Parents' Corner
September 2009
The IEP, Power Distance Index, and Parent Empowerment
Katya Hill
University of Pittsburgh
AAC Institute
ny parent having attended one IEP (Individualized Education Program) meeting would be able to perceive the power differences among the participants. Hofstede (1978, 2001) hypothesized that institutions and/or organizations can be ranked on a continuum of a low to high power distance index (PDI). High power distance institutions may expect less powerful members to accept that power is distributed unequally and decision making defaults to those in power. Symbols of power, such as conference rooms, seating arrangements, titles and degrees, official forms/paperwork, institutional jargon, etc., can be used to establish a position of power. For example, an IEP that is a prewritten document by the educational team with predetermined placement decisions puts the balance of power with the school district. Many parents routinely experience little discussion of alternatives with a predetermined IEP, a practice exemplifying a high power distance. Consequently, rewriting of the originally presented goals and objectives or incorporating information from the parent’s perspective becomes an obstacle to finishing the IEP.
I have attended several IEP meetings as an advocate for families of a student who uses AAC and assistive technology. I’ll share one meeting in which I was seized by surprise when a mother and I entered the school’s conference room and were directed to take chairs surrounded by over a dozen school district professionals at the table. Since this meeting was the mother’s first IEP with the district, having moved from another part of the state, I initially felt she
would have a friendly first meeting with the new IEP and AAC team. In contrast, every conceivable special education supervisor and educational specialist were at the table – each eager to present their opinion as to why her child would have difficulty using the high technology AAC system identified in the IEP from the previous school district.
According to Hofstede, this meeting would reflect a high PDI by placing the mother in a subordinate position of power. The school chose to impose power relations that were autocratic and paternalistic. The high power distance was reflected by having the Principal, Director of Special Education and Speech-Language Supervisor in attendance and disseminating a 15 page prewritten IEP. The speech-language, vision, assistive technology, and reading specialists were introduced to give an overview of the child’s present levels that indicated abilities did not support use of the high technology AAC system. Also in attendance were a school psychologist, special education teacher, regular education teacher, occupational therapist, school nurse, and a classroom aide. The mere numbers reflect an unequal balance of power in favor of any position the school system would want to take regarding AAC intervention. Perhaps parents reading this column have had similar experiences to various degrees with school meetings. I know as the parent in the meeting, I have.
IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) authors did not foresee an IEP process that would reflect a high PDI in favor of the school. Instead, IDEA language envisioned families and school professionals working together and relating to one another as equals regardless of formal positions. I believe school systems would agree that a low PDI is the desired or preferred way of conducting educational meetings. Families should be made to feel comfortable to contribute to and even critique decisions proposed by the educational team. Schools don’t want to impose a high PDI in their favor. Rather the lack of full public funding for IDEA, the large case load sizes of speech language pathologists (SLPs), the limited availability of AAC assistive technology training or specialists, the time limitations for the IEP meetings, etc. have created difficult decisions for administrators. School administrators adopting a high power distance may believe that they are being fiscally responsible and using district resources wisely without doing harm.
What can a family do to equalize the balance of power and create an IEP that incorporates the values and expectations of the family with the educational program the school district is able to provide? How can families feel comfortable that no harm is being done by the proposed educational decisions? Here are a few suggestions, but this list is not inclusive or exhaustive of all the possibilities.
1. Review the previous IEP. Make your own determination about the gains your child made since the last IEP (annual or multi-year). Could the objectives be measured? Do you have any results of the objectives being measured and what do the results tell you? From your perspective decide to what degree each objective has been achieved. For example, consider using a rating scale of 1 through 5 for each IEP objective; “1” being significant loss of skill, “3” being no observable improvement, and “5” being significant improvement.
2. Collect your own data. Come with documentation of your perceptions of your child’s language skills and show how your child communicates at home and in other environments outside school using AAC interventions. When possible, have analyzed LAM (language activity monitor) data or a completed AAC Performance Report. You can use these data as a basis for future objectives. These specific language measures establish common ground for documenting gains in building language competence using AAC interventions. At the time of this writing, AAC Institute staff is helping families with LAM collection and analysis to prepare for fall IEPs. These families will come to the IEP meeting with one or more completed AAC Performance Reports to support the objectives they will suggest be included in the IEP.
3. Pre-write your own IEP. Think through and prepare a draft IEP ahead of time to bring to the IEP meeting, especially if the practice in your school district is prewritten or computer-based IEPs. This is a draft, and doesn’t have to be perfect! Even a rough draft will give you goals and objectives to compare. You’ll have tangible objectives you expect to be worked on to result in education gains versus those the school professionals have identified. You’ll have a better understanding of how close the school and you are in an individualized plan unique for your child’s learning. Consider using the IEP Resource: Suggestions and Samples for Students Who Use AAC by Robin Hurd if you feel you need examples of IEP objectives that are curriculum yet language based.
4. Come with an advocate. You should consider bringing along an advocate so you’re not alone, especially when the time prevents parents from attending together. An advocate doesn’t need to be someone trained or experienced in special education or AAC; a good friend can be an effective advocate. Someone else listening to the same information is valuable support to you. Consider making a checklist of items you want to cover during the meeting. Your advocate can be responsible for checking off each item covered as it occurs and writing down any agreed actions to be taken. You can review the list for your satisfaction before the meeting concludes.
5. Come with literature (evidence) to support your values and expectations. In terms of evidence-based practice (EBP), if your IEP is evidence-based, you should be able to identify easily the personal (from you) and clinical (from professionals) evidence in an IEP. You can ask and have explained the external (research) evidence used to guide decisions about interventions, teaching methods and materials. However, the following resource handouts may be helpful in guiding the school team to AAC interventions that meet your expectations:
a. AACtion Points: AAC for Beginners. Pittsburgh, PA: AACI Press. http://www.aacinstitute.org/AACInstituteInformation/CurrentHandoutDocuments.html
b. Achieving Success in AAC: Assessment and Intervention. Pittsburgh, PA: AACI Press. http://www.aacinstitute.org/AACInstituteInformation/CurrentHandoutDocuments.htmlRobin Hurd (June, 2009) was invited to write an article on AAC and IEPs for Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC), an ASHA publication. Your SLP may find this article very helpful, since it focuses specifically on ways the SLP contributes information on how language is used across the curriculum. In addition, the entire June edition of Perspectives on AAC is dedicated to students and school AAC service.
6. Don’t sign an IEP until you’re satisfied. If your child has a lengthy IEP, the school should be willing to give you time to consider all that the document implies for the next academic year(s) for your child.
hat was the outcome of the meeting I wrote about at the beginning of this column? After hearing a series of comments regarding the prerequisite skills this student didn’t have in order to use a Vantage, I requested that we look specifically at the language and communication goals and objectives for the IEP while AAC and language development milestone literature was disseminated. Those present were informed that the device already had been purchased, shipped, and set-up for the student, and the previous evening was spent on initial training. Mom and I then demonstrated how the language application program, a one hit version of Unity, was used by the student to generate messages. A summary of the vocabulary/icons this student was using intentionally as well as other language parameters were reviewed and discussed as a baseline. The principal, who was sitting next me, responded rather sheepishly, “Well, I know s/he can do this.”
Katya Hill, Ph.D., CCC-SLP is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Science and Disorders, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh where she teaches classes in AAC and Assistive Technology and supervises the AAC clinical activity. Dr. Hill is the co-founder and Executive Director of the AAC Institute. She has over 30 years of AAC clinical experience and her research has been in the areas of AAC language activity monitoring, performance measurement, and evidence-based practice. Katya can be contacted at khill@pitt.edu or khill@aacinstitute.org.References
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
(ISBN 9780803973237. OCLC 45093960)Hofstede, G, (July 1978). "The Poverty of Management Control Philosophy". The Academy of Management Review 3 (3): 450–461.
Hurd, R. (June, 2009). AAC and the IEP. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 18(2), 65-70.
Hurd, R. (2008). IEP resource: Suggestions and samples for students who use AAC. Pittsburgh, PA: AAC Institute Press. (ISBN 0-9772307-0-8)
As always, feel free to e-mail Robin Hurd at parents@aacinstitute.org with any questions or comments.
NEW!
AAC ConsumerNet ----- Check it out!http://www.aacinstitute.org/AACConsumerNet
Your feedback is always valued. parents@aacinstitute.org.
