Quality of individualised education programme goals and objectives for preschool children with disabilities

Abstract

Individualised education programmes (IEPs) are the road maps for individualising services for children with disabilities, specifically through the development of high-quality child goals/objectives. High-quality IEP goals/objectives that are developed based on a comprehensive assessment of child functioning and directly connected to intervention and evaluation activities are more likely to support the individualisation of services and as a result, child development and learning. High-quality goals/objectives allow professionals or other caregivers to know what to teach, when to teach and where to teach. The purpose of this study was to examine the quality of IEP goals/objectives developed for preschool children with disabilities in Turkey. A total of 2235 IEP goals/objectives developed for 100 preschool children with disabilities were rated using Goal Functionality Scale III and IEP/Individualised Family Service Plan Goals and Objectives Rating Instrument. Results indicate that the overall quality of IEP goals/objectives for preschool children with disabilities is generally poor. Moreover, the quality of IEP goals/objectives does not vary based on child's age, disability status and developmental domain. Consistent and systematic low quality of goals and objectives across IEPs, age levels, disability status and developmental domains warrants the development of clear guidelines for professionals to use while writing IEP goals/objectives for young children with disabilities. Both pre-and inservice teacher training programmes should emphasise how to write high-quality IEP goals/objectives that can guide the individualisation of instruction, intervention and other services based on the unique needs of each and every child.

Status Quo and Inequalities of the Statutory Provision for Young Children in England, 40 Years on From Warnock

“…We argue that the fragmented structure of the EHC plan, which separates the three domains, contributes to this presentation; it is impossible in real life to separate education, health and social care domains, as they are constantly interacting to define the individual's functioning (World Health Organization, 2001;Rakap, 2015). Over the last 20 years, the WHO has endorsed a definition of "health status" that moves beyond the mere existence of medical issues, to include a "State of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity" (.…”

“…The match between these items and the SMART criteria proposed by the SEND Code of Practice for developing outcomes in the EHC plans is clear and has been extensively discussed elsewhere (Castro et al, 2019). The scale has also been used in similar studies with very high levels of interrater agreement (93% and above) (e.g., Boavida et al, 2010;Rakap, 2015).…”

Recording Support Measures in the Sequential Pedagogical Documents of Children With Special Education Needs

“…In previous research, the quality of the objectives in particular seems to have been studied thoroughly, and this is likely because their significance has been highlighted (e.g., Christle & Yell, 2010;Drasgow et al, 2001). However, in these studies, the objectives elaborated in pedagogical documents have been found to be generally poor in quality, especially concerning their measurability (Michinowicz at al., 1995;Rakap, 2015;Rubler, McGrew, Dalrymple, & Jung, 2010;Sanches-Ferreira, Lopes-dos-Santos, Alves, Santos, & Silveira-Maia, 2013). This is presumably because they were written in an imprecise and inadequate manner (Ruble et al, 2010;Sanches-Ferreira et al, 2013).…”

Analyser, évaluer et améliorer la qualité des plans d’intervention (PI) ou de transition (PT) en milieu scolaire

“…Au-delà du Québec, plusieurs études mentionnent que la qualité des objectifs est faible (Rakap, 2015;Ruble, McGrew, Dalrymple, Lee et Jung, 2010;Sanches-Ferreira, Lopes-dos-Santos, Santos et Silveira-Maia, 2013). D'autres études démontrent que la qualité des PI/PT s'améliore après avoir suivi une formation (Krishnakumar, Greeta et Palat, 2006;Pretti-Frontczac et Bricker, 2000).…”

“…De plus, Spillane (1990) agrémente sa démarche d'évaluation en ajoutant les critères d'analyse suivants : le pourcentage de besoins d'apprentissage identifiés, les niveaux actuels de performance cités, le nombre de buts ou d'objectifs à long terme et à court terme, le nombre et la variation des moyens ainsi que la présence des services offerts. Plusieurs études ont d'ailleurs utilisé l'instrument de mesure appelé le Goal Functionality Scale II (Boavida et al, 2013;Boavida et al, 2010;Hamilton, 1995;Notari et Bricker, 1990;Pretti-Frontczac et Bricker, 2000;Rakap, 2015). Cet instrument cible : 1) l'adaptabilité (l'objectif vise l'intégration dans le quotidien); 2) la fonctionnalité (l'objectif favorise l'autonomie); 3) la transférabilité (l'objectif s'applique dans plusieurs contextes ou vise des concepts généraux); 4) la mesurabilité (l'objectif est mesurable à des fins d'évaluation); et 5) la relation hiérarchique entre les objectifs, soit : est-ce que l'objectif établit un lien logique et cohérent.…”