Working Together for Student Success: Understanding Early Resolution

Good afternoon, and welcome to today's statewide webinar hosted by SPEDTex and Partners Resource Network. My name is Sarah Untersee, and I am part of the SPEDTex team. The topic for today's webinar is working together for student success, understanding early resolution. A few reminders. This webinar is being recorded, and the recording will be posted to our SPEDTex site. It usually takes about a week in order for that to be posted, but we will drop our website link in the chat so that you are able to access that once it becomes available. The chat feature today is only available if you require technical assistance. However, you may put questions in the Q and A section. The presenters will review your submissions, which will help us with clarifications and FAQs in the future. However, there will be no live Q and A today. SPED TEX is the special education information center for Texas. We are a collaborative project between Region ten Education Service Center and the Texas Education Agency. We help parents understand their rights and responsibilities under IDEA and facilitate collaboration when there are concerns between the parent and the school district. We also serve as a resource for educators. We offer support via phone, email, or live chat for families and professionals. We have webinars and resources. Our contact information is on the screen. I am going to turn it over to Stephanie McLaughlin to share some additional information about Partners Resource Network. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us today. I am Stephanie McLaughlin, the training and evaluation specialist for Partners Resource Network. Partners Resource Network is the nonprofit agency that operates the Texas statewide network of parent training and information centers. We are funded through the Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs. Throughout Texas, you may know us by our project names of PACT, PATH, PEN, and TEAM. Our mission here at Partners Resource Network is to empower and support Texas families and individuals impacted by disabilities or special healthcare needs. We do this through a network of highly skilled regionally located coordinators who are knowledgeable in local policies, services and resources, as well as state and national guidelines. We provide training, information and one on one assistance at no cost to Texas families and youth. We serve parents of children and youth with disabilities from birth to age 26, as well as youth self advocates between the ages of 14 and 26. Our services are provided in both English and Spanish. Thanks, Stephanie. So we are excited to welcome our presenter, Scarlett Pappas. Doctor. Pappas is the Director of Federal Complaints, Interventions, and Sanctions for the Special Education Complaints and directed supports division of the Texas Education Agency. And at this time, I'm going to turn it over to Doctor. Pappas. Okay, thank you so much. I'll wait for my presentation to load. Okay. Welcome, and thank you for joining us today. Today, we are going to talk about resolving special education concerns and, more specifically, how families and schools can identify the process that best fits the concern they are trying to address. This presentation is offered by the Division of Special Education Complaints. Although we will discuss formal dispute resolution processes, our larger focus is practical problem solving. We want concerns to be addressed as close to the student as possible, as early as possible, and through a process that can realistically provide the requested outcome. This presentation provides general information. It is not legal advice, and it cannot account for every fact that may be relevant to an individual situation. Our promise today is practical navigation, not legal advice. By the end of the presentation, participants should be better prepared to do four things. First, identify the right local conversation. That means defining the concern, gathering the most useful facts, and asking for the meeting or process that has the authority to address the concern. Second, understand early collaborative supports, particularly early resolutions and facilitated IEP meetings. Third, distinguish among mediation a special education complaint and a due process here. These processes have different purposes, different requirements, and different possible outcomes. Finally, understand that using a collaborative option does not eliminate or delay access to procedural rights. The goal is not to pressure anyone away from a formal process. The goal is to help people understand all available options and select the option that fits their problem. Here is our roadmap. We will begin with why local resolution often comes first. Then we will discuss early resolution, which is designed to help families and schools address concerns before conflict grows. From there, we will look at the facilitated IEP meetings, or FIEPs as we call them, which provide structured support for an ARD committee conversation. We will then cover the formal TEA dispute resolution options, including mediation, special education complaints, and due process hearings. We will close with a practical decision guide and resources. Throughout the presentation, listen for one recurring question. What outcome is being requested, and which person or process has the authority to provide that outcome? That question is often more useful than simply asking which process is more formal. We will begin with local resolution. Starting locally does not mean that a concern is unimportant, or it does not mean that formal options are unavailable. It means beginning with the people who know the student, have access to the relevant information, and may be able to make or implement a change promptly. A timely, specific, student focused conversation can often clarify misunderstandings, identify missing information, and produce a solution before positions become entrenched. The key phrase is whenever possible. The circumstances and the requested outcome still matter. These are suggestions that may be helpful. They're not required steps and not a sequence that must be completed before another option is available. It may be helpful to clarify your concerns, consider the facts or what has occurred, determine what the student needs, and determine how that need can be best met. It may be helpful to communicate your concerns to the district. Consider asking for a meeting, communicating the facts, giving rise to the concern, and detailing what you think the student needs and inquiring about available local processes. Consider using collaborative supports. Early resolutions or FIEP process or mediation can bring a neutral facilitator to the conversation, promote understanding, and support efforts to reach a solution. Keep in mind that formal options are always available. Special education complaints or due process hearings may help resolve an issue. Special education complaints investigate the facts and reach a final determination within an applicable sixty day timeline. Due process hearings are administrative hearings in which the parent and district present and defend their positions, and they may take significantly longer than mediation or a state complaint. The formal options result in a final determination made by someone other than the parent or the district, either a complaint investigator or a hearing officer. To make a local conversation effective, begin with defining the concern in observable terms. Instead of focusing on motives or assumptions, identify what occurred. Was the service not provided? Is there a disagreement about an evaluation? Is the concern about implementation of the IEP? Has communication broken down? Next, request the right forum. Some matters can be resolved through a teacher or case manager conversation. Other matters require an ARG committee because the request change involves the IEP. A local grievance may be appropriate for another type of district concern. Bring useful information, but think in terms of relevance rather than volume. Dates, documents, student impact, previous efforts to resolve the concern, and the specific requested outcome are usually more useful than a large collection of records. A simple way to organize the conversation is this. Here is the concern, here is how it is affecting the student, and here is what we are requesting. Finally, document the next steps. A productive meeting should end with clarity about who will take each action, when the action will occur, and when the group will follow-up. For school personnel, the same principle applies in reverse. A response should acknowledge the concern, identify the appropriate forum, and explain the next step, and they should also provide a realistic timeline. The goal is to reduce certain uncertainty and keep the focus on actions. Early resolutions. Early resolution is intended to help before a concern becomes a larger conflict. It is a free voluntary support involving TEA and SPED TEXT that helps families and schools discuss IDEA related special education concerns early. The emphasis is not on determining who is right and wrong. The emphasis is on whether the parties can identify a student focused solution through a supportive conversation. Early resolution uses a trained facilitator to guide a protective and informal conversation. Four characteristics are important. First, participation is free and voluntary. Both the family and the school must choose to participate. Either party can stop participating at any time. Second, the process is intended to preserve the working relationship. The facilitator helps keep the conversation respectful, focused, and oriented toward possible solutions. Third, the process preserves rights. A family does not give up access to another dispute resolution option merely by attempting early resolution. If the concern is not resolved, other procedural options remain available. Fourth, the conversation is private and separate from the complaint process. Early resolution may be particularly useful when the parties want to solve the concern, but are having difficulty communicating productively. The facilitator does not investigate the facts, decide whether a violation occurred, impose an outcome. The value of the process is in creating a conversation in which the parties themselves may reach an acceptable resolution. The process can be understood through four words: request, agree, talk, and result. Either the family or the school may request an early resolution meeting. Because the process is voluntary, both parties must then agree to participate. The parties also identify the concern to be discussed. That step is important. A focused conversation is more likely to produce a practical plan than one that attempts to resolve every historical frustration all at once. A SPEDTex consultant then facilitates a focused conversation. As noted on the slide, a typical conversation lasts approximately thirty to sixty minutes. If the conversation is successful, the parties develop a written local resolution plan. The written plan helps convert a productive discussion into actions that can actually be implemented. Early resolution is intended for IDEA related special education concerns that may be resolved through dialogue. It is not the appropriate process for every school related concern. This slide identifies examples outside its scope. This includes Section five zero four plans, discrimination, bullying, child abuse, professional conduct, personnel issues, and matters already in TEA mediation or due process. The practical distinction is this: early resolution helps the parties communicate and develop their own solution. It is not an investigative or adjudicative process. A facilitated IEP meeting is designated to help an AHRQ committee communicate effectively, stay organized, and work toward a mutually agreed upon IEP. The facilitator supports the meeting process. The facilitator does not replace the committee or make decisions for that committee. Let's put a spotlight on FIEP, what the facilitator does and what they the facilitator does not do. This distinction is central to understanding facilitated IEPs or FIEPs. On the left are the functions that the facilitator performs. The facilitator can help organize the meeting by establishing an agenda, guidelines, and time allotments. The facilitator can guide communications so that discussions remain open, respectful, transparent, and focused on the student. The facilitator also supports participation by helping ensure that every committee member has an opportunity to contribute. When disagreement occurs, the facilitator can help the committee identify a point of disagreement and continue working through it without allowing the meeting to become disorganized. On the right are the boundaries. A facilitator is not a member of the AHRD committee. The facilitator does not have decision making authority. The facilitator does not provide an opinion about what the IEP should contain. The facilitator also cannot delay or deny any other right. One way to remember the facilitator's role is this: the facilitator manages the process, but not the outcome. The parent and the school remain the participants responsible for the discussion, and the AHRQ committee remains responsible for its decisions. FIEP request essentials. In order for TEA to provide an independent facilitator, the request must be submitted jointly by a school district and a parent of a student with a disability, and the following conditions must be met. One, the required form must be completed and signed by both parties. Two, the parties believe that the state appointed IEP facilitator may assist in avoiding a potential dispute relating to the provisions of a free appropriate public education, often referred to as FAPE, or an ART committee meeting has ended in disagreement regarding the provision of that FAPE, and the committee has agreed to recess and reconvene the meeting. Three, the request for IEP facilitation must be received by TEA at least ten days prior to the AHRD committee meeting for which the facilitator is being requested, or within ten days of the AHRD committee meeting that ended in a disagreement. A state appointed facilitator must also be available on the date set for that meeting. And four, the same parties must not have participated in IEP facilitation concerning the same student under this section within the same school year of the filing of the current request for IEP facilitation. Special education mediation. Mediation is a free voluntary process in which a mediator assists a parent and school district in working towards a solution. Mediation can be used when there is a dispute about a special education eligibility, service, or related service. The slide also notes that it may be used before or during the due process nearing or complaint investigation. A parent or school district may request mediation in writing. TEA encourages the model request form, but does not require its use. Mediation discussions are confidential. The parties, rather than the mediator, control the outcome. The mediator supports communication and negotiation, but does not impose a decision. That is the important distinction between mediation and due process. In mediation, a resolution occurs only if the parties agree. If the parties reach an agreement, that agreement reflects the terms they accepted. Mediation may be a better fit than early resolution when the dispute is broad. The parties are seeking a negotiated agreement, or the matter is already connected to another formal process. The mediation slide addresses its voluntary nature, scope, requester, confidentiality, and the party's control over the outcome. These are our collaborative options at a glance. This comparison helps distinguish several available options without suggesting that one must be used before another. Early resolution fits an early concern that might be resolved through a supported conversation. The neutral support is a SPED TEX facilitator, and the potential outcome is a local resolution plan. State IEP facilitation may be requested jointly to help avoid a potential dispute related to FAPE, or after an AHRD committee meeting ends in disagreement, the facilitator supports the committee in working toward a mutually agreed upon IEP. Mediation may address broader dispute concern related to eligibility, evaluations, placement, services, or related supports, among other things. The parties negotiate with the assistance of a mediator and may reach a written agreement. Parties can choose to go to mediation at any time, including after a state complaint or due process hearing request has been filed. Accordingly, the issues in dispute in the complaint or due process hearing can be addressed in mediation. A local process relies on campus or district personnel and may result in a local action, a grievance decision, or another next step. These options are not a ladder that everyone must find. The best fit depends on the concern, the desired outcome, timing, and people who need to be involved. We will now turn to the more formal options. The defining difference is not that these processes are automatically preferable or undesirable. The difference is the function they perform in the final result. The complaint can produce findings from an investigation, assign corrective actions if necessary, or determine an allegation is not substantiated. A due process hearing can produce a hearing officer's decision that includes findings of fact, determination on whether applicable laws are complied with, and deny requested relief, or order actions for the district to take to address the noncompliance, if any, is found. My next slide is for special education complaint investigations for alleged violations. A special education complaint serves a different purpose. It asks TEA to investigate an alleged violation of a special education requirement related to one or more students. Any person or organization may file a complaint. The complaint must be written and signed, identify the alleged violation, and include facts supporting the allegation. Anonymous complaints are not accepted. The individual or organization filing the complaint must send it to TEA and provide a copy pub to to the agency that it is sub that is subject to the complaint. So the school district. Timing matters here as well. The allegation must concern a violation that occurred no more than one calendar year before TEA received the complaint. TEA has sixty calendar days to resolve the complaint, although extensions may apply in certain circumstances. A complaint is a good fit when the requested outcome requires TEA to determine whether a requirement was violated, and if so, requires corrective action. It is not primarily a process for facilitation or negotiating agreements between parties. After filing, the complaint moves through four broad stages. First, the signed complaint is provided to TEA and the district or charter school. TEA then reviews the complaint for jurisdiction, allegation, timelines, and any additional information needed. During the investigation, TEA gathers information and evaluates whether the applicable requirements were met. TEA ultimately issues a written report. If TEA determines that requirements were not met, corrective actions are required. There is also an important interaction with due process. When a complaint in a due process hearing involve the same issue, the complaint investigation may be placed on hold until the due process hearing ends. The defining outcome of the complaint process is therefore a written TEA findings report with corrective action when new compliance is identified. Due process hearing. Due process is the most formal option presented today. It resolves certain disputes through a hearing officer's decision. A parent or school district may use due process to address disagreements about identification, evaluation, educational placement, or all matters concerned with the provisions of a pre appropriate public education. Either a parent or a school district may file a written hearing request, and a copy must be provided to the school district. The process includes a resolution period. Federal rules require a resolution meeting within fifteen days of notice unless the meeting is waived in writing or mediation is selected. The resolution period is generally thirty days. A final hearing decision is generally due within forty five days after the resolution period ends, unless an extension for good cause is granted. Due process may fit when the parties need a hearing officer to decide a dispute that falls within the hearing officer's authority. Because the process is adjudicating, questions about legal strategy or the application of law to an individual case may require appropriate legal advice. TEA provides general information but cannot provide legal advice. Different processes have different jobs. One area that often causes confusion is the difference between FIEP and mediation. Both involve a neutral third party, and both are voluntary. The difference is in purpose. FIEP supports an R Committee meeting. The facilitator helps the group communicate, stay organized, and work through disagreements, while the committee develops an IEP. Mediation supports negotiation of a dispute. The mediator helps the parties explore possible solutions, and if they reach agreement, develop a written statement. Another way to think about it is that FIEP helps the meeting function effectively, while mediation helps the parties negotiate a resolution. The complaint process and due process hearing serve different purposes altogether. A complaint seeks an investigation and filing. Due process seeks a decision from a hearing officer. The most important question is not which process should I choose? The most important question is what outcome am I seeking? Once the desired outcome is clear, the appropriate process usually becomes easier to identify. Confidentiality is another area in which these processes differ. Early resolution is described as a private and separate process from complaints. During FIEP, the student confidentiality requirements that apply to an ARD committee continue to apply. Mediation discussions are confidential, although settlement agreements may be released after personally identifiable information is removed. TEA complaint findings are subject to release when the identifiable information is removed. A due process hearing request is confidential. A parent may open the hearing to the public, and decisions posted after identifiable information is removed. The key message is not simply that one process is confidential and another is public. The type of record created, the protections that apply, and what may later be released differ by process. Participants should review the requirements associated with the specific process they are considering. Now that we have covered the individual processes, this final section brings them together. The goal is not to memorize every requirement today. The goal is to recognize the questions that help identify a possible fit. What is the concern? What is the outcome needed? And is there a time sensitive requirement? And who has the authority to provide the outcome? A practical decision guide. Begin with the outcome. If the primary need is to repair communication early and both parties are willing to talk, consider early resolution. If an ARDER IEP meeting ended in disagreement and committee would benefit from an independent facilitator, consider the FIEP process and pay attention to its request window. If both parties want to negotiate an agreement with the assistance of a mediator, mediation may fit. If the requested outcome is for TEA to investigate whether a special education requirement was violated and issues findings, the special education complaint process may fit. If the parties need a formal hearing decision concerning identification, evaluation, placement, or FAPE, due process may fit. These are not mutually exclusive labels for every situation. Additional facts may change which process is appropriate, and some disputes may involve more than one available route. The most useful question is the one at the bottom. What student out what student centered outcome do we need, and who has the authority to make it happen? A process cannot provide an effective resolution if that process does not have the authority to produce the requested outcome. These are four examples that show how the requested outcome can influence the possible process. So in the first example, a family believes supports are not being implemented consistently, but the school team is willing to meet promptly. Because communication is still possible, a local meeting may be an effective starting point. If the conversation is stuck, early resolution may provide additional support. In the second example, an AHRQ committee has recessed after disagreement that required IEP elements. Because the disagreement is occurring within the ARB process, FIP may be appropriate if the parent and school agree to submit the request within the required window. In the third example, a family believes a required service was not provided over a period of time and wants TEA findings or corrective actions. That requested outcome points towards a special education claim. In the fourth example, the disagreement involves identification, evaluation, placement or FAB, and the parties need a hearing officer to decide the issue. Due process may fit. These examples are intentionally simplified for this presentation. In an actual manner, additional facts, timelines, pending processes, and the precise requested, you know, outcome would all need to be considered. Regardless of the process, collaboration is a skill set. Begin by naming the shared goal. A statement such as, We all want the student to make meaningful progress does not erase disagreement. It establishes what the conversation should remain centered on. Separate the people from the problem. Discuss the service, data, decisions, or implementation concern rather than assuming everyone's motives. Make sure the appropriate authority is present. A meeting cannot resolve concern if no one in the room can make or implement the necessary decisions. Turn concerns into requests. Replace broad frustrations with a specific action, a proposed timeline, and a plan for follow-up. Finally, confirm the agreement in writing, identify the action, the person responsible, and the date. Clear documentation protects the shared understanding developed during the conversation. Our resource map helps define where to go next. This slide, it's going to point you in the right direction a contact. So for IEP facilitation, the parent and school must complete the request form. Links to both the English and the Spanish forms have been provided on some of the previous slides. SPEDTex is the special education form information center, and it provides information and supports related to the early resolution process. Special education complaints may be submitted using the complaint contact information that's shown here. Resources related to mediation and due process are available through the TEA Office of General Counsel. And local concerns may be addressed through the district or charter schools for even steps, handbooks, special education contact, and AHRQ committee procedures. You do not need to memorize these contacts. The important point is to know that the resources are available and to return to this slide or the other slides in the deck and use the linked materials when a specific need arises. TEA resources provide general information. And as a gentle reminder, TEA cannot provide legal advice. Thank you for your time and attention today. If you remember only one thing, remember this: identify the concern, identify the desired student outcome, and then identify the best process that can realistically provide that outcome. Starting locally is often the most efficient approach because the people closest to the student may be able to act quickly. When communication needs additional support, early resolution, FIP, or mediation may come. And when the requested outcome requires an investigational or formal decision, the complaint or due process procedures, remain available. Keep the focus on the student, make concerns specific, and use TEA and FedTech's resources when the circumstances fit. Thank you so much for your time today. I'll turn it back over to our presenters, or our hosts, rather. Thank you. Thank you so much, Scarlett. We really appreciate you being here today and sharing this very important information. So at this time, we're going to go back to Stephanie McLaughlin to share some additional information about Partners Resource Network. Thank you, Sarah. Our regional coordinators are available to help you understand and navigate the special education process. If you are not already connected with your regional coordinator, give us a call and we'll get you connected. For more information, you can check out our website at prntexas.org, including upcoming events in your community. You can also follow us on social media on Facebook, PRNTexas, and on X. Thanks, Stephanie. Have questions about special education? Contact us at SpedTechs, your source for special education information. We are happy to help. Our contact information is on the screen.