Communication and Conflict Resolution Skills Can Lead to Lasting Relationships and Positive Results for Children

by David Gruber

Here’s a word of advice for special education stakeholders: Include communication and conflict resolution among your basic management skills.

This advice comes from the Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services (OSE/EIS). It reflects the OSE/EIS emphasis on encouraging collaboration in planning services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Communication and conflict resolution skills can play an effective role in reconciling the varied interests that must come together to develop workable plans for infants through young adults with disabilities and their families. These plans include individualized family service plans (IFSP) for children birth to age 3 under IDEA Part C and individualized education programs (IEP) for children birth to 21 under IDEA Part B. (Michigan law applies from birth to age 26.)

Communication and conflict resolution skills can foster cooperative agreements and durable relationships among parties who must work together in the best interests of the child. When these skills are used early, when children are first identified for services, they open the door to positive conversations and relationships for many years.

Begin With a Purpose

The people involved in the IFSP or IEP processes—students, parents, educators, service providers, and advocates—begin their relationship with certain responsibilities, which depend somewhat on the age group being served. The responsibility under IDEA Part C is to coordinate early intervention once a child is suspected of having a developmental delay, health issue, or disability. The responsibility under IDEA Part B is to provide a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities.

Many factors influence the ability to meet these responsibilities, including the nature of the disability, school and community resources, performance targets, skill levels, time, logistics, and an acute concern for the well being of the child or student ⁽¹⁾. These factors shape the educational, budgetary, logistical, professional, and emotional interests or needs each party brings to the planning process.

Communicate to Find Solutions

The first step in reconciling the parties’ diverse needs is to identify and talk together about these needs, either in the IFSP planning process, or in the individualized education program team (IEPT) meeting. A neutral facilitator trained in effective communication skills can foster and provide a model for a productive interchange among the participants. Effective communication skills include:

• Active listening. Listening attentively promotes understanding of a party’s needs and interests. Acknowledging or paraphrasing the speaker’s message communicates that the message is getting across. Restating the message helps both parties agree that the message is understood.
• Neutral phrasing. Avoid using words that sound critical or judgmental of others. For example, parents in a dispute might talk about poor teaching, tardy service, or few options. Educators in conflict might talk about unrealistic expectations. Dropping adjectives can remove the criticism and foster open-ended discussion on matters relating to “teaching,” “service,” “options,” etc.
• “I” statements. “I” statements can prevent listeners from becoming defensive. “I” statements also encourage parties to be specific when expressing feelings, causes, and potential solutions. A parent might wish to say to a teacher, “You are allowing Johnny to fall behind.” The parent can rephrase that concern and say, “I am unhappy with Johnny’s lack of progress in turning in his math homework. Would it be possible to give him more computer time to complete his work?”
• Brainstorming. Once the parties have come to a common understanding, they can begin to brainstorm solutions. Here, again, it is important for each party to reserve judgment and keep the discussion open, since one idea may lead to another. The goal is to get as many ideas on the table as possible from all concerned parties, including some ideas that might at first seem farfetched. The team can decide in the next phase of their planning whether the ideas are right for the situation.
• Practical choices. The parties analyze their ideas and look for practical solutions that satisfy everyone’s needs. If the parties reach an agreement, it is a good idea to schedule a follow-up meeting to see if their solution is working and to make any needed adjustments.

Communicate to Put Ideas to Work

The second step in reconciling the diverse needs of all participants is to use these communication skills in implementing the IFSP or IEP. Putting these plans into action requires many different contacts: among school staff, among school personnel and students and parents, and between school and agency personnel. By using good communication skills to attend to others’ needs and find mutual solutions, parties can address questions or issues that may arise. Regular contacts, along with annual IFSP or IEP reviews, provide opportunities for furthering positive relationships.

Resolve Conflicts Through Mediation

The third step in reconciling the diverse needs of all participants is to design a process to resolve conflict among involved parties. An impasse, or deadlock, may arise when the parties cannot agree on, or implement, a solution because of new differences or failures in communication.

Mediation is a logical remedy. Through mediation, a neutral third party with no stake in the outcome of the dispute applies the communication skills described above to advance or restore communication among the parties. The mediator encourages all parties involved to phrase issues in a neutral fashion, brainstorm, and develop an answer that is right for their circumstances.

By entering into mediation after reaching an impasse, the parties build relationships and underscore their commitment to collaborative problem solving and its importance to the child or student. IDEA Parts B and C mandate that mediation be made available when a parent or other interested party requests a due process hearing. In Michigan, mediation is available at any time for any special education or early intervention dispute.

Mediation rests on the assumption that most disputes arise from miscommunication, differing perspectives, and diverging interests or needs. It relies on the belief that parties, with the right skills used in the right settings, can retain decision-making authority and resolve matters to everyone’s benefit.

Mediation differs from more traditional forms of conflict resolution—due process hearings, complaints, and litigation—for which IDEA also provides (see Figure 1). These approaches assume that conflicts arise from willful acts or errors in judgment. The parties give up decision-making authority, which passes to an impartial hearing officer, administrative review person, or judge. One party wins and the other loses.

Collaborative Methods Work

The results of collaborative methods compare favorably to the results of traditional methods of dispute resolution. Traditional methods are adversarial in nature and they can be long, disruptive, and expensive. Reaching a decision through a due process hearing can take up to five months and cost up to $40,000. Litigation can take up to two years and cost even more. That’s a hefty burden for school districts, parents, and taxpayers.

By contrast, IFSP and IEPT participants who have good communication skills can reconcile diverse interests during their first meetings. This early success can prevent the need for further proceedings other than required reviews. If communication alone fails to resolve differences, mediation can be completed within a month through services free to parents and school districts (see Figure 2). Mediation succeeds in more than 80 percent of cases and allows everybody
to win.

In choosing whether to use a collaborative approach to resolving conflicts, keep six important ideas in mind:

1. Collaborative skills are designed to solve problems among people with diverse interests. Proving who is right or wrong about a given issue in this context is irrelevant. The goal is to cooperate on making the best possible plan for the child or student.
2. Collaborative approaches can be—and mediation under IDEA is—confidential. Confidentiality fosters a safe environment for discussing the real issues and developing creative solutions.
3. The parties involved retain control of the outcome. They are free to agree or disagree on any issue and make their own decisions. A neutral facilitator cannot impose a solution.
4. Decisions reached by collaborative means are more likely to last; everyone understands the decisions, and the decisions address the needs of all parties.
5. Solutions reached collaboratively set no precedents, which means they do not have legal or procedural impact on other, similar cases. Since solutions will affect only the case in question, participants in later disputes have flexibility solving problems.
6. The use of collaborative approaches leaves the door open to using traditional procedures, if necessary (e.g., complaint, due process hearings, litigation). In other words, parties using mediation do not waive their right to file a complaint, request a due process hearing, or pursue litigation.

Special education and early intervention stakeholders can capture the benefits of collaborative problem solving by committing to its use. They can support that commitment by helping other involved adults learn the necessary skills. Learners would include IFSP and IEPT participants and those who are responsible for early intervention and special education programs but do not participate in individual cases. Stakeholders can further support their commitment to collaborative problem solving by using mediation for issues that call for the assistance of a neutral third party before advancing to hearings or litigation.

In 1997, the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce expressed a strong preference for mediation over litigation in resolving special education disputes. In 2004, the OSE/EIS released a study entitled Survey of Parents and Educators: Opinions and Experience Related to Mediation. The survey report said, “Throughout the survey, the data repeatedly indicates that those with experience and familiarity with mediation strongly believe that it is the best dispute resolution alternative. Moreover, those indicating experience and/or familiarity with mediation believe that it should be one of the first options considered, and certainly should not be viewed as an option of last resort.”

Count those as votes for collaborative methods of resolving disputes. When it comes to building lasting relationships and positive outcomes for infants through young adults, it helps to have the right tools.

[1] The words “child” and “student” as used in this document describe the following persons eligible for services under federal and state law. In Michigan:

Early Intervention Services (under Part C of the IDEA) and special education services (under the Michigan Mandate) are available to eligible infants and toddlers (birth through two years of age) and their families.

Special Education Services (under Part B and Section 619 of the IDEA) are available to eligible children through age 21, and are available under the Michigan Mandate to age 26.