​​PRESENTATION AUDIO:

​What follows are a compilation of audio clips from the student-interviews that I conducted, grouped by theme.

1.  Reactions to the word "IEP":

​

​

​​

2.  Negative emotions associated with IEPs:

​

​

​

3.  Thoughts about student-led IEPs:

 

 

 

​

4.  Final thoughts about IEPs:

​

​​​​

 

​PRESENTATION VISUAL:

http://prezi.com/yy5z2igattwi/present/?auth_key=si600gf&follow=bvqm6g6tnki0

​

​

​ARTIFACTS (EXIT CARDS)​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​REFLECTIVE WRITING:

​

​

Student-Led IEPs
Phase One: Getting to Know the “User’​

​

OVERVIEW:

In the eight years that I have worked at High Tech High, I have literally attended hundreds of IEP meetings.  First, I participated as a 6th grade Humanities teacher, and later, I facilitated meetings as a Resource Specialist (a role known at High Tech High as “Inclusion Specialist.”)  I’ve participated in conversation after conversation about students’ “needs.”  I’ve been told what I need to do for students, and I’ve told others what they need to do.  As an Inclusion Specialist, I’ve spoken with students about how they learn, but often felt leery of inviting them to attend meetings where tensions can run high, and increasingly, the voice of an attorney or advocate dominates the conversation.  Though every IEP meeting is unique, there are some common threads that bind them.  Federal law require that the meetings include and incorporate specific information and data, and this often results in a kind of sterility that feels clinical and impersonal.  It can result in an adult-centered conversation about what grown-ups need to do for kids, and too often, the kid is nowhere to be seen or heard.

 

The “culture” of the IEP meeting stands in stark contrast with the “culture” of other meetings that take place within our schools at High Tech High.  For years, I have begrudgingly accepted these things at face value.  I’ve perceived the IEP as the exception to a culture that otherwise elicits, includes and celebrates student voice.   Now, however, I feel ready to examine the IEP process through a new lens.  I feel confident and hopeful that being fully in compliance with the law does not preclude us from creating an IEP process that puts the student at the center of the conversation.  A process where students feel empowered and included.  A process where adults step back and seek information from the student instead of telling her about her “needs.”

​

Changing the structure of the IEP meeting involves changing the culture that exists around the concept of the IEP meeting.  I have my own assumptions and thoughts about how students currently experience the IEP process, but I wanted to step back and set my agenda aside in order to elicit genuine and truthful perspectives from students.  My  goal is to use student input and feedback in order to create a plan to change the IEP process.   I decided to use a “design thinking” approach, and to begin by getting to know my “user” (the student) before jumping in and trying to change the system.  But I wasn’t sure if should get to know my user in a group forum, or whether individual conversations would be safer and more comfortable.  IEPs are personal – they contain information that is sensitive and private, including powerful labels that describe how students meet eligibility criteria (for example, “Autism” or “Specific Learning Disability” or “Speech and Language Impairment”).  Many students carry a sense of embarrassment and shame about these labels that has accumulated over many years, and I wanted elicit information in a way that ensured that students would feel safe and comfortable. 

​

I tuned my project idea with two students who fell on opposite ends of the spectrum (one expressed a preference for a group conversation, the other for an individual conversation).  After much thought and reflection, I decided that individual interviews would be the only way to guarantee that each student felt safe and comfortable and could be fully open and honest, and thus, I began scheduling interviews with current and former students in both middle school and high school. 

​

THE INTERVIEWS:

My interviews were enlightening, upsetting, and fascinating.  I was not surprised to hear that some of the first words that came to students’ minds when they heard the word IEP are “control,” and “work.”  The word “control” is powerful.  The student went on to explain, however, that he felt that his experience with IEPs so far has entailed being in a room with a bunch of adults who are talking about him and telling him what to do.  The student who said “work” said that for her, the IEP process makes her think of having to do a lot of work and being told “what I need to work on.”  Two other students I spoke with told me that they feel nervous about coming to IEP meetings.  One said “I feel like I’m in trouble,” and the other said, “I think I did something wrong.” 

​

Several other students said that the words that come to mind for them are “help” and “tutoring.”  While the word “help” seems at face value to have a more positive connotation, for me there is an underlying implication that something is wrong that must be addressed; that something is broken that must be fixed.  Many of the students I spoke to talked about feeling embarrassed and ashamed about their IEPs.  One student said that she would definitely not like to talk about her IEP during a whole-class presentation, because it’s “private,” and she doesn’t want everyone hearing about how, “I’m not a good reader.”

​

None of the students I spoke to were able to list or name the current goals in their IEPs (literally, not one student could name a single goal).  This reveals how “top down” the process is for many students – adults write the goals, share them with the students, the students nod and smile, and then forget the goals the next day.

​

When I asked about how students should talk to adults about their IEPs, many of the students talked about the importance of trust.  There was a common sentiment that as a student, it’s easier to have this conversation with an adult who you know well, who you feel you can trust and who “will not judge you.” 

​

SUMMARY OF STUDENT VOICES

I know what I’m good at, and I know what I need to work on!
All of the students I spoke with were easily able to articulate their strengths and their areas of focus.  This information is truly at the heart of the IEP document.  If students feel comfortable exploring and articulating this information, they will be able to successfully put themselves at the center of the IEP process.

Next Steps:  Explain the WHY being the IEP so that students understand the purpose of developing goals.  Develop a scaffolded questionnaire that prompts students to identify their strengths and their areas of challenge/focus.  Students can then use this information to write their goals.

If you tell me what to do, I won’t remember and I won’t care.
The students I spoke to all had at least one negative memory of a meeting that involved a lot of adults talking about them, and telling them “what to do.”  Students expressed feeling “bored,” “in trouble,” and “frustrated” during these experiences.   Many students did, however, like the idea of getting feedback from an adult that they trust.

Next Steps: The IEP needs to include safeguards to ensure that adults do not initiate the thinking on behalf of the student.  The student needs to be the one who identifies the areas of need and areas of focus, so that students feel bought-in and engaged.  Once a foundation is established, trusted adults can then begin to weigh-in and provide input.

​

I don’t like feeling “different” – it’s embarrassing.
Several students shared that they felt like they were “in trouble” when they first attended an IEP meeting.  Other students described feeling “embarrassed,” “less-than,” and “not good” when they think about their IEPs.

Next Steps:  The culture around the IEP needs to shift.  I would like to conduct more research about how to have this conversation with students.  I think it’s important for students to know their “eligibility criteria” (ie, their “disability” or “learning difference”), but how can this information be presented in a way that is framed positively and is empowering, instead of shameful and deficit oriented?

​​

There’s no one-size fits all– different students will need different supports in order to lead the IEP process.
Some students said they’d be comfortable leading an entire IEP meeting from start to finish, and others said they would like an adult to prompt and help them.  Some students said they felt that today they could be independent in the preparation process, but that earlier (in middle school or elementary school) they would have needed a high degree of support.
Next Steps: Develop a “menu” of options for the IEP process.  Students can lead some, part, or all of the meeting.  Likewise, students can prepare some, part, or all of the IEP.

REFLECTING ON THE PITP PROCESS

In hindsight, I’m not sure that I was able to elicit honest feedback about what the interview process was like for the students I spoke with.  All of the “exit cards” I collected contained very upbeat and positive messages about the interview.  I recognize now that handing students a piece of paper with “name: optional” at the top was totally ridiculous given that they were alone with me in the room while filling it out.  I am drafting an anonymous survey to send to all of the students who I interviewed, to hopefully elicit more honest feedback about what the interview experience was like for them. 

​

Though I think my interviews elicited genuine and thoughtful information from students, when I do this again I will keep several things in mind.  First, though it’s time consuming, I need to reach out to more students.  In particular, I need to hear perspectives from students who were not my students.  Given that students shared that it’s hard to discuss an IEP with an adult that you don’t know or trust, I wonder if other Inclusion Specialists would be willing to conduct and record the interviews, and provide me with the information?  This way I could have access to a broader spectrum of input, but students would still made to feel safe in the process.  I also think that a survey might have been an effective approach in order to elicit information from a larger number of students, given that my sample size was so small.  My concern about a survey is that the quality of the responses won’t be as fully-formed as they might be within the context of an interview, but I could use it as a tool to get broader surface-level information.