Child's Welfare Key for Illinois Hearing Officers

Having returned from presenting at the hearing officer training, I wanted to share my thoughts. There are a lot of new hearing officers, and the overwhelming majority (all but 3) are attorneys.  There is a diversity of gender, races, ages and abilities.  They are all bright and inquisitive and seem to be well versed in IDEA 2004.  The new hearing officers are grappling with the various issues that the new law has brought about and the current uncertainty of the law without new Federal and State regulations.

The common concern among all of the hearing officers was a focus on the child.  I believe that each in his or her own way views him/herself as a person who is dedicated to the child's welfare within the bounds of the law.  Of course, there is a lot of room to disagree over what is appropriate for the child.  The general feeling, moreover, was that due process issues that are petty or overly technical in nature are not compelling.  It must be the focus of due process to show the connection between the harm to the child or the educational loss and the issues presented.  Parents, advocates and parent attorneys must avoid being seen as playing a game of "gotcha" with the school or being viewed as uncooperative at the expense of the child.  Acting in a way that allows our cases to be cast in this light will be very unproductive and will likely lead to a losing outcome.  We need to stay child focused, remain clear on the harm or loss to the child, and avoid an appearance of pettiness. While these observations may appear to be common sense, in the heat of the moment and in the wake of strong emotions, such strategic thinking can allude us.

There were certainly some hearing officers who worried me. Some seemed to regard school district's with way too much deference, which is a major concern for me as a parent's attorney.  I can state candidly, however, that at the training, all of the hearing officers were listening and trying to hear both parent and school district perspectives.

Comments

[Richard E. Zabelski]

1) What are the length of hearing officer appointments?
2) What is the implication of stating "the training process is not always very transparent".
3) What is the percentage of Hearing Officers that are parents of children with disabilities?
4) What is the chance (as a parent) of being selected?
5) Does politics play a significant part of the appointment process?
6) Maybe your comments and suggestions to the ISBE should include a set aside for more parent involvement and hearing officer appointment!

[Charles Fox]

Robert:
To answer your questions:

1) IHOs are contracted for a period of one year which is generally renewed except for some good cause.
2) I personally believe there is room for more transparency to give an appearance of greater fairness, or at least a summary of topics covered and frequency of training. On the reverse side, if training materials were readily distributed, then parties could fashion briefs to hit on the points in the training materials. "As you well know from the training materials..."
3) Unknown.
4) A well qualified parent would have a good chance of being selected, especially if an attorney as most are now attorneys.
5) I do not believe that politics plays a role in appointments.
6) There are advisory bodies that have a role in IHO selection. I certainly think that there is more room for including parent persepctive in selection and future training.

Charles