Every student is “special.” Every person is a unique individual. Why then do some students have Individual Education Plans (IEP)? Some authorities will say that the basic difference between “special education" and “regular education" is the focus on the individual. As we point out throughout this course, the distinction between special education and regular education is artificial. There is one education system for all students. Special education is about additional resources needed for some students to be successful in obtaining their education. Nevertheless, there is some truth to saying that the focus on the individual is centerpiece to special education. Most students can be successful with the resources that are available in the regular classroom; some cannot. Some students need a greater than typical degree of individualization in order to be successful. The Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) says that special education... …means specially
designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique
needs of a child with a disability… Actually, the language of the law is very general; it sets up some broad guidelines, then leaves it to the state and the local school to figure out how to meet the needs of each child. A state defines its curriculum by outlining the expectations for all students within its boundaries (we discuss this under the heading “Curricular Connection” in the unit on Inclusion). The law then leaves it to the people who know each student best: parents, teachers, and administrators at the local school to figure out what is needed for the student to be successful in meeting this challenge. The document that is prepared at the school and outlines this plan is call the Individual Education Plan (IEP). This document is the heart of the special education process. It literally defines what special education means for each individual student. Remember from the discussion on the types of disabilities that two things must be present for a student to be eligible for special education supports. First, the student must have a disability. Second, the disability must adversely effect their educational progress: they must be failing because their disability hampers the learning process. The answer to this problem before there was a law guaranteeing an appropriate education was often to a.) do nothing, sometimes even telling the parents to take the student home, because the school had nothing for them, or b.) continue to do more of the same (i.e. drill and practice). Obviously for the majority of students with disabilities who were already being unsuccessful, this approach was not going to work. An alternative to this largely useless approach was to try to mirror the approach used by doctors in treating illness. This begins with a systematic evaluation of the areas of difficulty (diagnosis). This is followed by the design of a plan that identifies specific treatments for each area of difficulty. Finally, this plan outlines the changes that will be seen if the treatment is effective. This approach was written into law and describes as the IEP. Translated into
school language, this means that first there needs to be clear identification
of the areas of the curriculum where the student is having difficulty
due to his or her disability. Then the changes to regular classroom
procedure (special designed instruction) or extraordinary services
(related services) needed to address these areas of weakness are outlined.
Finally, the anticipated improvements in each area of the curriculum
are laid out in a step-by-step fashion. In other words, the student,
parents, teachers, and school officials agree upon the following:
This framework of a treatment plan as a way of addressing the educational needs of students with disabilities was a step in the right direction. However, care needs to be taken in applying this “diagnostic-prescriptive model” to education. First, it is important that this model not lead people to view people with disability solely from a medical perspective. As we discuss in other units of this course, people with disabilities are people first and foremost; they are usually not sick and should not be viewed as patients. Therefore, it is critical that our educational approach not reinforce the misconception that people with disabilities are ill and need to be “taken care of.” A second limitation in this approach was and is the tendency to limit the description of areas of need to a catalogue of deficiencies. While it is important to clearly identify where the student is having a difficulty, the discussion needs to also highlight areas of strength, so the planning team can identify the abilities that they can use as a foundation on which to build. For this reason, the IEP speaks not about “areas of need” but about “present level of performance.” This way, the planning team is led to highlight strengths and needs. While this is the basic approach underlying the IEP, the document itself is much more complicated because of its central role in defining what special education means for an individual student. The law requires that numerous other questions be answered in completing the plan. The law is also very specific in outlining who needs to participate in the development of the IEP. Essentially, it says anyone who knows this student, or will be involved in the delivery of his or her education, is involved in the IEP process. It is an attempt to assure that everyone’s voice will be heard, and that there will be a common team approach to meeting the student’s needs. To get a better understanding of the IEP and the process used to develop one, please carefully read A Student's Guide to the IEP developed by NICHCY. It can also be down loaded in pdf (adobe reader format). Now that you have better sense of what an IEP is intended to do and know something about the process, it might be useful to look at a couple of examples of an IEP. In an effort to help its teachers write better IEPs, a school district in Minnesota has posted an example of a complete IEP for a young man with a learning disability named Theodore Cleaver (nick name “the Beaver”). Take a look at this IEP to gain a better understanding of the material you have just studied. The Minnesota
IEP is for an elementary age student, so let us also review one written
for a high school student. Jason Colby, the fictitious young man in
the IEP below, also has learning disabilities. This example was developed
by the Transition Coalition at the University of Kansas to help teachers
better understand how the IEP for a high school student needs to focus
on developing the skills needed for what the student wants to do after
graduation. Please review this IEP, and remember to follow the link
at the bottom of the first page to look at the goal and objectives
developed for Jason.
Please note that this is not a complete IEP, some of the material
on the Cleaver IEP was not included in this example. You should also
be aware that while the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) specifies what must be included in an IEP, every state has
a slightly different format.
|