Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
EIE702- Co-Created Critical Review BY GILL GAMBLE & DAVID MARIYUN-HAY
244
EIE702- Co-Created Critical Review
BY GILL GAMBLE & DAVID mARIYUN-HAY
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
David Mariyun-Hay
Gill Gamble
What is an ILP?
Is in the final year of her Masters of Teaching (Secondary) and is studying at Deakin University. Gill currently lives in Melbourne and has lived in Australia for three years.
Is a pre-service teacher studying at Deakin University as a cloud student. David is from Western Australia and is in his final year of a Master of Teaching (Primary).
An ILP is an Individual Learning Plan and is a document that identifies a student’s current level of abilities, outlines future achievement goals and is written collaboratively with input from the teacher, student, parent and relevant stakeholders (Engaging the Difficult student n.d.)
This presentation will examine strength-based individual learning plans (ILP's) and their purpose and furthermore seek to .provide recommendations on how ILP's can be used effectively by teachers to promote inclusive teaching and learning in the context of school based practice in the Secondary Classroom in comparison to a Primary context.
Policy Inclusive Education
Policies affecting inclusive education
POLICY
FRAMEWORKS
Carrington et al. (2012, p. 16) and Hardy and Woodcock (2015), outlines several policies including the Australian Discrimination Act (1992), United Nations Conventions and the Australian Disability Standards for Education (DSE) (2005) as policies and standards that champion and protect the rights of children to an inclusive education. The Australian Curriculum (ACARA 2016) and Australian Teacher standards (AITSL 2017) also provide a framework for inclusive education. Individualised planning within secondary schools is heavily influenced by these policies that govern the rights of students with disabilities. Moreover, an IEP and ILP allows schools to demonstrate their obligation to reasonable adjustments for students with special needs as required by the DSE (2005).
Policies and Frameworks
Australian Government (AG) 2005, Disability Standards for Education 2005 Guidance Notes,
Canberra, ACT: Author.
ACARA 2016, Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, retrieved 3 May 2020, <https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/student-diversity/students-with-disability/>
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA) 1992.
Disability Standards for Education 2005 (DSE) (Cth) 2005.
2010 – 2020 National Disability Strategy (Commonwealth of Australia 2011a)
MCEETYA. 2008. Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Melbourne: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs.
UNESCO 1994, The UNESCO Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education, UNESCO, Paris.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (Hardy & Woodcock 2015)
School Education Act (1999)
Purpose of
ILP's
Purpose of ILP's
Individual Learning Plans (ILPs)
ILP’s are created for educational access and equity and typically provided for students with learning difficulties or special needs and take into consideration the diverse learning needs of the individual student who may come from a different linguistic, cultural or socio-economic background. ILP’s are created to provide individual goals that are targeted towards the student’s current level of ability and provides differentiation of curriculum, assessment and content to enable and motivate the student to participate and excel in the classroom.
Learning Differentiation Approach
Strength and Equity based Approach
Support learning in Inclusive
Heterogeneous Classroom
Promotes Engagement and Motivation (Student voice)
Individual Education Plan (IEP)
Promotes Personalised Learning
Facilitates Reasonable Adjustments (DSE 2005)
Requirement of AITSL (2017) Teacher Standards
Promotes Communication between Stakeholders
IEP is different depending on locale but in Australia it is similar to an ILP and it's purpose is to improve educational outcomes for children with disabilities or diverse learning needs or gift students. IEP's also summarise a students performance, ability and describe any ongoing provisions based on a students strengths and needs (The Individual Education Plan (IEP) 2004, p. 6).
Theoretical Frameworks
Theoretical Frameworks
The Individual Learning Plan is a ‘tool individualising teaching and learning while ensuring access to the general curriculum’ (Bhroin & King 2020, p.39). The learning objectives in the Australian Curriculum are the same for all learners and by personalising learning with an ILP, students with additional needs can access the curriculum and make progress in their learning.
An inclusive approach to learning honours the belief that ‘diversity is a positive force in students and teachers lives and recognises that all students are unique’. (Lee 2003, p. 395), To offer an inclusive environment for learning, the ILP’s should take into account a child’s virtual schoolbag (Thomson 2002) and The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers mandate that teachers should be personalising learning to ensure all students have the right to an education (AITSL 2020).
Theories of Inclusive Pedagogy
Skinners Theory of Operant Conditioning states that children learn through motivation and stimulus. This theory of positive reinforcement works well with behaviour goals on an ILP (Skinner 1963).
Inclusive Approaches to Learning
Children learn with they are working within their Zone of Proximal Development, they can be supported by a MKO who will help them reach their next level of learning (Vygotsky 1978, p.90).
Social Learning Theory - Bandura mandates that learning is a social experience and people learn by observing others. (Churchill et al. 2019, p.90)
Strength Based Planning
Strength-based planning is fundamental to an effective ILP. This approach focuses on the positive attributes of the student, by documenting and recognising the resourcefulness and resilience that exists in the learner, students feel empowered in their education (MacDonald 2019, p.37). By adopting a strength-based approach, teachers can see the whole child rather than labelling them for their differences (Barnes 2009, p.15). They can target the particular needs of the child and view the positive attributes of the student.
Strengths Based Planning
A Strength Based versus A Deficit Based Approach
Strength Based Versus Deficit Based Planning
Comparison
Strength Based
Deficit Based
- Focuses on what a child can do and how can we build on this.
- Builds on a child's ability based on their Zone of Proximal and potential development (Vygotsky 1978).
- Takes a respectful and honest approach to learning.
- Identifies what is happening when learning is successful and builds on this knowledge by introducing strategies to strengthen learning and pedagogy..
- Focuses on what a child cannot do by using negative discourse.
- This approach recognises the problems and can label a child.
- Can be detrimental to a child's development.- by using negative language, a child can have low self esteem and self belief.
Collaboration in designing the ILP
Collaboration in designing the ILP
The Student Support Group meeting is an opportunity for all parties to share information, by working together, a rich source of data can be collected which will build an accurate account of the students’ strengths and abilities (Bhroin & King 2020, p.39).
This meeting should be student-centred and It is essential that the student and parents have a voice and the notion of ‘collaboration within inclusion allows students to benefit from all experts and professionals involved in their education’ (Barnes 2009, p.11).
Parents offer an invaluable insight into the life of the child and a strength-based approach allows for open communication between home and school (Ontario Minister of Education 2004, p.13).
The strength-based planning approach is collaborative and focuses on what a child can do now and what they should be able to achieve in the future. When all stakeholders engage in collaboration, it encourages an inclusive approach to education and allows the student to be involved in the instructional process (Simpson et al. 2013, p.33).
Tensions and Complexities
Tensions &
Complexities
Some teachers have inadequate knowledge surrounding ILP’s and there is a disconnection between the curriculum and the goals selected within the Individual Learning Plan (Karvonen & Huynh 2007).
Students and Parents may feel undervalued and ignored in the planning process
Teachers have acknowledged that they can feel overwhelmed and out of their depth in developing an ILP. Reports suggest that time is a determining factor for failure (Timothy & Agbenyega 2018, p.2).
Although the ILP is considered by some to be paramount for inclusion (Burns 2008, p.8), recent studies have shown that by targeting a student as different can lead to division within the learning community (Duke 2012, p.4). This can alienate a student as it highlights their learning difference.
Some teachers do not recognise the value of the ILP and consequently they do not refer to it regularly. The ILP is an instrument for inclusion and it must be negotiated in the classroom for inclusion to be effective.
Teachers must be sensitive to the needs of students and consider the effectiveness of support (Timothy & Agbenyega, 2018, p.26).
Recommendations
Secondary School Context Year 7
Recommendations
Inclusive Design
Collaboration
Implementing ILPs is a challenging process as it involves collaboration between a number of facilitators including parents/carers, teachers. aides, counsellors, external stakeholders (Allied Health) and the students themselves (Hackmann et al. 2019).
According to Duke, Showers and Imber (1980), collective efforts of collaboration between all stakeholders enhances commitment and ownership of learning goals. Moreover, the exchange of skills and knowledge and resources also helps identify and conceptualise issues and goals (Welch 2000, p. 71).
According to Mitchell, Morton and Hornby (2010, p. 36), the quality of teachers relationships with parents/carers and external stakeholders is critical to the success or failure of ILP's. This highlights that effective collaboration is the key to success.
According to Fox (2014) and Solberg et al. (2014), in the secondary school context collaboration for planning should also include business or industry partners so that students gain necessary knowledge about skills and interview techniques for career goals in a real-world context.
The collaborative approach which includes all stakeholders assists students' by identifying and addressing learning or knowledge gaps through effective communication between stakeholders and addresses students needs with appropriate social and academic SMART goals.
"The purpose of collaborative IEP/ILP partnerships is to continuously gain better insights into the student as an individual, and how best to personalise learning to suit their aspirations, growth and needs" (Department of Education Tasmania 2014, p. 10).
Collaborative
Approach
In the secondary context collaboration usually occurs between the teacher and student with input from parents and external stakeholders specific to subject area and age group, In the primary context collaboration can involve external stakeholders like therapists, psychologists, social workers and parents, specialist staff, teachers and students and involves social and academic outcomes across all learning and development.
Accordingly, collaborative planning assists in supporting equitable access to curriculum and assessment for students with special needs for both Primary and Secondary contexts.
Goals that incorporate student’s strengths make them stronger as they understand how effective leveraging their strengths is against progress (Rawe 2014, para 5).
SMART GOALS
S= Specific - (explicit, individual)
M= Measurable - (assessable, quantifiable)
A= Achievable - (practical, accepted by all)
R= Realistic/Relevant - (results-driven, representative)
T= Time-limited- (trackable, ascribable)
SMART GOAL STRUCTURE
Teachers can use this structure for ILPs ensuring GOAL"s are smart.
Learning Outcome: What you want the student to learn or be able to do connected to appropriate curriculum outcome.
When? Providing a timeline of when the goal is to be achieved
Given What? What assistance provided, what adjustment in curriculum, assessment, content or social context is made to achieve the goal.
Who? Who is involved or can help to achieve the goal, the student/parent/stakeholders etc
Does what? What is the achievement, what is required to complete the goal, observable behaviour, academic success, social success? The action to achieve the goal.
How much? Standard required to achieve goal, repetition of action?
Measured by: How will it be recorded and monitored, software or journal or observation etc
* Source: (Engaging the Difficult Student n.d.)
Strength Based SMART GOALS
Individual Learning Plans need to be SMART. With effective personalised goals describing a students tasks, timeline to achievement, level of ability and standard required and reporting and progress assessment and monitoring (Engaging the Difficult Student n.d).
Student Voice
Students often represent a fount of hidden knowledge, when heard they can assist in making both classrooms and schools more inclusive (Ainscow et al. 1999)
The DSE (2005, s. 3.3) standards providing for reasonable adjustment require consultation with students and parents for students with disabilities (Cumming, Dickson & Webster 2013).
Student voice is an essential part of the planning and implementation process of ILP's as it enables realistic goals and provides for strength based planning.
Student voice promotes engagement and participation in meaningful learning and contributes to essential skills including leadership and confidence and helps identify academic and social emotional issues to ensure student well-being is met (Victoria Education and Training 2019, para. 2)
According to Gordon (2010, p. 1), unlocking student voice is the key to effective inclusion and overcoming challenges of inequity in the classroom.
Student Voice
Teachers including student voice in planning and ILP's allows for reasonable adjustments to curriculum and assessment which promotes equity and inclusion in the classroom for special needs students.
Teacher Professional Development
According to Semmel et al. (1991), teachers lack confidence teaching students with special needs due to a lack of skills in adapting instruction from initial teacher training.
Accordingly, Davis (1997) recommends that there should be a focus on teachers professional development in special education, and teaching courses should include special education training for pre-service teachers. Moreover, refresher courses for current teachers should be provided for retention of critical components of ILP's.
Collaboration is the key to successful implementation of ILP's.
According to McNeal (2014), parent attitudes affect students achievement of short and long term goals. Accordingly, to create positive attitudes teachers need to build successful relationships with parents and seek their input (Davis 1997). This is beneficial to teachers as teachers can learn a lot about their students from their parents as founts of knowledge and this has a positive effect on student success with their ILP's (Whitin, Mills & O'Keefe 1990),
According to Davis (1997), teachers should also collaborate together to help design and build ILP's by discussing strategies and assisting with planning and evaluation as this will help build teacher confidence and self-efficacy and facilitate effective development of ILP's.
Schools can also assist by providing support networks, information forums and expert resources for teachers.
Teacher Support & Professional Training
According to a study by Davis (1997), a lack of resources and support for teachers was identified for teaching special needs students. Moreover Bennett, Shaddock and Bennett (1994) identified that teachers believed ILP's was time intensive providing a negative outlook for implementing ILP's.
Consequently, teachers should be provided with specialist support and resources in the form of expert assistance and advice. Moreover, reducing class sizes may also assist with time management assigned to ILP's (Davis 1997).
Personalised Learning Approach
PLP's
Personalised Learning Plans although similar to ILP's can be developed for all students, alternatively ILP's or IEP's usually focus on students with special needs or learning difficulties and are focused on strategies, resources, curriculum and outcome adjustment.
Personalised Learning
A personalised learning approach like UDL is targeted not just at the individual but the whole class of learners and as such is considered an inclusive approach. It's foundation is built on all students having the ability to learn and achieve high standards provided that appropriate conditions for learning are met (DEEWR 2011, p. 2).
Personalised learning involves a process of identifying the individual learning needs of each student , identifying gaps and providing adjustments to curriculum, content and assessment (DEEWR 2011, p. 2). Moreover, identifying gaps in learning and nurturing learners skills and abilities is central to personalised learning. The Personalised learning process involves assessing students, targeting specific needs and monitoring regularly student progress to allow for successful learning outcomes.
"Personalised learning assists the development of all students, building on their personal strengths and identifying areas of learning where students can be extended or accelerated" (DEEWR 2011, p. 2).
Personalised Learning Approach
In the secondary school context teachers will assist in development of a PLP by helping students identify specific learning goals in a subject area and as such PLP's are usually subject specific. In contrast in a primary context the PLP's are more general learning goals and outcomes across both academic and social areas.
"Central to the personalised approach is commitment to using assessment to inform the design and delivery of targeted teaching and learning strategies" (DEEWR 2011, p. 22). Moreover, teaching and learning strategies supporting achievement of appropriate learning goals is also essential.
ILP Limitations
Limitations ILP/ IEP
Limitations to consider for successful implementation of ILP's
"Learning goals and adjustments listed in an IEP are specific to the student and their unique learning pathway and may not reflect the range of adjustments made to differentiate classroom practice as part of good teaching" (Department of Education Tasmania 2014, p. 10).
According to IEPonline (n.d.), an IEP is not:
- 1. a document that shows how the student will fit the curriculum
- 2. a document prepared by professionals to be signed off by a student’s parents/caregivers
- a different, separate curriculum
- a document that lists barriers to learning with no solutions
- a document written specifically for funding or referral purposes
- an exhaustive list of learning goals, activities, teaching strategies, and resources covering all the key competencies and learning areas
- a document that is completed at a meeting and then not looked at or used until the next meeting
Student Low Self Esteem can be a negative result of ILP's. Students may feel labeled and not 'smart' by having an IEP. and be isolated socially by their peers.
There can be disagreement with parents over IEP''s. This may result in lack of support by parents for the student which can cause issues with motivation and goal achievement.
IEPonline n.d., What is an IEP, who needs an IEP and when?, retrieved 14 May 2020, <https://seonline.tki.org.nz/IEP/IEP-guidelines/What-is-an-IEP-and-who-needs-an-IEP>
Research into IEPs for secondary schools has created a recommendation that a central process is required where one teacher collects all assessments and information from every teacher to increase effectiveness of developing IEP's for students (Mitchell et al., 2010, p. 22).
Low expectations may be developed by teachers and parents if ongoing monitoring of student's is not met or if goals are not appropriate to the students learning needs.
ILP Style Template
Secondary ILP/ IEP Template
Although similar the main difference is Secondary ILP's are usually subject focused and may include career goals while primary ILP's are focused across all learning areas and social development.
Appropriate to Year 7 Class
Alternative Primary Context ILP
ILP as a Resource
ILP's as a Resource
Transitions
ILP's can be used by educators as resources for transitions between classes and year groups. According to Boschetti and Stonehouse (2006), communication and information sharing is essential for special needs students when transitioning to a new class.
ILP's used as resource for Determining Organisational Strategies:
Reasonable adjustments can be made for:
1. Adaptations to the physical environment, seating, social etc
2. Modifications to content or delivery of lessons
3. Changes to material or instructional resources
4. Use of ICT or assistive technology
5. Extra support personnel, special education, aides
6. Adaption of formative and summative assessment
7. Adjustment for increased in group work, peer learning opportunities to assist with assessment outcomes (Victoria Education and Training 2019)
Evaluation
Evaluation of ILP’s can help teachers assess their teaching approaches and adjust strategies, assessment, curriculum or content design to promote better learning outcomes for students with special needs.
Primary & Secondary Context
ILP's Primary Vs Secondary Context
Challenges for successful IEP's
- School size is a significant factor affecting successful implementation as secondary schools are much larger usually then primary schools..
- Curriculum is subject specific to teachers specialisation in secondary and input from all teacher is required for meaningful results.
- Different requirements compared to primary like academic, independence and social responsibility. ie support for classroom transitions.
- Student voice and self-determination in the IEP process becomes more important in secondary as it concerns future life goals beyond schooling.
- Peer attitudes may differ with secondary schooling not as inclusive as primary with higher vulnerability of special needs students due to school size and community. Students can more easily be left behind socially and academically.
- Selection of subjects is important and adjustments to curriculum and assessment need too stay within learning goals of the Australian Curriculum framework in secondary context.
- Parent and family input and attitudes may be different to the school in secondary however their input and involvement is even more essential in promoting student participation and engagement in the process.
IEPonline 2013, The IEP process in secondary schools- What are the challenges, Ministry of Education NZ, retrieved 14 May 2020, <https://seonline.tki.org.nz/IEP/IEP-in-secondary>.
References
Gordon, M 2010, ‘Student voice key to unlocking inclusive educational practices’. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 3(2), pp. 1–11, retrieved 8 May 2020, <http://www.cjnse-rcjce.ca/ojs2/index.php/cjnse/article/view/152/115>.
Graham, LJ & Slee, R 2008, ‘An Illusory Interiority: Interrogating the discourse/s of inclusion’, Educational Philosophy & Theory, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 277–293, retrieved 9 May 2020, http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy-b.deakin.edu.au/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=a9h&AN=31166694&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Hackmann, DG, Malin, JR, Fuller Hamilton AN, & O’Donnell, L 2019, ‘Supporting Personalized Learning through Individualized Learning Plans’, The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 92:1-2, pp. 63-70, DOI: 10.1080/00098655.2019.1571990
Hardy, I & Woodcock, S 2015, Inclusive education policies: discourses of difference, diversity and deficit, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19:2, pp. 141-164
Lee, C.D. 2003, ‘Cultural modeling’. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context, Cambridge University Press, New York.
MacDonald, T 2019, Classroom management, engaging students in learning, 3rd Edn, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, Victoria.
McNeal Jr, RB 2014, Parent Involvement, Academic Achievement and the Role of Student Attitudes and Behaviors as Mediators, Universal Journal of Educational Research 2(8): pp. 564-576, DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2014.020805
Mitchell, D, Morton, M & Hornby, G 2010, Review of the literature on Individual Education Plans. Report to the New Zealand Ministry of Education. Christchurch: College of Education, University of Canterbury.
Mockler, N 2011, ‘Beyond ‘what works’: understanding teacher identity as a practical and political tool’, Teachers and Teaching, vol.17, no.5, pp.517-528, retrieved 18th March 2020 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13540602.2011.602059?journalCode=ctat20
Ontario Minister of Education 2004, ‘The Individual Education Plan, IEP, A resource guide’, retrieved 3rd May 2020, <http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/guide/resource/iepresguid.pdf>..
Rieser, R. 2012, ‘Implementing inclusive education’, A Commonwealth guide to implementing article 24 of the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (2nd ed.). United Kingdom: Commonwealth Secretariat
.
Simpson, C.G, Bakken, J.P, & Reuter, J. 2013, ‘Effective Inclusion Strategies for Elementary Teachers: Reach and Teach Every Child in Your Classroom’, Sourcebooks.
Skinner, B.F. 1963, Operant behavior. American Psychologist, vol.18, no.8, pp.503-515, retrieved 8th May 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0045185
Solberg, VS, Wills, J, Redmond, K & Skaff, L 2014, Use of individualized learning plans: A promising practice for driving college and career readiness efforts, Findings and recommendations from a multi-method, multi-study effort, Washington, DC: National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth.
Timothy, S. & Agbenyega, J.S. 2018, ‘Inclusive school leaders’ perceptions on the implementation of individual education plans’, International Journal of Whole Schooling, vol.14, no.1, pp.1-30.
The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership 2018. ‘The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers’, retrieved 16th April 2020, https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-policy-framework/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers.pdf?sfvrsn=5800f33c_64
Thomson, P 2002, ‘Vicki and Thanh’, Schooling the rustbelt kids: making the difference in changing times, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW, pp. 1–18.
Semmel, MI, Abernathy, TV, Butera, G & Lesar, S 1991, ‘Teacher Perceptions of the Regular Education Initiative’, Exceptional Children, 58(1), pp. 9–24, retrieved 10 May 2020, <https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299105800102>.
Victoria Education and Training 2019, Individual Education Plan, retrieved 7 May 2020, <https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/learningneeds/Pages/individualeducationplan.aspx>.
Vygotsky, L S 1978, Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, M Coles et al. (Eds.), Harward University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Weishaar, P 2010, ‘Twelve Ways to Incorporate Strengths-Based Planning into the IEP Process’, Clearing House, vol. 83, no. 6, pp. 207–210, viewed 5 May 2020, <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=53921447&authtype=sso&custid=deakin&site=eds-live&scope=site
Webster, A & Forster, J 2012, Participating and Belonging: Inclusion in Practice: Inclusion Resources for Early Childhood Educators and Consultants, retrieved 5 May 2020, < https://content.talisaspire.com/deakin/bundles/5c3fd1ec69df5074ce42f184>.
Welch, M 2000, Collaboration as a tool for inclusion, Inclusive education: A casebook and readings for prospective and practicing teachers, pp.71-96.
Whitin , D, Mills , H & O'Keefe , T 1990, Living and learning mathematics, Portsmouth, NH : Heinemann
Zeitlin, V.M. & Curcic,S. 2014. ‘Parental voices on individualized education programs:‘Oh, IEP meeting tomorrow? Rum tonight!’. Disability & Society, vol.29, no.3, pp.373-387.
References
Ainscow, M, Farrell, P, Tweddle, D & Malki, G 1999, The role of LEAs in developing inclusive policies and practices, British Journal of Special Education, 26(3), pp. 136-140.
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) 2016, Personal and Social Capability, retrieved 24 April 2020, < https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/personal-and-social-capability/>.
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) 2016, Students with Disability, retrieved 24 April 2020, <https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/student-diversity/students-with-disability/>.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) 2017, Home, retrieved 3 May 2020, <https://www.aitsl.edu.au>.
Barnes, M.A 2009, ‘Effective Inclusion Practices’ Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol.4, iss. 4, https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&=&context=ejie&=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fscholar.google.com.au viewed 5th May 2020.
Bennett, ML, Shaddoch, AJ & Bennett, AJ 1992, Teachers' perceptions of individualised education plans, Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 23(1): pp. 25–28
Bhroin, O.N & King, F 2020, ‘Teacher education for inclusive education: a framework for developing collaboration for the inclusion of students with support plans’, European Journal of Teacher Education, vol,43, no.1, pp.38-63, retrieved 3rd May 2020, DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2019.1691993.
Brown, P.M & Byrnes, L.J 2014, ‘The Development and Use of Individual Learning Plans for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in Victoria Australia’, Deafness & Education International, vol.16, no.4, pp.204-217, retrieved 3rd May 2020, DOI: 10.1179/1557069X13Y.0000000034
Boschetti, C & Stonehouse A 2006, A Piece of Cake? Inclusive Practices in Early Childhood Settings, Yooralla, Ability Press, pp. 44-47.
Burns, E. 2008. IEP-2005: Writing and Implementing Individual Education Programs (IEPs). Charles C. Thomas Springfield, IL.
Carrington, S, Kearney, A, Kimber, M, MacArthur, J, Mercer, L, Morton, M, & Rutherford, G 2012, ‘Towards an inclusive education for all’, In S. Carrington & J. MacArthur (Eds.), Teaching in inclusive school communities, pp. 3-38, John Wiley and Sons, Australia Ltd
Churchill, R Godinho, S Johnson, N.F Keddie, A Letts, W Lowe, K Mackay, J McGill, M Moss, J Nagel, MC and Shaw, K with Rogers, J (eds.), 2019 4th edn ‘Teaching: making a difference’, Wiley, Milton, Qld.
Davis, N 1997, Teachers' Attitudes Towards Using Individual Education Plans in the Regular Classroom for Students With Specific Learning Difficulties, retrieved May 10 2020, <https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses_hons/301>.
Dickson, JE & Webster,A 2013, Reasonable Adjustments in Assessment: Putting Law and Policy into Practice in Australia, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 60:4, pp. 295-311, DOI: 10.1080/1034912X.2013.846467
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA) 1992.
Disability Standards for Education 2005 (DSE) (Cth) 2005.
Downing, J.E 2005, ‘Inclusive Education for High School Students with Severe Intellectual Disabilities: Supporting Communication’, AAC: Augmentative & Alternative Communication, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 132–148, retrieved 6th May 2020 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=17588862&authtype=sso&custid=deakin&site=eds-live&scope=site
Duke, J 2014 ‘Is it RIP for the IEP? The future of individual education plans in an era of accountability’, The Primary and Middle Years Educator, vol.12, no.3, pp. 3-9 retrieved 3rd May 2020, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329029931
Duke, DL, Shower, BK & Imber, M 1980,. Teachers and Shared Decision Making: The Cost and Benefits of Involvement, Educational Administration Quarterly vol. 16, no.1, pp. 93-106.
Engaging the Difficult Student n.d., Individual Learning Plans, retrieved 4 May 2020, <https://www.engagingthedifficultstudent.com/learning-plans/individual-learning-plans>..
Fox, HL 2014, Achieving their goals: Implementing an individualized learning plan process to build student success, Champaign, IL: Office of Community College Research and Leadership, Univers