I received a call from a concerned parent regarding her autistic daughter because she felt her needs weren’t being met at school. After several meetings to address the issues, she was offered mediation as a way to resolve the matter. She asked me if she’d have to provide the mediator and what to expect from the process.

In 2004, Congress reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) varies widely by state and local school district. However, in general, to be eligible for special education services the child must be identified by a team of professionals as having a disability that adversely affects academic performance. Parents first request an evaluation for special education. The school then determines if the child has a disability that qualifies and what support the child might require. Parents then meet with the school to develop an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), which spells out goals for the child and the services the school will provide.

 When parents find themselves in disagreement, they may request mediation. The IDEA requires state departments to maintain a list of mediators who have training in mediation and have specialized knowledgeable about federal and state special education laws and regulations. The mediator would be selected on a random basis and there is no cost to the parent(s).

 The process is similar to other forms of mediation. Parents are typically highly involved and anxious to ensure their child receives adequate services. Understandably, they may be emotionally involved. To have successful sessions, the parent must go to the mediation fully prepared while also be willing to listen to the school’s position. The mediator will attempt to help the parties understand each other’s perspective and help them reach an agreement. If that is not successful, the parent may then request a formal hearing.

I had an interesting call from someone who just wanted “an easy way” to understand exactly what mediation is and whether or not she should agree to participating in the process.

 I told her to think of it this way: Do you want to stay in the present, deal with the past, or plan the future?

 Some people during current conflicts perceive benefit from continuing the disagreement. For example, they may believe its continuation somehow forces the other party to eventually accept their postion or somehow gives them an upper hand even if ot costs them time and resources. And then there are those who just enjoy the fight for whatever the reason, which is why I tell mediators you can’t force someone to resolve an issue if they are not ready or willing to do so.

 When it comes to disagreements from the past, I explain the differences between the process of Litigation and Arbitration. In Litigation and Arbitration the parties attempt to prove to a third party what wronged them in the past. Of course, I point out that both sides are convinced they are “right” and that taking this position will probably involve considerable money and time as well as increase the stress the conflct created to begin with. It’s important to remember even if one prevails and “proves” the other party “wrong,” that may not necessarily “fix” the problem.

 For the future, I describe mediation as focusing on how the parties will go forward from where they are now. That may mean letting go of the need to “prove” the other party is “wrong” in order to find a way to move forward. And I make it clear that both parties must be committed to working together with the help of neutral third party to find the future arrangement that works for both of them.

To make mediation work is not as much determined by the mediator as by the commitment of both parties to the process and unless they are ready to do so, the mediation will not be successful.