Present But No Longer Silent: Student Participation in Their Transition IEP Meetings

1. Present But No Longer Silent:Student Participation in Their Transition IEP Meetings James Martin, Ph.D. OU Zarrow Center

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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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 • Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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?

10. 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

11. Self-Directed IEP - 11 Lessons • Begin meeting by stating purpose. • Introduce everyone. • Review past goals and performance. • Ask for others’ feedback. • State your school and transition goals. • Ask questions if you do not understand. • Deal with differences in opinion. • State what support you will need. • Summarize your goals. • Close meeting by thanking everyone. • Work on IEP goals all year.

12. First Year Baseline Study - Methods & Demographics Teacher-Directed IEP Meetings

13. 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

14. 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

15. Age of Students

16. Ethnic Background

17. More Details… • 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)

18. Disability Categories

19. IEP Team Members

20. Second Study - Methods and Demographics Student-Directed IEP

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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.

26. Settings • 5 metropolitan area school districts • 17 participating teachers • 52 meetings at three middle schools • 78 meetings at six high schools

27. Test Your IEP Knowledge

28. Teacher-Directed Meetings

29. Teacher-Directed Meetings

30. Student-Directed Meetings

31. Student-Directed Meetings

32. 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

33. Teacher-Directed: What Percent Did These People Talk?

34. Year 1 Direct Observations of IEP Meetings Who Talked at IEP Meetings?

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

36. Student-Directed: What % Did These People Talk?

37. 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.

38. Answer This Question • What was the average number of people at each meeting?

39. 5.78 team members attended the average IEP meeting (SD 1.4) • 68% had between 4.3 and 7.18 people

40. Answer This Question • What was the average time each teacher-directed meeting lasted?

41. 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

42. Answer This Question • How much longer do Self-Directed IEP meetings last than teacher-directed meetings?

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

44. Answer This Question • Who started teacher-directed and student-directed IEP meetings?

45. Teacher-Directed IEP Meetings

46. 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

47. Answer This Question • Who is most likely to not be present at the end of the meeting?

48. The General Education Teacher, followed by the student.

49. Answer this Question • Who is most likely to come in and out of the meeting?

50. Administrator