The Individualized Education Program

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
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.