IEPs

So, a week ago our lab class assignment was to draft an IEP for a hypothetical student based on a fictional excerpt. Professor Socol acquired a sample IEP for a "John Doe" from about.com, stating that it was absolutely terrible. However, I honestly thought it was okay on first glance. In fact, my group members and I ended up using some of the strategies outlined on it for our own IEP.

I especially liked these strategies: "Establish and use consistent classroom routine, prepare for transitions well in advance. Keep as predictable a schedule as possible.
Make use of computer technology where possible, and ensure John feels he is a valued member of the class. Always relate classroom activities to timetable and agenda."

These are very good strategies for those dealing with autism. Regularity and predictablility are key, as variations and the unexpected can be very difficult for he or sheto accept. Use of a computer is also a very good tool, as it is a silent, unchanging assistant upon which he or she can rely.

However, upon closer inspection, I did make the following observations:

• The assistive technology section is severely lacking. John could definitely make due with some picture cards and schedules, possibly TTS software, VOCAs, etc. 
•  The behavior expectations section was very ambiguous and seemed rather unachievable considering the small steps they were implementing. Specifically, "Develop skills to accept responsibility for self" and "Develop a positive self image" are great goals, but I don't believe they are reasonably achieveable over the course of a year. I would believe this would require extensive work with a behavioral psychologist, or at the very least, a school guidance counselor. There is no mention of either of those things in the IEP.
• John is said to have been diagnosed with ‘Multiple Exceptionalities’ which seems to me a very vague and nonstandard term. Googling it, it appears to mean one who is highly gifted while also having some sort of learning disability. I personally dislike the phrase and find it extremely confusing.
• Onward, the IEP states that a "pediatric assessment" was done, determining John's autism diagnosis. This seems to be another vague term; it sounds to me as if "pediatric" should be replaced with "psychiatric." I'm unsure as to what a pediatric assessment actually consists of, and how it could be used as a diagnostic tool. 
• Furthernore, the IEP does not state the degree to which his autism has progressed, so we know nothing of the severity of his condition. We are unaware of his capabilities and his struggles; we are not even sure why he needs special education assistance in the first place. Plenty of people who are high on the autism spectrum scale function perectly will in the general ed classroom with no assistance.

So, upon further examination and analysis, I do concur with Professor Socol that this IEP is indeed very poorly put together. It lacks insight, background information, a time frame, basic details, and specific, measurable goals. John Doe is not getting the proper assistance that he needs, and would benefit greatly from having a more experienced and compassionate advocate working on his behalf.