Advertisement

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

, Volume 45, Issue 5, pp 1345–1353 | Cite as

Identifying the Associated Factors of Mediation and Due Process in Families of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder

  • Meghan M. BurkeEmail author
  • Samantha E. Goldman
Original Paper

Abstract

Compared to families of students with other types of disabilities, families of students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are significantly more likely to enact their procedural safeguards such as mediation and due process. However, we do not know which school, child, and parent characteristics are associated with the enactment of safeguards. For this study, 507 parents of students with ASD responded to a national web-based survey. Parents who filed for due process or mediation were more likely to advocate for their child, have poor family-school partnerships, and have greater household incomes. Parents were also more likely to utilize their safeguards if their children were older, experiencing more internalizing behaviors, and educated in segregated placements. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

School Litigation Advocacy Family-school partnership Internalizing behaviors Inclusion 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Drs. Robert Hodapp and Kelly Hsieh for their thoughtful comments about this manuscript.

References

  1. Ahearn, E. M. (2001). The involvement of lay advocates in due process hearings. Quick Turn Around (QTA). Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 458753).Google Scholar
  2. Angell, M. E., Stoner, J. B., & Shelden, D. L. (2009). Trust in education professionals: Perspectives of mothers of children with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 160–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bar-Lev, N. B., Nestadt, S., & Peter, M. (2007). Considering mediation for special education disputes: A school administrator’s perspective. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 304–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauminger, N., Solomon, M., & Rogers, S. J. (2010). Externalizing and internalizing behaviors in ASD. Autism Research, 3(3), 101–112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Boulet, S. L., Boyle, C. A., & Schieve, L. A. (2009). Health care use and health and functional impact of developmental disabilities among US children, 1997–2005. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 163, 19–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruininks, R. H., Woodcock, R. W., Weatherman, R. F., & Hill, B. K. (1996). Scales of independent behavior-revised (SIB-Royal). Chicago, IL: Riverside.Google Scholar
  7. Burke, M. M., & Hodapp, R. M. (2014). Relating stress of mothers of children with developmental disabilities to family-school partnerships. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 52, 13–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Choutka, C. M., Doloughty, P. T., & Zirkel, P. A. (2004). The “discrete trials” of applied behavior analysis for children with autism: Outcome-related factors in the case law. Journal of Special Education, 38, 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, M. (2009). A guide to special education advocacy. London: Jessica Kingsley Publication.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Dowdy, E., Doane, K., Eklund, K., & Dever, B. V. (2011). A comparison of teacher nomination and screening to identify behavioral and emotional risk within a sample of underrepresented students. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 21, 127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunst, C. J. (2002). Family-centered practices: Birth through high school. Journal of Special Education, 36, 139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fish, W. W. (2008). The IEP meeting: Perceptions of parents of students who receive special education services. Preventing School Failure, 53, 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Folger, J., Poole, M. S., & Stutman, R. K. (2000). Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations (4th ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  15. Harrell, F. E. (2001). Regression modeling strategies. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R., Payne, J., Gonzalez, N., & Conde, J. G. (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap): A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Information, 42, 377–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayes, S. A., & Watson, S. L. (2013). The impact of parenting stress: A meta-analysis of studies comparing the experience of parenting stress in parents of children with and without autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 629–642.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoffman, C. D., Sweeney, D. P., Hodge, D., Lopez-Wagner, M. C., & Looney, L. (2009). Parenting stress and closeness: Mothers of typically developing children and mothers of children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 24, 178–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hyman, E., Rivkin, D. H., & Rosenbaum, S. A. (2011). How IDEA fails families without means: Causes and corrections from the frontlines of special education lawyering. Journal of Gender, Social Policy, and the Law, 20, 107–162.Google Scholar
  20. Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Education Act of 2004. 20 U.S.C. ξ 1400.Google Scholar
  21. Matson, J. L., & Shoemaker, M. (2009). Intellectual disability and its relationship to autism spectrum disorders. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1107–1114.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Montes, G., & Halterman, J. S. (2008). Association of childhood autism spectrum disorders and loss of family income. Pediatrics, 121(4), e821–e826.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Mueller, T. G. (2009). Alternative dispute resolution: A new agenda for special education policy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20, 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mueller, T. G., & Carranza, F. (2011). An examination of special education due process hearings. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22, 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mulick, J. A., & Butter, E. M. (2002). Educational advocacy for children with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 17, 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Council on Disability. (2000). Back to School on Civil Rights. Retrieved March 13, 2014 from http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2000/Jan252000.
  27. Ryndak, D. L., & Downing, J. E. (1996). Parents’ perceptions of educational settings and services for children with moderate or severe disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 106–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scheuermann, B., Webber, J., Boutot, E. A., & Goodwin, M. (2003). Problems with personnel preparation in autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(3), 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Seltzer, M. M., & Li, L. W. (1996). The transitions of caregiving: Subjective and objective definitions. The Gerontologist, 36, 614–626.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Seven, K. H., & Zirkel, P. A. (2002). In the matter of Arons: Construction of IDEA’s lay advocate provision too narrow? Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, 9, 193–223.Google Scholar
  31. Shemberg, A. (1997). Mediation as an alternative method of dispute resolution for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A just proposal? Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 12, 739–757.Google Scholar
  32. Stoner, J. B., Bock, S. J., Thompson, J. R., Angell, M. E., Heyl, B. S., & Crowley, E. P. (2005). Welcome to our world: Parent perceptions of interactions between parents of young children with ASD and education professionals. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(1), 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Summers, J. A., Hoffman, L., Marquis, J., Turnbull, A. P., Poston, D., & Nelson, L. L. (2005). Measuring the quality of family-professional partnerships in special education services. Exceptional Children, 72, 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Summers, J. A., Marquis, J., Mannan, H., Turnbull, A. P., Fleming, K., Poston, D. J., et al. (2007). Relationship of perceived adequacy of services, family-professional partnerships, and family quality of life in early-childhood service programmes. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 54, 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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, 34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walker, B., Cheney, D., Stage, S., & Blum, C. (2005). Schoolwide screening and positive behavior supports: Identifying and supporting students at risk for school failure. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weber, M. C. (2014). In defense of IDEA due process. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 29, 501–530.Google Scholar
  38. Zirkel, P. A. (1994). Over-due process revisions for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Montana Law Review, 55, 403–414.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Special EducationUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA
  2. 2.Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt Kennedy Center, Peabody CollegeVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations