Get documents about "Special Education Mediation State Model
Document Sample
Delaware
Special Education Mediation
State Model
Inter-American Summit on Conflict
Resolution Education
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
March 14, 2007
Presented by Fran Fletcher and Kathy Wian
University of Delaware’s Conflict Resolution Program
About Delaware
TOTAL POPULATION @ 900,000
White 75% - Black 20% - Other 5%
City of Wilmington 70,000 ►
New Castle County 520,000►
Kent County 140,000►
Sussex County 170,000►
2040 Square Miles
Delaware Student Statistics
19 school districts
192 public schools
14 charter schools
and a variety of public and private programs
More than 120,000 public education students
*51% have a learning disability (9,897)
*11% have a cognitive impairment (2,193)
*10% have another health impairment (1,934)
Conflict Resolution Program
Established 1994
University of Delaware
Self-sustaining office
Provide dispute resolution
services throughout DE
– Education
– State and Local Government
– Nonprofits
CRP First Steps
• Conducted a statewide needs assessment
re: dispute resolution in education
• Offered customized dispute resolution
trainings, facilitated problem solving,
mediation, strategic planning and
organizational development.
• DOE first customers
The Collaboration
University of Delaware’s
Conflict Resolution Program
and
Delaware Department of Education’s
Exceptional Children’s Team
SPARC
Special Education
Partnership for the
Amicable
Resolution of
Conflict
SPARC
Mediation
IEP Facilitation Training
The project supports addressing conflicts at the lowest possible
level and build the capacity of parents and school personnel to
address and resolve conflicts as they arise.
Delaware Hearing Statistics*
Number of hearings requested & number of requests that were fully
adjudicated:
2004-2005 - 32 requests, 8 decisions
2005-2006 - 11 requests, 4 decisions
2006-now - 17 requests, 2 decisions
What happened to the rest?
Mediation
Negotiated settlements
Voluntary or involuntary dismissals
*Delaware Department of Education Statistics
Mediation Overview
Free
Mediation
Voluntary Open to
all
Requests
Mediator Qualifications
• Complete the 18-hour SPARC basic
mediation training or its equivalent from a
qualified trainer.
• Complete the six-hour SPARC special
education law workshop for hearing
officers offered by DOE or an equivalent.
• Participate in six hours of instruction,
annually, in mediation and/or special
education law.
Mediator Qualifications
• Demonstrate knowledge in the laws and
regulations relating to the provisions of
special education and related services.
• Demonstrate effective mediation
techniques with observation and feedback
with an emphasis on facilitative process
techniques and remain a neutral third
party.
• Must not hold primary employment with a
local or state education agency.
SPARC Mediation Statistics
35
30
25
20
15 DPM
NDPM
10
5
0
1996- 1998- 2000- 2002- 2004- 2006-
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Mediation Evaluation
1996-2006
Actual Mediation Evaluation Results
Responses = 151
Did this mediation result in an agreement between you and the other
party?
Yes (125) No ( 20 ) Somewhat ( 1 ) No Answer ( 5 )
Overall, how satisfied were you with the results of mediation?
Very Satisfied (19) Satisfied (114) Neutral (7) Dissatisfied (5)
Very Dissatisfied (1) Not Sure (3) No Response (2)
Based on this experience, would you contact CRP and request mediation
services for future special education disputes?
Yes (122) No ( 2 ) Don’t Know ( 1 ) Maybe ( 1 ) No Response ( 25 )
Research
2000
“Enhancing the Collaborative
Capacity of Individualized
Education Programs (IEPs)
in Delaware Schools”
Research Methodology
• Hired external consultant to work with CRP
• Focus group data from past SPARC training
efforts
• Survey data from Special Education Supervisors
• Additional 6 months of school assessments in
five school districts
• Observational and participant feedback data
from IEP meetings
IEP Meeting Observation
• Technical Expertise • Pace
• Purpose/Goals of Meeting • Participants
• Neutral, Encouraging • Annual Goals/Objectives
Language • Post-Meeting Follow Up
• Student History/Performance • Action Planning
• Non-Verbals • Consensus Building/Decision
• Relationship/Trust Making
• Use of the IEP Form • Team Roles
• Special Issues • Room set up & Seating
• Conflicts/Impasse • Mtg Debrief/Reflection/Eval
• Questioning, Active • A/V Resources
Listening/Communication • Brainstorming
• Greetings/Introductions • Participation Formats
• Materials/Preparation
Research Findings
While requests for due process &
mediation are minimal, anecdotal evidence
from schools, families & family advocates
suggests that collaboration remains
elusive in special education.
Research Findings
Limitations to collaboration in the IEP
process present themselves throughout
the perceived legalistic quality of required
forms & safeguards, abbreviated IEP
meetings, attendance by general & special
education teachers who are not brought
into the process & meeting facilitators
untrained in basic collaborative processes.
Research Findings
Limitations are further exacerbated when
families & advocates are distrustful of the
people & processes involved with IEPs or
simply uncomfortable with the process.
Ten Realistic Ways to Build
Collaboration in Individualized
Education Program (IEP)
Meetings
Training and coaching provided through the
Special Education Partnership for the Amicable
Resolution of Conflict (SPARC)
a program of the Conflict Resolution Program
in cooperation with the Delaware Department of Education
Nine Training Session Options
• Introduction to the • Are You Hearing Me?
Mediation Process • Brainstorming and
• Facilitation 101 Problem Solving?
• Your Conflict • Decision Making and
Management Style Action Planning
• Where do These • A/V and the IEP
Parents Come From? • IEP Coaching
• Resolving Difficult
Dynamics and
Conflict in IEPs
Why would a room full of
educated, caring professionals,
who come together to focus on
the welfare of a child, need a
facilitator?
Resolving at the Lowest Level
Issue
IEP Facilitation
Resolution Meeting
Mediation
Due Process
Keeping the Team Intact
And, last but not least….
someone to manage the event.
May / May Not
be an IEP Team Member
And the Facilitator is….
External?
Internal?
Advantages
Neutral to the outcome
Advantages Fresh set of eyes
Knows team members Addresses power imbalances
Knows system Manages “bad” behavior
Anticipates problems & resolve and high emotion
before meeting begins
Disadvantages
Role confusion/expectation
Disadvantages
No follow-up
Knows team members
No control over participants
Knows system
or the system
You are an employee
Additional Advantages of Using an
External Facilitator
Neutral Perspective
Ask “stupid” questions
Not tied to outcome
Agenda is inclusive
No dual roles
Power Imbalances
Deal with emotions
Full participation
Address “bad behavior”
Advantages to “taking the heat”
The External IEP Meeting
Facilitator
~IS NOT~
● A member of the team, therefore,
does not, suggest, impose or participate in
team decisions or solutions
● A legal expert
● An advocate
● An arbitrator
Teams May Request a Facilitator
When…
►History
►Communication
►Requested
►Apprehension
►Focus
►Multiple meetings
IEP Facilitator
Primary responsibility is to the process of the
meeting rather than the content or outcome.
Process vs. Content
Process deals Content deals
with… with…
Communication Evaluation
Problem solving Assessments
Participation Legal rights/the
Agenda items law
Gaining agreement Opinions
Relationships Records
Understanding Data
Timing Ideas
Information
Facilitator Qualities
EXCELLENT COMMUNICATION SKILLS
FACILITATIVE “LEADERSHIP” STYLE
PATIENT AND COMPOSED
OBJECTIVE AND NEUTRAL
Benefits
Sustained
IEP
Buy-in achieved
Effective IEP is
created
Trust is Built
Communication improves
Cooperative participation occurs
A fair and consistent process
Mediation vs. IEP Meeting
Facilitation
• The differences are…
• The similarities are…
University of Delaware
Overview Per Year
30
Inquires
Facilitated
25
IEP Signed
20
Cases 15
10
5
0
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-
University of Delaware
Impact on DP & Mediation
5
4
3
Cases
# DP
2
Mediated
1
0
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-
Challenges
School District Parent
Repeat Requests
Repeat Requests
Understanding Role
Understanding Role
Realistic Time Frame Realistic Time Frame
Asking for Assistance Asking for Assistance
School Requests Parent Requests
Wait for Crisis
Team Preparation
Supporting All
Can’t Change
Follow Up
IEP Meeting Facilitation Evaluations
2000-2005
Actual IEP Meeting Facilitation Evaluation Results
Responses = 85
Goals of the meeting
Poor 1= ( 2 ) 2= ( 6 ) 3= ( 11 ) 4=( 27 ) 5 = ( 39 ) Good
(Conflicting; unclear; (Clear, shared by all,
diverse, unacceptable) endorsed with enthusiasm)
Content of the meeting
Poor 1= ( 5 ) 2= ( 9 ) 3= ( 16 ) 4= ( 26 ) 5= ( 29 ) Good
(Not instructional; I did not (I learned a lot; was
learn much; not informative; informative; I’ll be able to
content; to use the content; content
too much process; not appropriate to our needs)
enough content)
Relationship among meeting participants
Poor 1= ( 6 ) 2= ( 9 ) 3= ( 22 ) 4= ( 23 ) 5= ( 25 ) Good
(My relationship with them is the (Our relationship is much
same as before; I feel antagonistic improved; I trust them more
toward many of them; I don’t than I did prior to the session;
trust them; there is little I feel I got to know & under-
potential for a future relationship) stand many of them better;
there is a good potential for
the future)
Next Logical Step
Training school and district personnel to run
more effective IEP meetings.
IEP Training
Intended Outcome: Outcome:
• Trained personnel • Trained personnel did
would become “in- not have time to
house” resource incorporate
= share skills with team = no training occurred
members = limited time to travel
= facilitate challenging between schools
meetings = changed jobs
The New Hot Topic
10/50
Designing the System
DOE Volunteers
Parents
$
Retired School
Personnel
Grants
Districts
Mediators
Advocates
Lessons Learned
Clear Policies & Procedures
Intervening Agency
How to Fund Requests
Districts Have Financial Investment
Advocacy Groups
People Just Want To Be Heard
IDEIA 2004
Resolution Meeting:
1
Policy Supports & Challenges
Informal Policy Supports
DOE Staff and Director
Formal Supports
IDEA
NCLB
Challenges
New Federal and State Mandates
Thank You
Conflict Resolution Program
University of Delaware
177 Graham Hall
Newark, DE 19716
Website: www.ipa.udel.edu/crp
Fran Fletcher Kathy Wian
302-831-6812 302-831-2927
FranF@udel.edu KWian@udel.edu
