To provide a missing piece to the legal foundation of professional development and practice for the individualized education program (IEP) process, the authors report the results of a comprehensive systematic analysis of court decisions specific to IEP-related procedural violations after the 2004 amendments of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Research questions focused on the frequency and outcomes of alleged procedural violations in the following categories: (a) IEP components, (b) IEP team, (c) parent participation, and (d) IEP development. Procedural violations in the parent participation category were the most frequently adjudicated; the outcomes ratio in court averaged approximately 3:1 in favor of school districts for cases across all four categories. Implications for practice include reconsideration of current policies and practices to whatever extent that they were based on case law rather than proactive priorities, per the lack of differentiation in prevailing publications and presentations in special education.

Accommodations are intended to address student academic and behavioral deficits by reducing obstacles that impede learning and accurately measuring skills. There is limited research, however, pertaining to the types of accommodations students receive and their selection, particularly among those with emotional and behavioral problems. This is a significant concern for secondary age students who spend the majority of their day in regular education settings and must participate in high-stakes testing. We examined types of accommodations provided to 222 secondary students with emotional and behavioral problems, their use (i.e., classroom or standardized assessments), and variables related to their selection. Analyses indicated (a) students received a wide array of accommodations with some differences depending on disability type, (b) more accommodations were provided in the classroom than on standardized testing, (c) few demographic variables were associated with type or number of accommodations, and (d) with a single exception, academic and behavioral functioning did not explain type of accommodation received. The findings suggest that accommodation selection is highly imprecise and point to the critical need for further research in this area.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract