California

1
Californias Dispute Resolution System
Innovation and Excellence

• National Symposium on Dispute Resolution in
  Special Education
• Washington D.C.

Sponsored by Consortium for Appropriate Dispute
Resolution in Special Education (CADRE)
November 29, 2000
2
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
3
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
4
Todays Purpose

• To introduce Californias model for dispute
  resolution A work in progress
• To review Californias 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
5
Background

• Policy Development
• Internal Data
• External Indicators
• Clinical Experience
• Current System
• Systemic Overhaul

5
6
Policy DevelopmentA Foundation

• To create a permanent program
• To allow continuing expansion
• To establish a new belief system concerning
  dispute resolution

A Work in Progress...
6
7
Internal DataGrowth in Complaints andDue
Process Filings

• 7

7
8
Complaints Received(Updated 11/6/2000)
(As of 11/6/00)
8
9
Mediation and Due Process Hearings(Updated
11/6/2000)
9
10
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
11
External Indicators

• OSEP monitoring report
• Class action lawsuits
• Increasing cost of responding

11
12
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
13
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
14
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
15
Systemic Overhaul of Dispute Resolution Systems

• Reactive Strategies
• Complaint Process Reforms
• Mediation and Hearing Reforms
• Proactive Strategies
• Procedural Safeguards Referral Service
• ADR Network

15
16
Californias 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
17
CMM Timeliness Results

• 90 day statutory timeline
• 125 open cases beyond timeline
• Reliability of investigator questioned
• Validity of process challenged
• Outcome inconsistent

17
18
Concerns Regarding State Contracted Mediation

• Mediation 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
19
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
20
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
21
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
22
Proactive Procedural SafeguardsReferral 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 CDEs technical assistance to
  districts
• Provides centralized intake for compliance
  complaints

22
23
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
24
Californias Statewide ADR Network

• 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

24
25
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
26
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
27
Lessons Learned

• Need For
• Common Definitions
• Local Commitment
• Dedicated Staffing
• Supported Program Development
• Public Relations
• Data Collection /Accountability
• More Money
• Planned Expansion

27
28
Promising Practices Top Ten Components

1. Statewide ADR Conference
2. Local Intake Coordinator
3. Solutions Panels
4. Facilitated IEPs
5. Resource Parents

1. Technical Assistance/ Expert Teams
2. IEP Coaches
3. Placement Specialists
4. Staff Development Tied To General Education
5. Data Collection And Evaluation

28
29
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
30
Alternative Dispute Resolution PlanPlacer Nevada
SELPA
30
31
Ways to Avoid Litigation
Coaches
Staff Development
Legal Roundtables
Legal Consultation at Administrative Meetings
Program Specialists
Alternative Dispute Resolution Program
31
32
32
33
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
SOLUTIONS TEAM
CURRICULUM
PLACEMENTS
STUDENT PROGRESS
MODIFICATIONS AND ACCOMMODATIONS
COMMUNICATION
34
35
Local Intake Coordinator

• A designated or assigned LEA staff member (could
  be a parent)
• Specifically trained to match disputants and
  process
• Skilled in data collection
• Available to parents and district staff
• Readily available and swift to take action

35
36
Intake Coordinator

• Listens To Your Concerns And Helps You Identify
  Problems And Conflicts
• With Your Permission Contacts The Other Party
• With Agreement Of Both Parties Coordinates A
  Dispute Resolution Option
• Follows Up To Check On Outcomes
• Supports Both Parties To Build Relationships

36
37
Intake Coordinator Training (2 Hours)

• Foundation
• Resource Parent Training
• Solutions Panel Training
• Facilitated IEP Training
• Data Base Training

• Specific Intake Process Training
• Communication
• Case Development
• Selection of Strategy
• Follow Up Activities
• Accountability

37
38
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
39
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
40
Solutions Panels Phase I
Parties Describe The Conflict

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 others issues and
   feelings
4. Model teamwork, neutrality and communication
5. Prepare the people in conflict to communicate and
   work together

40
41
Solutions Panels Phase II
Understanding Each Other

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

41
42
Solutions Panels Phase III
Exploring Possible Solutions

1. Helping the disputants reflect on the work and
   learning that has occurred
2. Preparing disputants to resolve the conflict

42
43
Solutions Panels Phase IV
Agreements Written And Signed

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

43
44
Follow up training is important!
44
45
Future Plans for Solutions Teams

• Spring Training for
• Principals and Vice Principals
• Parents
• Agencies

45
46
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
47
Facilitated IEPs Training(24 Hours)

• Self-Assessment
• The Interaction Method
• Facilitative Behaviors
• Setting Up For Success
• Listening As An Ally
• Follow Through

47
48
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
49
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
50
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
51
Technical Assistance-Expert Teams
DEAF
VISION
TECHNOLOGY
AUTISM
51
52
Technical Assistance-Expert Teams
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.

• Consultation to Teachers
• Work with Support Staff
• Assessment
• Inservice Training
• Coordination

52
53
Technical Assistance-Expert Team Process

• Present Levels of Function
• To identify parent and staff perceptions of
  function and potential while moving the group
  toward realistic descriptions
• Possible Needs
• To identify and prioritize desired outcomes
• Action Plan
• To document team decision making, describe
  actions to be undertaken, and assign implementers

53
54
IEP Coaches
54
55
GOAL OF IEP COACHING
To support and assist IEP teams as they offer
quality education and protect the students
fundamental right to a free and appropriate
public education.
55
56
IEP COACHES TRAINING
56
57
Day One Focus
Jim Socher Former Football Coach, UC Davis
57
58
Diagnostic School

• California Public Education
• Legal Mandates
• Demographics
• Collaboration
• 504
• Student Study Teams
• Procedural Safeguards

58
59
Day Two

• Reflections about Coaches
• Bob Farran, Administrator, Southwest SELPA
• IEP Process
• Frameworks and Standards
• Benchmarks

59
60
Day ThreeInteractive Learning Sessions
Transition Preschool to Elementary School
Successful IEPs
Transition Elementary/ Middle School To High
School
What Is Technology?
Goals And Objectives
Procedural Safeguards And Due Process
Behavioral Interventions
60
61
Fall Camp, September 1999

• 504
• Writing Effective Goals and Objectives
• Making IEPs Work for Students
• Coaches Roles and Responsibilities
• Shared Coaches Duties

61
62
Spring Camp, 2000

• Share Coaches Experiences
• Tips on Coaching
• Invite Regular Education Teacher to Come and
  Share Their Experiences
• Parent Participation

62
63
CaliforniasProgram Specialists

• Are Not Administrators
• Serve School Districts and County Offices
• Work with Agencies, Parents and Schools

63
64
Californias Program Specialists

• Monitor Nonpublic School Placements
• Work with District and State Schools
• Provide Staff Development
• Look for Alternative Programs for Students
• Look for Alternative Curriculums

64
65
Staff Development Tied To General Education

• STAFF DEVELOPMENT

65
66
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 learnersin much the
same way as they wish to involve their students.
66
67
1999-2000 Focus

• Parent Mentor Training
• Strategies Interventions for the Diverse
  Classroom
• Middle School Principals Luncheon
• IEP Forms Training

• 3-Year Literacy Project
• Lindamood Bell
• Making Positive Changes with Challenging Students
• Teaching Children with Autism

67
68
1999-2000 Focus

• IEP Coaches Follow Up Trainings
• Strategies for Students with Aspergers/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
69
1999-2000 Focus

• Social Skills Strategies for Children Who Dont
  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
70
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
71
Data Collection
andEvaluation
71
72
Disputes Are About

• Feedback
• Validation
• Communication
• Relationships
• Opportunities

72
73
How Are You Doing?

• Prepare for one formal complaint or hearing per
  thousand
• Prepare with a systematic approach
• Identify
• Who
• What
• How
• When

73
74
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
75
What Is Your System?

• Intake
• Plan
• Action
• Follow Up
• Evaluation

75
76
How Do You Track Cases And Monitor Results?

• On Paper
• Or
• Using Technology

76
77
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
78
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
79
Systems Require Definitions

• Strategy An course of action chosen to match a
  cases situation and implemented with specific
  intent as to outcome including
• Referred to IEP
• Referred to Resource Parent
• Facilitated IEP
• Local Mediation
• Solutions Panel

79
80
Systems Require Definitions

• Outcome The result after action is taken
• Signed IEP
• Signed Agreement
• Complaint Order
• Hearing Order
• Informal Outcome
• Other

80
81
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
82
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
83
Seamless Data

• State Intake
• State Complaint Investigation
• State Contracted Mediation
• State Contracted Hearing
• Local/Regional Dispute Resolution Activity

83
84
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
85
State Complaint Investigation

• Formal opening of case
• Identified issues
• Communicated to parents and district
• Timeline monitoring
• Outcome analysis

85
86
State Contracted Mediation

• Formal opening of case
• Identified issues
• Outcome analysis

86
87
State Contracted Hearings

• Formal opening of case
• Identified issues
• Timeline monitoring
• Outcome analysis

87
88
Local ADR Activity

• Informal identification of case
• Identified issues
• ADR Strategy Tracking
• Formal filing of case

• Timeline monitoring
• Outcome analysis
• Cost/Benefit analysis

88
89
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
90
Summary Closing Comments

• Californias Dispute Resolution System
  Innovation and Excellence

91
Dispute Resolution Provides

• Empowerment Through Information
• Skills Through Training
• Support Through Relationships
• Evaluation Through Data

91
92
Todays Purpose

• To introduce Californias model for dispute
  resolution A work in progress
• To review Californias process for development of
  a local and statewide program
• To share strategies and components (10) for
  dispute resolution systems
• To provide insight to our learnings
• To stimulate interest in locally developed
  dispute resolution options

92
93
THANK YOU!