A Conceptual Model for Parent Involvement in Secondary Special Education

Abstract

Parent educational involvement has been demonstrated to be a predictor of in-school and post-school success for all students, including students with disabilities. However, traditional models of parent involvement tend to focus on academic-oriented indicators of success whereas transition models tend to focus on post-school outcomes with limited parent roles. The purpose of this article is to propose a model of parent involvement that addresses the limitations of current approaches by (a) integrating transition and traditional academic-focused models of parent involvement, (b) incorporating predictors of post-school success, and (c) accounting for the continued role parents play in the lives of their adult children.

Keywords

parent involvement family involvement transition planning secondary education

In the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB; 2001), parental involvement was defined as “the participation of parents in regular, two-way, and meaningful communication involving student academic learning and other school activities.” The term parent refers to

a natural, adoptive, or foster parent of a child, a guardian, or an individual acting in the place of a natural or adoptive parent (including a grandparent, stepparent, or other relative) with whom the child lives, or an individual who is legally responsible for the child’s welfare. (Individuals With Disability Education Act [IDEA], 2004, sec. 602).

From this point forward, the term parent will be used to represent the variety of family constellations that exist today.

NCLB emphasized promoting parent involvement and building parents’ capacity to act as full partners in improving their child’s education by requiring schools to (a) develop a written policy regarding involving parents and (b) provide parents with resources and training on topics such as academic content, achievement standards, monitoring progress, and collaboration. Despite increased focus on parent involvement over time, however, Section 1118—Parent Involvement—in NCLB has drawn criticism for not outlining clear procedures for measuring parent involvement, and failing to implement federal monitoring of school activities to meet parent involvement requirements (Epstein, 2005). Without guidance and oversight, schools are left to interpret the intent of the law resulting in multiple practices with inconsistent results (Epstein, 2005). Unfortunately, this means that many families are not connecting with schools. Teachers and administrators often report that one of their greatest challenges is getting the parents they are most trying to reach, involved. Most of these “hard to reach” parents are “those who are of color, poor, economically distressed, limited English speakers, and/or immigrants” (Mapp & Hong, 2010, p. 346). Mapp and Hong (2010) argue, however, that it is not the parents, who are hard to reach, but the schools and the programs, policies, and practices created by school personnel that are hard to reach.

Moreover, NCLB does not specifically address students with disabilities for whom parent involvement may be particularly important. One of the main components of IDEA (2004) is parent participation in decision making related to their child’s education. IDEA reaffirms the importance of parent involvement in education by mandating procedures offering a continuum of activities aimed at facilitating parental involvement. Although parent participation is not mandated, schools are required to make efforts and encourage parents to become partners in decision making regarding their child’s education including, but not limited to, consent to evaluation and determination of eligibility for services.

Despite positive associations between parent involvement and student outcomes and corresponding mandates that schools invite parents to be involved in decisions pertaining to their child’s education, collaborative home–school relationships remains elusive, particularly for low-income and culturally diverse (CLD) families (Kalyanpur, Harry, & Skrtic, 2000). A number of barriers and contextual factors contribute to this lack of connection, and it is important to address these as “these barriers to family-school partnerships create inequities and contribute to differential postschool outcomes” (Trainor, Lindstrom, Simon-Burroughs, Martin, & McCray Sorrells, 2008, p. 60).

Models for Parent Involvement

In general, previous models for parent involvement in education view parents as having a role in promoting the achievement of their child through school-based and home-based activities (Epstein, 1987; Green, Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, & Sandler, 2007; Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994). Home-based activities are aimed at supporting achievement through homework and curriculum-related activities, and promoting overall cognitive development of their child. School-based activities are focused on participating in meetings and activities at school and facilitating connections with both school staff and other families. Existing models for parent involvement recognize the importance of the home–school connection and emphasize that communication between these two spheres of influence is critical.

Previous models for parent involvement make a unique contribution to the conceptualization of parent involvement in education. For example, Grolnick and Slowiaczek (1994) and Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995) both highlight the importance of parents conveying their education-related values to their child. Grolnick and Slowiaczek (1994) focus more on the child’s affective experience in which parents convey positive feelings toward the child by caring about school and relating their enjoyment of interacting with the child about school. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995) suggest that parents convey not only their value of education but also their goals, expectations, and aspirations for their child’s future.

Parent Involvement in High Schools

Despite the benefits of parent involvement and the call to increase parental participation in education, parent involvement decreases as students transition from middle to high school (Eccles et al., 1993). Newman (2005) reported that parents of older students with disabilities were less involved at home and school than parents of younger aged peers. Several factors could be influencing this trend of decreasing parent involvement as students age, such as structural changes to the educational environment and shifts in parental and school personnel perceptions of the role of parents in a student’s life during high school.

Middle and high schools are often large, complex systems with more teachers, which can make it difficult for parents to find ways to connect (Adams & Christenson, 2000). In addition, high school curricula are more complex, which makes it more challenging to support student learning (Hill & Chao, 2009). The systemic and curricular changes evident between elementary and middle/high schools also coincide with developmental changes as students enter adolescence. Developing autonomy and independence are two important developmental tasks during adolescence as conceived by Western culture (Arnett, 2013). At this time, students often begin distancing themselves from their parents, and parents often support their child’s emerging autonomy and independence by distancing themselves from their teen’s life, including school life (Hollifield, 1994). Parents seem to recognize that involvement practices appropriate when their child was in elementary and middle school are no longer developmentally appropriate, but are uncertain how exactly to continue to engage.

High school administrators and teachers are also sometimes unsure of how to effectively engage families in their child’s education and sometimes avoid partnering with them (Greenfield, Epstein, Hutchins, & Thomas, 2012), reflecting the decrease in parent outreach activities in high schools (Adams & Christenson, 2000). With schools and parents unsure about their roles in the lives of high school students, a chasm between home and school can exist. However, it is important to address this gap as high school students continue to reaffirm the value of family in their lives, education, and plans for college and career (Greenfield et al., 2012), and research continues to underscore the importance of parental involvement for in-school and post-school success (Newman et al., 2005; Test et al., 2009).

The field of special education organized transition-related research into models to begin to assist schools in addressing the discrepancy in post-school outcomes between youth with disabilities and their peers without disabilities. Two examples are the Taxonomy for Transition Programming (Kohler, 1996) and Guideposts for Success (National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability [NCWD] for Youth, 2009). These models identify the importance of parent involvement in transition planning and the central role parents play in their children’s school life. Activities in these models are focused on empowering parents to be active participants in transition planning by arming them with essential knowledge and skills. Training components include knowledge of transition, community resources and supports for the youth and family, and information on disability-related legislation. Kohler (1996) stresses the importance of increasing parent knowledge of community resources as well as concepts and strategies that support student independence, such as self-determination.

A third model by Wandry and Pleet (2009) focuses specifically on parent involvement and the role parents can and should play during the transition years. Wandry and Pleet suggest that parents can assume five different roles during the transition years both in school and in adult service agencies: (a) collaborators in the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process, (b) instructors in their youth’s emergent independence, (c) decision makers and evaluators; (d) peer mentors, and (e) systems change agents. This model differs from previous models by expanding the role of parents, recognizing them as instructors in their youth’s emergent independence, and emphasizing the importance of home-based activities.

Although all the models provide a useful lens for conceptualizing parent involvement, several limitations of these models affect applicability to transition-age youth with disabilities and their families. First, general education models (Epstein, 1987; Green et al., 2007; Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005) focus mainly on linking parent engagement with student academic success whereas the transition frameworks (i.e., Kohler, 1996; NCWD Youth, 2009) focus primarily on parental roles in transition planning in school. In reality, the role of parents is multidimensional and often focused on both in-school and post-school success.

Although models describe some knowledge parents need to participate in transition planning (e.g., IEP process, community resources), parents could benefit from additional resources (e.g., supports, programs, experiences, services correlated with improved post-school outcomes for youth with disabilities). For example, Test et al. (2009) identified in-school predictors of post-school outcomes for students with disabilities in education, employment, and independent living (e.g., work study, community experiences, self-determination). Integrating this information into a parent involvement model is an important next step not only in improving the home–school partnership, but also in improving post-school outcomes for youth with disabilities. Although parents may not dictate curriculum and services, if they are aware of evidence-based programs that increase the likelihood of positive outcomes, they will be more fully informed advocates and partners in transition planning.

Finally, although mentioned in Wandry and Pleet (2009), the importance of the roles parents continue to play after their students leave high school is not accounted for in a meaningful way in most models. Many parents of students with disabilities maintain active roles in the lives of their student after high school. Although these roles may look somewhat different than roles held during high school, parents often continue to act as decision makers, collaborators, instructors, and advocates for their child (Bianco, Garrison-Wade, Tobin, & Lehmann, 2009; Timmons, Whitney-Thomas, McIntyre, Butterworth, & Allen, 2004). Parents are often critical in assisting and guiding their young adults in receiving supports and services necessary to achieve desired post-school goals. Therefore, in looking ahead to promoting positive post-school outcomes for youth with disabilities, it is imperative that there are support networks, including parents, in place that can continue to assist students in developing the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to achieve their goals.

Given the weight of the role parents play in the lives of their children and the complex nature of schools and transition planning, it is important to have a model for parent involvement that defines how parents can be involved, what skills and knowledge parents need to effectively support their students, and what strategies high schools can use to increase parent involvement for youth with disabilities. Not only is it mandated by IDEA (2004) to provide supports to parents, but research continues to demonstrate that parent involvement increases the likelihood of positive post-school outcomes (Test et al., 2009). If one goal of education is to prepare students to meet post-school goals, schools must recognize that parents continue to play a role in the lives of their child long after they leave high school and should prepare parents for their changing roles as students exit high school and enter adult service systems (Bianco et al., 2009). This requires recognizing that for many youth with disabilities, post-school success is affected by students’ individual characteristics and the knowledge, skills, expectations, and resources of their family (e.g., Lindstrom, Hirano, McCarthy, & Alverson, 2014).

Expanding Definitions and Dimensions of Parent Involvement in Secondary Transition

Based on existing models of parent involvement (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Wandry & Pleet, 2009), parent reports of transition experiences (Bianco et al., 2009; Timmons et al., 2004), and research related to predictors of post-school success for students with disabilities (Rowe et al., 2014; Test et al., 2009), a conceptual model for parent involvement in secondary special education and transition is suggested. Addressing limitations of current approaches, the model (a) integrates transition and traditional academic-focused models of parent involvement, (b) incorporates predictors of post-school success, and (c) accounts for the continued role parents play in the lives of their adult children. Figure 1 presents an overview of the model.

Figure 1.

Theoretical model for parent involvement in secondary special education.

School Values and Beliefs

Mapp and Kuttner (2014) outline research-based organizational conditions essential for parent engagement initiatives to be implemented and sustained. Based on the work of Weiss, Lopez, and Rosenberg (2011), these conditions include initiatives that are systemic, integrated, and sustained with diverse funding streams and school leadership. Initiatives should be a critical element of school and district improvement plans with the capacity-building efforts integrated into school structures and processes. These include not only training and professional development but also recruitment and mechanisms for assessment and evaluation. Finally, district leadership must view parent engagement as systemic and be able to coordinate parent engagement strategies as part of the overall plan for school improvement. Additional research also focuses on the importance of school-level leadership and teacher beliefs and efficacy on parent involvement (Dauber & Epstein, 1993; Lloyd-Smith & Baron, 2010).

School leadership

School leaders often set the school climate and have the power to encourage or discourage school practices, including parent involvement (Lloyd-Smith & Baron, 2010). The foundation for parent involvement in the proposed model relies on school leaders who (a) know and understand the importance of parent involvement in promoting students’ in-school and post-school success, (b) value parents as partners in education, (c) believe that parents want the best for their students and manifest their support in various ways, (d) effectively communicate values to school staff and support ongoing professional development and support for parent involvement, and (e) initiate and/or actively support parent involvement programs (Campbell-Whatley & Lyons, 2013).

Teacher beliefs and efficacy

In addition to school leaders, it is also important to have teachers who support parent involvement. There is consistent evidence in general education that teacher attitudes and invitations they extend to parents to be involved in their child’s education are important influences on parents’ decisions to become involved (Dauber & Epstein, 1993). Simon (2004) found parents who perceived more outreach from their child’s high school (e.g., school contacts about their child’s academic program, contacts with information about how to help children with homework or specific skill development) were more involved. This increased involvement included more parent–child discussions about post-school goals, school activities, and homework completion, and greater levels of attendance at school activities.

Given the potential impact of invitations for parent involvement, it is important that teachers make it an integrated part of their teaching practice. Integrating parent involvement into practice requires belief that it is important (Pajares, 1992). School staff who do not support parent involvement (e.g., believe that it is too much trouble) have been found to actively discourage parent involvement (Dauber & Epstein, 1993). In addition, teachers who held low assessments of their ability to affect changes in levels of parent involvement were less likely to believe that forming partnerships was important for promoting parent involvement than teachers with a more positive perspective on parents (Landmark, Roberts, & Zhang, 2013).

School Interventions

A school culture that values parent involvement provides the foundation for parent involvement programs and initiatives (Mapp & Kuttner, 2014). Traditional forms of involvement include volunteering at the school, attending parent–teacher conferences, open houses, and school activities, as well as participation in the schools’ Parent Teacher Association, and supporting homework completion (Greenwood & Hickman, 1991). However, most of these activities along with school structures and norms are most responsive to “middle-class, U.S. born, able-bodied, standard English-speaking parents” (Goodwin & King, 2002, p. 5). In an effort to provide culturally responsive involvement opportunities, several strategies have been offered, such as schools (a) creating and clearly communicating their commitment to culturally responsive parent involvement, (b) obtaining parental perspectives through surveys or interviews, (c) providing flexible meeting and activity times so that more parents can attend, (d) offering seminars and parent–teacher team building activities, (e) assigning a parent liaison, (f) creating a cultural resource binder, and (g) providing a family space or room within the school (Goodwin & King, 2002).

In addition to the aforementioned activities, some parents, such as parents of youth with disabilities, play distinct roles in their children’s education that may require extra training and support. For example, Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997) proposed a model of parent involvement that identified factors thought to affect parents’ decisions to become involved in their child’s education (i.e., parental role construction, parental skills and knowledge, and parental efficacy). Not present in the Hoover-Dempsey model but included in this model are parent expectations, which have been demonstrated to influence parent involvement behaviors (e.g., Doren, Gau, & Lindstrom, 2012). This conceptual model proposes that school interventions should be aimed at increasing these three constructs in the five roles that parents play in secondary school and transition planning, as well as in assisting parents in forming high and reasonable expectations for their youth.

Parental role construction

Parental role construction is simply parents’ beliefs about what they should do as parents in relation to their child’s education. Based on role theory (Biddle, 1986), Hoover-Dempsey et al. (2005) defined it as “parents’ beliefs about what they are supposed to do in relation to their child’s education and the patterns of behavior that follow those beliefs” (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005, p. 107). Parents’ beliefs about their role in their child’s education are influenced by culture (Chrispeels & Rivero, 2001) and socioeconomic status (Lareau, 2003) and can lead to different types and levels of parent involvement. For example, several studies have identified Latino immigrant families as holding the belief that teaching academic skills is the role of the school; therefore, they often take a more passive role in school- and home-based involvement (e.g., Chrispeels & Rivero, 2001). These findings have also been replicated with low-income families (Lareau, 2003). Role construction is also shaped by parent beliefs about child development and effective parenting practices (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). Although there is currently no research that assesses the impact of parental role construction on parental involvement in secondary school and transition planning, research supports the importance of role construction in shaping parent involvement practices for parents of elementary (Sheldon, 2002) and secondary students (Deslandes & Bertrand, 2005).

Knowledge, skills, and parental efficacy

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995) suggest that the particular skills and knowledge parents possess will influence their forms of involvement. For example, if parents feel knowledgeable about writing but less confident in their math abilities, they are more likely to help their student with writing tasks. Extended to transition activities, if parents feel more confident in their ability to create resumes or look for jobs than connecting with resources in the community, they are more likely to help their child find a job rather than pursue community support services. However, possessing knowledge and skills to support a child in academics or transition does not guarantee that the parent will indeed become involved. Parents must also have a sense of efficacy for helping their child succeed.

Grounded in social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997), self-efficacy is a construct that refers to one’s belief that their efforts will positively affect outcomes (Bandura, 1997). It is important to note that self-efficacy is distinct from skills and knowledge as it refers to the “beliefs about what one can do with the sub-skills one possesses” (Bandura, 1986b, p. 368). In regard to parent involvement in secondary school and transition planning, parental efficacy refers to parents’ beliefs that their efforts will positively affect their child’s in-school and post-school outcomes. Previous research has demonstrated that parental efficacy is linked to parent involvement. Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, and Brissie (1992) found that parents with higher parental efficacy were more likely to be involved than parents with a weaker sense of self-efficacy.

Parent expectations

For students in general, parent expectations have been linked to academic achievement (Chen & Gregory, 2010), school engagement (Simons-Morton & Chen, 2009), and college attendance (Crosnoe, Mistry, & Elder, 2002). Parent expectations have also proven to be significant for students with disabilities. Recent studies have found that parents of youth with disabilities who held high expectations of their children tended to have better post-school outcomes in employment and post-secondary education (e.g., Doren et al., 2012).

Although there are not currently any research-based practices for raising parent expectations, several studies indicate that parent expectations are dynamic and influenced by the parents’ perception of how their child is doing in school (Goldenberg, Gallimore, Reese, & Garnier, 2001) and teacher expectations (Lareau, 2003), suggesting schools could potentially affect parent expectations. Parent expectations are also influenced by knowledge of available services. Francis, Gross, Turnbull, and Parent-Johnson (2013) found that parent training on competitive employment options for people with disabilities through the Family Empowerment Awareness Training (FEAT) increased parent expectations for competitive employment. A follow-up survey found that parents reported accessing competitive employment resources following the trainings with nearly one fifth reporting competitive employment outcomes for their son or daughter (Francis, Gross, Turnbull, & Turnbull, 2014).

Expanded Parent Involvement Roles in Secondary Education and Transition

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997) suggest that the beliefs underlying parental role construction are based on experience with their own parent’s school involvement, observation of their friend’s involvement in child’s schooling, and expectations for involvement held by groups to which parents belong, including schools. Parents of youth with disabilities may not have family or peer groups to observe and model or who share similar experiences (e.g., attending transition planning meetings). The school, however, can develop parent involvement roles and expectations and communicate these to parents. For parents of secondary students with disabilities, these roles extend beyond attending meetings and helping with homework. These roles include decision maker and evaluator, collaborator, instructor, coach, and advocate (described below). Schools should provide parents with knowledge and skills to enable them to effectively fulfill these roles and develop their efficacy for supporting their child.

Parent training has been effective at increasing parent knowledge, skills, and efficacy. For example, Chrispeels and Rivero (2001) reported that parents’ role construction evolved as they gained new information through attending six 90-min training sessions focused on how to interact with teachers and support their child’s academic success at home. Results indicated increases in parent-initiated communication, more positive and supportive interactions with their child at home, and more engagement in teaching activities at home. Parents also demonstrated an increase in advocacy at school, as they pressed to see their child’s records and understand more about the child’s progress. These behavioral changes reflect a shift in role construction as parents learned the importance of an active role in education.

Although each model previously reviewed discussed the importance of parent involvement in education, models addressed parental roles and forms of involvement in slightly different ways. To adequately address parent involvement in secondary education and transition planning, it is necessary to consolidate roles from the literature and expand traditional definitions of parent involvement to reflect roles parents assume during school-age years and the future. Expanding these roles will also provide a new lens through which teachers can view parents. Geenan, Powers, and Lopez-Vasquez (2001) found that professionals reported relatively low involvement for CLD parents in both home-based and school-based transition planning. CLD parents also reported low levels of school-based involvement but indicated relatively high levels of transition planning activities at home. Oftentimes, parents who do not participate in traditional school-based activities are thought to be uninvolved, which contributes to the assumption that the families who are often “of color, poor, economically distressed, limited English speakers, and/or immigrants” (Mapp & Hong, 2010, p. 346) are uncaring and “hard-to-reach” (Mapp & Hong, 2010). Expanding the role of parents and forms of involvement may also help educators to become aware of and appreciate many of the invisible strategies CLD families use to support their children’s education (e.g., Delgado-Gaitan, 1994).

Parents as decision makers and collaborators

IDEA mandates parents of students with disabilities are part of the IEP team and considered partners in educational decision making. Having adequate information about their child’s course of study and activities while in high school can affect the ability to be fully informed decision makers and advocates. For parents to be partners in decision making, they must be aware of options and potential consequences of decisions. The impact of educational decisions on a youth with a disability significantly affects future options and post-school outcomes. For example, Blackorby, Hancock, and Siegel (1993) found that students with disabilities who participated in general education academic courses were more likely to be engaged in post-school education, employment, and independent living, findings that have been replicated across other studies (e.g., Daviso, Denney, Baer, & Flexer, 2011). Obtaining a high school diploma also influences post-secondary enrollment (Harvey, 2002).

Inclusion in general education and diploma status are not the only relevant school-based decisions that affect student outcomes. Parents need to be knowledgeable about nonacademic courses (e.g., Career Technical Education), work experiences, and availability of structured school-to-work and transition programs (i.e., predictors post-school success; Rowe et al., 2014; Test et al., 2009). It is important for parents to understand all educational options available for their child and be informed of the impact that their child’s educational path and experiences may have on options and outcomes in the future. It is only with this crucial information that parents can make informed decisions on how to best support and advocate for their child.

Studies of parents of young adults with disabilities during and after the transition from high school to adult service delivery systems reveal that the role of parents is complex and multifaceted. Timmons et al. (2004) described parents as “linchpins” who acted not only as parents and providers, but also as service coordinators, case managers, and advocates. Bianco et al. (2009) found that for parents of young adults with disabilities, establishing collaborative partnerships with adult service agencies and direct service providers was critical in filling service gaps to ensure that the young adult’s needs were met. As with schools, informed decision making can be elusive in the adult service system if parents and youth are unaware of their options. Although the school is not responsible for assisting parents in navigating the adult service system after their child leaves high school, providing information about and connection to pertinent community resources to pursue should they need support could help pave the way for a smoother transition.

Without understanding the different factors that influence post-school outcomes and awareness of availability of programs and resources in school, parents can hardly be called partners in educational decision making. Making decisions or supporting those made by schools without having adequate knowledge inhibits parents’ ability to make informed decisions.

Parents as instructors

Lightfoot (1978) states that in parent–school partnerships, “there must be a profound recognition that parents are their child’s first teacher and that education, deeply rooted in the values, traditions, and norms of family culture,” begins before formal schooling (p. 42). In fact, parents continue to act as instructors through the transmission of socio-cultural values, a form of involvement often overlooked by traditional models of parent involvement (Geenan et al., 2001). Although this role of instructor may change as children age, parents continue to influence their child’s growth and development. By recognizing this important and ongoing role of parents as instructors, teachers can collaborate with parents to integrate teaching moments into the daily lives of families to support students in their in-school and post-school goals in academics, daily living skills, and social skills.

Academics

Families can manifest their support for education in the home and at school in multiple ways, including assisting with homework. Despite benefits of parental involvement with homework, parents report that helping with homework can put tension on the parent–child relationship (Baumgartner, Bryan, Donahue, & Nelson, 1993). Providing parents information (e.g., appropriate monitoring for their child’s needs and phrases for providing feedback) can increase parents’ effectiveness and influence student motivation for completing homework.

Adapting work from Hoover-Dempsey et al. (2001), Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, Whetsel, and Green (2004) described two categories of activities in which schools can invite parent involvement. The first category is focused on activities most families can enact that contribute to student motivation and performance, for example, making sure that parents understand homework policies and expectations through accessible written materials, and assisting parents in establishing physical and psychological structures to support homework completion. Suggestions may be general (e.g., convey value and expectations of homework completion) to specific (e.g., “if the child is easily distracted, make sure the phone, music, and TV are turned off”) depending on the child’s developmental needs. Last, schools can encourage all parents to monitor homework and support parents in providing specific positive feedback on homework performance.

Self-determination

Several studies highlight the importance of parents and relationships in self-determination. For example, Lindstrom, Doren, Metheny, Johnson, and Zane (2007) found that students with highly involved families who acted as advocates and provided opportunities for exploration, decision making, and self-determination skill development had better post-school independent living and employment outcomes. Some parents report that passing off more responsibility to their child, nurturing self-determination, and self-advocacy happened later, after high school (Bianco et al., 2009), indicating that this is an evolving process. There are many opportunities for parents to support their child in developing self-determination skills in high school and beyond, including advocating for services on their own or providing feedback to personal care providers.

Several strategies for involving parents in supporting student self-determination can be adapted from strategies for practitioners outlined by Rowe et al. (2014). Teachers can work with parents first to establish the importance of students developing self-determination skills, making the direct connection to how these skills will support the student in achieving their post-school goals. Then, schools can employ parents to assist in developing these skills at home through a range of options requiring little time to more intensive efforts. For example, “expect and support students to make many routine choices for themselves throughout the course of a school day” (p. 9). Teachers can help parents examine routines at home and identify opportunities to provide choice (e.g., the order in which to complete chores, selecting dinners for the week, etc.).

Daily living

Daily living skills are activities one is expected to do throughout the course of the day across settings like home, school, work, and community. These include activities such as those involving how to maintain a home, personal hygiene routine, and navigating the community. The extent to which a student with a disability is able to manage daily living activities may affect post-school options. In fact, those students who had high self-care skills were more likely to be engaged in post-school education, employment, and independent living (e.g., Blackorby et al., 1993). Rowe et al. (2014) identified ways schools can support the development of daily living skills including providing instruction based on assessment. These same strategies can be used to support the development of the skills at home. Parents may be open to ideas or suggestions for assisting their child in developing critical life skills (e.g., grocery shopping, household chores such as laundry, cleaning, or cooking).

Social skills

Caldarella and Merrell (1997) outlined five dimensions of social skills, a predictor of post-school success (Test et al., 2009), which included peer relation skills, self-management skills, academic skills, compliance skills, and self-management skills. Students with high social skills on exit from high school were more likely to be engaged in post-school employment (Benz, Yovanoff, & Doren, 1997) or post-secondary education, and to have an improved quality of life as measured by independent living status (Roessler, Brolin, & Johnson, 1990).

In addition to teachers, parents are also important models of social skills (Johns, Crowley, & Guetzloe, 2005). Utilizing families as instructors to assist students in developing skills in these other areas is also important because families have unique opportunities to provide instruction and skill development that are unlike those at school. Rowe et al. (2014) suggested schools provide parents “information and training in supporting age-appropriate social skill development, taking into consideration the family’s cultural standards” (p. 10). Teachers can also assist parents in using routine activities at home as teachable moments (e.g., providing support to students to use problem-solving skills when difficult social situations arise).

Advocates

The roles of parents of youth with disabilities as system change agents and advocates are not new. Historically, special education law includes efforts of both parents and advocacy groups in American courtrooms and legislatures working to ensure equal educational opportunities for students (Yell, Rogers, & Rogers, 1998). However, it is clear that not all parents are able to fulfill these roles in relation to secondary school and transition planning. Multiple barriers exist to parent involvement, including lack of pertinent information (Landmark, Zhang, & Montoya, 2007) and negative professional perceptions both of CLD parents (Geenan, Powers, Lopez-Vasquez, & Bersani, 2003) and parents who advocate for their children as being perceived as difficult (Kim & Morningstar, 2005).

Despite these barriers, advocacy skills are critical for parents while students are in school and remain important once students leave the school system. When Timmons et al. (2004) asked parents to identify the most helpful and effective strategies they utilized in managing adult systems, parents noted advocacy skills as being important in overcoming barriers and accessing services for their child. Bianco et al. (2009) found similar sentiments with parents of young adults with disabilities who reported that establishing collaborative partnerships with adult service agencies and direct service providers was critical in filling service gaps to ensure the young adult’s needs were met. Parents also noted the usefulness of connecting with other parents of children with disabilities and sharing experiences, advice, and support (Timmons et al., 2004). These informal networks of support were noted as relieving some pressures associated with ongoing self-advocacy.

Research has demonstrated the benefits to students when parents are involved in their education. Knowing the importance of advocacy in fulfilling this role both while the students are in high school and once they leave, schools have a responsibility to provide parents opportunities for knowledge and skill development. There is a range of ways schools can connect families with each other and provide parents support in developing these skills. These can include informal events and more structured peer mentoring, such as a monthly parent–teacher led support group, a reading club to explore relevant topics in special education and transition, parent nights, and parent matching (Ripley, 2009). Although not all parents may want to act as peer mentors for other families, parents have noted the need for support from peer mentors and models for assistance navigating their roles (Bianco et al., 2009).

Implications for Research

This article presents a conceptual model for parent involvement in secondary school and transition planning. Building on existing models of parent involvement, this model expands the role of parents and includes a focus not only on the roles they play in high school but also on the continued role they often play once their child leaves high school. Several areas for future research emerge from this. Acknowledging the expanded roles parents play beyond attending IEP meetings, school activities, and assisting with homework is an important first step in being able to collaborate with parents to more effectively support students in achieving successful post-school outcomes. However, research is needed to support which types of parent involvement are most effective for promoting in-school and post-school outcomes. This will require examination of which involvement activities work best for particular groups of students and their parents.

In addition to research exploring which kinds of parent involvement are most effective, research is also needed to understand how to best engage parents in these roles. For example, though there are a few intervention studies designed to increase parent knowledge of the transition planning process (Boone, 1992; Rowe & Test, 2010), there is limited research on strategies to increase parent involvement, role construction, or parent self-efficacy in transition planning. Last, it is clear that parents continue to play a critical role in the lives of their children after they leave high school. Exploring ways schools, communities, and agencies can support parents in preparing for the role change while their children are still in high school may also support youth in achieving and maintaining improved post-school outcomes.

Implications for Practice

This article focused on the importance of parent involvement in secondary education and transition planning and offers several implications for practice. First, it is critical for school leadership to set the school climate in regard to parental involvement through values, attitudes, and action. While being cognizant of the challenges that accompany parent involvement, having leadership that understands the importance of parent involvement not only in students’ in-school success but also post-school success is crucial. These values can influence school policy around increasing parent involvement. School leadership can spearhead programs or support teacher initiatives to promote involvement. Ultimately, it is important that they create a school culture that values parents and also allocates resources to put values into action. It is also important for teachers to have opportunities for professional development regarding providing ongoing systems of support for engaging parents. The role of teachers in engaging parents cannot be underestimated: Parents respond with involvement to teachers who invite them to be involved.

It is also important for practitioners to engage parents and families in roles beyond supporting homework and attending meetings. Parents enact many roles in the lives of their child and partnering with them in these roles is one way to increase parent involvement and a way to support students with disabilities in achieving their in-school and post-school goals. It is the responsibility of schools to provide services, support, and training so that parents can effectively fulfill the roles of evaluators, collaborators, instructors, and advocates. The model for parent involvement in secondary education and transition planning is grounded in the belief that for any parent involvement efforts to work, educators must recognize the value of parent involvement and actively work to incorporate parent contributions into education and transition planning. This requires a fundamental shift in the field where the field acknowledges the interdependent nature of student lives and recognizes family involvement as an integral part of transition planning.

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.

References

Adams

K. S.

Christenson

S. L.

(2000). Trust and the family–school relationship: An examination of parent–teacher differences in elementary and secondary grades. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 447–497.

Arnett

J. J.

(2013). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: A cultural approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Bandura

(1986b). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 359–373.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Baumgartner

Bryan

Donahue

Nelson

(1993). Thanks for asking: Parent comments about homework, tests, and grades. Exceptionality, 4, 153–176.

Benz

M. R.

Yovanoff

Doren

(1997). School-to-work components that predict postschool success for students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 151–165.

Bianco

Garrison-Wade

D. F.

Tobin

Lehmann

J. P.

(2009). Parents’ perceptions of postschool years for young adults with developmental disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 186–196. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-47.3.186

Biddle

B. J.

(1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67–92.

Blackorby

Hancock

G. R.

Siegel

(1993). Human capital and structural explanations of post-school success for youth with disabilities: A latent variable exploration of the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

10.

Boone

R. S.

(1992). Involving culturally diverse parents in transition planning. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 15, 205–221.

11.

Caldarella

Merrell

K. W.

(1997). Common dimensions of social skills in children and adolescents: A taxonomy of positive behaviors. School Psychology Review, 26, 264–278.

12.

Campbell-Whatley

G. D.

Lyons

J. E.

(2013). Leadership practices for special and general educators. Boston, MA: Pearson.

13.

Chen

W. B.

Gregory

(2010). Parental involvement as a protective factor during the transition to high school. Journal of Educational Research, 103, 53–62.

14.

Chrispeels

J. H.

Rivero

(2001). Engaging Latino families for student success: How parent education can reshape parents’ sense of place in the education of their children. Peabody Journal of Education, 76, 119–169.

15.

Crosnoe

Mistry

R. S.

Elder

G. H.

(2002). Economic disadvantage, family dynamics, and adolescent enrollment in higher education. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 690–702.

16.

Dauber

S. L.

Epstein

J. L.

(1993). Parents’ attitudes and practices of involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. In Chavkin

N. F.

(Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 53–71). Albany: State University of New York Press.

17.

Daviso

Denney

Baer

Flexer

(2011). Postschool goals and transition services for students with learning disabilities. American Secondary Education, 39(2), 77–93.

18.

Delgado-Gaitan

(1994). Consejos: The power of cultural narratives. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 25, 298–316.

19.

Deslandes

Bertrand

(2005). Motivation of parent involvement in secondary-level schooling. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 164–175.

20.

Doren

Gau

J. M.

Lindstrom

L. E.

(2012). The relationship between parent expectations and postschool outcomes of adolescents with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 79, 7–23.

21.

Eccles

J. S.

Midgley

Wigfield

Buchanan

C. M.

Reuman

Flanagan

Mac Iver

(1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101.

22.

Epstein

J. L.

(1987). Toward a theory of family-school connections: Teacher practices and parent involvement. In Hurrelmann

Kaufmann

Losel

(Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and constraints (pp. 121–136). New York, NY: De Gruyter.

23.

Epstein

J. L.

(2005). Attainable goals? The spirit and letter of the No Child Left Behind Act on parental involvement. Sociology of Education, 78, 179–182.

24.

Francis

G. L.

Gross

J. M. S.

Turnbull

A. P.

Turnbull

H. R.

(2014). An exploratory investigation into family perspectives after the family employment awareness training. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2165143414528241

25.

Francis

G. L.

Gross

J. M. S.

Turnbull

H. R.

Parent-Johnson

(2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of the Family Employment Awareness Training in Kansas: A pilot study. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38, 1–14.

26.

Geenan

Powers

L. E.

Lopez-Vasquez

(2001). Multicultural aspects of parent involvement in transition planning. Exceptional Children, 67, 265–282.

27.

Geenan

Powers

L. E.

Lopez-Vasquez

Bersani

(2003). Understanding and promoting the transition of minority adolescents. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 26, 27–46.

28.

Goldenberg

Gallimore

Reese

Garnier

(2001). Cause or effect? A longitudinal study of immigrant Latino parents’ aspirations and expectations, and their children’s school performance. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 547–582.

29.

Goodwin

A. L.

King

S. H.

(2002). Culturally responsive parental involvement: Concrete understandings and basic strategies. Washington, DC: AACTE.

30.

Green

C. L.

Walker

J. M. T.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

Sandler

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

31.

Greenfield

M. D.

Epstein

J. L.

Hutchins

D. J.

Thomas

B. G.

(2012). Sampler: Improve family and community involvement in high schools. National Network of Partnership Schools at Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved from http://www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/PPP/Samplers/2012-High-School-Sampler.pdf

32.

Greenwood

G. E.

Hickman

C. W.

(1991). Research and practice in parent involvement: Implication for teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 91, 279–288.

33.

Grolnick

W. S.

Slowiaczek

M. L.

(1994). Parents’ involvement in children’s schooling: A multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65, 237–252.

34.

Harvey

M. W.

(2002). Comparison and postsecondary transitional outcomes between students with and without disabilities by secondary vocational education participation: Findings from the National Education Longitudinal Study. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 25, 99–122.

35.

Hill

N. E.

Chao

R. K.

(2009). Families, schools, and the adolescent: Connecting research, policy, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

36.

Hollifield

J. H.

(1994). High schools gear up to create effective school and family partnerships. Baltimore, MD: Center on Families, Communities, Schools and Children’s Learning, Johns Hopkins University.

37.

Hoover-Dempsey

K.V.

Bassler

O. C.

Brissie

J. S.

(1992). Explorations in parent-school relations. The Journal of Educational Research, 85, 287–294.

38.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

Battiato

A. C.

Walker

J. M. T.

Reed

R. P.

DeJong

J. M.

Jones

K. P.

(2001). Parent involvement in homework. Educational Psychologist, 36, 195–210.

39.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

Sandler

H. M.

(1995). Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97, 310–331.

40.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

Sandler

H. M.

(1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3–42. doi:10.2307/1170618

41.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

Walker

J. M. T.

Sandler

H. M.

Whetsel

Green

C. L.

Wilkins

Closson

K. E.

(2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. Elementary School Journal, 106, 105–130. doi:10.1086/499194

42.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P. L. 108-446, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

43.

Johns

B. H.

Crowley

E. P.

Guetzloe

(2005). The central role of teaching social skills. Focus on Exceptional Children, 37(8), 1–8.

44.

Kalyanpur

Harry

Skrtic

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

45.

Kim

Morningstar

(2005). Transition planning involving culturally and linguistically diverse families. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 28, 92–103.

46.

Kohler

(1996). Taxonomy for transition programming: Linking research and practice. Champaign: Transition Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

47.

Landmark

L. J.

Roberts

E. L.

Zhang

(2013). Educators’ beliefs, and practices about parent involvement in transition planning. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 36, 114–123.

48.

Landmark

L. J.

Zhang

Montoya

(2007). Culturally diverse parents’ experiences in their children’s transition: Knowledge and involvement. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 30, 68–79.

49.

Lareau

(2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

50.

Lightfoot

S. L.

(1978). Worlds apart: Relationships between families and schools. New York, NY: Basic Books.

51.

Lindstrom

Doren

Metheny

Johnson

Zane

(2007). Transition to employment: Role of the family in career development. Exceptional Children, 73, 348–366.

52.

Lindstrom

Hirano

K. A.

McCarthy

Alverson

C. Y.

(2014). “Just having a job”: Career advancement for low-wage workers with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 37(1), 40–49.

53.

Lloyd-Smith

Baron

(2010). Beyond conferences: Attitudes of high school administrators toward parental involvement in one small Midwestern state. The School Community Journal, 20(2), 23–44.

54.

Mapp

Hong

(2010). Debunking the myth of the hard-to-reach parent. In Christensen

S. L.

Reschly

A. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of school-family partnerships (pp. 345–361). New York, NY: Routledge.

55.

Mapp

K. L.

Kuttner

P. J.

(2014). Partners in education: A dual capacity building framework for school-family partnerships. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Lab.

56.

National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth. (2009). Guideposts for success (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.ncwd-youth.info/sites/default/files/page/2009/02/guideposts_0.pdf

57.

Newman

(2005). Family involvement in the educational development of youth with disabilities: A special topic report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2005_03/nlts2_report_2005_03_complete.pdf

58.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P. L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.

59.

Pajares

M. F.

(1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.

60.

Ripley

(2009). Parents as systems change agents. In Wandry

D. L.

Pleet

A. M.

(Eds.), Engaging and empowering families in secondary transition: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 101–117). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

61.

Roessler

R. T.

Brolin

D. E.

Johnson

J. M.

(1990). Factors affecting employment success and quality of life: A one-year follow-up of students in special education. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 13, 95–107.

62.

Rowe

D. A.

Alverson

C. Y.

Unruh

D. K.

Flowler

C. H.

Kellems

Test

D. W.

(2014). A Delphi study to operationalize evidence-based predictors in secondary transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2165143414526429

63.

Rowe

D. A.

Test

D. W.

(2010). The effects of computer-based instruction on the transition planning process knowledge of parents of students with disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 35, 102–115.

64.

Sheldon

(2002). Parents’ social networks and beliefs as predictors of parent involvement. Elementary School Journal, 102, 301–316.

65.

Simon

B. S.

(2004). High school outreach and family involvement. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 185–209.

66.

Simons-Morton

Chen

(2009). Peer and parent influences on school engagement among early adolescents. Youth & Society, 41, 3–25.

67.

Test

D. W.

Mazzotti

Mustian

Fowler

Kortering

Kohler

(2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160–181.

68.

Timmons

J. C.

Whitney-Thomas

McIntyre

J. P.

Butterworth

Allen

(2004). Managing service delivery systems and the role of parents during their children’s transitions. Journal of Rehabilitation, 20(2), 19–26.

69.

Trainor

A. A.

Lindstrom

Simon-Burroughs

Martin

J. E.

McCray Sorrells

(2008). From marginalized to maximized opportunities for diverse youth with disabilities: A position paper of the Division on Career Development and Transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 56–64.

70.

Walker

J. M. T.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

Whetsel

D. R.

Green

C. L.

(2004). Parental involvement in homework: A review of current research and its implications for teachers, after school program staff, and parent leaders. Retrieved from www.hfrp.org/content/download/1261/48764/file/parent_involve_homework.pdf

71.

Wandry

D. L.

Pleet

A. M.

(Eds.). (2009). Engaging and empowering families in secondary transition: A practitioner’s guide. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

72.

Weiss

H. B.

Lopez

M. E.

Rosenberg

(2011). Beyond random acts: Family, school, and community engagement as an integral part of education reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.

73.

Yell

Rogers

E. L.

(1998). The legal history of special education: What a long, strange trip it’s been. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 219–228.