1. 2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 From Here to Exemplary: Designing High Performing Special Education Dispute Resolution Systems Jo Anne Blades, Program Manager, Oklahoma SERC, Tina Diamond, CADRE Project Officer Marshall Peter, CADRE Director Stephanie Petska, Wisconsin Director of Special Education Presentation #205 2011 OSEP MegaConference State Directors

2.  Exemplar Initiative Overview  Attributes of High Performing Systems  Oklahoma and Wisconsin: Two Exemplar States  Challenges, Benefits, Lessons Learned  Exemplar Collection  Questions/Discussion Presentation Agenda

4. Goal of the Exemplar Initiative To identify high-performing special education dispute resolution systems, to catalog the features that contribute to their success, and to support their replication.

5. Exemplar Development Activities (funding for CADRE 3 began Oct 1, 2008) Developed/applied criteria to select potential states Met with OSEP (Tina Diamond, Melanie Byrd, Lisa Pagano, Hilary Tabor) to review and vet states Contacted SEA Directors & secured commitment Convened first exemplar meeting to agree on method & timeline Developed a model for structuring exemplar based on the CADRE continuum and DR SIPE, CADRE’s DR system model Gathered over 800 “documents” from exemplar states Reviewed and coded documents Screened documents for inclusion Developed software for web access to exemplar documents Loaded documents into the database and “readied for launch”

6. Criteria for Identifying Exemplar States Compliant with Indicators Part B 16-17 &Part C 10-11 for FFY 2006 Appropriate Indicators Part B 18-19 & Part C 12-13 for FFY 2006 Stakeholder involvement in design, development & management Support for early ADR processes, including: capacity building/prevention, early disagreement assistance & alternate conflict resolution methods Integrated or coordinated Part B / Part C DR management systems A robust DR evaluation approach, not limited to the collection of satisfaction data Involvement with DR Community of Practice (e.g., CADRE listservs) Organization characteristics & demography that provide some variation among “exemplar” states Approval by OSEP

7. Pennsylvania Department of Education & Office for Dispute Resolution Provides full continuum of dispute resolution options Staffed by a nationally recognized team of leaders Regular high quality professional development opportunities Actively solicits stakeholder involvement in system design and evaluation activities through Stakeholder Council Disputes resolved primarily through less formal processes including:  Call Resolution Process implemented through ConsultLine  Facilitated IEP/IFSP Meetings  Facilitated Resolution Meetings Delivery of Creating Agreement Training to broad spectrum of stakeholders Strong commitment to ongoing evaluation and continuous improvement at the practitioner, process, and system level Significant declines in due process hearing and complaint activity

8. Iowa Department of Education, Bureau of Student and Family Support Services Excellent example of state promoting local-level resolution of disputes Piloted use of “preappeal conference,” allowing parents, districts, and AEAs to request mediation without requesting a hearing Contracted with Iowa Peace Institute to design and present conflict resolution training (RESPECT) to AEAs, parents, educators, other service providers, and LEAs. Developed strong statewide culture of early dispute prevention and resolution Offered AEA Resolution Facilitators Hired parent in each AEA as Parent Coordinator with Parent & Educator Connection. Provide services and supports to families and educators Investments resulted in historically low numbers of written state complaints and requests for due process hearings

9. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction & Wisconsin Special Education Mediation System High level of stakeholder engagement in planning, design, and management Contracts with Wisconsin Special Education Mediation System (WSEMS) to manage:  Mediation including historically high rates of signed agreements  IEP Facilitation (pioneer)  Resolution Meeting Facilitation Offered to LEAs WSEMS contracts with technical expert (Nina Meierding) WDPI has used a dispute prevention process - collaborative rulemaking - to reach consensus on state special education laws prior to public hearings Co-delivered and designed extensive stakeholder training including Creating Agreement

10. Oklahoma State Department of Education & Special Education Resolution Center at Oklahoma State University Excellent example of a state contracting with an external entity to provide dispute resolution services housed at an institution of higher learning:  Communication, negotiation and problem-solving training programs  Mediation  Due Process Hearings and Appeals  Resolution Meetings included facilitation process Provides stakeholder training, Good Meeting Management, to LEAs and family members and skills training to Telephone Complaint Procedure staff Provides highly trained facilitators for Resolution Meetings held in conjunction with due process hearing requests – Last 4 years: 50 of 59 Resolution Meetings have reached a Settlement Agreement through use of Facilitators Virtually all hearing requests (20-30 per yr.) ‘resolved without a hearing’

11. Common Attributes of Exemplary State Dispute Resolution Systems (Iowa, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin) High levels of stakeholder involvement Commitment to stakeholder training, especially “Creating Agreement” Investment in early, upstream processes, especially facilitated processes – IEP & Resolution Meetings Use of technical and content expertise Active participation in CADRE Communities of Practice Engagement in continuous quality improvement practices Thorough documentation of state DR systems

12. Challenges in Design and Delivery Bringing together diverse stakeholders takes longer (WI) No appearance of direct SEA involvement (WI) Learning to have polite disagreements (OK) Engaging in challenging conversations (OK) Addressing each other’s concerns and road blocks (OK) Finding, maintaining and training a core group of mediators viewed by all as knowledgeable and unbiased (WI)

13. Challenges in Design and Delivery (continued) Making the system accessible for all families…bilingual and culturally diverse (WI) Make a Conscious Effort for System Change (OK) Recognize the need. Take the time to look at your system. Ask: What is best? Walk the walk How Do We Keep It going? (OK) Continue proactively building relationships. Continue to be open to new visions. Stay focused on serving the child. Work hard to protect what you have built.

14. Benefits of Having Capable Systems Bringing together diverse stakeholders, buy-in (WI) Used before more time-consuming and adversarial approaches (WI) Low number of due process hearings (WI) Fosters better relationships between parents and LEAs (WI) High degree of trust in a process that leads to high number of settlement agreements (WI)

15. Benefits of Having Capable Systems (continued) Feels like your are moving forward and making a difference! (OK) Programming is utilized when it meets people’s needs (OK) Programs successfully implemented (OK) Working programs are better than failed programming (OK) More gets done faster (OK) Builds a culture of helping each other (OK) Models the process and ensure all perspective are provided, creating a system that both parents and LEAs can trust. (WI)

16. Lessons Learned Use existing infrastructures to deliver training (OK) Involve stakeholders in design of system, creates buy- in (WI) Bring together diverse stakeholders---most important lesson (WI) Take steps to ensure that system is and is perceived to be impartial (WI) – neutral intake coordinator – mediators have not worked for nor are connected to LEAs or parent advocacy organizations. – a unique partnership that represents a collaborative team…special education director, parent and a mediator.

17. Lessons Learned (continued) Make a Conscious Effort for System Change (OK) –Recognize the need. –Take the time to look at your system. –Ask: What is best? –Walk the walk How is it done? (OK) –Establish trust and safety with stakeholders. –Invite everyone’s knowledge and input. –Build a relationship plan based on mutual purpose.

23. A Continuum of Dispute Resolution Options A State DR System Management Structure

24. Integrated State DR System Oversight Public Awareness and Outreach Personnel Standards, Training & TA Evaluation Dispute Resolution System Integration and Performance Enhancement (DR SIPE)

26. Functions & Elements of a State DR Mgmt System F u n c t i o n s & E l e m e n t s o f a S t a t e D R M g m t S y s t e m Continuum of Dispute Resolution Process & Practices Continuum of Dispute Resolution Process & Practices

28. Questions Comments Discussion

29. www.wsems.us

30. http://serc.okstate.edu

31. www.directionservice.org/cadre

32. Subscribe to The CADRE Caucus! The CADRE Caucus, our free brief electronic newsletter, periodically updates subscribers on new features and resources found at the CADRE web site and in the world of special education conflict resolution. Sign up on the sheets that are circulating right now!