reflect

Intervention in School and Clinic 2017, Vol. 52(4) 228 –235 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2016

Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1053451216659469

isc.sagepub.com

Feature Article

Jay is a 15-year-old African American male who has been attending the same urban sixth to twelfth grade school since the sixth grade. Jay is an only child who lives with his mom, Carmen, in a single parent household. Jay was referred for special education identification assessment in middle school. His individualized education program (IEP) indi- cates a generalized learning disorder. In middle school, Jay’s special education support services included part-time push in support by the special education teacher(s) in some of his general education classes. His special education teacher in eighth grade recommended additional support for Jay for high school, and his services were switched to Integrated Co-Teaching in ninth grade where Jay’s special education teacher provided support in all of Jay’s academic content classes. Upon his entrance into 9th grade, his teachers noted a change in that Jay was focused on improv- ing the quality of his writing and academic work, was respectful in class, and was considered a leader by his peers. At the time of his initial transition focused IEP meet- ing, Jay was enrolled in the 10th grade. At this time, Jay’s special education teacher wanted Jay to take an active role in his IEP development and transition planning. Jay’s teacher provided supports for Jay’s involvement in pre-IEP meeting planning, leadership during the IEP meeting, and

post-IEP meeting contact. This process of teacher support and facilitation of student involvement is aligned with the intent of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997, 2004) provisions (see Note 1).

The IDEA reauthorizations in 1997 and 2004 placed stu- dents at the center of educational planning. Specifically, IDEA included the provision that the IEP and transition plan should be based on the individual child’s needs, strengths, preferences, and interests. Beginning not later than the first IEP to be in effect when the child is 16, the transition IEP must include measurable postsecondary goals based on age-appropriate transition assessments related to education, employment and, independent living skills (IDEA 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII)). With respect to student involvement in decisions regarding transition services, IDEA provides that a student with a disability should attend

659469 ISCXXX10.1177/1053451216659469Intervention in School and ClinicCavendish et al. research-article2016

1University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA 2Hunter College, New York, NY, USA 3School of the Future, New York City Public Schools, New York, NY, USA

Corresponding Author: Wendy Cavendish, University of Miami, 5202 University Dr., Miami, FL 33146, USA. Email: [email protected]

Engaging Students and Parents in Transition-Focused Individualized Education Programs

Wendy Cavendish, PhD1, David J. Connor, EdD2, and Eva Rediker, MsEd3

Abstract The reauthorizations of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act emphasize that students and parents are to be considered equal partners in the individualized education program (IEP) process. This article addresses how to move from compliance with the law to facilitating meaningful involvement of high school students and their parents in IEP and transition planning. This article offers recommendations of an effective way to facilitate student-led IEP meetings. These three phases of IEP can support teachers’ roles in facilitating student and parent involvement in student-led IEP meetings. This article provides a model of how best practices in pre-IEP, IEP, and post-IEP meeting protocols can be implemented and outlines practices for developing reciprocal relationships with students and parents to facilitate meaningful involvement in educational planning.

Keywords transition, involvement, parent(s), IEP process, self-determination

Cavendish et al. 229

his or her IEP meeting if the meeting will consider the needed transition services for the student. Thus, students with disabilities have been expected to have greater oppor- tunities to make choices about their preferred transition out- comes and be more directly involved in all phases of the education decision-making process. In fact, each student is to be part of the team that establishes goals and determines what educational and related services will be provided to assist in reaching the student’s specific goals.

Student Involvement in IEP Development and Transition Planning

While many teachers, administrators, researchers, and pol- icy makers agree on the importance of student and parent involvement in IEP and transition planning, there have been many reports on the lack of meaningful involvement in the IEP process. For example, Martin, Marshall, and Sale (2004) surveyed 1,638 IEP meeting participants and found that students reported low levels of meaningful involve- ment in the process. Researchers have also advocated for providing students instruction in IEP participation. Specifically, instruction should be collaborative and include person-centered planning processes to ensure that students are front and center in the IEP development process (Hagner et al., 2012; Meadan, Shelden, Appel, & DeGrazia, 2010; Myers & Eisenman, 2005; Thoma, Rogan, & Baker, 2001). Furthermore, Martin et al. (2004) suggested that “asking students to attend their IEP meetings without prior IEP meeting instruction may actually cause educational harm” (p. 287).

Student Involvement and Self-Determination

The relationship between opportunities for student involve- ment in educational planning and self-determination and self-advocacy is well established (Cavendish & Rodriguez, 2013; Wehmeyer, Field, Doren, Jones, & Mason, 2004). Self-determination has been defined as a combination of skills, knowledge, and beliefs that enable a person to engage in goal-directed, self-regulated, autonomous behavior (Wehmeyer, 2005). Scholars of self-determination theory posit that self-determination is enhanced through environ- mental factors (Deci & Ryan, 1985) such as involving stu- dents in decision and choice making as part of the well as educational process (Almqvist & Granlund, 2005).

The importance of school efforts to provide opportuni- ties for student involvement has been echoed in research findings recognizing that student choice is related to posi- tive outcomes (Field & Hoffman, 2002). Research has shown that dropping out of school is more likely to occur in school settings that do not facilitate student participation in educational planning (Alexander, Entwistle, & Kabbani, 2001; Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2011). Other researchers have

noted that self-determination and decision-making skills cannot be properly developed without the opportunities to utilize them in context (Test et al., 2004). Stang, Carter, Lane, and Pierson (2009) noted the need for “frequent prac- tice opportunities” (p. 95) in schools for youth with disabili- ties to develop the skills that lead to enhanced self-determination Identified factors that contribute to stu- dents’ achievement and positive postschool outcomes include the extent of students’ involvement in decisions concerning course selection, diploma options, postschool education, and employment (Shogren et al., 2007). In sum, research on successful transition planning emphasizes the imperative for students to be taught to be, and supported as, active agents in determining their own needs. As such, they are better prepared to authentically contribute within IEP meetings.

Parent Involvement

The recent reauthorizations of IDEA also make it clear that parents are to be considered equal partners in the IEP pro- cess (Landmark & Zhang, 2013). However, parents have historically reported barriers to participation in IEP meet- ings that include a perceived lack of opportunity to provide input, communication challenges with the school, and dis- agreement with deficit-based perspectives of their children by the school (Tucker & Schwartz, 2013; Zeitlin & Curcic, 2013). There have been strong critiques of IEP meetings by parents who have often found them to be inauthentic, blameful of mothers in particular, and ultimately alienating (Valle, 2009). In some cases, parents have reported not rec- ognizing their own children as represented by descriptions offered by members of the IEP team, and parents have expressed feeling coerced into signing legal IEP documents (Valle & Aponte, 2002). In addition, dynamics within IEP meetings can be further complicated by an imbalance of power relations in terms of race, ethnicity, social class, and gender (Harry & Klingner, 2006), potentially causing cul- tural dissonance among parties ostensibly united for the sake of the student. Despite these challenges, the transition- based IEP creates a unique opportunity to mitigate some of these barriers and build students’ self-determination skills. In particular, it is a venue in which efforts among special education teachers, general education teacher(s), students, and parents can cohere to promote students’ engagement in planning for their future.

This article offers a guide for teachers to facilitate student and parent involvement in IEP and a process to facilitate meaningful student-led IEP meetings. Examples presented are based on data drawn from meeting observations, meeting documents, and interviews from a larger mixed methods study that examined the relationship between student and parent involvement in educational planning, self-determina- tion, and graduation trajectories for high school students

230 Intervention in School and Clinic 52(4)

with learning disabilities. Recommendations for how teach- ers can facilitate meaningful involvement of high school stu- dents and their parents in IEP and transition planning based on the recommended practices are outlined. A teacher’s guide for facilitating student and parent involvement in the three phases of IEP development is provided with critical steps for developing a meaningful IEP through a reciprocal and collaborative process.

A Teacher’s Guide

The guide was created for teachers to facilitate student and parent involvement in each of the three phases of IEP devel- opment: before (pre), during, and after (post) planning. The recommendations provided are aligned with the Taxonomy for Transition Planning (Kohler, 1996) that identified five categories of effective practices: (a) student-focused plan- ning, (b) student development, (c) interagency collabora- tion, (d) family involvement, and (e) program structure. In 2007, the National Secondary Transition Assistance Center cross-referenced the corresponding National Alliance for Secondary Education and Transition standards and quality indicators with the categories in Kohler’s taxonomy, sup- porting the evidence-based approach in Kohler’s taxonomy. The discussion below focuses on the categories for recom- mended practice to facilitate student and family involvement

in Kohler’s taxonomy as it was intended as a guide/frame- work for school personnel (see http://www.nasetalliance. org/about/standards.htm for the complete list of standards). The two categories in Kohler’s taxonomy for transition pro- gramming that are aligned with the recommended student and family involvement practices presented are outlined in Table 1.

For each stage of the IEP process, step-by-step recom- mendations for teacher practice are noted.

Before: Developing Student and Family Relationships

Get to know students and their families. Establishing a rela- tionship with families prior to the first IEP meeting can facilitate greater student and family engagement during the meeting. For example, Staples and Diliberto (2010) reported that “building parent rapport at the beginning of the school year sets the stage for open communication and continued involvement” (p. 60). Diliberto and Brewer (2012) recom- mended that teachers initiate regular communication with parents via telephone, text, or email and provide parents with regular progress reports and examples of student work to foster open communication that is necessary for success- ful IEP development. Compliance with IEP related legal requirements such as reviewing student academic artifacts

Table 1. Taxonomy for Transition Programming: Adapted Student-Focused Planning and Family Involvement Categories.

Taxonomy Category: Student-Focused Planning Taxonomy Category: Family Involvement

Subcategory: IEP development • Postsecondary education, employment, and community goals specified in IEP • Educational program corresponds to goals • Goals are measurable • Personal needs are addressed in planning • Specific goals and objectives result from choices • Goal progress is reviewed annually • Responsibility of participants is specified • Evaluation of fulfillment of participant responsibilities

Subcategory: Family involvement • Involvement in student assessment • Participation in evaluation of student’s program • Families exercise decision making • Family attendance at IEP meetings • Family role in natural support network

Subcategory: Student participation • Planning team includes student, family, and school • Assessment information is used for planning • Meeting time is adequate to conduct planning • Preparation time is adequate to conduct planning • Meeting time and place conducive to parent and student participation

Subcategory: Family empowerment • Pre-IEP planning activities for families • Families presented with choices • Structured methods to identify family needs • Information provided to families in appropriate language

Subcategory: Planning strategies • Self-determination facilitated in planning process • Planning decisions driven by student and family • Planning process is student-centered • Student involvement in decision making • Documentation of student interests and preferences • IEP involvement training for students • Student self evaluation of process

Subcategory: Family training • Training on promoting student self-determination • Training on advocacy • Training on transition-related planning process • Training about agencies and services • Training on legal issues

Note. The table includes selected recommended practices that apply to all families participating in the individualized education program (IEP) and individualized transition plan (ITP) process. Adapted from Kohler (1996) and used by permission.

Cavendish et al. 231

and sharing student performance with parents provides an opportunity for teachers to get to know students and their families on a personal basis. This can be accomplished through regular phone or email contact with parents.

Use technology. Research has demonstrated the potential of stu- dent portfolios for facilitating student and parent involvement in student-led meetings (Juniewicz, 2003). Specifically, survey data from parents, teachers, and students who utilized portfo- lios for student-led meetings in middle school revealed that the use of portfolios was “effective in promoting real world skills of responsibility, reflection, self-assessment, and goal setting” and contributed to a “common meaningful purpose” in educa- tional decision making (Juniewicz, 2003, pp. 75–76). Recom- mendations for portfolio components include (a) the former IEP, (b) standardized and classroom based assessments, and (c) academic artifacts such as recent writing samples and student projects. Over the course of the year, the special education teacher can compile a representation of what the student has accomplished throughout the year. The role of the special edu- cation teacher working in inclusive settings is to collaborate with the general education teachers to create a comprehensive overview of the student’s progress. As all teachers gather the materials, they will be able to see how the student has pro- gressed. Google documents can facilitate the collection of timely, useful information from teachers and enhance collabo- ration. The components of the Google document for this pur- pose include (a) student academic strengths and needs, (b) social development, (c) goals for each content area, and (d) recommendations for changes in services. An example of the Google document is provided in Figure 1. Be sure to consider privacy issues when using any digital data source that will con- tain student information that may be subject to regulations of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

Student progress can then also be shared with the family during regular phone or email contacts and in the pre-IEP meeting with the student. The promise of technology to transform the IEP process from one that is designed to meet legal requirements to a “working, functional, and timely tool that can be accessed by all interested parties” has been recently noted (Englund, 2009, p. 50).

Conduct a student–teacher pre-IEP meeting. The most recent IDEA reauthorizations related to transition planning empha- size the critical need for students to actively participate in IEP meetings as equal partners in the IEP planning process (Mar- tin et al., 2004). Instruction and support provided to students to facilitate their understanding of their IEP and increase their participation in their IEP meetings have been shown to increase their knowledge of self and improve communication skills and self advocacy (Zhang, 2001). Furthermore, research- ers have demonstrated the relationship between increased par- ticipation in student-led IEPs and self-determination skills (Wehmeyer et al., 2004). Thus, before the IEP meeting, it is

crucial to meet with the student and discuss his or her prog- ress, ideas, and thoughts for the future IEP. Utilizing a set of protocols, the teacher can work through the guided questions provided (see Figure 2 for pre-IEP meeting template).

The protocol focuses on former goals for students to iden- tify and see their own progress as they evaluate their present levels of performance. In addition, the protocol contains a strategic component of making revised/future goals more complex and attainable, including those in the social/emo- tional domain, and transitional goals for students to discuss their plans for college or other options. An integral part of the pre-IEP meeting is to have the student read segments of his or her past IEP and discuss his or her progress on attaining the IEP goals and to determine the needs to prioritize for the revised IEP. The teacher and student then work together to revise each section for the upcoming IEP meeting.

During the IEP Meeting

Provide opportunities for students to develop autonomy. One of the main foci of an IEP meeting is allowing a student to present his or her own growth and needs to their parents. The pre-IEP meeting provides a forum for the teacher to guide practice and discussion, and provides students with opportunities to practice self-advocacy skills; thus, students are prepared to participate meaningfully in their IEP meet- ing. Specific steps for a student-led IEP meeting include (a) allow the students to review the notes made on the pre-IEP meeting protocols and (b) review their progress in goal attainment using academic artifacts and their portfolio, and (c) present their current goals to their parent(s) or guardian. Students often need gentle prompting by the special educa- tor to lead the meeting and adhere to the procedure.

Include parent input on the IEP and write the goals and objectives collaboratively. The IEP meeting provides the “ideal opportu- nity to facilitate quality collaboration between educators, par- ents, [and students]” (Fish, 2008, p. 8). As the student presents, the parent is able to reference his or her own copy of the cur- rent IEP draft that the student created in the pre-IEP meeting. After the student presents his or her past goals, utilizes his or her own portfolio to show evidence of meeting these goals, and expresses his or her goals for the future, the parent has a chance to revise, edit, and provide feedback on the IEP draft. The IEP meeting provides the venue for the student, teacher, and parent to write the goals together. Once the student states his or her goals, the teacher and parent can provide curricular (e.g., course options, summer courses) and extracurricular options that can help move the student toward the goal.

After the Meeting

Meet with the student. It is important to debrief with the stu- dent after the IEP has been written. Generally speaking,

232 Intervention in School and Clinic 52(4)

students appreciate when their thoughts are discussed and credited to them. This step will also allow the student to reflect on their leadership of the meeting.

Provide follow-up to parents after the meeting. Before the IEP is finalized, it is important to send a draft of the goals. After parents have had an opportunity to reflect on the meeting, teachers can follow up with a summary. A brief email, phone call, or even postcard that (a) thanks them for participation, (b) summarizes teachers’ next steps (e.g., “I look forward to working with Jay on improving . . .”), and (c) opens the door for questions (e.g., “If you have questions about goals, pro- gramming, or other issues discussed, feel free to contact me”) can establish a framework of sustained engagement.

Communicate with the student’s future teachers. Write a brief anecdotal log (with practical instructional information) and provide it to the student’s future teachers. Although there is a section in the protocol where the student notes what he or she would like future teachers to know, the combination of rec- ommendations from past teachers as well as the student’s thoughts makes for a thorough understanding of the student.

Discussion

The observations of all three phases of IEP planning and the triangulation of perspectives of this process from teacher, parent, and student support previous research (e.g., Stang et al., 2009) and Kohler’s (1996) recommendations for

Describe Student’s Academic Strengths and Weaknesses: Please write one strength and one weakness for this student that pertains directly to your classroom based on CONTENT (not behavior).

MATH: STRENGTH: Jay embodies great attention to precision in his work, excellent note taking skills, and has strong basic pre-Algebra and Algebra I skills which make understanding current topics easier for him. [Example]

ENGLISH: STRENGTH:

HISTORY: STRENGTH:

SCIENCE: STRENGTH:

MATH: WEAKNESS: Jay can decode what a word problem is asking; however, sometimes it is difficult for him to derive the initial steps for solving one without having prompts or steps provided for him. [Example]

ENGLISH: WEAKNESS:

HISTORY: WEAKNESS:

SCIENCE: WEAKNESS:

Estimated Reading Level: In class Jay read Common Core Aligned Texts. Estimate of Current Math Level: On grade level (10th)

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (BEHAVIOR) Are you satisfied with the students overall behavior? If this student has difficulty with attention and focusing how severe is the problem? Please write any comments on the student’s social development (that pertains to behavior in your individual classroom). For example: Eva has trouble focusing on the task at hand and needs to be redirected on a regular basis.

MATH: Jay works well with his peers, loves to participate in class, and contribute to class discussions. He is an overall pleasure to have in class. [Example] ENGLISH:

HISTORY:

SCIENCE:

GOALS: Please create a goal for this student pertaining to your class curriculum or writing ability.

MATH: Jay should be able to complete a math word problem without as many steps or scaffolds provided to him. He should be able to develop his own steps for solving word problems. [Example]

ENGLISH:

HISTORY:

SCIENCE:

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEW SERVICES: Do you recommend this student for SETSS [reduced support by special education teacher]? Why or why not? I think Jay would benefit from a SETSS environment. He advocates for himself well and is aware of what his strengths and weaknesses are in a math class. He would benefit from an added challenge and less scaffolds in a SETTS environment. [Example]

Figure 1. Template for General Education Teacher Input on Student Strengths and Needs.

Cavendish et al. 233

teachers in the Taxonomy for Transition Planning for facili- tating student and parent involvement for meaningful par- ticipation in student-led IEP meetings. Specifically, the pre-IEP meetings with Jay were critical to his successful participation in the IEP meeting. Previous research has noted the importance of providing students instruction in IEP participation (Meadan et al., 2010). The development and use of guiding documents (see Figures 1 and 2) for Jay to review his previous IEP goals, discuss the progress that had been made, and develop his own goals for the next school year linked to his transition and postschool plans provided the much needed opportunity to utilize self-advo- cacy and decision-making skills that are critical to the development of self-determination (e.g., Shogren et al., 2007). These pre-IEP meetings demonstrate a method to provide the frequent practice opportunities called for by Stang et al. (2009).

In addition, Jay’s teacher’s ongoing practice of calling parents to share good things as well as bad things helped to remove the communication challenges noted by Zeitlin and Curcic (2013). Providing ongoing pre-IEP meeting contact with parents helped to open the authentic reciprocal dia- logue we witnessed during the IEP meeting. Opening the IEP meeting with the stated purpose of combining ideas along with the provision of the IEP goals to the parent for input before they were finalized also helped to set an atmo- sphere that facilitated important parent and student input (Tucker & Schwartz, 2013). Thus, this exemplar provides a

model of how best practices in pre-IEP, IEP, and post-IEP meeting protocols can be implemented.

Implications for Teacher Practice

In accountability-driven schools, the IEP process can be per- ceived by school professionals, students, and parents as another form of compliance (Brantlinger, 2004). Instead, the process can be the connector among all three parties if it is genuine and carefully orchestrated by the teacher. In many ways, it can be argued that the IEP meeting can be used to humanize the bureaucratic nature of school processes, as it places the student in the center of the discussion to actively plan his or her future. Previous research verified by this study (Myers & Eisenman, 2005) includes the influence of the teacher who plays a crucial role in envisioning, enacting, supporting, and documenting the entire student-centered IEP process. As teacher efforts in educational planning posi- tively influence the growth of self-determination and self- advocacy in students, it is imperative that the importance of the meeting is clear, becoming an event for which the stu- dent must prepare and practice. The teacher must be focused but flexible throughout this process, switching “hats” as needed to be host, prompter, communicator, clarifier, and listener. Ultimately, it is the teacher who sets expectations and facilitates the process, balancing input from all three parties. For the meeting to be authentic, a plan should be co- constructed with the student, yet everything agreed on is

Present Level of Performance IEP Goals

1. Read the Present Levels of Performance with the Student 1. Read the IEP goal with the student.

2. Ask the student what are three things you like about this section?

3. Ask the student: what are three things you would change about this section?

2. Have the student, in their own words, reflect on the importance of this goal. Questions to consider: Do you think this goal is a priority?

3. Ask the student the following: Was this goal too easy? Too difficult? Do you feel that you have met this goal?

4. Reflect with the student. What positive progress you have you made this semester (that you want included for your next teacher to know)?

4. Reflect with the student, providing feedback as needed. What evidence do you have to support that you have met/ not met this goal?

5. Combination work. How can we modify this goal for next year as needed? (Specific, measurable, assigned, realistic, time).

Transition Goals

5. Reflect with the student. What are some things about your behavior and how you learn best that you want future teachers to know? *Remind them, how are teachers to know what works for them and doesn’t if we do not tell them? Try to steer the students away from complaining about any teacher in specific. Have them create solution oriented notes.

1. What are your potential plans for after high school? College, vocational school, employment?

2. What skills do you need to achieve your goals?

6. Reflect on the notes we have taken, is there anything you want to add to reflect you as a learner?

3. What is your first step in reaching that goal? Researching schools (grades needed, SAT prep etc), looking at employment in areas you are interested in, etc.

4. Let’s craft that goal together: In one year, what will have you accomplished to get closer to meeting your post high school goal?

Figure 2. Pre-IEP Meeting Guiding Notes.

234 Intervention in School and Clinic 52(4)

recognized as tentative until the parent has been engaged with and had the opportunity to ask questions. This is the opposite of a fait accompli, when IEP teams have made deci- sions before the parent arrives (Valle & Aponte, 2002). In sum, both students and parents speak for themselves, being welcomed and integrated into school procedures rather than being subjected to them. In addition, using a strengths-based approach as a foundation for the IEP process helps build relationships on success in school and the recognition of stu- dent abilities. In turn, this makes students and parents more receptive to take ownership and coplan.

Finally, in viewing the IEP meeting as an opportunity for engagement with students and families, it is recognized that this must be a welcome priority of the special education teacher. It requires a disposition that seeks going beyond simple compliance; it requires a willingness to “make it real.” At each step of the way (i.e., before, during, and after), the teacher must manage many elements of the process to make it successful, including calibrating calendars with student and parent, using technology to obtain for input from all teachers, allocating time, determining space, and ensuring there are no interruptions (e.g., Kohler, 1996). That effort can facilitate a genuinely engaging IEP meeting—with balanced input from a student, parent, and teacher—that allows for the develop- ment of a meaningful IEP, strengthened relationships with the family and support of the school’s efforts by the parent, and the critical opportunity to facilitate the development of self-determination and self-advocacy skills of the student.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

1. The vignette reflects an authentic situation with names changed to pseudonyms.

References

Alexander, K., Entwistle, D., & Kabbani, N. (2001). The dropout process in life course perspective: Early risk factors at home and school. Teachers College Record, 103, 760–823.

Almqvist, L., & Granlund, M. (2005). Participation in school envi- ronment of children and youth with disabilities: A person- oriented approach. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 305–314.

Brantlinger, E. (2004). Confounding the needs and confronting the norms: An extension of Reid and Valle’s essay. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 490–499.

Cavendish, W., & Rodriguez, R. (2013). Current practice alert: Self-determined learning model of instruction (Alert 20).

Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, Division for Learning Disabilities and Division for Research.

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determi- nation in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.

Diliberto, J., & Brewer, D. (2012). Six tips for successful IEP meetings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44, 30–37.

Englund, L. (2009). Designing a website to share information with parents. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45, 45–51.

Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (2002). Preparing youth to exercise self- determination. Journal of Learning Disability Policy Studies, 13, 113–118.

Fish, W. (2008). The IEP meeting: Perceptions of parents and students who receive special education services. Preventing School Failure, 53, 8–16.

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2011). Focusing on the par- ticipation and engagement gap: A case study on closing the achievement gap. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 16, 56–64.

Hagner, D., Kurtz, A., Cloutier, H., Arakelian, C., Brucker, D., & May, J. (2012). Outcomes of a family-centered transition process for students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 27, 42–50.

Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2006). Why are so many minority stu- dents in special education? New York, NY: Teachers College.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-17, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1997).

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, H.R.1350, 108th Cong.

Juniewicz, K. (2003). Portfolios with a purpose. Clearing House, 77, 72–77.

Kohler, P. (1996). A taxonomy for transition programming: Linking research and practice. Urbana: University of Illinois, Transition Research Institute.

Landmark, L., & Zhang, D. (2013). Compliance and practices in tran- sition planning: A review of individualized education program documents. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 113–125.

Martin, J., Marshall, L. H., & Sale, P. (2004). A 3-year study of middle, junior high, and high school IEP meetings. Exceptional Children, 70, 285–297.

Meadan, H., Shelden, D., Appel, K., & DeGrazia, R. (2010). Developing a long-term vision: A road map for students’ futures. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43, 8–14.

Myers, A., & Eisenman, L. (2005). Student-led IEPs: Take the first step. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37, 52–58.

National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center. (2007). Cross-referencing the taxonomy for transition pro- gramming with NASET national standards & quality indica- tors. Charlotte, NC: Author.

Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Soukup, J. H., Little, T. D., Garner, N., & Lawrence, M. (2007). Examining individual and ecological predictors of the self-determination of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 73, 488–509.

Stang, K., Carter, E., Lane, K., & Pierson, M. (2009). Perspectives of general and special educators on fostering self-determi- nation in elementary and middle schools. Journal of Special Education, 43, 94–105.

Staples, K., & Diliberto, J. (2010). Guidelines for successful par- ent involvement: Working with parents of students with dis- abilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42, 58–63.

Cavendish et al. 235

Test, D., Mason, C., Hughes, C., Konrad, M., Neale, M., & Wood, W. (2004). Student involvement in individualized education program meetings. Exceptional Children, 70, 391–412.

Thoma, C., Rogan, P., & Baker, S. (2001). Student involvement in transition planning: Unheard voices. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 16–29.

Tucker, V., & Schwartz, I. (2013). Parents’ perspectives of col- laboration with school professionals: Barriers and facilitators to successful partnerships in planning for students with ASD. School Mental Health, 5, 3–14.

Valle, J. (2009). What mothers say about special education: From the 1960s to the present. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Valle, J. W., & Aponte, E. (2002). IDEA and collaboration: A Bakhtinian perspective on parent and professional discourse. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 469–479.

Wehmeyer, M. (2005). Self-determination and individuals with severe disabilities: Re-examining meanings and misinter- pretations. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 30, 113–120.

Wehmeyer, M., Field, S., Doren, B., Jones, B., & Mason, C. (2004). Student involvement and self determination in standards based-reform. Exceptional Children, 70, 413–425.

Zeitlin, V., & Curcic, S. (2013). Parental voices on individual- ized education programs: “Oh, IEP meeting tomorrow? Rum tonight!” Disability & Society, 29, 373–387.

Zhang, D. (2001). The effect of Next S.T.E.P. instruction on the self-determination skills of high school students with learning disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 24, 121–131.