Individualized Education Plan Meetings Research Articles

Interpreter-mediated Interactions: Parent Participation in Individualized Education Plan Meetings for Deaf Students from Multilingual Homes

ABSTRACT This paper examines the ways in which parents of multilingual deaf children (are able to) participate in annual individualized education plan (IEP) meetings mediated by both signed and spoken language interpreters. Data are drawn from an ethnographic, discourse-analytic study conducted in a U.S. school district and informed by the ethnography of language policy and nexus analysis. The importance of parent participation in IEP meetings and the role of interpreters as mediators of parent-educator interactions are discussed. Next, three key incidents from one video-recorded IEP meeting are analyzed to see how parent-educator interactions are mediated by the interpreters. Particular attention is paid to the language modalities of the speakers and the use of gaze and body positioning in regulating the rhythm of the interaction. To conclude, the conditions and consequences of parent participation in interpreter-mediated IEP meetings are presented and discussed.

An Examination of Group Facilitator Challenges and Problem-Solving Techniques During IEP Team Meetings

Special education professionals serve as facilitators of Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team meetings. As special educators serve on many IEP teams during the course of an academic year, and as the member composition for each team varies, facilitators are confronted with a unique set of challenges to managing successful meetings. In this study, the authors investigate the specific types of problems and facilitator techniques occurring in IEP meetings. Findings suggest that facilitation issues and techniques are varied across special education professionals. In addition, facilitator training is needed to review and introduce facilitation techniques that may improve meeting member contributions.

Supporting Preservice Teachers’ Collaboration With School Leaders

To meet state and national standards, preservice special education training programs include content on communicating and collaborating effectively with school administrators. To incorporate modeling in teacher training, preservice special education programs must structure collaboration throughout the content of the program and provide field experiences that meet the challenges of establishing appropriate types of communication for collaborative endeavors. This study found that the clinical practice experiences of 29 preservice special educators were linked to the course content of their collaboration classes. Special education teacher candidates collaborated and communicated with school administrators mostly about student assessments, placements, and progress. Participants also stated that their conversations with administrators focused on teacher observations and evaluations. These communicative and collaborative activities with administrators occurred primarily during faculty meetings, special education department meetings, and individualized education plan meetings. Although the topics, as well as the strategies, that participants used in their communication met the standards, it did not always translate into collaboration. Results suggest that the connection between fieldwork experiences and course content is essential in creating links between theory and practice.

The Difference a Year Makes: An Exploratory Self-Directed IEP Case Study

The Self-Directed IEP has been found effective in increasing student participation in the first Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meeting following Self-Directed IEP instruction. To date, no published reports have examined the extent students are involved during their second IEP meeting following Self-Directed IEP instruction. This study presents an exploratory mixed method case study analysis of a student with a learning disability in sophomore and junior year IEP meetings to illustrate the difference a year can make in IEP meeting participation, the development of postschool goals, confidence, maturity, and self-advocacy. Results indicate a marked increase from year one to year two in the student's word count and speaking rate, a more focused postschool employment vision, and an increase in meeting leadership. Discussion of these results and suggestions for additional research are offered.

Student Engagement and Leadership of the Transition Planning Process

The Council for Exceptional Children’s Division on Career Development and Transition (DCDT) has been a longstanding leader and advocate in the field of secondary education for students with disabilities. This paper traces the history of student engagement in transition planning primarily through the lens of DCDT’s journal Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, now known as Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. Student engagement in the transition planning process implies meaningful student participation in Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meetings, including both student leadership of IEP meetings and presenting IEP results during meetings, student engagement in the transition planning process, participation in and understanding of transition assessment results, and the attainment of annual IEP transition goals. The idea of student engagement in the transition planning process was initially delivered in a larger context, and then across the years, the topic became the primary focus of specific articles. We trace this development and conclude by speculating where student engagement in transition planning will go in the future. Suggestions are offered for both research and practice.

Parents’ Perspectives of Collaboration with School Professionals: Barriers and Facilitators to Successful Partnerships in Planning for Students with ASD

Both parents and school professionals (e.g. teachers, administrators, related service providers) are stakeholders in the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) process. Despite the fact that the inclusion of parents as full members in the process has been mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act since it was originally passed in as PL 94-142 in 1975, parents continue to report encountering barriers to equitable participation. To probe the barriers and facilitators to full team membership, we administered a mixed-methods survey study to parents of students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (n = 135) exploring the nature of their perceptions of collaboration. Common barriers to collaboration included opportunities to provide input, communication difficulties with school teams, and negative perceptions of school professionals. School administrator actions identified as facilitators of collaboration included attendance at IEP meetings, quick response to phone calls, and assistance with acquiring resources. Parents reported low levels of perceived disability-specific staff knowledge regarding ASD. Quantitative findings from this survey sample indicate that a large number of parents of children with ASD reported experiencing difficulty and/or were not included in the special education collaborative process. Implications and recommendations for school administrators and teams are discussed.

Gary Mayerson: How to Compromise with Your School District Without Compromising Your Child: A Field Guide for Getting Effective Services for Children with Special Needs

Mayerson’s book provides a solid foundation for parents and providers who are working with school systems to develop effective intervention programs for children with special needs. Written by a lawyer with a practice dedicated to representing children with autism and developmental disabilities, the primary objective of the text is to prepare parents for the potentially adversarial process of developing an appropriate individualized education plan (IEP) for a child with special educational needs. Introducing the topic, the author begins by helping the reader understand the perspective and pressures of school systems in trying to manage an ever growing population of children with special education needs in the midst of limited staff and constant budget pressures. It provides perspective from parents, educational specialists, and individuals within various school district special education departments to provide insight into why developing an IEP is often so challenging. Through case examples, the text also helps parents understand their legal role in the IEP process and the value of their input in ensuring the IEP is appropriately tailored to their child. Mayerson helps parents prepare for potential pitfalls at IEP meetings by helping them prepare themselves to best advocate for their child and to anticipate how the school district may respond to their questions. The text touches on a wide variety of relevant topics, such as the importance of thorough documentation of your child’s progress, the legal distinction of ‘‘maximizing’’ a child’s potential and an ‘‘appropriate public education,’’ and communication with the school district. It provides insight into how partial or inaccurate documentation may impact the services a child receives and, therefore, the importance of inspecting and maintaining an accurate educational record. It also explains little discussed concepts, such as parents engaging in ‘‘inequitable’’ conduct, through which an IEP hearing officer could remove previously approved services. A substantial chapter is dedicated to the IEP meeting itself. This chapter discusses what may seem to be mundane, but in fact are quite important topics, including dressing appropriately, managing the IEP meeting agenda, determining whether key players will be in attendance, and getting essential questions answered. A discussion of various strategies to challenging the school district’s IEP recommendations is also offered. Mayerson presents general strategies for IEP meetings, such as whether to bring your lawyer to the meeting and when to request an outside evaluation. Other chapters are dedicated to enlightening the reader about educational concepts such as the Least Restrictive Environment, extended school day/ school year, and mediation. While this guide provides a good introduction to the IEP process, along with some perspective on the tenor and potential acrimony that is present in some IEP meetings, it focuses less on what makes a good IEP. There is also very little discussion of how to develop appropriate and welldefined educational goals, how to best monitor a child’s academic progress, or prioritization of educational goals when confronted with a child who has complex educational needs. Most of Mayerson’s legal work involves advocating for children with autism spectrum disorders, and the illustrations given in the text nicely reflect this experience. I would recommend this book to anyone preparing for their first IEP meeting, particularly if they have any reason to expect the process to be contentious. D. O. Black (&) National Institute of Mental Health, Pediatrics and Developmental Neuroscience Branch, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Drive MSC 1255, Building 10, Room 4N208, Bethesda, MD 20892-1255, USA e-mail: blackdavid@mail.nih.gov