jared.negley
Thu, 12/11/2025 - 17:14
Edited Text
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
i
Parental Perceptions of School-Based Collaborative Practices: A Study of Parents of
School-Aged Students Receiving Special Education Services
_________________________
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 Education
_________________________
By
Erica Estelle Wood
November 2025
© Erica Estelle Wood, 2025
Keywords: collaboration, special education, parent perspectives, IEP, school-based practices
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
ii
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
iii
Abstract
This study examined parents’ perspectives on school-based collaborative practices for students
receiving special education services. A convergent mixed-methods design was employed,
utilizing a web-based survey (n = 160) and virtual interviews (n = 8) to identify the practices
parents value most, the frequency at which they experience these practices, and how preferences
for most-valued practices vary across demographic characteristics. Findings indicate that parents
most strongly value the relational practices of open communication, trust, and mutual respect.
Similar, but slightly lower valued, were the structural practices of collaboration. Parents reported
high rates of experiencing the practices of each domain of collaboration. However, differences
emerged when the data were sorted by parent race/ethnicity, disability category, and student age,
in the value placed on the practices. Interviews revealed additional data supporting parents' need
for a focus on strong relational practices and structures to facilitate collaboration with schoolbased teams. These results suggest that effective collaboration is based upon both relational and
structural practices. Schools are recommended to reinforce facilitators of collaboration while
addressing barriers to strengthen family-school partnerships and improve the outcomes for
students with disabilities.
Keywords: collaboration, special education, parent perspectives, IEP, school-based
practices
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
iv
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents.
To my dad, who taught me to find my “rocking chair pace” and reminded me that once
you do, you can go on forever. Your love and lessons continue to steady me.
To my mom, your hard work, resourcefulness, and strength have shaped every part of
who I am. You’ve shown me that with love and steadfast perseverance, we can accomplish
anything.
I carry you both in all that I do.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
v
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to all who have supported me throughout this
doctoral journey.
To my husband, Alex, there is absolutely no one else in this world that I would want to
ride the see-saw of life with; you are the BEST. None of this would have been possible without
you. I love you.
To my girls, Abigail and Emma, you are my greatest joy and will forever be your dad’s
and my greatest contribution to this world. You two will always be able to accomplish what you
put your hearts and minds into. I love you.
To my dissertation committee, I appreciate all of your guidance and support throughout
this journey. Dr. Ashlea Rineer-Hershey, thank you for believing in me and this study; I knew it
was a stretch, but your confidence in me kept this dissertation progressing. Dr. Eric Bieniek,
thank you for pushing me to go further; you knew I had it in me, I just needed your
encouragement to dig deeper. Dr. Todd Oswald, thank you for taking a chance on me years ago.
Your belief in me and guidance have shaped me into the professional and scholar I am today.
Finally, I am grateful to all my family, colleagues, and friends who checked in, offered
encouragement, advice, or a listening ear along the way. Your support, in all of its many forms,
has made this all possible.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
vi
Table of Contents
Signature Page ........................................................................................................................ ii
Abstract ................................................................................................................................... iii
Dedication ............................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. v
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... xii
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... xvi
Chapter One – Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
Overview ....................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 1
Models and Frameworks ................................................................................... 3
Collaboration Between Stakeholders ............................................................... 4
Need for the Study ........................................................................................................ 5
Barriers to Collaboration ................................................................................... 5
Logic Model .................................................................................................................. 6
Research Questions and Statement of Purpose .............................................................. 8
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 9
Definition of Terms ....................................................................................................... 9
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
vii
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 12
Chapter 2 – Literature Review .................................................................................................. 13
History of Special Education ........................................................................................ 13
State Performance Plan ................................................................................................. 14
Indicator Three .................................................................................................. 16
Indicator Fourteen ............................................................................................. 20
Collaboration Between Stakeholders ............................................................................ 21
No Child Left Behind ........................................................................................ 23
Individuals with Disabilities Act ...................................................................... 23
Every Student Succeeds Act ............................................................................. 24
Indicator Eight .............................................................................................................. 24
Barriers to Participation ................................................................................................ 26
Parental Barriers ................................................................................................ 26
School Barriers .................................................................................................. 27
Involvement vs. Participation ........................................................................... 28
Engagement and Collaboration Models ........................................................................ 29
Dual Capacity Framework ................................................................................ 29
Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler Model of Parental Involvement Process ............ 30
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
viii
Sunshine Model of Trusting Family-Professional Partnerships ....................... 31
Model Limitations ......................................................................................................... 33
Collaboration ................................................................................................................. 34
Framework for Collaboration ........................................................................... 34
Building Blocks of Collaboration ................................................................................. 36
Relationship Building ....................................................................................... 37
Shared Values and Beliefs ................................................................................ 38
Active Engagement ........................................................................................... 38
Collective Collaborative Effort ......................................................................... 38
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 39
Chapter Three – Methods .......................................................................................................... 40
Participants and Setting ................................................................................................. 41
Quantitative Methods .................................................................................................... 43
Survey ............................................................................................................... 43
Quantitative Data Analysis ............................................................................... 44
Validity ............................................................................................................. 48
Reliability .......................................................................................................... 49
Qualitative Methods ...................................................................................................... 49
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
ix
Interview ........................................................................................................... 49
Qualitative Data Analysis ................................................................................. 49
Validity ............................................................................................................. 50
Reliability .......................................................................................................... 51
Integration Methods ...................................................................................................... 52
Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 53
Permissions and Preliminary ............................................................................. 53
Survey ............................................................................................................... 53
Interview ........................................................................................................... 54
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 54
Chapter Four – Results .............................................................................................................. 56
Overview ....................................................................................................................... 56
Quantitative Results ...................................................................................................... 58
Demographics ................................................................................................... 58
Survey Reliability ............................................................................................. 61
Most Valued Practices ...................................................................................... 62
Summary of Most Valued Practices ...................................................... 71
Demographics and Most Valued Practices ....................................................... 72
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
x
Demographics and Most Valued Practices Summary ........................... 87
Rates of Experiences ......................................................................................... 88
Rates of Experiences Summary ............................................................ 99
Qualitative Results ........................................................................................................ 99
Demographics ................................................................................................... 99
Facilitators and Barriers .................................................................................... 100
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 104
Chapter Five – Discussion ........................................................................................................ 106
Overview ....................................................................................................................... 106
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................... 108
Research Question One ..................................................................................... 108
Research Question Two .................................................................................... 110
Research Question Three .................................................................................. 112
Research Questions Four .................................................................................. 113
Discussion of Findings and Implications ...................................................................... 113
Research Question One ..................................................................................... 113
Research Question Two .................................................................................... 115
Race/Ethnicity ....................................................................................... 115
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
xi
Student Age ........................................................................................... 115
Disability Category ............................................................................... 115
Research Question Three .................................................................................. 116
Research Question Four .................................................................................... 117
Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 117
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 119
Implications for Future Research .................................................................................. 120
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 121
References ................................................................................................................................. 122
Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 132
A: Superintendent’s Letter ............................................................................................ 132
B: District Approvals Form .......................................................................................... 133
C: IRB Application Approval ....................................................................................... 134
D: Parent and Guardian Introduction to the Study ........................................................ 135
E: Participant Consent Form ......................................................................................... 136
F: Survey ....................................................................................................................... 137
G: Parent/Guardian Interview Consent Form ............................................................... 148
H: Parent/Guardian Interview Questions ...................................................................... 149
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
xii
List of Tables
Table 1: Indicator 3A – Participation Rate for Children with IEPs in 2022-2023SY ………
17
Table 2: Indicator 3B – Proficiency Rate for Children with IEPs Against Grade Level
Academic Achievement Standards in 2022-2023SY ……………………………………..
18
Table 3: Indicator 3D – Gap in Proficiency Rates for Children with IEPs and All
Students Against Grade Level Achievement Standards in 2022-2023SY ………………... 19
Table 4: Indicator 14 – Post-School Outcomes 2015-2015SY …………………………… 21
Table 5: Benefits of Collaborative Teams ………………………………………………...
22
Table 6: Indicator 8 – School-Facilitated Parent Involvement …………………………… 25
Table 7: Definitions and Actions of Trust Dimensions in Sunshine Model of Trusting
Family-Professional Partnerships …………………………………………………………
32
Table 8: IDEA Disability Categories for State Special Education Enrollment for 2223SY ………………………………………………………………………………………
41
Table 9: Age Distribution of Students Receiving Special Education Services in
Pennsylvania (as of December 1, 2023) …………………………………………………..
42
Table 10: Quantitative Data Analysis Plans ………………………………………………
45
Table 11: Subgroup Categories and Minimum Sample Size Requirements for Chi-Square
Testing ……………………………………………………………………………………
47
Table 12: Qualitative Analysis Plans …………………………….………………………
50
Table 13: Frequency Distribution of Parental Race/Ethnicity ……………………………. 58
Table 14: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies Distribution
of Student Age as of December 1, 2024 …………………………………………………..
59
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
xiii
Table 15: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies Distribution
for Student Disability Categories …………………………………………………………. 60
Table 16: Cronbach’s Alpha for Collaboration Domains ………………………………… 62
Table 17: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Open
Communication …………………………………………………………………………… 63
Table 18: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Trust
Domain ……………………………………………………………………………………
64
Table 19: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Mutual
Respect Domain …………………………………………………………………………... 65
Table 20: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Shared
Goals Domain ……………………………………………………………………………..
66
Table 21: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for
Common Understanding Domain …………………………………………………………
67
Table 22: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Shared
Responsibility Domain ……………………………………………………………………
68
Table 23: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Active
Participation ………………………………………………………………………………. 69
Table 24: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Shared
Decision-Making ………………………………………………………………………….
70
Table 25: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for
Implementation Domain …………………………………………………………………..
71
Table 26: Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Open Communication
Practices by Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age ……………………...
73
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
xiv
Table 27: Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Trust Practices by
Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age …………………………………...
74
Table 28: Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Mutual Respect Practices by
Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age …………………………………...
76
Table 29: Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Shared Goal Practices by
Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age …………………………………...
78
Table 30: Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Common Understanding
Practices by Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age ……………………...
79
Table 31: Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Shared Responsibility
Practices by Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age ……………………...
81
Table 32: Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Active Participation Practices
by Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age ………………………………..
82
Table 33: Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Shared Decision-Making
Practices by Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age ……………………...
84
Table 34: Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Implementation Practices by
Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age …………………………………...
86
Table 35: Demographics and Most Valued Practices ……………………...……………
87
Table 36: Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’
Reported Experiences of Open Communication Practices ……………………………….
89
Table 37: Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’
Reported Experiences of Trust Practices …………………………………………………
90
Table 38: Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’
Reported Experiences of Mutual Respect Practices ……………………………………..
91
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
xv
Table 39: Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’
Reported Experiences of Shared Goals Practices ………………………………………… 93
Table 40: Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’
Reported Experiences of Common Understanding Practices …………………………….
94
Table 41: Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’
Reported Experiences of Shared Responsibility Practices ………………………………..
95
Table 42: Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’
Reported Experiences of Active Participation Practices ………………………………….
96
Table 43: Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’
Reported Experiences of Shared Decision-Making Practices …………………………….
97
Table 44: Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’
Reported Experiences of Implementation Practices ………………………………………
98
Table 45: Demographic Characteristics of Interview Participants (N = 8) ……………….
100
Table 46: Frequency of Responses Regarding Facilitators for Domains of Collaboration .
102
Table 47: Frequency of Responses Regarding Barriers for Domains of Collaboration …..
104
Table 48: Most Valued School-Based Practices Within Each Domain of Collaboration ...
109
Table 49: Summary of Chi-Square Tests of Independence by Domain and Demographic
Variable …………………………………………………………………………………… 111
Table 50: Means and Standard Deviations of Parent Experiences Across Collaboration
Domains …………………………………………………………………………………... 112
Table 51: Recommendations Based on Findings by Research Question …………………
118
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
xvi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Special Education Legislation Timeline ………………………………………..
2
Figure 2: Logic Model ……………………………………………………………………
7
Figure 3: Building Blocks of Collaboration ………………………………………………
37
Figure 4: Logic Model …………………………………………………………………….
107
Figure 5: Building Blocks of Collaboration ………………………………………………
114
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
1
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Overview
The United States Department of Education, established in 1867, did not formalize efforts
to improve education for all students, regardless of their racial background, economic status, or
abilities, until the 1960s and 1970s (U.S. Department of Education [ED], 2024). These efforts
addressed the growing educational gaps between students of varying economic backgrounds and
racial identities, those with disabilities, and their peers in regular education through increased
federal education funding. Focus was put into developing practices based on standards,
measuring these standards, and accountability for the results of their implementation (Edgerton &
Desimone, 2019).
Starting in 1975, with the signing of the Education for All Handicapped Students Act
(EHA) into law, students with disabilities (SWD) gained more visibility. They were to receive a
Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) in every state (Rineer-Hershey & Mild, 2020). This law
created momentum away from the practices of the 1950s and 60s when those identified with
disabilities were underserved regarding their needs and, at times, placed in highly restrictive
environments (U.S. Department of Education [ED], 2024). Through the reauthorization of the
EHA in 1990, the act was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and
reauthorizations have been made since, each providing additional support for students with
disabilities. Unfortunately, despite these laws and their intended outcomes, SWD still largely
underperform when compared to their peers without disabilities.
Statement of the Problem
The academic disparities SWDs face are a grave concern, as they persist despite decades
of legislative efforts. Figure 1 highlights some of the legislation passed since the mid-1950s. Each
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
2
provides additional support and protection to identified students (Essex, N. L. (2016) School law
and the public schools: A practical guide for educational leaders. (6th ed.) Pearson.)
Figure 1
Special Education Legislation Timeline
The academic discrepancies between SWDs and their regular education peers are evident
in achievement scores for reading and mathematics. According to the National Assessment of
Educational Progress [NAEP] (n.d.), standardized scores for public school SWDs assessed in
grade four mathematics have continued to lag compared to those of their peers without
disabilities. In 1996, SWDs scored an average of 20 points below their peers in mathematics, and
in 2022, this difference had grown to a 28-point differential (NAEP, n.d.). In reading, fourthgrade SWD were performing on average 40 points below their peers and had shown no
improvement in their performance in 2022 (NAEP, n.d.). These discrepancies for elementaryaged students are not limited to mathematics and reading; they are also present in science,
writing, U.S. History, and many other subjects. These inequities also extend beyond standardized
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
3
testing; SWDs also experience lower rates of motivation in school, enrollment in post-secondary
education, and gainful post-secondary employment and higher rates of retention, school dropout,
truancy, and absenteeism (Community and Youth Collaborative Institute [CAYCI], 2019).
A proven approach to improving these outcomes for SWD is a collaboration between
stakeholders, specifically families and school districts (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004;
Daaboul, 2022). Each party provides essential components to meet the needs of and improve
outcomes, but they can gain more traction and momentum when they work collaboratively
(Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004). Bringing attention to and evaluating practices utilized by
school districts to collaborate with parents is needed to address areas for improvement.
Models and Frameworks
This study is structured based on a researcher-developed logic model. This model
accounts for the direct and indirect factors influencing SWD's in- and post-school outcomes (i.e.,
the amount of collaboration, parents, and school teams). The belief is that with improved
parental involvement and engagement practices, collaboration between schools and parents will
increase and become more effective. Currently, these practices occur, but not in capacities that
have a significant impact. Understanding how parents perceive the current practices utilized by
schools to engage and collaborate with parents and their potential to increase the benefit is
crucial to achieving this goal. This study can provide insight into strengths and weaknesses in
school practices to guide needed changes in collaborative practices to increase special education
student performance in school and their post-secondary lives.
Many models/frameworks exist to provide structure and guidance to school districts on
involving and engaging parents to foster collaborative relationships. For this study, the DualCapacity Building Framework for Family-School Partnerships (Mapp & Bergman, 2019), the
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
4
Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler Model of Parental Involvement Process (Hoover-Dempsey et al.,
2005), and the Sunshine Model of Trusting Family-Professional Partnerships (Turnbull &
Turnbull, 2021) were reviewed. These models provide districts with the structure to develop their
practices to uphold current parental involvement and engagement policies based on No Child
Left Behind (NCLB, 2001), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), and
the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015). All of these mandate schools enact programs to
develop collaborative relationships with parents.
Collaboration Between Stakeholders
The Cambridge Dictionary (n.d.) defines collaboration as “the situation of two or more
people working to create or achieve the same thing” (Definition One). This definition remains
consistent, though it takes on additional nuance when applied in the context of education. In the
literature on school and family collaboration, it can be defined as two or more stakeholders
working together and sharing responsibilities to achieve a common goal(s) (Cowan et al., 2004;
Gardner & Cary, 1999; Lawson & Barkdull, 1999). However, collaboration does not occur just
because schools have implemented practices and initiatives or adopted previously mentioned
models or frameworks. Collaboration, as per the work of Lawson and Barkdull (2001), is built
upon five frameworks that address the multitude of student needs in school. These frameworks
are intraorganizational, interagency, interprofessional, community collaboration, and familycentered. The collaboration must also be structured to be effective, and this can occur only when
clearly defined.
Griffiths et al. (2021) systematically reviewed the literature on collaboration to develop a
universal model for schools. Through their analysis, the researchers were able to identify nine
key elements needed to foster collaboration: (a) open communication, (b) trust, (c) mutual
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
5
respect, (d) shared goals, (e) common understanding, (f) shared responsibility, (g) active
participation, (h) shared decision making, and (i) implementation. When these elements were
present, they provided the structure for the building blocks of collaboration: (a) relationship
building, (b) active participation, (c) implementation, to ultimately reach (d) collaboration
(Griffiths et al., 2021).
Need for the Study
Even with the available frameworks, models, and building blocks, a disconnect remains
between implementing policies at the district level and actual levels of parental involvement and
engagement, which are essential components of collaboration. This is evident alone through the
measurement of Indicator 8- School-Facilitated Parent Involvement reported in the State
Performance Plan (SPP), a federally mandated report each state must provide to describe their
compliance with IDEA and the outcomes for their SWD (U. S. Department of Education [ED],
2022). In the 2020-2021 school year, the state rate did not meet the SPP target rate (Pennsylvania
State Data Center, 2024).
Just as data would be collected to determine why a student is failing to progress in each
area, the same must be done to improve parental collaboration. Mattingly et al. (2002) highlight
the lack of parental involvement and assessment of engagement programs. Without data to
inform practices, school districts and the state of Pennsylvania will continue to fall below low
target rates and fail to implement policies effectively (Kessler-Sklar & Baker, 2000), impacting
the ability to collaborate with families to benefit their students.
Barriers to Collaboration
Challenges and barriers to developing and growing these collaborative relationships
present on the school and familial side. Districts, often without intending to do so, can employ
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
6
ineffective and exclusive practices when collaborating with families. These actions can impede
the families’ abilities to be actively involved and engaged in their child(ren)’s education(s),
especially with their special education services (Christenson, 2003; Epstein & Dauber, 1991;
Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). Specifically, schools have been found to engage in minimal
contact with parents due to schedule conflicts, language barriers, or the belief that parental
collaboration will not be beneficial (Christenson, 2003; Epstein & Dauber, 1991; HooverDempsey & Sandler, 1997). If and when contact is established, schools have been found to
employ further ineffective strategies to engage parents through excessive paperwork, educational
jargon, and confusing procedures (Mueller & Vick, 2017).
Parental barriers can be present in the form of (a) limited social capital (Bourdieu, 1986),
(b) long-held parental beliefs regarding education (Harry et al., 1995), (c) time and scheduling
challenges, (d) parents personal, educational history, (e) previous interactions with school, (d)
beliefs about disability, (e) lack of resources to enable attendance at meetings, (f) low sense of
efficacy, (i) unmet basic needs in the home, and (j) communication and language barriers
(Cowan et al., 2004; Goodall, 2017; Kalyanpur, et al., 2000). On the familial side, there are
additional barriers to collaboration. School practices must assess and reflect upon these barriers.
Failure to do so will enable the maintenance of inequities in educational outcomes for students
with disabilities.
Logic Model
Figure 2 presents the logic model for this study, which is based on the work of Chang
(2021). This model illustrates factors that can directly and indirectly influence SWD (i.e., the
amount of collaboration, parents, and school teams). The study's primary goal is to examine
parental perceptions of school-based practices within each domain of collaboration. Improving
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
7
collaboration can significantly enhance SWD's in- and post-school outcomes. Understanding
how parents perceive the current practices utilized by schools to engage and collaborate with
parents and their potential to increase the benefit is crucial to achieving this goal. This study can
contribute to a brighter future for students with disabilities, with improved outcomes through
increased collaboration.
Figure 2
Logic Model
Note. Adapted from Chang, 2021.
This dissertation examines parents' perceptions of school-aged students with disabilities
(SWD) attending public schools in Pennsylvania, focusing on school-based collaborative
practices within and surrounding the provision of special education services. In addition, this
study seeks to determine if relationships exist between parental perceptions and their
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
8
race/ethnicity and their students’ demographics (e.g., grade level, area of disability). The survey
instrument and interview questions utilized for this study were researcher-developed based on
previously established and vetted parental engagement questionnaires, existing literature on
collaboration, and Pennsylvania’s State Performance Plan Indicator 8 – School Facilitated Parent
Involvement measure (Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network, 2018).
Research Questions and Statement of Purpose
There are four research questions for this study.
1. What do parents believe to be the most valuable school-based practice in each of the
domains of collaboration (i.e., (a) open communication, (b) trust, (c) mutual respect,
(d) shared goals, (e) common understanding, (f) shared responsibility, (g) active
participation, (h) shared decision making, and (i) implementation)?
2. Is there a relationship between demographics (i.e., (a) student’s race/ethnicity, (b)
student’s age, and (c) student’s disability category) and what parents deem the most
valuable school-based collaborative practice in each domain?
3. How often do parents experience the practices of each collaboration domain when
engaging with the school district regarding their student’s special education services?
4. What barriers and facilitators of parental collaboration exist for parents of schoolaged students receiving special education services, in each of the domains of
collaboration?
This study will contribute to the literature on parental engagement of those with schoolaged children receiving special education services. Contributions will be made by identifying the
value parents see in identified practices for parental engagement. In addition, data on the rates at
which parents experience each of the practices within each collaboration domain will be
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
9
collected to look for alignment with the practice deemed most valuable to parents. This study
will also provide school districts with additional data regarding perceptions of collaborative
practices classified by demographics. Lastly, barriers to and facilitators of parental engagement
will be explored to inform school-based practices.
Limitations
This study presents three limitations that could impact the results. The first limitation is
that participants will only be from Pennsylvania school districts. The data derived from this
survey could fail to be representative of the population of school-aged special education students
and their families, impacting its generalizability. This challenge to generalizability will impact
how this data can serve the districts of study and those throughout Pennsylvania. Second, using
an online survey will ask families to interpret the questions as intended without the researcher's
ability to provide clarity. Third, this survey will be provided only online and in English, which
can lead to the exclusion of parents/families who (a) may not have reliable access to the Internet,
(b) may be illiterate, and/or (c) lack English proficiency.
Definition of Terms
The following terms are used in this dissertation. Understanding these terms within the
context of this study is important. Terms and their definitions are as follows:
Building Blocks of Collaboration: The foundation for collaboration is established when teams
focus on relationship building, shared values, and active engagement. The path to collaboration
may not always be linear, as progress cannot be made unless the previous building blocks are
well established (Griffiths et al., 2021).
Collaboration: Shared responsibility and efforts to achieve results (Anderson-Butcher &
Ashton, 2004); Consists of five frameworks that work independently or parallel to each other to
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
10
address student needs: intraorganizational, interagency, interprofessional, community
collaboration, and family-centered (Lawson & Barkdull, 2001).
Dual-Capacity Building Framework for Family-School Partnerships: A model that
recognizes the challenges that impede family-school collaboration, such as differing views and
beliefs. To overcome these challenges, this model looks to build capacity in families and the
school in a) capabilities or skills and knowledge, (b) connections or networks, (c) cognition or
shifts in beliefs and values, and (d) confidence or self-efficacy (Mapp & Bergman, 2019).
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): Legislation that requires LEAs to build their capacity to
train families and staff on engagement to increase collaboration (The Leadership Conference
Education Fund, 2017).
Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE): Special education and related services are provided
at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge to meet the
student's unique needs (Center for Parent Information and Resources [CPIR], 2017).
Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler Model of Parental Involvement Process: A model that focuses
on why and why not families are involved in their child’s education, what actions families take
when involved, and the role families play in their child’s success in school. Recognizing the
positive impact parental involvement can have on their child’s education, this model helps
educators understand the challenges families face, the variety of ways families can be involved,
and the direct impacts these actions have on students (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005).
Individualized Education Plan (IEP): A written statement for a child with a disability that is
developed, reviewed, and revised, at a minimum, yearly (CPIR, 2017).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Legislation requires schools to actively
involve parents in their students' Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) by engaging them as
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
11
equitable team members (Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network [PATTAN],
2024).
Key Elements of Collaboration: The eight key elements needed to foster collaboration: (a)
open communication, (b) trust, (c) mutual respect, (d) shared goals, (e) common understanding,
(f) shared responsibility, (g) active participation, and (h) shared decision making (Griffiths et al.,
2021).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): Legislation that mandates collaboration through parental
involvement to increase parental knowledge, which, in turn, would increase parental
participation (National Council of La Raza [LCLR], 2007).
Parental Engagement: Opportunities provided by schools to partner with families in a two-way
working partnership, built upon dialogue that supersedes barriers and assists in creating plans for
their student’s academic, social, and emotional growth are present (Ferlazzo, 2011; RineerHershey & Mild, 2020).
Parental Involvement: Actions taken by schools to inform families of events, initiatives, and
opportunities to get involved but leave minimal opportunities for parental or family participation
in their child’s education (Rineer-Hershey & Mild, 2020).
Student with a Disability (SWD): A child of school age who meets the criteria as a child with a
disability and in need of services (CPIR, 2017).
Special Education: Specially designed instruction is provided at no cost to the parents to meet
the needs of a child with a disability (CPIR, 2017).
Sunshine Model of Trusting Family-Professional Partnerships: A model focused on building
partnerships between families and school professionals upon trust through equity, respect,
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
12
communication, advocacy, and commitment; all must be present to actualize trust (Turnbull &
Turnbull, 2021)
Summary
The role of families in students' lives is significant and omnipotent. Students spend most
of their lives outside the school's walls with their families, who heavily shape this time. The
influence of those with whom students spend the most time is profound, impacting their
behaviors, attitudes, learning, and overall development. However, this is not to discount schools'
influence on students and families. In an ideal, mutually beneficial relationship, students will
bring home the learning and practices from school and figuratively bring their families to the
learning environment. Despite the challenges, all stakeholders must actively pursue such a
partnership, focused upon collaboration, to improve special education student outcomes in school
and post-secondary. A baseline of parental beliefs and perceptions needs to be gathered to
initiate and appropriately focus such efforts. In this study, parents will be invited to participate in
a survey and interview to gather data to inform and shape future school-based collaborative
practices.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
13
Chapter 2 – Literature Review
The purposes of this dissertation are to (a) determine what parents perceive to be the most
valuable school-based practices within each domain of collaboration, (b) if there is a connection
between demographics and the most valued practices, (c) the rates at which parents experience
collaborative practices, and (d) the barriers and facilitators of collaboration that parents
experience. This chapter reviews literature and provides the rationale and framework for this
study. Included is the history of educational accountability, quantification of the poor in-school
performance of SWD and outcomes post-secondary education, definitions of parental
engagement and models demonstrating how it is essential to collaboration, and therefore, student
outcomes, identification of the barriers on behalf of the parents and those presented by the
schools, and provide a framework of collaboration on which to compare current school practices
against.
History of Special Education
The United States Department of Education was established over 150 years ago, in 1867,
to gather data and information about the nation’s schools and teaching (ED, 2024). The data
gathered was intended to provide guidance and insight into improving the effectiveness of
America’s schools. While there was federal oversight, local jurisdictions ultimately controlled
educational decisions. These jurisdictions were left to interpret, apply, or ignore this guidance.
Unfortunately, this all too often led to discrimination against students based on disability, racial
background, and economic status. These practices were evident in the data; these students were
not performing at the level of their peers, and this gap continued to widen over time. It was not
until the 1960s and 70s that the federal government acknowledged these unjust practices and
acted against them by passing proactive laws. In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
14
Students (EHA) was enacted, providing more visibility to SWD. This federal law was to
guarantee that identified students were to receive a free and appropriate education (FAPE) in the
least restrictive environment (LRE) (Rineer-Hershey & Mild, 2020). In 1990, the EHA was
reauthorized and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), of which additional
reauthorizations have since followed. With these reauthorizations, support and rights for SWD
have been further emphasized and expanded upon.
State Performance Plans
While federally defined, FAPE is still largely left to the interpretation of the district
providing it. The intention behind this law, which was to improve the education of students with
disabilities, was apparent, though performance discrepancies remain. The 2004 reauthorization
of IDEA recognized the need for additional focus on the education and outcomes of SWD and
added the requirement of a State Performance Plan (SPP) for every state. The federally mandated
SPP would provide the structure for each state to describe their compliance with IDEA and the
outcomes for their SWD (ED, 2022). These indicators provide the basis for each state’s
reporting on performance and compliance for school-aged students. Current indicators for SWD
are as follows:
Indicator 1 - graduation rates: graduated with a regular high school diploma
Indicator 2 - dropout rates: school exits by dropping out
Indicator 3 - student participation and performance on statewide
assessments: (a) participation rate, (b) proficiency rate against grade-level
academic standards, (c) proficiency rate against alternative grade-level academic
standards (not reported due to group size in LEA), (d) gap in proficiency rates for
grade-level academic standards between SWD and students without disabilities
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
15
Indicator 4 - suspension and expulsion rates: discrepancy rates of
suspension/expulsion for SWD greater than 10 days in a school year, discrepancy
rates of suspension/expulsion, by race/ethnicity, for SWD greater than 10 days in
a school year
Indicator 5 - educational placement (LRE): percentage of students identified as
served (a) greater than 80% of the day in the regular class; (b) less than 40% of
the day in the regular classroom; (c) in separate, residential or
homebound/hospital placements
Indicator 8 - school-facilitated parent involvement: a measure of schools’
efforts to engage parents to improve their child’s educational outcomes
Indicator 9 - disproportionate representation by race/ethnicity: rates of SWD
by race/ethnicity inappropriately identified and receiving special education
services
Indicator 10 - disproportionate representation by race/ethnicity in disability
categories: rates of SWD by race/ethnicity inappropriately identified under
specific disability categories and receiving special education services
Indicator 11 - timelines for initial evaluation: compliance with timelines for
initial evaluations
Indicator 13 - IEP postsecondary transition goals and services: compliance
with regulatory requirements within the IEP for secondary transition
Indicator 14 - postsecondary outcomes: rates of SWD enrolled in higher
education (a) within one year of leaving high school; (b) or competitively
employed within one year of leaving high school; (c) or some other postsecondary
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
16
education or training program or some other employment within in one year of
leaving high school (ED, 2022)
Three, eight, and fourteen will be the most relevant indicators for this study on SWDs’
performance and parental collaboration. These provide student participation and performance
data on statewide assessments, school-facilitated parent involvement, and post-secondary
outcomes for SWD.
Indicator Three
Across all tested areas and grade levels, the state failed to meet the SPP target rate for the
participation of children with IEPs in the 2022-2023 SY, as seen in Table 1. A variety of factors
can impact student participation. Technology issues can have the most significant impact, as
some districts are not equipped to administer computer-based assessments due to a lack of
technological equipment and reliable connectivity (Brown, 2016). A lack of accommodations
can accompany test administration; students with disabilities, English learners, and those with
comorbidities of a disability who are English learners may be unable to access the needed
accommodations to participate in the assessments equitably. Voluntary opt-outs account for the
remaining non-participatory students. Families may choose to opt their child out of testing due to
concerns with scores being unfairly tied to teacher and school accountability, the already large
volume of testing required, and challenges to the equity and suitability of the testing for SWD
and other target groups (Katanyoutanant, et al., 2021).
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
17
Table 1
Indicator 3A - Participation Rate for Children with IEPs in 2022-2023SY
Grade
State Rate
SPP Target Rate
State Met Rate
ELA
4
92.7%
95%
No
8
87.5%
95%
No
11
87.2%
95%
No
Math
4
93.1%
95%
No
8
87.4%
95%
No
11
85.2%
95%
No
Note. ELA = English Language Arts. SY = school year. Adapted from
https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/Public-Reporting/SEDR-Report-Dashboard. Copyright 2024 by
Pennsylvania State Data Center.
Those students participating in state assessments in Pennsylvania receive both a
numerical score and a level of performance. The levels of performance are (a) below basic, (b)
basic, (c) proficient, and (d) advanced. An advanced level of performance reflects superior
performance, proficient is considered satisfactory, basic is demonstrative of marginal
performance, and below basic is an inadequate level of performance (ED, 2022). Table 2
provides the percentage of SWD who achieved either the proficient or advanced level on the
Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) exams in the 2022-2023 school year. The
Pennsylvania failed to meet the target rate for all but 11th-grade ELA and 4th-grade math.
Extremely concerning is that more than 75% of SWDs across all tested grades and subjects score
at basic or below basic levels regarding grade-level academic standards.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
18
Table 2
Indicator 3B - Proficiency Rate for Children with IEPs Against Grade Level Academic
Achievement Standards in 2022-2023SY
Grade
State Rate
SPP Target Rate
State Met Rate
ELA
4
19.3%
28.8%
No
8
16.1%
21.5%
No
11
23.5%
18.7%
Yes
Math
4
19.7%
19.6%
Yes
8
5.0%
10.9%
No
11
8.1%
25.9%
No
Note. ELA = English Language Arts. SY = school year. Adapted from
https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/Public-Reporting/SEDR-Report-Dashboard. Copyright 2024 by
Pennsylvania State Data Center.
Indicator 3D provides a percentage point gap in proficiency rates between SWD and all
students against grade-level academic achievement standards. Unlike 3A and 3B, a lower
percentage is the sought-after result for this indicator; the smaller the percentage rate difference,
the closer the rate of SWDs performing at or above proficiency in comparison to all assessed
students. The proficiency gap rates for SWD and all students in Pennsylvania did not exceed the
SPP target rate on 4th-grade ELA or for the 4th and 11th-grade mathematics assessments. All other
grade-level and assessment combinations exceeded the SPP target rates, readily quantifying the
rate at which SWD are lagging behind their peers regarding grade-level achievement standards.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
19
Table 3
Indicator 3D – Gap in Proficiency Rates for Children with IEPs and All Students Against Grade
Level Academic Achievement Standards in 2022-2023SY
Grade
State Rate
SPP Target Rate
State Met Rate
ELA
4
32.2%
30.9%
No
8
36.2%
34.2%
Yes
11
41.5%
32.7%
Yes
Math
4
26.3%
20.0%
No
8
20.7%
16.6%
Yes
11
25.8%
39.1%
No
Note. ELA = English Language Arts. SY = school year. Adapted from
https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/Public-Reporting/SEDR-Report-Dashboard. Copyright 2024 by
Pennsylvania State Data Center.
Based on indicator 3D alone, it is apparent that there is a need for increased
accountability in special education program delivery focused on closing these performance gaps.
Just as problematic is the underperformance of SWD, reflected in indicator 3B, regarding their
learning outcomes in general education subjects, which provides the foundation for postsecondary education (Rothstein & Johnson, 2019). One of the main focuses of post-secondary
life for SWD is gainful employment. This goal has remained constant over time, but the required
training and education for employment have not. In 1959, only 20% of jobs required a minimum
of a college degree (Carnevale & Fry, 2000). Fast-forward to 2021, when post-secondary
education was required for 68% of jobs, with an estimated 72% requiring the same by 2031, of
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
20
which 42% will require a minimum of a bachelor's (Newton, 2023). Being unable to access the
general education curriculum successfully limits a student's ability to access post-secondary
education, which is essential to gainful employment that funds all aspects of adult life (Carnevale
& Fry, 2000).
Indicator 14
Pennsylvania exceeded the SPP target rate for all three post-school outcomes, one-year
post-high school graduation, as seen in Table 4. Meeting and exceeding these target rates are a
reason for celebration, though it can be argued that they are not ambitious enough. Compared to
their general education peers, performance gaps remain eight years post-high school graduation.
As Newman et al. (2011) reported, 67% of general education students were enrolled in postsecondary education compared to 60% of SWD. Of these post-secondary programs, 40% of
general education students were enrolled in a 4-year university, compared to only 19% of SWD.
Completion rates of these 4-year programs also differ based on disability status, with only 34%
of SWD completing their program as opposed to 51% of general education students. Impacted by
post-secondary education is the rate of pay, of which SWD averages a dollar less than an hour
compared to their peers. Lower rates of independent living (45% vs. 59%) also define SWD
post-secondary (Newman et al., 2011).
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
21
Table 4
Indicator 14 – Post-School Outcomes 2015-2016SY
Target
State Rate
SPP Target Rate
State Met Rate
a
28.84%
26.40%
Yes
b
67.32%
60.80%
Yes
c
73.34%
68.80%
Yes
Note. Adapted from https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/Public-Reporting/SEDR-Report-Dashboard.
Copyright 2017 by Pennsylvania State Data Center.
Collaboration Between Stakeholders
SWDs' poor performance on standardized testing reflects their access to and
comprehension of the general education curriculum. Gains must be made in these areas to
maximize achievement and achieve goals to improve in-school and post-school outcomes
(Sujarwo & Herwin, 2023). Collaboration between stakeholders involved with SWDs is a proven
approach to these challenges and achieving such goals (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004;
Daaboul, 2022). Collaboration is based on the understanding that “no agency or professional can
succeed alone in addressing the multifaceted needs of students and their families” (AndersonButcher & Ashton, 2004, p. 40); there is an interdependence among all stakeholders who serve
students with disabilities. A student’s success depends upon collaboration between teachers,
social workers, counselors, nurses, paraprofessionals, local service providers, community
members, parents, and families (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004). From an overarching
perspective, collaboration can be defined as two or more stakeholders working together and
sharing responsibilities to achieve a common goal(s) (Cowan et al., 2004; Gardner, 1999;
Lawson & Barkdull, 1999). While not explicitly stated within the definition, it is inherent to
collaboration that all involved “pool their resources to create a cooperative, interdependent
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
22
relationship” (Cowan et al., 2004, p. 201) as part of a dynamic and reciprocal process (Cowan et
al., 2004). A simple example of collaboration is when parents provide insight into their student’s
strengths and limitations in non-school settings, and teachers provide the same regarding the
school setting. Though such an example must be noted, it is an oversimplification of
collaboration.
When schools and families collaborate, the benefits for students are plentiful. Table 5
highlights how collaborative teams can help students improve in needed areas and reduce
problematic behaviors.
Table 5
Benefits of Collaborative Teams
Improvements in:
Reductions in:
Academic achievement
Quality of work
Classwork completion
Homework completion
Attitudes toward school
Discipline referrals
Teacher-student relationships
Dropout rates
Social competence
In-grade retention
Attendance
Truancy
Peer relationships
Post-secondary outcomes
Internalization of problem
behaviors
Externalization of problem
behaviors
Note. From Blair et al., 2011; Christenson, 2005; Cox, 2005; Epstein, 2001; Esler et al., 2008;
National Association of School Psychologists [NASP], 2012; Serpell & Mashburn, 2011.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
23
Recognizing the positive impacts of collaboration between stakeholders for SWD, it has
been formalized into policies and legislation (ESSA, 2015; IDEA, 2004; NCLB, 2001). Below
are the policies and legislations of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), all of which
mandate collaboration.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
NCLB (2001) mandated collaboration through parental involvement to increase parental
knowledge, which, in turn, would grow the rates of parental participation. Requirements were set
for schools “to hold meetings with parents to inform them of general federal education
requirements and parent rights; notify[ing] parents if their child’s school has been identified for
school improvement; and notify[ing] parents of their right to request information regarding their
child’s teacher (LCLR, 2007).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
IDEA (2004) requires schools to recruit parents to actively participate in meetings and
collaborate regarding their students’ educational programming. The law outlines explicitly that
schools must do the following to involve parents: (a) provide parents with prior notice of a
meeting regarding their child, (b) allow parents the opportunity to agree on a date and time for
the meeting, (c) provide a means to include parents if they are unable to attend the meeting
(Cowan et al., 2004). Parents must also be involved by providing input for evaluations to
determine eligibility. Once identified as needing services, parent involvement is required for IEP
decision-making, including accommodations and placement. In addition, parent consent is
required for reevaluation, and parents are notified of their student's progress and can request
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
24
educational programming changes (Cowan et al., 2004). IDEA champions parents as essential
members of a team who work collaboratively to meet their students’ needs (PATTAN, 2024).
Through IDEA, schools must actively involve parents in their students' Individualized Education
Plans (IEPs) by making them equitable team members (PATTAN, 2024).
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
ESSA (2015) is focused on “the meaningful inclusion of the parents and communities
that represent students who are low-income, English learners, Native Americans, immigrants, or
who have a disability” (The Leadership Conference Education Fund, 2016, p. 5). This is done by
requiring LEAs to build their capacity to train families and staff on engagement to increase
collaboration. Such topics for parents cover training on state academic standards, assessments,
progress monitoring, and working with their children at home, in addition to other training
deemed appropriate and needed. Similarly, staff training would be based on need, and others
focused on educating school staff on how to engage parents as equal partners, engage diverse
families in written and spoken form, and provide support when requested (The Leadership
Conference Education Fund, 2016).
Indicator 8
To measure the degree to which LEAs implement the law with fidelity, specifically
outlined through IDEA, parents are surveyed as part of Indicator 8 of the SPP, school-facilitated
parent involvement. The data reported from this survey serves as a measure of schools’ efforts to
engage parents to improve their child’s educational outcomes. In Pennsylvania, the Department
of Education utilizes a large-scale survey in one-fifth of its districts yearly (ED, 2022). The
twenty-five-question survey developed by the National Center for Special Education
Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM) (n.d.) provides a percentage of parents who report their
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
25
LEA encouraged their involvement to improve services and outcomes for their identified student
(Lammert & Bitterman, 2018). The survey is distributed to a sample representative of parents of
special education students across the state based on disability category and demographics with an
over-sampling of parents of Black or African American and Hispanic students. This oversampling is done to compensate for historically lower response rates from these groups
(Lammert & Bitterman, 2018). It is considered representative if the response rate is within 5% of
the state percentage for the reported categories of race/ethnicity and disability. In 2022, PDE
reported an under-representation of parents of students with specific learning disabilities and
those of Black or African American students (Lammert & Bitterman, 2018). Not only do the
response rates impact the state sampling confidence, but the greater the number of responses
received from individual LEAs, the higher the rate of confidence that the sample is
representative of that population (Lammert & Bitterman, 2018). The state of Pennsylvania, in the
2014-2015 school year, fell below the state rate and did not meet the target rate, as seen in Table
6. In addition, these results are reported with low confidence as genuinely representative of the
state’s demographics (Pennsylvania State Data Center, 2017).
Table 6
Indicator 8 – School-Facilitated Parent Involvement
Confidence
State Rate
SPP Target Rate
State Met Rate
44%
46.4%
No
Interval
40.03-45.41%
Note. 95% is the desired level of confidence. Adapted from https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/PublicReporting/SEDR-Report-Dashboard
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
26
Barriers to Participation
Reflecting upon these poor rates, regarding LEAs’ efforts to involve parents of special
education students and the confidence with which they are reported due to insufficient
participation, it can be assumed that there are additional barriers that need to be considered when
looking to build collaborative teams with parents as key members. Even with guidance from
research-based frameworks and models, barriers to collaborative teaming with parents will
remain. It is essential to recognize these barriers, which present themselves on both the familial
side of the team and the school side.
Parental Barriers
Outside the familial realm of control are socioeconomic status, categorization as part of
migrant and minority groups, and single parent. Being categorized as part of any of the groups is
closely correlated with minimal to no collaborative efforts regarding schooling for their
child(ren) (Manzon et al., 2015). These challenges can also be viewed through the lens of capital,
specifically economic, cultural, and social capital (Bourdieu, 1986). Families with high levels of
economic capital need not be concerned with financial resources and assets (Bourdieu, 1986),
and those rich in cultural and social capital experience greater access to educational
opportunities. Opportunities that increase in value for those students identified with disabilities
(Murray et al., 2020; Trainor, 2010). A family that is identified as having high social and cultural
capital will access resources independently to develop a deeper understanding of processes and
procedures and will seek assistance from their surrounding community (Trainor, 2010). This
can sometimes lead to the ‘hoarding’ of opportunities when efforts are not made to bridge the
gaps in the capital (Murry et al., 2020)—making the same opportunities less accessible to those
with limited social and cultural capital. However, when schools try to bridge these gaps, there is
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
27
greater potential to generate more equitable outcomes for all students (Murry et al., 2020). Those
students experiencing the comorbidity of less capital and a disability are more likely to
experience struggles with accessing and benefiting from their education. However, increased
collaboration with families can transcend these deficits regardless of their capital (Burke, 2013).
Additional barriers to engagement occur due to a multitude of other factors. For some
parents, this can be due to (a) work or home-school scheduling conflicts, (b) arduous parental
educational history, (c) previous encounters at their child’s school impacting respect held for
educators, (d) beliefs about disability, (e) lack of transportation, (f) lack of child care, (g) limited
parental education, specifically regarding literacy skills, and, therefore, (h) low sense of efficacy,
(i) unmet basic needs in the home, and (j) communication and language barriers (Cowan et al.,
2004; Goodall, 2017; Kalyanpur et al., 2000). Also, playing a part in limited collaborative efforts
on behalf of parents is a long-held perception that teachers are experts whose opinions are not to
be challenged or opposed (Harry et al., 1995). Further exacerbating some of these parental
barriers are those actions taken by schools.
School Barriers
Schools, without being aware of the impact of their practices, can regularly engage in
behaviors that maintain barriers to collaboration with parents. Actions taken by school personnel
can be due to a lack of knowledge and experience and, in turn, a low sense of self-efficacy on
how to best collaborate with parents of varying backgrounds (Christenson, 2003; Epstein &
Dauber, 1991; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). Due to their limited skill set or the belief that
they, as professionals, do not require familial support or that it will not prove beneficial, parental
collaboration is not sought or is done so with minimal effort. Suppose communication occurs
between the school and parents. In that case, it may (a) not take place at times convenient to
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
28
allow for full parental participation, (b) be done in a language in which the parents are not fluent
or literate, and (c) only convey problems their child is having in school (Christenson, 2003;
Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997).
These barriers persist and are exacerbated by additional actions taken by schools when
collaboration is mandated and essential to the success of students with disabilities, such as the
IEP meeting. Collaborative efforts on behalf of the school are quickly undone when IEP meetings
involve excessive paperwork, failure to involve parents in discussions, overuse of jargon, and
confusing procedures (Mueller & Vick, 2017). Even the document, known as the procedural
safeguards, provided to all families when their student is initially found eligible for special
education services, and at a minimum once a year while they still qualify, are written at an
average of the 16th-grade level (Mandic et al., 2012). Without being able to comprehend or
adequately access their rights as parents of a student with a disability due to language and
literacy-related challenges, parental abilities to collaborate with the school team will continue to
be compromised (Mandic et al., 2012).
Involvement vs. Engagement
Recognizing the barriers is not enough to overcome their impact. Strategies to improve
parental engagement can be implemented by understanding these barriers and seeking parental
engagement, not just involvement. While there is value in both approaches with families,
engagement is most conducive to collaboration. Involvement informs families through one-way
communications through website announcements, district- or school-wide pre-recorded phone
messages, and newsletters (Ferlazzo, 2011). The expected outcome of parental involvement is to
inform families of school events, initiatives, and opportunities to get involved (Rineer-Hershey &
Mild, 2020). While still valued, involvement leaves minimal opportunities for parental or family
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
29
participation in their child’s education (Rineer-Hershey & Mild, 2020). When schools employ
efforts to increase engagement, opportunities to partner with families and assist in creating plans
for their student’s academic, social, and emotional growth are present (Ferlazzo & Hammond,
2009). A defining factor in engagement is two-way working partnerships built upon ongoing
dialogue that supersedes many of the barriers (Rineer-Hershey & Mild, 2020).
Engagement and Collaboration Models
Engagement and collaboration models can help LEAs plan and implement their
approaches. They must reflect on the context of each family and help them meet their student's
educational and developmental needs to increase engagement and improve student outcomes
(Rineer-Hershey & Mild, 2020). Three such collaboration models include the Dual-Capacity
Building Framework for Family-School Partnerships (Mapp & Bergman, 2019), the HooverDempsey & Sandler Model of Parental Involvement Process (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005), and
the Sunshine Model of Trusting Family-Professional Partnerships (Turnbull & Turnbull, 2021).
Dual-Capacity Building Framework
The Dual-Capacity Building Framework for Family-School Partnerships (Mapp &
Bergman, 2019) recognizes the different experiences of families and educators and their abilities
to impact, even more so when working collaboratively. As this model recognizes, educators and
families can often have incompatible views and beliefs, which creates challenges when
establishing a family-school partnership. Challenges that impede educators are (a) a lack of
exposure to successful family engagement, (b) minimal training on engagement, (c) a belief that
partnerships are not essential, and (d) viewing students and families with a deficit mindset (Mapp
& Bergman, 2019). For parents, challenges can be due to (a) lack of exposure to strong family
engagement, (b) previous negative experiences with schools and teachers, (c) feeling unwelcome
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
30
as a member of their child’s educational team, and (d) feeling disrespected, unheard and unvalued
by the school team (Mapp & Bergman, 2019). This model focuses on building capacity in all
stakeholders in capabilities, connections, confidence, and cognition (Mapp & Bergman, 2019).
To begin to overcome these challenges, conditions must be optimized for the process and the
organization or school team involved. Optimal conditions for the process are (a) built on
reciprocal trust, (b) rooted in learning and development, (c) focused on assets, not a lack thereof,
(d) responsive and respectful of cultural diversity, (e) collaborative, and (f) interactive (Mapp &
Bergman, 2019). Organizationally, conditions are primed when they are (a) systemically
embraced, (b) integrated, and (c) sustained (Mapp & Bergman, 2019). When these conditions are
in place, the groundwork is laid to help educators and families build upon and grow in their 4C
areas: (a) capabilities or skills and knowledge, (b) connections or networks, (c) cognition or shifts
in beliefs and values, and (d) confidence or self-efficacy. With increased capacity in these 4 C
areas, educators are empowered to welcome, connect, engage, and honor families in various roles
in their child’s education. Roles include co-creators, supporters, encouragers, monitors,
advocates, and models (Mapp & Bergman, 2019). All efforts put forth by both educators and
families are to effectively partner to support their child and improve the school.
Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler Model of Parental Involvement Process
The Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler Model of Parental Involvement Process (HooverDempsey et al., 2005) focuses on why and why not families are involved in their child’s
education, what actions are taken by families when involved, and the role families play in their
child’s success in school. Recognizing the positive impact parental involvement can have on their
child’s education, this model helps educators understand the challenges families face, the variety
of ways families can be involved, and the direct impacts these actions have on students (Hoover-
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
31
Dempsey et al., 2005). Parental entry into school involvement is based upon personal motivators
(i.e., beliefs on the role they are to take and their sense of self-efficacy in doing so), perceptions
of invitations to be involved (i.e., general, specific teacher, and specific child invitations), and life
context variables (i.e., beliefs about their skills and abilities, time and energy which can be
allocated, and family culture) (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). These motivators, perceptions, and
life variables drive the form in which parents become involved. Involvement can take the form of
communication with their child about personal and familial values, goals, expectations, and
aspirations. Other forms include involvement in activities at home (e.g., talking about the school
day, reviewing work), family-school communication, and participation in school-based activities
(Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). Parental behaviors, when involved, can be done through
encouragement, modeling, reinforcement, and instruction, all of which are essential to school
success. However, if students do not recognize and consider their parents' behaviors, they can fail
to translate them to achieve academic success. When students do perceive and internalize their
parents’ behaviors, it can lead to the development of student attributes that are conducive to
achievement: (a) academic self-efficacy, (b) an intrinsic motivation to learn, (c) self-regulatory
strategy knowledge and use, and (d) social self-efficacy for relating to teachers (Hoover-Dempsey
et al., 2005). Parent involvement is vital to all levels of this model and the ultimate goal of
improving student outcomes.
Sunshine Model of Trusting Family-Professional Partnerships
The Sunshine Model of Trusting Family-Professional Partnerships (Turnbull & Turnbull,
2021) is built upon a solid family-professional relationship for students with disabilities. This
model builds partnerships between families and school professionals upon trust through equity,
respect, communication, advocacy, and commitment; all must be present to actualize trust
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
32
(Turnbull & Turnbull, 2021). Table 7 provides definitions of each dimension of trust and actions
to promote them. When trust is established, families and professionals can engage in shared
decision-making, categorized under seven opportunities. These seven opportunities include
academic learning, social-emotional learning, behavior assessment, special meetings, transition,
and school capacity enhancement. When families and professionals can rely on each other,
student outcomes are improved, and students experience a greater sense of belonging and
demonstrate more resilience (Turnbull & Turnbull, 2021).
Table 7
Definitions and Actions of Trust Dimensions in Sunshine Model of Trusting Family-Professional
Partnerships
Trust Dimension
Definition
Actions
Equity
Providing levels of
-Establish modes of communication early with
support determined by
families
needs, concerns, and
-Utilize and connect families with community
available resources
resources
-Recognize and work to eliminate implicit
biases
Respect
Demonstrating
-Focus on the strengths of students and
appreciation for
families
families' qualities,
-Lead with empathy
needs, and feelings
-Recognize the impact familial culture can
have on education
Communication
Reciprocal, frequent,
-Engage families with open-ended questions
regular, and culturally
-Acknowledge familial perspectives and
responsive interactions
feelings
-Manage expectations regarding school
practices
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
33
Table 7 continued
Trust Dimension
Definition
Actions
Advocacy
Actions taken to reach
-Recognize barriers families face outside of
determined outcomes
school
-Recognize barriers the school can present to
families
-Work with immediate team members and
community resources to overcome the
identified barriers
Commitment
Prioritization and
-Identify goals and their rationales and
valuing of the
continually reflect upon their progress
partnerships and their
-Seek out and take part in professional
desired outcomes
development to improve outcomes
-Continually seek and act upon feedback
Note. Adapted from Turnbull & Turnbull, 2021
Model Limitations
It goes without question that these engagement models are well-intended, but wellintended or not; they tend to reinforce “power inequities between families and schools” and
“consolidate dominant institutional authority” (Ishimaru, 2017, p. 4). When viewed through
these models, families are to be fixed, not equitable, partners in their child’s education. Strategies
utilized in these models are, first, intended to build capacity in the parents. This increased
capacity will enable them to advocate for their children, ensuring they receive the best services to
meet their needs. Positive outcomes can be plentiful, but they are limited to their child and not all
children and, therefore, fall short of having any systemic impact (Ishimaru, 2017). Secondly,
these models maintain communication as unidirectional, specifically concerning expertise and
relational capacity; teachers and schools are the experts and provide the greatest amount for a
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
34
student’s education (Ishimaru, 2017). Lastly, these models tend to default to conventional
engagement strategies. Schools remain the dominant member of the team and maintain control
over how, why, and when parents are engaged (Ishimaru, 2017). Such actions are maintained due
to a concern over a loss of power “wherein an increase in one individual or group’s power entails
the loss of control and power on the part of another’s” (Ishimaru, 2017, p. 8). An understanding
that this relational power is only possible through sacrifices on behalf of team members must be
overcome. School teams and parents must reflect upon and recognize that their relationships and
interactions can change through new and updated practices (Ishimaru, 2017). Through the
dissection of these models, schools can begin to reflect upon their practices and make needed
changes or employ new practices to foster more equitable collaboration with all stakeholders.
Collaboration
Framework for Collaboration
The most general definition of collaboration is “working together and sharing
responsibility for results” (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004, p. 40). A lack of specificity or
structure regarding achieving collaboration can harm the process and fails to acknowledge its
true complexity and the need for professionals and agencies to work together to meet the
multifaceted needs of students and their families (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004).
Collaboration, as per the work of Lawson and Barkdull. (2001), is built upon five frameworks
that address the multitude of student needs in school. These frameworks are intraorganizational,
interagency, interprofessional, community collaboration, and family centered. Through
validation of each other’s roles (e.g., teachers, social workers, school psychologists), which are
most often provided independently of or parallel to each other, and providing insight into
successful strategies, intraorganizational collaboration occurs (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton,
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
35
2004). Interagency collaboration occurs when organizations, often with different missions, work
together for the benefit of others. Such collaboration is vital when a student is experiencing
stressors beyond the walls of the school, such as poverty, family conflict, and mental health
concerns (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004). Schools, while becoming more equipped to
handle such challenges, still need help, especially for the most vulnerable students. When two or
more professionals from differing agencies work to assist a student and his or her family, it is
known as interprofessional collaboration (Lawson et al., 1999). Through the development of
integrated support systems, the “multiple, co-occurring needs of the family are met” (AndersonButcher & Ashton, 2004, p. 43), and students come to school better prepared to learn (Lawson et
al., 1999). Community collaboration is when numerous community stakeholders work together
to improve student outcomes. Community collaboration occurs when local business owners,
older adults, youth, parents, community leaders, city government, religious institutions, and
others coordinate. Lastly, family-centered collaboration is when parents are considered experts
on their child and treated as such. Families are full-time members of their child’s team and have
an equal say in the support and services provided (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004). This
approach is rooted in the knowledge that without alignment of services and familial support,
there is a greater likelihood of failure to attain the established goals of the collaboration. Through
family-centered collaboration, schools can become more effective, and families become
empowered to help themselves and more likely to obtain help if needed (Anderson-Butcher &
Ashton, 2004).
While each collaboration framework provides value in isolation, their most significant
impact occurs when they are embraced as interrelated, and stakeholders benefit from each other’s
efforts. For example, empowering parents makes them more likely to help their children. Their
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
36
children, in turn, will become more engaged in their learning and more likely to speak up with
their empowered parents regarding their needs and concerns. When these needs and concerns are
voiced, services can be better tailored and more responsive to needs, increasing academic
achievement and attendance and improving student behavior (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton,
2004; Lawson,1999).
Building Blocks of Collaboration
Recognizing the need for each of these types of collaboration is not enough. The
collaboration must also be structured to be effective, and this can occur only when clearly
defined. Griffiths et al. (2021) systematically reviewed the literature on collaboration to develop
a universal model for schools. This model includes the “foundation for developing a
collaborative relationship and the specific elements that help the team to collaborate throughout
the process truly” (Griffiths et al., 2021, p. 62). Through their analysis, the researchers were able
to identify nine key elements needed to foster collaboration: (a) open communication, (b) trust,
(c) mutual respect, (d) shared goals, (e) common understanding, (f) shared responsibility, (g)
active participation, (h) shared decision making, and (i) implementation (Griffiths, et al., 2021).
Trust, open communication, and mutual respect are requirements of relationship building.
Focusing on shared goals and responsibilities rooted in a common understanding provides the
means to develop shared values. Active participation based on a sense of shared responsibility
fosters active engagement. Implementation can then occur after these other elements are in place
with shared decision-making, resulting in the end goal of collaboration. These elements do not
develop in isolation but are part of a dynamic process where multiple systems must interact
across all stages of the collaborative efforts to allow for the end goal of implementation. It is for
this reason that Griffiths et al. (2021) present collaboration as a set of building blocks, see Figure
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
37
3, because the foundational blocks must be “developed and cultivated before additional ones can
be added” (p. 74). The path to collaboration is also recognized as non-linear; sometimes, teams
must return to the foundational blocks before addressing the missing or damaged elements,
highlighting another essential aspect of a collaborative team's flexibility and adaptability.
Figure 3
Building Blocks of Collaboration
Relationship Building. The three aspects necessary for successful relationship building
are open communication, trust, and mutual respect. Open communication is present when all
parties can comfortably and effectively express their ideas, which can minimize conflict and
have access to all information to allow for equitable participation (Griffiths et al., 2021). Trust is
developed over time and can be attributed to effort and energy focused upon effective
communication, and everyone works toward and maintains focus on the common goal. With
solid foundations of open communication and trust, members value the knowledge, skills, and
competence that others bring to the team. An additional benefit to solidly established
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
38
relationships is that these aspects are essential to conflict resolution, which is inevitable in
collaborative teams (Griffiths et al., 2021).
Shared Values and Beliefs. Shared goals and common understandings must be present
to establish shared values and beliefs. Shared goals are developed when all team members
provide input regarding the goal or joint problem that has brought them together. These goals can
only be accomplished or remedied with everyone working together. In working together, there
must be a common understanding that all members, regardless of their background, experience,
knowledge, or skill, are there to achieve the same shared goal.
Active Engagement. The team's shared goals and common understandings build upon
the established trust, open communication, and mutual respect. Only once these prerequisite
aspects are established can active engagement occur. Active engagement takes place when there
is shared responsibility and active participation. By contributing their expertise, team members
establish and maintain their role as contributors to the solutions, sharing the responsibility.
However, just contributing does not mean there is active engagement. Active engagement occurs
when members embrace their role and meaningfully contribute ideas and resources.
Collective Collaborative Effort. Only once the other building blocks of relationship
building, shared values and beliefs, and active engagement are established can a team tackle the
final step of determining and enacting solutions. The aspects that must be present for this final
stage are shared decision-making and implementation. After gathering input from all members,
final decisions are made regarding the solutions implemented. The final step involves enacting
the decided-upon solutions and ensuring they are implemented with fidelity.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
39
Summary
Positive student outcomes are associated with effective and equitable collaboration,
which is vital to equitable educational opportunities (Griffiths et al., 2021). The stage is set for
these opportunities when “parents and educators share resources, ideas, decision-making power,
and ownership for mutually determined goals regarding both the home and school-based
educational curricula” (Cowan et al., 2004, p. 208). These efforts to create and nurture these
opportunities require time and patience on behalf of schools and families. When these
collaborations are cultivated, “they can result in both meaningful and effective educational and
developmental outcomes for children and yield benefits that cannot be achieved when families
and schools work in isolation” (Cowan et al., 2004, p. 208). Collaboration is a means for SWD to
achieve, close the gaps between them and their general education peers, and lead more fulfilling
and productive lives post-secondary. Analyzing strengths and areas of growth for LEAs can
provide invaluable information on how to improve and build upon current practices.
This research study aims to inform school-based practices by examining parental
perspectives and experiences. Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected through a survey
and semi-structured interviews, providing a platform for gaining a deeper understanding of
school-based collaborative practices from a parental perspective. Chapter 3 will expand upon the
methods and design chosen for this study, outlining why they best address the research questions
and goals.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
40
Chapter 3 – Methods
This chapter outlines the methodology used to examine parents’ perceptions of schoolbased collaborative practices in special education. The purpose of this study is to gain insight
into how parents value specific collaboration practices, the frequency at which they perceive
these practices to occur, and to determine if these perceptions are influenced by parent
race/ethnicity, area of disability, and grade level. To capture broader patterns and in-depth
experiences, a mixed-methods approach was selected, providing a greater opportunity to gain an
understanding of how school-based practices impact parent and school collaboration.
A mixed-methods design is appropriate for this study because the researcher can develop
“a more complete understanding of the changes needed for a marginalized group through the
combination of qualitative and quantitative data” (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p.216). For this
study, the marginalized group has been identified as school-aged students receiving special
education services in a Pennsylvania public school. This mixed-methods study employs a
convergent parallel design, where quantitative and qualitative data will be collected
simultaneously, analyzed separately, and then merged to compare and determine if the sets of
findings confirm or disconfirm each other (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). For this study, a sideby-side comparison approach will be used to merge the data. Utilizing this approach, the
quantitative data will be analyzed first, followed by the qualitative data (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). This approach will provide the structure to determine if the themes derived from the
interviews align with the data collected through the survey; these instruments are detailed in this
chapter.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
41
Participants and Setting
The participants in this mixed-methods study included parents of students receiving
special education services in school districts across Pennsylvania. The participants in this study
were parents or guardians of special education students in kindergarten through twelfth grade for
the 2024-2025 school year, with the authority to make educational decisions for their students
receiving services in one of the district schools. Students could be receiving services under any
of the disability categories identified and defined by IDEA: (a) intellectual disability, (b) hearing
impairment including deafness (district of study combines two categories), (c) speech or
language impairment, (d) visual impairment including blindness, (e) emotional disturbance, (f)
orthopedic impairment, (g) autism, (f) traumatic brain injury, (g) other health impairment, (h)
specific learning disability, (i) deaf-blindness, or (j) multiple disabilities (PATTAN, 2024).
Table 8 presents the percentages of special education students receiving services under
each of the IDEA disability categories for the state. Table 10 shows the percentages of students
receiving special education services by age.
Table 8
IDEA Disability Categories for State Special Education Enrollment for 22-23SY
Percentage
Autism
13.2%
Deaf-Blindness
0%
Emotional Disturbance
7.9%
Hearing Impairment, including
0.8%
Deafness
Intellectual Disability
6.2%
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
42
Table 8 continued
Percentage
Multiple Disabilities
0.9%
Other Health Impairment
18.2%
Orthopedic Impairment
0.2%
Specific Learning Disability
38.3%
Speech and Language Impairment
13.9%
Traumatic Brain Injury
0.2%
Visual Impairment
0.3%
Note. Pennsylvania State Data Center (2024). Special education data report: Pennsylvania.
Author.https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/penndata/documents/BSEReports/Data%20Preview/20232024/Speced_Quick_Report_PA_Final_2023-2024.pdf
Table 9
Age Distribution of Students Receiving Special Education Services in Pennsylvania (as of
December 1, 2023)
Percentage
5
2.8%
6
5.4%
7
6.6%
8
7.6%
9
8.4%
10
8.4%
11
8.3%
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
43
Table 9 continued
Percentage
12
8.2%
13
8.2%
14
8.2%
15
8.5%
16
8.3%
17
8%
18
3.7%
19+
1.7%
Note. Ages are calculated based on the student’s age as of December 1, 2023, in accordance
with federal reporting guidelines. Pennsylvania State Data Center (2024). Special education data
report: Pennsylvania. Author. https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/penndata/documents/BSEReports/
Data%20Preview/2023-2024/Speced_Quick_Report_PA_Final_2023-2024.pdf
Quantitative Methods
Survey
A survey was designed based on Griffiths et al.'s (2021) work on the building blocks of
collaboration. The researcher chose Griffiths et al.’s domains of collaboration as the basis for the
survey for the following reasons:
1. Evidence-Based: The best practices identified for each domain are supported by
comprehensive academic research, giving the results more credibility.
2. Actionable Data: The domains provide a structured approach to gathering actionable
data; specific areas of weakness can be identified, providing the basis for targeted
improvement efforts (Ahmad et al., 2019).
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
44
3. Framework: The domains provide a standardized framework for gathering and
interpreting data regarding collaboration, positively impacting the reliability of the
survey when conducted across diverse populations (Ahmad et al., 2019).
This survey would be one of the tools used to collect quantitative data from parents.
Survey research was chosen for this study as it provides “a numeric description of trends,
attitudes, or opinions of a population by studying a sample of that population” (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018, p. 12) and “precision to qualitative descriptions of phenomena” (Krathwohl &
Smith, 2005, p. 164). The survey progresses through three different types of questions: (a)
multiple-choice demographic, (b) Likert scale, and (c) choice through the use of Google Forms.
Using a five-point scale, Likert scale questions can quantify the participant's subjectivity
to an objective numerical value (Joshi et al., 2015). Joshi et al. (2015) view attitudes,
perceptions, and opinions as subjective attributes that quantification can transform. For this
survey to quantify parental perception of current collaborative practices, a five-point scale
ranging from “never” to “always” was used. To determine if demographics influence
perceptions, information was obtained through multiple-choice questions adapted from Hughes
et al. (2022) to ensure the use of current and inclusive questions and response options.
Demographic questions will ask participants to indicate their students' age as of December 1,
2024, the IDEA category under which their student received special education services, and the
parents’ ethnicity/race. The survey, delivered electronically, consisted of a consent form, nine
choice questions, nine Likert-scale questions, and four multiple-choice demographic questions,
and will require approximately 10 minutes of the participant's time.
Quantitative Data Analysis
Table 10 outlines the planned analysis for quantitative data.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
45
Table 10
Quantitative Data Analysis Plans
Quantitative Question Data Analysis
Rationale
What do parents
a. Summarize frequencies
a. Report out as frequency counts and
believe to be the most percentages (descriptive)
to determine which
valuable school-based b. Chi-square goodness of fit test
practice is chosen most in
practice in each of the (inferential)
each domain
domains of
i. H0: Parents are equally likely
b. Determine if the parents’
collaboration (i.e.,
to choose any of the school-
preferences for practices
open communication,
based practices within each
differ from an equal
trust, mutual respect,
domain.
distribution.
shared goals,
ii. H1: Parents are more likely to
common
value certain school-based
understanding, shared
practices over others within each
responsibility, active
domain.
participation, shared
decision making, and
implementation)?
Is there a relationship
a. Report out as frequency counts for
a. Summarize frequencies
between
each demographic category (i.e., (a)
to determine which
demographics (i.e.,
parent’s race/ethnicity, (b) student’s age, practice is chosen for each
parent’s
and (c) student’s disability category)
demographic vs. domain
race/ethnicity,
and the most valued practice in each of
b. Determine if preferences
student’s age, and
the domains of collaboration (i.e., open
differ by subgroup within
student’s disability
communication, trust, mutual respect,
each demographic category
category) and what
shared goals, common understanding,
parents deem the
shared responsibility, active
most valuable school- participation, shared decision making,
and implementation) (descriptive)
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
46
based collaborative
b. Chi-square test of independence
practice?
(inferential)
i. H0: There is no relationship
between student demographics
and parents’ perceptions of the
most valuable school-based
collaborative practice in each
domain.
ii. H1: There is a statistically
significant relationship between
demographics and what parents
deem the most valuable schoolbased collaborative practice in
each domain.
How often do parents
a. Report out as frequency counts and
a. Summarize the
experience the
percentages (descriptive)
frequencies at which
practices of each
b. Report the means and standard
parents report experiencing
collaboration domain
deviations for each practice within each
a particular practice
when engaging with
domain (descriptive)
b. Summarize the average
the school district
frequencies parents report
regarding their
experiencing each practice
student’s special
within a domain, providing
education services?
data to determine what the
typical experience is of
parents (mean)
b. Determine if parent
responses for each practice
are consistent or divided
(standard deviation)
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
47
To conduct Chi-square tests with the collected data and ensure the reliability of the tests,
the expected frequencies for the subgroup sampling should be five or greater (Gravetter &
Wallnau, 2017). If a cell count falls below this threshold, test reliability decreases, and there is a
potential for increased Type I error rates when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true
(Gravetter & Wallnau, 2017). To ensure the sample size encompasses the smallest subgroup
across all demographic categories, 0.2% (Orthopedic Impairment) was used to calculate the
minimum responses needed to achieve a cell count threshold of five, resulting in a required
sample size of 2,500 responses. Based on the limited permissions granted by school districts to
conduct the study, a response rate of 2,500 is higher than what the researcher expects; therefore,
adjustments to how data will be grouped for analysis will be as outlined in Table 11.
Table 11
Subgroup Categories and Minimum Sample Size Requirements for Chi-Square Testing
Variable
Subgroup Categories
Minimum Sample Size
Disability Category
Low Incidence: Deaf-Blindness, Hearing
59
Impairment (including Deafness), Visual
Impairment (including Blindness),
Orthopedic Impairment, Traumatic Brain
Injury, Multiple Disabilities, Intellectual
Disability
High Incidence: Autism, Specific Learning
Disability, Other Health Impairment,
Speech/Language Impairment, Emotional
Disturbance
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
48
Table 11 continued
Variable
Subgroup Categories
Minimum Sample Size
Race/Ethnicity
White
63*
Black
Hispanic
Other (Multi-racial, Asian, Pacific Islander,
American Indian)
Student Age
Elementary School: Ages 5-10
17
Middle School: Ages 11-14
High School & Transition: Ages 15-19+
* The required sample size for survey responses is 63, which encompasses the minimum sample
sizes needed for the other demographic categories.
Validity
In addition to the use of an evidence-based survey, based on the work of Griffiths et al.
(2021), validity was also checked through a pilot study. A pilot study group was selected: two
special education supervisors, one school psychologist, and one school social worker. This group
assessed the survey and provided feedback to the researcher. Based on feedback received,
revisions were made to the survey.
If, after data collection, the minimum thresholds of five are met for the above subgroups,
a chi-square goodness of fit test will be run to determine if the sample is proportionally
representative of the subgroups of (a) Low Incidence and High Incidence, (b) White, Black,
Hispanic, and Other Race/Ethnicity, and (c) Elementary School, Middle School, and High
School and Transition. Such a measure of representativeness will determine the validity of the
study's actual sampling (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2017).
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
49
Reliability
The internal consistency of the Likert-type survey questions, as measured by Cronbach’s
alpha, will be calculated following data collection. A Cronbach’s alpha score will quantify the
degree to which the sets of statements for each domain of collaboration align, or, as Creswell and
Creswell (2018) state, how the instrument scale items “behave in the same way” (p. 154).
Cronbach’s alpha yields a score between 0 and 1, with the most desirable values falling between
.7 and .9 (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Qualitative Methods
Interview
At the end of the survey, participants will be asked if they would be willing to participate
in a voluntary interview to further elaborate on the Likert scale scores they provided and to
identify barriers and facilitators in each domain of collaboration. Through conducting these
interviews, the researcher seeks to “enter into the other person’s perspective” (Patton, 2015, p.
426) and make that perspective accessible and explicit to others as it can inform and shape
practices. The chosen structure for the interviews was a standardized open-ended interview over
the phone or through a virtual platform. This structure ensures that the questions and their
sequence are predetermined and entirely open-ended, allowing for their inspection by the
institutional review board. As a result, a high level of focus is maintained, allowing for efficient
time use, and responses are easy to compare (Patton, 2015).
Qualitative Data Analysis
Table 12 outlines the planned analysis for qualitative data.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
50
Table 12
Qualitative Analysis Plans
Qualitative Question
What barriers and facilitators of
parental collaboration exist for
parents of school-aged students
receiving special education
services, in each of the domains of
collaboration (i.e., open
communication, trust, mutual
respect, shared goals, common
understanding, shared
responsibility, active participation,
shared decision making, and
implementation)?
Data Analysis
Rationale
a. Interviews will be audio- a. Ensure accurate
recorded and transcribed
documentation of the
verbatim
participants' responses
b. Thematic analysis will
b. Identify recurring
take place in the following
concepts related to
steps:
collaboration and organize
1. Open coding to
qualitative findings in
identify barriers and
alignment with the study’s
facilitators
domains
2. Axial coding to
b. Provide insight into
organize codes into higher- what helps or hinders
level themes
3. Categorize themes
collaboration according to
parents
according to the domains
of collaboration
c. Compare responses
across participants to
identify patterns and
differences in experiences
Note. Data collected from interviews will be analyzed using thematic analysis procedures
outlined by Creswell and Creswell (2018).
Validity
Creswell and Creswell (2018) state that the qualitative validity of a study can be
determined through the application of specified procedures. Through these procedures, it is
determined if the findings of the study “are accurate from the standpoint of the researcher, the
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
51
participant, or readers of the account (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 199). To determine the
validity of the data collected for this study, the following procedures will be utilized: (a) audio
recordings and verbatim transcription of interviews to capture data accurately, (b) member
checking through the sharing of summarized data and themes derived from the interview with the
interviewee, and (c) peer debriefing by having an additional person review the qualitative data
collected and ask questions to ensure interpretation went beyond that of the researcher’s
perspective (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Reliability
Reliability of qualitative studies can be established through consistent procedural
approaches (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). For this study, the following will be used to maintain
the reliability of the data collected: (a) use of a consistent coding process (i.e., open coding
followed by axial coding) across all interview data collected, allowing for replication by other
researchers, (b) review of transcripts to check for obvious errors which may have occurred
during transcription, and (c) conducting interviews across multiple participants adhering to a
standard interview protocol where the same questions will be asked across all participants,
consistently (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The standard interview protocol, as established by
Creswell and Creswell (2018), is outlined as follows:
1. Basic information about the interview: Prior to the start of the interview, the interviewer
will record basic information for organizational purposes.
2. Introduction: Introduce the interviewer, state the purpose of the study and the structure of
the interview, address any questions, and define terms that will be used.
3. Opening question: Begin with an icebreaker question, preferably one that allows the
interviewee to talk about themselves.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
52
4. Content Questions: Questions known as the “research sub-questions of the study” (p.
191)
5. Using Probes: When elaboration of an interviewee's response is needed to obtain
additional, valuable information.
6. Closing Instructions: Thank the interviewee for their time and assure them of the
confidentiality of the interview
Integration Methods
Following the design of a convergent mixed methods study, the quantitative and
qualitative data will be collected separately and integrated during the integration phase. Through
the survey, quantitative data will be collected to quantify parents' perceptions of current
collaborative practices and provide insight into the value parents place on certain school-based
practices and the frequency with which they experience them. Interviews will provide the means
to collect qualitative data on the perceived barriers and facilitators that impact parents’
collaborative experiences.
Integration will be achieved through side-by-side comparisons to align the quantitative
data regarding parents' experiences with the themes and patterns identified in the collected
qualitative data. Specifically, the data will be organized based on the nine domains of
collaboration (i.e., open communication, trust, mutual respect, shared goals, common
understanding, shared responsibility, active participation, shared decision making, and
implementation), providing a structure in which to align all data collected regarding
collaborative practices in special education. This integrative approach is known as
methodological triangulation, which provides additional credibility and validity to the study
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
53
through the comparison and corroboration of data from multiple sources (Creswell & Creswell,
2018).
Procedures
Permissions and Preliminary
Prior to initiating data collection, superintendents from all school districts in the state of
Pennsylvania, except those in the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, will be contacted with a
request to participate in the study. A letter explaining the study (Appendix A) will be emailed to
each superintendent, explaining the purpose and scope of the research. Linked to the letter is a
form (Appendix B) to be completed, which informs the researcher of the participant's decision
regarding participation in the study. Upon receiving district-level approval, documentation will
be submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Slippery Rock University.
Survey
Following IRB approval (Appendix C), the researcher will contact the designated liaison
for each school district to distribute the survey. The liaison will be provided with the email
(Appendix D), including an introductory letter and a link to the survey, to send to the identified
population.
The survey will include a digital consent form (Appendix E) as the first screen. Those
participants who select “Yes” will be granted access to the full survey, and those who select
“No” will be exited from the form. The estimated completion time for the survey (Appendix F)
will be approximately 10 minutes. The survey will remain open for five weeks beginning in XX
2025. If the anticipated sample size is not met during that window, the district liaisons will be
asked to send a reminder email to the identified parent population. At the end of the survey,
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
54
participants will be invited to volunteer for a follow-up interview. Those who express interest
will be directed to a separate form where they can provide contact information.
Interview
Parents who indicated interest in being interviewed will be contacted via email or text
message to arrange a mutually convenient time and means (e.g., Zoom, Google Meet, or phone).
Before any interview takes place, a digital consent (Appendix G) form will be emailed to each
participant. This form will remind participants of the interview’s purpose, confidentiality
measures, potential risks, and their rights, specifically the right to withdraw at any time.
Interviews (Appendix H) will be conducted using a standardized interview protocol and
are expected to last around 15 minutes. With the participant's consent, the interviews will be
audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Throughout the interview process, participants will be
assured that all identifying information will be kept confidential and that data will be reported
anonymously in the final study.
Efforts will be made to recruit a diverse and representative parent sample from across the
state of Pennsylvania; however, limitations are anticipated. These limitations will be addressed in
Chapter Five.
Summary
As outlined in this chapter, the methodology that will be used to examine parents’
perceptions of school-based collaborative practices in special education will be a mixed-methods
design. This study intends to gain insight into how parents value specific collaborative practices,
how frequently they perceive experiencing them, and whether these perceptions vary based on
parent race/ethnicity, disability, and age. This design is well-suited to provide a deeper
understanding of the factors that influence parent-school collaboration and how they may be
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
experienced across families from diverse backgrounds. The findings from this mixed-methods
study will be presented and analyzed in the following chapters.
55
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
56
Chapter 4 – Results
Overview
The purpose of this convergent parallel design mixed-methods study was to explore
parental perceptions of school-based collaborative practices used for their school-aged students
receiving special education services. Specifically, this study examined the value that parents
place on specific collaborative practices, whether perceptions may vary based on parental race,
student disability, or student age, as well as the frequency with which parents experience these
practices. This study also aimed to identify the facilitators and barriers to collaboration between
parents and schools.
This chapter describes the data collected through the web-based survey and virtual
interviews. Data will be organized and presented in seven sections. Sections one through five
will present the quantitative results, while the qualitative results will be presented in the
remaining sections.
Section one will provide demographic data regarding the parents/guardians who
completed the survey and the students they answered about. To determine if the distribution of
respondents in these demographic categories differed from what would be expected, chi-square
goodness-of-fit analyses were conducted. These analyses help establish whether the sample is
representative of the broader population of school-aged students receiving special education
services.
Section two will present the reliability of the survey scales. Cronbach’s alpha (𝛼) was
calculated for each domain of collaboration. This test provides insight into the internal
consistency of the survey by providing a numerical representation of how closely related the
practices for each domain are.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
57
Section three will describe the responses to the questions regarding parents’ most valued
school-based practice for each of the domains of collaboration. This section will help answer
research question 1:What do parents believe to be the most valuable school-based practice in
each of the domains of collaboration (i.e., (a) open communication, (b) trust, (c) mutual respect,
(d) shared goals, (e) common understanding, (f) shared responsibility, (g) active participation,
and (h) shared decision making)? To determine if the distribution of responses differed from an
equal distribution, chi-square goodness-of-fit analyses were conducted.
Section four will present the relationship between demographics and the parents’ most
valued school-based practice for each of the domains of collaboration. This section will help
answer research question 2: Is there a relationship between demographics (i.e., (a) parents’
race/ethnicity, (b) student’s previous grade level, and (c) student’s disability category) and what
parents deem the most valuable school-based collaborative practice? Chi-square tests of
independence were conducted to determine whether the selection of specific practices differed
significantly across demographic groups.
Section five will present the rates at which parents experience the practices of each
collaboration domain when engaging with their school district. This section will help answer
research question 3: How often do parents experience the practices of each collaboration domain
when engaging with the school district regarding their student’s special education services?
Means and standard deviation are reported for each domain to summarize the average frequency
of experiences and the variability in parents’ responses.
Section six will provide the demographic data regarding the parents/guardians who
participated in the voluntary interviews.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
58
Section seven will summarize the interviews regarding the facilitators and barriers to
collaboration. Thematic analysis, which involves open coding followed by axial coding, will be
used to organize the data into themes based on the domains of collaboration. This section will
help answer research question 4: What barriers and facilitators of parental collaboration exist for
parents of school-aged students receiving special education services, in each of the domains of
collaboration?
Qualitative Results
Demographics
A single administration of the web-based survey was emailed to the designated district
liaison for the nine districts that gave consent for distribution. Survey responses were received
from 162 participants, of whom 160 completed the survey in its entirety. Table 13 presents the
parental race/ethnicity data for respondents. Table 14 presents the ages of the respondents’
students as of December 1, 2024. Table 15 presents the disability category under which the
respondents’ students were receiving special education services.
Table 13
Frequency Distribution of the Parental Race/Ethnicity
N
%
122
76.3
Black or African American
9
5.6
Hispanic or Latino
16
10
Other (Multi-racial, Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian)
8
5
Prefer not to answer
5
3.1
160
100
White
Total
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
59
Varying across the sample were the number of survey participants within each racial and
ethnic category. To allow for meaningful statistical analysis, categories with fewer than five
participants were combined. Even after collapsing, response counts ranged from 8 to 122. Survey
data were analyzed based on the responses provided to each question. As shown in Table 13, the
largest proportion of responses came from participants who identified as white.
Table 14 presents the observed and expected frequencies for the ages of students on
December 1, 2024. Those students aged 5 through 10 were classified as elementary school
students, those aged 11-14 were classified as middle school students, and those aged 15-19+
were classified as high school and transition-age students. The largest number of survey
responses came from parents of elementary school students.
Table 14
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies Distribution of Student Age
as of December 1, 2024
Observed
Frequency
Percentage
Expected
Frequency
Elementary School: Ages 5-10
102
63.8
62.5
Middle School: Ages 11-14
40
25
52.4
High School & Transition: Ages 15-19+
18
11.2
48.1
Total
160
100
163
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to evaluate whether the distribution of
student ages during the 24-25SY followed that of the school-aged special education population
of Pennsylvania. The null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that the distribution would match that of the
state of Pennsylvania. A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
60
of the age of students during the 24-25SY was significantly different from that of the schoolaged special education population in Pennsylvania, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
160
47.65, 𝑝
.001. Specifically, elementary-aged students were largely overrepresented while those in middle
school and beyond were underrepresented relative to state data, rejecting the null hypothesis.
These differences should be considered when interpreting the findings and assessing their
generalizability to the broader population.
Table 15 presents the observed and expected frequencies for student disability categories
provided by survey participants. The largest number of survey responses came from parents of
students classified as having a high-incidence disability, accounting for 75.6% of the responses.
Of the 160 survey participants, 7 reported their student’s disability as unknown.
Table 15
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Student Disability
Categories
Observed
Frequency
Percentage
Expected
Frequency
Low Incidence
32
20%
13
High Incidence
121
75.6%
140
Total (analytic sample)
153
95.6%
153
7
4.4%
--
160
100%
--
Unknown
Grand Total
Note. “Low incidence” = Deaf-Blindness, Hearing Impairment (including Deafness), Visual
Impairment (including Blindness), Orthopedic Impairment, Traumatic Brain Injury, Multiple
Disabilities, Intellectual Disability; “High incidence” = Autism, Specific Learning Disability,
Other Health Impairment, Speech/Language Impairment, Emotional Disturbance. Some
participants responded ‘unknown’ to their students’ disability category; therefore, the chi-square
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
61
analysis was conducted on 95.6% of the participants who provided a complete response. The
missing data were identified as randomly missing.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to determine whether the distribution of
student disability categories matched that of the school-aged special education population in
Pennsylvania. The null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that the distribution would match that of the state
of Pennsylvania. A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution of
the student disability categories was significantly different from that of the school-aged special
education population in Pennsylvania, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
153
30.32, 𝑝
.001, rejecting the null
hypothesis. Specifically, students with high-incidence disabilities were underrepresented, and
those with low-incidence disabilities were overrepresented relative to state data. These
differences should be considered when interpreting the findings and assessing their
generalizability to the broader population.
Survey Reliability
Table 16 presents the internal consistency of each collaboration domain as measured by
Cronbach’s Alpha. The analysis included all 160 survey participants who completed the items
for each domain. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from .895 to .950, indicating high internal
consistency for all measures.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
62
Table 16
Cronbach’s Alphas for Collaboration Domains
N
Items
Cronbach’s 𝛼
Open Communication
160
4
.931
Trust
160
5
.950
Mutual Respect
160
5
.895
Shared Goals
160
3
.934
Common Understanding
160
4
.949
Shared Responsibility
160
3
.930
Active Participation
160
3
.934
Shared Decision-Making
160
3
.899
Implementation
160
4
.944
Domain
These results suggest that the practices within each domain, as measured by reliability,
are focused on school-based collaboration. The high alpha values provide confidence as to the
consistency of the survey items within each domain, supporting the use of the resulting data in
analyses.
Most Valued Practices
Table 17 presents the observed and expected frequencies for parents’ most valued
practices related to open communication. The expected frequencies assume a uniform
distribution, where each practice would be equally likely to be selected.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
63
Table 17
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Open Communication
Domain
Observed
Practice
Frequency
Percentage
Expected
Frequency
Honest Comm.
109
68.1
40
Clear channels
22
13.8
40
Open disc.
16
10
40
Share knowledge
13
8.1
40
Total
160
100
160
Note. Percentages are based on the total sample (N = 160). Collapsed practice labels: “Honest
comm.” = Easily understood and honest communication between me and the members of the
school team; “Clear channels” = Easy and clear ways for me to communicate with the school
team; “Open disc.” = Open discussions with the school team when in disagreement with
something regarding my child’s special education services; “Share knowledge” = Opportunities
to share my knowledge (about my child and other topics) and ideas with the school team.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to determine whether the distribution of
open communication practices followed a uniform distribution. The null hypothesis (𝐻
stated
that parents would select each practice equally, indicating no preference among the four options.
A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution of open
communication practices differed significantly from an equal distribution. 𝑥 3 , 𝑁
159.75, 𝑝
160
.001. ‘Honest communication’ was chosen far more frequently than expected.
Table 18 presents the observed and expected frequencies for parents’ most valued
practices related to trust. The expected frequencies assume a uniform distribution, where each
practice would be equally likely to be selected.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
64
Table 18
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Trust Domain
Practice
Observed
Frequency
Percentage
Expected
Frequency
Best interests
86
54%
32
Process
36
23%
32
New ideas
16
10%
32
Reliable & consistent
16
10%
32
Sharing
6
3%
32
160
100%
160
Total
Note. Percentages are based on the total sample (N = 160). Collapsed practice labels: “Best
interests” = Each member of the special education team has my child’s best interests in mind;
“Process” = The team ensures I understand and am part of the process of planning for my child’s
special education services; “New ideas” = The team is open to new ideas and approaches I
present to help my child; “Reliable & Consistent” = All team members are reliable and
consistent when speaking about my child; “Sharing” = I can share knowledge and ideas with the
school team with the belief that I will not be judged.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to evaluate whether the distribution of
trust practices followed a uniform distribution. The null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that parents
would select each practice equally, indicating no preference among the five options. A
significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution of the trust practices
was significantly different from an equal distribution, 𝑥 3 , 𝑁
160
159.75, 𝑝
.001. ‘Best interests’ was chosen far more frequently than expected.
Table 19 presents the observed and expected frequencies for parents’ most valued
practices related to mutual respect. The expected frequencies assume a uniform distribution,
where each practice would be equally likely to be selected.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
65
Table 19
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Mutual Respect Domain
Observed
Practice
Frequency
Percentage
Expected
Frequency
Cultural background
11
7%
32
Compromise
18
11%
32
Conflict addressed
8
5%
32
Capable team
78
49%
32
Valued by team
45
28%
32
Total
160
100%
160
Note. Percentages are based on the total sample (N = 160). Collapsed practice labels: “Cultural
background” = My family’s cultural background and educational experiences are acknowledged
and understood by the team; “Compromise” = Compromise, when needed, takes place due to
team members’ flexibility and responsiveness to feedback; “Conflict addressed” = Conflict
between myself and team member(s) is addressed in a constructive and timely manner; “Capable
team” = The school team is capable of meeting my child’s needs; “Valued by team” = The
school team values my input and treats me as a team member.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to evaluate whether the distribution of
mutual respect practices followed that of an equal distribution. The null hypothesis (𝐻
stated
that parents would select each practice equally, indicating no preference among the five options.
A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution of the mutual respect
practices was significantly different from an equal distribution, 𝑥 4 , 𝑁
109.31, 𝑝
160
.001. ‘Capable team’ was chosen far more frequently than expected.
Table 20 presents the observed and expected frequencies for parents’ most valued
practices related to shared goals. The expected frequencies assume a uniform distribution, where
each practice would be equally likely to be selected.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
66
Table 20
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Shared Goals Domain
Practice
Observed
Frequency
Expected
Percentage
Frequency
Mutual goal setting
61
38%
53.3
Input valued
9
6%
53.3
Working together
90
56%
53.3
Total
160
100%
160.0
Note. Percentages are based on the total sample (N = 160). Expected frequencies were calculated
using the chi-square formula and are reported to the nearest decimal; small rounding differences
may occur. Collapsed practice labels: “Mutual goal setting” = Goals are mutually created and
agreed upon by all team members, including me as the parent; “Input valued” = My input in
creating goals is valued; “Working together” = The entire team works together toward helping
my child reach their goals.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to evaluate whether the distribution of
shared goal practices followed an equal distribution. The null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that parents
would select each practice equally, indicating no preference among the three options. A
significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution of the shared goals
practices was significantly different from an equal distribution, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
160
63.16, 𝑝
.001. ‘Working together’ was chosen far more frequently than expected.
Table 21 presents the observed and expected frequencies for parents’ most valued
practices related to common understanding. The expected frequencies assume a uniform
distribution, where each practice would be equally likely to be selected.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
67
Table 21
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Common Understanding
Domain
Observed
Practice
Frequency
Percentage
Expected
Frequency
Receptive team
40
25%
40
Clear roles
36
22%
40
Valued roles
9
6%
40
Everyone aligned
75
47%
40
Total
160
100%
160
Note. Percentages are based on the total sample (N = 160). Collapsed practice labels: “Receptive
team” = School team members are receptive to each other’s contributions, including mine as the
parent; “Clear roles” = Each team member’s role is clear and purposeful to my child’s special
education programming; “Valued roles” = The school team, me included, values the role of each
member of the team; “Everyone aligned” = The school team and I are aligned with what is best
for my child.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to evaluate whether the distribution of
common understanding practices followed that of an equal distribution. The null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that parents would select each practice equally, indicating no preference among the four
options. A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution of the
common understanding practices was significantly different from an equal distribution,
𝑥 3 ,𝑁
160
55.05, 𝑝
.001. ‘Everyone aligned’ was chosen far more frequently
than expected.
Table 22 presents the observed and expected frequencies for parents’ most valued
practices related to shared responsibility. The expected frequencies assume a uniform
distribution, where each practice would be equally likely to be selected.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
68
Table 22
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Shared Responsibility
Domain
Observed
Practice
Frequency
Percentage
Expected
Frequency
Roles performed
56
35%
53.3
Skills and resources
39
24%
53.3
Committed team
65
41%
53.3
Total
160
100%
160
Note. Percentages are based on the total sample (N = 160). Expected frequencies were calculated
using the chi-square formula and are reported to the nearest decimal; small rounding differences
may occur. Collapsed practice labels: “Roles performed” = Each team member accepts and
performs their role in my child’s special education plan; “Skills and resources” = I was made
aware of skills and resources that each team member brings to the collaboration; “Committed
team” = All team members are truly committed to the process.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to determine whether the distribution of
shared responsibility practices followed an equal distribution. The null hypothesis (𝐻₀ states
that parents would select each practice equally, indicating no preference among the three options.
A significance threshold of p < 0.05was used for all tests. The distribution of shared
responsibility practices differed significantly from an equal distribution, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
6.53, 𝑝
160
.038. ‘Committed team’ was chosen most frequently, with ‘roles performed’ chosen
just 6% less often.
Table 23 presents the observed and expected frequencies for parents’ most valued
practices related to active participation. The expected frequencies assume a uniform distribution,
where each practice would be equally likely to be selected.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
69
Table 23
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Active Participation
Domain
Observed
Practice
Frequency
Percentage
Expected
Frequency
Member contributions
73
46%
53.3
Active leaders
34
21%
53.3
Engaged members
53
33%
53.3
Total
160
100%
160.0
Note. Percentages are based on the total sample (N = 160). Expected frequencies were calculated
using the chi-square formula and are reported to the nearest decimal; small rounding differences
may occur. Collapsed practice labels: “Member contributions” = All team members contribute
different and valuable resources toward achieving the creation of my child’s special education
services; “Active leaders” = Leaders are actively involved in creating change or working toward
helping my child together with the team, myself included; “Engaged members” = All members
are actively engaged.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to determine whether the distribution of
active participation practices followed a uniform distribution. The null hypothesis (𝐻
stated
that parents would select each practice equally, indicating no preference among the three options.
A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution of the active
participation practices was significantly different from an equal distribution, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
160
14.26, 𝑝
.001. ‘Member contributions were chosen more frequently than expected.
Table 24 presents the observed and expected frequencies for parents’ most valued
practices related to shared decision making. The expected frequencies assume a uniform
distribution, where each practice would be equally likely to be selected.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
70
Table 24
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Shared Decision-Making
Domain
Observed
Practice
Frequency
Percentage
Expected
Frequency
Members encouraged
79
49%
53.3
Participation
32
20%
53.3
Understanding of process
49
31%
53.3
Total
160
100%
160.0
Note. Percentages are based on the total sample (N = 160). Expected frequencies were calculated
using the chi-square formula and are reported to the nearest decimal; small rounding differences
may occur. Collapsed practice labels: “Members encouraged” = Myself and all team members
are encouraged to provide input in the decision-making process; “Participation” = All members
participate in the decision-making process; “Understanding of process” = I am aware of and
understand the process for making decisions and implementing actions regarding my child’s
special education services.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to determine whether the distribution of
shared decision-making practices followed a uniform distribution. The null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that parents would select each practice equally, indicating no preference among the three
options. A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution of shared
decision-making practices differed significantly from an equal distribution, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
21.24, 𝑝
160
.001. ‘Members encouraged’ was chosen more frequently than expected.
Table 25 presents the observed and expected frequencies for parents’ most valued
practices related to implementation. The expected frequencies assume a uniform distribution,
where each practice would be equally likely to be selected.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
71
Table 25
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Implementation Domain
Practice
Observed
Frequency
Expected
Percentage
Frequency
Follow through
41
26%
40
Continued communication
45
28%
40
Continuous evaluation
51
32%
40
Responsiveness
23
14%
40
Total
160
100%
160
Note. Percentages are based on the total sample (N = 160). Collapsed practice labels: “Follow
through” = Each member follows through with their role in the implementation of my child’s
special education services; “Continued communication” = Team members continue to
communicate with me during the implementation of my child’s special education services;
“Continuous evaluation” = My child’s performance is continually evaluated for effectiveness
using a data-collection process; “Responsiveness” = If the chosen interventions are not effective
for my child, I am informed promptly and the team reconvenes.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to determine whether the distribution of
implementation practices followed a uniform distribution. The null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that
parents would select each practice equally, indicating no preference among the three options. A
significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution of implementation
practices differed significantly from an equal distribution, 𝑥 3 , 𝑁
160
9.55, 𝑝
.023. While ‘continuous evaluation’ was chosen most often, it was closely followed by both
‘continued communication’ and ‘follow through.’
Summary of Most Valued Practices. As evidenced by significant chi-square goodnessof-fit results, all with a p-value of < .05, parents demonstrated clear preferences for certain
practices over others in each domain of collaboration. Honest communication was valued most in
the open communication domain. Within the trust domain, parents valued team members acting
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
72
with their child’s best interests in mind. The most valuable practice for mutual respect was a
capable team that worked together, the practice most valued under the shared goals domain.
Having every team member aligned was valued most in the domain of common understanding.
In the domain of shared responsibility, parents valued committed teams most, which was
followed closely by team members being able to perform their roles effectively. Member
contributions were most valued in the domain of active participation. In shared decision-making,
parents valued when members were encouraged to provide input, and continuous evaluation was
chosen most often for implementation. A common thread between the practices valued most by
parents is that they are honest, aligned with their own beliefs, committed to, and will collectively
work for the success of their child.
Demographics and Most Valued Practices
Chi-square tests of independence were used to examine the association between parent
race/ethnicity, student disability category, and student age, and parents’ most valued practices
across the nine domains of collaboration. Before conducting chi-square analyses, it was
necessary to review the distribution of responses across categories to ensure that all cell counts
met the test's assumptions. To address low counts, original practices were collapsed into 2-3
broader groups per domain of collaboration, as well as parent race/ethnicity. This ensured that all
expected counts met chi-square assumptions. Collapsing was not necessary for the student
disability category or age, as all expected counts for these variables met chi-square assumptions.
Table 26 presents the observed frequencies and percentages of parents’ most valued open
communication practices by parent race/ethnicity, student disability category, and student age,
along with the expected counts.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
73
Table 26
Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Open Communication Practices by
Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age
Race
Honest comm./
Open disc./
Clear channels
Share knowledge
White
101 (78.9) [100.7]
21 (77.8) [21.3]
122
Other
27 (21.1) [27.3]
6 (22.2) [5.7]
33
Total
128
27
155
High Incidence
97 (78.2) [98.1]
24 (82.8) [22.9]
121
Low Incidence
27 (21.8) [25.9]
5 (17.2) [6.1]
32
124
29
153
Ages 5-10
85 (64.9) [83.5]
17 (58.6) [18.5]
102
Ages 11-14
35 (26.7) [32.8]
5 (17.2) [7.3]
40
Ages 15-19+
11 (8.4) [14.7]
7 (24.1) [3.3]
18
131
29
160
Total
Disability
Category
Total
Age
Total
Note. Values are observed frequencies with column percentages in parentheses; expected
frequencies appear in square brackets. Race/ethnicity categories: “Other” = Hispanic or Latino,
Black or African American, Other: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian
or other Pacific Islander. Collapsed practice labels: “Honest comm.” = Easily understood and
honest communication between me and the members of the school team; “Clear channels” =
Easy and clear ways for me to communicate with the school team; “Open disc.” = Open
discussions with the school team when in disagreement with something regarding my child’s
special education services; “Share knowledge” = Opportunities to share my knowledge (about
my child and other topics) and ideas with the school team.
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine whether parent
race/ethnicity, student disability category, or student age was associated with the selection of the
most valued open communication practices. For each test, the null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that
there would be no association between the demographic variable and the parents’ selection of
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
74
practices; selections would be independent of these variables. A significance threshold of p <
0.05 was used for all tests. This distribution of responses did not differ significantly by
race/ethnicity, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
𝑥 1 ,𝑁
153
155
.0292, 𝑝
.017, 𝑝
.896 or by student disability category,
.589. There was a significant association between parents’ most
valued open communication practice and their students’ age, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
160
6.229, 𝑝
.044. Parents of older students are more likely to opt for open discussions and knowledge sharing
compared to parents of younger students. Overall, results suggest that students’ age plays a more
significant role in parents’ perceptions of open communication.
Table 27 presents the observed frequencies and percentages of parents’ most valued trust
practices by parent race/ethnicity, student disability category, and student age, along with the
expected counts.
Table 27
Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Trust Practices by Race/Ethnicity, Disability
Category, and Student Age
White, n (%)
73 (85.9%) [66.9]
Process/
New ideas/
Reliable &
Consistent/
Sharing
49 (70.0) [55.1]
Other, n (%)
12 (14.1) [18.1]
21 (30.0) [14.9]
32
85
70
155
High Incidence
64 (74.4) [67.9]
56 (84.8) [52.1]
120
Low Incidence
22 (25.6) [18.1]
10 (15.2) [13.9]
32
86
66
152
Best interests
Race
Total
Disability
Total
122
Category
Total
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
75
Table 27 continued
Best interests
Process/
New ideas/
Reliable &
Consistent/
Sharing
Total
Ages 5-10
53 (61.6) [54.8]
49 (66.2) [47.2]
102
Ages 11-14
24 (27.9) [21.5]
16 (21.6) [18.5]
40
Ages 15-19+
9 (10.5) [9.7]
9 (12.2) [8.3]
18
86
74
160
Age
Total
Note. Values are observed frequencies with column percentages in parentheses; expected
frequencies appear in square brackets. Race/ethnicity categories: “Other” = Hispanic or Latino,
Black or African American, Other: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian
or Other Pacific Islander. Collapsed practice labels: “Best interests” = Each member of the
special education team has my child’s best interests in mind; “Process” = The team ensures I
understand and am part of the process of planning for my child’s special education services;
“New ideas” = The team is open to new ideas and approaches I present to help my child;
“Reliable & Consistent” = All team members are reliable and consistent when speaking about
my child; “Sharing” = I can share knowledge and ideas with the school team with the belief that I
will not be judged.
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine whether parent
race/ethnicity, student disability category, or student age was associated with the selection of the
most valued trust practices. For each test, the null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that there would be no
association between the demographic variable and the parents’ selection of practices; selections
would be independent of these variables. A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all
tests. There was a significant association between parents’ most valued trust practice and
parents’ race/ethnicity, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
𝑥 1 ,𝑁
152
2.444, 𝑝
155
5.778, 𝑝
.016, but not by disability category,
.118 or student age, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
160
.862, 𝑝
.650.
Parents identifying as an ‘Other’ race/ethnicity category were more likely to select ‘process,’
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
76
‘new ideas,’ ‘reliable & consistent, ’ or ‘sharing’ over White parents. Overall, results suggest
that parent race/ethnicity plays a more significant role in parents’ perceptions of trust.
Table 28 presents the observed frequencies and percentages of parents’ most valued
mutual respect practices by parent race/ethnicity, student disability category, and student age,
along with the expected counts.
Table 28
Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Mutual Respect Practices by Race/Ethnicity,
Disability Category, and Student Age
Compromise/
Conflict
addressed
White, n (%)
Cultural
background/
Valued by team/
Capable team
107 (82.9)
15 (57.7) [20.5]
Total
122
[101.5]
Race
Other, n (%)
11 (42.3) [5.5]
22 (17.1) [27.5]
33
26
129
155
High Incidence
26 (100.0) [20.6]
95 (74.8) [100.4]
121
Low Incidence
0 (0.0) [5.4]
32 (25.2) [26.6]
32
26
17
153
Ages 5-10
18 (69.2) [16.6]
84 (62.7) [85.4]
102
Ages 11-14
8 (30.8) [6.5]
32 (23.9) [33.5]
40
Ages 15-19+
0 (0.0) [2.9]
18 (13.4) [15.1]
18
26
134
160
Total
Disability
Category
Total
Age
Total
Note. Values are observed frequencies with column percentages in parentheses; expected
frequencies appear in square brackets. Race/ethnicity categories: “Other” = Hispanic or Latino,
Black or African American, Other: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
77
or other Pacific Islander. Collapsed practice labels: “Cultural background” = My family’s
cultural background and educational experiences are acknowledged and understood by the team;
“Compromise” = Compromise, when needed, takes place due to team members’ flexibility and
responsiveness to feedback; “Conflict addressed” = Conflict between myself and team
member(s) is addressed in a constructive and timely manner; “Capable team” = The school team
is capable of meeting my child’s needs; “Valued by team” = The school team values my input
and treats me as a team member.
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine whether parent
race/ethnicity, student disability category, or student age was associated with the selection of the
most valued mutual respect practices. For each test, the null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that there
would be no association between the demographic variable and the parents’ selection of
practices; selections would be independent of these variables. A significance threshold of p <
0.05 was used for all tests. There was a significant association between parents’ most valued
mutual respect practice and parents’ race/ethnicity, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
student disability, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
153
8.284, 𝑝
155
8.235, 𝑝
.004 and
.004. Parents identifying as white and those
with students with high-incidence disabilities were more likely to select ‘cultural background,’
‘valued by the team,’ or ‘capable team’ over ‘compromise’ and ‘conflict addressed.’ The
distribution of responses did not differ significantly by student, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
160
4.052, 𝑝
.132. Overall, results suggest that parent race/ethnicity and the student’s disability play a more
significant role in parents’ perceptions of mutual respect.
Table 29 presents the observed frequencies and percentages of parents’ most valued
shared goals practices by parent race/ethnicity, student disability category, and student age, along
with the expected counts.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
78
Table 29
Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Shared Goals Practices by Race/Ethnicity,
Disability Category, and Student Age
Race
White, n (%)
Mutual goal
setting/
Input valued
50 (72.5) [54.3]
Other, n (%)
19 (27.5) [14.7]
14 (16.3) [18.3]
33
69
86
155
High Incidence
48 (68.6) [55.4]
73 (88.0) [65.6]
121
Low Incidence
22 (31.4) [14.6]
10 (12.0) [17.4]
32
70
83
153
Ages 5-10
48 (68.6) [44.6]
54 (60.0) [57.4]
102
Ages 11-14
15 (21.4) [17.5]
25 (27.8) [22.5]
40
Ages 15-19+
7 (10.0) [7.9]
11 (12.2) [10.1]
18
70
90
160
Total
Working together
Total
72 (83.7) [67.7]
122
Disability
Category
Total
Age
Total
Note. Values are observed frequencies with column percentages in parentheses; expected
frequencies appear in square brackets. Race/ethnicity categories: “Other” = Hispanic or Latino,
Black or African American, Other: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian
or other Pacific Islander. Collapsed practice labels: “Mutual goal setting” = Goals are mutually
created and agreed upon by all team members, including me as the parent; “Input valued” = My
input in creating goals is valued; “Working together” = The entire team works together toward
helping my child reach their goals.
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine whether parent
race/ethnicity, student disability category, or student age was associated with the selection of the
most valued shared goals practices. For each test, the null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that there
would be no association between the demographic variable and the parents’ selection of
practices; selections would be independent of these variables. A significance threshold of p <
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
79
0.05 was used for all tests. There was a significant association between parents’ most valued
shared goals practice and disability category, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
153
8.623, 𝑝
.003. Parents of
students with low-incidence disabilities were more likely to select ‘mutual goal setting’ or ‘input
valued’ compared to the expected distribution. The distribution of selections did not differ by
race/ethnicity, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
1.262, 𝑝
155
2.895, 𝑝
.089 or student age, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
160
.532. Overall, the results suggest that the disability category plays a more significant
role in shaping parents’ perceptions of shared goals.
Table 30 presents the observed frequencies and percentages of parents’ most valued
common understanding practices by parent race/ethnicity, student disability category, and
student age, along with the expected counts.
Table 30
Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Common Understanding Practices by
Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age
Race
Receptive team/
Clear roles/
Everyone aligned
Valued roles
White, n (%)
91 (82.0) [87.4]
31 (70.5) [34.6]
122
Other, n (%)
20 (18.0) [23.6]
13 (29.5) [9.4]
33
111
44
155
High Incidence
85 (78.7) [85.4]
36 (80.0) [35.6]
121
Low Incidence
23 (21.3) [22.6]
9 (20.0) [9.4]
32
108
45
153
Total
Total
Disability
Category
Total
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
80
Table 30 continued
Receptive team/
Clear roles/
Everyone aligned
Valued roles
Ages 5-10
72 (62.6) [73.3]
30 (66.7) [28.7]
102
Ages 11-14
29 (25.2) [28.8]
11 (24.4) [11.3]
40
Ages 15-19+
14 (12.2) [12.9]
4 (8.9) [5.1]
18
115
45
160
Total
Age
Total
Note. Values are observed frequencies with column percentages in parentheses; expected
frequencies appear in square brackets. Race/ethnicity categories: “Other” = Hispanic or Latino,
Black or African American, Other: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian
or Other Pacific Islander. Collapsed practice labels: “Receptive team” = School team members
are receptive to each other’s contributions, including mine as the parent; “Clear roles” = Each
team member’s role is clear and purposeful to my child’s special education programming;
“Valued roles” = The school team, me included, values the role of each member of the team;
“Everyone aligned” = The school team and I are aligned with what is best for my child.
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine whether parent
race/ethnicity, student disability category, or student age was associated with the selection of the
most valued common understanding practices. For each test, the null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that
there would be no association between the demographic variable and the parents’ selection of
practices; selections would be independent of these variables. A significance threshold of p <
0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution of selections did not differ significantly by
race/ethnicity, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
2.499, 𝑝
153
.032, 𝑝
.114, or student age, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
.857, disability category, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
160
.402, 𝑝
155
.818. Overall, results indicate
that parents’ perceptions of common understanding practices were independent of parent
race/ethnicity, student disability, and age.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
81
Table 31 presents the observed frequencies and percentages of parents’ most valued
shared responsibility practices by parent race/ethnicity, student disability category, and student
age, along with the expected counts.
Table 31
Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Shared Responsibility Practices by
Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age
Race
White, n (%)
Roles performed/
Skills and
resources
75 (82.4) [71.6]
Other, n (%)
16 (17.6) [19.4]
17 (26.6) [13.6]
33
91
64
155
High Incidence
78 (88.6) [69.6]
43 (66.2) [51.4]
121
Low Incidence
10 (11.4) [18.4]
22 (33.8) [13.6]
32
88
65
153
Ages 5-10
59 (62.1) [60.6]
43 (66.2) [41.4]
102
Ages 11-14
25 (26.3) [23.8]
15 (23.1) [16.3]
40
Ages 15-19+
11 (11.6) [10.7]
7 (10.8) [7.3]
18
95
65
160
Total
Committed team
Total
47 (73.4) [50.4]
122
Disability
Category
Total
Age
Total
Note. Values are observed frequencies with column percentages in parentheses; expected
frequencies appear in square brackets. Race/ethnicity categories: “Other” = Hispanic or Latino,
Black or African American, Other: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian
or Other Pacific Islander. Collapsed practice labels: “Roles performed” = Each team member
accepts and performs their role in my child’s special education plan; “Skills and resources” = I
was made aware of skills and resources that each team member brings to the collaboration;
“Committed team” = All team members are truly committed to the process.
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine whether parent
race/ethnicity, student disability category, or student age was associated with the selection of the
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
82
most valued shared responsibility practices. For each test, the null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that
there would be no association between the demographic variable and the parents’ selection of
practices; selections would be independent of these variables. A significance threshold of p <
0.05 was used for all tests. A chi-square test of independence indicated that parents’ most valued
shared responsibility practice did not differ significantly by race/ethnicity, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
1.808, 𝑝
.179 or by student age, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
160
.284, 𝑝
155
.868. There was a
significant association between the most valued shared responsibility practice and disability
category, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
153
11.425, 𝑝
.001. Parents of students with low-incidence
disabilities were more likely to value a ‘committed team’ over ‘roles performed’ or ‘skills and
resources,’ which was selected more often by parents of students with high-incidence disabilities.
Overall, the results suggest that the disability category plays a more significant role in shaping
parents’ perceptions of shared responsibility.
Table 32 presents the observed frequencies and percentages of parents’ most valued
active participation practices by parent race/ethnicity, student disability category, and student
age, along with the expected counts.
Table 32
Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Active Participation Practices by
Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age
White, n (%)
60 (84.5) [55.9]
Active leaders/
Engaged
members
62 (73.8) [66.1]
Other, n (%)
11 (15.5) [11]
22 (26.2) [17.9]
33
71
84
155
Member
contributions
Race
Total
Total
122
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
83
Table 32 continued
High Incidence
65 (94.2) [54.6]
Active leaders/
Engaged
members
56 (66.7) [66.4]
Low Incidence
4 (5.8) [14.4]
28 (33.3) [17.6]
32
69
84
153
Ages 5-10
50 (68.5) [46.5]
52 (59.8) [55.5]
102
Ages 11-14
19 (26.0) [18.3]
21 (24.1) [21.8]
40
Ages 15-19+
4 (5.5) [8.2]
14 (16.1) [9.8]
18
73
87
160
Member
contributions
Total
121
Disability
Category
Total
Age
Total
Note. Values are observed frequencies with column percentages in parentheses; expected
frequencies appear in square brackets. Race/ethnicity categories: “Other” = Hispanic or Latino,
Black or African American, Other: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian
or Other Pacific Islander. Collapsed practice labels: “Member contributions” = All team
members contribute different and valuable resources toward achieving the creation of my child’s
special education services; “Active leaders” = Leaders are actively involved in creating change
or working toward helping my child together with the team, myself included; “Engaged
members” = All members are actively engaged.
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine whether parent
race/ethnicity, student disability category, or student age was associated with the selection of the
most valued active participation practices. For each test, the null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that
there would be no association between the demographic variable and the parents’ selection of
practices; selections would be independent of these variables. A significance threshold of p <
0.05 was used for all tests A chi-square test of independence indicated that parents’ most valued
active participation practice did not differ significantly by race/ethnicity, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
2.628, 𝑝
.105 or student age, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
160
4.504, 𝑝
155
.105. There was a significant
association between the most valued active participation practice and disability category,
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
𝑥 1 ,𝑁
153
17.366, 𝑝
84
.001. Parents of students with low-incidence disabilities
were more likely to value ‘active leaders’ or ‘engaged members, ’ while parents of students with
high-incidence disabilities were more likely to value ‘member contributions.’ Overall, the results
suggest that the disability category plays a more significant role in shaping parents’ perceptions
of active participation.
Table 33 presents the observed frequencies and percentages of parents’ most valued
shared decision-making practices by parent race/ethnicity, student disability category, and
student age, along with the expected counts.
Table 33
Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Shared Decision-Making Practices by
Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age
Race
White, n (%)
Members
encouraged/
Participation
81 (75.7) [84.2]
Other, n (%)
26 (24.3) [22.8]
7 (14.6) [10.2]
33
107
48
155
High Incidence
91 (87.5) [82.2]
30 (61.2) [38.8]
121
Low Incidence
13 (12.5) [21.8]
19 (38.8) [10.2]
32
104
49
153
Ages 5-10
65 (58.6) [70.8]
37 (75.5) [31.2]
102
Ages 11-14
32 (28.8) [27.8]
8 (16.3) [12.3]
40
Ages 15-19+
14 (12.6) [12.5]
4 (8.2) [5.5]
18
111
49
160
Total
Understanding of
process
Total
41 (85.4) [37.8]
122
Disability
Category
Total
Age
Total
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
85
Note. Values are observed frequencies with column percentages in parentheses; expected
frequencies appear in square brackets. Race/ethnicity categories: “Other” = Hispanic or Latino,
Black or African American, Other: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian
or other Pacific Islander. Collapsed practice labels: “Members encouraged” = Myself and all
team members are encouraged to provide input in the decision-making process; “Participation” =
All members participate in the decision-making process; “Understanding of process” = I am
aware of and understand the process for making decisions and implementing actions regarding
my child’s special education services.
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine whether parent
race/ethnicity, student disability category, or student age was associated with the selection of the
most valued active participation practices. For each test, the null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that
there would be no association between the demographic variable and the parents’ selection of
practices; selections would be independent of these variables. A significance threshold of p <
0.05 was used for all tests A chi-square test of independence indicated that parents’ most valued
shared decision-making practice did not differ significantly by race/ethnicity, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
155
1.867, 𝑝
.172 or student age, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
160
4.256, 𝑝
.119. There was a
significant association between the most valued shared decision making practice and disability
category, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
153
13.902, 𝑝
.001. Parents of students with low-incidence
disabilities were more likely to value ‘understanding of process’ or ‘continual evaluation’. In
contrast, parents of students with high-incidence disabilities were more likely to value ‘members
encouraged’ or ‘participation.’ Overall, the results suggest that the disability category plays a
more significant role in shaping parents’ perceptions of shared decision making.
Table 34 presents the observed frequencies and percentages of parents’ most valued
implementation practices by parent race/ethnicity, student disability category, and student age,
along with the expected counts.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
86
Table 34
Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Implementation Practices by Race/Ethnicity,
Disability Category, and Student Age
Race
White, n (%)
Follow through/
Continual
evaluation
70 (76.9) [71.6]
Continued
communication/
Responsiveness
52 (81.3) [50.4]
Other, n (%)
21 (23.1) [19.4]
12 (18.8) [13.6]
33
91
64
155
High Incidence
74 (84.1) [69.6]
47 (72.3) [51.4]
121
Low Incidence
14 (15.9) [18.4]
18 (27.7) [13.6]
32
88
65
153
Ages 5-10
61 (66.3) [58.7]
41 (60.3) [43.3]
102
Ages 11-14
24 (26.1) [23.0]
16 (23.5) [17.0]
40
Ages 15-19+
7 (7.6) [10.4]
11 (16.2) [7.7]
18
92
68
160
Total
Total
122
Disability
Category
Total
Age
Total
Note. Race/ethnicity categories: “Other” = Hispanic or Latino, Black or African American,
Other: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.
Collapsed practice labels: “Follow through” = Each member follows through with their role in
the implementation of my child’s special education services; “Continued communication” =
Team members continue to communicate with me during the implementation of my child’s
special education services; “Continuous evaluation” = My child’s performance is continually
evaluated for effectiveness using a data-collection process; “Responsiveness” = If the chosen
interventions are not effective for my child, I am informed promptly and the team reconvenes.
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine whether parent
race/ethnicity, student disability category, or student age was associated with the selection of the
most valued implementation practices. For each test, the null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that there
would be no association between the demographic variable and the parents’ selection of
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
87
practices; selections would be independent of these variables. A significance threshold of p <
0.05 was used for all tests. A chi-square test of independence indicated that parents’ most valued
shared decision-making practice did not differ significantly by race/ethnicity, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
155
.420, 𝑝
age, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
.517, disability category, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
160
2.875, 𝑝
153
3.138, 𝑝
.076, or student
.238. Overall, results indicate that parents’ perceptions of
implementation practices were independent of parent race/ethnicity, student disability, and age.
Summary of Demographics and Most Valued Practices. Chi-square tests of
independence were conducted to explore whether parents’ most valued collaborative practices
across the nine domains differed by their race/ethnicity, their student’s disability category, or
their student’s age. To meet test requirements, parental race/ethnicity groups and some practices
within domains were collapsed into broader groupings. Table 35 presents the domains and the
demographic categories that most strongly influenced them.
Table 35
Demographics and Most Valued Practices
Domain
Significant Demographic
Key Finding
Open
Student Age (p =.044)
Parents of older students more often
Communication
valued open discussion and
knowledge sharing.
Trust
Parent Race/Ethnicity (p = .016)
Parents identifying as “Other” were
more likely to value process, new
ideas, reliability, and sharing.
Mutual Respect
Parent Race/Ethnicity (p = .004)
White parents and those of students
Disability Category (p = .003)
with high-incidence disabilities
emphasized team capability and being
valued over conflict resolution.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
88
Table 35 continued
Domain
Significant Demographic
Key Finding
Shared Goals
Disability Category (p = .003)
Parents of students with low-incidence
disabilities prioritized mutual goal
setting and valued input.
Common
None
Understanding
Shared
No significant differences by race,
disability, or age.
Disability Category (p < .001)
Responsibility
Parents of students with low-incidence
disabilities valued a committed team;
those with high-incidence disabilities
emphasized the importance of roles,
skills, and resources.
Active
Disability Category (p < .001)
Participation
Parents of students with low-incidence
disabilities valued active leaders and
engaged members.
Shared
Disability Category (p < .001)
Parents of students with low-incidence
Decision-
disabilities prioritized understanding
Making
of the process.
Implementation
None
No significant differences by race,
disability, or age.
Parents’ perceptions of school-based collaborative strategies varied most by student
disability category, followed by race/ethnicity. Student age played a more minor but notable role.
Rates of Experiences
Table 36 presents the frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations of
parents’ reported experiences with open communication practices. The table summarizes the
frequency with which parents experienced each practice when interacting with their child’s
special education team during the 2024-2025 school year.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
89
Table 36
Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’ Reported Experiences of
Open Communication Practices
Practice
Never
n (%)
Rarely
n (%)
Sometimes
n (%)
Often
n (%)
Always
n (%)
M
SD
5 (3.1)
8 (5.0)
27 (16.9)
59 (36.9)
51 (38.1)
4.02
1.019
4 (2.5)
6 (3.8)
23 (14.4)
55 (34.4)
72 (45.0)
4.16
.975
6 (3.8)
9 (5.6)
38 (23.8)
44 (27.5)
63 (39.4)
3.93
1.094
5 (3.1)
8 (5.0)
30 (18.8)
48 (30.0)
69 (43.1)
4.05
1.051
Honest
comm.
Clear
channels
Open disc.
Share
knowledge
Note. Scores were measured on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always).
Frequencies represent parent responses with percentages in parentheses. M = Mean. SD =
Standard deviation. Collapsed practice labels: “Honest comm.” = Easily understood and honest
communication between me and the members of the school team; “Clear channels” = Easy and
clear ways for me to communicate with the school team; “Open disc.” = Open discussions with
the school team when in disagreement with something regarding my child’s special education
services; “Share knowledge” = Opportunities to share my knowledge (about my child and other
topics) and ideas with the school team.
Parents reported varying frequencies of experiencing different open communication
practices with their child’s special education team, with the majority occurring ‘often’ or
‘always.’ ‘Clear channels’ and ‘share knowledge’ were rated highest, with mean scores of 4.16
(SD=.975) and 4.05 (SD=1.051), respectively. This data indicates that open communication
practices are generally perceived as being consistently implemented. ‘Open discussions’ had
slightly lower ratings, suggesting this aspect of open communication could be enhanced. Overall,
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
90
these findings indicate that parents engage in most open communication practices at moderate to
high frequencies.
Table 37 presents the frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations of
parents’ reported experiences with trust practices. The table summarizes the frequency with
which parents experienced each practice when interacting with their child’s special education
team during the 2024-2025 school year.
Table 37
Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’ Reported Experiences of
Trust Practices
Never
n (%)
Rarely
n (%)
Sometimes
n (%)
Often
n (%)
Always
n (%)
M
SD
5 (3.1)
7 (4.4)
24 (15.0)
51 (31.9)
73 (45.6)
4.13
1.026
Process
5 (3.1)
3 (1.9)
28 (17.5)
50 (31.3)
74 (46.3)
4.16
.988
New ideas
4 (2.5)
11 (6.9)
33 (20.6)
54 (33.8)
58 (36.3)
3.94
1.036
6 (3.8)
10 (6.3)
27 (16.9)
51 (31.9)
66 (41.3)
4.01
1.084
4 (2.5)
11 (6.9)
25 (15.6)
51 (31.9)
69 (43.1)
4.06
1.044
Practice
Best
interests
Reliable &
Consistent
Sharing
Note. Scores reflect a 5-point scale. Frequencies represent parent responses with percentages in
parentheses. M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. Collapsed practice labels: “Best interests” =
Each member of the special education team has my child’s best interests in mind; “Process” =
The team ensures I understand and am part of the process of planning for my child’s special
education services; “New ideas” = The team is open to new ideas and approaches I present to
help my child; “Reliable & Consistent” = All team members are reliable and consistent when
speaking about my child; “Sharing” = I can share knowledge and ideas with the school team with
the belief that I will not be judged.
Parents reported varying frequencies of experiencing different trust practices with their
student’s special education team, with the majority occurring ‘often’ or ‘always.’ ‘Process’ and
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
91
‘best interests’ were rated highest, with mean scores of 4.16 (SD=.988) and 4.13 (SD=1.026),
respectively. This data indicates that trust practices are generally perceived as being consistently
implemented. ‘New ideas’ had slightly lower ratings, suggesting that his practice could be
improved upon. Overall, these findings indicate that parents engage in most trust practices with
moderate to high frequency.
Table 38 presents the frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations of
parents’ reported experiences with mutual respect practices. The table summarizes the frequency
with which parents experienced each practice when interacting with their child’s special
education team during the 2024-2025 school year.
Table 38
Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’ Reported Experiences of
Mutual Respect Practices
Practice
Never
n (%)
Rarely
n (%)
Sometimes
n (%)
Often
n (%)
Always
n (%)
M
SD
8 (5.0)
7 (4.4)
30 (18.8)
39 (24.4)
76 (47.5)
4.05
1.137
8 (5.0)
9 (5.6)
27 (16.9)
58 (36.3)
58 (36.3)
3.93
1.100
18 (11.3)
10 (6.3)
25 (15.6)
44 (27.5)
63 (39.4)
3.78
1.332
6 (3.8)
11 (6.9)
26 (16.3)
45 (28.1)
72 (45.0)
4.04
1.110
5 (3.1)
7 (4.4)
27 (16.9)
41 (25.6)
80 (50.0)
4.15
1.053
Cultural
background
Compromise
Conflict
addressed
Capable
team
Valued by
team
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
92
Note. Scores reflect a 5-point scale. Frequencies represent parent responses with percentages in
parentheses. M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. Collapsed practice labels: “Cultural
background” = My family’s cultural background and educational experiences are acknowledged
and understood by the team; “Compromise” = Compromise, when needed, takes place due to
team members’ flexibility and responsiveness to feedback; “Conflict addressed” = Conflict
between myself and team member(s) is addressed in a constructive and timely manner; “Capable
team” = The school team is capable of meeting my child’s needs; “Valued by team” = The
school team values my input and treats me as a team member.
Parents reported varying frequencies of experiences regarding mutual respect practices,
with the majority occurring ‘often’ or ‘always.’ Highest rated were ‘valued by team’ and
‘cultural background’ with mean scores of 4.15 (SD=1.110) and 4.05 (SD=1.137), respectively.
‘Conflict addressed’ had the lowest ratings, suggesting this practice could be improved. Overall,
these findings indicate that parents experience mutual respect fairly frequently.
Table 39 presents the frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations of
parents’ reported experiences with shared goal practices. The table summarizes the frequency
with which parents experienced each practice when interacting with their child’s special
education team during the 2024-2025 school year.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
93
Table 39
Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’ Reported Experiences of
Shared Goals Practices
Practice
Never
n (%)
Rarely
n (%)
Sometimes
n (%)
Often
n (%)
Always
n (%)
M
SD
4 (2.5)
6 (3.8)
29 (18.1)
44 (27.5)
77 (48.1)
4.15
1.011
4 (2.5)
10 (6.3)
27 (16.9)
48 (30.0)
71 (48.1)
4.08
1.043
3 (1.9)
6 (3.8)
25 (15.6)
43 (26.9)
83 (51.9)
4.23
.973
Mutual
goal
setting
Input
valued
Working
together
Note. Scores reflect a 5-point scale. Frequencies represent parent responses with percentages in
parentheses. M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. Collapsed practice labels: “Mutual goal
setting” = Goals are mutually created and agreed upon by all team members, including me as the
parent; “Input valued” = My input in creating goals is valued; “Working together” = The entire
team works together toward helping my child reach their goals.
The ratings ‘often’ and ‘always’ accounted for the majority of parent experiences for
each of the practices within the domain of shared goals. ‘Working together’ was rated highest,
with a mean of 4.23 (SD = 0.973), while the remaining practices still averaged above 4. Overall,
these findings suggest that parents engage in high rates of shared goal practices comparatively.
Table 40 presents the frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations of
parents’ reported experiences with common understanding practices. The table summarizes the
frequency with which parents experienced each practice when interacting with their child’s
special education team during the 2024-2025 school year.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
94
Table 40
Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’ Reported Experiences of
Common Understanding Practices
Practice
Never
n (%)
Rarely
n (%)
Sometimes
n (%)
Often
n (%)
Always
n (%)
M
SD
3 (1.9)
8 (5.0)
25 (15.6)
53 (33.1)
71 (44.4)
4.13
.979
2 (1.3)
10 (6.3)
22 (13.8)
54 (33.8)
72 (45.0)
4.15
.966
3 (1.9)
7 (4.4)
19 (11.9)
54 (33.8)
77 (48.1)
4.22
.949
4 (2.5)
12 (7.5)
22 (13.8)
48 (30.0)
74 (46.3)
4.10
1.059
Receptive
team
Clear roles
Valued
roles
Everyone
aligned
Note. Scores reflect a 5-point scale. Frequencies represent parent responses with percentages in
parentheses. M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. Collapsed practice labels: “Receptive team” =
School team members are receptive to each other’s contributions, including mine as the parent;
“Clear roles” = Each team member’s role is clear and purposeful to my child’s special education
programming; “Valued roles” = The school team, me included, values the role of each member
of the team; “Everyone aligned” = The school team and I are aligned with what is best for my
child.
‘Often’ and ‘always’ comprised the majority of parents’ responses to their rates of
experience with the practices of the common understanding domain. Rated to be experienced
most often was the practice of ‘roles performed’ with a mean of 4.13 (SD=.976), with
‘committed team’ also being rated on average higher than 4 with a mean of 4.09 (SD=1.030).
Rated as being experienced the least, but still between ‘sometimes’ and ‘often’ was ‘skills and
resources’ with a mean of 3.96 (SD=1.069). Overall, parents experience high rates of common
understanding practices with a relative weakness regarding skills and resources.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
95
Table 41 presents the frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations of
parents’ reported experiences with shared responsibility practices. The table summarizes the
frequency with which parents experienced each practice when interacting with their child’s
special education team during the 2024-2025 school year.
Table 41
Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’ Reported Experiences of
Shared Responsibility Practices
Practice
Never
n (%)
Rarely
n (%)
Sometimes
n (%)
Often
n (%)
Always
n (%)
M
SD
2 (1.3)
9 (5.6)
28 (17.5)
49 (30.6)
72 (45.0)
4.13
.976
5 (3.1)
9 (5.6)
37 (23.1)
45 (28.1)
64 (40.0)
3.96
1.069
4 (2.5)
9 (5.6)
27 (16.9)
49 (30.6)
71 (44.4)
4.09
1.030
Roles
performed
Skills and
resources
Committed
team
Note. Scores reflect a 5-point scale. Frequencies represent parent responses with percentages in
parentheses. M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. Collapsed practice labels: “Roles performed”
= Each team member accepts and performs their role in my child’s special education plan;
“Skills and resources” = I was made aware of skills and resources that each team member brings
to the collaboration; “Committed team” = All team members are truly committed to the process.
The majority of parents reported experiencing shared responsibility practices ‘often’ or
‘always.’ Receiving the highest rating (M=4.13 SD=,976) was ‘roles performed’ with 75.6% of
parents reporting experiencing this practice ‘often’ or ‘always.’ ‘Committed team’ was also
reported to occur ‘often’ or ‘always (M=4.09, SD=1.030). Though still rated positively, ‘skills
and resources’ was reported to occur 68.1% of the time. These findings suggest that the practices
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
96
of shared responsibility occur regularly with ‘roles performed’ and ‘committed team’ as slightly
stronger than ‘skills and resources.’
Table 42 presents the frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations of
parents’ reported experiences with active participation practices. The table summarizes the
frequency with which parents experienced each practice when interacting with their child’s
special education team during the 2024-2025 school year.
Table 42
Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’ Reported Experiences of
Active Participation Practices
Practice
Never
n (%)
Rarely
n (%)
Sometimes
n (%)
Often
n (%)
Always
n (%)
M
SD
3 (1.9)
7 (4.4)
30 (18.8)
53 (33.1)
67 (41.9)
4.09
.974
4 (2.5)
12 (7.5)
30 (18.8)
55 (34.4)
59 (36.9)
3.96
1.042
3 (1.9)
12 (7.5)
26 (16.3)
50 (31.3)
69 (43.1)
4.06
1.032
Member
contributions
Active
leaders
Engaged
members
Note. Scores reflect a 5-point scale. Frequencies represent parent responses with percentages in
parentheses. M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. Collapsed practice labels: “Member
contributions” = All team members contribute different and valuable resources toward achieving
the creation of my child’s special education services; “Active leaders” = Leaders are actively
involved in creating change or working toward helping my child together with the team, myself
included; “Engaged members” = All members are actively engaged.
Parents reported experiencing active participation practices at generally high levels. Most
responses indicated these practices occurred ‘often’ or ‘always.’ The highest-rated aspect was
member contributions (M = 4.09, SD = .974), with 76% indicating that it was frequently
observed. Receiving the lowest rating, relatively speaking, was ‘active leaders’ (M=3.96,
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
97
SD=1.042) with 74.4% reporting experiencing it ‘often’ or ‘always.’ These findings suggest that
parents perceive active participation practices as well established, with minimal differences in
ratings.
Table 43 presents the frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations of
parents’ reported experiences with shared decision-making practices. The table summarizes the
frequency with which parents experienced each practice when interacting with their child’s
special education team during the 2024-2025 school year.
Table 43
Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’ Reported Experiences of
Shared Decision-Making Practices
Practice
Never
n (%)
Rarely
n (%)
Sometimes
n (%)
Often
n (%)
Always
n (%)
M
SD
2 (1.3)
9 (5.6)
26 (16.3)
53 (33.1)
70 (43.8)
4.13
.963
5 (3.1)
6 (3.8)
30 (18.8)
48 (30.0)
71 (44.4)
4.09
1.030
3 (1.9)
4 (2.5)
29 (18.1)
49 (30.6)
75 (46.9)
4.18
.944
Members
encouraged
Participation
Understanding
of process
Note. Scores reflect a 5-point scale. Frequencies represent parent responses with percentages in
parentheses. M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. Collapsed practice labels: “Members
encouraged” = Myself and all team members are encouraged to provide input in the decisionmaking process; “Participation” = All members participate in the decision-making process;
“Understanding of process” = I am aware of and understand the process for making decisions
and implementing actions regarding my child’s special education services.
Parents reported frequently experiencing shared decision-making practices, with mean
ratings ranging from 4.09 to 4.18. Across all three practices, the majority of parents (73-78%)
indicated that they occurred ‘often’ or ‘always’, with ‘understanding of the process’ rated as the
highest.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
98
Table 44 presents the frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations of
parents’ reported experiences with implementation practices. The table summarizes the
frequency with which parents experienced each practice when interacting with their child’s
special education team during the 2024-2025 school year.
Table 44
Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’ Reported Experiences of
Implementation Practices
Practice
Follow through
Never
n (%)
4 (2.5)
Rarely
n (%)
11 (6.9)
Sometimes
n (%)
25 (15.6)
Often
n (%)
50 (31.3)
Always
n (%)
70 (40.3)
M
SD
4.07
1.047
7 (4.4)
20 (12.5)
30 (18.8)
40 (25)
63 (39.4)
3.83
1.206
6 (3.8)
15 (9.4)
27 (16.9)
44 (27.5)
68 (42.5)
3.96
1.146
13 (8.1)
21 (13.1)
34 (21.3)
34 (21.3)
58 (36.3)
3.64
1.310
Continued
communication
Continuous
evaluation
Responsiveness
Note. Scores reflect a 5-point scale. Frequencies represent parent responses with percentages in
parentheses. M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. Collapsed practice labels: “Follow through” =
Each member follows through with their role in the implementation of my child’s special
education services; “Continued communication” = Team members continue to communicate
with me during the implementation of my child’s special education services; “Continuous
evaluation” = My child’s performance is continually evaluated for effectiveness using a datacollection process; “Responsiveness” = If the chosen interventions are not effective for my child,
I am informed promptly and the team reconvenes.
Parents generally perceived implementation practices as occurring with moderate to high
frequency. ‘Follow through’ received the highest average rating (M=4.07, SD=1.047), while
‘responsiveness’ was rated lowest (M=3.64, SD=1.310), though it was still reported to be
experienced by a majority of the parents ‘often’ or ‘always.’
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
99
Summary of Rates of Experience. Across all domains, parents reported experiencing
collaborative practices with the child’s special education team at moderate to high frequencies,
with most practices rated as ‘often’ or ‘always’. The highest rated practices included clear
communication channels (M = 4.16), working together toward goals (M = 4.23), and
understanding the decision-making process (M = 4.18). The lowest, though still positive, ratings
were observed for responsiveness during implementation (M = 3.64) and addressing conflict (M
= 3.78). Overall, the data indicate that parents frequently experience the practices outlined in
each of the domains.
Qualitative Results
Demographics
Of the 160 participants who completed the survey, 54 indicated they were willing to
participate in an interview. Volunteers were contacted via text message or email and invited to
sign up for a 15-minute interview session scheduled for September 20 or 21, 2025. Thirteen of
the fourteen sessions were claimed, and ten of those sessions resulted in interviews. Due to
technical errors in recording two of the interviews, the researcher had eight remaining interviews
and transcripts from which to derive data.
Table 45 presents the parental race/ethnicity data for interviewees, the ages of their
students as of December 1, 2024, and the disability category under which their students were
receiving special education services.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
100
Table 45
Demographic Characteristics of Interview Participants (N=8)
Participant
Race/Ethnicity
Student Age
Disability Category
1
Black
16
Unknown
2
White
6
Unknown
3
White
5
Speech and Language Impairment
4
White
10
Autism
5
White
8
Special Learning Disability
6
White
14
OHI
7
White
6
Autism
8
White
11
Intellectual Disability
Facilitators and Barriers
In the interviews, participants were asked to identify any factors that supported or
hindered their collaboration with their students’ school-based team. Their responses were
categorized into either facilitators or barriers. Responses classified as facilitators were those that
the parent perceived as strengthening collaboration, while those responses identified as barriers
represented factors that created obstacles or weakened collaboration. Table 45 provides the
frequency of responses to facilitators of each of the nine domains of collaboration, and Table 46
provides the frequencies for barriers. These tables provide a visual representation of the patterns
that emerged from the interviews, while direct quotes and parent descriptions offer additional
context and depth to the frequency data.
Table 46 demonstrates that parents most often described positive experiences within the
domains of open communication, trust, and mutual respect. The parents who reported these
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
101
facilitators described practices that allowed them to both give and receive honest
communications, ensured their students’ best interests were prioritized, and affirmed their roles
as equal members of the team. A frequently mentioned as a facilitator was the accessibility of the
team, “I can reach out to them at any time I need to. They know they can reach out to me.” Trust
in the team supporting their child emerged as a critical factor. One parent shared that, for the first
time in a long time, she felt able to “take a deep breath,” expressing confidence that her child
was receiving the support they needed at school. A sense of mutual respect, both by and for
parents, as conveyed through the school’s actions, was also emphasized across interviews.
Several parents discussed how respect was conveyed by the school’s willingness to listen and
adjust practices. For example, one parent shared, “They wanted to put our student into strictly a
self-contained classroom, but when we said no, that’s not going to work for us, the school was
willing to adjust their approach.” Some domains, such as shared goals, common understanding,
shared responsibility, and shared decision-making, were mentioned less frequently; however,
when discussed, parents emphasized their importance to collaboration with the school team.
Collectively, these qualitative findings, supported by the frequency counts and direct quotes,
provide a deeper understanding of parents' experiences with facilitators of collaboration.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
102
Table 46
Frequency of Responses Regarding Facilitators for Domains of Collaboration
Participant
Domain
Open
1
2
X
3
4
5
X
X
X
X
X
6
7
8
Total
X
5
Communication
Trust
X
Mutual Respect
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
X
X
5
X
Shared Goals
1
Common
X
1
Understanding
Shared
X
1
Responsibility
X
Active Participation
Shared Decision-
X
X
3
X
1
Making
Implementation
X
X
X
X
4
In contrast, Table 47 provides the frequencies of barriers mentioned within the nine
domains of collaboration. While barriers were not discussed as frequently as facilitators, those
that were mentioned were primarily clustered in the areas of open communication and
implementation. A recurring theme was centered on how open communication between parents
and school personnel was sometimes perceived as combative. One parent explained, in reference
to requesting specific services, “And so the battle of that begins if you want a different
specialized service that is not suggested by one of their top-notch people, providing the proof and
the justification. And that’s, I think that’s the biggest hurdle anywhere.” Another parent
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
103
expressed similar concerns: “Do I put up a fight and try to get more services when this one OT
does 7th through 12th and is already overworked?” The mention of the Occupational Therapist’s
workload also reflects a barrier to the effective implementation of student services. A lack of
data collection was also identified as a barrier to implementing services, as progress data is
necessary to evaluate student growth and the effectiveness of their programming. One parent
remarked, “It sounds really great. We’re going to collect data. But I have seen most special
education settlements happening because there’s no data collected.” Although barriers in some
domains, such as mutual respect, shared goals, and active participation, were mentioned less
often, when they did occur, they had a significant negative impact on the parents’ perceptions of
collaboration. As one parent described, “As a parent, you have to play the game of request, know
the law, but act like you don’t know the law so that the school can still feel like they are in the
hierarchy above you.” Experiences such as this demonstrate how even infrequent barriers can
leave a lasting impression that shapes future interactions with the school team. Barriers, although
they arise less frequently than facilitators, can deeply undermine collaborative relationships
between families and schools.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
104
Table 47
Frequency of Responses Regarding Barriers for Domains of Collaboration
Participant
Domain
Open
1
2
X
X
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
X
3
Communication
Trust
X
Mutual Respect
X
1
Shared Goals
X
1
Common
X
X
2
X
2
X
2
X
1
Understanding
Shared
X
Responsibility
Active Participation
Shared Decision-
X
X
2
X
3
Making
Implementation
X
X
The facilitators and barriers identified by parents offer a more complex perspective on
collaboration between families and schools. Highlighted in tables 46 and 47 are the frequencies
at which parents mentioned facilitators or barriers, while the quotes provide depth to these
numbers. The findings suggest that practices within domains can act as either facilitators or
barriers, depending on how they are enacted by school personnel and perceived by parents.
Summary
This chapter presented the results of a web-based survey and virtual interviews
examining parents’ perspectives on school-based collaboration for students receiving special
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
105
education services. Survey responses (N = 162) and interviews (n = 10) revealed the schoolbased practices that parents value most, how these preferences vary by demographics, and the
frequency with which parents experience these practices in their interactions with school teams.
Across the nine collaboration domains, parents consistently prioritized open communication,
trust, mutual respect, shared goals, and active participation, with some variations depending on
the student's age, disability category, and the parent's race/ethnicity. Interview data supported
these findings, providing context for the survey results and insight into the facilitators and
barriers to effective collaboration. The data indicate that while parents generally experience
many collaborative practices positively, certain areas, such as implementation, require further
attention. These findings will be further discussed, including their implications for practices,
limitations, and recommendations in Chapter 5.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
106
Chapter 5 – Discussion
Overview
Despite years of legislative efforts and the work of dedicated teams of educators, students
with disabilities continue to underperform across academic areas when compared to their regular
education peers (NAEP, n.d.). Determined to be a vital factor in SWD’s success in-school and
post-secondary is the collaboration between stakeholders, specifically families and school
districts (Anderson-Butcher & Aston, 2004; Daaboul, 2022). Aware of the numerous benefits of
developing and maintaining collaborative relationships with parents of students with disabilities,
many models and frameworks have been designed to support schools in these endeavors.
Griffiths et al. (2021), building upon the work of others, created a universal model of
collaboration for schools, which was adapted for this study. Griffiths et al.’s model provided a
structure that could enable a deeper analysis of the key elements, referred to as domains
throughout the study, needed to be present to foster collaboration: (a) open communication, (b)
trust, (c) mutual respect, (d) shared goals, (e) common understanding, (f) shared responsibility,
(g) active participation, (h) shared decision-making, (i) implementation.
Figure 4 provides a visual representation of the logic of this study. By surveying parents
regarding their experiences and perceptions of the domains of collaboration, school-based
practices can be informed to better engage parents and improve outcomes for their students with
disabilities.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
107
Figure 4
Logic Model
To access these experiences and perceptions, the researcher developed survey and
interview questions based on previously established and successfully utilized parental
engagement questionnaires, as well as existing literature on collaboration, and Pennsylvania’s
State Performance Plan Indicator 8 – School-Facilitated Parent Involvement measure
(Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network, 2018). The data collected from the
survey and interviews were used to answer the following research questions:
1. What do parents believe to be the most valuable school-based practice in each of the
domains of collaboration (i.e. (a) open communication, (b) trust, (c) mutual respect,
(d) shared goals, (e) common understanding, (f) shared responsibility, (g) active
participation, (h) shared decision-making, and (i) implementation)?
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
108
2. Is there a relationship between demographics (i.e., (a) parents’ race/ethnicity, (b)
student’s age, (c) student disability category) and what parents deem the most
valuable school-based collaborative practice?
3. How often do parents experience the practices of each collaboration domain when
engaging with their school district regarding their student’s special education
services?
4. What barriers and facilitators of parental collaboration exist for parents of schoolaged students receiving special education services, in each of the domains of
collaboration?
In this chapter, the study's findings will be organized by research question, summarized,
and discussed, along with their implications for practice. Limitations of the study will be
addressed. Recommendations will be made regarding how the findings can be best utilized along
with implications for future research. In conclusion, the significance of this study and the
importance of continued research on school-based practices will be discussed.
Summary of Findings
Research Question 1
Parents were asked to identify their most valued school-based practice in each domain of
collaboration. As shown in Table 48, the most frequently selected practice in the domain of open
communication was “Easily understood and honest communication between me and the
members of the school team” (68.1%). Within the domain of trust, parents most often indicated
that “Each member on the special education team has my child’s best interests in mind” (54%).
Under the domain of mutual respect, parents most often chose “The school team is capable of
meeting my child’s needs” (49%). “The entire team works together toward helping my child
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
109
reach their goals” (56%) was identified as the most valued practice in the domain of shared
goals. Under common understanding, “The school team and I are aligned with what is best for
my child” (47%). The most frequent response in active participation, with 46% of responses, was
“All team members contribute different and valuable resources toward achieving the creation of
my child’s special education services.” Within shared decision-making, 49% reported valuing
“Myself and all team members are encouraged to provide input in the decision-making process.”
Lastly, under implementation, the most frequently chosen practice was “My child’s performance
is continually evaluated for effectiveness using a data-collection process” (32%).
Table 48
Parents’ Most Valued School-Based Practices Within Each Domain of Collaboration
Domain
Most Valued Practice
Number of Responses (%)
Open Communication
Easily understood and honest
109 (68.1%)
communication between me
and the members of the
school team.
Trust
Each member of the special
86 (54%)
education team has my
child’s best interests in mind
Mutual Respect
The school team is capable of
78 (49%)
meeting my child’s needs.
Shared Goals
The entire team works
together toward helping my
child reach their goals.
90 (56%)
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
110
Table 47 continued
Domain
Most Valued Practice
Number of Responses (%)
Common Understanding
The school team and I are
75 (47%)
aligned with what is best for
my child.
Shared Responsibility
All team members are truly
65 (41%)
committed to the process.
Active Participation
All team members contribute
73 (46%)
different and valuable
resources toward achieving
the creation of my child’s
special education services.
Shared Decision-Making
Myself and all team members
79 (49%)
are encouraged to provide
input in the decision-making
process.
Implementation
My child’s performance is
51 (32%)
continually evaluated for
effectiveness using a datacollection process.
Note. Percentages are based on the total sample size (N = 160).
From these most-valued practices, it is clear that parents desire clear and honest
communication from capable team members with whom they are aligned and who engage in
ongoing evaluation of their students’ progress.
Research Question 2
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine if parent/race ethnicity or
student demographics (i.e., disability category and age) were associated with the most valued
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
111
practices within each collaboration domain. Table 49 highlights the variables that were found to
be associated with parents’ most valued practices.
Table 49
Summary of Chi-Square Tests of Independence by Domain and Demographic Variable
Domain
Race/Ethnicity
Disability Category
Student Age
Open
Fail to reject 𝐻
Fail to reject 𝐻
Reject 𝑯𝟎
Trust
Reject 𝑯𝟎
Fail to reject 𝐻
Fail to reject 𝐻
Mutual Respect
Reject 𝑯𝟎
Reject 𝑯𝟎
Fail to reject 𝐻
Shared Goals
Fail to reject 𝐻
Reject 𝑯𝟎
Fail to reject 𝐻
Common
Fail to reject 𝐻
Fail to reject 𝐻
Fail to reject 𝐻
Reject 𝑯𝟎
Fail to reject 𝐻
Communication
Understanding
Shared Responsibility Fail to reject 𝐻
Active Participation
Fail to reject 𝐻
Fail to reject 𝐻
Fail to reject 𝐻
Shared Decision-
Fail to reject 𝐻
Reject 𝑯𝟎
Fail to reject 𝐻
Fail to reject 𝐻
Fail to reject 𝐻
Fail to reject 𝐻
Making
Implementation
Note. 𝐻 = Null hypothesis. Rejecting 𝐻 indicates a statistically significant association between
the demographic variable and the valued practice within the domain.
As shown in Table 48, an association was found between race/ethnicity and the mostvalued practices in the domains of trust and mutual respect. Disability category was associated
with mutual respect, shared goals, shared responsibility, and shared decision-making. The only
domain to be associated with student age was open communication. For all other domains and
demographic variables, no statistically significant associations were found.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
112
Research Question 3
Table 50 presents the means and standard deviations for parents’ reported experiences
across the nine domains of collaboration.
Table 50
Means and Standard Deviations of Parent Experiences Across Collaboration Domains
Domain
M
SD
Open Communication
4.03
.942
Trust
4.05
.945
Mutual Respect
3.98
.965
Shared Goals
4.15
.948
Common Understandings
4.15
.921
Shared Responsibility
4.05
.960
Active Participation
4.03
.955
Shared Decision-Making
4.13
.893
Implementation
3.87
1.093
Note. Scores reflect a 5-point scale.
Mean scores across domains were all close to 4.0, suggesting that parents generally
perceived collaborative practices as occurring frequently. Receiving the highest ratings were
‘shared goals’ (M=4.15, SD=.948) and ‘common understanding’ (M=4.15, SD=.921), while
‘implementation’ was rated lowest (M=3.87, SD=1.093). While all domains were experienced
positively, parents identified slightly stronger experiences of ‘shared goals’ and ‘common
understanding’ compared to ‘implementation.’
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
113
Research Question 4
In the interviews, parents identified factors that either facilitated or hindered
collaboration with their students’ school-based teams. Facilitators were practices that assisted or
strengthened collaboration, while barriers were practices that created challenges and obstacles to
collaboration. Across the nine domains, parents frequently described positive experiences with
open communication, trust, and mutual respect. Mentioned less often, but still important, were
shared goals, common understanding, shared responsibility, and shared decision-making.
Reported at a much lower rate were the barriers parents experienced when collaborating
with school teams. Although these were reported less frequently, they still have a notable impact,
especially in the domains of open communication and implementation. Parents reported
challenges with combative interactions, limited personnel, and insufficient data collection to
support decision-making. Mutual respect and active participation were less frequently cited as
barriers; however, they still had the potential to influence parents’ perceptions of collaboration
negatively.
Discussion and Implications of Findings
Research Question 1
Effective collaboration in schools requires both structure and engagement with parents.
Griffiths et al. (2021) describe collaboration as a set of interdependent building blocks. As shown
in Figure 5, trust, open communication, and mutual respect are necessary for relationship
building; shared goals and common understanding foster shared values; active engagement is
grounded in shared responsibilities and active participation; and collaboration is enabled by
shared decision-making and implementation. These elements are non-linear, allowing the teams
to revisit foundational components as needed to enhance collaboration.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
114
Figure 5
Building Blocks of Collaboration
Parents' perspectives reflect and extend these principles. Based upon these most-valued
practices from research question 1, parents desire collaboration with the school team to be
characterized by transparent and comprehensible communication, collective commitment, and a
shared understanding of what is in the best interest of their student. They value team members
who align with goals, demonstrate the capability to meet their students' needs, and contribute
their knowledge to the development and implementation of the IEP. These findings suggest that
collaboration is most effective when parents are included as active participants in the decisionmaking process, a finding supported by the work of Christenson (2003) and Epstein (2018).
Additionally, ongoing evaluation of student progress through data collection ensures instruction
remains effective and responsive to individual needs (Turnbull et al., 2018). The data indicate
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
115
that successful collaboration is dependent upon structural processes and the quality of
relationships between families and schools (Cowan et al., 2004; Epstein, 2001).
Research Question 2
Race/Ethnicity. Parents identifying as white were more likely to select those practices
more closely associated with being recognized and respected by the team, such as ‘cultural
background,’ ‘valued by the team,’ or ‘capable team.’ Viewed as less valuable were the practices
related to compromise and addressing conflict. In contrast, parents identifying as an ‘Other’
race/ethnicity category were more likely to select ‘process,’ ‘new ideas,’ ‘reliable & consistent, ’
or ‘sharing.’ This difference in preferences suggests that parents’ race/ethnicity can influence
their desired collaborative experiences, specifically regarding how the team functions and their
behaviors (Harry et al., 1995; Kalyanpur et al., 2000; Trainor, 2010; Turnbull & Turnbull, 2021).
Student Age. Student age also influenced parents’ perceptions of collaborative practices.
Parents of older students are more likely to opt for ‘open discussions’ and ‘knowledge sharing’
compared to parents of younger students. The shift in practices can be viewed as necessary to
facilitate more dialogue between the school team and students as they get older. This aligns with
research, which suggests that families and educators adjust their collaborative practices as
students progress through grade levels, with a greater emphasis on how to best prepare students
for life post-secondary (Christenson, 2003; Epstein, 2001).
Disability Category. Most valued practices also differed by the student’s disability
category. Parents of students with low-incidence disabilities were more likely to value the
practices of ‘committed team,’ ‘active leaders,’ ‘engaged members,’ ‘understanding of process,’
‘continual evaluation,’ ‘mutual goal setting, and ‘input valued. Parents with students with highincidence disabilities were more likely to select ‘cultural background,’ ‘valued by the team,’
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
116
‘capable team,’ ’ member contributions,’ ‘members encouraged,’ and ‘participation.’ These
findings suggest that parents of students with more complex needs look for teams that are
consistent, committed, and engaged, while parents of high-incidence disabilities may focus more
on functionality and clear responsibilities (Blair et al., 2011; Mueller & Vick, 2019; Griffiths et
al., 2021; Turnbull & Turnbull, 2021).
These results suggest that demographic factors, including race/ethnicity, disability
category, and student age, can influence which collaborative practices parents value most. The
implications of these associations will be discussed later in this chapter.
Research Question 3
The mean scores for rates of experience across the collaboration domains were all close
to 4.0, indicating that parents generally experienced these collaborative practices as occurring
‘often’ when engaging with the school district regarding their student’s special education
services. Shared goals and a common understanding received the highest ratings (M = 4.15, SD =
.948; M = 4.15, SD = .921, respectively), while implementation was rated slightly lower (M =
3.87, SD = 1.093). These findings suggest that parents generally experienced higher rates of
practices in areas such as shared goals and common understanding. (Christenson, 2003; Epstein,
2001). Meaningful engagement is most successful when parents perceive the school team to be
aligned with their goals and objectives for their student, strengthening their trust and respect for
the school team (Turnbull& Turnbull, 2021).
The slightly lower mean for implementation suggests that parents perceive the school's
actions to be less consistent than desired. Although this may not always be the case, schools may
not consistently implement practices that are as visible to parents. This aligns with previous
findings that emphasize the importance of consistent collaborative planning and observable
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
117
actions on the part of the school team (Blair et al., 2011; Mueller & Vick, 2019). Such results
highlight the importance of involving parents in decision-making and planning, as well as
providing visibility of the school's follow-through.
These results indicate an overall positive experience with collaborative practices,
particularly in the areas of mutual understanding and shared objectives. While implementation
does not trail far behind, results indicate some room for improvement.
Research Question 4
In interviews, parents reported that collaboration was generally strengthened by open
communication, trust, and mutual respect, which allowed them to feel heard and valued in the
IEP process (Christenson, 2003; Turnbull & Turnbull, 2021). Shared goals, common
understanding, shared responsibility, and shared decision-making also support collaboration
(Ishimaru, 2011; Mueller & Vick, 2019), though these were mentioned less frequently.
Barriers were not mentioned as often as facilitators, but when shared, could be
categorized under the domains of open communication and implementation. Specific to
implementation, combative interactions, limited personnel, and insufficient data to inform and
guide decisions were mentioned as challenges. When parents perceive lapses in mutual respect or
active participation, collaboration can be impacted (Harry et al., 1995; Blair et al., 2011).
Schools need to strike a balance between addressing barriers and reinforcing facilitators; when
such actions are taken, they can help them establish more meaningful partnerships with families
(Christenson, 2003; Griffiths et al., 2021).
Recommendations
Table 51 provides the recommended practices based upon the findings for each of the
four research questions.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
118
Table 51
Implication of Findings by Research Question
Research Question
Key Findings
Recommendations
Supporting
References
RQ1: Most-valued
Parents desire open
-Provide structural
Christenson (2003);
school-based
communication,
supports (shared decision-
Epstein (2001);
collaborative
shared commitment
making, implementation)
Turnbull &
practice
and understanding,
while also attending to
Turnbull (2021);
and active
relational practices (trust,
Cowan et al.
participation by all
open communication,
(2004); Griffiths et
team members.
mutual respect)
al. (2021)
-Include parents in all
decision-making
RQ2: Influence of
Parents'
-Design engagement
Harry et al. (1995).
demographics on
race/ethnicity,
strategies to be reflective
Kalyanpur et al.
collaborative
student age, and
and mindful of family
(2000); Trainor
practices
disability category
demographics.
(2010); Blair et al.
influence their
-Make shifts in practices
(2011); Mueller &
preferred
as students progress in
Vick (2019);
collaborative
age.
Griffiths et al.
practices.
-Maintain a focus on the
(2021);
complexity of student
Turnbull &
needs in planning.
Turnbull (2021)
RQ3: Parent
High ratings for
-Increase the visibility and Blair et al. (2011);
experiences with
shared goals and
consistency of school
Mueller & Vick
collaboration
understanding;
actions.
(2019); Christenson
slightly lower for
-Strengthen school
(2003); Epstein
implementation.
follow-through with any
(2001)
devised plans.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
119
Table 50 continued
Research Question
Key Findings
Recommendations
Supporting
References
RQ4: Facilitators
Facilitators: open
-Monitor and address
Christenson (2003);
and barriers to
communication,
barriers while reinforcing
Griffiths et al.
collaboration
trust, and mutual
facilitators.
(2021); Harry et al.
respect.
-Adjust structural goals
(1995); Blair et al.
Barriers: open
and relational approaches
(2011)
communication,
to fit the needs of the
implementation
parents.
Schools can enhance their collaborative practices by tailoring their use of relational and
structural supports to fit the needs of their families. Demographics and student needs should
always be driving factors in how schools’ approach and structure collaboration with parents of
students receiving special education services.
Limitations
In addition to the limitations identified in Chapter One, additional limitations emerged as
the study progressed. The most impactful factor on the results of this study was the small sample
size. Of the more than 500 districts in the state of Pennsylvania, only nine gave consent for the
study to take place in their district. This limited the overall participation rate and restricted the
diversity of participants, each with their own perspectives and experiences to study.
Further impacting the actual representativeness of the results was the sample that
participated in the study. Of the 160 who completed the survey, it was determined that they could
not be deemed representative of either the state’s student population, based on age, or the
disability category. The results derived from this sample must be both interpreted and
generalized with caution, as they only reflect a small, non-representative sample.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
120
An additional limitation is that the survey is self-selecting, meaning parents choose
whether to participate in it (Reja et al., 2013). Those who participated may have had stronger
opinions, more varied experiences, or greater flexibility in completing the survey than those who
did not, potentially skewing the findings (Reja et al., 2003). The study’s findings may not be
entirely representative of parents who do not hold extreme opinions, have had a range of
experiences, or have the time to participate, thus limiting the generalizability of the results to the
larger population of families with students receiving special education services across the state.
Implications for Future Research
The results of this study highlight the value of exploring parental perceptions of schoolbased collaborative services and can serve as a springboard for further research. A deeper dive
into parental experiences across a broader and more diverse population, including families from
historically underserved or marginalized communities, could provide greater insight into how
collaborative practices are perceived across districts, communities, and cultural backgrounds.
This study found that parents’ preferences and perceptions change over time.
Longitudinal research could provide insight into how these perceptions evolve as students
progress through grade levels or schools and how they may shift in response to the
implementation of new school-based collaborative practices.
Future studies might also consider surveying other stakeholders such as teachers,
administrators, and specialists. By comparing perspectives across these groups, determinations
can be made regarding the alignment or discrepancies between parents and the school’s special
education team. With a deeper understanding of these differences in perspectives, targeted
professional development could take place to develop a greater empathy for what each
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
121
stakeholder is experiencing, potentially resulting in strengthened relationships and improved
communication.
Further research could also determine the effectiveness of specific collaboration
practices, such as digital communication platforms or varying the frequency and length of
communications. Experimental designs could measure parent engagement before and after
implementation, providing evidence of what practices most effectively support collaboration.
There are many options for future research beyond those listed here, but a common
thread connects them all. This commonality is the collection of additional, varied data to develop
more consistent, equitable, and valuable collaborative relationships between parents and school
teams.
Summary
This study examined parents’ perceptions of school-based collaborative practices.
Specifically, the value they place on the practices within each of these domains, the frequency at
which these practices occur, and the facilitators and barriers that impact collaboration with the
school-based team. The value that parents placed on these practices was influenced by
demographic factors, including parents’ race/ethnicity, student age, and disability category.
Parents generally reported positive experiences across the practices of collaboration; a few areas
needing improvement were also identified. Schools seeking to maintain or improve upon their
collaborative practices should focus on both their structural and relational approaches as they
continue to work with parents of students with disabilities. The findings, despite the limitations,
provide insight for school districts seeking to improve collaboration and, thus, the academic and
post-secondary success of students with disabilities.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
122
References
Ahmad, S., Wasim, A., Irfan, S., Gogoi, S., Srivastava, A., & Farheen, Z. (2019). Qualitative v/s.
quantitative research: A summarized review. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine and
Healthcare, 6(43), 2828-2832. https://doi.org/10.18410/jebmh/2019/587
Anderson-Butcher, D., & Ashton, D. (2004). Innovative models of collaboration to serve
children, youths, families, and communities. Children & Schools, 26(1), 39-53.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/26.1.39
Blair K. S., Lee I. S., Cho S. J., Dunlap G. (2011). Positive behavior support through familyschool collaboration for young children with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 31, 22–36.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson, J., Handbook of theory and research
for the sociology of education. (pp. 241-258). Greenwood.
https://www.socialcapitalgateway.org/sites/socialcapitalgateway.org/files/data/paper/201
6/10/18/rbasicsbourdieu1986-theformsofcapital.pdf
Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative
studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195-207.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/001440290507100205
Brown, E. (2016). Technical glitches plague computer-based standardized tests nationwide.
Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/technicalglitchesplague-computer-based-standardized-tests-nationwide/2016/04/13/21178c7e-019c-1 1e69203-7b8670959b88_story.html
Burke, M. M. (2013). Improving parental involvement: Training special education advocates.
Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23(4), 225-234.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207311424910
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
123
Cambridge University Press & Assessment. (n.d.). Collaboration. In Cambridge.com dictionary.
Retrieved March 1, 2025, from
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/collaboration
Carnevale, A. & Fry, R. (2000). Crossing the great divide: Can we achieve equity when
generation y goes to college? Educational Testing Service.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242511568_Crossing_the_Great_Divide_Can_
We_Achieve_Equity_When_Generation_Y_Goes_to_College
Center for Parent Information and Resources. (2017). Key definitions in IDEA: A reference list.
Office of Special Education Program. https://www.parentcenterhub.org/wpcontent/uploads/repo_items/brief-fape-reference-list.pdf
Chang, W. H. (2021). Experiences and perceptions of parents of youth with disabilities toward
school-based parent engagement strategies. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of
North Carolina at Charlotte).
Christenson, S. L. (2003). The family-school partnership: An opportunity to promote the learning
competence of all students. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(4), 454482. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.4.454.26995
Community and Youth Collaborative Institute [CAYCI]. (2019). Family engagement and support.
https://cdnsm5ss10.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_123349/File/C3%20Committee/1-1619%20Ohio%20Resources%20-%20Family-Engagement-and-Support.pdf
Cowan, R. J., Swearer Napolitano, S. M., & Sheridan, S. M. (2004). Home-school collaboration.
Educational Psychology Papers and Publications, 2, 201-208.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-657410-3/00776-5
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
124
Cox D. D. (2005). Evidence-based interventions using home-school collaboration. School
Psychology Quarterly, 20, 473–497.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
method approaches. (5th ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J.W. and Miller, D.L. (2000) Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into
Practice, 39, 124-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
Daaboul, D. (2022). Expanding parental involvement in education: How social media and online
communication affect the family-school relationship. Special Education, 1(43), 32833299. http://sumc.lt/index.php/se/article/view/389/351
Edgerton, A. K., & Desimone, L. M. (2019). Mind the gaps: Differences in how teachers,
principals, and districts experience college- and career-readiness policies. American
Journal of Education, 125(4), 593-619. https://doi.org/10.1086/704099
Epstein J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and
improving schools. Westview Press.
Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent
involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. The Elementary School
Journal, 91(3), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1086/461656
Esler A., Godber Y., Christenson S. L. (2008). Best practices in supporting school-family
partnerships. In Thomas A., Grimes J. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp.
917–1120). National Association of School Psychologists.
Ferlazzo, L. (2011). Involvement or engagement?. Educational Leadership, 68(8), 10-14.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
125
Gardner, D. B., & Cary, A. (1999). Collaboration, conflict, and power: Lessons for case
managers. Family & Community Health, 22(3), 64-77. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003727199910000-00007
Goodall, J. (2017). Learning-centered parental engagement: Freire reimagined. Educational
Review, 70(5), 603–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191B1.2017.1358697
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnu, L. B. (2017). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. (10th ed.).
Cengage.
Griffiths, A-J., Alsip, J., Hart, S. R., Round, R. L., & Brady, J. (2021). Together we can do so
much: A systematic review and conceptual framework of collaboration in schools.
Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 36(1), 59-85.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573520915368
Kiger, M. E., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data. Medical Teacher,
42(8), 846-854. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030
Harry, B., Allen, N., & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Communication versus compliance: AfricanAmerican parents' involvement in special education. Exceptional Children, 61(4), 364377. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299506100405
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their
children's education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–
42. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170618
Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Walker, J.M.T., Sandler, H.M., Whetsel, D., Green, C.L., Wilkins, A.S.,
& Closson, K.E. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and
implications. Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105-130.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
126
Hughes, J. L., Camden, A. A., Yangchen, T., Smith, G. P. A., Domenech Rodriguez, M. M.,
Rouse, S. V., McDonald, C. P., & Lopez, S. (2022). Guidance for researchers when using
inclusive demographic questions for surveys: Improved and updated questions. Psi Chi
Journal of Psychological Research, 27(4), 232-317. https://doi.org/10.24839/23257342.JN27.4.232
Ishimaru, A. M. (2011). From family engagement to equitable collaboration. Educational Policy,
33(2), 350-385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904817691841
Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained.
British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396-403. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975
Kalyanpur, M., Harry, B., & Skrtic, T. (2000). Equity and advocacy expectations of culturally
diverse families’ participation in special education. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 47(2), 119-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/713671106
Katanyoutanant, T., Kwon, S., McNeilly, M., Hemberg, B., Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S.,
Hinkle, A. R., & Liu, K. K. (2021). The 95 percent state assessment participation
requirement: Current landscape, state challenges, and recommended strategies. National
Center on Educational Outcomes. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED616096.pdf
Kessler-Sklar, S. L., & Baker, A. J. L. (2000). School district parent involvement policies and
programs. The Elementary School Journal, 101(1), 101-118. https://doi-org.proxysru.klnpa.org/10.1086/499661
Kiger, M. E., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data. Medical Teacher,
42(8), 846-854. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
127
Krathwohl, D. R., & Smith, N. L. (2005). How to prepare a dissertation proposal: Suggestions
for students in education & the social and behavioral sciences. Syracuse University
Press.
Lammert, J., Moore, H., & Bitterman, A. (2018). IDC parent involvement toolkit: Making the
most of parent involvement data: Improving quality and enhancing understanding. IDEA
Data Center. https://www.ideadata.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/201903/IDC_Parent_Involvement_Toolkit.pdf
Lawson, H. A. (1999). Two frameworks for analyzing relationships among school communities,
teacher education, and interprofessional education and training programs. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 26(4), 9-30. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23478190
Lawson, H. A., & Barkdull, C. (2001). Promoting systems and cross-systems change. In Sallee,
A. L., Lawson, H. A., & Briar-Lawson, K. (Eds.), Innovative practices with vulnerable
children and families. (pp. 245-269). Eddie Bowers.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259296330_Lawson_H_Barkdull_C_2001_Gai
ning_the_collaborative_advantage_and_promoting_systems_and_crosssystems_change_In_Sallee_AL_Lawson_HA_BriarLawson_K_Innovative_practices_with_vulnerable_children_and_fami
Mandic, C. G., Rudd, R., Hehir, T., Acevedo-Garcia, D. (2012). Readability of special education
procedural safeguards. The Journal of Special Education, 45(4), 195-203.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910362774
Mapp, K. L. & Bergman, E. (2019). Dual capacity-building framework for family-school
partnerships. https://www.dualcapacity.org/
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
128
Manzon, M., Miller, R., Long, H., & Khong, L. (2015). Parent engagement in education. (NIE
Working Paper Series No. 7).
https://www.academia.edu/63538157/Parent_engagement_in_education
Mattingly, D. J., Prislin, R., McKenzie, T. L., Rodriguez, J. L., & Kayzar, B. (2002). Evaluating
evaluations: The case of parent involvement programs. Review of Educational Research,
72(4), 549-576. https://doi.org/ 10.3102/00346543072004549
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, 43(1), 67-81.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417739677
Murray, B., Domina, T., Petts, A., Renzulli, L., & Boylan, R. (2020). We’re in this together:
Bridging and bonding social capital in elementary school PTOs. American Educational
Research Journal, 57(5), 2210-2244. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220908848
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (n. d.) Nation’s report card: Pennsylvania
summary statements.
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile/overview/PA?sfj=NP&chort=1&s
ub=MAT&sj=PA&st=MN&year=2022R3&cti=PgTab_Findings&fs=Grade
National Association of School Psychologists. (2012). Position statement: School-family
partnering to enhance learning. https://www.nasponline.org/x26822.xml
National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring. (n.d.) Parent survey: Special
education. Leader Services.
https://www.leaderservices.com/pasurvey/PDE_parentsurvey_SA.pdf
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
129
National Council of La Raza. (2007). Parental involvement in the no child left behind act.
https://unidosus.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FS_ParentalInvol.pdf
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A-M, Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., Wei, X, Cameto,
R., Contreas, E., Ferguson, K., Greene, S., & Schwarting, M. (2011). The post-high
school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school: A
report from the national longitudinal transition study-2. SRI International.
https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20113005/pdf/20113005.pdf
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. (4th ed.). Sage.
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2018). SPP indicator 8 – School
facilitated parent involvement. https://www.pattan.net/Supports/FamilyEngagement/Indicator-8-School-Facilitated-Parent-Involvemen
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2024). Special education for schoolage children in pennsylvania: A guide for families.
https://www.pattan.net/CMSPages/GetAmazonFile.aspx?path=~\pattan\media\materials\
publications\files\spec-ed-sch-age_family-guide_eng_5-24wbl.pdf&hash=33c2fce0a1ac0996124cb31420a45a7721a355f6c7f5a90a43c2ed073f5f5d
17&ext=.pdf
Pennsylvania Department of Education/Bureau of Special Education. (n.d.). State performance
plan narrative. Author. https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/Public-Reporting/StatePerformance-Plan-Narrative
Pennsylvania State Data Center (2024). Special education data report: Owen J Roberts School
District. Author. https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/Public-Reporting/SEDR-ReportDashboardPennsylvania State Data Center (2024).
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
130
Reja, U., Manfreda, K. L., Hlebec, V., & Vehovar, V. (2003). Open-ended vs. close-ended
questions in web questionnaires. Developments in Applied Statistics, 19, 159-177.
Rineer-Hershey, A., & Mild, T. (2020). Contemporary Issues in Special Education (1st ed.).
Cognella.
Serpell Z. N., Mashburn A. J. (2011). Family-school connectedness and children’s early social
development. Social Development, 21, 21–46.
Sujarwo, S., & Herwin, H. (2023). Parental involvement and student achievement: A metaanalysis of publications in the scopus database. International Journal of Instruction,
16(2), 107-124. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.1627a
The Leadership Conference Education Fund. (2017). Every student succeeds act (ESSA): Guide
for advocates. https://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/education/ESSA/ESSA-Guide.pdf
Trainor, A. A. (2010). Diverse approaches to parent advocacy during special education homeschool interactions: Identification and use of cultural and social capital. Remedial and
Special Education, 31(1), 34-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508324401
Turnbull, A., & Turnbull, R. (2021). Trusting partnerships and belonging for families of students
with disabilities. In Jones & J. L., Gallus, K. L. (Eds.), Belonging and resilience in
individuals with developmental disabilities: Community and family engagement. (pp. 3547). Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81277-5_3
U.S. Department of Education. (2022). State performance plan/Annual performance report: Part
b/Pennsylvania. https://www.education.pa.gov/Documents/K12/Special%20Education/IDEIAIDEA/PA%20FFY%202020%20State%20Performance%20Plan%20%20Annual%20Performance%20Report.pdf
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
131
U. S. Department of Education (2024). The federal role in education.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html#:~:text=The%20original%20Departm
ent%20of%20Education,States%20establish%20effective%20school%20systems.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
132
Appendix A
Superintendent Letter
Dear Superintendent,
I am a doctoral student in the Special Education Program at Slippery Rock University, where I
am writing my dissertation. This letter serves to inform you of my research study and to request
access to your school district to conduct doctoral research. The study will focus on parental
perceptions of collaborative practices in special education.
My study will examine parents' perceptions of practices utilized by special education teams when
collaborating for the benefit of their school-aged students. I aim to gather information from
parents about the current collaborative practices in place and those practices that parents believe
are most beneficial, as well as identify the barriers and facilitators of collaboration. The
information gathered from this dissertation study will inform current practices and identify areas
for professional development to improve school-family collaboration for our students with
disabilities.
Slippery Rocks Institutional Review Board will review my study. Part of the review process
involves seeking permission from the superintendent to conduct my research. There are no
known or anticipated risks from participating in this survey. The study will consist of an
anonymous and confidential electronic survey, anticipated to take less than 10 minutes to
complete. After completing the survey, participants may volunteer for a follow-up interview to
further discuss school-family collaboration.
This research study will be conducted by me under the supervision of my Dissertation
Committee Chair, Dr. Ashlea Rineer-Hershey, at a.rineer-hershey@sru.edu. If you need
additional information regarding this research project, please contact me at 610-883-0425 or
exw1029@sru.edu.
Thank you for considering the district’s participation in my doctoral research study. Please
complete the following form to inform me of your decision regarding your district’s
participation.
Erica Wood
Doctoral Candidate, Slippery Rock University
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
133
Appendix B
District Approvals Form
I agree to provide doctoral student Erica Wood with an indirect and confidential means to
contact the parents/guardians of students receiving special education services in our school
district. I have made the decision based on the information I have in the consent request and have
had the opportunity to receive any additional details I wanted about the study. I understand I may
withdraw this consent at any time by telling the researcher without penalty or negative
consequences.
I also understand this project will be reviewed by the Institutional Review Board at Slippery
Rock University, and I may contact this office if I have any concerns or comments resulting from
our district’s involvement in this study.
o Yes
o No
District Representative/Contact
To conduct this study, I am requesting that a district representative email the survey to the
parents/guardians of students in grades K–12 who are receiving special education services during
the 24-25 SY. The responses will remain completely anonymous, and no personally identifiable
information will be collected. I will not have access to any parent names or contact information.
Participation is entirely voluntary, and parents may choose to remain anonymous unless they
choose to participate in an optional interview. Even in the case of an interview, all responses will
remain confidential and anonymous.
Once I have received the necessary contact information and IRB approval, I will provide your
district representative with the survey for distribution via email.
District Representative/Contact Name
_______________________________
District Representative/Contact Email
_______________________________
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
134
Appendix C
IRB Application/Approval)
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
135
Appendix D
Parent and Guardian Introduction to the Study
Parents and Guardians,
I hope this message finds you well. I am currently conducting research for my dissertation as part
of the Special Education Ed.D. program at Slippery Rock University. As parents and guardians
of students receiving special education services in [INSERT] School District, you are asked to
participate in a brief questionnaire via Google Forms. Your insights regarding current
collaborative practices and those you find most valuable will provide valuable perspectives on
the collaborative practices used by special education teams to support your students. Permission
to conduct this research in your school district has been approved and permitted by your
superintendent.
The voluntary survey will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. There are no foreseeable
physical or mental risks, aside from the potential for some slight emotional discomfort,
associated with participating in my study. However, if you feel uncomfortable with the survey,
you may withdraw at any time.
All information you provide during this study will be considered and kept confidential.
The data you provide in the survey will be recorded anonymously, and your participation, as well
as any additional information you provide, will be held in the strictest confidence by this
researcher. Survey and interview responses will not be shared with your child’s school district,
school personnel, or any third parties. Your name, the name of your student, or your school
district will not be included in the published study.
While the study results will be published, the individual participant information will not be
included. Instead, the results will be aggregated to identify overarching themes and patterns.
If you have any questions about the purpose, procedures, or survey, email exw109@sru.edu. The
Slippery Rock Institutional Review Board (IRB) has reviewed and approved this study.
Questions about the participants’ rights can be directed to irb@sru.edu or 724-738-4846.
To participate in the Parent Perceptions of School Collaborative Practices Survey, use the link
below: Survey
Thank you for considering participating in this research study.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
136
Appendix E
Participant Consent Form
Consent to Participate
You are being invited to participate in a survey designed to explore your experiences and
perceptions related to collaboration, as defined above, with your child's school team. After the
survey, you can volunteer for an interview over Zoom or via phone to further discuss schoolfamily collaboration.
If you have more than one child receiving special education services and your experiences have
varied, you will have the opportunity to submit this survey for your other child(ren).
All information you provide during this study will be considered and kept confidential.
The data you provide in the survey will be recorded anonymously, and your participation, as well
as any additional information you provide, will be held in the strictest confidence by this
researcher. Survey and interview responses will not be shared with your child’s school district,
school personnel, or any third parties. Your name, the name of your student, or your school
district will not be included in the published study.
Questions about this study are welcome at any time.
Your participation in this study is voluntary, and you may refuse to participate or stop at any
time without consequence or prejudice. This survey is designed to take approximately 10
minutes or less.
Questions about this survey are welcome and can be directed to the author of this study via email
at sruresearcher@gmail.com or Dr. Ashlea Rineer-Hershey, Dissertation Committee Chair,
a.rineer-hershey@sru.edu, with the Department of Special Education, Slippery Rock University.
Any questions about your rights as a research subject may be directed to irb@sru.edu, 724-7384846.
Checking the “yes” box below indicates that you have read and understand the contents of this
consent form and that you agree to take part in this study.
o Yes
o No
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
137
Appendix F
Survey
Parent/Guardian Demographics
The following demographic questions will provide deeper insight into survey responses.
Please select the boxes that describe your identified race/ethnicity(s):
Check all that apply.
o American Indian or Alaska Native
o Asian
o Black or African American
o Hispanic or Latino
o Multi-Racial
o Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
o White
o Prefer not to answer
You are answering the following questions regarding your student's current (24-25) school year.
How old was your student on December 1, 2024?
o 5
o 6
o 7
o 8
o 9
o 10
o 11
o 12
o 13
o 14
o 15
o 16
o 17
o 18
o 19+
Under which category did your student receive special education services?
o Autistic/Autism
o Emotional disturbance
o Hearing impairment, including deafness
o Intellectual disability
o Multiple disabilities
o Other health impairment
o Orthopedic impairment
o Specific learning disability
o Speech or language impairment
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
138
o Traumatic Brain Injury
o Visual Impairment
o Unsure/Not known
Defining Collaboration
Collaboration between you as parents and the school special education team is essential to your
child's current and long-term success. For this study, collaboration has been defined as a shared
responsibility and efforts to achieve results (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004). It is built upon
a foundation of relationship building, shared values, and active engagement (Griffiths et al.,
2021). Eight key elements, open communication, trust, mutual respect, shared
goals, common understanding, shared responsibility, active participation, shared decisionmaking, and implementation, are needed to foster collaboration (Griffiths et al., 2021). This
survey will gauge your perceptions of your district's performance in these eight key areas.
Open Communication
Open communication happens when everyone on the team feels comfortable sharing their ideas.
This helps reduce disagreements and ensures that everyone has the necessary information to
participate fairly (Griffiths et al., 2021).
Select one of the following options that you believe is the most valuable when seeking open
communication with your child’s special education team.
Mark only one oval.
o Easily understood and honest communication between me and the members of the school
team
o Easy and clear ways for me to communicate with the school team
o Open discussions with the school team when in disagreement with something regarding
my child’s special education services
o Opportunities to share my knowledge (about my child and other topics) and ideas with
the school team.
How often have you experienced this with your child’s special education team in the past
year?
Mark only one per row.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
Easily
understood and
honest
communication
between me
and members
of the school
team
Easy and clear
ways for me to
communicate
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
139
with the school
team
Open
discussions
with the school
team when in
disagreement
with something
regarding my
child’s special
education
services
Opportunities
to share my
knowledge
(about my
child and other
topics) and
ideas with the
school team.
Trust
Trust builds over time through the effort put into good communication and by everyone staying
focused on the same goal (Griffiths et al., 2021).
Select one of the following options that you believe to be the most valuable in trusting your
child’s special education team.
Mark only one oval.
o Each member of the special education team has my child’s best interests in mind
o The team ensures I understand and am part of the process of planning for my child’s
special education services
o The team is open to new ideas and approaches I present to help my child
o All team members are reliable and consistent when speaking about my child
o I can share knowledge and ideas with the school team with the belief that I will not be
judged
How often have you experienced this with your child’s special education team in the past
year?
Mark only one per row.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
Each
member of
the special
education
team has
my child’s
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
140
best
interests in
mind
The team
ensures I
understand
and am
part of the
process of
planning
for my
child’s
special
education
services
The team
is open to
new ideas
and
approaches
I present to
help my
child
All team
members
are reliable
and
consistent
when
speaking
about my
child
I can share
knowledge
and ideas
with the
school
team with
the belief
that I will
not be
judged
Mutual Respect
Mutual respect happens when team members appreciate the knowledge, skills, and strengths that
others contribute to the group (Griffiths et al., 2021).
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
141
Select one of the following options that you believe to be the most valuable in establishing
mutual respect with your child’s special education team.
Mark only one oval.
o My family's cultural background and educational experiences are acknowledged and
understood by the team
o Compromise, when needed, takes place due to team members’ flexibility and
responsiveness to feedback
o Conflict between myself and team member(s) is addressed in a constructive and timely
manner
o The school team is capable of meeting my child’s needs
o The school team values my input and treats me as a team member
How often have you experienced this with your child’s special education team in the past
year?
Mark only one per row.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
My family's
cultural
background
and
educational
experiences
are
acknowledged
and
understood by
the team
Compromise,
when needed,
takes place
due to team
members’
flexibility and
responsiveness
to feedback
Conflict
between
myself and
team
member(s) is
addressed in a
constructive
and timely
manner
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
142
The school
team is
capable of
meeting my
child’s needs
The school
team values
my input and
treats me as a
team member
Shared Goals
Shared goals are created when everyone on the team gives their input about the goal(s) they are
working toward together.
Select one of the following options that you believe is the most valuable for developing
shared goals with your child’s special education team.
Mark only one oval.
o Goals are mutually created and agreed upon by all team members, including myself as
the parent
o My input in creating goals is valued
o The entire team works together toward helping my child reach their goals
How often have you experienced this with your child’s special education team in the past
year?
Mark only one per row.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
Goals are
mutually
created and
agreed
upon by all
team
members,
including
myself as
the parent
My input
in creating
goals is
valued
The entire
team works
together
toward
helping my
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
143
child reach
their goals
Common Understanding
Common understanding happens when all team members, no matter their background,
experience, or skills, are united in working toward the same goal (Griffiths et al., 2021).
Select one of the following options that you believe to be the most valuable in establishing a
common understanding with your child’s special education team.
Mark only one oval.
o School team members are receptive to each other’s contributions, including mine as the
parent
o Each team member's role is clear and purposeful to my child’s special education
programming
o The school team, including me, values the role of each member of the team
o The school team and I are aligned with what is best for my child
How often have you experienced this with your child’s special education team in the past
year?
Mark only one per row.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
School team
members are
receptive to
each other’s
contributions,
including
mine as the
parent
Each team
member's
role is clear
and
purposeful to
my child’s
special
education
programming
The school
team,
including me,
values the
role of each
member of
the team
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
144
The school
team and I
are aligned
with what is
best for my
child
Shared Responsibility
Shared responsibility happens when team members use their skills to help create and stick to
their role in finding a solution (Griffiths et al., 2021).
Select one of the following options that you believe to be the most valuable in establishing
shared responsibility with your child’s special education team.
Mark only one oval.
o Each team member accepts and performs their role in my child’s special education plan
o I was made aware of skills and resources that each team member brings to the
collaboration
o All team members are truly committed to the process
How often have you experienced this with your child’s special education team in the past
year?
Mark only one per row.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
Each team member
accepts and
performs their role
in my child’s special
education plan
I was made aware of
skills and resources
that each team
member brings to
the collaboration
All team members
are truly committed
to the process
Active Participation
Active participation happens when team members fully take on their roles and contribute useful
ideas and resources (Griffiths et al., 2021).
Select one of the following options that you believe to be the most valuable for active
participation with your child’s special education team.
Mark only one oval.
o All team members contribute different and valuable resources toward achieving the
creation of my child’s special education services
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
145
o Leaders are actively involved in creating change or working toward helping my child
together with the team, myself included
o All members are actively engaged in the process
How often have you experienced this with your child’s special education team in the past
year?
Mark only one per row.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
All team members
contribute different
and valuable
resources toward
achieving the
creation of my
child’s special
education services
Leaders are actively
involved in creating
change or working
toward helping my
child together with
the team, myself
included
All members are
actively engaged in
the process
Shared Decision Making
Shared decision-making happens when everyone on the team gives input, and decisions are made
together about the plan to move forward (Griffiths et al., 2021).
Select one of the following options that you believe is the most valuable for shared decisionmaking with your child’s special education team.
Mark only one oval.
o Myself and all team members are encouraged to provide input in the decision-making
process
o All team members participate in the decision-making process
o I am aware of and understand the process for making decisions and implementing actions
regarding my child’s special education services
How often have you experienced this with your child’s special education team in the past
year?
Mark only one per row.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
Myself and all team
members are
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
146
encouraged to
provide input in the
decision-making
process
All team members
participate in the
decision-making
process
I am aware of and
understand the
process for making
decisions and
implementing
actions regarding
my child’s special
education services
Implementation
Implementation happens when the agreed-upon solutions are put into action and carried out
properly (Griffiths et al., 2021).
Choose one of the following options that you believe to be the most valuable to the
implementation of your child’s special education programming.
Mark only one oval.
o Each member follows through with his or her role in the implementation of my child’s
special education services
o Team members continue to communicate with me during the implementation of my
child’s special education services
o My child’s performance is continually evaluated for effectiveness using a data-collection
process
o If the chosen interventions are not effective for my child, I am informed promptly and the
team reconvenes
How often have you experienced this with your child’s special education team in the past
year?
Mark only one per row.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
Each member
follows through
with his or her role
in the
implementation of
my child’s special
education services
Team members
continue to
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
147
communicate with
me during the
implementation of
my child’s special
education services
My child’s
performance is
continually
evaluated for
effectiveness using a
data-collection
process
If the chosen
interventions are not
effective for my
child, I am informed
promptly and the
team reconvenes
Are you willing to participate in a voluntary interview to take place virtually or over the phone?
o Yes
o No
Interview Contact Form
Please follow this link to submit your contact information if you are willing to participate in a
voluntary interview to be held over the phone or virtually. Survey Link
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
148
Appendix G
Parent/Guardian Interview Consent Form
As a participant in this study, you have indicated a willingness to participate in a short, virtual
interview. Your participation is voluntary and will take approximately 15 minutes of your time.
All information you provide during this interview will be considered and kept confidential.
Interview responses will not be shared with your child’s school district, school personnel, or any
third parties. Your name, the name of your student, or your school district will not be included in
the published study.
We will record your interview as part of this study, and you will receive a copy.
Please respond to the following statements to provide your consent for participation in the
interview.
I have been informed of the purpose of this study and have had an opportunity to ask questions
or voice concerns regarding my participation.
o Yes
o No
The audio recording can be studied by the researcher for use in the project.
o Yes
o No
I have read the above description and provide my consent for participation in and use of the
recording of the interview.
o Yes
o No
Name:
Date:
As a reminder, if you have any questions or concerns resulting from your participation in this
study, please contact irb@sru.edu, 724-738-4846.
Thank you for your participation in this project.
Erica Wood (exw1029@sru.edu)
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
149
Appendix H
Parent/Guardian Interview Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
Student Age as of December 1, 2024:
Student Disability Category:
Student Race/Ethnicity:
What factors have facilitated collaboration with your student’s special education team
regarding:
a. Open communication?
b. Trust?
c. Mutual respect?
d. Shared goals?
e. Common understanding?
f. Shared responsibility?
g. Active participation?
h. Shared decision making?
i. Implementation?
5. What barriers have you faced when trying to collaborate with your student’s special
education team regarding:
a. Open communication?
b. Trust?
c. Mutual respect?
d. Shared goals?
e. Common understanding?
f. Shared responsibility?
g. Active participation?
h. Shared decision making?
i. Implementation?
6. What else can the school be doing to make collaboration easier for you and your
student’s special education team?
i
Parental Perceptions of School-Based Collaborative Practices: A Study of Parents of
School-Aged Students Receiving Special Education Services
_________________________
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 Education
_________________________
By
Erica Estelle Wood
November 2025
© Erica Estelle Wood, 2025
Keywords: collaboration, special education, parent perspectives, IEP, school-based practices
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
ii
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
iii
Abstract
This study examined parents’ perspectives on school-based collaborative practices for students
receiving special education services. A convergent mixed-methods design was employed,
utilizing a web-based survey (n = 160) and virtual interviews (n = 8) to identify the practices
parents value most, the frequency at which they experience these practices, and how preferences
for most-valued practices vary across demographic characteristics. Findings indicate that parents
most strongly value the relational practices of open communication, trust, and mutual respect.
Similar, but slightly lower valued, were the structural practices of collaboration. Parents reported
high rates of experiencing the practices of each domain of collaboration. However, differences
emerged when the data were sorted by parent race/ethnicity, disability category, and student age,
in the value placed on the practices. Interviews revealed additional data supporting parents' need
for a focus on strong relational practices and structures to facilitate collaboration with schoolbased teams. These results suggest that effective collaboration is based upon both relational and
structural practices. Schools are recommended to reinforce facilitators of collaboration while
addressing barriers to strengthen family-school partnerships and improve the outcomes for
students with disabilities.
Keywords: collaboration, special education, parent perspectives, IEP, school-based
practices
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
iv
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents.
To my dad, who taught me to find my “rocking chair pace” and reminded me that once
you do, you can go on forever. Your love and lessons continue to steady me.
To my mom, your hard work, resourcefulness, and strength have shaped every part of
who I am. You’ve shown me that with love and steadfast perseverance, we can accomplish
anything.
I carry you both in all that I do.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
v
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to all who have supported me throughout this
doctoral journey.
To my husband, Alex, there is absolutely no one else in this world that I would want to
ride the see-saw of life with; you are the BEST. None of this would have been possible without
you. I love you.
To my girls, Abigail and Emma, you are my greatest joy and will forever be your dad’s
and my greatest contribution to this world. You two will always be able to accomplish what you
put your hearts and minds into. I love you.
To my dissertation committee, I appreciate all of your guidance and support throughout
this journey. Dr. Ashlea Rineer-Hershey, thank you for believing in me and this study; I knew it
was a stretch, but your confidence in me kept this dissertation progressing. Dr. Eric Bieniek,
thank you for pushing me to go further; you knew I had it in me, I just needed your
encouragement to dig deeper. Dr. Todd Oswald, thank you for taking a chance on me years ago.
Your belief in me and guidance have shaped me into the professional and scholar I am today.
Finally, I am grateful to all my family, colleagues, and friends who checked in, offered
encouragement, advice, or a listening ear along the way. Your support, in all of its many forms,
has made this all possible.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
vi
Table of Contents
Signature Page ........................................................................................................................ ii
Abstract ................................................................................................................................... iii
Dedication ............................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. v
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... xii
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... xvi
Chapter One – Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
Overview ....................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 1
Models and Frameworks ................................................................................... 3
Collaboration Between Stakeholders ............................................................... 4
Need for the Study ........................................................................................................ 5
Barriers to Collaboration ................................................................................... 5
Logic Model .................................................................................................................. 6
Research Questions and Statement of Purpose .............................................................. 8
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 9
Definition of Terms ....................................................................................................... 9
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
vii
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 12
Chapter 2 – Literature Review .................................................................................................. 13
History of Special Education ........................................................................................ 13
State Performance Plan ................................................................................................. 14
Indicator Three .................................................................................................. 16
Indicator Fourteen ............................................................................................. 20
Collaboration Between Stakeholders ............................................................................ 21
No Child Left Behind ........................................................................................ 23
Individuals with Disabilities Act ...................................................................... 23
Every Student Succeeds Act ............................................................................. 24
Indicator Eight .............................................................................................................. 24
Barriers to Participation ................................................................................................ 26
Parental Barriers ................................................................................................ 26
School Barriers .................................................................................................. 27
Involvement vs. Participation ........................................................................... 28
Engagement and Collaboration Models ........................................................................ 29
Dual Capacity Framework ................................................................................ 29
Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler Model of Parental Involvement Process ............ 30
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
viii
Sunshine Model of Trusting Family-Professional Partnerships ....................... 31
Model Limitations ......................................................................................................... 33
Collaboration ................................................................................................................. 34
Framework for Collaboration ........................................................................... 34
Building Blocks of Collaboration ................................................................................. 36
Relationship Building ....................................................................................... 37
Shared Values and Beliefs ................................................................................ 38
Active Engagement ........................................................................................... 38
Collective Collaborative Effort ......................................................................... 38
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 39
Chapter Three – Methods .......................................................................................................... 40
Participants and Setting ................................................................................................. 41
Quantitative Methods .................................................................................................... 43
Survey ............................................................................................................... 43
Quantitative Data Analysis ............................................................................... 44
Validity ............................................................................................................. 48
Reliability .......................................................................................................... 49
Qualitative Methods ...................................................................................................... 49
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
ix
Interview ........................................................................................................... 49
Qualitative Data Analysis ................................................................................. 49
Validity ............................................................................................................. 50
Reliability .......................................................................................................... 51
Integration Methods ...................................................................................................... 52
Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 53
Permissions and Preliminary ............................................................................. 53
Survey ............................................................................................................... 53
Interview ........................................................................................................... 54
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 54
Chapter Four – Results .............................................................................................................. 56
Overview ....................................................................................................................... 56
Quantitative Results ...................................................................................................... 58
Demographics ................................................................................................... 58
Survey Reliability ............................................................................................. 61
Most Valued Practices ...................................................................................... 62
Summary of Most Valued Practices ...................................................... 71
Demographics and Most Valued Practices ....................................................... 72
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
x
Demographics and Most Valued Practices Summary ........................... 87
Rates of Experiences ......................................................................................... 88
Rates of Experiences Summary ............................................................ 99
Qualitative Results ........................................................................................................ 99
Demographics ................................................................................................... 99
Facilitators and Barriers .................................................................................... 100
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 104
Chapter Five – Discussion ........................................................................................................ 106
Overview ....................................................................................................................... 106
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................... 108
Research Question One ..................................................................................... 108
Research Question Two .................................................................................... 110
Research Question Three .................................................................................. 112
Research Questions Four .................................................................................. 113
Discussion of Findings and Implications ...................................................................... 113
Research Question One ..................................................................................... 113
Research Question Two .................................................................................... 115
Race/Ethnicity ....................................................................................... 115
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
xi
Student Age ........................................................................................... 115
Disability Category ............................................................................... 115
Research Question Three .................................................................................. 116
Research Question Four .................................................................................... 117
Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 117
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 119
Implications for Future Research .................................................................................. 120
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 121
References ................................................................................................................................. 122
Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 132
A: Superintendent’s Letter ............................................................................................ 132
B: District Approvals Form .......................................................................................... 133
C: IRB Application Approval ....................................................................................... 134
D: Parent and Guardian Introduction to the Study ........................................................ 135
E: Participant Consent Form ......................................................................................... 136
F: Survey ....................................................................................................................... 137
G: Parent/Guardian Interview Consent Form ............................................................... 148
H: Parent/Guardian Interview Questions ...................................................................... 149
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
xii
List of Tables
Table 1: Indicator 3A – Participation Rate for Children with IEPs in 2022-2023SY ………
17
Table 2: Indicator 3B – Proficiency Rate for Children with IEPs Against Grade Level
Academic Achievement Standards in 2022-2023SY ……………………………………..
18
Table 3: Indicator 3D – Gap in Proficiency Rates for Children with IEPs and All
Students Against Grade Level Achievement Standards in 2022-2023SY ………………... 19
Table 4: Indicator 14 – Post-School Outcomes 2015-2015SY …………………………… 21
Table 5: Benefits of Collaborative Teams ………………………………………………...
22
Table 6: Indicator 8 – School-Facilitated Parent Involvement …………………………… 25
Table 7: Definitions and Actions of Trust Dimensions in Sunshine Model of Trusting
Family-Professional Partnerships …………………………………………………………
32
Table 8: IDEA Disability Categories for State Special Education Enrollment for 2223SY ………………………………………………………………………………………
41
Table 9: Age Distribution of Students Receiving Special Education Services in
Pennsylvania (as of December 1, 2023) …………………………………………………..
42
Table 10: Quantitative Data Analysis Plans ………………………………………………
45
Table 11: Subgroup Categories and Minimum Sample Size Requirements for Chi-Square
Testing ……………………………………………………………………………………
47
Table 12: Qualitative Analysis Plans …………………………….………………………
50
Table 13: Frequency Distribution of Parental Race/Ethnicity ……………………………. 58
Table 14: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies Distribution
of Student Age as of December 1, 2024 …………………………………………………..
59
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
xiii
Table 15: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies Distribution
for Student Disability Categories …………………………………………………………. 60
Table 16: Cronbach’s Alpha for Collaboration Domains ………………………………… 62
Table 17: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Open
Communication …………………………………………………………………………… 63
Table 18: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Trust
Domain ……………………………………………………………………………………
64
Table 19: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Mutual
Respect Domain …………………………………………………………………………... 65
Table 20: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Shared
Goals Domain ……………………………………………………………………………..
66
Table 21: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for
Common Understanding Domain …………………………………………………………
67
Table 22: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Shared
Responsibility Domain ……………………………………………………………………
68
Table 23: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Active
Participation ………………………………………………………………………………. 69
Table 24: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Shared
Decision-Making ………………………………………………………………………….
70
Table 25: Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for
Implementation Domain …………………………………………………………………..
71
Table 26: Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Open Communication
Practices by Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age ……………………...
73
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
xiv
Table 27: Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Trust Practices by
Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age …………………………………...
74
Table 28: Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Mutual Respect Practices by
Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age …………………………………...
76
Table 29: Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Shared Goal Practices by
Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age …………………………………...
78
Table 30: Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Common Understanding
Practices by Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age ……………………...
79
Table 31: Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Shared Responsibility
Practices by Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age ……………………...
81
Table 32: Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Active Participation Practices
by Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age ………………………………..
82
Table 33: Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Shared Decision-Making
Practices by Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age ……………………...
84
Table 34: Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Implementation Practices by
Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age …………………………………...
86
Table 35: Demographics and Most Valued Practices ……………………...……………
87
Table 36: Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’
Reported Experiences of Open Communication Practices ……………………………….
89
Table 37: Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’
Reported Experiences of Trust Practices …………………………………………………
90
Table 38: Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’
Reported Experiences of Mutual Respect Practices ……………………………………..
91
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
xv
Table 39: Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’
Reported Experiences of Shared Goals Practices ………………………………………… 93
Table 40: Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’
Reported Experiences of Common Understanding Practices …………………………….
94
Table 41: Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’
Reported Experiences of Shared Responsibility Practices ………………………………..
95
Table 42: Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’
Reported Experiences of Active Participation Practices ………………………………….
96
Table 43: Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’
Reported Experiences of Shared Decision-Making Practices …………………………….
97
Table 44: Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’
Reported Experiences of Implementation Practices ………………………………………
98
Table 45: Demographic Characteristics of Interview Participants (N = 8) ……………….
100
Table 46: Frequency of Responses Regarding Facilitators for Domains of Collaboration .
102
Table 47: Frequency of Responses Regarding Barriers for Domains of Collaboration …..
104
Table 48: Most Valued School-Based Practices Within Each Domain of Collaboration ...
109
Table 49: Summary of Chi-Square Tests of Independence by Domain and Demographic
Variable …………………………………………………………………………………… 111
Table 50: Means and Standard Deviations of Parent Experiences Across Collaboration
Domains …………………………………………………………………………………... 112
Table 51: Recommendations Based on Findings by Research Question …………………
118
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
xvi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Special Education Legislation Timeline ………………………………………..
2
Figure 2: Logic Model ……………………………………………………………………
7
Figure 3: Building Blocks of Collaboration ………………………………………………
37
Figure 4: Logic Model …………………………………………………………………….
107
Figure 5: Building Blocks of Collaboration ………………………………………………
114
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
1
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Overview
The United States Department of Education, established in 1867, did not formalize efforts
to improve education for all students, regardless of their racial background, economic status, or
abilities, until the 1960s and 1970s (U.S. Department of Education [ED], 2024). These efforts
addressed the growing educational gaps between students of varying economic backgrounds and
racial identities, those with disabilities, and their peers in regular education through increased
federal education funding. Focus was put into developing practices based on standards,
measuring these standards, and accountability for the results of their implementation (Edgerton &
Desimone, 2019).
Starting in 1975, with the signing of the Education for All Handicapped Students Act
(EHA) into law, students with disabilities (SWD) gained more visibility. They were to receive a
Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) in every state (Rineer-Hershey & Mild, 2020). This law
created momentum away from the practices of the 1950s and 60s when those identified with
disabilities were underserved regarding their needs and, at times, placed in highly restrictive
environments (U.S. Department of Education [ED], 2024). Through the reauthorization of the
EHA in 1990, the act was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and
reauthorizations have been made since, each providing additional support for students with
disabilities. Unfortunately, despite these laws and their intended outcomes, SWD still largely
underperform when compared to their peers without disabilities.
Statement of the Problem
The academic disparities SWDs face are a grave concern, as they persist despite decades
of legislative efforts. Figure 1 highlights some of the legislation passed since the mid-1950s. Each
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
2
provides additional support and protection to identified students (Essex, N. L. (2016) School law
and the public schools: A practical guide for educational leaders. (6th ed.) Pearson.)
Figure 1
Special Education Legislation Timeline
The academic discrepancies between SWDs and their regular education peers are evident
in achievement scores for reading and mathematics. According to the National Assessment of
Educational Progress [NAEP] (n.d.), standardized scores for public school SWDs assessed in
grade four mathematics have continued to lag compared to those of their peers without
disabilities. In 1996, SWDs scored an average of 20 points below their peers in mathematics, and
in 2022, this difference had grown to a 28-point differential (NAEP, n.d.). In reading, fourthgrade SWD were performing on average 40 points below their peers and had shown no
improvement in their performance in 2022 (NAEP, n.d.). These discrepancies for elementaryaged students are not limited to mathematics and reading; they are also present in science,
writing, U.S. History, and many other subjects. These inequities also extend beyond standardized
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
3
testing; SWDs also experience lower rates of motivation in school, enrollment in post-secondary
education, and gainful post-secondary employment and higher rates of retention, school dropout,
truancy, and absenteeism (Community and Youth Collaborative Institute [CAYCI], 2019).
A proven approach to improving these outcomes for SWD is a collaboration between
stakeholders, specifically families and school districts (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004;
Daaboul, 2022). Each party provides essential components to meet the needs of and improve
outcomes, but they can gain more traction and momentum when they work collaboratively
(Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004). Bringing attention to and evaluating practices utilized by
school districts to collaborate with parents is needed to address areas for improvement.
Models and Frameworks
This study is structured based on a researcher-developed logic model. This model
accounts for the direct and indirect factors influencing SWD's in- and post-school outcomes (i.e.,
the amount of collaboration, parents, and school teams). The belief is that with improved
parental involvement and engagement practices, collaboration between schools and parents will
increase and become more effective. Currently, these practices occur, but not in capacities that
have a significant impact. Understanding how parents perceive the current practices utilized by
schools to engage and collaborate with parents and their potential to increase the benefit is
crucial to achieving this goal. This study can provide insight into strengths and weaknesses in
school practices to guide needed changes in collaborative practices to increase special education
student performance in school and their post-secondary lives.
Many models/frameworks exist to provide structure and guidance to school districts on
involving and engaging parents to foster collaborative relationships. For this study, the DualCapacity Building Framework for Family-School Partnerships (Mapp & Bergman, 2019), the
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
4
Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler Model of Parental Involvement Process (Hoover-Dempsey et al.,
2005), and the Sunshine Model of Trusting Family-Professional Partnerships (Turnbull &
Turnbull, 2021) were reviewed. These models provide districts with the structure to develop their
practices to uphold current parental involvement and engagement policies based on No Child
Left Behind (NCLB, 2001), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), and
the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015). All of these mandate schools enact programs to
develop collaborative relationships with parents.
Collaboration Between Stakeholders
The Cambridge Dictionary (n.d.) defines collaboration as “the situation of two or more
people working to create or achieve the same thing” (Definition One). This definition remains
consistent, though it takes on additional nuance when applied in the context of education. In the
literature on school and family collaboration, it can be defined as two or more stakeholders
working together and sharing responsibilities to achieve a common goal(s) (Cowan et al., 2004;
Gardner & Cary, 1999; Lawson & Barkdull, 1999). However, collaboration does not occur just
because schools have implemented practices and initiatives or adopted previously mentioned
models or frameworks. Collaboration, as per the work of Lawson and Barkdull (2001), is built
upon five frameworks that address the multitude of student needs in school. These frameworks
are intraorganizational, interagency, interprofessional, community collaboration, and familycentered. The collaboration must also be structured to be effective, and this can occur only when
clearly defined.
Griffiths et al. (2021) systematically reviewed the literature on collaboration to develop a
universal model for schools. Through their analysis, the researchers were able to identify nine
key elements needed to foster collaboration: (a) open communication, (b) trust, (c) mutual
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
5
respect, (d) shared goals, (e) common understanding, (f) shared responsibility, (g) active
participation, (h) shared decision making, and (i) implementation. When these elements were
present, they provided the structure for the building blocks of collaboration: (a) relationship
building, (b) active participation, (c) implementation, to ultimately reach (d) collaboration
(Griffiths et al., 2021).
Need for the Study
Even with the available frameworks, models, and building blocks, a disconnect remains
between implementing policies at the district level and actual levels of parental involvement and
engagement, which are essential components of collaboration. This is evident alone through the
measurement of Indicator 8- School-Facilitated Parent Involvement reported in the State
Performance Plan (SPP), a federally mandated report each state must provide to describe their
compliance with IDEA and the outcomes for their SWD (U. S. Department of Education [ED],
2022). In the 2020-2021 school year, the state rate did not meet the SPP target rate (Pennsylvania
State Data Center, 2024).
Just as data would be collected to determine why a student is failing to progress in each
area, the same must be done to improve parental collaboration. Mattingly et al. (2002) highlight
the lack of parental involvement and assessment of engagement programs. Without data to
inform practices, school districts and the state of Pennsylvania will continue to fall below low
target rates and fail to implement policies effectively (Kessler-Sklar & Baker, 2000), impacting
the ability to collaborate with families to benefit their students.
Barriers to Collaboration
Challenges and barriers to developing and growing these collaborative relationships
present on the school and familial side. Districts, often without intending to do so, can employ
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
6
ineffective and exclusive practices when collaborating with families. These actions can impede
the families’ abilities to be actively involved and engaged in their child(ren)’s education(s),
especially with their special education services (Christenson, 2003; Epstein & Dauber, 1991;
Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). Specifically, schools have been found to engage in minimal
contact with parents due to schedule conflicts, language barriers, or the belief that parental
collaboration will not be beneficial (Christenson, 2003; Epstein & Dauber, 1991; HooverDempsey & Sandler, 1997). If and when contact is established, schools have been found to
employ further ineffective strategies to engage parents through excessive paperwork, educational
jargon, and confusing procedures (Mueller & Vick, 2017).
Parental barriers can be present in the form of (a) limited social capital (Bourdieu, 1986),
(b) long-held parental beliefs regarding education (Harry et al., 1995), (c) time and scheduling
challenges, (d) parents personal, educational history, (e) previous interactions with school, (d)
beliefs about disability, (e) lack of resources to enable attendance at meetings, (f) low sense of
efficacy, (i) unmet basic needs in the home, and (j) communication and language barriers
(Cowan et al., 2004; Goodall, 2017; Kalyanpur, et al., 2000). On the familial side, there are
additional barriers to collaboration. School practices must assess and reflect upon these barriers.
Failure to do so will enable the maintenance of inequities in educational outcomes for students
with disabilities.
Logic Model
Figure 2 presents the logic model for this study, which is based on the work of Chang
(2021). This model illustrates factors that can directly and indirectly influence SWD (i.e., the
amount of collaboration, parents, and school teams). The study's primary goal is to examine
parental perceptions of school-based practices within each domain of collaboration. Improving
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
7
collaboration can significantly enhance SWD's in- and post-school outcomes. Understanding
how parents perceive the current practices utilized by schools to engage and collaborate with
parents and their potential to increase the benefit is crucial to achieving this goal. This study can
contribute to a brighter future for students with disabilities, with improved outcomes through
increased collaboration.
Figure 2
Logic Model
Note. Adapted from Chang, 2021.
This dissertation examines parents' perceptions of school-aged students with disabilities
(SWD) attending public schools in Pennsylvania, focusing on school-based collaborative
practices within and surrounding the provision of special education services. In addition, this
study seeks to determine if relationships exist between parental perceptions and their
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
8
race/ethnicity and their students’ demographics (e.g., grade level, area of disability). The survey
instrument and interview questions utilized for this study were researcher-developed based on
previously established and vetted parental engagement questionnaires, existing literature on
collaboration, and Pennsylvania’s State Performance Plan Indicator 8 – School Facilitated Parent
Involvement measure (Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network, 2018).
Research Questions and Statement of Purpose
There are four research questions for this study.
1. What do parents believe to be the most valuable school-based practice in each of the
domains of collaboration (i.e., (a) open communication, (b) trust, (c) mutual respect,
(d) shared goals, (e) common understanding, (f) shared responsibility, (g) active
participation, (h) shared decision making, and (i) implementation)?
2. Is there a relationship between demographics (i.e., (a) student’s race/ethnicity, (b)
student’s age, and (c) student’s disability category) and what parents deem the most
valuable school-based collaborative practice in each domain?
3. How often do parents experience the practices of each collaboration domain when
engaging with the school district regarding their student’s special education services?
4. What barriers and facilitators of parental collaboration exist for parents of schoolaged students receiving special education services, in each of the domains of
collaboration?
This study will contribute to the literature on parental engagement of those with schoolaged children receiving special education services. Contributions will be made by identifying the
value parents see in identified practices for parental engagement. In addition, data on the rates at
which parents experience each of the practices within each collaboration domain will be
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
9
collected to look for alignment with the practice deemed most valuable to parents. This study
will also provide school districts with additional data regarding perceptions of collaborative
practices classified by demographics. Lastly, barriers to and facilitators of parental engagement
will be explored to inform school-based practices.
Limitations
This study presents three limitations that could impact the results. The first limitation is
that participants will only be from Pennsylvania school districts. The data derived from this
survey could fail to be representative of the population of school-aged special education students
and their families, impacting its generalizability. This challenge to generalizability will impact
how this data can serve the districts of study and those throughout Pennsylvania. Second, using
an online survey will ask families to interpret the questions as intended without the researcher's
ability to provide clarity. Third, this survey will be provided only online and in English, which
can lead to the exclusion of parents/families who (a) may not have reliable access to the Internet,
(b) may be illiterate, and/or (c) lack English proficiency.
Definition of Terms
The following terms are used in this dissertation. Understanding these terms within the
context of this study is important. Terms and their definitions are as follows:
Building Blocks of Collaboration: The foundation for collaboration is established when teams
focus on relationship building, shared values, and active engagement. The path to collaboration
may not always be linear, as progress cannot be made unless the previous building blocks are
well established (Griffiths et al., 2021).
Collaboration: Shared responsibility and efforts to achieve results (Anderson-Butcher &
Ashton, 2004); Consists of five frameworks that work independently or parallel to each other to
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
10
address student needs: intraorganizational, interagency, interprofessional, community
collaboration, and family-centered (Lawson & Barkdull, 2001).
Dual-Capacity Building Framework for Family-School Partnerships: A model that
recognizes the challenges that impede family-school collaboration, such as differing views and
beliefs. To overcome these challenges, this model looks to build capacity in families and the
school in a) capabilities or skills and knowledge, (b) connections or networks, (c) cognition or
shifts in beliefs and values, and (d) confidence or self-efficacy (Mapp & Bergman, 2019).
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): Legislation that requires LEAs to build their capacity to
train families and staff on engagement to increase collaboration (The Leadership Conference
Education Fund, 2017).
Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE): Special education and related services are provided
at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge to meet the
student's unique needs (Center for Parent Information and Resources [CPIR], 2017).
Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler Model of Parental Involvement Process: A model that focuses
on why and why not families are involved in their child’s education, what actions families take
when involved, and the role families play in their child’s success in school. Recognizing the
positive impact parental involvement can have on their child’s education, this model helps
educators understand the challenges families face, the variety of ways families can be involved,
and the direct impacts these actions have on students (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005).
Individualized Education Plan (IEP): A written statement for a child with a disability that is
developed, reviewed, and revised, at a minimum, yearly (CPIR, 2017).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Legislation requires schools to actively
involve parents in their students' Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) by engaging them as
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
11
equitable team members (Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network [PATTAN],
2024).
Key Elements of Collaboration: The eight key elements needed to foster collaboration: (a)
open communication, (b) trust, (c) mutual respect, (d) shared goals, (e) common understanding,
(f) shared responsibility, (g) active participation, and (h) shared decision making (Griffiths et al.,
2021).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): Legislation that mandates collaboration through parental
involvement to increase parental knowledge, which, in turn, would increase parental
participation (National Council of La Raza [LCLR], 2007).
Parental Engagement: Opportunities provided by schools to partner with families in a two-way
working partnership, built upon dialogue that supersedes barriers and assists in creating plans for
their student’s academic, social, and emotional growth are present (Ferlazzo, 2011; RineerHershey & Mild, 2020).
Parental Involvement: Actions taken by schools to inform families of events, initiatives, and
opportunities to get involved but leave minimal opportunities for parental or family participation
in their child’s education (Rineer-Hershey & Mild, 2020).
Student with a Disability (SWD): A child of school age who meets the criteria as a child with a
disability and in need of services (CPIR, 2017).
Special Education: Specially designed instruction is provided at no cost to the parents to meet
the needs of a child with a disability (CPIR, 2017).
Sunshine Model of Trusting Family-Professional Partnerships: A model focused on building
partnerships between families and school professionals upon trust through equity, respect,
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
12
communication, advocacy, and commitment; all must be present to actualize trust (Turnbull &
Turnbull, 2021)
Summary
The role of families in students' lives is significant and omnipotent. Students spend most
of their lives outside the school's walls with their families, who heavily shape this time. The
influence of those with whom students spend the most time is profound, impacting their
behaviors, attitudes, learning, and overall development. However, this is not to discount schools'
influence on students and families. In an ideal, mutually beneficial relationship, students will
bring home the learning and practices from school and figuratively bring their families to the
learning environment. Despite the challenges, all stakeholders must actively pursue such a
partnership, focused upon collaboration, to improve special education student outcomes in school
and post-secondary. A baseline of parental beliefs and perceptions needs to be gathered to
initiate and appropriately focus such efforts. In this study, parents will be invited to participate in
a survey and interview to gather data to inform and shape future school-based collaborative
practices.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
13
Chapter 2 – Literature Review
The purposes of this dissertation are to (a) determine what parents perceive to be the most
valuable school-based practices within each domain of collaboration, (b) if there is a connection
between demographics and the most valued practices, (c) the rates at which parents experience
collaborative practices, and (d) the barriers and facilitators of collaboration that parents
experience. This chapter reviews literature and provides the rationale and framework for this
study. Included is the history of educational accountability, quantification of the poor in-school
performance of SWD and outcomes post-secondary education, definitions of parental
engagement and models demonstrating how it is essential to collaboration, and therefore, student
outcomes, identification of the barriers on behalf of the parents and those presented by the
schools, and provide a framework of collaboration on which to compare current school practices
against.
History of Special Education
The United States Department of Education was established over 150 years ago, in 1867,
to gather data and information about the nation’s schools and teaching (ED, 2024). The data
gathered was intended to provide guidance and insight into improving the effectiveness of
America’s schools. While there was federal oversight, local jurisdictions ultimately controlled
educational decisions. These jurisdictions were left to interpret, apply, or ignore this guidance.
Unfortunately, this all too often led to discrimination against students based on disability, racial
background, and economic status. These practices were evident in the data; these students were
not performing at the level of their peers, and this gap continued to widen over time. It was not
until the 1960s and 70s that the federal government acknowledged these unjust practices and
acted against them by passing proactive laws. In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
14
Students (EHA) was enacted, providing more visibility to SWD. This federal law was to
guarantee that identified students were to receive a free and appropriate education (FAPE) in the
least restrictive environment (LRE) (Rineer-Hershey & Mild, 2020). In 1990, the EHA was
reauthorized and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), of which additional
reauthorizations have since followed. With these reauthorizations, support and rights for SWD
have been further emphasized and expanded upon.
State Performance Plans
While federally defined, FAPE is still largely left to the interpretation of the district
providing it. The intention behind this law, which was to improve the education of students with
disabilities, was apparent, though performance discrepancies remain. The 2004 reauthorization
of IDEA recognized the need for additional focus on the education and outcomes of SWD and
added the requirement of a State Performance Plan (SPP) for every state. The federally mandated
SPP would provide the structure for each state to describe their compliance with IDEA and the
outcomes for their SWD (ED, 2022). These indicators provide the basis for each state’s
reporting on performance and compliance for school-aged students. Current indicators for SWD
are as follows:
Indicator 1 - graduation rates: graduated with a regular high school diploma
Indicator 2 - dropout rates: school exits by dropping out
Indicator 3 - student participation and performance on statewide
assessments: (a) participation rate, (b) proficiency rate against grade-level
academic standards, (c) proficiency rate against alternative grade-level academic
standards (not reported due to group size in LEA), (d) gap in proficiency rates for
grade-level academic standards between SWD and students without disabilities
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
15
Indicator 4 - suspension and expulsion rates: discrepancy rates of
suspension/expulsion for SWD greater than 10 days in a school year, discrepancy
rates of suspension/expulsion, by race/ethnicity, for SWD greater than 10 days in
a school year
Indicator 5 - educational placement (LRE): percentage of students identified as
served (a) greater than 80% of the day in the regular class; (b) less than 40% of
the day in the regular classroom; (c) in separate, residential or
homebound/hospital placements
Indicator 8 - school-facilitated parent involvement: a measure of schools’
efforts to engage parents to improve their child’s educational outcomes
Indicator 9 - disproportionate representation by race/ethnicity: rates of SWD
by race/ethnicity inappropriately identified and receiving special education
services
Indicator 10 - disproportionate representation by race/ethnicity in disability
categories: rates of SWD by race/ethnicity inappropriately identified under
specific disability categories and receiving special education services
Indicator 11 - timelines for initial evaluation: compliance with timelines for
initial evaluations
Indicator 13 - IEP postsecondary transition goals and services: compliance
with regulatory requirements within the IEP for secondary transition
Indicator 14 - postsecondary outcomes: rates of SWD enrolled in higher
education (a) within one year of leaving high school; (b) or competitively
employed within one year of leaving high school; (c) or some other postsecondary
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
16
education or training program or some other employment within in one year of
leaving high school (ED, 2022)
Three, eight, and fourteen will be the most relevant indicators for this study on SWDs’
performance and parental collaboration. These provide student participation and performance
data on statewide assessments, school-facilitated parent involvement, and post-secondary
outcomes for SWD.
Indicator Three
Across all tested areas and grade levels, the state failed to meet the SPP target rate for the
participation of children with IEPs in the 2022-2023 SY, as seen in Table 1. A variety of factors
can impact student participation. Technology issues can have the most significant impact, as
some districts are not equipped to administer computer-based assessments due to a lack of
technological equipment and reliable connectivity (Brown, 2016). A lack of accommodations
can accompany test administration; students with disabilities, English learners, and those with
comorbidities of a disability who are English learners may be unable to access the needed
accommodations to participate in the assessments equitably. Voluntary opt-outs account for the
remaining non-participatory students. Families may choose to opt their child out of testing due to
concerns with scores being unfairly tied to teacher and school accountability, the already large
volume of testing required, and challenges to the equity and suitability of the testing for SWD
and other target groups (Katanyoutanant, et al., 2021).
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
17
Table 1
Indicator 3A - Participation Rate for Children with IEPs in 2022-2023SY
Grade
State Rate
SPP Target Rate
State Met Rate
ELA
4
92.7%
95%
No
8
87.5%
95%
No
11
87.2%
95%
No
Math
4
93.1%
95%
No
8
87.4%
95%
No
11
85.2%
95%
No
Note. ELA = English Language Arts. SY = school year. Adapted from
https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/Public-Reporting/SEDR-Report-Dashboard. Copyright 2024 by
Pennsylvania State Data Center.
Those students participating in state assessments in Pennsylvania receive both a
numerical score and a level of performance. The levels of performance are (a) below basic, (b)
basic, (c) proficient, and (d) advanced. An advanced level of performance reflects superior
performance, proficient is considered satisfactory, basic is demonstrative of marginal
performance, and below basic is an inadequate level of performance (ED, 2022). Table 2
provides the percentage of SWD who achieved either the proficient or advanced level on the
Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) exams in the 2022-2023 school year. The
Pennsylvania failed to meet the target rate for all but 11th-grade ELA and 4th-grade math.
Extremely concerning is that more than 75% of SWDs across all tested grades and subjects score
at basic or below basic levels regarding grade-level academic standards.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
18
Table 2
Indicator 3B - Proficiency Rate for Children with IEPs Against Grade Level Academic
Achievement Standards in 2022-2023SY
Grade
State Rate
SPP Target Rate
State Met Rate
ELA
4
19.3%
28.8%
No
8
16.1%
21.5%
No
11
23.5%
18.7%
Yes
Math
4
19.7%
19.6%
Yes
8
5.0%
10.9%
No
11
8.1%
25.9%
No
Note. ELA = English Language Arts. SY = school year. Adapted from
https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/Public-Reporting/SEDR-Report-Dashboard. Copyright 2024 by
Pennsylvania State Data Center.
Indicator 3D provides a percentage point gap in proficiency rates between SWD and all
students against grade-level academic achievement standards. Unlike 3A and 3B, a lower
percentage is the sought-after result for this indicator; the smaller the percentage rate difference,
the closer the rate of SWDs performing at or above proficiency in comparison to all assessed
students. The proficiency gap rates for SWD and all students in Pennsylvania did not exceed the
SPP target rate on 4th-grade ELA or for the 4th and 11th-grade mathematics assessments. All other
grade-level and assessment combinations exceeded the SPP target rates, readily quantifying the
rate at which SWD are lagging behind their peers regarding grade-level achievement standards.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
19
Table 3
Indicator 3D – Gap in Proficiency Rates for Children with IEPs and All Students Against Grade
Level Academic Achievement Standards in 2022-2023SY
Grade
State Rate
SPP Target Rate
State Met Rate
ELA
4
32.2%
30.9%
No
8
36.2%
34.2%
Yes
11
41.5%
32.7%
Yes
Math
4
26.3%
20.0%
No
8
20.7%
16.6%
Yes
11
25.8%
39.1%
No
Note. ELA = English Language Arts. SY = school year. Adapted from
https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/Public-Reporting/SEDR-Report-Dashboard. Copyright 2024 by
Pennsylvania State Data Center.
Based on indicator 3D alone, it is apparent that there is a need for increased
accountability in special education program delivery focused on closing these performance gaps.
Just as problematic is the underperformance of SWD, reflected in indicator 3B, regarding their
learning outcomes in general education subjects, which provides the foundation for postsecondary education (Rothstein & Johnson, 2019). One of the main focuses of post-secondary
life for SWD is gainful employment. This goal has remained constant over time, but the required
training and education for employment have not. In 1959, only 20% of jobs required a minimum
of a college degree (Carnevale & Fry, 2000). Fast-forward to 2021, when post-secondary
education was required for 68% of jobs, with an estimated 72% requiring the same by 2031, of
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
20
which 42% will require a minimum of a bachelor's (Newton, 2023). Being unable to access the
general education curriculum successfully limits a student's ability to access post-secondary
education, which is essential to gainful employment that funds all aspects of adult life (Carnevale
& Fry, 2000).
Indicator 14
Pennsylvania exceeded the SPP target rate for all three post-school outcomes, one-year
post-high school graduation, as seen in Table 4. Meeting and exceeding these target rates are a
reason for celebration, though it can be argued that they are not ambitious enough. Compared to
their general education peers, performance gaps remain eight years post-high school graduation.
As Newman et al. (2011) reported, 67% of general education students were enrolled in postsecondary education compared to 60% of SWD. Of these post-secondary programs, 40% of
general education students were enrolled in a 4-year university, compared to only 19% of SWD.
Completion rates of these 4-year programs also differ based on disability status, with only 34%
of SWD completing their program as opposed to 51% of general education students. Impacted by
post-secondary education is the rate of pay, of which SWD averages a dollar less than an hour
compared to their peers. Lower rates of independent living (45% vs. 59%) also define SWD
post-secondary (Newman et al., 2011).
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
21
Table 4
Indicator 14 – Post-School Outcomes 2015-2016SY
Target
State Rate
SPP Target Rate
State Met Rate
a
28.84%
26.40%
Yes
b
67.32%
60.80%
Yes
c
73.34%
68.80%
Yes
Note. Adapted from https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/Public-Reporting/SEDR-Report-Dashboard.
Copyright 2017 by Pennsylvania State Data Center.
Collaboration Between Stakeholders
SWDs' poor performance on standardized testing reflects their access to and
comprehension of the general education curriculum. Gains must be made in these areas to
maximize achievement and achieve goals to improve in-school and post-school outcomes
(Sujarwo & Herwin, 2023). Collaboration between stakeholders involved with SWDs is a proven
approach to these challenges and achieving such goals (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004;
Daaboul, 2022). Collaboration is based on the understanding that “no agency or professional can
succeed alone in addressing the multifaceted needs of students and their families” (AndersonButcher & Ashton, 2004, p. 40); there is an interdependence among all stakeholders who serve
students with disabilities. A student’s success depends upon collaboration between teachers,
social workers, counselors, nurses, paraprofessionals, local service providers, community
members, parents, and families (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004). From an overarching
perspective, collaboration can be defined as two or more stakeholders working together and
sharing responsibilities to achieve a common goal(s) (Cowan et al., 2004; Gardner, 1999;
Lawson & Barkdull, 1999). While not explicitly stated within the definition, it is inherent to
collaboration that all involved “pool their resources to create a cooperative, interdependent
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
22
relationship” (Cowan et al., 2004, p. 201) as part of a dynamic and reciprocal process (Cowan et
al., 2004). A simple example of collaboration is when parents provide insight into their student’s
strengths and limitations in non-school settings, and teachers provide the same regarding the
school setting. Though such an example must be noted, it is an oversimplification of
collaboration.
When schools and families collaborate, the benefits for students are plentiful. Table 5
highlights how collaborative teams can help students improve in needed areas and reduce
problematic behaviors.
Table 5
Benefits of Collaborative Teams
Improvements in:
Reductions in:
Academic achievement
Quality of work
Classwork completion
Homework completion
Attitudes toward school
Discipline referrals
Teacher-student relationships
Dropout rates
Social competence
In-grade retention
Attendance
Truancy
Peer relationships
Post-secondary outcomes
Internalization of problem
behaviors
Externalization of problem
behaviors
Note. From Blair et al., 2011; Christenson, 2005; Cox, 2005; Epstein, 2001; Esler et al., 2008;
National Association of School Psychologists [NASP], 2012; Serpell & Mashburn, 2011.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
23
Recognizing the positive impacts of collaboration between stakeholders for SWD, it has
been formalized into policies and legislation (ESSA, 2015; IDEA, 2004; NCLB, 2001). Below
are the policies and legislations of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), all of which
mandate collaboration.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
NCLB (2001) mandated collaboration through parental involvement to increase parental
knowledge, which, in turn, would grow the rates of parental participation. Requirements were set
for schools “to hold meetings with parents to inform them of general federal education
requirements and parent rights; notify[ing] parents if their child’s school has been identified for
school improvement; and notify[ing] parents of their right to request information regarding their
child’s teacher (LCLR, 2007).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
IDEA (2004) requires schools to recruit parents to actively participate in meetings and
collaborate regarding their students’ educational programming. The law outlines explicitly that
schools must do the following to involve parents: (a) provide parents with prior notice of a
meeting regarding their child, (b) allow parents the opportunity to agree on a date and time for
the meeting, (c) provide a means to include parents if they are unable to attend the meeting
(Cowan et al., 2004). Parents must also be involved by providing input for evaluations to
determine eligibility. Once identified as needing services, parent involvement is required for IEP
decision-making, including accommodations and placement. In addition, parent consent is
required for reevaluation, and parents are notified of their student's progress and can request
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
24
educational programming changes (Cowan et al., 2004). IDEA champions parents as essential
members of a team who work collaboratively to meet their students’ needs (PATTAN, 2024).
Through IDEA, schools must actively involve parents in their students' Individualized Education
Plans (IEPs) by making them equitable team members (PATTAN, 2024).
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
ESSA (2015) is focused on “the meaningful inclusion of the parents and communities
that represent students who are low-income, English learners, Native Americans, immigrants, or
who have a disability” (The Leadership Conference Education Fund, 2016, p. 5). This is done by
requiring LEAs to build their capacity to train families and staff on engagement to increase
collaboration. Such topics for parents cover training on state academic standards, assessments,
progress monitoring, and working with their children at home, in addition to other training
deemed appropriate and needed. Similarly, staff training would be based on need, and others
focused on educating school staff on how to engage parents as equal partners, engage diverse
families in written and spoken form, and provide support when requested (The Leadership
Conference Education Fund, 2016).
Indicator 8
To measure the degree to which LEAs implement the law with fidelity, specifically
outlined through IDEA, parents are surveyed as part of Indicator 8 of the SPP, school-facilitated
parent involvement. The data reported from this survey serves as a measure of schools’ efforts to
engage parents to improve their child’s educational outcomes. In Pennsylvania, the Department
of Education utilizes a large-scale survey in one-fifth of its districts yearly (ED, 2022). The
twenty-five-question survey developed by the National Center for Special Education
Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM) (n.d.) provides a percentage of parents who report their
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
25
LEA encouraged their involvement to improve services and outcomes for their identified student
(Lammert & Bitterman, 2018). The survey is distributed to a sample representative of parents of
special education students across the state based on disability category and demographics with an
over-sampling of parents of Black or African American and Hispanic students. This oversampling is done to compensate for historically lower response rates from these groups
(Lammert & Bitterman, 2018). It is considered representative if the response rate is within 5% of
the state percentage for the reported categories of race/ethnicity and disability. In 2022, PDE
reported an under-representation of parents of students with specific learning disabilities and
those of Black or African American students (Lammert & Bitterman, 2018). Not only do the
response rates impact the state sampling confidence, but the greater the number of responses
received from individual LEAs, the higher the rate of confidence that the sample is
representative of that population (Lammert & Bitterman, 2018). The state of Pennsylvania, in the
2014-2015 school year, fell below the state rate and did not meet the target rate, as seen in Table
6. In addition, these results are reported with low confidence as genuinely representative of the
state’s demographics (Pennsylvania State Data Center, 2017).
Table 6
Indicator 8 – School-Facilitated Parent Involvement
Confidence
State Rate
SPP Target Rate
State Met Rate
44%
46.4%
No
Interval
40.03-45.41%
Note. 95% is the desired level of confidence. Adapted from https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/PublicReporting/SEDR-Report-Dashboard
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
26
Barriers to Participation
Reflecting upon these poor rates, regarding LEAs’ efforts to involve parents of special
education students and the confidence with which they are reported due to insufficient
participation, it can be assumed that there are additional barriers that need to be considered when
looking to build collaborative teams with parents as key members. Even with guidance from
research-based frameworks and models, barriers to collaborative teaming with parents will
remain. It is essential to recognize these barriers, which present themselves on both the familial
side of the team and the school side.
Parental Barriers
Outside the familial realm of control are socioeconomic status, categorization as part of
migrant and minority groups, and single parent. Being categorized as part of any of the groups is
closely correlated with minimal to no collaborative efforts regarding schooling for their
child(ren) (Manzon et al., 2015). These challenges can also be viewed through the lens of capital,
specifically economic, cultural, and social capital (Bourdieu, 1986). Families with high levels of
economic capital need not be concerned with financial resources and assets (Bourdieu, 1986),
and those rich in cultural and social capital experience greater access to educational
opportunities. Opportunities that increase in value for those students identified with disabilities
(Murray et al., 2020; Trainor, 2010). A family that is identified as having high social and cultural
capital will access resources independently to develop a deeper understanding of processes and
procedures and will seek assistance from their surrounding community (Trainor, 2010). This
can sometimes lead to the ‘hoarding’ of opportunities when efforts are not made to bridge the
gaps in the capital (Murry et al., 2020)—making the same opportunities less accessible to those
with limited social and cultural capital. However, when schools try to bridge these gaps, there is
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
27
greater potential to generate more equitable outcomes for all students (Murry et al., 2020). Those
students experiencing the comorbidity of less capital and a disability are more likely to
experience struggles with accessing and benefiting from their education. However, increased
collaboration with families can transcend these deficits regardless of their capital (Burke, 2013).
Additional barriers to engagement occur due to a multitude of other factors. For some
parents, this can be due to (a) work or home-school scheduling conflicts, (b) arduous parental
educational history, (c) previous encounters at their child’s school impacting respect held for
educators, (d) beliefs about disability, (e) lack of transportation, (f) lack of child care, (g) limited
parental education, specifically regarding literacy skills, and, therefore, (h) low sense of efficacy,
(i) unmet basic needs in the home, and (j) communication and language barriers (Cowan et al.,
2004; Goodall, 2017; Kalyanpur et al., 2000). Also, playing a part in limited collaborative efforts
on behalf of parents is a long-held perception that teachers are experts whose opinions are not to
be challenged or opposed (Harry et al., 1995). Further exacerbating some of these parental
barriers are those actions taken by schools.
School Barriers
Schools, without being aware of the impact of their practices, can regularly engage in
behaviors that maintain barriers to collaboration with parents. Actions taken by school personnel
can be due to a lack of knowledge and experience and, in turn, a low sense of self-efficacy on
how to best collaborate with parents of varying backgrounds (Christenson, 2003; Epstein &
Dauber, 1991; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). Due to their limited skill set or the belief that
they, as professionals, do not require familial support or that it will not prove beneficial, parental
collaboration is not sought or is done so with minimal effort. Suppose communication occurs
between the school and parents. In that case, it may (a) not take place at times convenient to
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
28
allow for full parental participation, (b) be done in a language in which the parents are not fluent
or literate, and (c) only convey problems their child is having in school (Christenson, 2003;
Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997).
These barriers persist and are exacerbated by additional actions taken by schools when
collaboration is mandated and essential to the success of students with disabilities, such as the
IEP meeting. Collaborative efforts on behalf of the school are quickly undone when IEP meetings
involve excessive paperwork, failure to involve parents in discussions, overuse of jargon, and
confusing procedures (Mueller & Vick, 2017). Even the document, known as the procedural
safeguards, provided to all families when their student is initially found eligible for special
education services, and at a minimum once a year while they still qualify, are written at an
average of the 16th-grade level (Mandic et al., 2012). Without being able to comprehend or
adequately access their rights as parents of a student with a disability due to language and
literacy-related challenges, parental abilities to collaborate with the school team will continue to
be compromised (Mandic et al., 2012).
Involvement vs. Engagement
Recognizing the barriers is not enough to overcome their impact. Strategies to improve
parental engagement can be implemented by understanding these barriers and seeking parental
engagement, not just involvement. While there is value in both approaches with families,
engagement is most conducive to collaboration. Involvement informs families through one-way
communications through website announcements, district- or school-wide pre-recorded phone
messages, and newsletters (Ferlazzo, 2011). The expected outcome of parental involvement is to
inform families of school events, initiatives, and opportunities to get involved (Rineer-Hershey &
Mild, 2020). While still valued, involvement leaves minimal opportunities for parental or family
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
29
participation in their child’s education (Rineer-Hershey & Mild, 2020). When schools employ
efforts to increase engagement, opportunities to partner with families and assist in creating plans
for their student’s academic, social, and emotional growth are present (Ferlazzo & Hammond,
2009). A defining factor in engagement is two-way working partnerships built upon ongoing
dialogue that supersedes many of the barriers (Rineer-Hershey & Mild, 2020).
Engagement and Collaboration Models
Engagement and collaboration models can help LEAs plan and implement their
approaches. They must reflect on the context of each family and help them meet their student's
educational and developmental needs to increase engagement and improve student outcomes
(Rineer-Hershey & Mild, 2020). Three such collaboration models include the Dual-Capacity
Building Framework for Family-School Partnerships (Mapp & Bergman, 2019), the HooverDempsey & Sandler Model of Parental Involvement Process (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005), and
the Sunshine Model of Trusting Family-Professional Partnerships (Turnbull & Turnbull, 2021).
Dual-Capacity Building Framework
The Dual-Capacity Building Framework for Family-School Partnerships (Mapp &
Bergman, 2019) recognizes the different experiences of families and educators and their abilities
to impact, even more so when working collaboratively. As this model recognizes, educators and
families can often have incompatible views and beliefs, which creates challenges when
establishing a family-school partnership. Challenges that impede educators are (a) a lack of
exposure to successful family engagement, (b) minimal training on engagement, (c) a belief that
partnerships are not essential, and (d) viewing students and families with a deficit mindset (Mapp
& Bergman, 2019). For parents, challenges can be due to (a) lack of exposure to strong family
engagement, (b) previous negative experiences with schools and teachers, (c) feeling unwelcome
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
30
as a member of their child’s educational team, and (d) feeling disrespected, unheard and unvalued
by the school team (Mapp & Bergman, 2019). This model focuses on building capacity in all
stakeholders in capabilities, connections, confidence, and cognition (Mapp & Bergman, 2019).
To begin to overcome these challenges, conditions must be optimized for the process and the
organization or school team involved. Optimal conditions for the process are (a) built on
reciprocal trust, (b) rooted in learning and development, (c) focused on assets, not a lack thereof,
(d) responsive and respectful of cultural diversity, (e) collaborative, and (f) interactive (Mapp &
Bergman, 2019). Organizationally, conditions are primed when they are (a) systemically
embraced, (b) integrated, and (c) sustained (Mapp & Bergman, 2019). When these conditions are
in place, the groundwork is laid to help educators and families build upon and grow in their 4C
areas: (a) capabilities or skills and knowledge, (b) connections or networks, (c) cognition or shifts
in beliefs and values, and (d) confidence or self-efficacy. With increased capacity in these 4 C
areas, educators are empowered to welcome, connect, engage, and honor families in various roles
in their child’s education. Roles include co-creators, supporters, encouragers, monitors,
advocates, and models (Mapp & Bergman, 2019). All efforts put forth by both educators and
families are to effectively partner to support their child and improve the school.
Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler Model of Parental Involvement Process
The Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler Model of Parental Involvement Process (HooverDempsey et al., 2005) focuses on why and why not families are involved in their child’s
education, what actions are taken by families when involved, and the role families play in their
child’s success in school. Recognizing the positive impact parental involvement can have on their
child’s education, this model helps educators understand the challenges families face, the variety
of ways families can be involved, and the direct impacts these actions have on students (Hoover-
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
31
Dempsey et al., 2005). Parental entry into school involvement is based upon personal motivators
(i.e., beliefs on the role they are to take and their sense of self-efficacy in doing so), perceptions
of invitations to be involved (i.e., general, specific teacher, and specific child invitations), and life
context variables (i.e., beliefs about their skills and abilities, time and energy which can be
allocated, and family culture) (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). These motivators, perceptions, and
life variables drive the form in which parents become involved. Involvement can take the form of
communication with their child about personal and familial values, goals, expectations, and
aspirations. Other forms include involvement in activities at home (e.g., talking about the school
day, reviewing work), family-school communication, and participation in school-based activities
(Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). Parental behaviors, when involved, can be done through
encouragement, modeling, reinforcement, and instruction, all of which are essential to school
success. However, if students do not recognize and consider their parents' behaviors, they can fail
to translate them to achieve academic success. When students do perceive and internalize their
parents’ behaviors, it can lead to the development of student attributes that are conducive to
achievement: (a) academic self-efficacy, (b) an intrinsic motivation to learn, (c) self-regulatory
strategy knowledge and use, and (d) social self-efficacy for relating to teachers (Hoover-Dempsey
et al., 2005). Parent involvement is vital to all levels of this model and the ultimate goal of
improving student outcomes.
Sunshine Model of Trusting Family-Professional Partnerships
The Sunshine Model of Trusting Family-Professional Partnerships (Turnbull & Turnbull,
2021) is built upon a solid family-professional relationship for students with disabilities. This
model builds partnerships between families and school professionals upon trust through equity,
respect, communication, advocacy, and commitment; all must be present to actualize trust
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
32
(Turnbull & Turnbull, 2021). Table 7 provides definitions of each dimension of trust and actions
to promote them. When trust is established, families and professionals can engage in shared
decision-making, categorized under seven opportunities. These seven opportunities include
academic learning, social-emotional learning, behavior assessment, special meetings, transition,
and school capacity enhancement. When families and professionals can rely on each other,
student outcomes are improved, and students experience a greater sense of belonging and
demonstrate more resilience (Turnbull & Turnbull, 2021).
Table 7
Definitions and Actions of Trust Dimensions in Sunshine Model of Trusting Family-Professional
Partnerships
Trust Dimension
Definition
Actions
Equity
Providing levels of
-Establish modes of communication early with
support determined by
families
needs, concerns, and
-Utilize and connect families with community
available resources
resources
-Recognize and work to eliminate implicit
biases
Respect
Demonstrating
-Focus on the strengths of students and
appreciation for
families
families' qualities,
-Lead with empathy
needs, and feelings
-Recognize the impact familial culture can
have on education
Communication
Reciprocal, frequent,
-Engage families with open-ended questions
regular, and culturally
-Acknowledge familial perspectives and
responsive interactions
feelings
-Manage expectations regarding school
practices
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
33
Table 7 continued
Trust Dimension
Definition
Actions
Advocacy
Actions taken to reach
-Recognize barriers families face outside of
determined outcomes
school
-Recognize barriers the school can present to
families
-Work with immediate team members and
community resources to overcome the
identified barriers
Commitment
Prioritization and
-Identify goals and their rationales and
valuing of the
continually reflect upon their progress
partnerships and their
-Seek out and take part in professional
desired outcomes
development to improve outcomes
-Continually seek and act upon feedback
Note. Adapted from Turnbull & Turnbull, 2021
Model Limitations
It goes without question that these engagement models are well-intended, but wellintended or not; they tend to reinforce “power inequities between families and schools” and
“consolidate dominant institutional authority” (Ishimaru, 2017, p. 4). When viewed through
these models, families are to be fixed, not equitable, partners in their child’s education. Strategies
utilized in these models are, first, intended to build capacity in the parents. This increased
capacity will enable them to advocate for their children, ensuring they receive the best services to
meet their needs. Positive outcomes can be plentiful, but they are limited to their child and not all
children and, therefore, fall short of having any systemic impact (Ishimaru, 2017). Secondly,
these models maintain communication as unidirectional, specifically concerning expertise and
relational capacity; teachers and schools are the experts and provide the greatest amount for a
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
34
student’s education (Ishimaru, 2017). Lastly, these models tend to default to conventional
engagement strategies. Schools remain the dominant member of the team and maintain control
over how, why, and when parents are engaged (Ishimaru, 2017). Such actions are maintained due
to a concern over a loss of power “wherein an increase in one individual or group’s power entails
the loss of control and power on the part of another’s” (Ishimaru, 2017, p. 8). An understanding
that this relational power is only possible through sacrifices on behalf of team members must be
overcome. School teams and parents must reflect upon and recognize that their relationships and
interactions can change through new and updated practices (Ishimaru, 2017). Through the
dissection of these models, schools can begin to reflect upon their practices and make needed
changes or employ new practices to foster more equitable collaboration with all stakeholders.
Collaboration
Framework for Collaboration
The most general definition of collaboration is “working together and sharing
responsibility for results” (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004, p. 40). A lack of specificity or
structure regarding achieving collaboration can harm the process and fails to acknowledge its
true complexity and the need for professionals and agencies to work together to meet the
multifaceted needs of students and their families (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004).
Collaboration, as per the work of Lawson and Barkdull. (2001), is built upon five frameworks
that address the multitude of student needs in school. These frameworks are intraorganizational,
interagency, interprofessional, community collaboration, and family centered. Through
validation of each other’s roles (e.g., teachers, social workers, school psychologists), which are
most often provided independently of or parallel to each other, and providing insight into
successful strategies, intraorganizational collaboration occurs (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton,
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
35
2004). Interagency collaboration occurs when organizations, often with different missions, work
together for the benefit of others. Such collaboration is vital when a student is experiencing
stressors beyond the walls of the school, such as poverty, family conflict, and mental health
concerns (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004). Schools, while becoming more equipped to
handle such challenges, still need help, especially for the most vulnerable students. When two or
more professionals from differing agencies work to assist a student and his or her family, it is
known as interprofessional collaboration (Lawson et al., 1999). Through the development of
integrated support systems, the “multiple, co-occurring needs of the family are met” (AndersonButcher & Ashton, 2004, p. 43), and students come to school better prepared to learn (Lawson et
al., 1999). Community collaboration is when numerous community stakeholders work together
to improve student outcomes. Community collaboration occurs when local business owners,
older adults, youth, parents, community leaders, city government, religious institutions, and
others coordinate. Lastly, family-centered collaboration is when parents are considered experts
on their child and treated as such. Families are full-time members of their child’s team and have
an equal say in the support and services provided (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004). This
approach is rooted in the knowledge that without alignment of services and familial support,
there is a greater likelihood of failure to attain the established goals of the collaboration. Through
family-centered collaboration, schools can become more effective, and families become
empowered to help themselves and more likely to obtain help if needed (Anderson-Butcher &
Ashton, 2004).
While each collaboration framework provides value in isolation, their most significant
impact occurs when they are embraced as interrelated, and stakeholders benefit from each other’s
efforts. For example, empowering parents makes them more likely to help their children. Their
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
36
children, in turn, will become more engaged in their learning and more likely to speak up with
their empowered parents regarding their needs and concerns. When these needs and concerns are
voiced, services can be better tailored and more responsive to needs, increasing academic
achievement and attendance and improving student behavior (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton,
2004; Lawson,1999).
Building Blocks of Collaboration
Recognizing the need for each of these types of collaboration is not enough. The
collaboration must also be structured to be effective, and this can occur only when clearly
defined. Griffiths et al. (2021) systematically reviewed the literature on collaboration to develop
a universal model for schools. This model includes the “foundation for developing a
collaborative relationship and the specific elements that help the team to collaborate throughout
the process truly” (Griffiths et al., 2021, p. 62). Through their analysis, the researchers were able
to identify nine key elements needed to foster collaboration: (a) open communication, (b) trust,
(c) mutual respect, (d) shared goals, (e) common understanding, (f) shared responsibility, (g)
active participation, (h) shared decision making, and (i) implementation (Griffiths, et al., 2021).
Trust, open communication, and mutual respect are requirements of relationship building.
Focusing on shared goals and responsibilities rooted in a common understanding provides the
means to develop shared values. Active participation based on a sense of shared responsibility
fosters active engagement. Implementation can then occur after these other elements are in place
with shared decision-making, resulting in the end goal of collaboration. These elements do not
develop in isolation but are part of a dynamic process where multiple systems must interact
across all stages of the collaborative efforts to allow for the end goal of implementation. It is for
this reason that Griffiths et al. (2021) present collaboration as a set of building blocks, see Figure
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
37
3, because the foundational blocks must be “developed and cultivated before additional ones can
be added” (p. 74). The path to collaboration is also recognized as non-linear; sometimes, teams
must return to the foundational blocks before addressing the missing or damaged elements,
highlighting another essential aspect of a collaborative team's flexibility and adaptability.
Figure 3
Building Blocks of Collaboration
Relationship Building. The three aspects necessary for successful relationship building
are open communication, trust, and mutual respect. Open communication is present when all
parties can comfortably and effectively express their ideas, which can minimize conflict and
have access to all information to allow for equitable participation (Griffiths et al., 2021). Trust is
developed over time and can be attributed to effort and energy focused upon effective
communication, and everyone works toward and maintains focus on the common goal. With
solid foundations of open communication and trust, members value the knowledge, skills, and
competence that others bring to the team. An additional benefit to solidly established
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
38
relationships is that these aspects are essential to conflict resolution, which is inevitable in
collaborative teams (Griffiths et al., 2021).
Shared Values and Beliefs. Shared goals and common understandings must be present
to establish shared values and beliefs. Shared goals are developed when all team members
provide input regarding the goal or joint problem that has brought them together. These goals can
only be accomplished or remedied with everyone working together. In working together, there
must be a common understanding that all members, regardless of their background, experience,
knowledge, or skill, are there to achieve the same shared goal.
Active Engagement. The team's shared goals and common understandings build upon
the established trust, open communication, and mutual respect. Only once these prerequisite
aspects are established can active engagement occur. Active engagement takes place when there
is shared responsibility and active participation. By contributing their expertise, team members
establish and maintain their role as contributors to the solutions, sharing the responsibility.
However, just contributing does not mean there is active engagement. Active engagement occurs
when members embrace their role and meaningfully contribute ideas and resources.
Collective Collaborative Effort. Only once the other building blocks of relationship
building, shared values and beliefs, and active engagement are established can a team tackle the
final step of determining and enacting solutions. The aspects that must be present for this final
stage are shared decision-making and implementation. After gathering input from all members,
final decisions are made regarding the solutions implemented. The final step involves enacting
the decided-upon solutions and ensuring they are implemented with fidelity.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
39
Summary
Positive student outcomes are associated with effective and equitable collaboration,
which is vital to equitable educational opportunities (Griffiths et al., 2021). The stage is set for
these opportunities when “parents and educators share resources, ideas, decision-making power,
and ownership for mutually determined goals regarding both the home and school-based
educational curricula” (Cowan et al., 2004, p. 208). These efforts to create and nurture these
opportunities require time and patience on behalf of schools and families. When these
collaborations are cultivated, “they can result in both meaningful and effective educational and
developmental outcomes for children and yield benefits that cannot be achieved when families
and schools work in isolation” (Cowan et al., 2004, p. 208). Collaboration is a means for SWD to
achieve, close the gaps between them and their general education peers, and lead more fulfilling
and productive lives post-secondary. Analyzing strengths and areas of growth for LEAs can
provide invaluable information on how to improve and build upon current practices.
This research study aims to inform school-based practices by examining parental
perspectives and experiences. Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected through a survey
and semi-structured interviews, providing a platform for gaining a deeper understanding of
school-based collaborative practices from a parental perspective. Chapter 3 will expand upon the
methods and design chosen for this study, outlining why they best address the research questions
and goals.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
40
Chapter 3 – Methods
This chapter outlines the methodology used to examine parents’ perceptions of schoolbased collaborative practices in special education. The purpose of this study is to gain insight
into how parents value specific collaboration practices, the frequency at which they perceive
these practices to occur, and to determine if these perceptions are influenced by parent
race/ethnicity, area of disability, and grade level. To capture broader patterns and in-depth
experiences, a mixed-methods approach was selected, providing a greater opportunity to gain an
understanding of how school-based practices impact parent and school collaboration.
A mixed-methods design is appropriate for this study because the researcher can develop
“a more complete understanding of the changes needed for a marginalized group through the
combination of qualitative and quantitative data” (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p.216). For this
study, the marginalized group has been identified as school-aged students receiving special
education services in a Pennsylvania public school. This mixed-methods study employs a
convergent parallel design, where quantitative and qualitative data will be collected
simultaneously, analyzed separately, and then merged to compare and determine if the sets of
findings confirm or disconfirm each other (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). For this study, a sideby-side comparison approach will be used to merge the data. Utilizing this approach, the
quantitative data will be analyzed first, followed by the qualitative data (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). This approach will provide the structure to determine if the themes derived from the
interviews align with the data collected through the survey; these instruments are detailed in this
chapter.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
41
Participants and Setting
The participants in this mixed-methods study included parents of students receiving
special education services in school districts across Pennsylvania. The participants in this study
were parents or guardians of special education students in kindergarten through twelfth grade for
the 2024-2025 school year, with the authority to make educational decisions for their students
receiving services in one of the district schools. Students could be receiving services under any
of the disability categories identified and defined by IDEA: (a) intellectual disability, (b) hearing
impairment including deafness (district of study combines two categories), (c) speech or
language impairment, (d) visual impairment including blindness, (e) emotional disturbance, (f)
orthopedic impairment, (g) autism, (f) traumatic brain injury, (g) other health impairment, (h)
specific learning disability, (i) deaf-blindness, or (j) multiple disabilities (PATTAN, 2024).
Table 8 presents the percentages of special education students receiving services under
each of the IDEA disability categories for the state. Table 10 shows the percentages of students
receiving special education services by age.
Table 8
IDEA Disability Categories for State Special Education Enrollment for 22-23SY
Percentage
Autism
13.2%
Deaf-Blindness
0%
Emotional Disturbance
7.9%
Hearing Impairment, including
0.8%
Deafness
Intellectual Disability
6.2%
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
42
Table 8 continued
Percentage
Multiple Disabilities
0.9%
Other Health Impairment
18.2%
Orthopedic Impairment
0.2%
Specific Learning Disability
38.3%
Speech and Language Impairment
13.9%
Traumatic Brain Injury
0.2%
Visual Impairment
0.3%
Note. Pennsylvania State Data Center (2024). Special education data report: Pennsylvania.
Author.https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/penndata/documents/BSEReports/Data%20Preview/20232024/Speced_Quick_Report_PA_Final_2023-2024.pdf
Table 9
Age Distribution of Students Receiving Special Education Services in Pennsylvania (as of
December 1, 2023)
Percentage
5
2.8%
6
5.4%
7
6.6%
8
7.6%
9
8.4%
10
8.4%
11
8.3%
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
43
Table 9 continued
Percentage
12
8.2%
13
8.2%
14
8.2%
15
8.5%
16
8.3%
17
8%
18
3.7%
19+
1.7%
Note. Ages are calculated based on the student’s age as of December 1, 2023, in accordance
with federal reporting guidelines. Pennsylvania State Data Center (2024). Special education data
report: Pennsylvania. Author. https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/penndata/documents/BSEReports/
Data%20Preview/2023-2024/Speced_Quick_Report_PA_Final_2023-2024.pdf
Quantitative Methods
Survey
A survey was designed based on Griffiths et al.'s (2021) work on the building blocks of
collaboration. The researcher chose Griffiths et al.’s domains of collaboration as the basis for the
survey for the following reasons:
1. Evidence-Based: The best practices identified for each domain are supported by
comprehensive academic research, giving the results more credibility.
2. Actionable Data: The domains provide a structured approach to gathering actionable
data; specific areas of weakness can be identified, providing the basis for targeted
improvement efforts (Ahmad et al., 2019).
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
44
3. Framework: The domains provide a standardized framework for gathering and
interpreting data regarding collaboration, positively impacting the reliability of the
survey when conducted across diverse populations (Ahmad et al., 2019).
This survey would be one of the tools used to collect quantitative data from parents.
Survey research was chosen for this study as it provides “a numeric description of trends,
attitudes, or opinions of a population by studying a sample of that population” (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018, p. 12) and “precision to qualitative descriptions of phenomena” (Krathwohl &
Smith, 2005, p. 164). The survey progresses through three different types of questions: (a)
multiple-choice demographic, (b) Likert scale, and (c) choice through the use of Google Forms.
Using a five-point scale, Likert scale questions can quantify the participant's subjectivity
to an objective numerical value (Joshi et al., 2015). Joshi et al. (2015) view attitudes,
perceptions, and opinions as subjective attributes that quantification can transform. For this
survey to quantify parental perception of current collaborative practices, a five-point scale
ranging from “never” to “always” was used. To determine if demographics influence
perceptions, information was obtained through multiple-choice questions adapted from Hughes
et al. (2022) to ensure the use of current and inclusive questions and response options.
Demographic questions will ask participants to indicate their students' age as of December 1,
2024, the IDEA category under which their student received special education services, and the
parents’ ethnicity/race. The survey, delivered electronically, consisted of a consent form, nine
choice questions, nine Likert-scale questions, and four multiple-choice demographic questions,
and will require approximately 10 minutes of the participant's time.
Quantitative Data Analysis
Table 10 outlines the planned analysis for quantitative data.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
45
Table 10
Quantitative Data Analysis Plans
Quantitative Question Data Analysis
Rationale
What do parents
a. Summarize frequencies
a. Report out as frequency counts and
believe to be the most percentages (descriptive)
to determine which
valuable school-based b. Chi-square goodness of fit test
practice is chosen most in
practice in each of the (inferential)
each domain
domains of
i. H0: Parents are equally likely
b. Determine if the parents’
collaboration (i.e.,
to choose any of the school-
preferences for practices
open communication,
based practices within each
differ from an equal
trust, mutual respect,
domain.
distribution.
shared goals,
ii. H1: Parents are more likely to
common
value certain school-based
understanding, shared
practices over others within each
responsibility, active
domain.
participation, shared
decision making, and
implementation)?
Is there a relationship
a. Report out as frequency counts for
a. Summarize frequencies
between
each demographic category (i.e., (a)
to determine which
demographics (i.e.,
parent’s race/ethnicity, (b) student’s age, practice is chosen for each
parent’s
and (c) student’s disability category)
demographic vs. domain
race/ethnicity,
and the most valued practice in each of
b. Determine if preferences
student’s age, and
the domains of collaboration (i.e., open
differ by subgroup within
student’s disability
communication, trust, mutual respect,
each demographic category
category) and what
shared goals, common understanding,
parents deem the
shared responsibility, active
most valuable school- participation, shared decision making,
and implementation) (descriptive)
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
46
based collaborative
b. Chi-square test of independence
practice?
(inferential)
i. H0: There is no relationship
between student demographics
and parents’ perceptions of the
most valuable school-based
collaborative practice in each
domain.
ii. H1: There is a statistically
significant relationship between
demographics and what parents
deem the most valuable schoolbased collaborative practice in
each domain.
How often do parents
a. Report out as frequency counts and
a. Summarize the
experience the
percentages (descriptive)
frequencies at which
practices of each
b. Report the means and standard
parents report experiencing
collaboration domain
deviations for each practice within each
a particular practice
when engaging with
domain (descriptive)
b. Summarize the average
the school district
frequencies parents report
regarding their
experiencing each practice
student’s special
within a domain, providing
education services?
data to determine what the
typical experience is of
parents (mean)
b. Determine if parent
responses for each practice
are consistent or divided
(standard deviation)
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
47
To conduct Chi-square tests with the collected data and ensure the reliability of the tests,
the expected frequencies for the subgroup sampling should be five or greater (Gravetter &
Wallnau, 2017). If a cell count falls below this threshold, test reliability decreases, and there is a
potential for increased Type I error rates when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true
(Gravetter & Wallnau, 2017). To ensure the sample size encompasses the smallest subgroup
across all demographic categories, 0.2% (Orthopedic Impairment) was used to calculate the
minimum responses needed to achieve a cell count threshold of five, resulting in a required
sample size of 2,500 responses. Based on the limited permissions granted by school districts to
conduct the study, a response rate of 2,500 is higher than what the researcher expects; therefore,
adjustments to how data will be grouped for analysis will be as outlined in Table 11.
Table 11
Subgroup Categories and Minimum Sample Size Requirements for Chi-Square Testing
Variable
Subgroup Categories
Minimum Sample Size
Disability Category
Low Incidence: Deaf-Blindness, Hearing
59
Impairment (including Deafness), Visual
Impairment (including Blindness),
Orthopedic Impairment, Traumatic Brain
Injury, Multiple Disabilities, Intellectual
Disability
High Incidence: Autism, Specific Learning
Disability, Other Health Impairment,
Speech/Language Impairment, Emotional
Disturbance
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
48
Table 11 continued
Variable
Subgroup Categories
Minimum Sample Size
Race/Ethnicity
White
63*
Black
Hispanic
Other (Multi-racial, Asian, Pacific Islander,
American Indian)
Student Age
Elementary School: Ages 5-10
17
Middle School: Ages 11-14
High School & Transition: Ages 15-19+
* The required sample size for survey responses is 63, which encompasses the minimum sample
sizes needed for the other demographic categories.
Validity
In addition to the use of an evidence-based survey, based on the work of Griffiths et al.
(2021), validity was also checked through a pilot study. A pilot study group was selected: two
special education supervisors, one school psychologist, and one school social worker. This group
assessed the survey and provided feedback to the researcher. Based on feedback received,
revisions were made to the survey.
If, after data collection, the minimum thresholds of five are met for the above subgroups,
a chi-square goodness of fit test will be run to determine if the sample is proportionally
representative of the subgroups of (a) Low Incidence and High Incidence, (b) White, Black,
Hispanic, and Other Race/Ethnicity, and (c) Elementary School, Middle School, and High
School and Transition. Such a measure of representativeness will determine the validity of the
study's actual sampling (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2017).
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
49
Reliability
The internal consistency of the Likert-type survey questions, as measured by Cronbach’s
alpha, will be calculated following data collection. A Cronbach’s alpha score will quantify the
degree to which the sets of statements for each domain of collaboration align, or, as Creswell and
Creswell (2018) state, how the instrument scale items “behave in the same way” (p. 154).
Cronbach’s alpha yields a score between 0 and 1, with the most desirable values falling between
.7 and .9 (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Qualitative Methods
Interview
At the end of the survey, participants will be asked if they would be willing to participate
in a voluntary interview to further elaborate on the Likert scale scores they provided and to
identify barriers and facilitators in each domain of collaboration. Through conducting these
interviews, the researcher seeks to “enter into the other person’s perspective” (Patton, 2015, p.
426) and make that perspective accessible and explicit to others as it can inform and shape
practices. The chosen structure for the interviews was a standardized open-ended interview over
the phone or through a virtual platform. This structure ensures that the questions and their
sequence are predetermined and entirely open-ended, allowing for their inspection by the
institutional review board. As a result, a high level of focus is maintained, allowing for efficient
time use, and responses are easy to compare (Patton, 2015).
Qualitative Data Analysis
Table 12 outlines the planned analysis for qualitative data.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
50
Table 12
Qualitative Analysis Plans
Qualitative Question
What barriers and facilitators of
parental collaboration exist for
parents of school-aged students
receiving special education
services, in each of the domains of
collaboration (i.e., open
communication, trust, mutual
respect, shared goals, common
understanding, shared
responsibility, active participation,
shared decision making, and
implementation)?
Data Analysis
Rationale
a. Interviews will be audio- a. Ensure accurate
recorded and transcribed
documentation of the
verbatim
participants' responses
b. Thematic analysis will
b. Identify recurring
take place in the following
concepts related to
steps:
collaboration and organize
1. Open coding to
qualitative findings in
identify barriers and
alignment with the study’s
facilitators
domains
2. Axial coding to
b. Provide insight into
organize codes into higher- what helps or hinders
level themes
3. Categorize themes
collaboration according to
parents
according to the domains
of collaboration
c. Compare responses
across participants to
identify patterns and
differences in experiences
Note. Data collected from interviews will be analyzed using thematic analysis procedures
outlined by Creswell and Creswell (2018).
Validity
Creswell and Creswell (2018) state that the qualitative validity of a study can be
determined through the application of specified procedures. Through these procedures, it is
determined if the findings of the study “are accurate from the standpoint of the researcher, the
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
51
participant, or readers of the account (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 199). To determine the
validity of the data collected for this study, the following procedures will be utilized: (a) audio
recordings and verbatim transcription of interviews to capture data accurately, (b) member
checking through the sharing of summarized data and themes derived from the interview with the
interviewee, and (c) peer debriefing by having an additional person review the qualitative data
collected and ask questions to ensure interpretation went beyond that of the researcher’s
perspective (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Reliability
Reliability of qualitative studies can be established through consistent procedural
approaches (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). For this study, the following will be used to maintain
the reliability of the data collected: (a) use of a consistent coding process (i.e., open coding
followed by axial coding) across all interview data collected, allowing for replication by other
researchers, (b) review of transcripts to check for obvious errors which may have occurred
during transcription, and (c) conducting interviews across multiple participants adhering to a
standard interview protocol where the same questions will be asked across all participants,
consistently (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The standard interview protocol, as established by
Creswell and Creswell (2018), is outlined as follows:
1. Basic information about the interview: Prior to the start of the interview, the interviewer
will record basic information for organizational purposes.
2. Introduction: Introduce the interviewer, state the purpose of the study and the structure of
the interview, address any questions, and define terms that will be used.
3. Opening question: Begin with an icebreaker question, preferably one that allows the
interviewee to talk about themselves.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
52
4. Content Questions: Questions known as the “research sub-questions of the study” (p.
191)
5. Using Probes: When elaboration of an interviewee's response is needed to obtain
additional, valuable information.
6. Closing Instructions: Thank the interviewee for their time and assure them of the
confidentiality of the interview
Integration Methods
Following the design of a convergent mixed methods study, the quantitative and
qualitative data will be collected separately and integrated during the integration phase. Through
the survey, quantitative data will be collected to quantify parents' perceptions of current
collaborative practices and provide insight into the value parents place on certain school-based
practices and the frequency with which they experience them. Interviews will provide the means
to collect qualitative data on the perceived barriers and facilitators that impact parents’
collaborative experiences.
Integration will be achieved through side-by-side comparisons to align the quantitative
data regarding parents' experiences with the themes and patterns identified in the collected
qualitative data. Specifically, the data will be organized based on the nine domains of
collaboration (i.e., open communication, trust, mutual respect, shared goals, common
understanding, shared responsibility, active participation, shared decision making, and
implementation), providing a structure in which to align all data collected regarding
collaborative practices in special education. This integrative approach is known as
methodological triangulation, which provides additional credibility and validity to the study
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
53
through the comparison and corroboration of data from multiple sources (Creswell & Creswell,
2018).
Procedures
Permissions and Preliminary
Prior to initiating data collection, superintendents from all school districts in the state of
Pennsylvania, except those in the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, will be contacted with a
request to participate in the study. A letter explaining the study (Appendix A) will be emailed to
each superintendent, explaining the purpose and scope of the research. Linked to the letter is a
form (Appendix B) to be completed, which informs the researcher of the participant's decision
regarding participation in the study. Upon receiving district-level approval, documentation will
be submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Slippery Rock University.
Survey
Following IRB approval (Appendix C), the researcher will contact the designated liaison
for each school district to distribute the survey. The liaison will be provided with the email
(Appendix D), including an introductory letter and a link to the survey, to send to the identified
population.
The survey will include a digital consent form (Appendix E) as the first screen. Those
participants who select “Yes” will be granted access to the full survey, and those who select
“No” will be exited from the form. The estimated completion time for the survey (Appendix F)
will be approximately 10 minutes. The survey will remain open for five weeks beginning in XX
2025. If the anticipated sample size is not met during that window, the district liaisons will be
asked to send a reminder email to the identified parent population. At the end of the survey,
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
54
participants will be invited to volunteer for a follow-up interview. Those who express interest
will be directed to a separate form where they can provide contact information.
Interview
Parents who indicated interest in being interviewed will be contacted via email or text
message to arrange a mutually convenient time and means (e.g., Zoom, Google Meet, or phone).
Before any interview takes place, a digital consent (Appendix G) form will be emailed to each
participant. This form will remind participants of the interview’s purpose, confidentiality
measures, potential risks, and their rights, specifically the right to withdraw at any time.
Interviews (Appendix H) will be conducted using a standardized interview protocol and
are expected to last around 15 minutes. With the participant's consent, the interviews will be
audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Throughout the interview process, participants will be
assured that all identifying information will be kept confidential and that data will be reported
anonymously in the final study.
Efforts will be made to recruit a diverse and representative parent sample from across the
state of Pennsylvania; however, limitations are anticipated. These limitations will be addressed in
Chapter Five.
Summary
As outlined in this chapter, the methodology that will be used to examine parents’
perceptions of school-based collaborative practices in special education will be a mixed-methods
design. This study intends to gain insight into how parents value specific collaborative practices,
how frequently they perceive experiencing them, and whether these perceptions vary based on
parent race/ethnicity, disability, and age. This design is well-suited to provide a deeper
understanding of the factors that influence parent-school collaboration and how they may be
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
experienced across families from diverse backgrounds. The findings from this mixed-methods
study will be presented and analyzed in the following chapters.
55
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
56
Chapter 4 – Results
Overview
The purpose of this convergent parallel design mixed-methods study was to explore
parental perceptions of school-based collaborative practices used for their school-aged students
receiving special education services. Specifically, this study examined the value that parents
place on specific collaborative practices, whether perceptions may vary based on parental race,
student disability, or student age, as well as the frequency with which parents experience these
practices. This study also aimed to identify the facilitators and barriers to collaboration between
parents and schools.
This chapter describes the data collected through the web-based survey and virtual
interviews. Data will be organized and presented in seven sections. Sections one through five
will present the quantitative results, while the qualitative results will be presented in the
remaining sections.
Section one will provide demographic data regarding the parents/guardians who
completed the survey and the students they answered about. To determine if the distribution of
respondents in these demographic categories differed from what would be expected, chi-square
goodness-of-fit analyses were conducted. These analyses help establish whether the sample is
representative of the broader population of school-aged students receiving special education
services.
Section two will present the reliability of the survey scales. Cronbach’s alpha (𝛼) was
calculated for each domain of collaboration. This test provides insight into the internal
consistency of the survey by providing a numerical representation of how closely related the
practices for each domain are.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
57
Section three will describe the responses to the questions regarding parents’ most valued
school-based practice for each of the domains of collaboration. This section will help answer
research question 1:What do parents believe to be the most valuable school-based practice in
each of the domains of collaboration (i.e., (a) open communication, (b) trust, (c) mutual respect,
(d) shared goals, (e) common understanding, (f) shared responsibility, (g) active participation,
and (h) shared decision making)? To determine if the distribution of responses differed from an
equal distribution, chi-square goodness-of-fit analyses were conducted.
Section four will present the relationship between demographics and the parents’ most
valued school-based practice for each of the domains of collaboration. This section will help
answer research question 2: Is there a relationship between demographics (i.e., (a) parents’
race/ethnicity, (b) student’s previous grade level, and (c) student’s disability category) and what
parents deem the most valuable school-based collaborative practice? Chi-square tests of
independence were conducted to determine whether the selection of specific practices differed
significantly across demographic groups.
Section five will present the rates at which parents experience the practices of each
collaboration domain when engaging with their school district. This section will help answer
research question 3: How often do parents experience the practices of each collaboration domain
when engaging with the school district regarding their student’s special education services?
Means and standard deviation are reported for each domain to summarize the average frequency
of experiences and the variability in parents’ responses.
Section six will provide the demographic data regarding the parents/guardians who
participated in the voluntary interviews.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
58
Section seven will summarize the interviews regarding the facilitators and barriers to
collaboration. Thematic analysis, which involves open coding followed by axial coding, will be
used to organize the data into themes based on the domains of collaboration. This section will
help answer research question 4: What barriers and facilitators of parental collaboration exist for
parents of school-aged students receiving special education services, in each of the domains of
collaboration?
Qualitative Results
Demographics
A single administration of the web-based survey was emailed to the designated district
liaison for the nine districts that gave consent for distribution. Survey responses were received
from 162 participants, of whom 160 completed the survey in its entirety. Table 13 presents the
parental race/ethnicity data for respondents. Table 14 presents the ages of the respondents’
students as of December 1, 2024. Table 15 presents the disability category under which the
respondents’ students were receiving special education services.
Table 13
Frequency Distribution of the Parental Race/Ethnicity
N
%
122
76.3
Black or African American
9
5.6
Hispanic or Latino
16
10
Other (Multi-racial, Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian)
8
5
Prefer not to answer
5
3.1
160
100
White
Total
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
59
Varying across the sample were the number of survey participants within each racial and
ethnic category. To allow for meaningful statistical analysis, categories with fewer than five
participants were combined. Even after collapsing, response counts ranged from 8 to 122. Survey
data were analyzed based on the responses provided to each question. As shown in Table 13, the
largest proportion of responses came from participants who identified as white.
Table 14 presents the observed and expected frequencies for the ages of students on
December 1, 2024. Those students aged 5 through 10 were classified as elementary school
students, those aged 11-14 were classified as middle school students, and those aged 15-19+
were classified as high school and transition-age students. The largest number of survey
responses came from parents of elementary school students.
Table 14
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies Distribution of Student Age
as of December 1, 2024
Observed
Frequency
Percentage
Expected
Frequency
Elementary School: Ages 5-10
102
63.8
62.5
Middle School: Ages 11-14
40
25
52.4
High School & Transition: Ages 15-19+
18
11.2
48.1
Total
160
100
163
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to evaluate whether the distribution of
student ages during the 24-25SY followed that of the school-aged special education population
of Pennsylvania. The null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that the distribution would match that of the
state of Pennsylvania. A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
60
of the age of students during the 24-25SY was significantly different from that of the schoolaged special education population in Pennsylvania, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
160
47.65, 𝑝
.001. Specifically, elementary-aged students were largely overrepresented while those in middle
school and beyond were underrepresented relative to state data, rejecting the null hypothesis.
These differences should be considered when interpreting the findings and assessing their
generalizability to the broader population.
Table 15 presents the observed and expected frequencies for student disability categories
provided by survey participants. The largest number of survey responses came from parents of
students classified as having a high-incidence disability, accounting for 75.6% of the responses.
Of the 160 survey participants, 7 reported their student’s disability as unknown.
Table 15
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Student Disability
Categories
Observed
Frequency
Percentage
Expected
Frequency
Low Incidence
32
20%
13
High Incidence
121
75.6%
140
Total (analytic sample)
153
95.6%
153
7
4.4%
--
160
100%
--
Unknown
Grand Total
Note. “Low incidence” = Deaf-Blindness, Hearing Impairment (including Deafness), Visual
Impairment (including Blindness), Orthopedic Impairment, Traumatic Brain Injury, Multiple
Disabilities, Intellectual Disability; “High incidence” = Autism, Specific Learning Disability,
Other Health Impairment, Speech/Language Impairment, Emotional Disturbance. Some
participants responded ‘unknown’ to their students’ disability category; therefore, the chi-square
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
61
analysis was conducted on 95.6% of the participants who provided a complete response. The
missing data were identified as randomly missing.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to determine whether the distribution of
student disability categories matched that of the school-aged special education population in
Pennsylvania. The null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that the distribution would match that of the state
of Pennsylvania. A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution of
the student disability categories was significantly different from that of the school-aged special
education population in Pennsylvania, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
153
30.32, 𝑝
.001, rejecting the null
hypothesis. Specifically, students with high-incidence disabilities were underrepresented, and
those with low-incidence disabilities were overrepresented relative to state data. These
differences should be considered when interpreting the findings and assessing their
generalizability to the broader population.
Survey Reliability
Table 16 presents the internal consistency of each collaboration domain as measured by
Cronbach’s Alpha. The analysis included all 160 survey participants who completed the items
for each domain. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from .895 to .950, indicating high internal
consistency for all measures.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
62
Table 16
Cronbach’s Alphas for Collaboration Domains
N
Items
Cronbach’s 𝛼
Open Communication
160
4
.931
Trust
160
5
.950
Mutual Respect
160
5
.895
Shared Goals
160
3
.934
Common Understanding
160
4
.949
Shared Responsibility
160
3
.930
Active Participation
160
3
.934
Shared Decision-Making
160
3
.899
Implementation
160
4
.944
Domain
These results suggest that the practices within each domain, as measured by reliability,
are focused on school-based collaboration. The high alpha values provide confidence as to the
consistency of the survey items within each domain, supporting the use of the resulting data in
analyses.
Most Valued Practices
Table 17 presents the observed and expected frequencies for parents’ most valued
practices related to open communication. The expected frequencies assume a uniform
distribution, where each practice would be equally likely to be selected.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
63
Table 17
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Open Communication
Domain
Observed
Practice
Frequency
Percentage
Expected
Frequency
Honest Comm.
109
68.1
40
Clear channels
22
13.8
40
Open disc.
16
10
40
Share knowledge
13
8.1
40
Total
160
100
160
Note. Percentages are based on the total sample (N = 160). Collapsed practice labels: “Honest
comm.” = Easily understood and honest communication between me and the members of the
school team; “Clear channels” = Easy and clear ways for me to communicate with the school
team; “Open disc.” = Open discussions with the school team when in disagreement with
something regarding my child’s special education services; “Share knowledge” = Opportunities
to share my knowledge (about my child and other topics) and ideas with the school team.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to determine whether the distribution of
open communication practices followed a uniform distribution. The null hypothesis (𝐻
stated
that parents would select each practice equally, indicating no preference among the four options.
A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution of open
communication practices differed significantly from an equal distribution. 𝑥 3 , 𝑁
159.75, 𝑝
160
.001. ‘Honest communication’ was chosen far more frequently than expected.
Table 18 presents the observed and expected frequencies for parents’ most valued
practices related to trust. The expected frequencies assume a uniform distribution, where each
practice would be equally likely to be selected.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
64
Table 18
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Trust Domain
Practice
Observed
Frequency
Percentage
Expected
Frequency
Best interests
86
54%
32
Process
36
23%
32
New ideas
16
10%
32
Reliable & consistent
16
10%
32
Sharing
6
3%
32
160
100%
160
Total
Note. Percentages are based on the total sample (N = 160). Collapsed practice labels: “Best
interests” = Each member of the special education team has my child’s best interests in mind;
“Process” = The team ensures I understand and am part of the process of planning for my child’s
special education services; “New ideas” = The team is open to new ideas and approaches I
present to help my child; “Reliable & Consistent” = All team members are reliable and
consistent when speaking about my child; “Sharing” = I can share knowledge and ideas with the
school team with the belief that I will not be judged.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to evaluate whether the distribution of
trust practices followed a uniform distribution. The null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that parents
would select each practice equally, indicating no preference among the five options. A
significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution of the trust practices
was significantly different from an equal distribution, 𝑥 3 , 𝑁
160
159.75, 𝑝
.001. ‘Best interests’ was chosen far more frequently than expected.
Table 19 presents the observed and expected frequencies for parents’ most valued
practices related to mutual respect. The expected frequencies assume a uniform distribution,
where each practice would be equally likely to be selected.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
65
Table 19
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Mutual Respect Domain
Observed
Practice
Frequency
Percentage
Expected
Frequency
Cultural background
11
7%
32
Compromise
18
11%
32
Conflict addressed
8
5%
32
Capable team
78
49%
32
Valued by team
45
28%
32
Total
160
100%
160
Note. Percentages are based on the total sample (N = 160). Collapsed practice labels: “Cultural
background” = My family’s cultural background and educational experiences are acknowledged
and understood by the team; “Compromise” = Compromise, when needed, takes place due to
team members’ flexibility and responsiveness to feedback; “Conflict addressed” = Conflict
between myself and team member(s) is addressed in a constructive and timely manner; “Capable
team” = The school team is capable of meeting my child’s needs; “Valued by team” = The
school team values my input and treats me as a team member.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to evaluate whether the distribution of
mutual respect practices followed that of an equal distribution. The null hypothesis (𝐻
stated
that parents would select each practice equally, indicating no preference among the five options.
A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution of the mutual respect
practices was significantly different from an equal distribution, 𝑥 4 , 𝑁
109.31, 𝑝
160
.001. ‘Capable team’ was chosen far more frequently than expected.
Table 20 presents the observed and expected frequencies for parents’ most valued
practices related to shared goals. The expected frequencies assume a uniform distribution, where
each practice would be equally likely to be selected.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
66
Table 20
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Shared Goals Domain
Practice
Observed
Frequency
Expected
Percentage
Frequency
Mutual goal setting
61
38%
53.3
Input valued
9
6%
53.3
Working together
90
56%
53.3
Total
160
100%
160.0
Note. Percentages are based on the total sample (N = 160). Expected frequencies were calculated
using the chi-square formula and are reported to the nearest decimal; small rounding differences
may occur. Collapsed practice labels: “Mutual goal setting” = Goals are mutually created and
agreed upon by all team members, including me as the parent; “Input valued” = My input in
creating goals is valued; “Working together” = The entire team works together toward helping
my child reach their goals.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to evaluate whether the distribution of
shared goal practices followed an equal distribution. The null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that parents
would select each practice equally, indicating no preference among the three options. A
significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution of the shared goals
practices was significantly different from an equal distribution, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
160
63.16, 𝑝
.001. ‘Working together’ was chosen far more frequently than expected.
Table 21 presents the observed and expected frequencies for parents’ most valued
practices related to common understanding. The expected frequencies assume a uniform
distribution, where each practice would be equally likely to be selected.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
67
Table 21
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Common Understanding
Domain
Observed
Practice
Frequency
Percentage
Expected
Frequency
Receptive team
40
25%
40
Clear roles
36
22%
40
Valued roles
9
6%
40
Everyone aligned
75
47%
40
Total
160
100%
160
Note. Percentages are based on the total sample (N = 160). Collapsed practice labels: “Receptive
team” = School team members are receptive to each other’s contributions, including mine as the
parent; “Clear roles” = Each team member’s role is clear and purposeful to my child’s special
education programming; “Valued roles” = The school team, me included, values the role of each
member of the team; “Everyone aligned” = The school team and I are aligned with what is best
for my child.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to evaluate whether the distribution of
common understanding practices followed that of an equal distribution. The null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that parents would select each practice equally, indicating no preference among the four
options. A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution of the
common understanding practices was significantly different from an equal distribution,
𝑥 3 ,𝑁
160
55.05, 𝑝
.001. ‘Everyone aligned’ was chosen far more frequently
than expected.
Table 22 presents the observed and expected frequencies for parents’ most valued
practices related to shared responsibility. The expected frequencies assume a uniform
distribution, where each practice would be equally likely to be selected.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
68
Table 22
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Shared Responsibility
Domain
Observed
Practice
Frequency
Percentage
Expected
Frequency
Roles performed
56
35%
53.3
Skills and resources
39
24%
53.3
Committed team
65
41%
53.3
Total
160
100%
160
Note. Percentages are based on the total sample (N = 160). Expected frequencies were calculated
using the chi-square formula and are reported to the nearest decimal; small rounding differences
may occur. Collapsed practice labels: “Roles performed” = Each team member accepts and
performs their role in my child’s special education plan; “Skills and resources” = I was made
aware of skills and resources that each team member brings to the collaboration; “Committed
team” = All team members are truly committed to the process.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to determine whether the distribution of
shared responsibility practices followed an equal distribution. The null hypothesis (𝐻₀ states
that parents would select each practice equally, indicating no preference among the three options.
A significance threshold of p < 0.05was used for all tests. The distribution of shared
responsibility practices differed significantly from an equal distribution, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
6.53, 𝑝
160
.038. ‘Committed team’ was chosen most frequently, with ‘roles performed’ chosen
just 6% less often.
Table 23 presents the observed and expected frequencies for parents’ most valued
practices related to active participation. The expected frequencies assume a uniform distribution,
where each practice would be equally likely to be selected.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
69
Table 23
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Active Participation
Domain
Observed
Practice
Frequency
Percentage
Expected
Frequency
Member contributions
73
46%
53.3
Active leaders
34
21%
53.3
Engaged members
53
33%
53.3
Total
160
100%
160.0
Note. Percentages are based on the total sample (N = 160). Expected frequencies were calculated
using the chi-square formula and are reported to the nearest decimal; small rounding differences
may occur. Collapsed practice labels: “Member contributions” = All team members contribute
different and valuable resources toward achieving the creation of my child’s special education
services; “Active leaders” = Leaders are actively involved in creating change or working toward
helping my child together with the team, myself included; “Engaged members” = All members
are actively engaged.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to determine whether the distribution of
active participation practices followed a uniform distribution. The null hypothesis (𝐻
stated
that parents would select each practice equally, indicating no preference among the three options.
A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution of the active
participation practices was significantly different from an equal distribution, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
160
14.26, 𝑝
.001. ‘Member contributions were chosen more frequently than expected.
Table 24 presents the observed and expected frequencies for parents’ most valued
practices related to shared decision making. The expected frequencies assume a uniform
distribution, where each practice would be equally likely to be selected.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
70
Table 24
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Shared Decision-Making
Domain
Observed
Practice
Frequency
Percentage
Expected
Frequency
Members encouraged
79
49%
53.3
Participation
32
20%
53.3
Understanding of process
49
31%
53.3
Total
160
100%
160.0
Note. Percentages are based on the total sample (N = 160). Expected frequencies were calculated
using the chi-square formula and are reported to the nearest decimal; small rounding differences
may occur. Collapsed practice labels: “Members encouraged” = Myself and all team members
are encouraged to provide input in the decision-making process; “Participation” = All members
participate in the decision-making process; “Understanding of process” = I am aware of and
understand the process for making decisions and implementing actions regarding my child’s
special education services.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to determine whether the distribution of
shared decision-making practices followed a uniform distribution. The null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that parents would select each practice equally, indicating no preference among the three
options. A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution of shared
decision-making practices differed significantly from an equal distribution, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
21.24, 𝑝
160
.001. ‘Members encouraged’ was chosen more frequently than expected.
Table 25 presents the observed and expected frequencies for parents’ most valued
practices related to implementation. The expected frequencies assume a uniform distribution,
where each practice would be equally likely to be selected.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
71
Table 25
Observed Frequencies and Percentages and Expected Frequencies for Implementation Domain
Practice
Observed
Frequency
Expected
Percentage
Frequency
Follow through
41
26%
40
Continued communication
45
28%
40
Continuous evaluation
51
32%
40
Responsiveness
23
14%
40
Total
160
100%
160
Note. Percentages are based on the total sample (N = 160). Collapsed practice labels: “Follow
through” = Each member follows through with their role in the implementation of my child’s
special education services; “Continued communication” = Team members continue to
communicate with me during the implementation of my child’s special education services;
“Continuous evaluation” = My child’s performance is continually evaluated for effectiveness
using a data-collection process; “Responsiveness” = If the chosen interventions are not effective
for my child, I am informed promptly and the team reconvenes.
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to determine whether the distribution of
implementation practices followed a uniform distribution. The null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that
parents would select each practice equally, indicating no preference among the three options. A
significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution of implementation
practices differed significantly from an equal distribution, 𝑥 3 , 𝑁
160
9.55, 𝑝
.023. While ‘continuous evaluation’ was chosen most often, it was closely followed by both
‘continued communication’ and ‘follow through.’
Summary of Most Valued Practices. As evidenced by significant chi-square goodnessof-fit results, all with a p-value of < .05, parents demonstrated clear preferences for certain
practices over others in each domain of collaboration. Honest communication was valued most in
the open communication domain. Within the trust domain, parents valued team members acting
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
72
with their child’s best interests in mind. The most valuable practice for mutual respect was a
capable team that worked together, the practice most valued under the shared goals domain.
Having every team member aligned was valued most in the domain of common understanding.
In the domain of shared responsibility, parents valued committed teams most, which was
followed closely by team members being able to perform their roles effectively. Member
contributions were most valued in the domain of active participation. In shared decision-making,
parents valued when members were encouraged to provide input, and continuous evaluation was
chosen most often for implementation. A common thread between the practices valued most by
parents is that they are honest, aligned with their own beliefs, committed to, and will collectively
work for the success of their child.
Demographics and Most Valued Practices
Chi-square tests of independence were used to examine the association between parent
race/ethnicity, student disability category, and student age, and parents’ most valued practices
across the nine domains of collaboration. Before conducting chi-square analyses, it was
necessary to review the distribution of responses across categories to ensure that all cell counts
met the test's assumptions. To address low counts, original practices were collapsed into 2-3
broader groups per domain of collaboration, as well as parent race/ethnicity. This ensured that all
expected counts met chi-square assumptions. Collapsing was not necessary for the student
disability category or age, as all expected counts for these variables met chi-square assumptions.
Table 26 presents the observed frequencies and percentages of parents’ most valued open
communication practices by parent race/ethnicity, student disability category, and student age,
along with the expected counts.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
73
Table 26
Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Open Communication Practices by
Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age
Race
Honest comm./
Open disc./
Clear channels
Share knowledge
White
101 (78.9) [100.7]
21 (77.8) [21.3]
122
Other
27 (21.1) [27.3]
6 (22.2) [5.7]
33
Total
128
27
155
High Incidence
97 (78.2) [98.1]
24 (82.8) [22.9]
121
Low Incidence
27 (21.8) [25.9]
5 (17.2) [6.1]
32
124
29
153
Ages 5-10
85 (64.9) [83.5]
17 (58.6) [18.5]
102
Ages 11-14
35 (26.7) [32.8]
5 (17.2) [7.3]
40
Ages 15-19+
11 (8.4) [14.7]
7 (24.1) [3.3]
18
131
29
160
Total
Disability
Category
Total
Age
Total
Note. Values are observed frequencies with column percentages in parentheses; expected
frequencies appear in square brackets. Race/ethnicity categories: “Other” = Hispanic or Latino,
Black or African American, Other: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian
or other Pacific Islander. Collapsed practice labels: “Honest comm.” = Easily understood and
honest communication between me and the members of the school team; “Clear channels” =
Easy and clear ways for me to communicate with the school team; “Open disc.” = Open
discussions with the school team when in disagreement with something regarding my child’s
special education services; “Share knowledge” = Opportunities to share my knowledge (about
my child and other topics) and ideas with the school team.
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine whether parent
race/ethnicity, student disability category, or student age was associated with the selection of the
most valued open communication practices. For each test, the null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that
there would be no association between the demographic variable and the parents’ selection of
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
74
practices; selections would be independent of these variables. A significance threshold of p <
0.05 was used for all tests. This distribution of responses did not differ significantly by
race/ethnicity, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
𝑥 1 ,𝑁
153
155
.0292, 𝑝
.017, 𝑝
.896 or by student disability category,
.589. There was a significant association between parents’ most
valued open communication practice and their students’ age, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
160
6.229, 𝑝
.044. Parents of older students are more likely to opt for open discussions and knowledge sharing
compared to parents of younger students. Overall, results suggest that students’ age plays a more
significant role in parents’ perceptions of open communication.
Table 27 presents the observed frequencies and percentages of parents’ most valued trust
practices by parent race/ethnicity, student disability category, and student age, along with the
expected counts.
Table 27
Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Trust Practices by Race/Ethnicity, Disability
Category, and Student Age
White, n (%)
73 (85.9%) [66.9]
Process/
New ideas/
Reliable &
Consistent/
Sharing
49 (70.0) [55.1]
Other, n (%)
12 (14.1) [18.1]
21 (30.0) [14.9]
32
85
70
155
High Incidence
64 (74.4) [67.9]
56 (84.8) [52.1]
120
Low Incidence
22 (25.6) [18.1]
10 (15.2) [13.9]
32
86
66
152
Best interests
Race
Total
Disability
Total
122
Category
Total
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
75
Table 27 continued
Best interests
Process/
New ideas/
Reliable &
Consistent/
Sharing
Total
Ages 5-10
53 (61.6) [54.8]
49 (66.2) [47.2]
102
Ages 11-14
24 (27.9) [21.5]
16 (21.6) [18.5]
40
Ages 15-19+
9 (10.5) [9.7]
9 (12.2) [8.3]
18
86
74
160
Age
Total
Note. Values are observed frequencies with column percentages in parentheses; expected
frequencies appear in square brackets. Race/ethnicity categories: “Other” = Hispanic or Latino,
Black or African American, Other: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian
or Other Pacific Islander. Collapsed practice labels: “Best interests” = Each member of the
special education team has my child’s best interests in mind; “Process” = The team ensures I
understand and am part of the process of planning for my child’s special education services;
“New ideas” = The team is open to new ideas and approaches I present to help my child;
“Reliable & Consistent” = All team members are reliable and consistent when speaking about
my child; “Sharing” = I can share knowledge and ideas with the school team with the belief that I
will not be judged.
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine whether parent
race/ethnicity, student disability category, or student age was associated with the selection of the
most valued trust practices. For each test, the null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that there would be no
association between the demographic variable and the parents’ selection of practices; selections
would be independent of these variables. A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used for all
tests. There was a significant association between parents’ most valued trust practice and
parents’ race/ethnicity, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
𝑥 1 ,𝑁
152
2.444, 𝑝
155
5.778, 𝑝
.016, but not by disability category,
.118 or student age, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
160
.862, 𝑝
.650.
Parents identifying as an ‘Other’ race/ethnicity category were more likely to select ‘process,’
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
76
‘new ideas,’ ‘reliable & consistent, ’ or ‘sharing’ over White parents. Overall, results suggest
that parent race/ethnicity plays a more significant role in parents’ perceptions of trust.
Table 28 presents the observed frequencies and percentages of parents’ most valued
mutual respect practices by parent race/ethnicity, student disability category, and student age,
along with the expected counts.
Table 28
Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Mutual Respect Practices by Race/Ethnicity,
Disability Category, and Student Age
Compromise/
Conflict
addressed
White, n (%)
Cultural
background/
Valued by team/
Capable team
107 (82.9)
15 (57.7) [20.5]
Total
122
[101.5]
Race
Other, n (%)
11 (42.3) [5.5]
22 (17.1) [27.5]
33
26
129
155
High Incidence
26 (100.0) [20.6]
95 (74.8) [100.4]
121
Low Incidence
0 (0.0) [5.4]
32 (25.2) [26.6]
32
26
17
153
Ages 5-10
18 (69.2) [16.6]
84 (62.7) [85.4]
102
Ages 11-14
8 (30.8) [6.5]
32 (23.9) [33.5]
40
Ages 15-19+
0 (0.0) [2.9]
18 (13.4) [15.1]
18
26
134
160
Total
Disability
Category
Total
Age
Total
Note. Values are observed frequencies with column percentages in parentheses; expected
frequencies appear in square brackets. Race/ethnicity categories: “Other” = Hispanic or Latino,
Black or African American, Other: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
77
or other Pacific Islander. Collapsed practice labels: “Cultural background” = My family’s
cultural background and educational experiences are acknowledged and understood by the team;
“Compromise” = Compromise, when needed, takes place due to team members’ flexibility and
responsiveness to feedback; “Conflict addressed” = Conflict between myself and team
member(s) is addressed in a constructive and timely manner; “Capable team” = The school team
is capable of meeting my child’s needs; “Valued by team” = The school team values my input
and treats me as a team member.
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine whether parent
race/ethnicity, student disability category, or student age was associated with the selection of the
most valued mutual respect practices. For each test, the null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that there
would be no association between the demographic variable and the parents’ selection of
practices; selections would be independent of these variables. A significance threshold of p <
0.05 was used for all tests. There was a significant association between parents’ most valued
mutual respect practice and parents’ race/ethnicity, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
student disability, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
153
8.284, 𝑝
155
8.235, 𝑝
.004 and
.004. Parents identifying as white and those
with students with high-incidence disabilities were more likely to select ‘cultural background,’
‘valued by the team,’ or ‘capable team’ over ‘compromise’ and ‘conflict addressed.’ The
distribution of responses did not differ significantly by student, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
160
4.052, 𝑝
.132. Overall, results suggest that parent race/ethnicity and the student’s disability play a more
significant role in parents’ perceptions of mutual respect.
Table 29 presents the observed frequencies and percentages of parents’ most valued
shared goals practices by parent race/ethnicity, student disability category, and student age, along
with the expected counts.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
78
Table 29
Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Shared Goals Practices by Race/Ethnicity,
Disability Category, and Student Age
Race
White, n (%)
Mutual goal
setting/
Input valued
50 (72.5) [54.3]
Other, n (%)
19 (27.5) [14.7]
14 (16.3) [18.3]
33
69
86
155
High Incidence
48 (68.6) [55.4]
73 (88.0) [65.6]
121
Low Incidence
22 (31.4) [14.6]
10 (12.0) [17.4]
32
70
83
153
Ages 5-10
48 (68.6) [44.6]
54 (60.0) [57.4]
102
Ages 11-14
15 (21.4) [17.5]
25 (27.8) [22.5]
40
Ages 15-19+
7 (10.0) [7.9]
11 (12.2) [10.1]
18
70
90
160
Total
Working together
Total
72 (83.7) [67.7]
122
Disability
Category
Total
Age
Total
Note. Values are observed frequencies with column percentages in parentheses; expected
frequencies appear in square brackets. Race/ethnicity categories: “Other” = Hispanic or Latino,
Black or African American, Other: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian
or other Pacific Islander. Collapsed practice labels: “Mutual goal setting” = Goals are mutually
created and agreed upon by all team members, including me as the parent; “Input valued” = My
input in creating goals is valued; “Working together” = The entire team works together toward
helping my child reach their goals.
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine whether parent
race/ethnicity, student disability category, or student age was associated with the selection of the
most valued shared goals practices. For each test, the null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that there
would be no association between the demographic variable and the parents’ selection of
practices; selections would be independent of these variables. A significance threshold of p <
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
79
0.05 was used for all tests. There was a significant association between parents’ most valued
shared goals practice and disability category, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
153
8.623, 𝑝
.003. Parents of
students with low-incidence disabilities were more likely to select ‘mutual goal setting’ or ‘input
valued’ compared to the expected distribution. The distribution of selections did not differ by
race/ethnicity, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
1.262, 𝑝
155
2.895, 𝑝
.089 or student age, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
160
.532. Overall, the results suggest that the disability category plays a more significant
role in shaping parents’ perceptions of shared goals.
Table 30 presents the observed frequencies and percentages of parents’ most valued
common understanding practices by parent race/ethnicity, student disability category, and
student age, along with the expected counts.
Table 30
Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Common Understanding Practices by
Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age
Race
Receptive team/
Clear roles/
Everyone aligned
Valued roles
White, n (%)
91 (82.0) [87.4]
31 (70.5) [34.6]
122
Other, n (%)
20 (18.0) [23.6]
13 (29.5) [9.4]
33
111
44
155
High Incidence
85 (78.7) [85.4]
36 (80.0) [35.6]
121
Low Incidence
23 (21.3) [22.6]
9 (20.0) [9.4]
32
108
45
153
Total
Total
Disability
Category
Total
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
80
Table 30 continued
Receptive team/
Clear roles/
Everyone aligned
Valued roles
Ages 5-10
72 (62.6) [73.3]
30 (66.7) [28.7]
102
Ages 11-14
29 (25.2) [28.8]
11 (24.4) [11.3]
40
Ages 15-19+
14 (12.2) [12.9]
4 (8.9) [5.1]
18
115
45
160
Total
Age
Total
Note. Values are observed frequencies with column percentages in parentheses; expected
frequencies appear in square brackets. Race/ethnicity categories: “Other” = Hispanic or Latino,
Black or African American, Other: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian
or Other Pacific Islander. Collapsed practice labels: “Receptive team” = School team members
are receptive to each other’s contributions, including mine as the parent; “Clear roles” = Each
team member’s role is clear and purposeful to my child’s special education programming;
“Valued roles” = The school team, me included, values the role of each member of the team;
“Everyone aligned” = The school team and I are aligned with what is best for my child.
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine whether parent
race/ethnicity, student disability category, or student age was associated with the selection of the
most valued common understanding practices. For each test, the null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that
there would be no association between the demographic variable and the parents’ selection of
practices; selections would be independent of these variables. A significance threshold of p <
0.05 was used for all tests. The distribution of selections did not differ significantly by
race/ethnicity, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
2.499, 𝑝
153
.032, 𝑝
.114, or student age, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
.857, disability category, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
160
.402, 𝑝
155
.818. Overall, results indicate
that parents’ perceptions of common understanding practices were independent of parent
race/ethnicity, student disability, and age.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
81
Table 31 presents the observed frequencies and percentages of parents’ most valued
shared responsibility practices by parent race/ethnicity, student disability category, and student
age, along with the expected counts.
Table 31
Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Shared Responsibility Practices by
Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age
Race
White, n (%)
Roles performed/
Skills and
resources
75 (82.4) [71.6]
Other, n (%)
16 (17.6) [19.4]
17 (26.6) [13.6]
33
91
64
155
High Incidence
78 (88.6) [69.6]
43 (66.2) [51.4]
121
Low Incidence
10 (11.4) [18.4]
22 (33.8) [13.6]
32
88
65
153
Ages 5-10
59 (62.1) [60.6]
43 (66.2) [41.4]
102
Ages 11-14
25 (26.3) [23.8]
15 (23.1) [16.3]
40
Ages 15-19+
11 (11.6) [10.7]
7 (10.8) [7.3]
18
95
65
160
Total
Committed team
Total
47 (73.4) [50.4]
122
Disability
Category
Total
Age
Total
Note. Values are observed frequencies with column percentages in parentheses; expected
frequencies appear in square brackets. Race/ethnicity categories: “Other” = Hispanic or Latino,
Black or African American, Other: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian
or Other Pacific Islander. Collapsed practice labels: “Roles performed” = Each team member
accepts and performs their role in my child’s special education plan; “Skills and resources” = I
was made aware of skills and resources that each team member brings to the collaboration;
“Committed team” = All team members are truly committed to the process.
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine whether parent
race/ethnicity, student disability category, or student age was associated with the selection of the
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
82
most valued shared responsibility practices. For each test, the null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that
there would be no association between the demographic variable and the parents’ selection of
practices; selections would be independent of these variables. A significance threshold of p <
0.05 was used for all tests. A chi-square test of independence indicated that parents’ most valued
shared responsibility practice did not differ significantly by race/ethnicity, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
1.808, 𝑝
.179 or by student age, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
160
.284, 𝑝
155
.868. There was a
significant association between the most valued shared responsibility practice and disability
category, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
153
11.425, 𝑝
.001. Parents of students with low-incidence
disabilities were more likely to value a ‘committed team’ over ‘roles performed’ or ‘skills and
resources,’ which was selected more often by parents of students with high-incidence disabilities.
Overall, the results suggest that the disability category plays a more significant role in shaping
parents’ perceptions of shared responsibility.
Table 32 presents the observed frequencies and percentages of parents’ most valued
active participation practices by parent race/ethnicity, student disability category, and student
age, along with the expected counts.
Table 32
Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Active Participation Practices by
Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age
White, n (%)
60 (84.5) [55.9]
Active leaders/
Engaged
members
62 (73.8) [66.1]
Other, n (%)
11 (15.5) [11]
22 (26.2) [17.9]
33
71
84
155
Member
contributions
Race
Total
Total
122
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
83
Table 32 continued
High Incidence
65 (94.2) [54.6]
Active leaders/
Engaged
members
56 (66.7) [66.4]
Low Incidence
4 (5.8) [14.4]
28 (33.3) [17.6]
32
69
84
153
Ages 5-10
50 (68.5) [46.5]
52 (59.8) [55.5]
102
Ages 11-14
19 (26.0) [18.3]
21 (24.1) [21.8]
40
Ages 15-19+
4 (5.5) [8.2]
14 (16.1) [9.8]
18
73
87
160
Member
contributions
Total
121
Disability
Category
Total
Age
Total
Note. Values are observed frequencies with column percentages in parentheses; expected
frequencies appear in square brackets. Race/ethnicity categories: “Other” = Hispanic or Latino,
Black or African American, Other: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian
or Other Pacific Islander. Collapsed practice labels: “Member contributions” = All team
members contribute different and valuable resources toward achieving the creation of my child’s
special education services; “Active leaders” = Leaders are actively involved in creating change
or working toward helping my child together with the team, myself included; “Engaged
members” = All members are actively engaged.
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine whether parent
race/ethnicity, student disability category, or student age was associated with the selection of the
most valued active participation practices. For each test, the null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that
there would be no association between the demographic variable and the parents’ selection of
practices; selections would be independent of these variables. A significance threshold of p <
0.05 was used for all tests A chi-square test of independence indicated that parents’ most valued
active participation practice did not differ significantly by race/ethnicity, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
2.628, 𝑝
.105 or student age, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
160
4.504, 𝑝
155
.105. There was a significant
association between the most valued active participation practice and disability category,
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
𝑥 1 ,𝑁
153
17.366, 𝑝
84
.001. Parents of students with low-incidence disabilities
were more likely to value ‘active leaders’ or ‘engaged members, ’ while parents of students with
high-incidence disabilities were more likely to value ‘member contributions.’ Overall, the results
suggest that the disability category plays a more significant role in shaping parents’ perceptions
of active participation.
Table 33 presents the observed frequencies and percentages of parents’ most valued
shared decision-making practices by parent race/ethnicity, student disability category, and
student age, along with the expected counts.
Table 33
Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Shared Decision-Making Practices by
Race/Ethnicity, Disability Category, and Student Age
Race
White, n (%)
Members
encouraged/
Participation
81 (75.7) [84.2]
Other, n (%)
26 (24.3) [22.8]
7 (14.6) [10.2]
33
107
48
155
High Incidence
91 (87.5) [82.2]
30 (61.2) [38.8]
121
Low Incidence
13 (12.5) [21.8]
19 (38.8) [10.2]
32
104
49
153
Ages 5-10
65 (58.6) [70.8]
37 (75.5) [31.2]
102
Ages 11-14
32 (28.8) [27.8]
8 (16.3) [12.3]
40
Ages 15-19+
14 (12.6) [12.5]
4 (8.2) [5.5]
18
111
49
160
Total
Understanding of
process
Total
41 (85.4) [37.8]
122
Disability
Category
Total
Age
Total
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
85
Note. Values are observed frequencies with column percentages in parentheses; expected
frequencies appear in square brackets. Race/ethnicity categories: “Other” = Hispanic or Latino,
Black or African American, Other: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian
or other Pacific Islander. Collapsed practice labels: “Members encouraged” = Myself and all
team members are encouraged to provide input in the decision-making process; “Participation” =
All members participate in the decision-making process; “Understanding of process” = I am
aware of and understand the process for making decisions and implementing actions regarding
my child’s special education services.
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine whether parent
race/ethnicity, student disability category, or student age was associated with the selection of the
most valued active participation practices. For each test, the null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that
there would be no association between the demographic variable and the parents’ selection of
practices; selections would be independent of these variables. A significance threshold of p <
0.05 was used for all tests A chi-square test of independence indicated that parents’ most valued
shared decision-making practice did not differ significantly by race/ethnicity, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
155
1.867, 𝑝
.172 or student age, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
160
4.256, 𝑝
.119. There was a
significant association between the most valued shared decision making practice and disability
category, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
153
13.902, 𝑝
.001. Parents of students with low-incidence
disabilities were more likely to value ‘understanding of process’ or ‘continual evaluation’. In
contrast, parents of students with high-incidence disabilities were more likely to value ‘members
encouraged’ or ‘participation.’ Overall, the results suggest that the disability category plays a
more significant role in shaping parents’ perceptions of shared decision making.
Table 34 presents the observed frequencies and percentages of parents’ most valued
implementation practices by parent race/ethnicity, student disability category, and student age,
along with the expected counts.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
86
Table 34
Observed Frequencies of Parents’ Most Valued Implementation Practices by Race/Ethnicity,
Disability Category, and Student Age
Race
White, n (%)
Follow through/
Continual
evaluation
70 (76.9) [71.6]
Continued
communication/
Responsiveness
52 (81.3) [50.4]
Other, n (%)
21 (23.1) [19.4]
12 (18.8) [13.6]
33
91
64
155
High Incidence
74 (84.1) [69.6]
47 (72.3) [51.4]
121
Low Incidence
14 (15.9) [18.4]
18 (27.7) [13.6]
32
88
65
153
Ages 5-10
61 (66.3) [58.7]
41 (60.3) [43.3]
102
Ages 11-14
24 (26.1) [23.0]
16 (23.5) [17.0]
40
Ages 15-19+
7 (7.6) [10.4]
11 (16.2) [7.7]
18
92
68
160
Total
Total
122
Disability
Category
Total
Age
Total
Note. Race/ethnicity categories: “Other” = Hispanic or Latino, Black or African American,
Other: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.
Collapsed practice labels: “Follow through” = Each member follows through with their role in
the implementation of my child’s special education services; “Continued communication” =
Team members continue to communicate with me during the implementation of my child’s
special education services; “Continuous evaluation” = My child’s performance is continually
evaluated for effectiveness using a data-collection process; “Responsiveness” = If the chosen
interventions are not effective for my child, I am informed promptly and the team reconvenes.
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine whether parent
race/ethnicity, student disability category, or student age was associated with the selection of the
most valued implementation practices. For each test, the null hypothesis (𝐻
stated that there
would be no association between the demographic variable and the parents’ selection of
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
87
practices; selections would be independent of these variables. A significance threshold of p <
0.05 was used for all tests. A chi-square test of independence indicated that parents’ most valued
shared decision-making practice did not differ significantly by race/ethnicity, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
155
.420, 𝑝
age, 𝑥 2 , 𝑁
.517, disability category, 𝑥 1 , 𝑁
160
2.875, 𝑝
153
3.138, 𝑝
.076, or student
.238. Overall, results indicate that parents’ perceptions of
implementation practices were independent of parent race/ethnicity, student disability, and age.
Summary of Demographics and Most Valued Practices. Chi-square tests of
independence were conducted to explore whether parents’ most valued collaborative practices
across the nine domains differed by their race/ethnicity, their student’s disability category, or
their student’s age. To meet test requirements, parental race/ethnicity groups and some practices
within domains were collapsed into broader groupings. Table 35 presents the domains and the
demographic categories that most strongly influenced them.
Table 35
Demographics and Most Valued Practices
Domain
Significant Demographic
Key Finding
Open
Student Age (p =.044)
Parents of older students more often
Communication
valued open discussion and
knowledge sharing.
Trust
Parent Race/Ethnicity (p = .016)
Parents identifying as “Other” were
more likely to value process, new
ideas, reliability, and sharing.
Mutual Respect
Parent Race/Ethnicity (p = .004)
White parents and those of students
Disability Category (p = .003)
with high-incidence disabilities
emphasized team capability and being
valued over conflict resolution.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
88
Table 35 continued
Domain
Significant Demographic
Key Finding
Shared Goals
Disability Category (p = .003)
Parents of students with low-incidence
disabilities prioritized mutual goal
setting and valued input.
Common
None
Understanding
Shared
No significant differences by race,
disability, or age.
Disability Category (p < .001)
Responsibility
Parents of students with low-incidence
disabilities valued a committed team;
those with high-incidence disabilities
emphasized the importance of roles,
skills, and resources.
Active
Disability Category (p < .001)
Participation
Parents of students with low-incidence
disabilities valued active leaders and
engaged members.
Shared
Disability Category (p < .001)
Parents of students with low-incidence
Decision-
disabilities prioritized understanding
Making
of the process.
Implementation
None
No significant differences by race,
disability, or age.
Parents’ perceptions of school-based collaborative strategies varied most by student
disability category, followed by race/ethnicity. Student age played a more minor but notable role.
Rates of Experiences
Table 36 presents the frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations of
parents’ reported experiences with open communication practices. The table summarizes the
frequency with which parents experienced each practice when interacting with their child’s
special education team during the 2024-2025 school year.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
89
Table 36
Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’ Reported Experiences of
Open Communication Practices
Practice
Never
n (%)
Rarely
n (%)
Sometimes
n (%)
Often
n (%)
Always
n (%)
M
SD
5 (3.1)
8 (5.0)
27 (16.9)
59 (36.9)
51 (38.1)
4.02
1.019
4 (2.5)
6 (3.8)
23 (14.4)
55 (34.4)
72 (45.0)
4.16
.975
6 (3.8)
9 (5.6)
38 (23.8)
44 (27.5)
63 (39.4)
3.93
1.094
5 (3.1)
8 (5.0)
30 (18.8)
48 (30.0)
69 (43.1)
4.05
1.051
Honest
comm.
Clear
channels
Open disc.
Share
knowledge
Note. Scores were measured on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always).
Frequencies represent parent responses with percentages in parentheses. M = Mean. SD =
Standard deviation. Collapsed practice labels: “Honest comm.” = Easily understood and honest
communication between me and the members of the school team; “Clear channels” = Easy and
clear ways for me to communicate with the school team; “Open disc.” = Open discussions with
the school team when in disagreement with something regarding my child’s special education
services; “Share knowledge” = Opportunities to share my knowledge (about my child and other
topics) and ideas with the school team.
Parents reported varying frequencies of experiencing different open communication
practices with their child’s special education team, with the majority occurring ‘often’ or
‘always.’ ‘Clear channels’ and ‘share knowledge’ were rated highest, with mean scores of 4.16
(SD=.975) and 4.05 (SD=1.051), respectively. This data indicates that open communication
practices are generally perceived as being consistently implemented. ‘Open discussions’ had
slightly lower ratings, suggesting this aspect of open communication could be enhanced. Overall,
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
90
these findings indicate that parents engage in most open communication practices at moderate to
high frequencies.
Table 37 presents the frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations of
parents’ reported experiences with trust practices. The table summarizes the frequency with
which parents experienced each practice when interacting with their child’s special education
team during the 2024-2025 school year.
Table 37
Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’ Reported Experiences of
Trust Practices
Never
n (%)
Rarely
n (%)
Sometimes
n (%)
Often
n (%)
Always
n (%)
M
SD
5 (3.1)
7 (4.4)
24 (15.0)
51 (31.9)
73 (45.6)
4.13
1.026
Process
5 (3.1)
3 (1.9)
28 (17.5)
50 (31.3)
74 (46.3)
4.16
.988
New ideas
4 (2.5)
11 (6.9)
33 (20.6)
54 (33.8)
58 (36.3)
3.94
1.036
6 (3.8)
10 (6.3)
27 (16.9)
51 (31.9)
66 (41.3)
4.01
1.084
4 (2.5)
11 (6.9)
25 (15.6)
51 (31.9)
69 (43.1)
4.06
1.044
Practice
Best
interests
Reliable &
Consistent
Sharing
Note. Scores reflect a 5-point scale. Frequencies represent parent responses with percentages in
parentheses. M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. Collapsed practice labels: “Best interests” =
Each member of the special education team has my child’s best interests in mind; “Process” =
The team ensures I understand and am part of the process of planning for my child’s special
education services; “New ideas” = The team is open to new ideas and approaches I present to
help my child; “Reliable & Consistent” = All team members are reliable and consistent when
speaking about my child; “Sharing” = I can share knowledge and ideas with the school team with
the belief that I will not be judged.
Parents reported varying frequencies of experiencing different trust practices with their
student’s special education team, with the majority occurring ‘often’ or ‘always.’ ‘Process’ and
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
91
‘best interests’ were rated highest, with mean scores of 4.16 (SD=.988) and 4.13 (SD=1.026),
respectively. This data indicates that trust practices are generally perceived as being consistently
implemented. ‘New ideas’ had slightly lower ratings, suggesting that his practice could be
improved upon. Overall, these findings indicate that parents engage in most trust practices with
moderate to high frequency.
Table 38 presents the frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations of
parents’ reported experiences with mutual respect practices. The table summarizes the frequency
with which parents experienced each practice when interacting with their child’s special
education team during the 2024-2025 school year.
Table 38
Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’ Reported Experiences of
Mutual Respect Practices
Practice
Never
n (%)
Rarely
n (%)
Sometimes
n (%)
Often
n (%)
Always
n (%)
M
SD
8 (5.0)
7 (4.4)
30 (18.8)
39 (24.4)
76 (47.5)
4.05
1.137
8 (5.0)
9 (5.6)
27 (16.9)
58 (36.3)
58 (36.3)
3.93
1.100
18 (11.3)
10 (6.3)
25 (15.6)
44 (27.5)
63 (39.4)
3.78
1.332
6 (3.8)
11 (6.9)
26 (16.3)
45 (28.1)
72 (45.0)
4.04
1.110
5 (3.1)
7 (4.4)
27 (16.9)
41 (25.6)
80 (50.0)
4.15
1.053
Cultural
background
Compromise
Conflict
addressed
Capable
team
Valued by
team
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
92
Note. Scores reflect a 5-point scale. Frequencies represent parent responses with percentages in
parentheses. M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. Collapsed practice labels: “Cultural
background” = My family’s cultural background and educational experiences are acknowledged
and understood by the team; “Compromise” = Compromise, when needed, takes place due to
team members’ flexibility and responsiveness to feedback; “Conflict addressed” = Conflict
between myself and team member(s) is addressed in a constructive and timely manner; “Capable
team” = The school team is capable of meeting my child’s needs; “Valued by team” = The
school team values my input and treats me as a team member.
Parents reported varying frequencies of experiences regarding mutual respect practices,
with the majority occurring ‘often’ or ‘always.’ Highest rated were ‘valued by team’ and
‘cultural background’ with mean scores of 4.15 (SD=1.110) and 4.05 (SD=1.137), respectively.
‘Conflict addressed’ had the lowest ratings, suggesting this practice could be improved. Overall,
these findings indicate that parents experience mutual respect fairly frequently.
Table 39 presents the frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations of
parents’ reported experiences with shared goal practices. The table summarizes the frequency
with which parents experienced each practice when interacting with their child’s special
education team during the 2024-2025 school year.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
93
Table 39
Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’ Reported Experiences of
Shared Goals Practices
Practice
Never
n (%)
Rarely
n (%)
Sometimes
n (%)
Often
n (%)
Always
n (%)
M
SD
4 (2.5)
6 (3.8)
29 (18.1)
44 (27.5)
77 (48.1)
4.15
1.011
4 (2.5)
10 (6.3)
27 (16.9)
48 (30.0)
71 (48.1)
4.08
1.043
3 (1.9)
6 (3.8)
25 (15.6)
43 (26.9)
83 (51.9)
4.23
.973
Mutual
goal
setting
Input
valued
Working
together
Note. Scores reflect a 5-point scale. Frequencies represent parent responses with percentages in
parentheses. M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. Collapsed practice labels: “Mutual goal
setting” = Goals are mutually created and agreed upon by all team members, including me as the
parent; “Input valued” = My input in creating goals is valued; “Working together” = The entire
team works together toward helping my child reach their goals.
The ratings ‘often’ and ‘always’ accounted for the majority of parent experiences for
each of the practices within the domain of shared goals. ‘Working together’ was rated highest,
with a mean of 4.23 (SD = 0.973), while the remaining practices still averaged above 4. Overall,
these findings suggest that parents engage in high rates of shared goal practices comparatively.
Table 40 presents the frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations of
parents’ reported experiences with common understanding practices. The table summarizes the
frequency with which parents experienced each practice when interacting with their child’s
special education team during the 2024-2025 school year.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
94
Table 40
Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’ Reported Experiences of
Common Understanding Practices
Practice
Never
n (%)
Rarely
n (%)
Sometimes
n (%)
Often
n (%)
Always
n (%)
M
SD
3 (1.9)
8 (5.0)
25 (15.6)
53 (33.1)
71 (44.4)
4.13
.979
2 (1.3)
10 (6.3)
22 (13.8)
54 (33.8)
72 (45.0)
4.15
.966
3 (1.9)
7 (4.4)
19 (11.9)
54 (33.8)
77 (48.1)
4.22
.949
4 (2.5)
12 (7.5)
22 (13.8)
48 (30.0)
74 (46.3)
4.10
1.059
Receptive
team
Clear roles
Valued
roles
Everyone
aligned
Note. Scores reflect a 5-point scale. Frequencies represent parent responses with percentages in
parentheses. M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. Collapsed practice labels: “Receptive team” =
School team members are receptive to each other’s contributions, including mine as the parent;
“Clear roles” = Each team member’s role is clear and purposeful to my child’s special education
programming; “Valued roles” = The school team, me included, values the role of each member
of the team; “Everyone aligned” = The school team and I are aligned with what is best for my
child.
‘Often’ and ‘always’ comprised the majority of parents’ responses to their rates of
experience with the practices of the common understanding domain. Rated to be experienced
most often was the practice of ‘roles performed’ with a mean of 4.13 (SD=.976), with
‘committed team’ also being rated on average higher than 4 with a mean of 4.09 (SD=1.030).
Rated as being experienced the least, but still between ‘sometimes’ and ‘often’ was ‘skills and
resources’ with a mean of 3.96 (SD=1.069). Overall, parents experience high rates of common
understanding practices with a relative weakness regarding skills and resources.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
95
Table 41 presents the frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations of
parents’ reported experiences with shared responsibility practices. The table summarizes the
frequency with which parents experienced each practice when interacting with their child’s
special education team during the 2024-2025 school year.
Table 41
Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’ Reported Experiences of
Shared Responsibility Practices
Practice
Never
n (%)
Rarely
n (%)
Sometimes
n (%)
Often
n (%)
Always
n (%)
M
SD
2 (1.3)
9 (5.6)
28 (17.5)
49 (30.6)
72 (45.0)
4.13
.976
5 (3.1)
9 (5.6)
37 (23.1)
45 (28.1)
64 (40.0)
3.96
1.069
4 (2.5)
9 (5.6)
27 (16.9)
49 (30.6)
71 (44.4)
4.09
1.030
Roles
performed
Skills and
resources
Committed
team
Note. Scores reflect a 5-point scale. Frequencies represent parent responses with percentages in
parentheses. M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. Collapsed practice labels: “Roles performed”
= Each team member accepts and performs their role in my child’s special education plan;
“Skills and resources” = I was made aware of skills and resources that each team member brings
to the collaboration; “Committed team” = All team members are truly committed to the process.
The majority of parents reported experiencing shared responsibility practices ‘often’ or
‘always.’ Receiving the highest rating (M=4.13 SD=,976) was ‘roles performed’ with 75.6% of
parents reporting experiencing this practice ‘often’ or ‘always.’ ‘Committed team’ was also
reported to occur ‘often’ or ‘always (M=4.09, SD=1.030). Though still rated positively, ‘skills
and resources’ was reported to occur 68.1% of the time. These findings suggest that the practices
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
96
of shared responsibility occur regularly with ‘roles performed’ and ‘committed team’ as slightly
stronger than ‘skills and resources.’
Table 42 presents the frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations of
parents’ reported experiences with active participation practices. The table summarizes the
frequency with which parents experienced each practice when interacting with their child’s
special education team during the 2024-2025 school year.
Table 42
Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’ Reported Experiences of
Active Participation Practices
Practice
Never
n (%)
Rarely
n (%)
Sometimes
n (%)
Often
n (%)
Always
n (%)
M
SD
3 (1.9)
7 (4.4)
30 (18.8)
53 (33.1)
67 (41.9)
4.09
.974
4 (2.5)
12 (7.5)
30 (18.8)
55 (34.4)
59 (36.9)
3.96
1.042
3 (1.9)
12 (7.5)
26 (16.3)
50 (31.3)
69 (43.1)
4.06
1.032
Member
contributions
Active
leaders
Engaged
members
Note. Scores reflect a 5-point scale. Frequencies represent parent responses with percentages in
parentheses. M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. Collapsed practice labels: “Member
contributions” = All team members contribute different and valuable resources toward achieving
the creation of my child’s special education services; “Active leaders” = Leaders are actively
involved in creating change or working toward helping my child together with the team, myself
included; “Engaged members” = All members are actively engaged.
Parents reported experiencing active participation practices at generally high levels. Most
responses indicated these practices occurred ‘often’ or ‘always.’ The highest-rated aspect was
member contributions (M = 4.09, SD = .974), with 76% indicating that it was frequently
observed. Receiving the lowest rating, relatively speaking, was ‘active leaders’ (M=3.96,
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
97
SD=1.042) with 74.4% reporting experiencing it ‘often’ or ‘always.’ These findings suggest that
parents perceive active participation practices as well established, with minimal differences in
ratings.
Table 43 presents the frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations of
parents’ reported experiences with shared decision-making practices. The table summarizes the
frequency with which parents experienced each practice when interacting with their child’s
special education team during the 2024-2025 school year.
Table 43
Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’ Reported Experiences of
Shared Decision-Making Practices
Practice
Never
n (%)
Rarely
n (%)
Sometimes
n (%)
Often
n (%)
Always
n (%)
M
SD
2 (1.3)
9 (5.6)
26 (16.3)
53 (33.1)
70 (43.8)
4.13
.963
5 (3.1)
6 (3.8)
30 (18.8)
48 (30.0)
71 (44.4)
4.09
1.030
3 (1.9)
4 (2.5)
29 (18.1)
49 (30.6)
75 (46.9)
4.18
.944
Members
encouraged
Participation
Understanding
of process
Note. Scores reflect a 5-point scale. Frequencies represent parent responses with percentages in
parentheses. M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. Collapsed practice labels: “Members
encouraged” = Myself and all team members are encouraged to provide input in the decisionmaking process; “Participation” = All members participate in the decision-making process;
“Understanding of process” = I am aware of and understand the process for making decisions
and implementing actions regarding my child’s special education services.
Parents reported frequently experiencing shared decision-making practices, with mean
ratings ranging from 4.09 to 4.18. Across all three practices, the majority of parents (73-78%)
indicated that they occurred ‘often’ or ‘always’, with ‘understanding of the process’ rated as the
highest.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
98
Table 44 presents the frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations of
parents’ reported experiences with implementation practices. The table summarizes the
frequency with which parents experienced each practice when interacting with their child’s
special education team during the 2024-2025 school year.
Table 44
Frequencies, Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of Parents’ Reported Experiences of
Implementation Practices
Practice
Follow through
Never
n (%)
4 (2.5)
Rarely
n (%)
11 (6.9)
Sometimes
n (%)
25 (15.6)
Often
n (%)
50 (31.3)
Always
n (%)
70 (40.3)
M
SD
4.07
1.047
7 (4.4)
20 (12.5)
30 (18.8)
40 (25)
63 (39.4)
3.83
1.206
6 (3.8)
15 (9.4)
27 (16.9)
44 (27.5)
68 (42.5)
3.96
1.146
13 (8.1)
21 (13.1)
34 (21.3)
34 (21.3)
58 (36.3)
3.64
1.310
Continued
communication
Continuous
evaluation
Responsiveness
Note. Scores reflect a 5-point scale. Frequencies represent parent responses with percentages in
parentheses. M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. Collapsed practice labels: “Follow through” =
Each member follows through with their role in the implementation of my child’s special
education services; “Continued communication” = Team members continue to communicate
with me during the implementation of my child’s special education services; “Continuous
evaluation” = My child’s performance is continually evaluated for effectiveness using a datacollection process; “Responsiveness” = If the chosen interventions are not effective for my child,
I am informed promptly and the team reconvenes.
Parents generally perceived implementation practices as occurring with moderate to high
frequency. ‘Follow through’ received the highest average rating (M=4.07, SD=1.047), while
‘responsiveness’ was rated lowest (M=3.64, SD=1.310), though it was still reported to be
experienced by a majority of the parents ‘often’ or ‘always.’
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
99
Summary of Rates of Experience. Across all domains, parents reported experiencing
collaborative practices with the child’s special education team at moderate to high frequencies,
with most practices rated as ‘often’ or ‘always’. The highest rated practices included clear
communication channels (M = 4.16), working together toward goals (M = 4.23), and
understanding the decision-making process (M = 4.18). The lowest, though still positive, ratings
were observed for responsiveness during implementation (M = 3.64) and addressing conflict (M
= 3.78). Overall, the data indicate that parents frequently experience the practices outlined in
each of the domains.
Qualitative Results
Demographics
Of the 160 participants who completed the survey, 54 indicated they were willing to
participate in an interview. Volunteers were contacted via text message or email and invited to
sign up for a 15-minute interview session scheduled for September 20 or 21, 2025. Thirteen of
the fourteen sessions were claimed, and ten of those sessions resulted in interviews. Due to
technical errors in recording two of the interviews, the researcher had eight remaining interviews
and transcripts from which to derive data.
Table 45 presents the parental race/ethnicity data for interviewees, the ages of their
students as of December 1, 2024, and the disability category under which their students were
receiving special education services.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
100
Table 45
Demographic Characteristics of Interview Participants (N=8)
Participant
Race/Ethnicity
Student Age
Disability Category
1
Black
16
Unknown
2
White
6
Unknown
3
White
5
Speech and Language Impairment
4
White
10
Autism
5
White
8
Special Learning Disability
6
White
14
OHI
7
White
6
Autism
8
White
11
Intellectual Disability
Facilitators and Barriers
In the interviews, participants were asked to identify any factors that supported or
hindered their collaboration with their students’ school-based team. Their responses were
categorized into either facilitators or barriers. Responses classified as facilitators were those that
the parent perceived as strengthening collaboration, while those responses identified as barriers
represented factors that created obstacles or weakened collaboration. Table 45 provides the
frequency of responses to facilitators of each of the nine domains of collaboration, and Table 46
provides the frequencies for barriers. These tables provide a visual representation of the patterns
that emerged from the interviews, while direct quotes and parent descriptions offer additional
context and depth to the frequency data.
Table 46 demonstrates that parents most often described positive experiences within the
domains of open communication, trust, and mutual respect. The parents who reported these
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
101
facilitators described practices that allowed them to both give and receive honest
communications, ensured their students’ best interests were prioritized, and affirmed their roles
as equal members of the team. A frequently mentioned as a facilitator was the accessibility of the
team, “I can reach out to them at any time I need to. They know they can reach out to me.” Trust
in the team supporting their child emerged as a critical factor. One parent shared that, for the first
time in a long time, she felt able to “take a deep breath,” expressing confidence that her child
was receiving the support they needed at school. A sense of mutual respect, both by and for
parents, as conveyed through the school’s actions, was also emphasized across interviews.
Several parents discussed how respect was conveyed by the school’s willingness to listen and
adjust practices. For example, one parent shared, “They wanted to put our student into strictly a
self-contained classroom, but when we said no, that’s not going to work for us, the school was
willing to adjust their approach.” Some domains, such as shared goals, common understanding,
shared responsibility, and shared decision-making, were mentioned less frequently; however,
when discussed, parents emphasized their importance to collaboration with the school team.
Collectively, these qualitative findings, supported by the frequency counts and direct quotes,
provide a deeper understanding of parents' experiences with facilitators of collaboration.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
102
Table 46
Frequency of Responses Regarding Facilitators for Domains of Collaboration
Participant
Domain
Open
1
2
X
3
4
5
X
X
X
X
X
6
7
8
Total
X
5
Communication
Trust
X
Mutual Respect
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
X
X
5
X
Shared Goals
1
Common
X
1
Understanding
Shared
X
1
Responsibility
X
Active Participation
Shared Decision-
X
X
3
X
1
Making
Implementation
X
X
X
X
4
In contrast, Table 47 provides the frequencies of barriers mentioned within the nine
domains of collaboration. While barriers were not discussed as frequently as facilitators, those
that were mentioned were primarily clustered in the areas of open communication and
implementation. A recurring theme was centered on how open communication between parents
and school personnel was sometimes perceived as combative. One parent explained, in reference
to requesting specific services, “And so the battle of that begins if you want a different
specialized service that is not suggested by one of their top-notch people, providing the proof and
the justification. And that’s, I think that’s the biggest hurdle anywhere.” Another parent
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
103
expressed similar concerns: “Do I put up a fight and try to get more services when this one OT
does 7th through 12th and is already overworked?” The mention of the Occupational Therapist’s
workload also reflects a barrier to the effective implementation of student services. A lack of
data collection was also identified as a barrier to implementing services, as progress data is
necessary to evaluate student growth and the effectiveness of their programming. One parent
remarked, “It sounds really great. We’re going to collect data. But I have seen most special
education settlements happening because there’s no data collected.” Although barriers in some
domains, such as mutual respect, shared goals, and active participation, were mentioned less
often, when they did occur, they had a significant negative impact on the parents’ perceptions of
collaboration. As one parent described, “As a parent, you have to play the game of request, know
the law, but act like you don’t know the law so that the school can still feel like they are in the
hierarchy above you.” Experiences such as this demonstrate how even infrequent barriers can
leave a lasting impression that shapes future interactions with the school team. Barriers, although
they arise less frequently than facilitators, can deeply undermine collaborative relationships
between families and schools.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
104
Table 47
Frequency of Responses Regarding Barriers for Domains of Collaboration
Participant
Domain
Open
1
2
X
X
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
X
3
Communication
Trust
X
Mutual Respect
X
1
Shared Goals
X
1
Common
X
X
2
X
2
X
2
X
1
Understanding
Shared
X
Responsibility
Active Participation
Shared Decision-
X
X
2
X
3
Making
Implementation
X
X
The facilitators and barriers identified by parents offer a more complex perspective on
collaboration between families and schools. Highlighted in tables 46 and 47 are the frequencies
at which parents mentioned facilitators or barriers, while the quotes provide depth to these
numbers. The findings suggest that practices within domains can act as either facilitators or
barriers, depending on how they are enacted by school personnel and perceived by parents.
Summary
This chapter presented the results of a web-based survey and virtual interviews
examining parents’ perspectives on school-based collaboration for students receiving special
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
105
education services. Survey responses (N = 162) and interviews (n = 10) revealed the schoolbased practices that parents value most, how these preferences vary by demographics, and the
frequency with which parents experience these practices in their interactions with school teams.
Across the nine collaboration domains, parents consistently prioritized open communication,
trust, mutual respect, shared goals, and active participation, with some variations depending on
the student's age, disability category, and the parent's race/ethnicity. Interview data supported
these findings, providing context for the survey results and insight into the facilitators and
barriers to effective collaboration. The data indicate that while parents generally experience
many collaborative practices positively, certain areas, such as implementation, require further
attention. These findings will be further discussed, including their implications for practices,
limitations, and recommendations in Chapter 5.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
106
Chapter 5 – Discussion
Overview
Despite years of legislative efforts and the work of dedicated teams of educators, students
with disabilities continue to underperform across academic areas when compared to their regular
education peers (NAEP, n.d.). Determined to be a vital factor in SWD’s success in-school and
post-secondary is the collaboration between stakeholders, specifically families and school
districts (Anderson-Butcher & Aston, 2004; Daaboul, 2022). Aware of the numerous benefits of
developing and maintaining collaborative relationships with parents of students with disabilities,
many models and frameworks have been designed to support schools in these endeavors.
Griffiths et al. (2021), building upon the work of others, created a universal model of
collaboration for schools, which was adapted for this study. Griffiths et al.’s model provided a
structure that could enable a deeper analysis of the key elements, referred to as domains
throughout the study, needed to be present to foster collaboration: (a) open communication, (b)
trust, (c) mutual respect, (d) shared goals, (e) common understanding, (f) shared responsibility,
(g) active participation, (h) shared decision-making, (i) implementation.
Figure 4 provides a visual representation of the logic of this study. By surveying parents
regarding their experiences and perceptions of the domains of collaboration, school-based
practices can be informed to better engage parents and improve outcomes for their students with
disabilities.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
107
Figure 4
Logic Model
To access these experiences and perceptions, the researcher developed survey and
interview questions based on previously established and successfully utilized parental
engagement questionnaires, as well as existing literature on collaboration, and Pennsylvania’s
State Performance Plan Indicator 8 – School-Facilitated Parent Involvement measure
(Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network, 2018). The data collected from the
survey and interviews were used to answer the following research questions:
1. What do parents believe to be the most valuable school-based practice in each of the
domains of collaboration (i.e. (a) open communication, (b) trust, (c) mutual respect,
(d) shared goals, (e) common understanding, (f) shared responsibility, (g) active
participation, (h) shared decision-making, and (i) implementation)?
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
108
2. Is there a relationship between demographics (i.e., (a) parents’ race/ethnicity, (b)
student’s age, (c) student disability category) and what parents deem the most
valuable school-based collaborative practice?
3. How often do parents experience the practices of each collaboration domain when
engaging with their school district regarding their student’s special education
services?
4. What barriers and facilitators of parental collaboration exist for parents of schoolaged students receiving special education services, in each of the domains of
collaboration?
In this chapter, the study's findings will be organized by research question, summarized,
and discussed, along with their implications for practice. Limitations of the study will be
addressed. Recommendations will be made regarding how the findings can be best utilized along
with implications for future research. In conclusion, the significance of this study and the
importance of continued research on school-based practices will be discussed.
Summary of Findings
Research Question 1
Parents were asked to identify their most valued school-based practice in each domain of
collaboration. As shown in Table 48, the most frequently selected practice in the domain of open
communication was “Easily understood and honest communication between me and the
members of the school team” (68.1%). Within the domain of trust, parents most often indicated
that “Each member on the special education team has my child’s best interests in mind” (54%).
Under the domain of mutual respect, parents most often chose “The school team is capable of
meeting my child’s needs” (49%). “The entire team works together toward helping my child
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
109
reach their goals” (56%) was identified as the most valued practice in the domain of shared
goals. Under common understanding, “The school team and I are aligned with what is best for
my child” (47%). The most frequent response in active participation, with 46% of responses, was
“All team members contribute different and valuable resources toward achieving the creation of
my child’s special education services.” Within shared decision-making, 49% reported valuing
“Myself and all team members are encouraged to provide input in the decision-making process.”
Lastly, under implementation, the most frequently chosen practice was “My child’s performance
is continually evaluated for effectiveness using a data-collection process” (32%).
Table 48
Parents’ Most Valued School-Based Practices Within Each Domain of Collaboration
Domain
Most Valued Practice
Number of Responses (%)
Open Communication
Easily understood and honest
109 (68.1%)
communication between me
and the members of the
school team.
Trust
Each member of the special
86 (54%)
education team has my
child’s best interests in mind
Mutual Respect
The school team is capable of
78 (49%)
meeting my child’s needs.
Shared Goals
The entire team works
together toward helping my
child reach their goals.
90 (56%)
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
110
Table 47 continued
Domain
Most Valued Practice
Number of Responses (%)
Common Understanding
The school team and I are
75 (47%)
aligned with what is best for
my child.
Shared Responsibility
All team members are truly
65 (41%)
committed to the process.
Active Participation
All team members contribute
73 (46%)
different and valuable
resources toward achieving
the creation of my child’s
special education services.
Shared Decision-Making
Myself and all team members
79 (49%)
are encouraged to provide
input in the decision-making
process.
Implementation
My child’s performance is
51 (32%)
continually evaluated for
effectiveness using a datacollection process.
Note. Percentages are based on the total sample size (N = 160).
From these most-valued practices, it is clear that parents desire clear and honest
communication from capable team members with whom they are aligned and who engage in
ongoing evaluation of their students’ progress.
Research Question 2
Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine if parent/race ethnicity or
student demographics (i.e., disability category and age) were associated with the most valued
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
111
practices within each collaboration domain. Table 49 highlights the variables that were found to
be associated with parents’ most valued practices.
Table 49
Summary of Chi-Square Tests of Independence by Domain and Demographic Variable
Domain
Race/Ethnicity
Disability Category
Student Age
Open
Fail to reject 𝐻
Fail to reject 𝐻
Reject 𝑯𝟎
Trust
Reject 𝑯𝟎
Fail to reject 𝐻
Fail to reject 𝐻
Mutual Respect
Reject 𝑯𝟎
Reject 𝑯𝟎
Fail to reject 𝐻
Shared Goals
Fail to reject 𝐻
Reject 𝑯𝟎
Fail to reject 𝐻
Common
Fail to reject 𝐻
Fail to reject 𝐻
Fail to reject 𝐻
Reject 𝑯𝟎
Fail to reject 𝐻
Communication
Understanding
Shared Responsibility Fail to reject 𝐻
Active Participation
Fail to reject 𝐻
Fail to reject 𝐻
Fail to reject 𝐻
Shared Decision-
Fail to reject 𝐻
Reject 𝑯𝟎
Fail to reject 𝐻
Fail to reject 𝐻
Fail to reject 𝐻
Fail to reject 𝐻
Making
Implementation
Note. 𝐻 = Null hypothesis. Rejecting 𝐻 indicates a statistically significant association between
the demographic variable and the valued practice within the domain.
As shown in Table 48, an association was found between race/ethnicity and the mostvalued practices in the domains of trust and mutual respect. Disability category was associated
with mutual respect, shared goals, shared responsibility, and shared decision-making. The only
domain to be associated with student age was open communication. For all other domains and
demographic variables, no statistically significant associations were found.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
112
Research Question 3
Table 50 presents the means and standard deviations for parents’ reported experiences
across the nine domains of collaboration.
Table 50
Means and Standard Deviations of Parent Experiences Across Collaboration Domains
Domain
M
SD
Open Communication
4.03
.942
Trust
4.05
.945
Mutual Respect
3.98
.965
Shared Goals
4.15
.948
Common Understandings
4.15
.921
Shared Responsibility
4.05
.960
Active Participation
4.03
.955
Shared Decision-Making
4.13
.893
Implementation
3.87
1.093
Note. Scores reflect a 5-point scale.
Mean scores across domains were all close to 4.0, suggesting that parents generally
perceived collaborative practices as occurring frequently. Receiving the highest ratings were
‘shared goals’ (M=4.15, SD=.948) and ‘common understanding’ (M=4.15, SD=.921), while
‘implementation’ was rated lowest (M=3.87, SD=1.093). While all domains were experienced
positively, parents identified slightly stronger experiences of ‘shared goals’ and ‘common
understanding’ compared to ‘implementation.’
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
113
Research Question 4
In the interviews, parents identified factors that either facilitated or hindered
collaboration with their students’ school-based teams. Facilitators were practices that assisted or
strengthened collaboration, while barriers were practices that created challenges and obstacles to
collaboration. Across the nine domains, parents frequently described positive experiences with
open communication, trust, and mutual respect. Mentioned less often, but still important, were
shared goals, common understanding, shared responsibility, and shared decision-making.
Reported at a much lower rate were the barriers parents experienced when collaborating
with school teams. Although these were reported less frequently, they still have a notable impact,
especially in the domains of open communication and implementation. Parents reported
challenges with combative interactions, limited personnel, and insufficient data collection to
support decision-making. Mutual respect and active participation were less frequently cited as
barriers; however, they still had the potential to influence parents’ perceptions of collaboration
negatively.
Discussion and Implications of Findings
Research Question 1
Effective collaboration in schools requires both structure and engagement with parents.
Griffiths et al. (2021) describe collaboration as a set of interdependent building blocks. As shown
in Figure 5, trust, open communication, and mutual respect are necessary for relationship
building; shared goals and common understanding foster shared values; active engagement is
grounded in shared responsibilities and active participation; and collaboration is enabled by
shared decision-making and implementation. These elements are non-linear, allowing the teams
to revisit foundational components as needed to enhance collaboration.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
114
Figure 5
Building Blocks of Collaboration
Parents' perspectives reflect and extend these principles. Based upon these most-valued
practices from research question 1, parents desire collaboration with the school team to be
characterized by transparent and comprehensible communication, collective commitment, and a
shared understanding of what is in the best interest of their student. They value team members
who align with goals, demonstrate the capability to meet their students' needs, and contribute
their knowledge to the development and implementation of the IEP. These findings suggest that
collaboration is most effective when parents are included as active participants in the decisionmaking process, a finding supported by the work of Christenson (2003) and Epstein (2018).
Additionally, ongoing evaluation of student progress through data collection ensures instruction
remains effective and responsive to individual needs (Turnbull et al., 2018). The data indicate
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
115
that successful collaboration is dependent upon structural processes and the quality of
relationships between families and schools (Cowan et al., 2004; Epstein, 2001).
Research Question 2
Race/Ethnicity. Parents identifying as white were more likely to select those practices
more closely associated with being recognized and respected by the team, such as ‘cultural
background,’ ‘valued by the team,’ or ‘capable team.’ Viewed as less valuable were the practices
related to compromise and addressing conflict. In contrast, parents identifying as an ‘Other’
race/ethnicity category were more likely to select ‘process,’ ‘new ideas,’ ‘reliable & consistent, ’
or ‘sharing.’ This difference in preferences suggests that parents’ race/ethnicity can influence
their desired collaborative experiences, specifically regarding how the team functions and their
behaviors (Harry et al., 1995; Kalyanpur et al., 2000; Trainor, 2010; Turnbull & Turnbull, 2021).
Student Age. Student age also influenced parents’ perceptions of collaborative practices.
Parents of older students are more likely to opt for ‘open discussions’ and ‘knowledge sharing’
compared to parents of younger students. The shift in practices can be viewed as necessary to
facilitate more dialogue between the school team and students as they get older. This aligns with
research, which suggests that families and educators adjust their collaborative practices as
students progress through grade levels, with a greater emphasis on how to best prepare students
for life post-secondary (Christenson, 2003; Epstein, 2001).
Disability Category. Most valued practices also differed by the student’s disability
category. Parents of students with low-incidence disabilities were more likely to value the
practices of ‘committed team,’ ‘active leaders,’ ‘engaged members,’ ‘understanding of process,’
‘continual evaluation,’ ‘mutual goal setting, and ‘input valued. Parents with students with highincidence disabilities were more likely to select ‘cultural background,’ ‘valued by the team,’
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
116
‘capable team,’ ’ member contributions,’ ‘members encouraged,’ and ‘participation.’ These
findings suggest that parents of students with more complex needs look for teams that are
consistent, committed, and engaged, while parents of high-incidence disabilities may focus more
on functionality and clear responsibilities (Blair et al., 2011; Mueller & Vick, 2019; Griffiths et
al., 2021; Turnbull & Turnbull, 2021).
These results suggest that demographic factors, including race/ethnicity, disability
category, and student age, can influence which collaborative practices parents value most. The
implications of these associations will be discussed later in this chapter.
Research Question 3
The mean scores for rates of experience across the collaboration domains were all close
to 4.0, indicating that parents generally experienced these collaborative practices as occurring
‘often’ when engaging with the school district regarding their student’s special education
services. Shared goals and a common understanding received the highest ratings (M = 4.15, SD =
.948; M = 4.15, SD = .921, respectively), while implementation was rated slightly lower (M =
3.87, SD = 1.093). These findings suggest that parents generally experienced higher rates of
practices in areas such as shared goals and common understanding. (Christenson, 2003; Epstein,
2001). Meaningful engagement is most successful when parents perceive the school team to be
aligned with their goals and objectives for their student, strengthening their trust and respect for
the school team (Turnbull& Turnbull, 2021).
The slightly lower mean for implementation suggests that parents perceive the school's
actions to be less consistent than desired. Although this may not always be the case, schools may
not consistently implement practices that are as visible to parents. This aligns with previous
findings that emphasize the importance of consistent collaborative planning and observable
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
117
actions on the part of the school team (Blair et al., 2011; Mueller & Vick, 2019). Such results
highlight the importance of involving parents in decision-making and planning, as well as
providing visibility of the school's follow-through.
These results indicate an overall positive experience with collaborative practices,
particularly in the areas of mutual understanding and shared objectives. While implementation
does not trail far behind, results indicate some room for improvement.
Research Question 4
In interviews, parents reported that collaboration was generally strengthened by open
communication, trust, and mutual respect, which allowed them to feel heard and valued in the
IEP process (Christenson, 2003; Turnbull & Turnbull, 2021). Shared goals, common
understanding, shared responsibility, and shared decision-making also support collaboration
(Ishimaru, 2011; Mueller & Vick, 2019), though these were mentioned less frequently.
Barriers were not mentioned as often as facilitators, but when shared, could be
categorized under the domains of open communication and implementation. Specific to
implementation, combative interactions, limited personnel, and insufficient data to inform and
guide decisions were mentioned as challenges. When parents perceive lapses in mutual respect or
active participation, collaboration can be impacted (Harry et al., 1995; Blair et al., 2011).
Schools need to strike a balance between addressing barriers and reinforcing facilitators; when
such actions are taken, they can help them establish more meaningful partnerships with families
(Christenson, 2003; Griffiths et al., 2021).
Recommendations
Table 51 provides the recommended practices based upon the findings for each of the
four research questions.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
118
Table 51
Implication of Findings by Research Question
Research Question
Key Findings
Recommendations
Supporting
References
RQ1: Most-valued
Parents desire open
-Provide structural
Christenson (2003);
school-based
communication,
supports (shared decision-
Epstein (2001);
collaborative
shared commitment
making, implementation)
Turnbull &
practice
and understanding,
while also attending to
Turnbull (2021);
and active
relational practices (trust,
Cowan et al.
participation by all
open communication,
(2004); Griffiths et
team members.
mutual respect)
al. (2021)
-Include parents in all
decision-making
RQ2: Influence of
Parents'
-Design engagement
Harry et al. (1995).
demographics on
race/ethnicity,
strategies to be reflective
Kalyanpur et al.
collaborative
student age, and
and mindful of family
(2000); Trainor
practices
disability category
demographics.
(2010); Blair et al.
influence their
-Make shifts in practices
(2011); Mueller &
preferred
as students progress in
Vick (2019);
collaborative
age.
Griffiths et al.
practices.
-Maintain a focus on the
(2021);
complexity of student
Turnbull &
needs in planning.
Turnbull (2021)
RQ3: Parent
High ratings for
-Increase the visibility and Blair et al. (2011);
experiences with
shared goals and
consistency of school
Mueller & Vick
collaboration
understanding;
actions.
(2019); Christenson
slightly lower for
-Strengthen school
(2003); Epstein
implementation.
follow-through with any
(2001)
devised plans.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
119
Table 50 continued
Research Question
Key Findings
Recommendations
Supporting
References
RQ4: Facilitators
Facilitators: open
-Monitor and address
Christenson (2003);
and barriers to
communication,
barriers while reinforcing
Griffiths et al.
collaboration
trust, and mutual
facilitators.
(2021); Harry et al.
respect.
-Adjust structural goals
(1995); Blair et al.
Barriers: open
and relational approaches
(2011)
communication,
to fit the needs of the
implementation
parents.
Schools can enhance their collaborative practices by tailoring their use of relational and
structural supports to fit the needs of their families. Demographics and student needs should
always be driving factors in how schools’ approach and structure collaboration with parents of
students receiving special education services.
Limitations
In addition to the limitations identified in Chapter One, additional limitations emerged as
the study progressed. The most impactful factor on the results of this study was the small sample
size. Of the more than 500 districts in the state of Pennsylvania, only nine gave consent for the
study to take place in their district. This limited the overall participation rate and restricted the
diversity of participants, each with their own perspectives and experiences to study.
Further impacting the actual representativeness of the results was the sample that
participated in the study. Of the 160 who completed the survey, it was determined that they could
not be deemed representative of either the state’s student population, based on age, or the
disability category. The results derived from this sample must be both interpreted and
generalized with caution, as they only reflect a small, non-representative sample.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
120
An additional limitation is that the survey is self-selecting, meaning parents choose
whether to participate in it (Reja et al., 2013). Those who participated may have had stronger
opinions, more varied experiences, or greater flexibility in completing the survey than those who
did not, potentially skewing the findings (Reja et al., 2003). The study’s findings may not be
entirely representative of parents who do not hold extreme opinions, have had a range of
experiences, or have the time to participate, thus limiting the generalizability of the results to the
larger population of families with students receiving special education services across the state.
Implications for Future Research
The results of this study highlight the value of exploring parental perceptions of schoolbased collaborative services and can serve as a springboard for further research. A deeper dive
into parental experiences across a broader and more diverse population, including families from
historically underserved or marginalized communities, could provide greater insight into how
collaborative practices are perceived across districts, communities, and cultural backgrounds.
This study found that parents’ preferences and perceptions change over time.
Longitudinal research could provide insight into how these perceptions evolve as students
progress through grade levels or schools and how they may shift in response to the
implementation of new school-based collaborative practices.
Future studies might also consider surveying other stakeholders such as teachers,
administrators, and specialists. By comparing perspectives across these groups, determinations
can be made regarding the alignment or discrepancies between parents and the school’s special
education team. With a deeper understanding of these differences in perspectives, targeted
professional development could take place to develop a greater empathy for what each
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
121
stakeholder is experiencing, potentially resulting in strengthened relationships and improved
communication.
Further research could also determine the effectiveness of specific collaboration
practices, such as digital communication platforms or varying the frequency and length of
communications. Experimental designs could measure parent engagement before and after
implementation, providing evidence of what practices most effectively support collaboration.
There are many options for future research beyond those listed here, but a common
thread connects them all. This commonality is the collection of additional, varied data to develop
more consistent, equitable, and valuable collaborative relationships between parents and school
teams.
Summary
This study examined parents’ perceptions of school-based collaborative practices.
Specifically, the value they place on the practices within each of these domains, the frequency at
which these practices occur, and the facilitators and barriers that impact collaboration with the
school-based team. The value that parents placed on these practices was influenced by
demographic factors, including parents’ race/ethnicity, student age, and disability category.
Parents generally reported positive experiences across the practices of collaboration; a few areas
needing improvement were also identified. Schools seeking to maintain or improve upon their
collaborative practices should focus on both their structural and relational approaches as they
continue to work with parents of students with disabilities. The findings, despite the limitations,
provide insight for school districts seeking to improve collaboration and, thus, the academic and
post-secondary success of students with disabilities.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
122
References
Ahmad, S., Wasim, A., Irfan, S., Gogoi, S., Srivastava, A., & Farheen, Z. (2019). Qualitative v/s.
quantitative research: A summarized review. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine and
Healthcare, 6(43), 2828-2832. https://doi.org/10.18410/jebmh/2019/587
Anderson-Butcher, D., & Ashton, D. (2004). Innovative models of collaboration to serve
children, youths, families, and communities. Children & Schools, 26(1), 39-53.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/26.1.39
Blair K. S., Lee I. S., Cho S. J., Dunlap G. (2011). Positive behavior support through familyschool collaboration for young children with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 31, 22–36.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson, J., Handbook of theory and research
for the sociology of education. (pp. 241-258). Greenwood.
https://www.socialcapitalgateway.org/sites/socialcapitalgateway.org/files/data/paper/201
6/10/18/rbasicsbourdieu1986-theformsofcapital.pdf
Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative
studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195-207.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/001440290507100205
Brown, E. (2016). Technical glitches plague computer-based standardized tests nationwide.
Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/technicalglitchesplague-computer-based-standardized-tests-nationwide/2016/04/13/21178c7e-019c-1 1e69203-7b8670959b88_story.html
Burke, M. M. (2013). Improving parental involvement: Training special education advocates.
Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23(4), 225-234.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207311424910
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
123
Cambridge University Press & Assessment. (n.d.). Collaboration. In Cambridge.com dictionary.
Retrieved March 1, 2025, from
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/collaboration
Carnevale, A. & Fry, R. (2000). Crossing the great divide: Can we achieve equity when
generation y goes to college? Educational Testing Service.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242511568_Crossing_the_Great_Divide_Can_
We_Achieve_Equity_When_Generation_Y_Goes_to_College
Center for Parent Information and Resources. (2017). Key definitions in IDEA: A reference list.
Office of Special Education Program. https://www.parentcenterhub.org/wpcontent/uploads/repo_items/brief-fape-reference-list.pdf
Chang, W. H. (2021). Experiences and perceptions of parents of youth with disabilities toward
school-based parent engagement strategies. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of
North Carolina at Charlotte).
Christenson, S. L. (2003). The family-school partnership: An opportunity to promote the learning
competence of all students. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(4), 454482. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.4.454.26995
Community and Youth Collaborative Institute [CAYCI]. (2019). Family engagement and support.
https://cdnsm5ss10.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_123349/File/C3%20Committee/1-1619%20Ohio%20Resources%20-%20Family-Engagement-and-Support.pdf
Cowan, R. J., Swearer Napolitano, S. M., & Sheridan, S. M. (2004). Home-school collaboration.
Educational Psychology Papers and Publications, 2, 201-208.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-657410-3/00776-5
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
124
Cox D. D. (2005). Evidence-based interventions using home-school collaboration. School
Psychology Quarterly, 20, 473–497.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
method approaches. (5th ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J.W. and Miller, D.L. (2000) Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into
Practice, 39, 124-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
Daaboul, D. (2022). Expanding parental involvement in education: How social media and online
communication affect the family-school relationship. Special Education, 1(43), 32833299. http://sumc.lt/index.php/se/article/view/389/351
Edgerton, A. K., & Desimone, L. M. (2019). Mind the gaps: Differences in how teachers,
principals, and districts experience college- and career-readiness policies. American
Journal of Education, 125(4), 593-619. https://doi.org/10.1086/704099
Epstein J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and
improving schools. Westview Press.
Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent
involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. The Elementary School
Journal, 91(3), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1086/461656
Esler A., Godber Y., Christenson S. L. (2008). Best practices in supporting school-family
partnerships. In Thomas A., Grimes J. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp.
917–1120). National Association of School Psychologists.
Ferlazzo, L. (2011). Involvement or engagement?. Educational Leadership, 68(8), 10-14.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
125
Gardner, D. B., & Cary, A. (1999). Collaboration, conflict, and power: Lessons for case
managers. Family & Community Health, 22(3), 64-77. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003727199910000-00007
Goodall, J. (2017). Learning-centered parental engagement: Freire reimagined. Educational
Review, 70(5), 603–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191B1.2017.1358697
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnu, L. B. (2017). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. (10th ed.).
Cengage.
Griffiths, A-J., Alsip, J., Hart, S. R., Round, R. L., & Brady, J. (2021). Together we can do so
much: A systematic review and conceptual framework of collaboration in schools.
Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 36(1), 59-85.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573520915368
Kiger, M. E., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data. Medical Teacher,
42(8), 846-854. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030
Harry, B., Allen, N., & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Communication versus compliance: AfricanAmerican parents' involvement in special education. Exceptional Children, 61(4), 364377. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299506100405
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their
children's education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–
42. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170618
Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Walker, J.M.T., Sandler, H.M., Whetsel, D., Green, C.L., Wilkins, A.S.,
& Closson, K.E. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and
implications. Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105-130.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
126
Hughes, J. L., Camden, A. A., Yangchen, T., Smith, G. P. A., Domenech Rodriguez, M. M.,
Rouse, S. V., McDonald, C. P., & Lopez, S. (2022). Guidance for researchers when using
inclusive demographic questions for surveys: Improved and updated questions. Psi Chi
Journal of Psychological Research, 27(4), 232-317. https://doi.org/10.24839/23257342.JN27.4.232
Ishimaru, A. M. (2011). From family engagement to equitable collaboration. Educational Policy,
33(2), 350-385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904817691841
Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained.
British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396-403. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975
Kalyanpur, M., Harry, B., & Skrtic, T. (2000). Equity and advocacy expectations of culturally
diverse families’ participation in special education. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 47(2), 119-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/713671106
Katanyoutanant, T., Kwon, S., McNeilly, M., Hemberg, B., Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S.,
Hinkle, A. R., & Liu, K. K. (2021). The 95 percent state assessment participation
requirement: Current landscape, state challenges, and recommended strategies. National
Center on Educational Outcomes. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED616096.pdf
Kessler-Sklar, S. L., & Baker, A. J. L. (2000). School district parent involvement policies and
programs. The Elementary School Journal, 101(1), 101-118. https://doi-org.proxysru.klnpa.org/10.1086/499661
Kiger, M. E., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data. Medical Teacher,
42(8), 846-854. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
127
Krathwohl, D. R., & Smith, N. L. (2005). How to prepare a dissertation proposal: Suggestions
for students in education & the social and behavioral sciences. Syracuse University
Press.
Lammert, J., Moore, H., & Bitterman, A. (2018). IDC parent involvement toolkit: Making the
most of parent involvement data: Improving quality and enhancing understanding. IDEA
Data Center. https://www.ideadata.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/201903/IDC_Parent_Involvement_Toolkit.pdf
Lawson, H. A. (1999). Two frameworks for analyzing relationships among school communities,
teacher education, and interprofessional education and training programs. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 26(4), 9-30. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23478190
Lawson, H. A., & Barkdull, C. (2001). Promoting systems and cross-systems change. In Sallee,
A. L., Lawson, H. A., & Briar-Lawson, K. (Eds.), Innovative practices with vulnerable
children and families. (pp. 245-269). Eddie Bowers.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259296330_Lawson_H_Barkdull_C_2001_Gai
ning_the_collaborative_advantage_and_promoting_systems_and_crosssystems_change_In_Sallee_AL_Lawson_HA_BriarLawson_K_Innovative_practices_with_vulnerable_children_and_fami
Mandic, C. G., Rudd, R., Hehir, T., Acevedo-Garcia, D. (2012). Readability of special education
procedural safeguards. The Journal of Special Education, 45(4), 195-203.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910362774
Mapp, K. L. & Bergman, E. (2019). Dual capacity-building framework for family-school
partnerships. https://www.dualcapacity.org/
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
128
Manzon, M., Miller, R., Long, H., & Khong, L. (2015). Parent engagement in education. (NIE
Working Paper Series No. 7).
https://www.academia.edu/63538157/Parent_engagement_in_education
Mattingly, D. J., Prislin, R., McKenzie, T. L., Rodriguez, J. L., & Kayzar, B. (2002). Evaluating
evaluations: The case of parent involvement programs. Review of Educational Research,
72(4), 549-576. https://doi.org/ 10.3102/00346543072004549
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, 43(1), 67-81.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417739677
Murray, B., Domina, T., Petts, A., Renzulli, L., & Boylan, R. (2020). We’re in this together:
Bridging and bonding social capital in elementary school PTOs. American Educational
Research Journal, 57(5), 2210-2244. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220908848
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (n. d.) Nation’s report card: Pennsylvania
summary statements.
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile/overview/PA?sfj=NP&chort=1&s
ub=MAT&sj=PA&st=MN&year=2022R3&cti=PgTab_Findings&fs=Grade
National Association of School Psychologists. (2012). Position statement: School-family
partnering to enhance learning. https://www.nasponline.org/x26822.xml
National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring. (n.d.) Parent survey: Special
education. Leader Services.
https://www.leaderservices.com/pasurvey/PDE_parentsurvey_SA.pdf
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
129
National Council of La Raza. (2007). Parental involvement in the no child left behind act.
https://unidosus.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FS_ParentalInvol.pdf
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A-M, Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., Wei, X, Cameto,
R., Contreas, E., Ferguson, K., Greene, S., & Schwarting, M. (2011). The post-high
school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school: A
report from the national longitudinal transition study-2. SRI International.
https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20113005/pdf/20113005.pdf
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. (4th ed.). Sage.
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2018). SPP indicator 8 – School
facilitated parent involvement. https://www.pattan.net/Supports/FamilyEngagement/Indicator-8-School-Facilitated-Parent-Involvemen
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2024). Special education for schoolage children in pennsylvania: A guide for families.
https://www.pattan.net/CMSPages/GetAmazonFile.aspx?path=~\pattan\media\materials\
publications\files\spec-ed-sch-age_family-guide_eng_5-24wbl.pdf&hash=33c2fce0a1ac0996124cb31420a45a7721a355f6c7f5a90a43c2ed073f5f5d
17&ext=.pdf
Pennsylvania Department of Education/Bureau of Special Education. (n.d.). State performance
plan narrative. Author. https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/Public-Reporting/StatePerformance-Plan-Narrative
Pennsylvania State Data Center (2024). Special education data report: Owen J Roberts School
District. Author. https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/Public-Reporting/SEDR-ReportDashboardPennsylvania State Data Center (2024).
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
130
Reja, U., Manfreda, K. L., Hlebec, V., & Vehovar, V. (2003). Open-ended vs. close-ended
questions in web questionnaires. Developments in Applied Statistics, 19, 159-177.
Rineer-Hershey, A., & Mild, T. (2020). Contemporary Issues in Special Education (1st ed.).
Cognella.
Serpell Z. N., Mashburn A. J. (2011). Family-school connectedness and children’s early social
development. Social Development, 21, 21–46.
Sujarwo, S., & Herwin, H. (2023). Parental involvement and student achievement: A metaanalysis of publications in the scopus database. International Journal of Instruction,
16(2), 107-124. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.1627a
The Leadership Conference Education Fund. (2017). Every student succeeds act (ESSA): Guide
for advocates. https://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/education/ESSA/ESSA-Guide.pdf
Trainor, A. A. (2010). Diverse approaches to parent advocacy during special education homeschool interactions: Identification and use of cultural and social capital. Remedial and
Special Education, 31(1), 34-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508324401
Turnbull, A., & Turnbull, R. (2021). Trusting partnerships and belonging for families of students
with disabilities. In Jones & J. L., Gallus, K. L. (Eds.), Belonging and resilience in
individuals with developmental disabilities: Community and family engagement. (pp. 3547). Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81277-5_3
U.S. Department of Education. (2022). State performance plan/Annual performance report: Part
b/Pennsylvania. https://www.education.pa.gov/Documents/K12/Special%20Education/IDEIAIDEA/PA%20FFY%202020%20State%20Performance%20Plan%20%20Annual%20Performance%20Report.pdf
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
131
U. S. Department of Education (2024). The federal role in education.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html#:~:text=The%20original%20Departm
ent%20of%20Education,States%20establish%20effective%20school%20systems.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
132
Appendix A
Superintendent Letter
Dear Superintendent,
I am a doctoral student in the Special Education Program at Slippery Rock University, where I
am writing my dissertation. This letter serves to inform you of my research study and to request
access to your school district to conduct doctoral research. The study will focus on parental
perceptions of collaborative practices in special education.
My study will examine parents' perceptions of practices utilized by special education teams when
collaborating for the benefit of their school-aged students. I aim to gather information from
parents about the current collaborative practices in place and those practices that parents believe
are most beneficial, as well as identify the barriers and facilitators of collaboration. The
information gathered from this dissertation study will inform current practices and identify areas
for professional development to improve school-family collaboration for our students with
disabilities.
Slippery Rocks Institutional Review Board will review my study. Part of the review process
involves seeking permission from the superintendent to conduct my research. There are no
known or anticipated risks from participating in this survey. The study will consist of an
anonymous and confidential electronic survey, anticipated to take less than 10 minutes to
complete. After completing the survey, participants may volunteer for a follow-up interview to
further discuss school-family collaboration.
This research study will be conducted by me under the supervision of my Dissertation
Committee Chair, Dr. Ashlea Rineer-Hershey, at a.rineer-hershey@sru.edu. If you need
additional information regarding this research project, please contact me at 610-883-0425 or
exw1029@sru.edu.
Thank you for considering the district’s participation in my doctoral research study. Please
complete the following form to inform me of your decision regarding your district’s
participation.
Erica Wood
Doctoral Candidate, Slippery Rock University
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
133
Appendix B
District Approvals Form
I agree to provide doctoral student Erica Wood with an indirect and confidential means to
contact the parents/guardians of students receiving special education services in our school
district. I have made the decision based on the information I have in the consent request and have
had the opportunity to receive any additional details I wanted about the study. I understand I may
withdraw this consent at any time by telling the researcher without penalty or negative
consequences.
I also understand this project will be reviewed by the Institutional Review Board at Slippery
Rock University, and I may contact this office if I have any concerns or comments resulting from
our district’s involvement in this study.
o Yes
o No
District Representative/Contact
To conduct this study, I am requesting that a district representative email the survey to the
parents/guardians of students in grades K–12 who are receiving special education services during
the 24-25 SY. The responses will remain completely anonymous, and no personally identifiable
information will be collected. I will not have access to any parent names or contact information.
Participation is entirely voluntary, and parents may choose to remain anonymous unless they
choose to participate in an optional interview. Even in the case of an interview, all responses will
remain confidential and anonymous.
Once I have received the necessary contact information and IRB approval, I will provide your
district representative with the survey for distribution via email.
District Representative/Contact Name
_______________________________
District Representative/Contact Email
_______________________________
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
134
Appendix C
IRB Application/Approval)
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
135
Appendix D
Parent and Guardian Introduction to the Study
Parents and Guardians,
I hope this message finds you well. I am currently conducting research for my dissertation as part
of the Special Education Ed.D. program at Slippery Rock University. As parents and guardians
of students receiving special education services in [INSERT] School District, you are asked to
participate in a brief questionnaire via Google Forms. Your insights regarding current
collaborative practices and those you find most valuable will provide valuable perspectives on
the collaborative practices used by special education teams to support your students. Permission
to conduct this research in your school district has been approved and permitted by your
superintendent.
The voluntary survey will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. There are no foreseeable
physical or mental risks, aside from the potential for some slight emotional discomfort,
associated with participating in my study. However, if you feel uncomfortable with the survey,
you may withdraw at any time.
All information you provide during this study will be considered and kept confidential.
The data you provide in the survey will be recorded anonymously, and your participation, as well
as any additional information you provide, will be held in the strictest confidence by this
researcher. Survey and interview responses will not be shared with your child’s school district,
school personnel, or any third parties. Your name, the name of your student, or your school
district will not be included in the published study.
While the study results will be published, the individual participant information will not be
included. Instead, the results will be aggregated to identify overarching themes and patterns.
If you have any questions about the purpose, procedures, or survey, email exw109@sru.edu. The
Slippery Rock Institutional Review Board (IRB) has reviewed and approved this study.
Questions about the participants’ rights can be directed to irb@sru.edu or 724-738-4846.
To participate in the Parent Perceptions of School Collaborative Practices Survey, use the link
below: Survey
Thank you for considering participating in this research study.
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
136
Appendix E
Participant Consent Form
Consent to Participate
You are being invited to participate in a survey designed to explore your experiences and
perceptions related to collaboration, as defined above, with your child's school team. After the
survey, you can volunteer for an interview over Zoom or via phone to further discuss schoolfamily collaboration.
If you have more than one child receiving special education services and your experiences have
varied, you will have the opportunity to submit this survey for your other child(ren).
All information you provide during this study will be considered and kept confidential.
The data you provide in the survey will be recorded anonymously, and your participation, as well
as any additional information you provide, will be held in the strictest confidence by this
researcher. Survey and interview responses will not be shared with your child’s school district,
school personnel, or any third parties. Your name, the name of your student, or your school
district will not be included in the published study.
Questions about this study are welcome at any time.
Your participation in this study is voluntary, and you may refuse to participate or stop at any
time without consequence or prejudice. This survey is designed to take approximately 10
minutes or less.
Questions about this survey are welcome and can be directed to the author of this study via email
at sruresearcher@gmail.com or Dr. Ashlea Rineer-Hershey, Dissertation Committee Chair,
a.rineer-hershey@sru.edu, with the Department of Special Education, Slippery Rock University.
Any questions about your rights as a research subject may be directed to irb@sru.edu, 724-7384846.
Checking the “yes” box below indicates that you have read and understand the contents of this
consent form and that you agree to take part in this study.
o Yes
o No
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
137
Appendix F
Survey
Parent/Guardian Demographics
The following demographic questions will provide deeper insight into survey responses.
Please select the boxes that describe your identified race/ethnicity(s):
Check all that apply.
o American Indian or Alaska Native
o Asian
o Black or African American
o Hispanic or Latino
o Multi-Racial
o Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
o White
o Prefer not to answer
You are answering the following questions regarding your student's current (24-25) school year.
How old was your student on December 1, 2024?
o 5
o 6
o 7
o 8
o 9
o 10
o 11
o 12
o 13
o 14
o 15
o 16
o 17
o 18
o 19+
Under which category did your student receive special education services?
o Autistic/Autism
o Emotional disturbance
o Hearing impairment, including deafness
o Intellectual disability
o Multiple disabilities
o Other health impairment
o Orthopedic impairment
o Specific learning disability
o Speech or language impairment
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
138
o Traumatic Brain Injury
o Visual Impairment
o Unsure/Not known
Defining Collaboration
Collaboration between you as parents and the school special education team is essential to your
child's current and long-term success. For this study, collaboration has been defined as a shared
responsibility and efforts to achieve results (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004). It is built upon
a foundation of relationship building, shared values, and active engagement (Griffiths et al.,
2021). Eight key elements, open communication, trust, mutual respect, shared
goals, common understanding, shared responsibility, active participation, shared decisionmaking, and implementation, are needed to foster collaboration (Griffiths et al., 2021). This
survey will gauge your perceptions of your district's performance in these eight key areas.
Open Communication
Open communication happens when everyone on the team feels comfortable sharing their ideas.
This helps reduce disagreements and ensures that everyone has the necessary information to
participate fairly (Griffiths et al., 2021).
Select one of the following options that you believe is the most valuable when seeking open
communication with your child’s special education team.
Mark only one oval.
o Easily understood and honest communication between me and the members of the school
team
o Easy and clear ways for me to communicate with the school team
o Open discussions with the school team when in disagreement with something regarding
my child’s special education services
o Opportunities to share my knowledge (about my child and other topics) and ideas with
the school team.
How often have you experienced this with your child’s special education team in the past
year?
Mark only one per row.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
Easily
understood and
honest
communication
between me
and members
of the school
team
Easy and clear
ways for me to
communicate
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
139
with the school
team
Open
discussions
with the school
team when in
disagreement
with something
regarding my
child’s special
education
services
Opportunities
to share my
knowledge
(about my
child and other
topics) and
ideas with the
school team.
Trust
Trust builds over time through the effort put into good communication and by everyone staying
focused on the same goal (Griffiths et al., 2021).
Select one of the following options that you believe to be the most valuable in trusting your
child’s special education team.
Mark only one oval.
o Each member of the special education team has my child’s best interests in mind
o The team ensures I understand and am part of the process of planning for my child’s
special education services
o The team is open to new ideas and approaches I present to help my child
o All team members are reliable and consistent when speaking about my child
o I can share knowledge and ideas with the school team with the belief that I will not be
judged
How often have you experienced this with your child’s special education team in the past
year?
Mark only one per row.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
Each
member of
the special
education
team has
my child’s
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
140
best
interests in
mind
The team
ensures I
understand
and am
part of the
process of
planning
for my
child’s
special
education
services
The team
is open to
new ideas
and
approaches
I present to
help my
child
All team
members
are reliable
and
consistent
when
speaking
about my
child
I can share
knowledge
and ideas
with the
school
team with
the belief
that I will
not be
judged
Mutual Respect
Mutual respect happens when team members appreciate the knowledge, skills, and strengths that
others contribute to the group (Griffiths et al., 2021).
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
141
Select one of the following options that you believe to be the most valuable in establishing
mutual respect with your child’s special education team.
Mark only one oval.
o My family's cultural background and educational experiences are acknowledged and
understood by the team
o Compromise, when needed, takes place due to team members’ flexibility and
responsiveness to feedback
o Conflict between myself and team member(s) is addressed in a constructive and timely
manner
o The school team is capable of meeting my child’s needs
o The school team values my input and treats me as a team member
How often have you experienced this with your child’s special education team in the past
year?
Mark only one per row.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
My family's
cultural
background
and
educational
experiences
are
acknowledged
and
understood by
the team
Compromise,
when needed,
takes place
due to team
members’
flexibility and
responsiveness
to feedback
Conflict
between
myself and
team
member(s) is
addressed in a
constructive
and timely
manner
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
142
The school
team is
capable of
meeting my
child’s needs
The school
team values
my input and
treats me as a
team member
Shared Goals
Shared goals are created when everyone on the team gives their input about the goal(s) they are
working toward together.
Select one of the following options that you believe is the most valuable for developing
shared goals with your child’s special education team.
Mark only one oval.
o Goals are mutually created and agreed upon by all team members, including myself as
the parent
o My input in creating goals is valued
o The entire team works together toward helping my child reach their goals
How often have you experienced this with your child’s special education team in the past
year?
Mark only one per row.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
Goals are
mutually
created and
agreed
upon by all
team
members,
including
myself as
the parent
My input
in creating
goals is
valued
The entire
team works
together
toward
helping my
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
143
child reach
their goals
Common Understanding
Common understanding happens when all team members, no matter their background,
experience, or skills, are united in working toward the same goal (Griffiths et al., 2021).
Select one of the following options that you believe to be the most valuable in establishing a
common understanding with your child’s special education team.
Mark only one oval.
o School team members are receptive to each other’s contributions, including mine as the
parent
o Each team member's role is clear and purposeful to my child’s special education
programming
o The school team, including me, values the role of each member of the team
o The school team and I are aligned with what is best for my child
How often have you experienced this with your child’s special education team in the past
year?
Mark only one per row.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
School team
members are
receptive to
each other’s
contributions,
including
mine as the
parent
Each team
member's
role is clear
and
purposeful to
my child’s
special
education
programming
The school
team,
including me,
values the
role of each
member of
the team
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
144
The school
team and I
are aligned
with what is
best for my
child
Shared Responsibility
Shared responsibility happens when team members use their skills to help create and stick to
their role in finding a solution (Griffiths et al., 2021).
Select one of the following options that you believe to be the most valuable in establishing
shared responsibility with your child’s special education team.
Mark only one oval.
o Each team member accepts and performs their role in my child’s special education plan
o I was made aware of skills and resources that each team member brings to the
collaboration
o All team members are truly committed to the process
How often have you experienced this with your child’s special education team in the past
year?
Mark only one per row.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
Each team member
accepts and
performs their role
in my child’s special
education plan
I was made aware of
skills and resources
that each team
member brings to
the collaboration
All team members
are truly committed
to the process
Active Participation
Active participation happens when team members fully take on their roles and contribute useful
ideas and resources (Griffiths et al., 2021).
Select one of the following options that you believe to be the most valuable for active
participation with your child’s special education team.
Mark only one oval.
o All team members contribute different and valuable resources toward achieving the
creation of my child’s special education services
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
145
o Leaders are actively involved in creating change or working toward helping my child
together with the team, myself included
o All members are actively engaged in the process
How often have you experienced this with your child’s special education team in the past
year?
Mark only one per row.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
All team members
contribute different
and valuable
resources toward
achieving the
creation of my
child’s special
education services
Leaders are actively
involved in creating
change or working
toward helping my
child together with
the team, myself
included
All members are
actively engaged in
the process
Shared Decision Making
Shared decision-making happens when everyone on the team gives input, and decisions are made
together about the plan to move forward (Griffiths et al., 2021).
Select one of the following options that you believe is the most valuable for shared decisionmaking with your child’s special education team.
Mark only one oval.
o Myself and all team members are encouraged to provide input in the decision-making
process
o All team members participate in the decision-making process
o I am aware of and understand the process for making decisions and implementing actions
regarding my child’s special education services
How often have you experienced this with your child’s special education team in the past
year?
Mark only one per row.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
Myself and all team
members are
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
146
encouraged to
provide input in the
decision-making
process
All team members
participate in the
decision-making
process
I am aware of and
understand the
process for making
decisions and
implementing
actions regarding
my child’s special
education services
Implementation
Implementation happens when the agreed-upon solutions are put into action and carried out
properly (Griffiths et al., 2021).
Choose one of the following options that you believe to be the most valuable to the
implementation of your child’s special education programming.
Mark only one oval.
o Each member follows through with his or her role in the implementation of my child’s
special education services
o Team members continue to communicate with me during the implementation of my
child’s special education services
o My child’s performance is continually evaluated for effectiveness using a data-collection
process
o If the chosen interventions are not effective for my child, I am informed promptly and the
team reconvenes
How often have you experienced this with your child’s special education team in the past
year?
Mark only one per row.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
Each member
follows through
with his or her role
in the
implementation of
my child’s special
education services
Team members
continue to
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
147
communicate with
me during the
implementation of
my child’s special
education services
My child’s
performance is
continually
evaluated for
effectiveness using a
data-collection
process
If the chosen
interventions are not
effective for my
child, I am informed
promptly and the
team reconvenes
Are you willing to participate in a voluntary interview to take place virtually or over the phone?
o Yes
o No
Interview Contact Form
Please follow this link to submit your contact information if you are willing to participate in a
voluntary interview to be held over the phone or virtually. Survey Link
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
148
Appendix G
Parent/Guardian Interview Consent Form
As a participant in this study, you have indicated a willingness to participate in a short, virtual
interview. Your participation is voluntary and will take approximately 15 minutes of your time.
All information you provide during this interview will be considered and kept confidential.
Interview responses will not be shared with your child’s school district, school personnel, or any
third parties. Your name, the name of your student, or your school district will not be included in
the published study.
We will record your interview as part of this study, and you will receive a copy.
Please respond to the following statements to provide your consent for participation in the
interview.
I have been informed of the purpose of this study and have had an opportunity to ask questions
or voice concerns regarding my participation.
o Yes
o No
The audio recording can be studied by the researcher for use in the project.
o Yes
o No
I have read the above description and provide my consent for participation in and use of the
recording of the interview.
o Yes
o No
Name:
Date:
As a reminder, if you have any questions or concerns resulting from your participation in this
study, please contact irb@sru.edu, 724-738-4846.
Thank you for your participation in this project.
Erica Wood (exw1029@sru.edu)
PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS
149
Appendix H
Parent/Guardian Interview Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
Student Age as of December 1, 2024:
Student Disability Category:
Student Race/Ethnicity:
What factors have facilitated collaboration with your student’s special education team
regarding:
a. Open communication?
b. Trust?
c. Mutual respect?
d. Shared goals?
e. Common understanding?
f. Shared responsibility?
g. Active participation?
h. Shared decision making?
i. Implementation?
5. What barriers have you faced when trying to collaborate with your student’s special
education team regarding:
a. Open communication?
b. Trust?
c. Mutual respect?
d. Shared goals?
e. Common understanding?
f. Shared responsibility?
g. Active participation?
h. Shared decision making?
i. Implementation?
6. What else can the school be doing to make collaboration easier for you and your
student’s special education team?