The Quality of IEP Objectives Associated with Placement on Integrated versus Segregated School Sites

Abstract

Individualizededucation programs (IEPs) written for students with severe disabilities who attended either integrated or segregated educational sites were evalu ated on the basis of the degree to which they included seven components identified as indicators of best prac tices. These seven indicators fall into three categories: age-appropriateness, functionality, and potential for generalization to a variety of environments. Teacher training and expertise were held constant. A difference was found between the groups on the overall quality of IEP objectives, with higher scores on those IEPs written for students who were integrated into regular school campuses. Opportunities available in integrated pro grams that may enhance IEP quality are discussed.

Analysis of IEP goals and classroom activities for children with multiple disabilities

“…the case (see Billingsley, 1984;Downing, 1988;Hunt, Goetz and Anderson, 1986). However, in terms of some of their more technical aspects (that is, criterion, data), many of the goals examined in the present study were less than adequate.…”

The Quality of IEP Objectives and Their Relevance to Instruction for Students with Mental Retardation and Behavioral Disorders

“…The form utilized was a slight modification of a form designed by Hunt et al (1986) to measure the quality of individual IEPs. The rating procedures for IEP objectives were unchanged; two items, however, were deleted from the original instrument to reflect indicators more appropriate to a sample consisting entirely of students with mild handicaps.…”

“…Although IEPs may be an imperfect indicator of daily instruction, the annual goals and teaching objectives reveal the directions and emphases of instruction for each student with handicaps. IEPs should reflect what is or should be happening with the students (Hunt, Goetz, & Anderson, 1986;Odel & Galtelli, 1980). Despite the significance of the IEP, there is uncertainty regarding the processes by which these plans are developed (Gerber, 1981;Gilliam & Coleman, 1981).…”

Integration and Mainstreaming: a review of the efficacy of mainstreaming and integration for mentally handicapped pupils

“…But the very fact that I.E.P.s are individually designed means that some are more carefully written with more accessible goals than others. For example, Hunt et al (1986) found that the quality of I.E.P.s written for students on regular school campuses was superior to those written in segregated settings. The problems with relating the I.E.P.…”