Resolving Disputes about Educational Provision: A Comparative Perspective on Special Educational Needs

With contributions by recognised experts in the field of education law, this book is a comparative study of the resolution of special education disputes, including via mediation. It analyses the varying approaches in England, Scotland, the US and the Netherlands and addresses major questions of dispute resolution, redress, judicial and non-judicial approaches and the protection of citizens' rights. The first review of mediation in citizen v. state disputes outside the context of the courts, this topical book also incorporates findings from a recent ESRC study into dispute resolution in special educational needs cases. It will not only be of interest to those concerned with education issues but also those interested in administrative justice, especially the role of mediation generally

Table of Contents:
Chapter 1 Grievances, Disputes and Education Rights, Neville Harris; Chapter 2 Dispute Resolution in Education: Roles and Models, Neville Harris; Chapter 3 On the Right Track? The Resolution of Special Educational Needs Disputes in England, Neville Harris, Emily Smith; Chapter 4 Resolving Additional Support Needs Disputes in Scotland: Contesting Professionalism and Rights, Sheila Riddell, Elisabet Weedon; Chapter 5 Rights and Interests in the Balance: Special Educational Needs and Disputes in the Netherlands, Paul Zoontjens; Chapter 6 Where the Buck Stops: Special Education and Dispute Resolution in the United States, Charles J. Russo, Allan G. OsborneJr; Chapter 7 Resolving Disputes about Special Educational Needs: Cross-Border Comparisons and Reflections, Sheila Riddell, Neville Harris;

About the Author :
Neville Harris is Professor of Law, University of Manchester. He is Editor of the Journal of Social Security Law, and Education Law Journal. He is a member of the editorial boards of various journals including Education, Citizenship and Social Justice; Education and the Law; and International Journal of the Legal Profession. His research has included projects funded by the ESRC, Nuffield Foundation (three projects), the National Consumer Council, the Department for Education and Employment, the Law Society, Eversheds and others. He is a member of the European Association for Education Law and Policy (ELA), the Socio-Legal Studies Association and the Society of Legal Scholars. Sheila Riddell is Director of the Centre for Research in Education Inclusion and Diversity at the Moray House School of Education, University of Edinburgh. She previously worked as Director of the Strathclyde Centre for Disability Research, University of Glasgow. Her research interests are in the broad field of equality and social inclusion, with particular reference to gender, social class and disability in the fields of education, training, employment and social care. Sheila is currently working on projects investigating the experiences and outcomes of disabled students in higher education, lifelong learning policy across Europe and the development of literacies in SMEs.

Review :
'At a time of great debate and uncertainty about how to achieve the best possible educational outcomes for students with disabilities, this insightful book explores the up and down sides to a range of approaches designed to resolve disputes and protect educational rights. A must read for anyone interested in the intersection of education law, policy and provision.' Lani Florian, University of Aberdeen, UK 'This work provides a masterly analysis of the dispute resolution processes used by parents struggling to improve their SEN children's education. Informed by empirical research, it shows only too clearly how, in four very different jurisdictions, the SEN "battleground" may achieve little improvement and often ignores the children at the heart of SEN disputes.' Jane Fortin, Sussex University, UK '... this is a useful addition to the existing literature on Education Law in general and the treatment of Special Educational Needs in particular. The subject matter has received relatively little attention from legal academics, which is perhaps somewhat surprising given the discussion which it has given rise to within the professional sector. Significantly, there have been no prominent attempts to understand the area better by reference to comparative perspectives. Hopefully this is something which this book will at least go some way towards doing.' Liverpool Law Review