Chapter 4 Research Findings
5.4 System and Tools for Individualizing Education
Comparison of participants in the student‟s individualized education process
Taiwan The Netherlands
- Case manager
- Special education coordinator - Guidance teacher (lower level) and
student counsellor (upper level) - Subject teachers
- Student counsellor (lower level) - Student
- Parents
- Guidance teachers, therapists and other external parties
- Mentor and student counsellor
- Regular classroom mentor (lower level)
- Mentor
- Location manager
- Mentor and other teachers
- Other teachers
5.4 System and Tools for Individualizing Education
IEP regulations
Both Taiwanese and Dutch policies obligate schools for secondary education, servicing mildly mentally impaired students, to utilize a tool to aid in the drafting of an individualized program for mildly mentally impaired students. This tool is referred to as the Individualized Education Program in Taiwan and the Individual Education Plan in the Netherlands. These of are both referred to as the IEP. The Taiwanese Enforcement Rules to
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
need to be included into this program. These items include all the major elements (see Chapter 2.4) specified by Patton et al. (1990). Both Taiwanese school cases have an IEP format which abides by the country‟s regulations.
Although Dutch policy has called for a start to integrate IEPs into a school‟s
educational program, there are no strict regulations as to what the exact format of an IEP is.
Schools have considerable autonomy to create their own version of an IEP. Taiwanese schools can also create their own format as long as the items from the Taiwanese Enforcement Rules to the Act are included.
The Dutch Nationwide Association for Practical Training is providing publications that aid the schools in creating IEPs. These publications (Harskamp & Slof, 2006; Schölvinck
& de Vries, 2004; te Braake-Schakenraad & Huisman-Bakker, 2004) also cover the major elements of an IEP described by Patton et al. (1990). Accent Nijkerk was one of the schools which stood model for the publication covering the introduction of IEPs into Practical Training schools (te Braake-Schakenraad & Huisman-Bakker, 2004). This indicates a bottom-up approach in policy creation, where the government empowers schools to create their own programs.
IEP contents
The IEP is, in both the Taiwanese and the Dutch school cases, a collection of various files. As is often the case (Sands et al., 1998), the Individual Transition Plan (ITP) cannot be clearly separated from the IEP in either the Taiwanese or Dutch school cases. Rather,
transition information is integrated into the IEP. In Taiwan this means that the IEP transforms into an ITP as the student approaches graduation. In the Netherlands, the transition portfolio and the student tracking system combined resemble an ITP as it is a collection of all evidence
‧
of acquired competencies and all relevant transition information. The transition portfolio is a file containing all previous student portfolios.
Table 5.4 provides an overview of equivalent files in both countries.
Table 5.4
Overview of the IEP contents
IEP file description Taiwan The Netherlands
A student‟s completed subject material with corresponding evaluations
- Study portfolio (lower level)
- Study portfolio (lower level)
- Homework record (upper level)
- Subject matter tracking system
Vocational assessments file Vocational tests and assessments file
Short-term and long term educational goals and evaluation
Included as a section of the finalized IEP
- Student tracking system - Subject matter tracking
system - Weekly plan
‧
IEP file description Taiwan The Netherlands
Transition information of the student
IEP becomes Individual Transition Plan (ITP) when transition is eminent
- Student tracking system - (Transition) Portfolio
Participation in regular education
Only at Taipei Junior High School as a section of the finalized IEP
Subject matter tracking system
The format of the IEP
One of the major differences between the Taiwanese school cases (appendix G) and Dutch school case (appendix H) is how the finalized IEP is presented.
Both Taiwanese schools use a paper (printed) file which includes all the files described above. The IEP is then signed by the relevant parties and completed with a
signature of one of the parents. This finalized IEP is the direct responsibility of the student‟s case manager.
In contrast, Accent Nijkerk‟s subject matter tracking system and student tracking system are in the hands of both the mentor as well as the student. This is in line with the concept of the student-led IEP or self-directed IEP (see Chapter 2.4) where students take control of their own IEP. The final product is created by the student self, under guidance of the mentor, and is presented to his / her classmates. The student is free to decide how this IEP is presented but often this is done as a power point presentation. Parents and other parties can be invited to attend the presentation.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Meetings in support of individualizing education
In all the school cases, there are formal meetings related to the process of
individualizing education for an individual student. These are, straightforwardly, called the IEP meetings in Taiwan and there are two formal meetings at Accent Nijkerk: the triangle meetings and the coaching meetings.
According to regulations, at Taipei Junior High School, IEP meetings are attended by the case manager, all the resource room subject teachers teaching a particular student
(resource program), the regular education class mentor (resource program), the student counsellor, an administrator (often the special education coordinator), and the parents. At Nan Gang Comprehensive Vocational Department, the mentor (case manager), the student counsellor, the special education coordinator, and the parents are present.
Accent Nijkerk invites the „triangle‟ of the mentor, the student and the parents to attend their, so-called, triangle meetings. For the coaching meetings, the mentor and student are the only ones present.
At both Taiwanese school cases, the student self is normally not invited to attend IEP meetings unless there are some behavioural issues that should be directly discussed with the student. The student is, however, not directly involved in the formal decision making process at IEP meetings. Interviewees of both school cases pointed out that the reason for this is that students do not understand what is being discussed at IEP meetings and that they can be intimidated by the presence of a group of adults. Students have difficulty understanding the finalized IEP, as it is an elaborate file containing the various details of the student‟s
educational program.
As described by Wehmeyer (1998a), the above indicates the presence of two of the barriers (complexity of education process and lack of student motivation) to participation in
‧
Instead of using the formal IEP meeting, the Taiwanese school cases make use of informal student-teacher meetings to assess an individual student‟s views on the educational program. There is no fixed, scheduled time arranged for these meetings and the teachers use any available time they can find.
At the Dutch school case, the student, together with the mentor, is present in both formal meetings. This is the case since the student is, partly, responsible for the IEP‟s student tracking system, the student matter tracking system, the portfolio, the weekly plan, and, eventually, the IEP presentation.
Taiwanese IEP meetings are arranged at least three times a year on, relatively, fixed dates. Accent Nijkerk‟s triangle meetings are planned in, on an on-demand basis, at least twice a year and there is one home visit per year which can also be viewed as a triangle meeting. There are three coaching meetings a year. They are planned in at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of the year.
Table 5.5
Comparison of system and tools for individualizing education
Topic Taiwan The Netherlands
IEP regulations - Strict regulations - Top-down
- Policy advice - Bottom-up IEP contents - Collection of files
- ITP integrated into IEP
- Collection of files - ITP integrated into IEP IEP format - Case-manager-led IEP
- Printed paper file
- Student-led IEP - Student presentation
‧
Topic Taiwan The Netherlands
Meetings in support of individualizing
education
- Formal IEP meetings attended by school staff and parents (at least 3 times a year)
- Informal student-teacher meetings
- Formal triangle meetings attended by student, mentor, and parents (3 times a year) - Formal coaching meetings
between mentor and student (3 times a year)
Conclusion
An IEP is the main tool for individualizing a student‟s educational program in both countries. While in Taiwan there are clear guidelines as to what the contents and format of the IEPs are, the Dutch schools have more freedom to decide these themselves. As a result, there is a striking difference in the finalized versions of the IEPs. The Taiwanese IEP is a printed file created by the case manager but the Dutch IEP is a student presentation created by the student him / herself. Formal meetings in support of the IEPs are attended by the Dutch students while Taiwanese students attend the informal meetings. In the Taiwanese cases, more professionals attend the meetings.