The individualized education program (IEP) is both an important process and a document in decision-making concerning students' participation and accommodation in assessment. In this intervention study, training was found to increase the quality and extent of participation and accommodation documentation on the IEP. Correlations between what was documented on the IEP and what happened on the day of testing were highly variable. Although students' IEPs appeared to reflect individualized decisions, political and logistical factors limited the utility of the IEP and interfered with its actual implementation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DeStefanoL.ShrinerJ.LloydC. (2001). Teacher decision making in participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessment. Exceptional Children, 68, 7–22.
2.
EpsteinM. H.PattonJ. R.PollowayE. A.FoleyR. (1992). Educational services for students with behavior disorders: A review of individualized education programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15, 41–48.
3.
EspinC. A.DenoS. L.Albaryak-KaymakD. (1998). Individualized education programs in resource and inclusive settings: How “individualized” are they?Journal of Special Education, 32, 164–174.
4.
GiangrecoM. F.DennisR. E.EdelmanS. W.CloningerC. J. (1994). Dressing your IEPs for the general education climate: Analysis of IEP goals and objectives for students with multiple disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 288–296.
5.
GrigalM.TestD.BeattieJ.WoodW. (1997). An evaluation of transition components of individualized education programs. Exceptional Children, 63, 357–372.
6.
HasaziS. B.FurneyK. S.DeStefanoL. (1999). Implementing the IDEA transition mandates. Exceptional Children, 65, 555–566.
7.
HuntP.Farron-DavisF. (1992). A preliminary investigation of IEP quality and content associated with placement in general education versus special education classes. Journal of the Association for People with Severe Handicaps, 17, 247–253.
8.
HuntP.Farron-DavisF.BecksteadS.CurtisD.GoetzL. (1994). Evaluating the effects of placement of students with severe disabilities in general education classes versus special classes. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 200–214.
9.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (1997).
10.
KromD. W.PraterM. A. (1993). IEP goals for intermediate-aged students with mild mental retardation. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 16, 87–95.
11.
McLaughlinM. (2001, April). Accessing the general curriculum: How students with disabilities fit into standards-driven reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Kansas City, MO.
12.
NicklesJ. L.CronisT. G.JustinJ. E.SmithG. J. (1992). Individualized education programs: A comparison of students with BD, LD and MMR. Intervention in School and Clinic, 28, 41–44.
13.
ReiherT. C. (1992). Identified deficits and their congruence to the IEP for behaviorally disordered students. Behavior Disorders, 17, 167–177.
14.
RouseM.ShrinerJ.DanielsonL. (2000). National assessment and special education in the United States and England and Wales. In McLaughlinM.RouseM. (Eds.), Special education and school reform in the United States & Britain (pp. 66–97). London: Routledge.
15.
ShearinA.RoesslerR.SchrinerK. (1999). Evaluating the transition component in IEPs of secondary students with disabilities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 18, 22–35.
16.
ShrinerJ.DeStefanoL. (2001). Participation in statewide assessment: Views of district-level personnel. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26 (2), 9–16.
17.
SmithS. W. (1990). Comparison of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) of students with behavioral disorders and learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 24, 85–100.
18.
ThurlowM.YsseldykeJ.BielinskiJ.HouseA. (2000). Instructional and assessment accommodations in Kentucky. (State Assessment Series Report 7). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
19.
YellM. L.ShrinerJ. G., (1997). The IDEA Amendments of 1997: Implications for special and general education teachers, administrators, and teacher trainers. Focus on Exceptional Children, 30 (1), 1–20.
20.
YsseldykeJ.ThurlowM.SeyfarthA.BielinskiJ. (1999). Instructional and assessment accommodations in Maryland. (State Assessment Series Report 6). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
