original 114 The Evolving Con of IEP IFSP Fac Moses All by B7BONZL


									 2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference
Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0

  From Cradle to Success: The Evolving
    Contours of IEP/IFSP Facilitation

                         Nissan Bar-Lev
                          Mary Eaddy
                          Philip Moses
                            Jan Serak
           Strand: State Directors and Part B Data Managers
                           Presentation #114
  IEP/IFSP Facilitation: What is it?
The use of an individual to assist with making
the meeting more effective.
 Internal: Typically a professional or
  educator from within a school system

 External: A dispute resolution
  practitioner supplied by the SEA or
  contracted by the LEA
     IEP/IFSP Facilitation: When?
 When is IEP facilitation best used?
  • History of a contentious relationship
  • Discussions tend to waiver from student-
  • Conflicts or disagreements are likely
    to arise during the meeting
  • Team member who might typically
    facilitate needs to be freed of that
    IEP/IFSP Facilitation: Benefits

   Builds and improves relationships
   Keeps meeting student-focused
   Objective observer; another set of ears
   Capacity for resolving conflicts
   More creative problem-solving
   External expertise can be brought in
   Less stressful and costly than DPHs and
    other options
IEP/IFSP Facilitation: A Brief History*
 1997, Michigan Special Education Mediation
  System conducts their 1st IEP Facilitation
 January 1999, JDL Associates has provided
  training in Essential Facilitation for IEP
  Meetings (Internal)
 November 2000, CADRE’s First National
  Symposium on Dispute Resolution
  includes session on IEP Facilitation

        * Not a comprehensive history, just highlights
   IEP/IFSP Facilitation: A Brief History

 CADRE receives numerous requests for
  information and TA related to IEP
 2005, 8 SEAs provide IEP facilitation on
  state-wide basis
 2005, CADRE convenes the first
  National Symposium on IEP Facilitation
       22 Concurrent Sessions
IEP/IFSP Facilitation: ‘Present’ Status
 2009, approx. 24 SEAs provide IEP facilitation
  on state-wide basis
 Numerous other SEAs request TA from CADRE,
  refer LEAs to list of special ed mediators or are
  investing in training internals
 LEAs continue to train internals &
  contract with private practitioners
 CADRE’s Fifth National Symposium on Dispute
  Resolution in Special Education
       10 Concurrent Sessions on IEP Facilitation
      IEP/IFSP Facilitation: Models


 Typically administered by special ed mediation
  program folks

 IEP Facilitators include…
   special ed mediators
   separate/distinct panel of facilitators
   community mediation volunteers
   parents
    IEP/IFSP Facilitation: Models

 LEAs contracting with private trainers

 SEA training LEAs…
     MN – IEP Managers Training
     OK – Good Meeting Management
     TX – Facilitated IEP Project Grant
    IEP/IFSP Facilitation: Models
SEA/Parent Center Partnership

 South Carolina Department of
  Education/Pro Parents of SC (external)

 OK Department of Education/SERC @
  OK St/OK Parent Center (internal)
   Some Issues and Considerations
 External versus internal facilitators >
  Internals may not be viewed as impartial
 Confidentiality >
  IDEA is silent about the process, no
  protections for facilitators
 Access to services >
  Concerns related to budget busting, i.e. a
  request to facilitate “every” IEP meeting
                 Lessons Learned

Classic Example:
Initially IEP facilitators in Pennsylvania provided:
 expertise
 technical assistance
 directive style in the meetings

Participant feedback indicated that both parents
and LEAs were dissatisfied with this approach. A
course correction was made, and the role has
since been productively redefined as purely
    4 Features of an Effective Process
    Long-term investment in the program
    On-going outreach to achieve system-
     wide awareness of the availability of
     facilitated assistance
    Well-trained and experienced
    Clear policies, procedures and protocols
     related to the use of neutrals
IEP Facilitation in

 Nissan Bar-Lev
   Jan Serak
WI Special Education Mediation System (WSEMS)

                   WSEMS Partners:
                   •  Nissan Bar-Lev, Special
                     Education Director, CESA #7
                   • Jan Serak, Co-Director, WI
                     FACETS (Parent Training &
                     Info Center)
                   • Nina Meierding, Mediator,
                     Professor, & Attorney

                        WSEMS Roster of Neutrals
                       • 23 are active
                       • WSEMS Partners select & train
                       • Serve both as mediators & as external
                       facilitators for FIEPs & Resolution Mtgs
WI Special Education Mediation System
      WI Dept. of Public Instruction

“DPI supports IEP Facilitation. DPI supports an
 increase in the number of options available to
 parents and schools to resolve their disputes.
 Such options will assist the parties in building
 long lasting, trustful and collaborative
  Dr. Stephanie Petska, Director, Special Education Team, WDPI
         Internal                   * External
 Skilled in facilitation    Facilitation expert
  techniques, but not        Not a group member
  necessarily an expert      Is impartial
 Group member (as, not a    Does not participate
  parent or school staff)     in content-related
 Is NOT impartial            discussion/decisions
 Participates in            Assists group in
  content-related             making process-
                              related decisions
 Assists group in
                            *Wisconsin WSEMS
  making process-             facilitators are external
  related decisions           facilitators
When to Use a Facilitated IEP ?

         • WI allows use for any stage
           IEP: Initial, Re-evaluation,
           Annual, and Review/Revision
         • Best used early in the IEP
         • Especially when
           anticipate a difficult
           meeting, or when there are
           communication or trust issues
 Access to WSEMS IEP Facilitator

• Call WSEMS

• Complete form

• Voluntary
     WSEMS Intake & Screening

 Case #: ______
 Intake screener:
 Request:  Phone  Mail  Other
 Person requesting the facilitator:
 Type IEP:  Initial  Annual  3-Yr Re-Eval
              Review/Revision
 Child’s Name & Age:
 Does child reside at home with both parents?
 Child’s disability?
 What, if any, related services are involved?
 Has child been involved in any special programs
 outside of school?  No  Yes If so, which?
 School District: _________ School:_____
                           Intake Process
 Parent(s)/Guardian(s)                             Agree to a facilitator:_____
Name:________________________________________                               Date
Address: _____________________________________
Phone: __________________ Represented: ________
E-mail: __________________
Do you have previous experience with special ed issues/IEPs?  No  Yes

 School Representative                           Agree to a facilitator: _____
Name: ________________________________________                             Date
Address: _____________________________________
Phone: __________________ Represented: ________
E-mail: __________________
Who is the IEP team leader? _____________________

 Other IEP team members:
___________________ _______________________ _____________________

 Has the team met previously for this specific IEP?
 No  Yes If yes, how long was the meeting? _______
                            Intake Process
 Is there a meeting scheduled for this IEP? ____ If so, when?

 Has an invitation letter been sent/received?
    If yes, we need a copy to include with the confirmation letter.
    If not, the facilitator has to be added as a participant, but not a member, of IEP team.
 Where is the team in the evaluation cycle?

 What are the major Issues? ____________________________

 Why are you requesting a facilitator? ____________________

 Do you feel uncomfortable speaking freely in front of any team member?

 Are there any other circumstances about the student/your child we should be
  aware of at this time?
• Facilitator appointment
   – By WSEMS Intake Coordinator
• Setting the date:
   – Date already set – WSEMS Intake Coordinator works with
     parties to find a Facilitator available on the date
   – Date not set – WSEMS Facilitator is appointed, who then works
     with parties to find date convenient for all
• Invitation
   – District sends IEP invitation letter to IEP team with name of
     WSEMS Facilitator included
• Participants
   – No WI legal provisions for who may participate
   – IEP must have all participants required by IDEA 2004
    WSEMS Sample Facilitator Opening
--“My role is to help you
communicate with each
other to reach a consensus
around the most effective
IEP for _____ (child’s name).

-- I am not a formal member of the IEP team.

-- I will be working closely with _______ (name of case
manager) who will ensure the IEP process is followed.

-- Let me know if you have any questions at any time.”
                             FIEP Data
 2010-11                                     2004-11
• 24 requests                      • Total FIEPS held: 247 )
• 11 FIEPs held                    • IEP developed or revised: 71.6%
   – 90% IEPs developed            • Ave.# meetings: 1.51
                                   • Ave. length/meeting: 3.14 hours
• Reasons for no FIEP:             • 78% met before FIEP: ave.1.6 times
   –   Cases open (1)
                                   • Issues that led to FIEP:
   –   Requests withdrawn (3)
                                      – Communication 48%; Accommodation
   –   1 party declined (3)               42.1%
   –   Moved to mediation (3)         – Placement 40%; Identif. 28.6%
   –   IEP rescheduled without a      – IEE Request 23.4%; Discipline 22.7
       facilitator (3)
                                   • Disabilities involved:
                                      – More than 1 identified 50%
                                      – Autism 14.6%, EBD 14%, OHI 6%. SLD
                                          5.3%, etc.
                                   • 81.4% of facilitators felt case appropriate
                                     for facilitation
     FIEP Trend Data 2004-2011

87.1% were satisfied with   84% would use the
the facilitation process.   facilitator again.
(n=815)                     (n=793)

85.8% would use the         85.6% believed the
facilitated IEP process     facilitator was neutral.
again. (n=815)              (n=815)
      FIEP Trend Data 2004-2011
96.4% reported they
understood the IEP
facilitation process.       83.9% believed the IEP
(n=814)                     facilitation provided a
                            satisfactory IEP.
96.9% believed it is        (n=737)
important to be a part of
the IEP process. (n=738)    75.5% believed the
                            facilitation will improve
86.2% did NOT feel          future IEP meetings.
pressured to agree with     (n=816)
the IEP. (n=815)
            Lessons Learned in WI
• Use of external, neutral facilitators successful in
  helping guide IEP development process
• High quality neutral screening process (by same
  person) for both FIEPs & mediation is critical
• Needed to limit WSEMS FIEP time (3 hrs)
• FIEP especially good when strained relationships,
  communication & trust issues
• FIEP not great when confidentiality would be helpful
• Important for Facilitator to connect with IEP
  Coordinator/Case Manager in advance to explain role
More Information

      • www.wsems.us
      • Email: jane@wsems.us
      • Call: 888-298-3857
 2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference
Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0

                IEP Facilitation in
                  South Carolina

              Mary Eaddy, Director,
              PRO-Parents of S. C.
        Idea to Implementation
• PTI and SDE staff attended FIEP
  Conferences and were excited about
  the possibility

• Proposed to SDE and grant was made

• At the time mediations were not being
  utilized with only two held through the
  previous year
            2008 Pilot Project

• PRO-Parents (state PTI) funded by SEA
• Piloted in six school districts (chosen by
  several criteria)
• Facilitators for the pilot year consisted of
  parent trainers & a few others - trained
  by the Minnesota SEA
• School district personnel (pilot districts)
  and facilitators were trained together
            2008 Pilot Project

• (6) IEP facilitation requests were made
  from August ‘08- June ‘09

• (5) IEP facilitated meetings were held with
  (1) request withdrawn

• All reached consensus (5)

• (4) Implemented IEP, (1) proceeded to the
  complaint process
          Pilot Original Conditions

• SDE awarded a grant to PRO-Parents
  to utilize PTI staff as facilitators

• LEA and parent had to agree to

• Facilitators were paid by the grant –
  no cost to school district
                Pilot Procedures
• Facilitator selected by SEA in coordination with PTI

• Parent consented to share student records with

• Facilitator contacted both parties prior to the
  meeting for introduction, determine concerns,
  and gauge desired outcomes

• Recommended that meetings not exceed 3 hours

• Free of charge to all participants
           Feedback Data

• 44 participants completed feedback
  survey- 6 parents, 38 LEA/school

• 100% reported they felt comfortable
  sharing their thoughts

• 98% reported they felt the facilitator kept
  the team focused and the meeting moving
           Feedback Data
• 100% reported they felt their rights and
  the rights of others were protected

• 95% reported they felt the meeting was
  organized, efficient, and productive

• 100% reported they felt they contributed
  to writing the IEP

• 100% reported they felt everyone shared
  responsibilities and played a role in the
            Lessons Learned

• More time-consuming than
  originally thought

• Pool of facilitators too small

• Pool of facilitators limited in terms
  of representation
               Lessons Learned
• Limited in scope- only 6 LEAs, other LEAs
  wanted to be included

• Facilitators felt they needed more training in
  conflict resolution

• More funding to sustain and expand

• More marketing/public awareness needed

• Needed to consider volunteers vs. paid
                       Year 2

• Initially expanded to (6) additional districts
  (strategically chosen)

• Mid-year- added (3) districts

• A total of (15) LEAs participating

• Expanded the cohort of facilitators to
  include retired special educators,
  administrators, and mediators
                       Year 2

• Provided conflict resolution training for
  expanded pool of facilitators

• Increased public awareness of the project

• Paid a flat fee for each facilitated IEP free
  of charge to districts
                   Year 2 Data
• Total of (16) facilitation requests
• (14) Facilitated IEP meetings held
• (1) Request was withdrawn
• (1) Request resulted in the parties agreeing
  to defer the scheduling of the facilitated IEP
  meeting until the beginning of the 2010-
  2011 school year
• Consensus was reached at (12) of the (14)
  facilitated IEP meetings
                   Year 2 Feedback
• 93% reported they felt comfortable sharing their
• 96% reported they felt the facilitator kept the
  team focused and the meeting moving forward
• (77) participants responded to the feedback
   – (10) parents
   – (2) grandparents
   – (1) student
   – (5) advocates
   – (58) LEA/school reps
   – (1) personal care assistant
                Year 2 Feedback

• 94% reported they felt their rights and the
  rights of others were protected
• 93% reported they felt they contributed to
  writing the IEP

• 94% reported they felt everyone shared
  responsibilities and played a role in the

• 96% reported the meeting was organized,
  efficient, and productive
             Year 2

Efforts were made to utilize
volunteer facilitators
(Charleston School of Law &
Community Mediation
                        Year 3

• Added (6) districts

• Expanded facilitator roster to include
  community mediation project mediators

• Provided conflict resolution training to the
  facilitator cohort

• Explored RFP for an entity outside of the SEA
  to run the facilitation project
                    Year 3 Data

• Total of (23) facilitation requests

• (15) Facilitated IEP meetings held

• (8) Request withdrawn for various reasons

• Consensus was reached at (10) of the (15)
  facilitated IEP meetings
Communication leads to
community, that is, to
understanding, intimacy and
mutual valuing.
Rollo May

To top