Relational Factors Influencing Parents’ Engagement in Special Education for High School Youth With Emotional/Behavioral Problems

Parent Engagement

Parent involvement in schools is fundamental to education reform (Weiss et al., 2011) and has become a key component of major federal initiatives to improve U.S. schools including the No Child Left Behind Act (2002), the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002), and the more recent ESSA (2015). The USDOE has prioritized family–school partnerships in recent years through the development of a family and community engagement framework for family–school partnerships for families, schools, districts, and states to build capacity for student achievement and school improvement (Ferrara, 2017; USDOE, 2014). In addition, the national center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), funded by the Office of Special Education Programs, has a major emphasis on significantly improving family engagement and partnerships in schools, as reflected in a recently disseminated e-book (Weist et al., 2017). Furthermore, the PBIS national center is providing support to the newly developed Family–School–Community Alliance, which aims to improve family and youth leadership within multitiered systems of support through interconnected advancements in research, practice, and policy (see www.fscalliance.org).

Despite increased efforts from federal, state, and local education policymakers, as well as administrators and parents, to highlight the significant distress that youth with EB disorders and their families experience, systems continue to treat these students and their families poorly (Huscroft-D’Angelo et al., 2018; Kern et al., 2015). Building the capacity of schools to comprehensively support students’ EB disorders and school functioning, matriculation, and graduation has become a national priority, with schools partnering with mental health systems to expand and improve the depth and quality of programs and services (Weist, 1997; Weist, Lever, Bradshaw, & Owens, 2014). Although parent involvement is championed as critically important for achieving student success—including decreasing school dropout rates—for students with disabilities, little is known specifically about the extent to which families of youth with EB disorders are involved in school (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Javitz, & Valdes, 2012; Zhang, Hsu, Kwok, Benz, & Bowman-Perrott, 2011).

Hill and Taylor (2004) suggested two major mechanisms by which parental school engagement promotes achievement: increasing social capital (i.e., enhanced parenting skills and information allows parents to better assist their children in school-related activities) and increasing social control (i.e., establishing consensus between school and parents about appropriate behavior that is further communicated to children in both home and school settings). Fan and Chen (2001) conducted a meta-analysis that showed that parental expectations and aspirations have a stronger relationship with student academic achievement than direct home supervision (e.g., time spent doing homework). Moreover, student perceptions of their parents’ values about achievement were strongly related to both motivation and competence (Marchant, Paulson, & Rothlisberg, 2001). However, even though traditionally defined parental involvement (e.g., homework help, school volunteering) has little direct influence on student academic achievement, such parental engagement activities help prevent children’s behavioral problems (Domina, 2005). Moreover, parent engagement has been linked to students having more consistent school attendance (Falbo, Lein, & Amador, 2001) and demonstrating increased behavioral and academic performance in school (Finn, 1998; Gonzalez, 2002; Simon, 2001; Van Voorhis, 2001). Thus, parental engagement in school increases indicators of student engagement in school, a critically important variable identified and targeted in academic and behavioral interventions for youth with EB disorders (Appleton, Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006).

However, in examining the impact of work–family responsibilities of 41 parents of children with an EB disorder, Rosenzweig, Brennan, and Ogilvie (2002) found that parents reported frustration with school administrators and teachers in developing effective interventions for working with their child with an EB disorder. In regard to community and school-based services, parents reported that these systems did not make accommodations to their work schedules, and required adjusting work schedules for IEP meetings and leaving work immediately if their child was in crisis. Parents of children with EB disorders reported limited flexibility from their employer, child care providers, and school systems in meeting the needs of their child (Rosenzweig et al., 2002). In a study examining supportive services for parents and students with EB disorders in rural communities, 85% of the school administrators interviewed reported having no parent supports offered by their school districts (Huscroft-D’Angelo et al., 2018). In addition, Wagner, Friend, et al. (2006) reported that only 10.4% of high school students with an EB disorder received family support, and more family support services were provided in elementary and middle schools (18.1%) than high schools. It is not yet clear what supports parents might need to become more engaged with their child’s schools. Although parent engagement is noted as important for academic success, empirical research on strong parent–school engagement through collaborative family partnerships for students with EB disorders is lacking (Lane & Carter, 2006; Simpson, Peterson, & Smith, 2011).

Coparenting

The effects of parenting style may also influence behavioral outcomes for children with EB disorders. Amato, Kane, and James (2011) outlined three parenting styles and their impact on children: cooperative parenting (coparenting, shared parenting responsibilities), parallel parenting (guardians who parent independently of the other guardian with separate rules), and single parenting (one guardian is responsible for all parenting). Parents involved in a coparenting relationship reported higher satisfaction and lower conflict than parents engaged in single parenting or parallel parenting (Amato et al., 2011). Choi, Parra, and Jiang (2019) found that coparenting was significantly correlated to lower behavioral problems for children from low socioeconomic status and unmarried families. In addition, parents who understand each other’s strengths in handling a given situation, and utilized social supports when available, demonstrated better overall family adjustment (Daire, Gonzalez, & O’Hare, 2017). Moreover, coparental support increases social capital, which is a factor in parents’ school engagement (Hill & Taylor, 2004). Although the benefits of coparenting have been examined, we could not find any research to support the benefits of coparenting for children with EB disorders specifically, or the influence coparenting may exhibit on parental engagement.

The aim of this exploratory qualitative study was to examine the relational factors influencing parents’ school engagement for their high school youth with EB problems. In particular, we sought to understand how school staff behaviors and family communication (parent–child and interparental) act to promote or inhibit parents’ engagement in school. We focused on high school youth because of the impending transition out of high school, the scarce family resources provided at high school compared with elementary and middle school (e.g., Wagner, Friend, et al., 2006), and the scant literature addressing family engagement for high school students. Furthermore, in noting high dropout rates for students with EB disorders, previous researchers found that transition to adulthood is improved if a high school degree is obtained, including lower unemployment rates (Aud, KewalRamani, & Frohlich, 2011; Wynne, Ausikaitis, & Satchwell, 2013). Wynne et al. (2013) surveyed 34 parents of adult children who had been diagnosed with an EB disorder and found that only one third of parents reported that their children were “successful” in adulthood as defined by postsecondary education, employment, and independent living, with only 11.8% of the students with EB disorders obtaining a college degree.

By providing an in-depth description of the relational context, we hoped to inform systematic school efforts aimed at increasing parent engagement for those youth who are at highest risk of poor educational outcomes. The current study was guided by the following research questions:

Participants

Participants included 14 parents (mothers: n = 12; fathers: n = 2) of adolescents with an IEP identified by schools as having significant EB problems impairing their school success. Upon completion of participation in a larger clinical research trial for families of high school students presenting with EB problems (see Kern et al., 2015), parents opted to be contacted for a follow-up study related to their experiences with parental engagement in the schools. Parents lived in a southeastern region of the United States and had an adolescent who recently attended a high school participating in the larger research trial (n = 9). Twenty-nine percent of the sample reported a median family income of less than US$40,000 (n = 4), 43% reported an income range of US$40,000 to $60,000, 21% reported an income range of US$60,000 to $80,000, and one participant chose not to disclose. The majority of participants were married/common law spouse (n = 9, 64%), two were never married, two were widowed, and one was divorced. Adolescents were primarily male (n = 10, 71%), attended a high school while receiving interventions for youth with EB disorders (n = 9, 60%), and half the sample was Caucasian (n = 7, 50%), 43% were African American (n = 6), and one adolescent was Asian. The majority of adolescents had a primary disability on their IEP labeled as “Other Health Impairment” (n = 8, 57%); the remainder of the adolescents were labeled as having an “Emotional Disturbance” (n = 3, 21%) or a “Specific Learning Disability” (n = 3, 21%).

Procedure

All study procedures were approved by the university’s institutional review board and carried out according to the ethical principles of human subjects’ research. As mentioned, participants in the current study were recruited from a larger randomized controlled trial—the Center for Adolescent Research in Schools (CARS) project, funded by the Institute of Education Sciences (see Kern et al., 2015). The larger research study developed and evaluated school-based interventions for high school students identified by school personnel as having behavioral and emotional difficulties that affect their academic and social success in school. Specific inclusion criteria for the larger study were as follows: (a) high school students in ninth to 12th grades; (b) having experienced social, emotional, or behavioral problems as indicated by a parent, student, or teacher report on a broad rating scale; and (c) students demonstrating school impairment in any two of the following areas—absences other than illness and/or tardies, office referrals/behavioral infractions, in-school or out-of-school suspensions, or grades. Parents and teachers assessed student social/emotional functioning through the Behavior Assessment System for Children–Teacher or Parent Version (BASC; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004). Student criteria for the larger study were met through a t score of 60 or higher on either internalizing or externalizing composites of the BASC, 60 or higher on the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC; March, Parker, Sullivan, Stallings, & Conners, 1997), or 60 or higher on the Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale 2 (RADS; Reynolds, 2002).

A research team member called parents of students from the larger study to describe the current follow-up study, address questions and concerns, and inquire about their participation. A written consent form was sent to parents who agreed to participate. Study investigators developed the interview protocol and semistructured questions (see the appendix). Phone interviews were conducted by two of the study investigators and one master’s-level research assistant. Parents were mailed a gift card incentive of US$50 for their participation upon completion of the interview.

The semistructured interviews contained open-ended questions about parents’ experiences of involvement in their child’s special education services, as well as their perceptions of the factors at school and home that promoted or inhibited their school involvement. We developed research questions to understand parents’ experiences (a) with school personnel, (b) during the IEP process, (c) discussing the IEP with their child, and (d) surrounding parent-relational issues. The interview questions were guided by the study research questions. Interviews lasted an average of 30 min (range from 20–60 min). Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. We used NVivo 10 software to organize study interviews and facilitate the analytic process.

Data Analysis

We utilized a phenomenological qualitative methodology in the current study to understand participants’ overall experiences with school engagement as it relates to their child receiving special education services. The qualitative analysis proceeded in three overlapping phases. In the first phase, the research team conducted open coding, which Strauss and Corbin (1990) described as that which “fractures the data and allows one to identify some categories, their properties and dimensional locations” (p. 97). We began this phase by applying analyst triangulation (Patton, 1999). After reviewing coding procedures together, two of the advanced researchers coded several transcripts independently, assigning labels to sentences and phrases to capture their underlying meaning and the essence of the participants’ experiences. Two additional researchers reviewed the coded transcripts, and the team met to compare and contrast individual interpretations. The research team continued to meet regularly to review the codes using the constant comparative method, in which we compared sentences and phrases within each code to determine their conceptual similarity and distinctness from other codes (Larossa, 2005). Once the final list of open codes was established, we proceeded to the second phase, axial coding. In this phase, the research team related the codes to each other, using a process of inductive and deductive reasoning to group codes into broader themes and search for causal relationships between coded concepts. In the third and final phase, we related the themes back to our original research questions.

In addition to triangulation, we utilized the process of disconfirming evidence and researcher reflexivity to help ensure the trustworthiness of findings (Creswell & Miller, 2000). The research team comprised a diverse group consisting of faculty from social work, psychology, counseling, and special education. Thus, each team member viewed participant responses through the lens of their training and experiences with the population. The research team met regularly to review the emerging codes and themes, with open and transparent conversations about perspectives and interpretations. We created analytic memos during each meeting. We discussed any perceived biases about the qualitative responses in light of each researcher’s positionality.

Parents’ View of Engagement

At the outset of this study, we conceptualized greater parent engagement as inherently positive. Our conceptualization of parent engagement was based largely on prior research (e.g., Domina, 2005; Falbo et al., 2001) indicating greater engagement is associated with fewer behavioral problems. However, for some of the parents in this study, more school involvement was not necessarily better. In many cases, parents chose to become more engaged in school because of their child’s academic and behavior problems. As one mother shares, “I wish I was less involved- you know- obviously that means less that he’s messing up” (Parent 01). Some parents were also motivated to become more engaged because they perceived that the school was failing their child in some way. “I am heavily involved in K’s IEP, because . . . I had to become an advocate for my child, because the (school district) did a horrendous job of making certain that his accommodations were met” (Parent 05).

The parents in this study varied widely in the amount and nature of their school engagement. We summarize these types of school involvement to provide a necessary context for interpreting the factors that influence parents’ engagement. During IEP meetings, parents asked questions, suggested goals, advocated for additional supports, and tried to be a voice for their child’s needs. At home, they monitored their child’s academic progress, explained their child’s rights to them, helped with homework, and worked to prepare their child for upcoming IEP meetings. Most parents strove to have regular communication with teachers over the phone and by email. They offered support to teachers when challenging behaviors were occurring in the classroom and held teachers accountable when they believed their child was not receiving adequate support.

Daily School Staff Behaviors That Contribute to Parent Engagement

Here, we present a theme to describe the differences in school staff behaviors that parents reported. The categories from this theme distinguish between those behaviors that occurred during the formal IEP meetings from those that occurred during the day-to-day of the school year.

Professional Behaviors During the IEP Meeting

Parents described the IEP meeting as an intimidating process in which they did not feel their perspective mattered. Parents provided some specific examples of things school personnel did that made the IEP meeting a more positive experience, thus improving their perception of involvement. Therefore, this overall theme, and supporting categories, underscore how parent engagement can be influenced by parents’ perspective of the IEP meeting structure.

Coparent Relationship

The majority of parents in the study were involved in a coparenting relationship. That is, they shared parenting responsibilities with another adult (McHale, Lauretti, Talbot, & Pouquette, 2002). It is important to point out that coparents were diverse and included a grandfather, spouses, ex-spouses, and a daughter who had children the same age. Parents described three dimensions of this coparenting relationship that influenced their involvement in their child’s education: coparent support, shared beliefs about student’s needs, and division of school-related labor. Therefore, this theme encapsulates the unique contribution of the coparent relationship to school engagement.

Parent–Child Relationship

The relationship between parent and child influenced parental involvement, and is, therefore, explained through this theme. Parents described the challenges associated with their child accepting special education services. Parents also described challenges to communicating with their child about school performance.

Limitations

The results of this study should be considered in light of limitations regarding the transferability and trustworthiness of the findings. First, parent participants were recruited from a larger clinical research trial for families and high school students presenting EB problems. This recruitment strategy may have resulted in “high participating” families whose engagement is qualitatively different from others. In addition, their previous experience may have shaped their perceptions of their engagement and shaped the range and nature of their responses. Given their previous relationship with the research project, parents may also have been more likely to offer socially desirable responses. However, we attempted to minimize this effect by choosing interviewers who were not part of the original project. In addition, the relatively brief data-collection process may have limited the trustworthiness of the data. Although single phone interviews were easier for parents to complete, they did not allow for reflection and insight over time. In addition, we could not follow up on items during the initial conversation; also, we did not conduct member checks. Rather, our data provide a snapshot of parents’ perceptions at one point in time. Despite these limitations, this study adds to the literature by focusing on parents of high school youth with EB disorders, a population that is often overlooked in special education and parent-involvement research.

Implications

Although IDEA (2004) mandated that school districts support family engagement, parents of children with EB disorders report that schools are failing to provide support to students and their families (Huscroft-D’Angelo et al., 2018). School administrators can improve communication with parents by working collaboratively with them to develop IEPs for students, maintaining regular contact with parents, and striving to contact parents proactively, or before student issues become so large that they affect the student’s permanent record (e.g., failing grade).

In addition, school districts that support coparenting between parents may see a reduction in behavioral incidents in academic settings. Kirkland et al. (2011) found that parents who engaged in a 6-week educational program on coparenting had lower rates of parental disagreements, and their children had increased social competence a year after the program compared with families in the control group. Parents in our study told us about the importance of coparental communication and working together as team. Future research on family engagement practices could incorporate a family systems framework and examine the impact that family engagement interventions, including coparenting and communications skill–building, have on students with EB disorders.

Finally, when we began the study, our previous experiences with family engagement led us to believe that parents would describe increased engagement as being more actively involved with the school, or school staff. Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, and Burrow (1995) described a five-level model of parent engagement that was later revised by J. M. T. Walker, Wilkins, Dallaire, Sandler, and Hoover-Dempsey (2005). The model conceptually described family context and parental beliefs that might influence method of engagement. Similar to what is described in this model, we thought parents’ contextual stressors (e.g., transportation, work schedules) might also influence method of engagement. However, the primary experiences parents described as influencing their method and level of engagement were the nature of school and child communication. Some parents described feeling less of a need to contact the school when they communicated regularly with their child, or received regular and proactive contact from the school. Thus, these parents reported feeling engaged, but their engagement was not a result of increased contact they made to the school. Given the qualitative nature of our study, we are limited only to understanding the experiences of the current study sample. Therefore, it may be important to explore further a revised conceptualization of how context (i.e., communication) might influence parent engagement.