美国个别化教育计划的立法演进与发展被引量：26

The Legislative Evolution of the US Individualized Education Program

导出

摘要 1975年,美国颁布的《所有残疾儿童教育法》首次提出要为每位接受特殊教育的特殊儿童制订个别化教育计划(简称IEP)。随后,该法案经过了几次修订。每次法案修订时都根据当时的问题或需要调整IEP的要求,然而,这些要求的实现要受到多种因素的影响。本文回顾了30多年来美国IEP相关立法的演变进程,分析了IEP随之发生的变化以及对提供有效的特殊教育及相关服务的影响。 The year 1975 witnessed the promulgation of the Education of the All Handicapped Children Act in the US, which for the first time enacted the development of the Individualized Education Program （IEP） for each disabled child requiring special education services. Subsequently, there were amendments to the Act over the years, readjusting the demands for the IEP in line with the then problems and requirements. However, the fulfill- ment of these requirements depends on many facts. This article reviews in retrospect the evolution of the legisla- tions pertaining to the IEP over the past three decades, analyzes the corresponding changes to the IEP, and their implications for effective special education and related services.

作者于素红

机构地区华东师范大学特殊教育学系

出处《中国特殊教育》 CSSCI 北大核心 2011年第2期3-8,共6页 Chinese Journal of Special Education

基金全国教育科学"十一五"规划课题"在普通初中随班就读的轻度智力落后儿童的有效教育研究"(EHA080264)研究成果之一

关键词个别化教育计划立法演进美国 Individualized Education Program （IEP） legislation evolution the United States

分类号 G760 [文化科学—特殊教育学]

作者简介于素红，博士，副教授，研究方向：特殊儿童认知、特殊儿童课程与教学E—mail：yusuhong@sohu.com．

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献17

1Goodman J F, Bond L. The individualized educa- tion program: a retrospective critique. The Journal of Special Education, 1993, 26(4) :408 - 422.
2Mitchell L Y , David R, Elisabeth L R. The legal his- tory of special education: what a long, strange trip it' s been. Remedial and Special Education, 1998, 19(4): 219 - 228.
3Keogh B K. Celebrating PL 94 - 142: the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Issues in Teacher Education, 2007, 16(2) :65 - 69.
4Smith S W. Individualized education programs (IEPs) in special education - from intent to acquiescence. Ex- ceptional Children, 1990, 57(1 ) :6 - 14.
5Rodger, Sylvia. Individual education plans revisited: a re- view of the literature. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 1995, 42(3):221 - 239.
6Karger J. Access to the general curriculum for stu- dents with disabilities: the role of the IEP. National Center On Accessing the General Curriculum, U.S., 20O4.
7Margolis H, Truesdell L A. Do special education teach- ers use IEPs to guide instruction? The Urban Review, 1987,19(3) : 151 - 159.
8Huefner D S. The risks and opportunities of the IEP requirements under IDEA 97. The Joumal of Special Education, 2000, 33(4) : 195 - 204.
9Tennessee State Dept. of Education, Nashville. Div. of Special Education. Individualized Education Plan(IEP). http://enc, ed. gov/PDFs/ED454675,2001 - 03 - 28.
10National Association of State Directors of Special Educa- tion. Linkage of the IEP to the general education curric- ulum. Project Forum Quick Turn Around (QTA). Alex- andria, VA: Project FORUM at National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1999.

二级参考文献15

1US Department of Education. Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities., non-regulatory guidance, www. ed. gov/policy/elsec/guid/altguidance. 2005-12-25.
2Cortiella C, Wickham D. Students with sig nificant cognitive disabilities and standards-based curriculum: why now? why not? www. eparent. corn/ EP MAGAZINE, 2008, (9). 89--92.
3Roeber E. Setting standards on alternate assessments (Synthesis Report 42). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. http://education, umn. edu/ NCEO/OnlinePubs/Syntbesis42. btml. 2005-11-28.
4Towles-Reeves E, Harold K, Muhomba M. Alternate assessment., have we learned anything new? Exceptional Children, 2009, 75(2). 233-252.
5Tbompson S, Johnstone C, Thurlow M, et al. 2005 State special education outcomes, steps forward in a decade of change. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. http://www, education, umn. edu/ nceo/ OnlinePubs/ 2005State Report. btm,2005-12-12.
6Browder D M, Flowers C, Ahlgrim-Delzell L, et al. The alignment of alternate assessment content with academic and functional curricula. Journal of Special Education, 2004, 37:211-223.
7Ysseldyke J, Dennison A, Nelson R. Large-scale assessment and accountability systems: Positive consequences for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 51 ). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes, http://education, umn. edu/NGEO/On- linePubs/Synthesis51, html, 2005-9-27.
8Roach A, Elliott S. The influences of access to general education curriculum on alternate assessment performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2006, 28(2). 181-194.
9Frieden L, Chairperson. Improving Educational Outcomes for Students with Disabilities. http.// www. ncd. gov/newsroom/publications/2004/edu- cationoutcomes, htm, 2004-5-17.
10Stephen N E, Andrew T R. Alternate assessments of students with significant disabilities: alternative approaches, common technical challenges. Applied Measurement in Education, 2007, 20(3) : 301-333.