The Individualized Education Program

Abstract

It is argued in this article that although the original purpose of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) was for it to serve as an accountability device, it has become an instructional as well as evaluative mechanism. A review of the forces that led to the inclusion of the IEP in P.L. 94-142—prior legislation, professional articles, testimony at hearings—indicates that proponents hoped that individualized programming would diminish categorical placements in favor of least restrictive environments, encourage parental participation in establishing and overseeing educational goals, and provide a method to evaluate children's progress on mutually agreed-upon objectives. The IEP was never intended to specify what or how teachers should teach. Given the luxury of hindsight, however, our analysis suggests that the provisions for establishing “short-term objectives” to be evaluated through “objective criteria” made it more likely than not that programs would choose specific skills and attainments as objectives, and rely on teacher directed instructional methods. The IEP regulations make it difficult to pursue a child-directed, highly interactive teaching approach with ends left fluid. Suggestions are made for enlarging the construction of the curriculum and evaluation procedures by establishing multiple alternative objectives, using portfolios or videotapes for assessment, including narrative reviews for evaluation, and substituting as objectives, in some instances, methods rather than outcomes. More important, debate on the IEP is encouraged.

Quality of Individualized Education Program Goals of Preschoolers With Disabilities

“…Low functionality and measurability as well as insufficient focus on natural routines and environments are consistent with previous investigations of IEP goals (Goodman & Bond, 1993;Grisham-Brown & Hemmeter, 1998;Pretti-Frontczak & Bricker, 2000;Yell & Stecker, 2003), although results reported here indicate greater cause for concern. Findings also suggest that the measurability of goals is positively associated with the child's severity of disability.…”

“…Quality goals and objectives are important for (a) professionals and natural caregivers to know what, how, when, and where to teach; (b) monitoring children's progress; and (c) evaluating and reporting the effects of the intervention. The IEP goals and objectives often diverge, however, from recommended practices, because they are poorly written and are not functional or contextualized (Grisham-Brown & Hemmeter, 1998;Pretti-Frontczak & Bricker, 2000;Yell & Stecker, 2003), potentially resulting in ineffective interventions for children (Goodman & Bond, 1993).…”

The importance of setting goals: the effect of instruction and training on the technical and intrinsic quality of goals

“…Generally speaking, an IEP contains a profile or personal description, a perspective or a long-term goal, one or more short-term goals and a set date for evaluation of both short-term and long-term goals. Activities that have to be carried out in order to attain short-term goals are also part of an IEP (Goodman and Bond, 1993;Schippers et al, 1998). Goals are considered the IEP's most essential component.…”

Effects of an In-Service Training Program Using the Routines-Based Interview

“…Low quality is most noticeable in levels of specificity, functionality, and a focus on natural routines and environments (Bailey, Winton, Rouse, & Turnbull, 1990;Boavida, Aguiar, McWilliam, & Pimentel, 2010;Campelo & Nunes, 2008;Goodman & Bond, 1993;Grisham-Brown & Hemmeter, 1998;Jung & Baird, 2003;McWilliam et al, 1998;Pretti-Frontczak & Bricker, 2000; Sanches-Ferreira, Lopesdos-Santos, Alves, Santos, & Silveira-Maia, 2013;Yell & Stecker, 2003). The following examples illustrate goals and objectives of very low quality found in IEPs and IFSPs (Boavida, Aguiar, McWilliam, & Pimentel, 2010): (1) "enhance communication" , "fine motor development", "direct attention" or "follows a simple command" (vague and general);…”