Finding ways to productively manage conflict in a manner that protects parent—school relationships has become an issue of growing concern in special education. Special education mediation has been promoted as a valuable process, in part, because of its promise for resolving such conflicts in a way that prevents the escalation of adversarial relationships and fosters norms of collaboration among parents and schools. However, despite the growing interest in the impact of mediation on the continuing relationship between parents and schools, empirically, we know very little about the nature of its impact. This study begins to address this gap by qualitatively exploring how parents of special needs students perceive their participation in special education mediation to have affected their ongoing relationship with the school. The findings suggest that mediation has the ability to affect both the interpersonal relationship between parents and school personnel and parents' overall sense of efficacy in their ability to manage their relationship with the school. However, parents' stories indicate that this impact can be either positive or negative. Their stories also indicate that perceived follow-through on the mediation agreement has a significant influence on whether parent—school relationships are perceived to improve or deteriorate further after mediation. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bar-Lev, N.B., Neustadt, S., & Peter, M. (2002). Considering mediation for special education disputes: A school administrator's perspective. Retrieved June 12, 2006 , from http://www.directionservice.org/cadre/administrators.cfm
2.
Beckman, P.J., Frank, N., & Stepanek, J.S. (1996). Resolving conflicts with families. In P. J. Beckman (Ed.), Strategies for working with families of young children with disabilities (pp. 109—126). Baltimore: Brookes .
3.
Beekman, L. (2000). Mediation plus options to resolve the “real” problems underlying disputes. Okemos, MI: Special Education Solutions. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EC308326)
4.
Bennett, M.D., & Hughes, S. (2005). The art of mediation. Notre Dame, IN: National Institute for Trial Advocacy.
5.
Beyer, J. (1999). A modest proposal: Mediating idea disputes without splitting the baby. Journal of Law and Education, 28, 37—60.
6.
Beyer, J., & Feinberg, E. (2006). The role of attorneys in special education mediation . Retrieved June 12, 2006, from http://www.mediate.com/articles/cadre4.cfm
7.
D'Alo, G.E. (2003a). Accountability in special education mediation: Many a slip `twixt vision and practice. Harvard NegotiationLaw Review, 8, 201—269.
8.
D'Alo, G.E. (2003b). Justice, understanding, and mediation: When talk works, should we ask for more?Negotiation Journal, 19, 215—227.
9.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). The handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
Dobbs, R.F., Primm, E.B., & Primm, B. (1991). Mediation: A common sense approach for resolving conflicts in education. Focus onExceptional Children, 24(2), 1—12.
11.
Fine, M.J. (1990). Facilitating home—school relationships: A family-oriented approach to collaborative consultation. Journal of Education and Psychological Consultation, 1, 169—187.
12.
Fish, M. (1990). Family—school conflict: Implications for the family. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities , 6, 71—81.
13.
Gareau, M., & Sawatzky, D. (1995). Parents and schools working together: A qualitative study of parent—school collaboration. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 41, 462—473.
14.
Gewurz, I.G. (2001). (Re)designing mediation to address the nuances of power imbalance. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 19, 135—162.
15.
Goldberg, S., & Huefner, D.S. (1995). Dispute resolution in special education: An introduction to litigation alternatives. West's Education Law Quarterly , 4, 534—542.
16.
Goldberg, S., & Kuriloff, P.J. (1991). Evaluating the fairness of special education hearings. Exceptional Children, 57, 546—555.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, P.L. 101-476, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
19.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P.L. 108-446, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
20.
Indelicato, G.T. (1980). Community involvement and academic achievement: A positive combination. Community Education Journal, 7, 6—8.
21.
Kelly, E.J. (1997). Promoting the full inclusion of emotionally disturbed students through “no fault” interactions between parents and professionals . Psychological Reports, 81, 256—258.
22.
Kritek, P.B. (1994). Negotiating at an uneven table. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
Kuriloff, P.J., & Goldberg, S.S. (1997). Is mediation a fair way to resolve special education disputes? First empirical findings. Harvard NegotiationLaw Review, 2, 35—67.
24.
Lovenheim, P., & Guerin, L. (2004). Mediate, don't litigate: Strategies for successful mediation. Berkeley, CA: Nola.
25.
Margolis, H. (1999). Mediation for special education conflicts: An opportunity to improve family—school relationships. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 10, 91—100.
26.
Margolis, H., & Tewel, K. (1990). Understanding least restrictive environment: A key to avoiding parent—school conflict. The Urban Review , 22, 283—298.
27.
Menkel-Meadow, C., Love, L.P., & Schneider, A.K. (2006). Mediation: Practice, policy, and ethics. New York: Aspen.
28.
Miedel, W.T., & Reynolds, A.J. (1999). Parent involvement in early intervention for disadvantaged children: Does it matter?Journal of School Psychology, 37, 379—402.
29.
Mills, G.E., & Duff-Mallams, K. (1999). A mediation strategy for special education disputes. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35, 87—92.
30.
Moore, C. (2003). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Picker, B.G. (2003). Mediation practice guide: A handbook for resolving business disputes. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.
33.
Pruitt, D.G., Peirce, R.S., McGillicuddy, N.B., Welton, G.L., & Castrianno, L.M. (1993). Long-term success in mediation . Law and Human Behavior, 17, 313—330.
34.
Rosenbaum, S.A. (2004). Aligning or maligning? Getting inside a new IDEA, getting behind No Child Left Behind, and getting outside of it all. Hastings Women'sLaw Journal, 15, 1—38.
35.
Schrag, J.A. (1996). Mediation and other alternative dispute resolution procedures in special education. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
36.
Schrag, J.A., & Schrag, H.L. (2004). National dispute resolution use and e fectiveness study. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
37.
Shortt, T., Douglas, J., & McLain, J. (2000). Building the foundation for special education mediation in Virginia's high schools. NASSP Bulletin, 84(613), 35—40.
38.
Simon, B.S. (2001). Family involvement in high school: Predictors and effects. NASSP Bulletin, 85(627), 8—19.
39.
Symington, G.T. (1995). Mediation as an option in special education. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
40.
Tsur, M. (2006). The art of writing a mediation agreement. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from http://www.mediate.com/articles/tsur.cfm
41.
Verdonk, T. (2001). Michigan special education mediation program receives positive evaluations. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from http://www.directionservice.org/cadre/MSEMP.cfm
42.
Vitello, S. (1990) The e ficacy of mediation in resolution of parent—school special education disputes. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers State University.
43.
Welsh, N.A. (2004). Stepping back through the looking glass: Real conversations with real disputants about institutionalized mediation and its value. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 19, 573—678.
