Individualized Education Program (IEP)

The Individualized Education Program (IEP) can be delineated as a statement written for the educational program of a child (Burns, 2006). Therefore, the major goal of the IEP is to meet the academic needs of the student/child. It is noteworthy that for every child who requires special education, IEP have to be implemented and executed (Burns, 2006). Generally, IEP is based on two major objectives which include;

• Establishing quantifiable and achievable academic goals for the child
• To state special academic services that the institution will offer to the child both on curricular and extracurricular basis (Burns, 2006)

Thus, citing from the objectives of the IEP, the team that opts to construct an effective IEP for children with special needs/disability ought to consider both the involvement and contribution of a child while considering the overall academic curriculum, extracurricular activities and other activities that are nonacademic (Burns, 2006). It is worthwhile to state that the construction of an effective Individualized Education Program demands the contribution of both the IEP team and the parents of the children.

Constituents of an Appropriate IEP    

Citing from the requirements of Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), an appropriate IEP contain the following statements;

The academic level of the child revealing the achievement and performance together with how the disability influences his or her academic performance (Burns, 2006)

Quantifiable and achievable annual academic goals

The academic progress of the child towards achieving the annual goals

Special academic and related services to be offered to the child as supplementary aids towards achievement of the annual goals set (Burns, 2006)

Description of the level if any, to which the disabled child might not participate with other children     

Individual accommodations required for measuring the academic progress of the child

The date projected for commencing the execution of IEP

Inclusion

Inclusion can be delineated as the placement of the disabled child in a normal education classroom (Lieberman & Houston, 2009). Therefore, this means that if the child/student requires any special services, they are offered within the general academic setting. After the Regular Education Initiative the issue of including students with disabilities in a general academic classroom became controversial among the general educators (Will, 1986).

Constituents of an Appropriate Inclusion   

Permitting full inclusion of disabled students in the classrooms

Concern that disabled students might not receive proper academic services

Support of the full-continuum of services to be provided to the disabled student

Concern that inclusion might negatively affect the general education teachers and other students

Recommendation for all participation of the youngsters in the general education setting

Beneficial Inclusion

Priority given to the student

Provision of adequate academic resources

Implementation and execution of school-based level models

Maintenance of continuum of services

Implementation of service delivery model

Assessment of the inclusion philosophy by the teachers and other stakeholders

Adherence to roles and responsibilities by special and general education teachers

Inappropriate Inclusion

Prioritizing the location of education first

Lack of consideration to the resources in the inclusion classrooms

Single service delivery model (which is full inclusion)

Lack of professional development of the inclusion

Lack of participation by teachers in developing inclusion philosophy

Poor definition and evaluation of special and general education teachers

Team Teaching Models 

One teach, one observe

This is a teaching structure where one of the teachers teach whereas the other collects the important data (Lieberman & Houston, 2009)

The benefit of this model is that it helps in provision of unobtrusive assistance to the students

The drawback is that the model is affected by the comfort level of the teacher and too much talking can interfere with the objective of the teaching model

Station teaching

This model of team teaching regards the phenomenon when the teachers teach differently in small groups (Lieberman & Houston, 2009)

The benefit of this model of teaching is that it is effective in making sure that the students acquire the required achievement and knowledge

The drawback of this model is that it cannot depend on sequential instructions

Alternative teaching 

This model encompasses selection of students from the class with regard to the requirements in the instructions to be given (Lieberman & Houston, 2009)

The benefit of this teaching model is that it helps in leveraging the achievement of the students that require intense instructions

The downside of the model is that it is difficult to execute since it varies on the objectives of the groups selected and the teacher

Teaming  

This is a situation when both teacher assume the role of teaching together the same group of students (Lieberman & Houston, 2009)

The benefit associated with this model is that it is more effective for the fast paced instruction of a large group of students

The drawback of the model is that it is very vulnerable to obstruction which might interfere with the objective of the teaching

Parallel teaching

This is a teaching structure where the class of students is split with regard to the number of the educators

The benefit of the structure is that it helps in teaching effectively as the class can be divided into smaller groups thereby enhancing understanding by the students

The drawback is that it is highly dependent on the similarity of the students in a group where it is hard for the students to have comparable learning styles

One teach, one assist

This is a phenomenon where one educator teaches and the other gives assistance to individual students

The benefit of this model is that it helps in giving unobstructed assistance to individual students thereby enhancing their understanding

The drawback is that it is affected by the comfort level of the teacher and too much talking can interfere with the understanding of the student

References 

Will, M. (1986). “Educating Children with Learning Problems: a Shared Responsibility.” Exceptional Children 52: 411–415

Burns, E. (2006). IEP-2005: Writing and implementing individualized education programs (IEPs). Springfield, IL: C.C Thomas, Publisher, Ltd.

Lieberman, L. J., & Houston-Wilson, C. (2009). Strategies for inclusion: A handbook for physical educators. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.