IMPLEMENTATION OF IEPs: New Teacher Roles and Requisite Support Systems

Safer, Nancy; Morrissey, Patricia A.; Kaufman, Martin J.; Lewis, Linda

doi:10.17161/foec.v10i1.7136

Cited by 14 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Safer, Morrissey, and Kaufman (1976) have related the development of appropriate educational programs for individuals based on their strengths and weaknesses to the diagnostic-prescriptive approach to teaching. Furthermore, Hayes (1977) stated that &dquo;since each program is written for a particular child, it is important to have appropriate assessment data available&dquo; (p. 15).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Diagnostic/Instructional Link in Individualized Education Programs

Schenck

1980

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enactment of P.L. 94-142 has provided a major impetus to the provision of a free and appropriate education to all handicapped children. A major provision in P.L. 94-142 is the requirement that all handicapped children receiving special education be provided with an Individualized Education Program (IEP). The IEP, therefore, is to incorporate special education, which is defined as "specially designed instruction." Literature pertaining to IEP development states that instruction must be linked to assessment. The present investigation sought to determine the extent to which the long-term goals and short-term instructional objectives of the IEP can be documented as being predicated upon the psychoeducational assessment. The IEPs and corresponding psychoeducational assessments of 243 students identified as educable mentally retarded (EMR), emotionally disturbed (ED), and learning disabled (LD) were collected and analyzed. Results revealed that the goals and objectives of the IEP have limited foundation in the psychoeducational assessment. Specific consequences of this situation are discussed in terms of impact upon the education of handicapped students, as well as suggestions for strengthening the diagnostic/instructional link in IEPs.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Diagnostic/Instructional Link in Individualized Education Programs

Schenck

1980

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PL94-142, in its first two years of implementation, has influenced practice nationally, in some cases profoundly sodespite initial teething troubles and resistances in certain quarters which have led to its being applied unevenly. Safer et al (1979) note how it was similarly greeted 'with confusion, speculation, and consternation . .…”

Section: Emphasis On Individualised Programmesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…They complained about the inordinate amount of time taken up with programme planning, defining and reviewing objectives, recording achievements, at the cost of programme execution. In this regard, Project IEP (Safer, et al, 1979) revealed that teachers estimated it took two to 6% hours for a new referral, and two to four hours for a child already in a special education programme, to develop an IEP.…”

Section: Some Strengths Of Individualised Ducat Ional Programm Ingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration ‐ A Lesson from America?

Pocklington¹

1980

British J Special Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

research officer at the National Foundation for Educational Research investigating provision for children with special needs in ordinary schools, discusses contrasts 'ih special education practice between England and the USA Public Law 94-142, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act, currently dominates special education in America. This was passed in 1975 and took effect from September 1978. The Act mandates that a free, appropriate, public (State) education be provided for all handicapped persons aged three t o 21 years. Mainstreaming is the keynote. This is a rather imprecise term which corresponds broadly to our own integration. It incorporates what the Warnock Report speaks of as functional integrationthe possibility of children with handicaps taking lessons alongside nonhandicapped peers wherever feasible.

show abstract

“…In this regard, practical approaches that allow special service teams to evaluate the extent of IEP implementation and degree of goal attainment have been considered essential for informed program decision making under PL 94-142. (Kennedy, 1978;Safer, Morrissey, Kaufman, & Lewis, 1978). If evaluable special service programs can be designed, special service providers will be able to establish professional accountability in a way that links children in need with effective services (Hobbs, 1975).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the individualized education program: A comprehensive approach for special service teams

Maher

Barbrack

1980

Psychol. Schs.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comprehensive approach to evaluating the Individualized Education Program (IEP) is delineated. The approach has been developed by the authors and used by special service teams in numerous public school districts. It consists of four interrelated evaluation strategies: evaluability assessment, process evaluation, outcome evaluation, and consumer evaluation. Utilization of each strategy by a special service team at a particular point during the IEP process results in obtainment of specific kinds of evaluation information that can be useful in program development, modification, or outcome determination. In the paper, each evaluation strategy is defined and discussed. Also, practical considerations for installation of the total evaluation approach are enumerated, with particular reference to problems created in settings where partial approaches to IEP evaluation already have been implemented.The task of providing an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for a handicapped child necessitates a program that is amenable to evaluation (Hudson & Graham, 1978). In this regard, practical approaches that allow special service teams to evaluate the extent of IEP implementation and degree of goal attainment have been considered essential for informed program decision making under PL 94-142. (Kennedy, 1978; Safer, Morrissey, Kaufman, & Lewis, 1978). If evaluable special service programs can be designed, special service providers will be able to establish professional accountability in a way that links children in need with effective services (Hobbs, 1975).The purpose of this paper is to describe a comprehensive approach to evaluating the IEP. It has been developed by the authors and used by special service teams in numerous public school districts to facilitate IEP development and improvement. The approach builds upon previously developed IEP technology (Turnbull, Strickland, & Brantley, 1978), in that it prescribes four evaluation strategies that can be used by a team at various stages of the IEP process. The evaluation strategies are: evaluability assessment, process evaluation, outcome evaluation, and consumer evaluation. In the paper, each strategy is discussed in terms of purpose, evaluation questions to be addressed, methods used, and information obtained. Considerations pertinent to successful implementation of the approach in public schools also are enumerated.EVALUABILITY ASSESSMENT In order to develop an IEP that is focused on the needs of the handicapped child, and in order to evaluate program implementation and outcome, the IEP must be in an evaluable format. An evaluble IEP is one in which annual goals and interim (short-term) objectives: (a) reflect pupil needs (i.e., deficits in performance relative to a standard); (b) include criteria for assessing pupil progress; and (c) are linked to specific service programs or activities that constitute the IEP. Thus, an evaluable IEP allows a special service team to make determinations about: (a) the appropriateness of the IEP in addressing the psychoeducational needs of...

show abstract

IMPLEMENTATION OF IEPs: New Teacher Roles and Requisite Support Systems

Cited by 14 publications

References 2 publications

The Diagnostic/Instructional Link in Individualized Education Programs

The Diagnostic/Instructional Link in Individualized Education Programs

Integration ‐ A Lesson from America?

Evaluation of the individualized education program: A comprehensive approach for special service teams

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About