Using Family Centered Systems Theory to Bridge the School and Family Gap in Special Education: A Review of the Literature

In this review I looked at 22 articles that explored two of the primary interventional perspectives used when addressing the needs of exceptional students. A number of the articles elucidate the present prevalence of student based practices in U.S. schools, administration, and legislation. The body of the literature surveys how family centered interventions can be, and are used, to better serve students by integrating the needs and concerns of the family, as well as those of the student. The review was concluded with a discussion of the importance of finding a balance between the current legislative trend which emphasizes a student's needs based on an annual standards driven success model, versus a model which emphasizes the development of the whole child at home, and in the school, during all educational and developmental stages. Problem According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004), we, as professionals in our given fields, are to follow the guidelines of "almost 30 years of research and experience which has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective through the use of some specific tenets. " The first of these tenets instructs us to unsure our student's access to the general education curriculum by maintaining high expectations, and being mindful of their individual developmental abilities. This noble, student-centered objective is fundamentally the building block of which our educational system and professional training are built upon. However, the IDEA 2004 continues by outlining the next important tenet as being one in which we "strengthen the role and responsibility of parents and ensure that families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at school and at home. " Although, the tenets go on to emphasize other classroom and school expectations, I believe that the aforementioned family-centered tenet is not only one of the most important in IDEA, but also the one that is most Systems Theory in Special Education I 3 overlooked and neglected (U.S Department of Education, Retrieved October 1, 2008, from http://idea.ed.gov/download/statute.html). This phenomenon is not innate to our current educational system, rather is a result of a variety of factors ranging from faulty emphasis in teacher preparation programs, to the over emphasis of instruction and methodology as a means-to-an-end for children with special needs, and down to the basic lack of emphasis and protectiveness many professional staff display when challenged to work together. One could view this trend as a bottom-up corruption of focus which begins, as Rupiper and Marvin (2004) elucidate, in teacher preparation programs in early intervention and early childhood special education, which have been primarily child-focused. This child-centeredness spreads through the schools, administrations, into the homes, and eventually into the very legislation (IDEA) that is to provide services, opportunities and equality to the very families whom are being left out of the locus of attention, but who are the veritable experts when it comes to their own children. The authors Milton Seligman and Rosalyn Darling (2007) address this dichotomy as they explore what it means to be a parent of a child with special needs. They emphasize that, although children with disabilities are born into all sorts of families, and are frequently poorly prepared to handle the challenges posed by their children, there are unifying thoughts throughout these families. This is thought of as the "do what has to be done" mentality and suggests that these diverse families, with different dynamics and unique situations are unified by this ordinary resiliency (vii). Furthermore, they specify that these poorly prepared families must "confront a lack of specialized knowledge; often negative reactions from other family members, friends and strangers; the limited accessibility of needed resources; and, often, professionals who provide insufficient or inappropriate assistance" (viii). Systems Theory in Special Education I 4 Thus, it would seem that all too often, families, in order to keep from sinking into the pit of struggles, insecurity, and despair, reinvent themselves based on what professionals are telling them is best for their child. Amidst unknown futures and unpredictable challenges, families reach out to these professionals for support and advice, and find themselves backed into a comer prompted to listen and agree, encouraged to talk and 'collaborate,' but hesitant due to feelings of lack of knowledge and/or adequacy. It would seem that these professionals whose motives are child-centered have been granted significant power over the familial system. Family systems perspective relates the organization of a family, and all whom influence it, to a child's mobile. When one of the objects on the mobile is pushed or pulled, than all of the other objects react to this force. According to Seligman and Darling (2007), general systems theory holds that each variable, or "actor," in a system interacts with each other so thoroughly that the cause and residual effects of ach action cannot be distinguished (p. 17). Thus, when an actor within the family pushes it, the rest of the family moves, or reacts, as a result. Although, it may be impossible to distinguish initial causes or effects, the importance lies in the pushes and pulls within the system, which are known as stressors. If we are to view the family in this systems style, then the aforementioned problem arises when we consider how much importance, or power, has been given to the educational professionals. School turns into a major area of pushes and pulls, with the family left on the outskirts of the mobile to ride the residual waves, and to compensate for so much emphasis having been place in one area (i.e., the child) by a number of actors (i.e., school professionals). The Author's Experiences and Beliefs Merriam ( 1988) recommended that researchers clarify their biases from the onset of their studies by commenting on any experiences, beliefs, or orientations that have likely shaped the Systems Theory in Special Education I 5 interpretations of, and approaches to their research. I agree with Merriam and wish to provide the reader with some information about my experiences, beliefs, and orientations. Before becoming an educator, I was the manager and milieu counsel at a residential treatment center for children with emotional disabilities. My responsibilities primarily involved, maintaining daily safety and consistency for children aged 6 through 12, whom had been diagnosed with a variety of psychological disorders, and/or whom had experienced extremely traumatic lives. These responsibilities extended to helping the children on a daily basis, assisting with their educational struggles and expectations, and coordinating with care-givers (biological and non), institutional service providers (internal and external), and governmental agencies. In my five years in this position, as a requirement of my job, I met with (on a regular basis); the children first hand, floor staff, support staff, institutional and educational directors, teachers, a staff psychologist, a staff psychiatrist, the children's therapists, the children's social workers, the children's parents (biological, foster, and even guardians), court appointed special advocates (CASA), and representatives from inter-governmental agencies. The basis for all of these meetings, reviews, addendums, consultations, and interventions was essentially to help each individual child. Amazingly enough, all of the involved parties (or actors) in the children's lives were able to come together and make decisions with little or no confusion, mixed signals, or debate. This is not to say that mix-ups and conflicts did not happen, on the contrary, they happened frequently. What did not happen was that the group of interested care givers, professionals, and support staff, rarely lost focus of what the child needed in his/her life to meet their needs physically, emotionally, educationally, and psychologically. This phenomenon was particularly intriguing especially when one considers the sheer volume of individuals involved in one child's life, much Systems Theory in Special Education I 6 less when those numbers were multiplied by the 20 full-time residents whom where on a need based rotating respite schedule. The key to the success of the center's therapeutic assemblage lie in the organizational extension of a counseling technique utilized by the treatment staff. I first became aware of this "family-centered" approach as the center's staff psychologist was training new employees in how to best address the needs of the children we would be working with. He emphasized the importance of thinking of each individual child's needs not in relation to what that individual child needs to get better at that moment, but rather what is needed to repair or strengthen that child by repairing and strengthening the child's world and everything that comes in contact with it. For us, the support staff, that meant providing safety and consistency in all aspects of the child's day. Later on as manager, that meant bridging the gaps and disconnects in the parts of a child's world that weren't 'communicating' or working well together. While continuing to facilitate the healing of abused children, I began my graduate work in Marriage and Family Therapy, an approach to counseling centering on systems theory. While in this program a professor challenged my perception of the word "family" in family-centered therapy. Essentially, the idea of a family is identified, defined and utilized by each person differently. For example, one person's definition of who is in their family, can and will be drastically different from others, especially if said person identifies their best friend as a s