Historically, the conundrum of autism has been an area of concern for many school districts and parents. Specifically, methodology used to educate students with autism has been highly controversial. A leading methodology sought by parents and used by school districts to educate students with autism is the Lovaas method (also referred to as Applied Behavior Analysis, or ABA). During the 1990's, parents of students with autism initiated due process hearings and cases seeking an appropriate education for their children. Litigation in all of the published cases centered on the implementation of the Lovaas therapy to deliver an appropriate education to students with autism. With this in mind, it is important to study the history of Lovaas hearings and cases.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to conduct a historical case study of the Lovaas hearings and cases, and to conduct a case study of the experience of a family of a student with autism litigating for a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). Specifically, the study examines the Lovaas hearings and cases published in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Law Report (IDELR) between 1993-1998 pertaining to instructional methodology. This study has the potential to benefit school districts in planning programming for students with autism relative to understanding previously litigated matters relative to providing instruction to autistic students which may result in an increased educational benefit.

A descriptive analysis of findings provided insight into the Lovaas hearings and cases, as well as the single case being studied. An analysis of cases reviewed found features that attributed to school districts and parents winning and losing due process hearings and cases. The experience of the family studied illuminated this study by using the descriptive approach. Simply put, the participants told their story of litigating autism "in their own words"—through their perception, which was their reality.

Though other factors were reviewed relative to procedural and substantive violations, the overarching focus was methodology that provided autistic students with an educational benefit. The methodology must be able to achieve the goals of the IEP. The sufficiency of the methodology to achieve the IEP goals is not established by a comparison of the proposed methodology to the parent-preferred methodology, but rather by empirical evidence or professional judgment that the proposed methodology is a reasonable choice to meet the student's individual needs. Only if the school district program is inappropriate will the potential benefit of the parent-preferred program be examined.