1. How Did WSEMS Come About?

2. Testimony Before the Senate Education Committee DPI proposed changes in “Due Process” (an adversarial dispute resolution option) from a system including an appellate process (two- tier) to a one-tier system. We both testified at that hearing in support of the changes. Unfortunately, even with the changes, it was obvious to us and many others that this option remained too adversarial.

3. Many speakers opposed the confrontational nature of “due process” and its hardships. In a recent case, the cost of transcripts alone was $27,000.00. According to anecdotal data, costs range from $20,000 to over a million dollars for a due process. Even though due process may result in a “winning” decision for one of the parties, both sides harden their positions as a result of the adversarial process. Implementation of the judgment may be carried out with hard feelings and a lack of cooperation or agreement.

4. Often, without satisfactory results to either side. The biggest loser is the child! Due process proceedings are like divorce court: both sides position themselves to win the case, regardless of the fiscal and emotional toll to the other side. At least in divorce, the parties separate. Whereas in the special education due process, the parties are told, at the conclusion of the ‘mud throwing’: “work cooperatively starting at 8:00AM tomorrow morning”. Partnership does not flourish in an atmosphere focused on compliance and enforcement.

5. Collaborative Model We were both struck with the hopelessness that is inherent in such an adversarial system. It seemed to us that if we would team together, a parent advocate and a special education director, we could set up a model of collaboration and partnership to resolve disputes without animosity, adversity or distrust. We searched for the mechanism to achieve that goal.

6. Mediation Concept Our collaborative concept was typical of remedies sought by others at that time (1995), including Congress: Mediation The mediation concept was attractive: Collaborative and partnership in nature Voluntary system Child centered Cost effective The Marquette University Center for Dispute Resolution Education connection: Professor Eva Soeka

7. The Plan With Eva’s “know how” of the mediation process, the three of us sought to develop a special education mediation system in Wisconsin, that would include legislative language. To accomplish this goal, we had to: obtain financial support from DPI bring all key stakeholders to “the table” to design a collaborative system for mediation that will be supported by these stakeholders and their organizations.

8. DPI Discretionary Grant DPI awarded CESA #7 a discretionary grant To facilitate the stakeholders meetings To design a mediation system with the consensus of the stakeholders To develop the enabling language for the mediation system, with the help of a professional legislative drafter. To implement the mediation system state-wide pending the approval of the state legislature

9. Stakeholders School organizations: Wisconsin Association of School Boards Wisconsin Association of School Districts Administrators Wisconsin Council of Administrators of Special Services Wisconsin Council for Exceptional Children Wisconsin Education Association Council

10. Parent & Disability & Advocacy Groups Autism Society of Wisconsin Wisconsin Council of Developmental Disabilities Families Forward Parent Education Project of Wisconsin Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy

11. State Agencies Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Wisconsin Department of Health and Families Support

12. Attorneys Attorney, representing school districts Attorney, representing parents

13. Legislators Chair of the Assembly Education Committee Chair of the Senate Education Committee Representative of Governor Tommy Thompson

14. The Meetings The stakeholders held six full day monthly meetings at Marquette University with the facilitation of Professor Eva Soeka. The discussions dealt with every single component of the mediation system including: the intake system the mediators’ roster role of attorneys in the mediation session annual training of mediators confidentiality the mediation agreement

15. The Signing Ceremony December 19, 1997