See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268522561

Improving Parental Involvement: Training Special Education Advocates

Article  in  Journal of Disability Policy Studies · June 2013

DOI: 10.1177/1044207311424910

CITATIONS READS

78 3,899

1 author:

Meghan Burke
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
117 PUBLICATIONS   1,149 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Post-High School Transitioning Outcomes in Down Syndrome View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Meghan Burke on 21 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Disability Policy Studies http://dps.sagepub.com/

Improving Parental Involvement: Training Special Education Advocates

Meghan M. Burke
Journal of Disability Policy Studies 2013 23: 225
DOI: 10.1177/1044207311424910

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://dps.sagepub.com/content/23/4/225

Published by:
Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Disability Policy Studies can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://dps.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://dps.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Feb 6, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on February 25, 2014
424910
0BurkeJournal of Disability Policy Studies
© 2013 Hammill Institute on Disabilities

Reprints and permission:

jDPS23410.1177/104420731142491

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Journal of Disability Policy Studies

23(4) 225–234
Improving Parental Involvement: © 2013 Hammill Institute on Disabilities
Reprints and permission:

Training Special Education Advocates sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1044207311424910
http://jdps.sagepub.com

Meghan M. Burke1

Abstract
Given that most parents of students with disabilities have difficulty navigating the special education system, advocacy
training offers one way to aid parents in securing appropriate educational services for their children with disabilities. Two
distinct models of advocacy trainings are as follows: the Special Education Advocacy Training and the Volunteer Advocacy
Project. This article notes how parents may need advocates to assert their special education rights and how advocates may
be trained in special education law and advocacy. Furthermore, this article discusses the consequences of special education
advocacy trainings for the disability field—universities and service providers alike. The conclusion of this article describes
the need for additional research about family–school collaboration.

Keywords
advocacy, families, collaboration, law/legal issues, systems change

Parents of students with disabilities often encounter difficul- The Importance of

ties navigating the special education system. Indeed, many
parents find daunting the task of understanding relevant
special education regulations and nonadversarial advocacy
techniques (Stoner et al., 2005). The repercussions of this
lack of parental involvement and knowledge are sweeping.
Lack of parental participation leads to inappropriate and
unsound educational programs for students with disabilities
(Fish, 2008). Accordingly, without parental involvement,
students with disabilities are vulnerable to receive inade-
quate and inappropriate services.
To improve parental involvement, special education
advocates aid parents in securing appropriate educational
services for their children. To date, though, the special edu-
cation advocacy field remains unsupervised (Wheeler &
Marshall, 2008), and it remains unclear who should train
advocates and be responsible for their conduct. What con-
tent does an advocate need to assist parents? Which advo-
cacy techniques are successful in securing appropriate
educational services for students with disabilities? These
questions remain unanswered.
This article examines two special education advocacy train-
ing models: the Special Education Advocacy Training (SEAT)
and the Volunteer Advocacy Project (VAP). See Table 1 for a
list of acronyms. Both projects train individuals in special edu-
cation policy and advocacy skills. Before discussing these
models, this article describes the rationale and need for special
education advocacy. Then, this article examines these two
models in terms of their goals, competencies, participants, and
lessons learned, before discussing future directions for the field
of special education advocacy and training.
Parental Involvement
Policy Mandates Parental Involvement
Prior to 1975, public schools either entirely excluded or
provided limited services to millions of children with dis-
abilities. Since its passage in 1975, the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act (now known as the Individuals
With Disabilities Improvement Education Act or IDEA),
has mandated that educational services be provided for all
students with disabilities. Each student with a disability is
guaranteed a free, appropriate, public education (FAPE).
Students are also to be educated in the least restrictive
environment—a placement where, to the maximum extent
appropriate—they can be educated with their peers without
disabilities. According to IDEA, each child with a disability
should have an Individualized Education Program (IEP),
which provides needed related services, accommodations,
and modifications.
To ensure that children with disabilities received appro-
priate services, Congressional leaders specifically wrote par-
ents into IDEA. Thus, the legislation requires that parents
provide consent for evaluations, receive notices to attend
IEP meetings, and possess procedural safeguards (IDEA,
P.L. 108-446). In special education, parents and schools
1
Vanderbilt Kennedy Center, Nashville, TN, USA
Corresponding Author:
Meghan M. Burke, Vanderbilt Kennedy Center, 230 Appleton Place,
Nashville, TN 37212, USA
Email: Meghan.m.burke@vanderbilt.edu

Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on February 25, 2014
226 Journal of Disability Policy Studies 23(4)

Table 1. List of Acronyms parents completing homework with their children, attending
school events, and communicating with the school (Jeynes,
Name Acronym
2007). When parents collaborate with the school, the stu-
Community Parent Resource Center CPRC dent is better prepared for program placements, and the
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates COPAA legal requirements of IDEA are more likely to be met
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act FERPA (Wolery, 1989). Increased parental involvement leads to the
Free, appropriate, public education FAPE fulfillment of the IDEA and better achievement for students
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act IDEA with disabilities.
Individualized Education Program IEP Parental involvement also influences other, more indirect
No Child Left Behind NCLB factors, which in turn improve student academic achieve-
Parent Leadership and Support Project PLSP ment. For example, increased parental involvement decreases
Parent Training and Information Center PTI high school drop-out rates (Barnard, 2003) and leads to
Protection and Advocacy Agency P&A higher educational expectations (Fan & Chen, 2001; Jeynes,
Special Education Advocacy Training SEAT 2007). In addition, parental involvement improves student
University Centers for Excellence in UCEDD attendance (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002) and decreases at-risk
Developmental Disabilities
behaviors (Vakalahi, 2001).
University of Southern California–University USC-UCEDD
Center for Excellence in Developmental
Disabilities Parental Involvement in Special Education
Vanderbilt Kennedy Center’s University VKC-UCEDD
Center for Excellence in Developmental Even though parental involvement is a cornerstone of
Disabilities IDEA and leads to legally appropriate educational pro-
Volunteer Advocacy Project VAP grams, parent participation rates are lower in special educa-
tion programs than in Head Start and other compensatory
programs (Harry, 1992). Especially when compared with
professional assessments, parental input often tends to be
collaborate to ensure that children with disabilities receive dismissed as anecdotal and subjective (Turnbull, Turnbull,
appropriate services. The primary way in which this collabo- Erwin, Soodak, & Shogren, 2010). Without parent–school
ration occurs is IEP meetings. By having significant parental collaboration, disagreements may escalate to legal hearings
involvement during the IEP process, the transition between (Mandlawitz, 2002), leading to increased stress, costs, and
school and home streamlines and the child is more likely to destroyed relationships for parents and schools alike (Lake
receive FAPE. & Billingsley, 2000).

Research Supports Parental Involvement Barriers to Parental Involvement

IDEA’s requisite of parental involvement reflects the rela-
tionship between parental involvement and children’s aca-
demic achievement. According to the “Strong Families,
Strong Schools” report, “Thirty years of research shows
that greater family involvement in children’s learning is a
critical link to achieving high quality education and a safe
disciplined learning environment for every student” (U.S.
Department of Education, 1994, p. 1). Studies completed
from the mid-1960s until today confirm this relationship,
finding that school–parental involvement programs have
immediate, positive results on students’ academic achieve-
ment (Sheldon & Epstein, 2005), regardless of socioeco-
nomic and educational levels (Henderson & Mapp, 2002).
Transcending seemingly impermeable layers of financial
and educational backgrounds, parental involvement pro-
vides a method for improving academic achievement.
Parental involvement impacts students’ academic achieve-
ment both directly and indirectly. For example, factors that
directly affect student achievement include the following:
Parents Do Not Feel Like Equal Partners
Although IDEA enables parents to advocate for their chil-
dren with disabilities, several challenges make such advo-
cacy difficult (Stoner et al., 2005). Many parents feel that
they not only need to participate but also need to advocate
for their children by challenging authority and asking dif-
ficult questions (Soodak & Erwin, 2000). Many parents
also face such logistical issues as finding transportation or
child care to attend IEP meetings (Friesen & Huff, 1990).
Parents who work may have difficulty attending IEP
meetings—which are usually scheduled during school/work
hours (Friesen & Huff, 1990). Limited advocacy may also
relate to the attitudes of various stakeholders: the power
differential between a large school system and an individ-
ual parent (Leiter & Krauss, 2004), parents’ feelings of
being intimidated by the school (Leiter & Krauss, 2004),
and feelings that parents are inadequate or lack the legiti-
macy of an expert (Kalyanpur, Harry, & Skrtic, 2000).

Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on February 25, 2014
Burke
A total of 70% of parents of children with disabilities believe
that their children lose services because parents do not know
their rights (Public Agenda, 2002).
Parental feelings of inadequacy constitute a tremendous
obstacle to facilitating parent–school collaboration.
Institutional structures contribute to this power differential.
Historically, for example, schools viewed parents peripheral
and, in some cases, as hindrances. (Leiter & Krauss, 2004).
Parents often feel unwelcome and their roles minimized,
especially when educators use jargon to describe their chil-
dren (Defur, 2003). To overcome this power differential,
parents of children with disabilities may need to advocate
more assertively (Fish, 2008; Trainor, 2010).
Finally, parents may feel unable to express their discon-
tent with educational services at IEP meetings. Even at the
prereferral stage, parents experience discontent with the
educational services for their children with disabilities
(Smalley & Reyes-Blanes, 2001). When trying to partici-
pate at the IEP meeting, parents are often met with gestures
and comments—being referred to as “just a parent” or being
called “mom” or “dad” instead of their first names—which
further emphasizes the power differential between the par-
ent and the school (Kalyanpur et al., 2000). Feeling inade-
quate, parents have difficulty communicating their questions
and needs at IEP meetings. Parental discontent combined
with a power differential contributes to the reduced abilities
of parents to effectively collaborate with the school at IEP
meetings.
Ineffective Procedural Safeguards
Another barrier to effective parent advocacy is inaccessible
procedural safeguards. One way in which IDEA enables
parents to assert their rights is through due process (IDEA,
2004). A due process hearing is a formal forum for the par-
ent and the school to present their opinions regarding what
is appropriate for the child. At the hearing, the parent has
the right to present evidence, examine, cross-examine, and
subpoena witnesses. Attorneys frequently represent school
districts, whereas parents have three options for represen-
tation: pro se representation (parents represent them-
selves), advocates, or attorneys. In accordance with
IDEA, a hearing should be completed within 45 days of the
receiving party having notice of a due process complaint.
Although an important procedural safeguard, due pro-
cess hearings present an uneven playing field. Due process
is overtly adversarial, pitting the school against the parent
(Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 2000; Zirkel, 1994). Also, due
process imposes a tremendous financial burden on both
schools and parents. For a typical due process hearing,
retaining a special education attorney costs up to US$30,000
(Mueller, 2008). In addition to high fiscal costs, due process
Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on February 25, 2014
227
hearings tend to be lengthy. Even though IDEA requires
that due process hearings conclude within 45 days, delays
are common, resulting in hearings which last from 25 days
to 2 years (Zirkel, 1994). A frequently cited court case in
Pennsylvania lasted for 19 sessions and spanned 2 years
from the initial complaint. For the transcript of the hearing
alone, the cost was US$27,000 (Zirkel, 1994).
Finally, parents are unlikely to prevail in due process.
Even with the expense and time, parents prevail in only
28.6% of due process hearings (Consortium for Appropriate
Dispute Resolution in Special Education, 2004). As barriers
to equity, parents cite the unavailability of legal resources,
and, specifically, the high cost of lawyers (Consortium for
Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education,
2004). In one study, 6 states had an insufficient attorney
pool, regardless of whether parents could afford attorney
representation, while 15 states reported that more than 60%
of their state lacked reduced cost legal services (Ahearn,
2001). Parents tend to be frustrated with the due process
system as it involves legal jargon, excessive paperwork,
and technical detail (Consortium for Appropriate Dispute
Resolution in Special Education, 2004). The near absence
and inaccessibility of special education lawyers both intim-
idates and limits parents in filing for due process.
In addition, the reading level of procedural safeguards is
very high. Thus, parents feel they are largely inaccessible
(Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006; Imber & Radcliffe, 2003;
Mandic, Rudd, Hehir, & Acevedo-Garcia, 2010; Pruitt,
2003). Mandic and colleagues (2010) documented that the
average reading level of procedural safeguards was 16th
grade. Of all of the procedural safeguards across the coun-
try, 6% scored at the high school reading level, 55% at the
college reading level, and 39% at the graduate school read-
ing level. By way of comparison, the New York Times ranks
at a college reading level (Roberts, Fletcher, & Fletcher,
1994). Such high reading levels make procedural safe-
guards inaccessible for enabling parents trying to learn their
special education rights.
Barriers Result in Little Parental Involvement
Given all of these factors, it is not surprising that parents are
not equal partners on IEP teams (Turnbull et al., 2010).
Although parents may attend IEP meetings, they generally
do not meaningfully participate (Childre & Chambers, 2005;
Esquivel, Ryan, & Bonner, 2008; Fish, 2006; Hess, Molina,
& Kozleski, 2006; Munn-Joseph & Gavin-Evans, 2008). As
IEP meetings entail important educational decisions, the
IEP meeting is the forum at which most disagreements occur
between the parents and school (Harry, 1992; Mandlawitz,
2002). As such, it is necessary for parents to have support to
facilitate successful parent–school collaboration.
228
Table 2. Differences Between SEAT and VAP Trainings
SEAT
Origin of training OSEP grant
Purpose Develop a special education advocacy curriculum
Content 230 hr of coursework (115 hr of instruction and 115 hr
of practicum)
Speakers Attorney and advocate
Outcomes Diverse outcomes
Note: SEAT = Special Education Advocacy Training; VAP = Volunteer Advocacy Project; OSEP = Office of Special Education Programs; VKC-UCEDD =
Vanderbilt Kennedy Center’s University Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities.
Two Models for Training
Special Education Advocates
One way to support parents in navigating the IEP process
involves special education advocates. Special education
advocates are individuals with knowledge of both special
education law and advocacy skills to assist parents in work-
ing with the school system. Although there are many fed-
eral programs geared to train parents about their special
education rights (e.g., Parent Training and Information
Centers [PTIs]) as well as programs to legally support par-
ents in the special education process (e.g., Protection and
Advocacy Agencies [P&As]), there are few training models
for special education volunteer advocacy. Two models are
the SEAT Project and the VAP. The University of
Southern California–University Center for Excellence in
Developmental Disabilities (USC-UCEDD) and the Council
of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA) jointly cre-
ated the SEAT training (Wheeler & Marshall, 2008). In
contrast, the Vanderbilt Kennedy Center’s University
Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (VKC-
UCEDD), in collaboration with many other agencies, created
the VAP. See Table 2 for a list of differences between the
two trainings.
The SEAT
In 2005, the USC-UCEDD and COPAA received a 3-year
grant from the Office of Special Education Programs to
develop a pilot project in special education advocacy train-
ing. The purpose of the SEAT project was to create a for-
mal curriculum to train special education advocates. Based
on practices from three different professional communities—
special education attorneys, consumer advocates, and
paralegals—the SEAT trained three cohorts of participants
across the United States.
Goals of the SEAT. The overarching goal of SEAT was to
develop, field-test, and explore the feasibility of a special
education advocacy training program for nonattorneys to
Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on February 25, 2014
Journal of Disability Policy Studies 23(4)
VAP
Self-started within the VKC-UCEDD
Train special education volunteer advocates
40 hr of coursework and one shadowing session
Diverse speakers (professors, community members,
parents, attorneys)
Linked with four families of students with disabilities
better meet the needs of families of students with disabili-
ties. The four subgoals were as follows:
1. To develop and field-test a training for special
education advocates,
2. To explore the feasibility of replicating the SEAT
in other sites,
3. To evaluate the effectiveness of the program, and
4. To disseminate the findings of the project.
To achieve the first goal, the program developers had
several tasks, including formalizing the field of special edu-
cation advocacy, creating competencies for the advocacy
training, defining the ethics for special education advocates,
and developing the curriculum for the SEAT training. To
achieve the second goal, program developers field-tested the
SEAT in three cohorts across the country. For the third goal,
the program developers conducted a 1-year follow-up sur-
vey. The survey included questions such as employment
status as a special education advocate, years at current
employment, and to what extent do the graduates attribute
their knowledge to the SEAT training. The results of the
1-year follow-up are not yet disclosed. Finally, to achieve
the fourth goal, program developers are in the process of
writing and disseminating articles about the SEAT.
Competencies of the SEAT. The SEAT National Advisory
Board developed the SEAT project’s six core competen-
cies. The board consisted of various stakeholders including
attorneys, PTIs, advocacy groups and advocates them-
selves, school administrators, family researchers, and non-
profit agencies. The board relied on the research literature
to develop the content of the training. The competencies
included the following:
1. Introduction to special education advocacy
(2 modules),
2. Legal foundation of special education law (6 modules),
3. Fundamental principles and components of special
education law (13 modules),
Burke
4. Practicing advocacy with ethics and integrity
(4 modules),
5. Basic skills of a special education advocate
(4 modules),
6. Conflict resolution in special education (6 mod-
ules), and
7. The business of advocacy (3 modules).
Each competency had a specified number of 3-hr mod-
ules in which the participants learned the subject matter. In
addition to these competencies, the SEAT board developed
a code of ethics for the advocates. Considering ethical
codes from other fields and soliciting expert opinions, the
board created a set of voluntary ethics.
To meet these competencies, trainees participated in
115 hr of classroom instruction and 115 hr of practicum or
field experience. The coursework occurred over a 4-month
period, requiring 8 to 10 instructional hours per week. The
coursework was divided into thirty-eight, 3-hr modules
across the above-mentioned seven competencies. The cur-
riculum consisted of a SEAT reader (a textbook for stu-
dents, including recommended books, web materials, and
handouts), an Instructor’s guide (an outline of the learning
objectives, homework, and classroom activities), and exams
for each chapter. The instructional team included three indi-
viduals: a special education advocate, a special education
attorney, and a parent-to-parent support professional.
The practicum occurred over a 3- to 4-month period. A
special education advocate and/or special education attor-
ney facilitated the practicum. The practicum allowed SEAT
trainees opportunities to apply their newly learned knowl-
edge to real-life situations. The practicum did not have a set
of mandatory activities. However, participants gained expe-
rience in the following areas: knowing how to find informa-
tion, grasping and discriminating between federal and state
law, using analytical skills, understanding unauthorized
practice of law, negotiating between parties, communicat-
ing orally and in writing, identifying issues, addressing par-
ent concerns, and acting in a professional manner.
Trainees demonstrated mastery in the SEAT competen-
cies. To this end, trainees took exams, completed home-
work assignments, passed the course before proceeding to
the practicum experience, passed their practicum, and pro-
vided formative feedback.
SEAT participants. Since its inception, the SEAT project
has had three cohorts and 144 participants. The first cohort
trained 77 participants across four sites (Los Angeles, San
Francisco Bay Area, Philadelphia, and New York). The sec-
ond cohort trained 35 students across two sites (Los Angeles
and New York), and the third cohort trained 32 students
across two sites (Los Angeles and Boston). The SEAT
training had exclusionary criteria related to its participants.
Trainees could not be convicted felons, law students,
Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on February 25, 2014
229
practicing attorneys, school or state educational agency
employees, or school board members. The majority (80%)
of the participants were parents of children receiving spe-
cial education services.
Lessons learned. The SEAT informed the special education
field of several lessons related to advocacy training. First,
experienced advocates wanted to complete the SEAT pro-
gram to gain legitimacy as a professional. Second, the rigor
of the training may discourage underrepresented groups from
participating; a pre-SEAT training may be needed to meet the
needs of these groups. Third, a set of acceptance criteria or
readiness characteristics needs to be developed to determine
who is accepted to the training. Fourth, other ways to offer
practica to the students need to be developed as there is a
shortage of special education attorneys. Fifth, more forma-
tive and summative evaluation needs to be done to examine
the efficacy of advocacy trainings. Sixth, careful consider-
ation needs to occur regarding formal certification of special
education advocates. For example, how will formal certifica-
tion affect the liability of the advocates? How will it affect
parental access to advocates? Although the SEAT training
offered tremendous insight into ways to train special educa-
tion advocates, more research and thought is needed as this
training is replicated across the country.
The VAP
Recognizing the need for advocates across Tennessee, the
VKC-UCEDD developed an advocacy model similar to
the Parent Leadership Support Project (PLSP), which is an
advocacy training in Georgia (Lipson & McCall, 2008).
The VAP relies on the basic premises of the PLSP training,
with modifications to suit the needs of Tennessee families.
Specifically, the VAP requires as a criterion for admission
that, after each trainee graduates from the project, the
trainee will advocate, at no charge, for four additional fami-
lies of students with disabilities. Also, unlike the PLSP,
which Georgia’s P&A developed, the VKC-UCEDD and
The Arc developed the VAP.
Goals of the VAP model. The overarching goal of the VAP
is to provide instrumental and affective support to parents
of children with disabilities in receiving educational ser-
vices. The training has the following five subgoals:
1. To provide instrumental support to families,
2. To provide affective support to families,
3. To have each volunteer advocate for at least four
families,
4. To grow and improve our training model, and
5. To research advocacy trainings.
In relation to the first goal of providing instrumental
support to families, the training teaches participants about
230
federal and state laws such as IDEA, No Child Left Behind
(NCLB), Section 504 of the American Rehabilitation Act,
and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA). Participants learn about mandated timelines
associated with evaluations, IEPs, and procedural safe-
guards. They also learn about eligibility requirements under
various laws and the services accorded by different poli-
cies. In addition, participants learn about procedural safe-
guards embedded into each disability law.
For the second goal—to provide affective support to
families—the advocates learn nonadversarial ways to com-
municate with the school and to emotionally support par-
ents of children with disabilities. Lay advocates speak to the
participants about effective advocacy techniques. Such
techniques include identifying the crux of the problem,
determining the source and reason for the problem, and
developing amiable but assertive strategies to resolve any
lingering issues. Participants also learn how to write parent
input statements, which offer an opportunity for parents
to share their concerns in a clear and coherent way.
Furthermore, the participants role-play various IEP scenar-
ios to brainstorm advocacy strategies. On receiving real-life
IEP team meeting scenarios, the participants brainstorm the
actions they would take as the advocate.
The third goal is for advocates to work with four families
of students with disabilities. To this end, The Arc, the state
PTI, or the Community Parent Resource Center (CPRC)
links each advocate with four families of children with dis-
abilities who require advocacy services. The advocate then
works with each family, for free, to ensure that their chil-
dren receive appropriate educational services. Depending
on the family’s needs, how the advocate works with the
family varies. The advocate may complete a records review,
draft a parent input statement, or attend an IEP meeting with
the family. The Arc, PTI, or CPRC provides ongoing sup-
port and assistance to the advocate when working with a
family.
To grow and expand the training (the fourth goal of the
training), using videoconferencing technology, the VAP
occurred in other sites across the state: Memphis (West
Tennessee), Johnson City (East Tennessee), Knoxville
(East Tennessee), Martin (West Tennessee), Jackson (West
Tennessee), and Chattanooga (East Tennessee). These sites
are spread throughout the state covering the three grand
regions of Tennessee: East, Middle, and West. The project
is currently attempting to serve more rural and traditionally
underserved communities. By having a variety of sites
across the state, the project can serve more families.
Finally, the VAP training is attempting to research its
effectiveness. For example, all advocates complete a pre-
and postsurvey to determine the efficacy of the project.
The survey consists of 30 questions related to special edu-
cation law and 10 to advocacy skills. By gauging the base-
line knowledge and skill set of the participants and then
Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on February 25, 2014
Journal of Disability Policy Studies 23(4)
comparing it with their posttest scores, the efficacy of the
training can be better examined. Similar to the SEAT train-
ing, the data are currently being analyzed.
Competencies of the VAP. To achieve these four goals, the
training has two main competencies: (a) 40 hr of in-classroom
training and (b) the shadowing of a special education advo-
cate. The training requires 40 hr of instructional time.
Accompanying each class session are reading assignments
of relevant articles, law, and regulations, along with brief
homework assignments. To allow each participant to
develop an understanding of special education policy and
advocacy, the training content and style are multifaceted.
The training covers the following: case study evaluations,
IEP meetings, research-based interventions, extended
school year services, procedural safeguards, assistive tech-
nology, transition, least restrictive environment, discipline
provisions, disabilities covered by IDEA, affecting legisla-
tive change, response to intervention, and advocacy skills.
For each topic, expert speakers talk to the participants.
In past trainings, speakers included the following: faculty
from The VKC-UCEDD and Vanderbilt University’s
Special Education program, the statewide P&A, and the
Tennessee Technology Access Program. Several attorneys,
advocates, and parents of children with disabilities also
spoke at the training sessions. Each session has a lecture-
style format, with supplementary large and small group
discussions as well as role-play. Furthermore, to ensure the
participants can apply the knowledge they learn, the train-
ing uses case studies.
In addition to the more formal classroom sessions, train-
ees also participate in out-of-classroom work. Each trainee
participates in two list-serves to stay up-to-date about spe-
cial education changes and to consult with each other about
special education advocacy questions. To better understand
the role of an advocate, each participant also shadows an
advocate at a special education meeting. Participants shad-
owed advocates, for example, at IEP and referral meetings,
and school conferences.
VAP participants. Over 2 years and five cohorts of train-
ees, 129 individuals graduated from the VAP. Participant
numbers increased with each cohort, from 11 participants in
the first cohort to the fifth cohort’s 41 participants. No
exclusionary criteria exist regarding participants for this
project. Across all five cohorts, 59.1% of participants were
parents of children receiving special education services.
Lessons learned. The VAP offered important insight into
the training of special education advocates. However, sev-
eral issues and questions remain regarding advocacy train-
ings. First, new ways are needed in providing first-hand
advocacy experiences for the participants. Given the
shortage of special education advocates, it was difficult to
ensure that participants had shadowing opportunities. Sec-
ond, most of the sites were more urban. In a primarily
rural state, more efforts need to be made to reach this
Burke
underserved population. Third, the need for ongoing sup-
port is necessary. As the training evolves, more resources
need to be available as VAP graduates work with families.
Remaining Issues and Challenges
of Special Education Advocacy
As both the SEAT and VAP begin to formalize the field of
special education advocacy, several issues and challenges
arise. Four of the most prominent issues and questions are
discussed below.
Documenting the Need
for Special Education Advocates
As demonstrated by the national interest in the SEAT train-
ing and state interest in the VAP training, many individuals
want to become special education advocates. For instance,
the VAP, in less than 1 year, expanded from one site to six
sites across the state. Correspondingly, the number of par-
ticipants in each VAP class expanded from an initial 11 to
more than 40 participants—a fourfold increase. On a larger
scale, the SEAT training has demonstrated the national
interest in special education advocacy training as it has had
several sites across the country.
In addition, interest in special education advocacy train-
ing is not limited to parents of students with disabilities. For
both trainings, a significant portion of participants (20% of
the SEAT and 40% for the VAP) were not parents of stu-
dents with disabilities. For example, the VAP is an elective
course at East Tennessee State University, thereby allowing
preservice teachers to learn about special education law and
advocacy. Indeed, many teachers and administrators may
not fully understand IDEA in that many IEPs do not contain
mandated components (Lynch & Beare, 1990), teachers do
not use IEPs to guide instruction (Michnowicz, McConnell,
Peterson, & Odom, 1995), and present levels of perfor-
mance do not align with annual goals (Michnowicz et al.,
1995). Given that few universities offer formal courses in
special education law (Burke, Follit, & Hodapp, 2011), it is
not unsurprising that IEPs are not being written and upheld
in accordance with IDEA. The diversity of participants
indicates that advocacy training has an appeal extending
beyond parents of students with disabilities.
In addition, the number of collaborating agencies
increased for both the SEAT and the VAP. With both train-
ings, collaborations exist with the PTIs, CPRCs, university
UCEDDs, and parent advocacy groups. Among parent
advocacy groups, several national, state, and local agencies
worked with the trainings. For example, COPAA—a
national advocacy group for parent attorneys and advocates—
cosponsored the SEAT training. On a smaller scale, the VAP
collaborated with the state Arc of Tennessee as well as
local chapters of The Arc and smaller disability-specific
Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on February 25, 2014
231
parent support groups. Both trainings garnered wide inter-
est from various disability agencies.
Determining the Best
Way to Train Advocates
Although the need to support parents in navigating the IEP
process is evident, the best way to provide such support is
not. Special education advocates offer one way to support
parents, but no research exists about the best way to train
these advocates to effectively help families. Using the
SEAT and the VAP as examples, we do not know whether
an advocate needs to attend a 230-hr training (SEAT) or a
40-hr (VAP) training. Similarly, we do not know what
content needs to be covered and in what depth. Also, as
laws change and, correspondingly, advocacy changes, it is
unknown what kind of ongoing support special education
advocates need. Beyond content, we also do not know the
most effective format of the training. For example, the
SEAT includes a 115-hr practicum, whereas the VAP only
includes the shadowing of a special education advocate. In
looking at special education advocacy training, we remain
unclear about what kind of field experience is necessary,
which content areas should be covered in the curriculum,
and the duration and subsequent ongoing support needed
after the training.
We also do not know whether it is more effective to have
no requirements after graduating (SEAT) or to use a “pay-
it-forward” model requiring a commitment to four families
(VAP). For both trainings, it remains unknown as to what,
where, and how advocates use the knowledge and skills
they gained from the training. Do graduated advocates need
to have a requisite commitment to working with families?
Do graduated advocates try to use their advocacy training to
become professional advocates? Because of the newness of
each of these trainings, it remains unknown how graduates
will impact the special education field and help families of
individuals with disabilities.
Another issue relates to how to expand advocacy train-
ings to other sites. The SEAT trains people with live instruc-
tors at each site, whereas the VAP relies on videoconferencing
technology to train individuals across the state. What are the
pros and cons to live versus videoconferenced trainings?
Although live instruction seems preferable to videocon-
ferenced instruction, there are few qualified instructors
actively training interested individuals. In addition, more
rural and underserved areas are difficult to reach by tradi-
tional means. The debate about videoconferencing versus
live instruction remains unanswered.
To answer many of these questions related to the effec-
tiveness of advocacy trainings, program evaluation is
essential. For both training programs, it is necessary for not
only the advocates but also the families they work with to
evaluate the efficacy of the training programs. Using both
232
formative and summative data collected from the partici-
pants will enable training coordinators to modify the train-
ings to better suit the needs of the participants. Without
program evaluation data, it is difficult to determine the
efficacy of these trainings and how they support families of
students with disabilities.
Bridging the Two Worlds of Disability
The VAP and the SEAT offer one way to merge two seem-
ingly isolated worlds of disability. One way of thinking
about individuals with disabilities is by the special educa-
tion services which they receive. To provide high-quality
services to students with disabilities, university special
education departments train future educators, administra-
tors, and service providers. In university departments, the
primary recipient of training is the preservice teacher. The
knowledge and skills the teacher gains, then, are relayed to
students with disabilities.
Another way of thinking about individuals with disabil-
ities is by advocating and working directly with their fami-
lies. To perform these services, national and state agencies
exist such as UCEDDs, PTIs, COPAA, CPRCs, and P&As.
These agencies provide support to families in securing
appropriate educational services from the school system
for students with disabilities. To these agencies, the pri-
mary recipient of their services is families (especially par-
ents) of individuals with disabilities. The knowledge and
skills the parent gains, then, are relayed to their children
with disabilities.
Given their different views and intended audiences
(schools vs. parents), these two worlds interact only sporadi-
cally. Special education advocacy training offers one forum
in which the two worlds not only align but also collaborate
with each other. For example, the VAP works with special
education departments by having speakers from the Vanderbilt
Special Education department, a director who is a doctoral
student in the department, and participants who are students
in the department. Alternatively, the VAP works with advo-
cacy agencies by having its home at the VKC-UCEDD, a dis-
tance site University of Tennessee-Boling UCEDD, and
collaborations with the state PTI, The Arc, and the CPRC. By
uniting these two different worlds of disability, the VAP pro-
vides a forum for relevant stakeholders to communicate
effectively about and advocate for students with disabilities.
Special education advocacy is one area in which the two
groups can work together, provide combined resources,
and join together as a single “disability community.”
Conducting Research About
Special Education Advocacy
Although models of parent–school collaboration exist for stu-
dents without disabilities (Green, Walker, Hoover-Dempsey,
& Sandler, 2007), research needs to be collected to develop
Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on February 25, 2014
Journal of Disability Policy Studies 23(4)
an effective model of parent–school collaboration in spe-
cial education. How do IEPs, procedural safeguards, and
special education policies fit into or affect a model of
parent–school collaboration? How would the model for
parent–school collaboration in special education differ
from one in regular education?
Limited empirical data exist to examine the effect of
parental involvement on the achievement of students with
disabilities (Fan & Chen, 2001). A large barrier in assess-
ing the influence of parental involvement is the lack of
standardized measures. In the family–school partnership
literature, most studies are qualitative (Summers, Hoffman,
Marquis, Turnbull, Poston, et al., 2005). The studies that
do use quantitative family–school measures either (a) do
not have psychometric properties or (b) focus on parents
of children who receive early intervention services
(Summers, Hoffman, Marquis, Turnbull, Poston, et al.,
2005). A recently developed measure, The Family–
Professional Partnership Scale, which has psychometric
properties and focuses on families of school-aged children
with disabilities, may offer an opportunity to further gauge
the effect of parent–school collaboration (Summers,
Hoffman, Marquis, Turnbull, & Poston, 2005; Summers,
Hoffman, Marquis, Turnbull, Poston, et al., 2005). Using
standardized definitions and measures of parental involve-
ment, more research needs to be done regarding the effect
of parental involvement.
Another area of research concerns how parent–school
collaboration relates to characteristics of parent, child, and
the family. For parents, we do not know whether the degree
of parent–school collaboration affects their levels of stress,
depression, or anxiety. In addition, we do not know how the
child’s characteristics affect and are affected by the parent–
school relationship. Do parents of children with behavioral
issues have worse relationships with the schools? Does the
severity, course, or onset of the disability of the child affect
the parent’s relationship with the school? Furthermore, we
do not know how the parent–school relationship affects the
family dynamic. If the parent enacts a procedural safeguard,
how does that decision affect the well-being and closeness
of the family? Additional research needs to discern the
effects of parent–school relationships on the parent, the
child, and the family itself.
In addition, few studies examine the efficacy of inter-
ventions to improve parental involvement. Presently, most
research about parental involvement of students with dis-
abilities is descriptive (Coots, 1998). We need intervention
research to address the identified barriers to and evaluate
potential solutions for effective parental involvement. Such
research needs to focus on both the advocates themselves
and the families of children with disabilities. Research
should be two-pronged (a) to quantify the knowledge and
skills gained by the advocates from the training and (b) to
quantify the help given to families of children with disabili-
ties who worked with an advocate.
Burke
Considering all of these needs for research, a subfield of
special education advocacy seems necessary. Special edu-
cation should include a subfield to better understand parent
advocacy as it relates to schools, parents, and students with
disabilities. By having a line of research about special edu-
cation advocacy, research can better inform us about the
content that is necessary for trainings, the efficacy of
special education trainings, and the implications of parent–
school collaboration on the family.
The SEAT and VAP advocacy trainings are important
first steps in understanding and improving parent–school
collaboration in special education. By preparing advocates
to assist parents in both securing FAPE for their children
with disabilities as well as working collaboratively with the
school, advocacy trainings offer one way to improve the
parent–school relationship. Further research now needs to
be done regarding advocacy trainings, advocates them-
selves, and parent–school collaboration, thereby ensuring
that all students with disabilities make optimal academic
progress and that their parents no longer encounter such dif-
ficulties as they navigate the special education system.
From this article, two lessons seem obvious: (a) parents
of children with disabilities require support in navigating
the special education process and (b) the SEAT and the
VAP offer two promising special education advocacy
training models. Although many questions remain to be
answered, these models provide a preliminary effort in
ensuring that students with disabilities secure appropriate
educational services.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Ahearn, E. (2001). The involvement of lay advocates in due pro-
cess hearings. Eugene, OR: CADRE.
Barnard, W. M. (2003). Parent involvement in elementary school
and educational attainment. Children and Youth Services
Review, 26, 39–62.
Burke, M. M., Follit, S., & Hodapp, R. M. (2011). Teaching special
education law to pre-service teachers. Manuscript in preparation.
Childre, A., & Chambers, C. R. (2005). Family perceptions of
student centered planning and IEP meetings. Education and
Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 217–233.
Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Educa-
tion. (2004). National Dispute Resolution Use and Effective-
ness Study. Eugene, OR: Author.
Coots, J. J. (1998). Family resources and parent participation in
schooling activities for their children with developmental
delays. Journal of Special Education, 31, 498–520.
Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on February 25, 2014
233
Defur, S. H. (2003). IEP transition planning-from compliance to
quality. Exceptionality, 11, 115–128.
Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Present and accounted
for: Improving student attendance through family and com-
munity involvement. Journal of Educational Research, 95,
308–318.
Esquivel, S. L., Ryan, C. S., & Bonner, M. (2008). Involved parents’
perceptions of their experiences in school-based team meetings.
Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 18,
234–258.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’
academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psy-
chology Review, 13, 1–14.
Fish, W. W. (2006). Perceptions of parents of students with autism
towards the IEP meeting: A case study of one family support
group chapter. Education, 127, 56–68.
Fish, W. W. (2008). The IEP meeting: Perceptions of parents of
students who receive special education services. Preventing
School Failure, 53, 8–14.
Fitzgerald, J. L., & Watkins, M. W. (2006). Parents’ rights in
special education: The readability of procedural safeguards.
Exceptional Children, 72, 497–510.
Folger, J., Poole, M. S., & Stutman, R. K. (2000). Working through
conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and organiza-
tions (4th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Friesen, B. J., & Huff, B. (1990). Parents and professionals as
advocacy partners. Preventing School Failure, 34, 31–39.
Green, C. L., Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., &
Sandler, H. M. (2007). Parents’ motivations for involvement
in children’s education: An empirical test of a theoretical
model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 99, 532–544.
Harry, B. (1992). Cultural diversity, families, and the special edu-
cation system. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The
impact of school, family, and community connections on stu-
dent achievement. Austin, TX: National Center for Family and
Community Connections With Schools, Southwest Educa-
tional Development Laboratory.
Hess, R. S., Molina, A. M., & Kozleski, E. B. (2006). Until some-
body hears me: Parent voice and advocacy in special educa-
tional decision making. British Journal of Special Education,
33, 148–157.
Imber, S., & Radcliffe, D. (2003). Independent educational evalu-
ations under IDEA ’97: It’s a testy matter. Exceptional Chil-
dren, 70, 27–44.
Individuals With Disabilities Improvement Education Act of
2004. 20 U.S.C. ξ 1400.
Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involve-
ment and urban secondary school student academic achieve-
ment. Urban Education, 42, 82–110.
Kalyanpur, M., Harry, B., & Skrtic, T. (2000). Equity and advo-
cacy expectations of culturally diverse families’ participa-
tion in special education. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 47, 119–136.
234
Lake, J. F., & Billingsley, B. S. (2000). An analysis of factors
that contribute to parent–school conflict in special education.
Remedial and Special Education, 21, 240–252.
Leiter, V., & Krauss, M. W. (2004). Claims, barriers, and satis-
faction: Parents’ requests for additional special education ser-
vices. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15, 135–146.
Lipson, L. K., & McCall, M. (2008, March). A quiet revolution:
Building statewide capacity with community advocacy. Paper
presented at the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates
Conference, Anaheim, CA.
Lynch, E. C., & Beare, P. L. (1990). The quality of IEP objectives
and their relevance to instruction for students with mental
retardation and behavioral disorders. Remedial and Special
Education, 11, 48–55.
Mandic, C. G., Rudd, R., Hehir, T., & Acevedo-Garcia, D. (2010).
Readability of special education procedural safeguards. Jour-
nal of Special Education, 30, 1–9.
Mandlawitz, M. R. (2002). The impact of the legal system on
educational programming for young children with autism
spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 32, 495–508.
Michnowicz, L. L., McConnell, S. R., Peterson, C. A., & Odom,
S. L. (1995). Social goals and objectives of preschool IEPs: A
content analysis. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 273–282.
Mueller, T. G. (2008). Alternative dispute resolution: A new
agenda for special education policy. Journal of Disability
Policy Studies, 20, 1–9.
Munn-Joseph, M. S., & Gavin-Evans, K. (2008). Urban parents
of children with special needs: Advocating for their children
through social networks. Urban Education, 43, 378–393.
Pruitt, M. (2003). Relationships between reading level of parents,
readability of special education documents/forms, knowledge
of IEP contents, and parental involvement (Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation). East Tennessee State University, Johnson
City.
Public Agenda. (2002). When it’s your own child: A report on spe-
cial education from the families who use it. New York, NY:
Author.
Roberts, J. C., Fletcher, R. H., & Fletcher, S. W. (1994). Effects of
peer review and editing on the readability of articles published
in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 272, 119–121.
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2005). Involvement counts: Fam-
ily and community partnerships and mathematics achievement.
Journal of Educational Research, 98, 196–206.
Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on February 25, 2014
View publication stats
Journal of Disability Policy Studies 23(4)
Smalley, S., & Reyes-Blanes, M. (2001, March). Lessons learned:
Effective strategies for partnering with rural African American
parents. Proceedings of the 2001 American Council on Rural
Special Education Conference, San Diego, CA.
Soodak, L. C., & Erwin, E. J. (2000). Valued member or tolerated
participant: Parents’ experiences in inclusive early childhood
settings. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe
Handicaps, 25, 29–41.
Stoner, J. B., Jones Bock, S., Thompson, J. R., Angell, M. E.,
Heyl, B. S., & Crowly, E. P. (2005). Welcome to our world:
Parent perceptions of interactions between parents of children
with ASD and education professionals. Focus on Autism and
Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 20–39.
Summers, J. A., Hoffman, L., Marquis, J., Turnbull, A. P., &
Poston, D. (2005). Relationship between parent satisfaction
regarding partnerships with professionals and age of child.
Early Childhood Special Education, 25, 48–58.
Summers, J. A., Hoffman, L., Marquis, J., Turnbull, A. P.,
Poston, D., & Nelson, L. L. (2005). Measuring the quality
of family-professional partnerships in special education ser-
vices. Exceptional Children, 72, 65–83.
Trainor, A. A. (2010). Diverse approaches to parent advocacy dur-
ing special education home–school interactions: Identification
and use of cultural and social capital. Remedial and Special
Education, 31, 34–47.
Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., Erwin, E. J., Soodak, L. C., &
Shogren, K. A. (2010). Families, professionals, and excep-
tionality: Positive outcomes through partnerships and trust.
Columbus, OH: Merrill.
U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Strong families, strong
schools: Building community partnerships for learning.
Washington, DC: Author.
Vakalahi, H. F. (2001). Adolescent substance abuse and family-
based risk and protective factors: A literature review. Journal
of Drug Education, 31, 29–46.
Wheeler, B., & Marshall, D. (2008, March). Special education
advocacy training (SEAT). Paper presented at the Council of
Parent Attorneys and Advocates Conference, Anaheim, CA.
Wolery, M. (1989). Transitions in early childhood special education:
Issues and procedures. Focus on Exceptional Children, 22, 1–16.
Zirkel, P. A. (1994). Over-due process revisions for the Individu-
als With Disabilities Education Act. Montana Law Review, 55,
403–414.