Administrators Understanding and Use of Family Centered Practices

Journal of Early Intervention http://jei.sagepub.
com/
Administrators' Understanding and Use of Family-Centered Practices

Colleen J. Mandell and Mary M. Murray
Journal of Early Intervention 2009 32: 17 originally published online 19 November 2009
DOI: 10.1177/1053815109354698
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jei.sagepub.com/content/32/1/17
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children
Additional services and information for Journal of Early Intervention can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jei.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jei.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://jei.sagepub.com/content/32/1/17.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Jan 6, 2010
OnlineFirst Version of Record - Nov 19, 2009
What is This?
Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

Journal of Early Intervention
Volume 32 Number 1
December 2009 17-37
© 2009 SAGE Publications
10.1177/1053815109354698
Administrators’ Understanding and http://jei.sagepub.com

hosted at
Use of Family-Centered Practices http://online.sagepub.com
Colleen J. Mandell
Mary M. Murray
Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH
Employing qualitative methods, administrators’ understanding and use of family-centered

practices were examined. Results indicate differences in role perceptions and service delivery
based on their level of understanding. Administrators with a comprehensive understanding of
family-centered practices, in comparison to administrators with limited or no understanding of
such practices, were more likely to involve families in organizational governance and provide
staff members and families with training opportunities designed to build collaborative partner-
ships. Regardless of the level of understanding of family-centered practices, administrators
viewed on-the-job experiences occurring early in their careers as an influential factor in shap-
ing their beliefs about working with families. Recommendations for practice and future
research are discussed.
Keywords: administrators; family-centered practices.
Y oung children’s learning and development have been enhanced when professionals and families
collaborate in the educational process. In fact, collaborative partnerships involving family,
school, and community key stakeholders are cited as defining characteristics of programs that
improve child outcomes (e.g., Christensen & Sheridan, 2001; Sheldon & Epstein, 2005). Given the
diversity of contemporary learning communities, educators have recognized the importance of
developing partnerships within the context of families’ values, cultures, languages, and socioeco-
nomic status (SES; e.g., Hanson & Lynch, 2004; Hyun, 2007; McHatton, 2007; Osher & Osher,
2002; Rutherford, 2005). Indeed, many educators have argued that respect and understanding of
sociocultural factors are necessary for educating all children, including those with developmental
delays (e.g., Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999; Turnbull, Turnbull, Erwin, & Soodak, 2006).
Dempsey and Keen (2008) asserted that a family-centered paradigm has been applicable to both
general and special education services as well as health care, social services, and therapeutic service
delivery. Family-centered services have been composed of beliefs, practices, and services that sup-
port parent–professional partnerships within the context of serving diverse groups of children.
Historically, a general consensus has evolved regarding the core beliefs that frame a family-centered
philosophy and service delivery. These beliefs have included valuing (a) families as collaborative
partners during service delivery, (b) families’ desires, needs, and goals in the educational process,
(c) diversity among families, and (d) families as key decision makers regarding their child’s educa-
tion (e.g., McWilliam, Snyder, Harbin, Porter, & Munn, 2000; Park & Turnbull, 2003; Trivette &
Dunst, 2007; Wilson & Dunst, 2004). In essence, the professionals’ values, beliefs, and attitudes
Authors’ Note: The initial research study was supported in part by Grant H325A99084 from the U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Statements do not reflect the position of this
agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred.
17
18 Journal of Early Intervention
regarding professional and family roles and responsibilities have been forces that guide program
policy and service delivery.
Family-centered service delivery, strengthened in the reauthorization of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (2004), has evolved as a recommended practice for serving children with
exceptional learning needs, as indicated in position statements published by the National Association
for the Education of Young Children (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997), the Division for Early Childhood
(Sandall, Hemmeter, Smith, & McLean, 2005), and the Coalition for Community Schools (Berg,
Melaville, & Blank, 2006). Furthermore, the importance of professionals’ skills in establishing and
sustaining collaborative partnerships with families has been delineated in teacher accreditation stan-
dards (National Council for the Accreditation for Teacher Education, 2006) and school administrator
standards (Council of Administrators of Special Education, 2007; National Association of Elementary
School Principals, 2001).
Over the past several decades, a sizable body of early childhood intervention research and prac-
tice has focused on examining the construct of family-centered practices. Family-centered philoso-
phy has been shown to be a complex construct reflecting diverse beliefs, dispositions, and practices.
With respect to early childhood intervention service delivery, initial efforts were directed toward
determining efficacious family-centered practices, often within the context of professionals’ roles
and responsibilities as well as families’ beliefs and involvement. In general, we believe that findings
have indicated that the implementation of family-centered practices required providers to use a
variety of dispositional attributes and skills in working with families, including providing both emo-
tional and educational supports for families, creating opportunities for families to participate in
service delivery decision making, and enhancing family members’ capacities to fulfill their self-
determined roles (e.g., Blue-Banning, Summers, Frankland, Nelson, Beegle, 2004; Dinnebeil, Hale,
& Rule, 2000; Minke & Scott, 1995; Park & Turnbull, 2002).
Recently, investigators have focused on examining the link between key attributes of the family-
centered model and consumer outcomes. For example, Trute and Hiebert-Murphy (2007) con-
ducted a study to determine if family-centered service delivery and working alliance, which refers
to the caring relationship between involved participants and their feelings of working toward a
mutually agreed on goal (Kotokovic & Tracey, 1990), were predictors of family satisfaction with
intervention. Their findings indicated that although both working alliance and use of family-
centered service delivery practices contributed to consumer satisfaction, greater variance was
attributed to the relationship variable working alliance. In a meta-analytic review of 47 studies,
Dunst, Trivette, and Hamby (2007) determined the relationship between participatory help-giving
and relational help-giving practices and family and child outcomes. Their findings revealed that
both types of help-giving practices were significantly related to a set of six outcomes: (a) satisfac-
tion, (b) self-efficacy, (c) social support, (d) child behavior, (e) well-being, and (f) parenting.
Hence, family-centered investigators have underscored the critical role of both relationship build-
ing and actual service delivery in building parent–professional partnerships. Although the relation-
ship between service delivery and consumer outcomes has been emergent and further investigations
appear to be necessary, Dempsey and Keen (2008) reviewed evidence that help-giving practices
are related to a range of outcomes for families from diverse backgrounds. In essence, they argued
that how professionals approach interacting with families may have been as important as services
provided to families.
Administrators have acknowledged parental involvement, a crucial aspect of family-centered
services, has been limited in schools nationwide (National Education Goals Panel, 1999). Regarding
early childhood intervention services, investigators have identified barriers to the use of family-
centered practices in service delivery programs (e.g., Minke & Scott, 1995; Murray & Mandell,
2006; Turnbull et al., 2006). Identified factors contributing to the structural divide between families
and professionals have included professionals’ (a) lack of understanding and valuing family-centered

Mandell, Murray / Family-Centered Practices 19
practices (e.g., Baum & McMurray-Schwarz, 2004; Garshalis & McConnell, 1993; McBride,
Brotherson, Joanning, Whiddon, & Demmitt, 1993; McWilliam, Maxwell, & Sloper, 1999), (b) need
for collaboration, teaming, and help-giving skills for developing and sustaining partnerships with
families (e.g., Buysse, Wesley, Keyes, & Bailey, 1996; Dinnebeil & Rule, 1994; Hedges & Gibbs,
2005; Judge, 1997; Dunst & Trivette, 2005; Krauss, 1997), and (c) unwillingness to reconcile with
families’ views that differ from their own (Minke & Scott, 1995).
Similar barriers have been identified in investigations involving administrators. Although admin-
istrators recognize the impact families have on children’s outcomes as well as the need for school
personnel to improve school–family relationships, their recommendations for improvement appear
to reflect a limited understanding of the underpinnings and complexity of family–professional part-
nerships. For example, Flynn and Nolan (2008) reported that principals attributed families’ daily
responsibilities and lack of understanding of the importance of parental participation as deterrents
to their involvement in school activities. In addition, they cited teachers’ lack of skills in working
with parents as well as a lack of understanding of the important role parents play in their children’s
education as barriers to parent participation. Although the need for reforming parent involvement
practices has been frequently noted, Duchnowski, Kutash, and Oliveira (2004) reported that both
exemplary schools and less active schools reported parent involvement to be the most challenging
area of reform to implement.
Diversity has appeared to be an influential factor in working with families. For example, Goldring
(1993) reported that principals in high SES schools were more likely to include families in policy
making than were principals in low SES schools. Furthermore, in an investigation of the relationship
between principals’ behavioral roles or sets of behaviors and frequency of parent involvement,
Griffith (2001) concluded that principals who worked collaboratively with parents and with the
community were more effective in promoting involvement than were principals whose primary
focus was on management. He also noted that the sociodemographic context of the school was a
critical factor in determining parent involvement.
Our review of the contemporary literature that focuses on general education administrators’ per-
ceptions of their professional roles has indicated that recent school reform and accountability prac-
tices in both general and special education have expanded their responsibilities. For example,
principals indicated that they are spending more time on special education services (DiPaola &
Tschannen-Moran, 2003); however, they tend to report being unprepared to assume these new roles
(DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004). In a study designed to examine formal train-
ing experiences of more than 200 principals, Lasky and Karge (2006) reported that 35% of the prin-
cipals had no direct experience with children with disabilities in their administration credential
coursework. An additional 35% of the principals noted having some experience in their graduate
coursework. Hence, it seems that special education content in leadership preparation programs may
often be restricted to a course on special education law (Robicheau, Haar, & Palladino, 2008).
In summary, our review of the literature has indicated that although administrators recognize the
importance of families in the educational process, most often family participation has been within the
context of routine parent participation in school-sanctioned activities (e.g., attends parent–teacher
conferences or individualized education program [IEP] meetings or volunteers in the classroom). To
this end, administrators have described their role as providing parent education opportunities to and
for families as well as training staff members to support family participation in service delivery.
Neither relational nor participatory help-giving practices, both critical to family-centered service
delivery, have appeared to be widely evident in their views of how they or their staff members should
work with families. From this perspective, it is understandable that administrators have been chal-
lenged to assume roles and responsibilities associated with family-centered practices (for an applica-
tion of role construction discussed in terms of parent involvement in schools, see Green, Walker,
Hoover-Dempsey, & Sandler, 2007; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997).

Given their leadership roles, administrators may be best positioned to support the use of family-
centered practices in schools. Yet empirical investigations designed to assess administrators’ under-
standing of family-centered practices have been limited. Our study is a follow-up to an earlier
investigation that focused on preservice graduates’ use of family-centered practices in intervention
service delivery (Murray & Mandell, 2006). Our findings from the previous investigation revealed
that although graduates were committed to using family-centered practices, the majority of them
identified lack of administrative support as a critical challenge to providing effective services
(Mandell & Murray, 2005). The purpose of our investigation is to better understand administrators’
use of family-centered practices and to identify factors contributing to their understanding within the
context of early childhood intervention services. Three research questions guided the study:
1. What understanding do administrators have of the construct known as family-centered

practices?
2. What experiences contribute to administrators’ understanding of family-centered beliefs
and practices?
3. How do administrators’ programs involve and support professionals and families in family-
centered service delivery?
Method
Participants
We selected participants in our study using purposive sampling. Specifically, through preservice
graduates, who participated in an initial study, we identified the administrator responsible for supervis-
ing them in their work settings. Of the 18 preservice graduates, we contacted all but 1 graduate student.
We informed participants of the purpose of the investigation and asked them to forward the name and
contact information of their current supervisor. A total of 15 graduates, or 89% of the previous sample,
provided their supervisors’ contact information, and 2 graduates declined to participate. We contacted
the 15 potential participants and provided a detailed description of the research project, including
identification of the referral source of their contact information. Of these, 11 administrators (74%)
returned a signed informed consent document and participated in the investigation. Table 1 summa-
rizes the participants’ background information.
Design
Given our purpose to investigate administrators’ understanding of the multidimensional aspects
of the construct of family-centered practices and its application to program and organizational prac-
tices, we employed a naturalistic inquiry design (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). By choosing this rigorous
and systematic investigation of the related phenomena, we believed we obtained important informa-
tion about participants’ lived experience (Creswell, 2005; Streubert & Carpenter, 1999).
Data Collection
We used individual telephone interviews for nine participants (82%) and e-mail responses to
interview questions for the remaining two participants. The 1- to 2-hr semistructured phone inter-
views were conducted at a time convenient to the administrators over a period of 2 months. During
the same time, the interview questions and probes were e-mailed to the two administrators who

Table 1
Summary of Participants’ Demographic Information
Characteristics n %
Gender
Female 9 82
Male 2 18
Race/ethnicity
Caucasian 10
Latino 1
Education degree
Master’sa
Special education 4 36
Speech and language pathology 3 27
Social work 1 9
Educational administration 4 26
School psychology 1 9
Early childhood education 1 9
Education specialist
Early childhood education 1 9
Doctor of education
Job title
Director of special education services 3 27
Principal (public elementary) 1 9
Early childhood special education coordinator 3 27
Special education coordinator 2 18
Supervisor early intervention services infants and toddlers 2 18
Years of educational administration experience
Less than 5 1 9
6–15 3 27
16–20 3 27
21–30 3 27
More than 30 1 9
State employed
Ohio (six different counties) 9 82
Other (Georgia and Colorado) 2 18
Employment location
Urban or metropolitan 5 46
Rural or small town 2 18
Suburban 4 36
a. Some participants earned more than one master’s degree.
requested to participate via e-mail. Research questions and accompanying interview questions and
probes are presented in Table 2.
With respect to our first research question, administrators’ understanding of family-centered
practices, we asked participants to present their views of the construct from multiple perspectives.
Not only were participants asked to describe what family-centered practices meant to them, but also
they were requested to discuss how professionals and families were involved and supported in their
programs. In other related questions, we asked them to identify (a) challenges to implementing

Table 2
Research Questions and Related Interview Questions
Research Question Interview Questions and Probes
What understanding do administrators 1. What does family-centered practice mean to you?
have of the construct family-centered 2. How are early childhood interventionists implementing family-
practices? centered practices?
3. How does the program support professional involvement?
4. How are families involved in your program?
a. How are families involved organizationally (e.g., committees,
boards)?
5. How does the program support family involvement?
6. What are the challenges to implementing family-centered
practices?
7. What is the most valuable family-centered practice your
program provides to families?
8. What family-centered practice do you wish you could provide?
What experiences contributed to the 1. Did you have any family-centered coursework or course
administrators’ understanding of family- content in your undergraduate/graduate program?
centered beliefs and practices? a. Please describe the content or experiences.
b. How did course content or experiences impact your skills in
working with families?
2. Did you have any life experiences that impacted your skills in
working with families?
How do administrators’ programs involve 1. How are families involved in your program?
and support professionals and families in a. How are families involved organizationally (e.g.,
family-centered service delivery? committees, boards)?
2. How does the program support family involvement?
a. Which policies and procedures support family involvement?
3. How are early childhood interventionists implementing
family-centered practices?
4. How does the program support professional involvement?
a. What policies and procedures support staff involvement?
family-centered practices, (b) the most valued family-centered practice provided by their programs,
and (c) the family-centered practice they wished they could provide. The latter two value-based
questions were included to increase the likelihood of capturing accurate accounts of the participants’
understanding of the construct as defined in the professional literature. For a participant’s under-
standing of family-centered practices to be rated as comprehensive, responses had to reflect both
core beliefs and program practices associated with each of the four key attributes: (a) values and
promotes family–professional partnerships, (b) values and supports families’ needs, goals, and
desires, (c) values and responds to diversity among families, and (d) values and empowers families
to be key decision makers.
Our second research question focused on identifying participants’ perceptions of factors contrib-
uting to their understanding of family-centered practices. Related interview questions provided
opportunities to discuss the impact of preservice and in-service training as well as professional and
family life experiences. To answer our third research question (How do program administrators
involve and support professionals and families in family-centered service delivery?), we asked par-
ticipants to describe the types of program supports for families as well as the kinds of opportunities
for family involvement. We asked similar questions regarding support and involvement for early

childhood interventionists. With additional questions, we addressed the role of policies and proce-
dures in family-centered service delivery.
We tape-recorded telephone interviews to provide an accurate, detailed account of the partici-
pants’ responses. Following a brief social conversation to build rapport, we asked questions devel-
oped for the interview and any accompanying follow-up queries, especially those related to
participants’ experiences (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Prior to sending the interview questions to the
e-mail respondents, we also conducted a phone conversation for the purpose of building rapport. A
review of the participants’ responses, both phone and e-mail, indicated that they responded to our
questions in the protocol.
Data Analysis
After the audiotapes were transcribed verbatim, we analyzed the transcriptions and e-mail
responses using a content-analysis process. We employed a system of analytic files, memos, and cod-
ing schemes, as suggested by Creswell (2005), to classify and organize the verbal information into
emerging patterns and themes (Glesne, 1999). First, we, along with three external reviewers (i.e., a
qualitative researcher who served as the interviewer, a qualitative researcher with expertise in early
childhood intervention, and a qualitative researcher with expertise in leadership), independently
coded the information with key phrases that emerged from the transcripts. We used a variety of dia-
gram procedures to document and analyze relationships and emergent patterns (Creswell, 2005).
On completion of the independent coding, a five-person research team met on multiple occasions
to discuss similarities and differences in coding, to identify emergent concepts, to sort codes as they
related to one another, and to collapse codes into meaningful categories. In addition, the qualitative
research team refined the categories and used the emergent patterns to guide them toward specific
theme identification (cf. Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Glesne, 1999; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The
research team continued the investigatory process until the emergent categories represented three
broad meaningful themes. Throughout our data analysis phase, the research team discussed simi-
larities and differences in opinion until we reached a consensus.
Trustworthiness and Credibility Procedures
Researcher bias. Because we collected and analyzed data obtained from the supervisees of the
administrators participating in the current study (Murray & Mandell, 2006), we identified an exter-
nal interviewer to query the participants as one means to avoid researcher bias and prejudice
(Creswell, 2005). The interviewer was an early childhood special education doctoral student with an
understanding of family-centered research and service delivery (i.e., completed doctoral course-
work, including two qualitative research courses, and had experience interviewing participants in
other investigations).
Peer review and debriefing. We employed extensive peer reviews to address the trustworthiness
of our data. Specifically, we involved individuals who serve as external checks to methodology,
procedures, and interpretation of information (Creswell, 2005; Glesne, 1999).
Member checks. With member checking, we asked respondents to verify completeness and accu-
racy of the information as well as to confirm the researchers’ interpretations of the data. In addition,
we provided participants with the opportunity to present us with new ideas (Glesne, 1999). During

Table 3
Participants’ Understanding of the Family-Centered Practices
Participants
Key Attributes of Family- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Centered Practices EI Pre Pre Pre K-6 EI P-12 Pre P-12 P-12 Pre
1. Value and promote X X X X X X
family–professional
partnership
2. Value and support for X X X X X X
family needs, goals,
desires
3. Value and respond to X X X X X
diversity
4. Value and empower X X X X X
families
Note: EI = early intervention.
the study, after the interviews were transcribed verbatim, we provided each participant with a copy
of his or her transcript, along with a summary of the researchers’ interpretations of the transcript. We
also sent participants via e-mail an interpretive summary of their responses to review for accuracy.
The respondents indicated that the documents were accurate.
Audit trail. We employed an audit trail as a formal record to document our research procedures
(Creswell, 2005; Glesne, 1999; Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). Specifically, we used (a) written tran-
scripts of tape-recorded interviews, (b) e-mail responses, (c) written summaries of communications
between investigators and participants, (d) written summaries of communications among investiga-
tors, (e) interpretive summaries, (f) investigators’ notes, (g) written documentation of the evolution
of codes, categories, and emergent themes, and (h) signed consent forms.
Results
Content analysis of participants’ responses to the interview or e-mail questions revealed three
emergent themes.
Theme 1: Administrators’ Understanding of

Family-Centered Practices Is Dichotomized
Administrators’ understanding of family-centered practices appeared to be absolute in that they
have either a comprehensive or a limited understanding of the construct. As presented in Table 3,
five participants’ (45%) definitions reflected a comprehensive understanding of family-centered
practices, two of whom worked in infant or toddler programs and three in preschool programs. Of
the six remaining administrators, one P-12 administrator’s understanding was limited. This admin-
istrator’s responses addressed two attributes: (a) valuing and promoting partnerships and (b) valuing
and supporting families’ needs, goals, and desires. However, five administrators’ responses (two
preschool, two P-12, and one K-6) reflected none of the four key attributes in their responses.

Three illustrative examples of responses that reflected a comprehensive understanding of the

family-centered practices are presented in the following narratives. Participant 1, a supervisor of
birth-to-5 programs, stated the following:
The family is the focus of everything we do. We work with the parents to help them define
what it is that they would like us to help them with in terms of reaching the goals they have
for their child. And we basically will look at that regardless of what our professional opinion
might be. . . . Our job is to help them, to give them information, to help them make choices
and decisions, expose them to every resource that we can possibly think of whether it exists
in the community or not.
This participant identified the most valued service provided as the “job of training our staff to
empower parents so they are the ones who are leading the whole effort” and stated that the challenge
in implementing family-centered practices is “going back to the point of empowering families in that
some agencies don’t always appreciate when parents call . . . if they have an issue . . . and go over
somebody’s head if they have a question or problem.” The family-centered practice most wished for
was to provide “intervention support to an increased number of existing early childhood programs
so that more families could be served in their community,” a response that emphasized the need to
address socioeconomic variables affecting families.
Participant 11, an administrator for 33 preschool programs, stated, “Services revolve around the
family. The services occur in natural settings and really involve the family [in] all components of
the child’s education.” In addition, this participant stated that social workers and special education
supervisors had counseling training because their jobs require them to
spend a lot of time on the phone and a lot of time in person talking with the parents; that’s
really important if you want the parents to be part of your team and to work with you; you
have to bring them along and connect with them and make them part of the team because
we’re building the groundwork and that relationship with the school district.
This participant described challenging experiences with families as the motivation to make program-
matic changes designed to increase support to families. The greatest challenge was the “rapidly
increasing of ESOL [families], and so we have no communication.” To meet this need, the district
hired family liaisons “who speak the language and have been funded through federal grants. . . .
Their job is to translate and to be these families’ liaisons.” The most valued practices were parent
support groups and home visits, and the most wished-for service was “doing more of what we’re
doing, more opportunities for the teachers to make home visits, and more opportunities to set up
parent [-to-parent] support groups.” As a support, the school districts paid substitutes and used “flex-
time” arrangements so that teachers could make home visits.
Another administrator with a comprehensive understanding of family-centered practices was
Participant 6, who administered a county birth-to-3 program. She described family-centered prac-
tices within the context of partnership: “Family-centered practice means that families and profes-
sionals are sort of equal partners, in sort of identifying the situations and trying together to develop
strategies for tackling what they may need assistance with.” This participant identified program
policies and procedures that supported the partnership and stated, “We will have a minimum of four
family representatives on our council . . . and our bylaws [state] that all committees have at least one
family representative. Another policy required stipends be paid to families.” When asked to describe
the most wished-for family-centered practices, this participant’s response focused on greater
involvement: “Right now [families] are involved in program development, program oversight, and

program evaluation. They are not involved in fiscal discussions, planning [or] in fiscal oversight.”
This participant’s greatest challenge was working with administrators of other community programs,
including superintendents of school districts, the juvenile court judge, and directors of community
agencies. These challenges were attributed to several factors: (a) lack of a shared vision that children
are the responsibility of the community at large, (b) lawsuits that make administrators hesitant to
talk with family representations, and (c) contemporary budget crises.
Five participants’ responses did not include any of the four key attributes. For example,
Participant 5, a K-6 administrator, defined family-centered practices as follows:
I would think of it as being one of those things that you would hope to be able to do in order
to meet the needs of the child, particularly one with special needs or some kind of a family, I
don’t want to say malfunction, but some sort of a need which would call upon you then to
invoke services of other agencies . . . try to help the family to become functional and support-
ive of good educational programming.
This participant stated that the most valued family-centered service was “parent volunteers coming
in to help out with children, reading, and helping us with assessment.” With respect to most wished-
for service, this participant wanted “to have more parent involvement where families come in
and spend the evening time in the school, as a friendly place, so that they [have] access to
resources . . . support their children . . . see what their kids are doing.” The challenge of implement-
ing family-centered practices was expressed as “the occasional family that comes along that just is
not responsive [to the school’s recommendations or decisions]. We have a tremendous number of
agencies . . . to go to for help.”
Other participants whose responses did not reflect any of the four key attributes associated with
family-centered practices expressed similar findings. Participant 9, a P-12 administrator, described
family-centered practices as an effort to “start planning based on the needs of the family. Involve
them in decision-making. Communicate regularly.” This participant discussed the view within the
context of involvement opportunities limited to “IEP conferences, daily communication, and
monthly family days.” The most valued family-centered practice identified was “managing effective
programs and teachers teaching children,” and the most wished-for family-centered practice was
“social work support for families in crisis.” For this participant, the challenge to providing family-
centered service delivery was “parents who take an adversarial stand right from the beginning
because of the special education system.” Participant 4, a supervisor of inclusive preschool pro-
grams, also described family-centered practices within the context of mandated services:
It just means family involvement to me. And I think this is our whole staff. We get involved
with families from the initial referral, and they are active participants from this point on to
having the children identified to writing educational goals and then into programming. The
family component is an area that we value a great deal, and by law we have to have them as
participants.
This participant identified a number of opportunities for parental involvement, including that parents
could “volunteer in the classroom, all classrooms have at least two parent activities, one after school
and one during school hours, to try and get parents into the classrooms. They can volunteer to go on
field trips.” The most challenging aspect of implementing family-centered practices was described
as follows:
The biggest challenge we have as an early childhood program is that very often, not very
often, in some of our sites the children’s classrooms are not in the children’s home school. So

Table 4
Experiences Contributing to Understanding Family-Centered Practices
Participants
a a a
Factors Affecting 1 2 3 4 5 6a 7 8 9 10 11a
Understanding EI Pre Pre Pre K-6 EI P-12 Pre P-12 P-12 Pre
1. Preservice course or X X X
clinical experience
2. Professional development X X
workshop
3. Life experiences X X
4. On-the-job experiences X X X X X X X X X
Note: EI = early intervention.
a. Indicates understanding of family-centered practices included all four attributes.
they are bussed, sometimes they can be bussed for quite a distance. So in those particular sites
it’s very difficult to get families involved. The parents don’t feel a connection. Income of our
families also plays a part.
When asked to describe the most wished-for consideration in family-centered practices, this par-
ticipant stated, “None that I can think of.”
Theme 2: On-the-Job Experiences Influenced Understanding

of Family-Centered Practices
Table 4 summarizes participants’ responses to identifying the influence of specific factors,
including preservice preparation, professional development, life events, and on-the-job experiences,
in shaping their understanding of family-centered practices. With respect to personnel preparation,
three participants, whose responses reflected limited understanding of family-centered practices,
indicated that they had a preservice course or clinical experience. Of the two participants who iden-
tified professional development workshops as influencing their understanding of family-centered
practices, the response of one participant indicated a comprehensive understanding, whereas the
answers of the other one indicated a limited understanding of the construct. Of these five partici-
pants, only one administrator had a comprehensive understanding of family-centered practices.
Discussions regarding coursework tended to be general in nature. For example, Participant 7,
whose level of understanding of family-centered practices included two attributes, stated, “No
coursework, you know, because I’m too old for that, but lots of in-services and workshops that pro-
moted [family-centered practices].” Participant 8, whose responses did not reflect any of the four
attributes, described a course as follows:
It was family living I think, or family resources. And it was probably one of the better classes,
even though it had very little to do with special education. It was of a sociology class . . . that
was back in the, I don’t know if it was in the 60s or 70s.
When we asked Participant 9 to describe how the graduate-level clinical psychology program pre-
pared one to use family-centered practices, the respondent described that family-centered training
occurred within the context of learning how to use active listening skills.

Nine participants (82%) attributed work experiences as a factor that influenced their understand-
ing of family-centered practices. Although the five participants with a comprehensive understanding
of family-centered practices cited the importance of “on-the-job” experiences in shaping their under-
standing and use of the construct, for four participants it was the only experience identified. For
example, Participant 1, reflecting on experiences as a 2nd-year teacher of a special education class
that occurred several decades ago, provided the following recollections:
I had a supervisor who recommended home visits prior to school opening. . . . It just changed
my whole outlook on how to work with kids. . . . It gave me the opportunity to meet the
families, to understand how those children function within the family, and then in the class-
room I had that connection with the child.
Participant 3, a preschool administrator, stated the following:
My first job was very family-focused, family-centered . . . being with a director way back
when who was very visionary and at the forefront, that’s where it came for me. . . . [She]
understood the crucialness of families being partners from the get go. It was her philosophy
and her belief. And she carried that belief in all aspects of the program.
We found it interesting that the most wished-for service identified by this preschool administrator
was to expand “the IFSP [process] in preschool programs.”
Two other participants with comprehensive definitions discussed the influence of work experi-
ences within the context of challenging on-the-job experiences. For example, Participant 2, a pre-
school administrator, described the challenges faced by the school district in serving preschoolers
with autism whose parents were not satisfied with program options for their children. To improve
relationships, parents were invited to join a task force designed to review the program and develop
a mechanism for building better family–professional partnerships. This participant stated, “The
autism task force has continued and has met . . . I think three or four times this year.” To further
support family–professional collaboration, a state-level “grant was written [and funded] to help
them come together to have a better understanding of each other.” The family–professional teams
“had training in advocacy and mentoring. And we also had training in grief, and then we worked on
ways in which new families to special ed. could be supported by this team at that school.” Another
participant mentioned the role of state grants in supporting family involvement. Participant 11
stated, “We were required to have a family focus to our grant; that was part of the components when
they were awarding the grants. We’ve tweaked it over the years.” In response to the needs of fami-
lies, this participant provided another example of securing funding to support teachers and families:
This past year we were finally able to get funded a preschool social worker. And her job has been
to reincorporate the family component. She is our liaison between the [birth-to-3] program. She
helps with the transition process between the school district and the early intervention program.
And she also has been designing parent workshops, parent groups, [and] parent support.
Participants whose responses reflected a lack of understanding of family-centered practices

described the influence of work experiences in more global terms and within the context of families
with financial difficulties. For example, Participant 4, a preschool administrator, stated, “When I was
in the classroom, I was involved with the families in my class. When I became an itinerant teacher,
I worked mainly with families.” In response to identifying the most valued family-centered practice,
this participant stated, “I think all of the things make up the whole picture. I can’t think of one thing

other than the involvement with the parents when we’re identifying children.” Participant 5, whose
greatest challenge was families with financial or family crises, identified on-the-job experiences that
provided opportunities to learn more about community social service programs as most effective:
“You realize the need; you move toward trying to remedy or rectify an injustice or an imbalance or
a problem of some sort; somebody helps you . . . [find a] service.”
Theme 3: Involvement Opportunities and Supports for Families

and Professionals Differed With Level of Understanding
The participants’ responses to questions focusing on how their programs support and involve
families and professionals in family-centered service delivery are categorized into three types of
systemwide practices: (a) professional-focused practices, which refer to activities or opportunities
that directly support or prepare teachers to interact with families; (b) family-focused practices,
which refer to activities or opportunities that directly support or prepare families to participate in
their child’s education; and (c) family–professional focused practices, which refer to activities or
opportunities that require joint participation by families and professionals. Table 5 presents the types
of involvement and support opportunities provided in programs administered by the participants in
this study.
Analysis of responses in the family-focused practice category indicated limited differences
between the two groups. Of the 68 practices listed, 37 (54%) represent programs supervised by
administrators with a comprehensive understanding. The most frequently identified practice offered
to parents is attendance at IEP or individualized family service plan (IFSP) meetings. Other com-
monly offered opportunities include topical workshops (e.g., how to use positive behavioral supports
or learning about transition supports) and communication notebooks used by teachers and parents.
Practices cited solely by participants with a comprehensive understanding consisted of preparing
families to participate in meetings, providing parent-to-parent support, and offering parents stipends
to attend meetings or trainings.
Professional-focused and family-professional-focused opportunities seemed to vary with respect
to the administrators’ level of understanding of family-centered practices. Of the 13 professional-
focused practices listed by the group, 10 (77%) occur in programs administered by participants with
a comprehensive understanding of family-centered practices. This group of administrators was more
likely to prepare staff members to work with families, as evidenced by the trainings provided,
including how to support families in assuming the roles of partner, advocate, and key decision
maker. All five participants with a comprehensive understanding administered programs that
required teachers to make home visits; two of these programs described policies that provide staff
members “flextime” and paid substitutes to allow personnel to make home visits. We believe it is
important to note that two of the six participants with a limited understanding of family-centered
practices also provide professional-focused opportunities, including home visits and trainings about
how to conduct parent–teacher conferences.
With respect to the family-professional-focused practice category, 10 (77%) of the 13 are cited
participants with a comprehensive understanding of family-centered practices. Unlike involvement
opportunities included in the professional-focused and family-focused practice categories, opportu-
nities in this category require joint participation of families and professionals. Although administra-
tors with limited understanding of family-centered practices required family involvement in program
governance and participation in systemwide program development and evaluation, administrators
with a comprehensive understanding also provided collaborative trainings designed to prepare pro-
fessionals and families to work together as well as collaborate in the development of program poli-
cies and procedures.

Table 5
Family Involvement Practices and Activities
Participants
a a a
Program Practices 1 2 3 4 5 6a 7 8 9 10 11a
Professional-focused practices
Staff given flextime for home visits • •
Pay substitutes for classroom teachers to •
make home visits
Train teachers to implement parent–teacher • • X
conferences and meetings
Require teachers to make home visits • • • X • X •
Family-focused practices
Prepare families to participate in meetings •
Provide parent-to-parent mentoring • • • •
Provide program-sponsored social events X X
Support families in transitions • • • X •
Support for families with SES needs • • • X X • X X X •
Support for families from diverse cultural, • • • • •
ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds
Provide topical education workshops • • • • X X X X •
Attend IEP or IFSP meetings • • • X • X X X X •
Inform families of open visitation policy • X X •
Use two-way communication notebooks • X X X X X •
Attend parent–teacher organization X
meetings
Volunteer in child’s classroom • • • X X X X
Provide stipends to attend • •
Family-professional-focused practices
Require joint membership on governance • • X •
committees
Provide trainings on how to team or partner • •
Require attendance at professional develop- X
ment retreats
Participate in systemwide program develop- • • X
ment and evaluation
Develop program policies and procedures •
Develop partnership policy handbook • •
Note: SES = socioeconomic status; IEP = individualized education program; IFSP = individualized family
service plan. Responses with a circle (•) indicate practice occurred in program administered by a participant
with a comprehensive understanding of family-centered practices.
a. Indicates participant’s understanding represented all four attributes.
Discussion
Our study identified administrators’ understanding and use of family-centered practices as well
as potential experiential factors contributing to their understanding of the approach. Findings in our
investigation converge with previous results in that we identified professionals’ lack of understand-

ing of family-centered practices as a barrier to family-centered service delivery (e.g., Garshalis &
McConnell, 1993; Murray & Mandell, 2006), with professionals’ understanding decreasing as the
age of the children served increased (Dunst, 2002). Our study extends previous findings by examin-
ing family-centered service delivery from the perspective of administrators. Our results indicate that
the two groups of administrators differed not only in how they perceived their own roles and respon-
sibilities while working with families but also in their views of the roles and responsibilities of staff
members and families. With respect to valuing families as collaborators and cornerstone beliefs
associated with family-centered service delivery (e.g., Epstein & Salinas, 2004; Friend & Cook,
2007; Pinkus, 2005), administrators with a comprehensive understanding of family-centered prac-
tices recognize the leadership roles they have in supporting both professionals and families. These
administrators are more likely to help staff members and families acquire the skills necessary to
participate in collaborative partnerships within service delivery and organizational governance. In
essence, they view their administrative roles as supportive for both staff members and families,
especially in establishing and maintaining a shared vision, which may be pivotal to creating change
within educational programs (cf. DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
In contrast, administrators whose responses did not represent any of the key attributes of the
family-centered practices appear to have different perceptions regarding their professional roles.
Given their focus on improving child outcomes, these administrators describe their roles as focusing
on promoting children’s learning, with organizational personnel responsible for supporting families’
understanding of and participation in their children’s education. From this perspective, the primary
role of staff members appears to be to provide traditional parent education and that of families should
be responsive to those opportunities.
The types of involvement opportunities provided to staff members and families by programs
administered by the two groups of supervisors appear to reflect the perceived role differences we
delineate above. That is, by recognizing professional responsibility in preparing families to be active
participants and collaborators throughout the educational process, administrators with a comprehen-
sive understanding are more likely to provide staff members with professional-focused development
opportunities designed to teach them how to better support, educate, and collaborate with families
to support implementation of family-centered practices. Moreover, by providing “flextime” and paid
substitutes to enable home visits at times convenient for families, the administrators were supportive
of staff members and families. In addition, this group of administrators appears more likely to offer
family-focused and family–professional training opportunities specifically designed to establish
partnerships between professionals and families and to involve families in program development,
evaluation, and governance. Examples include training teachers to prepare and support families in
their roles of advocates and key decision makers, both of which are critical to developing more
equitable partnerships than those in less “family friendly” programs (e.g., Eggbeer, Fenichel, Pawl,
Shanok, & Williamson, 1994; Murray et al., 2007). Organizational practices that value and support
the development of partnerships with families are cited as characteristics of family-centered service
delivery in both special education (McWilliam, Tocci, & Harbin, 1998) and general education
(Carter, 2003; Dauber & Epstein, 1993; Epstein, 2001).
In contrast, administrators with limited understanding of family-centered practices are less likely
to provide parents with opportunities to participate in family-focused and family-professional-
focused trainings designed to prepare them to work more effectively with professionals to directly
enhance their children’s education as well as to participate in organizational development and gov-
ernance. Rather, we believe that the majority of family-focused involvement opportunities tend to
be school directed and child focused, with an emphasis on parent education and parental participa-
tion in mandated services (e.g., parent–teacher conferences, parent education workshops, volunteer-
ing in classrooms, IEP meetings). Relatively limited family–professional and professional-focused
practices and the emphasis of family-focused practices on parent education and direct participation

in their children’s school activities suggest that this group of administrators perceives the role of
families to be to participate in professionally defined and delivered services or involvement oppor-
tunities and to acquire information about their children’s education and how the program is meeting
those educational needs.
Personnel working in programs who are not well grounded in family-centered practices are likely
to present families with a “one-size-fits-all” model of activities or events, with only limited attention
given to creating a respectful relationship with families. In such cases, school activities may be poorly
attended, often at the expense of professionals’ time, efforts, and resources. Although relationship
building and skill acquisition with families may be time-consuming and require staff members’ exper-
tise and training, families are more likely to engage in activities and experiences that they value. As
a result, the benefit may be improved outcomes for families and children and increased job satisfac-
tion for professionals.
With respect to the key attribute of valuing and supporting families, the two groups of administra-
tors’ responses differed not only in terms of defining which families were in need of support or
assistance but also in the professional community’s role and responsibility in meeting those families’
needs. Administrators with limited understanding of family-centered practices discuss meeting the
needs of families with socioeconomic difficulties and were more likely to view the school’s role as
that of connecting families to appropriate community resources. Although many of the administra-
tors in our study identify challenges associated with serving families who live in relative poverty,
administrators with a comprehensive understanding of family-centered philosophy are more likely
to view family support as a valuable component for all families, not just those who may be at risk
because of socioeconomic needs. Furthermore, they recognize the important role of schools in build-
ing partnerships with families who are diverse culturally, ethnically, and linguistically, as indicated
by the examples of how their organizations develop programs that are responsive to the specific
needs of families. Appreciation and understanding of cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic diver-
sity (Hains, Lynch, & Winton, 2000) as well as service delivery that respects differences among
families (Iglesias & Quinn, 1997) are cited as critical to forming partnerships with families.
Previous researchers have discussed how school personnel interact with parents differently
depending on families’ SES and primary language (Enyeart, Diehl, Hampden-Thompson, &
Scotchmer, 2006). In addition, investigators have noted that families interact with school staff mem-
bers based, in part, on their beliefs and social networks (Sheldon, 2002) and on their perceptions of
the procedures schools use to invite and support their participation (Anderson & Minke, 2007). Our
findings indicate that administrators with a comprehensive understanding of family-centered prac-
tices appear to recognize and also respect and respond to family diversity in how their programs are
implemented.
With respect to administrators’ perceptions regarding the source of their understanding of family-
centered practices, more than 80% of the participants attribute their understanding of family-centered
practices primarily to early on-the-job experiences, a finding that converges with the notion that
many professionals conform to the culture of their work environment within 3 years of employment
(e.g., Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 1996; McIntyre & Byrd, 2000). Although the influence of ini-
tial work experiences is cited by both groups of administrators, participants with a comprehensive
understanding of the construct provide detailed accounts of how supervisors’ philosophies shaped
their own orientation and supported their use of multiple strategies to engage families in their chil-
dren’s education, which may be integral components of family-centered service delivery (cf. Hanson
& Bruder, 2001). Although administrators with limited understanding of family-centered practices
also view the work environment as contributing to the shaping of their beliefs, they describe the
influences of their work environments in broad terms, without elaborating on seminal experiences
with mentors who guided their philosophy of working with families and reinforced their use of
family-centered practices. Regardless of the level of understanding of family-centered practices, it

seems that perceptions about the roles of professionals and families accrued during initial “on-the-
job” experiences may be sustained and become an important influence on how to work with families
throughout one’s career.
Study Limitations
As with most studies with modest samples, generalization of our investigation’s findings is lim-
ited by the methodological design and sampling. Specifically, our sampling procedure, which was
purposively limited to administrators who had worked with students in a previous study, was
restricted in numbers and geographic representation. In addition, the sole source of information
regarding administrators’ perceptions about and use of family-centered practices was a single self-
reporting interview that asked administrators to describe their views of family-centered practices as
well as their prior related work and professional experiences. Hence, our sample’s perceptions do
not necessarily represent the perceptions and practices of administrators in general.
Recommendations and Future Research

Although we believe our findings indicate otherwise, all of the administrators believed that they
had an understanding of family-centered practices and that their programs provided family-centered
service delivery. We consider family-centered service delivery as a complex social phenomenon
that involves much more than merely providing an array of services and traditional involvement
opportunities for families in their children’s educational programs. Moreover, we believe that high-
quality family-centered practices are continuous, rather than culminating, processes that require as
a foundation a shared vision among all participants (e.g., administrators, teachers, family members,
consultants).
Despite recent investigations into preservice preparation of teachers to use family-centered prac-
tices (e.g., Murray & Mandell, 2004; Pretti-Frontzcak, Giallourakis, Janas, & Hayes, 2002) and into
identifying practices for establishing efficacious partnerships between teachers and families (Hiatt-
Michael, 2001; Witmer, 2005), limited attention has been directed toward investigating the family-
centered practices within the context of organizational leadership. In the future, researchers should
begin to better address the limitations of our investigation and similar studies related to family-
centered practices. With respect to limitations, investigators should continue to carefully assess the
perceptions and practices of administrators, teachers and other practitioners, and families. In addi-
tion, larger and more diverse samplings of administrators and others might be illuminating and
provide further information about perceptions, practices, and previous experiences that influence
participants’ skills and dispositions.
Organizational change requires leadership to establish and sustain a functional and contemporary
shared vision for service providers and consumers. We believe that setting a course of professional
action and supporting staff members as they move toward the goal of developing, implementing, and
ultimately sustaining organizational reform-related family-centered services are sorely needed (Hipp
& Huffman, 2000). Moreover, additional research is needed to identify effective strategies for pro-
moting organizational cultures that value and support, as well as sustain, a community committed to
high-quality family-centered service delivery. Given the paucity of family-centered research involv-
ing administrators, it may be especially beneficial for future investigators to systematically address
the following questions:
1. How do leadership personnel preparation programs prepare candidates to demonstrate

skills and dispositions related to high-quality family-centered practices, including

a pplication in service settings for consumers who are economically, ethnically, and lin-
guistically diverse?
2. How do professional development and mentoring programs prepare administrators to
implement and evaluate high-quality family-centered service delivery?
3. How are child and family outcomes influenced in programs that implement high-quality
family-centered practices?
Our findings underscore the potential power of initial professional experiences. Administrators
with years of experience appear to continue to rely on early job experiences in shaping their beliefs
about their professional roles in working with families. Therefore, we believe it is critical that
teacher educators in both baccalaureate licensure programs and graduate-level leadership credential-
ing programs prepare practitioners and administrators to better understand and use family-centered
practices. Entry-level teachers seem to be greatly influenced by the roles and attitudes of their peers
and supervisors. Moreover, they appear to maintain those beliefs and practices throughout their
professional careers. Given that beliefs, both positive and negative, about the roles of families and
professionals are nurtured in initial and subsequent work environments, it is probably necessary that
professionals in mentoring programs prepare entry-level teachers to not only understand the benefits
of family-centered practices but also use them under trained supervision. Because many administra-
tors may be veteran educators with a limited understanding of family-centered practices, it is critical
that they participate in professional development programs designed to prepare them to better under-
stand and work in programs that implement high-quality family-centered practices.
Although preservice and in-service programs are often designed to meet the needs of specific
groups, we believe that a set of core beliefs and practices should be addressed in all professional
trainings related to family-centered practices. These beliefs and practices are (a) the benefits of
family-centered practices related to family and child outcomes, (b) the benefits of family-centered
practices to direct service providers and administrators, (c) the roles and responsibilities of direct
service providers and administrators in establishing and sustaining family-centered service delivery,
(d) strategies for engaging and empowering families in their children’s development and education,
and (e) strategies for involving families in program development, implementation, and evaluation.
With the widespread adoption and acquisition of these essential skills and dispositions, future educa-
tors will be better prepared to effectively work with families who receive early intervention and
early childhood special education services.
References
Anderson, K. J., & Minke, K. M. (2007). Parent involvement in education: Toward an understanding of parents’
decision making. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 311-323.
Baum, A. C., & McMurray-Schwarz, P. (2004). Preservice teachers’ beliefs about family involvement:
Implications for teacher education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(1), 57-61.
Berg, A. C., Melaville, A., & Blank, M. J. (2006). Community and family engagement: Principals share what
works. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools.
Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J. A., Frankland, H. C., Nelson, L. L., & Beegle, G. (2004). Dimensions of family
and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for collaboration. Exceptional Children, 70, 167-184.
Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs.
Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Buysse, V., Wesley, P., Keyes, L., & Bailey, D. B. (1996). Assessing the comfort zone of childcare teachers in
serving young children with disabilities. Journal of Early Intervention, 20, 189-203.
Carter, S. (2003). Educating our children together: A sourcebook for effective school-community partnerships.
Eugene, OR: Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education.

Christensen, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential connections for learning.
New York: Guildford.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Council of Administrators of Special Education. (2007). About us. Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www
.casecec.org/about.htm#standards
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualita-
tive research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Dauber, S. L., & Epstein, J. L. (1993). Parents’ attitudes and practices of involvement in inner-city elementary
and middle schools. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 53-72).
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Dempsey, I., & Keen, D. (2008). A review of processes and outcomes in family-centered services for children
with a disability. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28, 42-52.
Dinnebeil, L. A., Hale, L. M., & Rule, S. (2000). Early intervention program practices that support collabora-
tion. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19, 225-235.
Dinnebeil, L., & Rule, S. (1994). Variables that influence collaboration between parents and service coordina-
tors. Journal of Early Intervention, 18, 349-361.
DiPaola, M., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The principalship at a crossroads: A study of the conditions and
concerns of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 87, 43-65.
DiPaola, M., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2004). School principals and special education:
Creating the context for academic success. Focus on Exceptional Children, 37, 1-10.
Duchnowski, A. J., Kutash, K., & Oliveira, B. (2004). A systematic examination of school improvement
activities that include special education. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 117-129.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: National
Education Service.
Dunst, C. J. (2002). Family-centered practices: Birth through high school. Journal of Special Education, 36,
139-147.
Dunst, C. J., & Trivette, C. M. (2005). Measuring and evaluating family support program quality. Ashville,
NC: Winterberry Press.
Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Hamby, D. W. (2007). Meta-analysis of family-centered helpgiving practices
research. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 13, 370-380.
Eggbeer, L., Fenichel, E., Pawl, J., Shanok, R., & Williamson, G. (1994). Training the trainers: Innovative
strategies for teaching relationship concepts and skills to infant/family professionals. Infants and Young
Children, 7, 53-61.
Enyeart, C., Diehl, J., Hampden-Thompson, G., & Scotchmer, M. (2006). School and parent interaction by
household language and poverty status: 2002-03 (NCES 2006-086). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Epstein, J. L., & Salinas, K. C. (2004). Partnering with families and communities. Educational Leadership,
61(8), 12-17.
Flynn, G., & Nolan, B. (2008). What do school principals think about current school-family relationships?
NASSP Bulletin, 92, 173-190.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2007). Interactions collaborations skills for school professionals. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Garshalis, J., & McConnell, S. (1993). Comparison of family needs assessed by mothers, individual profession-
als, and interdisciplinary teams. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 36-49.
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers. New York: Longman.
Goldring, E. B. (1993). Principals, parents, and administrative superiors, Educational Administrative Quarterly,
29(1), 93-117.
Green, C. L., Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. (2007). Parents’ motivations for involve-
ment in children’s education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parental involvement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99, 532-544.
Griffith, J. (2001). Principal leadership of parent involvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(2),
162-186.

Hains, A., Lynch, E. W., & Winton, P. A. (2000). Moving towards cross-cultural competence in lifelong person-
nel development: A review of the literature (CLAS Tech. Rep. 3). Champaign: University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Early Childhood Research Institute on Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate
Services.
Hanson, M. J., & Bruder, M. B. (2001). Early intervention: Promises to keep. Infants and Young Children,
13(3), 47-58.
Hanson, M. J., & Lynch, E. W. (2004). Understanding families: Approaches to diversity, disability, and risk.
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Hedges, H., & Gibbs, C. (2005). Preparation for teacher-parent partnerships: A practical experience with a fam-
ily. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 26, 115-126.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K., & Johnson, D. (1996). Management of organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hiatt-Michael, D. (2001). Preparing teachers to work with parents (Eric Digest 460123). Retrieved October 10,
2006, from http://www.ericdigests.org/2002-3/parents.htm
Hipp, K. A., & Huffman, J. B. (2000, April). How leadership is shared and visions emerge in the creation of
learning communities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education?
Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3-42.
Hyun, E. (2007). Cultural complexity in early childhood: Images of contemporary young children from a criti-
cal perspective. Childhood Education, 83, 261-266.
Iglesias, A., & Quinn, R. (1997). Culture as a context for early intervention. In K. J. Thurman, J. Cornwell, &
S. Gottwald (Eds.), The context of early intervention: Systems and settings (pp. 55-72). Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvements Act Amendments of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 20
U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
Judge, S. (1997). Parental perceptions of help-giving practices and control appraisals in early intervention
programs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 17, 457-476.
Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special education: Building reciprocal family–professional
relationships. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Kotokovic, A. M., & Tracey, T. J. (1990). Working alliance in the early phase of counseling. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 37, 16-21.
Krauss, M. (1997). Two generations of family research in early intervention. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), The
effectiveness of early intervention (pp. 611-624). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Lasky, B., & Karge, B. (2006). Meeting the needs of students with disabilities: Experience and confidence of
principals. NASSP Bulletin, 90, 19-36.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mandell, C. J., & Murray, M. M. (2005). Innovative family-centered practices in personnel preparation. Journal
of Teacher Education and Special Education, 28, 74-77.
Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research. Philadelphia: Falmer.
McBride, S., Brotherson, M. J., Joanning, H., Whiddon, D., & Demmitt, A. (1993). Implementation of family-
centered services: Perceptions of families and professionals. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 414-430.
McHatton, P. A. (2007). Listening and learning from Mexican and Puerto Rican single mothers of children with
disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30, 237-248.
McIntyre, D. J., & Byrd, D. (2000). Research on effective models for teacher education. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
McWilliam, R. A., Maxwell, K. L., & Sloper, K. M. (1999). Beyond “involvement”: Are elementary schools
ready to be family-centered? School Psychology Review, 28, 378-394.
McWilliam, R. A., Snyder, P., Harbin, G. L., Porter, P., & Munn, D. (2000). Professionals’ and families’ percep-
tions of family-centered practices in infant-toddler service delivery. Early Education and Development, 11,
519-538.
McWilliam, R. A., Tocci, L., & Harbin, G. L. (1998). Family-centered services: Service providers’ discourse
and behavior. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18, 206-221.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Minke, K., & Scott, M. (1995). Parent–professional relationships in early intervention: A qualitative study.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 15, 335-352.
Murray, M. M., Christensen, K. A., Umbarger, G. T., Rade, K. C., Aldridge, K., & Niemeyer, J. A. (2007).
Supporting family choice. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(2), 111-117.
Murray, M., & Mandell, C. J. (2004). Evaluation of a family-centered early childhood special education preser-
vice model by program graduates. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24, 238-249.
Murray, M. M., & Mandell, C. J. (2006). On-the-job practices of early childhood special education providers
trained in family-centered practices. Journal of Early Intervention, 28, 125-138.
National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2001). Leading learning communities: Standards for
what principals should know and be able to do. Alexandria, VA: Author.
National Council for the Accreditation for Teacher Education. (2006). Professional standards for the accredita-
tion of schools, colleges and departments of education. Washington, DC: Author.
National Education Goals Panel. (1999). The national education goals report: Building a nation of learners.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Osher, T. W., & Osher, D. M. (2002). The paradigm shift to true collaboration with families. Journal of Child
and Family Studies, 11(1), 47-60.
Park, J., & Turnbull, A. P. (2002). Families speak out: What are quality indicators of professionals in working
with children with problem behaviors? Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4, 118-123.
Park, J., & Turnbull, A. P. (2003). Service integration in early intervention: Determining interpersonal and
structural factors for its success. Infants and Young Children, 16, 48-58.
Pinkus, S. (2005). Bridging the gap between policy and practice: Adopting a strategic vision for partnership
working in special education. British Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 184-187.
Pretti-Frontzcak, K., Giallourakis, A., Janas, D., & Hayes, A. (2002). Using a family-centered preservice cur-
riculum to prepare early intervention and early childhood special education personnel. Teacher Education
and Special Education, 25, 291-297.
Robicheau, J., Haar, J., & Palladino, J. (2008, October 28). Preparation and leadership in special education.
Retrieved April 17, 2009, from http://cnx.org/content/m18123/1.1/
Rutherford, P. (2005). The 21st century mentor’s handbook: Creating a culture for learning. Alexandria, VA:
Just ASK Publications.
Sandall, S., Hemmeter, M. L., Smith, B. J., & McLean, M. E. (2005). DEC recommended practices: A compre-
hensive guide for practical application (2nd ed.). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Parents’ social networks and belief as predictors of parent involvement. Elementary
School Journal, 102, 301-316.
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2005). Involvement counts: Family and community partnerships and mathe-
matics achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 196-206.
Streubert, H., & Carpenter, D. (1999). Qualitative research in nursing. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins.
Trivette, C. M., & Dunst, C. J (2007). Capacity-building family centered helpgiving practices. Winterberry
Research Reports, 1(1), 1-10.
Trute, B., & Hiebert-Murphy, D. (2007). The implications of “working alliance” for the measurement and
evaluation of family-centered practice in childhood disability services. Infants and Young Children, 20,
109-119.
Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., Erwin, E., & Soodak, L. C. (2006). Families, professionals, and exceptionality.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Wilson, L. L., & Dunst, C. J. (2004). Checking out family-centered helpgiving practices. In E. Horn, M. M.
Ostrosky, & H. Jones (Eds.), Young exceptional children monograph series no. 5: Family-based practices
(pp. 13-26). Longmont, CO: Division of Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children.
Witmer, M. M. (2005). The fourth r in education—relationships. Clearing House, 78(5), 224-228.

Administrators Understanding and Use of Family Centered Practices

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Administrators Understanding and Use of Family Centered Practices

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Early Intervention http://jei.sagepub.

Administrators' Understanding and Use of Family-Centered Practices

The online version of this article can be found at:

Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children

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

>> Version of Record - Jan 6, 2010

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Nov 19, 2009

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

Administrators’ Understanding and http://jei.sagepub.com

Use of Family-Centered Practices http://online.sagepub.com

Employing qualitative methods, administrators’ understanding and use of family-centered

Keywords: administrators; family-centered practices.

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

1. What understanding do administrators have of the construct known as family-centered

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

Trustworthiness and Credibility Procedures

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

Theme 1: Administrators’ Understanding of

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

Three illustrative examples of responses that reflected a comprehensive understanding of the

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

Theme 2: On-the-Job Experiences Influenced Understanding

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

Participant 3, a preschool administrator, stated the following:

Participants whose responses reflected a lack of understanding of family-centered practices

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

Theme 3: Involvement Opportunities and Supports for Families

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

Recommendations and Future Research

1. How do leadership personnel preparation programs prepare candidates to demonstrate

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

Downloaded from jei.sagepub.com at ULPGC/Hemeroteca on January 10, 2013

You might also like