Negotiating Individualized Education Programs: A Guide for School Administrators

Jennings

Education • Parent Participation

This book prepares school administrators to successfully negotiate complex deals between parents and school personnel. Clear step-by-step guidelines for preparing and leading these types of meetings are described. Matthew J. Jennings is the superintendent of schools for the Alexandria Township (NJ) Public School System and an adjunct professor at Rutgers University.

Negotiating Individualized Education Programs

Negotiating is both an art and a science that requires specific knowledge and skills. Few school administrator preparation programs provide training in negotiating skills. As a result, when faced with the need to negotiate, most school administrators rely on the negotiating skills they have learned from other life experiences. While these strategies may work well when attempting to purchase a car, such skills often leave IEP meeting participants feeling dissatisfied, worn out, and alienated.

Negotiating Individualized Education Programs A Guide for School Administrators

Matthew J. Jennings For orders and information please contact the publisher Rowman & Littlefield Education A division of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200 Lanham, Maryland 20706 1-800-462-6420 • fax 717-794-3803 www.rowmaneducation.com

NegotiatingIndividualizedPODPBK.1 1

2/20/09 4:00:01 PM

Negotiating Individualized Education Programs A Guide for School Administrators Matthew J. Jennings

ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD EDUCATION

Lanham • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK

Published in the United States of America by Rowman & Littlefield Education A Division of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www.rowmaneducation.com Estover Road Plymouth PL6 7PY United Kingdom Copyright © 2009 by Matthew J. Jennings All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Jennings, Matthew. Negotiating individualized education plans : a guide for school administrators / Matthew J. Jennings. p. cm. ISBN 978-1-57886-993-0 (cloth : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-60709-017-5 (pbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-60709-072-4 (electronic) 1. Individualized education programs—United States. 2. Children with disabilities—Education—United States. 3. School management and organization—United States. I. Title. LC4031.J47 2009 371.904—dc22 2008051490

 ™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. Manufactured in the United States of America.

Contents

List of Figures

v

Preface

vii

1

Possibilities

1

2

Prevention

9

3

Principles of Persuasion

21

4

Persuasive Communications

33

5

Preparation

43

6

Reaching Agreement

55

7

What Do I Do If . . . ?

71

8

Developing Organizational Competence

81

Appendix

89

References

95

About the Author

97

iii

Figures

Figure 1.1. Figure 2.1. Figure 5.1. Figure 5.2. Figure 8.1. Figure A.1. Figure A.2. Figure A.3. Figure A.4. Figure A.5.

The Process for Resolving Difficult IEP-Related Issues The Golden Guidelines Identifying and Prioritizing Interests (example) Generating Options (example) Meeting Summary Form Identifying and Prioritizing Interests (blank form) Generating Options (blank form) Draft Proposals (blank form) Staff Member Pledge Meeting Summary Form

v

8 20 45 47 86 90 91 92 93 94

Preface

A

s I sit with the completed manuscript of this book in my hands I ponder a difficult question. Will readers accept my view of a child’s educational experience as something to be negotiated? I have no doubt that all of the students entering a classroom deserve a high-quality education. In the case of a child with special education needs, the importance of a high-quality education takes on additional aspects. In some cases, it involves direct instruction by highly skilled professionals in skills like eating or buttoning clothing. These are fundamental life skills most of us are fortunate enough to take for granted. Just when I conclude that it is offensive to be negotiating these things, there is a little voice in the back of my head reminding me that schools have limited resources. These limited resources must be used efficiently and effectively if we are to meet the diverse needs of all of the students being served. Unfortunately, it is inevitable that competition for the distribution of these limited resources will create parent-school conflict. Ultimately my wish is that society will make a commitment to provide the resources required for maximizing the potential of every child. If that were to happen, this book would not be necessary.

vii

viii

Preface

However, until that time I am forced to settle for hoping that parentschool conflicts over special education issues will be managed constructively or even perhaps creatively. May this book provide you with the knowledge and skills you need to meet this challenge.

1 3

Possibilities

I never let the sun set on a disagreement with anybody who means a lot to me. —Thomas Watson

D

r. James Anderson, the director of special education, sits alone in the conference room at the central office building. As he mentally reviews the events that have just occurred, he comes to a distressing conclusion. Like it or not, he and his staff are going to have to work with Mr. and Mrs. Harrigan for at least the next twelve years. Considering how meetings with them have gone thus far, this is difficult for him to imagine. It all began with the transition from state-provided early intervention services to the district-run preschool program. At this meeting, the early intervention representative described the Harrigan’s son James. Based on reports provided by the neurologist and the speech and language specialist, James is a child with autism. At the time, he demonstrated severe behavioral and language deficits. In prior discussion with the parents, the early intervention service providers informally recommended that the school provide a fourhour-per-day, five-day-per-week preschool program. Furthermore, these providers alluded to the need for the program to be delivered one-on-one by a teacher trained in applied behavioral analysis. In 1

2

Chapter 1

addition to daily speech, occupational, and physical therapy, the early intervention providers mentioned the need for an additional ten hours per week of home instruction. This home instruction was also to be delivered by a certified teacher trained in applied behavior analysis. The school’s specialists who completed evaluations of James drew a different conclusion. They agreed that James should be in a self-contained preschool program that operates five days per week. However, this program only operated for three hours per day, so this is what they felt compelled to recommend. Of course, they could not tell the parents that the current program configuration was the reason for their recommendation. The school specialists did not agree with the recommendation of one-on-one delivery of applied behavior analysis for the entire class session. They believed that James should be doing some of the whole class activities with other students so that he could learn social and play skills. Besides, even though they could not say it, they knew the district could not afford to hire another teacher to do one-on-one instruction with James. At that point, the district contracted services with an outside agency for occupational and physical therapy. At best, this agency could give the district a service provider three days per week. Not only did the team feel this was adequate, they knew it was the most the school district could provide. The district did employ two full-time speech and language specialists. The specialist that worked primarily with preschoolers believed that language instruction should be infused into the preschool program. She believed it would be better for James if she collaborated with the preschool teacher to deliver daily group lessons with all of the students. As far as the home therapy went, the central office administration held the opinion that they would not provide this under any circumstances. The district took a rigid stance during this initial meeting. The unexpected tone of this meeting and the lack of special education knowledge by the Harrigans resulted in their reluctantly consenting to the district’s proposals. Naturally, throughout the course of this school year, James had his share of ups and downs. However a reasonable amount of progress was made. This progress did not occur without staff members experiencing a heavy burden. Whenever James experienced one of his low moments, the teachers could expect Mrs. Harrigan to call or to request a meeting.

Possibilities

3

Even though the teacher was caring and competent, it seemed that whatever she did for James was never enough. Not only did Mrs. Harrigan express concern about James’s progress, she relentlessly questioned the actions and decisions made by the teacher. At the end of this school year, it was time for James’s annual review. This time, Mr. and Mrs. Harrigan came to the meeting with a special education advocate. After three separate meetings of two or more hours, the school and the parents reached a compromise. Neither side was satisfied with the outcome and both sides were exhausted by the process. During the subsequent school year things grew progressively worse. As a result of constant requests for information and continuous challenges to her instructional decisions, the teacher grew to resent the parents. What had been a cordial relationship was now adversarial. The teacher continued to do the best she could for the child, but she began not returning parent phone calls and not responding to notes from home. Twice the parents had contacted the state department of special education to complain about the school district. After complaint investigations the school district was cleared of any wrongdoing in both cases. Additionally, the parents requested independent educational evaluations. Dr. Anderson thought about challenging this request, but his past experience led him to believe this was “not the hill to die on.” These evaluations revealed that James was making adequate progress in most areas, but was making insufficient progress in others. When discussing these results with the representatives of the school district, it appeared as if the Harrigans had only read the negative parts of the reports. The meeting Dr. Anderson has just completed ended with the Harrigans and their attorney abruptly concluding the meeting. As soon as the school district stated that they would not consent to the request for placement in a private special education school, the three of them stood up, pushed in their chairs and the parents left the conference room. The attorney lingered a little longer to inform Dr. Anderson that he would be filing for a due process hearing. As an experienced special education director, Dr. Anderson knew that no matter what the outcome of the hearing was, this was not going to end well for either party. If they lost the due process hearing, he would have great difficulty finding the funds to pay for the tuition and transportation costs without eliminating other school

4

Chapter 1

programs. If they won the hearing, the Harrigans would continue to challenge every decision school personnel made. It was at times like these Dr. Anderson was grateful he would be eligible for retirement in two years. Federal regulations legitimize parents’ role in developing individualized education programs by granting them the opportunity to participate in shared decision-making activities with school personnel. In the process of designing and implementing an appropriate educational program for a student with a disability, differences of opinion frequently arise between parents and the school personnel involved with the student (Lake and Billingsley 2000). However, the vast majority of individualized education program (IEP) team meetings do not end with outcomes like the one described in the previous scenario. While there may be differences of opinion between school personnel and parents, most IEP meetings end with a set of agreements acceptable to all parties (Lake and Billingsley 2000). A wise school district makes it a priority to prevent situations like the one described from occurring. Many, if not most, conflicts over individualized education programs can be prevented if school district personnel understand and practice effective communication and interpersonal skills. Strategies for achieving this goal are described in chapters 2 and 3. Yet, regardless of a school district’s efforts at prevention, a minority of IEP team meetings will have such high levels of conflict and tension that an impasse is reached.

WIN-LOSE NEGOTIATING Often when this impasse is reached, school personnel approach contentious IEP team meetings with the goal of maximizing the school district’s outcomes while minimizing the parent’s outcomes. This winlose strategy often follows a predictable sequence of behaviors. First, school personnel make an extreme opening offer. This offer is intended to skew the negotiating range in the school district’s favor, influence expectations about minimal acceptable terms, and create an impression of “toughness.” Parties then compromise slowly as they try to get the other side to give in first. Threats, arguments, and commitment to unalterable positions are used in attempt to coerce the other party to accept the proposal. The

Possibilities

5

other party is to be convinced that what they want is unreasonable and unattainable. In other words, if they want to avoid ending the interaction without an agreement, they will have to make significant concessions. Eventually parents and school personnel either accept the available terms for the agreement or pursue their legal options for dispute resolution. This win-lose strategy for approaching difficult IEP team meetings has at least two major drawbacks. First, in going for the win, relationships are often severely damaged. As one party sees itself bending to the will of the other, anger and resentment build. This would be fine if we were negotiating with a real estate agent whom we would never interact with again. However, when school personnel and parents are negotiating the substance of an IEP, they will need to count on each other’s goodwill and cooperation for many years. If the school district gets the agreement sought while the parents’ concerns go unaddressed, the parents will approach future interactions with a lack of trust toward school personnel’s intentions. The school may claim a temporary victory, but in the long run the price of that victory is likely to be steep. Second, even if an agreement is reached, the “losing side” will have little motivation to carry out the agreed upon actions. Sometimes the losing side will seek to get revenge by sabotaging the agreement. At a minimum, the significance of single negative events will be magnified. Lacking confidence to fully accept school personnel’s demonstration of good faith efforts, parents will not give school district personnel the benefit of the doubt.

WIN-WIN NEGOTIATING Considering the shortcomings of win-lose negotiating for difficult IEP team meetings, school district personnel must consider an alternative. Win-win negotiating is that option. Win-win negotiating is a side-by-side search for an agreement that is advantageous to both parties. The goal of win-win negotiating is to resolve mutual problems to both parties’ satisfaction while maintaining high-quality relationships. This style of negotiating is advantageous to school professionals for two reasons. First, in the case of school professionals and parents

6

Chapter 1

of special needs children it is never enough to simply resolve the immediate issue. Over the course of a school career the parents of a child with special needs and school personnel will have many required and some voluntary interactions. If the respective parties do not feel positive after their current interaction, they are likely to dread the next one and therefore have more difficulty dealing with it positively. School personnel must think ahead to the effect the current interaction will have on the next one, and the one after that. The win-win style of negotiating enables parties to maintain or improve their working relationship while pursuing solutions that satisfy competing or conflicting interests. Second, the solution reached must be durable. Reaching agreement is one thing, implementing that agreement is quite another. Whether it be consciously or unconsciously, parents that are coerced into accepting the school’s position frequently do not feel invested in the implementation of the program developed. As a result, they do not actively support the IEP or the school personnel expected to implement it. In some cases, parents will go so far as to undermine the program in order to prove that what was decided upon does not work. If we want the parents’ support for implementing the actions prescribed in the IEP, we need them to feel like they are active participants in the process. Without this support, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to effectively implement the program decided upon. The win-win style of negotiating leads to solutions that are more likely to succeed and endure.

THE ADMINISTRATOR’S ROLE It has been my experience that a school administrator’s presence is requested when an IEP-related issue has become difficult. His or her actions at this critical juncture can be the difference between a wise agreement and significant financial loss to the school district, weakened or destroyed relationships between parents and school personnel, and increased stress levels for all of the meeting participants. While they may not think of their role in this way, the reality is school administrators attending difficult IEP team meetings are negotiators. They participate in a back and forth process of commu-

Possibilities

7

nication between school personnel and parents with the purpose of reaching an agreement. Usually they attempt to build upon shared interests as they bridge the gap between the positions held by the school district and the parents. Negotiating is both an art and science that requires the use of specific knowledge and skills. Few school administrator preparation programs provide training in the use of negotiating skills. As a result, when faced with the need to fulfill this role most school administrators rely on the negotiating skills they have learned from other life experiences. Unfortunately, while these strategies may work well when attempting to purchase a car, they often leave IEP meeting participants feeling dissatisfied, worn out, and alienated.

OVERVIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS BOOK Because of the financial costs, weakened or destroyed relationships, and stress for both families and school personnel, prevention of avoidable IEP-related conflicts makes sense. Thus, a high priority for any school administrator working with parents and special education students should be fostering school personnel’s use of collaborative strategies to prevent unnecessary conflicts. Guidelines all staff members working with special education students should follow for achieving this goal are described in chapter 2. Despite the effective use of collaborative strategies by school personnel, some conflicts between school districts and parents are inevitable. Effective resolution of these difficult IEP-related issues is more likely to occur when highly skilled professionals use a systematic process. To be highly skilled at resolving difficult IEP-related issues school personnel must have knowledge of the psychological principles of persuasion as well as the ability to effectively apply persuasive communication skills. Describing and then developing these competencies among school staff members are the subjects of chapters 3 and 4. As illustrated in figure 1.1 there are three sequential steps that should compose the process used by school personnel to resolve difficult IEP-related issues.

8

Chapter 1

Figure 1.1. The Process for Resolving Difficult IEP-Related Issues

Each of these three phases consists of a sequential set of steps. A description of these sequential steps for preparing to resolve difficult IEP-related issues at IEP team meetings is the subject of chapter 5. Chapter 6 describes the steps for effectively conducting these difficult meetings. In chapter 7, the reader will find a series of strategies for effectively dealing with common “dirty tricks” and tactics parents or their representatives may use in an attempt to obtain their desired results from the school district. The final chapter focuses on using a continuous improvement model to build organizational competence in the strategies described throughout the previous seven chapters. A strong emphasis in this chapter is placed on the use of reflection for capturing and then reusing what has been learned from each meeting.

2 3

Prevention

People who fight with fire usually end up with ashes. —Abigail Van Buren

D

uring the process of developing an individualized education program for a student with a disability, conflicts frequently arise. Caring, concerned parents rightfully want the absolute best services for their child. On the other hand, in order to work with limited budgets and resources, responsible school personnel must restrict what they provide for each student with a disability to what is appropriate. These differences in expectations establish a context in which differences of opinion inevitably arise. In the majority of cases both parties are able to successfully resolve their differences. More specifically, usually an agreement is reached that satisfies each side’s most important needs. In addition, the working relationship between the parties remains intact enough for the sides to continue collaborative work together to meet the child’s educational needs. However, in the minority of cases the differences between the parties escalate to the point of becoming destructive. This is the point where costly actions such as due process hearings and requests for out-of-district placements are initiated. When conflicts reach this

9

10

Chapter 2

juncture, the parties usually stop communicating directly. Instead, communication usually occurs through each side’s attorney. Considering the incompatible nature of the parties’ expectations, why do only some IEP-related conflicts escalate to the point of being destructive? If this question can be answered, then the factors contributing to the escalation of conflict can be identified. Once behaviors that escalate conflict are identified, then steps can be taken to prevent some IEP-related conflicts from reaching the point of becoming destructive. Because of the financial costs, weakened or destroyed relationships, and stress for both families and school personnel, prevention of destructive IEP-related conflicts should be a high priority for every school administrator. The remainder of this chapter will describe the Golden Guidelines for Collaboration that when applied correctly by school personnel will contain or de-escalate many otherwise potentially destructive conflicts.

TRUST Trust is the foundational element in most issues that involve conflict between parents and school personnel (Lake and Billingsley 2000). More specifically, the ability to effectively communicate, problem solve, and make decisions all hinge upon the level of trust between parents and school personnel. When trust between the parents and school personnel is intact, parents’ confidence regarding the actions of school personnel is high. Because they are confident in the capabilities of the staff and believe in the positive nature of the staff’s intentions, parents that trust school personnel are usually willing to give school personnel the benefit of the doubt when minor events become problematic. Parents that trust school personnel usually will tolerate occasional negative events without attaching too much significance to any single event (Lake and Billingsley 2000). On the other hand, parents having broken-trust relationships with school personnel often question everything school personnel do or recommend. Parents in broken-trust relationships lack the confidence to fully accept school personnel’s demonstration of good faith efforts (Lake and Billingsley 2000). Sadly, once the bonds of trust between school personnel and parents are broken, it is very difficult

Prevention

11

to reestablish them. Thus, preventing a breakdown in trust between school personnel and parents is the single most important strategy for preventing or containing potentially destructive conflicts. One strategy for keeping trust intact is being dependable. In other words, school personnel must follow through with the actions they agree to take. If it turns out to be impossible to meet an agreedupon commitment, school personnel’s conduct will appear more trustworthy if they let the parents know as soon as possible. School personnel build parents’ confidence in their reliability by informing parents of the problem and what they are doing to resolve the situation. A second strategy for maintaining trust is the demonstration of discretion. In order to be trustworthy, school personnel must show good judgment related to the disclosure of confidential information about the student or family. Trustworthy school personnel share only the necessary information with those individuals that need to know it for achieving their work-related responsibilities. Furthermore, they convey any personal or sensitive information in settings with an appropriate degree of privacy. Lastly, parents need to be able to trust that school personnel will keep their child physically and emotionally safe. Trustworthy school personnel take the necessary steps to ensure all children are treated with dignity and protected from teasing and bullying. Golden Guideline 1: Above all else, strive to maintain a trusting relationship with parents.

THE DEFICIT PERSPECTIVE Imagine sitting around a table with a group of individuals you entrust with an important part of your child’s life. As you sit at this table, these individuals take turns describing in detail only those things the child you love cannot do. At a minimum, this type of interaction will generate feelings of sadness and frustration within the parents of that child. An even more likely outcome will be parental anger, suspicion, and resentment of school personnel. As children grow older, the majority of parents realize that their children have both strengths and weaknesses. Due to the nature of their disabilities, children receiving individualized education

12

Chapter 2

programs frequently struggle with educational tasks. Yet, outside of school these same children often display a variety of talents and skills (Pruitt, Wandry, and Hollums 1998). Unfortunately, when school personnel meet to develop an IEP, there is a tendency to focus exclusively on those things the child with a disability cannot do in school. Thus, parents are left with the perception that school personnel do not understand their child as a “whole” person. A potential result of this perceived partial understanding is a lack of confidence in school personnel’s recommendations for programs and services. The parents of a child with a disability may reasonably conclude that since you do not have a complete and accurate understanding of their child, you cannot be trusted to know what is in the best interest of their child. As part of developing an individualized education program, school personnel must tactfully and honestly describe the child’s educational needs. These needs serve as the basis for developing the goals and objectives that will determine the remainder of the education program. However, school personnel must strike a balance between identifying the child’s areas of weakness with a clear, accurate presentation of the strengths the child displays in school. I have never met a child that did not display some positive traits and abilities in school. Admittedly, for some students it has been more difficult to identify these positive characteristics. Yet, when school personnel take the time to view the child through the lens of strength instead of weakness, inevitably positive traits and abilities become evident. The members of the IEP team must take the time to notice and then communicate these positive characteristics. Furthermore, to enhance the credibility of their statements, they must speak both descriptively and specifically. Consider the difference between the statements, “Your son is very creative” and “Jason recently completed a ceramics project in art class. The design of his piece of pottery showed both creativity and attention to detail.” The detail and specificity of the second statement make it appear more genuine. A goal of every IEP team meeting should be to make sure the parents of the child are confident that school personnel have an accurate perception of both what their child can and cannot do. Believing this, parents will be more receptive to your suggestions for programs and services.

Prevention

13

Golden Guideline 2: Present parents with a balanced picture of their child’s strengths and weaknesses in school.

EQUALITY I recently observed an IEP team meeting that became tense. The special education teacher on the team was relating to the parents her observation that the child did not know his colors and numbers. The parents were adamant that their child could identify colors and numbers when he was at home. This discrepancy led to a disagreement that was quickly escalating toward becoming personal. Thankfully, the school administrator attending the meeting was wise enough to point out that both of these statements were likely true. He pointed out the situation-dependant nature of behavior and led the team past thinking their observations were mutually exclusive. Eventually the two parties talked about the differences in the circumstances surrounding the behavior. After a few minutes the IEP team agreed to implement one of the strategies the parents had found to be effective at home. Parents’ and school personnel’s observations can and should inform one another. Unfortunately this usually does not happen (Pruitt, Wandry, and Hollums 1998). Instead, parents’ points of view are typically discounted or ignored (Lake and Billingsley 2000). The perception of being devalued in this manner is one factor that can lead to the escalation of conflict. As the one constant in their children’s lives, parents have valuable information to offer professionals. It is true that in most cases they lack the same professional training. Yet as was demonstrated through the previous example, educators who solicit, listen to, and respect parents’ knowledge of their child may be able to use that information to develop better individualized education programs. Even if their contributions regarding educational planning and instruction are inappropriate, they must be listened to and considered without prejudice. At a minimum, actively listening to and validating parents’ opinions creates the perception that school personnel are supportive and nonjudgmental. When school personnel are perceived in this manner, the potential for destructive conflict between parents and schools is greatly reduced.

14

Chapter 2

Golden Guideline 3: Solicit, acknowledge, and validate parents’ knowledge of their child.

EMPATHY It can certainly be challenging to work with a student that has special needs. When students demonstrate the behaviors of forgetfulness, disorganization, aggression, and impulsivity, it is commonly stressful for the staff members working with those students. Unfortunately, one common response to this stress is for staff members to blame the student’s parents for the child’s behavior. Statements such as, “He behaves this way because his parents do not provide any discipline at home” and “She does not do well in school because her parents don’t help her study” exemplify this attitude. Ironically, the staff members making these statements usually do so because of their frustration or lack of success in working with the student. These staff members are frustrated or ineffective in their work with the student, despite their professional training and experience, a structured setting, and the availability of support staff to assist them. Yet, at the end of the school day these same children return home to parents that usually do not have these same supports or knowledge. Instead of directing blame toward these parents, educators would be wise to focus on being empathetic. Empathy can have both cognitive and affective components. Cognitive empathy involves taking the perspective of another person, inferring his or her thoughts and feelings (Ickes 1997). This dimension of empathy enables the listener to take the other person’s perspective, while at the same time remaining cognizant that the feelings and thoughts expressed belong to the other person. The affective dimension of empathy involves experiencing emotions appropriate to the situation. The listener comes to experience the same or compatible emotions of the other person. For example, along with understanding the situation from the other person’s perspective, the listener may feel distress when confronted with the distress of others, or pity in response to another’s sorrow and loss. When working with parents of students with special needs, both dimensions of empathy are typically valuable.

Prevention

15

When parents feel like you understand their motives or rationale, they will be more open to working with you (Gorman 2004). Even if you do not understand their point of view, through your affect you can demonstrate the desire to be helpful. Just the appearance by the staff members of the desire to understand and assist is often enough to encourage parents to cooperate with school staff members (McEwan 1998). Golden Guideline 4: Seek to understand parents’ thoughts and feelings.

RESPECT It is approximately 4:30 and you are gathering your things to go home for the evening. Just then, a parent of one of your special needs students calls your classroom. Almost as soon as you pick up the phone you are presented with several complaints. One of which is that you forgot to sign the student’s homework pad. As a result of your not completing this task, her child did not bring home everything needed for that evening’s homework. After informing you of the level of inconvenience returning to the school for the materials causes her family, she proceeds to tell you that you should check the pad and his backpack right before the student leaves to get on the bus. At the end of a long and difficult day, this teacher may be tempted to remind this parent that her child is not the only child in class. Communicating respectfully can be difficult to do when a staff member feels fatigued, stressed, frustrated, or angry. Yet, statements made when feeling exasperated cannot be retracted and may do irreparable damage to the parent-school relationship. If the timing is bad and you need time to collect yourself, simply thank the parent for her input and agree to think about what has been said. Then designate a realistic and appropriate time at which you will get back in touch with her. Respectful communication also includes common courtesy. For example, school personnel demonstrate respect when they refer to parents by their last names or they ask for permission to refer to them on a first name basis. A second example of demonstrating respect is the value shown for another’s time. Promptly returning

16

Chapter 2

phone calls and starting meetings on time demonstrate respect for the parents’ time. By extension, these behaviors demonstrate respect for the individual. When parents feel respected by school personnel, conflicts will be more easily addressed. Golden Guideline 5: Treat parents with respect and dignity.

COMMUNICATION Effective communication skills are vital for developing and maintaining positive relationships between school personnel and parents of students with special needs. Listening, verbal, and nonverbal skills are so important an entire chapter is devoted to this topic. Solely for the ease of explanation, this section focuses on the substance and nature of the communication. In reality, the skills used to communicate and the subject of the communication are interrelated with one serving to reinforce the other. In order to prevent or contain conflict with parents of students with special needs, school personnel must communicate regularly and honestly. Brief but frequent contacts help to build relationships with parents. For many reasons, it may be tempting to try and avoid interacting with some of the parents of students with special needs. However, limiting your interactions with these parents to only those required by law or district regulations will not build the necessary working relationship. Consistent use of written notes, home-school journals, and phone calls detailing successes as well as concerns will go a long way toward improving the quality of communication. Think of consistent, balanced communication with the parents of special needs students as the equivalent of a deposit in the bank account of “personal goodwill.” Having made a significant number of deposits, you will have the ability to make a withdrawal when faced with a difficult situation. Deceptive or dishonest communication is another factor that will generate conflict. Parents may request information that you are either uncomfortable or unable to provide. Examples of the types of requests that fall into this category are information about another

Prevention

17

student’s program, the personal life of a staff member, and district finances. You are not being dishonest when you refuse to answer these requests. Honesty does not equate to full disclosure. However, it does require a clear indication of those areas about which full disclosure should not be expected and an explanation of why it is not appropriate to provide the requested information. In addition, school personnel must be honest about what they do choose to disclose to parents. If parents request information that you should know but you do not have the answer to, it is better to be truthful. Most parents will respect a staff member who is not afraid to admit when they do not know something (Banning-Blue et al. 2004). The important caveat to this is that the staff member must express the willingness to obtain and then provide that information. While usually unintentional, unexplained educational jargon can lead to misunderstandings. Special education has many terms and acronyms that are understood by professionals but not by parents. Use of this language by professionals may be interpreted by parents as a deliberate attempt to be deceptive (Gorman 2004). The true quality of attempted communication is not what the sender intends to communicate. Rather the quality of attempted communication is determined by what the receiver understands. To be effective communicators, school staff members must speak to parents in a manner that can be easily understood. Frequent, clear, and balanced communication provided by school staff may prevent or contain destructive conflict between parents and schools. Golden Guideline 6: Communicate with parents clearly, honestly, and regularly.

COMMITMENT If you are grocery shopping and you see the parent of a student you work with, do you purposefully go in the opposite direction? How school staff members answer this question may have value for preventing destructive conflict.

18

Chapter 2

Parents of students with special needs appreciate and respect professionals that demonstrate commitment and dedication to their work (Banning-Blue et al. 2004). Parents of special needs students have a need to feel reassured that those staff members working with their children think of their role as more than simply a means to earning a paycheck. Demonstration of this type of commitment comes in many forms. One example is the willingness to meet with parents outside of contractually required work hours. Another is remembering their child’s birthday or bringing materials from home to use in working with their child. And yes, simply speaking to the parents when crossing paths in the community is often perceived as demonstrating professional commitment. Professionals demonstrating these behaviors prove that the relationships with the individuals being served are as much if not more important than tangible career rewards. This in turn provides parents with assurance that these professionals are devoted to the success of their child. This devotion can go a long way toward generating the goodwill that prevents or contains potentially destructive conflicts. Golden Guideline 7: Through words and actions demonstrate that you perceive your role as more than just a job.

ATMOSPHERE Picture yourself walking into a room for a meeting to discuss your child’s medical condition and finding seven doctors. Each of these doctors has a different specialty area. While waiting for an eighth doctor to arrive so that the meeting can begin, the doctors present engage in informal discussion about the latest hospital policies. Change the type of professionals from doctors to educators and you could accurately capture the experience many parents of students with special needs have when they arrive for an IEP meeting. In many if not most cases, the tone established by this atmosphere will not be conducive to promoting collaborative interactions between parents and school personnel.

Prevention

19

Just the abundance of school personnel attending team meetings is often a deterrent to collaboration. Many parents feel intimidated by the number of school personnel attending IEP team meetings (Gorman 2004). Although multiple professionals may be required to attend an IEP team meeting, whenever possible that number should be limited to only those necessary. Limiting the number of professionals at each meeting will avoid overwhelming parents and will help create a more comfortable atmosphere. A minimal financial investment that promotes a more collaborative environment is the provision of refreshments. Although offering coffee or water is always a nice gesture, it has been my experience that providing a simple snack like a plate of cookies changes the meeting atmosphere dramatically. When food and beverages are offered to the parents, it is a symbolic gesture indicating they are “welcome at the table.” Feeling welcome, parents tend to be more comfortable and act more cooperatively. Another strategy for making parents feel welcome is making sure that the informal discussions prior to the start of the IEP team meeting pertain to and include everyone present. When these informal discussions do not relate to the parents, intentional or not, the message conveyed is that the parents are outsiders. Conveying this message to parents that they are outsiders reinforces the perception of “us and them.” The perception of us and them is the precursor to the perception of us versus them. Us versus them is exactly the type of relationship the guidelines in this chapter have been formulated to prevent. Golden Guideline 8: Create and maintain a welcoming environment

CONCLUSION In most situations it is both possible and desirable to prevent or contain destructive conflicts between the parents of students with special needs and school personnel. Every staff member competently applying the eight guidelines in figure 2.1 and presented throughout this chapter will go a long way toward achieving this goal.

20

Chapter 2

Figure 2.1. The Golden Guidelines

Considering the human and financial costs associated with destructive conflicts between parents and schools, appropriate application of these guidelines by school staff members should be a high priority for every school administrator.

3 3

Principles of Persuasion

If I can persuade, I can move the universe. —Frederick Douglass

O

nce I was sitting at a traffic light waiting for the light to change when a man came to my window and offered me a small piece of candy. Because I was daydreaming I had not noticed that he and several other individuals were soliciting donations for a local organization. After accepting the offering, I reached into my wallet and placed a dollar into the donation container. As the light changed and I moved through the intersection I found myself pondering this transaction. Neither did I ask for nor did I want this piece of candy. In fact, I threw it into the trash as soon as I arrived at my destination. Yet, not only had I accepted this piece of candy from a complete stranger, I had just given him money to support a cause I could not even name! I knew that several other people attending the same gathering would have been required to travel through this same intersection. Out of curiosity, I asked those individuals if they also made a donation. I discovered that four out of the five individuals asked had also made a donation to support this cause. One of my fellow donators related that he told the person soliciting donations he did not want the candy. However, the stranger 21

22

Chapter 3

insisted that he take it as a gift from the charity he was collecting for. Upon reluctantly accepting this offering, he felt he had no choice but to make a donation. The person who did not make a donation shared that she had sped up her car to make it through the intersection. She did not want to have to wait at the red light because she had only higher denominations of cash in her wallet. She did not want to be placed in the position of having to say no to the people soliciting donations. None of my fellow donators wanted the candy offered. Yet, somehow by taking it we all felt obligated to give a larger donation than we normally would have made. Only one of the four of us who made a donation could remember the name of the charity. Feeling a slight sense of relief that I was not the only patsy, I began to wonder why we all had reacted in this manner. Logically we all could have politely said no to the request without facing any obvious negative consequences. Yet four of us had donated money to a cause we knew nothing about in return for a piece of candy we did not want. The nondonator in the group chose instead to endanger her safety and risk breaking the law in order to avoid the situation. As I was driving home that evening I took a different route so I could avoid the same intersection. The miles added to my trip as a result of the detour provided me with additional time for reflection. I found myself thinking about several difficult parent situations I was experiencing in my role as the director of special education. Despite research evidence, assessment results, and legal statutes supporting what I considered to be logical and reasonable assertions, I could not get a few of the parents of students with special needs to agree with the school district on several IEP-related decisions. Half-serious, I thought to myself maybe I could get them to agree if I gave them a piece of candy! While I never did try the strategy of offering candy, the situation did spark my interest in strategies that work to influence people’s thoughts and behaviors. After careful review of scientific literature on the psychology of persuasion, I came to realize that people develop certain responses to common situations in the persuasion process. Furthermore, these responses to specific stimuli make it possible to predict behavior and therefore persuade others (Hogan 2007). The remainder of this chapter is dedicated to the description of the effective use of five of these stimuli. Each stimuli and the predictable behavior it elicits will be referred to as a principle of per-

Principles of Persuasion

23

suasion. Learning to correctly apply these principles of persuasion will dramatically increase the probability of influencing others to your way of thinking. Just as important, it will allow you to identify when others are using these principles in an attempt to unfairly manipulate you.

THE PRINCIPLE OF RECIPROCITY Imagine that it is the holiday season and you have just received a gift from a coworker. Neither did you buy a gift for this person, nor did you have any intention of doing so. In fact, this individual is someone you do not work closely with and do not know very well. Yet, upon receiving the gift you tell this coworker that the gift you have for them is still at your home. On your way home from work that evening you brave the local mall in search of a gift for this coworker. You not only feel obligated to get a gift, you are determined to purchase one that is of equal monetary value to the one you received. After all, you do not want your coworkers to think you are rude or cheap. This scenario is but one example of the powerful persuasiveness of the principle of reciprocity. The principle of reciprocity states that we shall try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided to us. The principle requires that one sort of action be reciprocated with a similar type of action. For example, a favor provided to another is to be reciprocated with a favor at some point in the future. Every human society requires this type of quid pro quo exchange (Granger 2008). Correctly applied the principle of reciprocity has powerful implications for negotiation strategy. Negotiations of all types involve compromises. The principle of reciprocity dictates that when reaching these compromises one party has an obligation to make a concession to the other in return for receiving a concession. Skilled negotiators apply this phenomenon by using a planned sequence of larger to smaller requests. For example, in an IEP meeting the administrator begins the discussion by making a program proposal he knows the parents will reject. After the parents have refused the request, the administrator makes the smaller request he was truly interested in obtaining. Provided the administrator has structured the request skillfully, the

24

Chapter 3

parents will view the second request as a concession. In response, the parents feel obligated to respond with a concession of their own—compliance with the second request. Importantly, if the first set of demands is perceived to be extreme or unreasonable, this tactic does not work (Cialdini 2007). The party making the extreme or unreasonable initial request is perceived as not bargaining in good faith. As a result, any subsequent retreat from the initial position is not viewed as a genuine concession. Thus, the concessions made will not be reciprocated by the other party. The skilled administrator attempting to apply this aspect of the principle of reciprocity must establish an initial position that is exaggerated enough to allow for a series of reciprocal concessions, yet is not so extreme as to appear unreasonable from the start. There are two positive by-products of this sequence of reciprocal concessions. First, not only does this larger to small request sequence encourage people to comply with the desired request, it results in increased feelings of ownership for the final outcomes. Because they believe they have made their negotiation counterpart change their initial position from the larger to smaller request, the opposing party feels responsible for having dictated the final agreement. Feeling responsible for creating the outcome, the opposing party is more likely to carry through with their end of the agreement. Second, an agreement that has been forged through the achievement of concessions from one’s opponent is perceived to be very satisfying (Cialdini 2007). As a result of this feeling of satisfaction, the opposing party is more likely to engage in further such agreements. In sum, as long as the larger to smaller sequence is not viewed as an attempt at manipulation, it is likely to produce concessions from the opposition and at the same time encourage them to feel a greater sense of responsibility for and satisfaction with the outcomes.

THE PRINCIPLE OF COMMITMENT AND CONSISTENCY A wife approaches her husband and asks the question, “Does it make sense for us to be driving a car that uses so much gas, constantly needs to be in the shop for repairs, and lacks the safety features of some of the newer cars on the market?” Without much thought, the unsuspecting husband replies that this does not make sense. The

Principles of Persuasion

25

wife then proceeds to ask her husband what day during the next two weeks would be a good one to go shopping for a new car. Because of his agreement with her initial statement, the husband now feels obligated to provide her with a date for their shopping trip. She has masterfully used the persuasion principle of commitment and consistency to achieve her goal of getting her husband to shop for a new car. According to the principle of commitment and consistency, once we have made a choice or taken a stand on an issue, we will encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that commitment. These personal and interpersonal pressures cause individuals to then respond in ways that justify their earlier decision. Once again, correctly applied this principle of persuasion has a dramatic impact on negotiation strategy. The reason the principle of commitment and consistency is so powerful is that once a stand has been taken there is a natural tendency to behave in a manner that remains stubbornly consistent with that stand (Cialdini 2007). Thus, if one side in a negotiation can get the other side to make a commitment, then they will have set the stage for getting the other party to respond to future issues in a manner that is consistent with that previous commitment. Consider an IEP team meeting in which the special education administrator asks the parents, “If we can meet all of the current aspects of your child’s IEP, will you agree to educate your child in the public school district instead of at a private school?” If the parents agree to this and then the school district does demonstrate its ability to provide the appropriate services, it will be very difficult for the parents to then disagree with educating their child in the public school setting. There are three factors that impact upon the ability of a commitment to influence future behavior. The first factor relates to starting with smaller commitments and then proceeding to larger ones. For example, the special education administrator in the prior example might have started his attempt at influencing the parents by asking them, “Do you wish that your child was known by some of the other children in the community?” or “Does the bus ride to his private school seem long to you?” An affirmative answer to these less controversial questions will increase the probability of obtaining compliance with similar, yet larger requests.

26

Chapter 3

A second factor resulting in a prior commitment having more influence over future commitments is the act of making the commitment public. Public commitments tend to be long-lasting commitments (Cialdini 2007). Whenever a person takes a stand that is visible to others, there arises a need to maintain that stand in order to appear consistent. Thus, if the special education administrator in the previous example asked the parents to make a list of the requirements necessary for appropriately educating their child, he could use this written record to identify those items that could be provided by the school district. If the school then demonstrated the ability to adequately provide the items listed, the parents will likely feel compelled to agree with the school about the educational placement. Lastly, commitments having the greatest influence over future commitment are those that individuals take inner responsibility for having made. To feel a sense of inner responsibility for a decision, an individual must believe they made a choice in the absence of strong outside pressure. Once made, commitments made in the absence of strong external pressure begin generating their own internal support (Cialdini 2007). For example, if the parents of a child in a private school placement believe they have made the commitment to place their child in the public school, then they will begin convincing themselves it was the right thing to do for their child. Regardless of their initial feelings on the subject, having made this decision they are likely to now become advocates for other parents making similar choices.

THE PRINCIPLE OF SOCIAL PROOF The pool my family and I belong to in the summer requires children to take a “test” before being allowed to swim in the deep end. This test requires the child to swim from one side of the pool to the other without stopping. After taking my daughter to swim lessons for most of the winter, I knew she could easily pass this test. Yet, despite my repeated attempts at convincing her she could pass it, she consistently refused to take the test. I could not understand my daughter’s reluctance because she desperately wanted to play “all fish in the water” with her brother and his friends in the deep end of the pool.

Principles of Persuasion

27

One day when she was at the pool with her mother she decided to take the test and passed. Over dinner that evening I asked her why she decided it was time to take the test. She informed me that two friends of approximately the same age had done it, so she believed it was now her turn. This behavior is one example of the persuasive nature of the principle of social proof. The principle of social proof states that one method we use to determine what is correct is to find out what other people think is correct. My daughter decided it was her turn because two of her same age peers had taken and passed this test. This behavior by her peers was more influential then the confidence she had developed from her swim lessons as well as her father’s encouragement. Like all of the other persuasion principles described in this chapter, there are several factors that must be considered in order to correctly apply this principle. First, in general, when we are unsure of ourselves or when the situation is unclear or ambiguous is the moment when we are most likely to look to and accept the actions of others as correct (Cialdini 2007). In other words, when uncertainty reigns there is a natural tendency to look at the actions of others for clues to how we should act. The entire special education process, including an IEP meeting, is commonly an uncertain time for the parents of children with special education needs. Thus, according to the principle of social proof, these parents will look to and accept the actions of others when determining their own decisions and actions. Yet, the actions of a few others do not have the same potential level of influence. The persuasive nature of the principle of social proof is greatest when the proof is provided by the actions of many people (Cialdini 2007). In other words, the more people engaging in an activity, the more influential that activity is likely to be on the actions of those observing. Furthermore, this principle is more influential when the behavior being observed is displayed by individuals perceived to be similar. In other words, people are more inclined to follow the example of a person they believe they share common characteristics with. These common characteristics include but are not limited to age, sex, level of education, common interests, and shared personal background. How can this principle be applied when dealing with difficult IEP-related issues? Suppose the school was attempting to obtain the parents’ consent to remove a student’s personal aide. One powerful

28

Chapter 3

method for convincing these parents of the viability of this option would be to have the parents speak with another parent of a child who has had a positive experience with this transition. The more similar the children and parents, the more influential this conversation will be. Furthermore, if multiple parents share their positive experiences with this transition, the social proof will be overwhelming.

THE PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY In my role as the assistant superintendent I was responsible for chairing the district’s instructional council. One charge for the council during this particular school year was the selection of a new elementary school math series. Bear in mind that I never taught below the fifth grade level and my expertise is not in mathematics. Yet, these experienced elementary schoolteachers who had a great deal of experience teaching elementary school math consistently deferred to my opinion when it came to decision making. In retrospect, I can only conclude that they were being influenced by the principle of authority. The principle of authority states that when people perceive someone as having legitimate authority they respond with unthinking, automatic compliance to that individual’s requests. From early childhood humans are socialized to believe that obedience to proper authority is right and disobedience is wrong (Cialdini 2007). Thus, if the parents you are meeting with believe you are an authority on the subject of discussion, you are well on the way to successful persuasion. One obvious way to establish this authority is to actually be an expert on the topic of discussion. If you or someone on your negotiating team already has the expertise and information required to create the perception of being an authority on the topic of discussion, then you need to appropriately share this fact early in the dialogue. An introduction of yourself or a staff member could serve the purpose of establishing this desired perception of credibility. For example, a school principal introducing the school psychologist at an IEP meeting might say, “Mr. and Mrs. Smith, prior to becoming our school psychologist Janice had fourteen years of experience teaching students with autism spectrum disorders. During the six years

Principles of Persuasion

29

she has served as our school psychologist she has earned national certification as an applied behavior analyst. Her recent presentation at the National Council of School Psychologists convention as well as her doctoral dissertation research is on the very topic we are here to discuss today.” On the other hand, if you do not have the expertise and information required, then you must obtain it by doing the research required. For example, if parents are requesting a particular assistive technology device, then you must make it your mission to learn everything you can about that device. Not only must you learn everything you can, you must be prepared to share precise, specific information about what you have learned. For example, a speech and language specialist at a difficult IEP meeting might respond to a parent’s request with the statement, “Mrs. Young, you have indicated that you would like us to provide an XYZ machine for your son. However, according to the recent report issued by the National Association of Speech, Language, and Hearing Specialists this device has not proven to be effective. Preliminary findings are that this device may be harmful to a student’s progress.” When you are specific, you are more likely to be perceived as being an expert (Granger 2008). People are often as vulnerable to the symbols of authority as they are to the substance. Professional titles such as superintendent, assistant superintendent, director of special education are symbols of authority. These titles convey power and influence. Similarly earned academic titles like those coming from the completion of a doctoral program symbolize having achieved a high level of specialized knowledge or expertise. If you have these titles use them during difficult IEP team meetings to convey your authority and credibility. A second authority symbol that frequently triggers automatic compliance is clothing. Finely styled, formal clothes carry an aura of status and position. For this reason, if you anticipate a meeting at which you will need to establish your authority it is best to dress the part.

THE PRINCIPLE OF LIKING I am normally very good at politely dismissing salesmen who come to my door. However, recently I found myself going against this

30

Chapter 3

pattern of behavior and listening carefully to a salesman’s pitch. It was not the product being described that kept me standing outside my door. Rather, the salesman began his pitch by stating that he had been told by my friend that I may be interested in the product he was selling. This friend is both someone whose children play with mine and someone my wife and I socialize with regularly. I ended up listening to the salesman simply because of the positive feelings I had for my friend. Even worse, I made a purchase and gave the salesman the name of two more friends to contact! The principle of liking states that we prefer to say yes to the requests of those we know and like. Effectively applying this principle requires an understanding of the factors that reliably cause individuals to like one another. One such factor is the degree of similarity shared by two individuals. In general, people like others who are similar to them. This remains true regardless of whether the similarity is in the area of opinions, personality, backgrounds, or lifestyle (Cialdini 2007). To create this aura of sameness, school personnel should seek out and discuss common interests with parents. These common interests can be anything from hobbies to travel to favorite sports teams. Once identified, even small similarities between people can be very effective at producing compliance to a request. As a rule, people tend to believe compliments and to like those who provide them. However, when we can be certain the praise is an attempt at manipulation we will not have this same positive reaction. In order to produce a feeling of liking, and as a result willing compliance, school personnel should make it a point to provide sincere compliments to the parents of students they are meeting with. While there are limits to what anyone can do in this area, physically attractive individuals are better liked (Hogan 2007). People automatically assign to physically attractive individuals such favorable traits as kindness, intelligence, talent, and honesty (Cialdini 2007). Furthermore, they make these judgments without being aware of the pivotal role physical attractiveness plays in the process. Therefore, any appropriate actions school personnel can take to enhance their physical appearance will improve how they are viewed by parents. Working toward cooperative goals is an additional powerful force creating a sense of liking between individuals. School personnel must strive to use both their words and actions to encourage parents

Principles of Persuasion

31

to believe both parties must “work together for the mutual benefit of their child.” Parents will like more of those individuals whom they perceive to be working together with and for them. On rare occasions, as the administrator present for a difficult IEP team meeting, I would purposefully come across as difficult and stubborn. Around the midpoint of the meeting I would plan to have an interruption requiring me to leave the meeting for a few minutes. Prior to this meeting, the case manager and I had discussed the eventual outcomes we hoped to achieve as a result of this meeting. He knew that once I left the room, he was to talk to the parents about what “they” would have to do in order to convince me to agree on the issues being discussed. Upon my return, the case manager would negotiate on the parents’ behalf to achieve those agreements. I would continue to act stubborn and difficult, but eventually would agree to those things we had discussed as desired outcomes from the meeting. As a lastditch effort to obtain agreement without a due process hearing, this technique was extremely effective. One caution to bear in mind regarding the principle of liking is that there is a tendency to dislike anyone that provides us with unpleasant information. People feel this way even if they realize the person sharing the unpleasant information did not cause the bad news (Cialdini 2007). For this reason, whenever possible, unpleasant information should be delivered by those staff members who do not need to work cooperatively and frequently with the parents of the child. As the special education administrator I had the responsibility of being the person who would deny a parent’s request. Whenever possible I did not ask a staff member to assume this role. My rationale was that these individuals needed to maintain a positive working relationship with the parents of special needs children. The relationship between staff members and parents remained much more collaborative and effective when I was the one disliked for being associated with bad news.

CONCLUSION An understanding of these five principles of persuasion is critical for the effective use of many of the negotiation strategies described in

32

Chapter 3

subsequent chapters. So powerful are these principles at influencing the actions and decisions of others that a caution is in order. None of the principles described is inherently either ethical or unethical. How the principle is applied determines whether it is being used for an ethical purpose. Once you understand and can effectively apply these principles, it will be your choice of how you apply them. I hope you will make this choice with the best interests of students in mind.

4 3

Persuasive Communications

The problem with communication is the illusion that it has occurred. —George Bernard Shaw

H

aving a thorough understanding of the principles of persuasion presented in the previous chapter is a necessary prerequisite for becoming a persuasive communicator. Yet, by themselves these principles of persuasion are insufficient for influencing the actions or decisions of others. In order to be persuasive, an individual must have high levels of communication skills. More specifically, successful persuasion is highly dependent upon the application of four key communication skills. Those who can communicate persuasively are skilled at asking questions, making statements, using nonverbal communication skills, and listening. Throughout the remainder of this chapter, each of these four skills will be addressed separately. The information is structured in this manner to improve the quality of the explanations. In reality, these four skills are used simultaneously as part of attempts at persuasive communication.

33

34

Chapter 4

LISTENING As I observe the communication that occurs in many difficult IEP team meetings, I am reminded of the concept of parallel play. However, instead of children playing it is adults simultaneously or alternately talking without much, if any, regard for the other party. The speakers take turns speaking and acting as an audience for each other without responding in any meaningful way to what the other person is saying. Obviously this pattern of communication does not lead to the development of collaborative relationships. To effectively build rapport and relationships with parents during difficult IEP meetings requires the use of active listening strategies. Active listening is a process during which the listener sends back to the message sender signals indicating what the listener thinks the sender meant (Harris 2002). In active listening, the receiver of the message becomes part of the transaction and assumes active responsibility for understanding the thoughts and feelings of the message sender. Unlike “parallel” conversations, active listening does establish rapport and helps build relationships (Seeley 2005). Active listening has this effect because it is a demonstration of concern for the speaker as an individual as well as an indication of the desire to understand the other person’s perception of the situation. On the other hand, a hasty or inaccurate response to a speaker’s comments implies little concern for his or her perception of the issue and even less concern for the person as an individual. A second benefit of active listening is that it also makes it possible to obtain the sufficient level of accurate information necessary for engaging in a collaborative dialogue. Without this sufficient level of accurate information it is difficult, if not impossible, to reach a solution that meets the needs of both parties. Practicing active listening skills may be the least costly strategy staff members can use to resolve difficult IEP-related issues. Everyone feels a strong need to believe he or she has been understood. However, it may also be one of the most difficult skills to employ. The following three factors are obstacles that may interfere with staff members’ ability to employ active listening skills. First, we are all capable of receiving information through listening at a faster rate than an average speaker can convey (Friend and Cook 2007). As a result, this provides listeners with additional time to think while

Persuasive Communications

35

they are trying to listen. This additional thinking time, which may be used for daydreaming about any number of activities, may lead to losing track of the speaker’s message. Second, as the speaker is talking it is tempting for listeners to mentally engage in framing a response. In other words, having caught the drift of the message being sent, listeners mentally proceed to prepare what they will say once it is their turn to speak. As a result of this mental diversion, they miss aspects of what the speaker is saying. Third, it may be difficult to listen because attention is being drawn away from the message being conveyed. For example, suppose the individual speaking has a strong accent. Listeners may find it more difficult to focus on the words being spoken because of the distraction caused by the nature of the accent. Any physical, verbal, or environmental distraction will interfere with the ability to actively listen (Friend and Cook 2007). Considering these barriers, the first step toward improving active listening skills is to mentally prepare for listening. Prior to speaking with a parent about a difficult IEP-related subject, an attempt should be made by school personnel to deliberately shut out competing thoughts. Mentally the listener must prepare to direct her attention to the speaker. While this is a necessary first step, it is difficult to do in emotionally charged situations. As the parent is speaking, there are three types of statements staff members can make that will demonstrate they are listening. The first type of statement a staff member can make is paraphrasing. When paraphrasing, the listener restates in his own words what he believes the sender has said. The focus of the paraphrase is on relatively small units of information and there is little or no inference made. Consider the following example in which a principal and a parent are discussing an IEP-related disagreement. Parent: The teachers in your school do not have the experience or training they need in order to teach my son. Principal: You believe that our teachers don’t have the experience or training required for effectively teaching your child (inflection indicates the tentative nature of this response and suggests a querying attitude)?

36

Chapter 4

Parent: That’s right. None of your teachers have the experience working with severely autistic students. Furthermore, none of them have been trained in the verbal behavior method of instruction. Principal: You are saying that because our teachers have not had experience working with severely autistic students and they have not had formal training in the verbal behavior method of instruction, they are not prepared to work with your son. Through his accurate restating of the main points made by the parent, this principal has demonstrated attention to and an accurate understanding of what the parent is relating. A second, more complex statement the listener can make to demonstrate that he is listening involves the use of reflection. When reflecting not only does the listener restate what the speaker has said, he also uses additional words in an attempt to capture the affective message. Imagine that the previous conversation between the parent and the principal has continued: Parent: Without your teachers having this training or experience my son will not continue making progress. He has done so well in his private school placement because they understand his needs. I don’t want to see him regress. Principal: You believe your son may not continue making the same level of progress he is currently making because of our teachers’ training and experience. I sense that you are anxious about this. Parent: Yes, I am anxious. I have heard horror stories from other parents who have gone through similar transitions. They are told that the public school can do what is required to meet their children’s needs, but once their children get to the school the teachers have no idea what they are doing. Principal: Other parents have related their situations to you in which the transition back to the public school did not go well. Furthermore, it sounds as if you are apprehensive

Persuasive Communications

37

about the school district’s staff overestimating their ability to meet your son’s needs. Through restating the parent’s message and reflecting the parent’s feelings, the principal has conveyed his understanding of the situation from the parent’s point of view. Not only has he conveyed an accurate understanding of the parent’s viewpoint, he has demonstrated an understanding of, and value for, the parent’s feelings. The final type of statement the listener can make to demonstrate that he is actively listening involves summarizing. When summarizing, the listener concisely restates several of the key points made during the interaction. Unlike paraphrasing, summarizing is a response to several pieces of information, often presented by more than one speaker. Picture the principal from the exchange above as he summarizes the concerns expressed by the parents and private school teacher. Principal: Let’s see if we agree on the main points shared so far. Mr. and Mrs. Jones, you are concerned that the staff members at our school are not adequately experienced or trained to work effectively with your son. Mr. Smith (the teacher at the private school), as his teacher you are concerned that the positive behavior Jason (the son) is showing is due to his comfort level with you and his surroundings. Is this an accurate understanding of the main points shared thus far? The final question in this example demonstrates the use of checking for accuracy. When checking for accuracy the listener asks for confirmation that the restatement she has made is accurate. It is one way to enhance the probability that those involved in the interaction have a shared perception of what has been stated. Whenever the listener is in doubt about the content of her paraphrasing, reflecting, or summarizing statements she should check for accuracy.

QUESTIONING The ability to effectively ask the right questions can make the difference between a successful, collaborative interaction and one that is

38

Chapter 4

fraught with misunderstandings and miscommunication. In order to create the right question, staff members should consider two dimensions. The first dimension to consider is a decision on whether the question should be open or closed ended. Open-ended questions are designed to encourage the individual being communicated with to share the general information sought. These types of questions should be used to elicit an elaborate response. Examples of open-ended questions include: • What are your concerns with your child’s progress in school? • Why do you think that your son is not making sufficient educational progress? • How do you see these suggestions working for Adam? Used early in a conversation, well-structured open-ended questions will elicit volumes of information. By having parents elaborate on a topic, you are gaining the valuable insights required for successful persuasion. The drawback to using open-ended questions is that they enable the speaker to go off on tangents that are sometimes unrelated to the topic of discussion. Closed-ended questions are designed to obtain very specific information and answers. These types of questions should be used to limit the scope of information shared or to confirm the accuracy of information. Examples of closed-ended questions include: • Would you like to meet after school next Tuesday or Wednesday? • Does Janice have any friends in her class? • Who is older, Bob or his sister? Used after having developed a general understanding of the parent’s concerns, closed-ended questions prompt specific answers to issues not covered in the general conversation. Furthermore, close-ended questions make it possible to steer the conversation in a specific direction. The second dimension to consider when forming a question is whether the question should be direct or indirect. Most questions are asked using a direct format. If written, direct questions would end with a question mark. An example of a direct question is, “Mrs. Adams, what is your opinion of Fred’s performance in reading?”

Persuasive Communications

39

Because they are phrased as a statement, indirect questions do not query specific individuals. In addition because they begin with the word “I,” the person answering the question does not need to assume ownership for the idea expressed. An example of an indirect question is, “I wonder what would happen if we had Jeremy attend specials without his aide?” Indirect questions are particularly appropriate when you are unsure if answering a direct question would be considered offensive, awkward, or uncomfortable. A critical skill required for effectively asking questions is the use of pauses. Two particular uses of pauses can improve the effectiveness of question asking (Friend and Cook 2007). The first is the use of a brief pause before asking a question. This pause enables the speaker to phrase the question so that it will convey the intended message. The second use is to pause after asking a question. This pause allows the person being questioned to think about, phrase, and then deliver her response. Even though it may feel awkward at first, the use of pauses can be a very effective strategy for obtaining information from a respondent.

MAKING STATEMENTS Statements serve as the primary verbal method for providing information to others. Much like questions, the form and the substance of each statement will determine how it is perceived and understood by the listener. In order to meet the goal of effectively providing information, statements should be delivered with two characteristics. The first characteristic of effective statements is that they are delivered in a manner that is as neutral as possible. More specifically, statements are delivered in a way that is neither judgmental nor evaluative. Contrast the following two statements: Statement A: As her parent, you need to make sure she studies for her tests. Your leniency with her at home is causing her to get poor quiz and test grades. Statement B: Your daughter is not scoring well on the quizzes and tests I give. When she and I discussed this she told me that she does not study at home.

40

Chapter 4

The information provided in statement B is more likely to be received favorably by the listener. Unlike statement A, this statement remains focused on the facts of the situation. By avoiding judgment of the actions of those involved, the speaker of statement B can avoid provoking the distractions associated with defensive behaviors. Imprecise language is often the cause of miscommunication. Language that is vague may obscure the information sent to the point that the listener cannot accurately determine the intent of the communication. Thus, the second characteristic of statements that promote understanding is their level of specificity. Statements focused on specific behaviors are more easily understood than are general comments. For example, compare the following two statements: Statement A: I was concerned about how you reacted last time. Statement B: The last time we met, I presented you with test results for Jane. After I finished presenting the data, you expressed your disagreement with my conclusions by raising your voice and making accusations about my intentions. Unlike statement B, statement A does not provide any indication for the reason behind the speaker’s concern. Thus, the listener receiving statement A is left to draw his own conclusions. The conclusions drawn may or may not be an accurate understanding of the speaker’s intended message. In general, the more concrete and precise the language used, the more likely it is the listener will understand the intended message. Two types of statements that should generally be avoided when attempting to resolve difficult IEP-related issues are commands and unsolicited advice. Commands such as “You must make your son go to bed at a reasonable time” are usually negatively received. One reason for this negative reception is that a command implies the speaker has power over the listener. Even if this is true, commands are frequently met with either overt or covert resistance (Friend and Cook 2007). Similarly, providing advice to someone who has not requested it is unlikely to be helpful. Statements of advice like “You really should spend more time reading to your child” are frequently perceived as arrogant and intrusive. Furthermore, unsolicited advice

Persuasive Communications

41

tends to make those receiving it feel misunderstood and defensive. It is for these reasons that staff members attempting to resolve difficult IEP-related issues should wait until asked before providing advice to parents.

NONVERBAL BEHAVIORS Nonverbal behaviors are powerful communication mechanisms. One specific nonverbal behavior that can be especially powerful for promoting collaboration is a technique called mirroring. Mirroring is the ability to match the other person’s verbal and nonverbal behavior. The first step of mirroring is to accurately assess the other person’s verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Specific verbal behaviors to identify include the tempo, rate, and volume of her speech. Specific nonverbal behaviors to identify include body posture and gestures. Once identified, the listener will then match those behaviors. In other words, if the speaker is quick and to the point, then the listener will also be quick and to the point. If the speaker leans back in his chair and appears relaxed, the listener will attempt to do the same. It is critically important for the listener to use subtlety when mirroring. If the listener is not subtle then the speaker may perceive that he is being mocked, and may become offended. To determine if the listener and speaker have established rapport, the listener should adjust her behavior and notice if the speaker does the same. If the speaker follows the listener’s lead they probably have established rapport. If the speaker does not mirror the listener’s lead, then the listener will need to do additional mirroring of the speaker’s behavior. Regardless of how it is achieved, once you have established this rapport you have triggered a strong, automatic positive reaction within your communication partner (Granger 2008).

CONCLUSION At first glance the information presented in this chapter on these four behaviors of persuasive communication appears to be common sense. Yet, attend any IEP team meeting focused on resolving a difficult issue and you will see many of these communication behaviors

42

Chapter 4

are not utilized. In addition to knowledge and skills, the effective use of persuasive communication requires self-discipline and belief in the importance of applying these skills. Having established the prerequisite knowledge of persuasion principles as well as the development of persuasive communication skills, it is now time to focus on the meeting process. The first step for this meeting process will be preparation for the meeting. This topic is the subject of chapter 5.

5 3

Preparation

By failing to prepare you are preparing to fail. —Benjamin Franklin

W

hen it comes to a difficult IEP team meeting there is no substitute for effective preparation. First, effective preparation allows school personnel to take the initiative instead of simply reacting to what the parents say. Second, even though preparation does take time, the time invested initially frequently results in time being saved. A well-prepared school representative can narrow the issues for agreement, formulate plausible options, and evaluate proposals far more quickly and wisely than one who is unprepared. The remainder of this chapter describes six sequential steps school personnel preparing for a difficult IEP meeting should follow. The first of these steps is the identification and prioritization of both district and parents’ interests.

STEP 1: IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE INTERESTS A systematic approach to preparing for difficult IEP team meetings begins with the identification of each side’s interests. Interests are commonly presented as positions. Positions are those concrete 43

44

Chapter 5

things each party states they want. For example, a parent states, “We want our son to have a one-on-one aide.” There is only one way to meet this position. In this case it would be to provide a personal aide. Interests are the underlying reasons that lead a person to take a position. For example, when the parents request a one-to-one aide, it may be because they are afraid their son will get lost in the school and that the teachers will not pay enough individual attention to him. There are multiple ways to address interests. The key to reaching a wise agreement is figuring out both side’s interests. For each position the school members wish to take, they should ask themselves why? Why do the school district members of the IEP team want to provide speech therapy in a group setting instead of one-on-one in the speech office? The answer to these questions will help identify the interests underlying the positions. As best you can, repeat this process in an attempt to identify the parents’ positions and interests. After identifying both parties’ interests, it is helpful to prioritize them according to their perceived level of importance. With the interests identified and prioritized, school personnel will be able to more quickly and effectively evaluate proposed options. One method for prioritizing identified interests is to allocate 100 points among them in proportion to their level of importance. Allocating points is a difficult process because there are no clear right answers. This is especially true when attempting to prioritize the parents’ interests. At best, school staff can make an educated guess as to the level of importance the parents assign to each interest. However, the process of attempting to do so is vital because it helps school staff consider potential trade-offs among the various interests. If concessions need to be made, school staff members will have a better idea of what is critically important to both the parents and the school district. Figure 5.1 can be used to identify and prioritize both parties’ interests. A blank copy appears in the appendix.

STEP 2: GENERATE OPTIONS In my experience school staff members frequently dwell on limited solutions for resolving difficult IEP-related issues. Often if they do

Figure 5.1. Identifying and Prioritizing Interests (example)

46

Chapter 5

spend time preparing, school staff members focus on developing strategies that can be used to convince parents of the validity of the school’s position. Engaging in this type of preparation limits staff members’ ability to consider a range of options. Thus, having done their best to identify both parties’ interests, school staff members should now focus their efforts on devising creative options. Options are those potential agreements or parts of an agreement that make it possible to satisfy your interests. Additionally, through generating these options as part of their preparation process, school staff members may identify possibilities that can meet both parties’ interests. Figure 5.2 is a partially completed worksheet that is an example of a resource school staff members can use to structure the process of generating options. A blank copy of this worksheet can be found in the appendix. To use this worksheet, transfer both parties’ interests into the respective columns. Once the interests have been transferred to the columns, the school staff generates and lists potential options designed to satisfy each of the interests. The biggest barrier to generating creative options is criticism and evaluation. Even though criticism and evaluation serve important functions, using them too early in the process inhibits creativity. The processes of creating and evaluating options should be separated. In other words, withhold judgment while brainstorming a multitude of options. Then evaluate how well the options satisfy the identified interests.

STEP 3: IDENTIFY OBJECTIVE CRITERIA Regardless of the number or quality of options generated, it is likely that when attempting to resolve difficult IEP issues, interests between staff and parents will conflict. The most common method used to resolve these differences between interests is engagement in a battle of wills (Ury 1993). In other words, parents and school staff members insist on their position while trying to get the other side to give in. The fundamental flaw with this attempted method of resolution is that nobody likes to concede. Thus, this conflict of wills can quickly escalate into a conflict of egos. It may be possible to head off this conflict. To do this requires the development and use of independent standards that can serve

Figure 5.2. Generating Options (example)

48

Chapter 5

as a measuring stick for deciding upon a fair solution. Using independent standards shifts the direction of the process from selecting options toward a joint search for a fair and mutually satisfactory solution. Common objective criteria that can be applied to resolving difficult IEP issues include: • • • • •

Scientifically based research Federal and state statutes Case law Independent expert opinion Documented prior performance

The use of standards such as these allows both parities to defer to what seems fair. This is far easier than feeling like you are “giving in” to the other party on a particular point. Therefore, in order to be adequately prepared for a difficult IEP meeting, school staff members must research and then select objective criteria they can appeal to as part of resolving difficult issues.

STEP 4: DETERMINE THE STRENGTH OF THE DISTRICT’S POSITION When attempting to resolve difficult IEP-related issues the goal is not simply to reach agreement with parents. The real goal for school staff members is to reach the right type of agreement. Agreements are the means used to satisfy the school system’s most important interests. Not every meeting will conclude with an agreement, nor should it. Sometimes it is better to walk away from the table than to settle on an agreement. How do school staff members know when it is in the school’s best interest to walk away? When determining the point at which negotiations should cease, school staff members need to objectively determine the strength of the school district’s position. There are two major factors to assess when determining the strength of the district’s position. First, have district staff members made any major procedural violations? A school district’s failure to meet required procedural protections is adequate grounds for finding that the district has failed to provide a free and appropriate public education (Yell 1998).

Preparation

49

However, minor procedural violations that do not deprive a student of a free and appropriate public education probably will not result in a due process hearing (Yell 1998). When attempting to determine if a major procedural violation has occurred the following items are some of the things to look for: • District did not provide all of the required written notification within the expected timelines. • District did not obtain the required informed consent from parents or guardians. • The student’s IEP and/or evaluations are outdated. • The appropriate representatives were not present to develop the IEP. • The district did not consider all of the relevant information when developing an IEP or inappropriately denied an independent educational evaluation. Second, has the district developed an IEP that is substantively sound? In other words, is the IEP as it has been developed reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit? Importantly, the IEP must be designed to produce more than trivial educational advancement or to merely halt educational regression (Guernsey and Klare 1993). To determine whether the IEP is substantively sound, at minimum, school staff members should examine the following: • Is the present level of performance a valid description of the student’s skills and knowledge? • Do the goals in the IEP align with the student’s strengths and weaknesses as described in the present level of performance? • Are the goals written in observable, measurable terms? • Do the accommodations and modifications also reflect the student’s strengths and weaknesses as described in the present level of performance? • Have the necessary related services been considered for meeting the student’s goals? • Has an extended school year program been appropriately considered? • Has assistive technology been considered? • If the child is fourteen years of age or older, have appropriate transition services been identified?

50

Chapter 5

If the IEP has no major procedural or substantive violations then the school district is in a much stronger position. On the other hand, if major procedural violations or substantive deficiencies exist, the school district will want to work harder to reach an agreement. If in doubt of the strength of the district’s position, it is wise and often cost-effective to contact your school board attorney. Sometimes it is possible for school staff members to take proactive steps that will improve the district’s position. For example, if the parents are requesting placement in a specific private special education placement, you can conduct research on the school or schools they are requesting. When researching, you can gather data on teacher and service provider qualifications, instructional materials, cocurricular activities, teacher training initiatives, available instructional technology, and any other additional data that might be helpful. You can then compare the collected data with data representing your school. If your school offers significant advantages when compared to the private placement, then you have significantly strengthened the district’s position. If staff members believe they can satisfy the district’s interests through mediation or a due process hearing, then they have leverage during a difficult IEP meeting. With a strong alternative to agreement, staff members do not have to agree to a parent’s unreasonable proposals. For this reason, school staff members should determine and if possible attempt to improve their bargaining position. Knowing the strength of the school’s position makes it possible to determine the point at which it is time to walk away from the bargaining table.

STEP 5: DRAFT PROPOSALS Having identified both the school district’s and parents’ interests and options, school staff members are now in a favorable position to develop creative solutions. Having decided upon fair, objective standards as well as the strength of the district’s position, school staff can now select the appropriate options to shape into proposals. Proposals are those potential agreements the school district will commit to implementing. Formulating strong proposals involves selecting options that satisfy the district’s interests in a manner better than that which could be achieved through formal dispute

Preparation

51

resolution procedures. These options should also meet the parents’ interests better than they could achieve through the same formal dispute-resolution procedures. School staff members should enter into a difficult IEP team meeting with three potential proposals. Because something may be learned during the meeting that could lead to a better solution for both sides, these proposals should not serve as rigid positions. Instead, these proposals serve the purpose of providing school staff members with concrete illustrations of the types of outcomes that will satisfy the district’s interests. The first proposal will be the one that optimally satisfies the district’s interests while meeting enough of the other side’s basic concerns that there is at least a chance they will agree. During the meeting, this proposal will serve as your opening offer. First offers generally predict the outcome of any negotiation (Thompson 2008). One possible explanation for this phenomenon is the “anchoring effect.” The anchoring effect refers to the fact that people tend to make judgments based on an initial starting point and then adjust upward or downward, but they fail to make sufficiently large adjustments (Thompson 2008). Thus, by making the opening offer close to that which would be ideal for the school district, a range of possible agreements favorable to the school district has been established. Opening offers have a stronger impact when they are supported with facts, data, and logic (Thompson 2008). In other words, it is much more powerful to justify your opening offer with relevant information and facts than to simply state your offer. Thus, when preparing the district’s initial offer, school staff should develop reasons in support of the rationale for the validity of their proposal. Few difficult IEP issues are resolved with the parents accepting the district’s initial offer. Thus, school staff members need to be prepared with a second proposal. The second proposal will be one that while far from ideal, will still sufficiently satisfy the district’s most important interests. In order to determine this fallback proposal, school staff members will need to plan for potential concessions. School staff members should plan to make concessions from their initial proposal. These potential concessions should be rank ordered so that those that are the least important to meeting the district’s interests are the first to be offered.

52

Chapter 5

The final proposal will be based on the strength of the district’s bargaining position. This proposal will be the one that will satisfy the district’s interests only marginally better than school staff believe they could achieve through formal dispute resolution procedures. This proposal will serve as the district’s final offer. The following is an example of a school district’s draft proposals: Initial Offer: Placement of student in a multiple disabilities classroom with two group speech sessions and one each of individual occupational and physical therapy sessions per week. Rationale: Student is currently in a multiple disabilities classroom and according to teacher report has met 90 percent of current educational goals. Based on recent evaluations by the speech therapist, student has made significant gains. Her report indicates that the student requires more support with functional communication skills. Both occupational and physical therapists report that student has made significant progress and must transfer more skills to the regular classroom environment. Second Offer: Placement of student in a multiple abilities classroom with one group speech session and individual sessions per week. In addition, the student receive two individual occupational therapy sessions one physical therapy session per week.

distwo will and

Planned Concessions (from first concession to last): 1. Two to three group speech sessions 2. Three speech sessions with one individual and two group sessions per week 3. One to two occupational therapy sessions Final Offer: Placement of student in a multiple disabilities classroom with one group speech session and two individual speech sessions. Additionally the student will receive two individual occupational and two physical therapy sessions per week.

Preparation

53

STEP 6: REHEARSE Lawyers rehearse their opening and closing statements for a trial. Politicians rehearse answering questions they anticipate being asked during media interviews. Upper level school administrators practice the speeches they deliver to the members of the school community. Like these individuals, rehearsal as part of preparation for a difficult IEP team meeting is beneficial to school staff members. The most effective form of rehearsal for a difficult IEP team meeting is role-playing. When conducting these role-plays staff members take turns practicing both what they will say to the parents and how they will respond to what the parents say. The staff members assuming the parents’ roles provide feedback on the effectiveness of their partner’s content and delivery. Provided with information as to what should be done differently, this practice continues until staff members feel ready for the meeting. There are at least two reasons why role-playing is important for school staff members. First, through rehearsing strategies and tactics school staff members can assess and then if necessary modify them before the actual meeting. The wrong time to learn that a strategy or technique doesn’t work is during the actual meeting. Second, role-playing encourages staff members to anticipate the other side’s tactics and strategies. As a result, staff members have the opportunity to plan their best possible responses. Having prepared for the difficult issues that are likely to arise, school staff members will approach the meeting with an increased sense of confidence.

CONCLUSION This chapter has provided school staff members with six sequential steps they should use to prepare for resolving potentially difficult IEP-related issues. Following these steps, school staff members have a plan to guide them toward the school district’s desired outcomes. To reach these outcomes, readers of the next chapter will learn a method for conducting difficult IEP team meetings.

6 3

Reaching Agreement

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. —F. Scott Fitzgerald

T

he vast majority of school staff members enter into difficult IEP team meetings without a structured process for reaching an agreement. The content of this chapter addresses this problem. More specifically, the content of this chapter describes a sequential eightstep process that can be used to reach agreements with parents on difficult IEP-related issues. The first of these steps is the establishment of a context conducive to collaborative problem solving.

STEP 1: ESTABLISH THE CONTEXT The context in which a difficult IEP team meeting occurs will affect the level of tension and openness that prevail. School staff must seek to establish a context that fosters collaborative dialogue and reduces the tension level. At minimum, there are two actions school staff members can take to achieve this goal.

55

56

Chapter 6

First, never underestimate the value of “breaking bread” (Luecke 2003). In most situations sharing food is considered a bonding ritual. While you obviously will not be sharing a seven course meal, it is a powerful symbolic gesture to offer meeting participants a cup of coffee, a bottle of water, and a light snack. If this light snack can be something home baked that will be an even more powerful symbolic gesture. Second, prior to beginning conversation on the issues it is important to engage in small talk. This small talk can be any type of conversation not having to do with the issues to be addressed. Negotiators who engage in as little as five minutes of small talk at the beginning of a negotiating session are more successful than negotiators that immediately get down to business (Thompson 2008). The reason for this is that this small talk lowers people’s defenses and begins the process of building relationships. If the parents act very formal, school staff should avoid engaging in small talk that is casual. This may be interpreted as a lack of seriousness on the part of school staff members. On the other hand, if the other side acts very informal, it is appropriate to speak in a more casual manner. The more information school personnel have in advance about the parents, the greater the opportunity they have to engage in small talk that builds affiliation. According to the principle of liking described in chapter 3, people favorably view others they perceive as similar to them. Therefore, if the parents and staff members share membership in a common group they should initiate a discussion focused on those links. Examples of common links include family (number of kids, age of kids), background (where you grew up, number of siblings, college attended), and common interests (sports teams, musical tastes, hobbies). A short discussion on any of these topics accelerates the bonding process. At some point, the small talk needs to end so that the formal part of the meeting can begin. To make the transition from the pleasantries to the issues at hand a smooth one, it is important to signal a change of focus. Sample phrases that smoothly refocus the discussion include: • I understand that this is your lunch hour, so I don’t want to delay too long. Shall we begin?

Reaching Agreement

57

• We have done a great deal of thinking about the issues we need to resolve and I’m wondering if this is a good time to turn our focus to that. • I realize that you have to pick up your child at the end of the school day, so I think we should begin. Once the shift has been made it is imperative that school staff members frame the issues.

STEP 2: FRAME THE PROBLEM A husband and wife both want the only lemon in their refrigerator. For a few minutes they debate who should get this lemon. Eventually they realize that both of them want the lemon for a different purpose. The wife needs the peel for a recipe she is baking. The husband needs the juice for a drink he is making. Thus, the couple is able to meet each of their needs by sharing the lemon. If this couple had continued competing for sole ownership of this lemon one of them would need to lose in order for the other to get what he or she wanted. By changing from competing for sole ownership of the lemon to exploring the reasons each wanted it, this couple developed a solution that met both of their needs. Even simple conflicts like the one in this example are difficult to resolve when they are perceived to be a win-lose situation. On the other hand, even complex problems are able to be resolved when they are viewed as shared problems requiring collaborative efforts. Problems defined as both being shared and requiring collaboration result in increased communication, trust, and interpersonal attraction among individuals (Johnson and Johnson 2006). One of the most constructive steps school staff members can take to effectively frame the problem is highlighting the benefits of maintaining the long-term cooperative relationship. This can be done by subtly, but explicitly, pointing out the long-term mutual goals as well as the ways in which parties are interdependent. An example statement accomplishing this goal is, “In your role as his parents and our role as the school district responsible for Jason’s education, we share the same goal of preparing him for his future. We will be more successful in achieving this goal over the course of his time in the school district if we work together.”

58

Chapter 6

In addition, school district personnel must emphasize their desire to address the conflict through a problem-solving approach. The statement, “Based on our current situation we will need to work collaboratively and perhaps even creatively if we are going to reach an agreement that is in Jason’s best interests,” is an expression of the intent to apply problem-solving methods. Framing the problem as just described serves to orient both parties. If school personnel have effectively framed the issue then the ensuing discussion will proceed within that frame. In other words, rather than focusing on winning and losing, both parties will strive to reach an agreement that meets both parties’ most vital interests. At this point, it is useful to share the agenda for the meeting. As a result of sharing this agenda everyone should share a common understanding of the issues to be covered as well as the process to be followed. The first item on this agenda will be the exchange of positions.

STEP 3: EXCHANGE POSITIONS When engaging in the win-win negotiation process the third step is for both parties to exchange their positions as well as the reasons for those positions. Due to the anchoring effect described in the previous chapter, it is almost always to the school district’s advantage to state its position first. The only exception to this is a situation in which district staff members believe the parents are likely to express a position characterized by low aspirations. More specifically, if school staff members are confident the parents will ask for less than what the school district is prepared to offer, then the parents should be asked to present their position first. When expressing the district’s position, it is insufficient to say, “The district intends to provide an in-class support teacher for all of Jason’s core academic subjects.” School district personnel should elaborate, adding something like the statement, “This will allow Jason to receive specialized assistance in the classroom while promoting additional independence and responsibility on his part. Also, his peers will view him as a member of their class, which may help him to become socially accepted.”

Reaching Agreement

59

The reasons provided in support of the school’s positions are aimed at informing the parents and persuading them to agree with the school district. Furthermore, providing reasonable rationale for the validity of the district’s position encourages parents to believe the district is not simply trying to take advantage of them. At this point, school personnel may already know what the parents seek. Even so, when stating the district’s position, school personnel must only describe the reasons in support of their position while avoiding criticism of the parents’ reasons for their position. If at this point school personnel state reasons why the parents’ position will not work, parents are likely to become defensive. Once parents become defensive, commitment to their original position is likely to increase. Even though it may be a reasonable hypothesis, stating “If we provided him with a one-on-one aide he would have difficulty interacting with his classmates” would likely only result in the parents trying harder to convince you of the merit of their viewpoint. After the school has shared its position statement it is the parents’ turn. Occasionally school personnel will have to prompt parents to explain the reasons why they have taken a certain position. Until the reasons for a parent’s position are clearly understood, it will be difficult to find creative ways of reaching an agreement that is acceptable to both parties. Asking parents “May I ask why you believe a one-on-one assistant is necessary for Jason?” is an important question. Furthermore, if their answer is vague, adding “Could you be more specific; I am not sure I understand your reasons?” will help further clarify their reasoning. The tone of voice used to ask these questions is vital for making sure the questions are perceived as sincere. If the parents perceive school district personnel’s actions as being insincere the attempt to understand their point of view will backfire.

STEP 4: IDENTIFY INTERESTS The positions exchanged in step 3 are those things that have been decided upon. For example, a parent may state, “Cindy must have daily one-on-one reading instruction provided by a certified XYZ reading teacher.” As mentioned in chapter 5, interests are the reasons

60

Chapter 6

generating positions. In this case the parents’ interest is most likely to make sure their daughter makes significant progress toward improving her reading skills. The key to reaching a mutually beneficial agreement is moving beyond stated positions to a focus on reconciling interests (Fisher and Ury 1991). The vast majority of interests can be satisfied through a multitude of potential solutions. For example, while the XYZ program may be effective with some students, it is probably neither the only nor the best program for all students. Additionally, it is likely that despite differences in positions, school personnel and parents share many of the same interests. In the previous example, both parties would certainly share the interest of improving Cindy’s reading skills. Once identified, these shared interests can be built upon to reach acceptable agreements. While essential, it can be difficult to identify the interests generating positions. Position statements are concrete and explicit. The interests motivating these positions are intangible and sometimes inconsistent. Sometimes a person does not understand the interests underlying his position and therefore cannot describe them. Other times the person may not wish to reveal his interests because of fear the other side might use it to their advantage. The actual process of step 4 begins with the school district describing its interests. The goal for school district personnel is to make sure the parents understand the importance and legitimacy of the district’s interests. To achieve this goal, district staff members’ description must be specific. Concrete details make the description credible and add impact. An example statement meeting this criterion is, “We want Cindy to meet the goals and objectives in her individualized education program. We also want to make sure she is not stigmatized by her peers and that she continues increasing her level of personal responsibility.” Once district personnel have finished stating the school district’s interests, it is the parents’ turn to do the same. Success in accurately identifying parents’ interests requires the effective use of the listening and questioning skills described in chapter 4. Remember, school staff members do not need to agree with the parents’ viewpoint, only demonstrate that they understand it. If the parents are either unwilling or unable to identify their interests, school staff members should identify them and then ask the parents for feedback on the accuracy of their attempt. An example

Reaching Agreement

61

of this type of statement is, “Based on what I have heard you say so far, it seems important to you that Cindy receive instruction from a highly qualified reading instructor. Is that accurate?” Few people can resist the temptation to correct someone’s misunderstanding of their interests. When focusing on identifying interests, it is important to maintain a focus on the future. Both parties will satisfy their interests more effectively if they dialogue about what they want to see happen in the future instead of arguing with the other side about past transgressions. Instead of wasting time and energy justifying past actions keep the focus on determining a desired future.

STEP 5: INVENT OPTIONS Inventing options is not a process that comes naturally. As valuable as it is to have many options, participants in difficult IEP meetings rarely sense a need for them. Parties usually believe they know the right answer and their view should prevail. The only solutions appear to lie along a straight line between the parents’ and school district’s positions. However, at this stage in the process the emphasis must be on generating a substantial number of markedly different ideas. These are the ideas on which both parties will build and eventually select from. To invent a number of potential agreements, meeting participants must avoid the following four obstacles: • Premature judgment. Nothing is as harmful to creative thinking as a critical attitude toward new ideas. Premature criticism is a major impediment to the invention of options. • Searching for the single best answer. Fixation on finding the single best answer will lead to fewer options being generated. • Assuming a fixed pie. This is the case when parties see the situation as either/or—either we get what we want or they do. Rarely, if ever, is this assumption true. Expanding the pie before dividing it is essential for creative problem solving. • Concern with only the school district’s part of the problem. Emotional involvement on one side of an issue makes it difficult to achieve the detachment necessary to think up wise means for meeting the interests of both parties. Shortsighted self-concern

62

Chapter 6

can lead school district personnel to focus only on their own immediate interest. The goal of step 5 is to move beyond these obstacles to identify potential agreements that satisfy the interests previously disclosed. Finding potential agreements that maximize joint outcomes takes creative problem solving (Johnson and Johnson 2006). Following the guidelines presented below will lead to the invention of creative options: • Select someone to record the ideas. Recording ideas either on a whiteboard or on flip chart paper gives the group a tangible sense of collective achievement. • Sit participants side by side, facing the recording surface. The act of physically sitting side by side reinforces the mental attitude of collaboratively tackling a common problem. • Make it clear that at this point all parties are only creating possibilities. Because something is mentioned during brainstorming does not mean it is a proposal being made by either party. • Separate the creative act from the critical one. Invent first, judge later.

STEP 6: NARROW THE OPTIONS Typically, parties try to reach a final agreement on the basis of willpower. More specifically, parents and school personnel talk about what they are willing or unwilling to accept. Trying to reach an agreement on the basis of willpower can have serious costs. By pitting the will of the school district against the will of the parents, one side will have to back down in order to reach an agreement. If a solution is reached through a battle of wills it will be based on pressure, not principle and the mettle of the parties, not the merits of the options. If the costs associated with settling differences of interests on the basis of willpower are high, then what is a better approach? The solution is to negotiate an agreement independent of the willpower of either side. In other words, the agreement should be reached through the application of objective criteria. It is far easier to deal with people when both parties are discussing objective standards

Reaching Agreement

63

for selecting an option instead of trying to force each other to back down. Objective criteria are the legitimate, practical standards both parties agree to apply to the evaluation of each promising option. Commonly there are multiple objective criteria available for use when assessing options. As part of the preparation process described in chapter 5, school personnel will have identified some of these criteria. Before applying criteria to options, parties must agree on those that are to be applied. However, insisting that an agreement be based on objective criteria does not mean insisting that it be based solely on the criteria the school district advances (Fisher and Ury 1991). Importantly, the standards posed by parents can be used persuasively by school personnel. The persuasiveness of the district’s proposal has far more impact if it can be presented in terms of the criteria presented by parents. Parents will have difficulty resisting an option that meets the criteria they participated in developing. Using the agreed upon objective criteria, the group evaluates each of the proposed options. It is critical for school district personnel to actively engage parents in this discussion. Ask for their advice on how certain options might work. Whenever possible, generously and sincerely provide credit for the input parents provide. Agreement becomes much easier if both parties feel ownership for the ideas (Fisher and Shapiro, 2005). During this dialogue, avoid overemphasizing factors that favor the district’s position. If parents view the persuasive attempts of district personnel as coercive or biased, they are likely to reject those options being advocated. However, do not let a desire to be collaborative stop school personnel from doing justice to the problem. Advocating hard for the district’s interests does not imply being closed to the parents’ point of view.

STEP 7: REACHING AGREEMENT There will come a point at which analyzing options through objective criteria produces diminishing returns. Once it is believed that this point has been reached, district personnel will shift the discussion toward reaching an agreement with the parents. To initiate

64

Chapter 6

this change in the focus of the discussion school district personnel should make a proposal. The substance of this proposal should emerge as a natural outgrowth of the process completed in step 6. In other words, it should be an offer that makes sense for both sides, given what has taken place up to this point. It is wise to limit the initial proposal to the least controversial issues. An initial proposal may sound like the following: “I realize that we have many remaining issues to decide on, but I thought we could start with classroom modifications. We propose that Cindy’s modifications consist of extended time on tests and that she not be penalized for spelling errors. Based on our discussion of the options is it fair for me to assume you agree with these modifications?” Reaching agreement on those issues that are easiest for both parties to agree on helps build momentum and deepens feelings of commitment to the process (Luecke 2003). Furthermore, by moving progressively from the least to the most difficult issues, school personnel can get parents to see that reaching agreement is possible. Generating a sense of momentum is further enhanced when school personnel pause after each agreement to summarize progress. For example, “So we have agreed upon Cindy’s strengths and areas needing improvement. We have also established the appropriate goals and objectives to address those improvement areas. The only thing left for us to do is to decide upon the appropriate method for meeting those goals and objectives.” While gaining momentum toward agreement is usually positive, there is one caution. It is possible for school district personnel to get swept up in this momentum. Because they have been swept up by the momentum there is the danger that school district personnel will continue negotiating beyond the point rational analysis of the situation would recommend. To avoid this problem one member of the school district’s team should be responsible for monitoring progress toward any agreements representing something lower than the district’s final offer. If this person believes school personnel are irrationally escalating their commitment in an effort to reach agreement, he or she should request a caucus. This caucus is simply a break in the formal meeting that allows school district personnel to privately discuss their progress and future actions.

Reaching Agreement

65

When the team reaches the more difficult issues, school staff members will likely need to make concessions. This is the point in the process that effective use of the principle of reciprocity becomes vital. School staff members should begin with those concessions that are the least important to the school district. After each concession is made by school district staff, it must be labeled. The reason concessions must be labeled is that people are motivated to undervalue or ignore the concessions of others in order to escape feelings of obligation (Malhotra and Bazerman 2007). By making it clear that a concession has been made, it becomes very difficult for the parents to justify not reciprocating. Reciprocity is even more likely if, after labeling the concession, school district personnel ask for something specific in return. For example, a concession made by a school district representative may take the following form: “The school district is willing to provide the additional support of an instructional aide during lunch and elective area classes. In return, we request that you agree not to have a personal aide while instruction is provided in the self-contained classroom.” Resistance At some point during the attempt to reach agreement, school personnel are likely to be confronted with resistance from the student’s parents. When confronted with resistance or the outright rejection of proposals, school staff members may be tempted to abandon the problem-solving approach and turn to the use of power. Rarely is this the best approach. When parents resist or reject a proposal, school staff members should seek to understand the reasons for this action. It is far too common to blame parents’ resistance on personality flaws. Yet at least two other reasons may be driving parents’ resistance. One reason parents may reject your proposal is because it was not their idea. Parents are likely to reject the school district’s proposal if they believe they have not played a significant role in shaping it. The simple solution to this problem is to ask the parents for their input. Not only does this involve the parents in the process of crafting a solution, it also serves to acknowledge their competence and status. Thus, after having a proposal rejected, a school staff member

66

Chapter 6

should sincerely ask the parents how they recommend the problem be solved. As the parents share their ideas, school staff must listen closely and avoid interrupting to either correct or object to statements made. After actively listening to the ideas presented, school staff members must demonstrate how the school district’s proposal stems from or relates to one of the parents’ ideas. The following are two example phrases that would help parents take ownership of the proposal. “Building on your idea, what if we . . . ?” And, “Based on what you said, how about . . . ?” A second reason parents may resist or reject the school district’s proposal is out of fear of “losing face.” By changing positions, a parent may fear that he or she will appear weak to significant others. No one wants to look bad in the eyes of a spouse, friends, children, or other significant individuals in his or her life. If school staff members believe the need to save face is a potential reason for resistance then they must help the parent achieve this goal. One method for helping a parent save face is to highlight how the circumstances have changed. In other words, the school staff member must explain how the parent’s original position may have seemed right, but because of a change in conditions this is no longer the case. Suppose a parent originally presented a demand that her child be provided with instruction using a specific software program. To help her justify a change in this demand, school staff can identify new circumstances that enable the parent to justify a new proposal. For example, “Your request for the use of computer program X would definitely be the right one if your daughter had difficulty with auditory processing. As the evaluation information presented today indicates this is not what is causing her to struggle in class.” A second strategy for helping a parent save face is to give him the credit for a proposal. Even if the ideas contained in the proposal are the school personnel’s, consider letting the parent take or at least share the credit. A lack of concern for who gets the credit allows parents to save face at no cost to the school district. Saying No Regardless of relationships or pressure, school staff members cannot accept an agreement that is not in the best interest of the student,

Reaching Agreement

67

is illegal, or is detrimental to the functioning of the school district. Yet, regardless of the reason school staff members have for rejecting a parents’ proposal, if it is not done appropriately the parents will perceive it as a personal affront. If the no they hear is perceived to be a personal rejection, the parents are more likely to close their ears to the remainder of the message. Even worse, they may lash out destructively causing the relationship to suffer. The key to effectively saying no to a proposal while preserving the relationship between parties is respect. Demonstrating respect for the parents is likely to diminish the intensity of their negative reaction while enhancing the chance they will be receptive to listening to your message. The essence of demonstrating respect is acknowledgment. While it is not a natural or common thing to do in a tense situation, recognizing the parent as an individual with needs and rights is critical. Everyone has the basic need to feel like he or she is being recognized (Ury 2007). There are three sequential steps that can be used to accomplish the goal of acknowledging parents. First, school staff members should acknowledge the parents’ point of view. For example, in response to a parent’s request for her child to ride on a bus without any other children, a school district representative might say, “I believe I understand your concern. You are worried that your son will be teased by the other children because no adult will be there to protect him.” Second, school staff members should begin their no statement with a sincere affirmation of the importance of the relationship. For example, a school district representative may begin his response to the above request by stating, “Mrs. Andrews, we value you as a partner in your son’s educational process. We realize that without you we will not be able to provide him with the education he deserves.” Third, school district personnel should follow their affirmation of the importance of the relationship with recognition of the parent’s competence or effort. For example, continuing to state his rejection of the request made by the parent above, a school district representative could say, “It is obvious that you have given a great deal of thought to your son’s needs.” After this three-step expression of acknowledgment, it is time to assert the school district’s no to the request. To be effective this

68

Chapter 6

assertion should be explained with the support of objective factual information. Keep this explanation short, simple, and nonjudgmental. For example, “We will not provide an individual bus for him. We do not have the resources to do this, nor do we think this will help your son learn how to interact effectively with other children.” Once the no has been delivered school district personnel should provide an alternative to consider. Coupling the refusal to the parent’s request with a potential solution demonstrates the district’s good faith and interest in helping both parties meet their needs. For example, to conclude the school district’s statement of rejection, a staff member might say, “We will temporarily have a staff member ride on the bus to monitor the situation. This staff member can then report on what she observes so that if necessary we can work with your son on strategies for responding to the other children.”

STEP 8: CLOSURE If an agreement that makes sense for both parties is close to being reached school personnel should look to facilitate closure. Just as it is important to begin the discussion by establishing a positive tone, it is also important to end on a positive note. School district personnel will continue interacting with these parents throughout the student’s educational career. Furthermore, the parents’ cooperation is likely to be necessary for effective implementation of some of the items specified in the IEP. One strategy for concluding on a positive note is to be generous at the very end. It is tempting to fight over the “last crumb” near the conclusion of a difficult IEP team meeting. Resist this temptation. Instead, consider giving the parents something minor they value that is consistent with the overall logic of your offer. It has been my experience that doing this will frequently break through any lastminute doubts and finalize the agreement. A second strategy for ending the discussion positively is the sharing of a positive comment. This comment should include an acknowledgment of any difficulties, sincere gratitude, and a focus on a positive future. An example of this type of statement is “Mrs. Andrews, I realize that we did not see eye-to-eye on everything we have discussed. I want to thank you for listening to our point of

Reaching Agreement

69

view. I am sure that by continuing to work together like we have today, we will be able to give your son the education he deserves.”

CONCLUSION Hopefully as a result of following the eight steps described in this chapter a legitimate and practical agreement beneficial to the student will be agreed upon. In addition, the process will leave the parents feeling they have been treated fairly and respectfully. If so, they will have greater commitment to the implementation of the agreement as well as strengthened ability and desire to resolve future conflicts with school personnel constructively. However, using this eight-step process only increases the probability of reaching a successful resolution; it does not provide any guarantees. There are too many variables that influence the outcomes of difficult IEP meetings. One of those variables is the parents’ ability and willingness to engage in the process described throughout this chapter. A minority of parents will take an approach to a contentious IEP meeting that will make engaging in the process difficult. In the next chapter, ideas will be presented for effectively working with parents who refuse to negotiate or attempt to use “dirty tricks” in an attempt to manipulate meeting outcomes.

7 3

What Do I Do If . . . ?

An eye for an eye and we both shall go blind. —Mahatma Gandhi

W

hen difficult meetings are conducted as described in the previous chapter, it has been my experience that most parents act reasonably. Yet while infrequent, there are times when a parent’s behavior is irrational, counterproductive, and antagonistic. If school personnel are not prepared for handling this type of behavior they are likely to react without thinking. There are many tricks and tactics parents may use in an attempt to get what they want from school personnel. They include but are not limited to verbal abuse, purposeful deception, and a variety of pressure tactics. When parents are using these strategies, they usually are doing so in hopes that they will obtain some form of substantive gain. They may also be acting this way because their emotional state has overwhelmed their reasoning abilities. Under stress, even ordinarily nice, reasonable people can turn into angry, inflexible opponents. As unpleasant or immoral as these behaviors may seem, school district personnel must be prepared to counter them. To avoid yielding substantive concessions due to a parent’s actions, at minimum school district personnel must be prepared to 71

72

Chapter 7

address the most common problems. Eight common problems and proven methods for dealing with them are the content of this chapter.

. . . A PARENT ENGAGES IN A PERSONAL ATTACK? Consider the following statement made by a parent during a difficult IEP team meeting. “You don’t care about my child’s education; you only care about how much it costs to meet his needs.” Education professionals who work hard and care about what they do often feel the need to respond when a parent makes a critical comment like this one. On the receiving end of a statement like this, school personnel typically respond in one of three ways. First, the school staff member attacks the parent right back. When a staff member defends herself by attacking back, the situation only worsens. The more the individual attempts to defend and justify her behavior, the more convinced the other party becomes that he is right. As each side grows angrier, they increasingly feel entitled to become more upset. This cycle of increasing anger frequently leads to an explosion of destructive emotions. Second, a school staff member may give in to the parent’s demands. This usually results in an outcome that is unsatisfactory for the school system. Additionally, by giving in you are rewarding the parent for bad behavior. Also, if a school staff member gives in frequently enough then she will develop a reputation as being weak. Having a reputation for weakness may lead other parents to attempt to exploit the school staff member further in the future. Third, the school staff member may end the discussion. Rarely is refusing to deal with a parent a good long-term solution. Not only does breaking off the discussion impair our ability to solve the immediate problem, it almost certainly guarantees increased difficulty when attempting to solve future issues. Because school staff members are required to have ongoing interactions with parents, they should continue to deal with them even when they disapprove of the parents’ behavior. So how should a school staff member respond to a personal attack? First, in order to respond effectively school staff members must remember that one of the greatest powers they have during any difficult discussion is the power not to react. Reacting puts con-

What Do I Do If . . . ?

73

trol of the situation in the hands of the parent. Not reacting shifts the power back to the staff member. Because the parent is likely to be experiencing intense emotions, the staff member on the receiving end of the statement must remain calm enough for both parties. Just as expressed anger can lead to an angry response, calmness can also be infectious. To achieve this calm state, the staff member should pause and take a few deep breaths. The simple act of taking a few deep breaths results in the heart rate slowing down as well as the relaxing of tensed muscles. Having countered the fight or flight reaction with a few deep breaths, the staff member can focus her attention on providing an appropriate response. The best response a staff member can provide is often the opposite of what the parent is expecting. To disarm a parent that is engaging in a personal attack the staff member should respond with empathy. The expression of empathy is amazingly effective at absorbing tension. Demonstrating empathy begins with the staff member practicing active listening skills. Far too often in a tense situation, if a staff member does listen, it is only for the purpose of being able to refute what the parent says. A superior approach is to paraphrase what the parent has said and then ask him sincerely if there is anything more he would like to add. Once the parent has finished sharing his thoughts, acknowledge the validity of his point of view without agreeing with it. For example, in response to the parent’s statement cited at the beginning of this chapter, the school staff member might reply, “You are very concerned that because of financial constraints, the school will make a decision that is not in your son’s best interests. Thank you for letting me know how you feel. Do you have anything else you wish to share with me?” If you don’t resist, once critical people have had their say, they will have no further ammunition to attack you with. Follow this statement by connecting the attack to solving the problem. “When you say that our refusal to provide one-on-one reading instruction shows that we don’t care about your child, I hear your concerns about your son’s education. I want you to know that we want your son to be successful in school and we know that skills in reading are necessary. We want to reach an agreement with you as quickly as possible on an appropriate strategy for reaching this goal. Let’s get back to focusing on solutions to our problem.”

74

Chapter 7

Having released their negative emotions, most parents will now be able to think more rationally. It is accurate and fair to believe that the vast majority of times, school personnel should not be subjected to personal attacks. However, the question becomes which is more important—to be right or to reach a wise agreement on behalf of a student?

. . . A PARENT HAS A LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT ABOUT A SCHOOL MEMBER’S ACTIONS? When dealing with the complexities of addressing a student’s special needs, mistakes are bound to happen. The vast majority of times these mistakes are unintentional. However, when parents confront school staff members with these mistakes they often react by denying or attempting to justify their actions. This approach usually leads to further destructive conflict between staff and parents. A better approach is to offer an apology. An apology acknowledges partial or full responsibility, demonstrates concern, and may bring corresponding acceptance of the behavior from the parents. For example, at a difficult IEP team meeting, a mother was accusing a teacher of being insensitive and unprofessional. Instead of defending or denying her behavior the teacher said, “I am truly sorry for raising my voice to correct your son’s behavior in class. I did not mean to embarrass him. I was acting out of my own frustration caused by the difficulty of keeping his attention on the subject matter.” To this apologetic statement, the mother responded, “I understand, I also get frustrated when I try to help him with his homework. There has been more than one occasion that I have found myself yelling at him even though I know this behavior is hard for him to control.” Once the mother received acknowledgment of the teacher’s behavior, she changed her focus from attacking to being understanding. It is extremely difficult to further attack someone who is in agreement with what has been said. Having had the “wind taken out of her sails,” this mother was now ready to deal with the issues requiring attention. Sometimes a staff member believes he has done nothing wrong. Because he believes he has not done anything wrong, the staff

What Do I Do If . . . ?

75

member will not want to offer an apology. Yet the parents will not proceed with the discussion until there is recognition of their “being wronged.” In order to avoid a stalemate, the staff member can express regret for the consequences caused by some action or omission on his part—regardless of whether the behavior or its consequences were intended. For example, instead of saying, “By the time I got home last night, made dinner, put my children to bed, and graded papers, it was too late to return your call,” a staff member might say, “I can see that you are frustrated. To the extent that this frustration is a result of my not returning your phone call, I am sorry.” Rather than defending his actions, the staff member is simply asking the parent to forgive him for the consequences of those actions.

. . . THE PARENT DEMONSTRATES COMMITMENT TO AN INFLEXIBLE POSITION? Occasionally in an attempt to structure the situation to their advantage, parents will articulate a refusal to negotiate. Frequently the belief driving this approach is that as a result of taking a firm stance they will have more leverage to use in obtaining concessions from the school district. To address the issue effectively, school personnel must recognize that this is simply an attempt to obtain a bargaining chip for obtaining concessions on substantive issues. When the parent states, “There is no room for discussion, we want an out-of-district placement or nothing,” it is often a strategy designed to structure the situation in their favor. School personnel should not attack the content of these statements. Instead, they should focus on identifying the parent’s reasons for not wanting to engage in a discussion. To identify these reasons, school personnel should ask questions that request specific information about the parent’s thought process. An example question that serves this purpose is, “What do you believe would be the harm in discussing other options?” When you ask the question look and sound like you are expecting to get an answer. Additionally, after asking the question, school staff members should use silence to their advantage. In other words, school personnel should wait for the parent to provide an answer to

76

Chapter 7

the question asked. The parent will almost always speak in order to relieve the discomfort caused by the silence. If the parent remains silent or the questions asked do not produce adequate results, school staff members should put themselves in the parent’s shoes by verbalizing what they guess he or she is thinking. The school personnel must preface their guesses with statements like, “I am not sure if this is accurate, but I guess . . .” or, “If I were you I might be thinking . . .” Pay attention to parents’ reactions to your statements. If you can hit on or near the reason for their refusal, it frequently opens up the discussion. Few people can resist the temptation to correct someone’s misunderstandings of their reasons. If all else fails, school personnel should attempt to take the parents out of the present to show them the future. Asking a question like, “What do you think will happen if we don’t reach an agreement,” opens a dialogue on the potential consequences of refusing to engage in a discussion. The potential consequences of refusing to engage in this discussion may help the parents find the motivation to open up.

. . . PARENTS ONLY ATTACK THE SCHOOL’S PROPOSALS BUT PRESENT NONE OF THEIR OWN? When parents only attack the school’s proposals but offer none of their own, the temptation is to counter their criticism. The better approach is inviting the parents to offer explanations for their criticism. For example, a school staff member might ask, “What concerns do you have with Melissa receiving her reading instruction in a resource center that we may have forgotten to take into account?” School personnel should listen thoughtfully to their explanations in order to determine the parents’ underlying interests. If possible, staff members should rework the ideas obtained from listening to the parents’ viewpoint into a more viable option. With this approach resistance is transformed from an obstacle to a tool that aids the process. Another method for potentially transforming resistance into a helpful tool is asking parents for their advice. In other words, school personnel solicit the parents’ opinion of what they would do if they were in the school district personnel’s position. For example, a staff

What Do I Do If . . . ?

77

member might ask, “If you were a member of the school and you had to determine the appropriate place for José to receive his math instruction how would you make that decision?” Sometimes when approached in this manner parents offer a solution that addresses the school personnel’s concerns. If this happens, it becomes very difficult for parents to reject the idea they have just created. If nothing else, by having the parents assume the school personnel’s perspective, the opportunity has been created to educate them about the constraints of the situation.

. . . PARENTS MAKE EXTREME DEMANDS? It is not unusual for parents to make initial demands that are extreme. Usually the goal of these initial demands is the lowering of school personnel’s expectations. In other words, if the parents believe the outcome of the discussion will be the parties reaching a compromise, then the hope is that an extreme opening position will skew the discussion in the parents’ favor. When this occurs, school district personnel may be tempted to end the negotiation and pursue options for dispute resolution. A different approach is to ask the parents to justify their proposal. “On what basis have you determined that twenty-five hours per week of one-on-one home therapy is appropriate for Isabella?” By bringing attention to the lack of principled justification for the parents’ position, school personnel can point out the absurd nature of their position. Another possibility is to respond with silence. People tend to feel uncomfortable with silence, especially if they have doubts about the merits of something they have said (Fisher and Ury 1991). When confronted with silence, the parents will likely feel compelled to come up with a different suggestion.

. . . A PARENT ISSUES AN ULTIMATUM? “Either you will provide my daughter with a personal aide or you will hear from my attorney.” Confronted with an ultimatum like this one, school staff members have three options. First, school personnel can ignore the statement while continuing to talk about the

78

Chapter 7

issue as if they did not hear the parent’s comment. If the parent is serious about the threat, she will repeat the ultimatum. Second, school personnel can reinterpret the ultimatum as an aspiration. For example, the staff member might respond, “It seems very important to you that we make sure Emily has help with taking notes during her classes, how about if we . . .” By directing attention back to the issue, the staff member has made it possible for the parent to gracefully exit from her threat. Lastly, if the parent persists by reiterating her ultimatum, the school staff member can respond by saying, “If you need an answer to your request right now, the answer is no.” This statement delivered in a firm but neutral tone demonstrates the school district’s willingness to walk away. However, because the statement begins with the word “if,” it provides the parent with the opportunity to retract or soften the ultimatum.

. . . THE PARENT DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTS FACTS? A bargaining trick parents occasionally use is to present information as fact when in reality they do not have evidence to prove their claim. A parent states, “Sam takes three hours a night to do his homework because the work he is being given is too hard for him.” When this type of statement is made, school personnel should not trust it as truth unless there is good reason to believe the parent’s statement. The parent may be attempting to exaggerate the facts in order to convince staff members to provide a desirable concession. School staff should make it a practice to verify these factual assertions. For example, in response to the statement made previously school district personnel could state, “As part of the instruction provided in our school most of the time our teachers provide practice problems prior to sending homework home with the students. As soon as this meeting ends I will follow up with Sam’s teachers to see if he is demonstrating difficulty completing the assignments in class. If he is, then we can revisit that issue.” The act of verification is meant to make sure the school district is making agreements based on accurate information.

What Do I Do If . . . ?

79

. . . THE PARENT MAKES AN ADDITIONAL REQUEST AFTER AN AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED? School staff members collectively breathe a sigh of relief believing an agreement has been reached. However, the next day the parent calls the case manager to request a few more things be placed in the IEP. How should the case manager respond? In this situation, the case manager must assess the impact of the additional requests. If the requests do not damage the integrity of the school district’s position, then the case manager may choose to concede. If on the other hand the requests are likely to have a negative impact on the district, the case manger should inform the parent that because he is seeking a change to the agreement he must understand that the school district will want to revisit other issues as well. By rescheduling a new IEP meeting to revisit all of the issues, the case manager will quickly learn how important these additional requests are to the parent.

ROLE-PLAYING AND REFLECTION To prepare for scenarios like those presented in this chapter school district personnel participating in difficult IEP team meetings should engage in role-play activities. Practicing with these skills in the context of authentic simulations will prepare staff members to use these skills under the pressure of emotionally charged meetings. Constructive feedback and repeated practice will improve school personnel’s skills to the point that they become automatic. Furthermore, as difficult scenarios not covered in this chapter present themselves, school personnel should collaboratively reflect on them. As they discuss what happened and their response, school personnel will prepare each other to constructively handle similar future situations.

CONCLUSION When we reach the point of school personnel using effective strategies under the most difficult circumstance, we will have correctly

80

Chapter 7

established an emphasis on reaching solutions instead of soothing egos. Reaching this goal requires school districts to view the development of negotiating skills as a high priority competence within the organization. Developing negotiating skills as an organizational capability is the subject of the final chapter.

8 3

Developing Organizational Competence

Habits can’t be thrown out the upstairs window. They have to be coaxed down the stairs one step at a time. —Mark Twain

M

ost school district leaders understand the importance of building core competencies in those areas considered essential for meeting the school system’s long-range goals. For most schools these core competencies include curriculum development, instructional practices, parental and community involvement, school safety, and technology implementation. Competencies in these areas serve as the building blocks that make the achievement of long-range goals possible. In other words, if staff members do not develop these competencies, both current and future success is jeopardized. Resolving difficult IEP-related issues is an area requiring substantial competence. As has been explained throughout this book, the inability to effectively resolve difficult IEP-related issues commonly results in increased financial costs, weakened or destroyed relationships, and increased stress levels for both parents and school district personnel. School personnel’s competence in resolving difficult IEP-related issues can substantially improve these outcomes. Thus, school 81

82

Chapter 8

districts need to develop strategies that are designed to improve staff members skills in the competencies described throughout this book. The remainder of this chapter describes how to achieve this goal.

PROVIDING HIGH-QUALITY TRAINING Competence begins with high-quality training. An overview of a successful training plan is as follows. First, every staff member in the school district is trained in the general guidelines for preventing destructive conflict described in chapter 2. The content of this training includes: • The rationale for striving to prevent destructive conflict. • The role all staff members play in these prevention efforts. • The golden guidelines for collaboration. Presentation of each guideline should include (1) an explanation of the reason why the guideline is important, and (2) descriptions of strategies to be used to follow the guideline. At the end of this training session staff members are asked to sign the staff member pledge indicating that they will implement these guidelines.

STAFF MEMBER PLEDGE As a member of the ________ School community I pledge to do my part to build positive, constructive relationships with the parents of the students our schools serve. To do this I will build and maintain trusting relationships with parents; present parents with a balanced picture of their child’s strengths and weaknesses in school; solicit, acknowledge, and validate parents’ knowledge of their child; seek to understand parents’ thoughts and feelings; treat parents with respect and dignity; communicate with parents clearly, honestly, and regularly;

Developing Organizational Competence

83

communicate through my words and actions that I am committed to the success of every child, and; create and maintain a welcoming school environment. A copy of this pledge is also located in the appendix. Remembering one of the key points of the psychological principle of commitment and consistency, it is critical for staff members to believe it is their choice to sign this pledge. As the signed pledge is turned in, staff members are given another choice of signing a large poster further pledging their intent to implement the guidelines. Once completed, a copy of the signed poster is displayed in a highly visible location. This visibility makes it nearly impossible for staff members to deny their commitment or to claim they have forgotten about it. Copies of these posters are available from Effective Leadership Solutions, LLC via the website address effectiveleader shipsolutions.com. This initial session prepares the majority of staff members to fulfill their roles. However, those more directly involved in resolving difficult IEP-related issues will need additional training. This group includes anyone that regularly attends IEP meetings in the school district. The content of this training includes: • The Principles of Persuasion. The presentation of each principle includes a definition of the principle, an explanation of why it works, examples of how it can be applied toward resolving difficult IEP-related issues, and factors that make application of the principle more or less successful. • Persuasive Communication. The presentation of each skill includes an explanation of the skill, modeling application of the skill, and repeated practice with and feedback on the proper use of the skill. • Preparing for Difficult IEP Meetings. In addition to explaining the components of each of the six steps, when presenting this information participants should engage in role-play activities designed to apply the information presented. Feedback on the quality of performance for all role-plays conducted during the training should be provided. • Reaching Agreement. Each of the eight steps in the process of reaching agreement should be explained. After that, the previous

84

Chapter 8

preparation role-play activities should be extended so that participants engage in attempts at reaching agreement. • Tactics and Strategies. For this part of the training, an explanation should be provided on the common strategies the other party may use to achieve their goals. A role-play designed to apply the tactics described for dealing with each strategy should be conducted. The final part of the training should focus on describing the method school personnel will use to continuously improve their individual and collective ability to resolve difficult IEP-related issues. This is the subject of the next section.

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROCESS Most educational leaders have embraced process thinking. Process thinking rests on two key principles. First, most of the things done within a school district—from hiring new staff to ordering instructional materials—are the results of processes. Second, through analysis, redesign, and the application of learning each of these processes can be improved. Together these two principles serve as the basis for continuous improvement. Continuous improvement can be applied to every process in education including the resolution of difficult IEP-related issues. Doing so will result in improvement of staff members’ capabilities and, over time, enhanced outcomes for the school district. Unnecessary costs are likely to be avoided, important relationships will be preserved or improved, and the stress levels of staff members and parents will be decreased. All of these outcomes will certainly lead to better results for all students. To successfully implement a continuous improvement model for resolving difficult IEP-related issues school districts must systematically learn from their experiences. More specifically, at the conclusion of every difficult IEP team meeting school personnel should engage in collective reflection. The focus of this reflection should be a discussion of what worked, what did not work, and how lessons learned from this experience could be used to improve future meeting outcomes.

Developing Organizational Competence

85

The information generated during this reflection session must be captured in a format that makes the learning easily disseminated to other school staff members. One means for achieving this goal is requiring the meeting leader to complete and then file a meeting summary form. The form shown in figure 8.1 can be used to fulfill this purpose. Once submitted and reviewed, a copy of this form is filed alphabetically by student name in a locked filing cabinet. This information becomes a resource for school staff members to refer to as they are confronted with difficult situations. Even more powerful is the creation and use of an electronic database. This same information, captured and securely stored electronically, becomes easily accessible to appropriate school personnel. Staff members will save precious time because they will not have to go to a specific location in order to review paper copies. Not only can school staff members quickly search the database for information relevant to a specific case, they can use keywords to query similar situations. For example, a school staff member could review all of the effective strategies and recommendations during a specific time period related to disagreements on the number of hours of physical therapy provided. Once obtained, this information will assist that staff member in generating even more potential strategies to resolve a current difficult issue. Furthermore, school leaders could search this database to identify common themes. For example, a query might lead to the discovery that school district personnel are having difficulty reaching agreement with parents on the nature of extended school year programs. The leader could then design a specific training program to assist staff members with resolving difficult IEP-related issues on that topic.

CONCLUSION It is one thing to develop one’s own ability to resolve difficult IEPrelated issues. It is quite another to develop the necessary and appropriate levels of competence among the members of the entire school or district. While this is a much greater challenge, it is one with tremendous potential rewards.

Figure 8.1. Meeting Summary Form

Developing Organizational Competence

87

In order to meet the challenge, educational leaders must provide staff members with high-quality training on the skills and knowledge required to fulfill their responsibilities. In addition, these leaders must also design systematic procedures for capturing and reusing the learning from the experiences obtained while attempting to resolve difficult IEP-related issues. There are three general key points I would like to leave you with. First, be tough on resolving the issue but be easy on the people involved. The child’s parents are not the school district’s enemy. Most of the time they are doing the best they can to provide what they think is necessary for their child. The real nemeses in most cases are the financial and structural constraints imposed by the system. To overcome these constraints is not easy; it requires both sides to devote their efforts to finding an agreement that meets both parties’ most important interests. Second, if some staff in the school district treat the parents of special needs students poorly, they lower everyone else’s credibility. Their actions make everyone else’s task far more difficult. The leader of the organization employing an individual displaying this behavior owes it to the system to use every means at his or her disposal to rectify this problem. Lastly, it is important to both say what you mean and mean what you say. However, it is equally as important to make sure what is expressed is not done so meanly. Speak your truth openly but don’t do so with cruelty or malice. Sometimes the actions or words of the other party make it difficult to follow this guideline. However, regardless of what the other side may say or do, as a professional what you say and how you say it is an expression of yourself and your values. Give respect not because of what they do, but because of who you are. These three key points as well as the other ideas described throughout this book have the potential to make dramatic changes in education. Lives can be improved through the application of what has been presented. However, the content of a book can only point you in a promising direction. It is now up to you to decide if you are willing to put forth the effort to implement what you have learned. I hope that for the sake of the children, parents, and others you serve this book motivates you to do so.

Appendix

89

References

Banning-Blue, M., J. A. Summers, H. C. Frankland, L. Nelson, and G. Beelge (2004). Dimensions of family and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for collaboration. Exceptional Children 70(2), 167–184. Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York: HarperCollins. Fisher, R., and D. Shapiro (2005). Beyond reason: Using emotions as you negotiate. New York: Penguin Books. Fisher, R., and W. Ury (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Penguin Books. Friend, M., and L. Cook (2007). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Gorman, J. C. (2004). Working with challenging parents of students with special needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Granger. R. H. (2008). The 7 triggers to yes: The new science behind influencing people’s decisions. New York: McGraw Hill. Guernsey, T. F., and K. Klare (1993). Special education law. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Harris, T. E. (2002). Applied organizational communication: Principles and pragmatics for future practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hogan, K. (2007). The psychology of persuasion: How to persuade others to your way of thinking. Gretna, LA: Pelican Publishing. Ickes, W. (Ed.) (1997). Empathetic accuracy. New York: Guilford Press. Johnson, D. W., and F. P. Johnson (2006). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 95

96

References

Lake, J. F., and B. S. Billingsley (2000). An analysis of factors that contribute to parent-school conflict in special education. Remedial and Special Education 21(4), 240–251. Luecke, R. (2003). Negotiation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing. Malhotra, D., and M. H. Bazerman (2007). Negotiation genius. New York: Bantam Dell. McEwan, E. K. (1998). How to deal with parents who are angry, troubled, afraid or just plain crazy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Pruitt, P., D. Wandry, and D. Hollums (1998). Listen to us! Parents speak out about their interactions with special educators. Preventing School Failure 42(4), 161–171. Seeley, K. (2005). The listening cure: Listening for culture in intercultural psychological treatments. Psychoanalytic Review 92(3), 431–452. Thompson, L. (2008). The truth about negotiations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times Press. Ury, W. (1993). Getting past no. New York: Bantam Dell. Ury, W. (2007). The power of a positive no. New York: Bantam Dell. Yell, M. L. (1998). The law and special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

About the Author

Matthew J. Jennings is the superintendent of schools for the Alexandria Township Public School System. Prior to serving in this position, Dr. Jennings served as an assistant superintendent of schools, a director of student services, a supervisor of curriculum and instruction, and a classroom teacher. He earned his master’s degree and doctorate in educational administration from Rutgers University. In addition to presenting at numerous state and national conferences, Dr. Jennings has served as an organizational behavior consultant to school districts throughout New Jersey. He works as an adjunct professor for Rutgers University where he teaches courses on curriculum development, school administration, and the supervision of instruction. His work has been published in Kappan, Preventing School Failure, The New Jersey English Journal, Channels, and The Writing Teacher. His most recent publication, Creating Dynamic Leadership Teams: From Mine to Ours was released by Rowman & Littlefield Education in 2008. When he is not spending time with his wife, MaryAnn, his children, Ryan and Tara, and their dog, Amber, Dr. Jennings enjoys time at the beach, competing in triathlons, and Rutgers football games.

97