IEPs

 

In recent years more students are being assessed with special needs, and their teachers are expected to rise to the needs of these students. One tool that teachers use is IEPs. IEP stand for “individualized education plan”. The textbook Special Education in Ontario Schools gives an informative definition of what an IEP is, and what it is not. The definition includes: “a written plan of action for a student whose needs require modification of a regular school program . . . an ongoing, flexible document . . . containing a summary of the student’s strengths and needs . . .” (Bennett, 59). I think this definition touches on some very important points. The fact that it is both “ongoing” and “flexible” is beneficial to both the student and the educator. As the student grows and develops their needs may also change. It is important to keep an IEP up to date and appropriate for the student’s ability. The textbook states: “A student’s IEP needs to be reviewed each reporting period” (Bennett, 64). What an IEP is not is also covered in Special Education in Ontario Schools. It states that an IEP is not: “a detailed account of every minute of a student’s day. . .” (Bennett, 59). IEPs are more of a guideline for teachers, and should not be mistaken for a lesson plan.

I was fortunate enough to be allowed to observe the creation of an IEP in one of my practicums. In my practicum experience I was in a grade one classroom where there were many IEPs, but there were two that stuck out to me for their many differences. One boy had an IEP because it was determined that he was “gifted”, a term that is constantly debated and “lacks a consistent definition” (Bennett, 134). In this child’s case, he was a very talented writer (far beyond his age group of 6), highly proficient in reading, and advanced in mathematics. However, as time went on (I was there over the course of 6 months) it was discovered that this student was indeed a great reader, but his reading comprehension was average. Therefore it came to be that his IEP was adapted to fit his talents for math but was limited in the reading section.

There are 5 categories of IEPs that Professor Sandu explained in my PROF 310 class. The categories are: “behaviour, communication, intellectual, physical, and multiple”. I saw this when working with the other student who had an IEP in my practicum class, but for a very different reason that the first boy. This boy struggled in school, but his parents would not allow him to be tested for a learning disability. Both having negative experiences with special education in their past, they wished to keep their child out of this system despite his need for differentiated learning. After establishing that the student needed glasses, the parents were slowly agreeable to the idea of an IEP for their son. He was only in grade one, but his reading and fine motor skills in writing were much below where they needed to be, and I was lucky enough to be a part of developing an IEP for this child. Despite the parents’ fears about special education and the stereotypical negative connotations, IEP’s have made classrooms more inclusive to students with special needs as the curriculum is custom fit to the child, as opposed to making the child fit the curriculum.

I have included two videos in this post. The first is on the long side, but it discusses how each student needs to make use of their individual talents. It also states that we “a revolution in education” and the way we learn. The second is an informational video about IEP meetings and what goes into their preparation.

“Bring on the Learning Revolution”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9LelXa3U_I&feature=relmfu

IEP Meetings

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYeMBtmA5oc&feature=related

Works Cited

Bennett, Sheilia, Don Dworet with Ken Weber. Special Education in Ontario Schools. 6^th ed. St.  Davids: Highland Press, 2008. Print.

Sandu, Gurgit. “IEP & IPRC.” Queen’s University Faculty of Education. Kingston, Ontario. 29 Oct. 2012