PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTS OF STUDENTSWITH AUTISM TOWARDS THE IEP MEETING:

A CASE STUDY OF ONE FAMILYSUPPORT GROUP CHAPTER

WADE W . FISH

The University of Texas at Tyler

This case study investigated parental perceptions of studentswith autism towards the IEP meeting from one family supportgroup chapter in the north Texas area. Participants were asked toshare their experiences of previous IEP meetings and to provideinput regarding not only measures that school districts may taketowards improving IEP meetings, but actions that parents cantake to serve as better advocates for their children. Findingsrevealed that parents believed that educators did not value par-ents as equals, properly adhere to IEP objectives to facilitatestudent success, and routinely train families regarding specialeducation law. Findings should not be generalized across theentire population of students receiving special education ser-vices. Further investigation into parental perceptions amongdifferent disability categories, school districts, regions, and otherfamily support groups are suggested.

The individualized education program(IEP) was the primary component of PartB of the Education for All HandicappedChildren Act of 1975 and has maintainedimportance through the reauthorization ofIDEA 2004. The IEP serves to direct andmonitor all components of a student's spe-cial education program. These componentsinclude educational needs, goals and objec-tives, placement, evaluation criteria, presentlevels of educational performance, andduration of programming modifications.(Drasgow, Yell, & Robinson, 2001; H. Res.5,1997). The IEP functions as the blueprintfor the delivery of services to be providedfor students receiving special educationservices, as IEP regulations identify meet-ing dates, parental and student consent andaccountability, as well as responsibilitiesof educational agencies (Huefner, 2000).

Despite the fact that parent participationis mandated by law, legislation alone is notenough to get parents involved in schools(Deslandes, Royer, Potvin, & Leclerc,1999; Valle & Aponte, 2002). Parental roleshave not increased in IEP meetings, andpositive relationships between parents andeducators have not been ensured despitethe conceptualization and intent ofthe lawunder PL. 94-142 (Simpson, 1996).

Rock (2000) labeled the traditional IEPmeeting as a "meaningless ritual," as edu-cators implement and expect parents toapprove pre-determined educational pro-grams. Decreased parental feedback andparticipation towards IEP meetings havefacilitated legally inappropriate and edu-cationally unsound educational programsfor students receiving special educationservices.

56

Perceptions .../ 57

After analyzing forty-five public dueprocess hearings. Yell and Drasgow (2000)concluded that many schools failed todevelop educationally beneficial and legal-ly valid IEPs. These court cases involvedparents of students with autism challeng-ing school districts. Several school districtslost court cases due to making proceduralerrors by not making parents equal partnersin IEP meetings. Substantive errors includ-ed lack of individual programming toidentify student needs and determiningplacement for students prior to determin-ing goals and objectives is a violation thateducators frequently practice during IEPmeetings (Drasgow et al., 2001).

Many parents feel guilty, intimidated,disenfranchised, and alienated towards edu-cational systems (Goldstein, 1993; Kroth& Edge, 1997). Parents often view the IEPmeeting as an opportunity for educators tobrief them on the failures of their child.Parents are therefore, embarrassed toencounter educators resulting in their pro-viding little input during IEP meetings.Passive participation among parentstowards the IEP process is likely to hinderproductive planning of a student's educa-tion (Werts, Mamlin, & Pogoloff, 2002).

Many parents feel ill-equipped toaddress the educational needs of their chil-dren as they are unable to understandspecial education jargon and terminology(Goldstein, 1993; Lytle & Bordin, 2001).Parents are at a disadvantage as they oftenlack the expertise of their professionalcounterparts. Parents who feel ill equippedin making educational decisions regard-ing their children allow educators to easilyconvince parents that decision-makingshould be left to them (Rock, 2000).

While some parents choose to limit par-ticipation, many other parents believe thateducators deter participation. Despite theemphasis of family-centered interactionstowards educational planning under IDEA,education professionals still tend to dom-inate the decision-making process ineducational planning (Dabkowski, 2004;Tumbull & Tumbull, 1997). Parents believethat some educators fail to understand thesignificance of parental participation, asmany have been unsuccessful in promot-ing positive collaboration and facilitatingsuccessful parental involvement (PruittWandry & Hollums, 1998).

Effective communication among theIEP team members is essential in provid-ing best possible programs for studentsreceiving special education services (Lytle& Bordin, 2001). Factors which attributeto communication problems betweenteachers and parents of children receivingspecial education services include havinginsufficient opportunities to communicate,differences in attitudes and expectations,and lack of teacher knowledge pertainingto students receiving special education ser-vices (Munk et al., 2001). Parents oftencomplain that teachers do not initiateenough communication, and they fail tocommunicate with parents until problemsworsen (Harniss, Epstein, Bursuck, Nel-son, & Jayanthi, 2001; Munk etal., 2001).Schools can effectively facilitate commu-nication between parents and teachersthrough the employment of non-threaten-ing and positive communication strategies(Polloway, Bursuck, & Epstein, 2001).

Climate or tone established by the IEPteam members in addition to team culturecan influence parent participation in IEP

58 / Education Vol. 127 No. 1

meetings (Dabkowski, 2004). The cultureof the IEP team typically dictates the waythe IEP team members share information,who speaks, how influential each memberis towards the decision-making process,and determination of outcomes. Parentsshould possess equitable roles during IEPmeetings, as the essential insight they pos-sess conceming their children facilitatesthe success of the IEP process (Pruitt etal., 1998).

Despite the passage of P.L. 94-142,which mandates parental participation inthe educational planning of students receiv-ing special education services, educatorsare likely to dominate the decision-mak-ing process regarding educationaloutcomes of these students. Often times,IEP meetings have failed to build an equalpartnership among parents of students withautism and educators. Many school dis-tricts have been unsuccessful in buildingquality relationships with parents of chil-dren with autism. Due to parentalperception of unequal status, many par-ents may become discouraged frombecoming actively involved in their child'seducation while other parents are likely toattempt to obtain equal status with educa-tors in IEP meetings through due processor other forms of litigation measures.

The purpose of this study was to inves-tigate how parents of students with autismfrom one particular family support groupchapter perceived IEP meetings as well ashow they perceived being valued by edu-cators during the process. This case studyattempted to determine factors that con-tributed to the belief held by parents thattheir children were or were not being prop-erly served through IEP meetings. This

study further investigated participant inputregarding measures that both parents andeducators can take to improve IEP meet-ings.

Design of StudyThis study utilized qualitative method-

ology in the form of audio-recordedsemi-structured interviews to obtain theperceptions of parents of students withautism from one family support groupchapter towards the IEP meeting. Qualita-tive research is appropriate in dealing withpotentially multiple realities, mutuallyshaping influences, and value pattems (Lin-coln & Guba, 1985). Interviews serve thepurpose of "obtaining here-and-now con-structions of persons, events, activities,organizations, feelings, motivations,claims, concerns, and other entities" (p.268). According to Bogdan and Biklen(1998), semi-structured interviews encour-age interviewees to expand upon ideas,which provide the researcher opportuni-ties to generate abstract ideas throughdescriptive material.

ParticipantsRespondents participating in this study

consisted of parents of students with autismwho had attended public school districts inthe north Texas area. All respondents weremembers of a family support group chap-ter within the Association forNeurologically Impaired Children(AFNIC). AFNIC is a Texas-based, non-profit family support group advocatingquality educational services for childrenwith neurological disabilities includingautism.

Seven out of ten families from the sup-

Perceptions .../59

port group chapter participated in thisstudy. The demographics of parents whoparticipated in this case study consisted ofthree single parent households and fourmarried households from various educa-tional and occupational backgrounds. Allfamilies were of middle class socio-eco-nomic status. Participants had at least onechild diagnosed with autism currentlyattending or had previously attended eitherprimary or secondary school, and all hadprevious experience attending IEP meet-ings.

Data Collection and AnalysisThe interview questions conducted for

this study focused on the experiencesbetween satisfied and non-satisfied par-ents towards IEP meetings. Parents wereasked to share their experiences of previ-ous IEP meetings and to provide inputregarding not only measures that schooldistricts may take towards improving IEPmeetings, but actions that parents may taketo serve as better advocates for their chil-dren. Interview questions were createdutilizing literature review research andexperiences of IEP meetings by theresearcher. Participants in this study wereasked the following open-ended questionspertaining to parental perceptions of IEPmeetings.1. Describe the quality of services that

your child has received as a result ofyour child's IEP meetings.

2. How are you treated and perceived byIEP team members?

3. What changes would you desire per-taining to your child's IEP meetings?

4. What can school districts do to improveIEP meetings?

5. What can parents do to improve IEPmeetings?

Each interview participant was audiorecorded for accuracy, and audio record-ing was transcribed verbatim by theresearcher for facilitating increased in-depth knowledge. Inductive data analysiswas utilized once interviews were com-pleted and transcribed. According toLincoln and Guba (1985), researchers arelikely to identify multiple realities, fullydescribe the setting, and likely to identifymutually shaping influences during theimplementation of inductive analysis.

Data were analyzed by both researcherand an independent coder based upon cat-egories to construct meaning through theconstant comparative method. Lincoln andGuba (1985) defined constant compara-tive method as a "means for derivingtheory". Stages of constant comparativemethod include the comparing of incidentsapplicable to each category, the integra-tion of categories and their products, thedelimitation of theory, and the writing oftheory (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Within the transcribed data, "singlepieces of information were uniquely iden-tified by particular ideas or units throughcolor-coding. This method was utilized tolabel and distinguish among categories ofthe data. Data were then organized basedupon seeking emergent categories revolv-ing around similar characteristics.

FindingsFindings from this study are addressed

in the sequential order of the five inter-view questions.

60 / Education Vol. 127 No. 1

Describe the Quality of Services that yourChild Has Received as a Result of yourChild's IEP Meetings?

All of the participants indicated thattheir overall initial IEP experiences hadbeen negative. Parents were surprised todiscover that the views of educators wereoften not consistent with the implementa-tion of ideas that parents believed to be thebest approach for serving their children.

Factors contributing to the beliefs heldby parents that their children were or werenot being properly served by IEP meetingsrevolved around how school districts han-dled student discipline and quality ofservices for students with autism. One par-ent summarized that her son's IEP meetingsresulted in the implementation of ineffec-tive discipline plans, aggravation amongboth parent and student, and inappropri-ate placement of student.

I think it has hurt him more becauseof them putting him in the transitionunit. They took him out of generaleducation and put him in the transi-tion unit. They didn't know whatelse to do and that was his totaldownfall. He became suicidal there.

Five out of the seven participants dis-agreed with educators regarding servicesthat should be provided for their children.Parents expressed concem over the lack oftransition and occupational services pro-vided by local school districts. Theybelieved that students could be betterserved by having their children becomeperiodically exposed to community set-tings. One parent noted:

I want my son at Pizza Hut tapingcoupons on a box. I want him at

Garden Ridge and they don't startthat until they are 16 or 17. That isjust not enough time to learn jobskills. I would like for (my child) togo to the barber shop one day, to thegrocery store, out in the communi-ty for about an hour or hour and ahalf each day. Daily living skills,transition, and getting out in thecommunity - transition big time.

Additionally, participants believed thatstudents would be better served throughperiodic interaction with the general edu-cation student population. One parentargued to IEP team members that his sonshould had been provided with opportuni-ties to generalize learned social skills byinteracting with the general education pop-ulation within his school. When the parentasked IEP team members for opportuni-ties for his son to interact with a generaleducation physical education class, shewas told that "we (school) do not have any-one trained in that".

Through heavy persistence and becom-ing knowledgeable of special educationlaw, these parents were able to assist theirchildren in acquiring the services and IEPimplementation necessary for students tobe successful. Additionally, through par-ents' building positive relations with schooldistricts, educators became more empa-thetic towards the disabilities of students.

How are You Treated and Perceived by IEPTeam Members ?

Most of the participants indicated thatthey had previously experienced negativetreatment at one time or another by edu-cators during IEP meetings. Parents were

Perceptions .../ 61

accused by IEP team members as beingunreasonable and were often blamed for thebehavioral and academic deficiencies oftheir children. Three of the subjects inter-viewed discussed how they had beenblamed by educators for their child's aca-demic and behavioral deficiencies. Insteadof educators attempting to fmd effectiveways to manage inappropriate behaviors,parents indicated that IEP teams tended toimplement zero-tolerance practices.

They would intimidate me and actlike that I was doing somethingwrong. 'Are there any changes goingon?' (IEP team members would ask).They would always try to make itlike that there was something wrongwith the home, and there really was-n't. They pointed fingers at me, andthey asked 'did you do drugs whenyou were pregnant? Did you drinkalcohol when you were pregnant?You and your husband?'

Parents were perceived as being unrea-sonable due to requesting services thatschool districts believed to be unnecessaryor too expensive. Educators additionallyfound parents to be unreasonable whendiscussing measures pertaining to studentdiscipline. One participant stated:

In the beginning it was very muchthat I was being unreasonablebecause they would just flat pointout to me - 'are you trying to saythat your son's disabilities are whatcould be keeping him from makingright decisions all of the time?'

Advocacy presence

One common theme that emerged frominterviewing parents revolved around edu-cators treating parents more positivelywithin the presence of an advocate, par-ticularly an advocate from AFNIC. Mostofthe parents indicated that they were treat-ed more respectfully and professionally byeducators when an advocate attended IEPmeetings. Additionally, educators tendedto adhere more carefully to IEP meetingprotocol and preparation when an advo-cate was present in IEP meetings.

When asked if she was treated differ-ently by IEP team members with anadvocate present, one parent responded:"Yes, they were more respectful. I thoughtwhen my advocate was present." In addi-tion to being treated more respectfully byeducators, one participant elaborated howIEP meetings appeared to be more of agroup effort in the presence of an advo-cate. According to this parent, educatorswere more willing to include his input inmaking decisions regarding his child's edu-cational program.

Relationships then and nowSeveral of the interviewees indicated

that current relationships with educatorshad improved since the time their childrenwere first placed in their respective schooldistricts. Most of the parents stated thatthey initially encountered resistance fromschool district personnel regarding thereceiving of appropriate services, diag-noses, and empathy that these individualsbelieved should have been granted to theirchildren. Relations between educators andparents strengthened through increasedawareness of student disabilities among

62 / Education Vol. 127 No. 1

educators in addition to parents becomingmore knowledgeable of the IEP process.One participant stated:

Before, yeah - I was treated verydifferently. Currently things aregood, but we had to fight for a longtime to get them where they are now.Before I gained any knowledge, wewere just falling through the cracksand he wasn't learning. Right now,we have the best teacher we've everhad, but it's been the longest road.

What Changes would You Desire Pertainingto Your Child's IEP Meetings?

Participants desired that IEP meetingsserve as more of a cooperative venture andless of an adversarial encounter. Adver-sarial IEP experiences that parentsencountered were primarily due to the lackof educators' understanding towards stu-dent disabilities and improper IEPimplementation.

Lack of understandingAccording to parents, the lack of under-

standing among educators toward studentdisabilities led to disagreements regardingdisciplinary issues between educators andparents during IEP meetings. Parentsbelieved that educators' reliance on tradi-tional punitive discipline practices wasindicative of school district personnel mis-understanding of student disabilities. Threeof the subjects interviewed indicated thateducators interpreted student inappropri-ate behavioral acts as intentional instead ofmanifestations of their disabilities.

She (school counselor) was tellingme, "yeah, you know. I'm going to

have to draw a line with (student)and - I'm going to have to draw aline with him." And I thought, youare going to draw a line with him?That's the worst thing that you coulddo. I knew she was setting him upto fail, setting herself up to fail andsetting herself up for a lot of frus-tration.

Another parent stated that her son wasplaced into a transition unit following thechild's cursing at a teacher. In addition toplacing her son in a transition unit for vio-lent students with emotional behavioraldisorders, the student was also arrested forcursing at a teacher. "In my mind it (thearrest) was ridiculous. It was not a violentoutburst or anything - he just cursed. Ifthey could manage his disability then theywouldn't need the police. Don't arrest kidsfor their disability."

Implementation of IEP objectivesParents pointed out that IEP objectives

set forth in IEP meetings were often notfully implemented among educators. Par-ents believed that formality and rigidity ofIEP meetings created barriers towardimplementing necessary changes to edu-cational programs.

One parent indicated that her son'steacher simply failed to update IEP goalsin order to decrease levels of paperworkand lesson plan adjustments. "It is in thepaperwork and on the recording. It is writ-ten in the minutes, but it'sjust never done.It is a meeting they have to have, but real-ly a lot of it is never really carried through."

Participants indicated that IEP meet-ings tended to be more of a formality than

Perceptions .../63

serve as a means for meeting student edu-cational needs.

It seems that everyone would comeup with very good ideas when youleave there (IEP Meetings). But ifit's the teacher who didn't do whatthey were supposed to do, then youcome up with these good ideas, butthen if the teacher doesn't do them,then that is very frustrating.

One parent added "note that these teach-ers hardly ever read the IEP's. Most ofthose teachers get a folder and they nevereven open them up." Another participantbelieved that classroom teachers docu-mented sufficient student progress towardsIEP goals in order to adhere to IEP docu-mentation procedures despite objectivesnot having been fully mastered by his child.

Teachers went through the lessonplans with (student) and gave himcheck marks. He was quiet and yougave him credit for knowing it. Andyou ask him right now and doesn'tknow what the heck you are saying.

What can School Districts do to Improve IEPMeetings?

A democracyParticipants believed that educators

could improve IEP meetings by makingthese conferences more of a democraticprocess where parents felt they were equalcontributors. Parents stated that they wouldnot be as defensive in IEP meetings if edu-cators viewed IEP meetings as more of ateam effort between schools and families.

They have it all figured out beforeyou get there, which I don't think isright. Having some ideas, yeah -but don't have it all. And it's a donedeal that everyone is going to agreewith - the administrators, the psy-chologist, who is ever in charge.

One parent elaborated how parentalinput was rarely welcomed by educators indetermining placement, discipline, andinstruction.

Half of those boxes are alreadychecked and filled out. It's all just cutand paste. Just because one personis in charge says that that's the wayit's going to be, it is assumed thateveryone else in the room agrees.

Another parent further described thefrustration that parents face when educa-tors attempted to make decisions withoutparental input.

I noticed since we moved to (schooldistrict of student) 9 years ago, wewalk into a meeting with a stack ofpapers already completed - and theyread it and we are asked to sign it.So, all of the decisions have beenmade without parental input.

Participants emphasized that if schooldistricts were more honest, friendly, andless deceitful, then IEP meetings would bea more positive experience for both parentsand educators.

It's like a chess game. If they makea move, then I have to figure outwhat their strategy is and whatthey're thinking. I know that they

64 / Education Vol. 127 No. 1

have staff meetings about my son allof the time. You know that I'm notincluded in. So I know that there isan agenda that they should proba-bly share with me. I have to figureout what it is.

Instead of attempting to intimidate par-ents, participants believed that educatorsshould try to work with parents in creat-ing educational programs to better servestudents receiving special education ser-vices. Parents indicated that their childrenwere better served in IEP meetings wheneducators valued and listened to parentalinput. The students who were more suc-cessful as a result of IEP meetings werethose children whose IEP meetings con-sisted of positive and equal interactionbetween educators and parents. As one par-ent stated "I don't ' want to have anadversarial relationship. It's a lose or loseto me. It can't be adversarial."

Euzzy formalitiesParents expressed a need for making

special education law and IEP meetingseasier to understand. Many ofthe subjectsinterviewed mentioned that IEP meetingsshould be developed so that parents areprovided more freedom to adjust to stu-dent needs. Furthermore, parents believedthat IEP meetings needed to be more user-fdendly and fiexible to better serve studentsreceiving special education services.

If it's about the kid, then they shouldbe a little more accommodating andaccountable. I think that there aresimple, better ways to help kids ifyou really want too than the waythey are doing it. They need to give

parents more information in advance- not just check some boxes. Youneed to know what is going to becovered when you get there.

According to participants, school dis-tricts could further improve IEP meetingsby educating parents about the IEP process.Measures that participants recommendedto educate parents included formal train-ing provided by school districts andworkshops on special education law andthe IEP process. "If they would have somekind of class for the parent about IEP's.How the whole process works and if whatyou are agreeing too - the long term effectsof that." One parent went on to concludethat school districts educating parents aboutIEP meetings might give parents theimpression that educators do care and real-ly want parents to understand the processbecause "I never got the feeling that theyever really wanted me to understand it all."

What can Parents do to Improve IEPMeetings ?

Participants indicated the importanceof becoming active participants in IEPmeetings. Avenues that parents discussedin becoming proactive included becomingknowledgeable regarding special educa-tion law and being persistent in requestingappropriate services for their children. Par-ticipants recommended that parents takethe initiative in educating themselves aboutspecial education issues. As one parentstated "my impact has definitely had animpact (positive) on my son's IEP process."Another parent highlighted "you need tobe involved and don't trust them to do iton their own."

Perceptions .../65

Five of the subjects interviewed indi-cated that their involvement in IEPmeetings benefited their children. Parentswere able to acquire educational resourcesand services that they believed their chil-dren would not have received if not fortheir parental involvement towards IEPmeetings. This involvement created a coop-erative atmosphere between themselvesand educators in IEP meetings. IEP meet-ings provided these parents and educatorsopportunities to work together in dis-cussing measures to better serve theirstudents receiving special education ser-vices. Through teamwork, parents andeducators decided on appropriate educa-tional programs and services that providedmaximum benefits to students with spe-cial needs. Two parents elaborated on thecooperation that they experienced duringIEP meetings when they stated:

But I think it's been really good forme, services wise. You know, any-thing that I've asked for or we'vediscussed as an issue that has to dowith his behavior problems or hissensory problems or his motor prob-lems. They have been really good inthe IEP meetings to either acceptwhatever suggestions I make.

I think it has been positive becauseat least they know what they arelooking for with (student). I think(without parental involvement) theywould be babysitting all day long.The only reason I get in my child'sIEP is because I go up and monitorwhat is going on.

Becoming knowledgeable of specialeducation law

Participants mentioned how they wereable to build more positive relations withschool district personnel once they knewthe parameters ofthe IEP process and lawsas they pertained to students receiving spe-cial education services. According to allseven interviewees, being knowledgeableofthe rights entitled to their children underfederal law assisted parents in requestingand acquiring services for their studentsduring IEP meetings. One parent elabo-rated on the importance in becomingknowledgeable about the IEP process bysaying:

It is all about educating yourself too- it's about - if you expect someoneto do it for you, no one is going todo it for you. Everything isn't alwayseasy to understand. I mean, no oneexplains that to you. They hand youyour booklet or procedural safe-guards and so forth, but I think it canbe difficult to understand. You're justoverwhelmed with the informationthat they give you and no oneexplains it to you.

Parents additionally indicated that edu-cators were more prone to listen to parentalconcerns when they knew that they wereknowledgeable of special education law.One parent highlighted how educatorstended to be more willing to listen to herconcerns and were more honest with herdue to her persistence in becoming knowl-edgeable about special education services.

I think that they know that I know a

66 / Education Vol. 127 No. 1

lot and the things I don't know, I'mgoing to find out. I think that theyknow that and I think that goes along way in how they deal with meand how they react to me and whatthey offer to me because they knowthat I'm going to find out what isavailable and what's legal and what'sappropriate.

All seven parents cited that without theirtaking the initiative to become knowl-edgeable about special education law, theywould have been unaware of all of the ser-vices that school districts were entitled toprovide for their children. Parents wereable to acquire educational resources andservices that they believed their childrenwould not have received if not for theiracquired knowledge in the IEP process.

Study LimitationsThis study consisted of limitations that

should be taken into consideration whenreviewing findings. While this case studysimply investigated the perceptions of par-ents from one family support groupchapter, further studies need to be con-ducted across multiple school districts,regions, disability categories and familysupport groups. Initially, parents were mostlikely to become members of family sup-port groups similar to AFNIC due toexperiencing negative outcomes fromschool districts which likely influenced theresearch findings. As a result, participantswere prone to have emotional and subjec-tive perceptions regarding their childrenthat may have hindered the study. Whilethis research highlighted parent percep-tions of the IEP meeting, educators'

perceptions were not represented in thestudy.

Conclusions and ImplicationsFindings from the interviews revealed

that parents of students with autism didnot perceive themselves as being treatedequally among educators during IEP meet-ings. Parents believed that their input wasnot valued or welcomed by most educa-tors. Instead of being kept out of thedecision making process, parents desiredto be treated as equal contributors towardstheir child's IEP meetings.

According to parents, student objec-tives agreed upon in IEP meetings werenot always fully implemented for studentsreceiving special education services. Thoseinterviewed cited that educators tended toview the IEP process simply as a formal-ity. Parents emphasized the importance ofproperly implementing and adhering toIEP objectives set forth in IEP meetingsin order to facilitate positive outcomes fortheir students receiving special educationservices.

Participants in this study believed thatschool districts could further improve IEPmeetings by educating families about spe-cial education law. Due to school districts'inability to effectively educate familiesabout IEP meetings from the perspectivesof the interviewees, parents took the ini-tiative to educate themselves. Throughpersistence and becoming knowledgeableof special education law, parents were ableto properly assist their children in acquir-ing the services and IEP implementationnecessary for them to become successful.

Perceptions .../67

Recommendations for Furttier StudyDue to the small number of parents

interviewed in this study, these findingsshould not be generalized across the entirepopulation of parents of students receivingspecial education services. Therefore, thefollowing recommendations are suggestedfor further research: 1) the investigation ofparental perceptions of the IEP meetingacross different disability categories, schooldistricts, regions, and family supportgroups, and 2) educators' perceptions ofthe IEP meeting.

The purpose of conducting IEP meet-ings is for all IEP members, includingparents, to collaborate in implementing thebest appropriate services for childrenreceiving special education services. Thestudent suffers when adversarial relation-ships exist between parents and educators.Parents who feel welcomed and respectedby educators will more likely become opento accept educator input regarding the plan-ning of educational programs for theirchildren. Educators who value the inputfrom parents providing unique insighttoward their children will likely be able tocreate effective programs that tailor specif-ically toward the needs of students.Providing the consistency of educationalprograms that serve both academic anddomestic settings ofthe student begin withcollaboration between parents and educa-tors in IEP meetings.

ReferencesBogdan. R. C , & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualita-

tive research in education: An Introduction totheory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon.

Dabkowski, D. M. (2004). Encouraging active par-ent participation in IEP team meetings.Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(3), 34-39.

Deslandes, R., Royer, E., Potvin, P., & Leclerc, D.(1999). Patterns of home and school partner-ship for general and special education studentsat the secondary level. Exceptional Children,65(4), 496-506.

Drasgow, E., Yell, M. L., & Robinson, T. R. (2001).Developing legally correct and educationallyappropriate IEPs. Remedial and Special Edu-cation, 22(6), 359-373.

Goldstein, S. (1993). The IEP conference: Littlethings mean a lot. Teaching Exceptional Chil-dren, 260). 60-6\.

Harniss, M. K., Epstein, M. H., Bursuck, W. D.,Nelson, J., & Jayanthi, M. (2001). Resolvinghomework-related communication problems:Recommendations of parents of children withand without problems: Recommendations ofparents of children with and without disabili-ties. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17,205-225.

H. Res. 5, 105 Cong. Rec. 58 (1997) (enacted).

Huefner, D. S. (2000). The risks and opportunitiesof the IEP requirements under IDEA '97. TheJournal of Special Education, 33{4), 195-204.

Kroth, R. L., & Edge, D. (1997). Strategies forcommunicating with parents and families ofexceptional children (3rd ed.). Denver: Love.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalisticinquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lytle, R. K., & Bordin, J. (2001). Enhancing theIEP team: Strategies for parents and profes-sionals. Teaching Exceptional Children, 55(5),40-44.

Munk, D. D., Bursuck, W. D., Epstein, M. H.,Jayanthi, M., Nelson, J., & Polloway, E. A.(2001). Homework communication problems:Perspectives of special and general educationparents. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17(2),189-204.

68 / Education Vol. 127 No. 1

Polloway, E. A., Bursuck, W. D., & Epstein, M.H. (2001). Homework for students with leam-ing disabilities: The challenge of home-schoolcommunication. Reading & Writing Quarter-ly, 17, 181-187.

Pruitt, P., Wandry, D., & Hollums, D. (1998). Lis-ten to us! Parents speak out about theirinteraction with special educators. PreventingSchool Failure, 42(4), 161-166.

Rock, M. L. (2000). Parents as equal partners: Bal-ancing the scales in iep development. TeachingExceptional Children 52(6), 30-37.

Simpson, R. L. (1996). Working with parents andf'amilies of exceptional children and youth:Techniques for successful conferencing andcollaboration (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbult, H. R. (1997). Fami-lies, professionals, and exceptionality: Aspecial partnership. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Valle, J. W., & Aponte, E. (2002). IDEA and col-laboration: A Bakhtinian perspective on parentand professional discourse. Journal of Learn-ing Disabilities, 35(5), 469-480.

Werts, M. G., Mamlin, N., & Pogoloff, S. M.(2002). Knowing what to expect: Introducingpre-service teachers to IEP meetings. TeacherEducation and Special Education, 25(4), 413-418.

Yell, M. L., & Drasgow, E. (2000). Litigating afree appropriate public education: The Lovashearings and cases. The Journal of SpecialEducation, 33,205-214.