ISTOCK.COM/DRAFTER123

“We can’t agree on this IEP, so I’m filing a lawsuit!” For school leaders, these may be words that you’ve heard or feared. Special education lawsuits are the most prevalent type of litigation in schools. When disagreements occur involving students eligible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), families are legally entitled to file a due process or state complaint with the state department of education.

Just as divorcing parents should try to resolve their differences amicably, schools and families must also recognize that it is in their child’s best interest not to have the adults in their lives overwhelmed by conflict. When disagreements between schools and families deteriorate into lawsuits, collateral harm is exacerbated. Adversarial relationships often negatively impact the student’s education, as well as damage the relationships and well-being of the student’s family and school staff for years to come. Litigation is time-consuming, expensive, and emotionally draining. Essentially, when litigation occurs, it can mean years of additional time, resources, and headaches.

Fortunately, school leaders do not have to navigate conflict alone. The Center for Appropriate Resolution in Special Education (CADRE) is a national organization with a mission to provide free resources and guidance about special education conflicts. CADRE is funded by the federal government to 1) prevent and resolve disputes and 2) develop more effective dispute resolution systems. Because building-level leaders seldom know about CADRE, this article highlights CADRE’s useful resources and offers strategies to prevent special education litigation.

“Just as divorcing parents should try to resolve their differences amicably, schools and families must also recognize that it is in their child’s best interest not to have the adults in their lives overwhelmed by conflict.”

Problem Areas and Solutions

It is imperative that school leaders are informed because conflicts are on the rise. According to CADRE, special education disputes increased almost 90% from 2013–23 (CADRE, 2025). Three problem areas that may be contributing to the increase include:

1. Adversarial IEP Meetings. Many avoidable issues arise related to IEP meetings. IDEA requires that parents/guardians be members of the IEP Team, but did you know that the IEP is a legally binding contract and that parents/guardians have independent, enforceable IDEA rights? Therefore, before disagreements arise or worsen at IEP meetings, school employees should foster positive school-family relationships. CADRE has developed numerous resources offering hundreds of practical strategies. For example, Engaging Parents in Productive Partnerships suggests that to foster productive IEP meetings, schools should:

  • “Make parents feel welcome (greet at door, offer beverage, same size chairs for everyone, brief pre-meeting chit-chat and acclimatization).”
  • “Don’t hurry. Discuss any time constraints in advance.”
  • “Listen deeply and demonstrate understanding.”
  • “Explain importance of parent involvement in what occurs at the meeting.”
  • “Keep parents advised of progress on an ongoing basis—an IEP meeting is a bad place to spring a surprise.”
  • “Be willing to say, ‘I don’t know, but I’ll find out.’”
  • “Review and evaluate what worked and didn’t work at the meeting.”

If the relationship is already adversarial, then CADRE recommends that schools work with a trained, uninvested third party to facilitate the IEP meeting. Facilitation is a voluntary process where a neutral third party helps with communication and problem-solving.

In addition to these suggestions, schools should be sure to follow the legally mandated procedures for the meeting. For example, as required by IDEA, ensure a Public Agency Representative and other required team members attend (with a professional and invested attitude) and that parents/guardians receive proper notice of meetings. School leaders must also avoid predetermining a student’s IEP without parent/guardian input.

2. Unaddressed Behavioral Needs. In Jackson v. Northwest Local School District (2010), the mother of a kindergarten student, KJ, requested a special education evaluation due to her daughter’s academic and behavioral issues at school. The mother made an appointment with an outside psychologist who diagnosed KJ with ADHD. Nonetheless, the school determined KJ to be ineligible for special education and provided interventions without an IEP. Later, when KJ was in third grade, she was expelled for threatening behavior. After her mother sued claiming IDEA violations, the federal district court found that the school violated IDEA by not providing a Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) before expelling KJ. In other words, even though KJ was not yet identified as a student eligible under IDEA, the behavior at the time of the expulsion alerted the school that KJ should have been evaluated for special education. Therefore, KJ was entitled to an MDR and could only be expelled if her misbehavior was not a manifestation of her disability. The court removed the suspension and expulsion from KJ’s disciplinary record and awarded compensatory education for the days she missed school.

Many students like KJ go unidentified and do not receive needed behavioral interventions until behaviors have escalated. Yet, IDEA’s Child Find mandate requires that all students eligible for IDEA are identified. Additionally, if the IEP team determines that a student’s misbehavior is a manifestation of their disability, the team must “conduct a functional behavioral assessment and implement a behavioral intervention plan” (20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(F)). In other words, regardless of whether a school has implemented a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS), schools cannot delay identifying students in need of more intensive behavioral supports. Even in non-disciplinary situations, any time a student’s behavior impedes their learning or that of others, the IEP team shall “consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior” (20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3)(B)(i)). “Conducting FBAs more often than legally required may reduce disruptive/violent behaviors” and legal vulnerability (Decker et al., 2023).

3. Staff Shortages. Special education vacancies are the most challenging to fill. In a national study, 74% of elementary and middle schools reported that they had difficulty filling special education vacancies with certified teachers (NCES, 2024). When teaching and instructional aide positions remain unfilled, it leads to unsafe learning and working conditions, and obviously, opens schools up to lawsuits.

Therefore, school leaders should carefully analyze what is causing the shortage and what can be done about it. Special education teachers are resigning in part because of adversarial relationships with families. In a study of teachers who testified at special education due process hearings, Zagata et al. (2024) found almost all of the teachers (96%) reported that the conflict negatively impacted their physical and mental health. One commented that “’[t]he stress of this experience led to me resigning from this district.” Administrators should recognize and address the heightened emotional demands of special educators and prioritize attracting, preparing, and retaining all professionals who work with students with disabilities.

Principals wanting to take concrete actions to retain their special educators should utilize the free strategies at the Lead IDEA Center. Its Special Educator Retention Navigator includes six important retention issues and the principal’s role in proactively addressing them. The issues include: 1) role ambiguity, 2) feeling isolated, 3) underutilized expertise, 4) feeling overwhelmed, 5) differing expectations at home and school, and 6) feeling unsupported. The Center also created a toolkit that offers short-, medium-, and long-term solutions, resources, practical examples, and IDEA considerations.

Principals seeking ways to support their teachers can turn to the IRIS Center, a federally-funded organization at Vanderbilt University that “develops and disseminates free, engaging online resources about evidence-based instructional and behavioral practices to support the education of all students, particularly struggling learners and those with disabilities” (IRIS Center, n.d.). To locate modules for your staff, visit IRIS Resource Locator. Additionally, to support employee education or to prepare employees as part of a “grow your own program,” consider partnering with nearby universities/other organizations which offer micro-credentials, teacher apprenticeships, and other practice-based opportunities.

Finally, to retain current employees, address their working conditions. Ask what can be done to change the school culture to prevent burnout and make them feel more valued and less isolated. Evaluate caseloads and offer induction and mentoring programs. The Revealing Special Educators’ Conditions for Teaching (ReSpECT) measure is a valuable tool to help principals better understand special educators’ perspectives on working conditions, well-being, and other challenges that may impact their intention to remain in the profession. Results from this tool can be used to prioritize specific strategies for improvement.

Increasing Legal Literacy

To comply with the law, school employees must know their legal obligations. Don’t wait for a career-ending headline or life-altering lawsuit before recognizing that your staff members lack legal literacy in special education. Research shows that school leaders and teachers are woefully unprepared, but they want more training (Decker, 2025). When employees learn more about the law, it reduces their anxiety, increases their confidence, and allows them to spot issues to avoid legal violations. Emphasize that when staff identify potential problem areas, they should raise their concerns.

Janet R. Decker, JD, PhD, is an associate professor of education law at Indiana University and a co-author of Legal Rights of School Leaders, Teachers, and Students. Angie Balsley, EdD, is the CEO of Unified Leadership and a senior consultant with the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE). Kayla Bridgham, JD, is an associate attorney at Himes Petrarca & Fester, an education law firm serving school districts in Illinois.

References

CADRE (2025). IDEA dispute resolution data summary for U.S. and outlying areas: 2013-14 to 2023-24. cadreworks.org/files/2025-national-idea-dispute-resolution-data-summary-final-accessible0pdf

Decker, J. (2025, April). Guaranteed dividends: Why finance and other education law scholars should invest in legal literacy research. Journal of Education Finance & Law, 50(1), 158–168. doi.org/10.5406/30678560.50.1.10

Decker, J., Snyder, N. & Dieterich, C. (2023, November). Discipline of students with disabilities who exhibit violent and disruptive behavior. Principal Leadership, 52–54. nassp.org/publication/principal-leadership/volume-24-2023-2024/principal-leadership-november-2023/legal-matters-november-2023/

IRIS Center. (n.d.). Who we are. iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/about/who-we-are/

Jackson v. Nw. Local Sch. Dist., No. 1:09–cv–300, 2010 WL 3452333 (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 3, 2010); No. 1:09cv300, 2010 WL 3474970 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2010) (adopting magistrate’s report and recommendation).

National Center for Education Statistics. (2024, October). Most U.S. public elementary and secondary schools faced hiring challenges for the start of the 2024–25 academic year. nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/press_releases/10_17_2024.asp

Zagata, E., Reese, M., & Sinclair, T. (2024, April). “I didn’t sign up for this!”: Considering the impact of due process on teachers. CADRE. cadreworks.org/resources/literature-article/i-didnt-sign-for-considering-impact-due-process-teachers