Special Education MediationState Model

Delaware

Inter-American Summit on Conflict Resolution EducationCleveland, Ohio, USA

March 14, 2007

Presented by Fran Fletcher and Kathy WianUniversity of Delaware’s Conflict Resolution Program

About Delaware

TOTAL POPULATION @ 900,000White 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 districts192 public schools14 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

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.

Mediation

TrainingIEP Facilitation

Delaware Hearing Statistics* Number of hearings requested & number of requests that were fully adjudicated:

2004-2005 - 32 requests, 8 decisions2005-2006 - 11 requests, 4 decisions2006-now - 17 requests, 2 decisions

What happened to the rest? Mediation Negotiated settlements Voluntary or involuntary dismissals

*Delaware Department of Education Statistics

Mediation Overview

Mediation

Voluntary

Free

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1996-1997

1998-1999

2000-2001

2002-2003

2004-2005

2006-

DPM

NDPM

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• Purpose/Goals of Meeting• Neutral, Encouraging

Language• Student History/Performance• Non-Verbals• Relationship/Trust• Use of the IEP Form• Special Issues• Conflicts/Impasse• Questioning, Active

Listening/Communication• Greetings/Introductions• Materials/Preparation

• Pace• Participants• Annual Goals/Objectives• Post-Meeting Follow Up• Action Planning• Consensus Building/Decision

Making• Team Roles• Room set up & Seating• Mtg Debrief/Reflection/Eval• A/V Resources• Brainstorming• Participation Formats

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 Mediation Process

• Facilitation 101• Your Conflict

Management Style• Where do These

Parents Come From? • Resolving Difficult

Dynamics and Conflict in IEPs

• Are You Hearing Me?• Brainstorming and

Problem Solving? • Decision Making and

Action Planning• A/V and the IEP• IEP Coaching

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

Mediation

IssueIEP FacilitationResolution Meeting

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….

Internal?External?

AdvantagesNeutral to the outcomeFresh set of eyesAddresses power imbalances Manages “bad” behavior and high emotionDisadvantagesRole confusion/expectationNo follow-upNo control over participants or the system

AdvantagesKnows team membersKnows systemAnticipates problems & resolve before meeting begins

Disadvantages Knows team membersKnows systemYou are an employee

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”

Additional Advantages of Using an External Facilitator

The External IEP Meeting Facilitator

● A member of the team, therefore, does not, suggest, impose or participate in team decisions or solutions

● A legal expert

● An advocate

● An arbitrator

~IS NOT~

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 with…

Communication Problem solving Participation Agenda items Gaining agreement Relationships Understanding Timing

Content deals with…

Evaluation Assessments Legal rights/the

law Opinions Records Data Ideas Information

Facilitator Qualities

EXCELLENT COMMUNICATION SKILLS

FACILITATIVE “LEADERSHIP” STYLE

PATIENT AND COMPOSED

OBJECTIVE AND NEUTRAL

A fair and consistent process

Cooperative participation occurs

Communication improves

Trust is Built

Effective IEP is created

Buy-in achieved

Sustained IEP

Benefits

Mediation vs. IEP Meeting Facilitation

• The differences are…

• The similarities are…

Overview Per Year

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Cases

Inquires

Facilitated

IEP Signed

University of Delaware

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-

Impact on DP & Mediation

0

1

2

3

4

5

Cases# DPMediated

University of Delaware

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-

Challenges School District

Repeat RequestsUnderstanding RoleRealistic Time FrameAsking for AssistanceSchool Requests

Parent

Repeat Requests Understanding Role Realistic Time FrameAsking for AssistanceParent Requests

Wait for Crisis Team Preparation Supporting All Can’t Change Follow Up

IEP Meeting Facilitation Evaluations2000-2005

Actual IEP Meeting Facilitation Evaluation ResultsResponses = 85

Goals of the meetingPoor 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 tocontent; to use the content; contenttoo 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 muchsame as before; I feel antagonistic improved; I trust them moretoward 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:• Trained personnel

would become “in-house” resource

= share skills with team members

= facilitate challenging meetings

Outcome: • Trained personnel did

not have time to incorporate

= no training occurred

= limited time to travel between schools

= changed jobs

The New Hot Topic

10/50

Designing the System

Volunteers

Mediators

Retired SchoolPersonnel

DOE

Grants

Districts

Parents

$

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 SupportsDOE Staff and Director

Formal SupportsIDEANCLB

ChallengesNew Federal and State Mandates

Thank You

Conflict Resolution ProgramUniversity of Delaware

177 Graham Hall Newark, DE 19716

Website: www.ipa.udel.edu/crp

Fran Fletcher Kathy Wian 302-831-6812 302-831-2927FranF@udel.edu KWian@udel.edu