Curriculum Modifications and Accommodations

Why Is This
Cake on Fire?
Inviting Students
Into the
IEP Process
Jamie L. Van Dycke

James E. Martin

David L. Lovett

Ihe Blrfhday Party hear more and more conversations conversation about your birthday party.
Imagine being a small child and hearing about your birthday party and so you But since you have never been invited
your parents talk about your birthday know it is coming soon. And again your to your parties, you know that your
party. You hear the excitement in their birthday comes and goes, but no one presence there is not important. You
voices as they talk and plan, starting ever invites you to your party. It must believe that birthday parties are not
with a theme for the party, deciding not be important for me to be there, you important at all, so you do not pay any
whom they will invite, and then figuring think. attention to the birthday plans.
out who will do each job. As the time But this time, you receive an invita-
draws closer, you hear more and more
The Follo^ng Year , . .
tion to your party! You are surprised,
conversations about your birthday The following year, you once again hear confused, and even scared. You ask
party, and so you know it is coming your parents talk about your birthday your parents why you received an invi-
soon. And then your birthday comes party. You barely notice tbe excited tone tation this year. They say.
and goes, but no one ever invites you to in their voices as tbey decide on anoth-
your party. Maybe they just forgot to er new theme, make the invitation list, Well, you are a teenager now,
invite me. you think. and divide the jobs. As the time draws and you are old enough to help
closer, you barely listen to the increased with everything that a birthday
The Next Year . . . conversations about your party. Again party involves. Each year, we start
The next year, you again hear your par- your birthday comes and goes, but no with a theme for your party and
ents discuss your birthday party. Once one ever invites you. Now you think decide the best ways to represent
again, you hear the excitement in their that birthday parties are not important that theme. Then we make the
voices as they talk and plan, choose a at all. invitation list and decide who will
new theme for the party, decide whom do the different jobs. Now that
they will invite, and then finally, Several Years Later . . , you are a teenager, we thought
appoint someone to be in charge of each Several years later, when you become a that you would like to become
job. Again, as time draws closer, you teenager, you barely catch a snippet of a involved!

42 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

 But you respond by saying, some students may be ashamed for any- Huber Marshall, & Sale, 2004; Storms,
one to know that they have an IEP. O'Leary, & Williams, 2000; Test et a l ,
Why would I want to become
When students reach middle school or 2004). The 2004 IDEA amendments
involved now? If these birthday
high school and finally receive their first continue to emphasize the importance
parties were supposed to be my
invitation to attend an IEP meetitig, they of transition planning and require that
birthday parties, why wasn't /
may not be interested at all—and they the IEP team develop measurable post-
invited all along? Why didn't I secondary goals in the IEP on the basis
make statemetits similar to those in the
have a chance to select themes of the student's assessed needs,
birthday party example: "Now I am so
that interest me? Why didn't I get strengths, preferences, and interests
old that I do not ktiow how to help with
to help decide whom to invite? (Council for Exceptional Children,
any of it; you have beeti doing it for me
And why didn't I get to help 2004). The implication is that educators
for all these years. Just keep on doing it
choose who would do the differ- need to invite students not only to be a
without me."
ent jobs? part of the IEP meeting but also to be a
"We thought that you were not old Questions Wfo Should Ask part of the IEP process, so tbat they can
As educators, parents, and service learn about and communicate their
enough to help."
providers, we should be asking the fol- needs, preferences, and interests.
"Now I am so old that I do not know
Students should be involved with the
how to help with any of it; you have lowing questions:
IEP planning process and should
been doing it for me for all these years.
• Do we encourage students to become
Just keep on doing it without me."
involved in their IEP meetings? • Have an informative role in develop-
Now . . . • Does this involvement begin at an ing and writing their educational
early age? performance description (the Present
Imagine this scenario again, only this
Levels of Educational Performance,
time, insert individualized education • Do we encourage students to become or PLEP).
program (IEP) meetings in place of involved in designing the "themes"
birthday parties. • Aid in developing measurable post-
of their IEPs?
secondary goals in their IEPs.
The IEP Meeting • Do we allow students to help decide
• Help identify the accommodations,
whom to invite to their lEP meet-
Students with disabilities hear their modifications, and supports that
ings?
teachers and parents talk about their they need.
IEP meetings, they hear about goals, • Do we give students opportunities to
• Be responsible in the achievement of
and they hear about what they are be responsible for the goals in their
coordinated transition activities,
doing wrong and the problems that they IEPs?
postschool linkages, and post-
are having. They hear about plans and • Do students know that the IEP meet- secondary goals (Mason, Field, &
services and who will work on each job. ings are for them and that the ititent Sawilowsky, 2004; Mason, McGahee-
They hear about who will attend the IEP of the IEP process is to design a Kovac, Johnson, & Stillermati, 2002).
meetitig. But students rarely receive plan—a blueprint—that will help
invitations to attend when they first them be successful in school and in Ara We Inviring Students to
begin to hear about these meetings. At hfe? Speak or Just to Attend?
first, students may believe that someone Expecting students to exercise active
just forgot to invite them. In the years roles in the IEP process means doing
that follow, when they still do not much more than just invititig them to
receive invitations, students may think Do students know that the attend the meetings. We must encour-
that attending their own IEP meetings is intent of the IEP process age tbem to participate actively in the
not important since no one shares any IEP conversations. In Year 1 of a 3-year
information about the meeting. They is to design a pian—« research study cotiducted by Martin, et
may decide that an IEP meeting is an hiueprint^hat wiii heip al. (2006), researchers observed 109
opportunity for adults to talk negatively middle and high school IEP meetings to
about all the problems tbat students are them he successfui in determine who talked in typical teacher-
having iti school and divide up the nec- schooi and in iife? directed IEP meetings. In those meet-
essary jobs. ings, students only talked during 3% of
the IEP meeting time. Special educators
The First Invitation spoke 51 % of the time, family members
By the time tbat students become Behaviors We Shouid Expect spoke 15% of the time, general educa-
teenagers, they may have decided that The 1997 Amendments to the Indi- tors and administrators each spoke 9%,
IEP meetings are not important at all viduals with Disabilities Education Act support personnel spoke 6%, and mul-
since no one has invited them or includ- [IDEA) recognized students as impor- tiple conversations occurred during 5%
ed them in the planning phase. In fact. tant members of the IEP team (Martin, of the meeting time. Finally, during 2%

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN • JAN/FEB 2006 • 43

 Figure 1 . Pvrcantag* of Intervals That IEP Team Members Talked Figure 2. Tbe SeH-Dlrected
During Observed IEP Meetings IEP Leadership Steps

Student No Conversations
2%
1. Introduce self
Multiple Conv
5% 2. Introduce IEP team
members
3. State purpose of meeting
4. Review past goals and
progress
5. Ask for feedback
6. Ask questions if did not
Z'fk SPED Teachers understand
51%
7. Deal with differences in
opinion
8. State needed support
9. Express interests
10. Express skills and limits
11. Express options and goals
Family
12. Close meeting by thanking
15% everyone

of the time at these ohserved IEP meet- of the meeting, asking for feedback, or become involved, student participation
ings, no conversation occurred at all, as closing the meeting by thanking every- aiso increased to 12% of the meeting
Figure 1 indicates. The student contri- one. Students introduced themselves or time—a much more encouraging
bution category therefore exceeded other IEP team members, reviewed past amount than the student contribution of
only the category in which no one was goals and progress, asked questions 3% that occurred in the Year 1 teacher-
talking. when they did not understand, dealt directed meetings (see box, "What Does
with differences in opinion, or stated Research Reveal About Student Involve-
needed support at 6% or less of the ment in the IEP Process?").
meetings.
We must encourage them Steps for Educators
In Year 2 of the study [Martin, et ai.,
to participate actively in in press), participating teachers ran- Educators should incorporate student
domly selected students for IEP instruc- self-directed IEP instruction into the stu-
the lEP conversations. tion groups. That year, the researchers dent's curriculum according to the
ohserved 130 IEP meetings: In 65 of needs of the student and the structure
those meetings, the students had of the school day. Teachers in the
received IEP leadership instruction; and Martin et al. tin press) study taught the
How Do W» Bring in the other 65 meetings, the students 12 self-directed IEP lessons in a variety
Into the IEP Conversations? had not. In the meetings observed after of ways. Teaching each lesson took
Shident IEP Leadership Steps students had received IEP leadership approximately 45 minutes. Students
Martin et al. (2006) used the 12 IEP instruction, the students' contribution received instruction over a 6-day period
leadership steps (Martin, Huber Mar- increased across all 12 lEP leadership (two lessons per day), an 11-day period
shall, Maxson, & Jerman, 1997) shown steps, with the largest increases occur- (one or two lessons per day), or in 1 day
in Figure 2 to observe how students ring for introducing self and team mem- at a student leadership retreat. Teachers
became involved in their lEPs. During bers, stating the purpose of the meeting, infused the self-directed IEP instruction
the 109 teacher-directed IEP meetings, reviewing past goals and progress, and into before-school or after-school stu-
students expressed interests in 49.4% of expressing options and goals. Table 1 dent meetings, resource or study peri-
the meetings, expressed options and shows the 12 IEP leadership steps that ods, and into the English, social studies,
goals in 27.1% of the meetings, and students exhibited in Years 1 and 2 of or social skills curriculum [see box,
expressed skills and limits in 20% of the Martin et al. (in pressj study. In the "What Do Educators Say After They
the meetings. The researchers never Year 2 IEP meetings that occurred after Teach Students to Self-Direct Their
observed students stating the purpose educators had taught students how to IEPs?").

44 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

 Tnblft 1. Sfvdent IEP Leadership Step* Exhibited In Sfudy Years 1 and 2

% of Students % of Students % of Students

Who Exhibited Steps Who Exhibited Steps Who Exhibited Steps
in Year 1 With No IEP in Year 2 With No IEP in Year 2 With IEP
IEP Leadership Steps Leadership Instruction Leadership Instruction Leadership Instruction

Introduce self 0 0 70
Introduce IEP team members 0 0 77
State purpose of meeting 0 0 70
Review past goals and progress 0 1 53
Ask for feedback 0 0 22
Ask questions if did not understand 0 18 35
Deal with differences in opinion 0 15 17
State needed support 0 8 25
Express interests 49 62 n
Express skills and limits 20 9 43
Express options and goals 27 24 53
Close meeting by thanking everyone 0 0 14

Steps for Parent5 in the child's life, such as learning early, child's strengths, preferences, gifts, and
along with the child, about his or her needs (Bateman, Bright, & Boldin,
Parents can take several steps to help
disability; learning how to talk comfort- 2003). Additionally, parents need to fre-
their child become more than just an ably about challenges in terms that the quently remind their child of the impor-
attendee at the IEP meeting. The parent child can easily understand; and learn- tance of his or her strengths and gifts
needs to take many of these steps early ing, along with the child, about the and how they contribute to the family,
the classroom, and the IEP process.
Beginning with Ihe first IEP meeting,
parents should expect their child to
What Does Research Reveal About Student Involvement become an IEP team member, and they
in the IEP Process? should talk to the child ahout his or her
During the past 10 years, self-determination has become such a central topic in role in the IEP meeting (see box, "How
special education literature that "promoting self-determination (SD) or teaching Do Parents Respond to Student
students to take control of their life, is becoming a hallmark of providing full and Involvement in IEP Meetings?"). Finally,
complete special education services" [Karvonen, Test, Wood, Browder, & parents need to frequently review
Algozzine, 2004, p. 23). Research indicates that this hallmark is rarely achieved. progress toward IEP goals with their
Agran, Snow, and Swaner (1999) found that although 75% of middle and high child (Bateman et al., 2003; Schoellar &
school teachers rated SD skills as a high priority, 55% failed to include goals Emanuel, 2003).
related to SD skills in any of their students' IEPs. Wehmeyer, Agran, and Hughes
(2000) found that only 22% of secondary teachers reported writing SD goals for
all their students. Mason, et al. [2002) found that students and teachers highly
value student involvement in the IEP planning process, but that study identified To many students, the IEP
several logistical challenges that educators must resolve before they can imple- process and meeting may
ment SD practices: "Chief among these is finding the time necessary for adequate
student preparation. With the trend away from pull-out resource rooms toward appear os alien and
inclusion in the general classrooms, teachers are finding it difficult to schedule
avrkward as an annual
time to prepare students for IEP meetings" (p. 188). The question quickly
becomes, "If teachers cannot find time to prepare students to self-direct their birthday party that they do
IEPs, how are they going to prepare students to self-direct their lives?"
not help plan or attend.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN • J A N / F E B 2006 • 45

 Do Educators Say Aftar They Teach Students How Do Parents Respond to
to Self-Direct Their IEPs? Student Involvement in IEP
Meetings?
Teachers involved in the Martin et al. [in press) study made the following
A speech-language pathologist who
comments after teaching the self-directed IEP to their students:
attended a student-directed IEP
• A teacher who had taught the self-directed IEP lessons said—
meeting made the following com-
The students have taken much more interest in this than I thought they ment:
would. I think I just figured that since I knew all about IEPs and have
talked about having to do IEP meetings so much, that my students would / was watching his mom's
just somehow figure out what they were. I didn't think about actually eyes as he was doing his
teaching them about IEPs. Why would I have thought ihat they would part of the IEP in there, and
leam this on their own? I saw a tear It's good to see
• A teacher who had taught the first three lessons of the self-directed IEP students have a more active
role, instead of being so pas-
said—
sive. It took him a little
The students are embarrassed and giggly in class about the role-playing. longer to do his part,
But it's a great way to teach them about social skills, like how to introduce because of his speech delay,
someone by looking at them, and holding your head up, and making eye but I don't think anyone
contact. They don't know it yet, but we're going to be role-playing the minded that. ! was proud of
entire IEP in the counselor's office when we get further along with the les- him today.
sons. 1 want them to practice in the environment where they're actually
going to be doing this. Martin, Huber, Marshall, et al.
[2004) examined tbe perceptions of
• A teacher who had conducted several student-directed IEP meetings said—
IEP meeting participants when stu-
This is a great way for students to leam to advocate for themselves, espe-
dents attended meetings. The
cially for the ones who have parents that can't or don't know how to advo-
results of this study indicated tbat
cate for them.
student presence at IEP meetings
• A teacher who had taught students to self-direct their IEP meetings said— adds value and validation to invit-
/ agreed to take part in this study last year, but I wasn't sure at all about ing students into the IEP process.
teaching my students about their !EPs. This year I'm totally into it. My stu- Specifically, the researchers found
dents need to leam these skills. ! see now that the IEP is a workable way that when students attended meet-
to teach them about advocacy—and they understand more why they are ings, "Parents understood the rea-
in special education.
son for the meeting better, felt more
comfortable saying what they
thought, understood more of what
was said, and knew better wbat to
A DKforent Wkiy to learn crucial self-advocacy and other
do next" [Martin, Huber, Marshall,
To many students, the IEP process and self-determination skills during the tran-
etah, pp. 291, 293).
meeting may appear as alien and awk- sition process [Martin et al., 2006).
Active student involvement at the IEP Grigal, Neubert, Moon, and
ward as an annual birthday party that
meeting is central to this process Graham [2003) surveyed parents,
they do not help plan and do not attend.
[Martin, Greene, & Borland, 2004). It is general educators, and special edu-
The IEP process does not have to be that
now up to professionals and parents to cators about their views on self-
way. IDEA 2004 has continued to
invite students into the IEP planning determination and found that par-
emphasize secondary transition plan-
ents strongly supported IEP meet-
ning that focuses on students' needs, process and to support tbem while they
ing participation and self-determi-
preferences, and interests. The implica- nation instruction. However, Grigal
tion is twofold: and colleagues noted tbat IEP meet-
• Students need to be involved in the ing participation may have different
Then students can blew meanings to different people and
IEP process and their IEP meetings
as soon as transition topics surface. out candles of success as that some people may equate sim-
ply attending tbe meeting with par-
• Students need to learn about their they transition into ticipation. Other studies have con-
IEPs and what to do at their IEP
meetings well before they enter their adulthood instead of firmed this "attendance equals par-
ticipation" notion [Field &
secondary school years. wondering why a cake is Hoffman, 1994; Martin, Greene, &
These implications, which are not on fire at a party to which Borland, 2004).
new, have helped inspire fundamental
changes in secondary special education no one invited them.
and created opportunities for students

46 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL GHILDREN

learn how to be actively involved in instruction. Exceptional Children. 72, pp. Wehmeyer, M,, Agran, M., & Hughes, G.
their IEP meetings. Then students can 187-200. (2000). A national survey of teachers' pro-
blow out candles of success as they Martin, J, E., Van Dycke, J. L., Ghristensen, motion of seif-determination and student-
W. R., Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E., directed learning. Journal of Special
transition into adulthood instead of Lovett. D. L. (in press). Increasing student Education. 34{2], 58-68.
wondering why a cake is on fire at a participation in their transition IEP meet-
party to which no one invited them. ings: Establishing the self-directed IEP as Jamie L. Van Dycke (CEC OK Federation).
an evidence-hased practice. Exceptional Assistant Professor, Department of Curricu-
Children. lum and Instruction. Northeastern State
Mason, C. Y., Field, S., & Sawilowsky, S. University. Tahlequah, Oklahoma. James E.
(2004). Implementation of self-determina- Martin (CEC OK Federation), Endowed Pro-
tion activities and student participation in fessor, Zarrow Center for Learning Enrich-
IEPs. Exceptional Children, 70, 441-451. ment: and David L. Lovett (CEC OK
Mason, G. Y., McGahee-Kovac, M., Johnson, Federation), Associate Professor, Department
L., & Stillerman. S. (2002). Implementing of Educational Psychology, University of
student-led IEPs: Student participation Oklahoma. Norman.
and student and teacher reactions. Career
Development for Exceptional Individuals,
Address correspondence to Jamie L. Van
25(2), 171-192.
Dycke, Department of Curriculum and
References Schoeliar, K., & Emanuel, E. (2003). Parents Instruction, Northeastern State University,
as evaluators and decision-makers. In D. 717 N. Grand Avenue. Tahlequah, OK, 74464
Agran, M., Snow, K., & Swaner, J. (1999).
Wandry & A. Pleet (Eds.), A practitioner's (e-mail: [email protected]). Phone 918-45&
Teacher perceptions of self-determination:
guide to involving families in secondary 5511 X3773.
Benefits, characteristics, and strategies.
transition (pp. 41-58). Arlington, VA:
Education and TYaining in Mental Retard-
Council for Exceptional Children.
ation and Developmental Disabilities, 34, Funding provided by the U.S. Department of
Storms,J., O'Leary, E,,&Wilhams,J. (2000).
The Individuals with Disabilities Educa- Education, Office of Special Education Pro-
Bateman, D, R, Bright, K., & Boldin, A. grams field initiated research (CFDA
tion Act of 1997 transition requirements: A
(2003J. Parents as instructors. In D. Wan- 84J24C). Grant award number H324C020045
guide for states, districts, schools, universi-
dry & A. Pleet (Eds.J, A practitioner's partially supported the preparation of this
ties and families. Institute on Community
guide to involving families in secondary manuscript.
Integration, University of Minnesota,
transition (pp, 71-82). Arlington, VA:
Minneapolis, MN.
Council for Exceptional Children. TEAGHING Exceptional Ghildren, Vol. 38.
Test, D. W, Mason, G.. Hughes, C, Konrad,
Council for Exceptional Children. (2004). The No. 3, pp. 42-47.
M., Neaie, M., & Wood, W. M, (2004),
new IDEA: CEC's summary of significant
Student involvement in individualized
issues. Retrieved December 7, 2004, from
education program meetings. Exceptional Copyright 2006 CEC.
http://www.cec.sped.org/pp/
Children, 70, 391-412.
IDEA_120204.pdf
Field, S., & Hoffman, A. [1994). Develop-
ment of a model for self-determination.
Career Development for Exceptional Indi-
viduals. 17, 159-169.
Grigal, M., Neubert, D. A., Moon, M, S,, &
Graham, S. (2003). Self-determination for
students with disabilities: Views of par-
ents and teachers. Exceptional Children,
70(1], 97-112. Ad Index
Karvonen, M. Test, D. W., Wood, W. M.,
Browder, D,, & Algozzine, B. (2004). Put-
ting self-determination into practice.
Exceptional Children, 71, 23-41. Council for Exceptional Children, 1, 26, 27, 34, 61
Martin, J. E., Greene, B. A., & Borland, B. J. Crisis Prevention Institute, cover 4
(2004). Secondary students' involvement
in their IEP meetings: Administrators' per- Curriculum Associates, cover 3
ceptions. Career Development for Excep-
tional Children, 27(1). 177-188. Mesa Public Schools, 55
Martin, J. E., Huber Marshall, L., Maxson, L., National University, 63
& Jerman, P. (1997). Self-directed IEP.
Longmont, GO: Sopris West. NOVA Northeaster University, 41
Marlin, J, E., Huber Marshall, L., & Sale, P.
(2004). A 3-year study of middle, junior Penn State University, cover 2
high, and high school IEP meetings.
Scholastic Teaching, 35
Exceptional Children, 70, 285-297.
Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. L., Greene, B. A., University of Nebraska, 54
Gardner, J. E., Christensen, W. R., Woods,
L. L., et al- (2006), Direct observation of University of Maryland, 60
teacher-directed IEP meetings: Establish-
ing the need for student IEP meeting

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN • J A N / F E B 2006 • 47