Teachers and administrators implement and supervise the implementation of the individualized education program (IEP) for children with disabilities. An understanding of teacher and administrator knowledge and skills associated with implementation of instructional accommodations and interventions commonly identified in the IEP, may provide insight to averting negative student effects related to failure to provide a free and appropriate public education. This study investigated the self-reported knowledge and skills that educators possess related to IEP accommodations and their self-reported comfort level and ability to implement and supervise instruction prescribed for students with disabilities in reading. To examine what is proposed (i.e., the IEP) and what is actually done throughout the implementation of the IEP and subsequent supervision of instruction, the conceptual framework of espoused theory and theory of action (Argyris & Schön, 1974) and bureaucratic theory (Puch, Hickeron, Hirings, & Turner, 1968) was applied. Phase 1 analyzed the accommodations prescribed on the IEPs of students with learning disabilities in reading. The results were used to develop questionnaires with stimulus items designed to elicit self-reported knowledge and identify potential areas of need for professional development. In Phase 2 of the study, responses are reported from 6 unique surveys that were sent to elementary and middle school administrators and general and special education teachers who teach or supervise the instruction of students with learning disabilities in reading. Information and results extracted from survey responses of 222 participants from a large, urban school district in Texas shed light on the ways instructional strategies and accommodations are documented on IEPs for students with disabilities. Standardization due to IEP development software that forced committees to make decisions about accommodations, from limited number of options in a dropdown menu became evident during the review of the data and the district's IEP development process. A discrepancy between the reported level of educator knowledge about specific accommodations, and needed professional development was found. Implications for pre-service teacher and administrator preparation programs and future research are informed by participants' self-reported need for deeper understanding of basic special education practices, obligations, and responsibilities. A call for administrator leadership for organizational change that would facilitate continuous improvement in service delivery to students with disabilities is made. Improved and targeted preservice and inservice professional development relevant to the supervision and implementation of IEP interventions and accommodations is recommended. / text

Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T14:36:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 DeboraMP_DISSERT.pdf: 2582152 bytes, checksum: 0335acaad73827e4fcf2200fa8287d93 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-02-06 / Given the paradigm of inclusive education, the presence of students with autism spectrum disorder in regular schools has become more significant in recent years. Studies have revealed, however, deficits in academic participation of these students in these settings. Among the factors contributing to this phenomenon include poor teacher training and the lack of strategies to promote curriculum access. The aim of this study was to develop an instrument that would promote academic inclusion of a student with autism through procedures that could simultaneously empower the teacher. In this perspective, the study aimed to analyze the effects of an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP), developed collaboratively with teachers, on the academic and functional development of a student with autism in an early childhood education setting. Data were collected in a private school located in the city of Natal in Rio Grande do Norte, in the course of the academic year 2012. In addition to the student with autism, one teacher, a specialized educator, and four teacher aides participated in the study. The research used a single subject quasi-experimental design (AB) as well as qualitative methods of data analysis. The study was conducted in three phases: characterization, baseline and intervention. The first comprised interviews with the child?s parents and teachers, as well as the identification of two routines focus of intervention. In the second phase, the amount of time the student spent engaged in the selected routines during baseline was analyzed. In the third phase, the researcher prepared, collaboratively with the teachers, an individualized educational plan (IEP) for the student. Finally, the IEP was implemented by the teachers. The results indicated qualitative and quantitative changes in student?s participation in academic and functional tasks after the intervention program / Diante do paradigma da Educa??o Inclusiva, a presen?a de alunos com transtorno do espectro do autismo no ensino regular tem se tornado mais expressiva nos ?ltimos anos. Estudos t?m revelado, no entanto, uma deficit?ria participa??o acad?mica desses educandos na sala de aula comum. Dentre os fatores que contribuem para esse fen?meno destacam-se a prec?ria forma??o docente e a escassez de estrat?gias que promovam o acesso desses educandos ao curr?culo regular. O objetivo do presente estudo foi desenvolver um instrumento que favorecesse a inclus?o acad?mica de um educando com autismo por meio de procedimentos que pudessem, simultaneamente, dar poder ao professor. Nessa perspectiva, o estudo visou analisar os efeitos de um Plano Educacional Individualizado (PEI), elaborado de forma colaborativa com os professores, no desenvolvimento acad?mico e funcional de um aluno com autismo no contexto da educa??o infantil. Os dados foram coletados em uma escola particular, localizada na cidade de Natal, estado do Rio Grande do Norte, no decorrer do ano letivo de 2012. Al?m do educando com autismo, participaram do estudo uma professora titular, uma professora de apoio pedag?gico e quatro professores auxiliares. A pesquisa utilizou delineamento quase experimental intrassujeito do tipo A-B (linha de base e tratamento), assim como procedimentos qualitativos de an?lise. O estudo foi realizado em tr?s etapas: caracteriza??o, linha de base e interven??o. A primeira compreendeu entrevistas com os pais e professoras do aluno, bem como a identifica??o de duas rotinas focos de interven??o. A segunda contemplou a an?lise do tempo de perman?ncia do educando nas rotinas selecionadas na fase de linha de base. Na terceira o pesquisador elaborou, de forma colaborativa com os professores, um plano educacional individualizado (PEI) para o aluno. Por fim, o PEI foi implementado pelos professores. Os resultados indicaram mudan?as qualitativas e quantitativas na participa??o do estudante nas tarefas acad?micas e funcionais ap?s o programa de interven??o

<p>Children with disabilities are more than ever placed in the general education class settings. While special educators are responsible for drafting and writing the IEP, General education teachers are responsible for implementing the IEP in the general education class setting. Studies show that general education teachers lack knowledge, support, and training of the IEP, which affects their attitudes toward inclusion. The purpose of this study was to identify what teachers know about the IEP and the challenges that they face with implementing them in their classrooms. In this study, data was collected from general education teacher surveys, and the results of the data were analyzed. From the data, it was determined that teachers face many challenges with the implementation of the IEP in their classes. From the data collected a handbook was created for general education teachers to utilize as a guide to overcome these challenges that they face when implementing the IEP in their classrooms was completed.<u></u><u></u></p><div><br></div>

Research indicates a connection between successful outcomes for students with significant intellectual disabilities and the individual education program (IEP) team's efforts in the IEP development process. However, little research has been conducted on the perceptions of parents and teachers of students with significant disabilities about parent participation in the IEP development process. Therefore, the purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore parent and teacher perceptions of parent participation in the IEP development process. The conceptual framework of this study was ecological design theory, based on Bronfenbrenner's theory of human development and Neal and Neal's theory of networked systems. Participants consisted of 4 parents and 5 teachers of students with significant intellectual disabilities who have participated in the IEP development process. The interviews conducted with participants were analyzed for patterns and themes. Findings showed that teacher descriptions centered on actions connected with fulfillment of state guidelines, which create the setting in which the IEP development takes place. Parent participants acknowledged compliance to state guidelines based on teacher actions, but parent commentary was centered on elements of the parent-teacher relationship. Responses indicated that actions to strengthen the school-parent partnership may improve parent and teacher experiences of IEP development. This study contributes to positive social change by providing administrators and teachers information to better support the IEP development process toward improved outcomes for students with significant intellectual disabilities.

Mémoire en psychopédagogie / L’école québécoise d’aujourd’hui occupe de nombreux rôles au sein de la société et dans le processus développemental de l’enfant québécois. Ses rôles multiples et différents sont accrus en complexité surtout, car ils doivent s’adresser à divers profils d’apprenants, dont les élèves handicapés ou en difficulté d’adaptation ou d'apprentissage (HDAA). À la tête de l’écosystème qu’est l’école, on retrouve un leader communément appelé une direction d’école. Son rôle fait appel à une panoplie de compétences, de connaissances et d’habiletés pour mener à bien les opérations pédagogiques, logistiques, ou financières quotidiennes, tout en assurant le bien-être et la réussite de tous les élèves à travers un leadership réfléchi et soucieux des enjeux relatifs à l’éducation pour tous. À l’égard des élèves HDAA, le plan d’intervention (PI) est reconnu comme un cycle de vie pour la planification, l’élaboration et la révision des interventions fondamentales à leur inclusion, tant scolaire que sociale. Selon la Loi sur l’instruction publique, la responsabilité des PI revient à la direction d’école. Cependant, les différents rôles de la direction ainsi que son leadership au regard du cycle de vie de PI ne sont pas toujours évidents. Pour cette raison, notre recherche spécifique de type exploratoire, vise, dans un premier temps, à documenter et à analyser les formes et les niveaux d’implication de la direction d’école dans le cycle de vie d’un PI. Dans un deuxième temps, cette étude tente d’explorer l’évolution des pratiques de leadership de la direction d’école dans le cycle de vie de PI suite à l’implantation d’un programme de formation et d’accompagnement à l’élaboration (FADéPI) des PI. Globalement, nos résultats nous ont permis d’établir que le leadership de la direction d’école dans le cycle de vie de PI se présente sous différentes formes d’implication directes et indirectes qui s’articulent à travers des compétences, des connaissances et des habiletés politiques et ce, à différents niveaux de ce cycle. Aussi, nous avons pu observer une évolution, soit un changement ou une bonification de ces pratiques suite à l’implantation du programme FADéPI. Enfin, la finalité de cette étude est de rapporter des formes d’implication de la direction d’école dans le cycle de vie de PI qui permettraient d’actualiser un leadership pour et envers l’inclusion et la réussite de l’élève HDAA. / The quebecor school, as it is today, holds numerous roles within society and in the developmental process of the child. Its multiple and different roles are continuously growing in complexity, while needing to address and service various learning profiles, precisely special needs students. At the head of the school’s ecosystem, there is a leader commonly called a school principal. The role of this individual calls for a wide array of skills, knowledge and abilities to perform daily educational, logistical and financial operations, all while ensuring the well-being and success of all students through a reflective leadership which cares for matters related to an inclusive education. In the case of students with special needs, the intervention education plan (IEP) is recognized as a life cycle for the planning, elaborating and reviewing of interventions. Taking into account the growing proportion of students, whose success depends on the quality of the interventions they benefit from, the IEP has become a fundamental tool for their inclusion, both educational and social. According to the Public Instruction Act, within the school, the responsibility for IEPs goes to the school principal. There are many projects, programs and support systems to successfully complete the IEP life cycle, Myara (2011). However, the different leadership practices in relation to the IEP life cycle are not always clear. For this reason, our specific exploratory research aims, first of all, to document and analyze the forms and levels of involvement of the school principal in the IEP life cycle. Secondly, this study attempts to explore the evolution of the leadership practices in the IEP life cycle following the implementation of a training and support program for its development (FADéPI). Overall, our research results have enabled us to establish that the school principal’s leadership in the IEP life cycle comes in different forms of involvement (direct and indirect) that are in fact a set of knowledge, abilities and skills. In addition, our results have also enabled us to witness an evolution, rather a change or an improvement of these leadership practices. Finally, the purpose of our study is to suggest forms of involvement and leadership practices in the IEP life cycle that can help promote inclusion and success for the student with special needs.

La politique québécoise de l’adaptation scolaire confirme que le plan d’intervention (PI) constitue l’outil privilégié pour répondre aux besoins des élèves handicapés ou en difficulté d’adaptation ou d’apprentissage. Toutefois, la recension des écrits nous informe que le plan d’intervention est encore loin d’être efficace. Le Ministère de l’Éducation, des Loisirs et des Sports du Québec (MELS, 2004) ainsi que l’Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services des U.S. department of Education (dans Eichler, 1999) ont bien identifié et présenté explicitement cinq à six fonctions du PI mais, aucun des deux organismes ne définit ce qu’est une fonction, à quoi elle sert, son importance relative et ce qu’elle implique. De plus, on retrouve, explicitement ou implicitement, soit dans le cadre de référence pour l’établissement des PI (MELS, 2004), soit dans la revue de la littérature, soit dans les milieux de pratique plusieurs autres fonctions que le PI remplit ou devrait remplir. Ce flou entourant le concept de fonction entraîne un manque de rigueur dans la conception des PI, car « lorsque la totalité des fonctions a été identifiée, elle permet le développement d’un produit répondant à l’usage attendu » (Langevin et coll., 1998). Il y a d’emblée une somme de fonctions qu’un PI remplit déjà et d’autres sûrement à remplir. Or, cela n’a pas été élucidé, précisé et validé. Le but de la présente recherche a été de définir les rôles du PI au regard des besoins de ses différents utilisateurs. Les objectifs spécifiques ont été les suivants, 1) Identifier les différents utilisateurs d’un PI, 2) Identifier les besoins des différents utilisateurs d’un PI, 3) Identifier les fonctions qu’un PI doit remplir afin de satisfaire les besoins de ses utilisateurs, 4) Créer un cahier des charges fonctionnel pour la conception et l’évaluation d’un PI, 5) Identifier certains coûts reliés à la conception d’un PI. Afin d’atteindre les objectifs précités, nous avons eu recours à la méthode de l’analyse de la valeur pédagogique (AVP) (Langevin, Rocque et Riopel, 2008). La méthode d’AVP comportait une analyse des besoins des différents utilisateurs potentiels, une analyse de la recension des écrits, une analyse des encadrements légaux, une analyse de produits types et une analyse écosystémique. En conclusion, nous avons identifié les différents utilisateurs potentiels d’un PI, identifié les différents besoins de ces utilisateurs, identifié les fonctions qu’un PI doit remplir pour satisfaire leurs besoins, crée un cahier des charges fonctionnel (CdCF) pour la conception et l’évaluation des PI et identifié certains coûts liés à la conception d’un PI. Le CdCF pourra servir à concevoir des PI et à évaluer leur efficience. Une partie du CdCF pourra aussi remplir un rôle prescriptif pour la conception d’outil de soutien à l’élaboration du PI. Enfin, le CdCF pourra servir à la formation et à la recherche en éducation. / The policy on special education in Quebec confirms that the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) remains the essential tool for planning intervention to be carried out with child and youth with learning disabilities. Nonetheless a review of the literature indicates that IEPs are in need of improvement. The Ministry of Education in Quebec (2004) and the Special Education and Rehabilitative Services U.S. Department of Education (in Eichler, 1999) explicitly identify five to six functions. However, none of them define what a function is, what is the role of a function, its relative importance and implication. Furthermore, we find in the reference framework for the establishments of IEPs (MELS, 2004), in the literature review, in practice that there are many more functions an IEP fulfills or should fulfill. This ambiguity revolving around the concept of function leads to a lack of rigor because ``when all the functions are identified it allow for the development of a product that fulfills its purpose`` (Langevin and others, 1998). There are a sum of functions an IEP already fulfills and many more that it should fulfill. Unfortunately, none of these has of yet been emphasized, specified and validated. The goal of this research was to identify the characteristic role of an IEP in regards to the needs of its different users. The specific objectives of this study were: 1) To identify the different IEP users, 2) To identify the different needs of the different IEP users, 3) To identify the different functions of an IEP, 4) To create a functional specification matrix for the conception and evaluation of IEPs, 5) To identify some of the cost related to an IEP. To reach our objectives, we proceeded with the pedagogical value analysis method (PVA). The PVA method included a need analysis of the different IEP users, a literature review analysis, an analysis of legal requirements, an analysis of different IEP models and an ecosystem analysis. As a result we have, identified the different IEP users, identified their different needs, identified the different functions of an IEP, created a functional specification matrix (FSM) for the conception and evaluation of IEPs and identified some cost related to the conception of an IEP. The IEP FSM may be used to create an IEP and evaluate the efficiency of an IEP. Part of the IEP FSM may also have a prescriptive role for the conception of a tool which supports IEP users elaborating IEPs. Finally, The IEP FSM may be used in training and research.

No description available.

Dans le contexte actuel de l’éducation, l’enfant est davantage placé au cœur des relations entre la famille, l’école et la communauté, et les parents sont invités à accompagner leur enfant tout au long de son parcours scolaire. Quant aux enseignants, ils sont conviés à collaborer de façon systématique avec les familles. La collaboration entre les enseignants et les parents devient donc une condition essentielle à la réussite scolaire des élèves, notamment avec ceux qui éprouvent des difficultés d’apprentissage. Actuellement, dans nos écoles, la collaboration se situe principalement au niveau des communications obligatoires de base prescrites par le Régime pédagogique. En ce sens, Kalubi et Lesieux (2006) soulignent que le partenariat tant souhaité dans les documents officiels des ministères concernés ne transparaît pas toujours dans les pratiques quotidiennes. D’ailleurs, la littérature scientifique montre qu’il existe de nombreux obstacles liés à la collaboration école-famille-communauté, tout particulièrement lorsqu’il s’agit d’entretenir des relations harmonieuses avec les parents d’élèves à risque. À cet égard, une plus grande participation parentale est sollicitée en vue d’intensifier la collaboration entre l’école et la famille. Effectivement, les enseignants désirent que les parents s’impliquent davantage auprès de leur enfant dans les travaux et les devoirs à la maison et, du côté des parents, ils se demandent souvent comment agir pour aider encore mieux leurs enfants dans leur apprentissage (Gouvernement du Québec, 2000). Le plan d’intervention est un outil reconnu par les milieux scolaires pour aider l’élève à risque dans son cheminement scolaire puisqu’il sollicite la participation des parents et encourage la collaboration école-famille-communauté. De fait, il s’inscrit dans une démarche dynamique et prend appui sur une vision systémique de la situation de l’élève, ce qui permet de mieux identifier les besoins de l’élève à risque et d’y répondre adéquatement (Gouvernement du Québec, 2004). En prolongement à ce que l’on connaît déjà sur la participation parentale et la collaboration école-famille-communauté, nous orientons cette recherche sur les perceptions et les attentes d’enseignants au primaire en classe ordinaire et de parents d’élèves à risque à l’égard de la participation parentale et de la collaboration école-famille dans le cadre de l’élaboration et du suivi du plan d’intervention. Cette étude emprunte une approche de recherche qualitative de type exploratoire et elle est menée auprès de huit enseignants au primaire et de sept parents d’élèves à risque. Les participants ont délibérément été choisis pour leur représentativité par rapport à l’objet d’étude (Mongeau, 2009). Une procédure d’échantillonnage par volontariat a été appliquée et les données ont été recueillies par le biais d’entrevues semi-dirigées. L’analyse des entrevues révèle que les parents participent au plan d’intervention parce qu’ils veulent soutenir et aider leur enfant dans leur cheminement scolaire. Il existe cependant de multiples façons pour les parents de participer à la réussite scolaire de leur enfant, celles-ci variant particulièrement selon leurs intérêts, leurs compétences et leurs disponibilités. En ce qui concerne les enseignants, les entrevues nous dévoilent qu’ils ont globalement des perceptions positives à l’égard des parents, ce qui favorise grandement l’établissement de relations harmonieuses. Par contre, ils s’attendent à une plus grande participation parentale dans le suivi scolaire de l’enfant à la maison. Tant d’un côté que de l’autre, les résultats indiquent qu’il faut favoriser davantage la participation des parents à l’élaboration et au suivi du plan d’intervention de l’élève à risque. Idéalement, les enseignants et les parents devraient s’enrichir mutuellement de leurs ressources et de leurs expertises complémentaires en créant des relations collaboratives plutôt que hiérarchiques. Ce niveau de collaboration est sans aucun doute celui qui favoriserait avantageusement la réussite scolaire des élèves à risque. / In today’s education context, the student is placed in the center of the relations between the family, the school and the community. Parents are invited to help their children all along their schooling and teachers are asked to systematically collaborate with families. The collaboration between teachers and parents is therefore an essential condition of the student achievement and it is even more important for students with learning disabilities. Currently in our schools, the collaboration is being mainly maintained at the obligatory basic communications level which is prescribed by the Pedagogic System. Kalubi and Lesieux (2006) indicate that the so desired partnership in official documentation from concerned ministries does not transpire in day to day school practices. Furthermore, scientific literature as shown that there are obstacles to family-school-community partnership especially in regards to keeping harmonious relations with parents of special needs students. Furthermore, even greater parent participation is sought in order to intensify the collaboration between the school and the family. Teachers wish for parents to get more involved with their children in order to accompany them in their school projects and homework. Parents are often asking themselves how to act in order to help even more their children in their homework and learning activities (Government of Quebec, 2000). The individualized education plan is a tool recognized by schooling communities to help the special needs student in their learning activities as it involves parent participation and promotes the family-school-community partnership. The individualized education plan is at the core of a dynamic plan of action which is based on a systemic vision of the student situation in order to better identify the specific needs of the special needs student and to respond to these adequately (Government of Quebec, 2004). In the continuation of what we already know about parent participation and family-school-community partnership, this research is about both perceptions and expectations of teachers and parents of special needs students in elementary school in regards to parent participation and family-school-community partnership in the preparation and follow-up of the individualized education plan. This study is using a qualitative approach of the exploration type with eight teachers in elementary school and seven parents of special needs students. These participants were deliberately chosen for their representativeness in regards to the study (Mongeau, 2009). A process of voluntary sampling was put in place and the data was collected via semi-directed interviews. Data analysis extracted from these voluntary interviews reveals that parent participate in the individualized education plan because they want to help and support and their child in their learning activities. It appears that there are many different ways and levels of engagement for parents to participate in their child’s student achievement. These different ways and level of engagement varies depending on parent’s interests, skills and availability. In regards to teachers, the data extracted from their interviews shows that they have a global positive perception in regards to parents which greatly helps to establish harmonious relationships between them. On the other hand, teachers are expecting greater involvement of parents in their child learning activities at home. On both teacher and parent side, results indicate that parent participation must be facilitated in the preparation, execution and follow-up of the individualized education plan. Ideally teachers and parents should mutually benefit from each other resources and knowledge based on a collaborative relationship instead of a hierarchical one. Such collaborative relationship between teachers and parents would be, without a doubt, the best approach to help special needs students in their school success.

La politique québécoise de l’adaptation scolaire confirme que le plan d’intervention (PI) constitue l’outil privilégié pour répondre aux besoins des élèves handicapés ou en difficulté d’adaptation ou d’apprentissage. Toutefois, la recension des écrits nous informe que le plan d’intervention est encore loin d’être efficace. Le Ministère de l’Éducation, des Loisirs et des Sports du Québec (MELS, 2004) ainsi que l’Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services des U.S. department of Education (dans Eichler, 1999) ont bien identifié et présenté explicitement cinq à six fonctions du PI mais, aucun des deux organismes ne définit ce qu’est une fonction, à quoi elle sert, son importance relative et ce qu’elle implique. De plus, on retrouve, explicitement ou implicitement, soit dans le cadre de référence pour l’établissement des PI (MELS, 2004), soit dans la revue de la littérature, soit dans les milieux de pratique plusieurs autres fonctions que le PI remplit ou devrait remplir. Ce flou entourant le concept de fonction entraîne un manque de rigueur dans la conception des PI, car « lorsque la totalité des fonctions a été identifiée, elle permet le développement d’un produit répondant à l’usage attendu » (Langevin et coll., 1998). Il y a d’emblée une somme de fonctions qu’un PI remplit déjà et d’autres sûrement à remplir. Or, cela n’a pas été élucidé, précisé et validé. Le but de la présente recherche a été de définir les rôles du PI au regard des besoins de ses différents utilisateurs. Les objectifs spécifiques ont été les suivants, 1) Identifier les différents utilisateurs d’un PI, 2) Identifier les besoins des différents utilisateurs d’un PI, 3) Identifier les fonctions qu’un PI doit remplir afin de satisfaire les besoins de ses utilisateurs, 4) Créer un cahier des charges fonctionnel pour la conception et l’évaluation d’un PI, 5) Identifier certains coûts reliés à la conception d’un PI. Afin d’atteindre les objectifs précités, nous avons eu recours à la méthode de l’analyse de la valeur pédagogique (AVP) (Langevin, Rocque et Riopel, 2008). La méthode d’AVP comportait une analyse des besoins des différents utilisateurs potentiels, une analyse de la recension des écrits, une analyse des encadrements légaux, une analyse de produits types et une analyse écosystémique. En conclusion, nous avons identifié les différents utilisateurs potentiels d’un PI, identifié les différents besoins de ces utilisateurs, identifié les fonctions qu’un PI doit remplir pour satisfaire leurs besoins, crée un cahier des charges fonctionnel (CdCF) pour la conception et l’évaluation des PI et identifié certains coûts liés à la conception d’un PI. Le CdCF pourra servir à concevoir des PI et à évaluer leur efficience. Une partie du CdCF pourra aussi remplir un rôle prescriptif pour la conception d’outil de soutien à l’élaboration du PI. Enfin, le CdCF pourra servir à la formation et à la recherche en éducation. / The policy on special education in Quebec confirms that the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) remains the essential tool for planning intervention to be carried out with child and youth with learning disabilities. Nonetheless a review of the literature indicates that IEPs are in need of improvement. The Ministry of Education in Quebec (2004) and the Special Education and Rehabilitative Services U.S. Department of Education (in Eichler, 1999) explicitly identify five to six functions. However, none of them define what a function is, what is the role of a function, its relative importance and implication. Furthermore, we find in the reference framework for the establishments of IEPs (MELS, 2004), in the literature review, in practice that there are many more functions an IEP fulfills or should fulfill. This ambiguity revolving around the concept of function leads to a lack of rigor because ``when all the functions are identified it allow for the development of a product that fulfills its purpose`` (Langevin and others, 1998). There are a sum of functions an IEP already fulfills and many more that it should fulfill. Unfortunately, none of these has of yet been emphasized, specified and validated. The goal of this research was to identify the characteristic role of an IEP in regards to the needs of its different users. The specific objectives of this study were: 1) To identify the different IEP users, 2) To identify the different needs of the different IEP users, 3) To identify the different functions of an IEP, 4) To create a functional specification matrix for the conception and evaluation of IEPs, 5) To identify some of the cost related to an IEP. To reach our objectives, we proceeded with the pedagogical value analysis method (PVA). The PVA method included a need analysis of the different IEP users, a literature review analysis, an analysis of legal requirements, an analysis of different IEP models and an ecosystem analysis. As a result we have, identified the different IEP users, identified their different needs, identified the different functions of an IEP, created a functional specification matrix (FSM) for the conception and evaluation of IEPs and identified some cost related to the conception of an IEP. The IEP FSM may be used to create an IEP and evaluate the efficiency of an IEP. Part of the IEP FSM may also have a prescriptive role for the conception of a tool which supports IEP users elaborating IEPs. Finally, The IEP FSM may be used in training and research.

No description available.