IEP FacilitationA Promising Approach toResolving Conflicts BetweenFamilies and SchoolsTracy G. Mueller

The Individuals With Disabilities Edu-cation Act (IDEA) was created toensure that students with disabilitiesreceive a free and appropriate publiceducation. One hallmark of IDEA is thepromotion of collaboration betweenschool districts and parents of childrenwith disabilities. The letter and spirit ofIDEA encourages a working relation-ship between the home and school thatfosters an educational team with thegoal of providing the child with appro-priate services. IDEA provisions regard-ing parent involvement imply a pictureof the family and school team workingtogether amicably sharing visions andgoals, and ultimately making decisionscollectively. Unfortunately, this sce-nario is not always the outcome.

Current IDEA ResolutionProcedures: A Means to No End

A major gap in special education con-flict resolution procedures exists today(Feinberg, Beyer, & Moses, 2002). IDEAhas attempted to protect the education-al rights of children with disabilities byestablishing three formal proceduresfor resolving disputes: due processhearings, formal complaints, and medi-ation. Each procedure has limitationsbecause of its reactive nature. Researchhas shown that due process is expen-sive, adversarial, and leaves the resolu-tion to an outsider (Lake & Billingsley,2000). Due process hearings are actual

60 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

court hearings where the district andthe child's family participate in a legalprocedure that is focused on the evalu-ation and resolution of the issue of dis-pute. A hearing officer is required toobjectively listen to both sides of theissue and to make a decision following

(CADRE, 2008). The costs accrued perhearing can range between $50,000 to$100,000 (Congressional Record, 2002;Opunda, 1999). Based on the CADRE(2008) report, school districts acrossthe United States potentially spendmore than $90 million a year in con-

The letter and spirit of IDEA encourages a working relationshipbetween the home and school that fosters an educational team with

the goal of providing the child with appropriate services.

the letter of the law, acting like ajudge. Due process hearings involvestandard elements of civil dispute reso-lution including discovery, presentationof evidence, sworn testimony includingthat of expert witnesses, and cross-examination.

The number of due process hear-ings between parents of children withdisabilities and school districts is grow-ing nationwide. This litigation costs bil-lions of dollars and destroys the rela-tionships between the home andschool envisioned during the creationof IDEA. A recent analysis conductedby the Consortium for AppropriateDispute Resolution (CADRE) showedthat during the 2005 to 2006 academicyear, 19,042 due process hearings wererequested nationally with 5,385 actual-ly going to a fully adjudicated hearing

flict resolution. Such data indicate thatour school districts are in crisis withconflict and are currently resolvingtheir disputes through extremely costlyand adversarial measures. Simply put,too often districts and parents experi-ence conflict that results in an extreme-ly emotional and financially drainingstrategy for resolution.

Mediation is viewed as a potentialalternative to due process procedures;however, there are limitations to medi-ation. First, because IDEA offers thisstrategy as a first step to due processhearing requests, it is possible thatmediation may be offered too late toactually make a difference in the reso-lution of conflict. Requiring or threat-ening due process before utilizingmediation may worsen an already liti-gious dispute. Participants may view

mediation as a procedural delay in

obtaining a formal hearing (Feinberg etal., 2002). Further, lawyers are permit-

ted to attend mediation, allowing the

possibility for potential argumentative

strategies.In 2004, during the IDEA reautho-

rization, Congress added "resolution

sessions" (IDEA 2004 34 C.F.R. §300.510) requiring that the local edu-

cation agency (LEA), parents, and allrelevant school staff must meet, with-out the presence of attorney, before

any due process hearing can takeplace. A resolution meeting must be

held within 15 days of receiving notice

of a parent's due process complaintand is intended for, "the parents of the

child to discuss their due process com-plaint, so that the LEA has the oppor-

tunity to resolve the dispute that is thebasis for the due process complaint"(IDEA 2004, 34 C.F.R. § 300.510[2]).Although resolution sessions are meant

to decrease the use of due process

hearings, they are still formal proce-dures that are only offered after arequest for due process has been filed.

IEP Facilitation

As previously explained, due process,mediation, and resolution sessions arereactive and do not include specificstrategies that can empower the teamto resolve their dispute amicably. Thisis a problem because students who areprotected under IDEA are served in theschool system until 21 years of age;therefore, it is likely that other conflictsin need of resolution may arise at otherpoints in time. IDEA procedures forconflict do not take into considerationthe potential of future disputes. Conse-quently, researchers are beginning torecognize the need for more appropri-ate dispute resolution procedures thatcan empower both parties (i.e., parentsand school districts), to more effective-ly resolve their disputes together (Fein-berg et al., 2002; Lake & Billingsley,

2000; Mueller, 2004). Contrary to dueprocess procedures, many alternativedispute resolution strategies provide

both parties with opportunities toresolve the issues and to come to a col-

laborative agreement.One of the more promising alterna-

tive dispute resolution strategies is the

use of facilitated individualized educat-

ion program (IEP) meetings (CADRE,2002). Facilitated IEPs utilize an out-

side facilitator to assist with the overallorganization of and conduct at the IEP

meeting. The meeting is still run by the

parents and school officials; however, afacilitator objectively maintains order

and focus during the meeting. This

model includes a flexible alternative to

mediation that can provide parents and

school officials with the opportunity toaddress concerns immediately at anIEP meeting without having to go

through formal procedures (CADRE,

2002). Facilitated IEPs are provided atno cost to the family and are less

/

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN I JAN/FEB 2009 61

A Case of Conflict (Continued)

Communication Strategies to Eliminate Power Imbalance.During the meeting, the facilitator allotted time for each per-

son to speak about the agenda topics prior to having a

group discussion. This strategy assured that all members'voices were heard and included. The facilitator also asked

individuals if they had anything to add to a topic before the

entire group moved on.Parking Lot: Before starting the meeting, the facilitator

introduced the concept of the parking lot to Timothy's edu-cational team. A large white board was used for this strate-gy. Throughout the meeting, the facilitator assisted the teamwith staying on the topic and only had to add one topic to

the parking lot when Timothy's parents began talking about

a bad experience Timothy had with a substitute teacher. The

team decided this was off-topic and addressed the issue dur-

ing the last 5 minutes of the meeting, during time allottedspecifically for parking lot issues.

Case Outcome. The facilitated IEP for Timothy Smith last-ed 2 hours and ended with a mutually agreed on solution.

The Smiths and the team discussed Timothy's needs first

and did not focus on the actual placement issues or pro-grammatic issues. Prior to this meeting, the team would

often talk about the placement without actually focusing onTimothy's needs. Once Timothy's needs were highlighted

and agreed on by the group, the team brainstormed options

for meeting his needs. They decided that Timothy would

benefit from a behavior intervention plan built into the gen-

eral education environment. The teachers would receive any

needed behavioral support training and would reconvenemonthly to discuss his behavioral progress. The team also

decided that Timothy needed additional academic supportthat went beyond the general education and resource class-

rooms. Timothy would be placed with a reading specialistfor 2 hours a day for intensive support. Everyone agreedthat this plan would meet Timothy's needs, and they agreed

to reconvene in 6 months with the facilitator to discuss hisprogress. The group was amicable with each other and ableto problem-solve together.

formal than mediation, due process, orresolution sessions. Because there are

currently no federal regulations for thisprocess, the educational team must still

abide by IDEA regulations for IEP pro-cedures. This is a relatively new strate-gy that is being implemented in vari-

ous regions of the country; therefore,each district or state may employ theprocess a little differently. For the sake

of simplicity, this article presents oneof the more successful IEP facilitationmodels that has been used and sup-ported through research (Mueller,2004). A case study of conflict will be

presented (see box, "A Case of Con-flict"), along with the seven essential

components of IEP facilitation.

Seven Essential Componentsof IEP Facilitation

The essential components to a success-

ful IEP facilitation include

1. A neutral facilitator.

2.

3.

An agenda.

Goals created by each member of

the team.

4. Ground rules.

5. An environment that fosters

collaboration.

6. Communication strategies toeliminate any power imbalance.

7. The use of a parking lot.

Practical application and a descrip-tion of these components are describedin the following paragraphs (see Table1 for a brief description of each com-

ponent).

The Use of a Neutral Facilitator

The role of a facilitator is pivotal to

assuring that all team members are

able to participate and that the groupstays focused and on task. The facilita-tor is able to do this through managing

the behavior of the group members,maintaining order with the groundrules, time keeping with respect to theagenda, suggesting alternative commu-

nication strategies if the team is in dis-tress, and perhaps most important,remaining neutral (Chang & Kehoe,1994). The facilitator may want to

work alongside a recorder; however, itis possible for the facilitator to take

notes at the meeting as well. Facili-

tators may be trained mediators, or in

the case in Michigan, a trained mentalhealth professional (Feinberg et al.,2002). Some districts may choose to

train their administrators or teachers to

be available for IEP facilitation. It is

important to note that it is possible

that the use of a district employee act-ing as a facilitator could make the

process feel somewhat one-sided,thereby compromising the trust of the

parents. There is, however, some datathat demonstrates this perception can

be avoided through deliberate practices(Mueller, Singer, & Draper, 2008). For

example, one key component for effec-tive use of a district-hired facilitator is

that he or she is a third party memberand not a member of the education

team (Mueller, 2004). In this case, the

district employee does not know thefamily or the child involved and inmany cases, works at an entirely differ-

ent school site. This person cannot be

a part of the IEP team. The facilitatorshould work with all team members

allocating equal amounts of time andattention to each party member.

The role of the facilitator is pivotal.This person's goal is to conduct theentire meeting with the parents and

school staff resulting in a mutuallyagreed-on IEP. Several strategies uti-

lized by the facilitator to promote sucha productive outcome may include, but

are not limited to, keeping the groupfocused on the topic, summarizingwhat others have said, suggesting waysto look at issues together and to collec-

tively brainstorm solutions, and foster-ing an environment that is safe for the

exchange of ideas and thoughts made

by all team members (see Figure 1). In

a report written by CADRE (2002), a

facilitator described the role by saying

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN [ JAN/FEB 2009 63

Table 1. Components for Effeutive IEP Facilitation

Component

Neutral facilitator

Creating an agenda

Goals created by eachmember of the team

Establishing groundrules

Environmentalarrangement to fostercollaboration

Communicationstrategies to eliminateany power imbalance

Park~ing lot

Description

The primary responsibility of the facilitator is to ensure thatall team members participate and to keep the team on task.The agenda is clearly linked with the IEP, provides roomfor group discussion, and is posted in the room for allmembers to view.

The facilitator contacts group members before the meetingto determine their goals for the meeting and then poststheir goals throughout the room.Ground rules should be stated clearly, positively, andshould be agreed upon by all team members beforebeginning the meeting.Environmenit should be comfortable; seating should bebalanced to assure that school team members are notdominating one side of a table (e,g., use a round table).Assure everyone has the same amount of time to shareand discuss (i.e.~, everyone must agree before movingon to a rnew topic).Facilitator will note any off-topic points made in themeeting by scribing it in the parkilng lot area and willsave time at the end of the meeting to discuss those issues,

As a facilitator at facilitated IEPMeetings, it is my responsibilityto help keep the lines of commu-nication open among the IEPteam members. Hopefully thiswill lead to the development ofan appropriate individualizededucation program for the stu-dent. At times this can be diffi-cult because previous meetingsmay have been tense and stress-ful for all concerned. I use vari-ous facilitation skills in which Ihave been trained. I try to helpthe team establish ground rulesfor the meeting, aid participantsin developing clarifying ques-tions which often lead to mutualsolutions and require membersof the team to adhere to time-lines for completion of the meet-ing. I do not make the final deci-sions; those are up to the IEPteam, and the family is always akey member of that team. (p. 3)

Creating an Agenda

An agenda is the blueprint for a meet-ing and can provide order, allocateappropriate time for discussing issues,and remind the participants of the top-ics that will be the focus of the meet-ing. There are two key components tocreating an effective agenda: (a) the

64 COUNCIL FOR EXcEPTIONAL CHILDREN

identification of the issues for discus-sion, and (b) the determination of timeallotted for each topic (see Figure 2 foran example of a meeting agenda). Priorto the start of the meeting, each agen-da topic must have a time limit for thepresentation of the information anddiscussion. When utilizing an agendafor a facilitated IEP meeting, it isimportant that the facilitator ensuresthat everyone has an opportunity toprovide input to the agenda. All partici-pants should also be provided theopportunity to modify the agenda ifneeded. Prior to moving on to the nexttopic of the agenda, the facilitatorshould check with participants to makesure they have contributed as theywould like to the previous issue.

Setting Team Member Goals

In a recent research study that lookedat dispute resolution, a unique compo-nent of one district's practice was theidentification of each team member'sgoals prior to the IEP meeting. Thefacilitator contacted each IEP memberprior to the meeting to state his or hergoal for the meeting. Then, prior to thestart of the IEP meeting, the facilitatorposted each team member's goalthroughout the room so that the entire

group could see each other's perspec-tive. One administrator in this studydescribed the benefit of this process bysaying that it provided everyone withthe opportunity to express his or herposition prior to the meeting, and con-sequently, feel "validated" (Mueller,2004, p. 211).

Establishing Ground Rules

Although team members who partici-pate in an IEP meeting may feel thatthey are able to conduct themselvesappropriately, it is still important toestablish ground rules that can serveas reminders for expected participantbehavior. Establishing ground rulesshould be completed in four stages:

1. The facilitator should inform theteam about the importance of hav-ing conduct expectations for themeeting.

2. The team should brainstorm a listof potential ground rules.

Figure 2. Facilitated lIEP Meeting Agenda Example (Smith Case)

Time Topic Outcome(Allocate appropriate (Briefly state the topic (Clearly write the outcometime for each topic) of discussion) of the discussion)

Establish ground rules Established 10 ground rules that are postedin the room.

5 minutes

Review meeting goals Team members stated the goals they shared5 minutes with facilitator I week ago.

Timothy's academic needs Team members shared their perspectives ofTimothy's academic needs. Facilitator wrote

30 minutes visual map and notes of the discussion onbutcher paper.

Timothy's behavioral needs Team members shared their perspectives of30 minutes Timothy's behavior needs. Facilitator wrote

visual map and notes of the discussion onbutcher paper.

Strategies to address Timothy's academic Team members shared and discussedand behavioral needs potential strategies to address Timothy's

25 minutes needs. Facilitator wrote visual map andnotes of the discussion on butcher paper.

Team action planning Team completed action planning worksheetfor implementing the strategies to meet

20 minutes Timothy's needs.

Parking lot issues/closure Team members addressed any parking lotissues brought up during the meeting.5 minutes

Note: The careful orchestration and planning with the agenda may result in a longer meeting than some districts typically plan;however, this carefully thought-out and planned agenda will accomplish the goals of the IEP team and, in the long run, will save time,provide an appropriate IEP, and potentially heal relationships.

3. All team members may select the

ground rules.

4. The ground rules should be posted

for all team members to view.

(Chang & Kehoe, 1994).

In an effort to save time, it is appro-

priate for the facilitator to present a

group of suggested ground rules with

the expectation that the team could

add or delete any rules upon which

they agree. An example of ground rules

includes the following items (Chang &

Kehoe, 1994):

1. One person may talk at a time.

2. Allow all team members to share

their ideas (even if they may bedifferent from your own).

3. Try to build on the ideas shared byothers.

4. Remain open-minded and non-judgmental.

5. Start and end the meeting on time.

6. Everyone participates, and no onedominates the meeting.

7. Complaints are okay when theycome packaged with a solution.

8. Make compromises whennecessary.

9. The facilitator is empowered toenforce ground rules.

10. Stick to the agenda and timeframe.

Environmental Arrangementto Foster Collaboration

The environmental arrangement for a

meeting can have an important effecton the overall outcome. A facilitator

must take the necessary steps to assurethat all team members feel safe andcomfortable enough to share their

thoughts. It is not uncommon for IEP

meetings to include an imbalance of

team members with a large number of

school professionals/lawyers and

sometimes only the father and mother

representing the home. Therefore, thefacilitator must arrange the environ-

ment in order to reduce the potentialintimidation of a perceived power

imbalance. Some strategies used toavoid this perception include the use of

a round table, U-shaped table, couchesor chairs arranged in a circle, kidney

shaped table, or if sitting at a rectan-gler shaped table, having the partici-pants sit diagonally from each other.

Other components to consider when

trying to arrange an environment tofoster collaboration may include, but

are not limited to, setting a comfort-

able room temperature, providing

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN I JAN/FEB 2009 65

paper and pens for everyone, postingthe agenda for everyone to view, pro-viding personal agendas, posting theground rules, providing drinks andsnacks, placing a picture of the studentat the center of the table, and provid-ing comfortable chairs/seating space.

Communication Strategiesto Eliminate or Prevent Feelingsof a Power Imbalance

Research on parent participation in IEPmeetings recounts numerous stories offamilies describing a feeling of powerimbalance (Harry, Allen, & McLaugh-lin, 1995; Lake & Billingsley, 2000;Soodak & Erwin, 1995). Parentsdescribed being outnumbered, beingtreated as passive participants in the

meetings has been established as astrategy for running productive meet-ings (Mueller, 2004). Essentially, theparking lot is a process to controlissues that are "off the subject." Hanga flip chart in the meeting roomlabeled "parking lot" and if someonesays something that is off the topic ofthe agenda, "park" the issue for futurediscussion. It is important that time bebuilt into the agenda for parking lotissues. Using the parking lot allowsteam members to stay on track, whileacknowledging participants' voices byrecording their ideas in a visual park-ing lot. Simultaneously, the meetingmaintains its focus, all team members'concerns are validated, and relation-ship issues are not constrained.

Hang a flip chart in the meeting room labeled "parking lot"

and if someone says something that is off the topic of

the agenda, "park" the issue for future discussion.

IEP meetings, and having an overallsense of exclusion from the discussionabout their child. Thus, the use of atrained and neutral facilitator who canencourage all team members to partici-pate equally and can employ strategiesto eliminate such an imbalance can bevery beneficial. Facilitators shouldencourage all team members to shareequally by asking open-ended ques-tions. Further, a facilitator shouldaddress any team member who mayappear to be dominating the discus-sion. (See Figure 3 for a list of othercommunication strategies that caneliminate power imbalance.)

Utilizing a Parking Lot

It is not uncommon for an educationalteam to stray from the agenda and findthemselves off-topic. Although any dis-cussion among team members isimportant, moving off the subject ofthe agenda can often result in a loss oftime for issues that require discussionduring the IEP meeting. Further, off-topic conversations can sometimes leadto circular discussions and may not bevery productive. For this reason, theuse of a parking lot in facilitated IEP

66 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Fial ThoughtsFacilitated IEPs offer teams a forumthat can keep the meeting student-focused and flexible for open teamcommunication. The use of a neutralfacilitator encourages the team to com-municate productively, while all mem-bers are supported equally (CADRE,2002). As demonstrated in the Smithcase (see box, "A Case of Conflict"),focus and organization allow for mean-ingful team dialogue. The outcomes areempowering for all team members,compared with the current IDEA for-mal procedures of due process.

A need exists for more knowledgeand training about alternative disputeresolution strategies in today's schoolsystems. The excessive amount ofmoney that is required for the resolu-tion of disputes is a concern. It isimportant to appropriately address con-flict in school districts using the leastrestrictive strategy. Unfortunately, cur-rent special education conflict resolu-tion strategies recognized by IDEAhave been described as inconsistent,expensive, and unharmonious (Fein-berg et al., 2002; Markowitz, Ahearn, &

Schrag, 2003; Opunda, 1999). Alter-native dispute resolution strategies,such as the use of a facilitated IEPmeeting, offer parents and school offi-cials the opportunity to think creativelyand to problem-solve together.Although limited, the preliminaryresearch on facilitated IEPs does showthat this practice can be successfulwith resolving disputes and maintain-ing positive parent-school relations(CADRE; 2002; Mueller, 2004). There isa need for more research to supportthis procedure.

The guidelines described here aremeant to provide readers with anoverview of facilitated IEPs, as well assome actual strategies that can beemployed immediately. Although con-flict may be inevitable at times, thisdoes not mean solutions are outsidethe reach of the team. This article isintended to encourage IEP teams tothink creatively when conflict mayoccur and to try alternative paths toresolution.

RefUrenesChang, R. Y., & Kehoe, K. R. (1994). Quality

improvement series: Meetings that work.Irvine, CA: Richard Chang Associates.

Congressional Record-Senate. (June 20,2002). The Teacher Papenvork ReductionAct of 2002. Proceedings and debates ofthe 107th Congress, second session, pp.S5853-S5854.

Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolu-tion in Special Education (CADRE).(2002). Facilitated IEP meetings: Anemerging practice. Eugene, OR: Author.Retrieved January 20, 2007, from: http://www.directionservice.org/cadre/facilitatediep.cfm

Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolu-tion in Special Education (CADRE).(2008). Part B-Three year annual reportsummaries for written complaints, media-tions and due process. Eugene, OR:Author. Retrieved January 20, 2007, fromhttp://www.directionservice. org/cadre/statecomprpts.cfm

Feinberg, E., Beyer, J. M., & Moses, P.(2002, October). Beyond mediation: Stra-tegies for appropriate early dispute resolu-tion in special education. Eugene, OR:Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Res-olution in Special Education (CADRE).

Harry, B., Allen, N., & McLaughlin, M.(1995). Communication versus compli-ance: African American parents' involve-ment in special education. ExceptionalChildren, 61, 364-377.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act(IDEA) regulations, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.1 etseq. (2008)..

Lake, J. F., & Billingsley, B. S. (2000). Ananalysis of factors that contribute to par-ent-school conflict in special education.Remedial and Special Education, 21(4),240-256.

Markowitz, J., Ahearn, E., & Schrag, J.(2003). Dispute resolution: A review ofsystems in selected states. Alexandria, VA:National Association of State Directors of

Special Education.Mueller, T. G. (2004). A tale of two districts

fostering the home-school partnership:Conflict prevention and alternative dis-pute resolution practices in special edu-cation. Doctoral dissertation, Universityof California at Santa Barbara, 2004. Dis-sertation Abstracts International (DIA-A),65/06, 1-279.

Mueller, T. G., Singer, G. H. S., & Draper, L.(2008). Reducing parental dissatisfactionwith special education in two school dis-tricts: Implementing conflict preventionand alternative dispute resolution. Jour-nal of Educational and Psycholog-ical Consultation, 18(3), 191-233.

Opunda, M. A. (1999). Comparison of par-ents who initiated due process hearingsand complaints in Maine. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Virginia PolytechnicInstitute and State University, Blacksburg.

Soodak, L., & Erwin, E. J. (1995). Parents,professionals, and inclusive education: Acall for collaboration. Journal of Educa-tional and Psychological Consultation,6(3), 257-276.

Tracy G. Mueller (CEC CO Federation),Assistant Professor, School of SpecialEducation, University of Northern Colorado,Greeley.

Address correspondence to Tiacy Mueller,University of Northern Colorado, 501 20thStreet, Campus Box 141, Greeley, CO 80639(e-mail: TRacy. mueller@ unco. edu).

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 41,No. 3, pp. 60-67.

Copyright 2009 CEC.

Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation(PS Form 3526)

1. Publication Title: TEACHING Exceptional Children. 2. Publication No.: 0040-0599. 3.Filing Date: September 30, 2008. 4. Issue Frequency: 6 times per year (Jan/Feb, Mar/Apr,May/June, Jul/Aug, Sep/Oct, Nov/Dec). 5. No. of Issues Published Annually: 6. 6.Annual Subscription Price: Individual: Domestic $80, Canada $90, Foreign Air $115.Institution/Library: Domestic $175, Canada: $185, Foreign Air: $210. 7. Complete Mailing

Address of Known Office of Publication: Council for Exceptional Children, 1110 NorthGlebe Road, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22201-5704. 8. Complete Mailing Address ofHeadquarters or General Business Office of Publisher: Council for Exceptional Children,

1110 North Glebe Road, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22201-5704. 9. Full Names andComplete Mailing Addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Managing Editor: Publisher-

Council for Exceptional Children, 1110 North Glebe Road, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia

22201-5704; Editors-Alec Peck, Co-Editor, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467-3813;Stan Scarpati, Co-Editor, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003; ManagingEditor-Stefani Roth, Council for Exceptional Children, 1110 North Glebe Road, Suite 300,

Arlington, Virginia 22201-5704. 10. Owner: Council for Exceptional Children, 1110 NorthGlebe Road, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22201-5704. No Stockholders. 11. Known

Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other Security Holders Owning or Holding 1 Percent orMore of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages, or Other Securities: None. 12. Tax Status:

Has Not Changed During Preceding 12 Months. 13. Publication Name: TEACHINGExceptional Children. 14. Issue Date for Circulation Data Below: Sept/Oct 2008, Vol41(1). 15. Extent and Nature of Circulation:

a. Total No. Copies (Net Press Run)b. Paid and/or Requested Circulation

(1) Paid/Requested Outside-County Mail Subscriptions

(2) Paid In-County subscriptions(3) Sales Through Dealers and

Carriers, Street Vendors,and Counter Sales

(4) Other Classes Mailed throughthe USPS

c. Total Paid and/or RequestedCirculation

d. Free Distribution by Mail(1) Outside County(2) Inside County(3) Mailed by Other Classes(4) Distribution Outside the Mail

e. Total Free Distributionf. Total Distributiong. Copies Not Distributedh. Totali. Percent Paid and/or Requested

Circulation

Average No. CopiesEach Issue During

Preceding 12 Months

40,268

38,532None

None

None

38,532

NoneNone

425None

42538,957

1,31140,268

98.91%

No. Copies ofSingle Issue Pub.

Nearest to Filing Date

40,889

38,816None

None

None

38,816

NoneNone

375None

37539,191

1,69840,889

99.04%

16. Publication of Statement of Ownership: Publication required. Will be printed in the

v. 41-3 Jan/Feb '09 issue of this publication.

Signature and Title of Editor, Publisher, Business Manager, Or Owner. I certify thatthe statements made by me above are correct and complete.

Bruce Ramirez, Executive Director, September 30, 2008.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN I JAN/FEB 2009 67

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: IEP FacilitationSOURCE: Teach Except Child 41 no3 Ja/F 2009

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.cec.sped.org/