present but no longer silent: student participation in their transition iep meetings

Zarrow Center for Learning EnrichmentQuickTime™ and a

TIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Present But No Longer Silent: Student Participation in Their

Transition IEP Meetings

James Martin, Ph.D.OU Zarrow Center



Agenda

• Why Involve Students in the IEP Process?• Review of SD-IEP Intervention Studies• Our Research Procedures & Demographics• Do You Know the Answers?• Implications



IDEA 2004 Emphasizes• Students must be invited to their IEP

meetings the year they turn 16 (which often occurs when IEPs are constructed at the age of 15) and for the remainder of their high school years.– OK just returned to age 14

• IEPs for transition-aged students must be based upon the students’ assessed strengths, preferences, and interests.



3-Year Study of Secondary IEP Meetings

• Martin, Marshall, & Sale (2004) examined over 3-years the perceptions of 1,638 IEP team members from almost 400 IEP meetings.

• Students knew the reasons for the meeting, how to behave at the meetings, understood what was said, and talked significantly less than all other team members.

• Special Education teachers and parents talked about interests more than students.

Martin, J. E., Marshall, L. H., & Sale, R. P. (2004). A 3-year study of middle, junior high, and

high school IEP meetings. Exceptional Children, 70, 285-297.



The Sweeny Study• Control and intervention group design• Students with learning disabilities, mental

retardation, and speech/language impairments

• Students taught the SD-IEP learned the steps, had significantly higher levels of involvement in IEP meetings, attended more meetings, and knew significantly more of their goals after the meeting ended.

Sweeney, M. A. (1997). The effects of self-determination training on student involvement in the IEP process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.



North Carolina Study

• Allen, Smith, Test, Flowers, & Wood (2001)

• Students with mental retardation led their meetings and engaged in the SD-IEP steps at their meetings after being taught the SD-IEP.

Allen, S. K., Smith, A. C., Test, D. W., Flowers, C., & Wood, W. M. (2001). The effects of self-directed IEP on student participation in IEP meetings. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 24, 107-120.



Van Dycke Study

Van Dycke (2005) found that the written IEP documents of students who received SD-IEP instruction had more comprehensive postschool goal/vision statements than those who attended teacher-directed IEP meetings.

Van Dycke, J. L. (2005). Determining the Impact of Self-Directed IEP Instruction on Secondary IEP Transition Documents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman.



The Snyder Studies• Snyder & Shapiro (1997) demonstrated that the SD-

IEP increased IEP participation behaviors for students with emotional/behavior problems.

• Snyder (2000) demonstrated that the SD-IEP increased IEP participation behaviors for students with learning disabilities.

• Snyder (2002) demonstrated that the SD-IEP increased IEP participation behaviors for students dually diagnosed with mental retardation and emotional/behavior problems.

Snyder, E. P. (2000). Examining the effects of teaching ninth grade students receiving special education learning supports services to conduct their own IEP meetings. Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.

Snyder, E. P. (2002). Teaching students with combined behavioral disorders and mental retardation to lead their own IEP meetings. Behavioral Disorders, 27(4), 340-357.

Snyder, E. P., & Shapiro, E. (1997). Teaching students with emotional/behavioral disorders the skills to participate in the development of their own IEPs. Behavioral Disorders, 22, 246-259.



Purpose

• Who talks and what do the participants think about traditional teacher-directed IEP meeting?

• Can the Self-Directed IEP instructional program increase student participation in their IEP meetings?



Field Initiated Research Grant

• Year 1– Observe meetings– Distribute Post Meeting Survey – Collect Qualitative Data

• Year 2– Random Self-Directed IEP Intervention

• Year 3– Total Sample Self-Directed IEP Intervention– Team Training to facilitate student

participation



Self-Directed IEP - 11 Lessons

1. Begin meeting by stating purpose.2. Introduce everyone.3. Review past goals and performance.4. Ask for others’ feedback.5. State your school and transition goals.6. Ask questions if you do not understand.7. Deal with differences in opinion.8. State what support you will need.9. Summarize your goals.10. Close meeting by thanking everyone.11. Work on IEP goals all year.



First Year Baseline Study - Methods & Demographics

Teacher-Directed IEP Meetings



Observation Methodology• 10-second momentary time sampling

– At the end of each interval recorded who talked– Agreement checks 3 times over 90%– Total of 17,805 10-second intervals

• Observed student engagement in IEP steps• Collected length of meeting• Who started meeting, who left & came in,

type of meeting



Post-Meeting Participant Survey• Adult participants completed a 44 question

survey across 4 domains on a 4-point scale:– Prior knowledge– Transition issues– Participants meeting behavior– Thoughts about the recently completed meeting

• Students completed a similar, but easier to read survey written in first person



Age of Students

Age Students

12 3

13 9

14 29

15 15

16 18

17 20

18 5

19 1



Ethnic Background

Ethnic Group Percent

Caucasian 84

African American 9.2

Hispanic/Latino 3.7

Multicultural 2.8



• 109 secondary IEP meetings– 50 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 alone (only meeting scheduled)

• 49.6% more than one meeting scheduled back to back

• 68% boys (n=74) and 32% girls(n=35)

More Details…



Disability CategoriesDisability Percent

Learning Disabilities 78.0

Emotional Behavior Disorders 3.7

Multiple Disabilities .9

Mental Retardation 4.6

Autism 2.8

Multiple Disabilities .9

Other Health Impairments 10.1



IEP Team Members

Student

Support Personnel

Administrator

Family

Special Education

General Education

16.9%

24.7%

5.7%

13.6%

19.1%

19.9%



Second Study - Methods and Demographics

Student-Directed IEP



Observation Methodology• 10-second momentary time sampling

– At the end of each interval recorded who talked and if talked about transition or other issues

– Total of 20,210 10-second intervals– Percent agreement 3 checks mean 99%, with

range from 88 to 100%.

• Observed student engagement in IEP steps• Collected length of meeting• Who started meeting, who left & came in,

type of meeting



Post-Meeting Participant Survey - Same as in Year 1 Study

• Adult participants completed a 44 question survey across 4 domains on a 4-point scale:– Prior knowledge– Transition issues– Participants meeting behavior– Thoughts about the recently completed meeting

• Students completed a similar, but easier to read survey written in first person

• Combined Alpha across subscales .79 to .84



Design• Pre/post, control and intervention design with random

assignment by individual – 65 students in control group & 65 in intervention

• Groups did not differ in IQ & GPA– GPA = t(45) = .27, p = .40– IQ = t(41) = 1.08, p = .79

• Intervention group was taught IEP participation skills using the Self-Directed IEP

• Teachers completed the ChoiceMaker Self-Determination Assessment



Fidelity of Instruction

• Observed 16 of 17 teachers teaching 9 of the 11 Self-Directed IEP lessons

• Teachers taught 96.97% of the steps

• Seven teachers self-evaluated and indicated they taught 98.4% of the steps



Meeting Participants

• 764 team members across 130 middle and high school IEP meetings

• 64% male, 36% female

• 85% of students ranged in age from 13 - 17, with 11% being 18 years old or older, and 4% being 12 years old.



Settings

• 5 metropolitan area school districts

• 17 participating teachers

• 52 meetings at three middle schools

• 78 meetings at six high schools



Test Your IEP Knowledge



Teacher-Directed MeetingsPercent Yes Leadership Steps

Student introduced self

Student introduced IEP team members

Student stated purpose of the meeting

Student reviewed past goals and progress

Student asked for feedback

Student asked questions if didn’t understand

Student dealt with differences in opinion

Student stated needed support

Student expressed interests

Student expressed skills and limits

Student expressed options and goals

Student Closed meeting by thanking everyone



Teacher-Directed MeetingsYes (%)

No (%)

Leadership Steps

3.5 96.5 Student introduced self

1.2 98.8 Student introduced IEP team members

0.0 100 Student stated purpose of the meeting

2.4 97.6 Student reviewed past goals and progress

0 100 Student asked for feedback

6.0 94.0 Student asked questions if didn’t understand

5.9 94.1 Student dealt with differences in opinion

4.7 95.3 Student stated needed support

49.4 50.6 Student expressed interests

20 80 Student expressed skills and limits

27.1 72.9 Student expressed options and goals

0 100 Student Closed meeting by thanking everyone



Student-Directed MeetingsPercent Yes Leadership Steps

Student introduced self

Student introduced IEP team members

Student stated purpose of the meeting

Student reviewed past goals and progress

Student asked for feedback

Student asked questions if didn’t understand

Student dealt with differences in opinion

Student stated needed support

Student expressed interests

Student expressed skills and limits

Student expressed options and goals

Student closed meeting by thanking everyone



Student-Directed MeetingsPercent Yes Leadership Steps

70 Student introduced self

77 Student introduced IEP team members

70 Student stated purpose of the meeting

53 Student reviewed past goals and progress

22 Student asked for feedback

35 Student asked questions if didn’t understand

17 Student dealt with differences in opinion

25 Student stated needed support

72 Student expressed interests

43 Student expressed skills and limits

53 Student expressed options and goals

14 Student closed meeting by thanking everyone



More Leadership Stats

• The SD-IEP produced statistically significant increases across 10 of the 12 leadership steps.– Not for dealing with differences in opinion– Not for expressing interests

• Moderate to large eta squared effect size– Suggests a strong relationship between the SD-

IEP and students engaging in leadership steps



Teacher-Directed: What Percent Did These People Talk?

Role % of Time Talked

Special Ed Teacher

General Ed Teacher

Administrator

Family Members

Support Staff

Student

No Conversation

Multiple Conversations



Who Talked At IEP Meetings

SPED51%

Gen Ed9%

Administrators9%

Multiple Conv5%

No Conv2%

Student3%

Support 6%

Family15%

Year 1 Direct Observations of IEP MeetingsWho Talked at IEP Meetings?



Self-Directed IEP: What Percent Did These People Talk?


Special Ed Teacher

General Ed Teacher

Administrator

Family Members

Support Staff

Student

No Conversation

Multiple Conversations



Student-Directed: What % Did These People Talk?


Special Ed Teacher 53

General Ed Teacher 7

Administrator 6

Family Members 8

Support Staff 9

Student 13

No Conversation 3

Multiple Conversations 2



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 = 7.94– Student intervention mean = 21.73– SPED control mean = 71.66– SPED intervention mean = 88.94

• Eta square of .15 indicates a very strong relationship between the SD-IEP and students talking.



Answer This Question

• What was the average number of people at each meeting?



5.78 team members attended the average

IEP meeting (SD 1.4)

• 68% had between 4.3 and 7.18 people




• What was the average time each teacher-directed meeting lasted?



Teacher-Directed

Average length of meeting 31.2 minutes

68% of meetings ranged from 17 to 45 minutes

Number in attendance predicted length of meeting

Length of Meeting

85.080.0

75.070.0

65.060.0

55.050.0

45.040.0

35.030.0

25.020.0

15.010.0

Length of Meeting

Frequency

30

20

10

0

Std. Dev = 14.14

Mean = 31.2

N = 108.00




• How much longer do Self-Directed IEP meetings last than teacher-directed meetings?



• The student directed meetings are not statistically significantly longer than teacher-directed meetings. – Control = 29.05 minutes– Self-Directed IEP = 33.57 minutes




• Who started teacher-directed and student-directed IEP meetings?



Who Started Meetings

92

1.8

1.8

1.8

0.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Special EdTeacher

General EdTeacher

Mother

Speech Path

Special EdDirector

Percent of Meetings

Teacher-Directed IEP Meetings



Student-Directed IEP Meetings• Students started 28% of their own meetings.

– χ2 (1, N = 221) = 70.94, p = .000– Phi = .57 suggests a strong relationship between SD-

IEP and starting meeting– 1 control student and 27 intervention students

• Self-Directed IEP Students led 15% of their own meetings, control students did not lead any– χ2(1, N = 230) = 27.71, p = .0– Phi = .35 suggests a moderate relationship between

the SD-IEP and leading the meeting




• Who is most likely to not be present at the end of the meeting?



The General Education Teacher, followed by the student.



Answer this Question

• Who is most likely to come in and out of the meeting?



Administrator




• In a teacher-directed IEP meeting, who knows what to do at the meeting less than everyone else?



The Student




Who talked most about transition?



Percent of Intervals Discussed Transition

Special Ed50%

General Ed 4%

Admin8%

Family8%

Support Staff20%

Students10%



More Transition Facts• IEP team discussed transition across

24.64% of the cumulative meetings• No significant difference between SD-

IEP and control in time spent talking about transition issues

• High school to career tech centers produced the most transition discussions




When is transition talked about during

the IEP meeting?



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 16 31 46 61 76 91 106 121 136 151 166 181 196 211 226 241 256 271 286 301 316 331

10-Second Intervals Across 129 IEP Meetings

Percent IEP Team Members Discussed

Transition Issues




• What impact did the SD-IEP intervention have upon teacher ChoiceMaker Self-Determination Assessments?



ChoiceMaker SD Assessment• Opportunity post-test scores significantly

predicted choosing goals, expressing goals, and take action

• Repeated measures ANOVAs - significant pre-post for Choosing Goals- significant pre-post and intervention for

Expressing Goals (strong effect size)- significant Take Action pre-post and

intervention effect (moderate effect size)




• What impact did the SD-IEP have upon participants opinions?



• Students and adults both significantly increased their prior knowledge ratings.– Eta squared of .01 suggests a small relationship

• Increased adult and student ratings on transition issues– Cohen’s d of .62 suggests a moderate effect

• Increased student ratings on meeting behavior– Cohen’s d of .71 indicates a strong effect

• Increased student ratings on positive perception– Eta squared of .01 suggests a small effect



Effective Practice• This study and the previous group and

small-n research clearly demonstrate that the Self-Directed IEP is an effective practice.



Invitation Does Not Equal Participation

We are mandated to invite students to attend their IEP meetings when transition issues are discussed. This invitation does not guarantee meaningful student involvement in the meeting, nor does it equal meeting participation on behalf of the student.



We must go beyond just inviting students to attend their meetings.

We must teach students how to be actively involved in the IEP process.

We Must Teach Students How To Participate In Their Meetings



Implications for Teachers• Find a way to incorporate Self-Directed IEP

instruction into the classroom– In spite of the pressure to just teach academics

• Teach self-advocacy and access skills• Students become more engaged in the

educational process• Provides opportunity to practice skills needed

in postsecondary ed and work settings• Parents understand IEP process better.



References

Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. L., Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E., Christensen, W. R., Woods, L. L., & Lovett, D. L. (in press). Direct observation and participant opinions of teacher-directed secondary IEP meetings. Exceptional Children.

Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. L., Christensen, W. R., Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E., & Lovett, D. L. (2005) Increasing Student Participation in Their Transition IEP Meetings: A First Step in Teaching Self-Determination Skills. Manuscript submitted for publication.



James Martin, Ph.D.

University of Oklahoma

Zarrow Center for Learning Enrichment

Carpenter Hall Room 111

Norman, OK 73019

Phone: 405-325-8951

E-mail: [email protected]

For More Information Contact: