Addressing Conflicts and Role Responsibilities in the Special Education Service Delivery Process: Adult Sibling Involvement and Facilitation as Cultural and Linguistic Brokers

Abstract

This case study explores the role of adult siblings in bridging and brokering cultural and linguistic gaps in special education on behalf of their sibling with a disability. Focusing on the Le family, the study explores how Eunice Le, an adult sibling, is navigating communication between their Vietnamese-speaking family and the school, and advocating for their brother Kai, a culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) student with autism. The case is premised on two key provisions within the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that center on the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team configuration and parent participation. This case reveals the difficulties that arise when schools and families have divergent approaches to supporting students with disabilities and their extended families from racialized and minoritized communities.

Keywords

special education family–school communication siblings

Equity is a multifaceted concept referring to fairness in how people are treated, opportunities are provided, and resources are distributed (Voulgarides, 2021). The concept has evolved through academic work and landmark legal cases, expanding into education with the influence of seminal scholars. A key legal milestone, Brown v. Board of Education (1954), declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional and initiated critical discourses on educational equity (Bell, 1980). Building on this momentum, scholars began critical discussions on diverse, equitable, inclusive, and just educational systems and practices (e.g., Anyon, 2017; Banks, 1993; Ladson-Billings, 1995).

Critical discourses on equitable education have likewise influenced special education and relevant federal legislation (Harry & Klingner, 2006). For example, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), federal law that mandates the provision of free and appropriate education for students with disabilities, has undergone reauthorizations to strengthen and expand its provisions (Smith, 2005; Turnbull, 2005; Yell et al., 1998). Despite reauthorization, special education still faces a host of persistent equity concerns—disproportionality in eligibility (e.g., Cooc & Kiru, 2018; Cruz & Rodl, 2018; Skiba et al., 2005; Voulgarides et al., 2017), cultural and linguistic marginalization (e.g., Harry & Klingner, 2006), and opportunity gaps (e.g., Voulgarides et al., 2024).

The aforementioned challenges in special education may negatively affect the lives of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) families who face compounded marginalization due to factors, such as language, cultural values, and social capital (Bal et al., 2019; Harry & Klingner, 2006; Jung, 2011; Trainor, 2010; Wilson, 2015). In the 2022–2023 school year, approximately 7.5 million students (aged 3–21years) received IDEA services, constituting approximately 15% of all U.S. public school students (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2024). The racial and ethnic breakdown of the IDEA student population reveals that a significant portion consists of students from racialized and minoritized backgrounds (i.e., American Indian/Alaska Native = 19%; Asian = 8%; Black = 17%; Hispanic = 15%; Pacific Islander = 12%; and two or more races= 16% [NCES, 2024]). Given that such a large proportion of students served under IDEA come from these racialized and minoritized communities, it is imperative to consider how these students and their families experience and navigate the U.S. special education system.

As CLD families contend with the complexities of the U.S. special education system, they often find themselves in need of support to navigate the institutional barriers they face (Burke & Goldman, 2018). One critical resource that helps bridge these gaps is the reliance on cultural and linguistic brokers (“brokers”), who facilitate communication and understanding across systems (Guan et al., 2014; Kam, 2011; McQuillan & Tse, 1995; Trickett & Jones, 2007; Tse, 1996, 2014). Evidence suggests that brokering is prevalent in CLD families and frequently involves younger family members, particularly children, who learn English through their exposure to the U.S. education system (Birman, 2006; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2001; Tse, 1996). However, there is a dearth of scholarship on the increasingly complex and critical roles of family brokers in special education.

This case study delves into this issue by exploring the pivotal role of adult siblings in brokering cultural and linguistic gaps in special education on behalf of their sibling with a disability within the context of intersectionality (Barrio, 2022; Crenshaw, 1991). Focusing on the Le family, this study highlights how CLD families navigate the complex landscape of special education, where issues of culture, language, and disability intersect to create unique challenges, barriers, and opportunities for advocacy and support. In particular, the study emphasizes the unique position of Eunice Le, an adult sibling who acts as a broker and bridges the communication gap between the Le family and the monolingual school personnel who hold institutional power.

Using the Le family as a lens, this case study contextualizes the intersection of key IDEA provisions (IDEA, C. F. R. §300.321, “Individualized Education Program [IEP] Team” and IDEA, C. F. R. §300.322, “Parent Participation”). The “IEP Team” provision (§300.321) defines the group responsible for developing and implementing a student’s IEP, including parents, educators, and individuals with relevant knowledge or expertise regarding the child. In addition, the “Parent Participation” provision (§300.322) mandates that parents must be afforded opportunities to participate in IEP team meetings. Together, these provisions underscore the importance of family involvement in the IEP process, a dynamic that is particularly significant for families such as the Le family who face intersecting forms of barriers.

Building on the aforementioned provisions, the case illuminates the challenges that emerge when families and schools are experiencing disconnection rooted in divergent understandings and approaches to supporting individuals with disabilities from historically marginalized communities (Annamma et al., 2013). The case sheds light on the complex dynamics CLD families such as the Le family face as they navigate not only cultural and linguistic barriers but also systemic inequities driven by power imbalances. In the following case, we use “they” as a singular, nonbinary pronoun to ensure respectful and inclusive language that affirms diverse gender identities.

The Case

Kai Le, a 14-year-old freshman at Jacksonville High School, is a CLD learner with autism, navigating the intricacies of a dual language experience. In the school setting, he primarily uses English. While at home, Kai’s communication is a mix of English and Vietnamese. Kai’s classroom, designed for students with moderate-to-severe learning needs, is led by one lead teacher with seven peers and is supported by three dedicated paraeducators. Kai is interested in activities that require fine motor skills, such as drawing, writing letters, and building with Lego blocks. Kai communicates with various non-verbal methods, including hand gestures, motions, and facial expressions. Kai receives both group and individual speech therapy and specialized academic instruction. Kai’s communication methods are often misunderstood by school staff and peers due to the lack of accessible communication support and inclusive practices within the educational environment (e.g., García & Ortiz, 2006; Harry & Klingner, 2006; Soto & Yu, 2014).

Kai, despite a lack of accessible communication support and practices within the school, has often expressed through gestures and short sentences with two to four words in both Vietnamese and English that he often feels misunderstood and isolated in the school environment (Zion, 2020). Kai’s nuanced communication methods are more easily understood by their family, particularly their older adult sister, Eunice. At home, where Kai’s parents predominantly speak Vietnamese, Kai’s use of mixed Vietnamese and English adds another layer of complexity to understanding their needs and expressions. This background is especially relevant as Kai’s upcoming triennial IEP meeting will be a critical juncture in their educational journey. The Jacksonville High School staff, who are relatively new to working with Kai and less familiar with their bilingual background, have struggled to understand the family’s communication style fully.

Eunice Le, Kai’s older sister and a local college senior, has played a pivotal role in both Kai’s education and the family dynamics. As a dedicated sibling, Eunice has supported Kai’s learning by guiding them through homework, fostering their reading skills, and helping them navigate essential electronic devices for school and home. In addition, Eunice’s involvement includes the facilitation of two-way, home–school communication (e.g., translating teacher messages and communication for their parents and then sending them back to the school team, filling out and submitting required forms, such as the triennial assessment’s parent rating scale [Guan et al., 2014; Tse, 1996, 2014]). Undeniably, Eunice is an indispensable broker for their family, functioning in a vital supporting role (e.g., language broker, school liaison, and instructional aide) within the special education system (Mortier et al., 2021). Apart from being a broker for their parents, Eunice also interprets and translates Kai’s multimodal communication. That is, Eunice often interprets Kai’s gestures and short sentence-based communication in mixed Vietnamese and English to school staff to turn Kai’s needs into actionable insights at school.

In this work and support for Kai, Eunice serves as a broker by helping to bridge the linguistic and cultural gaps between her Vietnamese-speaking parents, Kai, and the school (Mortier et al., 2021). As they emigrated from Vietnam, Eunice has taken a leadership role in translating and interpreting English for her parents, who are Vietnamese speakers. By serving in this role, Eunice is also, by necessity, placed into the role of secondary caregiver for Kai. This created a close bond between Eunice and Kai, formed through countless hours together after school while their parents were at work. Eunice’s keen understanding of Kai’s non-verbal cues has led to a unique dynamic where Kai often responds more readily to Eunice’s directions than their parents.

Communication Challenges

Last month, two communication challenges occurred between Kai’s teacher, Mr. Ted Jameson, and Kai’s parents, thus prompting a family decision to make Eunice the sole communication contact with the school regarding Kai’s special education needs. The initial challenge occurred last month when Mr. Jameson requested Eunice’s presence as an interpreter at Kai’s upcoming IEP meeting. This request conflicted with Eunice’s understanding, gleaned from a social media parent advocate group, that securing an interpreter was the school’s obligation. Concerned about the arrangement, Eunice declined to attend as an interpreter and, in an email with Mr. Jameson, expressed their intent to attend solely as a sibling caregiver alongside their parents. Mr. Jameson’s response expressed frustration at Eunice’s decision. In Mr. Jameson’s email to Eunice, they noted the difficulty in arranging an interpreter on such short notice, which left Eunice feeling exploited and suspicious of the IEP teams’ decision-making, intentions, and family involvement process. In Eunice’s opinion, the school has unfairly leveraged Eunice’s desire and willingness to assist their family by asking Eunice to support the IEP team with interpretation and role responsibilities that should only be within the purview and job duty requirements of a school employee.

The second communication challenge occurred when the school multidisciplinary team sent several triennial parent rating scales. The rating scales are lengthy and are only provided in English, and they have proved difficult and time-consuming to translate, on top of Eunice’s intense college schedule. Eunice has spent hours working on the translation. Unable to finish the translation, Eunice returned the remaining untranslated scales with a request for Vietnamese versions. The school’s refusal to provide Vietnamese versions of the scales highlights a significant societal barrier that reinforces systemic inequities that limit Kai’s and their families’ access to equitable educational opportunities. Furthermore, in their response letter, they asked Eunice to “reach out to contacts within their personal Vietnamese community” to get assistance with the rating scale translation. Eunice considered this to be an unfair burden to her—both in relation to the reliance on her linguistic skills for translation and because of the request for her to reach out to her own social network. To address these matters and gain greater clarity, Eunice recently requested a meeting with Principal Megan Lawrence.

Principal Lawrence is the newly appointed principal at Jacksonville High School and transitioned into this role after serving as an assistant principal at a different high school for the last three years. Principal Lawrence has spent the bulk of their leadership career at a racially homogeneous school with a small number of students with disabilities within the student body population. In contrast, Jacksonville High School has a more diverse student population: 70% Hispanic/Latino/Latine, 15% White, 10% Black/African American, and 5% Asian. With its notable diversity, the school serves as a cultural hub within a tight-knit community, where many students come from intergenerational family structures, with nuclear families (i.e., siblings) and extended relatives (e.g., aunts, uncles, grandparents) living together. It is common for this school to see generations of families as alumni, and past, present, and future students are interconnected by family or kinship relations. In addition, Jacksonville High School primarily serves students from low-income communities, with two thirds of the entire student population qualifying for free or reduced lunch.

Principal Lawrence aims to develop a school–home communication strategy that recognizes the role of extended family members as brokers while ensuring their participation does not place an undue burden on them. Principal Lawrence recognizes the vital role family brokers play in connecting CLD parents with special education support for students with disabilities. The approach includes active and intentional integration of family brokers into the school ecosystem, acknowledgment of their outranked potential to facilitate a better understanding, and facilitation of collaboration between families and the school. Using this strategy, Principal Lawrence further envisions that the needs of students with disabilities will be met through the reconstruction of a communication approach drawing upon cultural understanding and explicit role-defining and role boundary-making for parents, siblings, and other caregivers who are taking active roles within the IEP and special education systemic processes for the child with a disability in their family (Gay, 2018; Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999).

Specifically, Principal Lawrence wants to develop an “extended network caregiver support policy” for their staff to be mindful of as they proceed with future IEPs. Principal Lawrence believes that this is a necessary school policy to create. As Principal Lawrence has observed in their first few months at Jacksonville High School, many parents speak languages other than English as their primary language. These CLD parents often rely on their older children or other extended family members to assist them in navigating the IEP and special education accommodations process. This support includes translating or explaining formal documents, helping to formulate questions and suggestions for IEP meetings, and monitoring the goals and progress of their child with a disability. To address this, an “extended network caregiver support policy” will guide staff in understanding diverse forms of caregiving. Principal Lawrence believes this policy will provide guidelines for situations where extended caregivers, who perform the role of family broker, can be connected to the school and share their roles with the school. For example, rather than placing the extended burden on informal translation on family brokers at home, the policy would establish a system to assess students’ and families’ needs and connect them with school and district social workers or liaisons for support.

Although Principal Lawrence is committed to implementing the “extended network caregiver support policy,” they face significant obstacles. The school district has not allocated additional resources to support this initiative, and Lawrence struggles with a lack of time for staff training to integrate the new policy. In addition, some school staff are resistant to the new policy, questioning the necessity of formally involving extended family members. As Lawrence navigates these challenges, they must find a way to balance the imperative of creating an equitable school environment that includes students and families from historically underserved populations as equal partners with the practical limitations of the school’s resources and the district’s support.

Teaching Connection #1: Understanding IDEA-Mandated Family Involvement

This case highlighted the experiences of Megan Lawrence, principal at Jacksonville High School, and Eunice Le, an adult sibling of Vietnamese background who is the sister of Kai Le, a student with a disability. Eunice had to navigate the special education and related services process with their CLD parents to advocate on behalf of their parents and to explain critical components of the outlined IEP set in place for her sibling, Kai. What will other adult siblings in the same situation as Eunice do to gain a collective “seat” at the IEP table? The present context underscores the intertwined nature of family participation in CLD families with the diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds of Kai, aided by the participation of a sibling cultural and linguistic broker, Eunice.

In the case of Eunice and Kai Le, Principal Lawrence can benefit from implementing strategies rooted in Disability Critical Race Theory (DisCrit; Annamma et al., 2013), which examines the intersection of disability and race to highlight how systemic inequities affect students of color with disabilities and their families. By developing systems that actively dismantle the existing forms of oppression created at the intersection of racism and ableism (Crenshaw, 1991), Principal Lawrence can ensure that the needs of students such as Kai are met through culturally responsive practices. By incorporating strategies rooted in DisCrit, the school community can reimagine and reconstruct its space away from the deconstructed notion of deficit views against students and families at the intersection of multiple oppressions (Annamma et al., 2013). The “extended network caregiver support policy” introduced by Principal Lawrence aims to create an environment where Kai’s voice can be heard, valued, and communicated transparently through their family’s preferred communication modality (Hipolito-Delgado et al., 2022; Zion, 2020). This may include formally inviting Eunice to IEP meetings, as Kai feels comfortable with her interpreting and expressing his needs. In addition, the policy acknowledges and supports diverse family structures and forms of caregiving, ensuring that all students receive the necessary support and resources tailored to their unique cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

Below, we explore how Principal Lawrence can train their school staff to understand the role that adult family members can (and cannot) be asked to accept at IEP meetings due to IDEA policy while also engaging in deep sibling partnership and communication.

Policy Engagement Activity #1

As an initial point of entry for answering the aforementioned question, review the parental participation component of the IDEA that specifically mandates that parents have decision-making and participatory roles in the education and service delivery process for their child (IDEA, 2004). Specifically, examine how IDEA outlines the legal rights of the parents as family representatives in educational service planning discussions. After exploring how IDEA defines parental participation in both specific and ambiguous ways, examine how DisCrit principles can inform policies that support and formalize the involvement of adult siblings or other extended family members who perform the role of cultural and linguistic broker of the student and the family.

Consider how you would include other non-parental caregivers, such as siblings, when the law specifies no particular role or responsibilities for siblings or other non-parental caregivers or advocates for students with disabilities. Share your considerations with another classmate, with particular attention paid to how you will acknowledge the changing family dynamics and complexity of sociocultural contexts, the broader spectrum of family engagement (e.g., families that include adult siblings as caregivers with a pivotal role in the education of their siblings), and the role that siblings play in the service delivery and decision-making process for their sibling with a disability (Burke et al., 2015a; Burke et al., 2015b; Lee et al., 2019a; Lee et al., 2019b).

Teaching Connection #2: Including Extended Family Members as Partners and as Cultural Brokers

In this case, an adult sibling played a crucial role in the family as a broker, secondary caregiver, interpreter, and “unofficial” member of the IEP team. Siblings frequently bridge communication gaps between educational teams and their parents (Mortier et al., 2021). Moreover, research indicates that immigrant siblings’ cultural brokering enhances family adaptability, promoting broader family participation (Kam & Lazarevic, 2014; Trickett & Jones, 2007). Despite this, adult siblings and extended family members who act as cultural brokers often face isolation and unhappiness (Tomeny et al., 2017). Therefore, educators should approach support with caution and a nuanced understanding of family dynamics (Weiss et al., 2009).

However, the implementation of policies that support the inclusion of extended family members as partners in the IEP process can be significantly hampered by limited resources from the school district (Rubenstein et al., 2007). The lack of allocated funding, staff, and training present obstacles that must be navigated to ensure that these family cultural brokers are effectively included without placing additional burdens on them. This suggests the need for development and empirical and qualitative validation of student and extended family-centered programs and advocacy for adequate resources to make the educational system more inclusive and supportive of families and non-parent caregivers (e.g., siblings) who play a critical role in offering broader insights into understanding students.

Policy Engagement Activity #2

This policy engagement activity focuses on a multifaceted exploration of the roles and responsibilities regarding preparing and delivering IEPs. Examine the IDEA provision that outlines a school’s responsibility to invite individuals with knowledge or special expertise regarding the child to participate in IEP meetings. Then, consider the appropriateness of Eunice’s status as an “unofficial IEP team member” given the language that IDEA includes regarding translators and language supports for families.

In small groups, discuss how the limited resources from the district might affect the school’s ability to meet these responsibilities and brainstorm strategies that could be used to work within these constraints. Consider how schools can better support and integrate unique family dynamics and role responsibilities into the IEP process, ensuring compliance with IDEA mandates while also addressing the challenges posed by limited resources. In addition, explore ways to advocate for increased district support to enhance the inclusion of siblings and other non-parental caregivers in the special education process.

Teaching Connection #3: Fostering Inclusive Engagement Via Participatory Approaches

Principal Lawrence’s vision is to transform their school into a nurturing environment where nuclear and extended family members are recognized as caregivers and advocates for students with disabilities. Principal Lawrence understands that in her school’s unique community, these family members play a crucial role in the student’s educational journey and trajectories (Strassfeld, 2019; Wilson, 2015). To achieve this, Principal Lawrence plans to introduce a collaborative system that empowers siblings and other family members as core members of the educational process. This system will specifically focus on facilitating effective communication between CLD families and the school, disrupting the existing linguistic and cultural barriers (García & Kleifgen, 2010).

The key to this strategy is developing a robust support network through a participatory approach (Ishimaru, 2019). This involves collaborating with families to build the school’s support system based on their needs rather than creating a program first and disseminating it through a top-down approach. After identifying the families’ needs, Principal Lawrence must find individuals who can support these needs (e.g., school and district social workers and family liaisons) to bridge the gap between families and the school. A critical aspect of this approach is ensuring that school staff engage with families as equal collaborative partners (Ishimaru, 2019). This training should focus on equipping staff with the skills and resources necessary to facilitate participatory approaches that value the unique perspectives of family members (Bal, 2012). Without a shared vision for equal partnership (e.g., Fish, 2006), family members are at risk of being positioned as technical support rather than as equal partners in the educational process (Ishimaru, 2019). This role-shifting may undermine the family’s input and lead to conflicts of interest and unfair family pressure to comply and serve, primarily, the school’s best interests (Broderick & Leonardo, 2016).

Principal Lawrence must carefully plan how to implement this new collaborative approach, which significantly differs from the existing model where the school acts as the primary stakeholder and where the family takes a secondary role (Shirley, 1997). To further strengthen this collaboration, Lawrence should also develop a detailed plan to engage adult siblings or other extended family brokers in the school system. This approach requires preparing staff to recognize and respect families as equal partners by first understanding that access to sociocultural capital resources significantly affects parent participation (Trainor, 2010). Once this foundation is established, Principal Lawrence can train and encourage staff to advocate for equal partnership, fostering an inclusive educational environment (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999).

This new strategy has the potential to become a transformative tool for disproportionality monitoring, as it provides a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the diverse needs and experiences of students from intersecting backgrounds (Ahram et al., 2011; Fiedler et al., 2008; Voulgarides et al., 2017, 2024). By actively involving family brokers in the educational process, the school can prepare a cornerstone for moving beyond surface-level compliance-based monitoring to a more dynamic, equity-driven model that exists to ensure accurate need identification and assessment for all students (Voulgarides, 2018, 2021; Voulgarides et al., 2024). In sum, through an intersectional, collaborative approach that fosters holistic family–school partnerships, this strategy aims to drive transformation at the local educational agency level with broader impacts on the educational ecosystem (Voulgarides et al., 2023).

Policy Engagement Activity # 3

In this policy engagement activity, students will focus on a two-part journey to enhance the implementation of the new “extended network caregiver support policy” within a school setting. The first step involves developing strategies to train teachers on the purpose and significance of this policy. In a small group, design professional development sessions that not only explain the rationale behind the policy but also emphasize its importance in creating a more inclusive education environment. These training sessions aim to equip teachers with a deep understanding of why involving extended family members in the educational process is crucial, particularly in schools with diverse populations of intersecting student identities.

Following this, discuss potential challenges that might arise, such as resistance from staff or a lack of understanding about the policy’s benefits. Explore practical solutions to these challenges, ensuring that teachers are not only informed but also motivated to embrace the policy as a critical stakeholder and change agent in its implementation.

The second part of this activity shifts the focus to fostering an environment where families and schools collaborate as equal partners through participatory approaches. In a small group, explore how to cultivate a school culture that truly values the input and participation of critical family stakeholders. Then, examine best practices for engaging families in meaningful, co-created educational plans built on trust and mutual respect. Finally, identify potential barriers and propose solutions for the discussed potential challenges. Then, share these plans with other students for feedback.

Conclusion

The case of Kai Le highlights the critical role of adult siblings in special education, especially within CLD contexts. Eunice Le’s involvement as Kai’s sister exemplifies the unique input siblings can provide as cultural brokers and advocates to challenge societal and institutional barriers. By emphasizing Eunice’s role and position as a sibling cultural and linguistic broker, this case calls for attention to the issue of disproportionality and promotes an intersectional and interdisciplinary approach to special education. The present hypothetical case contributes to the broader discussion on creating an inclusive and equitable future for all students, regardless of their culture, language, and ability. Furthermore, this case underscores the need for educational systems to recognize and integrate siblings and other non-parental caregivers as essential participants in the special education process. Principal Lawrence’s initiative to develop an “extended network caregiver support policy” at Jacksonville High School is an innovative step toward inclusive family engagement in education. This approach aligns with the IDEA mandate while recognizing the evolving broader family dynamics in the education of students with disabilities that the IDEA has not specifically addressed. This case advocates for a more inclusive approach in special education, where schools involve siblings and other family members as key stakeholders. It highlights the importance of training school staff to understand and collaborate with diverse family structures. The case further calls for empowering family members to become more invested stakeholders in the educational journey of students with disabilities.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Jane Y. Jeong

Natasha Strassfeld

Author Biographies

Jane Y. Jeong is a doctoral student in the Department of Special Education (Equity and Diversity Program) at the University of Texas at Austin. Her research examines how hegemonic norms within the educational system shape the experiences of students with disabilities and their families from historically marginalized communities, with a focus on siblings’ cultural and linguistic brokering roles. She draws on her prior experience as a credentialed special education teacher at a Title I school and as a sibling and cultural/linguistic broker for a family with an individual with disabilities from a historically marginalized community to inform her work.

Natasha Strassfeld is an Associate Professor of Special Education at the University of Texas at Austin. Within her research, she examines special education service delivery, parent involvement in special education, and juvenile justice and special education.

References

Ahram

Fergus

Noguera

(2011). Addressing racial/ethnic disproportionality in special education: Case studies of suburban school districts. Teachers College Record, 113(10), 2233–2266.

Annamma

S. A.

Connor

Ferri

(2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1–31.

Anyon

(2017). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 162(1), 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205748016200106

Bal

(2012). Participatory social justice for all. In Denti

L. G.

Whang

P. A.

(Eds.), Rattling chains: Exploring social justice in education (pp. 99–110). Sense Publishers.

Bal

Betters-Bubon

Fish

R. E.

(2019). A multilevel analysis of statewide disproportionality in exclusionary discipline and the identification of emotional disturbance. Education and Urban Society, 51(2), 247–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124517716260

Banks

J. A.

(1993). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. Review of Research in Education, 19, 3–49.

Barrio

B. L.

(2022). Culturally responsive individualized education programs: Building transition bridges between families and schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 58(2), 92–99.

Bell

D. A.

Jr. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma (pp. 518–533). Harvard Law Review.

Birman

(2006). Acculturation gap and family adjustment. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(5), 568–589.

10.

Broderick

A. A.

Leonardo

(2016). What a good boy. In Annamma

S. A.

(Ed.), DisCrit-Disability studies and critical race theory in education (pp. 55–67). Teachers College Press.

11.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483. (1954).

12.

Burke

M. M.

Arnold

C. K.

Owen

A. L.

(2015a). Sibling advocacy: Perspectives about advocacy from siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Inclusion, 3(3), 162–175.

13.

Burke

M. M.

Fish

Lawton

(2015b). A comparative analysis of adult siblings’ perceptions toward caregiving. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 53(2), 143–157.

14.

Burke

M. M.

Goldman

S. E.

(2018). Special education advocacy among culturally and linguistically diverse families. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 18, 3–14.

15.

Cooc

Kiru

E. W.

(2018). Disproportionality in special education: A synthesis of international research and trends. The Journal of Special Education, 52(3), 163–173.

16.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.

17.

Cruz

R. A.

Rodl

J. E.

(2018). An integrative synthesis of literature on disproportionality in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 52(1), 50–63.

18.

Fiedler

C. R.

Chiang

Van Haren

Jorgensen

Halberg

Boreson

(2008). Culturally responsive practices in schools: A checklist to address disproportionality in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5), 52–59.

19.

Fish

W. W

. (2006). Perceptions of parents of students with autism towards the IEP meeting: A case study of one family support group chapter. Education, 127(1), 56–68.

20.

García

Kleifgen

J. A.

(2010). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English language learners. Teachers College Press.

21.

García

S. B.

Ortiz

A. A.

(2006). Preventing disproportionate representation: Culturally and linguistically responsive prereferral interventions. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 64–68.

22.

Gay

(2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press.

23.

Guan

S. S. A.

Greenfield

P. M.

Orellana

M. F.

(2014). Translating into understanding: Language brokering and prosocial development in emerging adults from immigrant families. Journal of Adolescent Research, 29(3), 331–355.

24.

Harry

Klingner

(2006). Why are so many students in special education? Understanding race and disability in schools. Teachers College Press.

25.

Hipolito-Delgado

C. P.

Stickney

Zion

Kirshner

(2022). Transformative student voice for sociopolitical development: Developing youth of color as political actors. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 32(3), 1098–1108.

26.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (2004).

27.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 34 C. F. R. §300.321 et seq. (2004).

28.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 34 C. F. R. §300.322 et seq. (2004).

29.

Ishimaru

A. M.

(2019). From family engagement to equitable collaboration. Educational Policy, 33(2), 350–385.

30.

Jung

A. W.

(2011). Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and barriers for parents from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Multicultural Education, 19(3), 21–25.

31.

Kalyanpur

Harry

(1999). Culture in special education: Building reciprocal family-professional relationships. Paul H. Brookes.

32.

Kam

J. A.

(2011). The effects of language brokering frequency and feelings on Mexican-heritage youth’s mental health and risky behaviors. Journal of Communication, 61(3), 455–475.

33.

Kam

J. A.

Lazarevic

(2014). Communicating for one’s family: An interdisciplinary review of language and cultural brokering in immigrant families. Annals of the International Communication Association, 38(1), 3–37.

34.

Ladson-Billings

(1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.

35.

Lee

C. E.

Burke

Arnold

C. K.

Owen

(2019a). Correlates of current caregiving among siblings of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 32(6), 1490–1500.

36.

Lee

C. E.

Burke

M. M.

Stelter

C. R.

(2019b). Exploring the perspectives of parents and siblings toward future planning for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 57(3), 198–211.

37.

McQuillan

Tse

(1995). Child language brokering in linguistic minority communities: Effects on cultural interaction, cognition, and literacy. Language and Education, 9(3), 195–215.

38.

Mortier

Brown

I. C.

Aramburo

C. M.

(2021). Cultural brokers in special education. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 46(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796920975386

39.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). Students with disabilities: Condition of education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg

40.

Rubenstein

Schwartz

A. E.

Stiefel

Amor

H. B. H.

(2007). From districts to schools: The distribution of resources across schools in big city school districts. Economics of Education Review, 26(5), 532–545.

41.

Shirley

(1997). Community organizing for urban school reform. University of Texas Press.

42.

Skiba

R. J.

Poloni-Staudinger

Simmons

A. B.

Renae Feggins-Azziz

Chung

C. G.

(2005). Unproven links: Can poverty explain ethnic disproportionality in special education? The Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 130–144.

43.

Smith

T. E.

(2005). IDEA 2004: Another round in the reauthorization process. Remedial and Special Education, 26(6), 314–319.

44.

Soto

(2014). Considerations for the provision of services to bilingual children who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(1), 83–92.

45.

Strassfeld

N. M.

(2019). Preparing pre-service special education teachers to facilitate parent involvement, knowledge, and advocacy: Considerations for curriculum. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(4), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406418806643

46.

Suárez-Orozco

M. M.

(2001). Children of immigration. Harvard University, U.S. Department of Education.

47.

Tomeny

T. S.

Barry

T. D.

Fair

E. C.

Riley

(2017). Parentification of adult siblings of individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 1056–1167.

48.

Trainor

A. 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(1), 34–47.

49.

Trickett

E. J.

Jones

C. J.

(2007). Adolescent culture brokering and family functioning: A study of families from Vietnam. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(2), 143.

50.

Tse

(1996). Language brokering in linguistic minority communities: The case of Chinese-and Vietnamese-American students. Bilingual Research Journal, 20(3–4), 485–498.

51.

Tse

(2014). Language brokering among Latino adolescents: Prevalence, attitudes, and school performance. In Suárez-Orozco

M. M.

Suárez-Orozco

Qin-Hilliard

(Eds.), The new immigrant and language (pp. 230–243). Routledge.

52.

Turnbull

H. R.

III (2005). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act reauthorization: Accountability and personal responsibility. Remedial and Special Education, 26(6), 320–326.

53.

Voulgarides

C. K.

(2018). Does compliance matter in special education? IDEA and the hidden inequities of practice. Teachers College Press.

54.

Voulgarides

C. K.

(2021). Equity, parental/caregiver “Power,” and disability policy in the U.S. context. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(4), 326–343.

55.

Voulgarides

C. K.

Cruz

R. A.

Strassfeld

Aylward

Ahram

Firestone

(2023). Understanding policy reverberations across the educational ecosystem to effectuate change. Theory into Practice, 63(4), 457–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2024.2355848

56.

Voulgarides

C. K.

Fergus

King Thorius

K. A.

(2017). Pursuing equity: Disproportionality in special education and the reframing of technical solutions to address systemic inequities. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 61–87.

57.

Voulgarides

C. K.

Jacobs

Lopez

Barrio

B. L.

(2024). Moving beyond compliance and toward equity to address racial disproportionality. Intervention in School and Clinic. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512241258721

58.

Weiss

H. B.

Bouffard

S. M.

Bridglall

B. L.

Gordon

E. W.

(2009). Equity matters: Reframing family involvement in education: Supporting families to support educational equity (Research Review No. 5). Campaign for Educational Equity, Teachers College, Columbia University.

59.

Wilson

N. M.

(2015). Question-asking and advocacy by African-American parents at Individualized Education Program meetings: A social and cultural capital perspective. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 15(2), 36–49.

60.

Yell

M. L.

Rogers

E. L.

(1998). The legal history of special education: What a long, strange trip it’s been! Remedial and Special Education, 19(4), 219–228.

61.

Zion

(2020). Transformative student voice: Extending the role of youth in addressing systemic marginalization in US schools. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 20(1), 32–43.