Individual Educational Plan
The purpose of this article was to explain the balancing act of producing IEPs (Individualized Education Program) that comply with the law, while reducing time and paperwork to meet the demands of this complex process. And since computer-assisted technology has come to the forefront as a sophisticated, useful tool for IEP teams, this article serves as an informative guide when making purchasing decisions.
They also share the many challenges of complying with FAPE (free, appropriate public education) regulations. The long list, which seems a bit intimidating to a novice includes: establishing an IEP team consisting of special and general educators, psychologists, service providers, consultants, administrators, and parents; conducting an assessment to identify the problems and needs of each student; formulating meaningful, reasonable, and measurable goals with specific objectives; tailoring a program to fit the educational needs and social service needs that result from the student’s disability; acquiring communication skills to collaborate intermediate IEP benchmarks; conducting annual meetings with each student’s family; and avoiding legal battles (Huefner, et al, 2000). In essence, using a manual process, the IEP requirements pose a huge burden of responsibility, time, and resources on school systems.
Starting with passage of the All Handicapped Children Act in 1975 and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990, which was amended in 2004, trying to manually achieve the “letter of the law” while implementing IEPs has been a labor-intensive, difficult process (Skrtic, 2003). It had numerous barriers such as the need for extensive knowledge in pedagogy, compliance with local and state standards as well as IDEA mandates. Therefore, when software applications were introduced to address form and function, and guide the IEP process, IEP teams saw this technology as an answer to their dilemma. However, strengths and weaknesses of using software programs were presented to help evaluate purchasing decisions. Since school districts must provide IEP solutions for each applicable special education student, using computer-aided technology – though not a panacea – seems like a reasonable alternate.
Earlier versions of this technology were generic and had large databases that contained abstract wording as well as immeasurable goals that could not be modified. These older versions did not comply with the rigid standards and requirements of IDEA. Not only were the goals and objectives unmanageable, but also meaningless and inappropriate for most students. When trying to use this particular software, school personnel was overwhelmed and parents were frustrated.
The newer, more sophisticated software programs presented a vast array of measurable conditions to select from or modify. It even allowed IEP teams to develop new conditions unique to the student’s needs when deemed necessary; and simultaneously, systematically guided teams through the IEP process as well as IEP mandates. Even short-term and long-term progress reports could be produced quarterly (EdNet Techonologies, 2002). Fortunately, this shift in the new technology went from a cumbersome meaningless tool to a progressive software system that helped IEP teams design appropriate and obtainable curriculum goals and objectives based on students’ needs. It also ensured compliance with local and state standards as well as federal mandates. Consequently, the new technology offered many features to coordinate support, services, aides, and devices for delivering an effective IEP program to students, while reducing time and resources required of school staff.
References
Drasgow, E., Yell, M. L., & Robinson, T. R. (2001). Developing legally correct and educationally appropriate IEPs. Remedial and Special Education, 22(6), 359-373.
NCLD Editorial Team. What is an IEP? Available from http://www.ncld.org/students-disabilities/iep-504-plan/what-is-iep.
Skrtic, T. M. (2003). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. In D. L. Gallagher, L. Heshusius, Iano, R. P. & Skrtic, T. M. (Eds.). Challenging orthodoxy in special education: Dissenting voices (91-166). Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.
U.S. Department of Education. A guide to the individualized education program. Available from http://ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/index.html.
EdNet Technologies. (2002). Individualized education program planner (Version 8.0 -Computer software). North Branch, NJ: EdNetTechnologies, LLC.
