View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

When Being an Expert May Not Be Enough: Understanding the Experiences of Special Education Professionals Parenting Children with Disabilities

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: When Being an Expert May Not Be Enough: Understanding the Experiences of Special Education Professionals Parenting Children with Disabilities
Language: English
Authors: Ruby Batz (ORCID 0000-0003-2266-2462), Sheresa Boone Blanchard
Source: Exceptional Children. 2025 91(2):123-143.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Special Education Teachers, Child Rearing, Parents, Disabilities, Special Education, Mothers, Professional Personnel, Experience, Expertise, School Personnel, Students with Disabilities, Equal Education, Advocacy, Parent Role, Barriers, Access to Education, Educational Legislation, Federal Legislation, Racial Factors, Socioeconomic Status, Teacher Attitudes, Individualized Education Programs
Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
DOI: 10.1177/00144029241298240
ISSN: 0014-4029
2163-5560
Abstract: How do special education-related professionals parenting children with disabilities experience the special education system? This qualitative exploratory study delves into the experiences of 25 mother-educators who are special education-related professionals navigating the special education system for their children with disabilities. Through thematic analysis, our findings elucidate how the special education system perpetuates inequitable practices. The study describes four central themes: (1) the nuanced role of mother-educators' expertise, (2) the capacity and willingness of school staff to serve children with disabilities, (3) the inherent inequalities within the special education system, and (4) the role of advocacy. Most of these mother-educators could occasionally leverage social, cultural, and economic capital to advocate and secure services for their children. However, despite their ability to leverage such resources and extensive knowledge about their children and the special education system, these mother-educators encountered numerous challenges in advocating for and securing services for their children. We discuss the implications of our findings for federal mandates on family engagement and caution against the deficit-based nature of special education. Furthermore, we propose recommendations for fostering more equitable approaches within the system. This study underscores the need for systemic changes to ensure that all children with disabilities receive the support and services they deserve.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1454449
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFLBZfUsouc_f-sgHtWlLP7AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCW1NkM3HLmUKXEFcgIBEICBmzSH2i2MrsDGckgSYq7Bmbxr-ms8OkpH3VFvjsTThLoK-6TUuhtUAuoV9DDc21PQUbYCrwmqJ16GYd_KhjkoBa1N6OOLN0BC8KoYLrWuljhWfz0kS2noV4-nfXlpYU6gnrSLqI3ox-Yna_zT88wmpJFBncNsv6OBYZkca20wzZQLx5Nn5jlD3egd9Qxr8FL9YA0_qqQ7A9dQaju-
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181700294;exc01jan.25;2024Dec19.03:47;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181700294-1">When Being an Expert May Not Be Enough: Understanding the Experiences of Special Education Professionals Parenting Children with Disabilities </title> <p>How do special education-related professionals parenting children with disabilities experience the special education system? This qualitative exploratory study delves into the experiences of 25 mother-educators who are special education-related professionals navigating the special education system for their children with disabilities. Through thematic analysis, our findings elucidate how the special education system perpetuates inequitable practices. The study describes four central themes: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) the nuanced role of mother-educators' expertise, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) the capacity and willingness of school staff to serve children with disabilities, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) the inherent inequalities within the special education system, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>) the role of advocacy. Most of these mother-educators could occasionally leverage social, cultural, and economic capital to advocate and secure services for their children. However, despite their ability to leverage such resources and extensive knowledge about their children and the special education system, these mother-educators encountered numerous challenges in advocating for and securing services for their children. We discuss the implications of our findings for federal mandates on family engagement and caution against the deficit-based nature of special education. Furthermore, we propose recommendations for fostering more equitable approaches within the system. This study underscores the need for systemic changes to ensure that all children with disabilities receive the support and services they deserve.</p> <p>Keywords: mother–educator; special education; parent engagement; advocacy; qualitative research</p> <p>Family engagement is crucial to children's educational success ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref5">37</reflink>]). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 mandates family involvement and participation in educational decision-making, emphasizing the rights of parents[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref6">5</reflink>] to actively advocate and participate in all aspects of the special education process (Bacon & Causton-Theoharis, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>]). Despite these provisions, research consistently highlights low parent engagement in the special education pipeline ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref8">9</reflink>]). It is worth noting that, under IDEA, participation and advocacy are understood as a parent's choice and responsibility ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref9">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref10">40</reflink>]). However, parents' choices and ability to advocate are significantly influenced by societal values, available resources, expectations, relationships, and access to power within a particular historical and cultural context ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref11">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref12">41</reflink>]). These factors impact parents' opportunities to engage and advocate for their children ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref13">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref14">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref15">41</reflink>]), and influence the roles of professionals and institutions in the special education system. This complex interplay can render certain parents more vulnerable to experiencing normalized injustice, particularly concerning the intertwined experiences of racism and ableism ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref17">14</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-2">Parent Engagement and Advocacy in Schools</hd> <p>Recent legislative initiatives, such as The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, underscore the central role of parent and family engagement, particularly for historically marginalized and disadvantaged parents ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref18">7</reflink>]). Educational institutions often reflect privilege-dependent structures that cater to well-educated, White, and high-SES families (Calarco, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref19">10</reflink>]). Schools often respond more favorably to parents equipped with specialized cultural capital, encompassing knowledge of the general education and special education systems, and social capital, involving relationships with key school staff ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref20">40</reflink>]). These factors influence the effectiveness of parent advocacy and underscore the continued importance of addressing inequalities in the educational landscape.</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-3">Disability Constructions in Schools</hd> <p>Children with disabilities often navigate stratified trajectories marked by prevailing ableist beliefs that assign higher status to students without disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref21">24</reflink>]). Special education as a field is historically entangled with problematic ideologies of ableism and racism, where children's differences are seen as deficits ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref22">22</reflink>]). Certain disability categories, including attention deficit disorder, autism, and speech-language impairments, are imbued with higher social status and less stigma ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref23">23</reflink>]). Students with these disabilities are likelier to receive inclusive special education services, typically alongside their non-disabled peers, leading to generally improved academic outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref24">24</reflink>]). Recognizing the advantages, families may strategically seek these diagnoses ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref25">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref26">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref27">36</reflink>]). This hierarchy of disabilities is more pronounced among White children ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref28">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref29">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref30">36</reflink>]). Conversely, disabilities like intellectual disability and emotional-behavioral disorders carry more stigma, often leading to exclusion from non-disabled peers ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref31">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref32">36</reflink>]). Racially marginalized students are more likely to be labeled with these "lower-status disabilities" ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref33">24</reflink>]). Other categories, such as learning disability, can be considered stratified, meaning they can assign higher status to some students and lower status to others, depending on social context (e.g., school-level racial ratio, teacher–student racial mismatch; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref34">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref35">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref36">33</reflink>]). This hierarchy of disabilities confers differential advantages or disadvantages that intersect across axes of identity, such as race, gender, and class, documented within the broader literature on inequity and disproportionality in special education ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref37">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref38">24</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-4">Parent Advocacy in the Special Education System</hd> <p>Parent advocacy has shaped legislation such as IDEA (2004) to secure educational and civil rights for children, including inclusive education and necessary accommodations ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref39">14</reflink>]). Parents often assume the role of "experts on their child" in special education. Positive relationships with teachers enhance parents' confidence and willingness to advocate for their children. Access to information about special education rights, processes, and responsibilities significantly impacts parental advocacy ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref40">40</reflink>]). Informed parents are more likely to seek and receive essential services for their children ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref41">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref42">9</reflink>]). However, advocacy efforts do not always yield favorable outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref43">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref44">7</reflink>]), as schools respond differently to parent engagement by race, socioeconomic status (SES), and disability ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref45">24</reflink>]). Built-in privileges and disadvantages in advocacy relate to factors such as race/ethnicity, class, disability status, and other dimensions of inequality ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref46">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref47">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref48">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>Research shows disparities in parent experiences within the special education system. Parents from dominant sociocultural backgrounds (e.g., White, middle-class) report being more satisfied with services and report better outcomes than parents from historically marginalized backgrounds (e.g., Black, Indigenous, People of Color [BIPOC], low-income class; [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref49">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref50">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref51">24</reflink>]). However, parents across different sociocultural backgrounds face difficulties navigating services, and experience limited communication, collaboration, and involvement in decision-making ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref52">3</reflink>]). These challenges are often magnified for families from non-dominant sociocultural backgrounds ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref53">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref54">12</reflink>]). The COVID-19 pandemic also exacerbated existing disparities ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref55">24</reflink>]). Low parental involvement and engagement in the special education process impact children's educational trajectories and family well-being. Poor parent–school partnerships are linked to higher rates of due process and mediation procedures, resulting in emotional and financial distress for both schools and families ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref56">31</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-5">Dual Roles: Parent-Educators Navigating Special Education Services</hd> <p>Given the social location of mother-educators navigating special education services, these individuals, mothers, and special education-related professionals are expected to have some leverage in the special education process. Social location refers to an individual's or group's societal standing within intersecting hierarchies of race, gender, class, and ability. The concept of social location makes visible how power relationships shape people's experiences and interactions within society ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref57">13</reflink>]). The dual roles of these mother-educators intersect with systems of domination such as ableism and racism. Emerging research reveals that despite possessing specialized cultural and social capital, mother-educators encounter significant challenges when advocating for their children ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref58">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref59">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref60">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>The precise nature of these challenges, however, needs to be clarified. Therefore, our study aims to document the experiences of 25 special education professionals who are mothers to 32 children with disabilities, aged 0–21, currently receiving services under IDEA Parts C or B (2004). Our study addresses two fundamental questions: (a) What factors shape the experiences of mother-educators as they navigate the special education system? and (b) What trajectories do their advocacy efforts follow?</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-6">Guiding Theoretical Frameworks</hd> <p>In our study, we adopt two guiding theoretical frameworks to comprehensively understand the experiences of special education professionals who are also parents of children with disabilities navigating the special education system. We refer to this group of parents as mother-educators. The first framework is the Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis framework (IBPA), rooted in intersectionality articulated by Black feminist theorists (Crenshaw, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref61">15</reflink>]). IBPA originated in health-related fields ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref62">28</reflink>]) and was later adapted to be used in special education ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref63">11</reflink>]) to challenge systemic inequities. It engages in intersectional analyses of oppressive legislative practices that are particularly harmful to individuals marginalized by racism, ableism, and other systems of domination. Using guiding questions, IBPA facilitates equity-focused policy analysis and research processes. In this study, we utilized the IBPA version adapted by [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref64">11</reflink>], specifically addressing disparities in educational policy, research, and practice in special education. First, IBPA required that we examine our positionalities and social locations as they impact the design of our study and the interpretation of our findings. It helped us to critically examine IDEA's role in shaping how parents navigate special education services and their children's experiences. We used IBPA to understand our participants' social location and explore how the patterns were linked to power imbalances (e.g., a mother-educator contesting professionals) and issues of domination (e.g., the operation of ableism and/or racism). This framework enabled us to examine how social inequalities are compounded by systems of domination, rendering specific identities, such as race/ethnicity, disability, class, and gender, susceptible to normalized injustice or privilege ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref65">11</reflink>]; Hankivsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref66">28</reflink>]). By employing IBPA, we aim to bridge the gap between the principles underlying laws and their practical implementation, identifying actionable steps in practice, policy implementation, and research to enhance equity in the special education system.</p> <p>Our second framework is Bourdieu's social capital theory (1986). This framework served as a lens through which we interpreted how various forms of capital influenced the experiences of special education professionals who are mothers of children with disabilities. Cultural capital includes tangible and intangible assets such as skills, education, and knowledge; social capital encompassing relationships and networks; and economic capital involving economic resources to access services. This framework informed our understanding of these mother-educators' interactions within the special education system, and their advocacy efforts ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref67">40</reflink>]). These selected theoretical frameworks were intentionally chosen to investigate the enactment or resistance of federal guidance provided under IDEA (2004) regarding parent engagement and children's inclusive practices in the special education system. Through these frameworks, we sought to uncover the factors relevant to the experiences of these professionals and assist them in advocating for their child/children ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref68">31</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-7">Methods</hd> <p>Our research employed an exploratory qualitative study approach to investigate the experiences of 25 mother-educators navigating the special education system. This approach involved conducting 25 semi-structured interviews and follow-up interviews with a subset of 20 participants, as outlined in Table 1. The interview process spanned over 40 hours of audio recording to comprehensively understand the challenges, barriers, and successes faced by mother-educators in their interactions with the special education system. Both interviews were semi-structured. Accessing more than one interview per participant allowed us substantial exposure to participants' experiences at two different time points, offering a clearer understanding of their experiences (Small & Calarco, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref69">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 1. Demographic Representation of Participants and Due Process Participation.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">ID<sup>#</sup></th><th align="left">Mother's Race/Ethnicity</th><th align="left">Current Occupation</th><th align="left">Years SPED Experience</th><th align="left">Education</th><th align="left">Location</th><th align="left">Child's Gender & Age</th><th align="left">Disability Label</th><th align="left">Child's Race/Ethnicity</th><th align="left">Current IDEA System</th><th align="left">Years in System</th><th align="left">School Type & Grade</th><th align="left">Due Process</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1012</td><td>Asian</td><td>PT</td><td>26</td><td>Masters</td><td>Urban, West<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">a</xref></td><td>Girl, 12</td><td>ASD</td><td>Asian American</td><td>Part B</td><td>9</td><td>Charter, 7th</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>Boy, 10</td><td>ASD, ADHD</td><td>Asian American</td><td>Part B</td><td>8.5**</td><td>Homeschool, 5th</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>1022</td><td>White</td><td>TA</td><td>10</td><td>PhD</td><td>Urban, East</td><td>Girl, 7</td><td>Bilateral profound SNHL</td><td>White</td><td>Part B</td><td>6**</td><td>Public, 2nd</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>Boy, 3</td><td>DD</td><td>White</td><td>Exited part C*</td><td>½</td><td>Public, preschool</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>1032</td><td>White</td><td>IHE, TA</td><td>20</td><td>PhD</td><td>Urban, Southeast</td><td>Boy, 12</td><td>ASD</td><td>White</td><td>Part B</td><td>7</td><td>Charter, 6th</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>1042</td><td>White</td><td>Consultant</td><td>25</td><td>PhD</td><td>Urban, Midwest</td><td>Girl, 12</td><td>SLD</td><td>Asian</td><td>Exited part B*</td><td>11**</td><td>Private, 7th</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>Boy, 9</td><td>SLI</td><td>White</td><td>Exited part B*</td><td>5</td><td>Private, 5th</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>1052</td><td>African American</td><td>Instructional Coach</td><td>17</td><td>Masters</td><td>Urban, South</td><td>Boy, 15</td><td>ASD, SLI, Anxiety</td><td>African American</td><td>Part B</td><td>10</td><td>Public, 9th</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>1062</td><td>White</td><td>IHE</td><td>15</td><td>PhD</td><td>Urban, Midwest</td><td>Boy, 12</td><td>TAG, ASD</td><td>MENA</td><td>Part B</td><td>7</td><td>Public, 7th</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>1071</td><td>White</td><td>EI</td><td>21</td><td>Masters</td><td>Urban, Midwest</td><td>Boy, 17</td><td>ADHD</td><td>White</td><td>Part B</td><td>15**</td><td>Public, 11th</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>1082</td><td>White</td><td>ECSE</td><td>12</td><td>Masters</td><td>Urban, Midwest</td><td>Girl, 11</td><td>SLD</td><td>White</td><td>Part B</td><td>5</td><td>Private, 6th</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>1092</td><td>White</td><td>EI/ECSE</td><td>3</td><td>Masters</td><td>Urban, Midwest<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">a</xref></td><td>Boy, 13</td><td>Down Syndrome, SLI, Anxiety</td><td>White</td><td>Part B</td><td>12**</td><td>Public, 6th</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>1101</td><td>White</td><td>TA</td><td>20</td><td>PhD</td><td>Rural, Northeast</td><td>Boy, 13</td><td>ASD, PTSD, Hypersomnia</td><td>White</td><td>Part B</td><td>5</td><td>Charter, 8th</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>1112</td><td>White</td><td>School Psychologist</td><td>8</td><td>EDd</td><td>Urban, Midwest</td><td>Boy, 3</td><td>DD</td><td>White</td><td>Part C</td><td>2</td><td>Daycare</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>1141</td><td>White</td><td>Para-professional</td><td>7</td><td>BA</td><td>Urban, South<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">a</xref></td><td>Boy, 10</td><td>HI, IDD</td><td>White</td><td>Part B</td><td>9**</td><td>Public, 5th</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>1252</td><td>White</td><td>Speech Pathologist</td><td>25</td><td>Masters</td><td>Urban, South</td><td>Boy, 18</td><td>LD, Anxiety</td><td>White</td><td>Part B</td><td>15</td><td>Public, 12th</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>1262</td><td>White</td><td>OT</td><td>22</td><td>Masters</td><td>Urban, South</td><td>Girl, 5</td><td>Down Syndrome</td><td>White</td><td>Part B</td><td>5**</td><td>Public, K</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>1272</td><td>White</td><td>Speech Pathologist</td><td>14</td><td>Masters</td><td>Rural, Midwest</td><td>Girl, 3</td><td>HI, DD</td><td>White</td><td>Part B</td><td>2**</td><td>Public, P</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>1281</td><td>White</td><td>SPED teacher</td><td>17</td><td>Masters</td><td>Urban, Midwest</td><td>Boy, 10</td><td>SLI, ADHD</td><td>White</td><td>Part B</td><td>7</td><td>Public, 4th</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>1301</td><td>White</td><td>SPED teacher</td><td>14</td><td>Masters</td><td>Urban, Midwest</td><td>Boy, 18</td><td>ASD</td><td>White</td><td>Part B</td><td>17**</td><td>Public, 12th</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>Girl, 16</td><td>ASD, Anxiety</td><td>White</td><td>Part B</td><td>16**</td><td>Public, 11th</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>Boy, 13</td><td>ADHD</td><td>White</td><td>Part B</td><td>9</td><td>Public, 7th</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>1312</td><td>White</td><td>Teacher of the deaf</td><td>4</td><td>Masters</td><td>Rural, Midwest</td><td>Girl, 2</td><td>OHI</td><td>White</td><td>Part C</td><td>1</td><td>NA</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>1322</td><td>White</td><td>SPED teacher</td><td>12</td><td>Masters</td><td>Urban, Midwest</td><td>Girl, 7</td><td>OHI</td><td>White</td><td>Part B</td><td>2</td><td>Public, 2nd</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>1342</td><td>White</td><td>PT</td><td>23</td><td>Masters</td><td>Urban, Midwest</td><td>Girl, 11</td><td>SLD, ADHD</td><td>White</td><td>Part B</td><td>5</td><td>Public, 6th</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>1362</td><td>White</td><td>EI/ECSE</td><td>7</td><td>Masters</td><td>Urban, Midwest</td><td> Girl, 20</td><td>ASD</td><td>White</td><td>Exited part B</td><td>3</td><td>College</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>Girl, 10</td><td>ASD, SLD</td><td>White</td><td>Part B</td><td>8**</td><td>Public, 5th</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>1372</td><td>White</td><td>Inclusion Support Manager</td><td>12</td><td>Masters</td><td>Urban, West</td><td>Boy, 10</td><td>SLD, OHI, TAG</td><td>African American</td><td>Part B</td><td>5</td><td>Public, 4th</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>Girl, 4</td><td>DD</td><td>White</td><td>Exited part C</td><td>1 ½</td><td>Public, P</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>1382</td><td>White</td><td>EI/ECSE</td><td>11</td><td>Masters</td><td>Rural, Midwest</td><td>Boy, 2</td><td>OHI</td><td>White</td><td>Part C</td><td>2</td><td>NA</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>1402</td><td>White</td><td>EI/ECSE</td><td>7</td><td>Masters</td><td>Rural, Midwest</td><td>Girl, 6</td><td>HI, DD</td><td>White</td><td>Part B</td><td>4</td><td>Public, 1st</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>Boy, 1</td><td>HI</td><td>White</td><td>Part C</td><td>¼</td><td>NA</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>1411</td><td>White</td><td>Doctoral student</td><td>6</td><td>Masters</td><td>Urban, Northeast</td><td>Girl, 13</td><td>Mosaic Down Syndrome</td><td>White</td><td>Part B</td><td>12</td><td>Public, 8th</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>Boy, 10</td><td>ADHD</td><td>White</td><td>Part B</td><td>5</td><td>Public, 5th</td><td>No</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. ADHD=attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; ASD=autism spectrum disorders; DD = developmental disability; EI/ECSE = early intervention and early childhood special education; HI = hearing impairment; IHE = institute of higher education faculty; MENA = Middle Eastern and North African; NA = not applicable; OHI = other health impairment; OT = occupational therapist; PT = physical therapist; SLD = specific learning disability; SLI = specific language impairment; SNHL = sensorineural hearing loss; SPED = special education; TA = technical asistance; TAG = talented and gifted.</p> <ulist> <item>2 Participant did one interview. <sups>2</sups>Participant did two interviews.</item> <item>3 These mothers identified as currently being low-income.</item> <item>4 *Child currently receiving private services.</item> <item>5 **Child started in Part C and continues in Part B.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0181700294-8">Research Sample</hd> <p>After approval from the Institutional Review Board, we recruited participants using a purposeful sample approach. Recruitment was conducted by electronically distributing information about the study through two large special education organizations—the Division for Early Childhood and the Division for Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Exceptional Learners—between January and March 2022. Prospective mother-educators interested in participating in the study could contact the first author via email or complete a self-screening form through a Qualtrics quick response (QR) code and link.</p> <p>To be eligible to participate in the study, individuals had to meet specific criteria: (a) they needed to be special education-related professionals, such as early interventionists, special educators, technical assistance providers, speech-language pathologists, or school psychologists; and (b) they needed to be parents of a child aged 21 or younger receiving services under either Part C or Part B of IDEA (2004) within the United States. Our sample exhibited significant racial and socioeconomic homogeneity: 92% of our participants identified as racialized White cisgender women, 4% as an African American cisgender woman, and 4% as an Asian cisgender woman. Regarding socioeconomic status, 88% identified as middle-class and 12% as lower-income. Eighty percent of participants lived in urban or suburban areas, and 20% lived in rural areas at the time of the study. We remain conscious of this limitation and explore how race and SES might shape mother-educators' experiences. For details on the demographic characteristics of the 25 mother-educators and their 32 children, please refer to Table 1.</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-9">Data Collection</hd> <p>Twenty-five participants provided informed consent, either in writing or verbally, to participate in the study, granting permission for their interviews to be recorded via Zoom for transcription purposes. The first author conducted the semi-structured interviews from February through May of 2022 during COVID-19, when most of the schools were open, and most participants had access to in-person instruction and some remote schooling. The semi-structured format allowed for flexibility in questioning, enabling the first author to dig deeper into specific topics when necessary. Each interview typically lasted between 50 to 60 minutes. As part of our research design, all participants were invited to participate in follow-up interviews, with 20 agreeing to participate. These follow-up interviews were conducted from March to July 2022 and allowed further exploration of the topics discussed in the initial interviews. To show our appreciation for their time and valuable contributions, all participants received a $25 gift card after each interview, with a maximum compensation of $50 for those who participated in both interviews. The interview topics covered various aspects of their experiences navigating the special education system, as outlined in Supplemental Table 1.</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-10">Data Analysis</hd> <p>The data analysis process was a collaborative effort involving the authors and two research assistants (RAs). The first step included the first author and RAs reading the transcripts transcribed by Sonix, a transcription software, while listening to the audio and cleaning all transcripts, which involved tasks such as concurrently listening to the recorded interviews, anonymizing data, correcting errors, and ensuring the accuracy of the transcriptions. Simultaneously, we developed memos to capture our initial impressions regarding the participants' experiences, including descriptive and reflective notes. The second author read randomly cleaned transcripts and wrote descriptive and reflective field notes. At this stage, we also noted respondent-level and cross-case emergent themes coming from the data like "silos," "if this is happening to us," and "policy-practice gap." We used "flexible coding" ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref70">18</reflink>]) and Dedoose ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref71">17</reflink>]) software, indexing each transcript based on the interview protocol. Our hybrid approach to coding combined deductive (a priori codes from theory) and inductive (codes derived from the data) methods ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref72">21</reflink>]). This hybrid approach drew from our knowledge of IDEA (2004), the special education and general education fields, and selected theoretical frameworks. Specifically, deductive codes focused on key themes explored by the interview protocol and literature, such as family-centered themes (e.g., presence of family-professional partnership) and instances of discrimination (e.g., ableism). Inductive codes allowed us to listen more closely to the data. Both authors read the same random transcripts independently and discussed the perceived codes and themes emerging from our data, generating an initial list of codes and some analytical direction. These steps facilitated the creation of a codebook as a living document ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref73">35</reflink>]), which was periodically updated and refined by consensus through an interactive process of coding, analysis, reflecting, and recoding. We discussed and revised codes in our living codebook each time to leave a clear decision-making trail. We used thematic analysis to identify themes and subthemes ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref74">6</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-11">Validity criteria</hd> <p>The two authors employed multiple validation strategies throughout the coding and post-coding analysis phases to ensure our research's rigor, credibility, and trustworthiness. Data triangulation (Creswell & Poth, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref75">16</reflink>]) was a key strategy. We interviewed parents at two points, allowing us to gather and interpret data sources across different temporal contexts. This approach enhanced the credibility of our findings by revealing the consistency of experiences over time. Abductive reasoning ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref76">39</reflink>]) played a crucial role in developing our conceptual understanding of the social processes evident in the data. This allowed us to explore underlying mechanisms and connections beyond mere data description. Our validation process involved independent, collaborative, and iterative data analysis. We actively sought disconfirming alternatives after the emergence of preliminary themes and categories (Creswell & Poth, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref77">16</reflink>]). The creation of data matrices aided us in this endeavor. To further enhance the credibility of our analysis, we engaged in peer debriefings (Creswell & Poth, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref78">16</reflink>]) with colleagues, formally through conference presentations, or informally through discussions.</p> <p>Additionally, we sought feedback from participants. Maintaining reflexivity was another critical aspect of our validation efforts. We continually examined our assumptions, beliefs, values, and biases concerning our participants and the study's objectives. These reflections were documented in our memos and openly discussed throughout the various phases of data analysis, contributing to the transparency and rigor of our research process.</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-12">Positionality</hd> <p>The authors' diverse social locations significantly shaped the research process, from data collection to analysis. The first author identifies as a cisgender woman of color and is racialized as Latina. She came to this research with a background as a former preschool and special education teacher. She is an assistant professor of special education, preparing current and future educators to work in special education-related jobs. Her experiences as a special education professional allowed her to establish points of connection with the participants, particularly in understanding their special education training and professional experiences during interviews. Her teaching and supervising experiences enabled her to pay more attention to how the special education and general education systems reproduce ableism and racism, among other systems of domination. Her teaching and supervising provided her with repeated examples and insights into the reproductions of such inequities.</p> <p>The second author, a cisgender woman of color racialized as African American or Black, has a professional background that includes previous roles as a special education teacher and early interventionist. In her current capacity as an associate professor of birth through kindergarten educator preparation and an education researcher, she also draws from her personal experiences as a parent of three children. Her journey involved navigating both Part C and Part B of IDEA on behalf of her children. While the dual role as mother-educator and author provides a distinct view closely aligned with study participants, it also elicits challenges. Many of the frustrations the participant expressed aligned with her own. As a parent, she sat in more than one meeting, focusing on the things her children could not do. She also had to balance situations within the educational system when considering using her knowledge of special education systems to negotiate accommodations and inclusion. Although there were many parallel events in the lives of the mother-educators, her reflections on understanding the participants were addressed through conversations with the first author and personal reflections to ensure she was not conflating the participants' experiences with her own.</p> <p>Our experiences and backgrounds undoubtedly influenced the lens through which we approached data coding and analysis. Our reflexivity regarding our theoretical and methodological choices entailed clarifying the implications of such choices in the manuscript. In recognition of the influence of our positionality on the research, we maintained a commitment to transparency and reflexivity throughout the study.</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-13">Findings</hd> <p>In our interviews, we uncovered a striking paradox. On one side, we observed the privileged social location of the mother-educators we interviewed—many of whom were White, well-educated, and considered middle class—these individuals possessed abundant resources, from academic credentials to extensive knowledge of the general education and special education systems. Their social capital was robust, with valuable connections to key school staff members and service providers. They often wielded economic capital that could have theoretically granted them access to more supportive experiences. However, their expert advocacy resulted in recurrent negative experiences with schools refusing services and providers lacking training and communicating poorly ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref79">8</reflink>]). This paradox becomes all the more perplexing when one considers that schools and educational organizations are recognized as privilege-dependent institutions that tend to center on White, middle-class, educated parents ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref80">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref81">33</reflink>]). Our findings reveal that these mother-educators encountered various challenges when navigating the special education system for their children (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref82">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref83">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref84">25</reflink>]; Haley & Allsopp, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref85">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref86">27</reflink>]). These issues were magnified if children had more than one disability label and for BIPOC children and parents (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref87">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref88">24</reflink>]). We identified four main analytical themes shedding light on the intricate dynamics and challenges faced by mother-educators as they navigated the special education system: (a) expertise as (un) helpful, (b) (lack of) capacity, and (un) willingness, (c) unequal system by design, and (d) change agents.</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-14">Theme I: Expertise as (Un) Helpful</hd> <p>Theme I explored how the intricate interplay of the mother-educator's social and cultural capital shaped their interactions with the special education system. This theme is comprised of two distinct subthemes: (a) expertise as helpful and (b) expertise as unhelpful. This theme highlighted how their cultural and social capital can have positive and negative implications as they advocate for their children within the special education system.</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-15">Expertise as helpful</hd> <p>These mothers-educators navigating dual roles drew upon their cultural capital, such as their deep knowledge of the special and general education systems. This extensive understanding enabled them to comprehend their parental rights, grasp the language and expectations of the special education system, and strategically advocate for their children. For example, a White middle-class speech pathologist mother (#127.1) recognized the importance of her expertise in expediting her White infant's evaluation, stating, "had I not been a speech path, I felt like she probably would not have been tested until preschool." This example illustrates how a mother's specialized knowledge acted as a catalyst for adequate access to EI. In addition to cultural capital, these mother-educators leveraged their social capital, which included personal and professional relationships with key personnel within the IFSP or IEP teams. This access to key individuals gave them critical support in advocating for their children and accessing the necessary services. One White middle-class mother (#128.1), a special educator, recognized the value of her network, stating, "I do know who to go to in the chain of command. You know when there is an issue ... this is helpful." These relationships facilitated their ability to strategize and demand what they considered necessary for their children ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref89">40</reflink>]). Along these lines, a special education White faculty member (#106.1) and the mother of a mixed-race Middle-Eastern American 12-year-old boy explained:</p> <p>So, it's been a long journey in terms of just getting him the proper fit of services and supports. First grade, I called it a write-off year. Like, we didn't know until late in the year he really wasn't getting the supports and services he was needing. They were proposing IEPs that were going to exclude him from, like, his specialist classes, like he wasn't going to get to go to science or he wasn't going to go to music because there were behaviors in those classes because he was getting bullied. And so, we had a lot of big disagreements and a lot of IEP meetings that ended up having to go up to the assistant superintendent of special ed level and things like that, so been there, done that on that unfortunate journey, but we're in a better place right now.</p> <p>These mother-educators assumed the primary advocacy role for their children and their family members, who relied on them to navigate the complexities of services, decision-making, and IFSP or IEP meetings. They recognized that their expertise was indispensable in making sense of the system for their families. One White middle-class mother (#137.1) poignantly articulated this issue, advocating for her African American son:</p> <p>I don't know what we'd be doing without my expertise. Even with that, I have all this expertise and knowledge... I write IEPs all day, every day, and we still found it hard to navigate. My husband has no background in special education or any of this, and he is always, like, I would have no idea what to do if we didn't have you to navigate it.</p> <p>These examples underscored mother-educators' critical role in supporting their family members in accessing the necessary services, while highlighting how difficult the system is for parents without such social and cultural capital. However, as exemplified in the next subtheme, having such specialized knowledge and key professional relationships only sometimes enabled them to access what they needed or requested for their children.</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-16">Expertise as unhelpful</hd> <p>Many mother-educators recounted how their in-depth knowledge of the law and the special education system sometimes led to them being perceived as intimidating by the professionals serving their children. For example, one instructional African American middle-class coach (#105.1) shared, "So for his case managers, that is intimidating because now I'm a parent who knows the law." To avoid conflicts, these mother-educators carefully monitored how they presented themselves, recognizing the potential for their expertise to create tension. A White middle-class faculty member (#104.1) and EI/ECSE consultant elaborated: "I monitor how I come across so I'm not read as intimidating. You want to make sure they work with you and your child. You don't want them against you." These mother-educators often found themselves in conflict with superiors or colleagues due to their extensive knowledge and the advocacy efforts they undertook for their children. Their expertise was perceived as a double-edged sword, leading to tensions within the educational teams serving them. A White middle-class special educator (#130.1) shared an exchange with the principal at her school, who accused her of "abusing your knowledge of the system to get more services for your children."</p> <p>Some of these conflicts escalated to the point where mother-educators felt compelled to make significant life changes, such as relocating to a different school district or transferring their children to a different school to avoid prolonged professional conflicts and harm to their children's educational trajectories and well-being. An EI/ECSE White low-income specialist (#109.1) expressed:</p> <p>So, after his third IEP in 10 weeks, I just had a feeling it was not going to get better. The relationships [with my son's team and her colleagues] were not improving after the second suspension. I just started looking at other programs in other districts. I did not want to move him away from his friends. I just didn't see it getting any better. They had proposed something that I wasn't aware of, and so I didn't sign off on it. And I wanted to meet with them... and they interpreted that as an escalation. But we did not get to like a facilitated mediation.</p> <p>Conversely, these mother-educators also encountered instances where district professionals treated them like they knew everything about navigating special education for their children and stopped explaining things. A White middle-class speech-language pathologist (#125.1) providing EI/ECSE services and raising a high-schooler with learning disabilities and anxiety reflected on this issue: "I think they [school district] probably just, you know, assume that, um, I know everything I need to know to navigate services for my child ... but I don't have a lot of experience with that age group [school-age services]." Another White middle-class EI/ECSE mother-educator (#138.1) further explained how often their IFSP team assumed she was competent to handle her child's condition. However, her child had a difficult feeding condition, about which she considered herself a novice. She described:</p> <p>Even [child]'s provider will say sometimes: "Well, I know you know this," and I'm like, I know this, but this is—it's hard to think about and wrap my head around when it's every night we're eating dinner and [my child] is telling me "no." And I actually did a feeding training with [an] OT [occupational therapist]; so, I spent four days and did a feeding training, and she's like, "Well, I know you know this," and I'm like "just pretend I don't." Yeah, I think that the hardest part is some of that, like, assumed competence.</p> <p>These examples illustrated the intricate and, at times, contradictory nature of how having expertise in special education, and the ability to deploy social and cultural capital to navigate the special education system, may not be enough to secure services and supports for their children. These experiences highlighted the complexities inherent in their dual roles, and shed light on how schools both welcome and resist children with disabilities, a theme explored in the next section.</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-17">Theme II: (Lack of) Capacity and (Un) Willingness</hd> <p>Theme II explored the intricate dynamics that mother-educators navigated with educational professionals, encompassing general and special education-related roles. This theme underscored the profound influence of ableism within educational organizations and school settings, where general education and special education professionals frequently engaged in exclusionary practices and less frequently championed inclusive practices. In this section, we explored Theme II, composed of two distinct yet interwoven subthemes: (a) capacity and willingness to serve children with disabilities and (b) lack of capacity and/or unwillingness to serve children with disabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-18">Capacity and willingness</hd> <p>This subtheme highlighted the profound positive impact of working alongside educators with the capacity and willingness to work with children with disabilities. The experiences of mother-educators, as they traversed the educational landscape in pursuit of support for their children, were significantly shaped by their interactions with such professionals. One EI middle-class White specialist (#107.1) stated that "when teams made up of professionals who have your child's best interests and serve their needs, or whenever teachers enjoy having your child in their classroom and valuing the whole child," that this resulted in positive experiences when navigating services—an experience she referred to as "rare." The impact of capable and willing educators extends to making the education journey coherent and meaningful. A middle-class African American instructional coach (#105.1) stated that such professionals "make it make sense." In another instance, an experienced White middle-class TA (#110.1) described how, after filing for due process and having a very difficult relationship with her son's special education team, her son was placed in the autism support program. In this program, she found two capable and willing providers who significantly impacted her child's experience:</p> <p>Both teachers, who were the autism support teachers, were very respectful very responsive. They wanted to find out as much as they could about him to make sure he was having a positive experience and really trying to build up his trust and his confidence in going to school. And I would also say they were also willing to meet outside of, you know, the regular [IEP] meetings.</p> <p>Mother-educators chose school enrolment for their children based on "understanding what school districts, classrooms, staff, and leadership are more equipped or willing to work with children depending on their needs." (#130.1). It underscored how each child's and parent's experiences hinge on the presence of educators and institutions considered competent, and who actively engage in supporting children with disabilities and their families.</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-19">Lack of capacity and/or unwillingness</hd> <p>This subtheme explored the challenges faced by mother-educators when they encountered educational staff who were ill-equipped to meet the needs of children with disabilities, an issue well documented in the literature. Over time, these mother-educators found themselves in situations where special education and/or general education teachers lacked the necessary resources and expertise to deliver adequate services to their children. A White middle-class occupational therapist (#126.1) explained:</p> <p>I think that the staff [general education] is not informed, and how they're addressing it is making things worse ... and they are just guessing at what they should do, and not using research-based best stuff like we all should be as educators, and the school is not doing anything to provide teachers with the tools to get the needed training to be successful.</p> <p>Many others encountered a lack of implementation of adaptations and/or IEP modifications. A middle-class African American instructional coach described how "teachers and staff in the system are not compliant and feel that it is enough to make sure a student is placed rather than placed in correct services" (#105.1). In another instance, a White middle-class ECSE mother (#108.1) was told by her child's teacher that her White daughter, labeled with specific learning disabilities, "failed the test." A conversation between her and the teacher ensued: "I said, 'was it read out loud to her like it's supposed to be?' He said, 'well, no, why would it be read out loud to her?' and I said, 'because that's in her IEP, that is one of her accommodations' ... and then he's like, 'what are you talking about?'" Moreover, these mother-educators also grappled with outright resistance and unwillingness from certain special education and general education staff members tasked with supporting their children. For example, a White middle-class special educator (#130.1) questioned the acceptable notions of inclusion and exclusion as experienced by her son with severe autism:</p> <p>They [the child's class] went on this big skiing field trip. Well, my son can't even ride a bike, right? Like, at that point, he just wasn't there. So, they all got to go on the field trip, and he had to stay behind with a special ED class, which people are like, "Well, he's in special ed a lot," and I'm like, "Yeah, but he wasn't the only one," there were four other students in that class who did not get to go, and they all stayed behind. So, I said they got to watch everyone leave on the bus, and they stayed behind. Wouldn't we rather come back and say, what kind of field trip can we have that lets all students be able to go? Like, what can we do differently or [what] could we offer instead of just skiing?</p> <p>A White middle-class special education professor (#106.1) explained how, during their IEP meeting, the IEP team was "victim blaming a child with autism for getting bullied. Treating his behaviors as a reason for the way he is being bullied at school." (#106.1). This mother further explained,</p> <p>[The special education teacher] was just incompetent. You know, like, she wasn't doing her job, and she was the one who was proposing all these IEPs that were completely ludicrous and were violating the LREs for all of the children, and my son for sure. I didn't know this at the time. I just was, like, refusing and not signing documents for not meeting his needs and not being inclusive. Then, you know, I was talking with some of the other moms and finding out their kids had also been having problems all year with not getting the services they needed.</p> <p>These narratives underscored the critical challenges faced by mother-educators and their children when dealing with educators who lacked the capacity or willingness to serve children with disabilities, which is against basic inclusionary regulations under IDEA (2004). Our findings are connected to the next theme, highlighting how a deficit-based special education system may enhance exclusionary and incompetent practitioners and practices.</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-20">Theme III: Unequal by Design</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181700294-21">Special education is a deficit-based and asymmetrical process</hd> <p>Mother-educators in this study highlighted the deficit-based nature of special education services. A White middle-class school psychologist (#111.1) whose child had a developmental delay considered EI services needed and helpful. However, she was hesitant to keep her child with developmental delays in the special education system, given the negative stigma associated with it during the school years. She reflected, "What do I think would be best for him? Yeah, I don't know special ed is the answer to that." Mother-educators also reflected on the deficit-based nature of the IFSP, IEP documents, and meetings that hyperfocused on what's wrong with a child. A White middle-class EI specialist (#107.1) described such a process:</p> <p>You know, IEPs are so deficit-based. And I understand they have to be that way in order for the state to provide services, but, you know, parents just want a piece of, you know, what their child also does really well to be reflected more on an IEP. Because even—no matter what, everybody has a strength. Everybody deserves to have something good pointed out that they can do, and their ability, you know, because the IEP is very good at pointing out what your child cannot do. So, you as a parent, you have to sit there, and you have to listen to everything that your child cannot do compared to their typical peers.</p> <p>Under IDEA, advocacy is expected during IFSP and IEP meetings; therefore, these mother-educators could, on many occasions, exercise their expertise and capital to influence their IFSP and IEP meetings and documents. For example, a White middle-class EI/ECSE specialist (#138.1) whose child with developmental delays was in the planning phase for transitioning out of EI described that she "advocated for him as a parent while also knowing from a special ed side that if this was any other kid, we would say no [to parents' requests]." Negotiation was more likely to happen if the child was young or was labeled with a higher-status disability. For example, a White middle-class professor (#103.1) whose White child was labeled under a developmental delay for the school district but clinically diagnosed with autism described how she advocated for her son's change of eligibility category during the eligibility meeting:</p> <p>I was, like, but he's not delayed [laughs]. So, I was like, if we know the diagnosis of autism and he fits that category, I just felt like, let's use that because if we don't feel like we need new data when he's 8, we don't have to put him through new testing, because it was a lot. The testing, you know, is a lot. And so, anyway, we went with autism.</p> <p>Resorting to private evaluations allowed some of these mother-educators to advocate for either accessing services or adjusting their eligibility category. For example, a White physical therapist (#134.1) sought out a private evaluation to demonstrate the need to make her daughter eligible for specific learning disabilities. "We need that information to show that she's been struggling in school ... because they're like, well, she's really young to be evaluated for this. She's really young. ... But I know, but, like, the younger you intervene, yeah, the better."</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-22">Overpowered and in conflict</hd> <p>However, many of these mother-educators experienced loss of power and asymmetrical relationships while attending IFSP or IEP meetings. Such asymmetrical experience was more likely to happen if the child was labeled with a lower-status disability and/or had a dual diagnosis, or their eligibility criteria did not fit the label according to these mother-educators. A low-income Asian physical therapist (#101.1) explained how, during her IEP meetings about both their children receiving services, "your opinions don't count because pretty much the school staff and admin kind of overruled them. And they just went along with their decisions and counted that as an IEP team decision, unfortunately." This mother had to change her daughter with severe autism to a new school due to the lack of support from her IEP team. Another mother, a White low-income paraprofessional (#114.1), further elaborated on this issue:</p> <p>Every time you go into an IEP meeting, every time you go into an annual review, it is always very stressful, and you feel like this tension, and you feel like it's their way or the highway, like there's no option because you go in and you have the teacher, you have the para, you have the LEA, you have all the therapists sitting over here, and it's just you, and you feel like, "oh my gosh, if I say, no, this is not working, what's going to happen?" If that makes sense, like, it's very—it's very stressful. And so, until I found the advocacy group, I didn't know that "no" could be a possible answer.</p> <p>In our study, all the mother-educators who pursued a full due process shared some important demographic characteristics. All five of their children were labeled with more than one disability label, as seen in Table 1 (#101, 105, 106, 110, and 137). Furthermore, four of those children were themselves BIPOC, and one was White. Three of their mothers were White, and two were BIPOC. Two other White mother-educators initiated the due process but did not conclude it for different reasons (#109 and 130). Despite being knowledgeable about the system and their rights, this unique group of mothers experienced an uphill battle to get the services they considered adequate and needed for their children. A White middle-class professor (#106.1) shared her due process for her son labeled as both with autism and gifted.</p> <p>Even up till now, this past winter, I had to follow due process against the district in which we live because the district in which he goes to school, because of failure to do certain things within the IEP. So, when I come to the table because I know the language, because I know the layout, because I know what it looks like in the classroom, how it's supposed to be executed. I don't have very many issues like some of the other parents, that, you know, I have conversations with, or who often call me, you know, just as a resource because I know, and it's very challenging for the school because you have to, when I come to the table, you have to dot your i's and cross the t's because I know what it should look like.</p> <p>Contrarily, a White middle-class inclusion support manager (#137.1) reflected on how going through the due process for her African American child was so foreign to her as she had not experienced it professionally in her district:</p> <p>I've never been in this process [due process]. I mean, this is not how we respond to our families; it's not how we conduct ourselves or how we do our part of it [when disagreements arise between families and IEP teams]. We have never, like, never, in a million years. I mean, maybe we could, you know if we're just so far off. But, again, like it's not like we don't have IEP meetings, like where I work without conflict, right? But we are never just ... we always make it work, have a meeting after meeting, time after time, we pull in whoever we need to try to help the parents to understand. Also, we hear where they're coming from and come to an agreement together. And, thus far, we haven't ever been in that situation [due process]. We make space for parents to disagree, like, we welcome it, right? We grow from it. (#137.1)</p> <p>Furthermore, a low-income Asian occupational therapist (#101.1) with a son with ADHD and autism described her perceptions about her child's school about their due process:</p> <p>I'm just thinking, like, the money that they're paying for, for that lawyer, if they only put it towards their curriculum and all that to really try to help students, right? They [the school] don't have to go through that. And this charter school is supposed to be, like, teaching, teaching their students, like, qualities, you know, right qualities like being a good person. But, then, but then they show a different ugly face to the parents.</p> <p>Mothers-educators experienced asymmetrical power relationships. Furthermore, 25% of mother-educators pursued due process as a last resource to access justice for their children. In general, these mother-educators were aware of the deficit-based nature of special education and its implications for their children. For that reason, many mothers pursued their special education-related jobs as advocacy to support families in navigating special education services, as seen below throughout Theme IV.</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-23">Theme IV: Advocacy and Self-Reflection</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181700294-24">Self-reflection and empathy</hd> <p>For some of these mother-educators, having a child labeled with a disability and qualifying for either Part C or B services changed their perception of families and their professional practices. For example, a White middle-class EI/ECSE specialist (#138.1) shared how raising a young child receiving EI services has impacted how she works with families, "I'm like, okay, now I know how my parents feel when I'm asking them all these questions." A White middle-class special educator (#130.1) added,</p> <p>And I feel, like, once I had kids with disabilities, it totally changed my outlook on teaching and what I should be doing. Like, I knew that there was more than just what was going on in the classroom. Like, I had to do more to support families through this process because if they're not supported, the kids aren't supported at home. And if you're not getting support at home, it doesn't matter what you're doing at school; it's not going to stick.</p> <p>A White middle-class teacher of deaf students (#131.1) also realized how much she has changed as a professional because of her ability to empathize with families raising children with disabilities since she had to navigate services for her daughter:</p> <p>It's kind of funny looking back, like, what kind of provider I was before I was a mom, you know, the kind of provider I was, like, when I first became a mom. But now that I have a special needs child, and trying to keep that in mind, because I feel, like, I was, "So you know, this is what the rule says ... this is what is best for your child." And I know better now.</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-25">Advocating: Being a change agent</hd> <p>Advocating for other families was a key motivation for mother-educators in their work. A White middle-class professor (#106.1) shared, "Special ed teams, like, they don't know what to do with that, right, like they know that a parent has the right to say no. But, usually, parents just blanketly sign them [IFSPs or IEPs] and go ahead, right?" Many of these mother-educators mentioned educating and empowering other parents as one of their main motivations for their current jobs. A White middle-class ECSE specialist (#108.1) reflected on how and why she advocated for the families in their caseloads:</p> <p>I was the gen ed toddler teacher and really partnered with the parents through the whole evaluation process, helped them with the paperwork and just making sure they really understood all the different steps of it, and then kind of coaching them through advocating for their child because again, it was still in [x district]. [X school] wanted to bus their 3-year-old to an elementary school to receive services, taking him out of the childcare setting he was in. And it was just not a good fit for the child. And the parents were like, "don't we have to do it? Because that's what they're proposing?" I was like, "No, you don't!" And that's why I got into special education. I wanted to help parents to advocate and have somebody on their side who knew the system.</p> <p>Many of these mother-educators created or volunteered at local or national non-profit organizations that supported families raising children with disabilities. A White middle-class occupational therapist (#126.1) raising a child with Down Syndrome helped open a branch of a national organization in their community for other families raising children with Down Syndrome. Many of them also got involved in policy-level work at the local or national level. For example, a White middle-class TA (#102.1) reflected on how she sees her policy-related work at the state level.</p> <p>I get to talk with a lot of families through that work, and I help develop programs to support their leadership and development so that I really have been enjoying, and also just getting them connected and understanding, you know, like I want families who are interested in becoming leaders to understand the system so that they can be out there supporting other families to understand the system.</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-26">Discussion</hd> <p>In this qualitative study, we explored a wide range of mother-educators' experiences as they navigated special education services. Our findings extend the understanding of how the special education system both reproduces and mitigates unequal practices affecting young children with disabilities and their families ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref90">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref91">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref92">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref93">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref94">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref95">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref96">33</reflink>]). Our selected theoretical frameworks assisted us in identifying how ableism and racism were operating under IDEA ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref97">1</reflink>]). As a framework, IBPA ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref98">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref99">28</reflink>]) allowed us to understand the gap between what is expected from the special education system (e.g., inclusion, family-centered practices) and the difficulties experienced by mother-educators navigating special education services despite having social, cultural, and economic capital to leverage in the process (Bourdieu, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref100">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>The advocacy required by IDEA places a heavy burden on parents, which can exacerbate inequalities, as those with more social, economic, and cultural resources tend to navigate the system more effectively ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref101">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref102">14</reflink>]). Under IDEA, parents are expected to advocate for themselves and their children, which places a heavy responsibility on parents' shoulders and makes the special education process prone to inequality as it is set up to respond differentially to the ways parents could deploy their social, economic, and cultural resources ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref103">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref104">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref105">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref106">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref107">40</reflink>]). Given the setup of advocacy under IDEA, occasionally, many of these mother-educators were granted the opportunity to request earlier testing, advocate for a change of eligibility category, and seek out better services ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref108">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref109">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref110">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref111">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref112">36</reflink>]). These mother-educators tended to be White and tended to have children labeled with higher-status disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref113">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref114">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, our research underscores the disconnect between the family-centered and family engagement aspirations outlined by IDEA (2004), and the actual experiences of mother-educators. Despite their dual roles as educators and parents and having access to leverage different types of social, cultural, and economic capital, these mother-educators faced significant challenges in advocating for appropriate services. This finding aligns with previous research suggesting that informed and educated families may get pushback from educational organizations ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref115">8</reflink>]). White, educated, and middle-class mother-educators were not able to consistently leverage their resources to advocate for their children with disabilities as they could have in traditional general education classrooms ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref116">10</reflink>]) if their children did not have disabilities.</p> <p>These mother-educators knew "their rights" and had the "right type of knowledge" and "relationships," but it did not make them immune from experiencing inequities observed in special and general education (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref117">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref118">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref119">27</reflink>]), which can be understood as experiences shaped by ableism (Nario-Redmond, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref120">32</reflink>]). Such inequities are magnified for parents with no expertise about the special education system and their children who experience an unjust special and regular education system, especially those from historically marginalized communities ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref121">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref122">12</reflink>]). In our study, these issues were magnified if children had more than one disability label. For example, four of the five children whose families filed a due process were BIPOC, and all of them had more than one disability label. Our study extends the research documenting how BIPOC children labeled as disabled and their families experience harsher special education trajectories as they navigate both ableism and racism ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref123">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref124">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our study highlights that IFSPs and IEPs, intended to individualize education through collaborative efforts, often result in depersonalization and asymmetrical power dynamics ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref125">42</reflink>]). Even knowledgeable mother-educators found that these processes focused more on compliance than genuine family-professional partnerships ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref126">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref127">4</reflink>]). This compliance-driven approach often emphasizes deficits over strengths, reinforcing ableist perspectives within both special and general education systems (Nario-Redmond, 2019). Mother-educators fought against exclusionary practices experienced by their children despite inclusive mandates under IDEA ([2004]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref128">30</reflink>]). Their advocacy extended beyond their children, aiming to support other parents and children within the system. However, the pushback faced by mother-educators underscores the need for systemic changes to support all families ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref129">8</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-27">Policy Implications</hd> <p>Our findings call for a critical examination of how IDEA is implemented, particularly regarding parental advocacy and engagement. The statute assumes that all parents can effectively advocate for their children, but this is only true for some families ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref130">40</reflink>]). Despite IDEA provisions, disparities persist in how families can leverage social and cultural capital ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref131">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref132">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref133">14</reflink>]). Policymakers must address the embedded discrimination, racism, and ableism within educational practices ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref134">8</reflink>]). Achieving equity in special education requires more than compliance with IDEA; it demands a fundamental shift in how services to children with disabilities are provided in both general and educational settings, and how parents are engaged ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref135">31</reflink>]). As one of our mother-educators asked (#106.1), "If this is happening to us, that we have all of our ducks in a row," we have to ask why, as educational systems, we make it so difficult for families and children to navigate special education.</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-28">Implications for Educational Organizations and Providers</hd> <p>Educational organizations must move beyond deficit models of disability and recognize their role in perpetuating inequities ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref136">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref137">24</reflink>]). A shift in the general perception of disability and valuing collaboration with families is needed to alter current practices ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref138">2</reflink>]). The well-documented difficulties experienced by informed and knowledgeable parent-educators in navigating the educational system (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref139">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref140">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref141">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref142">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref143">27</reflink>]) underscores the need for comprehensive reforms to ensure accessibility for all. The solution is not only to "teach" and "empower" parents with knowledge about their rights and the system ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref144">9</reflink>]); it also requires a radical reimagination of an educational system that truly welcomes all students and their families. Our research suggests that institutional policies and actions influence inequality across services offered under IDEA Parts C and B, reflecting broader societal issues. It urges leaders and service providers to scrutinize their biases toward families and children with disabilities, addressing prejudices against marginalized groups and favoritism towards privileged ones. Recognizing ingrained notions of difference, power dynamics, and inequity in our practices and policies is essential for respectful and empathetic partnerships with families ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref145">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our findings underscore the critical challenges faced by mother-educators and their children when dealing with educators who lack the capacity or willingness to serve children with disabilities. This is against basic inclusionary regulations under IDEA (2004). Such incompetence and unwillingness are a form of ableism operating within special education services ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref146">32</reflink>]), extending the research documenting how special education practices continue to perpetuate isolation and exclusionary practices ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref147">30</reflink>]). Exclusionary practices enacted across the special education pipeline must be thoroughly examined and contested at the individual, interpersonal, institutional, and systemic levels ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref148">19</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-29">Implications for Research</hd> <p>Structural issues cannot be solved through individual actions alone, although individual stories can inform policy changes. Research must continue to illuminate the experiences of children and families within special education systems, especially those most marginalized by such systems. Family experiences can help us to better understand how systems, policies, and laws work, and what changes can be made to realize better outcomes. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref149">11</reflink>] provide questions that can guide our decisions, reflections, and analysis related to research and inform potential next steps. For example, when considering who the research is for, it is for all children and families impacted by the special education system. In our study, while we centered the perspectives of various mother-educators navigating the system, they were mostly White and middle class. We acknowledge that additional research should focus on BIPOC mother-educators and/or lower or upper class while considering aspects of social location. To gain deeper insights, it is crucial to center the experiences of historically marginalized participants. Further intersectional analysis and reflection should inform future research.</p> <hd id="AN0181700294-30">Supplemental Material</hd> <p>Graph: Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ecx-10.1177_00144029241298240 for When Being an Expert May Not Be Enough: Understanding the Experiences of Special Education Professionals Parenting Children with Disabilities by Ruby Batz and Sheresa Boone Blanchard in Exceptional Children</p> <ref id="AN0181700294-31"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Annamma S. A., Connor D., Ferri B. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bacon J. K., Causton-Theoharis J. (2012). It should be teamwork': A critical investigation of school practices and parent advocacy in special education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(7), 682–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.708060</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Batz R., Yadav A. (2024). Parents' experiences navigating early intervention and early childhood special education services: A qualitative metasynthesis. Journal of Early Intervention, 46(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/10538151231164902</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bomgardner E. M., Accardo A. L. (2022). Dual roles: Experiences of special educators who are mothers of a child with a disability. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31(3), 866–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02231-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref6" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bourdieu P. (1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson J. G. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref74" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Braun V., Clarke V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref18" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Buren M. K., Maggin D. M., Brown C. (2020). Meta-synthesis on the experiences of families from nondominant communities and special education collaboration. Exceptionality, 28(4), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2018.1480953</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref41" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Burke M. M., Hodapp R. M. (2016). The nature, correlates, and conditions of parental advocacy in special education. Exceptionality, 24(3), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2015.1064412</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref8" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Burke M. M., Meadan-Kaplansky H., Patton K. A., Pearson J. N., Cummings K. P., Lee C. (2018). Advocacy for children with social-communication needs: Perspectives from parents and school professionals. The Journal of Special Education, 51(4), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466917716898</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Calarco J. M. (2020). Avoiding US versus them: How Schools' dependence on privileged "helicopter" parents influences enforcement of rules. American Sociological Review, 85(2), 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122420905793</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cavendish W., Samson J. (2021). Intersectionality in education: Toward more equitable policy, research, and practice. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cioè-Peña M. (2020). Planning inclusion: There is a need to formalize parental participation in individual education plans (and meetings). The Educational Forum, 84(4), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2020.1812970</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collins P. H. (2020). The new politics of community revisited. The Pluralist, 15(1), 54–73. https://doi.org/ https://<ulink href="http://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/748104">www.muse.jhu.edu/article/748104</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cowhy J. R., Mulroy Q., Bonilla T. (2024). Reconceptualizing parents as policy agents within special education. Educational Researcher. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X241238679</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crenshaw K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell J., Poth C. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Sage Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dedoose. (2021). Web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed-method research data (Version 9.0.17). SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deterding N. M., Waters M. C. (2021). Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 708–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799377</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> ECTA. (2024). Equity and inclusion focused leadership: Attitudes and action. https://ectacenter.org/topics/leadership/attitudes-and-actions.asp</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301. (2015). https://congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fereday J., Muir-Cochrane E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferri B. A., Bacon J. (2011). Beyond inclusion: Disability studies in early childhood teacher education. In Fennimore B., Goodwin A. (Eds.), Promoting social justice for young children. Educating the Young Child (Vol. 3, pp. 137–146). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0570-8_12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fish R. E. (2019). Standing out and sorting in: Exploring the role of racial composition in racial disparities in special education. American Educational Research Journal, 56(6), 2573–2608. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219847966</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fish R. E. (2022). Stratified medicalization of schooling difficulties. Social Science & Medicine, 305, Article 115039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fogle K. C., Hoppey D., Allsopp D. H. (2020). The fight within: Parent-educators advocating for their children with autism inside their own school districts. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(2), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419861964</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haley K., Allsopp D. (2019). Advocating for students with learning and behavior challenges: Insights from teachers who are also parents. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 63(1), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2018.1469462</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haley K., Allsopp D., Hoppey D. (2018). When a parent of a student with a learning disability is also an educator in the same school district: A heuristic case study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717690114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hankivsky O., Grace D., Hunting G., Giesbrecht M., Fridkin A., Rudrum S., Ferlatte O., Clark N. (2014). An intersectionality-based policy analysis framework: Critical reflections on a methodology for advancing equity. International Journal for Equity in Health, 13, Article 119. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-014-0119-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400. (2004).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirby M. (2017). Implicit assumptions in special education policy: Promoting full inclusion for students with learning disabilities. Child & Youth Care Forum, 46(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-016-9382-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kramarczuk Voulgarides C. K. (2018). Does compliance matter in special education? IDEA and the hidden inequities of practice. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nario-Redmond M. R. (2019). Ableism: The causes and consequences of disability prejudice. John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ong-Dean C. (2009). Distinguishing disability: Parents, privilege, and special education. University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Owens J. (2021). Parental intervention in school, academic pressure, and childhood diagnoses of ADHD. Social Science & Medicine, 272, Article 113746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113746</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reyes V., Bogumil E., Welch L. E. (2021). The living codebook: Documenting the process of qualitative data analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 53(1), 89–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124120986185</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saatcioglu A., Skrtic T. M. (2019). Categorization by organizations: Manipulation of disability categories in a racially desegregated school district. American Journal of Sociology, 125(1), 184–260. https://doi.org/10.1086/703957</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheldon S. B., Epstein J. L. (2005). Involvement counts: Family and community partnerships and mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(4), 196–207. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.4.196-207</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Small M. L., Calarco J. M. (2022). Qualitative literacy: A guide to evaluating ethnographic and interview research. University of California Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Timmermans S., Tavory I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trainor A. A. (2010). Diverse approaches to parent advocacy during special education home- school interactions: Identification and use of cultural and social capital. Remedial and Special Education, 31(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508324401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wakelin M. M. (2008). Challenging disparities in special education: Moving parents from disempowered team members to ardent advocates. Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy, 3(2), 263–288. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njlsp/vol3/Iss2/6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeitlin V. M., Curcic S. (2014). Parental voices on individualized education programs: 'Oh, IEP meeting tomorrow? Rum tonight!'. Disability & Society, 29(3), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.776493</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0181700294-32"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Society for Research in Child Development, through an Early Career Grant awarded to first author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruby Batz https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2266-2462</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Supplemental material for this article is available online. Manuscript received February 2024; accepted October 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> We use the term parent to indicate the primary caregiver at the time of the study, including biological parents, adopted parents, grandparents, and aunts. We decided to use the term parent because of the dual role of the mother-educators participating in our study.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ruby Batz and Sheresa Boone Blanchard</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref148"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1454449
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: When Being an Expert May Not Be Enough: Understanding the Experiences of Special Education Professionals Parenting Children with Disabilities
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ruby+Batz%22">Ruby Batz</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2266-2462">0000-0003-2266-2462</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sheresa+Boone+Blanchard%22">Sheresa Boone Blanchard</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Exceptional+Children%22"><i>Exceptional Children</i></searchLink>. 2025 91(2):123-143.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education+Teachers%22">Special Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Rearing%22">Child Rearing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parents%22">Parents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disabilities%22">Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education%22">Special Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mothers%22">Mothers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professional+Personnel%22">Professional Personnel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experience%22">Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Expertise%22">Expertise</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Personnel%22">School Personnel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Advocacy%22">Advocacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Role%22">Parent Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Education%22">Access to Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Legislation%22">Educational Legislation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Federal+Legislation%22">Federal Legislation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racial+Factors%22">Racial Factors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Socioeconomic+Status%22">Socioeconomic Status</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individualized+Education+Programs%22">Individualized Education Programs</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Individuals+with+Disabilities+Education+Act%22">Individuals with Disabilities Education Act</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/00144029241298240
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0014-4029<br />2163-5560
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: How do special education-related professionals parenting children with disabilities experience the special education system? This qualitative exploratory study delves into the experiences of 25 mother-educators who are special education-related professionals navigating the special education system for their children with disabilities. Through thematic analysis, our findings elucidate how the special education system perpetuates inequitable practices. The study describes four central themes: (1) the nuanced role of mother-educators' expertise, (2) the capacity and willingness of school staff to serve children with disabilities, (3) the inherent inequalities within the special education system, and (4) the role of advocacy. Most of these mother-educators could occasionally leverage social, cultural, and economic capital to advocate and secure services for their children. However, despite their ability to leverage such resources and extensive knowledge about their children and the special education system, these mother-educators encountered numerous challenges in advocating for and securing services for their children. We discuss the implications of our findings for federal mandates on family engagement and caution against the deficit-based nature of special education. Furthermore, we propose recommendations for fostering more equitable approaches within the system. This study underscores the need for systemic changes to ensure that all children with disabilities receive the support and services they deserve.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1454449
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1454449
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/00144029241298240
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
        StartPage: 123
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Special Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Rearing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mothers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Professional Personnel
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Expertise
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Personnel
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Advocacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Legislation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Federal Legislation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Racial Factors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Socioeconomic Status
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individualized Education Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: When Being an Expert May Not Be Enough: Understanding the Experiences of Special Education Professionals Parenting Children with Disabilities
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ruby Batz
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sheresa Boone Blanchard
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0014-4029
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2163-5560
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 91
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Exceptional Children
              Type: main
ResultId 1