STUDENT-LED IEP IMPLEMENTATION: A SELF-STUDY
by
Melissa Zaron
B.A., The University of British Columbia, 2014
B.Ed., The University of British Columbia, 2015

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF EDUCATION
IN
SPECIAL EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
April 2025
© Melissa Zaron, 2025

Abstract
An Individual Education Plan (IEP) is a document detailing a student’s designation,
expected learning outcomes, support services required to achieve learning outcomes, and
adaptations in materials, instruction, or assessment to support their learning. Student-led IEPs put
the emphasis of responsibility and ownership in the hands of the student in the development of
their IEP. This self-study research investigated a change in my practice as I implemented and
observed student-led IEPs. Data was collected through a reflexive journal and field notes, then
analyzed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis. The research found that student-led IEPs provided
the opportunity for framing IEP development as a formative process focused on student learning.
The researcher experienced growth as a Learning Services Teacher (LST) through facilitation of
student leadership in the IEP process, including developing strategies and resources to support
student engagement. Implementing student-led IEPs also significantly impacted the use of time
as a resource. Discussion considered that student-led IEPs may be a catalyst for change by
shifting how educators think about and engage with the development of IEPs from the
perspective of empowering and supporting students in the process. This research may offer
insights to educators considering implementing student-led IEPs in their contexts.

i

Table of Contents
Abstract......................................................................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ ii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... vi
Chapter One ................................................................................................................................................ 1
Researcher Context ................................................................................................................................... 2
Framing the Problem................................................................................................................................. 4
IEPs in British Columbia ...................................................................................................................... 4
IEPs in the Sea to Sky School District .................................................................................................. 7
IEPs in My Practice .............................................................................................................................. 8
Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................................... 10
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................................................ 12
Research Question .................................................................................................................................. 13
Sub-questions ...................................................................................................................................... 13
Key Terms............................................................................................................................................... 13
Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................................... 15
Chapter Two .............................................................................................................................................. 17
A Timeline of Special Education, IEPs, and the Law ............................................................................. 17
IEPs and the Law .................................................................................................................................... 23
The Inclusion Movement ........................................................................................................................ 26
IEP Purposes and Expectations ............................................................................................................... 28
Critiques and Challenges of IEPs............................................................................................................ 30
Students as Active Participants in the IEP Process ................................................................................. 32
Student-Led IEPs .................................................................................................................................... 33
Benefits of Student-Led IEPs............................................................................................................... 34
Components of a Student-Led IEP Process ........................................................................................ 35
Perceived Barriers to Student-Led IEPs ............................................................................................. 36
What Teachers Need in Order to Facilitate Student-Led IEPs ........................................................... 38
Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................................... 39
Chapter Three ........................................................................................................................................... 41
Qualitative Inquiry .................................................................................................................................. 41
Self-Study Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 41
Grounded in Context ........................................................................................................................... 42

ii

Self-Focused........................................................................................................................................ 42
Interactive ........................................................................................................................................... 43
Responsive........................................................................................................................................... 44
Improvement-Aimed ............................................................................................................................ 45
Self-Study Summary ............................................................................................................................ 46
Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 46
Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 50
Validity and Trustworthiness .................................................................................................................. 54
Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................................................ 56
Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................................... 58
Chapter Four ............................................................................................................................................. 60
Details about the study ............................................................................................................................ 60
Data sets .................................................................................................................................................. 61
Coding Process........................................................................................................................................ 62
Themes .................................................................................................................................................... 67
Theme A: Shifting the IEP process from summative to formative....................................................... 68
Theme B: Learning Services Teacher growth through student-led IEP implementation.................... 73
Theme C: Resource impacts of student-led IEPs ................................................................................ 75
Theme D: Supporting students to engage with student-led IEPs ........................................................ 78
Theme E: Skill development through student-led IEPs ....................................................................... 82
Summary of themes ............................................................................................................................. 85
Limitations .............................................................................................................................................. 86
Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................................... 88
Chapter Five .............................................................................................................................................. 90
Sub-Question 1: How have I come to distinguish student-led IEPs from other IEPs? ........................... 91
Sub-Question 2: What have I observed as benefits of student-led IEPs? ............................................... 95
Sub-Question 3: What have I observed as challenges of student-led IEPs? ........................................... 99
Sub-Question 4: How have student-led IEPs affected my work as a Learning Services Teacher? ...... 103
Sub-Question 5: How have student-led IEPs affected student success? ............................................... 107
Primary research question: What has been my process for implementing student-led IEPs in my
practice as a Learning Services Teacher in British Columbia, Canada? ............................................... 110
Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................................. 116
Chapter Six .............................................................................................................................................. 117
The problem for investigation ............................................................................................................... 117
Articulating the problem ................................................................................................................... 117

iii

Path to exploring the problem .......................................................................................................... 119
Summary of the problem for investigation ........................................................................................ 122
Considering the research process .......................................................................................................... 122
Using research to investigate my practice ........................................................................................ 122
My practice and the self-study methodology..................................................................................... 123
Summary of the research process ..................................................................................................... 125
Practical impacts for an impractical practice ........................................................................................ 126
Practicality of student-led IEPs ........................................................................................................ 126
Impacts on my practice ..................................................................................................................... 127
My invitation to others ...................................................................................................................... 129
Summary of practical impacts........................................................................................................... 130
Expanding the work of student-led IEPs............................................................................................... 131
Engaging diverse learners ................................................................................................................ 131
Gathering feedback ........................................................................................................................... 131
Spreading change.............................................................................................................................. 132
Summary of expanding the work ....................................................................................................... 136
Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................................. 136
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 137
References ................................................................................................................................................ 139

iv

List of Tables
Table 1: Themes and associated codes ....................................................................................................... 68
Table 2: Connections between research sub-questions and themes ............................................................ 91
Table 2.1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 91
Table 2.2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 95
Table 2.3 ..................................................................................................................................................... 99
Table 2.4 ................................................................................................................................................... 103
Table 2.5 ................................................................................................................................................... 107

v

Acknowledgements
I gratefully acknowledge and thank:

My supervisor, Dr. Hartley Banack, for his patience and guidance throughout my thesis journey.
His valuable insight and encouragement to imagine the possibilities for this work kept me
moving forward.

My committee members, Gretchen Vogelsang and Kel McDowell, for their generous support,
knowledge, and time spent on this work. Their expertise and encouragement were very much
appreciated.

Mr. J, for infusing lessons with personality and perspective and inspiring me to become a teacher
myself.

My family, who have loved and supported me through three degrees now.

My husband, my one-man tech support team and chocolate supplier who continuously reminds
me of my own strength and encourages me to persevere.

Cayoosh, just for being himself.

vi

Chapter One
In its inception, public education in Canada and the United States was not meant for
children with disabilities, chronic health challenges, or any other developmental or neurological
difference. Instead, from the 19th century through the first half of the 20th century, children who
demonstrated differences that would impact their ability to learn in a typical education
environment were often sent away from their homes to reside in institutions (Andrews et al.,
1993; Hossain, 2020; Sokal & Katz, 2020). Therefore, the mainstream kindergarten to grade 12
classroom population did not match the diversity that actually existed in society (Hossain, 2012)
which meant that provisions for diversity in learning needs and styles were similarly absent. It
would take decades in the first half of the 20th century, a significant shift in society’s perspective
on disability, and strong advocacy on the part of parents and educational professionals before
students with disabilities would even be permitted to enroll in most public schools, never mind
participate in learning with their peers in both Canada and the United States (Hossain, 2012;
Sokal & Katz, 2020)
Today, kindergarten to grade 12 public education in Canada is under provincial
jurisdiction and welcomes all students as a matter of philosophy and legal obligation (McBride,
2013; Sokal & Katz, 2020) meaning that school and professionals must find ways to
accommodate students with a vast array of learning needs. In an education system that was not
built for difference, educators and policy makers have had to work hard to make changes and
develop accommodations to support students with disabilities (Andrews et al., 1993; Brussino,
2020; Loreman, 2014). In British Columbia, Canada, the Individual Education Plan (IEP) was
introduced to recognize and accommodate students with disabilities, developmental or
neurological differences, and chronic health challenges in the education system (British

1

Columbia Ministry of Education, 2016). Implementing IEPs resulted in a pivotal change in the
way that students with diverse learning needs are supported in schools (Blackwell & Rossetti,
2014; Tremblay & Belley, 2017).
The term ‘disability’ is in common use currently, including in government documents
that articulate special education policy in the province of British Columbia (British Columbia
Ministry of Education, 2024). Language and terminology are constantly evolving, especially in
the field of education. I chose to use the term ‘disability’ or ‘student with a disability’ in this
work because the term ‘disability’ is commonly accepted language and conveys a shared
meaning to professionals in the field of education as well as the public more generally. Andrews
et al. (1993) argued that an inclusive school system “considers student diversity as a reflection of
our society” (p. 5), and I observe and celebrate student diversity in my teaching practice. In this
work, the terms ‘disability’ or ‘student with a disability’ are not used to define the student, but to
give the student, myself, and readers a place to start with regard to understanding the IEP process
and working to address the student’s learning needs.
In the following chapter sections, I will describe my school-context. I will address how
the IEP process is implemented in the province of British Columbia (BC), how the IEP process is
implemented in my BC School District, and how I engage with the IEP process as part of my job
as a teaching professional. The theoretical framework that I bring to this study will be outlined
and I will elaborate on the problem of implementing a new approach to the IEP process, which I
investigated in my research.
Researcher Context
I will explain my own context as the researcher in this section in order to establish a
connection between my practice, my worldview, and my research question. Working as a teacher

2

for nine years, first as a humanities teacher and later in special education, has given me the
opportunity to interact with a wide variety of students who have different learning styles,
strengths, challenges, and goals for their education. More specifically, my work as a Learning
Services Teacher (LST) over the past six years enables me to work closely with students with
disabilities to support their learning. As an LST, the IEP process is an important part of my
practice and thus an area that I saw as warranting further investigation through my research.
I am practical minded in how I approach my work as a teacher and as an LST, and I
approached my research from a pragmatic world view which “holds that the world, as conceived
by science, is found within the wider and richer world that is experienced” (Mead, 1934, p.
xviii). Therefore, I recognized that my interpretations of my work were shaped and shifted in
response to my experiences and background as a Learning Services Teacher in BC, meaning that
my research was also affected by these factors. Mead (1934) explained that measurable
phenomena of the scientific world is interpreted by the observers of that world, who rely on a
social experience to make sense of what they observe. As such, I acknowledge that my research
did not take place in a vacuum but instead I intended for it to become an integrated part of my
teaching practice; I approached my research in a way that sought to gain a deeper understanding
of the world in which the research took place and how the research findings applied back to my
lived experience as an LST.
The worlds and lives of the students I work with are varied and have many different
trajectories, influenced in part by their experiences in school. My pragmatic worldview allows
me to acknowledge that what success looks like for one student is not the same for the next, and
neither are their paths to achieving success; hence the leadership of the learner in the
individualization aspect of an IEP is important and an area that could benefit from closer

3

consideration. I strongly believe that every student has in common the ability to learn and the
potential to achieve success in a way that makes sense for them and their goals. Consequently,
investigating IEPs through my practice responded to the needs and strengths of my teaching
context, as well as aligned with my worldview.
In focusing on my practice specifically, I oriented my research towards exploration and
observation of possibilities within my own teaching context. Therefore, I approached the
investigation of a change in my practice with methods that involved engagement with that
change. This approach matched the pragmatic notion that methods of research should be
determined based on whether or not they can achieve the desired outcome (Mayan, 2023;
Creswell, 2022). Despite the fact that my research focused on my own practice, it is important
that I kept in mind that “goals, theories, and methods often closely align with and are responsive
to participants’ and/or communities’ needs” (Mayan, 2023, p. 24) through the pragmatic
paradigm. The context of my practice as a Learning Services Teacher in BC and in the Sea to
Sky School District affects how I do my job and how I approached my research.
Framing the Problem
IEPs in British Columbia
In this section, I will define Individual Education Plan (IEP) and explain the requirements
involved in developing an IEP in the province of British Columbia (BC). I will also articulate the
level of student involvement that the province encourages in the IEP development process which
is connected to my research question. The British Columbia Ministry of Education (2016)
describes an IEP as “[a]n individual education plan designed for a student” with special needs (p.
2). According to the British Columbia Ministry of Education (2016) an IEP must have a number
of components that come together to guide the learning plan for the student, including the

4

student’s learning or education goals, adaptations or modifications that will support the student
in school, the services to be provided by the school, and measures the school will use for
tracking achievement. In order to have an IEP, a student must first meet criteria designating them
as a student with special needs within one or more of the BC Ministry of Education special needs
categories.
Beyond a plan for student learning, the British Columbia Ministry of Education (2016)
identifies an IEP as “a tool for collaborative planning” (p. 16). A number of relevant parties may
be involved in the development of an IEP including school staff, parents, the student, School
District personnel, and other Ministries or community agencies such as the Ministry of Children
and Family Development (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2016). However, it is
primarily the Learning Services Teacher who is responsible for the development,
implementation, and evaluation of each individual IEP as well as the documentation of the
above. Students can sometimes be excluded from the IEP process if they are unwilling or unable
to engage or if their parent does not wish for them to be involved. However, when students are
left out of the development of their own IEP they do not have the opportunity to provide an
important perspective on challenges they are facing and accommodations that might support
them in the classroom.
The British Columbia Ministry of Education (2016) emphasizes the importance of
consulting parents and, “where appropriate” (p. 11), the student in the IEP process and
encouraging student contributions. The mandate of the IEP process, as articulated in the British
Columbia Ministry of Education (2016) Special Education Policy Manual, is the same for all
students from kindergarten to grade 12. Factors that might affect the participation of students in
the IEP process include “age, level of maturity, and capacity for sustained, considered

5

deliberation based on awareness of possibilities and consequences” (British Columbia Ministry
of Education, 2016, p. 15). Any of the above factors may change the way in which a student is
able to engage meaningfully in the development of their IEP. The British Columbia Ministry of
Education (2016) acknowledges that “[m]any students with special needs can contribute to the
process of assessment and planning for their own educational programs, and provide an
evaluation of the services available to them” (p. 11) which demonstrates some orientation
towards student participation in the process. Beyond the acknowledgement that student
contribution is a possibility, however, not a lot of attention is devoted to the depth to which
students could or should be involved in the development of their IEP. Of note throughout the
Ministry document is wording like ‘consult’ and that the IEP is being created ‘for’ the student,
language which suggests that the student does not necessarily take an active role in the IEP
process. The Ministry of Education does not explain how much ownership students themselves
should take for their IEP. Apart from the requirement that a student and their family be
consulted, the guidelines do not articulate the depth to which a student and their family should
understand the IEP or be involved in the monitoring of the plan.
It is an oversight to omit an expectation of active engagement and responsibility on the
part of the student when it comes to the development of IEPs. In order to prioritize student
learning in the student’s own IEP, it is important that they have the opportunity to be actively
involved in the IEP process. While I can understand that freedom is afforded to school districts
and staff to be flexible in engaging stakeholders in the IEP process, it also allocates the
responsibility to those same parties and potentially leaves the student out of a process that is
supposedly centered around their learning needs. I found this to be problematic, so my research

6

investigated an avenue for deeper attention and commitment to the IEP process on the part of
students that is crucial to my work and relevant to others in similar roles in BC School Districts.
IEPs in the Sea to Sky School District
In this section, I describe how the Sea to Sky School District approaches Individual
Education Plans (IEP) and describe this in relation to student involvement in an IEP process. The
Sea to Sky School District (2023) policy regarding IEPs builds on the BC Ministry of Education
(2016) expectation that students and parents “take an active role in the design of the IEP to the
maximum extent possible” (p. 15) by positioning the IEP as a collaborative tool to engage all
relevant parties. Emphasis is put on meaningful consultation (Sea to Sky School District, 2023),
which the District aims to achieve, in part, through a student introduction sheet. The Sea to Sky
School District (2023) offers the student introduction sheet to give students the opportunity to
answer some basic questions around their strengths, challenges, and desired supports. However,
there can be a gap between students filling out a sheet and truly taking an active role in the IEP
process as the School District advocates for. In my experience, student collaboration in IEP
development requires a more concerted effort towards direct integration of students in the IEP
process.
The Sea to Sky School District (2023) follows the BC Ministry of Education (2016)
policy for developing and implementing IEPs which means that Learning Services Teachers hold
responsibility for the process and are mandated to consult with families in doing so. The Sea to
Sky School District (2023) goes one step further to articulate that the “pedagogical foundation of
the IEP is a strength-based student-centered approach” (para. 4). Student-centered means that the
IEP is designed around a student’s unique strengths learning needs (Sea to Sky School District,
2023), making it akin to positioning the student as the main character in the story of the IEP.

7

Even so, a student-centered approach does not inherently mean that students are actively
involved in the IEP process and leaving a student out of the IEP process may mean that the
student has little knowledge or in-put regarding the IEP that is developed for their benefit, even
if it is student-centered. In moving forward with a student-centered approach to IEPs, Sea to Sky
School District (2023) explains that the aim is to nurture a sense of community and strive to have
“each student working in the classroom at her or his own level, acquiring self-confidence and
independence” (para. 4). Yet, self-confidence and independence would be better achieved by
allowing students to build those attributes through the IEP process itself, rather than expecting
them to appear as a result of a process that was conducted without full engagement and
ownership on the part of the student. My research worked towards putting the emphasis of
responsibility and ownership in the hands of the student in the development of their IEP.
IEPs in My Practice
In this section, I will describe how I engaged with the Individual Education Plan (IEP)
process as a Learning Services Teacher in BC and articulate the connections between the work
that I did with student IEPs and possibilities to reimagine this process. As a Learning Services
Teacher one of my roles is to be a case manager, which means that I have a certain number of
students on my caseload each year who are designated by the BC Ministry of Education as
students with special needs. Each student has an IEP that needs to be updated annually. In my
school, there are currently four Learning Services Teachers who manage IEP cases for students
between grades 10-12. We are all mandated to follow the BC Ministry of Education (2016)
framework for IEPs as well as the Sea to Sky School District (2023) policy for implementing the
IEP process and documenting student IEPs, as described in previous sections. However, each

8

case manager approaches the IEP process distinctly as there is some autonomy in the work we do
as case managers and I have some flexibility in how I approach the IEP process.
Each fall semester it is my responsibility to ensure that the students on my caseload and
their families have an opportunity to meet with me and work through the IEP process. Typically,
the meeting takes place between me, the parents or guardians, and the student. Various other
people can be invited including school counsellors, and any community members or
professionals who are closely involved in supporting the student. Before going through the
development or revision of an IEP, I will have read through the student’s education file and their
previous IEPs, if there are any. I then begin the IEP meeting by asking the student how their
school year is going so far. Each new school year is an opportunity for a fresh start in my mind,
so I want to give the student the chance to set the tone and orient them as the priority in the
meeting. Throughout the meeting, I will consistently consult the student to ask what goals they
would like to work on for the year, what accommodations have been helpful for them in the past
and what supports or tools they need in order to learn. I am leading the meeting, but my aim is to
hear the student’s voice more than my own if possible. In my observation, parents often take a
leading role in the meeting, especially if the student is reluctant to engage. I endeavor to re-orient
our focus to the student’s role in developing their IEP. However, this can have varying degrees
of success depending on the willingness of the student to speak up or the cooperation of the
parent in allowing their child to lead.
In the years I have been working as a Learning Services Teacher, I had not yet observed
students being invited to take a primary leadership role in the IEP process and I found this
problematic. I would have liked to see this change and have students taking on the responsibility
for, and engagement with, the development of their own IEPs. My aim matched with the Sea to

9

Sky School District (2023) policy that IEPs should be student-centered; if students are the ones
taking the lead in their own IEP process, both their IEP and the process itself could be designed
around a student’s unique strengths and learning needs. My desire to position students as leaders
in their IEP process also fit within the overarching aim of the BC Ministry of Education (2016)
to encourage student contributions to the IEP process, but went a step further to establish the
student as essential to the process rather than merely consulted.
In my endeavors to facilitate a more student-oriented practice with regard to IEP
development and revision, I learned about student-led IEPs. The idea of having a student lead
their own IEP meeting and the development of their own IEP was something that I thought
would work well with my practice; I believed that encouraging a student to engage with the plan
that guided their journey in the education system was important because it placed the
responsibility and ownership of the IEP in the student’s hands. Student-led IEPs were not a
current practice in my School District but I could not think of a more student-centered approach
than to have the students themselves direct the process of developing or revising their own IEP.
Theoretical Framework
A constructivist epistemology and pragmatic worldview informed my approach to this
research. Constructivism allows the researcher to approach their work from a perspective that
seeks to understand the world in which they live. Jaramillo (1996) explains how Vygotsky’s
work contributed immensely to the development of constructivism while Coghlan and BrydonMiller (2014) further describe how Vygotsky’s emphasis on the “social nature of knowledge
production and learning” (p. 3) paved the way for constructivism to frame knowledge production
as emerging from a researcher’s experiences and interactions with the world. Thus,

10

constructivism frames an inextricable relationship between the researcher and the subject they
are studying.
According to Guba and Lincoln (2005), reality seen through a constructivist lens is
relative since it is constructed based on the understanding of the individual. Constructivism
supports a complexity of views, acknowledging that there is no single truth to reality (Coghlan &
Brydon-Miller, 2014; Jaramillo, 1996) but that the researcher may represent one of many
possibilities to exist. Researchers who adhere to the constructivist epistemology recognize that
their own lived experiences, social interactions, and how they interact with the research all have
an influence on the knowledge generated by the research itself (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014;
Guba & Lincoln, 2005) which supported my aim to explore my IEP practice. Similarly, my
pragmatic worldview allowed for interpretation of phenomena by the observer, who is influenced
by their social experiences to make sense of what they observe (Mead, 1934). The elements of
constructivism and pragmatism made sense for my research since my background and
relationship to the inquiry would influence how I approached the investigation into how to
implement student-led Individual Education Plans (IEPs) in my own practice as well as how I
engaged in meaning making throughout the process. Through my constructivist epistemology
and pragmatic worldview, I acknowledge that my research was shaped by my context and
experiences.
Krahenbuhl (2016) pointed out that constructivism is currently a dominant force in
pedagogical theory, which means that my practice as a teacher entering the profession in the last
ten years was likely impacted by constructivist concepts and therefore was an influence in my
decision to approach my own research through this lens. Considering Vygotsky’s influence on
constructivism and the fact that he was a teacher and based much of his research in education

11

(Jaramillo, 1996), there are a number of important connections to be made between
constructivism as my theoretical framework and student-led IEPs as my subject of inquiry.
Constructivism works well as a theoretical framework for student-led IEPs because it allows for
students to be centered in their learning. Vygotsky, and in turn constructivism, advocate for
learning through experience (Krahenbuhl, 2016; Jaramillo, 1996); similarly, student-led IEPs
center students in the experience of leading their own IEP process. Moreover, both Krahenbuhl
(2016) and Jaramillo (1996) asserted that, through constructivism, learners need to be actively
involved in a process in order to internalize concepts through their own interactions. Thus,
engaging with student-led IEPs which puts the responsibility and ownership of learning back into
the hands of students fits well within a constructivist framework.
I see the value in student engagement and responsibility regarding their education and see
this value reflected in the language that the BC Ministry of Education (2016) and Sea to Sky
School District (2023) employ to encourage student participation in the IEP process. Another
way student engagement and responsibility might be achieved in the IEP process is through
student-led IEPs. However, student-led IEPs are not a common practice, which is why I was
interested in learning more about a student-led IEP process. My constructivist epistemology and
pragmatic worldview supported not only my approach to research but also student-led IEPs.
Statement of the Problem
The introduction of the Individual Education Plan (IEP) signified a major shift in the way
that students with disabilities are supported in the education system in Canada and the United
States (Blackwell & Rossetti, 2014; Tremblay & Belley, 2017). However, there is possibility in
today’s education system for the IEP process to evolve further in order to support student needs.
If an IEP is meant to guide, among other things, the support that a student receives for their

12

learning needs (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2016), then students themselves should
have significant input into this process. Supporting students in taking ownership of their learning
at the planning level when it comes to their IEP made sense for my practice and is supported by
the BC Ministry of Education (2016) framework for IEPs as well as the Sea to Sky School
District (2023) policy for IEPs. Yet, a process for students to take an active role in the
development of their IEP is not yet fully in place. My work to implement student-led IEPs was a
change to the IEP process that facilitated student ownership of their learning plan. Student-led
IEPs integrated well with my desire to develop my own practice in a way that supports students
to articulate their learning needs and take ownership of their learning. Therefore, my research
focused on a change in my practice through the implementation and observation of student-led
IEPs.
Research Question
What has been my process for implementing student-led IEPs in my practice as a
Learning Services Teacher in British Columbia, Canada?
Sub-questions
•

How have I come to distinguish student-led IEPs from other IEPs?

•

What have I observed as benefits of student-led IEPs?

•

What have I observed as challenges of student-led IEPs?

•

How have student-led IEPs affected my work as a Learning Services Teacher?

•

How have student-led IEPs affected student success?

Key Terms
•

Adaptation – strategies in instruction or assessment to support a student in meeting the
learning outcomes of the provincial curriculum. May include alternative format of

13

materials, instructional strategies, or assessment procedures without modifying provincial
learning outcomes (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2016)
•

Designation – a Ministry category assigned to a student who is identified as having
special education needs based on formal assessment outcomes (e.g., Learning Disability
or Autism Spectrum Disorder)

•

Differentiation - adjusting materials to meet the needs of the student (Hossain, 2012)

•

Formative – a process that is focused on providing the opportunity and support for
students’ learning (Lau, 2016)

•

Individual Education Plan (IEP) – document detailing a student’s designation, expected
learning outcomes, support services required to achieve learning outcomes, and
adaptations in materials, instruction, or assessment to support their learning (British
Columbia Ministry of Education, 2016)

•

Learning Assistance Teacher – teacher who plans, organizes, and supports the
implementation of strategies to support the learning of students with special education
needs in the classroom. Learning Assistance teachers play an active role in development,
implementation, and evaluation of IEPs (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2016)

•

Learning Services Teacher – see “Learning Assistance teacher”

•

Modification – changes in learning outcomes that are significantly different from the
provincial curriculum and are chosen to meet a student’s learning needs (British
Columbia Ministry of Education, 2016)

•

Self-advocacy – standing up for oneself or taking action on one’s own behalf (Royer,
2017)

•

Self-determination skills – skills that help one to determine their own path (Royer, 2017)

14

•

Special education needs – characteristics making it necessary for a student to be provided
with resources that are different from those needed by most students. Special education
needs are determined through assessment and are the basis for determining an education
program suitable for the student (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2016)

•

Special needs – see “special education needs”

•

Student-led IEP – student-centered and student-directed practice that empowers students
and allows them to engage with their IEP meeting as contributors and leaders (Davis &
Cumming, 2019). An IEP is considered to be student-led when the student actively
engages in every stage of the IEP process (Davis & Cumming, 2019; Martin et al., 2006;
Royer, 2017).

•

Summative – a process that is focused on evaluation or assessment of a student and their
learning (Lau, 2016)

•

Supports – see “Adaptations”

Chapter Summary
This chapter has given an overview of public education in Canada and the United States,
articulating where students with disabilities fit within the system and how those learners are
supported by Individual Education Plans (IEPs). I framed the story by illustrating how the IEP
process happens in British Columbia, in the Sea to Sky School District where I work, and in my
own practice as a Learning Services Teacher. The contradiction between Ministry and District
assertions that students should be at the center of the IEP process, and my observation that
students are not invited to take a leadership role in the development of their IEP was
problematized. In doing so, I demonstrated that a gap exists between policy and practice which
could potentially be bridged; I argued that students should have a more active role in the IEP

15

process and proposed student-led IEPs as a path forward for my practice and my research. My
research question required me to explore my process for implementing student-led IEPs in my
practice as a Learning Services Teacher in BC and respond to the five research sub-questions
related to that process.
In Chapter Two, I will introduce a review of the literature around how IEPs were
established and explore the potential benefits, challenges, and recommendations for student-led
IEPs articulated in previous research. The information in Chapter Two will help to build my case
for the evolution of the IEP to becoming student-led and the implementation of student-led IEPs
in my own practice.

16

Chapter Two
This chapter covers a review of the literature around how the Individual
Education Plan (IEP) was established and illustrates potential benefits, challenges, and
suggestions for student-led IEP implementation. IEPs are a common component of
special education services provided to support students with disabilities to engage in
education. IEPs have become pervasive around the globe; where a country has special
education policies, it is common that the IEP will be a key element to those policies
(Mitchell et al., 2010). Most nations throughout Europe have IEPs or an equivalent, as do
Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Thailand, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and many more (Brussino
2020; Mitchell et al., 2010). However, the origins of the IEP lie in the United States, with
Canada quick to follow (Andrews et al., 1993; Loreman, 2014; Mitchell et al., 2010;
Tremblay & Belley, 2017). In tracing the history of education that led to the development
of IEPs, reviewing the legislation that made IEPs a legal reality, and following the
progression of special education to present, it is possible to see how the IEP that is known
today came to be. What is more, the evolving nature of education means that further
shifts in beliefs and practices may influence IEPs to progress to another iteration which
can include supporting students to lead the development of their own IEPs.
A Timeline of Special Education, IEPs, and the Law
Special education in Canada has been heavily influenced by social movements
and legislation in the United States (Andrews et al., 1993; Loreman, 2014; Sokal & Katz,
2020). As such, it makes sense to present the timeline of special education in Canada and
the United States simultaneously in order to recognize the relationship between the two.
Unlike the United States, Canada does not directly govern education at the federal level.

17

Instead, changes to legislation with regard to education reside with Canadian provinces and
territories (McBride, 2013; Loreman, 2014; Tremblay & Belley, 2017). In both Canada and the
United States, education policy and approaches to support students with disabilities took the
better part of a century to slowly shift from exclusion through institutionalization to normalizing
placement in mainstream classrooms (Brussino, 2020). For the first half of the 20th century,
“students with moderate to severe disabilities were often denied the opportunity to receive equal
treatment in the classrooms with their peers” (Hossain, 2012, p. 2). It was through the activism of
educators, parents and others that students with disabilities were eventually included in the
mainstream classroom and measures such as IEPs were implemented to support their
participation in education.
The 1800s largely saw the institutionalization of children with disabilities where their
care and what education they were able to receive “was provided in residential institutions,
which served a large geographical area and which resulted in the removal of many children from
their homes and communities” (Andrews et al., 1993, p. 32). Although gradual change would
occur, Andrews et al. (1993) illustrated that institutions for children with disabilities continued as
late as the 1970s. When the public education system was established in Canada in the early
1900s, special education schools and classrooms were created for students with disabilities and
residential schools for students with severe disabilities were expanded (Andrews et al., 1993). It
is possible to see that the public education system treated students with disabilities largely as a
group, rather than individuals in need of individual goals and plans. Moreover, up until the later
part of the century, students with disabilities were often denied the opportunity to enroll in local
schools (Sokal & Katz, 2020). In the first half of the 20th century, if a school district claimed
that it was not able to support a student with a disability, that student could be turned away with

18

no legal repercussions (Hossain, 2012). As a result, prior to 1975, 90% of children with
developmental disabilities were educated in institutions rather than neighborhood schools
(Hossain, 2012; Sokal & Katz, 2020).
By mid-century, there was a shift to categorization of students based on their
disability. Children with disabilities were being treated less like a homogenous group but,
even as the 1950s and 1960s saw further categorization of these students, use of
residential schools for educating students with disabilities continued (Andrews et al.,
1993). During these decades, parents and professionals began to lobby governments to
improve educational provisions for students with disabilities and to bring those students
into public education (Andrews et al., 1993). In 1958, the Education of Mentally
Retarded Children Act was passed in the United States, which centered around training
education professionals to meet the needs of students with intellectual disabilities (Sokal
& Katz, 2020); for the first time, educating students with disabilities began to be
considered a responsibility of the public schools and society.
Advocacy for children with disabilities increased in the 1960s and 1970s when a
major push was made for special education by education professionals and parents who
“came to believe that traditional education was not meeting the needs of their children,
and therefore not achieving their desired goals” (Andrews et al., 1993, p. 6). Inherent in
the movement was the call for integration, meaning that students with disabilities should
be integrated into neighborhood public schools rather than sent to be cared for and
educated in institutions. Special education began to emerge, involving “different or
supplementary approaches to teaching and learning that facilitate success in students with
exceptionalities” (Sokal & Katz, 2020, p. 2). Students with disabilities began to be seen

19

more and more as humans and citizens with rights who required programing that was specific to
them, modifications in instruction, and teachers specifically trained in special education in order
to effectively facilitate their education (Andrews et al., 1993).
From the push to educate students with disabilities in public schools arose policies
around how that might be accomplished. Deinstitutionalization began to sweep Canada and the
United States in the 1970s (Andrews et al., 1993; Sokal & Katz, 2020) but integration of students
with disabilities in regular schools meant that they were “expected to work to meet the demands
of that setting, possibly with some adjustments made on the part of the school” (Loreman, 2014,
p. 37). The shift in expectations were a major change for educators, and a significant challenge;
where schools had previously turned away students with disabilities, they now had to find ways
to accommodate the learning needs of some students with disabilities in the classroom. The
education system had to adapt, and soon encountered legislation to this effect through the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) of 1975, passed in the United States
(Andrews et al., 1993; Hossain, 2012; Loreman, 2014; Sokal & Katz, 2020), making education
of students with disabilities the legal responsibility of each state. In this piece of legislation, the
term Individual Education Plan (IEP) was coined (Mitchell et al., 2010; Tremblay & Belley,
2017). Through legislation of IEPs, it was formally recognized that students with disabilities
would need to be treated as individuals, including in their programing for education, in order to
meet learning outcomes.
Andrews et al. (1993) and Loreman (2014) emphasized that Canadian legislation and
administration regarding students with special education needs was directly impacted by the
legislation in the United States around this issue. In the same decade, Canadian provinces began
developing policies and guidelines around the use of IEPs (McBride, 2013). Advances in special

20

education in North America were also felt in Europe as the Report of the Committee of
Inquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People, also known as
the Warnock Report, came out in 1978 in the United Kingdom (Brussino, 2020). The
report aimed, in part, to “transform the nature of education provision for students with
disabilities and impairments” (Brussino, 2020, p. 11). Thus, the shift towards support for
students with disabilities to participate in education with their peers began to take shape,
not only in Canada and the United States, but around the world. The international spread
of special education was important because it demonstrated that other nations saw
Canada and the United States as leaders in this area, but it also pushed innovation
forward as teachers grappled with making decisions and plans around student support.
It was not until the 1980s that IEPs became commonplace and a means of
“providing curriculum that attempted to meet the needs of children who it was felt would
not benefit from the regular curriculum” (Loreman, 2014, p. 37). The 1980s and 90s saw
a push towards including students with special needs not only in neighborhood schools,
but in the general education classroom with accommodations to support their learning
(Andrews et al., 1993). Labeled mainstreaming, placing students with special needs in
regular classrooms gained popularity among education advocates. Mainstreaming
focused on “serving the needs of exceptional students in the least restrictive
environment” (Andrews et al., 1993, p. 13). Student placement in the least restrictive
environment (LRE) meant that students with disabilities should spend as much time as
possible with similar-age peers in the regular classroom. It was around the same time in
1985 that Canada became the first country to make equal education for people with

21

physical or mental disabilities a right by law (Sokal & Katz, 2020). A student’s new legal right to
education would be supported, in part, through the development of their IEP.
In the 1990s, special education took another leap forward from mainstreaming to
inclusion. Sokal and Katz (2020) described how the inclusion movement evolved around the idea
of both social and academic inclusion with emphasis on educating students with disabilities in
the general education classroom alongside their peers without disabilities. Building on the idea of
least restrictive environment and the ability to differentiate learning with the guidance of IEPs,
the emerging belief was that all teachers should be responsible for addressing the learning needs
of all students in their classrooms. During this period there existed “increasing numbers of
children in need of individualized programming [alongside] expanding knowledge and skill of
teachers with respect to student diversity” (Andrews et al., 1993, p. 8). Thus, inclusion was
increasingly adopted in Canada during the 1990s, albeit to varying degrees in different parts of
the nation since some provinces operated on a model of full inclusion with every student in the
classroom whereas other provinces accepted an approach that involved students being included
in some classes but not all (Loreman, 2014). Worldwide, IEPs were spreading as a tool to
support special education. The United Kingdom introduced the use of IEPs in 1994 and Scotland
did so in 1999 (Mitchell et al., 2010).
Today, special education and IEPs, though they may vary in legal implication,
implementation, and description, are used across the globe. McBride (2013) emphasized that, in
Canada, all provinces support students with disabilities by using individualized planning
accomplished through an IEP. The evolution of special education and the history of IEPs
demonstrates that the special education field is constantly shifting and responding to perceptions
of students, advocacy of parents, and implementation of legislation. My research engaged with

22

IEPs in a time when emphasis on inclusion and a student-centered approach can pave the
way for students to take more of a leadership role in the development of their own IEPs.
IEPs and the Law
Although each province in Canada has its own laws and policy regarding
education, they are all beholden to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms first and
foremost (McBride, 2013). Policy that may be “devised at the school district level and the
school level…must not contradict policy at any of the levels above” (Loreman, 2014, p
45), meaning that all education policy must uphold the rights of students that are
protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There was also a larger legal
caveat to the major changes for educating students with disabilities that the United States
did not contend with; before the reparation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982, there
was no constitutional basis upon which to argue for the right to appropriate education for
children with special needs in Canada (McBride, 2013). While the lack of a constitutional
right did not stop legislation from the United States and social movements from
influencing how students with disabilities were educated in Canada, there was a certain
reassurance offered when equal rights were guaranteed under section 15 of the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms in 1982, specifically equal rights for those with mental or physical
disabilities (McBride, 2013). Since then, students with disabilities have had the legal
right to be educated in regular schools in Canada and IEPs have helped to facilitate this.
Legislation in the United States has had an important influence on the legal rights of
students with disabilities in Canada. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA)
of 1975 was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990, renewed
in 1997, and then renewed again in 2004. These pieces of legislation in the United States have

23

become perhaps the most cited pieces of legislation when it comes to the history of IEPs and had
a significant impact on special education in Canada. EAHCA made special education mandatory
and was the first time that legal protection had been put in place against discrimination in public
education for students with disabilities in the United States (Hossain, 2012; Sokal & Katz, 2020).
Another key aspect of EAHCA and its future iterations was the requirement that an IEP be
developed for every student who received special education services (Andrews et al., 1993;
Tremblay & Belley, 2017). The requirements for IEPs were outlined, and included information
about the student’s current level of academic performance as well as instructional goals and
objectives (Andrews et al., 1993). Overall, an important step was taken through EAHCA and
IDEA in holding states accountable to providing education for students with disabilities (Sokal &
Katz, 2020). In each renewal of IDEA, changes were made to align the legislation with the
evolving understanding of disability and behavioral needs, parent and professional advocacy, and
the development of special education at the time.
When the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was passed in the United States in 2001, it
also had implications for IDEA. With NCLB came increased efforts to hold schools accountable
to educating students with special education needs in the least restrictive environment with
commitments to providing supports that would allow said students to be successful in that
environment (Hossain, 2012). IEPs helped to increase accountability and commitment to the
least restrictive environment mandate by outlining the supports needed by the student in order to
meet the demands of the regular classroom and curriculum. Performance goals were incorporated
into the IEP document and it became mandatory to illustrate indicators by which those goals
could be measured (Hossain, 2012) as a means of solidifying expected outcomes. Thus, the goal

24

of the IEP in the context of NCLB became enabling a student with a disability “to be
involved in and make sufficient progress in the general education curriculum” (Hossain,
2012, p. 11).
Internationally, the story of children’s rights was closely tied to the shift in public
perspective that changed special education in Canada and the United States. The United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child brought the world’s nations together
regarding the rights of children in 1989. The United Nations (UN) agreement connected
with the trajectory of IEP development as it called attention specifically to children with
disabilities. Nations who signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child (1989) agreed to respect the rights of all children regardless of their race, the color
of their skin, sex, religious or political affiliations, origins, property ownership, birth, or
any other status (UN General Assembly, 1989). In particular, the idea that a child should
not be discriminated against for having a disability would have ramifications for
education. The document further asked that nations make the effort to provide children
with mental and physical disabilities the opportunity to have “a full and decent life, in
conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child's active
participation in the community” (UN General Assembly, 1989, p. 7). Connections can be
made back to the provisions necessary to support a student with disabilities to succeed in
the regular classroom, many of which were being made through IEPs. Finally, the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) asserted that “States Parties shall assure to
the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views
freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in
accordance with the age and maturity of the child” (p. 4). Ramifications of this statement

25

echoed from the growing advocacy for students to have a voice in education and, eventually, in
their own IEPs. It is possible to see the ideas articulated in the UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child (1989) as acknowledging the social movement and resulting evolution in education that
had already begun in the United States and Canada when the IEP was developed over a decade
previously.
Legislation that created a legal framework for support of students with disabilities in the
classroom was key to the establishment of IEPs. Having students progressively prioritized in
legislation regarding education and advocacy for legal rights for students with disabilities has
influenced the ways in which students are able to participate in education today. My research
focusing on implementing student-led IEPs in my practice was a step further along this path,
from students with disabilities participating in education to taking a leadership role in their
education.
The Inclusion Movement
Inclusion “involves schools and teachers modifying the ways in which they work so as to
cater to the needs of a wide variety of learners” (Loreman, 2014, p. 38) in the classroom. The
inclusion movement emerged out of the broader social movement through which special
education and placement of students with disabilities in regular schools had been accomplished.
The inclusion movement took advocacy for students with disabilities a step further, as parents
and other advocates of individuals with disabilities gained a stronger voice in society. The
central concept of the movement was that students with disabilities should not simply be added
to regular classrooms, only to be sidelined with content and activities mismatched with their
abilities. Instead, students should be meaningfully included in the learning taking place in their
classrooms (Andrews et al., 1993). The movement towards full inclusion continues today and it

26

is clear that IEPs play a key role by providing a plan for how students’ needs will be met
in order for them to meaningfully participate in classroom learning.
UNESCO (2017) articulated the argument for inclusion with the statement that
“every learner matters and matters equally” (p. 12). When the understanding and
conceptualization of disability and difference shifts in society, policies and practices in
schools are influenced to change as well (Brussino, 2020). Legislation is tasked with
articulating the principles and rights that are needed for building the framework to
support inclusion of all learners (UNESCO, 2017). As of 2020, “most countries allow for
curriculum adaptations and modifications to meet the individual learning needs of
students with [special education needs] and foster their inclusion” (Brussino, 2020, p.
28). These adaptations and modifications are usually documented through the student’s
IEP. Although not every country includes learners with diverse needs to the same extent
that Western nations are aiming to, there is pressure from the international community to
do so; pressure that is demonstrated through the documents and advocacy coming out of
the United Nations and UNESCO around education policy and guides for working
towards inclusion in education. In the end, “[w]hile all learners have needs…, they also
have the right to participate fully in a common social institution” (UNESCO, 2017, p.
31), a belief that can only come to fruition through the implementation of special
education and IEPs.
Thus far, IEPs have been employed as a tool to help make inclusive education
possible. As the inclusion movement continues to influence the evolution of special
education, student-led IEPs can be seen as an inclusive practice in and of themselves.
This connected back to my research question since supporting students to lead their own

27

IEP development has the potential to not only facilitate inclusion for students with disabilities in
the classroom, but gives them a voice in planning for their own meaningful participation in
learning.
IEP Purposes and Expectations
An IEP serves a multitude of purposes from planning tool for developing an educational
program, to roadmap of services and interventions in order to facilitate said program, to written
document assuring accountability for those services and interventions (Blackwell & Rossetti,
2014; Hossain, 2012; Tremblay & Belley, 2017). It is both a plan of action and a legal document.
Blackwell and Rossetti (2014) further described the IEP as “the primary tool for enabling schools
to provide [the] required level of support to students with disabilities" (p. 1). More than paper,
IEPs are considered foundational for planning special education services as well as positive
student outcomes (Blackwell & Rossetti, 2014). It is easy to see why Tremblay and Belley
(2017) asserted that no document is more important than the IEP in the context of special
education.
Two avenues exist through which a student is determined to qualify for an IEP in
Canadian provinces; medical diagnosis or screening and assessment (Tremblay & Belley, 2017).
Having met the criteria for a Ministry of Education provincial designation, categories of which
will vary by province, the student becomes eligible for an IEP. Common elements of an IEP
include: a summary of the student’s strengths and challenges, school or specialist assessments,
anticipated objectives of the plan, resources to be provided to the student, methods and strategies
for reaching goals, roles of staff and other adults supporting the student, review and evaluation of
the plan (Tremblay & Belley, 2017). Changes to educational programing will fall into one of two
types: 1) adaptations are “measures that do not alter the initial objectives associated with the

28

corresponding education program for a given grade” while 2) modifications “amend these
objectives” (Tremblay & Belley, 2017, p. 3021). Therefore, adaptation supports the student to
meet the curricular outcomes outlined by the province whereas modification means
supporting the student without the expectation that they will meet the curricular outcomes
outlined by the province.
Expectations for the IEP process, and the IEP itself, have grown and evolved over
the decades. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) stated that assistance
extended to a child with a disability should be designed to facilitate effective access to
education and services “in a manner conducive to the child's achieving the fullest
possible social integration and individual development” (p. 7). The expectations outlined
in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) are closely linked to the purpose
of IEPs as articulated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In some
instances, however, IEPs are tasked with going beyond supporting students with
disabilities to fit into the education system as it exists today. Instead, Mitchell et al.
(2010) suggested that they should “also lead to those systems being reformed so as to
better accommodate diversity” (p. 64) and ultimately lead to a higher standard of
education for students with diverse learning needs.
Shifting the IEP process to become student-led, as I aimed to do in order to
answer my research question, is an opportunity to bring about the kind of change that
Mitchell et al. (2010) advocated for. Students taking the lead in developing their own IEP
can accommodate diversity by having those who need the accommodations articulate
their needs and shape their own interaction with the education system. In a scenario

29

where students lead the IEP process, the purpose of the IEP can evolve to include giving students
more ownership of their education.
Critiques and Challenges of IEPs
Critiques and challenges emerge when an IEP does not meet the expectations that
stakeholders such as students, parents, and teachers have for the document or when the IEP
process strays from its purpose. While teachers approach an IEP with the goal of procuring
information on the student’s learning needs and suggestions for meeting those needs, parents can
often face challenges around understanding and engaging with the same IEP document. In
gathering parent voices on the subject of IEPs, Zeitlin and Curcic (2014) found that a primary
desire from parents was for the IEP process to be “more personal and more meaningful” (p. 384);
in other words, parents wanted to understand and be able to contribute to the IEP process in a
way that was taken seriously. In order to make the IEP process meaningful, collaboration is
needed so that parents, education professionals, and students can all feel like they are on a team
in which their voices are heard and the purpose of the IEP, to support student learning, is central
to the process.
IEPs were developed in the spirit of collaboration and, in fact, some policies around the
IEP process make collaboration a legal requirement (Blackwell & Rossetti, 2014). However,
according to several studies, true collaboration between all parties involved in the IEP process
often does not occur (Blackwell & Rossetti, 2014; Mitchell et al., 2010; Zeitlin & Curcic, 2014).
Entrenched roles and certain dynamics of IEP meetings have an impact on who participates and
how much. For example, Blackwell and Rossetti (2014) found that teachers may be in the habit
of taking full control of IEP meetings, but when this occurs “families and students were not
meaningful, active participants in the process” (p. 9). Mitchell et al. (2010) also noted that

30

cultural differences between the school and student’s family may impact parental
engagement with IEPs since the IEP process often privileges the norms of the dominant
culture and these norms may run counter to traditions and sensibilities of the student’s
family. Parents want to be able to understand what is being said about their child and the
supports that are available but understanding becomes difficult when parents are not
recognized as “equal and knowledgeable partners in the decision-making process during
the IEP meetings” (Zeitlin & Curcic, 2014, p. 384). Student-led IEPs are an opportunity
to bring both students and parents into the IEP process since making the IEP accessible in
a way that the student can comprehend and engage with it means that the parent has the
chance to do the same.
The purpose of the IEP can become distorted when more focus is put on the legal
or administrative roles of the document rather than emphasizing the support of students
(Mitchell et al., 2010). In some cases, parents struggle to even understand what is being
said about their child and the supports that are available (Zeitlin & Curcic, 2014) between
the use of jargon and the focus on meeting legal requirements. When the IEP is viewed as
another paper to be filed or a legal box to be checked, a crucial opportunity is missed to
develop and facilitate meaningful educational experiences for a student. Blackwell &
Rossetti (2014) raised concerns over the fact that some studies have shown IEPs are not
sufficiently individualized to the student; in other words, accommodations to support
student learning may have been outlined in the IEP, but they may not have met the
specific needs of the student in question. In these circumstances, IEPs have lost the plot
as it were and are no longer fulfilling their purpose; or their multiple purposes of
supporting the student, facilitating collaboration, and meeting legal requirements have

31

spread the IEP so thin as to make it meaningless. In the end, “[e]nsuring that IEPs serve all their
other roles without distorting the primacy of acting as an education planning document is a
challenge facing educational policy makers. It may well be that IEPs should not be expected to
serve so many diverse purposes” (Mitchell et al., 2010, p. 15).
Student-led IEPs may be an answer to some of the critiques and challenges that face the
IEP. Through implementing student-led IEPs to answer my research question, I wanted to put
students back at the center of the process and the purpose of IEP development. What is more,
when a student can understand and engage with their IEP, parents can as well and students even
have the opportunity to explain the IEP to their parents. Ultimately, having a student lead the
development of their IEP forces stakeholders to recognize the student first and foremost within
the process and the document.
Students as Active Participants in the IEP Process
Students can be active participants in the IEP process without directly leading it. The
evolution of special education has made it possible to foresee a future in which students have
agency in their own IEP development. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)
asked that the world’s nations give children the right to express their own views on matters that
affect them in as much as they are able. The idea of student involvement and agency is important
because an IEP process conducted in this way allows a child to express their own views on a
document that impacts their education. Mitchell et al. (2010) asserted that “students can and
should be able to participate in their own IEPs” (p. 64). In some instances, opportunity is being
made for this possibility as policy makers include provisions for student participation in their
legislation around IEPs. In various countries, “students are expected to be involved in the

32

development and implementation of their plans” (Mitchell et al., 2010, p. 36), including
in Canada (McBride, 2013).
Nevertheless, to make student involvement in the IEP process a reality, concrete
action needs to be taken in schools. Blackwell and Rossetti (2014) found that direct
instruction, meaning teaching students about their IEP and explaining the IEP process,
was key to moving from lip service to the actual implementation of student participation
in IEP development. What is more, Blackwell and Rossetti (2014) found that students
demonstrated improved self-advocacy in response to intervention strategies focused on
explicit instruction guiding student participation in IEP meetings. The researchers
advised policy makers to find ways to encourage the implementation of said instructional
strategies (Blackwell & Rossetti, 2014).
Through the growth and progress demonstrated in the history of special education
and IEPs to present day, it is possible to see that students with disabilities and other
learning needs have steadily gained agency in their education. With continued social
change and research, normalizing and legitimizing students leading their own IEPs may
be the next step in this evolution. Investigating the implementation of student-led IEPs in
my practice to answer my research question will give students the opportunity to be
active participants in the IEP process but take the concept a step further by supporting
them to lead the process.
Student-Led IEPs
An IEP is considered to be student-led when the student actively engages in every stage
of the IEP process (Davis & Cumming, 2019; Martin et al., 2006; Royer, 2017). Relevant to my
research is a consideration of the benefits of student-led IEPs, components of a student-led IEP

33

process, perceived barriers to student-led IEPs, and what teachers need to facilitate student-led
IEPs.
Benefits of Student-Led IEPs
A breadth of benefits for students associated with student-led IEPs have been articulated
in the literature. In leading their own IEP meetings, findings reported that students have
opportunities to practice self-determination skills (Danneker & Bottge, 2009; Davis & Cumming,
2019; Gillespie & Turnbull, 1983) with an authentic purpose and learn to self-advocate
(Cavdenish et al., 2017; Martin et al., 2006; Mason et al., 2002; Royer, 2017). The IEP process
has been found to give students chances to practice the above skills in a safe and supportive
environment before employing them post-graduation. Student-led IEPs also increase meaningful
participation in the process among both students (Hawbaker, 2007; Martin et al., 2006; Mason et
al., 2002; Royer, 2017; Sanderson & Goldman, 2020) and parents (Hawbaker, 2007; Royer,
2017) making for a more collaborative and interactive process.
In order to participate meaningfully, of course, students must first gain an understanding
of what an IEP is, what their own IEP looks like, and how to situate themselves in the document
(Hawbaker, 2007; Mason et al., 2002; Royer, 2017), much of which is accomplished through
review of the IEP prior to the meeting. Overall, through student-led IEPs, students can be
supported to gain a sense of responsibility for their learning (Hawbaker, 2007; Mason et al.,
2002) and “take ownership for their own education” (Davis & Cumming, 2019, p. 92).
Understanding the benefits that have been linked with student-led IEPs gave me a framework for
making my own observations regarding the benefits of student-led IEPs in my practice and
answering one of my research sub-questions.

34

Components of a Student-Led IEP Process
While each teacher may approach the student-led IEP process slightly differently, some
common components emerged from the literature. In various cases, the student-led IEP process
started with exploration of the student’s IEP (Cavdenish et al., 2017; Davis & Cumming, 2019;
Gillespie & Turnbull, 1983; Howard et al., 2021; Konrad, 2008) to gain familiarity of the
document and previous supports that have been in place for the student. Teachers then supported
students in reflecting on their strengths, needs, interests and goals (Cavdenish et al., 2017; Davis
& Cumming, 2019; Hawbaker, 2007; Howard et al., 2021; Konrad, 2008) which guided the
drafting of the upcoming IEP. Starting the IEP process with an introduction to the document and
reflection gave students the opportunity to understand what the IEP document looked like and
begin charting a path for what it might become, placing the student’s specific strengths and
challenges at the forefront of the process.
There is some consensus in the literature that students need explicit instruction in the
preparation for their student-led IEP meeting (Gillespie & Turnbull, 1983; Howard et al., 2021;
Konrad, 2008) especially since it is often the first time they may have been actively involved in
the development of their own IEP. There were a number of strategies to support students in
expressing themselves and preparing to lead their IEP meeting including graphic organizers
(Royer, 2017), checklists (Davis & Cumming, 2019; Diegelmann & Test, 2018; Gillespie &
Turnbull, 1983), digital slideshows (Hawbaker, 2007; Howard et al., 2021), and scripts (Davis &
Cumming, 2019; Hawbaker, 2007; Howard et al., 2021). In some cases, students were
encouraged to think about who they want on their IEP team and craft an invitation to send out to
those members (Davis & Cumming, 2019; Howard et al., 2021) signaling the student’s
responsibility and leadership role in the lead-up to the meeting. Students were also given the

35

opportunity to rehearse their IEP meeting (Davis & Cumming, 2019; Howard et al., 2021) in
order to be fully prepared.
In the lead-up to the meeting, students were asked to solicit feedback from their parents
(Cavdenish et al., 2017; Konrad, 2008) and teachers (Davis & Cumming, 2019) to gain a more
well-rounded perspective on their strengths, challenges, and goals. Soliciting feedback helped to
get buy-in from relevant parties who would be supporting the student in their education journey.
Following the meeting, students were sometimes invited to draft their new IEP (Davis &
Cumming, 2019; Hawbaker, 2007; Howard et al., 2021) thereby coming full circle in their IEP
process. While there were many similarities between the components of student-led IEP
processes articulated in different studies, there were also subtle differences between each
process. Having gathered evidence of some consensus for components of a student-led IEP
process, I was able to respond to my research question by implementing my own process for
student-led IEPs.
Perceived Barriers to Student-Led IEPs
Rather than a single, insurmountable barrier preventing practitioners from engaging with
a student-led IEP process, several small barriers were often perceived (Scheef et al., 2024).
Student inability to engage with their IEP process or lack of motivation to do so were regularly
brought up as barriers (Danneker & Bottge, 2009; Hawbaker, 2007; Scheef et al., 2024) that
would prevent students from participating in the development of their IEP, much less leading it.
However, Hawbaker (2007) argued that using a lack of interest or motivation on the part of the
student as a reason to forgo student-led IEPs was a self-fulfilling prophesy; students did not have
the opportunity to develop the skills and motivation to lead the development of their IEP if they
were never directly involved in the process. Danneker and Bottge (2009) described the

36

expectation among the adults that students would be observers in the IEP process rather than
active participants and the adults’ further surprise that students had meaningful contributions to
make when given the opportunity to do so.
The perception that the special education teacher should be in charge of the IEP and in
control of the meeting rather than the student was described as another barrier (Danneker &
Bottge, 2009; Hawbaker, 2007; Scheef et al., 2024). In pre-IEP interviews, Danneker and Bottge
(2009) found that all of the adults interviewed saw the special education teacher as the expert on
issues related to the IEP and as having the main responsibility for the IEP process. This
perception resulted in students taking a backseat in their own IEP development until student-led
IEPs were implemented. Similarly, a dearth of training for teachers as well as a potential for
longer meetings made practitioners hesitate at the threshold of student-led IEPs (Danneker &
Bottge, 2009; Hawbaker, 2007; Scheef et al., 2024). According to Scheef et al. (2024), teachers
who had never experienced a student-led IEP process before lacked confidence in incorporating
student-led IEPs into their own practice.
Overall, obstacles reported around the implementation of student-led IEPs largely
stemmed from inexperience around a new practice (Hawbaker, 2007). The fact of the matter is
that strategies can be developed to remove barriers around student-led IEPs (Scheef et al., 2024)
and the benefits of doing so, articulated earlier in this chapter, are worth the effort.
Understanding barriers that other teachers faced regarding student-led IEPs allowed me to
consider obstacles and barriers that impacted the implementation of student-led IEPs in my own
practice as I worked towards answering my research question.

37

What Teachers Need in Order to Facilitate Student-Led IEPs
Out of the perceived barriers to student-led IEPs arise the real needs of teachers in this
process. This section reports on what research has learned about teacher needs as they relate to
implementing student-led IEPs. First and foremost, educators should be encouraged to start small
(Eisenman et al., 2005; Hawbaker, 2007; Martin et al., 2006; Scheef et al., 2024), especially as
they ease into something new. Scheef et al. (2024) clarified that starting small meant defining a
manageable size and scope around initial steps in implementing student-led IEPs and might
involve something as simple as supporting students to identify and share their strengths and
challenges in an IEP meeting.
Teachers needed to shift expectations and keep an open mind in order to incorporate
student-led IEPs (Hawbaker, 2007; Martin et al., 2006) as they put more trust in students and let
go of some control. Hawbaker (2007) explained that teachers should allow IEP meetings to flow
differently when they are student-led and emphasized that the result might be a longer meeting
but it would be worthwhile. Further to this point, teachers needed to consciously change their
behavior in order for IEPs to be truly student-led (Martin et al., 2006). For example, Martin et al.
(2006) described how teachers who had low expectations for student success in leading the IEP
meeting exhibited behaviors like stepping in when the student hesitated or seemed uncertain. In
order for students to be successful in leading their IEP, however, the teachers needed to believe it
was possible and refrain from stepping in.
A certain level of risk-taking was involved in implementing student-led IEPs (Eisenman
et al., 2005; Hawbaker, 2007), as teachers found their footing in a new practice. Eisenman et al.
(2005) explained that trying a new practice was risky and Hawbaker (2007) found that teachers
perceived releasing control over the IEP meeting to be a risk, but both researchers emphasized

38

that the risks were worth the reward to see students rise to the occasion of leading their IEP
process. Hawbaker (2007) articulated that it was necessary to make creative adaptations to
facilitate student participation in student-led IEPs, but that was needed to support students with
disabilities to be involved in education more generally anyways. There are free resources
available to teachers willing to learn about student-led IEPs and ideally one can also “seek
guidance from those who have found success” (Scheef et al., 2024, p. 10). Sometimes, however,
a practitioner has to be the first to try something new in order to see widespread change
(Eisenman et al., 2005; Hawbaker, 2007).
While there are various ways in which teachers might support students to lead the
development of their own IEP, there are equally a number of needs that teachers must
accommodate for themselves to make the implementation of student-led IEPs successful.
Teachers are stakeholders in the student-led IEP process too and a change requires not only a
shift in practice but also in understanding what they hope to accomplish. Taking into account
teacher needs for implementing student-led IEPs helped to guide the implementation of studentled IEPs in my own practice in order to answer my research question.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has given an overview of the history of special education and how the IEP
was established as a tool to support students with disabilities to engage with learning in a general
school environment. I framed the story by establishing the legal and social basis for establishing
IEPs and I described how changing laws and international agreements that articulated rights for
students were closely tied to shifting public perspectives. The IEP is established as a critical
component for supporting inclusion, but I also described how it is important for students to
remain at the center of the IEP process to avoid straying from the purpose of the document. I

39

argued that student-led IEPs can be counted as a means of continuing to center students in their
IEP. Perceived barriers to student-led IEP implementation were articulated, then countered with
an inventory of what teachers need in order to facilitate student-led IEPs. Where Chapter One
detailed my context and the context of my practice, Chapter Two frames the broader context of
my research within the history of special education. Understanding the history of IEPs leading up
to today and exploring student-led IEPs as the next iteration of learning plans for students with
disabilities outlines the knowledge base upon which I built a path forward for my practice and
my research. My research question required me to explore my own process for implementing
student-led IEPs in my practice as a Learning Services Teacher in BC.
In Chapter Three, I will explain my research process and how I approached the various
elements of that process. My methodology, methods, and data analysis approach will be outlined,
describing how I moved forward in investigating my research question. I will establish validity,
and outline ethical considerations for my research. Chapter Three will illustrate how the elements
of my research approach and findings from the scholarly literature on IEP and disability
coalesced with my research question and plotted a path towards answering that question.

40

Chapter Three
This chapter articulates the choices I made for my research approach and describes how
these choices came together as I worked towards answering my research question. I will begin by
explaining qualitative inquiry and why it made sense as the approach for my research. I will
articulate the attributes of self-study as a methodology and explain how self-study allowed me to
respond to my research question. The methods I chose and data analysis approaches that were
used in my research will be outlined, alongside how each engaged with data relevant to
responding to my research question. At the end of the chapter, I will describe how validity and
ethical considerations were approached in my research.
Qualitative Inquiry
Teaching is a highly social process, making the study of pedagogical practice an excellent
match with the aim of qualitative inquiry “to illuminate the breadth and depth of human
experience and capture and communicate the stark realities of social life” (Mayan, 2023, p. 10).
Qualitative inquiry also seeks to answer the “how” and “why” questions (Mayan, 2023) which is
precisely where my own research question falls. Mayan (2023) described how “qualitative
researchers attempt to interpret and make sense of the meaning people attach to their
experiences” (p. 3). Thus, asking how I implemented student-led Individual Education Plans
(IEPs) in my practice also encompassed my interactions with educators and students in doing this
work in order to understand the challenges, benefits, and feasibility of changing how I
approached the IEP process within a particular context.
Self-Study Methodology
Self-study is a research methodology that centers one’s own practice as the problem for
investigation (LaBoskey 2004). I selected self-study as the methodological framework for my

41

study as a means of grounding the research in my lived context while at the same time
challenging my held beliefs around how to facilitate growth around my IEP process and putting
my beliefs about student agency into action. Research grounded in context fit with my pragmatic
worldview because I sought to answer my research question by using my own practice to
conduct my investigation. Self-study methodology gave me the opportunity to closely connect
my worldview and research question since making a change in my own practice was a pragmatic
approach to investigating my research question.
Grounded in Context
LaBoskey (2004) argued that research on teacher knowledge and learning must be
grounded in context in order to paint an accurate picture of what is known and convey this
through detailed observation methods. What works in one place for one professional may not
have the same effect in a different context, which is why it is important to understand how a
practice operates within a particular environment. Asking how I implemented student-led
Individual Education Plans (IEPs) in my practice necessitated understanding my own context to
examine the integration of student-led IEPs from different angles of my own setting.
Furthermore, LaBoskey (2004) described how motivation for research often stems from
recognizing areas of practice in need of improvement. As I have an interest in the area of IEPs,
there was value in diving deeply into my own practice through self-study to find answers.
Self-Focused
Teacher knowledge develops in part through improved understanding of one’s own
personal experience which is another component of context. To continue learning into their years
of practice, LaBoskey (1993) argued that teachers need to reflect on their practice by bringing
together their own knowledge, pedagogical theory, and alternative interpretations to understand

42

an experience. Therefore, being able to reflect on my own practice through self-study meant
actively thinking through decisions I made while investigating my research question. It is vital
that teachers carefully consider the methods they use to engage young learners and doing so
through reflection helps teachers to be “thoughtful, passionate, and principled decision-makers”
(LaBoskey, 1993, p. 12). If it is true that educators “teach who we are” (LaBoskey, 2004, p. 843)
then self-analysis is necessary to understand and improve teaching. Self-study gave me the
opportunity to get personal with the research and closely examine my own work as a Learning
Services Teacher while introducing a new process into my practice. By observing my own
implementation of student-led IEPs, I addressed my research question through self-study and
kept the focus on myself while simultaneously broadening my approach to the IEP process and
carefully considering the implications of this change.
Interactive
LaBoskey (2004) writes that, while self-study focuses on an individual’s practice, selfstudy is also interactive in order to bring a broader perspective to the subject being studied and
avoid limitations of individual interpretation. Changes in my perception stemming from selfstudy require perspectives of others to be included in the process in order to challenge my held
beliefs. For example, evaluating previously established IEP protocols and how those protocols
might support me to implement student-led IEPs in my own practice allowed me to interact with
other perspectives and aligned closely with both my pragmatic worldview and self-study. Selfstudy subscribes to a theory of learning that positions knowledge as socially constructed, with
interactions between theory and personal perspectives coming to bear on the learning that is done
(Lyons, 2010). Therefore, a rigorous process of noting others’ perspectives on student-led IEPs
through investigation of established student-led IEP protocols and resources allowed my research

43

conducted through the self-study methodology to be informed by a breadth of knowledge
available beyond my perspective as the individual conducting the investigation and addressed my
research questions.
Responsive
Continual monitoring and adaptation are hallmarks of research conducted by educators
engaged in self-study (Lyons, 2010), since self-study researchers are both taking part in the
action of the research and observing the research. Continual monitoring means paying attention
to what is happening in the context of the research; in my case attending to the school
environment and interactions I had with students as I implemented student-led IEPs. Adaptation
stemmed from continual monitoring because it required being responsive to changes I observed
in my school environment and in my interactions with students in order to change what I was
doing as needed. LaBoskey (2004) described how engaging in a practice while simultaneously
investigating that practice means that the researcher has the unique ability to generate knowledge
and improve their own practice by applying what they have learned right away. Using a research
methodology that examined my own practice allowed me to articulate my pedagogical choices in
implementing student-led IEPs based on experiences as much as conceptual grounds. While my
review of the literature in Chapter Two revealed that there are benefits to student-led IEPs I had
the opportunity to reflect on what I observed as benefits to student-led IEPs myself when I
experienced implementing them in my own practice and answered my research question. My
pragmatic worldview is evident here since my interpretations were shaped by my experiences.
Furthermore, self-study allowed me to be responsive in both my practice and investigation of the
research questions throughout the research process where being responsive could look like
overcoming certain challenges to implementing student-led IEPs or building on areas of success.

44

Self-study is concerned with integrity or “walking our talk” (LaBoskey, 2004, p. 831);
following through on what one believes is the best practice. LaBoskey (2004) situated
professionals as best positioned and qualified to investigate their practice, and self-study allowed
me to bring intentionality to an examination of my practice in my context in the Sea to Sky
School District. The self-study methodology offers the practitioner an opportunity to put their
beliefs into action and my belief that student-led IEPs could be a positive change for students
oriented my research questions towards action on implementing a student-led IEP process in my
practice. Gaining practical knowledge through examination of my own practice and
implementing student-led IEPs fit well within the self-study methodology (LaBoskey, 2004) and
made the results of the research directly and immediately useful to my practice while aligning
with my pragmatic worldview.
Improvement-Aimed
The ultimate aim of self-study is less about improved thought and more about improved
practice; it is a practical approach to gain practical benefits (Lyons, 2010). My pragmatic
approach to understanding the world similarly values making improvements in response to
different needs in my practice. The critical connection between research design and pedagogical
practice emulated through self-study exists because, as LaBoskey (2004) noted, “we cannot teach
something we do not know, nor advocate for a practice we do not embrace” (p. 839). Self-study
supports hands-on experience and reflection, which I engaged in as I worked to address my
research question through the implementation of student-led IEPs in my practice. LaBoskey
(2004) argued that the researcher ultimately will be able to support others to learn from the
researcher’s experience by showing others the path that the researcher took. Through my

45

research, I was able to illustrate my process for implementing student-led IEPs in my practice as
a Learning Services Teacher in BC.
Self-Study Summary
Employing self-study as my methodological framework facilitated grounding the
research in my own context as a Learning Services Teacher in BC while asking questions of my
practice and the implementation of student-led IEPs within that practice. Evaluating previously
established student-led IEP protocols broadened the perspective of my research and maintained
the interactive aspect of self-study. Through self-study, I responded to what I was learning in the
research while the research was happening, leaning into areas of strength and seeking to address
areas of challenge I encountered while implementing student-led IEPs in my practice. Overall,
the improvement-aimed objectives of self-study meant that I was making progress in my practice
by innovating and implementing change in a way that closely aligned with my pragmatic
worldview which prioritizes pursuing solutions to real problems.
Methods
For the researcher to also be the source of data through a self-study methodology, it is
necessary to employ methods of data collection that fit within the researcher’s practice and allow
the researcher to gather evidence as the research is carried out (Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009). I
used two methods in my self-study research to accomplish the above aims and respond to my
research question: 1) reflexive journaling and 2) field notes.
1) Reflexive journaling: the purpose of a reflexive journal in research is to make
connections between thoughts, feelings, and actions, allowing the researcher to deepen their selfawareness, follow ideas as they emerge, and develop insight beyond their initial observations
including challenging previously held assumptions (Barry & O’Callaghan, 2008). Reflexivity

46

“depicts the ability to direct one’s thoughts back onto oneself; to examine one’s theories, beliefs,
knowledge, and actions in relation to…practice” (Barry & O’Callaghan, 2008, p. 56). In other
words, my interpretation of events as I implemented student-led IEPs in my practice and further
insight into how I developed those interpretations made my thought process reflexive rather than
simply reflective. Furthermore, a reflexive thought process matched the mandate of self-study
being grounded in context. Using reflexive journaling as a method connected to my research
questions in that it allowed me to: a) articulate my process for implementing student-led
Individual Education Plans (IEPs), b) observe the benefits and challenges of student-led IEPs,
and c) note how student-led IEPs affect student success and my work as a Learning Services
Teacher in BC.
Barry and O’Callaghan (2008) outline a four-step process for reflexive journaling which I
followed: (1) Descriptive journal writing in which thoughts are freely written down and can
include descriptions of practice, observations, intentions, significant moments, outcomes,
questions, and personal reflections. (2) Extending self-critique and understanding by noting any
questions that came up, further understandings, or critical examinations of practice. (3)
Integration of new insights into practice. (4) Reflexive evaluation, which consists of reactions to
integration of new insights into practice and outcomes resulting from changes in practice.
Barry and O’Callaghan (2008) argued that “[t]he process of reflexive journal writing will
differ depending on the author’s purpose and preference” (p. 62), which is why I integrated
prompts to connect back to my research sub-questions throughout the reflexive journaling steps.
At step two, I responded to the question: how have I come to distinguish student-led IEPs from
other IEPs? At step three, I responded to the question: what have I observed as benefits and
challenges of student-led IEPs? At step four, I responded to the question: how have student-led

47

IEPs affected my work as a Learning Services Teacher? How have student-led IEPs affected
student success?
Pinnegar and Hamilton (2009) recommended limiting the amount of time spent
journaling and stated that, while some details may be missed, the amount of data collected can
ultimately be just as full because the researcher is more likely to follow through on their
commitment to journal. Therefore, I aimed to journal for no more than thirty minutes at the
conclusion of each session of student-led IEP implementation. Using a reflexive journal as a
method in my research allowed me to not only observe my practice in implementing student-led
IEPs but to think through ways that I might make changes in the implementation process to suit
my practice and my context, all of which was closely connected to the objectives of self-study.
2) Field notes: Phillippi and Lauderdale (2018) explained that the purpose in taking field
notes is to provide a rich illustration of a study’s context for analysis by making notes on an
event or interaction as it happens to capture the most immediate information that will help to
build an accurate and detailed narrative of the context and practice. Emerson et al. (2011)
elaborated that jottings, taken in very brief form for the purpose of jogging the memory after the
event, are written first and then followed by full written notes, which are often transcribed in
fuller description by the researcher following an event. Using field notes as a method connected
to my research questions in that it allowed me to: observe processes for implementing studentled IEPs, indicate differences between student-led IEPs and current IEP practices, and note how
student-led IEPs affected student success and my work as a Learning Services Teacher in BC.
Phillippi and Lauderdale (2018) created an outline for qualitative field notes that was
built with interviews in the medical field in mind, but also serves as a general template for field
note collection. The protocols ask the researcher to take note of: (1) Location, including

48

geographic location, laws and policies, and demographics. (2) Societal pressures, including how
local news is delivered, racial/ethnic/religious/cultural tensions, socio-economic tensions, and
marginalized groups (3) Cost of items and cost of living. (4) Influences on health including
availability of services, acceptability of services, accessibility of services, and alternative health
modalities.
I adapted the field notes protocol created by Phillippi and Lauderdale (2018) to more
directly address my practice, research context, and research question. My field notes process
included four sections: (1) Context, in which information was collected on the geographic
location and demographics of the curriculum creator or presenter of the content or resource I
observed. (2) Influences on implementation of student-led IEPs, in which notes were taken on
the availability of the resource, acceptability within my context, and time needed for
implementation. (3) Significance, in which I noted areas that were important to focus on and
considered the costs and benefits of student-led IEP implementation. (4) Summary, in which I
noted particular areas of learning and applications for my practice.
Each step aligned with an opportunity to answer my research sub-questions. Therefore, at
step two, I responded to the question: how have I come to distinguish student-led IEPs from
other IEPs? At step three, I responded to the question: what have I observed as benefits and
challenges of student-led IEPs? At step four, I responded to the question: how have student-led
IEPs affected my work as a Learning Services Teacher? How have student-led IEPs affected
student success?
Emerson et al. (2011) argued that field notes provide an immediate rendering of events,
which balanced well with the more retrospective data gathering employed by reflexive journaling
as my other research method. I generated field notes throughout the duration of a learning

49

experience, as recommended by Emerson et al. (2011), which included reviewing established
student-led IEP protocols. Having progressive steps to follow while using field notes as a
research method guided my learning while engaging with the professional development
opportunity or student-led IEP protocols. At the same time, answering the prompts I incorporated
at each step served to hone my focus to student-led IEPs in my own context as I sought to answer
my research question. Using field notes as a method allowed me to interact with other
professionals and ideas regarding student-led IEPs, which aligned with the self-study objective
and my pragmatic worldview that meaning making is to be informed by a breadth of knowledge
beyond the individual.
Data Analysis
Self-study methodology and reflexive thematic analysis both center the researcher in
investigating their own practice and producing knowledge in response to the research question.
Reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) is an approach to qualitative data analysis
that is theoretically flexible, interpretive, and “facilitates identification and analysis of patterns or
themes in a given data set” (Byrne, 2022, p. 1392). Braun and Clarke (2021) argued that
reflexive thematic analysis demands an active role in knowledge production on the part of the
researcher, focusing on “reflexive and thoughtful engagement” (p. 594) with the data in the
analytical process and positioning researcher subjectivity as an analytical resource (Braun &
Clarke, 2019; Braun & Clarke, 2021). Congruency existed, therefore, between investigating the
implementation of student-led Individual Education Plans (IEPs) in my own practice through
self-study as my methodology, my active role in collecting and reflecting on data through a
reflexive journal and field notes as methods, and the way that reflexive thematic analysis centers
the researcher in data analysis. At each stage of my research, I had the opportunity to reflect on

50

my interpretations regarding the process of implementing student-led IEPs and examine how I
developed those interpretations, which led me to answer my research question.
Braun and Clarke (2021) asserted that “meaning and knowledge are understood as
situated and contextual” (p. 334) to the point where the avoidance of bias in demonstrating
coding reliability is considered “illogical, incoherent, and ultimately meaningless” in reflexive
thematic analysis (p. 334). Both my pragmatic worldview and the self-study methodology
worked well with the ways in which reflexive thematic analysis values the subjective experience
of the researcher and provides a rigorous and systemic approach to data analysis while also
allowing for flexibility and context. Therefore, I put the data generated by my research through
the rigorous analysis outlined by reflexive thematic analysis without losing the subjective aspect
of the experience that made it my own and situated the data within my context as a Learning
Services Teacher in BC.
With the flexibility afforded by Braun and Clarke’s approach to data analysis comes the
requirement to interact reflexively and transparently with reflexive thematic analysis and to
articulate assumptions that inform one’s use of the approach (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Interacting
transparently with reflexive thematic analysis meant acknowledging how my theoretical
framework influenced my use of this approach to data analysis and articulating assumptions
meant laying out the manner in which I expected this approach to data analysis to proceed. To
this end, I engaged with data analysis through a constructivist epistemology in which meaning
and experience are considered to be socially produced (Creswell, 2022); that is to say, my
observations of implementing student-led IEPs and the meaning I attributed to those observations
happened within the context of my practice and were affected by that context. Moreover, in my
use of reflexive thematic analysis, meaningfulness was prioritized over recurrence in the coding

51

process (Byrne, 2022), which indicated that I chose codes to form themes based on how
important I perceived the code to be in telling the story of the data rather than based strictly on
how often the code occurred.
Being both the researcher and the source of data for this study meant that combining an
experiential and critical orientation to data analysis makes sense. An experiential orientation
meant prioritizing the experiences of the participant and investigating “the meaning ascribed to
the phenomenon by the respondent” (Byrne, 2022, p. 1396), which makes sense for my research
since I trusted my own interpretation of the implementation of student-led IEPs in my practice.
However, I also needed to take a critical orientation which prioritized the construction of
meaning around participants’ experiences and offered “interpretations of meaning further to
those explicitly communicated by participants” (Byrne, 2022, p. 1396) as I applied a further level
of interpretation to my data through the data analysis process. With regard to coding, my process
was predominantly inductive so that codes reflected the content of the data and provided a rich
illustration of the overall dataset (Byrne, 2022). Lastly, latent coding suited my study as I
engaged in an interpretive analysis of the data and played an active role in developing codes and
identifying themes (Byrne, 2022).
Braun and Clark (2006, 2021) articulated a six-phase process for reflexive thematic
analysis:
1) Familiarization with the data: Reviewing the full dataset to consider the full breadth
and depth of the data and identifying information that is pertinent to the research
question.
2) Generating initial codes: Beginning to generate labels for important and relevant
features of the data that relate to the research questions.

52

3) Generating themes: Organizing the codes into meaningful categories and combining
them based on shared meaning. Here, the researcher takes an active role in
demonstrating the relationship between the codes and thus in building the themes.
4) Reviewing potential themes: Checking that each theme makes a logical argument and
provides an accurate interpretation in relation to the research question. During this
phase, codes or themes may need to be revised or discarded if they do not contribute
to the overall narrative of the data.
5) Defining and naming themes: Ensuring that each theme is internally consistent and
distinct, giving an account of the data that cannot be told through the other themes.
6) Producing the report: Constructing an analytical narrative that tells the reader a
coherent story about the data.
I followed Braun and Clarke’s approach closely for analysis of the data generated
through my reflexive journal and field notes methods. The adaptation that I made is to apply
reflexive thematic analysis to the data produced through each method separately for the first two
steps and then bring the data all together. Therefore, in step one when I familiarized myself with
the data, I reviewed the data set that I collected through field notes. Then I reviewed the data set
that I collected through reflexive journaling. In step two, when I generated initial codes, I began
to generate labels for important and relevant features of the data that I collected from field notes.
Then I generated labels for important and relevant features of the data that I collected from
reflexive journaling. In step three when I generated themes, I brought together the data and labels
that I collected from both field notes and reflexive journaling. I reviewed the aggregated data at
this point, generated themes that applied across the dataset I collected through both methods.

53

Step three through step six of reflexive thematic analysis were followed as I have described
above in accordance with the approach established by Braun and Clark (2006, 2021).
Field notes was the method applied in my research to review established student-led IEP
protocols whereas reflexive journaling was the method applied to the implementation of studentled IEPs in my practice and, while the two methods worked towards answering the same research
question, they each gave me different insights through data analysis. Analyzing the two methods
separately in the first two steps of data analysis gave me the opportunity to recognize that the
codes generated for data collected using each method were complementary. Using reflexive
thematic analysis gave me the flexibility to make adaptations to my data analysis process that
worked for my research and allowed me to be responsive in a way that matched the self-study
methodology.
Validity and Trustworthiness
The positivist paradigm uses reliability and validity to verify claims to truth of one’s
research. However, in the qualitative self-study modality, trustworthiness is relied on to establish
validity in the accounts of one’s practice (Craig, 2019). Ultimately, validity in self-study relies
on whether practitioners in the profession connected to the research evaluate the findings as
trustworthy (Craig, 2009; LaBoskey, 2004; Lyons, 2010). To gain the trust of the relevant
community, research is judged by functional criteria (LaBoskey 2004); in other words, could my
process for implementing student-led Individual Education Plans (IEPs) in my practice as a
Learning Services Teacher in BC and the answers to my research sub-questions inform the work
of other professionals in the teaching community? Connecting trustworthiness to validity allows
for self-study to continue in the flow and development of practice rather than being assessed
outside of the real world, which is an important consideration for my pragmatic worldview.

54

Although my self-study research attended to the specific problem of student-led IEPs in
my own context, the research can still be used to guide other teachers in responding to
related issues (Pinnegar & Murphy, 2019), such as implementing other kinds of studentled supports or implementing student-led IEPs in contexts different than mine.
To gain an assessment of validity through trustworthiness requires that sufficient
information be presented about what was done in the study and why (LaBoskey 2004). It
is important to make visible the data, methods for using data to support findings, and
links between the data, findings, and resulting interpretations. To meet the criteria for
trustworthiness, I shared that I used the self-study methodology and how this
methodology connected with my worldview and theoretical framework. Furthermore, I
established protocols that I followed based on self-study practices of researchers. I
explained that I used reflexive journaling and fieldnotes as my methods for data
collection and I outlined the steps I took for each method. I was clear about how I used
reflexive thematic analysis as my data analysis approach and the steps I took during this
process.
Transparency is crucial in qualitative research, especially around the role of the
researcher and what can be described as a naturalistic setting (Cuenca, 2020). In
prioritizing transparency, I highlighted how the goals of the study were achieved or not
within my specific context. Without this candor, the understanding developed through the
work is incomplete and lacks nuance (Craig, 2019), which is why there is a particular
ethical obligation in self-study to show the complexity of interactions between my
pragmatic worldview, my context, and my process to answer my research question
through the implementation of student-led IEPs in my practice.

55

Ethical Considerations
There are a number of ethical considerations related specifically to self-study as a
methodology. Pursuing self-study as a teacher means committing not just to ethical research but
to enacting ethics within the dynamic environment inherent in teaching practice (Pinnegar &
Murphy, 2019). In other words, I had to be ethical both in implementing student-led IEPs to
answer my research question and in my work as a Learning Services Teacher which required me
to constantly consider how I approached my practice and interactions with students in an ethical
way. Further to this point, self-study is often concerned with transformation in practice. Taking a
critical eye to the impact of certain actions, changes, and developments as they unfold is
necessary (McDonough & Brandenburg, 2019) and demands ongoing engagement on the part of
the researcher to maintain ethical practices on shifting ground (Craig, 2019; Cuenca, 2020;
McDonough & Brandenburg, 2019). Because self-study was a mirror held up to my impressions
as I took action and reflected on the process of implementing student-led Individual Education
Plans (IEPs), what was revealed through my research emerged as a part of the larger context of
my practice. Ethics in self-study is emergent and comes to light as the research proceeds
(McDonough & Brandenburg, 2019). Thus, my commitment was to examine my reflections and
actions only as they related to my own practice by adhering to the framework I set out to follow
in my field notes and reflexive journaling.
Another ethical consideration emerged around the fact that self-study, despite what the
label may suggest, still demands interactions with others throughout the research process.
Teachers as researchers inhabit an inherently social world (Cuenca, 2020) and these interactions
are vital to the study in that they support the researcher to grow and learn (McDonough &
Brandenburg, 2019). It is equally important, therefore, that the self-study researcher protects the

56

privacy of those they may have interacted with over the course of the study in order to be
ethical in their research (Craig, 2019). Since the study of one’s own practice is very
specific, it may be difficult to conceal the identities of those the researcher interacts with
over the course of the study (Pinnegar & Murphy, 2019).
The commitment I made to reflect on my own practice came into play here once
more. Ultimately, in conducting self-study research “[o]ur intention is to listen to our
stories and those of others in our practice and yet bring only our own interpretation to it”
(Pinnegar & Murphy, 2019, pp. 124); the utmost effort is made to be transparent about
this and ethical in the protection of other’s identities. It is possible to see a focus on ethics
and transparency in how I planned my research. The frameworks I adhered to for field
notes and reflexive journaling were used to bring the focus of data back to my research
question and sub-questions. Scoped prompts served as a reminder of the focus on self in
generating data. I made a concerted effort to be transparent about how I conducted selfstudy in an ethical way to protect the identities of those I interacted with over the course
of the research and really focused on my impressions and practice.
In juxtaposition to an ethical consideration of others is the ethical consideration of
the self in self-study. Since the research is grounded in one’s own growth and
development, researchers themselves are a vulnerable party in self-study research
(Cuenca, 2020; McDonough & Brandenburg, 2019). The transparency that is central to
self-study also supports an ethical approach to research with this methodology since the
ethical considerations at play such as identity of the self, interpersonal interactions, power
dynamics and public vulnerability are all on display and reported out in order to support
trustworthiness (Cuenca, 2020). However, the effort to report on one’s practice in such a

57

way that others can learn (Pinnegar & Murphy, 2019) simultaneously opens one up to scrutiny.
When I implemented student-led IEPs in my practice for the first time, there was bound to be
some mistakes and adjustments I had to make. My hope was that other teachers, in exploring my
research, would be able to learn from my mistakes to avoid making the same. However, there is
always the possibility of criticism towards my approach to a new practice, which is a risk I took
in sharing my research. Thus, as a researcher, I arrived at a vulnerable position between fidelity
to my research and protection of the self; I had to consider how much I shared and whether that
sharing would put me at undue risk in front of a critical audience who may not comprehend my
context or my choices in implementing student-led IEPs.
In order to be ethical in self-study, therefore, I needed to strike a balance between
transparency and the vulnerability that comes with it against the need for self-protection and
boundaries. Although self-study researchers “position themselves in their inquiries” (Craig,
2019, p. 31), there is a certain amount of choice and selection when it comes to disclosure about
self and circumstances. I was as transparent as I could be through my reflexive journal and field
notes but remained cognizant of the potential risks outlined above. Just like the self-study
methodology itself is responsive through continual monitoring and adaptation, my boundaries in
disclosure needed to be similarly responsive as I moved through the research process and
monitored my physical, emotional, and professional wellbeing.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has provided an overview of how I approached my research process. I
established self-study as the methodological framework for my research and illustrated the
various ways in which this methodology responded to my worldview and worked for my
investigation into how I implemented student-led IEPs in my practice as a Learning Services

58

Teacher in BC. Reflexive journaling and fieldnotes were introduced as my methods and
connected back to self-study methodology. I provided a detailed explanation of the steps I took
in using each method, complete with scoped prompts to maintain focus on my research
question and sub-questions throughout the data collection process. Reflexive thematic
analysis was used as the data analysis approach for my research, with a focus on the
rigorous yet flexible aspects of this approach highlighted as a good fit for self-study
methodology and my teaching context. In order to establish trustworthiness and validity
for my study, the need for transparency was emphasized. However, I explained that
transparency had to be balanced with ethical considerations that took into account
reflecting only on my own practice to protect the identities of people I interacted with in
this study and the vulnerable position I put myself in as the researcher using self-study
methodology. Overall, I demonstrated that congruence existed between my methodology,
methods, data analysis approach and my practice as a Learning Services Teacher.
Therefore, I moved forward with a cohesive design for my research as I sought to
respond to my research question.

59

Chapter Four
In this chapter I will outline the details of my study and explain how I collected data for
my data sets. I will describe my coding process and the steps I took as I analyzed the data from
my field notes and reflexive journal. I will provide detailed analysis of each of the themes that I
developed through the data analysis process. Braun and Clarke (2006) explained that embedding
data extracts within the narrative of analysis allows the researcher to tell a story about the data
that makes an argument in relation to the research question. Therefore, I will weave analytic
narrative (Braun & Clarke, 2006) with data extracts to tell the story of each of my themes.
Lastly, limitations of my research will be acknowledged and described.
Details about the study
To answer my research question, I began by reviewing student-led IEP protocols that had
been established by other educators. I used field notes as my method of data collection at this
stage. Over the course of the month of August 2024, I reviewed three student-led IEP protocols
and kept field notes about what I learned regarding student-led IEP protocols so that I could
establish my own student-led IEP protocol to meet the needs of my teaching practice and my
students. After reviewing three different student-led IEP protocols, I used the information I had
gathered to develop my own student-led IEP protocol.
Because this was my first time implementing student-led IEPs, I decided to start with a
small group of students so that I could record detailed observations and make shifts or changes as
needed. Self-study as my research methodology meant engaging with a change to my practice
while simultaneously investigating that change (LaBoskey, 2004), which gave me the
opportunity to improve my practice by applying what I learned right away. McGahee et al.
(2001) emphasized starting student-led IEPs with students who were likely to be successful with

60

the process. Therefore, I considered which of the students on my caseload would embrace a
student-led IEP process. Ultimately, I chose five students to engage with student-led IEPs.
In the previous school year (2023-24), I had consulted with the administration at my
school and at the school district level to introduce the concept of student-led IEPs and my
interest in implementing student-led IEPs. In early September 2024, I checked in with the
administration again and was given approval to move forward with student-led IEPs in my
practice. I designed a poster as a communication tool to illustrate the differences between
student-led IEPs and other IEPs. I used the poster to communicate with parents and gain their
permission to implement a student-led IEP process with their child. I began by communicating
with the parents of the students to gain their consent and then confirmed with the student that
they were interested in engaging with a student-led IEP process. Of the five students, one family
declined engagement with a student-led IEP process out of concern that the student would be
nervous about presenting their IEP.
In mid-September, I began implementing student-led IEPs with the four students who had
agreed to be part of the process. My student-led IEP protocol called for the student-led IEP
process to be spread out over three sessions: (1) understanding and developing the IEP, (2)
preparing for the IEP meeting, (3) the student-led IEP meeting. Each session took approximately
one hour, which meant that the student-led IEP process for one student took three hours in total.
This was two more hours than other IEPs, which usually took one hour. By the end of October, I
had completed four student-led IEPs and was ready to begin data analysis.
Data sets
My two methods of data collection in this study were field notes and a reflexive journal. I
used field notes first to collect data on established student-led IEP protocols. I continued to use

61

field notes throughout the process leading up to and including the implementation of student-led
IEPs to collect data. Field notes allowed me to capture details in the process that were not cued
by the reflexive journal prompts or were recalled before or after reflexive journal writing. I used
the reflexive journal to collect data on implementing student-led IEPs. At the end of each
student-led IEP session, I journaled to capture my reactions to the process, what I had learned,
and what I thought might be important to adjust or change about the process. I followed journal
prompts, outlined in Chapter Three, to focus my writing and prompt the exploration of various
aspects of implementing student-led IEPs so that I could capture a depth and breadth of data for
analysis. My data was collected over the course of three months between August and October
2024.
Coding Process
I began the data analysis stage of my research by engaging in the first step outlined by
Braun and Clarke (2006) in their reflexive thematic analysis approach to data analysis;
familiarization. In Chapter Three, I explained that I would apply reflexive thematic analysis to
the data produced through my field notes and reflexive journal separately for the first two steps
and then bring the data all together so that I could recognize differences and similarities in the
data collected through the two methods. Therefore, at the familiarization stage, I read through the
data collected in my reflexive journal first and then read through my field notes, making notes to
highlight any interesting observations. I started to notice some repeated observations and I kept
notes on my coding and data analysis process. The first step of data analysis provided me with an
important opportunity to accustom myself with the data I had collected across all data sources.
According to Braun and Clarke (2006), my second step in data analysis was to generate
initial codes. For this step, I used NVivo (Lumivero, 2023), a qualitative data analysis software

62

intended to help organize and analyze qualitative data. I used NVivo to highlight and code
throughout my datasets, to keep track of all my codes, to make notes on the meaning of codes,
and eventually to create a codebook. First, I coded the data collected through my reflexive
journal. After coding my reflexive journal, I went back to my familiarization notes and added the
notes as annotations in NVivo. Next, I coded the data collected through my field notes. Then I
returned to my familiarization notes and added the notes as annotations in NVivo. Adding the
familiarization notes as annotations in NVivo allowed me to keep each level of analysis that I
engaged with collected in one place. Reviewing the notes from the familiarization step caused
me to reconsider the word choice of some codes and I made some adjustments. For example, I
noticed that items coded as “Student understanding of IEP” included observations of students
understanding their learning needs as well as their IEP document. Therefore, I changed the code
“Student understanding of IEP” to “Student understanding of learning needs and IEP”. Once the
entire dataset was coded, my codebook, containing 20 different codes, was created. The second
step of data analysis provided me with the opportunity to assign codes to the data I had collected
through my field notes and reflexive journal and to begin to observe patterns of meaning
throughout my data.
The third step of data analysis by Braun and Clarke (2006) that I followed was generating
themes. At this point in the data analysis process, I grouped codes together into categories based
on shared meaning. I noticed that the codes “Scaffolding”, “Differentiation and adaptation”,
“Context” and “Developing rapport and trust” all shared a common thread in terms of the work I
was doing to support students to engage with student-led IEPs, so I placed these codes together
in one theme. I placed the codes “Habit of teacher as authority”, “Student understanding of
learning needs and IEP”, “Understanding of student”, “Autonomy”, and “Shift in perspective”

63

together in a second theme because I recognized that they all spoke to an important shift that was
happening in the IEP process through the implementation of student-led IEPs. I chose to let the
code “Preparation for student-led IEPs” stand as its own third theme to represent my work as a
Learning Services Teacher (LST) in preparing to implement student-led IEPs. I connected the
codes “Development of practice” and “Letting go” in a fourth theme that centered around my
development as an LST resulting from implementing student-led IEPs in my practice. The codes
“Time as resource” and “Efficiency” shared the common thread of time, so I place them together
as a fifth theme. I saw that the codes “Student building skills”, “Self-expression”, “Selfadvocacy” and “Self-determination” all shared student skill development in common so I placed
them together in my sixth and final theme. The third step of data analysis provided me with the
opportunity to evaluate shared meaning between the codes I had generated and to group these
codes into six themes.
According to Braun and Clarke (2006), the fourth step of data analysis was to review the
potential themes. I started my review of each theme by collating the data for the codes grouped
within each theme. Although Braun and Clarke (2006) suggested gathering the collated data as
part of step five, I wanted to do it at stage four to get a sense of whether or not my codes fit the
themes I had developed for them by reviewing the collated data. I checked that there was internal
consistency between the theme and the data grouped within that theme. In reviewing the collated
data, I recognized that the codes “Time”, “Efficiency”, and “Preparation for student-led IEPs”
were connected through the resources that I had to consider or create in preparing to implement
student-led IEPs. Therefore, I merged them together in one theme, which reduced the total
number of themes in my analysis to five. At the conclusion of step four, I was satisfied that each
theme contributed to the overall narrative of the data, like Braun and Clarke (2006) suggested.

64

The fourth step of data analysis gave me the opportunity to review the themes I had developed
and ensure that there was internal consistency within each theme. Following the approach to data
analysis established by Braun and Clarke (2006) and reviewing the themes at step four gave me a
better sense of the message my data was conveying about student-led IEPs in response to my
research question.
The fifth step of data analysis involved defining and naming the themes. Braun and
Clarke (2006) emphasized that each theme should be distinct, meaning that each theme should
give an account of the data that is unique from the other themes. Therefore, I was thoughtful in
generating a name for each theme to indicate the individual story that each told about the data.
Ensuring that each theme was distinct allowed me to take note of, and emphasize, the complexity
of my data in its response to my research question. I noticed that my data revealed a range of
experiences regarding the implementation of student-led IEPs in my practice and how studentled IEPs affected my practice as an LST as well as the students, which was reflected in the theme
names. At this point in the data analysis process, I developed five themes: “Shifting the IEP
process from summative to formative”, “Learning Services Teacher growth through student-led
IEP implementation”, “Resource impacts of student-led IEPs”, “Supporting students to engage
with student-led IEPs”, and “Skill development through student-led IEPs”, aligning codes into
five unique stories about student-led IEPs.
According to Braun and Clarke (2006), the sixth step of data analysis was to produce the
report. Engaging with step six of reflexive thematic analysis, I reviewed the collated data for the
codes within each theme again. Then, I created a summary for each theme that captured the
essence of what I had learned through the analysis of the data for that theme. In step six, I also
pulled together data extracts from each code to help illustrate the argument being made by each

65

theme for the interpretation of the data. The sixth step of data analysis gave me the opportunity
to bring together my analysis with extracts of the data to produce a report of the data that was
collected in response to my research question.
Working as an LST for the past six years and developing IEPs as a regular part of my job
means that I had an intimate understanding of IEPs going into my research process. LaBoskey
(2004), in discussing the importance of self-study, stated that “[b]elieving that teacher
knowledge develops through a better understanding of personal experience…we assume that
critical reflection on our personal experience as teacher educators will produce knowledge of
teaching” (p. 843). Therefore, through analyzing my data, I was able to recognize the changes
that implementing student-led IEPs brought to my practice. I established themes based on my
experience as a professional developing IEPs, and in light of my data, following the steps of data
analysis established by Braun and Clarke (2006).
Braun and Clarke (2021) asserted that it is the role of the researcher to develop themes
through reflexive thematic analysis rather than to view themes as emerging from the data. As the
researcher, I have actively interpreted and established meaning from the data I collected in
response to my research question. I was centered in my work as a researcher through both
reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) and self-study (LaBoskey, 2004), with both
emphasizing the critical role the researcher has to play in shaping the execution and
understanding of the research. LaBoskey (2004) and Braun and Clarke (2019) asserted that the
researcher plays an active role in knowledge production, which is how I have approached data
analysis and generating themes to provide my own interpretation of the data.
In this section, I have described my coding process and the steps I took as I analyzed the
data from my reflexive journal and field notes. I detailed how I followed the steps of reflexive

66

thematic analysis as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006) to code my data, to develop themes, to
review and name themes, and to produce the report on my research. In the next section, I will
provide a detailed account of each of the five themes that I developed and include data extracts
to illustrate the themes.
Themes
Through my analysis of the data and the five themes I shared below, I have come to
understand that student-led IEPs can be approached as a catalyst for change in how Learning
Services Teachers (LSTs) frame and execute the IEP process. In analyzing my data and
developing themes from that data, I recognized the changes that implementing student-led IEPs
brought to my practice as an LST. Student-led IEPs provided me with an opportunity to deeply
consider the purpose and person being centered in the development of an IEP. For me, each of
the themes represents a change in how I am approaching the IEP process as a result of this
investigation, and my realizations may be helpful to other educators in how they might approach
and IEP process, student-led or otherwise, in their contexts.

67

Table 1
Themes and associated codes
Theme
(A) Shifting the IEP process
from summative to formative

(B) Learning Services Teacher
growth through student-led
IEP implementation

Abbreviated Theme
Summative to formative

Associated Codes
Shift in perspective
Habit of teacher as authority
Student understanding of
learning needs and IEP
Understanding of student
Autonomy
Learning Services Teacher Development of practice
growth
Letting go

(C) Resource impacts of
student-led IEPs

Resource impacts

(D) Supporting students to
engage with student-led IEPs

Supporting students

(E) Skill development through
student-led IEPs

Skill development

Preparation for student-led IEPs
Time as resource
Efficiency
Scaffolding
Differentiation and adaptation
Context
Developing rapport and trust
Student building skills
Self-expression
Self-advocacy
Self-determination

Theme A: Shifting the IEP process from summative to formative
For me, student-led IEPs shifted the IEP process from a summative process that produced
an evaluation of a student to a formative process that was for the student and their learning.
Summative and formative were terms typically associated with assessment practices in
education, but I saw the representation of these terms applied to the IEP process as well;
summative can be seen as an “evaluation” or “assessment” (Lau, 2016, p. 511-512) of the student
while formative can be seen as “aimed at helping students’ learning" (Lau, 2016, p. 512). In the
context of IEPs, I considered summative to mean focusing on assessing the student and their
learning whereas I considered formative to mean focusing on the process and how a student was
learning. The shift from summative to formative was noteworthy because it meant that I was

68

rethinking not just the process but the purpose of IEPs. My data showed that transforming the
purpose of an IEP process required a significant shift in perspective for myself as well as parents,
and students. The shift in perspective was important because stakeholders in the IEP process had
to shift their understanding of what purpose an IEP served in order to engage with student-led
IEPs as a learning process. My observation in reviewing student-led IEP protocols before
developing my own protocol was that the student-led IEP process “is centered around student
learning and expression to a high degree, as opposed to other IEPs which can be focused on
meeting a legal requirement or on communication with parents rather than with the student”
(Fieldnotes, August, 2024).
I started the shift in perspective from my point of view as a Learning Services Teacher
(LST) but I noted that I had to reconsider my prior approach to IEPs and begin to “see the
information in an IEP from the student’s perspective” (Reflexive Journal, October 3, 2024)
knowing that “the ways in which teachers and parents might speak about a student when they are
not present…must shift when a student takes a leadership role in the development of their own
IEP” (Reflexive Journal, September 26, 2024). In reviewing my data, I understood that I had
some work to do to make IEPs and the IEP development process more accessible to students and
shift the perspective of IEPs to focus on student learning. In doing so, I noticed that developing
the IEP became a formative process for the student rather than a summative process in which
parents and LSTs talk about the student. To me, the shift in perspective on IEPs through studentled IEPs meant that I began to center student learning in the IEP process and orient my efforts in
planning for and engaging with the IEP process to meet the goal of student learning rather than
an evaluation of the student.

69

Once I started implementing a student-led IEP process, I had to encourage parents to
move away from the habit of looking to me, the LST, as the IEP authority and to shift that role of
the leader of the IEP process to the student. This was important because treating the student as
the leader in student-led IEPs continued the shift in the IEP process from summative to formative
by centering the student in the student-led IEP process and giving the student an authentic
leadership opportunity. In my case, I worked towards positioning the student as the leader in
student-led IEPs by “establishing meeting norms with the parent ahead of time [which] was
helpful in keeping attention directed towards the student during the meeting” (Reflexive Journal,
October 8, 2024) and gave the student space to step into a leadership role. The result I observed
was that, in a student-led IEP meeting, “the student has a lot more power to direct the flow of the
meeting and they are spoken to rather than spoken about” (Reflexive Journal, October 8, 2024),
showing how a formative IEP process offered benefit to the student. I did note that it was
“difficult to fully transfer leadership perception to the student” (Reflexive Journal, October 30,
2024) since parents had a long-standing habit of seeing me, the LST, as the authority in the
room. Moving away from that habit took conscious effort but I found it was necessary to make
space for a formative process centering student learning to develop.
In student-led IEP processes, I noticed that the student had the opportunity to develop a
deeper understanding of their own learning needs and their IEP. I considered in my reflexive
journal that “[t]his may even be the first time that someone has spoken to the student about their
disability so explicitly” (October 1, 2024), as illustrative of how the formative nature of studentled IEPs offered a unique and important learning opportunity to the individual. I described how
implementing student-led IEPs meant that a student “had the opportunity to be deeply and
actively involved in every aspect of the IEP, which meant that not only did she have the

70

opportunity to express her learning needs, but she also understood every part of what she was
asking for and gained a deeper understanding of her IEP overall” (Reflexive Journal, October 4,
2024). I saw this as noteworthy because witnessing students demonstrate understanding of their
IEP showed me that implementation of student-led IEPs in my practice was having an important
impact. Students developing knowledge of their IEP and making connections to their learning
needs became an important part of the student-led IEP process and student leadership was
integral in shifting IEPs from summative to formative.
Having gained deeper understanding of their IEP, students who engaged in the studentled IEP process with me were asked to “participate in the development of their IEP, the leading
of their IEP meeting, and the ongoing monitoring of their IEP goals [which gave them] the
opportunity to take much more ownership in their IEP and their education” (Field Notes, August,
2024). I noticed that student ownership in the IEP process was important because it supported the
development of autonomy. In the context of my research, I considered autonomy to mean
making choices for oneself or exercising a measure of control in a situation. Throughout the
process, students exercised autonomy through student-led IEPs in tangible ways. I observed
students describing their learning needs in the IEP outline, highlighting their speaking points to
create a memory prompt for the IEP meeting, and ultimately leading their own IEP meeting as
expressions of autonomy. On October 24, 2024, I noted that “the student can make important
choices while developing their IEP such as what information to include about themselves, what
supports to ask for, and how to present the IEP to their parents” (Reflexive Journal, October 24,
2024).
I saw many aspects of the student-led IEP process that could support students to exercise
autonomy. Various opportunities for student autonomy represented an important difference

71

between student-led IEPs and other IEPs to me, connecting back to my research question. I
further noted on October 18, 2024, that “if students make mistakes in their decision-making, they
have the opportunity to do so in a safe environment where they can correct course later if need
be” (Reflexive Journal, October 18, 2024) which signaled to me that the autonomy offered by
student-led IEPs made space for students to engage in meaningful learning through the IEP
development process. I saw autonomy as a key component in shifting the IEP process from a
summative one to a formative one.
Observing student autonomy and learning through the student-led IEP process appeared
to set the stage for the LST and parents to understand the student, their progress, and their
learning needs better. Understanding the student meant connecting the individual’s strengths,
areas of difficulty, learning needs, and goals to who they are as a student. Understanding the
student seemed to allow me, as the LST, and parents to have realistic expectations for the student
and their learning plan. On October 18, 2024, I observed that engaging with a student-led IEP
process was a “good opportunity for a student to demonstrate the progression of their skills…in
an authentic environment that allows the parent to understand the level at which their child is
currently performing” (Reflexive Journal, October 18, 2024). I noted an important contrast
between student-led IEPs and other IEPs, in connection with my research question, insofar as
student-led IEPs enacted student skills rather than just talking about them. I perceived that seeing
a student engage with their IEP in a way that gave them autonomy and space to learn facilitated a
“better understanding of what the student knows about their own learning and learning needs”
(Reflexive Journal, October 30, 2024), which in turn might allow for adjustments to be made to
support the student’s learning and development in areas of need. The shift towards a formative

72

process through student-led IEPs facilitated learning taking place for and about students, which
included the opportunity for the parent and I to gain a better understanding of the student.
Articulating the theme Shifting the IEP process from summative to formative was an
exciting development for me in my data analysis process. The theme was interesting to me
because it pointed to a very clear distinction between student-led IEPs and other IEPs; centering
the student in the process. Before I implemented student-led IEPs in my practice, I anticipated
some shift in perspective on the IEP process. However, in analyzing my data and bringing
together the codes, framing student-led IEPs as a formative process crystalized for me. To me,
this theme demonstrated that implementing student-led IEPs had given me the opportunity to
make an important shift in how I approach the IEP process in general in my practice. My data
addressed my research question regarding what my process has been for implementing studentled IEPs by highlighting the shift in my framing of student-led IEPs as formative, which in turn
made a difference in how I proceeded with student-led IEPs in my practice.
Theme B: Learning Services Teacher growth through student-led IEP implementation
For me, student-led IEPs presented an opportunity for growth as a Learning Services
Teacher (LST). Implementing student-led IEPs encouraged me to think about the ways I can
develop my practice to better match my pragmatic worldview and the value I hold towards
supporting students to achieve success in ways that makes sense for them. As I began my
research, I realized that “I need to be even more thoughtful and purposeful in my preparation for
IEP development and student engagement with their IEP in order to facilitate a student-led
process” (Field Notes, August, 2024); student-led IEPs had led me to center students in the IEP
process and I needed to develop my practice further in order to do so effectively. LaBoskey
(2004) asserted that self-study research is often motivated by recognizing areas of practice in

73

need of improvement, and this was true for me. My reflection on preparing to implement
student-led IEPs was important because I saw that my research gave me the opportunity to grow
in my practice and build on my learning with each of the student-led IEPs I implemented. On
October 24, 2024, I noted in my reflexive journal that “[s]tudent-led IEPs continue to challenge
my beliefs about student abilities and how they will react in certain situations” (Reflexive
Journal, October 24, 2024). Student-led IEPs challenging my beliefs indicated to me that
implementing student-led IEPs was having an ongoing impact on how I saw my students and my
practice. As self-study means engaging with a practice while simultaneously investigating that
practice (LaBoksey, 2004), my research gave me the opportunity to immediately apply what I
was learning and develop my practice while engaging with the research.
As I reflected on the research, I was considering how my actions and words affected the
IEP development process and how I might make a conscious shift in my words and actions to
facilitate, rather than lead, the IEP process. I grouped the codes in my data indicating this shift as
“letting go”. I noted in my reflexive journal that “I had to very consciously take a step back from
my usual leadership role” (Reflexive Journal, October 8, 2024), writing on September 26, 2024
to “remind myself to ask questions rather than make suggestions” (Reflexive Journal, September
26, 2024), an indication of my growth as I strove to foster student autonomy. I reminded myself
of the importance to “follow through with the choices that the student makes, even when they are
not what the LST might have suggested” (Reflexive Journal, October 18, 2024) demonstrating
the conscious effort I was making to let go of my own expectations and desires in the student-led
IEP process. These examples from my reflexive journal are illustrative of my growth as an LST.
Making a change in my practice through implementing student-led IEPs required me to be

74

intentional throughout the IEP planning and implementation process, thus stimulating my own
growth as an LST.
In articulating the theme Learning Services Teacher growth through student-led IEP
implementation, I paused to consider how my research was having an immediate impact on my
practice as an LST. I recognized how my self-study methodology was giving me the opportunity
to monitor and adapt my practice (Lyons, 2010) through my research. Moreover, data collection
through my reflexive journal was aiding in my development of practice by allowing me to
deepen my awareness (Barry & O’Callaghan, 2008) regarding how my practice was changing in
response to implementing student-led IEPs. To me, this theme demonstrated that implementing
student-led IEPs was encouraging me to challenge my beliefs and approach the IEP process
differently, thus having an important impact on my practice as an LST. Recognizing my growth
as an LST through implementation of student-led IEPs was an important theme that contributed
to answering my research question. I observed that implementing student-led IEPs was providing
me with the opportunity to learn and grow in my practice much like the student-led IEP process
gave students the opportunity to learn and develop.
Theme C: Resource impacts of student-led IEPs
In my experience with the IEP process prior to my research, the only resources typically
used were the official paperwork to document a student’s IEP and time to meet with the student
and their family. However, I observed that student-led IEPs required creating resources to
support student engagement with the student-led IEP process and careful consideration of how
existing resources were impacted. I found that implementing student-led IEPs took more thought
and preparation in the planning process compared to other IEPs, including the creation of
resources specific to my context and the needs of my students. For example, I found that other

75

educators had created graphic organizers to explain student-led IEPs to students (Hawbaker,
2007) but the existing graphic organizers did not meet the needs of my teaching context.
Therefore, I decided to make my own series of graphic organizers in PowerPoint which I called
My IEP. To facilitate student-led IEPs, I had to plan ahead and use or create resources that would
engage students in learning about and then developing their IEP. At the same time, I had to make
sure that all of the necessary legal components of the IEP process were addressed, such as
describing how the student’s disability impacted their learning. In my field notes, I stated that
“[n]arrowing down all of the possible activities, instruction, and resources that could be used to
directly address the needs of the IEP process in a way that is meaningful but still efficient and
effective” (Field Notes, August 2024) was a challenge. My data illustrated that I was grappling
with the competing demands of student-led IEPs and working to sort through the resources that
would make implementation of the process possible. Noting the added effort in preparation for
student-led IEPs was important because it illustrated a contrast in my process for implementing
student-led IEPs compared to other IEPs.
Although I had considered material resources as I planned for implementing student-led
IEPs, it quickly became apparent to me that time was an important resource for both students and
Learning Services Teachers (LSTs) in the student-led IEP process as well. In my six years as an
LST, my experience was that finding the time to commit to the IEP process was already an
obstacle for some parents, students, and LSTs. In the 2024-25 school year I had approximately
38 students on my caseload which would have translated to 114 hours of work if I implemented
student-led IEPs with every student. In my field notes, I worried that “[s]tudents, parents, and
teachers may find it onerous to invest exponentially more time in a student-led IEP process
compared to the IEP process they are used to” (Field Notes, August, 2024), acknowledging that

76

time use was a challenge associated with student-led IEPs. Highlighting the significance of time
use in student-led IEPs was important because student-led IEPs took me approximately three
hours with each student compared to one hour for other IEPs. Therefore, I put effort into
carefully considering how time was used as a resource. In preparing activities to include in the
student-led IEP process, I noted that “it is important to balance engagement in the student-led
IEP process against realistic time constraints” (Field Notes, August, 2024), demonstrating
intentionality in considering both resources: activities and the time it takes to work through them.
My consideration of time constraints was significant because acknowledging time as a resource
allowed me to consider how I might use time carefully.
Making the most of the time that was available meant that I created resources for the
student-led IEP process with efficiency in mind. An example of a resource I created was the My
IEP PowerPoint slides, which helped guide the student through the student-led IEP process with
graphic organizers. The slides were also used to present a student’s IEP development to parents
during the IEP meeting itself. I designed the My IEP slides in such a way that “the work student
does in that activity can be partially or fully included in their IEP” (Field Notes, August, 2024),
which demonstrated that I created resources to be used in multiple ways as a means of
respectfully considering time. Highlighting how I aimed for efficiency demonstrates how I
responded to the resource impacts of student-led IEPs; in implementing student-led IEPs, it was
important for me to be as efficient as possible in my use of resources, including materials and
time for the IEP process. Ultimately, grappling with the use of resources and time for student-led
IEPs was a major consideration throughout my research and impacted my implementation of
student-led IEPs.

77

Articulating the theme Resource impacts of student-led IEPs helped me to clarify some
important challenges that I identified in implementing student-led IEPs. In my nine years
working as a teacher, six years of which have been in the role of LST, I have observed that how
to use resources is something I consider regularly. Therefore, I was not surprised when I
identified resource impacts as a theme in my research. I had not specifically considered time as a
resource before, but it quickly became apparent to me that students, parents, and LSTs all treated
time as something that they had limited amounts of and therefore time became a significant
resource in the context of student-led IEPs. Overall, this theme addressed my research question
by demonstrating how resource impacts shaped my process for implementing student-led IEPs.
Theme D: Supporting students to engage with student-led IEPs
In my experience with the IEP process prior to my research, I engaged in discussion with
students about their IEP and encouraged their involvement in IEP meetings but there were not
specific resources or a strategic plan for supporting student engagement with the IEP process.
My data showed that supporting students to engage in a student-led IEP process required (1)
meeting the needs of my teaching context, (2) scaffolding the process, (3) employing
differentiation and adaptation to meet various learning needs, and (4) developing rapport and
trust with students.
(1) As I reviewed student-led IEP protocols in preparation for developing my own, my
field notes remarked on the authors’ emphasis that their materials were “meant to be adapted for
the best implementation of the teacher using it” (Field Notes, August, 2024). Recognizing that
the materials could be adapted was important because my approach to implementing student-led
IEPs was shaped by my context and experiences. Situating my research in context was also
central to my constructivist epistemology and pragmatic worldview. I noted that I felt “confident

78

in making adaptations that suit the needs of my context without betraying the intention of the
authors or integrity of the practice they describe” (Field Notes, August, 2024) and was able to
move forward with making changes. I adapted various pieces of the student-led IEP protocols
that I reviewed to develop a student-led IEP process suited to the context of my practice. It was
important to me to be able to support students to engage with student-led IEPs and the first step
was considering student needs in the development of the IEP process.
(2) Scaffolding meant student-led IEPs could be approached through a series of attainable
steps. I emphasized in my field notes the need to “break down the process in a way that students
can easily follow and engage with” (Field Notes, August, 2024), and I put a lot of thought into
how I would do so. Separating student-led IEPs into steps was important because the steps made
the student-led IEP process more manageable for the students and I to move through. In the end,
I scaffolded student-led IEPs using graphic organizers, direct instruction in understanding
components of the IEP, and rehearsal to prepare students to lead their own meeting. In my
reflexive journal I observed that “[r]ehearsal of the IEP meeting allowed [the student] to notice
and make small corrections to [their] IEP” (Reflexive Journal, October 4, 2024), illustrating my
attention to scaffolding that would support student success in the student-led IEP process. I saw
scaffolding as important because breaking the IEP process down into steps supported students to
engage with student-led IEPs.
(3) Differentiation and adaptation were methods I wrote about in my field notes and
reflexive journal as I used them to support student engagement throughout the student-led IEP
process. Differentiation meant adjusting materials to meet the needs of the student (Hossain,
2012) and adaptation meant changing the approach to support student learning (Tremblay &
Belley, 2017). I reflected on the “importance of meeting [the] student where they are at” (Field

79

Notes, August, 2024), meaning that support needed to be built into the student-led IEP process to
meet the needs of students. I observed that building support into the student-led IEP process
through differentiation and adaptation meant students with various levels of ability could engage
with the development of their IEP.
Additionally, the resources I developed for student-led IEPs were able to be differentiated
or adapted to support students’ individual learning needs. For example, the PowerPoint slides I
developed (My IEP slides) could provide many of the supports that a student with a disability
would typically have available to them through their IEP, including: breaking down the process
into manageable steps, providing visual representation of concepts to support student
understanding, and giving students the option to use typing or voice-to-text technology in
crafting their responses. In my reflexive journal, I reminded myself to “see each student as an
individual and to differentiate the instruction and support I provide for them based on their own
individual needs” (Reflexive Journal, October 24, 2024). It was important for me to see each
student as an individual because each student-led IEP, while following a similar process, was
unique to the student leading the process. For me, differentiation and adaptation were important
because each student came to the student-led IEP process with different learning needs and I
needed to adjust my materials or approach to meet those needs so that I could support students to
engage with student-led IEPs.
(4) It seemed to me that, in order to make changes to meet the unique needs of each
student in a student-led IEP process, it was important that I connect with students on an
individual level and understand their needs. I reflected on the idea that “[d]eveloping rapport
with the student was important for the student-led IEP process so that they could feel more
confident in sharing vulnerable information about themselves and their learning” (Reflexive

80

Journal, September 26, 2024). I observed that developing rapport with the student was important
to supporting student engagement with student-led IEPs because building trust with the student
encouraged them to be more open in telling me about their learning needs. I remarked that
“[s]tudent-led IEPs have given me an opportunity to get to know the students that I work with
better than a regular IEP process would have allowed for” (Reflexive Journal, October 24, 2024)
and how I saw developing rapport as a really positive aspect of student-led IEPs. Because
student-led IEPs were asking students to be vulnerable in describing their disability and sharing
their learning needs, I noticed how important it was for me to develop rapport and trust so that
the student felt safe and supported engaging with the development of their IEP.
Articulating the theme Supporting students to engage with student-led IEPs allowed me
to describe aspects of my approach in supporting students to engage with student-led IEPs. In
analyzing my data, I noticed that my efforts to support students went beyond breaking down the
student-led IEP process through scaffolding. I realized that I also needed to bring myself into the
process when I developed rapport and trust with students. I employed skills from my nine years
of teaching in order to differentiate and adapt materials for various learning needs in student-led
IEPs, but I also brought a personal touch to the student-led IEP process when I worked one-onone with each student and developed rapport with that student in order to support their progress.
Coghlan and Brydon-Miller (2014) explained that constructivism frames an inextricable
relationship between the researcher and the subject they are studying. Therefore, seeing my work
in implementing student-led IEPs as connected to my own experiences and interactions with the
world fit within my constructivist epistemology. To me, this theme demonstrated how practical
skills as a Learning Services Teacher (LST) applied through scaffolding, differentiation, and
adaptation came together with personal skills in developing rapport and trust with students to

81

support students to engage with student-led IEPs. My research question was addressed by
describing how scaffolding, differentiation, adaptation, and developing rapport and trust came
together in my process for implementing student-led IEPs in my practice.
Theme E: Skill development through student-led IEPs
Before starting the student-led IEP process, I had read about student skills and IEPs and
noted in my data set that I made mention on student skills repeatedly (Field Notes, August,
2024). Where Theme A: Shifting the IEP process from summative to formative focused on the
shift that happened to reframe student-led IEPs for student learning, Theme E: Skill development
through student-led IEPs emerged as a result of the shift to student learning being the focus of
student-led IEPs. Through student-led IEPs, I noticed students had the opportunity to develop
skills that could be important for their future endeavors. I coded these as: (1) self-determination,
(2) self-expression, and (3) self-advocacy. While these three skills are often emphasized in
student IEPs as necessary for student progress and future success (Davis & Cumming, 2019), the
skills are not taught as part of the regular K-12 BC school curriculum where I am a teacher. As a
result, student-led IEPs are unique because they give students the opportunity to learn and
practice self-determination, self-expression, and self-advocacy skills.
I emphasized in my reflexive journal that “an important purpose of the student-led IEP
process is to help students build skills” (Reflexive Journal, October 18, 2024). The process of
students building skills was significant to me because the particular skills demonstrated a
tangible gain of student-led IEPs for students. I further noted that students who found the process
challenging “are also those who may have the most to gain from practicing the skills needed to
lead their own IEP development” (Reflexive Journal, October 18, 2024) because student-led
IEPs provided an authentic opportunity to utilize self-determination, self-expression, and self-

82

advocacy. I observed that student-led IEPs could be used to support students in learning and
practicing skills identified as important but not directly taught in the classroom.
Self-determination was a specific skill that I noticed students building through studentled IEPs. While autonomy meant exercising a measure of control in a situation, selfdetermination specifically meant taking action to make and implement choices that determine
direction of one’s life (McGahee et al., 2001). In my reflexive journal, I described how I oriented
questions in the student-led IEP process towards building student self-determination skills: “The
student and I do a review of their old IEP and I will ask, ‘does this goal still feel relevant to your
learning this year? Do we need a new goal? Based on your learning needs, what do you think
would be a good goal to work towards this year?’” (Field Notes, October, 2024). My questions
were specifically targeted at supporting the student to choose a direction for their IEP and their
learning, thus practicing self-determination skills. Students then presented the goals they had set
to their parents in the student-led IEP meeting, solidifying the student’s leadership in
determining the direction of their learning plan. Fostering self-determination skills through
student-led IEPs was significant to me because it contributed to centering the student and their
learning in the student-led IEP process. Focusing on student learning in student-led IEPs meant
that I had the opportunity to target certain skills such as self-determination skills.
My data also showed observations of students gaining practice in self-expression. In the
context of student-led IEPs, self-expression was a student’s ability to express personal interests
and goals (Royer, 2017). I reflected that, in the student-led IEP process, “students are put in a
position where they have to say more than they might in a regular IEP meeting because they are
the ones who are leading the conversation; if they say nothing, there is no one jumping in to fill
the silence” (Reflexive Journal, October 30, 2024). For me, putting students at the center of the

83

IEP process meant that student-led IEPs were a unique opportunity for students to express
themselves by describing how their disability affected their learning and articulating their own
needs. By centering students in leading their IEP development, I observed student-led IEPs as an
opportunity for students to build skills in self-expression.
In my data, I observed that student-led IEPs were also an opportunity for students to
practice self-advocacy skills. My reflexive journal described when “I saw [the student]
developing a stronger voice for themselves over the course of the student-led IEP process and
even over the course of the IEP meeting itself” (Reflexive Journal, October 8, 2024). My
observation of students developing a stronger voice indicated to me that they were building selfadvocacy skills through student-led IEPs. In my reflexive journal, I noted two students who
engaged with student-led IEPs "said that they would be willing to share the My IEP slides with
their teachers in order to advocate for their learning needs" (Reflexive Journal, October 8, 2024),
highlighting that students had the opportunity to immediately use the self-advocacy skills they
had practiced through student-led IEPs. For me, the development of self-advocacy skills through
student-led IEPs was important because it meant that students went beyond describing their
learning needs to building the skills to ask for those needs to be met with specific supports in the
classroom. I saw students building self-advocacy skills as another facet of skill development
facilitated through student-led IEPs.
Articulating the theme Skill development through student-led IEPs gave me the
opportunity to describe how student skill development emerged as a result of the shift to student
learning being centered in student-led IEPs. In my reflexive journal, I expressed that “[i]t was
really positive to see that growth and development” (Reflexive Journal, October 8, 2024),
demonstrating my pride in seeing the student developing their skills in self-determination, self-

84

expression, and self-advocacy. I was excited by the impact my change in practice was having
and the success I observed in my students as they developed important skills through engaging
with a student-led IEP process. To me, this theme demonstrated that student-led IEPs could be an
important process for students to practice life-long skills.
Summary of themes
My analysis of my data and the five themes that I developed allowed me to observe how
implementing student-led IEPs brought change to my practice as a Learning Services Teacher
(LST). I noticed, through my data, how student-led IEPs shifted the IEP process from summative
to formative, which gave me the opportunity to consider the purpose and person being centered
in the development of the IEP. I observed my growth as an LST, making a conscious effort to
develop my practice and apply what I was learning through my research as I implemented
student-led IEPs. I had to consider the resource impacts of student-led IEPs as well as how to
support students to engage with a student-led IEP process. Finally, I observed how student-led
IEPs affected student skill development, which emerged as a result of the shift to centering
student learning in the IEP process. Reviewing the five distinct and informative themes that I
developed, I came to understand that student-led IEPs can be approached as a catalyst for change
in how LSTs frame and execute the IEP process. For me, each theme represented a change in
how I approached IEPs. In describing themes and detailing their significance, I have: provided a
detailed account of each of the five themes that I developed, included data extracts to illustrate
the themes, and discussed how each theme contributed to my research. In the next section, I will
articulate the limitations of my research.

85

Limitations
My research focused on investigating a change in my practice through the
implementation of student-led IEPs. I chose to approach my research through self-study as my
methodology, which allowed me to center my own practice as the problem for exploration
(LaBoskey, 2004). There were some limitations that emerged in the context of self-study. A
limitation is not a weakness, but rather acknowledges the uniqueness of this work to who I am as
a person and the nuances of my particular teaching assignment. My research: 1) focused on me
as the unit of analysis, 2) did not include the perspectives of students or parents, and 3) was
specific to my context. I will describe each of these limitations and how they affected my
research.
The first limitation of my research was that using a self-study methodology meant I was
the unit of analysis for the study. There are many approaches to any study and I chose to focus
on myself in the context of my practice. This does not mean there is a right or wrong way to
focus in an investigation, but it is important to highlight the other considerations that emerge out
of the choice in focus. Because I was the unit of analysis for the study, student-led IEPs were
explored from my perspective exclusively and my observations were collected as data through
my reflexive journal and field notes. It was important to note that I was the unit of analysis
because this presented a limitation in that I did not have access to other perspectives based on the
methodology that I chose. However, LaBoskey (2004) argued that engaging in self-analysis was
necessary to understand and improve one’s practice as a teacher. So, while self-study limited the
unit of analysis for the study to me and my perspective, it allowed me to explore my practice
deeply and provide a depth of analysis in noting the changes that student-led IEPs brought to my

86

practice as a Learning Services Teacher (LST) in British Columbia. I mention this as a
limitation, and not a weakness to the study.
The second limitation of my research directly results from the prior limitation in that a
self-focused investigation meant I did not have access to the perspectives of others. Therefore,
my research does not include data on how parents or students viewed student-led IEPs. It was
important to note this limitation in my research design because parents and students are
significant stakeholders in the IEP process. I would encourage further research in the area of
student-led IEPs to collect feedback from parents and students to investigate their perspectives
on student-led IEPs. For me, focusing my research and data collection on myself as the unit of
analysis meant that I was able to respond to my research question.
The third limitation of my research was that my investigation of student-led IEP
implementation was specific to my context. In focusing on my practice specifically, I explored
the possibilities of teaching within my own context, one teacher in one school in one School
District in BC. So, my work may not be generalizable beyond my context. LaBoskey (2004)
argued that self-study research on teacher knowledge and learning must be grounded in context
in order to be true to the teacher’s practice and surrounding circumstances. At the same time, my
findings may not be matched under different circumstances, such as different policies for IEP
development, different support from school administration, or different perspectives on teaching
practice. It was valuable for me to focus on my own context because it allowed me to be
improvement-aimed and responsive in research, both of which adhere to the principles of selfstudy as described by LaBoskey (2004). It was important to acknowledge that focus on my own
context was a limitation of my research in that my results may not be universal; my process and
experience of implementing student-led IEPs may not fit perfectly within the contexts of other

87

LSTs. Moreover, Reflexive Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) also invites the
researcher’s role and perspective in making meaning, so my analysis of the data resulting from
my investigation was unique to me. Nevertheless, in describing my process for implementing
student-led IEPs, my investigation responded to my research question and may be helpful to
other educators in how they might approach a student-led IEP process in their contexts.
In this section, I have described three limitations of my research: 1) using a self-study
methodology meant I was the unit of analysis for the study, 2) I did not include the perspectives
of students or parents, other stakeholders in the IEP process, in my study, and 3) my
investigation of student-led IEP implementation was specific to my context. My research
adhered to the principles of self-study in being self-focused, improvement-aimed, responsive,
and grounded in context (LaBoskey, 2004). For me, self-study allowed for deep analysis of my
process for implementing student-led IEPs in my practice and permitted me to respond to my
research question. My analysis of my data and limitations of my research may be helpful to other
educators who approach student-led IEP processes in their contexts.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, I provided details about my findings, illustrating how I moved through the
research process and what resulted. I described how I collected data through my field notes and a
reflexive journal. A detailed account was provided of the coding process and steps of Reflexive
Thematic Analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) that I took to analyze my data. I analyzed each of
the five themes that were developed through the data analysis process: (1) Shifting the IEP
process from summative to formative, which described an important shift that was happening in
the IEP process through the implementation of student-led IEPs. (2) Learning Services Teacher
growth through student-led IEP implementation, which described my development as Learning

88

Services Teacher (LST) resulting from implementing student-led IEPs in my practice. (3)
Resource impacts of student-led IEPs, which described the resources that I had to consider or
create in preparing to implement student-led IEPs. (4) Supporting students to engage with
student-led IEPs, which described the work I was doing to support students to engage with
student-led IEPs. (5) Skill development through student-led IEPs, which described student skill
development resulting from engaging with a student-led IEP process. Data extracts were
integrated within the story of each theme to give a sense of the breadth and depth of my data that
contributed to the development of the theme. I explained that analysis of my themes allowed me
to understand student-led IEPs as a catalyst for change in my practice and responded to my
research question. Limitations of my research in the context of self-study as my methodology
were acknowledged and described.
In Chapter 5, I will bring together the findings from my Chapter Two literature review
and the themes I identified in Chapter Four in response to my research question and subquestions. I will articulate the relationship between each sub-question, my literature review, and
the themes I developed in Chapter 4. I will discuss how the themes address the sub-questions.
Then I will respond to my primary research question and discuss my process for implementing
student-led IEPs in my practice as a Learning Services Teacher (LST).

89

Chapter Five
In my research, I sought to answer the question: What has been my process for
implementing student-led IEPs in my practice as a Learning Services Teacher in British
Columbia? From my primary research question, five sub-questions emerged: (1) How have I
come to distinguish student-led IEPs from other IEPs? (2) What have I observed as benefits of
student-led IEPs? (3) What have I observed as challenges of student-led IEPs? (4) How have
student-led IEPs affected my work as a Learning Services Teacher (LST)? (5) How have studentled IEPs affected student success? To respond to my research question and sub-questions, I
conducted a literature review to gain a sense of what others had learned about student-led IEPs
and to situate my investigation in context with previous research on IEPs. I then engaged in the
research process myself, using self-study (LaBoskey, 2004) as my methodology as it allowed me
to focus on my own process with engaging in student-led IEPs. Data was collected through a
reflexive journal and fieldnotes, and I analyzed my data through reflexive thematic analysis
(Braun and Clarke, 2006). I wove analytic narrative (Braun & Clarke, 2006) with data extracts to
tell the story of each of my themes.
In this chapter, I will bring together the findings from my Chapter Two literature review
and the themes I identified in Chapter Four in response to my research question and subquestions. I will articulate the relationship between each sub-question, my literature review, and
the corresponding themes and discuss how the themes address the sub-questions. I will respond
to my primary research question and discuss my process for implementing student-led IEPs in
my practice as a Learning Services Teacher (LST).

90

Table 2
Connections between research sub-questions and themes
Research sub-question
1. How have I come to
distinguish student-led IEPs from
other IEPs?

Corresponding themes
(A) Summative to formative
(C) Resource impacts
(E) Skill development

2. What have I observed as
benefits of student-led IEPs?

(A) Summative to formative
(D) Supporting students
(B) Learning Services Teacher growth

3. What have I observed as
challenges of student-led IEPs?

(C) Resource impacts
(B) Learning Services Teacher growth
(A) Summative to formative

4. How have student-led IEPs
affected my work as an LST?

(A) Summative to formative
(D) Supporting students
(B) Learning Services Teacher growth

5. How have student-led IEPs
affected student success?

(D) Supporting students
(E) Skill development

Sub-Question 1: How have I come to distinguish student-led IEPs from other IEPs?
Table 2.1
Research sub-question
1. How have I come to distinguish student-led
IEPs from other IEPs?

Corresponding themes
(A) Summative to formative
(C) Resource impacts
(E) Skill development

In consideration of the sub-question How have I come to distinguish student-led IEPs
from other IEPs, I reflected on three themes that emerged from my data analysis: (A) Shifting
the IEP process from summative to formative, (C) Resource impacts of student-led IEPs, and (E)
Skill development through student-led IEPs. I will discuss each and connect to my literature

91

review findings, my own learning through the research, future impacts on my work as a Learning
Services Teacher (LST), and potential considerations for others engaged in IEPs.
(A) Summative to formative: In analyzing my data, I came to understand that studentled IEPs shifted the IEP process from a summative process that produced an evaluation of a
student to a formative process that was for the student and their learning. Lau (2016) articulated
that summative can be seen as an “evaluation” (p. 511) or “assessment” (p. 512) of the student
while formative can be seen as “aimed at helping students’ learning" (p. 512). In the context of
IEPs, summative meant focusing on assessing the student and their learning whereas formative
meant focusing on the process and how a student was learning. Thus, for me, student-led IEPs
were distinguished from other IEPs due to the reorientation of the IEP process to center around
the student and their learning through student-led IEPs. Shifting my understanding of IEPs was
significant because the shift meant re-thinking not only the process, but the purpose of IEPs. I
was encouraged to change how I planned for and executed IEP meetings by prioritizing student
learning in each step of the IEP process. Centering the student in their own IEP process is
something I will continue to emphasize in my practice, through student-led or other IEPs.
Seeing student-led IEPs as a formative process did not appear in my literature review in
Chapter Two, nor did I find the notion of formative and summative when I went back to reexamine the literature after developing the theme. The research I reviewed spoke to the student
learning that takes place in a student-led IEP process, but did not label the shift that takes place
in student-led IEPs as formative. I discerned a difference, not so much in language, but in
framing between the literature I reviewed and my own investigation; my literature review
indicated that implementing student-led IEPs would result in a different process, whereas my
data and the theme I developed highlighted that student-led IEPs provided a different purpose, or

92

framing, of the IEP process for me. It was an important distinction, and one that addressed how I
came to distinguish student-led IEPs from other IEPs. I will continue to seek opportunities for
centering the student and their learning in student-IEPs, which can be as simple as asking the
student questions and soliciting their input on their IEP. Framing the student-led IEP process as
formative may help other educators to distinguish student-led IEPs from other IEPs and orient
their approach to the student-led IEP process to be centered on students and their learning.
(C) Resource impacts: My data indicating resource impacts of student-led IEPs
illustrated another distinguishing characteristic of student-led IEPs; in student-led IEPs,
resources were created or adapted specifically to support students in learning about and
developing their own IEP, which is different from other IEPs which do not use resources to
support student engagement with the IEP process. Hawbaker (2007) argued that “you will have
to make creative adaptations” (p. 4) to facilitate student participation in student-led IEPs, which
my data demonstrated agreement with. Highlighting the adaptations and resources necessary to
support student engagement as a distinguishing factor of student-led IEPs may help other
educators to better understand the level of preparation and resources necessary to implement
student-led IEPs compared to other IEPs. It will allow other educators to consider what resources
they might need to successfully implement student-led IEPs and to seek or create those resources
before moving forward with student-led IEPs. For me, my data distinguishing student-led IEPs
based on resource impacts emphasized the need to create resources to support student
engagement with student-led IEPs. Having created resources, such as a PowerPoint presentation
that broke down the student-led IEP process into manageable chunks, I will be able to use them
in future student-led IEPs.

93

(E) Skill development: My data showed that opportunities for student skill development
distinguished student-led IEPs from other IEPs. Even before implementing student-led IEPs in
my practice, skill development was something I expected to see in my data. In the literature I
reviewed, Konrad (2008) emphasized that students leading their IEP meeting "gives them
excellent practice with self-determination skills [and] self-advocacy" (p. 238), while Howard et
al. (2021) argued that "many of the skills learned to support participation throughout the IEP
process can be generalized to other opportunities" (p. 291), highlighting skill development as a
distinguishing characteristic between student-led IEPs and other IEPs.
However, it was interesting that my data from my research further illustrated how
student-led IEPs put students in a scenario where they had to employ self-expression, selfdetermination, and self-advocacy skills in order to move the IEP process forward; since students
were the ones leading the IEP process, if they said nothing, the student-led IEP would come to a
halt. Danneker and Bottge (2009) highlighted that through student-led IEPs, "students had the
opportunity to use self-determination skills in an authentic setting (p. 228). The significance I
noted was that, where other IEPs craft goals around skills like self-determination and selfadvocacy, student-led IEPs provided the instruction and opportunity needed for students to
actively practice those skills. For example, when I worked with students in a student-led IEP
process to articulate their learning goals for the school year. Furthermore, I realized that studentled IEPs could be used as an intervention, or specific action taken by LSTs or classroom teachers
to target improvement in an area of difficulty for a student. Other IEPs only outlined
interventions but were not designed as specific action to target improvement themselves. My
data implied that myself and other educators wanting to support student skill development might
consider student-led IEPs as an avenue to do so.

94

Overall, my data indicated that student-led IEPs were distinguished from other IEPs
through framing student-led IEPs as a formative process, orientating resources towards
supporting student participation in the student-led IEP process, and giving students the
opportunity to develop skills through student-led IEPs. Understanding differences between
student-led IEPs and other IEPs as a formative process provided me with the opportunity for
reorienting the purpose of IEPs to center around student learning, to seek or create resources that
will support student learning through student-led IEPs, and to implement student-led IEPs as an
intervention to support students in learning skills.

Sub-Question 2: What have I observed as benefits of student-led IEPs?
Table 2.2
Research sub-question
2. What have I observed as benefits of
student-led IEPs?

Corresponding themes
(A) Summative to formative
(D) Supporting students
(B) Learning Services Teacher growth

In consideration of the sub-question What have I observed as benefits of student-led IEPs,
I reflected on three themes that emerged from my data analysis: (A) Shifting the IEP process
from summative to formative, (D) Supporting students to engage with student-led IEPs, and (B)
Learning Services Teacher (LST) growth through student-led IEPs. I will discuss each and
connect to my literature review findings, my own learning through the research, future impacts
on my work as a Learning Services Teacher (LST), and potential considerations for others
engaged in IEPs.
(A) Summative to formative: My data indicated benefits for students, parents, and
teachers when student-led IEPs shifted the IEP process from summative to formative. Framing

95

student-led IEPs as a formative process meant focusing on student learning as the goal of IEP
development rather than evaluation of the student. In the literature I reviewed, Davis and
Cumming (2019) argued that the "[s]tudent-led IEP is an effective way of helping students with
[disabilities] understand their disabilities and self-advocate for needed supports and services in
school and beyond" (p. 92). Correspondingly, my data showed centering student learning as the
primary objective of student-led IEPs and I framed the IEP process as formative as a result.
Cavendish et al. (2017) noted that students could be "supported as...active agents in determining
their own needs" (p. 229) through student-led IEPs. My data similarly demonstrated that
practicing decision-making and autonomy was an important part of a formative process for
students in student-led IEPs. The significance I observed was that students benefited from
student-led IEPs when centering student learning provided opportunities to develop deeper
understanding and advocacy of students’ learning needs. Opportunities for student learning is
something I will monitor moving forward with student-led IEPs.
My data demonstrated benefits for parents and teachers were achieved by centering
student-learning in the IEP process through student-led IEPs as well. Student-led IEPs benefited
parents and teachers when they had the opportunity to understand the student better through a
more collaborative and interactive meeting facilitated through framing student-led IEPs as a
formative process. Royer (2017) noted that "increased student talk time meant decreased special
education teacher...talk time" (p. 246) in student-led IEP meetings, meaning that parents and
teachers had more opportunity to hear from the student. Hawbaker (2007) further argued that, for
student-led IEPs, "[t]he meetings and the resulting IEP were more of a team effort rather than a
teacher directed meeting" (p. 2). Therefore, student-led IEPs provided parents and teachers with
the opportunity to hear from the student and to understand the student’s needs from the student’s

96

point of view. Other educators might look to student-led IEPs as a process that benefits students
in terms of learning about their IEP and that benefits parents and teachers in terms of learning
about the student. I will continue to support both students and parents to understand a student’s
IEP and their learning needs by framing the IEP process as formative.
(D) Supporting students: My data showed that students benefitted when their learning
needs were met to support their engagement with a student-led IEP process. Martin et al. (2006)
stated that knowing "students can participate more fully in their IEP meetings [meant] steps
should be taken to increase this participation" (p. 315). I noted that it was important to
understand student learning needs and to build in instruction and support to facilitate meaningful
participation in the student-led IEP process. Howard et al. (2021) suggested employing strategies
"to support students leading conversations and contributing information" (p. 294) in student-led
IEPs. My data showed that supporting students to engage with student-led IEPs meant
implementing strategies such as scaffolding, differentiation, and adaptation aimed at meeting
students’ learning needs. For example, in student-led IEPs I gave students the option of typing
their IEP goals, which met the needs of students who struggled to write due to difficulty with
spelling or fine motor function. A simple adaptation like typing supported students to express
their thoughts in written form and engage with the student-led IEP process. Supporting student
engagement was important in implementing student-led IEPs because each student came to the
IEP process with distinct needs and I had to adjust my approach slightly to help each student.
From my investigation, other educators may note the importance of supporting student
engagement in order to gain benefits from student-led IEPs. In my practice, I will continue to use
scaffolding, differentiation, and adaptation to support student engagement with developing their
IEP so that they can reap the benefits of student-led IEPs.

97

(B) Learning Services Teacher growth: My data indicating Learning Services Teacher
(LST) growth through student-led IEP implementation showed how student-led IEPs influenced
the development of my practice. In the literature I reviewed, Hawbaker (2007) articulated that
making adaptations "is what we do best in special education" (p. 4) demonstrating that LSTs
constantly changed and evolved in their practice in order to meet the learning needs of their
students. My data highlighted that I had to be thoughtful and purposeful in implementing
student-led IEPs, especially with regard to making creative adaptations, to meet the needs of my
students, and my practice. The significance I noted was how effort and intentionality in
implementing student-led IEPs stimulated my growth as an LST and therefore benefitted my
practice. Recognizing growth as a benefit of student-led IEPs may encourage other educators to
see implementing student-led IEPs as an opportunity for not only change in their practice, but
development as educators. Recognizing the potential benefit for further growth as an LST
through implementing student-led IEPs will encourage me to continue doing so.
Overall, my data indicated that benefits of student-led IEPs existed for students when the
IEP process was designed to support student engagement and meet students’ learning needs.
Students also benefited when they had opportunities to practice decision-making and autonomy
in student-led IEPs. Parents and teachers benefited from student-led IEPs when they had the
opportunity to understand the student better. As an LST, I benefited from student-led IEPs when
I was able to grow and develop in my practice. Recognizing the benefits of student-led IEPs
throughout my data provided the opportunity for considering how student-led IEPs could be a
positive change for stakeholders, including students, parents, and teachers. Other educators may
see the benefits of student-led IEPs indicated by my data as reasons to move forward with
implementing a student-led IEP process in their contexts.

98

Sub-Question 3: What have I observed as challenges of student-led IEPs?
Table 2.3
Research sub-question
3. What have I observed as challenges of
student-led IEPs?

Corresponding themes
(C) Resource impacts
(B) Learning Services Teacher growth
(A) Summative to formative

In consideration of the sub-question What have I observed as challenges of student-led
IEPs, I reflected on three themes that emerged from my data analysis: (C) Resource impacts of
student-led IEPs, (B) Learning Services Teacher (LST) growth through student-led IEPs, and (A)
Shifting the IEP process from summative to formative. I will discuss each and connect to my
literature review findings, my own learning through the research, future impacts on my work as a
Learning Services Teacher (LST), and potential considerations for others engaged in IEPs.
(C) Resource impacts: My data indicated that resource impacts of student-led IEPs were
an area of challenge I encountered in terms of creating or navigating the use of resources for
student-led IEPs. Hawbaker (2007) described the importance of using strategies to support
student engagement in the student-led IEP process and I further explained how strategies and
resources for student-led IEPs often needed to be tailored to my teaching context and the needs
of my students. However, my data illustrated how building strategies, or resources, to support
student engagement with student-led IEPs was a challenge because these efforts took significant
work to do and required more time. As a teacher with nine years of experience, I understood that
teachers already faced high workloads and adding more to those workloads would be a challenge
associated with implementing student-led IEPs. My data showing resource impacts of student-led
IEPs also highlighted that time was considered to be a resource by teachers, students, and
parents. Scheef et al. (2024) acknowledged "the significant amount of time required to guide
99

students through the [student-led IEP] process" (p. 3), a point confirmed when student-led IEPs
took me approximately three hours over three sessions compared to one hour of a single meeting
time for other IEPs in my practice. Therefore, the increased amount of time was a challenge in
both the literature and my findings.
In the literature, Danneker and Bottge (2009) pointed out "the lack of understanding
among the special education teachers about the amount of time and resources needed to prepare
students for their IEP meetings" (p. 230) as a barrier to student-led IEPs. It was important in my
investigation, therefore, to acknowledge the challenges I observed in implementing student-led
IEPs. By highlighting the challenges of student-led IEPs related to resources, my research might
help other educators to prepare to meet the challenges directly or consider whether the
challenges of student-led IEPs can be overcome in their contexts. Some educators may simply
not have enough time in their schedules to dedicate to implementing student-led IEPs in full. In
that case, they might consider implementing student-led IEPs with just a few students.
Educators could also consider using student-led IEP resources, such as graphic organizers to
explain a student's IEP, or find other ways to achieve some benefits of student-led IEPs, such
as supporting student autonomy, without implementing a full student-led IEP process. In my
practice, challenges related to resource impacts of student-led IEPs were something I needed to
examine because I had a large caseload of students and limited time to work with them all. I
reflected that, as students engaged with student-led IEPs, the process might become more
efficient year over year, and I would be able to implement student-led IEPs with more students.
I would also consider using parts of student-led IEPs rather than implementing a full studentled IEP process for every student.

100

(B) Learning Services Teacher growth: My data indicating Learning Services Teacher
(LST) growth illustrated challenges I observed as I developed in my practice as an LST through
implementing student-led IEPs. In the literature, Martin et al. (2006) argued that, in student-led
IEPs, "teacher...behavior takes teacher concentration to change" (p. 314). The point highlighted
the difficulty LSTs faced in shifting their expectations, and therefore their behavior, in studentled IEPs. Similarly, my data illustrated the challenge I faced in shifting my role away from
leading the IEP process to supporting students to take the lead in student-led IEPs. The
significance I noted was the difficulty I encountered while consciously changing my behavior to
let go of expectations I previously held for other IEPs in favor of implementing student-led IEPs.
Eisenman et al. (2005) and Hawbaker (2007) described a certain level of risk-taking on
the part of the LST as inherent in implementing student-led IEPs and I perceived risk-taking as a
further challenge in the context of letting go of my expectations and management of the IEP
process through student-led IEPs. One example of letting go was following through on choices
that students made in the student-led IEP process, even though I might not have made those
choices as an LST. Other educators may take heed from my investigation and prepare to
experience some level of discomfort as they change their practice and take risks in implementing
student-led IEPs. My data indicated that challenges arose from implementing student-led IEPs as
a change in my practice, but that growth also emerged as a result of this change. I will continue
to engage with the challenges related to consciously changing my behavior and taking risks to
implement student-led IEPs because I see overcoming the challenge as a sign of growth in my
practice.
(A) Summative to formative: My data indicating a shift in the IEP process from
summative to formative illustrated the challenges I faced in orienting parent expectations in

101

student-led IEPs. In framing student-led IEPs as formative, and therefore centering student
learning in the process, it was important to acknowledge students as the leaders in the
development of their IEP. However, making this shift posed a challenge when parents were used
to having the teacher lead the development of the IEP. In the literature, Scheef et al. (2024)
articulated "family expectations that teachers lead IEP meetings" (p. 6), while Danneker and
Bottge (2009) revealed that "[m]ost of the adults...expected the student to be an observer" (p.
230) in the IEP process, illustrating tension between expectations of parents and the shift to
student learning and leadership in student-led IEPs. My data similarly indicated a habit of
looking to the teacher as the authority in an IEP process, which I observed as a challenge of
student-led IEPs.
Danneker and Bottge (2009) explained that, "[p]rior to [student-led IEPs], adults
considered students incapable or unwilling to be more independent" (p. 231), illustrating that it
can take a new experience like seeing the student take on a leadership role in their IEP process
for adults to shift their expectations. I took steps to mitigate the challenge by establishing norms
with parents ahead of time which centered the student and their learning in student-led IEPs. I
will continue to take the step of establishing norms with parents for future student-led IEPs.
Other educators may expect to face some resistance to centering the student, rather than the LST,
as the leader in student-led IEPs. Expectations could be managed, however, by being proactive
and setting expectations with parents ahead of time that center the student as the leader in a
student-led IEP process.
Overall, my data indicated that challenges of student-led IEPs included the work that
goes into managing resources needed for student-led IEPs, stepping back in the student-led IEP
process, letting go of my own expectations as an LST, and moving away from the habit of

102

teacher as authority in the IEP process. Recognizing the challenges of student-led IEPs through
my data is not to dissuade others from implementing student-led IEPs, but to provide an
opportunity for considering how to navigate the challenges related to student-led IEP
implementation. Other educators may choose how to allocate limited resources like time towards
student-led IEPs or use some resources from student-led IEPs without implementing a full
student-led IEP process for every student. They might balance the potential benefits of growth
my data indicated for student-led IEPs against the risk-taking inherent in introducing a new
process to their practice. Other educators may take steps to mitigate challenges of student-led
IEPs by being pro-active in their approach and planning.

Sub-Question 4: How have student-led IEPs affected my work as a Learning Services
Teacher?
Table 2.4
Research sub-question
4. How have student-led IEPs affected my
work as an LST?

Corresponding themes
(A) Summative to formative
(D) Supporting students
(B) Learning Services Teacher growth

In consideration of the sub-question How have student-led IEPs affected my work as a
Learning Services Teacher (LST), I reflected on three themes that emerged from my data
analysis: (A) Shifting the IEP process from summative to formative, (D) Supporting students to
engage with student-led IEPs, and (B) Learning Services Teacher (LST) growth through studentled IEP implementation. I will discuss each and connect to my literature review findings, my
own learning through the research, future impacts on my work as a Learning Services Teacher
(LST), and potential considerations for others engaged in IEPs.

103

(A) Summative to formative: My data indicated shifting the IEP process from
summative to formative affected my work as a Learning Services Teacher (LST) because a
formative framework prompted me to reconsider not just the process but the purpose of IEPs.
Reframing IEPs as formative and centered around the student and their learning had a significant
impact on my approach to the IEP process. Martin et al. (2006) argued that "students learn the
skills necessary to be effectively involved in their IEP meetings when...the adult IEP team
members expect student participation" (p. 300), which meant I needed to reorient my thinking to
approach student-led IEPs in a way that facilitated student engagement in the IEP process.
Student-led IEPs affected how I planned for and executed the development of IEPs by
prioritizing student learning in each step of the IEP process, from creating new resources to
working with students to develop their IEP. Framing the student-led IEP process as formative
may help other educators to recognize student learning as an important purpose of the IEP
process, which will affect how they plan for and execute student-led IEPs to facilitate learning
opportunities for students.
(D) Supporting students: My data showed that my work as an LST was affected through
supporting students to engage with student-led IEPs. In preparing to implement student-led IEPs
initially, I scaffolded the IEP process and developed resources, such as graphic organizers, that
supported students in walking through the steps of developing their IEP and expressing their
learning needs. Developing new resources was a tangible example of how supporting students to
engage with student-led IEPs affected my work; the official paperwork to document a student’s
IEP did not fit the objective of centering student learning in the IEP process, so I had to make
resources that did. Therefore, my data indicated that initial implementation of student-led IEPs
meant more work for me, as an LST, compared to other IEPs.

104

Eisenman et al. (2005) argued that jumping into implementing student-led IEPs
"prompted [teachers] to put ideas into action" (p. 203), meaning that getting started in the
student-led IEP process was sometimes the best way for an LST to figure out what to do. My
data similarly indicated that taking action in supporting students to engage with student-led IEPs
affected my work as an LST because I came to recognize more clearly what a student needed in
order to engage with the IEP process. Ultimately, I noted that by having jumped in and invested
effort to develop strategies and resources for supporting students, I could continue to use those
resources in my work as an LST going forward. Other educators should anticipate putting in
more work to implement student-led IEPs initially but should keep in mind that the resources
they create will be useful in their practices moving forward. By jumping into implementing
student-led IEPs, educators may come to recognize what supports students need in their contexts
to successfully engage with student-led IEPs.
(B) Learning Services Teacher growth: My data demonstrated that implementing
student-led IEPs affected my work as an LST through growth and change in my practice. Scheef
et al. (2024) articulated that teachers "who had experience facilitating student-led IEPs rated
barriers as less challenging to overcome" (p. 12), demonstrating growth and increased
confidence in implementing student-led IEPs once the teachers had tried them. Similarly, my
data indicated that I learned more about how to support students in leading their IEP
development and made progress in stepping back from my usual leadership role with each
student-led IEP I facilitated. Therefore, student-led IEPs affected my practice as an LST when I
became more thoughtful and intentional in how I engaged with IEP development. Eisenman et al.
(2005) highlighted "[t]eachers reported with pride that they felt they were making a difference
with students" (p. 201) through the implementation of student-led IEPs. My data illustrated how

105

implementing student-led IEPs encouraged me to think about how I could change my practice to
honor the value I placed on student independence and achieving success that is meaningful to the
individual. Having started with implementing just a few student-led IEPs, my data illustrated that
my practice as an LST was affected by my growth, such as increased confidence and knowledge
about student-led IEPs. I had new knowledge of IEP development to bring to my practice and
will approach all IEPs with more thought and understanding of how I can impact the IEP
development process as an LST.
Overall, my data indicated that student-led IEPs have affected my work as an LST
through shifting the IEP process from summative to formative, supporting students to engage
with student-led IEPs, and experiencing growth in my practice. Framing student-led IEPs as a
formative process was foundational for the change that affected my work as an LST because it
reoriented my thinking about and planning for IEPs to meet the goal of student learning.
Supporting students to engage with student-led IEPs led me to create resources that facilitated
student engagement in IEP development and allowed me to understand student needs in the
context of developing their IEP. Experiencing growth in my practice as an LST encouraged me
to be more thoughtful and intentional in how I engaged with IEP development. Implementing
student-led IEPs gave me knowledge to use as I engage with student-led IEPs in the future.

106

Sub-Question 5: How have student-led IEPs affected student success?
Table 2.5
Research sub-question
Corresponding themes
5. How have student-led IEPs affected student (D) Supporting students
success?
(E) Skill development

To address how student-led IEPs affected student success, it is important to first frame
what student success looked like immediately, in the short term, and in the long term. In the
context of my research, immediate success looked like students engaging with the student-led
IEP process to make meaningful contributions to the development of their IEPs. Short-term
success looked like students demonstrating learning from the student-led IEP process, such as
development of self-expression skills. Long-term success looked like students applying what
they have learned through the student-led IEP process, including understanding of their IEP and
skills they have developed, to other aspects of their education and other pursuits. An example of
long-term success was students using self-advocacy skills at work or self-determination skills to
plan for the future. Because my research took place over a single school semester, the time did
not permit me to address long-term success yet.
In consideration of the sub-question How have student-led IEPs affected student success,
I reflected on two themes that emerged from my data analysis: (D) Supporting students to engage
with student-led IEPs and (E) Skill development through student-led IEPs. I will discuss each
and connect to my literature review findings, my own learning through the research, future
impacts on my work as a Learning Services Teacher (LST), and potential considerations for
others engaged in IEPs.
(D) Supporting students: My data demonstrated supporting students to engage with
student-led IEPs gave students structure and guidance to meaningfully engage with their IEP and
107

the IEP development process, thus affecting student success. Danneker and Bottge (2009) argued
"students who received instruction could be prepared to lead their IEP meeting" (p. 231),
illustrating that students had meaningful contributions to make to the IEP process when they
were supported in the process. I noted that supporting students to engage with student-led IEPs
was important because each student came to the IEP process with different levels of ability and
learning needs, meaning that I had to adjust my materials or approach to meet those needs.
Student-led IEPs affected student success because every student had the opportunity to
understand their IEP, express their learning needs, and lead the development of their IEP. My
data indicated that scaffolding the IEP process, applying differentiation and adaption to
resources, and developing rapport with students all contributed to support which saw students
make meaningful contributions to their IEP development. Therefore, I discerned that students
achieved immediate success in engaging with student-led IEPs. In my practice moving forward, I
will be able to use the structure for scaffolding the IEP process alongside the resources I
developed, in part or in full, to support students to engage with their IEPs, student-led or not.
(E) Skill development: My data indicated that students developed valuable skills
through the student-led IEP process, thus affecting student success. In my review of the
literature, authors linked self-determination skills (Danneker & Bottge, 2009; Davis &
Cumming, 2019; Hawbaker, 2007) and self-advocacy skills (Cavdenish et al., 2017; Martin et
al., 2006; Mason et al., 2002; Royer, 2017) to student-led IEPs. Royer (2017) also highlighted a
student’s ability to express personal interests and goals as a student-led IEP objective.
Correspondingly, I noted the development of self-determination, self-advocacy and selfexpression skills in students throughout their engagement with student-led IEPs. Davis and
Cumming (2019) argued "[i]mplementation of a student-led IEP process is one instructional

108

action that can provide valuable opportunities for students...to develop and practice selfdetermination, self-advocacy, and other skills critical for success in high school and beyond" (p.
97), illustrating the value of student-led IEPs in affecting student success.
In my six years of experience as a Learning Services Teacher (LST), I have often seen
self-advocacy or self-determination highlighted as goals for students to work on. However, selfdetermination and self-advocacy skills are not explicitly taught as part of the K-12 BC school
curriculum where I am a teacher, meaning that the need for students to develop selfdetermination and self-advocacy skills has been identified (Davis & Cumming, 2019) but a path
to supporting the development of these skills has not been established. Blackwell and Rossetti
(2014) advocated for direct instruction to teach students about their IEP and facilitate skill
building and student involvement in the development of their IEP. My data similarly indicated
that student-led IEPs affected student success in that student-led IEPs provided an opportunity to
teach, and gave students the chance to practice, self-determination and self-advocacy skills. I
noted that students achieved short-term success through student-led IEPs when they
demonstrated self-expression, self-determination, and self-advocacy skills by engaging with a
student-led IEP process. For example, a student used self-determination skills when they
articulated their learning goals for the coming school year. Moving forward in my practice,
instead of simply listing skill development as a goal in a student’s IEP, I will use student-led
IEPs to support students who need the most help in building self-determination and selfadvocacy skills. Other educators are encouraged to use student-led IEPs as a targeted
intervention to support students in developing self-expression, self-determination, and selfadvocacy skills.

109

Overall, my data illustrated that student-led IEPs affected student success immediately
and in the short-term by supporting students and facilitating student skill development.
Supporting students by scaffolding the IEP process and making student-led IEPs accessible to
students meant that students had the opportunity to achieve immediate success through
engagement with student-led IEPs. Guiding the development of their own learning plan allowed
students to develop and practice self-expression, self-determination, and self-advocacy skills
through student-led IEPs, thus achieving short-term success. Moreover, supporting students
through scaffolding, differentiation, and adaptation allowed for me to facilitate engagement with
student-led IEPs for students with a wide range of abilities and learning needs. My data
illustrated that student-led IEPs went beyond identifying skills as goals for students; student-led
IEPs showed a potential path to support students in developing and practicing self-expression,
self-determination, and self-advocacy skills. I will continue to use student-led IEPs to support
students’ immediate and short-term success while observing whether or not student-led IEPs can
also facilitate long-term success for students. Other educators may see my data indicating
immediate and short-term success for students through implementing student-led IEPs and
choose to implement student-led IEPs as an intervention to support students in their contexts.

Primary research question: What has been my process for implementing student-led IEPs
in my practice as a Learning Services Teacher in British Columbia, Canada?
Prior to implementing student-led IEPs, the IEP process was a responsibility of my job as
a Learning Services Teacher (LST) and I saw that IEPs served the purpose of documenting
student learning needs and highlighting supports for those learning needs that could be applied in
the classroom. However, through implementing student-led IEPs, I came to see that the IEP
process held far more potential than I had utilized in the past. For me, student-led IEPs have been
110

a catalyst for change in my practice. Student-led IEPs led to a: (1) shift in my understanding of
the IEP process, (2) change in my approach to supporting students in the IEP process, and (3)
experience of growth as a Learning Services Teacher (LST). Resource impacts of student-led
IEPs will have practical implications for my continued engagement with student-led IEPs in my
practice. However, the changes I observed as a result of implementing student-led IEPs will still
have an impact on my practice as an LST. I will now review the three ways student-led IEPs
impacted my practice as an LST.
(1) Shift in my understanding of the IEP process: Student-led IEPs changed how I
thought about the IEP process. Through implementing student-led IEPs, I shifted my perspective
on the IEP process. I came to understand student-led IEPs as a formative process that was for the
student and their learning, rather than a summative process that resulted in an evaluation of the
student for the school system. Reframing the IEP process as formative was a significant change
in my practice because it transformed how I thought about the purpose of IEPs and therefore how
I engaged with the IEP development process to center student learning.
In implementing student-led IEPs, I positioned myself as the facilitator of the process
while the student became the leader in developing their IEP. Placing students in a leadership role
through student-led IEPs meant encouraging parents to move away from the habit of looking to
the teacher as the authority in the IEP process. To this end, I asked parents to direct questions
about the IEP to their child and only stepped in to provide guidance if the student did not have an
answer. My data indicated that student-led IEPs supported students to practice autonomy. For
me, autonomy as an aim meant structuring student-led IEPs so that students had the opportunity
to make meaningful decisions in the IEP process, such as deciding what goal the student wanted
to work on that year or what supports the student would access. Students expressing themselves

111

in meetings with their parents and exercising autonomy through decision-making were important
parts of establishing a formative process and the student as leader in student-led IEPs.
For me, shifting my perspective on IEPs and taking a step back in the IEP process
changed my practice by allowing me to turn IEP development, a responsibility of my job as an
LST, into a learning opportunity for students. My data indicated that student-led IEPs were an
opportunity for students to develop self-expression, self-determination, and self-advocacy skills.
I had previously been driven to center the student in their IEP development, frequently trying to
ensure that the student had a voice and that the student was respected in their IEP meeting. So, in
some ways, I may have been aiming towards a more student-driven approach for some time.
However, implementing student-led IEPs gave me the opportunity to be more purposeful in
centering students in their own IEP process and to understand how to do so.
Framing student-led IEPs as formative will have a lasting impact on how I approach
IEPs, student-led or not, because now I have a better understanding of, and strategies for,
centering students in the IEP process. I encourage other educators to consider how framing the
IEP process as formative might reorient their thinking about the process. Further progress along
the path to a formative process could be taking a step back in the IEP process when possible and
elevating student voices in IEP meetings with parents so that IEPs can become more centered on
the student and their learning.
(2) Change in my approach to supporting students in the IEP process: Student-led
IEPs changed how I approached the IEP process. In preparing to implement student-led IEPs, I
considered how I would structure the IEP process to be accessible to students. It was important
to me to support students in engaging with student-led IEPs and the first step was considering
student needs in the development of the student-led IEP process. I scaffolded the IEP process by

112

creating a PowerPoint presentation called My IEP that organized the components of an IEP into
graphic organizers. I observed that the My IEP slides were helpful in supporting students to
engage with student-led IEPs because the slides gave a clear structure to the student-led IEP
process. The slides provided many of the supports that would typically be provided to a student
with a disability, including: breaking down the process into manageable steps, using visual
representation of concepts to support student understanding, and giving students the option to use
typing or voice-to-text technology in crafting their responses. Supporting student engagement
was important in implementing student-led IEPs because each student came to the IEP process
with distinct needs and I had to adjust my approach slightly for each student.
Thinking through student needs in the development of my student-led IEP process and
creating the My IEP slides allowed me to support students with various abilities and learning
needs. I noticed that implementing student-led IEPs changed my practice because student-led
IEPs encouraged me to consider how best to support each unique student to engage with studentled IEPs. I used the skills I had gained in scaffolding, differentiation, and adaptation throughout
my six years’ experience as an LST to approach student-led IEPs as a change in my practice and
to create a structure that would facilitate student engagement with the development of their IEP.
Although I may not implement student-led IEPs with each student on my caseload in the future,
structuring student-led IEPs to support student engagement will have a lasting impact on my
practice because I will be able to break down the IEP process and use the My IEP slides that I
created to support student understanding of their IEPs. Scaffolding, differentiation, and
adaptation through graphic organizers in My IEP slides worked for me to support student
engagement with their IEP. I encourage other educators to use any of these strategies or to

113

consider how they might structure the IEP process in their contexts to support student
understanding of, and engagement with, their IEP.
(3) Experience of growth as a Learning Services Teacher (LST): Student-led IEPs
changed how I experienced the IEP process. When I implemented student-led IEPs in my
practice, I experienced growth as an LST by being thoughtful and purposeful in my approach
facilitating a student-led process. Student-led IEPs encouraged me to think about how to develop
my practice in alignment with the value I hold towards students achieving success in a way that
is meaningful for them. For me, centering students and their learning in student-led IEPs meant
that I made a conscious effort to take a step back and allow students to lead their development of
their IEP. My data indicated that I experienced growth in this process by consciously honoring
student decisions and letting go of control. For example, I followed through with the choices that
students made in developing their IEPs, even if those were not choices I would have suggested as
an LST. I observed that letting go meant putting aside my own expectations and desires in the
student-led IEP process in order to prioritize student leadership and learning. My experience of
letting go in student-led IEPs demonstrated growth as an LST because I was making a conscious
effort to change my engagement with the IEP process and, in doing so, changed my practice. I
learned a new way of interacting with students through student-led IEPs, one that changed the
student-teacher dynamic by encouraging students to take on a leadership role in developing their
IEP.
Keeping a reflexive journal to collect data in my investigation was particularly useful in
highlighting my growth as an LST because I could see the progression of my thoughts aligning
with my actions in implementing student-led IEPs. I began my investigation with a belief in
supporting students to be independent and achieve individual success but I noticed the conscious

114

effort needed on my part to align my practice with this belief. As an LST, I am often looking for
ways to support students in their growth but implementing student-led IEPs also gave me the
opportunity to grow and change in my practice too. I suggest to other educators that letting go of
some expectations and desires as an LST is helpful in implementing student-led IEPs and can
lead to growth for the educator as well as the student.
My data indicated that student-led IEPs had an impact on resources in my practice, most
notably time. Student-led IEPs took more time to implement compared to other IEPs. Each
student-led IEP session took approximately one hour, which meant that the student-led IEP
process for one student took three hours in total. This was two more hours than other IEPs, per
student, which usually took one hour. With approximately 38 students on my caseload, it was
unrealistic to implement student-led IEPs for every student. Therefore, the changes I observed in
my practice through implementing student-led IEPs will have an ongoing impact in other ways. I
will continue to support students to engage meaningfully with their IEP by elevating student
voices in the IEP process and encouraging students to make decisions about what supports are
helpful to their learning, development, and leadership growth. I will be able to use parts of the
student-led IEP process I developed, such as the My IEP slides, to support student engagement
with their IEP. I will make a conscious effort to let go of my expectations in order to center
students in their IEP.
Overall, my data indicated that implementing student-led IEPs changed how I thought
about the IEP process, how I approached the IEP process, and how I experienced the IEP process
as an LST. As a result, I framed student-led IEPs as a catalyst for change in my practice. Using
self-study as my methodology in my research necessitated a focus on me as the unit for
investigation (LaBoskey, 2004). However, what I have learned in my process for implementing

115

student-led IEPs can be shared to support other educators to implement student-led IEPs in their
contexts. I encourage other educators to try student-led IEPs and to observe how a new process
may catalyze change in their practice, opportunities for their students, and growth as educators.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, I have addressed each of my research sub-questions by bringing together
the themes I developed through data analysis in Chapter Four and the literature on student-led
IEPs I gathered through my literature review in Chapter Two. I articulated the relationship
between each sub-question, my literature review, and the corresponding themes and discussed
how the themes addressed the sub-questions. I responded to my primary research question and
discussed my process for implementing student-led IEPs in my practice as a Learning Services
Teacher (LST) in British Columbia. I explained that student-led IEPs have been a catalyst for
change in my practice, having an impact on how I thought about, approached, and experienced
the IEP process. I highlighted aspects of student-led IEPs that I will carry forward in my practice
and suggested that other educators might benefit from trying student-led IEPs to stimulate
change and growth in their practice.
In Chapter Six I will return to the context I shared in Chapter One and explain why I
chose to investigate student-led IEPs. I will reflect on my research process and address what
worked well for me and what did not. The future of student-led IEPs in my practice will be
discussed, as will the practicality of student-led IEPs more generally. I will identify areas for
further investigation that came out of my research process and explain how I will expand on
what I have learned so far.

116

Chapter Six
In this chapter, I will return to the context I shared in Chapter One and articulate the
problem I was trying to solve through my research question. I will describe how investigating
student-led IEPs showed me a path to addressing the problem. I will reflect on my research
process and address what worked well for me, what did not, and how my research process met
the needs of my teaching practice. The future of student-led IEPs in my practice will be
discussed, as will the practicality of student-led IEPs more broadly. I will identify where I can
expand on the work I did to investigate student-led IEPs in my research and I will propose
possibilities for spreading change in implementing student-led IEPs in British Columbia.
The problem for investigation
Articulating the problem
When the Individual Education Plan (IEP) was first introduced, the concept signified
important development in how students with disabilities were supported in schools in Canada
and the United States (Blackwell & Rossetti, 2014; Tremblay & Belley, 2017). In British
Columbia, Canada, IEPs were introduced to recognize and accommodate students with
disabilities, developmental or neurological differences, and chronic health challenges in the
education system (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2016). However, there remains a
possibility for the IEP process to evolve further to meet the needs of students with disabilities. In
Chapter One, I argued that students should have significant input in the IEP process that guides,
among other things, the support the student receives for their learning needs (British Columbia
Ministry of Education, 2016). However, as of yet, British Columbia students do not take much
leadership in the IEP process.

117

I have worked as a teacher for nine years and a Learning Services Teacher (LST) for six
years. As an LST, I work closely with students with disabilities to support their learning and the
IEP process is an important part of my practice. Every year it is my responsibility to ensure that
the students on my caseload and their families have an opportunity to meet with me and work
through the IEP process to update their IEP. Prior to my research, I had not observed students
being invited to take a primary leadership role in the development of their IEP and I found this
problematic. I wanted to see a student’s role in their IEP process change and have students taking
on the responsibility for, and engagement with, the development of their own IEPs.
The lives of the students I work with are varied and have many different trajectories,
which means that students’ perceptions of, and paths to, success are also very different; hence
the leadership of the learner in the individualization aspect of an IEP is important. I considered
student leadership in their own IEP as an area that could benefit from closer consideration. I
wanted to connect my practice as a Learning Services Teacher (LST) more closely with the value
I place on student independence and students achieving success that is meaningful to them as
individuals. The problem I was trying to investigate through my research was to implement
change in my practice around IEP development as a means of supporting students to articulate
their learning needs and take ownership of their education. Therefore, my research focused on a
change in my practice through the implementation and observation of student-led IEPs. I chose
to investigate student-led IEPs because I understood student-led IEPs to be a process that would
center the student and allow them to become the leader in developing their education plan.
Through my investigation of student-led IEPs in my practice, I saw a path to student leadership
in the development of their own IEP and student ownership of their education.

118

Path to exploring the problem
From collection and analysis of my data, I came to understand student-led IEPs as a
catalyst for change in my practice. Implementing student-led IEPs led to significant changes in
how I engaged with the IEP process. I observed that, as a result of changes I made to my
practice, students were encouraged to take more responsibility for their learning plan.
Implementing student-led IEPs in my practice as an LST changed how I (1) thought about the
IEP process, (2) approached the IEP process, and (3) experienced the IEP process. Through these
changes, I saw a path to solving the problem of supporting student ownership in their education.
I will now unpack each of the three impacts noted above.
(1) Student-led IEPs changed how I thought about the IEP process - My data
indicated that implementing student-led IEPs shifted my framing of the IEP process. I came to
see student-led IEPs as a formative process that was for the student and their learning, rather than
a summative process that produced an evaluation of the student. Framing student-led IEPs as a
formative process was important because the reframing transformed how I thought about the
purpose of IEPs and therefore how I engaged with the IEP process to center student learning. For
example, I positioned myself as the facilitator in student-led IEPs, placing students in a
leadership role. Supporting students to be leaders in student-led IEPs also meant encouraging
parents to move away from the habit of turning to the teacher as the authority in the IEP process.
In a leadership role, students had the opportunity to exercise autonomy by making choices and
exercising a measure of control in student-led IEPs.
My data indicated that centering student learning in student-led IEPs meant students had
the opportunity to gain a better understanding of their IEP and learning needs. I noted that
student-led IEPs may have been the first time that someone had spoken to the student about their

119

disability so explicitly. To me, students being asked about their IEP indicated that the IEP
belonged to them and encouraged them to take ownership in developing the IEP. Therefore, I
observed that part of the path to supporting student ownership was through framing IEPs as a
formative process in order to center student learning and support student leadership and
autonomy.
My data demonstrated that centering the student and their learning through student-led
IEPs also provided the opportunity for students to develop skills through the student-led IEP
process. Developing skills like self-expression, self-determination, and self-advocacy meant that
students were able to articulate their learning needs, make choices for their learning plan, and ask
for help when they needed it. Therefore, I observed that part of the path to supporting student
ownership in their education was through opportunities for students to build the skills that would
allow them to take action in determining the direction of their IEP and their education. For me,
as an LST, framing the IEP process as formative is still worthwhile whether IEPs are student-led
or not. Other IEPs do not provide the same opportunity for students to be immersed and lead
every aspect of the IEP development process but I will still ask students questions about their
learning needs, preferences, and goals so that students are supported to be centered in the
development of their IEP.
(2) Student-led IEPs changed how I approached the IEP process - I employed
scaffolding, differentiation, and adaptation strategies to help make the student-led IEP process
accessible to students. For example, I created a PowerPoint presentation called My IEP slides
with graphic organizers to break down the IEP process for students. The My IEP slides
scaffolded the development of a student’s IEP into manageable steps and provided adaptations,
like visual representation of concepts, to support student understanding. I also observed that it

120

was relatively easy for me to differentiate within the slides themselves, meaning that I made
adjustments to the content of the slides to meet the unique learning needs of the individual
student.
My data indicated that considering student needs as I developed a student-led IEP process
for my teaching context and creating the My IEP slides allowed me to support students with
various abilities and learning needs more effectively than I had in other IEPs. For me, the shift to
structuring the IEP process in a way that was accessible to students meant that students had the
opportunity to be actively and meaningfully involved in every aspect of the IEP process.
Therefore, I observed that part of the path to supporting student ownership in their education was
through how I supported students to engage with their IEP development and making the IEP
process accessible to students. I approached student-led IEPs with student learning in mind and I,
in turn, learned more about how to support students to engage in the development of their IEP.
(3) Student-led IEPs changed how I experienced the IEP process - I consciously
changed my actions and behavior in student-led IEPs to center the student and their learning,
demonstrating thoughtful and purposeful engagement with the IEP process. I realized that it
would not have been possible for students to take on a meaningful leadership role in developing
their IEP without me, as the LST, learning to let go and allow the student to embody that
leadership role. My data indicated that I experienced growth as an LST when I made a shift in
my practice to facilitate, rather than lead, the IEP process. I learned a new way of engaging with
the IEP process so that I could be effective in elevating the student’s voice and their choices in
the development of their IEP, even when I would not have made the same choices as an LST. I
had to consciously take a step back from my familiar leadership role so that the student had the
opportunity to take ownership in the development of their IEP. Therefore, I observed that part of

121

the path to supporting student ownership was in my thoughtful and purposeful engagement in the
IEP process as an LST.
Summary of the problem for investigation
The challenge I was investigating was to implement change in my practice as a means of
supporting students to articulate their learning needs and take ownership of their education
through their IEP by shifting the process from being guided by the LST to the student being the
leader. Implementing student-led IEPs resulted in significant change for my engagement with
IEPs, student-led or otherwise. Engaging with the IEP process differently meant that I framed the
IEP process as a formative process to center student learning and I used strategies to support
student understanding and engagement with their IEP development. I was thoughtful and
purposeful in learning to let go and allowing the student to embody the leadership role in
student-led IEPs. I noticed students taking on more responsibility in the development of their
IEPs when I, as the LST, stepped back as the leader in the IEP process. Next, I will reflect on my
research process and discuss what worked well for me, what did not, and how my research
process responded to the needs of my teaching practice.
Considering the research process
Using research to investigate my practice
I engaged in a rigorous research process to investigate a change in my practice with
regard to the implementation of student-led IEPs. First, I conducted a literature review to gain a
sense of what others had learned about student-led IEPs and to situate my investigation in
context with established knowledge regarding IEPs. Next, I engaged in the research process
myself, using self-study (LaBoskey, 2004) as my methodology. I used self-study as my
methodology because it gave me the opportunity to focus on my own process for implementing

122

student-led IEPs in my practice. I collected data through a reflexive journal and fieldnotes, and
my data was analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
In some ways, the research process was similar to the process I typically follow to
implement change in my practice. For example, to investigate a new method of assessment for
my teaching practice, I review the literature or other available resources and talk to colleagues,
try the method with my students, and examine the results to determine if the method worked well
within my teaching context to meet the needs of my students and my practice. Comparing my
investigation of student-led IEPs through self-study with my typical process for a new aspect of
my teaching practice, the parallels between the two indicate that research was a useful tool for
me to engage with to investigate the implementation of student-led IEPs in my practice. Overall,
following a research approach that included review, implementation, and analysis allowed me to
investigate student-led IEPs as a change in my practice. Using the self-study methodology was a
key component of my research process, which I will discuss next.
My practice and the self-study methodology
LaBoskey (2004) argued that self-study research often stems from recognizing areas of
practice in need of improvement, and this was true for me; I sought to implement change in my
practice to better support students in taking ownership of their education. The space self-study
held for improvement in practice was important because I observed that my research gave me the
opportunity to grow as a Learning Services Teacher (LST) and build on my learning with each of
the student-led IEPs I implemented.
Self-study was helpful as a research methodology in that it allowed me to focus closely
on my own practice and ground my research in my teaching context. LaBoskey (2004) argued
for centering the researcher in their work through self-study and emphasized the critical role the

123

researcher must play in shaping the execution and understanding of the research. Furthermore,
my constructivist epistemology and pragmatic worldview acknowledged that my research would
be shaped by my context and experiences. Centering the research on my experiences in
implementing a change in my practice and grounding my research in my teaching context was
important to me because the decision meant that I was able to apply the knowledge I gained
through the research process to make meaningful changes in my practice and have a positive
impact on my students.
Using the self-study research methodology meant implementing a change in my practice
while simultaneously investigating that change (LaBoskey, 2004), which gave me the
opportunity to improve my practice by applying what I learned immediately. Keeping a reflexive
journal to collect data in my investigation was especially helpful in highlighting my growth as an
LST because I could observe the evolution of my thoughts aligning with my actions in
implementing student-led IEPs as I reviewed the entries. Using self-study as my methodology
meant that observations I made in my reflexive journal could be put into action in the next
student-led IEP session, in real time. For example, early on in the student-led IEP process, I
noted that parents were experiencing difficulty moving away from the habit of seeing the LST as
the authority in the IEP development process. Therefore, I became intentional about directing
questions to the student in front of the parents, which reminded the parents to continue centering
the student in the student-led IEP process. Because my constructivist epistemology frames the
production of knowledge as emerging from a researcher’s experiences and interactions with the
world (Coghlan and Brydon-Miller, 2014), I observed how my experiences with implementing
student-led IEPs allowed me to generate knowledge that built with each student-led IEP process.

124

As a result, self-study worked well for me because my practice progressed alongside and through
the research process.
I observed some limitations of my research in the context of self-study. Using self-study
as my methodology necessarily meant I was the unit of analysis for the study (LaBoskey, 2004).
Consequently, student-led IEPs were explored from my perspective exclusively and I did not
have access to the perspectives of others. Students and parents are important stakeholders in the
IEP process and gathering feedback from their perspectives on student-led IEPs is an aspect of
student-led IEP implementation I want to explore in the future. Engaging in research through
self-study also meant that my investigation of student-led IEPs was specific to my context.
Therefore, my experiences and process for implementing student-led IEPs may not fit with the
contexts of other researchers or LSTs. However, sharing what I have learned through my
investigation of student-led IEPs may support other educators to understand student-led IEPs
better and consider implementing student-led IEPs in their own contexts.
Summary of the research process
Overall, research was a useful approach to investigate a change in my practice. Engaging
with review, implementation, and analysis through the research process was similar to the
process I would typically follow to integrate new methods in my teaching practice. Using selfstudy as my methodology met the needs of my teaching practice in several ways, by emphasizing
improvement in practice as a priority in research, by allowing me to focus my research closely
on my practice and ground the investigation in my lived teaching context, and by giving me the
opportunity to apply what I was learning right away into practice. Some limitations that emerged
in the context of self-study, like the fact that student-led IEPs were explored from my perspective
exclusively and an investigation specific to my context, meant that my results may not be

125

relevant to other contexts. Ultimately, engaging in the research process showed me a means to
responding to the problem I set out to investigate. Sharing my research process and what I have
learned may support others in making meaningful change in their context around student-led
IEPs.
Practical impacts for an impractical practice
Practicality of student-led IEPs
My data indicated that student-led IEPs provided numerous benefits for students and I
ultimately came to understand student-led IEPs as a catalyst for change in my practice that
supported me to grow as a Learning Services Teacher (LST). However, I observed that
implementing student-led IEPs had significant impacts on resources, particularly the use of time
as a resource. Based on the time required to engage in student-led IEPs, it is not practical in my
teaching context to apply a student-led process to every IEP I develop throughout the school
year. Student-led IEPs took more time to prepare for and implement, compared to other IEPs.
Each student-led IEP session took approximately one hour, and three were required for each
student-led IEP, which resulted in a total of three hours to work through one student-led IEP
process. By comparison, other IEPs usually took one hour total. Therefore, for me, it was
unrealistic to implement student-led IEPs with each of the 38 students on my caseload.
Striking a balance between good pedagogy and practicality is something that I have had
to do in my nine years as a teacher. For example, as an LST and a classroom teacher, I know that
providing one-on-one support to students and guiding their learning in ways that connect with
the student’s specific learning strengths and knowledge base can be beneficial for the student’s
understanding of new concepts. However, it is impractical for a teacher to provide one-on-one
support for each student enrolled in their class on a daily basis. What is more, not every student

126

requires an intense level of one-on-one support to meet their learning goals. Upon further
reflection, I realized that I will still be able to use the knowledge that I gained through my
research to support the students I work with. The impracticality of implementing student-led
IEPs with all of my students means that I will need to find other ways of applying what I learned
in my investigation to make a similar positive impact in my practice. I will discuss the ongoing
impacts student-led IEPs will have on my practice next.
Impacts on my practice
Despite the time challenge of implementing student-led IEPs, my investigation will have
a lasting impact on my practice as an LST. I will: (1) implement some student-led IEPs, (2)
support students through a formative framework, and (3) use the resources I developed in the
research for student-led IEPs moving forward.
(1) Implement some student-led IEPs – Moving forward, I will continue to implement
student-led IEPs in my practice with some students who I believe will benefit the most from
engaging with a student-led IEP process. For example, I might choose to use a student-led IEP
process with a student who needs to build self-advocacy skills or stands to gain from exercising
more autonomy in developing their education plan. Although it is not practical to implement
student-led IEPs with every student on my caseload, I will still be able to draw on my experience
and the resources I created to evaluate where needs would be best met through student-led IEPs
and implement a student-led IEP process with those students. Perhaps, with time and experience,
my capacity around student-led IEPs will shift.
(2) Support students through a formative framework - Learning to frame student-led
IEPs as formative will have a lasting impact on how I approach IEPs because I have developed a
better understanding of, and strategies for, centering student learning in the IEP process. For

127

example, I will support students to practice decision-making and autonomy as much as possible
in the development of their IEP. I will support students to understand their IEP and to make
informed choices regarding their learning goals by using the resources I created, like the My IEP
slides, or sharing the official paperwork to document an IEP with the student so that we can
review the document together. Prior to implementing student-led IEPs through my research, I
was driven to center the student in the development of their IEP by consistently asking the
student questions about their learning and goals in the IEP meeting. However, my efforts had
varying degrees of success depending on the willingness of the student to speak up or the
cooperation of the parent in allowing their child to lead. Implementing student-led IEPs and
framing the IEP process as formative allowed me to understand the tools and actions needed to
be more purposeful in centering students in their own IEP process. Supporting students through a
formative framework in my practice will mean continuing to monitor for opportunities to center
the student in their IEP and facilitating student learning in IEP development, student-led or
otherwise.
(3) Use the resources I developed for student-led IEPs - Having created the structure
for scaffolding the IEP process, I will be able to use the student-led IEP process I developed
alongside the resources I created to support student engagement with their IEP even if I am
unable to implement a full student-led IEP process with each student. I will partially implement
student-led IEPs in my practice, meaning that I will use parts of the student-led IEP process to
support students to engage with the development of their IEP. For example, I can use graphic
organizers in the My IEP slides I developed to support students in understanding and responding
to different aspects of their IEP. Using parts of student-led IEPs, rather than implementing a full
student-led IEP process for every student means I will still be able to support students and reap

128

some of the benefits my data indicated in my investigation. In implementing student-led IEPs, I
observed that students had meaningful contributions to make to the IEP process when they were
supported in the process. I will continue to use the resources I created to provide structure and
guidance for students to meaningfully engage in the development of their IEP, student-led or
otherwise.
My invitation to others
For other educators considering a process for implementing student-led IEPs in their
practice, I suggest that the educator reflect on the values they hold in their practice and whether
or not those values align with student-led IEPs. Not every educator wants to let go of control in
ways that student-led IEPs demand, nor is every educator prepared to support students in
engaging with a student-led IEP process, including the scaffolding and support for learning needs
that entails. If, however, the educator is committed to the idea of framing the IEP process as
formative and to giving students the opportunity to practice autonomy in that process, student-led
IEPs may be a catalyst for change in their practice and in the lives of the students that they work
with.
Eisenman et al. (2005) recommended both starting small and jumping in to get started in
implementing student-led IEPs and, based on my experience, I believe that both approaches have
merit. Implementing part of a student-led IEP process to start, like using graphic organizers to
scaffold understanding of the IEP for students, may be less intimidating than changing an entire
IEP process and a partial change can still yield some benefits of student-led IEPs that my data
indicated. On the other hand, jumping into student-led IEPs, as I did, allowed me to gain a new
perspective on the IEP process, to experience growth as an LST, and to gain experience with

129

student-led IEPs. Either starting small or jumping in can be a valid entry point to implementing
student-led IEPs.
I appreciated how the implementation of student-led IEPs was a catalyst for change in my
practice and that student-led IEPs will have a lasting impact on how I think about, approach, and
experience IEPs moving forward. Through this process, I have come to understand more about
the student-led IEP process and I feel empowered to make further adjustments to implement
student-led IEPs in the future or to select which parts of student-led IEPs to carry forward in my
practice. How an LST starts with exploring student-led IEPs, starting small or jumping in, may
depend on the resource impacts of student-led IEPs, especially time, in their context as well as
the LST’s willingness to engage with a change in practice.
Summary of practical impacts
Through this process, I have come to recognize that implementing student-led IEPs with
all of the students on my caseload is not a practical approach for my context. However, I can still
apply what I have learned through my investigation to have a positive impact on my practice by
implementing some student-led IEPs, supporting students through a formative framework, and
using the resources I developed for student-led IEPs. I encourage other educators to examine
whether or not their values align with student-led IEPs. If the answer is yes, resource impacts
may influence whether other educators start small or fully commit to implement student-led
IEPs. Either way, student-led IEPs have been a catalyst for change in my practice and may lead
to similar outcomes for other educators’ practices.

130

Expanding the work of student-led IEPs
Engaging diverse learners
Following the advice of McGahee et al. (2001), I implemented student-led IEPs with
students who I believed would be successful in the process. However, in the future I will
implement student-led IEPs with more diverse learners, such as students who have more
difficulty engaging at school or who struggle academically. As a result of my research, I believe
that a student-led IEP process has a lot to offer students who are at-risk, meaning those students
who face adversity beyond their disability and struggle to engage academically as a result.
Framing the IEP process as formative and centering the student in their learning may provide
students who are at-risk with an authentic learning opportunity that feels relevant to them;
developing their own IEP. Student-led IEPs would also support students who are at-risk to
practice autonomy, something they may struggle with in other areas of their lives, and develop
important skills like self-determination and self-advocacy. Due to resource impacts of studentled IEPs, I will not be able to implement student-led IEPs with every student on my caseload but
I will use a student-led IEP process with a few students who I believe could benefit the most
from leading the development of their IEP
Gathering feedback
One of the limitations of using self-study as the methodology in my investigation was
that I did not include the perspectives of parents and students. I am curious to gather feedback on
the experiences of other stakeholders of student-led IEPs. I will be able to do so in my practice
moving forward. My data indicated that stakeholders in the IEP process had to shift their
understanding of the IEP process in order to engage with student-led IEPs. Therefore, the
perceptions and experiences of stakeholders had an effect on how students engaged with student-

131

led IEPs. Gathering feedback from diverse stakeholders will help me to see student-led IEPs
from more diverse perspectives, which will in turn allow me to make adjustments to my
implementation of student-led IEPs to make the process more accessible and meet the needs of
students.
Spreading change
My data demonstrated that one of the biggest resource impacts of student-led IEPs was
use of time; implementing student-led IEPs in my practice took triple the amount of time
compared to other IEPs, which had a significant impact on my practice as a Learning Services
Teacher (LST). Solving the problem of time essentially requires more money to either hire more
LSTs or to give existing Learning Service Teachers more hours allocated specifically to IEPs.
Ultimately, at this moment and due to constraints, implementing student-led IEPs throughout
British Columbia may not be realistic. While resource impacts of student-led IEPs and the
financial considerations that accompany them are a significant factor, respect for teacher
autonomy in their professional practice and giving teachers choice about what changes they
make in their practice is also relevant. Despite the benefits of student-led IEPs demonstrated by
my data, it would be unrealistic to expect every LST to use student-led IEPs in their practice.
Therefore, solutions to support student-led IEP implementation must preserve teacher autonomy
while providing incentives to try new processes.
One option I propose to support the implementation of student-led IEPs is to provide
LSTs additional time through funding for one year to implement student-led IEPs. Funding from
the BC Ministry of Education could be applied for by the LST and then allocated to the school to
make hiring decisions that would result in the LST having the time needed to implement studentled IEPs. How much time the LST needs to implement student-led IEPs will depend on their

132

caseload and teaching context. Being provided with the time and space to prepare for, and
implement, student-led IEPs may help LSTs overcome the psychological and logistical hurdles
of trying something new in their practice. Just as I needed this time, LSTs need time allocated to
implementing student-led IEPs in order to create resources to support student engagement with
the process that meet the needs of their teaching context, like I did when I created the My IEP
slides. Therefore, funding student-led IEP implementation for one year could allow LSTs to
create resources. LSTs might then use the resources they have created in years to come,
improving the likelihood of the LST continuing to implement student-led IEPs. If LSTs try
student-led IEPs it will give stakeholders, including parents, students, and the LSTs themselves,
the opportunity to experience the benefits of student-led IEPs. Having tried the student-led IEP
process, stakeholders might like it and want to do it again. Time to implement student-led IEPs
will allow familiarization with the process so that LSTs feel confident moving forward with
partial or full implementation of student-led IEPs in their practice.
A second suggestion I propose to support the implementation of student-led IEPs is to
provide the option for students to earn credits towards graduation for completing a full studentled IEP process. Student-led IEPs implemented through a formative framework that centers
student learning provides students with the opportunity to engage in an authentic learning
opportunity that has a clear connection with their goals and achieving success that is meaningful
to them. Moreover, my data indicated that student-led IEPs can support students to learn
important skills such as self-expression, self-determination, and self-advocacy. Therefore,
allowing students to earn high school credits by engaging with student-led IEPs is a reasonable
proposition because learning is taking place and skills are being developed that could count
towards students earning credits for graduation. Some students with IEPs struggle to earn enough

133

credits to graduate, which means that earning credits through a student-led IEP could be helpful.
As an LST, I spend time in various ways to support students to graduate and I also spend time
developing IEPs; pooling that time to achieve both objectives, if students were able to earn
graduation credits through a student-led IEP process, would make student-led IEPs more viable
in my context and encourage me to allocate my time and resources to implement student-led
IEPs with students who need support to graduate.
The BC Ministry of Education requires all students to complete a capstone for
graduation, which has some connection points to student-led IEPs. A capstone is described by
the British Columbia Ministry of Education (2019) as "a rigorous learning opportunity that
allows students to reflect and share in personally meaningful ways" (p. 15), which demonstrates
some similarity to the reflection and sharing a student engages with through a student-led IEP
process. According to the BC Ministry of Education (2019) a capstone includes three main
components: (1) self-assessment and critical analysis, in which students reflect on their
experiences in school and out of school, (2) process and representation, in which students create
a capstone presentation, and (3) showcase and celebrate, in which students present their learning
journey to an audience. Additionally, the capstone must connect to the BC Ministry of Education
Core Competencies: communication (communicating, collaboration), thinking (creative thinking,
critical and reflective thinking) personal and social (personal awareness and responsibility,
positive personal and cultural identity, social awareness and responsibility).
There are a number of aspects of the capstone that connect with the process I developed
for student-led IEPs. For example, I observed that student-led IEPs gave students the opportunity
to reflect on how their disability affects their learning and to express their learning needs.
Similarly, the capstone “allows students to reflect and share in personally meaningful ways”

134

(British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2019, p. 15), meaning that both student-led IEPs and
the capstone ask students to engage in self-reflection and to express their thoughts. However, the
requirement to connect to the Core Competencies is not met by the process I developed for
student-led IEPs. For example, the student-led IEP process does not include creative thinking,
which is a Core Competency. Therefore, the student-led IEP process that I engaged in with
students does not meet all of the requirements outlined by the BC Ministry of Education (2019)
for a capstone at this time.
Nevertheless, the capstone illustrates that the BC Ministry of Education curriculum has
scope for a project that includes self-assessment, representation of learning, and presentation to
an audience to earn graduation credits. I observed students engaging with self-assessment,
representation of learning, and presentation through a student-led IEP process, which indicates to
me that the BC curriculum could award graduation credits for the learning that takes place in a
student-led IEP process. Another possibility is expanding on the student-led IEP process to more
closely adhere to the capstone requirements. Based on my research findings, I anticipate that a
student-led IEP process that is expanded to meet the needs of a capstone would take additional
time to implement with students, likely more than the three hours it took for me to implement a
student-led IEP with one student. Therefore, time allocation for LSTs emerges as a challenge
again.
Overall, the existing BC Ministry of Education curriculum demonstrates that curricular
guidelines could expand to allow for credits to be earned towards graduation by completing a full
student-led IEP process. Additionally, LSTs could expand the student-led IEP process to meet
the requirements of a capstone. Either option would give students the opportunity to earn credits
for graduation through the learning and skills engaged with through student-led IEPs. The BC

135

Ministry of Education could also provide funding for LSTs applicants that would be used to
release some of the LST’s time for one year so that the LST could implement student-led IEPs. I
propose these options with the hope that student-led IEPs can spread beyond my practice to
support students across the province.
Summary of expanding the work
To expand on the work I have done to investigate student-led IEPs through my research, I
will implement student-led IEPs with diverse learners and I will gather feedback on student-led
IEPs from students and parents. On a larger scale, although implementing student-led IEPs
throughout the province of British Columbia may not be realistic due to resource implications, I
proposed solutions to support student-led IEP implementation that preserve teacher autonomy
while providing incentives to try a new process. First, I suggested that LSTs be provided with
additional time through funding for one year to implement student-led IEPs. Second, I suggested
providing the option for students to earn credits towards graduation for completing a full studentled IEP process. Either option gives LSTs the opportunity to implement and learn from studentled IEPs in their contexts and give students the opportunity to engage with developing their IEP
through a student-led process and taking ownership of their education. Wider change for the IEP
process may spread as a result of individuals becoming involved with opportunities like those I
have proposed.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, I returned to the context I shared in Chapter One and articulated the
problem I was trying to solve through my research. I explained how investigating student-led
IEPs showed me a path to solving the problem, by engaging with student-led IEPs as a catalyst
for change that altered the way I thought about, approached, and experienced the IEP process. I

136

reflected on my research process and addressed what worked well for me, what did not, and how
my research process met the needs of my teaching practice. In particular, I described how the
self-study methodology met the needs of my teaching practice in my research. The future of
student-led IEPs in my practice was addressed and I will be able to use what I have learned
through my investigation to implement student-led IEPs in part or in full in order to support
students in the IEP process. Expanding on the work I did to investigate student-led IEPs in my
research will mean implementing student-led IEPs with diverse learners and gathering feedback
on student-led IEPs from other stakeholders in the process. I proposed possibilities for spreading
change in implementing student-led IEPs in British Columbia by providing LSTs additional time
through funding for one year to implement student-led IEPs and providing the option for students
to earn credits towards graduation for completing a full student-led IEP process. I suggested that
broader change in the IEP process may result from individuals engaging with opportunities to
implement student-led IEPs.
Conclusion
I stepped out on the research path with the idea in mind that students should be
empowered to “take ownership for their own education” (Davis & Cumming, 2019, p. 92) and
have a voice in their own Individual Education Plan (IEP). The research process guided me to
investigate student-led IEPs as a change in my practice in a way that was at once familiar and
more rigorous than I had engaged with in the past. In the process I realized that, by centering
students in their learning through student-led IEPs, I had the opportunity to learn and grow as a
Learning Services Teacher (LST). I view my research as a stone thrown into a pond: My
research has had the biggest impact on the person closest (me) and created waves for some

137

students on my caseload who engaged with student-led IEPs. Perhaps my data and the lessons I
learned will ripple out to affect further change and more student-led IEPs in the future.

138

References
Andrews, J., Bachor, D. G., & Lupart, J. L. (1993). The inclusive classroom: Educating
exceptional children. Nelson Canada.
Barry, P., & O'Callaghan, C. (2008). Reflexive journal writing: A tool for music therapy student
clinical practice development. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 17(1), 55-66.
Blackwell, W. H., & Rossetti, Z. S. (2014). The development of individualized education
programs: Where have we been and where should we go now?. Sage Open, 4(2), doi:
2158244014530411.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in
psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research
in sport, exercise and health, 11(4), 589-597.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive)
thematic analysis?. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2016). Special Education Services: A Manual of
Policies, Procedures and Guidelines.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/kindergarten-to-grade12/inclusive/special_ed_policy_manual.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2024). Inclusive Education Services: A Manual of
Policies, Procedures and Guidelines 2024.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/kindergarten-to-grade12/inclusive/inclusive_ed_policy_manual.pdf

139

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2019). Career Education 10-12 Guide.
https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/sites/curriculum.gov.bc.ca/files/curriculum/careereducation/en_career-education_10-12_career-education-guide.pdf
Brussino, O. (2020). Mapping policy approaches and practices for the inclusion of students with
special education needs. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 227. In OECD
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/600fbad5-en
Byrne, D. (2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic
analysis. Quality & quantity, 56(3), 1391-1412.
Cavendish, W., Connor, D. J., & Rediker, E. (2017). Engaging students and parents in transitionfocused individualized education programs. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(4),
228–235.
Coghlan, D., & Brydon-Miller, M. (Eds.) (2014). The SAGE encyclopedia of action research.
(Vols. 1-2). SAGE Publications Ltd, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446294406
Craig, C. J. (2009). Trustworthiness in self-study research. Self-study research methodologies for
teacher educators (pp. 21-34). Brill.
Craig, C. J. (2019). Positioning others in self-facing inquiries: Ethical challenges in self-study of
teaching and teacher education research. Ethics, self-study research methodology and
teacher education, (pp. 29–43). Springer.
Creswell, John W. (2022). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approach, 6th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cuenca, A. (2020). Ethics of self-study research as a legitimate methodological tradition.
International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices, 461482.

140

Danneker, J. E., & Bottge, B. A. (2009). Benefits of and barriers to elementary student-led
individualized education programs. Remedial and Special Education, 30(4), 225–233.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508315650
Davis, M. T., & Cumming, I. K. (2019). Planning and implementing student-led IEPs for
students with EBD. Beyond Behavior, 28(2), 90–98.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1074295619850569
Diegelmann, K. M., & Test, D. W. (2018). Effects of a self-monitoring checklist as a component
of the “Self-Directed IEP.” Education and Training in Autism and Developmental
Disabilities, 53(1), 73–83.
Eisenman, L., Chamberlin, M., & McGahee-Kovac, M. (2005). A teacher inquiry group on
student-led IEPs: Starting small to make a difference. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 28(3-4), 195–206.
Emerson R., Fretz R., Shaw L. (2011). Writing ethnographic field notes (2nd ed.). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Gillespie, E. B., & Turnbull, A. P. (1983). It's my IEP! Involving students in the planning
process. Teaching Exceptional Children, 16(1), 26–29.
https://doi.org/10.1177/004005998301600107
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging
confluences. In N.Denzin & Y. S.Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 191–215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hawbaker, B. W. (2007). Student-led IEP meetings: Planning and implementation strategies.
Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 3(5), 1–18.

141

Hossain, M. (2012). An overview of inclusive education in the United States. Communication
technology for students in special education and gifted programs, 1-25.
Howard, M., Reed, A. S., & Francis, G. L. (2021). “It’s my meeting!”: Involving high school
students with significant disabilities in the individualized education program process.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 53(4), 290–298.
I’m Determined. I’m Determined. (2024, June 12). https://imdetermined.org/
Jaramillo, J. A. (1996). Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory and Contributions to the Development
of Constructivist Curricula. Education, 117(1), 133-141.
Krahenbuhl, K. S. (2016). Student-centered education and constructivism: Challenges, concerns,
and clarity for teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues
and Ideas, 89(3), 97-105.
Konrad, M. (2008). Involve students in the IEP process. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(4),
236-239.
LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings.
In International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp.
817-869). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
LaBoskey, V. K. (1993). Why reflection in teacher education? Teacher Education Quarterly,
20(1), 9–12.
Lau, A. M. S. (2016). ‘Formative Good, Summative Bad?’ -- A review of the dichotomy in
assessment literature. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(4), 509–525.
https://doi-org.prxy.lib.unbc.ca/10.1080/0309877X.2014.984600
Loreman, T. (2014). Special education today in Canada. In Special education international
perspectives: Practices across the globe (pp. 33-60). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

142

Lumivero (2023) NVivo (Version 14). www.lumivero.com
Lyons, N. (2010). Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: mapping a way of knowing for
professional reflective inquiry. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-85744-2
Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. L., Christensen, W. R., Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E., & Lovett, D.
L. (2006). Increasing student participation in their transition IEP meetings: Establishing
the self-directed IEP as an evidenced-based practice. Exceptional Children, 72, 299–316.
doi:10.1177/001440290607200303
Mason, C. Y., McGahee-Kovac, M., Johnson, L., & Stillerman, S. (2002). Implementing studentled IEPs: student participation and student and teacher reactions. Career Development for
Exceptional Individuals, 25(2), 171–92.
Mayan, M. J. (2023). Essentials of qualitative inquiry. Routledge.
McBride, S. R. (2013). Special education legislation and policy in Canada. The Journal of the
International Association of Special Education, 14(1), 4-8.
McGahee, M., Mason, C., Wallace, T., & Jones, B. (2001). Student-Led IEPs: A Guide for
Student Involvement. Council for Exceptional Children. Arlington, VA.
McDonough, S., & Brandenburg, R. (2019). The “wicked problem” of ethics in self-study
research: Dominant, silent and marginalised discourses. Ethics, Self-Study Research
Methodology and Teacher Education, 165-176.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society (Vol. 111). Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Mitchell, D., Morton, M., & Hornby, G. (2010). Review of the literature on individual education
plans: Report to the New Zealand Ministry of Education.

143

Phillippi J., & Lauderdale J. (2018). A guide to field notes for qualitative research: Context and
conversation. Qualitative Health Research, 28(3), 381-388.
doi:10.1177/1049732317697102
Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2009). Data collection methods in S-STTEP research. Selfstudy of practice as a genre of qualitative research: Theory, methodology, and practice,
103-138.
Pinnegar, S., & Murphy, M. S. (2019). Ethical dilemmas of a self-study researcher: A narrative
analysis of ethics in the process of S-STEP research. Ethics, self-study research
methodology and teacher education, 117-130.
Pratt, D. D., & Collins, J. B. (2000). The teaching perspectives inventory (TPI).
Pratt, D. D. (2002). Good teaching: One size fits all?. New directions for adult and continuing
education, 2002(93), 5-16.
Royer, D. J. (2017). My IEP: A student-directed individualized education program
model. Exceptionality, 25(4), 235-252.
Sanderson, K. A., & Goldman, S. E. (2020). A systematic review and meta-analysis of
interventions used to increase adolescent IEP meeting participation. Career Development
and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 43(3), 157-168.
Scheef, A. R., Yeager, K. H., & Deardorff, M. E. (2024). Barriers to implementing student-led
IEPs. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 47(3), 184-197.
Sokal, L., & Katz, J. (2020). Inclusive and Special Education in Canada and the United States. In
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.

144

Sea to Sky School District. (2023). The Individualized Education Plan (IEP).
https://www.sd48seatosky.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=1129213&type=d&pREC
_ID=1383791
Tremblay, P., & Belley, S. (2017). Individualized education plans in Canada: A comparative
analysis. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 8(1), 30173024.
UN General Assembly. (November 20, 1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. 1577,
United Nations Treaty Series, 3. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/crc.pdf
UNESCO. (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education.
Unesco.org. https://unesdoc.unesco.org
Zeitlin, V. M., & Curcic, S. (2014). Parental voices on individualized education programs: ‘Oh,
IEP meeting tomorrow? Rum tonight!’. Disability & Society, 29(3), 373-387.

145