602 dis

WolfeDuran2013PerspectivesCLDfamiliesIEP.pdf

Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 2013, 4–18 Copyright 2013, Division for Culturally & Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Learners of the Council for Exceptional Children

Multiple Voices, 13(2), Fall 20134

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Parents’ Perceptions of the IEP Process: A Review of Current Research

KATIE WOLFE University of South Carolina

LILLIAN K. DURÁN Utah State University

ABSTRACT Many parents of students with disabilities face barriers to meaningful participation in Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meetings; parents who are culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) encounter additional challenges. Given the changing demographics of the United States and the central role of the IEP in special education, it is important for educators to be aware of and responsive to the experiences of parents who are CLD. This literature review examines nine recent studies investigating CLD parents’ perceptions of their role in the IEP process. Common themes include language barriers, cultural barriers, and insuffi cient information. Recommendations for improving the experiences of parents who are CLD focus on increasing the availability of qualifi ed interpreters and supporting educators to engage in culturally and linguistically responsive practices.

A strong home-school partnership is critical to ev- ery child’s success in the public education system (Carter, 2002). Research has consistently demon- strated that parent involvement, such as checking homework and engaging in school-related discus- sions, is highly correlated with positive student out- comes (Lee & Bowen, 2006). Above and beyond these benefi ts of parent involvement, parent partici- pation is mandated for children with special needs being served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA). The law requires collaboration between parents and professionals regarding all aspects of a student’s participation in special education services, includ- ing assessment and eligibility determination, goal identifi cation, behavior support plans, and transi- tion through the Individualized Education Program (IEP; Friend & Cook, 2003).

The IEP is the backbone of IDEA and is in- tended serve as a legal contract that specifi es the child’s present levels of performance, lists annual goals and related short-term objectives, details the provision of related services, and delineates the al- location of time between the general and special education environments. IDEA identifi es a num- ber of requirements regarding parents and the IEP process, including scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed upon time and place, providing adequate notice of the meeting in a language com- prehensible to the parent, explaining and provid- ing a written copy of procedural safeguards, and supplying an interpreter for parents with limited English profi ciency. In reality, these requirements do little more than support parent attendance at the IEP meeting. IDEA states that parents are to be considered “full and equal participants” (IDEA

Multiple Voices, 13(2), Fall 2013 5

2004, 34 CFR 300.322) in the meeting, which sug- gests a more active, decision-making role. Parents, teachers, and administrators are left to navigate how to best establish meaningful, collaborative re- lationships; a plethora of strategies, models, and frameworks have been published in special educa- tion research to this end (Cheatham, Hart, Malian, & McDonald, 2012; Dabkowski, 2004; Lo, 2012; Staples & Diliberto, 2010). Despite the attention that strengthening the home-school partnership has received in the literature, the results of research on parent satisfaction with the IEP process are mixed. Fish (2006) and Stoner et al. (2005) found that middle-class participants were relatively dissatis- fi ed with the IEP process; neither study reported demographic characteristics of their participants. In a subsequent study, Fish (2008) noted high rates of satisfaction among primarily middle- to upper- class European American participants.

Researchers have identifi ed several barriers to parent participation in IEP meetings, including the professionals’ use of educational jargon, parents’ lack of familiarity with the school system, and logistical diffi culties, such as work schedules and obtaining child care (Smith, 2001). Parents who are culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) face additional barriers to meaningful participa- tion in the IEP. Individuals are considered cultur- ally and linguistically diverse in relation to the general population of the community or society in which they live. In the United States, cultural and linguistic diversity has been broadly defi ned as in- dividuals whose primary language is not English and/or who are not European American (Division for Early Childhood, 2010). In addition to the chal- lenges encountered by parents in general, parents who are CLD face other signifi cant barriers that include professionals’ lack of cultural responsive- ness, parents’ limited English profi ciency, dispa- rate conceptions of disability, and the potential for cross-cultural miscommunication (Zhang & Bennett, 2003; Lo, 2012). Aside from hindering basic compliance with IDEA, these barriers have important educational implications for parents of students with disabilities who are CLD. In general, these populations have often been marginalized and may not have historically experienced positive interactions or supports from public school sys- tems (Harry & Klingner, 2006). However, school

personnel should recognize that all parents have a unique perspective of their child’s needs and de- velopmental history that is invaluable to the de- velopment of appropriate educational goals and objectives (Lo, 2008). Given the additional barri- ers to meaningful participation for parents who are CLD, their perspectives on involvement and the value placed on their participation in the special education system are critical to developing cultur- ally responsive approaches that facilitate higher levels of engagement in the IEP process.

Researchers began to investigate the perspec- tives and experiences of parents from diverse back- grounds in the 1980s (Lynch & Stein, 1982, 1987). Lynch and Stein (1987) interviewed Hispanic parents about their perceptions of the IEP process and compared the results to a previous study that evaluated the perceptions of African American and European American parents. The frequency and type of IEP participation were signifi cantly differ- ent across the three groups of parents. Compared to European American parents, Hispanic and Af- rican American parents reported that they offered fewer suggestions during IEP meetings and felt as though they knew less about what services their child was receiving. “General communication con- cerns” (p. 109) were a common barrier for both Hispanic parents and African American parents, and more than half of the Hispanic parents also felt that additional education regarding parents’ rights and responsibilities with regard to special educa- tion was needed. In the 1990s, researchers contin- ued to evaluate the perspectives of parents who are CLD on special education (Harry, 1992a;b; Harry, Allen, & McLaughlin, 1995; Sontag & Schacht, 1994), reporting results similar to those found by Lynch and Stein (1987). Across these studies, parents from CLD backgrounds reported consider- able communication barriers, lack of information about their child’s disability and special educa- tion law, and low levels of participation during IEP meetings, despite interest in becoming more involved.

There has been no systematic review of litera- ture investigating the experiences of parents who are CLD with regard to the IEP process in the last decade. The purpose of this article is to examine current research investigating CLD parents’ per- spectives on the IEP process, limited to research

Multiple Voices, 13(2), Fall 20136

from the last 10 years. It is important to review recent research on the experiences of parents who are CLD with the IEP process for several key rea- sons. First, the demographics of the United States are changing rapidly, with projections estimating that by 2050, non-whites will make up the major- ity of the population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Second, children from CLD backgrounds are rep- resented disproportionately in special education (Donovan & Cross, 2002), while teachers are pre- dominantly European American (Elhoweris, Mutua, Alsheikh, & Holloway, 2005). Recent statistics indicate that CLD students are approximately 47% of the school-age special education population (U. S. Department of Education, 2010). Third, in recent years, there has been an increasing trend to incorporate diversity standards into state standards for teacher licensure (Akiba, Cockrell, Simmons, Han, & Agarwal, 2010). Akiba et al. (2010) reported that 42 states and the District of Columbia required some level of diversity training for teacher licen- sure as of 2010. It is possible that these standards have facilitated a change in the way teachers and administrators interact with parents who are CLD in the IEP meeting. Given the increasing diversity of the population in the United States, the large proportion of students who are CLD in special education, and the relatively recent attention to di- versity in state licensure requirements, current par- ent perceptions may differ from those reported in the 1990s. Additionally, fi ndings may clarify how teachers and administrators can encourage the sub- stantive participation of parents who are CLD in the IEP process. Results from the studies identi- fi ed will be synthesized to answer the following research questions:

• How do parents who are CLD perceive their participation in IEP meetings?

• What factors do parents who are CLD believe infl uence their participation in IEP meetings?

METHOD A literature search was conducted using ERIC via EBSCOhost and PsycInfo via EBSCOhost. Search terms included various combinations of the following keywords: parent, culture, perception,

IEP, special education, participation, and involve- ment. Abstracts for studies located via this search method were then screened for fi nal inclusion in the review. To get a representation of current par- ent perceptions of the IEP process, only studies published between 2001-2011 were eligible for inclusion. Articles had to directly examine the per- spectives and experiences of parents via interviews, questionnaires, surveys, or observation. The prima- ry focus of the review was on parental experiences with IEP meetings; however, studies that investigat- ed parent perceptions of special education services in general were included if data were presented re- garding perspectives on the IEP meeting specifi cal- ly. Studies conducted outside the United States and those that examined parent perspectives on Individ- ualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) development were excluded. Studies had to include parents from a CLD background, with one or more children re- ceiving special education services. Studies in which CLD parents were a subset of the participant pop- ulation were eligible for inclusion as long as data were analyzed according to participants’ racial (e.g., American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacif- ic Islander, White) and/or ethnic background (e.g., Hispanic or Latino).

RESULTS Nine studies were identifi ed that met the search criteria. Three studies focused only on the IEP process; the remaining six investigated experi- ences with special education services in general but reported perceptions of the IEP process sepa- rately. Four examined the perceptions of Latino parents (Hardin, Mereoiu, Hung, & Roach-Scott, 2009; Hughes, Valle-Riestra, & Arguelles, 2002; Lian & Fontanez-Phelan, 2001; Salas, 2004); some authors identifi ed the specifi c country of parents’ birth (e.g., Hughes et al., 2002; see Table 1), and others generally described participants as Latino. Three studies investigated the experiences of Korean American parents (Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Park & Turnbull, 2001; Park, Turnbull, & Park, 2001). One study focused on the perspec- tives of Chinese American parents (Lo, 2008). One study reported on the experiences of all par- ents within a large, urban district, including African

Multiple Voices, 13(2), Fall 2013 7

T ab

le 1

S tu

d y

C h

ar ac

te ri

st ic

s an

d T

h em

es I

d en

ti fi

S tu

dy P

op ul

at io

n S

am pl

e S

iz e

In co

m e

L ev

P ro

po rt

io n

w it

h L

im it

E ng

li sh

ro fi

ci en

cy G

eo gr

ap hi

c L

oc at

io n

M et

ho d

C om

m on

T he

m es

I de

nt ifi

e d

Disrespect

Negativity towards child

Lack of information

Language barriers

Communication barriers

Cultural barriers

C ho

& G

an no

tt i

00 5)

K or

ea n

A m

er ic

an 20

15 %

l ow

a 45

S ou

th er

C al

if or

ni a

In te

rv ie

w X

X X

H ar

di n,

M er

eo ui

H un

g, &

R oa

ch -

co tt

( 20

09 )

L at

in o

5 N

R N

or th

C ar

ol in

a F

oc us

g ro

up s

X X

H er

na nd

ez , H

ar ry

N ew

m an

, &

am et

o (2

00 8)

A fr

ic an

A m

er ic

an ,

at in

o, W

hi te

O th

er b

14 17

L ow

m od

er at

d hi

68 %

S ou

th er

C al

if or

ni a

S ur

ve y

N A

H ug

he s,

V al

le -R

ie st

ra ,

A rg

ue ll

00 2)

L at

in o

(C ar

ib be

an , C

en tr

A m

er ic

a, S

ou th

m er

ic a,

U ni

te d

S ta

te s)

44 N

R 46

% N

R Q

ue st

io nn

ai re

(i nt

er vi

ew ;

16 )

X X

Multiple Voices, 13(2), Fall 20138

S tu

dy P

op ul

at io

n S

am pl

e S

iz e

In co

m e

L ev

P ro

po rt

io n

w it

h L

im it

E ng

li sh

ro fi

ci en

cy G

eo gr

ap hi

c L

oc at

io n

M et

ho d

C om

m on

T he

m es

I de

nt ifi

e d

Disrespect

Negativity towards child

Lack of information

Language barriers

Communication barriers

Cultural barriers

L ia

n &

F on

ta ne

P he

la n

(2 00

1) L

at in

o (M

ex ic

o, C

ar ib

be an

, C

en tr

al A

m er

ic a,

ou th

A m

er ic

U ni

te d

S ta

te s)

10 0

N R

73 %

M id

w es

te rn

st at

e S

ur ve

y X

L o

(2 00

8) C

hi ne

se A

m er

ic an

5 N

R 80

% M

as sa

ch us

et ts

O bs

er va

ti on

in te

rv ie

w X

X X

P ar

k &

T ur

nb ul

(2 00

1) K

or ea

n A

m er

ic an

8 N

R N

R W

as hi

ng to

ir gi

ni ac

T el

ep ho

te rv

ie w

s X

X X

P ar

k, T

ur nb

ul l,

& P

ar k

(2 00

1) K

or ea

n A

m er

ic an

10 70

od er

at e

h ig

50 %

W as

hi ng

to n,

Il li

no is

V ir

gi ni

T el

ep ho

te rv

ie w

s X

X X

S al

as (

20 04

) L

at in

o (M

ex ic

o) 10

10 0%

l ow

10 0%

S ou

th w

es t

rd er

In te

rv ie

w X

X X

N o te

. N

R =

N ot

r ep

or te

a A s

de fi

ne d

by U

ni te

d S

ta te

s D

ep ar

tm en

t of

E du

ca ti

on (

ht tp

:/ /w

w w

2. ed

.g ov

/a bo

ut /o

ffi c

es /l

is t/

op e/

tr io

/i nc

om el

ev el

s. ht

m l)

. b

N ot

d efi

n ed

c O

th er

l oc

at io

ns n

ot i

de nt

ifi e

T ab

le 1

on ti

n u

ed )

Multiple Voices, 13(2), Fall 2013 9

American, Latino, and White parents (Hernandez, Harry, Newman, & Cameto, 2008). Only four studies reported participants’ socioeconomic status (SES; Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Hernandez et al., 2008; Park et al., 2001; Salas, 2004); across these studies, participants represented a range of socio- economic statuses. Five of the eight studies reported that more than 70% of participants had limited or moderate English profi ciency, refl ecting the fact that the majority of participants in the reviewed studies were from immigrant groups. Geographically, par- ticipants were distributed across the United States, and the majority of participants resided in urban ar- eas (see Table 1 for demographic information).

Studies employed qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods designs to evaluate participants’ perceptions of the IEP process. Seven studies used qualitative research methods, most commonly semi-structured interviews consisting of open- ended questions (see Table 2 for sample questions) with clarifying follow-up questions (e.g., “Can you give me an example?”). In these studies, tran- scripts were coded and analyzed to identify com- mon themes and make recommendations about how school systems might improve the experiences of parents who are CLD. A questionnaire with a Likert-type scale was used in two studies, which allowed the authors to obtain information from a larger number of participants and quantify the general results across participants. In one study, a combination of quantitative (Likert-type scale) and qualitative (follow-up interviews) methods was used.

To synthesize the fi ndings from this body of literature, quantitative data and qualitative themes were examined to identify commonalities across the general population of parents who are CLD. The following themes related to challenges experi- enced by families who are CLD emerged across the studies: a) language and/or communication barri- ers, b) insuffi cient information, c) cultural barriers, d) lack of respect for the parent, and e) perceived negativity toward child. Table 1 provides a sum- mary of the distribution of these themes across the nine reviewed studies. Two studies (Hughes et al., 2002; Lian & Fontanez-Phelan, 2001) proved to be outliers, with only one or two of the common themes identifi ed; the results of a third (Hernandez et al., 2008) did not correspond with the above

themes given the nature of the questions. These studies are discussed separately under the head- ing “Exceptions.” In contrast, each of the other six studies shared three or more of the common themes, which are described in more detail below.

LANGUAGE AND/OR COMMUNICATION BARRIERS

The reviewed studies suggest that CLD parents have concerns about language and communica- tion barriers that interfere with their active par- ticipation in IEP meetings. For the purposes of this review, “language barrier” refers to situations in which limited English profi ciency hinders ef- fective communication. A “communication bar- rier” refers to excessive use of educational jargon by professionals and/or different communication styles that hinder successful communication. The challenge of effective communication, including language and communication barriers, was evident in all eight studies (Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Hardin et al., 2009; Hughes et al., 2002; Lian & Fontanez- Phelan, 2001; Lo, 2008; Park & Turnbull, 2001; Park et al., 2001; Salas, 2004).

In six studies (Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Hardin et al., 2009; Lo, 2008; Park & Turnbull, 2001; Park et al., 2001; Salas, 2004), parents felt that their lev- el of English profi ciency in particular limited the extent to which they were able to participate in IEP meetings. Not all parents had interpreters available for their IEP meetings: For example, Park et al. (2001) noted that of eight Korean American par- ents with limited English profi ciency, only three had ever used an interpreter during IEP meetings. Of parents who did use interpreters in IEP meet- ings, the experience varied widely and parents often discontinued the use of the interpreter be- cause they were dissatisfi ed with the service (Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Park et al., 2001). Parents de- scribed that sometimes the conversation moved too quickly for the interpreter to translate verbatim, and instead the parent received just a summary of the discussion (Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Lo, 2008). Park and Turnbull (2001) reported that one par- ent felt as though the interpreter did not value her statements as much as the comments of the profes- sionals, and was frustrated that her assertiveness was

Multiple Voices, 13(2), Fall 201310

Table 2

Sample Questions and Illustrative Quotes from Reviewed Studies

Identifi ed Theme Sample Question Illustrative Quote

Language Barriers Have you experienced the need of a translator in order to communicate with professionals at school? (Cho & Gannotti, 2005)

“My major concern is that all translators are the fi rst generation immigrants. When I hear their English, I often wonder what makes them serve as translators…” (Cho & Gannotti, 2005, p. 7)

Communication Barriers

How did the cultural and linguistic differences between you and the professionals with whom you worked infl uence your experience? (Park, Turnbull, & Park, 2001)

“I feel I become passive at the meeting. Teachers talk about many things, but I don’t get all of them. Some words are hard to understand.” (Park & Turnbull, 2001, p. 137)

Disrespect for Parent

How would you describe your role at Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and/or Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) meetings? (Cho & Gannotti, 2005)

“…I felt so embarrassed because they show me no respect.” (Salas, 2004, p. 189)

Negativity Towards Child

Were you satisfi ed with the outcomes of the [IEP] meetings? (Lo, 2008)

“...they only tell the things that she does wrong, nothing good.” (Salas, 2004, p. 186)

Insuffi cient Information

Did you experience any challenges during the meeting? (Lo, 2008)

“It is important that from the beginning they explain to the families what is an IEP meeting.” (Hughes,Valle-Riestra,& Arguelles, 2002, p. 15)

Cultural Barriers Did cultural differences between you and professionals you worked with infl uence your experience? (Park & Turnbull, 2001)

“…we Koreans are very compliant to professionals, especially teachers. We are taught to say ‘yes’ to teachers, whereas being assertive is so important in this country.” (Park, Turnbull, & Park, 2001, p. 163)

not translated along with her words. Participants in Hughes et al. (2002) described their hesitation to discuss their child’s disability via an interpreter due to the challenge of fi nding an interpreter that could be trusted to maintain confi dentiality in the community.

Communication barriers were reported in six studies, by parents whose native language was English and those for whom English was a second language. Most often, parents reported that profes- sionals used jargon and acronyms without explain- ing them in everyday language. This is challenging

Multiple Voices, 13(2), Fall 2013 11

for native English speakers but even more so for non-native English speakers. Parents expressed frustration with this practice and identifi ed it as a signifi cant barrier to meaningful participation (Park & Turnbull, 2001; Salas, 2004).

INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION

Many studies reported that parents did not feel prepared for the IEP meeting because they were unaware of the purpose or structure of the meet- ing (Hughes et al., 2002; Lo, 2008), had little knowledge of the logistics of the special education system (Park et al., 2001), and felt as though they were not suffi ciently informed about their child’s disability or educational program options (Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Hardin et al., 2009). Mainstream American culture highly values professional opin- ion (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999); this combined with language and communication barriers led many parents to report feeling nervous and intimidated in IEP meetings (Hardin et al., 2009; Park et al., 2001, Salas, 2004). Interestingly, Cho and Gannotti (2005) reported that although a number of Korean American parents attended workshops and train- ings on how to effectively participate in IEP meet- ings, they were unable to engage effectively with professionals to obtain desired services for their child. This may have been due to cultural differ- ences that went unrecognized by professionals.

CULTURAL BARRIERS

In fi ve studies, parents indicated that cultural differences, and lack of professional awareness of cultural differences, negatively infl uenced their participation in IEP meetings. We defi ned “cultural barriers” as challenges that were at- tributed to differences between parents and pro- fessionals with regard to worldview, beliefs and/ or traditions. In all three studies focused on Korean American parents, respect for authority and avoidance of confl ict came up repeatedly as parents discussed the challenges they face in ad- vocating for their children in IEP meetings (Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Park & Turnbull, 2001; Park et al., 2001). One parent noted that she was reti- cent to ask for clarifi cation during IEP meetings

because interrupting an authority fi gure opposed her long-held cultural beliefs (Park & Turnbull, 2001). Cho and Gannotti (2005) reported that many Korean American mothers experienced a great deal of stress when their requests for ser- vices were denied in IEP meetings, creating a tension between their cultural values and advo- cacy for their children.

In two studies (Park et al., 2001; Salas, 2004), parents suggested that their involvement would be enhanced by greater cultural responsiveness on the part of the professionals. Specifi cally, parents suggested that professionals’ awareness of their own cultural biases and assumptions, as well as knowledge of different traditions and value sys- tems, would foster more open communication be- tween the two parties in IEP meetings. One mother shared an especially pertinent example of a cul- tural disconnect she had experienced: An objective was selected for her daughter to address fi nger- feeding. The mother recounted:

We Koreans always use utensils to eat meals. We were taught not to touch food with hands. I understand the intent of the lesson, but I would rather like her to learn using utensils during that time. As you know, Koreans like soup (guk) and my family also has rice (baob) and soup together for almost every meal, so fi nger-feeding is not such a needed skill for my daughter. (Park et al. 2001, p. 163)

Particularly because the vast majority of teach- ers in the United States are European American (Elhoweris et al., 2005), and the student population is growing more diverse, cultural and linguistic re- sponsiveness will be an increasingly signifi cant factor in developing effective partnerships with parents who are CLD.

LACK OF RESPECT FOR PARENT PERSPECTIVE

In four studies, perceived disrespect emerged as a prominent theme as parents discussed their ex- periences with professionals at IEP meetings. The most common concern in the area of respect in- volved the devaluing of parental expertise: Parents reported feeling as though professionals did not appreciate their input regarding their child’s needs

Multiple Voices, 13(2), Fall 201312

(Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Lo, 2008; Park & Turnbull, 2001; Salas, 2004). This lack of recognition directly challenged many participants’ views of their core parental role as an expert in and advocate for their child (Cho & Gannotti, 2005). In exploring parents’ beliefs about why professionals were dismissive of their knowledge, three studies reported that parents believed this was linked to their diverse cultural and linguistic background and suggested that European American parents were probably treated differently (Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Park et al., 2001; Salas, 2004). Some parents reported that disrespect was subtle and were hesitant to use the word “discrimi- nation” (Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Park et al., 2001), while others described situations in which they felt school personnel treated them differently based on their culture (Salas, 2004). For example, as one par- ticipant in Salas (2004) describes, “One time, when I walked into the meeting the person in charge of special education showed me where the bathroom was in case I wanted to wash my face…” (p.188). Implicit and explicit discrimination often leads to feelings of marginalization (Cho & Gannotti, 2005), which discourages active participation in the IEP process.

PERCEIVED NEGATIVITY TOWARDS CHILD

In three studies, parents perceived a negative at- titude toward their child on the part of the pro- fessionals in the IEP meetings (Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Park et al., 2001; Salas, 2004). These par- ents reported that professionals tended to focus on the child’s defi cits, instead of using a strengths- based approach (e.g., Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Salas, 2004). In the words of one Mexican Ameri- can parent, “…when I go to meeting they only tell the things that she does wrong, nothing good” (Salas, 2004, p. 186,). The defi cit view of disability often presented by professionals in IEP meetings runs counter to establishing a positive working relationship with parents who value their child for their unique strengths and talents (Edwards & DaFonte, 2012; Park et al., 2001). This is another factor that inhibits meaningful involvement, as parents may discount the expertise of profession- als who do not communicate that they recognize a child’s abilities along with his or her disability.

EXCEPTIONS

Lian and Fontanez-Phelan (2001) and Hughes et al. (2002) shared only one and two of the com- mon themes, respectively. In both studies, parents reported language as a barrier to their participa- tion in IEP meetings. Participants in Hughes et al. (2002) cited a lack of information about the IEP process as a challenge as well. In contrast to the fi ndings of the other studies, however, Hughes et al. (2002) report that 82% of participants indi- cated that they were “involved in the development of goals and objectives for IEP” (p. 14), and 89% felt as though “goals and objectives refl ect con- cerns and needs of my family” (p. 14). Further, 86% considered themselves “an equal and signifi cant member of the education team” ( p. 14). In general, Lian and Fontanez-Phelan (2001) and Hughes et al. (2002) found that parents had relatively posi- tive experiences with the IEP process. Both of these investigations used surveys with Likert-type scales to assess parent experiences with the IEP; it is unclear how this methodology, compared to qualitative interviews, may have impacted partici- pant responses.

In contrast to Hughes et al. (2002) and Lian and Fontanez-Phelan (2001), the fi ndings of Hernandez et al. (2008) did not contradict the fi ndings of the majority of studies. Hernandez et al. (2008) asked participants to respond to general questions about their overall involvement in and satisfaction with IEPs using a Likert-type scale. As a result, the authors gathered data on the participants’ general impressions of the IEP process rather than specifi c experiences or barriers (e.g., language, negativ- ity, etc.). Participant responses were analyzed ac- cording to language, race/ethnicity, and SES. With regard to attendance, Spanish-speaking parents re- ported attending slightly fewer IEP meetings than English-speaking parents, and African American and Latino parents reporting attending signifi - cantly fewer IEP meetings than European Ameri- can parents. More low-income parents (i.e., with annual incomes of $25,000 or less) than higher- income parents reported that it required a “great deal of effort” to obtain appropriate services for their children, and attended IEP meetings less of- ten than parents with higher incomes. Hernandez et al. (2008) also asked parents about their desired

Multiple Voices, 13(2), Fall 2013 13

level of involvement compared with their actual level of involvement in the IEP process: 55% of African American parents and 33% of Latino parents wanted more involvement, while 73% of European American parents were satisfi ed with their participation in the IEP process. The results of Hernandez et al. (2008) bolster the fi ndings of the majority of the studies in this review, in that parents who are CLD reported a) attending fewer IEP meetings than European American parents and b) being less satisfi ed with their involvement than European American parents.

DISCUSSION Collectively, the studies reviewed suggest that despite the widespread discussion in the litera- ture, the IEP experiences of parents who are CLD have not signifi cantly changed since the 1980s. As previously noted, European American parents, particularly those in higher income brackets, have reported high levels of involvement and satisfac- tion with the IEP process (Fish, 2008); in contrast, the results of this review suggest that parents from CLD backgrounds may have starkly different ex- periences with the IEP. These experiences are very likely infl uenced by several intersecting and over- lapping factors related to race, language, and SES. For example, parents who are CLD may have to contend with negative racial stereotypes, linguistic barriers, and/or higher rates of poverty (Donovan & Cross, 2002); these multiple risk factors lead to marginalization within mainstream society. The studies in this review overwhelmingly examined the experiences of immigrant populations whose native language is not English, and tended to em- phasize the linguistic barriers encountered by par- ticipants. It is important to note that non-European American native English speakers (e.g., African Americans) also expressed dissatisfaction with the IEP process in previous (e.g., Lynch & Stein, 1987) and current research (Hernandez et al., 2008). More research examining the perspectives of these populations might allow for a more detailed analy- sis of the separate and combined infl uence of race/ ethnicity and language on IEP experiences. Less than half of the studies reported participants’ SES, which research indicates may be a critical vari- able that infl uences parent involvement in school in

general (Grolnick, Benjet, Kurowski, & Apostoleris, 1997). Hernandez et al. (2008) found that “in- come level was the feature that most clearly re- lated to family responses” (p. 88); this suggests that it will be important for researchers to report and analyze this demographic information in fu- ture studies.

Although some cultural groups occasionally noted unique challenges that were not shared by other groups, several themes emerged across the studies. In general, parents did not perceive themselves as meaningful participants in the IEP meeting, despite wanting to be more involved in the development of goals and selection of instruc- tional strategies (e.g., Hernandez et al., 2008). Parents identifi ed many cultural factors that infl u- enced their participation in the IEP meeting, such as traditional conceptions of authority and a desire not to interfere. Additionally, many parents noted that the lack of cultural sensitivity on the part of the professionals in the IEP meeting adversely infl uenced their participation. Language and com- munication barriers were prominent, precluding even the most basic form of parental participa- tion. Diffi culties with interpreters, ranging from simply not having one available to professionals speaking at too rapid a pace to allow for com- plete translation, were common amongst parents with limited English profi ciency. The results sug- gest that parents from CLD backgrounds, in gen- eral, are not well supported to engage in effective collaboration with teachers and other profession- als in special education.

As noted, two studies shared few of these common themes. One potential explanation for this may be that these studies relied primarily on questionnaires or surveys using Likert-type scales instead of open-ended interviews. Therefore, the researchers infl uenced the range of responses given by participants in these studies to a greater extent than in those using interviews. Thus, it is likely that the survey/questionnaire format lim- ited the amount and type of information offered by participants; however, it is not clear whether this methodology might bias participants toward responding more favorably about their experi- ences with IEPs. In their study of Latino parents, Hughes et al. (2002) reported that the majority of the school staff was also Latino (49% full-time

Multiple Voices, 13(2), Fall 201314

and 73% part-time). The lack of correspondence between this study and the others may suggest that parents do not experience as much diffi culty when they share a similar cultural background as the professionals with whom they work; however, this is purely speculation as only one other study (Salas, 2004) reported race/ethnicity data for pro- fessionals. Notwithstanding these exceptions, this review of the current literature provides evidence that barriers identifi ed in the 1980s and 1990s largely remain in place today.

IMPLICATIONS Based on CLD parents’ perceptions about a) their participation in the IEP meeting and b) supports required to facilitate more active participation, some implications for teachers and administrators are evident. Despite being mandated by IDEA, the lack of qualifi ed interpreters was the most promi- nent barrier faced by participants in the reviewed studies. Interpreters are a necessity for parents with limited English profi ciency to have even the most basic form of involvement in IEP meet- ings (Cheatham, 2011; Lo, 2012). It is clear that more professional interpreters are needed to meet the needs of a student population that is growing more diverse. School districts might also consider providing in-service training for professionals in- volved in IEP meetings on effective strategies for working with interpreters, such as being aware of their speaking rate, making eye contact with the parent instead of directing it to the interpreter, and allotting extra time to conduct the meeting (Cheatham, 2011; Cho & Gannotti, 2005). Addi- tionally, teachers may need more training on dual language development in general to better under- stand a) the needs of the bilingual children they are serving and to offer evidence-based information to families about dual language development, and b) the need for and importance of continued home language support.

Many parents reported feeling disempowered when professionals repeatedly denied their re- quests or disregarded their parental expertise: Shapiro, Monzo, Rueda, Gomez, and Blacher, (2004) aptly described this as “alienated advo- cacy” (p. 47). If professionals do not recognize their role in disenfranchising parents, they may in

turn perceive parents as uninterested and apathetic. There seems to be a recursive process at work: Par- ents do not feel respected by professionals, parents become disillusioned with attempting to create a meaningful partnership with the school, parents reach a point of resignation and withdraw, and professionals perceive the parents as uninvolved. It is easy to imagine how this cycle repeats itself and marginalizes parents who would prefer to be active participants in their child’s education. This suggests that professionals should pay particular attention to valuing parent input and prioritizing parent-centered planning to promote and maintain high levels of engagement.

Language barriers and disrespect likely con- tribute to the stress parents reported experiencing about IEP meetings; however, the parents who were interviewed also wanted more information about their child’s disability, IDEA, and the IEP process. Although a combination of factors prob- ably create apprehension about IEP meetings, it is possible that education about IDEA and parental rights associated with it may mitigate some of this anxiety (Lo, 2012). In other words, as parents be- come more knowledgeable, they may experience less stress surrounding the IEP meeting and may feel more empowered to participate. Schools can direct parents to the local Parent Center (www. parentcenternetwork.org) for general information about their child’s disability, assistance and infor- mation about IDEA, and support in working with schools to advocate for their child. Some Parent Centers offer local workshops for parents designed specifi cally to help facilitate meaningful discus- sions at IEP meetings; sometimes, these are held in both English and Spanish. For parents who are not English- or Spanish-speakers, schools can de- velop connections between families who speak the same language. Parents may feel more comfort- able asking questions of other parents rather than professionals. These parent-to-parent interactions may reduce the anxiety of families who are CLD by providing alternative and less threatening op- portunities for them to access information.

Despite a growing number of scholarly writ- ings on increasing the involvement of parents from diverse backgrounds, the results of this re- view suggest that the recommendations provided by experts may not be adequately disseminated

Multiple Voices, 13(2), Fall 2013 15

or implemented appropriately. Practitioners need more training on cultural reciprocity and effective cross-cultural communication strategies such as Skilled Dialogue (Barrera & Kramer, 2009; Harry, Rueda, & Kalyanpur, 1999; Lynch & Hanson, 2012). These approaches involve the professional examining his or her own values and recognizing that those values have a cultural basis: They are not universally shared. From this perspective, the professional can openly discuss differing cultural values with parents to ensure that the beliefs and priorities of the parent are evident in goals estab- lished for the child. With adequate training, this approach may help professionals interact more effectively with families; however, the extent to which models that promote culturally reciprocity are disseminated and implemented among teach- ers and administrators is not clear. Adopting pro- cedures that refl ect cultural reciprocity requires time, discussion, and refl ection; therefore, training efforts should be interactive and ongoing. For in- service teachers, a district could conduct monthly trainings over the course of a year or two, instead of holding a brief workshop or simply requiring professionals to read a book or journal article on the model. This type of extended training would allow administrators to adopt recommended prac- tices to develop cultural reciprocity such as self- reflective writing, understanding sociocultural af fi liations and associated privilege, and analyzing cases to recognize and articulate different cultural perspectives on teaching and learning (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). These activities can promote deep discussion, personal change, and potentially more meaningful application of the content.

Although there is currently a focus on incorpo- rating diversity standards into teacher certifi cation programs for pre-service professionals (Akiba et al., 2010), it is not clear that the content of required coursework adequately addresses or effectively teaches the skills needed to involve parents who are CLD in the IEP process. The perceptions of parents who are CLD should inform the develop- ment of coursework and practicum experiences; for example, courses are an ideal avenue to expose students to current recommended best practices (e.g., cultural reciprocity, Skilled Dialogue), and organizations have published accessible briefs with recommendations for incorporating this

content into pre-service coursework (e.g., Kea, Campbell-Whatley, & Richards, 2006). Practicum experiences may occur in settings with signifi cant cultural and linguistic diversity or in the home of a family who is CLD (Harry, 2008; Kidd, Sanchez, & Thorp, 2008). Professional organizations in spe- cial education have adopted position statements emphasizing a commitment to this type of training (e.g., Division for Early Childhood, 2010).

In sum, many recommendations have been made for improving the IEP experiences of parents who are CLD, but the studies in this review suggest that this population generally still has negative ex- periences with the process. It is not clear whether the recommendations a) have not been dissemi- nated to administrators and teachers, b) have been disseminated but training is insuffi cient, or c) have been disseminated and are implemented with fi del- ity, but do not produce meaningful outcomes for parents with regard to the IEP. We recommend a dual approach: Researchers should continue to evaluate the impact of methods for training profes- sionals to engage parents who are CLD (e.g., Kidd et al., 2008) and districts should develop ongoing, systematic training to provide teachers with the supports they need to partner effectively with all parents.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH The literature on the experiences and perceptions of parents from CLD backgrounds is restricted in the range of topics covered and populations included. Importantly, only nine studies over the last 10 years were located for this review. More research should be conducted to further evaluate the variables that parents who are CLD perceive as infl uencing their active participation in IEP meetings. Further, additional research may iden- tify parents who are CLD who hold more positive perceptions of the IEP process (e.g., results from Hughes et al., 2002): These data would provide valuable information about which professional approaches foster meaningful engagement of par- ents who are CLD. In the reviewed studies, indi- viduals from large cultural groups in the United States, including American Indian, Alaska Native,

Multiple Voices, 13(2), Fall 201316

and Southeast Asian, are not represented; only one study included African American participants. We located articles about the experiences of these groups in general education (Brandon, Higgins, Pierce, Tandy, & Sileo, 2010) and special educa- tion (Zionts, Zionts, Harrison, & Bellinger, 2003), as well as articles providing recommendations for facilitating the participation of these groups (e.g., Brandon & Brown, 2009; Pewewardy & Fitzpatrick, 2009), but did not locate any specifi - cally investigating parental experiences with the IEP. Although the various populations revealed similar themes in parental perceptions of the IEP process, it is not appropriate to generalize fi ndings to these unrepresented groups; it is critical that researchers investigate the experiences of parents within these groups in future work.

The studies in this review were also heavily weighted towards urban communities; researchers should continue to explore experiences of parents who are living in areas with varying population den- sities as this may even further impact services and accommodations that are available. The participants were primarily mothers of students with disabilities. Researchers may wish to evaluate separately the ex- periences of fathers from CLD backgrounds.

Lastly, researchers may continue to investigate how different methodologies impact the fi ndings of studies on the experiences of CLD parents. Though the sample was small, the outliers in the review suggest that quantitative methods may produce dif- ferent results than open-ended, qualitative ones. Ad- ditionally, quantitative data may produce data that is easily aggregated across participants (e.g., the per- cent of participants who “strongly disagree” with a given statement), but may not provide the kind of thorough information obtained from qualitative data. Only one study conducted direct observation of IEP meetings to provide a comparison of an out- side perspective with parent perceptions. Although interviews are a valuable method for understanding how parents perceive IEP meetings, direct observa- tion adds another layer of data that can be analyzed and evaluated to better inform collaborative models.

SUMMARY Federal law stipulates that the IEP, an outline of goals, objectives, supports, and related services

for students with disabilities, be developed collab- oratively by a team of individuals who have knowl- edge and/or expertise about the student’s unique strengths and needs. The student’s parents or guard- ians are integral members of this team. The studies reviewed here suggest that barriers to participation in IEP meetings for parents who are CLD continue to be prevalent, despite legal mandates, profession- al recommendations, and licensure requirements (Council for Exceptional Children, 2010). With in- creasing numbers of children who are CLD being served under IDEA due to demographic changes and disproportionate representation, it is imperative that professionals address the barriers to meaning- ful parent participation, ensuring that the needs of the whole child, within the contexts of school, home and the community, are being met.

REFERENCES Akiba, M., Cockrell, K. S., Simmons, J.C., Han, S., &

Agarwal, G. (2010). Preparing teachers for diversity: Examination of teacher certifi cation and program ac- creditation standards in the 50 states and Washington, DC. Equity and Excellence in Education, 43(4), 446- 462.

Barrera, I., & Kramer, L. (2009). Using skilled dia- logue to transform challenging interactions: Honor- ing identity, voice, & connection. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Brandon, R. R., & Brown, M. R. (2009). African Ameri- can families in the special education process: In- creasing their level of involvement. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(2), 85-90.

Brandon, R. R., Higgins, K., Pierce, T., Tandy, R., & Sileo, N. (2010). An exploration of the alienation experienced by African American parents from their children’s educational environment. Remedial and Special Education, 31(3), 208-222.

Carter, S. (2002). The impact of parent/family involvement on student outcomes: An annotated bibliography of research from the past decade. Consortium for Ap- propriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE) Retrieved from http://www.directionservice. org/cadre/

Cheatham, G. A. (2011). Language interpretation, par- ent participation, and young children with disabili- ties. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31(2), 78-88.

Cheatham, G.A., Hart, J.E., Malian, I., & McDonald, J. (2012). Six things to never say or hear during an IEP

Multiple Voices, 13(2), Fall 2013 17

meeting: Educators as advocates for families. Teach- ing Exceptional Children, 44(3), 2-9.

Cho, S., & Gannotti, M. E. (2005). Korean-American mothers’ perception of professional support in early intervention and special education programs. Jour- nal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 2(1), 1-9.

Council for Exceptional Children (2010). CEC ethi- cal principles and practice standards for special education professionals. Retrieved from http://cec. sped.org/Standards/Ethical-Principles-and-Practice- Standards?sc_lang=en

Dabkowski, D. (2004). Encouraging active parent par- ticipation in IEP team meetings. Teaching Excep- tional Children, 36(3), 34-39.

Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.) (2002). Minor- ity students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Division for Early Childhood (2010). Responsiveness to all children, families, and professionals: Integrating cultural and linguistic diversity into policy and prac- tice. Position statement from the Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children.

Edwards, C. C., & DaFonte, A. (2012). The 5-point plan: Fostering successful partnerships with families of students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(3), 6-13.

Elhoweris, H., Mutua, K., Alsheikh, N., & Holloway, P. (2005). Effect of children’s ethnicity on teachers’ referral and recommendation decisions in gifted and talented programs. Remedial and Special Education, 26(1), 25-31.

Fish, W. W. (2006). Perceptions of parents of students with autism towards the IEP meeting: A case study of one family support group chapter. Education, 127(1), 56-68.

Fish, W. W. (2008). The IEP meeting: Perceptions of parents of students who receive special education services. Preventing School Failure, 53(1), 8-14.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2003). Interactions: Collabo- ration skills for school professionals. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. O., & Apostoleris, N. H. (1997). Predictors of parent involvement in children’s schooling. Journal of Educational Psy- chology, 89(3), 538-548.

Hardin, B. J., Mereoiu, M., Hung, H., & Roach-Scott, M. (2009). Investigating parent and professional per- spectives concerning special education services for preschool Latino children. Early Childhood Educa- tion Journal, 37, 93-102.

Harry, B. (1992a). An ethnographic study of cross- cultural communication with Puerto Rican-American

families in the special education system. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 471-494.

Harry, B. (1992b). Restructuring the participation of African-American parents in special education. Ex- ceptional Children, 59(2), 123-131.

Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with culturally and lin- guistically diverse families: Ideal versus reality. Ex- ceptional Children, 74(3), 372-388.

Harry, B., Allen, N., & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Com- munication versus compliance: African-American parents’ involvement in special education. Excep- tional Children, 61(4), 364-377.

Harry, B., & Klingner, J.K. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special education? Understand- ing race and disability in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Harry, B., Rueda, R., & Kalyanpur, M. (1999). Cultural reciprocity in sociocultural perspective: Adapting the normalization principle for family collaboration. Ex- ceptional Children, 66(1), 123-136.

Hernandez, J. E., Harry, B., Newman, L., & Cameto, R. (2008). Survey of family involvement in and satis- faction with the Los Angeles Unifi ed School District special education processes. Journal of Special Edu- cation Leadership, 21(2), 84-93.

Hughes, M. T., Valle-Riestra, D. M., & Arguelles, M. E. (2002). Experiences of Latino families with their child’s special education program. Multicultural Per- spectives, 4(1), 11-17.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 34 CF.R. §§ 300.1 et seq. (2011).

Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special education: Building reciprocal family-professional relationships. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Kea, C., Campbell-Whatley, G. D., & Richards, H. V. (2006). Becoming culturally responsive educators: Re- thinking teacher education pedagogy. Brief published by the National Center for Culturally Responsive Edu- cational Systems. Retrieved from www.nccrest.org

Kidd, J. K., Sanchez, S. Y., & Thorp, E. K. (2008). De- fi ning moments: Developing culturally responsive dispositions and teaching practices in early child- hood preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 316-329.

Lee, J., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 193-218.

Lian, M., & Fontanez-Phelan, S. (2001). Perceptions of Latino parents regarding cultural and linguistic issues and advocacy for children with disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26(3), 189-194.

Multiple Voices, 13(2), Fall 201318

Lo, L. (2008). Chinese families’ level of participation and experiences in IEP meetings. Preventing School Failure, 53(1), 21-27.

Lo, L. (2012). Demystifying the IEP process for diverse parents of children with disabilities. Teaching Excep- tional Children, 44(3), 14-20.

Lynch, E. W., & Hanson, M. J. (2012). Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for working with children and their families (4th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Lynch, E. W., & Stein, R. (1982). Perspectives on parent participation in special education. Exceptional Edu- cation Quarterly, 3(2), 56-63.

Lynch, E. W., & Stein, R. C. (1987). Parent participation by ethnicity: A comparison of Hispanic, Black, and Anglo families. Exceptional Children, 54(2), 105- 111.

Park, J., & Turnbull, A. P. (2001). Cross-cultural com- petency and special education: Perceptions and ex- periences of Korean parents of children with special needs. Education and Training in Mental Retarda- tion and Developmental Disabilities, 36(2), 133-147.

Park, J., Turnbull, A. P., & Park, H. (2001). Quality of partnerships in service provision for Korean American parents of children with disabilities: A qualitative inquiry. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26(3), 158-170.

Pewewardy, C., & Fitzpatrick, M. (2009). Working with American Indian students and families: Disabilities, issues, and interventions. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(2), 91-98.

Salas, L. (2004). Individualized education plan (IEP) meetings and Mexican American parents: Let’s talk about it. Journal of Latinos and Education, 3(3), 181-192.

Shapiro, J., Monzo, L. D., Rueda, R., Gomez, J. A., & Blacher, J. (2004). Alienated advocacy: Perspectives of Latina mothers of young adults with developmen- tal disabilities on service systems. Mental Retarda- tion: A Journal of Practices, Policy and Perspectives, 42(1), 37-54.

Smith. S. (2001). Involving parents in the IEP process. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED455658).

Sontag, J., & Schacht, R. (1994). An ethnic comparison of parent participation and information needs in early intervention. Exceptional Children, 60(5), 422-433.

Staples, K. E., & Diliberto, J. A. (2010). Guidelines for successful parent involvement: Working with parents

of students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(6), 58-63.

Stoner, J. B., Bock, S. J., Thompson, J. R., Angell, M. E., Heyl, B. S., & Crowley, E. P. (2005). Welcome to our world: Parent perceptions of interactions between parents of young children with ASD and education professionals. Focus on Autism and Other Develop- mental Disabilities, 20(1), 39-51.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). An older and more diverse nation by midcentury. Retrieved from http://www. census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/ cb08-123.html

U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Special Educa- tion Programs. (2010). Table 1-19: Number and per- centage of children ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by the seven race/ethnicity categories and state: Fall 2010. Retrieved from https://www. ideadata.org/arc_toc12.asp#partbCC

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing cultur- ally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32.

Zhang, C., & Bennett, T. (2003). Facilitating the mean- ingful participation of culturally and linguistically diverse families in the IFSP and IEP Process. Focus On Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(1), 51-59.

Zionts, L. T., Zionts, P., Harrison, S., & Bellinger, O. (2003). Urban African American families’ per- ceptions of cultural sensitivity within the special education system. Focus on Autism and Other Devel- opmental Disabilities, 18(1), 41-50.

AUTHOR NOTES KATIE WOLFE is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Studies at the Univer- sity of South Carolina.

LILLIAN K. DURÁN is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Special Education and Rehabilita- tion at Utah State University.

Requests for reprints and correspondence concern- ing this article should be addressed to Katie Wolfe, Department of Educational Studies, 820 S. Main Street, Wardlaw 235-B, Columbia, SC 29205. Email: [email protected]

Copyright of Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners is the property of Division for Culturally & Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Learners and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.