Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 2011, Vol. 36, No. 1-2, 11-22
copyright 2011 by TASH
Individualized Education Program Team Decisions: A Preliminary Study of Conversations, Negotiations, and Power Andrea L. Ruppar and Janet S. Gaffney University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Given the centrality of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) to services for students with disabilities, the decision-making process during the IEP meeting deserves attention in research and implementation. In this case study, IEP team decision-making is examined as a socially situated practice. Transcripts of an initial evaluation and IEP meeting and subsequent interviews with team members were analyzed in concert with the pertinent documents to understand the decision-making process and outcomes for a 5-year-old boy. The student's diagnosis, placement, and goal setting resulted in discussion and were pursued in postmeeting interviews. Further analysis was conducted regarding the proportion of interactions among participants Results indicate that the turn-taking structure of the IEP meeting, the IEP template, and communication prior to the meeting influenced the decisions, and individual team members held opinions that they did not voice during the meeting.
cation and sociopolitical contexts on the decision-making process during these crifical meetings. Three main factors drive decision-making at IEP meetings. First, decisions are made within a political and social context (Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002; Wehmeyer, Sands, Knowlton, & Kozleski, 2002). Legislations such as the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and the IDEIA (2004) have a direct impact on the procedures for making decisions about educational placements, testing accommodations, instructional goals, and the extent to which students with disabilities will access the general curriculum. School district characteristics, such as the district location and structure, may also affect decisions made on behalf of students with disabilifies (Wehmeyer et al., 2002). Second, team-level structures may influence the decisionmaking process. Wehmeyer, Lattin, and Agran (2001) suggested that the polificized nature of group decisionmaking at IEP meetings can lead to routinized educational programs reflecfive of low expectations and stereotypes about students with disabilities. Team composition is another aspect of team structure that may impact decisionmaking, and diverse team membership has been reported to have benefits for decision-making on school-based teams. In a qualitafive case study of a prereferral team, Etscheidt and Knesting (2007) found that team communication was enhanced when teams were composed of individuals from a variety of disciplines, there was little turnover among team members, individual team members expressed a commitment to tbe team, parents participated, and administrators were involved and supported the team. Marfin, Marshall, and Sale (2004) also found that team composifion affected the decision-making process. They noted that when a general education teacher was present at the IEP meefing, team members reported that they participated more, felt more empowered to make decisions, felt better informed about next steps, and felt better about tbe meeting overall. As Mehan, Hertweck, and Meihls (1986) note, each team member comes to a meeting with a particular set of knowledge about the student, as well as institutional knowledge, such as past meetings: "As a consequence of this social distribution of knowledge, the information upon which decisions are
DESCRIPTORS: Individualized Education Program, access to the general education curriculum, collaboration, family/parental involvement For students eligible for special education services, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) requires tbat an educational team develop and convene at least annually to review each student's Individualized Education Program (IEP). Highstakes decisions are made on behalf of students with disabilities, often with lifelong consequences for the children and their families. A variety of social and political characteristics of the team, school, and district may impact the decisions that are made on behalf of individual students, however, little is known about the impact of eommuni-
The authors would like to thank Martha Snell, Editor, and the reviewers, especially Reviewer C, for their expert suggestions on previous versions of the manuscript. This research was supported in part by Preparing Leaders in Access by Design, a grant funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (H325D050066). Address all correspondence and reprint requests to Andrea L. Ruppar, University of Illinois, 1310 South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820. E-mail:
[email protected] 11
12
Ruppar and Gaffney
being reached is not in any one individual person's memory, it is in the collective memory of the group" (page 165). By examining the social system operating within an IEP team, individual psychological processes and institutional practices may become visible. Third, interactions among team members may also influence the decision-making of the group. Individuals' participation in IEP meetings has been examined by measuring tbe amount of time each team member speaks during the meeting. Martin et al. (2006) used momentary time sampling to measure the proportion of time each team member spoke during 109 IEP meetings. Special education teachers talked the most during these meetings, speaking during 51% of the intervals. Vacc et al. (1985) also measured team member participation using momentary time sampling and found that teachers and parents spoke the most during IEP meetings (on average, 22.2 and 23.3 intervals per meeting, respectively), but 33% of parents' contributions were considered to be passive participation, whereas only 3% of teachers' contributions were considered passive. Beyond the percentage of time each team member speaks, research is needed to examine the nature of team members' participation in IEP meetings. The language and communication style used by team members is an important feature of their interactions. No recent studies of interpersonal communication at IEP meetings were found. In early studies of IEP meeting communication, Ysseldyke, Algozzine, and Mitchell (1982) found that teams usually present data and recommend placements to parents without much discussion. Ysseldyke, Algozzine, Richey, and Graden (1982) also found that teams used language that parents could understand, free of jargon and technical terms, in only 27% of the 34 meetings they observed. Thirteen years later, Harry, Allen, and McLaughlin (1995) found that team members used specialized terminology when communicating during the IEP meeting and the primary purpose of IEP meetings was for parents to sign the IEP paperwork. Given that most of the research on IEP meeting communication was conducted in the 1980s and 1990s, research is needed to update the knowledge base regarding how IEP teams communicate. Whereas an IEP meeting is a singular event with a beginning and an end, the discourse is embedded within a sociopolifical context and influenced by a multiplicity of individual factors of parficipants (e.g., attitudes, perspectives, relationships, histories, and so forth.). In special education, educadonal priorities, services, and placements are determined and designed based on individual students' needs. Thus, decisions made at an IEP meeting are socially constructed and validated by the same team members. If one or more members of the decisionmaking team do not fully participate in the process, then the validity of the decisions is jeopardized. Considerations must be made to facilitate equal access to understanding and shaping the discourse and outcomes of the meefing by all participants.
In the current study, we closely examined the political, social, and interpersonal factors influencing decisionmaking process at one IEP meeting for a student with a severe disability. Historically, literature in the area of IEP meetings has focused on the parents' perspective. The perspectives of the other team members present at the meeting have been underrepresented in research. A lack of research likewise exists concerning IEP meetings for students with severe disabilities. Although there is emerging literature on the nature of discussions during prereferral team meetings (Etscheidt & Knesting, 2007), no studies have been conducted that focus on the discourse and personal interactions among team members at an IEP meeting. Two research quesfions guided this study. First, we sought to understand how the discourse within an IEP meeting affected the decisions made during the meefing. Second, we aimed to explore team members' perceptions of the decision-making process and the final decisions as recorded on the IEP. In this case study, we sought to inifiate research on a single IEP team's decision-making process for a student with a severe disability.
Method The selection of our particular case facilitates understanding of a more global issue: how IEP teams make decisions for students with severe disabilities. The purpose of this study was to examine an IEP meeting indepth to understand how the interactions among team members might influence the decision-making process. In Stake's (2000) classification, this is an instrumental case study. An instrumental case is examined in depth to provide insight into an issue. We chose to focus on the decision-making process for a student with a severe disability because of the challenges of ensuring access to the general curriculum for this population. These challenges are more likely to surface in communication during IEP meetings for students with severe disabilities because the means for providing access to general education content and contexts are less apparent for students with severe disabilities than for students with high-incidence disabilities. Thus, our case selection maximized the available information relative to the decision-making process, which was the purpose of our investigation. Prior to contacting school districts, we determined criteria for selecting an optimum IEP meeting to serve as the case for this study. Our first criterion for selecting a case was that the meeting was to be about the development of an IEP for a student with a severe disability. Our second criterion for case selection was that the meeting should concern a transition between programs, because we reasoned transitions would engender explicit discussions. We contacted the special education coordinators of three local districts to inquire about their willingness to participate. The special education director of
13
Individualized Education Program Team Decisions Table 1 IEP Team Member Descriptions and Abbreviations Title
Abbreviation
Special Education Director
SD
Preschool Teacher
PK
Special Education Teacher
SET
Psychologist
PSY
Occupational Therapist
OT
Physical Therapist
PT
Current Speech-Language Pathologist
SLP
Receiving Speech-Language Pathologist Mother
SLP2 M
Father
F
the Township School District' replied that there were three upcoming IEP meetings for students with severe disabilities. In consultation with the special education director, we purposefully selected a 5-year-old boy with a severe disability who was preparing to transition from a blended preschool program to kindergarten. The IEP meeting took place in June, during the last week of the school year, prior to his enrollment in an elementary school program. The Student and IEP Team The student, Aaron, was a 5-year-old boy who had been attending a blended preschool program for students with and without disabilities. During the meeting, Aaron was described as a friendly child who was quick to smile and loved to say hello to adults. He enjoyed spending time listening to music, had a strong interest in cars and trucks, and displayed a new interest in animals, Aaron had a rare medical diagnosis associated with a cognitive delay. Both of Aaron's parents were active community members and known by the school community because Aaron's two older sisters attended the same school. All members of the school-based IEP team were contacted in advance of the meeting to discuss the study, answer questions, and secure permission. Eleven of the For confidentiality purposes, pseudonyms are used for individuals, schools, and districts.
Background Was a special education teacher for many years prior to entering administration As a speeial education teacher, advoeated for inclusion Had been special education director of the Township District for 8 years First IEP meeting ever attended Employed by Township District for 7 months Taking coursework for endorsement in early ehildhood special education Undergraduate degree in elementary education Worked as a paraprofessional for 3 years Second year working in the self-contained. Life Skills program in the Township District 11 years of experience Employed by special edueation cooperative First IEP meeting in the Township District Employed by special education cooperative for 4 years Primarily responsible for assessments; Occupational therapy assistant provided most direct therapy Employed by special education cooperative for 2 years Had conducted direct therapy with Aaron throughout the past school year Second year working in the Township District Oldest son diagnosed with autism Declined participation in interview Employed as a local radio host Active in school activities and parent groups Employed with a local arts center Was recently seriously ill
12 team members agreed to participate in the study. Participants included the parents (mother and father), principal, special education director, physical therapist, school psychologist, two speech-language pathologists, occupational therapist, special education teacher, and preschool teacher, A Special Edueation Cooperative employed the psychologist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, and social worker, the latter unable to attend the meeting. The Special Education Cooperative provides services to 11 rural school districts in the county. Descriptions of team members and abbreviations for team members used throughout this article are listed in Table 1, Setting The Township School District was situated in a rural agricultural community in a Midwestern state. The district had two elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. One hundred percent of the teachers in the district were Caucasian; this was reflected in the makeup of the IEP team. According to the district Web site, three speeial education programs were available in the district: a program serving students with learning disabilities in the general education setting, a selfcontained program designed for students with behavior disorders, and a self-contained program serving students with multiple or severe disabilities called Life Skills. During the course of the study, however, we learned that
14
Ruppar and Gaffney
the Life SkMls program was being faded out in favor of a more inclusive program for students with severe disabilities in at least one of the elementary schools. Data Collection Two researchers (first and second author, respectively) were involved in the data collection and analysis for this study: the first, a doctoral student in special education, collected all of the data, and the second, a professor of special education, facilitated the identification of the case. Both researchers simultaneously analyzed the data, IEP meeting The IEP meeting was approximately 2 hr in length. In addition to the IEP development, initial evaluation results were presented during this meeting and the child's eligibility for special education services was determined. To supplement an audio-recording of the meeting, the first author recorded field notes during the meeting. The physical setting of the meeting was noted, in addition to the nonverbal interactions among team members. This information was used conjunction with the audiorecording to assist in subsequent analysis and interpretation of the discourse. Other variables recorded and measured during the meeting included the amount of time each team member spoke during the meeting and topics discussed and omitted. The audio recording of the IEP meeting was transcribed and field notes were organized in preparation for analysis. Momentary time sampling was used to determine the percentage of time each team member spoke during the meeting. Following the meeting, the first author listened to the recording of the meeting as a timer chimed every 10 sec. The researcher then recorded which team member was speaking at the time of the chime. If a team member was speaking at the time of the chime, a tally mark was made under this person's name. When multiple people were speaking, it was impossible to discern the voices on the recording. Therefore, if multiple people were speaking, this was recorded as overlapping and specific speakers were not recorded. If no one was talking, the last person who spoke was recorded, because it was reasoned that this person still maintained control of the conversation until the next person spoke. Interviews The first author conducted and audio recorded 10 semistructured interviews either in person (n = 3) or by phone (n = 7), depending on the preference of the participant. Interviews were held as soon after the IEP meeting as possible, ranging from the same day to 10 days after the IEP meeting, as participant schedules permitted. The length of interviews ranged from 17 to 33 min. Although 11 people participated in the meeting, one of the speech-language pathologists in attendance (SLP2) declined to be interviewed. Therefore, 10 people participated in interviews. The audiotapes of the 10 interviews were transcribed in preparation for analysis.
The interview protocol addressed the participants' perceptions of the meeting, including the quality of their participation and the participation, role, and power of others. Participants were also asked about their impressions of the outcomes of the meeting, particularly related to their agreement with the decisions made and the reasons for their opinions. General questions were asked regarding the parents' participafion, including the role of professionals in ensuring parent participation. On the basis of the observation of the meeting and review of the field notes, the researchers identified issues that prompted the most discussion or controversy. We called these points of discussion "conversational junctures," and invited each participant to comment on these to explore the varying perspectives of team members on these particular segments of the conversation. Follow-up questions were asked for elaboration and clarification on salient points made by the participants (sample interview questions are in Table 2), Documents The IEP meeting served as the forum for both eligibility determination and IEP decisions. Although the special education director noted that Aaron had received early intervention services, an IFSP or other preschool records were not provided or referenced in preliminary conversations with the special education director, the IEP meeting, or in any interview. Thefinalevaluation and IEP paperwork was completed several days after the meefing and distributed to team members, the parents, and the
Table 2 Sample Interview Questions Interview questions Questions for All Team Members
How did you find the meeting? Did it go as you anticipated? Is there anything you would do differently? Were there any surprises? What negotiations stood out to you? Were there any differences among team members? Were there any challenges? Are you comfortable with the decisions made for this child at the meeting? What was your reaction to (diagnosis discussion; placement discussion; counting goal discussion)? Tell me about your background. How are placement decisions made here? What criteria are used? How are parents made aware of the options available to them? How do team members ensure that parents share their opinions during IEP meetings? Additional Questions for Parents
Tell me about your child. Tell me about your interactions with staff so far. How did you learn about the IEP process? How were you made aware of how decisions are made? Prior to this meeting, did you talk to other parents? Did you talk to any other professionals?
Individualized Education Program Team Decisions
researchers by the special education director. These documents provided an additional form of discourse about the student.
Data Analysis According to Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klinger, Pugach, and Richardson (2005), qualitative research "can explore the nature and extent to which a practice has a constructive impact on individuals with disabilities, their families, or on settings in which they tend to work, reside, or be educated" (page 196). In the current study, data were analyzed to understand how the discourse within an IEP meeting affected the decisions made during the meeting, as well as the team members' perceptions of the decision-making process and the final decisions as recorded on the IEP. The transcript of the IEP meeting, transcripts of the semistructured interviews, field notes, and Aaron's evaluation and IEP documents generated substantial information. This information made it possible to study the case of this IEP meeting closely, to cross-check findings across data sources, and to draw conclusions about the multiple influences on the team's decision-making processes and outcomes. In qualitative research, the initial data analysis is intrinsic to the data collection process. Merriam (1998) contends that simultaneous analysis of data during collection is essential to yield "parsimonious and illuminating" (page 162) data. The field notes reflect thin threads of tentative hypotheses that may represent either emerging patterns or snags that may require further examinafion. We independently analyzed the transcripts of the IEP meeting and interviews. As part of the ongoing analysis, we recorded labels (e.g., jargon, social behavior, and standard scores) and memos on the transcripts through multiple readings of the transcripts. The analytic memos were often in the form of questions and wonderings or represented glimmers of insight, some of which may have been worthy of further investigation. We asked questions, such as those suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1998), "What is this? What is going on?" In our analytic memos, for example, we speculated about "valuing parental input," "differences in communication based on roles and power," and "the sequence of decisions about placement and services." In our analyses, we were sensitive to the influence of the particular context of an IEP meeting on the interactions and using the interviews to understand the meaning of the participants (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006). Next, we independently sifted through our highlighted transcripts, labels, and memos to identify major themes or issues, noting the supporting data. We took multiple tacks during this stage of the analysis including generation of lists, summary statements, and initial categories. This ongoing triangulation of multiple data sources and independent review contributed to the trustworthiness of the findings (Erickson, 1986). Finally, we came together multiple times to integrate our analyses and distill the data to ensure that our find-
15
ings were warranted by the data and represented pivotal aspects of the decision-making process in IEP meetings. We first compared our coding of themes, discussing each of our individual codes and determining whether codes should be eliminated, combined, or modified. Some of the themes we identified were similar, and some were deleted and combined. Multiple meetings were required as we challenged each other's interpretations, searched the data for confirming and disconfirming evidence, and tested alternative explanations. "Validity cannot be defined in advance by a certain procedure but must be attended to at all times as the study shifts and turns" (Freeman, deMarrais, Preissle, Roulston, & St. Pierre, 2007, page 29). For example, in preliminary analyses, both researchers recorded notations about the discussion of Aaron's social behavior. Social behavior was not a contested topic in the IEP meeting and, therefore, did not stand out in the interviews. As researchers, however, we continuously probed and evaluated the data across the multiple sources. We found that conflicting information emerged in terms of the evaluation reports and the perspecfives of the parents and educators, which heavily impacted decisions about Aaron's placement. We described this process as complefing multiple waves of analysis, each taking us deeper into the data and revealing increasingly consequential findings. Finally, we independently analyzed the transcript for instances of interactions among team members. We compared our individual analyses, discussed points of disagreement, and made modifications until we agreed that all instances of interactions were idenfified.
Results First, general information about the meeting is reported. Three conversational junctures in the meeting discussion will be highlighted: the student's diagnosis, placement, and one of his goals. Finally, data collected on the relative amount of time each individual team member participated in the meeting will be presented. The Meeting The meefing encompassed decisions regarding Aaron's eligibility for special education services and the development of his initial IEP. (Note: If Aaron was found eligible for services, the initial IEP was to be devised at the meeting.). Two hours (9:00-11:00 a.m.) were scheduled for the meeting. As team members entered the room, they greeted each other and commented on the multiple IEP meetings that were scheduled for the same day as well as the recent problems with entering IEP data into the computer system. Access to the computer system was intermittent in the moments leading up to the meeting, and difficulty accessing the system continued throughout the meeting.^ ^Abbreviations of sources of information and quotes are coded in parentheses (i.e., setting, participant, and transcript line number). See Table 1 for abbreviations.
16
Ruppar and Gaffney
The team was responsible for making many important decisions and completing extensive paperwork in a set time period. At least 10 team members were participating in this meeting, including Aaron's mother and father. Prior to the meeting, the mother had also requested to videotape the meeting. The team consented, but several team members were not comfortable being in view of the camera."* No team members mentioned discomfort with our audio recording or observation. The meeting was held in a conference room in the elementary school. The special education director facilitated the discussion and also operated the IEP program on the computer. She was responsible for typing the informafion from the meeting into the IEP document. The psychologist, who was participafing in a Township District meeting for the first time, also took on a leadership role guiding the discussion during the evaluation porfion of the meefing. The principal did not contribute during the decision-making processes but offered clarifications and guidance to the team as the discussion progressed. Noticeably quiet was the special education teacher who spoke little apart from her presentafion of the academic goals. Conversational Junctures In our analysis, we identified three conversational junctures to address in follow-up interviews. We defined conversational junctures as issues that appeared to require discussion among team members to resolve. We reasoned that individual team members would have perspectives on these conversational junctures that could be explored during interviews. Discussion of Aaron's diagnosis, placement, and a counting goal were inifially identified as important issues in the analysis of the meeting. Within each of the following sections, the decision of the committee is reported, followed by the analysis of the communication during the decision-making process. Eiigibiiity determination Aaron's eligibility determination prompted the most discussion and disagreements during the meefing. The psychologist advocated that Aaron should be identified under the category of cognifive disability, whereas his mother felt that further evaluation was necessary to rule out autism. Ultimately, the team decided that he would qualify for special education services under the category of cognitive disability. The psychologist was quite vocal about her skepticism of the validity of an autism diagnosis in both tbe meeting and the interview, but Aaron's mother was adamant in pursuing addifional outside assessments to determine whether or not her son had autism. Whereas other team members remained silent during •'Please note that the mother's request to videotape the session was not part of the study and the videotape was not viewed by the authors or used in the analysis.
the meeting, most expressed their stands on this issue during the individual interviews. During the meefing, the psychologist was the primary contributor to the discussion about the diagnosis, reporting scores for a variety of domains. During her interview, she noted that "You can't expect a kid who has.. .delayed cognitive skills to have speech and language skills within the average range" (INT, PSY, 149-150). In contrast, she also expressed with convicfion that Aaron had a "particular strength in socialization" but did not immediately report scores or other data to support this claim. During the meeting, she solicited differing viewpoints: "If anybody else has any other input... If there's any other eligibility that we would want to throw out there" (IEP, PSY, 1273-1275) but did not offer any possible alternatives. A brief discussion of the possibility of a secondary diagnosis of speech-language impairment ensued and was quickly dismissed by the speech-language pathologist. The special education director then announced, "Well, we're going to declare him eligible for services" (IEP, SD, 1292-1293), implying that he will be eligible under some category, but without identifying a particular one. The psychologist added, "I think we'll go ahead and go with cognifive disability as his primary eligibility at this point" (IEP, PSY, 1299-1301). The principal quickly stepped in at this point and brought up that the mother was pursuing an outside assessment to examine whether an autism diagnosis was appropriate. The principal verified that this was based on previous conversations with the parents and "that was the reason I brought it up, because I knew the mom was thinking it" (INT, PR, 47-48). During both the meefing and the interview, Aaron's mother stated that she was considering autism as a possible diagnosis. She did not explicitly say that she believed autism would be a primary diagnosis but expressed that it would allow the team to "have more tools to work with" (INT, M, 216). In this way, she did not present the possibility of an autism diagnosis in opposition to the rest of the team. The speech-language pathologist, although quiet during the meeting, brought up her own perspective on the diagnosis during interviewa She clearly articulated her view on Aaron's eligibihty category: "The overlying disability, I think, his main disability, is his cognifive impairment.... They are co-morbid condifions with this child if he is, indeed, autisfic" (INT, SLP, 228-233). In this statement, she verified that she felt the chosen diagnosis was vahd but offered that an additional secondary diagnosis may be important to explore. This reflected a strong, differing viewpoint that was not expressed in the meeting. Regarding the discussion, she felt that, "the school psychologist pretty much was shutting that [conversation] down and I didn't think that was maybe correct" (INT, SLP, 216-218). To support her opinion, the speech pathologist volunteered that her oldest son has aufism, but yet "is very sociable" (INT, SLP, 201-202). "I don't think you can say [Aaron doesn't have autism] just because of
Individualized Education Program Team Decisions
social" (INT, SLP, 205). Although the psychologist stated that Aaron's social skills were "really nice" and he was "very social" (IEP, PSY, 1319), the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale completed by the school district indicated that Aaron's standard score in the social domain was 69 {M = 100, SD = 15). This discrepancy, however, was not contested during the meeting. During the interviews, other team members expressed opinions about the mother's pursuit of an autism diagnosis. The physical therapist said, "It's definitely something good to check out" (INT, PT, 99-100). The special education director commented, "We're not sure, either, at this point, but I feel pretty confident that the eligibility category that we came up with was probably the primary one" (INT, SD, 185-187), The special education teacher, however, saw it as a "nonissue" because a change in diagnosis would not change his services (INT, SET, 88). Although the preschool teacher said she "bit (her) tongue on that one" (INT, PK, 183) regarding the aufism diagnosis, she went on to explain, "I just don't think he has it! " (INT, PK, 188-189). Despite the fact that the conversation during the meeting was largely between tbe psychologist and the mother, these data reflect that other team members had viewpoints on Aaron's eligibility category that they chose not to share during the meefing. Goal This conversational juncture arose when the special education teacher presented an academic goal for Aaron's IEP that he would be able to count to 10. Earlier in the meeting, the psychologist presented evidence that Aaron was able to count past 10. Because the special education teacher lacked experience with Aaron, she developed this goal with significant input from the preschool teacher. Due to a lack of communicafion and a practice of bringing prepared goals to the IEP meeting, the goal presented by the special education teacher did not reflect Aaron's present level of performance as reported by the psychologist. Ultimately, a goal was written for Aaron to count to 20. When the special educafion teacher proposed the goal of counting to 10, several members of the team immediately responded with feedback that the goal should be raised. Although there was a considerable amount of discussion during this portion of the conversation, only the special educafion teacher found this episode problematic. In contrast, most of the other team members characterized it as a productive collaboration. Immediately after the special educafion teacher (SET) presented the goal, the preschool teacher (PK) was the first one to suggest a change. The transcript of their interaction follows, SET: Currently, Aaron can count from 1 to 10 consistently... um... cannot count from 1 to 10 consistently. (Brief side conversation, in which someone says, "Change that.")
17
SET: Um, the goal statement is: Aaron will count from 1 to 10 with 75% accuracy. PK: Bump that up...to 20. (IEP, 1585-1592) As the conversation continued, several other team members, including the psychologist, administrator, and tnother, offered viewpoints, and multiple, overlapping side conversations were heard around the table as this discussion ensued. When asked about this conversafion, the special education teacher expressed that she "would have been more comfortable had she [preschool teacher] just presented them herself" (INT, SET, 122). During her interview, she conveyed her discomfort with the situation in the IEP meeting: I felt like people weren't aware of the fact that I didn't [write the goal]. I did give her some guidance.... But ultimately, I didn't do this and I ... I haven't woriced with him all year. (INT, SET, 178-181) On the basis of the analysis of interviews, the special education teacher was correct in her assumption that the other team members were not aware that she did not write the academic goals. Although collaborative effort occurred at the table, communication among team members was lacking from the special education teacher's point of view. Placement The team decided that Aaron would spend 70% of his time in special education and 30% of his time in general education classes. Previously, the special education teacher taught students in a self-contained classroom that was referred to as "the Life Skills program." The students who had been in that program, however, were graduating to middle school. Aaron was the only potential, incoming student for that program, so the administration made the decision to discontinue the Life Skills program and allocate the special educafion teacher's time to working with students on her caseload in general and special education settings throughout the day. Team members differed in tbeir opinions about Aaron's placement during the decision-making process. To begin the conversafion, the special educafion director proposed placement in the general education classroom for 30% of his time. During her interview, she characterized this as a starfing point, saying that she "threw it out there" to get the discussion going (INT, SD, 201). In sharp contrast, the special education teacher felt that "there really wasn't a discussion" about Aaron's placement (INT, SET, 198). Likewise, the physical therapist suggested that the special educafion director "had a little bit of an idea of what she thought already" (INT, PT, 128) about placement and thought the percent of time the student would be in general and special education could have been "explained just a little bit more" (INT, PT, 132). These comments indicate that at least some
18
Ruppar and Gaffney
team members thought that the special education director's proposed placement was more of a directive than a suggestion. The team did not uniformly accept this move toward more inclusive services. When placement was first brought up at the meeting, the special education teacher drew in a deep breath and shifted in her chair. This was the first indication that she may have had some discomfort with the direction she saw the conversafion going. She explained in her interview that she saw the move away from self-contained classrooms as decreasing opfions rather than increasing options and individualizing services to further meet the student's needs. The preschool teacher echoed this sentiment, when she expressed concern that "We're all kind of having a hard time with him going into a regular kindergarten classroom because we used to have life skills and they're taking that away" (INT, PK, 47-48). Although there were dissenting opinions about the appropriateness of the placement, none were explicitly stated during the meeting, Aaron's behavior was not brought up during the discussion about his placement, but through interviews, it became apparent that several team members idenfified his behavior as a main reason for excluding him from general education classes. At the beginning of the meeting, the preschool teacher briefly alluded to Aaron's behavioral challenges in the preschool classroom. In interviews, several team members described him as excessively loud, and the IEP document reflected that the mother had observed aggressive behavior at home. In interviews, the physical therapist and preschool teacher anfieipated that Aaron's loud behavior would be disruptive in kindergarten. During her interview, the speech-language pathologist explicitly stated that his behavior was keeping him from accessing the general education setdng on a more regular basis. "If he can get it under control and learn how to bebave, be could be in the general classroom" (INT, SLP, 111-114). His behavior, tberefore, was a factor considered relative to his placement that was not discussed during the meeting. In summary, two main themes were identified from the analysis of these conversational junctures. During interviews, team members expressed disagreements with the decisions about Aaron's eligibihty and placement but did not voice their opinions during the meefing. In the conversation about the counfing goal, a lack of communication among team members led to an uncomfortable situation when the goal drafted by the special education teacher did not match data presented by the psychologist. Individual Participation and the Structure of the Meeting Table 3 presents the relative amount of time each team member spoke during the meeting. The recording of the meeting was 1 hr 48 min long, with a total of 648 intervals (10 sec each). The data in Table 2 show that the psychologist spent the greatest proportion of time speaking
Table 3 Team Members' Speaking: Percentage of 10-sec Intervals Team member Percentage of intervals Principal Psychologist Preschool Teacher Special Education Teacher Physical Therapist Occupational Tlierapist Speech Pathologist 1 Speech Pathologist 2 Special Education Director Mother Father Overlapping
2,4 22,2 6,0 4,3 12,9 10,8 3,8 5,6 16,0 13,4 >l,0 1,0
(22.2% of the intervals). The special educafion director spoke during 16% of intervals, and the mother spoke during 13,4% of the intervals. In sharp contrast, the father spoke at less than 1% of the intervals. The special education teacher spoke during 4,3% of the intervals. Points of conversation and interactions among team members were also analyzed. Fifteen instances of interacfion between team members were identified, consisting of 760 lines (29,7%) of the transcript. When interactions were not occurring, one person was presenting his or her data while the others listened. Individual presentations of data encompassed 70.3% of the lines of transcript. Apart from three instances when parent input was explicitly solicited, the special education director ended ongoing conversations to move on to the next section of the IEP document. Aaron's mother interjected comments during openings in the conversation, seemingly to direct the discussion toward topics that were important to her. In summary, a relatively small propordon of the meeting consisted of team members in discussion; team members took turns presenfing data and goals, and the order of the items in the IEP document dictated the sequence of the meeting.
Discussion The purpose of this study was to explore how communication at an IEP meeting might influence the decisions that are made during the meeting, A secondary purpose was to examine the team members' perspectives on the decision-making process and the decisions that were made at the meeting. On the basis of our analysis of three conversafional junctures during the meeting, as well as an indepth analysis of the IEP document, meeting transcripts, and interviews of the team members, several themes emerged. First, many team members had opinions that differed from the decisions made at the meeting, but they generally did not express these to the group during the meefing. Second, communicafion prior to the meeting affected the decisions, and likewise, communicafion that did not occur caused an uncomfortable situation during the meefing. Third, the special educafion director used the
Individualized Education Program Team Decisions
IEP document as a guide to lead the meeting, prompting conversations to begin and to end. This led to an ordered turn-taking style of the conversation, which constrained the decision-making process by restricting opportunities for the team to discuss data and goals. In this section, we discuss briefly how these three themes contributed to decisions regarding Aaron's access to the general curriculum. Differing but Silent Opinions A common theme throughout the data was that, although many team members expressed opinions that differed from the opinions of other team members during the interviews, few discussions occurred during the IEP meeting. Two explanations may account for the lack of back-and-forth discussions. First, a high degree of trust among team members, which was noted by the occupational therapist, psychologist, and preschool teacher, may have contributed to the lack of questioning about data or goals presented. Another explanation may be that team members were reluctant to challenge each other's opinions in the meeting forum. The lack of discussion surrounding topics of importance, such as Aaron's behavior and educational diagnosis, allowed the team to avoid considering alternative perspectives when making these decisions. The silence of team members during the meeting despite differing opinions will be explored in this section. Tacitly held beliefs among group members seemed to influence the decision about Aaron's placement. Interview data indicated that Aaron's behavior seemed to be the "deal breaker" for minimizing his access to inclusive environments; however, behavior was not discussed when his placement was being considered. This calls into question why a behavior assessment, plan, and goals were not developed during the IEP meeting. We wondered if this behavior was perceived as inalterable or problematic in only the general classroom setting and not the selfcontained classroom. If team members were resistant to including him in general education classes, failing to address his behavior allowed this exclusion to continue. Conflicting evidence was presented as validation of Aaron's eligibility determination and placement; however, this was likewise uncontested during the meeting, A discussion about Aaron's educational diagnosis might not have occurred if the principal had not brought up the mother's concerns. The psychologist and the mother were the main participants in the eligibility discussion, with the psychologist advocating for an educational diagnosis of cognitive disability and the mother expressing concern that her son may qualify under the category of autism. Although the psychologist characterized Aaron's social skills as "really nice," she presented data indicating that his social skills fell below the normal range. However, nobody pointed out this discrepancy. Likewise, no assessment for autism was conducted, Mehan et al, (1986) observed that the psychologist's evaluation data holds the most value in special education decision-making, another
19
possible explanation for the lack of group discussion. Interviews revealed that group members had alternate hypotheses about the educational diagnosis that they did not express during the meeting. One explanation for the team's silence may be that they were "saving face," According to Goffman (2005), people conduct themselves during social interactions to avoid being disgraced or humiliated or to save face for themselves as well as for others. Individuals are likely to attempt to save face during situations in which they aim to maintain consistent professional identities, and they attempt to save the face of others with more power and prestige. Members of the school-based team may have avoided disagreeing because they wanted to protect themselves from embarrassment in front of their professional peers or Aaron's parents. The presence of authority figures, like the school principal and special education director, also may have contributed to team members' interest in saving face (Goffman, 2005), Giangreco (2001) suggests that IEP teams should establish formal expectations and procedures to ensure team members feel comfortable expressing divergent opinions. Informal Communication Informal communication that did or did not take place prior to the meeting had a strong impact on the proceedings of the meeting. Due to the team's practice of bringing completed, "proposed" goals to the meeting, the special education teacher had written a goal that was inconsistent with evaluation data that were shared during the meeting. Combined with a lack of prior communication, this created an uncomfortable situafion. Writing goals prior to the IEP meeting is inconsistent with recommended practice; however, ongoing communication and advance preparation are essential components of collaborative teaming and a logistical necessity (Turnbull & TumbuU, 2001), If the evaluation data and ideas for goals had been discussed prior to the meeting and goals developed during the meeting, the special education teacher may not have been taken off guard when her goal did not match the results found by the psychologist during the evaluation, Aaron's mother engaged in informal communication with other team members and fellow parents prior to the meeting, impacting the decisions and decision-making process. She reported that she had networked extensively with other parents of children with disabilities in the area, and some school-based team members speculated that her communication with other parents was the reason she was pursuing an autism diagnosis. The principal explained that she was aware that Aaron's mother was concerned about his diagnosis due to previous conversations and, therefore, ensured that the mother's concerns were aired. Although numerous informal conversations leading up to the meeting reportedly occurred between Aaron's mother, preschool teacher, principal, special education director, and related service providers, the
20
Ruppar and Gaffney
nature of these conversations and their consequences for the decision-making process is unknown. IEP Document and Power The special education director used the IEP document as a guide for leading the meeting and input the team's decisions into the document as the meeting progressed. In so doing, she exerted a great deal of power over the creation of the IEP. The IEP is a legal document and mandated by the federal government, so the authority of the IEP document in driving educational decision-making is bundled up with the power of lawmakers and the threat of litigation. The order of the IEP document served as the defacto meeting agenda, thereby dictating aspects of the decision-making process. The meeting was also structured in an ordered turn-taking approach, which may have hindered coUaborafion and discouraged parental contribufion. Because the special education director also held the position of greatest authority in the group, she may have inadvertenfly curtailed collaboration and discussion among team members during the meeting because she also was the manager of the IEP document. Although the intention of mulfidisciplinary IEP teams is to ensure that multiple perspectives are considered when decisions are made, the relative power of the various team members significantly influences the outcome of the meefings. The special education director solicited input about Aaron's placement, but her own suggestion was likely considered to be more prescripfive than she may have intended. To distribute leadership among team members, another team member, such as the special education teacher, may be designated as the meeting leader. Alternatively, leadership may be rotated among several team members throughout the course of the meeting according to a predetermined agenda. Best practice suggests that teams should establish and share roles (e.g., facilitator, recorder, and timekeeper), establish procedures that ensure all members have opportunities to participate and establish expectations that support team members' expression of divergent opinions (Friend & Cook, 2009; Giangreco, 2001). An alternative to using the IEP as the meeting agenda is to consider devising agendas based on individualized priorities determined prior to the meeting. An alternate agenda may provide a structure for identifying areas of agreement, as well as any outstanding issues, throughout the course of the meeting. This type of agenda could provide the team with clarity as each porfion of the meeting is completed. Giangreco (2001) proposed that all team members should have an opportunity to contribute to the IEP meeting agenda and should know about it prior to the meeting. By reducing reliance on the IEP documents, team members may share power during decision-making processes, preventing the IEP document form from overriding the function. Rather than a turn-taking approach, conversation during an IEP meefing may be encouraged by considering
each of the child's needs from a transdisciplinary perspective. An ordered turn-taking or "round robin" approach discourages team members from seriously considering the perspectives of others, risks becoming bureaucratic, and undervalues the expertise of teachers (Pugach & Johnson, 1989). An alternative is to discuss goals in the context of school activities rather than according to individual special education services in a transdisciplinary approach (Giangreco, Cloninger, Dennis, & Edelman, 1993). If goals are discussed within the context of schoolrelated activities rather than within disciplinary domains, all team members may feel more able to contribute throughout the discussion. Access to the General Curriculum Several factors that have been discussed raise questions about how Aaron would be provided with access to the general curriculum. As previously explained, Aaron's behavior was a contributing, though unspoken, reason that the team decided he should spend 70% of his day in a self-contained classroom. The discussion of his educational placement did not include any menfion of his goals or curricular access. In interviews, many team members reported that they felt students' placements should be determined before determining goals, a practice inconsistent with recommendations about IEP development (Drasgow, Yell, & Robinson, 2001). The relationship between Aaron's curriculum and the contexts for instruction was unclear during the decision-making process. Because the IEP document served as the meeting agenda, the discussion of placement occurred after Aaron's goals were determined. However, the team was not prompted to consider the goals when making the placement determination. Prompts embedded in the IEP to invite discussion may help alleviate the consequences of teams adhering to the document to guide the meeting (Jung, 2009). Several curriculum planning tools exist that provide structured approaches for determining students' general education curricular access and access to inclusive educational contexts (e.g., Browder & Spooner, 2006; Giangreco, Cloninger, & Iverson, 1998; Janney & Snell, 2004, 2011). It was not clear from our study if the team was aware of such curricular planning tools, thought such tools were unnecessary to use, or saw barriers to their implementation. Recommendations for Research This IEP meeting for a student with a severe disability provided a rich context for analysis, given the number of team members and extensive nature of the meeting agenda. Likewise, because many decisions are made during initial evaluations and transitions between programs, these types of meetings may be useful to study in the future. Transdisciplinary goals have been recommended in curriculum development tools (e.g., Giangreco et al., 1998); however, discipline-specific goals continue to characterize students' curriculum. Because the IEP served as a defacto agenda, future studies should examine the effects
21
Individualized Education Program Team Decisions
of utilizing different types of agendas during IEP meetings on the decisions and decision-making processes. The barriers to these approaches and the factors influencing their implementation should also be studied. Although this and other studies have examined team members' perspecfives on IEP meetings, further research is needed to analyze the communication among team members at IEP meetings. Future studies should build on these preliminary findings on the discourse at IEP meetings with consideration for the conversational turns, initiations, and questioning used. Additional research would guide communication among professionals during collaborative decision-making processes. Communication among team members leading up to the meefing seemed to influence the decisions and decision-making process; however, communication outside the meeting was not a focus of this study. Several key team members worked in multiple districts across the county, making precommunication and collaborafion difficult. Further exploration of ways to collaborate at a distance, perhaps with the use of emerging teleconferencing technologies, is warranted. Likewise, observations and interviews can be used to study the interactions and collaboration of IEP team members prior to IEP meetings.
Limitations This study concerned the decision-making process of one IEP team for one student in one school district. Therefore, it is a modest explorafion of the experiences of these team members. Case study methodology was chosen to provide a rich description of the mulfiple political, social, and interpersonal factors influencing the decisions made on behalf of a student with significant disabilities. A limitation of this methodology is that no generalizations may be made to other IEP meetings under different sets of circumstances. We suspect, however, that many of our findings cross variables of district size, disability, and diversity contexts. Interview data were limited to one interview per team member, each averaging 20 min. Some interviews were conducted over the phone. The decision was made to conduct phone interviews because we wanted interviews to occur as close in time as possible to tbe IEP meeting. However, phone interviews constrained our ability to read our participants' faces as a guide for probing further or moving on in the conversation. Our data nevertheless met the quality indicators for qualitative interview research in special educafion proposed by Branflinger et al. (2005). Because 10 of the 11 IEP team members were interviewed, the participants were of adequate number and representative of the populafion of interest (Brantlinger et al., 2005). Our interview questions pertained to this single IEP meeting and were therefore "appropriate and sufficient for exploring the domains of interest" (Branflinger et al., 2005, page 202). AU of the IEP team members, with the excepfion of the father, were women; all were Caucasian. Communicafion
among team members may have been influenced by the team's homogeneous nature. Further studies of teams in a variety of contexts wUl yield information useful to a wider audience.
Conclusion IEPs have steadfastly remained the heart of special education. IEPs are the defining document by which schools are held accountable for the provision of special and related services. The team decisions are not trivial for the child, the family, or the school personnel. Despite the importance of IEP meetings in the lives of children with disabUities and their families, little is known about the discourse related to decision-making at these meetings. A critical and in-depth analysis of one case provides a beginning understanding about the complexity of relafionships that influence educational opportunifies afforded a child with a severe disability. Through analysis of an IEP meeting, interviews of IEP team members, and student record review, this study contributes to a preliminary understanding of communication and decision-making at IEP meetings. Furthermore, this close examination of one situated case yielded factors, such as the discourse structure of IEP meetings, the influence of roles on interactions in the decisionmaking process, and the impact of available placements on IEP decisions tbat need to be considered in every meefing. The findings of this study reflect the practical implications of the discourse processes and high-impact decisions made by teams on behalf of a student with a disabUity.
References Bogdan, R. C , & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klinger, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195-207. Browder, D. M., & Spooner, F. (Eds.) (2006). Teaching language arts, math, and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Drasgow, E., Yell, M. L., & Robinson, T. R. (2001). Developing legally correct and educationally appropriate IEPs. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 359-373. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan. Etscheidt, S., & Knesting, K. (2007). A qualitative analysis of the factors influencing the interpersonal dynamics of a prereferral team. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 264-288. Freeman, M., deMarrais, K., Preissle, J., Roulston, K., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher, 36, 25-32. Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2009). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall. Giangreco, M. F. (2001). Guidelines for making decisions about IEP services. Montpelier, VT: Vermont Department of Education.
22
Ruppar and Gaffney
Giangreco, M. F., Cloninger, C. J., Dennis, R. E., & Edelman, S. W. (1993). National expert validation of COACH: Congruence with exemplary practice and suggestions for improvement. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18,109-120. Giangreco, M. E, Cloninger, C J., & Iverson, V. S. (1998). Choosing outcomes and accommodations for children (COACH). Baltimore: Brookes. Goffman, E. (2005). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction. Harry, B., Allen, N., & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Communication versus compliance: African American parents' involvement in special education. Exceptional Children, 61, 264-311. Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 US.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004) (reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1990). Janney, R. E., & Snell, M. E. (2011). Designing and implementing instruction for inclusive classes. In M. E. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (7th ed., pp. 224-256). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice-Hall. Janney, R. E., & Snell, M. E. (2004). Practices for inclusive schools: Modifying schoolwork (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Jung, L. A. (2009, April). Effects of embedded prompts in the IFSP form on the quality of early intervention service planning. Paper presented at the Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Martin, J. E., Marshall, L. H., & Sale, P (2004). A 3-year study of middle, junior high, and high school IEP meetings. Exceptional Children, 70, 285-297. Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. L., Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E., Christensen, W. R., Woods, L. L., et al. (2006). Direct observation of teaeher-direeted IEP meetings: Establishing the need for student IEP meeting instruction. Exceptional Children, 72, 187-200. Mehan, H., Hertweck, A., & Meihls, J. L. (1986). Handicapping the handicapped: Decision-making in students' educational careers. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Franeiseo: Jossey-Bass.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law No. 107-110,115 Stat.1425 (2002). Pugach, M., & Johnson, L. (1989). Prereferral interventions: Progress, problems, and challenges. Exceptional Children, 56, 217-226. Spillane, J. P, Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and eognition: Reframing and refoeusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387^31. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tumbull, A., & Tumbull, R. (2001). Eamilies, professionals, and exceptionality: Collaborating for empowerment (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Vaee, N. A., Valleeorsa, A. L., Parker, A., Bonner, S., Lester, C , Richardson, S., et al. (1985). Parents' and edueators' participation in IEP conferences. Education & Treatment of Children, 8,153-162. Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D., & Agran, M. (2001). Achieving aecess to the general curriculum for students with mental retardation: A curriculum decision-making model. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 327-342. Wehmeyer, M. L., Sands, D. J., Knowlton, H. E., & Kozleski, E. B. (2002). Teaching students with mental retardation: Providing access to the general curriculum. Baltimore: Brookes. Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, R., & Mitchell, J. (1982). Special education team decision-making: An analysis of current practice. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60, 308-313. Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, R., Riehey, L., & Graden, J. (1982). Declaring students eligible for learning disability services: Why bother with the data? Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 37-44. Received: June 24, 2010 Final Acceptance: September 24, 2010 Editor in Charge: Martha Snell
Copyright of Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities is the property of TASH 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.
