An individualized education program (IEP) is a legally binding document that explicitly describes how students with disabilities accesses free and appropriate public education (FAPE). Federal law mandates IEPs be collaboratively designed by constituents and comprised of distinct components and procedures intended to maximize the educational potential of all students with disabilities. However, existing research indicates that the practical implementation of the IEP process can vary widely. This mixed methods study (a) investigated the degree to which the development of instructional programs for students with disabilities attending a rural school district aligned with legal mandates and recommended practices for IEPs and (b) analyzed perceptions of students, teachers, and caregivers regarding their unique participation in the IEP process. We discuss the practical implications of these findings for the provision of special education services in rural districts and the role of students and families in evaluating special education programming.
BrighamF.McKennaJ.BrighamM. (2019). Memories of the warmth: Transition for students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders. In BakkenJ.ObiakorF. (Eds.), Advances in special education: Special education transition services for students with disabilities (pp. 35–52). Emerald Publishing.
2.
BurkeM.HodappR. (2016). The nature, correlates, and conditions of parental advocacy in special education. Exceptionality, 24(3), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2015.1064412
3.
CreswellJ. W.KlassenA. C.Plano ClarkV. L.SmithK. C., & for the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research. (2011). Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. National Institutes of Health.
4.
DeterdingN. M.WatersM. C. (2021). Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 708–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799377
5.
GoldmanS.BurkeM. (2017). The effectiveness of interventions to increase parent involvement in special education: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Exceptionality, 25(2), 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2016.1196444
Haynes-BrownT. K. (2025). The role of sampling in an explanatory sequential mixed methods study: General applications of the transformative paradigm. Methods in Psychology, 12, 100176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2025.100176
8.
HennickM. M.KaiserB. N.MarconiV. C. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough?Qualitative Health Research, 27(4), 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344
9.
HottB.JonesB.RandolphK.KuntzE.McKennaJ.BrighamF. (2021). Lessons learned from a descriptive review of rural individualized education programs. The Journal of Special Education, 55(3), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466920972670
10.
HottB.JonesB.RodriguezJ.BrighamF.MartinA.MirafuentesM. (2021). Are rural students receiving FAPE? A descriptive review of IEPs for students with social, emotional, or behavioral needs. Behavior Modification, 45(1), 13–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445518825107
11.
HumbertJ.Zoder-MartellK. A.RubleL. A. (2025). Parent, child, teacher, and school factors associated with IEP quality for students with autism. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 41(4), 288–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2025.2542730
12.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2024. Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647. (2004).
13.
IvankovaN. V.CreswellJ. W.StickS. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260
14.
KauffmanWileyTraversA.BadarJ.AnastasiouD. (2021). Endrew and FAPE: Concepts and implications for all students with disabilities. Behavior Modification, 45(1), 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445519832990
15.
La SalleT. P.RoachA. T.McGrathD. (2013). The relationship of IEP quality to curricular access and academic achievement for students with disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 28(1), 135–144.
16.
LekoM. M.HitchcockJ. H.LoveH. R.HouchinsD. E.ConroyM. A. (2023). Quality indicators for mixed-methods research in special education. Exceptional Children, 89(4), 432–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221141031
17.
MarshallS. M. (2016). The identification of contextual factors influencing teacher implementation of interventions related to students’ individual education plans [Doctoral dissertation, University of Rhode Island]. DigitalCommons@URL.
18.
MasonM. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 11(3), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-11.3.1428
19.
McKennaJ.Brigham ParentiM.HottB. (2019). Foundational assumptions for successful transition: Examining alternatively certified special educator perceptions. In BakkenJ.ObiakorF. (Eds.), Advances in special education: Special education transition services for students with disabilities (pp. 185–204). Emerald Publishing.
20.
McKennaJ.GarwoodJ.SolisM. (2022). Reading instruction for students with and at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders: A synthesis of observation research. Journal of Behavioral Education, 31(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-020-09425-y
21.
McKennaJ.ShinM.CiulloS. (2015). Evaluating reading and mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of observation research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(4), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714564576
22.
McKennaJ.SolisM.GarwoodJ.ParentiM. (2024). Characteristics of individualized education programs for students with learning disabilities: A systematic review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 47(3), 194–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487231182697
23.
McKennaJ. W.BrighamF.MitchellB.ParentiM. (2025). Special education experiences of parents/guardians of children with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Child Care in Practice, 31(3), 354–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2024.2308114
PerezA.Howell SmithM. C.BabchukW. A.Lynch-O’BrienL. I. (2023). Advancing quality standards in mixed methods research: Extending the legitimation typology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221093872
26.
RudeH.MillerK. J. (2018). Policy challenges and opportunities for rural special education. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 37(1), 21–29.
27.
RuslinR.MashuriS.RasakM. S. A.AlhabsyiF.SyamH. (2022). Semi-structured Interview: A methodological reflection on the development of a qualitative research instrument in educational studies. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 12(1), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-1201052229
28.
SandersonK. A.RojasA. J. (2023). Parent perspectives on student IEP involvement. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 23(2), 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12582
29.
ShonkoffJ.PhillipsD. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. National Academy Press.
30.
ShowalterD.HartmanS. L.EppleyK.JohnsonJ.KleinB. (2023). Why rural matters 2023: Centering equity and opportunity. National Rural Education Association.
31.
TomanG.MaagJ. W. (2024). A survey of rural special education teachers’ professional development experiences. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 43(3), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/87568705241258737
32.
TremmelP.MyersR.BrunowD. A.HottB. L. (2020). Educating students with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned from Commerce Independent School District. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 39(4), 201–210.
33.
TurnbullH. R.TurnbullA. P.CooperD. H. (2018). The Supreme Court, “Endrew,” and the appropriate education of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 84(2), 124–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917734150
34.
VaughnS.LevyS.ColemanM.BosC. (2002). Reading instruction for students with LD and EBD: A synthesis of observation studies. The Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669020360010101
35.
WoodsA. D.MorganP. L.WangY.FarkasG.HillemeierM. M. (2025). Effects of having an IEP on the reading achievement of students with learning disabilities and speech or language impairments. Learning Disability Quarterly, 48(2), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487231154235
YellM. L.BatemanD. F.ShrinerJ. G. (2021). Developing educationally meaningful and legally sound IEPs. Rowman & Littlefield.
38.
YellM. L.KatsiyannisA.EnnisR. P.LosinskiM.ChristleC. A. (2016). Avoiding substantive errors in individualized education program development. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 49(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059916662204
39.
ZirkelP. A.HetrickA. (2017). Which procedural parts of the IEP process are the most judicially vulnerable?Exceptional Children, 83(2), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916651849
