Parents' Perspectives of Collaboration with School Professionals ...

School Mental Health (2013) 5:3–14 DOI 10.1007/s12310-012-9102-0

ORIGINAL PAPER

Parents’ Perspectives of Collaboration with School Professionals: Barriers and Facilitators to Successful Partnerships in Planning for Students with ASD Vanessa Tucker • Ilene Schwartz

Published online: 12 January 2013 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Both parents and school professionals (e.g. teachers, administrators, related service providers) are stakeholders in the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) process. Despite the fact that the inclusion of parents as full members in the process has been mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act since it was originally passed in as PL 94-142 in 1975, parents continue to report encountering barriers to equitable participation. To probe the barriers and facilitators to full team membership, we administered a mixed-methods survey study to parents of students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (n = 135) exploring the nature of their perceptions of collaboration. Common barriers to collaboration included opportunities to provide input, communication difficulties with school teams, and negative perceptions of school professionals. School administrator actions identified as facilitators of collaboration included attendance at IEP meetings, quick response to phone calls, and assistance with acquiring resources. Parents reported low levels of perceived disability-specific staff knowledge regarding ASD. Quantitative findings from this survey sample indicate that a large number of parents of children with ASD reported experiencing difficulty and/or were not included in the special education collaborative process. Implications and recommendations for school administrators and teams are discussed. Keywords Autism School-based intervention Parents IEP Collaboration

V. Tucker Pacific Lutheran University, Parkland, WA, USA e-mail: [email protected] I. Schwartz (&) University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction Including parents as partners in the special education and Individualized Education Plan (IEP) process in a meaningful way is no easy task. This mandate has been in place since 1975 (PL 94-142, 20 USC 1400 et seq.); however, districts have continued to struggle with creating consistent, collaborative, and successful partnerships with families. Parental participation is one of the six main tenets of IDEA (34 C.F.R. § 300.321, 2004) and has often been cited as one of the most important components of the law. While the intention of including parents as full team members is clearly spelled out, designing and implementing meaningful parental participation is not an unambiguous or easy process (e.g. BlueBanning, Summers, Frankland, Nelson, & Beegle, 2004; Curtis, 2005; Epstein, 1995; Fish, 2006; Gershwin-Mueller, Singer, & Draper, 2006; Hodge & Runswick-Cole, 2008; Turnbull, Turnbull, Erwin, Soodak, & Shogren, 2011). Parents are theoretically equal stakeholders in the IEP team—yet how their membership role is perceived and put into practice remains variable (Muscott, 2002; Tveit, 2009). Tveit (2009) described parents as viewing themselves outside of a ‘‘closed institution’’ (p. 293). They are not paid (employed) members of the ‘‘school district/local education agency’’ or the IEP team. Therefore, they are automatically outside of the organization that serves their child and are automatically disadvantaged by losing time at their jobs (if employed) while helping school officials to complete their jobs. These and other dynamics can widen or narrow the gap across which the bridge must be built for effective partnerships (Soodak & Erwin, 1995). These phenomena are worrisome in light of the fact that parental advocacy efforts contributed substantially to the eventual rights and safeguards that make up IDEA today (Seligman & Benjamin-Darling, 2009).

123

4

There are also a number of less obvious factors that influence collaboration and equal membership. Johnson, Pugach, and Hawkins (2004) discussed potential barriers to collaboration including (a) logistical problems, (b) communication problems, and (c) lack of understanding schools. In order to build a bridge to collaboration, the education field has to continually examine stakeholders’ perceptions so that our efforts span the distance toward effective teaming. Families vary in their ability to attain acceptable roles of membership and perceived positions of authority regarding their child’s needs (Soodak & Erwin, 1995). Muscott (2002) stated ‘‘Parents are calling out to be heard by professionals. Is anyone listening?’’ (p. 69). Interactions between school professionals and families influence the dynamics of the working relationship. In addition to the extra care burden and monetary obligations that are often associated with raising a child with a disability, parents of children with special needs are required to meet more frequently with school teams. The time expenditure is different from other families—including time spent in the evaluation process as well as IEP meetings. Qualitatively different parental encounters are possible with school professionals as a result of their own child’s unique profile. These can include requesting resources, possible disagreement regarding the nature of services offered, questions of least restrictive environment, and addressing challenging behaviors. Stoner et al. (2005) noted that often parents are viewed as being peripheral to the education decision-making process and in some cases, as ‘‘obstacles or adversaries’’ (p. 39). Parents of children with an autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) and their experiences of educational collaboration are of particular interest to this discussion. This group represents a growing percentage of the population of special needs families. The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC, 2012) reported in 2012 that the incidence of ASD in the general pediatric population had risen to 1:88, with a 600 % increase in the past two decades (CDC, 2009, 2012). The field of special education should be highly concerned about meeting the needs of this growing group. This includes preparing educational and administrative staff to work effectively and equitably with parents and families. Involving families is considered a core element of effective services for children with ASDs (Iovannone, Dunlap, Huber, & Kincaid, 2003; National Research Council, 2001). Parenting a child with special needs is a different journey. Regardless of diagnosis, parents of children with disabilities face a number of challenges that parents of typically developing children rarely experience (Stoner, Bock, Thompson, Angell, Heyl & Crowley, 2005). Raising a child with ASD can create challenges that in many ways set them apart as a group from even other families with children with disabilities. Learning and behavioral differences can impact many aspects of the child’s development as well as the family experience.

123

School Mental Health (2013) 5:3–14

Many children with ASD, who are able to complete grade level or advanced academics but require behavioral and social support continue to baffle public schools. Despite variability in children with this diagnosis, there are similarities reported in the literature regarding parenting challenges. These include increased stress (Higgins, Bailey, & Pearce, 2005), financial constraints (Jarbrink, Fombonne, & Knapp, 2003), increased caretaking (Abelson, 1999; Freedman, Litchfield & Warfield, 1995; Jinnah & Stoneman, 2008; Montes & Halterman, 2008), hidden social costs (Siklos & Kerns, 2006), and dealing with challenging behaviors (Fox, Vaughn, Wyatte, & Dunlap, 2002; Worcester, Nesman, Rafaelle-Mendez & Keller, 2008). On top of the associated stressors of raising a child with an ASD comes the added parental responsibility of participating as a member of an educational team. While collaboration with families is considered best practice, evidence of conflict with school teams continues to mount across the due process litigation literature. Parents of children with an ASD represent a significant number of these cases. Indeed, legal issues around ASD-related educational issues are the fastest growing area of special education law (Etscheidt, 2003; Zirkel, 2002). Due process proceedings result in tremendous expense on the part of parents and school districts—both financial and in less quantifiable ways, such as the damage to working relationships (Blue-Banning et al., 2004; Nowell & Salem, 2007). Conflicted situations stem from multiple disagreements and perceptions of participants being unwilling to compromise (Melamed & Reiman, 2000; Mueller, 2009). Lake and Billingsley (2000) examined factors that escalate and deescalate conflict between parents and school districts by interviewing these two parties and their mediators who often find themselves navigating problem-solving situations. They identified several factors from their data that escalated conflict between parties including (a) discrepant views of child’s needs, (b) knowledge, (c) service delivery, (d) reciprocal power, (e) constraints, (f) valuation, (g) communication, and (h) trust. One of the main sources of discord identified by this study was parents’ perceptions of school professionals’ ‘‘deficit perspectives’’ when focusing on their child. This perspective placed emphasis on what was wrong with the child and was viewed by parents as counterproductive to effective collaboration and successful programming. The authors also discussed the need for increased knowledge—from school staff’s ability to effectively communicate to parents identifying their own needs for more information about working through the special education process. School professionals identified their own need to better prepare parents before they ‘‘look elsewhere’’ (p. 242) for education and assistance. This paper examines a set of results from an internetbased survey study regarding perceptions of collaboration and conflict between parents of children with an ASD and


school professionals. The following two broad questions are addressed: 1.

2.

What do parents of children with ASD identify as issues related to collaboration and conflict in the IEP process? What factors facilitate parents’ satisfaction with the educational planning process involving special needs students?

Method Instrument An internet survey was used for this study. This method was chosen in order to sample a larger population including geographically distant participants. Survey instruments were designed using a five-section framework. These five sections included: (a) collaboration, (b) supportive practices and professional behavior, (c) conflict and resolution, (d) service needs, and (e) educational and outcome priorities. The instrument had 36 total questions and required approximately 30 min to complete online. The survey instrument was designed in multiple stages, with multiple goals in mind. The first author conducted a review of the literature in order to come up with a basic framework and list of questions. The survey started with a list of undifferentiated questions that were later grouped into the five sections mentioned above. The grouping of questions into five categories was done purposefully for later data organization and analysis, and crossed both groups. Three parents of children with ASD, from a local chapter of an autism-related parent support group, agreed to participate as early reviewers and provided extensive feedback about content as well as readability. Each parent had at least one child with an ASD of school age and was willing to meet for approximately 1 h to review the survey. Another volunteer took each survey in front of the first author by reading aloud and answering each question verbally. Each question was discussed and reviewed for readability of the question as well as the potential answers. All feedback was considered within multiple revisions. After obtaining IRB approval, each survey instrument was programmed into an electronic survey platform where a unique resource locator (URL) was created. A copy of the survey is available upon request from the first author. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected via the survey, although only quantitative data are reported here. Quantitative data were obtained primarily through forcedchoice or ranking questions, although an ‘‘other’’ or short text box was always available. The authors made a decision to limit the amount of choices a participant could select

5

rather than allowing them to ‘‘select all’’ within the survey. Results are reported as frequencies for each response/ question. Most questions gave respondents the ability to choose up to three answers as well as providing written text in the ‘‘other’’ box; however, some questions only offered binary-only choices or fill in with short to long text options. Sampling Methods Two local school districts in Washington State agreed to participate in this project and assist in recruitment. One was small suburban school district located and the other a large urban school district; both were near military bases. Both were chosen intentionally based upon their high numbers of students with disabilities, as well as interest each district’s director expressed in participating. Each district is considered geographically bound to a ‘‘Compassionate Transfer’’ military installation and historically serve higher than expected numbers of children with ASD. District personnel agreed to give a copy of an invitation letter to every family of a child identified as having an ASD in their district (multiplex families were identified and provided with only one copy). The letter provided a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for the parent and a general description of the survey. Although teachers were given the opportunity to ask clarifying questions and were given a procedural handout, no questions or concerns were raised. A total of 225 families received handouts across the two districts. Potential participants were also recruited via email by both electronic invitations sent to mailing lists (e.g. parent advocacy groups) and paper handouts at meetings. A total of ten parent advocacy groups and two public autism-specific websites received the letter and agreed to participate in disseminating the invitation. Agencies were given email text to copy and use with their proprietary lists as well as the URL link. The survey links were open and active for a total of 8 weeks. The survey invitation contained a URL and was posted by several websites online and open to the public. We were not able to calculate percentage of return for several reasons. First, the survey did not include an identifier or a number. Second, the survey URL could also have been passed from the original parent groups to others by word of mouth or forwarding. Participants A total of 135 parent respondents completed the survey. The participants were primarily female (n = 128, 95 %). All paper surveys (n = 3, 2 %) were returned by females. The definition of ‘‘parent’’ for the purpose of this study was someone who was the legal parent, grandparent as primary caregiver, stepparent or foster parent a child with ASD between the ages of 3–25. Of the 135 respondents, four identified themselves as ‘‘grandparent.’’ Due to the

123

6


anonymous nature of this survey, it is difficult to determine if these participants are representative of parents of students with ASD in general. First, 95 % of the respondents had access to the internet. In addition, it is possible that this sample was comprised primarily of participants who were more highly motivated to give feedback, perhaps because of a negative interaction with a school team. Respondents were asked to describe their child with ASD. While 135 total surveys were returned, some of the participants noted that they had more than one child with an ASD. Respondents were asked to report data about one child on the survey. Of the 135 children with ASD, 13.3 % (18) were between the ages of 2–5, 29.6 % (40) were between 6 and 9, 37.7 % (51) were between 10 and 15, and 19.2 % (26) were between 16 and 21. Respondents were asked to identify the known diagnosis of their child with ASD. Respondents reported having a child with Autistic Disorder (n = 56, 41.4 %) followed by Asperger Syndrome (n = 51, 37.7 %), PDDNOS (n = 14, 10.3 %), Rett Syndrome (n = 1, .007 %), and ‘‘Other’’ (n = 13, 9.6 %). Respondents reported the gender of their children (n = 135) as predominantly male (n = 120, 88 %). Data on verbal ability and school placement are described in Table 1.

section to support the discussion and to provide tentative recommendations regarding facilitators of collaboration. Collaboration A key component of creating successful collaboration is ensuring involvement by all members in the educational process. Multiple components of collaboration were explored in this part of the survey, including parents’ perceptions of their own involvement, ways they felt the team included them, and their perceptions of school professionals. Parent respondents were asked about their level of involvement in the IEP process. Parents (n = 135) rated their involvement as ‘‘High’’ (n = 96, 71 %), ‘‘Moderate’’ (n = 31, 23 %), ‘‘Very Little’’ (n = 4, 3 %), and ‘‘None’’ (n = 4, 3 %). The overwhelming response of parents who perceived themselves as very involved in the IEP process may have been influenced by the parents who were motivated to respond to the survey and may not be reflective of all parents. Data regarding collaboration are displayed in Table 2. For all data in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5, only frequencies of 20 % or more are reported. Methods of Including Parents and Families

Results Data from this survey provided insight into parents’ perceptions of collaboration with their children’s school professionals, as well as sources of potential conflict. Both of these issues are discussed from the frames of what facilitates and hinders the collaborative partnership. Aspects parents valued regarding collaboration are discussed first. Parents’ perceptions of professionals are discussed. This is followed by a review of aspects identified as creating conflict or barriers to collaboration. Data regarding parental priorities for training and services are included within this

Table 1 Verbal ability and school placement Child-specific information

(n = 135)

%

Respondents were asked to identify the top three ways they were included (by the school team) in the IEP/Educational process. Parents reported that school teams acted to involve them by ‘‘Asking for my input into the IEP draft’’ (n = 82, 60 %), ‘‘Providing regular communication about my child’s progress’’ (n = 63, 46 %), and ‘‘Planning and writing goals and objectives with me’’ (n = 40, 30 %). Asking for input into the IEP was overwhelmingly the top Table 2 Collaboration and inclusion in the IEP/Educational process Respondent data

(n = 135)

%

Asking for my input into his/her draft

82

60

Providing regular communication about my child’s progress

63

46

Planning and writing goals and objectives with me

40

30

Maintain regular communication with me

46

34

Include my suggestions for goals and objectives for the IEP

42

31

As needed

45

33

Weekly

27

20

Collaboration strategies

Valued methods of collaboration Public school placement (per parent report) Public preschool

15

12

Public elementary

63

51

Public middle school

23

19

Public high school No public school placement reported

22 12

18 9

Verbal ability (per parent report)

Frequency of communication with school staff

Types of communication from school staff

Proficient

40

30

In-person discussion

43

32

Delayed

39

39

Phone calls

42

31

Somewhat proficient

37

27

Daily written reports

30

22

123


7

Table 3 Supportive practices and professional behavior Respondent data

Table 5 Parent’s quantitative study, service needs

(n = 135)

%

Attends IEP and other meetings

69

51

Teaching social skills

83

62

Quick response to questions/phone calls/emails

57

42

Creating inclusive opportunities for my child

58

43

Assists the staff in my child’s program to access resources and training

52

39

Teaching communication skills

56

42

Autism and disability-specific information

54

40

Helps staff work through problems (e.g. challenging behaviors)

47

35

How to deal with challenging behaviors

54

40

Assists me to work through problems in my child’s program

40

30

Helps school administration understand special education and the law

39

29

Listens to me-lets me talk things through when I need it

32

24

Helpful actions

Respondent data

(n = 135)

%

Parents’ training priorities

Addressing sensory needs

41

30

Outside community programming options for my child and family

33

24

Parents’ service priorities Training for staff (disability-specific)

70

52

More staff to support program

57

42 40

More related services (e.g. speech, OT)

54

Open and honest with me and others

56

41

More placement options

46

34

Provides leadership to handle problems in my child’s program

56

41

Support for challenging behaviors

38

28 27

54

40

Case management for accessing services (in and out of school)

36

Takes my suggestions into account regarding my child’s IEP Knowledgeable about my child’s disability Responds quickly to my phone/email

53 46

39 34

Gets along well with my child’s team-a team player

30

22

Assists to access resources in and out of school

27

20

Valued school professional qualities

Table 4 Perceptions of school professionals: knowledge and confidence Respondent data

n = 135

%

Training for staff on alternative therapies

30

22

Facilitate gatherings to meet other parents

28

21

71

53

Most valued services Inclusion in general education Access to highly trained staff

60

44

Access to trained autism/behavior specialist

57

42

Speech, O.T., P.T. services

54

40

Access to quality instruction and materials

37

27

Paraeducator assistance

34

25

Help with challenging behaviors

30

22

Perceived level of school professional knowledge Somewhat

42

31

Very high

33

24

Not very

29

22

High

28

21

Not confident

39

29

Somewhat confident

35

26

Confident

33

24

Confidence to handle problems

choice identified by parents, with regular communication about progress also rated highly. Planning and writing IEP content relates to the larger category of input and was the third highest endorsed area. These data are reported in Table 2. Parents were asked to rank more than one item, and therefore, percentages will exceed 100 %. Valued Methods of Collaboration Respondents were asked to identify the most important methods of collaboration by the IEP team. The methods

most frequently identified included ‘‘Maintain regular contact with me’’ (n = 46, 34 %), ‘‘Include my suggestions for goals and objectives for the IEP’’ (n = 42, 31 %), and ‘‘Include my suggestions for curriculum or instructional approaches’’ (n = 18, 13 %). Maintaining regular contact, such as providing regular communication about progress, was rated highly by parents in this survey. Including parents’ input was again rated highly by respondents in this study. Parents identified their desire to collaborate by providing their own input regarding IEP content including curriculum, instructional approaches, and goals/objectives. Data are reported in Table 2. Communication Practices Communication with school teams was identified by parents during the survey development process as a priority area for data collection. Parent volunteer reviewers assisted to develop survey questions dealing specifically with school to parent communication as a subset of collaboration. Survey respondents were probed regarding communication in terms

123

8

of importance, frequency, and type. This section refers to parents’ preferences. Data indicate that parents overwhelmingly rated frequent communication as ‘‘Very important’’ (n = 123, 91 %) while a small group endorsed ‘‘Somewhat important’’ (n = 12, 19 %). The desired frequency of communication with school staff was identified as ‘‘As Needed’’ (n = 45, 33 %), ‘‘Weekly’’ (n = 27, 20 %), and ‘‘Several Days Per Week’’ (n = 22, 16 %). Types of communication parents reported receiving from the school included ‘‘In-Person Discussion’’ (n = 43, 32 %), ‘‘Phone Calls’’ (n = 42, 31 %), and ‘‘Daily Written Reports’’ (n = 30, 22 %). Communication was identified earlier in this survey as a highly valued method of collaboration, and ranked highly again in this question, with an emphasis on frequency. That a large number of parents chose ‘‘As Needed’’ is an interesting finding and is indicative of the need to further research parents’ needs for individualized methods and frequency of communication. Communication with school staff remains a continued area of focus for improvement in our everyday educational practice and an ongoing priority area for families. Data are reported in Table 2. Professional Practices and Behaviors Creating successful collaboration opportunities for all IEP team members involves supportive and intentionally planned practices. Collaboration has a better chance of working when school leaders make it a priority. School professionals are in positions of educational leadership and are expected to set the tone for partnership within IEP teams. Parental perceptions of team leaders can assist the field to understand possible hidden barriers to effective partnerships. Respondents in this study were asked about their perceptions of school professionals within the context of their experiences the IEP process. These questions dealt with both what school professionals do, or their actions, as well as parents’ perceptions of their level of knowledge and confidence in their abilities to lead their child’s school team. Helpful Actions Parents were probed regarding their perceptions of helpful school professional actions. ‘‘Attends IEP and other meetings’’ was rated most frequently (n = 69, 51 %) followed by ‘‘Quick response to phone calls and emails’’ (n = 57, 42 %) and ‘‘Assists the staff in my child’s program to access resources and training’’ (n = 52, 39 %). These responses indicate that parents value school professionals’ presence at meetings, quick communication, and provision leadership to access resources for their child’s team. Parents indicated that they highly valued certain professional qualities or behaviors such as ‘‘Open and

123


honest with me and others’’ (n = 56, 41 %), ‘‘Provides leadership to handle problems in my child’s program’’ (n = 56, 41 %), and ‘‘Takes my suggestions into account regarding my child’s IEP’’ (n = 54, 40 %). Specifically, these data reflect that parents valued professionals who were able to be present to assist, respond quickly when needed, help to access resources, communicate well, and are open to parents’ input. These data are summarized in Table 3. Parents were asked to rank more than one item, and therefore, percentages will exceed 100 %. Perceptions of Knowledge Respondents in this survey also expressed areas of concern regarding their child’s school professional. Respondents were asked to indicate their perceptions regarding the level of knowledge of staff regarding their child’s disability. Ratings varied from ‘‘Very High’’ to ‘‘None’’ on a 5-point Likert scale. Results were mixed across respondents. The most frequently endorsed perception of knowledge was ‘‘Somewhat’’ (n = 42, 31 %) followed by ‘‘Very High’’ (n = 33, 24 %), ‘‘Not Very’’ (n = 29, 22 %), and ‘‘High’’ (n = 28, 21 %). This is an interesting finding considering a previous question probing parents about valued qualities in school professionals. When asked what qualities parents valued in a school professional, 53 (39 %) indicated ‘‘Knowledgeable about my child’s disability.’’ It is difficult to determine, due to the design of the online survey, if parents were referring to a valued quality they currently had or one they would prefer to have. In other words, more information is needed to inform our field regarding parents’ perceptions of knowledge regarding autism. Data are listed in Table 4. Confidence Parents develop opinions regarding the competence of the leaders in charge of their child’s educational program. This survey probed parents’ reported level of confidence in their leaders, specifically in the school professional’s ability to handle problems. The most frequently endorsed area was ‘‘Not confident’’ (n = 39, 29 %) followed by ‘‘Somewhat confident’’ (n = 35, 26 %) and ‘‘Confident’’ (n = 33, 24 %). This is an area that should be monitored and more deeply probed for what causes parents to feel a lack of confidence in their school professional’s ability to solve problems. However, it is also important to determine what influences confidence in parents and how those practices can be replicated. Data are listed in Table 4. Service Needs Parents in this survey indicated professional behaviors and actions that assisted with collaboration. Another aspect of


creating better collaborative practices is to attempt to understand what parents want. Understanding parents’ priorities can assist teams during the process of educational planning. One survey question probed parents’ priorities for knowledge and training for their child’s staff. This question was designed to further explore perceptions of knowledge by delving into areas parents felt needed more professional development and attention. A large number (n = 83, 62 %) endorsed ‘‘Teaching social skills’’ followed by ‘‘Creating inclusive opportunities for my child’’ (n = 58, 43 %) and ‘‘Teaching communication skills’’ (n = 56, 42 %). Parents’ responses indicated their desire for more capacity in teaching skills in two core impairment areas of autism—communication and social skills. In addition, parents identified the desire for increased skill in strategies for inclusion. These desires and others rated on the survey should be taken into consideration when planning professional development for staff. A related question asked respondents to identify service areas they felt would be helpful for themselves and their families. The most commonly chosen response was ‘‘Training for staff on my child’s disability’’ (n = 70, 52 %) followed by ‘‘More staff to support the program’’ (n = 57, 42 %) and ‘‘More services (e.g. speech, occupational therapy)’’ (n = 54, 40 %). Parents’ frequently rated priorities for further staff training echoed those who voiced concerns in the survey with current levels of knowledge among school professionals. Per this data set, parents desired more training for school staff in general and more supports in the form of staffing and related services. These priorities should be taken into consideration during all aspects of the planning and implementation process. Parents were asked to rate which services, from a given list, they felt were most valuable for their particular child. ‘‘Inclusion and social opportunities in general education’’ was rated highest (n = 71, 53 %) followed by ‘‘Access to highly trained staff’’ (n = 60, 44 %) and ‘‘Access to trained behavior/autism specialist’’ (n = 57, 42 %). Again, training and perceived skill continued to be endorsed by parents in this survey, particularly for training in autismspecific issues. Inclusion and inclusion opportunities were also endorsed highly by this group. These data are displayed in Table 5. Parents were asked to rank more than one item, and therefore, percentages will exceed 100 %. Sources of Conflict Parents shared actions taken by teams to collaborate as well as efforts on the part of school professionals to help support partnerships during educational planning. At times, these practices were missing, ineffective, or mismatched to parents’ unique needs. Conflict was probed in this survey in order to learn about frequency as reported by parents and to

9

uncover potential causes. Aspects of conflict reflect breakdowns in the collaborative process and represent an important area for further study. Aspects of conflict are reviewed as well as strategies parents valued for navigating conflict. Breakdowns in Collaboration This survey explored, among other things, possible barriers to collaboration in order to inform the field about directions for remediating and creating more facilitative practices. The scope of the problem needs to be more fully understood by the special education community. For that reason, respondents were also asked if there was ever a time that they felt they were not included in their child’s educational collaboration and planning. A large majority (n = 89, 66 %) reported ‘‘Yes’’ to this question with a smaller number reporting ‘‘No’’ (n = 46, 34 %). A related question asked respondents to recall what might have happened to make them feel as though they were not a part of collaboration and planning. Respondents endorsed ‘‘My ideas and suggestions were not included’’ (n = 39, 44 %) followed by ‘‘No regular communication’’ (n = 37, 42 %). Two other areas were equally rated including ‘‘IEP created without my input’’ (n = 30, 34 %) and ‘‘Outside provider information was not considered’’ (n = 30, 34 %). Input and communication continued to be a common theme throughout this entire survey when looking at most frequently chosen items. Parents, in this survey set, highly valued opportunities to give their input into their child’s educational plan and wanted regular communication regarding their child’s progress. Thirty-four percent of those responding to this question indicated that conflict resulted when outsider input was not considered. As outside/independent evaluations and outside consultations become more prevalent, the field of special education will need to learn more about how to best utilize these information sources. When these aspects are neglected or in some way thwarted, the stage may be set for potential conflict. When asked specifically about whether they had experienced conflict with school teams, parents overwhelmingly reported ‘‘Yes’’ (n = 112, 83 %) compared to ‘‘No’’ (n = 23, 17 %). If a respondent answered ‘‘No,’’ they were redirected by skip logic to another section. Those who answered ‘‘Yes’’ were probed further about the types of conflict they recalled experiencing with school teams, their district or a school professional. Parents identified ‘‘Disagreement over IEP content (services, goals and objectives) as the top area of conflict’’ (n = 74, 66 %) followed by ‘‘Disagreement over placement decisions’’ (n = 63, 56 %) and ‘‘Disagreement over curriculum or instructional approach’’ (n = 58, 52 %). These disagreements reflect the

123

10


general tendency of this group to desire input regarding their child’s program in a number of ways, including IEP content, instructional approaches, and placement. Data regarding conflict and resolution are displayed in Table 6. Parents were asked to rank more than one item, and therefore, percentages will exceed 100 %. Strategies to Resolve Conflict School teams and their leaders need to understand parents’ opinions and experiences regarding conflict. In addition, they (teams) need to have a better understanding of what parents identify as supportive methods of conflict resolution. Parents were asked their opinions about strategies implemented to resolve their disagreements with districts and perceived effectiveness. Out of 135 total respondents, only 111 answered this question, reflecting that some respondents chose not to answer. This could be a reflection of those in the group who had not experienced conflict with a school team. Those who did respond rated each possible area on a 5-point Likert scale with the following descriptors: (a) Highly effective, (b) Effective, (c) Somewhat Table 6 Sources of conflict and resolution Respondent data

(n = 135)

%

74

66

Reported types of conflict Disagreement over IEP content (services, goals, and objectives) Disagreement over placement decisions

63

56

Disagreement over curriculum or instructional approach

58

52

Disagreement over discipline issues

32

29

Disagreement over evaluation results

31

28

Personality or style conflicts

30

27

93

84

Effectiveness of resolution strategies Meet in person: highly effective/somewhat effective Highly effective

20

18

Effective

25

23

Somewhat effective

48

27

Bring advocate: highly effective/somewhat effective

57

51

Highly effective

26

23

Effective

13

12

Somewhat effective Talk over the phone: highly effective/somewhat effective

18 52

16 47

Highly effective Effective

3

3

19

17

Somewhat effective

30

27

Request placement change

34

31

Call for mediation

27

24

123

effective, (d) Not effective, or (e) Not applicable. The possible choices included (a) Talk over the phone, (b) Bring an advocate with me, (c), Call for mediation, (d) Request placement change, or (e) Due process. The three strategies most frequently rated as ‘‘Highly’’ to ‘‘Somewhat Effective’’ combined are reviewed here and listed with the top three frequencies in Table 6. Parents rated ‘‘Meet in Person’’ (combined: n = 93, 84 %) as (a) Highly Effective most frequently (n = 20, 18 %) followed by (b) Effective (n = 25, 23 %) and (c) Somewhat Effective (n = 48, 43 %). ‘‘Bring an Advocate With Me’’ (combined: n = 57, 51 %) was rated as (a) Highly Effective (n = 26, 23 %) followed by (b) Effective (n = 13, 12 %) and (c) Somewhat Effective (n = 18, 16 %). While the next response of ‘‘Talk on the Phone’’ (combined: n = 52, 47 %) did not have as many ratings in (a) Highly Effective (n = 3, 3 %), it had high ratings in (b) Effective (n = 19, 17 %) and (c) Somewhat Effective (n = 30, 27 %). This particular data set has ramifications for school teams as they consider ways to navigate conflicts. Eightyfour percent of parents in this study rated meeting in person higher than any other choice in the selection. An advocate’s presence was also felt to be a valuable resource for addressing conflict, as was talking on the phone. Teams should consider these methods when attempting to resolve conflicted situations with families, as these in particular were perceived as parents to be supportive.

Discussion This study sought to provide more information to substantiate and describe the experiences of parents during IEP collaboration, specifically with teachers and school administrators in supervisory roles. The first intent was to learn more about how parents view collaboration including what methods of participation with their IEP teams are valued. The second intent was to further the discussion and create more understanding about conflict and propose ways school teams can remove barriers that contribute to conflict. The group of parents responding to this survey described themselves as willing to be involved in their child’s educational program, but found it difficult to do so because of their perceived barriers constructed by the school district. Some of these barriers include difficulties with communication and disagreements about school placements, programs, and services. Parents provided input about possible helpful remedies including increasing the type and frequency of communication, accessing information to be better prepared, and having their input valued as a member of the IEP team. These results suggest that special educators must develop a deeper understanding of parents’ perspectives so that teams and leaders can use this


information to be proactive. This discussion reviews the results of this study and outlines implications and recommendations based upon these findings. Facilitating Collaboration Parents reported high levels of involvement in their child’s educational process. Parents indicated that school districts facilitate this involvement by taking their input into account, maintaining regular communication and planning/ writing IEP content. Parental input in the IEP process is a critical component of creating a collaborative partnership. In fact, partnership with families continues to be a mandate of IDEA 2004 and a best practice for supporting children with ASDs (Iovannone et al., 2003). Fostering successful parental participation is intentional, planned and ultimately the responsibility of the educational agency. It was apparent from the survey responses that parents’ value providing input into their child’s IEP in a number of ways. These identified methods included writing IEP goals and objectives, providing input into curriculum and instructional approaches, selecting placement options, and bringing outside provider information to the table. However, it was also very apparent, from this limited data set, that special educators continue to miss the mark when including parents as valued members IEP team members (Soodak & Erwin, 1995). Although parents want to participate as members of the IEP, educators are often still, as Tveit (2009) discussed, a ‘‘closed institution’’ for families. Parents’ roles and levels of participation on their child’s IEP teams are still variable. When conflict arose, one reported reason was the lack of parents’ perceived ability to give input and participate fully. When parents push to include their input during times of conflict, they may find themselves even farther on the periphery of their child’s team and in an adversarial position (Stoner et al., 2005). Certainly, the high percentage of respondents in this survey who claimed past episodes of conflict indicates that our field must still make changes to the way it trains teams for collaboration. A logical approach to address these issues is to build awareness of the importance and overall benefit of working with families in an ongoing and collaborative manner. Starting at the pre-service level for teachers, related service providers, and administrators’ coursework and practicum experiences should be included on collaboration and positive approaches to problem solving. The first level of awareness is for the school staff to step back and note that there is an entire life outside of their institution that is not ‘‘school.’’ Awareness of the tensions and juggling of multiple responsibilities inherent in raising a child with an ASD is critical. Educators should periodically attempt to view the larger picture of parenting and advocating a child with a disability,

11

specifically ASD. Families of children with disabilities must interact with school teams for longer hours than a typical family. They are expected to, per IDEA, be members of an IEP team but do this without pay and on top of all other responsibilities that are inherent in parenting a child with an ASD. Planning for parental input and participation includes being responsive to the unique needs each family brings to the table as well as resisting the urge to treat every family the same. Developing this understanding early in the process can help IEP teams to individualize the ways that they structure meeting times, provide information for planning, and communicate progress. Teams should recognize that certain practices denigrate parents’ abilities to be a fully informed member of the IEP team. For example, presenting a ‘‘finished draft’’ of an IEP or evaluation paperwork to parents at an IEP team meeting is an all too common phenomenon. When parents are presented with paperwork they have never seen and are not given time to review, in the presence of others who have had access in advance, it places the parent in a position of automatically being underprepared and undervalued. Parents cannot participate fully as members of the IEP if they do not receive the same information as other team members. If we as educators really want to create opportunities for input, we must change our practices. A simple but significant step toward improving parent perception of collaboration and team membership to insure that parents have access to all documents that will be discussed at an IEP meeting at least 24 h before the meeting. Another strategy would be for educators should ask about their preferences for giving input including the method as well as the content the beginning of the IEP process. A parent may feel much more comfortable, for example, giving input about behavior and less so about academics or vice versa. One finding that deserves further research attention is the parents’ valuation of outside provider information as input. Further study of this and the related practice of independent educational evaluations is necessary and warranted. The second level of awareness includes understanding and appreciating the relevance of the child’s home and community life when planning and conducting a program. School professionals do not live, in most cases, in the same ‘‘world’’ as the parents with whom they are attempting to collaborate. Parents and other family members possess a unique lens—they live in a world in which certain skills are needed or valued, based on their home expectations and cultural practices (Seligman & Benjamin-Darling, 2009). This world is uniquely their own and will differ with each family. They also have a mind’s eye not only on the present, but also on the future. Unlike IEP teams, who are in a time-limited position with a family, the parent is there for the life of the child both now and beyond schooling. The perspective of the parent represents a critical piece in our planning puzzle. The skills we choose to teach can and

123

12

should generalize into other life settings, such as home and the community. Giving parents a voice into the skills we teach, materials we use, and settings in which these occur becomes a much more critical goal when we consider the larger picture. Parental input is a critical piece in the planning process if we ever hope to achieve educational outcomes that help students and their families obtain personal goals and achieve a better quality of life (Carr, 2009). A third level of awareness involves the recognition that collaboration with families takes work and should not be an afterthought when things go wrong. Strong and successful partnerships do not happen by accident. Planning with the recognition that there is not a ‘‘one size fits all approach’’ is vital. This survey indicated that parents want much more than to be present at meetings. Providing parents with a platform for input into the IEP and instruction is a priority identified by respondents in this survey. Communication was a frequently identified issue in this data set. This furthers the findings of other authors who have identified this as both a facilitator of collaboration and a source of conflict (BlueBanning et al., 2004; Lake & Billingsley, 2000). Parents in this survey identified that they valued regular communication and professionals who provide timely communication (e.g. returning phone calls and email). Regular communication not only affords parents access to information they may not get otherwise, but also implies that they are a valued voice and member of the team. School teams would be wise to proactively determine parents’ preferences for communication. Parents in this survey were quite mixed in their reported preferences regarding this area. Developing a communication plan, including frequency, topic, and type early in the process, gives both parents and teams structure. Teams may wish to create a standard protocol that is filled out at the beginning of the IEP process outlining this information. This information can then be shared with other team members so that everyone is informed. This survey aimed to provide insight into qualities parents value in a school professional/leader. Respondents valued an open and honest relationship, a leader who could provide solutions and access resources, and who honored their input. Parents saw presence at meetings as helpful and valued those who provided quick return communication. These preferences are informative to administrators who want to develop positive relationships with parents. In essence, these areas are indicative of the need for the school professional to be available to the family and the team. Attending meetings, making face to face contact, and making return communication a priority are all ways to build bridges. Parents in this survey expressed mixed impressions of the level of their child’s school professionals’ knowledge about autism. Knowledge about this disability area was identified as a valued school professional quality. Parents who doubt the level of knowledge or skill of their leaders and team may

123


develop a lack of trust in their professionals (Angell, Stoner & Shelden, 2009). This may also lead to a waning sense of confidence in their leaders to make decisions and handle problems, a highly valued characteristic identified by parents in this survey. Respondents reported mixed levels of confidence about the staff working with their children. This is a difficult area to address, as the reasons for these perceptions are likely to vary considerably and be influenced, to some extent or another, by the parent’s past experiences that may or may not have anything to do with their current leaders. This area needs to be explored for the possible contributors toward confidence or lack thereof. In the meantime, leaders who wish to improve their practice may wish to refer to the parents’ valued qualities to improve their practice. Being more responsive, being present, and taking their input into account may change negative perceptions. These small changes can make a huge difference in the quest to create positive and successful partnerships. A large percentage of parents indicated that they had experienced conflict with an IEP team. Input and communication were again identified as problematic areas. This underscores the need for teams to carefully and proactively plan for both of these aspects to take center stage as part of the professional partnership. Common areas of disagreement with teams included IEP content (e.g. goals, service matrix), placement, curriculum, instruction, and discipline. These aspects all relate back to the theme of parents’ input into their child’s program. Whether academic or behavior, parents want and need to provide their own input as a member of the team. Findings regarding conflict in this study substantiate previous work regarding the need for proactive and intentional collaboration (Angell et al., 2009; Blue-Banning et al., 2004; Gershwin-Mueller et al., 2006; Hodge & Runswick-Cole, 2008; Lake & Billingsley, 2000) and support the need for teams to consider how they can increase opportunities for parental input. If teams find themselves in conflict or on a path to disagreement, parents’ preferences need to be considered when planning for resolution. Parents identified meeting in person, bringing an advocate, and talking over the phone as viable strategies to resolve disputed issues. While conflict is at times inevitable, teams can and should adopt proactive strategies that increase communication and input opportunities as a means of actively avoiding this unfortunate turn of events. Conflicted situations place great strain on partnerships and make future collaboration more difficult for all involved (Blue-Banning et al., 2004; Nowell & Salem, 2007). If conflict does arise, the team may want to regroup and engage reflection around the broad issues raised in this survey: (a) Are we providing the parent with ways to participate and give input?, (b) Are we engaging in communication that is individualized and meets their needs for information?, and (c) Are we providing leadership that


promotes being present, actively and openly communicating, and assisting to access resources? If we truly want to live by the premise that it is our job as educators to design partnerships that include parents, we must accept that responsibility and look inward when things go wrong. Future Directions This small, exploratory survey study of parents raising a child with an ASD and their collaboration or conflict with school professionals and teams reinforces others’ findings, but also highlights the need for continued study and new directions. Research should continue to explore and develop a deeper understanding of practical ways to create opportunities for parents to provide input. Outside providers provide many therapies and services to children with ASD. Their voice is valued as a method of input by families. Further study is needed to determine the role of the outside provider, what input they offer, why parents place value here, and how we as educators can best use this information. Further study is also needed to probe the role of the school professional/leader and those behaviors that promote positive partnerships and collaboration with parents and teams. Finally, further research is needed to understand the nature of conflicted situations, particular those involving children with an ASD. While the expectation for parental participation is in place per IDEA, we have a long way to go as a field from an ideal to reality. Limitations This small survey was conducted almost entirely over the internet and advertised to a specific geographic location. For that reason, it may not be representative of all parents with of children with ASD. The internet-only nature of this survey inherently limited those who did not have access to the web. While a paper survey was offered, only three of the 135 total returns were in paper format. The nature of an instrument of this type also limits the breadth of answers a respondent can choose from a pre-written list. These results are a preliminary effort designed to further investigation into family experiences with collaboration and are not intended to provide the full picture of the phenomena. It would also be helpful to sample other states to note any regional differences in parents’ preferences and experiences.

References Abelson, A. G. (1999). Respite care needs of parents of children with developmental disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14(2), 96–100.

13 Angell, M. E., Stoner, J. B., & Shelden, D. L. (2009). Trust in education professionals: Perspectives of mothers of children with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 30(3), 160–176. Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J. A., Frankland, H. C., Nelson, L. L., & Beegle, G. (2004). Dimensions of family and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for collaboration. Exceptional Children, 70(2), 167–184. Carr, E. G. (2009). The expanding vision of positive behavior support research perspectives on happiness, helpfulness, hopefulness. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 9(1), 3–14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2009). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorders—Autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, United States, 2006. MMWR Surveillance Summary, 58(SS-10), 1–20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2012). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorders—Autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 14 sites, United States, 2008. MMWR Surveillance Summary, 61(3), 1–19. Committee on Educational Interventions for Children with Autism, National Research Council. (2001). Educating children with autism. National Academies Press: Washington, D.C. Curtis, S. E. (2005). Parents and litigation: Insights from a special education law clinic. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(7), 510–514. Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Public Law 94-142 (1975). 20 USC 1401 et seq. Epstein, J. L. (1995). School, family and community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701–713. Etscheidt, S. (2003). An analysis of legal hearings and cases related to individualized education programs for children with autism. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28(2), 51–69. Fish, 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. Fox, L., Vaughn, B. J., Wyatte, M. L., & Dunlap, G. (2002). We can’t expect other people to understand: Family perspectives on problem behavior. Exceptional Children, 68(4), 437–450. Freedman, R. I., Litchfield, L. C., & Warfield, M. E. (1995). Balancing work and family: Perspectives of parents of children with developmental disabilities. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 76(8), 507–514. Gershwin-Mueller, T., Singer, G. H. S., & Draper, L. M. (2006). Reducing parental dissatisfaction with special education in two school districts: Implementing conflict prevention and alternative dispute resolution. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 18(3), 191–233. Higgins, D. J., Bailey, S. R., & Pearce, J. C. (2005). Factors associated with functioning style and coping strategies of families with a child with an autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 9(2), 125–137. Hodge, N., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2008). Problematising parentprofessional partnerships in education. Disability and Society, 23(6), 637–647. Iovannone, R., Dunlap, G., Huber, H., & Kincaid, D. (2003). Effective educational practices for students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(3), 150–165. IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). 34 C.F.R. § 300.321. Jarbrink, K., Fombonne, E., & Knapp, M. (2003). Measuring the parental, service and cost impacts of children with autism spectrum disorder: A pilot study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorder, 33(4), 395–402. Jinnah, H. A., & Stoneman, Z. (2008). Parents’ experiences in seeking childcare for school age children with disabilities: Where is the breakdown? Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 967–977.

123

14 Johnson, L. J., Pugach, M. C., & Hawkins, A. (2004). School-family collaboration: A partnership. Focus on Exceptional Children, 36(5), 1–13. Lake, J. F., & Billingsley, B. S. (2000). An analysis of factors that contribute to conflict. Education, 21(4), 240–251. Melamed, J. C., & Reiman, J. W. (2000). Collaboration and conflict resolution in education. High School Magazine, 7(7), 16–20. Montes, G., & Halterman, J. S. (2008). Childcare problems and employment among families with preschool-aged children with autism in the United States. Pediatrics, 122, 202–208. Mueller, T. G. (2009). Alternative dispute resolution: A new agenda for special education policy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20(1), 4–13. Muscott, H. (2002). Exceptional partnerships: Listening to the voices of families. Preventing School Failure, 46(2), 66–69. Nowell, B. L., & Salem, D. A. (2007). The impact of special education mediation on parent-school relationships. Remedial and Special Education, 28(5), 304–315. Seligman, M., & Benjamin-Darling, R. (2009). Ordinary families, special children: A systems approach to childhood disability (3rd ed.). New York City: The Guilford Press. Siklos, S., & Kerns, K. A. (2006). Assessing need for social support in parents of children with autism and down syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 921–933.

123

School Mental Health (2013) 5:3–14 Soodak, L. C., & Erwin, E. J. (1995). Parents, professionals and inclusive education: A call for collaboration. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 6(3), 257–276. 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 Developmental Disabilities, 20(1), 39–51. Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., Erwin, E. J., Soodak, L. C., & Shogren, K. A. (2011). Families, professionals and exceptionality: Positive outcomes through partnership and trust (6th ed.). Pearson. Tveit, A. D. (2009). A parental voice: Parents as equal and dependentrhetoric about parents, teachers, and their conversations. Educational Review, 61(3), 289–300. Worcester, J. A., Nesman, T. M., Raffaele-Mendez, L. M., & Keller, H. R. (2008). Giving voices to parents of young children with challenging behavior. Exceptional Children, 74(4), 509–525. Zirkel, P. (2002). The autism case law: Administrative and judicial rulings. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 17(2), 84–95.