cation complaint regarding this issue filed in accordance with Rule 151 of the Michigan Special Education Rules and Regulations? . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 124: Do you feel that the hearing process is basically a fair way to resolve conflict between parents and the school? . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 125: Do you like the two-step process. the local hearing and state-level appeal prior to going to court? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 126: How would you rate your level of satisfaction with the hearing process? . . . . . . . . xiii Page 142 143 147 150 151 153 155 155 156 156 157 157 160 162 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. Response to Question 127: How would you rate your level of satisfaction with the local-level decision? . . . Response to Question 128: How would you rate your level of satisfaction with the state-level decision? . . . . Response to Question 129: How would you rate your level of satisfaction with the school's response to the deC151on? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Response to Question 131: What effect did the hearing decision have upon your child's educational program? Response to Question 132: How would you describe your current relationship with the school? . . . . . . . . Response to Question 133: What kind of educational programming is being provided for your child now? . . Response to Question 134: What other special education services are provided? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Question 135: Are you satisfied with the program and services provided for your child now? . . Response to Question 137: Since the hearing have you confronted the school with any matter you felt might be a violation of law and/or rules or inappropriate programs or services for your child? . . . . . . . . Page 163 164 165 168 170 174 175 176 176 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION During the 19705 a revolution took place in special education. Due largely to the efforts of strong parent groups. state and federal laws were enacted to protect the rights of the handicapped and insure their access to a free and appropriate public education. These laws. inspired and enforced by decisions of the courts. serve to protect the handicapped school-age population from the injustices of the past and assure that decisions regarding their education will not be made in an arbitrary or capricious manner. but will be made fairly with opportunity for full parent participation and consent. 'The assumption is made that decisions reached fairly with full due process of law will ultimately result in the best possible education for the child. To insure maximum fairness. the laws specifically provide for a forum where disagreements between the school and the parents regarding the most appropriate educational programing for the child and certain other matters can be resolved by an impartial third party. With these mechanisms of fair- ness in place. it is now time for us to look at the results of this rights revolution. for which parents fought so diligently. and ask. "Do the procedures developed to protect the rights of the handicapped and insure that they be educated appropriately accomplish what was intended?" In particular we must look at that forum for dispute resolution. the impartial special education due process hearing. and determine whether the parents who have used the process perceive it to resolve issues of dispute fairly and insure that the child is provided' the programs and services required to reach Wnaximum potentiaJ." as is required by Michigan's Public Act 451. which states: Sec. 1701. The state board shall: develop. establish and con- tinually evaluate and modify in cooperation with intermediate school boards. a state plan for special education which shall provide for the delivery of special education programs and serv- ices designed to develop the maximum potential of every handi- capped person. WWW Before it can be considered whether the hearing process success- fully performs the function for which it was created. we must look to its origins for an understanding of its intended purpose. W W In 1971. with the passage of P.A. 198. special education in Michigan became a mandatory responsibility of the public schools. The provision of special education for handicapped persons was no longer to be a voluntary offering of public school systems in the state: it was now required by law. Each handicapped person from birth through the age of 25 would be guaranteed specialized education and training designed to meet his or her unique needs and to develop maximum poten- tial. In 1973. after a lengthy process of rules development and prom- ulgation. the act became effective. Handicapped persons covered under the act include: 1. Severely mentally impaired 2. Trainable mentally impaired 3. Educable mentally impaired 4. Emotionally impaired 5. Hearing impaired 6. Visually impaired 7. Physically and otherwise health impaired 8. Speech and language impaired 9. Preprimary impaired 10. Specific learning disability 11. Severely multiply impaired The programs and services authorized under the act include: 1. Special education class programs 2. Consultant services 3. Therapeutic services. such as physical therapy. occupational therapy. speech therapy. and other unnamed services construed to be in accord with law 4. Related and ancillary services. such as audiology. social work. psychological services. vocational evaluation services. and work activity center services In addition. all services must be provided in accord with due process requirements and the "least restrictive environment" principle. This principle is articulated through provisions of law and regulations requiring that "to the maximum extent appropriate... . the handicapped person . . . is educated with persons who are not handicapped" (R340.1722[2][a]). The Rules and Regulations. amended in 1980 to implement P.A. 451. a 1976 recodification of Michigan school law. and the provisions of federal law. PA» 94-142. explain in detail what the act intends by setting forth specific requirements for operation. The opportunity for parental involvement in decision making and in planning the childus educational program is guaranteed by requirements regarding notice. consent. composition of the child's Individualized Educational Planning Committee (Note: The 1973 rules referred to this committee as the Educational Planning and Placement Committee). and due process procedural requirements. 'The due process procedures culminate in the provision for an impartial due process hearing in those cases where parents and school personnel cannot reach agreement on major decisions regarding a handicapped student's special education program. Under Michigan Special Education Rules (Michigan Rules pertaining to due process hearings and appeals are contained in Appendix A). which are essentially the same as the federal regulations except for the standard of service required. parents or the school may initiate a hearing whenever there is disagreement regarding a proposal or refusal to: initiate or change the identification. evaluation. special educa- tion program. educational placement of the person. or the provi- sion of special education programs and services designed to develop the maximum potential of the handicapped person. (R340.1723a and R340.1724) 1.111.911.1211 Searching further for the roots of the special education due process hearing. it is found that the due process requirements spelled out in the Michigan Special Education Rules and in the PA“ 94-142 Rules and Regulations printed in the Eedenal_Bagisten (1977) contain essentially the same elements as those contained in the November 1971 Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972) consent agreement (Beekman. 1976). This case had been brought before the court on behalf of 13 mentally retarded children of school age and the class of all other retarded children of school age in Pennsylvania who were not being provided a free public education (Weintraub & Abeson. 1977). In the PARC case the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania yielded to overwhelming evidence against their position (Gilhool. 1977). and the court approved a consent agreement and order that enjoined the state from denying or postponing a mentally retarded chilcPs access to a free program of education and training. The court declared that to deny or postpone educational opportunity for a mentally retarded child was unconstitu- tional under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and ordered that before a mentally handicapped child could be deprived of the benefits of education either by initially assigning him to a particular program or by maintaining him in a program. the parents and the child must be given a notice--a statement of reasons for the assignment or for the continuing placement--and the opportunity to be heard. The notice shall inform the parent or guardian of his right to contest the proposed action at a full hearing before the Secretary of Education. or his designee. in a place and at a time convenient to the parent. before the proposed action may be taken. (PARC Consent Agreement. 1972) Thus. with the PARC order. the basis for the special education due process hearing was established and due process requirements of public schools were established for the mentally retarded. Subsequently. in Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia. 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C.. 1972). the court ordered implementation of due process procedures for all children closely comparable to the PARC require- ments. Both the PARC and Mills cases argued that the rights of the handicapped were protected by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. WW To understand the basis for this equal protection argument. we must then look to the Fourteenth Amendment. its birth and the ways it has been used to protect individual rights in the courts of our land. This amendment was one of three passed after the Civil War in an attempt to overturn the restrictions of an 1833 case. Barron v. Baltimore. which had established that Congress. in approving the Bill of Rights. did not intend them to protect the individual against state action. but only against action by federal officials. This amendment. authored by Rep. John A. Bingham of Ohio and adopted in 1865. provides the Constitution's only definition of citizenship and declares that states are forbidden to abridge by law any privilege or immunity of (LS. citizens; to deprive any person of life. liberty. or property without due process of law: or to deny to any person the equal protec- tion of the law. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads as fol- lows: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citi- zens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life. liberty. or property. without due process of law: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. For many years the Fourteenth Amendment was not fully used to protect the rights of the individual. Eventually. however. the rights of equal protection and due process of law it guaranteed provided the foundation for the modern revolution in civil rights and the evolution of a highly rights-conscious society. In 1954. 86 years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. the Supreme Court. with its decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. 347 LLS. 483 (1954). declared that state segregation of public schools on the basis of race was clearly unconstitutional and that educational opportunities pro- vided by the state to one must be provided on an equal basis to all. It was this historic decision that provided the legal basis for the support of the rights of the handicapped in both the PARC and Mills cases. In the Brown decision the court stated: In these days. it is doubtful any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an educa- tion. Such an opportunity where the State has undertaken to provide it. is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. Thomas K. Gilhool (1977). attorney for the plaintiffs in PARC. beautifully expressed the rationale for applying the concepts of Brown to the handicapped children of our nation by saying: If it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life when denied the opportunity of an education. is it not even more clear that an exceptional child without an education may not be expected to succeed? For the ordinary child may learn willy nill. wandering in the street. watching television. riding the school bus. but the exceptional child. by definition. if he or she is to learn. requires a formal. structured program of education. The exceptional child without an education is not merely in jeopardy "of success." as the Supreme Court put it. but of liberty and life itself. (p. 17) Actually. the Brown case was one of a group of five cases pre- sented to the Supreme Court in 1951 which dealt with racial discrimina- tion in public schools. Another of these cases argued before the Supreme Court in December 1952 was Bolling v. Sharp. 347 U.S. 483 at 499 (1954). This case is worthy of mention because parents of black pupils in the District of Columbia based their challenge to school segregation on another source of Constitutional protection. the Fifth Amendment. which guarantees to the individual due process of the law by stating: "No person shall be . . . deprived of life. liberty. or property. without due process of lan' The court. in striking down the federal government's requirement that black and white students attend different schools. explained: The Fifth Amendment... . does not contain an equal protection clause as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the states. But the concepts of equal protection and due process. both stemming from our American ideal of fairness. are not mutually exclusive. The "equal protection of the law” is a more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness than "due process of law." and. therefore. we do not imply that the two are always interchangeable phrases. But. as this Court has recognized. discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process. (347 U.S. 483 at 499. 1954) .ELn29£1x_and_L1beLIx_Bishts Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments serve as barriers to thoughtless and arbitrary actions against an individual by his govern- ment and promise that he will be treated fairly. that neither federal nor state governments will deprive him of life. liberty. or property without due process of law. Education has been determined to be a property right by the Supreme Court. and school systems are considered arms of the state. Because of these two determinations. a school system cannot deny any child his right to education without due process of law. It is not that the Constitution declares a child has a funda- mental right to a public education: it is simply that through its doctrine of equality. the Constitution demands that once a state has extended the right of public education to any of its children within a certain age range. it must provide that public education to all chil- dren of the age within its jurisdiction-—even those who are handi- capped! Consequently. educational opportunities cannot be denied. withdrawn. or substantially altered without first affording the student and/or his parents access to fundamentally fair procedures. or in the words of the Constitution. ”due process of 1an‘ As an extension of that right. the school cannot remove children from the regular classroom environment unless it can substantiate the need to do so within the context of an impartial forum in which all parties have the right to be heard. (Bersoff. 1979. p. 67) 10 The special education due process hearing serves as the climax of that "due process of law" necessary to protect the handicapped indi- vidual's property rights as well as his liberty rights. Liberty is considered by the courts in a broad sense and includes a personus reputation. To provide special education to a student in Michigan. it is necessary that the student be identified as having a certain spe- cific disability. that he be "labeledJ‘ That label may well affect not only the nature of the individual's educational experiences. but his reputation and future opportunities as well. Although these labels are attached to students in order to establish eligibility for specialized instruction considered necessary by the school and generally desired by the parents. rather than in an attempt to exclude or deny services to the child. one cannot deny the potential stigmatizing effect of having been labeled mentally impaired. emotionally impaired. or for that matter "impaired" in any way. In 6055 v. Lopez. 419 U.S. 565 (1975). the Supreme Court determined that a student has the liberty right to be free of unwarranted stigmatization. Bersoff (1979) stated: While there may be some benefit to children to being labelled as retarded. emotionally disturbed. brain injured. or learning disabled in that they may fall under statutes granting rights to such persons. such labelling by school systems is considered to be an "official branding" by the state because of the many long term potentially negative consequences that may result. For example. a record of impairment may prevent access to some forms of future employment. may increase insurance rates. or be used as evidence of incompetence to make one's own decisions. The Constitution thus prevents the school from unilaterally denominating children as handicapped. (p. 67) 11 W Due process of law is such a broad and flexible concept that taken out of the context of a specific situation it eludes precise defini- tion. EXactly what is required to assure fair treatment of the indi- vidual by his government is dependent upon the particular circumstances involved. There are two basic elements of due process of law that do remain constant no matter what the situation: (1) the right to ade- quate notice and (2) the opportunity to be heard. ELln_24:lAZ In the case of special education matters. Congress. with the passage of PA“ 94-142. the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. in 1975. and the Department of Health. Education and Welfare. by developing the Code of Federal Regulations implementing it. have made elements of due process definite for special education professionals across the nation. Procedural safeguards a school system must take. beginning with the initial request for parent consent to evaluate the child and culminating with the impartial due process hearing as a dispute resolution mechanism. are clearly specified. To receive funds attached to Pd" 94-142. states must adhere to the requirements of the law. In cases where the requirements of state laws differ from the federal. a state must meet the requirements of the law that provides the greater opportunity and protection for the handicapped individual. 12 Wan—1:133 11W Certainly it would seem that the rights of the handicapped indi- vidual and the parents who represent him are well protected by law and regulations. Parents have legally stipulated means to bring their concerns to the attention of the school and other authorities if they believe the public school system is not adequately meeting the educa- tional needs of their child. They have laws to force schools to comply with their request for information regarding their child and to prevent them from providing that information to others without parental permission: to prevent the school from labeling their child as handi- capped or changing his educational program without their knowledge and consent; to prevent the school from evaluating the child without their knowledge or excluding him from services and activities available to his nonhandicapped peers. If parents feel the school has violated the child's rights as guaranteed by law. they have the option of requesting an impartial due process hearing and the matter will be decided by an impartial hearing officer in a timely fashion. Pd" 94-142 and its attendant rules and regulations establishes that either the parents or the school can request a due process hearing when there is disagreement regarding one of four specific areas: (1) identification. (2) evalua- tion. (3) placement. and (4) provision of a free appropriate education. A comparison of Michigan's EA 451 and the federal law P.L. 94- 142 shows that each contains essentially the same provisions for a special education due process hearing. These laws provide both parties with the right to have an impartial hearing officer: to be accompanied 13 and advised by counsel and by individuals with special knowledge or training with respect to the problems of handicapped children; to present evidence and confront. cross-examine. and compel the attendance of witnesses: to prohibit the introduction of "surprise" evidence: to obtain a verbatim record of the hearing: and to obtain written findings of fact and decisions. Parents have the added right to determine whether or not their handicapped child will be present and whether the hearing is to be open to the public. The special education hearing is intended to be used in situations where there are differences in opinions or judgments made by the parties. Such judgments may relate to whether a student meets eligibility for inclusion within the law. the particular type of handicapping condition. the needed programs and services as specified in the IEP. the adequacy and appropriateness of evaluation measures. the need for special transportation. or any other matter directly related to the provision of a "free and appropriate public education." The complaint process is differentiated from the hearing in that it is to be used when there is an alleged violation of a rule. Those matters which are appropriate as complaints tend to involve factual matters rather than judgment decisions. Examples would include viola- tion of student-teacher ratios. employment of nonqualified personnel. failure to provide services specified by the IEP. violations of spe- cific procedures required by regulation. or any other factually demon- strable violation of law or regulation. 14 As of August 1980. Michigan regulations were changed to require mutual agreement of the parties on the selection of the hearing officer or. if the parties fail to reach such agreement. appointment by the Michigan Department of Education (MDEL. The MDE had provided training for 69 hearing officers as of November 1982. Of these 69. only 10 had conducted three or more hearings as of November 1982: 52 had conducted no hearings. There is. however. no requirement that the hearing officer be a person who has received any type of training. Pre-hearing conferences are recommended but not required by the MDE. They are often used by hearing officers to clarify the specific issues of disagreement and to advise of rights and procedures appli- cable to the actual hearing. They are sometimes used additionally to attempt resolution of the dispute without the necessity of the hearing. In the actual hearing. documents-exhibits are formally offered into evidence: witnesses are sworn. examined. and cross-examined: opening and closing arguments are typically offered: briefs may be filed: and a verbatim transcript of the proceedings is made. The school district. as the agency responsible for the provision of services. bears the burden of proof. The decisions to be rendered must be based on the preponderance of evidence: i.e.. the weight of evidence presented by the prevailing party must be in excess of that of the other party. It must be noted. however. that the hearing officer is free to reach any decision in accord with the Findings of Facts and the Conclusions of Law as stated in the written decision. 'There is no 15 requirement that the decision be restricted to the support of one party or the other. Also provided is the opportunity for appeal of the decision to the State Department of Education and. ultimately. the right of the aggrieved party to bring civil action in the courts. Lacking in both state and federal statutes is any mechanism to insure compliance with the final decision reached in the dispute unless a complaint is filed by the parent. During the time these proceedings are taking place. the school is prohibited from changing the child's placement unless the parents agree otherwise. In addition to the requirements in common with federal law. Michigan law does specify that the hearing be held by the operating district responsible for the education of the child and that parents be provided with information regarding "free or low cost legal or other relevant services" if a hearing is initiated. Another option for the resolution of disputes available under Michigan law is binding arbitra- tion. Should the parties agree. however. to be bound by the decision of the third party. they give up their right to appeal to the state level and to look to the courts for a decision. There is good reason to believe that this may be the major reason why. as of this writing. the option of arbitration has not been used as a means of resolving special education disputes in Michigan. Thus. the due process hearing remains the mechanism to which parents and the school resort when they feel the need to push for acceptance of their position with regard to the educational needs of their handicapped child. 16 mm The hearing process has been used in Michigan since 1974 (Mange & Henley. 1982L Since 1977. when the Michigan State Department of Education began requesting copies of local-level hearings. through August 1979. there were 74 local hearings known in the state. 0f the 74 hearings. 52 were decided in support of the school. while the decision favored the parent in 22 cases. Fifty-five hearings were appealed to the state. with 30 decisions in support of the school position. 18 in support of the parent position. and 7 in partial support of both positions (Scandary. 1979). Data are available regarding the numbers. the diagnostic categories of the children involved. how often lawyers are used to represent the parties. and the counties in which the hearings were held. Nowhere is there information regarding how parents who have used the hearing process view it. or what has happened to their children and to their relationship with the school since the time the hearing officer's decision was rendered. A study has been done regarding the financial cost of hearings to school districts. but what about the financial and emotional cost to parents? The mechanism for justice. the due process special hearing. is in place. and it is being used in a consistently more sophisticated man- ner. keeping lawyers. educators. and advocates busy attempting to prove the position they advocate is in the best interests of the child and is supported by the requirements of state and federal statute. The prob- lem is that no researcher has attempted to seek out parents who have participated in a hearing and ask. "Do you perceive the hearing process 17 to be a fair and just procedure?" and "Were the results achieved worth the costs?" We have moved a tremendous distance in our efforts to protect the rights of the handicapped as guaranteed by the Constitu- tion. Most educators are making extreme efforts to abide by the due process requirements of the state and federal statutes as they attempt to meet the needs of their handicapped students. but it must now be determined whether parents feel this hearing process. modeled after one that has worked so well in business and industry for many years. effec- tively protects their rights when it comes to planning for their child's educational future. W The passage of state and federal statutes. the emergence of an increasingly rights-conscious society. and the recognition that parents have a vital part to play in the education of their handicapped child have brought about a new dimension to the education of the handi- capped--the impartial due process hearing. Parents and educators are finding themselves defending their positions in legalistic settings as they fight for what each believes to be in the best interests of the handicapped child and in accordance with law. It is the purpose of this study to look at the hearing process through the eyes of the parents who have used it in order to determine whether they perceive it to be adequately serving the purpose for which it was intended: and whether parents and the school work cooperatively for the benefit of the child once the hearing has ended. This study is exploratory and 18 descriptive in nature. It was designed to survey parents who have participated in a special education due process hearing in order to identify’(l) what caused them to request the hearing. (2) how they perceive the hearing process. (3) whether they felt the hearing officer's decision was implemented in a timely fashion. (4) whether they express a sense of satisfaction with the results. (5) how they perceive their current relationship with the school. and (6) what has happened to the child since the hearing. Specifically. this study has a four-fold purpose. The first purpose was to determine whether the hearing appears. to those whose rights it is intended to protect. as a just and equitable system for dispute resolution. The second was to explore factors that contributed to the cooperative or adversarial climate of the hearing. 'Third was to find out what happened after the hearing. Fourth was to develop recom- mendations based on the experiences of those who have participated in the process for those who will use the hearing process in the future. This study is important for the following six reasons. A review of literature regarding various aspects of the hearing process showed little agreement regarding its merits and very little attention to its effects and the degree of parent satisfaction with the process. There are those who praise the hearing process as an indispensable vehicle of fairness for the handicapped child (Turnbull. 1978) and others who describe the process as so traumatic for parents that years later they are still reluctant to discuss the experience (Budoff. 1982). Second. there is concern among parents and educators that the hearing process 19 may produce an adversarial relationship detrimental to the chilcfls progress rather than bringing peace and improved programing. 'There- fore. there is a need to determine to what extent and for what reasons the relationship between the school and family is damaged by the hear- ing process. 'Third. we need to know what actually triggers the request for a hearing and whether some intermediate step before the hearing would be welcomed by parents. Such information could prove helpful to school personnel desiring to become sensitive to unnecessary ”triggers" and hopefully enable them to negotiate peacefully their differences with parents without the costs of a hearing. A fourth reason for the importance of this study is that the information gained adds to the body of knowledge currently available regarding the costs to school districts of the hearings conducted during the 12-month period from September 1980 through August 1981. and provides a more complete picture of those hearings. Mange and Henley (1982). in their cost study. reminded the reader that there are questions regarding the effects of the hearings they studied that should be sought. This study attempts to answer the following questions that they raised: "Does the hearing decision truly result in the termination and/or solution of a dispute?". "What actions are taken by either party to follow or as the result of the hearing decision?" and "What are the effects upon the student whose needs are adjudicated in the process?" (p. 16). The fifth reason for this study is that. if in fact due process hearings in special education are to provide equal protection as guaranteed by the Constitution. we ought then to look at 20 the characteristics of the parents using the process and attempt to determine whether the process is used by only a select few. essentially the well-educated and financially secure. or whether it is being used by parents from all socioeconomic levels of our society. Sixth. and perhaps most important. we need to look at the strengths and weaknesses of what we are doing through the eyes of the consumer and determine how to make the process better serve their needs. It is important to note that the findings of this study. carried out within 15 school districts in Michigan. can have an effect beyond the limits of those districts. School districts not included in the study can learn from what parents have to say regarding the reasons they resorted to the hearing process. Parents throughout the state can benefit from the suggestions of those parents who have experienced a due process hearing. Other states may look to this study as a measure of satisfaction with one state's due process and hearing procedures and develop or adapt their own systems to avoid the pitfalls discovered and benefit from the strengths identified. By listening to individuals who have been involved in this process. ways may be found to reduce the adversarial nature of the process in school systems within Michigan and beyond. And finally. by sharing what is learned in Michigan. it is hoped that a contribution will be made to the refinement of a process intended to provide the best possible educational programming for handicapped children and young adults in our nation. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE A review of the literature reveals few answers to the question of the degree of consumer. 1.6”) parent. satisfaction with the due process special education hearing. Most often studies end by raising questions regarding the equity of the system. Publications abound (Abeson. Bolick. & Haas. 1975: Bersoff. 1979; Budoff. 1979; Kotkin. 1979; Shrybman. 1982) dealing with the "how to" and importance of complying with due process requirements as legislated. Currently available literature also provides suggestions for preparing for the hearing (Bateman. 1980: Scandary. 1981: Shrybman. 1982). conducting the hearing (Michigan Department of Education. 1976. 1977. 1981: Shrybman. 1982L» and writing the decision (Abeson et a1.. 1975: Budoff. 1982: Shrybman. 1982L Research studies have dealt with the characteristics of impar- tial hearing officers (Turnbull. Strickland. & Turnbull. 1982). the status of the due process hearing in the nation (Smith. 1981) and in an individual state (Kammerlohr. Henderson. & Rock. 1983). the cost of hearings to the school system (Mange & Henley. 1982). and the broad issue of the effect of 94-142 on the family of the handicapped child (Halpern & Parker-Crawford. 1981: Sullivan. 1980). Some (Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance. 1981: Silberberg. 1979; 21 22 Zimmerman. 1981) have raised serious questions regarding the equity of the hearing process. Only a few studies in Massachusetts (Budoff & Orenstein. 1982; Daynard. 1980; Mitchell. 1976) and one in North Carolina (Strickland. 1982) have addressed the issue of what parents experience when they exercise their right to a due process special education hearing. or what happens to the child and the parent-school relationship after the decision of the hearing officer is rendered. Smith. in his 1981 study. attempted to determine the status of due process hearings in the 50 states by investigating the background. training. and assignment procedures of hearing officers: the types of exceptional children involved in hearing; the issues over which hear- ings were requested: and the decisions that resulted. He reported receiving responses from 42 states. and although he found some of those responses to be incomplete or confusing. he did reach certain conclu- sions: (1) that parents requested the majority of hearings (96% of 2.005 hearings reported). and that rulings were favorable to schools in two-thirds of those parent-requested hearings: (2) that 70% of the hearings (74 hearings) schools requested were decided in their favor; and (3) that the number of hearings reported in a state was directly proportional to the population of the state. Smith raised the question of whether parents could be using hearings to harass and punish public schools and suggested that possibly parents "fail to understand the requirements of Public Law 94-142. that is. that appropriate placement means 'best available"'(p. 235). Although the decision rendered in Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District. 23 Westchester County v. Rowley ex Rel. Howley. 458 U.S. 176 (1982) has left the standard of service open to question. Smitfifls suggestion seems in conflict with the explanation provided by Department of Education Policy Interpretation: IEP Requirements (Edugat1gn_fon_:he_flangjgapg§n .Law_BenoLt. Supplement 41. February 6. 1981. EHA Sec. 1401). which stated in answer to the question. "Must the IEP include all special education and related services needed by the child or only those avail- able from the public agency?". Each public agency must provide a free appropriate public educa- tion to all handicapped children under its jurisdiction. There- fore. the IEP for a handicapped child must include all of the specific special education and related services needed by the child--as determined by the child's current evaluation. This means that the services must be listed in the IEP even if they are not directly available from the local agency. and must be provided by the agency through contract or other arrangements. (p. 19) Not claiming to have found the reason for the large number of decisions favoring schools. Smith pointed out that all legislation can do is "make the right to the hearing available to both parties and guarantee certain procedural safeguards." He stated: There is no way legislation can guarantee that parents have an equal opportunity to have decisions ruled in their favor. Several factors. including availability of legal services: experience in due process proceedings; availability of experts such as special education teacher. examiners. and supervisors; and better finan- cial resources all give schools an advantage over parents in due process hearings.. .. Results do indicate. however. that due process hearings are being used in an effort to resolve disputes between parents of handicapped children and public schools. A major question raised is whether or not parents have an equal chance of having decisions ruled in their favor. (pp. 235-36) In Illinois. a study of hearing officer decisions for 1978. 1979. and the first three months of 1980 (Kammerlohr. Henderson. 8. Rock. 24 1983) was conducted. which resulted in the finding that 67.5% of the 314 hearings held involved objection to the proposed placement of the handicapped child. In many cases parents were seeking to have the school district pay tuition to a private facility. Although most hearings were initiated by parents. only one in five was resolved in the parent's favor. Thirty percent of the decisions were appealed to the state level. where half of the decisions were overturned. The results of the study pointed to the need to shorten the time lag between appeal to the state level and the final decision. to provide more inservice training for advocates and parents concerning their rights and responsibilities. to develop uniform standards for IEPs. and to study further the quality of hearing officer decisions. Also in Illinois. Diamond (1980) interviewed directors of special education and found that 78% of the hearings conducted between July 1. 1978. and June 30. 1979. involved a dispute over placement. with more than half of the parents requesting private placements. Seventy-six percent of the children involved in these hearings were between 9 and 16 years old. Halpern (1980. 1982). in Michigan. and Sullivan (1980). in Massachusetts. both used a case-study approach to study the effect of 11L. 94-142 on the family of the handicapped child. In both studies. samples were small. nine and six families respectively. and the researchers became intimately involved in the lives of the families they studied. Neither addressed the specific issue of parent satisfac- tion with the hearing process. although both related instances of 25 conflict and disagreement between the family and the school system regarding the chilcPs educational program. Halpern reported that the existence of required due process procedures did not enhance respon- siveness on the part of parents and professionals to one another's perspectives and made the parties more willing to negotiate differ- ences. He noted also that schools generally do not take an active role\17 in informing parents of their rights and that parents are most apt to learn from other parents as they need the information. although. when asked. school personnel do willingly provide the information. Sullivan cited examples of parent exclusion from the evaluation and planning process. intimidation by professionals. and poor parent-professional communication. She suggested that parents learn to become more assertive and knowledgeable about the laws that protect their rights as they lose faith in professionals to serve as advocates for their chil- dren and become aware of how uninformed they actually are. Sullivan reported that of the six families she studied. three had cause to initiate a request for a hearing. Two did not consider the option. and the third withdrew their request because the "daily drain" of caring for their handicapped child was so great that the thought of the "long and strong effort" that would be required to win the hearing was con- sidered too much for them to bear (p. 143). Referring back to what was learned in a preliminary study conducted with 45 families. three of whom had exercised their right to a hearing. and combining that infor- mation with what was learned about the case- study families. 26 Sullivan presented a set a preconditions she considered likely to facilitate parents' use of the hearing process in a conflict situation: 1. There are two parents concerned about the particular issue in question. 2. They have strong convictions about what is educationally appropriate for their child and believe that what the school is offering is inadequate 3. They are generally well educated and have an adequate under- standing of their rights under P.L. 94-142 4. They are emotionally capable of coping with a lengthy battle with the school system. (p. 145) Kiriloff. Kirp. and Buss (1979) conducted a content analysis of 168 transcripts from the first four years of hearings conducted in Pennsylvania after the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) decision. Their goal was to determine if due process under PARC had resulted in a "body of coherent controlling law" (p. 154). They concluded that it had not. Although they found that "exceptional children are generally more likely to receive an education consistent with PARC standards than was the case prior to the decision" (p. 220). they also found that the decision of the hearing officer in any one particular case was not being used in a precedent-setting manner. Rather. each case was decided on an individual basis. Their concluding paragraph reads: The availability of hearings also fosters the perception that a vexing problem. determining what constitutes fair treatment for the handicapped. has been solved. Yet the questions concerning the identification and placement of handicapped children which these due process hearings have addressed may not be amenable to solution given the state of present knowledge. Whether or not this is the case. law-like mechanisms may not have much to do with their ultimate resolution. (p. 248) In their study. Kiriloff. Kirp. and Buss identified and examined variables in an attempt to predict which variables affected the 27 decision made by the hearing officer. In so doing. they observed that parents frequently failed to understand the "essentially educational nature of the dispute" (p. 174) and the criteria schools used to make educational decisions: that schools tended to be more organized and make more effective use of witnesses and exhibits than parents although they were not automatically superior: that over the four-year time span school presentations became increasingly better. while parent presenta- tions did not: and that parents of more severely handicapped children with a longer history of association with special education presented and argued their cases better. thus attesting to the fact that experi- ence helps. They reported: On balance then. the results of the regression analysis are sug- gestive of a rational inquiry process: each of the factors that correlated importantly with outcome. and had additive predictive power. makes sense. But when taken together they hint at a semi- adversarial process. On the one hand. the strength of opposing presentations was relevant to success. On the other hand. the nature of the case that had to be made in order to succeed may have been slightly different for each party. Apparently. parents were rewarded for fully adversarial behavior. but such behavior on the part of schools was less important than was their fidelity to PARC. Indeed. hearing officers appeared to intervene regularly when parents were not able to effectively challenge the school's case. ‘The same behavior on behalf of the schools was not forth- coming. Both types of hearing officer behavior is suggestive of a fact-finding model which placed less emphasis on the party's skills. than does the traditional trial. Perhaps the hearing actually did come to represent that mixed professional-legal model initially hoped for by those who drafted the Cons§n1_AgLe§m§n1. (p. 213) Harbin and Rzepksit (nut) explored procedural safeguards beginning with the initial parent-school communication and continuing through the due process hearing in order to determine which factors. at which points in the process. result in more adversarial interactions. 28 They reported having interviewed many types of people throughout the country who were involved in the process. However. no mention was made of having spoken with the parents of special education students. It appears their interviews were restricted to school personnel. parent advocates. and hearing officers. They cited the following as problems with due process hearings: 1. Sometimes the hearing is used as a legal precedent. rather than a resolution to a unique situation. 2. Hearings are tremendously expensive. so schools try to avoid them. 3. There are many logistical and scheduling problems. 4. Sometimes there is a delay in implementing decisions. 5. LEAs are not cognizant of their right to a hearing. 6. People from both sides have unreal expectations of a hearing; thus their positions harden and they become more disillusioned. 7. Clarification is needed as to what issues are appropriate for a hearing and when other types of dispute resolution and complaint procedures should be used. 8. Variation in the selection and training of hearing officers results in variations in decisions. This can be frustrating to both parties and cause them to become even more adversarial. Of particular interest in this study is the comment that the lack of involvement in the child's educational program is a genuine problem among the poor and minorities who "seldom request a due process hearing" (p. 13). In support of this statement. the authors cited 29 Matthew Borelli. who. in his testimony before the House Subcommittee on Select Education of the Committee on Education and Labor (October 16. 1979). declared that P.L. 94-142 "seems to be a rich man's law." They also cited Office of Civil Rights reports and a determination of the number of minority parents taking part in due process hearings in several states as support for this concern. Although the information and ideas presented by these two North Carolina researchers are inter- esting and basically agree with that of other researchers. it is disap- pointing that the unpublished report of the study offers the reader little in documentation. and no information regarding the design. population. or methods of data analysis. The reader is left to wonder on what the conclusions were based. In California. a study (Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance. 1981) of 145 local hearing decisions along with 50 state-level hearings and one court-level appeal generated by the local decisions was conducted to determine how the hearings were being used. to what effect. and to whose benefit. It was discovered that few of the hearings were concerned with efforts to change or improve the special education program or with abuses defined by law. In 110 of the hearings the concern was whether the public school districts should pay the private school tuitions of children for whom the parents contended the public school could not provide an appropriate education. Most of the remaining hearings also dealt with an issue regarding the payment of public school monies for some privately provided service. It was noted that private school tuition grants ranged from $3.000 to over 30 520.000. and that more than half of the parents who had been denied their claim for tuition at the local level had won at the state level. Also noted was the fact that decisions favored parents whose children were already in attendance at private schools. but went against those who were seeking a new service or a new private school placement. The results of these hearings were examined against the socioeconomic status of the parents involved. As was expected. low-income and minor- ity parents participated in hearings less frequently than their numbers in the school districts would have suggested. Generally these parents were represented at the hearing by an agency attorney or a private school representative. and they were most often trying to maintain public support for private school placements rather than seeking new placements or services. 'The researchers were surprised to find that favorable hearing decisions were negatively related to income ranking and that attorneys did not seem to provide any advantage at the local hearing level. At the state level. attorney representation did result in more favorable decisions for parents. By far the most extensive research regarding parental perceptions of the special education due process hearing has been conducted in Massachusetts. much of it either by or under the direction of Milton Budoff. Mitchell (1976) used an interview process to investigate the expectations and characteristics of 25 parents who had availed them- selves of the appeals process. (Note: The appeals process is the first-level hearing in Massachusetts. and although conducted by attor- neys hired as hearing officers by the State Department of Education. is 31 the equivalent of the local hearing in MichiganJ The interview included "a series of questions designed to determine the psychic and dollar cost to parents of their experience with an adversarial due process system" (p. 4). Seventy-five percent of those interviewed had requested the hearing with full expectations that they would win. All had felt ”nervous. scared. and apprehensive about the nature of the hearing" (p. 14). Sixty-seven percent reported the hearing officer had helped them to feel more comfortable and at ease. and regardless of whether they had won or lost. all but one parent reported they felt the hearing officer had been fair and impartial. All of the parents reported the school's testimony had differed in some way from what they had expected. Eighty-five percent of the parents stated that the hearing had been a very costly procedure in terms of dollars. Without exception. all parents related massive psychic cost to themselves and their families. ‘Twenty-five percent complained of excess nervousness. severe anxiety attacks and enormous disruption of normal family routines. (Another 25% of the population suffered from excess nervousness and disruption of family routine. Others complained only of excess nervousness (20%). In 15% of the fami- lies. one or more family members became physically ill as a result of their nervousness and anxiety. In a final 15% a chaotic dis- ruption of normal family routines was the only effect mentioned. (p. 17) Parents who continued their appeal through the hearing itself consistently expressed a strong feeling of personal efficacy. although they felt drained by the process and weren’t sure they would be willing to go through it again. (p. 20) Daynard (1980). through interviews with Massachusetts school personnel. hearing officers. and parents. found that the adversarial posture of the hearing provides a tense. anxiety-provoking experience for all concerned. She stated that even if there is no bitterness 32 between the parties to begin with. it often develops as the process evolves. Her study was most concerned with the effect of the hearing process on the schools. She found them generally anxious to avoid a hearing if possible; often suffering severe financial consequences as the result of hearing decisions requiring them to pay private school tuition; feeling the need to resort to legal representation in defense of the attack they feel from the parents: learning to be more account- able for what they do and to document that accountability; selecting witnesses to testify at the hearing on the basis of how well they present themselves and their positions; withholding information that might prove detrimental to their case; confused by the apparent incon- sistency of hearing officers' decisions: blaming hearing officers for their losses; and resenting the intrusion of the hearing decision into the functioning of the organization. All of the participants in the study found a lack of timeliness. delays in scheduling or receipt of the decision. and lengthy hearings to exacerbate the conflict between the parties. She necommended that although personality factors which also affect the tone of the proceedings cannot be changed. a limitation on continuances and delay and the imposition of definite time limits upon independent evaluators could be helpful in reducing the adver- sarial nature of the hearing process. She also suggested that some witnesses could submit their testimony in writing and that the use of written interrogatories and affidavits could reduce the length of hearings which she reported sometimes go on for days. 33 This same frustration with the length of time that evolved before the final solution of the conflict was reported by Budoff and Orenstein (1982). who examined over time the perceptions of parents who had pursued an appeals hearing between September 1974 and December 1976. Eighty-one families. 28% of those who actually went to a hearing during this period. agreed to participate. Initial interviews were conducted as soon as possible after the hearing. and in 49 of the cases the interviewers had actually attended the hearing. Twenty months later a second interview. over the telephone. was conducted with 71 of the original participants. and a third telephone interview was conducted with 62 parents approximately 42 months after the original hearing. The report of the study presents long excerpts from interviews with parents showing what they had sought for their child. how the school had reacted. how they might have reacted. and what disagreements triggered the conflict. all giving the reader a sense of "the anguish and frustration of parents who have become disillusioned by the promises of special education reform." He stated: At a time when parents are being encouraged to become involved in their child's educational program and to assert their rights on behalf of their handicapped child. we must become more sensitively attuned to the factors that can either engender or destroy a collegial relationship between parents and school personnel. Presumably. the more the home is able to support the school's efforts. the better for the handicapped child. . . . . Interviews made it strikingly evident to us how trau- matic the hearing had been for parents and school personnel alike. but we feel parents are in a particularly difficult position. Assertion of one's rights can be a painful experience. . . . Parents who dared to contest the school's plan found the psychic and economic costs to be high. often far higher than they could have anticipated. (pp. ll-12) 34 Budoff and Orenstein found the seeds of many disputes in the failure of the school to honor parents as partners and to make concentrated. planned. and well-organized efforts at communicating with them. ‘They considered in depth what parents involved in the study liked about private schools as compared with public schools. and essentially that difference was the close parent-teacher contact and the development on the part of the child of a positive self-image. They found that hearings were used disproportionately by higher- status parents of learning disabled children. Forty-nine of the cases involved requests for payment of private school tuition for children who were already attending private school programs. 11 others were new requests for private school placements. and only 11 cases were parents seeking different programs within the public school than those proposed in the child's educational plan. Although research conducted in other states is informative. there is a basic difference between the provision of special education programs and services as practiced in Michigan and as practiced in Illinois. Massachusetts. or California that causes one to anticipate a different population of parents using the hearing process as a dispute- resolution technique and different hearing issues in Michigan. In California. Illinois. and Massachusetts local school districts do pay for private school tuition for handicapped students. Michiganhs Constitution (Article 8. Sec. 2) prohibits the payment of public monies to any "private. denominational. or non-public. pre-elementary. elementary. or secondary school." 35 Budoff. Orenstein and Abramson (1981) did address the issue of hearings concerned with appropriate public school programs in a study of 51 decisions written during the first three years following imple- mentation of Chapter 766 (Massachusetts! Mandatory Act) and found that these parents came from lower socioeconomic backgrounds than families seeking private school placements. In these cases disputes centered on identification issues. direct educational service issues. and placement issues. Many decisions were not clear cases of win or lose but appeared to be attempts by the hearing officer to enforce standards of appropriate practice on school systems. In 13 cases. decisions reflected an agreement reached during the hearing between parents and the school. It was concluded that There is room for negotiation when a dispute involves altered public school services and that a better process of communication between the parents and school personnel at an earlier point might have averted some of these appeals. (p. 182) Because so many of the hearings in Massachusetts involve requests that the local school district pay tuition for private school place- ments. it is difficult to say whether the process is used less by parents of lower socioeconomic status because it is less accessible to them. or because they do not place their children in private schools when they are dissatisfied with the public school. 'To understand fully the picture of the hearing process in Massachusetts as presented by Budoff and others. there are certain factors characteristic of the process as it operates in that state of which a reader in Michigan cannot be assumed to be cognizant. First. the Massachusetts Department of Education does the equivalent of Michigan's local-level hearing with 36 a staff of 9.5 full-time hearing officers (all of whom are lawyers). each responsible for conducting four or five hearings a month and writing the reports within that time period. At the time of the 1981 site visitation by Michigan Department of Education personnel (Scan- dary. 1981). Massachusetts had a tremendous backlog of hearings. with violations of time lines running about six months to a year. and with typing of transcripts for cases appeal ed to the State Advisory Commit- tee (the equivalent of our State Level Appeal) running about two years behind. During the 1980 calendar year. 1.200 requests for hearings were processed in Massachusetts. with 300 actually going to hearing: whereas there were 41 hearings conducted in Michigan between September 1980 and September 1981. Scandary reported the Massachusetts complaint/investigation process appears to be a much less significant part of compliance procedures than is the case in Michigan. It seems logical to wonder if because of the underdevelopment of this process. the hearing process is used in Massachusetts when in Michigan a com- plaint would be filed. To determine the financial cost incurred by each school district. Mange and Henley (1982) investigated and analyzed hearings held in Michigan between September 1980 and August 1981. ‘They found that hearing costs. direct and indirect. as reported by local school districts ranged from 51.188.83 to 516.317.48. with the average being 35.998.32. In contrast to the California and Massachusetts studies where the majority of the hearings involved requests by parents for the payment of private school tuition by the public school system. in 37 Michigan only one hearing out of the 28 responses tabulated was because a parent requested the payment of private school tuition. Also of interest for comparison purposes is the fact that only four students involved in a tabulation of 30 hearings were learning disabled. The distribution of hearings across the state was in proportion to the population of the state. with the greatest concentration in the south- eastern area of the state. Of the 28 local hearings studied. decisions were reached favoring the school's position in 75% of the cases. and after 13 decisions were appealed to the state that percentage was reduced only to 69%. In the final analysis. parents were supported by hearing decisions in only 4 of the 28 cases. or 14%. In addition to the information regarding the financial cost of these hearings. the study presented an interesting summary of comments by respondents which seems to coincide with the findings of researchers who have looked at the effect of the hearing on its participants: . . . Hearings are expensive in both financial and human energy terms.... . The adversary relationship fostered by the hearing process leaves major scars and often tends to polarize the parties even more than when the process began. (p. 14) The literature available adds to the concern of those who wonder whether the due process procedures that have been implemented in spe- cial education. specifically the hearing process. really benefit the children and parents whose rights they were intended to protect. 'The due process procedures developed are nothing more than mechanisms intended to provide a guarantee of fairness and of parental involvement in decision making regarding the educational program of a handicapped 38 child. The primary measure of the efficacy and utility of any such mechanism must be the extent to which its components enhance the proba- bility that those it intends to protect will be treated fairly. Beyond that. those for whom its protection is intended must perceive the mechanism as treating them fairly. If they do not. we must ask why and set about the task of modifying or revising the procedures to provide that sense of efficacy and fairness. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the methodology and research design used in this study. Included are a description of the target population and sample. rationale for development of the interview guide. and methods of data collection and analysis. W The population from which data were obtained for this study included the total number of parents who were known to have been involved in special education due process hearings in Michigan between September 1. 1980. and August 31. 1981. These 41 families resided in 15 different intermediate school districts and were distributed throughout the lower peninsula of Michigan. 'The districts involved in the hearings held during this time period had been previously identi- fied by a Michigan State University study of hearing costs as reported by schools (Mange & Henley. 1982). Hearings had involved 30 different intermediate and local school districts. Of these districts 1 had four hearings during the time period. 1 had three hearings. 6 had two hear- ings. and 22 had one each. The students whose educational programs were in question were categorized according to 12 different disability definitions. These 39 40 students ranged in age from 4 to 20 years of age. Disagreements had covered 18 different issues. all falling under the general categories of (1) identification. (2) evaluation. (3) placement. and (4) provision of a free appropriate education. The 1980-81 time period was selected to determine what happened after the hearing and how parents feel about the process. and the forum it provides for conflict resolution. after the intensity of the disagreement had had time to abate. It had been anticipated that by investigating parental experiences with these particular hearings. information regarding financial costs of the hearing as reported by parents could be added to the already available data on school district costs to provide a total reported cost figure for each hearing. Parents. however. tended to remember their costs in terms of time and emotion rather than dollars. Consequently. the total reported cost figure could not be determined. mm To obtain the information sought in this research study. parents were requested to retrieve memories of what was in many instances a very stressful period in their lives. It did not seem appropriate to ask parents to share their very personal thoughts and feelings with an unknown researcher. in an impersonal way. as would have been required through the use of a mailed questionnaire or telephone interview. Primarily for this reason it was decided that the information would be obtained through personal interviews conducted by the researcher. 41 Another reason for choosing the personal interview rather than the self-administered questionnaire is the concern that all parents might not interpret the same question in the same way. As Kerlinger (1973) stated. "Experience has shown that the same question frequently has different meanings for different people. . . . This can be handled in the interview" (p. 487). Kerlinger provided further support for the choice of the personal interview by pointing out that if open-ended questions are used in the self-administered questionnaire. as would be necessary in this case. respondents may object to writing the answers. consequently reducing the sample of adequate responses. He stated: Many people cannot express themselves adequately in writing. and many who can express themselves dislike doing so.. . . The best instrument for sounding people's behavior. future intentions. feelings. attitudes. and reason for behavior would seem to be the structured interview coupled with an interview schedule that includes open-end. closed and scale items. (p. 488) Kerlinger cautioned that disadvantages to the use of the personal interview include the cost in time. energy. and money and the very high degree of skill necessary for its construction.. . . Once these disadvan- tages are surmounted. the structured interview is a powerful tool of behavioral research. (p. 488) It was decided that interviews should be semi-structured. The interviewer would ask a series of structured questions. some open- ended to obtain more complete data. ‘The interviewer would be free to probe or explain or reword questions if necessary to obtain the desired information. According to Borg and Gall (1979). the semi-structured interview "provides a desirable combination of objectivity and depth 42 and often permits gathering valuable data that could not be success- fully obtained by any other approach" (p. 313). Another important concern was the need for the parents to trust that the intention of the interviewer was indeed to use what was learned to help evaluate the hearing process as it functioned in Michigan and to assist other parents who may be faced with the need to request a special education due process hearing. Of primary importance was the establishment of rapport between the interviewer and the parent and a showing of understanding and genuine interest on the part of the interviewer without influencing the responses of the parents. Recog- nizing that the influence. direct or indirect. of the interviewer as a part of the response process cannot be totally eliminated (Gage. 1963. [x 404). all interviews were conducted by the same person. Specific training in working with parents of handicapped children. a broad knowl- edge of special education. and 23 years of working with handicapped children and their parents qualified the researcher for the position of interviewer. WWW One of the most important tasks of this study was the development of an interview guide (Appendix B) designed to standardize the situation to some degree while eliciting the desired information. and still allowing the opportunity for unsolicited comments by the parents. First. an attempt was made to determine if similar research had been conducted in other states. and if so. whether the questionnaires or interview guides used in those studies could be made available to this 43 researcher. Researchers in North Carolina. California. and Massachu- setts who were known to have conducted research regarding parent involvement in the hearing process were contacted by letter and by telephone. Information regarding the research designs of the studies and instruments used for gathering data were not made available to this researcher. The interview guide developed for this study was structured to answer the basic question. "Do parents who have experienced the process believe the due process special education hearing is an effective means of resolving conflict between parent and school regarding the educa- tional program of a handicapped child?" Closed and open-ended ques- tions were developed based on a survey of literature available pertaining to the process. participation in a mock hearing. and observation of a hearing. combined with the researcher's personal experience as a special educator and as a parent who had experienced conflict with the special education department of a local school district. An attempt was made to structure some questions and forced- choice responses after those quoted in reports of research conducted in Massachusetts (Budoff 8 Orenstein. 1983; Daynard. 1970: Mitchell. 1976). Wording of questions and structure of the interview guide followed principles set forth by Dillman (1978) and Kerlinger (1973). The interview guide was designed to provide questions for exploring the history of the familyWS relationship with the school. their expectations at the time they requested the hearing. their actual exmerience with the hearing process. and the implementation and 44 aftermath of the hearing officer's decision. Questions were directed at what parents viewed as having exacerbated or reduced the conflict. the financial and emotional costs they had incurred. their feelings regarding the efficacy and equity of the process. and the impartiality of the hearing officer. Questions also addressed the issue of the effect of the hearing on the children and their educational programs and on the current parent-school relationship. The first draft of the interview guide was reviewed by members of the researcher's guidance committee and by Dr. Edward Birch. Di rector. and Dr. Benjamin Herbert. Compliance Coordinator. of the Special Educa- tion Services Area of the Michigan Department of Education. Their suggestions and recommendations resulted in the addition of several questions to which the Department was seeking answers and slight modi- fications in the wording of others. Next. the interview guide was piloted by interviewing two parents who had participated in a hearing. but not during the time period under study. One of these parents had had more than one hearing. Volunteers for the pilot study were obtained through the president of a local chapter of the Michigan Association of Children with Learning Disabili- ties. ‘These parents were interviewed and then asked questions regard- ing their feelings about the interview. Both parents responded that none of the questions asked were offensive to them. that it had not been difficult to discuss the things we had just talked about. that they would advise another parent to participate in the interview. and that although the interview was long they did not feel it could have 45 been shortened. These parents also indicated they felt good about having given the interviewed and that they hoped their experience with the hearing process could serve to help other parents and handicapped children. Upon completion of these two interviews the guide was judged appropriate for the research task. and it was decided to include the questions asked regarding response to the interview in the final ver- sion of the interview guide. Wanna: Requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 prevented direct access to the names and addresses of parents who had been involved in hearings. The only information available regard- ing the hearings was the date the hearing was held and the school district in which it was held. For this reason. letters (Appendix C) explaining the purpose of the study. giving the date of the hearing or hearings held in their district during the time period being studied. and requesting their assistance in contacting the parents involved in each hearing were sent to directors of special education in the 30 school districts known to have had hearings. The directors were asked to forward a letter (Appendix 0). response form (Appendix E). and a stamped. addressed envelope to the appropriate parents. A stamped envelope was provided for that purpose. Also included in this mailing was a stamped. addressed postcard (Appendix F) for the director to return. indicating whether or not the request for participation had been forwarded to the appropriate parent. 46 Directors who did not return the postcard were telephoned three weeks after the original mailing and requested to participate in the study. Postcards were returned from 13 school districts indicating letters had been forwarded to 17 parents. One district indicated verbally that the parent letter was sent. but the postcard was not returned. In another case no card was returned by the district. but the response form was received from the parent so it can be assumed the district did forward the letter to the parent. Three districts indicated that parents had moved and addresses were unknown. One district had no record of a hearing being held on the date stated. Nine districts returned the response card indicating they had chosen not to forward the letters to parents. One district indicated verbally that the letters would not be forwarded. Only one district provided no response at all. Directors provided access to a possible 19 parents. Further assistance in contacting parents was requested from the Michigan Department of Education. Special Education Services Area. Although that Department did have available the names and addresses of the 19 parents who had appealed the decision of the hearing officer. the names were not released for contact by the interviewer nor did the Department forward letters to the parents or request of the parents that they participate in this study. Assistance was also requested from professional and volunteer parent advocates. Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services. and from attorneys known to represent parents in special education matters. No information is available regarding how many parents were contacted in 47 this way. An additional four parents did agree. however. to be inter- viewed. This raised the total number of parents possibly available for interview to 23. The letter forwarded to parents presented them with the opportu- nity to participate in the study. Parents were requested to return the response form after filling in their name. address. and telephone number if they wished to participate or to return the blank form if they chose not to. All letters were printed on Michigan State Univer- sity stationery and were signed by this writer and Dr. Charles Mange. a professor of special education and well-known hearing officer. The interest in this study of the Michigan State Department of Education. Special Education Services Area. and its director. Dr. Edward Birch. was referred to in the letter. Of the 19 parents contacted by school districts. 12 returned response forms indicating their desire to be interviewed. One returned the form indicating they did not wish to be interviewed because the memories were "just too painful." Of the additional four parents contacted by other than school districts who had agreed to be inter- viewed. one could not be included in the study because the date of the hearing was not in the time period being studied. A total of 15 parents were available to the researcher. As response forms from parents were received. telephone calls were made to each parent to schedule a convenient interview time. Inter- views were scheduled to take pl ace in parents' homes throughout Michi- gan. In one instance. at the request of the parent. an interview was 48 held in a restaurant near the parent's home. Interviews took place between April 24. 1983. and August 15. 1983. These semi-structured interviews lasted from two and one-half to five hours. Questions on the interview guide were asked and responses recorded by this researcher. Parents were free to elaborate on answers and to add comments they felt were important to the interviewer's understanding of their experience with the hearing process and their perceptions of its effectiveness as a conflict-resolution technique. Responses were recorded verbatim on the interview guide as well as being tape recorded. Information on the completed interview guides was analyzed and recorded in tabular form according to percentages of parents who had expressed similar experiences and feelings. Feelings parents reported that were directly concerned with the hearing were also analyzed according to the outcome of the hearing. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS Ininnductlnn The focus of this chapter is on the presentation of data obtained from the 15 interviews conducted. [All data are presented as reported by the parents and represent the parent perspective exclusively. Data include direct responses to closed and open-form questions. as well as unsolicited comments made by the parents. An effort has been made to report all relevant thoughts expressed by the parents with regard to the questions asked. often using direct quotations. It should be noted that all of the parents interviewed have had. in some sense. an unsat- isfactory experience with the school system serving their handicapped child. It is that unsatisfactory experience and the hearing that resulted from it.that parents talked about in the interviews. The hearing and the events that led up to it are emotionally charged for these parents. and their responses to questions often reflect the inten- sity of that emotion. Generally parents were more verbal in their expression of displeasure than in their responses that reflected posi- tively on their experiences with the school. For this reason the narrative and verbatim material presented in this chapter tend to highlight the most negative aspects of the parent/school relationship as viewed by the parent. Its presentation here is not intended as an ‘49 50 indictment of the public schools in Michigan. but as an inside look into the thoughts and reasons for displeasure as expressed by 15 parents who have been in a conflict situation with the school providing service to their child. The responses to each closed-form question are presented in tabular form and provide a record of the parents' direct response to questions whether positive or negative. No effort has been made to verify that events happened as parents reported them. All responses are subject to errors in memory and the subjective view of the parent. The intention is not to provide docu- mented proof of past events. but to provide a view of the hearing process as it is perceived by parents who have used it. No matter how efficient. how legally correct. or how equitable the process may seem to be. if parents do not perceive it to be so. or if they do not perceive it to result in benefits to the child that are worth the energy. cost. and effort expended. it may not truly be serving the lofty purpose for which it was intended. 14%. the protection of the rights of the parent and the child. It has been shown through experi- ence with grievance mechanisms designed to insure due process to employees in the workplace that. unless the persons whose rights the mechanism was designed to protect see the mechanism as being fair and just. they will not use it; A mechanism designed to protect rights that is not used by those who feel their rights have been violated cannot be said to be serving the purpose for which it was intended. The reader is reminded that data presented here represent the perceptions of the parents of 15 handicapped children out of the 41 in 51 Michigan who were the subject of due process hearings between September 1. 1980. and August 31. 1981. The 41 children whose educa- tional programs were in question represent a very small proportion of the 160.187 handicapped children in Michigan who were provided with special education programs and services during that year. The first section of this chapter contains data that provide a profile of the parents interviewed according to the occupation of the primary wage earner in the home. the highest level of education completed. the approximate family income during the year of the hearing. membership on a Parent Advisory Committee and in parent organizations. and whether they have children other than the subject of the hearing who have been provided with special education. The second section deals with the characteristics of the subjects of the hearings--their disability and sex. age. and grade at the time of the hearing and at the time of the interview. 'The third section is concerned with the children's history in special education-when they entered special education and what programs and services had been provided before the request for the hearing. Parental perceptions of their experiences with the school system and special education before the request for the hearing are dealt with in section four. Section five provides data regarding the issue of the hearing as perceived by the parents--what they wanted for their child and how they viewed the school's position. In section six. data describe the request for the hearing and attempts at conflict resolution before the hearing. Section seven pertains to parent perceptions of the actual hearing. 52 The decision. as viewed by the parents. is the subject of section eight. Section nine presents parent impressions of the effect of the hearing officer's decision--the effect as they saw it on their child and on their relationship with the school. Advice from the parents interviewed to other parents and schools regarding what to do when faced with a conflict situation is presented in section ten. The final section provides suggestions made by the parents for improvement in the hearing/appeal process as it now operates in Michigan. Ea:ent.Enoiile The parents of 15 children who had been the subject of special education due process hearings were interviewed. 'Twelve interviews were conducted with mothers of the children. ‘Three interviews were conducted with both the mother and the father present. In all cases the subjects and their parents were Caucasian. These parents lived in both large and small school districts located in the northern. south- ern. eastern. western. and central parts of the lower peninsula of Michigan. As shown in Table l. the majority of these families had only one child in special education. Table 1.--Response to Question 5: Do you have other children who have received special education? Response N Percent Yes 4 26.67 No 11 73.33 53 Twelve (80%) of the parents reported that the hearing discussed in the interview was their first special education due process hearing. For twatof the parents the hearing discussed was their second. One parent was uncertain whether the hearing was her third or fourth (Table 2). Table 2.--Hearing number. Number N Percent First 12 80.00 Second 2 13.35 Third or fourth 1 6.67 Six of the parents interviewed were or had been a member of the Parent Advisory Committee (PAC) (Table 3). Nine were or had been active members of some organization for parents of the handicapped (Table 4). Parents who were PAC members were in all cases also active members of a parent organization. Table 3.--Response to Question 144: Are you or have you ever been a member of the PAC? Response N Percent Yes 6 40.0 No 9 60.0 54 Table 4.--Response to Question 145: Are you an active member of any parent organization? Response N Percent Yes 9 60.0 No 6 40.0 Three of the parents reported that at least one parent had not only completed college. but had earned a graduate degree. In families where a graduate degree was reported. both parents held college degrees. all in fields related to education. The highest degree reported was a FWLD. An additional seven parents reported having taken some college courses. ‘Two-thirds of the parents interviewed reported one or both parents had some formal education beyond high school. Three parents reported having completed only high school. one reported attending some high school. and one reported having completed grade school (Table 5). One parent indicated she was "special edo"hersel f. Table 5.--Response to Question 148: What is the highest level of education that you or your spouse have completed? Level N Percent No formal education 0 0 Some grade school 0 0 Completed grade school 1 6.67 Some high school 1 6.67 Completed high school 3 20.00 Some college 7 46.67 Cbmpleted college 0 0 Some graduate work 0 O A graduate degree 3 20.00 55 Family income during the year of the hearing was reported to range from less than 515.000 to over 550.000 (Table 6). Table 6.--Response to Question 149: What was your approximate family income from all sources. before taxes. at the time of the hearing? Income N Percent Less than 515.000 2 13.33 3169000 to $20,000 0 0 521.000 to 530.000 5 33.33 531.000 to 540.000 3 20.00 541.000 to 550.000 2 13.33 Over 550.000 1 6.67 Don't know 2 13.33 Reported occupations included psychologist. speech therapist. press operator. teacher. occupational therapist. sales engineer. waitress. auto mechanic. painter. service representative. college professor. physical therapy aide. real estate and collections agent. die maker. factory worker. railroad conductor. elevator mechanic. and debate coach. In one case the parent reported being unemployed. with income only from Social Security. One-third of the parents interviewed reported they or family members had experienced what they considered significant illness during the time of attempted conflict resolution with the school (Table 7). 56 Table 7.--Response to Question 146: Did you or family members suffer from any illness during this time of attempted conflict resolution with the school? Response N Percent Yes 5 33.33 No 10 66.67 Wu Of the 15 children whose educational programs were challenged in special education due process hearings. seven were male and eight were female (Table 8). The age of these children at the time of the hearing ranged from 1.5 years to 20 years. with a mean age of 11.8 (Table 9). As could be expected. their ages at the time of the interview. approxi- mately two years later. ranged from 4 years to 22 years. with a mean age of 14.13 years (Table 10). Table 8.--Sex of children. Group N Percent Female 8 53.33 Male 7 46.67 57 Table 9.--Student age at time of hearing. Age N Percent 1.5 l 6.67 4 2 13.33 7 1 6.67 10 1 6.67 12 2 13.33 13 l 6.67 14 l 6.67 15 l 6.67 16 3 20.00 17 1 6.67 20 l 6.67 Range 1.5 to 20 years Mean 11.8 years Table 10.--Student age at time of interview. Age N Percent 4 l 6.67 6 l 6.67 7 1 6.67 10 l 6.67 12 l 6.67 14 2 13.33 16 2 13.33 17 l 6.67 18 8 20.00 20 l 6.67 ‘22 1 6.67 Range 4 to 22 years Mean 14.13 years 58 When initially asked what their child's disability was. some parents responded with medical terms or descriptions of the symptoms of disability as they had observed them. Some of the responses included "undetermined convulsive seizures." "mildly retarded with 100% comprehension." "seizures and mentally impaired." "Downs." "first Speech and Language Impaired. then changed to EMI but she's really LD." "learning disabled in mathfl'"poor gross motor coordination. learning disabled. EI. and she's hearing impaired." "birth defect . . . haline membrane . . . blood problem . . . at 22 months he wasn't walking or talking . . . educable but not mentally retarded." Other parents responded to the question with special education terms such as Hearing Impaired. Learning Disabled. Emotionally Impaired. and SXI. Further questioning as to their understanding of the child's disability in accordance with the terms used by the school provided the data presented in Table 11. Table ll.--Primary disability as reported by parent. Category N Percent Educable Mentally Impaired (EMI) 4 26.67 Learning Disabled (LD) 3 20.00 Physically & Otherwise Health Impaired (POHI) 3 20.00 Hearing Impaired (HI) 2 13.33 Severely Multiply Impaired (SMI) 2 13.33 Emotionally Impaired (E1) 1 6.67 59 Wen All of the parents interviewed reported their children were enrolled in public school educational programs before the time the hearing was requested (Tables 12 and 13). Table 12.--Response to Question 12: Was your child enrolled in school prior to the time the hearing was requested? Response N Percent Yes 15 100 No 0 O Table 13.--Response to Question 2: Was your child in a public or private school program? Response N Percent Public 15 100 Private 0 O Three of the parents reported their child had attended a private educational program before entering the public school program. Two of the three children had attended private preschool programs. and the third had attended a private special education school for grades one through six. The majority of the children were receiving some special educa- tion service at the time the hearing was requested (Table 14). 60 Table l4.--Response to Question 3: Was your child receiving any special education services at the time the hearing was requested? Response N Percent Yes 13 86.67 No 2 13.33 Over 70% of the parents explained they had been aware of their child's disability before the child entered school. Table 15 shows that 11 of the parents reported their child had been provided with special education before the end of the first grade. six as preschoolers. and five upon or shortly after their initial enrollment in school at age five or six. Only four of the parents reported their children had been in general education programs with no special education for more than a year. 'Two of these children who spent more than a year in general education before the provision of special education programs or serv- ices were later identified as learning disabled. and one had a physical condition that became progressively more severe as he grew older. One child never did receive special education. Table 16 shows six of the children were reported to be in ungraded programs at the time of the hearing. One parent described her child's program as ungraded. adding. "They just put down a grade to satisfy himJ' Further questioning provided the information that the child was in junior high school. but did not provide a specific grade level. Another parent who reported the child to be in an ungraded 61 program said the child had been listed for school purposes as a twelfth grader for three years. The parent of another child explained that although the program was really ungraded. her child was considered to be in the second grade. Three other parents reported their children to be in clearly ungraded programs with no reference to grade level. 'The remaining parents reported their children's grade levels as definite grade placements. Table 15.--Response to Question 15: When did your child first enter special education? Response N Percent Never 1 6.67 Preschool 6 40.00 Kindergarten or first grade 5 33.33 Second grade 1 6.67 Sixth grade 1 6.67 Seventh grade 1 6.67 Table 16.--Response to Question 10: Grade level at time of hearing. Grade Level N Percent Ungraded 6 40.00 Preschool 2 13.33 Fourth grade 1 6.67 Fifth grade 1 6.67 Eighth grade 2 13.33 Tenth grade 3 20.00 62 When they were asked under what label their child was originally found eligible for special education. three of the parents responded that there had been no label. In one case this was because the child was found ineligible for special education. The other two parents just could not remember that a label had been assigned. Other children had been categorized under the labels of Educable Mentally Impaired. Emotionally Impaired. Hearing Impaired. Physically and Otherwise Health Impaired. Speech and Language Impaired. and Specific Learning Disabil- ity (Table 17). Table 17.--Response to Question 18: Under what label was your child originally found eligible for special education? Category N Percent Educable Mentally Impaired 3 20.00 Emotionally Impaired l 6.67 Hearing Impaired 2 13.33 Physically/Otherwise Health Impaired 3 20.00 Speech and Language Impaired 1 6.67 Specific Learning Disability 2 13.33 None 3 20.00 Table 18 shows that eight of the parents interviewed reported that their child's original placement had been exclusively in special education. In some cases the child was not in school the full day. but of the time spent in school. none was spent in a general education program. Self-contained placement with some part of the school day spent in general education was reported by two of the parents. Another 63 parent reported general education placement with some related service (occupational therapy) provided by special education. One parent of the two parents who reported "other" placements had been involved with her child in a three and one-half hour per week infant-parent program. and the other parent had taken her child to the school for a weekly 15- minute speech therapy session. Table 18.--Response to Question 19: What was your child's original special education placement? Placement N Percent Self-contained classroom full time 8 53.33 Self-contained classroom/general education 2 13.33 General education/learning resource center 1 6.67 General education/teacher consultant 0 0 General education/related services 1 6.67 Other 2 13.33 None 1 6.67 Table 19 shows that nine of the children were reported to have been receiving some additional service provided by special education. Six.of the children were receiving from two to five additional services. while five received no additional services. Between the time of the child's original entrance into special education and the time of the hearing request. many of the children had experienced some change in placement or services provided. Half of the children originally in self-contained special education programs on a full-time basis were in general education for some'part of their school 64 day at the time of the hearing request (Table 20). The child origi- nally receiving speech therapy once per week had been placed in a self- contained program on a full-time basis. For one child. the original special education placement came after the hearing. Table l9.--Response to Question 20: What other special education services were provided? Service N Percent Speech therapy 7 46.67 Social work 6 40.00 Physical therapy 3 20.00 Occupational therapy 3 20.00 Psychological 3 20.00 Orientation and mobility l 6.67 None 5 33.33 Note: Percentages equal more than 100% because more than one service was provided for some children. Table 20.--Response to Question 21: In what special education placement was your child enrolled at the time of the hearing request? Placement N Percent Self-contained classroom full time 5 33.33 Self-contained classroom/general education 6 40.00 General education/learning resource center 0 0 General education/teacher consultant 0 0 General education/related services 1 6.67 Other 1 6.67 None 2 13.33 65 Frequently parents whose children had had some involvement with general education were uncertain as to how much of their child's school day was spent with nonhandicapped peers. Some chose to make what they felt was an accurate estimate: others just indicated they were uncer- tain. ‘The four parents who reported their children spent no time in general education programs and the three parents who reported their children spent the full day in general education programs were definite in their responses (Table 21). Table 21.--Response to Question 23: At the time of the hearing request what portion of the day was your child in special education? Hours or Periods N Percent None 4 26.67 1 2 13.33 2 3 20.00 3 l 6.67 All 3 20.00 Uncertain 2 13.33 Additional services provided to these children at the time of the hearing are shown in Table 22. At that time 60% of the children were receiving some additional services. Thirteen parents reported that their child's placement had remained the same during the time between the request for the hearing and the hearing decision (Table 23). Reasons given by two parents who reported a changed placement were (1) a complaint decision changed teacher assignment during the appeal process. and (2) the child was 66 kept at home pending the outcome of the hearing. In both cases. the changed placement was due to parent action. Table 22.--Response to Question 22: What special education services was your child receiving at the time of the hearing request? Service N Percent Speech therapy 4 26.67 Social work 5 33.33 Physical therapy 2 13.33 Occupational therapy 3 20.00 Psychological 2 13.33 Learning disability consultant 1 6.67 None 6 40.00 Note: Percentages equal more than 100% because more than one service was provided for some children. Table 23.--Response to Question 24: Did your child's placement remain the same during the time between the request for a hearing and the hearing decision? Response N Percent Unchanged 13 86.67 Changed 2 13.33 Wu Of the parents interviewed. 80% reported they had requested help from the special education department for their child (Table 24). 67 Table 24.--Response to Question 25: By whom was your child originally referred for special education? Referrer N Percent Parent 12 80 School 3 20 One parent requested the public school provide special education for her daughter after the child had spent six years in a private school in another state. She explained that for eight years she did not know an appropriate public school program existed. At that time all they had was a trainable program. I knew of that. But then A. did not fit in that program. She was not trainable. She was educable from the very beginning.... . I knew she would not fit into their trainable progranu Nor did I accept to place her in their nursery program with an assortment of very handicapped children. I went to visit that program. A. is an outgoing person. It was the first time. the only time in her life. that she put up her arms to me and would not stand on the floor. It appalled her. She can tell the difference. She was two. She would not stay there. She would not cooperate. I took her to anyone e1 se's house. or any other assembly. she would always mingle. She's outgoing. That's the only place she would not go. Thereafter I became uninterested because all of my activities were in [another state]. I did not much know what was going on in [the local school district]. I knew of [private] School from another mother whose son had been educated there. Every once in a while they would conduct a school survey. They would come here and I would tell them. over and over again. "We have a retarded childJ' “And where does she go to school?" "She goes to . . . School for Exceptional Children.” They were here about four times during those eight years. So that when I discovered that they had these programs I wondered what they had done with all these surveys and I could not find out. I asked them. "Why was I never contacted and informed that she could go to such a program?" Because I think from the fourth grade they developed a program for the educable. It would have been available to her. But of course all of this was at my own expense. This 68 was at no expense to the district. It was a savings to the district while I was paying these taxes. Another parent who requested help from the special education department for her child recalled that although the school had brought her child's problem to her attention. they had not offered the assist- ance of special education. He was having problems with mathematics right from early elementary. Several teachers had said that he had problems and finally I took him to . . . Clinic. After they did several tests on him they said that he needed help with mathematics. that he had a problem. They suggested someone they thought he would work well with. I took him to the tutor. I didn't ask the school for help at that point. I figured the school coulant do anything. Nobody ever said anything. The teachers just said that he had a problem and that you should see somebody about it. He wouldntt sit still in class. He had a very short attention span. He was hyper. He was put on medication for his hyperness when he was about ten. He was on medication for two years. Then they failed him. We knew he had problems in math. They flunked him. That was sixth grade. and the reason they flunked him was because of his math. I said to them. "I dontt understand it. he's got problems with math and we've had him to a private clinic and they say he's got problems. There's something wrong hereJ' Here he was in the sixth grade and he was doing like second grade math but he was doing everything else at or above level. That was the major point of irritation. They had him down between third and fourth grade level in math and his reading and all of his other subjects--the lowest was eighth grade. And they said because of math--no SPeCi'al (adv-but we'll flunk him. That will be better for him. Now that attitude just didn't set right with me. I spoke to [the therapist/tutor] about it. about him flunk- ing. and she was quite upset. as we were. And that's when she said I think you need an advocate. We got ourselves an advocate and then we went to the school. We asked the school for help and they denied it. He had no remedial math because there weren't enough openings. They never suggested special ed. And then when we brought it up it was turned down. He didn't meet the qualifi- cations. A different story was told by a parent who described the referral of her child to special education in the following manner: 69 The school did it on their own. They held an EPPC without my knowledge. She spent the first year of school in regular kinder- garten. I knew she had problems. but the neurologist had sug- gested a regular kindergarten. She had had speech help at the County. She was perfectly normal in her development up until age three and that was when I noticed learning lags. i.e.. problems with communication. She had problems understanding directions and instructions and her speech was not progressing at a normal rate. She was put into a regular kindergarten the first year. The second year. the first half of that year was spent in a regular kindergarten again. The second half of that year she was put into an EMI classroom. self-contained. It was originally just decided without my knowledge. The teacher gave me the information that she was going to be put into special education during the second semester. I then had a meet- ing with the supervisor of special education. Seven of the 15 parents reported that no one had explained to them what would have to be done in order to determine their child's eligibility for special education or how it would be decided what services the child would be provided. 'Table 25 shows who was reported to have explained the evaluation/identification/placement process to parents when such an explanation was provided. Table 25.--Response to Question 26: Who explained what would have to be done to determine whether your child would be eligible for special education and how it would be decided what services would be provided? Role N Percent Principal 1 6.67 Special ed. administrator l 6.67 Social worker 3 20.00 Psychologist l 6.67 Other 2 13.33 No one 7 46.67 70 Table 26 displays how information about the process was reported to have been obtained by parents. Often. even those parents who did receive some form of an explanation from school personnel did not feel that the information provided was clear enough for them to really understand what was involved in determining whether their child would be eligible for special education. and if so. what kinds of services the child would need. Table 26.--Response to Question 27: How was this evaluation/ identification/placement process explained to you? Method N Percent In person 5 33.33 Written information 2 13.33 No explanation. learned as happened 7 46.67 Never did understand 2 13.33 Other 4 26.67 Note: Percentages equal more than 100% because parents chose more than one response. In some instances parents reported that their previous knowledge of the process had made an explanation by school personnel unnecessary. In two families parents were employed in fields related to special education and in another. involvement in a parent organization had provided knowledge of the process. A parent who was ”very impressed" with an explanation that had been presented in a "very professional manner" reported that the explanation had been provided by a special education administrator in the district where they had lived before 71 the one where the hearing was held. Other parents who had been pro- vided with explanations reported they had not understood the explana- tions. One who indicated she had been provided with written information which she had to have a parent advocate explain to her. said she "never did really understand what was going onJ' Alparent who remembered having the social worker explain the process to her reported that the explanation had been very general. fljust that they would test her and then we'd have a meeting." She. too. felt she had really "just learned as things happened.” Another parent also reported the social worker had explained the process to her in person. but that "it wasn't clear." that she had not understood. In a situation where the process had been explained by a general education principal and written information had been provided. the parent still had to Wmake several phone calls to an advocate and to friends who had tried to get their children into special education and coulanLfl The parents of two different children both reported they had learned through self- initiative. saying. ”I took the responsibility to find out for myself" and "I did research on my ownJ' One parent who responded that she had received no explanation of anything said. "I went in there cold--they just told us we would have a meeting." A parent who had had more than one hearing reported she had received no explanation and that she had "fumbled her way through. learning a lot along the way." Asked whether they felt they had been expected to be involved in decisions the school would make regarding their child's educational future. 40% reported that they had (Table 27). 72 Table 27.--Response to Question 28: Did you feel that you were expected to be involved in any decisions the school would make regarding your child's educational future? Response N Percent Yes. very much so 4 26.67 Yes 2 13.33 No 2 13.33 No. clearly the school's decision 5 33.33 Other 2 13.33 The comments of these parents frequently pointed out that the expectation that they be involved in the decision-making process came from sources other than the school. Often they expressed the feeling that what they expected and what the school expected appeared to be two different things. A parent who reported knowing the law and under- standing that parents were to be involved in planning their children's educational programs reported that decisions were clearly the schoolkh saying "Even the hearing went on without us)‘ Another who felt the decision-making power rested with the school explained. I was notified and invited to be there. . . . I was allowed to have my words heard. but what I said was never considered in making the placement decision. I was ignored. A parent who reported her child had been placed in special education originally without her permission explained. After the first placement then I was involved. I knew I was to be invited. But I had no control at all in making the decision. In fact. I was told what was going to be done. It was never brought up to me in the format that I had a part in making the decision. They just told me where they were going to put her from year to year. 73 Another parent referred to the school "dropping pearls of wisdom." and explained. Right from the first illegal EPPC I thought I was going to have to fight my way to deciding my daughter's educational future. Similar feelings were expressed by the mother who said. They [school personnel] wished it had been the school's decision but I intended to be involved. A parent who explained he had thought the purpose of the IEPC was intended to be to develop a joint agreement explained that he found out. They didn't want to hear. They might.just as well have said. "You shut up and listen cuz that's the way it's going to be." Responding that they did not feel they were to be part of the decision- making process. a parent explained. We felt we should be. but we felt we weren't. That was the basic difficulty. They don't want parents involved. We tried to be a part of it. The school tried to make us feel unwelcome. They wanted us to just sign here. A parent who felt that she was very much expected to be involved explained that The school didn’tlnake me feel that way. though. The parent organization did. Another parent explained she had a very strong feeling that she was to be involved after having been involved in a home program through a university. I knew I should have a choice of programs. but the school didn’t provide any alternatives. On a more positive note. one mother explained that she had gotten her strong feeling that she should be involved from the special educators 74 who worked with her child. Also reflecting positively on the perform- ance of school personnel were the comments of a father who explained that he was "really very favorably impressed" and that he and his wife had always felt they had a say in what went on until the action that led to the hearing. Parents sometimes found it difficult to remember specifically who had provided them with the results of the evaluation done by the school to determine the chilcPs eligibility for special education. or how and when the results had been explained. Consequently. their responses to questions regarding these details provide conflicting information. The general feeling provided by the responses of most of the parents is that evaluation results had sometimes not been explained well enough that the parent was able to understand the relationship between the evaluation and the decisions that were made regarding placement and services. Table 28 shows who parents remembered having provided them with the results of the initial evaluation conducted by the school. In one instance a parent reported the evaluation results were interpreted by both the classroom teacher and the special education director. The parent of a severely handicapped child who could not remember who had interpreted the evaluation remarked. "I really can't remember. but they were just all so cooperative and good)‘ Another parent indi- cated the evaluation had been done before school entrance by a univer- sity clinic and that none had been done by the public school. Still another mother who indicated no one from the school had provided her 75 with the results of the evaluation declared. "I had to obtain almost a court order in order to get themJ‘ She got the results only after demanding to see the child's file before the hearing. Another parent remarked. "The results weren't really explained--we were just told testing had shown he wasn't eligible for special education." The mother of an 18 year old who had been in special education since kindergarten explained that there had never been any explanation of an evaluation. just "We'll put her in this class--she's still learning. There was never anything in writing except. sign here." she explained. Table 28.--Response to Question 29: Who provided you with the results of the evaluation conducted by the school? Response N Percent Classroom teacher 1 6.67 Principal O 0 Special education administrator 3 20.00 Special education teacher 0 O Psychologist 5 33.33 Teacher consultant 0 0 Speech pathologist 1 6.67 No one 3 20.33 Other 2 13.33 Can't remember 1 6.67 Note: Percentages equal more than 100% because parents selected more than one response. Only four parents reported that results of the evaluation were explained to them before the IEPC (Table 29). Most often parents reported hearing the results at the IEPC. 76 Table 29.--Response to Question 30: When were the results of the evaluation explained to you? Response N Percent Before IEPC 4 26.67 At IEPC 5 33.33 After IEPC 2 13.33 Never 2 13.33 NA 1 6.67 Can't remember 1 6.67 One of the parents who indicated results had been explained after the IPEC explained that they had not had an IEPC or EPPC until just two years ago and that before that time he had "signed papers on the roof of a car." The parent who reported the question not applicable did so because the evaluation had been done by a university center and explained by them rather than by the public school. Only 6 of the 15 parents reported meeting with school personnel for the specific purpose of having the evaluation results explained to them (Table 30L. One parent was particularly complementary to the school with regard to the way evaluation results were shared with her. saying. Interpretation of results was a continuous process. Someone came to my house to explain the results. I heard them at the IEPC again. and I was given a written report. Another parent shared the same sentiment. saying. The classroom teacher always kept us informed. We have no negative feelings about that because they really did very well. 77 Table 30.--Response to Question 31: How were the results of the school's evaluation explained to you? Response N Percent Meeting at school 4 26.67 In home 2 13.33 Over telephone 0 0 At IEPC 7 46.67 Written report 1 6.67 NA 3 20.00 Note: Percentages equal more than 100% because parents selected more than one response. Five parents reported that they felt the evaluation done by the school had accurately described their child. while nine reported they felt the evaluation had not described their child accurately (Table 31). Table 31.--Response to Question 32: Did you feel the evaluation done by the school accurately described your child? Response N Percent Definitely 3 20.00 Yes 2 13.33 No 4 26.67 Definitely not 5 33.33 NA 1 6.67 One parent remarked that the school's evaluation had "definitely not" described her son accurately and explained that the boy had been 78 tested twice previously by other agencies and that those evaluations had described him "exactly." She went on to say. Their [other agencies] evaluations really hit home. They said stuff that I couldn't put a label on. But it fit. It was perfect. It was my son. Another parent who was displeased with the school's evaluation described it as a "real Ho-Ho" and commented. My daughter is profoundly deaf. They used a test designed for hearing children. She didn't even have hearing aids at the time and they didn't use sign language which is her native language. So you can imagine how ridiculous the results of this test came out. They gave her a block in a cup for instance and they said "Put the block in the cup)‘ And here is this child who is profoundly deaf and she knows she is supposed to do something with these items so she puts the cup on the block and she fails the item because she does not know the language. She took the same test at the Michigan School for the Deaf later and they signed it to her and she was able to complete it perfectly. The mother of a child with Down's Syndrome expressed her dis- pleasure with the school's evaluation by saying. I felt they were very biased. I felt they were prejudiced. They seem to have one set evaluation for Downs kids. 'They just think she ought to be trainable. Another parent who felt the evaluation results had been inaccurate placed no blame for that inaccuracy on the school and indicated she felt the school had been sensitive to her feelings regarding her daughter's handicapping condition. She's really hard to test and at that time she was on no medication. Things I knew she could do they said she couldn't. It's always that way with testing. Table 32 shows that less than half of the parents remembered feeling that the school person who had explained the results of their 79 child's evaluation to them had shown some sensitivity to their feelings regarding the child's handicapping condition. Table 32.--Response to Question 33: Did you feel the school person who explained the evaluation results was sensitive to your feelings regarding your child's handicapping condition? Response N Percent Definitely 4 26.67 Yes 2 13.33 Uncertain l 6.67 No 1 6.67 Definitely not 5 33.33 Not applicable 2 13.33 Nine of the parents had obtained at least one independent evalua- tion (Table 33). In only one case was the independent evaluation reported to have been paid for by the school. and in that instance the evaluation had been ordered by the hearing officer (Table 34). Two of the parents indicated the school had refused to accept the results of the independent evaluation they had obtained because they questioned the credentials of the evaluator. Table 33.--Response to Question 34: Did you obtain an independent evaluation? Response N Percent Yes 9 60 No 6 4O 80 Table 34.--Response to Question 35: Who paid for the independent evaluation? (N = 9) Response N Percent Parent 7 77.78 School 1 11.1 Not applicable 1 11.1 Three of the 15 parents remembered receiving explanations of the procedure to be followed at the Individualized Educational Planning Committee (IEPC). or Educational Planning and Placement Committee (EPPC) as it was referred to before 1980. from school personnel (Table 35). Three others reported receiving explanations from parent advocates. and six indicated they had not received explanations from anyone. Eight of the parents felt they had just learned about the process as it had happened rather than from explanations before the meeting (Table 36). Table 35.--Response to Question 36: Who explained what would happen at the IEPC to you? Response N Percent Special ed. administrator l 6.67 Special ed. teacher 1 6.67 Psychologist l 6.67 Parent advocate 3 20.00 No one 6 40.00 Don't remember 3 20.00 81 Table 36.-—Response to Question 37: How did you learn about the procedure to be followed at the IEPC? Method N Percent In-person explanation 3 20.00 Written information 2 13.33 Learned as happened 8 53.33 Never did understand 2 13.33 Other 2 13.33 One parent expressed her anger with regard to the first IEPC meeting she had attended by saying. I came out of the IEPC understanding that it operates like a Kangaroo Court. I learned that if they've made up their minds that was the way it was going to be. I learned a lot and never did understand. A parent who felt she had not been dependent upon the school for her understanding of the procedural aspects and purpose of the IEPC explained. I learned a lot being on the PAC. I also subscribe to several special education publications. Less than half of the parents indicated they had been told what school personnel would be attending their child's IEPC (Table 37). Other parents cited examples of not knowing until the meeting began who would participate in planning the chilcPs Individualized Educational Program (IEP). the school's refusal to have staff requested by parents in attendance. and having staff who had not attended the IEPC sign the child's IEP. One parent only praised the school for its efforts in 82 keeping her informed and made frequent reference to the cooperative nature of the school personnel with whom she dealt. She responded. They always inform me who will be there. They are just very cooperative. Another parent responded. They told me who would be there. not who should be. There were signatures on the EPPC form of people who weren't there. Table 37.--Response to Question 38: Were you told what school personnel would be attending the IEPC? Response N Percent Yes 6 40.00 No 6 40.00 Sometimes 2 13.33 No response 1 6.67 One of the parents who reported not having been informed as to which professional staff would be at the IEPC explained that they had requested previous teachers of the child be at the meeting and were told the teachers could not be released from their teaching responsibilities. Another parent indicated that the school had not informed her of who would be at the meeting until she called and asked. The mother of a child who had been in special education for 18 years said IEPC attendance had provided her with "quite a few surprises along the way" and that the school had upon occasion "refused to have who we thought should be there)‘ Indicating they had sometimes been told who 83 would be at the IEPC. two of the parents explained that once the school began inviting them to the IEPCs they had been told who would be in attendance. but that previous IEPCs had been held without their knowl- edge; hence they had not been informed regarding who would be there. Sixty percent of the parents interviewed felt there was a member of the school staff with whom they could share their concerns regarding their child and his or her educational progress (Table 38). The persons with whom they felt they could share their concerns included the classroom teacher. principal. special education teacher. social worker. psychologist. teacher consultant. counselor. and occupational therapist (Table 39). In two instances parents listed more than one person with whom they felt they could talk openly. A parent who reported feeling comfortable in sharing concerns regarding their child with a general education teacher did not have the same feeling about the special education staff. The . . . teacher gave us a lot of support and helped in under- standing the system. She acted as though she understood. If the special ed.people did understand they acted as though they could care less. And that was from the director right on down. Two parents who did not feel they could share their concerns with a member of the school staff commented as follows: No one would listen. No one heard me. All these years and no one has heard me. God help them! It can't be undone. I don”t even want to deal with it so I won't have to suffer. I've even hidden all the paper away in a drawer. The minute I mentioned Total Communication. I was a piranha. 84 Table 38.--Response to Question 26: Was there some one member of the school staff with whom you felt you could share your con- cerns regarding your child and his/her educational progress? Response N Percent Definitely 5 33.33 Yes 4 26.67 No 2 13.33 Definitely not 4 26.67 Table 39.--Response to Question 27: With whom could you share your concerns? Role N Percent Classroom teacher 4 26.67 Principal l 6.67 Special education teacher 2 13.33 Social worker 1 6.67 Psychologist 2 13.33 Teacher consultant 1 6.67 Other 2 13.33 Eight of the parents reported they did not trust the school's staff to recommend what was in the best interests of their child (Table 40). Parents made such comments as: I thought so in the beginning. 'The following year though when she needed more speech I found everyone against me. After the hearing I couldn't trust anyone because of all the lies. We trusted them until they put a story in the newspaper about us. Hell no! Never! 85 A parent who’did feel she could trust some school staff member to recommend what was best for their child did not feel that the recommen- dations did much good for the child because "they didn’t have the authority" to carry them out. Another parent explained. "In the begin- ning you thought you could. then you found out you couldnttfl Others made such comments as: There were some we really trusted. Some we weren't sure about. They were concerned about their jobs. In the beginning I did. I was very naive. I felt they were working in SJs best interest. I took their word. I just assumed that they were doing what was right. When I became aware of available options I began to question where she was placed. She was not making the progress she was capable of making. I had a really good relationship with the special education teacher. Table 40.--Response to Question 41: Did you trust any school person to recommend what was in the best interests of your child? Response N Percent Definitely 5 33.33 Yes 2 13.33 Uncertain 0 O No l 6.67 Definitely not 7 46.67 Seven of the parents indicated that they had been pleased with educational plans developed for their children before the one that led to the hearing. while five parents indicated they had not been pleased 86 (Table 41). Three of the parents reported there had been no previous plans. Table 41.--Response to Question 42: Were you pleased with previous educational plans developed for your child? Response N Percent Definitely 2 13.33 Yes 5 33.33 No. but didn't complain 1 6.67 No. and let school know 4 26.67 No previous plans 3 20.00 Eight of the parents described their relationship with the school before the conflict that led to the hearing as a cooperative one (Table 42). Only four of the parents described their prehearing relationship with the school as one characterized by conflict. Some parents found it necessary to describe their relationship with the school using terms other than "cooperative" or "conflicting." Table 42.--Response to Question 30: How would you describe your rela- tionship with the school prior to the dispute that led to the hearing? Response N Percent Very cooperative 5 33.33 Cooperative 3 20.00 Uninvolved O O Conflicting l 6.67 Very conflicting 3 20.00 Other 3 20.00 87 Comments made by the parents about the way they viewed their prehearing relationship with the school show wide variation in the perceived quality of interaction. We had a very amiable relationship. I served on a lot of committees. I knew the people at school and was able to hand pick her teachers in elementary school. In junior high we had met her teachers and expressed our concerns. We were super pleased with her fifth and sixth grade teachers. I would say it was cooperative. I had saved them from a hearing before by going in and listening to what they had to say. They promised the evaluation results would be explained. It really helped that they got a new director. I would describe it as harassing. They harassed me. They degraded me. They tore me down. They didn't listen to me. They refused to even deal with me. They thought I was a bitch and complainer and didn’t want to deal with me. They were hateful. Just hateful. Adversarial would really be a better way to describe it than "very conflicting." We were disappointed in the way they handled some things. but our relations were always cooperative. It started out "very cooperativeJ' It went the whole continuum. from beginning to end. It ended up in downright hostility. Prior to grade six--kindergarten through fifth--it was cooperative because we didn’t know better. Grades six through eight it was totally uncooperative because that's when we started to get self- educated. Before that we thought the school knew what was best for us and the child. We relied on their expertise because they supposedly were the experts. We were just parents and they would take care of us. . . . It was very conflicting. We had already had a couple of hearings. I feel like we were being punished for going to hearing the first time. Waring While discussing what it was that they wanted for their child when the hearing was requested. parents explained in detail the reasons 88 they had felt it necessary to resort to the due process hearing as a means of resolving their disagreement with the school. .As they did so. most parents shared information about their children and why they needed the service or programming they were requesting. Eighty percent of the parents responded that they would not have settled for less than their stated position (Table 43). Table 43.--Response to Question 45: Would you have settled for anything less? Response N Percent Yes 3 20 No 12 80 Maybe 0 O Parents were asked what the school's position had been relative to the issue and why they felt the school opposed their position. It is important to remember while reading these responses that the school's position and rationale as presented here are strictly as reported by the parent more than two years after the conflict occurred. No effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the school's position as reported by the parents because the emphasis of this research is exclusively on the situation as perceived by the parents. To assist the reader in understanding the issue of the hearing as perceived by the parents. responses to the questions. "What did you actually want for your child when the hearing was requested?". "Would 89 you have settled for anything less?". and "What was the school's posi- tion?" are presented together for each interview. To aid further in understanding the issues as the parents saw them. responses are reported as quotations from the parents. Where parents responded to whether they would have settled for less than their stated position with a "yes." "no." or "maybe" and made no further comment. that response is not included in the dialog that follows since those responses have been reported in Table 43. The following are direct quotations of the parents interviewed as they discussed the issue of the special education due process hearing involving their child. Interview 1 We wanted her certified learning disabled. We wanted the Teacher Consultant for Learning Disabled to consult with her teachers for math and math related subjects. Teachers needed to know the way she learns as a learning disabled child and the teaching tech- niques that were most effective for her. We wanted the consultant to help her teachers understand her disability. We would have settled for certification. The school was ready to do battle. We were unaware it would be like that. Even the Director was at the IEPC. They just said. "She's not learning disabled." We didn't expect the hostility or the negative response. They asked her regular teachers if they thought she was learning disabled. They said. "No." Interview 2 I actually wanted him out of the E1 placement and strictly in an LD program with LD students. He was getting in too much trouble in high school. He hadn't had trouble in junior high. I would have settled only for an L0 placement with LD kids. They said they had a deviation for the program. They could not keep from mixing handicaps. ‘The teachers taught what they were 90 best qualified to teach. An LD teacher might teach history and all the special ed.kids take it from her. They thought their program was helping so many kids and J. was the exception to the rule. Interview 3 I wanted them to follow the decisions of [residential treatment center] and [1801 about what he was and where he belonged. I didn't want him mainstreamed. I wanted him placed in a sel f- contained class where he could feel good about himself-~where he could feel successful. I wanted him to learn typing and how to use a tape recorder for note taking. I wanted him to learn to swim. I wanted him to see the social worker on a regular schedule. not just when he asked to. Why did I spend all that time and gas money on getting evaluations if the school wasn’t going to pay any attention to them? The school said he couldn't use a tape recorder in class because it was an invasion of privacy. ‘They said the only way he could learn typing was in a general education class. They wouldn"t force E. They said. "It's E.'s choice. He can take swimming next year. There's no reason he couldn't handle mainstreaming." Interview 4 I wanted her mainstreamed with a cued speech interpreter for part of the school day. The conflict was not really between the school staff and me. They backed me 100%. The administration was flatly opposed. The conflict was really between the ISO and the local school. 'The local school said. "You can't place another adult in a teacher's classroom." Interview 5 I wanted them to find a more appropriate program for her. I expressed my willingness to observe other programs. She needed one which was in an air conditioned building because of her allergies. protected from paints and sprays. and with reasonable educational goals. She was too old for the program she had been in but I didntt‘want her in the one they wanted to send her to. As it turned out I was not able to attend the IEPC because A. was very sick that day. She had been in and out of the hospital several times and I was home with her that day. 'They did go ahead and hold the IEPC and make a decision that she could be placed in . . . Center which is the SMI center for this area. It was for that reason that we asked for the hearing. 91 We were still in the throes of wondering if she would survive the summer. We were more interested in safety. We would have backed down on some of the things we had previously requested. the educational goals and speech therapy. We just wanted to make sure that she was being kept safe. They kept telling us that [the center program] had such a large staff that they would be able to handle all the things we were concerned about. the protection that A. needed. They said it was air conditioned and would be O.K. for her. Interview 6 I wanted programming that would fit his individual needs--full time programming. I absolutely would not have settled for anything less. The school wanted to provide programming that would meet his needs as an individual. They wanted to provide a full day of instruc- tion. but they couldn't because the space was taken away from them by the nursing home. They had no choice--they no longer had a classroom. They could only provide two hours a week of homebound with consultation from the occupational therapist and speech therapist. Interview 7 We needed a structured. intensive remedial program for her. not TMI. She didn't qualify for TMI. The need for a change in placement came as the result of brain surgery in April 1980. It opened a new world for her. They removed a cyst as big as a baseball that had been there for years and years. It--the pressure it caused--was causing her disability. She had a norma1 IQ at age four. It had fallen to lower than 40. All those years had gone down the drain--she coulant recite the alphabet. count money. tell time--she had no preprimary skills. .She needed a program to help her progress as fast as her potential would allow. I was already unhappy with the TMI program. I didn't want her there. They said. "There is no place else." I didn't know I had any recourse other than to express my unhappiness and let it go. I found a private school with an appropriate program. At the time of the hearing she was attending public school half time and [private school] half time. I didn't think the public school could provide the intensive. remedial program she needed. She couldn't go to the high school EMI program. The kids were too mature-~socially and academically. I couldn't settle for anything less. 92 [The school's position was] that they could provide an appropriate program within the public school system. The options were... . a classroom with nonverbal children. the junior high LRC--main- streamed for art and gym. and eventually the high school. The fact that they say they couldn't pay tuition is ludicrous. They could have paid tuition for two or three years for less than the hearing cost--all that staff time--the total cost could have paid the tuition. They didn"t want to set a precedent-~in other words. it's all politics. Interview 8 We wanted the program put back where it was. T. came home Friday and said they had moved his class from one school to another during the day. The counselor. teacher. and students moved the class. The telephone lines were hot that week-end. You don't take an E1 kid and move him like that--it's detrimental to the kids to yank them from one building to another. You don't do that with handicapped children. With declining enrollment they didn't have enough students [in the building] to mainstream the E1 kids into. [The other school] was larger--now they're closing it. [The first school] was newer and nicer--we wanted it kept open.. . . We wanted the district repri- manded. Interview 9 I wanted her provided with a Total [Communication] program at the infant center with every other preschool handicapped] child. They waffled a lot. They were very adamant. The [public school system] will not have sign language in the public schooL. For 80 years it had been strictly oral. They are proud of their pure oral program and will spend money to keep it oral. Interview 10 We wanted physical therapy as recommended by the doctor and physical therapist. We already had the OCR [Office of Civil Rights] decision to make the schools barrier free. We didn"t realize a hearing could have handled that too. The superintendent and the 130 said. "We don"t have physical therapy and a doctor cannot make that kind of educational recom- mendation. . . . If he needs P.T. either you do it or you pay for it. 93 Interview 11 They proposed to change her label from EMI to TMI. We wanted the EMI label and EMI placement. They said her social skills were poor--that she should be placed "among her own kind." Interview 12 More speech--daily speech. I don’t think I would have settled for anything less. She spoke five words at almost five years [of age]. I would have been satisfied if they would have just tried it. They increased it from two to three times a week. They said there was no proof that daily speech would help. "Show it to me in a book." he said. "Do you know of anywhere it says that if we gave daily speech it would help?" Interview 13 Special education is what we wanted. We wanted him advanced to the seventh grade with special math for the learning disabled. 1k: flunked in June. We tried all summer. I thought. "Who do I call--what do I do?" They evaluated him and turned him down. The school said he was slow in math. but not slow enough to be put in special ed. They said it was in his best interest if he flunked and was kept in the same grade. 'The principal said parents shouldn't interfere. Interview 14 I wanted a physical education specialist to work with her. [I wanted] her to have home ec. for a full semester as was written in the IEPC. [I wanted her to have the] choice of the full curricu- lum. fine arts and agriculture . . . and access to extra curricu- lum. They listed only available programs and services. not what she needed. I would have agreed if they would let her go into regular gym class and have Fine Arts in the Learning Center. I would have settled for eighth grade home ec. instead of having a choice [of the curriculum]. The school said she would not be allowed in gym class and that she doesn't need any extra phys. ed. or P.T. The home ec. they had agreed to was eighth grade. then they changed it to seventh grade. They didn't tell me it [seventh grade home economics] would only 94 be twelve weeks--they said it's a parent's place to know it wasn't a semester course. They said. "Phys. ed. is not required above the ninth grade." I said. "Fine. we'll elect it." They said. "No." Interview 15 I wanted him schooled to his maximum potential. He didn't have two courses that are mandated. I didn't want him to graduate until he'd had the mandated courses. He needed more vocational training. He was not properly schooled--not ready to graduate. The superintendent said he had met the criteria for graduation. "We have fulfilled our obligation." he said. Table 44 summarizes what parents had hoped to obtain for their children by requesting a hearing. Except in the case of the parents requesting that their children be identified as learning disabled and provided with appropriate programming. the circumstances and requests in each case were different. Table 44.--Response to Question 44: What did you actually want for your child when the hearing was requested? Request N Percent L.D. certification 2 13.33 Less mainstreaming l 6.67 More mainstreaming 1 6.67 Full-time programing l 6.67 Daily speech therapy 1 6.67 Physical therapy 1 6.67 Total communication program 1 6.67 Cued speech interpreter l 6.67 Single category program 1 6.67 Private school tuition l 6.67 Not change EMI to TMI 1 6.67 Maintain program in same building 1 6.67 Environmental protections l 6.67 Postpone graduation l 6.67 95 Most parents cited more than one reason that they felt had caused the school to oppose their position with regard to the hearing issue. Eight of the 15 parents indicated they felt the school had wanted to show that parents could not boss the school around. Eight parents also felt the school wanted to prove professionals "know best" (Table 45). Table 45.--Response to Question 47: Why do you believe the school opposed your position? Reason N Percent Welfare of student 1 6.67 Cost of services 5 33.33 Antagonistic toward parent 3 20.00 Show parents can't boss school around 8 53.33 Prove professionals know best 8 53.33 Other 6 40.00 Note: Percentages equal more than 100% because some parents selected more than one response. Some parents elaborated on the reasons they felt the school had opposed their position regarding their child's educational program by making the following comments: They felt their program was helping so many kids and my J. was the exception to the rule. They didn't want to be pushed. They wanted parents to stay in the background and mind their own business. Not wanting to set a precedent. There was a conflict between the ISO and the public school. Professional superiority was the real reason. 96 They didn't oppose my position. The space was taken away by the nursing home for monetary reasons. They had no choice. They were afraid of setting a precedent--afraid they'd be bombarded with requests for payments of private school tuition. Opposition was required by their school rules. They had a problem meeting some state criteria. They had to meet a date for some legal reason. ‘They had to move the program in a hurry. Because for 80 years they have had a strictly oral program which they report to be one of the best in the nation. They're not just proud that they have a good hearing impaired program. they are very. very proud that it is one of the pure oral systems in the country. They'll spend taxpayers' money up one wall and down the other to keep it purely oral. I think it was just that we had asked for it and they werentt going to give it. We were parents. we didn't know. It was in retaliation for the complaints I had filed and that they had lost. I think it was because professionals know best. or maybe more like parents don"t push teachers around. He was just letting us know that. "Hey. this is the way itfls going to be)‘ His attitude was that parents shouldn't interfere. Although parents were very definite in their discussion of what it was that had prompted the need for the hearing. they found it difficult to categorize the issue under the general categories of identification. evaluation. placement. or provision of a free appropriate public educa- ti on (Table 46). In some instances parents felt the issue fell under more than one category and consequently selected more than one forced-choice response. One parent felt all categories were involved in her childus case. The parents of two different children asked that the interviewer underscore "appropriate" in "free appropriate public education" to 97 stress that the appropriateness of the program was really what was at issue in her child's case. Another parent requested that her response be indicated as "free appropriate public education."¢explaining that although label and placement were sources of disagreement. an "approp- riate education" can hardly be provided if the child is mislabeled and misplaced. Table 46.--Response to Question 48: All issues brought to hearing must fall under one of four broad categories. As you understand it. was yours an issue of . . . . Category N Percent Identification 4 26.67 Evaluation 2 13.33 Placement 7 46.67 Provision of free appropriate education 9 60.00 Note: Percentages equal more than 100% because some parents selected more than one category. WW Table 47 shows that all of the parents interviewed had requested the hearing themselves. One parent did indicate. however. that they had requested the hearing at the school's suggestion. Most parents reported that before requesting the hearing a number of methods had been used in an attempt to resolve the conflict between themselves and the school. Among those methods were mediation. further 98 discussions with special education personnel. additional IEPCs. and further evaluation (Table 48). Table 47.--Response to Question 49: Who requested the hearing? Response N Percent Parent 15 100 School 0 O Table 48.--Response to Question 50: What methods of resolving the conflict were used before requesting the hearing? Method N Percent Mediation 2 13.33 Discussion with special ed. staff 6 40.00 Discussion with special ed. administrator 6 40.00 Another IEPC 9 60.00 None 2 13.33 Other 4 26.67 One parent explained that in an effort to solve the conflict an independent evaluation had been obtained which supported their request for service and that they had shared the results with the school. The school. however. questioned the credentials of the evaluator and refused to accept the results. Another said. We had three or four more IEPCs. We kept meeting with them and they kept disagreeing. Finally. we were "meetinged out." They wouldn't have found themselves in a hearing if they hadn't been so protective of their program and staff. 99 Still another parent gave a lengthy explanation of how she had tried to get the services she felt her daughter needed before requesting the hearing. She said. I requested a cued speech interpreter in 1980. I talked with the Director of Hearing Impaired programs and he was agreeable. We discussed the options of how it could be provided. even the idea of it being a volunteer position. When nothing happened we had an IEPC. It was written in her IEP that she would have an inter- preter. All the professionals were in favor of it. Three months went by and nothing happened. We had another IEPC. [The public school] said we could not have the interpreter in the classroom although [the 150] would fund it. The interpreter was let go. They did another IEP. It had nothing to do with L.'s needs. . . . We requested the hearing but the ISO administration said no. We were told to file a complaint. They refused our request for a hearing. We went to court. Before the court date we reached an agreement with the ISO. the state. and the judge. Within 30 days L. was to have an interpreter. The complaint decision said they did have to provide a hearing--they could not deny our request for a hearing. We got the hearing. A father explained that after discussing the issue with school administrators he had made a presentation to the board of education in an attempt to resolve the issue without a hearing. .Another paid a professional advocate to attempt to resolve the issue with school administrators before the hearing was requested. Only four of the parents interviewed had learned of their right to request a special education due process hearing from special education personnel (Table 49). In two of those instances the special education personnel providing the information were not employed by the local district with whom the parents were in disagreement. In one case the information was provided by the ISO and in another by the State Department of Education. 100 Table 49.--Response to Question 51: From which of the following sources did you learn about the right to request a hearing? Source N Percent Special education personnel 4 26.67 Other school personnel 0 O . Agency or special interest group 6 40.00 Friends/acquaintances 3 20.00 Other 6 40.00 Note: Percentages equal more than 100% because some parents reported more than one source. In several interviews parents indicated they had learned of the right to request a hearing from more than one source. Some of the sources mentioned which were not forced-choice responses included the parent's own professional training. parent advocates. previous experience. and the school district's Parent Advisory Committee. Over 40% of the parents reported that they were aware of the option of arbitration (Table 50). Table 50.--Response to Question 52: Did you realize you could have requested arbitration rather than a hearing? Response N Percent Yes 7 46.67 No 7 46.67 Don't remember 1 6.67 101 Some parents were not familiar with the meaning of arbitration. some did not know it was an option available to them. and others expressed reasons for not choosing to use arbitration as a means of resolving their disagreement with the school. One parent explained that a "previous bad experience with arbitration" would have kept her from selecting arbitration even if she had known it was available. Another said. I brought up the subject but the school turned it down. They said that the issue couldn"t be handled at that level--that an arbitrator couldn't make a decision to pay private school tuition. I would have been willing. Another parent said she felt it was "too important a decision to be stuck with for a year." A mother who indicated she didn't trust arbitration explained. By that time it was almost a year from the time I requested the Total Communication program for my daughter. By this time. she was seven weeks from being two and too old for the program. I didn"t trust anyone. I felt that going through arbitration wouldn't give us a direct route to the court if we still needed it. As it turned out. because of the time factor. we ended up just accepting this half-assed program for our daughter. Things were postponed and delayed. As I look back I wouldnrt have gone through all that. I would immediately have a hearing within a few weeks of the time I wanted Total Communication and slammed into Federal Court as fast as I could. Parents cited a number of happenings as actual "triggers" of their request for a hearing--things the school did or did not do that made them feel the issue could be resolved only through a hearing (Question 40L They also commented on what the school could have done to make the hearing unnecessary (Question 41). In some cases the only thing the school could have done was to provide services according to the expressed desires of the parents. In other cases parents felt the 102 hearing could have been avoided if the school had moved even a little from their stated position. Comments made by parents are as follows: Interview 1 M. needed greater sensitivity on the part of the school. Our child was into drugs. She was deteriorating more rapidly. We were feeling the hostility and were concerned that it would spread to her. If they had just shown some concern for her problems. Perhaps the teacher consultant could have consulted with her teachers without her being labeled. Interview 2 It was their attitude. By that time they were so protective of their program and their professional image that they thought I was going to damage. I doubt it [that there was anything the school could have done to avoid the hearing]. Interview 3 The school dealt with Mrs. [advocate]. She said there was nothing else left to do. Interview 4 Their refusal to implement the previous IEP. They could have provided the service--followed through on the IEP that had been agreed upon. Interview 5 They were going to place A. in . . . Center and that was that. They were just moving ahead as though I was already planning on sending her there. 'The bus was going to pick her up and every- thing was all set and they were setting up all kinds of meetings and eval uations and things. A.. at that point. was in no shape physically to participate so actually she did not go to school that whole next year after the hearing. At that point I think they could have . . . either offered to keep her in [program previously placed in] until they found something more appropriate or given me some idea that they had even looked. But their stand on that was that [program previously placed in]. even though she had been there four years. had become inapprop- 103 riate because she needed to be protected more than any of the other children in the program and they found that they did not have the staff to make that possible. Interview 6 I felt the school really wanted to provide service for J. I thought requesting the hearing would help the school obtain the necessary space. I really wasn't in conflict with the school. there wasn't anything the school could have done. Interview 7 They wouldn't agree that the best placement was [private school] even after all the testimony and written reports recommending it. [The only thing the school could have done was] place her there. Interview 8 After my appearance at the Board. when nothing was resolved there was nothing else to do. The EPPC indicated his placement was to remain there. They could have put the class back where it should have been. Interview 9 I guess it was their attitude. ‘They made it very clear. there was no way on God's green earth that they were going to have a Total Communication program. There was more at stake than just my daughter: I mean if all I wanted was my daughter to get Total Communication. I could have told them to hang themselves and just gone with a private tutor. The issue is that if we don"t have a Total Communication program available to all children. my daughter's program is never going to grow and she is going to have to continue to be educated in isolation. which is the fact today. They had a certified teacher of the deaf-blind. They could have allowed her to be J.'s teacher. Interview 10 They wouldn't give him P.T. If they had just given him physical therapy the issues of transportation. etc. wouldn"t have been brought up. Interview 11 They were adamant that they were going to place her in TMI. They could have agreed to continue services under the same label. Interview 12 They were just so set against it. And their "prove it to me" attitude was just too much. They weren't about to give. They could have just said, ”We'll try it.” 104 Interview 13 They sat back and said. "This is the way it:is." . .. They were insisting upon him repeating... . that it was in his best interest. They could have looked at a couple of reports from outside professionals. They could have gone by State Special Education law. They just chopped up the law. Interview 14 We were both willing to reopen the IEP. but they would limit it to a discussion of phys. ed. We needed to deal with other sub- jects. Sure. they could have given her the same opportunities as other students. Don't discriminate against her. Interview 15 I was pushed into it. They were going to graduate him. [They could have] studied him a little more. He needed a more coordinated approach--some behavior modification. Sixty percent of the parents felt that an impartial third party could definitely not have helped to resolve the conflict between them- selves and the school (Table 51). Three parents questioned whether there could truly be an "impartial third party." Others made such comments as. "We tried that and it didn't work." "The system wouldn't have listened." and "A judge could haveJ‘ The majority of the parents reported that once the hearing had been requested. they had held no hope that the issue would be resolved before the time of the hearing (Table 52). 105 Table 51.--Response to Question 55: Do you think an impartial third party could have helped to resolve the conflict without a hearing? Response N Percent Definitely 2 13.33 Yes. probably 3 20.00 Don't know 0 O No. probably not 1 6.67 Definitely not 9 60.00 Table 52.--Response to Question 56: Did you believe the issue would be resolved before the time of the hearing? Response N Percent Yes 2 13.33 I was hoping so 3 20.00 No 10 66.67 Just over half of the parents did believe that if the issue was to go before the hearing officer the decision would favor their position in regard to services for their child (Table 53). In one interview where both parents were present. the mother had thought the school position would win and the father had thought the parent's position would win so they decided on a "didn't know" response. Few parents could remember exactly how long it had been between their request for the hearing and the school's response: however. 60% responded with answers that indicated the school's response had been 106 prompt and within time limits. One parent did state. "They were in violation of the time limits--they took too long." Table 53.-Response to Question 57: Did you expect that if the issue did go before the hearing officer that the decision would favor your position. that you would win? Response N Percent Yes 9 53.33 I was hoping so 2 13.33 No 2 13.33 Didn't know 2 13.33 Parents were asked a series of questions regarding the way in which the school had responded to their request for a hearing. Those responses are summarized in Table 54. Most parents indicated more than one response. Comments regarding the school's response included: There was really no communication at all other than when. where. and who. The director very kindly contacted our advocate and told her he had spoken with [attorney]. who said the parent would never win. They scheduled two. three. maybe four more IEPCs. They sent a letter denying our request for a hearing. We got a letter from the director. then a phone call. We were told we wouldn't win and that we were spending the taxpayers' money . . . that we were starting something and that the community would have to pay and that everyone would be down on US. We were told the director was getting orders from above. You could see the sympathy in his eyes. 107 Table 54.--Responses to Questions 59 through 68: Response of school district to hearing request. Action N Percent Offered sources of assistance 7 46.67 Offered sources of free/low-cost legal aid 5 33.33 Suggested further discussion 2 13.33 Suggested further evaluation 2 13.33 Suggested mediation 2 13.33 Offered compromise solution 0 O Tried to talk out of hearing 7 46.67 Suggested arbitration 3 20.00 Ignored first request 1 6.67 Suggested child or parent would be hurt by process 6 40.00 Note: Percentages equal more than 100% because some parents reported more than one action. Less than half of the parents interviewed reported that the hearing had been held within 15 and 30 days after it was requested as is the requirement of Michigan Special Education Rules (Table 55). Eight of the 15 parents reported that more than 30 days had elapsed between the time of the request and the hearing. Table 55.-—Response to Question 70: How many days were there between the time the hearing was requested and the date it was held? Response N Percent —l Less than 15 days 6.67 Between 15 and 30 days 6 40.00 More than 30 days 8 53.33 108 In two instances parents indicated that the hearing had been held more than 30 days after the request because the school was attempting to accommodate the needs of the parent. In one instance the extra time was needed so that the parents could obtain an independent evaluation and because they were hoping to stall until new rules and regulations went into effect which would guarantee them a voice in the selection of the hearing officer. In another. the parent requested the time exten- sion because she had two children scheduled for surgery and then it was time for Christmas vacation when neither the parent nor the school wanted the hearing to be held. A.parent whose initial request for a hearing had been denied reported that the excess time had passed between request and hearing because she had had to take the school to court to get them to acknowledge her right to a hearing. file a com- plaint. and wait for the complaint decision. Three separate parents reported prolonged time between request and hearing was caused by difficulty in agreeing upon a hearing officer and then having to wait until he had time available for the hearing. Another reason cited for more than 30 days between request and hearing was the school's failure to provide the parents with the chilcPs records in a timely fashion. Ten parents reported that the school had contacted them to determine an agreeable date for the hearing (Table 56). Nine parents reported the school had involved them in the selection of the hearing officer (Table 57). 109 Table 56.--Response to Question 71: How was the date for the hearing set? Response N Percent Cooperatively set 10 66.67 School set date 2 13.33 Other 2 13.33 Don't remember 1 6.67 Table 57.--Response to Question 72: How was the hearing officer selected? Response N Percent School provided list from which to choose 9 60 School selected and informed parent 3 20 Other 3 20 In one interview parents who had cancelled previous dates for the hearing reported the school notified them of a new hearing date and when they attempted to have it postponed the school refused and the hearing was held without them. These same parents along with one other parent reported the school would not allow them to be involved in the selection of the hearing officer. Another parent reported the school had sent her a letter indicating whom they had chosen as the hearing officer and saying that if the parent had objections they should contact the school. In this case the parent did object and responded by sending the school the names of several hearing officers she would accept. The school then chose from her list. In another interview a 110 parent reported that the agency representative who was assisting her submitted a list of acceptable hearing officers to the school. and the school agreed to one of them. .A parent who replied that the school had told her who the hearing officer would be explained that she had rejected the first name they selected and upon the advice of an agency had accepted the second. In three separate interviews this same agency was cited as having assisted the parent in selecting a hearing officer. In one case although the school suggested a particular hearing officer. a conference call was arranged so the parent could speak with the hearing officer before his definite selection. In one interview the parent reported they had selected three names from a list presented by the school. the school had rejected those three and selected three more. finally they had gone over the list together and after much discussion agreed upon one. In two other interviews parents told of being offered a choice of three hearing officers. rejecting them. offering the school three other names. having the school reject them. and on and on until one was finally agreed upon. ‘Two of the parents interviewed objected strongly to not being offered a complete list of hearing officers available in Michigan from which to choose. Two-thirds of the parents interviewed reported no further attempts were made to resolve the conflict once the hearing was requested (Table 58). In those cases where attempts were made to resolve the conflict after the hearing was requested. attempts included additional IEPCs. conversation with the school board president. "mediation with no 111 mediatorfl'discussion with a social worker. and joint discussion with the parent. director. and hearing officer. Table 58.--Response to Question 73: Were any attempts made to resolve the conflict between the time you requested the hearing and the hearing date? Response N Percent Yes 5 33.33 No 10 66.67 Over 40% of those interviewed reported they had received assistance in preparing for the hearing from a volunteer advocate--in four instances from the same agency. Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services (Table 59). 'Twenty percent had been assisted by an attorney. and another 20% by a paid advocate. Table 59.--Response to Question 74: Who helped you to prepare for the hearing? Response N Percent Volunteer advocate 6 46.67 Paid advocate 3 20.00 Agency staff 1 6.67 Friend 1 6.67 Special educator (same district) 1 6.67 Attorney 3 20.00 Other 2 13.33 No one 1 6.67 Note: Percentages equal more than 100% because some parents indicated assistance had been received from more than one source. 112 In some instances. parents had more than one person assist in preparing for the hearing. and in some instances the role of the person assisting could have been classified under more than one category. For example. one parent was assisted by the director of an agency (agency staff) who was an attorney. ‘To the parent. most significant was the fact that he was an attorney; consequently the response is reported in Table 59 as "attorney." Confusion also arose over whether advocates were paid or volunteer when they were at no cost to parents. but paid by an agency. Since as far as the parents were concerned they were volunteers in the sense that the parent did not have to pay for their services. they were reported as volunteers in Table 59. In only one case did parents who used attorneys incur expense for doing so. in one situation legal fees were borne by the agency. and in another the attorney was a relative who did not charge for his services. 'The cost for a paid advocate ranged from 5500 to 51.800. One parent indicated his greatest help in preparing for the hearing had come from the special education administrator at the 180. In eight of the interviews parents reported the person who had assisted with preparation for the hearing had attended at least one meeting they had had with the school (Table 60). All of the parents interviewed felt they had had adequate time between being notified of the hearing date and the actual date of the hearing. Not all parents remembered participating in a prehearing conference (Table 61). 113 Table 60.--Response to Question 75: Had the person who helped you prepare for the hearing attended any of your meetings with the school? Response N Percent Yes 8 53.33 No 6 40.00 NA 1 6.67 Table 61.--Response to Question 77: Was there a prehearing confer- ence with the hearing officer? Response N Percent Yes 8 53.33 No 6 40.00 --I Don't remember 6.67 One parent reported that the prehearing conference had never been mentioned. In three interviews parents indicated the prehearing con- ference had been accomplished by way of a telephone conference call. Two parents reported that the prehearing conference had taken place immediately preceding the hearing. In all instances when a prehearing conference was held. parents were in attendance (Table 62). In all except one prehearing conference the special education administrator was also in attendance. In that one case the school was represented by the school attorney only. Frequently a parent advocate also attended the prehearing conference. 114 The child whose educational program was in question attended the prehearing conference in one case. the superintendent of schools in another. and attorneys for both parties in another. Table 62.--Response to Question 78: If there was a prehearing conference. who attended? Response N Percent Special education administrator 7 46.67 Parents 8 53.33 Parent advocate 6 40.00 School attorney 3 13.33 Parent attorney 1 6.67 Superintendent l 6.67 Note: Percentages equal more than 100% because prehearing confer- ences were in all cases attended by more than one person. Table 63 shows that seven of the eight parents who participated in prehearing conferences indicated they did not feel the prehearing conference had changed the intensity of the conflict between themselves and the school. One parent felt the prehearing conference had increased the intensity of the conflict. while none felt it had reduced the intensity. A parent who first said the prehearing conference. held just before the hearing. had increased the intensity of the conflict went on to explain that although the intensity of the conflict had not really changed. "I knew I'd lost the battle before I started." Asked why he had felt that way. he explained he had quickly developed negative feelings about the hearing officer because everything was going to be so regimented.. . . We 115 couldn't confer. only one spokesman was allowed. and he didn't allow recesses. Plus the superintendent had been his student! Table 63.—-Response to Question 64: Did the prehearing conference reduce. increase or not change the intensity of the conflict between you and the school? Response N Percent Reduce O 0 Increase 1 6.67 Not change 7 46.67 NA 7 46.67 IberieaLing Parents presented their own cases at the hearing in five of the hearings (Table 64). The rest were represented by advocates. attorneys. and in one case a friend who was a special educator in another district. In one case the parents were not in attendance and were not represented by anyone at the hearing. Schools were represented at eight of the hearings by special educa- tion administrators (Table 65). In six of the hearings. school dis- tricts were represented by attorneys. In one hearing the superin- tendent represented the district. 116 Table 64.--Response to Question 80: Who presented your case at the hearing? Local Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Tetal N % N % N % N % Attorney & advocate l 6.67 0 0 O O O D Attorney 0 0 l 6.67 0 O l 6.67 Self 2 13.33 2 13.33 1 6.67 5 33.33 Paid advocate 2 13.33 0 O l 6.67 3 20.00 Volunteer advocate l 6.67 2 13.33 1 6.67 3 20.00 Friend 0 0 l 6.67 0 O 1 6.67 No one 0 0 1 6.67 O O 1 6.67 Table 65.--Response to Question 81: Who presented the school's case at the hearing? Local Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Total N % N % N % N % Attorney 3 20.00 2 13.33 1 6.67 6 40.00 Special ed. admin. 3 20.00 4 26.67 1 6.67 8 53.33 Superintendent O O 1 6.67 O O l 6.67 Table 66 combines information presented in Tables 63 and 64 to display who presented the case for the parents. who presented the case for the school. and whose position the hearing officer's decision favored in each of the 15 hearings. 117 Table 66.--Representatives for parent and school and hearing decision. Hearing Representative for Number Parent School 1 No one Director* 2! Paid advocate Director 3 Vol. advocate Director* 4 Attorney & vol. advocate* Attorney 5 Friend Attorney* 6 Parent* Director 7 Vol. advocate Director* 8 Parent Director* 9! Parent Attorney 10 Parent Superintendent* 11 Paid advocate* Director 12 Paid advocate* Attorney 13 Vol. advocate* Attorney 14 Parent* Attorney 15 Attorney Attorney* *Hearing decision reported to have favored this party. {Favored position reported to be uncertain. Eleven parents indicated they were aware. before the hearing. of who would be representing the school (Table 66). and in only one instance was that knowledge reported to have influenced the decision of the parent regarding who would present their case at the hearing (Table 67). That one parent explained. "If they would have had a good lawyer we would have retained oneJ' A parent who did not know who would be representing the school reported that "there had been talk of them bringing an attorney. but we didn"t know until we actually got there whether they would)‘ In that case the school was not represented by an attorney. 118 Table 67.--Response to Question 82: Were you aware. prior to the hearing. of who would be representing the school? Response N Percent Yes 11 73.33 No 4 26.67 Table 68.--Response to Question 83: Did this influence your decision regarding who would represent you? Response N Percent Yes 1 6.67 No 14 93.33 Note: N = 11 (parents who answered yes to Question 84). Parents discussed their decision to have or not to have an attorney or advocate represent them at the hearing. saying. We had heard that if we brought an attorney the hearing would be adjourned and that they would refuse to continue. I felt I had the professional expertise myself. I knew the rules. etc.. and the facts of the case. I was adequately prepared. Most parents who try to represent themselves get emotional. They get caught in the middle--I don't feel that's a good place to be. You can't do the best job for yourself when emotions come into play. She knew what she was talking about and I didn't know anything. Ihn not sure there would have been anyone else as qualified [as the attorney]. Because I thought she had the best knowledge of A. and she had total recall on everything that happened. I mean I am not really 119 good at remembering .... why she was here and why she was there and all that. And I thought she was the logical one to do it. As a parent I wasn't aware of all my rights . . . about the hearing process and procedure. I thought SJs case would be presented in a more professional manner if an advocate represented her. I believed I could handle it. I had a lot of compliments. Because I felt. as much help as P & A had been. no one except myself had attended all the meetings. Plus I'm a debate coach. We agreed with the school not to have an attorney. We coulant afford the one we would have wanted anyway. .. . would have cost 55.000. P and A wouldn"t be the main spokesperson and there could only be one spokesman. The school said. "If you're going to get an attorney so will we." A friend recommended [the advocate]. The director encouraged us to get an advocate. Since she had the experience we thought it would be better. We thought about having a lawyer but didn't feel a lawyer could represent us any better; A lack of personal knowledge [was the reason we chose to be represented by an advocate]. If'IWd had the money I would have had a lawyer. I did have for other hearings. I felt we went to all those IEPCs--the advocate was there--he did all he could and that wasn't enough. I figured if there was a hearing--I didn't know--let a lawyer handle it. Parents had difficulty remembering the exact cost of representa- tion at the hearing. Those who could remember dollar costs reported the costs of 5500. 5100. 51.000. and 51.800. A mother who could give no dollar amount responded. "quite hith' Nine of the parents reported no cost for representation. Because only four of the parents interviewed reported dollar costs. these data are not presented in tabular form. nor are they analyzed in terms of the average cost to parents. 120 Most parents indicated they would advise a parent going to hearing to have someone other than themselves present their case (Table 69). Table 69.--Response to Question 86: Would you advise others to have someone other than themselves present their case at the hearing? Response N Percent Yes 12 80.00 No 2 13.33 —I No response 6.67 Their reasons and comments regarding why they felt that way were as follows: If you're going to fight you must have someone. I'd spend the money on private help though. instead of on fighting the school. 17d advise parents to seek private help and not go to hearing. People we thought would support us didnH; It was a lot of frustration and emotional turmoil. You would do better if you could sue in court. You can't do justice to your own child because of your emotions. Absolutely. never go alone. If you want to be destroyed go by yourself. They just want to get you out of their hair. The parent is stuck--is an ignorant person when it comes to dealing with the school system. There's so much to remember as a witness. If I'd tried to present the case it would have been terrible. It would have been impossible. I think it's too hard to do it. . . you're too emotionally involved to be very attentive to the proceedings and to be helpful to your child. I think sometimes you're too subjective. as they say. to be hel pful--particularly if they've considered you hostile or unappreciative of their services. 121 I can't answer that question because. as you know. other people's circumstances are different. Mine was quite different. If I would do it again. I would do it the same way [represent self]. Absolutely! Parents are so emotionally involved. You need to go in there with the issues being in focus. After so many rounds with administrators. you've had it with administrators. really. You need someone to help you through the process. I don't believe it would have come out any other way. I think it's good for parents to get involved. In some aspects it's rewarding. The Board knows who I am--they treat me with respect. I've won respect from those I want respect from. Most parents don't have the emotional stamina to do it. My situation was different. I was a college debate coach. A parent can do it if they're adequately prepared. I think that they would have to have someone help them get prepared. You know. we spent. between grade six and the time this hearing took place in the eighth grade. three nights a week. if not four. and every weekend. learning the total scope of what special ed.rules entail. We have some'hearing officers that are doctors that don‘t recog- nize what a parent is. This guy is going to come and he's going to say big letters. big words. and a lot of parents just don‘t understand what he's talking about. After we got all done I questioned our judgment. The hearing officer . . . wanted us to be putting this on an attorney basis. He wanted it strictly legal. Definitely! There were many important points of law that she [the advocate] brought up that I would not have been aware of. The experience is what counts. Definitely! I was so upset because of the lies that I was getting sick to my stomach and had to go outside for fresh air. Unless you're well up on education laws and exact proceedings you can get lost in a second. If it's at all possible to afford someone. This was the one hearing where I didn't have an attorney. I was afraid to speak out--all those people on the payroll sitting there. Even though I didn't have an attorney we won enough that it was justified. What we did get was well worth fighting for. I would advise them to have an advocate even at the IEPCs. Par- ents don't understand what's going on. A lot of stuff goes on under the table. 122 Six of the parents interviewed indicated they would advise parents going to hearing to have their case presented by an advocate. either paid or volunteer (Table 70). Table 70cm-Response to Question 87: If you would advise parents to have someone other than themselves represent them at the hearing who would that be? Response N Percent Attorney 1 6.67 Volunteer advocate 3 20.00 Paid advocate 3 20.00 Indefinite response 6 40.00 NA 2 13.33 Some of the parents elaborated on their responses to the above question by making the following comments: I'd advise them to see an advocate with a history of clout. A volunteer advocate would be best. but you probably won’t find too many volunteers. Itfls a sin that a parent would have to pay an attorney to fight a school. If you can't find an advocate though you would have to. The school should be forced to give information about available advocates to parents. The Director says they don't have to. The best attorney available! It depends on the circumstances of the conflict. You need the person with the most expertise with the issue. On some less complex issues there are advocates that could do a fine job. This issue involved a legal issue. A volunteer advocate because I know what a financial strain special ed.parents are under. An attorney is really expensive. Most people don't have somebody to help [like we did]. A P and A advocate--they're paid by the agency as opposed to being volunteer. Second best would be a volunteer advocate. 123 The school will have an attorney. There'll be legal arguments about evidentiary procedures that a layman doesn't know about. You've got to have somebody help you prepare even if you present. I spent three or four nights a week from the time he was in the sixth through the eighth grades learning. It was a real self- education program. A paid advocate--educational consultant--if you can afford it. You need someone with a good record. It depends upon the financial situation. The attorney I wanted wanted 5100 an hour. The advocate already knew the law. A lot of attorneys I talked with didn't know special education law. It makes no difference as long as they have familiarity with state education laws. Luckily we came out O.K. We had someone who knows what's going on. I don"t think it makes a lot of difference if the individual you choose is*well informed. If you have anybody other than an attorney all those paid school people sitting there will throw you off. I think it's done on purpose. First get an advocate. Then ask the advocate if you need an attorney. Parents were asked to pick adjectives from a list that described the way they felt when they arrived at the hearing (Table 71). Chosen most often were "nervous" and "prepared." It was interesting that parents in three interviews picked both "nervous" and "calnu" The comments parents made in response to this question reveal what they were feeling far better than is possible through their selection of adjectives. 124 Table 71.--Response to Question 88: How did you feel when you actually arrived at the hearing? Response N Percent Nervous 10 66.67 Scared 6 40.00 Apprehensive 6 40.00 Angry 5 33.33 Calm 4 26.67 Determined to win 6 40.00 Relieved 5 33.33 Confident 4 26.67 Wishing had not requested hearing 3 20.00 Inadequate 3 20.00 Prepared 10 66.67 Other 5 33.33 We didn't go. We knew it was a set-up job. We knew the director was personally associated with the hearing officer. stall until the new rules went into effect so we would have a say in who the hearing officer was. ‘The State Department said we couldn't wait. I was really relieved it was finally going to be solved--hopefully with a decision in JJs favor. And I suppose I was feeling a little bit like I wished I hadn't requested it. would end. Scared to death! Relieved that the time had come. We wanted to Just wishing it Full of hate. Hoping to God the problems would be solved. but not feeling confident. Mostly nervous. Trying to remember everything. Terrified and nauseous. Angry that I had to be in that position. Not angry at anybody necessarily but just angry that I wasn't doing something else--anything else. Depressed. sort of. and in a state of pessimism. I was feeling as confident as possible. I was very much prepared and hopeful to win. 125 I was somewhat relieved. All the nights I had stayed up reading the law--so much time--it does weigh on you--a lot of late nights. I was confident in being able to handle the situation and as calm as could be under the circumstances. We . . . . I did feel kind of like finally it's my day in court. now finally I can tell them everything that happened. It didn"t really turn out that way but I really wanted to be able to tell the world. so to speak. how grossly unfair I had been treated by the school. All the lies that they laid on us. all the illegal things they had done to us. I really wanted to get that message out. Tired. We had stayed up all night long and so I guess you would say that I was nervous and uptight. but I was confident in what I was going to do. We were very. very prepared. 'The hearing officer threw me right off though with his first opening statement. When he said we were going to do it this way IUn going. "Oh. boy. where's my attorney." Well. this it it! Let's see how it goes. Like a boxer would go into a ring. let's get in there and fight. It was not a matter of winning the fight. but of safeguarding the future of my child. Determined to fight because I felt my cause was just and I could not afford to lose. Nervous. Extremely! Disgusted that it had to come to this. Twelve of the parents reported they felt no differently after the hearing officer's opening statement (Table 72). Of those who did feel differently. one parent felt less anxious. and the other more anxious. Table 72.-~Response to Question 89: Did you feel differently after the hearing officer's opening statement? Response N Percent Yes 2 13.33 No 12 80.00 Don't know 1 6.67 126 Table 73 shows that eight of the parents indicated they had felt confident that the hearing officer would resolve the issue fairly. four of the parents were uncertain. and three did not believe the issue would be decided fairly by the hearing officer. Table 73.--Response to Question 91: Did you feel confident that the hearing officer would resolve the issue fairly? Response N Percent Definitely 5 33.33 Yes 3 20.00 Uncertain 4 26.67 No 2 13.33 Definitely not 1 6.67 Parents reported that the occupation of six of the hearing offi- cers was that of college professor. five were attorneys. three were special educators. and one was a retired special education adminis- trator (Table 74). One parent pointed out that she felt the hearing officer should work in a field not directly involved with schools in order to be truly impartial. She questioned how impartial a hearing officer can be when he is hired and paid by the school system "and is probably hoping he will be hired again for another hearingJ‘ 127 Table 74.--Response to Question 92: What was the occupation of the hearing officer? Local Decision in Favor of Occupation Parent School Uncertain Total N % N % N % N % Attorney 2 13.33 2 13.33 1 6.67 5 33.33 College professor 2 13.33 3 20.00 1 6.67 6 40.00 Special educator l 6.67 2 13.33 0 0 3 20.00 Retired special ed. administrator l 6.67 0 0 0 0 1 6.67 Parents frequently expressed disappointment when they discussed who had testified for them at the hearing. either because persons they had counted on to support their position on the witness stand had experienced "a drastic change of attitude" or had been less supportive than they had anticipated. One parent who had worked with his wife and a parent advocate to prepare their case in three parts. with one person responsible for presenting each part. learned at the time of the hearing that only one spokesperson would be allowed and that since the advocate and nonpresenting parent were not listed on the witness list they could not testify. Another parent explained she had introduced 22 documents in support of her position because she "could not afford to hire witnesses to come)‘ Table 75 shows in how many hearings particular witnesses were reported to have been called to testify for the parent case. The child's mother was the most frequent witness to testify in support of the parent position. Witnesses reported to have testified 128 other than those listed included: Director of Special Education. general education teachers. building principals. current special educa- tion teacher. speech therapist. private school headmaster. friend. teacher aide. occupational therapist. adults with similar disability as child. professionals from other geographic areas. audiologist. voca- tional rehabilitation worker. and sheltered workshop evaluator. Only three of the parents reported having paid witnesses (Table 76). Their costs ranged from 560 to 5300. Table 75.--Response to Question 80: What witnesses were called to testify for you? Witness Called N Percent Private tutor l 6.67 Medical doctor 1 6.67 Child's previous teacher 1 6.67 Mother 10 66.67 Psychologist 7 46.67 Parent advocate 2 13.33 None 1 6.67 Other 7 46.67 Note: Percentages equal more than 100% because some parents selected more than one category. Table 76.--Response to Question 94: Did you have to pay any of these witnesses? Response N Percent Yes 3 20 No 12 80 129 Table 77 shows that witnesses were called by the school. In one hearing a mother who had not intended to testify was called by the school. Most commonly called witnesses for the school were the special education administrator and the special education teacher. Included under "Other" on Table 77 were counselors. school nurse. audiologist. and teacher aide. Table 77.--Response to Question 99: What witnesses testified for the school? Witness N Percent Classroom teacher 7 46.67 Principal 9 60.00 Special education administrator 11 73.33 Special education teacher 10 66.67 Social worker 7 46.67 Psychologist 9 60.00 Teacher consultant 3 20.00 Speech pathologist 3 20.00 Other 8 53.33 Note: Percentages equal more than 100% because some parents selected more than one category. Clearly. who is called to serve as a witness at a hearing by either the school or the parent is dependent upon the circumstances of the issue. It was often difficult for parents to remember just exactly who had testified. One parent commented that there had been numerous school people in attendance but that they had not all testified. Parents reported calling from zero to ten witnesses to support their case at the hearing. whereas the number of witnesses they remembered having been called by the school ranged from two to eight (Table 78) 130 In eight of the interviews parents reported that the school had more witnesses at the hearing than they did. Table 78.--Number of witnesses. Hearing Number Parent School 1 0 6 2 5 5 3 3 8 4 10 3 5 3 4 6 1 8 7 6 6 8 3 6 9 10 6 10 5 2 ll 3 2 12 2 6 l3 2 4 l4 2 ? 15 2 9 Mean 3.8 5 Ten of the parents interviewed had testified at the hearing (Table 79). Four of them felt better after having done so. Three parents felt no different after testifying and two reported feeling worse (Table 80). Nine of the parents indicated they felt there had been adequate opportunity at the hearing for presentation of their side of the issue (Table 81). Only five of the ten who testified felt they had really been heard and understood by the hearing officer (Table 82). 131 Table 79.--Response to Question 95: Did you testify at the hearing? Response N Percent Yes 10 66.67 No 5 33.33 Table 80.--Response to Question 96: If you testified did you feel better. worse or no different after having done so? Response N Percent Better 4 4o Worse 2 20 No different 3 30 Don't know 1 10 Note: N = 10 (number of parents who testified). Table 81.--Response to Question 97: Did you feel there was adequate opportunity to present your side of the issue? Local Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Total N % N % N % N % Yes 4 26.67 3 20.00 2 13.33 9 60.00 No 2 13.33 4 26.67 0 0 6 40.00 132 Table 82.--Response to Question 98: Did you feel you were really heard and understood by the hearing officer? Local Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Total N % N % N % N % Yes 3 3O 1 10 l 10 5 50 No 0 0 3 30 0 O 3 30 Not sure l 10 O O 1 10 2 20 Note: N = 10 (number of parents who testified). Comments parents made regarding the last four questions illustrate how they perceived their own role at the hearing. We had planned I wouldn't testify. then the Director called me. . . . I felt that I was really heard. probably not really under- stood. I think it became apparent when the decision came in. He thought J. could survive with a mixture of handicapped kids which really shocked me. I felt sick. disgusted. madder than hell and right back where I was. I felt cut off. harassed. rushed . . . and made to feel ignorant. As it turned out it was five o'clock in the afternoon by the time it was my turn to take the stand. I wasn‘t in very good shape by that time so I don't know whether I answered the questions how I should have or not. I always had the feeling that I didntt because it had already been a very long day. I just felt really. I was so tired. .. after having been there all day. .. that by the time I got up there all it took was one question and I just fell apart. I felt that I had the most to offer as far as what was going on with A. but I couldn't get any of it out and she [advocate] was tired too so she couldn t think of the right questions. and I wasn’t answering her the way that I was supposed to so she could come up with the next question. . . . I was spending all my energy trying not to cry which seems silly to me now because it's not the end of the world and everybody cries but 133 . . . I have this thing that comes back from way back in my childhood that people don't cry so I just keep fighting it. . . . Hours had already gone by and things had been said . . . that were very difficult to answer and of course I was not allowed to say anything through the entire hearing. Once I had made the decision the [advocate] was representing us I was not allowed to speak at all. even if something was said that was in direct contradiction to what I saw the facts as being. I was not allowed to speak. The hearing process is very formal. . . . Once you give up that right to . . . converse back and forth it really puts a strain on. I felt better. I felt that I did really well in getting my point across. In fact. I asked the supervisor of special edum-I directed my questions to him . . . because I knew he had a child the same age as S. and I said. "If this were your child. you would want the same thing for hlflh" And he shook his head affirma- tively. Where they stand politically is not an issue. At the time I felt a little bit betten. Looking back I felt worse about errors I made. As I tried to tell the hearing officer about illegalities and lies I was shut up by the lawyer for the school. I just wanted to tell him so the hearing officer would understand. It seemed the school people could say all they wanted but when I tried to tell about the background that led up to the hearing I was told it was irrelevant. The hearing officer kept saying. "Let's bring this up to date. Never mind what happened in the past." We were just trying to show the progression of things. I felt really pressed for time. I felt rushed. The hearing officer was pressing for time . . . watching his watch. We started at 9 o'clock and he wanted to be home by seven. We had a 45 minute prerhearing conference. 'The hearing didn’t get started until noon. "Due to the lateness of the hour." he said that a half a dozen times. . . . "Due to the lateness of the hour. we're going to cut your closing statements from the original half hour to five minutes." We argued about that with him. but it didn't do any good. I felt better after I testified. We almost forgot to mention that what was happening to my daughter was retaliation for the three complaints that we had filed. My advocate had all the points she wanted to make written on a piece of paper. At the recess she went over them and saw we hadn't mentioned it so she put me back on the witness stand. I was so nervous. I talked so fast the transcript came back mixed up. I was too nervous and upset. Afterward I thought of a lot of things I would like to have said. All the school people there were a tremendous hindrance. 134 Although parents reported few real surprises in the testimony of the school. they frequently questioned the accuracy of the testimony and were often angered by what they considered the dishonesty of the school's witnesses. Several parents indicated they felt pressure had been placed on teaching staff by school administrators to present testimony which was contradictory to what they had previously told parents or to what parents believed to be true. Often parents felt professional staff testified according to the wishes of administrators rather than in accordance with their professional judgment out of fear of losing their’jobs. Table 83 shows how closely school testimony related to what the parents had expected. Table 83.--Response to Question 100: Was the testimony of the school what you expected? Response N Percent Completely 3 20.00 Mostly 2 13.33 Half n'half 7 46.67 Very little 2 13.33 Not at all 1 6.67 A parent who did not attend the hearing judged the accuracy of the school's testimony from the transcript of the hearing. saying. They made incorrect inferences. incorrect statements. It was full of mi squotes. We were misrepresented. After the hostility of the IEPC meeting we were not totally surprised. We trusted a good contact. but we didn't read her right. We thought she would at least be neutral. 135 Other parents discussed the way they felt about the school's testimony. saying. I knew they wouldn’t'tell the hearing officer what they were telling us because that would prove how inadequate they were. It was buttered up--the same old thing only made nice. They made themselves look good and made me look like an ass. They threw in a whole new issue ... . that it was completely disruptive to a regular education classroom to have an interpreter in there. Now that was a primary issue. It had never been mentioned previously. I'd never heard it before. If I'd known ahead of time. I could have presented evidence to the contrary. At the pre-hearing meeting the hearing officer... . told them they could be required to provide a service that was not reimbursed so the next day in the hearing they brought up this new issue. What I expected. or what I wanted? It is hard to decide. I guess it was what I expected mainly because everybody that was up there was working for the school district and so I guess I wasntt surprised. I guess I was just disappointed and . . . unhappy. I didn't know what to expect from them. I was surprised at their testimony; for example. the principal and the teacher were going on about what a wonderful program they could provide and it comes down to . . . they wanted her to remain . . . in a TMI program. No. I wasn't hearing that for the first time. But it was . . . for her to remain in a TMI program . . . when she's going to be making tremendous strides . . . absolutely ludicrous. In fact. in the hearing officer's decision the option of staying in the TMI program was not even mentioned. I think he recognized himself that that was not an appropriate alternative. The change in attitude had happened before we got to the hearing. There were no surprises. I was too nice. I mishandled it. . . . They got away with saying irrelevant things. Credentials should have been questioned.. . . The hearing officer should have stricken his testimony. He'd never taught. He was no expert. I should have brought out the familial. friendship relationships. I think [the witness] was scared to death she would lose her job. She was really on the carpet. I thought she would elaborate more instead of just saying yes or no. 136 The psychologist and supervisor who perjured themselves are now gone. A psychologist was pressured to change a social skills evaluation this year and he would not. I wonder why others didn"t have the same ethics and standards not to cowtow to the directions they receive. The testimony was tainted. I was amazed what professionals will do on the request of supervision. . . . I didn’t think educators could be so violently aggressive and downright disparaging. I didn't expect all the lies. If someone would have had to answer in the parent's favor they said. "I can't remember--I don't recall." The amount of time for speech was not on the IEPC. But I had observed many times. It was never more than 15 minutes. The school said 30 minutes. It wasn’t possible to give 30 minutes. In some respects they contradicted one another with their testimony. I expected them to lie and they did. When you figure the things they said--you wonder really who told them to say it. The testimony was slanted. It all depends on the way you present things. You can present information in a way to show what you want to show. They didn’t have the witnesses under oath. When your job's on the line what are you gonna do? Table 84 shows that often parents felt they had been personally attacked by the school during the course of the hearing. Table 84.--Response to Question 101: Did you feel that you were personally attacked by the school? Response N Percent Definitely 7 46.67 Somewhat 1 6.67 Don't know 1 6.67 Not really 3 20.00 Not at all 3 20.00 137 One mother who felt particularly strongly about having been attacked by the school had the following to say: I think it was deliberate with everyone sitting there. Numbers make a big difference. . . . They even verbal ized. "You had to go and do that. now you can pay the consequencesJ' I felt like I didn’t have a friend in the world--like I had been asking for the impossible. Had I been asking for something they didn't have--to open a new program--maybe I could have understood. All I wanted was for her to be able to go into what others were allowed into. Others said. I don't know that I could say they really attacked me. They were so careful with their words. But I knew what they meant. They were putting me on trial because we even discussed my daugh- ter. They asked each person about how I was involved. Did I go to all the meetings? I had attended them all. It was as though I was on trial. now what all this had to do with my child's needs I didn't know. They were just trying to find out how involved and concerned I was before the hearing. It didn'tlnake any sense to me and I really felt like I was being put on trial. They were trying to find out if I was a fit mother. That's the impression I got from them examining me. When they canceled me from the PAC they were attacking me. [My spokesperson] was really attacked more than I was. There were a lot of problems. discrepancies. about work A. does for others and the work she does at school. They implied I was a disillu- sioned mother being led down the garden path by this special ed. teacher [the spokesperson]. Not really. Their attorney tried to discredit my testimony. He tried to say my testimony was not valid. He didn't know [the 180] had hired me to teach their staff. If I was enough of an authority to teach their staff then I was enough of an authority to testify. They attacked our credibility--our ability to interpret the law. They tried to intimidate us. We were attacked. About 110 percent. I felt like they were thinking. "They're parents. They don't know what they're doing. We don't really think they know what they're doing. We know they don't know what they're doing. We don't even know why they're here)‘ I felt like I was on trial versus they were on tria1--and it had been determined that the school had the burden of proof. 138 We were. as parents. not the issue. [The hearing officer] made us feel like we were on trial. We were the ignoramuses. [The school personnel] with their degrees were so much superior to us ignor- amuses. In most cases parents indicated they had been satisfied with the degree of formality maintained by the hearing officer (Table 85) Table 85.--Response to Question 103: How did you feel about the degree of formality? Response N Percent Too formal 2 13.33 Fine the way it was 10 66.67 Too informal 0 0 Uncertain 2 13.33 Not applicable 1 6.67 Two-thirds of the parents interviewed indicated they felt the hearing had been conducted fairly or very fairly (Table 86). Table 86.--Response to Question 103: Did you feel the hearing was conducted fairly? Local Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Total N % N % N % N % Yes. very fair 2 13.33 2 13.33 0 0 4 26.67 Yes. fair 3 20.00 1 6.67 2 13.33 6 40.00 No. didn't seem fair 0 0 2 13.33 0 O 2 13.33 No. very unfair l 6.67 2 13.33 0 0 3 20.00 139 Parents who indicated they felt the hearing had not been conducted fairly explained their reasons for feeling that way. How could it be fair when the parents weren't there? The decision was prearranged. The hearing officer was an advocate for the director. As long as he interprets the rules the way she wants them he keeps getting hired. I don't feel it was fair because I kept getting cut off. I wasn't given the time the school was. I was the tail end. It was stated. "It's getting late. let's get on with it." The school had all the time they needed. When we tried to present the type of material we wanted to. to get our point across that A. was not getting the education that she had been promised--guaranteed--we were accused of dragging up the past. Yesterday was the past. . . . all we wanted to let them know was . . . this is the work that A. did the first day she went to that school four years ago. and this is the work that she did the day before yesterday. But we weren't supposed to bring that up. And yet. they were bringing up old psychological reports from several years before. . . . That was. I thought. being unfair . . . and I think everybody was getting ti red by the end of the day. . . . I think it was. "Oh come on. let's get on with this. Is she going to say one more thing about this?" The hearing officer hurried both sides. He had made up his mind at a certain point and time in the hearing and from that point on it was. "Hurry up. bring it up to date." It would be like I'm looking at my watch and it's either tea time or martini time. The whole thing was overpowering. The hearing officer refused to have the witnesses sequestered. I couldn't afford to pay to have witnesses like they had. It sure wasn't fair. I was outnum- bered--all those professionals on paid time. People on the pay- roll won't go against them. They'd be fired. In one hearing a teacher was pink slipped the next day after testifying in the parent's favor. Parents who reported they felt the hearing had been conducted fairly were much less vocal. often responding simply. "Yes. it was fair" or "Yes. it was very fair." 140 Although ten of the parents reported that they felt the hearing had been conducted fairly. only eight parents responded that they felt the hearing officer had been impartial during the proceedings (Table 86). Table 87.-~Response to Question 104: Did you feel the hearing officer was impartial during the proceedings? Local Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Total N % N % N % N % Very impartial 4 26.67 2 13.33 0 O 6 40.00 Impartial O 0 l 6.67 l 6.67 2 13.33 Uncertain 0 0 l 6.67 1 6.67 2 13.33 Seemed to favor one side 1 6.67 O 0 0 O l 6.67 Definitely favored one side 1 6.67 3 20.00 0 0 4 26.67 All who felt the hearing officer had favored one side indicated it was the school's side he had favored. Parents expressed the reasons they felt the hearing officer had not been impartial by saying. I felt the hearing officer thought I was asking for too much. During the recess I heard him say. "What does this parent want anyway? Does she expect to get reimbursement for private speech. preschool and transportation?" That was not my goal. All I wanted was to get for my child what she needs. He was nice to the school and he was cold. cut and dried with me. . . . He didn't adjourn it [the hearing] when the parents weren't there. We called the hearing officer and left a message asking him to adjourn the hearing and he did not. He wasn't fair when he wouldn't sequester the witnesses. 141 I felt at the beginning he was impartial. but as the proceedings went on I got the feeling that he had already made up his mind . . . and that he really just wanted to get things over with. I think that he pretty much decided that before I even got up there. Two parents who indicated they didn't know whether the hearing officer was impartial or not explained. He didn't really seem to care about either side. He didn't weigh the evidence as presented. He didn’t favor either side. He made a decision based on neither side. It was his own. It was some- thing he dreamed up. I can’t honestly say he favored one side. but I cantt say he was impartial either. He didn"t seem to want to touch the suspension issue. There were certain issues he didn't want to deal with. He interrupted me and asked. "Are you blaming these people?" I said. "No. we're not." He kept questioning me on the degree of hostil- ity I felt. Parents who felt the hearing officer had been impartial made such comments as: He didn't talk to either of the parties during recesses. He stayed by himself. You got the message. But he wasn't rude. The hearing officer did not show any bias one way or the other. He was listening to both sides. He was obviously paying attention because he asked pertinent questions of different witnesses. He was open to both sides. You could tell that by the way he presented himself. At least I could. He was very consistent on maintaining and controlling the situation. . . . He was very knowledgeable. He is very good. I was shocked that his decision was not favorable for S. I was flabbergasted . . . the evidence was there. I still say it's politics. I still say it boils down to the fact that he was paid by the school and they were afraid of setting a precedent. I was definitely under the impression he was impartial--right from his opening statement. It was just the way he conducted himself. If something was said that shouldn’t have been he made a note of it. There was something about the way the man conducted himself. 142 If we got out of line he told us and the same for the school. A. came to the hearing and met the hearing officer. Table 88 shows that 11 of the 15 parents indicated they found it "extremely upsetting" or "somewhat upsetting" to participate in the hearing regarding their child's educational program. Table 88.--Response to Question 106: How upsetting was it to participate in the hearing? Response N Percent Extremely upsetting 6 40.00 Somewhat upsetting 5 33.33 Uncertain 0 0 Not very upsetting 2 13.33 Not at all upsetting 2 13.33 Nine of the parents felt. as they went into the hearing. that they had as good a chance as the school to have the hearing officer's decision favor their position (Table 89). Table 89.--Response to Question 107: Did you feel you had as great a chance to win as the school did? Local Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Total N % N % N % N % Definitely 3 20.00 3 20.00 1 6.67 7 46.67 Probably O O 1 6.67 l 6.67 2 13.33 Uncertain 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 Probably not 2 13.33 0 0 0 0 2 13.33 Definitely not 1 6.67 3 20.00 0 0 4 27.67 143 Asked why they felt the way they did about their chances of having the hearing officer's decision support their position. parents responded as is indicated in Table 90. Table 90.--Response to Question 108: Why did you feel that way? Response N Percent More impressive witnesses 3 20.00 Better spokesperson l 6.67 Stronger case 7 46.67 Law supported position 5 33.33 Hearing officer favoritism 3 20.00 Other 1 6.67 Several parents felt it necessary to select more than one response. For example. parents in five separate interviews replied. "We felt we had a stronger case because we had the law on our side)‘ One of them added. "You cannot lie about someone's educational rights." Another parent combined two different responses. saying. Well. I think that it seemed as though they had better witnesses and a better case because there were so many of them--that there was just us. It is just very difficult. you really feel pretty alone. Again combining responses a parent explained. Our case was stronger. and as far as the law. I think itfls according to the federal law that they could have provided tuition in private school . . . but not under state law. I would say we had a better spokesman. too. He was excellent. In another interview a parent remembered thinking that since the law was on their side and since the hearing officer was an impartial 144 judge certainly they had as good a chance to win as the school. A father cited remarks the hearing officer had made as making him feel he had a chance to wirn Another parent who reported feeling she had as good a chance to win as the school explained. As the hearing proceeded their attitude was so visible I thought surely the hearing officer would see it. A parent who felt the school had a better chance of winning explained he felt a personal relationship between the director of special education and the hearing officer. combined with the fact that the hearing officer was "employed by the school district." negated any chance they would have had of winning on the merits of the case. Another parent who felt the hearing officer favored the school remarked. He just didn't hear our side. I know he listened carefully. but when he came to us he was tired and he needed something to eat. Still another parent reported that although before the hearing began she thought she had a better chance than the school of having the hearing officer support her position. she decided during the hearing that the school would probably win because the hearing officer seemed to favor the school. A father explained that when he saw their "seven or eight witnesses" he figured he had no chance. He felt he would be defeated by the sheer number of school witnesses and their degrees. Similar sentiments were expressed by another parent. who remarked that she felt she had lost before the hearing ever began because she couldn't afford witnesses like the school had. 145 When parents were asked. "What was the most frustrating aspect of the hearing for you?". only one mother responded that there had been no frustrating aspects for her. The others spoke of their frustration with feeling rushed by the hearing officer. having school personnel give testimony they felt was contradictory or false. feeling outnum- bered and alone. incomplete transcripts. lack of advance notice regard- ing procedural requirements. and hearing officer bias. 'Their answers. provided here as direct quotations from the interviews. provide a real sense of the frustration they experienced. The way the case was presented by the school really got to mew-as though it was just no big issue--when it's so important for your child. And then having to act in front of my child like nothing's wrong when I felt like exploding. I thought it was too long and drawn out and there were too many people--too many school people. I was afraid to say much. It's one thing when you answer questions on the stand and another when you have to ask the questions. That's really tough. For me. personally. the most frustrating part was having to sit there and listen to their witnesses contradict each other! Also hearing downright lies and knowing what had really happened. Some of the things said about P.--it upset me. I thought if this is what you have to go through to get a half-way decent education for your child. it's a sad state of affairs. The lies! I was so upset. I couldn't believe the lies. I was so extremely upset I couldn't eat or go to class that night. The cost! Particularly having to pay for an independent evalua- tion when I was entitled to re. All of the hearing process expenses to the school are paid by school taxes. Why couldntt the parent's expenses be charged to the school in the same way? We pay their salary and they fight us with our own money. We should be able to defend ourselves with our own money. with our own school taxes. I felt rushed by the hearing officer. We asked for a court reporter and were told. "No. the hearing will be tape recordedJ‘ Then large parts of the tapes were inaudible. It was a closed hearing and we wanted the Director of Special Education seques- 146 tered and the hearing officer wouldn't allow it. My wife and our advocate and I were each prepared to present a portion of our case. 'The hearing officer would only allow one spokesman. so between the prehearing conference [same day] and the hearing I had to absorb the presentations of the other two. FHs not allowing anyone else to speak was really frustrating. It was for our son and I just wish I could have done better. Perjury on the part of the administration! There was no way to prove it. It was just their word against mine. I could only say. "You told me. . . ." and they would say. "No. I didn't." The hearing itself was frustrating. The time it took! I think you could get faster action through the courts. I think that we should get this thing out of the hands of this bureaucracy in Lansing and into the courts. 'Time has a way of curing things. and it takes so long by the time you get to a hearing. Our support just sort of fell by the wayside. By the time of the hearing I felt very much alone even though we had a lot of support in the beginning. At the end I worried about the impression I had made. I didn't feel that we'd win. The hearing officer made some comment about wondering if we would abiderby the decision. I was disappointed to lose. Having to listen to the recommendations of the school. They were just ludicrous. They could no more provide an adequate. let alone optimum. program for S. than the man in the moon. Having had brain surgery she really needed an intensified structure. a remedial program with instructors that were aware of neurological problems in children. The [private] School staff are highly geared to instruct children who have neurological problems. 835 situation was extremely unique. You don't see very many children that are changing placement because of the results of brain surgery. . . . How many parents are you going to have pounding down your doors because their child has had brain surgery and now they are going to be better placed in a different program. It is not going to be a precedent-setting case. . . . It was as if it went in one ear and out the other. There wasn't any real frustrating aspect. no. I was pretty devastated that it had gone the way it had. It was a waste of time. energy and money. I might as well have gone to the zoo or something. The most frustrating thing to me throughout the whole thing was that the hearing did the same as all the IEPC's were doing and that was putting them against us or us against them . . . instead of everybody being together for A. That is the worst part of the whole thing . . . it's let's choose up sides and decide whether she is this or she is that or she is here or she is there. if she is going to live or she is going to die. or she is 147 going to survive or she is not. or she is going to be in this school or she is going to be someplace else. I don"t get any feeling of working together. Having some . . . witnesses . . . perjure themselves. There was a lot of pressure put on . . . the special ed. staff who were siding with us and with the regular ed.teachers. . . . I felt really bad that their jobs were threatened. A couple of the regular ed. teachers . . . really buckled under the pressure and made state- ments that were just grossly unfair . . . saying things like. "Our class is a lot better when she is not there." and "Now that she is gone we are glad that she is not going to be back." and things like that. That I could not have the time to have him [hearing officer] hear and understand what I had to say. He kept cutting me off. He kept ignoring the past and he needed to know about EJs patterns of behavior. He [hearing officer] let his own feelings interfere with his judgment. I think the most frustrating thing was that they called my son as a witness. I think they did it just to see if they could aggra- vate him. I was really proud of him. He handled it better than I thought he would. ‘They made a big deal of the fact he had never attended an IEPC and told them what he wanted. Most frustrating was the fact that the staff we hoped we could depend upon perjured themselves at the hearing. 'The mockery of the whole procedure! It's designed to protect the parent and child. The decision was preordained. Itfls a waste of money. time. and emotional effort. We just exposed M. to more problems. We should have just hired a tutor. We created problems for her. Table 91.--Response to Question 112: Were changes required in your child's educational program as a result of the local hearing officer's decision? Response N Percent Yes 11 73.33 No 4 26.67 148 Parents reported waiting varying lengths of time for the hearing officer's decision. Nine of them reported the wait had not been excessively long. that the decision had been received within 30 days. To some. although within timelines. the wait had seemed too long. The rest of the parents were less satisfied with the timelines of the hearing officer's decision. saying such things as: I think it was 15 days late. Sixty days. The hearing officer was busy. Over the maximum time allowed. 'The tapes were inaudible and that delayed the preparation of the transcript. They were in violation of the timelines. It took from October to December. 'The Board of Education had stalled so long--it had taken so long to set up the hearing date that it left very little time after the hearing for the hearing officer to go through the transcripts and come up with a decision. He requested our permission to take longer than necessary to come up with the decision. We gave it to him. The timelines were extended because the hearing officer was researching the decision. All of the parents interviewed reported receiving the hearing officer's decision by way of registered mail. Immediate reaction to the decision ranged from elation to fury. 'Those who were pleased with the decision made such comments as: I thought it was a good decision as far as it went. It wasntt clear how the decision was to be delivered though. and I wasntt sure an appeal would clarify it. It was a relief. I knew what the outcome was going to be. Great. now let's get the school going again. I was elated. I sent everyone a copy of the decision. 149 Thank God. I won. but it wasn't real clear when it was to begin. Hallelujah! I was very happy. I appreciated the fact that he did see the necessity for improving her English program. As was the case with regard to responses to other questions. parental dissatisfaction was expressed with considerably more intensity than was satisfaction. Parents who were unhappy with the decision expressed their dissatisfaction with emotion. saying. My only reaction was disbelief. I was sick. I waslnad. I threw it. I swore. I hated him. I felt his partiality. It just proved he diant hear a word I said. I resented it that he said. "The parent will have to realize that the child needs moreJ' It was like slapping me in the face. I don't think he cared to understand my son. Well. I was just disappointed. I had hoped that--you always hope that something is going to be different. It was pretty much what I expected. I was very disappointed and disbelieving and shocked and upset. And there was no way I could pull her out of [private school]. Even with all the stipulations of the hearing officer. which would have been a big improvement over what she was getting in public school. it was still nowhere near what she really needed. She had to stay at [private school]. There was just no way that I could pull her out of [private school] in order to implement this program that the hearing officer had stipulated. I just couldn"t do it. I was disappointed. But then I hadn"t been all that optimistic. The signals were there. I kind of knew. Fury! Dumbfounded and disgusted with a very strong feeling of confusion. I didn't understand what was written. I had to take the paper to the 180 for interpretation. They had to call Lansing because they couldn't tell who had won or lost. It was just sort of automatic that we'd appeal. It's sort of burned in your mind--no one I know will ever have to go through this. I'll see that they are fore- warned. 150 We One-third of the parents reported that after the local-level hearing officer's decision was received it was implemented immediately (Table 92). Six of the parents reported the decision was never imple- mented. sometimes as the result of their action and sometimes as the result of the school's action. Table 92.--Response to Question 116: How soon was the program ordered by the hearing officer implemented? Local Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Total N % N % N % N % Immediately 1 6.67 3 20.00 1 6.67 5 33.33 Within two weeks 0 O 0 0 O O O 0 Three weeks or more 2 13.33 1 6.67 O 0 3 20.00 Never 2 13.33 2 13.33 2 13.33 6 40.00 None to implement 0 O 0 0 O O l 6.67 One parent reported that the decision had not been implemented because the school district appealed it and won the appeal. The child is now in a private school and the issue is being fought in court. In another case. in order for the school to implement the decision. the nursing home where they had previously provided a satisfactory program for the child refused to allot the necessary space for the program. That child is now living in a foster home and attending school in another county. Still another parent reported the decision was never implemented because by the time the decision was received. the child 151 was too old for the program. Another parent reported that the hearing officer's decision had ordered that the child could be graduated from high school against the parent's wishes. That child was kept out of school pending an appeal which the parent lost and has now neither graduated nor returned to school. One more parent indicated the decision had never been implemented. explaining that although the child's placement had remained according to the parent's wishes. the child had never received the vocational evaluation ordered by the hearing officer. A parent whose child was in private school at the time of the decision felt it was not in the best interests of the child to remove her from that school and place her in a public school program she doubted could meet the child's needs. Nine of the parents reported they felt there had been unnecessary time delays during the hearing process (Table 93). Even those parents who felt mandated timelines had been met expressed their concern that the process itself takes too long--that valuable time is lost. Only one parent expressed the thought that it had all happened too quickly. Table 93.--Response to Question 117: Did you feel there were unnecessary time delays at any time during the process? Response N Percent Yes 9 60.00 No 5 33.33 Maybe 0 0 Don't know 1 6.67 152 One parent whose two days of hearing testimony were separated by several days felt the school's attorney had deliberately caused the hearing to last longer by . . . saying he had to catch a plane . . . that he couldn't come on such and such a day or he couldn't be there before 9:00 o'clock in the morning. The attorney actually said he was trying to wait for the law to change. There is that attitude that if they can put you off long enough they won't have to provide the service. Another parent commented that the decision never was implemented because the nursing home wouldn’t provide the necessary space for the program. saying. "Certainly there were unnecessary delays--iifls still delayed." Still another parent expressed her feelings in this manner: The whole process is an unnecessary time delay. It just takes so much time--time that this child could be in an appropriate pro- gram. It did take a long time to come up with a hearing officer because we were not going to agree with the hearing officer's names that they had given us... . and they were having trouble agreeing with [parent choice for hearing officer]. Feelings that there were unnecessary delays throughout the entire process were shared by a parent who first of all had difficulty getting her chilcPs records and then experienced the frustration of having the district fail to tell her whether they intended to implement or appeal the hearing officer's decision until a formal complaint was filed. Another parent experienced delays first because of audio difficulties with the tape recording of the hearing. then because of the hearing officer's other commitments which caused a delay in the delivery of the decision. The mother of a preschooler requesting additional service for her child remarked. It seemed like it dragged on forever. There was a lot of time between the time I expressed my dissatisfaction and the time I actually signed for the hearing. They had to set up an IEPC and 153 then they said they'd have to test her. It seemed like there was too much time between the decision and the appeal also. School was out by the time we got the decision. Another parent felt there were time delays "leading up to the hearing" but felt that "after the request things rolled along well)‘ Still another remarked. "There was constant stallingJ' Probably the most positive comment received was the following: Everybody involved tried to keep things rolling as the law dictates. All was done according to the law. but I still felt like it took too long. The majority of the parents interviewed reported that the hearing had not ended the conflict between themselves and the school (Table 94L Twelve parents indicated their relationship with the school was the same or worse after the hearing than it had been before the hearing. Tabler94.--Response to Question 118: Did the hearing end the conflict between you and the school regarding this issue? Local Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Total N % N % N % N % Yes 2 13.33 1 6.67 0 O 3 20.00 Somewhat 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 No difference 1 6.67 l 6.67 0 0 2 13.33 No 1 6.67 2 13.33 3 20.00 6 40.00 Worse now 2 13.33 2 13.33 0 0 4 26.67 Parents who reported an end to the conflict did not necessarily mean that a positive relationship had been established with the school 154 after the hearing. One parent explained that the conflict had ended with the hearing because she had "cut the ties" with the school dis- trict by enrolling her child in a private school. This sense of ending conflict by terminating the relationship was also reported by another mother whose child was placed in a different school after the hearing. A third parent commented that after a period of open hostility between the special education director and herself she was attempting to keep things as peaceful as possible. so although she was not completely satisfied with the program provided for her child there was no open conflict and she did feel she currently had a fairly good working relationship with the director. Seven of the local-level decisions were appealed to the state (Table 95). Of the seven appeals. five were requested by parents (Table 96). Five of the appeal decisions upheld the decision of the local hearing officer (Table 97). One of the reversals clearly favored the parent position: the other took away a service that had been granted a child by the local-level hearing officer. although the parent reported the appeal decision to be a "new solution." not truly in support of the school position. The latter decision is currently being considered in court (Table 98). In one instance an appeal was requested by a parent whose position had been supported by the local- level hearing officer because the local-level decision left unanswered questions to which answers were necessary for implementation of the decision. Of the two decisions challenged in court. one is still 155 undecided. The other decision. decided at both the local and state levels in favor of the school position. was upheld in court. Table 95.--Response to Question 119: Was there a state-level appeal? Local Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Total N % N % N % N % Yes 3 20.00 3 20.00 1 6.67 7 46.67 No 3 20.00 3 20.00 2 13.33 8 53.33 Table 96.--Response to Question 120: Who requested the state-level appeal? Local Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Total N % N % N % N % Parent 2 28.58 3 42.87 0 O 5 71.42 School 2 28.58 0 O O O 2 28.58 Note: N = 7 parents who requested appeals. 156 Table 97.--Response to Question 121: What was the result of the state-level decision? Local Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Tetal N % N % N % N % Upheld 2 28.58 3 42.87 0 O 5 71.42 Reversed 0 0 l 14.29 0 0 1 14.29 New solution 1 14.29 0 0 O 0 l 14.29 Note: N = 7 parents who requested appeals. Table 98.--Response to Question 122: Did either you or the school initiate civil action with regard to this issue? Appeal Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Total N % N % N % N % Parent did 0 O 2 28.58 0 0 2 28.58 School did 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 Neither did 3 42.87 2 28.58 0 O 5 71.42 Note: N = 7 parents who requested appeals. A third of the parents reported they had filed an official special education complaint with regard to the issue of the hearing (Table 99). 157 Table 99.--Response to Question 123: Was an official special educa- tion complaint regarding this issue filed in accordance with Rule 151 of the Michigan Special Education Rules and Regulations? Final Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Total N % N % N % N % Yes 3 20.00 1 6.67 l 6.67 5 33.33 No 3 20.00 5 33.33 2 13.33 10 66.67 W: In spite of the fact that only a third of the parents reported the hearing decision had been in their favor. over half reported that they feel the hearing process is basically a fair way to resolve conflict between parents and the school over the educational program for a handicapped child (Table 100). Table lOO.--Response to Question 124: Do you feel that the hearing process is basically a fair way to resolve conflict between parents and the school? Final Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Total N % N % N % N % Definitely 1 6.67 O 0 O O l 6.67 Yes 3 20.00 1 20.00 1 6.67 7 46.67 Uncertain O 0 1 6.67 O O 1 6.67 No 0 0 2 13.33 1 6.67 2 13.33 Definitely not 2 13.33 1 6.67 1 6.67 4 26.67 158 Many of the parents qualified their answers to this question or explained their responses with additional comments. Comments such as the following were made by parents who questioned the fairness of the process: I don't know that it's the most expedient way. It seems that there is still a lot of unnecessary paper being sent back and forth and just a lot of bureaucratic bologna going on. I cannot imagine .. . that without the encouragement of [friend] who had worked with A.. . . that I would have undertaken the hearing process. simply because you are at a staggering disadvantage to the school district. You have just your own resources on which to rely and they have seemingly all the education and the experience and the knowledge. It looks to me like a stacked deck no matter whether it is an IEPC or a hearing. If the schools knew how to provide what's needed there wouldn't be a hearing. Just because there's a decision saying they have to do something doesn't mean they know how. If they can't do it to begin with they won't be able to with a hearing unless someone shows them how. What does it get you? All I know is it didn't help me. It made things worse. The school just hated me more. They took it out on me by giving me less and putting me in my place. It is a very expensive way to handle an issue. They usually come out unresolved anyway. The hearing officer. being employed by the school. is not as impartial as what he is supposed to be. I,just cannot see how he can be. He has to put bread and butter on the table. It is very difficult for me to feel that he is going to be strictly impartial when he is being paid by the school. Absolutely. positively to. . . . I think the process could be fair if parents were given the insight to what is going on. Dontt walk in there cold turkey. . . . It should be held more like small claims court . . . where you go in. and in layman's language. . . . tell your side to the judge. The other person goes in and tells his side to the judge. . . . The judge can ask questions back and forth a few times and everybody answers. The judge says this is the way it's going and bong it's over and done with. The hearing officer gets you in there and it's not that way. It's too legalistic. . . . If you are competing with the special ed. director . . . the parent will look like a bumbling idiot. . . . A parent is not a paid professional. We're paying these superin- tendents and special ed.directors quite handsomely just to have a 159 full understanding of what the law is and how to use this law in the best interests of our children. When they distort the law to their own advantage . . . and it's the parent's responsibility to know more than they know 1195 a sad situation that they are put- ting the general public in. Not when it's so one sided. If they'd even it up it would be a very good way. When you're hauled into court and cannot pay for an attorney you get a court-appointed attorney. Parents should be given a lawyer. I think that's the biggest problem. Parents who indicated they felt the process was basically fair often explained that their response should be considered with certain reservations. Some of their comments include the following: Yes. iifls fair if the parents are involved in hearing officer selection. But if they have no say in who the hearing officer is to be it certainly is not fair. Yes. I think the process is basically fair. I guess my reserva- tion about the appeal is that the person making the decision should have the benefit of having testimony presented again. .. . Maybe the transcripts didn't show what was the most important point that someone was trying to make. I*would not have felt as bad if the appeal had been reversed and done so logically. . . . But I don‘t know of any better way of resolving conflict so I would say yes. It needs some improvement. There ought to be a way to protect the child from retaliation. I'll say it's fair. but only because I don't know a better way. Yes. 1195 fair. but I don"t believe it should ever have to come that far. When considering parent responses to this question in terms of whether or not the final decision favored their position. it is interesting that all but two of the six parents who reported receiving a favorable decision indicated they felt the process was basically fair. Out of the six cases in which the decision had favored the 160 school's position. three parents indicated they still felt the process was fair. Asked if they liked the two-step process. the local hearing and then the state-level appeal. seven of the parents. not all of whom had been involved in a state-level appeal. indicated they did (Table 101). Table lOl.--Response to Question 125: Do you like the two-step process. the local hearing and state-level appeal prior to going to court? Final Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Total N % N % N % N % Yes 5 33.33 1 6.67 l 6.67 7 46.67 No 0 0 2 13.33 2 13.33 4 26.67 No opinion 1 6.67 3 20.00 0 0 4 26.67 One parent indicated that the process as designed was very accept- able. but that the way it was administered left much to be desired. Several parents expressed their concern with the second step. the appeal process. making such comments as: It seems that the second step is conducted with a lot less thought and a lot less thoroughly than the first step and I think the reverse should be true. If anything you would need to know more information and ask more questions based on the first step's testimony rather than what appears to be a lot less. You're very likely to get a decision that agrees with the [local] hearing officer from a state appeal. . . . It could be that you would get a decision that's even more restrictive than the hearing officer's decision. You are really starting back at square one by tossing this into the lap of more people and . . . it is only a written process. You donFt have the advantage of being able to 161 talk in person. I think it should be able to go directly to court. I have no confidence in the bureaucracy in Lansing. They give out too many conflicting decisions. If I had to do it again I wouldn’t go with this system. I'd ask the court for an injunc- tion. By the time the hearing decision was rendered it was too late to change back. If you lose. I don't think an appeal will reverse the decision. Only one of the six parents who were involved in the appeal process reported they did not like the two-step process. That one parent had received a local decision that was in their favor and was later reversed by the state-level review. One of the parents who reported liking the process had lost the local-level hearing but had won at the level of the state appeal. Another parent who reported liking the two-step process although they had lost at both the local and state levels reported that their professional experience caused them to believe the process could. if implemented properly. work well to serve the purpose for which it was intended. Parents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the hearing process itself. the local-level decision. the state-level decision. and the school's response to the decision. Tables 102. 103. 104. and 105 provide those results. As could be expected. parent satisfaction with the decisions generally reflected whether or not their position had been supported by the decision. One of the parents reported satisfaction with implementation of the decision. Of the six parents who indicated they were either "somewhat dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied" with the hearing process. all but 162 one reported the decision of the local hearing officer to be in favor of the school. The sixth parent reported the decision not to be clearly in favor of one side or the other. Of the seven parents who indicated they were "somewhat satisfied." five reported local decisions in favor of their positions. one reported the local decision to be in favor of the school's position. and one reported the decision had not been a clear victory for either party. One of the parents included in the "somewhat satisfied" category reported the local decision in her favor had been reversed at the state level (Table 102). Table 102.--Response to Question 126: How would you rate your level of satisfaction with the hearing process? Final Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Total N % N % N % N % Very satisfied 0 O O O 0 O O 0 Somewhat satisfied 4 26.67 1 6.67 2 13.33 7 46.67 Uncertain l 6.67 l 6.67 O O 2 13.33 Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0 l 6.67 l 6.67 2 13.33 Very dissatisfied 0 O 4 26.67 0 O 4 26.67 The three parents who reported they were "very satisfied" with the local-level decision had received decisions at that level which sup- ported their positions. Of the two who reported themselves to be "somewhat satisfied." one parent had won the hearing. The second reported the decision was not clearly in support of either party. Of 163 the eight parents who reported they were "somewhat dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied" with the local decision. seven reported receiving decisions that were clearly in favor of the school's position. One of these parents reported that the decision had been a partial victory for each side (Table 103) Table lO3.--Response to Question 127: How would you rate your level of satisfaction with the local-level decision? Local Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Total N % N % N % N % Very satisfied 3 20.00 0 O O O 3 20.00 Somewhat satisfied 1 6.67 O O l 6.67 2 13.33 Uncertain 1 6.67 l 6.67 O O 2 13.33 Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0 l 6.67 l 6.67 3 20.00 Very dissatisfied 0 0 4 26.67 1 6.67 5 33.33 Of the parents who reported they were "very satisfied" with the state-level decision. one indicated the hearing officer who did the appeal had answered specific questions which had proved very helpful. The other parent received a decision from the state-level appeal that reversed the local decision and supported the position of the parent. A parent who indicated she was partially satisfied and partially dissatisfied explained she really thought the state-level hearing officer ought to have access to more information than is provided by the transcript. ‘Two parents who were "somewhat dissatisfied" received decisions in favor of the school. one reversing the local decision. 164 One of these parents indicated there was a certain satisfaction in having the state tell the local district they had been in error even though the decision had not supported the parent position (Table 104). Table 104.--Response to Question 128: How would you rate your level of satisfaction with the state-level decision? Appeal Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Total N % N % N % N % Very satisfied 2 13.33 0 O O 0 2 33.33 Somewhat satisfied 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 Uncertain O O l 6.67 0 O l 16.67 Somewhat dissatisfied 0 O 2 13.33 0 0 2 33.33 Very dissatisfied 0 O l 6.67 O O 1 16.67 Note: N = 7 hearing decisions appealed. None of the parents indicated they were satisfied with the response of the school to the hearing officer's decision (Table 105). Their reasons for dissatisfaction often had to do with what they considered excessive delays before the service was provided. Three of the parents were so displeased with the decision that they did not allow the decision to be implemented--the child was either kept out of school or placed in a private program. The question regarding their satisfaction with the school's response to the decision prompted the following comments: I wasn't very happy with the letter from the superintendent about how much the hearing had cost the school system. I felt it was a 165 dirty dig. I have to admit though the special education administrators were very pleasant throughout the situation. Well. we didn't really implement anything because they decided to go with the homebound. She would still be home if it was up to them. The homebound wasnkt provided very expediently. It took a long time to get it. We were very skeptical .. . because it took them such a long time to get things rolling. We had no idea what was going to take place. especially the first 60 days. It was a lot of conversa- tion. a lot of phone calls. a lot of everything took place. We didn't know when. where and how or how long it was going to take us to force it down their throats. It was not something they did out of the graciousness of their hearts even after it was a state decision. we still had to force it out. They stalled. They took forever to implement it. Table 105.--Response to Question 129: How would you rate your level of satisfaction with the school's response to the decision? Final Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Total N % N % N % N % Very satisfied 0 O 0 0 O 0 O 0 Somewhat satisfied 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 Partially satisfied/ dissatisfied 2 13.33 0 O O O 2 13.33 Somewhat dissatisfied 1 6.67 1 6.67 l 6.67 3 20.00 Very dissatisfied 3 20.00 1 6.67 2 13.33 6 33.33 Not applicable 0 O 4 26.67 0 0 4 26.67 W In discussing the effect of being involved in the hearing situa- tion on the child. parents' responses ranged from saying the child knew 166 nothing about the hearing and hence it had no effect. to saying the child had not only suffered from the tension at home but had suffered retaliation at schooL. Direct quotations from the interviews can best tell how parents saw the effect on the child: It had a very negative effect. Ihn not sure that her drug involvement isn't related to it. As parents we had conflict about how to proceed and we consulted her. She's very sensitive and didn"t want to be one of the kids that needed special help even though she knew she had a problem. It definitely affected her. She was a sunny. happy. positive kid until we hit the learning problems. The hearing was just too much. It probably didn't affect him as much as it did me. as the parent. They kind of used him to a point to see if they could get me to withdraw. Then they backed off. He had no awareness of what was going on. There was a definite negative effect. 'There was a lot of discus- sion. He didn"t want to go to school. Then we kept him out of school. IHn sure he lost time. He loses time with every change. . .. He lost time because we were fooling around trying to figure out what to do . . . he loses time with every change. It was a little tough for me because I lost for him. I hope he wasn't too disappointed in his father. I did what I could. I thought about that when I went in there. What if I don't win? I guess it would be a negative effect in terms of the time involved in going through all this. It takes a lot of parent time away from everything else. It didn't have any direct negative effect on her. though. She met the hearing officer and testified at the hearing. She liked that part of it. It definitely had an effect in that she thought people were working together instead of worrying over her. .She certainly is astute enough to realize that all these things that are going on are about her and because of her. and it gave her a real terrific feeling about herself. I think that everybody working together was an advantage to her. There were ti mes when she would overhear conversations between my husband and I and she knew we were worried as to how we could provide this very expensive education for her. She had some reaction to that. 167 It made him know if we thought he was right. we'd back him. The amount of time it took to have the matter settled has affected him negatively. He missed the first half of the seventh grade before we got a decision and they moved him up. I think she knows without it she would be sitting in a corner somewhere. There have been repercussions. though. People said and did things that made me feel sick. but without it she wouldn't be where she is today even though a lot of problems stem from it. He still doesn't know the final ruling. It has dragged on too long. It bothered him because he didn't graduate. I heard him say to someone. "What if when I do walk across the stage. Mom and Dad aren't proud." He hasn't been back to school since the hear- ing. I pulled her out of school after the hearing. I thought they were taking it out on my child. She kept running a low-grade tempera- ture but there was nothing really wrong with her. I was really afraid they would take it out on her. There were very strong feelings of conflict between the school and 1. WWW Generally. parent perceptions of how the hearing had affected the child's educational program reflected whether or not the decision had been in their favor. Six of the parents felt the hearing had resulted in improvement of the child's educational program. It can be seen in Table 106 that of those six parents. four had received decisions in support of their position. Of the five parents who felt the decision had been harmful to the child's educational program. only one had received a decision in support of their position. 168 Table 106.--Response to Question 131: What effect did the hearing decision have upon your child's educational program? Final Decision in Favor of Response Parent School Uncertain Total N % N % N % N % Improved it greatly 2 13.33 0 O O 0 2 13.33 Improved it somewhat 2 13.33 1 6.67 l 6.67 4 26.67 No real difference 0 0 2 13.33 1 6.67 3 20.00 Hurt it 0 0 l 6.67 1 6.67 2 13.33 Disastrous l 6.67 2 13.33 0 O 3 20.00 Other 0 O 1 6.67 O 0 l 6.67 A parent who reported the decision had had a disastrous effect on her child's educational program even though it had been in her favor reported it that way because the decision had never been implemented. Had it been implemented. she felt her