california’s dispute resolution system: innovation and excellence national symposium on dispute...
TRANSCRIPT
California’s Dispute Resolution
System: Innovation and Excellence
National Symposium on Dispute Resolution
in Special EducationWashington D.C.
Sponsored by: Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE)
November 29, 2000
Presenters
• Fay Sorensen, ConsultantCalifornia Department of Education
• Kay Atchison, Former Executive Director Placer-Nevada SELPA
• Sam Neustadt, Director Solano SELPA
• Johnny Welton, Director Contra Costa SELPA
2
What is a SELPA?
Special Education Local Plan Area
An intermediate administrative unit created to support the implementation of state responsibilities and coordinate local efforts of school districts
A voluntary, formal structure for Local Educational Agency collaboration that maximizes resources, coordinates services, and assures appropriate special education services for all eligible children
3
Today’s Purpose To introduce California’s model for dispute
resolution – A work in progress To review California’s process for development
of a local and statewide program To share strategies and components (Top 10)
for dispute resolution systems To provide insight to our learnings To stimulate interest in locally developed
dispute resolution options
4
Background
Policy Development Internal Data External Indicators Clinical Experience
Current System Systemic Overhaul
5
Policy Development:A Foundation
To create a permanent program
To allow continuing expansion
To establish a new belief system concerning dispute resolution
6
Internal Data:Growth in Complaints and
Due Process Filings
7
7
Complaints Received(Updated 11/6/2000)
356
523
637
763
926
373
0100
200
300
400500
600
700
800900
1000
95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00 -01
(As of 11/6/00)
8
Mediation and Due Process Hearings(Updated 11/6/2000)
89 93 76 73
15551700
1816
2157
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00
Due ProcessMediation
9
Most Frequent Allegations
Implementation of the IEP Adherence to timelines Provision of related services Interim placements Implementation of agreements and
orders Request for records IEP Team membership
10
External Indicators
• OSEP monitoring report
• Class action lawsuits
• Increasing cost of responding
11
Clinical Experience ADR Pilot Legislation enacted in 1989 Not accessed until 1993 Small two-year pilots established
(3 then 6) Limited Data – but positive impressions No follow up No continuing effort
12
Previous ADRProjects Indicated…
Need for seamless data collection Need to have the work and
accountability follow the resources Need to reconcile relationships while
resolving IDEA related disputes Investment in ADR has a positive
outcome
13
Or, To Put It Another Way,
We know we have failed to develop and maintain
positive working relationships with parents at the school and
district level
14
Systemic Overhaul of Dispute Resolution
Systems• Reactive Strategies
– Complaint Process Reforms– Mediation and Hearing Reforms
• Proactive Strategies– Procedural Safeguards Referral
Service– ADR Network
15
California’s Existing System
State Division Complaint Process: an investigation into charges of non-compliance
State Contracted Mediation: an optional opportunity for a third party to orchestrate a settlement conference type activity
State Contracted Hearing Process: an administrative hearing process to resolve disputes limited to eligibility, assessment, FAPE, and placement
16
• 90 day statutory timeline
• 125 open cases beyond timeline
• Reliability of investigator questioned
• Validity of process challenged
• Outcome inconsistent
CMM Timeliness Results
17
Concerns Regarding State Contracted
MediationMediation not truly non-adversarial
– More of a caucus based settlement conference than a true interest based mediation
– Only 39% are resolved at the table– 62% resolution rate before hearing
(over the past five years)
18
Concerns Regarding Due Process
Due process is often expensive and drawn out– 45 day statutory timeline– Inequitable access for parents to the
process because of cost– Average length of hearing is 4.3 days– 92% of all cases go off calendar to
mediate, stretching timelines to months, rather than days
– Average Case +10 months from filing to ruling 19
Reactive: Current Improvements Underway
• System change for Complaints with retraining, monitoring, and legal review
• Contract modification for Mediation with retraining, broadening of options, and improved documentation
• Contract modification for Hearings with retraining, monitoring of process, and improved reporting
20
Alternative Hearing Process
Pilot Legislation Small claims process Pre-hearing conferences Free public representation pool
for better equity in access Limits length of hearings Alternative structures Signed into law for 2001
21
Proactive: Procedural Safeguards
Referral Service Provides technical assistance to parents and professionals regarding parents rights and options for dispute resolution in special education
Provides immediate feedback to LEAs regarding parent contacts to PSRS in an effort to engage LEAs in dispute resolution before the problem escalates
Maintains a database of contacts to CDE which can be used to inform CDE’s technical assistance to districts
Provides centralized intake for compliance complaints
22
Complaint Process: A Local Resolution
Option Allows districts to resolve
complaints collaboratively with the complainant within a shorter period of time to the parents satisfaction
Allows for meaningful corrective action
Maintains relationships while settling disputes
23
• Regionalized among multiple districts• Led by intermediate administrative units called
Special Education Local Plan Areas (SELPAs)• Guided by practitioners through Advisory
Committee• Designed locally and State funded for
implementation • CDE supported, but not regulated• Peer support and technical assistance provided• On-going development and evolution
California’s Statewide ADR Network
24
Definitions• Planner: a regional applicant in the first
year of development of an ADR Plan• Implementer: a regional applicant with an
approved ADR Plan implementing the Plan• Mentor: an specifically chosen SELPA with
an existing ADR Program matched with Planner and Implementer SELPAs to provide support and technical assistance
25
ADR Network Funding and Implementation
Model• Planners receive small grant for one year
development of an ADR Plan and attendance at the Statewide Conference
• Implementers receive grant for three years to train the community in various options, provide an intake coordinator, offer ADR services, and collect data
• Mentors support planners, implementers, and the Statewide Program while continuing their local ADR services
26
Lessons LearnedNeed For: • Common Definitions• Local Commitment • Dedicated Staffing• Supported Program Development• Public Relations• Data Collection /Accountability• More Money• Planned Expansion
27
Promising Practices Top Ten Components
1. Statewide ADR Conference
2. Local Intake Coordinator
3. Solutions Panels4. Facilitated IEPs5. Resource
Parents
6. Technical Assistance/ Expert Teams
7. IEP Coaches8. Placement Specialists9. Staff Development
Tied To General Education
10.Data Collection And Evaluation
28
Statewide ADR Conference
• To gather concerned parties• To share information and process• To allow applicants to design their plan• To allow implementers to receive training• To offer mentors to share their programs• To report results• To stimulate interest and support for ADR
29
Alternative Dispute
Resolution Plan
Placer Nevada
SELPA
30
Alternative Dispute Resolution Program
Coaches
Ways to Avoid
Litigation
Legal Consultation at Administrative
Meetings
Program Specialists
LegalRoundtables
StaffDevelopment
31
32
Philosophy• The purpose of an alternative Dispute
Resolution Program (ADR) is to build trusting relationships and to encourage respect and value the contributions of all participants.
• Our goal is to create a system that is friendly, flexible and will encourage compassion, integrity and respect for all participants. ADR is an important option to the adversarial approaches too often used in resolving disputes between families, agencies and schools.
33
34
Local Intake Coordinator
A designated or assigned LEA staff member (could be a parent)
Specifically trained to match disputants and process
Skilled in data collectionAvailable to parents and district staffReadily available and swift to take
action
35
Intake CoordinatorListens To Your Concerns And Helps You
Identify Problems And ConflictsWith Your Permission Contacts The Other
PartyWith Agreement Of Both Parties
Coordinates A Dispute Resolution OptionFollows Up To Check On OutcomesSupports Both Parties To Build
Relationships
36
Intake Coordinator Training (2 Hours)
Foundation:Resource Parent
TrainingSolutions Panel
TrainingFacilitated IEP
TrainingData Base
Training
Specific Intake Process Training:
CommunicationCase DevelopmentSelection of
StrategyFollow Up ActivitiesAccountability
37
Solutions Panels
A Panel Including: Parent, Provider, and Administrator (Parent May Be Paid)
From Another District Specifically Trained Using A Problem Solving Method To
Bring Parties Together To Reach A Mutually Satisfying
Agreement
38
Solutions Panels Training
(25 Hours) Conflict Communication Cultural Diversity Anger Negotiation Conciliation and
Mediation
Intake Case Development Stumbling Blocks Panel Process Follow-up/
Evaluation Other Applications
39
Solutions Panels: Phase I
1. Come to a full understanding of the problem
2. Establish rapport that helps the people in conflict state issues and express feelings
3. Have each party hear the other’s issues and feelings
4. Model teamwork, neutrality and communication
5. Prepare the people in conflict to communicate and work together
Parties Describe The Conflict
Solutions Panel
Parent Provider
Admin
Party B
Party A
Disputants
40
Solutions Panels: Phase II
1. Expand the Work of Phase I
2. Decide which issue will be discussed first
3. Promoting discussion between the two disputants focusing on specific issues
4. Pointing out new information as it surfaces
Understanding Each Other
Party A
Party B
Disputants
Parent Provider
Admin
Solutions Panel
41
Solutions Panels: Phase III
1. Helping the disputants reflect on the work and learning that has occurred
2. Preparing disputants to resolve the conflict
Exploring Possible Solutions
42
Solutions Panels: Phase IV
1. Developing a resolution which is mutually agreeable to each disputant
2. Write an agreement for signature
3. Reflect on the process and options for resolution of future disputes
Agreements Written And Signed
43
Follow up training is important!
44
Future Plans for Solutions Teams
Spring Training for:• Principals and Vice Principals• Parents• Agencies
45
Facilitated IEPs An IEP led by a specifically trained
facilitator Using a collaborative process where
members share responsibility for the process and results
Decision-making is managed through the use of facilitation process
46
Facilitated IEPs Training
(24 Hours)Self-AssessmentThe Interaction
MethodFacilitative
BehaviorsSetting Up For
SuccessListening As An
AllyFollow Through
47
Facilitation For IEP Meetings
Enables the team to:• Build and improve strong
relationships among team members• Reach true consensus• Focus the IEP content and process on
the needs of the student• Exercise and efficient, guided meeting
process where the effective communication and reflective listening are practiced
48
Resource Parents Volunteers Providing Parent-To-Parent
Support Specifically Trained Sanctioned By The District Willing To Put Aside
Personal Issues Able To Use Listening And
Speaking Skills To Facilitate Communication
To Empower Others To Work Within The Educational System 49
Resource Parent Training
(12 Hours)• Communication/
Listening• Assertiveness• Collaborative
Problem Solving• Leadership• Telephone Skills• Facilitation
• Collaboration/Partnership• IDEA ‘97• IEP Process• Working With Difficult
People• Recognizing Grief• Empowerment/
Resources/Commitment
50
Technical Assistance-Expert Teams
VISION
DEAF
TECHNOLOGY AUTISM
51
Technical Assistance-Expert Teams
• Consultation to Teachers• Work with Support Staff• Assessment• Inservice Training• Coordination
To assist IEP teams to design services and select materials and equipment through access to experts in the field and use of
problem solving techniques.
52
Technical Assistance-Expert Team Process
Present Levels of FunctionTo identify parent and staff perceptions of
function and potential while moving the group toward realistic descriptions
Possible NeedsTo identify and prioritize desired outcomes
Action PlanTo document team decision making, describe
actions to be undertaken, and assign implementers
53
IEP Coaches
54
Student
Teachers
Parents
Support Personnel
District
County
Consortium
SELPA
To support and assist IEP teams as they offer quality education and protect the
student’s fundamental right to a free and appropriate public education.
GOAL OF IEP COACHING
55
IEP COACHES TRAINING
56
Day One FocusJim Socher
Former Football Coach, UC Davis
57
Diagnostic School
California Public Education– Legal Mandates Demographics
Collaboration 504 Student Study Teams Procedural Safeguards
58
Day Two
Reflections about Coaches Bob Farran, Administrator,
Southwest SELPA IEP Process Frameworks and Standards Benchmarks
59
Day ThreeInteractive Learning
SessionsTransition:
Preschool to Elementary
School
SuccessfulIEPs
Transition:Elementary/
Middle SchoolTo
High School
Procedural SafeguardsAnd
Due Process
GoalsAnd
Objectives
WhatIs
Technology?
Behavioral Interventions
60
Fall Camp, September 1999
504
Writing Effective Goals and Objectives
Making IEPs Work for Students
Coaches’ Roles and Responsibilities
Shared Coaches’ Duties
61
Spring Camp, 2000
Share Coaches’ Experiences
Tips on Coaching
Invite Regular Education Teacher to Come and Share Their Experiences
Parent Participation
62
California’sProgram Specialists
Are Not Administrators
Serve School Districts and County Offices
Work with Agencies, Parents and Schools
63
California’s Program Specialists
Monitor Nonpublic School Placements
Work with District and State Schools
Provide Staff DevelopmentLook for Alternative Programs for
StudentsLook for Alternative Curriculums
64
Staff Development Tied
To General Education
65
People learn best through active involvement and through thinking about and becoming articulate about what they have learned. Processes, practices, and policies built on this view of learning are at the heart of a more expanded view of teacher development that encourages teachers to involve themselves as learners—in much the same way as they wish to involve their students.
66
1999-2000 Focus
3-Year Literacy Project
Lindamood Bell Making Positive
Changes with Challenging Students
Teaching Children with Autism
Parent Mentor Training
Strategies & Interventions for the Diverse Classroom
Middle School Principal’s Luncheon
IEP Forms Training
67
1999-2000 Focus
IEP Coaches Follow Up Trainings
Strategies for Students with Asperger’s/High Functioning Autism
Parent Support and Resource Conference
IEP Training for Agencies
Surrogate Parent Training
Alternative Dispute Resolution Training and Follow Up
Nonviolent Crisis Intervention
68
1999-2000 Focus
Social Skills: Strategies for Children Who Don’t Fit In
Middle School Literacy: Assessment and Intervention Strategies
Meeting the Challenge: Teaching to All Learners
A World of Possibilities: Educating Students with Severe Disabilities
69
1999-2000 Focus
The Hanen Program for Families with Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Phonics for the Older Student
Language! High School
Modifications Fair Are You Trapped
in the Classroom or Lost in the Community?
70
Data Collection
andEvaluatio
n
71
Disputes Are About:
• Feedback• Validation• Communication• Relationships• Opportunities
72
How Are You Doing?
• Prepare for one formal complaint or hearing per thousand
• Prepare with a systematic approach• Identify:
– Who– What– How– When
73
You Will Only Know If You Keep Track
How many did you receive?
How many times did you respond?
Who responded? When did they
respond (timeline)? What did they do? How did it turn out?
74
What Is Your System?
• Intake• Plan• Action• Follow Up• Evaluation
75
How Do You Track Cases And Monitor
Results?On Paper
OrUsing
Technology
76
Systems Require Definitions
Filing: State or Federal level requests for:
• Pre-mediation• Mediation• Expedited Hearing• Due Process Hearing• Complaint Investigation• Office of Civil Rights Investigation
77
Systems Require Definitions
Issue: Common categories of dispute including:
• Identification• Assessment• Educational Placement• Free Appropriate Public Education• Timelines• Implementation of IEP• Failure to hold IEP Meetings
78
Systems Require Definitions
Strategy: An course of action chosen to match a case’s situation and implemented with specific intent as to outcome including:
• Referred to IEP• Referred to Resource Parent• Facilitated IEP• Local Mediation• Solutions Panel
79
Systems Require Definitions
Outcome: The result after action is taken
• Signed IEP• Signed Agreement• Complaint Order• Hearing Order• Informal Outcome• Other
80
We Need To Know• How many in a year?• What were the most frequent issues?• What type of agreement was reached?• What were the benefits of alternative
actions?• What were the benefits of formal actions?
81
We Need To Plan
• How we improve our system• How we improve our service• How we train parents and staff• How we choose options• How we invest our resources
82
“Seamless” Data
• State Intake• State Complaint Investigation• State Contracted Mediation• State Contracted Hearing• Local/Regional Dispute Resolution
Activity
83
State Intake
• Call the state – Immediate Communication– State staff to guide technical assistance– Parent to provide printed material– District to alert and allow local
communication
• On screen interview• Central point of contact• Coordinated communication• Shared information
84
State Complaint Investigation
• Formal opening of case• Identified issues• Communicated to parents and
district• Timeline monitoring• Outcome analysis
85
State Contracted Mediation
• Formal opening of case• Identified issues• Outcome analysis
86
State Contracted Hearings
• Formal opening of case• Identified issues• Timeline monitoring• Outcome analysis
87
Local ADR Activity
• Informal identification of case• Identified issues• ADR Strategy Tracking• Formal filing of case
• Timeline monitoring• Outcome analysis• Cost/Benefit analysis
88
Questions & Answers
• Fay Sorensen, ConsultantCalifornia Department of Education
• Kay Atchison, Former Executive Director Placer-Nevada SELPA
• Sam Neustadt, Director Solano SELPA
• Johnny Welton, Director Contra Costa SELPA
89
California’s Dispute Resolution System: Innovation
and Excellence
Summary & Closing Comments
Dispute Resolution Provides
Empowerment Through Information
Skills Through Training
Support Through Relationships
Evaluation Through Data
91
Today’s Purpose
To introduce California’s model for dispute resolution – A work in progress
To review California’s process for development of a local and statewide program
To share strategies and components (10) for dispute resolution systems
To provide insight to our learningsTo stimulate interest in locally
developed dispute resolution options
92