Illinois · special-education accountability
Due-process decisions, decoded
What is a due-process hearing — and why would a parent need one?
When a parent and a school district can't resolve a disagreement about a child's special education — whether the IEP is appropriate, where the child is placed, or what services or evaluations are owed — either side can file for a due-process hearing: a formal, court-like proceeding before a neutral state hearing officer. It is the strongest enforcement tool a parent has under federal law (the IDEA), and usually a last resort after other steps fail. Below is every Illinois decision on record (316, FY 2008–2026) — read and classified so you can see what families actually fight over and how often they win.
Why this is statewide, not per-district. ISBE anonymizes both the district and the student in every decision ("Student … v. District"), so these can't be tied to a specific district — but as a body they show the system clearly. ISBE source
What these 293 decisions were about — and how they came out
We read every decision on file and classified each by the issue in dispute and who prevailed. (Some early decisions could not be machine-read.)
Who prevailed
35%Parent prevailed (104)18%Split decision (52)46%District prevailed (136)0%Dismissed / withdrawn (1)
Parents prevailed outright in about 35% of decided cases — a reminder that these hearings are hard-fought and far from a sure thing, which is why most disputes are resolved long before this stage.
Most common issues in dispute
FAPE denial245
IEP adequacy/implementation156
Placement/LRE156
Eligibility/evaluation/child find135
Compensatory education109
Private/residential placement & reimbursement103
Related services92
Independent educational evaluation (IEE)88
Procedural/parent-participation81
Behavior/discipline/manifestation66
Disabilities most often involved
Specific Learning Disability 57Autism 50Emotional Disability 39Other Health Impairment 33Intellectual Disability 20Speech/Language 8Hearing Impairment 4Developmental Delay 3
The parent of a first-grader argued he needed summer services and a one-to-one aide in science class, but the hearing officer ruled for the district on both issues, finding neither was required for an appropriate education.
FAPE denialExtended school year (ESY)Placement/LRE
The hearing officer denied the parent's claims of a denied education, a hostile environment, and improper placement, and granted the district's request to re-evaluate the student without the parent's consent.
FAPE denialPlacement/LREEligibility/evaluation/child find
Finding the district failed to place the student appropriately for over a year, the hearing officer awarded two years of daily compensatory specialized reading instruction with transportation, an independent occupational-therapy evaluation, and summer services.
FAPE denialPlacement/LRECompensatory education
In a dispute over the adequacy of the district's evaluations, the parent prevailed on two of six requested independent evaluations, so the district was ordered to conduct assistive-technology and vision assessments and reimburse a third of the parent's expert costs.
Independent educational evaluation (IEE)Eligibility/evaluation/child findIEP adequacy/implementation
After the parents unilaterally placed their child in private school, the hearing officer found the district's evaluation, IEP, and instruction appropriate and denied all relief, including reimbursement and summer services.
FAPE denialIEP adequacy/implementationExtended school year (ESY)
The hearing officer upheld the district's decision to move the student to a more restrictive therapeutic day school over the parent's objection, denying all of the parent's requests for relief.
Placement/LREPrivate/residential placement & reimbursementFAPE denial
The hearing officer ordered the district to reimburse the parents for past private-program and summer-services costs and to fund a summer program, while denying their request for another full year of the private school at district expense.
FAPE denialPrivate/residential placement & reimbursementExtended school year (ESY)
For a medically fragile student, the hearing officer ordered the district to provide a dedicated one-to-one nurse during the school day and on the bus, but upheld the district's partially separate classroom placement and rejected the parent's other claims.
FAPE denialRelated servicesPlacement/LRE
The parent prevailed on two of three claims, with the hearing officer finding parental-participation violations amounted to a procedural denial of an appropriate education, and ordering a new IEP meeting and a freeze on any non-agreed placement change.
FAPE denialProcedural/parent-participationPlacement/LRE
The parent argued her child was denied an appropriate education during the school year and wanted compensatory services, but the hearing officer found the IEPs appropriate and ordered the student returned to his district school under the existing IEP.
FAPE denialIEP adequacy/implementationPlacement/LRE
The parent sought a private therapeutic day placement and summer services, but the hearing officer ruled for the district on all issues, finding the current public placement appropriate and that the district properly considered outside evaluations.
FAPE denialIEP adequacy/implementationPlacement/LRE
The parents lost on their main claim that the district denied their child an appropriate education and on reimbursement for one private evaluation, but won procedural relief entitling them to district-funded independent evaluations in five service areas.
FAPE denialIndependent educational evaluation (IEE)Procedural/parent-participation
The hearing officer found the district failed to provide an appropriate education and ordered the student moved to a private placement, paid for nine independent evaluations, and awarded two years of compensatory extended-school-year services.
FAPE denialPlacement/LREIndependent educational evaluation (IEE)
A pro se parent claimed the school denied her third-grader a proper education due to unqualified teachers and missing progress reports, but the hearing officer found the district provided an appropriate education and denied her requests for a school transfer and tutoring.
FAPE denialIEP adequacy/implementationEligibility/evaluation/child find
A parent claimed the district failed to give her daughter challenging reading, writing, and spelling instruction and evaluated her without consent; the hearing officer found the IEPs were reasonably calculated to provide benefit and that the disputed visit was a permissible screening rather than an evaluation, denying the requested extra years of schooling.
FAPE denialIEP adequacy/implementationProcedural/parent-participation
Parents argued years of inadequate evaluations, IEPs, placement, and services denied their child a free appropriate education; the hearing officer agreed and ordered the district to pay for a private school specializing in autism and learning disabilities, fund transportation, provide compensatory tutoring and therapy, and conduct and pay for new evaluations.
FAPE denialIEP adequacy/implementationEligibility/evaluation/child find
Parents wanted their son kept at his neighborhood high school with supports instead of moved to a public day school run by the special-education cooperative; the hearing officer found the more restrictive day-school placement was the appropriate least-restrictive environment given his emotional/behavioral needs and ruled for the district.
Placement/LREFAPE denial
A guardian argued the district ignored her repeated requests and failed to evaluate the child within the required 60 school days (delaying over a vision exam); the hearing officer found the district violated its child-find duty and ordered it to complete the evaluation and decide eligibility promptly.
Eligibility/evaluation/child findProcedural/parent-participation
The dispute was whether the student, who had a rare long-lasting post-concussion condition, should be taught at home or at school; the hearing officer found that any school setting would worsen his symptoms and ordered a homebound placement, the outcome the parent sought.
Placement/LREFAPE denial
A parent claimed the district denied her young autistic child a free appropriate education across many areas and sought full general-education placement, ABA therapy, and an independent assistive-technology evaluation; the hearing officer denied general-education placement, ABA, and ESY but ordered the district to do an assistive-technology evaluation and a functional behavior assessment with a behavior plan.
FAPE denialIEP adequacy/implementationPlacement/LRE