IEP Components – Collaborating with Parents through the Transitioning Stages of an IEP

---

 

Introduction          

Transitioning from one stage of life to another can be tedious. More-so tedious when considering a student with disabilities (SWD). One can imagine the hesitation, frustration and fear that conjures from the anticipation of the unknown for both the parent and the SWD. Specifically, transitioning from high school to the next step in life can be a nerve wrecking experience for most parents to SWD. For this reason, it is plausible to assume that being a well-informed parent is critical for the success of the student in many ways. By creating a culture of open communication and providing resources for both the parent and student, it is possible to establish a sense of ease in relation to transition. The purpose of this literature review is to examine the effects that parental involvement has on SWD and their transitioning stage into post-school settings. It is a product of five articles that examine transition planning, family involvement, and parental collaborations.

To set a foundation for the literature review, one might navigate to the base of inquiry where parents could potentially feel lost from past experiences in their child’s educational meetings such as the development of their Individual Educational Plan (IEP). The foundation is explored through an article that examines the role that parents play as collaborators. More specifically, the article researches the qualities of effective families/ practitioner partnerships and how the opportunities and challenges within school and agency structures build these collaborative partnerships with families. In an article Defur (2012) explores how parents and service providers in the school system should work cohesively to ensure depth and success from a child’s IEP. Defur (2012) explores the different stages that create a framework that provides openness and communication between service providers and parents. The article explores what defines “partnerships” which Defur describes as “a person who defines roles and responsibilities and they hold themselves and one another accountable for carrying out responsibilities”. The article continues to bond the relation between partnerships and service provider collaboration as it sets the tone for transition planning and services. A model was developed that consists of 10 strategies that contribute to the success through continuous family monitoring, developing a shared vision, being culturally responsive, communication, being caring and committed, allowing voice and choice during conversation, facilitating creative problem solving, providing useful resources, taking action regarding transition services and reflecting on accomplishments.

The many components that formulate collaboration through the 10 strategies was later dissected. Each component deems detrimental to the overall success of the implementation. By implementing each strategy, it enables communication and active involvement between both parties. Defur (2012) explores the notion that families are in a constant need of information about the transition needs of their child, not only during scheduled IEP meetings. Perhaps there is a lack of communication that establishes the transition planning as the purpose of the IEP meeting. Furthermore, the article expresses a deficit in a disconnection between families and service providers. There appears to be a gap in communication that can be satisfied through the implementation of the 10 strategies explored in the article. The article identifies barriers that are considerably responsible for this disconnection which include educational jargon, lack of knowledge of the IEP process and procedures for parents and lack of student involvement in the IEP meetings. According to Harry (2008) there is a perception that IEP meetings are professionally driven, document focused, time limited and structured based on professional and compliance needs. Defur (2012) outlines the importance to meet the intention of the law which means that service providers must be student-and-family centered. To establish such a relationship, Defur (2012) explains that the service providers must take the time to prepare both parents and students about the planning process.  

Parents as collaborators is an important initiative to propose especially when concerning the IEP process because it can activate an understanding about their rights, resources help develop relationships that will mend misconceptions about the transition process. There is a pattern that suggests the need for more parental knowledge on the following areas; the transitioning process and their role in it, notice of how their child’s needs were being met and local post-secondary options for their child (Tarleton & Ward, 2005). Perhaps the exploration of how to better inform parents on the process would provide a way for a deeper parental understanding. An article was written to explore the effects of computer-based instruction for parents with SWD on the transitioning process. By creating an instrument that teaches parents on how to access information on understanding the IEP and the transition components, (Rowe & Test, 2010) explain the impact. Three areas are explored throughout the article to explain the lack of knowledge in transitioning for parents to children with disabilities. The first area was defined family empowerment strategies which enables facilitation in meaningful involvement in transition-focused activities. In other words, parents were unaware of their child’s strengths and needs. More-so, they were not aware of the resources available to them nor their child concerning transitioning. To this point, Rowe and Test (2010) mention that parents were not informed about the transition process until 3 months prior to their child transitioning. Due to the lack of communication, Rowe and Test (2010) explain that a parent may feel anxious and unprepared for such an altering stage in their child’s life. Certainly, one could imagine the lack of communication between the service providers and parents that is necessary to comprehend the transition process. According to Rowe and Test (2010), a computer-based instruction could help deepen the understanding of what is to come in the transitioning process for a SWD. The article explained the formula on how the study was conducted. There was a total of four participants that were given access to a computer-based program that consisted of modules concerning postsecondary goals, transition services and postsecondary transition service providers. The participants in the study were all parents from students at the same school. As a result of the computer-based instruction, the parents expressed their appreciation for the information provided and found it useful. Three participants mentioned the desire of having this information earlier than at the point it was presented. Evidently, there is a desire for parents of SWD for more information pertaining to the implementation, goals and resources for transitioning. One can agree how important it is to provide meaningful information to parents with SWD to better prepare them for their child’s future.

Provided the definition of transitioning, one can adopt a mindset that assumes the role of “what’s next” in a SWDs life. While this could be valid, it can also be something to explore from the lenses of a SWD. What about how the SWD feels? One could further wonder what they’re feeling about how these goals being set by their service providers and parents would impact them. Rightfully, parental input is of high importance, however; the combination inclusive of the student and parent, could make a positive affect on the implementation of the transition. To further investigate this notion, Cavendish, Connor and Rediker (2016) wrote an article on the effect of engaging both parents and students in the transitioning process of the IEP. The article establishes a voice for parents of SWDs and their disconnection with the IEP process as it does not reflect the child they know. It is possible that parents relate an IEP meeting to more of a burden that does not express ways to achieve goals for their child. Therefore, the need for collaboration is imperative (Cavendish, Connor and Rediker, 2016). To establish the kind of collaboration between teachers, parents and the SWD, Cavendish, Connor and Rediker (2016) created a teacher guide. The teacher’s guide provided ways to facilitate parent and student involvement in the three phases of the IEP process which implements a before (pre) and after (post) and communication with future teachers of the SWD. To establish a rapport with both the student and parent, the teacher will first work with the SWD to develop a portfolio of student work that showcases student achievement. Then, during a pre-IEP meeting, the teacher will invite the parent and SWD to discuss the portfolio. This intention of the pre-IEP meeting is to discuss student intentions, feelings and allow them to write their own goals together with the teacher and parent present. The teacher acts as a facilitator to the meeting, being sure to give primary voice to both the SWD and parent. Upon completion of the pre-IEP meeting, the teacher provides follow-up to the parents in the form of an IEP draft. This is done to ensure a time of reflection for the parent on how the pre-IEP meeting went. The post-IEP meeting is done to present the finalized IEP that was created with the parent and student. With careful consideration, the parent can feel acceptance and involvement. To summarize the post-IEP meeting, the teacher will then prepare an anecdotal log of information about the SWD that is important and helpful for them to know. By following this outline, one can assume achievement and understanding from both the parent and student. While allowing their voice to become alive and vocal by giving the focus to the SWD and the parent, one can imagine how productive the future will be.

Self determination is a key skill for SWD. This skill is implemented to teach a SWD how to advocate for themselves. To successfully implement this skill, one might consider advising both parent and student about the importance of creating a goal with it in mind. Once a goal with this intention is set, the student can begin learning how to advocate for themselves. This skill is pertinent to establishing a strong bond between the student and their IEP which consequently provides advantage for the transitional IEP. To better understand the amount of participation in the IEP process, a study was conducted. In an article, Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Javitz and Valdes (2012) provide a national picture that presents results on parent and youth participation in IEP transitional planning. The article begins by identifying the need for student participation in the IEP process and continues by explaining the importance of self-advocacy skills for participation in the meeting. To establish the study, two prospective longitudinal studies of nationally representative studies of SWD was conducted. The Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 (NLTS2) was used for research. The participants sampled using SEELS included 11,000 students of which were ages 6 through 12 receiving special education services in grades 1 through 6. The NLTS2 sample consisted of nearly the same number of participants ranging in grades 7 through 12. The sampling procedures used for this study was a stratified random sample of school districts. The data sources used were parent/guardian telephone interview/surveys and students school program surveys. The results of this study indicated that most parents attended their child’s most recent IEP meeting, however, 70% of those parents expressed their role in the IEP meeting to be enough. Furthermore, the other 30% of those parents desired to me more involved. Additionally, more than half of 11 through 14-year-old students reported to attend their transition IEP meetings and through those meetings, the students reported to have some participation. The study was extensive as it begins from 1999 through 2009 to establish a national picture of parent youth participation in IEP and transition planning (Wagner et al., 2012)

One can infer that this study was completed to gather insight on the actual attendance and collaboration between the parent, SWD and school during the transitional IEP meeting. However, it could be insightful to gather insight from teachers within the districts sampled. The reason for this is to provide feedback on the attendance and even level of interest interpreted through the educators prospective. For example, if an educator provides ample time to include a pre-IEP meeting with the parent to better provide collaboration, but the parent does not make the time, there might be a fluctuation in the results of this study due to the attendance factor. If the parent documents that they are not actively engaged in the process (which could be true), it is not always due to the service providers (teachers) not making the effort. While this article provides a valid point and data, there is the limitation of whether the attempt to collaborate initiated by service providers are being explored.

After weighing in the foundation of why this topic is important as it relates to parents not having enough knowledge about the transition process, one might consider the SWD not knowing much about the transition process themselves. What if the SWD does not know their options after high school? For this reason, one would consider implementing an inventory of questions that are guided to evaluate the SWDs understanding about the transition process. An article was written to explore the effects of using a transition planning inventory and a structured IEP process as a transition planning intervention on IEP meeting outcomes (Rehfeldt, Clark, & Lee , 2012). The research is composed of three groups of participants: families (students and their parents), school personnel (teachers or IEP case managers and social workers), and IEP meeting recorders (special education directors or program coordinators). The independent variable in this study was the Transition Planning Inventory (TPI). This inventory is an instrument that is issued for students who are getting ready to plan their transition of which the results evaluate student transition-related knowledge and skills. There were two other variables involved in this study: an IEP meeting analysis rubric and the parent’s view of IEP meeting questionnaire. The study highlights the importance of essentially training students to understand what transitioning is through the use of the TPI. The results of the study indicate that it is useful to determine the knowledge students have about transitioning (Rehfeldt, Clark, & Lee , 2012). Similarly, the other two variables indicated overall parental satisfaction in the outcome of their child’s IEP transition meeting. This study supports the hypothesis that when parents are active participants in IEP meetings, they are likely to feel satisfied throughout the process.

Research has provided a variety of hypotheses in that collaboration with parents through the transition process of an IEP is important. After the review of five articles about collaboration, it is likely for one to conclude there are two factors in successful implementation during this specific process of the IEP for SWD which are to include student and parental input. By implementing student input and evaluating their knowledge and skill as well as providing an accessible platform of understanding for parents with SWDs- it can be a fruitful experience. Currently, parents may feel in a drought for meaningful school relationships, resources and understanding. However, it is possible to begin using interventions, computer-based programs and pre-IEP meetings to educate both parents and students in the process. In effort to educate SWDs, one can consider reaching out to families to create a sense of community, concern and empathy that could foster an accepting relationship. The role of an educator is not only to teach students but to educate families as well. 

References

Cavendish, W., Connor, D. J., & Rediker, E. (2016). Engaging Students and Parents in Transition-Focused Individualized Education Programs. Sage Journals, 228-235.

Defur, S. (2012). Parents as Collaborators- Building Partnerships With School and Community- Based Providers. Sage Journals, 58-67.

Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration With Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Families: Ideal versus Reality . Exceptional Children , 372-388.

Rehfeldt, J. D., Clark, G. M., & Lee , S. W. (2012). The Effect of USing the Transition Planning Inventory and a Structured IEP Process as a Transition Planning Intervention on IEP Meeting Outcomes. Remedial and Special Education, 48-58.

Rowe, D. A., & Test, D. W. (2010). The Effects of Computer-Based Instruction on the Transition Planning Process Knowledge of Parents of Students With Disabilities. Sage Journals, 102-115.

Tarleton , B., & Ward, L. (2005). Changes and Choices: Finding out what information young people with learning disabilities, their parents and supporters need at transition. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 70-76.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto , R., Javitz, H., & Valdes, K. (2012). A National Picture of Parent and Youth Participation in IEP and Transition Planning Meetings. Journal of Disability Policy Studies , 140-155.

To top

Download this Issue

To Download a PDF file version of this Issue of the NASET’sIEP Components Series – CLICK HERE

To top