Parents as Active Team Members: Where Does Accountability for a Child's Special Education Rest?.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the efficacy of parents' roles as active and discerning members of their children's Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) through the use of a large randomly selected sample with a high respondent rate. Families were selected from the special education roster in an urban district. Of the 95 families selected, 83 parents completed interviews. The data gathering effort also included interviews with more than 200 teachers and specialists in the district, observations, and document review. Although there were IEPs for all students, nine parents responded that their child was not in special education, and 28 acknowledged participation, but made only vague references to the child's needs and services. Thus, 45% of parents in this district that prided itself on support for parents did not appear to be conversant with the child's needs and services. Data also support the findings of previous studies that parents' assessments of special education services are not based on objective data, and appear to be biased in a positive direction. Until parents learn what to look for to evaluate services, they are not able to be accountable for their children's learning. (Contains 11 references.) (SLD) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".