Journal of Disability Policy Studies 21(1) 3–8 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2010 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1044207310366522 http://jdps.sagepub.com The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) obligates school districts to identify students with disabili- ties and provide them with a free and appropriate public education, or “FAPE,” that includes special education ser- vices. At times, school districts and parents disagree about whether a child is eligible under the IDEA or whether the proposed services are appropriate. The primary mechanism for dispute resolution under the IDEA is a due process hear- ing. More specifically, the IDEA regulations [§ 300.507(a)] provide that “a parent or a public agency may file a due process complaint on . . . the identification, evaluation or educational placement of a child with a disability, or the provision of FAPE to the child.” Under the IDEA provision for due process hearings [§ 1415(g)], states have a choice of a one-tier system that is limited to the hearing officer level, or a two-tier system that provides a second officer review level to the administrative dispute resolution system prior to either party resorting to court action. In a one-tier system, the state provides a pool of impartial hearing officers (IHOs)—who in some states are full-time state employees in the role of administrative law judge and in other states are part-time, contracted attor- neys or special education personnel—to conduct adminis- trative adjudications. IDEA has historically provided only brief and broad requirements for hearing officers limited to impartiality, prohibiting state education department employment, local district employment (with regard to the child at issue), or other professional conflict of interest [§1415(f)(3)(A)]. Because of continuing concerns about the time-consum- ing and adversarial nature of this administrative dispute resolution mechanism (Goldberg & Kuriloff, 1991; Zirkel, 1994, 2005), Congress included in the amendments to the IDEA, which went into effect on July 1, 2005, new require- ments. First, IDEA 2004 added proficiency qualifications for hearing officers, requiring competence in conducting hearings, knowledge of special education law, and ability to write legally appropriate decisions [§1415(f)(3)(A)]. This new provision still leaves ample latitude for state-by-state choices as to the background, selection, and part-time ver- sus full-time status of hearing officers. Second, IDEA added the requirement of a “resolution session” as an informal dispute-resolution step prior to a due process hearing [§ 1415(f)(1)(B)]. One of the features of this new procedure is that the school district may not bring its attorney if the par- ents are not accompanied by their attorney. Whether this new resolution session provision is reducing the number of due process hearings has been subject to speculation (Edwards, 2005). The continuing contentions about the nature and opera- tion of the one-tier and two-tier systems under IDEA have 1 Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA 2 East Stroudsburg University, PA, USA Corresponding Author: Gina Scala, Special Education/Rehabilitation, East Stroudsburg University, 200 Prospect Street, Stroud Hall, Room 105, East Stroudsburg, PA 18301- 2999, USA Email: spedgrs@aol.com Due Process Hearing Systems Under the IDEA: A State-by-State Survey Perry A. Zirkel 1 and Gina Scala 2 Abstract The primary mechanism for dispute resolution under IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) is a due process hearing. The total number of adjudicated hearings under IDEA has dropped from the high level during the latter part of the 1990s and the early part of the current decade. Yet relatively few jurisdictions, led by the District of Columbia and New York, account for the overwhelming majority of these decisions. This article presents the results of a state-by-state survey of the hearing officer system. This current “snapshot” identifies the key features, including (a) whether the system is one- tier or two-tiered; (b) whether the IHOs are part-time or full-time; (c) whether their legal background is primarily in law or special education; (d) which agency assigns them and its procedures for the assignment; and (e) what is the updated volume of adjudicated hearings—i.e., those conducted to completion resulting in a written decision. Keywords impartial hearing officers, one-tier, two-tier, due process