University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An analysis of the rise of special education legal costs in one Southern California suburban district

(USC Thesis Other)

An analysis of the rise of special education legal costs in one Southern California suburban district

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 1
AN ANALYSIS OF THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LEGAL COSTS
IN ONE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBURBAN DISTRICT

by

Rudy DeLana

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education

August 2016

Copyright 2016 Rudy DeLana
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 2
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my wife, Caroline. I know without your encouragement and
support I would not have pursued my dream of attending USC and achieving this goal.
I dedicate this also to my children Austin, Madeline and Chloe. You have all made
sacrifices these past three years, and I want each of you to know how much I appreciate your
understanding and patience. Best kids ever!
Finally, I dedicate this work to Susan Secrist. Your commitment to my success will never
be forgotten. Thank you Susie.

THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 3
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge my committee members for their support during my doctoral
adventure. I would like to thank you, Dr. Patrick Crispen, for your knowledge, humor, and
guidance. Dr. Patricia Tobey, thank you for the unwavering encouragement and feedback on my
early drafts. And last, but not least, thank you Dr. Wayne Combs for your enthusiasm, feedback,
time and tech support!

THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Overview Of The Study 8
Background of the Problem 9
Statement of the problem 11
Purpose of the Study 15
Research Questions 17
Methodology 17
Figure 1. Structure of Methodology 19
Structure of the Dissertation 25
Chapter Two: Literature Review 26
Section 1: Legal History and Legislative Aspects of Special Education, Including
Landmark Cases Which Contributed to the Current Form of Special Education 28
Section 2: Organizational Structures in Schools for Handling Special Education Students,
Delivering Services, and Otherwise Supporting Students 34
Section 3: Costs of implementation of Special Education Laws 36
Section 4: Education and Training for Teachers and Support Staff in Special Education 40
Section 5: Education and Training for Administrators in Special Education 45
Section 6: Recent Research and Professional Discussion Pertaining to Legal Issues in
Special Education, Particularly Possible Solutions for Restraining or Reversing
Those Costs 48
Purpose and Significance of the Study 56
Restatement of Research Questions 58
Summary 58
Chapter Three: Methodology 60
Purpose of the study 62
Theoretical framework 63
Research Design 63
Quantitative Segment 64
Qualitative Segment 64
Setting and Population 66
Participants 66
Instrumentation 67
Protocols and Interview Questions 67
Consent 68
Data Collection 68
Analyzing Data within the Conceptual Framework 69
Restatement of Research Questions 69
Chapter Four: Results 70
Purpose of the Study 70
Research Questions 71
Presentation of Findings 72
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 5
Description of Interview Questions 81
Description of Participants 81
Organization of Responses 82
Training for Current Position 85
Rise of Complaints 86
Reasons for Rise in Complaints 87
Potential Solutions for the Rise in Complaints 90
Solutions for Organizational Problems 91
Chapter Five: Discussion, Conclusions and Implications 94
Restatement of Research Questions 95
Discussion of Findings 95
Conclusions and Implications 105
References 110
Appendix A: Interview Questions: Teachers 118
Appendix B: Interview Questions: Administrators 119
Appendix C: Information Sheet 120

THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Comparable District Special Education Expenditure by School Year 14
Table 2: BUSD Income and Special Education Expenditure by School Year 15
Table 3: Comparative Analysis of Special Education Expenditure by School Year 15
Table 4: Comparison of Due Process Filings for 9 Similar Districts 74
Table 5: Due Process Filings of Comparable Districts in 2014-15 75
Table 6: BUSD District Enrollment and Special Education Enrollment Decline 75
Table 7: 2011 – 2015 Direct Costs of Legal Activity for BUSD 78
Table 8: 2011 – 2015 Indirect Costs of Legal Activity for BUSD Using Settlements
as Proxies 78
Table 9: Total Legal Costs for BUSD 2010-11 through 2014-15 79
Table 10: Overview of Responses to Interview Questions 83

THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 7
Abstract
According to California’s Statewide Task Force on Education, in 2015, schools were
failing to fully educate all students with disabilities to the extent required by federal law. (CA
Department of Education, 2015, p. 4). The number of students identified as needing special
education increased greatly in the last decade, even as special education became more expensive
to provide. This study investigated school budget allocations in several Southern California
districts, comparing the rising cost of special education within each district’s overall budget, and
focused on one possible cause for this rise: the increase in legal activity and subsequent costs. A
typical suburban Southern California district, Bloomfield Unified School District (BUSD), a
pseudonym for an actual district with rapidly rising special education costs, was chosen as the
subject for further study. Quantitative research found significant differences between special
education costs in comparable districts, especially in the area of legal costs. Qualitative research,
consisting of personal interviews with appropriate teachers and administrators, investigated
factors contributing to increasing legal costs. The analysis of this data determined that BUSD is
an “outlier” among its peers with significantly greater legal costs than comparable districts.
Further research suggested factors involved in this rise in legal costs and possible solutions for
addressing these factors. Analysis and discussion provided strategies for this district, and others
like it, to reduce special education legal costs while maintaining required standards for special
education students.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 8
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
California schools are struggling financially. Funding models are complex and archaic,
competing interests dominate and distort the budgeting process, and many public school districts
struggle to cover the costs of educating all students adequately, both in special education and
general education. According to California’s Statewide Task Force on Education, in 2015,
California schools were failing to fully educate all students with disabilities to the extent required
by federal law. According to this report, “far too many children and youth with disabilities in
California are not acquiring the skills they will need to secure stable employment when they
become adults, succeed in postsecondary education, and live independently (CA Department of
Education, 2015, p. 1). As special education is increasingly expensive to deliver, and the number
of students requiring it increased, there is a concomitant increase in budget strain to fund all that
is mandated by law. Financing comes from federal, state and local sources, but is provided
unequally throughout the state, increasing the financial burden of some school districts more than
others. This pattern affects the quality of education for all students.
This study undertook a closer look at school district budgets in an area of Southern
California to ascertain the portion of school budgets used to finance special education. Funding
patterns for 2011 through 2015 reflect increases in the percentage of school district budgets used
to support special education. This study focused on these expenditures in one Southern
California district. A preliminary assessment of this district’s special education costs revealed
that expenditures associated with litigation and other legal costs rose considerably more than did
costs in any other budget area. Increasing legal costs are, thus, an important ingredient in overall
cost increases and provide an area of worthy of potentially helpful research.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 9
A typical Southern California district was chosen as the subject for a detailed
investigation in this study. The Bloomfield Unified School District (BUSD) represents the
mixed demographics typical of Southern California in terms of socio-economics, race and
ethnicity, industrial base, and other qualities which affect education. BUSD experienced an
increase in costs for special education over 5 years and tentatively identified a dramatic rise in
legal costs as a large contributor to this increase.
This study researched the underlying causes for the rise in legal costs through a mixed-
methods approach. The quantitative segments confirmed the existence of the assumed increase
in costs in the greater area of overall budgetary expenditures and in the focus area of legal
expenditures. The qualitative segments investigated the reasons for an increase by gathering data
through interviews with stakeholders. Analysis of the data confirmed a variety of suppositions
and reasons for an increase in legal costs and also provided an array of potential solutions which
may be generalized to other school districts facing similar dilemmas.
Background of the Problem
Adequately educating the students of California is an enormous and expensive
responsibility. The difference between providing a general education for a student through high
school and providing an education for a disabled student through the same age period, increases
public school districts’ financial burden. During the 2012-2013 schoolyear, California school
districts spent a total of $10.7 billion on special education services, which works out to an
average cost of $22,300 per student, far more than the $9,600 spent, on average, to educate
students without disabilities (CA Department of Education, 2015). As special education students
represent approximately 11.31% of the student population, in the years 2012-2013, the budget in
this area consumed 20% of the state’s total education budget (CA Department of Education,
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 10
2015). There are no easy solutions for this budgetary disproportion. Funding patterns have been
rigid and static for many years, all student populations continue to grow, and special education
services are costly.
Before enactment of federal protections in the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act (EAHCA, 1975), schools in America educated only one in five students with disabilities.
The enactment of EAHCA, and its metamorphosis into the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), transformed the objectives and organization of all public education to
fully include all students with disabilities. Furthermore, since amendment of IDEA and its re-
authorization in 1997, plus the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act 2004
(IDEIA), in addition to subsequent judicial rulings, both federal and state laws require that all
students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least
restrictive environment (California Institute for Federal Policy Research, 2003). Thus, special
education and related services must be provided, at public expense and without charge to the
families, for all qualifying students with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), from pre-school
age to age 21, some even before entering public schools.
Although legislation and court decisions define and guarantee the rights of special
education students, requiring a wide range of programs and services, the amount of government
funding to fulfill these mandates lags behind the need. Since inception, the federal government’s
actual payment of the costs involved has never been higher than 15%, although up to 40% was
mandated through IDEA (Department of Education, 2004). Although there is extra funding to
help deliver especially expensive services, educating students with disabilities remains a large
portion of states’ and school districts’ education budgets.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 11
In addition to funding problems, the percentage of the school population eligible for
inclusion in these programs rose more than expected at the time legislation passed. For example,
the number of children with autism spectrum disorder in public schools grew by 600% in the last
decade and “represents a poignant example of the potential for the special education system to
grow” (Fan, 2014, p. 1504). Although the 1997 IDEA amendment allocated more federal
funding to help defray district costs, the increase in the number of special education students and
the expansion of required services far surpassed the rise in total resources available to school
districts.
The increasing number of special education students, and the amount and cost of
services required to provide a FAPE for each of them, caused an ever-increasing burden for
California school districts. While school personnel met this obligation by all means within their
control, including shifting funds, there is a need to increase funding, decrease costs, or a
combination of both approaches to protect the integrity of education for all students. This study
explored one aspect of the funding problem, which is the rise in legal costs associated with
special education for public school districts, and suggests some possible avenues to reverse that
trend.
Statement of the problem
BUSD, a pseudonym for an actual school district, is a large public school district in
Southern California which serves students from pre-kindergarten through post-high school
transitional programs. The district is dedicated to providing an appropriate and effective
education to all students, including those with special needs, understanding that education is
important for all children, but even more so for children with disabilities whose social and
economic opportunities may be limited (Aron & Loprest, 2012). In school year 2014-2015, total
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 12
enrollment in the district was 23,547 students; enrollment in special education was 2,822
students, approximately 12% of the total student body (BUSD, 2015).
Especially during the years of recession, there was a rapid and alarming cost increase for
the special education program as compared to other BUSD programs and as compared to costs in
similar districts. Providing and financing a FAPE for all students with disabilities is challenging,
and, according to Parrish and Wolman (2004), educators, especially at the local level, face
continuing pressure to support an ever-increasing demand for these services. Average spending
per pupil steadily increased since the passage of IDEA and more than doubled between 1968 and
2001, from $5,961 to $12,474, adjusted for inflation (Parrish & Wolman, 2004).
Preliminary analysis of BUSD’s budget in 2013 revealed that the percentage needed for,
and expended by, special education services was 37.14% of the total district budget (School
Services of California, 2013). More recent budgets varied slightly but remained within a tight
range. Budget adjustments, to keep the program compliant with government regulations, take
money from other budget areas to cover the increasing expenses. Although the 1997 IDEA
amendment allocated additional federal funds to help defray state and district costs, even with
increased governmental support, the rise in the number of special education students and their
needs far surpassed the rise in total resources available to the school district.
Educators have long been concerned about the extent to which special education
spending may take resources from regular education programs (Rothstein, 1997; Wolman &
Parrish, 1996). Resources diverted from the education of other students presents a problem for
the district as that hinders retention of general education students and hiring and retaining of
highly qualified teachers while reducing resources for the majority of students (Greene 2007).
The increasing costs also affect other aspects of the district, such as recruiting professionals to
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 13
the field of special education, lower employee satisfaction and morale on the job, faster job burn-
out and turnover, and increased uneasiness and mistrust between the community and BUSD.
According to Parrish and Wolman (2004), the average per-pupil expenditure for a special
education student is 1.9 times greater than that for a general education student. Although IDEA
promised federal funding of up to 40% of per average pupil expenditure, this level has never
been reached. According to a Department of Education report (2004), only 15.3 % of average
per-pupil expenditure was provided by the federal government, leaving the state and local school
districts to provide the majority of primary funding. Also, federal funding levels have been
relatively flat since 2004, with the exception of a temporary infusion of special funds under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Aron & Loprest, 2012).
Preliminary investigation of the under-funding problem in BUSD revealed the following
range of problems and possibilities driving the dramatic rise in special education costs:
1. The existing funding model is far below actual costs.
2. An increasing number of students qualify for special education, including some who
would not have qualified under earlier assessment guidelines.
3. An earlier diagnosis and longer responsibility for students, who may stay in special
education for up to 19 years (potentially from ages 3 to 22), which necessitates larger
budget and funding needs.
4. An increasing number and severity of disagreements/conflicts among the stakeholder
groups, specifically between BUSD personnel and the families of students, and the
resolution of those disagreements/conflicts.
Study of public documents reveals that BUSD consistently incurred greater special
education costs than did other districts in Southern California with similar demographics,
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 14
measured as a percentage of the total district budget (Tables 1 through 3). BUSD is consistently
an outlier, at the 98.8th percentile, with all other districts spending a smaller percentage of their
budget on special education than did BUSD in the same school year.
Table 1
Comparable District Special Education Expenditure by School Year
School District Budget Percentage Allocated to Special Education
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
School District A 20.06% 20.77% 13.36% 21.18%
School District B 16.51% 17.12% 14.42% 18.38%
School District C 17.59% 17.11% 21.55% 21.58%
School District D 21.27% 21.10% 20.34% 20.11%
School District E 24.49% 24.76% 21.06% 20.66%
School District F 19.73% 21.99% 21.47% 24.74%
School District G 22.75% 23.32% 22.07% 24.48%
School District H 23.47% 22.79% 21.71% 27.15%
School District I 23.18% 23.98% 24.56% 24.95%
School District J 23.78% 22.14% 24.41% 23.23%
School District K 26.01% 26.32% 21.08% 27.29%
School District L 24.27% 26.19% 25.22% 19.88%
School District M 26.87% 27.12% 18.84% 27.86%
School District N 26.52% 27.45% 26.65% 28.28%
School District O 20.06% 27.72% 27.69% 25.95%
School District P 31.70% 19.95% 23.92% 32.28%
School District Q 33.78% 31.49% 27.47% 32.42%
School District R 32.42% 32.98% 26.46% 32.30%
School District S 31.41% 32.31% 26.20% 30.71%

THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 15
Table 2
BUSD Income and Special Education Expenditure by School Year

2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
2014-2015
(Projected)
Total General
Education
Budget
$175,939,929 $178,391,084 $182,753,840 $202,493,999 $218,000,000
Budget
Percentage
Allocated to
Special
Education
36.72% 37.14% 37.02% 35.41%

Table 3
Comparative Analysis of Special Education Expenditure by School Year
Budget Percentage Allocated to Special Education
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
2014-2015
(Projected)
Mean ex. BUSD 24.52% 24.56% 22.55% 25.44%
Median ex. BUSD 23.78% 23.98% 22.07% 24.95%
Standard Deviation
ex. BUSD 5.01% 4.63% 4.01% 4.49%

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was two-fold. The first aim was to validate the increasing costs
of special education for BUSD, as compared to costs in similar districts, and to validate the
existence of rising legal costs in BUSD. Secondly, the study sought to analyze the areas of
significant increase within the category of legal costs. The second purpose of this study was to
investigate the reasons for rising legal costs through analysis of financial data and through
interviews with school personnel, namely teachers and administrators with responsibility for
these students. Finally, this study aimed to find solutions for the rising legal costs.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 16
The first segment of the study was guided by the first research question and consists of a
quantitative analysis of BUSD’s special education budgets for school years 2010-11 through
2014-15. Increases or decreases in the budgets have been noted for a general direction of costs.
The BUSD special education budget, as a percentage of the total education budget, is compared
with the budgets of similar schools in Southern California. The results are expressed in both
percentages and standard deviations to find whether BUSD is in line with similar districts.
Preliminary investigations indicated that BUSD is an “outlier” with far greater expenses than
similar districts, as shown in Table 3.
The next portion of the study, the second research question, was an examination of the
special education budget of BUSD to identify legal fees, which were divided into categories of
direct and indirect costs and analyzed for increases and decreases. Direct costs include fees paid
to legal professionals, settlements paid by the district, court-ordered outplacements at district
expense, compensatory schooling costs, damages, and other expenditures. Indirect costs include
decisions and implementations which were forced upon the district through the threat of even
more expensive legal action, such as transportation for individual students, placements in non-
public schools conceded to in order to avoid litigation, and other services. The indirect costs are
difficult to determine and include approximations and estimations. Preliminary investigations
reflected a rise in legal costs, which was substantiated in the details.
The second segment of this study, guided by the third research question, is a search for
factors and reasons contributing to the rise in legal costs and possible solutions for reversing that
rise through a qualitative investigation. This investigation involved a series of interviews
designed to elicit pertinent information from current special education teachers and
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 17
administrators. Through these personal, private interviews, and subsequent follow-ups, the
researcher gained information that was then evaluated and discussed for this study.
Research Questions
1. Quantitative: Is there a significant difference between the legal costs for the special
education program at BUSD and the legal costs for special education in similar districts?
2. Quantitative: How have the legal costs for BUSD special education increased or
decreased in the last 5 years and in what areas?
3. Qualitative: What are the knowledge, skills, organizational impediments, and other
causes which special education administrators and teachers perceive as factors
contributing to rising legal costs; and what strategies or solutions do they suggest that can
be used by BUSD to successfully restrain and/or lower the special education legal costs
in the District?
Methodology
The methodology for this study is a mixed-methods procedure, specifically the
Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Design (Creswell, 2014). This involves a two-phase
project in which the first phase is quantitative. The intention of this design is “to have the
qualitative data help explain in more detail the initial quantitative results” (Creswell, 2014, p.
224). Because of the sequence of quantitative results leading into the qualitative phase, data
were collected in two phases, first for quantitative results and then for qualitative results.
The quantitative procedure involved the gathering of pertinent budget data from BUSD
and a large number of similar districts in Southern California to compare the percentage of
education funds allocated to special education. Next, the legal costs of the services within
BUSD and of a small number of similar districts were compared. “The quantitative results that
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 18
are built on may be extreme or outlier cases, significant predictors, significant results relating
variables, insignificant results, or even demographics” (Creswell, 2014, p. 224). BUSD qualified
as an outlier. The quantitative results were analyzed for spending patterns and variables which
illuminated what legal expense categories rose and by how much. The resulting quantitative
conclusions led to assumptions of possible causes for the BUSD rise in legal costs which were
used to plan the second, qualitative phase.
The qualitative phase consisted of a small case study of one school district, using
interviews conducted by the researcher, a doctoral student at the Rossier School of Education at
the University of Southern California. The researcher chose to conduct a case study to discover
the insights and interpretations of the chosen participants as they applied the interview questions
and answers to their own experiences and information (Merriam, 2009). The results led to a
richer understanding of the problems related to district legal costs in a real-life context.
Questions for the interviews were designed to elicit pertinent information regarding
knowledge, skills, and organizational barriers, as perceived by the participants, which relate to
reasons and factors causing an increase in legal costs. The questions were provided to the
interviewees ahead of the personal interviews, and their answers and discussion were recorded.
Notes were taken during the interviews, and further notes and impressions were recorded
immediately afterwards.
The structure of this method is illustrated in Figure 1.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 19

Figure 1. Structure of Methodology
An analysis of the quantitative data led to assumptions and the generation of possible or
assumed causes. Question lists and other pertinent information, created and coordinated by the
researcher and based on the research questions and assumed causes, were sent to the selected
individuals. Interviews, based on the questions, were conducted by the researcher with each
individual. Data from the interviews were collected, examined, and coded to identify themes
representing interviewees’ opinions on reasons driving the rise in legal issues and other pertinent
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 20
organizational factors they feel are involved with the legal issues. The organized data was
analyzed in a search for understanding of the rise in special education legal costs and possible
solutions.
Importance of the Problem
Although legislation mandating special education defines and guarantees the rights of
students and their families, requiring a wide range of programs and services, the amount of
government funding to fulfill these mandates lags behind. Providing and financing a FAPE for
all students with disabilities is challenging, and, according to Parrish and Wolman (2004),
educators at the local level face continuing pressure to support an ever-increasing demand for
services. Educators long expressed concerns about the extent to which special education
spending may be taking resources from regular education programs (Rothstein, 1997; Wolman &
Parrish, 1996). Currently, in BUSD, special education services for approximately 12% of the
student population receive approximately 37.1% of the total district financial outlays, a higher
proportion than in similar districts (Table 2). This financing disproportion presents a serious
problem for BUSD as it struggles to balance its budget and maintain a FAPE for every student.
As legislation and court decisions shaped the current state of special education, an
adversarial relationship arose between districts and their special education students and families.
To some extent, these conflicts arise because parents now play an integral role, required by law,
in the team that develops their child’s IEP. Besides having a natural concern for their children,
there are incentives for parents to obtain the most help they can get. School systems try to
balance educational needs and budgets for all students (Aron & Loprest, 2012). This adversarial
relationship led to an increase in overall costs, especially in the legal portion required by the
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 21
department. Analyzing these costs and finding solutions for their causes are of paramount
importance for the future funding of BUSD as well as for other public school districts.
The significance of the increase in legal costs for any public school district lies in funding
challenges and limitations. Providing a FAPE for each student is legally required, but available
funding is such that district personnel must make difficult choices in allocation. As services for
special education are legally mandated, with financial penalties for non-compliance, funds
budgeted for general education are frequently diverted, affecting general education classrooms
and programs. The importance of this study lies in the potential for finding remedies for legal
difficulties generated by activity in special education, which must be paid from general funds,
but which will, thereby, relieve overall district budgets.
Limitations
The limitations for this study may include the small number of participants available in
one school district who fit the criteria for the research questions. It is also uncertain, among
those responding to interview requests, how many felt they could be totally candid. The
reliability of all participants’ responses to interview questions was ascertained by the researcher,
as much as possible, and re-interviews conducted, when deemed necessary. Both written records
and aural recordings of the interviews were maintained for cross-checking. Triangulation of
answers from one group to another and comparisons were also used to assure internal validity of
the study.
The accuracy and completeness of district accounting practices, especially regarding
categories within the special education budget, may also be a limitation. The researcher used
best efforts in checking for reliability and accuracy of financial and other records to maintain the
internal validity of the study.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 22
Raw data, in the form of recordings and interviews, traceable to original sources, and
documents and instruments used for research, further support external validity.
Delimitations
Delimitations include the future extrapolation and usefulness of study results to other
districts in California, and, possibly, to other states. The database used is small but possibly
useful to others as a starting point for further investigation and research.
Assumptions
Assumptions include the belief that the interviews provide useful and honest information
which can be used to analyze the problems stated in the research questions. Further, the
assumption is made that the analysis and discussion of the data led to possible and effective
solutions for the purposes of the study.
Definition of Terms and Acronyms
 ADD/ADHD – Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Oliver & Reschly, 2010)
 ADR – alternative dispute resolution (Mueller, 2009)
 ATA – Assistive Technology Act of 2004
 Adequate Yearly Progress – All schools (including charter, alternative and public
schools), districts, and numerically significant sub-groups are required to make adequate
yearly progress each year (California Department of Education, 2005)
 Autism – known as autism spectrum disorder – A psychiatric disorder characterized by
deficits in communication and social interaction, preoccupation with fantasy, language
impairments, and abnormal behavior, such as repetitive acts and excessive attachment to
certain objects. It is usually associated with intellectual impairment (Lal, 2005)
 BEH - The Bureau of Education for the Handicapped
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 23
 Brown: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was the landmark
decision, rendered by the United States Supreme Court in 1954, establishing the right of
all children to an equal educational opportunity, based on the 14
th
amendment, and which
set the stage for equal rights for handicapped children as well as other minority children
 CADIE – California Analysis of District Income and Expenditure, (volumes 2010-11,
2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15)
 CDE – California Department of Education
 CCSS – Common Core State Standards (Southwest SELPA, 2015)
 DD – developmental delay (Southwest SELPA, 2015)
 ED – emotional disturbance, serious enough to cause placement in a residential treatment
center (Southwest SELPA, 2015)
 EHA/EAHCA – Education of the Handicapped Act and Amendment, 1975
 EI – early intervention ( Napa County Office of Education, 2015)
 ESEA – Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Amendments of 1965, 1966,
1968, 1970
 FAPE – Free and Appropriate Public Education (Aron & Loprest, 2012)
 FERPA – Family Education Rights and Privacy Act
 GAO – General Accounting Office
 IA – Instructional Assistant (Southwest SELPA, 2015)
 IDEA – Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 1975 federal legislation.
 IDEIA – Individuals with Disabilities Education Amendment, 2004
 IEP – An Individualized Education Program describes the education program that has
been designed to fit an individual child’s unique needs (Aron & Loprest, 2012)
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 24
 IFSP – Individualized Family Service Plan (Southwest SELPA, 2015)
 LEA – Local Educational Agency (Southwest SEPA, 2015)
 LEP – Limited English Proficiency (Southwest SELPA, 2015)
 LRE – Least Restrictive Environment (Southwest SELPA, 2015)
 MILLS - Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, (1972). - the landmark
court decision that determined excluding disabled children from public school
educational opportunities violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights of equal protection
and due process.
 NCLB – No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
 NPA – non-public agency (Aron & Loprest, 2012)
 OSEP – Office of Special Education Programs, federal entity which replaced the BEH.
 PARC: Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania – court decision in 1971 that recognized the right of mentally retarded
children to an FAPE.
 Residential Treatment Center – the most restricted environment for public special
education (Southwest SELPA, 2015)
 SELPA – Special Educational Local Planning Area (Southwest SELPA, 2015)
 SAI – specialized academic instruction (Southwest SELPA, 2015)
 SEEP – Special Education Expenditure Project, 2004
 STEPS – Skills and Therapeutic Educational Practices for Success, a special education
basic skills program outside general education classrooms (Southwest SELPA, 2015)
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 25
 Winkelman: Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 2007 – benchmark Supreme
Court decision, extended rights to parents regarding their involvement in all aspects of
their children’s special education and FAPE
Structure of the Dissertation
Chapter One presents the introduction, background for and statement of the problem, the
purpose of the study, the importance of the study, the research questions guiding the study, the
methodology, assumptions, limitations and delimitations, the definition of terms and acronyms,
and the structure of the dissertation.
Chapter Two presents a review of the literature related to the historical background for
the study, and the concepts, issues, and domains of the study.
Chapter Three presents the theoretical basis of the study, the conceptual framework, the
research methodology and design for the study, a description of the instruments, the data
collection procedures, the methods of analysis used for the data obtained, descriptions of the
samples and issues relating to the validity and reliability of the study.
Chapter Four presents the findings of the study with a brief discussion.
Chapter Five presents fuller, more inclusive discussion of the findings, especially major
themes developed therein, conclusions, and implications.

THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 26
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Special Education has grown in recent decades to become an extremely complex and
expensive program for public school districts to deliver. This chapter reviews literature
describing the historical development of special education, including the legislative and case law
that determined much of the specific service, and the circumstances in which such education is
delivered. Focus is on the costs associated with these programs, especially legal costs and the
growth thereof. Articles reporting factors and reasons for the rise in legal costs and the impact
on school districts are included in this chapter. As rising legal costs become more problematic
for public schools, articles suggesting potential solutions to restrain these costs conclude this
literature review.
Bloomfield Unified School District is the focal point and informational center for this
study. In one recent year this district served 23,600 students, approximately 2,825 of which were
classified as special education, or about 11.2% of the student body. Statistics for the current
school year are nearly the same. BUSD serves these students in myriad ways, from
mainstreaming them into general education classes with added support, to offering separate
facilities for maximizing an individual’s education, to a variety of other accommodations.
Students are assessed by appropriate educational personnel and proper placements are offered. It
should be noted that children and youth placed into special education consistently, in spite of the
services and supports, display below-basic levels of academic achievement compared to their
age-group peers (U.S. Department of Education et al., 2007). Once students are placed into
special education, they tend to remain for their entire school life, particularly when such
placement occurs in the early grades (Hibel, Farkas & Morgan, 2010). Mandated services are
nearly twice as expensive as general education, and the number of students qualifying for special
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 27
education is large and rising, both of which causes increasing financial stress for school districts.
Assessment and placement in is also an area of frequent disagreement between a family and
public schools, sometimes leading to due process requests and increased legal costs.
In BUSD, the current organization of the special education program is based on the
severity of the individual’s disability as determined by assessments. For those who are capable,
the most generally acceptable situation is mainstreaming into a general education classroom,
perhaps with some academic accommodations, such as resource specialists’ programs. For those
who are not eligible for mainstreaming, there are special day classes. For those with serious
developmental delays, the district provides STEPS, which are completely separate centers for
their education in basic skills. If a student needs even more support, they are offered a position
in a county educational program at the district’s expense. Further, if none of these programs is
sufficient, a student may be placed in a non-public school, again at the district’s expense. In
addition, if a student is severely emotionally disturbed, and requires constant monitoring 24
hours a day, they can be placed in a residential treatment center, again at the expense of the
district. This is the most restricted environment for a special education student and is used to
modify extreme behaviors until s/he can return to a less restricted setting (TUSD, 2014). There is
a coupled progression between the needs of a student and the cost to the district: greater support
and services required by the student equals greater expenses for the district.
Several strategies were used to locate relevant literature in peer reviewed academic
journals and in academic texts in the research areas of education, special education, law school
reviews of pertinent cases, psychology, economics and sociology published during the last four
decades, with greater focus on years 2005 to 2015. Online search engines used were
PROQUEST, Psyc-Info, JSTOR, GoogleScholar, and ERIC. Search words and phrases, in
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 28
varying combinations, included the following: special education, special education legal, special
education legal costs, teacher preparation, teacher training, teaching special education,
administration preparation, administration training, administration of special education, financial
problems in special education, cost of special education, litigation in special education, dispute
resolution, alternate dispute resolution, and litigation costs for special education.
The literature is divided into the following sections:
Section 1 – Legal history and legislative aspects of special education, including landmark
cases which contributed to the current form of special education.
Section 2 – Organizational structures in public schools for handling special education
students, delivering services, and otherwise supporting students.
Section 3 – Costs of implementing special education laws and available funding for
public school districts.
Section 4 – Education and training of teachers and support staff who work in special
education.
Section 5 – Education and training of administrators who work in special education.
Section 6 – The last ten years of research and professional discussion in the literature
pertaining to legal issues in special education, particularly the suggested solutions for
restraining or reversing the rising costs of school district legal costs.
Section 1: Legal History and Legislative Aspects of Special Education, Including
Landmark Cases Which Contributed to the Current Form of Special Education
In America, special education is a term which covers all children who fit the eligibility
criteria of 13 categories identified and mandated by the federal government. The categories
include children with physical, intellectual and emotional deficits that require special
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 29
intervention and support for them to receive a FAPE. Eligibility requires that the child receive
special education and related services by reason of their specific disability impairment (Aron &
Loprest, 2012).
Interest in educating children with disabilities began in the nineteenth century in
individual cities and communities around the country, but there was no federal public policy or
law regarding education for people with disabilities before the 1970s (Aron & Loprest, 2009).
“The history of special education law is a chronicle of the efforts of individuals, parents and
advocacy groups in the courts and legislatures of this country” (Yell, Rogers, & Rogers, 1998, p.
219). At the turn of the 20
th
century, one early advocate and educator was Elizabeth Farrell,
whose work for the education of children with disabilities in New York City in the early 1900s
was “instrumental in the development of special education” (Kode, 2002).
In the 1950s and 1960s, family associations formed and advocated for the rights of
children with disabilities. Although there were other local areas and interested groups that
encouraged the education of disabled children, these children were not included as students in
general education as a matter of course until the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of
Education in 1954. This Supreme Court decision established the civil right of all children to
equal educational opportunity, regardless of race or disability. In response, the federal
government allocated funds to develop methods of working with children with disabilities. By
1968, the federal government supported training for 30,000 special education teachers and
related specialists, and started education for children in preschools and elementary to middle
schools across the country (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). Numerous other pieces of
legislation were passed in the 1960s and early 1970s that supported development and
implementation of programs and services to meet the needs of students with disabilities,
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 30
although, as late as 1970, U.S. schools educated only one in five disabled children (U.S.
Department of Education, 2007).
In the early 1970s, Congress found that 1.75 million disabled children were excluded
from school and 2.5 million more of them were in programs that did not meet their needs
(Weber, 2009). Two landmark cases, Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972) and Mills v. Board of Education of the District of
Columbia (1972), established the responsibility of states and localities to educate children with
disabilities (Yell et al., 1998). The right of every child to be educated is grounded in the equal
protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and, thus, identified as a civil right. The equation of
education for special needs children with the civil rights of children who had been denied equal
education through segregation had an effect on public school education in general. These court
decisions mandated the end of educational exclusion and the necessity to provide adequate
services as well as established procedural safeguards and prepared the ground for parents to
challenge decisions about their children’s education (Weber, 2009).
From 1975 to 2004, Congress enacted legislation which greatly broadened the inclusion
of children with disabilities into the public education system. In 1975, the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) encouraged states to take responsibility for the education
of disabled students, which was reinforced by restricting federal educational funding only to
those states providing a FAPE to all children with disabilities. Each state was required to submit
a state plan for the education of citizens with disabilities in order to receive federal funding to
assist in that endeavor. The Individual Education Plan (IEP) was the centerpiece of the EAHCA
(Yell et al., 1998).
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 31
This legislation was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and
became the foundation for subsequent special education law. There were federal legislative
changes and improvements in 2004, reflected in the amended name of Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), which stands as the backbone of current law.
In some ways, the law is very new, even as it has a long, detailed, and powerful history (U.S.
Department of Education website, 2015).
These federal laws defined basic educational concepts for states accepting federal
funding. A free appropriate public education (FAPE) was to be available to all children, with no
exclusions for the handicapped and no fees required of them by the school district. FAPE was
interpreted to include the obligation of providing services beyond those of ordinary classroom
instruction, in the least restrictive environment, which would educate to the maximum extent
appropriate for the child and protect the rights of parents to be included and involved in decisions
about their child’s education. Special education is designed to provide the student with the
resources, adapted instruction, and specialized assistance to mitigate the effect of his or her
disability and allow him or her to successfully benefit from the school’s general curriculum
(Bateman & Linden, 2006). These programs should start in infancy, continue through pre-
school, K-12, and into a transitional program to prepare the student for a vocation and
independent living (U.S. Department of Education, 2007).
By 2010, IDEA legislation had been amended and expanded until early intervention
programs and services were provided to more than 200,000 eligible infants and toddlers and their
families (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). In addition, about 6.5 million children and
youths received special education and related services across the United States (U.S. Department
of Education, 2010). These services are individually designed to meet the cognitive, emotional,
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 32
behavioral, and/or physical needs of each student. However, “despite its intended benefit,
special education placement also entails substantial costs” according to one source (Hibel et al.,
2010, p. 312). As early as 2002, the federal government spent 90% more on ADA for special
education than for general education (U.S. Department of Education, 2002).
When the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) federal legislation was passed in 2001, all
public schools were subjected to new ways of testing and accountability. Students with
disabilities were to be included in state testing and assessed against the same standard of
proficiency as other students to determine whether schools made the required adequate yearly
progress toward goals for academic proficiency. In 2004, when IDEA was amended into IDEIA,
Congress mandated that individual states establish goals for the performance of children with
disabilities that are aligned with each state’s definition of adequate yearly progress, but allowing
the individual states to make testing accommodations as they chose. NCLB and IDEIA together
hold schools accountable for making sure students with disabilities achieve as much as they can
(U.S. Department of Education, 2010), but debate continues on the appropriateness of using the
same tests and standards for assessing students in special education with those in general
education and for allowing state differences in choosing students for testing and allowing various
accommodations for some pupils (Aron & Loprest, 2012). Results from testing in 2003 to 2007
show improvement among fourth grade special education students’ reading and math skills, but,
overall lower scores than for general education fourth graders.
NCLB also mandated that “highly qualified teachers,” with content-area knowledge
equivalent to those of a content specialist, should work in each subject area with special
education students. This requirement is difficult for very small schools, districts, or local
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 33
educational agencies unable to hire rigidly defined specialists and has been the source of
frustration and problems for some districts (CA Department of Education, 2015).
Public school districts are responsible for the training of special education students even
beyond high school. IDEA and its 2004 amendments require that transition planning be
provided to all special education students starting no later than age sixteen. Services may
include vocational training, assessments of students’ interests and aptitudes, help with gathering
information on and choosing among relevant opportunities, and planning for necessary supports.
In 2001, 90% of special education high school students received transition planning, with two-
thirds of parents satisfied with these services. In spite of these well-intentioned transition
programs, in 2003, only 30% of students with disabilities participated in schooling, employment,
or job training in the years immediately after high school (Aron & Loprest, 2012).
In the Report of California’s Statewide Task Force on Special Education, March 2015,
(CA Department of Education, 2015), there are other examples reflecting poor outcomes for
California special education students in spite of the best intentions of all stakeholders. Only 60%
of students with disabilities graduate from high school, compared to 78% of students without
IEPs. Standardized testing results in 2013 showed that only 26% of third graders with
disabilities were proficient in English and language arts, compared to 45% of all California
students in third grade. In the 2011-2012 term, only about 40% of students with disabilities
passed the California High School Exit Examination as 10
th
graders, compared to 87% of
students without disabilities. The Task Force concluded that achievement levels of students with
disabilities in California are among the lowest of all 50 states. The Task Force also offered
recommendations to improve the special education system at all levels, with the hope that
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 34
instituting reforms to streamline procedures and increase staff collaboration, among other ideas,
will improve student outcomes and decrease costs (CA Department of Education, 2015).
Section 2: Organizational Structures in Schools for Handling Special Education Students,
Delivering Services, and Otherwise Supporting Students
Once a child becomes eligible for special education and has an IEP, a variety of services
and supports become available, as deemed necessary by the district and agreed to by the parents.
These services can include transportation; speech-language pathology and audiology services;
physical and occupational therapy; therapeutic recreation; counseling services, including
rehabilitation counseling, orientation, and mobility services; medical services for diagnostic or
evaluation purposes; school health services; social work services in school; and parent
counseling and training (Aron & Loprest, 2012).
Since IDEA, which established the right of disabled children to attend public schools and
to receive mandated services free of charge, disabled children were also to receive instruction in
regular education classrooms alongside nondisabled children as much as possible. This
mainstreaming of students with disabilities, in their own neighborhood schools in general
education classes, proved beneficial to special education students (U.S. Department of
Education, 2010). If special needs require various and appropriate accommodations or aides,
there must be an attempt to deliver them in a regular classroom, rather than in separate
classrooms or buildings on school campuses. Some approaches and supports are curriculum
modification, small-group or individual instruction, alternative tests or assessments, shorter or
different assignments, and a reader and/or interpreter (Aron & Loprest, 2012). The cost of
educating one special education student in today’s organizations can be anywhere from 2 to 3
times that of a general education student.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 35
The federal requirement for highly qualified teachers in the “No Child Left Behind Act”
added a content-area knowledge requirement for teachers, which has been problematic for the
structure of special education programs in two ways. The first is that special education teachers
usually do not have general education certificates, which require content knowledge, and so
districts must bring in specialists for those students who cannot be mainstreamed into general
education classes. The second problem is that smaller districts and charter schools lack the
physical structures, such as resource rooms, tutors, collaborative teaching models, and other
instructional supports, that would make inclusive classrooms possible and effective (CA
Department of Education, 2015).
In 2014, over 6 million students received special education services as a result of IDEA,
its amendments and resulting legislation. That number is likely to grow as more individuals with
disabilities are assessed and conceptions of what constitutes a disability broaden (Fan, 2014). A
corresponding surge in the volume of special education litigation made those cases the most
common of education cases in federal courts, and most of this litigation is a result of disputes
regarding whether a school district provided and implemented an IEP fully and responsibly for a
particular student (Fan, 2014).
If there is a dispute about the placement of a student, or the school district wants to
change the placement of a child and the parent disagrees, the parent can invoke due process
hearing rights. Starting this process prevents the school district from moving the student and the
child is to stay put pending the resolution of the dispute. If the placement change is due to
misconduct on the part of a student, and unrelated to his/her disability, or if the misconduct
involves weapons, illegal drugs, or infliction of serious bodily injury, the district may remove the
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 36
student to an interim alternative educational setting, pending the resolution of the due process
hearing (Weber, 2009).
Part of supporting students is creating and maintaining a safe environment. Disciplinary
problems, which appear to be more common among students with disabilities, have become a
major focus of special education law and regulations. IDEA requires that disabilities be taken
into account when students are disciplined. Schools must conduct functional behavioral
assessments and use positive behavioral support with students to reduce inappropriate behavior
and teach more appropriate behavior (Carr et al., 2002). Other organizational interventions can
include evaluating/changing the school environment, training support teams, teaching all
students rules and routines that encourage desirable behavior, and analysis to identify students
who are at risk (Aron & Loprest, 2012).
Section 3: Costs of implementation of Special Education Laws
In 1975, EAHCA was passed mandated that qualified students receive an IEP which
would be the basis for receiving a FAPE. The EAHCA delineated the educational rights of the
students and promised federal funding aid to the states. Funds would flow from the federal
government to the state educational agencies and, finally, to the local educational agencies when
and if the local programs met the state requirements. Federal funding was to supplement state
and local dollars and could not be used to supplant these funds (Yell et al., 1998). Figures for the
1977-78 school year reflect a total spending on students with disabilities of about 17% of total
education spending, which includes all sources of revenue. Most of the increase was attributed
to a higher number of students qualifying for special education (Aron & Loprest, 2012).
Years later, when the 1997 IDEA was passed, the range and cost of special education
programs, as well as the number of students included in programs, had been severely
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 37
underestimated. In a special study for the school year 1999-2000, the United States spent an
estimated $50 billion on special education services, plus an additional $27.3 billion in general
education funds for special education students who spent part of their time in general education
classroom settings, for a total of $77.3 billion. This represented about 21% of total spending for
K-12 that year, up from about 17% twenty years before (Aron & Loprest, 2012).
In 2004, approximately 12% of the school-aged population in the nation was in special
education. At that time, the total cost for special needs services was $78.3 billion, which was
13.9% of the total educational costs (Sack, 2004), but does not include figures for special
education students who were mainstreamed into regular education classes, as previous figures
had included. The federal allocation to support these programs was estimated to be at 15.5% of
the national average per-pupil expenditure, although the 2004 legislation authorized the federal
government to pay up to 40% of the average per-pupil expenditure. Districts find this federal
aid insufficient, and both state and local entities scrambled to cover the remainder of the costs,
which imposes a severe budgetary strain on them (Parrish, 2004). The precise amount of state
funding for school districts varies by location, ranging from 3% to 90% (Parrish, 2004).
Local school districts and administrators struggle with the increasing demand and costs
for special education services. “Despite its intended benefit, special education placement also
entails substantial costs” (Hibel et al., 2010, p. 312). Even in 2002, the federal government
spent 90% more on ADA for special education than for general education (U. S. Department of
Education, 2002) and the shortfall persists. Educators have long been concerned about the extent
to which special education spending may be taking resources from regular education programs
(Rothstein, 1997; Wolman & Parrish, 1996). IDEA had offered federal funding up to 40%
average per-pupil expenditure, but, according to a Department of Education (2004) report, only
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 38
15.3 % of average per-pupil expenditure was being provided by the federal government, leaving
the state and local school districts to provide the majority of primary funding. Federal funding
levels for special education have been relatively flat since 2004, with the exception of a
significant infusion of special funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Aron & Loprest, 2012). Current general education budgets of states and local districts
must make up the shortfall of the special education budgets by shifting allocations to special
education from other activities and programs.
The decision in Burlington School Committee v. Department of Education made it easier
for parents and families to be reimbursed by school districts for private school tuition expenses
when the district did not offer appropriate education for a disabled student. Courts further
extended rights to parents for school district payment for related services and mandated
compensatory education in off-campus settings. Although the Supreme Court initially decided
that a school district did not have to pay for parents’ attorney’s fees, Congress amended the law
to allow the parents’ to sue for reimbursement of these (Weber, 2009) and other costs, such as
private school attendance if the parent decided the school district was unable to provide a
satisfactory FAPE for their student.
Litigation costs in special education are not always borne by school districts. IDEA
provides that school districts must pay parents’ attorneys’ fees if the district is at fault, but the
parents must pay attorneys’ fees if a judgment favors a school district or is deemed frivolous
(Weber, 2009).
Aspects of the current program and environment, which encourage conflict among
stakeholders in an adversarial atmosphere, appear to be both unsustainable and unwise –
unsustainable because of the legal costs incurred, and unwise given evidence of the continuing
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 39
gap between outcomes for students in special education and their nondisabled peers (Aron &
Loprest, 2012). For example, legal decision changeability itself has encouraged stakeholders to
pursue educational remedies in court. Fan (2012) discusses the confusing, complex and
contradictory court decisions that have contributed to the adversarial atmosphere surrounding
today’s special education programs. Rules of evidence have changed, and continue to change,
making it difficult for a school district to feel they can safely follow the laws controlling special
education FAPE for each student with disabilities based on every IEP, and be reasonably free of
costly litigation. Because of the legal confusion, some districts are overly timid in assessing and
placing students, and some districts delicately parse language as IEPs are written, hoping the
district will be able to deliver services to the satisfaction of the parents and, thus, be free of legal
repercussions. Fan’s conclusion regarding a single evidentiary rule – that is, allowing
retrospective evidence into the due process procedures – is that
Disparate policy concerns justify treating each category of retrospective evidence
differently, and warrant even the exclusion of some types of evidence. At a minimum,
judges should not treat all retrospective evidence with one coarse approach. In these
cases, the key to unlocking the retrospective evidence dilemma will likewise require
shrewd, and careful, judicial parsing. (Fan, 2012, p. 1547)
In other words, the policy confusion and legal grounds supporting, or even requiring,
special education decisions may shift, even as IEPs are developed in good faith, depending on
the judge hearing a case. The same problem of changeability in court decisions applies in the
area of compensatory education. There are no firm rules guiding how much and in what areas a
child should be awarded compensatory education, regardless of whether the district is found non-
compliant or the parents are the cause of the child’s failure to receive FAPE (Seligmann &
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 40
Zirkel, 2013). The consequences for making a well-intentioned, best informed, but, ultimately,
wrong, decision on the part of school personnel can lead to negative financial results for a school
district due to an unexpected court judgment. School districts find themselves increasingly in
difficult positions in this litigious atmosphere, which is a factor in the rising legal cost of special
education.
At the time of this study, California was in the process of instituting a new financing
system for public education to replace the complicated, difficult funding patterns of the previous
century. The most recent statistics show that, while students with disabilities currently represent
about 11.31% of the student population in California, special education consumes more than
20% of the state’s education budget. California’s IDEA federal grant covers approximately
11.5% of the costs, much lower than the 40% promised, and the state contributes approximately
46%. The result is that the local education agencies and school districts have had to increase
their portion from 35% to 43% to make up the shortfall (CA Department of Education, 2015).
The new financing system is designed to reduce costs while being more fair, adequate, equitable,
rational and coherent (CA Department of Education, 2015) but is, as yet, unproven.
Section 4: Education and Training for Teachers and Support Staff in Special Education
Special education teachers hold a critical place in schools. They must design and deliver
appropriate early interventional services and, when it becomes apparent that extra, targeted
supports are not producing the desired effect, they must offer additional special education
services that only a teacher trained specifically for this role can provide. A 2013-2014 survey of
teachers who had just earned a credential within the California State University system, showed
that general education teachers emerge from many preparation programs knowing little about
disabilities, instructional intervention, or of presenting the same content in different ways to
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 41
different students. On the other hand, special education teacher preparation programs too often
provide minimal instruction in pedagogy, standards, data analysis, and the general education
curriculum, and then do not authorize special educators to teach students who do not have
disabilities (CA Department of Education, 2015).
Educator preparation and professional learning in California varies greatly, with
inconsistent standards and discrepant requirements, and so does the subsequent quality of
services provided and child outcomes realized. There are competencies, or program standards,
approved by the state Department of Developmental Services for district guidance as they hire
personnel, but these are advisory only. These program standards are not required for hiring,
licensing, or training personnel. The only exceptions are teachers hired for subsidized pre-school
programs operating under Title 5, who must have a special education early childhood education
credential as well as a child development permit (CA Department of Education, 2015).
One of the greatest challenges in schools is the lack of qualified special education
teachers (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). It was estimated, as long ago as 2003, that
nearly half of all new special education teachers leave the field within the first three years as a
result of poor administrative support, poor preparation, complex job responsibilities, and
overwhelming paperwork requirements (Di Paola & Walther-Thomas, 2003).
Fewer college students seem interested in becoming teachers, perhaps because, as
teaching critics argue, teacher education programs are not intellectually challenging and act as
deterrents to bright young people interested in entering the classroom (Walsh, 2001). This
growing attitude of disdain is also reflected in the chronic shortage of teachers in recent years,
and in the increasing difficulty in retaining teachers (Brownell et al., 2005). However, the
recession of 2007 to 2011 also contributed to the teacher shortage. The harsh budget cuts
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 42
between 2007 and 2011 in many public school districts forced the elimination of more than
30,000 teaching positions, or about 11% of all teachers, many of them new, young teachers.
College students in these years, who might have been interested in teaching as a career, saw their
opportunities diminish, and, thus, enrollment in California’s university-based teacher training
programs dramatically decreased. The Commission on Teacher Credentials reported the decline
between the 2008-2009 term and the 2012-2013 term in teacher preparation program enrollment
to be about 53%, which equals about 23,000 fewer candidates in both traditional and alternative
teacher preparation programs. Also, the great majority of new credentials awarded are estimated
to have gone to teachers who added credential authorizations to help in securing and advancing
jobs, rather than to newly trained teachers (CA Department of Education, 2015). This trend has
not yet been adequately addressed and reversed.
The U.S. Department of Education reported in 2002 claiming that teacher education was
much less important than a teacher’s verbal ability and subject matter knowledge in improving
student achievement. Teacher education advocates counter that states with the highest
proportions of certified teachers tend to have the highest National Assessment of Educational
Progress scores (Brownell et al., 2005). Although opinions differ on its efficacy, common
features of successful teacher education programs emerged from the National Commission on
Excellence in Elementary Teacher Preparation for Reading Instruction in 2003. They are
coherent program vision; conscious blending of theory, subject knowledge and practice; field
experiences; reaching standards for quality teaching; understanding student diversity; use of
modern pedagogy; and understanding collaboration among teachers as a vehicle for building
school community (Brownell et al., 2005).
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 43
There is no consensus regarding the best path for a teacher into the special education
classroom. However, studies show some characteristics are considered necessary for all teacher
education, such as extensive, well-planned, and well-supervised field experiences, collaboration
between faculty and other personnel, and an understanding of student diversity. At this point,
there is little research that confirms other specific or necessary links between general teacher
education and education for a teacher of students with special needs (Brownell et al., 2005).
As recently as 1996 in California, those seeking a credential as a special educator had to
first obtain a general education credential. That requirement was eliminated in an attempt to
make it easier to become a special educator and reduce the shortage of licensed teachers in
special education classrooms. However, this had little impact on the shortage of teachers and
created other difficulties. Teachers who were now credentialed to teach special education were
considered not credentialed to teach general education, thus limiting them to disabled students
and rendering them unable to serve a wider range of learners. This fragmenting of teacher
training continued contributing to a short supply of teachers prepared for special education
classes. In addition, when students with IEPs are mainstreamed into general education
classrooms, the general education teacher may not be well-equipped to handle their needs (CA
Department of Education, 2015).
Adequate special education teacher preparation, strong classroom organization, and
excellent behavior management skills are critical for special education teachers when their
classes include students with emotional and behavioral disorders. This area of knowledge is
mentioned in the literature but little research has been conducted to determine the extent to
which preparation programs provide adequate instruction in these skills. This instruction is
increasingly necessary as greater numbers of students with significant behavior problems are
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 44
integrated into the general education environment due to mandates of court decisions and federal
legislation. Inadequate teacher preparation can lead to disruptive classroom environments,
increasingly aggressive student behavior, less instruction, and worse student outcomes. Indeed,
many teachers feel insufficiently prepared to handle challenging emotional and behavioral
disorders, which can lead to serious legal consequences if not handled properly (Oliver &
Reschly, 2010).
In addition to dealing with students’ educational and behavioral needs, special education
teachers are more frequently called upon to be tech savvy. As students with disabilities use more
and specialized technology devices to aid them in school, special education staff will require
extensive preparation and training to effectively use, and instruct the use of, such devices. Also,
all teachers will need to be proficient in the use of educational technology tools in order to teach
and assist students in mastering the Common Core State Standards and examinations, especially
special education teachers who may have a variety of technological accommodations for their
students with disabilities (CA Department of Education, 2015). This will require more training
for teachers and their support staff.
Specialized training for special education teacher education is not a well-established area
of inquiry. Literature referring to specialized training does not focus on that training, but
includes references to it while discussing general teacher education. In an assessment of
available literature, there is a need for research that demonstrates if, and how, teacher education
makes a difference in securing highly qualified special education teachers. The complex nature
of teaching in this field is particularly challenging, as the variety of students in each classroom
reflects the diversity of the special education student population. This variety makes the
measurement of teaching quality, and devising a program to educate quality teachers,
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 45
challenging. Although the link between evidence-based practice and student achievement in
general education exists, no research shows that including this knowledge in teacher preparation
programs, or including this knowledge in teacher preparation program components, makes a
difference in outcomes for special education teachers and, more important, for their students with
disabilities (Brownell et al., 2005).
Interestingly, there are characteristics of a good special education teacher that cannot be
taught in a training session or college class. Studies found that teachers who are especially
skilled in motivating students, adapting instructional materials, teaching reading skills and
language arts, and managing student behaviors are more successful with disabled students than
teachers without these traits (Aron & Loprest, 2012).
Section 5: Education and Training for Administrators in Special Education
Principals and administrators do not need to be disability experts, but principals who
demonstrated administrative support for special education, and provided high-quality
professional development for teachers, produced enhanced outcomes for students with
disabilities. This on-site approach and support also increased the likelihood that a new special
education teacher would remain on the job longer than three years. Building-level support from
principals and general educators had strong effects on all the critical aspects of a special
education teacher’s work environment (DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003).
The role of school leadership overseeing special education is reported by researchers as
pivotal, but few school leaders are prepared for this critical responsibility (DiPaola & Walther-
Thomas, 2003). Research as early as 2000 demonstrated a significant relationship between
special education teacher attrition and school leadership. Effective principals’ values, beliefs,
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 46
and personal characteristics can inspire others at the school to reach the educational goals for all
the students, resulting in higher student achievement (DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003).
A principal’s knowledge and skills should include thorough knowledge of the laws
controlling special education, effective practices and necessary support for the teachers, and a
deep understanding of the range of needs required by students. However, very few teachers or
administrators receive more than cursory training in these areas, lacking both coursework and
field experience. In many schools, novice administrators are assigned special education as one
of their primary responsibilities. “Even those with prior school experience who have little
formal preparation for the role of principal rarely have adequate understanding of how to plan,
coordinate, and deliver services to meet the needs of students with disabilities” (DiPaola &
Walther-Thomas, 2003, p. 12).
A three-year study of administrators, which included their work with both teachers and
parents, uncovered they lacked knowledge and training of the needs and strategies for including
special education students into a general education setting for effective mainstreaming (Zaretsky,
2005). The principals lacked both knowledge and skills to deal well with parents in meetings,
which led to increased pressure and tension in those meetings. The administrators seemed to
have an attitudinal barrier towards parent involvement with student programs when they were
questioned by parents, thereby creating an adversarial atmosphere. Training for the
administrators, especially of the legal protections held by parents and the laws regarding all
aspects of special education could smooth interaction between administration and parents.
Administrators sometimes are seen as reluctant to share information or work with parents
(Johnson et al., 2002).
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 47
Conclusions in a study of the training of special education administrators state that
preparation programs are linked to state certification requirements (Jones, Robinett, & Wells,
1994), but there is considerable confusion about these requirements (Hirth & Valeski, 1990,
1991; Jones et al., 1994). There are relatively few preparation programs oriented specifically to
special education administration (Jones, 1994; National Clearing House for Professionals in
Special Education, 2001). Competencies identified necessary for administration of special
education include knowledge of disabilities in children, educational law, general and vocational
education, curriculum and instruction, effective interventions, budgeting, finance, negotiation
and conflict resolution, due process, professional development, personnel and program
evaluation and supervision, administrative duties, supervisory/consultative duties, service
delivery, planning, organization, management, coordination, teacher assistance teams, and family
issues around disabilities (Lashley & Boscardin, 2003). Most recently, the 2015 California Task
Force reported that school leaders do not receive formal training for dealing with special
education or special education teachers, and often assume administrative positions knowing little
or nothing about special education, even though they need a deep knowledge of both general and
special education practices if they are to serve effectively as advocates for good instruction and
strong support for all students (CA Department of Education, 2015). Although these
competencies for administrators have been identified over a number of decades by different
authors, they have not yet been included comprehensively in any training program currently
available.
In June 2014, the federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) began using a
new process to improve states’ compliance with IDEA requirements and to monitor the
performance of states’ special education programs. The process is called Results Driven
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 48
Accountability, which shifted the emphasis for school districts from simply compliance to a
combination of compliance with the law and improving student outcomes. OSEP noted in
California that special education programs needed intervention and would provide monitoring
and support to help guide improvement efforts. This change in performance accountability will
prove to be an impetus for ensuring that school systems provide special education students with
the education they need for success in postsecondary education, career, and life (CA Department
of Education, 2015). District leaders may respond to this new form of accountability with
greater motivation to ensure better outcomes for students with disabilities as well as compliance
with the law.
Section 6: Recent Research and Professional Discussion Pertaining to Legal Issues in
Special Education, Particularly Possible Solutions for Restraining or Reversing Those
Costs
Legal issues and litigation in any arena are based on conflict. Conflicts arise between
stakeholders in special education for a variety of reasons but can be grouped into three general
categories: design, delivery, and relationships. Design conflicts arise when stakeholders have
differing understandings about special education services, typically about eligibility of a student
or perceptions of his/her needs, the scope of the entitlement, the methodology of intervention,
and educational placement. Delivery of service conflicts arise, after agreement on an IEP, if the
school district fails to provide required services or the parents feel services are not appropriate.
Relationship conflicts arise when there has been a loss of trust, or a breakdown in
communication, and/or cultural differences or misunderstandings, or even interpersonal
antagonism among the concerned parties. Relationship conflicts are the most elusive to define
and evaluate, but program coordinators consider relationship conflicts to be a central reason for
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 49
increasing legal problems leading to mediation and due process hearings, especially since IDEA.
One author concluded that relationships are more important than compliance in preventing
requests for due process hearings and complaints (Feinberg, 2002). According to one educator,
the limited resources available in most school districts is the underlying source for all of the
above conflicts, as the law requires compliant actions of the school district despite ability or
inability to financially perform such actions for an ever-increasing population (DeNisco, 2013).
Families were given the right to be involved in the educational decisions for their special
education students through IDEA, and protection of this right was strengthened by the IDEA
amendments of 1997 (Council for Exceptional Children, 1998). This legislation created
significant changes in the way parents engage with school districts’ teachers and administrators.
Parents are considered critical and equal stakeholders with their children and the school systems,
and must be involved in the process of ensuring quality education and intervention for children
with disabilities (Lake & Billingsley, 2000). Because disagreements often occur within the
complex activity of planning and implementing special education programs and related services,
a formal dispute resolution process was written into the IDEIA of 1997, with the object of aiding
the parents of special education students in their interaction with school districts (Feinberg,
2002).
According to some authors, the reliance on the formal dispute resolution process iterated
in the original IDEA legislation, and strengthened in IDEIA of 1997, may be the unintended
cause leading to increased legal contests and their escalating costs. The legislation, recognizing
that disagreements would arise, set forth procedures that emphasize administrative due process
hearings. The chain of events starts with a request for a due process hearing (a due process
complaint), which leads to a confidential but not mandatory mediation, followed by a mandatory
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 50
resolution meeting, with any unresolved conflict then going to a due process hearing where a
hearing officer makes the final judgment in a formal, court-like setting after the issues are
litigated as in any civil court. The criticism of the mediation required in this process is that it is
positioned at the point in a dispute when a due process hearing is already being contemplated or
has been filed, rather than earlier in the process when it could support a resolution of disputes in
an informal, collegial manner (Feinberg, 2002). While the IEP meeting can and should be a
mechanism for reaching consensus on issues, it can also highlight disagreements and allow
personal feelings and antipathies to interfere with exploration of alternate resolutions of those
disagreements. Sometimes, the parties will proceed immediately from IEP frustrations to asking
for a due process hearing. Due process hearings can be time-consuming, expensive, and
deleterious to all sides financially and emotionally. “Even those who prevail in due process
hearings conclude that the process is unfair and exhausting” (Feinberg, 2002, p. 9).
Although many observers of mediation recognize its benefits over due process hearings,
criticisms of mediation have been frequent and varied. While its benefits may delay a request for
a full hearing, the timing is generally too late to avoid one altogether. The presence of attorneys
in mediation may complicate the process and outcome of deliberations, especially as they tend to
undermine a collaborative atmosphere. The qualifications and training requirements for
mediators are unclear in federal legislation; therefore, individual states set their own defining
standards, allowing a wide range of competence and relevance. Lastly, some mediation
agreements are difficult to implement because they do not comply with IDEA requirements,
causing frustration to all concerned and sometimes further cost to school districts (Feinberg,
2002). Devising and forming a less adversarial system for differences of opinion in servicing
special education students is an important challenge (Aron & Loprest, 2012).
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 51
Unfortunately, the current construction of special education with different stakeholder
groups, all with good intentions but different responsibilities and powers, created an adversarial
environment between families and school districts. Many legal conflicts that arise are
counterproductive for both the students’ educational success and the financial stability of the
school systems. As, Aron and Loprest (2012) state,
To some extent, these conflicts arise because parents play an integral role – one that is
required by law—in the team that develops their child’s individualized service plan. The
incentives for parents to obtain the most help for their child may differ from those for
school systems trying to balance educational needs and budgets. (p. 116)
Parents may feel that school districts are trying to avoid responsibility for their child with
disabilities, and that they are merely trying to hold the district legally accountable for mandated
services. Some parents, feeling the adversarial atmosphere, are mistrustful of the advice and
suggestions of district personnel. Ineffective or incomplete communication between school
personnel and parents can cause misunderstandings and raise trust issues. One study urged that
all stakeholders need to exercise diplomacy, respect, and sensitivity in delicate negotiations to
avoid misunderstandings and differences of opinion that can lead to conflict and hostility (Stoner
& Angell, 2006).
State and federal resources provide the help, guidance, and training that parents and
family members need in Parent Resource Centers and Parent Training and Information Centers.
These centers and their resources do not exist in many areas of California, due to lack of funding,
and those that are available are seriously underfunded and unable to handle the variety of
demands on them (CA Department of Education, 2015). Many school districts must create their
own programs to reach out to and inform the parents of their special education students. Family-
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 52
friendly IEP meetings at the school level and integrated family engagement processes at the
district level are the ideal in special education and would go far toward creating and supporting
inclusive community cultures and values. Parents who dealt with school personnel in a mediation
setting where mutual discussion was respectful felt that the school recognized them as
knowledgeable and effective. Conflicts did not escalate and parents’ perceptions of school
personnel remained positive (Aron & Loprest, 2012).
Unfortunately, authentic family engagements are missing from many schools and
districts. When meetings were not respectful and sensitive to parental fears, needs and desires,
the parents felt they were poorly treated by school personnel, almost as though they were being
blamed and demeaned for their child’s difficulties. They felt pressured, rather than helped, by
their interaction with school personnel and forced to accept something they did not want.
Sometimes, parents felt they were battling an institution with many layers of inertia and rejection
(Nowell & Salem, 2007). The damaging effect of conflicts with parents can be measured in
many ways, such as monetary costs, weak or destroyed relationships, stress on both sides, and
reduction of trust. Frequently, the most reported cause of stress was financial (Lake &
Billingsley, 2000). In one study, participants spoke of how their views of their child differed
from that of district personnel. Parents expressed concern that they felt school district personnel
did not see their child as an individual when creating a plan for services. This discrepancy of
views led to actions that initiated or escalated conflict, as reported by 90% of the interviewees
(Lake & Billingsley, 2000).
With this background of special education conflicts among stakeholders and the
concomitant escalating legal costs, researchers and education practitioners observed for years
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 53
that formal procedures for resolving disputes are insufficient and failing all stakeholders.
According to a 2013 report,
there is no evidence demonstrating that successful challenges to an IEP in a due process
hearing lead to marked improvements in the academic performance of students with
disabilities or improvements to what the district was providing students originally. No
research proves that students who take advantage of IDEA’s due process provisions fare
better academically after undertaking the hearing process.(Pudelski, 2013, p.7)
The lost time and money accrued through litigation is devouring resources that could and should
be better spent on education (Mueller, 2009).
Alternative conflict avoidance and dispute resolution procedures must be identified and
implemented. Research indicates that system-wide change and ongoing proactive measures can
prevent and even resolve disputes before they ever reach any formal hearing level. Many studies
suggest that strong leadership, partnering with parents and service agencies, professional
development, updated educational practices, creative use of resources, communication, the
promotion of trust, teacher and parent support, and the implementation of alternative dispute
resolution strategies may be able to hold at bay many common causes of conflict and alleviate
formal mediation and litigation (Mueller, 2009).
Some school personnel have hope that Congress will consider legislative amendments for
the dispute resolution options of IDEA which will lead to a decrease in litigation. In 2013, the
American Association of School Administrators (AASA) challenged policy makers to rethink the
current IDEA dispute resolution options as the re-authorization of IDEA nears. Their report
contends that modifications to the current due process system could greatly reduce, if not
eliminate, the burdensome and often costly litigation that does not necessarily ensure
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 54
measureable education gains for special education students. At the same time, the report
recommends that the rights of parents be preserved and that other effective dispute resolution
models be kept (Pudelski, 2013):
Given the scarcity of education dollars, it is worth reassessing the maintenance of an
unproved system for challenging special education disputes. Otherwise, significant
dollars, time and emotional capitol will continue to be expended on a process that has
little, if any, real connection to improving education outcomes. (Pudelski, 2013, p. 2)
In late 2013, researchers presented a compilation and analysis of qualitative interviews
with special education directors’ experiences with conflict prevention and resolution. The results
suggest that special education administrators, willing and able to use seven key action-based
strategies to prevent and resolve conflict, can forestall the greater difficulties of due process and
litigation. The seven strategies to prevent and resolve conflict are
1. Establish and maintain communication with all parties and on all issues
2. Provide parent support throughout their child’s education
3. Level the playing field by facilitating IEP process, respecting parents
4. Intervene at the lowest level possible, preferably through a teacher first
5. Maintain the focus on the child – center all talk and actions on the child
6. Find a middle ground – try to have a win-win, collaborative result
7. Understand perspectives –actively involve parents as team members
The first three ideas are employed as conflict prevention practices. The next four are
effective conflict resolution strategies. This study demonstrated that there are specific actions
administrators can take to prevent and resolve disputes with families through informal
procedures, all of them being proactive rather than reactive. The implementation of such
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 55
effective strategies could improve parent-school relations, student outcomes, and reduce costs for
all concerned (Mueller, 2013).
Administrators can have great influence on the relations between school and home, and,
thus, on allowing fewer legal issues, when they are very involved with the special education
process (DeNisco, 2013). One attorney stated that “litigation started because one parent didn’t
get a returned phone call” (DeNisco, 2013, p. 3). District personnel can invite parents to feel
free to express their concerns and designate an advocate from the school site for them. “Listen to
their concerns and act upon them” (DeNisco, 2013). The importance of including parents in
education decision making is undisputed. A strong relationship exists between parent
involvement and academic and behavioral benefits (Mueller & Buckley, 2014).
Two additional promising conflict prevention and resolution practices are stakeholder
training and IEP facilitation. The intent of these practices is to add strategies to empower
families and districts to resolve issues informally at the local level. Stakeholder training can
address the needs of parents by teaching them about special education law, IEP participation, and
conflict resolution skills. Training for district personnel can include concepts for building trust
and parent partnerships, multicultural education negotiation, and conflict resolution skills
(Mueller, 2014). IEP facilitated meetings are chaired by a neutral party who follows a meeting
agenda, ensures all team members are equal contributors, makes sure that meeting norms and
agenda are followed, and assists with active problem solving during disagreements. The value of
a neutral facilitator is highly rated as very helpful in reaching amicable decisions in an IEP
meeting, where most special education conflicts originate. Stakeholder training and IEP
facilitation can empower educators and parents with the skills necessary to prevent conflict by
building partnerships and problem solving (Mueller, 2014).
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 56
Purpose and Significance of the Study
Although legislation mandating special education defines and guarantees the rights of
students, requiring a wide range of programs and services, the amount of government funding to
fulfill these mandates lags behind. Providing and financing a FAPE for all students with
disabilities is challenging, and, according to Parrish and Wolman (2004), educators at the local
level face continuing pressure to support an ever-increasing demand for services. Educators
have long expressed concerns about the extent to which special education spending may be
taking resources from regular education programs (Rothstein, 1997; Wolman & Parrish, 1996).
In BUSD, during the schoolyear 2014-2015, special education services for approximately 12% of
the student population received 37.1% of the total district budget, a higher proportion than in
similar districts (CADIE, 2013) and results in the diversion of resources from general education
to fund special education. The BUSD budget disproportion contrasts with statewide funding for
all districts in 2012-2013, in which students with disabilities represent 11.31% of the student
population in California, but the special education costs consume approximately 20% of the
state’s education budget, and more than 40% of all education-targeted dollars during the last
decade (CA Department of Education, 2015). Disproportionate spending on special education
occurs throughout the state, but BUSD is an outlier in its greater disproportion and reliance on
general education funds to support special education programs.
As the preliminary study revealed that legal costs for special education at BUSD
outpaced spending in other areas of special education during the last 5 years, the first purpose of
this study is to examine the ratio of the district’s special education budget to total education
expenditure for five consecutive school years: 2011 to 2015, inclusive. The totals and ratio were
compared to the same expenditures in similar districts in Southern California. When the outsized
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 57
portion of the BUSD total budget for special education was determined, these figures were
compared to a small number of comparable districts. Total legal expenses for BUSD special
education are determined and tracked to determine the rate of legal cost increase. Legal
expenses are divided into three categories. The first consists of the fees paid to legal
professionals hired to consult with and defend the school district. The second consists of the fees
paid to legal professionals hired by those seeking to sue the school district, and the third
encompasses costs incurred in settlements, such as court-ordered outplacements at district
expense, compensatory damages, or other actions undertaken by the district in response to the
threat of even more expensive legal action, as far as can be determined. Thus, these three areas
of legal costs were determined and analyzed for increases through quantitative research.
A second purpose of this study is to determine reasons and factors influencing the legal
costs incurred in BUSD and why they are greater than similar districts’ costs. Through
interviews with district personnel who are closely involved in BUSD special education
programs, their knowledge and training, their perspectives and goals, as well as pertinent
organizational issues, were gathered through qualitative research and discussed to identify
relationships between district personnel and the rising legal costs in the special education
program. Specific reasons and factors were sought to determine possible solutions.
The financing disproportion between what the district spends per general education pupil
and what it spends per special education pupil presents a serious problem for BUSD as it
struggles to balance its budget and maintain a FAPE for every student. As legal costs within the
special education budget rose, analyzing these costs and researching solutions for them are of
paramount importance for BUSD in restoring proportionality to its budget. The mission of
BUSD is to provide an effective education for every student, a challenge with disproportionate
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 58
spending on 11% of the student body which negatively affects the great majority of the student
body.
Restatement of Research Questions
1. Quantitative: Is there a significant difference between the legal costs for the special
education program at BUSD and the legal costs for special education in similar districts?
2. Quantitative: How have the legal costs for BUSD special education increased or
decreased in the last 5 years and in what areas?
3. Qualitative: What are the knowledge, skills, organizational impediments, and other
causes which special education administrators and teachers perceive as factors
contributing to rising legal costs; and what strategies or solutions do they suggest that can
be used by BUSD to successfully restrain and/or lower the special education legal costs
in the district?
Summary
Relevant literature was searched for information on the topics of special education
general costs and legal costs, history of special education legislation and litigation,
organizational structures in schools for handling and delivering services to special education
students, and the costs of implementing special education laws. In addition, literature was
sought on the training, education and strategies for teachers and administrators who work with
special education students and who have impact on the program.
The literature supports the importance of training and knowledge of administrators and
teachers, whether formally or through experience. Teachers and staff in special education have
different levels of knowledge concerning the performance of their jobs and what is necessary to
both deliver a FAPE and remain within the detailed confines required by educational law.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 59
Education for teachers, especially for teachers of students with disabilities, is not well regulated
to produce uniform knowledge and understanding. In addition, the shortage of special education
teachers may influence their quality and longevity in the classroom. Similarly, administrators
have differing levels of knowledge, as well as interest and goals, when dealing with special
education students, families and staff. There is essentially no formal training for administrators
and very little training in the field, even for those who are assigned special education
responsibilities. Parents of special education students are typically not well-informed by school
officials, and they may receive official district information with reservations and/or suspicion.
The knowledge, perceptions and interactions of all concerned can be fruitfully studied and
analyzed to discover differences, similarities and parallels. This analysis may suggest causes and
solutions for the rising costs in special education legal issues.
The initial assumptions of this study, that legal costs for special education in BUSD are
rising for a variety of reasons, were substantiated through data collection and analysis. The
quantitative results are unarguable. The qualitative data has been gathered and compiled for
discussion of various factors and opinions explaining the rise in legal costs. The collection of
data followed the mixed-methods research approach, the Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods
Approach (Creswell, 2014).

THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 60
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
All California school districts face similar financial challenges which threaten the quality
of the education provided for all their students. The disproportion between what is spent on the
average general education student and what is spent on the average special education student is
evident in the budgets of public school districts. School districts manage by shifting resources
from one area to another, essentially feeding some services and starving others. The variety of
possible reasons for this disproportion and the variations in special education expenditures has
not been adequately studied to date.
The first research question asks if there is a significant difference between the legal costs
for the special education program at BUSD and the legal costs for special education in similar
districts. The first step in answering this question was the comparison of budget expenditures
for a group of similar school districts in Southern California. Quantitative comparison for the
year 2013-14 (most recent available) among similar school districts in Southern California
reflects that the percentage of total expenditures for special education has a mean of 25.44% and
a standard deviation of 4.49%. In BUSD, the percent of total expenditures that went to special
education was 35.41% for that school year. To find how far away from the mean that is, the z-
score is calculated by this formula: (35.41 – 25.44) /4.49. The z-score is 4.49, which means that
BUSD special education expenditure is 4.49 standard deviations above the mean for all the
school districts in the table for the year 2013-14. The standard deviation 4.49 for BUSD is
statistically significant and reveals that it is at the very top of the expense chart for special
education, in the 96
th
to 99
th
percentile, and consistently an outlier. This comprehensive
statistical analysis is presented in Tables 1 through 3. The disproportion between expenditures
for regular and for special education students, as reflected in these district budgets, is very clear.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 61
A preliminary analysis of the BUSD budget had revealed rising costs for special
education expenses over the past 5 years. This preliminary assumption was validated and
expressed in Tables 1 through 3, partially answering the first research question as to whether
costs were rising.
To complete the answer for the first research question, it was necessary to extract and
compare the legal costs for special education in the Bloomfield Unified School District with the
legal costs for special education in similar districts. Definitive financial data was not available
for this study; hence, a review of due process filings was considered and accepted as a proxy for
dollar costs associated with legal activity. The number of due process filings per district over a
5-year period was available in public records and is shown in Table 4. BUSD had the greatest
number of filings and the highest number of filings per special education student, fully
answering the first research question.
The second research question required an investigation into specific areas of legal costs
for BUSD to show how legal costs for special education had increased or decreased over a 5-year
period. Areas of expenditure in the special education budget relating to legal costs were
identified and quantified for each year over a 5-year period, as shown in Tables 7 and 8.
Because BUSD had records available only for direct legal costs, defined and accounted as direct
payments to lawyers and other legal representatives, an alternate method of determining indirect
legal costs was used. Information regarding services and payments made by BUSD, in response
to legal activity, was gleaned from a selected range of settlement documents and then
extrapolated and expanded to result in an approximation of indirect legal costs. The results of
direct and indirect legal costs were tabulated and reported in Tables 7 and 8, answering the
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 62
second research question of how legal costs had increased or decreased during the period under
study.
To answer the third research question, regarding possible reasons/factors for rising legal
costs, BUSD special education teachers and administrators were invited to participate in the
study as interview subjects. The interviewees were chosen on the basis of their direct
involvement in the district special education program, their availability and willingness, valid
representation of their group, and the potential value of their input. They were interviewed by
the researcher, using question lists based on the research questions, regarding their knowledge,
skills, attitudes, perceived organizational barriers, and any other insights pertaining to special
education costs and problems, especially those relating to legal issues and costs. An overview of
their answers is presented in Table 10.

Purpose of the study
The overall purpose of this study is to determine whether special education costs,
particularly legal costs, for school districts in Southern California are rising. Secondary purposes
are focused on BUSD itself. They include discerning the range of special education legal costs
for the district, both in terms of money spent on attorney’s fees and of money spent for indirect
legal costs. Through discovering the range and categories of legal costs, the goal was to find
solutions to reverse or restrain the rise in costs, without compromising the delivery of special
education. Analysis of the collected data revealed possible solutions and strategies for BUSD to
implement to reduce legal costs in the future, and, thus, relieve budgetary strain for the district,
which is the last and most significant purpose of this study.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 63
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework for the study is a comparative analysis consisting of several
segments. The first segment was to investigate the range of rising special education costs for
selected school districts in Southern California and to compare these costs to consider the overall
scope of the study and to ascertain the general financial arc over the last 5 years. The second
segment consisted of comparing legal costs for special education departments among comparable
schools with legal costs to the target school district, BUSD. The third segment was the gathering
of data to define, confirm and analyze the BUSD expenditures for legal costs associated with
special education in the last 5 years, specifically to discover if there had been a rise in legal costs,
and, if so, how much and in what categories.
The fourth segment, which is less a comparative analysis than a mini-gap analysis ( Clark
& Estes, 2008 ) consisted of gathering qualitative data through interviews with current BUSD
special education teachers and administrators for their understanding and opinions on the rise in
legal costs. Analysis and discussion of the findings from this segment of research gave rise to a
multitude of considerations, the complexity of which mirrors the complexity of special
education. Conclusions from each segment of the study provide answers to the research
questions and solutions for the rise in legal costs which may be applicable and useful for other
school districts.
Research Design
This study employs a mixed- methods approach known as Explanatory Sequential Mixed
Methods Design (Creswell, 2014). This design requires a two-phase project: the first phase of
data collection is quantitative, and the second is qualitative. The quantitative analyses and
interpretation inform the types of questions asked of the participants in the second segment. The
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 64
quantitative portion may reveal significant predictors or related variables which direct the
formation of qualitative questions in interviews. The structure of this method is illustrated in
Figure 1.
Quantitative Segment
The quantitative segment of the Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Design consisted
of a collection of BUSD’s financial data and that of similar school districts through public
documents (Tables 1 and 2). These data include the overall budgets of the school districts and
the portion of each budget dedicated to special education.
The next part of the quantitative segment consisted of closer scrutiny of the BUSD
special education budget and the choosing of similar school districts for a comparison of special
education expenses. The purpose of this was to determine where money was allocated,
especially for legal and related costs. Within the special education budget portion, expenditures
for legal costs were divided into sub-categories of direct payments to district legal
representatives, payments to opposition legal representatives, and indirect legal costs. These
categories were tallied by schoolyear and analyzed for increases and decreases in different areas.
The analysis of the quantitative data informed and aided the data gathering and analysis of the
qualitative segment of the study.
Qualitative Segment
The information yielded by the quantitative analysis influenced the content of the
questions asked of the interview participants in the qualitative segment of the study. The data
collection consisted of interviews of teachers and administrative personnel in the district. The
protocol outline and interview questions were developed by the researcher (Appendices A and
B). Questions appropriate for each group of interviewees were sent with introduction letters
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 65
describing the study. Data collection was conducted in informal settings where questions could
be asked and answered freely. Interviews were recorded for accuracy and transcribed for further
analysis and security (Merriam, 2009). Personal notes and recordings were made by the
researcher immediately after the interviews for accurate recollection of thoughts and
impressions.
The researcher designed the protocols and interview questions for school personnel with
the intent of eliciting the status of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and perceived organizational
difficulties, especially as relating to the root causes of rising legal costs, which can cause
problems leading to increased legal difficulties. For instance, questions were asked of the
administrators about their knowledge of special education organization and delivery, laws and
legal requirements, training that has been offered to them or to classroom personnel, and their
personal interest in and attitudes towards special education. Teachers were asked how they
became special education teachers, what education and training they received to prepare for the
classroom, and regarding compliance and curriculum issues that might lead to legal problems as
well as questions about support from district administration for dealing with other problems that
might lead to legal issues.
The researcher knew that information from some interviewees could validate or refute
insights and information from others, which would give the researcher different points of view
relevant to the root causes of legal cost increases. This provided triangulation necessary to
confirm the emerging findings and validate the conclusions of the study (Merriam, 2009), or
provided evidence of the need for more data collection.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 66
Setting and Population
BUSD is a medium-sized, suburban public school district within a large metropolitan
area of Southern California. It serves over 24,000 students and reflects the state’s diverse
cultural and racial population in that its student population is about 25% Caucasian, 33% Asian,
30% Latino, 7% Black and 5% other ethnicities. The district has two distinct socioeconomic
areas: the north and east quadrants include many students from a lower socioeconomic
background who are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, many from recent immigrant
backgrounds, and some schools labeled Title 1; the south and west quadrants typically have
students with higher average family incomes, so there are very few students who qualify for free
lunches, and no district schools in the area labeled Title 1. Only a small percentage of students
from this south/west area are classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged (CA Department of
Education, 2012). About 12% of the student population of the district, or around 2,800
individuals, qualifies for some form of special education. The district staff overall reflects the
demographic and cultural diversity of the students in the district.
Participants
Selection of participants was conducted in two parts, one for the quantitative segment and
one for the qualitative segment. The school districts to be compared in the quantitative analysis
are located in the Southern California area and are represented in a geographical report
disseminated by School Services of California, Inc. (SSC). SSC publishes annual reports
providing comprehensive analysis of revenues, expenditures, and staffing data of a selected
group of districts within an area of Southern California. The report states that all of the data
elements reflect actual revenues and expenditures, rather than projected or budgeted data. All
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 67
information is drawn from reports provided by the California Department of Education. This
source is considered reliable for the data presented.
The second, qualitative segment of the study focused on BUSD administrators and
teachers with direct involvement with special education students and programs, their availability
and willingness, their valid representation of their group, and the potential value of their input.
The first group consisted of BUSD administrators at primary, middle, or high school level who
have responsibility for providing a FAPE for each student in the special education program. The
second group consisted of special education teachers from different school levels with classroom
responsibility for delivering a FAPE to their students.
The researcher expected, and was able, to locate a representative sampling to interview
within each of the groups. Invitations were extended to potential participants, and five persons
within the groups were willing to participate.
Instrumentation
This study required both quantitative financial data, which was collected from
documents, and also information from people, which was collected from interviews. Within an
analysis framework, the mixed-methods research approach allowed the gathering of information
in both areas to answer the research questions.
Protocols and Interview Questions
The interview questions for each group were similar in format, focus, and style, but
modified for each group or participant as deemed necessary for the solicitation of relevant
information (Appendices A and B). The researcher was alert to the possibility of adjusting
questions during the interviews as circumstances suggested. Interviews were recorded,
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 68
transcribed, analyzed and coded within a short period of time, along with recorded and written
notes of the researcher’s impressions.
Consent
The researcher received approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) before
conducting interviews and reviewing internal documents. To establish consent for participation
in the study, letters to explain the study and its purpose were sent via electronic delivery to each
potential participant along with the requisite formal consent form. Initial electronic responses
were requested but, if not forthcoming, follow-up requests were made. IRB guidelines were
followed to protect the researcher, the graduate school, and the participants. Individual
participants’ identities were protected by eliminating specific names and district positions in the
study results.
Data Collection
Data collected for the initial quantitative analysis were found in public and internal
district documents. A spreadsheet was created with pertinent financial information showing
budgets and percentages as well as standard deviations. The processing of data collected in the
quantitative segment is statistical in that expenditures were compared for mean, median and
standard deviations for quantitative comparisons to find statistically significant variations. The
preliminary analysis showed that BUSD was an outlier, compared to other districts, in the large
proportion spent on special education compared to general education per capita. Further, the
amounts spent on legal costs for BUSD were disproportionately larger than those of other
districts. Further collection and comparison of data revealed other anomalies in some areas.
Data gathered and transcribed from interviews of the stakeholders was organized into
themes, corresponding to the parts of the research questions, and coded by theme into categories
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 69
for further review and follow-up interviews as necessary. Questions were aligned with an
analysis matrix for effective coordination within an organizing framework.
Analyzing Data within the Conceptual Framework
Data analysis for the quantitative segments consisted of straightforward comparisons,
including the standard deviation and percentages which set BUSD as an outlier in special
education expenditures.
Data analysis for the qualitative segment of the study was initially thematic. Once
themes were established, such as lack of training reported by administrators or lack of
knowledge reported by teachers, the essence of each answer was separated and coded, and
frequencies were run to compare the importance of themes within and between stakeholder
groups. It is acknowledged that personal judgment by the researcher determined some
placements of qualitative data, which may influence the importance of a theme reflected in the
final analysis. However, care was taken to remove personal bias to ensure the internal validity of
the study.
Restatement of Research Questions
1. Quantitative: Is there a significant difference between the legal costs for the special
education program at BUSD compared to those of other similar districts?
2. Quantitative: How have the legal costs for BUSD special education increased or
decreased in the last 5 years and in what areas?
3. Qualitative: What are the knowledge, skills, organizational impediments, and other
causes which special education administrators and teachers perceive as contributing to
rising legal costs; and what strategies or solutions do they see that can be used by BUSD
to successfully restrain and/or lower the special education legal costs in the district?
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 70
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
All California school districts face similar financial challenges which threaten the quality
of education provided to their students. Funding models are complex and archaic, competing
interests dominate and distort the budgeting process, and many public school districts struggle to
cover the costs of educating their students adequately, both in special and general education.
The disproportion between what is spent on the average general education student and what is
spent on the average special education student is strongly evident in the budgets of public school
districts. School districts manage by shifting resources from one area to another, essentially
feeding some services and starving others.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate aspects of this disproportion in spending.
Financial information for a group of similar school districts in Southern California was gathered
and presented, showing the differences between total education budgets and the percentage of
these consumed by special education. The disproportion between expenditures, as reflected in
these district budgets, is clear.
BUSD’s special education budget was examined using district records over a 5-year
period, with special focus on identifying costs related to legal issues. The data gathered were
analyzed to reveal themes and potential solutions regarding rising legal costs for special
education in several districts in Southern California, but with a specific focus on the legal costs
and their causative factors within BUSD. Data collection was guided by the following three
research questions.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 71
Research Questions
1. Quantitative: Is there a significant difference between the legal costs for the special
education program at BUSD and the legal costs for special education in similar districts?
2. Quantitative: How have the legal costs for BUSD special education increased or
decreased in the last 5 years and in what areas?
3. Qualitative: What are the knowledge, skills, organizational impediments, and other
causes which special education administrators and teachers perceive as factors
contributing to rising legal costs; and what strategies or solutions do they suggest that can
be used by BUSD to successfully restrain and/or lower the special education legal costs
in the district?
The research design employed was the Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods approach
as explained by Creswell (2014), which requires reporting the findings for the research questions
separately and sequentially. Using this explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach allows
for a more complete picture of a complex problem by moving step by step through the research
(Figure 1).
The first step is the initial gathering of quantitative data, in answer to the first two
research questions, which were then analyzed and utilized to formulate and guide the qualitative
data gathering for to answer third research question. Analysis of the quantitative data presents a
foundation and direction for further investigation through the qualitative data, which offers
different information and illuminates the quantitative data. Therefore, findings for each question
are followed by a brief conclusion and explanation of the next segment of the study.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 72
Presentation of Findings
The first research question asked, “Is there a significant difference between the
comparative costs for the special education program at BUSD and the legal costs for special
education in similar districts?” This question directs attention to the comparative costs for
special education among several school districts in Southern California with the aim of
determining the proportion of special education costs as a part of each districts’ total budget, and
then to determine the percentage of legal costs within that proportion. Answering this question
required a two-layer approach. The first layer was a quantitative analysis of BUSD’s special
education budgets for school years 2010-2011 through 2014-2015 compared to similar districts
in Southern California in the same years (Tables 1 and 2). Preliminary investigations indicated
that BUSD was an outlier with far greater expenses for special education than similar districts,
and the resulting data prove that conclusively. BUSD expends far more of its budget per capita
on special education than the other districts do. This leads to the second layer of quantitative
data in the search for legal costs.
The second layer was a search for legal costs for each of five similar districts to compare
with BUSD. Due to the confidential nature of internal budget figures within the special
education budgets of these districts, exact dollar amounts for legal costs proved unavailable.
Alternate methods of legitimate comparison, other than dollar amounts, were considered,
including the number of due process filings.
Due process filings are the first step in litigation taken by parents, or others, who feel that
a district is not adequately addressing the needs of students or their families. Due process filings
represent the level of potential legal action threatened or taken against a district. This researcher
concluded that the number of due process filings for special education that a district reports per
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 73
year can, therefore, stand as a proxy for an increase or decrease in special education legal costs,
although not for an exact dollar comparison.
Five districts were chosen for a comparison of due process filings. Their total student
populations were within a 15% range above or below that of BUSD. The percentage of special
education students within their student bodies was between 9.3% and 12.8%, close to that of
BUSD, which fluctuates at about 11%. All districts are located in Southern California within a
50-mile radius of BUSD and have similar variations of socioeconomic populations, and
therefore, roughly comparable for this comparison.
All necessary data for this count of due process filings were available through public
documents from the California Department of Education, the Office of Administrative Hearings,
and also from the Comparative Analysis of District Income and Expenditures – Geographic
Comparisons. Due process filings for BUSD and the eight similar districts, during the years
2011-2012 to 2014-2015 were examined, counted and considered valid for use as the basis of
comparison.
Table 4 shows the number of due process filings in each of the districts as a total and an
average. BUSD had the highest number filings, at 86, and also the highest average at 17.2.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 74
Table 4
Comparison of Due Process Filings for 9 Similar Districts
School District Due Process Filings Average per Year
BUSD 86 17.2
School District P 61 12.2
School District N 43 8.6
School District T 34 6.8
School District K 39 7.8
School District E 34 6.8
School District O 56 11.2
School District A 33 6.6
School District I 76 15.2

Table 5 shows the number of due process filings for each of the districts in the school
year 2014-15, the number of special education students, the total number of students in the
district, and the number of filings in the year per special education student. This permits a
slightly different view of the level of legal activity in special education at BUSD as compared to
the other districts. With 22 filings for only 2,630 students, BUSD leads school districts in the
level of legal action. School District I is second greatest in filings but has a larger special
education enrollment. Therefore, that district averages only 1 filing per every 179 students.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 75
Table 5
Due Process Filings of Comparable Districts in 2014-15
School District
Due Process
Filings
Special Ed.
Enrollment
Total
Enrollment
Filings per
Special Ed.
Student
BUSD 22 2,630 23,947 120
School District P 19 5,182 46,177 273
School District N 13 2,735 26,168 399
School District T 8 3,318 29,028 415
School District K 10 2,436 18,960 244
School District E 13 2,853 22,698 220
School District O 9 5,040 54,036 560
School District A 10 2,977 25,595 298
School District I 21 3,750 29,937 179

If a higher number of legal filings per special education student indicates a higher level of
legal costs for a district, then BUSD has a larger legal cost problem than do similar districts.
BUSD entertains more legal action. In addition, BUSD experienced a slight decrease in the
percentage of special education students among its general education population, as shown in
Table 6. However, fewer students in the last two years did not lead to fewer problems.
Table 6
BUSD District Enrollment and Special Education Enrollment Decline
Year Total Student
Enrollment
Special Education
Enrollment
Percent Decline in Special
Education
2010-11 24,370 2,794 11.4%
2011-12 24,229 2,807 11.5%
2012-13 24,324 2,858 11.7%
2013-14 24,213 2,667 11.0%
2014-15 23,947 2,630 10.9%

The answer to the first research question, presented in the two layers of quantitative data
reported above, portrays the significant difference between the legal costs for special education
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 76
at BUSD and legal costs for special education in similar districts. The affirmation of BUSD’s
higher legal costs in special education leads to the second research question.
The second research question asked, “How have the legal costs for BUSD special
education increased or decreased in the last 5 years and in what areas? BUSD’s special
education budgets during a five-year period were closely examined to identify expenses related
to legal costs, categorized as direct and indirect. Payments to BUSD legal counsel as well as
payments to legal representatives for parties opposing the district, are categorized as direct legal
costs and the resulting dollar amounts paid are available in district accounting records.
The issue of gathering information about indirect costs is very different. The district
showed great reluctance to have due process filings proceed to the point of hearings, where a
judge would decide on the contested issues, and very few cases go to trial. Court judgments are
public record, and, thus, the legal costs would be available for research. However, so few trials
actually happened over the 5 years of this study that the search resulted in very little information.
On the other hand, settlement discussions may drag on for years, but most cases are eventually
settled rather than tried. The number of settlements per year is significant enough to be a good
source of information for indirect legal costs. Therefore, settlement documents were chosen as
representative proxies of indirect legal costs for where, why, and in what quantity BUSD paid
money, other than attorneys’ fees, to address or to settle grievances filed by opposing parties.
Indirect costs are usually not exact, as they are expressed in hours of services, rather than
dollar amounts, but some costs can be reasonably estimated. The filing and accounting systems
of the district proved to be challenging and incomplete but many settlement documents were
reviewed for the school years ending in 2011 through 2015. From these, representative samples
were chosen, including two of the largest financial outlays per year, three from a middling
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 77
financial range per year and two from the smallest financial range per year, for a total of 35
settlements. These seven settlements for each year of the study were carefully perused to discern
similarities and trends, and then to determine where and how much money was spent on indirect
legal costs per year and on average.
These settlement documents followed similar paths which allowed for identification of
discrete categories of expenditure and were, thus, indicative of the range of categories presented
in all. Categories of expenditure repeated in each document were direct costs, a duplication of
the attorneys’ fees found in district records, and indirect legal costs as compensatory services and
damages paid to students and their families. Included in this category were costs above what the
district was prepared to offer, such as independent educational evaluations, compensatory
academic instruction, non-public agencies and schools, applied behavioral analysis, behavior
services, speech and language services, and many other smaller categories. Indirect costs also
include decisions and implementations which were forced upon the district through the threat of
even more expensive legal action. Examples are a previously deemed unnecessary placement in a
non-public school, conceded to in order to avoid litigation, as well as other less costly services
like transportation for individual students from home to school or to an alternate school.
The indirect costs were difficult to gather due to filing and accounting limitations, but
figures were extracted from 35 settlement files, examined for pertinent costs, and totaled for each
year. A multiplier was found for each year, based on the proportion of examined settlements to
the total number of settlements, and applied to approximate or estimate what the district may
have spent for indirect legal costs in each year. The resulting total of the indirect legal costs for
the district is reasonably accurate as a general indicator of expenses and most probably
underrepresents what the district actually spent. All direct and indirect legal costs were totaled
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 78
for each of the 5 years investigated. Table 7 presents direct costs of attorneys on both sides of
legal activity. These figures were available in district records and are listed by year, followed by
averages.
Table 7
2011 – 2015 Direct Costs of Legal Activity for BUSD
Year BUSD Attorney Fees Opposition Attorney Fees
2010-11 $666,464 $266,078
2011-12 $649,876 $194,000
2012-13 $740,638 $229,605
2013-14 $700,000 $202,300
2014-15 $919,002 $208,588
Average $735,196 $220,114

Table 8 presents the approximation of indirect legal costs which were paid by BUSD as
determined by the process described above. While this is an approximation of the indirect costs,
the figures are useful to indicate the direction and range of costs.
Table 8
2011 – 2015 Indirect Costs of Legal Activity for BUSD Using Settlements as Proxies
BUSD School Year Indirect Legal Costs
2010-11 $561,511
2011-12 $539,988
2012-13 $585,000
2013-14 $703,161
2014-15 $747,900
Average $627,512
Based on Figures Extrapolated from Settlement Documents

Table 9 presents the summation of direct and indirect legal costs. Preliminary
investigations indicated a rise in legal costs, which were substantiated by information in the
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 79
tables of legal activity costs. These tables reflect gradual, slightly uneven, rises in total legal
costs.
Table 9
Total Legal Costs for BUSD 2010-11 through 2014-15
School Year Total Legal Costs Per Year
2010-11 $1,494,053
2011-12 $1,383,864
2012-13 $1,555,243
2013-14 $1,605,461
2014-15 $1,875,490
Average $1,582,822

It should be noted that the cost column for BUSD attorneys’ fees reveals a steady rise,
with only one year (2011-2012) showing a modest decline from the previous year, and an
average cost of $735,200, with an increase of approximately 38% from 2010-11 to 2014-15.
There can be variation in attorney fees from year to year depending on when bills for services are
presented and then paid. The cost column for opposing attorneys’ fees reflects a noticeable
decline during year 2010-2011, but otherwise remains within a small range and averages
$220,114.
The table of indirect costs reflects a fairly consistent rise with only one year of decline
during 2011-2012, averaging $627,512 per year. The rise from 2010-11 to 2014-15 was
$189,389 or 33%.
Interestingly there was virtually no increase in fees paid to opposing counsel while fees
paid to district counsel increased by 38%. BUSD paid consistently more to its own legal
counsel that to opposing counsel each year and nearly 4½ times as much in school year 2014-
2015. This rapid rise in district counsel fees begs further investigation.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 80
As an explanatory side note, although there may have been a comparable rise in legal fees
paid by the parties hiring opposing counsel, this would not be noted in settlement documents if
paid by the families or other entities. Further research, comparing legal rates per hour among
attorneys in the area with the legal rates per hour paid by the district for its own counsel, could
establish whether or not the district was charged an average or normal rate by its attorneys.
Indirect legal costs rose 33% at a fairly even rate during the five-year period, from
$561,511 in 2010-11 to $747,900 in 2014-15, with an average cost per year of $627.512. This
rise may seem surprising as the number of special education students in the district declined
slightly, as noted earlier in Table 5. However, defensive decisions and implementations, made
to ward off potentially far more expensive litigation costs, were included in this category and
may explain part of the rise.
The identification of rising legal costs, in the different categories described in the two
quantitative research questions and other findings to this point, illustrates the range of potential
causes to be investigated. In accordance with the explanatory sequential mixed-methods
approach, the second portion of this study was a qualitative investigation based on the
information revealed in answers to the first two research questions. The qualitative research
consisted of a series of interviews with teachers and administrators currently working in special
education in BUSD to discover their views on if and why there was a rise in legal costs and how
they view potential solutions to limit future increases or, perhaps, to reduce future legal costs.
The third research question asked, “What are the knowledge, skills, organizational
impediments, and other causes which special education administrators and teachers perceive as
contributing to rising legal costs; and what strategies or solutions do they suggest that can be
used by BUSD to successfully restrain and/or lower the special education legal costs in the
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 81
district?” The final segment of this study investigated the perceived reasons for rising legal costs
in BUSD through interviews with special education teachers and administrators. This segment
of the study revealed a variety of viewpoints gathered from individuals who could express
personal experiences and opinions based on their work. No attempt was made to determine
factual accuracy of these opinions and perceptions, as the aim was merely to gather and record
them. Answers for all participants were analyzed for common themes and cross-referenced with
others’ responses to present an amalgamation of the views for all participants in response to the
third research question.
Description of Interview Questions
The interview questions were designed to elicit information from teachers and
administrators currently working in BUSD special education which revealed their levels of
knowledge through training or experience, organizational problems they encountered, and other
factors they believe contribute to the district’s legal costs. Private interviews with each
participant were recorded transcribed, analyzed and coded for themes, and organized for
discussion. Four follow-up interviews were also conducted to clarify or expand on participants’
comments.
Description of Participants
The teacher participants are all active special education teachers, having taught in BUSD
for 13 or more years, and represented elementary, middle and high school levels. Very few
received specific training for special education, and those who did have some training described
it as “minimal – only 1 or 2 classes.”
The administrators were all fairly new to their special education responsibilities, having
moved from teaching general education classes to administrative positions. The least
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 82
experienced held the position for 3 years and the most experienced about 5 years. Interestingly,
two universal attributes that emerged immediately were, first, that none of the administrators had
any previous experience with special education and, second, that all of them split their attention
between special education and a number of other duties and responsibilities. In addition, none
had received pre-service training or in-service training to help with their special education duties
after their appointment to the current position. More on these topics is discussed later in this
chapter.
Because most interview participants did not have access to district expenditure
information, and did not know whether the dollar amounts for legal problems in special
education rose, they were asked about their knowledge of complaints against the district in this
regard. A rise in the number of complaints stood as a proxy for the interviewees to sense
whether there had been a rise in the legal costs for the district. The interview participants all
responded that they had meaningful knowledge about the number of complaints filed against the
district and that the number was rising.
Organization of Responses
Review and analysis of all respondents’ answers revealed four general themes or areas of
response. The first theme is their personal education and experience. The second is their views
of the quantity of special education complaints involving BUSD. The third is their perceived
reasons for increase in complaints, and the fourth is their perceived solutions to reduce the
complaints. As the answers were very personal, the themes are also very personal, and, thus,
were organized and analyzed in that way, according to personal perceptions.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 83
Table 10 presents an overview of respondents’ answers to the interview questions
grouped according to the four areas or themes. The simple answers in the chart are expanded
and discussed further in the study.
Table 10
Overview of Responses to Interview Questions
Respondents

Education/
Training
for Special
Education
Perception
of
Complaints
Perception of Reasons
for Complaints
Perception of Solutions
for Complaints
Teacher 1 None Rising Organization Organization
Teacher 2 None Rising Organization/Others Organization/Others
Teacher 3 None Rising Organization/Others Organization/Self
Teacher 4 None Rising Organization/Others Organization/Others/Self
Teacher 5 Very little Rising Organization/Others Organization/Others/Self
Administrator 1 Very little Rising Organization/Others Organization/Others/Self
Administrator 2 None Rising Organization/Others Organization/Others
Administrator 3 None Rising Organization/Self Organization/Others/Self
Administrator 4 1 graduate
school class Rising Organization/Others Organization/Others/Self
Administrator 5 ½ day at
SELPA
Rising Organization/Others/Self Organization/Others/Self
Administrator 6 ½ day at
SELPA Rising Organization/Others Organization/Others/Self

The responses to the interview questions led to a compilation of answers and the
development of the four theme areas. The first theme explores the education and training of the
interviewee, as the amount of training and when it was received reflects how prepared the
individual was, and currently is, for involvement with special education students.
The second theme is the personal view of the interviewee about a rise or fall in the
number of complaints in regard to any aspect of special education and why they hold the opinion
they have of the number of legal complaints.
The third theme presents an overview of the interviewee’s responses to questions and
reasons for a rise in complaints in special education. The answers in this theme are diverse and
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 84
complicated and are sub-divided into three areas reflecting the perceived sources of the
problems. The three sub-groups of causes are as follows:
1. Factors the individual identified within him/herself or within the group they represent,
such as lack of training, work overload, or limited time. These are labeled “Self” on
Table 10.
2. Factors blaming other individuals or groups (e.g., insufficient support, irresponsible co-
workers, over-aggressive attorneys, demanding parents). These are labeled “Others” on
Table 10.
3. Factors considered systemic or organizational problems in BUSD (e.g., inadequate
communication, misunderstanding of authority chain, or insufficient training
opportunities). These are labeled “Organization” on Table 10.
The fourth theme consists of suggestions or solutions offered by interviewees to the
problems they identified as reasons for a rise in legal costs. They have also been divided into
three sub-groups reflecting the diversity and complexity of what was said in the interviews. The
three sub-groups are as follows:
1. Solutions that centered on personal possibilities for, or responsibilities of, the individual,
such as receiving more information and training on legal matters, reducing caseloads or
managing them more efficiently, and better handling of disagreements with unhappy
parents. These are labeled “Self” on Table 10.
2. Solutions that centered on responsibilities of others, such as more support from
administrators, more defense against aggressive attorneys, reducing errors in procedures,
decreasing mistakes made by others. These are labeled “Others” on Table 10.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 85
3. Solutions requiring organizational change, such as more support from and involvement
by leading administrators, hiring more qualified teachers and substitute teachers to reduce
workloads and better provide effective education, increasing compensation to attract
more teachers to the field, and more training for all special education workers. These are
labeled “Organization” on the Table 10.
Table 10 illustrates the general similarity of responses in most themes and the diversity in
some. The responses for teachers were handled separately from the responses for administrators
as the answers of each group were often divergent.
Training for Current Position
Regarding preparation or training for their current positions in special education, all but
one of the participants answered they had received no training for special education before or
during their service. The one teacher who received specific training before the current position
spoke of one relevant 3-unit class as a college undergraduate. As another teacher said, “It’s a
trial by fire. We try to do our jobs and learn as we do.” Several responded there had been an
effort to provide professional development “several years ago, but it was shallow and cursory.”
All felt that training offered by the district had been inadequate.
Administrators had a different, sometimes dismissive, attitude toward having special
education training, even when they had responsibility for special education. As one said, “If the
teachers are doing their job, my involvement is not required.” Another confessed feeling
“ineffective in dealing with the details of problems” and that his job was to “keep peace among
the parties involved” which, in his opinion, did not require special training. One administrator
felt it was “not my area of expertise, especially anything legal.” When one administrator was
asked about professional development, his response was, “What professional development?”
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 86
Another administrator went much further. On the subject of insufficient training, this respondent
said, “I was shocked and horrified that the district and my school would allow me to be in charge
of something so important and expensive with absolutely no oversight and no training.” Two of
the six administrators attended a half-day workshop at the Special Educational Local Planning
Area (SELPA) in August 2015, but felt that it was only a good beginning and not sufficient to
make them feel knowledgeable. Several reported that “training” or “information” was circulated
to them by the district in huge batches of emails with instructions to read, but they did not have
the time at work to sift through all the emails, especially since the information seemed
disconnected from the reality of their jobs.
Rise of Complaints
All respondents were in agreement that the number of complaints against the special
BUSD’s education department increased over the previous 5 years, and, therefore, the legal costs
did as well. Several teachers noted that they knew there had been an increase in complaints
because they were spending more of their teaching time dealing with them. In a similar vein,
another teacher commented that there had been a shift in priorities from teaching to dealing with
parents and problems outside the classroom. One case carrier reported that caseloads were larger
than ever and had even doubled in the previous few years. This led to the comment that larger
caseloads plus heavy teaching loads was a recipe for making mistakes, overlooking important
details, and causing legal problems as a consequence. Another teacher spoke about more parents
getting involved with the minutia of their special education students and also getting more
agitated more quickly over small problems, which probably led to more complaints. All teachers
felt it is getting harder to do a good job because of legal requirements, which also leads to
complaints.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 87
Administrators were equally aware of rising complaints against the district but their
awareness came from different sources. One said that he saw more “legal support people”
coming to his campus as one sign that complaints were increasing. Another commented that he
lost staff members because of the increased stress levels related to legal complaints, which made
his job more difficult because he had to find substitutes and replacements. Sometimes, the
turnover of special education teachers and staff was blamed for the rise in complaints and,
sometimes, the rise in complaints was blamed for the turnover. One administrator admitted that
his superior told him he was spending too much time on special education problems and told him
to reduce it, which he felt led to a decrease in the support he could offer to teachers and,
probably, also led to an increase in complaints. Another administrator knew that complaints
were increasing because he was spending more money on substitutes for teachers who had to
leave classes for “witness preparation” in response to legal problems. In terms of the
organization of the district, one administrator mentioned he had never seen a chart detailing the
responsibilities of everyone in special education. Therefore, he did not know whom to contact
with problems, including those of a legal nature that might lead to more complaints. Another
administrator said he was unable to satisfactorily communicate with the special education
director when needed, so he had to rely on those with less authority when unusual problems
arose. This is an example, again, of a small complaint he felt led to a potential increase in legal
issues and costs.
Reasons for Rise in Complaints
In the columns reporting answers to questions about the reasons for complaints, Table 10
reflects more diversity of opinion, and all three sub-divisions could potentially be marked for
every participant. Interestingly, only two teacher respondents identified a lack of personal
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 88
training in special education as a problem and only one administrator respondent did not. Seven
respondents placed blame on other people and all respondents felt there were significant
problems in the organization that created circumstances leading to the rise in complaints.
In discussing the reasons for the current state of complaints, teachers revealed a wide
assortment of opinions. One former special education department chair described the job as
impossible because of inconsistent support from above, the shortage of qualified teachers,
incorrect or inadequate information, and no attention paid to little problems which unnecessarily
grew huge and troublesome through lack of corrective action, all of which were valid reasons for
the increased volume of legal problems for the district, and echoed by other respondents. One
high school teacher mentioned that more parents exhibited unease with, and distrust for, district
personnel and their decisions, particularly parents whose children had had difficulties in middle
school, and were, thus, more prone to file complaints during high school years. Other teachers
mentioned the difficulty of getting every staff member, whose presence is required at an IEP
meeting, to actually attend the meeting, a failure which gives an opening for a complaint.
Another teacher mentioned she had seen recruitment advertisements placed in local papers by
attorneys and special education advocates searching for vulnerable families to become clients so
the district could be sued, which she blamed as another reason for a rise in complaints.
Administrator participants gave some reasons for a high volume of complaints that were
similar to the teachers’, such as failure of communication within the special education
organization of the district and a lack of trust between district personnel and families of special
education students. However, at least one administrator felt he had no responsibility for the rise
of complaints and said that the department chair people and individual teachers should take care
of all problems properly. “If they did, there would be fewer complaints.” This person also
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 89
claimed there was no need for him to attend IEP meetings because he did not understand the
legal problems there, which, again, may have been a reason for a rise in complaints as well as an
abdication of responsibility at the administrative level.
Some administrators want specialists or others on site to recognize problems earlier,
opining that earlier intervention would reduce complaints. One administrator used this term
relative to special education, “It’s like a license to sue!” This same administrator mentioned that
he felt his school delivered all required services well, but procedural errors were the basis for
most complaints as well as the combination of aggressive attorneys, vulnerable families, and the
trend of American society to use litigation as a solution for problems. Another administrator felt
that the general education teachers did not know enough about special education to follow the
IEPs for students who had been mainstreamed into their classes, and, thus, were responsible for
procedural errors that would give attorneys an access point for filings.
Many systemic failures occur within the organization of the district leading to the rise in
complaints, according to both teachers and administrators. These ranged from lack of support
and involvement from higher levels of administration, a lack of concern from higher levels that
negatively affected the morale of “those in the trenches,” the lack of written protocols and
procedures in easy to reach form, such as a handbook, and for mid-level administrators, the lack
of tools or authority to make improvements on their sites. Other systemic complaints were a lack
of transparency and the inability to reach an authority figure when needed for decisions. The
most telling systemic complaint, leading to ever-greater problems, was that, sometimes, little
attention was paid to problems at the youngest level, which were left to grow as the student
moved from one level to another until the problem became big enough to force the family to seek
help and redress from an outside attorney.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 90
Potential Solutions for the Rise in Complaints
The final column of Table 10 presents the answers and opinions of the participants for all
three solution sub-divisions. Some participants gave thought to the interview questions and
offered multiple suggestions in all three sub-categories. Answers included thoughts for personal
responsibility and development, ideas for improvement in others, and many comments on
organizational and systemic quirks and solutions.
In response to the possibility of solutions, many teachers had specific suggestions
regarding more training for themselves and others, particularly in small groups where real cases
with relevant law were presented along with the legal processes involved. Many wanted to
increase their knowledge of special education laws and procedures, especially prompt knowledge
of changes and additions to laws, so they would be better able to avoid mistakes that could lead
to complaints. There were suggestions for circulating legal briefs, putting information online,
webinars, and inclusion of teachers in dissemination of SELPA materials and training usually
given only to administrators.
Some teachers saw the need to improve student performance as an antidote to complaints.
In one teacher’s opinion, “it’s all about the grades” for parents; low student grades lead to
agitated parents which can lead to complaints against the district. A cynical response could be to
lower standards and give better grades, but this could be also considered a suggestion for smaller
classes, better training for teachers, and more classroom support so the students can be taught
more effectively.
Most of the administrators indicated an interest in learning more about pertinent legal
issues as a solution to the rise in special education complaints. Several administrators also
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 91
wanted to increase their ability to recognize problems and advise others, particularly in the areas
of policies and procedures, which they considered an administrative responsibility.
Solutions for Organizational Problems
All of the administrators mentioned the need for more training or job improvement skills
among teachers and other staff members, and also organizational problems that could be
addressed to reverse the trend of complaints. There were specific suggestions for better staff
training on legal issues, training in stress management and conflict resolution, the need for the
program specialists to do more, some general ideas about reducing staff turnover, and improving
communication at all levels of special education. One administrator noted inconsistent
information communicated to staff members, and consequent inconsistent understanding and
applications, with the specific example of some general emails sent to special education staff
which contradicted information imparted in verbal training sessions, all of which could be
corrected by an observant leader.
One high school administrator felt there was a lack of effective leadership above him in
regard to special education, with the particular example that it was difficult to reach a person in
authority quickly for immediate answers when emergencies erupted or rapid communication was
required. Several teachers mentioned that they felt “no one cared” about their problems, that it
was difficult sometimes to get help when they needed it, and that frequent changes in personnel
and policies made them uncertain where to seek support. There was a general feeling that those
“in the trenches” were on their own too much of the time, reflecting a lack of confidence in those
above them in the leadership chain. An effective and observant leader could address and make a
difference in morale with proper corrective measures.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 92
Some of the participants complained about aggressive lawyers in the surrounding
community who “farmed” the school district for potential lawsuits, for their own profit at the
expense of BUSD and tax payers. One participant mentioned a newspaper advertisement, placed
by a “special education law firm,” which contained the inferred promise that the lawyer would be
able to force the school district to increase services to “your special child.” While this type of
behavior is distasteful for a professional, it is neither illegal nor uncommon. Its existence should
not be ignored since the school district is powerless to prevent it. The best defense against this
type of negative influence in the community, suggested an administrator, was to build district
trust and satisfaction with the special education families and ensure that all legal procedures are
carefully followed by all school personnel. This sounds simple in theory but is significant in
practice, and reinforces the need for education of school district personnel in specific legalities
and also in respectful treatment of everyone involved in special education. The need for more
training at every level in both legal matters and in dispute resolution needs to be addressed by a
competent district leader.
Although there were complaints about lawyers, they were usually directed towards
lawyers opposing the district and not towards the lawyers representing the district. Respondents
were aware of trouble caused by lawyers outside the school system, and assumed rightly that this
increased legal expenses for special education in BUSD, because they, as teachers, would
become personally involved in the legal battles through increased work stress and hours of
preparation taken away from regular tasks. However, it is little known within the district that the
costs for lawyers defending the district are many times higher than those paid to opposing
counsel and have risen dramatically in recent years. When one administrator was asked his
opinion about the amount of money taken from the district budget for direct payments to district
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 93
counsel for special education legal activity, he was surprised by the information. He asked why
the district needed to spend so much on legal counsel and if the top leadership of the district was
aware of this enormous expenditure. His response to this discovery of district legal expense
reflected such concern that it should be the subject of further inquiry. One answer to his query,
which has been reiterated in this paper, is that too few staff members at any level know the
important, pertinent and appropriate laws and that errors in their application to special education
can lead to the district spending large amounts of money on legal activity. Better training of all
special education district employees throughout every level and school on all legal matters
should be a top priority for district leaders.
In summary, results show that legal costs for special education in Southern California school
districts, especially in BUSD, are increasing. This fact is recognized by most school personnel
interviewed through the confirmation of their personal experience on the job and through
knowledge of budget outlays. The factors involved in this rise are spread through the
organization and among many people. Some of the problems are systemic difficulties reaching
from top levels of leadership into the classrooms at every school. Some of the problems begin
at the earliest and lowest levels, following families, and haunting the district, through the entire
special education system. This is not surprising as the complexities of law in this area are
overwhelming and constantly changing. The reasons given by the interview participants cover
many aspects of this complexity. Their perception of factors causing these problems, and the
possible solutions, have been reported here and are discussed in the next chapter.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 94
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The purpose of this study was to investigate some aspects of the budgetary stress
experienced by Southern California school districts, specifically the increasing expenses
associated with special education departments. As the number of special education students
increased, and the cost of providing their education increased, school districts shifted financial
resources from the general education budget. Financial information, from a group of school
districts in Southern California with similar characteristics, was gathered and presented in this
study, highlighting the differences between the districts’ education budgets and the percentage of
those budgets consumed by special education. The disproportion between expenditures for
regular and special education students, as reflected in these district budgets, is clear and rising.
As the total costs of special education rise, district leaders need to understand where and
why their money is being spent. In an attempt to answer the questions of where and why in one
category of expense, research focused on rising legal costs for special education within BUSD.
The results of this study proved that legal costs for special education in BUSD rose over
the previous five years. Quantitative evidence also showed that BUSD experiences greater than
average special education legal costs when compared to similar districts. Further quantitative
research proved that BUSD legal costs per capita within special education are considerably
higher than those of comparable districts.
Qualitative research, consisting of interviews with district special education personnel,
gathered a large variety of reasons and possible solutions for the rising legal costs. Many
reasons were related to education and training of district personnel and many were related to
organizational and systemic causes. Unsurprisingly, the opinions and responses of the
interviewees varied considerably, depending on the level and type of employment in the district.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 95
Restatement of Research Questions
1. Quantitative: Is there a significant difference between the legal costs for the special
education program at BUSD and the legal costs for special education in similar districts?
2. Quantitative: How have the legal costs for BUSD special education increased or
decreased in the last 5 years and in what areas?
3. Qualitative: What are the knowledge, skills, organizational impediments, and other
causes which special education administrators and teachers perceive as factors
contributing to rising legal costs; and what strategies or solutions do they suggest that can
be used by BUSD to successfully restrain and/or lower the special education legal costs
in the district?
Discussion of Findings
Education and training of various types, for self and others, appeared as the dominant
theme mentioned in the interviews. The complexity, length and magnitude of problems currently
leading to rising legal costs, and the many ways that education and/or training of school
personnel can prevent or provoke legal costs can be illustrated by following an imaginary student
through the BUSD school system.
Our imaginary student enters BUSD public school at the age of 4, and his classroom
teacher notices that he lags behind his peers in terms of some skills. If she has some training in
the legalities of special education child find, she will report her concerns to the school principal,
who also must recognize child find as a legal responsibility of the public schools, and who will
initiate the process of assessment. The principal will ask the parents to come to an initial
meeting with him/her, which will also be attended by the classroom teacher and the school
psychologist, all of whom will be knowledgeable about the school’s responsibilities to child find
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 96
and the school’s responsibility to assess the deficiencies, and then arrange for special education
placement and services as necessary. Ideally, at the meeting, the school personnel will all be
trained on the legal definitions of various qualifiers for special education, the legal rights of the
parents, and the necessity of explaining all of these things clearly and kindly to the parents.
Training in social interaction and/or psychological understanding of the parents’ feelings will
help the school personnel to be calm, reassuring, and inclusive with the parents. If emotions
begin to escalate, some training in conflict avoidance will be useful. This initial meeting, the
writing of an IEP, and a smooth beginning of the special education of the student will set the
legal standard and emotional trust with the family and student for coming years, avoiding
problems that could lead to legal conflict.
A case carrier will be assigned to the student to implement and monitor the IEP,
coordinate services with designated instructional providers, and ensure services are provided in
accordance with the IEP. Her training in the legal requirements, rules, and procedures of this
process will help the district avoid future legal costs. If, at some point in his education, the
student is not responding to his current IEP treatment plan, or begins to exhibit new traits that are
not currently being treated, the case carrier and/or his classroom teachers will have the training to
recognize any shortcomings or failures in his educational plan, and will re-convene his IEP team.
All members of the IEP team will be trained to be proactive in their observations and interaction
with our student to guarantee his FAPE is delivered and meets his current needs and to fulfill all
of the district’s legal requirements. The IEP team will also be trained in the procedures
necessary for this fulfillment, such as documentation, data collection, and communication with
all team members, which includes all pertinent district personnel as well as the family, all of
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 97
which requires legal knowledge. They will be trained in what and how to communicate with
parents, and how to avoid violating the school-family trust, which could lead to legal conflicts.
Although this student is imaginary, the knowledge and expertise needed by all school
personnel are real and necessary if legal costs are to be restrained or decreased. Any error or
omission in any document or discussion in this lengthy chain of events can be exploited by an
attorney who will find the district out of compliance with the law and, therefore, request
reparations. Frequently, one error or omission can lead to another, which can be compounded by
others, or by the passage of time, or by missed deadlines, and a variety of other mistakes, any or
all of which can lead to costly legal problems. Every step of a special education journey is
fraught with myriad opportunities to sue the school district. This complexity and potential for
error can remain, in the case of a single student, for up to 18 years during his/her enrollment in
BUSD. As one interview participant described the current situation and the frequency of
mistakes made, “It’s like a license to sue,” or, as another described it, “we’re bait for aggressive
attorneys.” This enormous risk exposure to lawsuits, caused by errors or missteps by any district
employee at any point in the special education journey, must be addressed and reduced.
The story of our imaginary student highlights teachers’ and other on-site personnel’s
responsibilities and actions that should be directed with proper training and education to avoid
legal difficulties. This conclusion from my study’s research is supported by the literature review
in Chapter 2 where we read that the current college and graduate programs in teacher preparation
lack specific training for special education (Brownell et al, 2005). Special education teacher
programs too often provide minimal instruction in pedagogy, standards, and data analysis (Task
Force, 2015). As well as little training, one of the greatest challenges in schools is the lack of
qualified special education teachers available for hire and the difficulty to retain them in the
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 98
schools (USDOE, 2001). It was estimated as long ago as 2003 that nearly half of all new special
education teachers leave the field within the first three years as a result of poor administrative
support, poor preparation, complex job-responsibilities, and overwhelming paperwork
requirements (Di Paola & Walther-Thomas, 2004). Better understanding and training in all
aspects of special education for prospective teachers, before entering the field, should be
presented early in the education process for teachers. Although there is little research that
confirms specific links between general teacher education and education for a teacher of students
with special needs (Brownell et al, 2005), the fact that half of new special education teachers
leave their jobs within three years strongly implies a need for further research into the adequacy
of their preparation.
This brief assessment of available literature was reflected in the research findings of the
BUSD case study. All of the teachers interviewed had strong opinions about the inadequacy of
their own pre-career knowledge about what they faced as special education teachers.
Specifically, for this study, they expressed their lack of preparation for the intricacies of
delivering an FAPE under the current conditions of their work environments, including the legal
details which have led to the increasing legal costs for BUSD.
The literature review in chapter 2 reflected a strong relationship between administrative
leadership and support for special education, and the consequent satisfactory delivery and
effectiveness of special education in school districts. The role of school leadership overseeing
special education is reported by researchers as pivotal, but few school leaders are prepared for
this critical responsibility (CEC, 2001). In fact, research as early as 2000 demonstrated a
significant relationship between special education teacher attrition and school leadership.
Effective principals’ values, beliefs, and personal characteristics can inspire others at the school
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 99
to reach the educational goals for all the students, resulting in higher student achievement, and
the retention of teachers (DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003).
However, the 2015 California Task Force reported that school leaders do not receive
formal training for dealing with special education or special education teachers, and often
assume new administrative positions knowing little or nothing about special education, even
though they need a deep knowledge of both general and special education practices if they are to
serve effectively as advocates for good instruction and strong support for all students (CA
Department of Education, 2015).
Principals and administrators do not need to be disability experts, but principals who
demonstrated administrative support for special education, and provided high-quality
professional development for teachers, produced enhanced outcomes for students with
disabilities. This on-site approach and support also increased the likelihood that a new special
education teacher would remain on the job longer than three years. Building-level support from
principals and general educators had strong effects on all the critical aspects of a special
education teacher’s work environment (DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003). In addition, the lack
of training for administrators directly affects the hiring and retention of qualified special
education teachers, as noted above (DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2004).
Administrators do not need to be disability experts, but they need to know the basic legal
requirements regarding the education of a special student, just as the teachers and specialists do.
Many knowledge deficiencies for administrators emerged from the research, even those who
have the most contact with students at schools. Training for administrators, especially of the
legal protections held by parents and the laws on all aspects of special education, could smooth
interaction between administration and parents. They must be educated in child find laws,
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 100
procedural errors and omissions, parental rights, proper attendance at IEP meetings, sensitive
timelines, and many other issues which could provoke legal problems. In many schools, novice
administrators are assigned special education as one of their primary responsibilities without any
special training. “Even those with prior school experience, who have little formal preparation for
the role of principal, rarely have adequate understanding of how to plan, coordinate, and deliver
services to meet the needs of students with disabilities” (DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003, p.
12).
Recent literature suggested wide ranging education for administrators, although there are
relatively few preparation programs oriented specifically to special education administration
(Jones, 1994; National Clearing House for Professionals in Special Education, 2001). Some
competencies identified necessary for administration of special education include knowledge of
disabilities in children, educational law, general and vocational education, curriculum and
instruction, effective interventions, budgeting, finance, negotiation and conflict resolution, due
process, professional development, personnel and program evaluation and supervision,
administrative duties, supervisory/consultative duties, service delivery, planning, organization,
management, coordination, teacher assistance teams, and family issues around disabilities
(Lashley & Boscardin, 2003).
In contrast to what was found in the literature review about the importance of school
leadership, all respondents in this study commented on the lack of knowledge exhibited by most
of the administrators assigned to special education oversight. Some of the administrators
themselves regretted their lack of training, and tried to learn from the teachers and specialists,
but others felt that training for special education was unnecessary and outside their area of
responsibility. These administrators felt their situation with regard to special education
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 101
leadership was less personal, slightly removed from contact with students and their families, and
thus less important. They had received no training or information to change that perception, in
spite of the increased legal costs experienced by BUSD in the last five years, which should have
been a strong motivator.
In addition to knowledge of the intricacies of special education law, this study found that
a different type of knowledge or training may be needed. School principals sometimes lacked
both knowledge and skills to deal well with parents in meetings, which led to increased pressure
and tension. Administrators can have great influence on the relations between school and home,
and, thus, on allowing fewer legal issues, when they are very involved with the special education
process (DeNisco, 2013). Some district administrators seemed to have an attitudinal barrier
towards parent involvement with student programs when they were questioned by parents,
thereby creating an adversarial atmosphere. Some lower-level respondents detected and reported
a certain attitude of disdain or dismissal on the part of administrators toward their special
education responsibilities, such as saying flippantly “not my area of expertise.” Another
reported a principal who fell asleep in an IEP meeting, insulting both the family and his fellow
team members.
This study suggests that administrators need to know how to speak respectfully and
inclusively to students and families. An attitude of understanding and respect may not be trained
into an individual, but a facsimile can be taught, and learned, to preserve good feelings with
families and the community.
Organizational problems also emerged from the case study with potentially damaging
effects on legal costs for the district. For instance, some administrators did not understand, or
know well the details of, the organizations over which they preside, including the chain of
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 102
command and communication within special education. Specific examples emerged, such as
delegating and forgetting about situations which needed action or solutions, which exemplifies
poor leadership.
Clear communication and leadership are necessary for any effective organization. When
dealing with wide-spread budget problems, training and educating all district personnel in
defensive areas, and encouraging or requiring the proper implementation of this type of training
and education, could restrain legal costs in the future. Encouragement, and even requirements,
for various types of training, should be addressed at the highest district levels of leadership.
However, this has not happened in the recent past, according to the interviews, except for two
individuals who received one half-day of SELPA training in August 2015. Some in the study
criticized this lack of professional development and defensive training as evidence of poor
leadership within the BUSD special education department, and perhaps within the entire district.
Another organizational/leadership problem also emerged as an important finding in the
study. There is no written guide for policies and procedures for special education personnel in
the district, to inform actions and compliance with current laws and requirements, which was
considered a grave deficit by interviewees at all levels in the district. With no written guide to
provide rapid access to reliable information, personnel sometimes received conflicting answers
to questions from various sources or were unable to resolve problems efficiently. Uniform and
accurate information should be provided by leadership.
Teachers particularly complained about caseloads, on top of full classroom teaching
loads, which kept them from performing all of their tasks effectively and within a reasonable
time. There is a legal maximum for caseloads, which the district reached with each case carrier,
but it is imposed without offering extra time or compensation for the extra work. The heavy
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 103
workload and lack of administrative support and approval left some teachers feeling the
organization was ignoring and abusing them. Low employee morale can easily lead to work
fatigue, burn-out, involuntary carelessness and errors, which, in turn, can lead to legal problems
and costs. Communication at all levels was felt to be limited and erratic, which could also lead
to some personnel feeling left out and underappreciated, and, thus, develop a careless attitude
leading to mistakes and legal problems. This ineffective management by administrators, who
may feel removed, fairly or not, from those working below them, was another source of stress.
Some respondents criticized the district for being only reactive to problems, rather than
having the vision to foresee areas where proactive, preventive action could forestall future legal
difficulties, such as through the education and training detailed above. Parallel to this reactive
attitude was the observation of one interviewee regarding “the growth of problems” over time.
S/he commented that district administrators did not address small problems quickly or
effectively. S/he identified two aspects of this problem growth. First, if a small problem with a
student was not addressed properly and in a timely manner, and the family eventually sought
legal redress, the expense involved could have grown geometrically and eventually include
avoidable compensatory services and damages. Second, if a small problem in early years causes
a rupture between a family and the district, the resulting mistrust and angst of the family
inevitably grow over time so that the family may cause increasingly large problems and demands
for the district in later years, leading to an increase in legal costs. In other words, there seemed
to be a systemic problem within special education administration of delaying an action or a
solution in the hope that it might go away or would be handled by someone else. Time matters
in the education of young students, and special education timelines are often mandated by law.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 104
When a special education department fails to solve problems and deliver services within a
reasonable time frame, legal costs grow.
Research results illustrate the large amount of money paid by the district to its own
attorneys and its more rapid rise as compared to other legal expenditures. During the 5 years
included in this study, the average yearly payout by the district to its own attorneys was
$735,196. All legal expenses rose, but since total money paid to district counsel rose in nearly
every year, it is surprising that top leadership in the district had not noticed or started an effort to
reverse that trend. District accounting was incomplete, but district leadership at the highest
levels should be aware of such systemic failures in the areas of accounting and the containment
of legal costs.
Some explanations for the large district counsel legal fees were made by several of the
respondents. The most frequent was that district personnel have become dependent on lawyers
when making decisions, and very few had confidence in their own knowledge or ability to make
correct judgments about special education procedures or practices without consulting a district
lawyer. This lack of confidence and consequent lawyer dependency may be well-founded, but it
is also costly. Another opinion held that the district is known in the community for settling cases
rather than going to hearings, so families may ask for services with the expectation that a
lengthy, expensive case will eventually cause the district to make concessions, settle, and pay all
legal bills for both sides. Changing the public perception of how disagreements are handled
might decrease this type of nuisance lawsuit. Some respondents questioned the billing practices
of the district’s own law firms, and their seeming tendency to drag out meetings and
disagreements, which also inflates fees. It is recommended that the district investigate
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 105
expenditures caused by its own attorneys, including a comparison between the rates charged by
the district’s attorneys and the going rate charged by other attorneys in the community.
In the case of BUSD, the complexity and range of rising legal costs must be effectively
investigated and addressed by administrators at the highest levels. Systemic problems within the
organization itself, possibly affecting more than just special education, should also be addressed.
Special education currently uses approximately 37% of the total district budget for only 10 - 11%
of the student body, which is a large and disturbing disproportion. District officials should be
cognizant of this and take measures to reduce this disproportion.
Conclusions and Implications
As parents are mandated to be fully involved with the educational program for their
children with special needs, and as they press for the greatest amount of services for their
children, disagreements become inevitable and the atmosphere becomes adversarial. If
disagreements become strong enough, complaints are filed and expensive lawsuits follow.
Special education funds are specifically unavailable for litigation costs, causing general
education funds to be shifted to cover special education legal costs as well as other shortfalls.
The rise in legal costs for school districts has been noted all over California, and, whether caused
by general or special education difficulties, the drain from general education funds decreases the
ability for every school district to fulfill its mission of delivering FAPE to every student.
This study focused on the rise of legal costs resulting from special education activity in
one school district in Southern California. Quantitative data proved that all special education
expenses were rising and usurping funds from the general education budget to the extent that
over 37% of district money was spent on special education. Quantitative data also proved that
legal costs connected to special education were increasing, especially in some categories.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 106
Qualitative research in the case study suggested many factors driving the rise of legal costs and
led to possible suggestions and solutions to restrain or decrease these costs. Conclusions from
this data are wide-ranging, as are the complexities of the problems faced by special education in
today’s litigious climate.
First, school districts must find ways to reduce legal and other costs for special education
before these expenses overwhelm general education funds and become known to the public at
large. Some writers suggested that it is only a matter of time before parents of general education
students sue school districts, in the name of civil rights for their own children, for equal per-
capita expenditures. Budgeting is an administrative activity affecting every level and person
within the organization. It is critical for school district administrators to repair this budgetary
disproportion before the opportunity to do it their way is taken from them by legislation or
judicial fiat.
Second, BUSD’s organization is such that no one yet fully comprehends the scope and
possibilities for further special education expense increases and where that might take the
district, which reflects poor understanding of current conditions by the administration and poor
leadership. This study found that high legal expenses are a part of rising expenses for district
special education. Money spent fighting legal problems or remediating legal errors could be
better spent directly on educating young people. This district must take corrective action
wherever and whenever possible, and the possibilities revealed in the research offer areas to
explore. Higher than necessary expenses in any area should be considered a misallocation of
public funds and a failure of leadership.
Third, some of the administrators seemed disinterested in the details of special education
and distanced themselves, consciously or not, from their responsibilities; this is a systemic
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 107
leadership problem that demoralizes staff and should be addressed and reversed by higher
authorities through training and guidance. Good leaders support and motivate others to do their
best work, which includes the detailed care necessary to avoid legal problems and their
subsequent costs. The ripple effect of good leadership throughout an organization, and the
consequent reduction of legal costs, cannot be overstated.
Fourth, the lack of training regarding special education legalities and mistakes, found
among district teachers, service providers, and administrators at every level, leads to errors and
omissions and subsequent legal problems that pervade the system and should be addressed by
highest district authorities. The lack of knowledge has created a co-dependency of the district on
legal counsel, which partially drives the rising costs. The lack of training in legalities, and a
concurrent understanding of people skills to defuse tense situations and avoid confrontation,
should also be considered as part of future training. The importance of education and training at
all levels of the organization cannot be overstated.
Fifth, another systemic weakness in the district was the sporadic communication among
groups, frequently between administration and other personnel. Especially in the complex world
of delivering special education, pertinent information regarding procedures, practices and
expectations must be available to all, especially as laws and procedures change. Everyone must
know what to do and how to do it properly without violating the law and increasing legal costs.
Sixth, the district failed to initiate and/or continued to build trust and reliable
communications among staff members and between the district and the community of families it
serves. Some families distrust anything that comes from the district, as their experience taught
them that the district protects itself at the expense of a child’s education. A culture of mutual
trust and respect must be built and maintained.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 108
Seventh, to reduce the cost of the district legal counsel, district leadership should
carefully review time and billing records of the firms involved to ascertain if the fees paid were
necessary and reflect the industry average in the local community. Negotiations with current
counsel, consideration of different counsel, or consideration of hiring in-house counsel might
reduce direct legal costs. Alternatively, an administrator/assistant superintendent, with specific
knowledge of special education processes and legal procedures, the organizational skills to
coordinate and support all personnel, and the leadership skills necessary to create a culture of
respect and cooperation, could be appointed to oversee the legal needs of the special education
department. The lack of accountability within the district leadership and mishandling of legal
matters has been devastating to the district budget and special education personnel morale.
The conclusions and implications of this study suggest ideas for action by BUSD and,
possibly, similar districts. Administrators must become accountable for every aspect of the
BUSD budget, including disproportionate and growing allocations for special education legal
costs. The remedies suggested, such as better training in the special education process, from
child find to transition programs for the oldest students, are within reach of every school district
with the vision and the will to pursue them. Providing a written handbook of legal issues and
procedures for quick reference by special education teachers and on-site administrators could
reduce the error rate in the field. Training for staff members could be provided through online
courses or webinars, or in district-wide seminars with legal professionals providing up-to-date
information. The list of solutions is long and complicated.
Training and education for special education personnel should be a huge concern for any
district and a topic for future research. There are apparent gaps in the current graduate and
training programs, such as legal accountability, adaptation of general education principles to
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 109
special education, and other significant areas. University schools of education need to examine
teacher and administrator preparation courses to ensure that these future professionals are being
prepared to handle the challenges that the growing special education population is bringing to
our public schools.
A follow-up study with the participants from this study is needed, after an effective
training program is put in place within BUSD, in order to examine the results of such a program.
The results could prove the effectiveness of consistent training in special education law as a tool
to reduce legal costs and complaints against the district.
A comparison study, among school districts of different sizes and with different socio-
economic populations, should be done to assess lower or higher per capita legal costs and due
process filings. Further study could reveal important reasons for variations, as well as potential
solutions that could be extrapolated to other districts.
Further research on the direct costs of legal work within a district should be done to
assess the most efficient and cost effective solution to rising legal costs. Suggestions within this
study include in-house versus outside counsel and/or a special education compliance officer.
The three major themes linking the conclusions and implications of this study are training
and education of district personnel, leadership and accountability in the district, and
organizational/systemic problems current in the district. All three themes represent important
areas where people make all the difference between success and failure. Education is a people
business. In the opinion of this researcher, effective and consistent training of all special
education personnel, greater accountability at all levels, and resolution of organizational
problems within the district will result in better education for the students and less financial
waste on legal costs.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 110
References
Aron, L., & Loprest, P. (2012). Disability and the education system. The Future of
Children, 22(1), 97-122.
Bateman, B.D. & Linden, M.A. (2006). Better IEP’s: How to develop legally correct and
Educationally Useful Programs (4
th
ed.). Verona. WI: IEP Resources, Attainment Co.
Bergert, S., & Burnette, J. (2001). Educating exceptional children: A statistical profile. Council
for Exceptional Children, April, 1-10. ERIC Number: ED 452649. Retrieved from
eric.ed.gov/?id=ED452649
Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. D., Colón, E. P., & McCallum, C. L. (2005). Critical features of
special education teacher preparation: A comparison with general teacher education. The
Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 242-252. doi:10.1177/00224669050380040601
California Department of Education. (2015). Report of California’s Statewide Task Force on
Special Education. One System: Reforming education to serve all students. San Mateo,
CA: County Office of Education. Retrieved from:
www.cde.ca.gov./nr/ne/yr15/yr15rel18.asp.
California Department of Education. (2016). Data and Statistics. Retrieved from
www.cde.ca.gov/
Carr, S. C., & Evans, E. D. (2006). Helping beginning teachers remain in the profession: A
successful induction program. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of
the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 29(2), 113-115.
doi:10.1177/088840640602900203
Clark, R.E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning Research into results: a guide to selecting the
performance solutions. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 111
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
DeNisco, A. (2013). Navigating special education disputes in schools. District Administration
Magazine,1(10), 1-6. Retrieved from
http://www.districtadministration.com/article/navigating-specialeducation-disputes-
schools
DiPaola, M. F., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2003). Principals and Special Education: The Critical
Role of School Leaders. Arlington, VA: Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education
Retrieved from http://www.copsse.org
Fan, D. (2014). no idea what the future holds: The retrospective evidence dilemma. Columbia
Law Review,114(6), 1503-1547.
Feinberg, E., Beyer, J., & Moses, P. (2002). Beyond mediation: Strategies for appropriate early
dispute resolution in special education. Unpublished manuscript. National Center on
Alternative Dispute Resolution (CADRE), Eugene, Oregon.
Hibel, J., Farkas, G., & Morgan, P. L. (2010). Who is placed into special education? Sociology of
Education, 83(4), 312-332. doi:10.1177/0038040710383518
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-446, 612, 118
Stat.2677 (2004).
Hirth, M. A., & Valesky, T. C. (1990). Survey of Universities: Special Education Knowledge
Requirements in School Administrator Preparation Programs. Planning and
Changing, 21(3), 165-72.
Johnson, J., & Duffett, A. (2002). When it's your own child: A report on special education from
the families who use it. New York, NY: Public Agenda.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 112
Jones, P. R., Robinett, M. K., & Wells, D. L. (1994). Administration and supervision of special
education: Where is training available. CASE in Point, 8(1), 37-52.
Kode, K. (2002). Elizabeth Farrell and the history of special education. Arlington, VA: Council
for Exceptional Children. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org.
Koyama, J. (2011). Principals, power, and policy: Enacting “supplemental educational
services.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 42(1), 20-36. doi:10.1111/j.1548-
1492.2010.01108.x
Lashley, C., & Boscardin, M. L. (2003). Special education administration at a crossroads.
Journal of Special Education Leadership, 16(2), 63-75.
Lake, J. F., & Billingsley, B. S. (2000). An analysis of factors that contribute to parent-school
conflict in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 21(4), 240-251.
doi:10.1177/074193250002100407
Lal, R. (2005). Effect of inclusive education on language and social development of children
with autism. Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal, 16(1), 77-84.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mueller, T. G. (2009). Alternative dispute resolution: A new agenda for special education
policy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20(1), 4-13. doi:10.1177/1044207308315285
Mueller, T. G. (2009). IEP facilitation: A promising approach to resolving conflicts between
families and schools. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 41(3), 60-67.
Mueller, T. G. (2015). Litigation and special education: The past, present, and future direction
for resolving conflicts between parents and school districts. Journal of Disability Policy
Studies, 26(3), 135. doi:10.1177/1044207314533382
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 113
Mueller, T. G., & Buckley, P. C. (2014). The odd man out: How fathers navigate the special
education system. Remedial and Special Education, 35(1), 40-49.
doi:10.1177/0741932513513176
Mueller, T.G., & Piantoni, S. (2013). Actions speak louder than words: How do special
education administrators prevent and resolve conflict with families? Journal of Special
Education Apprenticeship, 2(2), 1-4.
Napa County Office of Education (2015). Research and Professional Development Center,
Desired Results Access Project. Retrieved from www.draccess.org/subscribe.html.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
Nowell, B. L., & Salem, D. A. (2007). The impact of special education mediation on parent-
school relationships: Parents’ perspective. Remedial and Special Education, 28(5), 304-
315. doi:10.1177/07419325070280050501
Office of Administrative Hearings (2015). Special Education Division, Special Education Quick
Link, Reports; Special Education Reports Archive. 2010-2011 Fiscal Year. Retrieved
from http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/oah/forms/2008/SE%20Quarterly%20
Report%20Q4%20FY%2010-11%20Final.pdf
Office of Administrative Hearings (2015). Special Education Division, Special Education Quick
Link, Reports; Special Education Reports Archive. 2011-2012 Fiscal Year. Retrieved
from http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/oah/forms/2008/SE%20Quarterly%20
Report%20Q4%20FY%2011-%2012%20Final%20SECOND%20AMENDED.pdf
Office of Administrative Hearings (2015). Special Education Reports Archive, 2012-2013 Fiscal
Year. Retrieved from http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/oah/forms/2008/SE%20
Quarterly%20Report%20Q4%20FY%2012-13%20Final.pdf
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 114
Office of Administrative Hearings (2015). Special Education Reports Archive, 2013-2014 Fiscal
Year. Retrieved from http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/oah/forms/2008/SE%20
Quarterly%20Report%20Q4%20FY%2013-14%20Final.pdf
Office of Administrative Hearings (2015). Special Education Reports Archive, 2014-2015 Fiscal
Year. Retrieved from http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/oah/forms/2008/SE%20
Quarterly%20Report%20Q4%20FY%2014-15%20Final.pdf
Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2010). Special education teacher preparation in classroom
management: Implications for students with emotional and behavioral disorders.
Behavioral Disorders, 35(3), 188-199.
Parrish, T. B., & Wolman, J. (2004). How is special education funded? Issues and implications
for school administrators. NASSP Bulletin, 88(640), 57-68.
doi:10.1177/019263650408864005
Pudelski, S. (2013). Rethinking special education due process. Alexandria, VA: The School
Superintendents Association.
Rothstein, R. (1997). Where’s the money going? Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Sack, J. (2004). The funding fix. Count me in: Special education in an era of standards.
Education Week, 23(17), 68-72.
Seligmann, T. J., & Zirkel, P. A. (2013). Compensatory education for IDEA violations: The silly
putty of remedies? The Urban Lawyer, 45(1), 281 -312.
Southwest SELPA (2015). Writing IEP’s for Educational Benefit. Adopted from: State SELPA
Retrieved from Southwest special Education Local Plan Area, 320 Knob Hill, Redondo
Beach, CA.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 115
Stoner, J. B., & Angell, M. E. (2006). Parent perspectives on role engagement: An investigation
of parents of children with ASD and their self-reported roles with education
professionals. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 21(3), 177-189.
doi:10.1177/10883576060210030601
Torrance Unified School District (2015). 65060 Cumulative Detail Report (1000-7999) OBJ-
RES-LOC Fund: 01.0 General Fund. Torrance, CA: TUSD Fiscal Services Accounting
Department.
Torrance Unified School District. (2014). Comparative Analysis of District Income and
Expenditures. Geographic Comparison. Sacramento, CA: School Services Inc.
Torrance Unified School District. (2013). Comparative Analysis of District Income and
Expenditures., Geographic Comparison. Sacramento, CA: School Services Inc.
Torrance Unified School District. (2012). Comparative Analysis of District Income and
Expenditures. Geographic Comparison. Sacramento, CA: School Services Inc.
Torrance Unified School District. (2011). Comparative Analysis of District Income and
Expenditures. Geographic Comparison. Sacramento, CA: School Services Inc.
Torrance Unified School District. (2010). Comparative Analysis of District Income and
Expenditures. Geographic Comparison. Sacramento, CA: School Services Inc.
United States Census Bureau. (2010). Profile of general population and housing characteristics: 2
demographic profile data. American fact finder fact sheet: Torrance city, CA. Retrieved
from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=
Feb_10_DDPDPI
United States Department of Education. (2001). Twenty-third annual report to Congress on the
Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: Author.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 116
United States Department of Education (2002). No Child Left Behind: ESEA Reform. Retrieved
from http://www.NoChildLeftBehind.gov/next/overview/index.html
United States Department of Education. (2007). IDEA regulations: Alignment with the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB). Retrieved from
http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,dynamic,TopicalBrief,3
United States Office of Special Education Programs. (2007). History: Twenty five years of
progress in educating children with disabilities through IDEA. Washington DC: Author.
United States Office of Special Education Programs (2010). History: Thirty years of progress in
educating children with disabilities through IDEA. Washington DC: Author.
Walsh, K. (2001). Teacher education reconsidered: Stumbling for quality. Retrieved from
http://www.abell.org/pubsf.htm
Weber, M. C. (2009). Special education law: Challenges old and new. The Phi Delta Kappan,
90(10), 728-732. doi:10.1177/003172170909001009
Wolman, J.M., & Parrish, T.B. (1996). Escalating special education costs: Reality or myth?
CSEF Resource: Newsletter of the Center for Special Education Finance, 1, 6-8.
Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis, A., Ryan, J. B., & McDuffie, K. (2008). Recovery of expert fees in
special education due process hearings. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(2), 112-
115. doi:10.1177/1053451208321601
Yell, M. L., Rogers, D., & Rogers, E. L. (1998). The legal history of special education: What a
long, strange trip it's been. Remedial and Special Education, 19(4), 219-228.
doi:10.1177/074193259801900405
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 117
Yell, M. L., & Rozalski, M. E. (2008). The impact of legislation and litigation on discipline and
student behavior in the classroom. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for
Children and Youth, 52(3), 7-16. doi:10.3200/PSFL.52.3.7-16
Yell, M. L., Ryan, J. B., Rozalski, M. E., & Katsiyannis, A. (2009). The U.S. supreme court and
special education: 2005 to 2007. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 41(3), 68-75.
Yell, M. L., & Shriner, J. G. (1997). The IDEA amendments of 1997: Implications for special
and general education teachers, administrators, and teacher trainers. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 30(1), 1.
Zaretsky, L. (2005). From practice to theory: Inclusive models require inclusive theories.
American Secondary Education, 33(3), 65-86.
Zirkel, P. A., & Gischlar, K. L. (2008). Due Process Hearings under the IDEA: A Longitudinal
Frequency Analysis. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 21(1), 22-31.
Zirkel, P. A., & Scala, G. (2010). Due process hearing systems under the IDEA: A state-by-state
survey. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(1), 3-8.
Zirkel, P. A. (2014). The law in the special education literature: A brief legal critique. Behavioral
Disorders, 39(2), 102-107.
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 118
Appendix A
Interview Questions: Teachers

1. Describe your training/education to become a special education teacher. What professional
development have you had since you began teaching? Was anything pertinent to legal problems?
2. What aspects of your job, which relate to potential legal issues, do you find most challenging?
What problems do you encounter? What training do you feel would be beneficial at this point in
your work?
3. How do you feel about acting as a facilitator in IEP meetings? How do you feel about a
neutral third party facilitating IEP meetings?
4. Do you feel your site administrators are competent and knowledgeable in the areas of special
education procedures and guidelines? When you encounter problems and/or challenges, do you
feel supported/aided by site administration and by District personnel? Do they meet your
expectations?
5. What problems have you seen that have led to parents’ complaints against the District? What
suggestions do you have to improve this situation?
6. What suggestion do you have that could reduce the rising legal costs of the District?
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 119
Appendix B
Interview Questions: Administrators
1. How much education and/or training did you have before you began to work with the Special
Education program? Have you received any training specifically focused on legal issues and
problems?
2. How do you perceive your role as a special ed administrator? What are your responsibilities
and what amount of your time is spent on special ed?
3. Do you feel that the special ed program has experienced an undue rise in legal costs? Why or
why not? What do you feel are the causes for a rise?
4. What are your expectations for your special ed staff? Do you feel they are adequately trained
and competent for their responsibilities? What professional development or organizational
changes, especially in the areas affecting compliance/legal issues, do you feel would be useful
for your staff?
5. Would additional professional development or training be useful for you regarding special
education legal issues? Do you perceive any other causes or problems, regarding rising legal
costs that you can affect?

For site administrators:
6. Do you feel you are getting sufficient District support in terms of legal issues?
THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 120
Appendix C
Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

An Analysis of the Rise of Special Education Legal Costs in One Southern California District

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Rudy DeLana under the supervision of Dr.
Patricia Elaine Tobey at the University of Southern California because you are a teacher or administrator
working with students with special needs. Research studies include only people who voluntarily choose to
take part. This document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything
that is unclear to you.

While Rudy DeLana is an employee of the Department of Special Education at the Bloomfield
Unified School District, he is conducting this study in his role as a USC student. If you are not
comfortable participating in this study due to Rudy’s role with the district, or feel that his position
could impact your responses, you should not participate.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
To investigate why there is a significant rise in special education legal costs in Bloomfield Unified School
District over the last five years. An analysis of the data will be done to understand reasons for the increase
and will also provide potential solutions which may be generalized to other school districts facing similar
dilemmas.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will participate in an interview that is estimated to be 30
to 45 minutes in length. You will be asked to respond to 10-15 questions to discuss your knowledge and
experiences teaching students with special needs. Interviews will be audio reordered. If you decline to be
audio reordered you still have the option of being a participant for this research study, handwritten notes
will be taken.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is not to participate. Your relationship with your employer will not be affected whether
you participate or not in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
You have the right to review/edit the audio recording or transcript. Any identifiable information obtained
in connection with this study will remain confidential. Your responses will be coded with a false name
(pseudonym) and maintained separately. The audio recordings will be destroyed once they have been
transcribed. At the completion of the study, direct identifiers will be destroyed. The de-identified data will
be stored on a password protected computer in the researchers’ office for three years after the study has
been completed and then destroyed.

THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS 121
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human subjects Protection
Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the
rights and welfare of research subjects.

When results of the study will be shared with the Bloomfield Unified School District, no identifiers will
be included.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
Principal Investigator-Rudy DeLana
310-489-3726 or delana.rudy@tusd.org.
2335 Plaza del Amo, Torrance, CA. 90509

Faculty Sponsor- Dr. Patricia Elaine Tobey
213-740-7884 or tobey@usc.edu.
3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA. 90089
STU-311

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the research
in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone independent of
the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South
Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract According to California’s Statewide Task Force on Education, in 2015, schools were failing to fully educate all students with disabilities to the extent required by federal law. (CA Department of Education, 2015, p. 4). The number of students identified as needing special education increased greatly in the last decade, even as special education became more expensive to provide. This study investigated school budget allocations in several Southern California districts, comparing the rising cost of special education within each district’s overall budget, and focused on one possible cause for this rise: the increase in legal activity and subsequent costs. A typical suburban Southern California district, Bloomfield Unified School District (BUSD), a pseudonym for an actual district with rapidly rising special education costs, was chosen as the subject for further study. Quantitative research found significant differences between special education costs in comparable districts, especially in the area of legal costs. Qualitative research, consisting of personal interviews with appropriate teachers and administrators, investigated factors contributing to increasing legal costs. The analysis of this data determined that BUSD is an “outlier” among its peers with significantly greater legal costs than comparable districts. Further research suggested factors involved in this rise in legal costs and possible solutions for addressing these factors. Analysis and discussion provided strategies for this district, and others like it, to reduce special education legal costs while maintaining required standards for special education students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Factors influencing special education teacher attrition in a Hawaii school district

PDF

Key stakeholders' role in implementing special education inclusion: leadership and school culture

PDF

The perceived barriers of nursing faculty presence in an asynchronous online learning environment: a case study

PDF

Key stakeholders' role in implementing special education inclusion program in an urban high school: leadership and school culture

PDF

Legal institutions of the market economy: private commercial arbitration as transaction costs reducer in Colombia

PDF

Examining the impact of peer mentoring on transitioning socio-economically disadvantaged minority middle school students

PDF

An exploration of student experiences in a preparation program for online classes in the California community college system

PDF

Special education teacher attrition in a Hawaii school complex area

PDF

Creating opportunities for engagement and building community utilizing geek culture in a residential education department

PDF

An exploratory study on flipped learning and the use of self-regulation amongst undergraduate engineering students

PDF

Approaches to encouraging and supporting self-regulated learning in the college classroom

PDF

The Mackey University program for Innovation and Disruption: a case study analysis on innovation and disruption in higher education

PDF

Perceptions of academic advisors of the impact of over involved parents on the advisor-student relationship at a liberal arts unit of a 4-year research university

PDF

Best practices general education teachers implement to foster a positive classroom environment

PDF

Quantifying the effect of orbit altitude on mission cost for Earth observation satellites

PDF

School resource allocation in times of economic boom and bust

PDF

Validation matters - student experiences in online courses: a mixed method study

PDF

An ecological systems perspective of long-term English learners (LTELs) and perceptions of their college readiness: a case study

PDF

Special education outsourcing: district privatization of therapeutic day schools for students with severe emotional disabilities

PDF

Teachers' pedagogy and perceptions of technology integration: a mixed‐methods case study of kindergarten teachers

Asset Metadata

Creator DeLana, Rudy (author)

Core Title An analysis of the rise of special education legal costs in one Southern California suburban district

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/03/2016

Defense Date 04/01/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag administration of special education,administration training,alternative dispute resolution,Dispute Resolution,financial problems in special education,legal costs,litigation costs for special education,litigation in special education,OAI-PMH Harvest,Special Education,special education legal costs,teacher preparation,Teacher Training,teaching special education

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Combs, Wayne (committee member), Crispen, Patrick (committee member)

Creator Email delana.rudy@tusd.org

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-249677

Unique identifier UC11280447

Identifier etd-DeLanaRudy-4422.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-249677 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DeLanaRudy-4422.pdf

Dmrecord 249677

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights DeLana, Rudy

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA