It is argued in this article that although the original purpose of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) was for it to serve as an accountability device, it has become an instructional as well as evaluative mechanism. A review of the forces that led to the inclusion of the IEP in P.L. 94-142—prior legislation, professional articles, testimony at hearings—indicates that proponents hoped that individualized programming would diminish categorical placements in favor of least restrictive environments, encourage parental participation in establishing and overseeing educational goals, and provide a method to evaluate children's progress on mutually agreed-upon objectives. The IEP was never intended to specify what or how teachers should teach. Given the luxury of hindsight, however, our analysis suggests that the provisions for establishing “short-term objectives” to be evaluated through “objective criteria” made it more likely than not that programs would choose specific skills and attainments as objectives, and rely on teacher directed instructional methods. The IEP regulations make it difficult to pursue a child-directed, highly interactive teaching approach with ends left fluid. Suggestions are made for enlarging the construction of the curriculum and evaluation procedures by establishing multiple alternative objectives, using portfolios or videotapes for assessment, including narrative reviews for evaluation, and substituting as objectives, in some instances, methods rather than outcomes. More important, debate on the IEP is encouraged.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abeson, A., Burgdorf, R.L., Jr., Casey, P.J., Kunz, J.W., & McNeil, W. (1975). Access to opportunity. In N. Hobbs (Ed.), Issues in the classification of children (Vol. 2, pp. 270–292). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2.
Accreditation Council for Facilities for the Mentally Retarded. (1971). Standards for residential facilities for the mentally retarded. Chicago: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals.
3.
Bailey, D.B., Jr., & Wolery, M. (1984). Teaching infants and preschoolers with handicaps. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
4.
Ballard, R.D. (1987). The limitations of behavioral approaches to teaching: Some implications for special education. Exceptional Child, 34, 197–212.
5.
Beyer, H.A. (1983). Litigation with the mentally retarded. In J.L. Matson & J.A. Mulick (Eds.), Handbook of mental retardation (pp. 79–93). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
6.
Brigance, N.H. (1978). Brigance diagnostic inventory of early development. North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates.
7.
Carlberg, C., & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 14, 295–309.
8.
Christopolos, F., & Renz, P. (1969). A critical evaluation of special education programs. The Journal of Special Education, 3, 371–379.
9.
Code of Federal Regulations. (1986). Title 34, Chapter III, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (Parts 300--399).
10.
Corman, L., & Gottlieb, J. (1978). Main-streaming mentally retarded children: A review of research. In N. Ellis (Ed.), International review of research in mental retardation (Vol. 9, pp. 251–275). New York: Academic Press.
11.
Dudley-Marling, C. (1985). Perceptions of the usefulness of the IEP by teachers of learning disabled and emotionally disturbed children. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 65–67.
12.
Dunn, L.M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it justifiable?Exceptional Children, 35, 5–22.
Furuno, S., Inatsuka, T., O'Reilly, K., Hosaka, C., Zeisloft, B., & Allman, T. (1984). Hawaii early learning profile. Palo Alto, CA: Vort.
15.
Gallagher, J. (1972). The special education contract for mildly handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 38, 527–535.
16.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.
17.
Garwood, S.G. (1982). (Mis)use of developmental scales in program evaluation. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 1(4), 61–69.
18.
Gerber, P.J., Banbury, M.M., Miller, J.H., & Griffin, H.C. (1986). Special educators' perceptions of parental participation in the individual education plan process. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 158–163.
19.
Goldstein, S., Strickland, B., Turnbull, A.P., & Curry, L. (1980). An observational analysis of the IEP conference. Exceptional Children, 46, 278–285.
20.
Goodman, J.F. (1990). Infant intelligence: Do we, can we, should we assess it? In R. Kamphaus & C. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of childhood assessment (pp. 183–298). New York: Guilford.
21.
Goodman, J.F. (1992). When slow is fast enough: Early education for the delayed child. New York: Guilford.
22.
Goodman, J.F., & Lloyds, W. (1992). Repetition in early intervention programs. Manuscript submitted for publication.
23.
Goodman, J.F., & Pollak, E. (1992). An analysis of the core cognitive curriculum in early intervention programs. Manuscript submitted for publication.
24.
Hanson, M.J., & Lynch, E.W. (1989). Early intervention: Implementing child and family services for infants and toddlers who are at-risk or disabled. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
25.
Hayes, J., & Higgins, S.T. (1978). Issues regarding the IEP: Teachers on the front line. Exceptional Children, 44, 267–273.
26.
Hearings on Extension of the Education of the Handicapped Act before the Subcommittee on Select Education of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975).
27.
Hearings on H. 341--29 before the Select Subcommittee on Education of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973).
28.
Hearings on S. 541--43, S. 541--42, S. 541--51 before the Subcommittee on the Handicapped of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973--74).
29.
Hearings on S. 6 before the Subcommittee on the Handicapped of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975).
30.
Heller, K.A. (1982). Effects of special education placement on educable mentally retarded children. In K.A. Heller, W.H. Holtzman, & S. Messick (Eds.), Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity (pp. 262–299). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
31.
Heshusius, L. (1986). Pedagogy, special education, and the lives of young children: A critical and futuristic perspective. Journal of Education, 168, 25–38.
32.
House Report No. 332, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975).
33.
Lusthaus, C.S., Lusthaus, E.W., & Gibbs, H. (1981). Parents' role in the decision process. Exceptional Children, 48, 256–257.
34.
Margolis, H., & Truesdell, L.A. (1987). Do special education teachers use IEPs to guide instruction?The Urban Review, 19, 151–158.
35.
Martin, E.W. (1972). Individualism and behaviorism as future trends in educating handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 38, 517–525.
36.
Meyers, C.E., MacMillan, D.L., & Yoshida, R.K. (1980). Regular class education of EMR students, from efficacy to mainstreaming. In J. Gottlieb (Ed.), Educating mentally retarded persons in the mainstream (pp. 176–206). Baltimore: University Park Press.
37.
Mills v. Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C., 1972).
38.
Morgan, D.P., & Rhode, G. (1983). Teacher's attitudes toward IEPs: A two-year follow-up. Expectional Children, 50, 64–67.
39.
Report to the Congress. Federal Programs for Education of the Handicapped: Issues and Problems (Dec. 5, 1974). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Sarason, S.B., & Doris, J. (1979). Educational handicap, public policy, and social history: A broadened perspective on mental retardation. New York: Free Press.
49.
Schafer, S., & Moersch, M.S. (1981). Developmental programming for infants and young children. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
