J Autism Dev Disord DOI 10.1007/s10803-014-2294-4
ORIGINAL PAPER
Identifying the Associated Factors of Mediation and Due Process in Families of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder Meghan M. Burke • Samantha E. Goldman
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Compared to families of students with other types of disabilities, families of students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are significantly more likely to enact their procedural safeguards such as mediation and due process. However, we do not know which school, child, and parent characteristics are associated with the enactment of safeguards. For this study, 507 parents of students with ASD responded to a national web-based survey. Parents who filed for due process or mediation were more likely to advocate for their child, have poor family-school partnerships, and have greater household incomes. Parents were also more likely to utilize their safeguards if their children were older, experiencing more internalizing behaviors, and educated in segregated placements. Implications for research and practice are discussed. Keywords School Litigation Advocacy Family-school partnership Internalizing behaviors Inclusion Introduction Compared to families of children with other types of disabilities, families of children with autism spectrum disorder
M. M. Burke (&) Department of Special Education, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 288 Education Building, 1310 S. 6th Street, Champaign, IL 61820, USA e-mail: [email protected] S. E. Goldman Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt Kennedy Center, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Peabody Box 228, 230 Appleton Place, Nashville, TN 37203, USA e-mail: [email protected]
(ASD) are more likely to enact their procedural safeguards (Mueller and Carranza 2011; Cohen 2009). In the United States, embedded in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004), procedural safeguards are accountability mechanisms to protect the rights of children with disabilities in accessing a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). Two of these safeguards are mediation and due process. Mediation is a voluntary process wherein a qualified, impartial mediator meets with the parents and the school to resolve a dispute. If the parents and school come to an agreement, a written binding agreement is created. If a family and school do not come to an agreement during mediation, they may use due process to resolve the disagreement. In a due process hearing, an impartial hearing officer conducts a legal proceeding between the parent and the school. Each party has the right to: present evidence; examine and cross-examine witnesses; prohibit evidence not disclosed to the other party 5 days prior to the hearing; and obtain a record of the hearing and the decision. By having procedural safeguards, parents and schools have options to resolve conflicts in an unbiased manner. Mediation, for example, can: establish mutual agreements to resolve conflict, encourage creative solutions to disagreements, and be shaped by the needs of the parents and the school (Bar-Lev et al. 2007). Due process hearings also have many positive benefits. Hearing decisions can be precedent setting providing guidance to practitioners and families about certain issues; due process also affords both schools and families the ability to disagree (Weber 2014). Although mediation and due process provide a forum in which to resolve educational disputes, there may be some negative effects among families of students with ASD. Parents often become frustrated with mediation and due process as both involve legal jargon, excessive paperwork,
123
J Autism Dev Disord
and technical detail (Folger et al. 2000; Zirkel 1994). Parents of students with ASD (versus other types of disabilities) experience significantly more stress (Hayes and Watson 2013). Because mediation and due process also relate to increased parent stress (Burke and Hodapp 2014), the enactment of such safeguards may further harm the well-being of parents of children with ASD. In addition, the cost of due process may be fiscally exorbitant as well as damage the family-school partnership. For parents and schools, the combined average due process hearing costs $60,000 (Mueller 2009). Families of children with ASD already spend a substantial portion of their incomes on out-of-pocket expenditures for educational and behavioral supports (Montes and Halterman 2008); the cost of due process may place additional financial constraints on families. Due process may also harm already weakened family-school relationships (Mueller). Schools may become frustrated with due process because, frequently, the cost of hearings far exceeds its value. Due process and mediation can re-direct limited resources from instruction to litigation (Zirkel 1994). Despite the multiple effects of mediation and due process among families of children with ASD, there is limited literature which identifies the parent, child, and parentschool predictors of the enactment of safeguards. Even among the few studies which exist, almost none exclusively examined families of children with ASD. For this study, we dovetailed the small, extant research about parent, child, and parent-school predictors of the enactment of safeguards with research about the effect of safeguards and ASD, more generally, to make reasonable predictions about which parent, child, and parent-school characteristics relate to the enactment of safeguards. There may be several parent-school characteristics that contribute to parents of students with ASD filing for mediation or due process. For example, a strong parentschool partnership is important in developing trust between the parents and the school (Fish 2008; Angell et al. 2009). When family-school partnerships are weak, parents may encounter more disagreements with the school and feel more inclined to use their safeguards. Further, special education knowledge and advocacy may also affect the use of procedural safeguards. Parents of students with ASD have indicated the need to advocate so their children receive appropriate services (Stoner et al. 2005). Parents who better understand IDEA and, relatedly, are aware of their procedural safeguards may be more likely to utilize mediation and due process. Some child characteristics may also be correlated with enactment of safeguards. In a previous study about due process hearings, Mueller and Carranza (2011) found that, among families who filed for due process, placement was a common issue. More specifically, families of students with
123
ASD may desire more inclusive (versus segregated) settings for their children. Ryndak and Downing (1996) found that families of students with moderate to severe disabilities, including ASD, in self-contained classrooms felt their children received repetitive, meaningless, and non-functional work. Parents of students in self-contained settings also felt that their input was unwelcomed by school professionals. Parents of children in segregated (versus inclusive) settings may be less satisfied with the instruction their children receive and, subsequently, more likely to file for mediation or due process. The degree of child maladaptive behaviors may also affect parental use of safeguards. Children with ASD experience a range of comorbid diagnoses which may lead to a need for several educational, behavioral, and medical services (Boulet et al. 2009). Such conditions often include maladaptive behavior such as: asocial behaviors (e.g., uncooperative or socially offensive behavior), internalizing (e.g., unusual habits, withdrawal, inattention) and externalizing problems (e.g., hurtful to others, destructive). Indeed, children with ASD demonstrate more problem behaviors than children with other disabilities (Hoffman et al. 2009). Because of the need for additional services to address behavioral issues, parents of children with more problem behaviors may be more likely to encounter conflict with the school. When the child with ASD also has an intellectual disability (ID), their behavioral and cognitive needs often intensify (Matson and Shoemaker 2009). As such, these families may struggle to receive adequate school services and, subsequently, feel compelled to file due process. The age and degree of functioning of the student may also relate to the enactment of safeguards. Younger students tend to receive more family-centered services, and older students more child-based services with less focus on the family unit (Dunst 2002). As the child ages and their individualized education plan (IEP) meetings become less family-focused, parents may be more likely to disagree with the school. Also, the level of independence of the individual may relate to the degree of parent-school conflict. As a child with a developmental disability ages, parent expectations of the child’s rate of progress may not match that of the school (Mulick and Butter 2002). Having different expectations about the student (due to the level of functioning of the child) may affect the use of procedural safeguards. In addition, parent characteristics such as household income may relate to the filing of mediation and due process. Due process hearings are expensive (Mueller 2009). The cost of retaining an attorney may be too exorbitant for lower income families. In many states, there are few options for pro-bono special education attorneys (Seven and Zirkel 2002; Ahearn 2001). As such, families with
J Autism Dev Disord
higher household incomes may be more likely to enact their procedural safeguards. Using a web-based survey of a large, national sample, this study identifies the parent-school, child, and parent factors that predict filing for mediation or due process, specific to parents of students with ASD. Our research question for this study was: among families of students with ASD, what parent-school, child, and parent characteristics relate to the enactment of procedural safeguards? Regarding parent-school characteristics, we hypothesized that families who advocated more frequently and had poor family-school partnerships would be more likely to enact their safeguards. We also hypothesized that several child characteristics would correlate with a greater likelihood of enacting procedural safeguards: older (versus younger) children, having (versus not having) an intellectual disability, demonstrating less (versus more) independence with daily living skills, exhibiting higher (versus lower) rates of behavior problems, and spending less (versus more) time in the general education classroom. Related to the parent, we hypothesized that parents with higher (versus lower) income would be more likely to file for mediation or due process.
Method Participants A total of 507 participants (472 mothers; 35 fathers) responded to this study. All participants were parents of children with ASD. Respondents averaged 42.9 years of age (SD = 7.73), with a range from 25 to 70 years. Most participants were married (84.4 % or n = 428). Regarding income, 65.1 % (n = 329) of the families reported annual incomes of less than $100,000. The majority (89.5 % or n = 454) of participants were White. Participants had varied educational backgrounds with most (63.5 % or n = 322) having at least a college degree. Students with disabilities were predominantly male (79.7 %; n = 404) and averaged 10.71 years of age (SD = 4.24, range 3–21 years). Overall, 26.2 % (133) of the respondents indicated that they had filed for mediation or due process. Along with Washington, D.C., participants responded from 47 of the 50 states (Delaware, Hawaii, and Wyoming were not represented). Thirty-one states had 10 or more respondents and 6 of these were also among the 10 most populous states (California, 6.2 %; New York, 5.7 %; Texas, 5.1 %; Pennsylvania, 4.5 %; Illinois, 3.7 %; Michigan, 3.0 %). The states with the most respondents in this sample were Tennessee, 14.7 %; Massachusetts, 5.2 %; and Virginia, 4.8 %. To attain a diverse and national sample, participants were recruited in multiple ways. First, e-mails and flyers were sent to local, state, and national parent support group
agencies, the Association of University Centers in Disabilities (AUCD), and 106 parent training and information centers (PTIs) throughout the U.S. Next, e-mails were sent to 7,843 agencies listed in the A-Z Yellow Pages for Disabilities (http://www.yellowpagesforkids.com/help/az.htm), including local parent support groups (436); non-profit disability agencies (1,271); schools, educational agencies, and boards of education (1,386); attorney, advocacy, and legal agencies (1,725); and private providers, including speech, occupational, and physical therapists (3,025). Procedures In collaboration with other disability researchers and community advocates, the survey was developed and revised. This survey included both established scales as well as novel questions. More specifically, the 163-item survey included: the Family-Professional Partnership Scale (Summers et al. 2005), the Special Education Rights and Advocacy Scale (Burke and Hodapp 2014), Activities of Daily Living Scale (Seltzer and Li 1996), and Scales of Independent Behavior-Revised (Bruininks et al. 1996). The survey also included items that we created (e.g., whether parents enacted their procedural safeguards). We shared and received feedback about the survey from 10 individuals, including professors, parents of individuals with disabilities, and practitioners, before piloting this survey with five parents of students with disabilities. Upon revision, the IRB approved the study. The survey was then put onto a secure website for 6 months (Harris et al. 2009). Although most surveys were completed electronically, respondents could also complete and return paper versions. Responding to both phone and e-mail requests, over 50 paper surveys were distributed. Only 5 paper-based responses were returned (these returned surveys were then entered onto the web-site). Regardless of the format (i.e., online or paper), the survey took approximately 20–25 min to complete. Dependent Variable Enacting Procedural Safeguards Respondents answered one question: ‘‘Have you ever filed for mediation or due process?’’ The question was dichotomous: (0) no or (1) yes. Independent Variables: Parent-School Relationship Variables Family-Professional Partnership Scale The Family-Professional Partnership Scale gauges the satisfaction of a family with their relationship with
123
J Autism Dev Disord
professionals. In its original form, the Family-Professional Partnership Scale asks parents to answer questions with respect to a specific individual. In this survey, we modified the scale to ask about their experiences with the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team. The scale consists of 18 items, with two subscales of nine items each (Summers et al. 2005). In the Child-Professional Relationship subscale, parents rated the degree to which they felt that their child’s IEP team has the skills to help the child succeed; builds on the child’s strengths; treats the child with dignity; keeps the child safe; and speaks up for the child’s best interests when working with other service providers. In the Family-Focused Relationship subscale, respondents rated the degree to which they felt that the IEP team is available to them; is friendly; is honest (even when imparting bad news); uses words that parents understand; listens non-judgmentally; and respects the family’s values and beliefs. Cronbach’s alphas were high (.95 and .94 for the Child-Professional Relationship subscale and FamilyFocused Relationship subscale, respectively).
Age Respondents reported the child’s age in years. Degree of Functional Abilities To measure the abilities of the individual with a disability, we used the 15 items from the Activities of Daily Living scale (ADL: Seltzer and Li 1996). Questions included ‘‘To what extent can your child perform the following activities?’’. Activities included: walking, speaking, reading, eating, preparing meals, and grooming/personal hygiene. Parents answered these questions on a 5-point Likert scale. Scale options ranged from: (1) not at all; (2) some; (3) somewhat/sometimes; (4) moderately well; and (5) very well. Variables were then summed into a single, cumulative score ranging from 15 to 75, with higher scores indicating greater functional independence. Cronbach’s alpha for this sample was .85. Degree of Inclusion
Special Education Rights and Advocacy Scale We developed a seven-item scale concerning parents’ efforts to attain knowledge and advocacy skills. The questions included whether the respondent had ever: used an advocate/attorney to attend an IEP meeting; had someone else (not an advocate) attend an IEP meeting; attended a workshop about special education rights; called an agency to ask about special education rights; searched the internet for special education rights; read a copy of special education rights or procedural safeguards; and talked with another parent about special education rights. Questions were answered on a 5-point Likert scale: (1) never; (2) occasionally; (3) sometimes; (4) often; and (5) very often. A cumulative variable was used, ranging from 7 to 35. Using the sample for this study, the Cronbach’s alpha was .83. Using a principal component analysis, with varimax rotation, one factor emerged accounting for 49.66 % of the variance (eigenvalue = 3.48). Independent Variables: Student Variables
We asked one question about placement: ‘‘How much time does your child spend in the regular education classroom?’’. The responses were on a 5-point Likert scale that broadly corresponds to IDEA (2004) least restrictive environment and placement targets: (1) 0–20 %; (2) 21–40 %; (3) 41–60 %; (4) 61–80 %; and (5) 81–100 %. We treated the degree of inclusion as a categorical variable with 81–100 % of time as the reference category; all other percentages of time were dummy coded for the analyses. Independent Variables: Parent Variables Household Income We asked participants: ‘‘What is the overall annual income in your household?’’. Possible responses included: (1) less than $15,000; (2) between $15,000 and $29,999; (3) between $30,000 and $49,999; (4) $50,000 and $69,999; (5) $70,000 to $99,999; and (6) $100,000 and over. Income was treated as a categorical variable with incomes over $100,000 as the reference category and all other levels of income dummy coded.
Degree of Child’s Behavior Problems Analyses An 8-item measure, the Scales of Independent BehaviorRevised (SIB-R), provides a General Maladaptive Index (GMI), with higher scores reflecting more serious maladaptive behaviors (Bruininks et al. 1996). There are three domains of problem behaviors: externalizing, internalizing, and asocial. Scores reflect both severity and frequency of behavior in the past 6 months.
123
All missing values (\5 % for all items) were imputed for scales, with mean scores substituted for missing values following the guidelines of Harrell (2001). We conducted t tests and Chi squares to detect demographic differences between parents who did (versus did not) file for due process or mediation. Next, we conducted univariate logistic
J Autism Dev Disord
regressions with each correlate to determine its relation to the enactment of procedural safeguards. We conducted a correlation matrix of the independent variables to identify any multicollinearity. Finally, we conducted a multivariate logistic regression including parent-school, child, and parent independent variables. For both the univariate and multivariate logistic regressions, we generated an odds ratio telling the likelihood of whether participants would enact their safeguards. We also provided the 95 % confidence interval of each odds ratio. If the confidence interval included the value of 1, then there were no significant differences in the probability of enacting safeguards.
Results Demographic Comparisons
parent-school characteristics, families with weaker partnerships with schools were significantly more likely to file for mediation or due process. Furthermore, families who advocated more frequently were more likely to enact their safeguards. Families of older children and children with more internalizing behaviors were significantly more likely to file for due process or mediation. Also, compared to being in the general education classroom for 81–100 % of the time, families of children who spent only 0–20 % of their time in the regular education setting were significantly more likely to file for due process or mediation. Regarding parent characteristics, families with incomes above $100,000 (compared to incomes between $50–69,999) were also significantly more likely to enact their safeguards. See Table 2. Table 2 Univariate logistic regressions
We first examined demographic differences between participants who did (versus did not) file for due process or mediation. We found no significant differences with respect to: marital status, race, parent education level, or role of the respondent. See Table 1. Univariate Logistic Regressions and Correlations Univariate logistic regressions were conducted to analyze the contribution of each independent variable to the enactment of procedural safeguards. With respect to
Parents who enacted procedural safeguards B
Did not file mediation/ due process (n = 374)
Filed for mediation/ due process (n = 133)
Marital status Married
84.65 % (320)
.616 89.57 % (335)
89.47 % (119)
4.81 % (18)
4.51 % (6)
Asian Hispanic
0.80 % (3) 3.74 % (14)
1.50 % (2) 3.76 % (5)
Other
1.08 % (4)
0.76 % (1)
Parent education level
3.92
High school
5.35 % (20)
2.26 % (3)
Some college
32.35 % (121)
30.83 % (41)
Four year degree
29.41 % (110)
32.33 % (43)
Graduate degree
32.88 % (123)
34.59 % (46)
Role of respondent Mother
.02
55.11
.001
1.14 [1.10, 1.16]
Family subscale
-0.08
.01
47.37
.001
0.92 [0.89, 0.94]
Child subscale
-0.07
.01
32.26
.001
0.93 [0.91, 0.96]
Child age
0.09
.02
13.98
.001
1.09 [1.04, 1.14]
Internalizing behaviors
0.03
.01
10.24
.001
1.03 [1.01, 1.05]
Placement in general education (reference: 81–100 %)
* p \ .05, ** p \ .001
89.47 % (119)
0.60
.24
6.58
.010
1.83 [1.15, 2.89]
21–40 %
-0.02
.49
0.01
.967
0.98 [0.37–2.58]
41–60 %
0.18
.45
0.17
.680
1.20 [0.50, 2.88]
61–80 %
-0.06
.39
0.03
.875
0.94 [0.43, 2.05]
0.24
.59
0.16
.685
1.27 [0.39, 4.06]
Between $15,000 and $29,999 Between $30,000 and $49,999
-0.75
.45
2.75
.097
0.48 [0.20, 1.15]
-0.53
.32
2.81
.094
0.59 [0.31, 1.10]
Between $50,000 and $69,999
-0.65
.32
4.19
.041
0.52 [0.28, 0.97]
Between $70,000 and $99,999 Asocial behaviors
-0.48
.27
3.18
.075
0.62 [0.37, 1.05]
Externalizing behaviors Intellectual disability (reference: no intellectual disability)
.607 94.39 % (353)
OR [95 % CI]
0.13
Less than $15,000
80.00 % (108)
African American
p
Income (reference: $100,000 and over) 7.36
Race White
v2/t
Wald
Rights and advocacy scale
0–20 % Table 1 Participant demographics
SE
Activities of daily living
0.01
.01
2.64
.104
1.01 [0.99, 1.03]
0.01
.01
1.57
.210
1.01 [0.99, 1.03]
-0.08
.29
0.08
.785
0.92 [0.35, 1.49]
0.01
.01
0.04
.852
1.00 [0.98, 1.02]
B coefficient, SE standard error for coefficient, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval
123
J Autism Dev Disord Table 3 Correlations between independent variables 1 1. Internalizing behaviors
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.52**
3. Externalizing behaviors
.54**
11
-.09*
-.40**
–
– .49** -.07
5. Child age
.08
.02
6. Intellectual disability
.16**
.12**
– -.13**
–
.01
.01
-.02
-.01
-.01
-.02
– .15**
-.17**
-.11*
8. Activities of daily living
-.24**
-.20**
.07
.07
9. Child subscale
-.15**
-.21**
.10*
.08
-.08
.04
-.03
.08
10. Family subscale
-.14**
-.20**
.09
-.08
.05
-.01
.08
.88**
.06
.01
.02
-.36**
.17
.20**
.10* -.03
-.02
-.11*
–
7. Placement in general education
11. Rights and advocacy scale
10
–
2. Asocial behaviors 4. Income
2
.25**
.13**
-.23** -.23**
– .45**
– – –
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01
To describe the relationships between the independent variables, we assessed for multicollinearity. We calculated Pearson’s correlations between the independent variables. With the exception of the subscales of the Family-Professional Partnerships Scale, none of the independent variables were highly correlated (r [ 0.70). The Child and Family Subscales had a significant positive correlation (r = .88). Because the Family subscale univariate logistic regression was stronger than the Child Subscale, we chose to only include the Family Subscale variable in the multivariate regression. The Variable Inflation Factor for all independent variables was below 2.5 indicating that multicollinearity was not a concern (Cohen et al. 2003). See Table 3. Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis Only the independent variables that had p-values less than .25 (based upon the univariate logistic regression analyses) were included in the multivariate logistic regression. Because a traditional p value of .05 can fail to identify important variables, we chose to use the p B .25 cutoff for the multiple logistic regression (Cohen et al. 2003). As such, we only included eight of the independent variables (i.e., Rights and Advocacy Scale, Family Subscale, Placement, Income, Child age, Internalizing behaviors, Externalizing Behaviors, and Asocial Behaviors) in the multivariate regression. The model was significant, X2 (9, N = 507) = 118.35, p \ .0001. Families who advocated more frequently and demonstrated worse family-school partnerships were significantly more likely to file for due process or mediation. Families with incomes above $100,000 (versus incomes between $15,000–49,999) were more likely to enact their safeguards. Compared to families of children who were educated for 81–100 % of the time in the regular education classroom, families of children educated for 0–20 % of the time with the peers were 1.92 times more likely
123
to file for due process or mediation. Finally, families of older children and with more internalizing behaviors were also significantly more likely to enact their safeguards (Table 4).
Discussion This study identifies the associated factors of the enactment of procedural safeguards for families of children with ASD. Because these families, compared to families of students with other disabilities, file due process and mediation more frequently (Mueller and Carranza 2011; Cohen 2009), it is necessary to identify the correlates of these conflict resolution procedures. Below, we outline our three findings and their implications. First, families who advocated more and had weak family-school partnerships were significantly more likely to file for due process or mediation (p’s \ .0001). Because one piece of advocacy is understanding special education law (Trainor 2010), including conflict resolution procedures, parents who advocate more frequently may be more likely to know about mediation and due process and, because of their knowledge, more likely to utilize these procedures. In addition, poor family-school partnerships may increase the likelihood of conflict because the parent and the school do not trust each other (Fish 2008). Conversely, family-school partnerships may deteriorate after a family files for due process (Mueller 2009). Second, child characteristics also significantly related to the use of procedural safeguards. Compared to students who spent a large majority of their day in the general education classroom, families of students who were included for only 0–20 % of their time were 1.92 times more likely to enact their safeguards. This finding aligns with previous research indicating that placement is a common issue in due process hearings among families of students with ASD (Mueller and
J Autism Dev Disord Table 4 Multivariate logistic regression about enacting procedural safeguards Predictors Advocacy Family subscale
B
SE
Wald
p
OR [95 % CI]
0.12
.02
35.31
.000
1.13 [1.08, 1.17]
-0.06
.01
19.17
.000
0.94 [0.91, 0.96]
Income (reference: $100,000 and over) Below $15,000
-0.27
.72
0.15
.703
0.76 [0.19, 3.11]
Between $15,000 and $29,999
-1.07
.51
4.30
.038
0.34 [0.13, 0.94]
Between $30,000 and $49,999
-0.84
.38
5.05
.025
0.43 [0.21, 0.89]
Between $50,000 and $69,999
-0.71
.37
3.69
.055
0.49 [0.24, 1.01]
Between $70,000 and $99,999
-0.50
.31
2.60
.107
0.61 [0.33, 1.11]
0.03
.02
3.57
.005
1.03 [1.02, 1.14]
Child age
Placement in a regular class (reference: 81–100 %) 0–20 %
0.65
.28
5.49
.019
1.92 [1.10, 3.31]
-0.13
.59
0.05
.823
0.88 [0.28, 2.77]
41–60 %
0.07
.49
0.02
.891
1.07 [0.41, 2.81]
61–80 %
-0.02
.45
0.002
.969
0.98 [0.96, 1.00]
0.03
.01
4.99
.025
1.03 [1.00, 1.06]
Asocial behaviors
-0.02
.01
2.80
.095
0.98 [0.96, 1.00]
Externalizing behaviors
-0.01
.01
0.16
.898
0.99 [0.97, 1.02]
21–40 %
Internalizing behaviors
B coefficient; SE standard error for coefficient, OR odds ratio; CI confidence interval
Carranza 2011). Our data indicates that families may be arguing for more inclusive settings. Parents of children with ASD who spend most of their time in self-contained classrooms may have greater concerns about their child’s quality of instruction and staff (Ryndak and Downing 1996). Child age also related to the enactment of safeguards with parents of older students being significantly more likely to file mediation or due process. Given that family-centeredness decreases with age (Dunst 2002), parents of older students may be more likely to use safeguards. Families of students with more internalizing behaviors were also significantly more likely to utilize their safeguards. Unlike externalizing and asocial behaviors, internalizing problems were significantly related to due process and mediation in both the univariate and multivariate logistic regressions (p \ .0001 and p = .025, respectively). Among students with emotional and behavioral disorders, internalizing behaviors are frequently overlooked by the school (Walker et al. 2005). This may also be the case for children with ASD who often exhibit many disruptive and maladaptive behaviors. Indeed, because externalizing (versus internalizing) problems are more visible and difficult to manage (Dowdy et al. 2011), schools may be less likely to address
internalizing problems. In addition, internalizing behaviors in children with ASD are related to higher levels of parenting stress (Bauminger et al. 2010), further increasing the need for educational professionals to address internalizing behaviors. Thus, parents of students with internalizing problems may need mediation and due process to address these frequently ignored and concerning behaviors of their children. Given that parents of students with internalizing behaviors are more likely to use their safeguards, practitioners may want to pay closer attention to the needs of these students as well as cultivating strong relationships with their parents. Third, parent characteristics also related to the usage of procedural safeguards. Families with greater incomes were significantly more likely to file due process or mediation. Given the high costs of hearings (Mueller 2009), families with more money may be better positioned to file for due process. However, the issue of income may represent a larger challenge of access and for whom due process and mediation can be viable conflict resolution procedures. Being unable to afford attorney representation or secure legal advocacy services, families from lower income backgrounds may feel that due process is not an equitable process (Shemberg 1997). Directions for Future Research Because this study is cross-sectional, we cannot determine the directionality of our results. For example, we cannot determine whether poor family-school partnerships cause families to file due process or mediation or whether the enactment of due process or mediation leads to weakened family-school partnerships. The literature suggests that either direction is possible. Indeed, families of students with ASD must feel they can trust the school and, relatedly, have positive family-school partnerships (Fish 2008); when these partnerships do not happen, conflict may be more likely to occur. Conversely, because of its litigious nature, due process weakens family-school partnerships (Mueller 2009). Longitudinal research is needed to determine the direction of effects among the usage of procedural safeguards. Longitudinal research is also needed as our results indicate that there is a relation between child age and the enactment of procedural safeguards. The increased probability of filing for mediation or due process may be due to the decrease of family-centered practices over time. In early childhood, students are more likely to receive familycentered services; when the child grows older, services tend to be more based on the individual versus the family (Dunst 2002). In addition to the decrease in familycentered practices, parent satisfaction with services also declines as students age (Summers et al. 2007). Longitudinal research can better determine at what point parents become more likely to enact their safeguards.
123
J Autism Dev Disord
Additional research is needed to more closely examine the relation between advocacy and the enactment of safeguards. Previous research about special education advocacy has demonstrated there are four types of advocacy (Trainor 2010). The Rights and Advocacy Scale used in this study may reflect only one type of advocacy: the strategist type. Strategist advocates rely on special education law and their rights to advocate for their children. Other types of advocacy include intuitive advocates (i.e., parents relying on their knowledge about their child to ensure they receive appropriate services) as well as disability experts (i.e., parents using their knowledge of the child’s type of disability to secure services). Unlike intuitive and disability experts, agents of change try to create systemic change for students with disabilities. Future research may examine the other three types of advocacy to discern their relation to the enactment of safeguards. Implications for Practitioners and Policymakers Drawing on the finding based on income, this study indicates the need to level the playing field. Families from lowincome backgrounds should have access to affordable legal representation. In a national study, Ahearn (2001) found that 15 out of the 50 states lacked reduced-cost or pro bono attorneys for families. In a later national survey of state special education directors, only half of the directors indicated that parents had access to attorney representation; this number decreased dramatically when parents were unable to afford representation (Seven and Zirkel 2002). Although due process and mediation are the last resorts in conflict resolution, it is important for all parents, regardless of socioeconomic status, to have equal access to this accountability mechanism. Practitioners must help families to connect with affordable legal representation and the field must work to increase the availability of such reduced-cost or pro bono attorneys. Protection and Advocacy (P&A) agencies exist in every state and are federally funded to provide reduced-cost or pro-bono legal services to families of students with disabilities. However, it seems, based on our findings, that such legal services are insufficient to meet the needs of lower income families of students with disabilities. To address the lack of reduced-cost attorneys, the National Council on Disability (NCD) argues that private attorneys need to become involved in the disability rights arena (NCD 2000). Notably, the P&A in Illinois has developed a special education clinic; in the clinic, they train private attorneys to handle special education cases on a no-fee or fee recovery basis (Hyman et al. 2011). Although no formal outcome data have been collected related to its effectiveness, this may prove to be a valuable model for other states to increase the availability of legal
123
representation for lower-income families of students with disabilities. Another implication for practitioners relates to malleable correlates of due process and mediation. Although schools cannot address child age or parent income, educational professionals can target families of students who are primarily educated in self-contained special education classrooms (Scheuermann et al. 2003). Schools may especially focus on improving family-school relations and resolving conflicts with families of students in more restrictive settings. Given that most educational disputes relate to placement issues, practitioners may want to document efforts promoting inclusive practices for students with ASD. In this way, parents may feel more satisfied with the school understanding that the educational professionals are constantly revisiting the idea of inclusion. By paying special attention to families of students who are segregated in more restrictive setting, school professionals may resolve conflicts before the parents file for due process or mediation. This study also has some limitations. Because of the webbased format of this study, parents from low-income and minority backgrounds may have been precluded from participating. Additionally, although we recruited a large, national sample, we were unable to determine the response rate for this study. Related to the national sample, there may be policy and procedural differences across states, which affect the enactment of safeguards. Also, due to this study’s crosssectional nature, we cannot discern causality in our findings. Finally, a common issue among autism litigation is the appropriateness of applied behavior analysis (ABA) programs (Choutka et al. 2004). Because this survey did not include any items related to ABA, we could not discern whether different associated factors relate to hearings about ABA therapy. In spite of these limitations, this study offers a jumping off point to discerning the associated factors of the enactment of procedural safeguards among families of students with ASD. This study demonstrated that, among families of students with ASD, greater advocacy and worse familyschool partnerships as well as child age, placement, and internalizing behaviors and parent income relates to the enactment of safeguards. By identifying the parent-school, child, and parent correlates of mediation and due process for this growing population, we can work to prevent special education conflicts from reaching an adversarial point. Acknowledgments We would like to thank Drs. Robert Hodapp and Kelly Hsieh for their thoughtful comments about this manuscript.
References Ahearn, E. M. (2001). The involvement of lay advocates in due process hearings. Quick Turn Around (QTA). Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 458753).
J Autism Dev Disord Angell, M. E., Stoner, J. B., & Shelden, D. L. (2009). Trust in education professionals: Perspectives of mothers of children with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 160–176. Bar-Lev, N. B., Nestadt, S., & Peter, M. (2007). Considering mediation for special education disputes: A school administrator’s perspective. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 304–315. Bauminger, N., Solomon, M., & Rogers, S. J. (2010). Externalizing and internalizing behaviors in ASD. Autism Research, 3(3), 101–112. Boulet, S. L., Boyle, C. A., & Schieve, L. A. (2009). Health care use and health and functional impact of developmental disabilities among US children, 1997–2005. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 163, 19–26. Bruininks, R. H., Woodcock, R. W., Weatherman, R. F., & Hill, B. K. (1996). Scales of independent behavior-revised (SIB-Royal). Chicago, IL: Riverside. Burke, M. M., & Hodapp, R. M. (2014). Relating stress of mothers of children with developmental disabilities to family-school partnerships. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 52, 13–23. Choutka, C. M., Doloughty, P. T., & Zirkel, P. A. (2004). The ‘‘discrete trials’’ of applied behavior analysis for children with autism: Outcome-related factors in the case law. Journal of Special Education, 38, 95–103. Cohen, M. (2009). A guide to special education advocacy. London: Jessica Kingsley Publication. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dowdy, E., Doane, K., Eklund, K., & Dever, B. V. (2011). A comparison of teacher nomination and screening to identify behavioral and emotional risk within a sample of underrepresented students. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 21, 127–137. Dunst, C. J. (2002). Family-centered practices: Birth through high school. Journal of Special Education, 36, 139–147. Fish, W. W. (2008). The IEP meeting: Perceptions of parents of students who receive special education services. Preventing School Failure, 53, 8–14. Folger, J., Poole, M. S., & Stutman, R. K. (2000). Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations (4th ed.). New York: Longman. Harrell, F. E. (2001). Regression modeling strategies. New York: Springer. Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R., Payne, J., Gonzalez, N., & Conde, J. G. (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap): A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Information, 42, 377–381. Hayes, S. A., & Watson, S. L. (2013). The impact of parenting stress: A meta-analysis of studies comparing the experience of parenting stress in parents of children with and without autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 629–642. Hoffman, C. D., Sweeney, D. P., Hodge, D., Lopez-Wagner, M. C., & Looney, L. (2009). Parenting stress and closeness: Mothers of typically developing children and mothers of children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 24, 178–187. Hyman, E., Rivkin, D. H., & Rosenbaum, S. A. (2011). How IDEA fails families without means: Causes and corrections from the frontlines of special education lawyering. Journal of Gender, Social Policy, and the Law, 20, 107–162. Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Education Act of 2004. 20 U.S.C. n 1400.
Matson, J. L., & Shoemaker, M. (2009). Intellectual disability and its relationship to autism spectrum disorders. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1107–1114. Montes, G., & Halterman, J. S. (2008). Association of childhood autism spectrum disorders and loss of family income. Pediatrics, 121(4), e821–e826. Mueller, T. G. (2009). Alternative dispute resolution: A new agenda for special education policy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20, 4–13. Mueller, T. G., & Carranza, F. (2011). An examination of special education due process hearings. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22, 131–139. Mulick, J. A., & Butter, E. M. (2002). Educational advocacy for children with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 17, 57–74. National Council on Disability. (2000). Back to School on Civil Rights. Retrieved March 13, 2014 from http://www.ncd.gov/ publications/2000/Jan252000. Ryndak, D. L., & Downing, J. E. (1996). Parents’ perceptions of educational settings and services for children with moderate or severe disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 106–118. Scheuermann, B., Webber, J., Boutot, E. A., & Goodwin, M. (2003). Problems with personnel preparation in autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(3), 197–206. Seltzer, M. M., & Li, L. W. (1996). The transitions of caregiving: Subjective and objective definitions. The Gerontologist, 36, 614–626. Seven, K. H., & Zirkel, P. A. (2002). In the matter of Arons: Construction of IDEA’s lay advocate provision too narrow? Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, 9, 193–223. Shemberg, A. (1997). Mediation as an alternative method of dispute resolution for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A just proposal? Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 12, 739–757. Stoner, J. B., Bock, S. J., Thompson, J. R., Angell, M. E., Heyl, B. S., & Crowley, E. P. (2005). Welcome to our world: Parent perceptions of interactions between parents of young children with ASD and education professionals. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(1), 39–51. Summers, J. A., Hoffman, L., Marquis, J., Turnbull, A. P., Poston, D., & Nelson, L. L. (2005). Measuring the quality of familyprofessional partnerships in special education services. Exceptional Children, 72, 65–83. Summers, J. A., Marquis, J., Mannan, H., Turnbull, A. P., Fleming, K., Poston, D. J., et al. (2007). Relationship of perceived adequacy of services, family-professional partnerships, and family quality of life in early-childhood service programmes. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 54, 319–338. Trainor, A. A. (2010). Diverse approaches to parent advocacy during special education home-school interactions: Identification and use of cultural and social capital. Remedial and Special education, 31, 34–47. Walker, B., Cheney, D., Stage, S., & Blum, C. (2005). Schoolwide screening and positive behavior supports: Identifying and supporting students at risk for school failure. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 194–204. Weber, M. C. (2014). In defense of IDEA due process. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 29, 501–530. Zirkel, P. A. (1994). Over-due process revisions for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Montana Law Review, 55, 403–414.
123
ORIGINAL PAPER
Identifying the Associated Factors of Mediation and Due Process in Families of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder Meghan M. Burke • Samantha E. Goldman
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Compared to families of students with other types of disabilities, families of students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are significantly more likely to enact their procedural safeguards such as mediation and due process. However, we do not know which school, child, and parent characteristics are associated with the enactment of safeguards. For this study, 507 parents of students with ASD responded to a national web-based survey. Parents who filed for due process or mediation were more likely to advocate for their child, have poor family-school partnerships, and have greater household incomes. Parents were also more likely to utilize their safeguards if their children were older, experiencing more internalizing behaviors, and educated in segregated placements. Implications for research and practice are discussed. Keywords School Litigation Advocacy Family-school partnership Internalizing behaviors Inclusion Introduction Compared to families of children with other types of disabilities, families of children with autism spectrum disorder
M. M. Burke (&) Department of Special Education, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 288 Education Building, 1310 S. 6th Street, Champaign, IL 61820, USA e-mail: [email protected] S. E. Goldman Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt Kennedy Center, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Peabody Box 228, 230 Appleton Place, Nashville, TN 37203, USA e-mail: [email protected]
(ASD) are more likely to enact their procedural safeguards (Mueller and Carranza 2011; Cohen 2009). In the United States, embedded in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004), procedural safeguards are accountability mechanisms to protect the rights of children with disabilities in accessing a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). Two of these safeguards are mediation and due process. Mediation is a voluntary process wherein a qualified, impartial mediator meets with the parents and the school to resolve a dispute. If the parents and school come to an agreement, a written binding agreement is created. If a family and school do not come to an agreement during mediation, they may use due process to resolve the disagreement. In a due process hearing, an impartial hearing officer conducts a legal proceeding between the parent and the school. Each party has the right to: present evidence; examine and cross-examine witnesses; prohibit evidence not disclosed to the other party 5 days prior to the hearing; and obtain a record of the hearing and the decision. By having procedural safeguards, parents and schools have options to resolve conflicts in an unbiased manner. Mediation, for example, can: establish mutual agreements to resolve conflict, encourage creative solutions to disagreements, and be shaped by the needs of the parents and the school (Bar-Lev et al. 2007). Due process hearings also have many positive benefits. Hearing decisions can be precedent setting providing guidance to practitioners and families about certain issues; due process also affords both schools and families the ability to disagree (Weber 2014). Although mediation and due process provide a forum in which to resolve educational disputes, there may be some negative effects among families of students with ASD. Parents often become frustrated with mediation and due process as both involve legal jargon, excessive paperwork,
123
J Autism Dev Disord
and technical detail (Folger et al. 2000; Zirkel 1994). Parents of students with ASD (versus other types of disabilities) experience significantly more stress (Hayes and Watson 2013). Because mediation and due process also relate to increased parent stress (Burke and Hodapp 2014), the enactment of such safeguards may further harm the well-being of parents of children with ASD. In addition, the cost of due process may be fiscally exorbitant as well as damage the family-school partnership. For parents and schools, the combined average due process hearing costs $60,000 (Mueller 2009). Families of children with ASD already spend a substantial portion of their incomes on out-of-pocket expenditures for educational and behavioral supports (Montes and Halterman 2008); the cost of due process may place additional financial constraints on families. Due process may also harm already weakened family-school relationships (Mueller). Schools may become frustrated with due process because, frequently, the cost of hearings far exceeds its value. Due process and mediation can re-direct limited resources from instruction to litigation (Zirkel 1994). Despite the multiple effects of mediation and due process among families of children with ASD, there is limited literature which identifies the parent, child, and parentschool predictors of the enactment of safeguards. Even among the few studies which exist, almost none exclusively examined families of children with ASD. For this study, we dovetailed the small, extant research about parent, child, and parent-school predictors of the enactment of safeguards with research about the effect of safeguards and ASD, more generally, to make reasonable predictions about which parent, child, and parent-school characteristics relate to the enactment of safeguards. There may be several parent-school characteristics that contribute to parents of students with ASD filing for mediation or due process. For example, a strong parentschool partnership is important in developing trust between the parents and the school (Fish 2008; Angell et al. 2009). When family-school partnerships are weak, parents may encounter more disagreements with the school and feel more inclined to use their safeguards. Further, special education knowledge and advocacy may also affect the use of procedural safeguards. Parents of students with ASD have indicated the need to advocate so their children receive appropriate services (Stoner et al. 2005). Parents who better understand IDEA and, relatedly, are aware of their procedural safeguards may be more likely to utilize mediation and due process. Some child characteristics may also be correlated with enactment of safeguards. In a previous study about due process hearings, Mueller and Carranza (2011) found that, among families who filed for due process, placement was a common issue. More specifically, families of students with
123
ASD may desire more inclusive (versus segregated) settings for their children. Ryndak and Downing (1996) found that families of students with moderate to severe disabilities, including ASD, in self-contained classrooms felt their children received repetitive, meaningless, and non-functional work. Parents of students in self-contained settings also felt that their input was unwelcomed by school professionals. Parents of children in segregated (versus inclusive) settings may be less satisfied with the instruction their children receive and, subsequently, more likely to file for mediation or due process. The degree of child maladaptive behaviors may also affect parental use of safeguards. Children with ASD experience a range of comorbid diagnoses which may lead to a need for several educational, behavioral, and medical services (Boulet et al. 2009). Such conditions often include maladaptive behavior such as: asocial behaviors (e.g., uncooperative or socially offensive behavior), internalizing (e.g., unusual habits, withdrawal, inattention) and externalizing problems (e.g., hurtful to others, destructive). Indeed, children with ASD demonstrate more problem behaviors than children with other disabilities (Hoffman et al. 2009). Because of the need for additional services to address behavioral issues, parents of children with more problem behaviors may be more likely to encounter conflict with the school. When the child with ASD also has an intellectual disability (ID), their behavioral and cognitive needs often intensify (Matson and Shoemaker 2009). As such, these families may struggle to receive adequate school services and, subsequently, feel compelled to file due process. The age and degree of functioning of the student may also relate to the enactment of safeguards. Younger students tend to receive more family-centered services, and older students more child-based services with less focus on the family unit (Dunst 2002). As the child ages and their individualized education plan (IEP) meetings become less family-focused, parents may be more likely to disagree with the school. Also, the level of independence of the individual may relate to the degree of parent-school conflict. As a child with a developmental disability ages, parent expectations of the child’s rate of progress may not match that of the school (Mulick and Butter 2002). Having different expectations about the student (due to the level of functioning of the child) may affect the use of procedural safeguards. In addition, parent characteristics such as household income may relate to the filing of mediation and due process. Due process hearings are expensive (Mueller 2009). The cost of retaining an attorney may be too exorbitant for lower income families. In many states, there are few options for pro-bono special education attorneys (Seven and Zirkel 2002; Ahearn 2001). As such, families with
J Autism Dev Disord
higher household incomes may be more likely to enact their procedural safeguards. Using a web-based survey of a large, national sample, this study identifies the parent-school, child, and parent factors that predict filing for mediation or due process, specific to parents of students with ASD. Our research question for this study was: among families of students with ASD, what parent-school, child, and parent characteristics relate to the enactment of procedural safeguards? Regarding parent-school characteristics, we hypothesized that families who advocated more frequently and had poor family-school partnerships would be more likely to enact their safeguards. We also hypothesized that several child characteristics would correlate with a greater likelihood of enacting procedural safeguards: older (versus younger) children, having (versus not having) an intellectual disability, demonstrating less (versus more) independence with daily living skills, exhibiting higher (versus lower) rates of behavior problems, and spending less (versus more) time in the general education classroom. Related to the parent, we hypothesized that parents with higher (versus lower) income would be more likely to file for mediation or due process.
Method Participants A total of 507 participants (472 mothers; 35 fathers) responded to this study. All participants were parents of children with ASD. Respondents averaged 42.9 years of age (SD = 7.73), with a range from 25 to 70 years. Most participants were married (84.4 % or n = 428). Regarding income, 65.1 % (n = 329) of the families reported annual incomes of less than $100,000. The majority (89.5 % or n = 454) of participants were White. Participants had varied educational backgrounds with most (63.5 % or n = 322) having at least a college degree. Students with disabilities were predominantly male (79.7 %; n = 404) and averaged 10.71 years of age (SD = 4.24, range 3–21 years). Overall, 26.2 % (133) of the respondents indicated that they had filed for mediation or due process. Along with Washington, D.C., participants responded from 47 of the 50 states (Delaware, Hawaii, and Wyoming were not represented). Thirty-one states had 10 or more respondents and 6 of these were also among the 10 most populous states (California, 6.2 %; New York, 5.7 %; Texas, 5.1 %; Pennsylvania, 4.5 %; Illinois, 3.7 %; Michigan, 3.0 %). The states with the most respondents in this sample were Tennessee, 14.7 %; Massachusetts, 5.2 %; and Virginia, 4.8 %. To attain a diverse and national sample, participants were recruited in multiple ways. First, e-mails and flyers were sent to local, state, and national parent support group
agencies, the Association of University Centers in Disabilities (AUCD), and 106 parent training and information centers (PTIs) throughout the U.S. Next, e-mails were sent to 7,843 agencies listed in the A-Z Yellow Pages for Disabilities (http://www.yellowpagesforkids.com/help/az.htm), including local parent support groups (436); non-profit disability agencies (1,271); schools, educational agencies, and boards of education (1,386); attorney, advocacy, and legal agencies (1,725); and private providers, including speech, occupational, and physical therapists (3,025). Procedures In collaboration with other disability researchers and community advocates, the survey was developed and revised. This survey included both established scales as well as novel questions. More specifically, the 163-item survey included: the Family-Professional Partnership Scale (Summers et al. 2005), the Special Education Rights and Advocacy Scale (Burke and Hodapp 2014), Activities of Daily Living Scale (Seltzer and Li 1996), and Scales of Independent Behavior-Revised (Bruininks et al. 1996). The survey also included items that we created (e.g., whether parents enacted their procedural safeguards). We shared and received feedback about the survey from 10 individuals, including professors, parents of individuals with disabilities, and practitioners, before piloting this survey with five parents of students with disabilities. Upon revision, the IRB approved the study. The survey was then put onto a secure website for 6 months (Harris et al. 2009). Although most surveys were completed electronically, respondents could also complete and return paper versions. Responding to both phone and e-mail requests, over 50 paper surveys were distributed. Only 5 paper-based responses were returned (these returned surveys were then entered onto the web-site). Regardless of the format (i.e., online or paper), the survey took approximately 20–25 min to complete. Dependent Variable Enacting Procedural Safeguards Respondents answered one question: ‘‘Have you ever filed for mediation or due process?’’ The question was dichotomous: (0) no or (1) yes. Independent Variables: Parent-School Relationship Variables Family-Professional Partnership Scale The Family-Professional Partnership Scale gauges the satisfaction of a family with their relationship with
123
J Autism Dev Disord
professionals. In its original form, the Family-Professional Partnership Scale asks parents to answer questions with respect to a specific individual. In this survey, we modified the scale to ask about their experiences with the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team. The scale consists of 18 items, with two subscales of nine items each (Summers et al. 2005). In the Child-Professional Relationship subscale, parents rated the degree to which they felt that their child’s IEP team has the skills to help the child succeed; builds on the child’s strengths; treats the child with dignity; keeps the child safe; and speaks up for the child’s best interests when working with other service providers. In the Family-Focused Relationship subscale, respondents rated the degree to which they felt that the IEP team is available to them; is friendly; is honest (even when imparting bad news); uses words that parents understand; listens non-judgmentally; and respects the family’s values and beliefs. Cronbach’s alphas were high (.95 and .94 for the Child-Professional Relationship subscale and FamilyFocused Relationship subscale, respectively).
Age Respondents reported the child’s age in years. Degree of Functional Abilities To measure the abilities of the individual with a disability, we used the 15 items from the Activities of Daily Living scale (ADL: Seltzer and Li 1996). Questions included ‘‘To what extent can your child perform the following activities?’’. Activities included: walking, speaking, reading, eating, preparing meals, and grooming/personal hygiene. Parents answered these questions on a 5-point Likert scale. Scale options ranged from: (1) not at all; (2) some; (3) somewhat/sometimes; (4) moderately well; and (5) very well. Variables were then summed into a single, cumulative score ranging from 15 to 75, with higher scores indicating greater functional independence. Cronbach’s alpha for this sample was .85. Degree of Inclusion
Special Education Rights and Advocacy Scale We developed a seven-item scale concerning parents’ efforts to attain knowledge and advocacy skills. The questions included whether the respondent had ever: used an advocate/attorney to attend an IEP meeting; had someone else (not an advocate) attend an IEP meeting; attended a workshop about special education rights; called an agency to ask about special education rights; searched the internet for special education rights; read a copy of special education rights or procedural safeguards; and talked with another parent about special education rights. Questions were answered on a 5-point Likert scale: (1) never; (2) occasionally; (3) sometimes; (4) often; and (5) very often. A cumulative variable was used, ranging from 7 to 35. Using the sample for this study, the Cronbach’s alpha was .83. Using a principal component analysis, with varimax rotation, one factor emerged accounting for 49.66 % of the variance (eigenvalue = 3.48). Independent Variables: Student Variables
We asked one question about placement: ‘‘How much time does your child spend in the regular education classroom?’’. The responses were on a 5-point Likert scale that broadly corresponds to IDEA (2004) least restrictive environment and placement targets: (1) 0–20 %; (2) 21–40 %; (3) 41–60 %; (4) 61–80 %; and (5) 81–100 %. We treated the degree of inclusion as a categorical variable with 81–100 % of time as the reference category; all other percentages of time were dummy coded for the analyses. Independent Variables: Parent Variables Household Income We asked participants: ‘‘What is the overall annual income in your household?’’. Possible responses included: (1) less than $15,000; (2) between $15,000 and $29,999; (3) between $30,000 and $49,999; (4) $50,000 and $69,999; (5) $70,000 to $99,999; and (6) $100,000 and over. Income was treated as a categorical variable with incomes over $100,000 as the reference category and all other levels of income dummy coded.
Degree of Child’s Behavior Problems Analyses An 8-item measure, the Scales of Independent BehaviorRevised (SIB-R), provides a General Maladaptive Index (GMI), with higher scores reflecting more serious maladaptive behaviors (Bruininks et al. 1996). There are three domains of problem behaviors: externalizing, internalizing, and asocial. Scores reflect both severity and frequency of behavior in the past 6 months.
123
All missing values (\5 % for all items) were imputed for scales, with mean scores substituted for missing values following the guidelines of Harrell (2001). We conducted t tests and Chi squares to detect demographic differences between parents who did (versus did not) file for due process or mediation. Next, we conducted univariate logistic
J Autism Dev Disord
regressions with each correlate to determine its relation to the enactment of procedural safeguards. We conducted a correlation matrix of the independent variables to identify any multicollinearity. Finally, we conducted a multivariate logistic regression including parent-school, child, and parent independent variables. For both the univariate and multivariate logistic regressions, we generated an odds ratio telling the likelihood of whether participants would enact their safeguards. We also provided the 95 % confidence interval of each odds ratio. If the confidence interval included the value of 1, then there were no significant differences in the probability of enacting safeguards.
Results Demographic Comparisons
parent-school characteristics, families with weaker partnerships with schools were significantly more likely to file for mediation or due process. Furthermore, families who advocated more frequently were more likely to enact their safeguards. Families of older children and children with more internalizing behaviors were significantly more likely to file for due process or mediation. Also, compared to being in the general education classroom for 81–100 % of the time, families of children who spent only 0–20 % of their time in the regular education setting were significantly more likely to file for due process or mediation. Regarding parent characteristics, families with incomes above $100,000 (compared to incomes between $50–69,999) were also significantly more likely to enact their safeguards. See Table 2. Table 2 Univariate logistic regressions
We first examined demographic differences between participants who did (versus did not) file for due process or mediation. We found no significant differences with respect to: marital status, race, parent education level, or role of the respondent. See Table 1. Univariate Logistic Regressions and Correlations Univariate logistic regressions were conducted to analyze the contribution of each independent variable to the enactment of procedural safeguards. With respect to
Parents who enacted procedural safeguards B
Did not file mediation/ due process (n = 374)
Filed for mediation/ due process (n = 133)
Marital status Married
84.65 % (320)
.616 89.57 % (335)
89.47 % (119)
4.81 % (18)
4.51 % (6)
Asian Hispanic
0.80 % (3) 3.74 % (14)
1.50 % (2) 3.76 % (5)
Other
1.08 % (4)
0.76 % (1)
Parent education level
3.92
High school
5.35 % (20)
2.26 % (3)
Some college
32.35 % (121)
30.83 % (41)
Four year degree
29.41 % (110)
32.33 % (43)
Graduate degree
32.88 % (123)
34.59 % (46)
Role of respondent Mother
.02
55.11
.001
1.14 [1.10, 1.16]
Family subscale
-0.08
.01
47.37
.001
0.92 [0.89, 0.94]
Child subscale
-0.07
.01
32.26
.001
0.93 [0.91, 0.96]
Child age
0.09
.02
13.98
.001
1.09 [1.04, 1.14]
Internalizing behaviors
0.03
.01
10.24
.001
1.03 [1.01, 1.05]
Placement in general education (reference: 81–100 %)
* p \ .05, ** p \ .001
89.47 % (119)
0.60
.24
6.58
.010
1.83 [1.15, 2.89]
21–40 %
-0.02
.49
0.01
.967
0.98 [0.37–2.58]
41–60 %
0.18
.45
0.17
.680
1.20 [0.50, 2.88]
61–80 %
-0.06
.39
0.03
.875
0.94 [0.43, 2.05]
0.24
.59
0.16
.685
1.27 [0.39, 4.06]
Between $15,000 and $29,999 Between $30,000 and $49,999
-0.75
.45
2.75
.097
0.48 [0.20, 1.15]
-0.53
.32
2.81
.094
0.59 [0.31, 1.10]
Between $50,000 and $69,999
-0.65
.32
4.19
.041
0.52 [0.28, 0.97]
Between $70,000 and $99,999 Asocial behaviors
-0.48
.27
3.18
.075
0.62 [0.37, 1.05]
Externalizing behaviors Intellectual disability (reference: no intellectual disability)
.607 94.39 % (353)
OR [95 % CI]
0.13
Less than $15,000
80.00 % (108)
African American
p
Income (reference: $100,000 and over) 7.36
Race White
v2/t
Wald
Rights and advocacy scale
0–20 % Table 1 Participant demographics
SE
Activities of daily living
0.01
.01
2.64
.104
1.01 [0.99, 1.03]
0.01
.01
1.57
.210
1.01 [0.99, 1.03]
-0.08
.29
0.08
.785
0.92 [0.35, 1.49]
0.01
.01
0.04
.852
1.00 [0.98, 1.02]
B coefficient, SE standard error for coefficient, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval
123
J Autism Dev Disord Table 3 Correlations between independent variables 1 1. Internalizing behaviors
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.52**
3. Externalizing behaviors
.54**
11
-.09*
-.40**
–
– .49** -.07
5. Child age
.08
.02
6. Intellectual disability
.16**
.12**
– -.13**
–
.01
.01
-.02
-.01
-.01
-.02
– .15**
-.17**
-.11*
8. Activities of daily living
-.24**
-.20**
.07
.07
9. Child subscale
-.15**
-.21**
.10*
.08
-.08
.04
-.03
.08
10. Family subscale
-.14**
-.20**
.09
-.08
.05
-.01
.08
.88**
.06
.01
.02
-.36**
.17
.20**
.10* -.03
-.02
-.11*
–
7. Placement in general education
11. Rights and advocacy scale
10
–
2. Asocial behaviors 4. Income
2
.25**
.13**
-.23** -.23**
– .45**
– – –
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01
To describe the relationships between the independent variables, we assessed for multicollinearity. We calculated Pearson’s correlations between the independent variables. With the exception of the subscales of the Family-Professional Partnerships Scale, none of the independent variables were highly correlated (r [ 0.70). The Child and Family Subscales had a significant positive correlation (r = .88). Because the Family subscale univariate logistic regression was stronger than the Child Subscale, we chose to only include the Family Subscale variable in the multivariate regression. The Variable Inflation Factor for all independent variables was below 2.5 indicating that multicollinearity was not a concern (Cohen et al. 2003). See Table 3. Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis Only the independent variables that had p-values less than .25 (based upon the univariate logistic regression analyses) were included in the multivariate logistic regression. Because a traditional p value of .05 can fail to identify important variables, we chose to use the p B .25 cutoff for the multiple logistic regression (Cohen et al. 2003). As such, we only included eight of the independent variables (i.e., Rights and Advocacy Scale, Family Subscale, Placement, Income, Child age, Internalizing behaviors, Externalizing Behaviors, and Asocial Behaviors) in the multivariate regression. The model was significant, X2 (9, N = 507) = 118.35, p \ .0001. Families who advocated more frequently and demonstrated worse family-school partnerships were significantly more likely to file for due process or mediation. Families with incomes above $100,000 (versus incomes between $15,000–49,999) were more likely to enact their safeguards. Compared to families of children who were educated for 81–100 % of the time in the regular education classroom, families of children educated for 0–20 % of the time with the peers were 1.92 times more likely
123
to file for due process or mediation. Finally, families of older children and with more internalizing behaviors were also significantly more likely to enact their safeguards (Table 4).
Discussion This study identifies the associated factors of the enactment of procedural safeguards for families of children with ASD. Because these families, compared to families of students with other disabilities, file due process and mediation more frequently (Mueller and Carranza 2011; Cohen 2009), it is necessary to identify the correlates of these conflict resolution procedures. Below, we outline our three findings and their implications. First, families who advocated more and had weak family-school partnerships were significantly more likely to file for due process or mediation (p’s \ .0001). Because one piece of advocacy is understanding special education law (Trainor 2010), including conflict resolution procedures, parents who advocate more frequently may be more likely to know about mediation and due process and, because of their knowledge, more likely to utilize these procedures. In addition, poor family-school partnerships may increase the likelihood of conflict because the parent and the school do not trust each other (Fish 2008). Conversely, family-school partnerships may deteriorate after a family files for due process (Mueller 2009). Second, child characteristics also significantly related to the use of procedural safeguards. Compared to students who spent a large majority of their day in the general education classroom, families of students who were included for only 0–20 % of their time were 1.92 times more likely to enact their safeguards. This finding aligns with previous research indicating that placement is a common issue in due process hearings among families of students with ASD (Mueller and
J Autism Dev Disord Table 4 Multivariate logistic regression about enacting procedural safeguards Predictors Advocacy Family subscale
B
SE
Wald
p
OR [95 % CI]
0.12
.02
35.31
.000
1.13 [1.08, 1.17]
-0.06
.01
19.17
.000
0.94 [0.91, 0.96]
Income (reference: $100,000 and over) Below $15,000
-0.27
.72
0.15
.703
0.76 [0.19, 3.11]
Between $15,000 and $29,999
-1.07
.51
4.30
.038
0.34 [0.13, 0.94]
Between $30,000 and $49,999
-0.84
.38
5.05
.025
0.43 [0.21, 0.89]
Between $50,000 and $69,999
-0.71
.37
3.69
.055
0.49 [0.24, 1.01]
Between $70,000 and $99,999
-0.50
.31
2.60
.107
0.61 [0.33, 1.11]
0.03
.02
3.57
.005
1.03 [1.02, 1.14]
Child age
Placement in a regular class (reference: 81–100 %) 0–20 %
0.65
.28
5.49
.019
1.92 [1.10, 3.31]
-0.13
.59
0.05
.823
0.88 [0.28, 2.77]
41–60 %
0.07
.49
0.02
.891
1.07 [0.41, 2.81]
61–80 %
-0.02
.45
0.002
.969
0.98 [0.96, 1.00]
0.03
.01
4.99
.025
1.03 [1.00, 1.06]
Asocial behaviors
-0.02
.01
2.80
.095
0.98 [0.96, 1.00]
Externalizing behaviors
-0.01
.01
0.16
.898
0.99 [0.97, 1.02]
21–40 %
Internalizing behaviors
B coefficient; SE standard error for coefficient, OR odds ratio; CI confidence interval
Carranza 2011). Our data indicates that families may be arguing for more inclusive settings. Parents of children with ASD who spend most of their time in self-contained classrooms may have greater concerns about their child’s quality of instruction and staff (Ryndak and Downing 1996). Child age also related to the enactment of safeguards with parents of older students being significantly more likely to file mediation or due process. Given that family-centeredness decreases with age (Dunst 2002), parents of older students may be more likely to use safeguards. Families of students with more internalizing behaviors were also significantly more likely to utilize their safeguards. Unlike externalizing and asocial behaviors, internalizing problems were significantly related to due process and mediation in both the univariate and multivariate logistic regressions (p \ .0001 and p = .025, respectively). Among students with emotional and behavioral disorders, internalizing behaviors are frequently overlooked by the school (Walker et al. 2005). This may also be the case for children with ASD who often exhibit many disruptive and maladaptive behaviors. Indeed, because externalizing (versus internalizing) problems are more visible and difficult to manage (Dowdy et al. 2011), schools may be less likely to address
internalizing problems. In addition, internalizing behaviors in children with ASD are related to higher levels of parenting stress (Bauminger et al. 2010), further increasing the need for educational professionals to address internalizing behaviors. Thus, parents of students with internalizing problems may need mediation and due process to address these frequently ignored and concerning behaviors of their children. Given that parents of students with internalizing behaviors are more likely to use their safeguards, practitioners may want to pay closer attention to the needs of these students as well as cultivating strong relationships with their parents. Third, parent characteristics also related to the usage of procedural safeguards. Families with greater incomes were significantly more likely to file due process or mediation. Given the high costs of hearings (Mueller 2009), families with more money may be better positioned to file for due process. However, the issue of income may represent a larger challenge of access and for whom due process and mediation can be viable conflict resolution procedures. Being unable to afford attorney representation or secure legal advocacy services, families from lower income backgrounds may feel that due process is not an equitable process (Shemberg 1997). Directions for Future Research Because this study is cross-sectional, we cannot determine the directionality of our results. For example, we cannot determine whether poor family-school partnerships cause families to file due process or mediation or whether the enactment of due process or mediation leads to weakened family-school partnerships. The literature suggests that either direction is possible. Indeed, families of students with ASD must feel they can trust the school and, relatedly, have positive family-school partnerships (Fish 2008); when these partnerships do not happen, conflict may be more likely to occur. Conversely, because of its litigious nature, due process weakens family-school partnerships (Mueller 2009). Longitudinal research is needed to determine the direction of effects among the usage of procedural safeguards. Longitudinal research is also needed as our results indicate that there is a relation between child age and the enactment of procedural safeguards. The increased probability of filing for mediation or due process may be due to the decrease of family-centered practices over time. In early childhood, students are more likely to receive familycentered services; when the child grows older, services tend to be more based on the individual versus the family (Dunst 2002). In addition to the decrease in familycentered practices, parent satisfaction with services also declines as students age (Summers et al. 2007). Longitudinal research can better determine at what point parents become more likely to enact their safeguards.
123
J Autism Dev Disord
Additional research is needed to more closely examine the relation between advocacy and the enactment of safeguards. Previous research about special education advocacy has demonstrated there are four types of advocacy (Trainor 2010). The Rights and Advocacy Scale used in this study may reflect only one type of advocacy: the strategist type. Strategist advocates rely on special education law and their rights to advocate for their children. Other types of advocacy include intuitive advocates (i.e., parents relying on their knowledge about their child to ensure they receive appropriate services) as well as disability experts (i.e., parents using their knowledge of the child’s type of disability to secure services). Unlike intuitive and disability experts, agents of change try to create systemic change for students with disabilities. Future research may examine the other three types of advocacy to discern their relation to the enactment of safeguards. Implications for Practitioners and Policymakers Drawing on the finding based on income, this study indicates the need to level the playing field. Families from lowincome backgrounds should have access to affordable legal representation. In a national study, Ahearn (2001) found that 15 out of the 50 states lacked reduced-cost or pro bono attorneys for families. In a later national survey of state special education directors, only half of the directors indicated that parents had access to attorney representation; this number decreased dramatically when parents were unable to afford representation (Seven and Zirkel 2002). Although due process and mediation are the last resorts in conflict resolution, it is important for all parents, regardless of socioeconomic status, to have equal access to this accountability mechanism. Practitioners must help families to connect with affordable legal representation and the field must work to increase the availability of such reduced-cost or pro bono attorneys. Protection and Advocacy (P&A) agencies exist in every state and are federally funded to provide reduced-cost or pro-bono legal services to families of students with disabilities. However, it seems, based on our findings, that such legal services are insufficient to meet the needs of lower income families of students with disabilities. To address the lack of reduced-cost attorneys, the National Council on Disability (NCD) argues that private attorneys need to become involved in the disability rights arena (NCD 2000). Notably, the P&A in Illinois has developed a special education clinic; in the clinic, they train private attorneys to handle special education cases on a no-fee or fee recovery basis (Hyman et al. 2011). Although no formal outcome data have been collected related to its effectiveness, this may prove to be a valuable model for other states to increase the availability of legal
123
representation for lower-income families of students with disabilities. Another implication for practitioners relates to malleable correlates of due process and mediation. Although schools cannot address child age or parent income, educational professionals can target families of students who are primarily educated in self-contained special education classrooms (Scheuermann et al. 2003). Schools may especially focus on improving family-school relations and resolving conflicts with families of students in more restrictive settings. Given that most educational disputes relate to placement issues, practitioners may want to document efforts promoting inclusive practices for students with ASD. In this way, parents may feel more satisfied with the school understanding that the educational professionals are constantly revisiting the idea of inclusion. By paying special attention to families of students who are segregated in more restrictive setting, school professionals may resolve conflicts before the parents file for due process or mediation. This study also has some limitations. Because of the webbased format of this study, parents from low-income and minority backgrounds may have been precluded from participating. Additionally, although we recruited a large, national sample, we were unable to determine the response rate for this study. Related to the national sample, there may be policy and procedural differences across states, which affect the enactment of safeguards. Also, due to this study’s crosssectional nature, we cannot discern causality in our findings. Finally, a common issue among autism litigation is the appropriateness of applied behavior analysis (ABA) programs (Choutka et al. 2004). Because this survey did not include any items related to ABA, we could not discern whether different associated factors relate to hearings about ABA therapy. In spite of these limitations, this study offers a jumping off point to discerning the associated factors of the enactment of procedural safeguards among families of students with ASD. This study demonstrated that, among families of students with ASD, greater advocacy and worse familyschool partnerships as well as child age, placement, and internalizing behaviors and parent income relates to the enactment of safeguards. By identifying the parent-school, child, and parent correlates of mediation and due process for this growing population, we can work to prevent special education conflicts from reaching an adversarial point. Acknowledgments We would like to thank Drs. Robert Hodapp and Kelly Hsieh for their thoughtful comments about this manuscript.
References Ahearn, E. M. (2001). The involvement of lay advocates in due process hearings. Quick Turn Around (QTA). Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 458753).
J Autism Dev Disord Angell, M. E., Stoner, J. B., & Shelden, D. L. (2009). Trust in education professionals: Perspectives of mothers of children with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 160–176. Bar-Lev, N. B., Nestadt, S., & Peter, M. (2007). Considering mediation for special education disputes: A school administrator’s perspective. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 304–315. Bauminger, N., Solomon, M., & Rogers, S. J. (2010). Externalizing and internalizing behaviors in ASD. Autism Research, 3(3), 101–112. Boulet, S. L., Boyle, C. A., & Schieve, L. A. (2009). Health care use and health and functional impact of developmental disabilities among US children, 1997–2005. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 163, 19–26. Bruininks, R. H., Woodcock, R. W., Weatherman, R. F., & Hill, B. K. (1996). Scales of independent behavior-revised (SIB-Royal). Chicago, IL: Riverside. Burke, M. M., & Hodapp, R. M. (2014). Relating stress of mothers of children with developmental disabilities to family-school partnerships. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 52, 13–23. Choutka, C. M., Doloughty, P. T., & Zirkel, P. A. (2004). The ‘‘discrete trials’’ of applied behavior analysis for children with autism: Outcome-related factors in the case law. Journal of Special Education, 38, 95–103. Cohen, M. (2009). A guide to special education advocacy. London: Jessica Kingsley Publication. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dowdy, E., Doane, K., Eklund, K., & Dever, B. V. (2011). A comparison of teacher nomination and screening to identify behavioral and emotional risk within a sample of underrepresented students. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 21, 127–137. Dunst, C. J. (2002). Family-centered practices: Birth through high school. Journal of Special Education, 36, 139–147. Fish, W. W. (2008). The IEP meeting: Perceptions of parents of students who receive special education services. Preventing School Failure, 53, 8–14. Folger, J., Poole, M. S., & Stutman, R. K. (2000). Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations (4th ed.). New York: Longman. Harrell, F. E. (2001). Regression modeling strategies. New York: Springer. Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R., Payne, J., Gonzalez, N., & Conde, J. G. (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap): A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Information, 42, 377–381. Hayes, S. A., & Watson, S. L. (2013). The impact of parenting stress: A meta-analysis of studies comparing the experience of parenting stress in parents of children with and without autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 629–642. Hoffman, C. D., Sweeney, D. P., Hodge, D., Lopez-Wagner, M. C., & Looney, L. (2009). Parenting stress and closeness: Mothers of typically developing children and mothers of children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 24, 178–187. Hyman, E., Rivkin, D. H., & Rosenbaum, S. A. (2011). How IDEA fails families without means: Causes and corrections from the frontlines of special education lawyering. Journal of Gender, Social Policy, and the Law, 20, 107–162. Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Education Act of 2004. 20 U.S.C. n 1400.
Matson, J. L., & Shoemaker, M. (2009). Intellectual disability and its relationship to autism spectrum disorders. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1107–1114. Montes, G., & Halterman, J. S. (2008). Association of childhood autism spectrum disorders and loss of family income. Pediatrics, 121(4), e821–e826. Mueller, T. G. (2009). Alternative dispute resolution: A new agenda for special education policy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20, 4–13. Mueller, T. G., & Carranza, F. (2011). An examination of special education due process hearings. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22, 131–139. Mulick, J. A., & Butter, E. M. (2002). Educational advocacy for children with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 17, 57–74. National Council on Disability. (2000). Back to School on Civil Rights. Retrieved March 13, 2014 from http://www.ncd.gov/ publications/2000/Jan252000. Ryndak, D. L., & Downing, J. E. (1996). Parents’ perceptions of educational settings and services for children with moderate or severe disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 106–118. Scheuermann, B., Webber, J., Boutot, E. A., & Goodwin, M. (2003). Problems with personnel preparation in autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(3), 197–206. Seltzer, M. M., & Li, L. W. (1996). The transitions of caregiving: Subjective and objective definitions. The Gerontologist, 36, 614–626. Seven, K. H., & Zirkel, P. A. (2002). In the matter of Arons: Construction of IDEA’s lay advocate provision too narrow? Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, 9, 193–223. Shemberg, A. (1997). Mediation as an alternative method of dispute resolution for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A just proposal? Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 12, 739–757. Stoner, J. B., Bock, S. J., Thompson, J. R., Angell, M. E., Heyl, B. S., & Crowley, E. P. (2005). Welcome to our world: Parent perceptions of interactions between parents of young children with ASD and education professionals. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(1), 39–51. Summers, J. A., Hoffman, L., Marquis, J., Turnbull, A. P., Poston, D., & Nelson, L. L. (2005). Measuring the quality of familyprofessional partnerships in special education services. Exceptional Children, 72, 65–83. Summers, J. A., Marquis, J., Mannan, H., Turnbull, A. P., Fleming, K., Poston, D. J., et al. (2007). Relationship of perceived adequacy of services, family-professional partnerships, and family quality of life in early-childhood service programmes. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 54, 319–338. Trainor, A. A. (2010). Diverse approaches to parent advocacy during special education home-school interactions: Identification and use of cultural and social capital. Remedial and Special education, 31, 34–47. Walker, B., Cheney, D., Stage, S., & Blum, C. (2005). Schoolwide screening and positive behavior supports: Identifying and supporting students at risk for school failure. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 194–204. Weber, M. C. (2014). In defense of IDEA due process. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 29, 501–530. Zirkel, P. A. (1994). Over-due process revisions for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Montana Law Review, 55, 403–414.
123
