Self-Directed Iep Case Study

This is simply not the case. Students who have not had the benefit of previous instruction often feel a debilitating inability to contribute (Martin, VanDycke, Greene, Gardner, Christensen, Woods, & Lovett, 2006). Without specific IEP instruction, students have no idea how to participate in IEP meetings, nor do they fully understand the purpose of their IEPs (Martin, Van Dycke, Christensen, Greene, Gardner, Woods, and Lovett, 2006). Lack of instruction, however should not be the hindrance that prevent students from participating and leading the IEP process. Students with disabilities must be taught how to direct their IEPs.
Teaching students how to direct their IEPs creates an additional step in the process that might seem like an undue

burden to some. However, as aforementioned, the benefits of active participation are undeniable, and educators must consider the long-term outcomes for students over the additional time and preparation. For the most part, teachers are pleased with the result. Myers and Eisenman (2005) documented the experiences of six teachers who decided to try student led IEPs for the first time. Although preparation for the IEP meetings was far more significant than the typical teacher-led IEP, each teacher felt that the additional commitment was worthwhile. The teachers noted that each student showed significant growth in both self-confidence and self-esteem. The students also showed a better understanding of their disability and how to evaluate their own strengths and weaknesses. When teachers are willing to take on the challenge of guiding students to lead their IEPs, everyone benefits.
There is no one specific way to teach students to be more involved in their IEP, and any instruction is a good start. Even a quick conference before an IEP meeting can help to ease a student’s discomfort. However, the more intensive the preparation process is, the more students will be able to proficiently contribute. Mason, McGahee, and Johnson (2004) for example, recommend a minimum of 6 sessions prior to IEP or transition meetings. Teachers can implement these sessions as they choose, but it is recommended that topics included post school goals, current goals, current performance levels, evaluation of strengths and weaknesses, legal rights, and needed accommodations (Mason et al., 2004). In the Myers and Eisenman (2005) study, teachers also created their own approach to guiding students through the IEP process. While the topics covered were consistent with the recommendations of Mason et al. (2005), the interventions were implemented in many different ways, and each intervention increased student IEP participation. The important take away from this information, is that teachers have the flexibility to implement interventions in the most suitable way for the student at hand. As long as educators are addressing the important topics, they are free to create their own method for guiding students through the IEP process.
While teachers can certainly create their own method for teaching students to participate in the IEP process if they choose, there is also a plethora of evidence-based programs that are systematically designed to guide students through the IEP process. These programs are backed by research and provide a good alternative for educators who may be unsure how to guide students towards leading their own IEPS.
The Self-Directed IEP (Martin, Marshall, Maxson, Jerman, 1997) is an example of curriculum designed to teach students to participate actively in their IEP meetings.

This program is geared towards middle and high school students and teaches the leadership and self-determination skills needed to effectively contribute to the IEP process. The Self-Directed IEP uses video modeling, student assignments, and role playing to teach students IEP leadership skills. Arndt, Konrad, and Test (2006) studied the effectiveness of The Self-Directed IEP on 5 inner-city high school students who had been receiving special education since the primary grades. Students were observed during real and mock IEP meetings during the baseline period, and then were given The Self-directed IEP intervention. After the intervention, students once again participated in mock IEP meetings. The study found that student participation in the mock IEP meetings increased after the intervention was implemented (Arndt et al., 2006). The authors also noted that the students were able to generalize skill acquisition and participated more fully in real IEP meetings as well (Arndt et al., 2006).Student feedback also indicated that students felt more knowledgeable and confident about the IEP process as a whole (Arndt et

al.,2006).
Martin, Van Dycke, Christensen, Greene, Gardner, and Lovett (2006) also assessed the effectiveness of The Self-Directed IEP program in increasing student IEP participation, but on a larger scale. This study observed 130 IEP team meetings and involved 764 IEP team members. Students included had various disabilities, including learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, autism, emotional/behavioral disorders, and other health impairments. For the purpose of the study, students were randomly assigned to either a teacher-directed IEP control group or The Self-Directed IEP intervention group. The results indicated that when students were given The Self-directed IEP intervention, they were more likely to start and lead the IEP meetings (Martin, Van Dycke, Christensen, Greene, Gardner, & Lovett, 2006). Students receiving the intervention also spoke significantly more during the meetings (Martin, Van Dycke, Christensen, Greene, Gardner, & Lovett, 2006).Overall the authors concluded that The Self-Directed IEP program increased student IEP attendance and participation (Martin, Van Dycke, Christensen, Greene, Gardner, & Lovett, 2006).
Another example of an evidence-based program designed to teach students how to participate in their IEP is Whose Future is it Anyway(WFA).

WFA, developed by Dr. Michael Wehmeyer, is a transition planning process consisting of 6 sections that introduces students to the concept of transition and transition planning and enables them to self-direct learning in areas such as disability awareness, decision making, setting goals, communicating effectively in small groups, and participating and leading teams. The program is designed to span the course of an entire year. Lee, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Williams-Deihm, Davies, & Stock(2011) studied the effectiveness of WFA on middle and high school students between the ages of 12-16. The study also measured the effectivness of the program when used in conjuction with a reading support. The authors concluded that the WFA program enhanced self-determination, transition planning knowledge, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations for educational planning (Lee et al.,2011). Students receiving the added reading support benefited even more. While this particular study focused primarily on the increased effectivness of WFA when used in conjunction with a reading program, the results also showed another important implication. WFA increased the self-determination, self-efficacy, and transition planning knowledge of students in middle school (Lee et al.,2011). These results indicate WFA could be used as a preperation tool for future transition planning

before a student even reaches high school. Furthermore, while WFA focuses on transition planning, many teachers involved in the study found that it increased IEP knowledge and participation at the middle school level as well(Lee et al.,2011).
The Self-Directed IEP and Whose Future Is It Anyway are just two examples of the many evidence based programs proven to increase a student’s ability to be an active and contributing member of the IEP process. While these programs are not necessary for increasing student IEP participation, they provide a good picture of the resources available to educators. With the availabilty of such resources, there simpy isnt a good reason to deny students the opportunity to be active member of the IEP team.