An outcomes analysis of education litigation

Educational Policy

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 257-279

  Lupini, William H ^a   Zirkel, Perry A ^b  

^a Beverly Public Schools in Beverly   (United States)

^b LEHIGH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Deference; Education; K 12; Law; Litigation; Outcomes

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038739097     PISSN: 08959048     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0895904803017002004     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Bennett, W. J. (1988, February). The role of law in education reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Bar Association, Philadelphia, PA.
2. Clayton, E. M. (1972). An analysis of federal and state court cases concerned with student rights: 1960-1971. Dissertation Abstracts International, 33, 03A.
3. Davis, M. (1988). A basic guide to standards of judicial review. South Dakota Law Review, 33, 469-483.
4. Fischer, L. (1989). When courts play school board: Judicial activism in education. West's Education Law Reporter, 51, 693-709.
5. Imber, M., & Gayler, D. E. (1988). A statistical analysis of trends in education-related litigation since 1960. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24, 55-78.
6. Imber, M., & Thompson, G. (1991). Developing a typology of litigation in education and determining the frequency of each category. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27, 225-244.
7. Jones, R. (2000). Schools and the law. American School Board Journal, 187(4), 25-30.
8. Kammerlohr, B., Henderson, R. A., & Rock, S. (1983). Special education due process hearings in Illinois. Exceptional Children, 49, 417-422.
9. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-608.
10. Kuriloff, P. J. (1985). Is justice served by due process? Affecting the outcome of special education hearings in Pennsylvania. Journal of Law and Contemporary Problems, 48, 898-918.
11. Leary, J. (1981). Educators on trial. Farmington, MI: Action Inservice.
12. Lee, B. A. (1990). The limits of outcomes analysis: A comment on "Sex discrimination in higher education employment: An empirical analysis of the case law." Journal of Law and Education, 19, 523-526.
13. Lufler, H. (1988, November). The school law litigation explosion: A specious generalization. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Organization on Legal Problems in Education, Washington, DC.
14. Newcomer, J., & Zirkel, P. (1999). An analysis of judicial outcomes of special education cases. Exceptional Children, 65, 469-480.
15. Newcomer, J., Zirkel, P., & Tarola, R. (1999). Characteristics and outcomes of special education hearing and review officer cases. West's Education Law Reporter, 123, 449-457.
16. New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).
17. Parker v. Wakelin, 937 F. Supp. 46 (D. Me. 1996).
18. Pedersen, D. M. (1998). A homemade switchblade knife and bent fork: Judicial place setting and student discipline. Creighton Law Review, 31, 1053-1097.
19. Portner, J. (2001, March 29). Fearful teachers buy insurance against liability. Education Week, p. 1.
20. Rhen, L. (1989). An analysis of special education due process hearings in Pennsylvania (1977-1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 04A.
21. Roberts, B., & McKerrow, K. (1996). Special education due process revisited: Implications of administrators. Planning and Changing, 27, 243-254.
22. Sack, J. (2001, May 16). Unions: So sue me. Education Week, p. 27.
23. San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1972).
24. Smith, T. E. (1981) Status of due process hearings. Exceptional Children, 48, 232-236.
25. South Carolina Education Association v. Campbell, 883 F.2d 1251 (4th Cir. 1985).
26. Stephens, M. B. (1983). A study of the legal competencies of selected secondary principals in relation to their school law training. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 0639.
27. Strong, J. W. (Ed.). (1992). McCormick on evidence (4th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
28. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
29. Valente, W. D. (1987). Law in the schools (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
30. Will, G. F. (2000, June 15). Schools beset by lawyers and shrinks. The Washington Post, p. A33.
31. Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
32. Wright, C. A. (1994). The law of federal courts. St. Paul, MN: West.
33. Zehr, M. A. (1999, September 15). Threat of lawsuits a burden on principals, poll says. Education Week, p. 3.
34. Zirkel, P. A. (1978). A test of Supreme Court decisions affecting education. Phi Delta Kappan, 20, 522-525.
35. Zirkel, P. A. (1988). The new law of curriculum. In D. Semler (Ed.), Education Law Update 1987-88 (pp. 72-76). Topeka, KS: National Organization on Legal Problems of Education.
36. Zirkel, P. A. (1989). Is there a liability insurance crisis? Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 80-81.
37. Zirkel, P. A. (1992). Will they sue? Will they win? The legal curriculum audit. International Journal of Educational Reform, 1, 32-46.
38. Zirkel, P. A. (1993). Stripping students of their rights? Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 498-501.
39. Zirkel, P. A. (1996). The law or the lore? Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 579.
40. Zirkel, P. A. (1997a). The "explosion" in education litigation: An update. West's Education Law Reporter, 114, 341-351.
41. Zirkel, P. A. (1997b). Section 504 and public school students: An empirical overview. West's Education Law Reporter, 120, 369-378.
42. Zirkel, P. A. (1997c). The Midol case. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 803-804.
43. Zirkel, P. A. (1997d). Zero for tolerance? Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 89-90.
44. Zirkel, P. A. (1998a). National trends in education litigation: Supreme Court decisions concerning students. Journal of Law and Education, 27, 235-248.
45. Zirkel, P. A. (1998b). A uniform policy. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 550-551.
46. Zirkel, P. A. (1999). The 30th anniversary of Tinker. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 34-40, 58.
47. Zirkel, P. A., & Richardson, S. N. (1989). The "explosion" in education litigation. West's Education Law Reporter, 53, 767-791.