The document discusses individual educational plans (IEPs) for children with special educational needs in Switzerland. It analyzes IEP goals and the coherence between stated needs, goals, and interventions. The study found that IEPs primarily focus on academic domains like reading and math. Goals are often poorly defined. Coherence is better for academic than non-academic domains. Improving IEP quality and coherence requires a broader view of the child's needs and abilities beyond academics alone.

1. INCLUSIVE SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN WITH
SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS - WHAT DOES
IT MEAN IN PRACTICE?
The coherence of indications, goals and measures of
support in individual educational plans
Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Reto Luder – Siauliai – May 2012
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO
1
LUDER

2. INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 2

3. INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 3

4. OVERVIEW
• Context:
Inclusive education and individual educational planning in
Switzerland
• Aim of the study and research questions
• Method
• Results
• Discussion
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 4

5. Students in special schools / special classes
(euridyce 2002)
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 5

6. Students in special schools / special classes in Switzerland
(National Office of Statistics 2008)
6.30%
6.20%
Percentage of all students
6.10%
6.00%
5.90%
5.80%
5.70%
5.60%
1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 6

7. Assessment for
learning
Evaluating effects Planning of
of Interventions interventions
Teaching, applying
measures of
support
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 7

8. INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANS
According to theory, effective and useful IEPs should be…
• systematically and well documented
• written in a clear, professional and consistent terminology
• based on a common, interdisciplinary consensus of parents,
teachers, students and other professionals involved
• naming goals to be attained by the child
• clear about the measures and responsibilities to achieve these
goals
• clear about how and when to evaluate whether the goals have
been achieved or not
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 8

9. In practice, the situation is far less clear…
Practitioners mostly follow their own, not always
systematic idea of IEP (Luder, Niedermann & Buholzer 2006),
their procedures are often not coordinated and not very
effective (Truscott et al. 2005).
In consequence, the coherence between indications,
goals and interventions in IEPs is often rather poor
(Poppes et al. 2002, Shriner & Destefano 2003).
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 9

10. QUALITY OF GOALS
The quality of goals in IEPs can be specified regarding four
different criteria (Buholzer 2006). Those criteria can be seen as
indicators for the usefulness of a goal in an IEP (Giancreco et al. in
Poppes et al. 2002):
• Comprehensibility: The goal has to be clear and precise, yet
understandable for all involved in IEP.
• Linked to a specific time period: It should be stated in what time
the goal should be reached.
• Measurable: It should be possible to decide clearly, whether the
goal has been reached or not.
• Description of the intended result: The goal should define the
result of its achievement.
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 10

11. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• Why, based on what kind of indication do they get
individual support in the first place?
• What goals are aimed with the special support?
• What kinds of measures are taken to achieve these
goals?
A special focus was on the content and the quality of goals and on the
coherence between indications, goals and measures of support in
individual educational plans. As additional factors, school type (regular
classroom vs. special school) and gender where analyzed.
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 11

12. METHOD: DESIGN
The data was collected in two studies. In both studies, individual
educational plans of children with special educational needs were
analyzed.
Study one focused on the goals of special education support while
study two focused on the coherence of indications, goals and
interventions in IEPs.
In study two, case managers participated in a survey and were
asked about the indications for the special educational support, the
goals that were set in the educational plans and the measures of
support taken to achieve these goals.
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 12

13. METHOD: SAMPLE
In total, IEPs of 488 children with SEN where analyzed.
In study one, IEPs of 439 children with SEN were collected. 298
were male (68%) and 141 female (32%). They had an age between
4 and 12 years (from Kindergarten to 6th grade). One group was
selected from inclusive mainstream classes with additional special
educational support and a second group from special schools.
In study two, IEPs of 49 children with SEN where analyzed. 28
were male (57%) and 21 female (43%). They had an age between
12 and 15 years (7th to 9th grade). All 49 children were attaining
school in inclusive mainstream classes with individual special
educational support.
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 13

14. METHOD: DATA ANALYSIS
The data in both studies was analyzed by methods of content
analysis, using the software MaxQDA.
In a first step, text elements were assigned to one of 10 domains
of activity and participation. The domains are based on the
International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
(ICF) and focusing on school-relevant areas of activity and
participation
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 14

15. METHOD: DATA ANALYSIS
• Learning and applying knowledge
• Mathematics
• Language
• Reading and writing
• General tasks and demands
• Communication
• Mobility
• Self-care
• Interpersonal interactions and relationships
• Domestic life
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 15

16. METHOD: DATA ANALYSIS
Further methods of content analysis used (Dieckmann 2010):
• Frequency analysis: The number of goals in different domains and in
correlation with the variables gender and school type was counted.
• Analysis of coherence: The probability (p) of a combined appearance of
indications, goals and interventions of one category (the same domain)
within the same case is compared to the empirical incidence in the data (e).
If e > p, the categories have inner consistency within the cases.
• Rating of the quality of goals: Each goal was checked applying the
quality criteria for goals in IEPs mentioned above. For each criteria fulfilled,
one of four possible points was assigned to the goal. After that, each goal
was rated on a scale from zero to four points.
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 16

17. 0
50
100
150
200
250
Learning and applying
knowledge
Mobility
Domestic life
Self-care
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER
Communication
Reading and writing
Number of goals (N)
Mathematics
Language
General tasks and demands
Interpersonal interactions and
17
relationships

18. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Learning and applying
knowledge
Mobility
Domestic life
Self-care
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER
Communication
Reading and writing
Mathematics
Language
General tasks and demands
Interpersonal interactions and
relationships
18
girls
boys

19. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Learning and applying knowledge
Mobility
Domestic life
Self-care
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER
Communication
mainstream
Reading and writing
special
Mathematics
Language
General tasks and demands
Interpersonal interactions and
19
relationships

20. mainstream special
1%
0%
19%
excellent (4) excellent (4)
35% 37%
good (3)
38% good (3)
average (2) average (2)
16%
poor (1) poor (1)
very poor (0) very poor (0)
15% 13% 26%
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 20

21. Coherence indications x goals goals x measures indications x goals x measures
Category p (i x g) e (i x g) p (g x m) e (g x m) p (i x g x m) e (i x g x m)
Learning and applying knowledge 0.00167 0.0204 0.00166 0.0204 0.00033 0
Mobility 0.00042 0 0 0 0 0
Domestic life 0.00042 0 0.000416 0.0204 0.000084 0
Self-care 0 0 0 0 0 0
Communication 0 0 0.00041 0 0 0
Reading and writing 0.04082 0.08163 0.04664 0.06122 0.00666 0.06122
Mathematics 0.03748 0.08163 0.03123 0.08163 0.00382 0.08163
Language 0.00292 0.0204 0.01166 0.04081 0.00023 0.0204
General tasks and demands 0.02249 0.06122 0.00374 0 0.00045 0
Interpersonal interactions and relationships 0.00333 0.02041 0.00083 0.0204 0.00007 0
The analysis reveals a reliable coherence only in the domains reading and writing, mathematics and
language.
In the domains learning and applying knowledge, interpersonal interactions an relationships, general
tasks and demands and domestic life there is only a partial coherence.
For the domains mobility and communication can be found no coherence whatsoever and in the
domain self-care the data was not sufficient to do the calculations (no goals and measures were
found in that domain).
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 21

22. DISCUSSION
• Domination of academic domains
• No fundamental differences between mainstream and
special schools
• Boys overrepresented by the factor two, especially
within the domains «interpersonal interactions and
relationships» and «general tasks and demands»
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 22

23. DISCUSSION
• Quality of goals is alarming, slightly better in special
than in mainstream schools.
• Inner coherence of IEPs is good in classic academic
domains like mathematics or reading and writing.
• It is rather poor in other domains.
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 23

24. CONCLUSION (1)
IEPs in inclusive mainstream schools, as well as in
special schools focus on mainly the same, mostly
academic domains of competences.
Goals in IEPs very often refer to academic abilities like
reading and writing or mathematics.
Overall, no fundamental differences in IEP could be found
between special schools and inclusive mainstream
schools.
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 24

25. CONCLUSION (2)
A somewhat disturbing result is the often low quality of
goals formulated in IEPs.
As goals are a crucial element for the quality of IEP in
general, the importance of goals in IEPs has to be
emphasized.
In goal-setting, teachers and school teams, notably in
mainstream schools need specific know-how and support,
especially in non-academic domains of special
educational support.
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 25

26. CONCLUSION (3)
Coherence of IEPs in mainstream schools is better, the closer
the content is to academic competences with important
meaning for the school curriculum.
Since deficits in academic domains often are caused also by
factors in other, non-academic domains, it would be useful to
extend the view towards a broader focus and to consider also
other aspects of the child than its abilities in academic
domains.
Therefore, to improve the quality and coherence of IEPs, a
goal-based approach with a broad view on various factors in
different domains should be focused.
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 26

27. Thank you for your attention!
TIME FOR QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 27

28. REFERENCES
• Diekmann, Andreas (2010). Empirische Sozialforschung. Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen: Reinbek: Rowohlt.
• Hollenweger, Judith &. Luder Reto (2010). Schulische Standortgespräche. Ein Verfahren zur Förderplanung und
Zuweisung von sonderpädagogischen Massnahmen. In: Sonderpädagogische Förderung heute 55 (3), S. 271–286.
• Isaksson, J. , Lindqvist, R. & Bergström, E. (2007). School problems or individual shortcomings? A study of
individual educational plans in Sweden. European Journal of Special Needs Education 22 (1), pp. 75-91.
• Luder, Reto (2011). Förderplanung als interdisziplinäre und kooperative Aufgabe. In: Reto Luder, Raphael
Gschwend, André Kunz und Peter Diezi-Duplain (Ed.): Sonderpädagogische Förderung gemeinsam planen.
Grundlagen, Modelle und Instrumente für die Praxis. 1., neue Ausg. Zürich: Pestalozzianum, S. 11–28.
• Luder, Reto; Gschwend, Raphael; Kunz, André; Diezi-Duplain, Peter (Ed.) (2011). Sonderpädagogische Förderung
gemeinsam planen. Grundlagen, Modelle und Instrumente für die Praxis. 1., neue Ausg. Zürich: Pestalozzianum.
• Luder, Reto; Niedermann, Albin &. Buholzer Alois (2006). Förderdiagnostisches Arbeiten in Theorie und Praxis.
Ergebnisse einer qualitativ-empirischen Studie. In: Vierteljahresschrift für Heilpädagogik und ihre Nachbargebiete
75, 4, S. 293–304.
• Poppes, P.; Vlaskamp, C.; De Greeter, K.; Hakken, H. (2002). Te importance of setting goals: the effect of
instruction and training on the technical and intrinsic quality of goals. In: Journal of Special Needs Education (17),
S. 241–250.
• Shriner, James G.; Destefano, Lizanne (2003): Participation and accommodation in state assessment: The role of
individualized education programs. In: Exceptional Children 69 (2), S. 147–161.
• Sopko, K. M. (2003). The IEP: A Synthesis of Current Literature Since 1997. Alexandria (VA): NASDSE.
• Truscott, Stephen D.; Catanese, Angela M.; Abrams, Laura M. (2005). The Evolving Context of Special Education
Classification in the United States. In: School Psychology International 26 (2), S. 162–177.
• UNESCO (2005). Guidelines for inclusion: ensuring access to education for all. Paris: UNESCO.
INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING - RETO LUDER 28