Computer-assisted Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) offer the promise of enhancing special education practice. For instance, such technology could enhance the IEPs participatory process by empowering parents and students, ease the bureaucratic demands of timely standardized documents, improve upon the overall quality of the document, and facilitate more effective instruction. For all the promises, however, we must consider the possibility that this technology may reinforce existing flaws or, perhaps, create new ones. We see technology as reshaping the IEP process; a reshaping we hope is in the best interest of special education and the students we serve. Accordingly, we examine the IEPs evolution, the organizational influences on the adaptation of technology, and legal and programmatic issues. We also delineate questions and offer recommendations for the future use of technology to help develop IEPs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AaronS. V.Westford Public Schools, EHLR 509:122 (Mass. 1987).
2.
BanburyM. (1987). The IEP revisited. In RotatoriA.BanburyM.FoxR. A. (Eds.), Issues in special education (pp. 42–50). New York: Mayfield.
3.
Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 102 S. Ct. 3034, 73L. Ed., 2d 690 (1982).
4.
Comptroller General of the United States (1981). Unanswered questions on educating handicapped children in local public schools. Washington, DC: author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 209 794).
5.
CluneW. H.Van PeltM. H. (1985). A political method of evaluating the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and the several gaps of gap analysis. Law and Contemporary Problems, 48(1), 7–62.
6.
DavisB. (1985). IEP management programs. Reports to Decision Makers, 7. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 266 610).
7.
DodaroG. L.SalveminiA. N. (1985). Implementation of P. L. 94–142 as it relates to handicapped delinquents in the District of Columbia. Washington, DC: U. S. General Accounting Office.
8.
Dudley-MarlingC. (1985). Perceptions of the usefulness of the IEP by teachers of learning disabled and emotionally disturbed children. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 65–67.
9.
Education for the Handicapped Law Report 352: 466 (1988). Office of Civil Rights Letter of Finding, Rockford (IL) School District #205, Washington, DC: CRR Publishing.
10.
Education for the Handicapped Law Report 509: 127 (1987–88). State Education Agency Decision, Aaron S. v. Westford Public Schools, Washington, DC: CRR Publishing.
11.
EnellN. C. (1983). How to streamline your IEP: A special education handbook on computer-assisted individualized education programs. Carmichael, CA: San Juan Unified School District. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 236 859).
12.
EnellN. C. (1984, April). A cost comparison of preparing special education individualized education programs (IEPs) with and without computer assistance. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 248 667).
13.
FettermanL. P. (1985). Hand-written versus computer-generated individualized education programs. (Doctoral dissertation, Lehigh University, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 1593A.
14.
FiedlerJ. F.KnightR. R. (1986). Congruence between assessed needs and IEP goals of identified behaviorally disabled students. Behavioral Disorders, 12, 22–27.
15.
GerardiR. J.GroheB.BenedictG. C.CoolidgeP. G. (1984). I.E.P. More paperwork and wasted time. Contemporary Education, 56(1), 39–42.
16.
GoldsteinS.TurnbullA. P. (1982). Strategies to increase parent participation in IEP conferences. Exceptional Children, 48, 360–361.
17.
HelukH. (1983). An evaluation of the individualized education program. (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 1418–1419A. (University Microfilms No. 83–22208).
18.
HeshusiusL. (1982). At the heart of the advocacy dilemma: A mechanistic world view. Exceptional Children, 49, 6–13.
19.
JenkinsM. W. (1987). Effect of a computerized individual education program (IEP) writer on time savings and quality. Journal of Special Education Technology, 8(3), 55–66.
20.
JosephJ.LindgrenJ.CreamerS.LaneK. (1983). Evaluating special education: A study to pilot techniques using existing data in Skokie school district 68. Skokie: Skokie School District 68. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 227 176).
21.
KelloggR. (1983, March). Computer management: I.E.P. in the Stevens Point, Wisconsin public schools. Paper presented at the meeting of the Council of Administrators of Special Education, Computer Use Conference. Indianapolis, IN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 243 301).
22.
KelloggR. (1984, September). Computerized individualized educational plans: One way. Paper presented at the Computer Technology for the Handicapped Conference. Minneapolis, MN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 250 838).
23.
MajsterekD. J.WilsonR.MandlebaumL. (1990). Computerized IEPs: Guidelines for product evaluation. Journal of Special Education Technology, 10, 207–219.
24.
McAfeeJ. K.VergasonG. A. (1979). Parent involvement in the process of special education: Establishing new partnerships. Focus on Exceptional Children, 11(2), 1–15.
25.
McGarryJ.FinanP. L. (1982). Implementing MassachusettsO special education law: A statewide assessment. Final Report. Boston: Massachusetts State Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 226 542).
26.
MehanH.HertweckA.MeihlsJ. L. (1986). Handicapping the handicapped: Decision making in students' educational careers. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
27.
MeyenE. L. (1988). Current Instructional practices. In MeyenE. L.SkrticT. M. (Eds.), Exceptional children and youth: An introduction. (pp. 49–79). Denver: Love.
28.
MorganD. P.RhodeG. (1983). Teacher's attitudes toward IEPs: A two year follow-up. Exceptional Children, 50, 64–67.
29.
NadlerB.ShoreK. (1980). Individualized education programs: A look at realities. Education Unlimited, 2, 30–34.
30.
PyechaJ. N.CoxJ. L.DewittD.DrummondD.JaffeJ.KaltM.LaneC.PelosiJ. (1980). A national survey of individualized education programs (IEPs) for handicapped children (5 vols.). Durham, NC: Research Triangle Institute. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Nos. ED 199 970974).
31.
Rockford (IL) School District #205, EHLR352:465 (IL, 1987).
32.
RinaldiR. T. (1976). Urban schools and P.L. 94–142: One administrator's perspective on the law. In JohnsonR. A.KowalskiA. P. (Eds.), Perspectives on implementation of the “Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975” (pp. 135–152). Washington DC: Council of the Great City Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 145 599).
33.
RyanL. B. (1984). Computerized vs. noncomputerized individualized education programs. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 401A.
34.
RyanL. B.RuckerC. N. (1986). Computerized vs. noncomputerized individualized education programs: Teachers' attitudes, time, and cost. Journal of Special Education Technology, 8(1), 5–12.
35.
SchenckS. J. (1980). The diagnostic/instructional link in individualized education programs. Journal of Special Education, 14, 337–345.
36.
SchenckS. J. (1981). An analysis of IEP's for LD youngsters. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14, 221–223.
37.
SchenckS. J.LevyW. K. (1979, April). IEPs: The state of the art–1978. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 175 201).
38.
SchipperW.WilsonW. (1978). Implementation of individualized educational programming: A problem or an opportunity?Washington, DC: National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 155–881).
39.
SimpsonR. L. (1990). Conferencing with parents of exceptional children (2nd edition). Austin, TX: Pro-ED.
40.
SkrticT. M. (1988). The organizational context of special education. In MeyenE. L.SkrticT. M. (Eds.), Exceptional children and youth: An introduction, (pp. 479–517). Denver: Love.
41.
SkrticT. M. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard Educational Review, 61(2), 148–202.
42.
SmithS. W. (1990a). Comparison of individualized education programs (IEPs) for students with behavioral disorders and learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 24(1), 85–100.
43.
SmithS. W. (1990b). Individualized education programs (IEPs) in special education: From intent to acquiescence. Exceptional Children, 57, 6–14.
44.
SmithS. W.SimpsonR. L. (1989). An analysis of individualized education programs (IEPs) for students with behavior disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 14, 107–116.
45.
VaughnS.BosC. S.HarrellJ. E.LaskyB. A. (1988). Parent participation in the initial placement/IEP conference ten years after mandated involvement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(2), 82–89.
