IEP Components – Accessible Educational Materials and Technologies in the IEP

Exploring Parent “Involvement” with Individual Education Plans: A Review of Literature

By Elizabeth M. Vasquez

 

This issue of NASET’s IEP Component series was written by Elizabeth M. Vasquez. Parents and guardians of students with disabilities play a fundamental role in their child’s education. They play the advocate for their students in a room full of professionals. They are a piece of the puzzle that creates an Individualized Education Plan for their student. Their involvement in education allegedly is cohesive with the educators, psychologists, therapists and administrators. But there is a lack of parameters in effective parent involvement and engagement practices. The Individuals with Disability Education Act states clearly that parent participation needs to be ensured in their student’s education, but there are no clear criteria. This leaves the idea of parent involvement for either parties, educators and/or parents, left up to their perception or understanding. With no guidelines parent involvement remains inconsistent, leaving those culturally or linguistically diverse less involved and uninformed.

 

Abstract

Parents and guardians of students with disabilities play a fundamental role in their child’s education. They play the advocate for their students in a room full of professionals. They are a piece of the puzzle that creates an Individualized Education Plan for their student. Their involvement in education allegedly is cohesive with the educators, psychologists, therapists and administrators. But there is a lack of parameters in effective parent involvement and engagement practices. The Individuals with Disability Education Act states clearly that parent participation needs to be ensured in their student’s education, but there are no clear criteria. This leaves the idea of parent involvement for either parties, educators and/or parents, left up to their perception or understanding. With no guidelines parent involvement remains inconsistent, leaving those culturally or linguistically diverse less involved and uninformed.

Parent “Involvement” in Individual Education Plans

In 2001, The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), defined parent involvement as, “the participation of parents in regular, two-way, and meaningful communication involving student academic learning and other school activities, including ensuring— ‘‘(A) that parents play an integral role in assisting their child’s learning; ‘‘(B) that parents are encouraged to be actively involved in their child’s education at school; ‘‘(C) that parents are full partners in their child’s education and are included, as appropriate, in decision making and on advisory committees to assist in the education of their child; ‘‘(D) the carrying out of other activities, such as those described in section 1118.”* These concepts indicated as parent “involvement” are broad therefore, causing a paradigm shift in parental participation in the process of Individual Education Plans. Which as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), parental participation in the student’s education is ensured.

The definition by the NCLB also brings into question the “meaningful” communication, with culturally and linguistically diverse parents and educators, and the effects that may have on parent involvement. Per research by Jung (2011), the barriers for culturally and linguistically diverse parents make parental participation intimidating and difficult. The inclusion of Parents, their accommodations, and advocacy are concepts that are essential for the well-being of their children academically and socially.

The Process of Individualized Education Plans

In the Individual Education Plan (IEP) process the case manager is required to document parent input within the document. This may be communicated in advance, before a meeting via telephone, or if the parent provides written documentation of their concerns. The best practice is to receive the information before the meeting in order to discuss those concerns during the meeting to see if the team can come to a consensus of the services and goals needed for the student. The IEP determines the placement of the student such as general education classroom, or self-contained. The accommodations needed for the student in scheduling, responding, presentation, or setting are also determined by this meeting. All vital for the student’s future academic success and well-being. As stated by Jensen-McNiff, “The promotion of parent participation in the IEP meeting then should be one of great importance because of the lasting impact outcomes of that meeting will have on the special needs student; including decisions that will have a lasting effect on their child’s self-concept and academic success (2012, pg. 24).”

Parents Level of Participation

Resource teachers, case managers and school officials are required by law, according to the IDEA, to include parents in meaningful opportunities to participate in the educational process of their students. Then it brings to question the disconnect of level of participation between parents and school. According to Jensen-McNiff, “Resource teachers, administrators and all school officials involved in the IEP process must collaborate with families to understand and ensure the best results for children. However, cooperation between school personnel and families can sometimes be difficult to foster (2012, pg. 31).” It does not specify if the participation was difficult within a meeting or even communicating before a meeting. But Burke, M. M., Rios, K., Lopez, B., Garcia, M., & Magana, S., provide insight of parents that lack participation within an IEP held in person, “reported that parents of children with disabilities spoke in only 15% of the recorded intervals of the meetings (2018, pg. 393).” Parents are physically present, but not vocalizing their concerns, recommendations or questions. Then if the inclusion is there, then there is another factor that is affecting this concern of parent involvement.

Perspective

In an IEP meeting for a student with a disability, there are a variety of different perceptions present. The perception of the physical or occupational therapist can differ from the general education teacher. The resource teachers’ perception may also differ from the parent. But the latter has no prior knowledge or training and is participating blindly. The common theme with parents’ perception of IEP meetings is the feeling of intimidation, insufficient understanding of rights and lack of support (Burke, M. M., Rios, K., Lopez, B., Garcia, M., & Magana, S. 2018; Comroe 2016; Jensen-McNiff 2012; Jung 2011). Regardless of demographic the trend of lack of parent “involvement” stemmed from not being aware of the educational jargon or processes and overwhelmed in a meeting with all of it while the other stakeholders seem to be in agreement. The parent then looks at the other meeting participants as superior and experts that they don’t feel the need or think they have the ability to step in.

Accommodations for Parents

In a qualitative study of interviews given to 15 parents of students with special needs attending public schools, Jensen-McNiff reports a common theme when they asked parents the changes, they would like to see pertaining to their IEP meetings, it was better communication (2012, pg.66). The parents wanted to be informed in a language that was understandable. The study did not indicate that the parents had a language barrier, indicating that these parents spoke the same primary language. They were not struggling to understand the language they were trying to understand the educational terminology. The difficulty made it hard for them to participate in the IEP meeting, hindering the parent involvement. As for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) parents, where the language is a barrier that can be accommodated by an interpreter. Jung mentions that interpreters are not necessarily the solution for more CLD parent “involvement”. “Concerns about translators not being knowledgeable about the entire IEP process and special education terminology are also often raised. Such unqualified, untrained translators as well as translators who have slanted views place immigrant parents in an even more vulnerable position when dealing with disputable issues (Jung 2011, pg.24).” Burke et al, matches the same view in that the CLD parents may be given an interpreter, but their perception is clouded by the phenomenon that these interpreters are biased and hired by the school, therefore siding more with the school and not really there for their concerns (2018, pg. 394). CLD parents are wanting to voice their concerns but they are feeling alienated and not accommodated based on their diversity. Comroe brings to light that communication isn’t sensitive to the diversity of these parents and hindering their involvement in the process, “formal channels of communication frequently used by schools, such as letters and forms, had alienated some people of different ethnic backgrounds and did not take into account sociological differences such as language, dialect, family dynamics, or cultural diversity (2016, p. 56).” Communication has hindered parent involvement in meaningful opportunities of their student’s education and has created isolation.

Parent Advocacy

School officials, educators and case managers are legally and ethically required to include and inform parents in an IEP meeting. With a disconnect in parent understanding of procedures and processes in an IEP meeting as one of the underlying factors in lack of parent involvement, this brings into question how parents can become more aware and confident in their ability to advocate for their students. In a quantitative study, 22 Latino Parents of students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) participated in a 36-hour advocacy training. The purpose of the study was to see if after the advocacy training, would the parents increase their participation. Burke et al reports that, “Advocacy programs tailored for Latino families may enable families to participate in IEP meetings and advocate for their children with disabilities to receive appropriate services (2018, p. 393).” The result of the study indicated that the parents did increase their participation and more frequent advocacy after the training. Although their advocacy skills were more informal, they still were able to advocate becoming more involved. Advocating is not easy for CLD parents but also in general for other parents. Jensen-McNiff’s qualitative research reported in an interview that a parent stated an occasion where she mentioned a training program she participated in and introduced in an IEP meeting to discuss training for the school staff. There was resistance on the school’s part, and the parent tried to advocate more but was met with more resistance.

Implications

From various studies of research and laws, it is evident that parent involvement in individual education plans are broad and open for interpretation by both parties, parents and school officials. It is evident that the “meaningful” opportunities and “meaningful” communication that is legally stated, have not benefited or increased parental involvement in IEPs. The common themes that have been identified and created by these “meaningful” concepts included the necessity of parent inclusion, accommodation and advocacy. The themes have appeared to be the urgent commonality that need to be addressed in order to improve parent involvement in Individualized Education Plans.

Directions for Future Research

There are numerous factors that need to be considered when addressing parent involvement, but based on the literature, there is a lack of specification of what “meaningful” opportunities and “meaningful” communication would appear to be. Further research should explore the parent’s awareness of special education services and their student’s disability prior to going to an IEP meeting and their knowledge after. This would provide insight of the schools’ ability to inform parents during IEP meetings and if the parents are being provided information prior during the decision-making process in the IEP.

References

Burke, M. M., Rios, K., Lopez, B., Garcia, M., & Magana, S. (2018). Improvements in Proxy Individualized Education Program Meeting Participation among Latino  Parents. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 53(4),       393–404.

Comroe, B. S. (2016). The individual education plan: A parents’ perspective (Order No.3741441). Available from Education Database. (1751029132). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). (n.d.). Retrieved September 07, 2020

Jensen-McNiff, B. (2012). If the goal is collaboration: Toward more satisfactory inclusion of parents in the individual education plan meetings (Order No. 3521951). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1035156926).

Jung, A. W. (2011). Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and Barriers for Parents from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds. Multicultural   Education, 19(3), 21–25.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001). (2010, December 06). Retrieved September 07, 2020