six things to never say or hear during an iep...

eachers + Families = Success for All Students

Six Things to NeverSay or Hear Duringan IEP MeetingEducators as Advocatesfor FamiliesGregory A. Cheatham ' Juliet E. Hart

Ida Malian Joan McDonald

.ap.

Education professionals and parentsneed to be able to understand federalrequirements for individualized educa-tion program (IEP) meetings, both toensure compliance and also so thatthey are able to recognize potentialviolations. Part of this understandingshould include knowledge of certain"core principles" of the IndividualsWith Disabilities Education Act (IDEA;2006): zero reject, nondiscriminatoryevaluation, individualized and appro-priate education, least restrictive envi-ronment, procedural due process, andparetit participation (H. R. Tlirnbull,Stowe, & Huerta, 2007).

Although many schools have madesignificant strides in providing specialeducation services to students withdisabilities, recent studies indicate thatmany barriers still exist to fully imple-menting IDEA. For example, althoughsome general and special educatorsand school administrators supportinclusive services for students with

disabilities, others do not (Pugach,2005; Wolery & Odom, 2000; Young,2008), citing lack of resources, classsize, and inadequate training forteachers (Carlson, Brauen, Klein,ShroU, & Willig, 2002). Similarly,schools may provide families withlittle helpful information regardingIDEA (Lake & Billingsley, 2000)—orprovide them with information that'snot easy to understand (Fitzgerald &Watkins, 2006; Mandic, Rudd, Hehir,& Acevedo-Garcia, 2010). Thus, manyfamilies may face challenges in theirpursuit of an IDEA-mandated equitableeducation for their children with dis-abilities (Harry, 2008; Hess, Molina, &Kozleski, 2006); these struggles areevidenced by the frequency of adjudi-cated due process hearings nationwide(i.e., approximately 2,800 per year;Zirkel & Cischlar, 2008)—which likelyrepresents only a proportion of fami-ly-school disputes.

Current research on parental reportsof their experiences during the IEPprocess suggests that favorable percep-tions are the exception rather than thenorm. In their review of 10 studies onparental views of the IEP process pub-lished since 2004, Reiman, Beck,Coppola, and Engiles (2010) foundonly one study reporting that themajority of parent participants indicat-ed overall positive experiences (i.e..Fish, 2008). The remaining studiesindicated that parents felt high levelsof dissatisfaction during IEP meetings,with parents citing difficulty process-ing the information (Stoner et al.,2005), being intimidated by educatorsand blamed for their children's aca-demic and behavioral difficulties (Fish,2006), and being relegated to roles inwhich their participation was limitedto listening to information about theirchild's education, answering ques-tions, and signing preset fortns on stu-dents' goals (Childre & Chambers,

50 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

2005). These findings underscore the

importance of supporting educators

with research-based recommendations

for enlisting parents as collaborators

during the IEP process.

When educators and parents collab-

orate to confront and resolve disputes,

parent satisfaction with special educa-

tion services can increase (Mueller,

Singer, & Draper, 2008). The Council

for Exceptional Children's (CEC) best

practice recommendations for collabo-

ration (2009) provides guidance for

parents and educators to work together

in the best interest of the student.

Some first steps towards productively

addressing conflicts that may arise dur-

ing the IEP process include IEP team

members understanding the IDEA

requirements, including the core princi-

ples of IDEA (H. R. TurnbuU & Hirn-

bull, 1998; H. R. Tlirnbull, Stowe, &

Huerta, 2007) listed below:

Zero reject: All students with disabil-ities are entitled to a free appropri-ate public education (34 C.F.R. §§300.121 and 300.122; Timothy W v.Rochester School District, 1989).

Nondiscriminatory evaluation:Assessment of students with or sus-pected of having a disability mustbe fair (34 C.F.R. § 303.323).

Individualized and appropriate edu-cation: Students with disabihtiesmust receive individualized servicesto provide a beneficial education(34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320-300.324).

Least restrictive environment (LRE):To the greatest extent beneficial,students with disabilities should beeducated in a typical setting withstudents who do not have disabili-ties (34 C.F.R. § 3OO.55O[b][ll atid[2]).

Procedural due process (safeguards):Schools and parents hold each other

mutually accountable; these safe-guards also provide dispute resolu-tion procedures (34 C.F.R. §300.507[a] and 300.508ta]-[c]).

• Parent participation: Parents andstudents with disabilities are part-ners with educators in decisionmaking about students' education(34 C.F.R. §300.345).

IEP team members must also have theconfidence to speak up when its man-dates are not being followed. In thisway, special educators can speak up inresponse to things that should not besaid during IEP meetings.

Following are six illustrative casevignettes, which include statementsthat parents and professionals shouldnot hear at IEP meetings, a commen-tary about each case vignette, and sug-gested responses for educational pro-fessionals should they encounter situa-tions similar to those in the vignette.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | JAN/FEB 2012 51

1 . The Time Saver

At a recent IEP meeting, Jonas'smother entered the conference roomand enjoyed a friendly chat with thegeneral education teacher, specialeducation teacher, and the schoolprincipal. The group began the for-mal part of the meeting by sharingtheir concerns for 15-year-old Jonasat school. Jonas's mother said thatshe had been worried about Jonas'smath skills for years. At the time ofthe IEP meeting, he continued to lagbehind his peers, but had madeprogress. The teachers confirmedthat Jonas continued to have difficul-ty with math problem solving, inboth science and math class, despitethe help of his special and generaleducation teachers. The special edu-cation teacher said, "Good news! Wehave a new book with tons of IEPgoals. We picked a few and enteredthem on the IEP. So the IEP's alldone. I'll read the goals and thenyou can sign here."

Special education professionals areseemingly always pressed for time. Anystrategy that can save time is valuable.This vignette involves two principles ofIDEA that are relevant to Jonas's mathgoals: individualized/appropriate edu-cation and parent participation. First,to meet IDEA requirements for an indi-vidualized appropriate education, spe-cial education teachers must supportstudents' access to the general educa-tion curriculum and meet state stan-dards (U.S. Department of Education,2010). Goals and objectives should bedeveloped as a team, on the basis offormal and informal assessment dataregarding the child's current strengthsand weaknesses gathered through anondiscriminatory evaluation (A.TurnbuU, Tlirnbull, & Wehmeyer, 2010;34 CFR § 303.322). Although a "bank"of IEP goals can be a productive placeto start the process of identifying stu-dent goals (and many school districtsprovide them), these resources may notbe appropriate as goals to meet anindividual student's needs. IDEArequires teachers to gather assessmentdata to determine the student's present

level of academic achievement andfunctional performance (34 C.F.R. §320[a]), which leads to collaborativedevelopment of IEP goals during theIEF meeting. The IEP team determineswhich goals are most appropriate andmost likely to meet the individualneeds of the student. This individual-ization and personalization means thatthe team must adapt any "off-the-shelf" goals to meet the individual stu-dent's needs.

Moreover, IDEA requires that par-ents must be provided opportunitiesfor meaningful participation in any dis-cussion of their children's education(34 CFR § 300.322). Clearly, Jonas'smother was excluded from collaborat-ing with the other IEP team membersregarding Jonas's goals. Simply readinga list of predetermined goals and ask-ing for a parent signature does notengage parents in collaborative deci-sion making: instead, it relegates themto recipients of the school profes-sionals' decisions (A. TurnbuU, Turn-bull, Erwin, Soodak, & Shogren, 2010).School personnel can enhance parentparticipation by allowing sufficienttime for meetings, refraining from com-pleting forms in advance of parentalinput, and perhaps even providing par-ents with a copy of draft IEP goals andobjectives a few weeks before themeeting. All of these actions are part ofa democratic process that enhancesparental sense of ownership as teammembers (Blue-Banning, Summers,Frankland, Nelson, & Beegle, 2004;Fish, 2006, 2008). Instead of a directiveto sign an IEP absent meaningfulparental input, what IEP team mem-bers should hear is the friendly buzz ofvoices as educators and parents worktogether toward understanding andagreement about the students'strengths and areas for improvement,which naturally leads to individualizedgoals and objectives.

• Ihe Right Response

Instead of "1 have already prepared thegoals; please sign here," educatorsshould emphasize, "I think we can allagree how important it is to work as ateam for Jonas. Other IEP team mem-bers have important things to share

about Jonas and, like you, we'd like towork together to develop the best IEPgoals for Jonas that we can."

2 . Tiie LRE Plea

Marissa is an energetic 5-year-oldwith communication and cognitivedelays, previously served successful-ly in an inclusive preschool setting.At the start of Marissa's IEP meet-ing, Marissa's parents were happy tolearn that the professionals at theirdaughter's new elementary schoolseemed to have collaborated effec-tively with her previous preschoolteachers. However, when discussingthe setting for her special educationservices, the educators were reluc-tant to place Marissa in a generaleducation kindergarten setting."Because she's new to kindergartenand to the school," one teachersaid, "let's see how well Marissadoes in a resource room or self-con-tained classroom before we placeher in a more inclusive settingwhere she may be overwhelmed."Marissa's parents were disappoint-ed, because they strongly believedMarissa benefited from being edu-cated with her typical peers and pre-viously had been successful in thistype of setting.

Many educators are apprehensiveabout inclusive settings. Some believethat students with disabilities needspecialized settings outside of the gen-eral education classroom to best accessindividualized instruction (Kavale &Forness, 2000). Others may not believestudents with disabilities should beheld to the same academic standardsas students without disabilities (Agían,Alper, & Wehmeyer, 2002), which canlead to recommendations like that ofthe educators on Marissa's team.

However, the IDEA principles ofleast restrictive environment (LRE) andappropriate education apply here. LREguarantees a student's right to be edu-cated in the setting most like that forpeers without disabilities wherein thestudent can be successful with appro-priate supports and services (Palley,2006; 34 C.F.R. § 3OO.55Olb|| U and


[2]). The result is a presumption ofeducating students with disabilities ingeneral education settings; this pre-sumption may be set aside by the team(which includes the parents) only afterintensive supports, supplementaryaides, and services have been providedin the general education classroomwithout success (Friend & Bursuck,2009). Therefore, the discussion ofMarissa's placement must begin withconsideration of the general educationsetting before moving to a discussionof more restrictive settings—instead ofthe reverse. The IEP team should alsooutline the continuum of services avail-able to Marissa and meet the IDEArequiretnent for appropriate educationby tailoring a program to meet herindividual needs.

Universal design for learning is aresearch-based strategy that promotesinclusion of students with disabilities(A. Turnbull, Turnbull, & Wehmeyer,2010) and can result in academic andsocial beneflts for all students (Cole,Waldron, & Majd 2004; Idol, 2006;McGregor & Vogelsberg, 1998; Salend &Duhaney, 1999; see www.cast.org/udl).The IEP team meeting should include adiscussion of the speciflc techniquesand adaptations that address Marissa'spresenting areas of need and howthese can be integrated as part of theteacher's instructional delivery natural-ly and throughout the course of theschool day.

about ideas for strategies to supporther, we'll feel confldent in providingMarissa the opportunity to start off inthe kindergarten classroom."

3. Who's in Charge?

Suzie is a third grader who lovesscience. She has a speciflc learningdisability in reading decoding andcomprehension. The IEP meetingincluded the special educationteacher, the general educationteacher, the speech/language pathol-ogist, and Suzie's mother, and wasgoing very well. After developingthe IEP goals based on the statestandards (as required by IDEA, 34C.F.R. § 200.1|f][2][ii][B]), theydetermined Suzie should receive 2hours a week of speech/languageservices to meet her academic goals.However, no local education agency(LEA) representative, such as theprincipal or special education direc-tor, was present (or designated) atthe meeting, as required by IDEA.As the meeting was winding down,the special education teacher said,"I need to check with the specialeducation director before determin-ing the recommended level ofspeech/language services for Suzie"and left the meeting room to get theLEA'S signature.

School personnel can enhance parent participation hy allowingsufficient time for meetings, refraining from completing forms in

advance of parental input, and perhaps even providing parents with acopy of draft IEP goals and ohjectives a few weeks hefore the meeting.

• The Right Response

The IEP meeting should include a fruit-ful discussion about the availability ofstrategies for supporting the student inthe least restrictive environment. Ateacher can say, "I can appreciate yourconcerns for Marissa's success giventhe new challenges she and all of theother new students will experience inthe kindergarten classroom. I have nodoubt that if we put our heads together

The salient IDEA principle in thissituation is the assurance of proce-dural safeguards (i.e., due processrights; 34 C.F.R. § 300.507[aj and300.508[a]-[cl). Procedural due processensures that schools carry out IDEAprinciples. IDEA mandates that the IEPteam include a representative of theschool system who is qualifled to pro-vide or supervise special education andis also knowledgeable about the generaleducation curriculum and school

resources (34 C.F.R. § 300.321 [a]).During IEP meetings, the LEA repre-sentative has the responsibility to (a)make sure the appropriate special edu-cation services are provided to the stu-dent and (b) supervise and commitresources for those services listed onthe IEP. It is the responsibility of theLEA representative and the other mem-bers of the IEP team to ensure thatthese decisions and responsibilities aremet and that procedural safeguardsregarding the participation of appropri-ate team members are followed. TheIEP team should be appropriately con-vened (i.e., all required members pres-ent) before proceeding. This meansthat the team tnembers include thespecial education teacher, the generaleducation teacher, a representative ofthe district/school who has the author-ity to release the resources of both timeand personnel, the parent, and anyother tequired member necessary toconduct the IEP meeting.

• Ihe Right Response

In planning the IEP meeting, educatorsshould ensure that everyone who isrequired to be at the meeting attends.At the beginning of the meeting, theteam should be able to answer thequestion "Which IEP team member isultimately responsible to supervise andensure that appropriate educationalservices will be provided for thischild?"

4. The Search Ain't OverUnHI I f s Over

Johnny is a flfth-grade studentwhose IEP meeting started offcongenially until it came toaddressing IEP goals—whenJohnny's parents noticed that hisproposed reading goals were nearlythe same as those in his IEP fromthe previous school year. When hisfather asked why, the specialeducation teacher explained, "1don't know what else to try withhim. He has not improved this yeareven after I've tried every strategyto help him attain his goals andnothing works."


The IDEA principle of an individual-ized/appropriate education (34 CFR §§300.121 and 300.122) is importanthere. The key word in the vignette iseverything. At times, teachers continueto implement familiar strategies ratherthan investigating different research-based interventions or discussingideas for strategies with parents andother professionals. After an IEP iswritten for a student, it is the respon-sibility of the special educationteacher to continually measureprogress against the IEP goals. Thiscan be accomplished through system-atic progress monitoring—when teach-ers assess student performance on aregular basis to determine whetherchildren are benefiting from instruc-tion, implement research-based strate-gies, and then monitor students'progress or lack thereof (Fuchs &Fuchs, 2003). The special educationteacher's role is similar to that of adetective: to research instructionalstrategies while also collecting data todetermine if the strategy is effective,and to discard those strategies that areineffective (i.e., strategies that do nothelp students make progress on theirIEP goals).

School districts must provide ongo-ing training for teachers regardingresearch-based instructional strategiesto meet the needs of individual stu-dents with disabilities. The parent canalso be a resource for ideas regardingthe child's learning style, which mayhelp in researching appropriate strate-gies. Discussing interventions withother professionals (e.g., administra-tors, school social workers, psycholo-gist, curriculum specialists, and/orother teachers) is also a way to discov-er ideas to implement with the student.The U.S. Department of Educationrefers states and districts to someInternet web sites, which supply quali-ty information regarding research-based strategies (e.g., http://nichcy.org/research/basics/disabilities, http://www.nectac.org/topics/evbased/evbased.asp).

• Hie Right Response

After reviewing the list of strategiesthat have been implemented with the

student, how long each strategy wasused, and evidence illustrating theeffectiveness of use, the team mightinstead ask the teacher, "Have youdiscussed this challenge with otherprofessionals to see if they have anyother research-based teaching sugges-tions?" or "What kinds of professionaldevelopment could benefit the IEPteatn's decisions about instructingJohnny?"

5. Pass The Buck

Nick is an llth-grade student withlearning disabilities who is in aninclusive class for mathematics forthe first time this year At the IEPmeeting, the mathematics teachershared some positive commentsabout Nick's behavior in class butstruggled when describing Nick'smathematics performance: Itseemed to him that Nick viewedhigh school as more about socializ-ing than academics. In frustration,the mathematics teacher blurtedout, "Look, honestly, Nick, you arejust not interested in mathematicslike the other students. I prepare forthe class each day. I have asked youa million times how you learn bestand you always reply, '1 don'tknow.' Perhaps if he spent an houror two at home each night on math-ematics and you [his parents)encouraged him to do better atschool, we wouldn't have this prob-lem. Or if not, we could refer him toa separate class that caters to stu-dents who are not motivated wherehe can be more successful."

TWo principles of IDEA apply here: LREand parent participation. Teachers incontent-area classes may not havereceived adequate preparation forinclusive practices (DeSimone &Parmar, 2006). As frustration grows,particularly because the other studentsin the class seem to grasp conceptsquickly, teachers may assume that thehome environment is to blame.Consequently, they may recommendalternative placements for the student's"own good," placing the student in amore restrictive environment with

other students who have similar chal-lenges. Student outcomes can suffer;according fo Kerr and Nelson (2010),parents may avoid interactions withschool personnel because of perceivedblaming by teachers. It is incumbentupon the school staff to invite parents'suggestions and their participation intheir student's education. Friend (2011)admonished teachers to be aware ofparents' diverse understandings of theirchildren's special needs and empha-sized that the teacher's responsibility isto overcome negative perceptions, tooffer help to families, and to provideservices that are exemplary and appro-priate to the individual student. In thiscase, a mutual sharing of informationregarding Nick's specific math chal-lenges should have set the agenda forthe discussion.


Parents' participation in decisionsregarding the education of their stu-dent with special needs is emphasizedin IDEA. Viewing parents as a supportfor mutual academic and behavioralgoals rather than the source of theschool problems should underlie col-laborative efforts (Duchnowski, 2007;Eber & Keenan, 2004). Helping familiessupport academic and behaviorimprovements made at school is aneffective collaborative approach toaddressing inconsistency betweenhome and school behaviors. Moreover,parents need to have input about inter-ventions if they are expected to supportlearning goals (Kerr & Nelson, 2010).Nick's parents needed the opportunityto communicate his successes at homeand to use those as a springboard to

address the challenges Nick faced inclass.

Nick himself should also be a criti-cal participant in the development ofhis IEP. Mason, McGahee-Kovac, andJohnson (2004) found that studentswho led their IEP meetings meaning-fully contributed to them, demon-strated an understanding of their dis-ability rights and accommodations,increased in their self-confidence, wereable to self-advocate, interacted morepositively with adults, assumed moreresponsibility for themselves, and weremore aware of their limitations as wellas the resources available to them;moreover, parental participationincreased. Students in Hawbaker's(2007) study consistently reported thatleading their IEP meeting was one ofthe most memorable learning experi-

ences of the school year. Further, stu-dents who were involved with the stu-dent-led IEP process felt greaterempowerment when they were activelyinvolved in their decision-makingprocess (Barrie & McDonald, 2002).

• The Rigiit Response

During the IEP meeting, teachersshould stress the common goal ofmeeting the student's needs (e.g., "Weare all concerned about Nick's suc-cess."). Asking IEP team participants tohighlight the student's strengths canhelp identify ways to enhance progresstoward goals. For instance, the mathteacher could say to the parent, "1remember you said that Nick uses acomputer assisted design program athome—he loves to construct buildingsand produce blueprints. You also saidthat he rarely declines a math chal-lenge. How do you think we couldincorporate some of Nick's interestsinto classroom activities and his learn-ing goals?"

6. The Old Standhy

Jacob is a friendly 13-year-old boywith retinitis pigmentosa, a heredi-tary eye disorder characterized byprogressive vision loss. Although hehas participated actively in schoolprograms (including general educa-tion classes) over the couise of hischildhood, Jacob has experiencedpersistent visual loss, resulting insignificant low vision, and receivesspecial education services via anIEP. Jacob's family recently movedto a new school district in anotherstate just at the start of the schoolyear. At the IEP team meeting, theeducators told his parents that theirschool did not serve students withsignificant vision problems or stu-dents who are blind, stating "Wedon't have the personnel to servestudents with vision impairments.We always refer these students tothe school for the blind, which hasexcellent programming for studentslike Jacob and can better cater tohis unique needs."


i

Many educators may have concernsabout serving students with relativelylow-incidence disabilities with whichthey may not be familiar. At the sec-ondary level, many teachers stillbelieve students with severe disabilitiescannot be appropriately served in gen-

School District, 1989). Although theteam members may not believe thatthey are refusing Jacob an appropriateeducation—because they are offeringan alternative that they believe is amore appropriate placement—the teamis still subtly violating the zero rejectprinciple. Regardless of the nature orseverity of the disability, the schooldistrict has the responsibility to providea free and appropriate education byimplementing the existing IEP or start-ing the assessment process to developa new one. Schools must documentefforts to provide an appropriate edu-cation at the student's home schooland in the least restrictive environmentbefore determining an alternative set-ting is more suitable to address the stu-dent's needs.

• The Right Response

Jacob's school personnel showed alack of effort to provide appropriateservices, instead relying on "the oldstandby"; their recommendations werebased on the way things had alwaysbeen done. A more appropriateresponse to a situation like this wouldbe for the teachers and parents toemphasize the child's strengths andprevious services as outlined in his IEP.For example, an educator could say,"Because Jacob's parents knew that hewas slowly losing his sight, he hasdeveloped, with the help of his teach-ers, the necessary mobility skills tomove safely from class to class andother skills to compensate for his lowvision. He has always been placed with

Regardless of the nature or severity of the disahility,the school district has the responsibility to provide a free

and appropriate education hy implementing the existing IEPor starting the assessment process to develop a new one.

eral education classes or even in theirneighborhood schools (Smith, 2000).The IDEA principle of zero rejectapplies in this case: special educationservices must be available whereverthere are students who qualify for itsbeneflts (A. Turnbull, "nirnbuU, & Weh-meyer, 2010; Timothy W, v. Rochester

his same-age peers and we should con-tinue that level of service. Let's consultwith the state school for resources andsupport to help us with Jacob here."

Final Thoughts

Families and schools face many chal-lenges as they work toward following

the letter and spirit of IDEA. Althougheducators are typically well meaning intheir efforts to educate students withdisabilities, some things should neverbe said or heard during IEP meetings.When education professionals knowthe six principles of IDEA and words torespond to potential violations of theprinciples, IEP teams can better meetthe needs of students with disabilities.

ReferencesAgr.in. M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M.

(2002). Access to the general curriculumfor students with disabilities: What itmeans to teachers. Education andTraining in Mental Retardation andDevelopmental Disabilities, 37, 123-133.

Barrie, W., & McDonald, J. (2002). Adminis-trative support for student-led individual-ized education programs. Remedial andSpecial Education, 23, 116-121. doi:10. 1177/074193250202300208

Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J. A., Frank-land, H. C , Nelson, L. L., & Beegle, G.(2004). Dimensions of family and profes-sional partnerships: Constructive guide-lines for collaboration. ExceptionalChildren, 70, 167-184.

Carlson, E., Brauen, M., Klein, S., Shroll, K.,& Willig, S. (2002, July). SPeNSE: Studyof personnel needs in special education.Key fitidings. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education Office ofSpecial Education Programs. Retrievedfrom http://spense.education.ufl.edu/KeyFindings.pdf

Childre, A., & Chambers, C. R. (2005).Family perceptions of student-centeredplanning and IEP meetings. Educationand Training in Developmental Dis-abilities, 40, 217-233.

Cole, C , Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004).Academic progress of students acrossinclusive and traditional settings. MentalRetardation, 42, 136-144. doi:10.1352/0047-6765(2004)42 < 136:APOSAI >2.O.CO;2

Council for Exceptional Children. (2009).What every special educator must know:Ethics, standards, and guidelines. Arling-ton, VA: Author.

DeSimone, J. R., & Parmar, R. S. (2006).Middle school mathematics teachers'beliefs about inclusion of students withlearning disabilities. Learning DisabilitiesResearch & Practice, 21, 98-110. düi:10.mi/i.1.540-5826.2006.Ü0210.X

Duchnowski, A. (2007, October). The role ofmetital health services in school-wide PBS.Paper presented at the Forum on School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions andSupport: Planning for Systems Change,Chicago, IL.

Eber, L. & Keenan, S. (2004). Collaborationwith other agencies: Wraparound and


systems for care for children and youthswith emotional and behavioral disorders.In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, & S. R.Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research inemotional and behavioral disorders (pp.502-519). New York, NY: Guilford.

Fish, W. W. (2006). Perceptions of parentsof students with autism towards the IEPmeeting: A case study of one family sup-port group chapter. Education, 127(1),56-68.

Fish, W. W. (2008). The IEP meeting: Per-ceptions of parents of students whoreceive special education services. Pre-venting School Failure, 53(1), 8-14. doi:10.3200/PSFL.53.1.8-14

Fitzgerald, J. L., & Watkins, M. W. (2006).Parents' rights in special education: Thereadability of procedural safeguards.Exceptional Children, 72, 497-510.

Friend, M. (2011). Special education: Con-temporary perspectives for school profes-sionals (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson.

Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2009).Including students with special needs: Apractical guide for classroom teachers.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2003). What isscientifically-based research on progressmonitoring? Washington, DC: NationalCenter on Student Progress Monitoring.

Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with cultur-ally and linguistically diverse families:Ideal versus reality. Exceptional Children,74, 372-388.

Hawbaker, B. W. (2007). Student-led IEPmeetings: Planning and implementationstrategies. TEACHINC ExceptionalChildren Plus, 3(5), Article 4. Retrievedfrom http://e.scholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol3/iss5/art4

Hess, R. S., Molina, A. M., & Kozleski, E. B.(2006). Until somebody hears me: Parentvoice and advocacy in special educationdecision making. British Journal ofSpecial Education, 33, 148-157. doi:10.1111/J.1467-8578.2006.00430.X

Idol, L. (2006). Toward the inclusion ofspecial education students in generaleducation: A program evaluation ofeight schools. Remedial and SpecialEducation, 27, 77-94. doi:10.1177/07419325060270020601

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act,20 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq. (2006).

Kavale, K. A., & Forness. S.R. (2000). His-tory, rhetoric, and reality: Analysis ofinclusion debate. Remedial and SpecialEducation, 21, 279-296. doi: 10.1177/074193250002100505

Kerr, M. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2010). Strate-gies for addressing behavior problems inthe classroom (6th ed.). Boston, MA:Pearson.

Lake, J. F, & Billingsley, B. S. (2000). Ananalysis of factors that contribute toparent-school conflict in special educa-

tion. Remedial and Special Educa-tion, 21,240-251. doi:10.1177/074193250002100407

Mandic, C. C , Rudd, R., Hehir, T, &Acevedo-Garcia, D. (2010). Readabilityof special education procedural safe-guards. The Journal of Special Educa-tion. Advance online publication,doi: 10.1177/0022466910362774

Mason, C. Y, McGahee-Kovac, M., & John-son, L. (2004). How to help students leadtheir IEP meetings. TEACHING Excep-tional Children, 36(3), 18-24.

McGregor, G., & Vogelsberg, R. T. (1998J.Inclusive schooling practices: Pedagogicaland research foundations: A synthesis ofliterature that informs best practicesabout inclusive schooling. Pittsburgh, PA:Allegheny University of the HealthSciences.

Mueller, T. G., Singer, G. H., & Draper, L. M.(2008). Reducing parental dissatisfactionwith special education in two school dis-tricts: Implementing conflict preventionand alternative dispute resolution. Jour-nal of Educational and PsychologicalConsultation, 18, 191-233. doi:10.1080/10474410701864339

Palley, E. (2006). Challenges of rights-basedlaw: Implementing the least restrictiveenvironment mandate. Journal ofDisability Policy Studies, 16, 229-235.doi: 10.1177/10442073060160040401

Pugach, M. C. (2005). Research on prepar-ing general education teachers to workwith students with disabilities. In M.Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.),Studying teacher education: The report ofthe AERA panel on research and teachereducation (pp. 549-590). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Reiman, J. W., Beck, L., Coppola, T., &Engiles, A. (2010). Parents' experienceswith the IEP process: Considerations forimproving practice. Center for Appro-priate Dispute Resolution in SpecialEducation (CADRE). Retrieved fromhttp://www.directionservice.org/cadre/ParentExperiencesIEP.cfm

Salend, S., & Duhaney, L. (1999). Theimpact of inclusion on students withand without disabilities and theireducators. Remedial and Special Educa-tion, 20, 114-126. doi:10.1177/074193259902000209

Smith. M. G. (2000). Secondary teachers'perceptions towards inclusion of stu-dents with severe disabilities. NASSPBulletin, 84(613), 54-60. doi: 10.1177/Ol9263650008461309

Stoner, J. B., Bock, S. J., Thompson, J. R.,Angelí, M. E., Heyl, B. S., & Crowley, E.P. (2005). Welcome to our world: Parentperceptions of interactions betweenparents of young children with ASDand education professionals. Focus onAutism and Other Developmental

Disabilities, ¿0(1), 39-51. doi:10.1177/10883576050200010401

Timothy W. v. Rochester School District,875 F2d954 (1st Cir. 1989).

Türnbull, A., Tlirnbull, R., Erwin. E. J.,Soodak, L. C , & Shogren, K. A. (2010).Families, professionals, and exceptionali-ty: Positive outcomes through partnershipsand tnist. Boston, MA: Pearson.

TurnbuU, A., 1\irnbull, R., & Wehmeyer, M.(2010). Exceptional lives: Special educa-tion in today's schools (6tli ed.). Colum-bus, OH: Pearson.

Tlirnbull, H. R., & Tlirnbull, A. P. (1998).Free appropriate public education: Thelaw and children with disabilities (5thedition). Denver, CO: Love.

Tlirnbull, H. R., Stowe, M. J., & Huerta, N.E. (2007). Free appropriate public educa-tion: The law and children with disabili-ties (7th ed.). Denver. CO: Love.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010,August). Free appropriate public educa-tion for students with disabilities.Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/edlite-FAPE504.html

Wolery, R. A., & Odom, S. L. (2000). Anadministrator's guide to preschool inclu-sion. Chapel Hill, NC: University ofNorth Carolina, FPG Child DevelopmentCenter, Early Childhood ResearchInstitute on Inclusion.

Young, K. (2008). An alternative model ofspecial education teacher socialization.Teaching and Teacher Education, 24,901-914. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.08.003

Zirkel. P A , & Gischlar, K. (2008). Dueprocess hearings under the IDEA: A lon-gitudinal frequency analysis. Journal ofSpecial Education Leadership, 21, 22-31.

Gregory A. Cheatham (Kansas CEC),Assistant Professor, Special EducationDepartment, University of Kansas, Lawrence.Juliet E. Hart (Arizona CEC), AssistantPwfessor: and Ida Malian (Arizona CEC),Professor, Division of Teacher Preparation,Arizona State University, Phoenix. JoanMcDonald (Arizona CEC), Deputy As.wdateSuperintendent, Arizona Department ofEducation, Phoenix.

Address correspondence concerning thisarticle to Gregory A. Cheatham, 1122 W.Campus Rd., University of Kansas,Lawrence, Kansas 66045-3101 (e-mail:[email protected]).

TEACHING Exceptional Children, VoL 44,No. 3, pp. 50-57.

Copyright 2012 CEC.


Copyright of Teaching Exceptional Children is the property of Council for Exceptional Children and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

six things to never say or hear during an iep...

Documents