IEP Components – Examining Parental Experiences During the Individual Educational Program Meeting: A Review of the Literature

By Jessica Ramos

This issue of NASET’s IEP Components series was written by Jessica Ramos. The Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) mandates parents’ participation in planning the Individual Education Program (IEP). This review of the literature examines parents’ experiences during the IEP meeting and the capacity in which parents are included. Additionally, the literature analyzes the barriers and limitations parents encounter due to culturally and linguistically diversity (CLD). According to the research, CLD parents of are less likely to feel fully involved in the IEP process due to bureaucratic procedures, legal jargon and verbal and nonverbal barriers. Research suggests, empathy along with formalizing relationships are key components in delivering an effective partnership between parents and educators in creating a quality IEP for students with disabilities.

 

Abstract

The Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) mandates parents’ participation in planning the Individual Education Program (IEP). This review of the literature examines parents’ experiences during the IEP meeting and the capacity in which parents are included. Additionally, the literature analyzes the barriers and limitations parents encounter due to culturally and linguistically diversity (CLD). According to the research, CLD parents of are less likely to feel fully involved in the IEP process due to bureaucratic procedures, legal jargon and verbal and nonverbal barriers. Research suggests, empathy along with formalizing relationships are key components in delivering an effective partnership between parents and educators in creating a quality IEP for students with disabilities.

Keywords: Individualized Education Program, Culturally and Linguistically Diverse, special education.

The process in which parents participate in developing an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for their children and the reality of their experience is a topic that has been studied for many years. Ever since 1975, active parent participation for students receiving special education services has been legally mandated, starting with the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142), followed by 1990 with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (PL 102-119) in 1990, and most recently with the 1997 and 2004 versions of IDEA (PL 105-17, PL 108-446). Through each reauthorization of IDEA, the Individualized Education Program (IEP) component has continued to direct student educational goals, placement, and evaluation criteria, as well as standards for educational performance and duration of programming modifications for special education services (Drasgow, Yell, & Robinson, 2001). When analyzing IDEA, parent participation is one of the eight core principles that states parents are equal participants in the process and development of the IEP. Therefore, effective collaboration is imperative when creating a child’s educational plan. However, the success of the effectiveness depends on how all stakeholders’ view themselves as “valued” contributors.

Through the analysis of the literature, mixed perceptions have been discovered of parents’ experiences and the role of “equal partners” during the development of their child’s IEP. The perception of parents on  the special education process is an important topic to understand as it ensures that children with disabilities receive appropriate services. Both educators and parents of children with disabilities should not find navigating the special education system daunting but rather feel equally empowered when collaborating with all stakeholders thus, creating a greater parent-educator collaboration for the benefit of all special education children.

IEP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

The purpose of IDEA is to ensure students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and to prepare students for an independent future. Under the law, all children who qualify must have an IEP. This document serves as a blueprint for the student’s education and is specific to each student and their abilities. As stated by the law, an IEP is “a written statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised” on an annual basis. The IEP itself is intended to include information on a child’s present level of academic accomplishments, statements of measurable goals for the child, plans for monitoring those goals and information on the services and supports available to the student to meet the agreed-upon goals (Definition of IEP, 2007). Members of an IEP consist of different stakeholders such as parents, special education teachers, and school administrators. During the process of an IEP meeting, the environment should serve as an equitable partnership between all stakeholders, (Wade 2008 as cited in Drasgow et al., 2001; Johns, Crowley, & Guetzloe, 2002; Simpson). The IEP also acts as the blueprint for identifying accountability structures and responsibilities of educational agencies and provides parents’ consent to educational policies (Singh and Keese, 2020).

According to IDEA, IEP meetings are held annually and should be scheduled in a timely manner convenient to all stakeholders. All attempts to communicate with parents should be documented thoroughly and the notice of meeting should be provided to parents with sufficient time to ensure the opportunity to attend or reschedule if needed. As students become of the age of 14, the law requires them to be invited to the meetings but does not require attendance.

Furthermore, when students reach the age of 16, IDEA mandates transition-oriented meetings. These meetings are meant to assist students with planning for post-secondary endeavors and allow the student to be an active participant during the planning and process (Singh and Keesse, 2020). Ultimately, as presented in the literature (Singh and Keesse, 2020), it is important for parents to feel confident in their ability to navigate through the IEP development process to ensure an effective educational plan for their child.

PARENTS PERCEPTION OF IEP MEETINGS

During the review of the literature, a common reference was noted across all sources; the imbalance of power between parents and educators/administrators during the IEP development (Fish 2008; Singh and Keese, 2020). Fish (2008) references several studies on the imbalance of power as noted below.

“Despite federal law (i.e., IDEA), many parents feel alienated because educators continue to dominate the decision-making process (Turnbull & Turnbull, 1997; Vaughn, Bos, Harrell, & Lasky, 1988). According to Kalyanpur et al. (2000), decision making during an IEP meeting is more heavily influenced by educational assessment expertise than by parents’ anecdotal reports. In general, parents are not actively involved in the IEP process (Harry, Allen, & McLaughlin, 1995), but rather they are limited to being recipients of information (Garriott et al., 2000; Vaughn et al.) and to signing documents. Collaborative relationships have failed to exist in particular for families of low socioeconomic status and cultural diversity (Kalyanpur et al.).”

Contrary to Fish’s (2008) findings, his study surveyed 51 parents of students with disabilities and asked the following questions: a) IEP meeting experiences, (b) knowledge level of special education law, (c) relations with educators, (d) IEP meeting outcomes, and (e) recommended areas for improvement. The results from his findings differed from the cited studies in his review of the literature. Fish’s (2008) findings suggested that most parents were satisfied with the way the IEP meetings concluded. Parents felt that their input was valued, they felt respected as equal decision-makers, and they also believed to have a clear understanding of the IEP process and special education law.        

In another study conducted by Dr. Christine Anne Sullivan, (2015) she also examined parents of children with disabilities and their experiences of the IEP meeting.

However, her findings indicated an inconsistency in the parent’s responses. Sullivan found that while parents reported positive experiences much like Fisher’s (2008) results, parents also indicated that they were not included in the decision-making process of their child’s IEP. Overall, Sullivan’s (2015) finding suggests that even though parents were able to attend their child’s IEP meetings and felt comfortable with the information presented in the meeting, they still perceived their presence at the meetings to be insignificant and unimportant, nonetheless just a requirement to meet the legislative mandate.

Furney and Salembier (1997) conducted a study on parents’ perceptions in the IEP/transition meeting. They found that most parents agreed that they could share their child’s strengths and needs but differed on the extent to which they participated in the meetings. From the study, several areas emerged: The desire of parents wanting to be more involved in the pre-planning activities such as the “setting the agenda for the transition planning meeting”; the discomfort of parents when voicing their opinions; the feeling of being ignored by the other team members when sharing their ideas and lastly, the desire to be more knowledgeable of their parental rights.

When comparing the review of literature on parents’ perspectives of IEP meetings, most data indicates a discrepancy between IDEA and the mandate of parent participation in the decision-making process and practices. Even though IDEA requires parents to participate in the process of their child’s educational plan, the effectiveness of parent collaboration is not always the outcome for all cases. The question of the imbalance of power between parents and educators during the IEP meeting may still be present, and therefore further research in the area is needed to allow parents to feel like equal contributors during the process of their child’s educational plan. For the process of an IEP meeting to benefit students of special education, equality between the educators and parents is imperative thus, creating a cooperative partnership rather than an adversarial environment during the IEP meetings (Fish 2008).

BARRIERS AND LIMITATIONS FOR PARENTS DURING THE IEP MEETING

Research shows that an important component of student success is parent involvement, this is especially true for children with disabilities (Keese and Singh as cited in Fan and Chen, 2001; Jeynes, 2003; Hill and Taylor, 2004). However, despite the impact parent involvement can have on student success, parents of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students are likely to be less involved in school functions, less informed and sensitive to the assumptions CLD parents and students might bring to the table (Tamzarian et. al., 2012). Communication within culturally diverse settings can tend to be more complicated because parents and school personnel may occasionally interpret messages in conflicting ways which can cause miscommunication between all the stakeholders. CLD parents are also less likely to be familiar with special education procedures, available services, and their rights as parents (Harry, 1992a). This impedes full participation in the IEP process, and subsequently, a parent’s ability to advocate for his or her child.

Verbal and nonverbal communication barriers within cross-cultural communication have been studied by (Tamzarian et. al., 2012) and have been defined by how people from different backgrounds communicate in similar and different ways among themselves. Subsequently, participants’ lack of awareness of their own cultural constructs can limit understanding of cultural differences and their effect on communications. Educators need to be familiar with both verbal and nonverbal behaviors as parents with limited language proficiency may want to participate in the IEP meeting but might hesitate to do so due to feeling nervous or inadequate because of the language barrier. Educators might interpret this as a lack of interest rather than discomfort, and mistakenly believe that the parent is not vested in their child’s progress.

Non-verbal communication can also impact understanding for parents when it comes to IEP meetings. When it comes to gestures, sighs, smiles, or eye contact, they are used as an implicit communication style to convey the intended meaning of statement (Tamzarian et. al., 2012). When conducting an IEP meeting, nonverbal cues can be easily misinterpreted. A study by Holmes (2008) examined ethnic Chinese students’ communication patterns. Holmes (2008) mentions that Chinese students smile to convey several emotions- including pain, confusion, embarrassment, and displeasure. During IEP meetings a professional can easily mistake a parent’s head nod or smile as an indication of consent when it may not be the case (Tamzarian et. al., 2012, as cited in Holmes, 2008). Furthermore, when examining CLD parent’s nonverbal communication tendencies, they tend to be more apprehensive to disagree with professionals who are perceived as authority figures which causes parents to hold back on their true feelings not to undermine the professional (Harry 1992a). Therefore, professionals must be able to recognize CLD parents’ nonverbal cues such as prolonged silence, subdued tones, and downward gaze, as signs of discomfort and disagreement. Subsequently, professionals interpret these signs as timid personalities and then wonder after a seemingly smooth interaction, why the parent refuses to sign consent (Harry 1992a).

       

Additional barriers parents face during IEP meetings are bureaucratic procedures. Content, letters, reports, and procedural safeguards can be difficult for any parent to understand even if the communication is in the parent’s native language. Furthermore, CLD parents may feel intimidated if documents contain medical, legal and technical terms such as “ Right to a Fair Hearing”, which is found in most IEP’s (Tamzarian et. al., 2012). The highly technical nature of an IEP meeting can ultimately make parents feel intimidated, overwhelmed and ill-equipped to effectively participate equivalently to other stakeholders. Considering these potential barriers and limitations of miscommunication, it is important to understand that effective communication is the root of productive, collaborative relationships between parents and educators, thus requiring professionals to become culturally aware (Tamzarian et. al., 2012).

RECOMMENDATIONS

Being that the IEP meeting is pivotal when designing a child’s educational plan, considerations on improving the process of the experience is essential. For schools and educators, Fish (2006) suggest being open to parent input, allow sufficient time for meetings, refrain from completing IEP forms in advance, involve parents in the writing of goals and objectives, limit jargon and use common terms instead, and provide parents with a copy of the IEP objectives a few weeks before the meeting to allow time for parents to review and prepare questions. Based on (Stoner et. al., 2005) findings, they suggest providing parents with credible, research-based information such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder to help educate parents on their child’s disability and to teach parents best practices. Another recommendation is to inform parents of their legal rights prior to the meeting and create a welcoming environment that equalizes the roles of team members and reduces the power of educators and other professionals (Reiman & Coppola, 2010).

When addressing CLD parents, it’s important to provide information in their primary language and take the time to determine the dialect the families speak. If needed, locate a qualified interpreter to allow for a smoother and more efficient IEP meeting. Finally, (Reiman & Coppola, 2010) suggest educators supplement written progress reports by dedicating a section of the IEP meeting to sharing strategies with families to utilize at home so they can assist their child to succeed both at home and school.

One final key factor that can impact an IEP meeting is empathy. Empathy is the act of understanding and being sensitive to others’ experiences and should be a fundamental strategy for all school professionals (Tamzarian et. al., 2012). When empathy is practiced, it acknowledges differences without assuming one view is more valid than another. During the IEP process, the goal is to communicate effectively to craft an IEP supported by all stakeholders. This can only be accomplished if school professionals have the capacity to communicate across diverse perspectives thus, resulting in a genuine agreement amongst all members.

Ultimately, formalizing relationships is a key building block of the special education process, therefore woven into the fabric of the work of educators regularly. As a result, the IEP meeting becomes less of a focus and more a part of a larger process built on empowering and strengthening all members of the team to create a comprehensive educational plan that benefits our students with disabilities.

References

Tamzarian, A., Menzies, H. M., & Ricci, L. (2012). Barriers to Full Participation in the Individualized Education Program for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Parents. Barriers to Full Participation in the Individualized Education Program for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Parents, 1(2), 1–11.

Sullivan, C. A. (2015). Examining Parents’ Perceptions of the Individualized Education Program Meeting (dissertation). UCONN Library.

Reiman, J. W., Coppola, T., & Engiles, A. (2010, April). Parents’ Experiences with the IEP Process Considerations …files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512611.pdf.

Parents’ Experiences with the IEP Process Considerations …files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512611.pdf.

Underwood, K. (2010). Involving and Engaging Parents of Children with IEPs. Exceptionality Education International, 20(1). doi.org/10.5206/eei.v20i1.7655

Singh, S., & Keese, J. (2020). Applying systems?based thinking to build better IEP relationships: a case for relational coordination. Support for Learning, 35(3), 359–371. doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12315

Salembier, G., & Furney, K. S. (1997). Facilitating Participation: Parents’ Perceptions of Their Involvement in the IEP/Transition Planning Process. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 20(1), 29–42. doi.org/10.1177/088572889702000103

Salembier, G., & Furney, K. S. (1997, January 1). Facilitating participation: Parent perceptions of their involvement in the IEP/transition planning process. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals. core.ac.uk/display/106094064.