Teachers + Families = Success for All Students

3

6

Demystifyingthe IEP Process

for DiverseParents of

Children WithDisabilities

Lusa Lo

s

14 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDRF.N

Laws concerning special education,such as the Individuals With Disabili-ties Education Improvement Act of2004 (IDEA, 2006) and its predeces-sors, were enacted to ensure that allchildren with disabilities ages 3 to 21receive a free and appropriate publiceducation as well as services thataddress their needs. Local educationagencies are mandated to have a teamof individuals hold an annual individu-alized education program (IEP) meet-ing for each child with a disability (34C.F.R. §300.320). This team of individ-uals should include, but is not limitedto, parents/guardians, special educa-tion teachers, general education teach-ers (if the child participates in the gen-eral education classroom), paraprofes-sionals, service providers (e.g., occupa-tional therapists), and, as appropriate,the student with disabilities.

Active parental involvement in theIEP process is strongly emphasized inIDEA. The underlying assumption ofthis expectation is that when parentsare actively involved in making deci-sions regarding special education serv-ices and placement, their children ben-efit. However, according to Kalyanpurand Harry (1999), this belief is reflec-tive of a culture that values individual-ism, equality, and the need to exerciseone's rights. These values are notalways shared by families from othercultures, and the complicated IEPprocess is foreign to many immigrantfamilies (Hughes, Valle-Riestra, &Arguelles, 2002; Lo, 2008; Salas, 2004).These barriers, together with linguisticchallenges (Park, TurnbuU, & Park,2001), can prevent culturally and lin-guistically diverse (CLD) families fromfulfilling their expected roles in the IEPprocess. Educators and service pro-viders should be prepared to demystifythe process for this growing popula-tion. This article includes the very dif-ferent experiences of two parents whenthey went through the IEP process (seeboxes, "Mr. Sau's IEP Meeting Experi-ence" and "Mrs. Carcia's IEP MeetingExperience") which help to identifybest practices for professionals inworking with CLD parents.

Mr. Sau's IEP Meeting Experience

One of Mr. Sau's children was diagnosed with pervasive developmental disor-der-not otherwise specified. Mr. Sau received a meeting invitation 2 weeksbefore his son's initial IEP meeting. Althotigh the meeting was scheduled dur-ing his work hours, Mr. Sau knew that it was important for him to meet withhis son's teachers. After numerous requests, his boss permitted him to taketime off from work without pay. Mr. Sau did not know how long the meetingwould last, so he asked to take 3 hours off from work.

Mr Sau arrived at his son's school 15 minutes prior to the meeting. Heshowed the school secretary the meeting invitation. The secretary said some-thing to him, which he did not understand and then handed him a piece ofpaper with "312" written on it. He went up to the third floor and found Room312, but someone was using the room. He stood in the hallway and waitedpatiently. A teacher walked by and asked if she could help him. Mr Sauhanded her the paper with "312" written on it. The teacher then used thehallway phone to call the office. After a while, she gestured to Mr. Sau to fol-low her. She led him to another building where the meeting was taking place.Mr Sau noticed that he was 20 minutes late to the meeting. When he enteredthe room, he was shocked to see seven people already sitting around ihetable.

Immediately after Mr Sau sat down, the meeting began. All the individu-als in the room introduced themselves. The interpreter began interpreting, butbecause she spoke Mandarin and Mr. Sau spoke Cantonese he could notunderstand what she was saying. In order not to further delay the meeting,he simply nodded nervously. Fifteen minutes after the meeting began, twomore people walked in the room and sat down. During the meeting, two ofthe participants left. At the meeting, each professional took turns sayingsomething related to the papers they handed Mr Sau. Although the other IEPteam members sometimes spoke for a long time, the interpreter's interpreta-tions were often very short. To show his respect, Mr. Sau simply nodded. Theentire meeting took about an hour Mr. Sau wished that he had known aheadof time that the meeting would only take an hour so that he could haveplanned more accurately how much time to take off from work.

Before Hie IEP Meeting

Background Preparation

Much of the existing literature providesprofessionals (including educators andservice providers) with useful sugges-tions regarding how to increase parentparticipation in IEP meetings, such asusing a round meeting table to showthe equal status of all meeting partici-pants (Dabkowski, 2004), providingparents with information prior to IEPmeetings (Lytle & Bordin, 2001), andbeing attentive to parents' concernsduring discussions (O'Donovan, 2007).However, parents' perceptions of IEPmeetings begin as soon as they receivethe IEP meeting invitation.

Parents who are new to the UnitedStates may find the special educationprocess very different from the one in

their home country. It is common forCLD families to attend their child's firstteam meeting without knowing its pur-pose (Hughes et al., 2002). Similar toMr. Sau, some parents might assumethey are there simply to meet with thestudent's teacher and discuss theirchild's progress. However, as soon asthey step into the meeting room, theyare often shocked to see the large num-ber of individuals present at the meet-ings (Simpson, 1995), at which pointthey realize that this meeting is muchmore than the usual parent-teacherconference. Parents new to the processcan greatly benefit from receivingbackground information from theteacher, another parent, or eventhrough a short video explaining theprocess.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | JAN/FEB 2012 15

Mrs. Gorcia's lEP Meeting Experience

Mrs. Garcia was very concerned about her son Alfredo's academic perform-ance. The school suspected that he might have a disability and wanted toevaluate him. Mr. Nelson, Alfredo's third-grade teacher, met with Mrs. Garcia,explained the evaluation process to her, and asked her to discuss it with herfamily and determine if they would consent to having Alfredo evaluated forspecial education .services. At the meeting, Mrs. Garcia learned that if Alfredowas eligible for special education services, a team would be formed to dis-cuss his services and placement; it was important for Alfredo's parents to beinvolved in this process because they were Alfredo's advocates and decisionmakers. Mrs. Garcia went home, discussed it with her husband, and agreedthat the school should evaluate Alfredo so they could find out if he had a dis-ability. Mr. Nelson and the special education teacher then scheduled anothermeeting with Mrs. Garcia and informed her of the process after the evalua-tion, her rights, and how she could be involved and prepared for the IEPmeeting. They told Mrs. Garcia to review the information with her family andinvited her to speak with the teachers whenever she had any questions. Shealso received a list of resources in her community. All the written informationshe received was in Spanish, her primary language. Because this process wasnew to her, Mrs. Garcia was pleased that the teachers took the time to meetwith her and explain the process in detail. She was also glad that the schoolwanted her to be involved in the entire process.

Prior to the team meeting, the professionals met with the Spanish inter-preter and explained how the meeting would be structured; they also provid-ed her with a glossary of terms commonly used in IEP meetings. They askedhow often they should pause for her to convert oral messages. At around themeeting time, the school secretaty informed the team that the parent hadarrived. Mr. Nelson greeted Mrs. Garcia at the school office and escorted herto the meeting room. The professionals and interpreter took turns introducingthemselves and stating their roles in the meeting. Mrs. Garcia was not sur-prised to see the number of people at the meeting because their names hadbeen in the invitation notice; it was nice to connect the names with faces.Although Mrs. Garcia was riervous, she felt prepared because the meetingagenda and all the evaluation reports had been sent to her prior to the meet-ing. Alfredo was found eligible for special education services. The team dis-cussed his services and placement. Throughout the meeting, Mrs. Garcia wasrepeatedly invited to ask questions, and the other members verified that sheunderstood the discussion. Toward the end of the meeting, Mrs. Garcia wasinformed what she would receive after the meeting and when she wouldreceive it. If she had any questions, she was welcome to meet with the teamchair.

* Recommendations for Practice

Prior to sending home IEP meeting

invitations, teachers should provide

parents with some basic information,

such as the purpose of IEP meetings,

what the IEP process entails, the prepa-

ratiotis they tnight want to cotisider

making before the meeting, their rights

in the process, and the importance of

their participation in the process.

Although the notice regarding proce-

dural safeguards is commonly distrib-

uted at IEP meetings, Mr. Nelson choseto inform Mrs. Garcia about her rightsprior to the first IEP meeting. Thispreparation not only allowed Mrs.Garcia to be familiar with her rights,but also enabled her to see the impor-tance of her involvement throughoutthe process.

Because paperwork is likely to over-whelm many CLD parents—especiallywhen the documents may not be writ-ten in their primary language or totheir level of education (Fitzgerald &

Watkins, 2006)—it may be helpful forthe general or special educationteacher to meet with the parents face-to-face before the IEP meeting, provid-ing information in the parents' nativelanguage and answering general ques-tions about the process. At the IEPmeeting Mr. Sau attended, each profes-sional took turns saying somethingrelated to various reports (written inEnglish), as they handed these to him.It would be helpful to provide parentswith important materials (e.g., evalua-tion reports) prior to the meeting andtranslated into the parents' native lan-guage. Because Mrs. Garcia was new tothe special education process, insteadof sending her a consent form to sign,Mr. Nelson took the time to meet withher, explain the process, and offerinformation such as the timeline andher rights as the parent. Mrs. Garciawas never pressured to make any deci-sion at the meeting. Instead, she wasencouraged to discuss it with her fami-ly. Mrs. Garcia shared that she felt shewas part of the team and knew thatthe school cared and wanted her son tosucceed.

Schools should also consider offer-ing training sessions and workshops(with interpretation support) for par-ents who have attended IEP meetingspreviously and need more information.Professiotials can invite parents whoare familiar with the process to serveas speakers. Parents of children withdisabilities are more likely to relate toothers who can speak their own lan-guage (Lo, 2010) and have experiencedsimilar challenges as theirs (Bull,2003). Such a connection can allowparents who are new to the complicat-ed IEP process to see that with suffi-cient knowledge and information, theycan learn to be prepared and becomebetter advocates for their children withdisabilities. Parents can also offer eachother additional emotional and psycho-logical support.

Hie Day of the IEP Meeting

Welcoming Parents

Although it was not Mr. Sau's first timebeing at his son's school, he purposelyarrived at the school early. Unfortun-

16 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

ately, due to the lack of assistance atthe school site and the complexity ofthe school building, locating the meet-ing room was a challenge for him. Hewas eventually late to the meeting andapologized repeatedly to the profes-sionals.

Recommendations for Practice

Welcoming parents to school is one ofthe crucial factors in developing effec-tive home-school partnerships(Epstein, 1995; Henderson, Mapp, &Davies, 2006). Impressions of whetheror not a school welcomes parentsbegin as soon as they step inside theschool building. When parents arriveat school for a team meeting, theschool secretary could inform one ofthe team members, preferably theclassroom teacher or a staff memberwho is fluent in the parents' primarylanguage, to greet the parents and leadthem to the meeting location. Thisdirect personal approach can avoid anyconfusion, especially when the meetinglocation might change at the lastminute. Additionally, parents alwaysappreciate the time professionals taketo welcome them.

Meeting Participants

Depending on the child's needed serv-ices, it is common to have more profes-sionals than parents present at teammeetings. Sometimes a team meetingmay have up to 10 professionals,including general and special educa-tors, principal, educational team facili-tator/team chair, and other serviceproviders—whereas only one or twoparents are in attendance. It is alsocommon for many of these profession-als to arrive late or leave before themeeting is completed.

Recommendations for Practice

Although the disproportionate numberof school professionals to parent atten-dees in IEP meetings is very common,this intimidates many parents, espe-cially those whose primary language isnot English (Salas, 2004). Many par-ents who were born outside of theUnited States are accustomed to meet-ing with their child's teacher on anindividual basis, so it might be new to

them to have many professionals gath-er and discuss their child's needs.Information such as the number ofattendees was included in Mrs.Garcia's IEP meeting invitation, so shewas not shocked to see numerous pro-fessionals at her meeting. Parentsshould also be notified that they havethe right to invite others to accompanythem to the meetings, as well.

It is important to note that both pro-fessionals and parents have busyschedules. In order to ensure that allprofessionals can be present for theentire meeting, information such as theestimated duration of the meetingshould be included on the IEP meetinginvitations. Longer meetings are need-ed when interpretation services areused. CLD parents, like Mr. Sau, mayhave blue-collar jobs, which most oftenpay by the hour. When parents like Mr.Sau take time off work, it means lessincome for the month. Letting parentsknow in advance how much time they

spoken in the United States (U.S.Census Bureau, 2003), choosing theright interpreters is vital. For example,spoken Chinese can be categorizedinto seven major groups: Putonghua(Mandarin), Gan, Kejia (Hakka), Min,Wu, Xiang, and Yue (Cantonese). Eachof these language groups includes alarge number of dialects. The inter-preter in Mr. Sau's meeting was unableto bridge the communication gapbetween Mr. Sau and the schoolbecause the interpreter did not speakthe same language group. Further,although the professionals in Mr. Sau'sIEP meeting often spoke for long peri-ods of time, the interpreter only pro-vided Mr. Sau with a summary of thediscussion.

Recommendations for Practice

Ensuring that the family and the inter-preter are speaking the same languageis crucial, but the skills and experi-ences of the interpreters are equally

Letting parents know in advance how much timethey need to commit to the meetings will allow them to

make appropriate arrangements at work and home.

need to commit to the meetings willallow them to make appropriatearrangements at work and home.

Interpretation Services

As the demographics of the U.S. popu-lation continue to change rapidly, thenumber of students with disabilitiesfrom CLD backgrounds will alsoincrease. Forty-two percent of the stu-dents receiving special education serv-ices in 2008 were from CLD back-grounds (U.S. Department of Educa-tion, 2010a, 2010b). However, less than20% of professionals in the schoolswere from diverse cultures (NationalCenter for Education Statistics, 2009).Utilizing interpretation services hasbeen considered the best solution tobridging the communication gapbetween professionals and parentswho are limited- or non-English speak-ers. However, because there are atleast 380 different languages currently

essential. In order to ensure the qualityof the interpretation services, the teamin Mrs. Garcia's situation met with theinterpreter prior to the meeting anddiscussed how frequently they shouldpause so the interpreter could providethe parent with proper interpretations.

Specialized terminology is oftenused—and necessary—in IEP teammeetings. However, many of theseterms are unfamiliar to individualswho are not in the field of specialeducation. Words like maniptilatiuesand timeline may not even exist in thevocabulary of some cultures. Due tothe shortage of bilingual special edu-cators, school districts often hire inter-preters who are fluent in the languagebut may not have knowledge of thevocabulary related to the field of spe-cial education (P. Riley, personal com-munication, June 3, 2008). Whenthese terms are used in IEP meet-ings, interpreters may skip over the

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | JAN/FEB 2012 17

V

information and not interpret it to theparents, or provide parents with inac-curate interpretations (Lo, 2008). Thiscan create unnecessary misunderstand-ings between schools and families.The interpreter in the IEP meeting Mrs.Garcia attended was given a glossary ofwords commonly used in the field andtheir definitions. This list enabled theinterpreter to provide high-quahtyinterpretations at the meeting.

Cross-Cultural Communication

Communication among people fromhigh-context versus low-context cul-tures can be a complicated process.Individuals who are from low-contextcultures, such as Anglo-EuropeanAmericans, focus more on verbal com-numication; those from high-contextcultures, such as Asian and Hispaniccultures, emphasize verbal interactionsless (Hall, 1976; Jandt, 2007). Indi-viduals from high-context cultures per-ceive nonverbal communication (e.g.,facial expressions, body language, ges-tures, speed of interactions) to havemore meaning than verbal commun-ication (Jandt, 2007). However, much

nonverbal communication is frequentlymisinterpreted by others who are unfa-miliar with the culture. For example,nodding represents agreeing andunderstanding in the dominant culturein the United States, but the same ges-ture in the Asian culture means, "Ihear what you are saying;" becausedisagreeing and saying "No" are con-sidered impolite, nodding is sometimesused to replace these responses (Su,1993). In Mr. Sau's case, in order notto disrupt the meeting, he nodded oncein a while to show respect, eventhough he did not understand whatwas said at the meeting. The profes-sionals perceived his nodding as under-standing what was being discussed andwere not aware that Mr. Sau was sim-ply being polite.

Recommendations for Practice

Professionals should no longer inter-pret their communications with CLDfamilies by relying solely on their owncultural perspectives. Kalyanpur andHarry's (1997, 1999) concept of cultur-al reciprocity suggests professionalscompare their own beliefs and the stu-

dent's family's beliefs, identify the dif-ferences, and work towards collabora-tion that builds on the family's beliefs,perceptions, and strengths. Instead ofsimply accepting Mr. Sau's nodding asunderstanding what was discussed atthe meetings, the other team membersshould have asked him for his opinionsregarding some of the suggestions thatwere proposed at the meetings. Profes-sionals must take the extra step toensure that CLD parents understandthe discussions and decisions made atIEP meetings and invite feedback fromthem.

After the IEP Meeting

Meeting Summary

Often, CLD parents find IEP teammeetings stressful because they cannotcommunicate well with professionalsand feel that professionals tell themwhat their children did wrong or didnot do (Salas, 2004). With such a highlevel of stress, parents may not be ableto process the large amount of informa-tion that is shared in the meetings. Atthe IEP meeting Mr. Sau attended, dueto the linguistic barriers he did not

18 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Figure 1 . Ciieciciist to Demystify tiie ¡EP Process for CLD Parentsof Ciiiidren Witii Disabiiities

Before the IEP Meeting

• Meet and explain to parents the timeline, their rights, what isinvolved in the IEP process, and how they can participate.

Q Provide parents with information on relevant community resources.

• Offer parents opportunities to connect with other parents of childrenwith disabilities.

Q Include, in the meeting notice, options for meeting dates and times,who will be attending, how long the meeting will last, and availableinterpretation services.

• Send parents a draft meeting agenda and invite them to add items tothe agenda.

• Provide documents in parents' primary language and that match theireducational level.

• Provide parents with directions to school.

• Meet with interpreter at least 30 minutes prior to the meeting to pro-vide a glossary of relevant terms and acronyms and to discuss howoften the professionals should pause for converting oral messages.Generally, professionals should pause every 2 or 3 sentences. Relaythis information to the other team members.

The Day of the lEP Meeting

• Have one of the IEP team members escort parents to meeting room. Itis best that this professional is someone the parents feel comfortablewith and have met before. If the welcoming professional does notspeak the parents' native language, have the interpreter also greet andescort the parents.

a Have team members introduce themselves and state their roles in themeeting.

• Ask parents open-ended questions to ensure that they understand themeeting discussions.

• Pay attention to parents' verbal and nonverbal cues.

• Invite parents to ask questions and offer feedback.

After the IEP Meeting

• Provide a written meeting summary and invite parents to call, e-mail,or meet if they have questions.

• Inform parents what will happen after the IEP meeting, such as whenthey will receive a copy of the proposed IEP and what their rights areif they disagree with the IEP.

• Have the translated IEP available to parents in a timely manner.

have the opportunity to understand theinformation being presented.

Recommendations for Practice

In order to ensure that parents areinformed, some states, such as Massa-chusetts, require the team to provide

parents with a meeting summary asthey leave the meeting (MassachusettsDepartment of Education, 2006). Suchsummary should include a completedIEP service delivery grid and a state-ment of major goal areas associatedwith these services; this helps ensure

that both parents and schools areaware of the key decisions and agree-ments made at the meeting. It is alsohelpful to have the summary' translatedand provided to CLD parents in theirnative languages.

Ttanslaled IEPs

Providing CLD parents with translatedIEPs in a timely manner is another keyfactor to successful home-school part-nerships. Many parents who are limit-ed- or non-English speakers rely on theinformation on the translated IEPs. Inorder to best serve the child and followthe true spirit of the process, profes-sionals should make every possibleattempt at clear verbal and writtencommunication to ensure that the IEPis understood by the parent.

Final Tiioughls

Home-school partnerships begin assoon as children are enrolled inschool. For families of children withdisabilities, partnerships with schoolsare even more crucial because parentsare the advocates for their childrenand are the ones who can speak fortheir children regarding what servicesand supports are suitable to addresstheir needs. IEP meetings become theforum for parents and professionals tomeet, discuss, and formulate howschools can better serve these chil-dren. The tone and outcome of thesemeetings and how familiar the familiesare with the IEP process can have atremendous impact on relationshipsbetween schools and their students'homes. Parents who feel respected andare considered as equal partners aremore likely to continue to participatethroughout their child's academiccareer. Because CLD parents may nothave the skills or the knowledge totake on the roles that are expected byfederal regulations and schools, profes-sionals become the ones who can pro-vide this population with guidancethroughout the entire process. Thereare speciflc ways that teachers andschool administrators can facilitate theparticipation of CLD parents. SeeFigure 1 for a checklist of strategiesthat are mentioned in this article.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | JAN/FEB 2012 19

As the U.S. population continues todiversify, professionals need to acquirethe knowledge to work collaborativelywith families who are from culturesthat are different from theirs. Culturalcompetence is no longer sufficient;

Because CLD parents maynot have the skills or theknowledge to take on theroles that are expected hy

federal regulations andschools, professionals

hecome the ones who canprovide this population with

guidance throughout theentire process.

professionals must be self-aware oftheir own culture, values, and beliefs.Additionally, viewing each family as aunique entity is a must (Lynch &Hanson, 2004). As new and effectivepractices related to teaming and collab-oration emerge, continuous profession-al development is needed for all profes-sionals, with the needs of parents andthe students schools serve being at thecenter of all the activities.

ReferencesBull, L. (2003). The use of support groups

for parents of children with dyslexia.Early Child Development and Care, 173,341-347.

Dabkowski, D. M. (2004). Encouragingactive parent participation in IEP teammeetings. TEACHING ExceptionalChildren, 36(3), 34-39.

Epstein, J. L. (t995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for thechildren we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76,701-712.

Fitzgerald, J. L., & Watkins, M. W. (2006).Parents' rights in special education: Thereadability of procedural safeguards.Exceptional Children, 72, 497-510.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. NewYork, NY: Doubleday.

Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., & Davies, D.(2006). Beyond the bake sale: The essen-tial guide to family-school partnerships.New York, NY: The New Press,

Hughes, M. T, Valle-Riestra, D. M., &Arguelles, M. E. (2002). Experiences ofLatino families with their child's specialeducation program. MulticulturalPerspectives, 4, 11-17.

Individuals With Disabilities EducationImprovement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. 1400et seq. (2006).

Jandt, F. (2007). An introduction to intercul-tural communication: Identities in a glob-al community (5^^ ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1997). A pos-ture of reciprocity: A practical approachto collaboration between professionalsand parents of culturally diverse back-grounds. Journal of Child and FamilyStudies, 6, 485-509.

Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1999). Culturein special education: Building reciprocalfamily-professional relationships.Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Lo, L. (2008). Chinese families' level of par-ticipation and experiences in IEP meet-ings. Preventing School Failure, 53, 21-27.

Lo, L. (2010). Perceived benefits experiencedin support groups for Chinese families ofchildren with disabilities. Early ChildDevelopment and Care, 180, 405-415.

Lynch, E. W., & Hanson, M. J. (2004).Developing cross-cultural competence: Aguide for working with children and theirfamilies (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: PaulH. Brookes.

Lytle, R. K., & Bordin, J. (2001). Enhancingthe IEP team: Strategies for parents andprofessionals. TEACHING ExceptionalChildren. 33(5), 40-44.

Massachusetts Department of Education.(2006). Memorandum on the implemen-tation of 603 CMR 28.05(7): Parentresponse to proposed IEP and proposedplacement. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/news/news.asp?id = 3182

National Center for Education Statistics.(2009). Characteristics of public, private,and bureau of Indian education elemen-tary and secondary school teachers in theUnited States: Results from the 2007-2008schools and staffing survey (NCES 2009-324). Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

O'Donovan, E. (2007). Making individual-ized education programs manageable forparents: Reaching out is the right thing todo. District Administration, 43, 69.

Park, J., •nirnbull, A. P., & Park, H. S.(2001). Quality of partnerships in serviceprovision for Korean American parents ofchildren with disabilities: A qualitativeinquiry. Journal of the Association forPersons with Severe Handicaps, 26,158-170.

Salas, L. (2004). Individualized educationalplan (IEP) meetings and MexicanAmerican parents: Let's talk about it.Journal of Latinos and Education, 3,181-192.

Simpson, R. L. (1995). Individualized edu-cation programs for students withautism: Including parents in the process.Focus on Autistic Behavior, 10, 11-15.

Su, L. I. (1993). On cross-cultural communi-cation: Why a positive answer should notbe taken seriously. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED372605).

U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). language useand English speaking ability: 2000.Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, Office ofSpecial Education Programs. (2010a).Table 1-19: Number and percentage ofchildren ages 3 through 5 served underIDEA, Pan B, by the seven race/ethnicitycategories and state: Fall 2008. Retrievedfrom https://www.ideadata.org/arc_toclO.aspttpartbCC

U.S. Department of Education, Office ofSpecial Education Programs. (2010b).Table 1-21: Number and percentage ofchildren ages 6 through 21 serx'ed underIDEA, Part B, by the seven race/ethnicitycategories and state: Fall 2008. Retrievedfrom https://www.ideadata.org/arc_toclO.aspfpartbCC

Lusa Lo (Massachusetts CEC), AssociateProfessor, College of Education and HumanDevelopment, Special Education Program,University of Massachusetts, Boston.

Address correspondence concerning this arti-cle to Lusa Lo, College of Education andHuman Development, Special EducationProgram, University of Massachusetts -Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA02125-3393 (e-mail: lusa.lo®umb.edu).

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 44,No. 3, pp. 14-20.

Copyright 2012 CEC.

Ad Index

Attainment, cover 2, 1

CEC, 5, 31, 67

Chapman, 31

, cover 3, cover 4

20 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Copyright of Teaching Exceptional Children is the property of Council for Exceptional Children and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.