For parents, an IEP meeting can feel like walking into a room where everyone else already knows the language, the process, and the rules.
There may be teachers, administrators, psychologists, therapists, specialists, reports, test scores, acronyms, and recommendations coming at you quickly. Meanwhile, you are trying to absorb all of it while also hearing people discuss your child’s struggles.
That is exactly why parents need to remember something important: you are not an outsider in the IEP process. You are part of the team.
In a conversation with licensed educational psychologist Justin H. Dove, Frances Shefter explored what meaningful parent participation should look like, why evaluations need to consider the whole child, and why inclusion is about much more than simply placing a student in a general education classroom.
Parents Bring Expertise That No One Else Has
A school psychologist may understand testing. A special education teacher may understand accommodations and specialized instruction. A general education teacher understands what happens in the classroom.
Parents bring something different.
They know their child across environments, over time, and in situations the school may never see.
Frances emphasized a message parents often need to hear before an IEP meeting: you know your child best.
That does not mean parents have every technical answer. It means their observations are an essential part of understanding the child.
Dove described parents as having their own form of expertise. A professional may see a student during testing or at school, but a parent may know what happens after the child gets home, what skills carry over outside school, what causes stress, what motivates the child, and what strengths appear in other settings.
A strong IEP team should combine those perspectives instead of treating one professional’s opinion as the final word.
Do Not Be Afraid to Slow Down an IEP Meeting
Special education has its own language.
Parents may hear acronyms, testing terminology, service descriptions, placement discussions, and educational jargon that professionals use every day. The people speaking may not even realize how quickly they are moving.
That creates a problem when a parent technically attends an IEP meeting but does not truly understand what is being discussed.
Frances explained why bringing another knowledgeable person can be so valuable. An advocate or another experienced support person may hear a phrase and recognize that it needs clarification.
They can say:
- What does that mean?
- Can you explain that in plain language?
- Why is the team recommending this?
- What data supports that decision?
- Are there other options?
Choosing the right advocate matters. Someone should not enter an IEP meeting looking for conflict simply for the sake of conflict. The goal should be helping the parent understand the process and keeping the focus on the child.
And sometimes the most important thing a parent can do is simply slow the process down.
For example, Frances addressed what can happen when a school introduces a major placement change during an IEP meeting that the parent was not expecting.
A parent does not have to pretend to be prepared.
They can say that they need time to process the recommendation, seek support, and continue the discussion later rather than allowing an unexpected major decision to be rushed through.
Good Grades Do Not Tell the Whole Story
One persistent misconception in special education is that a student who is performing adequately academically cannot have a significant educational need.
That view can overlook major areas of difficulty.
A student may earn good grades while struggling with:
- Executive functioning
- Social-emotional regulation
- Communication
- Behavior
- Organization
- Attention
- Independence
- Social interaction
This can be particularly important for twice-exceptional students and other children whose strengths may compensate for significant challenges.
Dove emphasized the importance of questioning whether a belief about eligibility or educational impact comes from the actual standards being applied or simply from “the way we have always done it.”
Frances and Dove also discussed another important distinction: a school psychologist contributes expertise, testing, and recommendations, but eligibility decisions are made through the team process.
The psychologist’s opinion matters. So do the classroom teacher’s observations, the special educator’s perspective, other service providers’ information, available data, and the parent’s knowledge.
No single lens provides the entire picture.
A Strong Evaluation Looks at the Whole Child
Testing can provide useful information, but a score should never become the entire story of a child.
Dove described comprehensive evaluations as involving much more than sitting a student down with a test kit.
A thorough evaluation can include:
- Direct assessment
- Classroom observations
- Teacher interviews
- Parent interviews
- Input from related service providers
- Information from outside therapists or providers when appropriate
- Educational records
- Report cards and existing data
- The consistency of findings across different settings
This matters because children are human beings, not testing machines.
A child may have a bad day. The child may be anxious. They may not understand why they are being tested. They may not connect well with the evaluator. They may disengage from a task they do not want to perform.
Those factors do not automatically invalidate an evaluation, but they are reasons professionals should interpret scores in context rather than treating one number as definitive.
When a family believes a school evaluation does not fully capture their child, seeking another opinion does not necessarily mean the school psychologist did poor work.
As Dove explained, a second opinion can provide additional information and help everyone understand the child more completely.
Inclusion Has to Be Meaningful
“Inclusion” sounds positive, but the label alone does not tell parents whether a placement is appropriate.
Simply putting a student with disabilities in a general education classroom does not automatically create inclusion.
The student still needs meaningful access, appropriate support, and an individualized program.
Dove warned against confusing inclusion with simply mainstreaming children without the services they require.
Frances made the same point from a practical perspective: what works for one student may not work for another.
One child may benefit enormously from participating with general education peers while completing modified work. Another child may be painfully aware that the work is different and feel unsuccessful or isolated in that same environment.
The question cannot simply be, “Is this an inclusive classroom?”
The better questions are:
- Is this appropriate for this child?
- What supports does the child need?
- Is the child receiving meaningful benefit?
- Does the student feel successful and connected?
- Are decisions being individualized?
An IEP is supposed to be individualized. A school-wide philosophy should never replace consideration of the particular child sitting at the center of the discussion.
School Should Prepare Children for Life, Not Just the Classroom
Another important idea from the conversation is that progress should not exist only inside school walls.
Frances pointed out that education ultimately prepares children for life beyond school.
If a child can perform a skill only in one classroom, with one adult, or under one highly specific set of circumstances, the team may need to consider whether that skill is generalizing.
Can the child use what they are learning at home? In the community? With peers? As they become more independent?
Those questions become even more important as children move toward adulthood.
The goal should not be simply to get a child through another school year. It should be helping that child build the communication, academic, social, behavioral, executive functioning, self-advocacy, and life skills they will need for whatever comes next.
Children Should Understand Their Own Needs
Self-advocacy becomes much harder when children do not understand themselves.
Dove encouraged parents to have developmentally appropriate, affirming conversations with children about how their brains work and why they receive certain supports.
Without that explanation, a child who finds something unusually difficult may create their own explanation:
Maybe I am lazy.
Maybe I am stupid.
Maybe I am just bad at this.
Understanding a disability or neurodivergence can provide a healthier framework.
It can help a child recognize both strengths and challenges and eventually learn to say, “This is what helps me.”
Frances shared how she approached that conversation with her own children by explaining that everyone’s brain works differently and that evaluations can help identify how someone learns best.
That approach shifts the conversation away from shame and toward understanding.
The Best IEP Teams Keep Coming Back to the Child
Special education can become complicated quickly. There are regulations, timelines, staffing challenges, budgets, testing requirements, disagreements, and professional opinions.
But the central question should remain simple:
What does this particular child need in order to make meaningful progress?
Parents should feel able to ask questions, request explanations, raise concerns, seek additional expertise, and participate meaningfully in decisions.
Professionals should be willing to examine the data, question old assumptions, and listen to what families are seeing.
And everyone at the table should be willing to put adult egos aside when necessary.
Because the goal of the IEP process is not to defend a system, a report, or a professional title.
It is to build an educational program that works for the child.
More content like this: https://shefterlaw.com/learning-center/
Justin H. Dove:
Website: https://peaceed4success.com/
Email: contactpeaceed@gmail.com
Book a complimentary consultation call: https://peaceed.intakeq.com/booking?serviceId=30ca9259-aa9d-43a7-9465-07d60b28caea