by Jonas Ruškus School of Social Work, Vytautas Magnus University LITHUANIA Parental Involvement in Individual Education Planning for Students with Mental Disabilities A Lithuanian Experience 2012 Joint World Conference on Social Work and Social Development 8012 July, 2012 STOCKHOLM

Research context  The law of Education in Lithuania: parents should play an active role in the education of their child.  But the collaboration “school – parents” is formal.  Different participants has a very different expectations and interests regarding the education of pupils having special needs  The roles of participants are not defined.  School-dominated relationship is viewed as natural.

Appeal for aid Šiauliai City’s J. Laužikas Special Education School (90 children having mental disabilities) The appeal for help to build a cooperation between school and children's’ families First observation: Problem oriented approach used at school: children is defined from the problem perspective, families do not participate in meetings and discussions because of sentiment to be blamed School’s very good willings but falling in the trap of problem oriented approach

Research questions  What are patterns of prental non-participation in the school life regarding their children having mental disabilities?  What kind of strategies has to be applied seeking to change the relation of explicit avoidance (parents) and implicit blaming (teachers) to relation of dialog, reciprocity in addressing special educational needs of the child?  How do we create a system in which all participants are cooperating, contributing and resonding to the all needs and expectations of the participants?

Study 1  Pilot study:  18 non-structured interviews with parents and 11 non- structured interviews with teachers  Group non-structured interview with teachers staff

Observed ruptures and needs  A priori delegation of education initiatives in the school: Silent and active discourses  Closed safety or challenges for openness? The need for enlargement of the school–family chain.  A lot of limitations of the negotiation / coherence of the participants’ interests  From recognition of the different competencies of all participants toward the applying of these competencies  Need for cooperative and creative problem-solving methodology and skills.  Transition from an individual action oriented model to a community oriented model  Project-based activities as a mission conceived by participants, but not developed or implemented

Assumpion THE INDIVIDUAL EDUCATION PLANNING  coordination of all participants’ expectations, interests, and needs related to the situation;  agreement on the purpose and aim of the child’s individual education plans;  sharing of responsibilities by all participants in striving to meet the child’s educational aims;  application of all participants’ internal (competencies) and external (environmental) resources/strenghts;  evaluation of and reflection on the experience of developing the child’s individual education plan, undertaken both individually and collectively.

Conceptual framework SOCIAL PARTICIPATION  strategies through which equal cooperation systems, taking into account inter-individual dynamics as well as organizational logic, can be created (Ebersold, 2003)  Individual education plan (project) as a means of empowerment, based on the idea of cooperation among parent, child, and teacher discourses and construction of new knowledge (Ebersold and Detraux, 2003)

Conceptual framework BIENTRAITANCE (Detraux, Di Duca, 2006) The interaction of three dimensions:  a project, foreseeing an explicit confrontation and negotiation of the needs and interests of the participants in a concrete situation  exploitation of identified resources depending on the representation of their roles and functions (social network, competences of each participant, and the knowledge circulating among them are considered as resources)  explicit concrete actions of every participant, which qualify existing interactions

Methodology PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH  understanding, mutual involvement, change, and a process that promotes personal growth; and  focusing on empowerment and with researchers’ and participants’ values both being central to the planning process (Kidd, Krall, 2005)  empowerment through consciousness raising (Reason, 1994)  participants and researchers co-generate knowledge, using collaborative communicative processes in which all participants’ contributions are taken seriously; and  it treats the diversity of experience and capacities within the local group as an opportunity for enrichment of the research action process (Greenwood & Levin, 1998).

Study 2  5 case study groups children, parents, teachers and, in the implementation, university students in each group

Equal cooperation system based on individual education planning TEACHER INDIVIDUAL PLANNING · Needs, · Expectations, · Capacities, · Commitments and responsibilities, · Meaningfulness of actions RESEARCHER AS MEDIATOR SPECIAL SCHOOL OTHER RESOURCES (COMMUNITY) I STAGE Coherence of participants ’ needs, expectations and interests II STAGE Definition of aims, participant ’ s responsibilities III STAGE Initiation and implementation of new activities IV STAGE Individual and group evaluation and reflection 3) disclosure of the content of the raised need, 4) agreement on the objective and tasks of the individual plan, 5) search of resources, 6) joint decision making 9) individual and 10) group reflection, valuations, discussions 7) discussion on responsibilities and commitments, taking responsibilities and making commitments, 8) implementation of concrete activities 1) telling and disclosing 2) agreement on the main need and interest PARENTS (FAMILY) · Needs, · Expectations, · Capacities, · Commitments and responsibilities, · Meaningfulness of actions · Needs, · Expectations, · Capacities, · Commitments and responsibilities, · Meaningfulness of actions

Outcomes identified by participants  The individual planning as the construction of common meanings and purposes  Recognition of each other through dialogue  Opportunity to see at least a minimum result  Actualization of the child‘s internal resources (motivation, abilities, capacities)  Priority of the development of child independent living skills  Institutional changes such as new culture of educational planning  Validation and legitimation parental expectations  Opening up to new environments and new experiences  Experimentation as an innovation and challenge

The follow-up  More than one year later…  After one year of waiting for the external support, Individual education planning was restarted by teachers and parents by themselves  Experience of empowerment and cooperation, through individual education planning

Auto-reflection on Researcher’s & Social worker roles  CONTEXT - To understand the implicit and explicit contexts and needs & expectations of all for collaboration  COOPERATION – To organize the regular time and space for the meets  CHANGE - To create an equal collaboration system  EMPOWERMENT – To invoke strengths of participants  KNOWLEDGE CO-GENERATION - To conceptualize the cooperation to give a meaning and purpose

by Jonas Ruškus Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania Parental Involvement in Individual Education Planning for Students with Mental Disabilities A Lithuanian Experience 2012 Joint World Conference on Social Work and Social Development 8012 July, 2012 STOCKHOLM