This study examined the perceptions of 1,638 secondary individualized education program (IEP) meeting participants from 393 IEP meetings across 3 consecutive years. Results indicate significant differences between the survey answers and participant roles, when students did or did not attend their IEP meetings, and when different professional team members attended the meetings. Special education teachers talked more than all team members. Students reported the lowest scores for knowing the reasons for the meetings, knowing what to do at the meetings, and five other survey items. General educators rated themselves lowest on three of the survey questions. Student and general educator attendance at the IEP meetings produced value-added benefits for IEP team members, especially parents.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHC) of 1975, Pub. L. 94–142, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.
2.
FarberB.LewisM. (1975). The symbolic use of parents: A sociological critique of educational practice. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 8, 34–42.
3.
FieldS. S.MartinJ. E.MillerR. J.WardM.WehmeyerM. (1998a). Self-determination for persons with disabilities: A position statement of the Division on Career Development and Transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 21 (2), 113–128.
4.
FieldS.MartinJ.MillerR.WardM.WehmeyerM. (1998b). A practical guide for teaching self-determination. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
5.
FurneyK. S.SalembierG. (2000). Rhetoric and reality: A review of the literature on parent and student participation in the IEP and transition planning process. In JohnsonD. R.EmanuelE. J. (Eds.), Issues influencing the future of transition programs and services in the United States (pp. 111–126). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Transition Network.
6.
GillespieE. B. (1981). Student participation in the development of individualized education programs: Perspectives of parents and students. UMI ProQuest Digital Dissertations, DAI-A 42(07), p. 3104. (UMI No. AAT 8125580).
7.
GillespieE. B.TurnbullA. P. (1983). It's my IEP! Involving students in the planning process. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 16, 26–29.
8.
GoldsteinS.StricklandB.TurnbullA. P.CurryL. (1980). An observational analysis of the IEP conference. Exceptional Children, 46, 278–286.
9.
GoldsteinS.TurnbullA. P. (1982). Strategies to increase parent participation in IEP conferences. Exceptional Children, 48, 360–361.
10.
GrigalM.TestD. W.BeattieJ.WoodW. M. (1997). An evaluation of transition components of individualized education programs. Exceptional Children, 63, 357–372.
11.
HalpernA. S. (1994). The transition of youth with disabilities to adult life: A position statement of the Division on Career Development and Transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 17, 115–124.
12.
HasaziS. I.FurneyK. S.DeStefanoL. (1999). Implementing the IDEA transition mandates. Exceptional Children, 65, 555–566.
13.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997, Pub. L 105–17, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.
14.
JohnsonD. R.StoddenR. A.EmanuelE. A.LueckingR.MackM. (2002). Current challenges facing the future of secondary education and transition services. What the research tells us. Exceptional Children, 68, 519–531.
15.
LehmannJ. P.BassettD. S.SandsD. J. (1999). Students' participation in transition-related actions: A qualitative study. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 160–169.
16.
LovittT. C.CushingS. S.StumpC. S. (1994). High school students rate their IEPs: Low opinions and lack of ownership. Intervention in School and Clinic, 30, 34–37.
17.
MartinJ. E.MarshallL. HuberDePryR. L. (2001). Participatory decision-making: Innovative practices that increase student self-determination. In FlexerR. W.SimmonsT. J.LuftP.BaerR. M. (Eds.), Transition planning for secondary students with disabilities (pp. 304–332). Columbus, OH: Merrill, Prentice Hall.
MorningstarM. E.TurnbullA. P.TurnbullH. R.III. (1995). What do students with disabilities tell us about the importance of family involvement in the transition from school to adult life?Exceptional Children, 62, 249–260.
20.
National Council on Disability. (2000). Back to school on civil rights. Washington, DC: Author.
21.
PowersL. E.TurnerA.MatuszewskiJ.WilsonR.LoeschC. (1999). A qualitative analysis of student involvement in transition planning. The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 21, 18–26.
22.
SmithS. W. (1990). Individualized education programs (IEPs) in special education—from intent to acquiescence. Exceptional Children, 57, 6–14.
23.
StormsJ.O'LearyE.WilliamsJ. (2000). IDEA 1997 transition requirements: A guide for states, districts, schools, universities, and families. (Available from Publications Office, Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota, 109 Pattee Hall, 150 Pillsbury Drive, SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455).
24.
StricklandB. B.TurnbullA. P. (1990). Developing and implementing individualized education programs (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
25.
SweeneyM. (1996). Effectiveness of the self-directed IEP (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 03A.
26.
U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2001). Students with disabilities' secondary education, transition, and employment (Expert Strategy Panel Report). Retrieved from: http://www.ed.gov/offices/osers/osep.
27.
Van ReusenA. L.BosC. S.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (1994). The self-advocacy strategy for education & transition planning. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.
28.
WilliamsJ. M.O'LearyE. (2001). What we've learned and where we go from here. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 24 (1), 51–71.
29.
YoshidaR. K.FentonK.KaufmanM. J.MaxwellJ. P. (1978). Parental involvement in the special education pupil planning process: The school's perspective. Exceptional Children, 44, 531–533.
