Author: Hanah Sims

SUMMARY OF IEP DIFFERENCES		4

SUMMARY OF IEP DIFFERENCES		3

Running Head: SUMMARY OF IEP DIFFERENCES	1

Summary of IEP Differences
Hanah Sims
SE 301
CRN# 10399
Dr. Hudson
09/03/2017

	The sample Individualized Education Program (IEP) I chose to transpose into the current IEP form of the State of Alabama was concerning Sam’s strengths, preferences, accommodations, and goals as a high school senior receiving Special Education support. The first difference I noticed between the sample form and the template involved the older form’s lack of questioning whether the student had a Behavioral Intervention Plan under the list of Special Instructional Factors. One reason the older form may not address this could be due to the fact that Sam’s original IEP does not describe any significant behavioral issues, specifically that he has no behaviors that impede his learning or the learning of others, only weaknesses in comprehension and organization. According to Friend & Bursack (2015), students exhibiting behavioral issues impacting their education “must have as part of the IEP an intervention plan based on a functional assessment of the student’s behavior” (p. 59). As Sam is able to spend the majority of his classroom experience in the general education environment, roughly 80-100% of the time, it is highly likely that Sam’s behavior does not raise the same level of concerns as the other issues addressed in his IEP. Another factor Friend & Bursack (2015) address which could contribute to this difference between the old and new forms could simply involve how IEPs are ever-evolving documents that are adjusted on a regular basis (p. 57).
	The second difference I found in comparing the two IEP forms involved the shift in exit, or diploma options and how the newer form appears to reflect more equal educational opportunities between all students. While Sam earned seven credits towards his regular Alabama High School diploma, it is difficult accurately to transfer those credits into the new categories, specifically the General Education Pathway, the Essential/Life Skills Pathway, or the Alternate Achievement Standards Pathway. Based on the descriptions of the new options, one could assume Sam would follow the General Education Pathway in order to prepare him for his future enrollment at Morris Junior College, but he could also be prepared for college, career, and employment while earning credits towards a different diploma option. Since Sam’s IEP and transition services are determined based on his own personal interests, skills, and needs, his diploma option or educational track should also reflect those specifications.
	The third difference I acknowledged between the sample IEP and the template involved how while the sample form did address how transition goals would be measured and the expected long-term goals would be concerning postsecondary education, career, employment, and living arrangements, the new template asked for further clarification on which individual assessments would be used to measure those specific goals. Similarly, the template also separated postsecondary education goals from employment goals instead of grouping those two categories together. I think the further divided categories of the new IEP form enable educators to help students strive to meet more developmental goals and skills that can be used in college, the workforce, and everyday social interaction. Another factor pertaining to annual goals mentioned in the textbook that neither form asked about, despite it not being necessary for this specific student, involved short-term objectives. While Sam’s performance levels are addressed with long-term goals, Friend & Bursack (2015) note “federal law requires that short-term objectives be written only for the IEPs of students with significant intellectual disabilities,” reinforcing the lack of short-term goals in Sam’s IEP (p. 58). Overall, the differences between the two forms appear to reflect how educators are continually striving to develop more specific and in-depth Individualized Education Programs in an effort to help all students learn essential skills and succeed despite their performance levels or disabilities.  

References
Friend, M., & Bursack, W.D. (2015). Including students with special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers. (7^th Ed.) Boston: Pearson.