BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 2721
AUTHOR: Blakeslee
AMENDED: June 9, 2010
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 30, 2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lynn Lorber
NOTE : This bill has been amended to replace its contents and
this is the first time the bill is being heard in its current
form.
SUBJECT : Special education disputes: report.
KEY POLICY ISSUE
Should the Superintendent of Public Instruction report on
options for reducing administrative and legal costs resulting
from disputes and litigation regarding special education?
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
to prepare a report identifying options for reducing costs
resulting from disputes and litigation over the adequacy and
administration of individualized education plans.
BACKGROUND
Federal and state laws and regulations provide for a system
of procedural safeguards to address complaints regarding
special education and related services. Included in this
system are mechanisms to file a complaint, investigate
complaints, request dispute resolution (mediation), and
initiate due process hearings. (United States Code, Title
20, 1400; Code of Federal Regulations, Title 34, 300;
Education Code 56500; California Code of Regulations, Title
5, 3080)
State law includes provisions relative to:
1) Prehearing mediation (no lawyers). (EC 56500.3)
AB 2721
Page 2
2) Due process hearing. (EC 56501)
3) Resolution meeting (after filing a request for due
process hearing but prior to the due process hearing).
(EC 56501.5)
ANALYSIS
This bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI) to prepare a report identifying options for reducing
costs resulting from disputes and litigation over the
adequacy and administration of individualized education
plans. Specifically, this bill:
1) Requires the SPI to prepare a report identifying options
for reducing administrative and legal costs borne by
local educational agencies resulting from disputes and
litigation over the adequacy and administration of
individualized education plans (IEPs).
2) Requires the SPI to consult with the following:
a) Secretary for Education.
b) State Board of Education.
c) Department of Finance.
d) Each house of the Legislature.
e) Local educational agencies (LEA) or their
representatives.
f) School counselors.
g) Elementary and secondary education teachers.
h) Teachers of pupils with special needs.
i) Representatives from special education local
plan areas.
j) Parents and advocates of pupils with special
needs.
aa) Others deemed appropriate by the SPI.
3) Requires the report to include all of the following:
a) The protections afforded to every pupil under
state and federal law that establish the right of
individuals with exceptional needs to a free
AB 2721
Page 3
appropriate public education, and the right to a
fair hearing when an IEP provided by the LEA is
disputed by a pupil's representative.
b) Regulations, policies, and practices that may
reduce the frequency of litigation, and the
associated administrative and legal costs borne by
LEAs.
c) The current cost and budgetary implications of
special education litigation borne by LEAs across
the state.
d) Recommendations to improve the development,
approval, administration, and monitoring of IEPs so
that funding allocated to LEAs is spent more
efficiently on pupil education, and expenditures on
administrative and legal costs associated with
resolving IEP disputes are reduced.
e) Possible roles and responsibilities of other
departments or agencies to reduce the cost of
litigation borne by LEAs.
f) Strategies for increasing the use and
effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution and
other litigation alternatives.
4) Requires the SPI to submit to the Legislature an interim
report on the status of the final report and any
preliminary recommendations by July 1, 2011. The SPI is
to submit the final report with recommendations to the
Legislature and Governor by December 1, 2011.
5) Requires the SPI to use existing state resources and
federal funds to prepare the interim and final reports.
6) Sunsets these provisions on December 1, 2015.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author, "California
experiences IEP dispute resolution at a higher rate than
almost any other state. School districts are
financially responsible for costly legal proceedings
when an Individual Education Plan (IEP) is disputed.
AB 2721
Page 4
Under certain circumstances, the school district is
responsible to pay for the legal fees of the student's
advocate. While parties agree that the cost of the
legal proceedings presents a financial burden upon
school districts, there are few identifiable remedies to
reduce cost. AB 2721 tasks the Department of Education
to examine the problem and identify options for getting
district dollars back into the classroom to support the
student's needs."
2) What about costs to parents ? This bill repeatedly
refers to costs borne by local educational agencies
(LEAs). Staff notes that parents incur significant
costs throughout the course of resolving a dispute.
Therefore, staff recommends an amendment to include
consideration of costs borne by parents as well as by
LEAs.
3) Technical amendments . References to "individualized
education plan" should be changed to "individualized
education program." Staff recommends an amendment to
make this clarifying change.
4) Prior and related legislation .
AB 1663 (Evans, Ch. 454, 2007), among other
things, authorized a public agency to offer to
parents and school that choose not to use
mediation, an opportunity to meet with a
disinterested party.
AB 2321 (Mazzoni, Ch. 591, 2000) authorized
a pilot project to test alternative due process
hearing procedures (no lawyers) in up to three
special education local plan areas.
SUPPORT
None received.
OPPOSITION
None received.
AB 2721
Page 5