Leadership to Promote Family Partnerships: Identifying and Reclaiming Lost Opportunities

1. Leadership to Promote Family Partnerships: Identifying and Reclaiming Lost Opportunities Gwen P. Beegle, Ph.D. Thomas J. Neuville, Ph.D.

2. Presentation agenda • Welcome and introductions • Presentation: Focus group data and literature on parent-educator interactions • Facilitated discussion using a template to explore opportunities to improve parent-educator relationships • Closing questions and discussion

3. Identification • Access to special education is plagued with identification problems • 504 plans as a gateway • Poor quality evaluations • Failure to consider independent evaluations obtained by parents • Slow to evaluate • Lead to lack of individualization and poor quality education

4. Inquiry • As part of a state’s improvement process, we interviewed and held focus groups of families at open meetings throughout a Midwestern state. • Findings included family concerns with many special education processes (identification, enforcement) and the relationships between parents and educators • Qualitative research methods were used in the analysis, using QSR 6 software

5. Enforcement • State Education Agency • Increased district accountability for • LRE, IEP implementation, Parent participation, Alternate assessment, Related service provision • Increased awareness of the law • Parents and enforcement • Compliance organization • Organized parents assist each other to advocate more successfully • Watchful waiting, diligent vigilance, cookies

6. Parental participation • Experiences with school teams • “They treat our suggestions with disdain” • “Parents are frequently dealt with in a patronizing manner by school personnel rather than as integral team members and primary decision makers for their child.” • “I think we have all proven that we actively participate, but being listened to is another thing.” • “I think you know we participate but it is only on the surface.”

7. Parent Professional Relationships • Intimidation • Professional power • Involving police in their children’s cases • Becoming angry • Forbidding teachers to speak individually to parents • Discounting parents’ voices • “They intimidate you and try to make it look like you are the bad guy. [It is like] ‘you’re just complaining so we are not going to listen to you.’”

8. Parent Professional Relationships • Adversarial relationships • Parent labeling • “Battles, Fights, Face-offs and Bloodbaths” • Administrators are more adversarial than are teachers • “It is not illegal till the due process officer says it’s illegal.”

9. Summary of key concerns • Poor quality special education programs • Identification and access to special education • Inclusive practices • Legal requirements • Poor quality collaboration • Interpersonal relationships • Communication

10. Solution proposed by participants • Families, administrators, and teachers agreed that personnel preparation is the key • Both interpersonal and educational skills are mentioned

11. Needed skills and outcomes • Collaborative teaming skills • Accepting parental input • Acknowledging parental contributions • Communicating with parents • Accepting help • Skilled paraprofessionals • Increased training (child specific, on the job) • Supervision • Involvement in IEP

12. General education context and culture • Educational policy and popular model support • Parental involvement is seen as supportive of achievement outcomes and proximal achievement indicators. Moreover it is believed to be important.(Fan & Chen, 2001)

13. From their perspective, parents choose to be involved because • Parents believe it is their role • Parents believe that they can help • Teachers invite them to be involved • (Hoover Dempsey & Sandler, 1995; 1997; Hoover-Dempsey, Battiato, Walker, Reed, DeJong & Jones, 2001) • Involvement makes a greater difference for some children • (Dearing, McCartney, Weiss, Kreider & Simkins, 2004)

14. Teacher’s beliefs about parental involvement relates to parental • Supervision and support of homework, responsive, communication with teacher, proper socialization of the child, and providing for basic needs • (Shumow & Harris, 2000)

15. The nature of parent-educator interactions • Patterns of communications are highly prescriptive and set according to social norms and order • Context-Thinking-Action • (Smerker & Cohen-Vogel, 2001) • Parental advocacy is hindered when educators lack cultural responsiveness • (Lareau and Horvat, 1999)

16. The interaction dynamic • Assumptions made about parents and involvement are often in error • (Harry, Klingner, & Hart, 2005; Smerker & Cohen-Vogel, 2001) • Disparity in defining parental involvement between educators and families • (Lawson, 2003 ; Smerker & Cohen-Vogel, 2001) • “. . . [N]arrow, single dimensions of school- based involvement can perpetuate inaccurate impressions of underinvolvement in their children’s education.” • (Mantz, Fanuzzo & Power, 2004)

17. Special education occurs within this cultural and organizational context • Legalistic aspects of special education exacerbate the prescriptive roles • At critical points in time for the family • Identification and evaluation • IEP • Placement • Disciplinary interventions • In these situations, families are receivers of information, expertise, and guidance

18. Families of children with disabilities may also experience • Systemic sociopolitical bias related to cultural, ethnic, economic, and racial differences • (see Educational Researcher, Aug/Sept 2006) • Disadvantaged status in bargaining • (Caruso, 2005) • Disabilities • (Turnbull, Turnbull, Irwin & Soodak, 2005)

19. In special education, disagreements and disputes are costly • To schools: $8000-12000 for a mediation, $95,000 in litigation • About 27% resolved in a hearing • Families successful in 43% of cases (at least in part) • (Daggett, 2004) • To children and families • Loss of the achievement and proximal benefits of collaboration

20. Special education disputes • Causes noted by mediators • Program design • Delivery of the IEP • Relationships • (Feinberg, Beyer & Moses, 2002) • Extent of disagreement • As many as 1 parent in 6 have considered taking action against the school district because of an issue with their children’s education • (Johnson & Duffet, 2002)

21. Solutions? • When families threaten to sue, schools should look at the quality of their special education services to children and outreach to families (Curtis, 2005) • Key leadership steps • Administrative actions • Professional development • Organizational change and development

22. Consider the system • Decision 1: what are the opportunities? • Identification (pre-referral, informed consent, evaluation and reporting) • IEP (invitations, placement decisions, meetings) • Traditional and ceremonial interactions • Conferences, performances, routines • Others?

23. System. . . • Decision 2: How are parents notified? By whom? • Context: relationships, cultural responsiveness, organizational climate • Decision 3: What are the key interactions? • Who are the people? • How are the tasks being accomplished? • Decision 4: What is the follow through? • Is ongoing interaction required? • How often? Among whom? Action plan?

24. Guiding principles for responsive and invitational strategies • Are we keeping the child or youth at the center of our process? • Are we paying attention to partnership building and collaborative skills? • Listening, trust building, respectful communication, clarity, accountability • Are we offering the highest quality program possible? • Others?

25. Contact? Key interaction? Follow through? Opportunity? Context? Relationships Cultural responsiveness • Consider: People, skills, task, purpose, • Guiding principles • Leadership Action: Administrative action, • organizational change, professional development Organizational climate

26. Closing