|
Voices For Our Children:
Focus: School Years
Topic: Families
Researchers/Authors:
Gwen Nagel & Lynda Williams
Presented by:
Gwen Nagel
Chief Executive
Vision Education Agency
C/- Auckland College of Education
Private Bag 92601
Symonds St
Auckland
New Zealand
+64 9 623-8931
Raewyn Edwards
Parents of the Vision Impaired (PVI)
Karen Stobbs
Vision Education Agency
Introduction
This paper discusses the Individual Education Programme (IEP) and the pivotal role of parents as members of the IEP team. It presents their perspectives of the IEP process, suggests ways in which the IEP process could be more effective for families and how the IEP can be used to enhance the educational outcomes of children who are blind and vision impaired.
An IEP ensures a programme is designed to meet the individual needs of the child. It provides an opportunity for the teaming of both parents and professionals to consider the child's educational development, needs and programme. The team approach enables all members' perspectives to be considered with a focus on clear objectives and goals for the child both within the educational setting and for living within the wider community.
While the expectations of partnership between parents and professionals have increased in recent years, unfortunately they have not always been realised. When the Vision Education Agency approached the parent organisation, PVI (Parents of the Vision Impaired), to ascertain a specific area for development the response was swift and unanimous: IEPs. For while there has been significant development in the IEP process there remain reports of negative and devaluing experiences.
The IEP Process
The IEP has been defined as a process used to design an individualised programme that meets the specific requirements of children with special needs. It brings together the parent, child, teacher and others closely involved to develop a strategy covering a specified setting and time period (Perris Task Force, Thomson & Rowan, 1995).
The aims of an IEP are to:
· Give a description of the child's programme based on their learning needs;
· Identify resources and staffing necessary to meet these needs;
· Provide the opportunity for parents to be actively involved in their child's education;
· Provide accountability; and
· Protect the rights of children, parents and teachers respectively. (Renault, 1997, p.19)
The IEP states the educational and learning objectives as well as the resources needed to achieve these objectives. It includes:
· A list of the long-term goals and the short term learning outcomes for the child;
· A description of the adaptations, teaching strategies and resources needed to implement the programmes identified by the IEP;
· A list of the IEP team members, their role and who is responsible for overseeing and implementing each part of the programme identified in the IEP document; and
· The date of the meeting and a review date.
(Renault, 1997, p.19)
For children who are blind and vision impaired adaptations to the environment, adaptive methods of teaching and learning, special format materials, the use of technology and teaching in the Expanded Core Curriculum may be required if they are to access Te Whāriki and The New Zealand Curriculum in a meaningful way. Pagliano (1994) identifies the key to integrating children who are blind and vision impaired into their local schools or early childhood centres as the quality of the preparation of everyone involved. The IEP is part of this process. It provides a coordinated, cooperative approach with the services, responsibilities and resources needed to facilitate the child’s access to the environment.
Essential parts of the IEP process are teamwork, sharing information, shared decision-making, accountability and the development and implementation of the programme. An IEP team comprises those involved on a regular basis with the child. It is important that all team members are treated as equal participants with trust, good relationships and effective communication the basis for how the team works (Pagliano, 1998). The purpose of IEP team meetings is to combine all the members’ knowledge and ideas so that informed decisions can be made about the child’s goals and programme (Ministry of Education, 1998).
The IEP should be based on recognising strengths as well as weaknesses and include both child and parent viewpoints. The learning outcomes are linked to the achievement objectives and should be achievable and able to be assessed and monitored (Ministry of Education, 1998). When the IEP is reviewed, the objectives are a way of evaluating the effectiveness of the programme, giving direction for future goals and providing the framework for accountability for those responsible for the implementation of each part of the programme (Rennie, 1998).
Parent participation in IEPs
Parents are central to their child’s educational programme. They are able to give a wide view through presenting family values, their dreams and priorities for their child, as well as providing input to the programmes..
However, for some families the IEP process can be daunting and overwhelming. A study by Thomson and Rowan in 1995 identified aspects with which parents experienced difficulty. These were similar to those the researchers (Nagel & Williams, 2000) had become increasingly aware as they worked with, and listened to parents of children who are blind and vision impaired. While many parents participate fully in the IEP process a significant number tell of being unsupported in their role and the feelings of frustration that disempowerment brings. The motivation to effect a better parent-professional partnership and a process in which both might fully take their roles gave rise to this research.
The Research
Methodology
The research on parents’ perspectives of the IEP process was undertaken by the Vision Education Agency as part of a wider collaborative initiative between the Vision Education Agency (VEA) and Parents of the Visually Impaired (PVI).
Aims
The study’s aims were:
· To explore the nature of IEPs for children who are blind and vision impaired;
· To explore the inclusion and role of parents in IEP meetings;
· To examine parent involvement and consultation in the decision making of the IEP; and
· To investigate the ways parents are involved in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the IEP process.
The significance of the research lies in its potential to develop knowledge of parents’ experiences of the IEP process and to inform educators. Through such knowledge, factors that contribute to making the IEP process positive and enable parents to fully participate in the decision making process for their child’s education may be identified.
Selection of Participants
Participants were the parents of children who are blind and vision impaired and currently receiving specialist Vision Education service in Aotearoa New Zealand. Families included those with children at early childhood, primary and secondary levels. These children included those who were:
· Braille or tactile users;
· Print users with low vision; and
· Blind or vision impaired with additional disabilities.
Procedure
Research information, a letter of invitation to participate, and the questionnaire were sent to 117 families.
The Questionnaire
The research instrument was a questionnaire comprising 50 questions. It was completed anonymously by parents. Questions were grouped in relation to:
· Information of the child with vision impairment;
· Education services;
· Nature and frequency of IEPs;
· Participants in the IEP process;
· Parents role in the IEP process;
· Parents perceptions of the IEP process; and
· Parents knowledge of the IEP process.
Data analysis
The data was analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively. All percentages are rounded.
Results and Discussion
The results of the study and their analysis are reported according to the responses received to the 50 questions of the questionnaire.
Participants
A total of 75 returned questionnaires form the basis for the data. Information of the children of parent participants is as follows:
· Age range 1 - 20 years
· Age range according to the educational sector in which children were placed:
- Early Childhood: 1 - 5 years
- Primary (including intermediate) 5 -14 years
- Secondary 13 - 20 years
Education
Table 1 shows the educational sector and categorisation of the children into three broad areas.
Table 1
Educational Sector & Categorisation of children according to likely teaching & learning approaches (N=75)
|
|
|
|||||
|
Educational Sector |
Broad categorisation
|
Total |
||||
|
|
Braille or tactile user |
Low vision |
Vision impairment and other disabilities |
No category indicated |
|
|
|
Early Childhood |
3% |
4% |
12% |
|
19% |
|
|
Primary |
11% |
17% |
20% |
3% |
51% |
|
|
Secondary |
7% |
9% |
13% |
|
29% |
|
|
No response |
|
|
1% |
|
1% |
|
|
Total |
21% |
30% |
46% |
3% |
100% |
|
The Individual Education Programme (IEP) Meeting
An IEP ensures a programme is designed to meet the individual needs of the child with clear objectives and goals. The cycle starts with the IEP meeting and its frequency for the study’s children ranged between monthly and annually. One was held monthly, 28 termly, 37 half-yearly, 8 annually and one was unspecified.
In general, the study’s parents were experienced in IEP involvement with 57% having attended ten or more of their child’s IEPs. The majority of IEPs were held at the child’s education setting (87%), with 96% of parents indicating that the location was suitable for them.
For an IEP to be effective, adequate preparation and skilled co-ordination is required. 57% of participants identified a member of staff from their child’s school as the person who organised the last IEP. In the majority of cases (71%), the person responsible for organising the IEP was also the one to inform the parents of the IEP meeting. The facilitator of the IEP meeting plays a key role in the process. 59% identified a member of staff from their child’s school as the person who facilitated the last IEP meeting. One parent facilitated the IEP meeting themselves. Table 2 indicates the positions of those who took prominent roles in the IEP meeting.
Table 2
Roles in the IEP meeting
(Based on previous IEP; N=75)
|
Position or Role |
Organised by |
Informed by |
Facilitated by |
Written by |
|
Early childhood or class teacher |
21% |
19% |
21% |
24% |
|
Resource teacher vision |
25% |
20% |
17% |
24% |
|
SES |
19% |
16% |
15% |
8% |
|
Teacher of special programme or facility |
15% |
13% |
11% |
8% |
|
Special Ed. Needs Co-ordinator |
7% |
7% |
7% |
9% |
|
Senior teacher, Head of department, Faculty head |
4% |
3% |
7% |
4% |
|
Principal, Head teacher |
3% |
3% |
5% |
5% |
|
School dean |
1% |
1% |
3% |
|
|
Guidance counsellor |
1% |
1% |
1% |
|
|
Assistant principal |
1% |
3% |
3% |
3% |
|
ORRS teacher |
1% |
1% |
|
1% |
|
Teacher aide coordinator |
|
1% |
|
|
|
ESW / teacher aide |
1% |
8% |
1% |
5% |
|
School secretary |
|
1% |
|
1% |
|
Principal of fundholding school |
|
|
1% |
|
|
Speech language therapist |
|
1% |
1% |
3% |
|
Psychologist |
|
|
1% |
|
|
Physiotherapist |
|
|
1% |
|
|
Parent |
4% |
3% |
1% |
1% |
|
At meeting |
|
3% |
|
|
|
Not written |
|
|
|
1% |
|
No-one |
|
1% |
1% |
|
|
No response / don’t know |
4% |
1% |
5% |
1% |
Potentially, there is a wide range of people with an interest in the child’s IEP. Those identified as most frequently attending the child’s IEP were: the child’s parents; the child’s teacher aide, kaiawhina or education support worker (80%); the early childhood, class or unit teacher (77%); resource teacher vision (72%); Specialist Education Services representative (47%); and the child for whom the IEP was being held (43%). Table 3 provides information of the participants in the child’s last IEP.
Table 3
Participants in the Child’s Last IEP
|
Participant |
Percentage |
|
Mother |
92 |
|
Teacher aide, Kaiawhina, or Education support worker |
80 |
|
Class or Early childhood teacher |
75 |
|
Resource Teacher Vision |
72 |
|
Specialist Education Services (SES) representative |
47 |
|
Child for whom the IEP was held |
43 |
|
Father |
29 |
|
Special education needs co-ordinator (SENCO) |
23 |
|
Principal |
21 |
|
Part-time teacher |
16 |
|
Occupational therapist |
13 |
|
Orientation and mobility specialist |
13 |
|
Speech-language therapist |
12 |
|
Physiotherapist |
11 |
|
Caregiver |
11 |
|
RNZFB child and family social worker |
11 |
|
Assistant principal or deputy principal |
8 |
|
Early intervention teacher |
8 |
|
Adviser/Teacher of the deaf |
5 |
|
Support person e.g. Family or Whanau member, Friend, Advocate |
4 |
|
RNZFB whanau worker |
3 |
|
Resource teacher of learning and behaviour |
1 |
|
Techniques of daily living specialist |
0 |
|
Other service provider e.g. CCS / IHC / ACC |
3 |
|
Other |
19 |
Participation in the IEP
Of the total, 21 participants indicated that either their child for whom the IEP was held, a member of the extended family, whanau or friends attended the IEP. Their role ranged from the presence of young children who accompanied their parent but had no intentional input to the IEP process, to those who provided active support and advocacy.
The majority of children who attended their IEP were at secondary level and all were active participants in the process:
· My child’s role was to have a voice in the IEP process – as the outcome from the IEP directly affects her.
· My son attends so that he can put his side across and say how he feels about what is being said.
In respect of a support person for the parents attending the IEP 55% of parents had been given the opportunity to take a support person.
The role of family, whanau and friends in supporting the parent was described as:
· To back up what I say about my child and offer the information or suggestions I may not have mentioned.
· To pick up things you have missed that were said - remind you what questions were needed and ask why. They ask questions they don’t understand and sometimes your interpretation was different to what the answer is.
Comments parents made expressed both their feelings of being comfortable with the IEP process and the active role that many of them took. Some reflected that such a progression took place over time.
However, many comments were made in relation to feelings of anxiety. Causes included the focus of the IEP, the non-acceptance of parents’ knowledge and expertise, involvement of new staff, feelings of guilt and anxiety surrounding issues to do with the child.
Focus of the IEP
While the content and focus of the IEP meeting varied, it appeared that the focus was largely on four areas: the goals set at the previous IEP (83% of IEPs); current learning goals (67%); strengths and achievements (53%); and difficulties and problems (44%). Table 4 portrays the areas in which parents reported the majority of the time of was spent.
Table 4
IEP Focus
|
Majority of IEP time spent discussing: |
Percentage |
|
Goals set at previous IEP |
83 |
|
Learning goals |
67 |
|
Strengths and achievements |
53 |
|
Difficulties and problems |
44 |
|
Resources |
29 |
|
Teacher aide support |
17 |
|
Funding issues |
9 |
|
Other |
9 |
Parents had their own priorities for their child. 84% indicated they felt that their priorities for their child’s learning were covered in the IEP meeting while 16% did not have this perception. 75% indicated that significant recognition was given to their priorities, while 8% indicated that little or no recognition was given at all.
Parents commented on the recognition given to their priorities by professionals:
· I am listened to well, and any of my concerns are taken seriously.
· Everyone’s ideas are listened to on an equal basis.
Parents indicated that they needed to advocate for their child:
· School is very receptive to our wishes. But, we are quite strong-willed and prepared to argue the point, to get what we consider important.
· Sometimes I need to mention my priorities more than once to get a satisfactory conclusion for me.
For some, their input was conditional or did not result in the commensurate action:
· Recognition was given but it felt like the key issues were not actually heard. At times it felt like they were so focused on making him normal and finding a standardised box to slot him in.
· I was free to speak and discuss but the suggestions I made were, on the whole, not followed through in the IEP.
The IEP Document
The written IEP document records the decisions of the IEP meeting and provides a basis for the child’s programme. The majority of parents (75%) received their child’s IEP document following the IEP meeting. Five parents did not receive an IEP report at all.
Reflection on the IEP Process
In reflecting on their part in the decision making process 65% stated that they were highly involved, 21% that they were somewhat involved and 11% considered that they had minimal involvement.
Parents conveyed their high level of involvement:
· I see this, the IEP as the family’s main source of guidance. Therefore it is essential that I am part of the decision making process. It’s catering to our family’s needs and therefore I have to be taking an active role in this. I have to let others know what is practical and achievable.
· My daughter’s condition is very rare, we have researched her case well and have lots of knowledge about her. Our knowledge and skills are well utilised to plan her goals.
Others deferred to their child’s educators:
· I sometimes feel railroaded because they know more in their field of expertise, but isn’t that how it’s supposed to be?
· I am involved, but prefer to let the people working with my child at school make the decision as to what works best for him in the school environment.
Some parents felt disempowered and that their input was ignored:
· Even though I was involved it was not taken on board that I needed to make any decisions at all.
· The teacher had already decided and our views although expressed on many different occasions and during [the IEP] were not considered.
A significant number of parents considered that there was an equal partnership in the decision making process (76%). Again, parents’ comments indicated that while some partnerships could be considered to be working effectively, others left much to be desired.
· Everyone’s opinion is important – [we] bounce ideas off each other.
· It varies. Originally I had trouble making myself a partner. Now it’s pretty good.
The principal was deemed to be key to developing an equal partnership:
· If you have a principal that is supportive of your child [it’s ok] but we did not.
· Parents will never be able to be true partners, as the principal of a school holds the key to co-operation.
It appeared that for some parents the partnership was conditional or it was a struggle to have knowledge valued.
· Often I have had my reasonable requests ignored by teaching staff and professionals. [They think] that they know your child and its abilities better than you. Your requests are listened to but nothing is done and your child continues to struggle.
· Teacher’s decisions are already made. Excuses made for why our needs could not be met, e.g., lack of funding, mobility department restructuring, change of school ownership, lack of resources – the usual.
Having an advocate or support person accompany parents may result in certain benefits.
· An advocate can see ideas from a different angle to my own and also bring up points I have forgotten.
· It helps the balance of ‘power’ but also adds a less involved perspective which can sometimes highlight whether we are being realistic.
· It helped when my son was younger. I was young myself so they didn’t really acknowledge what I was saying. Having someone older with me helped.
Many parents felt that they were able to participate confidently in the IEP process and did not require support of this nature:
· I shouldn’t have to have an advocate at an IEP meeting. A parents view, knowledge and desires for their child should be listened to, heard and respected. The parent lives with the child 365 days a year - surprise, surprise they do know their child.
· I do not take an advocate or support person to the IEPs as I believe I am capable of protecting the rights of myself and my child.
Parents’ expressions of their feelings following their child’s IEP meeting were both positive and negative. Many parents expressed feelings of satisfaction, pleasure and positivity:
· Satisfied and assured all our interests and needs would be met, in a positive way.
· Very positive about my child and pleased to see how much he is appreciated and enjoyed by the people who work with him.
· Positive - new set of goals to work towards.
Negative feelings were the result of aspects such as unresolved concerns, rushed IEP meetings, perceptions of not being listened to, negativity, and goals that seem inappropriate or not to extend the child.
· Hurried, the next meeting was at 12 and they were waiting outside the door. Mad at myself for not being more prepared.
· It was a waste of time. I was backed into agreeing to goals I vehemently opposed.
· Confused – I was told that they are only obliged to make my child average – not to achieve her high IQ potential.
· Terrible – upset – confused – because it was very negative.
· When we first had IEPs I found them very trying and threatening. I liked the people who worked with my child, but it was still not a positive experience. I don’t think I liked being brought face to face with his disabilities and lack of progress. I was under a high degree of stress anyway and it just made it worse. I can’t actually remember quite why I didn’t like it, but my feelings, as I think back about earlier IEPs, are of tension and worry. Over the years from experience, I have found professionals forget that you are the parent of a special needs child. The child is discussed without taking into consideration how you may be feeling, especially if you are unsupported. And also they may be so busy discussing the pros and cons or in-house politics, that the parent feels very isolated, as if they shouldn’t be there at all. ‘Remember the parents, respect their feelings, it is their child under the microscope’.
Parents’ role in the ongoing decision making and implementation of the IEP through their child’s programme
Participants’ responses indicated a number of roles in which ongoing input in relation to their child’s education was deemed desirable. These included monitoring progress, supporting staff, partnership, implementation of the programme, ongoing communication and decision making. Many parents indicated that they played major roles in these areas.
· [My role is that of a] watch dog. Keeping everybody honest and making sure that the teachers are aware of the goals and the difficulties.
· [I give] support and encouragement. We follow through any areas of concern.
· We are in constant contact with the class teacher over any problems via e-mail/phone/face to face. I feel this is the key to successful inclusive education.
· We all share ideas and help one another to achieve a result.
· All who attend the IEP have a goal to go away to work on. Keeping close contact with school helps with making sure things are working and that progress is being made.
Sixteen participants indicated that they had no, or a minimal role in ongoing decision making or in the implementation of their child’s IEP. For many, this appeared to be by choice.
· Not much with regard to the school programme. Not that I want to, really.
· Not a lot although I am always informed about what is happening.
· …I put my trust into those involved and any areas that may concern me are spoken about over the phone.
Implementation of the IEP
73% of participants were satisfied with the implementation of their child’s IEP through the education programme, while 15% were dissatisfied.
· Some areas we saw as important fell by the wayside.
· Goals were generally too broad.
· The teacher’s time is not being given, as it should.
· Goals put in place – some of which weren’t discussed at the meeting - were not followed up.
· I am the person the school and the Principal blame when my son misbehaves! They need someone to blame when their programmes don’t work.
The large majority of participants considered that all members of the IEP Team, which included parents, were accountable for the goals of the IEP being met.
· This is a partnership: Family and school.
· Everyone who attends. All are accountable, including parents and child.
· The whole team. We all make quite specific action items.
· For goals at school – the child’s teacher. For goals at home – the child’s parents. (Both should go hand in hand.)
Some participants considered the school or professionals were solely accountable:
· School, when they have set the goals.
· The fundholders
· Itinerant teacher, class teacher, principal, therapists. Mostly the school.
Some parents expressed their own accountability:
· Myself – maybe teachers with help of the aide.
· Ultimately myself. Others involved should feel similarly though.
· We are [accountable]. We want her to succeed...
Others reflected some degree of scepticism regarding accountability within the IEP process:
· No-one [is accountable] – this is the area that is lacking.
· Theoretically all of the team [is accountable]. So often it just gets filed away…
Parents rated their satisfaction of the IEP process on a scale of 1-5. Of the total participants 60% rated their satisfaction as high or very high, 29% were satisfied and 9% were dissatisfied. Aspects of the IEP process that parents found satisfying appeared to centre around the process when it involved being heard and receiving constructive feedback, effective teaming, a positive approach, setting new goals, open and honest discussion and focus on the child’s progress and achievements.
· The fact that everybody was in one place discussing my child’s needs together.
· We enjoy the ability to be part of the decision-making process, the willingness of the school to involve us, and to be listened to and respected for our knowledge and skills.
· I love it when the professionals honestly share their feelings about my child’s progress.
· Hearing about goals she had reached from the last IEP and the goals that were set for her future.
· Discussion (often frank) about how my child is doing at school. Very satisfying to learn about the things going well. But also being told what is not going so well so that we as parents know what is happening.
· It’s my anchor in many respects – helps me get the big picture about where we should be heading in the short and medium term. Couldn’t cope well without it.
Aspects of the IEP process that parents did not find satisfying related to the IEP meeting, the IEP report, professionals’ understanding of the child, and processes and systems.
IEP Meeting:
· Too rushed, not everyone present, I would have liked information on what will be covered in advance to get more prepared.
· Too much time spent on peripheral things. People who should have taken major roles were not organised or didn’t know the child well enough to give answers.
IEP Report:
· Length of time to get report – 6 weeks. Not much pre-planning done by teachers (pre-school). Late notice of who was attending.
Professionals:
· Some of the professionals’ attitude.
· People involved who have no education or knowledge in visual impairment.
· Frequently the teachers say, “Compared to her class” or “there are children worse off than her”. I KNOW THAT but my objective in the IEP process is to do the best possible for my child’s achievement – so that she can reach her full potential and be a productive contributing member of society.
· Sometimes it is hard to understand the professionals when they are speaking together – they need to use laymen terms not words way over the parent’s head.
· Continual lack of resources and the hopelessness that the teachers radiate.
· Frustration that we need to explain all about our child’s needs more than once – new people attending the IEP.
· It is difficult to achieve a balance where the child’s needs can be discussed without the teacher becoming defensive regarding their own skills. When discussing your own child with disability it is a highly emotional/sensitive subject for parents, yet teachers’ feelings have to be carefully considered lest long term negative repercussions occur toward the child.
Many comments were about professionals’ attendance and input to the IEP meeting:
· Sometimes people turn up without checking with me first. I would like to be asked ahead of time if extra people are coming to the meeting. As it happens, they were helpful last time, but I’d still like to be asked and have their role defined first.
· More visual trained people.
· More input from everyone involved in my child’s education who could not attend the IEP.
· That professionals that you ask to attend – actually do attend.
· That everyone (including pre-school teachers) understands the importance of IEP.
Increased recognition of the role of parents was advocated:
· That parents are recognised as being the pivotal point in ensuring the goals of the IEP are continued between home and school but realising that parents are entitled to a life of their own and “time out” from the rigours of raising a child with a special educational need.
· Recognition of parental ideas. Professionals to listen to parents’ dreams for their child and for the parents’ concerns to be taken seriously.
And further accountability measures were wanted:
· A more accountable process for the ORRS teacher’s work and a closer eye kept on the use of the teacher aide time.
· More accountability by the school.
Information for parents on IEPs
Suggestions were made for the provision of information to parents on IEPs. These included:
· Information on children’s specific conditions and how they affect learning;
· Training in the ability to pass on information of children’s conditions and how they affect learning to teachers, teacher aides and others relevant to the child;
· Information on IEPs, including their purpose, how parents can prepare, parents’ role in the process, those involved and their roles and responsibilities, topics likely to be discussed, what parents might expect, and sample IEP reports;
· Training for parents on IEPs;
· Contact with parents of older children to gain knowledge of the importance of an IEP;
· Layman’s terms for the language used by professionals;
· How and where to access specialists, and funding;
· Parents and child’s rights, obligations, and entitlements; and
· Updates on changes to Government policies and means of resourcing.
Value of the IEP process
Parents placed a high value on the IEP process. A total of 96% considered it to be useful or very useful. Their words highlight the significance of the IEP:
· I see the IEP process as being an objective means of clearly gauging progress... I would hope that it is a chance for me to have an active part in developing an appropriate programme for my son that respects him as a person and encourages him to do his best.
· The IEP process gives us a chance to set goals for our child that he will achieve. It is good to talk about the positive things in his life and not dwell on the negative things.
· It has been a very good ongoing situation for me and my son to be present at IEPs over many years as this is very much a stock-taking time-time to stop and really think about the future. Making achievable goals to reach as the years have gone on to be a part of his education - to be in touch with those who have his best interests at heart.
· This is a very powerful document for families to use, therefore it is critical that parents are empowered and enabled to effect change.
· I feel that they (IEPs) are important to everyone involved. Time to acknowledge goals achieved. Time to ask questions. It is great to have professionals attend that are linked to your child. The more information the better.
Conclusion
In New Zealand the IEP is an essential element of the education of children who are blind and vision impaired. It facilitates children’s access to the curriculum, is a forum for planning goals and objectives, provides a basis for accountability, and is the vehicle to accessing discretionary funding and resources. A strength of the IEP process is its collaborative nature in which the opportunity is provided for parents and educators to work in partnership in support of the child. This research has highlighted both positive aspects of the IEP process and barriers that remain. Such barriers, however, have not prevented the study’s parents from identifying those aspects which will enhance the IEP process and the inherent partnership between parents and professionals. They include:
· Mutual respect;
· Open and honest communication;
· Being listened to;
· Sharing information;
· Valuing and utilising the knowledge and expertise of parents;
· Regard of parents as full and equal members of the IEP Team;
· Teaming;
· Knowledge of the purpose and process of the IEP;
· An approach that is collaborative, positive and holistic;
· Central focus on, and valuing of the child;
· Input from all those relevant to the child’s education (this does not necessarily mean attendance at the IEP meeting);
· Adequate inclusion of those with professional knowledge and expertise in vision education;
· Having reasonable expectations of each other's roles;
· Being well prepared for the IEP meeting;
· Adequate time in which to conduct the IEP;
· Adequate leadership with an agreed structure to the IEP meeting;
· Consideration of both the child’s strengths and areas for development;
· Shared decision making and accountability;
· Setting clear, achievable goals;
· Documentation of the IEP within a reasonable timeframe; and
· Education on IEPs for both parents and teachers.
The IEP is an effective and appropriate way of providing learning outcomes for children who are blind and vision impaired. It is a vehicle for both parents and professionals to work in partnership in the best interests of the child, and for aspirations, rather than limitations, to give shape to the outcome. The process does not end after the plan is written. Rather, it is the gateway to a journey that seeks to maximise learning opportunities and develop the potential of the child – a journey on which the parent-professional partnership is at the very core.
References
Blatch, P., Nagel, G. & Cruickshank, L. (1998). Current practices and future directions. In Kelley, P. & Gale, G. (Eds.), Towards excellence: Effective education for students with vision impairments (pp.17-32). Sydney: North Rocks Press.
Ministry of Education, New Zealand. (1993). The New Zealand Curriculum Framework. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education, New Zealand. (1996). Te Whâriki: Early childhood curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education, New Zealand. (1998). The IEP guidelines: Planning for students with special education needs. Wellington: Learning Media.
Moltzen, R. (2000). Planning for partnerships. In D. Fraser, R. Moltzen, & K. Ryba, (Eds.), Learners with special needs in Aotearoa/New Zealand (pp.133-146). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Nagel, G. & Williams, L. (2001). Voices for our children: Parents’ perspectives of the IEP Process. SPEVI Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.
Pagliano, P. (1994). Students with a vision impairment. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating children with special needs (pp.345-385). Sydney: Prentice Hall.
Pagliano, P. (1998). The School. In P. Kelley & G. Gale (Eds.), Towards excellence: Effective education for students with vision impairments (pp.52-63). Sydney: North Rocks Press.
Renault, J. (1997). Planning and writing individual education plans. Christchurch: Christchurch College of Education.
Rennie, J. (1998). The individual education plan: A process review. Unpublished dissertation: Auckland College of Education.
Thomson, C. & Rowan, C. (1995). Individual education plans in New Zealand schools. Wellington: Wellington College of Education.
|
Please send comments or questions to webmaster@icevi.org.