1

Introduction

An increase in the population of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) students

and families in the United States public schools has put a spotlight on the barriers and difficulties

associated with parental involvement in the Special Education (SPED) referral and

Individualized Education Program (IEP) process. The Education for All Handicapped Children

(1975) and IDEA (1990) recognized the importance of family involvement and

family-professional collaboration and partnership in the decision-making process. The

amendments made to IDEA in 2004 require that schools involve parents of students in the SPED

referral and IEP process and that parents and professionals are viewed as equally important and

valued contributors to the process. However, CLD families have reported feeling disrespected by

service providers (Lasky & Karge, 2011), lonely, confused, powerless, and overwhelmed during

meetings with school personnel (Mueller et al., 2010) and finally, families have felt pressured to

give consent to testing and placement even when they did not fully understand the process

(Urtubey, 2020).

CLD parents with limited English proficiency (LEP) are viewed as less valuable than

parents who are more fluent or parents who are a native English speaker. Their voices often go

unheard during the SPED referral and IEP process. This can lead to their children receiving

inappropriate or inequitable services. For example, a student’s IEP is not meant to be presented

as a completed document during evaluation and re-evaluation meetings. The purpose of these

meetings is for the parents and teachers of the students to collaborate and make decisions as a

team about the placement and services the student will receive. Yet, many CLD families are

asked if they would like to “make changes” to an already completed document rather than having

been part of the decision-making process as an equal member of the team (Mueller, 2016). This
 2

is just one example of a common difficulty that CLD families face in the SPED referral and IEP

process.

Many CLD parents report feeling embarrassed by asking teachers and personnel for

translations and interpreters. They blame themselves for not having a high enough level of

English to understand the documentation, medical and SPED jargon, and higher tier vocabulary.

In addition to embarrassment, CLD parents who are in the US illegally fear being deported and

are afraid to ask for help from school personnel. Because of their embarrassment and fear, these

families often choose to go without interpreters or translations even though school districts are

required by law to provide them with these necessary accommodations. As the number of CLD

students requiring SPED services continues to rise, school leaders must examine and reflect upon

whether their communication and outreach with CLD families before, during, and after the

SPED referral process is creating a collaborative partnership between the family and teachers.

Purpose of Study and Research Questions

The purpose of my study is to understand the experiences of CLD parents during the

SPED referral and IEP process. In this study, I will conduct interviews with CLD parents who

have completed the SPED referral and IEP process. I will also review artifacts and

documentations that were distributed to CLD families before, during, and after the SPED referral

and IEP process. I aim to discover and a bring voice to the families who have faced barriers and

difficulties during the process and share how that has impacted and shaped their involvement in

the IEP process —a value that is held in high regard in the Western culture and expected of

parents regardless of their level of acculturation, English language proficiency (ELP), difference

in attitude and values toward disabilities, and much more. The study aims to investigate the

following research questions: 1.) What were the experiences of Culturally and Linguistically
 3

Diverse (CLD) parents during the SPED referral and IEP process? 2.) How have the experiences

of CLD parents during the SPED referral and IEP process shaped their involvement and

participation in their child’s education?

Literature Review

The number of English Learners (ELs), rose from 4.7 million in 1980 to over 11.2 million

in 2009. Today over 10% of the K-12 student population speak a different language than English

at home with their families. With this rise of CLD families enrolling in public schools, it is to no

surprise that the number of CLD students receiving SPED services has increased as well. Federal

legislation has addressed this increase in regard to involvement in evaluation eligibility, parent

participation, and development of the IEP. From the Individual with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA), involvement of native speaking families and CLD families are addressed in the

following:

Sec. 300.306 Determination of eligibility

(c) Procedures for determining eligibility and educational need.

(1) In interpreting evaluation data for the purpose of determining if a child is a

child with a disability under 300.8, and the educational needs of the child, each

public agency must—

(i) Draw upon information from a variety of sources, including aptitude

and achievement tests, parent input, and teacher recommendations, as

well as information about the child's physical condition, social or cultural

background, and adaptive behavior

Sec. 300.148 Placement of children by parents when FAPE is at issue

 4

(e) Exception. Notwithstanding the notice requirement (d)(1) of this section, the cost of

reimbursement—

(1) May, in the discretion of the court or a hearing officer, not be reduced or

denied for failure to provide this notice if—

(i) The parents are not literate or cannot write in English

Sec. 300.322 Parent participation

(e) Use of interpreters or other action, as appropriate. The public agency must take

whatever action is necessary to ensure that the parent understands the proceedings of the

IEP Team meeting, including arranging an interpreter for parents with deafness or whose

native language is other than English.

Sec. 300.324 Development, review, and revision of IEP

(a) Development of IEP

(1) General. In developing each child's IEP, the IEP Team must consider—

(ii) The concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child

Under IDEA, it is stated that schools implement interpretations and translators as

appropriate to meet the mandates of informed parental consent to testing and parental

participation in determining eligibility and development, review, and revision of IEPs. However,

states vary in the degree to which they are providing further and more specific guidance and

legislation to school districts on how to work with CLD families and students. Of the 50 states,
 5

36 do not address CLD families and students beyond what is stated above in IDEA (Scott et al.,

2014).

The lack of school personnel who are trained in cultural diversity coupled with

insufficient guidance and legislation has prevented the formation of collaborative partnerships

between parents and teachers. IDEA emphasizes the importance of parental involvement while at

the same time assuming that parents are able to advocate for and understand the legal language in

which it is written. The value of advocating for your child's education is reflected strongly in the

US / Western culture, but this is not reflective of all cultures. “The US system is designed in a

way that assumes parents have the knowledge to enter and navigate the medical and educational

systems independently” (Mueller, 2010). While it can be argued that the role of native

English-speaking parents in their child's education is still not noticeable enough in some districts

and states, the parents of CLD students continue to be even less involved. Several barriers and

factors influence the likelihood of CLD families involvement in the SPED referral and IEP

process.

Cheatham and Mullins (2018) study found that creating collaborative partnerships with

CLD families is full of barriers and challenges. Because of language barriers, parents' skills and

understanding of their child's abilities and educational background can be unrecognized. In

addition, educators' use of Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALPS) when referring

to SPED programming and services marginalizes CLD families during the IEP meetings. CLD

parents have reported “native English teachers' rapid pace of talking is overwhelming” as well as

feelings of confusion, frustration, and guilt. Jung (2011) also found obstacles that were

influencing the involvement of CLD parents in the educational decision-making process. Factors

that have influenced their involvement are: acculturation (assimilating to a new, typically
 6

dominant, culture), ELP level, difference in values and attitude and understanding towards

specific learning disabilities, communication styles that are different from the mainstream

dominant culture, and lack of knowledge and understanding about SPED programs and IEP

process in the United States. In addition, without appropriate use of interpreters or translations,

CLD parents are not able to access and understand the services being offered to their child nor

are they able to advocate for and make full use of their legal rights. Finally, because many

cultures tend not to argue or contradict teachers due to their innate respect for authority, parents

believe that the teachers are the professionals, and their suggestions are the right and final

decision. This is not to mean that CLD parents do not have their opinion and voices be heard.

Upon entering the SPED referral and IEP meetings, CLD parents experience feelings of

shock at the large number of professionals. In many cultures, it is customary to meet with

teachers one on one and not in large groups. Because CLD parents are not often briefed on what

is going to happen beforehand, this shock can quickly lead to those feelings of frustration

mentioned above, but also anger, isolation, powerlessness, pressure and resentment towards the

school personnel. The meetings quickly become stressful because “they feel they cannot

communicate well and that they are being told what their child did wrong and cannot do.” (Lo,

2012) Despite feeling compelled to advocate for their child, CLD parents feel alone in the SPED

system and find it difficult to engage in dialogue about their child and recommended services

with their low level ELP and only having Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS). “It

was very sad because nobody was listening” (Mueller, 2010).

CLD parents' perceptions are not the only reason why there is a disconnect between some

families and school personnel. Districts and schools have been observed to display behaviors that

are not conducive to building a collaborative equal partnership with CLD parents and teachers.
 7

These behaviors almost always are not intentional, but their impact on CLD families are still

valid and it is important that they are addressed in order to increase the parental involvement of

CLD families in their child's education. High context vs. low context cultural and non-verbal

cues are frequently misinterpreted by school personnel. While teachers might view passive

participation as not caring or valuing education, in many cultures, advocating and contradicting

what the experts (in this case the teachers) are saying is not appropriate. CLD families may not

know what to say or how to say it, and teachers assume this means they have nothing to say.

Another example of misinterpretation is with non-verbal cues, such as nodding your head. In

Asian cultures this means I hear what you are saying but NOT that the listener agrees or that they

even understand. In the United States, though, this gesture is used to show agreement with the

speaker and understanding. If school personnel are not trained to notice and understand these

small, but important, differences in cultures and schools are not utilizing appropriate interpreters

and translation services, this cycle of not hearing but not fully understanding each other is bound

to continue. In addition to these subtle cues, schools in the United States continue to value the

dominant culture and skill sets that are different from what many of the CLD families and

students value and understand. “Bilingualism is seen as odd or in some cases inferior while

monolingual English speakers are the norm”(Cheatham & Mueller, 2018). School districts that

do not recruit personnel trained in cultural diversity or who use personnel who are not trained

interpreters or translations (ex: teachers, siblings, children) are giving off the perception that they

do not care about the CLD families and students. Expecting that CLD families will be able to

understand SPED jargon and have “enough” English to get by in the meetings is inappropriate

and maintains negative perceptions about CLD families. “When parents are left to find their way
 8

within the system independently, it creates a major wedge between parent-professional

partnerships, and it is the child involved who is ultimately affected” (Mueller, 2010).

Through the review of additional literature and previous studies, there are many ways in

which a successful collaborative partnership between CLD parents and teachers can occur. States

and districts need to provide teachers and other school personnel with cultural diversity and

responsiveness training. “It is important to place race, class, culture, and language at the

forefront of educational decision making because by not doing so we assume that the American

educational system, including SPED, is race, class, culture, and language neutral” (Scott et al.,

2014). CLD parents who are new to the process of SPED need to be given background

information from teachers or another parent who has gone through the process prior to the first

meeting. Basic information about programming, state and federal laws, parental rights and

advocacy should be distributed in a language and at an academic reading level that they are

familiar with. Oftentimes, the translated documents, especially those about legal requirements,

are not comprehensible for parents who have a low level of education themselves. Teachers and

schools should use reflective dialogues and questions to determine if they have subtle negative

perceptions about CLD families. What words and phrases are used during meetings? Define key

ideas, phrases and words that will be used during meetings ahead of time so that CLD parents

can familiarize themselves with their meanings. Finally, it is important to have qualified and

knowledgeable interpreters and translators for meetings and documentation. Interpreters must

have fluency in both BICS and CALPS as well as experience and knowledge with dialect

differences so that CLD parents are fully included in discussions. Before the meetings,

interpreters should be briefed on the topic, key words, phrases that will be used and given time to

familiarize themselves with the purpose of the meeting. “Interpreters should meet with CLD
 9

families before the school meetings to develop rapport…inquire with parents about any concerns

or priorities they have and would like to discuss during the meeting” (Hart, 2012). Other

strategies to improve the parent-teacher partnership and the experience of CLD families during

the SPED referral and IEP process are: employing parent coordinator / liaisons, making home

visits, working with school personnel and CLD families to bridge cultures, offering ESL classes

for adults.

Study Design
Approach

“There is no one way of qualitative thinking, but a grand collection of ways: It is

interpretive, experience based, situational, and personalistic. Each researcher will do it

differently, but almost all of them will work hard at interpretation…They will show the

complexity of the background, and they will treat individuals as unique, yet in ways similar to

other individuals” (Stake, 2010). For my proposed research, I have chosen a narrative inquiry.

Narrative inquiry gives voices to the participants so that their experiences are heard. It is

“essential to the human experience…of knowing and understanding what it means to be human”

(Schneider, 2020). My interest in the experience of CLD families during the SPED referral and

IEP process comes from being a mother of children with special needs and from having worked

with CLD families and ELs for the last eleven years. Although I am a native speaker of English,

I too had struggled with understanding the SPED referral and IEP process. I had never had

experience with SPED programming and services until my child was diagnosed with Autism at

age 2. A few years after my son's diagnosis and first IEP meeting, I found myself on the other

side of the table. As an ESL teacher, I was usually, but not always, invited to attend IEP meetings

for CLD families of ELs or Former English Learners (FELs). It was at this time that I started to

take interest in the experiences of CLD families during this difficult process. Because I, a native
 10

English speaker, had struggled with following and understanding the SPED process, I suspected

that this process would be full of barriers and difficult challenges. Before I or any other English

Language Teacher can advocate for changes in policy regarding how to communicate, build

partnerships, and interact with CLD families, the experiences and voices of these families must

first be heard. “We tell stories about events, people, and experiences. We use stories to teach

about morals and values…We use them not only as a form of communication but also for making

meaning and understanding the worlds we live in” (Schneider, 2020). The best qualitative

research is about how things happen and how those things are experienced and how they are felt.

Participants

For this study, I will be using participants from Braintree Public Schools in Braintree,

Massachusetts where I work as the Secondary English Language Education (ELE) Coordinator.

The Braintree Public Schools (BPS) has an exceptional history of student performance: by

almost any measure, Braintree students achieve at very high levels. With a complete and total

focus on providing high-quality instruction that is personalized for every child, Braintree

students are the direct beneficiaries of a school-community dedicated to providing outstanding

teachers, extremely favorable class sizes (14:1), and academic support services that are second to

none. The Braintree Special Services Department is committed to providing all students with

disabilities an outstanding education to meet their academic and social needs and to maximize

their individual education potential. Deliberately planned around our District Core Values and

mission statement, learning opportunities are designed to meet students’ unique needs in the least

restrictive environment. The programs within the Braintree Special Services Department include,

but are not limited to, substantially separate classrooms and programs, partial inclusion in

general education classrooms, and full inclusion in general education classrooms. For example,
 11

at Braintree High School, there are ten distinct programming options for students that are found

to have specific learning disabilities. Ranging from “The Learning Center” (for students with

general learning disabilities and organization challenges who are enrolled in general education

classes) to “WAVE: Working towards Academic Vocational Excellence” (for students with

significant intellectual deficits whose cognition falls within the low to significantly below

average range).

As of December 2020, Braintree Public Schools has 5,585 students enrolled in

Pre-Kindergarten to 12th grade. Of those students, 1,179 are actively receiving SPED services

from the Braintree Special Services Department. 186 of these students are reported to come from

a CLD household. 132 of the 186 students that are reported as coming from a CLD household,

are either currently enrolled in ELE programming or have recently exited ELE programming. For

the purpose of this study, participants will be chosen from the group of 186 students and families

that are CLD. The 186 CLD families of students with disabilities (SWD) will receive a mailing

asking for volunteers for this study. The mailing will be sent to families in both English and their

native language. The information distributed in this mailing will include the purpose of the study,

the research questions, and will ask for the interested participants to share their preferred mode

of communication (email, telephone, etc.). Once a list of interested participants has been

gathered, I will begin reaching out to the families to gather more information about their

background, confirm that they are CLD and have completed the SPED referral and IEP process.

Because one of the aims of the research is to find out how the SPED referral and IEP placement

process has shaped CLD parents' involvement in their child's education, I will only interview and

meet with families that have completed the entire process. From there, those families that meet
 12

the criteria necessary to participate in the study will be asked to sign participation consent forms

and waivers.

Data Generation

As mentioned earlier in this proposal, I would like to observe IEP meetings and also

interview CLD families who have SWD to gather data about their experiences and to hear their

stories. To ensure that I am gathering data from CLD families that have completed the IEP

process, I would like to only attend IEP review meetings. I do not anticipate attending initial IEP

meetings. My rationale for this is that I want to observe how CLD families' experiences from the

SPED referral process and the initial IEP meetings have shaped the way that they currently

participate in their child's educational planning. “The first responsibility of the observer is to

know what is happening, to see it, to hear it, to try to make sense of it…You have to expect to

practice your data gathering repeatedly before actually gathering data…train yourself to be a

minimally proficient data gatherer” (Stake, 2010). I plan to practice generating data from

observations and interviews with a small number of pilot participants. Knowing that IEP

meetings occur all throughout the school year, I anticipate spending 12 months to 24 months

working with my study participants. I would like to be able to interview CLD families before and

after two IEP annual review meetings. To practice my data generation, I would like to pilot my

observation and interviews with CLD families who have students in upper-level grades. I would

like to practice and pilot my observations and interview questions with these CLD families

because they are more likely to have had several rounds of IEP meetings under their belt than

families in lower grades. My hope is that these CLD families and students will have more stories

and narratives to share with me about their experiences during the SPED referral and IEP

process. I will use an observation template to organize what I see, hear, and feel during the
 13

meetings. After the meetings, I will use the template to write a more detailed interpretation of my

findings in a journal. I will also keep a secondary journal for coding. When conducting

interviews, I plan to record them. My interviews will consist of open-ended questions. “Although

the interview usually will be structured by the issues of the researcher, it is sometimes better to

ask an open question, letting the interviewees just comment or tell stories”(Stake, 2010). I

anticipate that some of the parents will not be as open as others because they do not want to

contradict an authority figure, so I am planning on also using exhibit questions. “We can

sometimes push respondents to sharper concentration by asking them to examine and respond to

a specific statement, a story, an artifact, a quotation or some such” (Stake, 2010). Because many

of my participants will not be native English speakers, I will be using trained interpreters.

Data Analysis

“In qualitative research, analysis is seldom a formal set of calculations at a certain phase

between data gathering and interpretation. Analysis and synthesis continue from the beginning of

interest in the topic and continue still into the hours at the keyboard writing up the final report”

(Stake, 2010). In general, I plan to use coding to analyze the data that I have gathered. I will

start by pre-coding—highlighting, underlining, etc.—my observation sheets from IEP meetings

and journal entries and the notes and transcriptions from the interviews with the participants. I

will also analyze and code the style of language used and look for CLD family friendly language

on artifacts such as documentation that is distributed to families about the SPED referral process,

consent forms, assessment reports, etc. “Coding is sorting all data sets according to topics,

themes, and issues important to the study” (Stake, 2010). For my study, I will start coding by

looking for the following themes: CLD parents' feelings, CLD parents' perspectives, confusion /

misunderstandings with interpretation and translations, non-verbal cues. However, because code
 14

categories are bound to change as the research takes on new meanings, I anticipate, and I am

excited about unexpected changes that will occur. In addition to coding as I transcribe the audio,

I will maintain a coding journal, and check with my participants about my interpretations as they

are developed.

Ethics and Trustworthiness

All participants will be given and asked to sign a consent form. This form will be used to

distribute information about the purpose of the study, any risk and/or benefits of being a

participant, their privacy and confidentiality rights (ex: all names will be kept anonymous as well

as any details about their family and child that could be identifiable), and their right to

discontinue participating in the study. The consent form will be sent to CLD families with the

survey form calling for volunteers and will then be explained to interested participants using

interpreters and translations as necessary.

Having worked with CLD families for the last eleven years, and being a mother of two

SWD, I have the necessary skill set that allows me to learn more about their experiences and hear

their stories with respect and empathy. I also recognize that my own personal experience of the

SPED referral and IEP process means that I need to discipline myself so that I am hearing only

their experiences and stories and not sharing mine in a way that impacts their reflection. “All

researchers have biases. All people have biases, and most researchers work hard to recognize and

constrain hurtful biases” (Stake, 2010). Using my colleagues and peers to engage in discussions

about the transcripts, coding analysis, etc., is just one example of how I will promote

trustworthiness and rigor in my study. “Discussion provides opportunities not only to articulate

your internal thinking processes, but also to clarify your emergent ideas and possibly make new

insights about the data” (Saldana, 2015). Another strategy that I will employ is member
 15

checking. As a solo researcher for this study, I also plan on using member checking and

consulting with the participants of the study during the analysis phase of the study. Between my

peer review, member checks, and pre-coding, coding, and coding again, I aim to confirm my

findings with multiple collection methods and sources of data (observation meetings, interviews,

and a collection and study of artifacts).

Conclusion

The number of CLD students enrolling in public schools is on the rise. With this increase

of this unique student population, there has also been an increase in the number of CLD students

and families who are going through the SPED referral and IEP process.. Despite the amendments

made to IDEA in 2004 stating that all parents must be involved in their child's education plan

and placement, CLD parents continue to share their negative experiences with school personnel

during the SPED referral and IEP process. They have reported experiencing feelings of

inadequacy, lack of appropriate interpreters and translations, little to no support in navigate the

SPED program and service offerings, and alienation and being “othered” because of their

multilingualism. The purpose of my study is to better understand the narratives of CLD families

in Braintree Public Schools who have navigated the SPED referral and IEP process. I aim to

bring a voice to the families who have faced barriers during this difficult process and share how

their experiences have impacted their involvement in their child's educational planning.
 16

References

Artiles, Alfredo J., and Harry “Addressing the Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Student

Overrepresentation in Special Education: Guidelines for Parents.” Intervention in School

and Clinic, vol. 41, no. 4, 2006, pp. 228–32. Crossref,

doi:10.1177/10534512060410040501.

Braintree Public Schools Special Services Department.

www.braintreeschools.org/special-services. Accessed 14 Dec. 2020

“Chapter III—Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of

Education.” Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, sites.ed.gov/idea/regs. Accessed

15 Dec. 2020.

Cheatham, Gregory A., and Sumin Lim-Mullins. “Immigrant, Bilingual Parents of Students With

Disabilities: Positive Perceptions and Supportive Dialogue.” Intervention in School and

Clinic, vol. 54, no. 1, 2018, pp. 40–46. Crossref, doi:10.1177/1053451218762490.

DeMatthews, David E., et al. “Identification Problems: US Special Education Eligibility for

English Language Learners.” International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 68,

2014, pp. 27–34. Crossref, doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2014.08.002.

Hart, Juliet E., et al. “Facilitating Quality Language Interpretation for Families of Diverse

Students With Special Needs.” Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for

Children and Youth, vol. 56, no. 4, 2012, pp. 207–13. Crossref,

doi:10.1080/1045988x.2011.645910.

Lasky, Beth, and Belinda Dunnick Karge. “Involvement of Language Minority Parents of

Children with Disabilities in Their Child’s School Achievement.” Multicultural

Education, no. Spring, 2011, pp. 19–34.

 17

Lo, Lusa. “Demystifying the IEP Process for Diverse Parents of Children with Disabilities.”

TEACHING Exceptional Children, vol. 44, no. 3, 2012, pp. 14–20. Crossref,

doi:10.1177/004005991204400302.

Mueller, Tracy Gershwin, et al. “Latina Mothers’ Views of a Parent-to-Parent Support Group in

the Special Education System.” Research and Practice for Persons with Severe

Disabilities, vol. 34, no. 3–4, 2009, pp. 113–22. Crossref, doi:10.2511/rpsd.34.3-4.113.

Saldana, Johnny. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 3rd ed., SAGE Publications

Ltd, 2015.

Scott, Amy N., et al. “State Policy and Guidance for Identifying Learning Disabilities in

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students.” Learning Disability Quarterly, vol. 37,

no. 3, 2013, pp. 172–85. Crossref, doi:10.1177/0731948713507261.

Schon, Jacqueline, et al. “Contemporary Issues in the Assessment of Culturally and

Linguistically Diverse Learners.” Journal of Applied School Psychology, vol. 24, no. 2,

2008, pp. 163–89. Crossref, doi:10.1080/15377900802089395.

Stake, Robert. Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work. Illustrated, The Guilford Press,

2010.

Urtubey, L. Juliana. “Supporting Latinx Families in Special Education Decisions.” Educational

Leadership, Dec. 2019, pp. 40–45.

Woo Jung, Adrian. “Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and Barriers for Parents from

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds.” Multicultural Education, no. Spring,

2011, pp. 21–25.

18