In this comparative case study, we draw from neoinstitutional and structuration theory to examine the individualized education program (IEP) meetings for five high school students identified with specific learning disabilities. Specifically, we examine how participants interacted during the IEP meetings and how learning, instruction, and postsecondary transition were discussed. Findings suggest that the IEP document served as the dominant script, or structure, for the IEP meetings. This dominant script established roles for participation and influenced participants' agency within the meetings. We also highlight instances of disruption when participants exerted agency and went off script, breaking from the institutionalized structure of the meetings. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004, PL 94-142) provides the legal foundation and structural framework to provide students with disabilities a free, appropriate public education that attends to their unique learning needs (Yell and Crockett 2011). The individualized education program (IEP) remains the cornerstone of IDEA, serving as a legal contract between school districts and parents of a student with a disability (Bateman 2011). IEPs outline the types of educational services and supports that districts must provide to students at no cost to parents. IEPs are drafted at an annual IEP meeting where the student, parent(s), teacher(s), school administrator(s), and other professionals discuss, evaluate, and approve the document. IDEA makes it clear that students and parents are equal members of the IEP team. Therefore, the field envisions the IEP meeting as a collaborative decision-making process between students, parents, and school professionals.