Improving Parent Collaboration at IEP Meetings:
The Correlation to Various Subgroups
_______________________
A Dissertation
Presented to
The College of Graduate and Professional Studies
Department of Special Education
Slippery Rock University
Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania
______________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctorate of Special Education
_______________________
by
Jill A. Michaelson
October 2024
© Michaelson, 2024

Keywords: IEP meeting, collaboration, parent satisfaction, participation, intervention, IDEA

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Committee Chair: Dr. Ashlea Rineer-Hershey, Ph.D.
Associate Professor/Doctoral Program Coordinator
Slippery Rock University
Committee Member: Dr. Matthew J. Erickson, Ph.D.
Professor of Special Education
Slippery Rock University
Committee Member: Dr. Jessica Hall-Wirth, Ed.D.
Associate Professor of Special Education
Slippery Rock University

ii

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

iii

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

iv

ABSTRACT
An Individual Education Program (IEP) is a critical document that drives decisions about
educational support and services for students with a disability. It is imperative that parents have a
role in the development of their child’s IEP through a collaborative process. This study examines
the correlations between various subgroups and the level of satisfaction of a collaborative IEP
meeting. In this qualitative study, a digital survey is used to gain feedback from 29 parents of
students from preschool through twelfth grade receiving special education services. Findings
reveal that parents expressed overall satisfaction with the level of collaboration at IEP meetings
with relatively positive satisfactory ratings consistent through each survey question. Survey data
was then correlated with four subgroups; grade level, disability category, number of IEP
meetings attended, and race/ethnicity. Themes emerged from synthesizing the data specific to
four subgroups that included variations in the data. As part of the study, participants provided
suggestions for improving collaboration at IEP meetings. Parents expressed a desire for
improved communication, opportunity to provide feedback, and improved agenda for IEP
meetings. In contrast, some challenges were noted by some parents that limit parental
engagement. The importance of this data can potentially impact the effectiveness of IEP
meetings and improve student outcomes. A consideration for future research could explore the
impact of the recommended interventions, change of district policies, and generalization across
other school districts.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

v

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to parents of students with disabilities. Your patience,
courage, and perseverance are an inspiration. Please continue to advocate for your child and do
not forget the importance of putting forth continuous effort to build positive relationships with all
IEP team members. Also, please remember the significance of working collaboratively with a
focus on positive outcomes for your child.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my professors, committee members,
and the chair of my committee for all their guidance and expertise. I had the pleasure of
collaborating with many professionals with an exceptional amount of knowledge in the field of
special education. I am extremely grateful to my cohort members for their continuous
encouragement. I could not have completed this journey without the support of my husband and
two children. Their inspiration kept me motivated throughout the dissertation process.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... iv
DEDICATION .....................................................................................................................v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. vi
CHAPTER 1 ........................................................................................................................1
Rationale ......................................................................................................................... 2
Delimitations and Limitations ........................................................................................ 3
Significance of the Study ................................................................................................ 4
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................ 5
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 2 ........................................................................................................................8
Legal Requirements for a Collaborative Partnership during IEP Meetings ................... 8
Parent Experiences at IEP Meetings ............................................................................. 12
Barriers or Limitations that Impact Collaboration with Parents ................................... 14
Cultural Factors............................................................................................................. 15
Understanding Educational Processes and Jargon ........................................................ 18
Struggles with Communication .................................................................................... 19
Parent Dissatisfaction ................................................................................................... 21
CHAPTER 3 ......................................................................................................................27
Methodology ..................................................................................................................27
Participants.................................................................................................................... 28
Data Sources ................................................................................................................. 29
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 30
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 32

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

viii

Sharing Results with Stakeholders ............................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 4 ......................................................................................................................35
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................35
Participants.................................................................................................................... 36
Results and Findings ..................................................................................................... 36
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 38
Race/Ethnicity ............................................................................................................... 56
IEP Meetings Attended ................................................................................................. 57
Grade Level................................................................................................................... 59
Disability Category ....................................................................................................... 61
CHAPTER 5 ......................................................................................................................66
Findings and Interpretations ..........................................................................................68
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 78
Implications .................................................................................................................. 79
Recommendation on Further Research ......................................................................... 80
Reflection by the Researcher ........................................................................................ 81
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 83
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................84
APPENDIX A: TITLE OF APPENDIX A ........................................................................94
APPENDIX B: TITLE OF APPENDIX B ........................................................................99

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

ix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Response Rate for Survey Question 1 .............................................................................38
Table 2: Response Rate for Survey Question 2 .............................................................................39
Table 3: Response Rate for Survey Question 3 .............................................................................40
Table 4: Response Rate for Survey Question 4 .............................................................................41
Table 5: Response Rate for Survey Question 5 .............................................................................42
Table 6: Response Rate for Survey Question 6 .............................................................................43
Table 7: Response Rate for Survey Question 7 .............................................................................44
Table 8: Response Rate for Survey Question 8 .............................................................................45
Table 9: Response Rate for Survey Question 9 .............................................................................46
Table 11: Response Rate for Survey Question 10 .........................................................................50
Table 12: Response Rate for Survey Question 11 .........................................................................51
Table 13: Response Rate for Survey Question 12 .........................................................................53
Table 14: Demographics for race/ethnicity of 31 students ............................................................56
Table 15: The number of IEP meetings attended for 31 students of 29 parents ............................58
Table 16: Grade Level Distribution for 31 students of 29 parents ................................................60
Table 17: Demographics for Eligibility Categories for Special Education ...................................62
Table 18: Subgroup classifications for each participant and their child/children. .........................64

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

1

CHAPTER 1
When a student is identified as being eligible and entitled to special education services,
an Individual Education Program (IEP) is written. The complex plan includes support and
services designed to meet the individual needs of a student. Specific to legislation and as
required by the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA, 2004), parents are mandated members
of the IEP team. The language outlined in IDEA considers parent participation a key part of the
IEP development process. As an essential and mandatory member of the IEP team, parents play a
significant role in ensuring children with disabilities receive a free and appropriate education,
also known as FAPE (Wright, 2006). As a result, it is crucial parents participate in the process
with a collaborative team. Thus, compliance is assured from school districts by withholding
federal and state funding. Regardless of legal mandates and financial consequences,
unfortunately, there is limited research on parent collaboration at IEP meetings (Martin et at.,
2006). The rationale for this current survey is grounded in the diverse body of research. This is
highlighted in a quote from Sanderson (2023) study, “A whole section of the federal law is
devoted to parent participation in the IEP process. With the focus on parent participation, the IEP
process is meant to be a collaborative endeavor.”
It is critical to understand the struggles and barriers to participation at IEP meetings to
overcome limitations impacting the collaborative process. The ramifications of improving
collaboration at meetings can be instrumental. Consequently, interventions must be considered to
incorporate parents and provide opportunities for meaningful, active participation during IEP
meetings. The study aims to analyze the correlation between various subgroups and the level of
satisfaction with collaborative IEP meetings. The optimal goal is to gain a deeper understanding
of the factors influencing parent collaboration to improve parental understanding of the IEP

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

2

process, and ultimately provide appropriate explicit and systematic support and services that
students are entitled to. Another aspect of this study is to review past studies about interventions
and the impact of collaboration at IEP meetings. While previous research has examined the
perception of meeting participants, the implementation of various strategies and interventions,
and an analysis of member participants' roles and responsibilities continues to be limited.
Consequently, minimal research has been done to examine demographic information in relation
to collaborative IEP meetings.
Rationale
IEP meetings play a pivotal role in ensuring success for students with diverse learning
needs. The effectiveness of the plans significantly depends on the collaborative efforts and
communication among team members. The rationale for this study aims to address the relevant
and practical application of the findings. By examining parents’ experiences with collaborative
IEP meetings and identifying interventions, there is potential to impact student outcomes and
contribute to practical applications. The lack of awareness, language or cultural barriers, mistrust
of the educational system, personal challenges, and past experiences can impact collaborative
and inclusive practices during IEP meetings. Examining parents’ experiences leads to identifying
best practices for collaborative IEP meetings.
By addressing the identified research questions, the intent is to conclude meaningful
contributions from this study. Furthermore, there is limited research about effective meetings that
promote collaboration, but the current study expands past research. Ultimately, the research can
enhance outcomes for students with disabilities and shape organizational structures, inclusive
practices, and professional development initiatives.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

3

In summary, parent input and collaboration during IEP meetings continues to be a federal
mandate and is critical when making educational decisions that result in positive academic and
functional outcomes for students. Findings can guide professional development opportunities for
parents and staff, inform policy decisions, improve student achievement, and enhance best
practices of quality IEP development.
Based on the analysis of this problem and the need to understand ways to improve
collaboration and strengthen partnerships among stakeholders, the purpose and objectives of this
study results in five research questions. The following research questions are addressed in this
study:
1. What is the correlation between specific subgroups and the level of satisfaction with
collaborative IEP meetings?
1a. What is the correlation between the number of IEP meetings attended and the level of
satisfaction with collaborative IEP meetings?
1b. What is the correlation between ethnicity and the level of satisfaction with
collaborative IEP meetings?
1c. What is the correlation between the grade level of students and the level of
satisfaction with collaborative IEP meetings?
1d. What correlation is the eligibility category and satisfaction level with collaborative
IEP meetings?
2. What interventions were identified by parents for improved collaboration at IEP meetings?
Delimitations and Limitations
There is acknowledgement of potential delimitations and limitations with the current
study. The scope of the selected subgroups is intentionally narrowed to focus the research. The

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

4

specific topics lend themselves to developing meaningful insight. In addition, the study's
geographic location may not be comparable to larger or more diverse school districts. Also, there
could be limited depth or inaccurate answers that represent experiences and perspectives with
survey responses since in-person interviews have been excluded from this study. The sample size
of participants may be limited; however, it is not expected to affect how the findings are
generalized to other school districts. While it could be intriguing to include other subgroups in
the study, it is beyond the scope of the current study. Due to the nature of this study and the
specific focus, the potential delimitations and limitations do not out way the ability to draw
meaningful implications and relevant conclusions.
Significance of the Study
The study's significance on collaborative IEP meetings is enhancing the effectiveness of a
critical process in special education. (Yell Et Al., 2020). Participants in Mueller and Vick (2019)
study described IEP meetings as “...significantly flawed, broken, and contentious.” This study
aims to contribute to the development of compliant, comprehensive IEPs that address the diverse
needs of students with disabilities.
As in Choiseul-Praslin, Deardorff, and Yeager 2021 study, findings showed that the
mother’s perception of the IEP meeting can set the tone for future interactions and ultimately
affect the students’ progress. One purpose of Smith and Krieg (2022) study was to use the results
to inform educators on how to help parents be involved in the IEP process. As with this study,
the commonality of researchers is to improve student outcomes.
In addition, findings from the study can inform the development of policies and
guidelines related to IEP meetings and collaborative practices in special education (Yell Et Al.,
2020). Insights from the study can inform the design of professional development opportunities

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

5

for all members of an IEP team. By providing coaching, professional development opportunities,
and fostering collaborative conversations, it can be used to craft quality IEPs (Jozwik Et Al.
2018). The study's potential impact also employs robust methods and techniques to generalize
policies and practices throughout school districts.
While many previous studies provide valuable information on collaborative IEP
meetings, limited research synthesizes data from multiple subgroups to allow for correlating
themes. The commitment of the current study remains focused on supplementing the current
research and integrating references from existing research to support and provide evidence in a
broader context.
In summary, the study's significance is rooted in the potential to enhance the
effectiveness of IEP meetings through improved collaboration among all stakeholders. The study
can contribute to the efforts of improved outcomes and experiences that support the success of
students with disabilities.
Definition of Terms
Disability- A disability is a condition that significantly impacts a person’s ability to function.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)- IDEA is a federal law that ensures
students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education.

Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)- All eligible children with disabilities are entitled
to a free appropriate public education.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

6

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)- Children with disabilities are provided the opportunity
to be educated with peers in an educational setting with appropriate supports and
accommodations.

Individualized Education Program (IEP)- A document that outlines a plan of support and
services based on the individual needs of a student that qualifies for special education services.

Individualized Education Program Team- A group of individuals that include; the parents of a
child with a disability, the child, general education teacher, special education teacher, a member
that interprets evaluation results, related service providers, and a representative of the
educational agency.

Parent-The natural, adoptive, foster parent, or guardian of a child.

Samegoal – A documentation software used to generate educational forms and collect
educational and identifiable information. https://samegoal.com/sm/lp

Special Education- Specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of a child with a
disability.

Summary
The first chapter frames the problem addressed in this study, further provides a rationale,
and articulates the purpose for conducting this research. In addition, the first chapter includes
critical special education terms referred to in the following chapters. Furthermore, delimitations

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

7

and limitations of this qualitative study are mentioned. The intent of this current study is to
provide evidence that could prompt a review of current protocols, promote the implementation of
best practices at IEP meetings, create opportunities for parents and educators to reflect on their
own actions, and inspire a deeper consideration of the intent behind IDEA law. In addition, the
current study does not focus on proving or disproving current research but rather provides
contributions to emerging trends and themes to collaboration at IEP meetings. The rigorous
analysis yields implications that focus on positive outcomes for students.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

8

CHAPTER 2
Effective collaboration is critical to ensure the development of a comprehension IEP to
support student success. The purpose of highlighting current literature is to thoroughly assess the
complexity of collaborative IEP meetings and determine actionable interventions for enhancing
outcomes. Previous studies provide a foundation used to identify patterns and trends in the
historical background, legalities of IEP meetings, and factors influencing effective collaboration.
However, despite legal mandates and ethical standards in special education, there is limited
research on this topic. The analysis intends to contribute to the direction of emerging research
about collaboration during the IEP processes to ensure comprehensive outcomes for students
with disabilities.
The literature review is organized into four subsections. The first subsection, legal
requirements for collaboration with parents during IEP meetings, provides a brief overview of
the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), implementation of the Individualized
Education Program (IEP), and Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE). The second subsection,
parent experiences at IEP meetings, addresses the literature that relates to the views and
discernment of parents. The following section synthesizes current research on barriers that
impact collaboration with parents. The concluding section summarizes the current data on
interventions related to improving the level of parent collaboration at IEP meetings. By
evaluating the existing literature, the intent is to contribute new research regarding the
enhancement of collaboration with positive outcomes for students with disabilities.
Legal Requirements for a Collaborative Partnership during IEP Meetings
Special education is governed by legal requirements to ensure that students with
disabilities are provided appropriate services. The legal mandates secure the rights of students

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

9

with disabilities and guarantee access to educational opportunities that result in positive
outcomes for students. The understanding of legal implications, and the rights and
responsibilities of parents and educators is critical for promoting meaningful collaboration at IEP
meetings.
The evolution of special education is impacted by landmark cases that have led to current
procedures and best practices. Early special education services began in the 19th century with
programs especially for deafness, blindness, and mental retardation, (Wright 2006). Wright
further explains that early special education programs were private or residential with variation
in quality and availability. In 1953, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Brown
v. Board of Education that all children had the right to an equal educational opportunity without
segregation. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) addressed inequality
of educational opportunity for underprivileged children to help ensure that disadvantaged
students had access to quality education. Following in 1970, Congress enacted the Education of
the Handicapped Act (P.L. 91-230) with the intent for states to develop educational programs
and resources for students with disabilities. Wright explains that two cases were catalysts for
change; Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia due to their focus on
parent participation with educational placement decisions, means to resolve disputes, and
disciplining students with a disability. In 1975, Congress enacted Public Law 94-142 with the
intent that all children with disabilities had the right to an education and required states and local
agencies to be accountable for providing the educational services. This led to the development of
procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of children and their parents. This law has
been reauthorized several times, leading to the amended and renamed special education law.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

10

The fundamental principles of special education are guided by The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The cornerstone concepts include mandates that parents be
included as members of the team that develops the evaluation plan, determines eligibility, and
makes IEP decisions (Sec. 300.322). In addition, the findings of IDEA described problems with
over identification of minority children, mislabeling, and high dropout rates. The most recent
update was the attempt to align IDEA with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) to encompass
early intervention services, educator qualifications, private school, homeless, and highly mobile
students to receive services, resolution and dispute options, and access to instructional materials.
The IEP is a legal document required by the federal government and is designed for
driving educational decisions for students eligible for special education services. The defining
document holds school districts accountable for the provision of special education services and
supports (Ruppar, 2011). Parents must be included in the decision-making process throughout
the IEP meeting and viewed as equal partners in the process (Wright, 2006). One primary intent
of FAPE, a Free Appropriate Public Education for all children, is to ensure that students with
disabilities are provided the same education as general education students in the least restrictive
environment to the greatest extent possible. In addition, an IEP provides an eligible student
FAPE through specially designed instruction, goals, objectives, progress monitoring data,
supplementary aids and services, and accommodations. The IEP team must discuss all provisions
of FAPE to ensure appropriate support and services. IDEA recognizes the importance of parent
involvement and collaboration through the special education process and the requirement of
shared decision making between parents and schools. In Doug C. v. Hawaii, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Pave, 2023) stated that the schools are required to accommodate
parents to ensure their attendance and participation at meetings where services are discussed. As

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

11

part of the decision, the court stated, “Parental participation is key to the operation of the IDEA
for two reasons; Parents not only represent the best interest of their child in the IEP development
process; they also provided information about the child critical to developing a comprehensive
IEP and which only they are in the position to know.”
In an article by Losinski, Katsiyannis, White, and Wiseman (2015), various court cases
regarding disputes of parents were summarized with a conclusion that through legislative
provision and related hearings, parents play a critical role in ensuring that a child with a
disability is not denied FAPE. The review of the hearing decisions also highlighted the need for a
careful examination of the provisions of IDEA. In a study about judicial vulnerability, Zirkel and
Heetrick (2017) analyzed 132 judicial decisions concerning students with disabilities. Parent
participation was the most frequent violation with the implications of the study for school
districts to consider current policies and practices.
Countless research about IEP meetings and collaboration also includes relevance to
federal laws governing special education. Understanding the intricate correlation between federal
statutes and practical application within a collaborative IEP process leads to enhancing the
relevance and impact of the research findings. In addition, understanding legal implications
contributes to interpretation and implication of research within a broader scope.
In conclusion, the intent of FAPE and IDEA embodies the fundamental principles of
special education. These mandates require parents to be involved in the IEP process to ensure
collaboration and comprehensive planning. Collaboration at IEP meetings is guided by legal
requirements that prioritize shared decision making to meet the unique needs of students with
disabilities. The research findings and implications are directly impacted by the relevant laws

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

12

and regulations that account for ensuring students with disabilities receive appropriate support,
services, and accommodations.
Parent Experiences at IEP Meetings
Experiences of parent involvement in the IEP development and decision-making process
provides insights on the collaborative process. Recent studies have focused on perception of the
participants at IEP meetings and the overall IEP experience. Research on parent perception of
IEP meetings also includes a spectrum of factors. Parent participation appears to be a substantial
portion of the studies with a focus on understanding perception of an effective IEP meeting and
the value of a collaborative process.
Reiman, Beck, Coppola, and Egnile (2010) literature review includes the findings from
ten studies on the experiences and perceptions of parents related to the IEP process. Of the ten
studies, only one, Fish (2008) yielded positive outcomes with most of the participants reporting
their overall IEP experience was positive and believed educators valued their input and treated
them with respect. However, Fish did acknowledge that of fifty-one participants, most were
middle to upper middle class and 80% were white. Fish (2006) shared that all participants stated
that their initial IEP experience had been negative. Most indicated they had been treated badly,
however, parents reported being treated more respectfully when an advocate attended the
meeting. A comparable result was presented in Stoner et al. (2005) study with all participants
describing the initial meetings as confusing. Another insight emerged from Lo (2008) when
overall parents felt frustrated about staff arriving late and leaving early, the interpreters did not
know common special education terms, and parents did not feel valued or welcomed.
A similar theme emerged from Salembier and Furney (2016) of thirty-six parents that
attended an IEP meeting. During a phone interview, 50% of parents described their level of

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

13

participation as less than other team members. Using a Likert scale, 24% did not like their level
of participation, with 6% really did not like their level. Participation and collaboration are
interrelated concepts as participation is essential to improve collaboration.
In Sanderson and Rojas (2022) study, 646 survey responses of parents of students with
disabilities were analyzed, resulting in emerging key themes relating to parent perception. First,
parents believed that schools should promote an active role of students in a variety of ways
throughout the IEP process. The second finding indicated parents feel critical changes are needed
for students to actively participate in meetings. In addition, it was concluded that parents’ own
experiences with the IEP process can impact their views. Then in 2023 Sanderson examined
parent experiences during IEP meetings and advised parents of other families participating in the
IEP process. Of the 803 responses, 15% were categorized as positive with collaboration,
participation, and positive experiences as key themes. Over half of the responses described
negative IEP meeting experiences due to lack of collaboration, parents feeling disregarded, and
predetermined plans, perception of low expectations by team members, no opportunities for
inclusion, unprofessional behavior, uniformed school professionals, and the denial of services.
In a study by Zagona, Millerm, Kurth, and Love (2019) key themes emerged regarding
parents’ perspective on special education services. Eighteen parents of children with an
intellectual or developmental disability had mixed experiences reaching agreement with school
teams and described instances in which services were not implemented as agreed upon by the
team. While some parents described instances in which they were able to reach an agreement
with school, others described struggles with their desired outcomes. Some parents spoke highly
of teachers, service, and support while other parents described negative experiences with the

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

14

implementation of special education services and lack of agreed upon implementation of
documented supports.
The recommendations included in the literature review are consistent between numerous
studies; training for educators and parents, improved communication, and explanation to parents,
providing a more comfortable environment for meetings, and including administrators as
meeting participants. Miles-Bonar (2002) also suggested administrators mandate that the
appropriate personnel are present at IEP meetings, substitutes be provided so teachers can attend,
professional development is offered, and the environment, both physically and emotionally, is
comfortable and conducive to decision making.
Studies on parental experiences at IEP meetings reveal themes of mixed emotions,
inconsistencies with feelings of empowerment, and active engagement. Conversely, challenges
emerged with the lack of trust, poor communication of team members, and insufficient
understanding. Overall, it can be suggested there is a need for further attention to the provision of
IDEA for listening to parent input throughout the process.
Barriers or Limitations that Impact Collaboration with Parents
Various barriers impede progress and efficacy at IEP meetings. The research review will
touch on differing perspectives, misinterpretations, conflicting priorities, and lack of effective
communication. Literature regarding limitations with parent participation during IEP meetings
indicate converging themes which include difficulties with understanding and knowledge of
education jargon, laws, and best practices and differences in perspective between parents and
school staff. Overcoming the barriers among stakeholders involved in the IEP process will
impact meaningful collaboration and positive student outcomes.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

15

Cultural Factors
Investigating the research on the impact of cultural factors at IEP meetings reveals
negative outcomes, recommendations for fostering inclusive and equitable IEP meetings, and
strategies to empower culturally diverse parents in the educational process. Recognizing and
respecting cultural values, dynamics, and attitudes are key themes emerging from the studies on
cultural factors.
Dabkiwksi's research conducted in 2004 noted the importance of understanding cultural
values as a determining factor in IEP effectiveness. His findings concluded that parents had not
felt a part of the IEP process and suggested school teams not only focus on compliance but rather
effectiveness of the meeting process. In addition, parents are unsure how they should be involved
in the IEP process. Cho and Gannotti (2005) research reported that Korean American parents’
felt marginalized with their concerns and comments discounted. In addition, the IEP meeting can
often be filled with the use of acronyms and educational terminology research confirms that
parents feel that decisions were made about their child before the meeting. This outcome is
collaborated by Jung (2011). Gajar and Matuszny (2012) explained that a sizable percentage of
Native American parents indicated more communication with school staff would increase their
involvement and collaboration in the IEP process. Additionally, one- third of urban African
Americans families in Zionts, Zionts, Harrison, and Bellinger (2003) study reported that they did
not feel the school treated them as collaborators partners.
Lo concluded in a 2009 study that 41% of students receiving special education services
are culturally diverse, yet only 14% of special education teachers are from diverse cultures.
Subsequently, the lack of cultural diversity with special education teachers compared to parents
also leads to a cultural barrier during IEP meetings. In Salas (2004) study, ten Mexican

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

16

American parents reported the language barrier was problematic, they felt isolated, and were
often not heard by school staff. One parent shared her observation of the school staff being
disrespectful and repeatedly looking at the clock.
Rossetti stated in his 2017 study, “To bring about change in culturally responsive
collaboration, teachers should begin by examining their own cultural beliefs and experiences.”
He explained key action steps for educators for improving culturally responsive collaborative
partnerships with culturally and linguistically diverse families. It was concluded that families
that had the means to hire an advocate typically see the desired outcome. Data also showed a
need for teachers to analyze the quality and quantity of interactions with diverse families.
Tamzarian, Menzies, and Ricci (2012) made recommendations for school districts to
consider an empathetic approach to improved communication in the IEP process for
linguistically diverse parents. Recommendations include the need for a reflective tool to promote
collaborative relationships, allowing opportunities for all team members to share concerns, an
improved awareness of cultural elements that impede effective communication, and awareness of
verbal and non-verbal communication styles. In 2009, Lo made additional recommendations for
improving the IEP process, including giving parents information in their primary language,
taking the time to determine the correct dialect, and locating a qualified interpreter.
In summary, there is no shortage of evidence of negative outcomes, derogatory feedback,
and poor IEP experiences. However, research also includes intervention for improving the parent
experiences at IEP meetings. There is also a need for widespread awareness for improved family
engagement with culturally diverse families. Assorted studies have shown that developing
culturally responsive partnerships with culturally diverse families helps to improve the
effectiveness of the IEP process and supports positive outcomes for students.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

17

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

18

Understanding Educational Processes and Jargon
The use of educational jargon by educators during IEP meetings can further marginalize
the collaborative process by creating an environment that limits contributions. The synthesizing
of research on this topic presents evidence of negative impacts during IEP meetings, particularly
for parents who may not be familiar with specialized education terminology.
The lack of parent understanding of the special education process and the lack of
understanding due to the use of jargon impacted the perceived effectiveness of the process.
Emerging themes included respect for parents, comfort, staff presence, parents feeling excluded
or marginalized, and disempowered to unable to effectively advocate for their child’s needs
(Miles-Bonart, 2002). At the time, Miles-Bonart was the first to investigate multiple variables
that relate to parent’s satisfaction with IEP meetings. The recommendations included in the study
are consistent with similar studies; training for educators and parents, improved communication,
and explanation to parents, providing a more comfortable environment for meetings, and
included administrators as meeting participants.
Parents are entitled to a copy of procedural safeguards that includes rights and protections
that are designed so parents are fully informed and involved in the special education process.
Burke explained in her 2013 research that the procedural safeguards reading level is remarkably
high, causing the document to be inaccessible to many parents. “When reviewing procedural
safeguard documents across the country, 6% scored at the high school reading level, 55% at the
college reading level, and 39% at the graduate school reading level” (Burke 2013).
Deciphering educational jargon and understanding special education procedures and
policies can be challenging enough to effectively collaborate and make informed decisions

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

19

during an IEP meeting. To foster a more inclusive meeting atmosphere, using clear, concise
language that is easily understandable by all participants.
Struggles with Communication
Communication struggles are another identified barrier that impacts the collaborative IEP
process due to the complexity of topics, the dynamics of participants, difference in perspectives,
and emotional responses. As explained in Burke (2014) study, parents felt unable to express their
discontent with educational services at IEP meetings. As a result, the feeling of inadequacy
causes parents difficulty with communicating their questions and needs at IEP meetings.
The purpose of the study by Kurth, McQuestion, Ruppar, Toews, Johnston, and McCabe
(2019) was to analyze the correlation between IEPs written for students with intellectual and
developmental disabilities, concerns raised during IEP meetings, and the evidence that parent
concerns and priorities are reflected in the goals and services. The study was designed to identify
how much parent concerns were communicated and then translated into the content found on the
IEPs. In another study, 137 participated in an interview, emphasizing the importance of
communication to positive partnerships. In addition, emerging themes from the open-ended
questions regarding collaboration included quality of communication, respectfulness of all team
members, and quantity of communication among all members (Blue-Banning et a, 2004). A
notable quote from the study, family members stressed, “Communication should be honest and
open, with no hidden information and no candy-coating of bad news.”
Another notable factor is the lack of training on various components and dynamics of
communication and collaboration that may not be addressed in teacher education programs.
Welch (1998) suggests the development of courses and field experiences that implicitly and
explicitly support the understanding of collaboration and best practices. In addition,

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

20

administrators, parents, general education teachers, special equation teachers, and related service
providers must work together to develop organization structures that enhance collaborative
interactions and practices. These steps are intended to foster improved communication and
collaboration with parents.
Communication is the process of sharing information and feelings. “At IEP meetings, up
to 80% of communication is nonverbal and includes such things as facial expressions, gestures,
posture, or body position,” as documented in a 2001 article by Lytle and Bordan. Meeting
climate and tone established by IEP team members influences the effectiveness of
communication and parent participation (Dabkowski, 2004). The article, “Six Things to Never
Say or Hear During an IEP Meeting,” provides evidence to support Dabkowski’s research. The
article summarizes current research and details IDEA requirements in correlation to six case
vignettes that include statements from parents and educators during IEP meetings. Authors
include suggested responses should educators encounter similar situations. One vignette focused
on the need for fruitful discussion with the recommendation of allowing enough time for
meetings, refrain from completing forms before parent input, and provide parents a draft of goals
and objectives before the meeting.
Communication challenges are of great significance and may result in an ineffective
meeting. Acknowledging and addressing barriers with communication is pivotal for an effective
IEP meeting. Recognizing the intricate communication obstacles empowers team members to
navigate the complexities of developing a comprehensive IEP using a shared decision-making
process.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

21

Parent Dissatisfaction
Parent dissatisfaction at IEP meetings is a dynamic that burdens the education journey of
children with disabilities. Such dissatisfaction emerges as tension, frustration, and differing
expectations. Unfortunately, the outcome impacts the decision-making process of meeting the
individual needs of students with learning differences.
In Fish’s 2006 study, data was gathered from the perception of parents of children with
autism on their experiences during IEP meetings and their input on measures that school districts
can take to improve the level of collaboration and contributions. Fish’s goal was to determine
factors that contributed to the belief of parents that their children were not being properly
serviced through the IEP process. Fish was also interested in gathering input regarding measures
both parents and educators can take to improve IEP meetings. All the participants stated that the
overall IEP experience had been negative, the views and implementation of best practices from
the educators were contradictory, and they did not agree that their children were provided proper
instruction and service. Five of the seven responses noted a disagreement between parents and
educators regarding appropriate service, lack of transition and related service, and agreed that
better instruction could be provided in the general education setting. In addition, parents
reported, as part of Lo (2008) study, frustration with taking time off work to attend meetings,
while some did not earn pay when they missed work.
Childre and Chamber (2005) investigated the perception of six families with experiences
at IEP meetings, which included feedback as not being active participants but rather listening to
the information being shared. The authors noted the problem of completing prepared forms and
setting predetermined goals because of the impact on participation. Similar parental feedback
was provided in Childre and Chamber’s 2005 study. Parents' consensus viewed their

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

22

participation as more listening than contributions and indicated low collaboration and problem
solving. During Fish’s 2006 interviews to obtain information on parent perception, most of the
participants experienced negative treatment and were accused by other team members of being
unreasonable.
Fish (2006) concurred with Stoner et al with similar feedback from participants stating
that the IEP experience was negative with most stating they had been treated badly by another
member of the IEP team. The words unreasonable, intimidated, and disrespectful were included
in the findings. Furthermore, participants had a different response when an advocate attended the
IEP meeting. A positive outcome was noted that the relations between parents and other team
members strengthened over time with a stronger awareness and understanding of the IEP
process. An agreement presented in Goldstein’s study was the need for systematic training for
parents on how to fill their role and responsibilities associated with IEP involvement.
Dabkowski explained in her 2006 article, the meeting environment impacts effective
contributions from parents, comfort levels, and is influenced by climate and tone.
Recommendations include providing a formal, welcoming meeting environment, deliberate
arrangement of seating to establish a sense of equity and collaboration, and school team
members sitting beside the parent to remove both physical and psychological distance.
In closing, addressing parental dissatisfaction at IEP meetings requires the effort of all
stakeholders. Recognizing the need for stronger partnerships, open communication, the
willingness to implement meaningful procedural changes, and updates to the physical
environment is needed to improve the IEP process. Creating a more inclusive and supportive
environment will forge a stronger partnership resulting in positive outcomes for students with
disabilities.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

23

Interventions to Support Collaboration during IEP Meetings
Students identified as having a disability have an increased need for all members of their
IEP team to work collaboratively for enhanced educational decision making. A school and
family partnership are a critical component. A review of current literature shows limited studies
on effective ways to improve parent participation at IEP meetings. Some of these interventions
include premeeting, parent and staff training, strategies to improve teacher participation,
establishing procedures for ensuring legal compliance, and reflection opportunities for team
members. While various research suggests the benefit of multiple interventions, more research is
needed to fully understand their effectiveness.
Sanderson and Goldman (2021) are the first to provide insight into IEP meeting
involvement for students across all grade levels. The results helped to predict factors that impact
participation. Recommendations from the study include increasing the attendance of younger
students so they become familiar with the IEP process and can practice self-determination skills.
Implications of the study suggest the importance of training, choosing a model for a more
collaborative approach, and encouraging the partnership between parents and teachers.
Goldman and Burke (2017) explained that parents who attended IEP meetings with an
advocate made significantly more contributions. The frequency of parent contributions did not
increase when a conference or phone call took place prior to the IEP meeting. No significant
differences were found when parents attended an hour of parent training prior to the IEP
meeting. However, data showed a significantly higher level of parent participation when they
attended a training session specific to joint decisions and instructional methods. Parents given an
instructional packet with individual explanations of the information displayed higher

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

24

participation at IEP meetings. There were no significant outcomes for parents that were given
access to an informational video.
It was recommended a checklist be used outlining seven steps to facilitate collaboration
with parents and supporting actions (Friend, 2018). The purpose is to encourage collaboration
before, during, and after the completion of parent coaching to improve relations and child
outcomes (Avendano, 2020). While the article did not provide evidence of positive outcomes
from the intervention, it did include numerous references to previous studies and suggestions on
implementing parent coaching and applications of collaborative practices.
When synthesizing the data from studies from 1980-2010, the instruction provided to
parents prior to the IEP, whether training, handouts, or videos showed some effect on the
frequency and duration of parent comments at meetings. Goldman and Burke noted the outcomes
were not significant. Survey results from Jones and Gansle (2010) indicated that parents,
teachers, and administrators all felt the mini conference was helpful in preparing for an IEP
meeting. Following a script and concise format helps to ensure relevant information is discussed
and serves as a favorable response in building collaboration and improving communication with
parents. Similar interventions are also included in a 2009 article by Mueller which include
establishing ground rules to serve as reminders for expected participant behavior, identification
of each team member's goal prior to the meeting, creating an agenda to create focus with
allocated time for each item, and consideration for the meeting environment to reduce potential
intimidation.
Mendez and Swick (2018) showed promising results for the implementation of online
resources, community events, and a Parent Ambassador program. While the study was only
conducted in Title 1 middle schools, the authors express a promise for generalization. Esquivel,

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

25

Ryan, and Bonner (2008), recommend professionals improve parents’ experiences at IEP
meetings by sharing knowledge of the child by including information about unique interests,
strengths, and weaknesses.
In conclusion, there are important implications for research that promotes positive
outcomes for students with disabilities, improves relationships between team members, supports
effective collaboration, and determines areas for professional development for all team members.
As a result, through this systematic literature review, key themes emerged. Research on
collaborative IEP meetings that comply with legal requirements and result in meaningful IEPs
that address unique, individual needs continues to be an essential area of study. Based on the
culmination of information, there is justification to pursue additional research on the level of
collaboration and IEP meetings and the correlation between various subgroups. As a result,
limited research on the correlation to specific subgroups and a collaborative IEP process is
justification for the current study. The following research questions will be addressed in this
study.
1. What is the correlation between specific subgroups and the level of satisfaction with
collaborative IEP meetings?
1a. What is the correlation between the number of IEP meetings attended and the level of
satisfaction with collaborative IEP meetings?
1b. What is the correlation between ethnicity and the level of satisfaction with
collaborative IEP meetings?
1c. What is the correlation between the grade level of students and the level of
satisfaction with collaborative IEP meetings??

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

26

1d. What is the correlation between the eligibility category for special education and the
level of satisfaction with collaborative IEP meetings?
2. What interventions were identified by parents for improved collaboration at IEP meetings?
In summary, the literature review presented in this chapter highlights the critical need for
collaborative IEP meetings. In addition, studies are summarized to understand specific
interventions that impact the level of collaboration and the level of satisfaction by parents of
children eligible for special education services. However, the presented literature highlights gaps
that justify the need for future research.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

27

CHAPTER 3
The qualitative study involves analyzing the data of various subgroups in correlation to
the responses provided from a digital survey. Through the examination of participants'
perspectives and diverse viewpoints, the research will seek to interpret trends and themes that
contribute to the understanding of collaborative IEP meetings. The conclusions provide insights
on the dynamics, processes, and outcomes associated with a collaborative IEP meeting. The
chapter's intent is to outline the methodical steps, provide details of the participants, review of
the data collection procedures, and examine and interpret the data.
Methodology
This qualitative study aims to synthesize data from parents' experiences and perceptions
of collaborative IEP meetings and analyze broad patterns that relate to student outcomes. The
data collection tool is an online survey sent to 187 parents of students from preschool aged
through twelfth grade with an IEP. Survey responses were collected from May 1, 2024, to May
31, 2024.
Questions are designed to allow parents to reflect on their experiences with collaborative
IEP meetings. The generated survey uses Google Forms platform containing twelve questions
constructed to gather specific information to then be correlated with the various subgroups of
ethnicity, number of IEP meetings attended, eligibility category, and grade level. Participants
respond to nine questions with a Likert scale to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement.
Two items are ranking questions, asking participants to respond with their preferred responses.
The last question is open-ended, requesting participants to respond without predetermined
choices. Determining identification for the four subgroups is made using data from the

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

28

registration process and educational information from Samegoal, an online program which is
only accessed with an assigned login and password.
Participants
Data collection takes place at Ottawa Hills Local Schools. Ottawa Hills Local School
district is in Ottawa Hills, Ohio, a village in northwest Ohio, boarding the University of Toledo.
Approximately 1,100 students attend Ottawa Hills Local Schools. The district has been
consistently rated one of the top districts in Ohio and the nation. Over the last few years, the
district has experienced a 15 percent increase in enrollments and an increasingly diverse student
body that has more nuanced educational needs.
The student population at Ottawa Hills Local Schools has growing diversity statistics
with 33 parents that report African American as their ethnicity, 763 Caucasian, 40
Hispanic/Latino, 158 Asian, 2 American Indian, and 36 Multiracial. Furthermore, 94 of students
qualify for special education services in ten eligibility categories as defined by the Ohio
Department of Education. The range of disabilities included learning disabilities, cognitive
disabilities, emotional disturbance, Other Health Impairment, Multiple Disabilities, Speech and
Language Disorder, Autism, and Traumatic Brain Injury.
Participants are recruited through an email invitation along with a link to an online
survey. Surveys are sent to 183 parents of 98 students.
•

26 parents/guardians of 13 preschool aged students.

•

82 parents/guardians of 41elementary aged students in grades K-6.

•

75 parents/guardians of 38 junior, senior high students in grades 7-12.
The participants requested to complete the digital survey received information about the

study, indication the study is voluntary in nature, and to be completed in the comfort of their

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

29

home or preferred location. Online surveys are emailed to parents of students from preschool
through twelfth grade that have been identified as a student with a disability and eligible for
special education services as defined by Child Find and IDEA.
Determining identification for the four subgroups was made using data from the
registration process and educational information from Samegoal, an online program which is
only accessed with an assigned login and password. Subgroups include ethnicity, number of IEP
meetings attended, eligibility category, and grade level.
The research timeline details key stages from submissions to the closing date with
intermediate dates throughout the period. The outline provides the roadmap for each stage of
research to ensure optimal response rate within the designated end date.
1. Submission for IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval during April 2024.
2. Introduction, recruitment information, and online survey link emailed to potential
participants by May 1, 2024.
3. Email recruitment reminders emailed at two and four weeks following the initial
invitation: May 14 and 28, 2024.
4. Information and a link to the online survey will be included in the district's May
newsletter.
5. A letter is mailed to participants that have yet to respond.
6. Final email reminder sent a week prior to closing the data collection window on May 31,
2024.
Data Sources
The study includes primary and secondary sources to address the research questions. The
online survey offers direct insight and original perspectives into the investigation. Secondary

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

30

data consist of official records from the enrollment process and data sets from Samegoal.
Samegoal is a password protected software program designed to assist school districts with
developing required and optional special education, Section 504, Gifted Education, English
Learners, and Literacy Interventions forms published by each state department of education.
Samegoal stores all documents from multiple school years and provides deadline tracking to
assist with compliance. In addition, scholarly literature supplements the research with a review
of broader trends and historical perspectives.
Data Analysis
Description and thematic analysis are the qualitative approaches used to present, analyze,
and critique the data. Using descriptive and thematic analysis, the goal is to identify patterns in
the data that convey meaningful outcomes. Both approaches allow for a qualitative analysis of
the data while at the same time quantifying the information (Vaismoradi et al., 2013).
Descriptive analysis compares data across time and with different identified subgroups. Also, the
intent is to identify patterns in the data that have not previously emerged with the hope of
identifying needs and solutions to improve educational outcomes for students with disabilities.
Thematic Analysis is used to summarize, identify, and interpret the qualitative data as
guided by the research questions. The intent of the open-ended question is to allow parents to
express their thoughts and insights not addressed in the survey. After the online survey is
completed, the thematic analysis method is used to identify patterns and themes within the data
collected. The method was chosen because of the valuable insight into participants' experiences
and perspectives. Thematic analysis is a flexible method tailored to the specific research
questions and objectives of the study (Guerrero et al., 2023). Xu and Zammit (2020) suggested a
six-step process that was based on Braun and Clarke’s (2006) approach.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

31

The six steps of thematic analyses transform raw data into central themes. The following steps
are used to effectively analyze the qualitative data. In addition, the process provides concise
identification of meaningful patterns.
1. Review responses and identify any potential errors.
2. Initial codes are generated from one data source.
3. Review of responses to search for themes. Themes are identified by sorting and collated
to form the overarching themes.
4. Key phrases and themes are identified based on responses from participants. Then a
systematic method is used to organize the responses into separate tables. Frequency of
responses is also included on each table. Each question is analyzed, highlighting each
response, and looking for redundancy, and frequency of themes from the extended
responses. The identified themes are reviewed for meaningful patterns that relate to the
research questions.
5. Each theme is defined and named. Interpretations and comparing of responses based on
subgroups allows for identifying patterns and relationships.
6. A description of the analysis, themes, and supporting evidence included in Chapters 4
and 5.
In addition, the descriptive statistical method is used to summarize the key features of the
datasets to provide a clear overview of the data. The method was chosen to make comparisons
between distinct groups, identify patterns and trends, and provide thoughts on the distribution of
data.
As described by Loeb et al., (2017) descriptive analysis is used to identify patterns in data
to answer questions about who, what, where, when, and to what extent or facilitates answering

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

32

why and why not. In addition, Loeb recommended descriptive analysis to help with aspects of
planning and targeting interventions. Measures of central tendency such as mean, median, and
mode provide comprehensive statistical descriptions. The following steps are used to organize
and present the data:
1. Participants' responses to questions 1-9 are entered into a spreadsheet.
2. Codes are collated based on similarities and are provided in Table 4.1.
3. The Likert scale is converted to numerical values.
a. strongly agree-1
b. agree-2
c. neutral-3
d. disagree-4
e. strongly disagree-5
Questions 10 and 11 do not use a Likert scale, but rather are ranking questions, asking
participants to respond with their preferred responses. Numerical value is assigned to determine
the frequency of the responses.
Limitations
Studying collaboration at IEP meetings may encounter some limitations. A few parents
completing the survey from one school district in a small geographic region are limited in
demographics, geographic location, and sample size. Hence, the contextual factor and cultural
differences can influence the dynamics of collaboration at IEP meetings. Overall, the limited
variability in the subgroups should also be noted.
Another limitation is the time restraint to complete the digital survey. Six weeks could
restrict the collected data process. The selection of participants only includes individuals willing

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

33

to participate. While obvious, selection bias could exist. Furthermore, some parents that
participate in the survey may prefer the questions in their native language.
As with many studies, ethical considerations are made. There is a chance participants are
not fully forthcoming when responding to the extended response questions of the Google survey.
Since the survey is not confidential there could be a limit on the depth of information provided.
This potentially could affect the quality of the data collected.
Since the researcher is an employee of the district, bias could unintentionally be present.
Due to the researcher’s own perspectives and interactions with the participants, an awareness of
potential bias could potentially reduce the risk. More specifically, families who are already
unhappy with their child’s education or have unmet expectations can lead to preconceived native
opinions or cause anchoring bias.
Recognizing these biases is important when analyzing the feedback from parents. Despite
the limitations of research on collaboration, the current study shows promising results that could
impact future research and relevant action steps. There is evidence to believe the results could
provide valuable insight to the evolution of research on collaboration at IEP meetings.
Sharing Results with Stakeholders
The goal of sharing the study's findings with stakeholders is to ensure effective
dissemination of the results. A presentation will be prepared with an outline, key findings, and
implications of the dissertation at an Ottawa Hills fall board meeting.
In conclusion, Chapter 3 details the qualitative study on the dynamics of collaboration
within IEP meetings. Analyzing the relationship between different subgroups and levels of
collaboration will hopefully reveal specific patterns and themes. It has become evident that
equitable collaboration is essential for fostering supportive collaborative processes. Moving

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

34

forward, chapter 4 includes the results and findings of the study. In addition, the chapter also
includes interpretations and implications derived from the investigation.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

35

CHAPTER 4

This qualitative study provides insight into the correlation between the level of
satisfaction with collaborative IEP meetings and various subgroups. Through the detailed tables
and data analysis of survey questions, the qualitative information is interpreted for themes,
recurring patterns, and underlying meanings and relationships. The findings are organized with
examination of each survey question separately with later emphasis on critical themes. The goal
is to explicitly show the data collected and provide a comprehension view of the responses. Key
findings from each question are listed and summarized with a focus on significant trends and
patterns. In addition, findings are discussed in relation to the research questions. A summary of
results and findings provides evidence, explanation of the findings, insight to the focused
research questions, and an analysis of the responses from parents. Transitioning to Chapter 5, the
goal is to provide detailed exploration of the research findings, uncover new insights, and
provide contributions to the field of special education.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics are presented in percentages which are detailed below and later
interpreted to understand the distribution of responses to the survey questions. The percentages
correspond to the various categories of strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly
disagree. Key words that relate to the research questions are assigned a code to organize the
extended response. The goal is to encapsulate the various experiences, perceptions, and
recommendations of each participant. The data is viewed in the following tables and correlated
to each research question to ultimately lead to discovery of useful information and relevant
conclusions that support decision making that results in positive outcomes for students with
disabilities.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

36

Participants
Twenty-nine parents of students that receive special education services volunteered to
participate in the study. The inclusionary factors to participate in the survey is a child identified
as having a disability as defined by IDEA, in preschool through twelve grades during the 20232024 school year and enrolled in the participating school district. No exclusionary criteria were
noted. Out of the 29 participants, one couple with a high school student completed the survey.
The imbalanced percent of surveys were completed by mothers (83%) with (17%) percents
completed by fathers. Of the parents that responded, (7%) percent have multiple children
receiving special education services. Geographically, all participants live in the same suburban
community, with their children attending the same local school district. No additional
characteristics of the participants are worth noting.
Results and Findings
Understanding parents’ level of satisfaction of collaborative IEP meetings is critical
before correlating the data to various subgroups. This ensures the analyses reflect the perceptions
and experiences of participants. The grasp on the level of satisfaction consequently leads to
identifying specific areas needing improvements, tailored interventions, and addressing trends
among the various subgroups. By comprehending their satisfaction levels, it allows for
addressing disparities and themes among the different subgroups. This critical interpretation of
results and findings is found in Chapter 5.
To determine the level of satisfaction, survey questions were crafted to cover various
aspects of IEP meeting experiences such as understanding of roles, communications,
organization of the meeting, and meeting outcomes. The survey responses were presented with a
Likert scale with answer choices; strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

37

Strongly agree was chosen with the highest percentage of responses ranging from 55%-69% on
questions one through nine while agree was chosen 24%-31%. Subsequently, the range for the
selection of neutral and disagree is between zero and seven percent. Strongly disagree was
chosen by one participant as an answer choice on the Google survey. Neutral or negative
responses have a substantially lower rate of 14%. It can be concluded that the overall level of
satisfaction with collaborative IEP meetings is positive. However, it is important to highlight that
while a high number of positive responses are noted, further analysis of the data may reveal
specific areas of improvement.
The individual survey responses totaling 261 selections for questions 1-9 on the Google
survey are included in Table 10. The majority of responses, 157 in total, choose strongly agree.
Five participants did not choose strongly agree in response to any of the nine questions, while
twenty-four participants choose it a minimum of once. In contrast, thirteen respondents selected
strongly agree as an answer choice for all nine questions. This is followed by 86 respondents
selecting agree for an answer choice. Ten participants did not select agree for any answer choice.
A smaller portion opted for the answer choice of neutral twelve times. Disagree was chosen five
times with strongly disagree chosen once. As a minority view, three individuals selected disagree
or strongly disagree as an answer choice. It should be noted that of the three individuals, two
were part of the same nuclear family. Through the aggregated data, a measure of parental
satisfaction emerges.
Details of the survey questions are included below and accompanied by the distribution
of responses and the frequency of each answer choice on the Likert scale. In addition, a
correlating table is included below each narrative.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

38

Research Questions
Question 1: I am a valued IEP team member during my child's IEP meeting.
The distribution of responses ranged from 0% to 59% with most parents (59%) strongly
believing to be a valued member of their child’s IEP team. This distribution shows a substantial
majority of responses. Meanwhile, a smaller portion (34%) responded with agreement, and an
even smaller group (7%) indicated a neutral response. There is an absence of any participants
that disagree (0%) and strongly disagree (0%). Overall, this data shows the distribution of
response for question one.
Table 1: Response Rate for Survey Question 1
_____________________________________________________________________________
Rating

Response Rate
Percentage
n
%
_____________________________________________________________________________
I am a valued IEP team member during my child's IEP meeting.
Strongly Agree
17
59%
Agree
10
34%
Neutral
2
7%
Disagree
0
0%
Strongly Disagree
0
0%

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

39

Question 2: I am encouraged to participate in my child's IEP meeting.
The distribution of responses ranged from 0% to 62% with most parents (62%) that
strongly agree to have been encouraged to participate in their child’s IEP meeting. This
distribution shows a substantial majority of responses. Meanwhile, a smaller portion (38%)
responded with agreement, and (0%) indicated a neutral response. There is an absence of any
participants that disagree (0%) or strongly disagree (0%). Overall, this data shows the
distribution of response for question two.
Table 2: Response Rate for Survey Question 2
_____________________________________________________________________________
Rating

Response Rate
Percentage
n
%
_____________________________________________________________________________
I am encouraged to participate in my child's IEP meeting.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

18
11
0
0
0

62%
38%
0%
0%
0%

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

40

Question 3: My child's school district makes sure I understand each section of the IEP
document.
The distribution of responses ranged from 0% to 69% with most parents (69%) that
strongly agree that the district makes sure the parent understands each section of the IEP
document. This distribution shows a substantial majority of responses. Meanwhile, a smaller
portion (31%) responded with agreement. There is an absence of any participants that are neutral
(0%), disagree (0%), and strongly disagree (0%). Overall, this data shows the distribution of
response for question three.
Table 3: Response Rate for Survey Question 3
_____________________________________________________________________________
Rating

Response Rate
Percentage
n
%
____________________________________________________________________________
My child's school district makes sure I understand each section of the IEP document.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

20
9
0
0
0

69%
31%
0%
0%
0%

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

41

Question 4: Overall, I am satisfied with the extent to which teachers and other
professionals explain each section of the IEP.
The distribution of responses ranged from 0% to 62% with most parents (62%) strongly
agreeing with the level of satisfaction to the extent to which teachers and other professionals
explain each section of the IEP. This distribution shows a substantial majority of responses.
Meanwhile, a smaller portion (34%) responded with agreement, and (3%) indicated a neutral
response. There is an absence of any participants that disagree (0%) or strongly disagree (0%).
Overall, this data shows the distribution of response for question four.
Table 4: Response Rate for Survey Question 4
_____________________________________________________________________________
Rating

Response Rate
Percentage
n
%
_____________________________________________________________________________
Overall, I am satisfied with the extent to which teachers and other professionals explain each
section of the IEP.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

18
10
1
0
0

62%
34%
3%
0%
0%

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

42

Question 5: As a parent, I have a clear understanding of everyone's role at my child's IEP
meeting.
The distribution of responses ranged from 0% to 55% with most parents (55%) that
strongly agree they have a clear understanding of everyone's role at my child’s IEP meeting. This
distribution shows a substantial majority of responses. Meanwhile, a smaller portion (31%)
responded with agreement and (7%) indicated a neutral response. In addition, (7%) selected
disagree. There is an absence of any participants that strongly disagree (0%). Overall, this data
shows the distribution of response for question five.
Table 5: Response Rate for Survey Question 5
_____________________________________________________________________________

Rating

Response Rate
Percentage
n
%
_____________________________________________________________________________
As a parent, I have a clear understanding of everyone's role at my child's IEP meeting.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

16
9
2
2
0

55%
31%
7%
7%
0%

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

43

Question 6: I feel comfortable asking questions at my child's IEP meeting.
The distribution of responses ranged from 0% to 66% with most parents (66%) that
strongly agree with being comfortable asking questions at IEP meetings. This distribution shows
a substantial majority of responses. Meanwhile, a smaller portion (31%) responded with
agreement, and (3%) indicated a neutral response. There is an absence of any participants that
disagree (0%) or strongly disagree (0%). Overall, this data shows the distribution of response for
question six.
Table 6: Response Rate for Survey Question 6
_____________________________________________________________________________
Rating

Response Rate
Percentage
n
%
_____________________________________________________________________________
I feel comfortable asking questions at my child's IEP meeting.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

19
9
1
0
0

66%
31%
3%
0%
0%

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

44

Question 7: I am treated as an important member of the IEP team.
The distribution of responses ranged from 0% to 55% with most parents (55%) that
strongly agree with being treated as an important member of the IEP team. This distribution
shows a substantial majority of responses. Meanwhile, a smaller portion (34%) responded with
agreement, and (7%) indicated a neutral response. In addition, (3%) selected disagree. There is
an absence of any participants that strongly disagree (0%). Overall, this data shows the
distribution of response for question seven.
Table 7: Response Rate for Survey Question 7
_____________________________________________________________________________
Rating

Response Rate
Percentage
n
%
_____________________________________________________________________________
I am treated as an important member of the IEP team.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

16
10
2
1
0

55%
34%
7%
3%
0%

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

45

Question 8: During IEP meetings, information is shared and written in an understandable
way.
The distribution of responses ranged from 0% to 59% with most parents (59%) that
strongly agree that during IEP meetings, information is shared and written in an understandable
way. This distribution shows a substantial majority of responses. Meanwhile, a smaller portion
(34%) responded with agreement, and (3%) indicated a neutral response. In addition, (3%)
selected disagree. There is an absence of any participants that strongly disagree (0%). Overall,
this data shows the distribution of response for question eight.
Table 8: Response Rate for Survey Question 8
_____________________________________________________________________________
Rating

Response Rate
Percentage
n
%
_____________________________________________________________________________
During IEP meetings, information is shared and written in an understandable way.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

17
10
1
1
0

59%
34%
3%
3%
0%

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

46

Question 9: My child's general education teacher and Intervention Specialist regularly
communicate about my child's progress.
The distribution of responses ranged from 0% to 66% with most parents (66%) that
strongly agree with regular communication from the general education teacher and Intervention
Specialist. This distribution shows a substantial majority of responses. Meanwhile, a smaller
portion (24%) responded with agreement, and (7%) indicated a neutral response. In addition,
(3%) selected disagree. There is an absence of any participants that strongly disagree (0%).
Overall, this data shows the distribution of response for question nine.
Table 9: Response Rate for Survey Question 9
_____________________________________________________________________________
Rating

Response Rate
Percentage
n
%
_____________________________________________________________________________
My child's general education teacher and Intervention Specialist regularly communicate about
my child's progress.
Strongly Agree
19
66%
Agree
7
24%
Neutral
2
7%
Disagree
1
3%
Strongly Disagree
0
0%

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

47

Individual survey responses are included in Table 10 for the 261 selections from
questions 1-9 on the virtual survey. The majority of responses, 157 in total, choose strongly
agree. Five participants did not choose strongly agree in response to any of the nine questions,
while twenty-four participants choose it a minimum of once. In contrast, thirteen respondents
selected strongly agree as an answer choose for all nine questions. This is followed by agree
being selected 86 times. Ten participants did not select agree for any answer choice. A smaller
portion opted for the answer choice of neutral twelve times. Disagree was chosen five times with
strongly disagree chosen once. As a minority view, three individuals selected disagree or
strongly disagree as an answer choice. It should be noted that of the three individuals, two were
part of the same nuclear family.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

48

Table 10: Response rate for each category on questions 1-9 for each participant
_____________________________________________________________________________
Participant
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
5
2
0
0
2
9
0
0
0
0
3
9
0
0
0
0
4
7
2
0
0
0
5
9
0
0
0
0
6
9
0
0
0
0
7
0
9
0
0
0
8
4
5
0
0
0
9
3
6
0
0
0
10
9
0
0
0
0
11
4
5
0
0
0
12
0
5
3
1
0
13
9
0
0
0
0
14
9
0
0
0
0
15
1
7
1
0
0
16
9
0
0
0
0
17
8
1
0
0
0
18
9
0
0
0
0
19
0
8
1
0
0
20
5
4
0
0
0
21
0
2
4
3
1
22
1
6
1
1
0
23
9
0
0
0
0
24
1
8
0
0
0
25
9
0
0
0
0
26
5
4
0
0
0
27
0
9
0
0
0
28
9
0
0
0
0
29
9
0
0
0
0

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

49

The next three survey questions are designed to address research question two:
What interventions were identified by parents for improved collaborative IEP meetings?
The questions aim to gather insight on parents’ perspective regarding current practices and
identify new interventions for improved collaborative IEP meetings. By analyzing the responses
in Chapter 5, the goal is to better understand parents’ perspective, improve current practices, and
pinpoint interventions.
Parents articulated strategies or solutions for IEP meetings to be more collaborative,
resulting in six themes. Five interventions were linked to the theme of communication (28%).
While seven (39%) of responses correlate to an intervention that can be implemented during the
IEP meeting. One response (6%) detailed gaining a better understanding of the process with
another (6%) suggesting the ability to submit anonymous survey responses. In addition, two
suggestions (11%) related to the subject of staff, specifically administration and teachers.
Finally, it should be noted that two comments (11%) submitted were unrelated to the question
but rather broader issues relating to the school district.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

50

Question 10: To improve parent collaboration at IEP meetings, please indicate which
opportunities you are interested in participating in.
The distribution of responses ranged from 15% to 35% with some participants selecting
multiple responses. 40 responses were selected. The larger number of parents (35%) indicated an
interest in completing a parent questionnaire prior to the IEP meeting. Meanwhile, a slightly
smaller portion (28%) responded with an interest in a phone call with an Intervention Specialist
prior to the IEP meeting. In addition (23%) selected a meeting with an administrator before their
child’s IEP meeting. The lowest value (15%) see merit in attending a professional development
opportunity to learn more about IEPs.
Table 11: Response Rate for Survey Question 10
_____________________________________________________________________________
Rating
Response Rate
Percentage
n
%
_____________________________________________________________________________
To improve parent collaboration at IEP meetings, please indicate which opportunities you are
interested in participating in.
Attending a professional development opportunity to learn more about IEPs.
6

15%

Phone call with an Intervention Specialist prior to my child's IEP meeting.
11

28%

Completing a parent questionnaire to share my thoughts prior to the IEP meeting
14

35%

9

23%

Meeting with an administrator prior to my child's IEP meeting.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

51

Question 11: I am interested in learning more about...
The distribution of responses ranged from 14% to 36% with some participants selecting
multiple responses. In total, 42 responses were selected. The larger number of parents (36%)
indicated they had no interest at this time in learning more about the evaluation process, special
education laws and procedures, parental rights under federal and state guidelines, or community
resources. Meanwhile, a smaller portion (19%) responded with an interest in learning about
special education laws and procedures. In addition, (17%) would like to learn more about
community resources. The lowest value (14%) selected an interest in learning more about the
evaluation process and parental rights under state and federal guidelines.
Table 12: Response Rate for Survey Question 11
_____________________________________________________________________________
Rating

Response Rate
Percentage
n
%
_____________________________________________________________________________
I am interested in learning more about
The evaluation process
6
14%
Special Education laws and procedures
8
19%
Parental Rights under State and Federal Guidelines
6
14%
Community Resources
7
17%
None at this time
15
36%

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

52

Question 12: What suggestions do you have to increase parent participation for more
collaborative IEP meetings?
The distribution of responses ranges from 15% to 55% with all participants
acknowledging the open-ended question. The larger number of parents (55%) articulated a
recommendation for increased participation for more collaborative IEP meetings. Meanwhile, a
smaller portion (30%) responded with no recommendations but rather messaging that implies an
optimistic tone with favorable feedback. The following responses are summarized from the
detailed comments submitted on the survey, capturing the key points and common themes
expressed by participants. Comments include; “All is good” (20%), “Excellent communication”
(20%), “IEP team is fantastic” (20%), “Always satisfied” (20%), and “Fantastic Job” (20%).
The largest value (55%) indicated a specific intervention with the goal of providing a
recommendation for more collaborative IEP meetings. The following themes are summarized
from the detailed comments submitted on the survey while capturing the key points expressed by
participants. The specific organization of data is to provide structured themes through organized
analysis of the responses to the open-ended question. Suggestions for interventions varied with
eighteen recommendations. One parent made three recommendations while another parent made
two suggestions. However, the remaining participants made one comment.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

53

Table 13: Response Rate for Survey Question 12
_____________________________________________________________________________
Rating

Response Rate
Percentage
n
%
_____________________________________________________________________________
What suggestions do you have to increase parent participation for more collaborative IEP
meetings?
Data Source Online Survey
Codes

Response Rate

None

10

30%

Positive Comment

5

15%

Themes from Recommendations

All is good
Excellent communication
IEP team is fantastic
Always satisfied
Fantastic job

1
1
1
1
1

18
55%
Communication
Procedures at IEP Meetings
Enhanced Understanding
Role of Administration and Teachers
Anonymous Survey Responses
Unrelated Comments

5
7
1
2
1
2

Responses
Work Samples Shared During Meetings
Access to Regular Updates Using a Portal
Follow-Up Meetings
Briefing Notes
Understanding of the Curriculum
Prepared Solutions before the IEP meeting
Improved Administrative Support
Experience of Intervention Specialist
A draft a few days before IEP Meeting
Anonymous Survey Responses
Trauma-Informed IEP Meetings

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS
Students attend IEP Meeting
Access to Parent Mentor
Questionnaires for Parent Feedback
Unrelated Comments

54
1
2
2
2

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

55

In conclusion, the narrative description of the survey responses provides a perspective on
the overall experiences of all the participants. The data presented in each table emphasize
responses of each participant and overall themes. By analyzing the data in Chapter 5, the
intention is to understand collaborative IEP meetings to make changes that result in positive
impacts for students with disabilities.
The four distinct subgroups refer to the population of parents that participated in the
study and characteristics or attributes of their child/children. The shared segments are relevant to
the research questions and objectives. These subgroups are based on race/ethnicity, number of
IEP meetings attended, grade level, and disability category. The correlation to the survey
responses and specific subgroups allows for the identification of themes, patterns, and
dependencies. Ultimately, the goal is to share a robust amount of data in a clear presentation to
allow for deeper insights and supported conclusions in Chapter 5.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

56

Race/Ethnicity
The distribution of ethnicity among survey participants is a demographic detail used to
answer one of the research questions; What is the correlation between race/ethnicity and the level
of satisfaction with collaborative IEP meetings? By examining the race/ethnicity of respondents,
the findings can be interpreted to draw conclusions about each group and within the larger
population.
The demographic distribution of various ethnicities of participants shows uneven
disparities with a range from 0% to 86%. Many respondents (86%) were the most homogeneous
group that identified as white. The second largest group (13%), with a substantial gap identified
as Asian. Furthermore, multiracial (3%), with a small minority of responses. Two ethnicities,
Native American and Hispanic/Latino were entirely absent with (0%) representation.
The district’s distribution of ethnicity rates for students include; (74%) white, (15%) Asian, (4%)
multiracial, (3%) black, (3%) Hispanic, and less than one percent American Indian/Alaskan. The
district's profile shows a similar distribution rate to the survey responders.
Table 14: Demographics for race/ethnicity of 31 students
____________________________________________________________________________
Characteristics
n
percent
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ethnicity

Caucasian
Asian
Multiracial
African American
Native American
Hispanic/Latino

26
4
1
0
0
0

86%
13%
3%
0%
0%
0%

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

57

IEP Meetings Attended
Below is a narrative and table presenting the distribution of the number of IEP meetings
attended by survey participants. The findings relate to a research question; What is the
correlation between the number of IEP meetings attended and the level of satisfaction with
collaborative IEP meetings? By analyzing the distribution, the information is used to understand
the pattern of participation in correlation to a collaborative IEP meeting. The distribution of IEP
meetings attended ranges from 0% to 23%. Of the participants, (10%) attended one IEP meeting,
while more than double (23%) attended two. Another (19%) participated in three IEP meetings
with (13%) attending four. Consistently (13%) attended five. Meanwhile, three attendees (10%)
joined six meetings with (3%) contributing to seven, eight, nine, and ten meetings. Notably, there
is an absence of parents with attendance at eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen or sixteen
meetings. All participants were in attendance for their child’s IEP meetings, and as a result, the
calculations reflect the number of IEP meetings required by the school district to ensure
compliance. The distribution among participants shows a variation in attendance rates.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

58

Table 15: The number of IEP meetings attended for 31 students of 29 parents
_____________________________________________________________________________
Characteristics
n
percent
_____________________________________________________________________________
Number of IEP Meetings

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

4
6
5
4
4
3
2
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

13%
19%
16%
13%
13%
10%
6%
3%
6%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

59

Grade Level
The grade level demographics reveal the educational stages of the children whose
parent/parents completed the survey. The information is essential to understand the diversity of
experiences of each survey participant and allows for the understanding of potential trends in
Chapter 5. The findings below relate to the research question; What is the correlation to the
grade level of students and the level of satisfaction with collaborative IEP meetings? Students in
the sample ranged in grade from preschool to grade 12 with the distribution of grade levels of the
child/children of participants ranging from 0% to 13%. Parents of preschoolers had the highest
response rate (19%) with (10%) of kindergarten parents participating. Parents of first graders
follow with (3%) with an increase for second (6%) and third (6%) grade parents. There is an
absence of participation (0%) from parents of fourth graders. There is a slight increase in
responses from fifth (10%) and sixth (10%) grade parents. The percentage of parents of seventh
graders (13%) slightly increased before a slight dip to (6%) for parents of eighth graders. In
addition, (3%) of nineth grade participants completed the survey with an absence of tenth grade
parents. A slight rise (10%) in eleventh grade parents with (3%) of parents of twelve graders
completed the survey. The distribution shows relatively balanced levels of participants with
children in various grade levels.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

60

Table 16: Grade Level Distribution for 31 students of 29 parents
_____________________________________________________________________________
Characteristics
n
percent
_____________________________________________________________________________
Grade Level

Preschool
Kindergarten
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Sixth
Seventh
Eight
Nineth
Tenth
Eleventh
Twelve

6
3
1
2
2
1
2
3
4
2
1
0
3
1

19%
10%
3%
6%
6%
3%
6%
10%
13%
6%
3%
0%
10%
3%

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

61

Disability Category
For a student suspected of having a disability, under federal law, a school district is
required to evaluate to determine if the student meets the criteria of one of the eligibility
categories. Fourteen disability categories have been identified under IDEA. Findings relate to the
research question; What correlation is the eligibility category and satisfaction level with
collaborative IEP meetings? The distribution of information details the representation of the
disability categories with the demographic information.
The distribution of categories for students of parents that participated in the survey
ranged from 0 to 25%. The largest majority (25%) of respondents have a child/children identified
under the categories of Other Health Impairment (OHI). With a slight decline, (23%) of
respondents have a child/children with the category of Autism or Specific Learning Disability
(SLD). Another (13%) has a child/children that receives service under the category of Speech
and Language Impairment or Developmental Delay (DD). In addition, (3%) of parents have a
child identified with a Traumatic Brain Injury. Notably, there is an absence of parents that have a
child/children identified under one of the eight remaining categories; Deafness, Orthopedic
Impairment, Emotional Disturbance, Deaf Blindness, Visual Impairment, Hearing Impairment,
and Intellectual Disability. The students’ primary disability categories include Speech or
Language Impairment (n=4), Autism (n=7), Specific Learning Disability (n=7), Other Health
Impairment (n=8), Orthopedic Impairment (n=0), Emotional Disturbance (n=0), Developmental
Delay (n=4), Deaf Blindness (n=0), Traumatic Brain Injury (n=1), Visual Impairment (n=0),
Hearing Impairment (n=0), Intellectual Disability (n=0), and Multiple Disabilities (n=0). The
eligibility category provides insight on potentially unique experiences and perspectives.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

62

Table 17: Demographics for Eligibility Categories for Special Education
_____________________________________________________________________________
Characteristics
n
percent
_____________________________________________________________________________
Eligibility Category
Other Health Impairment
8
25%
Autism
7
23%
Specific Learning Disability
7
23%
Speech or Language Impairment
4
13%
Developmental Delay
4
13%
Traumatic Brain Injury
1
3%
Orthopedic Impairment
0
0%
Emotional Disturbance
0
0%
Deaf Blindness
0
0%
Visual Impairment
0
0%
Hearing Impairment
0
0%
Intellectual Disability
0
0%
Multiple Disabilities
0
0%

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

63

The data in Table 18 provides columns for the children of each participant that include;
ethnicity, grade level, number of meetings attended, and disability category. However, due to
two parents having two students receiving special education services, grade levels are not always
listed in sequential order. Participants identified as number 21 and 22 are from the same nuclear
family with one child receiving special education services. Participant four has two children
receiving special education services with participant seven having two children receiving special
education services. The distribution of information in the four subgroups is collectively
presented in various tables while Table 18 focuses on individual responses. In Chapter 5 a more
elaborate analysis about the subgroups will be examined.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

64

Table 18: Subgroup classifications for each participant and their child/children.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Participant Ethnicity
Grade Level
IEP Meetings
Disability Category
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
4
4
5
6
7
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

White
White
White
Asian
Asian
Asian
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
Asian
Asian
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White

1
1
2
3
Preschool
Preschool
3
5
4
Preschool
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
9
11
11
11
12
Kindergarten
Kindergarten
Kindergarten
Preschool
Preschool
Preschool

5
2
5
4
2
2
3
7
5
1
4
3
4
7
1
6
6
6
9
4
9
8
10
2
2
5
3
3
3
2
1
1

Autism
SLD
Speech/Language
OHI
DD
DD
SLD
SLD
SLD
Speech/Language
SLD
SLD
OHI
Autism
Traumatic Brain
Autism
OHI
OHI
Speech/Language
Autism
SLD
OHI
OHI
OHI
OHI
OHI
Autism
Autism
Autism
DD
DD
Speech/Language

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

65

In summary, presentation of the data from the twenty-nine participants, thirty-one
students, 348 surveys responses, and review of student records, the study revealed multiple
themes. It was revealed when interpreting the results of this study, several important
considerations emerged regarding parent perceptions and the correlation to various subgroups.
Determining how to cultivate a collaborative IEP meeting requires an analysis of practices,
examination of challenges, and reflection on required policy changes.
In conclusion, Chapter 4 provides a comprehensive presentation of the research findings
with the goal of illustrating patterns to discover new insights. The presentation of data leads to
interpretation and comprehensive discussion that follows in the subsequent chapter. The findings
will be interpreted, implications will be explored and connected to broader impacts,
recommendations made for future research, and practical applications will be addressed.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

66

CHAPTER 5
The main purpose of this study is to determine the correlation between four subgroups to
level of satisfaction with collaborative IEP meetings. Data is collected by parents of children
receiving special education services. The success of an IEP meeting is influenced by the
collaboration of all stakeholders and parental satisfaction. In addition, the study examines
specific interventions to improve the level of satisfaction. Data is collected through a virtual
survey with data presented in a narrative and corresponding tables. Chapter 5 is the culmination
of the study with a presentation of the conclusions drawn from the findings in Chapter 4. Also
presented are research findings, recommendations, subsequent implications and actions, potential
impact on future studies, and practical applications to address the research problem.
Furthermore, the research questions are addressed in addition to a reflection by the researcher.
Interestingly, highlights from past research are included throughout Chapter 5.
It is worth noting that through the synthesis of data from various studies noted in Chapter
2, overall, parents express negative or neutral feelings that include frustration, being
overwhelmed, indifferent, or confused. This is confirmed in Choiseul-Praslin, Deardorff, and
Yeager’s 2021 study of 929 mothers with a high percentage of mothers reported experiencing
bullying, coercion, and shame. In contrast, this study presents data indicating that parents were
overall satisfied with the level of collaboration at IEP meetings. This discovery is further
dissected throughout Chapter 5.
As stressed in previous chapters, there is a need for collaborative IEP meetings. All
stakeholders have a vested interest in positive outcomes for students. The significance is noted
with the explicit attention to meaningful participation and collaboration explained in IDEA. A
procedural error may constitute a violation of a student's right to FAPE if parents do not have

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

67

meaningful participation in decision-making (Yell et al, 2020). It is impossible to follow the
guidelines of legislation while not building a partnership with families and supporting an
effective, collaborative IEP process.
The five research questions were created to guide the data collection process to determine
the correlation of various subgroups to the level of collaboration of parents at IEP meetings. The
data provided evidence to support a response to the following research questions.
1. What is the correlation between specific subgroups and the level of satisfaction with
collaborative IEP meetings?
1a. What is the correlation between the number of IEP meetings attended and the level of
satisfaction with collaborative IEP meetings?
1b. What is the correlation between ethnicity and the level of satisfaction with
collaborative IEP meetings?
1c. What is the correlation between the grade level of students and the level of
satisfaction with collaborative IEP meetings?
1d. What correlation is the eligibility category and satisfaction level with collaborative
IEP meetings?
2. What interventions were identified by parents for improved collaboration at IEP meetings?
These discoveries found in the data provide information to support the relationship
between subgroups and potential predictors of parental satisfaction. Analyzing the results
provides several interesting findings, with the data revealing variables that are worth future
investigation.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

68

Findings and Interpretations
The findings are discussed in relation to the research questions and existing literature,
then followed by interpretation of the results. The data is analyzed to determine patterns, themes,
and insights relating to collaborative IEP meetings. The findings are organized by research
questions with each section also detailing interpretations, trends, meanings, insights, and critical
analysis. Moving forward, the information interpretation considers both expected and unexpected
outcomes.
Before moving into Chapter 5, it is important to address a few key details that are
essential for a comprehensive understanding of the findings. While limitations are examined later
in the chapter, there are two unpredictable factors encountered during the research process that
influence the results. By thoroughly exploring these variables, it allows for deeper understanding
of the context in which the conclusions are drawn.
To determine a relative level of satisfaction with collaborative IEP meetings, an
examination of survey questions 1-9 is imperative. The survey responses are presented with a
Likert scale with answer choices; strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree.
Strongly agree was chosen with the highest percentage of responses ranging from 55%-69% on
questions one through nine. While agree was chosen 24%-31%. Subsequently, for the nine
questions the range for the selection of neutral and disagree is between zero and seven percent.
Strongly disagree was chosen by one participant as an answer choice on the Google survey. It
can be concluded that strongly agree and agree were chosen most often while a neutral or
negative response has a substantially lower rate of 14%. Furthermore, it appears there was a high
level of intentionality in the extended responses, providing a brief glimpse into the viewpoint of
the participants. This information provides evidence there is limited variability in the level of

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

69

satisfaction from participants. This aligns to Fish’s 2008 study of 51 parents of students
receiving special education who were middle-to upper-class and were 80% white. Findings
showed most parents reported positive IEP experiences.
These results present the inability to use a range of satisfaction in correlation to the
various subgroups. This is contradictory to the distribution range present in Sanderson and
Goldman’s 2023 study which allowed for attention to be targeted on relationship between the
highest and lowest levels of satisfaction to age and diagnosis.
The lowest level, strongly disagree, was chosen once as answer choice by one participant.
However, an analysis of the answers to questions 10, 11, and 12 provides insight to the answer
choices in questions 1-9 with details that directly relate to recommended interventions. The
discussion will also connect the narrative responses to the participants’ experiences.
There is speculation as to the reasoning for the high level of satisfactory ratings.
Consequently, part of the district’s strategic plan includes a goal that focuses on building
meaningful relationships with all stakeholders. As a result, each department generated action
steps to move the district forward in meeting the goal. The steps include establishing a
welcoming meeting environment, providing ongoing communication with parents, and
implementing new ways to gather feedback from team members. It is worth noting that the
researcher participated in the majoring of IEP meetings with the survey participants.
In addition, two participants have multiple children that qualify for special education
services. One with three children and the other with two. The survey did not allow for reporting
different experiences for each child. It can be assumed that the survey responses might be
motivated by aggregated experiences for all their children. Survey responses are correlated to

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

70

each child which may add a level of complexity to analyzing the data. In the future researchers
should consider participants responding separately for each child.
The following paragraphs will delve into the research questions outlined earlier. Through
the analysis of the data, the goal is to provide comprehensive answers to the questions and
contribute to the understanding of collaborative IEP meetings.
Research Question 1a.
IEP Meetings
1a. What is the correlation between the number of IEP meetings attended and the level of
satisfaction with collaborative IEP meetings?
The study examines the relationship between the number of IEP meetings attended by
parents and their level of satisfaction with collaborative IEP meetings. There was a higher
response rate from participants that attended 3 or fewer IEP meetings. In addition, none of the
participants attended more than ten meetings. Specifically, parents who attended one, two, three,
four, five, six, seven, nine, ten IEP meetings responded with only strongly agree or agree to the
survey questions. Some may consider that parents who attend more IEP meetings may feel more
informed, but the results of this study conflict with that sentiment. It could be concluded that the
more IEP meetings a parent attends, the more familiar they become with the process. In addition,
more opportunities exist to build relationships with school staff. Due to the sampling issue of
limited responses, it results in insufficient scope to draw definitive conclusions. This is a less
explored research area; however, larger sampling is required for future research. The analysis
revealed the inability to correlate the number of IEP meetings attended to the level of satisfaction
with collaborate IEP meetings.
Research Question 1b.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

71

Race/Ethnicity
1b. What is the correlation between ethnicity and the level of satisfaction with collaborative
IEP meetings?
Parents with various ethnicities may have a unique perspective on the role of educators
and families, potential language barriers, diverse cultural considerations, and differences in
experiences in educational systems. With an increase of families with diverse cultural
backgrounds, it is essential to foster a collaborative meeting environment. Three parents that
participated in the study identified as an ethnicity other than white. Of the three participants, one
responded with agree five times, neutral three times, and disagree once. Also, the participant
requested future anonymous survey responses. The other two only responded with strongly agree
or agree with extended responses that can be considered positive and complementary of the
district. The small sample size limits the ability to determine the true relationship between
ethnicity and level of satisfaction. Accurate conclusions from the data cannot be drawn, however,
parental recommendations should be considered.
In Sanderson and Goldman’s 2023 research found that white parents had a greater
satisfaction with their child’s IEP however, the response rate for various ethnicities was also
limited. This finding aligns to Zagona el at (2019) study of 18 parents of children with autism or
intellectual disabilities. Seventeen of the eighteen parents were white; however, outcomes were
not correlated to ethnicity or disability category. This appears to be a common issue in survey
research.
Lo’s 2012 article provides recommendations for best practices to be used by educational
professionals with diverse parents of children with disabilities. Prior to a meeting, parents benefit
from learning about the meeting agenda and meeting procedures. Also, ensure a skilled and

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

72

experienced interpreter attends the meeting. In addition, Lo stresses that welcoming parents to
school is one of the crucial factions in developing an effective partnership. Finally, provide
parents with a copy of detailed meeting notes. This is due to potential barriers with
communication, higher level of stress, and the large amount of information shared at IEP
meetings.
The unrepresentative sampling of nonwhite parents presents a circumstance of limited
data. The data collected is too narrow and does not provide enough variation. As a result, it is
difficult to document meaningful conclusions and generalize the results to the broader
population. Due to the inadequate data available, the answer to research question 1a. cannot be
answered.
Research Question 1c.
Grade Level
1c. What is the correlation between the grade level of students and the level of satisfaction
with collaborative IEP meetings?
Understanding the unique concerns of parents at different stages of their child’s education
provides information to guide effective collaboration and productive IEP meetings. It should be
noted that the participating district has one 7-12 building, one K-6 building, and one preschool
building shared with a neighboring district.
Comparing satisfaction with collaborative IEP meetings reveals several key trends. The
study showed the three participants that shared disgruntled comments were parents of high
school students. Two of the three parents are from the same nuclear family. Of all the survey
responses, six have preschool aged children. Interestingly, while parents of younger children
tend to be more involved in IEP and are often concerned about future potential, this study did not

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

73

show evidence to support or deny the research question. It should also be noted that all
participants in the study routinely attended all IEP meetings for their child/children. It is
extremely rare for any parent in the represented district to not participate in an IEP meeting.
Interesting data is provided in question twelve responses that relate to this research
question. Based on the narrative responses it can be concluded there is a need for variations in
meeting agendas based on grade level bands. A sampling of parent responses for question 12 is
included to support the recommendation for varying meeting agendas during IEP meetings.
“An in-person progress review during the year would be beneficial.”
“Would love to see some work samples or passages to see how the progress is measured.”
“A portion of the IEP that was new to us this year (due to our son’s age and grade level) was the
questionnaire regarding chores at home. The intent, as it was explained to us, was to highlight
responsibility and ownership of task completion. I think having more questionnaires for parents
that align with what the state and school are looking for in their students is helpful.”
“A briefing note which describes what will be discussed in the IEP meeting.”
“In areas where the student is behind, I think it would be helpful for the IEP team to come to the
meeting prepared with pre-determined solutions and a step-by-step plan on how the student,
parent and teachers can work together to help the child.”
“While it is great to meet and hear from the various specialists (OT, Speech, etc.) at the IEP
meetings, it would be great to get more frequent updates and communications from those
specialists as to NAME progress towards his IEP goals and strategies for us to implement at
home.”

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

74

The survey responses from parents provide valuable insight into their experiences and
perspectives. It is important to recognize the recommended interventions to improve
collaborative IEP meetings by parents.
As students progress through preschool, elementary, middle, and high school, there is a
need to evolve the meeting agenda and structure for IEP meetings. The tailored agendas allow
for deliberate highlighting of specific developmental needs, assessments, transition planning,
career and college readiness, and social emotional development. A clear agenda that recognizes
and addresses concerns by educators and parents supports a collaborative IEP meeting.
The difficulty with answering research question 1c. is problematic, however, recognizing and
addressing the challenge led to a recommended intervention to support parent and teacher
collaboration. Consideration should be made for implementing a developmentally appropriate,
grade band meeting agenda that highlights current supports, student progress, areas of need,
parental concerns, and future goals.
Research Question 1d.
1d. What is the correlation between the eligibility category for special education and the
level of satisfaction with collaborative IEP meetings?
The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) outlines specific eligibility categories under
which students qualify for special education services. Six disability categories are represented by
the parents' child/children that completed the survey, including Specific Learning Disability,
Developmental Disability, Autism, Speech and Language Impairment, Other Health Impairment,
and Traumatic Brain Injury. The distribution of eligibility categories closely aligns to both the
district and state rates of enrollment for students with a disability. In the state of Ohio, the

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

75

category of Developmental Disability can only be considered for children less than 10 years of
age.
Each parent engages in a unique IEP meeting experience. The findings in this study
cannot differentiate between parents of children with a specific eligibility category and the level
of satisfaction of collaborative IEP meetings. It cannot be determined if certain disability
categories are associated with a higher parent satisfaction rate. Although the child/children of the
participants do not represent all the disability categories recognized in Ohio, some conclusions
can still be drawn.
A closer look at the data shows two parents with negative feedback noted in question 12
both have children in high school with the eligibility category of Other Health Impairment. The
five parents that responded to question 12 with purely positive comments and no
recommendations have children in preschool, elementary, and middle school with the eligibility
categories of Speech and Language, Developmental Disabilities, Specific Learning Disability,
and Other Health Impairment. While no conclusions can be drawn for such few data points, the
information is worth noting.
While the findings from this study cannot conclude the level of satisfaction with
collaborative IEP meetings based on eligibility category, there is opportunity to reflect on
interventions that can enhance all meetings. Since each eligibility category encompasses unique
characteristics and implications, school districts may find value in tailoring their meeting
approach to the specific needs of each student with the hopes of fostering a higher level of
collaboration. Recommendations include presenting work samples and copies of all standardized
and curriculum-based progress monitoring and diagnostic data at IEP meetings. In addition, it is
recommended to help parents understand the uniqueness of their child’s strengths in addition to

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

76

areas of need. Provide parents with resources to help them with the complexity of their child’s
needs.
Future research with more representation of all disability categories, a higher survey
response rate, and varying levels of satisfactions is needed to truly understand the implications
on collaborative IEP meetings. A conclusive question 1d. is unable to be provided.
Research Question 2
Interventions
2. What interventions were identified by parents for improved collaboration at IEP
meetings.
The last three questions of the survey present an opportunity for participants to indicate
areas of interest to build competency and provide suggestions to increase parent participation and
to improve collaboration at IEP meetings. These questions are intended to provide a platform for
potentially sensitive topics, which might deter participants unwilling to provide critical feedback.
Eighteen participants made suggestions for more collaborative IEP meetings with twelve
participants indicating an interest in learning more about the evaluation process, community
resources, and educational policy and laws.
Twelve participants indicated an interest in better understanding the IEP process, roles
and responsibilities, and special education laws and regulations. The lack of knowledge and
awareness regarding the special education process and purpose of meetings can result in limited
engagement. In response, suggestions include offering training sessions for parents, providing
resources and tutorials, and scheduling professional development opportunities.
In addition, five comments made by parents relate to communication, focused on followup meetings and regular updates. With an increase in reciprocal communication there is an

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

77

increase in engagement. One parent requested more frequent communication with updates on
progress with another parent suggesting briefing notes be provided after each meeting. Regular
communication between IEP members, including follow-up meetings and progress reports, could
help to ensure concerns are addressed promptly. Regular emails and scheduled check-ins can
assist with fostering strong collaboration. Also, one parent noted an interest in wanting to have a
better understanding of the curriculum chosen by the district, with another requesting prepared
solutions prior to the IEP meeting.
Of the eighteen suggestions two were unrelated comments that are worth disregarding.
However, one participant requested anonymous survey responses. Another suggestion includes
the use of a Parent Mentor at IEP meetings. Currently, Parent Mentors are employed by local
school districts or Educational Service Centers throughout Ohio. Due to the culmination of
subjective experiences and professional development, Parent Mentors can provide support to
families by attending meetings, provide training, increase knowledge of special education
processes, and share community resources. A recommended outcome is to provide information
about the capacity of support provided by Parent Mentors when sending the IEP meeting
invitation. This theme also emerged in Fish’s 2006 that parents were treated more positively in
the presence of an advocate. Increasing collaboration with community agencies, organizations,
other and other parents are critical to school improvement and shared decision making at IEP
meetings.
Two parents from the same nuclear family made the comment that the lack of experience
of an Intervention Specialist and lack of administrative support impacts collaboration. A face-toface interview or follow-up phone call could provide a more in-depth exploration of the parents’

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

78

thoughts, feelings, and experiences. It would also allow the researcher to ask follow-up
questions, make a person connection, and clarify any misunderstandings.
Various studies have explored researched based interventions designed to improve
collaboration at IEP meetings. Mueller and Vick’s 2019 study conveyed five key procedurals
practices linked to a collaborative meeting process, (a) premeeting with families, (b) establishing
and following a meeting agenda, (c) using meeting norms, (d) utilizing a parking lot for off topic
issues, and (e) visual charting for graphic support during team discussion and problem solving.
The purpose of a collaborative IEP meeting is for all team members to determine the
most appropriate supports and services for a child. In comparison with Garbacz, Godfrey, Rowe,
and Kittelman (2022), study revealed one strategy to promote parent collaboration is centering
on the child’s strengths which was suggested by an eleventh-grade parent.
In summary, pre-meeting preparation, professional development and training, facilitated
meetings with clear agendas, parental advocacy supports and programs, and regular
communication can be effective practices to improve collaboration at IEP meetings. By
implementing targeted interventions schools can elevate the level of collaboration at IEP
meetings. While challenges exist, addressing them through intentional actions, thoughtful
planning, and explicit interventions helps to ensure a positive IEP process. A commitment to
collaborative IEP meetings benefits the needs of students with disabilities.
Limitations
While the study provides plausible information, it is evident that limitations should be
acknowledged. Due to the small sample size, noteworthy results should be interpreted with some
caution. Considerations should be made on whether results can be generalized to a larger or more
diverse population. In addition, the study relied on self-reporting data which presents opportunity

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

79

for partiality and influences both the extended responses and multiple-choice answers. However,
the study can be conducted in any school district if the intent is to use the data to refine policies
and implement interventions that support more collaborative IEP meetings. Results in other
school districts may show more variability with the various subgroups.
Since there are insufficient responses to represent various subgroups, the sample does not
reflect diverse groups needed to adequately answer the research questions. Unanswered research
questions result in challenges that include limitations with conceptual themes, unpredictable
outcomes, and unanswered questions.
The data in this study was only collected in a small, suburban school district that resulted
in representation of a confined sample. Ideally, future studies will have a larger representation
for the various subgroups. Note that the data collection was not time-consuming, but
consideration should be made for future in-person interviews. Unfortunately, there may be
limitations with the number of participants that are not fluent in English. Misunderstanding could
affect the accuracy of the data collection. Providing the survey in home languages could result in
more participation. This issue should be considered. Understanding these limitations provides
context for the presentation of results and potential interest for future research.
Implications
The study examines the correlation between various subgroups and the level of
satisfaction with a collaborative IEP meeting. The study met its intended purpose and offers
insight into recommended interventions to improve the level of collaboration. Implications of
this study include school district procedures, educational policies, and future research. These
implications also lead to advancement and understanding of improved educational practices for
students being served with IEPs.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

80

The findings have important implications for changes in district policies and procedures.
Systematic changes are needed to foster a collaborative meeting environment, improve parent
perceptions of the IEP process, and implementation of research-based communication strategies
to change the procedural structure of IEP meetings. Additionally, the study highlights
intervention strategies that can easily be implemented at any IEP meeting, in any school district.
Findings from this study are relevant to all district stakeholders such as parents, teachers,
administrators, and board members. Furthermore, the results from this study can be used by
district administrators for policy reform. The study emphasizes the importance of understanding
federal and state laws and regulations for special education, provides insight to the perspective of
parents of neurodivergent children, and promotes the need for inclusive school environments for
collaborative IEP meetings. Implications of this study include procedures, educational policies,
and future research that led to advancement and understanding of improved educational
practices. In closing, Dabkowski’s 2004 article states, “Along with professional team members,
parents, and administrators will require knowledge of new practices and opportunities to employ
them in an environment supported by all team members.”
Recommendation on Further Research
Results from this study contribute to the current research on collaborative IEP meetings.
More emphasis needs to be on parental involvement and collective partnership between
educators and partners. Building strong partnership will foster a more inclusive meeting
environment. Analyzing the communication among team members to determine the influence of
the decision-making process will impact the level of collaboration at IEP meetings.
The interpretation of the findings provides implications for future research and improved
educational practices and procedures. Future research should include the perspective of a larger

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

81

group of stakeholders to develop a more comprehensive look at specific predictors. Moving
forward, more emphasis is also needed to understand how specific disability categories relate to
collaborative IEP meetings. Expanding the number of participants will allow for an increase in
generalizability. In addition, a broader group improves reliability, strengthens the depth of data,
and allows for more complex analyses. Furthermore, a recommendation is to expand the study to
include a more diverse population from different geographic regions. It would be interesting to
replicate this study with different contents, with a larger school district in urban and rural areas.
Socioeconomic status, level of education, linguistic diversity, and academic outcomes could be
added variables or subgroups. Another potential direction for future research includes a
comparative study between the findings of similar studies following a longitudinal timeline.
Empowerment of students and families at IEP meetings is also an interesting area of
research worth exploring. Student voice as an active member of an IEP meeting leads to
consideration of the importance of fostering self-advocacy skills. Also, it is worth exploring if a
sense of ownership is achieved when students are encouraged to share their thoughts and
perspectives on their own goals. By being involved in the decision-making process, will districts
see students be more involved in the decision-making process, take responsibility for their own
success, and have an increased level of motivation, persistence, confidence, and empowerment?
Several areas have been highlighted for future research. Understanding the complexities
of collaboration within IEP meetings and actionable interventions for improvement will result in
positive outcomes for neurodivergent students.
Reflection by the Researcher
Throughout my career, I have participated in thousands of IEP meetings, as a general
education teacher, Intervention Specialist, and district administrator. The interest in this

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

82

qualitative study grew from the goal of improving parents’ level of satisfaction of collaborative
IEP meetings. While I found that many IEP teams I work with are well versed in federal and
state special laws and policies, my interest focuses on research to improve collaborations that
result in positive outcomes for students. As the research process continued, my elated interest in
the topic continues to be driven by the successful IEP process and beneficial results for students
with disabilities.
One unexpected outcome of the study was the amount data that supported an elevated
level of satisfaction with collaborative IEP meetings. A broader frequency of answer choices was
expected. Also, I did prepare that the survey would be completed by both parents of a nuclear
family. The two parent responses teetered between agree, neutral, and disagree which
substantially impacted the overall data. The other survey participants represented one family. If
the data only represented one parent per child, the level of satisfaction would be even greater.
Disagree was chosen five times, strongly disagree chosen once with three individuals selecting
disagree or strongly disagree as an answer choice. If the data represented one parent’s response,
disagree would be chosen four times, strongly disagree not chosen with two individuals selected
disagree as an answer choice.
My expectations from this study were to provide evidence of interventions that can
improve collaborative IEP meetings. Furthermore, I am interested in analyzing the data to
determine the pattern of responses from different subgroups that would allow for tailored
interventions to be implemented at IEP meetings. It should also be noted that the process
provided significant professional and personal growth. In summary, my feelings can be conveyed
from a quote in (Vacc et al 1985) study, “The primary reason for holding IEP meetings to parents
and professionals work cooperatively to develop comprehension educational plans for children.”

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

83

Conclusion
In conclusion, the study contributes to the current research as it provides insight into
parental satisfaction with collaborative IEP meetings and the need for successful implementation
of interventions. The findings include practical interventions to foster improved collaboration,
contributing to the overall success of students with disabilities. The insights highlight the
importance of continuous improvement in the IEP processes and potential actionable strategies
for school districts and educators to implement. The significance of the study is the valuable
implications for policy changes, district guidelines, and future research.
Ultimately the study affirms the critical importance of strengthening collaborative IEP
meetings for improved outcomes for students with disabilities. Since the primary purpose of an
IEP is to ensure that students identified with a disability receive the supports and services, they
need to succeed, collaboration leads to better outcomes for students through a stronger
partnership between school districts and families.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

84

REFERENCES
Alper, S., Schloss, P. J., & Schloss, C. N. (1995). Families of children with disabilities in
elementary and middle school: Advocacy models and strategies. Exceptional Children,
62(3), 261-270. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299606200307
Avendano, S. M., & Cho, E. (2020). Building collaborative relationships with parents: A
checklist for promoting success. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52(4), 250–260.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059919892616
Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J., Frankland, H., Nelson, L., & Beegle, G. (2004). Dimensions of
family and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for collaboration.
Exceptional Children, 70(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407000203
Brinckerhoff, J. L., & Vincent, L. J. (1986). Increasing parental decision-making at the
individualized educational program meeting. Journal of the Division for Early
Childhood, 11(1), 46-58.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/0888406417739677
Burke, M. (2013). Improving parental involvement: Training special education advocates.
Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23(4), 225-234.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207311424910
Burke, M. M., Rios, K., & Lee, C. (2019). Exploring the special education advocacy process
according to families and advocates. The Journal of Special Education, 53(3), 131-141.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918810204
Burke, M. M., & Goldman, S. E. (2017). Documenting the experiences of special education
advocates. The Journal of Special Education, 51(1), 3-13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466916643714

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

85

Caulfield, J. (2023). How to do thematic analysis | step-by-step guide & examples.
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/thematic-analysis/
Cheatham, G. A., Hart, J. E., Malian, I., & McDonald, J. (2012). Six things to never say or hear
during an IEP Meeting: Educators as advocates for families. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 44(3), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991204400306
Childre, A., & Chambers., C. (2005). Family perceptions of student-centered planning and IEP
meetings. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40(3), 217-233.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23879717
Choiseul-Praslin, B., Deardorff, M. E., & Yeager, K. H. (2021). Mothers’ perceptions of
satisfaction, trust, and power in the individualized education program process. Inclusion,
9(4), 247-262. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-9.4.247
Cho, S.-J. & Gannotti, M.E. (2005). Korean American mothers’ perception of professional
support in early intervention and special education programs. Journal of Policy and
Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 2(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17411130.2005.00002.x
Dabkowski, D. M. (2004). Encouraging active parent participation in IEP team meetings.
TEACHING Exceptional Children, 36(3), 34–39.
https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990403600304
Esquivel, S. L., Ryan, C. S., & Bonner, M. (2008). Involved parents' perceptions of their
experiences in school-based team meetings. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 18(3), 234-258. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410802022589
Fish, W.W. (2008). The IEP meeting: Perceptions of parents of students who receive special
education services. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

86

Youth, 53(1), 8-14. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.53.1.8-14
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(1), 56-68.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A153761685/BIC?u=sshe_sru&sid=summon&xid=d82a2616

Gallagher, J., & Desimone, L. (1995). Lessons learned from implementation of the IEP:
Applications to the IFSP. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 15(3), 353–378.
https://doi.org/10.1177/027112149501500307
Garbacz, A., Godfrey, E., Rowe, D. A., & Kittelman, A. (2022). Increasing parent collaboration
in the implementation of effective practices. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 54(5),
324-327. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599221096974
Gajar, A., & Matuszny, R. A. (2002). A comparison of American Indian and non-American
Indian parental involvement in the IEP process: Perceived needs for involvement and
training. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED471948.pdf
Goldstein, S., & Turnbull, A. P. (1982). Strategies to increase parent participation in IEP
conferences. Exceptional Children, 48(4), 360-61.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298204800412
Goldstein, S., Strickland, B., Turnbull, A. P., & Curry, L. (1980). An observational analysis of
the IEP conference. Exceptional Children, 46(4), 278–286.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298004600407
Goldman, S. E., & Burke, M. M. (2017). The effectiveness of interventions to increase parent
involvement in special education: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
Exceptionality, 25(2), 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2016.1196444
Guerrero, B., Hayes, L., O’Shea, R., Wiedemann, K., & Bowen, L. (2023). Lessons learned from

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

87

IEP meeting experiences of parents and school professionals during the COVID-19
pandemic. Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 11(1).
https://digscholarship.unco.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1118&context=jeri
Hebel, O. (2012). Parental involvement in the individual educational program for Israeli students
with disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 29(3), 1-11. http://proxysru.klnpa.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/parentalinvolvement-individual-educational/docview/1017861284/se-2
IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) (2023). Commemorating the 48th
anniversary of the individuals with disabilities education act. The Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-48th-anniversary
Jones, B.A., Gansle, K.A. (2010). The effects of a mini-conference, socioeconomic status, and
parent education on perceived and actual parent participation in individual education
program meetings. Research in the Schools, 17(2), 23-38.
Jozwik, S. L., Cahill, A., & Sánchez, G., (2018). Collaboratively crafting individualized
education program goals for culturally and linguistically diverse students. PREVENTING
SCHOOL FAILURE, 62(2), 140-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2017.1393791
Jung, A. (2011). Individualized education programs (IEPs) and barriers for parents from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Multicultural Education, 18(3), 21-25.
https://search.proquest.com/openview/1b5cc8ff7da448ff5c2cf8eae8f41602/1?pqorigsite=gscholar&cbl=33246
Kilgus, S. P., Oddleifson, C., Kittelman, A., & Rowe, D. A. (2022). Enhancing support for
student mental health in schools. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 55(2), 84-87.
https://journals-sagepub-com.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/doi/epub/10.1177/00400599221147085

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

88

Kurth, J. A., McQueston, J. A., Ruppar, A. L., Toews, S. G., Johnston, R., & McCabe, K. M.
(2019). A Description of parent input in IEP development through analysis IEP
documents. Intellectual and developmental disabilities, 57(6), 485–498.
https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-57.6.485
Lo, L. (2012). Demystifying the IEP process for diverse parents of children with disabilities.
TEACHING Exceptional Children, 44(3), 14-20.
https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991204400302
Lo, L. (2009). Collaborating with Chinese families of children with hearing impairments.
Communication Disorders Quarterly, 30(2), 97-102.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740108324041
Loeb, S., Dynarski, S., McFarland, D., Morris, P., Reardon, S., & Reber, S. (2017). Descriptive
analysis in education: A guide for researchers. (NCEE 2017–4023). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174023/pdf/20174023.pdf
Losinski, M., Katsiyannis, A., White, S., & Wiseman, N. (2016). Who is the parent?: Guidance
from case law on parental participation in the IEP process. TEACHING Exceptional
Children, 48(3), 144–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059915605800
Lytle, R. K., & Bordin, J. (2001). Enhancing the IEP team strategies for parents and
professionals. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 33(5), 40–44.
https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990103300506
Martin, J. E., Marshall, L. H., & Sale, P. (2004). A 3-year study of middle, junior high, and high
school IEP meetings. Exceptional Children, 70(3), 285-297. https://sshelco-

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

89

primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/154mgpi/TN_cdi_proquest_journals_20120
6747
Mendez, J. L., & Swick, D. C. (2018). Guilford Parent Academy: A collaborative effort to
engage parents in children’s education. Education and Treatment of Children, 41(2),
249–268. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26535267
Mereoiu, M., Abercrombie, S., & Murray, M.M. (2016). Structured intervention as a tool to shift
views of parent-professional partnerships: Impact on attitudes toward the IEP.
Exceptionality Education International, 26, 36-52.
www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Structured-Intervention-as-a-Tool-to-Shift-Views-ofMereoiu-Abercrombie/4fb85e4e3c53fba09a3db76d685a6ed726055f29
Miles-Bonart, S. (2002). A look at variables affecting parent satisfaction with IEP meetings.
Psychology, 180-187. www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Look-at-Variables-AffectingParent-Satisfaction-Miles-Bonart/8a51cc5bb58e9c17971a614d4ad3e21845f2d341
Mueller, T.G. (2009). IEP facilitation: A promising approach to resolving conflicts between
families and schools, 41(3), 60-67. https://journals-sagepub-com.proxysru.klnpa.org/doi/abs/10.1177/004005990904100307
Mueller, T. G., & Vick, A. M. (2019). An investigation of facilitated individualized education
program meeting practice: Promising procedures that foster family–professional
collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(1), 67-81.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417739677
Mueller, T. G., & Vick, A. M. (2019). Rebuilding the family–professional partnership through
facilitated individualized education program meetings: A conflict prevention and
resolution practice. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 29(2), 99-

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

90

127. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2018.1470934
National Center for Learning Disabilities IDEA Parent Guide April 2006
https://www.ncld.org/get-involved/learn-the-law/idea-parent-guide/
Partnerships for Action, Voices for Empowerment (2023). Parent Participation in Special
Education Process is a Priority Under Federal Law. https://wapave.org/parentparticipation-in-special-education-process-is-a-priority-under-federal-law/
Passmore, A. H., & Zarate, K. (2021). Helping families reach their PEAK: Partnerships that
promote family empowerment. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 53(4), 310-318.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920958737
Reiman J., Beck, L., Coppola, T., & English, A. (2010). Parents’ experiences with the IEP
process: Considerations for improving practice. Center for Appropriate Dispute
Resolution in Special Education (CADRE (Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in
Special Education), 1-6. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512611.pdf
Rodriguez, R. J., Blatz, E. T., & Elbaum, B. (2014). Parents’ views of schools’ involvement
efforts. Exceptional Children, 81(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914532232
Rossetti, Z., Sauer, J. S., Bui, O., & Ou, S. (2017). Developing collaborative partnerships with
culturally and linguistically diverse families during the IEP process. TEACHING
Exceptional Children, 49(5), 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059916680103
Ruppar, A. L. & Gaffney, J. S. (2011). Individualized education program team decisions: A
preliminary study of conversations, negotiations, and power. Research & Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(1-2), 11-22. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.36.1-2.11
Salas, L. (2004). Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) Meetings and Mexican American
parents: Let's talk about it. Journal of Latinos and Education, 3(3), 181-192.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

91

https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532771xjle0303_4
Salembier, G., & Furney, K. S. (1997). Facilitating participation: Parents’ perceptions of their
involvement in the IEP/transition planning process. Career Development for Exceptional
Individuals, 20(1), 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/088572889702000103
Sanderson, K. A. (2023). “Be Prepared to Fight Like Hell”: Parent advice for IEP meetings.
Exceptionality, 31(5) 344-361. https://doi.org./10.1080/09362835.2023.2184819
Sanderson, K. A., & Goldman, S. E. (2021). Understanding the characteristics and predictors of
student involvement in IEP meetings. The Journal of Special Education, 1-11.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00224669211008259
Sanderson, K. A., & Rojas, A. J. (2022). Parent perspectives on student IEP involvement.
Journal of Research in Special Education Needs.1-10. https://doi.org./10.1111/14713802.12582
Soffer, R. M. (1982). IEP decisions in which parents desire greater participation. Education and
Training of the Mentally Retarded, 17(1), 67–70. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23877096
Stoner, J. B., Bock, S. J., Thompson, J. R., Angell, M. E., Heyl, B. S., & Crowley, E. P. (2005).
Welcome to our world: Parent perceptions of interactions between parents of young
children with ASD and education professionals. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 20(1), 39-51.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576050200010401
Tamzarian, A., Menzies, H.M., & Ricci, L. (2012). Barriers to full participation in the
individualized education program for culturally and linguistically diverse parents.
Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 1(2), 1-11.
https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=josea

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

92

Turner, D. W. (2010). Qualitative Interview Design: A practical guide for novice investigators.
The Qualitative Report. 15(3), 754-760. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol15/iss3/19/
OSEP DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTER on Free and Appropriate Public Education
(FAPE). (2015). United States Department of Education Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitation Services November 16, 2015.
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/osep-dear-colleague-letter-on-free-andappropriate-public-education-fape/
Vacc, N. A., Vallecorsa, A. L., Parker, A., Bonner, S., Lester, C., Richardson, S., & Yates, C.
(1985). Parents’ and educators’ participation in IEP conferences. Education and
Treatment of Children, 8(2), 153-162. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42898902
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis:
Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci, 15, 398-405.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048
Van Reusen, A. K., & Bos, C. S. (1994). Facilitating student participation in individualized
education programs through motivation strategy instruction. Exceptional Children, 60(5),
466–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299406000510
Vetter, T.R. (2017). Descriptive statistics: Reporting the answers to the 5 basic questions of who,
what, why, when, where, and a sixth, so what? Anesthesia & Analgesia, 125(5), 17971802. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000002471
Welch, M. (1998). Collaboration: Staying on the bandwagon. Journal of Teacher Education,
49(1), 26-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487198049001004
Whitbread, K. M., Bruder, M. B., Fleming, G., & Park, H. J. (2007). Collaboration in special
education: Parent professional training. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39(4), 6-14.

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

93

https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990703900401
Wright, P., & Wright P. D. (2006). Special education law (2nd ed.) Harbor House Law Press,
Inc. www.wrightslaw.com/bks/selaw2/selaw2.htm
Xu, W., & Zammit, K. (2020). Applying thematic analysis to education: A hybrid approach to
interpreting data in practitioner research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,
19, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920918810
Yell, M. L., Collins, J., Kumpiene, G., & Bateman, D. (2020). The individualized education
program: Procedural and substantive requirements. TEACHING Exceptional Children,
52(5), 304–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920906592
Zagona, A. L., Miller, A. L., Kurth, J. A., & Love, H. R. (2019). Parent perspectives on special
education services: How do Schools implement team decisions? School Community
Journal, 29(2).
www.researchgate.net/publication/337915874_Parent_Perspectives_on_Special_Educatio
n_Services_How_Do_Schools_Implement_Team_Decisions
Zionts, L. T., Zionts, P., Harrison, S., & Bellinger, O. (2003). Urban African American families’
perceptions of cultural sensitivity within the special education system. Focus on Autism
and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(1), 41-50.
https://doi.org/10.1177/108835760301800106
Zirkel, P.A., Hetrick, A. (2017). Which procedural parts of the IEP process are the most
judicially vulnerable? Exceptional Children, 83(2), 219-235.
https://doi.org/101177/0014402916651

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS
APPENDIX A: TITLE OF APPENDIX A

94

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

95

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

96

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

97

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS

98

PARENT COLLABORATION AT IEP MEETINGS
APPENDIX B: TITLE OF APPENDIX B

99