These include two methods states are  required to provide under IDEA—mediation and resolution meetings—as  well as others that states have voluntarily implemented. Due Process Hearings Have Substantially Decreased, and States and Territories Use a Range of Other Methods to Resolve Disputes

		The National Decline in Rates and Numbers of Due Process Hearings Has Been Driven by Steep Rate Declines in New York, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico

Since 2004, the nationwide rates of due process hearings—a key  indicator of serious disputes between parents and school districts and a  formal method for resolving disputes—have decreased substantially (see  fig. SEA  representatives in these locations cited the use of mediation or resolution  meetings as key among the reasons for the declines. Dispute resolution helplines. Facilitated resolution meetings. States, Territories, and Other Stakeholders Reported Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods Helped Resolve Disputes without Resorting to Due Process Hearings

		States, Territories, and Other Stakeholders Considered Alternative Methods Important for Resolving Disputes without Resorting to Due Process Hearings

On our survey, a large majority of state officials reported mediation and  resolution meetings—methods that IDEA requires states make  available—as extremely, very or moderately important to resolving  disputes early. Some  stakeholders cited the potential of these methods to improve  communication and trust between parents and schools. In follow up discussions, some state officials said  the lack of public awareness as a challenge to implementing or expanding  the use of alternative dispute resolution methods they have voluntarily  implemented, and that they are addressing this challenge with various  strategies. Education Lacks Key Information on the Timeliness of Due Process Hearing Decisions, and the Parental Involvement Data It Collects Are Not Used for Oversight

		Education’s Method for Measuring the Timeliness of Due Process Hearing Decisions Does Not Reflect Time Added by Extensions

Education assesses states’ performance on dispute resolution using  several different measures (see table 2) but lacks key information about  the timeliness of due process hearing decisions, which reduces its ability  to monitor dispute resolution effectively. According to Education’s guidance on performance measures,  all states are required to report the number of due process hearing  requests that were adjudicated within 45 days, or a timeline that includes  any approved extensions. However, this guidance does not direct states  to report the amount of time that extensions add to due process hearing  decisions. Leading performance measurement practices identified in our  past work state that successful performance measures should, among  other things, be clearly stated and provide unambiguous information. Parental Involvement Performance Data Do Not Support Dispute Resolution Oversight

Education collects data from states on parental involvement in the  education of children with disabilities, but these data are not comparable  across states, and as a result Education cannot use these data to target  its oversight of states’ dispute resolution activities. However, these officials said that Education  cannot determine which states provide high quality parental involvement  data, nor does Education use these data to monitor and oversee states’  performance in this area and is unable to compare state performance  because states have considerable latitude to determine the  methodologies they use to collect the data and these methodologies  consequently vary across states. Having parents  who are appropriately informed and involved in decision-making  regarding the education of students with disabilities can lead to the  resolution of disputes in a more collaborative manner without the use of  formal dispute resolution methods and may result in greater trust between  parents and school districts, and earlier, less adversarial dispute  resolution. Education neither agreed nor disagreed with our  recommendations but proposed alternative actions. However, Education’s  proposed actions will not effectively address the weaknesses we  identified in Education’s performance measures and we continue to  believe our recommendations are valid.
Why GAO Did This Study

States receiving IDEA funds must ensure that a free appropriate public education is made available to all children with disabilities, and IDEA has long incorporated formal methods to resolve disputes between parents and school districts. The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA expanded the availability of alternative dispute resolution by broadening the use of voluntary mediation and requiring resolution meetings prior to due process hearings. GAO was asked to examine the use of dispute resolution methods since 2004. In this report GAO (1) examines recent trends in dispute resolution methods, (2) reports stakeholders' views on alternative methods, and (3) assesses Education's related performance measures for states. GAO analyzed federal dispute resolution data from 2004 to 2012, conducted a national survey, compared Education's performance measures to leading practices, and interviewed Education officials and stakeholders selected for their knowledge of dispute resolution.

What GAO Found

From 2004 through 2012, the number of due process hearings—a formal dispute resolution method and a key indicator of serious disputes between parents and school districts under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)— substantially decreased nationwide as a result of steep declines in New York, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Officials in these locations largely attributed these declines to greater use of mediation and resolution meetings—methods that IDEA requires states to implement. Despite the declines, officials in these locations said that higher rates of hearings persisted because of disputes over private school placements or special education services. GAO did not find noteworthy trends in the use of other IDEA dispute resolution methods, including state complaints, mediation, and resolution meetings. States and territories reported on GAO's survey that they used mediation, resolution meetings, and other methods they voluntarily implemented to facilitate early resolution of disputes and to avoid potentially adversarial due process hearings.
States, territories, and other stakeholders generally reported on GAO's survey or in interviews that alternative methods are important to resolving disputes earlier. Some stakeholders cited the potential of these methods to improve communication and trust between parents and educators. Some state officials said that a lack of public awareness about the methods they have voluntarily implemented was a challenge to expanding their use, but they were addressing this with various kinds of outreach, such as disseminating information through parent organizations.
The Department of Education (Education) uses several measures to assess states' performance on dispute resolution but lacks complete information on timeliness and comparable data on parental involvement. Education requires all states to report the number of due process hearing decisions that were made within 45 days or were extended; however, it does not direct states to report the total amount of time that extensions add to due process hearing decisions. Similarly, Education collects data from states on parental involvement—a key to dispute prevention—but does not require consistent collection and reporting, so the data are not comparable nationwide. Leading performance measurement practices state that successful performance measures should be clearly stated and provide unambiguous information. Without more transparent timeliness data and comparable parental involvement data, Education cannot effectively target its oversight of states' dispute resolution activities.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Education improve measures for overseeing states' dispute resolution performance, including more transparent data on due process hearing decisions and comparable parental involvement data. Education neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations and proposed alternative actions. GAO does not believe these proposals will address the weaknesses in Education's performance measures and continues to believe the recommendations remain valid.