Facilitators and Barriers to Shared Decision-Making During IEP Meetings

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires the parent, the special education teacher, the general education teacher and a district representative to meet the requirements of a full Individual Education Program meeting. However, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act does not operationally define the roles of each of the Individual Education Program team members. In Doug C. v. Hawaii Board of Education, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit determined parents must play a central role in the Individual Education Program decision-making process. However, when reading the decision, it is challenging not to infer that the court uses the terms attendance and participation interchangeably. This mixedmethod study explored how Smithville Schools could better improve their policies and procedures to prepare parents from being attendees at Individual Education Program meetings to equal decision-making members of the Individual Education Program team. Phase one of the study surveyed parents of special education students in the district as well as certified staff members of the district who provided services to learners with Individual Education Programs. The survey included statements asking about satisfaction with communication, school and staff relationships, perspectives of the Individual Education Program process, and the bureaucratic nature of Individual Education Program meetings. After data analysis of the survey, the two most satisfied staff members, the two most satisfied parent as well as the two most dissatisfied staff members and the two most dissatisfied parents were invited to participate in a semistructured interview. The interview allowed for parents and staff to share their unique perspectives on facilitators and barriers to shared decision-making to the Individual Education Program process at Smithville Schools. ii FACILITATORS AND BARRIERS TO IEP PROCESS iii FACILITATORS AND BARRIERS TO IEP PROCESS Acknowledgments I would like to thank the Dr. Anne Bauer for her support during my dissertation. She good-naturedly listened to all concerns and questions. Her continual, specific, and immediate feedback helped me grow as a researcher and an academic writer. Thank you to Dr. Amy Farley for sharing her deep knowledge of think alouds and ensuring I recognized each person’s perspective is unique and important. Dr. Farley also supported my development as a teacher at the university level. Dr. Stephen Kroger supported me in identifying the fundamental truth at the heart of my dissertation. He was also instrumental in helping me design a unique doctoral program which met my needs as a practitioner and a researcher. To Dr. Casey Hord, thank you for being a constant support throughout my doctoral program. Dr. Hord came and sat down next to me in the lobby during my initial interview at the University of Cincinnati and has been by my side ever since. I would be remiss if I did not thank Dr. Yvette Pennington for her help in forming my dissertation committee. Thank you to the staff and parents at Smithville Schools. The parents and staff eagerly responded to requests for survey responses and interviews. They were generous with their time and knowledge of their students, children, and thoughts on the IEP process. I would never have been able to complete my program without the ongoing support of the teachers at my elementary school. My dissertation is a culmination of their collective professional knowledge. To Linda Overbeck, my professional mentor, who shared her passion and professionalism on a daily basis, thank you. I am forever grateful to my family for their love and support. My children, Jack and Maggie, were my driving force in ensuring families have an equal voice in shared decisioniv FACILITATORS AND BARRIERS TO IEP PROCESS making. To my husband, Hilary, he has been the epitome of grace and strength over the course of our marriage. v FACILITATORS AND BARRIERS TO IEP PROCESS Table of