Developing Standards-Based Individualized Education Program Objectives for Students with Significant Needs

Abstract

Cristina has seen many changes in her years of teaching students with significant needs. Her very first classroom was a “life skills” class in a cluster setting at an elementary school 11 years ago. She worked diligently to help her students become more independent, with the goal of placement in their neighborhood school's general education classroom. Cristina is familiar with the academic demands of the school curriculum in the age of accountability, and she is very aware of the intense educational needs of her students. During the most recent district special education meeting, her director discussed the necessity for all individualized education program (IEP) objectives to be based on the general education curriculum. Thinking about the individual needs of her students, Cristina wonders if perhaps inclusion has gone one step too far. How is she going to teach IEP objectives in reading, writing, math, science, and social studies when some of her students are unable to speak, write, or use cause-and-effect software?

Insights into teacher learning about pedagogy from an international group of teachers of students with severe intellectual disabilities

“…It is argued that educating students with severe intellectual disabilities cannot be approached through a single pedagogy, and that the integration of individual learning profiles and curricular demands requires a more holistic and comprehensive approach that mirrors the complexity of learner needs (Ryndak et al 2010). Developments in the pedagogical discourse challenge the historical existence of separate, individual and functional curricula for learners with severe intellectual disabilities, often combined with traditional behavioural approaches to teaching (Bouck 2012;Byers and Lawson 2015), and call for the delivery of blended and sharply focused personalised curricula that pay attention to both standards-based curriculum content and personalised needs (Lynch and Adams 2008). This means that individual strengths and needs drive curricular decisions, while the medium for learning has become centred on core academic subjects (McGregor 2003).…”

Individual Education Plan Goals and Services for Adolescents With Autism: Impact of Age and Educational Setting

“…For example, Browder and colleagues (2006) note that by linking goals to grade level standards, students are provided with a sequential and increasingly challenging curriculum. Despite the good intentions of linking IEP goals to state standards, in practice teachers struggle with how to effectively accomplish this (Agran, Alper, & Wehmeyer, 2002;Browder, Spooner et al, 2006;Flowers, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Browder, & Spooner, 2005;Lynch & Adams, 2008;Walsh, 2001). Continued research is needed to describe how to effectively incorporate IEP goals and individualized instruction within the context of the general education curriculum, particularly in secondary schools.…”

Structured Intervention as a Tool to Shift Views of Parent–Professional Partnerships: Impact on Attitudes Toward the IEP

“…The findings of this study indicate that parents and special education teachers view the value of the IEP process for individualized instruction in a neutral to positive way. This finding is encouraging because IEPs should ultimately provide a framework for appropriately individualized instruction, curriculum that is aligned with learning outcomes, and assessment standards that reflect these outcomes (Lynch & Adams, 2008).…”