Remedial and Special Education

http://rse.sagepub.com/

Diverse Approaches to Parent Advocacy During Special Education Home−−School Interactions :

Identification and Use of Cultural and Social Capital
Audrey A. Trainor
Remedial and Special Education 2010 31: 34 originally published online 9 October 2008
DOI: 10.1177/0741932508324401

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://rse.sagepub.com/content/31/1/34

Published by:
Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Remedial and Special Education can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://rse.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://rse.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://rse.sagepub.com/content/31/1/34.refs.html

Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com by Teguh Santosa on September 21, 2010

Article Remedial and Special Education
Volume 31 Number 1
January/February 2010 34-47
© 2010 Hammill Institute on
Disabilities
Diverse Approaches to Parent Advocacy During 10.1177/0741932508324401
http://rase.sagepub.com

Special Education Home–School Interactions hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Identification and Use of Cultural and Social Capital

Audrey A. Trainor
University of Wisconsin

Home–school partnerships in special education often include parent advocacy that at times requires specific and specialized
knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Parent participation is shaped by access to cultural and social capital resources and is crit-
ical to assessment and service delivery. This study explores the types of capital resources parents perceived necessary to
their participation via five focus groups of participants from a range of socioeconomic, disability, and racial or ethnic back-
grounds through 27 in-depth interviews. NVIVO7 was used to analyze data; categorical meaning and relational themes were
coded recursively. Results indicated that intercultural and intracultural differences existed among parents. Advocacy on
behalf of one student also required different capital resources than did advocacy for systems change. Discussion focuses on
implications of parent advocacy on educational equity.

Keywords: parent involvement; diversity

T hroughout the history of the public education of

youth with disabilities, many parents have tirelessly
advocated to ensure that the educational rights, and ulti-
mately the civil rights, of their children are being met.
Whereas parents have enjoyed collaborative roles with
policy makers, school administrators, and teachers as
well as special education researchers and teacher educa-
tors, they have often worked against forces and groups
that have resulted in discrimination against individuals
with disabilities. Parents were, and continue to be, major
contributors to the shaping of landmark legislation such
as the Education for All Handicapped Children
Education Act of 1975 (now known as IDEA, most
recently reauthorized in 2004 as the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Improvement Act). In addition to
fulfilling typical parenting responsibilities, parents of
youth with disabilities often find it necessary to become
deeply involved in the school experiences of their
children.
Parent involvement in the education of their children
is generally considered to support and benefit children’s
educational experiences and opportunities (Epstein,
1996; Jeynes, 2003). Involvement includes a wide range
of parent activities including childrearing practices,
communicating with school personnel, maintaining a
presence at school, and supporting learning activities
(Eccles & Harold, 1996). Recent meta-analyses of the
effects of parent involvement on student achievement of
youth (without specific regard to disability status) indi-
cate that some types of increased parent involvement
correlate with increased student achievement or growth
(Jeynes, 2003, 2007). The relationship between achieve-
ment of students with disabilities and parent involvement
has yet to be systematically collected and analyzed. Both
the No Child Left Behind Education Act of 2001
(NCLB) and IDEA employ specific language to codify
the roles of parents and underscore the expectation that
parents actively participate in the educational experi-
ences of their children, simultaneously mandating that
educators make efforts to include parents in the educa-
tion of their children (H. R. Turnbull, 2005).
Advocacy: A Special Type of Participation
Although the role of parent as collaborative partner
exists in policy, research, and practice in the general edu-
cation setting (Epstein, 1996), partnerships between
home and school on matters relative to special education
Author’s Note: Please address correspondence to Audrey A. Trainor,
University of Wisconsin, 432 North Murray Street, Room 404,
Madison, WI 53706-1469; e-mail: aatrainor@wisc.edu.

34 Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com by Teguh Santosa on September 21, 2010


include additional responsibilities for both educators and
parents. Early disability rights literature described advo-
cacy as the act of speaking and acting on behalf of
another person or group of people to help address their
preferences, strengths, and needs (Wolfensberger, 1977).
Advocacy has historically been a key responsibility of
parents of children with disabilities who have sought to
provide their children with appropriate and inclusive
educational opportunities (A. P. Turnbull & H. R. Turnbull,
2001). Although distinguishing between the terms parent
advocacy and parent participation in special education
processes is germane to this discussion, making such a
distinction is challenging. One important distinction
between the two terms is that, in federal statute as well
as many regulatory and guiding documents, participa-
tion rather than advocacy is used exclusively to describe
the role of parents. The term advocate, as a verb or any
other form, does not appear in IDEA.
An absence of the terminology of advocacy is con-
spicuous. Advocacy is arguably a specific type of parent
participation implied by the language used in IDEA
(A. P. Turnbull & H. R. Turnbull, 1982). This point is
clearly illustrated in sections of the statute that describe
parents’ rights and responsibilities when seeking due
process, which is by definition an act of advocacy. For
example, Section 615 (b) (7) (A) (ii) (III & IV) of IDEA
states that parents (or their attorneys) filing a complaint
must describe “the nature of the problem of the child
relating to such proposed initiation or change, facts relating
to such problem [and] a proposed resolution of the problem
to the extent known to the party at the time.” Whereas the
term participation is widely used, it can invoke a range of
involvement comportment, from passivity to adversarial,
which may or may not include advocacy.
Furthermore, the content of IDEA implies that parents
will advocate to secure appropriate educational services.
For example, in determining eligibility for special edu-
cation services, parents or any member of the
Individualized Education Program (IEP) team can
request or suggest the consideration of an independent
educational evaluation during eligibility determination
deliberations. Ideally, teachers and other school person-
nel also advocate on behalf of children with disabilities.
Yet early conceptualizations of disability rights advocacy
address the inherent conflicts when professionals are
expected to both deliver services and advocate on behalf
of youth with disabilities and their families (Biklen,
1976; Wolfensberger, 1977). Because teachers, adminis-
trators, and social service providers must respond to both
the needs of the organization they represent (e.g., to pro-
vide cost-effective services to multiple constituents) and
the needs of individuals, conflicts of interest may arise,
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com by Teguh Santosa on September 21, 2010
Trainor / Parent Advocacy 35
relegating the responsibility of advocacy to parents. A
gap in the research makes it difficult to document the
extent to which such conflicts present barriers to teacher
advocacy; however, research regarding parents’ percep-
tions that teachers do not effectively respond to parents’
advocacy efforts abound (for examples, see Harry &
Klingner, 2006; Hess, Molina, & Kozleski, 2006; Rueda,
Monzo, Shapiro, Gomez, & Blacher, 2005; Zoints,
Zoints, Harrison, & Bellinger, 2003).
The language of advocacy is not similarly absent in
research and practice. Several key findings are pertinent
to the discussion of parent advocacy. Much of parents’
advocacy efforts have been directed toward securing
inclusive education settings and classroom accommoda-
tions (Leiter & Krauss, 2004; Leyser & Kirk, 2004).
Supportive factors such as the establishment of positive
relationships with individual teachers contribute to
parents’ confidence and willingness to advocate (Blue-
Banning, Summers, Frankland, Nelson, & Beegle, 2004;
Hess et al., 2006). Supportive factors beyond individual
relationships, such as professionals’ access to informa-
tion and consistent membership on IEP teams, also affect
parents’ advocacy (Park, Turnbull, & Park, 2001).
Additionally important is parents’ access to information
about special education processes, rights, and responsi-
bilities included in IDEA (Leiter & Krauss, 2004). Yet
Fitzgerald and Watkins (2006) found that the readability
of parents’ rights handbooks exceeded the reading skills
of many parents, creating a potential barrier to some
parents’ ability to advocate. Lian and Fontánez-Phelan
(2001) found that language barriers also affect parents’
participation and advocacy. Parents in their study who
were dominant in languages other than English needed
access to bilingual information about assessments, edu-
cational approaches, and special education documents as
well as bilingual personnel presence during meetings.
A perusal of articles published in the past 3 decades in
periodicals such as Exceptional Parent, Education
Unlimited, and Preventing School Failure has guided
parents to actively participate and advocate for their
children with disabilities. Furthermore, these articles
support the notion that without parent advocacy the
implementation of IDEA in schools might be less con-
sistent and/or less comprehensive (for examples, see
Ferguson, 1984; Luetke-Stahlman & Hayes, 1994; Rice,
2006). Additional evidence can be found in Website pub-
lications and reports from national disability organiza-
tions such as Parent Advocacy Coalition for Educational
Rights and the National Center for Learning Disabilities,
to name only a few, that inform parents of education policy
and explain how parent advocacy augments the education
of children (for example, see Cortiella, 2005).
36 Remedial and Special Education
Variation in Approaches to Advocacy
The expected outcome of parent advocacy, ensuring
that the educational rights of youth with disabilities are
being met, is an enormous responsibility. H. R. Turnbull
(2005) argued that under the current reauthorization of
IDEA the rights of parents are inextricably related to the
responsibilities of parents in this era of accountability.
Yet parent participation responsibilities and rights out-
lined in IDEA contain deeply embedded assumptions
about parents’ values and beliefs as well as their knowl-
edge and skills with regard to both special education and
social interactions required for advocacy (Kalyanpur,
Harry, & Skrtic, 2000). These assumptions represent the
dominant culture’s value and prioritization of the notion
of normalization (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999). The idea
that a person with a disability is entitled to experiences
that are typical, or considered to be normal of people
without disabilities, has been fundamental to the disabil-
ity rights and advocacy movement since its inception
(Wolfensberger, 1977).
A large body of cultural studies of parenting, educa-
tion, disability, and participation in special education,
however, documents the fact that the normalization prin-
cipal, among other values and beliefs, is not universal.
This lack of conformity among parents may account in
part for variation in approaches that parents use when
they interact with teachers and administrators. For
example, whereas parents from low socioeconomic
backgrounds valued education in ways similar to their
middle- and upper-class counterparts, they tended to be
more likely to leave the responsibility of educational
decisionmaking up to teachers and rely on kinship con-
nections to solve school-related problems (Horvat,
Weininger, & Lareau, 2003; Lareau, 1987). Furthermore,
linguistic differences, beliefs about disability, and defer-
ence to educators as experts may affect Asian American
and Latino parents’ approach to IEP meetings and other
home–school interactions (Garcia, Perez, & Ortiz, 2000;
Harry, 1992; Kasahara & Turnbull, 2005; Park et al.,
2001; Rueda et al., 2005; Salas, 2004).
Additional variation in parent participation, including
parent advocacy, is attributable to marginalization and
unequal distribution of power among families and school
personnel (Harry, Allen, & McLaughlin, 1995). Teachers
and administrators are more likely to accept and encour-
age involvement of parents whose requests and partici-
pation are in agreement with school policy and teacher
beliefs (Dornbusch & Glasgow, 1996; Lareau & Horvat,
1999; Lawson, 2003). Harry and Klingner (2006) found
that, despite participation and advocacy, parents’ efforts
were often disregarded by school personnel and/or
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com by Teguh Santosa on September 21, 2010
thwarted by structural barriers, resulting in inappropriate
placement and service delivery decisions. Furthermore,
the legacy of racism and historical disenfranchisement of
some groups (e.g., African Americans and other people
of color, people from low socioeconomic backgrounds)
influence home–school interactions, affecting the per-
ceptions and experiences of both parents and educators
(Harry & Klingner, 2006; Lareau & Horvat, 1999;
Valenzuela, 1999). Frustration resulting from disrespect-
ful and prejudicial treatment among immigrant and
African American parents has been documented in sev-
eral qualitative studies (Harry, 1992; Harry et al., 1995;
Zoints et al., 2003).
Research on parent participation and advocacy has
resulted in calls for increasing parent training and access
to information (Council for Exceptional Children, 2001).
Yet calls to examine and, if necessary, deconstruct sys-
temic barriers to equitable parent participation have been
less common in special education. General education
studies of equity and parent involvement, however, have
addressed this issue via an examination of both the cul-
tural and social capital resources parents and teachers
value, acquire, and use as they interact with one another
(Horvat et al., 2003; Lareau & Horvat, 1999). What
follows is a brief discussion of cultural and social capital
and their relevance to parent participation and advocacy.
Advocacy and Cultural and Social Capital
Based largely on the work of sociologist Pierre
Bourdieu, educational researchers have questioned the
unequal distribution of power and status among different
subgroups of the population as it pertains to acquiring
education (Mahar, Harker, & Wilkes, 1990). Bourdieu
(1986), who focused on class-based structures and
inequity, identified three types of capital—economic,
cultural, and social—that are central to a person’s ability
to garner status and power in society. Whereas economic
capital is a straightforward concept, cultural and social
capital need explication. Cultural capital, according to
Bourdieu (1986), consists of material items as well as
dispositions and knowledge that inform the way a person
thinks and acts. Application of this definition to parent
advocacy in special education processes is illustrated in
the following example: After gaining information from a
parents’ rights handbook and other documents, a parent
who accepts and understands her role in an IEP meeting
attends the meeting with several ideas or requests regard-
ing the educational program of her child. During the IEP
meeting, the parent uses communication demonstrating
her ability and willingness to collaborate and advocate.

Social capital, according to Bourdieu (1986), is com-
prised of relationships and social networks among
people that afford the interchange of information and
cultural goods (i.e., cultural capital), economic capital,
and additional social capital. To extend the above illus-
tration, prior to attending the IEP conference the parent
joins a support group and connects with other parents
who are experienced and knowledgeable regarding advo-
cacy and special education processes. Through these
connections, she garners additional information as well
as emotional and social support that influence her advo-
cacy efforts.
Bourdieu (1974) contended that capital resources
function together, resulting in social reproduction. In
other words, people who have numerous and varied cap-
ital resources are able to gain access to additional
resources, whereas those who do not have such struggle
to gain access to important stock (e.g., quality educa-
tional experiences). Two additional foundational con-
cepts to this version of capital theory include field and
habitus. Field, akin to a frame of reference, is the setting
in which sociocultural interactions take place (Mahar et al.,
1990). In this discussion, the field would be home–
school interactions, as they occur at school, at home, or
in the community. Location itself is not central to field.
Rather, space and time in which interaction occurs com-
prise the field.
Habitus, or “a system of cognitive and motivating
structures” (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 53), refers to the rules
and social contingencies under which people operate.
Explicit rules and guidelines for IEP meetings including
circumstances under which such a meeting is arranged,
who is invited, how invitations are distributed, and what
topics are discussed are contained in both IDEA and
states’ guidelines for its implementation. Implicit rules
regarding communication and interaction provide addi-
tional structure to such meetings, contributing to the
habitus of both formal and informal special education
home–school processes such as IEP meetings. Important
to note is that habitus, like the word sounds, is habitual
and often operates under the radar of its actors, remain-
ing unquestioned or unexamined (Bourdieu, 1986).
Habitus also includes teachers’ perceptions and actions
during home–school interactions, including expectations
of parents as advocates as well as teachers’ attitudes,
knowledge, and skills regarding special education.
Although Bourdieu developed his theoretical posi-
tions decades ago, they remain instrumental tools in
understanding inequity, as is evidenced by contemporary
studies of education. Lareau (1987) and others (Horvat et al.,
2003; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Stanton-Salazar, 2001;
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com by Teguh Santosa on September 21, 2010
Trainor / Parent Advocacy 37
Valenzuela, 1999) found that relationships between
parents and teachers are not illustrative of partnership. In
fact, power and status among groups of parents based on
race or ethnicity and socioeconomic status have not been
equal, in part because of differences in the valuation,
acquisition, and use of capital resources. Parents with
access to all three types of capital resources (cultural,
social, and economic) have been able to secure quality
education for their children to varying degrees, which
indicates a positive correlation. In other words, more
capital effectively means increased access to education
opportunity, a troubling concept in a society where edu-
cation is public, free and appropriate, and a cornerstone
in our democratic way of life.
The historical record is clear; through acts of advo-
cacy, many parents of youth with disabilities have
acquired and used power to change the U.S. education
system (A. P. Turnbull & Turnbull, 2001). Yet key stud-
ies have illustrated that cultural and social capital
resources affect special education processes, particularly
because parent participation is critical to assessment and
service delivery (Harry & Klingner, 2006; National
Research Council, 2002). The purpose of this study was
to examine cultural and social capital parents use while
advocating for their children with disabilities to broaden
researchers’ understanding of advocacy, its actors, its
beneficiaries, and its outcomes in the context of special
education home–school interactions.
Method
This study included focus group and individual inter-
views designed to explore parents’ perceptions regarding
their participation in special education processes. As is
typical with qualitative research studies, early stages of
both data collection and analysis provided additional
directions for the course of the study (Schensul,
Schensul, & LeCompte, 1999). Following the first two
focus group interviews, I became aware of participants’
emphasis on their efforts to advocate for systemic
change, leading me to probe this topic specifically.
Whereas interviews with parents encompassed the use of
cultural and social capital during all types of participa-
tion, the focus of this article is parents’ use of capital
resources for the purpose of advocacy. Three research
questions guided this inquiry: What types of cultural and
social capital do parents perceive to be necessary to
advocate for their children who receive special education
services? When advocating on behalf of all children with
disabilities and their families, do parents employ additional
38 Remedial and Special Education
or different capital resources? How do parents’ percep-
tions of their roles as advocates vary within and across
groups based on race or ethnicity, socioeconomic status,
and disability category of children served?
Participants
Because I was interested in the extent to which
parents’ perceptions of capital resources differed across
and within diverse groups of participants, I used a wide
range of strategies to recruit participants, such as includ-
ing announcements in school newsletters as well as post-
ing flyers in schools, disability and public service
agencies, retail businesses, and nonprofit organizations.
Printed materials were distributed in Spanish and
English. An announcement about the study was read on
the local public radio station in Hmong, Spanish, and
English. Additionally, I submitted messages to listservers
of disability-related parent support groups and encour-
aged parents to share the information about the study and
invitations to participate with other parents. Lastly, I met
with community leaders, district personnel (e.g., social
workers, liaisons to special populations), asking them to
tell parents about the study. Participants received a $25
grocery store gift certificate for each of two interviews.
All people (provided their children received special
education services) who expressed interest were inter-
viewed. Participants included 33 adults from 27 families
(some interviews included married couples) representing
36 children who received special education services in a
large Midwestern school district. Disability categories of
participants’ children varied. Eligibility for free and
reduced cost lunch (FRCL) was used as an indicator of
socioeconomic background. Socioeconomic background
varied within racial and ethnic groups, but no Latinos
who were ineligible for FRCL participated in the study.
All of the Latino participants were Spanish-language
dominant. Despite efforts to involve Asian American
parents, none expressed interest in being interviewed.
See Table 1 for a complete list of participants.
Interview Procedures
In preparing the focus group interview guide, I met
individually with area leaders who were involved with
educational issues at the district, including members of
the Latino, Hmong, international, African American, and
Native American Indian communities who provided
feedback on the culturally responsiveness of research
materials (e.g., recruitment materials and interview ques-
tions) and procedures. I also met with parents who were
from disability-related support groups. During the
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com by Teguh Santosa on September 21, 2010
recruitment phase, I made many efforts to establish rap-
port and trust among community members, which is crit-
ical to the implementation of ethnographic research
(Schensul et al., 1999). As a European American
woman, I was racially and ethnically an outsider to many
of the groups with whom I met. I do speak Spanish and
I conducted interviews of Spanish-speaking parents in
the presence of a native speaker of Spanish who aided in
translation and helped moderate. Mindful of my outsider
status, I engaged in reflexive practices throughout the
project by keeping both detailed field notes and debrief-
ing through journaling.
Focus groups. Because focus groups tend to be more
productive if participants have some experiences and
characteristics in common (Morgan, 1996), groups
included participants with similar racial or ethnic back-
grounds. One member each of the Native American
Indian and the African American focus groups was
European American; both were mothers of children of
color and were invited by other group members. The
socioeconomic backgrounds of participants did vary
within groups.
Five focus group interviews resulted in approximately
10 hours of recorded conversation. Interview questions
were designed to elicit parents’ perceptions about cul-
tural and social capital because these terms are not in the
vernacular of most parents. For example, the question
“To whom do you go when you need help or support
resolving disagreements with school personnel?”
prompted discussion about parents’ social capital.
Questions were also designed to be open ended for the
purpose of allowing participants to speak broadly about
their experiences (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Open-ended
interviewing is useful for gaining a breadth of knowl-
edge on a topic, for making meaning of its subcompo-
nents, and for generating responses that reflect
intergroup and intragroup differences (Schensul et al.,
1999). Other questions were “What types of services
have been most beneficial for your child?” and “Where
do you get information or help regarding school matters
for your child with disabilities?”
Individual interviews. Following focus group inter-
views, I interviewed each participant individually. In an
attempt to be culturally responsive, I encouraged partic-
ipants to invite other family members who they felt could
contribute important information about their experiences
with special education services. Adult family members,
including spouses, siblings, and members outside the
immediate family, accompanied participants in four
 Trainor / Parent Advocacy 39

Table 1
Participants, Race or Ethnicity of Family, Free and Reduced Cost
Lunch Eligibility, and Children’s Disabilities
Race or Ethnicity Free and Reduced Cost Children’s
Name of Family Lunch Eligibility Disabilitya

Alejandra Latino Y Autism

Bette European American N CD
Blanca & José Latino Y OHI
Bonnie & Bernice (sibling) European American N CD
Brigid European American N CD
Calli European American N Autism
Cora African American Y LD, EBD
Dani Multiethnic N HI/LD
Darcy Native American Indian Y LD, SLI
Della Multiethnic N EBD
Diandra African American Y EBD
Donna & Lou European American N CD
Fawn African American N Autism
Heloise European American N CD
Jackie Multiethnic N Autism
Jennifer Native American Indian N EBD, LD
Jillian African American N Autism
Joy & Shawn Native American Indian Y OHI, EBD
Kari European American N OHI
Lori Multiethnic N EBD
Marge European American N Autism
Marissa European American Y EBD
Melissa European American Y EBD, LD
Millicent European American Y Autism
Morrie & Lydia European American N OHI
Nanette & Gloria (aunt) African American N OHI/CD
Patricio & Serita Latino Y CD
Renée & Travis Native American Indian Y EBD, SLI

Note: CI = cognitive disability; OHI = other health impairment; LD = learning disability; EBD = emotional or behavioral disability; HI =
hearing impairment; SLI = speech or language impairment.
a. A slash between two disability categories indicates a dual diagnosis for one child. A comma denotes instances where parents have multiple
children with disabilities.

interviews. Protocols for individual interviews were
based on participants’ comments during focus groups
and provided a mechanism for member checking
(Brantlinger, Jiminez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson,
2005). During these in-depth interviews, I spent time in
many participants’ homes or offices, interacting with
their children and other family members. These experi-
ences allowed me to better understand parents and to
contextualize interviews and my interpretations.
Data Analysis
Verbatim transcriptions of each interview were cre-
ated as text documents for each digitally recorded inter-
view, resulting in more than 1,000 pages of interview
data. Each document was uploaded into NVIVO7, a
qualitative analysis software package. Computerized
analyses of qualitative data allow researchers to store,
organize, and analyze large sets of data (Richards, 2005).
Initial categorical coding efforts preceded axial (the-
matic and relational) coding; however, analysis was
recursive (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996). I established broad
categories (codes) based on the focus group protocol. For
example, IEP Participation was a category I anticipated
based on a question about parents’ interactions with
school personnel during these procedures. In addition to
deducing meaning, I coded inductively, identifying
themes that emerged from the data (Harry, Sturges, &
Klingner, 2005; LeCompte & Schensul, 1999).
For example, in the category of IEP Participation,
parents’ comments revealed many instances of advocacy
during IEP meetings. Individual nodes (i.e., categories)

Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com by Teguh Santosa on September 21, 2010

40 Remedial and Special Education

were then created to capture the variety of types of such
advocacy (e.g., advocating for an individual accommo-
dation or advocating for systems change). As I reflected
on these, I took notes regarding my interpretations and
created additional nodes to represent more complex con-
cepts. For example, nodes were created to capture the
extent to which parents acquired and used cultural and
social capital during advocacy. At times codes were
established en vivo by using participants’ language to
create categories. For example, Calli and Donna shared
the perceptions that school personnel considered some
parents to be troublemakers. Realizing the potential
implications of being considered a troublemaker on the
expenditure of cultural and social capital, I used the term
to name a node that eventually contained relevant com-
ments of other participants.
Interview cases were initially coded by selected attrib-
utes of participants (e.g., race or ethnicity, socioeco-
nomic background, disability category of children) so
that data based on demographic characteristics of speak-
ers could be aggregated and compared. In the example
node, Troublemaker, a query revealed which parents,
based on race or ethnicity, socioeconomic background,
and/or disability, perceived that teachers described them
as such. Following broad categorical and open coding of
interview data, axial coding was used to theorize about
the relationships among data (LeCompte & Schensul,
1999). Next, these categories became part of a frame-
work to explain how participants acquire and use capital
as well as their perceptions of factors that inhibit or facil-
itate its expenditure during advocacy.
Results
Parent advocacy occurred across groups based on race
or ethnicity, socioeconomic background, and disability
category. Some parents discussed advocating for educa-
tional systems change but the majority focused on their
efforts to advocate on behalf of their children to address
individualized preferences, strengths, and needs.
Parents’ prioritization and use of resources while engag-
ing in advocacy spanned a breadth of formal and infor-
mal types and sources of material and dispositional
knowledge as well as social relationships and networks.
In the following presentation of interview data, I focus
on the four approaches to parent advocacy that emerged
from interview data. Parents acted as intuitive advocates,
as disability experts, as strategists, and as agents for sys-
temic change. As the data illustrate, these approaches
were not always mutually exclusive; some parents used
multiple approaches.
The Intuitive Advocate
Intuitive knowledge encompasses perceptive insights
parents develop through relationships with their
children. Whereas all parents discussed intuitive knowl-
edge regarding the preferences, strengths, and needs of
their children in the context of school, a subset of parents
said they relied heavily on this type of information when
interacting with educators. Intuitive advocates empha-
sized the importance of “knowing my child” and of
being in the best position to understand or accurately
assess their children’s needs. Marissa and Diandra, both
parents from low socioeconomic backgrounds who had
young sons with emotional or behavioral disabilities,
said that they communicated their understanding of the
behavioral challenges of their children to teachers on
multiple occasions, at times asking for specific accom-
modations. Marissa said, “I know my son has behavior
issues.” Her tactic was to address teachers preemptively
at the beginning of the school year, asking them to call
her if her son’s behavior warranted her attention. She
said that teachers were “responsive” to this request. This
was a recent victory for Marissa, who said that in the past
she unsuccessfully advocated for her son to remain at
school rather than be suspended on numerous occasions.
Intuitive advocacy, however, was not always a power-
ful approach. Diandra and other parents across racial,
ethnic, and socioeconomic groups perceived that
teachers often disregarded this type of information,
resulting in thwarted advocacy. For instance, Diandra
tried to advocate based on her intuition regarding her
son’s escalating behavior problems. As she spoke, her
frustration and worry were palpable. She said,
If it ever got to the situation where Montrez seriously hurt
one of them teachers or one of those kids in that school,
what is it going to lead to? That’s what I’ve been trying to
get the school to understand. If he seriously hurt some-
body in the school because of his behavior, and [teachers]
are not trying to respond to me and listen to what I’m
telling you. . . . “Give him the one-on-one. Trust me.”
Other parents reported similar frustrations that resulted
from advocacy based on knowledge of their individual
children. This was true whether parents were advocating
in response to behavioral or academic concerns and
regardless of whether the home–school interactions
occurred within the context of informal or formal special
education interactions. Darcy described an IEP meeting in
which teachers disagreed with her request for her son to
repeat the fifth grade, a request she based on her knowl-
edge of his individual social and intellectual development.

Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com by Teguh Santosa on September 21, 2010


I felt like they were saying I just wanted to hold Vincent
back and keep him safe, whatever. And I’m like, okay,
one, yes, I do. But two, I’ve seen him. He was reading
on a third-grade level, and his math skills aren’t that
strong either. He has a hard time focusing. But in this
year, he’s finally connected with his teachers. He’s
finally connected to some kids, you know? I just didn’t
see what the harm was on holding him back 1 more year,
just to give him that extra foundation.
Although parents who were eligible for FRCL discussed
intuitive approaches to advocacy more than did their
peers from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, some
parents from the latter group used this approach and
experienced similar results. For example, Donna was
concerned about the treatment of her daughter and advo-
cated for teachers to change approaches to managing
instruction and behavior. She said,
I can’t tell you how many times she would spend in the
hallway in middle school, and I would go in and say,
you’ve got to give her a span of time. Tell her to do
something and give her time to process it. If you’re
going to give her something new that’s out of the norm
of her routine, you have to give her time to process it.
And it would never happen. She would spend the whole
day sitting on the steps because nobody wanted to deal
with it. Well, what kind of an education is that?
An emphasis on knowledge specific to their children
was more common among parents who had limited
access to complex information about disability or special
education. Often, parents who used this approach to
advocacy were eligible for FRCL. Furthermore, few
parents who used an intuitive approach gave examples of
their use of additional approaches to advocacy.
The Disability Expert
Some parents incorporated knowledge about disabili-
ties as they advocated for their children. These parents
said that they developed such expertise from sources out-
side of school contexts such as doctors, disability-specific
organizations, and commercially available texts and Websites.
Jillian, Jackie, Fawn, Lori, and others discussed at length
their efforts to study disability and to use that informa-
tion when advocating for their children. For example,
Fawn said she approached the principal at her son’s
school and advocated to receive information about her
son’s classroom and teacher for the new school year.
Fawn saw this as an accommodation and associated her
son’s difficulty processing changes in routines with his
autism diagnosis. She said,
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com by Teguh Santosa on September 21, 2010
Trainor / Parent Advocacy 41
[Withholding placement information until the first day
of school] is one of the things I want to convince them
to change. I think it makes a difference for our kids. Like
now, this week we’re starting to go to school, so that he
can get used to the transition, show him where the bath-
room is for third grade. I show him all third grade and
[explain that] “one of these will be your classroom.” So
that he can transition and not be nervous.
Although parents who focused on their roles as dis-
ability experts during advocacy spanned racial or ethnic
groups and socioeconomic backgrounds, parents of
youth with autism emerged as a group who focused
effort on this approach. Calli, Jackie, and Jillian all used
phrases such as “discreet trial” and “Lovaas,” words they
said they tried to include on IEPs as a way of ensuring
what they perceived to be quality instruction. These
parents attended workshops, met with national experts,
and shared expert information with school personnel.
Alejandra and Fawn also reported that research on
autism influenced choices for their sons’ current educa-
tional program as well as ideas about their sons’ transi-
tion to adulthood. Parents who used a disability expert
approach were more likely than intuitive advocates were
to relay stories of successful advocacy.
With the exception of parents of color whose children
had been diagnosed with autism, parents from Native
American Indian, Latino, and African American back-
grounds discussed sentiments that disability categories
were imprecise or were incorrectly assigned to their
children, perhaps explaining their infrequent use of the
disability expert approach. Despite the fact that Shawn
agreed that his two eldest children struggled in school,
he wondered about the accuracy of the diagnoses of
attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder for both
children. For this reason, he said, he advocated against
the use of medication, which had been strongly sug-
gested by teachers and administrators.
According to parents across groups, the disability
expert approach was limited for other reasons.
Discussions of disability-related needs made parents feel
vulnerable to teachers’ deficit views. Lydia said she felt
overwhelmed by discussions that consistently revolved
around her daughter’s challenges. Melissa received
mixed messages regarding how much to reveal about her
son’s emotional disability in school contexts. She per-
ceived that some teachers wanted her to share specific
information about mental illness, but she said that the
principal advised her not to “tell anybody that Jonathan
has OCD [obsessive compulsive disorder].” Nevertheless,
knowledge of disability often connected parents to others
whose children had similar disabilities.
42 Remedial and Special Education
Across groups based on race or ethnicity, parents
identified disability support groups as important
resources. Some groups communicated via the Internet
while others met in person. Support group participation
facilitated parents’ expert approach. Parents like Lori
said that local chapters of national disability organiza-
tions provided numerous supports that helped her advo-
cate for her son’s needs during IEP meetings as well as
afforded her information regarding the Family and
Medical Leave Act. In addition to providing access to
information about disabilities, parents said group mem-
bership augmented their attitudes, knowledge, and skills
regarding advocacy. Many Native American Indian and
Latino families joined support groups for parents of
children with disabilities who shared cultural and lin-
guistic backgrounds. Alejandra, a Latina mother of a son
with autism, perceived that a benefit of contact with
other parents was learning what services were available
so that she could ask for them to be added to her son’s
IEP. This notion surfaced in the Native American Indian
focus group as well. Jennifer believed that discussion
among parents was an effective way of gaining knowl-
edge about services and tips for advocacy. She said,
I want to know what another child that’s kind of like
mine, what kind of services did they get because there’s
nothing really explaining what services are. And I’ve
learned from other parents. I heard from other parents
because my son had the anxiety and kind of mental
health. They started talking about what they [received],
their experience. Their kid is out of college now, so I
said, “Really? You can do that? Really?”
Social relationships established through support
groups and other affiliations afforded parents access to
information and ways of approaching special education
processes, often resulting in a more strategic approach to
advocacy.
The Strategist
A small group of parents, most of whom were not eli-
gible for FRCL, combined their understanding and sense
of disability and their children’s unique strengths and
needs with their knowledge about special education.
Parents who strategized often used sophisticated knowl-
edge about IDEA, including their understanding of spe-
cial education documents, procedures, and parental
rights to engage in advocacy. Strategists understood the
role they could potentially play in making decisions
about referrals and evaluations, services and accommo-
dations, and inclusion. For instance, Brigid, who per-
ceived that her daughter was not accessing the general
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com by Teguh Santosa on September 21, 2010
education curriculum and was not making progress
toward her IEP goals, documented these problems over
the course of a school year. Based on the argument that
the current school could not meet her daughter’s needs,
Brigid then requested a transfer to a school that she con-
sidered to be more inclusive and staffed with expert
teachers and a principal who was knowledgeable about
special education. Although her request for transporta-
tion was not included on the IEP, she considered the
result a partial victory because her daughter was allowed
to transfer out of district.
The IEP, according to parents who strategized, was an
important document that functioned as a record of what
should be happening at school. Many also indicated that
they understood the emphasis in special education
processes on written communication. If teachers agreed to
deliver a specific service or accommodation, these parents
would assure that a written version of this plan appears in
the IEP. Parents reported, however, that such advocacy
strategies were not infallible. As Dani reported, sometimes
teachers did not agree to an IEP goal. She said,
One of my priorities for my child is that she really needs
help learning how to function in social groups. She can’t
process that fast, and she doesn’t know how to respond to
things. One of our goals has been that we want her to have
some, and the teachers all agree with this, we all want her
to have some help working on her social skills. That’s a
very valid thing to put in an IEP. I was told that it’s not
going to happen because the people who would really work
on that are the social worker and the school psychologist.
Whereas the majority of parents who strategized advo-
cacy efforts were European American parents who were
ineligible for FRCL, parents from other groups did call
upon this approach. In the example below, Shawn
explains his strategy of using technical information
about special education processes, familiarity with the
IEP, and knowledge of his daughter’s needs. He said,
When we first started kindergarten with her, the occupa-
tional services weren’t there. The physical therapy wasn’t
there. We asked the teachers about that, and they said,
“Well, there wasn’t anything suggested about that [from
early intervention].” “Well, we’d like to get that into this
IEP, because she needs that.” My wife and I both made
special points to make sure that was known. We showed
them how her feet are overlapping each other every time
she walks and how she’s tripping and everything.
In another example, Diandra worried about her second
grader’s behavior at home and at school and prepared a
list of accommodations she felt were reasonable based on
her first-hand knowledge of special education services.

I had suggested to them, because I was a special ed kid
too when I was my son’s age but I grew out of it, and I
was explaining to them how the difference was because
I had the one-on-one. I had a teacher that would come
into the classroom and help me with my work. I thought
that was helpful for me because I wasn’t capable to deal
with a large group of kids. Then I suggested that another
thing that helped me out was I went from like 8:00 to
12:00. They told me that there wouldn’t be a possibility
that he could get a half a day of school because by law
the school wants him in school every day. I’m saying
he’ll still be in school every day. It would just be a little
bit shorter than the regular kids.
Parents who strategized also shared perceptions of
implicit norms and rules for communicating with
teachers and administrators. Many parents believed that
communication styles influenced the success of their
advocacy. Parents perceived that teachers disliked
parents who were demanding and held teachers account-
able for the implementation of their children’s IEPs.
Marge said, “Honestly, I just get this feeling that it’s like
we’re being too aggressive, and we’re demanding too
much, and that if we’re going to pull in the big guns, then
they’re really going to dig in.” Jillian and others empha-
sized the importance of being respectful and using
restraint during frustrating situations. She said,
I treat them all respectfully because I know that even if
I did have to go through due process, that if I won, then
who would I have to work with? It’s still them. And it’s
like, for me it’s like being in a marriage. So I really work
hard to think of my wording when I’m talking to them.
To offset negative images of being too demanding,
parents like Nanette, Kari, Jillian, and Jackie increased
their presence in the school by volunteering or just by
dropping in and getting to know faculty and staff. Nanette
said, “The staff at that school know me very well, being
quite visible. And they saw me as an active parent. The
more you’re involved, the more you’re appreciated and
they know how serious you are about your child’s educa-
tion.” Despite fears of being perceived as troublemakers,
parents also reported strategies that included citing legal
precedence to teachers and monitoring the delivery of
services. Although this strategy was mentioned occasion-
ally by parents (most of whom were African American
and European American and not eligible for FRCL),
implicit threats to seek legal assistance or to appeal to a
higher authority were not discussed by parents who were
eligible for FRCL. Although Patricio and Serita, who
relied on an intuitive approach to advocacy, felt strongly
that the requests they made to teachers were often
ignored, they eschewed strategies common to parents
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com by Teguh Santosa on September 21, 2010
Trainor / Parent Advocacy 43
from the dominant group. Patricio said, “It’s not like
we’re going to speak to the principal.”
Many parents who used strategic approaches con-
nected the struggle to meet the needs of their children
with the need for change in the educational system. As
data from the next section illustrate, these parents
accepted additional responsibilities in their roles as
advocates.
The Change Agent
A number of parents, all of whom were ineligible for
FRCL, discussed concerns about the level of complex
knowledge and social networking required to advocate
for their individual children, motivating them to advocate
for systemic change. Parents who were interested in acti-
vating systems change had to understand educational
systems’ functions as well as special education specific
knowledge. Additionally, this type of advocacy required
investments of time to establish relationships between
parents, teachers, and administrators. Yet distinctions
between individual advocacy and advocacy for systems
change was not always clear. Morrie said,
As we started having conversation, it just felt like, and
we’re not huge advocates. It doesn’t feel like, you know,
we’re going to go picket. What about those parents that
are single parents or have high school educations or
whatever that are being told the same story and are
going, “Oh, okay.” It was really about Constance. But
we did have a little part of our brain that said, “If we
can’t do it, it’s going to be a hell of a lot harder for
people that don’t have these resources to try.”
Access to economic resources was an integral component
of advocacy for the systems change approach. Parents
who were change agents used the word privileged to
describe their access to informational resources and per-
sonal connections to teachers and administrators. Lori, a
bilingual mother of three children, worked with Spanish-
speaking families to develop parent advocacy skills after
leaving her first career at the peak of her son’s illness. She
said her family relied on her partner’s income for living
expenses as well as “tens of thousands” of dollars for her
son’s mental health care. After resigning from her job, she
worked in a different capacity educating herself and her
family about depression, locating appropriate mental
health care, attending therapy sessions at a facility more
than an hour’s drive from home, filing insurance claims,
and advocating with teachers regarding his IEP and home
and hospital services. She said,
I think it’s very disappointing that [quality of education]
is so dependent on the parent because that’s what skews
44 Remedial and Special Education
the social economic thing. Because, you know, poor
parents love their kids as much as rich parents love their
kids, but they don’t get the same opportunities at all. I
mean, you know, I’ve been very fortunate, I can pay the
doctors, and I can go out and find resources, and, you
know, if insurance doesn’t cover it, I pay it. And it’s just
a luxury. But I just think it’s so unfair that, you know,
other kids don’t get that same chance.
These parents said they considered it part of their personal
mission to create easier paths for other parents of children
with disabilities to receive what they considered to be fair
treatment and quality education services. Many provided
examples of their work fighting for systems change. When
Brigid’s daughter struggled to learn to read, she researched
available programs and advocated to a local agency to
cover cost of training teachers, who subsequently tutored
her daughter and other children in reading. She said,
I do feel like in most systems that aren’t working per-
fectly, every family sort of reinvents the wheel. I’ve
known too many families that have gone in and worked
really hard in a school and gotten a really decent experi-
ence with their own, but no other kid in that school is
experiencing that. So it’s been really important to me to
think about “Where can we effect change?”
Parents who were eligible for FRCL did not provide
examples of advocating as change agents. Among those
who did adopt this approach to advocacy, several noted
that advocating for all children with disabilities was
motivating but also challenging. Calli said,
And it just seems like your whole life is that way, you know,
you have to dig your feet in, and you have to fight for every
inch that you get for everything to do with your child. And
sometimes you just have to take it and put it on the back
burner and say, you know what, I can’t fight today, I just
can’t. I have to just coast today. Tomorrow, I’ll fight again.
Despite frustration, political action was not a distant goal
for some parents. Nanette, Brigid, and Bette all volun-
teered with parents throughout the school district, help-
ing inform them of school board issues relative to
disability and interacting with administrators on advi-
sory boards. Bette felt that these connections strength-
ened her legitimacy when advocating for her own son as
well as for other families. She said,
And our common mission is really to troubleshoot and to
make sure that, you know, we are getting good, coordi-
nated information to families and also making sure that,
you know, that the school district is responsive to
parents’ needs. The goal of a lot of support groups is to
talk about what’s going on to see how you can help one
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com by Teguh Santosa on September 21, 2010
another and that’s great. But for me it’s not enough. I feel
like I need to have bigger goals because when we spend
the time there I want to see a bigger sort of payoff. And
not necessarily for Billy but for just in a broader sense.
Discussion
Interviews with parents reveal important aspects of
advocacy and access to information (i.e., cultural capital)
and relationships and connections between people (i.e.,
social capital). The data also illustrate the use of distinct
capital during advocacy for individuals and advocacy for
systemic change. Analysis across groups also demon-
strates that race and ethnicity, socioeconomic back-
ground, and disability intersect in complex ways, making
salient influences on parents’ approaches to advocacy
difficult to identify and understand. Nevertheless, pat-
terns of parents’ approaches to advocacy illuminate
cross-group comparisons. Several limitations of the
study must be considered. Participants volunteered, cre-
ating the possibility of a narrow sample; however, these
participants do represent a range of disability categories,
races and ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds.
Outside of member checking, I did not attempt to check
the veracity of parents’ stories. This study represents
both my interpretation and the coconstructed meaning
between the participants and myself regarding their
experiences as advocates (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999).
I have made efforts to represent a range of key issues
using participants’ words as well as to present sufficient
detail to provide transparency to my methods.
Bourdieu’s (1974) theory that class distinctions include
differences in the acquisition and use of both cultural and
social capital and that these are inextricably intertwined with
access to economic capital manifests in this study. Parents
from low socioeconomic backgrounds had limited access to
cultural and social capital when compared to parents who
were not from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Across
racial and ethnic groups, parents who were eligible for
FRCL relied heavily on cultural capital that was intuitive.
Their efforts to advocate were heavily informed by knowl-
edge of their children as individuals. Parents who were not
eligible for FRCL shared this type of cultural capital but they
also employed a larger array of capital resources, particularly
technical information regarding IDEA and its implementa-
tion. Furthermore, parents who were not eligible for FRCL
accessed multiple sources of social capital beyond immedi-
ate family, service providers, and teachers, as has been
documented in existing general education research (Horvat
et al., 2003; Stanton-Salazar, 2001).
The educational implications of class distinctions in
approaches to advocacy are important to consider

because, as these data illustrate, some approaches garner
more success than others do. Although no approach was
always effective, intuitive approaches to advocacy were
less likely to result in parents’ desired outcomes. As
parents gathered more expertise (via cultural and social
capital), they were able to advocate using approaches
that were more likely to result in success. In need of fur-
ther study is the extent to which services, accommoda-
tions, and access to the general curriculum differ for
youth in relation to advocacy approaches used by
parents. Although teachers share the responsibility of
advocacy (Blue-Banning et al., 2004), documenting the
effect of parent advocacy may provide insight into dis-
parities in access to quality education.
Other sociocultural issues emerge from analysis of
these interviews. Parents of color who share a history of
educational experiences marred by racism and discrimina-
tion may also share reluctance to use advocacy approaches
that emphasize disability categorization. Parents of color
in this study communicated uncertainty about the accu-
racy and/or usefulness of disability characterizations and
labels, possibly contributing to their unlikely use of a dis-
ability expert approach to advocacy. Also important to
note, a range of attitudes about disability labels and iden-
tification existed within groups. None of the parents I
spoke to doubted that their children were experiencing dif-
ficulty in school; however, some questioned the fit of the
label and, consequently, related approaches (e.g., use of
medication) to solve these difficulties. Also, parents ques-
tioned the extent to which academic difficulties were a
result of disabilities rather than problems within the class-
room and/or instructional method. These concerns were
far more common among African American, Latino, and
Native American Indian parents.
Disability categorization also influences approaches to
parent advocacy. Parents of youth with autism shared
common approaches to advocacy that included stances of
disability expertise and strategy. Outside of parents of
youth with autism, parents whose children shared other
disabilities (for example, emotional or behavioral disabil-
ities) exhibited a wider range of approaches to advocacy
and the use and acquisition of related capital resources.
Yet parents of youth with autism, across racial, ethnic,
and socioeconomic backgrounds, shared more examples
of advocacy efforts that led to their desired outcomes of
home–school collaborations. Perhaps parents in this
group were well versed in the language of special educa-
tion and disability, matching teachers’ approaches to
problem solving. Past research has demonstrated that
teachers are more likely to encourage and accept parent
involvement when they believe that parents share their
values and are not critical of their work (Dornbusch &
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com by Teguh Santosa on September 21, 2010
Trainor / Parent Advocacy 45
Glasgow, 1996). The extent to which teachers accept or
reject parents’ advocacy efforts is based on congruency of
approaches between home and school is worthy of further
study. Parents of youth with emotional or behavioral dis-
abilities were more likely to discuss advocacy efforts that
were thwarted by teachers’ responses to behavior prob-
lems at school, indicating a disconnect between home and
school. Intragroup differences also complicate discussion
of advocacy approaches and the acquisition and use of
capital resources based on socioeconomic background,
race and ethnicity, and disability. Future research should
examine teachers’ perceptions of parent advocacy and the
cultural and social capital they expect parents to have and
use during special education processes.
Change advocates employed multiple cultural and
capital resources that fueled a variety of approaches to
advocacy. Whereas advocates for systems change
spanned groups based on race and ethnicity, they shared
a common socioeconomic background. Advocacy for
system change requires parents to devote time and
energy to such projects. As Brigid, Bette, and Lori indi-
cated, they were able to make room in their schedules for
advocacy by sharing their family and parenting responsi-
bilities with other people (for example, spouses and paid
service providers). Jennifer, Dani, and others were able
to take on advocacy as part of their responsibilities at
work, incorporating a cause important to them with their
opportunity for paid employment. The social capital
established through both types of relationships allowed
change agents to develop additional cultural and social
capital resources that served them as they advocated for
both their individual children and for systems change.
Diversified capital resources may facilitate access to
other informational or relational capital, but more impor-
tantly, diversification may also facilitate access to power
and status. For advocacy to be fruitful and bring about
desired results, key players must have equal power
(Biklen, 1976). Historically, parents, who have been less
powerful than teachers during special education
processes, have garnered power by coming together and
creating systems change in the form of legislation (A. P.
Turnbull & Turnbull, 2001). Although IDEA contains
both a framework and a legal precedence for parents-as-
partners equity, data from these interviews demonstrate
that partnerships in which parents advocate require com-
plex resources of all types of capital, which as Bourdieu
(1986) argued, are interrelated. As parent interviews
herein indicate, having lots of capital does not necessar-
ily mean having lots of power. Parents across groups had
experiences in which their equal status with teachers was
challenged and their efforts to advocate were ignored.
Nevertheless, parents did prevail in many instances.
46 Remedial and Special Education
How do parents come to successfully challenge the
structures that have effectively prevented equal opportu-
nity in schools for their children with disabilities?
Strength and efficacy in advocacy seemed to stem from a
combination of specialized cultural capital (i.e., knowl-
edge of IEP content and parents’ rights) and social capi-
tal in the form of relationships between key players (e.g.,
extended family, other parents with children with disabil-
ities, teachers and disability service providers, and
administrators). Bourdieu has been criticized for adhering
too closely to a structuralist position without examining
the role of individual agency (Adkins, 2005). Further
study of advocacy that includes a full ethnographic case
examination may illuminate these issues. This study sup-
plied evidence of the importance of capital resources but
continued work needs to examine the expenditure of cap-
ital in exchange for power as parents advocate during spe-
cial education processes. Additionally, research should
investigate teachers’ valuation, acquisition, and use of
cultural and social capital relative to disability, education,
and home–school collaboration as well as the complex
systemic functions that may structure capital exchanges
involving educational opportunity.
Implications for the practice of education, based on
these interviews, include increasing educators’ attitudes
and skills about home–school collaboration across
groups of families with diverse backgrounds. Kalyanpur
and Harry (1999) outlined four steps in culturally
responsive teaching that go well beyond acknowledge-
ment of cultural differences. Helping teachers under-
stand that access to capital resources plays an important
role in parent participation and advocacy is one way to
increase teacher efficacy via an increase in cultural
responsiveness. Additionally, as Kalyanpur and Harry
posit, we must go further than cultivating understanding
of difference by adapting professional approaches to col-
laborate with families. Additionally, increasing teachers’
understanding of their roles as advocates may lead to
more shared advocacy during home–school interactions.
These data also have multiple implications for research.
Categorizing either parent approaches to advocacy or cap-
ital resources of groups of parents based on demographic
characteristics is not simple. As the multiracial composi-
tion of several families in this study illustrates, diversity
and group membership are a complex concepts. Studies of
families’ and teachers’ approaches to home–school inter-
actions may now need to focus on what factors afford each
collaborative party status and power in sociocultural con-
texts. In this preliminary study, parents’ acquisition and
use of capital resources surfaced as an important factor;
however, more information is needed regarding the inter-
action between parents and teachers and the results of the
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com by Teguh Santosa on September 21, 2010
use of capital resources. This line of research has the
potential to inform practice as educators work with people
from a variety of ability, socioeconomic, linguistic, cul-
tural, and racial and ethnic backgrounds that ebb away
from and flow toward teachers’ identities.
Because parent participation is a lynchpin of special
education, being culturally responsive includes commu-
nicating and collaborating with parents. Effectively edu-
cating diverse groups of youth using culturally responsive
pedagogy is ultimately about working toward a society in
which equality and social justice prevail. One does not
want to promulgate a system where one provides a set of
services or a standard of quality educational opportunities
for youth with disabilities whose parents are effective
advocates and another for those who are not.
References
Adkins, L. (2005). Social capital: The anatomy of a troubled concept.
Feminist Theory, 6, 195–211.
Biklen, D. (1976). Advocacy comes of age. Exceptional Children, 42,
308–313.
Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J. A., Frankland, H. C., Nelson, L. L.,
& Beegle, G. (2004). Dimensions of family and professional part-
nerships: Constructive guidelines for collaboration. Exceptional
Children, 70, 167–184.
Bourdieu, P. (1974). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In
R. Brown (Ed.), Knowledge, education, and cultural change.
London: Tavistock.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.),
Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education
(pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Brantlinger, E., Jiminez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson,
V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional
Children, 71, 195–207.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data:
Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cortiella, C. (2005). No Child Left Behind: Understanding assess-
ment options for IDEA-eligible students. National Center for
Learning Disabilities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. 486453)
Council for Exceptional Children. (2001). Improving family involve-
ment in special education [Electronic version]. Research
Connections in Special Education, 9.
Dornbusch, S. M., & Glasgow, K. L. (1996). The structural context of
family-school relations. In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family-
school links: How do they affect educational outcomes?
(pp. 35–44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1996). Family involvement in
children’s and adolescents’ schooling. In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn
(Eds.), Family-school links: How do they affect educational out-
comes? (pp. 3–4). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Epstein, J. L. (1996). Perspectives and previews on research and pol-
icy for school, family, and community partnerships. In A. Booth &
J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family-school links: How do they affect educa-
tional outcomes? (pp. 209–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ferguson, D. L. (1984). Parent Advocacy Network. Exceptional
Parent, 14(2), 41.
Fitzgerald, J. L., & Watkins, M. W. (2006). Parents’ rights in special
education: The readability of procedural safeguards. Exceptional
Children, 72, 497–510.
Garcia, S. B., Perez, A. M., & Ortiz, A. A. (2000). Interpreting
Mexican-American mothers’ beliefs about language disabilities
from a sociocultural perspective. Remedial and Special
Education, 21, 90–120.
Harry, B. (1992). Cultural diversity, families, and the special educa-
tion system. New York: Teachers College Press.
Harry, B., Allen, N., & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Communication ver-
sus compliance: African American parents’ involvement in special
education. Exceptional Children, 61, 364–377.
Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2006). Why are so many minority students
in special education? New York: Teachers College Press.
Harry, B., Sturges, K., M., & Klingner, J., K. (2005). Mapping the
process: An exemplar of process and challenge in grounded theory
analysis. Educational Researcher, 34, 3–13.
Hess, R. S., Molina, A. M., & Kozleski, E. B. (2006). Until somebody
hears me: Parent voice and advocacy in special educational deci-
sion making. British Journal of Special Education, 33(3), 148.
Horvat, E. M., Weininger, E. B., & Lareau, A. (2003). From social
ties to social capital: Class differences in the relations between
schools and parent networks. American Educational Research
Journal, 40, 319–351.
Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental
involvement on minority children’s academic achievement.
Education and Urban Society, 35, 202–218.
Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement
and urban academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban
Education, 42, 82–110.
Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special education:
Building reciprocal family-professional relationships. Baltimore,
MD: Brookes.
Kalyanpur, M., Harry, B., & Skrtic, T. (2000). Equity and advocacy
expectations of culturally diverse families’ participation in special
education. International Journal of Disability, Development, and
Education, 47, 119–136.
Kasahara, M., & Turnbull, A. P. (2005). Meaning of family–professional
partnerships: Japanese mothers’ perspectives. Exceptional Children,
71, 249–265.
Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relation-
ships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education,
60, 73–85.
Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and
exclusion: Race, class, and cultural capital in family-school rela-
tionships. Sociology of Education, 72(1), 37–53.
Lawson, M. A. (2003). School-family relations in context: Parent and
teacher perceptions of parent involvement. Urban Education, 38,
77–133.
LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Analyzing and interpret-
ing ethnographic data. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Leiter, V., & Krauss, M. W. (2004). Claims, barriers, and satisfaction:
Parents request for additional special education services. Journal
of Disability Policy Studies, 15, 135–146.
Leyser, Y.,& Kirk, R. (2004). Evaluating inclusion: An examinations
of parent views. International Journal of Disability, Development
and Education, 51, 271–285.
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com by Teguh Santosa on September 21, 2010
Trainor / Parent Advocacy 47
Lian, M.-G. J., &Fontántez-Phelan, S. M. (2001). Perceptions of
Latino parents regarding cultural and linguistic issues and advo-
cacy for children with disabilities. Journal of the Association for
Persons With Severe Handicaps, 26, 189–194.
Luetke-Stahlman, B., & Hayes, P. L. (1994). Parent advocacy for the
nonexclusion of students who are deaf or hard of hearing.
Preventing School Failure, 39(1), 41.
Mahar, C., Harker, R., & Wilkes, C. (1990). An introduction to the work
of Pierre Bourdieu: The practice of theory. New York: St. Martin’s.
Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22,
129–152.
National Research Council. (2002). Minority students in special and
gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Park, J., Turnbull, A. P., & Park, H.-S. (2001). Quality of partnerships
in service provision for Korean American parents of children with
disabilities: A qualitative inquiry. Journal of the Association for
Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26(3), 158.
Rice, M. (2006). The parent teacher team: Establishing communica-
tion between home and school. Exceptional Parent, 36(6), 49.
Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data. London: Sage.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rueda, R., Monzo, L., Shapiro, J., Gomez, J., & Blacher, J. (2005).
Cultural models of transition: Latina mothers of young adults with
developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 401–414.
Salas, L. (2004). Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) meetings and
Mexican American parents: Let’s talk about it. Journal of Latinos
in Education, 3, 181–192.
Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. J., & LeCompte, M. D. (1999). Essential
ethnographic methods: observations, interviews, and question-
naires. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The
school and kin support networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R. (1982). Parent involvement in the
education of handicapped children: A critique. Mental
Retardation, 20, 115–122.
Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R. (2001). Families, professionals, and
exceptionality: Collaborating for empowerment (4th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Turnbull, H. R. (2005). Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
reauthorization: Accountability and personal responsibility.
Remedial and Special Education, 26, 320–326.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth
and the politics of caring. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Wolfensberger, W. (1977). A balanced multi-component advocacy/
protection schema. Toronto: Canadian Association for the
Mentally Retarded.
Zoints, L.T., Zoints, P., Harrison, S., Bellinger, O. (2003). Urban
African American families’ perceptions of cultural sensitivity
within the special education system. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 18, 41–50.
Audrey A. Trainor, PhD, is an assistant professor of special educa-
tion at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Her current interests
include high incidence disabilities, postsecondary transition, and
equity and diversity.