The simplest way to define “effective advocacy” is founded upon the notion of working from the heart, a position of love and appreciation. In contrast, divisive advocacy, often thought of as adversarial, is grounded in fear and doubt. This plays out everyday in the work I do. For I am constantly observing each case I serve from the philosophical crossroads between fear and love: my approach is framed around “What Works?”, “Promise”, “Possibility”, and other open-minded and open-hearted principles. Whereas, sometimes, I come across a fear-based approach to intervention in the form of a Parent, Special Education Director, School Psychologist, or a Teacher. As as result, these conversations tend to focus on compliance, standards, guidelines, and requirements rather than possibilities, innovation, and co-collaboration. Soon enough, my latest book, Love, Understanding, and Other Best Practices will be available in a new edition and it features effective principles, strategies, and in the field stories in support of a new paradigm guiding intervention and special education. In the meantime, here’s a couple of brief stories from the advocacy path which sheds light on this crossroads experience directly from real meetings:
I was asked talk on a parent’s behalf at a pre-evaluation meeting, called a Student Study Team. Her concern is simple: Her highly capable daughter, with an IQ of 124 (95th percentile), struggles with core subjects including written expression and math; all mom wants at this time is a formal Evaluation so the team could further explore her daughter’s challenges. Although the test scores show that there is a significant discrepancy between her potential (IQ) and her achievement, the District Representative continued to make the case that within the context of the classroom, she was performing like her peers, though there was agreement that she did struggle and needed support. I cannot state the underlying reasons of the reluctance to evaluate, however, I have observed similar responses throughout the years based upon worry and concern and it is best expressed as follows; “We cannot just go around testing every student” [fear-based concern]. It is not uncommon for educators to reference their judgments and actions based upon the notion, “If we do for one, we have to do for all” and as a result, in similar situations described, nothing gets done.
Though the decision to evaluate is still on hold, and I wholeheartedly believe there will be resolution meeting the needs of all parties, the underlying theme, a fear-based concern about opening the flood gates for extensive evaluations, presented itself within the discussion. And I understand this concern. However, our ability to work collaboratively between parents and staff will always be best supported through mutual understanding, an evidence-based approach to decision making, and transparency. Unfortunately, an adversarial position puts one or more of the stake holders in a position of defense and this fails to create innovation and partnership within the intervention process.
Now, in direct contrast, immediately following this meeting, I participated in an IEP meeting in another district which featured the use of a “Re-Evaluation” to open up the intervention process toward innovative approaches and strategies. As a result, the district representatives and parents agreed to move forward in partnership and see how the evaluation would support the situation:
Without getting too specific, the IEP featured a child with a variety of learning challenges including reading and written expression. As a result, the parents sought out comprehensive support through a private clinician addressing processing, reading, and written expression intervention. These services were paid for by the parent and provided for after-school. When the team discussed the possibility of having the IEP modified to allow the outside provider handle the language arts section of the Specially Designed Instruction, while the school would address the supplemental activities related to reading and writing, the district representative clearly presented the concerns, the legal guidelines, and the limitations of the ideas presented. There was never a defensive approach within the conversations and all factors were placed on the table so the team would be able to work collaboratively. As we moved forward in unison as a team, the level of innovation and creativity increased and I left this meeting with the understanding that we actually co-created a solid instructional plan which would require a re-evaluation to open new doors of support for this child. All in all, this meeting featured open conversation, creative thinking, and at times, laughter between the participants. I wish more meetings were founded upon a similar process.
As stated earlier, when we come to the table with a genuine desire to create mutual understanding and use an evidence-based approach to do so, we establish the foundation for partnership. Simply, when we bring a true sense of understanding to the table, we generate endless possibilities. In contrast, when fear and worry are featured within these discussions, whether it be demonstrated by parents or staff, the process often takes on an adversarial look and feel. And as result, innovation and creativity fall by the wayside and everyone is worried about protecting their perspective.
So what can we do about this? We all can move forward together and realize, it’s not about “Us versus Them”; it’s really about “All for One and One for All!” In the meantime, I do know that I am looking forward to sharing more insights and strategies with you all when Love, Understanding, and Other Best Practices comes out soon. Best Regards.
Larry