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