Conflict: What Are We Missing? by Tracy Gershwin Mueller, Ph.D.
" The most intense conflicts, if overcome, leave behind a sense of security and calm that is not easily disturbed. It is just these intense conflicts and their conflagration, which are needed to produce valuable and lasting results."
- from Carl Jung, Swiss Psychiatrist
The Problem
Perhaps one of the most overlooked expenses in the field of special education is litigation. The numbers of due process hearings that are taking place across the United States are continuing to increase on an annual basis. In fact, it was estimated that over 14,000 due process hearings would take place during the 2006-2007 academic year. These statistics are just now being analyzed and could be as much or more than the predicted numbers. The costs accrued through a hearing could be as much as $50,000 per hearing, with some cases that reach Federal appeals court costing as much as $60,000 to $100,000. School districts across the U.S. report spending over $90 million a year in conflict resolution. This is a great cost considering all of the drastic budget cuts education is continuing to experience through general and special education.
What do these numbers mean for us? Simply put, we are spending more money to have people resolve our own conflict then to just address it ourselves. External activities, funds, and energy are being used unnecessarily. The reality is that the majority of the conflict can and should be addressed internally. After all, how can a district and families learn to resolve disputed issues if they are not given the opportunity themselves?
The irony here is that in the field of special education we promote the concept of self-regulation and self-management. We educate our students with the goal that they can work through their social, academic, and behavioral needs internally, rather than externally. Yet when it comes to the adults who work with these students it is far more accessible and accepted to become so entwined within a conflict that we go straight to a hearing and ask a hearing officer to resolve the issue. The end result is simple. Districts and parents are forced to experience the emotional rollercoaster of a hearing, high legal fees, and a relationship that will most likely be disjointed for good. One issue that most people do not consider at this conjuncture is the relationship between those families and districts that will still be required until the child turns twenty-one years of age. The next questions left before the team is, "What happens if another issue of disagreement arises?" If this is the case, the team has clearly not learned or grown through the experience of working through conflict together. Thus hearing number two is not too far off the horizon.
One important issue to note is that due process hearings should not be viewed as meaningless and inappropriate. On the contrary, due process provisions were written into the law to provide parents with some legal options should their child's Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) be compromised. There is no argument that due process should remain an option for families and, when appropriate, can be very beneficial to the educational team. The issue that should be considered is, "When is a due process hearing appropriate?" Further, "Are we overly using this legal right when in reality conflict could otherwise be resolved between parties?"
There is no question that conflict is uncomfortable. Depending on our own backgrounds, experiences, beliefs, and practices we all address conflict with our own styles. Many people alike this response as one where it is either "fight or flight." Thus when an option such as due process is available, there is a simple "out" for educational teams to exercise. This concern is heightened by the amount of revenue we are spending on our responses to conflict.
Potential Solution
As a teacher educator who works in a highly respected university that prepares students to become special educators, this issue is magnified when I look at the status of most special education licensure programs across the U.S. With the IDEA (2004) and No Child Left Behind (2001) mandates, universities are pressured to prepare highly qualified teachers. Teacher educators are also well aware of the mass shortage of special educators across the county. The final compounding variable is the pressure to prepare and graduate special educators at an increasing rate. The result of these two collisions is universities pressured to gain student enrollment that can complete a program with a minimum number of credits at a quick rate so that they can serve our much-neglected field.
The shortened programs combined with highly qualified educators results in classes that are focused on standards with regard to teacher pedagogy, and very little focus on teacher collaboration, specifically alternative dispute resolution strategies. Thus, teachers are not being prepared to deal with conflict. The programs focus more on the students they teach with little focus on all of the educational members they are required to work with.
One clear solution to this issue is to first acknowledge that conflict is inevitable and needs to be addressed. Similar to the proactive behavior management techniques we promote through the Positive Behavior Support (PBS) movement, we need to prepare our educators for conflict. Teachers can learn strategies for communicating effectively, problem solving, and finding mutual solutions. Models from other disciplines, such as the medical practice and business industries should be considered and applied to our own system so that we can create options to hearings rather than only mediation or litigation. The end result will be well prepared educators who can collaborate and problem solve with families. Due process should and will still be available, when appropriate.
For more information on Conflict and appropriate dispute resolution, please visit the CADRE website
- from Carl Jung, Swiss Psychiatrist
The Problem
Perhaps one of the most overlooked expenses in the field of special education is litigation. The numbers of due process hearings that are taking place across the United States are continuing to increase on an annual basis. In fact, it was estimated that over 14,000 due process hearings would take place during the 2006-2007 academic year. These statistics are just now being analyzed and could be as much or more than the predicted numbers. The costs accrued through a hearing could be as much as $50,000 per hearing, with some cases that reach Federal appeals court costing as much as $60,000 to $100,000. School districts across the U.S. report spending over $90 million a year in conflict resolution. This is a great cost considering all of the drastic budget cuts education is continuing to experience through general and special education.
What do these numbers mean for us? Simply put, we are spending more money to have people resolve our own conflict then to just address it ourselves. External activities, funds, and energy are being used unnecessarily. The reality is that the majority of the conflict can and should be addressed internally. After all, how can a district and families learn to resolve disputed issues if they are not given the opportunity themselves?
The irony here is that in the field of special education we promote the concept of self-regulation and self-management. We educate our students with the goal that they can work through their social, academic, and behavioral needs internally, rather than externally. Yet when it comes to the adults who work with these students it is far more accessible and accepted to become so entwined within a conflict that we go straight to a hearing and ask a hearing officer to resolve the issue. The end result is simple. Districts and parents are forced to experience the emotional rollercoaster of a hearing, high legal fees, and a relationship that will most likely be disjointed for good. One issue that most people do not consider at this conjuncture is the relationship between those families and districts that will still be required until the child turns twenty-one years of age. The next questions left before the team is, "What happens if another issue of disagreement arises?" If this is the case, the team has clearly not learned or grown through the experience of working through conflict together. Thus hearing number two is not too far off the horizon.
One important issue to note is that due process hearings should not be viewed as meaningless and inappropriate. On the contrary, due process provisions were written into the law to provide parents with some legal options should their child's Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) be compromised. There is no argument that due process should remain an option for families and, when appropriate, can be very beneficial to the educational team. The issue that should be considered is, "When is a due process hearing appropriate?" Further, "Are we overly using this legal right when in reality conflict could otherwise be resolved between parties?"
There is no question that conflict is uncomfortable. Depending on our own backgrounds, experiences, beliefs, and practices we all address conflict with our own styles. Many people alike this response as one where it is either "fight or flight." Thus when an option such as due process is available, there is a simple "out" for educational teams to exercise. This concern is heightened by the amount of revenue we are spending on our responses to conflict.
Potential Solution
As a teacher educator who works in a highly respected university that prepares students to become special educators, this issue is magnified when I look at the status of most special education licensure programs across the U.S. With the IDEA (2004) and No Child Left Behind (2001) mandates, universities are pressured to prepare highly qualified teachers. Teacher educators are also well aware of the mass shortage of special educators across the county. The final compounding variable is the pressure to prepare and graduate special educators at an increasing rate. The result of these two collisions is universities pressured to gain student enrollment that can complete a program with a minimum number of credits at a quick rate so that they can serve our much-neglected field.
The shortened programs combined with highly qualified educators results in classes that are focused on standards with regard to teacher pedagogy, and very little focus on teacher collaboration, specifically alternative dispute resolution strategies. Thus, teachers are not being prepared to deal with conflict. The programs focus more on the students they teach with little focus on all of the educational members they are required to work with.
One clear solution to this issue is to first acknowledge that conflict is inevitable and needs to be addressed. Similar to the proactive behavior management techniques we promote through the Positive Behavior Support (PBS) movement, we need to prepare our educators for conflict. Teachers can learn strategies for communicating effectively, problem solving, and finding mutual solutions. Models from other disciplines, such as the medical practice and business industries should be considered and applied to our own system so that we can create options to hearings rather than only mediation or litigation. The end result will be well prepared educators who can collaborate and problem solve with families. Due process should and will still be available, when appropriate.
For more information on Conflict and appropriate dispute resolution, please visit the CADRE website
Comments