34 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

TEA

CH

ING

Exc

epti

onal

Chi

ldre

n,

Vol.

36,

No.

3,

pp.

34-3

9. C

opyr

ight

200

4 C

EC.

EncouragingActive ParentParticipation inIEP Team MeetingsDiane Marie Dabkowski

H ow did you do? If you wavered abit, you should know that many

educators are also unsure. This articleprovides tools and processes that canhelp welcome parents into school asequal partners in their children’s educa-tion.

Team CultureLet’s explore team attitudes and prac-tices and the potential effect of thebehavior of team members on activeparent participation in decision making.

Though all IEP teams come togetherfor the purpose of developing an IEP,team culture usually dictates theprocess by which the meeting takesplace (by culture, we mean the attitudesand beliefs that are valued by a particu-lar team). Among other attributes,teams demonstrate their culture in thefollowing ways:

• The procedure by which peopleshare information.

• Who speaks at meetings.• How influential their perspective is

in making decisions.

• The specific recommendations peo-ple make.

• The expressed beliefs about instruc-tional strategies and their effective-ness.For example, one professional may

serve as meeting facilitator and domi-nate the discussion, whereas on otherteams, all members may actively partici-pate in discussions. Some teams may bequick to recommend a particularinstructional strategy or placement, andothers may be reluctant to do so.

Team culture dictates the ease or dif-ficulty with which parents gain accept-ance as team members (Briggs, 1997).Some teams, for example, may encour-age parent participation throughout themeeting, whereas others may encouragesuch participation only at the end.Further, team culture may affect parentparticipation by the way the team struc-

Now answer these questions honestly:

Are parents equal partners with you in the education

of students with disabilities?

Do you actively invite parents, accommodate

their schedules, and welcome their differing cultural

contributions?

Are you aware of cultural and linguistic team

processes or environments that might make parents

uncomfortable?

Are you wondering how to improve parent participation

in your decision-making processes?

tures the meeting environment, the lan-guage team members use, or the respectteam members give differing culturalvalues.

Meeting Environment

Conference space in school buildingscan range from formal, well-appointedconference rooms to converted storagerooms with small tables and foldingchairs. Though seemingly an issue of lit-tle importance, the physical environ-ment in which the IEP meeting takesplace and how teams use that spacemay affect the comfort levels of parents.Thus, the level of parent participationmay be affected. (See the examples inthe box, “Parental Reactions to IEPMeeting Environments.” )

In Example 1, Mary Smith felt dis-tanced from the team rather than a teammember. She may, therefore, believethat her contributions to the meetingwould seem of little value to the profes-sionals. For some parents, this belief

may result in a reduced willingness toactively participate. Barbour andBarbour (2001) suggested that teamscan use seating arrangement to estab-lish a sense of equity among meetingparticipants. Sitting beside the parentcan remove both physical and psycho-logical distance. Using a round confer-ence table eliminates a sense of hierar-chy among participants that may other-wise exist when particular team mem-bers are seated at the head of a rectan-gular table.

In Example 2, the physical environ-ment in which the meeting took placereduced Catherine Brown’s comfortlevel and participation. Professionalteam members need to recognizechanges in parental comfort level

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ JAN/FEB 2004 ■ 35

Example 1. On arrival at Pine Ridge

Elementary School, Mary Smith was

escorted to the room in which her

son’s IEP meeting would take place.

Mary noticed that the professional

team members had already arrived

at the room. They seated themselves

along one of the long sides as well

as at both short ends of the rectan-

gular table. Mary took the lone seat

in the middle of the remaining side.

This seating arrangement made

Mary feel isolated from the rest of

the team. …

Example 3. Other than responding briefly to

questions posed to her, Mrs. Jones sat quietly

throughout her son’s IEP meeting. This surprised

Lisa Brown, Eric’s special education teacher. Lisa’s

encounters with Mrs. Jones were quite different.

When meeting with Lisa, Mrs. Jones contributed a

great deal to the discussion. She frequently asked

questions to gain a better understanding of her

son’s progress and educational program. Typically,

she did not hesitate to offer suggestions or express

her concerns. At one point during the IEP meeting,

Lisa expected Mrs. Jones to express a difference of

opinion with the other team members. This did not

happen. At the conclusion of the IEP meeting, Lisa

pulled Mrs. Jones aside; and the two sat down

alone. When asked if she had any questions about

the new IEP, Mrs. Jones reverted back to the

woman Lisa knew. …

Parental Reactions to IEP Meeting Environments…

Example 2. The IEP meeting for CatherineBrown’s daughter was held in a formerstorage room located between the boys’ and girls’ bathrooms in one wing of theschool building. The meeting coincided withthe morning bathroom break for some ofthe classes in that wing. Catherine did nothave to strain to hear the conversations ofthe children in the bathrooms. “If I canhear them,” Catherine wondered silently,“what can they hear about my child?”Catherine contributed little to the meetinguntil the bathroom noises subsided. …

Team culture means the attitudes and beliefs

that are valued by aparticular team, such as theprocedure by which peopleshare information and whousually speaks at meetings.

brought about by uncontrollableevents. They must be flexible in con-ducting meetings so that such changescan be accommodated.

Aside from the physical environ-ment and use of space, parent partici-pation may be influenced by the cli-mate or tone set by the professionalteam members. Climate is evidencedin the way in which team interactiontakes place (Briggs, 1997). Parentsmay perceive meeting climate along a

continuum from inviting to intimidat-ing. In Example 3, Mrs. Jones did notactively participate during the IEPmeeting, yet she did so when meetingalone with the special educationteacher. When the teacher provided

Mrs. Jones with a debriefing period in anenvironment more suited to her needs, shewas able to participate in the discussionabout her son’s new IEP.

Culture, Language, andMeaning

The cultural context through whichboth parents and professionals formtheir personal value systems con-tributes to their ability to make jointdecisions. An understanding of theteam process, including the role ofparticipants’ cultural background,can influence the effectiveness of IEPteams (see box, “What Does theLiterature Say About Parent Partici-pation.”)

Cultural differences can result indisparate beliefs about disability andthe nature of disabilities servedthrough special education services.This disparity may result in differinggoals for the child’s educational pro-gram (Cloud, 1993; Lamorey, 2002).Perhaps more significantly, culturalbeliefs influence the value placed onparent-professional partnerships indecision making, a concept not val-ued equally across cultures (Kaly-anpur, Harry, & Skrtic, 2000). In aprofessional team culture, partici-pants should respect these differ-

36 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

What Does the Literature Say About Parent Participation?

IDEA. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA} Amendments of 1997 mandate that par-ents be included as members of the team that develops the evaluation plan, determines eligibility, andmakes decisions about the individualized education program (IEP) and placement (Federal Register,1999, p. 12472).

Despite the importance attributed to active parent participation on teams, parents are not necessarilypartners in the decision-making process (Garriott, Wandry, & Snyder, 2000; Harry, Allen, & McLaughlin,1995; Salembier & Furney, 1997). Some parents choose to limit their participation in making decisionsabout their child’s program. Some other parents continue to find their efforts to participate blocked asa result of barriers they encounter in the decision-making process. The body of research conducted inthis area has resulted in the identification of issues such as attitudes, cultural background, logistics,and parental responsibilities as some of these barriers (Rock, 2000).

IEP. The most significant venue for exercising the right to parent participation in decision making isthe IEP meeting. The IEP meeting process must adhere to legal requirements relative to what should beincluded in the IEP. At the same time, it must meet legal requirements relative to who participates onthe IEP team and how, including the parent (Council for Exceptional Children, 1999; Drasgow, Yell, &Robinson, 2001; Huefner, 2000).

Get Real. In practice, however, opportunities for parent participation in making decisions can vary con-siderably. Such participation may vary not only from one school district to another, but also from schoolto school, depending in part on the people who serve on the team.

Though studies that have focused on team process and effects are limited, some evidence suggests thatan understanding of the team process can influence team effectiveness (Fleming & Monda-Amaya,2001).

Recognizing and addressing culturaldifferences are important ingredientsin successful IEP team meetings.

Teams need to ensure acomfortable physicalenvironment for IEP

meetings.

ences. Teams should structure theirdecision-making processes to addressthese differences when they arise, ratherthan merely dismiss them.

For example, cultural beliefs mightresult in a parent indicating agreementwith a team decision out of respect forprofessional educators rather than con-viction. Professional team membersneed to be aware when such a possibil-ity exists and provide another avenuefor a parent’s voice to be heard. Here,this might be accomplished through theavailability of a parent liaison with asimilar cultural background.

Language barriers do not alwaysrefer to linguistic differences or the useof professional jargon (Berry & Hard-man, 1998). Language barriers to activeparent participation may exist amongnative English speakers and in theabsence of professional jargon. Whetherintended or not, language preferencesand practices embedded in team culturecan create a barrier to active parent par-ticipation. For example, a parent invitedto participate in an IEP meeting may bemore likely to do so than a parent whois invited to observe their child’s IEPmeeting. A professional who couples anindifferent attitude with a suggestionthat a parent speak up “if they want”may send a message that the team ismerely going through necessarymotions rather than placing any valueon what might be said.

Implications for PracticeAs we have seen, IEP meetings can be asource of stress for parents. Profession-als can take action to reduce potential

stress by recognizing the effect of theirteam practices on parental comfort lev-els. Professional team members, there-fore, need to engage in ongoing self-reflection and analysis to ensure a teamstructure that reduces stress and pro-motes active parent participation. Teammembers must be willing to focus onteam effectiveness, as well as teamresponsibilities (Briggs, 1997).

The work of Briggs (1997), Cloud(1993), and Lamorey (2002) lays thefoundation for reflection, analysis, andobservation of the team meeting process(Figures 1 and 2). Team self-reflectionshould begin on an individual level byevaluating one’s own attitudes andbeliefs about the team meeting process.In turn, teams should recognize howindividual beliefs contribute to teamculture and influence parent participa-tion. Figure 1 presents suggested ques-

tions to consider in the self-reflectionprocess.

Further, team members shouldobserve the meeting process and ana-lyze it to determine how the meetingactualizes team culture and whetherteam practices provide opportunities foractive parent participation. Figure 2presents an observation form thatincludes important focal points.

Changing Team Practices ThroughReflection and Analysis

After considerable self-reflection andanalysis, a team may decide that oppor-tunities for parent participation wouldbe heightened by changes in the way itsteam meetings are conducted. The teammight adapt the framework for changeoutlined by Hord (1992).Shared Vision. Create a shared visionfor new team-meeting practices by dis-

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ JAN/FEB 2004 ■ 37

Figure 1. Professional Team Member Self-Reflection:Questions to Consider

Individual-Level Reflection

• As an individual, what are your beliefs about disability and specialeducation services? What effect does this have on your contribution toindividualized education program (IEP) development?

• In general, what role should the parent(s) play on the team? Observer?Provider of information? Decision maker?

• Who should be responsible for making decisions? The parent(s)? Aspecific team member? The team as a whole (including parents)?

• What value do you place on the collaborative process? How shouldyour team implement this process to ensure equitable opportunity forparticipation among all team members?

Team-Level Reflection

• Has the team reached consensus on each of the preceding issues?

• How does the team respond to diversity of opinion on these issues?Are conflicts resolved? Does the team maintain its effectiveness whenopinions differ?

• In general, how might lack of consensus on any of these issues affectparent participation in your IEP meetings?

• Do the attitudes and beliefs held jointly by the professional team mem-bers enhance opportunities for parent participation or diminish them?

Postmeeting Reflection

• Does the way in which your team conducts a meeting reflect team atti-tudes and beliefs?

• What changes should be considered to better reflect attitudes andbeliefs that will enhance parent participation?

In a professional teamculture, participants

should respect cultural differences

in how people view theconcepts of disability and

parent-professionalcollaboration.

38 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

cussing the results of the analysisamong team members. Recognize thatparents and administrators also have astake in this process. Teams shouldinclude these participants in the discus-sion. From the discussion, team mem-bers can generate—and prioritize—goals for transforming the new visioninto practice. For example, a team maydecide to request a change in facilitiesfor team meetings.

Resources. Some goals may requireresources in the form of time, money,clerical support, or supplies. Teamsshould identify such resources at thesame time they generate goals.

Training. To assist with proposedchanges, team members may benefitfrom professional development activi-ties, including participation in inserviceprograms, attending conferences, observ-ing other teams’ practices, or using con-sultation resources. After the team hasestablished its vision, it should considerand prioritize training needs, along withother goals.

Monitoring. Teams should recognizethat effecting change in team practicesis accomplished over time. It may helpto identify a team member as “cheer-leader” who will keep the team focusedon its goals and monitor efforts towardimplementing the new vision. Thismonitoring may include intermittentobservation and analysis of team meet-ings.

School Culture. A school or district cul-ture that supports change would assistthe team in transforming their vision topractice. School principals and specialeducation administrators can enhancethe success of team efforts by advocat-ing for change on the team’s behalf.

Additional Considerations inChanging Team Practices

In an effort to reduce parental stress,Berry and Hardman (1998) suggestedthat teams provide parents with infor-mation regarding meeting logistics—location, time parameters, parkinginformation, and so forth (p. 134). Suchcommunication serves as a startingpoint for parents new to the IEP pro-cess. Team members need to give par-ents opportunities to become informed

about how to participate in the decision-making process, as well as about theirright to do so.

Schools and districts have foundmany creative ways that parents maybecome knowledgeable about parentalrights, their child’s disability, and avail-able services. (See Turnbull & Turnbull,2001, for a comprehensive discussion inthis area.) At the meeting level, howev-

er, specific teams should supplementgeneral knowledge about participationin IEP meetings with information abouttheir team processes. Teams can set upparent workshops or individualized pre-meeting planning sessions to informparents as to who will be in attendance,how people will share information,when and how the team will give par-ents opportunities for input, and whatparents can do to prepare for the meet-ing (Turnbull & Turnbull). In addition,information conveyed to parents shouldinclude avenues for follow-up to the IEPmeeting in case parents continue tohave questions or concerns relative totheir child’s program.

Final ThoughtsWalker and Singer (1993) pointed outthat the relationship between parentand professional is developmental innature. As professional team members

Parents who are supportedin their initial attempts to

participate in decisionmaking will likely continuethese efforts later in their

child’s school career.

Figure 2. Team Meeting Observation and Analysis of Practices

1. What professional disciplines are represented at the meeting? What role does each play?

Discipline Role

Discipline Role

Discipline Role

2. What roles do the parents play?

___ Observer ___ Provider of information

___ Decision maker

3. What team rituals are observed (e.g., who speaks when, how members are addressed, seating arrangement)?

4. What effect does the meeting environment have on parental comfortlevel and establishing equity among team members?

5. Does the manner in which professionals convey information reveal an awareness of the parent's cultural beliefs about disability?

6. What kind of information is shared and who presents it?

7. Is language used that will result in a mutual understanding of issues?

8. Is the meeting tone formal or more relaxed? How does this affect parent participation?

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ JAN/FEB 2004 ■ 39

develop relationships with parents newto special education services, teammembers must consider the long-termeffect of that relationship on active par-ent participation in decision making.Parents who are supported in their ini-tial attempts to be equitable team mem-bers in decision making will likely con-tinue to participate later in their child’sschool career. Professional team mem-bers should take these factors into con-sideration during the developmentalprocess.

Team members should view teampractices as a focal point for ongoingprofessional development. Recognizethat as the knowledge base related toteaming and collaboration grows, newand better practices may continue toemerge. Along with professional teammembers, parents and administratorswill require knowledge of new practicesand opportunities to employ them in anenvironment supported by all teammembers.

ReferencesBarbour, C., & Barbour, N. H. (2001).

Families, schools, and communities:Building partnerships for educating chil-dren. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Berry, J. O., & Hardman, M. L. (1998).Lifespan perspectives on the family anddisability. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Briggs, M. H. (1997). Building early interven-tion teams: Working together for childrenand families. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.

Cloud, N. (1993). Language, culture, and dis-ability: Implications for instruction andteacher preparation. Teacher Educationand Special Education 16, 60-72.

Council for Exceptional Children. (1999). TheIEP team guide. Reston, VA: Author.

Drasgow, E., Yell, M. L., & Robinson, T. R.(2001). Developing legally correct andeducationally appropriate IEPs. Remedialand Special Education 22, 359-373.

Federal Register. (1999, March 12).Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office.

Fleming, J. L., & Monda-Amaya, L. E. (2001).Process variables critical for team effec-tiveness. Remedial and Special Education,22, 158-171.

Garriott, P. P., Wandry, D., & Snyder, L.(2000). Teachers as parents, parents aschildren: What’s wrong with this picture?Preventing School Failure, 45, 37-43.

Harry, B., Allen, N. A., & McLaughlin, M.(1995). Communication versus compli-ance: African-American parents’ involve-ment in special education. ExceptionalChildren, 61, 364-377.

Hord, S. (1992). Facilitative leadership: Theimperative for change. Austin, TX:Southwest Educational Development Lab-oratory.

Huefner, D. S. (2000). The risks and oppor-tunities of the IEP requirements underIDEA ’97. The Journal of Special Edu-cation, 33, 195-204.

Kalyanpur, M., Harry, B., & Skrtic, T. (2000).Equity and advocacy expectations of cul-turally diverse families’ participation inspecial education. International Journal ofDisability, Development and Education,47, 119-136.

Lamorey, S. (2002). The effects of culture onspecial education services: Evil eyes,prayer meetings, and IEPs. TEACHINGExceptional Children, 34(5), 67-71.

Rock, M. L. (2000). Parents as equal part-ners: Balancing the scales in IEP develop-ment. TEACHING Exceptional Children,32(6), 30-37.

Salembier, G,. & Furney, K. S. (1997).Facilitating participation: Parents’ percep-tions of their involvement in the IEP/tran-sition planning process. Career Develop-ment for Exceptional Individuals, 20(1),29-42.

Turnbull, A., & Turnbull, R. (2001). Families,professionals, and exceptionality: Collabo-rating for empowerment (4th ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Walker, B., & Singer, G. H. S. (1993).Improving collaborative communicationbetween professionals and parents. In G. H. S. Singer & L. E. Powers (Eds.),Families, disability, and empowerment:Active coping skills and strategies for fam-ily interventions (pp. 285-316). Baltimore:Paul H. Brooks.

Diane Marie Dabkowski (CEC Chapter#279), Adjunct Assistant Professor, Depart-ment of Educational Leadership and SpecialEducation, Monmouth University, West LongBranch, New Jersey.

Address correspondence to the author atDepartment of Educational Leadership andSpecial Education, Monmouth University,Cedar Avenue, West Long Branch, NJ 07764(e-mail: dmdab@aol.com).

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 36,No. 3, pp. 34-39.

Copyright 2004 CEC.

The MotivAider is an ingeniouslysimple electronic device that helpschildren change their own behavior.Invented by a clinical psychologist,the device works by automaticallykeeping the child's attention focusedon making virtually any desiredimprovement.

A remarkably versatile and cost-effective tool: Used successfully inschools for over fifteen years, theMotivAider has helped children makea wide variety of behavior changes -from improving attention and reduc-ing aggression, to preventing boweland bladder accidents.

And the MotivAider hasn't justhelped kids. It's helped parents andteachers, too. It automatically and pri-vately prompts them to monitor aparticular aspect of a child's behavior,or to consistently respond in a partic-ular constructive way.

To find out more about the MotivAider and howand why it works, please visit us on the web at

www.habitchange.com

Behavioral Dynamics, Inc.207 Second Street East

Thief River Falls, MN 56701Phone: 1-800-356-1506

Fax: 775-599-7908 info@habitchange.com

Help KidsChange Their

Own Behaviorthe Easy Way...