Building trust with families in an era of AI and increased advocacy

Good morning, everyone. We're gonna give folks just 30 more seconds to jump on this morning. I'm watching our participant rate climb and climb and climb. We're so excited to be chatting today with everybody in Kansas, bringing together Dr. David Bateman and the Parallel crew. As well as our partners at Casey. We had over 60 folks register for our, our session today, so we know that this is a hot topic across not only Kansas, but really the country. We were having a really exciting conversation in the Zoom backstage room as well, so I'm really excited to get David, if you could flip to the next slide. First, we want to say a special thank you to our friends at Casey for sponsoring this webinar today and collaborating with us. Thank you, everyone. Well, welcome. We are so excited that you're able to join us today. I know you will gain some valuable information. As Lauren has indicated, we've already had some brief conversations, so information that you will get to hear today, I know you will take back, and, and definitely it will contribute to how you're working in your district. So welcome. Awesome. And before we get started with David, I want to share just a little bit about Parallel Learning with you. We provide virtual services and also IEP case management to school districts across the country, but everything we do at the center of that work is making sure that your students have the outcomes and meet their goals and even exceed them throughout their journey of working with us. We have a fabulous team that works in Kansas, including DJ Arney in Business Development, Eve Gantz in Partnership, our Partnerships Director, and also Linda Porter, who is our Senior Customer Success Manager. You may have seen these folks around some events across the state, and you might have an email or two or a voicemail in your inbox from them. We are also well supported in Kansas by our parallel advisor, Mike Lowers, who works as the interim executive director of special education and special services at Topeka Public Schools. We love having Mike be our guiding light in Kansas, and he's also let us know that if you're interested in starting virtual services or maybe taking a look at your program as a whole and seeing where they might fit in best, please reach out to Mike to get his, his feedback and experience. He's more than willing to share, share what it's like to set up a virtual program. And so one of the, you know, the main reason why we're here today is to chat about AI. And that is something that, you know, in my 15 years of experience in education, we weren't talking about just a couple of years ago. And so I know that more and more is added to your plates as leaders in education every day. And at Parallel, we wanna make sure that we are taking work off of your plate and making your life a little bit easier, giving you more time back in your day. And the way that we're able to do that is to provide services in one place. So we can help you with speech-language pathology services, either direct or indirect. We can help out with your virtual assessments as well. David, if you want to move to the next slide. And we also provide specially designed instruction, that very unique one-on-one or small group work that we need done to make sure that we're meeting our service minutes. But it's all in one place for you, one partner to work with. All of that work is held together by a platform that we built specifically to deliver virtual services. We can go to the next slide. We call it Pathway. Pathway is a place where you can see not only the minutes that are getting delivered, but the progress that your students are making towards their goals. You also have the billing information that you need right at your fingertips. So if you do have a due process hearing coming up, you can get access to all of that information and all of that compliance work right at your fingertips. So if you're curious to learn more or share a little bit about your program and maybe plan out where virtual services would fit best, please scan, scan this slide here or take a look in the chat. We have a link to book. We'd love to meet with you, get to know your district in particular and where we might be able to support either now or even later on in the future. So a few housekeeping items before we get started. This session will be recorded and sent to everybody who registered, and please feel free to send it out and share it with all of your friends as well. We're also going to leave time for some Q&A at the end, so use, um, in the bottom bar on your Zoom, you can submit questions live. And so without further ado, I'm thrilled to introduce someone who has truly become the trusted voice in our field, Dr. David Bateman. Many of you may already know his work. With over 3 decades in special education and experience presiding over more than 580 due process hearings, he brings both a deep legal insight and practical understanding of the real challenges that you're facing every single day. We're incredibly grateful to have him as a parallel advisor. And today, you know, we're gonna keep in mind that we're talking about moving from conflict to collaboration. So David, please be nice to all of the Wildcats that are on the call today. He's holding up his Jayhawk flag there, but I promise David will be nice. So with that, I will turn it over to you, David.

It's not often that I get to be familiar, be really comfortable saying Rock Chalk to everyone, but please, Take it in the spirit that's intended. When I said that to my friends in Missouri, they were not happy. But Rock Chalk, folks. All right. And if I could, I would go to Free State Brewery on a regular basis and get one of their pale ales. That's one of my favorite things. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us. What I want to do in this hour is very practical. This is not a session about controlling parents. This is not a session about limited advocacy or winning arguments about how schools can communicate more clearly. And that's our focus. We need to build trust and respond effectively when concerns begin to escalate. The environment around special education has changed. Families have greater access to information. More— they have more advocacy resources, more AI tools that can help them analyze documents and prepare questions almost instantly. And that creates challenges, but it also creates an opportunity for us to improve our own practices. My central message today is going to be very simple. The same practices that make districts more legally defensible usually make it more humane, more transparent, and easier for families to trust. So let's just talk about the session overview real quickly about this one and what we're going to do about what we're addressing here. Okay, here's what we're going to do during this hour, and I'm going to talk fast. Okay, for anyone, any of those who knew me, who had me for class when I was at Emporia State or other places, you know I can talk quickly. But I'm going to organize around this on 5 basic ideas. First, the environment has changed. AI and increased advocacy have changed the parent-school relationship. I'm not telling you anything you don't know. Second, trust breaks down, usually breaks down before a complaint is even filed, and that there is almost always a history as a part of this one. Third, families need specificity. They need follow-through and meaningful participation. Simply saying trust us is not enough. Fourth, AI creates risks on both sides. Parents may use it and districts may use it. Either may create problems if the information is inaccurate or professional judgment disappears. And fifth, I will give you a practical response model where we listen, where we clarify, investigate, respond, and follow through. That is the framework that I want you to take, be able to take back this afternoon and move forward. Okay? So let's move to the core message and talk about where we're going with this one. Okay? This is the idea I want you to keep in mind for the entire presentation. Okay? Conflict often begins long before anyone uses the word complaint. And just to remind you, every single state in the nation that I work with saw more complaints last year. And we're seeing— and we're tracking them this year. We're seeing more complaints this year. And I want to emphasize is that most complaints do not begin with a due process hearing. Kansas is historically low on due process hearings. Just be thankful that you don't live in the great state of New York where 2/3 of all the due process hearings in the nation occur. But this begins when the family thinks— and this is a think about this one— families often start with this process where they say, nobody's listening to me. Or I do not understand what the school is doing, or I'm getting a different answer from every person I ask. Once this happens, every new interaction gets interpreted through that loss of trust. And that's what we have to think about is what can we do to establish greater trust with the families? AI and increased advocacy can accelerate the process because a parent could take a concern, Turn it into a very format, formal legal-looking document within minutes and send it to the district or send it to, to the, the state. But AI did not necessarily create the distrust. Keep that in mind as we address this. Often it simply just gives the family a new way to act on this distrust that was already there. So before we focus on the legal filings, we need to understand what happens before the filing. So let's move to how the environment has changed on this one. And the environment has changed. The first point, it's changed. Families today have more information, more tools, and more ways to advocate than any previous point in special education. I do not say this as criticism. Advocacy is not the enemy. Families should absolutely understand their rights and should be able to participate meaningfully. That's something that I want to make sure that we emphasize. As a parent of 2 children, one who had an IEP in school and one who had a 504, I realize how important the family's role in this is in the process. But what we have to realize here is about this. It does not mean that districts cannot rely. It does not. But it does mean that districts cannot rely on old communication habits. A vague answer, an unanswered email, or poorly written progress report can now be shared, analyzed, and questioned very, very quickly. So our task is not to wish the environment were different. Okay, wish it all you want, but this is the new reality. Our task is to build systems that function well in the environment that we actually have as a part of this one. And I speak to this as I'm a complaint investigator in several states. And complaints 3, 4 years ago were 6, 8 pages at most. Now, I got a complaint just last week that's 290 pages with 28 attachments. That totals over 1,300 pages of information. We cannot use AI to review these complaints because of the PII. So we have to think about the reality of what's going on about this one.

Okay?

But let's talk about something has changed, right? Let's look at this. Think about what families can access now. They can find summaries of IDEA and Section 504 in ways that they did not previously. We'll actually have a QR code at the end where you can scan and get a really good 504 writing guide that will assist you that multiple states are using to help with this, that parents are sharing, that I fully want to share as a part of this one. Parents can enjoy— can join parent advocacy networks and social media groups. They can read complaint decisions and hearing decisions. And now they can paste an IEP or an evaluation into an AI tool and ask it to identify problems. I'm betting you guys have seen this. Yeah, that changes the nature of communication. A concern that might once have been a hallway conversation can now arrive as a 2-page email with legal terminology, citations, and a list of requested remedies. You're seeing this. If you haven't, we can get you some. We'll have a sign-up sheet for you. But this does not mean the parent is right, but it also does not mean the parent is wrong. Make sure you understand both things. It means the district has to respond to the substance of the concern, not react to the style of communication. The more formal the family communication becomes, the more important it is for the district to stay calm. To stay factual and to stay student-specific. So let's talk about this one. All right, so let's just talk about this. All right, the AI effect. Here's what AI effect is in very simple terms. A parent can leave an IEP meeting, they can go home, immediately ask, was this legal? What did the district fail to do? Or write an email requesting an IEE, or analyze the IEP for IDEA violations, or give me questions to ask at the next meeting. I'm betting you are seeing this. Whether the answer AI gives is accurate or inaccurate, the next interaction with a district may be completely different. This means districts need a response system Not an emotional reaction. If a parent comes in with language that sounds AI-generated, do not make the conversation about ChatGPT or Claude, my son's new best friend. Do not say you got this from AI. That is irrelevant. Full stop. That is irrelevant. The question is, what is the concern? What does the law require? What do the students' data show? And what is the team going to do about this one? We have to shift the focus from complaining about the use of AI to what our responsibilities are about this one and emphasize this one. Wait, there's more. Advocacy is not the problem. I want to be very clear about this one. Advocacy is not the problem. As someone who advocated for my daughter when she was having some bone density issues when she was in 2nd grade, I had to advocate for her about this one. I would gladly do it again because of the needs and happily do it again because she needed assistance. because she had a teacher who was not providing appropriate supports for her. But good advocacy also can improve accountability. If you can help parents participate meaningfully, it can help identify real problems earlier. Sometimes it pushes teams to be clearer about data, and I can emphasize that with you. I think if anyone's going to the National CASE Conference in Providence, I'm going to be talking about that there. It sometimes pushes teams to be clear about data, services, and decision-making. The problem, and this is— I bring up the problem, is escalation without accurate information or without genuine problem solving. Advocacy can sometimes bring misinformation, overly legalistic communication, or demand to jump immediately to a remedy before the team has even clarified the concern. AI can make that more common because it produces language that sounds authoritative Even when the conclusion is wrong. The district's response should not be, the parent is difficult. The response should be, what is accurate? What is accurate? What does the child need? And what do we need to do? What do we need to explain or fix? So keep this in mind as we talk about this one. So I'm not blaming parents at all. No, not in the least. Please, and please don't. Okay, so let's talk about how trust gets lost. I want to shift from the outside environment to what happens inside our own systems. Trust usually does not disappear because of one dramatic event. It erodes through patterns, surprise, silence— I paused for that one— inconsistency, defensiveness, and weak follow-through. That is important because these are things that districts can control. We cannot control whether a parent hires an advocate. We cannot control whether a family uses AI. We cannot control what someone reads on social media. But we can control whether we answer and how we answer emails, whether our staff give consistent information, or whether we prepare for meetings, whether we explain our reasoning, and whether we do what we say we would do. Those ordinary practices are what are where a great deal of conflict is either prevented or created. Keep this in mind. You control what you can control, and that's what we have to think about this one. All right? So they've— Laura did a great job highlighting the number of due process hearings I adjudicated. But since then, I've been involved in over— I totaled it up the other day— 1,152 due process hearings through— from one form or another. So what I've learned about this one is that conflict has a history. It doesn't happen with just one event. Often when you see a formal complaint, do not assume that the complaint tells you the whole story. As I read some of these complaints, some of them are getting longer. It's really amazing. The issue named in the complaint is often only the last event in a much longer sequence. Okay, maybe there is an unanswered email 3 months earlier. Maybe a related service was missed repeatedly. Maybe 2 staff members gave different explanations. Maybe the progress report said almost nothing, and that's something I'm gonna rail on in a few minutes. Maybe the parent raised a concern several times and felt dismissed. These are withdrawals from what I refer to as the trust account. They truly are withdrawals. So when a family escalates, one of the first leadership questions should not be, why are they doing this to us? It should be, What has the family experienced up to this point? That question often reveals the real problem much faster than reading the allegation in isolation. Keep that in mind as we pay attention to— as we address this and pay attention to where we're going with this one. Okay, so let's talk about how schools lose trust. Right, just, just, just build on this one. There are— and this is what I've seen over the years. There could be more, but these are the 5 main ones that I'm seeing, and these are ones that we can all talk about as we address this one. But there are 5 predictable ways that schools lose trust. The number one surprise: a major decision appears in a meeting with no warning. We'll talk about that one. Second one. Second one is silence. Yes, I paused on that one. A concern sits unanswered long enough that the parent concludes nobody cares. Third one: inconsistency. One person says one thing, another person says something completely different. Fourth, defensiveness. The district starts defending itself before anyone has actually investigated what happened. And number 5, no follow-through. Sometimes someone says, I'll check on that, and then nothing happens. Okay, these sound like communication problems. They do. But they quickly become legal problems because they affect participation. They affect implementation. They affect documentation and the credibility of the district's record. The important point— let's make sure we understand— the important point is that all 5 are preventable, and that's what we have to focus on. All right, so let's move to the next one, what I refer to as dangerous. Ready? Okay. One of the most dangerous sentences in special education Is we've always done it that way. That, that may explain a practice, but it does not justify a practice. Understand the difference between the two. A building habit, a district tradition, a staffing pattern, or preferred service model cannot override the student's individualized need or the IEP. I was in a district yesterday that is known as a full inclusion district. What they were focusing on is the fact that parents are upset that their kids are not getting the services that they're supposed to be doing. It's because it's always been done that way. There's going to be some changes. When a parent asks, why is my child receiving this service? The answer cannot be, that is what we do for all students in the program. That is not defensible. That doesn't go to the— because we in special education have this thing called an IEP. I don't remember what the I stands for, but it has to pay attention to that. We can't just say all students all the time, right? The answer should connect these services to the students, the identified need, the date, the goal, the specially designed instruction, and the team's reasoning. Anytime you hear anyone say, we always, or we never, in an IEP discussion, That should be a cue to slow down and make sure the decision is actually individualized for the student. Because too often what we say is we never do that, or we— I don't care. You've never done it before. You may have a child who needs this, and you're making decisions based on historical concepts so that we don't articulate the needs of this child or provide needs for this. So keep that in mind as we address this one more. The communication gap. This is a very big communication problem. The school says his progress is appropriate, and boy, I'm going to rail on this in a few minutes, so stay seated.

Okay.

What the parent may hear is, you do not think there is a problem. And just make sure you understand, as we define FAPE, we have to pay attention to the procedural part, the timelines. Do we have the right people in the room? Are we following the timelines appropriately? Those kinds of things. Special education is very procedurally driven. The thought process, the thought behind this is fair procedures means fair outcomes. Yes, people get upset with procedures, but they're not concerned so much as we're following timelines and are we have the right room. The complaints that I'm seeing is, is the kid making progress? That's more of a concern. That's more of the concern. Do we have the right people in the room? No, that's, that's, that's, that's more parents are more concerned about what's going on. So we just talk about this one. We say, you don't think there's a problem? The school may believe that they're reassuring the parent, but reassurance without specificity often sounds dismissive. Let me give you an example. Last year, I was involved in a case where the kid was on task at the end of the first marking period 29% of the time. At the end of the year, 3 marking periods later, the kid was on task 30% of the time. The district declared that he was making progress. And I understand that he's making progress according to this, but he's going to be 42 years of age before he gets to where he's supposed to be. So keep this in mind as we address this one. But let's talk more about the better answer of this one. The better answer: at the beginning of the quarter, he was reading 42 correct words per minute. He is now at 54. The goal is 70 by January. He is improving, but the rate of growth is not yet where we want it to be. So we changed the instructional grouping 2 weeks ago, and we'll review the data again on October 15th. That is a very different conversation. Specificity a lot builds credibility. It also gives the parents something concrete to respond to. Let's talk about this one, because I'm harping a lot. For those who may see some presentations I'll be doing over the next year, I'm going to spend a lot of time trying to up progress monitoring. So let's talk about progress monitoring as a trust issue. Right? It's not just a compliance issue. It's a trust issue. Families should not get to April and suddenly discover their child has made very little progress since September. They deserve clear answers to basic questions. What was the baseline? What was the goal? What data were collected? Is the student responding to instruction? And if not, what did the team change? I mean this literally. We have an acronym in special education. We don't often talk about this as an official acronym, and it's a true, a real-life acronym. It's not one of my made-up ones, but the acronym is K-O-S-H-K. K-O-S-H-K. For it stands for when a district knew, as in K-N-E-W, knew or should have known. Keep this in mind because a lot of the lawsuits I'm involved are KUSHK lawsuits, and I mean this with all the seriousness. Okay, so they deserve answers about this one. A weak progress report repeats the goal and then says something like, student is making progress. That tells the family almost nothing. Good progress monitoring gives a team a basis for action and gives the family a reason to trust what the school is saying. The point is not to produce more paperwork. I'm well aware of this one. We as educators work really hard. The point is to know whether we are doing what is working, and that's what we have to focus on. So let's talk about this one more. Implementation is a trust issue. If the IEP says 30 minutes, 5 times a week, small group instruction, assistive technology, or particular accommodation. The family appropriately, reasonably expects this to happen. Now, schools are real places. I took contracts law at KU Law School. I took contracts in law school there. What I found very specifically is an IEP is not like a contract where we are guaranteeing that the child makes progress, but we're guaranteeing that we make a good faith attempt for the child to move forward. And that's what we have to do as a part of this one. So you have to read the IEP in part as a contract. Now, schools are real places, and one-day disruption can occur. A staff member is absent, fire drills happen, schedules change. Okay, the question is whether the interruption was isolated or whether it becomes a pattern. If services were missed repeatedly, the district needs to determine the educational impact and what correction is needed. That may involve makeup services, That may involve comp ed, that may involve schedule changes, staffing changes, or another remedy depending on the circumstances. The worst response, absolutely the worst response, is to pretend implementation occurred when the records show otherwise. Accurate records and prompt correction protect both the student and the district. So let's talk about the concept which I alluded to just a few minutes ago, this concept of what I refer to as the trust account. Right? I don't want to use this as a way to remember. Every interaction either deposits into trust or withdraws from trust. Transparency is a deposit. Follow-through is a deposit. Good data is a deposit. Returning a call is a deposit. Admitting a mistake is often a major deposit. Surprises are withdrawals. Avoidance is a withdrawal. Boilerplate language is a withdrawal. Changing explanations are withdrawals. Promises are not kept, which are withdrawals. But here's the problem. Once the account is overdrawn, even reasonable district actions may be viewed suspiciously. That is why small interactions matter. A 5-minute phone call today may prevent a 5-month dispute later. Administrators should think about trust as something that has to be built continuously, not something we ask families to provide automatically. So let's talk about this one. So let's talk about what families need from schools. Okay. Please, let's move from trust, how trust gets lost, to what families actually need. 3 distinctions really matter. Okay. Listening is not agreement. You can listen carefully to a parent and still disagree with the requested remedy. Do it all the time. Participation is not just attendance. A parent sitting in the meeting does not automatically mean the parent meaningfully participates. Keep that in mind as we address this. And communication is not just notice. Sending a document does not necessarily mean the family understands what is being proposed or why. The goal is not to promise families everything they requested. The goal is to make sure concerns are understood, relevant information is considered, decisions are explained, and next steps are clear. That is both better practice and better process. So let's talk about this one. All right, so let's go to some concerns. Let's start with the actual concern. Then before you respond to the parent's request, identify what they think. Parent says, we need a one-on-one aide, and I know that your districts have more than enough one-on-one aides, so this is not an issue. I'm joking. But the parents, why they were requesting for one-on-one, the underlying concern may be safety. Or the parent may say, we want an independent educational evaluation. The underlying concern may be that they do not trust the evaluation. The parent says, we want another placement. The concern may be lack of progress or school refusal. The parent says, we want reduced workload. Their concern may be access, maybe anxiety or disability-related fatigue. The team may ultimately say no to the requested remedy. But you— but if you only argue about the remedy, you never address the real issue. A much better question is, help us understand what you're most worried will happen if nothing changes. That question often opens the door to problem solving, and that's what we have to strive for as a part of this one. So let's move to listening is not an agreement. Okay? Right? One of the most useful meeting strategies is the ability to acknowledge a concern without conceding the conclusion. I only go to contentious IEP meetings. I don't go to the happy ones. Just let you know about this one. I go to a lot of contentious IEP meetings. I do what I can to explain things. But you can say, I understand why that worries you. You can say, let's look at the data. You can say, we need to review that concern, or here is what we do next. Those phrases lower the temperature, and that's what we need to strive for as a part of this one. Compare that with— let's look at the unhelpful language. Okay, that is not accurate. We do not do that. The law does not require that, or we already addressed that. Sometimes those statements may eventually, may eventually be legally correct, but they're terrible opening lines. Start by showing that you understand the concern, then investigate it, and then respond. Acknowledgement is not surrender. It is good meeting management, and that's what we have to focus on. Okay, so keep that in mind. All right, so here. This is tip. Teams should not discover the facts at the same time the family does. Before an important meeting, someone should know what services the student receiving. What does the schedule actually look like? What do the progress data show? Were there missed services? What concerns has the parent already raised? Where are the likely points of disagreement? What decisions might the team need to make? I do witness preparation for due process hearings. We never go in where there's going to be a surprise. There is— I make sure— I, I, I'm from the South, I can say this— I guaran-damn-tee there is not going to be a surprise for the team when that person's testifying as a part of this one. But you need to make sure you do the same thing in meetings. Okay? And this becomes even more evident in— as a part— important as part of virtual meetings on Zoom. Uncertainty reads as disorganization. Disorganization can read as indifference. If 3 staff members are searching the same information while the parent waits, confidence drops, and it drops quickly. Preparation does not mean predetermination. It does not mean that. I am hugely opposed to predetermination. I am a huge fan of preparation. Understand the difference. It means a team cannot be— that means the team comes ready to have an informal discussion rather than trying to reconstruct the case in real time. So what I believe in— this is, this is probably got some sense of this. I gave it away before. No surprises. Okay, no surprise. No surprises. Surprise is one of the fastest ways to lose trust. If the district is considering a significant change, do not introduce it cold at the meeting where it can be reasonably discussed or reviewed beforehand. Share information, identify new concerns. Explain the team needs to— explain that the team needs to discuss a proposed change. Give the family enough time to prepare and ask questions. Now, there's an important distinction. Preparation is not predetermination. Said this before, saying it again. Feel comfortable with this. I'll sleep better. The team can prepare possible options and review data before the meeting. What it cannot do is make the final decision in advance and use the meeting as a formality. The goal is to arrive prepared but still genuinely open to parent input and team discussion. And so let me explain why, right? Okay. A bare denial almost always escalates the disagreement. We are not going to provide the accommodation. The student does not need the service. That placement is too restrictive. Those statements may state the conclusion, but they don't state the reasoning. A better response And I— that has 5 parts. 5 parts, right? First, state the concern as you understand it. Second, identify the information the team reviewed. Third, explain their reasoning. Fourth, describe what the team will do instead if something different is proposed. And fifth, set a point for follow-up. That is also the logic behind good prior written notices. A family should be able to understand not only what the team decided, but why it decided it. Student-specific reasoning is far more persuasive than a categorical answer. So keep that in mind as you address this. My advice to you also, as, as someone who's reviewed a lot of prior written notices, write the prior written notice so you clearly articulate what you decided, but write it for someone who is not in the room so they can understand it. Keep that in mind as you do this.

Okay?

So when the schools make a mistake, And sometimes this happens. When this happens, the cover-up is usually worse than the original problem. The first step is to acknowledge it. Say what happened without defensiveness. Second, determine the impact. Did the student miss services, lose access, make less progress? Was the error harmless, or did it matter educationally? Third, correct it. Fix the schedule, provide the service, reconvene the team. Offer comp services if warranted, or take whatever action the facts require. And fourth, prevent reoccurrence. Explain what systems change, training, supervision, or check will be put in place. Administrators need permission to solve real problems rather than defend the indefensible. A credible district is not a district that never makes mistakes. First, let me just make sure you understand, when there was a national training of hearing officers about 3 months ago. The emphasis there was not perfection but responsiveness. The district that responds reasonably when mistakes occur, that's what we're looking for about this one. Okay, here, pay attention to this also. Parent participation is much more than having a parent's name on the attendance page. Ask 3 questions: Was the concern actually heard? Was it discussed? Was relevant information considered? Was the rationale explained, and can the record show this? The district does not have to agree with every parent request. IDEA does not give parents unilateral decision-making authority, but the team absolutely needs to meaningfully consider what the parent brings to the table. Meaningfully. Absolutely. The team— that means we should be able to look at the meeting notes, the prior written notice, the evaluation record, or other documentation and see That the concern was considered. That is where legal and relationship pieces come together. Meaningful participation produces a better record because it reflects a better process. We have to think about this one. Okay, so wait, there's more. Okay, well, let's turn to AI. If you haven't heard of it, some people refer to it as A1, but AI can help families and it can help schools. It could summarize It can organize. It can generate questions. It can draft language and make complicated information even more accessible. But it also creates a new risk. Accuracy risks, confidentiality risks, we talk about trust risks and the risk that people substitute generated text for professional judgment. My approach is not anti-AI. Nope, nope. AI is a tool. I've been using AI for the past 35 years in my work. I use spell check, but I then read everything to make sure it checks correctly. Right? But so keep that in mind. It's not a new tool, but we've been using it very differently now. The key question is whether the tool improves professional work or begins to replace the professional thinking that should be happening. For families, the same principle applies. AI may help them formulate a concern, but the team still has to work from the actual student The actual data, the actual legal requirements, and actual educational judgment. So keep this in mind. All right, so the parents may have an AI copilot. Understand the pun here. Okay, assume the families may use AI before, during, or after the IEP process. They may use it to analyze evaluations. They may use it to compare 2 IEPs. They may use AI to draft a response, generate accommodations. Research legal rights, or prepare questions for the meeting. Do not be offended by this. If the parent comes to a meeting with a list of 25 questions generated by AI, your job is not to debate how the questions were created. Your job is to identify the important concerns and answer them accurately. Bring the discussion back to 3 things. First, the student. Second, the data. And third, the legal or educational standard. The more disciplined the district is about those 3 things, the less threatening AI becomes about this one. So keep this in mind. Okay, but AI can be wrong. It can be extremely useful, but confident language is not the same thing as accurate legal guidance. It may invent a case. It may give the rule from the wrong state and may rely on outdated data. It may take, it may take a best practice recommendation and describe it as a legal mandate. It may confuse IDEA and Section 504, or it may suggest that a diagnosis automatically establishes eligibility, which it doesn't. So when a parent presents an AI-generated claim, do not argue with the terminology. Instead, say, let's identify the specific concern. Then identify the applicable requirement. Then look at the student's data, then explain the team's reasoning. You are much more likely to resolve the issue by addressing the substance than by trying to prove that the parent's AI tool is unreliable. Right? So wait, there's more. Okay? Do not fight AI with AI. This is a practical version of the previous point. The parent says ChatGPT says you violated IDEA. The weakest response is ChatGPT is wrong. That turns into a meeting— that turns a meeting into a debate about terminology. A better response is, let's identify the concerns you're raising. Then let's look at the requirement. Then let's look at the student data and what actually occurred. And finally, here is the team's rationale. That sequence is useful whether the claim came from AI, an advocate, a lawyer, the Facebook or neighbor. The source of the allegation is less important than whether the allegation is accurate and whether the student's needs are being addressed. Okay, so you have risks too. Okay, you need to make sure that you're equally careful about your own use of AI. Staff may use AI to draft IEP language, and I have guidance which I'll drop in the chat when we get to the chat questions in a few minutes on districts' use of AI. It's about this one. But you, you, but they use it to summarize evaluations, prepare prior written notices, write progress summaries on these things. Those can save time, but they can also create serious risks. AI can produce boilerplates. It can insert facts from the wrong student. It can hallucinate information. It can create confidentiality problems, which is a big concern that I have. And it can cause staff to accept a polished paragraph without asking whether it is actually accurate. That's what we have to focus on. Imagine a parent reading an IEP and realizing language does not match their child. I've seen that before. We've used copy and paste historically. Trust collapses immediately. My sister had a child with an IEP that had one name on one page, different name on several pages, and then had a sex change for several pages. It was really interesting. So keep this in mind about this one. The district AI rule, simple enough for every staff to remember. Use this one. AI may assist professional judgment. It cannot replace professional judgment. That means every AI-assisted document still needs human review. The data have to be accurate. The language has to be student-specific. Confidentiality has to be protected. The legal standard has to be correct. If you would not be comfortable signing your name to a document without saying AI wrote it, then it's not ready. AI can help us work faster, but it cannot be a decision maker. When both sides use AI, when parents say, AI says demand an IEE, the district's AI says draft a defensible denial. Now both sides have polished documents, legal language, strong positions, but no one has actually addressed or discussed the child. That's the danger. Automation can produce documents without producing understanding. The goal of the IEP process is not who can produce the better letter. It's to identify the student's needs, consider the available information, and make educational decisions. So when the process starts becoming document versus document, someone needs to bring it back to the child and say, what problem are we actually trying to solve? Okay, so let's move from conflict. We're gonna take questions in a minute because I'm gonna start talking faster. All right. But we have— this is about this. Okay, the answer to conflict is not better automation. It's better problem solving. We need a repeatable process that staff can use when communication starts to become tense. The model I'm gonna give you is intentionally simple because it's simple systems that people use more consistently. You do not need your 40-page protocol. You need a sequence that helps people about this one. Okay, so here's the model. First, listen. Identify the actual worry and the outcome the family is seeking. Second, clarify. Separate facts from assumptions, requests from legal questions and educational concerns. Third, investigate. Read the IEP, check the logs, look at the data, talk to the staff who are involved. Fourth, Respond. Explain what you reviewed, what you found, and what the district will do next. Fifth, follow through. Do what you promised and document what happened. The final step is where, where many systems fail. This sequence lowers the temperature because what it does is show the families concerns are being taken seriously. So keep this in mind. So listen and clarify. I've got some tips for you here about this one. Do not start with district policy. Start with concerns. Then clarify what you're doing is about this one. A 5-minute clarification in the beginning can save hours of argument later. Next, investigate and respond. Read the IEP. Talk to the teacher. Look at the progress monitoring data. Review the relevant data and emails and communication. Then respond with a clear structure as a part of this one. This is the concern you have been raising. This is the information reviewed. This is what we found. Then follow through. This may be the simplest slide we're talking about today, but it is probably one of the most important. Do what you said you are going to do and then document the snot out of it. And I mean that with all seriousness. If you told the parent you would check the service logs by Friday, check them by Friday. If you said the team would reconvene, schedule the meeting. If you promised updated progress data, send the data. Trust goes when families see the communication produces actions. Keep that in mind as we talk about this one. But closing loop is important. Okay? So these 5 practices to take back tomorrow, we're going to go through this really quickly. Okay? But 5 practices. These are not complicated reforms. Okay? Communicate early. Do not wait until the concern hardens into a complaint. Second, use clear data. Third, avoid surprises. Fourth, address mistakes. Fifth, close the loop. These require consistency. They require— they require— if you're working with the administrative team tomorrow morning, these are the 5 behaviors I would ask them to build into their normal routines. And then last on this one, an administrator self-audit. You ask these. Ask families receiving progress reports, can they— are families receiving progress reports they can understand? Are unanswered emails being monitored, or they just simply disappear? Are we actually checking where either IEP services are occurring rather than assuming they did? If the district says we considered that concern, would the record show it? If the district says the service occurred, would the logs show it? Good systems create records that match reality. And finally, the goal. The goal is not to limit disagreement. Oh no, not at all. Schools and families are going to disagree. Sometimes they're going to disagree strongly. That is built in a system where important decisions are being made about children. The goal is not to limit disagreement. The goal is to create the trust that can be handled without producing what's going on about this one. So keep this in mind as we pay attention to this one. All right, so what I'm going to do here is— what are you seeing in Kansas? I'm seeing a variety of things, and we can talk about what we're seeing here, but what we have here is something for you to download, and we're going to— we're going to do this, and I want to make sure that you get an opportunity to do this one. It's practical resources for your whole team. I'm the author of multiple books, and the books, what we did is we have summarized that information into what you need to know about IEPs, what you need to know about specially designed instruction, and what you need to know about progress monitoring. We've got some great resources for here that you can copy, you can share with your team. We field tested in multiple locations. Why I want to emphasize this one is due process hearings can be prevented. What we have to think about is what we can do to explain this, what's going on. So I'm going to pause just for a second so that you can scan this QR code. We'll make sure you have an opportunity to get this later, but I'm going to stop sharing my screen for a minute, and then we're going to take some questions and just kind of make sure that we address any questions that you have as a part of this, because we want, we want to do everything we can to go to where you are about this one. I appreciate your willingness to participate today and your willingness to be part of this, but we want to do what we can to answer your questions in the time that's remaining. So, Lauren, do we have any questions that we can do as a call to the floor?

We sure do, and I swear that this first one was not a plant. But the question is, assume that the school wants to offer services through parallel learning. However, the parent does not agree to the provision of services electronically. Does the school have the authority to set the delivery method regardless of parental preference? Parents could then file for due process protections to dispute the school's actions, correct?

Yes. Yeah, let's talk about this one. Okay. And so when we talk about virtual services and the services that we're doing, and the parents are upset with what's going on about this one, is what we're articulating is something that We have to provide services, right? And that's the material that changes the analysis. So let's talk about this. Any recommendation should focus exclusively on whether the services can— options can implement the IEP and provide FAPE. If the district believes its proposed in-person program is inappropriate, it should clearly document this one. But most importantly, the parent's refusal of virtual services does not automatically require the district to fund whatever in-person placement the parents prefer. The question remains whether the district has offered appropriate program that provides FAPE. If it has, parental preference for a person— different in-person program does not control. If it has not, that— if it is not, the district needs to develop another viable person. But then now in the analysis, it would take virtual services— I would not take virtual services completely off the table and compare only the legally parts of this one. We have to ask very specifically, can the virtual services actually provide the FAPE for the child? And that's what we have to focus on as a part of this one. And what I'm thinking, what I want to think about this one is for those districts who are considering virtual services, what I would recommend is that you read Parallel's latest white paper on the fact that kids were making progress actually higher than kids who were receiving face-to-face services. Because of how the services are being implemented as a part of this one, it's it's I'm not I'm not going to stand in front of you and say that virtual services are for every kid. I can't do that. But what I can say is it's a workaround that we need to think about as a part of this one. SLP services were were approved by Asha well before COVID and and we we all know this. If you I lived in Kansas for many years. There are some rural parts of Kansas where there are some kids out there that need services, and we have to think about what we can do to provide those services appropriately for them as a part of this and. Truly address what's going on. One of my closest friends lived in Quinter, and there's not a lot of people out there, but there's some kids out there that have some specific needs that we have to think about as paying attention to this one. So we have to think about, can the services actually do this? Is it fact in whether the district can actually make it and address this one? Okay, another question.

Well, we feel free to drop your questions in the chat. I know that on our pre-meeting, a question had come up that I thought we were having a really great conversation around is we're seeing this influx of due process cases, but does that mean that we're not doing a great job?

Well, what we're seeing is— and I appreciate how you said it is— we're seeing an influx of complaints. Every single state in the nation last year saw more complaints than the previous year. And in the multiple states that I'm working with this year, we're on rise for this year to have more than we had last year. And that's posing a significant problem. And I don't want to dismiss this as parents are crazy or anything. I would never say that. Is it that we have basically— is that parents, there's a lack of trust in the system. And when I say that there's a lack of trust in the system is there are several things we need to pay attention to. Previously, parents could file complaints with the Office of Civil Rights in Washington. Every cabinet-level office has an Office of Civil Rights. There's one— there's Office of Civil Rights in Transportation, there's one in Department of Defense, there's one in Veterans. So there's one for every cabinet area. The one in education has been all but decimated. And so parents, I'm told, if you spent any time at the Facebook pages, parent groups, and I go there because I feel comfortable that I can go there as a parent of a child, one child who had an IEP and one who had I was foreign school. My children had disabilities, so I go there. I don't participate, but I lurk what's going on. And what every single Facebook group that I'm seeing is telling parents to file a complaint. Why? Because they get closure within 60 days. Very rarely do you get closure on a lot of things in your life within 60 days, but you get closure. And the second is you preserve all of your due process rights by going to a complaint. You preserve all due process, or you go to mediation, which I'm a huge fan of, by the way. We go to mediation as a part of this one. But parents are filing complaints and getting closure, and then they're saying, well, I'm not sure if I really like this. Then they're still preserving all their due process rights that they're participating in as part of this one. So it doesn't waive anything as a part of that. So we have to address this. So every single state, we're seeing just dramatic rises in this and dramatic rises in the length of complaints. And it's posing a problem for complaint investigators who are not able to— for states who don't have more complaint investigators. Some states are reaching out to me to be like a contracted complaint investigator to help with what's going on, just because we're seeing just numbers in this one. I wish we saw more increases in mediation. I'm a huge fan of mediation because when I've worked as a mediator, and I've done that in 7 states and 2 territories, what we see as a part of that is a way to try to bring closure and agreement that we can work with the kid tomorrow. Complaints— don't dismiss the parent's complaint. I came up with a phrase a few years ago. Some of you've heard about it. It's gone viral on the TikTok. Okay, the phrase is, where there's smoke, there's fire. Some of you may have heard this phrase before, but it's gone viral where if there's a parent who's issued a complaint on something, what you need to do is analyze whether that complaint is symbolic of something else that might be happening to other kids. And is there ways that we can learn from this complaint so that we can better serve these children and provide appropriate progress? So if it's happening to one child, I'm betting it's happening to another child. We just have to have notice from one about this one. So the analysis An analogy that I often say is we need to think about this one is if I— whenever there's a complaint, I want you— I implore districts to take what I refer to as a plane crash approach instead of a car crash approach. When those of you who've been involved in a car crash, you just move the cars off to the side, exchange insurance numbers, and figure out something there. When there's a plane crash, they analyze the snot out of it. And when I was involved in one, they changed the design of the plane, they changed the runway, they changed training for people nationwide as a result of that. So they took this. You need to do that same kind of thing and learn from this so that it doesn't happen to other children as a part of this one. But complaints are rising and the complaints take time. So if you download those documents, which I highly recommend, the free stuff, run with it, pass it out to your team. You'll learn the best about IEPs, best about ISDI, best about progress monitoring. I'm summarizing the books that we've got out there For you on this one in these documents, because that's where the complaints are. It's a lack of trust. If you, if you up and improve what you're doing relating to progress monitoring, you'll have better services and parents will understand what's going on. You have to view complaints as the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, and if we have better progress monitoring at the top, we're preventing people from falling off.

Okay, we have one more question. They say many of our complaints as a larger district in Kansas arise from parents who have issues that started in general education and are not actually SPED-related or derived, but end up as a formal complaint. Reviewers used to kick those back to indicating that it is not special education-related, but now I'm seeing a trend that these types of complaints have been moving forward this year.

Yes, and what we're seeing is that we have to think about this when this creates a significant problem for state complaint investigators. A parent can describe a concern involving general ed, but the state complaint process only applies to the provisions of IDEA Part B or the applicable state standards. A better approach would be make sure we identify the alleged conduct. What exactly did the parent say the district did or failed to do? Identify the IDEA hook, but then separate the general ed concerns and address those kinds of things. And I tell parents that we need to make sure that we educate gen ed teachers about what their roles and responsibilities are with this one. And I think we have a handout for you that you'll get as a part of this, what gen ed teachers need to write about this one. I would not necessarily recommend returning to wholesale rejection, but a better model is— I know there's going to be some trainings for this because of the concerns— is what we refer to as jurisdictional triage and identify precisely what's going on. We have to remind ourselves that special education is a service. It's not a place. And what we have to realize that the services the kids are receiving in the general education programs are ones that they can get their SDI in gen ed classrooms, and that's a concern as a part of this one. So keep that in mind. We're more than willing to address your concerns, but so follow, sign up for that, that, and email us with questions, and we'll do everything we can to get you a timely answer. Lauren, it's yours.

All right, well, thank you. So we're at time. Thank you so much, David, for joining us today. I know that David's providing a session at National CASE also. If any of you all are planning on attending there, please sign up to receive the resources that he shared today. And once again, we'd love to get to know you and your district and how virtual services might be able to support you right now or even into the future. So don't feel— don't be shy. Feel free to reach out. Thank you all again for your time today. I know that's extremely valuable, and so we really appreciate you and your participation today. Have a wonderful rest of your Wednesday. Last day in September.