Abstract
In this introduction to the special issue, we provide a brief discussion of (a) challenges gleaned from the literature on school–parent collaboration and (b) our rationale for including and highlighting research that centralizes parents and that varies in researcher positionalities and methods. The studies in this special issue illuminate the complexities of parent–school partnerships and provide practical recommendations to facilitate stronger school–family relationships to support students with learning disabilities.
The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997, 2004) makes clear the expectation of parent involvement in educational decision making for students with disabilities. The IDEA (2004) notes that parents are to be considered equal partners in the decision-making process (Landmark, Roberts, & Zhang, 2013). However, although there is an emphasis on parental involvement as part of both educational planning and due process, research reveals a historic divide between what is stated in the law and what occurs in practice (e.g., Harry, 2008).
Parents of students with learning disabilities (LD) have reported barriers to participation in Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings that include a perceived lack of opportunity to provide input, communication challenges with the school, and disagreement with deficit-based perspectives of their children by often well-meaning professionals (Tucker & Schwartz, 2013; Zeitlin & Curcic, 2014). Thus, despite the intent of the law, contrary evidence suggests that school personnel have not always viewed parents as equal partners (Cavendish, Harry, Menda, Espinosa, & Mahotiere, 2016; Valle, 2009). Furthermore, unequal power dynamics between school personnel and parents are often exacerbated through forms of cultural dissonance in terms of race, social class, gender, and disability, with each intersection among these factors exacerbating inequalities and usually disempowering parents (Collins, 2003; Harry & Kalyanpur, 2012; Valle, 2009). In a review of the research on school collaboration with culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) parents, Harry (2008) reported key themes from the research that included an insensitivity to the logistics of family involvement in schooling, a limited provision of information on parental rights, and a “history of mistrust engendered by previous exclusion from public schooling” (p. 377). Subsequently, the desired collaboration stated within the law may not actually materialize when disagreements arise about important issues such as eligibility for receiving special education services, what is interpreted as the least restrictive environment, and what constitutes “reasonable accommodations.”
Purpose of the Special Issue
These ongoing issues that have historically defined much of the parent–school discourse are the impetus for this special issue of Learning Disability Quarterly (LDQ). By featuring current research that studies both opportunities and challenges in engaging with parents to effect collaborative partnerships, we seek to better understand ways in which to develop agency for parents of students with LD and to support authentic parental participation and navigation of the culture, policies, and procedures in schools. Understanding families’ perspectives of their role and their involvement in their children’s education is critical to inform teacher preparation and professional development activities to truly facilitate collaboration as equal partners. Importantly, for this special issue, we purposefully sought a plurality of researcher perspectives and have featured research that varies in researcher positionalities and methods.
In particular, difficulty in representing CLD parents’ views using purely quantitative methods has been noted in the research (Arzubiaga, Artiles, King, & Harris-Murri, 2008; Harry, 2008). Thus, we present a “combination of research methodologies [that are] essential in gaining an authentic understanding of families’ perspectives” (Harry, 2008, p. 382). We are hopeful that the varied perspectives and methods represented in the articles for this special issue challenge complex culture-based perspectives and operational definitions that may allow us as researchers and practitioners to shift our thinking with view to improving our effectiveness in collaborating with families of students with LD.
The special issue of LDQ includes articles spread across two issues. In this issue, three studies are presented. As one of our goals was to centralize parents in the research in this special issue, the first article presents Valle’s research with mothers of students with LD that is situated in the broad historical context of the culture of American motherhood. Within this framework, Valle uses a narrative inquiry approach to examine the voices of mothers on parenting children with LD. Her analysis of their stories reveals insights into these mothers’ experiences of parenting children with LD both at home and in schools. In this work, she presents a thoughtful discussion on the thematic findings related to the construction, deconstruction, and, in some cases, reconstruction of mothers’ identities in both the private (home/family) and public (schools/public spaces) spheres. In closing, Valle provides valuable recommendations for school personnel to assess their own internalized assumptions about disability and mothering, and how these impact daily practices.
Aligned with our second goal of highlighting researcher positionalities in the special issue, the second article in this issue—by Haley, Allsopp, and Hoppey—illuminates the insider–outsider (emic–etic) dissonance experienced by a mother of a child with LD who is also an educator in her child’s school district. This study embodies the dilemmas identified in previous research related to the challenges in developing meaningful school–parent partnerships that move beyond just compliance with IDEA. Haley et al. use heuristic inquiry in a case study approach to examine the inherent tension in the dual role of parent and educator, while advocating for a child with LD. The authors integrated data from interviews, IEPs, psychological reports, planning documents, and researchers’ reflexive journaling to understand the convergence of ethical identities that occur over time for a mother-educator. This study is framed by the theory of responsible advocacy and provides practical recommendations for schools to listen to, and learn from, parents.
The third study is our own research, informed by our own positionalities based on personal histories as former high school teachers in special education. In our study, we focus on perspectives of parents, teachers, and students with LD in regard to factors that facilitate involvement of students and parents in transition-related educational planning in one school in a large, urban district. Using a mixed-methods design, we triangulate the perspectives of all stakeholders to provide recommendations for practice informed by authentic experiences of parents, teachers, and students. In addition, the mixed-methods approach provided an opportunity to examine the relative utility of quantitative versus qualitative findings. By this we mean our quantitative survey findings on teacher and student perspectives about the level of school facilitation of student and parent involvement in planning suggested relative agreement with the school’s efforts to facilitate involvement of students and parents in compliance with IDEA requirements. However, subsequent qualitative interviews with parents, teachers, and students indicated contradictory findings, providing insight into the transition planning experience, along with recommendations for school personnel.
Taken together, by using a plurality of methods informed by their distinct positionalities, these authors provide powerful information that illuminates the complexities of parent–school partnerships. Ultimately, it is our hope, therefore, that this special edition of LDQ will inform meaningful approaches in research and practice to facilitate stronger school–parent collaborations to support students with LD.
Footnotes
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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.