Leading Inclusion: Refocusing on the Collaborative Process and the Purpose of IEPs
Author(s):
Órla Ní Bhroin (presenting / submitting) Fiona King (presenting) Anita Prunty
Conference:
ECER 2016
Network:
04. Inclusive Education
Format:
Paper

Session Information

04 SES 04 B, Inclusive Schools

Paper Session

Time:
2016-08-24
09:00-10:30
Room:
OB-H0.12
Chair:
Gunilla Lindqvist

Contribution

The focus of this paper is on collaboration in the Individual Education Plan (IEP) process. Collaboration has been defined as ‘.... an interactive process where a number of people with particular expertise come together as equals to generate an appropriate programme or process or find solutions to problems’ (NCSE, 2006, p. X1). Collaborative decision-making and problem-solving is at the core of inclusive education for students with special educational needs (SEN) (Clarke, 2000). However, the challenges of collaboration in the IEP process are  widely reported with Stroggilos and Xanthacou (2006) reporting that IEPs were not being used as a collaborative tool between parents, teachers and other educational professionals.

This paper draws upon findings from a larger study which investigated the impact of PD on the Individual Education Plan (IEP) process on the knowledge, skills, understanding and practice of teachers at primary and post-primary level. Furthermore, the study aimed to investigate if/how the IEP was used as a tool to measure and improve learning outcomes for pupils with special educational needs.

 

The prevailing paradigms in special education have been well documented and debated (Gallagher, 2014). This paper explores special education through the theoretical framework of inclusive education which is defined as maximising the participation of all children in mainstream schools. Rose, Shevlin, Winter, O’Raw and Yu Zhao (2012) argue that inclusive education must be translated into manageable working practices that enable successful learning outcomes to be achieved. The Individual Education Plan (IEP) is regarded as a useful working practice in this context.

 

An Individual Education Plan (IEP) ‘is a written document prepared for a named student which specifies the learning goals that are to be achieved by the student over a set period of time and the teaching strategies, resources and supports necessary to achieve those goals’ (NCSE, 2006, p. 4). The IEP has been adopted by most countries as a tool for managing SEN provision (Mitchell, Morton and Hornby, 2010) and in many countries IEPs are directly linked to legislation (DfES, 2001; US Dept of Education, 1997). The literature is replete with difficulties encountered in the IEP process including concerns about the lack of teamwork and collaboration and the participation of parents and children (Stroggilos and Xanthacou, 2006; Andreasson, Asp-Onsjo and Isaksson, 2013; Tennant, 2007). In fact, in the international review of IEPs by Mitchell et al. only one piece of research (Riddell et al., 2002) supported the efficacy of IEPs. Mitchell et al. highlighted the concern that IEPs appear to have multiple purposes including educational, legal, planning, accountability, placement, and resource allocation, being used as administrative rather than pedagogical tools.


The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs (EPSEN) Act (Ireland, 2004) formalised IEP practice making them mandatory for all children with special educational needs and publishing a comprehensive set of Guidelines on the Individual Education Plan Process (NCSE, 2006). While sections of EPSEN relating to IEPs have been deferred, evidence suggests that schools in the Republic of Ireland are taking the initiative in developing IEPs, though there is some variability and inconsistency in practice, particularly in relation to collaboration and participation in the IEP process (Rose, et al., 2012; Prunty, 2011; Bergin and Logan, 2013). Pijl and Frissen (2009) acknowledge such variability and urge policymakers to ‘back off’ and accept that schools should be granted professional autonomy to ‘develop different practices at different paces’ (p. 374). Indeed, Rose et al. argue that the emergent approach to the development of IEPs in Ireland which is ‘reflective and experimental’ ‘will inform the eventual implementation of policy and thereby provide a stronger system than one imposed through legislation’ (p. 115).

Method

The methodology combined quantitative and qualitative approaches and consisted of two phases. Participants For phase one, the participants were 165 teachers who teach students with SEN and represent a range of settings including primary, post-primary, special school, and special class attached to a particular school type. The participants completed the Graduate Diploma in Special Educational Needs in the academic years of 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 in a college of education in the Republic of Ireland. For phase two, the participants were five students, two school principals, five resource/learning support teachers (special education teachers), five class teachers (in the case of the post-primary school, three subject teachers participated), five special needs assistants and five parents/guardians of the student participants. Methods Phase one was a quantitative survey and involved administering a questionnaire to elicit teachers’ perceptions of (1) the impact of IEP training on their knowledge, skills, understanding (2) the impact of the IEP on practice (3) their use of the IEP to measure and improve learning outcomes for pupils with SEN. Response rate was 50%. On return of completed questionnaire, all responses were coded and entered into SPSS for statistical analysis. Phase two was qualitative and involved conducting case studies in five mainstream schools, four primary and one post-primary school settings. Each case study incorporated the following methods of data collection: A focus group interview with the school principal, the student’s resource/learning support teacher(s), the student’s class teacher(s), the student’s special needs assistant and other relevant personnel to elicit adults’ experiences, understanding and use of the IEP; five focus group interviews in total. Individual interviews with parent/guardian and with student to elicit their experiences of the IEP; ten individual interviews in total (Interview schedules were designed to explore issues from the questionnaire in greater depth and were influenced by findings from the questionnaire). Document analysis to investigate the use of the IEP in planning, learning and recording/monitoring outcomes; documents included the IEP, teachers’ plans (short and longer term), assessment records, school report for student with SEN, school policy on special needs and inclusion. Observation of teacher’s practice and student’s learning to document the use of the IEP in planning, teaching, learning and recording/monitoring outcomes; minimum of one visit per school, totalling five school days. Inductive data analysis was employed to analyse the qualitative data.

Expected Outcomes

The paper will argue for a refocusing on the purpose of IEPs along with an emphasis on the collaborative aspect of the process for successful implementation. Purpose of IEPs Findings will be discussed in relation to the purpose of the IEP in mainstream schools? Are IEPs used as administrative or pedagogical tools or both? Preliminary findings indicate that IEPs are used in the process of assessment and identification of strengths and needs of students with SEN, planning for teaching and to a lesser extent evaluation of progress. Collaboration in the IEP process Preliminary findings indicate strong collaboration and teamwork at school level. For example, almost 93% of teachers surveyed reported that IEP meetings are held for students with SEN and the majority reported that both mainstream class teachers and support teachers attend these meetings. However, teachers were less likely to report that IEP targets were incorporated in class teacher plans. Nevertheless, findings from data from interviews, classroom observations and analysis of documentation will show some evidence of the contextualisation of IEPs into whole-school planning and the integration into classroom practice. Participation of parents and students in the IEP process In Ireland, the EPSEN Act (2004) emphasises the importance of parental and student involvement and an extensive international literature indicates the positive effects of involving both parents and students in learning programmes. While there is strong evidence of parental involvement in our study, the voice of students in the process is lacking despite the aspirations of teachers to acknowledge the right of children to have a voice in matters which concern them. This anomaly will be interrogated with reference to the qualitative data from interviews with adults and children.

References

Andreasson, I., Asp-Onsjo, L. and Isaksson, J. (2013) Lessons learned from research in individual educational plans in Sweden: Obstacles, opportunities and future challenges. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(4), 413-426. Bergin, E. and Logan, A. (2013) An individual education plan for pupils with special educational needs: How inclusive is the process for the pupil? REACH Journal of Special Needs Education in Ireland, 26(2), 79-1. Clark, S.G. (2000). The IEP process as a tool for collaboration. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(2), 56-66. DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2001) Special Needs Code of Practice. London: DfES. Gallagher, D.J. (2014). Challenging orthodoxy in special education: On longstanding debates and philosophical divides. In L. Florian (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of special education: Volume 2 (2nd ed.) (pp. 819-839). London: SAGE Publications. Ireland (2004) Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004. Dublin: The Stationery Office. Mitchell, D., Morton, M. and Hornby, G. (2010) Review of literature on Individual Education Plans. New Zealand: Ministry of Education. NCSE (National Council for Special Education). (2006) Guidelines on the Individual Education Plan Process. Dublin: The Stationery Office. NCSE. (2013) Supporting Students with Special Educational Needs in Schools. Trim: NCSE. Pijl, S.J. and Frissen, H.A. (2009) What policymakers can do to make education inclusive. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 37(3), 366-377. Prunty, A. (2011). Implementation of children's rights: What is in ‘the best interests of the child' in relation to the individual education plan (IEP) process for pupils with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD)? Irish Educational Studies, 30(1), 23-44. Riddell, S., Kane, J., Banks, P., Baynes, A., Dyson, A., Millward, A., and Wilson, A. (2002) An investigation of Individualised Education Programmes: Part 2: raising the attainment of pupils with special educational needs. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs NASEN, 2 (3), 1-11. Rose, R., Shevlin, M., Winter, E., O’Raw. and Zhao, Y. (2012) Individual Education Plans in the Republic of Ireland: An emerging system. British Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 110-116. Stroggilos, V. and Xanthacou, Y. (2006) Collaborative IEPs for the education of pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21(3), 339 - 349. Tennant, G.D. (2007). IEPs in mainstream secondary schools: an agenda for research. Support for Learning, 22(4), 204-208. United States Department of Education (1997) Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Washington DC: Department of Education.

Author Information

Órla Ní Bhroin (presenting / submitting)
St Patrick's College, Dublin City University
Special Education
Dublin 9
Fiona King (presenting)
St. Patrick's College, Dublin City University
Special Education
Westport
Anita Prunty
St Patrick's College, Dublin City University, Ireland

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.