(Information from a book geared toward teatchers, but has lots of information)
Individualized Education Program
IEP is “the heart of IDEA” and “the make or break component of FAPE for every child with a disability” (Bateman & Herr, 2006, p. 10). IDEA requires that educators develop and implement an IEP for each student with disabilities between the ages of 3 and 21. (Educators develop an individualized family service plan [IFSP] for each infant and toddler [from birth through age 2] with disabilities.) IDEA is specific about who is to develop the IEP and what it must include. IEP Team Each IEP must be the product of the collaborative efforts of the members of an IEP team, the membership of which is specified in IDEA as the following:
The term “individualized education program team” or “IEP Team” means a group of individuals composed of—
1. The parents of a child with a disability
2. not less than 1 regular education teacher of the child (if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment);
3. not less than 1 special education teacher, or where appropriate, at least 1 special education provider of the child;
4. a representative of the local education agency who—
(i) is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities;
(ii) is knowledgeable about the general curriculum; and
(iii) is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the local education agency;
5. an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results, who may be a member of the team described in clauses (2) through (6);
6. at the discretion of the parent or the agency, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related service personnel as appropriate; and
7. Whenever appropriate, the child with a disability. (PL 108-446, Sec. 614 [d][1][B])
IEP Components
Each IEP must include the following seven components:
1. A statement of the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, including—
(a) how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum;
(b) for preschool children, as appropriate, how the disability affects the child’s participation in appropriate activities; and
(c) for children with disabilities who take alternate assessments aligned to alternate achievement standards, a description of benchmarks or short-term objectives;
2. A statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals, designed to—
(a) meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and
(b) meet each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability;
3. A description of how the child’s progress toward meeting the annual goals described in subclause (2) will be measured and when periodic reports on the progress the child is making toward meeting the annual goals (such as through the use of quarterly or other periodic reports, concurrent with the issuance of report cards) will be provided;
4. A statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for the child—
(a) to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals;
(b) to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum in accordance with sub-clause (1) and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; and
(c) to be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and non-disabled children in the activities described in this sub-paragraph;
5. An explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child will not participate with nondisabled children in the regular class and in the activities described in sub-clause (4)(c);
6. (a) a statement of any individual appropriate accommodations that are necessary to measure the academic achievement and functional performance of the child on State and district wide assessments consistent with section 612(a)(16)(A); and
(b) if the IEP Team determines that the child shall take an alternate assessment on a particular State or district wide assessment of student achievement, a statement of why—
(aa) the child cannot participate in the regular assessment; and
(bb) the particular alternate assessment selected is appropriate for the child;
7. The projected date for the beginning of the services and modifications described in subclause (4), and the anticipated frequency, location, and duration of those services and modifications. (PL 108-446, Sec. 614 [d][1][B])
IEPs for students age 16 and older must include information on how the child’s transition from school to adult life will be supported:
8. Beginning not later than the first IEP to be in effect when the child is 16, and updated annually thereafter—
(a) appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments related to training, education, employment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills;
(b) the transition services (including courses of study) needed to assist the child in reaching those goals; and
(c) beginning not later than 1 year before the child reaches the age of majority under State law, a statement that the child has been informed of the child’s rights under this title, if any, that will transfer to the child on reaching the age of majority under section 615(m). (PL 108-446, Sec. 614 [d][1][A][i])
When developing a child’s IEP, the IEP team must consider the following factors:
1. General. The IEP Team must consider
(i) the strengths of the child;
(ii) the concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child;
(iii) the results of the initial or most recent evaluation of the child; and
(iv) the academic, developmental, and functional needs of the child.
2. Consideration of special factors. The IEP Team must—
i. In the case of a child whose behavior impedes the child’s learning or that of others, consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior;
ii. In the case of a child with limited English proficiency, consider the language needs of the child as those needs relate to the child’s IEP;
iii. In the case of a child who is blind or visually impaired, provide for instruction in Braille and the use of Braille unless the IEP Team determines, after an evaluation of the child’s reading and writing skills, that instruction in Braille or the use of Braille is not appropriate for the child;
iv. Consider the communication needs of the child, and in the case of a child who is deaf or hard of hearing, consider the child’s language and communication needs; and
v. Consider whether the child needs assistive technology devices and services. (PL 108-446, Sec. 614 [d][3][A & B])
IEP Functions and Formats
An IEP spells out where the child is, where she should be going, how she will get there, how long it will take, and how to tell if and when she has arrived. An IEP provides teachers and families with the opportunity—and the responsibility—to first be realistic about the child’s needs and goals and then to be creative about how to meet them. Being realistic does not mean taking a pessimistic or limited view of the child’s current capabilities or potential to reach improved levels of academic achievement or functional performance; it means analyzing how specially designed instruction and related services can help the child get from her present levels of performance to future goals.
The IEP is also a measure of accountability for teachers and schools. Whether a particular school or educational program is effective will be judged, to some extent, by how well it is able to help children meet the goals and objectives set forth in their IEPs. Like other professionals, teachers are being called on to demonstrate effectiveness, and the IEP provides one way for them to do so. Although a child’s teacher and school cannot be prosecuted in the courts if the child does not achieve his IEP goals, the school
district is legally bound to provide the special education and related services identified in the IEP, and the school must be able to document that it made a conscientious and systematic effort to achieve those goals (Bartlett, Etscheidt, & Weisentstein, 2007; Wright, Wright, & O’Connor, 2010). IEP formats vary widely across school districts, and schools may exceed the requirements of the law and include additional information. Bateman and Linden (2006) cautioned against overreliance on standardized forms and computers for creating IEPs. “Forms by their very nature tend to interfere with true individualization. . . . [A] proper form will contain all the required elements in the simplest way possible, allowing for the most flexibility and creativity” (pp. 82–83). Figure 2.3 shows portions of the IEP for Curt, a ninth grader and low achiever seen by the school district as a poorly motivated student with a disciplinary problem and a bad attitude. Curt’s parents see their son as a discouraged and frustrated student with learning disabilities, especially in written language.
IEP Problems and Potential Solutions
Since its inception, the IEP process has been problematic. J. J. Gallagher (1984) wrote that the IEP is “probably the single most unpopular aspect of the law, not only because it requires a great deal of work, but also because the essence of the plan itself seems to have been lost in the mountains of paperwork” (p. 228). More than 20 years later, Bateman and Linden (2006) expressed a similar opinion: Sadly, many IEPs are horrendously burdensome to teachers and nearly useless to parents and children. Far from being a creative, flexible, data-based, and individualized application of the best of educational interventions to a child with unique needs, the typical IEP is “empty,” devoid of specific services to be provided, and its goals are often not measurable. (p. 87) Studies of actual IEPs seem to support such harsh descriptions. For example, Grigal and colleagues (1997) examined IEPs for high school students and found that transition-related goals included vague outcomes (e.g., “will think about best place to live,” “will explore jobs”), no evaluation procedures, and very few adaptations in activities or materials. Properly including all of the mandated components in an IEP is no guarantee that the document will guide the student’s learning and teachers’ teaching in the classroom, as intended by IDEA. Although most educators support the idealized concept of the IEP, inspection of IEPs often reveals inconsistencies between what is written on the document and the instruction that students experience in the classroom (S. W. Smith & Brownell, 1995).
Although IDEA requires parents to participate in IEP meetings and encourages student participation, research on parent and student involvement in the IEP process has produced mixed results (Test et al., 2004). In a study of 109 middle school and high school IEP meetings, Martin and colleagues (2006) concluded that students’ “presence can at best be viewed as tokenism because of the very low levels of student engagement and low student [expression of] opinions of their IEP meetings” (p. 197). On the bright side, numerous studies have shown that students with widely varying disabilities can learn to be actively involved in the IEP process, even to the point of leading the meeting (e.g., Arndt, Konrad, & Test, 2006; Kelley, Bartholomew, & Test, 2011; Martin, Van Dycke, et al., 2006). Some research suggests a positive correlation between students’ participation in the IEP process and academic achievement (Barnard-Brak & Lechtenberger, 2010). General education teachers also benefit from instruction in the IEP process. In a study of 393 middle school and high school IEP meetings, general education teachers rated themselves lower than all other IEP meeting participants, including students, on the extent to which they helped make decisions and knew what to do next (Martin, Huber Marshall, & Sale, 2004). General education teachers ranked second lowest (only to students) in knowing the reason for the meetings, talking at the meetings, feeling comfortable saying what they thought, understanding what was said, and feeling good about the meeting.
Regardless of the level of parent and student participation, the appropriateness and measurability of the goals, and the IEP team’s satisfaction with the document, without instruction of the highest quality, many children with disabilities will make little progress. This reality led to the requirement in IDEA 2004 that teachers must use evidence-based practices (EBPs) to ensure their students receive the highest quality instruction. See Current Issues and Future Trends, “Evidence-Based Practice: Easier Said Than Done.”
Heward, William L. (2012-02-08). Exceptional Children: An Introduction to Special Education (10th Edition) (Page 60-63, 65-66). Pearson. Kindle Edition.
If you have some other helpful information on IEPs feel free to share it in the comments :).
