How Did WSEMS Come

About?

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.

• 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.

• 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

• Parent & Disability & Advocacy Groups

• Autism Society of Wisconsin

• Wisconsin Council of Developmental Disabilities

• Families Forward

• Parent Education Project of Wisconsin

• Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy

• State Agencies

• Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

• Wisconsin Department of Health and Families Support

• Attorneys

• Attorney, representing school districts

• Attorney, representing parents

• Legislators

• Chair of the Assembly Education Committee

• Chair of the Senate Education Committee

• Representative of Governor Tommy Thompson

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

The Signing Ceremony

December 19, 1997