Can anyone tell me a bit more (than I know already) about IEPs?

[moondog]

Thanks

[catok]

I don't know where to start!
Try www.teachernet.gov.uk The SEN code of practice is there; IEPs start at paragraph 4:27.
Quite a useful document to quote back at schools!
Just a hint - when you have an IEP up and running, make sure that you never sign it without taking away a copy first and thinking really carefully about the targets the teacher or SENCo has created. Sometimes they don't match with what you and therapists are trying to achieve.
We tried to make sure all the targets are educational (sounds daft; but they are not always!) - one being physical, one emotional and one social.
And little steps which can be achieved or at least worked on for the next review.
I found it easy to feel under pressure at review meetings, and just sign the paper to get away - my Aspie's target was to "make more effort to join in at football" (??!)
And always ask for a photocopy of each IEP - can be useful later!

[r3dh3d]

They seem to be quite different documents in mainstream and in special schools. Which hat are you wearing when asking this question?

[moondog]

Thanks
Looking at it from both perspectives.
They are computer generated aren't they as often see ones with in them only they haven't bothered to put the name in.

Also ,so called monitoring seems non-existent in many places.

Do you have them with and without statements?

[lou031205]

DD has an IEP and isn't statemented (pre-school). My understanding is that any child on SchoolAction or SchoolAction Plus HAS to have an IEP, which must be reviewed regularly. However, what is on the IEP is up to the person who does it.

DD's IEP at the moment is to be able to stay at an activity for 5 minutes, and to be able to participate in a small group story with a story sack.

[catok]

No, they should be produced individually - I'm in a school with many children on the SN register - each IEP is individual.
Yes, you should have the IEP reviewed regularly so it can be a useful working document for teachers and support staff - at least every term.
The whole point is that parents get an opportunity to discuss how things are going regularly.
I'd hit the roof if I had a computer-generated version. (I don't think the computer statement bank would contain half the things I say!!!)

[moondog]

But can't they be computer generated (like reports?)

[notfromaroundhere]

DS1 started at his current preschool last October and they drew up the IEP pretty much based on the SALT reports I had. They are virtually identical in terms of layout and content. e.g. a column with the identified area to work on, another column with suggested activities to work on and a final progress column to complete.

[geogteach]

Pretty sure (from my teaching days) that there are memory banks available. All of DS1's have been hand written and tend to refer to his SALT programme, he is deaf on School action+, he has about 3 hours a week support for equipment checks and SALT. Teacher writes IEP, gives it to me for comments and then we both sign it. I am a bit clueless about the targets as The programme is set by the SALT who I have never met and only sees DS about twice a year, but his TA does liase with her and she has some input into the IEP.

[r3dh3d]

Well, DD1's is entirely tailored. But then it's a SLD/PMLD school with 5 kids & 3 CA's per teacher. It covers everything; basically it is the differentiation part of an entirely differentiated curriculum (if that makes sense): generic lesson plans with a very wide range of expected outcomes are produced and then the teacher marries these with IEPs to decide how the lesson is taught to move each pupil forwards against their individual targets. At least that's the theory. The difficulty we are having at the moment is that SALT (for instance ) has input to IEP ("communication" is pretty much every child's #1 IEP heading) but not to the lesson plans so they don't always marry up completely and there is no way of making sure that the lesson plans as a set cover everything in all the children's IEPs. In which case it's a great but unused document. And this is when it is working well [hmm}.

The other problem I find is that targets are not SMART in the business jargon sense - which renders the entire exercise a bit pointless imo: if you can't measure progress you can't tell when the IEP targets are pointless/wrong and set new ones. We just bimble along saying "oh, X had lots of fun today and isn't it all super and lovely" which no doubt it is but my child needs to be able to ask for food when she is hungry within my life time, or things will get a bit tricky when I am gone. Are we any further towards that? And if this document isn't measuring her progress, if not to that specific goal then to other things as concrete and useful - what use is it?

The reason I say it is different in mainstream - if you look at the SEN toolkit, it says you should have no more than 3 items to work on in an IEP. So the assumption is that the IEP is only needed to cover these 3 specific points - or less - and the rest of the time the child is fine following along with the rest of the class. So logically ought to be a much tighter document.