Individualized Education Plans

This article presents information on the history, development, and components of the Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The IEP serves as the "road map" of the why, when, how, and where of activities and services for the individual with a disability. According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004, each individual who receives special education and/or related services in an educational setting must have a current IEP in place to receive services. When developing the IEP, states and local school districts are allowed to develop different alternatives for each individual as long as the key components outlined by IDEA are addressed. The IEP should be creative, flexible, and individualized in meeting the needs of the individual with disabilities.

Keywords Child Find; Disabled Students; Individualized Education Plan (IEP); Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP); IEP Team/Committee; IEP Components; Informed Parental Consent; Service Delivery

Overview

In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act Public Law 94-142 (P.L. 94-142) was established to provide free appropriate public education to individuals with disabilities. P.L. 94-142 has undergone reauthorizations by Congress, eventually becoming the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004). This federal law continues to mandate special education and related services to individuals with disabilities aged from birth to twenty-one years. The key components of IDEA are:

• Unbiased assessment,

• Individualized family service plan (IFSP),

• Individualized education plan (IEP), and

• The least restrictive environment (LRE)

The IDEA is divided into four parts: Part A, Part B, Part C, and Part D. Each part focuses on a different aspect of IDEA. For instance, Part A, addresses policy and its purposes. Individuals three to twenty-one years of age receive services under Part B regulations, and infants to age 36 months receive services under Part C guidelines. The Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is required for individuals receiving services under Part B and must contain certain elements for each individual receiving special education and related services in public schools. Although the federal government makes certain that each state provides special education and related services, each state decides how to design the IEP. For individuals receiving services under Part C, an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) is required and must also contain certain components for each infant and toddler receiving services. Part D of IDEA includes explanations of research, teacher training, and state grants. Typically, one can find information about state laws and policies through their respective state department of education. In 2015, Congress also passed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which offered provisions for students and schools to ensure all individuals receive an appropriate and quality education.

Referral & Assessment

Before an IEP can be developed, an individual must be identified, evaluated, and found eligible for special education and/or related services. Each state has a system in which to identify individuals with disabilities. "Child find" is a mechanism of IDEA designed to locate children in need of special education or related services. Anyone with a vested interest in the child can refer the individual for an evaluation through child find activities such as mailing information to parents, distributing fliers at schools or health clinics, and sponsoring workshops. Additionally, a parent and/or teacher can refer the individual for an evaluation at the school level. However, an individual should not be evaluated without informed parental consent.

Once the individual is identified and written permission is obtained from the parent, an educational evaluation is conducted by a variety of professionals, such as school psychologists, speech-language pathologists, and teachers at the school or district level. The educational evaluation process must include the parents and target the areas of suspected disabilities which initiated the referral for the evaluation. The educational evaluation should include the reason for referral, areas of strengths and weaknesses, the impact of disability on educational performance, eligibility for special education and related services, and recommendations of needed services and educational modifications. IDEA requires the educational evaluation to be completed in a reasonable amount of time following receipt of the informed parental consent. Although the timelines vary by state, the range of "reasonableness" is typically 30 to 60 days to complete the educational evaluation. If the parents do not agree with the educational evaluation, the parents can ask for an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE).

Once eligibility for special education and related services is determined by the educational evaluation, an IEP meeting must be convened within thirty calendar days. The purpose of the IEP meeting is to develop an educational plan that is specific and unique to the individual. Blosser & Neidecker (2002) stated that the plan should provide a "cohesive picture of who the child is, where the child has been, where the child is currently, and where the child is going."

IEP Team/Committee

The primary purpose of the IEP team/committee is to address specific educational areas and the vocational, social, and emotional needs of the individual with disabilities. The team should collaboratively develop the IEP so that the individual can progress in the general education environment. Each IEP should reflect the individual's unique learning needs and be tailored specifically for that individual. There should not be a customary set of services required by disability, as each disability affects each individual differently. Therefore, the team/committee is charged with determining what the plan should include or exclude.

The IDEA requires the IEP team/committee to consist of members who have knowledge or special expertise relevant to the individual. The following members must be included:

• Parents of the individual;

• A minimum of one regular education teacher and special education teacher;

• Evaluation team members;

• School administrators;

• An individual who can interpret the evaluation results;

• The individual with the disability, if appropriate; and

• Related service personnel (e.g., school psychologists, speech-language pathologists, school nurses), if applicable.

The IEP team/committee must hold, at minimum, an annual meeting to review progress or lack of and any needed changes in educational service delivery. However, a meeting can be held before the annual meeting date if there are new developments in the individual's program, such as new learning or behavioral difficulties; changes in the plan, such as the addition or deletion of a service; or if a team member requests a meeting. If a re-evaluation for any purpose was completed during the year, the IEP team/committee must reconvene.

Components of the IEP

States and local school districts are allowed to develop many different alternatives when developing the IEP. The IEP should be creative, flexible, and individualized in meeting the needs of the individual with disabilities. However, as mandated by federal law, there are required components of the IEP. The mandatory components are:

• Evaluation data indicating how the disability affects the individuals' participation in educational activities;

• Current levels of educational performance;

• The types of special education and related services and supplementary aids and services necessary for the individual to benefit from the educational program;

• Measurable long-term and short-term goals;

• The extent the individual will not participate in general education and extracurricular activities with individuals without disabilities (also known as least restrictive environment);

• Modifications needed for the individual to participate in district or statewide assessments;

• Timelines to include the dates to begin services, length and duration of services, and location of services;

• Transition plans;

• How individual progress will be measured and reported; and,

• Team members.

Evaluation Data

Evaluation data, as discussed earlier, should include formal (standardized) and informal (observation) assessment data and the procedures used to determine the disability. The goal of the evaluation should be to determine how the disability affects the individuals' participation in educational activities in terms of learning and ability to function in the school environment.

Current Levels of Educational Performance

A profile of the individual is developed from current levels of educational performance. Information to determine current levels of performance in specific developmental or academic areas, such as motor skills, language skills, or reading skills, are obtained from evaluation data, family, the individual with special needs, observations, and any other special factors. Need statements are included to determine whether a skill will increase or decrease through educational objectives.

Related Services / Supplementary Aids

In many cases, recommendations for special education alone will not meet the various needs of the individual. Thus, the types of special education and related services and supplementary aids should address how the educational program will be modified for the individual with a disability. Additionally, the IEP should state the types of related services (i.e., speech therapy, physical therapy, etc.) needed and the timelines for when services will begin, as well as the length, location, and duration of services.

For instance, the IEP team/committee may recommend related services that allow the individual with a disability to achieve maximum benefit from the special education program. Services such as transportation and other services that are developmental, corrective, or supportive are referred to as related services. These services include but are not limited to, speech-language pathology, occupational therapy, physical therapy, counseling, orientation and mobility services, and school health services. Once the IEP team/committee recommends a related service, that service is provided as part of the free appropriate public education (FAPE).

Service delivery should also be addressed in terms of how services will be provided to the individual (i.e., direct instruction or consultation). Special education services could include a self-contained classroom or resource room. Supplementary aids and services could include assistive equipment such as an auditory trainer or augmentative/alternative communication device.

Goals & Objectives

Measurable long-term or annual goals should be stated on the IEP and reviewed on an annual basis. The long-term goals must be measurable and achievable within one calendar year. Additionally, the long-term goals must address an area in which the individual has a special need and what the individual will learn as a result of the intervention. In contrast, short-term objectives are the measurable steps needed by the individual with a disability to achieve the long-term goals. Goals must explicitly focus on the child and should be specific, measurable, and linked to the curriculum.

For example, the long-term goal on the IEP may state that "the individual will learn to tell time on an analog clock." Using task analysis often develops the short-term goals. Task analysis allows the behavior to be broken down into small instructional steps. Therefore, a short-term goal may state that "the individual will point to and name the hour and minute hands with 100% accuracy in 15 seconds."

Least Restrictive Environment

The IEP should specify how educational programming should be addressed in the least restrictive environment (LRE). Free appropriate public education (FAPE) prescribes to the maximum extent possible that individuals with disabilities are educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE). In the past, many educators used the term mainstreaming and inclusion to mean least restrictive environment.

LRE states that an individual's first placement option should be in the regular classroom with other students of the same chronological age in the school that the individual would attend if no disability existed. The determination of the LRE is made by the IEP team/committee and should be determined on an individual basis, and services should be as close as possible to those of non-disabled peers. Specifically, the LRE should indicate the amount of interaction and types of support the individual with a disability needs in order to interact with non-disabled peers in educational and extracurricular activities. For instance, examples of the LRE options include having the individual ride the same bus to school, having lunch, or attending class with non-disabled children. There are positives and negatives to mainstreaming or LRE, including issues related to social behavior, academics, and tolerance.

Alternative Assessment

Alternative assessment accommodations necessary for the individual to participate in district or statewide testing should be stated on the IEP. Accommodations can include extended testing time or taking a test on the computer. However, the accommodations must allow the test to measure what it purports to measure. For example, an accommodation of reading a test aloud may not be permitted if the test is supposed to measure reading comprehension. This type of accommodation would actually measure listening comprehension.

Transition Plans

Transition plans must be made as the individual progresses through educational programming. According to IDEA 2004, a disabled individual, fourteen to twenty-one years of age, must have an Individualized Transition Plan (ITP) developed to transition the individual from the educational environment into another setting (i.e., work, group home, college, etc.). Planning for the transition into post-school environment should begin at fourteen years of age. Transition services usually begin at sixteen years of age. As with the IEP, the transitional plan is a collaborative effort among educators, families, and related service providers.

Reporting of Progress

The IEP should state how to measure and report individual progress. It is required that progress reports should transpire, minimally, as often as regular education students' progress is reported. Typically, schools issue report cards or progress notes in a six to nine-week reporting/grading period. For the purposes of the IEP, the progress report must address the student's progress toward meeting each annual goal and typically does not use the letter grading system often used by school districts for non-disabled peers. For example, a progress report for the short-term objective discussed earlier (the individual will point to and name the hour and minute hands with 100% accuracy in 15 seconds) may state that the child could identify only the hour hand with 100% accuracy in 15 seconds. However, the child could identify the second hand with 60% accuracy in 25 seconds. Thus, progress is noted, and the student's current performance levels are stated.

In addition to reporting progress during each grading period, the IEP should provide the annual or triennial review date. The triennial review date requires the IEP team/committee to determine the need for further testing and/or if the child should continue to receive special education and/or related services.

Signatures

Signatures are needed from all individuals participating in the development of the IEP. However, services and placement can only be implemented after the parent or the individual with the disability, if appropriate, has signed the finalized IEP.

IEP Access

A copy of the finalized and signed IEP must be provided to the parents. Persons who will be directly involved with the implementation of the IEP must have access to the document. The IEP is considered to be a legal document and confidentiality must be protected at all times.

IEP Review

IDEA (2004) stipulates that progress toward meeting the IEP's long-term goals and short-term objectives should be reviewed annually. In the annual review, the IEP team/committee collaboratively decides if the individual is making documented progress and that the goals and objectives remain relevant to the curriculum needs. Typically, this is referred to as the annual review and is one calendar year from the initial IEP date. However, as mentioned earlier, the team/committee does not have to wait until the annual review to meet and revise the IEP. The IEP can be revised at any time deemed necessary by the team/committee.

Triennially, the IEP team/committee must decide if the individual continues to have a disability, should remain or be exited from special education services, and if additional testing is needed. In both instances, if the individual is not making progress, the team must revise the individualized education plan.

Due Process Hearings

A due process hearing can be requested by a parent, the individual with disabilities who is the age of majority, or the school district, should the IEP team/committee not agree on an issue or if a conflict were not resolved. However, the issue must be related to the IEP process (e.g., evaluation, educational placement, etc.). Other methods of coming to an agreement also must be attempted before due process hearings. Mediation is the first recommended step if there is disagreement among the IEP team members, parents, or the student. Next, a complaint may be filed with the state’s Department of Education. Should these avenues not prove successful, a due process hearing is a final step. A hearing officer who is not associated with the local school district or the state education agency conducts a due process hearing. The hearing is similar to a trial in civil court, where each party is allowed to present evidence, and the hearing officer rules in favor of one side. Each side can appeal the decision to the state judicial system.

Legal Cases Involving the IEP

Cases involving special education services provided in the IEP have been heard multiple times by the Supreme Court. The first case, the Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, was heard in 1982 and considered the range of services a school district was required to provide versus the parent's desires. In 2023, the Court heard the case of Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools. In this case, the Court ruled in favor of Perez, who is hearing-impaired and claimed he deserved compensation for being denied services throughout his education.

Conclusions

In 2021, 13 percent of US public school students received some level of special education services, and the IEP and its process continued to be debated regarding the advantages and disadvantages for the student receiving services and others in the school community as well. The IEP process is a complex and multifaceted process. To be effective in meeting the unique needs of an individual with a disability, the development and implementation of the IEP requires regular and special education teachers, families, administrators, and related services providers to work collaboratively together. Educators and related service providers must recognize that while they possess expertise in their respective areas, the family has expertise in the individual with the disability. Therefore, the parent should be encouraged to be an active participant in the development and implementation of the IEP.

The IEP is the foundation for free appropriate public education for individuals with disabilities. However, this foundation can fail if the IEP team/committee does not employ strategies to communicate openly and honestly, provide support and constructive feedback to each other, or offer knowledge, patience, and acceptance of others. To be successful, the group must recognize that each stakeholder brings a range of beliefs and attitudes to the process.

Shea and Bauer (1985) summarized the minimum requirements of the IEP as (a) the child must be evaluated and current levels of performance must be included in the IEP; (b) assessment data must be translated into long-term goals and short-term objectives; (c) the educational program must be designed to meet the unique needs of the individual with disabilities in the least restrictive environment; and, (d) objectives must be evaluated to determine program effectiveness.

The IEP that is developed and written by the team/committee is considered a written legal agreement between all stakeholders. Thus, the IEP should be clear and concise in outlining the terms and conditions of the special education program and related services.

As with any process, criticisms of the IEP process are typically noted in the delivery of special education and related services. Should the IEP team/committee not reach an agreement on an issue, a due process hearing can be requested by any of the stakeholders as long as the issue is related to the IEP process.

The information provides a general overview of the process and key components of the IEP. It is highly recommended that individuals read IDEA (2004) and become familiar with local and state policy for specific implementation procedures. The key components summarized are mandated. However, each state and local school district can be creative and flexible in designing the IEP.

Terms & Concepts

Alternative Assessment Accommodations: Alternative assessment accommodations are alterations that allow individuals with disabilities to have equal and successful access to curriculum.

Child Find: A mechanism of IDEA designed to locate individuals in need of special education or related services. States and local school districts design activities (e.g., developing news articles, providing workshops, etc). to seek out individuals who may have a disability and are not currently receiving services.

Due Process Hearings: A due process hearing is a procedure that allows the parent, the individual with the disability, or the school district to present evidence to allow or reject all or portions of the IEP. The hearing officer makes a decision based on the presented evidence and rules for one side. Each side is allowed to appeal the decision to the state judicial system.

Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE): An independent educational evaluation (IEE) is broadly defined as an evaluation conducted by a qualified examiner who is not employed by the school system in which the child receives educational services.

Individualized Education Plan (IEP): The Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is an individualized program for persons three to twenty-one years of age, which must be developed by a team for the individual identified as having a disability. The IEP must have key components that communicate the needs of the individual and the services necessary for the individual to participate in the educational environment.

Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP): The Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) is a required systematic service plan provided under Part C of IDEA for infants and toddlers from birth to 36 months of age. The IFSP must also contain certain components for each infant and toddler receiving services as well as services provided to the family. Family services are one of the major differences between an IEP and an IFSP.

Individualized Transition Plan (ITP): The Individualized Transition Plan (ITP) is required under Part B of IDEA for individuals sixteen to twenty-one years of age. The ITP is a plan designed that transitions the individual from the educational environment into alternative settings (i.e., vocational, group homes, college, etc). A team including the individual with a disability, families, educators, and related service providers develops the ITP.

Informed Parental Consent: Informed parental consent is loosely defined as obtaining in writing permission to evaluate or place an individual with a suspected disability into special education or related services.

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): The least restrictive environment is commonly defined as educating individuals with disabilities with their peers to the maximum extent possible in the regular classroom or extracurricular environment.

Related Services: Related services include but are not limited to transportation, counseling, school health services, speech-language pathology etc., that are necessary for the individual with a disability to benefit from special education services.

Related Service Personnel: Related service personnel include but are not limited to speech-language pathologists and audiologists, psychologists, and physical and occupational therapists. Each of these service providers and their services must be necessary for the individual with a disability to participate in educational programming. Types of services and duration of services must be documented on the IEP.

Self-Contained Classrooms: Self-contained classrooms, in terms of disability, are a classroom in which all the students share similar or the same disability and require a comparable academic curriculum.

Task Analysis: Task analysis is a procedure that breaks down a behavior and/or task into small sequential instructional steps.

Triennial Review Date: Every three years, the continued needs for special education and/or related services are made by the IEP team/committee.

Unbiased Assessment: Unbiased assessment can be broadly defined as ensuring that procedures used during the evaluation process do not discriminate against an individual and the disability.

Bibliography

Blosser, J. & Neidecker, E. (2002). School programs in speech-language pathology: Organization and service delivery. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Every Child Succeeds Act (ESSA). Department of Education. Retrieved May 30, 2023, from https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn

Include detailed present level statements in students' IEPs. (2013). Special Education Report (LRP Publications), 39, 9. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Gordon, N., & Hima, H. (2021, May 26). Special education: Beneficial to many, harmful to others. Brookings Institution. Retrieved May 29, 2023, from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2021/05/26/special-education-beneficial-to-some-harmful-to-others/

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Amendments 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

Kode Sutton, K. (2013). Reading an IEP: An overview for classroom teachers. New Teacher Advocate, 21, 6-7. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Lynch, M. (2020, Nov. 30). What are the pros and cons of mainstreaming. The Edvocate. Retrieved May 29, 2023, from https://www.theedadvocate.org/what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-mainstreaming

McCormick, L. (2003). Polices and practices. In McCormick, L., Loeb, D. F. & Schiefelbusch, R. L. (Eds.). Supporting children with communication difficulties in inclusive settings (pp. 155-187). Boston: Allyn & Bacon Publishing.

Paul, R. (2007). (3rd ed.). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence: Assessment and intervention. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby. Shea, T. & Bauer, A. (1985). Parents and teachers of exceptional students: A handbook for involvement. Boston: Allyn & Bacon Publishing.

Pendharkar, E. (2023, July 27). What is an IEP? Individualized education programs, explained. Education Week. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/what-is-an-iep-individualized-education-programs-explained/2023/07

Special education: When parents and schools disagree. (n.d.). Kids Legal. Retrieved May 29, 2023, from https://kidslegal.org/special-education-when-parents-and-schools-disagree

Smith, D. & Luckasson, R. (1995). Introduction to special education: Teaching in an age of challenge (2nd edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon Publishing.

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). My child's special needs: A guide to the individualized education program. Retrieved June 8, 2007, from

Walsh, M. (2022, Oct. 3). The Supreme Court will decide a significant special education case. Education Week. Retrieved May 29, 2023, from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/the-supreme-court-will-decide-a-significant-special-education-case/2022/10

Woods, L. L., Martin, J. E., & Humphrey, M. J. (2013). The difference a year makes: An exploratory self-directed IEP case study. Exceptionality, 21, 176-189. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Wright, P. (2023). Special education caselaw. Wrightslaw. Retrieved May 29, 2023, from https://www.wrightslaw.com/caselaw.htm

Suggested Reading

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Amendments 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

Moore-Brown, B. J. & Montgomery, J. K. (2001). Making a difference for America's children: Speech-language pathologists in public schools. Eau Claire, Wi: Thinking Publications

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). My child's special needs: A guide to the individualized education program. Retrieved June 8, 2007, from