Traditional teacher-led Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) typically provide limited opportunities for students receiving special education services to meaningfully participate in the process. Even with a significant body of literature supporting the benefits of student-led IEPs, many school-based personnel maintain the traditional teacher-led model. As such, this study explored barriers to student-led IEPs, including an analysis of the differences in perceptions between school personnel who currently report facilitating student-led IEPs and those who report not facilitating student-led IEPs. In total, 275 participants completed quantitative survey items, with 155 of these same participants providing responses to a qualitative open-ended question. Results suggest common barriers to student-led IEPs include factors related to (a) students, (b) systemic issues, and (c) other IEP team members. In addition, those who do not have students who lead IEPs were more likely to identify the following specific factors as barriers: student ability, teacher self-efficacy, personal interest, and the age of the student. Discussions about implications for practice and future research are included.
Barnard-BrakL.LechtenbergerD. (2010). Student IEP participation and academic achievement across time. Remedial and Special Education, 31(5), 343–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932509338382
3.
BarrieW.McDonaldJ. (2002). Administrative support for student-led individualized education programs. Remedial and Special Education, 23(2), 116–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250202300208
4.
BiebelK.GoldenL.HuckabeeS.EllisonM. L. (2020). Supporting student-led transition planning for students with emotional disturbance. Psychiatry Information in Brief, 17(23), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.7191/pib.1163
5.
BiegunD.PetersonY.McNaughtJ.SutterfieldC. (2020). Including student voice in IEP meetings through use of assistive technology. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52(5), 348–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920920148
6.
BlackwellW. H.RossettiZ. S. (2014). The development of individualized education programs: Where have we been and where should we go now?Sage Open, 4(2).
7.
BrantlingerE.JimenezR.KlingnerJ.PugachM.RichardsonV. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205
CavendishW.ConnorD. (2018). Toward authentic IEPs and transition plans: Student, parent, and teacher perspectives. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948716684680
10.
ChandrooR.StrnadovaI.CummingT. M. (2018). A systematic review of the involvement of students with autism spectrum disorder in the transition planning process: Need for voice and empowerment. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 83, 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.07.011
11.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.
12.
DannekerJ. E.BottgeB. A. (2009). Benefits of and barriers to elementary student-led individualized education programs. Remedial and Special Education, 30(4), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508315650
13.
DavisM. T.CummingI. K. (2019). Planning and implementing student-led IEPs for students with EBD. Beyond Behavior, 28(2), 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074295619850569
14.
DillmanD. A.SmythJ. D.ChristianL. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Wiley.
15.
DoronkinJ. L.MartinJ. E.GreeneB. A.Choiseul-PraslinB.Autry-SchrefflerF. (2020). Opening Oz's curtain: Who’s really running the annual IEP meeting to discuss secondary transition issues?Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 20(3), 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12473
16.
EisenmanL.ChamberlinM.McGahee-KovacM. (2005). A teacher inquiry group on student-led IEPs: Starting small to make a difference. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28(3–4), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640502800406
17.
EtikanI.AlkassimR.AbubakarS. (2016). Comparison of snowball sampling and sequential sampling technique. Biometrics and Biostatistics International Journal, 3(1), 6–7. https://doi.org/10.15406/bbij.2016.03.00055
18.
FieldS.MartinJ.MillerR.WardM.WehmeyerM. (1998). A practical guide to teaching self-determination. Council for Exceptional Children. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED442207
19.
HagnerD.MayJ.KurtzA.CloutierH. (2014). Person-centered planning for transition-aged youth with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Rehabilitation, 80(1), 4–10.
20.
HarryB.SturgesK. M.KlingnerJ. K. (2005). Mapping the process: An exemplar of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Educational Researcher, 34(2), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034002003
21.
HawbakerB. W. (2007). Student-led IEP meetings: Planning and implementation strategies. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 3(5), Article 4. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ967458
22.
HowardM.ReedA. S.FrancisG. L. (2021). “It’s my meeting!”: Involving high school students with significant disabilities in the Individualized Education Program process. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 53(4), 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920958739
LandmarkL.ZhangD. (2019). Self-determination at a career and technical school: Observations of IEP meetings. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 3, 152–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-019-0096-6
27.
MartinJ. E.Van DyckeJ. L.ChristensenW. R.GreeneB. A.GardnerJ. E.LovettD. L. (2006). Increasing student participation in IEP meetings: Establishing the self-directed IEP as an evidenced-based practice. Exceptional Children, 72(3), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290607200303
28.
MartinJ. E.Van DyckeJ. L.GreeneB. A.GardnerJ. E.ChristensenW. R.WoodsL. L.LovettD. L. (2006). Direct observation of teacher-directed IEP meetings: Establishing the need for student IEP meeting instruction. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290607200204
29.
MasonC. Y.FieldS.SawilowskyS. (2004). Implementation of self-determination activities and student participation in IEPs. Exceptional Children, 70(4), 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407000404
30.
MasonC. Y.McGahee-KovacM.JohnsonL.StillermanS. (2002). Implementing student-led IEPs: Student participation and student and teacher reactions. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25(2), 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/088572880202500206
31.
MazzottiV. L.RoweD. A.KwiatekS.VoggtA.ChangW.-H.FowlerC. H.PoppenM.SinclairJ.TestD. W. (2021). Secondary transition predictors of postschool success: An update to the research base. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 44(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420959793
32.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A method sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
33.
MorningstarM. E.FreyB. B.NoonanP.NgJ.Clavenna-DeaneB.GravesP.KellemsR.McCallZ.PearsonM.Bjorkman WadeD.Williams-DiehmW. (2010). A preliminary investigation of the relationship of transition preparation and self-determination for students with disabilities in postsecondary educational settings. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33(2), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728809356568.
34.
MunsellE. G. S.SchwartzA. E. (2022). Youth experiences of the IDEA-mandated transition planning process: A metasynthesis of youth voices. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 9, 438–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-021-00268-5
35.
PapayC.UngerD. D.Williams-DiehmK.MitchellV. (2015). Begin with the end in mind: Infusing transition planning and instruction into elementary classrooms. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 476(6), 310–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059915587901
36.
PrinceA. M.PlotnerA. J.YellM. L. (2014). Postsecondary transition and the courts: An update. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25(1), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207314530469
37.
RoweD. A.AlversonC. Y.UnruhD. K.FowlerC. H.KellemsR.TestD. W. (2015). A Delphi study to operationalize evidence-based predictors in secondary transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 38(2), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143414526429
38.
RoweD. A.MazzottiV. L.FowlerC. H.TestD. W.MitchellV. J.ClarkK. A.. . .DeanC. (2021). Updating the secondary transition research base: Evidence-and research-based practices in functional skills. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 44(1), 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420958674
RubinM. (2021). When to adjust alpha during multiple testing: A consideration of disjunction, conjunction, and individual testing. Synthese, 199(3), 10969–11000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03276-4
41.
SandersonK. A.GoldmanS. E. (2020). A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions used to increase adolescent IEP meeting participation. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 43(3), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420922552
42.
SandersonK. A.GoldmanS. E. (2022). Understanding the characteristics and predictors of student involvement in IEP meetings. The Journal of Special Education, 56(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669211008259
43.
ScheefA.MahfouzJ.HagiwaraM. (2022). They decide: Empowering transition-age youth with disabilities by promoting self-determination. In DanzigA.BlackW.O’BrienC. (Eds.), Who decides? Power, disability, and educational administration (pp. 569–592). Information Age.
44.
ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L.PalmerS. B.RifenbarkG. G.LittleT. D. (2015). Relationships between self-determination and postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 48(4), 256–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466913489733
45.
TrainorA. A.GraueE. (2014). Evaluating rigor in qualitative methodology and research dissemination. Remedial and Special Education, 35(5), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514528100
46.
Van DyckeJ. L.MartinJ. E.LovettD. L. (2006). Why is this cake on fire? Inviting students into the IEP process. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 38(3), 42–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990603800306
47.
Van Laarhoven-MyersT. E.Van LaarhovenT. R.SmithT. J.JohnsonH.OlsonJ. (2016). Promoting self-determination and transition planning using technology: Student and parent perspectives. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 39(2), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143414552518
48.
WagnerM.NewmanL.CametoR.JavitzH.ValdesK. (2012). A national picture of parent and youth participation in IEP and transition planning meetings. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23(3), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207311425384
49.
WeiX.WagnerM.HudsonL.YuJ. W.JavitzH. (2016). The effect of transition planning participation and goal-setting on college enrollment among youth with autism spectrum disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 37(1), 3–14.
50.
WelchB. L. (1947). The generalization of “student’s” problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika, 34(1–2), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/2332510
51.
WoodsL. L.SylvesterL.MartinJ. E. (2010). Student-directed transition planning: Increasing student knowledge and self-efficacy in the transition planning process. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33(2), 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728810368056
52.
YeagerK. H.DeardorffM. E. (2022). Strengths-based transition planning: A positive approach for students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 58(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512211047594
