Spring, 1999 No. 6 National Network of Partnership Schools
Lessons Learned from Two Schools for Students with Special Needs
Funding Reported in '98 UPDATE Surveys
Lessons Learned from Two Schools for Students with Special Needs
In the spring of 1998, case studies were conducted of two schools, Dr. Lillie M. Jackson and Lois T. Murray, that serve students with special needs and their families in the Baltimore City Public School System. The data included interviews, observations, and school documents. The data were collected to uncover issues and strategies that schools should consider when developing comprehensive partnership programs that meet the needs of all students and families.
Data analyses revealed three processes that were central to the schools’ success in developing comprehensive and inclusive partnerships with their students’ families. These processes—creating avenues for communication, opening doors for decision-making, and promoting pathways for student progress—are briefly described below.
Creating avenues for communication
Communication was central to the partnership program at each school in the study. This communication took several forms, including monthly newsletters, parent and faculty surveys, student notebooks, telephone calls, calendars, flyers, school meetings, home visits, and parent-teacher conferences. These school-home communications were content rich, caring, creative, and encouraged parental input.
Opening doors for decision-making
Both schools designed several opportunities and vehicles for parents to take active roles in school decisions that affected their children. These ranged from deciding topics for parent meetings, to helping assess the treatment needs of their children, and planning for student transitions. The schools encouraged active parental involvement in these decisions by soliciting parents’ ideas and opinions, and by demystifying processes and structures in special education.
Promoting pathways for student progress
The two processes previously described—school-to-home and home-to-school communications, and parental involvement in decision making—were integrally linked to students’ intellectual and socio-emotional development. Through their various communications, educators and parents shared information and made decisions about students’ progress and what to do to promote greater progress. At each school, parent, school, and community resources were mobilized to encourage multiple pathways for students’ success.
Through their efforts, these schools were able to document increased parental attendance at Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) and at Admissions, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) meetings, and improved parental attitudes toward the school. These successes tell us a great deal about creating partnership programs that address the needs and concerns of all families and students in any school, including those serving students with disabilities.
From: Sanders, M.G. (1999). Partnering with families of students’ with disabilities: What every school should know. Paper to be presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, April, 1999.
Funding Reported in '98 UPDATE Surveys
Schools, districts, and states reported how they supported their 1997-98 programs of school, family, and community partnerships in the Network's '98 UPDATE surveys. The following is a summary of the range of investments, average budgets, and main sources of funds.
Levels of Investments in Partnership Programs
Schools: From under $100 to over $900,000, with an average of $11,538
Districts: From under $100 to $1.3 million, with an average of $89,033
States: From $20,000 to $410,000, with an average of $163,333Sources of Funds for Partnership Programs
The most common sources of funds were: Title I, Safe and Drug Free Schools, Goals 2000, and various general state, district, and school funds. In addition to these budgets, states call upon Even Start and foundation grants, and schools call upon PTA funds to support their partnership programs.
Source: '98 UPDATE survey items on funding from 356 schools, 39 districts, and 6 states.
Choose another edition of Type 2
