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35%Parent prevailed (104)18%Split decision (52)46%District prevailed (136)0%Dismissed / withdrawn (1)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
A kindergartner went five months without the speech therapy his IEP required because the district had no speech provider, and the hearing officer found this denied him a free appropriate education and ordered 630 minutes of make-up speech therapy, though it refused the parents' request for additional minutes beyond that.
FAPE denialIEP adequacy/implementationRelated services
A parent claimed the school failed to timely identify and properly serve her child's dyslexia and sought private placement and reimbursement, but the officer found the district provided an appropriate education and denied all relief.
FAPE denialEligibility/evaluation/child findIEP adequacy/implementation
Parents argued a separate day school was too restrictive for their son, but given his escalating aggressive and self-harming behaviors the officer found a full-time public day school was the least restrictive environment that could provide an appropriate education and denied the parents' claims.
Placement/LREFAPE denialBehavior/discipline/manifestation
After the child was expelled, the parents won an expedited ruling that the school's manifestation-determination review was inadequate, and the district was ordered to hold a new review considering the child's therapist's findings.
Behavior/discipline/manifestation
The officer found the school denied the child an appropriate education by failing to identify autism and provide proper services (ruling for the parent on three of four issues but for the district on parent participation), and awarded large tuition reimbursement plus two years of residential placement.
Eligibility/evaluation/child findFAPE denialIEP adequacy/implementation
A parent wanted her child kept at his current private therapeutic day school, but the officer found that school was no longer appropriate and allowed the district to move him to an alternate therapeutic day school that could implement his IEP.
Placement/LREFAPE denial
Parents challenged the school's decision to graduate their 19-year-old daughter (which ended her special-education eligibility), but the officer found the graduation was proper and the parents offered no evidence she had not met requirements, denying their claims.
Transition/secondary servicesProcedural/parent-participation
The dispute was over which private day school the child would attend; the officer found the district committed a procedural violation by not considering travel time and thereby denied an appropriate education, and ordered it to find a suitable nearby private day school.
Placement/LREFAPE denialProcedural/parent-participation
After a student made online threats, the parent challenged the district's evaluation timing and its plan to place the child in a therapeutic day school, but the officer ruled the district's evaluation and restrictive placement were appropriate and denied the parent's requested relief.
Eligibility/evaluation/child findPlacement/LREBehavior/discipline/manifestation
A parent of a transfer student claimed the school failed to deliver promised aide, therapy, and summer (ESY) services and a proper placement, but the officer found the district provided an appropriate education, denied compensatory education, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
FAPE denialIEP adequacy/implementationPlacement/LRE