“The impact of mediation on resolution of disagreements around special educational needs: Effectiveness and cost effectiveness”

References

• American Arbitration Association, American Bar Association and Association for Conflict Resolution. 2005. “Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators.” https://www.americanbar.org/groups/dispute_resolution/policy_standards.html
   Google Scholar
• Centre for Appropriate Disagreement Resolution in Special Education. 2018c. “National Data.” https://www.cadreworks.org/resources/data-resources/national-data
   Google Scholar
• Centre for Appropriate Disagreement Resolution on Special Education. 2018a. “Trends in Dispute Resolution under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).” https://www.cadreworks.org/sites/default/files/resources/TrendsinDisputeResolution%20FINAL%202018.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Centre for Appropriate Disagreement Resolution on Special Education. 2018b. “IDEA Dispute Resolution Data Summary For: US and Outlying Areas 2004-05 to 2016-17.” https://www.cadreworks.org/sites/default/files/2014-15%20DR%20Data%20Summary%20U.S.%20%26%20Outlying%20Areas.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cullen, M. A., and G. Lindsay.2019. “Special Educational Needs: Understanding Drivers of Complaints and Disagreements in the English System.”Frontiers in Education :77. doi:10.3389/feduc.2019.00077.
   Google Scholar
• Cullen, M. A., G. Lindsay, V. Totsika, I. Bakopoulou, G. Gray, G. Cullen, R. Thomas, et al. 2017. Review of Arrangements for Disagreement Resolution (SEND). DFE-00104-2017. London: Department for Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-disagreement-resolution-arrangements-in-england-review
   Google Scholar
• Daggett, L. M. 2004. “Special Education Attorneys’ Fees: Of Buckhannon, the IDEA Itemization Bills, and the IDEA as Civil Rights Statute.” UC Davis Journal of Juvenile Law and Policy 8: 1–53.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Education. Statements of SEN and EHC Plans: England2019. London: Department for Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statements-of-sen-and-ehc-plans-england-2019
   Google Scholar
• Department for Education. 2015. Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0-25 Years. DfE-00205-2013. London: Department for Education.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Education and Ministry of Justice. 2017. “Special Educational Needs and Disabilities: Disagreement Resolution Arrangements in England.” https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-disagreement-resolution-arrangements-in-england-review
   Google Scholar
• Department for Education and Skills. 2001. SEN Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Pupils with Special Educational Needs. London: DfES.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Education and Skills. 2002. SEN Toolkit. London: Department for Education and Skills. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130403153919/https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DfES%200558%202001
   Google Scholar
• European Code of Conduct for Mediators. 2004. http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/adr/adr_ec_code_conduct_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. 1998. Getting It Right: LEAs and the Special Educational Needs Tribunal. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research.
   Google Scholar
• Feinberg, E., J. Beyer, and P. Moses. 2002. “Beyond Mediation: Strategies for Appropriate Early Dispute Resolution in Special Education: A Briefing Paper for the Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE).” https://www.cadreworks.org/sites/default/files/resources/Beyond%20Mediation_1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Harris, N., and S. Riddell. 2011. Resolving Disputes about Educational Provision: A Comparative Perspective on Special Educational Needs. Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Henshaw, L. 2003. “Special Educational Needs and the Law: Some Practical Implications.” Education and the Law 15 (1): 3–18. doi:10.1080/0953996032000061359.
   Google Scholar
• Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. 2015. “HM Courts and Tribunal Service: Annual Report and Accounts 2014-15.” https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/723069/HMCTS_Annual_Report___Accounts_2017-2018_Final_print_version_.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hindmarsh, S. n. d. “Models of Mediation.” http://www.stevehindmarsh.co.uk/models-of-mediation/
   Google Scholar
• Kids First. 2013. “Special Educational Needs (SEN) and Disability Tribunal Survey, August 2013.” http://www.mertonmencap.org.uk/pdfs/SEND-Tribunal-Survey-Results-August2013.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kuriloff, P. J., and S. Goldberg. 1997. “Is Mediation a Fair Way to Resolve Special Education Disputes? First Empirical Findings.” Harvard Negotiation Law Review 2 (35): 35–67.
   Google Scholar
• Lake, J. F., and B. S. Billingsley. 2000. “An Analysis of Factors that Contribute to Parent-school Conflict in Special Education.” Remedial and Special Education 21 (4): 240–251. doi:10.1177/074193250002100407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, A. J. 2014. “Statement of Special Educational Needs and Tribunal Appeals in England and Wales 2003-2013 – In Numbers.” Educational Psychology in Practice 30 (4): 393–408. doi:10.1080/02667363.2014.949628.
   Google Scholar
• Mills, G. E., and K. Duff-Mallams. 1999. “A Mediation Strategy for Special Education Disputes.” Interventions in School and Clinic 25 (2): 87–92. doi:10.1177/105345129903500204.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Justice. 2014. Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal: Mediation Pilot Report
   Google Scholar
• Mueller, T. G. 2015. “Litigation and Special Education: The Past, Present, and Future Direction for Resolving Conflicts between Parents and School Districts.” Journal of Disability Policy Studies 26 ((3)): 135–143. doi:10.1177/1044207314533382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowell, B. L., and D. A. Salem. 2007. “The Impact of Special Education Mediation on Parent-school Relationships.” Remedial and Special Education 28 (5): 304–315. doi:10.1177/07419325070280050501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiman, J., L. Beck, M. Peter, D. Zeller, P. Moses, and A. Engiles. 2007. Initial Review of Research Literature on Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Special Education. Eugene, Oregon: Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE).
   Google Scholar
• Riddell, S., N. Harris, E. Smith, and E. I. Weedon. 2010. “Dispute Resolution in Additional and Special Educational Needs: Local Authority Perspectives.” Journal of Education Policy 25 (1): 55–71. doi:10.1080/02680930903349497.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, R., J. Tod, G. Powell, C. Parsons, R. Godfrey, L. Graham-Matheson, A. Carlson, and J. Cornwall. 2006. Evaluation of the Special Educational Needs Parent Partnership Services in England RR719. Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills.
   Google Scholar
• Runswick-Cole, K. 2007. “‘The Tribunal Was the Most Stressful Thing: More Stressful than My Son’s Diagnosis or Behaviour’: The Experiences of Families Who Go to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (sendist).” Disability and Society 22 (3): 315–328. doi:10.1080/09687590701259674.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. 2004. Annual Report 2003/04. Darlington: SENDIST.
   Google Scholar
• Special Educational Needs Tribunal. 1995. Annual Report: 1994/95. London: DfE.
   Google Scholar
• Tennant, R., M. Callanan, D. Snape, I. Palmer, and J. Read. 2008. Special Educational Needs Disagreement Resolution Services. CDSF-RR054. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.
   Google Scholar
• Treasury, H. M. 2018. “The Green Book: Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation.” https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/685903/The_Green_Book.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Weedon, E., and S. Riddell. 2009. “Additional Support Needs and Approaches to Dispute Resolution: The Perspective of Scottish Parents.” Scottish Educational Review 41 (2): 62–80.
   Google Scholar
• Zumeta, Z. n. d. “Styles of Mediation: Facilitative, Evaluative, and Transformative Mediation.” ( Reprinted with permission from the National Association for Community Mediation, Washington, D.C.). http://www.mediate.com/artciles/zumeta.cfm
   Google Scholar