Main Library
This library contains CADRE resources as well as State, Lead Agency and Parent Center resources. Please note that CADRE makes no endorsement of the State, Lead Agency and Parent Center resources included here, nor of any policies, procedures, processes, or documents specific to any item.
These documents contain the 2022 (FFY 2020-21) SPP/APR Analyses for the Dispute Resolution Indicators (B15 & B16 and C9 & C10). For the Analyses completed by OSEP-funded Technical Assistance and Dissemination projects visit OSEP's SPP/APR Communities Resources webpage .
Below is a crosswalk of the data elements used to report IDEA-related dispute resolution activity for Part B (Table 7) and Part C (Table 4). This crosswalk references changes in the dispute resolution data elements from 2004 through 2012.
Posted December 2017 (Rev May 2018) The summary below features data for school years (July 1-June 30) 2004-05 through 2015-16. For each data element, the number of events reported by the state is also provided as the number of events per 10,000 students enrolled in special education. This "per 10K" rate provides a way to compare the relative frequency across states – a more “apples to apples” comparison. For more information on dispute resolution data or this summary, contact CADRE .
OSEP has developed voluntary self-assessments to assist States in analyzing their dispute resolution systems. They identify the dispute resolution-related regulatory requirements under Part B and Part C of IDEA and summarize prior guidance from OSEP in implementing these requirements. States are encouraged to use these voluntary self-assessments to review their policies, procedures and procedural safeguards notices. OSEP (i.e., State leads) is ready to assist states with questions they may have regarding the self-assessments. States can also contact CADRE for assistance with these self-...
Posted November 2016 The summary below features data for school years (July 1-June 30) 2004-05 through 2014-15. For each data element, the number of events reported by the state is also provided as the number of events per 10,000 students enrolled in special education. This "per 10K" rate provides a way to compare the relative frequency across states – a more “apples to apples” comparison. For more information on dispute resolution data or this summary, contact CADRE .
Posted December 2017 (Rev May 2018) The summary below features data for school years (July 1-June 30) 2004-05 through 2015-16. For each data element, the number of events reported by the state is also provided as the number of events per 10,000 students enrolled in special education. This "per 10K" rate provides a way to compare the relative frequency across states – a more “apples to apples” comparison. For more information on dispute resolution data or this summary, contact CADRE .
Posted December 2017 (Rev May 2018) The summary below features data for school years (July 1-June 30) 2004-05 through 2015-16. For each data element, the number of events reported by the state is also provided as the number of events per 10,000 students enrolled in special education. This "per 10K" rate provides a way to compare the relative frequency across states – a more “apples to apples” comparison. For more information on dispute resolution data or this summary, contact CADRE .
Posted December 2017 (Rev May 2018) The summary below features data for school years (July 1-June 30) 2004-05 through 2015-16. For each data element, the number of events reported by the state is also provided as the number of events per 10,000 students enrolled in special education. This "per 10K" rate provides a way to compare the relative frequency across states – a more “apples to apples” comparison. For more information on dispute resolution data or this summary, contact CADRE .
This webinar, presented on May 18, 2011, explored using data from Table 7 and other sources to examine and plan improvements in State dispute resolution systems. The focus of the webinar was on resolution meetings, timelines, and outcomes. The three part presentation included: Dick Zeller, CADRE Senior Policy Analyst, introduced the call and provided a quick overview of dispute resolution data from Table 7 for Washington State, Illinois, and total national activity (50 states). The striking thing about due process complaint data is that most complaints are resolved by means not reported in...
Doug McDougall has been active in alternative dispute resolution activities for over 20 years. He has worked as a community mediator, provided dispute avoidance services through a Covenant of Right Relations with faith based communities as well as ADR systems and implementation design with the California Department of Education. Doug is committed to providing options for individuals and organizations to access ADR processes early and often. Video of Voices from the Field: Doug McDougall
Kacey Gregson is the Director of Dispute Resolution at the Arizona Department of Education, overseeing the state’s mediation, state administrative complaint, and due process systems. Kacey previously worked as an Assistant Attorney General at the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, providing legal representation and advice to the Arizona Department of Education and the Arizona State Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. Kacey has also worked as an attorney in private practice, representing school districts on a variety of special education and general education matters. Clip 1: You oversee...
CADRE has worked closely with States to compile and verify three years of data from the State Annual Performance Reports (APRs) and the State Performance Plan (SPP). In addition, CADRE has summarized the 03-04 APR and the 05 SPP documents specifically related to dispute resolution activity. Dick and Aimee will described the national longitudinal database, present summaries of data showing national and state trends to date in the use of IDEA dispute resolution options, and will describe some of strategies states are employing to improve dispute resolution system and practice performance.