State Data Management Systems

A NASDSE/CADRE Partnership

Session D

11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

Thursday, November 30, 2000

National Symposium on Dispute Resolution in Special Education

Dr. Howard L. Schrag

Dr. Judy A. Schrag

Hschrag@prodigy.net

Education and Human Services Group

SEA Management Tool for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Session Agenda:

• Phase I – National Study of State (ADR) Practices

• Phase II – In-Depth Study of 10 States

• Phase III – Determining the Data Base Structure and Elements – Design Team Work

• Phase IV – Pilot in Selected States

• Phase V – National Study

Background

• Formal dispute mechanisms within IDEA since 1975.

• Congress added mediation in 1977 in recognition of need for additional, less contentious ADR procedures.

• States must offer mediation at least whenever a due process hearing is requested, but may not deny or delay a parent’s rights to a due process hearing.

Phase I – National E-Mail Survey of all States:

Formal Complaints:

• 48 – Collect information regarding the numbers and locations of complaints made to the SEA.

• 42 – Collect data regarding the type of issue(s) contained in the formal complaint.

• 35 – Gather information regarding complaint resolution activities carried out by the SEA.

• 31 – Gather information regarding follow-up activities.

• 9 – Gather information regarding the impact of complaint resolution.

Mediation Procedures:

• 48 – Collect information regarding the numbers and locations of mediation requests received.

• 37 – Collect information regarding the type of issue(s contained in the mediation request.

• 27 – Retain information about the types and nature of mediation agreements.

• 29 – Gather information regarding satisfaction from the parent and/or the school personnel concerning their mediation experience.

• 6 – Gather information regarding follow-up activities to implement the mediation agreement (e.g., questionnaire at the conclusion of mediation or random contacts following mediation).

• 7 – Retain information regarding the impact of the mediation agreement after it has been carried out (e.g., whether original dispute concern was resolved).

Due Process:

• 48 – Gather data on the numbers and locations of due process hearing requests to the SEA.

• 43 – Retain information regarding the type of issue(s) contained in the due process hearing requests.

• 48 – Maintain data regarding the numbers and locations of due process hearings completed.

• 47 – Retain information about the hearing officer’s decision.

• 47 – Collect information regarding follow-up activities that have occurred within school systems as a result of the due process hearing officer’s decision.

• 6 – Gather satisfaction information from the parent and/or school personnel regarding the due process hearing experience.

• 4 – Collect information regarding the impact of due process hearing decision.

Other ADR Activities:

• Advisory Opinion (e.g., Massachusetts)

• Pre-Appeals (e.g., Iowa)

• Early Assistance Program (e.g., Montana)

• Peer Mediation (e.g., Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, and Nebraska).

• Conciliation (e..g, Minnesota and Nebraska).

• Ombudsemen, School-level Mediation, IEP Meeting Facilitators, and Fact Finding Panels (e.g., Oregon).

• Advisory Rulings (e.g., Maine).

• Cooperative Teaching Models for Developing Problem Solving Skills (e.g., Alabama).

• Conflict resolution workshops (Iowa).

• Statewide dispute resolution network (e.g., California).

Early ADR Data Efforts

Division of Special Education

Mediation MIS

Complaints MIS

Due Process Hearings MIS

Department of Justice

State Department of Education

Early State Department of Education

Division of Special Education

Mediation MIS

Complaints MIS

Due Process Hearings MIS

Typically, SEAs have a staff member in charge of complaints management, mediation, and due process—or contract for such services.

• The staff member or contractual entity may not be the same.

• There usually is a database for each of each of the three ADR procedures.

• In almost every state, the three databases or systems are not integrated.

Phase II – In-Depth Study of 10 States

Alabama, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming and Washington

Findings:

• There is no consistent agreed-upon method of collecting or reporting information regarding ADR approaches.

• Tracking systems/dispute resolution files range from hardcopy paper files to database management software.

• Software range from tables in word processing applications, spreadsheets, databases, and call center software.

• States are using software available on servers and personal computers. Microsoft Office Suite is the most frequently used software.

• There is a wide variety of field/variable names with many different allowable entries within the same field.

• A few databases have restricted codes that are allowed within a field with precise meanings.

• There appear to be a core set of data elements that all systems are gathering under different field names and different formats.

• Sampled states have developed logging procedures within each formal ADR process and follow the cases through that formal process.

• None of the 10 sampled states had a case management system that integrates or goes across all three formal ADR procedures.

Table 1. Complaints filed, medications requested, and due process hearing requested during calendar year 1998 or fiscal 1997-98.

State Complaints Mediations Due Process Total

Alabama 33 19 60 112

Idaho 10 16 19 45

Illinois 173 208 427 808

Indiana 128 46 71 245

Michigan 220 29 98 347

Oregon 62 38 56 156

Tennessee 127 67 69 263

Texas 399 508 383 1,400

Washington 60 153 149 362

Wyoming 4 5 2 11

TOTALS 1,316 1,087 1,344 3,747

Table 2. The percentage of complaints filed, mediations requested, and due process hearings requested during calendar year 1998 or fiscal year 1997-1998.

State Complaints Mediations Due Process TOTAL

Alabama 29.5% 17.0% 53.6% 100%

Idaho 22.2% 35.6% 42.2% 100%

Illinois 21.5% 25.6% 53.0% 100%

Indiana 52.2% 18.8% 29.0% 100%

Michigan 63.4% 8.4% 28.2% 100%

Oregon 39.7% 24.4% 35.9% 100%

Tennessee 48.3% 25.5% 26.2% 100%

Texas 7.3% 52.3% 40.4% 100%

Washington 16.6% 42.3% 41.2% 100%

Wyoming 36.4% 45.5% 18.2% 100%

TOTALS 26.8% 32.8% 40.5% 100%

• There was a range of formal disputes filed during a 12-month period per 10,000 students with disabilities from 10.5% (Wyoming) to 40.3% (Washington State).

Table 3. Characteristics of the 10 states with advanced dispute resolution data systems.State Total School Total SpecEd # Formal Formal %

Population Population Disputes Disputes/ Poverty

Filed 10,000 Students

with Disabilities

Alabama 780,999 84,440 112 13.2 24.1

Idaho 256,946 19.989 45 22.5 13.1

Illinois 2,240,179 220,648 806 36.4 16.2

Indiana 1,083,588 115.629 245 21.2 13,0

Michigan 1,849,721 161,511 347 21.5 17.7

Oregon 591.538 56,338 156 27.7 12,8

Tennessee 953,463 109.981 263 23.9 19.3

Texas 3,879,307 386,842 1,400 36.2 24.924

Table 3. Characteristics of the 10 states with advanced dispute resolution data systems (Cont.).

State Total School Total SpecEd # Formal Formal %

Population Population Disputes Disputes/ Poverty

Filed 10,000 Students

with Disabilities

Washington 1,047,085 89,825 362 40.3 12.8

Wyoming 313,685 10,490 11 10.5 26.5

9 States were studied that have the same ethnic mix as the nation:

Alabama Michigan Texas Massachusetts

Illinois Washington Wyoming Indiana

Idaho

• The nine states represent 25.4% of the national special education population.

• It is estimated that about 18,500 ADR cases were filed nationally in 1998.

Phase III – Determining the Database Structure and Elements – Design Team Work

Illinois Bobbie Reguly

Texas Emi Johnson

Indiana Becky Bowman

Maine Michael Opuda

Idaho Larry Streeter

Washington Sandy Grummick

CADRE Philip Moses

WRRC Richard Zeller

ADR Database Structure and Elements

l. Database Structure

• Relational Database – Identity linking variables that can be used to structure the database.

• Microsoft’s ACCESS can provide object management and utilization.

2. Database Variables:VARIABLE SUGGESTED

FORMAT

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

SYSTEM USING

VARIABLE

DEFINITION AND PURPOSE OF VARIABLE

Parent/Guardian Zip Code Number AllUse to identify student's parent/guardian and communicate with them.

Parent/Guardian Telephone Number AllUse to identify student's parent/guardian and communicate with them.

Parent/Guardian Fax Number Number AllUse to identify student's parent/guardian and communicate with them.

Complainant Salutation Text AllOptions such as Mr. and Mrs.; Mr.; Mrs.; Dr.; Gentlemen; etc. used to print letters.

Complainant Name Text AllUse to identify person (other than parent) or entity bringing dispute and communicate with them.

Complainant Street Address (line 1) Text AllUse to communicate with identify person (other than parent) or entity bringing dispute.

Database Applications to the System:

• Generate letters.

• Provide alert notices.

• Track the progress of individual cases (open).

• Provide information to answer inquiries.

• Analyze the effectiveness of ADR procedures.

• Identify trends within and across ADR procedures.

• Analyze various ADR issues.

Phase IV – Pilot in Selected States

Phase V – National Study

Things to DoThings to

Do