1

2

3

4

5

based on analysis of 2007 Annual Performance Reports Strategies to improve Parent partnerships: 1. strong partnerships between PTI/community/parents groups = financial commitments/collaboration 2. Mentoring and family supports especially for CLD 3. Supportive climate 4. Tangible evidence the school and district staff believed in the importance of including parents/familes in decision-making & IEP meetings, Resources devoted to developing family friendly/supportive school climate -multi languages/culti-cultural approaches(p 97)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

MIXED METHOD: QUALITATIVE/QUANTITAVE Sample frame: The Arc of Northern Virginia Population: 2006 database of 1600 members/friends Census sample of 136 families with youth ages 14-22 years by June 30, 2006N= 61; Return rate of 45% Use of finite population correction factor (.56) to define standard error of mean & standard error of proportion

14

Individuals with intellectual disabilities desire a typical, quality life: inclusion, social integration, normal social roles, autonomy Distribution of knowledge, power, and control increases the likelihood of PSO that lead to improved quality of adult life Parents navigate between 3 processes to maintain well-being Parent participation includes political processes to advocate for improved social systems and services

15

16

Bureaucratic: For many -years of experience in navigating IDEA Now new laws (ADA, community Medicaid waiver, wait lists, mandate vs. eligibility) Teachers skepticism for SwID in achieving their PSO goals Professionals assessed skill levels seeking a fit between presumed and predefined skill sets and menu of programs offered as viable option Preselected options placed parents in dilemma of selecting compromises that were significantly different from original request = confrontational communication patterns Parents= high expectations/outcomes Staff= low (powerfully related to accomplishments in multiple domains), based on visions for children s future. Future full of promise=unrealistic described in terms of discrepancies and limitations Deficient people to be molded into situation-specific placements rather than as unique individuals to be matched to employment through person-centered preferences. Visions did not always materialize--resigned to reality of what was currently available Family: Single-parent households, poverty, least likely to be involved, School events luxury at too high a premium (out of district/travel/health) family stressors -health, social service systems constrain ability to participate fearful for adult children s future safety, health, and QoL with their focus on meting basic needs Status: Parents perceptions of child as adult vs. life long child self-determined choices by child/adult Parents as controlling wanting to improve situations that didn t need improving, rated themselves higher on life satisfaction than did their parents Parents difficulties in seeing child as adult when still required child-like care/needs, did not make milestones -- normalization issues

17

18

19

20

Point 3-schools did not anticipate students with disabilities to make progress on the same content standards as their grade-level general education peers; and therefore that schools did not provide these students access to the contexts through which those standards were addressed encompasses access to, involvement in, and progress on the general curriculum The incorporation of context, content, high expectations, and accountability measures supports the vision of students participating in and making progress on the general curriculum.

21

22

23

24

NCLB= No Child Left Behind IDEA= Individuals with Disabilities Education Act SwID= Student with Intellectual Disabilities

25

26

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.