2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 From Cradle to Success: The Evolving Contours of IEP/IFSP Facilitation Nissan Bar-Lev Mary Eaddy Philip Moses Jan Serak Strand: State Directors and Part B Data Managers Presentation #114

IEP/IFSP Facilitation: What is it? The use of an individual to assist with making the meeting more effective.  Internal: Typically a professional or educator from within a school system  External: A dispute resolution practitioner supplied by the SEA or contracted by the LEA

IEP/IFSP Facilitation: When?  When is IEP facilitation best used? History of a contentious relationship Discussions tend to waiver from student- focus Conflicts or disagreements are likely to arise during the meeting Team member who might typically facilitate needs to be freed of that responsibility

IEP/IFSP Facilitation: Benefits  Builds and improves relationships  Keeps meeting student-focused  Objective observer; another set of ears  Capacity for resolving conflicts  More creative problem-solving  External expertise can be brought in  Less stressful and costly than DPHs and other options

IEP/IFSP Facilitation: A Brief History*  1997, Michigan Special Education Mediation System conducts their 1 st IEP Facilitation (External)  January 1999, JDL Associates has provided training in Essential Facilitation for IEP Meetings (Internal)  November 2000, CADRE’s First National Symposium on Dispute Resolution includes session on IEP Facilitation * Not a comprehensive history, just highlights

IEP/IFSP Facilitation: A Brief History  CADRE receives numerous requests for information and TA related to IEP Facilitation  2005, 8 SEAs provide IEP facilitation on state-wide basis  2005, CADRE convenes the first National Symposium on IEP Facilitation 22 Concurrent Sessions

IEP/IFSP Facilitation: ‘Present’ Status  2009, approx. 24 SEAs provide IEP facilitation on state-wide basis  Numerous other SEAs request TA from CADRE, refer LEAs to list of special ed mediators or are investing in training internals  LEAs continue to train internals & contract with private practitioners  CADRE’s Fifth National Symposium on Dispute Resolution in Special Education 10 Concurrent Sessions on IEP Facilitation

IEP/IFSP Facilitation: Models External  Typically administered by special ed mediation program folks  IEP Facilitators include…  special ed mediators  separate/distinct panel of facilitators  community mediation volunteers  parents

IEP/IFSP Facilitation: Models Internal  LEAs contracting with private trainers  SEA training LEAs… MN – IEP Managers Training OK – Good Meeting Management TX – Facilitated IEP Project Grant

IEP/IFSP Facilitation: Models SEA/Parent Center Partnership  South Carolina Department of Education/Pro Parents of SC (external)  OK Department of OK St/OK Parent Center (internal)

Some Issues and Considerations  External versus internal facilitators > Internals may not be viewed as impartial  Confidentiality > IDEA is silent about the process, no protections for facilitators  Access to services > Concerns related to budget busting, i.e. a request to facilitate “every” IEP meeting

Lessons Learned Classic Example: Initially IEP facilitators in Pennsylvania provided:  expertise  technical assistance  directive style in the meetings Participant feedback indicated that both parents and LEAs were dissatisfied with this approach. A course correction was made, and the role has since been productively redefined as purely facilitative.

4 Features of an Effective Process  Long-term investment in the program  On-going outreach to achieve system- wide awareness of the availability of facilitated assistance  Well-trained and experienced facilitators  Clear policies, procedures and protocols related to the use of neutrals

IEP Facilitation in Wisconsin Nissan Bar-Lev & Jan Serak

WSEMS Partners: Nissan Bar-Lev, Special Education Director, CESA #7 Jan Serak, Co-Director, WI FACETS (Parent Training & Info Center) Nina Meierding, Mediator, Professor, & Attorney WI Special Education Mediation System (WSEMS) WI Special Education Mediation System (WSEMS) WSEMS Roster of Neutrals 23 are active WSEMS Partners select & train Serve both as mediators & as external facilitators for FIEPs & Resolution Mtgs

WI Special Education Mediation System

WI Dept. of Public Instruction “DPI supports IEP Facilitation. DPI supports an increase in the number of options available to parents and schools to resolve their disputes. Such options will assist the parties in building long lasting, trustful and collaborative relationships.” Dr. Stephanie Petska, Director, Special Education Team, WDPI

Facilitators Internal  Skilled in facilitation techniques, but not necessarily an expert  Group member (as, not a parent or school staff)  Is NOT impartial  Participates in content-related discussion/decisions  Assists group in making process- related decisions * External  Facilitation expert  Not a group member  Is impartial  Does not participate in content-related discussion/decisions  Assists group in making process- related decisions *Wisconsin WSEMS facilitators are external facilitators

When to Use a Facilitated IEP ? WI allows use for any stage IEP: Initial, Re-evaluation, Annual, and Review/Revision Best used early in the IEP process Especially when anticipate a difficult meeting, or when there are communication or trust issues

Call WSEMS Complete form ( forms) forms Voluntary Access to WSEMS IEP Facilitator

WSEMS Intake & Screening  Case #: ______  Intake screener:  Request:  Phone  Mail  Other  Person requesting the facilitator:  Type IEP:  Initial  Annual  3-Yr Re-Eval  Review/Revision  Child’s Name & Age:  Does child reside at home with both parents?  Child’s disability?  What, if any, related services are involved?  Has child been involved in any special programs  outside of school?  No  Yes If so, which?  School District: _________ School:_____

Intake Process  Parent(s)/Guardian(s) Agree to a facilitator:_____ Name:________________________________________ Date Address: _____________________________________ Phone: __________________ Represented: ________ __________________ Do you have previous experience with special ed issues/IEPs?  No  Yes  School Representative Agree to a facilitator: _____ Name: ________________________________________ Date Address: _____________________________________ Phone: __________________ Represented: ________ __________________ Who is the IEP team leader? _____________________  Other IEP team members: ___________________ _______________________ _____________________  Has the team met previously for this specific IEP?  No  Yes If yes, how long was the meeting? _______

Intake Process  Is there a meeting scheduled for this IEP? ____ If so, when?  Has an invitation letter been sent/received? If yes, we need a copy to include with the confirmation letter. If not, the facilitator has to be added as a participant, but not a member, of IEP team.  Where is the team in the evaluation cycle?  What are the major Issues? ____________________________  Why are you requesting a facilitator? ____________________  Do you feel uncomfortable speaking freely in front of any team member?  Are there any other circumstances about the student/your child we should be aware of at this time?

Arrangements Facilitator appointment – By WSEMS Intake Coordinator Setting the date: – Date already set – WSEMS Intake Coordinator works with parties to find a Facilitator available on the date – Date not set – WSEMS Facilitator is appointed, who then works with parties to find date convenient for all Invitation – District sends IEP invitation letter to IEP team with name of WSEMS Facilitator included Participants – No WI legal provisions for who may participate – IEP must have all participants required by IDEA 2004

WSEMS Sample Facilitator Opening --“My role is to help you communicate with each other to reach a consensus around the most effective IEP for _____ (child’s name). -- I am not a formal member of the IEP team. -- I will be working closely with _______ (name of case manager) who will ensure the IEP process is followed. -- Let me know if you have any questions at any time.”

FIEP Data 24 requests 11 FIEPs held – 90% IEPs developed Reasons for no FIEP: – Cases open (1) – Requests withdrawn (3) – 1 party declined (3) – Moved to mediation (3) – IEP rescheduled without a facilitator (3) Total FIEPS held: 247 ) IEP developed or revised: 71.6% Ave.# meetings: 1.51 Ave. length/meeting: 3.14 hours 78% met before FIEP: ave.1.6 times Issues that led to FIEP: – Communication 48%; Accommodation 42.1% – Placement 40%; Identif. 28.6% – IEE Request 23.4%; Discipline 22.7 Disabilities involved: – More than 1 identified 50% – Autism 14.6%, EBD 14%, OHI 6%. SLD 5.3%, etc. 81.4% of facilitators felt case appropriate for facilitation

FIEP Trend Data % believed the facilitator was neutral. (n=815) 84% would use the facilitator again. (n=793) 85.8% would use the facilitated IEP process again. (n=815) 87.1% were satisfied with the facilitation process. (n=815)

FIEP Trend Data % reported they understood the IEP facilitation process. (n=814) 96.9% believed it is important to be a part of the IEP process. (n=738) 86.2% did NOT feel pressured to agree with the IEP. (n=815) 83.9% believed the IEP facilitation provided a satisfactory IEP. (n=737) 75.5% believed the facilitation will improve future IEP meetings. (n=816)

Lessons Learned in WI Use of external, neutral facilitators successful in helping guide IEP development process High quality neutral screening process (by same person) for both FIEPs & mediation is critical Needed to limit WSEMS FIEP time (3 hrs) FIEP especially good when strained relationships, communication & trust issues FIEP not great when confidentiality would be helpful Important for Facilitator to connect with IEP Coordinator/Case Manager in advance to explain role

More Information Call:

2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 IEP Facilitation in South Carolina Mary Eaddy, Director, PRO-Parents of S. C.

Idea to Implementation PTI and SDE staff attended FIEP Conferences and were excited about the possibility Proposed to SDE and grant was made available At the time mediations were not being utilized with only two held through the previous year

PRO-Parents (state PTI) funded by SEA Piloted in six school districts (chosen by several criteria) Facilitators for the pilot year consisted of parent trainers & a few others - trained by the Minnesota SEA School district personnel (pilot districts) and facilitators were trained together 2008 Pilot Project

(6) IEP facilitation requests were made from August ‘08- June ‘09 (5) IEP facilitated meetings were held with (1) request withdrawn All reached consensus (5) (4) Implemented IEP, (1) proceeded to the complaint process 2008 Pilot Project

Pilot Original Conditions SDE awarded a grant to PRO-Parents to utilize PTI staff as facilitators LEA and parent had to agree to Facilitation Facilitators were paid by the grant – no cost to school district

Pilot Procedures Facilitator selected by SEA in coordination with PTI Parent consented to share student records with facilitator Facilitator contacted both parties prior to the meeting for introduction, determine concerns, and gauge desired outcomes Recommended that meetings not exceed 3 hours Free of charge to all participants

Feedback Data 44 participants completed feedback survey- 6 parents, 38 LEA/school representatives 100% reported they felt comfortable sharing their thoughts 98% reported they felt the facilitator kept the team focused and the meeting moving forward

Feedback Data 100% reported they felt their rights and the rights of others were protected 95% reported they felt the meeting was organized, efficient, and productive 100% reported they felt they contributed to writing the IEP 100% reported they felt everyone shared responsibilities and played a role in the meeting

Lessons Learned More time-consuming than originally thought Pool of facilitators too small Pool of facilitators limited in terms of representation

Lessons Learned Limited in scope- only 6 LEAs, other LEAs wanted to be included Facilitators felt they needed more training in conflict resolution More funding to sustain and expand More marketing/public awareness needed Needed to consider volunteers vs. paid facilitators

Year 2 Initially expanded to (6) additional districts (strategically chosen) Mid-year- added (3) districts A total of (15) LEAs participating Expanded the cohort of facilitators to include retired special educators, administrators, and mediators

Year 2 Provided conflict resolution training for expanded pool of facilitators Increased public awareness of the project Paid a flat fee for each facilitated IEP free of charge to districts

Year 2 Data Total of (16) facilitation requests (14) Facilitated IEP meetings held (1) Request was withdrawn (1) Request resulted in the parties agreeing to defer the scheduling of the facilitated IEP meeting until the beginning of the school year Consensus was reached at (12) of the (14) facilitated IEP meetings

Year 2 Feedback 93% reported they felt comfortable sharing their thoughts 96% reported they felt the facilitator kept the team focused and the meeting moving forward (77) participants responded to the feedback survey: – (10) parents – (2) grandparents – (1) student – (5) advocates – (58) LEA/school reps – (1) personal care assistant

Year 2 Feedback 94% reported they felt their rights and the rights of others were protected 93% reported they felt they contributed to writing the IEP 94% reported they felt everyone shared responsibilities and played a role in the meeting 96% reported the meeting was organized, efficient, and productive

Year 2 Efforts were made to utilize volunteer facilitators (Charleston School of Law & Community Mediation Project)

Year 3 Added (6) districts Expanded facilitator roster to include community mediation project mediators Provided conflict resolution training to the facilitator cohort Explored RFP for an entity outside of the SEA to run the facilitation project

Year 3 Data Total of (23) facilitation requests (15) Facilitated IEP meetings held (8) Request withdrawn for various reasons Consensus was reached at (10) of the (15) facilitated IEP meetings

Communication leads to community, that is, to understanding, intimacy and mutual valuing. Rollo May Rollo May