KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

1

Special Education Teachers’ Knowledge of Special Education Laws, Processes, and
Procedures and their Preparedness to Navigate the Legality of Special Education
_______________________
A Dissertation
Presented to
The College of Graduate and Professional Studies
Department of Special Education
Slippery Rock University
Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania
______________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctorate of Special Education
_______________________
by
Maura K. Blumer
May, 2026

Keywords: special education law, special education teaching experience, special education legal
literacy, special education training, special education teacher preparation

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW
Committee Members
Committee Chair: Dr. Toni Mild
Associate Professor / Chair, Special Education Department
Slippery Rock University
Committee Member: Dr. Ashlea Rineer-Hershey
Associate Professor / Doctorate Program Coordinator, Special Education Department
Slippery Rock University
Committee Member: Dr. Nicole Bezila
Director of Pupil Services
North Hills School District

2

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

3

Abstract
This mixed-methods study assessed 32 special education teachers (SET) from western
Pennsylvania on their actual knowledge of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). Furthermore, it explored their awareness of their preparedness and how they express the
experiences that have influenced their knowledge. This study separately analyzed descriptive
statistics and thematic tags, then converged the data to compare the impact they have on SET in
the field. Based on this study, it can be concluded that SET are not at mastery-levels in applying
their legal knowledge of special education, and the central feature of IDEA, a free appropriate
public education (FAPE), appeared to be where participants understand the least. The results
revealed that years of special education teaching experience may positively influence knowledge
acquisition, however, this only appeared to be true in participants with over 15 years of on-thejob experience. Many participants were overly confident when describing their degree of
readiness, as their knowledge scores were lower than what would be expected based on their
explanation. Common themes that were identified are that the SET in this sample feel: prepared
or somewhat prepared, many factors influence levels of preparedness, years of teaching is the
most valuable experience to enhance knowledge and confidence, preparation programs should
offer a course dedicated to special education law in combination with legal process simulations
and case law scenarios, school districts should increase professional development on special
education law and prioritize auditing Individualized Education Programs (IEP), colleges and
school districts should foster mentoring collaborations and hands-on experiences. Preparation
program and school district leaders should use the knowledge scores and responses from SET in
this study as justification to increase training on special education laws, processes, and
procedures and tailor programming so the experiences are more applicable and beneficial.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

4

Dedication

To my husband, Scott.
Let this milestone represent a moment in time. You have been there with me from my
undergraduate years, through graduate school, and now throughout this doctoral program. These
moments prove that, together, we can do anything.

To my boys, Weston and Callahan.
I want this accomplishment of mine to remind you that your efforts don’t need an audience. Your
growth and success will speak for itself and give you exactly what you need. If you want
something, go for it!

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

5

Acknowledgments
Scott – Thank you for always rooting for me and for never saying ‘no.’ You have been my
shoulder to cry on when it felt like I would never finish. No one believed in me more than you.

Weston and Callahan – Although you won’t remember, one day you will understand how your
sweet smiles, hugs, and laughs were my light in the dark. You made every hard day worth it.

Mom and Dad – Your thanks go well beyond this accomplishment. You taught me to be humble
and hard-working. Those lessons have gotten me through many chapters of my life. I am who I
am because of you.

Grandma and Grandpa – Your support for my academic journey means so much. I truly don’t
think I would have begun this program without your encouragement. I am so grateful for you.

Mr. and Mrs. Blumer – You are the type of people to give your shirt off your back to someone in
need. Whenever I needed you, you were there. Your love and kindness are much appreciated.

Dr. Mild, Dr. Rineer-Hershey, and Dr. Bezila – Thank you for your guidance along the way and
the hours it took to ensure this dissertation was a success. You all demonstrate what it means to
be powerful women. A special thanks goes to Dr. Mild for encouraging me, especially when it
came time to present my first three chapters and submit my IRB application just days (hours?)
before giving birth!

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

6

Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................3
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................4
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................5
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................6
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................11
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................12
Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................................13
Background of Study ........................................................................................................ 13
Problem Statement ............................................................................................................ 13
Existing Research.................................................................................................. 15
Research Purpose .............................................................................................................. 17
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 18
Significance of the Problem .............................................................................................. 18
Delimitations ..................................................................................................................... 19
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 20
Summary of Chapter 1 ...................................................................................................... 23
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature...............................................................................................24
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 24
Research Questions ............................................................................................... 25
History of Special Education Law .................................................................................... 25
Key Principles of IDEA .................................................................................................... 30
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) ......................................................... 30

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

7

Child Find and Zero Reject ................................................................................... 33
Nondiscriminatory Evaluations ............................................................................ 35
Individualized Education Program (IEP) .............................................................. 37
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) .................................................................. 46
Parental Participation ............................................................................................ 49
Discipline .............................................................................................................. 52
Stakeholder Knowledge .................................................................................................... 54
School Principals .................................................................................................. 55
Parents ................................................................................................................... 56
General Education Teachers (GET) ...................................................................... 56
Special Education Teachers (SET) ....................................................................... 57
Pre-service Teachers ............................................................................................. 60
Teacher Perceptions and Confidence ................................................................................ 62
Preparation and Experiences ............................................................................................. 65
Extent of Special Education Law in Preparation Programs and Professional
Development ..................................................................................................................... 65
Impact of Training ................................................................................................ 66
On-the-job Experience .......................................................................................... 67
Stakeholder Roles ............................................................................................................. 69
Summary of Chapter 2 ...................................................................................................... 70
Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................................72
Restatement of Purpose..................................................................................................... 72
Research Design................................................................................................................ 73

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

8

Population and Sample ..................................................................................................... 74
Site Permission...................................................................................................... 75
Recruitment ........................................................................................................... 75
School District and Participant Demographics ..................................................... 76
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 78
Welcome and Background Information ................................................................ 78
Knowledge ............................................................................................................ 78
Open-ended Perceptions ....................................................................................... 79
Data Collection and Analysis............................................................................................ 79
Protection and Confidentiality .......................................................................................... 81
Presentation of Data .......................................................................................................... 81
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 82
Summary of Chapter 3 ...................................................................................................... 83
Chapter 4: Results and Findings ....................................................................................................84
Participant Demographic and Background Information ................................................... 85
RQ1: What is the practical knowledge of special education laws, processes, and
procedures among special education teachers at school districts in western Pennsylvania? ........ 89
RQ1a: What is the relationship between years of special education teaching experience
and knowledge? ............................................................................................................................ 91
RQ1b: Which areas of special education laws, processes, and procedures are special
education teachers the strongest and the weakest? ....................................................................... 92
RQ2: What are special education teachers' perceptions of special education laws,
processes, and procedures? ........................................................................................................... 93

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

9

RQ2a: How do special education teachers describe their preparedness to accurately apply
special education laws, processes, and procedures? ..................................................................... 93
RQ2b: What training and/or experiences do special education teachers report to have
strengthened their knowledge and preparation for the legalities involved in their roles? ............ 97
Perceived Knowledge versus Demonstrated Knowledge ............................................... 101
Summary of Chapter 4 .................................................................................................... 103
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations ..........................................................................105
Summary of the Study .................................................................................................... 105
Interpretations and Comparisons .................................................................................... 107
RQ1 Knowledge Scores ...................................................................................... 107
RQ1 Years of Experience ................................................................................... 108
RQ1 IDEA Principles ......................................................................................... 109
RQ2 Preparedness ............................................................................................... 110
RQ2 Experiences ................................................................................................ 111
Additional Interpretations ................................................................................... 112
Implications..................................................................................................................... 114
Implications for Special Education Teacher Preparation Programs ................... 115
Implications for School District Professional Development .............................. 116
Implications for other Special Education Decision Makers ............................... 116
Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 117
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 118
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 119
References ....................................................................................................................................122

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

10

Appendix A: Permission to use ASELL ......................................................................................133
Appendix B: ASELL Questions with Key and Rationale ............................................................135
Appendix C: Letter to School districts.........................................................................................145
Appendix D: IRB Approval .........................................................................................................149
Appendix E: Email Letter to Participants ....................................................................................150
Appendix F: Research Study Survey ...........................................................................................154

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

11

List of Tables
Table 3.1 Research Study School District Demographics ............................................................ 77
Table 4.1 Research Study Participant Demographics ................................................................... 86
Table 4.2 Years of Special Education Teaching Experience ........................................................ 86
Table 4.3 Preparation Program Training....................................................................................... 87
Table 4.4 Preparation Program Training Effectiveness ................................................................ 87
Table 4.5 Professional Development ............................................................................................ 88
Table 4.6 Professional Development Effectiveness...................................................................... 88
Table 4.7 ASELL Descriptive Statistics ....................................................................................... 90
Table 4.8 ASELL Years of Special Education Teaching ............................................................. 91
Table 4.9 Perceptions of Preparedness ......................................................................................... 93
Table 4.10 Sample Responses for Recommendations Tags ......................................................... 99
Table 4.11 Comparison of Quantitative ASELL Scores and Qualitative Preparedness
Descriptions ................................................................................................................................ 102

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

12

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Timeline of Historic Special Education Laws and Court Cases .................................. 29
Figure 4.1 Histogram of ASELL Scaled Scores ........................................................................... 90
Figure 4.2 Average ASELL Category Scales Scores.................................................................... 92
Figure 4.3 Perceptions of Preparedness ........................................................................................ 94
Figure 4.4 Perceptions of Preparedness Tags ............................................................................... 95
Figure 4.5 Valuable Experiences Tags ......................................................................................... 97
Figure 4.6 Recommendations Tags............................................................................................... 99

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

13

Chapter 1: Introduction
Background of Study
Throughout the 2022-2023 school year, 7.5 million students with disabilities (SWD)
across the United States received special education services under IDEA, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (National Center for Education Statistics, 2024). Before the United
States Congress acted in 1975 to ensure that SWD had free access to a public education, millions
of SWD were excluded from schools and often sent to inapt institutions or forced to stay home
without appropriate resources for any type of education (U.S. Department of Education, 2020).
U.S. Department of Education (2020) further explains that one of the first glimmers of hope for
SWD to receive a better education began with the passage of the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act of 1975. However, after many years and hard-fought battles in courts across the
country, SWD are now protected under the current educational law: Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. IDEA (2004) declares that students that qualify with a disability and need special
education services are entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The concept of
FAPE was the centerpiece of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and
remains the focal point of the current IDEA. Although the United States education system has
made strides for SWD needing special education services by implementing legally binding
guidelines, there are various aspects of the law that are ambiguous and confusing to many
professional educators and parents of SWD (Yell, Collins, et al., 2020; Zirkel, 2019).
Problem Statement
The education of a vulnerable population, SWD, relies heavily on educational law. Given
this point, the continuous and rising amount of litigious activity in special education (CADRE,
2025; Zirkel and Hetrick, 2016; Zirkel and Karanxha, 2024) as well as existing research on the

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

14

topic of educators’ knowledge of special education laws, processes, and procedures suggests that
educators might not be receiving adequate training and support in special education law through
their teacher preparation programs and current teaching roles. It is possible that these factors
result in educators entering the field ill-prepared and acting in a way that is not in compliance
with the law.
Not only can insufficient knowledge of special education laws result in providing
educational services for SWD that are inadequate, but it can also put school districts at risk for
fiscal and human resource burdens (Markelz et al., 2021). For example, settling complaints
outside of formal proceedings costs school districts on average around $24,000, and if the issue
is taken to the courts, the cost could rise to an average of $55,000 (Pudelski, 2016 as cited in
Casale et al., 2021). In a case which will be discussed later in this review, Endrew F. v. Douglas
County School District (2017), the school district was ordered to pay $1.3 million for attorney
fees to the parents (Yell & Bateman, 2020). This data conveys the obvious financial impact that
violating special education law can have on school districts.
In expanding on the importance of having educators that understand special education
regulations, Billingsley et al. (2013) state that educators that understand the law provide a
superior education to all students. Parent satisfaction has also been found to be strongly
associated with professionals simply following the law (Gershwin et al., 2022). Additionally,
Markelz et al. (2021) claim that legal compliance relies heavily on educators having adequate
knowledge of the special education laws that are in place. Taken together, understanding special
education law will not only support teachers in providing a sound education to SWD, but it will
also help keep school districts out of legal trouble. In the sparse body of research surrounding
educators’ actual knowledge of special education laws, processes, and procedures, the target

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

15

population is typically general education teachers (GET). Although it is important to study the
knowledge of GET due to the amount of SWD included in the general education setting, studies
targeting only special education teachers (SET) are almost non-existent yet are equally
important. SET are instrumental in implementing IDEA (Zirkel, 2015a) and are typically the
leaders in developing and discussing the legally binding educational plans for SWD (Landmark
& Zhang, 2019; Martin et al., 2006). Perhaps it is assumed that SET have adequate knowledge of
special education laws, processes, and procedures since they should have received thorough
training in their educator preparation programs and then go on to undertake leadership roles
throughout a SWD special education programming. However, the current body of literature
relating to SET knowledge of the law brings some issues to light.
Existing Research
Although a thorough review of the literature will be presented later in this dissertation,
key findings of that research will be mentioned in the subsequent paragraphs. To begin, a
positive discovery in the research is that SET typically do demonstrate higher knowledge of
special education regulations than GET when studied together (Brookshire & Klotz, 2002;
Nored, 2020; Sanders, 2015). Even so, SET demonstration of knowledge has repeatedly fallen
below expected levels (Brookshire & Klotz, 2002; Holland, 2016; Nored, 2020; Sanders, 2015;
Summers et al., 2021). Pre-service educators also struggle to understand relative special
education laws, processes, and procedures. This can be seen through investigations on the
knowledge of special education law for pre-service teachers majoring in both general education
and special education that revealed significantly low scores (Horner et al., 2020; Sanders, 2011).
It is not surprising that having taken more special education college courses and
professional development activities related to IDEA was typically associated with greater

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

16

knowledge of IDEA (Horner et al., 2020; Nored, 2020; Sanders, 2011; Sanders, 2015).
Considering these findings, one would assume that preparation programs and employment
training would focus on providing these learning opportunities for educators. Interestingly, only
one state mandates a special education law course in special education undergraduate programs
(Markelz et al., 2021). So, about half of universities do not require a course related to special
education law, nor do they integrate special education law in any of their course descriptions
(Markelz et al., 2021). On top of that, it is unclear in the research whether school districts
provide professional development to SET focusing on updates to special education law or the
impacts of case law, yet many scholars recommend the need for professional development
(Couvillon et al., 2018; Rosas and Winterman, 2014; Sanders, 2011; Sanders, 2015; Scholl,
2021). These discoveries question the extent to which SET are being prepared to implement the
legal aspects of special education.
Another component related to SET awareness of special education law is how
professional experience might impact their knowledge. Researchers claim that teachers gain
knowledge of special education law through on-the-job experience, district training, or
mentoring (Sanders, 2015; Summers et al., 2021), and if this is true, then SET with more years of
teaching experience would be expected to demonstrate more knowledge. Studies that isolated
this component were inconsistent in their results (Brookshire & Klotz, 2002; Holland, 2016;
Nored, 2020). This is an area that would benefit from further investigation.
To continue, teachers’ perceived knowledge, rather than their actual knowledge, is a focal
point in research on special education legal literacy. Many special educators feel that they have
enough legal literacy to carry out their special education duties, but their performance on special
education knowledge assessments often contradicts those perceptions (Brookshire & Klotz’s,

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

17

2002; Horner et al., 2020; Sanders, 2011; Sanders, 2015; Scholl, 2021). When there are
discrepancies between teachers’ perception and reality of their knowledge, it is possible that
unintentional mistakes will occur. Perceived knowledge and confidence might be a stronger
contributor to SET turnover than their actual knowledge (Brookshire & Klotz, 2002), but the
education of SWD certainly relies on SET having an actual understanding of the processes and
procedures in place.
Research Purpose
The purpose of this mixed-methods study is to examine SET actual knowledge of special
education laws, processes, and procedures using the Assessment of Special Education Legal
Literacy (ASELL) created by Kasey Nored (2020), with permission (See Appendix A). In
addition, this study will investigate SET first-hand experiences that have influenced their
knowledge and inquire about their perceptions related to special education law by using openended questioning techniques. Laws have been put into place over the years and litigation
continues to influence special education at local, state, and national levels. They serve to protect
SWD from unfair treatment and provide them with FAPE, but the continuous number of legal
hearings where school districts do make errors indicates that these laws, processes, and
procedures are not always followed as they are intended. SET are an influencing element in
ensuring that SWD have access to FAPE, yet the few peer-reviewed research studies imply that
their knowledge and preparation is lacking (Brookshire & Klotz, 2002; Holland, 2016; Nored,
2020; Sanders, 2015; Summers et al., 2021). A gap exists because, not only is past research
assessing SET knowledge of special education law limited, but much of the research offers a
restricted inquiry through either quantitative or qualitative designs. There is a need to analyze
this topic by linking and integrating both qualitative and quantitative data so that SET teachers’

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

18

knowledge can be assessed, and their perspectives can be explored. This study aims to contribute
to the short supply of research on this topic to inform preparation programs and school districts
of the training needs, if any, of SET as it relates to laws, processes, and procedures. The
following questions will be answered:
Research Questions
1) What is the practical knowledge of special education laws, processes, and procedures
among special education teachers at school districts in western Pennsylvania?
a. What is the relationship between years of special education teaching experience
and knowledge?
b. Which areas of special education laws, processes, and procedures are special
education teachers the strongest and the weakest?
2) What are special education teachers' perceptions of special education laws, processes, and
procedures?
a. How do special education teachers describe their preparedness to accurately apply
special education laws, processes, and procedures?
b. What training and/or experiences do special education teachers report to have
strengthened their knowledge and preparation for the legalities involved in their
roles?
Significance of the Problem
This mixed methods study aims to contribute to the scarce body of research on SET
knowledge of special education laws, processes, and procedures. An evaluation of this
knowledge can illuminate whether the education of SWD is in jeopardy or if SET lack of
knowledge could be contributing to the increasing number of special education claims suggesting

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

19

violations to the law. Gathering information from SET with varying years of experience in the
field will allow the researcher to assess their knowledge and diverse experiences. It is hoped that
district leaders, as well as colleges and universities, will use the results of this study to better
prepare and support SET with the task of navigating the legal aspects of special education in
order to provide SWD with a better learning experience and retain quality SET in the field of
special education.
Delimitations
Some restrictions were applied to this study to focus the scope of the research. Special
education is a complex and extensive field. As previously stated, all educators must comply with
IDEA regulations. States can also provide more regulations beyond what IDEA expects.
Additionally, some SWD may be protected under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(U.S. Department of Education, 2024), which all educators are also required to implement
accurately. However, to keep this study concise, the research will focus on IDEA only. This also
allows the researcher to use the ASELL survey, which was previously evaluated for validity and
reliability (Nored, 2020).
General education teachers, special education teachers, administrators, paraprofessionals,
and all other educational professionals must be familiar with the laws that safeguard SWD. Even
so, this research will target SET from four school districts only. It is not feasible, given the
conditions of this study, to evaluate all educators from an abundance of school districts across
the country. It was already mentioned that SET are the key contributors to the education of SWD
and are historically under-studied in their knowledge of special education law, which is why they
are the center of this study. Focusing on SET from school districts in western Pennsylvania will

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

20

allow the researcher to gather specific and pertinent information that can be generalized across
the SET population.
Definition of Terms
•

22 PA Code, Chapter 14: Pennsylvania’s state regulations for students with disabilities.
States have to follow IDEA, but also have the authority to require additional regulations.

•

Accommodations: changes that are made to a student’s educational environment that
assist in overcoming barriers related to their identified disability (The IRIS Center, 2010,
Rev. 2018).

•

Due Process: An educational dispute resolution process where a Hearing Officer makes
the decision for the parties (Office for Dispute Resolution, 2024a).

•

Federal District Court: First level of the federal court system. General trial courts of the
federal court system (United States Department of Justice, 2023).

•

Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE): All children ages 3-21 with disabilities have
the right to an education that is reasonably calculated for them to make educational
progress considering their individual circumstances at no cost to the family (Zirkel,
2019).

•

General Education Pre-service Teacher: Candidate in a teacher-preparation program,
majoring in early childhood, middle level, or secondary education (or synonymous
major).

•

General Education Teacher: Educator that provides general education curriculum
instruction in the general education setting. They instruct students without disabilities and
students with disabilities that are included in the general education setting.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW
•

21

Hearing Officer/Impartial Hearing Officer: Decides the dispute for the parties, acting as
the judge (Office for Dispute Resolution, 2024a).

•

Individualized Education Program (IEP): A written legal document for students with
disabilities outlining what the child needs, how the services will be delivered, and by
whom (Johns, 2016).

•

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): The law that guarantees all students
with disabilities have access to a free appropriate public education in their least restrictive
environment and provides funding to states and localities (Hulett, 2009).

•

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): Requirement that students with disabilities must be
educated with students without disabilities in the same setting as much as appropriate for
them to receive a free appropriate public education (Zirkel, 2019).

•

Modification: Changes to what a student learns such as the material, the task, the
curriculum, and/or other expectations (The IRIS Center, 2010, Rev. 2018).

•

Procedural: following specific requirements of the law (Yell, Collins, et al., 2020).

•

Procedural Safeguards/Procedural Safeguards Notice: The state and federal rights of
parents/guardian of a student with a disability. The Procedural Safeguards Notice
describes those rights (Office for Dispute Resolution, 2024b)

•

Professional Development: Training or continuing education for teachers provided by
school districts, colleges/universities, or other educational service providers to support
the growth of the educators.

•

Related Services: Transportation, developmental, corrective, and other supportive
services that a student with a disability might need to have access to a meaningful

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

22

education based on their individual needs (i.e. speech-language pathology, audiology
services, occupational therapy, counseling services, etc.) (IDEA, 2004, 118 STAT. 2657).
•

Special Education Pre-service Teacher: Candidate in a teacher-preparation program,
majoring in the field of special education or dual major of special and general education.

•

Special Education Services: Specially designed instruction created to meet individual
needs of a child with an identified disability.

•

Special Education Teacher: Educator who works directly with students that have a range
of disabilities and facilitates the development and discussion of their IEP. They may also
provide direct, small group or individualized instruction to students with disabilities.

•

Specially Designed Instruction (SDI): Adapting the content, methodology, or delivery of
instruction to the individual needs of a child with a disability who receives special
educations services to support the child in accessing the general curriculum (U.S.
Department of Education, 2017).

•

Substantive: devising a plan that is reasonably calculated to allow a student to receive
educational benefit considering their specific needs (Zirkel & Hetrick, 2016).

•

Supreme Court of the United States: Highest level of the federal court system. Parties can
choose to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after a decision from the circuit courts,
although the Supreme Court is not obligated to hear the case (United States Department
of Justice, 2023).

•

U.S. Court of Appeals/Circuit Courts: Second level of the federal court system. Once a
decision is made in a federal district court case, parties can appeal the case to the U.S.
Court of Appeals, which is divided into 12 circuits based on the region. The decision

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

23

made in the district court will either be affirmed or reversed (United States Department of
Justice, 2023).
Summary of Chapter 1
SWD are entitled to a learning experience that is of no cost to their family and is
individualized to meet their unique needs. IDEA protects SWD and permits them to the
personalized instruction they deserve. Even though this federal law exists, school districts are
frequently exposed of violating the educational rights of SWD. It begs the question of whether
educators implementing these laws actually understand what is expected. This study examines
special education teachers’ knowledge of special education law and evaluates what they describe
as being valuable and adverse to strengthening their understanding of the laws. Because both
quantitative and qualitative data are needed to conduct and compare these evaluations, a mixedmethods approach is used. To conclude, the research on special education teachers’ knowledge
of special education laws, processes, and procedures will be discussed in much greater detail in
Chapter 2 to highlight how special education has evolved, what educators know and feel about
special education law, and how they are prepared to enter and remain in the field of special
education.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

24

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
Introduction
Students with disabilities (SWD) and their families have experienced a long road of
injustices. In the educational system today, SWD are protected by state and federal laws that
guarantee them access to a meaningful education, yet there is continuous evidence that school
districts are failing to properly follow those laws. School districts’ inability to adhere to special
education laws might prevent SWD from finding individual success. In addition, school districts
become susceptible to litigation which might result in financial burdens or broken relationships
with parents and the community. Special education teachers (SET) are at the forefront of
educating and advocating for SWD, but their understanding of the legal rights of SWD might be
unreliable. For teachers with inadequate preparation, experience, or legal literacy, these everchanging special education policies can seem complicated and unclear.
The following review of the literature will include an overview of the history of special
education law and the key components of the current special education policies as stated in
IDEA, 2004. Within these components, case law from various district and circuit courts across
the United States will be analyzed. In addition, this review will describe what past and current
research reveals about stakeholders’ actual knowledge of special education laws, processes, and
procedures as well as their perceived knowledge and confidence. Further, it will analyze the
conditions in which we prepare SET to implement those legal requirements and the implications
they might have on the retention of SET. This literature review will provide background
information to address the following research questions that this study will investigate:

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

25

Research Questions
1) What is the practical knowledge of special education laws, processes, and procedures
among special education teachers at school districts in western Pennsylvania?
a. What is the relationship between years of special education teaching experience
and knowledge?
b. Which areas of special education laws, processes, and procedures are special
education teachers the strongest and the weakest?
2) What are special education teachers' perceptions of special education laws, processes, and
procedures?
a. How do special education teachers describe their preparedness to accurately apply
special education laws, processes, and procedures?
b. What training and/or experiences do special education teachers report to have
strengthened their knowledge and preparation for the legalities involved in their
roles?

History of Special Education Law
Students with disabilities were not always provided with the right to an education. Up
until the 1900s, SWD had very little freedom at all. They were denied an education, were viewed
as inhuman, and were often kept hidden from the world and sent to institutions (Ashbaker, 2011;
Spaulding & Pratt, 2015). It was not until 1975 that SWD were legally granted access to a Free
Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). It is important for educators to understand the
progression of education for SWD. It is possible that the lack of educational rights in history
contributes to distrust and tension between families and school districts. Knowing the

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

26

development of the history of special education law will help educators empathize with families
of SWD.
The transition from institutions to FAPE was not achieved without many trials and
tribulations. In 1954, the Brown v. Board of Education (Brown) ruling held that public schools
must educate black and white students on equal terms, and that racial segregation was
unconstitutional (Ashbaker, 2011 and Spaulding & Pratt, 2015). Although SWD were not the
victors in the Brown decision, the case helped facilitate the ending of segregation for SWD
(Spaulding & Pratt, 2015). Parent advocacy groups began questioning the school systems and
filing lawsuits against school districts for segregating their children with disabilities (Spaulding
& Pratt, 2015). As a result, federal laws were initiated that would eventually legally mandate
FAPE for all children, including those with disabilities.
To begin, congress passed the Expansion of Teaching in the Education of Mentally
Retarded Children Act of 1958. This act provided funds to support the development of
professionals who could train teachers in educating students with mental retardation
(Kleinhammer-Tramill & Fiore, 2003). It should be pointed out that ‘mental retardation’ was the
accepted term at the time, but since the passage of Rosa’s Law in 2010, ‘mental retardation’ has
been replaced by ‘intellectual disabilities’ (Rosa’s Law, 2010). The term ‘intellectual disabilities’
will be used for the remainder of this dissertation when needed. Next, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 was developed to concentrate on underprivileged students and
was amended in 1966 to specifically mention SWD (Wright & Wright, 2004). The Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 provided funding for state and local agencies to initiate,
expand, and improve the educational program for SWD (Wright & Wright, 2004).

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

27

Although legislation was progressing in favor of SWD, there was still no federal law that
ratified SWD the right to FAPE. In a fight towards this goal, two monumental educational cases
took place: Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
(PARC) and Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia (MILLS). The PARC case
disputed over the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s failure to provide students with intellectual
disabilities a free public education by assuming they were uneducable (Ashbaker, 2011 and
Zettel & Ballard, 1979). Zettel and Ballard (1979) and Wright and Wright (2004) explain that the
resolution of PARC required the state to provide SWD access to a free public program of
education suitable to their abilities and most like those without disabilities. Also, parents gained
the right to be informed before any changes were made to their child’s education program.
Likewise, educational placement decisions needed to include a process of parental participation
and a means to resolve disputes. Finally, the settlement advised educational agencies to include
intellectually disabled students in programs most like those without disabilities. Shortly after
PARC, the MILLS case addressed the expulsion and exclusion of SWD from publicly supported
programs due to behaviors, emotionality, and hyperactivity (Zettel & Ballard, 1979). The
judgment was that the District of Columbia was required to re-admit the students or provide an
alternative educational opportunity for them. Although the District of Columbia attempted to
argue that a lack of funds would make that impossible, the court counter-argued that the District
of Columbia would need to reallocate funds to ensure equity (Zettel & Ballard, 1979). In a two
and a half year time span following MILLS and PARC, 46 similar cases occurred across the
country with a majority in favor of SWD (Zettel & Ballard, 1979). This illustrated the need for a
federal mandate that would be applied across all state and local agencies.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

28

Up until that point, legislation aided with educating students with disabilities (SWD),
however, congress finally addressed FAPE by signing the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act (EAHCA) of 1975. EAHCA ensured federal funding and various rights to SWD
including the following: nondiscriminatory evaluations and placement procedures, due process
procedures, services in their least restrictive environment (LRE), a free education, and an
appropriate education with an individualized education program (IEP) (Zettel & Ballard, 1979).
EAHCA was reauthorized multiple times (1983, 1986) and was renamed the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990.
A few changes were noted from the first EAHCA shift to IDEA. First, transition plans
were mandated in SWD individualized education programs (Kleinhammer-Tramill & Fiore,
2003). Kleinhammer-Tramill & Fiore (2003) explain that funding was expanded, assistive
technology devices and services were defined, and autism and traumatic brain injury were
included with the qualifying disability categories. Furthermore, IDEA was then reauthorized in
1997 and was restructured from nine parts to four. It made multiple changes to IEP requirements
and special education procedures, emphasizing SWD participation in the general education
curriculum (U.S. Department of Education, 2020). A few notable changes were the addition of
measurable annual goals to monitor progress, procedures related to student discipline and
behavior, and inclusion in state and district assessments (Yell & Shriner 1997). The amendment
also strengthened the roles of parents. For example, parental consent for reevaluations and
parental participation in placement decisions were added as a requirement (Yell & Shriner 1997).
Additionally, states were mandated to begin offering a voluntary mediation system to families in
attempts to strengthen programing, reduce the stress on the due process system, and create
awareness and acceptance to the public (Yell & Shriner 1997).

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

29

Lastly, IDEA was most recently reauthorized in 2004 as the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), but it is still typically referred to as IDEA (U.S.
Department of Education, 2020). The reauthorization highlighted early intervention for children
that do not qualify for special education services but still demonstrate the need for additional
support. Also, IDEIA (2004) stressed improved outcomes for SWD and put more accountability
on schools for this improvement. Furthermore, it increased certification requirements for
teachers in special education (U.S. Department of Education, 2020). The U.S. Department of
Education has issued a multitude of revised regulations since 2004 including, but not limited to,
the use of research-based interventions, the need to address disproportionality of identification
and exclusion, and language changes. Although there were other court cases and laws that helped
shape the existence of special education today, only the most monumental were detailed and are
visually represented in Figure 1.1 below. The current principles of IDEIA will be explained
further in the next section. It will be referred to as ‘IDEA’ for the remainder of the review.
Figure 1.1
Timeline of Historic Special Education Laws and Court Cases

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

30

Key Principles of IDEA
What are considered the main principles of IDEA vary in the literature (Ashbaker, 2011;
Billingsley et al., 2013; Hulett, 2009; Rodriguez & Murawski, 2020; Sanders, 2015; Zirkel,
2015a). The ASELL survey instrument being used in this study (Appendix B) was categorized
by Nored (2020). These categories include Individualized Education Program Procedural
Requirements, Placement, Child Find, Evaluation, Accommodations, Free and Appropriate
Public Education, and Discipline. Each of these areas will be detailed in this literature review,
however, they will be organized with slight adjustments for the sake of cohesiveness. The key
principles of IDEA that will be addressed and detailed in this review of the literature are as
follows: Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), Child Find, Nondiscriminatory Evaluations,
Individualized Education Programs (IEP), Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), Parental
Participation, and Discipline.
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
The premise of IDEA (2004) is to supply FAPE to SWD between the ages of 3-21.
According to IDEA:
The term ‘free appropriate public education’ means special education and related services
that - (A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction,
and without charge; (B) meet the standards of the State educational agency; (C) include
an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State
involved; and (D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program
required under section 614(d) (IDEA, 2004, 118 STAT. 2653-2654).

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

31

The definition of FAPE has been considered quite ambiguous and has not been changed since the
initial implementation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975 (Yell &
Bateman, 2020). Once FAPE became a legally binding right for SWD, families began filing
lawsuits against schools claiming that their child was being denied FAPE (Yell & Bateman,
2020).
One of the most influential cases interpreting FAPE was in 1982: Board of Education v.
Rowley (Rowley). This was the first special education dispute to appear in the U.S. Supreme
Court. According to Couvillon et al. (2018), Rowley involved a kindergarten student, Amy
Rowley, who was described as bright and academically capable. At the request of Amy’s
parents, the school trialed the use of a sign language interpreter in her class but discontinued the
services as she moved into first grade, despite Amy’s parent’s plea that she could not learn to her
full potential without it. As a result, the family filed for a due process hearing in federal court
focusing on substantive errors in providing FAPE (Couvillon et al., 2018; Yell & Bateman,
2020). Couvillon et al. (2018) continue to explain that the initial ruling was in favor of Amy and
her family, indicating that the school district denied her FAPE, however, the school district
appealed the case. As the case continued, a two-part test was developed to help in making the
decision of whether FAPE was provided to Amy. This test is now referred to as the Rowley test.
The first part of the test asks whether the school district followed the requirements of the law
(procedural), and the second part asks whether the IEP was reasonably calculated to support the
child in receiving educational benefit (substantive). Couvillon et al. (2018) further describe how
it was ultimately decided that the school district provided FAPE by following the procedural
aspects of IDEA and providing individualized instruction with enough support for Amy to
benefit, as she was passing from grade to grade. It was indicated that a child does not necessarily

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

32

need to reach their full potential or receive maximum education services, rather they need basic
opportunities that will provide any benefit (Hulett, 2009 and Yell & Bateman, 2020). Many
courts adopted the principle of ‘merely more than de minimis.’ This means that if a child makes
no progress, they do not meet the standard. Conversely, if a child demonstrates any progress,
even the slightest, the substantive standard is considered met (The IRIS Center, 2019).
The Rowley test was created as a tool to guide future court cases ruling against FAPE,
however, determining what is considered ‘reasonably calculated’ was still not completely clear
(Yell & Bateman, 2020). Fast forward to another pivotal case addressing FAPE: the 2015
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (Endrew). This case helped explain the second part
of the Rowley test. According to Couvillon et al., 2018, the case involved a fourth-grade student,
Endrew, who had autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. His parents filed for a due
process hearing with the claim that he did not make academic or functional progress with his
IEP, which resulted in the parents placing him in a private school. Initially, it was ruled that the
school district provided him FAPE, but the case was appealed and heard by the U.S. Supreme
Court due to the U.S. Court of Appeals’ inability to come to an agreement on the ‘educational
benefit’ aspect of the Rowley test. Couvillon et al., 2018, illustrate how the question remained:
what is the level of educational benefit schools must grant for SWD to be considered FAPE? It
was ruled that the substantive obligation of IDEA would be met if the IEP is reasonably
calculated to assist the student to make appropriate progress considering their circumstances
(Couvillon et al., 2018). As a result, the family prevailed, and the court reversed its decision.
When the Rowley and Endrew cases are taken together, school districts have clearer guidelines to
consider FAPE as procedural and substantive (Couvillon et al., 2018). Even with these strict
guidelines, decisions from the courts have historically declared procedural violations as

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

33

‘harmless errors’ unless the procedural error also interfered with the student’s right to FAPE,
denied educational benefit, or withheld parental participation (Zirkel & Hetrick, 2016).
As can be seen, FAPE is not cut and dry. The ‘free’ and ‘public education’ aspect are
reasonably distinct, however, ‘appropriate’ causes debate due to its subjective nature (Hulett,
2009). There is not a singular definition of FAPE and what level of achievement is appropriate
for every SWD. However, what is appropriate should be determined on a case-by-case basis
depending on the individual student. Since FAPE could be argued as the most important
fundamental educational right offered to SWD, SET must be aware of the procedural and
substantial guidelines set forth in the Rowley test and their legal obligation to meet IDEA’s
expectations when designing and implementing special education services for SWD.
Child Find and Zero Reject
The IDEA (2004) provision, Child Find, obligates school districts to develop a method to
identify, locate, evaluate, and support all SWD who need special education and related services.
Child Find was designed to present services to families of students who were historically ignored
(Zirkel, 2015b). According to Zirkel (2015b), although the Supreme Court has not addressed
Child Find, lower courts have specified the requirements. The criteria include a) acting on
reasonable suspicion and b) garnering consent to evaluate within a reasonable period of time.
Child Find applies to SWD who are homeless, wards of the state, and those attending
private school as well. Typically, SWD attending public schools are first identified by teachers in
the classroom, and those attending private schools are usually found by parents contacting the
school district for support (Rodriguez & Murawski, 2020). IDEA (2004) also states that Child
Find applies to all SWD, regardless of the nature of their disability. This introduces the principle

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

34

of Zero Reject, meaning that school districts can’t deny FAPE to SWD due to the severity of
their disability (Ashbaker, 2011 and Rodriguez & Murawski, 2020). Being that millions of
students were historically excluded from an education (Hulett, 2009), the Zero Reject policy
guarantees that school districts cannot claim a student as ‘uneducable’ and give up on providing
them FAPE (Ladenson, 2005).
Zirkel (2015b) identified an ascending trend in the frequency of Child Find cases over the
last 12 years (at the time of the analysis) with school districts prevailing at a ratio of 2:1. In a
Texas case that made its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit in 2018, Krawietz v.
Galveston Independent School District, the special education hearing officer determined that the
school district failed to meet its Child Find obligation. The hearing officer declared that the 4month delay was unreasonable considering the severity of the student’s declining academic
performance, behavioral challenges, and hospitalization. According to the case report, the district
did not act in evaluating the student until the family applied for due process. The family was
awarded relief of around $70,000 in attorney fees and the district was obligated to design an IEP
for the student which included recommendations for a full evaluation in an attempt to provide the
student with FAPE and academic success. The Krawietz v. Galveston Independent School
District (2018) hearing stresses the importance of understanding and acting on Child Find
responsibilities for the purpose of increasing appropriate student support and decreasing financial
burdens for school districts.
Although much of the legal procedures for Child Find and Zero Reject apply to
administrators and district officials, SWD are most often found and defended by classroom
teachers, whether that be general education teachers (GET) or special education teachers (SET)
in the classroom setting or intervention system (O’Connor et al., 2016; Rodriguez & Murawski,

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

35

2020; Zirkel, 2015b). Zirkel (2015a) described teachers as “initial gatekeepers” (p. 264) in
identifying SWD in the Child Find process. Educators must be aware of their responsibility to
watch for disabilities among their students and follow the district-determined procedures that
make every effort to ensure SWD receive FAPE.
Nondiscriminatory Evaluations
The next key principle of IDEA is the right to a nondiscriminatory evaluation. According
to IDEA (2004), an initial evaluation must occur before special education and related services
can be provided. After a child has been identified by the school district or parent as possibly
having a disability, the student should be referred for an initial evaluation. Parental consent must
be obtained prior to conducting the evaluation and the evaluation must be completed within 60
days of receiving permission. IDEA (2004) states various requirements within the evaluation.
For example, the evaluation must incorporate a multitude of assessments that assess all the
child’s specific areas of educational needs, including information from the parent. Also, no one
method or piece of data can be used to make the determination for special education services.
The assessment material must not be discriminatory or biased in any way, such as the
assessments should be given in the language or mode of communication that would depict the
most accurate results of what the child can and cannot do. Furthermore, all personnel
administering or evaluating any type of assessment must be trained and knowledgeable. The
over-arching goal of the evaluation is to determine the student’s present levels of academic,
behavioral, and functional capabilities (Hulett, 2009).
Once all assessment methods are completed in the evaluation, determination of eligibility
and educational needs must be made. To be eligible for special education and related services,
the student must meet two requirements. The first is to qualify for at least one of the 13 disability

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

36

categories: autism, deaf-blindness, deafness, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment,
intellectual disability, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment,
specific learning disability, speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury, and visual
impairment (National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities, 2012). The second
part in determining eligibility is the educational needs of the child within the general education
curriculum (IDEA, 2004).
Reevaluations follow the same grounds as evaluations, aside from a few differences.
IDEA (2004) states that a reevaluation must be conducted for students already receiving special
education services once every three years but not more than once a year to assess whether SWD
continue to qualify for special education and related services or if their needs have changed. If it
is determined that a reevaluation is necessary sooner, then a reevaluation should be initiated
following the same procedures as described for initial evaluations. Approaching the time of the
three-year requirement, existing data should be reviewed, and if it is determined between the
school district and the parent that a reevaluation is not necessary to determine continued
eligibility, then the assessment should not be conducted. Some states have additional
requirements than what IDEA delegates. For example, Pennsylvania mandates that students with
intellectual disabilities be reevaluated at least every two years, with no option to waive the
revelation (22 Pa. Code § 14.124, 2024). The evaluation component of IDEA (2004) illustrates
how educators must also be aware of the specific, stricter requirements set forth in their state.
A California school district was held liable for denying a student an appropriate nondiscriminatory evaluation in the case of J.R. v. Ventura Unified School District (2023). In this
situation, the student received services for reading as well as speech and language deficits within
the district over a nine-year period. The issue, however, was that the student had various

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

37

documented symptoms of Autism over those nine years, yet the student was never evaluated for
Autism or pragmatic learning difficulties. The student eventually received an official diagnosis
of Autism when privately assessed. As a result of the district’s inadequate evaluations, the IEP
was not reasonably calculated to meet the student’s specific needs in order to make progress. It
was ruled that the district failed to assess the student in all areas of suspected disability per IDEA
(2004) requirements which ultimately denied the student FAPE (J.R. v. Ventura Unified School
District, 2023). Yell, Katsiyannis, Ennis, et al. (2016) emphasize the importance of assessing all
identified areas of need for a child, not just disability categories. The Ventura Unified School
District should have followed these principles in the multiple reevaluations that were conducted
during the student’s time in the district.
SET must be knowledgeable of the non-discriminatory evaluation process of IDEA for many
reasons. An accurate and comprehensive assessment is the foundation of program development
for SWD, so if the evaluation is incomplete or inaccurate, the IEP will be insufficient and fail to
provide the student with FAPE (Yell, Katsiyannis, Ennis, et al., 2016). In terms of being
complete, SET must work together with other evaluation team members to ensure all necessary
assessments have been conducted during the assessment process within the required time frame
and are entered into the evaluation (Yell, Katsiyannis, Ennis, et al., 2016).
Individualized Education Program (IEP)
After a SWD is determined eligible to receive special education and related services
based on an initial evaluation and in agreement with the parent, the school district will meet and
write an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for the child. In simplest terms, the IEP can be
explained as “an agreement between school district personnel and the parents and student about
what the child needs, how the services will be delivered, and by whom” (Johns, 2016, p. 46). The

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

38

IEP is crucial to the education of SWD, and has been considered the centerpiece and legal
roadmap of educational delivery for them (Hulett, 2009; Yell, Collins, et al., 2020).
Procedural IEP Requirements
Due to the importance of the IEP, IDEA (2004) includes a multitude of procedural
constraints that school districts must follow (Yell, Collins, et al., 2020). Specific requirements
are described below.
Components of the IEP: IDEA (2004) requires that a student’s IEP must include a
statement of the SWD present level of academic achievement and functional performance;
measurable annual goals; a description of how the goals will be measured and how often reports
of that progress will be provided to the parents; the research-based special education services,
supplementary aids and services, and program modifications as well as the related services and
supports for school personnel; an explanation of the degree in which the child will not participate
with nondisabled peers in the regular education classroom (if applicable); state and district
assessment accommodations/ alternative assessments (if applicable); the projected date for the
start, anticipated frequency, location, and duration of such services; and transition services (when
appropriate). IEPs may also include behavior plans, extended school year, or service plans
depending on the student’s need. IDEA (2004) also requires that an IEP contains a description of
the type or types of support(s) that the student will receive (i.e. Autistic Support, Emotional
Support, Learning Support, etc.).
IEP Team Members: According to IDEA (2004), the IEP team is composed of the
parents of the SWD; at least one general education teacher if the child does or might participate
in the general education curriculum; at least one SET or provider; a Local Education Agency
representative that provides/supervises the specially designed instruction, knows the general

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

39

education curriculum, and knows about the resources that are available; an individual who is
qualified to interpret and discuss evaluation results (could be considered a previously mentioned
member); any other individual who is knowledgeable on the SWD, including related service
providers; and the SWD (when appropriate).
Parental Involvement: In IDEA (2004), parental involvement is emphasized. In terms of
the IEP process, parental consent is required to initiate an IEP meeting as well as when making
any changes to the IEP. The IEP can be revised without holding an actual meeting as long as the
parent and school district agree and document the amendment in writing. Furthermore, no special
education or related services can be revised, and placements cannot be altered without consent
from the parent. Parental involvement will be described in greater detail later in this review.
Timelines: The IEP team must meet and write the IEP no later than 30 days after an
initial evaluation or reevaluation. Reviews of the IEP must occur no less than annually but
should be initiated sooner if determined necessary by the IEP team. Some states also mandate
additional timeline requirements for IEP procedures. For example, according to 22 Pa. Code §
14.1313 (2024), the IEP must be implemented no later than 10 school days after its completion
but should be implemented sooner if possible.
Procedural Case Law: In a 2017 comprehensive systematic analysis of 132 court cases
with 268 rulings related to IEP procedural violations, Zirkel and Hetrick (2016) found that
procedural violations in parent participation occurred most frequently in due process hearings,
specifically predetermination. Following parent participation, common errors were in IEP
components, IEP development, and IEP team, respectively. Although school districts prevailed
in a 3:1 ratio, this information illustrates certain procedural requirements of the IEP process
where school districts and SET might be less fundamentally sound.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

40

A case heard in Pennsylvania, S.F. v. East Allegheny School District, highlights how
procedural violations can result in a denial of FAPE. The district failed to document or provide
the family with any type of understandable progress monitoring data on the student’s IEP goals.
Additionally, the district made unilateral changes in the student’s IEP which included re-setting
the annual IEP chronology. This made the ability to monitor the student’s progress impossible
and invalid. By doing so, the district also denied the parents the right to participate in changing
the IEP. The hearing officer determined that these actions were significant procedural violations
that resulted in a substantial denial of FAPE. The family prevailed and were awarded 400 hours
of compensatory education for the multitude of errors made by the district.
Substantive IEP Requirements
In addition to following the procedural requirements of IDEA, the IEP must be relevant
and appropriate to the child (Yell, Katsiyannis, Ennis, et al., 2016). As mentioned previously, the
substantive aspect of IDEA requires that the contents of the students IEP must be reasonably
calculated to support the student in significant learning, with programming that is appropriately
challenging based on their individual needs. Since IDEA is very specific about the content of the
IEP, procedural and substantive components typically go together (Yell, Collins, et al., 2020).
The most important areas, nonetheless the ones that demonstrate the most difficulty, are
suggested to be the present level of academic achievement and functional performance,
measurable annual goals and monitoring of progress, and special education and related services
(Blackwell & Rossetti, 2014 and Yell, Collins, et al., 2020). These will be explained in greater
detail below.
Present level of academic achievement and functional performance: IDEA (2004)
requires a SWD present levels of academic achievement and related developmental needs to be

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

41

described in the IEP. Specifically, there must be information that describes how the child’s
disability affects their involvement and progress in the general education curriculum.
Furthermore, all needs of the child, including academic, behavioral, social, and/or functional
should be assessed and described (The IRIS Center, 2019 and Yell, Katsiyannis, Ennis, et al.,
2016). The remaining components of the IEP should connect to the present level of academic
achievement and functional performance, so it is essential that this information is in-depth and
accurate. The Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN, 2018)
provides guiding questions for SET to consider when developing the present level of academic
achievement and functional performance section of the IEP. These questions tell SET to do the
following: include current and relevant data (i.e. instructional and grade level assessments,
progress towards goals, input from teachers, state assessment results, parental input, strengths,
needs); foster parental involvement; provide data that explains how the child’s disability impacts
their participation in the general education setting; and use language that is clear and easily
understood. Failing to develop a present level of academic achievement and functional
performance that incorporates these details could result in a legally non-compliant and
ineffective IEP for the SWD.
IEP Goals and Monitoring Progress: The needs that are identified in the present level of
academic achievement and functional performance should be addressed in measurable, annual
goals that are clear and ambitious. According to Hulett (2009), common errors made in the
creation of IEP goals are that they are too broad, therefore, not measurable. Some districts follow
guidelines when writing IEP goals such as including the condition/setting, student name, target
behavior, criterion, and timeframe (Capizzi, 2008; The IRIS Center, 2019; Yell, Katsiyannis,
Ennis, et al., 2016). By using this method, the issue of non-measurable and vague goals should

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

42

be reduced. Hulett (2009) also indicates that IEP goals are sometimes not linked to the present
level of academic achievement and functional performance, meaning they forgo critical needs or
include needs that were not mentioned. It is recommended that one goal is written for each area
of need described in the present level of academic achievement and functional performance
(Capizzi, 2008), and then goals and present level of academic achievement and functional
performance should be compared (Hulett, 2009). This strategy will confirm that each need is
represented as a measurable, annual goal. Measuring student growth is how districts can verify
whether a student is receiving educational benefits. IDEA (2004) requires that districts collect
data on students IEP goals and provide periodic reports of that progress to the parent. For this to
be possible, data must be collected on the students IEP goals and documented accordingly.
Special Education Services: As described in IDEA (2004), this section of the IEP must
include statements related to the research-based special education and related services and
supplementary aids and services that will be given to the child, as well as the program
modifications or support for school personnel. IDEA (2004) specifies that these services should
be constructed to illustrate what will be done to assist the SWD in progressing towards their IEP
goals, help them improve in the general education curriculum, and increase their participation
with non-disabled peers. Yell, Katsiyannis, Ennis, et al. (2016) suggest that there are four
essential substantial pieces in this section of the IEP. The first being that the special education
services should align with the present level of academic achievement and functional
performance. The purpose is for these services to assist the child in achieving their
individualized goals, which are based on the present level of academic achievement and
functional performance. Also, the frequency, duration, and location should be explicitly stated.
Moreover, the services should be based on peer-reviewed research. Finally, the services should

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

43

be implemented as they are defined in the IEP with fidelity (Yell, Katsiyannis, Ennis, et al.,
2016).
Substantive Case Law: An important element of substantive IEP requirements is the need
for peer-reviewed research-based programming (IDEA, 2004). Yell, Katsiyannis, Losinski, et al.
(2016) provide an analysis of an impactful case that challenged this component of IDEA: Ridley
School District v. M.R and J.R. ex rel. E.R. (2012). According to Yell, Katsiyannis, Losinski, et
al. (2016), even though the case was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and
could only apply mandates to Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, the decision made in this
case would likely impact other states and their court decisions due to its well-reasoned, legally
sound, and persuasive nature. Yell, Katsiyannis, Losinski, et al. (2016) explain that the case
reached legal counsel because the parents and school district disagreed about the validity of
research behind the reading program provided to the student. In the initial due process hearing,
the impartial hearing officer found that the reading program proposed by the district was not
supported by peer-reviewed research, therefore, denied the student FAPE. After an appeal by the
school district, the federal district court judge overturned the impartial hearing officer’s decision,
stating that the reading program was appropriate and based on research. Finally, the parents
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and they agreed with the district
court that the reading program was research-based and adequate. The court considered what
reading research supported and found it to be in line with the reading program offered by the
district. This was impactful because the court did not make any concrete requirements on what is
considered a satisfactorily peer-reviewed service, rather they declared that the appropriateness of
an IEP should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with regards to the research (Yell,
Katsiyannis, Losinski, et al., 2016). A few valid points made by Yell, Katsiyannis, Losinski, et

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

44

al. (2016) include that school districts should use this court decision to make certain that the
programming they are offering to SWD support peer-reviewed research in the domain they are
intended to service. Additionally, the authors suggest that if a parent advocates for a service that
is not research-based, the school must be able to inform the parent about the value of the IDEA
requirement and defend the research behind any proposed services. Most importantly, when
providing any service to SWD, it is essential to monitor their progress so that school districts can
verify that the student is receiving meaningful educational benefit with the interventions in place.
IEP Implementation
Not only must special educators meet procedural and substantive requirements of the
IEP, but they are also responsible for the implementation requirements (Yell, Bateman, et al.,
2020). Once a student’s IEP is agreed upon by the IEP team, it should be implemented within the
legal timeline. The IEP should describe who is responsible for delivering the services to the
child, where, when, and how often.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed IEP implementation (Yell, Bateman, et al.,
2020), however, some courts have declared that failing to implement the IEP as specifically
written is a denial of FAPE no matter what, whereas others have sided with the notion that as
long as the deviation is not a harmful loss to the child, it is not a serious violation (Zirkel, 2022).
Yell, Bateman, et al. (2020) analyzed three IEP implementation cases that reached the U.S. Court
of Appeals in various circuits: Houston Independent School District v. Bobby R. (2005), Neosho
R-V School District v. Clark (2003), Van Duyn v. Baker School District (2007). For the most
part, the standard set from these cases is that school districts do have some leeway in
implementing an IEP, but all significant elements of the IEP must be provided. Although this is
the consensus, the judge in the Van Duyn case expressed their belief that the courts should not

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

45

decide what is considered a material failure in IEP implementation. According to this judge, the
IEP that is agreed upon by the IEP team represents the student’s FAPE, therefore, if it is not
implemented to the student as described, the district is failing to provide the student FAPE. Yell,
Bateman, et al. (2020) conclude that regardless of these decisions in the courts, implementing a
procedurally and substantively strong IEP can ensure no potential legal repercussions or
education damages.
IEP summary
It is vital that SET are knowledgeable of the laws, processes, and procedures that relate to
the IEP. Because of the importance of the IEP, it is typically in the spotlight of due process
hearings (Yell, Katsiyannis, Ennis, et al., 2016) and errors in the IEP can be detrimental to a
student’s FAPE. Although procedural violations are sometimes considered harmless errors, they
might result in the denial of FAPE, impede the parents right to meaningfully participate, and
hinder the child’s progress (Yell et al., 2008; Zirkel & Hetrick, 2016). Substantive requirements
remain a challenge. In a literature review by Blackwell and Rossetti (2014), various studies have
found that districts have a difficult time creating IEPs with appropriate present levels of
academic achievement and functional performance, supports, services, and goals that aid in the
student participating in the general education curriculum. SET and administrators employ
significant control over the contents of the IEP and what happens at the IEP meeting (Blackwell
& Rossetti 2014), consequently, they should be well-informed of the procedural, substantive, and
implementation requirements of IEPs to ensure students receive FAPE and districts are
complying with IDEA.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

46

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
IDEA (2004) declares that school districts must ensure that SWD are educated with nondisabled students “to the maximum extent appropriate” (118 STAT. 2677). The law continues to
explain that special classes or other alternative placements should only occur if the student’s
disability is severe enough to the extent that placement in general education classes or settings
with the use of special education services is not educationally possible. Parents of SWD must be
included in determining the LRE. The United States education system has progressed
significantly in educating SWD in the same setting as children who are nondisabled. The
National Center for Education Statistics (2023) reports that in 1989 only about 32% of SWD
were instructed in the general education classroom for 80% or more of their day, about 38%
were instructed in the general education classroom for 40-70% of their day, and about 25% were
instructed in the general education classroom for less than 40% of their day. Moving forward to
2022, about 67% were instructed in the general education classroom for 80% or more of their
day, 16% for 40-70% of their day, and 13% for less than 40% of their day. This suggests that
school districts are making additional efforts to educate SWD with their non-disabled peers more
often, improving their adherence to LRE policies.
Despite this improvement, there are still some uncertainties surrounding LRE in IDEA.
Marx et al. (2014) shares that a common misconception amongst educators is that the LRE is
always the general education setting. Although IDEA does favor the general education setting to
the maximum extent, it still mandates an appropriate education based on the student’s unique
needs, therefore LRE is different for each child. IDEA (2004) requires districts to offer a
continuum of alternative placements. These include general education classes, special classes,
special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions. When discussing

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

47

the LRE for SWD as an IEP team, Marx et al. (2014) suggests beginning with the general
education setting. If that is determined unsatisfactory, then IEP teams should progress through
the continuum of services one step at a time and without jumping to more restrictive
environments. A crucial factor is that each environment must be considered with the use of
special education and related services. Additional considering factors are presented in a policy
letter shared by the U.S. Department of Education (2019). It explains that when determining the
LRE for a SWD, it should not be based primarily on characteristics such as the student’s
qualifying disability category, the availability of services and space, the arrangement of an
established program, or administrative convenience. For example, a child should not
automatically be placed in an autistic support classroom for instruction based on the singular
factor that they qualify for special education services under the disability category of autism.
LRE should be determined on a case-by-case basis and reflect the use of supplementary support
and services in the general education setting. Special education teachers must have enough
knowledge of LRE to navigate these conversations with IEP teams and make appropriate
recommendations for SWD. All in all, school districts must provide FAPE in the LRE.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not heard a case focused on LRE that provides school
districts with a general method of determining a student’s LRE, however, there are a few
commonly known best practices that have resulted from Circuit Court case findings heard across
the country (Rozalski et al., 2010). Marx et al., 2014, explain that the three most generally
known practices are the Roncker Portability Test, the Daniel Two-Part Test, and the Rachel H.
Four-Factor Test. The Rachel H. Four-Factor Test will be described in detail to illustrate LRE
guidelines. In Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel H. (1994), the family of an 11year-old student challenged the school district when the district proposed she be placed in special

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

48

education classes for academic time and in regular education classes for non-academic time.
During litigation, the circuit court molded a four-part test to determine whether the district
followed IDEA regulations on LRE. The questions to consider were 1) the educational benefits
of the special education setting compared to the general education setting, 2) the social benefits
of the special education setting compared to the general education setting, 3) the effect on the
other students and teachers in the general education setting, and 4) the costs of the general
education placement. The district and circuit courts agreed that Rachel would have academic and
social benefit, would not have a negative effect on the teacher or other students, and the support
necessary would not be at an unrealistic cost to the district. This means that the decision was in
favor of the family and the school district was required to place Rachel back in the general
education setting. Even though this case was heard prior to the authorization of IDEA (2004), it
illustrates how the law favors educating students in the general education setting as much as
possible. Different circuits have also determined various tests and guidance to follow when
determining LRE based on case law, and again, the over-arching IDEA principal remains that
SWD must be educated to the maximum extent possible with their non-disabled peers.
SET understanding the flexibility of LRE is critical for the sake of students and school
districts. As can be seen, there is a lot to be interpreted when making decisions about a student’s
LRE. SET will often be put in the position of interpreting and guiding IEP teams on the
legislation, regulation, and case law that relate to LRE (Marx et al., 2014). Because of this, there
is an obvious need for SET to have accurate and insightful knowledge of the legal bearings of
LRE.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

49

Parental Participation
Families are granted protections under IDEA through procedural safeguards. Central to
these safeguards is a parent’s right to participate in their child’s education, specifically with
decision making (Ashbaker, 2011). Including detailed guidelines for parental participation was
determined necessary due to the number of children being placed using exclusionary practices
without considering parents’ wishes prior to the passage of IDEA (Ashbaker, 2011; Osborne,
1995). Some of the major rights of parents in IDEA (2004) include an opportunity for the parent
to view all related educational records; the right for parents to participate and include input in all
meetings with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child;
the ability for parents to request an evaluation/reevaluation or an independent evaluation;
requiring parental consent to evaluate and begin services; provide a prior written notice to the
parents in order to add or deny any services related to the identification, evaluation, or placement
of the child with an explanation of the proposed action, reasons for the proposed action, the data
used as a basis for the proposal, and other factors considered by the IEP team including why they
were rejected; provide a procedural safeguards notice once a year or whenever an initial
evaluation is proposed/requested, when a complaint is filed, or when the parents request a copy.
To continue, IDEA (2004) requires states to inspect and document the percent of parents
of SWD who receive special education services that perceive that their child’s school facilitated
their involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities
through Indicator 8. By doing so, IDEA is setting clear expectations about fostering cooperative
relationships with parents. When analyzing the Pennsylvania’s State Performance Plan Annual
Reports from the 2013-2020 federal fiscal year, Pennsylvania only met its target for this
indicator three out of eight times, or 37.5%, for parents of school-aged children. The average

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

50

percentage of parents that reported that their child’s school did facilitate their involvement was
41.8% (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2023). These reports reveal that over half of
Pennsylvania parents of SWD do not feel that their child’s school adequately involved them in
their child’s educational programing in a meaningful way, suggesting room for improvement.
Response to Indicator 8 surveys and evidence of a rising number of due processes
complaints can demonstrate parental dissatisfaction, but in reviewing the literature, parent
perspectives are mixed when it comes to meaningful participation in their child’s education.
In a study of over 40 parents of SWD by Gershwin et al. (2022), parents felt excluded throughout
the IEP process. Comparable feelings were found when Kurth et al. (2020) elicited the
perspectives of parents of students with autism. Many parents expressed frustrations about not
having the chance to provide or have their input considered. One described it as, “The school just
seems to have taken over… it is expected of me to show up and agree” (p. 42). Similarly, 55% of
parents of SWD in a study conducted by Fish (2008) expressed the need to have more
contribution in IEP meetings. These results contradict the parental involvement standards set in
IDEA and question whether school districts are truly meeting the expected standard. Even
though these studies portray concerning practices, most of the participants in Fish’s 2008 study
did report positive experiences throughout the IEP process with the feeling that their input was
valued. Correspondingly, most of the parents believed that teachers were knowledgeable enough
on special education law. This highlights the value of educators being proficient in special
education law to promote an effective IEP process (Fish, 2008).
In a 2017 comprehensive systematic analysis of 132 court cases with 268 rulings related
to IEP procedural violations, Zirkel and Hetrick (2016) found that procedural violations in parent
participation occurred most frequently in due process hearings. In the case, Doug C. v. State of

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

51

Hawaii Dep’t of Educ. (2013), parental participation was at the forefront of the discussion. In
this situation, the father of a SWD and the school district went back and forth on scheduling a
date for the IEP meeting. The father had fallen ill and attempted to reschedule, but the school
district could not accommodate the day that the parent had suggested. After more deliberation
about when to hold the IEP meeting, the district moved forward with running the meeting
without the father and changed the placement of the student to an entirely new school. The IEP
team, including the father, then held a follow-up meeting to review the IEP that was already
completed, but the father expressed that he did not agree with the IEP and the new placement of
the student. The district did not change any of the IEP during or after this meeting, so the parent
kept his child at his original placement at his own expense while filing a due process claim. The
district court decided that the student was not denied FAPE and IDEA’s parental participation
requirements were followed appropriately. The father appealed this decision where the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit then reversed that decision, stating that IDEA was
violated for holding the student’s IEP meeting without the participation of the parent. The
deciding factor was that the parent was not refusing to attend, as he was making diligent efforts
to reschedule the meeting in order to participate. The father earned the opportunity for tuition
reimbursement from the circuit court’s decision. Even though special education has mandated
timelines, the courts typically favor parental participation over meeting a strict deadline. This is
extremely important for SET to understand and is highlighted in the circuit court’s judgement.
SET must recognize the procedural requirements for including parents in the education of
their children and apply it into practice. The research and due process hearing provided above
suggest that school districts are falling short in this area. Although procedural errors don’t
always affect the appropriateness of a SWD education, procedural errors that have resulted in a

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

52

denial of parent’s rights and participation have not been tolerated in litigation (Osborne, 1995).
IDEA (2004) clearly identifies that, not only is meaningful parental involvement legally
necessary, but it can also make a SWD education more effective. SET need to be aware of the
procedures explicitly stated in IDEA and facilitate sincere, collaborative experiences. By
fostering meaningful parental participation and decision making, school districts can enhance
SWD education programs while decreasing the need for parents to take legal action (Fish, 2008).
Discipline
It was conveyed previously that SWD were historically excluded due to the demands of
their disabilities. SWD have also been disproportionately excluded due to disciplinary issues
when compared to their non-disabled peers. For example, during the 2015–2016 school year,
27% percent of students receiving in-school suspensions, 35% of students receiving out of school
suspensions, and 32% of students sent to an alternative placement were SWD. However, only
12.4% of U.S. students received special education services during that school year (Civil Rights
Data Collection, as cited in Grasley-Boy et al., 2019). As can be seen, the amount of special
education students receiving suspension was not proportional to the number of students receiving
special education services. This alludes to the suggestion that SWD are not receiving equitable
consequences. Because of this, IDEA attempts to provide clear procedures for school districts to
follow when considering disciplinary action for SWD. A common misconception is that SWD
cannot be disciplined to the same extent as their non-disabled peers (Hulett, 2009). IDEA does
not provide immunity to SWD, rather, it requires school districts to thoroughly evaluate the root
of the behavior and consider the consequences being assigned to the child.
To illustrate, IDEA (2004) states that SWD who violate a code of student conduct can be
assigned an alternative placement (i.e. an appropriate interim alternative educational setting,

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

53

another setting, or school suspension) for no more than 10 consecutive school days or 10
cumulative days if they constitute a pattern of removal. In Pennsylvania, anything more than 15
cumulative school days in a school year is considered a pattern so as to be deemed a change in
educational placement (22 Pa. Code § 14.143, 2024). If this threshold is met, school districts
must provide educational services to the student to ensure that they are receiving FAPE,
beginning with a manifestation determination meeting. The purpose of a manifestation
determination meeting is to evaluate and decide whether the student's behavior was caused by or
is directly related to their disability or if their behavior was a direct result of a school district’s
failure to implement the student’s IEP. If it is found that the behavior is not a manifestation of
the student's disability, the student can be disciplined in the same way a student without a
disability would, given the violation of school policy. If it is decided that the behavior was
indeed a manifestation of the student’s disability, then the student cannot be suspended or
expelled, a functional behavior assessment must be conducted, and a positive behavior support
plan should be implemented. If one was already in place, it should be reviewed and revised. The
student should return to their previous placement if the IEP team agrees that this continues to be
their LRE.
In special cases, IDEA (2004) permits school districts to unilaterally change the
placement of a SWD to an interim alternative educational setting, without consideration of the
behavior being a manifestation of their disability, for no more than 45 school days if the
following situations occur: the student brings a weapon to school or at a school function; the
student knowingly possesses, uses, or sells illegal drugs on school premises or at a school
function; or if the student causes serious bodily injury to another person while on school
premises or at a school function.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

54

In a recent case heard in Pennsylvania regarding discipline, O.R. v. Philadelphia City
School District (2023), a hearing officer found that Philadelphia City School District failed to
appropriately conduct a manifestation determination meeting, or manifestation determination
review. In this case, the SET led the manifestation determination review. It was decided that the
meeting did not include an adequate review of available information concerning the student’s
disability, specifically mental health treatment and student medications. The information was
previously known to some team members, but not discussed and considered at the meeting,
leaving some team members inadequately aware of the student’s needs. Furthermore, the
manifestation determination review did not explore the critical question as to whether the
incidents directly resulted from the district’s failure to implement the IEP. The hearing officer
ruled in favor of the family, ordering the manifestation determination review decision to be
reversed, the district to hold an IEP meeting, the student to remain at their current placement, and
for a reevaluation to be initiated to include a functional behavior assessment.
Discipline of SWD is one of the most controversial areas of IDEA (Hulett, 2009). The
court hearing described above illustrates how errors in following the federal regulations can
result in damages to students and districts. Although IDEA (2004) supports case-by-case
determinations, the procedural guidelines are explicit. SET play a major role in the overall
process of these procedures; therefore, their knowledge of the legal regulations is a necessity.
Stakeholder Knowledge
Special education is the most litigated segment of education and has not slowed down
(CADRE, 2025; Zirkel, 2015a; Zirkel and Hetrick, 2016; Zirkel and Karanxha, 2024).
Maintaining current knowledge and understanding of special education laws, processes, and
procedures is important for SET, GET, and school administrators (Zirkel, 2022). As can be seen

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

55

by the summaries of the components of IDEA (2004) and case law described above, special
education regulations can be complex and confusing (Zirkel, 2019), and if school personnel are
unprepared to explain and implement these regulations, they are putting the district at risk for
legal repercussion and parent dissatisfaction. In addition to this, and most importantly, a SWD’s
education relies on the school district’s ability to do so. Since IEP teams must include at least the
LEA, parent, GET, and SET, the following sections will analyze what the current literature
reveals about these stakeholders’ knowledge of special education laws, processes, and
procedures.
School Principals
School administrators, or principals, are typically utilized as the legally required Local
Education Agency (LEA) on a student’s IEP team. As stated previously in this review, the LEA
has a legal obligation in an IEP meeting when it comes to a student’s educational programming.
Not only this, but principals also handle other legally safeguarded areas of SWD education (i.e.
discipline). Casale et al. (2021) conducted a scoping review to collect and interpret data on
principals’ knowledge of IDEA. The review represented 11 states and over 1,500 school
principals. They found that, on average, principals were not able to accurately answer questions
related to special education laws and procedures. Scores averaged around the 70% mark, which
can be compared to a score of a ‘C’ in academia. Additionally, Casale et al. (2021) review of
literature demonstrated that around half of principals reported having taken no formal special
education courses and lacking confidence in their ability to apply special education knowledge.
Roberts and Guerra (2017) also found that principals reported needing more training in special
education law. According to Casale et al. (2021), principals’ knowledge of special education law

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

56

is understudied, however, the data that exists suggests that principals cannot be relied on to
accurately apply the laws, processes, and procedures surrounding special education.
Parents
It has already been noted that special education law can be ambiguous and complex for
educators. Considering how most families are not experts in education, it amplifies how
overwhelming and confusing the special education legal process as well as the documents
involved can be for parents (Gershwin et al., 2022). Rosas and Winterman (2014) evaluated the
readability level of IEPs and other informational handbooks provided by state departments of
education. The researcher discovered that the mean grade level for IEPs was 12.85 and the mean
grade level for handbooks/materials was 13.58. This study concluded that 87% of the adult
population would not have the skills to read, understand, and actively participate in contributing
to IEP documents. Because of this, SET should be knowledgeable enough to explain the process
in a way that parents understand rather than using unfamiliar terminology and intricate
descriptions (Fish, 2008). Although this information does not conclude that all parents of SWD
would not be able to understand the documents, it does put additional pressure on school districts
and SET to adequately explain the contents of IEPs, procedural safeguards, and other related
legal documents to parents so that the legal participation of the parent and success of the child
are enhanced.
General Education Teachers (GET)
As mentioned previously, teachers are usually the first to identify SWD in need of
services. Also, since close to 70% of SWD participate in the general education setting for 80%
more of their day (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023), GET often have to participate
in the IEP process and implement a large number of the accommodations and modifications in a

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

57

students’ IEP. Because of this, it is imperative that they have a solid foundation of special
education laws, processes, and procedures. In reviewing the limited number of studies that
analyze GET knowledge of the legal components of special education, they do not demonstrate
adequate understanding of such.
In a 2016 study conducted by O’Connor and colleagues, their goal was to examine GET
level of knowledge of special education laws. Their investigation included 58 GET with five or
fewer years of experience. The research indicated that only 43% of the GET surveyed were able
to demonstrate a general understanding of IDEA when asked to explain the main provisions/
benefits. When asked specific questions about IDEA, 26% believed that IEPs only include
information about students’ educational goals, 36% didn’t realize that specific learning disability
determination must consider the qualification of the teacher providing the instruction, and 85%
thought that observations were required to be conducted by the child’s teacher. These results,
even though they may seem minimal, uncover the reality of how little GET understand about
special education law. Additional research connected to GET will be intertwined with SET in the
next section.
Special Education Teachers (SET)
Most literature pertaining to teachers’ knowledge of special education policies is based on
their perceptions, especially SET. Of the few pieces of peer-reviewed literature that did analyze
teachers’ actual knowledge, most either combined GET and SET and/or were done with preservice teachers. Although a dissertation by Holland (2016) analyzed a group of South Carolina
SET knowledge of IEP development and implementation, not one peer-reviewed research study
was located that analyzed only SET actual knowledge of special education law, processes, and
procedures. The following review of research depicts the studies that included SET to any extent,

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

58

therefore, some of the results and analysis will pertain to GET and other education professionals
as well.
To begin, Brookshire and Klotz (2002) investigated GET and SET knowledge of special
education laws, policies, and procedures of 355 teachers in one state by presenting them with
scenarios and asking them to determine whether they were compliant or a violation. When
comparing SET and GET scores in components of IDEA, SET had significantly higher scores in
related services, appropriate evaluations, and zero tolerances. There were no significant
differences in their scores for LRE, procedural safeguards, and IEPs. In fact, GET had higher
scores in parental participation, but SET scored higher in all other components of IDEA. The
lowest scores for SET and GET were in IEPs and LRE, respectfully. Although it is expected that
SET scores would be higher than GET, it is concerning that SET lowest scores were in relation
to IEPs, which are such an important component in a child’s education and SET contribute
significantly to their development and implementation. It is necessary to draw attention to the
fact that this study was published in 2002, prior to the most recent reauthorization of IDEA
(2004), which enhanced qualifications for SET.
In another study, Sanders (2015) issued a questionnaire to GET and SET from one state to
investigate what knowledge teachers hold with respect to special education policies and
procedures. They questioned a total of 111 teachers with varying years of experience. There were
88 GET and 22 SET in the sample. The researchers used a t-test analysis to compare
participants’ actual scores to a knowledge composite score reflecting 75% accuracy on the
assessment as the target. The results revealed that the teachers’ scores were significantly lower
than the 75% accuracy mark, representing that their knowledge of special education laws,
processes, and procedures is not accurate. Together the participants scored lowest on questions

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

59

regarding parental participation and LRE. The SET demonstrated significantly more accurate
knowledge of special education policies and practices than GET, but again, the overall scores
were still alarmingly low, even for SET.
In a dissertation, Holland (2016) researched SET teachers from South Carolina on their
working and practical knowledge of IDEA, specifically IEP development and implementation.
The author created scenarios and asked participants to answer ‘yes/no’ as to whether the action
taken was compliant or non-compliant, then explain why. Overall, the SET were 60% accurate in
identifying the correct ‘yes/no’ responses to the scenarios. When analyzing the participants openended responses, about 58% of the correct responses also included an accurate legal explanation.
Furthermore, the author compared scores with participant’s demographic responses (area of
certification, years of teaching, degree held, previous litigation). There was not a significant
difference in scores based on any of the demographics targeted in this study. Holland (2016) is
one of the only studies that analyzed SET actual knowledge of a component of IDEA (IEPs). Not
only is the 60% accuracy on ‘yes/no’ questions concerning, but also the finding that only about
half of those participant that selected the correct answers could explain why is also troublesome.
It was mentioned in Chapter 1 that Nored’s 2020 ASELL survey was used to assess SET
knowledge of IDEA in this research study. In Nored (2020), the ASELL was given to a variety
of educators, including SET, GET, administrators, and others. The overall average score was
66.3 and the median was 68. Nored (2020) declared that over half of the educators would have
failed the assessment. Nored (2020) contends that SET should demonstrate mastery level scores,
suggesting a 90 or higher as acceptable, yet when SET scores were isolated, the average score
was a 74. The categories with the lowest scores were accommodations and FAPE. Participants

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

60

scored the highest in the areas of evaluations and discipline. This study is another example of
how knowledge scores of SET, and all other educators involved, reflect deficits in understanding.
More recently, Summers et al. (2021) surveyed 300 public school teachers in one state on
legal literacy. In their study, they did not differentiate between whether participants were GET or
SET. There were various interesting findings in this study. When asked specific questions about
IDEA, about 79% of participants were able to identify that special education eligibility required
the student to meet criteria with one of the qualifying disabilities. Also related to qualification of
services, a problematic finding was that 30 teachers (10%) believed that students needed to score
below the 25th percentile on state standardized tests to qualify for services. Teachers play such an
important role in the Child Find process, and this study suggests that students who need services
may not be recommended for evaluations by educators due to the misconceptions that teachers
have about qualifying under IDEA.
Pre-service Teachers
It would not be expected that pre-service teachers have an abundance of educational
knowledge since they are still training and learning through their preparation programs, but they
should gain the knowledge to enter the field and make accurate decisions. The following studies
investigated what pre-service teachers do know about special education law. This research sheds
light on how prepared they are to enter the field of special education and handle the legality
involved in education.
A researcher mentioned above, Sanders, also conducted a 2011 quantitative study
targeting pre-service teachers. It was a pilot study for the research on GET and SET described
previously in Sanders (2015). The author analyzed data from 99 teacher candidates from one

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

61

university, focusing the study on their knowledge, differences between general education preservice teachers and special education pre-service teachers, the accuracy of their perceptions of
their knowledge, the number of special education classes taken, and their attitudes towards
inclusion. The researcher used a t-test analysis to reflect 70% accuracy on the assessment as the
target. The results revealed that the teachers’ scores were significantly lower than the 70%
accuracy mark, demonstrating that the pre-service teachers lack knowledge of special education
policies and procedures overall. They scored higher on questions pertaining to LRE and
procedural due process. They scored the lowest on questions including parental participation.
These findings are comparable to the follow-up Sanders (2015) study with GET and SET. Unlike
Sander’s 2015 study, there were no significant differences in scores between special education
pre-service teachers and general education pre-service teachers in overall knowledge. Sanders
(2015) suggests that this could be due to the idea that once special education pre-service teachers
begin applying their knowledge of special education laws in the field on their own, their
knowledge increases.
To further investigate the topic of pre-service teachers’ knowledge of special education
law, Horner et al. (2020) carried out a quantitatively driven mixed methods study. One of the
authors’ targets was to examine the knowledge of IDEA for general education pre-service
teachers and special education pre-service teachers by issuing 10 yes/no/not sure survey
questions about IDEA. There were also two open-ended questions as well. Like Sanders (2011),
the researchers used a t-test value of 70. They found that regardless of whether a student majored
in general education or special education, the average scores were significantly lower than 70%.
Since questions were designed using a yes/no format, the researchers calculated which areas of
IDEA were significantly above or below chance. For special education pre-service teachers,

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

62

reevaluation and IEP review were significantly better than chance and dangerous behaviors,
observations, and three-year evaluations were significantly worse than chance. Likewise, the
same three categories were significantly worse than chance for general education pre-service
teachers.
In the various studies presented above, IEP team members’ knowledge of special
education laws, processes, and procedures was inadequate. Most research revealed a knowledge
level below or within 70% accuracy, or a grade of ‘C’ to put it in perspective. These educators,
especially SET, are expected to be knowledgeable of special education law so that SWD and
their families have access to FAPE. Few studies target SET and their knowledge; therefore, this
topic should be investigated further.
Teacher Perceptions and Confidence
More studies involving teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge, level of confidence, or
feelings of preparedness to navigate special education laws, policies, and procedures have been
conducted rather than the assessment of their actual knowledge. A few studies evaluated and
compared both. For example, Brookshire and Klotz’s (2002) research revealed that 94% of SET
and 54% of GET felt that they had sufficient knowledge of special education laws, policies, and
procedures. However, their scores with respect to their actual knowledge did not support their
perceptions. Similar findings were discovered in Sanders (2011) study on pre-service teachers,
except there were no significant differences between special education pre-service teachers and
general education pre-service teachers. These inaccurate perceptions suggest that teachers may
make ill informed decisions or take illegal action while believing they are in compliance with
special education law. A difference in Sanders (2015) study was that teachers who reported
having adequate knowledge of IDEA (100% of SET and 59% of GET) did score higher. The

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

63

Horner et al. (2020) study with pre-service teachers agreed with Sanders (2015). Higher scores
on IDEA related questions were associated with more confident perceptions of knowledge. Also,
like Sanders (2015), the participants’ actual knowledge was still inadequate. Having accurate
perceptions of their understanding is a positive feature when considering that teachers would be
able to recognize where they are less knowledgeable and be more inclined to seek assistance.
That being said, those same teachers did not demonstrate adequate understanding on questions
pertaining to IDEA. Overall, these studies revealed that SET feel they have adequate knowledge
of special education law, but the research on teachers’ actual knowledge is very low. The
discrepancy between perception and reality of knowledge could be harmful to the education of
SWD as well as increase the risk of legal trouble for school districts. Although it is ideal for
teachers to recognize sufficient understanding, this can also be misleading.
Even though most SET may feel knowledgeable, the literature also demonstrates that
some have perceptions of inadequacy. Conderman et al. (2013) took on a mixed-methods study
analyzing recent graduates from one university with one to two years of special education
teaching experience with a goal of measuring their level of preparation and confidence in
specific competencies. The participants’ average perceptions of preparation for implementing
special education laws was in the bottom 10 out of 29 questions and bottom 3 out of 9 clusters
with only transition plans and English Language Learners below it. It is not surprising that
transition plans and English Language Learners were at the bottom of confidence and
preparation since they don’t apply to all students receiving special education services,
conversely, understanding and implementing special education law is a required competency to
support all SWD. The SET perceptions of confidence and preparedness in writing IEPs was
reported as one of the strongest areas. It is important to note that in the qualitative analysis

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

64

questions, participants elaborated on how overwhelming it was writing IEPs in the first year of
teaching. The biggest limitation in this study is that all students received their preparation from
one university, meaning that they would have participated in the same training prior to beginning
their special education careers.
In a qualitative dissertation, Scholl (2021) interviewed GET and SET teachers (10 total)
with a goal of evaluating their perceptions of special education laws and procedures. The study
revealed various themes, with the noteworthy being conflicting perceptions of their knowledge
of special education laws and lack of support from administration. GET admittedly reported that
they often do not read their students’ entire IEPs. They disclosed that they do not have accurate
knowledge of special education laws and procedures. Most SET illustrated that they do know
pertinent special education laws and procedures, but they expressed uncertainties with writing
goals and criteria for meeting those goals. This was also revealed as a concern in O’Dell and
Schaefer’s (2005) qualitative analysis of SET, school psychologists, and speech pathologists’
perspectives. Typical responses on the IEP process involved a lack of confidence in writing clear
and measurable annual goals that are compliant since guidelines have changed over the years.
In Summers et al. (2021) research on educational law in general, 154 out of 245 teachers
(63%) reported being worried about making a mistake in the classroom that could result in a
lawsuit. Not to mention, more than one in five teachers in their study depicted that they did not
feel they had a good understanding of educational law. Whitaker (2003) surveyed 200 first year
teachers in one state and they reported needing the most assistance with special education
information about policies, paperwork, procedures, guidelines, and expectations. There was also
the greatest discrepancy between the amount of assistance needed and the amount of assistance
received.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

65

All educators have the responsibility of complying with special education laws and
regulations. It is clear from the research presented that teachers feel the pressure of special
education laws and procedures, yet many feel unprepared and unsupported. The research also
contradicts itself when it comes to whether teachers accurately perceive their own knowledge. In
that case, having a skewed perception of their true understanding of special education law can be
troublesome for students and school districts.
Preparation and Experiences
It is rational to assume that more preparation and experience would result in more
knowledge on a topic. Even so, review of the literature suggests that teachers receive very little,
if any, direct training on special education laws. Teacher preparation programs and professional
development opportunities might be falling short in their ability to truly prepare educators for the
in-depth legal components that apply when educating SWD.
Extent of Special Education Law in Preparation Programs and Professional Development
Of the 300 teachers surveyed in Summers et al., 2021, only 27% reported having taken a
school law course as part of their pre-service training. Of the 43 teachers that were surveyed in
Horner et al., 2020, only 21% indicated having coursework related to IDEA. Research by Nored
(2020) revealed that 88% of total participants (262 out of 297) did have training on IDEA.
Furthermore, 69% of total participants (206 out of 297) indicated it was required for their
certification and 46% selected that it was professional development (136 out of 297), 18%
marked that it was a one-time training (136 out of 297), 23% said that the training was annual
(69 out of 296), and 3% declared the training as “other” (Nored, 2020, p. 63). It should be noted
that Summers and Nored’s study included a range of educators with various roles, and they did
not specify how many of those participants were SET. In addition, Horner’s study was GET

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

66

only. Because of this, it is difficult to determine SET coursework and professional development
related to educational law based on this data.
To take a closer look at special education programs specifically, Markelz et al. (2021)
retrieved data from state department of education (DEO) websites, college of education websites,
and surveyed college faculty to study the nature and extent of special education law taught in
undergraduate special education programs. Through DEO website analysis, they found that states
mandate very little regarding teaching special education law. In fact, Utah is the only state that
requires a special education law course. Some DEO websites express that knowledge of special
education law is required to become licensed, but they don’t require specific courses. The
researchers’ analysis of 67 university websites shows that only 12 (18%) include an
undergraduate course dedicated to special education law. There were 21 (31%) that required a
course that included law or other related terms in the description. That leaves 34 (51%) that do
not mandate a special education law course or a special education course that includes the law in
their description. For the faculty surveys, they reported that both knowledge and application of
special education law is very important (IEP, LRE, and FAPE the highest). Furthermore, they
indicated that pre-service teachers lack the ability to connect the importance of special education
law. Thirty-one percent reported that their university had a specific course for special education
laws, and more than 60% disclosed that the instructor of the course makes half, or most, of the
determinations about how special education law is integrated into the courses.
Impact of Training
Studies that evaluated scores of actual knowledge and the relationship with more training
on IDEA were slightly mixed, although they favor more training being associated with higher
knowledge scores. In both Sanders’ 2011 and 2015 study, special education or pre-service

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

67

teachers who took a higher number of special education college courses and professional
development activities demonstrated higher knowledge scores. This was also true in the Horner
et al. (2020) evaluation on pre-service teachers. Nored (2020) also found that any training on
IDEA significantly influenced higher scores on the ASELL. Alternatively, O’Connor et al.,
2016, found that there was no significant difference between those who had coursework related
to IDEA and those who did not, although this study was comprised of GET. Summers et al.
(2021) questions the timing of training in special education law as the problem.
To continue, some studies suggested that taking special education law courses increased
confidence. Decker et al. (2017) surveyed former graduate level students from one university
about how taking a school law course impacted their working experience. It is important to note
that the course was not specific to special education or SET, however, the course included
special education topics and the survey included SET. Participants reported that special
education law was the most encountered legal issue while on the job. In this study, 88% testified
that the legal training increased their confidence and 85% indicated that it altered their behavior
while on the job. In the same way, the pre-service teachers surveyed in Horner et al. (2020) with
prior coursework related to IDEA had more confidence in their scores than those with no prior
coursework.
On-the-job Experience
Special education laws, processes, and procedures can be complex. To that point, Summers
et al. (2021) asserts that educators might only be able to understand special education laws,
processes, and procedures after having real on-the-job teaching experiences where these laws are
applied, and that pre-service teachers might be heavily concerned with lesson planning or student
behavior rather than special education law which might come across as abstract without having

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

68

real scenarios to apply them. By taking this stance, it would be expected that educators with
more years of experience would have more knowledge of special education policies. This was
not the case in Brookshire and Klotz’s 2002 investigation. Their research showed no statistical
difference in knowledge between teachers with 5 years and less experience and teachers with
more than 5 years of teaching experience. The same found to be true in Holland’s (2016)
dissertation on SET working knowledge of IDEA. The results presented no differences in scores
based on the number of years of teaching in special education. Considering these studies, this
means that more on-the-job experiences did not impact educator knowledge of special education
laws, processes, and procedures. On the other hand, Nored (2020) found that years of teaching
experience was influential on educators’ knowledge of special education law. Having more than
15 years of teaching experience then six to 14 years of teaching experience predicted higher
scores on the ASELL, respectively. Although this analysis included SET, GET, administrators,
and other educators, it can be generalized from this study that SET would have more legal
literacy with more years of teaching experience. As can be seen, the research on years of
experience and legal literacy is mixed. This is an area that would benefit from further review.
Taken together, preparation program courses and professional development pertaining to
special education law appear to be helpful in increasing teacher’s legal literacy as well as their
confidence. States require very little when it comes to teaching special education law, however,
colleges appear to be exceeding state requirements. An alarming finding is that there is no
consistency or guidance from most states on how to teach special education law, and individual
universities or professors have the right to determine the frequency and depth of the coursework.
With almost all states and over half of the universities surveyed omitting a course that focuses on
special education law, it implies that they are not prioritizing or preparing pre-service teachers to

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

69

leave their programs with solid knowledge in this area. Since teaching experience did not appear
to affect SET knowledge of special education laws in more research than not, the timing and
continuation of such courses and training comes under question.
Stakeholder Roles
SET certainly play a key role in implementing the IDEA (Zirkel, 2015a). Current
research suggests that they are usually the most knowledgeable on the IEP team or perceive
themselves as more knowledgeable on special education laws, policies, and procedures
(Brookshire & Klotz, 2002; Marx et al., 2014; Sanders, 2015; Scholl, 2021). It is implied that
this is necessary since SET have the most influence in the development of IEPs as well as
implementing specially designed instruction, accommodations, data collection, and
communication with parents. It is worth exploring whether SET need to have the most
knowledge on the topic based on their involvement in the IEP process.
To demonstrate, Martin et al. (2006) observed 109 middle school and high school IEP
meetings to determine IEP team participants’ roles. In the meetings, Martin et al. (2006) report
that SET started 92% of the observed meetings and talked during 51% of the observed intervals.
The closest to the SET for intervals talked was family members at 15% and GET and
administrators at 9%. Also, SET were more likely to be present for the entirety of the meeting
than GET and administrators. According to the researchers, SET governed the discussions and
directed almost the entire IEP process. Landmark and Zhang (2019) also observed IEP meetings
in a research study. According to the 10 career-focused IEP meetings observed, special education
coordinators and SET both led about 28% of the time (combined 56%), with the student
following at about 13%, parents at 9%, then administrators at roughly 3% of the meeting
intervals. Debate aside on whether SET should be directing IEPs as much, it is clear through the

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

70

observational studies that they play such a significant role in the IEP process and the education
of SWD, and it is essential that they are accurate and confident in their knowledge.
Summary of Chapter 2
This review of literature presented many aspects of special education law. Although only
summaries and key points of IDEA (2004) were described and analyzed, the complexity and
confusing nature can be envisioned by this snapshot alone. Each component of IDEA (2004) is
susceptible to due process complaints, as can be seen from the case law detailed in this chapter,
and school districts have an obligation to ensure that the law is followed so that SWD have
access to a free appropriate public education. Litigious activity in special education continues to
rise (Zirkel and Hetrick, 2016), and school districts may be faced with harsh financial
consequences as a result. It is also a reminder of why these laws were enacted in the first place:
SWD were historically neglected in their education.
Because knowledge of special education law is the first step towards legal compliance
(Markelz et al., 2021), it is imperative that educators are proficient in this area. Zirkel and
Hetrick’s (2016) study reveals how most disagreements usually begin in IEP meetings and with
the IEP process, and SET are typically the leaders in the IEP process and IDEA implementation
(Landmark and Zhang, 2019; Martin et al., 2006; Zirkel 2015a). Because both points are true,
SET have even more pressure of being literate in special education laws, processes, and
procedures. Despite that, their knowledge of the law is hardly researched.
Very few studies could be located that investigated SET actual knowledge of special
education laws, processes, and procedures. In what research does exist on SET competence of
special education law, most studies expose low levels of understanding. The same goes for pre-

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

71

service teachers, principals, and GET. With that, their perceptions of their ability to understand
special education law are mixed in the research. The literature also brings to light the miniscule
requirements that preparation programs have in preparing future educators to navigate the
legalities of special education.
With the pressure that SET face of being bound to legal policies, while likely being
unprepared, there could be serious consequences for many parties. SWD might receive a poor
education and school districts could face financial burdens. In the research that was reviewed,
SET were rarely isolated and assessed on their knowledge, and they were never specifically
asked what experiences benefited them about better understanding the special education laws,
process, and procedures. The following chapter will describe the study’s methodology including
the mixed-method research design, the population and sample of participants who contributed to
the study, the instrumentation and how SET knowledge will be assessed, the data analysis
process, and any limitations that the research contains.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

72

Chapter 3: Methodology
The previous chapter gave an in-depth look at the history and current standing of IDEA,
various court cases heard to defend SWD, IEP team’s knowledge and perceptions of the federal
regulations, the preparation that SET receive to strengthen their knowledge, and the impact that
the regulations can have on SET remaining in the field. This chapter will discuss the research
methods chosen for this study along with details regarding the participants, data collection
techniques, instruments used, and data analysis procedures.
Restatement of Purpose
The purpose of this study is to evaluate SET knowledge of special education laws,
processes, and procedures. In addition, the research aims to assess their perceptions of
preparedness and experiences that have contributed to or hindered their knowledge. Laws have
been put into place over the years to protect SWD from unfair treatment, and the increasing
number of legal hearings indicate that school districts do not always abide by these laws. SET
are at the forefront of ensuring that SWD have access to a free, appropriate, public education, yet
the limited number of peer-reviewed research studies indicate that their knowledge and
preparation is lacking. This study aims to contribute data to the gap in research on this topic and
also inform preparation programs and school districts of the training needs, if any, of special
educators as it relates to laws, processes, and procedures. The methodology of this study was
strategically designed to answer the following research questions:
1) What is the practical knowledge of special education laws, processes, and procedures
among special education teachers at school districts in western Pennsylvania?
a. What is the relationship between years of special education teaching experience
and knowledge?

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

73

b. Which areas of special education laws, processes, and procedures are special
education teachers the strongest and the weakest?
2) What are special education teachers' perceptions of special education laws, processes, and
procedures?
a. How do special education teachers describe their preparedness to accurately apply
special education laws, processes, and procedures?
b. What training and/or experiences do special education teachers report to have
strengthened their knowledge and preparation for the legalities involved in their
roles?
Research Design
Using a combination of both quantitative and qualitative research allows the strengths of
one method to balance the weaknesses in the other (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). A mixed
methods approach was chosen for this study so that findings of SET actual knowledge of special
education laws, processes, and procedures could be generalized quantitatively while honoring
their voices and experiences qualitatively. One research method would not be adequate to
conduct an in-depth exploration of the research questions of this study. Specifically, the study
followed a convergent mixed methods design. According to Creswell and Creswell (2018),
convergent mixed methods research is conducted in one phase, utilizing both quantitative and
qualitative data. In this study, the quantitative and qualitative data included the same participants
and the same sample size, questions were designed to be parallel to each other, and data was
collected from a single source. Both forms of data were integrated in evaluating SET knowledge
of special education laws, processes, and procedures and how their perceptions and experiences
connect to and complement that knowledge. Creswell and Plano Clark (2017) recommend using

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

74

the same individuals for both sets of data when the purpose is to relate the two sets of findings.
In this study, SET actual knowledge and their perceptions are being compared. More
consideration was required when determining whether to utilize the same sample size and one or
two sources of data collection. Since SET are notoriously over-worked and frequently experience
burnout, it was determined that a single source be used to limit the time commitment required for
participation. As a result, it was also necessary to use the same sample size for both types of
data.
Population and Sample
The target population of this study included public school SET from western
Pennsylvania with varying years of special education teaching experience. The SET are the case
managers of SWD with the responsibility of developing and facilitating their students’ special
education programing. Purposeful sampling was used to select the school districts where the SET
were recruited. Since the researcher is familiar with the operations of special education
departments in western Pennsylvania and they are in proximity, those districts and teachers were
selected to be recruited. When using the same sample size for convergent mixed methods studies,
Creswell and Plano Clark (2017) recommend using a medium sample size (e.g., 20-30
participants). Four school districts were selected with the hopes of securing 3-10 SET
participants at each district, depending on the district size. Choosing these districts of varying
sizes gave the researcher the greatest chance of obtaining at least 20 SET with varying years of
teaching experience who manage the paperwork of SWD. Additionally, the school districts were
specifically targeted to encompass diverse demographics, which will be described subsequently.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

75

Site Permission
It is necessary to inquire only about permission to use the site, withholding any
identification of participants, prior to acquiring Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval
(Bloomberg, 2022). The researcher sought permission from each school district’s superintendent
and/or director of special education services via email by sending a letter which included a
summary of the research and proposed methodology (see Appendix C). As recommended by
Bloomberg, 2022, it was communicated that the researcher was only seeking permission to
conduct research at the site and that further details would be provided in the future after IRB
approval. The school district superintendents and/or director of special education services gave
approval to the research study in response to the email inquiry by attaching the signed
permission to conduct research form after all questions were answered. These signed forms were
included in the researcher’s IRB application.
Recruitment
Recruitment using email is often beneficial because of its convenience, inexpensiveness,
and ability to target individuals (Bloomberg, 2022). Therefore, after approval from the school
districts and Slippery Rock University’s IRB (see Appendix D), the researcher then requested
SET email addresses from each district’s director of special education. After this information
was provided, the researcher sent potential participants an email with the purpose of the study,
the research questions, the anticipated time commitment, confidentiality, potential risks, possible
uses for the data, informed consent, and a link to the actual survey (see Appendix E). Participants
indicated their consent by clicking on the link and answering the online survey questions. This
process yielded 32 participating SET.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

76

School District and Participant Demographics
This section will describe pertinent demographic information about the school districts
that were selected and indicated their willingness to participate. The information will also be
outlined in Table 3.1. Specific background information of the SET that participated in the study
will be described in the next chapter, Results and Findings. Special education leaders from four
different school districts were contacted. The school districts will be referred to as ‘School
District A, B, C, or D.’
Enrollment and special education services information was obtained from the
Pennsylvania Department of Education Future Ready PA Index website. According to the
Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2025, The Future Ready PA Index uses the most recent
data available. The district data was collected in June of 2024. Performance data was secured
from Niche, 2025. According to Niche (2025), the ratings are based on a variety of data from
U.S. Department of Education, including state test scores, college readiness, graduation rates,
teacher quality, athletics, diversity, and more. Rankings are given to school districts out of 496 in
Pennsylvania.
School District A has an enrollment of over 8,000 students, and about 13% of those
students receive special education services (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2025). This
district is considered a suburban public school and is one of the highest performing districts in
the area (Niche, 2025). School District B has an enrollment of just above 1,700 students, and
about 22% receive special education services (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2025).
School District B is considered a rural district in the surrounding Pittsburgh area. It is considered
an average performing school district in the area (Niche, 2025). School District C enrolls just
over 1,000 students, with about 25% receiving special education services (Pennsylvania

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

77

Department of Education, 2025). Although considered a suburban location, the school district
encompasses the area right outside of the city of Pittsburgh and borders the urban Pittsburgh City
School District. Finally, School District D has an enrollment of just over 4,000 students. It is
reported that a little over 17% of those students receive special education services (Pennsylvania
Department of Education, 2025). This district is also considered one of the top performing school
districts in the Pittsburgh area (Niche, 2025). As demonstrated, it was an attempt to survey a
variety of school districts with diverse demographics.
Table 3.1
Research Study School District Demographics
School District

Enrollment

Special
Education
Population

Community

Ranking out
of 496

A

+8,000

13%

Suburban

Top 10

B

+1,700

22%

Rural

Top 200

C

+1,000

25%

Urban/Suburban

Top 215

D

+4,000

17%

Suburban

Top 50

The participants were 32 special education teachers. There were 6 participants with 2-5
years of special education teaching experience, 10 participants with 6-14 years of special
education teaching experience, and 16 participants with 15 or more years of special education
teaching experience. There were no first year special education teachers that participated. As can
be seen, little was requested or revealed about the SET who participated in this research, other
than their role as an IEP case manager and years of special education teaching experience.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

78

Instrumentation
Since surveys can include both quantitative and qualitative elements (Bloomberg, 2022), data
was collected through a survey via SurveyMonkey Inc. (2024). Although one survey tool was
used, the survey was divided into 4 pages for organization and clarity purposes: Page 1 –
Welcome Page, Page 2 – Background Information, Page 3 – Assessment of Special Education
Legal Literacy (ASELL), Page 4 – Open-ended. Each section of the survey will be described
next. The survey in its entirety can be found in Appendix F.
Welcome and Background Information
These sections of the survey drew background information from the participants. To
answer the research questions precisely, it was especially important to know if the educators
managed IEPs. To move onto page two and begin the survey, participants had to confirm that
their role as a SET includes the management of IEPs. If they signify that they do not manage
IEPs, then they will not be taken to the next question to complete the survey. The years of
teaching experience the participants had and their history with special education law were also
imperative in answering the research questions, therefore this information was also elicited in the
background information section of the survey.
Knowledge
To assess SET knowledge of special education laws, processes, and procedures, the
Assessment of Special Education Legal Literacy (ASELL) questions were used. The ASELL was
developed by Kasey Nored to produce a valid and reliable instrument to assess knowledge of
federal special education law (Nored, 2020). The assessment contains 25 multiple choice
questions (yes/no/not sure) that evaluate participants’ application of special education regulations
and case law. The ASELL is categorized by Individualized Education Program Procedural

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

79

Requirements, Placement, Child Find, Evaluation, Accommodations, and Free and Appropriate
Public Education. Validity and reliability were confirmed in her 2020 research study. Permission
to use the ASELL was granted by Nored via email under the condition that the survey questions
were not changed (see Appendix A). The questions, answers, and rationales for the ASELL
questions specifically can be found in Appendix B.
Open-ended Perceptions
The qualitative section of the survey allowed participants to share and expand on their
experiences. Open-ended questioning techniques are beneficial when wanting to hear the
opinions and viewpoints of participants in their own words (Bloomberg, 2022). Because of this
goal, questions were designed using an open-ended format. Again, questions used for the survey
can be found in Appendix F.
Data Collection and Analysis
After receiving permission from school district leaders and Slippery Rock’s IRB,
participants were emailed the purpose of the study, the research questions, the anticipated time
commitment, confidentiality, potential risks, possible uses for the data, and informed consent
information. As stated previously, the contents of the email to participants can be found in
Appendix E. The link to the online survey was included within the email along with an
explanation that participants should only click on the survey link and begin the survey if they
gave their consent to voluntarily participate in the research study. After the original request for
participation was sent to the sample, a reminder email was sent to increase participation. The
survey remained active for roughly a month from start to finish. Once the survey was closed, the
researcher thanked participating school districts, exported the data, and began the analysis phase.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

80

As noted earlier, a convergent mixed methods approach of quantitative and qualitative
data collection was used for this research study. Three phases occur in convergent design
analysis: the quantitative data is statistically analyzed, the qualitative data is coded and themed,
then the two databases are integrated (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Descriptive Statistics were
calculated based on the data collected in section two of the survey, the ASELL, using data
reports from SurveyMonkey Inc. (2024). These statistical analyses included the minimum,
maximum, mean, median, and standard deviation and help quantify how knowledgeable SET are
with special education law. Furthermore, the ‘rules’ feature of SurveyMonkey Inc. (2024) was
used in multiple ways in the data analysis of this study. Categories of the ASELL were isolated
then ranked from greatest to least in accuracy of average correctness to pinpoint the areas where
SET are stronger and weaker in their knowledge. Additionally, demographic information and
average scores on ASELL were filtered and compared to evaluate whether variances in the
scores were evident. The quantitative data was graphed and further analyzed in Chapters 4 and 5
of this dissertation.
For the open-ended questions, responses were manually tagged by the researcher to
thematically analyze how SET describe their opinions and experiences. The coding process
involved taking the text data and segmenting it into categories and labeling the categories with a
term (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This process was utilized for generating themes for each
question in section three of the survey (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The qualitative data was
displayed visually and described in detail in Chapters 4 and 5 of this dissertation.
Then, the qualitative and quantitative data in the survey were integrated using a side-byside comparison. The qualitative and quantitative data were reported and discussed first like
described above, then they were compared within a discussion (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

81

This allowed the researcher to interpret SET knowledge of special education laws, processes, and
procedures and discuss how their perceptions and experiences connect to that knowledge. The
connections of both forms of data were evaluated and narratively described in Chapters 4 and 5
of this research.
Protection and Confidentiality
There are minimal risks to this study. There is an exceptionally low chance of breach of
confidentiality by being able to relate the teachers to the school districts. The survey will be
conducted anonymously, it will not include sensitive information, and deception will not be used.
SET will be referred by numbers, if needed, when discussing results. In addition, as mentioned
previously, the names of the school districts will be omitted when sharing the results and letters
will be used instead. For the SurveyMonkey survey data, the account will be password protected
and only accessed by the researcher on a password protected device. Any data that is exported
from SurveyMonkey will be password protected on a device that is kept locked in the
researcher’s home office. If any data is physically printed, it will also be kept in the researchers
locked home office in a secure filing cabinet. After the completion of this study, the survey data
will be deleted from the SurveyMonkey account, and any paper copies will be destroyed.
Because of these precautions, there is an exceptionally low chance of breach of confidentiality.
Presentation of Data
The results of this study were utilized for the partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Education in Special Education for Slippery Rock University and shared
with university faculty as well as the researchers committee members. Upon completion of this
dissertation, a summary of the results was provided to participating districts’ directors of special
education, and copies of the entire study were available upon request. Since the research was

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

82

collected anonymously, the results could not be shared to individual participants. Finally, the
results were also distributed to Kasey Nored, the creator of the ASELL survey used in this study.
This research may be used for recommendations for teacher preparation programs and
professional development opportunities for SET.
Limitations
There are areas of this study’s methodology that present limitations. To begin, when
using a medium sample size for the sake of taking a mixed methods approach, quantitative
statistical significance and richness of qualitative data is sacrificed (Creswell and Plano Clark,
2017). The SET in this research represent only four districts in one region of Pennsylvania.
Although this may be true, using a smaller sample size allows the researcher to merge the data
for each participant (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2017), which would be extremely difficult with a
large sample size. Another drawback is when using a single source of data collection, qualitative
information may suffer (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2017). Bloomberg (2022) suggests that an
online survey specifically might result in participants rushing through their responses and not
providing as much detail as possible.
It is also important to note that the ASELL questions developed by Nored (2020) were
designed to address general knowledge that all educators would have to face, not just SET
specifically. This might suggest that the questions would be on the easier end of the spectrum for
SET. The results of Nored’s 2020 study revealed that SET scored significantly higher than the
other educators on the ASELL. The survey is also based on federal regulations only and not state
specific mandates. Although none of the questions would have different answers whether the
rationale was based on federal or state regulations, the description could cause participants to
second guess what they know about their specific state guidelines compared to IDEA.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

83

Summary of Chapter 3
This study aims to measure SET knowledge of special education law and assess their
perceptions as it relates to their feelings of preparedness, experiences, and future in the special
education field. A convergent mixed methods strategy was used so that quantitative data could
be used to generalize SET knowledge in special education legal literacy and qualitative data
could be used to hear SET opinions and experiences in the realm of special education laws,
processes, and procedures. The databases could then be compared and connected.
A survey was developed through SurveyMonkey Inc. which included background
information, a multiple-choice assessment of special education legal literacy developed by Nored
(2020), and open-ended questions. The survey was emailed to SET from school districts in
western Pennsylvania, and 32 SET participated. The data in the survey was analyzed and
described using a side-by-side comparison method, breaking down and comparing the
descriptive statistics of SET knowledge and themes of their perceptions and experiences. The
next chapter will present the results of the data that was gathered using the methods described
above.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

84

Chapter 4: Results and Findings
As stated in the previous chapters, the purpose of this mixed-methods study was to evaluate
how accurate special education teachers (SET) are in applying their knowledge of federal special
education laws, processes, and procedures. The Assessment of Special Education Legal Literacy
(ASELL), created by Kasey Nored (2020), was used to gather this information. Additionally,
SET were questioned using an open-ended format to analyze their perceptions and experiences
associated with special education law. The following questions were investigated:
1) What is the practical knowledge of special education laws, processes, and procedures
among special education teachers at school districts in western Pennsylvania?
a. What is the relationship between years of special education teaching experience
and knowledge?
b. Which areas of special education laws, processes, and procedures are special
education teachers the strongest and the weakest?
2) What are special education teachers' perceptions of special education laws, processes, and
procedures?
a. How do special education teachers describe their preparedness to accurately apply
special education laws, processes, and procedures?
b. What training and/or experiences do special education teachers report to have
strengthened their knowledge and preparation for the legalities involved in their
roles?
This chapter is organized to present the demographic and background information of the
participants, then address each research question. The research questions will be listed as RQ1,
RQ1a, RQ1b, RQ2, RQ2a, and RQ2b. This chapter first reports the specific quantitative results

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

85

of the ASELL in its entirety as well as filtered and sorted results. It then presents and dissects
participants’ open-ended, qualitative results using thematic analysis techniques. Lastly, the data
are brought together and interpreted using a convergent design.
Participant Demographic and Background Information
As explained in Chapter 3, special education department leaders from School District A,
B, C, and D were contacted so that the research information and survey link could be distributed
to SET in the school district. Multiple attempts were made to send the research information and
survey link to potential participants in School District A, but no response was ever received from
the special education district leader. Therefore, participants in this study only included SET from
School District B, C, and D.
A sample of 91 SET was emailed to voluntarily participate in the research study. This
resulted in 33 special education teachers who partook to some extent. It is necessary to
acknowledge that, aside from an initial question where participants had to indicate their role as
an IEP case manager, all questions on the survey were voluntary and could be skipped. Because
of this, not all participants answered every question on the survey. This impacts the data and
analysis in a variety of ways. First, there was one participant who answered only the initial
question to be taken into the survey. They did not answer any other question; therefore, the
researcher omitted this SET and used the remaining 32 SET as the total number of participants
(35% completion rate). Second, there were three questions under the background information
section that participants skipped. The number of participants who skipped each question will be
reported, and those participants will still be included in the calculation of percentages for each
question. The implications of skipped responses for both the ASELL and the open-ended

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

86

questions will be discussed in their respective sections of this chapter. The following tables
report the demographic and background details asked for in the first part of the survey.
Table 4.1
Research Study Participant Demographics
School District

SET Contacted (n)

SET Participated (n)

% of Total
Participants

A

0

0

0

B

27

11

34

C

13

5

16

D

51

15

47

Skipped

---

1

3

Nearly half of the SET (15 or 47%) were from School District D, the highest ranked
school district who contributed to this study. Due to student enrollment and the number of SET
who were contacted in each district, it was expected that School District D would have the
greatest number of participants, followed by School District B, with School District C having the
fewest.
Participants were then asked how many years they have taught special education. Those
results are presented in Table 4.2 below.
Table 4.2
Years of Special Education Teaching Experience
Years

Participants (n)

% of Total Participants

First year

0

0

2-5

6

19

6-14

10

31

15 or more

16

50

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW
Skipped

0

87

0

Table 4.2 shows how participants in this study were more seasoned. Exactly half of the
SET have taught special education for 15 years or longer. It was hoped that the knowledge of
first year SET could be analyzed, but there were no first year SET respondents in this study.
Even so, a variety of experience was still captured through the intervals of 2-5 years (6
participants), 6-14 years (10 participants), and 15 or more years (16 participants).
Next, participants were asked if they took a course in their special education preparation
program (college/university) that was dedicated to special education law and if they found the
course beneficial. Those results are stated in table 4.3 and 4.4 below.
Table 4.3
Preparation Program Training
Course

Participants (n)

% of Total Participants

Yes

23

72

No

7

22

Not sure

2

6

Skipped

0

0

Table 4.4
Preparation Program Training Effectiveness
Effectiveness

Participants (n)

% of Total Participants

Beneficial

15

47

Somewhat beneficial

8

25

Not beneficial

1

3

Did not take course

7

22

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW
Skipped

1

88

3

About 72% of SET in this study (23), shared that they took a course in college dedicated
to special education law. Only one respondent indicated that they did not find the course
beneficial, revealing the overwhelming sense of value. About 22% of SET (7) did not take a
course, and about 6% (2) were not sure if they took a course devoted to special education law.
That is about 28% of participants (9) who did not have the opportunity to benefit from a course.
Similarly, participants were asked if they received professional development training
within the last two years that addressed special education law and if they found it effective.
Those results are displayed in table 4.5 and 4.6 below.
Table 4.5
Professional Development
Professional Development

Participants (n)

% of Total Participants

Yes

12

38

No

16

50

Not sure

4

13

Skipped

0

0

Table 4.6
Professional Development Effectiveness
Effectiveness

Participants (n)

% of Participants

Beneficial

10

31

Somewhat beneficial

3

9

Not beneficial

0

0

Did not have training

18

56

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW
Skipped

1

89

3

The discrepancy in the number of participants who indicated they had not received
professional development across the two questions above should be noted (16 and 18). This is
likely because some participants marked that they were not sure if they had training within the
last two years that addressed special education law, so in the question regarding effectiveness,
they might have selected that they did not have any training. Regardless, the data still has the
same effect. Over half of the participants in this study reported that they had not received, or
were unsure if they received, professional development training within the last two years that
addressed special education law. All participants that had said that the training was either
beneficial (10) or somewhat beneficial (3). No SET in this study perceived their recent
professional development about special education law as being without benefit.
Taken together, most participants in this study did take a course about special education
law in their preparation programs, but the majority have not received any recent follow-up
training while on the job. Almost all SET express value in these training opportunities.
RQ1: What is the practical knowledge of special education laws, processes, and procedures
among special education teachers at school districts in western Pennsylvania?
As discussed throughout this dissertation, The Assessment of Special Education Legal
Literacy (ASELL), created by Kasey Nored (2020), was used to quantitatively measure SET
knowledge of special education laws. The second part of the survey included these 25 multiple
choice questions (yes/no/not sure). Out of the 32 participants, 27 answered the ASELL section,
which is a response rate of 84%. Other than the five participants that were omitted for skipping
the section entirely, only two participants skipped a total of three questions on the ASELL; One
participant skipped one question, and one participant skipped two questions. If a participant

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

90

skipped the question, it was assumed to be incorrect and scored accordingly. Furthermore, if any
respondent selected ‘not sure,’ that question was marked as incorrect as well. Scaled scores,
ranging from 0-100, will be used when sharing the data.
Table 4.7 reports the descriptive statistics of the ASELL. The distribution of scaled
scores is also illustrated in Figure 4.1.
Table 4.7
ASELL Descriptive Statistics
Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Median

Standard Deviation

48

96

79

80

15%

Figure 4.1
Histogram of ASELL Scaled Scores

The data shows a negatively skewed distribution around the mean of 79. The majority of
participants (21) scored above 70. The mean was brought down by those participants (6) who

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

91

scored low, between 40-60. Overall, scores ranged from 48-96. Moderate variability is evident
through the 15% standard deviation.
If employing language that is used in academia, 6 participants, or 22%, would have
received a ‘D’ or ‘F’ and would be described as ‘below average’ or ‘failing.’ Nored (2020) states
that SET who are responsible for managing IEPs should demonstrate knowledge on a mastery
level, which would be evident through a scaled score of at least 90. In this study, 8 participants,
or 30%, would meet that standard. On a positive note, the average scaled score for SET in this
study (79) was slightly higher than the SET in Nored’s 2020 investigation (74).
RQ1a: What is the relationship between years of special education teaching experience and
knowledge?
Participants’ average scores were filtered based on years of special education teaching
experience. The results can be found in table 4.8 below.
Table 4.8
ASELL Years of Special Education Teaching
Years

Participants (n)

Average Score

First year

0

---

2-5

6

76

6-14

10

74

15 or more

16

83

Participants who reported having 15 or more years of special education teaching
experience demonstrated higher knowledge scores than those with less years of special education
teaching experience, evident through an average scaled score of 83. Comparatively, SET with 614 years of special education teaching experience actually scored the lowest with an average

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

92

scaled score of 74. Special education teachers with 2-5 years of experience scored slightly higher
than the SET with 6-14 years, achieving an average of 76. There were no first year SET that
participated in this study, therefore, an average scaled score could not be determined.
RQ1b: Which areas of special education laws, processes, and procedures are special
education teachers the strongest and the weakest?
The ASELL is comprised of seven categories: Child Find, IEP Procedural Requirements,
Placement, Accommodations, Evaluation, FAPE, and Discipline. The average scores for each
category are illustrated in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2
Average ASELL Category Scales Scores

As can be seen from Figure 4.2, participants demonstrated strongest understanding in
questions relating to Evaluations (90) and Accommodations (89). Again, it would be preferred
that SET verify high-level competence through scores of 90 or above. The only category of the

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

93

ASELL where participants achieved this degree was in Evaluations. An encouraging finding is
that this sample of SET did not fail any category as a whole group, as all category average scores
were above 70. Participants exhibited the lowest scores on questions evaluating knowledge of
FAPE (74) and IEP Procedural Requirements (75).
RQ2: What are special education teachers' perceptions of special education laws, processes,
and procedures?
The final section of the survey was designed using an open-ended format to encourage
SET to elaborate on their experiences and share more detail pertaining to their knowledge,
training, and recommendations. Out of the 32 participants, 21 answered all four open-ended
questions, which is a response rate of 66%. To further analyze RQ2, details will be provided
under sections RQ2a and RQ2b below.
RQ2a: How do special education teachers describe their preparedness to accurately apply
special education laws, processes, and procedures?
Participant responses to this open-ended question were manually tagged by the researcher
using the context of their responses to provide a snapshot of SET level of preparedness. This
process involved taking the text data and segmenting it into categories and assigning the
categories with a term (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This data can be viewed in Table 4.9 and
illustrated in Figure 4.3.
Table 4.9
Perceptions of Preparedness
Level

Participants (n)

% of Total Participants

Prepared

12

57

Somewhat Prepared

7

33

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW
Not Prepared

2

94

10

Figure 4.3
Perceptions of Preparedness

Table 4.9 and Figure 4.3 establish that most participants, 90% total, feel that they are
prepared (57%) or somewhat prepared (33%) to navigate the legalities of special education. Only
two participants revealed that they did not feel accurate in their knowledge to apply the law and
follow special education procedures. This data suggests that the respondents in this study are
fairly confident overall. The relationship between perception of knowledge and actual scores will
be discussed later in this chapter.
What is more valuable with the open-ended design of this question is the participants
opportunity to provide details to their own classification of knowledge. Each response was
tagged with keywords and grouped together in an effort to identify themes. If responses
mentioned the same keyword, or a synonymous word or concept, they were grouped together.
There were many responses that included multiple tags. These tags can be viewed in Figure 4.4.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

95

Figure 4.4
Perceptions of Preparedness Tags

The major themes that were identified in relation to participant preparedness include
referring to administration for guidance, conducting research or using resources to confirm
accuracy, and requiring updates to changes or reminders of special education laws, processes,
and procedures, all of which were mentioned by 4 out of 21 open-ended responses. For example,
one participant wrote, “I feel adequately prepared for most day-to-day decisions and paperwork.
If there was an unusual problem, I would have to conduct research and reach out to my LEA for
guidance.” This response was tagged as Prepared, Personal Research or Resources, and
Guidance from Administration. To further illustrate how responses were grouped together, this
participant’s response was tagged with Prepared, Changes and Reminders, and Guidance from

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

96

Administration: “I feel that things are changing constantly, and it is the role of the LEA to guide
us with these changes...” A response that was also tagged and grouped with Changes and
Reminders, but Not Prepared, stated, “My special education law coursework was 20+ years ago.
I feel a lot has changed. I do not feel prepared or knowledgeable.”
Although less frequent, participants also described how their level of preparedness
depends on the situation (3 participants). Such as, “I feel prepared for the majority of scenarios
although there are some circumstances I am not familiar with how to respond.” Along those
same lines, it was mentioned that “a difficult parent” or a parent who challenges the IEP process
can affect the SET ability to handle the situation on their own. Factors that have contributed to
participant knowledge will be discussed in the next section, but various participants noted how
their past college or training experiences, as well as their teaching experience has, or will impact,
how prepared they feel (3 participants). One participant reflected on being a novice teacher and
how that influences their confidence. They wrote, “I am a new special education teacher, so I
feel semi-prepared. With more experience, I will feel more confident.” Another participant
expressed feeling somewhat prepared, and highlighted district policies. In their response, they
included, “…while there is the law, every district handles things differently.” This participant is
suggesting inconsistencies on how procedures are followed based on the school district in which
you teach. This supports previous researchers who claim special education law is complex,
confusing, and ambiguous (Yell, Collins, et al., 2020; Zirkel, 2019).
Collectively, the SET in this study mostly feel prepared or somewhat prepared to
accurately apply special education laws, processes, and procedures. An overall theme is that their
knowledge is dependent on various factors (i.e. situation, evolution of special education law,

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

97

parents). The participants recognize that they might need to defer to district administrators or
conduct research for assistance on certain topics that they do not fully understand on their own.
RQ2b: What training and/or experiences do special education teachers report to have
strengthened their knowledge and preparation for the legalities involved in their roles?
Participants were asked to communicate what they believe best prepared them to acquire
knowledge on special education laws. Like described above with RQ2a, their responses were
manually tagged to identify themes. Tags for participant responses are represented below in
Figure 4.5.
Figure 4.5
Valuable Experiences Tags

The greatest theme that was identified in this prompt was not only how valuable the SET
found their years of teaching experience, but also how a combination of factors has the greatest
influence in their perceptions of preparedness. Out of the 21 respondents that answered this
question, 18 attributed their knowledge, to some extent, to their on-the-job teaching experiences

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

98

(82%). To continue, 15 out of those 18 answered the question by grouping their teaching
experience with at least one other element. For example, a participant described, “I believe that
Grad School set the foundation of understanding laws and processes, however experience within
the field for 20 years has solidified my knowledge.” This response reflects the Teaching
Experience and College / Coursework tags.
In addition to teaching experience, other highly mentioned factors were mentors and
colleagues – totaling 11 responses. Examples of responses with these tags included, “Years of
teaching and mentors for help!” and “Years of teaching, learning from colleagues and college
education has helped.” On that note, there were mixed feelings as to how valuable college was
for participants. Only five respondents credited their time in college and the coursework for their
level of preparedness, with one stating, “I feel that my college coursework combined with
ongoing professional development has provided me with a strong foundation in understanding
special education laws, processes, and procedures.” On the other hand, one participant wrote, “I
believe my experience and mentors have helped me tremendously and they have prepared me
better than college courses.” Professional development training was acknowledged by five
participants, a knowledgeable and supportive administration was accredited by four participants,
and working across multiple districts as well as going through a litigious situation were both
recognized in three responses. Together, these findings suggest that the SET in this survey highly
value their years of teaching and collaborating with other professionals. Furthermore, they
perceive that there are various influences that have shaped their knowledge of special education
laws, processes, and procedures.
Participants were also asked to describe any recommendations they would make for
preparation programs and school districts that would better prepare SET for the legal component

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

99

of special education. This prompt resulted in a few obvious themes (see Figure 4.6), but there
were also a multitude of unique and specific responses. Table 4.10 presents a participant
response for each tag. These were provided to help clarify how the tags were defined and
highlight the numerous detailed recommendations that were received from participants.
Figure 4.6
Recommendations Tags

Table 4.10
Sample Responses for Recommendations Tags

Tag

Preparation Programs

School Districts

Legal Process
Simulations

“…practical simulations where teacher
candidates develop IEPs, conduct

“…Hands-on training with IEP
development, procedural safeguards, and
consent processes, combined with case

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

IEP Development
/ Review

eligibility meetings, and respond to
parental concerns...”
“…Providing hands-on practice with
writing, amending, and reviewing IEPs…”

Mentoring

“…pairing students with mentor
teachers…”

Collaboration

“Get familiar with reading evaluations and
collaborating with educators, parents and
administrators in order to develop an IEP.”
“Back in the 90's, I think it was just a
chapter in one book/class. A whole class
should be devoted to this…”
“The examples you provided would be
excellent ways to ask students if it’s legal
or not. Then going on to explain why each
situation is legal or not legal would be
helpful…”
“…inviting professionals from various
school districts to share firsthand accounts
of their experiences.”
“…offering field experiences focused
specifically on legal procedures would
provide valuable hands-on preparation.”
“…I think having a manual or resource
book for each special education teacher is
also very helpful.”
“…Encourage subscription to state and
national special education law updates.
Offer workshops or modules on recent
changes in legislation and policy to
maintain teacher awareness postgraduation.”

Course
Case
Law/Scenarios

Guest Speakers
Field Experience
Resources
Professional
Development

District Protocols

“…training on staying current with laws
and district policies…”

100

studies and role-playing, helps teachers
apply legal knowledge in real situations…”
“Reviewing components of IEP's,
providing examples of what is required in
an IEP.”
“Partner new teachers with teachers
familiar and experienced with developing
IEPs…”
“Train teachers to collaborate with special
education staff, administrators, and parents
while maintaining legal compliance.”
n/a
“Sending out emails, monthly newsletters,
etc to go over these scenarios would help
us all to be on the same page.”
n/a
n/a
“Provide a binder/manual with all
important timelines, procedures and laws.”
“Ongoing education should be prioritized
over a single, lengthy once-a-year inservice. Shorter, more frequent learning
opportunities would be more beneficial.
For example, staff could receive a weekly
email with a practical tip or participate in
occasional special education quizzes sent
by email. Incentives, such as small rewards
for scoring 90% or higher, could further
encourage engagement and keep
professionals current on the subject
matter.”
“…Tell them what positions in the district
to contact should need arise, and direct
them to where to find info online.”

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

101

Some glaring themes in relation to preparation program recommendations were offering a
course on special education law (9 participants), using legal process simulations as a way of
learning (7 participants), and examining case law by reviewing applicable scenarios (7
participants). As for school district recommendations, participants frequently mentioned the
need for professional development training (11 participants or 50%). Some SET suggested a day
of in-service each year, while others specified that it should be on-going. The school district
professional development participant response provided in Table 4.10 advises, “shorter, more
frequent learning opportunities.” Other themes that emerged for school district recommendations
were IEP development and auditing (7 participants), providing resources and guiding SET on
where to locate help (6 participants), and reviewing legal scenarios and case law (5 participants).
The emerging pattern suggested by SET in this study is that pre-service teachers would
benefit from being taught about special education laws, processes, and procedures through a
course. Additionally, providing the opportunity for pre-service teachers to apply the law through
simulations and other hands-on experiences in the field is essential for maximum learning. Once
working in the special education field, participants highly recommend that school districts
provide continuous training and learning opportunities pertaining to special education laws,
processes, and procedures so that SET are better prepared to provide SWD an appropriate
education and stay out of legal trouble.
Perceived Knowledge versus Demonstrated Knowledge
A final component of data analysis in the present study involved the quantitative and
qualitative data being merged and evaluated. Participants’ knowledge scores were compared to
the way they expressed their judgment of readiness with special education laws. The full results
can be seen in Table 4.11.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

102

Table 4.11
Comparison of Quantitative ASELL Scores and Qualitative Preparedness Descriptions
ASELL Score Range

Prepared (n)

Somewhat Prepared (n) Not Prepared (n)

90-100

6

0

0

70-89

4

5

1

0-69

2

2

1

Descriptions of ‘prepared’ would be considered accurate if they corresponded to ASELL
scores between 90-100; descriptions of ‘somewhat prepared’ would be considered accurate if
they matched ASELL scores between 70-89; descriptions of ‘not prepared’ would be considered
accurate if they aligned with ASELL scores between 0-69. First, the researcher looked at those
participants who demonstrated masterly level scores of 90 or above. Of those participants who
completed the ASELL and answered the open-ended section of the survey, everyone who scored
a 90 or above accurately designated themselves as feeling prepared to interpret special education
laws. For example, one participant who scored a 96 explained, “I feel well‑prepared and
knowledgeable ... I am confident in my ability to ensure that students receive a Free Appropriate
Public Education (FAPE) and to safeguard their procedural safeguards and rights.” It is
encouraging that participants who showed knowledge of the law through their scores were also
confident in their knowledge in the open-ended responses. On the other hand, those participants
who demonstrated scores that were not mastery-level varied in their explanations of
preparedness. Only 40% of participants in these ranges accurately described their readiness. The
most concerning comparisons come from those who overestimate their knowledge. Between
these two ranges, about half (8 out of 15) described themselves as feeling more prepared than

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

103

their ASELL score depicted. For example, a participant who scored a 60 described themselves as
feeling “well prepared and knowledgeable” and having a “strong understanding” of IDEA.
Another participant who scored a 56 said, “I feel pretty prepared.” Noticeably, scores of 56 and
60 do not reflect a strong understanding or appropriate readiness.
Summary of Chapter 4
This chapter presented the results and findings of the mixed-methods survey that was sent
to SET across three school districts in western Pennsylvania. Background questions revealed that
the participants in this study had various years of special education teaching experience and a
variety of training backgrounds, but participants were predominantly longtime educators.
Participants were assessed on their knowledge of federal special education laws, processes, and
procedures through the ASELL (Nored, 2020). Like previous research, the quantitative data that
was collected resulted in undesirable knowledge scores for professionals who should be experts
in their fields. The most significant principle of IDEA, FAPE, appeared to be the greatest
challenge for participants. The qualitative data suggested several themes. Special education
teachers in this research describe themselves as feeling prepared to accurately interpret and apply
special education law, however, those with the poorest performance were often overly confident
in their knowledge. Those who scored the highest all felt prepared, which was reflective in their
scores. SET in this study with the most years of special education teaching experience
collectively outscored the others, conversely, those with the least amount of special education
teaching experience did not score the lowest. On that note, most respondents shared that their
teaching experience has impacted their knowledge and confidence the greatest. The most
common recommendation for preparation programs is to offer courses that teach the law and
combine courses with hands-on, applicable learning opportunities. Participants suggest that

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

104

school districts should offer on-going professional development to support knowledge
acquisition of special education law.
The next chapter will further analyze the data obtained within this research study.
Outcomes of the data will be digested further, with interpretations being described. The data will
be compared to previous literature and research studies. Implications for the results will be
discussed, and recommendations for future research will be suggested. Chapter 5 will conclude
this dissertation.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

105

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations
In the prior chapter, quantitative and qualitative data were presented to demonstrate how
this study’s sample of special education teachers (SET) performed on a special education legal
literacy assessment and how the SET perceive their knowledge and experiences. This chapter
provides a summary of the research study, then comprehensively interprets the data and relates
the findings to the research described in Chapter 2. Practical applications of the data will be
discussed, as well as recommendations for future research.
Summary of the Study
Students with disabilities (SWD) were once denied access to an education that would
meet their individual needs. Following years of advocating, extensive litigation, and various
related laws, SWD currently receive educational rights under the federal law, the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, 2004. It was quickly realized that the policies outlined in
the federal law are intricate and difficult to interpret (Yell, Collins, et al., 2020; Zirkel, 2019).
Special education legal activity continues to expand (CADRE, 2025; Zirkel and Hetrick, 2016;
Zirkel and Karanxha, 2024), which negatively impacts school districts financially (Markelz et al.,
2021; Pudelski, 2016 as cited in Casale et al., 2021; Yell & Bateman, 2020). It also raises
ongoing concerns about whether most SWD are actually receiving an appropriate education.
Special education teachers direct the educational process of SWD most substantially
when compared to other IEP team members (Landmark and Zhang, 2019; Martin et al., 2006;
Zirkel, 2015a). Taking this into account, it should be expected that SET have a proficient
understanding of special education laws, processes, and procedures. According to previous
research, SET knowledge scores are not at desired levels (Brookshire & Klotz, 2002; Holland,
2016; Nored, 2020; Sanders, 2015; Summers et al., 2021). Studies evaluating pre-service

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

106

teachers suggested similar findings (Horner et al., 2020 & Sanders, 2011) and disclose a gap in
what is required of preparation programs when teaching special education law to pre-service
teachers in special education departments (Markelz et al., 2021). These earlier investigations
question whether SET are properly prepared to enter the field or if they’re offered continuous
training while on the job because an inadequate understanding of special education law could be
contributing to the rise of litigation. Furthermore, it could be affecting whether SWD receive
FAPE, the cornerstone of IDEA (2004).
The purpose of this study was to explore SET actual knowledge of special education
laws, processes, and procedures using the ASELL created by Kasey Nored (2020). Moreover,
this study investigated SET perceptions, including preparation, experiences, and
recommendations for school districts and special education departments of colleges or
universities. The research questions below guided this study:
1) What is the practical knowledge of special education laws, processes, and procedures
among special education teachers at school districts in western Pennsylvania?
a. What is the relationship between years of special education teaching experience
and knowledge?
b. Which areas of special education laws, processes, and procedures are special
education teachers the strongest and the weakest?
2) What are special education teachers' perceptions of special education laws, processes, and
procedures?
a. How do special education teachers describe their preparedness to accurately apply
special education laws, processes, and procedures?

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

107

b. What training and/or experiences do special education teachers report to have
strengthened their knowledge and preparation for the legalities involved in their
roles?
A convergent mixed-methods approach was used to investigate the research questions.
Four school districts were targeted; however, the sample only encompassed three school districts
in western Pennsylvania. A three-part survey was emailed to SET in participating school
districts, which resulted in 32 anonymous SET who chose to contribute to the research study.
Interpretations and Comparisons
RQ1 Knowledge Scores
As the previous chapter indicated, SET averaged a scaled score of 79 on the ASELL in
this research study. The SET in this exploration showed somewhat elevated scores when
compared to educators in other studies. For example, the mean for this sample is slightly higher
than Nored’s 2020 analysis where the ASELL was developed and administered. SET in Nored
(2020) averaged a scaled score of 74. Furthermore, in Holland’s 2016 dissertation research, SET
were only around 34% accurate in providing both a correct answer to a legal scenario and a
precise legal rationale. Sanders 2011 evaluation of pre-service teachers resulted in average IDEA
knowledge scores below a 70% target. Similarly in Sanders 2015 evaluation of SET and regular
education teachers, average IDEA knowledge scores fell below the 75% target. In Horner et al.,
2020, less than half of the pre-service teachers were accurate in their IDEA knowledge. When
evaluating the average knowledge scores in this research study (79) with the performance of
educators in previous research as described above, this study’s participants did achieve stronger
results. Although various assessments methods were used across the literature and few studies
isolated SET scores on special education law, in the body of research that does exist, it can be

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

108

concluded that SET, including pre-service teachers, consistently score below desired levels when
given the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge of special education laws (Brookshire &
Klotz, 2002; Holland, 2016; Horner et al., 2020; Nored, 2020; Sanders, 2011; Sanders, 2015;
Summers et al., 2021). The results of this study support this conclusion, as the SET in the sample
did not show fully proficient scores aligned with their vital role in special education.
RQ1 Years of Experience
Summers et al. (2021) states that educators might only be able to understand educational
laws once learning to apply them through teaching experience. The SET with the most years of
teaching experience in this study averaged the highest scores. Although there was a minimal
difference in the average scores between SET with 2-5 years of teaching experience and 6-14
years of teaching experience, those with the least amount of teaching experience did not score
the lowest in this sample. These results partially support the notion that knowledge increases
with experience, though additional years may be required to produce a noticeable difference.
When Nored (2020) researched this claim, it was found that years of teaching experience did
produce significantly higher scores. Aligned with the results of this dissertation, having more
than 15 years of teaching experience predicted the highest scores on the ASELL in Nored’s 2020
research. The results of this study differ from research in Brookshire and Klotz (2002) and
Holland (2016). Brookshire and Klotz (2002) found no significant difference between teachers
with five years and less teaching experience and teachers with more than five years of
experience. Holland (2016) also found no significant differences in scores between those with
varying years of teaching experiences. When considering the results of this dissertation with
existing literature, the data supports that years of teaching experience can impact knowledge, but
knowledge acquisition might be gradual and over a longer period.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

109

RQ1 IDEA Principles
The SET in this study scored the highest on questions geared towards Evaluations (90)
and Accommodations (89) and the lowest on FAPE (74) and IEP Procedural Requirements (75).
Similarly, special education teachers in Brookshire and Klotz, 2002, scored lowest on questions
dealing with IEPs. Nored’s 2020 research did not isolate SET categorical scores, rather, it
contained categorical scores for all educators assessed in the study. Sanders 2011 and 2015
studies also provided scores for IDEA principles; however, SET were not specifically analyzed.
Despite that, scores in this research were still compared to those in Nored (2020) since
assessment measures were the same. The educators in Nored (2020) also scored highest in the
Evaluations category, however, Accommodations was the lowest performance area in that study.
Another similarity is that FAPE was the weakest performance area in this dissertation and one of
the lowest in Nored’s study as well. It is a significant concern that FAPE emerged as the area
where SET performed the weakest. The foundation of IDEA is providing FAPE to SWD.
Furthermore, IEPs are the blueprint for providing FAPE. Whether a student received or was
denied FAPE is ultimately the deciding factor in court cases. Being that FAPE could be argued
as the most important fundamental educational right offered to SWD, and IEPs are an integral
part of the daily routine of SET (Brookshire & Klotz, 2020), SET should be experts in
understanding their application in IDEA, but that was not the case with the sample of SET in this
study. It was difficult to compare these results to the limited studies that did divide the scores
into IDEA categories since SET scores were not always separated from other educators with
differing roles (Nored, 2020; Sanders, 2011; Sanders, 2015). Furthermore, Holland (2016)
interpreted IEP implementation in depth rather than IDEA as a whole. Since this dissertation was

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

110

one of the only studies to classify knowledge of IDEA for SET specifically, the results contribute
valuable information to the literature.
RQ2 Preparedness
Overall, the SET in this sample feel prepared (57%) or somewhat prepared (33%) when
applying special education laws and following special education procedures in their teaching
positions. Over half of the SET shared responses to indicate that they feel sufficiently prepared
for day-to-day requirements involving special education law. A third of the sample was more
neutral, suggesting times of competence and times of inadequacy. Only two participants were
straight forward with stating they are not prepared for this aspect of their roles. A majority of the
studies that evaluated this perception of competency revealed similar findings. For example, in
the 2002 Brookshire and Klotz study, over 94% of SET either strongly agreed or agreed with
having sufficient knowledge of special education policies, which is even higher than the
percentage of participants in the present study. In qualitative interviews, SET in Scholl (2021)
also described knowing the information necessary in their duties. Results of Horner et al. (2020),
Sanders (2011), and Sanders (2015) revealed an average level of agreement with having
adequate knowledge of IDEA, although these studies did not specifically assess practicing SET.
The present study mostly agrees with previous research and confirms that SET usually feel
sufficiently prepared and knowledge on federal special education law.
When synthesizing participants’ open-ended responses to their level of preparedness, an
overall theme was that their perception of knowledge is dependent on various factors (i.e.
situation, district, evolution of special education law, parents, experiences). The participants in
the present study recognize that there are instances where they might need to seek knowledge
from district administrators or conduct research for assistance on certain topics that they do not

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

111

comprehend fully on their own. Additionally, some SET in this study identified that as special
education evolves over time, their previous understanding might be outdated. This body of
qualitative data supports previous researchers who claim that special education law contains
intricate requirements and is subject to varied, evolving interpretations (Yell, Collins, et al.,
2020; Zirkel, 2019).
RQ2 Experiences
The SET in this research overwhelmingly described their teaching experience as an
element that has strengthened their knowledge of special education laws, processes, and
procedures. Since most participants also attributed their knowledge to at least one other factor,
this implies that it cannot be expected that SET will acquire knowledge over time simply after
obtaining a position in the field. The results suggest that SET perceive that they benefit from
adequate training, working with mentors and colleagues, being exposed to various experiences
and environments, and supportive and informed administration all in addition to their years of
special education teaching experience.
Participants expressed differing perceptions of value regarding coursework and college,
only being credited as a positively influential factor by 5 participants, even though all
participants would have been required to complete a special education preparation program.
Based on past research, taking more special education courses or professional development
opportunities was often related to higher knowledge scores (Horner et al., 2020; Nored, 2020;
Sanders, 2011; Sanders, 2015) and confidence (Decker et al., 2017; Horner et al., 2020). Given
this point, it would be expected that more SET in this research would cite their college
experience as contributing to their knowledge of special education laws, processes, and
procedures. Many participants recommended that colleges teach a course specifically on special

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

112

education laws, processes, and procedures, yet they didn’t identify their preparation program as a
primary source of their knowledge. This raises questions about how preparation programs can
better support the practical application of special education laws, specifically, through their
coursework, in a manner that SET find constructive.
Another noteworthy interpretation can be made when evaluating how participants
described their experiences with professional development related to special education law.
Professional development on special education law was the most frequently identified
recommendation for school districts by the SET in this study (11 participants), but it was
identified by significantly less participants as an experience that has prepared them for the
legalities involved in their roles (5 participants). Also, in the background section of the survey,
no participants chose “not beneficial” when asked if the professional development training they
received was beneficial. Based on this data and the identified research, it can be assumed that the
small number of participants that reported professional development as contributing to their
understanding is only because of the lack of training rather than the lack of perceived value. This
highlights whether school districts are meeting the training needs of SET concerning special
education laws, processes, and procedures.
Additional Interpretations
As illustrated in table 4.10, the participants in this study provided various specific
recommendations for preparation programs and school districts to better prepare SET for the
legal component of teaching and managing programming for SWD. A theme that developed
from participant responses was that current SET believe that pre-service teachers would benefit
from being taught about special education legal processes and procedures through a dedicated
course. Furthermore, they detailed how preparation programs should consider applicable

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

113

simulations and involvement in actual special education legal scenarios. Another noteworthy
theme was that, after being employed in special education, continuous training and learning
opportunities surrounding special education law should be provided by school districts to SET
throughout their entire career in order to effectively prepare SET to provide SWD an appropriate
education and maintain legal compliance. Participants believe that it would be beneficial for
special education departments to frequently audit IEPs even after being employed in a school
district. This sample reports that partnerships between special education professionals and
colleagues should be applied in colleges and school districts. For most cases in this research,
there is a clear connection between participants’ descriptions of perceived knowledge,
experiences, and recommendations with respect to special education law.
It is important to discuss a reoccurring theme. It was previously identified that SET
participants conveyed that both preparation programs and school districts should encourage
collaboration with current special education professionals in the field. This aligns with the
experiences they reported to have supported their knowledge. Although valuable and long-term
mentoring relationships can be established in preparation programs and school districts for
beginning teachers, the data in this study as well as past research highlight reason for caution.
Since SET have historically demonstrated inadequate levels of legal special education
knowledge, it is possible that misinformation is being spread throughout school districts. Special
education teachers might be relying on guidance from individuals with similar knowledge
limitations. In an organization that depends on partnering novice and experienced educators, it is
imperative that the knowledge gaps that have been identified in the research are not being
perpetuated throughout the special education system. Professional development training could
inform SET and mentors on appropriate ways to acquire information, such as contacting school

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

114

district special education administration, local intermediate units, or state agencies that partner
with the Bureau of Special Education. Furthermore, reliable resources could be provided to SET
in advance, such as digital references, to prevent inaccurate knowledge acquisition.
On a similar note, perceived knowledge and demonstrated knowledge was compared in
Chapter 4 of this dissertation. All the participants who scored in the highest range on the ASELL
with scores between 90-100 were also confident in their knowledge in the open-ended responses.
Each of them described themselves as feeling prepared to navigate the legalities involved with
special education. This supports the results of Sanders’ 2015 study that suggests that teachers
who reported having adequate knowledge of IDEA did score higher. Despite this, over half of
the SET in this sample who scored the lowest on the ASELL, and even failed, reported feeling
prepared or somewhat prepared. The results of this study demonstrate contradictions between
how prepared SET feel and how well they performed on the ASELL. In the literature that
analyzed perception and demonstrated knowledge, comparable variances were found (Brookshire
& Klotz’s, 2002; Horner et al., 2020; Sanders, 2011; Sanders, 2015; Scholl, 2021). As stated in
Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 of this study, this discrepancy could indicate that SET believe that they
are following special education law and procedures accurately when really, they are not. To
connect this interpretation to the point made in the previous paragraph, SET may also be
spreading misinformation unknowingly to peers and mentees. Although it is encouraging that the
SET in this study who scored the highest also felt adequately prepared, it is concerning that
many participants overestimated their preparedness.
Implications
The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to evaluate SET knowledge and
perceptions of special education laws, processes, and procedures. This was accomplished

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

115

through completion of the ASELL and open-ended prompts. This data was intended to determine
if SET knowledge of special education laws, processes, and procedures is mastery-level.
Additionally, the findings were intended to advise preparation program and school district
leaders on how to best prepare SET to accurately interpret and apply special education law. The
results of this study confirm what has been demonstrated in previous research: there is a
disconnect between SET actual ability to apply their understanding of special education laws and
what is expected of them in their roles as key stakeholders in educating SWD.
Implications for Special Education Teacher Preparation Programs
The results of this study indicate a potential opportunity to enhance the relevance and
practical application of college preparation for SET. First, special education preparation program
staff and faculty should acknowledge that SET are entering the field with a low understanding of
special education laws, processes, and procedures. Leaders of preparation programs should
reflect on if, when, and how special education laws are being exposed to pre-service teachers. It
may be advantageous to use the experiences and recommendations from the SET in this research
study to make changes to programming for pre-service SET. Some changes could include
teaching a dedicated course on special education laws, processes, and procedures which
incorporate case law scenarios and applicable learning opportunities. Also, ensuring that preservice SET have various opportunities to experience special education processes in the field, or
create numerous learning opportunities for them that model these processes. Specific examples
include, but are not limited to, creating mock IEP and evaluation processes or require
participation in true IEP meetings. Finally, it could be valuable to create partnerships with
special education leaders in local school districts in order to combine learning in the college
classroom with the current reality of public schools, such as inviting special education

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

116

administrators as a guest speaker or dedicating current SET as mentors at an early stage in the
program.
Implications for School District Professional Development
This research also highlights areas of consideration for school districts as well. School
district leaders should acknowledge SET low level of understanding upon entering the
workforce, however even SET with many years of experience have insufficient knowledge. To
re-visit a previously stated point, school districts should consider implementing or increasing
regular professional development that emphasizes special education laws, processes, and
procedures. Based on participant recommendations, the training might include the opportunity to
interpret current case law, review IEPs, and develop resources for SET. Some participants in this
study suggested one day of training, while others recommended frequent, shorter training.
Although it is likely that mentoring programs are being implemented, school districts should
investigate whether guidance on special education law is being prioritized and consider how
special education mentoring relationships might differ from general education. Due to the variety
of responses from the survey in this research, it is advised that school district leaders inquire with
the teachers in their school district so that the professional development sessions meet their SET
specific needs.
Implications for other Special Education Decision Makers
Markelz et al., (2021) revealed a lack of accountability for colleges and universities when
it comes to preparing pre-service special education teachers on the legal requirements involved
in special education. Considerations should be made to mandate special education legal
requirements, across all states, in preparation programs. The knowledge scores and
recommendations in this research, as well as previous literature that revealed lower scores and

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

117

minimal training requirements, support the need for special education leaders to recognize the
gap that exists in what is expected of SET and how we are supporting their ability to understand
special education legal obligations.
Limitations
This study resulted in ample valuable data; however, a few limitations were identified. To
begin, there were no first-year SET that participated in the study. The survey was voluntary and
first year teachers were not specifically targeted, nonetheless, it would have been preferred to
have some first-year SET involved in the sample to better analyze teaching experience and
knowledge scores. Next, the geographic scope of western Pennsylvania and a medium sample
size were both limitations. These were disclosed in Chapter 3 as limitations, but further
drawbacks arose when School District A, the largest school district, failed to participate. This
decreased the school district contribution to only three in western Pennsylvania, and most likely
limited the amount of SET that would have participated in the study. A sample size of only 32
participants decreases the strength of the quantitative data.
The SET in this study had the choice to participate. When respondents’ likelihood for
participating in a study is associated with the topic, it is possible that self-selection bias is present
(Lavrakas, 2008). The SET who chose to participate were likely more motivated and had
stronger opinions than those who had the opportunity to contribute but chose not to. In addition
to participation being voluntary, each question within the survey was also voluntary. This was
done purposefully to increase participation; however, this differs from how the developer of the
ASELL (Nored, 2020) administered the knowledge assessment to their participants. Because of
this, the researcher scored skipped questions on the knowledge assessment as incorrect. There is

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

118

no way to confirm that the participants skipped the question because they did not know the
answer. This presents a limitation in the accuracy of scores for those select few responses.
When a survey is disseminated online, there are potential risks. Participants could have
used outside sources on the knowledge assessment questions to increase their scores.
Additionally, it is possible that participants collaborated on the knowledge assessment questions
or experiential perception questions, reducing the value of each individual response.
Furthermore, some SET gave responses with only a few words. Some responses may reflect
limited time or attention dedicated to the survey.
Finally, this research collected self-reported perceptions. Through these assessments,
confidence and perception bias develop. When seeking SET recommendations for school
districts and preparation programs, it can be beneficial to incorporate field-based perspectives
when making training and professional development decisions. However, this study did not
evaluate the effectiveness of such recommendations being made by the SET. Participants were
sharing their personal beliefs based on their past experiences, which could yield conflicts in
reliability.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study contributed to the gap in research that assesses SET knowledge of special
education law. Additionally, gathering information on their first-hand experiences should
influence and improve training systems that are currently in place for SET. There are many
avenues that future researchers could explore based on the data revealed in this study. It is
recommended that subsequent research consider the following:
1. Assess knowledge levels of first year teachers from various preparation programs. It
could be informative to pre-assess SET prior to starting their first year of teaching

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

119

then post-assess the same SET to determine preparation upon entrance in the role,
growth, and impact of experience.
2. Repeat this study on a larger and national scale, however, consider utilizing focus
groups that use open-ended questioning techniques to collect qualitative data about
their experiences and recommendations. This would strengthen the quantitative data
while continuing to honor voices from the field.
3. Target school districts with higher and lower litigious activity to determine if there
are differences in knowledge scores or if there is a relationship between knowledge
and litigious activity.
4. Research the techniques that are being used in college courses to prepare pre-service
teachers to understand special education law. Furthermore, the knowledge of preservice SET can be assessed to determine the effectiveness of these practices.
5. Investigate the frequency and substance of professional development being provided
to SET by school districts that relates to special education laws, processes, and
procedures.
6. Specifically assess mentors, special education college professors, and / or school
district special education leaders to evaluate whether knowledge limitations are being
spread inadvertently.
Conclusion
Students with disabilities are entitled to a free appropriate public education under federal
law. Special education teachers are the main contributors in ensuring that SWD have an
individual and suitably challenging plan in place that complies with the law and is implemented
with fidelity. Thus, SET should be proficient in understanding and applying these laws. This

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

120

research study, along with the limited studies that have been conducted in the past, confirm that
SET are not demonstrating appropriate knowledge of special education laws, processes, and
procedures. Although the participants in this study performed slightly better than those
previously, their overall knowledge scores still did not reflect high levels of proficiency. A
notable issue that came to light was that participants scored the lowest in FAPE, the key
principle that is the foundation of IDEA (2004). The SET in this research study with the most
teaching experience did score higher than those with less, and they also perceived themselves as
being adequately prepared. Overall, most SET in the sample feel prepared or somewhat prepared
to apply the legalities of special education, yet many did not have scores to match that
confidence. Many themes were discovered that suggest the need for more direct, realistic, and
relevant training opportunities tailored to special education laws, processes, and procedures in
preparation programs and school districts.
It is possible that pre-service SET are being underprepared and current SET are not being
provided on-going training to address the complexity and evolution of special education laws.
This research assessed current SET knowledge and gathered their perceptions of preparedness,
experiences, and practical recommendations. Because this dissertation encompassed current
SET, the data can be used to make valuable changes to preparation programing and professional
development training that honors the experiences of SET and reflects the reality of special
education. This issue is even more substantial now given the rise in special education legal
activity. Failure to follow procedural and substantial components of IDEA could expose school
districts to financial damage and prevent SWD from accessing an appropriate education.
Preparation programs are responsible for ensuring that pre-service teachers have sufficient
knowledge to meet the needs of SWD. Moreover, it is up to school districts to provide SET with

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW
the proper training that guides SET in understanding this imperative component of their daily
positions. Preparation programs and school districts must be held to higher standards of
accountability to better support SET with navigating the legality of special education.

121

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

122

References
22 Pa. Code § 14.124 (2024).
https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/022/chapter
14/chap14toc.html&d=
Ashbaker, B. (2011). History of legal and legislative acts concerned with special education. In
History of Special Education (pp. 21–45). Emerald Publishing Limited.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S0270-4013(2011)0000021005
Billingsley, B., & Bettini, E. (2019). Special education teacher attrition and retention: A review
of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 697–744.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319862495
Blackwell, W. H., & Rossetti, Z. S. (2014). The development of Individualized Education
Programs: Where have we been and where should we go now? SAGE Open, 4(2), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014530411
Bloomberg, L. D. (2022). Completing your qualitative dissertation (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176
(1982).
Brookshire, R., & Klotz, J. (2002). Selected teachers’ perceptions of special education laws.
Brown vs. Board of Education. 1954. 347 U.S. 483.
CADRE. (2025). Trends in dispute resolution (DR) under the IDEA 2022-23 (SY2022). In
CADRE, The Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education.
https://cadreworks.org/files/2024-trends-dispute-resolution-data-sy2022-23-fy2023-rev1192025-accessiblepdf
Capizzi, A. M. (2008). From assessment to annual goal: Engaging a decision-making process in

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

123

writing measurable IEPs. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 41(1), 18–25.
https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990804100102
Casale, E., Golann, D., & LeMaster, E. (2021). U.S. school principals and special education legal
knowledge: A scoping review. International Review of Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 60(2211-6095), 213–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.irrdd.2021.08.007
Conderman, G., Johnston-Rodriguez, S., Hartman, P., & Walker, D. (2013). Honoring voices
from beginning special educators for making changes in teacher preparation. Teacher
Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the
Council for Exceptional Children, 36(1), 65–76.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406412473311
Couvillon, M. A., Yell, M. L., & Katsiyannis, A. (2018). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School
District (2017) and special education law: What teachers and administrators need to
know. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 62(4),
289–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988x.2018.1456400
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research
(3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Decker, J. R., Ober, P., & Schimmel, D. (2017). The attitudinal and behavioral impact of school
law courses. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 14(2), 160–185.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775117742647
Doug C. v. State of Hawaii Board of Education, 720 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2013)
Educational for All Handicapped Children Education Act (P.L. 94-142) (1975).

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

124

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017).
Expansion of Teaching in the Education of Mentally Retarded Children Act of 1958, 72 Stat.
1777.
Fish, W. W. (2008). The IEP meeting: Perceptions of parents of students who receive special
education services. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and
Youth, 53(1), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.53.1.8-14
Gershwin, T., McKittrick, L., & Kilpatrick, A. (2022). The importance of following legal
requirements: Factors that lead to parent satisfaction with the individualized education
program meeting process. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 33(4),
1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2022.2145290
Grasley-Boy, N. M., Gage, N. A., & Lombardo, M. (2019). Effect of SWPBIS on disciplinary
exclusions for students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 86(1), 25–39.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919854196
Holland, L. (2016). Special education teachers’ working knowledge of the IDEA [Doctoral
Dissertation]. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/3937
Horner, S., Mrachko, A., O'connor, E., & Yasik, A. (2020). Pre- service teachers’ knowledge of
special education laws. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 32(1), 48–70.
https://www.mwera.org/MWER/volumes/v32/issue1/V32n1-Horner-FEATUREARTICLE.pdf
Houston Independent School District v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2005).
Hulett, K. (2009). Legal aspects of special education. Pearson Education, Inc.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/1350/text

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

125

Johns, B., H. (2016). Your classroom guide to special education law. Paul H. Brookes Publishing
Co., Inc.
J.R. v. Ventura Unified School District, No. 2:22-cv-02717-HDV-MARx (C.D. California,
2023). https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-cd-cal/115666497.html
Kleinhammer-Tramill, J., & Fiore, T. A. (2003). A history of federal support for preparing
special educators and related services personnel to serve children and youth with
disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(3), 217–229.
https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640302600309
Krawietz v. Galveston Independent School District, No. 17-40461 (5th Cir. 2018).
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/17-40461/17-40461-2018-0817.pdf?ts=1534548619
Kurth, J. A., Love, H., & Pirtle, J. (2020). Parent perspectives of their involvement in IEP
development for children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities, 35(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357619842858
Ladenson, R. F. (2005). The zero-reject policy in special education: A moral analysis. Theory
and Research in Education, 3(3), 273–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/147787850505742
Landmark, L. J., & Zhang, D. (2019). Self-determination at a career and technical school:
Observations of IEP meetings. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 3(2), 152–
160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-019-0096-6
Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. SAGE Publications,
Incorporated.
Markelz, A. M., Nagro, S. A., Szocik, K., Monnin, K., Gerry, M., Macedonia, A., & Mason, A.
(2021). The nature and extent of special education law in teacher preparation. Teacher

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

126

Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the
Council for Exceptional Children, 45(3), 185–203.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064211046248
Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. L., Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E., Christensen, W. R., Woods, L. L.,
& Lovett, D. L. (2006). Direct observation of teacher-directed IEP meetings: Establishing
the need for student IEP meeting instruction. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 187–200.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290607200204
Marx, T. A., Hart, J. L., Nelson, L., Love, J., Baxter, C. M., Gartin, B., & Schaefer Whitby, P. J.
(2014). Guiding IEP teams on meeting the least restrictive environment mandate.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 50(1), 45–50.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451214532345
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866. (D.D.C. 1972).
National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Percentage distribution of school-age students
served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, by educational
environment and type of disability: Selected years, fall 1989 through fall 2022.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d23/tables/dt23_204.60.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). Students with disabilities. U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg
National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. (2012). Categories of disability
under IDEA. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED572702.pdf
Neosho R-V School District v. Clark, 315 F.3d 1022 (8th Cir. 2003).
Niche. (2025). 2025 best school districts in the Pittsburgh area. Niche.com Inc.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

127

https://www.niche.com/k12/search/best-school-districts/m/pittsburgh-metro-area/
Nored, K. (2020). Assessment of special education legal literacy (ASELL): Development of an
instrument to assess educators’ knowledge of special education law [Doctoral
Dissertation].
https://www.proquest.com/openview/48d1d06bc30454b7070bf48f19a59a1b/1
O.R. v. Philadelphia City School District, No. 27887-22-23 (Pennsylvania ODR, 2023).
https://odr-pa.org/downloadpdf/6b069056930cd0575002efb14d07f39b6481d35fa8aef/real-name/27887-22-23.pdf
O’Connor, E. A., Yasik, A. E., & Horner, S. L. (2016). Teachers’ knowledge of special
education laws: What do they know? Insights into Learning Disabilities, 13(1), 7–18.
O’dell, R. M., & Schaefer, M. (2005). IDEA compliance: A view from rural America. Rural
Special Education Quarterly, 24(4), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687050502400403
Office for Dispute Resolution. (2024a). Due process. ODR. https://odr-pa.org/due-process/
Office for Dispute Resolution. (2024b). Procedural Safeguards Notice. ODR. https://odrpa.org/parent-resources/procedural-safeguards-notice/
Osborne, A. G. (1995). Procedural due process rights for parents under the IDEA. Preventing
School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 39(2), 22–26.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988x.1995.9944622
PaTTAN. (2018). Annotated IEP companion checklist. PaTTAN.
https://www.pattan.net/Publications/Annotated-IEP-Companion-Checklist
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth 334 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pa.
1971) and 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972).
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2023). The state performance plan/annual performance

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

128

report and state systemic improvement plan. https://www.education.pa.gov/K12/Special%20Education/IDEA/Pages/StatePerformancePlan.aspx
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2025). Future Ready PA Index - find a school.
Futurereadypa.org. https://futurereadypa.org/
Ridley School District v. M.R. and J.R., 58 IDELR 271 (3d Cir. 2012).
Roberts, F., & Guerra, M. (2017). Principals’ perceptions of their knowledge in special
education. Current Issues in Education, 20(1).
Rodriguez, J. A., & Murawski, W. W. (2020). Special education law and policy: From
foundation to application. Plural Publishing, Incorporated.
Rosas, C. E., & Winterman, K. G. (2014). Are parents really partners in their child’s education?
Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 25–35.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1134773.pdf
Rosa’s Law (2010). Pub. L. No. 111–256. https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ256/PLAW111publ256.pdf
Rozalski, M., Stewart, A., & Miller, J. (2010). How to determine the least restrictive
environment for students with disabilities. Exceptionality, 18(3), 151–163.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2010.491991
Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education v. Rachel H., 14 F.3d 1398 (9th
Cir. 1994).
Sanders, P. (2011). Teacher candidates’ knowledge of special education law. Journal of the
American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 96–108.
https://eric.ed.gov/?q=Teacher+Candidates%e2%80%99+Knowledge+of+Special+Educa
tion+Law&id=EJ1136875

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

129

Sanders, P. (2015). Teachers’ knowledge of special education policies and practices. Journal of
the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 207–234.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1134295.pdf
Scholl, M. J. (2021). Teachers’ knowledge of special education law and preparedness to carry
out non-sintructional tasks associated with special education law [Theses and
Dissertations]. https://scholar.stjohns.edu/theses_dissertations/155/
S.F. v. East Allegheny School District, No. 27339-22-23 (Pennsylvania ODR, 2023). https://odrpa.org/download-pdf/d2b46a667468e1d5bcdc43b630c14bde645a92bec5aba/realname/27339-22-23.pdf
Spaulding, L. S., & Pratt, S. M. (2015). Article 7: A review and analysis of the history of special
education and disability advocacy in the United States. American Educational History
Journal, 42(1-2), 91-109. https://link-gale-com.proxysru.klnpa.org/apps/doc/A437059641/AONE?u=sshe_sru&sid=bookmarkAONE&xid=f8905730
Summers, K., Kiracofe, C., & James, C. (2021). Legal literacy and K-12 public school teachers.
Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 32(4), 330–349.
https://www.mwera.org/MWER/volumes/v32/issue4/MWER-V32n4-SummersFEATURE-ARTICLE.pdf
SurveyMonkey Inc. (2024). SurveyMonkey: The world’s most popular free online survey tool.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/
The IRIS Center. (2010, Rev. 2018). Accommodations: Instructional and testing supports for
students with disabilities. Retrieved from https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/acc/
The IRIS Center. (2019). IEPs: Developing high-quality individualized education programs.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

130

Retrieved from https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/iep01/
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Sec. 300.39 (b) (3). Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/a/300.39/b/3
U.S. Department of Education. (2019). Policy Letter: Sept. 9, 2019 to Rowland. Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/policy-letter-sept-9-2019rowland/
U.S. Department of Education. (2020). A history of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History
U.S. Department of Education. (2024). Section 504. https://www.ed.gov/laws-andpolicy/individuals-disabilities/section-504
United States Department of Justice. (2023). Introduction to the federal court system.
Justice.gov. https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/federal-courts
Van Duyn v. Baker School District 5J, 502 F.3d 811, 815 (9th Cir. 2007).
Whitaker, S. D. (2003). Needs of beginning special education teachers: Implications for teacher
education. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher
Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 26(2), 106–117.
https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640302600204
Wright, P., & Wright, P. (2004). The history of special education law in the United States.
Wrightslaw.com. https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/art/history.spec.ed.law.htm
Yell, M. L., & Shriner, J. G. (1997). The IDEA amendments of 1997: Implications for special
and general education teachers, administrators, and teacher trainers. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 30(1), 1–19.
Yell, M. L., & Bateman, D. (2020). Defining educational benefit: An update on the U.S.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

131

Supreme Court’s ruling in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017).
TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52(5), 283–290.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920914259
Yell, M. L., Bateman, D., & Shriner, J. (2020). Developing and implementing educationally
meaningful and legally sound IEPs: Bringing it all together. TEACHING Exceptional
Children, 52(5), 344–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920919087
Yell, M. L., Collins, J., Kumpiene, G., & Bateman, D. (2020). The Individualized Education
Program: Procedural and substantive requirements. TEACHING Exceptional Children,
52(5), 304–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920906592
Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis, A., Ennis, R. P., Losinski, M., & Christle, C. A. (2016). Avoiding
substantive errors in Individualized Education Program development. TEACHING
Exceptional Children, 49(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059916662204
Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis, A., Losinski, M., & Marshall, K. (2016). Peer-Reviewed research and
the IEP: Implications of Ridley School District v. M.R. and J.R. ex rel. E.R. (2012).
Intervention in School and Clinic, 51(4), 253–257.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451215589182
Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis, A., Ryan, J. B., McDuffie, K. A., & Mattocks, L. (2008). Ensure
compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(1), 45–51.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451208318875
Zettel, J. J., & Ballard, J. (1979). The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 PL
94-142: Its history, origins, and concepts. The Journal of Education, 161(3), 5–22.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/42772958

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

132

Zirkel, P. A. (2015a). Special Education Law: Illustrative Basics and Nuances of Key IDEA
Components. Teacher Education and Special Education, 38(4), 263–275.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406415575377
Zirkel, P. A. (2015b). The “red flags” for Child Find under the IDEA: Separating the law from
the lore. Exceptionality, 23(3), 192–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2014.986615
Zirkel, P. A. (2019). An updated primer of special education law. TEACHING Exceptional
Children, 52(4), 261–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059919878671
Zirkel, P. A. (2022). The four faces of a free appropriate public education. Intervention in School
and Clinic, 57(5), 355–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512211032627
Zirkel, P. A., & Karanxha, Z. (2024). Longitudinal trends in special education case law: An
updated analysis. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 37(1), 42–51.
Zirkel, P. A., & Hetrick, A. (2016). Which procedural parts of the IEP process are the most
judicially vulnerable? Exceptional Children, 83(2), 219–235.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916651849

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW
Appendix A: Permission to use ASELL

133

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

134

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

135

Appendix B: ASELL Questions with Key and Rationale
ASELL with key and rationale (Nored, 2020, p. 130-143)
Child Find:
1. Ella’s parents request to have her evaluated. Ella’s teachers contend that Ella has
academic concerns. The school district says that Ella must go through the Response to
Intervention process prior to being screened by the district. Have Ella’s rights been
violated?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – YES - OSEP 11-07 RTI Memo – “States and LEAs have an obligation to
ensure that evaluation of children suspected of having a disability are not delayed or denied
because of implementation of an RTI strategy.”
Placement:
2. Maria has an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and receives services for Specific
Learning Disability. Maria’s math teacher notices that she is struggling in class and
recommends her services be changed to a math class outside the regular education
classroom. The special education teacher agrees and Maria is moved. Maria’s mother is
contacted a few weeks later to amend Maria’s IEP to match Maria’s new schedule. Have
Maria’s rights been violated?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – YES - A school district cannot unilaterally change a student’s IEP services.
An IEP may be amended either by the entire IEP team at a properly noticed and constituted IEP
meeting or when the parent and the school district agree not to convene an IEP meeting to make
the changes and instead develop a written document to amend the current IEP. 20 USC §1414
(d)(3)(D) & (F); 34 C.F.R. § 300.324 (a)(4).
Accommodations:
3. Suzanne has an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and that stipulates she receive
the testing accommodations of small group, extended time, and test questions read aloud.
She continues to struggle academically. Her mother requests that she be provided
additional testing accommodations. The school personnel members of the IEP team tell
her mother that Suzanne is receiving all possible accommodations. Is this appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

136

Correct response – NO - IEPs are designed to address individual needs and there is no inclusive
list of accommodations.
Child Find:
4. Andrew is on Ms. Brown’s 10-year-old son’s baseball team. Andrew attends the local
private school. Ms. Brown notices that Andrew has difficulty being understood by the
other players when he talks. Ms. Brown mentions to Andrew’s mom that Andrew could
be receiving services to help improve his speech. Andrew’s mom seems surprised and
promises to ask the local public-school district about services. The local school district
tells Andrew’s mom that since Andrew attends a private school, he is not eligible for
services. Is this denial appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – NO - 34 C.F.R. § 300.111 “The State must have in effect policies and
procedures to ensure that - (i) All children with disabilities residing in the State, including
children with disabilities who are homeless children or are wards of the State, and children with
disabilities attending private schools, regardless of the severity of their disability, and who are in
need of special education and related services, are identified, located, and evaluated; and (ii) A
practical method is developed and implemented to determine which children are currently
receiving needed special education and related services.”
IEP Procedural Requirements:
5. Luke will soon turn 16 and is a junior in high school with an Individualized Education
Program (IEP). Luke’s IEP team meets and develops a new IEP for the year. Luke was
not invited to the meeting as his mother does not want him to know he has a disability. Is
this appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – NO - Luke must be invited to his IEP that will cover his 16th birthday or
whenever transition is discussed. 34 C.F.R. § 300.321(b)(1) “the public agency must invite a
child with a disability to attend the child's IEP Team meeting if a purpose of the meeting will be
the consideration of the postsecondary goals for the child and the transition services needed to
assist the child in reaching those goals” 34 C.F.R. 300.320 (b) “. Beginning not later than the
first IEP to be in effect when the child turns 16, or younger if determined appropriate by the IEP
Team, and updated annually, thereafter, the IEP must include - (1) Appropriate measurable
postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments related to training,
education, employment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills; and (2) The transition
services (including courses of study) needed to assist the child in reaching those goals.”

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

137

Child Find:
6. Ms. Johnson, a special education teacher, wants to refer a 17-year-old high school student
for evaluation. She is told by the special education department that it is too late as the
student is too old. Is this appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – NO - 34 C.F.R. § 300.111 “The State must have in effect policies and
procedures to ensure that - (i) All children with disabilities residing in the State, including
children with disabilities who are homeless children or are wards of the State, and children with
disabilities attending private schools, regardless of the severity of their disability, and who are in
need of special education and related services, are identified, located, and evaluated; and (ii) A
practical method is developed and implemented to determine which children are currently
receiving needed special education and related services.”
IEP Procedural Requirements:
7. Megan transfers to a new school with an out-of-state Individualized Education Program.
Her parents are told that she must be reevaluated in the state for Megan to begin to
receive services. Is this appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – NO - 34 C.F.R. § 300.323 “If a child with a disability (who had an IEP that
was in effect in a previous public agency in another State) transfers to a public agency in a new
State, and enrolls in a new school within the same school year, the new public agency (in
consultation with the parents) must provide the child with FAPE (including services comparable
to those described in the child's IEP from the previous public agency), until the new public
agency - (1) Conducts an evaluation … (if determined to be necessary by the new public
agency); and (2) Develops, adopts, and implements a new IEP, if appropriate”
FAPE:
8. Mr. Johnson is Sophia’s special education teacher and Sophia’s case manager. Sophia’s
mother claims that Sophia has not been receiving an appropriate education. Sophia’s
mother says that she is going to sue, and that Mr. Johnson will be forced to pay for
Sophia’s private school education. Is Sophia’s mother accurate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – NO - While the school district may have to provide a private school
education for a denial of FAPE under Burlington School v. Department of Education of

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

138

Massachusetts (471 U.S. 351, 1985), no teacher has been held personally accountable for
tuition.
Evaluation:
9. Madison is a bright student who struggles socially and has difficulty with group work
assignments. Ms. Anderson, her teacher, wants to refer Madison for evaluation. The
special education department head tells Ms. Anderson that Madison is doing fine
academically and would not be eligible for special education services as she is too bright.
Is this accurate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – NO - While a student must need special education (D.L. v. Clear Creek
Independent School District, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, 2017 N. 16-20673 unpublished) all
areas of education are part of the determination and school districts have an obligation to
evaluate students. 20 U.S.C. §1414(a)(1)(B) “either a parent of a child, or a State educational
agency, other State agency, or local educational agency may initiate a request for an initial
evaluation to determine if the child is a child with a disability.” The local educational agency
needs parental permission to proceed with an evaluation for special education services.
Evaluation:
10. Emily is a kindergarten student whose teacher, Ms. Taylor, suspects that Emily may have
a learning disability. The special education department head tells Ms. Taylor that Emily
is too young to be evaluated for specific learning disability and the school has to wait
until Emily is in third grade to evaluate her. Is this accurate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – NO - 34 C.F.R. § 300.111 “The State must have in effect policies and
procedures to ensure that - (i) All children with disabilities residing in the State, including
children with disabilities who are homeless children or are wards of the State, and children with
disabilities attending private schools, regardless of the severity of their disability, and who are in
need of special education and related services, are identified, located, and evaluated; and (ii) A
practical method is developed and implemented to determine which children are currently
receiving needed special education and related services.” 34 C.F.R. 300.309 does not mention
any age and only requires that a child “does not achieve adequately for the child's age or to
meet State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas, when provided
with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child's age or State-approved
grade-level standards: (i) Oral expression. (ii) Listening comprehension. (iii) Written
expression. (iv) Basic reading skill. (v) Reading fluency skills. (vi) Reading comprehension. (vii)
Mathematics calculation. (viii) Mathematics problem solving.”

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

139

IEP Procedural Requirements:
11. Ms. Thompson, the school secretary, calls several students over the school intercom and
instructs them to report to the “Special Ed Classroom, 105, for their IEP meeting” Is this
appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – NO - 34 C.F.R. § 300.610 “The Secretary takes appropriate action, in
accordance with section 444 of GEPA, to ensure the protection of the confidentiality of any
personally identifiable data, information, and records collected or maintained by the Secretary
and by SEAs and LEAs pursuant to Part B of the Act, and consistent with §§ 300.611 through
300.627.” Also, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232(g).
IEP Procedural Requirements:
12. Bryan is dually served in English Learner classes and Special Education. His mother
comes for his Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting and needs a translator.
Bryan’s case manager provides parental rights in English and has an English to Spanish
translator. Is this appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – NO - 20 USC § 1415 (d)(2) “The procedural safeguards notice shall include
a full explanation of the procedural safeguards, written in the native language of the parents
(unless it clearly is not feasible to do so)”
Discipline:
13. Ava is a sixth grader who has had an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and has
been receiving services for a specific learning disability for a few years. Ava’s mother
comes to the school and wants Ava to be removed from “those special classes”. The
school district members of the IEP team meet with Ava’s mother, and she is adamant that
Ava not receive any services. The Team then provides written notice and stops all of
Ava’s services. Later in the school year, Ava is in several fights and is sent to alternative
school. Ava’s mother complains saying that Ava should not have been sent to alternative
school as the school knows she has a disability, and the school did not hold a
manifestation determination. Is Ava’s mother’s complaint appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – NO - 20 USC § 1415 (k)(5)(C) “A local educational agency shall not be
deemed to have knowledge that the child is a child with a disability if the parent of the child has
not allowed an evaluation of the child pursuant to section 1414 of this title or has refused
services under this subchapter or the child has been evaluated and it was determined that the
child was not a child with a disability under this subchapter.”

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

140

IEP Procedural Requirements:
14. Abigail is a fourth grader with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) who receives
services for a specific learning disability. Abigail’s case manager is having a hard time
setting up Abigail’s IEP meeting as Abigail’s parents work nights. They agree to have a
phone conference. The Local Education Agency representative at the meeting says that
the meeting cannot proceed as Abigail’s parents are not present, even though they are on
the phone. Is this appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – NO - 34 C.F.R. § 300.328 “When conducting IEP Team meetings and
placement meetings pursuant to this subpart, and subpart E of this part, and carrying out
administrative matters under section 615 of the Act (such as scheduling, exchange of witness
lists, and status conferences), the parent of a child with a disability and a public agency may
agree to use alternative means of meeting participation, such as video conferences and
conference calls.”
IEP Procedural Requirements:
15. Hannah is a fourth-grader who has an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and is
served for a specific learning disability. Her annual meeting is approaching, and
Hannah’s case manager sends Hannah’s parents a draft IEP before the meeting. Hannah’s
parents attended the meeting and participated in the IEP process. Did the case manager
violate IDEA by preparing a draft IEP prior to the meeting?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – NO - L.G. v. Fair Lawn Bd. of Educ., 486 Fed. Appx. 967 (3d Cir. 2012)
There was no predetermination where school staff met and drafted an IEP and presented it to the
parents because the parents had an opportunity to participate in creating the final IEP.”
IEP Procedural Requirements:
16. Ryan is a ninth-grader who has an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and has been
served for a specific learning disability for several years. Ryan’s case manager reaches
out to Ryan’s parents to schedule Ryan’s IEP. Ryan’s parents state that the only time they
can attend is at 6 PM. The school day ends at 4 PM. The school offers to hold a phone
conference or a video conference. The parents refuse. The local education agency (LEA)
representative says that Ryan’s teachers will have to meet at 6 to be in compliance with
IDEA. Is the LEA correct?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

141

Correct response – NO - OSERS Letter Dated June 3, 2008, to Thomas indicates that
“[a]lthough, Part B does not prohibit public agencies from scheduling IEP Team meetings in the
evening, it does not require that they do so.”
IEP Procedural Requirements:
17. Phillip is a seventh-grader with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) who is served
for a vision impairment. His case manager reaches out to Phillip’s parents to schedule his
IEP. Phillip’s parents assert that they cannot attend before his IEP expires but can come
the week after the IEP expires. The local education agency (LEA) representative tells
Phillip’s case manager that they must hold the IEP before the deadline even though the
IEP team is making substantial changes to Phillip’s IEP without Phillip’s parents. Is this
appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – NO - Doug C. v. State of Hawaii Department of Education 720 F.3d 1038
(9th Cir. 2013) The Department of Education’s “argument that it absolutely could not
reschedule the IEP meeting for a date even a few days after the annual deadline in order to
include Doug C. is untenable.” In response to the argument that the IEP being out of date
trumps other requirements the 9th Circuit pointed out that “However, the Department cites no
authority, nor could it, for the proposition that it cannot provide any services to a student whose
annual review is overdue.” “[T]he Supreme Court and this court have both repeatedly stressed
the vital importance of parental participation in the IEP creation process. We have further held
that delays in meeting IEP deadlines do not deny a student a FAPE where they do not deprive a
student of any educational benefit. See A.M. v. Monrovia, 627 F.3d 773, 779 (9th Cir.2010)
(“Whether or not Defendant exceeded the thirty-day limit, A.M. suffered no deprivation of
educational benefit and therefore has no claim.”).” “Under the circumstances of this case, the
Department's decision to prioritize strict deadline compliance over parental participation was
clearly not reasonable.”
Evaluation:
18. Nicholas is a sixth-grader who was evaluated for special education services. Following
the evaluation, the school district eligibility team determined that even though Nicholas
had Autism, his disability did not have an adverse effect on his education. A special
education teacher who heard this was certain that they had made a mistake saying that
anyone with a disability was entitled to an IEP. Is this teacher correct?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – NO - The IDEA requires that a student also must need special education and
related services because of the disability. 20 U.S.C. 1401(3)(A)(ii) D.A. v. Meridian Joint School
District No. 2 as the school district considered both academic and non-academic factors and
determined the student did not need special education services this determination was
appropriate. (No. 14- 35081 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, unpublished opinion)

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

142

Placement:
19. Katie is an eleventh-grader with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and has been
receiving services under the Other Health Impairment eligibility category for several
years. During her annual IEP meeting, the school personnel members of the team
recommended a change in placement from the resource classroom to an inclusion setting.
Katie’s parents disagreed stating that the decision to change placement had to be
unanimous. Are Katie’s parents correct?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – NO - Under K.A. v. Fulton County School District (741 F.3d 1195, 11th
Circuit, 2013) placement decisions need not be unanimous. “The court agrees with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that the parents do not have a veto.”
IEP Procedural Requirements:
20. Ms. Rodriguez is a special education teacher and case manager. She needs to amend the
Individualized Education Program (IEP) previously developed at the student’s annual IEP
meeting to address a few changes that the parent has agreed to via telephone. The Local
Education Agency (LEA) representative tells Ms. Rodriguez that under IDEA she must
hold a meeting to amend the IEP. Is the LEA correct?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – NO - C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(4)(1) Under IDEA parents may agree to an
amendment and not meet. C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(4)(1) “In making changes to a child's IEP after
the annual IEP Team meeting for a school year, the parent of a child with a disability and the
public agency may agree not to convene an IEP Team meeting for the purposes of making those
changes, and instead may develop a written document to amend or modify the child's current
IEP.”
FAPE:
21. Zachary is a 17-year-old with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and was
attending school before he was convicted of assault. Zachary is sentenced to prison in
December. Zachary has not graduated from high school. In January, the prison officials
tell Zachary and his mother that his IEP does not affect him in prison and the best the
prison can offer is a GED. Are the prison officials correct?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – NO - Dear Colleague Letter dated December 5, 2014 states that “When a
student with an individualized education program (IEP) transfers to a correctional facility in the
same State in the same school year, the new public agency (in consultation with the parents)
must provide the student with FAPE through services that are comparable to those described in

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

143

the student’s IEP from the previous public agency until the new public agency either adopts the
previous agency’s IEP, or develops and implements a new IEP for the student.”
FAPE:
22. Caleb is a first-grade student with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) who is
hard of hearing. The school district made numerous attempts to involve his parents in the
IEP process. They were out of the country for two meetings and then did not attend a
third meeting when they returned. The school recorded the IEP meetings and provided
the parents with transcripts of the meetings. The parents filed a due process complaint
saying that as they were not able to meaningfully participate in the IEP process a free and
appropriate public education (FAPE) was denied. Did the school district violate FAPE?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – NO - Dervishi v. Stamford Board of Education (No. 15-2798, 2d Cir. 2016)
“The School Board made significant efforts to involve the Parents in the IEP development. The
Court notes that, after the Parents did not participate in the two summer PPT meetings, the
School Board apprised the Parents of the development of the IEP by recording the meetings and
providing the Parents with transcripts.”
Placement:
23. Connor is a fourth-grade student with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) who is
served for a Mild Intellectual Disability. Last school year Connor’s IEP team met and
determined that Connor would have small group math and English and co-taught science
and social studies. Over the summer the Special Education English teacher quit, and the
school was unable to hire a new teacher. After school started Connor’s case manager
called Connor’s parents to amend his placement for English from small group to cotaught. Connor’s mom was concerned as Connor’s weakest area has been English. The
case manager tells Connor’s mom that they do not have another option as there is no
small group English class. Have Connor’s rights been violated?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – YES - 34 C.F.R. § 300.115 “(a) Each public agency must ensure that a
continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities
for special education and related services. (b) The continuum required in paragraph (a) of this
section must - (1) Include the alternative placements listed in the definition of special education
under § 300.38 (instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction,
and instruction in hospitals and institutions); and (2) Make provision for supplementary services
(such as resource room or itinerant instruction) to be provided in conjunction with regular class
placement.”

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

144

Child Find:
24. Benjamin is a twelve-year-old whose parents had to place him in a nursing home due to a
Traumatic Brain Injury. Prior to the accident, Benjamin was a general education student.
Benjamin’s parents approach the local school district for Occupational and Physical
Therapy services as well as some academic services. The school district states that since
Benjamin is in a nursing home the school cannot serve him. Is the school’s response
appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – NO - Dear Colleague letter dated April 26, 2016, states that “children with
disabilities residing in nursing homes and their parents have the same rights under IDEA that
apply to all other IDEA-eligible children.”
IEP Procedural Requirements:
25. Samuel is an unaccompanied homeless minor and has no parents in the United States.
Samuel’s school has searched for parents and not found any. Samuel is very behind
academically and needs additional support. Samuel’s math teacher is told that the school
cannot evaluate Samuel since they cannot find a parent. Is the school correct?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Correct response – NO - 34 C.F.R. § 300.519 “Each public agency must ensure that the rights of
a child are protected when - (1) No parent (as defined in § 300.30) can be identified; (2) The
public agency, after reasonable efforts, cannot locate a parent; (3) The child is a ward of the
State under the laws of that State; or (4) The child is an unaccompanied homeless youth as
defined in section 725(6) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act ( 42 U.S.C.
11434a(6)). (b)Duties of public agency. The duties of a public agency under paragraph (a) of
this section include the assignment of an individual to act as a surrogate for the parents. This
must include a method - (1) For determining whether a child needs a surrogate parent; and (2)
For assigning a surrogate parent to the child.”

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW
Appendix C: Letter to School Districts

145

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

146

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

147

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

148

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW
Appendix D: IRB Approval

149

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

150

Appendix E: Email Letter to Participants
Hello teachers,
My name is Maura Blumer, and I am a doctoral student at Slippery Rock University and a
special education teacher at North Hills School District. I am seeking special education teachers
that manage IEPs to complete a survey for data to be used in my dissertation. The study is
entitled, “Special Education Teachers’ Knowledge of Special Education Laws, Processes, and
Procedures and their Preparedness to Navigate the Legality of Special Education.” The purpose
of the study is to assess special education teachers’ knowledge of special education laws and
evaluate their perceptions of preparedness and experiences that have contributed to or hindered
that knowledge. My goal is to gather pertinent data that will help make advancements in
preparing special education teachers.
The survey is completely anonymous and voluntary. It will include multiple-choice questions
relating to special education situations based on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). Also, open-ended questions will be included to allow you to share your perceptions and
experiences.
After reading the information in the attached document, please click on the following survey link
to give your voluntary consent and complete the survey. Your time and input are greatly
appreciated.
Survey Link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/DKJY3M9
Maura Blumer
Doctoral Student at Slippery Rock University
mkb1020@sru.edu
330-272-3305

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

151

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

152

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

153

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

154

Appendix F: Research Study Survey
Page 1- Welcome to My Survey:
Thank you for participating in my research. Your input will help make advancements in
preparing special education teachers.
1. Criteria for completing this survey includes management of IEPs. Click "Yes" to
continue and confirm that your role involves IEP management.
o Yes - I am a special education teacher that manages IEPs
o No - I do not manage IEPs
**required question
Page 2 - Background Information:
This survey is anonymous. School district is asked so that the data can be sorted.
1. What is your current role?
o Special Education Teacher (includes management of IEPs)
o General Education Teacher
o Administrator
o Other (explain)
2. How many years have you taught special education?
o First year teacher
o 2-5
o 6-14
o 15 or more
3. Did you take a course in your special education preparation program (college/university)
that was dedicated to special education law?
o Yes
o No
o Not sure
4. Was the class beneficial?
o Yes
o Somewhat
o No
o Did not have a course dedicated to special education law.
5. Have you received professional development training within the last 2 years provided by
your school district that addressed special education law?
o Yes
o No
o Not sure
6. Was the training beneficial?
o Yes
o Somewhat
o No
o Did not have a training dedicated to special education law.

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

155

Page 3 – Assessment of Special Education Legal Literacy (ASELL):
Created by Kasey Nored (2020), the ASELL is a valid and reliable instrument used to assess
knowledge of federal special education law (IDEA).
1. Ella’s parents request to have her evaluated. Ella’s teachers contend that Ella has
academic concerns. The school district says that Ella must go through the Response to
Intervention process prior to being screened by the district. Have Ella’s rights been
violated?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
2. Maria has an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and receives services for Specific
Learning Disability. Maria’s math teacher notices that she is struggling in class and
recommends her services be changed to a math class outside the regular education
classroom. The special education teacher agrees and Maria is moved. Maria’s mother is
contacted a few weeks later to amend Maria’s IEP to match Maria’s new schedule. Have
Maria’s rights been violated?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
3. Suzanne has an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and that stipulates she receive
the testing accommodations of small group, extended time, and test questions read aloud.
She continues to struggle academically. Her mother requests that she be provided
additional testing accommodations. The school personnel members of the IEP team tell
her mother that Suzanne is receiving all possible accommodations. Is this appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
4. Andrew is on Ms. Brown’s 10-year-old son’s baseball team. Andrew attends the local
private school. Ms. Brown notices that Andrew has difficulty being understood by the
other players when he talks. Ms. Brown mentions to Andrew’s mom that Andrew could
be receiving services to help improve his speech. Andrew’s mom seems surprised and
promises to ask the local public-school district about services. The local school district
tells Andrew’s mom that since Andrew attends a private school, he is not eligible for
services. Is this denial appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
5. Luke will soon turn 16 and is a junior in high school with an Individualized Education
Program (IEP). Luke’s IEP team meets and develops a new IEP for the year. Luke was

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

156

not invited to the meeting as his mother does not want him to know he has a disability. Is
this appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
6. Ms. Johnson, a special education teacher, wants to refer a 17-year-old high school student
for evaluation. She is told by the special education department that it is too late as the
student is too old. Is this appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
7. Megan transfers to a new school with an out-of-state Individualized Education Program.
Her parents are told that she must be reevaluated in the state for Megan to begin to
receive services. Is this appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
8. Mr. Johnson is Sophia’s special education teacher and Sophia’s case manager. Sophia’s
mother claims that Sophia has not been receiving an appropriate education. Sophia’s
mother says that she is going to sue, and that Mr. Johnson will be forced to pay for
Sophia’s private school education. Is Sophia’s mother accurate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
9. Madison is a bright student who struggles socially and has difficulty with group work
assignments. Ms. Anderson, her teacher, wants to refer Madison for evaluation. The
special education department head tells Ms. Anderson that Madison is doing fine
academically and would not be eligible for special education services as she is too bright.
Is this accurate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
10. Emily is a kindergarten student whose teacher, Ms. Taylor, suspects that Emily may have
a learning disability. The special education department head tells Ms. Taylor that Emily
is too young to be evaluated for specific learning disability and the school has to wait
until Emily is in third grade to evaluate her. Is this accurate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

157

11. Ms. Thompson, the school secretary, calls several students over the school intercom and
instructs them to report to the “Special Ed Classroom, 105, for their IEP meeting” Is this
appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
12. Bryan is dually served in English Learner classes and Special Education. His mother
comes for his Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting and needs a translator.
Bryan’s case manager provides parental rights in English and has an English to Spanish
translator. Is this appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
13. Ava is a sixth grader who has had an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and has
been receiving services for a specific learning disability for a few years. Ava’s mother
comes to the school and wants Ava to be removed from “those special classes”. The
school district members of the IEP team meet with Ava’s mother, and she is adamant that
Ava not receive any services. The Team then provides written notice and stops all of
Ava’s services. Later in the school year, Ava is in several fights and is sent to alternative
school. Ava’s mother complains saying that Ava should not have been sent to alternative
school as the school knows she has a disability, and the school did not hold a
manifestation determination. Is Ava’s mother’s complaint appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
14. Abigail is a fourth grader with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) who receives
services for a specific learning disability. Abigail’s case manager is having a hard time
setting up Abigail’s IEP meeting as Abigail’s parents work nights. They agree to have a
phone conference. The Local Education Agency representative at the meeting says that
the meeting cannot proceed as Abigail’s parents are not present, even though they are on
the phone. Is this appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
15. Hannah is a fourth-grader who has an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and is
served for a specific learning disability. Her annual meeting is approaching, and
Hannah’s case manager sends Hannah’s parents a draft IEP before the meeting. Hannah’s
parents attended the meeting and participated in the IEP process. Did the case manager
violate IDEA by preparing a draft IEP prior to the meeting?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

158

16. Ryan is a ninth-grader who has an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and has been
served for a specific learning disability for several years. Ryan’s case manager reaches
out to Ryan’s parents to schedule Ryan’s IEP. Ryan’s parents state that the only time they
can attend is at 6 PM. The school day ends at 4 PM. The school offers to hold a phone
conference or a video conference. The parents refuse. The local education agency (LEA)
representative says that Ryan’s teachers will have to meet at 6 to be in compliance with
IDEA. Is the LEA correct?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
17. Phillip is a seventh-grader with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) who is served
for a vision impairment. His case manager reaches out to Phillip’s parents to schedule his
IEP. Phillip’s parents assert that they cannot attend before his IEP expires but can come
the week after the IEP expires. The local education agency (LEA) representative tells
Phillip’s case manager that they must hold the IEP before the deadline even though the
IEP team is making substantial changes to Phillip’s IEP without Phillip’s parents. Is this
appropriate?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
18. Nicholas is a sixth-grader who was evaluated for special education services. Following
the evaluation, the school district eligibility team determined that even though Nicholas
had Autism, his disability did not have an adverse effect on his education. A special
education teacher who heard this was certain that they had made a mistake saying that
anyone with a disability was entitled to an IEP. Is this teacher correct?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
19. Katie is an eleventh-grader with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and has been
receiving services under the Other Health Impairment eligibility category for several
years. During her annual IEP meeting, the school personnel members of the team
recommended a change in placement from the resource classroom to an inclusion setting.
Katie’s parents disagreed stating that the decision to change placement had to be
unanimous. Are Katie’s parents correct?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
20. Ms. Rodriguez is a special education teacher and case manager. She needs to amend the
Individualized Education Program (IEP) previously developed at the student’s annual IEP
meeting to address a few changes that the parent has agreed to via telephone. The Local

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

159

Education Agency (LEA) representative tells Ms. Rodriguez that under IDEA she must
hold a meeting to amend the IEP. Is the LEA correct?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
21. Zachary is a 17-year-old with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and was
attending school before he was convicted of assault. Zachary is sentenced to prison in
December. Zachary has not graduated from high school. In January, the prison officials
tell Zachary and his mother that his IEP does not affect him in prison and the best the
prison can offer is a GED. Are the prison officials correct?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
22. Caleb is a first-grade student with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) who is
hard of hearing. The school district made numerous attempts to involve his parents in the
IEP process. They were out of the country for two meetings and then did not attend a
third meeting when they returned. The school recorded the IEP meetings and provided
the parents with transcripts of the meetings. The parents filed a due process complaint
saying that as they were not able to meaningfully participate in the IEP process a free and
appropriate public education (FAPE) was denied. Did the school district violate FAPE?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
23. Connor is a fourth-grade student with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) who is
served for a Mild Intellectual Disability. Last school year Connor’s IEP team met and
determined that Connor would have small group math and English and co-taught science
and social studies. Over the summer the Special Education English teacher quit, and the
school was unable to hire a new teacher. After school started Connor’s case manager
called Connor’s parents to amend his placement for English from small group to cotaught. Connor’s mom was concerned as Connor’s weakest area has been English. The
case manager tells Connor’s mom that they do not have another option as there is no
small group English class. Have Connor’s rights been violated?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
24. Benjamin is a twelve-year-old whose parents had to place him in a nursing home due to a
Traumatic Brain Injury. Prior to the accident, Benjamin was a general education student.
Benjamin’s parents approach the local school district for Occupational and Physical
Therapy services as well as some academic services. The school district states that since
Benjamin is in a nursing home the school cannot serve him. Is the school’s response
appropriate?
o Yes

KNOWLEDGE & PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW

160

o No
o Not Sure
25. Samuel is an unaccompanied homeless minor and has no parents in the United States.
Samuel’s school has searched for parents and not found any. Samuel is very behind
academically and needs additional support. Samuel’s math teacher is told that the school
cannot evaluate Samuel since they cannot find a parent. Is the school correct?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
Page 4 – Open-ended
Please answer the following questions and provide as much detail as you are comfortable with.
1. Describe how prepared and knowledgeable you feel to accurately apply special education
laws, processes, and procedures in your role as a special education teacher.
2. Describe what you believe has best prepared you to handle and understand the special
education laws, process, and procedures that you deal with in your role as a special
education teacher (i.e. college courses, mentors, PD, litigious situation, years of teaching,
etc.)
3. Explain the recommendations you would make for colleges to better prepare first year
teachers for the legality involved in special education?
4. Explain the recommendations you would make for school districts to better prepare their
current teachers for the legality involved in special education?