1 / 57

Lessons Learned: Pennsylvania’s Sometimes Rocky Entrance into IEP Facilitation

Lessons Learned: Pennsylvania’s Sometimes Rocky Entrance into IEP Facilitation. Kerry Voss Smith Dixie Rider. Pennsylvania: Who Are We?. Lancaster. Gettysburg. Philadelphia. Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania: Who Are We?. The Litigious State P-ARC Consent Gaskin

archibald
Download Presentation

Lessons Learned: Pennsylvania’s Sometimes Rocky Entrance into IEP Facilitation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lessons Learned: Pennsylvania’s Sometimes Rocky Entrance into IEP Facilitation Kerry Voss Smith Dixie Rider

  2. Pennsylvania: Who Are We? Lancaster Gettysburg Philadelphia Pittsburgh

  3. Pennsylvania: Who Are We? • The Litigious State • P-ARC Consent • Gaskin • More than 250,000 identified school-age children • 1036 Due Process Requests 2004-05

  4. Pennsylvania (agencies?): Who Are We? • PA Department of Education • Bureau of Special Education • PA Training and Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN) • Intermediate Units • Local Education Agencies • Office for Dispute Resolution (ODR)

  5. Office for Dispute Resolution (ODR)Who Are We? • ConsultLine • Call Resolution Process (CRP) • Dispute Resolution Skills Training (DRST) • IEP Facilitation • Solutions Panels/Teams • Mediation • Due Process • Appeals Dispute Resolution Skills Training IEP Facilitation Mediation Due Process Hearing Office for Dispute Resolution ODR

  6. ODR: Who Are We? • Tracking – database • Website • Focus Group • Advisory Panel • Continuum

  7. IEP Facilitation – Pilot • ODR was a recipient of the OSEP General Supervision Enhancement Grant (GSEG).

  8. General Supervision Enhancement Grant (GSEG) • Activities to support and encourage early resolution of special education disagreements • 18 IEP Facilitations (8/03- 10/04)

  9. IEP Facilitation – Pilot (GSEG) ODR contracted with an Independent educational consultant with extensive knowledge and experience in special education law, IEP content and development, & facilitation.

  10. Independent Educational Consultant Advice for Pilot (GSEG) • Several authorization forms required. • Required release of educational records 2 weeks prior to IEP meeting. • Facilitator have reviewed most recent ER/IEP . • Extensive and ongoing communication between Facilitator and all parties in advance is required.

  11. IEP Facilitation – PilotOriginal Conditions • Directive method of Facilitation • Meeting belonged to the Facilitator • Role of Facilitator included providing technical assistance • Facilitator directed the crafting of the IEP • Completed IEP only goal – settle for nothing less

  12. ODR Marched On • Expanded training to ODR mediators to increase pool of Facilitators. • Used PaTTAN Educational Consultants/PEN to bring special education expertise. • Review ER – what should it look like? • Review IEP – what should it look like? • Overview content areas of autism/discipline/ reading/progress monitoring.

  13. Pilot – “Pros” • Upfront communication kept arguing sides apart – little interaction until meeting. • IEP almost always constructed (many times after several meetings). • Students possibly now receiving more than “FAPE” -‘best’ instead of ‘appropriate’. • Parents felt Facilitator was on their side.

  14. Pilot – “Cons” • LEA felt loss of control of IEP meeting. • Parent groups felt loss of control of IEP content. • Issue of confidentiality – student records • Expensive!! Much preparation time before meeting. • Expensive!! Several IEP meetings needed to finalize IEP.

  15. Pilot – “Cons” • Time-consuming • Students possibly now receiving more than “FAPE” -‘best’ instead of ‘appropriate’. • All parties (& Facilitator) “digging in their heels” for own outcomes

  16. Murphy’s Law 101

  17. Pilot – Bottom Line Results • Discovered that mediation skills and facilitation skills are NOT the same . • LEAs hated it. • Parent groups hated it. • Grant money ran out.

  18. ODR Reaction • Shell-shocked • Humbled • Decided to punt and rethink!

  19. Did we give up? NO WAY!!

  20. Questions We Asked • Overall question: What changes do we need to make to have parties “buy into” the process?

  21. Questions We Asked • Who should facilitate? • Mediators • Lawyers • Hearing Officers

  22. Questions We Asked • What training is necessary? • Mediation training • Special education content • Facilitation

  23. Questions We Asked • What model will work best for PA? • Facilitator runs meeting, with agenda. • Facilitator provides guidance on content. • Facilitator provides assistance with communication only.

  24. Questions We Asked • What procedures will be put in place? • Contact parties/communicate prior to meeting. • Release educational records to facilitator. • Required authorization and consent forms.

  25. What Happened Next? • Met with PEN. • Carefully/thoughtfully drafted new procedures. • Brought in national trainers to provide Facilitation training. • Wanted all Facilitators to be trained together. • Wanted all Facilitators to understand ODR procedures together. • Smooth sailing????? Not quite.

  26. What We Learned • There are many different philosophies regarding IEP Facilitation

  27. Revised Role of Facilitator • Facilitative method only • Not a member of the team • IEP team owns the IEP • LEA runs the meeting • Facilitator’s role is only to enhance communication and to help sides address disagreements or conflict relating to IEP only. • Facilitator offers no technical assistance or input regarding content. • Facilitator sits in silence if parties are moving forward.

  28. Role of Facilitator An IEP Facilitator is like a referee… If the game is going well, there is not much need for interference. But if the players start to get out of hand, the referee’s responsibility is to get more involved to ensure fair play and to keep the game moving.

  29. IEP Facilitation Materials • Thanks to CADRE for offering materials for use in the spirit of dispute resolution! • IEP Facilitation Information and Procedures • IEP Facilitation Request Form • IEP Facilitation Evaluation Form

  30. IEP team sets date for meeting, and provides invitation to participate to parents. If IEP Facilitation requested, form is signed and forwarded to other party to complete, sign, and forward to ODR. Dispute Resolution Skills Training IEP Facilitation Mediation Due Process Hearing Office for Dispute Resolution ODR ODR Procedures

  31. Facilitator assigned only after both parties sign request form. ODR oversees process, but ownership is local . Dispute Resolution Skills Training IEP Facilitation Mediation Due Process Hearing Office for Dispute Resolution ODR ODR Procedures

  32. At the IEP Meeting • IEP meeting is scheduled by LEA. • Members of the IEP team attend. • The LEA chair starts the meeting. • Facilitator is introduced.

  33. Facilitator Discusses/Clarifies • Neutrality • Parameters of role (not a decision-maker, not here as a special education expert) • Chair’s role • Confidentiality • Logistics (length of time scheduled, order of discussion, team members leaving or staying, etc) • Agenda that the team has established • Ground rules parties want to have in place

  34. IEP Meeting and Beyond • LEA chair continues with IEP meeting. • Facilitator intervenes when necessary. • Expectation is that IEP Facilitator will participate in 1 team meeting only unless extreme situation. • Facilitator reports the general results of the IEP meeting to ODR. • ODR does not keep IEPs/documents on file.

  35. Reactions from Facilitators • Vast difference of opinion as to how much prep work, intervening, participation needed for success.

  36. Reactions from Facilitators Some parents view the Facilitator as an advocate and are looking for help in writing the IEP.

  37. Reactions from Facilitators • Difficult for some Facilitators to step back after having been heavily involved based on pilot’s procedures.

  38. Reactions from Facilitators • Some Facilitators have admitted they can not facilitate using such a “hands off” approach .

  39. Reactions from Facilitators • Very important to clarify the role of Facilitator to all parties; otherwise expectations might not be met.

  40. Reactions from Facilitators In some instances mediation might be an option to resolve disagreements not related to the IEP.

  41. Reactions from Facilitators Having documents ahead of time gives the facilitator a complete picture of the student and it saves valuable time at the meeting.

  42. Reactions from Participants • Facilitator was knowledgeable but strengths could be better utilized by being more involved.

  43. Reactions from Participants • Having the Facilitator at the meeting helped the meeting to be less heated.

  44. Reactions from Participants • The presence of the Facilitator alone kept everyone on their best behavior.

  45. Reactions from Participants • Please get the word out to parents– this is a great program that is available.

  46. Reactions from Participants • Everyone at the table was happy with the IEP that was developed.

  47. Reactions from Participants • As a parent, I feel it is necessary that the Facilitator has my child’s documents before the meeting.

  48. Reactions from Participants • The Facilitator’s sense of humor and quick grasp of the facts helped the IEP process immensely.

  49. Reactions from Participants • We went to mediation, then to IEP Facilitation, and did end up in due process. But by the time we got to due process, there were only a few issues that were unresolved. We were very satisfied with each process.

  50. Reactions from Participants • The Facilitator was invisible during the meeting except when a problem arose.

More Related