I headed into this paper with an opinion, a strong one. I was one hundred percent sure of this and I was
determined to prove myself. It seems the reflection began even before I could write a word.
The issue with Individualized Education Plans (or IEPs as they’re more commonly referred to) was a nobrainer in my opinion. Last year I took an extra year to do a co-op in a middle school classroom and between the
two classes I was partly responsible for, we had probably 20 students who were on IEPs. These students were the
most difficult to work with and had some of the lowest scores on the EQAO. My supervisor (who was my teacher
when I was in grade 6) explained to me that they were not allowed to fail students in general because it undermines
their confidence. The students were being passed without possibly actually having adequate knowledge to move on
to the next grade level!! You have kids with mental and health disabilities who are given an easier version of the
school curriculum because they are on a special programs! Correct me if I’m wrong but is this the worst idea ever
or what? This means that most of these students who have passed onto the sixth grade probably have about the same
grasp of concepts as a grade 2 student because they are not actually learning the material provided in each
progressive year of school. They are being passed along without anyone knowing if they have actually learned
anything from our school system!
Putting my original opinion of the IEP process aside for now. I think its important to understand the IEP
process before I go into great detail about what I have learned about it. The IEP is an ever-adapting process set into
motion with the development of the IEP document by the principal. The document must be prepared within 30 days
of the student being placed in specific program. This outlines the disabilities, issues, learning methods and an action
plan for the student’s success. Along with the student’s name and all that other necessary information the IEP
addresses any individual needs the student has regarding special equipment or special adaptations that can be made
for the student (Curriculum adjustments, one-on-one lessons, small group setting, etc…). The IEP is updated
frequently so as to keep up with the child’s constantly changing progress, as well as any new needs which may arise.
Here in Ontario it is the responsibility of the principal to ensure that the IEP is maintained, however it is the
responsibility of the teacher to update that IEP and to educate the students with special needs(1).
At my co-op, my supervisor was responsible for two classes, one a grade 6 class and the other a 5/6 split
class. In the grade 6 class there were 31 kids, 10 of whom were on these special education programs and in the 5/6
split there were 28 kids with 8 of them being IEP students. So this teacher was responsible for teaching about 60
students and about 30% of them had identified specific learning needs (not to mention the learning needs of those
“normal” kids), except for the one day out of the week where we had a LRT (Learning Resource Teacher) come and
help in the classroom. This is a HUGE responsibility for one teacher to have to burden! It was very difficult to
manage the class with the teacher, the LRT and myself in the room, and I couldn’t even imagine being responsible
for that bunch on my own. I have considered the possibility that the co-op teacher was potentially not a very good
teacher and that was why he was unsuccessful in helping these IEP students to achieve the same level as other
children. However, I know this is not the case because having had him myself, I know how well he gets students
involved in everything that is happening in the school, not just the classroom, and if anyone could get students to
learn, it would be this man. I now believe (although I didn’t realize when I was in the classroom) it’s not that the
IEP process doesn’t work, it’s that the government does not provide the resources for the IEP to be successful.
There is one teacher responsible for updating and maintaining the IEPs, as well as teaching students the material
they need, keeping track of marks and paying attention to the individual needs of all the students in the classroom.
The system is designed to fail because it is too difficult a process for one teacher to maintain.
By no means does this statement come without some sort of validation. In the process of researching for
this paper I came across two studies performed by universities in the United States. One of these studies analyzed
the effects and implications of having student-led IEPs in elementary schools. The other was a study of teachers in
Alabama and Georgia to obtain their opinions of the IEP process and its effects. In the first study, 4 elementary
students participated in 120 minutes of lessons which prepared them for the IEP meetings which took place in the
presence of the student, regular education teacher, special education teacher and the parents. This study found that
when students were prepared for the IEP meeting and were generally informed of their IEP, then the IEP meeting
was much more centered around the student, and was in fact mostly student directed. Students were found to be
more involved in deciding their goals and showed improvements in their academic drive. Although this drive
eventually diminished to normal levels, it is evident that the students were, for a time, more motivated by their
involvement in their own learning. The article defines the skills developed in these meetings as self-determination
skills (goal setting, decision making and problem solving) and suggests that these skills are very important for all
students to possess(2).
I strongly agree with the article in this respect, as I have always believed that the skills one learns in school
go far beyond the classroom basics of reading, math and writing. This article also raises a few other important
points of interest. In the study it mentioned that there were special education teachers which were mostly
responsible for the development of the IEP (although the regular education teacher was also involved). This is much
different from the situation we have here in Ontario. This means there are two trained personnel who are
responsible for the education of students rather than just the one as in my co-op. Had this been the situation in our
classroom, I’m positive my supervisor would have been better able to help the students to reach or approach their
potential. This brings me back to my point that the system is designed to fail because the government is not
providing the means for the IEP process in Ontario to succeed. At my co-op there was no additional teacher to
constantly aid in the education of special students and the quality of their education definitely suffered because of it.
Another point that can be drawn from this article which supports my opinion is that the students were involved in
the IEP process. At my co-op, my supervisor updated the IEP( or had me update it for him) however the student
was never present for this process. Had there been some sort of student involvement when we were updating each
individual IEP then maybe those students would have shown more initiative to succeed like the students in the study.
The example of this study has led me to believe that all students should have a say in their education.
The second study consisted of a survey administered to education teachers from Alabama and Georgia.
There were 123 respondents and these teachers were questioned to determine their opinions of the IEP. The results
of this survey showed that most teachers believed that the IEP was generally an effective process and was certainly
worth the time invested in it. The teachers also showed an agreement with the statement that the IEP and its goals
are effective for providing structure and for evaluating the progress of students. The article also suggested increased
scores on standardized tests, gains in learning and lower incidences of suspensions of special students on IEPs when
incorporated in regular classroom settings (3). This information hits me on two levels. First, I cannot imagine the
students behaving in a worse manner than they were in the regular classroom setting provided at my co-op and yet
this article states that students show improvement when integrated into a regular classroom. This reinforces the fact
that managing a classroom with a number of special individuals is a very difficult task to tackle. Secondly, it shows
me that teachers believe that IEPs are an effective means of aiding special students in becoming successful students.
In my co-op I was sure that every teacher thought that IEPs were a difficult process which would were not worth the
time they took to complete. This just shows me that I cannot base my opinions on what happens in one classroom or
one school. It also shows me that I cannot have biases in the classroom.
Both of these articles have shown that in the United States there appears to be an entirely different
approach and opinion of the IEP process. There seems to be much more support involved in the development and
implementation of the IEP, which probably influences the results obtained by the survey. The teachers are much
more positive about the IEP process and there also seems to be much better results obtained by the IEP process in
the USA, which has lead me to change my opinion of the IEP process.
I was initially under the belief that IEPs were a terrible idea which were more detrimental than helpful. I
thought that, because my supervisor (being the great teacher he was) could not reach these special students, then it
was the fault of the IEP and not the teacher. I now realize that it is the fault of neither. In my opinion our
government is establishing a program to aid special students, which they are not supporting enough for it to be
successful. In the United States there are special education teachers which work constantly with the regular
education teacher in order to educate these special students by whatever means are necessary. In Ontario the
teachers are playing the dual role of special education teacher and regular education teacher and have a much greater
task to manage. I think our government should be working to improve the quality of education for these special
students, rather than just implementing a program and leaving it up to the teachers to maintain.
All that being said, I believe the government is effecting the schools in another way. The students are
being passed onto the next grade without necessarily having the skill set to be able to succeed in the next grade. The
first article I described stated, “Students learn to attribute their failures to factors outside their control and lose
confidence in their abilities and [they] lower their expectations…” These students may avoid this loss of confidence
associated with failing a grade, however they are being inflated with a false sense of confidence which will feel like
a slap in the face when they reach highschool where it is possible to fail a class. By that time they will not have
developed any skills to be able to succeed and could become another statistic for the drop-out rate. I believe that, in
order to prevent students from facing reality in high school, we must keep the students realistic from a young age. If
this means failing a student because they do not possess the skills or knowledge to move onto the next grade then so
be it. As the article states we can offset this “drop in confidence” by having the student more involved in their
education process. The students in the study gained confidence in their abilities when they were involved in
deciding their own goals and how they would achieve them. It will make them more responsible for their failures
and will make the reward of success much more satisfying for that student. The students will learn to become more
responsible for their own lives and will learn skills which will be helpful to them through school and life,
specifically problem solving-skills, goal-setting skills and decision making skills.
The information I have gathered in the process of writing this paper has caused a bit of a change of tune
you might say. I no longer have the same skepticism about the effectiveness of the IEP and I have begun to develop
ideas about teaching and the ways students learn along the way. I have also learned to be very critical of the system
which was very kind to me. Hopefully the learning will continue as my education continues.
Annotated Works Cited
(1) “The Individual Education Plan Process”. Ontario Ministry of Education Website.
Accessed November 7th, 2009.
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/individu.html
This source was very helpful for the purposes of my critical reflection because it
allowed me to understand the actual individualized education plan process better. In
turn this allowed me to illustrate the process to others so that they can better
understand what I am discussing in my essay. By knowing what is necessary for the
IEP process it also helped me to reevaluate my opinion of the IEP process because I
learned exactly what is supposed to be happening within the process.
(2) “Benefits of and Barriers to Elementary Student-Led Individualized Education
Programs”. Remedial and Special Education, Volume 30 Number 4. Copyright
2009 Hammill Institute on Disabilities. Accessed November 5th, 2009.
This source was very helpful for me in terms of showing me that there are benefits to
Individualized Education Programs and that there are incidences of students
participating in the assessment of their education plans. It was very interesting to
learn that when students were prepared for IEP meetings, their participation
increased and they became very keen to set their own goals and make decisions.
This article was very helpful in changing my opinion of the IEP process because of
the positive outcome that the study showed.
(3) “Are individualized Education Plans a Good Thing?”. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, Volume 33, No. 4. Aleada Lee-Tarver.
This source was useful in showing that teachers have positive opinions of the
Individual Education Plans. It was also useful in informing me that students have
shown improvements by being placed in a regular classroom as part of their IEP. As
a result I realized that it is possible that in Ontario we are proceeding with the IEP
process in an incorrect manner, which has resulted in the negative opinion of it.