Improving Parental Involvement

Abstract

Given that most parents of students with disabilities have difficulty navigating the special education system, advocacy training offers one way to aid parents in securing appropriate educational services for their children with disabilities. Two distinct models of advocacy trainings are as follows: the Special Education Advocacy Training and the Volunteer Advocacy Project. This article notes how parents may need advocates to assert their special education rights and how advocates may be trained in special education law and advocacy. Furthermore, this article discusses the consequences of special education advocacy trainings for the disability field—universities and service providers alike. The conclusion of this article describes the need for additional research about family–school collaboration.

Keywords

advocacy families collaboration law/legal issues systems change

Parents of students with disabilities often encounter difficulties navigating the special education system. Indeed, many parents find daunting the task of understanding relevant special education regulations and nonadversarial advocacy techniques (Stoner et al., 2005). The repercussions of this lack of parental involvement and knowledge are sweeping. Lack of parental participation leads to inappropriate and unsound educational programs for students with disabilities (Fish, 2008). Accordingly, without parental involvement, students with disabilities are vulnerable to receive inadequate and inappropriate services.

To improve parental involvement, special education advocates aid parents in securing appropriate educational services for their children. To date, though, the special education advocacy field remains unsupervised (Wheeler & Marshall, 2008), and it remains unclear who should train advocates and be responsible for their conduct. What content does an advocate need to assist parents? Which advocacy techniques are successful in securing appropriate educational services for students with disabilities? These questions remain unanswered.

This article examines two special education advocacy training models: the Special Education Advocacy Training (SEAT) and the Volunteer Advocacy Project (VAP). See Table 1 for a list of acronyms. Both projects train individuals in special education policy and advocacy skills. Before discussing these models, this article describes the rationale and need for special education advocacy. Then, this article examines these two models in terms of their goals, competencies, participants, and lessons learned, before discussing future directions for the field of special education advocacy and training.

Table 1.

List of Acronyms

Name	Acronym
Community Parent Resource Center	CPRC
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates	COPAA
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act	FERPA
Free, appropriate, public education	FAPE
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act	IDEA
Individualized Education Program	IEP
No Child Left Behind	NCLB
Parent Leadership and Support Project	PLSP
Parent Training and Information Center	PTI
Protection and Advocacy Agency	P&A
Special Education Advocacy Training	SEAT
University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities	UCEDD
University of Southern California–University Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities	USC-UCEDD
Vanderbilt Kennedy Center’s University Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities	VKC-UCEDD
Volunteer Advocacy Project	VAP

The Importance of Parental Involvement

Policy Mandates Parental Involvement

Prior to 1975, public schools either entirely excluded or provided limited services to millions of children with disabilities. Since its passage in 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (now known as the Individuals With Disabilities Improvement Education Act or IDEA), has mandated that educational services be provided for all students with disabilities. Each student with a disability is guaranteed a free, appropriate, public education (FAPE). Students are also to be educated in the least restrictive environment—a placement where, to the maximum extent appropriate—they can be educated with their peers without disabilities. According to IDEA, each child with a disability should have an Individualized Education Program (IEP), which provides needed related services, accommodations, and modifications.

To ensure that children with disabilities received appropriate services, Congressional leaders specifically wrote parents into IDEA. Thus, the legislation requires that parents provide consent for evaluations, receive notices to attend IEP meetings, and possess procedural safeguards (IDEA, P.L. 108-446). In special education, parents and schools collaborate to ensure that children with disabilities receive appropriate services. The primary way in which this collaboration occurs is IEP meetings. By having significant parental involvement during the IEP process, the transition between school and home streamlines and the child is more likely to receive FAPE.

Research Supports Parental Involvement

IDEA’s requisite of parental involvement reflects the relationship between parental involvement and children’s academic achievement. According to the “Strong Families, Strong Schools” report, “Thirty years of research shows that greater family involvement in children’s learning is a critical link to achieving high quality education and a safe disciplined learning environment for every student” (U.S. Department of Education, 1994, p. 1). Studies completed from the mid-1960s until today confirm this relationship, finding that school–parental involvement programs have immediate, positive results on students’ academic achievement (Sheldon & Epstein, 2005), regardless of socioeconomic and educational levels (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Transcending seemingly impermeable layers of financial and educational backgrounds, parental involvement provides a method for improving academic achievement.

Parental involvement impacts students’ academic achievement both directly and indirectly. For example, factors that directly affect student achievement include the following: parents completing homework with their children, attending school events, and communicating with the school (Jeynes, 2007). When parents collaborate with the school, the student is better prepared for program placements, and the legal requirements of IDEA are more likely to be met (Wolery, 1989). Increased parental involvement leads to the fulfillment of the IDEA and better achievement for students with disabilities.

Parental involvement also influences other, more indirect factors, which in turn improve student academic achievement. For example, increased parental involvement decreases high school drop-out rates (Barnard, 2003) and leads to higher educational expectations (Fan & Chen, 2001; Jeynes, 2007). In addition, parental involvement improves student attendance (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002) and decreases at-risk behaviors (Vakalahi, 2001).

Parental Involvement in Special Education

Even though parental involvement is a cornerstone of IDEA and leads to legally appropriate educational programs, parent participation rates are lower in special education programs than in Head Start and other compensatory programs (Harry, 1992). Especially when compared with professional assessments, parental input often tends to be dismissed as anecdotal and subjective (Turnbull, Turnbull, Erwin, Soodak, & Shogren, 2010). Without parent–school collaboration, disagreements may escalate to legal hearings (Mandlawitz, 2002), leading to increased stress, costs, and destroyed relationships for parents and schools alike (Lake & Billingsley, 2000).

Barriers to Parental Involvement

Parents Do Not Feel Like Equal Partners

Although IDEA enables parents to advocate for their children with disabilities, several challenges make such advocacy difficult (Stoner et al., 2005). Many parents feel that they not only need to participate but also need to advocate for their children by challenging authority and asking difficult questions (Soodak & Erwin, 2000). Many parents also face such logistical issues as finding transportation or child care to attend IEP meetings (Friesen & Huff, 1990). Parents who work may have difficulty attending IEP meetings—which are usually scheduled during school/work hours (Friesen & Huff, 1990). Limited advocacy may also relate to the attitudes of various stakeholders: the power differential between a large school system and an individual parent (Leiter & Krauss, 2004), parents’ feelings of being intimidated by the school (Leiter & Krauss, 2004), and feelings that parents are inadequate or lack the legitimacy of an expert (Kalyanpur, Harry, & Skrtic, 2000). A total of 70% of parents of children with disabilities believe that their children lose services because parents do not know their rights (Public Agenda, 2002).

Parental feelings of inadequacy constitute a tremendous obstacle to facilitating parent–school collaboration. Institutional structures contribute to this power differential. Historically, for example, schools viewed parents peripheral and, in some cases, as hindrances. (Leiter & Krauss, 2004). Parents often feel unwelcome and their roles minimized, especially when educators use jargon to describe their children (Defur, 2003). To overcome this power differential, parents of children with disabilities may need to advocate more assertively (Fish, 2008; Trainor, 2010).

Finally, parents may feel unable to express their discontent with educational services at IEP meetings. Even at the prereferral stage, parents experience discontent with the educational services for their children with disabilities (Smalley & Reyes-Blanes, 2001). When trying to participate at the IEP meeting, parents are often met with gestures and comments—being referred to as “just a parent” or being called “mom” or “dad” instead of their first names—which further emphasizes the power differential between the parent and the school (Kalyanpur et al., 2000). Feeling inadequate, parents have difficulty communicating their questions and needs at IEP meetings. Parental discontent combined with a power differential contributes to the reduced abilities of parents to effectively collaborate with the school at IEP meetings.

Ineffective Procedural Safeguards

Another barrier to effective parent advocacy is inaccessible procedural safeguards. One way in which IDEA enables parents to assert their rights is through due process (IDEA, 2004). A due process hearing is a formal forum for the parent and the school to present their opinions regarding what is appropriate for the child. At the hearing, the parent has the right to present evidence, examine, cross-examine, and subpoena witnesses. Attorneys frequently represent school districts, whereas parents have three options for representation: pro se representation (parents represent themselves), advocates, or attorneys. In accordance with IDEA, a hearing should be completed within 45 days of the receiving party having notice of a due process complaint.

Although an important procedural safeguard, due process hearings present an uneven playing field. Due process is overtly adversarial, pitting the school against the parent (Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 2000; Zirkel, 1994). Also, due process imposes a tremendous financial burden on both schools and parents. For a typical due process hearing, retaining a special education attorney costs up to US$30,000 (Mueller, 2008). In addition to high fiscal costs, due process hearings tend to be lengthy. Even though IDEA requires that due process hearings conclude within 45 days, delays are common, resulting in hearings which last from 25 days to 2 years (Zirkel, 1994). A frequently cited court case in Pennsylvania lasted for 19 sessions and spanned 2 years from the initial complaint. For the transcript of the hearing alone, the cost was US$27,000 (Zirkel, 1994).

Finally, parents are unlikely to prevail in due process. Even with the expense and time, parents prevail in only 28.6% of due process hearings (Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education, 2004). As barriers to equity, parents cite the unavailability of legal resources, and, specifically, the high cost of lawyers (Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education, 2004). In one study, 6 states had an insufficient attorney pool, regardless of whether parents could afford attorney representation, while 15 states reported that more than 60% of their state lacked reduced cost legal services (Ahearn, 2001). Parents tend to be frustrated with the due process system as it involves legal jargon, excessive paperwork, and technical detail (Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education, 2004). The near absence and inaccessibility of special education lawyers both intimidates and limits parents in filing for due process.

In addition, the reading level of procedural safeguards is very high. Thus, parents feel they are largely inaccessible (Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006; Imber & Radcliffe, 2003; Mandic, Rudd, Hehir, & Acevedo-Garcia, 2010; Pruitt, 2003). Mandic and colleagues (2010) documented that the average reading level of procedural safeguards was 16th grade. Of all of the procedural safeguards across the country, 6% scored at the high school reading level, 55% at the college reading level, and 39% at the graduate school reading level. By way of comparison, the New York Times ranks at a college reading level (Roberts, Fletcher, & Fletcher, 1994). Such high reading levels make procedural safeguards inaccessible for enabling parents trying to learn their special education rights.

Barriers Result in Little Parental Involvement

Given all of these factors, it is not surprising that parents are not equal partners on IEP teams (Turnbull et al., 2010). Although parents may attend IEP meetings, they generally do not meaningfully participate (Childre & Chambers, 2005; Esquivel, Ryan, & Bonner, 2008; Fish, 2006; Hess, Molina, & Kozleski, 2006; Munn-Joseph & Gavin-Evans, 2008). As IEP meetings entail important educational decisions, the IEP meeting is the forum at which most disagreements occur between the parents and school (Harry, 1992; Mandlawitz, 2002). As such, it is necessary for parents to have support to facilitate successful parent–school collaboration.

Two Models for Training Special Education Advocates

One way to support parents in navigating the IEP process involves special education advocates. Special education advocates are individuals with knowledge of both special education law and advocacy skills to assist parents in working with the school system. Although there are many federal programs geared to train parents about their special education rights (e.g., Parent Training and Information Centers [PTIs]) as well as programs to legally support parents in the special education process (e.g., Protection and Advocacy Agencies [P&As]), there are few training models for special education volunteer advocacy. Two models are the SEAT Project and the VAP. The University of Southern California–University Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (USC-UCEDD) and the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA) jointly created the SEAT training (Wheeler & Marshall, 2008). In contrast, the Vanderbilt Kennedy Center’s University Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (VKC-UCEDD), in collaboration with many other agencies, created the VAP. See Table 2 for a list of differences between the two trainings.

Table 2.

Differences Between SEAT and VAP Trainings

	SEAT	VAP
Origin of training	OSEP grant	Self-started within the VKC-UCEDD
Purpose	Develop a special education advocacy curriculum	Train special education volunteer advocates
Content	230 hr of coursework (115 hr of instruction and 115 hr of practicum)	40 hr of coursework and one shadowing session
Speakers	Attorney and advocate	Diverse speakers (professors, community members, parents, attorneys)
Outcomes	Diverse outcomes	Linked with four families of students with disabilities

Note: SEAT = Special Education Advocacy Training; VAP = Volunteer Advocacy Project; OSEP = Office of Special Education Programs; VKC-UCEDD = Vanderbilt Kennedy Center’s University Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities.

The SEAT

In 2005, the USC-UCEDD and COPAA received a 3-year grant from the Office of Special Education Programs to develop a pilot project in special education advocacy training. The purpose of the SEAT project was to create a formal curriculum to train special education advocates. Based on practices from three different professional communities—special education attorneys, consumer advocates, and paralegals—the SEAT trained three cohorts of participants across the United States.

Goals of the SEAT

The overarching goal of SEAT was to develop, field-test, and explore the feasibility of a special education advocacy training program for nonattorneys to better meet the needs of families of students with disabilities. The four subgoals were as follows:

To develop and field-test a training for special education advocates,

To explore the feasibility of replicating the SEAT in other sites,

To evaluate the effectiveness of the program, and

To disseminate the findings of the project.

To achieve the first goal, the program developers had several tasks, including formalizing the field of special education advocacy, creating competencies for the advocacy training, defining the ethics for special education advocates, and developing the curriculum for the SEAT training. To achieve the second goal, program developers field-tested the SEAT in three cohorts across the country. For the third goal, the program developers conducted a 1-year follow-up survey. The survey included questions such as employment status as a special education advocate, years at current employment, and to what extent do the graduates attribute their knowledge to the SEAT training. The results of the 1-year follow-up are not yet disclosed. Finally, to achieve the fourth goal, program developers are in the process of writing and disseminating articles about the SEAT.

Competencies of the SEAT

The SEAT National Advisory Board developed the SEAT project’s six core competencies. The board consisted of various stakeholders including attorneys, PTIs, advocacy groups and advocates themselves, school administrators, family researchers, and nonprofit agencies. The board relied on the research literature to develop the content of the training. The competencies included the following:

Introduction to special education advocacy (2 modules),

Legal foundation of special education law (6 modules),

Fundamental principles and components of special education law (13 modules),

Practicing advocacy with ethics and integrity (4 modules),

Basic skills of a special education advocate (4 modules),

Conflict resolution in special education (6 modules), and

The business of advocacy (3 modules).

Each competency had a specified number of 3-hr modules in which the participants learned the subject matter. In addition to these competencies, the SEAT board developed a code of ethics for the advocates. Considering ethical codes from other fields and soliciting expert opinions, the board created a set of voluntary ethics.

To meet these competencies, trainees participated in 115 hr of classroom instruction and 115 hr of practicum or field experience. The coursework occurred over a 4-month period, requiring 8 to 10 instructional hours per week. The coursework was divided into thirty-eight, 3-hr modules across the above-mentioned seven competencies. The curriculum consisted of a SEAT reader (a textbook for students, including recommended books, web materials, and handouts), an Instructor’s guide (an outline of the learning objectives, homework, and classroom activities), and exams for each chapter. The instructional team included three individuals: a special education advocate, a special education attorney, and a parent-to-parent support professional.

The practicum occurred over a 3- to 4-month period. A special education advocate and/or special education attorney facilitated the practicum. The practicum allowed SEAT trainees opportunities to apply their newly learned knowledge to real-life situations. The practicum did not have a set of mandatory activities. However, participants gained experience in the following areas: knowing how to find information, grasping and discriminating between federal and state law, using analytical skills, understanding unauthorized practice of law, negotiating between parties, communicating orally and in writing, identifying issues, addressing parent concerns, and acting in a professional manner.

Trainees demonstrated mastery in the SEAT competencies. To this end, trainees took exams, completed homework assignments, passed the course before proceeding to the practicum experience, passed their practicum, and provided formative feedback.

SEAT participants

Since its inception, the SEAT project has had three cohorts and 144 participants. The first cohort trained 77 participants across four sites (Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, Philadelphia, and New York). The second cohort trained 35 students across two sites (Los Angeles and New York), and the third cohort trained 32 students across two sites (Los Angeles and Boston). The SEAT training had exclusionary criteria related to its participants. Trainees could not be convicted felons, law students, practicing attorneys, school or state educational agency employees, or school board members. The majority (80%) of the participants were parents of children receiving special education services.

Lessons learned

The SEAT informed the special education field of several lessons related to advocacy training. First, experienced advocates wanted to complete the SEAT program to gain legitimacy as a professional. Second, the rigor of the training may discourage underrepresented groups from participating; a pre-SEAT training may be needed to meet the needs of these groups. Third, a set of acceptance criteria or readiness characteristics needs to be developed to determine who is accepted to the training. Fourth, other ways to offer practica to the students need to be developed as there is a shortage of special education attorneys. Fifth, more formative and summative evaluation needs to be done to examine the efficacy of advocacy trainings. Sixth, careful consideration needs to occur regarding formal certification of special education advocates. For example, how will formal certification affect the liability of the advocates? How will it affect parental access to advocates? Although the SEAT training offered tremendous insight into ways to train special education advocates, more research and thought is needed as this training is replicated across the country.

The VAP

Recognizing the need for advocates across Tennessee, the VKC-UCEDD developed an advocacy model similar to the Parent Leadership Support Project (PLSP), which is an advocacy training in Georgia (Lipson & McCall, 2008). The VAP relies on the basic premises of the PLSP training, with modifications to suit the needs of Tennessee families. Specifically, the VAP requires as a criterion for admission that, after each trainee graduates from the project, the trainee will advocate, at no charge, for four additional families of students with disabilities. Also, unlike the PLSP, which Georgia’s P&A developed, the VKC-UCEDD and The Arc developed the VAP.

Goals of the VAP model

The overarching goal of the VAP is to provide instrumental and affective support to parents of children with disabilities in receiving educational services. The training has the following five subgoals:

To provide instrumental support to families,

To provide affective support to families,

To have each volunteer advocate for at least four families,

To grow and improve our training model, and

To research advocacy trainings.

In relation to the first goal of providing instrumental support to families, the training teaches participants about federal and state laws such as IDEA, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Section 504 of the American Rehabilitation Act, and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Participants learn about mandated timelines associated with evaluations, IEPs, and procedural safeguards. They also learn about eligibility requirements under various laws and the services accorded by different policies. In addition, participants learn about procedural safeguards embedded into each disability law.

For the second goal—to provide affective support to families—the advocates learn nonadversarial ways to communicate with the school and to emotionally support parents of children with disabilities. Lay advocates speak to the participants about effective advocacy techniques. Such techniques include identifying the crux of the problem, determining the source and reason for the problem, and developing amiable but assertive strategies to resolve any lingering issues. Participants also learn how to write parent input statements, which offer an opportunity for parents to share their concerns in a clear and coherent way. Furthermore, the participants role-play various IEP scenarios to brainstorm advocacy strategies. On receiving real-life IEP team meeting scenarios, the participants brainstorm the actions they would take as the advocate.

The third goal is for advocates to work with four families of students with disabilities. To this end, The Arc, the state PTI, or the Community Parent Resource Center (CPRC) links each advocate with four families of children with disabilities who require advocacy services. The advocate then works with each family, for free, to ensure that their children receive appropriate educational services. Depending on the family’s needs, how the advocate works with the family varies. The advocate may complete a records review, draft a parent input statement, or attend an IEP meeting with the family. The Arc, PTI, or CPRC provides ongoing support and assistance to the advocate when working with a family.

To grow and expand the training (the fourth goal of the training), using videoconferencing technology, the VAP occurred in other sites across the state: Memphis (West Tennessee), Johnson City (East Tennessee), Knoxville (East Tennessee), Martin (West Tennessee), Jackson (West Tennessee), and Chattanooga (East Tennessee). These sites are spread throughout the state covering the three grand regions of Tennessee: East, Middle, and West. The project is currently attempting to serve more rural and traditionally underserved communities. By having a variety of sites across the state, the project can serve more families.

Finally, the VAP training is attempting to research its effectiveness. For example, all advocates complete a pre- and postsurvey to determine the efficacy of the project. The survey consists of 30 questions related to special education law and 10 to advocacy skills. By gauging the baseline knowledge and skill set of the participants and then comparing it with their posttest scores, the efficacy of the training can be better examined. Similar to the SEAT training, the data are currently being analyzed.

Competencies of the VAP

To achieve these four goals, the training has two main competencies: (a) 40 hr of in-classroom training and (b) the shadowing of a special education advocate. The training requires 40 hr of instructional time. Accompanying each class session are reading assignments of relevant articles, law, and regulations, along with brief homework assignments. To allow each participant to develop an understanding of special education policy and advocacy, the training content and style are multifaceted. The training covers the following: case study evaluations, IEP meetings, research-based interventions, extended school year services, procedural safeguards, assistive technology, transition, least restrictive environment, discipline provisions, disabilities covered by IDEA, affecting legislative change, response to intervention, and advocacy skills.

For each topic, expert speakers talk to the participants. In past trainings, speakers included the following: faculty from The VKC-UCEDD and Vanderbilt University’s Special Education program, the statewide P&A, and the Tennessee Technology Access Program. Several attorneys, advocates, and parents of children with disabilities also spoke at the training sessions. Each session has a lecture-style format, with supplementary large and small group discussions as well as role-play. Furthermore, to ensure the participants can apply the knowledge they learn, the training uses case studies.

In addition to the more formal classroom sessions, trainees also participate in out-of-classroom work. Each trainee participates in two list-serves to stay up-to-date about special education changes and to consult with each other about special education advocacy questions. To better understand the role of an advocate, each participant also shadows an advocate at a special education meeting. Participants shadowed advocates, for example, at IEP and referral meetings, and school conferences.

VAP participants

Over 2 years and five cohorts of trainees, 129 individuals graduated from the VAP. Participant numbers increased with each cohort, from 11 participants in the first cohort to the fifth cohort’s 41 participants. No exclusionary criteria exist regarding participants for this project. Across all five cohorts, 59.1% of participants were parents of children receiving special education services.

Lessons learned

The VAP offered important insight into the training of special education advocates. However, several issues and questions remain regarding advocacy trainings. First, new ways are needed in providing first-hand advocacy experiences for the participants. Given the shortage of special education advocates, it was difficult to ensure that participants had shadowing opportunities. Second, most of the sites were more urban. In a primarily rural state, more efforts need to be made to reach this underserved population. Third, the need for ongoing support is necessary. As the training evolves, more resources need to be available as VAP graduates work with families.

Remaining Issues and Challenges of Special Education Advocacy

As both the SEAT and VAP begin to formalize the field of special education advocacy, several issues and challenges arise. Four of the most prominent issues and questions are discussed below.

Documenting the Need for Special Education Advocates

As demonstrated by the national interest in the SEAT training and state interest in the VAP training, many individuals want to become special education advocates. For instance, the VAP, in less than 1 year, expanded from one site to six sites across the state. Correspondingly, the number of participants in each VAP class expanded from an initial 11 to more than 40 participants—a fourfold increase. On a larger scale, the SEAT training has demonstrated the national interest in special education advocacy training as it has had several sites across the country.

In addition, interest in special education advocacy training is not limited to parents of students with disabilities. For both trainings, a significant portion of participants (20% of the SEAT and 40% for the VAP) were not parents of students with disabilities. For example, the VAP is an elective course at East Tennessee State University, thereby allowing preservice teachers to learn about special education law and advocacy. Indeed, many teachers and administrators may not fully understand IDEA in that many IEPs do not contain mandated components (Lynch & Beare, 1990), teachers do not use IEPs to guide instruction (Michnowicz, McConnell, Peterson, & Odom, 1995), and present levels of performance do not align with annual goals (Michnowicz et al., 1995). Given that few universities offer formal courses in special education law (Burke, Follit, & Hodapp, 2011), it is not unsurprising that IEPs are not being written and upheld in accordance with IDEA. The diversity of participants indicates that advocacy training has an appeal extending beyond parents of students with disabilities.

In addition, the number of collaborating agencies increased for both the SEAT and the VAP. With both trainings, collaborations exist with the PTIs, CPRCs, university UCEDDs, and parent advocacy groups. Among parent advocacy groups, several national, state, and local agencies worked with the trainings. For example, COPAA—a national advocacy group for parent attorneys and advocates—cosponsored the SEAT training. On a smaller scale, the VAP collaborated with the state Arc of Tennessee as well as local chapters of The Arc and smaller disability-specific parent support groups. Both trainings garnered wide interest from various disability agencies.

Determining the Best Way to Train Advocates

Although the need to support parents in navigating the IEP process is evident, the best way to provide such support is not. Special education advocates offer one way to support parents, but no research exists about the best way to train these advocates to effectively help families. Using the SEAT and the VAP as examples, we do not know whether an advocate needs to attend a 230-hr training (SEAT) or a 40-hr (VAP) training. Similarly, we do not know what content needs to be covered and in what depth. Also, as laws change and, correspondingly, advocacy changes, it is unknown what kind of ongoing support special education advocates need. Beyond content, we also do not know the most effective format of the training. For example, the SEAT includes a 115-hr practicum, whereas the VAP only includes the shadowing of a special education advocate. In looking at special education advocacy training, we remain unclear about what kind of field experience is necessary, which content areas should be covered in the curriculum, and the duration and subsequent ongoing support needed after the training.

We also do not know whether it is more effective to have no requirements after graduating (SEAT) or to use a “pay-it-forward” model requiring a commitment to four families (VAP). For both trainings, it remains unknown as to what, where, and how advocates use the knowledge and skills they gained from the training. Do graduated advocates need to have a requisite commitment to working with families? Do graduated advocates try to use their advocacy training to become professional advocates? Because of the newness of each of these trainings, it remains unknown how graduates will impact the special education field and help families of individuals with disabilities.

Another issue relates to how to expand advocacy trainings to other sites. The SEAT trains people with live instructors at each site, whereas the VAP relies on videoconferencing technology to train individuals across the state. What are the pros and cons to live versus videoconferenced trainings? Although live instruction seems preferable to videoconferenced instruction, there are few qualified instructors actively training interested individuals. In addition, more rural and underserved areas are difficult to reach by traditional means. The debate about videoconferencing versus live instruction remains unanswered.

To answer many of these questions related to the effectiveness of advocacy trainings, program evaluation is essential. For both training programs, it is necessary for not only the advocates but also the families they work with to evaluate the efficacy of the training programs. Using both formative and summative data collected from the participants will enable training coordinators to modify the trainings to better suit the needs of the participants. Without program evaluation data, it is difficult to determine the efficacy of these trainings and how they support families of students with disabilities.

Bridging the Two Worlds of Disability

The VAP and the SEAT offer one way to merge two seemingly isolated worlds of disability. One way of thinking about individuals with disabilities is by the special education services which they receive. To provide high-quality services to students with disabilities, university special education departments train future educators, administrators, and service providers. In university departments, the primary recipient of training is the preservice teacher. The knowledge and skills the teacher gains, then, are relayed to students with disabilities.

Another way of thinking about individuals with disabilities is by advocating and working directly with their families. To perform these services, national and state agencies exist such as UCEDDs, PTIs, COPAA, CPRCs, and P&As. These agencies provide support to families in securing appropriate educational services from the school system for students with disabilities. To these agencies, the primary recipient of their services is families (especially parents) of individuals with disabilities. The knowledge and skills the parent gains, then, are relayed to their children with disabilities.

Given their different views and intended audiences (schools vs. parents), these two worlds interact only sporadically. Special education advocacy training offers one forum in which the two worlds not only align but also collaborate with each other. For example, the VAP works with special education departments by having speakers from the Vanderbilt Special Education department, a director who is a doctoral student in the department, and participants who are students in the department. Alternatively, the VAP works with advocacy agencies by having its home at the VKC-UCEDD, a distance site University of Tennessee-Boling UCEDD, and collaborations with the state PTI, The Arc, and the CPRC. By uniting these two different worlds of disability, the VAP provides a forum for relevant stakeholders to communicate effectively about and advocate for students with disabilities. Special education advocacy is one area in which the two groups can work together, provide combined resources, and join together as a single “disability community.”

Conducting Research About Special Education Advocacy

Although models of parent–school collaboration exist for students without disabilities (Green, Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, & Sandler, 2007), research needs to be collected to develop an effective model of parent–school collaboration in special education. How do IEPs, procedural safeguards, and special education policies fit into or affect a model of parent–school collaboration? How would the model for parent–school collaboration in special education differ from one in regular education?

Limited empirical data exist to examine the effect of parental involvement on the achievement of students with disabilities (Fan & Chen, 2001). A large barrier in assessing the influence of parental involvement is the lack of standardized measures. In the family–school partnership literature, most studies are qualitative (Summers, Hoffman, Marquis, Turnbull, Poston, et al., 2005). The studies that do use quantitative family–school measures either (a) do not have psychometric properties or (b) focus on parents of children who receive early intervention services (Summers, Hoffman, Marquis, Turnbull, Poston, et al., 2005). A recently developed measure, The Family–Professional Partnership Scale, which has psychometric properties and focuses on families of school-aged children with disabilities, may offer an opportunity to further gauge the effect of parent–school collaboration (Summers, Hoffman, Marquis, Turnbull, & Poston, 2005; Summers, Hoffman, Marquis, Turnbull, Poston, et al., 2005). Using standardized definitions and measures of parental involvement, more research needs to be done regarding the effect of parental involvement.

Another area of research concerns how parent–school collaboration relates to characteristics of parent, child, and the family. For parents, we do not know whether the degree of parent–school collaboration affects their levels of stress, depression, or anxiety. In addition, we do not know how the child’s characteristics affect and are affected by the parent–school relationship. Do parents of children with behavioral issues have worse relationships with the schools? Does the severity, course, or onset of the disability of the child affect the parent’s relationship with the school? Furthermore, we do not know how the parent–school relationship affects the family dynamic. If the parent enacts a procedural safeguard, how does that decision affect the well-being and closeness of the family? Additional research needs to discern the effects of parent–school relationships on the parent, the child, and the family itself.

In addition, few studies examine the efficacy of interventions to improve parental involvement. Presently, most research about parental involvement of students with disabilities is descriptive (Coots, 1998). We need intervention research to address the identified barriers to and evaluate potential solutions for effective parental involvement. Such research needs to focus on both the advocates themselves and the families of children with disabilities. Research should be two-pronged (a) to quantify the knowledge and skills gained by the advocates from the training and (b) to quantify the help given to families of children with disabilities who worked with an advocate.

Considering all of these needs for research, a subfield of special education advocacy seems necessary. Special education should include a subfield to better understand parent advocacy as it relates to schools, parents, and students with disabilities. By having a line of research about special education advocacy, research can better inform us about the content that is necessary for trainings, the efficacy of special education trainings, and the implications of parent–school collaboration on the family.

The SEAT and VAP advocacy trainings are important first steps in understanding and improving parent–school collaboration in special education. By preparing advocates to assist parents in both securing FAPE for their children with disabilities as well as working collaboratively with the school, advocacy trainings offer one way to improve the parent–school relationship. Further research now needs to be done regarding advocacy trainings, advocates themselves, and parent–school collaboration, thereby ensuring that all students with disabilities make optimal academic progress and that their parents no longer encounter such difficulties as they navigate the special education system.

From this article, two lessons seem obvious: (a) parents of children with disabilities require support in navigating the special education process and (b) the SEAT and the VAP offer two promising special education advocacy training models. Although many questions remain to be answered, these models provide a preliminary effort in ensuring that students with disabilities secure appropriate educational services.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ahearn

(2001). The involvement of lay advocates in due process hearings. Eugene, OR: CADRE.

Barnard

W. M.

(2003). Parent involvement in elementary school and educational attainment. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 39–62.

Burke

M. M.

Follit

Hodapp

R. M.

(2011). Teaching special education law to pre-service teachers. Manuscript in preparation.

Childre

Chambers

C. R.

(2005). Family perceptions of student centered planning and IEP meetings. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 217–233.

Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education. (2004). National Dispute Resolution Use and Effectiveness Study. Eugene, OR: Author.

Coots

J. J.

(1998). Family resources and parent participation in schooling activities for their children with developmental delays. Journal of Special Education, 31, 498–520.

Defur

S. H.

(2003). IEP transition planning-from compliance to quality. Exceptionality, 11, 115–128.

Epstein

J. L.

Sheldon

S. B.

(2002). Present and accounted for: Improving student attendance through family and community involvement. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 308–318.

Esquivel

S. L.

Ryan

C. S.

Bonner

(2008). Involved parents’ perceptions of their experiences in school-based team meetings. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 18, 234–258.

10.

Fan

Chen

(2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1–14.

11.

Fish

W. W.

(2006). Perceptions of parents of students with autism towards the IEP meeting: A case study of one family support group chapter. Education, 127, 56–68.

12.

Fish

W. W.

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

13.

Fitzgerald

J. L.

Watkins

M. W.

(2006). Parents’ rights in special education: The readability of procedural safeguards. Exceptional Children, 72, 497–510.

14.

Folger

Poole

M. S.

Stutman

R. K.

(2000). Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.

15.

Friesen

B. J.

Huff

(1990). Parents and professionals as advocacy partners. Preventing School Failure, 34, 31–39.

16.

Green

C. L.

Walker

J. M. T.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

Sandler

H. M.

(2007). Parents’ motivations for involvement in children’s education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 532–544.

17.

Harry

(1992). Cultural diversity, families, and the special education system. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

18.

Henderson

Mapp

(2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: National Center for Family and Community Connections With Schools, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

19.

Hess

R. S.

Molina

A. M.

Kozleski

E. B.

(2006). Until somebody hears me: Parent voice and advocacy in special educational decision making. British Journal of Special Education, 33, 148–157.

20.

Imber

Radcliffe

(2003). Independent educational evaluations under IDEA ’97: It’s a testy matter. Exceptional Children, 70, 27–44.

21.

Individuals With Disabilities Improvement Education Act of 2004. 20 U.S.C. ξ 1400.

22.

Jeynes

W. H.

(2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 42, 82–110.

23.

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.

24.

Lake

J. F.

Billingsley

B. S.

(2000). An analysis of factors that contribute to parent–school conflict in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 240–252.

25.

Leiter

Krauss

M. W.

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

26.

Lipson

L. K.

McCall

(2008, March). A quiet revolution: Building statewide capacity with community advocacy. Paper presented at the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates Conference, Anaheim, CA.

27.

Lynch

E. C.

Beare

P. L.

(1990). The quality of IEP objectives and their relevance to instruction for students with mental retardation and behavioral disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 11, 48–55.

28.

Mandic

C. G.

Rudd

Hehir

Acevedo-Garcia

(2010). Readability of special education procedural safeguards. Journal of Special Education, 30, 1–9.

29.

Mandlawitz

M. R.

(2002). The impact of the legal system on educational programming for young children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32, 495–508.

30.

Michnowicz

L. L.

McConnell

S. R.

Peterson

C. A.

Odom

S. L.

(1995). Social goals and objectives of preschool IEPs: A content analysis. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 273–282.

31.

Mueller

T. G.

(2008). Alternative dispute resolution: A new agenda for special education policy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20, 1–9.

32.

Munn-Joseph

M. S.

Gavin-Evans

(2008). Urban parents of children with special needs: Advocating for their children through social networks. Urban Education, 43, 378–393.

33.

Pruitt

(2003). Relationships between reading level of parents, readability of special education documents/forms, knowledge of IEP contents, and parental involvement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). East Tennessee State University, Johnson City.

34.

Public Agenda. (2002). When it’s your own child: A report on special education from the families who use it. New York, NY: Author.

35.

Roberts

J. C.

Fletcher

R. H.

Fletcher

S. W.

(1994). Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 119–121.

36.

Sheldon

S. B.

Epstein

J. L.

(2005). Involvement counts: Family and community partnerships and mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 196–206.

37.

Smalley

Reyes-Blanes

(2001, March). Lessons learned: Effective strategies for partnering with rural African American parents. Proceedings of the 2001 American Council on Rural Special Education Conference, San Diego, CA.

38.

Soodak

L. C.

Erwin

E. J.

(2000). Valued member or tolerated participant: Parents’ experiences in inclusive early childhood settings. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 25, 29–41.

39.

Stoner

J. B.

Jones Bock

Thompson

J. R.

Angell

M. E.

Heyl

B. S.

Crowly

E. P.

(2005). Welcome to our world: Parent perceptions of interactions between parents of children with ASD and education professionals. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 20–39.

40.

Summers

J. A.

Hoffman

Marquis

Turnbull

A. P.

Poston

(2005). Relationship between parent satisfaction regarding partnerships with professionals and age of child. Early Childhood Special Education, 25, 48–58.

41.

Summers

J. A.

Hoffman

Marquis

Turnbull

A. P.

Poston

Nelson

L. L.

(2005). Measuring the quality of family-professional partnerships in special education services. Exceptional Children, 72, 65–83.

42.

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.

43.

Turnbull

A. P.

Turnbull

H. R.

Erwin

E. J.

Soodak

L. C.

Shogren

K. A.

(2010). Families, professionals, and exceptionality: Positive outcomes through partnerships and trust. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

44.

U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Strong families, strong schools: Building community partnerships for learning. Washington, DC: Author.

45.

Vakalahi

H. F.

(2001). Adolescent substance abuse and family-based risk and protective factors: A literature review. Journal of Drug Education, 31, 29–46.

46.

Wheeler

Marshall

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

47.

Wolery

(1989). Transitions in early childhood special education: Issues and procedures. Focus on Exceptional Children, 22, 1–16.

48.

Zirkel

P. A.

(1994). Over-due process revisions for the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Montana Law Review, 55, 403–414.