Statewide Survey of Parents of Students Receiving Special Education Services

Transcription

1 Education Service Center Region 9 Statewide Survey of Parents of Students Receiving Special Education Services Final Report August 1, Wild Basin Rd., Suite A-300 Austin, Texas Contact: Mia Zmud, Project Manager (512) Fax (512)

2 Table of Contents Acknowledgments 1. Executive Summary 1 Background 1 Survey Approach and Development 1 Parent Survey 1 Principal Survey 2 Findings 2 2. Background 5 3. Survey Approach and Development 7 Parent Survey 7 Principal Survey 8 Database Construction and Analysis 9 Limitations 9 4. Survey Return Rates and Demographics 10 Parent Demographics 11 Survey Return Rates Parent Survey Findings 13 General School Issues 13 Communication Issues 20 Information and Understanding 22 Teacher Issues 25 Individual Education Plan, Admission Review, and Dismissal Issues Findings from Parental Open-End Responses 30 Prevalent Themes: Question 1 30 What Is Needed to Assist in Child s Education 31 Additional Comments on Special Education Services: Question Principal Survey Findings 36 Successful Parent Involvement Strategies Implemented by Schools 36 Parent-Teacher Organizations and Volunteer Opportunities 41 Successful Parent Involvement Strategies Implemented by Teachers 42 Parent Involvement Plans 43 Parent Input and Opinions 43 Parent Contributions Summary 45 Appendix A: Parent Survey and Letter 47 i

3 Appendix B: Letters to Districts 54 Appendix C: Principal Survey and Letter 60

4 List of Tables and Figures Table 1: Summary by Category 2 Table 2: Student Demographics* 10 Table 3: Parent Reported Level of Education 11 Table 4: Structured Survey Reporting Components 13 Table 5: Questions Pertaining to General School Issues Category 14 Table 6: Average Ratings across Questions in General School Issues Category 14 Table 7: Distribution of Responses to: My child s school is a positive and welcoming place for my family 15 Table 8: Distribution of Always Responses by Eligibility and Ethnic Categories to: My child s school is a positive and welcoming place for my family 15 Table 9: Distribution of Responses to: School personnel encourage me to be involved in my child s education 16 Table 10: Distribution of Responses to: I am considered an equal partner with teachers and other professionals in planning my child s program 16 Table 11: Distribution of Always Responses by Grade Level and Eligibility Category to: I am considered an equal partner with teachers and other professionals in planning my child s program 17 Table 12: Distribution of Responses to: The school provides my child with all the services documented on my child s IEP 17 Table 13: Distribution of Responses to: The school provides information on agencies that can assist my child in the transition from high school 18 Table 14: Distribution of Responses by Grade Level to: The school provides information on agencies that can assist my child in the transition from high school 18 Table 15: Distribution of Responses from Parents of High School Students to: The school provides transition services to help my child reach his or her goals after high school 18 Table 16: Distribution of Responses to: My child is making progress because of the services he/she is receiving 19 Table 17: Distribution of Responses to: Special Education services have helped my family get the services that my child needs outside of school 19 Table 18: Questions Pertaining to Communication Issues Category 20

5 Table 19: Average Ratings across Questions in Communication Issues Category 20 Table 20: Distribution of Responses to: The school communicates regularly with me regarding my child s IEP progress and other important issues 21 Table 21: Distribution of Responses to: I communicate with my child s teacher(s) regularly regarding my child s IEP progress and other important issues 21 Table 22: Questions Pertaining to Information and Understanding Category 22 Table 23: Average Ratings across Questions in Information and Understanding Category 22 Table 24: Distribution of Responses to: School personnel provide information on parent organizations, community agencies, or trainings related to the needs of my child 23 Table 25: Distribution of Responses to: School personnel provide me information to help me assist in my child s education 23 Table 26: Distribution of Responses to: The school provides me information on my child s disability 23 Table 27: Distribution of Responses by Eligibility Type to: The school provides me information on my child s disability 24 Table 28: Distribution of Responses to: Information is provided to me in my native language 24 Table 29: Distribution of Responses to: Teachers and administrators ensure that I fully understand the Procedural Safeguards 25 Table 30: Distribution of Responses to: My child s evaluation report is written in terms I understand 25 Table 31: Questions Pertaining to Teacher Issues Category 25 Table 32: Average Ratings across Questions in Teacher Issues Category 25 Table 33: Distribution of Responses to: Teachers understand my child s needs 26 Table 34: Distribution of Responses to: Teachers show a willingness to discuss my child s needs 26 Table 35: Questions Pertaining to IEP and ARD Issues Category 27 Table 36: Average Ratings across Questions in IEP and ARD Issues Category 27 Table 37: Distribution of Responses to: I participate in my child s Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) meetings 27

6 Table 38: Distribution of Responses to: My concerns and recommendations are considered by the ARD committee in the development of my child s IEP 28 Table 39: Distribution of Responses to: My recommendations are included in my child s IEP 28 Table 40: Distribution of Responses to: At the ARD meeting, we discuss how my child will participate in state assessments 29 Table 41: Distribution of Responses to: At the ARD meeting, we select accommodations that my child needs 29 Table 42: English-Speaking Top-Ten Coded Responses, Question 1 30 Table 43: Spanish-Speaking Top-Ten Coded Responses, Question 1 31 Table 44: English-Speaking Top-Ten Coded Responses, Question 2 34 Table 45: Spanish-Speaking Top-Ten Coded Responses, Question 2 34 Table 46: Primary Method School Used to Communicate with Parents from 2010 and 2011 Surveys 38 Table 47: Services Provided by Schools 40 Table 48: Summary by Category 45 Figure 1: School-provided training workshops to encourage parent involvement? 39 Figure 2: School holds annual meeting to inform parents about special education programs and services? 40 Figure 3: Services Provided by Schools to Encourage Parent Involvement 41 Figure 4: Percentage of Parents Who Actively Participate in Your School s PTA/PTO 41 Figure 5: Percentage of Parents of Students Receiving Special Education Services Who Actively Participate in Your School s PTA/PTO 42 Figure 6: School Has Written Campus-Level Parent Involvement Plan 43

7 Acknowledgments PTV NuStats and Education Service Center Region 9 (Region 9) gratefully acknowledge the many organizations and individuals who assisted with the development, distribution, completion and return of the parent and principal surveys, all of whom share an interest in making special education services more effective and efficient. Parents. Over the past six years ( ), approximately 18,800 parents have participated in this survey. Of these, close to 12,000 provided written comments about the special education services their children have received. This past spring alone (2011), nearly 4,500 parents returned a survey. Our deepest gratitude goes to these parents. Roughly 2,500 parents provided comments, suggestions, and observations in the open-ended section of the survey. We hope the information will be instrumental in the continued efforts of this project to provide insightful information to special education administrators, policymakers, and teachers. We are also grateful to parents who helped develop the survey by participating in the pilot efforts to improve and finalize the survey. Students. While this was a survey distributed to parents, the intent of this study is to improve special education services in Texas. In addition to the indirect support for this study by being the focus of their parents concern, many students also served as couriers in delivering the surveys home. District and Campus Staff. We are grateful to district and campus staff for supporting the distribution of the survey to parents. District and campus staffs efforts to locate students took time and energy. Principals. We are also grateful to the school principals who took the time to respond to the principal survey associated with this study; 699 principals returned the survey in spring Development Committees. We appreciate the efforts and hard work of all members of the development committee. Staff from the Education Service Center Region 9 and the Texas Education Agency. Staff in these two organizations provided overall guidance and support during all four administrations of this survey. We hope you will have the opportunity to use the information provided by parents to improve special education services provided to students in Texas schools. Study Consultant. We thank Dr. David Stamman for his work in developing and executing the first three years of the survey through Academic Information Management (AIM) and for his continued direction, guidance, and review of the 2009, 2010, and 2011 efforts. Disclaimer. The descriptions and interpretations provided in this report are those of PTV NuStats and do not necessarily reflect positions of the Texas Education Agency, Region 9, or other organizations and entities associated with or participating in this survey. PTV NuStats i Educational Service Center Region 9

8 1. Executive Summary Background The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 requires each state to develop a six-year performance plan. This State Performance Plan (SPP) evaluates the State s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of IDEA and illustrates how the State will continuously improve upon this implementation. The Texas SPP was submitted to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) for approval on January 30, OSEP approved the Texas SPP on May 22, OSEP identified five monitoring priorities and twenty indicators to be included in the SPP. For each of the indicators, the State must report progress on measurable and rigorous targets and improvement activities over a six-year period of time. The findings presented in this report summarize survey findings related to Indicator 8: Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving service and results for children with disabilities. 1 This report covers the fifth administration of the survey, with previous surveys conducted in fall 2006, spring 2007, spring 2008, spring 2009, and spring Survey Approach and Development Parent Survey Survey development and production. In September 2005, the Parent Coordination Network reviewed questions from the National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM) Parent Survey and the Statewide Survey of Parents of Students with Disabilities distributed by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and Regional Education Service Center 9 (Region 9) in A separate survey development committee was created to develop the SPP survey in fall The survey s questions focus on the following issues: parent satisfaction, communication between parents and school, parents understanding of information, services and information provided, school climate, the teacher s role, and parent participation in training. English and Spanish versions were developed. Sampling. More than 17,720 parents were selected to be included in the survey from 211districts across the state. One-sixth of all Texas districts are sampled each year, with every district included at some point during the six-year cycle. However, each district with at least 50,000 students is included each year. Parents were selected based on demographic characteristics of their child including ethnicity, grade level, and eligibility category (i.e., learning disability). 1 Texas Education Agency. Division of IDEA Coordination. State Performance Plan/ page 31. PTV NuStats 1 Educational Service Center Region 9

9 Survey Distribution. Beginning in April 2011, each parent or guardian received an envelope with the selected child s name, a letter of instruction, the survey, and a return (postage-paid) envelope. For questions, phone numbers were provided for Region 9, TEA, and PTV NuStats. Districts were given leeway in their method of distributing the surveys to the parents; however, the expected return date for all surveys was early June, Principal Survey In addition to the parent survey, over 1,751 surveys were mailed to principals of campuses included in the sample. These surveys were distributed in late April, and principals were asked to return the survey by June 6, The principal s survey questions focused on items that parallel the parent survey. Findings A total of 4,314 parent surveys were returned (a return rate of 24 percent). Of these, 3,796 English and 518 Spanish-language surveys were returned in time to be included in the quantitative analyses. Roughly 2,500 parents also provided responses to the open-ended questions. Of the 1,751 principal surveys that were distributed, 699 were returned, representing a 40 percent return rate. A total of 23 questions from the parent survey were divided into five topic-specific categories and examined. Grouping the three types of responses (Always-Never, Yes-No, and Agree- Disagree), Table 1 presents a summary of responses within these categories. For each category, responses were overall positive. The percentages of responses in the least positive category were under 5 percent, with the exception of General School Issues and Information and Understanding. The response patterns for this year s survey were very similar to findings from the previous five years. This consistency argues for both the reliability and validity of findings. Table 1: Summary by Category Positive Neutral Negative Category Always Agree Yes Sometimes Neutral Never Disagree No General School Issues 67.9% 22.0% 10.3% Communication Issues 68.3% 27.5% 3.3% Information and Understanding 78.7% 26.6% 7.4% Teacher Issues 71.0% 25.1% 2.5% IEP and ARD 82.9% 12.7% 2.9% * Note that percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Although the respondents generally responded positively to questions regarding their interactions with the school (as seen in the summary ratings in Table 1), there were items for which the ratings were less positive (parental actions are not included for this consideration). Below are PTV NuStats 2 Educational Service Center Region 9

10 selected areas for which 22 percent of the ratings fell into the Negative category, as identified in Table 1. The school provides transition services to help my child reach his or her goals after high school. (This issue was also identified in spring 2008, 2009, and 2010.) The school provides information on agencies that assist my child in the transition from high school. (This issue was also identified in spring 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.) Special education services have helped my family and I get the services that my child needs outside of school. (This issue was also identified in spring 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.) The school provides me with information about my child s disability. (This issue was also identified in spring 2008, 2009, and 2010.) The first three of these items center on transition issues and on the information and coordination provided regarding outside agencies and support. The item regarding information about a child s disability likely reflects providing understandable and useful information. Generally, within each of the categories in Table 1, findings from respondents in the spring 2010 survey were similar to the spring 2011, but there is a decrease in Negative responses. This year, General School Issues was the lowest-rated area, similar to last year s survey. These low ratings were driven primarily by negative responses to the transition questions noted above. Overall, parent open-ended responses parallel the responses received in the structured survey. Parents who responded to the survey were overall satisfied with the services received by their child s school. The following is a list of the overall findings from parent responses. Overall satisfaction The majority of respondents expressed being satisfied with the special education services provided by schools. More information and training Parents noted that they need help understanding their child s disability. They asked for the school to provide more specific and relevant information. Communication improvements While overall satisfied, parents noted concern with communication between parents and the special education staff (or communication between the special education setting and the general education setting). Parents want to be kept informed and want to know how to contribute to the academic progress of their children. The principals who responded to the survey offered multiple examples of successful parent involvement strategies, but most responded similarly that improving communication between parents and schools, having open door policies, and providing opportunities to volunteer in school activities were most important. Principals also noted how significant parent involvement is to a school. They listed a variety of important parent participation activities, including attending PTA/PTO and Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) meetings, assisting directly in the classroom, chaperoning field trips, and helping in many other special projects. PTV NuStats 3 Educational Service Center Region 9

11 Overall, principals noted that parent contributions and involvement is a critical component for schools and children. Principals noted parents significance in the role of their child s education, but also recognized how difficult it is for many parents to commit time and effort in helping their child succeed. Among many reasons, principals listed lack of time, transportation, and work schedules as the largest barriers to their involvement in their child s education. PTV NuStats 4 Educational Service Center Region 9

12 2. Background The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 requires each state to develop a six-year performance plan. This State Performance Plan (SPP) evaluates the State s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of IDEA and illustrates how the State will continuously improve upon this implementation. The Texas SPP was submitted to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) for approval on January 30, OSEP approved the Texas SPP on May 22, OSEP identified five monitoring priorities and twenty indicators to be included in the SPP. For each of the indicators, the State must report progress on measurable and rigorous targets and improvement activities over a six-year period of time. The findings presented in this report summarize survey findings related to Indicator 8: Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving service and results for children with disabilities. Since 2000, Texas has been following the OSEP Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (CIMP), which is designed to assess, on an ongoing basis, the impact and effectiveness of state and local efforts in providing early intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and to their families. In addition, state and local agencies must ensure a free, appropriate, public education (FAPE) to children and youth with disabilities. During the spring of 2002, OSEP monitored the State of Texas; in 2003, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) received the OSEP Monitoring Report, which specified areas of noncompliance, highlighted strengths, and suggested areas of improvement for Texas IDEA-B (ages 3 21) and IDEA-C (ages 0 3) programs. The ongoing improvement and planning activities that have occurred in response to the federal monitoring process are referred to as the Texas Continuous Improvement Process (TCIP). Using the TCIP, the State submitted an Improvement Plan in response to the OSEP Monitoring Report. It addresses areas of improvement identified during three phases of the process: the self-assessment, validation planning (public meeting), and validation data collection (on-site visit). Regional Education Service Center 9 (Region 9) is the statewide lead for Parent Coordination. The Parent Coordination network is made up of representatives from each of the 20 regional education service centers. This network is committed to ensuring that parents of students with disabilities receive accurate and timely information that will help them support their children in their education. The network meets to review the State s current status regarding parent involvement and related issues and to determine the extent to which Texas agencies had achieved the results outlined in the TCIP. An overview describing the CIMP, TCIP, the self-assessment, the Texas Monitoring Report, and the Improvement Plan may be found at: In response to the Improvement Plan, the TEA and the Parent Coordination Network, through the leadership of Region 9, conducted a survey in 2003 of parent understanding of special education PTV NuStats 5 Educational Service Center Region 9

13 issues. The surveys were distributed to 32,000 parents, and the results were posted on the Region 9 website at Based on SPP s Indicator 8, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) is required to collect parent involvement information for students receiving special education services. To assist in this task, Region 9 contracted PTV NuStats to help develop, distribute, and analyze the spring 2011 survey. This report summarizes information collected from the spring 2011 surveys of principals and parents. PTV NuStats 6 Educational Service Center Region 9

14 3. Survey Approach and Development Parent Survey Survey purpose. This survey was developed to obtain information regarding parent involvement with their child s school. The survey was directed to parents of students receiving special education services. Information derived from this survey will be included in the six-year Texas State Performance Plan (SPP). Following the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) of 2004, each state developed a plan to address 20 indicators, one of which is Indicator 8: Parent Participation (percent of parents with a child receiving special education services that report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities). Although not required by the SPP, a parallel survey of principals of schools included in the survey was undertaken to obtain strategies used by schools to enhance parent involvement. Survey development and production. The survey, distributed in fall 2006, spring 2007, and spring 2008, was revised for use in spring 2009, spring 2010, and spring In September 2005, the Parent Coordination Network reviewed questions from the National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM) Parent Survey and the Statewide Survey of Parents of Students with Disabilities distributed by TEA and Region 9 in A separate survey development committee was created to develop the SPP survey. Committee members included representatives from TEA, Region 9, Academic Information Management, and from local schools and districts. In addition to the surveys reviewed, committee members also reviewed SPP resources from the Federal Resource Center website ( and information included in Joyce Epstein s Parent Involvement Survey. Lastly, committee members reviewed finding from the Statewide Survey of Parents of Students with Disabilities Receiving Special Education Services. A one-page, scannable questionnaire was then developed. The committee selected questions from prior surveys with a focus on parent involvement, in addition to creating new items. The survey s questions focus on the following issues: parent satisfaction, communication between parents and school, parents understanding of information, services and information provided, school climate, the teacher s role, and parent participation in training. The survey was distributed on scannable forms. Both English and Spanish-language surveys were sent when the child s TEA home language survey indicated that Spanish was spoken in the home. A sample of the parent survey is included in Appendix A. Sampling. The spring 2011 parent survey included 17,720 parents, from which PTV NuStats received 4,314 returned packages. One-sixth of all Texas districts are sampled each year with every district included at some point during the six-year cycle. However, each district that enrolls 50,000 students or more is included each year. To select districts and campuses, a sampling matrix that considered geographic area, district size, and student demographics was developed. The sample for the spring 2011 (and samples for annual surveys that will be distributed through ) was derived from this matrix. In PTV NuStats 7 Educational Service Center Region 9

15 large districts (those enrolling more than 50,000 students), a further sample of campuses was selected. Selecting campuses within the larger districts facilitated the distribution of surveys so that campuses would not receive only one or two parent surveys. A list of all districts and campuses sampled each year will be maintained to ensure that all districts (and campuses within the larger districts) will be included in the survey during the six-year cycle. For the spring 2011 survey, 1,751 campuses within 211 districts were included in the final sample of eligible schools. Note that districts with fewer than 10 listed students receiving special education services were not included in the final sample due to privacy concerns. To reduce the burden on school staff members, every participating campus received a maximum of 25 surveys. Once the districts and campuses were selected, a sample of students was drawn based on data provided by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) from the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) database. Students were selected from the school year to ensure the most recent data for identifying students campuses. PTV NuStats entered into a confidentiality agreement with TEA to protect the identity of students. Following all analyses, data sets containing personally identifiable data were destroyed and/or overwritten. The final database includes information regarding student grade level, gender, ethnicity, and eligibility (formerly disability) category. Students were then selected according to a sampling framework that considered these variables proportionately from the various campuses/districts. From this process, 17,720 students were selected to be included in the spring sample. To increase the return rates for smaller incidence eligibility categories, over- and under-sampling were used. For example, while students with a learning disability constitute about 40 percent of the state population, they were included at about 35 percent in the sampling framework. Survey Distribution. Letters, included in Appendix B, were sent to district superintendents and special education directors informing them of the purpose of the survey. Approximately one month after the letters were distributed, surveys were sent bundled by campus to the districts included in the survey. Each package included the surveys and instructions to the campus contact person outlining methods for distributing the surveys. These surveys were to be completed by the parent or guardian of the students listed on the return envelopes. Each campus was asked to distribute the surveys to parents. Campuses were allowed to select their own method sent home with the student, hand-delivered, or mailed to the student s home. For parents of students where the TEA Home Language Survey indicated that Spanish was spoken, both English and Spanish versions were included. Additional surveys in English and Spanish were made available by request. Each parent received an envelope with the child s name, a letter of instruction, the survey, and a return (postage-paid) envelope. For questions, phone numbers were provided for Region 9, TEA, and PTV NuStats. Survey assistance was available in both English and Spanish. Parents were asked to return the surveys by the end of May Surveys received through the end of June 2011 were included in the analyses. Principal Survey In addition to the parent survey, 1,751 surveys were mailed separately to principals of campuses included in the final spring survey sample. These surveys were distributed in late April, and PTV NuStats 8 Educational Service Center Region 9

16 principals were asked to return the survey by May Postage-paid, self-addressed envelopes were also provided. The principal survey used for the spring 2011 effort was the same survey used in 2009 and 2010, which differed from the previous three surveys only in that it excluded two follow-up questions regarding when and how often parents of special education students attended annual meetings. The principal s survey, consisting of 15 questions, focused on items regarding parent involvement that parallel the parent survey. A copy of the principal s survey is included in Appendix C. As part of this survey, principals were asked to identify successful parent involvement strategies and to list the most important contributions that parents make to their schools. In addition, principals were asked to identify strategies and practices that are targeted specifically to parents of students who receive special education services. Other issues included in the survey were: successful parent involvement strategies implemented by schools and teachers, parent participation in school activities, methods used by schools to communicate with parents, input from parents, services provided in school that help increase parent involvement, successful parent contributions made to schools, parent training/annual meeting opportunities, and factors that impede parent involvement. Database Construction and Analysis All surveys were returned in a postage-paid, self-addressed envelope. Each survey was examined surveys that were not scannable (torn, smudged) were separated and recoded onto new sheets. All primary data analysis was conducted using SPSS, with some supplemental analysis using Microsoft Excel. Open-ended comments received by parents and principals were coded. Responses were analyzed by question and clustered into various themes. Limitations The information presented in this report is appropriate at the state level and for many Education Service Centers. In addition, only some of the very largest districts had information from a sufficient number of parents to be representative. Surveys might have been distributed to parents of students not in the sample list; however, this is not likely given that the student s name was on the return envelope. PTV NuStats 9 Educational Service Center Region 9

17 4. Survey Return Rates and Demographics Table 2 presents demographic information of students whose parents returned surveys. The state data were obtained from an earlier Education Service Center 11 Supplemental Special Education Report. 2 In general, the percentages returned mirror the sample distributions. As noted earlier, deliberate over- and under-sampling were utilized to try and match return percentages to state distributions based on previous surveys. Of the 211 districts included in the original mailing, 205 were included in the analyses. Surveys from the remaining districts may have been received after the processing date (approximately one month after the survey return due date). In some cases, students may have left the district after the PEIMS data collection in fall Table 2 gives an indication of the relative success of the over-/under-sampling approach. The number of surveys returned is relatively close to the overall state special education population. Categories Table 2: Student Demographics* Surveys Analyzed n=4,314 Initial Sample n=17,720 State Special Education** Ethnicity African American 14.1% 17.1% 17.7% Hispanic 44.0% 46.2% 40.0% White 37.5% 33.1% 40.8% Other 4.5% 3.6% 1.5% Gender Male 64.1% 66.1% 66.8% Female 35.9% 33.9% 33.2% Disability Learning Disability 37.6% 44.7% 50.0% Speech 20.0% 17.3% 20.2% Other health impaired 12.5% 12.5% 10.0% Other 29.9% 25.5% 19.8% Grade Span Elementary (including PK/Kindergarten) 38.6% 32.4% 39.7% Middle (5 8) 32.6% 33.2% 28.0% High (9 12) 28.8% 34.4% 32.4% Economic Disadvantage Yes 63.3% 57.7% 59.2% No 36.7% 42.3% 40.8% Source: English and Spanish Spring 2009 Parent Involvement Surveys, Initial Sample, ESC 11 Special Education Supplemental Reports *Note that percentages in this, and other tables, may not total 100 due to rounding. **The data presented for the state special education population is the most recently available (2004). 2 This state-level report is available through the Education Service Center 11, PTV NuStats 10 Educational Service Center Region 9

18 Parent Demographics Parents were asked to provide personal information on the highest level of education they had completed. Table 3 contains this information for both the Spanish and English-language surveys, as well as the combined result. Note that these are self-reported data not subject to verification. Overall, 40 percent of the parents reported having not gone to college, 27 percent had attended some college, and 26 percent had a college degree. The Spanish results show that a large majority (83 percent) of parents did not attend college. These findings are similar to what was reported for this question in the 2010 survey. Also similar to past surveys, this question on parents education level had one of the highest refusal rates (7 percent) of all the survey questions. Table 3: Parent Reported Level of Education Level of Education English n=3,795 Spanish n=519 Overall n=4,314 Some high school 12.2% 49.0% 16.0% GED 5.7% 4.8% 5.6% High school graduate 21.0% 29.3% 21.8% Some college 30.6% 10.8% 28.5% College graduate 30.5% 6.0% 28.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Survey Return Rates A total of 4,314 parent surveys were returned in time to be including the analyses. There were 3,795 English and 519 Spanish-language surveys that were usable (that is, non-blank). The total number is within the desired bounds of +/- 3% at the 95% confidence level. Otherwise stated, we can be (at least) 95 percent sure that the findings to individual questions are within +/- 3 percentage points of the actual population distributions. The overall return rate for parent surveys was 24 percent. Of the 4,314 returned surveys, roughly 2,500 parents also answered the openended questions. Of these, 2,100 provided feedback in English, and 400 responded in Spanish. Of the 1,751 principal surveys that were distributed, 699 were returned, which represents a 40 percent return rate. Factors Affecting Whether Parents Receive Survey Packets Mobility. Mobility is defined as student movement from one district to another during a school year. According to previous TEA Academic Excellence Indicator System (2007 AEIS) reports, roughly 22 percent of Texas students are considered mobile. Mobility data are not available separately for students receiving special education services, but there is no reason to suspect that they would differ dramatically from students in general. The return percentage was slightly lower in 2011 (24 percent) compared to 27 percent in 2010, 26 percent in 2009, and 23 percent in PTV NuStats 11 Educational Service Center Region 9

19 Not taken home. As previously noted, although several methods for delivering survey materials to students parents were suggested, it was likely that many schools sent the surveys home with students. It is quite possible that some survey packets did not make it home or that occasionally the survey was completed by the student instead of the parent. Not distributed by school. It is possible that some districts or campuses opted not to distribute the survey materials to parents. Leaving school. For a variety of reasons graduation, dropout, or withdrawal from home school, among others some students leave the school system altogether. However, this effect is likely small given the minimal time interval between PEIMS collection and survey distribution. In summary, PTV NuStats estimates that about percent of survey packets were never received from the parents for one or more of the reasons listed above. Important Factors after Parents Receive Survey Packets Doubt that completing a survey will help their child. Another reason for non-return of the survey might be parents skepticism that this survey would have any positive impact for their child. Suspicion. Other parents may have been suspicious of the intent of the survey. Although reassurances were given that the unique code number would not identify the child or the school for any reason other than for analysis, the unique number may have influenced some parents not to complete the survey. Apathy. Some parents, unfortunately, did not care to fill out the survey. It is likely that this is a relatively small percentage. Lack of time. While many parents would like to complete the survey, many feel that they do not have enough time and, given other pressing responsibilities, choose not to complete the survey. Loss, other. It is likely that a certain percentage of parents lost the questionnaire, forgot about it, or did not complete the survey for some reason other than those listed above. PTV NuStats 12 Educational Service Center Region 9

20 5. Parent Survey Findings This section describes the attitudes and perceptions of the parents of students receiving special education services on school environment, communication with school and teachers, amount and quality of services and information provided, the teacher s role, and participation in training. For ease of analysis, the questions asked in the parent study were grouped into five categories to better understand the patterns amongst these factors. These categories defined in the 2009 survey and used in this section are: General School Issues, Communication, Information and Understanding, Teachers, and Individual Education Plan (IEP) and Admission Review Dismissal (ARD) committee. Table 4 describes the sets of questions that fall into each of these categories. Table 4: Structured Survey Reporting Components Categories General School Issues Communication Issues Information & Understanding Teachers IEP and ARD Description Centered on school actions and behaviors and perceptions of school climate Communication between the school, teachers, and parents The amount and quality of information provided and the level of understanding of the information by the parent General and Special Education teacher issues Issues specific to Individual Education Plan and Admission, Review, Dismissal Note that three types of scales were used to obtain information on the questions, including Always, Sometimes, and Never (for ease of use, we define this as a Type 1 scale for subsequent analysis); Agree, Neutral, and Disagree (Type 2); and Yes or No (Type 3) scales. General School Issues The first category of questions, General School Issues, includes questions pertaining to the school, the principal and other personnel, or the school s special education services in general. Table 5 lists the eight questions that fall under this category. PTV NuStats 13 Educational Service Center Region 9

21 Table 5: Questions Pertaining to General School Issues Category Question Scale Type My child s school is a positive and welcoming place for my family. Always, Sometimes, Never 1 School personnel encourage me to be involved in my child s education. Agree, Neutral, Disagree 2 I am considered an equal partner with teachers and other professionals in planning my child s program. Agree, Neutral, Disagree 2 The school provides my child with all the services documented on my child s IEP. Always, Sometimes, Never 1 The school provides information on agencies that can assist my child in the transition from high school. The school provides transition services to help my child reach his or her goals after high school. Agree, Neutral, Disagree 2 Yes, No 3 My child is making progress because of the services he/she is receiving. Agree, Neutral, Disagree 2 Special Education services have helped my family get the services that my child needs outside of school. Agree, Neutral, Disagree 2 Responses to the questions in this category are averaged and presented in Table 6. Only one question within this category has a yes/no response and, therefore, is not included in this table. Within the always to never category, there were two questions, with the always response ranging from a high of 81 percent to a low of 78 percent. The 2010 survey results present nearly the same range, which spreads four percentage points. The five items in the agree to disagree category range from a high agree response of 80 percent to a low of 43 percent. Table 6: Average Ratings across Questions in General School Issues Category Type 1 Scale Type 2 Scale Always Sometimes Never Agree Neutral Disagree 79.0% 18.9% 2.1% 64.1% 25.4% 10.5% A key element to a successful partnership between the school and the parent is the school environment, which is addressed in the question that asks if the school is a positive and welcoming place for the student. Table 7 presents the distribution of responses to the school environment question and shows that over 80 percent of the parents felt that their child s school was always a positive and welcoming place. Less than two percent of parents felt that the school was never a positive and welcoming place for their child, while about one-fifth of parents (18 percent) said school was sometimes a positive and welcoming place. These findings are similar to those reported in the 2009 and 2010 surveys. A comparison of the results between parents using the two different language versions of the survey show higher positive responses to this question from parents who responded using the Spanish-language survey. Given that over 85 percent of the surveys were taken in English, the combined rating (adding Spanish to English) will strongly resemble the English version alone. This will be seen in the majority of items within the survey and is similar to prior surveys. PTV NuStats 14 Educational Service Center Region 9

22 Table 7: Distribution of Responses to: My child s school is a positive and welcoming place for my family Response English n=1,107 Spanish n=118 Overall n=1,225 Always 79.7% 86.1% 80.5% Sometimes 18.9% 13.2% 18.2% Never 1.4% 0.6% 1.3% Table 8 presents the demographic distribution of always responses to the school environment question by eligibility category and ethnicity of the students. Parents of students receiving speech services, regardless of ethnicity, responded much more positively than those from the other categories. In addition, parents of students with a learning disability were least pleased across all ethnic categories (73 percent overall). Parents of African American students were the least positive about the school environment, while parents of White students were the most positive. This is consistent across all eligibility categories except speech disabilities, in which all three ethnicities responded always nearly equally. The table suggests that parents of African American students with other health impairments were the least positive about the school environment (65 percent), while those of African American students with speech disabilities were the most positive (89 percent). These findings are similar in pattern to, but slightly less positive than, those found in the spring 2010 survey. Table 8: Distribution of Always Responses by Eligibility and Ethnic Categories to: My child s school is a positive and welcoming place for my family Eligibility Category African American n=592 Ethnicity White n=1,609 Hispanic n=1,874 Overall n=4,075 Learning Disability 75.0% 79.0% 77.9% 78.0% Speech 88.7% 87.6% 85.9% 86.9% Other health impairment 64.6% 76.3% 75.3% 74.0% All Other % 84.7% 80.6% 81.7% Note that while it is not possible to examine each question by each of the available demographics (such as student ethnicity, parent education, etc.), in some cases, issues that might be reasonably associated with these variables will be examined in more depth. Table 9 presents the distribution of responses to whether parents felt encouraged by school personnel to be involved in their child s education. More than three-quarters (78 percent) of all parents agreed that school personnel encouraged them to be involved in their child s education, 3 The disability category titled All Other covers a wide range of disability categories with relatively small numbers of parents within each specific category. PTV NuStats 15 Educational Service Center Region 9

23 while five percent disagreed. Responses in the Spanish-language survey were slightly more positive than in the English-language survey. Overall, these results did not differ much from the 2010 survey, when the question was first introduced. Table 9: Distribution of Responses to: School personnel encourage me to be involved in my child s education Response English n=3,765 Spanish n=512 Overall n=4,277 Agree 77.2% 81.3% 77.7% Neutral 17.9% 15.8% 17.7% Disagree 4.8% 2.9% 4.6% Central to issues surrounding parent involvement is the relationship between the school staff and parents, as shown in Table 10. Overall, over three-quarters (78 percent) of parents believed that they were an equal partner with teachers and other professionals in planning their child s program, which is higher than the proportion from the 2010 survey. However, this year s results have a smaller difference between the English Creo que estoy involucrada el 100% con la educación de mi hija, pero cualquier cosa que ustedes me sugieran, estoy muy dispuesta a colaborar para que mi hija progrese aún más. Necesito ayuda para el habla; es un área importante que aún no puedo hacer para que progrese. (I believe I m involved 100% with my daughter s education, but I am willing to collaborate with you with whatever you recommend so that my daughter can progress more. I need help with speech; it is an important area in which I still can t help her progress.) Parent and Spanish-language survey results than in In keeping with the pattern found in most other responses, the Spanish-language survey takers were more likely to agree that they were an equal partner. Table 10: Distribution of Responses to: I am considered an equal partner with teachers and other professionals in planning my child s program Response English n=3,675 Spanish n=512 Overall n=4,277 Agree 77.2% 81.3% 77.7% Neutral 17.9% 15.8% 17.7% Disagree 4.8% 2.9% 4.6% To explore this further, Table 11 compares the frequency of agree responses to this question for parents who took Spanish-language surveys among the different grade levels and disability categories. Of those surveys where the student s grade level was known, parents of elementary and middle school students generally agreed more that they were considered an equal partner. On the other hand, parents of high school students had the least positive response to this question, especially those with children eligible by some other health impairment. PTV NuStats 16 Educational Service Center Region 9

24 Table 11: Distribution of Always Responses by Grade Level and Eligibility Category to: I am considered an equal partner with teachers and other professionals in planning my child s program Eligibility Category Elementary (Grades 1 4) n=146 Grade Level Middle (Grades 5 8) n=187 High (Grades 9 12) n=122 All Spanish Responses n=455 Learning Disability 80.0% 83.2% 75.9% 80.4% Speech 83.3% 66.7% NA 81.8% Other health impairment 75.0% 83.3% 66.7% 76.9% All Other % 81.6% 78.4% 84.1% Table 12 presents the distribution of responses of parents to the provision of services documented on their child s IEP. About 78 percent of the parents reported that the school always provided their child with all the services documented on their child s IEP, while 20 percent reported that the school sometimes provided these services. As with many of the survey items, parents using the Spanish-language survey were more positive, with 90 percent responding always. Table 12: Distribution of Responses to: The school provides my child with all the services documented on my child s IEP Response English n=3,763 Spanish n=512 Overall n=4,275 Always 75.8% 89.8% 77.5% Sometimes 21.0% 9.4% 19.6% Never 3.2% 0.8% 2.9% The distribution of responses to the question about whether the school provided information on agencies that can assist their child in transition from high school is shown in Table 13. Slightly more than two-fifths (43 percent) of all parents agreed that the school provided this information, while less than one-fifth disagreed. Forty-one percent of the parents had a neutral opinion. The results from this question are much less positive than most other questions on the survey, yet the topic applies mainly to parents of students currently in high school. Of the 4,159 parents who answered this question, 1,227 parents (33 percent) had a child in high school. Removing the parents of elementary and middle school students in the survey did change the distribution of the response to the question considerably, as seen in Table 14. Looking only at parents of high school students, 58 percent of parents agreed with the statement. 4 The disability category titled All Other covers a wide range of disability categories with relatively small numbers of parents within each specific category. PTV NuStats 17 Educational Service Center Region 9

25 Table 13: Distribution of Responses to: The school provides information on agencies that can assist my child in the transition from high school Response English n=3,666 Spanish n=4934 Overall n=4,159 Agree 40.2% 64.7% 43.1% Neutral 42.3% 27.0% 40.5% Disagree 17.5% 8.3% 16.4% Table 14: Distribution of Responses by Grade Level to: The school provides information on agencies that can assist my child in the transition from high school Response Elementary n=1,113 Grade Level Middle n=1,369 High n=1,227 Overall n=3,709 Agree 34.9% 40.8% 58.0% 44.7% Neutral 48.3 % 40.7% 28.4% 38.9% Disagree 16.9% 18.6% 13.7% 16.4% The next question falling under the General School Issues category is similar to the one analyzed in Table 13 and relates to the provision of transition services. Therefore, Table 15 presents the distribution of responses only from parents with a child in high school. As shown in Table 15, nearly one-third of the parents reported that the school did not provide transition services to help their child reach his/her goals after high school. As expected, responses from the Spanishlanguage survey were more positive, with 85 percent reporting yes. Table 15: Distribution of Responses from Parents of High School Students to: The school provides transition services to help my child reach his or her goals after high school Response English n=844 Spanish n=100 Overall n=944 Yes 67.1% 84.6% 69.2% No 32.9% 15.4% 30.8% While this question does not directly address parent involvement, transition services would normally be a parent/school/outside agency partnership. If a noticeable percentage of parents reported no transition services, meaningful involvement of parents at the high-school level may be suspect. Taken together with Table 13, the patterns of response reflect the 2010 results and indicate that this remains an area of concern for parents at the high-school level that should be addressed. PTV NuStats 18 Educational Service Center Region 9

26 Table 16 pertains to the extent to which parents believed the services received by their children were enabling their progress. Overall, responses to the question were very positive, where four out of five parents agreed with the statement, while four percent disagreed. Similar to most questions, respondents of Spanish-language surveys were more positive than respondents of English-language surveys. The program has been a blessing. My son is graduating with the best grades he has ever had. He is looking forward to attending college in the fall. He is aware of his life challenges, but confident in his abilities. Parent Table 16: Distribution of Responses to: My child is making progress because of the services he/she is receiving Response English n=3,770 Spanish n=514 Overall n=4,284 Agree 79.1% 86.0% 80.0% Neutral 16.7% 11.7% 16.1% Disagree 4.2% 2.3% 4.0% The survey asks a more general question about services outside of school, the results of which are presented in Table 17. With nearly the same results as in all four prior surveys, 22 percent of parents disagreed that the special education services have helped their family get the services their child needs outside of school. This question had the most negative response of all Type 2 questions in this group, signaling the continuing need for improvement in this area. With limited resources within the school, outside support is critical to both the school and the continued wellbeing of students. Also apparent in Table 17 is a large difference in responses between the English and Spanish-language surveys, with the Spanish respondents agreeing 12 percentage points more than English respondents. Table 17: Distribution of Responses to: Special Education services have helped my family get the services that my child needs outside of school Response English n=3,744 Spanish n=502 Overall n=4,246 Agree 43.1% 55.0% 44.5% Neutral 34.4% 27.5% 33.6% Disagree 22.5% 17.5% 22.0% PTV NuStats 19 Educational Service Center Region 9

27 Communication Issues Communication between parents and schools builds trust and is a critical component of parent involvement. If such a relationship is absent or lacking, those responsible for a student s education are unlikely to find themselves in a position to offer the best education to the student. It is Timely feedback from special education teachers on the [child s] progress or what they think the progress should be. This may be better handled by a phone call rather than paper report, which could take weeks from what is currently being taught. Parent important to factor in the effectiveness of school communication, not just the frequency at which schools distribute documents, send s, and schedule meetings. A school may provide numerous methods to communicate, but if parents are not involved, it is likely that the communication efforts have not been successful. Alternatively, a school may distribute documents that are not conducive to understanding or not provided in the native language of some parents. Ultimately, it is imperative to provide information in a manner that parents can receive and understand, giving them the belief that their feelings and opinions are important to the district. Communication is clearly a major concern of parents of students receiving special education services, as evident in the open-ended responses (see Chapter 6). In addition, the principal survey findings summarize the strategies used by schools and the principals perceptions regarding the effectiveness of them (see Chapter 7). The communication issues category included two questions involving how the school and teachers keep in contact with parents about their student s IEP progress. Table 18 lists the two questions that fall under this category. Both questions were Type 1, meaning they had an always, sometimes, never choice set. Table 18: Questions Pertaining to Communication Issues Category Question Scale Type The school communicates regularly with me regarding my child s IEP progress and other important issues. I communicate with my child s teacher(s) regularly regarding my child s IEP progress and other important issues. Always, Sometimes, Never 1 Always, Sometimes, Never 1 Table 19 presents the average ratings for the questions in this category and shows an overall positive response to communication issues. These results are slightly less positive than in last year s survey, which had an average of 70 percent for an always response to these two questions. Table 19: Average Ratings across Questions in Communication Issues Category Type 1 Scale Always Sometimes Never 69.0% 27.8% 3.3% PTV NuStats 20 Educational Service Center Region 9

28 As observed in surveys from , the open-ended parent responses indicated that communication issues and regular reports to parents are important. Parents want to stay informed and suggested increasing the frequency of reports about the progress of their children, and many mentioned the need for more regular meetings to discuss the needs of their children. Table 20 presents the distribution of responses on the extent to which the school communicated regularly with the parent regarding their child s IEP progress and other important issues. As shown in the table, the responses to this question were fairly positive, with over three-quarters of parents (78 percent) reporting always. As seen in most of the other questions, the responses from the Spanish-language surveys were more positive, with 90 percent responding always. Overall, one-fifth of parents reported that the communication from the school occurred sometimes, while three percent reported never. As with the surveys conducted in the previous four years, almost one-quarter of the parents surveyed noted that the school communicated sometimes or never, suggesting that communication is an area that continually needs improvement. Table 20: Distribution of Responses to: The school communicates regularly with me regarding my child s IEP progress and other important issues Response English n=3,763 Spanish n=512 Overall n=4,275 Always 75.8% 89.8% 77.5% Sometimes 21.0% 9.4% 19.6% Never 3.2% 0.8% 2.9% The following question in the survey addresses the teacher s communication about the child s progress. As shown in Table 21 below, 60 percent of the parents reported that teachers always communicated regularly with them about IEP progress and other important issues. This is much lower than the proportion of parents who reported that the school communicated regularly with them about IEP progress and other important issues (78 percent), and is also lower than the response to this question in last year s survey. Similar to the 2010 survey results, the Spanishlanguage survey had a lower percentage of always responses than the English-language survey. Taken together, Tables 20 and 21, along with the open-ended comments discussed later in Chapter 6, indicate that communication with parents is an important area that needs more attention, particularly between teachers and parents who primarily speak Spanish. Table 21: Distribution of Responses to: I communicate with my child s teacher(s) regularly regarding my child s IEP progress and other important issues Response English n=3,765 Spanish n=504 Overall n=4,269 Always 60.4% 59.7% 60.3% Sometimes 35.5% 38.7% 35.9% Never 4.0% 1.6% 3.8% PTV NuStats 21 Educational Service Center Region 9

29 Information and Understanding While closely related to the Communications category, the Information and Understanding category includes questions that address how information was provided to the parents and how well the parents understood that information. Table 22 lists the six questions that fall under this category, two of which are Type 1 and four of which are Type 3 questions. Table 22: Questions Pertaining to Information and Understanding Category Question Scale Type School personnel provide information on parent organizations, community agencies, or trainings related to the needs of my child. Always, Sometimes, Never 1 School personnel provide me information to help me assist in my child s education. Always, Sometimes, Never 1 The school provides me information on my child s disability. Yes, No 3 Information is provided to me in my native language. Yes, No 3 Teachers and administrators ensure that I fully understand the Procedural Safeguards (also known as the Rights Booklet). Yes, No 3 My child s evaluation report is written in terms I understand. Yes, No 3 Table 23 presents the average ratings for the questions in this category and shows less positive responses for Type 1 questions in this category as compared to other categories. However, the average rating of Type 3 questions is very positive, with 90 percent responding yes. These ratings are nearly equal to those from the 2010 survey, and suggest that the two Type 1 questions in this category need ongoing attention. Table 23: Average Ratings across Questions in Information and Understanding Category Type 1 Scale Type 3 Scale Always Sometimes Never Yes No 62.6% 27.0% 10.5% 89.6% 10.4% The first question in this category inquires about the extent to which school personnel provided information to the parents on agencies or trainings geared towards their children s needs. Table 24 shows that just more than 60 percent reported that the school personnel always provided this information, while 13 percent reported that this information was never provided to them. Following the common trend in the findings of this survey, Spanish respondents were much more positive, with 74 percent reporting that the school personnel always provided this information; only 10 percent reported the information was never provided. PTV NuStats 22 Educational Service Center Region 9

30 Table 24: Distribution of Responses to: School personnel provide information on parent organizations, community agencies, or trainings related to the needs of my child Response English n=3,750 Spanish n=500 Overall n=4,250 Always 59.3% 73.8% 61.0% Sometimes 27.4% 19.0% 26.4% Never 13.4% 7.2% 12.7% The other question in this category with a Type 1 rating asked about the extent to which school personnel provided information to parents to help them assist in their child s education. Table 25 presents the distribution of the responses and shows that, overall, 64 percent of parents reported that they always receive this type of information, while 28 percent only sometimes received it, and eight percent never do. The response to these two questions indicates that parents feel they receive more information on what they can do to help their child than information on outside agencies or trainings. Also, the parents answering the Spanish-language survey gave a more positive response than the parents answering the English-language survey. Table 25: Distribution of Responses to: School personnel provide me information to help me assist in my child s education Response English n=3,749 Spanish n=503 Overall n=4,252 Always 62.2% 78.7% 64.2% Sometimes 28.8% 18.1% 27.6% Never 9.0% 3.2% 8.3% Table 26 presents the distribution of responses to whether parents reported being provided with information on their child s disability. Overall, 78 percent reported yes, compared to 77 percent in the 2010 survey. Even more pronounced than in most other responses is the difference between the English and Spanish-language survey results. Over nine-tenths (94 percent) of parents who took the Spanish-language survey reported yes, compared to only three-fourths (76 percent) of parents who took the English-language survey. Table 26: Distribution of Responses to: The school provides me information on my child s disability Response English n=3,696 Spanish n=489 Overall n=4,185 Yes 75.9% 93.9% 78.0% No 24.1% 6.1% 22.0% PTV NuStats 23 Educational Service Center Region 9

31 To further analyze the outcome of this question, Table 27 presents the response of parents by their child s eligibility type. Parents of children with learning and speech impairments responded very positively, with 84 percent and 86 percent reporting yes, respectively. Fewer parents of children with other health impairments reported receiving information on their children s disability, suggesting there may be a difference in the information received by these parent types. Table 27: Distribution of Responses by Eligibility Type to: The school provides me information on my child s disability Response Learning n=1,580 Eligibility Type Speech n=827 Other Health n=525 All other n=1,253 Overall n=4,185 Yes 84.4% 86.0% 60.8% 71.8% 78.0% No 15.6% 14.0% 39.2% 28.2% 22.0% Table 28 presents the distribution of responses to whether the information was provided to the parents in their native language. Nearly all parents (93 percent) reported that information was provided to them in their native language. In addition, there was only a small difference between the proportion of parents who reported yes and those who answered the English and Spanishlanguage surveys. These results are nearly identical to those from the 2010 survey. Similar to last year s findings, it can be expected that some parents who filled out the English-language survey are native speakers of one of at least 100 distinct language groups found in Texas. Table 28: Distribution of Responses to: Information is provided to me in my native language Response English n=3,637 Spanish n=482 Overall n=4,119 Yes 92.7% 96.5% 93.2% No 7.3% 3.5% 6.8% Table 29 presents the distribution of responses to whether the teachers and administrators ensured that the parents fully understood the Procedural Safeguards (also known as the Rights Booklet). The table indicates that the majority of parents (92 percent) agreed that teachers and administrators ensured that parents understood the Procedural Safeguards. This large percentage is consistent with the 2008, 2009, and 2010 surveys; it is also not surprising given the vast amount of information that is available from the schools directly, from resources such as TEA and ESC websites, and from several advocacy groups dedicated to special education issues. PTV NuStats 24 Educational Service Center Region 9

32 Table 29: Distribution of Responses to: Teachers and administrators ensure that I fully understand the Procedural Safeguards Response English n=3,741 Spanish n=507 Overall n=4,248 Yes 91.4% 96.1% 92.0% No 8.6% 3.9% 8.1% The distribution of responses to whether the parents understood their child s evaluation report is shown in Table 30. The table shows that 95 percent of the parents understood their child s evaluation report and only five percent of parents disagreed that the evaluation report was understandable. Parents who took the Spanish-language survey were slightly less likely to understand the report (94 percent) than those taking the English-language survey (95 percent). Table 30: Distribution of Responses to: My child s evaluation report is written in terms I understand Response English n=3,756 Spanish n=498 Overall n=4,254 Yes 95.3% 93.8% 95.2% No 4.7% 6.2% 4.8% Teacher Issues The two questions grouped in this category, both of which used Type 1 ratings, related specifically to how well the teachers understand and are willing to discuss the children s needs with their parents (Table 31). Table 32 presents the average outcome to these two questions and shows very little change from what was reported in the 2010 survey. Table 31: Questions Pertaining to Teacher Issues Category Question Scale Type Teachers understand my child s needs. Always, Sometimes, Never 1 Teachers show a willingness to discuss my child s needs. Always, Sometimes, Never 1 Table 32: Average Ratings across Questions in Teacher Issues Category Type 1 Scale Always Sometimes Never 72.0% 25.5% 2.5% Tables 33 and 34 present the distribution of responses for the two questions, both of which pertain to a teacher s attitude and caring for a child and not necessarily to the teacher s skills in instruction. Overall, parents were more positive about the teacher s willingness to discuss their child s needs than the teacher s understanding of those needs. In reference to the results in the PTV NuStats 25 Educational Service Center Region 9

33 2010 survey, two-thirds (66 percent) of the parents reported that the teachers always understood their child s needs, while 78 percent reported that the teachers always showed willingness to discuss the child s needs. My child needs more social skills training. She has awesome grades, but really needs more help in dealing with other people. I feel because she has good grades, the school system feels everything is okay. More emphasis needs to be placed on dealing with social situations, especially as she gets older. For both questions in this section, the parents who filled out the Spanish-language survey were more positive than those who filled out the English-language survey, which follows the trend of the other survey questions. Nearly four out of five parents (77 percent) who took the Spanish-language survey said that the teacher always understood their child s needs. An even higher proportion of parents who took the Spanish-language survey (89 percent) reported that teachers always showed a willingness to discuss their child s needs. Table 33: Distribution of Responses to: Teachers understand my child s needs Parent Response English n=3,751 Spanish n=497 Overall n=4,248 Always 64.9% 76.9% 66.3% Sometimes 33.4% 22.5% 32.2% Never 1.7% 0.6% 1.5% Table 34: Distribution of Responses to: Teachers show a willingness to discuss my child s needs Response English n=3,756 Spanish n=503 Overall n=4,259 Always 76.1% 88.9% 77.7% Sometimes 20.0% 10.1% 18.8% Never 3.9% 1.0% 3.6% PTV NuStats 26 Educational Service Center Region 9

34 Individual Education Plan, Admission Review, and Dismissal Issues This section focuses on five different issues directly related to the Individual Education Plan (IEP) and the Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) committee. Table 35 lists the five questions that fall under this category, all of which have Type 1 responses. Table 35: Questions Pertaining to IEP and ARD Issues Category Question Scale Type I participate in my child s Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) meetings. Always, Sometimes, Never 1 My concerns and recommendations are considered by the ARD committee in the development of my child s IEP. Always, Sometimes, Never 1 My recommendations are included in my child s IEP. Always, Sometimes, Never 1 At the ARD meeting, we discuss how my child will participate in state assessments (like the TAKS). Always, Sometimes, Never 1 At the ARD meeting, we select accommodations that my child needs. Always, Sometimes, Never 1 Table 36 presents the average ratings for the questions in this category and shows that the Individual Education Plan, Admission Review, and Dismissal Issues category shares the highest average Type 1 rating of 84 percent in the always category. This indicates that parents are relatively satisfied with their participation in the ARD process in the above areas, as was the case in the 2010 survey. Table 36: Average Ratings across Questions in IEP and ARD Issues Category Type 1 Ratings Always Sometimes Never 84.2% 12.9% 2.9% The first question in this group pertains to the extent to which parents participated in their child s ARD meetings. As shown in Table 37, an overwhelming majority (99 percent) of parents reported that they either sometimes or always participated. In contrast to most of the other findings in this study, the parents who filled out the English-language survey scored much higher than those who filled out the Spanish-language survey for this question. Over 86 percent of the English-language survey respondents said always, while 73 percent of the Spanish-language survey respondents said always. This outcome is consistent with the 2010 survey. Table 37: Distribution of Responses to: I participate in my child s Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) meetings Response English n=3,759 Spanish n=506 Overall n=4,265 Always 86.4% 72.5% 84.7% Sometimes 12.6% 23.0% 13.9% PTV NuStats 27 Educational Service Center Region 9

35 Response English n=3,759 Spanish n=506 Overall n=4,265 Never 1.0% 4.6% 1.4% Table 38 presents the distribution of responses on the extent to which the concerns and recommendations of parents were considered by the ARD committee in the development of their child s IEP. Overall, more than four out of five parents (84 percent) reported that their concerns and recommendations were always considered by the ARD committee, and only two percent reported they were never considered. As with the previous question, the parents who completed the English-language survey were more positive than those who completed the survey in Spanish, although the difference was much smaller for this question. Table 38: Distribution of Responses to: My concerns and recommendations are considered by the ARD committee in the development of my child s IEP Response English n=4,299 Spanish n=616 Overall n=4,915 Always 84.3% 84.7% 84.4% Sometimes 14.1% 12.7% 13.9% Never 1.6% 2.6% 1.7% Following the previous question, parents were then asked if their recommendations were actually included in their child s IEP. The results for this question were slightly less positive (see Table 39), following last year s trend, suggesting that There is enthusiasm at ARD. [There is] a lot of talk about what they can do, but then they do not implement things just drop. Parent although the ARD committee did consider the concerns and recommendations of most parents, they did not necessarily use them in their child s IEP. While 84 percent of the parents reported that the ARD committee always considered their concerns with their child s IEP development (see Table 38), 80 percent of the parents indicated that their recommendations were always included (see Table 39). Similar to the previous question, responses to the English-language surveys were slightly more positive than the Spanish responses. Table 39: Distribution of Responses to: My recommendations are included in my child s IEP Response English n=3,740 Spanish n=495 Overall n=4,235 Always 79.7% 78.6% 79.6% Sometimes 17.6% 18.2% 17.7% Never 2.7% 3.2% 2.8% PTV NuStats 28 Educational Service Center Region 9

36 Table 40 shows the results of the next question, which specifically asks about statewide assessments, such as the TAKS test, and how often they are discussed during ARD meetings. Given the importance of performance on statewide assessments for both the student and the school, this question relates to parents of students of all grade levels. Overall, four out of five parents (84 percent) reported that they always discussed the participation of their child in state assessments at the ARD meeting, which is consistent with the 2008, 2009, and 2010 surveys. About 7 percent of the parents reported that they never discussed their child s participation in state assessments at the ARD meeting the highest proportion of never responses found in this category. Table 40: Distribution of Responses to: At the ARD meeting, we discuss how my child will participate in state assessments Response English n=3,734 Spanish n=500 Overall n=4,234 Always 83.4% 86.0% 83.7% Sometimes 9.4% 10.2% 9.5% Never 7.2% 3.8% 6.8% The last question in the IEP and ARD category addresses a more general opinion about the ARD meetings, and whether the selected accommodations were needed by their child. Table 41 shows that 89 percent of parents responded that they always selected accommodations needed by their children at the ARD meetings, while 9 percent responded they only did sometimes. The results from this question are consistent with previous surveys, including the more positive response from the English-language survey compared to the Spanish-language survey. Table 41: Distribution of Responses to: At the ARD meeting, we select accommodations that my child needs Response English n=3,748 Spanish n=503 Overall n=4,251 Always 89.1% 83.9% 88.5% Sometimes 8.8% 13.9% 9.4% Never 2.1% 2.2% 2.1% PTV NuStats 29 Educational Service Center Region 9

37 6. Findings from Parental Open-End Responses In addition to the structured survey, parents responded to an open-ended questionnaire as well. Specifically, parents of students who receive special education services were asked to share their experience on the following two issues: 1) Identify what is needed to assist in child s education. 2) Any additional comments on the special education services received. Following is (1) a discussion of the prevalent themes across both questions and (2) a summary of responses by each of the two questions. Both similarities and differences between English and Spanish will be noted, as they varied widely, especially in Question 1. The most common theme between the two groups came from Question 2, where the majority of English and Spanish respondents stated gratitude/happiness with the services they are receiving or that their children were excelling/improving in communication skills. Prevalent Themes: Question 1 Satisfaction. English and Spanish speakers shared notable concern with six of the top ten response categories (see Tables 42 and 43 below). Of these six, however, only half had shared similar response rates, which suggests different priorities/concerns. In general, English speakers expressed far more satisfaction in this question, while Spanish speakers emphasized parental education needs (including English-speaking ability and access to information). In the following tables, similar levels of open-ended response rates are underlined. Table 42: English-Speaking Top-Ten Coded Responses, Question 1 (% sign did not print) English Spanish Response 21% 6% Nothing, school provides all that is needed, everything is good 17% 14% Working/Communicating with teachers, become more involved, participate more 9% 25% Parents help/support children, help with homework, motivate child 7% 7% Need more homework/ways to supplement education at home 7% 14% Information/Materials/Brochures on how to help child or on child s disability 5% - More help after high school 5% - Summer classes, longer duration/more frequent/continuation of services 4% 5% Time to listen to children, dedicate more time and attention 4% - Financial needs/assistance/school supplies 4% - Additional services, specialists or psychiatrists, transportation, tape recorder PTV NuStats 30 Educational Service Center Region 9

38 Table 43: Spanish-Speaking Top-Ten Coded Responses, Question 1 Spanish English Response 25% 9% Parents help/support children, help with homework, motivate child 14% 17% Working/Communicating with teachers, become more involved, participate more 14% 7% Information/Materials/Brochures on how to help child or on child's disability 8% - Learn English/English classes for parents 7% 7% Need more homework/ways to supplement education at home 6% 21% Nothing, school provides all that is needed, everything is good 5% 4% Time to listen to children, dedicate more time and attention 4% - Help with my own education 3% - Need help, but don't know 2% - Child needs to learn to read, write, and/or talk Areas of concern. In addition to satisfaction with students needs, English-speaking respondents were more concerned with access to more frequent services and specialists, and financial assistance. Conversely, Spanish-speaking respondents expressed a higher frequency of concern with parental access to effective resources, methods and information (including educational resources for themselves), concerns over language and communication, and calls for help without knowing what to do. Need for more communication, involvement, and setting expectations: The most common response to the first question was that parents are willing to help their child more, but they require more communication with or information from their child s teacher in order to do so. Parents want to stay informed with progress reports and have more contact with teachers. In addition, parents want to participate in and understand their child s education and needs, be understood themselves, and be listened to. Parents asked for training and workshops to understand and help with homework, including what to expect in the future when their child moves on to the next grade or school. Many English- and Spanish-language survey respondents also asked for more frequent feedback to gauge their child s progress, in the form of evaluation reports or meetings to discuss goals. What Is Needed to Assist in Child s Education Parents were first asked about what they needed in order to better assist their child with his or her education. Roughly one-sixth of respondents stated that they needed to work with teachers more or obtain additional information in order to become more involved in their child s education. Parents who filled out the survey in Spanish stated, more frequently than English-speaking respondents, that they needed more information on their child s disability, including how to best motivate their child and help with their homework. Some typical responses include: PTV NuStats 31 Educational Service Center Region 9

39 It would be nice to have some sort of parent support group or training on how to cope with ADD/ADHS kids, what has worked for other parents, and how to best help and support your child. El necesita ayuda con las matemáticas. También me gustaría que él tuviera alguna clase de terapia para su autoestima porque a él le afecta el simple hecho de estar en una clase de educación especial. Él dice que no debe estar en esa clase porque él se considera ser inteligente. (He needs help with math. Also, I would like him to have a therapy class to help his self esteem because he is affected by the simple fact that he is in special education. He says he shouldn t be in that class because he considers himself to be intelligent.) I am very concerned that next year he will not have a resource teacher that will keep up with his needs and see that he turns in his assignments. The only reason he has gotten this far since he started middle school is that one person kept up with him and helped him organize his academic life. No one will be doing that next year. I am afraid he will fall through the cracks. It was very difficult for him this year when classes were overloaded with students. Creo que estoy involucrada el 100% con la educación de mi hija, pero cualquier cosa que ustedes me sugieran estoy muy dispuesta a colaborar para que mi hija progrese aun más. Necesito ayuda para el habla; es una área importante que aun no puedo hacer para que progrese. (I believe I m involved 100% with my daughter s education, but I am willing to collaborate with you in whatever you recommend, so that my daughter can progress more. I need help with speech; it is an important area in which I still can t help her progress.) Some of us parents don t have the education to help our children with the homework. I would benefit from a parent workshop on Saturday to explain math and other work that my child is doing so I can better assist her with her homework. Many parents also reported that they needed to supplement their child s education at home with more homework, educational materials (including Internet access), use of special education services provided by different agencies in the community, or use of services provided by specialists or psychiatrists. Moreover, promoting independence, of the child or the family unit, also came through as an important concern this year: [I need] an education of my own, but mostly the Internet, which we don t have. We don t even have a computer. My child needs more social skills training. She has awesome grades, but really needs more help in dealing with other people. I feel because she has good grades, the school system feels everything is okay. More emphasis needs to be placed on dealing with social situations, especially as she gets older. Please consider more positive reinforcement for the small success stories that my child obtains. Building my child s confidence has proven successful. Additionally, please PTV NuStats 32 Educational Service Center Region 9

40 consider providing less assistance unless my child requests it. I do not want my child to become dependent on the system. [I need] Teachers and aides who care and accept [her] as she is, while pushing her to do her best and towards independence. Other responses and common quotes to this question include: Summer classes Progress reports sent home regularly More assistance after high school Child needs to attend classes Financial help Bilingual materials Better technology to help learning and studying Patience is very important in a child's life. Child needs to learn how to read and write Need to be made aware of services that are offered Find time to dedicate more attention to child Bilingual teachers and staff More patience Longer duration of services I just need to be kept in the loop a bit more. The teachers are always there, but a note home a little more often might help me out a bit. Sí, las terapias que mi hijo recibe son en inglés y ese no es su idioma en casa. A él le cuesta más trabajo sobresalir en la escuela por su problema de lenguaje. La escuela no tiene terapia en español. Casi no es de ayuda que las terapias sean en inglés cuando él no habla bien ningún idioma. (Yes, the therapy my son receives is in English and that is not his language at home. It is harder for him to excel in school because of his language problem. The school does not have therapy in Spanish. It is not that helpful that the therapy be in English when he does not speak either language well.) I feel that if my son had a computer it would help him a lot more in his learning. I wish that the dyslexia program would continue farther than elementary school. I know that is under the umbrella but I feel that working in conjunction with special education has helped her in her spelling and reading. Yo pienso que lo mínimo que necesita para mejorar su educación, es que los maestros le tengan mucha paciencia, que sean muy inteligentes y se den cuenta que a veces el método que ellos utilizan para enseñar no funciona con todos los niños. (In order to improve his/her education, I think he/she at least needs for teachers to have a lot of patience, that they be very intelligent and realize that sometimes the method that they utilize to teach does not work for all of the kids.) PTV NuStats 33 Educational Service Center Region 9

41 Additional Comments on Special Education Services: Question 2 Compared to the first open-ended question, there are far more similarities in responses between the two groups in Question 2, especially in terms of their gratitude and expressing that their child has improved. On the other hand, if the remaining one-third of non-satisfactory responses were scrutinized across both groups, there is indeed a greater general dissatisfaction/partial satisfaction for the English-speaking parents, and requests for more specialist help/attention devoted to their child for Spanish-speaking parents. Table 44: English-Speaking Top-Ten Coded Responses, Question 2 English Spanish Response 47% 43% Grateful, thank you, appreciative, services were helpful, happy with service 17% 23% Child has improved/excelled, is now reading/writing/talking 7% 3% Not happy with service, don't agree with teachers, child has not improved 6% 3% Not completely satisfied with services, happy with some but not all 5% 2% Need communication from teachers/more ARD meetings 4% 3% Staff needs to be more educated 3% 5% Continuation of services, help 2% 5% Need more time/attention to work with my child 2% 3% Need more information in order to help my child 1% - Frustrated with TAKS Table 45: Spanish-Speaking Top-Ten Coded Responses, Question 2 Spanish English Response 43% 47% Grateful, thank you, appreciative, services were helpful, happy with service 23% 17% Child has improved/excelled, is now reading/writing/talking 7% - More therapy hours, additional services, specialist 5% 3% Continuation of services, help 5% 2% Need more time/attention to work with my child 3% 7% Not happy with service, don't agree with teachers, child has not improved 3% 4% Staff needs to be more educated 3% 2% Need more information in order to help my child 3% 6% Not completely satisfied with services, happy with some but not all 2% 5% Need communication from teachers Over half of all responses expressed gratitude toward the school s teachers and staff, appreciation for the services their child receives, or they specifically stated that their child was PTV NuStats 34 Educational Service Center Region 9

42 improving and succeeding because of the services the schools provided. Some typical responses were: I just want to thank you for all that you have done for my son. Since the beginning, services have been consistent and prompt. I've seen a significant improvement in him. Si, para mí fue volver a la vida. Pues no sabía de qué manera tratar a mi hijo, pero con toda la ayuda que he recibido yo también he aprendido muchísimo. (Yes, for me it was like living again. I mean I didn t know how to treat my son, but with all of the help I have received, I too have learned a lot.) The program has been a blessing. My son is graduating with the best grades he has ever had. He is looking forward to attending college in the fall. He is aware of his life challenges, but confident in his abilities. Por el momento estoy agradecida por la ayuda que le brindan a mi hija y porque en la escuela que asiste está al tanto. Por ejemplo, en las juntas [ellos] me explican cómo va progresando. Gracias. (At this time, I am grateful for the help you have provided my daughter because the school that she attends is on the ball. For instance, in the meetings [they] explain to me how she is progressing. Thank you.) We have seen improvements with him from the services he gets and are very proud that he is learning so much. After positive feedback and gratitude, English-speaking parents (at double the rate of Spanishspeaking parents) expressed dissatisfaction with the teachers or staff, either that they needed to spend more time and attention with their child or that they were not qualified. The following quotes are a few examples: As noted above, I would like his diagnosis of autism or ADHD to be ADD or IEP. One teacher told him, There is nothing wrong with you. You just need your rear end spanked. Another teacher voiced medical information about him in the bus line around other teachers and students. He has been bullied and picked on by other kids due to that. I am frustrated with the school. I have growing concerns about the teacher/student ratio in my child s classroom. Mi hija está en tercer grado y en su salón hay alumnos hasta sexto grado, pero algunas veces los niños más chicos aprenden de los más grandes cosas negativas. Me gustaría que sólo hubiera alumnos de su mismo grado. También están en una sección más aparte. Yo quisiera que estuvieran dentro de la escuela porque en tiempo de frio tiene que salir y cruzar el patio para ir a la cafetería. (My daughter is in third grade and there are students up to sixth grade in her class, but sometimes the younger children learn negative things from the older children. I would like for there to only be students in her grade. They are also separated from the school. I would like for them to be inside the school because when it is cold, they have to go outside and cross the playground to go to the cafeteria.) PTV NuStats 35 Educational Service Center Region 9

43 7. Principal Survey Findings As in the previous five years, a principal survey was distributed to schools that received a parent survey. In the spring 2009 survey, 1,453 principal surveys were distributed; of these, 484 surveys were returned, yielding a 33 percent return rate. In 2010, 1,334 principal surveys were mailed, of which 567 were returned, yielding a return rate of 43 percent. This year, of the 1,751 principal surveys which were mailed, 699 were completed and returned, yielding a 40 percent return rate. An image of the principal survey can be found in Appendix C. The structure of the 2011 principal survey did not differ from the 2009 and 2010 surveys. Prior to 2009, the principal surveys contained two additional follow-up questions about when and how often parents of students receiving special education services attended annual meetings. The principal survey provided supplemental information regarding approaches that schools use to communicate with parents. In particular, principals were asked what measures were taken to specifically reach out to parents of students served by the special education program. Principals were asked to respond to 15 questions regarding overall parental involvement. In addition, principals were asked to identify strategies and practices that are targeted specifically to encourage parents of students who receive special education services. The following general topics were addressed in the survey: Successful parent involvement strategies implemented by schools Successful parent involvement strategies implemented by teachers Information about written campus-level parent involvement plans Overall parent involvement in parent-teacher organizations (PTO/PTA) Methods used by schools to communicate with parents and receive parent input Services that are provided in school that help increase parent involvement Successful parent contributions made to schools Parent training/annual meeting opportunities Factors that impede parent involvement While the 2011 survey had over 130 more surveys returned than in 2010, the responses were overall very similar to the previous year s findings. Principals opinions regarding parent involvement strategies, communication, and other issues have not changed significantly from previous surveys. Successful Parent Involvement Strategies Implemented by Schools Principals were asked to list the two most successful efforts or approaches used in their schools to encourage parents to become actively involved in school activities. As in previous surveys, the most common responses included promoting participation in parent-teacher organizations (PTA/PTO) and using a variety of communication strategies to keep parents aware of school PTV NuStats 36 Educational Service Center Region 9

44 activities. However, some principals listed strategies that were not found in previous studies, such as establishing all-parent collaborations ( Parents in Power, Parent Pride Council, and Watchdog groups). While principals listed a variety of approaches, overall, they continue to believe that their schools must take aggressive measures to keep parents involved in their child s education. Effective Communication Strategies. Similar to previous studies, the most frequent response from principals was that an important component in encouraging parent involvement is for parents to have open communication with teachers and administrators, whether by phone, , written letters, or in-person meetings. Some principals noted the importance of bilingual communication, with one responding that their school provides online English lessons for Spanish-speaking parents. In general, the themes of responses mirrored those from the 2009 and 2010 surveys. Below is a sample of some of the strategies reported by principals: Volunteer programs Class website Establishment of Parent Pride Council, Parents in Power, and other collaborations to boost involvement Online English lessons for Spanishspeaking parents Watchdog programs Family nights Booster clubs Letters or notes sent home with students Phone messenger system Using multiple modes of communication ( , phone, letters, websites) Making personal calls to the home Sending weekly newsletters to the home Teachers communicating directly with parents Parent/teacher conferences Open house events Principals were then asked if there were any additional efforts or activities made by their school to encourage parents of students who received special education services to be active in their child s education. As in previous years, the majority of principals responded that the same methods were used for parents in general as for those with children served by special education. Some, however, stated that they sent personal invitations to parents of students receiving special education services to meet with teachers or to attend special workshops geared towards their student s disability. In addition, many stressed the importance of having ARD meetings to encourage parents to stay involved in their child s education. In addition to requesting successful communications strategies, principals were asked to list the single most commonly used method their school employed to communicate with parents. Table 42 shows that principals reported far different primary strategies than in the 2010 survey. The most common method, accounting for more than one-quarter of the responses, was , which accounted for only nine percent of responses in the previous survey. The next most common methods were notes given to students (23 percent) and telephone calls (19 percent). This is drastically different from one year ago, when written letters were the most common method PTV NuStats 37 Educational Service Center Region 9

45 used. Since 2010, the percentage of principals using letters as the primary communication tool decreased by half, from 26 percent to only 13 percent. Table 46: Primary Method School Used to Communicate with Parents from 2010 and 2011 Surveys Type of Communication 2011 Survey Percent 2010 Survey Percent 25.9% 8.6% Notes given to students 23.0% 21.5% Telephone 19.0% 21.9% Letter 12.7% 26.3% Newsletter 10.6% 15.8% Other (webpage, folders, monthly calendars) 8.7% 5.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% Family/Parent Events, Training, Workshops. As in previous surveys, principals listed several different events and programs that the schools organized to encourage parents to become more active in their child s education. Overall, the events listed by principals this year did not vary much from recent surveys. However, different schools did report using a variety of strategies geared towards increasing parent participation. The most common responses were parent-teacher conferences, open house nights, and volunteer opportunities either at school or on field trips. Other responses included Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) nights, student performances, and class parties. Overall, these responses were similar to those from the 2009 and 2010 surveys and included the following: Family literacy nights PTA/PTO nights Open house, Meet the Teacher, and Back to School nights Volunteer opportunities at school TAKS nights Student performances and competitions Field trips with parent chaperones Parent conferences Class parties Parent picnics Regarding events held specifically for students receiving special education services, responses were very similar to those listed above. However, similar to past surveys, there were a few activities that differed from those held for all students: Including students receiving special education services in after-school events and programs Special education services parent meetings Special Olympics Special Programs Night PTV NuStats 38 Educational Service Center Region 9

46 Principals were asked to indicate if the school provided parent training workshops to encourage parent involvement. Nearly all principals responded to this question (693 out of 699), and just over half (55 percent) said that training was provided (see Figure 1). These results are in line with those from the 2009 and 2010 surveys, where 54 percent and 56 percent reported that training was provided, respectively. Figure 1: School-provided training workshops to encourage parent involvement? Yes, 55.0% No, 45.0% The principals who reported that training was provided were then asked how often and when it occurred for parents of students receiving special education services. Similar to past surveys, responses ranged from bi-weekly to once per year. Typically, principals noted that parent training opportunities were provided either once per semester or on a monthly basis for parents of students receiving special education services. There was also a wide range of reported times that these trainings were held. The majority said that meetings were held in the evenings, though other time periods were also listed (e.g., during school, after school, at the beginning of the school year). Principals were also asked if their school held an annual meeting to inform parents of children receiving special education services about the school s special education program. Similar to the past two surveys, responses in 2011 were evenly split, with half reporting yes (see Figure 2). Principals who said that annual information sessions were held were then asked what percentage of parents of students receiving special education services attended those meetings. The responses ranged from 1 to 100 percent with a mean response of 46 percent. This is an increase from the 2010 survey, which had a mean of 42 percent of parents attending those meetings. This year s responses did vary quite a bit, having a standard deviation of 35 percent (similar to last year s). This tells us that on average, slightly less than half of special education parents attended the meetings, but the participation rate varied greatly among schools in the state. PTV NuStats 39 Educational Service Center Region 9

47 Figure 2: School holds annual meeting to inform parents about special education programs and services? Yes, 49.2% No, 50.8% Services. Principals were also asked to list services that were provided for parents to encourage parent involvement, and, as in previous surveys, they could select as many that applied. Table 43 shows that holding meetings in the evenings was the most common service provided by schools, similar to all surveys since The next most common responses were providing opportunities for parents to be involved in site-based decision management and interpreters or translators. Fewer principals reported having baby-sitting services, books and videos, or transportation services than ever before. Figure 3 shows a graphic distribution of services provided by schools. Table 47: Services Provided by Schools Service Provided 2008 Survey 2009 Survey 2010 Survey 2011 Survey Responses Percent* Responses Percent* Responses Percent* Responses Percent* Meetings held in evenings % % % % Opportunities to be involved in site-based management % % % % Interpreters/Translators % % % % Parent education courses % % % % Baby-sitting services % % % % Books, videos % % % % Transportation % % % % Total 1,343 1,760 2,187 2,533 *Percentages do not add up to percent because of duplicate counts (multiple-response question). Other services that were provided to encourage parent involvement as noted by principals include: volunteer programs, coffee with the principal events, community walks, food and refreshments during meetings, and technology training courses. PTV NuStats 40 Educational Service Center Region 9

48 Figure 3: Services Provided by Schools to Encourage Parent Involvement Transportation Books, videos Baby-sitting services Parent education courses Interpreters/Translators Site-based management Meetings held in evenings 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% *Percentages do not add up to percent because of duplicate counts (multiple-response question). Parent-Teacher Organizations and Volunteer Opportunities All principals agreed that increasing the involvement of parents is beneficial to students and schools. The majority of principals said that an effective way to increase parent involvement is to support the school s parent-teacher association or organization (PTA/PTO). Principals were asked to list the approximate percentage of parents that actively participated in the PTA or PTO at their school. Compared to the 2010 survey, there was little change in the percentages reported this year by principals. As seen in Figure 4, 43 percent of principals reported that one-tenth of all parents or less participated in the PTA/PTO, which is the same as in 2010, and four percentage points lower than what was reported in Only 12 percent of principals reported that over half of their students parents actively participate in parent organizations. Figure 4: Percentage of Parents Who Actively Participate in Your School s PTA/PTO 42.5% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 27.7% 17.4% 12.3% 10% or less 11% to 25% 26% to 50% Over 50% PTV NuStats 41 Educational Service Center Region 9

49 Figure 5 presents the percentage of parents of students receiving special education services who actively participated in the PTA/PTO. Similar to previous surveys, principals reported a lower percentage of parents of special education students participating than parents of all students. However, there was a slight increase from last year s results. In particular, nine percent of principals reported that half of the parents participated actively, compared to only six percent in Along with the results from Figure 4, the data suggests that continued efforts need to be made by schools to increase involvement of all parents, specifically those of students receiving special education services, in parent organizations. Figure 5: Percentage of Parents of Students Receiving Special Education Services Who Actively Participate in Your School s PTA/PTO 70.0% 61.8% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 17.2% 12.4% 8.6% 10% or less 11% to 25% 26% to 50% Over 50% Successful Parent Involvement Strategies Implemented by Teachers In addition to overall school parent involvement strategies, the principals were asked to list successful practices that took place in the classroom and were used by teachers. The large majority of responses focused on an increased level of communication between teachers and parents, either by telephone calls, s, newsletters, or meetings. Similar to previous surveys, the most common strategies noted by principals are listed below: Class newsletters and websites Teacher-created blogs Project-based projects with parents Incentives for successful teachers Personal contact with parents through calls, , home visits, and conferences Parent volunteering Class parties at local restaurants Parent portal Science and technology events Open house, family, and meet the teacher nights Required teacher-parent meetings PTV NuStats 42 Educational Service Center Region 9

50 Parent Involvement Plans Principals were asked if their schools had a written parent involvement plan that was separate from an overall district-level plan. Figure 6 shows that the majority of principals, 72 percent, reported that their campus did have a parent involvement plan, which is a slight increase from the 70 percent reported in 2009 and Figure 6: School Has Written Campus-Level Parent Involvement Plan No, 27.8% Yes, 72.2% Parent Input and Opinions An important component of a successful program is to ensure that parents are allowed to provide input and opinions about the overall school, its staff, or other school-related issues, and to feel that their opinions count. Principals were asked to identify what their schools had in place to ensure that parents opinions were regularly incorporated into their child s school s activities or planning process. Similar to 2010, the most common strategy was conducting parent surveys for input. Principals referred to a number of different surveys, including Title 1 Surveys, Annual Parent Surveys, On-line Surveys, and even Suggestion Boxes. Prior to 2010, not many principals mentioned this strategy for parent involvement. Other common responses included personal meetings and participation in school committees. Below are some of the most common responses from the 2011 principal surveys: Parent surveys Site-based decision-making committee Open-door policy Focus groups Parent Involvement Committee Open communication Parent meetings over the phone or in-person PTA/PTO participation Volunteering opportunities PTV NuStats 43 Educational Service Center Region 9

51 Parent Contributions Principals were asked to list the two most important contributions made by parents in their school. Two responses were overwhelming favorites: volunteering their time in school activities or fundraising opportunities, and supporting their students either at home or by participation in parent organizations. These two contributions were also common in previous surveys. Principals listed several examples of volunteering activities that were similar to those noted in 2010, including fundraising, mentoring, making copies, chaperoning field trips, being involved in class planning and activities, helping in the classroom, organizing school activities, and assisting teachers. Most principals stated that simply supporting the school, class, or teacher was the most important contribution parents can make. Examples of common contributions mentioned by principals are listed below: Encouraging their children to learn and helping with schoolwork Monetary donations Watchdog programs in the classroom Attending PTA/PTO meetings Assisting the school at sporting events Creating a positive environment for students to learn Helping with book fairs and reading events Mentoring programs Giving their time to volunteer Parental obstacles to school involvement. While principals acknowledged the important contribution that parents made to their schools, they were also aware that many parents faced difficult obstacles in becoming actively involved in their child s education. The survey asked principals to indicate the most important factor that kept parents of students who receive special education services from getting more involved in the school. This year, and every year since the 2006 survey, the most frequently cited factor was parents work schedules and overall lack of free time. Principals noted that many parents have work obligations that do not allow them to participate in their child s education as much as they would like. Many principals cited that most large families need both parents to work in order to maintain financial stability. Other factors that kept parents from participating in school activities included lack of transportation to the school or a lack of communication, either because they do not speak English or they do not make the attempt to talk with teachers or administrators. The most common responses, consistent with the 2010 survey, included: Lack of knowledge of the school system Feeling intimidated or disconnected from the school Language barrier between parents and teachers or staff Scheduling conflicts Apathy, prioritize other things over education Unsure about how to help their child Poor communication between parents and schools Overwhelmed with other problems PTV NuStats 44 Educational Service Center Region 9

52 8. Summary With 4,314 surveys returned in English or Spanish, parents of students receiving special education services voiced their opinion regarding their involvement with their child s school and to a variety of other topics central to a successful education program. Parents were selected based on a sampling matrix that considered the district s size, demographics, and inclusion within a six-year cycle. Respondents to the survey were quite similar to the statewide percentages seen by student group, gender, and eligibility category. This distribution reflects those found in the fall 2006, spring 2007, spring 2008, spring 2009, and 2010 surveys. The overall rate of return was approximately 24 percent. A revised survey that more closely addresses SPP issues was used for spring 2009, spring 2010, and spring A total of 23 questions from the parent survey were divided into five topic-specific categories and examined. Grouping the three types of responses (Always-Never, Yes-No, and Agree- Disagree), Table 44 presents a summary of responses within these categories. For each category, responses were overall positive. The percentages of responses in the least positive category were under 5 percent, with the exception of General School Issues and Information and Understanding. The response patterns for this year s survey were very similar to the findings from the previous five years. This stability of responses argues for the reliability and validity of findings from the surveys. Table 48: Summary by Category Positive Neutral Negative Category Always Agree Yes Sometimes Neutral Never Disagree No General School Issues 67.9% 22.0% 10.3% Communication Issues 68.3% 27.5% 3.3% Information and Understanding 78.7% 26.6% 7.4% Teacher Issues 71.0% 25.1% 2.5% IEP and ARD 82.9% 12.7% 2.9% * Note that percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Although the respondents generally responded positively to questions regarding their interactions with the school (as seen in the summary ratings in Table 1), there were items for which the ratings were less positive (parental actions are not included for this consideration). Below are selected areas for which 22 percent of the ratings fell into the Negative category, as identified in Table 1. The school provides transition services to help my child reach his or her goals after high school. (This issue was also identified in spring 2008, 2009, and 2010.) PTV NuStats 45 Educational Service Center Region 9

53 The school provides information on agencies that assist my child in the transition from high school. (This issue was also identified in spring 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.) Special education services have helped my family and I get the services that my child needs outside of school. (This issue was also identified in spring 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.) The school provides me with information about my child s disability. (This issue was also identified in spring 2008, 2009, and 2010.) The first three of these items center on transition issues and on the information and coordination provided regarding outside agencies and support. The item regarding information about a child s disability likely reflects providing understandable and useful information. The categories rated by respondents in the spring 2010 survey were similar to spring 2011; however, there is a decrease in Negative responses. This year, General School Issues was the lowest-rated area, similar to last year s survey. These low ratings were driven primarily by negative responses to the transition questions noted above. Overall, parent open-ended responses parallel the responses received in the structured survey. Parents who responded to the survey were overall satisfied with the services received by their child s school. The following is a list of the overall findings from parent responses. Overall satisfaction The majority of respondents expressed being satisfied with the special education services provided by schools. Communication improvements While overall satisfied, parents noted concern with communication between parents and the special education staff (or communication between the special education setting and the general education setting). Parents want to be kept informed and want to know how to contribute to the academic progress of their child. More information and training Parents noted that they need help understanding their child s disability. They asked for the school to provide more specific and relevant information. The principals who responded to the survey offered multiple examples of successful parent involvement strategies, but most responded similarly that improving communication between parents and schools, having open door policies, and providing opportunities to volunteer in school activities were most important. Principals also noted how significant parent involvement is to a school. They listed a variety of important parent participation activities, including attending PTA/PTO and Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) meetings, assisting directly in the classroom, chaperoning field trips, and helping in many other special projects. Overall, principals noted that parent contributions and involvement is a critical component for schools and children. Principals noted parents significance in the role of their child s education, but also recognized how difficult it is for many parents to commit time and effort in helping their child succeed. Among many reasons, principals listed lack of time, transportation, and work schedules as the largest barriers to their involvement in their child s education. PTV NuStats 46 Educational Service Center Region 9

54 Appendix A: Parent Survey and Letter PTV NuStats 47 Educational Service Center Region 9

55 Parent Letter English PTV NuStats 48 Educational Service Center Region 9

56 PTV NuStats 49 Educational Service Center Region 9

57 Parent Survey English PTV NuStats 50 Educational Service Center Region 9

58 Parent Letter Spanish PTV NuStats 51 Educational Service Center Region 9

59 PTV NuStats 52 Educational Service Center Region 9

60 Parent Survey Spanish PTV NuStats 53 Educational Service Center Region 9

61 Appendix B: Letters to Districts PTV NuStats 54 Educational Service Center Region 9

62 Advance Letter to District Superintendents PTV NuStats 55 Educational Service Center Region 9

63 Advance Letter to District Special Education Directors PTV NuStats 56 Educational Service Center Region 9

64 District Special Education Director Letter PTV NuStats 57 Educational Service Center Region 9

65 Campus Contact Letter PTV NuStats 58 Educational Service Center Region 9

66 PTV NuStats 59 Educational Service Center Region 9

67 Appendix C: Principal Survey and Letter PTV NuStats 60 Educational Service Center Region 9

68 Principal Letter PTV NuStats 61 Educational Service Center Region 9

69 Principal Survey PTV NuStats 62 Educational Service Center Region 9