2. California’s 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

3. Presenters Fay Sorensen, Consultant California Department of Education Kay Atchison, Former Executive Director Placer-Nevada SELPA Sam Neustadt, Director Solano SELPA Johnny Welton, Director Contra Costa SELPA 2

4. 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

5. 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

6. Background Policy Development  Internal Data  External Indicators  Clinical Experience Current System Systemic Overhaul 5

7. Policy Development: A Foundation  To create a permanent program  To allow continuing expansion  To establish a new belief system concerning dispute resolution 6

8. Internal Data: Growth in Complaints and Due Process Filings 7 7

9. Complaints Received (Updated 11/6/2000) (As of 11/6/00) 8

10. Mediation and Due Process Hearings (Updated 11/6/2000) 9

11. 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

12. External Indicators OSEP monitoring report Class action lawsuits Increasing cost of responding 11

13. 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

14. Previous ADR Projects 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

15. 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

16. Systemic Overhaul of Dispute Resolution Systems Reactive Strategies –Complaint Process Reforms –Mediation and Hearing Reforms Proactive Strategies –Procedural Safeguards Referral Service –ADR Network 15

17. 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

18. 90 day statutory timeline 125 open cases beyond timeline Reliability of investigator questioned Validity of process challenged Outcome inconsistent CMM Timeliness Results 17

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. Lessons Learned Need For: Common Definitions Local Commitment Dedicated Staffing Supported Program Development Public Relations Data Collection /Accountability More Money Planned Expansion 27

29. Promising Practices Top Ten Components 1.Statewide ADR Conference 2.Local Intake Coordinator 3.Solutions Panels 4.Facilitated IEPs 5.Resource Parents 6.Technical Assistance/ Expert Teams 7.IEP Coaches 8.Placement Specialists 9.Staff Development Tied To General Education 10.Data Collection And Evaluation 28

30. 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

31. Alternative Dispute Resolution Plan Placer Nevada SELPA 30

32. Alternative Dispute Resolution Program Coaches Ways to Avoid Litigation Legal Consultation at Administrative Meetings Program Specialists Legal Roundtables Staff Development 31

33. 32

34. 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

35. 34

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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 BParty A Disputants 40

42. 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 AParty B Disputants Parent Provider Admin Solutions Panel 41

43. 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

44. 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

45. Follow up training is important! 44

46. Future Plans for Solutions Teams Spring Training for: Principals and Vice Principals Parents Agencies 45

47. 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

48. Facilitated IEPs Training (24 Hours) Self-Assessment The Interaction Method Facilitative Behaviors Setting Up For Success Listening As An Ally Follow Through 47

49. 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

50. 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

51. 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

52. Technical Assistance- Expert Teams VISION DEAF TECHNOLOGY AUTISM 51

53. 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

54. 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

55. IEP Coaches 54

56. 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

57. IEP COACHES TRAINING 56

58. Day One Focus Jim Socher Former Football Coach, UC Davis 57

59. Diagnostic School  California Public Education –Legal Mandates  Demographics  Collaboration  504  Student Study Teams  Procedural Safeguards 58

60. Day Two  Reflections about Coaches  Bob Farran, Administrator, Southwest SELPA  IEP Process  Frameworks and Standards  Benchmarks 59

61. Day Three Interactive Learning Sessions Transition: Preschool to Elementary School Successful IEPs Transition: Elementary/ Middle School To High School Procedural Safeguards And Due Process Goals And Objectives What Is Technology? Behavioral Interventions 60

62. Fall Camp, September 1999  504  Writing Effective Goals and Objectives  Making IEPs Work for Students  Coaches’ Roles and Responsibilities  Shared Coaches’ Duties 61

63. Spring Camp, 2000  Share Coaches’ Experiences  Tips on Coaching  Invite Regular Education Teacher to Come and Share Their Experiences  Parent Participation 62

64. California’s Program Specialists Are Not Administrators Serve School Districts and County Offices Work with Agencies, Parents and Schools 63

65. California’s 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

66. Staff Development Tied To General Education 65

67. 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

68. 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

69. 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

70. 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

71. 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

72. Data Collection and Evaluation 71

73. Disputes Are About: Feedback Validation Communication Relationships Opportunities 72

74. How Are You Doing? Prepare for one formal complaint or hearing per thousand Prepare with a systematic approach Identify: –Who –What –How –When 73

75. 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

76. What Is Your System? Intake Plan Action Follow Up Evaluation 75

77. How Do You Track Cases And Monitor Results? On Paper Or Using Technology 76

78. 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

79. 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

80. 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

81. Systems Require Definitions Outcome: The result after action is taken Signed IEP Signed Agreement Complaint Order Hearing Order Informal Outcome Other 80

82. 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

83. 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

84. “Seamless” Data State Intake State Complaint Investigation State Contracted Mediation State Contracted Hearing Local/Regional Dispute Resolution Activity 83

85. 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

86. State Complaint Investigation Formal opening of case Identified issues Communicated to parents and district Timeline monitoring Outcome analysis 85

87. State Contracted Mediation Formal opening of case Identified issues Outcome analysis 86

88. State Contracted Hearings Formal opening of case Identified issues Timeline monitoring Outcome analysis 87

89. Local ADR Activity Informal identification of case Identified issues ADR Strategy Tracking Formal filing of case Timeline monitoring Outcome analysis Cost/Benefit analysis 88

90. Questions & Answers Fay Sorensen, Consultant California Department of Education Kay Atchison, Former Executive Director Placer-Nevada SELPA Sam Neustadt, Director Solano SELPA Johnny Welton, Director Contra Costa SELPA 89

91. California’s Dispute Resolution System: Innovation and Excellence Summary & Closing Comments

92. Dispute Resolution Provides  Empowerment Through Information  Skills Through Training  Support Through Relationships  Evaluation Through Data 91

93. 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 learnings  To stimulate interest in locally developed dispute resolution options 92