Ally Versus Adversary Behaviors: The Utility of a Special Education Advocate During Conflict Between Parents and Professionals

Abstract

Navigating the special education system can leave many parents confused, overwhelmed, and struggling to find information, particularly when in conflict with professionals. One source of solace for such families is the support of an advocate. This article presents a qualitative interview study with 43 special education stakeholders (parents, professionals, and advocates) about the utility of an advocate during conflict. Findings indicated two distinct advocate behaviors, the ally and the adversary, were either helpful or unhelpful during issues of conflict between parents and professionals. Furthermore, participants discussed variability in the amount of advocate expertise and training. We conclude with recommendations for policy, practice, and future research.

Keywords

advocacy families special education conflict family-professional partnership

Despite the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations that specify parent participation for student-level decision-making and planning, these principles do not easily translate to practice for most families. Researchers highlight an implicit assumption within these laws that parents are equipped with the necessary advocacy skills required to understand and exercise their legal rights, including challenging the school district if necessary (Hess, Molina, & Kozleski, 2006; Phillips, 2008). Specifically, IDEA encourages parents to actively participate in activities that include the following: making a request to obtain and examine student records (IDEA 34 C.F.R. § 300.501), providing consent for any formal evaluations (IDEA 34 C.F.R. § 300.300 (a-d)), and participating in the child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) decisions, such as determining the design and delivery of services (IDEA 34 C.F.R. § 300.321; 322; 327). Congress further emphasized the importance of such parent participation by requiring local education agencies to provide parents prior written notice when proposing or refusing to initiate or change any and all education decisions related to the provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the child (IDEA 34 C.F.R. § 300. 503). Finally, perhaps the greatest implicit assumption about such parent advocacy lies in the expectation that parents will be able to exercise formal dispute resolution options (Phillips, 2008; Wakelin, 2008), particularly given the college/graduate readability level and excessive jargon used in procedural safeguards (Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006). Researchers describe challenging districts as an act that requires knowledge, skill, tenacity, and monetary resources (Gorman, 2001; Mueller, 2017). Consequently, studies continue to outline the necessity of advocacy to fulfill these legal responsibilities (Burke, 2013; Hess et al., 2006; Leiter & Krauss, 2004; Mueller, Singer, & Draper, 2008; Trainor, 2010). Notably, the word advocate does not appear anywhere within IDEA language.

Special education advocacy has continued to gain researcher’s attention, including studies about approaches to advocacy, the identification of social and cultural capital necessary for advocacy (Trainor, 2010), training (Burke, 2013; Burke, Goldman, Hart, & Hodapp, 2016), and roles and responsibilities (Nespor & Hicks, 2010). Wolfensberger (1977) described advocacy as an act that involves speaking and acting on behalf of another person to address the preferences, strengths, and needs of an individual or a group of individuals. Meanwhile, Alper, Schloss, and Schloss (1995) organized advocacy into four areas: (a) self-advocacy (a person speaking or acting on behalf of him or herself), (b) social support advocacy (acting on behalf of a general citizen cause for a larger group, rather than an individual need), (c) interpersonal advocacy (direct communications or actions on behalf of an individual with a disability), and (d) legal advocacy (exercising parent rights and legal recourse on behalf of an individual with a disability). Meanwhile, attention to parent advocacy within the field of special education can be attributed to a large body of studies about parent challenges within the system, whereby families frequently report confusion, exclusion, and navigation struggles (Leiter & Krauss, 2004; Spann, Kohler, & Soehsen, 2003; Valle, 2011; Zeitlin & Curcic, 2014). Subsequently, parent participation at IEP meetings remains low or passive to even the most educated families (A. P. Turnbull, Turnbull, Erwin, Soodak, & Shogren, 2015). This research continues to exemplify a noted power imbalance between families and professionals (Lake & Billingsley, 2000). Unfortunately, the implications of low or a lack of parent participation with IEP meetings can lead to poor educational programming and services for the student (Fish, 2008). Consequently, parents often realize they must demonstrate steadfast advocacy efforts (Hess et al., 2006), or seek outside assistance from an advocate (Nespor & Hicks, 2010). The latter form of advocacy has recently begun to gain attention in the field of special education (Bacon & Causton-Theoharis, 2013). Such advocate practice has also garnered backlash from professionals, including negative implications related to an increase in poor family-professional partnerships based on the type of advocacy provided (Nespor & Hicks, 2010). Consequently, there have been reported increases in the level of special education conflict, including the initiation of formal dispute resolution procedures (e.g., state complaints and due process; Feinberg, Beyer, & Moses, 2002; Mueller, 2015). Because parents tend to seek outside advocacy assistance when there are greater issues of concern at stake, such as challenging student needs (Burke & Hodapp, 2016), it is important to study the use of advocates during conflict between parents and professionals.

The purpose of this study was to examine the utility of special education advocates during conflict between parents and professionals, including any advocate behaviors that may be perceived as helpful or unhelpful to the educational team. The form of advocate practice addressed in this study includes both interpersonal and legal advocacy, whereby an individual who is not a parent or family member acts on behalf of an individual with a disability to communicate his or her preferences, strengths, and needs, including exercising legal rights (Alper et al., 1995). Typically, this type of advocate is sought out by a parent and utilized as a resource during conflict with the district (Rosenbaum, 2001). Of note, such advocates are available to families through varying means, including pro-bono parent advocates through structures such as legal aid organizations and parent training and information centers, as well as privately paid advocates.

This study will add to the growing body of literature about special education advocate practices with the intent to deconstruct the utility of the advocate role so that future policy, practice, and research can focus on helpful advocate behaviors, skills, and training that can support the family-professional partnership during conflict. Two research questions guided this inquiry:

What is the nature of the advocate role when parents and professionals are in conflict?

What advocate behaviors are perceived as helpful or unhelpful during issues of conflict between parents and professionals?

Method

Using a qualitative phenomenological approach, we interviewed 43 educational stakeholders about the role of special education advocates during issues of conflict between parents and professionals (Patton, 2002). Within this study, we define a “special education advocate,” as someone who can be hired by a parent for support (pro bono or for a private fee) to provide a parent aid by way of offering any of the following services for families: providing information, attending IEP meetings, and/or working with a family through specific issues of disagreement (i.e., IEP meeting conflict, mediation, state complaint, or due process). Because the nature of this study was to explore the utility of the special education advocate, we wanted to interview parents and professionals with experiences working with an advocate, specifically an exploration of what the participants determined to be helpful or unhelpful advocate behaviors, as operationalized and measured by any of the following reported outcomes: (a) increased family involvement, (b) improved family–professional communication, and/or (c) the resolution of any conflict between families and professionals. In addition, we wanted to talk to advocates about the skills and behaviors they utilize when working with parents and professionals during conflict.

Participant Recruitment

Inclusionary criteria for parent participants required the following two conditions: (a) parent of a child with a disability and (b) the ability to speak about multiple interactions utilizing a parent advocate. Professional inclusionary criteria required that the educator have experience working with five or more advocates during their career and that they were able to speak about helpful and unhelpful advocate behaviors. The professional participant category encompassed any educational position, including special educators, administrators, and related service providers. Meanwhile, inclusionary criteria for advocate participants included acting as an advocate on behalf of families who had children with disabilities for 5 or more years. Once these inclusionary criteria were established, participants were recruited through one of three methods: (a) an emailed request for participants was sent through professional network listservs (i.e., advocate, professional, and parent organization listservs); (b) chaining procedures whereby participants identified in the study were asked to provide other advocates, professionals, and parents with information about the study; and (c) convenience sampling where participants were contacted because they were known to one of the researchers (Patton, 2002). Using these three procedures and inclusionary criteria, each potential participant was asked about their role (advocate, professional, or parent), years of experience (years of work for professionals and advocates; age of child for parents), and level of experience with conflict in special education (e.g., number of times involved in due process, mediation, and formal complaints). The target goal for recruitment was 40 participants; however, a total of 43 professionals, parents, and advocates met the above criteria and agreed to participate in this study.

Participants

Participants in this study included parents, advocates, and professionals from across the United States. Of note, there were no direct relationships among the three groups of respondents who participated in this study. The involvement of participants from these different backgrounds provided diverse perspectives and painted a more comprehensive picture of the phenomenon of study. In addition, several participants identified as being a part of more than one of these groups. For example, eight out of 12 advocate participants were also parents of a child or children with disabilities. Many of these advocates reported that their experience as a parent provided motivation to pursue work as an advocate. This is not an uncommon practice; in fact, it is very common for parents to work as advocates for other parents (Burke, 2013). In addition, one of the advocates had a professional background as a school psychologist. Two parents also had a professional background as an educator.

Participants represented various locations within the United States including Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, New York, Vermont, and Virginia. Children of the parent participants represented a variety of disability categories such as autism spectrum disorder, traumatic brain injury, speech/language impairments, mental health and behavioral disorders, seizure disorders, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders, and others. These children’s ages ranged from 3 to 20 years old, with one parent participant having three children with disabilities. All participants reported experiences with due process and meditation, ranging between zero and 20 incidents. In addition, experience with the special education system ranged from 1 to 45 years (see Tables 1 –3 for participant demographics).

Table 1.

Advocate Demographics.

Participant role	Years of experience	Formal advocate training	No. mediations	No. due process	Fees for advocacy service
Advocate	27	Yes	10–15	Yes not sure how many	US$97/hr
Advocate	15	No	1	0	Pro bono
Advocate	21	No	2–3/year	2–3/year	US$100–200/hr
Advocate	6	Yes	0	0	US$35–$60/hr
Advocate	5	No	1	0	Pro bono
Advocate	6	Yes	8	0	US$95/hr
Advocate	9	No	15	0	Pro bono
Advocate	5	No	20	3	US$200/hr
Advocate	20	Yes	0	0	Pro bono
Advocate	20	Yes	15	4	US$150/hr
Advocate	5	Yes	NA	0	US$30/hr
Advocate	5	No	0	0	Pro bono

Table 2.

Professional Demographics.

Participant role	Highest degree	Years experience	No. mediations	No. due process
Administrator	MA	18	3	2
Special educator	MA	30	0	1
Administrator	Two MAs	14	6	Yes, not sure how many
Administrator	MA	45	5	3
Special educator	MA	26	0	0
Administrator	MA	30	7	3
Administrator	MA	10	5	2
Speech language pathologist assistant	BA	1	0	0
School psychologist	MA	10	0	0
Administrator	MA	25	0	13
Special educator	MA	14	1	1
Special educator	MA	8	0	0
Special educator	MA	7	1	1
Special educator	MA	11	1	0
Special educator	MA	10	2	2
Special educator	MA	16	2	2

Table 3.

Parent Demographics.

Participant role	Child disability	Years experience	No. mediations	No. due process
Parent	C1: ASD/DS, C2: ASD	20	1	1
Parent	C1: Anxiety/depression C2: SL, C3: ADHD	10	0	0
Parent	ASD	3	0	0
Parent	ASD/ID	10	0	2
Parent	DS	14	0	0
Parent	ASD	7	0	0
Parent	ID	14	1	1
Parent	ASD	20+	1	1
Parent	—	7	0	0
Parent	ADHD	11	0	0
Parent	ASD	17	1	0
Parent	TBI	14	1	0
Parent	SL	16	0	0
Parent	C1: ASD C2: ADHD	10	1	0
Parent	—	17	0	1

Note. C1 = Child 1; ASD = autism spectrum disorder; DS = down syndrome; C2 = Child 2; SL = speech and language impairment; C3 = Child 3; ADHD = attention/deficit-hyperactive disorder; ID = intellectual disability; TBI = traumatic brain injury; “—” = Parent did not share disability information.

Interviews

Upon obtaining institutional review board approval from our research institution, interviews were scheduled and conducted face-to-face or by phone (based on participant preference and location) and were recorded using an audio voice technology service and private, password-locked recorders. The interviews ranged between 40 and 90 min, averaging 50 min long. An interview protocol was created and used as a guide based on previous research about family-professional partnerships, special education conflict, and advocacy practice (Burke, 2013; Lake & Billingsley, 2000; Mueller, 2015; Trainor, 2010; A. P. Turnbull et al., 2015); however, interview questions were open-ended and conducted as a conversation. A separate interview protocol was used for each participant category, with common sections across all three groups. Each protocol included (a) demographic questions (e.g., Can you describe your position, years in the field, experiences with formal IDEA dispute resolution practices?), (b) perceptions about the advocate role (e.g., How would you define the role and responsibilities of an advocate?), and (c) experiences working with advocates (e.g., Can you describe your experiences with parent advocates during times of conflict with a family?). These protocols were designed to gain knowledge about the participants’ perceptions and experiences with advocates.

Data Analysis

All audio recordings were transcribed verbatim by a paid trained transcriber for a total of 588 single-spaced pages of transcripts for data analysis. Credibility checks were performed with 25% of the interviews by the second author to verify the accuracy of the transcription (Creswell, 2009). All transcripts were 100% accurate. Using a sequential three-step process to code themes in the interview transcripts, we first independently open coded each transcript using NVIVO7, a qualitative analysis software program (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Richards, 2002). Essentially, we conducted a line-by-line reading of the transcripts and applied an open code (node) to the data. In most cases, en vivo coding took place whereby the participants’ actual words became the corresponding code. The second stage, axial coding, used the established open codes to identify relationships among each other, specifically the identification of related concepts and categories within the data. These open codes were grouped into larger categories. Finally, selective coding, involved both authors reviewing the code categories and identifying which were prominent in more than half of the transcripts. These categories were grouped into larger themes. With 43 participants, data saturation was reached as indicated by a redundancy of themes.

Credibility Measures

As recommended in qualitative research, trustworthiness measures were employed to ensure credibility (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klinger, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005). Using collaborative and peer debriefing procedures, both authors independently coded the transcripts. The second author coded all of the transcripts, while the first author coded 50% of the transcripts. Each code, category, and theme was discussed between the two raters throughout analysis. There was agreement across all codes and categories.

Member checking

Using purposeful sampling, participants from each of the three groups thought to be information rich were contacted after data analysis to participate in a brief member check (Patton, 2002). Participants were selected because they had the greatest amount of experience, as measured by years of experience working with or as an advocate. Participants were provided a copy of the method and results section of this manuscript and asked to share their perceptions. The intent of the member check was to provide data analysis and interpretation to the participants so they could confirm whether the results were accurate and/or challenge results if there was disagreement. All participants agreed with the presented results.

Results

Utility of a Special Education Advocate

A general consensus among the participants’ definition of an advocate included a knowledgeable individual who can support parents and help the IEP team remain focused on the student. In keeping with this description, one common message throughout the interviews and across all participants was that an advocate should not be mistaken for a lawyer, but instead should represent the family as a “conduit,” or even a “buffer” throughout the IEP meeting process and especially during issues of conflict. One advocate described her role as different than a lawyer by stating,

We’re a lot cheaper, we’re flexible, but obviously we can’t bring the same hardware to bear on things . . . so there’s no question that [for] a lot of things an advocate is a good deal better than an attorney.

As the participants spoke about the advocate role, data analysis revealed helpful versus unhelpful advocate behaviors that fell within two categories, an advocate who behaves as an ally (helpful) and an advocate who behaves as an adversary (unhelpful), when working with parents and professionals. An ally advocate was described as someone who is student-focused, provides parent support, uses conflict resolution strategies, and positively supports the emotional experience of all IEP team members, especially the parent. Conversely, the adversary advocate was described as someone who demonstrates confrontational behavior, including further aggravating conflict among IEP team members through the use of argumentative behaviors that are often based on personal “emotional baggage.”

In addition, participants shared that one hallmark of adversary advocate behaviors included a lack of training. Participants spoke about these advocates sharing incorrect legal advice with parents and challenging professionals on incorrect legal grounds. Consequently, participants discussed the variability and lack of standards with respect to advocate training. Advocates echoed this sentiment, with one explaining, “It takes a lot of schooling to be a lawyer; it doesn’t take anything to be an advocate.” Advocate participants in this study reported a variety of experiences and training, with some advocates having no formal training, and others had participated in certification programs including supervised internships through formal advocate training programs (i.e., Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates [COPAA]). Although adversary advocates were frequently described as uninformed and lacking training, it is also possible that ally advocates lack training as well. Consequently, participants (advocates included) spoke about the need for more formal advocate training. When asked about what information an advocate should have, one parent shared, “I think they would have to understand each piece of what the IEP entails, what the kids are, the facts, what FAPE means. They have to have some understanding of the rights of the kids.” Similarly, one professional described other important competencies by sharing: “Advocates need to know how to have a crucial conversation, the IDEA, and have skills to work on helping parents and districts to come together.” Thus, the reported need for formal advocate training is highlighted later in the discussion. Next, the ally and adversary advocate role is described in more detail.

The Ally Advocate

All participants shared a similar belief that an ally advocate is someone who works with the entire IEP team while representing the student’s interests and needs. A helpful advocate was described as “knowledgeable,” “communicative,” and “collaborative.” Specifically, the ally advocate was perceived as making a positive impact on the entire IEP team through three primary roles: (a) student advocate, (b) parent support, and (c) team player for conflict resolution. Each of these roles is not mutually exclusive; in fact, the majority of ally advocates were described as displaying each role.

Student advocate

Parents, professionals, and advocates consistently described an ally advocate as someone who was able to maintain focus on the student’s needs. One advocate explained, “It’s not that we advocate for the school, it’s not that we advocate for the family; we advocate for the student.” Meanwhile, a professional shared, “I think advocates should not be parent advocates, but student advocates.” Another professional commented: “It might not be what I want. It might not be totally what the parent wants. But we need to look at what’s best for the student. I think that’s key.” Ally advocates were perceived as having the unique opportunity to shift the direction of an IEP team that may be losing focus by ultimately focusing on student interests and needs. One advocate explained this role further by stating:

I work for the child. So I see myself as being the voice of a child who is generally not even at a meeting and isn’t even involved most of the time, doesn’t even know that any of this is going on. I see myself as trying to represent the best interests of the child.

Participants explained that when the advocate was able to remain focused on the student, conflict was more quickly resolved and IEP teams were better able to collaborate on achieving shared decisions. Ultimately, keeping focus on the student was described as the most helpful and valued skill used to address conflict.

Parent support

An ally advocate was also described as someone who provided parents “balance” and “support” throughout their child’s educational journey, especially the IEP meeting. Furthermore, parent participants shared that when an advocate attended their child’s IEP meeting with them, they were able to participate more because they felt support and greater confidence. For example, one parent shared, “In general it [advocate attending the IEP meeting] was amazing, and I felt . . . so comfortable at that time.” Meanwhile, another parent explained, “I felt so confident, and more comfortable because I could really rely on him [advocate] to support me.” Professionals also echoed this parent sentiment, with one sharing:

It can be intimidating for parents going into IEP meetings . . . overwhelming. You throw around the terminology, and all the different acronyms. A lot of times parents are just nodding their heads going along with it because they’re either too intimidated or they’re not sure if they’re allowed to ask questions. So, the benefit that I see to the advocate, is kind of evening the playing field, it gives the parent some added support going into those meetings and just some added confidence that they can more actively participate.

Conversely, parents described feeling intimidated, stressed, and anxious when they attended IEP meetings without an advocate available for support. One parent shared,

When an advocate was not there [IEP meeting] . . . I had to take care of everything, and the responsibility was huge on my shoulders. However, when the advocate was with me, we shared the responsibility and it became easier.

This contrast between an advocate being available to attend IEP meetings versus not attending meetings was prevalent throughout the parent interviews.

Meanwhile, when discussing the value of a supportive advocate during issues of conflict, one advocate shared, “Some parents are just at the point where they’re so angry and upset that it’s hard for them to take a step back and even think about collaborating.” Likewise, another parent shared, “You need someone to be on your side, someone to . . . objectively help you with what the situation is [conflict], because we are personally involved.” Other participants echoed this sentiment and added that an ally advocate also supports parents to become their own advocate by helping them acquire the necessary skills to “figure out the facts, come up with a strategy, and get to where you [parent] need to be.” One advocate referred to this role as a “tug boat,” whereby she talked about guiding and teaching families to access resources in the community. Another advocate shared that a helpful and supportive advocate should “teach people so that they can advocate for themselves and . . . they don’t need me around anymore.” Notably, all behaviors that fell within the ally advocate category included someone who supports and educates the parents to use their own advocacy skills.

Team player for conflict resolution

The majority of advocate participants stated that conflict is often the reason they are invited to take part in the IEP process, thereby requiring the use of helpful conflict resolution skills. One advocate shared, “90% of parents I work with come to me when there is already a huge conflict.” Parents also echoed this sentiment by saying that they often utilize the support of an advocate when dealing with conflict. Likewise, professionals shared similar stories of becoming introduced to an advocate when conflict was present with families. Consequently, participants described an ally advocate as someone who was able and willing to work with the IEP team to identify a resolution that was best for the student. In many cases, the ally advocate was also described as a neutral person available to the IEP team who used conflict resolution strategies. For example, one advocate explained, “My job is to make sure that the family’s voice is heard, but [also] that the family hears what the district is saying.” The advocates shared that during issues of conflict, they must first identify the issue and then help the IEP team find a solution together. One advocate shared, “It’s almost like detective work, to try and parse it all out and see what the reality of the situation is and then try to go from there.” Another advocate shared, “It’s much harder when the conflict is already there” and “when people have been insulting each other left and right and hate each other.” Many professionals also reported that when the advocate displayed ally behaviors, the outcomes were much more amicable for everyone. Common words used to describe these helpful behaviors included being: “open-minded,” “clear,” “acting as part of the team,” “calm,” “fair,” “knowledgeable,” “respectful,” “compassionate,” and “patient.” Ultimately, all three participant groups discussed the value of having an advocate who can act as an impartial voice available to support the team with coming to a student-focused solution. It is important to note that when discussing conflict resolution, most parent participants described experiences where professionals tended to behave differently when an advocate was present, by acting more open to working through the issues of disagreement.

The Adversary Advocate

Contrary to the ally advocate, findings revealed advocate behaviors described as unhelpful to the dissolution of conflict and positive IEP meeting outcomes. Specifically, participants spoke about advocates who appeared to further exacerbate preexisting conflict with families through “unprofessional” and “overly emotional” behavior. Professionals shared that these advocates often entered meetings with an accusatory approach that tended to include “attacking people personally.” Thematic analysis revealed adversary advocates displayed two key characteristics: (a) argumentative and (b) emotionally charged.

Argumentative

Participants perceived adversary advocate behaviors as having the potential to cause enormous amounts of harm to an already delicate family–professional partnership. In several cases, these perceptions were substantiated with stories of increased conflict when an adversary advocate was present (e.g., continued conflict, formal dispute resolution used, etc.). Professionals described negative experiences with adversary advocates by explaining that such advocates would often “come in blaring” with “guns blazing,” ready to create an even greater wedge between parents and professionals. Such advocates were described as “out to get the districts” and “confrontational.” Professionals also described adversary advocates as “bulldozers” or “bulldogs” trying to “drum up business.” Of note, the advocate participants who had attended formal trainings also described these unhelpful behaviors and attributed much of this to a lack of advocacy training and knowledge. As one discouraged professional shared, “Most of the advocates . . . came in just ready to go to battle. They came in right away and we were wrong and they were right.” Another participant explained that an adversarial advocate would often “come in and throw their weight around and bark at everyone.” When describing communication tactics used by such advocates, participants shared that they have witnessed “screaming and yelling” or “becoming aggressive.” When asked to recount such an experience with an argumentative advocate, one professional shared,

They march in, they don’t come in. They march in. They slam or fiercely place a tape recording device on the counter and they [say], “We’re recording this meeting. My name is such and such. I want everybody to state their names and who they are for the recording.” Automatically, it’s taking a very strong approach.

The repercussions of working with such argumentative behaviors often led to a bad connotation associated with the word advocate, namely, professional responses of fear, nervousness, or hostility. Advocates and parents described argumentative behaviors as those that were not conducive to conflict resolution, thereby becoming a greater concern for the general well-being of the team. Of note, one advocate participant who described the need for such argumentative behaviors also shared that he believed every advocate should read the book, The Art of War. This advocate later described a previous experience where he retaliated against a district on behalf of one family by creating a one-page brochure about the district’s “wrong-doings” for the child and distributed it to all parents as they dropped their child(ren) off to school. After describing several bulleted points about the district’s actions “against” the child, the brochure ended with the following statement, “Does this kind of behavior have anything to do with education? Is this how the district should be spending your tax money?” This form of advocacy behavior called for actions that included making complaints against the district, rather than using conflict resolution strategies.

Emotionally charged

Personal and emotionally charged “baggage” from the past was frequently mentioned as a perceived motivation for adversarial advocate behaviors. One school administrator shared, “Sometimes advocates are parents of students with disabilities . . . and they bring in their baggage and it no longer becomes about the particular student and their family, it’s what they had to endure” and “they have not been easy to work with because it becomes their own fight.” When adversary advocates are “emotionally charged,” school leaders explained that they make things “personal and attack people.” Advocates also described this phenomenon, with one explaining, “A lot of advocates are parents, and if they are tapping into those old wounds they had when they were struggling with the district . . . [there may be] bias.” Other participants expressed concerns that the conflict often became the advocate’s “own fight,” based on personal problems with a district. These advocates were described as “unprofessional” and “unwilling to compromise.” One advocate shared that a helpful advocate needs to “leave the emotional baggage at home.” Notably, all three participant groups shared concerns about a loss of focus and momentum for conflict resolution when an advocate was emotionally charged.

Discussion

Although the use of an advocate for parent support is not a new concept, the investigation of the utility of an advocate during conflict between parents and professionals is relatively new. This study extends current research about advocate practice by highlighting advocate behaviors perceived by parents, professionals, and advocates as helpful or unhelpful during conflict. As we continue to strive for greater family-professional partnership practices (R. Turnbull & Turnbull, 2015), it is important to consider all factors that may help or hinder such relationships. Consequently, this study has three major findings worthy of discussion.

First, our study supports the benefit of matching parents with an advocate who is able to maintain focus on the student, provide emotional and resource support, and act as a team player for conflict resolution (Bacon & Causton-Theoharis, 2013). Because the system of special education can be daunting for many families, and conflict is often inevitable (Mueller, 2017), the availability of an ally advocate has the potential to be a source of support for families, and ultimately the team when fostering the family-professional partnership. Given the high costs associated with special education dispute resolution, namely, due process (Chambers, Harr, & Dhanani, 2003), the opportunity for an advocate to work with the IEP team as a supportive agent who can maintain student focus and suggest amicable solutions is valuable. Participants described ally advocates who used collaborative and communicative behaviors that encouraged teamwork and conflict resolution. In a study with parent advocates, Nespor and Hicks (2010) similarly discussed the concept of an advocate as a mediator who “frames advocacy as a process of negotiation, working through miscommunications, and mediating disputes” (p. 321). The notion that an advocate can provide opportunities for parents and professionals to listen to each other, work through differences, and resolve conflict as a team is worthy of future exploration.

Parents also described an ally advocate as a source of support. These parents expressed difficult experiences with IEP meetings before working with advocates, and contrasted those challenges to their positive experiences when working with an ally advocate. Such positive emotional experiences were vastly different than previous research that highlights families’ negative experiences with IEP meetings (Spann et al., 2003; Zeitlin & Curcic, 2014). Likewise, educators shared an appreciation for advocates available to provide family support. This study reiterates the value of bringing an advocate to the IEP meeting (Bacon & Causton-Theoharis, 2013), particularly leading to greater parent confidence to attend and participate at the meeting.

The second major finding referred to the behaviors of an adversarial advocate who may actually be unhelpful to the resolution of conflict. Adversary advocate behaviors were described as argumentative and emotionally charged. Participants described advocates who were unable to separate personal struggles, often referred to as “emotional baggage.” This finding complements other research that highlights some advocate practices said to exacerbate conflict, including advocates who file formal grievances for families, threaten districts and school boards, and assert claims that they will “go to war” with schools (Nespor & Hicks, 2010). Interestingly, one such advocate in this study described a similar experience through distributing a hostile brochure to other parents. This finding is concerning given that parents tend to seek out advocacy support when there are greater issues of concern at stake (Bacon & Causton-Theoharis, 2013; Burke & Hodapp, 2016). Thus, in an already vulnerable situation between parents and professionals, an adversary advocate prepared to challenge the district, rather than collaborate, is concerning. After all, there is an identified need for families and professionals to work through conflict amicably, namely, for the benefit of the student (Feinberg et al., 2002; Mueller, 2017).

Finally, the need for more advocate training was discussed. Adversary advocates were often described as uninformed with little training, including providing parents inaccurate legal advice. Participants spoke about the variability in advocate training, including the need for advocates to be prepared to understand IDEA and the IEP process. Because parents are likely to be confused and overwhelmed with the IEP meeting, and their legal rights (Wakelin, 2008), an informed and well trained advocate almost seems necessary. Participants suggested training topics should include IDEA and conflict resolution. Given the vulnerability of most families who use advocates (Nespor & Hicks, 2010), advocate training warrants further exploration.

Implications for Policy, Practice, and Future Research

The field of special education has a long history of advocacy. Given varied student needs, an advocate continues to hold multiple meanings based on the approach that is used (e.g., self, social, interpersonal, legal, etc.; Alper et al., 1995). Furthermore, this study highlights the value of an ally advocate for conflict resolution. All three participant groups shared stories about helpful ally advocate behaviors including the ability to act as a neutral team player for the resolution of conflict. Given the growing body of literature about facilitated IEP (FIEP) meeting practice, used for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) (Feinberg et al., 2002; Mueller, 2015), it is possible that an ally advocate could fit nicely into this practice. FIEP meetings are described as a promising procedure used to foster family-professional partnerships for both conflict prevention and resolution at the IEP meeting (Mueller & Vick, 2017). One hallmark of FIEP meetings is the use of a knowledgeable and neutral person available to guide the team through all aspects of the IEP meeting process, including encouraging team members to problem solve, when needed. Because ally advocates were often described as acting neutral while encouraging conflict resolution, ally advocates might consider the role of an IEP facilitator. Indeed, this concept is not addressed in current ADR literature; therefore, it is suggested that future research investigate this potential form of advocacy.

Despite the use of an advocate, another identified theme within this study was for advocate training. This finding supports previous research that highlights the necessity for quality advocate training and supervision (Burke et al., 2016). Advocate training continues to be unsupervised with little guidance regarding the necessary components of an advocate training program, including the content, skills, and behaviors required to support families (Burke, 2013). Current advocacy trainings vary in the breadth and depth of content, including practice opportunities. For example, the COPAA offers a year-long (230 hr) Special Education Advocate Training (SEAT) with a 115-hr internship based on 47 core competencies including, but not limited to, the following topics: law, ethics, advocacy skills, conflict resolution, and business management (COPAA, 2013). By contrast, the Volunteer Advocacy Project (VAP) is a 40-hr advocacy training that includes shadowing a special education advocate. VAP contains legal content about evaluation and eligibility, discipline, extended school year, IEP meeting and documentation, and conflict resolution (Burke, 2013). Both the SEAT and VAP training vary in content, depth (hours required), and practice opportunities; however, little is known about what constitutes an effective training. Instead, there remains an identified need for training designed to prepare advocates to provide parent support, guidance, and conflict resolution that addresses the student’s best interest (Rosenbaum, 2001). Relatedly, continued research about the outcomes of such trainings might be helpful when determining effective advocacy trainings (Burke et al., 2016).

Finally, the argumentative and unhelpful behaviors used to describe adversary advocates point out the need for a governing board that can be utilized as resource for advocacy guidance, standards, and in some cases, reporting poor advocate practice. Given the potential impact an advocate can have on the family-professional partnership, and ultimately the student, it might behoove the field to take notice and research recommended policy and governing advocacy practice. This study, and others (Burke, 2013; COPAA, 2013; Nespor & Hicks, 2010; Trainor, 2010), highlights the need for greater attention to advocacy practice, with the intent to promote standards designed to assist the family and student best.

Limitations and Conclusion

Due to the qualitative nature of this study, findings should not be generalized to the larger population. Instead, findings should be interpreted as the perceptions and experiences of the participants only. Future research that includes observations of advocates could provide a richer picture for such investigation. Despite these limitations, this study offers a starting point for further inquiry about the utility of special education advocates during conflict between parents and professionals. The ongoing challenge parents of children with disabilities continue to face warrants the need for advocacy efforts designed to assist families with maintaining a meaningful level of involvement, as envisioned by IDEA (R. Turnbull & Turnbull, 2015). In this study, we highlighted the utility of an advocate for families and professionals when working through conflict, namely, advocate behaviors considered to be helpful (ally advocate) or unhelpful (adversary advocate) for resolution. We hope such research will continue to explore advocate roles, training needs, and the benefits to families and children.

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

Alper

Schloss

P. J.

Schloss

C. N.

(1995). Families of children with disabilities in elementary and middle school: Advocacy models and strategies. Exceptional Children, 62, 261–270.

Bacon

J. K.

Causton-Theoharis

(2013). “It should be teamwork”: A critical investigation of school practices and parent advocacy in special education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17, 682–699.

Brantlinger

Jimenez

Klinger

Pugach

Richardson

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

Burke

M. M.

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

Burke

M. M.

Goldman

S. E.

Hart

M. S.

Hodapp

R. M.

(2016). Evaluating the efficacy of a special education advocacy training program. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 13, 269–276.

Burke

M. M.

Hodapp

R. M.

(2016). The nature, correlates, and conditions of parental advocacy in special education. Exceptionality, 24, 137–150.

Chambers

J. G.

Harr

J. J.

Dhanani

(2003). What are we spending on procedural safeguards in special education, 1999-2000? Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences, Center for Special Education Finance.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Council of Parent Advocates and Attorneys. (2013). Special Education Advocate Training Project. Available from www.copaa.org

10.

Creswell

J. W.

(2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

11.

Feinberg

Beyer

J. M.

Moses

(2002). Beyond mediation: Strategies for appropriate early dispute resolution in special education. Eugene, OR: National Center on Alternative Dispute Resolution.

12.

Fish

(2008). Perceptions of parents of students with autism towards the IEP meeting: A case study of one family support group chapter. Education, 127, 56–68.

13.

Fitzgerald

J. L.

Watkins

M. W.

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

14.

Gorman

(2001). Navigating the special education maze. In Finn

C.E.

Rotherham

A.J.

Hokanson

C.R.

(Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 233–258). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

15.

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.

16.

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, 240–256.

17.

Leiter

Krauss

M. W.

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

18.

Mueller

T. G.

(2015). Litigation and special education: The past, present, and future direction for resolving conflicts between parents and school districts. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 26, 135–143. doi:10.1177/1044207314533382

19.

Mueller

T. G.

(2017). Promoting collaborative partnerships with families. In Kauffman

J. M.

Hallahan

D. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 773-792). New York, NY: Routledge.

20.

Mueller

T. G.

Singer

G. H. S.

Draper

L. M.

(2008). Reducing parental dissatisfaction with special education in two school districts: Implementing conflict prevention and alternative dispute resolution. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 18, 191–233.

21.

Mueller

T. G.

Vick

A. M.

(2019). An investigation of Facilitated Individualized Education Program (FIEP) meeting practice: Promising procedures that foster family-professional collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(1), 67–81. DOI: 10.1177/0888406417739677

22.

Nespor

Hicks

(2010). Wizards and witches: Parent advocates and contention in special education in the USA. Journal of Education Policy, 25, 309–334.

23.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

24.

Phillips

(2008). When parents aren’t enough: External advocacy in special education. The Yale Law Journal, 117, 1804–1852.

25.

Richards

(2002). NVivo 7 [Computer software]. Bundoora, Australia: QSR International.

26.

Rosenbaum

S. A.

(2001). When it’s not apparent: Some modest advice to parent advocates for students with disabilities. U.C. Davis Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy, 5, 159–198.

27.

Spann

F. J.

Kohler

F. W.

Soehsen

(2003). Examining parents’ involvement in and perceptions of special education services: An interview with families in a parent support group. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18, 228–237.

28.

Trainor

A. A.

(2010). Reexamining the promise of parent participation in special education: An analysis of cultural and social capital. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 41, 245–263.

29.

Turnbull

A. P.

Turnbull

H. R.

Erwin

E. J.

Soodak

L. C.

Shogren

K. A.

(2015). Families, professionals, and exceptionality: Positive outcomes through partnerships and trust. New York, NY: Pearson.

30.

Turnbull

(2015). Looking backward and framing the future for parents’ aspirations for their children with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 52–57.

31.

Valle

J. W.

(2011). Down the rabbit hole: A commentary about research on parents and special education. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 34, 183–190.

32.

Wakelin

M. M.

(2008). Challenging disparities in special education: Moving parents from disempowered team members to ardent advocates. Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy, 3, 262–288.

33.

Wolfensberger

(1977). A balanced multi-component advocacy/protection schema. Downsview, Ontario: Association Resources Division, Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded.

34.

Zeitlin

V. M.

Curcic

(2014). Parental voices on individualized education programs: “Oh, IEP meeting tomorrow? Rum tonight!” Disability & Society, 29, 373–387.