Documenting the Experiences of Special Education Advocates

Abstract

Many parents struggle to advocate for their children with disabilities to obtain services at school. Subsequently, parents may turn to special education advocates to help ensure that their children receive appropriate services. However, it is unclear how special education advocates support families and secure services for children with disabilities. Before determining whether special education advocacy is effective, the advocacy process used by special education advocates needs to be understood. In this study, 33 special education advocates participated in individual interviews about advocacy. Participants reported that they used an advocacy process with five main stages: developing rapport with the parent, establishing clear expectations, learning about the child and the family, educating and empowering the parent, and participating in Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings. Details about the advocacy process are provided, and implications for future research, policy, and practice are discussed.

Keywords

advocacy family family–school partnership empowerment services IEP meeting

Recognizing parents as an accountability mechanism for their child’s education, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) includes many rights for parents to be involved in the special education process. Given these rights, parents may need to advocate to ensure that their children are provided with appropriate services; relatedly, many parents of children with disabilities consider advocacy on behalf of their child to be a necessity (Wang, Mannan, Poston, Turnbull, & Summers, 2004). However, parents often struggle to advocate for their children’s special education needs (Trainor, 2010; Wang et al., 2004). Some barriers to parent advocacy include lack of knowledge (Turnbull & Turnbull, 2003), feelings of intimidation (Fish, 2008), and difficulty understanding jargon (Park & Turnbull, 2001). Limited parent advocacy also relates to attitudinal barriers such as the power differential between schools and parents (Leiter & Krauss, 2004), and parents feeling that they lack the legitimacy of an expert (Kalyanpur, Harry, & Skrtic, 2000).

Because parents often struggle to advocate, they may turn to special education advocates to help them secure appropriate services for their children with disabilities. However, special education advocates vary with respect to training and expertise. Currently, there is no formal certification process or degree required to become a special education advocate. To address both the need for advocates and the lack of uniformity among advocates in the United States and abroad, special education advocacy trainings have become increasingly common. Such trainings share some common goals but vary in duration, content, and training activities (Action for Advocacy, 2008; Burke, 2013). Even with this recent expansion of the field, it is unclear whether advocates who complete such trainings are effective in assisting families. To date, it is also unknown how advocates support families. Before the effectiveness of advocates in supporting families and achieving desired outcomes can be determined, it is important to document the strategies used in the advocacy process.

Special education advocates may assist families in many ways. Perhaps the primary context for special education advocacy is during Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings. IEP meetings are held at least annually for parents and school professionals to discuss the child’s needs and write the IEP, the legal document that details the student’s services, placement, and annual goals. Thus, the IEP meeting is a key setting for parents to work with the school and ensure that their children receive appropriate services (Burke, 2012). However, the IEP meeting is a time when the power differential between parents and school staff may be especially unbalanced. Parent (vs. school staff) participation rates during IEP meetings are consistently low (Leiter & Krauss, 2004): Specifically, during IEP meetings, parents speak significantly less frequently than special education teachers (Martin et al., 2006). The lack of parent participation may relate to the use of special education jargon with which parents are unfamiliar (Kalyanpur et al., 2000). Special education advocates may attend IEP meetings to help parents overcome some of these barriers.

Beyond IEP meetings, Trainor (2010) identified four specific types of advocacy among parents of children with disabilities. Intuitive advocates are parents who rely on their own intuition and knowledge of their child to advocate. Disability experts rely on their knowledge of the disability of the child to advocate for services. Agents of change advocate for systemic changes to special education. Finally, strategist advocates rely on their knowledge of their special education rights to advocate. Although Trainor only examined parent advocacy on behalf of their own (vs. other) children, these strategies may provide a jumping-off point to understanding strategies used by special education advocates. For example, special education advocates may also rely on their knowledge of special education law to advocate. Conversely, other advocacy strategies may not apply to special education advocates. For example, special education advocates may not have “intuitive” knowledge about the children they advocate for; instead, they may need to spend time getting to know the child in context (i.e., the school setting).

Also, unlike parents advocating for their own children, special education advocates may need to develop rapport with the families they work with. In a study of special education advocacy, Sonntag (2015) conducted narrative research with two parents of children with disabilities, a special education administrator, and an advocate. Upon first meeting the family, the advocate stated that her first step was to make parents “feel supported, demonstrate an understanding of the child’s disability, and to empathize with the parents’ emotions” (p. 50). Although illustrative of the dynamics between advocates, families, and schools, this study focused on only one advocate. Thus, it is unclear how this part of the advocacy process generalizes to a larger group of advocates.

When describing her role, the advocate in this study (Sonntag, 2015) also emphasized empowering and educating parents about their rights. Beyond using their own knowledge to help families, advocates may try to educate parents about special education law. By educating parents, advocates may also empower parents to become strategist advocates for their own children. Because advocates are working with parents, it is especially important to determine the adult learning strategies used by the advocates. In addition to directly educating parents, advocates may also utilize existing parent support and information networks (e.g., Parent Training and Information Centers) to encourage parents to learn more about the special education process.

In addition to these methods for helping families, advocates may provide other types of supports. Further examining the relationship between advocates and administrators, Zaretsky (2004) conducted a qualitative study of six Canadian administrators and seven parent advocates. Administrators reported that parent advocates emotionally supported families; given that in Zaretsky’s study, the parent advocates were parents of children with disabilities, administrators reported that sharing the parenting experience enabled them to understand and be empathetic toward families. Because families of children with disabilities experience significantly more stress when they are dissatisfied with special education services (Burke & Hodapp, 2014), special education advocates may need to provide affective support to families.

Due to the limited research about the special education advocacy process, it may also be helpful to examine research from other fields wherein advocates help children secure appropriate services and educate parents. For example, within the child welfare system, trained parent representatives help birth parents understand their rights, identify appropriate services and information, and feel empowered (Lalayants, in press). Another well-known advocacy program, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), is a national network of organizations that educate and support individuals to serve as child advocates in the dependency court system. CASA volunteers conduct fact finding about the case, attend and report at court hearings, and monitor the case via contact with the child and caseworker (Piraino, 1999). However, unlike special education advocates who work within the school system, CASA volunteers work within the court system. As such, this advocacy process may differ from special education advocacy.

Although special education advocates are becoming more available, little research exists about how these advocates work with families of children with disabilities. By identifying the process used by special education advocates, we can begin to measure the effect of advocacy upon child and family outcomes. For this study, our research question was:

Research Question 1: What is the advocacy process that special education advocates use when working with families?

Method

Participants

Participants consisted of 33 graduates who completed the Volunteer Advocacy Project (VAP) training between 2009 and 2014. Inclusion criteria for participants required that they (a) were more than 18 years of age, (b) successfully completed the VAP training either in Tennessee or Illinois, and (c) had advocated for families of individuals with disabilities. The mean age of the participants was 46.88 (SD = 9.85 years). Regarding educational background, 16 of the participants had graduate degrees, 10 graduated from college, five attended some college classes, and two had high school diplomas. On average, at the start of the study, participants had advocated for 30.56 families (SD = 35.90, median = 12), with a range from one family to 105 families. Of the 33 participants, 12 participants reflected minority backgrounds, and four were male. In addition, 27 of the participants were also parents of individuals with disabilities (see Table 1 for additional demographics). The remaining six nonparent participants had worked in schools with individuals with disabilities in varying capacities (e.g., principal, teacher, and psychologist); they did not have family members with disabilities.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics.

Name	Age	Profession	State	Race	Education	Parent^a	Families^b
Abby	50	Paid advocate	TN	White	Graduate school	Yes	50
Ann	40	Nonprofit	TN	White	College graduate	Yes	97
Chrissy	39	Nonprofit	TN	White	Graduate school	Yes	25
Claudia	49	Nonprofit	TN	Latina	Graduate school	Yes	5
Emma	34	Teacher	TN	White	College graduate	Yes	1
Frank	42	Professor	TN	African American	Graduate school	Yes	3
Gail	39	Homemaker	TN	White	College graduate	Yes	10
Jack	36	Manager	TN	White	High school	Yes	12
Jane	47	Paid advocate	TN	White	Graduate school	Yes	92
Jorie	40	Paid advocate	TN	White	College graduate	Yes	21
June	43	Paid advocate	TN	White	College graduate	Yes	105
Maggie	63	Nonprofit	TN	White	Graduate school	Yes	89
Mary	44	School	TN	White	Graduate school	No	80
Matie	35	Teacher aide	TN	Latina	Some college	Yes	12
Meg	45	Homemaker	TN	African American	Graduate school	Yes	4
Mikaya	40	Nonprofit	TN	African American	Some college	Yes	5
Millie	29	Consultant	TN	White	Graduate school	No	10
Nella	43	University	TN	White	Graduate school	Yes	6
Ron	56	Consultant	TN	White	Graduate school	Yes	8
Rachel	61	Nonprofit	TN	Latina	Some college	Yes	100+
Sara	40	Teacher	TN	White	Graduate school	No	5
Yui	41	Homemaker	TN	Asian American	Graduate school	Yes	5
Bill	64	Retired teacher	IL	White	College graduate	No	2
Cathy	46	Psychologist	IL	White	Graduate school	No	16
Cecilia	68	Principal	IL	African American	Graduate school	No	3
Cynthia	55	Nonprofit	IL	White	College graduate	Yes	103
Irma	38	Bus driver	IL	Latina	High school	Yes	10
Lane	60	Homemaker	IL	White	College graduate	Yes	12
Louise	59	Homemaker	IL	White	College graduate	Yes	52
Lynn	53	Assistant	IL	African American	College graduate	Yes	2
Maria	40	Social worker	IL	Latina	Some college	Yes	15
Sue	54	Homemaker	IL	White	Graduate school	Yes	42
Tonya	54	Nonprofit	IL	African American	Some college	Yes	5

Note. TN = Tennessee; IL = Illinois.

Whether or not the participant is a parent of a child with a disability. ^bNumber of families the participant advocated for.

Training

The VAP is a 36-hr training for individuals who want to become special education advocates. All participants in this study completed the VAP training at one of two sites; of the 33 participants, 11 attended the VAP in Illinois. Regardless of the site attended, all participants received the same content during the training. During the VAP, individuals learned about special education policy and advocacy strategies. Special education policy content included topics such as IEPs, evaluations, research-based interventions, extended school year services, behavior intervention plans and discipline, formal dispute resolution (i.e., mediation and due process), least restrictive environment, and response to intervention. Advocacy strategies that were taught included reviewing a student’s school files, writing letters to the school, planning for meetings with schools, providing affective support during IEP meetings to families, and educating parents about their special education rights.

Recruitment

We recruited participants by sending an email invitation explaining the study to program graduates who completed the VAP training in a 6-year period. All (n = 15) of the Illinois VAP program graduates were emailed a recruitment flyer about this study. Only four of the participants declined to participate in the study. For the Tennessee site, recruitment flyers were distributed to 24 of the participants who completed the VAP and indicated that they had advocated for other families. Of the 24 participants, 22 agreed to participate in this study. With 33 participants, data saturation was reached as indicated by redundancy of themes. All 33 participants were included in the data analysis.

Procedures

To explore the perspectives of advocates, a qualitative phenomenological approach, namely, individual interviews (Patton, 2002), was used. Data were collected from the participants in two ways: (a) an information sheet and (b) a semi-structured interview protocol. The information sheet focused on demographics, with questions on age, gender, educational background, occupation, number of children with and without disabilities, number of families advocated for, and race. These variables were hypothesized to influence interview responses. For example, if the participant was also the parent of a child with a disability (vs. did not have children with disabilities), then the participant might use different advocacy strategies.

To develop the interview protocol, an extensive literature search related to families of individuals with disabilities (e.g., Blue-Banning, Summers, Frankland, Nelson, & Beegle, 2004; Wang et al., 2004) and special education advocacy (Burke & Hodapp, 2014; Fish, 2008; Trainor, 2010) was conducted. Based on the literature review, an initial interview protocol was developed and reviewed by experts (as identified by the authors) in families of individuals with disabilities, qualitative methodology, and special education advocacy. All expert feedback was addressed in a revised version of the protocol, which was then piloted with an advocate. Upon further revision, the protocol and the study itself were approved by the Institutional Review Board (see appendix for the protocol).

The participants chose the time and date of the interview. Except for five interviews, all interviews were conducted over the phone. Previous research has indicated that in-person and phone interviews may yield the same results (Sturges & Hanrahan, 2004). Procedures were followed in obtaining participant consent and building trust, such as reminding participants that their interviews did not affect their connection to the VAP. In addition, steps to safeguard the anonymity of all participants were taken so that participants would feel comfortable sharing their opinions. For example, no identifying information was included in field notes or transcriptions.

Before beginning the interview, each author introduced herself, the purpose of the study, and her personal and professional relation to disability and advocacy. The first author described her experience as a special education teacher and her experience as the sibling of an individual with a disability. She also described her experience as a facilitator of some VAP sessions. Because the author facilitated some VAP sessions in both Tennessee and Illinois, she had previously established rapport with each participant. The second author described her prior experience as a special education teacher as well as her current role as the co-coordinator of the VAP in Tennessee. Given the close relationship between the authors and the VAP, participants may have felt uncomfortable discussing their advocacy process, especially if the process contrasted with the VAP content. To be cognizant about this potential issue, throughout data collection and the analysis process, the authors continually reflected upon the potential power differential between themselves and the participants, as well as their own biases and experiences.

Each interview lasted between 45 and 120 min (M = 97 min). All questions on the interview protocol were asked of each participant. A modified version of Seidman’s (2006) three-part interview, through which the interviewer builds trust and double checks inconsistent statements, was used. This modified version of the three-part interview was used because, given the interview, member checking, and the authors’ familiarity with each participant, saturation was reached without needing follow-up interviews. During each interview, the authors took reflective and descriptive notes (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). Descriptive field notes, for example, recorded the tone of the interviewee. Reflective field notes documented the insights of the interviewer. In addition, detailed field, methodological, theoretical, and personal notes were written immediately following each interview. All 33 interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim by an administrative professional, for a total of 544 single-spaced pages of transcripts. The authors listened to recordings along with each transcription to correct errors.

Data Analysis

A constant comparative analysis was used to code themes in the interview transcripts and field notes, as well as triangulation of additional datasources (e.g., information sheets). The authors read each transcript numerous times familiarizing themselves with the data (Tesch, 1990). Using a line-by-line approach, they coded all text related to the advocacy process. Each piece of data was compared with all other data (Creswell, 2003) as well as highlighted and notated with a phrase. They compared each new piece of data with previously coded data to see if the new data represented a new idea or should be a part of an existing code. After all of the data had been coded, they examined the codes and created a codebook. Using the codebook, they examined all of the data again to ensure that all data were appropriately coded and to discern if any additional codes should be added. After checking and confirming the codes, they then grouped the codes into categories and organized the categories into themes grounded in the data.

For example, with respect to the theme “establishing rapport with the parent,” they initially coded several words and phrases, which were then organized into categories and grouped under this theme. Codes included words and terms such as “rapport,” “trust,” “connection,” “building a relationship,” “hear your story,” “listening to the parent,” “sharing experiences,” and “connecting with the parent.” Codes were grouped into three categories: listening to the parent, sharing experiences, and building trust. The categories were organized into the theme “establishing rapport with the parent.”

Validation

The qualitative design elements of this study were chosen to maximize the trustworthiness of findings in representing the perspectives of participants (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Credibility and confirmability were established by triangulating sources, conducting a negative case analysis, and member checking (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993). Triangulation occurred by including different datasources and multiple methods of data collection (i.e., transcripts, field notes, information sheets, and external evaluation). In addition, a negative case analysis was used to ensure that any and all representations of advocacy were included (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005). Notably, our final themes (i.e., five stages of the advocacy process) may not be used with each family; rather, the strategies were often individualized to meet the needs of a given family. After coding the data, the data were checked by the participants (i.e., member checked). A summary of the individual interview and a list of themes were sent to each interviewee to ensure that his or her advocacy process was accurately reflected. All participants responded indicating that their opinions were accurately captured within the themes.

Transferability and dependability of our findings were established via documenting a natural history of the methodology. All participants had completed the VAP and advocated for families; however, participants came from diverse cultural backgrounds, educational levels, and personal connections to disability. Also, the full range of data was included in this study, including deviant cases, to allow a range of findings (Erlandson et al., 1993). Participant responses from initial interviews were used to shape later interviews. In later interviews, the authors probed themes mentioned in earlier interviews. An external auditor, with expertise in advocacy, was used to ensure that the perspective of one participant did not outweigh the perspectives of other participants (Brotherson & Goldstein, 1992).

Findings

Participants reported five stages in the advocacy process: developing rapport with the parent, establishing clear expectations, learning about the child and the family, educating and empowering the parent, and participating in IEP meetings. See Figure 1 for the themes.

Figure 1.

Advocacy process.

Developing Rapport With the Parent

First, participants reported establishing rapport with families using three main strategies: listening to the parent, sharing their own personal experiences, and building trust. Participants reported that developing rapport depended upon the specific needs of the family. Bill reported working with a parent who himself had a disability. Bill described how he differentiated the ways to develop rapport specific to the individual:

And we had to go into his private world and that is sometimes very uncomfortable for a person with a disability. So, we did develop rapport with him where he was comfortable talking to us about things that were more personal.

Listen to the parent

Participants reported that one of their first steps in advocating was to listen to the parent. Nella, a parent of an adult child with a health impairment, stated, “First of all, I would just listen . . . I think the main thing is to first listen and hear their story.” Maggie, also a parent of a child with a disability, justified the importance of first listening to the parent, “First thing I do, is I sit and listen. Because, they all have a story to tell.”

Share personal experiences

Some participants also reported sharing their personal experiences of disability with families to develop rapport. Meg, the parent of a child with autism, explained how she talked to families about her own experiences with the special education system. She stated, “I tell them about my daughter . . . I tell them I faced a challenge in getting her resources . . . I used an advocate.” By sharing her experience as a parent, Meg, along with other participants, reported on how she developed rapport with families.

Build trust

Participants reported building trust with families to establish rapport. Sue, the parent of a child with a disability and a paid advocate, reflected on the persistence required to develop trust: “You have got to keep hammering at it [trust] until they realize what you are saying is truthful.” Similarly, Jack reported the importance of building trust with families. He stated, “And letting them know that . . . I can talk this way with you and you can trust me. I am not going to let things go down the drain. More than anything, that is what people appreciate.” By building trust with families, participants established rapport to begin the advocacy process.

Establishing Clear Expectations

Early in the process, participants reported explaining to families the ways in which they could (or could not) support families. Careful not to misrepresent their abilities, participants referred families to other agencies when necessary. By establishing clear expectations, participants could ensure that families could choose the appropriate person or pathway to meet their needs. For example, upon clarifying her role as an advocate, Jane reported,

I am really trying to sort out if I can be helpful or not. Because some of them [parents] are at the point where they really need to be talking to an attorney, not me. Or . . . another agency in the area.

Specify services offered

Participants clarified the services that they offered in a few ways. First, participants who worked in related fields delineated the services they could provide as an advocate. Cathy, who was a psychologist, said,

I will get a call from a family and then I spend usually a half hour, 45 min, just talking with them on the phone, trying to see if what they are looking for is what I offer in terms of services . . . I am very clear that I don’t do the therapy piece. So, as a psychologist, that is sometimes very confusing to families and that is why I spend time in the beginning when I am talking to them.

Cecilia reported that she let families know “. . . who I am. Then, I let them know the things that I cannot do.” Participants reported informing families about their levels of expertise, not wanting to misrepresent their training or abilities.

Provide referrals

When appropriate, participants provided referrals to other individuals or organizations. Gail spoke of referring families who lived far from her to other advocacy agencies. In response to a family who lived in a different county, she stated, “I suggested that she get in touch with The Arc in that county because they have advocates.” In addition, when participants identified a legal situation, they referred families to attorneys. Specifically, participants spoke of situations when families were using more formal dispute resolution practices, such as due process. Louise advocated, pro bono, for many families in rural Illinois. When a parent spoke about due process, she was very clear that “I can give you a referral to an attorney who will do that [due process] for you. I can’t do that for them.”

Learning About the Child and Family

Participants established specific strategies for getting to know the child and the family. Strategies included meeting the child and family in-person, collecting information about the issues with the school, reviewing the child’s records, and observing the child at school. In learning about the family, participants mentioned using the above-mentioned strategies to understand and prioritize the family’s needs. Maria stated, “They [the family] will tell me what’s going on. And then I will just kind of jot everything down . . . And then depending on what their needs are, we will talk about it.”

Meeting in-person

Participants discussed the importance of meeting the parents and child in-person toward the beginning of the advocacy process. After building rapport with the parent, Maria noted that “we have established that relationship and then I had to meet the child.” Similarly, Cynthia, in talking about meeting parents in-person, shared, “I love when the families bring the child in with them. You know, it is like, ‘Bring him in, let me meet your kid.’” Participants reported the value of meeting both the parents and child.

Collecting information about the problem

As part of this process, participants reported collecting information. Bill, a pro bono advocate, reported that families first listed their concerns. He stated, “We talked about the issues that they felt they were facing with the school and what they were and why. And, then, we kind of probed a little bit.” Working at a private preschool that serves students with and without disabilities, Mary received many calls from families of children with disabilities. Upon receiving a call, Mary asked the family to list their problems with the school. After listening to their problems, Mary reported: “I try to figure out what the issue is. Have they followed the steps they need to? Talked to the teacher? Followed the process that they need to?” During this part of the process, after rapport had been built, participants collected more detailed information to understand the issues with the school.

Reviewing records

At this part in the process, participants reviewed the student’s records to supplement the information shared by parents about the school issues. Millie, a behavior analyst who also advocated for families, stated that upon meeting with families, she will “. . . look at any early intervention documentation they have. And I will look at their current IEP, and whatever previous IEPs the family has, and their previous and their most recent evaluations.” June, a paid advocate in Tennessee, emphasized that she provides guidance to parents about requesting school records. She reported,

I do encourage every single family to get a copy of every single piece of paper that is in their child’s file . . . I give them guidance by saying “Here is a list of the things I would like you to ask for.”

In these ways, families and advocates worked together to request and review records to better understand past and current issues.

Observing at school

Some participants mentioned that they observed the child in the school setting as part of their advocacy process. Participants reported that they conducted an observation when the school and the parent reported different perspectives about the same issue. Ron, an unpaid advocate working in rural areas of Tennessee, recalled an instance when the school claimed the child had significant behavioral issues but the parent disagreed. To discern the truth, Ron conducted a school observation: “I had written permission from the school to go in and observe. After, I tried to explain the behaviors I saw to the parent.”

Educating and Empowering the Parent

Participants reported educating and empowering parents to become active members of the IEP team. Participants educated and empowered parents via explaining the special education process and parents’ rights, providing guidance and suggestions, helping parents connect with information and resources, and supporting parents in formal documentation. Ann, a paid advocate and parent of two children with disabilities, summarized the importance of educating parents: “With knowledge, comes power and confidence.”

Explaining the special education process and parent rights

Participants reported explaining special education rights to parents. Emma described working with a family that was unaware that they were entitled to a copy of their child’s educational evaluation. Emma stated, “Parents lack knowledge and empowerment; a lack of confidence to say ‘Can you share the evaluation results?’” Beyond parents’ rights as members of the educational team, participants also highlighted their roles in teaching parents about other parts of the special education process, including special education jargon. Mikaya stated, “A lot of parents do not know their rights. So, I try to educate them . . . by telling them the terminology. The main thing I do when I advocate is I educate parents.” By helping parents understand their roles in the special education process and sharing key terms, participants empowered parents.

Providing guidance and suggestions

At this point in the process, participants also reported guiding families and providing suggestions. Yui, who recognized that many families do not know their options, stated, “They don’t know what the options are or how to negotiate those options.” In response, Yui would suggest various options and provide guidance so that parents could choose an appropriate option. Rachel tailored the amount and types of guidance she provided to families. She stated, “And depending on how much they understand, that’s where I say, okay, they need more intense attention and help or I think just by guiding them they can come into things on their own.” By providing tailored guidance, without telling the parents exactly what they should do, participants empowered families to make their own, informed decisions.

Connecting families with information and resources

Participants also reported connecting families with information by referring parents to parent training and disability agencies to learn about their rights. Tonya, the parent of an adult with autism in Illinois, explained, “When a parent comes to me, I advise what to do starting with going to the Parent Training and Information Center’s free training. I always ask if they attended the training.” Claudia, a parent of two children with disabilities, also referred parents to trainings and resources. She stated, “So what I do, is I try to connect them and say, ‘You have to go to this one, learn from this one.’” By directing families toward additional information and resources, participants empowered parents to learn more about their special education rights.

Documenting

To educate and empower families, participants helped them document issues with the school. Andrea, who advocated for families in Chicago, described the importance of documentation: “I tell the family to document. Document everything. Document and try to send emails as much as possible because you are trying to leave a paper trail.” Jane, a paid advocate in Tennessee, emphasized helping parents write letters. She stated,

I give them topics with short phrases and say “You need to cover this and this.” Short statements. I don’t write full statements for them . . . “Here are the topics and the things you need to include.” That is how I help them write the letter. I want to empower them—not do it for them.

By helping families document their own advocacy efforts, advocates empowered families.

Participating in IEP Meetings

At the end of the process, participants supported families at IEP meetings in two main ways: providing affective support and asking questions. Notably, strategies for participating in IEP meetings varied depending upon the needs of the family. Maria, who advocated for Latino, Spanish-speaking families, stated, “It depends on their situation and what is happening with the school.”

Providing affective support

Participants reported that just by physically attending IEP meetings with families, they were advocating by providing emotional support. Irma advocated for Spanish-speaking families. She shared that she provided affective support before providing guidance about the special education process. In speaking about a particular parent, Irma stated, “She doesn’t know what to do . . . so we were talking about me going to her IEP so I can give her support, not initially providing guidance to her but to be there for support . . . so she doesn’t feel alone.” During IEP meetings, Lynn also provided emotional support to families. Describing her role in an IEP meeting, she stated, “I gave a pat on the back when the mother began to cry and helped her to calm down—she felt like she was failing her son—and remind her that she was being heard.” By being present, advocates provided affective support at IEP meetings.

Asking questions

Participants supported families in meetings by asking direct questions of school personnel. Abby, a parent and paid advocate, reported asking the school during IEP meetings “. . . for policies that they are basing their decisions on.” Sara, a former teacher, talked about encouraging parents to ask questions in IEP meetings. She said, “I talk with them in the meetings. ‘So what are your concerns? What do you see at home? What can the school do?’” Participants actively participated during IEP meetings by asking direct questions.

Discussion

This study provides a jumping-off point for understanding strategies used during the special education advocacy process. Participants reported five stages of advocacy including developing rapport, establishing expectations, learning about the child and family, educating and empowering the family, and participating in IEP meetings. Notably, the findings in this study did not exactly align with the VAP content. Participants did mention using some strategies that were mentioned in the VAP (i.e., reviewing records, educating families, providing affective support). However, other strategies used by participants were not mentioned in the VAP (e.g., observing the child, developing trust, sharing personal experiences, providing referrals). Because of the different strategies reported by the participants, it seems that our findings could represent more general special education advocacy strategies—not only strategies specific to training provided in the VAP.

Findings from this study indicate that special education advocates (vs. parents advocating on behalf of their own children with disabilities) demonstrate a different advocacy process. Trainor (2010) identified four types of advocacy among parents who advocate for their own children: strategist, agent of change, disability expert, and intuitive. In this study, none of the participants referenced advocating for systemic changes or using intuition. Perhaps the reason for these differences is that special education advocates are missioned with advocating for one family (not systemic changes) and, without intimate knowledge of the school or the family, may lack intuition that parents possess. Notably, most advocacy strategies related to being a strategist, including educating parents about their rights, documenting, and participating in IEP meetings. Establishing rapport with parents and providing affective support seem unrelated to previously documented forms of parent advocacy. It may be that these strategies are specific to individuals who advocate for other (not their own) families. Indeed, studies by Sonntag (2015) and Zaretsky (2004) further indicate that such forms of advocacy are specific to special education (vs. parent) advocates.

In this study, participants mentioned meeting and observing the child with a disability as an advocacy strategy used during the process of getting to know the family. Neither special education advocacy studies (e.g., Sonntag, 2015; Zaretsky, 2004) nor advocacy studies from other fields (e.g., Lalayants, in press) discuss meeting the child as part of the advocacy process. Although CASAs meet with the child and caseworker, they do not observe the child in the home or school environment (Piraino, 1999). It may be that in some cases, special education advocates felt they needed to see the student in the educational context. Thus, it seems that special education advocates may have some unique advocacy strategies. However, a single observation of a child in a school setting may not be as illustrative as a detailed interview with the family and the teacher. Thus, it may be important for advocates to consider both interviews and observations to better understand the child in the school setting. In addition, unlike other fields (Lalayants, in press), special education advocates from this study were insistent upon including the families in the advocacy process. It seems that, for special education advocates, a part of their process was to educate and empower parents to become advocates for their own child.

Although this study extends the literature on special education advocacy, limitations must be considered. First, the sample only included graduates from a specific training program (i.e., the VAP) in two states. Graduates from other advocacy training programs may report using a different advocacy process. Furthermore, no data were collected from the families with whom the advocates worked or the schools within which they advocated. In addition, no attempt was made to observe advocates using the process described. Such data are needed to further understand the special education advocacy process and transfer these findings to special education advocates from different training programs.

Directions for Future Research

This study has important implications for future research. Using the five stages identified in this study, future researchers can further describe the advocacy process used by special education advocates. By having clear descriptions, special education advocacy strategies can be measured, and researchers can discern how advocacy affects family and student outcomes. For example, researchers could observe IEP meetings to document the strategies used by advocates. Researchers could also interview school members and parents who have interacted with advocates to see if they identify a similar process. Notably, this study only represents VAP graduates and their advocacy process. Future researchers should examine the strategies used by graduates from other advocacy training programs and special education advocates without formal training. In addition, future research should examine how advocates work with diverse families—especially families who struggle to advocate. The expectation of parent advocacy may not align with the parent’s expectations for involvement or beliefs about the educational system (Kalyanpur et al., 2000). Research is needed to better understand how to support and advocate for heterogeneous families with different expectations for advocacy.

Finally, future research should examine how advocates use adult learning principles to educate families about their rights. From this study, it seems that advocates used Guided Design (i.e., a specific adult learning strategy) to enable parents to learn higher order, problem-solving skills (Hancock, Coscarelli, & White, 1983) such as learning procedures (i.e., special education rights) and applying those procedures to real life situations (i.e., exercising their rights in IEP meetings). Additional research is needed to understand more specifically how advocates educate families.

Implications for Policy and Practice

Findings from this study have implications for special education advocacy training programs. By understanding the process used by some advocates, training programs can discern the ways in which program graduates are using (or not using) and expanding on training content. Because the field of advocacy trainings is relatively new (Burke, 2013), it is important for training programs to evaluate their graduates and discern how graduates are supporting other families.

In addition, the findings of this study have implications for policymakers. To date, the special education advocacy field has remained largely unregulated. However, as demonstrated by the initial funding for the Special Education Advocacy Training (SEAT) program (Wheeler & Marshall, 2008) in the United States, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has established an interest in formalizing the special education advocacy profession and field. Also, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA), perhaps the foremost national agency for special education advocates in the United States, continues to offer the SEAT program. Indeed, other countries also have established advocacy trainings. In England, for example, Action for Advocacy (2008) trains advocates by requiring 32 credits of coursework. By using the advocacy process identified in this study, American and international policymakers can better understand and measure the range of strategies used by advocates. This can help policymakers develop regulations related to special education advocacy and, thereby, provide some consistency within the advocacy field.

This study is an important first step in identifying a process of special education advocacy. By identifying this process, researchers, policymakers, and practitioners can better discern the actions of special education advocates, and, eventually, link the advocacy process with family, parent, and student outcomes.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: For this study, an Education Research Service Project grant was received from the American Educational Research Association.

References

Action for Advocacy. (2008). A code of practice for advocates. Available from http://www.aqvx59.dsl.pipex.com/Code%20of%20Practice%20booklet.pdf

Blue-Banning

Summers

J. A.

Frankland

H. C.

Nelson

L. L.

Beegle

(2004). Dimensions of family and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for collaboration. Exceptional Children, 70, 167–184.

Bogdan

Biklen

S. K.

(1998). Qualitative research for education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Brantlinger

Jimenez

Klingner

Pugach

Richardson

(2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195–207.

Brotherson

M. J.

Goldstein

B. L.

(1992). Quality design of focus groups in early childhood special education research. Journal of Early Intervention, 16, 334–342.

Burke

M. M.

(2012). Examining family involvement in regular and special education: Lessons to be learned from both sides. International Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 187–218.

Burke

M. M.

(2013). Improving parental involvement: Training special education advocates. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23, 225–234.

Burke

M. M.

Hodapp

R. M.

(2014). Relating stress of mothers of children with developmental disabilities to family-school partnerships. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 52, 13–23.

Creswell

(2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

10.

Erlandson

D. A.

Harris

E. L.

Skipper

B. L.

Allen

S. D.

(1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

11.

Fish

W. W.

(2008). The IEP meeting: Perceptions of parents of students who receive special education services. Preventing School Failure, 53, 8–14.

12.

Hancock

B. W.

Coscarelli

W. C.

White

G. P.

(1983). Critical thinking and content acquisition using a modified guided design process for large course sections. Educational & Psychological Research, 3, 139–149.

13.

Kalyanpur

Harry

Skrtic

(2000). Equity and advocacy: Expectations of culturally diverse families’ participation in special education. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 47, 119–136.

14.

Lalayants

(in press). Partnership between child protective services and parent representatives. Child & Family Social Work.

15.

Leiter

Krauss

M. W.

(2004). Claims, barriers, and satisfaction: Parents’ requests for additional special education services. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15, 135–146.

16.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

17.

Martin

J. E.

Van Dycke

J. L.

Greene

B. A.

Gardner

J. E.

Christensen

W. R.

Woods

L. L.

Lovett

D. L.

(2006). Direct observation of teacher-directed IEP meetings: Establishing the need for student IEP meeting instruction. Exceptional Children, 72, 187–200.

18.

Park

Turnbull

A. P.

(2001). Quality of partnerships in service provision for Korean American parents of children with disabilities: A qualitative inquiry. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 26, 158–170.

19.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

20.

Piraino

M. S.

(1999). Lay representation of abused and neglected children: Variations of court appointed special advocate programs and their relationship to quality advocacy. Journal of the Center for Children and the Courts, 1, 63–71.

21.

Seidman

(2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

22.

Sonntag

J. N.

(2015). Navigating the waters of special education: A narrative research study on the perspective of the role of advocacy in the special education process (Dissertation thesis). Roosevelt University, Chicago, IL.

23.

Sturges

J. E.

Hanrahan

K. J.

(2004). Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: A research note. Qualitative Research, 4, 107–118.

24.

Tesch

(1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. Bristol, PA: Falmer.

25.

Trainor

A. A.

(2010). Diverse approaches to parent advocacy during special education home—School interactions: Identification and use of cultural and social capital. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 34–47.

26.

Turnbull

R. H.

Turnbull

A. P.

(2003). Reaching the ideal. Education Next, 3, 32–37.

27.

Wang

Mannan

Poston

Turnbull

A. P.

Summers

J. A.

(2004). Parents’ perceptions of advocacy activities and their impact on family quality of life. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29, 144–155.

28.

Wheeler

Marshall

(2008, March). Special education advocacy training (SEAT). Paper presented at the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates Conference, Anaheim, CA.

29.

Zaretsky

(2004). Advocacy and administration: From conflict to collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 270–296.