Transcript Document

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
[email protected]
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
State Department of Education
Division of Special Education
Department of Justice
Mediation MIS
Due Process Hearings MIS
Complaints MIS
Early State Department of Education
Division of Special Education
Mediation MIS
Due Process Hearings MIS
Complaints 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
62
38
56
156
Tennessee
127
67
69
263
Texas
399
508
383
1,400
60
153
149
362
4
5
2
11
1,344
3,747
Oregon
Washington
Wyoming
TOTALS
1,316
1,087
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%
26.8%
32.8%
40.5%
100%
TOTALS
• 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
Population
Population
# Formal
Formal
%
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
3,879,307
386,842
1,400
36.2
24.924
Texas
Table 3. Characteristics of the 10 states with advanced
dispute resolution data systems (Cont.).
State
Total School Total SpecEd
Population
Population
# Formal
Formal
%
Disputes
Disputes/
Poverty
Filed
10,000 Students
with Disabilities
Washington 1,047,085
89,825
362
40.3
12.8
Wyoming
10,490
11
10.5
26.5
313,685
9 States were studied that have the same
ethnic mix as the nation:
Alabama
Illinois
Michigan Texas Massachusetts
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
All
Use to identify student's parent/guardian and
communicate with them.
Parent/Guardian Telephone
Number
All
Use to identify student's parent/guardian and
communicate with them.
Parent/Guardian Fax Number
Number
All
Use to identify student's parent/guardian and
communicate with them.
Complainant Salutation
Text
All
Options such as Mr. and Mrs.; Mr.; Mrs.; Dr.;
Gentlemen; etc. used to print letters.
Complainant Name
Text
All
Use to identify person (other than parent) or entity
bringing dispute and communicate with them.
Complainant Street Address (line 1)
Text
All
Use 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 Do
Things to
Do