Presentation on theme: "Student Involvement In the IEP Process: What Do You Know?"— Presentation transcript:
1 Student Involvement In the IEP Process: What Do You Know? James Martin, Ph.D.Zarrow Chair in Learning EnrichmentUniversity of OklahomaZarrow Center840 Asp Ave, Room 111Norman, OK 73019
2 Study of Educator-Directed IEP Meetings 3-year study of IEP meetingsAlmost 1,700 IEP team members across 393 IEP meetings389 IEP meetings over three yearsMartin, J. E., Huber Marshall, L., & Sale, P. (2004). A 3-year study of middle, junior high, and high school IEP meetings. Exceptional Children, 70,
3 Answer This QuestionWhat two people did not know the reason for the IEP meeting?
4 I Knew the Reason for Meeting Students knew the reason for IEP meeting less than all other participants.General educators knew the reasons for the meeting less than everyone except the student
5 Answer This QuestionWhat two people did not report that they helped make decisions at the IEP meetings?
6 I Helped Make Decisions Gen Education Teachers reported helping to make decisions less all other team members, followed by student.
7 Answer This QuestionWho knew what to do at the IEP meeting less than anyone else?
8 I Knew What To Do At the IEP Meetings? Students – less than anyone elseParentsGeneral Ed Teachers
9 Answer This QuestionWho talked the most at the IEP meetings?
13 Answer This QuestionWho felt the most uncomfortable saying what they thought?Who reported helping make decisions less than anyone else?Who understood less than anyone else what was said at the meeting?Who reported feeling the worst about the meeting?
14 AnswersStudents felt uncomfortable in saying what they thought more so than anyone else.Students reported that they helped make decisions less than anyone else.Students understood less than anyone else in what was said.Students reported feeling less good about the meeting than anyone else.
15 Other Interesting Findings: When Students Attend Meeting Parents knew the reason for the meeting and understood what was going onSpecial educators talked lessParents, gen ed, and related services felt more comfortable saying what they thoughtAdministrators talked more about students strengths and interestsParents and gen ed knew more of what to do nextGen Ed felt better when students attended
16 Field Initiated Research Grant Year 1Observe meetings to determine who talksSurvey after meetings with expanded surveyQualitative StudyYear 2Self-Directed IEP InterventionYear 3Self-Directed IEPTeam Training to facilitate student participation
17 Baseline Study Details 109 secondary IEP meetings50 middle school meetings (9 schools)59 high school meetings (7 schools)Students attended 84 of the 109 meetings (77% of the meetings)50.4% of meetings stand alone49.6% back-to-back68% boys (n=74) and 32% girls (n=35)
18 Answer This QuestionWhat percent of time did the following people talk?Sped teacherGeneral ed teacherAdministratorParentStudent
19 Direct Observations of IEP Meetings Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. L., Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E., Christensen, W. R., Woods, L. L., & Lovett, D. L. (2006). Direct observation of teacher-directed IEP meetings: Establishing the need for student IEP meeting instruction. Exceptional Children, 72,
20 Answer This QuestionWhat percent of IEP meetings did students do these behaviors?Introduce everyone and self?State purpose of meeting?Review past goals?Express interests?
21 Teacher-Directed Meetings Yes (%)No (%)Leadership Steps3.596.5Student introduced self1.298.8Student introduced IEP team members0.0100Student stated purpose of the meeting2.497.6Student reviewed past goals and progressStudent asked for feedback6.094.0Student asked questions if didn’t understand5.994.1Student dealt with differences in opinion4.795.3Student stated needed support49.450.6Student expressed interests2080Student expressed skills and limits27.172.9Student expressed options and goalsStudent Closed meeting by thanking everyone
22 Token Member of IEP Team Students are the token member of transition IEP teamsInvitation to be present does not provide opportunity for equal participation or decision making
23 Oklahoma Self-Directed IEP Research More Test Your KnowledgeMartin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. L., Christensen, W. R., Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E., & Lovett, D. L. (2006) Increasing student participation in IEP meetings: Establishing the Self-Directed IEP as an evidenced-based practice. Exceptional Children, 72,
24 Involve Student in IEP Planning Process Teach students to become active participants in own IEP meetingLearn terms and processStudents write script of what to say and whenPracticeProvide opportunities for students to speak at IEP meetingsInvolve and educate IEP Team in facilitating student involvement
25 Examples and Non-Examples Teachers and parents telling team student’s interests & strengthsTeachers and parents telling team about student’s limitsTeachers and parents deciding who will attend IEP meetingEducators being responsible for attainment of goalsStudent telling team about her own interests & strengthsStudent telling team about her own limitsStudent inviting those who have to be there and those of her choice to the meeting.Student attaining goals
27 Self-Directed IEPThe small-n, experimental, and quasi-experimental studies demonstrate SD-IEP as an evidence-based practice.
28 Self-Directed IEP Steps State Purpose of MeetingIntroduce TeamReview Past GoalsAsk for FeedbackState School and Transition GoalsAsk Question If Don’t UnderstandDeal with Differences in OpinionState Support NeedsSummarize GoalsClose MeetingWork on Goals All Year
29 DesignPre/post, control and intervention design with random assignment by individual65 students in control group & 65 in interventionGroups did not differ in IQ & GPAGPA = t(45) = .27, p = .40IQ = t(41) = 1.08, p = .7984% Caucasian, 9% African America, 4% Hispanic, 3% multicultural (mostly Native American)Intervention group was taught IEP participation skills using the Self-Directed IEPTeachers completed the ChoiceMaker Self-Determination Assessment
30 Observation Methodology 10-second momentary time samplingAt the end of each interval recorded who talked and if talked about transition or other issuesTotal of 20, second intervalsPercent agreement 3 checks mean 99%, with range from 88 to 100%.Observed student engagement in IEP stepsCollected length of meetingWho started meeting, who left & came in, type of meeting
31 Student-Directed: What Percent Did Team Members Talk? Role% of Time TalkedSpecial Ed TeacherGeneral Ed TeacherAdministratorFamily MembersSupport StaffStudentNo ConversationMultiple Conversations
32 Student-Directed: Percent Team Members Talked Role% of Time TalkedSpecial Ed Teacher53General Ed Teacher7Administrator6Family Members8Support Staff9Student13No Conversation3Multiple Conversations2
33 Impact of the SD-IEP on Students Talking Students and special education teachers who used the SD-IEP talked significantly more than those in the control group.Student control mean = 7.94Student intervention mean = 21.73SPED control mean = 71.66SPED intervention mean = 88.94Eta square of .15 indicates a large effect between the SD-IEP and students talking.
34 Student-Directed Meetings: What Percent of IEP Leadership Steps Did Students Complete? Percent YesLeadership StepsStudent introduced selfStudent introduced IEP team membersStudent stated purpose of the meetingStudent reviewed past goals and progressStudent asked for feedbackStudent asked questions if didn’t understandStudent dealt with differences in opinionStudent stated needed supportStudent expressed interestsStudent expressed skills and limitsStudent expressed options and goalsStudent closed meeting by thanking everyone
35 Student-Directed Meetings: Percent of IEP Leadership Steps Students Completed Percent YesLeadership Steps70Student introduced self77Student introduced IEP team membersStudent stated purpose of the meeting53Student reviewed past goals and progress22Student asked for feedback35Student asked questions if didn’t understand17Student dealt with differences in opinion25Student stated needed support72Student expressed interests43Student expressed skills and limitsStudent expressed options and goals14Student closed meeting by thanking everyone
36 Student-Directed IEP Meetings Students started 28% of their own meetings.χ2 (1, N = 221) = 70.94, p = .000Phi = .57 suggests a large effect between SD-IEP and starting meeting1 control student and 27 intervention studentsSelf-Directed IEP Students led 15% of their own meetings, control students did not lead anyχ2(1, N = 230) = 27.71, p = .0Phi = .35 suggests a moderate effect between the SD-IEP and leading the meeting
37 Answer This QuestionHow much longer do Self-Directed IEP meetings last than teacher-directed meetings?
38 Length of Student-Directed vs. Teacher-Directed Meetings The student directed meetings are not statistically significantly longer than teacher-directed meetings.
39 Answer This Question Who talked most about transition? What percent of time did students talk about transition?
41 Teaching Students With Visual Impairments to Actively Participate in Their Secondary IEP Meetings Pei-Fang Wu and Jim Martin University of Oklahoma Sharon Isbell Oklahoma School for the Blind
42 Method We observed 34 IEPs,14 males and 20 females. 50% with visual impairment, 32% have more than one type of disability, and 17.6% were blind.We had 82.4% Caucasian, 8.8%African American, 5.9%Hispanic/Latino American, and 2.9% Native American
43 ParticipantsStudents’ age range from 13 to 20 years old. 52.9% student being 17 years or younger, and 47.1% student were being 18 years or older.58% of the participating teachers were female with average of 10 years and 7 months teaching experience. 42% of the participated teachers were male with the average of 19 years and 7 month teaching experience.
44 Answer This QuestionAt the OK School for the Blind, what percent of time do students who received Self-Directed IEP instruction talk at their IEP meeting?
49 Self-Directed IEP Available From Sopris West4093 Specialty PlaceLongmont, CO 80504Phone: (303)Fax: (888)
50 New Mexico StudyMeasured extent districts implemented quality transition education programsExamined postschool outcomesFound that student involvement in transition goal discussion and involvement in the IEP meeting made a major difference in postschool employment and higher education rates.
52 All lessons and associated materials can be found at http://education All lessons and associated materials can be found at click on transition education materials
53 More IEP Teaching Materials Self-Advocacy StrategyEdge EnterpriseP.O. Box 1304Lawrence, KS 66044A Student’s GuideNational Information Center for Children and Youth with DisabilitiesP.O. Box 1492Washington, DC 20013NEXT S.T.E.P.PRO-Ed8700 Shoal Creek BlvdAustin, TXWhose Future Is It Anyway?Wehmeyer, et al.Available for free at:
54 For More Information Contact Jim MartinUniversity of OklahomaZarrow Center for Learning EnrichmentCarpenter Hall, Room 111Norman, OK 73019Phone: