Parents have long played a pivotal and powerful role in advocating for improved services, supports, and increased opportunities for their children with significant disabilities. Yet inclusive opportunities remain strikingly limited in many schools and communities. We examined the viability and impact of parent-led community conversation events as an avenue for launching or strengthening efforts to involve children and youth with disabilities more fully in school, work, and community life. Events were held in 10 locales, used the World Café process by Brown and Isaacs, and addressed specific issues identified by parents (e.g., expanding employment opportunities, recreation options, extracurricular activities, and inclusive education). Interviews with parents and their collaborating partners, observations of the events, and anonymous surveys of more than 300 community members who attended the conversations suggested that the events were successful at accomplishing the goals of promoting greater awareness, generating new strategies and ideas for programmatic changes, encouraging school–community–family linkages, and drawing in new partners. Recommendations for supporting the contributions of parents as leaders in this type of local change effort are provided, along with directions for future research on conducting asset-focused change efforts.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. (1990).
2.
BertottiM.Adams-EatonF.SheridanK.RentonA. (2009). Key barriers to community cohesion: Views from residents of 20 deprived London neighborhoods. Geojournal. doi: 10.1007/s10708-009-9326-1
3.
BlanchettW. J.KlingnerJ. K.HarryB. (2009). The intersection of race, culture, language, and disability: Implications for urban education. Urban Education, 44, 389–409. doi: 10.1177/0042085909338686
4.
BrownJ.IsaacsD. (2005). The World Café: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler.
5.
BrownL.BranstonM.Hamre-NietupskiS.JohnsonF.WilcoxB.GruenewaldL. (1979). A rationale for comprehensive longitudinal interactions between severely handicapped students and nonhandicapped students and other citizens. AAESPH Review, 4, 3–14.
6.
CaldwellJ.HaussS.StarkB. (2009). Participation of individuals with developmental disabilities and families on advisory boards and committees. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20, 101–109. doi: 10.1177/1044207308327744
7.
CarterE. W.AustinD.TrainorA. A. (2011). Factors associated with the early work experiences of adolescents with severe disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 49, 233–247. doi: 10.1352/1934-9556-49.4.233
8.
CarterE. W.DitchmanN.SunY.TrainorA. A.SwedeenB.OwensL. (2010). Summer employment and community experiences of transition-age youth with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76, 194–212.
9.
CarterE. W.OwensL.SwedeenB.TrainorA. A.ThompsonC.DitchmanN. (2009). Conversations that matter: Expanding employment opportunities for youth with significant disabilities through community conversations. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41, 38–46.
10.
CarterE. W.TrainorA. A.DitchmanN.SwedeenB.OwensL. (2009). Evaluation of a multi-component intervention package to increase summer work experiences for transition-age youth with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 34, 1–12.
11.
CertoN. J.LueckingR. G.MurphyS.BrownL.CoureyS.BelangerD. (2008). Seamless transition and long-term support for individuals with severe intellectual disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33, 85–95.
12.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
13.
CraneK.MooneyM. (2005). Community resource mapping. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition.
14.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
DianiM.McAdamD. (2003). Social movements and networks: Relational approaches to collective action. New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
FoxN. E.YsseldykeJ. E. (1997). Implementing inclusion at the middle school level: Lessons from a negative example. Exceptional Children, 64, 81–98.
17.
FullartonC.PalermoJ. (2008). Evaluation of a large group method in an educational institution: The World Café versus large group facilitation. Journal of Institutional Research, 41, 109–117.
18.
GoldE.SimonE.MundellL.BrownC. (2004). Bringing community organizing into the school reform picture. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 54S–76S. doi: 10.1177/0899764004265439
19.
HarrJ. J.OliverD. F.RamanathanA.SociasM. (2008). Measuring the delivery of special education services in a large urban district: Lessons from the Los Angeles Unified School District. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 21, 58–63.
20.
HubermanA. M.MilesM. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428–444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
HuntP.GoetzL. (1997). Research on inclusive educational programs, practices, and outcomes for students with severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 3–29. doi: 10.1177/002246699703100102
22.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
23.
JacksonL. B.RyndakD. L.WehmeyerM. L. (2008/2009). The dynamic relationship between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education as a research-based practice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33–34, 175–195.
24.
KleinertH. L.MiracleS.Sheppard-JonesK. (2007). Including students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities in school extracurricular and community recreation activities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 46–55. doi: 10.1352/1934-9556(2007)45[46:ISWMAS]2.0.CO;2
25.
LathamJ. R. (2008). Building bridges between researchers and practitioners: A collaborative approach to research in performance excellence. Quality Management Journal, 15, 8–26.
26.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
MaykutP.MorehouseR. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide. Oxford, England: Falmer Press/Taylor &Francis.
28.
McKnightJ. L.KretzmannJ. (1993). Building communities from the inside out. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
29.
MeyerL. H.PeckC. A.BrownL. (1991). Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
30.
MortierK.HuntP.LeroyM.Van de PutteI.Van HoveG. (2010). Communities of practice in inclusive education. Educational Studies, 36, 345–355. doi: 10.1080/03055690903424816
31.
MuellerT. G.MillianM.LopezM. I. (2009). Latina mothers' views of a parent-to-parent support group in the special education system. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 34, 113–122.
32.
National Alliance for Secondary Education and Transition. (2005). National standards and quality indicators: Transition toolkit for systems improvement. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition.
33.
National Disability Rights Network. (2011). A call to action! The failure of the disability service system to provide quality work. Washington, DC: Author.
RiceN. (2006). Opportunities lost, possibilities found: Shared leadership and inclusion in an urban high school. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17, 88–100. doi: 10.1177/10442073060170020501
36.
RyndakD.ReardonR.BennerS.WardT. (2007). Transitioning to and sustaining district-wide inclusive services: A 7-year study of a district's ongoing journey and its accompanying complexities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32, 228–246.
37.
SindelarP.ShearerD.Yendol-HoppeyD.LiebertT. (2006). The sustainability of inclusive school reform. Exceptional Children, 72, 317–331.
TestD. W.MazzottiV. L.MustianA. L.FowlerC. H.KorteringL.KohlerP. (2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160–181. doi: 10.1177/0885728809346960
40.
TrainorA. A. (2008). Using cultural and social capital theory to improve postsecondary outcomes and expand transition models for youth with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 42, 142–162. doi: 10.1177/0022466907313346
41.
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. doi: 10.1177/0741932508324401
42.
TrainorA. A.CarterE. W.SwedeenB.PickettK. (in press). Community conversations: An approach for expanding and connecting opportunities for employment for adolescents with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals. doi: 10.1177/0885728811419166
43.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). 28th annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2006. Washington, DC: Author.
44.
WagnerM.CadwalladerT. W.GarzaN.CametoR. (2004). Social activities of youth with disabilities. NLTS2 Data Brief, 3, 1–4.
45.
WagnerM.CadwalladerT. W.MarderC.NewmanL.GarzaN.BlackorbyJ. (2002). The other 80% of their time: The experiences of elementary and middle school students with disabilities during their nonschool hours. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
46.
WangM.MannanH.PostonD.TurnbullA.SummersJ. (2004). Parents' perceptions of advocacy activities and their impact on family quality of life. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29, 144–155.
47.
WarrenM.HongS.RubinC.UyP. (2009). Beyond the bake sale: A community-based relational approach to parent engagement in schools. Teachers College Record, 111, 2209–2254.
