An Investigation of Facilitated Individualized Education Program Meeting Practice: Promising Procedures That Foster Family–Professional Collaboration

Participants

Participants included six facilitators, eight administrators, five dual-role educators and facilitators, two dual-role administrators and facilitators, four parent advocates, five parents, and two parent–school coordinators/parent liaisons (N = 32). The educator participants represented both special and general education. All participants participated in at least one facilitated IEP meeting, including some reporting experiences with more than 100 FIEP meetings. Although all participants reported experiences with conflict at the IEP meeting level, experiences with formal IDEA dispute resolution procedures ranged from 0 to more than 200 mediations and 0 to more than 100 due process hearings (see participant demographics in Table 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Participant Demographics.

Participant No.	Role	No. of mediation	No. of due process	FIEP experience	Years field experience	Location
1	Admin	2	1	2	26	MN
2	Admin	0	0	2	16	ND
3	Admin	“Several”	0	8	33	CA
4	Retired Admin	50	50	15-20/year	30	CA
5	Admin	3	3	5	12+	MN
6	Admin	2	1	4	15+	MN
7	Ad/Facilitator	0	0	25	5+	AZ
8	Admin	30	20	“Many”	45	TX
9	Admin	2	0	1	20	PA
10	Ed/Facilitator	0	0	30	15	AZ
11	Facilitator	200+	0	100+	17	OR
12	Facilitator	0	1	6	41	SC
13	Ed/Facilitator	0	0	3	39	AZ
14	Ed/Facilitator	3	0	23	10	AZ
15	Ed/Facilitator	0	1	15	28	SC
16	Facilitator	100	0	350+	35	NM
17	Ed/P/Facilitator	0	0	5	10	AZ
18	Ed/Facilitator	0	0	10	6	AZ
19	PSC/Facilitator	12	2	10	20	CA
20	Facilitator	100+	100+	100+	30+	TN
21	Ad/Facilitator	4	4	5	42	TX
22	Facilitator	0	0	9	35+	ND
23	Facilitator	1	0	6	5	IL
24	Parent & PA	4	0	10	19	MN
25	Advocate	6	0	4	11	MN
26	Advocate	30	4	5	30	MN
27	Parent & PA	1	1	2	20	IN
28	PSC	1	0	3	10	WI
29	Parent & PA	25	0	2	40	MN
30	Parent	1	0	5+	15	AZ
31	Advocate	80	“Few”	20	30	PA
32	Advocate	4/year	2	30+	44	MN

Note. FIEP = Facilitated Individualized Education Program; Admin = Administrator; Re/Admin = Retired Administrator; Ad/Facilitator = Administrator and Trained Facilitator; Ed = Educator; Ed/Facilitator = Educator and Trained Facilitator; Ed/P/Facilitator = Educator, Parent, and Trained Facilitator; PSC/Facilitator = Parent Services Coordinator and Trained Facilitator; P = Parent, PA = Parent Advocate; PSC = Parent Services Coordinator.

Procedure

Participant selection included the following criteria: (a) an FIEP team member, (b) participation in at least one FIEP meeting with the intent to resolve conflict at the IEP meeting level, and (c) experience with parent–school conflict. Participants were notified of the study using two specific recruitment procedures. First, we asked state education department dispute resolution officers to forward an invitation e-mail describing the criteria for participant inclusion and the purpose of the study to any FIEP participants located within their database. Second, we sent the same invitation e-mail to parent organization listservs, facilitator e-mail distribution lists, and district administrators from regions known for using FIEP meeting practice. These strategies are recognized as purposeful sampling techniques (Patton, 2002). Upon obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval from our research institution, each volunteer participant was provided a copy of the consent for research form and detailed information regarding the purpose, benefits, and any potential risks to the study. Participants were also told that their answers would be kept confidential and that research reports would be collective, rather than any individually reported information that might risk confidentiality. Interview times were scheduled to take place over the telephone.

It is important to note that based on qualitative research methodology guidelines (Crouch & McKenzie, 2006; Patton, 2002), the target goal for recruitment was 30 participants; however, a total of 32 educators, parents, and facilitators met the above criteria and agreed to participate in this study. Qualitative researchers suggest less than 20 participants in a qualitative study are needed for the researcher to build and sustain a close relationship with the participants and the study. This suggested sample size can also facilitate the control of potential threats to validity and bias. Crouch and McKenzie (2006) also suggested close to 12 participants per homogeneous group, or until data saturation is reached. Data saturation was reached as indicated by a redundancy of themes in our study. Thus, 32 participants were determined to be an accurate representation needed for the study.

Interviews

A semistructured interview protocol with open-ended questions was used. The protocol was followed to ensure consistency across all participants. Some questions, however, were modified to address the participant role (i.e., parents, educators, facilitators). This interview study sought to explore the participants’ experiences with FIEP meetings through an inductive research approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The interview protocol was developed based on previous research about parent IEP experiences and conflict in special education, including qualitative interview studies with parents (Lake & Billingsley, 2000; Mueller, Singer, & Draper, 2008). When needed, the interviewer asked probing questions for more detail (i.e., Can you tell me more about that?). See Table 2 for the Interview Protocols for each participant group (educator, parent, and facilitator).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Interview Protocols.

Educators
Demographic information	1. What is your position within the district? 2. How long have you worked in your position? 3. What is the total number of years at your current district? 4. Have you ever been involved in due process/mediation/resolution meetings? 5. How many FIEP meetings have you been involved with?
Experience with FIEP meetings	1. What was the issue of disagreement about (for the FIEP)? 2. Can you explain what your role was in the resolution of the issue? 3. What specific strategies or actions were made to come to a resolution with the family (prompt: What did the FIEP look like)? 4. How are the IEP and FIEP different? 5. What have you learned as a result of your participation in the FIEP process? 6. Were you content with the way the issue was resolved? 7. If you answered yes to being involved in due process, mediation, or resolution meetings previously, how do FIEP meetings compare?
Future plans/thoughts	1. What do you plan to do now that you have been involved in a FIEP meeting? 2. Are you content with the way the FIEP was conducted? 3. Are you likely to recommend the procedure to others? 4. Do you have any other thoughts to share?
Parents
Demographic information	1. Can you tell me about your family? 2. What is your child’s disability? 3. Who is the primary person who attends IEP meetings and collaborates with the school? 4. Have you ever been involved in due process/mediation/resolution meetings? 5. How many FIEP meetings have you been involved with?
Experience with FIEP meetings	1. What were the concerns that led to requesting a FIEP? 2. What were some of the previous conflict/resolution strategies you tried before the FIEP meetings? 3. Can you explain what your role was in reaching agreement on the FIEP? 4. What specific strategies or actions were used? 5. How is the internal facilitation of an IEP and a neutral third party FIEP different? 6. What have you learned as a result of your participation in the FIEP process? 7. Were you content with the way the IEP was written as a result of the FIEP? 8. If you answered yes to being involved in due process, mediation, or resolution meetings previously, how do FIEP meetings compare?
Future plans/thoughts	1. Now that you have been involved with the FIEP meetings, are you likely to use this procedure in the future? 2. Have you used other dispute resolution options in the past, how do they compare to the FIEP meeting? 3. Are you content with the way the FIEP meeting was conducted? 4. Are you likely to recommend the FIEP procedure to others? 5. Do you have any other thoughts to share?
Facilitators
Demographic information	1. What is your current position? 2. How long have you worked in your position? 3. What is the total number of years you have worked in your position? 4. Prior to your position as a facilitator, what was your position in the field of special education? (For how many years?) 5. What kind of training did you receive to be a trained IEP facilitator? 6. What is the highest educational degree you have earned? 7. Have you ever been involved in due process/mediation/resolution meetings? If yes, about how many? 8. How many FIEP meetings have you been involved with?
Experience with FIEP meetings	1. What has been your experience with typical IEPs without the FIEP model? 2. Can you describe typical sources of conflict you see in IEP meetings? 3. What does parent involvement usually look like at typical IEP meeting (without the use of a facilitator)? 4. Do you have any stories to share from your experiences with traditional IEPs (without the use of a facilitator)? 5. Can you describe what a traditional FIEP looks like for you? 6. How are the traditional IEP and FIEP different? 7. How do you see your role as a facilitator? 8. What have you learned as a result of your participation in the FIEP process? Lessons learned along the way? 9. If you answered yes to being involved in due process, mediation, or resolution meetings previously, how do FIEP meetings compare? 10. What are your success rates/outcomes of FIEP meetings? 11. Do you have any stories to share from your experiences with FIEPs?
Future plans/thoughts	1. Are you likely to recommend the procedure to others? 2. Are you content with the process? Is there anything you would change/add? 3. Do you think all IEPs should use this model? 4. Do you have any other thoughts to share?

Note. FIEP = Facilitated Individualized Education Program; IEP = Individualized Education Program.

Data Analysis

Interviews averaged 1 hour in length, were audiotaped, and transcribed verbatim. Using inductive analysis, both authors analyzed the interviews using qualitative emergent coding procedures (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Using a multiple coding approach, each author first independently coded each line of two transcripts using the NVivo qualitative software program (Richards, 2002). After independently coding the first two transcripts, both authors reviewed the open codes and identified procedures for analyzing the remaining interviews using NVivo. Using peer debriefing, the second author coded all of the interviews and the first author coded half of the interviews (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klinger, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005). Throughout this process, codes were entered into NVivo with some codes needing to be deleted, expanded, or refined based on peer discussion. Next, the codes were categorized according to related topics and meaning. Each category was defined and discussed by both authors, including the identification of supportive quotes.

Credibility

Three practices were utilized to ensure trustworthiness of data collection and analysis: peer debriefing, member checking with 10 “information rich” participants, and an external research audit with three FIEP experts. Procedures used in the member checking and external audit included providing a copy of the findings and requesting that each selected participant review and confirm the accuracy or inaccuracy of the findings (Brantlinger et al., 2005). All of the participants confirmed the accuracy of the findings.

Premeeting With Families: An Opportunity to Build Trust

All of the facilitators identified premeeting with families as one of the most important components of the FIEP meeting process. Premeetings were described as either formal or informal meetings with the facilitator and parents prior to the actual meeting to discuss and to address any relevant issues beforehand. This premeeting practice was described as helpful for IEP team members to learn about meeting expectations, build trust with families, and discuss/address any questions or concerns with parents prior to the meeting, in an effort to avoid any unexpected news or “surprises.” Providing parents relevant information and the opportunity to voice concerns before the FIEP meeting was highlighted as a powerful strategy for diffusion of any preexisting conflict. Participants described premeeting as a way of “getting the lay of the land,” including asking for parent input about potential IEP goals, student present levels and needs at home, and parent perspectives about the student. One participant even spoke about discussing draft IEP goals during the premeeting, stating, “That’s the meat of the program. If you can work that out ahead of time, things go so much easier.” Most often, participants described premeeting as an opportunity to communicate and build trust between team members prior to the IEP meeting. One educator shared,

If we sit down with the parent and have good communication with them early on when they’re expressing a concern and try to make them feel like they are an equal partner and are included in the decision-making, I think you build trust.

Meanwhile, when discussing conflict, one facilitator shared, “sometimes just letting the parent vent before you go into the meeting makes a difference.” Another facilitator expressed a similar purpose for premeeting by saying,

There’s something to be said for being in a group and either being intimidated or feeling defensive, whatever those emotions are that don’t let you think clearly. But if you would have that opportunity ahead of time [premeeting], privately, either with a facilitator or with your spouse or with your team, then you would have had a completely different response at the table.

Another facilitator commented on the importance of premeeting with everyone who will be representing the family at the meeting,

If the parent’s going to have an advocate, then I want the advocate on a 3-way call. If it’s a husband and wife, I want both of them on the phone. I want whoever’s going to come representing the family on the phone with me during that preparation phone call.

When discussing the extra time a premeeting might add to the IEP meeting process, one participant explained, “The amount of time you spend is the same. You can spend it now [premeeting] or spend it later [during the meeting], but you’re spending the time.”

Establishing and Following a Meeting Agenda: Make the Meeting Transparent

Participants described a meeting agenda as a topical schedule shared with all team members to ensure important topics would be addressed at the IEP meeting. Many of the participants spoke of the agenda as the IEP meeting “guide.” All of the participants shared positive experiences with using an agenda, describing it as a tool that helped the team stay on topic, make the meeting transparent, and allow structure to ensure important issues are discussed. Parents also explained that the agenda clarifies “the expectations” for the meeting at the start. The use of the agenda was also said to combat “off-topic” conversations, frustration with the length of meetings that lack organization, and other factors that can contribute to negative IEP meeting experiences. One facilitator even shared that parent concerns come “right out of the gate” and are always the first item on the agenda; thereby, providing parents the opportunity to discuss any thoughts and feelings they may have before diving into IEP content.

When discussing the logistical use of an agenda, several facilitators had different approaches. For example, one educator shared that the agenda can be developed during premeeting activities. Meanwhile, one facilitator reported that sending the agenda prior to the meeting was an effective preparation strategy. Participants also spoke about the importance of distributing a copy of the agenda to all IEP meeting participants so that everyone could participate, including visually projecting it for the team to view.

Using Meeting Norms: A Proactive Way to Promote Positive Meeting Behavior

Participants spoke about the value of having established guidelines referred to as meeting norms, to use if any problems occur during the IEP meeting discussion. Meeting norms were described as clearly stated behavioral expectations for the meeting. This strategy was viewed as an effective way to proactively address challenging behavior that may arise. For example, one facilitator shared that when emotions are escalated and tensions run high, “I’ve had to slow things down. I’ve had to say I know this is really tense, but we’ve got ground rules here.” Norms such as “silence your cell phone” or “no side conversations,” were also discussed as helpful for keeping all team members focused on the task. One facilitator provided the following examples:

Communicate clearly. Listen carefully. Respect the views of others. Share your views willingly. Ask and welcome questions for clarification. Be open to the ideas and views presented. Stay on task. Please promptly advise the team if you must leave the meeting before completed.

In addition to the benefits and use of meeting norms, participants spoke about the logistics required to use and enforce them. For example, participants shared that meeting norms were typically displayed at the meeting for all participants to view (e.g., Smart Boards, white boards, or posted charts) so that team members could see the norms as reminders, and as needed, facilitators could easily refer to them. Facilitators shared that they typically introduce the norms as meeting expectations at the start of the meeting to ensure a collaborative meeting from the start. One facilitator explained, “It is very important to make sure that you get everyone’s head-nod, or a thumbs up, so everyone is actually understanding that they’re going to follow the norms.” Gaining this kind of consensus holds team members to an “honor system” when emotions may be heightened later in the meeting. Meeting norms were also described as an effective time-management tool. One facilitator shared, “One challenging FIEP went like clockwork because I didn’t let them go off the rails.”

Utilizing a Parking Lot for Off-Topic Issues: A Strategy Used to Validate Team Members

A parking lot was described as a strategy used to validate any team members’ contributions that may be presented as off-topic issues or concerns so that the meeting could remain focused and follow the agenda. Simply put, the parking lot strategy uses a “designated” physical space (e.g., chart paper, smart board, etc.) to document any “off-topic” issues, so that the meeting agenda can move along without ignoring the thoughts/contributions of team members. If something is shared that is not related to the agenda topic, the information is documented in the parking lot with the intent to revisit the issue during the allotted time on the agenda. For example, if a member wanted to discuss a math goal during the present levels discussion, the math goal issue was written on the designated parking lot space for later goal discussion. Participants shared that this strategy validated team members’ input without losing the discussion and focus. This tool was also highlighted as a valuable time-management tool. Participants shared that this strategy was helpful when discussions “veer off into other areas.”

In addition to discussing the benefits of using a parking lot, participants shared logistics related to this practice. They talked about the importance of defining the intent of the parking lot ahead of time, and in some cases, creating a group process together. For example, one facilitator shared,

My strategy is to model how to validate the expressed concern, then ask the group to decide how to handle topics that are off the agenda and how to note those so they are not forgotten. I want the IEP team to make that process determination of how to handle them, not me. As the facilitator, I think ownership of such actions/procedures have more of an impact and buy-in when the group has to engage and collaborate together.

Visual Charting for Graphic Support During Team Discussion and Problem Solving

Visual charting was described as a graphic display tool used for three primary reasons: (a) visual representation of the order of the meeting (e.g., agenda, meeting norms, parking lot topics, etc.), (b) documentation of meeting discussion items (e.g., student present levels and goals, action planning), and (c) problem solving when needed. Facilitators spoke about several visual options including electronic projection, laminated charts, or writing in real time on a large easel. Visual charting was described as an effective strategy that can provide IEP team members with the ability to collaboratively view the same material. One facilitator explained, “It’s a visual and a reminder. It acknowledges what I’m really, really worried about. It is up there [posted] and nobody’s going to forget it.” The use of this tool was also described as highly valuable for promoting active team discussion throughout all aspects of the meeting for everyone to view the material at the same time.

When discussing the use of visual charting for problem solving, one facilitator provided the example of using the chart to facilitate a team decision about a child’s educational placement. This participant shared that the visual allowed the team to write a pro and con for both placement options on the board together with the intent to identify all thoughts regarding placement consideration. The facilitator shared that this was an effective conflict resolution tool to use for identifying the best way to stay student-focused, while problem solving as a team.

Implications for Practice

The FIEP procedures presented in this study contrast the well-documented research about the problems associated with IEP meeting practice, including confusing procedures, focus on paperwork, and parent exclusion (Fish, 2008; Mueller & Buckley, 2014; Turnbull et al., 1982; Zeitlin & Curcic, 2014). Thus, it was not surprising that the participants were grateful for the structure and organized approach demonstrated through the use of the FIEP procedures. Participants spoke about conducting premeetings with team members, providing and following an IEP agenda, using meeting norms, creating and using visual charts for problem solving, and implementing a parking lot procedure to validate team members and keep conversations on track. In fact, participants shared that these procedures transformed their FIEP meetings by creating a collaborative opportunity to talk through the IEP so that goals could be mutually designed and any disagreements could be addressed, as needed.

Participants gave positive feedback regarding the use of premeetings with family and team members as a way to build trust, explain the IEP process, and investigate any potential issues of dispute prior to the meeting. Premeetings were also used to think about, and in some cases, draft IEP goals prior to the actual meeting. The benefits of premeeting with families were documented in the literature nearly four decades ago; yet, they remain underinvestigated (Brinckerhoff & Vincent, 1986; Goldstein & Turnbull, 1982). Indeed, the act of generating a meaningful IEP for a student with a disability ought to be viewed as a process, rather than an hour-long meeting once a year. Thus, as we seek to advance practice in fostering family–professional collaboration, educators might continue to investigate premeeting practice with the intent to actively include families at the very start of the meeting process. In addition to generating parent thoughts about the upcoming meeting, premeetings can provide families with the opportunity to learn about meeting expectations, prepare their own input to provide the team, and learn any important jargon in advance of the meeting. Existing problems with parents feeling powerless and excluded at the IEP meeting process could also potentially be ameliorated, including a lack/breakdown of trust between parents and educators (Lake & Billingsley, 2000; Zeitlin & Curcic, 2014).

Although premeeting is viewed as a process that takes place prior to the actual IEP meeting, this study also identified strategies to use during the meeting to maintain group focus. Meeting strategies such as using an agenda, norms, and parking lot are widely promoted in the field of business and other professional domains that rely on productive meeting outcomes (Bens, 2012). Nevertheless, research in special education highlights a gap between the written IEP document and the team meeting with little guidance available to professionals to use when conducting an IEP meeting (Simon, 2006). This study presents a potential model that can be used to combine the two IDEA requirements so that a meaningful IEP can be generated as intended by the spirit of IDEA. By using orderly procedures, professionals and families are able to be transparent throughout the IEP meeting, participate, and remain validated when “off-topic” concerns arise. In addition, the use of visual charting is a tool that can perhaps foster team discussion, so that the team can collaboratively remain focused on the meeting issues. Finally, it is the culmination of these practices that provide a potential model for how the IEP meeting should be conducted to ensure a collaborative discussion takes place about student needs.

Implications for Preservice Education

Of note, most educators report a lack of education and guidance during their initial training with respect to active partnering with families (Lord-Nelson, Summers, & Turnbull, 2004). Bezdek, Summers, and Turnbull (2010) summarized this challenge even further by saying, “professionals may have learned to ‘talk the talk’ of a family-centered philosophy but not to ‘walk the walk’” (p. 363). Consequently, findings from this study can be used to proactively address this dilemma at the preservice level. As teacher educators, it is important to equip preservice teachers with the knowledge and skills necessary to meet the needs of their students and families. Given the impact of the IEP meeting outcome on the educator, family, and student, one starting point would be for preservice programs to prepare teacher candidates for effective IEP meetings by using these promising procedures during instruction. We suggest meeting this objective through a two-step activity process. First, to address the research that indicates we do not prepare educators to understand the relationship between the written IEP document and the meeting process (Simon, 2006), teacher educators could embed both IEP meeting procedures along with IEP documentation simultaneously during preservice instruction. This could include providing preservice educators with case study projects that require the creation of an IEP document and a plan for the IEP meeting itself. Essentially, students could create premeeting questions, a meeting agenda, and norms for the meeting that are designed to accompany the written IEP document. This instruction could be composed using practitioner-based resources (see, for example, Bens, 2012; Cheatham et al., 2012; Diliberto & Brewer, 2012; Mueller, 2009) and technical assistance websites that contain video model examples, webinars, and supplemental resources specific to the FIEP meeting process (see, for example, CADRE, 2017; Region 13 Education Service Center, 2017).

Second, preservice preparation programs could move the above activity one step further with IEP meeting simulations that require teacher candidates to utilize the FIEP meeting procedures by providing opportunities to create and follow a meeting agenda, refer to meeting norms (as needed), practice using a parking lot for off-topic issues, and utilize visual charting during simulated team discussions and problem solving. IEP meeting simulations could take place in two forms, depending on availability of resources. At the simplest level, a simulation could include the teacher candidates themselves, whereby each class member takes on the role of an IEP member. Meanwhile, at the more complicated level, teacher educators could assemble a group of volunteers to play various roles (i.e., mother, father, student, advocate, etc.) within the simulated IEP. As new special education teachers report a lack of preparation and practice with writing and conducting IEP meetings (Conderman, Johnston-Rodriquez, Hartman, & Walker, 2012), simulated instruction is a promising practice that allows teacher candidates to rehearse new skills within a controlled setting (Dieker, Rodriguez, Lignugaris-Kraft, Hynes, & Hughes, 2014). For example, in a qualitative interview study with 60 graduates of a preservice program that required teacher candidates to participate in simulated IEP meetings, whereby IEP team member volunteers included actual families and educational professionals, the participants all described the experience as a valuable learning opportunity to conduct their first IEP meeting in “a safe place to make mistakes” (Mueller, Massafra, Vick, Peterson, & Brewer, 2017). Werts, Mamlin, and Pogoloff (2002) conducted a similar study that involved providing their teacher candidates three IEP meeting workshops, including a simulated meeting with faculty volunteers to play IEP team participant roles. Interview findings with the 21 teacher candidates who participated in the exercise spoke to the authenticity of the simulation highlighting social validity to the process, including students sharing that the simulated meeting was “most effective in preparing them for an IEP conference” (p. 417). Finally, in a study of simulated parent–teacher conferences, the six participating teacher candidates described the experience as feeling “real and meaningful” (Dotger, Harris, and Hansel (2008). Findings from these studies about simulated IEP and parent–teacher conference meetings, combined with other research about the benefits of simulated educational opportunities (Dieker et al., 2014), highlight this practice as a potential activity to better prepare educators for proactively addressing the noted IEP meeting challenges (Childre & Chambers, 2005; Fish, 2008; Lake & Billingsley, 2000; Zeitlin & Curcic, 2014). Furthermore, it is our hope that findings from this study can provide a framework for teacher educators to use when delivering IEP meeting instruction for preservice teachers.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

Because of the exploratory nature of this study, two limitations are worth noting. First, this was an interview study (only one source of data) that is limited to participant perceptions and experiences only. Second, the fidelity of FIEP implementation for all participants is unknown. This study cannot and should not be viewed as generalizable to the larger population of special education. Instead, this research is the first qualitative research study about FIEP meeting practice. The intent of this research was to look beyond the challenges of IEP meetings, and instead focus on potential practice and future research that could enhance what we already know is fractured (Mueller, 2015).

This study, and the national use of FIEP meetings for conflict resolution indicate this practice is worthy of continued attention. As the educator/facilitator participants shared positive experiences with implementing the FIEP procedures into IEP meetings without conflict, this practice should continue to be investigated as a proactive IEP meeting framework. Specifically, it would be helpful to explore family perceptions of the use of these procedural practices for all IEP meetings. Direct observations of IEP meetings that utilize these procedural practices could allow researchers to measure the amount and depth of information shared by families during the meeting compared with IEP meetings where the procedures are not used. In addition, further investigation that targets premeeting as an intervention for encouraging active family participation might better inform special education practice. It would be particularly interesting to study the use of these practices when working with families who represent the minority population, where participation tends to be even lower.