This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]

On: 06 November 2014, At: 19:12

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Special Needs

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rejs20

Collaborative IEPs for the education

of pupils with profound and multiple
learning difficulties
a a
Vasilis Stroggilos & Yota Xanthacou
a
University of the Aegean , Rhodes, Greece
Published online: 17 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Vasilis Stroggilos & Yota Xanthacou (2006) Collaborative IEPs for the education
of pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties, European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 21:3, 339-349, DOI: 10.1080/08856250600810872

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856250600810872

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 European Journal of Special Needs Education
Vol. 21, No. 3, August 2006, pp. 339–349

Collaborative IEPs for the education of

pupils with profound and multiple
learning difficulties
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 19:12 06 November 2014

Vasilis Stroggilos* and Yota Xanthacou

University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece
European
10.1080/08856250600810872
REJS_A_181029.sgm
0885-6257
Original
Taylor
302006
21
Ph.D
vasstrog@hotmail.com
00000August
VasiliosStroggilos
and
&Article
Francis
Journal
(print)/1469-591X
Francis
2006
ofLtd
Special Needs
(online)
Education

Individual educational plans (IEPs) are considered to be more effective when designed and
implemented by a multidisciplinary team. This paper deals with the IEP as a collaborative tool for
the education of pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD). Ten pupils with
PMLD and the people working around them (e.g. teacher, speech and language therapist (SLT),
physiotherapist, parents) were chosen as case studies. The design and implementation of IEPs were
examined through IEP document analysis; semi-structured interviews with teachers, parents and
other professionals; observations at the Annual Review Meetings (ARMs); and follow-up question-
naires to parents after the ARM. The study concludes that IEPs are not used as a tool for collabo-
ration between teachers, parents and other professionals and this is attributed to the nature of the
IEP itself. Collaborative changes are needed if IEPs are to be designed and implemented success-
fully. These changes include the introduction of broad goals, which could be shared between all
those working around the child, together with less-frequent but better-quality evaluations of IEPs.

Keywords: IEPs; Profound and multiple learning difficulties; Multidisciplinary

collaboration; Case study; Parents; Annual review meeting

Introduction: IEP and multidisciplinary collaboration

Individual education plans (IEPs) are thought to be more effective and comprehen-
sive when based on a team approach. The IEP process has been considered as a tool
for collaboration and communication (Warin, 1995; Clark, 2000) and an excellent
way to analyse the effects of professional collaboration on particular goals and objec-
tives for students. Consequently, the development of IEPs can form a useful method
of evaluating the effectiveness of a team’s work, by examining the process which the

*Corresponding author. 91 An. Romylias St., Glyfada, Athens 165 62, Greece. Email:
vasstrog@hotmail.com

ISSN 0885–6257 (print)/ISSN 1469–591X (online)/06/030339–11

© 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/08856250600810872
 340 V. Stroggilos and Y. Xanthacou

team follows in designing the programme and, of course, by analysing the achieved
outcomes. Moreover, examples of good practice and the problems which profession-
als face in attempting to work together can be identified. In investigating the prepa-
ration and implementation of IEPs, Smith and Simpson (1989) concluded that part
of the reason for the deficits in the IEPs was the failure of the multidisciplinary team
to provide appropriate information to the person writing the IEP. OFSTED (DfEE,
2001) has also reported differences between the role of outside agencies vis-à-vis
schools, and consequently, between the degree of external assistance the latter could
be given.
So far, however, IEP teams have not been mandated in English schools. Conse-
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 19:12 06 November 2014

quently, the effectiveness of multidisciplinary collaboration in designing IEPs

depends on people’s willingness to work together and not on a particular process that
must be followed. Bateman and Linden (1998), in answer to the question of how the
IEP team should function, argue that: ‘it is a full, equal parent–district partnership
which specifies the child’s unique needs and the special services necessary to enable
the child to receive educational benefit’ (p. 36).

Parents and the IEP team

Even though Gallagher and Desimore (1995) stated that the IEP process gives fami-
lies a better understanding of the special educational programme designed for their
child, research has rather discouraged their participation in the IEP process.
Gallagher and Desimore (1995) characterized parental involvement as inconsistent
and cursory, while other researchers have talked about parents as passive observers at
the IEP meeting (Goldstein et al., 1980; Skinner, 1991; Rodgers, 1995). In the USA,
as Smith (1990) states, the purpose of the multidisciplinary IEP team meeting is the
production of the IEP document. In this document all the assessment data are formu-
lated into a comprehensive planning system that facilitates the delivery of educational
services. This means that parents, teachers, other professionals and pupils should
identify collaboratively the nature of the help which a child requires and should
develop a programme as a team. In addition, they should identify the services of inter-
vention that are more appropriate; formulate the function of these services and then
monitor and evaluate the development of the programme as a team. Burns (2001)
pays significant attention to the fact that the IEP is not a series of different plans or
programmes, but a single document. In England, too, the DfEE Code of Practice
(DfEE, 2000) states that IEPs ideally should be reviewed every term, or more
frequently for children with particular needs, and at least once a year; this could
coincide with a routine parents’ evening. (For more information on the purpose of
ARMs see DfEE (2000, s. 9.2.)
The construction of IEPs, especially in the UK, has remained largely unresearched
and practical solutions concerning their design and implementation have not so far
been extensively proposed. Consequently, this study deals with the collaborative devel-
opment and implementation of IEPs with particular emphasis on the role of parents.
The main questions we had to answer were: are IEPs designed and implemented
 Collaborative IEPs for PMLD pupils 341

collaboratively between teachers and other professionals, and why? How involved are
parents in the design and implementation of IEPs?

Method
In this study the intention is not to learn about some particular cases, but to concen-
trate on a general understanding of the designing of IEPs through studying particular
cases. In order to achieve this, we used different methods for collecting data, engaged
in multi-sided case studies and attempted to discover links between our findings and
other examples of related studies.
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 19:12 06 November 2014

Ten case studies were conducted in four schools for pupils with PMLD belonging
to one local educational authority (LEA) and in one residential independent school
for students with complex difficulties. Two cases were conducted in each school. The
selection of schools forms a purposive rather than a representative sample (Silverman,
2000). Our main consideration, and consequently, the principal criterion for the selec-
tion of schools was: ‘What group of schools would help us to understand and evaluate
the design of IEP for pupils with PMLD?’ The identification of teams/cases within the
schools was implemented in collaboration with the deputy head teacher in each school.
All the case-study units were teams working around the pupils. To identify the
teams/cases we located pupils with PMLD, with whom at least three professionals
from different disciplines (e.g. teachers, SLT, physiotherapists) were working
together. Having located them, we were able to consider all the different professionals
working with them as a team, and consequently, as a case. Moreover, the parents of
these pupils were included as members of the team. Consequently, it is the different
professionals who work with a pupil, his/her parents and their relationship, which
constitute a case and not the pupils themselves (see Figure 1).
In each case study the first step was to informally observe the selected child in
Figure 1. The Case Unit

school for one to two days and to collect all the necessary documents (e.g. IEP,
speech and language therapy report, physiotherapy report). Informal observations
were recorded in the form of a diary that was used throughout the study. All the docu-
ments were used to increase the understanding in each case study, mainly in relation
to the other methods used (interviews and observations).
The second step was to interview all the people directly working with the child and
the child’s parents. Interviews were semi-structured and had the purpose of eliciting
information and opinions regarding the collaborative design and implementation of
the IEPs. People were asked to describe their practices and give reasons for them. In
total, 39 people were interviewed: eleven teachers, eleven parents, seven SLTs, two
EPs, four Physiotherapists, one Occupational therapist (OT), two carers and one
learning support assistant. All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. The
third step was to observe each child’s ARM (n = 10). All meetings were specific to the
selected children observed within the case studies. Data from the observations were
recorded in narrative form. Finally, after the ARM, a short questionnaire with a cover
letter was sent to parents in an attempt to measure their satisfaction with the meeting.
Before posting, each questionnaire was coded according to the case it belonged to.
 342 V. Stroggilos and Y. Xanthacou
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 19:12 06 November 2014

Figure 1. The Case Unit

Five semi-closed, three closed and one open-ended question were included in the
questionnaire. Only two parents were sent a postal reminder, enclosing further copies
and a prepaid envelope. All ten parents returned the questionnaire in the stamped
envelope provided. In the following sections only cross-case results are presented.

Results and discussion

IEP and multidisciplinary collaboration
The design and implementation of IEPs in most of the cases was implemented using
a discipline-referenced approach and came out of a well-designed, multidisciplinary
context. The most common pattern in designing the IEP was that of the teacher phys-
ically writing the IEP by drawing information from the reports of the other profession-
als. Teachers, as they said, very rarely discuss the content of IEPs with other
professionals. Teachers ask for help only ‘when there is a problem’. By ‘problem’ they
usually refer to very serious situations when it is almost impossible to improve things
without help from other disciplines (e.g. risk situations, unclear reports). Similarly,
most health professionals and EPs admitted that teachers very rarely take their advice
when writing an IEP, and consequently, teachers and other professionals had never
discussed the specific goals together:
No, we haven’t sat down with R [teacher] to go over it exactly, but she knows what our
aims are, and we’ve got an idea of what her aims are from just our informal discussions in
the classroom. (physiotherapist)

Teachers, conversely, said that they become familiar with other professionals’ goals
through their reports but, as they said, this does not necessarily give them a complete
picture of their work:
I don’t ask other professionals when I design the IEP but I’ve got their report. (teacher)
I guess it would be very useful to know what exactly they are doing with Sean. (teacher)
 Collaborative IEPs for PMLD pupils 343

Since participants seemed unaware of each other’s goals, the issue arises of whether
professionals work on the ‘same’ or ‘different’ goals for the same child. Most of the
teachers and therapists believe that there is an overlap of goals between the different
disciplines and most of them, as they put it, ‘think’ or ‘hope’ that their goals overlap.
In this study it is clear that IEPs are not being used as a tool for collaboration
(Clark, 2000) and written targets are not agreed between teachers and other profes-
sionals, as has been suggested by several writers (Warin, 1995; Rainforth & York-
Barr, 1997; Shaddock, 2002). In a similar study conducted by Sterkamn et al. (1998,
cited in Poppes et al., 2002) in The Netherlands, it was also found that goals were
strongly discipline related and often had little, if any, relation to goals established by
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 19:12 06 November 2014

members of other professions.

According to Shaddock and Bramston (1991), the logic of IEPs requires a coherent
relationship between long-term and short-term goals. In this study, however, it is
obvious that there is some sharing of long-term goals through reports, but not neces-
sarily a sharing of short-term goals. It is evident that teachers and other professionals
do not share the same short-term targets. Such a separatist approach leaves open the
possibility of professionals working on different goals for the same child. Equally, it
leaves open the possibility of IEPs which fail to cover students’ needs, and conse-
quently, become ineffective, since they do not contain the essential link between the
needs and the services provided (Smith, 1990).
In one particular case, this separatist approach was evident in the child’s IEP and
speech and language therapy report. One of his goals in the IEP was ‘when thirsty, to
exchange photo for water’, whereas in the speech and language report a major goal
was ‘to discriminate between different symbols, so that he can ask for what he wants’.
The questions arise: ‘does Tom work with symbols or photos?’ and ‘is there a
common approach to improve Tom’s communication skills between those who work
with him?’ It is clear that the teacher had not advised the SLT before initiating
communication with pictures, and that the SLT had not informed the teacher regard-
ing the most appropriate communication medium (photos/symbols) for Tom. This
example provides strong evidence that a lack of collaboration between the teacher and
the SLT had negative implications for Tom’s education and care.

Parents and IEPs

Most parents were aware that their child works on an IEP. Their first contact with the
specific goals their child was working towards was usually at the ARM. Most parents
had a copy of the IEP at home. Their involvement was rather limited, however, in the
design and implementation of the IEP. Unfortunately, the use of the IEP as a collab-
orative tool between home and school was not representative of any of the cases
conducted in this study. This is also evident in the following quotations:
Contact isn’t as much as I would like. As I said before, I would like to do joined planning
really and that is one area I really feel that we haven’t got; all we’re doing is really telling
them [parents] our joined planning with the teacher and asking them for their opinion.
(SLT)
 344 V. Stroggilos and Y. Xanthacou

No, I’m not involved in the design of goals; no, it’s just that they decide, this is what we’re
trying to do. (mother)

Even in cases where home programmes have been given to parents, it was a problem
to sustain and develop them:
the physio, they have given me programmes, but it hasn’t been for ages. It needs to be
updated now … I find that professionals can actually talk to each other without you know-
ing. You only actually find out by accident more than anything. (parent)

From the above quotations two important things emerge. First, teachers and other
professionals do not systematically work with parents, and consequently, do not set
goals together with them; and secondly, as the first SLT said, ‘all we’re doing is really
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 19:12 06 November 2014

telling them our joint planning with the teacher and asking them for their opinion’.
This pattern of work was very obvious in almost every ARM that we observed.
It was very encouraging, however, that the majority of teachers and other profes-
sionals believed that parents can actively participate in the design of IEPs. The main
reasons that teachers and other professionals raised for the absence of parents from
the designing of the IEP was ‘lack of time’ and the fact that it is difficult for parents
to come to the school very often. Most teachers said that it is almost impossible to
invite parents to the school every six weeks (in most of the schools, IEPs were reviewed
every six weeks). In addition, most of the parents said that even though they have a
copy of the IEP at home, they do not implement any of its goals there. Most teachers
said that they design IEPs so as to implement them at school and not necessarily at
home. Parents had to take the initiative if goals were to be implemented at home.
It is very interesting that in a study conducted by Band et al. (2002) parents
reported similar opinions. As the above researchers mention, most of the parents were
unaware of any collaboration between health and education authorities; in the above
study, one parent said:
Are people talking to each other? Well, if they are, they’re not letting us know about it.

Annual review meetings

All the 10 ARMs took place in schools during school hours. In most cases, the room
chosen for the meeting was inappropriate in terms of noise, furniture and capacity.
Meetings lasted from 20 minutes to 1.5 hours, most lasting approximately 30
minutes. The main feature of the meetings was the absence of EPs and health and
social professionals. In most of the meetings, the only participants were parents and
teachers. Only in four out of the ten cases did head teachers or deputy heads take part,
and only in one meeting was the child in question present and asked for his opinion.
However, the reason for the children’s absence in most cases was perhaps the severity
of their needs, since participants thought that it would be difficult for pupils with
PMLD to attend lengthy meetings. Regarding the presence of health professionals,
only in three out of the ten meetings was either the SLT or the physiotherapist present
and, most importantly, not one of the meetings brought together all the professionals
working with the child.
 Collaborative IEPs for PMLD pupils 345

In every meeting, the progress made by the child was the major theme under discus-
sion. In addition, in most meetings the goals designed for next year were presented to
parents, who were asked to state their opinion. In their answers in the postal ques-
tionnaires, parents were found to be happy regarding the results of the meeting. Most
of them attributed the success of the meeting to the information given on the progress
made by the child. However, most parents replied that they would like to talk to ther-
apists, since they still had unanswered questions. In addition, most parents said that
they had never attended a meeting where all the professionals working with their child
had been present. Usually they had a meeting with the teacher and met other profes-
sionals individually. This is a very important drawback, since SLTs and physiothera-
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 19:12 06 November 2014

pists have a very important role in the education of pupils with PMLD.
It is an important matter that the majority of teachers and other professionals in
the present study believe that parents should and could have an active role in
designing and implementing goals. However, our observations, as well as the
accounts by professionals, revealed that in practice teachers and other professionals
did not give parents this opportunity. The IEPs were already designed by the time
they were presented to parents, giving the impression that IEPs are for the teachers
to compile. In addition, none of the professionals asked the parents if they were
willing to implement the goals at home. Nine out of the ten parents were not given
any opportunity to design their child’s IEP during the ARM. In most cases, teach-
ers asked parents to state their opinions about the plans and, in a very few cases,
IEPs were not even presented for discussion. Most teachers and other professionals
said that parents do not find it easy to contribute to the IEP, implying that parents
trust them. However, how likely is it that parents will contribute to a pre-designed
IEP? In eight out of the ten cases, parents accepted teachers’ IEPs without making
any proposals. Indeed, by presenting IEPs to parents and leaving very few opportu-
nities for collaboration on their child’s plan, teachers contributed to the already
passive role of parents in the ARM. However, in one case only in our study was
there substantial evidence of parental input in the designing of the IEP. Out of the
ten cases, this was the only case in which the mother had an active role in the
design of the IEP. But we shall present actual observation notes from our diary in
order to show that parents can contribute to designing the IEP if teachers give them
the opportunity:

the teacher had pre-designed some goal on a piece of paper and said to the mother that
‘we have to write Mark’s goals’. The teacher started reading the goals when the mother
interrupted her …
Mother: I’d like Mark to interact with other children.
Teacher: We do that during the physio sessions, we place him opposite
Nick and try to encourage eye contact.
Mother: He does it, he likes other children.
Teacher: He does it with Ben also, but I think it’s a good target, OK, I’ll
put down ‘Mark to interact with other children’.
…
 346 V. Stroggilos and Y. Xanthacou

Teacher: Is there anything else that you want us to work with Mark?
Mother: I feed him with spoon now.
Teacher [looks surprised]: Excellent, we can try it then at school. OK, I’ll write ‘to experi-
ence feeding with spoon …’
Finally, three out of the five pre-designed targets had to be changed or alternated after the
mothers’ contribution. (diary, 4 June 2002)

Dyson et al. (1998), in a research study in 10 LEAs regarding collaboration

between health, educational and social services, also found that service involvement
in the ARMs was not adequate. According to them, even though reports were
provided, health professionals tended to attend reviews only on a selective basis,
determined by the severity of any known medical condition the child might have.
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 19:12 06 November 2014

Similarly, Smith and Simpson (1989) reported that appropriate school representa-
tives and even special educators were often absent from IEP meetings. Even though
in many cases we could identify good collaborative practices between parents and
teachers during the ARM, this collaboration was rather general and not specific to
designing goals with parents. The above evidence supports the view of Gallagher and
Desimore (1995) that parents’ involvement in the IEP process is often inconsistent
and/or cursory. Bennett et al. (1992), too, in their survey on teachers’ perceptions of
IEPs in Australia, found that teachers perceived parents to have only marginal influ-
ence on the type of programme actually developed for their child. Jones and Swain
(2001), in their study on parental perceptions of their involvement in statutory
Annual Reviews, reported similar findings. They concluded that even though parents’
views were valued in principle, they could be devalued in practice. In Rodgers’s
literature review on IEP conferences (1995), she concluded that in almost two
decades of implementation, IEP meetings still fell short of the ideal in a number of
ways. Specifically, she mentioned the lack of equal participation of all members, the
perceptions concerning the status hierarchy within the teams and the lack of training
and preparation required for optimal participation to be possible.

Why the IEP is not designed and implemented collaboratively

According to our observations and the parents’ evaluations, it is plain that ARMs are
not a working conference between parents, teachers and other professionals to plan a
student’s education. It is teachers who mainly design the IEPs, with minimal contri-
butions from parents and other professionals. In our study, it was found that IEPs are
not used as a collaborative tool, though this could be attributed to their nature. Most
teachers said that it is almost impossible to collaboratively design IEPs with parents
and other professionals, since it is impossible to have a meeting every six weeks with
all the people involved in a child’s education. Some teachers also said that use of
SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable and Realistic, set against an appropriate
time scale) targets (DfEE, 1994, 2001) did not help collaboration, and instead
proposed broader goals, which could more easily be shared with other professionals.
The fact that goals are not designed collaboratively is a serious drawback, since effec-
tiveness usually refers to goal attainment (Adelson & Woodman, 1983). Poulton and
 Collaborative IEPs for PMLD pupils 347

West (1999), for example, in a study of 68 primary health care teams, found that the
clarity of and commitment to team objectives was the key to predicting the overall
effectiveness of the primary health care teams.

Conclusion: the way forward

In the five schools where this study took place, IEPs were designed and implemented
in a discipline-referenced way and out of a well-designed multidisciplinary frame-
work. In addition, the majority of health professionals ‘think’ or ‘hope’ that they work
towards the same goals as the other professionals working around a child. However,
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 19:12 06 November 2014

the fact that goals are not shared leaves open the possibility that teachers and other
professionals are working on different goals for the same child. Parents’ involvement
in the design and implementation of their child’s IEP was also limited. Lack of time
was the most important obstacle to collaboration between parents, school staff and
other professionals. It is clear that parents are not functioning as equal members of
the multidisciplinary team.
The main argument in the present paper is that IEPs are not used as a collaborative
tool, due to their restricted nature. In order for IEPs to function as a collaborative tool
for the education of pupils with PMLD, two changes are needed:
1. Broader goals applicable to all the people working with the child should be
included.
2. The IEP should be evaluated not every six weeks, but twice a year, to give parents
and professionals the chance to join the review meetings.
As it stands, the IEP, as a working document, takes no holistic account of a pupil with
PMLD. Flexibility in terms of broader goals as well as less frequent but better-quality
evaluations could provide more useful IEPs. Broad goals should be set up which
would allow professionals and parents to share in the work for the student. Broad
goals are not necessarily vague ones, or ones that elude measurement. Rather, they
are goals that approach the child as a whole person, giving professionals from several
different disciplines a chance to contribute to the child’s development.
The IEPs reviewed in this study involved goals that were too specific to different
professionals, and in most cases, exclusive of others. For example, the SMART goal
‘Arun to count from 1 to 5’ was specific to a single teacher. How likely is it that profes-
sionals from different disciplines could collaborate in meeting them? If IEPs are to be
viewed as tools for collaboration and not merely as a chance for professionals to pursue
individual goals, the nature of the goals needs to be redefined. A very common goal
in most of the IEPs used in this study was, for example, ‘Arun to match numerals’.
Usually this goal was under the ‘Maths’ section in the IEP, and this was clearly a
specific, measurable goal. The way that it is written, however, suggests that it is specific
to Maths and consequently irrelevant for the other professionals. However, if we
change this goal to ‘Arun to match objects, pictures or symbols’ instead of ‘Arun to
match numerals’, we immediately give other professionals working with him the oppor-
tunity to contribute towards these goals. The SLT, for example, could work on match-
 348 V. Stroggilos and Y. Xanthacou

ing colours, the teacher on matching numerals or letters and even a physiotherapist
who might be interested in working on hand coordination could ask Arun to stack rings
or bricks by size or colour. By designing IEPs with broader goals, first, we give people
the opportunity to work towards the same goals, and secondly, we allow the child’s
progress to be evaluated in collaboration.
In addition, in Arun’s case, participants found that because his progress was slow,
they did not need to evaluate it more than twice a year. Indeed, most children with
PMLD make rather slow progress. Consequently, setting and reviewing goals twice a
year sounds realistic for this population. Arranging a multidisciplinary meeting twice
a year in order to design pupils’ IEPs may not always be suitable, but considering the
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 19:12 06 November 2014

positive effects on pupils’ education, it would often be highly desirable. Moreover,

there would be less paperwork since professionals would not have to write IEPs every
six weeks, as they mostly did, according to this study.
To sum up, the evidence in this study suggests that changing the nature of the IEP
to a collaborative tool could increase multidisciplinary collaboration, and consequently
improve the education of pupils with PMLDs.

References
Abelson, M. A. & Woodman, R. W. (1983) Review of research on team effectiveness: implications
for teams in schools, School Psychology Review, 12, 125–136.
Band, S., Lindsay, G., Law, J., Soloff, N., Peacy, N., Gascoigne, M. & Radford, J. (2002) Are
health and education talking to each other? Perceptions of parents of children with speech and
language needs, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(3), 211–227.
Bateman, B. D. & Linden, M. A. (1998) Better IEPs: how to develop legally correct and educationally
useful programs (Denver, CO, Sopris West).
Bennett, M. L., Shaddoch, A. J. & Bennett, A. J. (1992) Teachers’ perceptions of individualised
education plans, Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 23(1), 25–28.
Burns, E. (2001) Developing and implementing IDEA-IEPs. An individualized education handbook for
meeting Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requirements (Chicago, Charles C.
Thomas).
Clark, S. G. (2000) The IEP process as a tool for collaboration, Teaching Exceptional Children,
33(2), 56–66.
Department for Education and Employment (2000) SEN code of practice on the identification and
assessment of special needs (London, DfEE).
Department for Education and Employment (2001) Supporting the target setting process. Guidance
for effective target setting for pupils with special educational needs (London, DfEE).
Department for Education and Employment (1994) The code of practice on the identification and
assessment of SEN (London, DfEE).
Dyson, A., Lin, M. & Millward, A. (1998) Inter-agency co-operation for children with special
educational needs: an analytic framework, in: D. Van Veen, C. Dolf & G. Walraven (Eds)
Multiservice schools: integrated services for the children and youth at risk (Leuven, Garant).
Gallagher, J. & Desimore, L. (1995) Lessons learned from implementation of the IEP: applica-
tions to the IFSP, Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 15(3), 353–378.
Goldstein, S., Strickland, B., Turnbull, A. P. & Gury, L. (1980) An observational analysis of the
IEP conference, Exceptional Children, 46(4), 278–286.
Jones, P. & Swain, J. (2001) Parents reviewing annual reviews, British Journal of Special Education,
28(2), 60–64.
 Collaborative IEPs for PMLD pupils 349

Poppes, P., Vlaskamp, C., De Geeter, K. I. & Nakken, H. (2002) The importance of setting goals:
the effect of instruction and training on the technical and intrinsic value of goals, European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(3), 241–250.
Poulton, B. C. & West, M. A. (1999) The determinants of effectiveness in primary health care
teams, Journal of Interprofessional Care, 13(1), 7–18.
Rainforth, B. & York-Barr, J. (1997) Collaborative teams for students with severe disabilities: integrating
therapy and educational services (Baltimore, MD, Paul Brookes).
Rodgers, S. (1995) Individual education plans revisited: a review of the literature, International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 42(3), 221–239.
Shaddock, A. J. (2002) An unplanned journey into the individualised planning, International Journal
of Disability, Development and Education, 49(2), 191–200.
Shaddock, A. J. & Bramston, P. (1991) Individual service plans: the policy-practice gap, Australia
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 19:12 06 November 2014

and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 17(1), 73–80.

Silverman, D. (2000) Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook (London, Sage).
Skinner, M. E. (1991) Facilitating parental participation during individualized education program
conferences, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 2, 285–289.
Smith, S. W. (1990) Individualized education programs (IEPs) in special education: from intent to
acquiescence, Exceptional Children, 57, 6–14.
Smith, S. W. & Simpson, R. L. (1989) An analysis of the individualized education programs
(IEPs) for students with behavior disorders, Behavioral Disorders, 14, 107–116.
Stroggilos, V. (2005) Multidisciplinary collaboration in English and Greek special schools: process and
effectiveness. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.
Warin, S. (1995) Implementing the code of practice: individual education plans (Stoke-on-Trent,
NASEN).