June 2019 – Special Educator e-Journal

Table of Contents

• Special Education Legal Alert. By Perry A. Zirkel
• Buzz from the Hub
• Lehigh University Section 504 Coordinators Institute – June 27–28, 2019
• Mediating Parental Advocacy and the School District’s Guidelines. By Karina Constantine
• Oppositional Defiant Disorder Toward Adults and Oppositional Defiant Disorder Toward Peers: Initial Evidence for Two Separate Constructs. By Stephanie M. Estrada
• Supporting Individuals with Significant Disabilities: The Roles of a Job Coach
• The Importance of Parental Advocacy for Children with Disabilities: A Review of the Literature. By Miranda Freites
• The Critical Need for Robust Communication between Schools and Parents of Students with Learning Differences: A Review of the Literature. By Heather-May V. Potter
• Barriers to Parental Involvement in the Individualized Education Plan Process. By Katherine J. Ramirez
• Acknowledgements

­

Special Education Legal Alert

By Perry A. Zirkel

© May 2019

This month’s update concerns issues that were subject to recent relevant court decisions and are of general significance: (a) the emerging fourth dimension of FAPE—capability to implement the IEP, and (b) the overlapping issues of the procedural and substantive dimensions of FAPE with LRE.  Publications relating to both of these issues are available on my website perryzirkel.com.

To top

Buzz from the Hub

All articles below can be accessed through the following link:

https://www.parentcenterhub.org/buzz-may2019-issue1/

https://www.parentcenterhub.org/buzz-april2019-issue2/

Hands-On Activity to Identify Your Child’s Strengths
For this hands-on activity, parents and child will need some markers or crayons, scissors, and tape. The activity sheet guides families in identifying the child’s personal strengths using simple statements such as “I am curious and creative” and “I can ask for help when I need it.” Parents and child can also explore the child’s strengths in academics, social skills, language, literacy, and math and logic.

5 Ways to Support Siblings in Special Needs Families
When one child in the family has needs that consume a lot of attention, restrict family activities, or generate a lot of concern, other children in the family feel an impact. Here are 5 steps parents can take to help children handle the challenges that come with having a sibling with a disability. There’s also a companion article, Advice From Siblings of Special-Needs Kids.

Coping With Incarceration | Sesame Street in Communities
The incarceration of a loved one can be overwhelming for both children and caregivers. It takes special effort to start important conversations and answer kids’ questions. With love and support, the family can cope with the challenges of incarceration together. This resource page includes multiple articles and short videos featuring Sesame Street characters.
 

IEPs: Developing High-Quality Individualized Education Programs
This IRIS module details how to develop high-quality IEPs for students with disabilities. The module discusses the requirements for IEPs as outlined in IDEA, with implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District.

Best Practices in Self-Advocacy Skill Building
We’ve just updated this priority page on the Hub. Come here to learn more about self-advocacy; find resources for youth themselves; and find fact sheets, toolkits, and training materials on this subject. How about resources created within our very own Parent Center network? Materials in other languages? All here!

There’s a Webinar, too!
CPIR hosted a 2015 webinar on self-advocacy skill building, featuring Josie Badger as the presenter. If you’ve never met Josie or heard her story in her own voice, here’s your chance. Her story is riveting.

Your Journey to Self-Determination
This accessible, online series from CADRE provides short introductions to key concepts and skills needed to support students in becoming self-determined and engaging in one’s educational planning. The 6 courses in the series highlight topics such as finding your voice, managing emotion and conflict, collaborative problem solving, and educational planning meetings. Materials include a facilitator’s guide, handouts for youth, and student quizzes.

Promoting Self-Determination in Youth with Disabilities: Tips for Families and Professionals
Handy 1-pager! This resource is perfect to hang on your refrigerator, so you’re reminded every day of the multitude of ways and moments parents and others have to promote the self-determination skills of their children.

To top

Lehigh University Section 504 Coordinators Institute – June 27–28, 2019

This two-day program provides the following legal and practical components for an up-to-date professional development experience:

• recent data and pertinent considerations for avoiding under- and over-identification of 504-only students – Perry A. Zirkel, University Professor Emeritus of Education and Law, Lehigh University
• a practical review of recent court decisions specific to P–12 students under Section 504 and the ADA, including those with overlapping IDEA coverage – Julie Weatherly, School Attorney, Resolutions in Special Education, Inc.
• a nuts-and-bolts session on effective forms and procedures that comply with the current requirements for identifying and serving 504-only students – Lisa Hardcastle, Section 504 Coordinator, Clear Creek (Texas) Independent School District

For information and registration go to: https://wordpress.lehigh.edu/spedlaw/section-504-institute/

To top

Oppositional Defiant Disorder Toward Adults and Oppositional Defiant Disorder Toward Peers: Initial Evidence for Two Separate Constructs

By Stephanie M. Estrada

Abstract

Oppositional Defiant Disorder is characterized by the act of defiance and disobedience at its core. In “Oppositional Defiant Disorder Toward Adults and Oppositional Defiant Disorder Toward Peers: Initial Evidence for Two Separate Constructs,” further investigations of implications on the student and educators in the classroom are touched upon to debunk the controversial theory that ODD can simply be directed at an adult or authority figure. A qualitative study takes place to characterize signs and symptoms of the disorder recognized in communication with student peers, educators, and parents alike.

Oppositional Defiant Disorder Toward Adults and Oppositional Defiant Disorder Toward Peers: Initial Evidence for Two Separate Constructs

Research Problem

In “Oppositional Defiant Disorder Toward Adults and Oppositional Defiant Disorder Toward Peers: Initial Evidence for Two Separate Constructs,” the focus centers Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and the implications it may have in the educational field. This specific disorder is a conduct of recurrent patterns of “negativistic, defiant, disobedient, and hostile behavior toward authority figures that persists for 6 months” (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4^th ed.,).

While mainly targeting adults, the typical description of ODD implies that this select style of behavior can also be directed toward peers and other like minds of similar age. The American Psychiatric Association deliberately identifies ODD as hostility that “can be directed at adults or peers and is shown by deliberately annoying others or by verbal aggression.” There is a bit of vagueness regarding this disorder, essentially constructed of defiance towards authority, while the general description preaches hostility towards peers. Symptoms also reflect this rather hypocritical outlook, characterizing adults as the main target of Oppositional Defiant Disorder. 

Furthermore, this article touches upon the concept of this unclear line drawn between ODD and adults versus peers. While the main principal of this is never directly stated, the piece weaves its way into explaining how this is pivotal knowledge to both the psychiatric and educational field. The pervasiveness of the general definition of ODD is what brought this article to light. The purpose of the study to follow was to identify a correlation between relationships between adults in peers, in turn producing adequate data to therefore comprehend implications on various emotional relationships through life.

A quantitative study may have been more appealing to the authors for this study’s purpose solely because the wide range of individuals needed to be tested in order to confirm suspicions of outright defiance across ages and relationships.

While there is no designated theory that brought attention to this topic, the overall gap in definitions of Oppositional Defiant Disorder and the lack of social explanation led to the idea that it may go beyond defiance of authority in adolescent’s lives.

Put simply, researchers took up the challenge of determining whether ODD toward kindergarten teachers and ODD towards peers represent two completely isolated constructs rather than one.

Measurement

Participants of this study consisted of a population of elementary students in small to medium sized communities based in Oregon with an estimated total of 1,478 to 137,893 individuals. These selected students attended schools that were already taking place in additional studies revolving evaluating intervention to reduce conduct problems and improving social skills among first graders; the former indicating a need for social reform, and numerous problems regarding behavior at these locations. A grand total of 23 schools participated in the initial screening, with the median of these students qualifying for free or reduced lunch (46%) and 50.6% being males.

For this particular portion of the screening, race and ethnicity were not collected, leaving a gap in data. Contrarily, of these students, 717 were requited to continue for the subsequent longitudinal portion of the study, and of this bit of sampling, 16% were Hispanic. No other ethnicity was reported, but race consisted of 90% Caucasian, 5% American Indian, 2% African American, and 1% Asian; 4% classified themselves as other.

Children were in kindergarten and rated by teachers using a brief questionnaire of social behavior. Children that were labeled with autism or other severe developmental delays were excluded from the sampling at the time. Moving forward, ratings were completed on 1,358 children from three individual cohorts; these groups were then divided into two samples for purpose of analysis. As a result, 824 children were recruited in the first two years of the study and 534 were recruited n the 3^rd year of the study in various communities. Ratings were compiled by fifty individual educators, with each teacher rating between 8 and 51 children. 

Means of testing students were administered through a shortened version of the Child and Adolescent Disruptive Behavior Inventory 2.3, which consists of 25 items, with items consisting of ODD towards peers and adults alike, with nine items geared towards the ADHD-HI subscale.  Markings for this assessment were based on behavior displayed in the last month, and only in the school environment.

The Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to evaluate the structural organization of ratings presented by teachers, and their concept of the eight ODD symptoms toward teachers and peers, and the nine ADHD-HI symptoms for kindergarteners. This served as a three-factor model (ODD-peer, ODD-teacher, ADHD), as opposed to the typical two-factor (ODD, ADHD).

While the children were often switched or dismissed, they posed as independent variables; the common factor simply consisted of ODD, or traits of Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

The measures used seem to be of ethical moral, but the fact that for a portion of the data race and ethnicity were not collected serves as a professional downfall. Additionally, students outside of the kindergarten level should have been tested, which would give a better feel whether peer and adult constructs are a problem at only certain ages. Supplementary, behavior was only considered in the past month and in the school environment, indicating the behavior may easily be a phase, lapse of judgment, or only present in the school setting as opposed to evident ODD which affects an individual across the board.

Research Design

For the purpose of this study, the Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was mainly used to evaluate structural organization of teacher ratings of ODD symptoms, by way of a three-factor model, broadening possibility of differentiating outcomes and isolating variables to create concrete evidence in the midst. The design followed 824 kindergarten participants for just over two years, in a multilevel modeling procedure in which data was clustered by the educator in order to obtain correct standard errors for the CFA procedures. This was found to be a necessary precaution as each teacher was accountable for rating multiple students.

Furthermore, the model comparison strategy was executed; the initial step included comparing several varying but plausible models.

Internally, there may be a threat to validity, as the measures of usage were repeated various times in an extensive fashion that may have muddled data, as previously noted. Externally, factors that may be a threat to procedures include the fact that participants may age, and in turn, grow out of the Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Similarly, these participants may develop new act-out behaviors they may not have exhibited in the past. This also reflects on the idea that this trial may not be valid or reliable, as it was tested with a singular age group and therefore may not be the best available data regarding Oppositional Defiant Disorder behaviors. With age, ODD may develop from mild to severe or vice versa, noticeably impacting study results and therefore validity and reliability. It is quite possible that the measure that was found suitable for the trial may not work for these participants with maturation.

Sampling

Ideally, the researchers presenting this article brought life to this concept with the intentions of studying students at-risk of developing Oppositional Deviant Disorder, or students who already suffered from the disease. The population consisted of 824 kindergarteners, a younger group that is more likely to present symptoms and not the actual labeled disorder yet. While the population was younger, and so showed room for intervention and avoidance of developing ODD, this study would have benefited more from students of differing ages, as it would showcase where symptoms progressively worsen or if certain qualities are unique to specific age groups. Children of more mature ages should have been represented in this study to further round-out data and grouping.

Sampling ensured that a variety of heritage and nationalities were represented, making for a diverse group of learners, or students. While some percentage of race was unaccounted for, as noted before, other accounts of evidence lead to the assumption that a broad group of individuals were noted throughout the study. Sampling was also consistent in that it relied on a sole age-group so that evidence could be concrete in the ages it was representing.

The specific type of sampling for this purpose falls somewhere between random and systematic, but not necessarily stratified. Sampling can be considered random in the sense that while kindergarteners were the subjects, specifics of learning abilities, disabilities, and race did not play a part in selection outside of the idea that many may be at risk for Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Contrarily, systematic sampling also took part in this research as all participants were kindergarteners, creating a homogenous population of sorts.

Typically, there may not be any disadvantages of these sampling styles pertaining to this study, but as noted before, a wider range of testing audience, specifically in varying ages, may have better suited the project and would have helped to hone in on age-specific symptoms. Hand-in-hand with this, external validity may be threatened in the case that varying age groups do not display the same symptoms, behaviors, or similar results as those states by this case.

Data Collection

Data were acquired through the use of a Confirmatory Factor Analysis, or CFA. Specifically, the program was designed to better evaluate the structural organization of ratings made by teachers of the eight varying Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms toward peers and teachers, and the nine ADHD-HI symptoms present in children in the kindergarten classroom setting.

Observations served as the method of choice for researching purposes in this article. It was through observations that the AHDH and ODD behaviors were documented and analyzed. The advantage of the proposed method is that it allows for hands-on studying and for researchers to get up close and personal with participants. In addition to this method, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis was used to evaluate symptoms by educators through teacher ratings. This method may be classified as a questionnaire. Flaws in this method may lie in the idea that educators may have a misconstrued perception of students, and students may have a misconstrued perception of themselves. This specific method of data collection allows for assumptions, something very dangerous to action research. Contrarily, it also allows for less complex data collection and is simpler for those unfamiliar with typical research.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed by means of teaching ratings completed through the Confirmatory Factor Analysis. This analysis evaluated the structural organization of the teacher rating that were conducted throughout the study.

Analyzation of data was conducted through a three-factor model (ODD – Teachers, ODD-Peers, and ADHD-H). Typically, a two-factor model may be used, consisting of only ODD and ADHD-H, but the uniqueness of this study aimed to prove a distinction in ODD.

Results

When studying rate measures of problem behaviors, it is not unlikely to find items exhibiting substantial skew and kurtosis, the sharpness of the peak of a frequency-distribution curve. As this sample was “normative,” the highest scores found were extremely rare, or outliers. In order to adequately code symptoms or act-out behaviors, responses that fit the profile of 2-5 times per day, 6-9 times per day, and 10 or more times per day were all coded as a 6, creating a wide band of data. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of teaching ratings from the initial conducted sample with data that was clustered by the teacher and which all items were forced to load on one single factor. Researchers noted they believed this was not a good fit for the task at hand, most likely also implicating some data in turn.

This was followed by a two-factor model that tested ADHD-HI items in which all loaded on one factor, followed by the ODD items loading on an additional sole factor. Results showed that this proved to be a much better fit in specifics to the data that needed to be acquired in order to prove substantial to the project. Unfortunately, while effective, the model failed to show it was adequate for the overall fit of all complementary data. In turn, a three-factor model came into play, testing which items were allowed to load on respective factors of ADHD-HI and ODD to teachers, while specifically displaying ODD to peers. Once again, this specified model showed substantial improvement to those that preceded it, though it did not achieve HU and Bentler’s (1999) standards of overall fit, pertaining to a systemic equation of validity.

As a result of these trials, the following tested whether correcting for anticipated method effects would likely improve the model’s fit. A priori alternative model was able to free covariances of identical factors from the constraint when it must equal zero to account for the method effects that were tested. As a system of practice, this method allowed for certain items, such as those that fit “Argues with adults” and “argues with peers” to correspond more closely with each other than may otherwise allow.

Following statistics, researchers addressed this issue by means of freeing the covariance between all eight pairs of identical behavior items from zero but while also retaining the model constraint that they be assumed to equal each other at the same time. This served as a way to minimalize the opportunity to capitalize on chance, ensuring that the model only benefited from the main difference of these covariances from zero. Once more, significant and meaningful improvements resulted from these slight changes, and so the relationship between the three underlying factors was negligible at this point. However, this model still did not meet the requirements needed to achieve Hu and Bentler’s (1999) standards for an overall appropriate fit.

An additional prior alternative model with a second method factor was then tested to account for the average influence of one item on another subsequent item. Authors addressed this by freeing covariances of each adjacent pair of items from equalizing zero but retaining model constraints that they be assumed to equal each other. From this, a grand total of 22 relationships were constrained with a single degree of freedom, including new instructions between certain items in the questionnaire. As a result, the relationship among the three factors remained virtually indifferent, but the model had now achieved Hu and Bentler’s (1999) standards for an overall adequate fit of data.

Analyses of Sample 1 and Sample 2 followed suit, and likewise results, or conclusions, were reached at every step. The three-factor model resulted in a substantial improvement over the two-factor model, as it allowed for covariances between adjacent items and identically-worded items to also result in considerable improvements. Analyses of genders warranted a separate program rerun, and yet the same conclusion was reached; this replication also gave increasing confidence that the three-factor model was truly an appropriate, and reliable, fit.

These results solidified that “oppositional toward adults” and “oppositional toward peers” are distinct but correlated constructs and that both are distinct from HI. All of the following items loaded onto their hypothesized constructs in the system, which was further supported by the action of replication with the second sample, and gender reruns, of students. Tests of factor invariance would be needed in order to offer a more rigorous analysis of whether this structure is truly identical across genders.

Implications of the Findings

The authors came to the conclusion that “oppositional toward adults” and “oppositional toward peers” are distinct on their own but also correlate in constructs, and both stand aside from HI. These findings came about after multiple system reruns, and trials of two-factor and three-factor models that showed similar, if not exact, results for all demographics.

While the results seem to be deemed appropriate, it is important to note the possibility of data interference across multiple spectrums; data was transferred multiple times and could have easily been jumbled or incorrectly distributed across multiple test trials.

Notably, the CADBI (Version 2.3), a new and improved measure of disruptive behavior, holds new insight and offers promise as a useful assessment tool that may have a fine-milled and reliable distinction between Oppositional Defiant Disorder to teachers, and ODD to peers. This distinction may be useful in defining contexts in which need to intervene, and developing effective ways to do so earlier, as well as measuring the effects of such interventions.

The study also showcased procedures for addressing two method effects that may account for modest but significant variance. One procedure corrected items that tend to be influenced by the previous item ranked, displaying a crutch in evidence and validity. Another corrected the number of items that asked about identical behaviors that were directed towards peers and teachers. These corrections resulted in small, but noticeable, changes in the estimates of relationships among underlying, or more hidden, constructs though improving the overall model fit. Evidently, these procedures identify and account for method effects in analyzing questionnaire data without diminishing the practical implications for the measurement of three separate constructs.

Another limitation that is ever present, and has already been noted, is that measurements only included those of teacher ratings of kindergarten students. While understanding ODD qualities in children at a young age, and effective early interventions can serve as a deterrent of this disorder, this study does not offer a outlook on individuals who have developed and continue to suffer from the disability throughout teen years and adolescent. The authors have noted that additional research will be necessary in order to determine whether teacher ratings of children and parent ratings of children at different ages follow a similar pattern. Another limitation is that this case does not assess whether opposition to teachers and opposition to peers constructs have different correlations, follow varying development trajectories, or predict different outcomes.

Further research may incorporate two correlated but distinct constructs of oppositional to teachers and oppositional to peers so that there is the ability to learn which type of correlates, antecedents, and consequences they possess.

In the future, focusing on even more refined distinctions may be useful, such as honing on whether certain behaviors occur toward siblings and/or close friends or solely toward teachers and/or parents. Additionally, studying where proper social skills are exhibited, and to who, may be noteworthy. Most pivotally, targeting, or development, of a specific assessment with appropriate measures to gauge indifferences will be most effective in fine-graining research in this area of focus.

Personally, there is a lack of significance to the area of interest, as there are many threats to validity and reliability. Additionally, this article does not go into depth as to whether personality traits distinct to odd are more likely to decapitate or grow with maturation. It is also vital to note the amount of times it took to find a corresponding measure for the study, and that in itself proves an off-balance that exists somewhere in both the study and methods being used. While interesting in information regarding Oppositional Defiant Disorder towards other peers, there is not enough evidence to design strategies and preventions to avoid act-outs in the classroom.

Student’s Contribution

If this study were to be conducted again, I would ensure to include a wider ranging group of individuals. A possible example would be including teenagers aged 12-17 in one trial group, and a supplementary group of children aged 6-11. While this study primarily focused on a combination of act-out factors in kindergarteners it did not take into consideration how these behaviors my carry on, and possibly heighten with age, eliminating any true validity for the majority of children who suffer from Oppositional Defiant Disorder, regardless of age. Additionally, the concept of reliability may also be at stake, as the measurement used may not be reliable when working with focus groups of various ages.

The measurement of this study also proved to be rather inconsistent, as well as primarily non-effective; the study accounts for having to change methods as much as three times to truly reach an adequate measurement potential, showcasing the fact that data may have somewhere along the way became irrelevant or recorded wrongly.

Furthermore, significance of the study at hand was unclear and not concise whatsoever, leaving readers to wonder if the project was significant or not outside of the implications of finding. Based on the noted data and listings of complications, the trial appears to be insignificant, but there is no concrete way of telling due to the disorganization of the article. While numbers were present and even so excessive, they were not thoroughly explained throughout the course of the piece and created a somewhat murky study to navigate as both a reader and fellow researcher.

Contrarily, I would presume the final program chosen to run the testing numbers would suit for the task at hand, and so I would be sure to stick to this program in the case that it once more proves itself adequate and worthy of Hu and Bentler’s standards.

If there may be anything that constitutes deleting, it may be the excessive information featuring the multiple models that were in need of improvement. While it is vital to know what does and does not work in regards to educational research, I felt that much of the article focused on finding the perfect model, rather than debunking that Oppositional Defiant Disorder applies only to students and authority figures in their lives (parents and teachers, mainly). The article fell flat and quickly became something much of a chore to read and did not feel as packed with information as it might have had if there was not so much emphasis on the various models that were executed prior to finding a suitable measure.

A way to solve the stated problem would have been to evidently delete the excess of information. More so, though, wouldn’t think infringe on the honesty of the literary piece, though? It may, as once the trial began, everything that came as a result should have, and was, documented in the writing. The only suitable way to have avoided this altogether would have been in testing the various methods prior to running trials. The researchers could have gone about studying which models are noted for their authenticity among other key factors, and then chose one in lieu of this. That would have allowed for a smoother, much more efficient study and would have kept the article focused and concise. Instead, you are left with a piece that feels somewhat jumbled and unethical in pursuit.

To conclude, while this piece of literature serves as a fine move towards a breakout in Oppositional Defiant Disorder findings in relation to defiant traits in peers and authority figure, there is still extensive data analyzing that needs to be done in order to solidify any formal findings. In the future, the use of participants of varied ages and the sole use of a single measurement for this purpose may better serve the needs of research in order to meet the standards of finely defined data.

References

Taylor, T. K., Burns, G. L., Rusby, J. C., & Foster, E. M. (2006). Oppositional defiant disorder toward adults and oppositional defiant disorder toward peers: Initial evidence for two separate constructs. Psychological Assessment, 18(4), 439-443. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.18.4.439

To top

The Importance of Parental Advocacy for Children with Disabilities: A Review of the Literature

By Miranda Freites

Abstract

This paper explored five published articles that report on results from research conducted that highlights the importance of parental advocacy for children with disabilities.  Parents of children with disabilities may feel the special education system process to be difficult in navigating and even daunting. When introduced into the special education community not all parents are not guided in learning what can be done to assure the best quality of education for their child. This paper examines the research in relation to the importance of parental advocacy.

Keywords: parent involvement, children with disabilities, advocacy

The Importance of Parental Advocacy for Children with Disabilities: A Review of the Literature

It seems today that many parents of children with disabilities often time find the entire special education system process to be difficult in navigating and even daunting. Research suggests that this may be due to parents’ lack of understanding the rights of their children, understanding of the disability and intimidation of the process (Mandic, Rudd, Hehir, & Garcia 2010). When students become eligible for special education services, parents may feel lost in understanding the relevant special regulations and nonadversarial advocacy techniques when meeting with the school (Burke, 2013). In schools today the repercussion of lack of parental involvement and knowledge are sweeping. With lack of parental involvement and input leads to inappropriate placements and services for students with disabilities. In order to improve parent involvement, parents or guardians must understand the importance of theirs and their child’s rights. Without parental involvement, students with disabilities are more likely to receive inadequate and inappropriate services.

It is emphasized in many studies in the literature the importance of parent advocacy of children with disabilities, which than impact the quality of education those students receive. It is evident that all parents or guardians want the best for their children. When introduced into the special education community not all parents are not guided in learning what can be done to assure the best quality of education for their child. Evidence suggests that when parents are involvement in their child’s education aids in securing appreciate educational services (Burke, 2013). In reviewing the literature, the following themes and interventions were considered: improving parent- school collaboration in special education, understanding parental/ guardian rights in special education, and parent involvement. The research focuses on the importance of parental advocacy for children with disabilities.

Improving Parent- School Collaboration in Special Education

Chen and Gregory (2010), claimed that when there is parental involvement alongside educational professionals it leads to promising means within students’ educational outcomes. When developing appropriate services and accommodations for students with disabilities it is imperative for educators to receive parent input on the matter. Parents or guardians add very valuable information about a student outside of the school setting. In creating a collaborative unite both parents and educators can best meet the needs and interest of the child. Burke (2013), conducted a study implementing two special education advocacy training models: Special Education Advocacy Training (SEAT) and the Volunteer Advocacy Project (VAP). Through this study, researchers discussed parents of students with disabilities often encounter restraint in navigating the special education system. Some parents may even find it a daunting task in understanding the terminology or the services (Burke, 2013). Both purposed models is to train individuals in special education advocacy. The SEAT project has had three cohorts and a total of 144 participants, while the VAP project has had five cohorts of trainees with 129 individuals graduating. Special education advocates are individuals with knowledge of both special education laws and advocacy skills to assist parents in working with the school system. It was determined that further research about family- school collaboration should be done being there are many items that factor into family involvement. Results highlights that by preparing advocates can help assist parents of children with disabilities as well as educating to work collaboratively with the school. Advocacy trainings is one way to improve the parent-school relationships, which evidently improves the quality of the students’ education (Burke, 2013).

In a similar study, Starr and Foy (2010), conducted a study to review of parents of children with autism spectrum disorder and their satisfaction with their children’s education services. The sample study for this study consisted of 144 parents of children with autism spectrum disorder. Researchers examined the responses to open- ended questions of a given survey to the parents. The survey regarded the parents perceptions of and satisfaction with their child’s education services they were receiving (Starr & Foy 2010). The instrument used was a survey consisting of a total of 106 questions including both Likert type scale and open- ended questions. A major theme that came repeatedly in all the questions was a concern of effective communication and collaboration between parents and schools. Findings indicated that parents of children with Autism felt frustration and low expectation for their child’s education.  This means all members of the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team should collaborate and communicate effectively, not only with the parents but also with other educational personals to ensure that interventions are being carried out appropriately (Starr & Foy 2010). Results concluded with the idea that schools need to take parents views into consideration when developing interventions for students.

Understanding Parental/ Guardian Rights in Students Education

For parents of children with disabilities it is imperative to understand their rights in the case that actions need to be taken. For example, when given documentation during an Individualized  Education Plan (IEP) meeting, parents may not be able to understand the services provided.  It seems some educators do not take the time to explain to parents procedural safeguards or any given paperwork to parents. This leads to many unanswered questions for parents. Mandic et al., (2010), conducted a study that reviews a pervious study by Fitzgerald and Watkins (2006), which examined the readability of procedural safeguard documents from all state departments of education, except the state of Ohio. With the study as a primary source, researchers focused on literacy related barriers for parents understanding the rights of students with disabilities within the special education system. Using the SMOG readability assessment for the 50 states indicated that the reading levels among parents are lower than what policy documents are written out in Mandic et al., 2010). The study provided evidence that the literacy demand on parents understanding the special education process is too high. This language mismatch may significantly impede parental involvement in special education, an issue of great concern. The study also went into further detail that there should be a goal in place to clearly communicate procedural safeguards to parents so that there can be a more effective partnership among the team (Mandic et al., 2010). Results indicated that making sure parents have a clear understanding of their rights will ensure the best quality of services for a child with special education services.

In relation to the previous study, Valle (2011), examined what researchers and professionals may know in depicting the knowledge of parents in the special education system, specifically parents of children with learning disabilities. Valle (2010), started her studies over three decades ago focusing her research on fifteen mothers of children with learning disabilities. The study points out after decades of research mothers still seem to have the same feelings of their knowledge of understanding their child’s education. Implications found that all fifteen mothers felt left out of the education process and also intimidated by the language of the documentation (Valle, 2010).  It seems this framework study of parents and special education is not a new phenomenon but a constant problem. Valle (2010), left with a strong point that mothers of students with learning disabilities have much to teach professionals about the impact of disability and about the profound experiences they face.

Parent Involvement

With decades of research to confirm that parent involvement is one major factor in creating successful education outcomes for students (Chen & Gregory 2011). When parents immerse themselves into their child’s education it creates opportunities for families to work together and even positive learning experiences. Chen and Gregory (2011), explored parental involvement in the prereferral intervention team (PIT) process.  Researchers examined a stratified sample of 88 PIT student records from fourteen elementary schools with on district.  The study was implemented to examine what types outcomes parental involvement would have in the PIT intervention process, if it may have any impact on the child’s presenting problems and if referrals for special education testing are necessary. As a result, findings showed that the greater parental participation was greatly related to quality of interventions and targeted the child’s problems (Chen & Gregory 2011). Which evidently reduced the likelihood of that child being evaluated for special education services.  Researchers suggest that parent presence at the PIT meeting and involvement at home for their own interventions is highly related outcome (Chen & Gregory 2011). It is important that parents are involved in their child’s education because they provide valuable information from a different perspective during the problem solving process. This also offers more in- depth collaboration and increased efforts to ensure the best interventions and services for the child’s needs.

The literature review supports the importance of parent advocacy of children with disabilities, which than impact the quality of education those students receive. Based on the reviewed literature, improving parent- school collaboration in special education, understanding parental/ guardian rights in special education, and parent involvement are all considered strategies and themes that be will implemented in further research.  When parents educate themselves about not only their child’s disability but their parental rights it can only lead to positive outcomes. As stated prior, parents only want the best for their children unfortunately not all students’ needs are met in special education services. When parents are well informed of their families’ rights, necessary changes can be made with the students’ best interest in mind. In order for parents to gain this information school districts should be more willing in offering educational sessions stressing the importance of parent advocacy. More importantly when parents are invited to Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meetings school officials should really be going over with parents their rights clearly.

References

Burke, M. M. (2013). Improving Parental Involvement: Training Special Education Advocates. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23(4), 225-234.

Chen, W., & Gregory, A. (2010). Parental Involvement in the Prereferral Process: Implications for Schools. Remedial and Special Education, 32(6), 447-457.

Fitzgerald, J. L., & Watkins, M. W. (2006). Parents’ rights in special education: The readability of procedural safeguards. Exceptional Children, 72, 497-510.

Mandic, C. G., Rudd, R., Hehir, T., & Acevedo-Garcia, D. (2010). Readability of Special Education Procedural Safeguards. The Journal of Special Education, 45(4), 195-203.

Starr, E. M., & Foy, J. B. (2010). In Parents’ Voices: The Education of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 33(4), 207-216.

Valle, J. W. (2011). Down the Rabbit Hole: A Commentary About Research on Parents and Special Education. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(3), 183-190.

To top

The Critical Need for Robust Communication between Schools and Parents of Students with Learning Differences: A Review of the Literature

By Heather-May V. Potter

Introduction

In Education there is much discussion of the need for parental involvement to maximize students’ academic achievement as well as positive social-emotional behaviors.  It is widely acknowledged that parents are the experts in their own children’s strengths and needs (Starr & Foy, 2012), and that they are “not only the first teachers of children in encouraging their children’s positive personality traits and supporting their developmental areas, but they are also indispensable partners of educators” (Llik & Er, 2019).  Varied studies going back to the 1960’s have found that parental involvement in the forms of homework assistance, attendance at school events, and communication with the school provides “immediate, positive results on students’ academic achievement”.  This involvement also has positive effects on attendance, drop-out rates, and at-risk behaviors (Burke, 2013). These positive results occur across economic and educational levels.  There has been extensive research into this area as it relates to the processes of Special Education, including identification, referral, and programming.  Many studies have shown that there are indeed clear, data-based, positive outcomes for both students and schools when educators and parents communicate and collaborate with the shared goal of providing the best possible education to the student.  Research has also shown that these school and parent partnerships are hindered by institutional barriers to communication (Burke, 2013; Llik & Er, 2019; Mandic, Rudd, & Acevedo-Garcia, 2012) that must be deliberately and persistently countered by educators if we truly wish to pursue the best outcomes for our students, their families, and our schools.

Collaborative Communication Improves Educational Services

Studies have shown that educational services improve when parents have participated in meetings to discuss the decisions made about those services  In Chen & Gregory (2011), researchers analyzed the records of 88 pre-referral cases from 2006-2006 in a mid-sized public school district in the American Southeast.  These cases documented the Response to Intervention Process (RTI) in which teachers and parents meet to discuss a student’s struggles in school, and plan and implement a targeted intervention to determine if specific instruction will close the learning gaps, or if evaluation for special education services is warranted.  This study found that the parents’ mere presence at these pre-intervention meetings were related to greater alignment between the child’s needs and the interventions recommended to the school staff.  Parental attendance at these meetings – initial meeting and one follow up – were also related to a decreased likelihood that the child would be referred to evaluation for special education services. (Chen & Gregory, 2011)  Their results also showed that parent attendance at meetings superseded the impact of race or gender on a student’s likelihood of referral, which is significant in context of the historical overrepresentation of black students and male students in special education programs.  While it was not part of the study to determine why parental attendance had this effect, two possible factors were presented by the researchers.  The first was that parental input may provide valuable information for planning interventions that would otherwise not be considered by the school.  Another possible explanation is that “Parental participation in the process may also encourage a higher level of accountability from all parties involved, leading to more in-depth collaboration and increased efforts to ensure recommended interventions more comprehensively address the child’s needs” (Chen & Gregory, 2011). In other words, educators simply work better when we put faces to names and discuss our work in person with other stakeholders.

A 2012 survey in Ontario supports the possible explanation that parent input provides valuable information for educators tasked with planning students’ education.  “Because parents know their own children best and are increasingly asked to work collaboratively with school personnel, it is important to investigate their perspectives regarding their child’s education” (Starr & Foy, 2012). This survey asked parents of students with Autism Spectrum Disorder their experiences with and perceptions of their children’s special education programs.  The results of this survey found that poor communication and collaboration was often noted by parents as a problem, contributing to the sobering statistic that only 22.7% of surveyed parents of students with ASD in grades 7-9 reported feeling “satisfied” with the education their child was receiving (Starr & Foy, 2012).  This was the lowest percentage of satisfied parents compared to elementary and high school parents.  Conversely, satisfied parents attributed the success of their children’s programs with adequate communication, as seen in this parent’s words, “All members listen to our concerns and we all try implementing what is working for each place” (Starr & Foy, 2012).

Collaborative Communication Improves Parent’s Perceptions of School Quality

Trust is key to parent satisfaction and support of the school’s programming for students.  In Starr and Foy (2012), many parents surveyed were dissatisfied with their children’s education and expressed the belief that teachers did not have enough training in ASD. This impacted the level of communication and collaboration between the school and the parents (Starr & Foy, 2012).  These surveyed parents went on to express, however, that they were more satisfied with the school when teachers and assistants showed a willingness to learn more about their students’ ASD.  There was also an expressed frustration in parents by their perceived need to start over with educating their children’s teachers year after year (Starr & Foy, 2012).  This frustration could be lessened with collaborative discussions that included teachers across grades, and communication to parents to inform them as to how the school was building and maintaining its capacity to work with students with disabilities.

A lack of trust in the school can also lead to broken relationships between parents and teachers, preventing any productive discussion towards effective programming decisions for the student, and possibly even legal action (Burke, 2013).

The Costly Consequences of Poor Communication by Schools

Since the passing of legislation ensuring the education of students with disabilities in 1975, parent involvement has been written into special education policy.  However, many parents feel unable to be involved due to various logistical and social barriers.  One such barrier may be the discrepancy between their own education level and that of the language used in discussions and documents pertaining to special education.  In one study, for example, the reading level of Procedural Safeguards documents designed to inform parents of their rights for their children with disabilities were scored as written above a 12th grade level (Mandic & Rudd, 2012), and a 2002 study in Public Agenda, New York, NY found that 70% of parents of children with disabilities believe that their children lose services because parents do not know their rights. If parents’ perception is that they are not informed, despite receiving documents intended to do so, they may not understand the options for their child or they may feel excluded from the process (Mandic & Rudd, 2012), leading to a breakdown of trust in the school and an adversarial, rather than a collaborative, relationship. Another barrier may be the parents’ perceived inadequacy in expertise for challenging the authority of the school and advocating for their child when they do not agree with the school’s decisions (Burke, 2013). For these reasons and many others, parents may feel cut out of the decision-making process regarding their child’s education, and may thus turn to a third-party advocate.  Special Education Advocacy is a growing field, bringing together the knowledge of special education law and advocacy skills.  California and Tennessee are two states which have developed their own training programs for volunteers in this field to work with families to ensure their children’s best interests are being served (Burke, 2013).  If schools do not adequately communicate with parents and include them in a collaborative process of making decisions about their children’s education, and build trust with those parents, they may not be perceived as satisfactorily serving their students, and parents are more likely to turn to third party advocates or attorneys.  When disagreements are then elevated to legal proceedings, there will be more tension, expenses, and missed opportunities for the student, the parents, and the school (Burke, 2013).  It is therefore in the best interest of all stakeholders to engage in clear and timely dialogue.

Conclusion

The importance of parental involvement in special education decision-making is no longer debatable.  The potential costs – social, psychological, and financial – of a school’s failure to adequately include parents of students with disabilities in these processes are only increasing for all stakeholders as the rates of students with disabilities grow, along with stronger advocacy.   Teachers and schools must therefore seek out and implement structures and resources for robust communication with parents, such as translators, documents and meeting talking points without jargon and using lower-level literacy demands.  Schools must do personal and individual outreach, and hold meetings and events at varying times and locations to accommodate parents’ logistical and social needs.  Given the documented and anecdotal evidence of parental dissatisfaction and disengagement in the junior high school (or middle school) years, teachers in these grades need even stronger efforts to connect with parents. It is a duty of schools to be proactive and persistent in efforts to reach out to all parents of students with disabilities, and to bring them in to a collaborative partnership when it comes to making decisions about their children’s education.  If this duty is not met, the result is damage to students, families, and the schools themselves.

References

Burke, M. (2013). Improving Parental Involvement: Training Special Education Advocates.

Journal of Disability Studies, 23, 225-234.

Chen, W., & Gregory, A. (2011). Parental Involvement in the Prereferral Process: Implications

for Schools. Remedial and Special Education, 32: 447. doi 10.1177/0741932510362490.

Llik, S.S., & Er, R.K. (2019). Evaluating Parent Participation in Individualized Education

Programs by Opinions of Parents and Teachers. Journal of Education and Training

Studies, 7, 76-83.

Mandic, C.G., Rudd, R., Hehir, T., & Acevedo-Garcia, D. (2012). Readability of Special

Education Procedural Safeguards. The Journal of Special Education, 45:195. Doi:

10.1177/0022466910362774.

Starr, E.M., & Foy, J.B. (2012). In Parents’ Voices: The Education of Children with Autism

Spectrum Disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 33:207. doi:

10.1177/0741932510383161

To top

Katherine J. Ramirez

Abstract

Parental involvement in the educational setting has been found to increase the performance of the students, especially in the area of special education (Tamzarin, Menzies, & Ricci, 2012). According to the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), it is mandatory and essential to include the parents in the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) process in order to fully meet the needs of the students (Jung, 2011), however, parental involvement is not as high as it should be in regard to special education and the IEP process. Through research, it has been found that certain barriers including the communication style, cultural beliefs, and prior knowledge of the IEP process lead to misunderstandings and negative feelings which cause parents to refrain from participating. Through future research, these barriers can be further examined to help increase parental involvement in the IEP process (Tamzarin, Menzies, & Ricci, 2012).

Barriers to Parental Involvement in the Individualized Education Plan Process

According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990, involving parents in the development of the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is mandatory and essential in order to meet the needs of students with disabilities (Jung, 2011). Parental participation in education leads to increased performance from students and ensures the proper development of IEP goals. Unfortunately, parents, especially parents from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds, are not as involved as they should be in the IEP process. Various barriers including communication styles, cultural beliefs, and knowledge of the special education process contribute to the lack of participation (Tamzarin, Menzies, & Ricci, 2012). 

Barriers to Participation

Communication Style

Limited English proficiency. Parents who are not proficient in English have a difficult time following along during IEP meetings. Interpreters from the district are brought in to help the parents in the meetings, however, the interpreters are often unfamiliar with the professional jargon, fail to translate main parts of information, or influence the decisions of the parents in favor of the school. This leads to the school controlling the meetings and the parents feeling like an unimportant part of the process (Jung, 2011).

Even if the parents are able to communicate in English, teachers often use professional jargon and unfamiliar documents which can lead to confusion and frustration. The parents are trying to follow along with all of the information being provided to them, however, when they are exposed to unfamiliar vocabulary and acronyms with no explanation of their meanings, they tend to smile and agree with what is being discussed. When the parents feel insecure due to the language barrier, it causes them to back away from the process which creates an image that they do not care. In reality, they want to be included but they simply do not understand what is happening (Tamzarin, Menzies, & Ricci, 2012).

Nonverbal communication. Different cultures have unique styles of communication. Two major types of communication between cultures are low context and high context (Jung, 2011). Low context communication is typically used by Western cultures and involves the use of words alone to communicate. Other cultures use high context communication, which incorporates body language, eye contact, and gestures in addition to words to relay the meaning. Individuals who rely on high context communication often misinterpret nonverbal communication signs by the teachers and cause them to feel unwelcome in the meetings. Similarly, parents who rely on high context communication may feel uncomfortable disagreeing with a teacher verbally, but use nonverbal cues to communicate the disagreement. If the teacher fails to pick up on the nonverbal cues, the parent can feel ignored (Tamzarin, Menzies, & Ricci, 2012). As a result of this miscommunication, parents have been found to describe teachers as arrogant which causes them to feel isolated, frustrated, and unwilling to participate in the future (Jung, 2011).

Cultural Beliefs

Individuals from different cultural backgrounds view education in different ways and have different behaviors in regard to the educational setting. Parents from CLD backgrounds might not participate in educational subjects because they believe it is disrespectful to the teacher and want to leave them alone. This causes the teacher to be reluctant in inviting the parents to any meetings because they see the parents as uninterested.

On the other hand, parents from some CLD backgrounds may view the parent-teacher relationship as personal and informal, while the teacher views it as a professional interaction. During meetings, the parents are expecting a warm and friendly conversation, when in reality the teacher acts professional and formal. While the teacher may view this as a positive behavior, the parents feel as if the teacher does not care about them or their child. This too causes the parents to back away from the IEP process (Tamzarin, Menzies, & Ricci, 2012).

Knowledge of Special Education

The IEP process is comprised of information that is not common knowledge and has to be researched and learned. Parents who are unfamiliar with the IEP process and requirements are less likely to fully participate even though their involvement is beneficial to their child (Hebel & Persitz, 2014). Ilik and Konuk (2019) found that 76 percent of parents of students with special needs did not know the meaning or purpose of an IEP. They also found that even though 80 percent of the parents attempted to be included in the process, 88 percent of the parents were not invited to any preparation of the IEP. Through these results, it is evident that parents are not properly informed or involved in the development if the IEP for their child. Without adequate knowledge, the parents cannot properly communicate their child’s needs or the desire to participate in the process to the teachers.

Conclusion

Barriers lead to miscommunications and negative feelings between parents and teachers. The parents want to participate and the teachers want to include them, however, the parents are often made to feel inferior because they do not understand the jargon, the material, or their actions are misunderstood. Teachers often misinterpret cultural behaviors or insecurities as a lack of interest and chose to discredit the parents instead of taking the time to understand the problem (Jung, 2011). Through research, it has been found that parents are willing and try to participate in the IEP process, however, they are discouraged because of various barriers. The teachers can change this trend by becoming culturally responsive and developing empathy towards other cultures. The teachers need to develop an understanding of their own culture to be able to understand the culture of others. The teachers should develop a relationship with the family and become aware of their culture and beliefs in order to properly communicate (Tamzarin, Menzies, & Ricci, 2012). The involvement of parents in the IEP process is crucial for the development of the child because they know their child the best out of anyone. Their contributions to the IEP help their child receive the proper services that will be the most beneficial. Creating an empathetic approach when dealing with parents of students with special needs will cause them to feel included and appreciated in the process and increase their participation (Ilik & Konuk, 2019).

References

Hebel, O., & Persitz, S. (2014). Parental Involvement in the Individual Education Program for Israeli Students with Disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 29(3), 58-68. Retrieved April 12, 2019.

Ilik, S., & Konuk Er, R. (2019). Evaluating Parent Participation in Individualized Education Programs by Opinions of Parents and Teachers. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 7(2), 76-83. doi:10.11114/jets.v7i2.3936

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

Tamzarian, A., Menzies, H. M., & Ricci, L. (2012). Barriers to Full Participation in the Individualized Education Program for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Parents. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 1(2), 1-11. Retrieved April 12, 2019.s

About the Author

Katherine Ramirez is a current special education teacher for 4th , 6th , and 7th grade students. She earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Exceptional Student Education with endorsements in English Speakers of Other Languages and Reading from Broward College. Currently, she is pursuing a Master of Science Degree in Special Education with an endorsement in Autism Spectrum Disorder from Florida International University. When she is not working or studying, she can be found caring for her animals, crafting, going to Disney, or helping her mom care for her elderly Nana.

To top

Latest Employment Opportunities Posted on NASET 

*Special Education Teacher – Growth Public Schools  (GPS) seeks Special Education Teachers to encourage a culture of mutual respect & equitable practice and exhibit knowledge of student cognitive development and various learning. Communicate effectively with students and families about classroom activities and student progress. To learn more –  Click here

*Chief Clinical Officer – Criterion Child Enrichment is conducting a search for a Chief Clinical Officer (CCO).  Founded in 1985 as a not-for-profit organization, Criterion has served families for over 30 years and is a leading provider of early childhood education and early intervention services in Massachusetts. The Chief Clinical Officer will work in partnership with the agency’s Chief Administrative Officer to oversee operation of programs fulfilling Criterion’s Mission and Strategic Plans. To learn more – Click here

*Rivermont Schools – Special Education TEACHER positions available! – Now is a great time to join Rivermont Schools. Currently offering a $2,000 sign-on bonus and reimbursement of relocation expenses for Special Education Teachers! Rivermont Schools are private, nonprofit, special education day schools with campuses across Virginia. To learn more – Click here

*Student Services Administrator – Monitors compliance with IDEA, ADA, OCR, CRDC, and other relevant Special Education and/or English learner regulations for the purpose of ensuring ECS schools are in compliance with federal and state regulations. Assist in the updating of all policies and procedures for ECS that adheres to mandates pertaining to English learners and students with disabilities. To learn more – Click here

*Special Education Teacher – Cozad Community Schools, an AdvancEd School District, having excellent facilities, utilizing a Professional Learning Community structure, technologically strong, and intent on growing leaders, is accepting applications for a high school special education teacher opening for the 2019-2020 school year.  To learn more – Click here

*  Coordinator of Learning Services/Learning Specialist – Trinity School is seeking a certified Learning Specialist to lead a small team of specialists in the role of Coordinator of Learning Services. The ideal candidate is one who has taught in a variety of settings; a range of ages; and used different approaches. This person knows about remediation and how to provide strategies for students and teachers through direct and indirect services. To learn more – Click here

*Teacher – Special Education (All Areas) – Approximately 100 positions! – We are looking for highly motivated and skilled talent to join our team at District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS). We seek individuals who are passionate about transforming the DC school system and making a signifcant difference in the lives of public school students, parents, principals, teachers, and central once employees. To learn more – Click here

*Special Education Teachers – Responsible for providing an educational atmosphere where students have the opportunity to fulfill their potential for intellectual, emotional, physical, spiritual and psychological growth. This person is responsible for organizing and implementing an instructional program that will maximize the learning experience of students with special needs. To learn more – Click here

To top

Acknowledgements

Portions of this or previous month’s NASET’s Special Educator e-Journal were excerpted from:

• Center for Parent Information and Resources
• Committee on Education and the Workforce
• FirstGov.gov-The Official U.S. Government Web Portal
• Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals (JAASEP)
• National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth
• National Institute of Health
• National Organization on Disability
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
• U.S. Department of Education
• U.S. Department of Education-The Achiever
• U.S. Department of Education-The Education Innovator
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
• U.S. Department of Labor
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration
• U.S. Office of Special Education

The National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET) thanks all of the above for the information provided for this or prior editions of the Special Educator e-Journal

To top

To View or Download a PDF file for this issue of the Special Educator e-Journal  –  CLICK HERE

To top