This article discusses the use of IEP software applications from the perspectives of form (i.e., legally correct documents) and function (i.e., educationally appropriate individualized programs). The article provides an overview of the basic components of two fairly comprehensive IEP software programs and discusses the general strengths and weaknesses of IEP software. Suggestions and strategies are offered to help educators become involved in software evaluation and purchasing decisions. Lastly, we offer some optimistic yet cautionary notes about the form versus function aspects of using software to develop IEPs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bernardsville Board of Educationv. J.H., 817 F. Supp. 14, 82 Ed. Law Rep. 392 (D.N.J. 1993).
2.
BenzM.LindstromL.YovanoffP. (2000). Improving graduation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Children, 66, 509–529.
3.
Board of Education v. Rowley. (1982). Education for the Handicapped Law Report. Supreme Court of the United States.
4.
BrownF.MichaelsC. A. (2003). The shaping of inclusion. InFisherD.FreyN. (Eds.), Inclusive urban schools (pp. 231–244). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishers, Inc.
5.
Centris Group. (1999). IEP Direct [Computer software]. Rockville Centre, NY: Centris Group, LLC.
6.
Cut paperwork and save money with automated IEP. (2003, November/December). CEC Today.
7.
DrasgowE.YellM. L.RobinsonT. R. (2001). Developing legally correct and educationally appropriate IEPs, Remedial and Special Education, 22(6), 359–373.
8.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (EAHCA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
9.
EdNet Technologies. (2002). Individualized Education Program Planner (Version 8.0) [Computer software]. North Branch, NJ: EdNet Technologies, LLC.
10.
Florence County School District Four v. Carter, 114 S. Ct. 361 (1993).
11.
HuefnerD. S. (2000). The risks and opportunities of the IEP requirements under IDEA 1997. Exceptional Children, 33, 195–204.
12.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
13.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Regulations of 1999, 300.
14.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Regulations of 1999, Appendix A-Notice of Interpretation.
15.
Lascari v. Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional School District, 560 A. 2d 1180 (NJ Supreme Court, 1989).
16.
LovittT.CushingS. (1994). High school students rate their IEPs: Low opinions and lack of ownership. Intervention in School and Clinic, 30, 34–37.
17.
MargolisH.FreeJ. (2001). Computerized IEP programs: A guide for educational consultants. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12(2), 171–178.
18.
MargolisH.TruesdellL. A. (1987). Do special education teachers use IEPs to guide Instruction?Urban Review, 19(3), 151–159.
19.
MasonC. Y.McGahee-KovacM.JohnsonL.StillermanS. (2002). Implementing student-led IEPs: Student participation and student and teacher reaction. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25, 171–192.
20.
McCormickS. (2003). Instructing students who have literacy problems (4 ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Merrill.
OrmrodJ. E. (2000). Educational psychology: Developing learners (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
23.
SkrticT. M. (2003). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. InGallagherD. L.HeshusiusL.IanoR. P.SkrticT. M. (Eds.), Challenging orthodoxy in special education: Dissenting voices (pp. 91–166). Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.
24.
SmithS. W. (1990). Individual education programs (IEPs) in special education—From intent to acquiescence. Exceptional Children, 57, 6–14.
25.
Technology—the great equalizer. (2003, November-December). CEC Today.
26.
TurnbullH. R.TurnbullA. P. (2000). Free appropriate public education: The law & children with disabilities, (6th ed.). Denver: Love Publishing Company.
27.
TurnbullA. P.TurnbullH. R. (2001). Families, professionals, and exceptionality: A special partnership (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
28.
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civ. No. 92-cv-03694).
29.
WehmeyerM. L.PalmerS. B. (2003). Adult outcomes for students with cognitive disabilities three-years after high school: The impact of self-determination. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 131–144.
30.
WehmeyerM. L.SchwartzM. (1997). Self-determination and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation or learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 245–255.
31.
WittJ. C.ElliottS. N.DalyE. D.IIIGreshamF. M.KramerJ. J. (1997). Assessment of at risk and special needs children (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
