Complaint Procedure Systems under the IDEA: A State-by-State Survey

The professional literature is largely lacking with regard to current information about state systems for complaint procedures (CP) as compared with the much more common knowledge of the due process hearing mechanism of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This article begins with an overview of the professional literature, including prior research, concerning CP. The subsequent sections sequentially summarize the method, findings, and discussion of the authors' survey of state education agency (SEA) CP systems. Overall, almost two thirds (63%) of CP filings nationwide resulted in a decision letter, and a similar majority (62%) of these letters found violations, which suggests that districts should focus on not only more effective compliance but also early resolution. More than half (56%) of CP investigators have an educational background in special education and about a quarter (26%) have an educational background in law, which may result in a gap in the needed skill sets for effective investigation and decision writing. Training most often is in the form of attendance at a national-level conference (75%) or various forms of in-house training (61%), but respondents acknowledged the need for improved professional development, especially training tailored to the needs of CP investigators. The most common practices among CP systems are: (1) the use of a template for CP decisions; (2) the authoring of CP decisions by the investigator; and (3) supervisory review of CP decisions by a supervisor, although additional responses suggested the need for broader systemic efficiencies, such as more user-friendly information and alternative dispute resolution. The relatively infrequent and thus wider disuniformity of other practices--namely, (1) the use of a two-part test for procedural issues, (2) the resolution of substantive issues, and (3) provision of a mechanism for appealing CP decisions--poses problems for school districts that warrant policy consideration at the national, state, and local levels.