Negative Perceptions of the IEP Process by Special Education Teachers Finally, a number of articles prior to IDEA reported that the perceptions of special ’97 education teachers concerning the IEP process were often negative. For example, Gerardi, Grohe, Benedict, and Coolidge (1984) concluded that the administrative responsibilities associated with the development of the IEP placed excessive time demands on special education teachers, in particular those responsibilities that required a large amount of paperwork. Based on a survey of special education teachers, Morgan and Rhode (1983) reported that these teachers felt that much of their time had to be spent on the IEP process and that they did not receive adequate support from other personnel. Moreover, the teachers felt that there was no direct link between the IEP as written and what actually took place in the classroom. The teachers viewed the IEP as an administrative rather than an instructional tool and felt that they could teach as easily without the IEP. Similarly, Dudley-Marling (1985) found that special education teachers did not consider the IEP to be particularly useful or accessible and that they often did not refer to the IEP in planning instruction. ‘97 Summary of Pre-IDEA Literature In summary, the IEP literature to IDEA focused heavily on the inadequacies of ’97 the IEP as both a document and a process. As a document, the IEP was found to lack both essential components and connectedness between components, to vary across different settings, and to have no relationship to the general curriculum. Inadequacies of the IEP as a process focused on the limited participation by general education teachers, the excessive paperwork and time demands placed on special education teachers, and the perception of the IEP as having little value to guide instruction. The 1997 IDEA reauthorization attempted to address these concerns ’97 Part Two: IDEA Requirements Pertaining to IEP’s In response to the inadequacies associated with the IEP that were highlighted in the educational literature, Congress introduced a number of changes in the IEP in the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA. Specifically, IDEA included five new IEP requirements ’97 pertaining to the involvement and progress of students with disabilities in the general curriculum:
Negative Perceptions of the IEP Process by Special Education Teachers Finally, a number of articles prior to IDEA ’97 reported that the perceptions of special education teachers concerning the IEP process were often negative. For example, Gerardi, Grohe, Benedict, and Coolidge (1984) concluded that the administrative responsibilities associated with the development of the IEP placed excessive time demands on special education teachers, in particular those responsibilities that required a large amount of paperwork. Based on a survey of special education teachers, Morgan and Rhode (1983) reported that these teachers felt that much of their time had to be spent on the IEP process and that they did not receive adequate support from other personnel. Moreover, the teachers felt that there was no direct link between the IEP as written and what actually took place in the classroom. The teachers viewed the IEP as an administrative rather than an instructional tool and felt that they could teach as easily without the IEP. Similarly, Dudley-Marling (1985) found that special education teachers did not consider the IEP to be particularly useful or accessible and that they often did not refer to the IEP in planning instruction. Summary of Pre-IDEA ‘97 Literature In summary, the IEP literature to IDEA ’97 focused heavily on the inadequacies of the IEP as both a document and a process. As a document, the IEP was found to lack both essential components and connectedness between components, to vary across different settings, and to have no relationship to the general curriculum. Inadequacies of the IEP as a process focused on the limited participation by general education teachers, the excessive paperwork and time demands placed on special education teachers, and the perception of the IEP as having little value to guide instruction. The 1997 IDEA reauthorization attempted to address these concerns Part Two: IDEA ’97 Requirements Pertaining to IEP’s In response to the inadequacies associated with the IEP that were highlighted in the educational literature, Congress introduced a number of changes in the IEP in the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA. Specifically, IDEA ’97 included five new IEP requirements pertaining to the involvement and progress of students with disabilities in the general curriculum:
ncac-curriculum-access-role-iep-2004.docx