Procedural safeguards have been in place for years with the intention of protecting the rights of parents and their children with disabilities. Despite the promises of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, parents have not mastered the tools they need to be active participants in their child’s special education. Educators must inform parents of children with disabilities of their rights and responsibilities in documents that clearly communicate the expectation that parents can and will advocate for their children. Review of the documents currently used to inform parents of their rights, as well as relevant literature on the topic, indicated that parents are not empowered to give informed consent. This study sought to talk directly with parents of children with disabilities to explore whether a redesigned notice of procedural safeguards document is warranted and could support parents’ engagement in their child’s special education. Interview data collected demonstrated that parents of children with disabilities see a need for revised documents and need functional information from the schools. The implementation of rights notices that authentically inform parents could bring about a shift in the culture of special education and include all parents as active participants in their child’s special education.
AldridgeM. D. (2004). Writing and designing readable patient education materials. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 31, 373–377.
2.
BaxterJ.EylesJ. (1997). Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: Establishing “rigour” in interview analysis. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 22, 505–525.
3.
BrantlingerE. A. (1987). Making decisions about special education placement: Do low-income parents have the information they need?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 94–101.
4.
CookR. S.RuleS.MarigerH. (2003). Parents’ evaluation of the usability of a web site on recommended practices. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 2, 19–27.
5.
DanielP. T. (2000). Education for students with special needs: The judicially defined role of parents in the process. Journal of Law and Education, 29, 1–30.
6.
DinnesenM. S. (2011). It’s not everyone’s IDEA: The implications of inaccessible procedural safeguards. Unpublished manuscript, College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
7.
DinnesenM. S. (2012). Making it my IDEA: Doing all that you can for your child in special education. Unpublished manuscript, College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
8.
DinnesenM. S. (2013). Making it my IDEA: Notice of procedural safeguards designed for increased readability (Doctoral dissertation). University of Cincinnati, OH.
Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq.
11.
FishW. W. (2008). The IEP meeting: Perceptions of parents and students who receive special education services. Preventing School Failure, 53, 8–14.
12.
FitzgeraldJ. L.WatkinsM. W. (2006). Parents’ rights in special education: The readability of procedural safeguards. Exceptional Children, 72, 497–510.
13.
GalI.PrigatA. (2005). Why organizations continue to create patient information leaflets with readability and usability problems: An exploratory study. Health Education Research, 20, 485–493.
14.
GallagherP. A.KresakK.RhodesC. A. (2010). Perceived needs of grandmothers of children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Education, 20, 56–64.
15.
GubaE. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Technology Research & Development, 29, 75–91.
16.
HarrisP. (2011). The readability of sample stories for eye movement recording. Journal of Behavioral Optometry, 22, 89–95.
17.
HartasD. (2008). Practices of parental participation: A case study. Educational Psychology in Practice, 24, 139–153.
18.
HessR. S.MolinaA. M.KozleskiE. B. (2006). Until somebody hears me: Parent voice and advocacy in special educational decision making. British Journal of Special Education, 33, 148–157.
19.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. No. 105–117. (1997).
20.
JohnsonJ.DuffettA. (2002). When it’s your own child: A report on special education from the families who use it. New York, NY: Public Agenda.
21.
JohnsonL. J.LaMontagneM. J. (1993). Research methods using content analysis to examine the verbal or written communication of stakeholders within early intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 73–79.
22.
KreftingL. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 214–222.
23.
KutnerM. A.GreenbergE.BaerJ. & National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL): A first look at the literacy of America’s adults in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
24.
MandicC. G.RuddR.HehirT.Acevedo-GarciaD. (2012). Readability of special education procedural safeguards. The Journal of Special Education, 45, 195–203.
25.
McLaughlinG. H. (1969). SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12, 639–646.
26.
MeadJ. F.PaigeM. A. (2008). Parents as advocates: Examining the history and evolution of parents’ rights to advocate for children with disabilities under the IDEA. Journal of Legislation, 34, 123–125.
27.
MertensD. M. (2009). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
28.
MillerB.McCardleP.HernandezR. (2010). Advances and remaining challenges in adult literacy research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 101–107.
29.
NagroS. A.SteinM. L. (2016). Measuring accessibility of written communication for parents of students with disabilities: Reviewing 30 years of readability research. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 27, 13–21.
RoitM. L.PfohlW. (1984). The readability of P.L. 94-142 parent materials: Are parents truly informed?Exceptional Children, 50, 496–505.
32.
RosenbaumS. A. (2005). A renewed IDEA and the need for more ardent advocacy. Human Rights, 32(4), 3–7.
33.
RyndakD. L.OrlandoA.StorchJ. F.DenneyM. K.HuffmanJ. (2011). A mother’s perceptions of her ongoing advocacy efforts for her son with significant disabilities: Her twelve-year journey. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 7, 74–91.
34.
TrainorA. A. (2010). Diverse approaches to parent advocacy during special education home-school interactions: Identification and use of cultural and social capital. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 34–47.
35.
YellM. L.RogersD.RogersE. L. (1998). The legal history of special education: What a long, strange trip it’s been!Remedial and Special Education, 19, 219–228.
