Need Essay/ Pamphlet, Please
lampshade
IEP1.pdf
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cdso20
Disability & Society
ISSN: 0968-7599 (Print) 1360-0508 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdso20
Parental voices on Individualized Education Programs: ‘Oh, IEP meeting tomorrow? Rum tonight!’
Virginia M. Zeitlin & Svjetlana Curcic
To cite this article: Virginia M. Zeitlin & Svjetlana Curcic (2014) Parental voices on Individualized Education Programs: ‘Oh, IEP meeting tomorrow? Rum tonight!’, Disability & Society, 29:3, 373-387, DOI: 10.1080/09687599.2013.776493
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.776493
Published online: 08 May 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1953
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 12 View citing articles
Parental voices on Individualized Education Programs: ‘Oh, IEP meeting tomorrow? Rum tonight!’
Virginia M. Zeitlina and Svjetlana Curcicb*
aBrookfield-LaGrange Park School, Brookfield, Illinois, USA; bTeacher Education Department, University of Mississippi, Tupelo, Mississippi, USA
(Received 28 July 2012; final version received 29 January 2013)
The Individualized Education Program (IEP) was developed as a part of US Public Law 94-142 related to educating students with disabilities. The aim of the IEP process was to ensure that educators and parents are involved in collab- oratively creating a formalized plan for instruction that will address unique stu- dents’ needs. However, the IEP process has created unintended consequences such as depersonalized meetings, and a focus on paperwork and compliance rather than collaboration with parents. The parents interviewed in this study offered a number of recommendations on how to make both the process and the product of IEP meetings more meaningful.
Keywords: parents; Individualized Education Program; students with disabilities
Points of interest
• This paper presents an analysis of interviews with 20 parents who shared their experiences of the Individualized Education Program as a process and a prod- uct (the document).
• The parents experience the Individualized Education Program as a process of depersonalization, as a highly emotional event, and as a site of asymmetrical relationships.
• The parents reported that the Individualized Education Program document is deficit focused, is hard to understand, and positions their children as objects of remediation.
• The parents offered a number of recommendations about how to make the Individualized Education Program process more collaborative and the Individ- ualized Education Program document more parent-friendly and, also, more qualitative and less quantitative.
Introduction
In the United States, Public Law 94-142 was enacted in 1975 as a result of a movement spearheaded by parents advocating for services for their children with disabilities (Itkonen 2007). The educational policy enacted through Public Law
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Disability & Society, 2014 Vol. 29, No. 3, 373–387, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.776493
� 2013 Taylor & Francis
94-142 was referred to as a ‘revolution in public education’ (Sarason and Klaber 1985, 116). The Individualized Education Program (IEP) was developed as a tool to ensure that adequate educational opportunities were provided for children and youth with disabilities. However, the laws surrounding the education and docu- mentation of students with disabilities are ambiguous and their interpretation sometimes results in a mismatch of what parents want for their children versus what the IEP team considers most appropriate. This discrepancy leads to parent dissatisfaction, confusion, and mistrust (Ferguson and Ferguson 1995; Ferguson 2009; Slee 2003). In this paper we attempt to provide a better understanding of parents’ views and level of satisfaction with the IEP process. We also provide suggestions for improving the IEP planning and implementation based on an anal- ysis of interviews with 20 parents of children with various disabilities and experiences with IEPs.
Individualized Education Program
Parents and educators alike report numerous concerns surrounding special education services and the IEP process (Kliewer et al. 2004). It is not uncommon for courts to become the battleground when parents and school professionals are unable to sit around the table and reach consensus (Egnor 2003). The IEP meeting has been defined at the US federal level as follows:
The IEP meeting serves as a communication vehicle between parents and school per- sonnel, and enables them, as equal participants, to jointly decide what the child’s needs are, what services will be provided to meet those needs, and what the antici- pated outcomes will be. (Federal Register 1981, 5462)
Yet a number of researchers argue that parents and educators are not equal partners in the process (Denessen, Bakker, and Gierveld 2007; Ditrano and Silverstein 2006). Several studies describe parental participation at IEP meetings as passive based on: attendance rates at IEP meetings; number and quality of verbal contribu- tions during the IEP meetings; and the perceptions of professional IEP members (Goldstein et al. 1980; Leyser 1985; Vaughn et al. 1988). Also, researchers report that some teachers and administrators believe that parents’ participation should be limited to an informational giving/receiving role during IEP meetings (Gerber et al. 1986; Gilliam 1979; Leyser 1985).
Barriers to more meaningful parental participation in the IEP process include: negative attitudes of school personnel toward parent involvement in the IEP process (Turnbull 1987); ineffective parent–professional communication (Fish 2006; Salas 2004; Stoner et al. 2005); inadequate resources such as personnel time and funding (Turnbull 1987); and inconsistent implementation of IEPs (Fish 2006; Smith 1990).
Simon (2006) notes that, in spite of a large amount of research devoted to the IEP meetings, there is not enough information about how the IEP meeting and document work together as intended. In this study, we attempt to provide more insight into the discrepancies between the IEP legislative mandate and its practice in order for parents’ voices and perspectives to be heard and valued (Allan 2003). The main research question that guided this study focused on parents’ perceptions with regard to the IEP as a process and a product (the IEP document). Additional
374 V.M. Zeitlin and S. Curcic
sub-questions were related to the parents’ role in the IEP process and recommen- dations the parents would make to the IEP process or the IEP document.
Method
This study was conducted in the Midwestern part of the United States in a small suburban school district of approximately 1200 students. Although small, the dis- trict services a wide range of students with disabilities and involves parents who schooled their children in various urban and suburban districts in the past. The main purpose of this study was to learn from parents about the IEP process and outcomes in order to improve special education services.
This school district, along with several other school districts and special education cooperatives (associations of school districts that agree to jointly provide special education services using a shared administrative structure) in our larger metropolitan area, established a practice of gathering responses to parental satisfac- tion with IEPs through short surveys. The surveys are administered after initial, annual, and re-evaluation IEPs. The surveys can be completed anonymously although parents are given an option of providing their names (and many do). Responses from hundreds of surveys collected during 2008/09, reviewed by the first author and her colleagues, indicated that parents predominantly selected response options that were positive about IEPs as measured by the five-point Likert scale items, ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. A few disagreements were not addressed quantitatively (e.g. by checking off the boxes ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’), but rather qualitatively. For example, one parent did not rate the item ‘I am satisfied with the current special education services my child receives’. Instead, the parent put a star next to this item and in the Comment sec- tion (each question was followed by a two-line Comment section) wrote: ‘While John is doing well in certain areas, he is significantly behind the third grade curric- ulum and we are concerned about that’. We quote this particular example because it is fairly representative of how a small number of disagreements were addressed. The surveys were not analyzed statistically; the question became whether this method of collecting data was adequate and whether the responses gathered could be deemed informative.
Based on our literature review, it seems that parental satisfaction with IEPs gath- ered through surveys often results in more positive reports of parents’ perceptions and satisfaction with IEPs than do the reports based on interviews (Esquivel, Ryan, and Bonner 2008; Fish 2006, 2008; Reiman et al. 2010; Salas 2004). At the same time, based on one of the most comprehensive international literature reviews on IEPs, it is evident that surveys are more prevalent than open-ended interviews in examining the IEP issues (Mitchell, Morton, and Hornby 2010). Harry (2008) sug- gests that surveys provide a broad view of respondents’ perspectives, but do not necessarily provide the reasons or processes by which the respondents come to hold their specific views. Consequently, open-ended interviews were deemed in this study to be an appropriate method for collecting data for the purposes of learning about IEPs based on parental voices.
Parents were recruited through a flyer that invited them to participate in an inter- view related to IEPs. The flyer included a brief outline of the purpose of the study. Parents were asked to make telephone contact to express their interest. Potential participants’ telephone calls were returned immediately and those parents who
Disability & Society 375
T ab le
1 .
P ar en ta l d em
o g ra p h ic
d at a.
P ar en t
A g e
G en d er
E th n ic it y a
In co m e (a n n u al )
M ar it al
st at u s
IE P (n u m b er )b
A g e/ d is ab il it y o f ch il d re n
E li za b et h
5 0
F em
al e
C 6 6 ,0 0 0 – 7 9 ,0 0 0
M ar ri ed
5 1 8 y ea rs
o ld /e m o ti o n al
d is ab il it y
C ar o l
4 5
F em
al e
C 4 6 ,0 0 0 – 6 5 ,0 0 0
D iv o rc ed
1 0
1 2 y ea rs
o ld /c o g n it iv e d is ab il it y
H el en
4 9
F em
al e
C 8 0 ,0 0 0 – 1 0 0 ,0 0 0
M ar ri ed
2 0 +
1 3 -y ea r- o ld
tw in s/ le ar n in g d is ab il it y ; m u lt ip le
d is ab il it ie s
G ra ce
4 2
F em
al e
C 6 6 ,0 0 0 – 7 9 ,0 0 0
M ar ri ed
3 8 y ea rs
o ld /l ea rn in g d is ab il it y
A n n a
4 9
F em
al e
C 4 6 ,0 0 0 – 6 5 ,0 0 0
M ar ri ed
1 5 +
2 1 y ea rs
o ld /A sp er g er ’s sy n d ro m e
G ai l
4 7
F em
al e
C 6 6 ,0 0 0 – 7 9 ,0 0 0
M ar ri ed
2 0 +
1 8 y ea rs
o ld /a u ti sm
Ja n e
3 7
F em
al e
C 6 6 ,0 0 0 – 7 9 ,0 0 0
M ar ri ed
8 11
y ea rs
o ld /a u ti sm
T er ri
4 9
F em
al e
C 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 +
M ar ri ed
1 3
11 y ea rs
o ld /D o w n sy n d .
F ra n ce s
3 5
F em
al e
C 4 5 ,0 0 0 – 6 5 ,0 0 0
S in g le
4 4 y ea rs
o ld /c er eb ra l p al sy
L in d a
3 9
F em
al e
C 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 +
M ar ri ed
9 6 an d 8 y ea r o ld s/ A sp er g er ’s sy n d ro m e
L o u
4 1
M al e
C 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 +
M ar ri ed
9 6 an d 8 y ea r o ld s/ A sp er g er ’s sy n d ro m e
B et ty
4 5
F em
al e
C 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 +
M ar ri ed
1 0 +
1 0 y ea rs
o ld /l ea rn in g d is ab il it y
Ju an it a
3 2
F em
al e
H L es s th an
1 0 ,0 0 0
S in g le
4 11
y ea rs
o ld /l ea rn in g d is ab il it y
G in a
4 5
F em
al e
C 4 6 ,0 0 0 – 6 5 ,0 0 0
M ar ri ed
2 0 +
8 , 1 0 , 1 3 an d 1 5 y ea r o ld s/ au ti sm
N o ra
5 2
F em
al e
C 6 6 ,0 0 0 – 7 9 ,0 0 0
M ar ri ed
2 5 +
11 an d 2 1 y ea r o ld s/ au ti sm
; le ar n in g an d em
o ti o n al
d is ab il it y
S co tt
5 3
M al e
C 6 6 ,0 0 0 – 7 9 ,0 0 0
M ar ri ed
2 5 +
11 an d 2 1 y ea r o ld s/ au ti sm
, le ar n in g an d em
o ti o n al
d is ab il it y
C at h y
4 0
F em
al e
A -A
2 6 ,0 0 0 – 3 5 ,0 0 0
D iv o rc ed
1 5 +
1 8 y ea rs
o ld / ce re b ra l p al sy
R en ee
5 0
F em
al e
C 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 +
M ar ri ed
2 1 5 y ea rs
o ld /o b se ss iv e– co m p u ls iv e d is o rd er
L au ri e
4 5
F em
al e
C 6 6 ,0 0 0 – 7 9 ,0 0 0
M ar ri ed
8 +
1 8 y ea rs
o ld /c er eb ra l p al sy
Y o li
4 0
F em
al e
H 8 0 ,0 0 0 – 1 0 0 ,0 0 0
M ar ri ed
6 +
1 3 y ea rs
o ld /l ea rn in g d is ab il it y
a A -A
, A fr ic an
A m er ic an ; C , C au ca si an ; H , H is p an ic .
b N u m b er
o f IE P s at te n d ed .
376 V.M. Zeitlin and S. Curcic
expressed an interest in the study were given the Study Information Sheet with basic information about the study. The first author conducted the interviews at mutually agreeable dates, times, and sites convenient to the participant and the researcher. With the informed consent of the participants, she audio-recorded the interviews, and later transcribed them. Each interview lasted from about 45 minutes to two hours and was transcribed by the first author. We analyzed parents’ responses through a constant-comparative method (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Owing to space limitations, we report here only the most predominant themes that emerged in the analysis of the interviews.
The sample size was determined by the ‘informational considerations’ of the study (Seidman 2006, 63). The sampling was terminated when no new information was revealed from additional participants. The final sample comprised 20 parents who met the following criteria: parents of children in early childhood, elementary, middle, or high school; parents who have children who have been evaluated for special education services and have received services for at least two years; and par- ents who have attended an IEP meeting within the last year.
After the first author piloted a set of interview questions, guiding questions were established that related to parents’ perceived role in the IEP process, their participa- tion in formulating the goals for their children, their perceptions regarding the IEP process and IEP document, and were asked to provide recommendations.
By situating disability research in a personal and family context, we set out to learn from parents’ voices and experiences (Ferguson and Ferguson 1995).
Participants
Twenty parents participated in this study. The parents varied by age, gender, income, and educational level, but also in their experiences with IEPs because some of their children were older, and consequently some parents attended more IEP meetings than others. Some parents also moved in the past and had experiences with different districts. Table 1 presents a brief description of parent participants and their children’s disability as stated in their IEP documents (all names are pseudonyms).
Parents’ perceptions of the Individualized Education Program as a process
Parents’ perceptions of the IEP as a process revealed feelings of depersonalization. The process itself was viewed as a highly emotionally charged event, which embodied asymmetrical relationships. We also present parents’ perceptions of the IEP document. We conclude our discussion by presenting parents’ recommendations for an improved IEP process and product (the document).
Individualized Education Program as a process
The IEP as a process of depersonalization
One of the predominant themes that emerged in parents’ responses in regard to their role in the IEP process was that of experiencing depersonalization. Parents in this study reported feeling a loss of personhood in the drama of the IEP. For example, one mother stated feeling ‘like a little gazelle that was being shot at one-by-one by
Disability & Society 377
each of the twelve staff members at the meeting’ (Nora). Her hunting analogy reveals Nora feeling small and powerless. Several parents shared feelings of invisibility and a belief that they were viewed by the special education team as an obstacle in the process:
The school did not recognize me at all and I was seen as more of an obstacle in the process. (Frances)
I was really disappointed at the last meeting I attended. I felt talked over and not talked to. I was not included in on any of the assessment decisions. (Carol)
Parents struggled with feeling as if they were not a valuable part of the process (Salas 2004), and were critical of a system that pits them ‘on opposite sides of the table’ as suggested by Scott.
In the excerpt that follows, Betty’s comment substantiated ongoing comparisons of the IEP process to the medical field in which disability is seen as a condition in need of ‘fixing’ or ‘curing’ (Duchan 2006; Ferri 2008):
IEP meetings remind me of a doctor’s appointment where you are waiting alone in the doctor’s office for the doctor to give you a terminal diagnosis and as much as I told myself, ‘It really doesn’t matter what you say about my son’, I knew they could inflict a life sentence on my son and our family. (Betty)
Parents frequently shared feelings of being kept at a distance with constructed and reinforced boundaries between themselves and the school. Anna related education teams’ attitudes to ‘This is the way things are’ rather than ‘This is the way we make them’ (Gallagher 2004).
Several participants were particularly aware of and disturbed by the depersonal- izing effects of computer-driven IEPs. They shared feelings of worry surrounding distractions with ‘computer issues’ and a strong disconnect with the process that did not allow them to voice their most urgent concerns.
The IEP process as an emotional event
The IEP process produces strong emotional responses, predominately negative ones. Despite theoretical and legislative support for shared decision-making in the IEP process, there are significant barriers to shared decision-making and active parental participation. The excerpts that follow reveal strong emotions involved in IEP meet- ings. For example, Anna saw IEP meeting as an event that left her feeling ‘beat up’ and incompetent as a parent:
I just sat at these meetings until my dreaded hour was up. There were times when I felt like I was being beat up at these meetings. I made sure my husband came so that I didn’t have to be the only one beat up, the only one to made to feel as if I were not doing my part as a parent … (Anna)
Other mothers shared the emotional angst surrounding feelings of being judged and not being able to live up to the expectations of the school. Betty’s narrative that follows was highly emotionally charged and her voice often filled with tears as she shared her experiences:
378 V.M. Zeitlin and S. Curcic
Once the IEP day comes I know that the rest of my day will be ruined. I usually go home and eat – some people drink. The hardest thing about the meeting is getting your nose rubbed in your child’s shortcomings … [choking to hold back tears at this point] …This IEP process is very stressful on families – it’s really just about compli- ance with the law and not really for parents the way it is currently designed. (Betty)
The team needs to remember that these meeting are about someone’s child – there is a lot of emotion on my part as a mother. Think about how we feel when you are talking about our child. (Gail)
Frances is a young mother, a college professor, well connected with other parents who have children with disabilities. She shared insightful comments about the col- lective experience of her friends:
I know parents who drink the night before their IEP meetings. ‘Oh, IEP meeting tomorrow? Rum tonight! It’s bad news!’ Parents hate IEP meetings because they believe the system is meant to keep their children down, rather than to be a benefit. There is so much mistrust and feelings that school will do things to their children without any collaboration. (Frances)
Based on the analysis of the interviews with this group of parents, it seems that mistrust is not unfounded. For example, Carol shared her painful memories when her daughter with an intellectual disability was placed in a self-contained classroom without her knowledge:
I really had no idea that the IEP meeting I attended several years ago was designed to put my daughter in a cross-categorical classroom. It wasn’t until I went to the Open House in October looking for her 1st grade classes only to hear from a teacher, ‘Oh sorry, I don’t see your daughter too much, she seems so sweet, she spends most of her day in room 101’. I felt so bamboozled, filled with regret and confusion. I begged the special education director to allow her to be in regular education, but they just told us ‘No’. (Carol)
Most parents in this study used expressions such as ‘frustrated’, ‘dissatisfied’, ‘overwhelmed’, ‘sad’, and ‘dejected’ to describe their emotions during the IEP process.
IEP as a site of asymmetrical relationships
The asymmetrical relationships occur at IEP meetings when there is an imbalance of knowledge, power, and authority. The relationships were described as adversarial rather than collaborative. Many parents believed that schools would do everything in their power to seal boundaries and keep parents out. There was a sense of com- plexity, uncertainty, anxiety, and vulnerability that came with the IEP meetings. For example, Scott referred to his first IEP meeting as one that ‘took our breath away’. He was overwhelmed by the power dominance of ‘… ten to twelve professionals sitting on the opposite side of the table who would go on to tell us a host of nega- tive things about our young son’.
The comments, gestures, and inflections of school personnel at these meetings often left parents worried, frustrated, and angry. Some parents reported feeling chronically disappointed, perceiving the meeting as a waste of time without learning
Disability & Society 379
what the other team members had to offer in support of their child. Role-tension and unequal relationships were reported by a majority of the participants. These parents’ experiences and encounters with school educators reflect feelings of embat- tlement rather than collaboration:
I feel like I have to be my child’s advocate and fight for the services she needs. If we are not prepared for a fight and ready to get a lawyer, we know they will try to take services away from her. (Grace)
I think my role is to be my daughters’ advocate, first and foremost, but also a collabo- rator with the team, if they allow it. (Carol)
Parents frequently felt they needed to become experts in disability as well so that they could exercise some power in the educational decision-making:
My earliest memory of my role in the IEP process was just relying on the special edu- cation team to be the experts. Now I know that sometimes I have to become the pro- fessional, talking the talk, with all that jargon … Often times I advise other parents to be more assertive. I tell them to download the ‘iadvocate’, so that the school cannot lie to them about their rights. (Terri)
Family–school collaboration and engagement is highly problematic in both special education and general education (Hiatt-Michael 2001; Lareau 2003). Lawrence- Lightfoot (2003) describes the parent-teacher relationship as one of ‘natural ene- mies’ because of the asymmetrical roles each plays with students. The parents in this study struggled with the role they should assume, especially because some were advised to take on a combative ‘us against them’ attitude:
Autism conferences that we have attended keep saying over and over again: ‘You have to be the advocate for your child …’. It’s so ironic that we attend these conferences looking for support … and the number one message we get is ‘Set it up and get ready for a fight …’ We were told we needed to be super-combative since our schools have limited resources and lots of students. (Lou)
Online sources and social media serve as resources for getting information, but it seems that the wealth of information available does not contribute to diminishing the mistrust between parents and educators. Linda commented:
It’s only worse now because of all the things people write on Facebook. People are on the web spouting off about how they went into their meetings and managed to get their kids bussed to a school 100 miles away and the school district has to pay – ‘Wow, look at me, I won!’ There is no one getting on the websites and saying, ‘I had a really great IEP meeting and these people really love my kids and are doing a great job with them and really understand their needs’. (Linda)
The consequences of the imbalance of power, asymmetrical and unequal relationships are also illustrated by the following example:
My previous district just tossed my son’s IEP and redesigned it around their needs. It was total madness. They just disregarded anything I suggested or requests I made and did exactly what they pleased. (Frances)
380 V.M. Zeitlin and S. Curcic
Parents desired the IEP process to be open and trusting with exploratory dialogue rather than the current process that has been frequently described as a ‘ritualistic’, ‘mechanical’, and even ‘meaningless’. Most parents’ dissatisfaction related to the lack of collaboration and poor pre-IEP and post-IEP communication. Parents also felt that they were encouraged to be passive and were only allotted minimal oppor- tunity to speak. All but one participant shared negative attitudes surrounding the IEP process.
Juanita, a Hispanic mother, thought that ‘Sometimes the meetings can be very confusing and I don’t always follow exactly what is going on. More often than not, teachers are coming in and out of the meeting …’. Juanita expressed feeling bad that she was taking teachers’ time away from the students.
Only one-third of the participants noted positive role experiences such as ‘collaborator’, ‘active participant’, and ‘liaison’ or ‘relationship builder’. More frequently, the interactions seemed to be structured to make parents token partici- pants (Ong-Dean 2009). There was an asymmetry of power between a parent’s claim to knowledge and the school experts who often sought to dominate the edu- cational decision-making.
The Individualized Education Program as a product (the IEP document)
The interview question addressing parents’ perceptions of the IEP document under- scored the extreme parental dissatisfaction and provoked an array of negative responses. Although some parents felt that the IEP document was necessary, almost all had strong perceptions about its length and value. Two-thirds of participants thought that the document was ‘deficit-focused’, not parent-friendly, and was ‘over- whelming’, ‘legalistic’, and ‘meaningless’.
The IEP deficit focus
Several parents spoke of the IEP as a ‘necessary evil’ that was driven by an organi- zational system that required rules, regulations, tests, and measurements resulting in focus on a legal rather than an educational framework. For example, Scott was highly critical of the IEP document:
I am a doctor and it reminds me of the legal paperwork we use to sign off on serious medical procedures. Medical paperwork and school paperwork are similar. The IEP is not a document for parents. It is a document for the legal profession, not for mom and dads … If you look at the documents you can see that they are meaningless. It does not explain what’s going on in your child’s education … Maybe the attorneys need to get out of the business of education. (Scott)
The IEP has tons of stuff on many pieces of paper and it is putting your kids in a box that they might never get out of. It is the only way right now that you can get services and move forward. (Elizabeth)
Parents were suspicious of a document that determines the education of their chil- dren, yet for some it was hard to even recognize their children in these documents:
It’s hard for me to see how that document even vaguely resembles my daughter and what she needs to be successful in real life. (Carol)
Disability & Society 381
My fear is that an IEP doesn’t really tell you about the whole child, and a focus too much on the IEP may take away from broader things that my child should be working and focusing on. (Terry)
Based on these parents’ perceptions, it seems that the IEP document does not serve as a platform for collaboration with parents. It also does not seem to function as a ‘communication tool’ between teachers and parents as originally envisioned.
The IEP – a tool to label, but hard to read
All 20 of the parents in this study shared that they did not refer to the IEP docu- ment after their IEP meetings. They talked about the file cabinets, boxes, or storage sheds in which they stored the IEPs after the meetings. Some referred to the docu- ment as an ‘insurance policy’, a ‘legal document that just needs to be done’, ‘mumbo jumbo’, ‘a necessary evil’, ‘a waste of time’, or ‘an overwhelming piece of crap’.
Grace has been a second-grade teacher for more than 15 years but did not find that her background and experience were an adequate preparation for interpreting the language used in her young daughter’s IEP. She spoke of the need to consult her colleagues in order to interpret and make sense out of a highly legalized docu- ment:
The document itself is very overwhelming. In fact I always need to bring it into work and have my special education and co-workers interpret it for me even though I have been a teacher for 15 years. Maybe it’s just a necessary evil … I am lost when I take it home and try to make sense out of it. (Grace)
All of the parents agreed that the length of the document was daunting and unnecessary:
The document is so formal and prescribed. I don’t think school really works that way. The IEP pile just keeps getting bigger and bigger. (Jane)
It’s too many pages for starters. It’s an overwhelming piece of crap. It is not a concise document. It should be all on one page in a summary form. It should say something like my child will receive X amount of services and needs these accommodations due to his disability. (Betty)
The IEP document itself is not parent-friendly. I guess it is a necessary evil, but they have always been hard to read. The computerized version is easier on the eyes, but no less difficult to translate. (Cathy)
Most parents shared thoughts along Anna’s comment:
I find no value in saying that he will do this skill by this date. It’s not a done deal just because it’s on or not on that piece of paper. The IEP paperwork is not as important as the program, the experience, and knowledge of the teacher. (Anna)
Most of the participants were not asked to participate in formulating the IEP goals, but some also explicitly stated that they were not interested in formulating the IEP goals. One of the reasons might be due to the fact that goals are expressed
382 V.M. Zeitlin and S. Curcic
in percentages and prompts, a method that parents did not find valuable (discussed next).
The IEP goals as percentages and prompts
Parents shared that IEP goals were limiting and positioned their children as an object of remediation, with deficits, rather than a student who learned differently. Parents were interested in a broader goal for their children, one that spoke not to the deficit but to support and inclusion. These parents worried about the socially exclusive and linear nature of goals, hoping for real choices and authentic curriculum. Parents were critical of the diagnostic/medical language used to describe their children’s educational progress and instruction. They did not find reporting with percentile rankings helpful or necessary. They suggested the use of straightforward language to describe how their children were doing in school from year to year:
I have always been told that my son is meeting his goals, but never really paid much attention to that – 80% this, 90% that. The goals are written in a different language. I’d prefer just to know how he is performing from year to year. (Anna)
Forget about two out of three prompts over six sessions. All those numbers are ridicu- lous. To a parent, this is not helpful. The goals have never made sense to me and are written in scientific-medical language, not a parent-friendly manner. (Gail)
Keep percentages out – just write down what he is doing, what he needs to work on and were he needs more supports. (Scott)
The goals are most ridiculous – who decides if he meets his goals? To me there is so much gray area within goals and objectives…It’s so hard to read – since they are try- ing to quantify something that is really qualitative. (Nora)
In spite of an increased focus on accountability and curriculum-based measure- ments, educators need to keep their perspective regarding the ultimate goal for stu- dents – improved learning outcomes. Percentages and prompts position children as objects of remediation, while parents consider their children as learners who learn differently. Statistics, measurements, and accompanying numbers are not goals unto themselves and should not be presented to parents as such. The focus of the IEP should be on creating the instructional and social environments to provide meaning- ful learning opportunities for students with disabilities, rather than the current deficit model focused on ‘fixing’ through prompts and percentages.
Parents’ recommendations for a meaningful Individualized Education Program
Parents’ recommendations for the IEP process
Most parents simply wanted better communication and more collaboration:
I want a team that relates well with one another and plans well for my son. I am hap- piest just to have conversations with the teachers about how things are going for him. (Jane)
Disability & Society 383
Better communication between special education and regular education is my desire. I don’t even know all the names of the people that work with our daughter. True parent collaboration can better serve the student. (Terri)
Most IEP meetings are not collaborative. If you have a problem solving collaboration meeting in advance, you really are planning together … (Renee)
Parents would like a more active role in the IEP process with encounters that should be more personal and more meaningful. They do not want to feel like they are ‘sitting in the backseat as a passenger; not a part of the team – interfering with someone’s agenda’, as one of the parents noted. Parents desired communication, alliance, and collaboration expressed in a language they can understand (Simon 2006). For example, Grace noted: ‘We just really want to know what’s going on, but communication is poor at best’.
Other key responses included parents’ desire to be supported, understood, and considered knowledgeable and valued in the planning and problem-solving sur- rounding their child’s education and disability:
I would like the meetings to be more comfortable and prefer them to be more like par- ent-teacher conferences, more collaborative and less judgmental. We need to reinforce to the parent that we are valuable members of the team. (Helen)
These meetings need to be simpler and lots more collaborative. (Linda)
Yet the collaboration and joint problem-solving were not the norm at most of the IEP meetings. Lou recommended a process that would be both collaborative and informational. He believed that obstacles could be overcome with alliance achieved through collaboration as the focus of the meetings:
We need more information about options and more collaborative ways to do things with the school. The IEP process seems to create barriers that we might be able to overcome if we had more collaborative processes in place. (Lou)
Overall, the key parents’ messages were: more collaboration, better communica- tion, and recognition of parents as equal and knowledgeable partners in the deci- sion-making process during the IEP meetings.
Parents’ recommendations for changing the product/document
The parents expressed a desire for a more meaningful and simplified IEP document. Parents also shared that it was vital that the IEP teams seek out parental concerns. They yearned for communication between parents and school to enhance an aware- ness of one another’s deeper perceptions and values. The parents stressed the need for a focus on growing trust and improved communication that would benefit their child:
I think the IEP document will become far less important when parents know you care about their kids and see special qualities as well. (Renee)
384 V.M. Zeitlin and S. Curcic
The majority of parents wished for an IEP document that is more parent-friendly, both easier to read and understand. Some found the document pointless and urged for a meaningful dialog. Some of the specific comments about the proposed changes to the IEP product included the following:
The IEP needs to be just a couple of pages with the most important information – how the student is doing, what supports they continue to need, accommodations and modifications, and help they can get with assessments. (Laurie)
I really just need the summaries – I am not sure what is needed to satisfy the legal process. I can see my daughter in the stories – her day, and how her educators per- ceive her. I find the summaries more humanistic. I need to see the human connection in the summaries and the narrative. (Carol)
I don’t need a 22-page document, that’s for sure. I only care about the reports from the teachers and what plans are in place for the upcoming year. (Linda)
If my kids have solid teachers who care about them and really get them … That’s all that matters, not the paperwork. (Lou)
All 20 parents interviewed had one or more suggestions for improving the IEP process and document. They unanimously spoke of a process to be less deficit-dri- ven and legalistic, but more collaborative and trusting. They were highly critical of a process and product that served primarily to label their children as deficient, delayed, or impaired in comparison with other children rather than focusing on their learning and progress.
Limitations to the study
It is possible that many parents were truly satisfied with the IEP process and that only those who responded to the recruitment efforts in this study were not. Not knowing any correlation between the satisfaction level and the number of responses to the recruitment efforts in this study certainly presents a limitation. In addition, our sample of participants is somewhat limited in terms of ethnicity and gender. We rec- ommend to the reader those studies with purposeful sampling that reveal additional insights from parents (e.g. insights from Mexican American mothers discussed in Salas 2004) and, also, research and recommendations by Harry (2008) and Reitman et al. (2010) on working with culturally and linguistically diverse families.
Conclusion
The IEP process has created unintended consequences such as depersonalized meet- ings, a focus on multilevel documentation, paperwork, and compliance rather than collaboration with parents. The parents in this study shared their frustration and anxiety surrounding the IEP meetings. Educational professionals may unknowingly engage families in negative ways that marginalize or even reject the insights parents have to offer. Twenty parents interviewed in this study described attending IEP meetings with their hope of meaningful participation only to feel frustrated, dissatis- fied, overwhelmed, sad, and dejected when asked to describe their perceived roles in the IEP process. Although some parents felt that the IEP document was
Disability & Society 385
necessary, almost all had strong convictions about its length and value. Most par- ents shared that neither the IEP process nor the document were parent-friendly. They found both to be overwhelming, legalistic, and deficit focused.
Based on our findings, we question the value of the current IEP process, which seems ritualistic, deficit driven, and causing anxiety as opposed to collaboration, and the IEP document, which is hard to read and understand. Although highly criti- cal of IEPs, the parents in this study believed that the IEP process is something that has to be done to comply with the law and did not suggest abandoning the IEP practice.
The parents offered a number of recommendations about how to make both the process and the product (document) of IEP meetings more meaningful. The mes- sage is clear and calls for: more collaboration; improved communication; parent- friendly language; and a focus on progress in learning instead of a focus on deficits. We trust that educators, including those who prepare future educators, will consider parents’ voices in their teaching and practices related to IEPs.
References Allan, Julie, ed. 2003. Inclusion, Participation and Democracy: What is the Purpose?
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Denessen, Eddie, Joep Bakker, and Marieke Gierveld. 2007. “Multi-ethnic Schools’ Parental
Involvement Policies and Practice.” School Community Journal 17 (2): 27–43. Ditrano, Christine, and Louise Silverstein. 2006. “Listening to Parents’ Voices: Participatory
Action Research in the Schools.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 37 (4): 359–366.
Duchan, Judith. 2006. “Providing a Place in the New History of Disabilities for Communica- tion Access.” Disability Studies Quarterly 26 (2): 6–14.
Egnor, David. 2003. Idea reauthorization and the Student Discipline Controversy. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Esquivel, Shelley, Carey Ryan, and Mike Bonner. 2008. “Involved Parents’ Perceptions of their Experiences in School-Based Team Meetings.” Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation 18 (3): 234–258.
Federal Register. 1981. “Rules and Regulations.” 46 (12): 5462–5474. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Ferguson, Philip. 2009. “The Double Dance. Contributions to History of Parent/Professional Interactions in Early 20th Century America.” Research Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 33 (1–2): 48–58.
Ferguson, Philip, and Diane Ferguson. 1995. “The Interpretivist View of Special Education and Disability: The Value of Telling Stories.” In Disability and Democracy: Reconstructing (special) Education for Postmodernity, edited by T. Skrtic, 104–121. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.
Ferri, Beth. 2008. “Doing a (dis)Service. Reimagining Special Education from a Disability Studies Perspective.” In The Handbook of Social Justice in Education, edited by W. Ayers, T. Quinn, and D. Stovall, 417–427. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fish, Wade. 2006. “Perceptions of Parents of Students with Autism Toward the IEP Meeting: A Case Study of One Family Support Group Chapter.” Education 127 (1): 56–68.
Fish, Wade. 2008. “The IEP meeting: Perceptions of Parents Who Receive Special Education Services.” Preventing School Failure 53 (1): 8–14.
Gallagher, Deborah. 2004. “Educational Research, Philosophical Orthodoxy, and Unfulfilled Promises.” In Evidence-Based Practice in Education, edited by R. Pring and T. Gary, 119–130. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Gerber, Paul, Mary Banbury, James Miller, and Harold Griffin. 1986. “Special Educators’ Perspectives of Parental Participation in the Individual Educational Plan Process.” Psychology in the Schools 23 (2): 158–163.
386 V.M. Zeitlin and S. Curcic
Gilliam, James. 1979. “Contributions and Status Rankings of Educational Planning Commit- tee Participants.” Exceptional Children 45 (6): 466–468.
Goldstein, Sam, Bill Strickland, Ann Turnball, and Leslie Curry. 1980. “An Observational Analysis of the IEP Conference.” Exceptional Children 46 (4): 278–286.
Harry, Beth. 2008. “Collaboration with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Families: Ideals Versus Reality.” Exceptional Children 72 (3): 372–388.
Hiatt-Michael, Diana. 2001. “Parent involvement in American Public Schools. A historical Perspective 1642-2000.” In The Community of School, edited by S. Redding and L. G. Thomas, 247–258. Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute.
Itkonen, Tiina. 2007. “Politics of Passion: Collective Action from Pain and Loss.” American Journal of Education 113 (4): 577–604.
Kliewer, Chris, Linda Fitzgerald, Jody Meyer-Mork, Patresa Hartman, Pat English-Sand, and Donna Raschke. 2004. “Citizenship for All in the Literate Community: An Ethnography of Young Children with Significant Disabilities in Inclusive Early Childhood Settings.” Harvard Educational Review 74 (4): 373–403.
Lareau, Annette. 2003. Unequal Childhood: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley: Univer- sity of California Press.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, Sara. 2003. Essential Conversations: What Parents and Teachers can Learn from Each Other. New York: Random House.
Leyser, Yona. 1985. “Parent Involvement in the School: A Survey of Parents of Handi- capped Students.” Contemporary Education 57 (1): 38–43.
Mitchell, David, Missy Morton, and Garry Hornby. 2010. Review of the Literature on Individualized Education Plans: Report to the New Zealand Ministry of Education. Christchurch, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Ong-Dean, Colin. 2009. Distinguishing Disability: Parents, Privilege, and Special Educa- tion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Reiman, John, Laura Beck, Teresa Coppola, and Anita Engiles. 2010. Parents’ Experiences the IEP Process: Considerations for Improving Practice. Eugene, OR: Center for Appro- priate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE).
Salas, Loretta. 2004. Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) Meetings and Mexican American Parents: Let’s talk about it.
Sarason, Seymour, and Michael Klaber. 1985. “The School as a Social Situation.” Annual Review of Psychology 36: 115–140.
Seidman, Irving. 2006. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Simon, Joan. 2006. “Perceptions of the IEP requirement.” Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Excep- tional Children 29 (4): 225–235.
Slee, Roger. 2003. “Teacher Education, Government and Inclusive Schooling: The Politics of the Faustian Waltz.” In Inclusion, Participation and Democracy: What is the Purpose?, edited by J. Allan, 207–223. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Smith, Stephen. 1990. “Individual Educational Programs (IEPs) in Special Education - from Intent to Acquiescence.” Exceptional Children 57 (1): 6–14.
Stoner, Julia, Stacey Bock, James Thompson, Maureen Angell, Barbara Heyl, and Paula Crowley. 2005. “Welcome to our World: Parent Perceptions of Interactions between Par- ents of Young Children with ASD and Education Professionals.” Focus on Autism and other Developmental Disabilities 20 (1): 39–51.
Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Turnbull, Rutherford. 1987. Free Appropriate Public Education: The Law and Children with Disabilities. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Vaughn, Sharon, Candace Bos, Jan Harrell, and Beth Lasky. 1988. “Parent Participation in the Initial Placement/IEP Conference Ten Years after Mandated Involvement.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 21 (2): 82–89.
Disability & Society 387
