IEP Components – The Best Kept Secret: Readability and Accessibility of IEPs

By

Kathleen G. Winterman, Ed.D.

Xavier University

 

Clarissa E. Rosas, Ph.D.

Concordia University

This issue of NASET’s IEP Component Series was written by Kathleen G. Winterman, Ed.D. and Clarissa E. Rosas, Ph.D., and recently published in the Winter 2025 edition of the Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals (JAASEP). Individualized education plans (IEPs) are to serve as a guideline for the supports and services a student with a disability needs to have access to the general education curriculum. State departments of education monitor the compliance of these programs within the public schools. This study found the materials that state departments use to inform parents and guardians about IEPs and their rights and responsibilities in the special education process are difficult to read and understand for most parents, which potentially limits the ability to advocate for their children. The implications of these findings suggest the parents’ capacity for active participation in the IEP processes are diminished. Opportunities for improving collaboration and communication between schools and families are discussed.

Abstract

Individualized education plans (IEPs) are to serve as a guideline for the supports and services a student with a disability needs to have access to the general education curriculum. State departments of education monitor the compliance of these programs within the public schools.

This study found the materials that state departments use to inform parents and guardians about IEPs and their rights and responsibilities in the special education process are difficult to read and understand for most parents, which potentially limits the ability to advocate for their children. The implications of these findings suggest the parents’ capacity for active participation in the IEP processes are diminished. Opportunities for improving collaboration and communication between schools and families are discussed.

Keywords: IEPs, disability, parents, readability

The Best Kept Secret: Readability and Accessibility of IEPs

Students with disabilities who receive special education and/or related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 (PL 108-446) have the right to an individualized education program (IEP) that specifies their goals, services, and accommodations. According to the United States National Center for Education Statistics (Irwin, et.al., 2023; Schaeffer, 2023), there were 7.3 million students ages 3-21 who received special education and/or related services under IDEA in 2021-2022, meaning that at least 7.3 million IEPs were developed and implemented in collaboration with parents and/or guardians, who have a vital role and responsibility in the IEP process. This population represents approximately 15% of the public school enrollment which was an increase of 2 % before the pandemic (Schaeffer, 2023).

As stated by Cadieux, Crooks, and King (2019), the IEP is a contract between the parents, schools, and students who are identified as having a disability which outlines how the school will address the student’s educational needs through appropriate accommodations, program modifications, and/or alternative programs as well as specific instructional and assessment strategies. It is anticipated that with these accommodations or modifications, students will be able to achieve the learning outcomes as outlined within the curriculum—thus, leveling the playing field. Blackwell and Rossetti (2014) believe the IEP is the conceptual and practical intersection of policy, schools, and families of students with disabilities which serves as the foundation for effective special education and related services and positive student outcomes. When the IEP is viewed only as a perfunctory requirement, then a unique opportunity for developing and implementing meaningful educational experiences for students with disabilities will be missed, and the intentions of IDEA will not be fulfilled (Blackwell & Rossetti, 2014).

Since 1975, IDEA has been amended several times to strengthen and clarify the rights and responsibilities of parents and guardians in the IEP process. Parental involvement in the development of a student’s IEP is both crucial and legally mandated; however, research suggests that parent participation during IEP meetings is relatively low compared to that of teachers and administrators (Martin et al., 2006).  Zirkel and Hetrick (2016) provide a legal perspective of professional development and practice for the IEP process, noting that procedural violations in the parent participation category were the most frequently adjudicated. Research findings demonstrate parents’ IEP satisfaction was positively associated with parent–school connectedness which furthermore supports the importance of parent–school relationships (Slade, Eisenhower, Carter, & Blancher, 2018).

IDEA empowers educators and parents to be collaborative partners for the betterment of the student in creating a shared vision of the child’s educational plan. Parents want what is best for their children, but the world of disabilities is often mysterious with parents not knowing which way to turn for support (Cadieux, Crooks, & King, 2019). The materials provided by State Departments of Education are to serve as a resource to support them in their active participation in the IEP process. Many parents and guardians may not be fully informed or involved in the IEP process due to various barriers and challenges, such as lack of information, language differences, time constraints, negative attitudes, disagreements or simply not knowing their role (Rosas & Winterman, 2023; Slade, Eisenhower, Carter, & Blancher, 2018). To participate in the IEP meeting, parents are expected to advocate for their child, know their rights, be knowledgeable about school rules, and educational politics to be equal partners in the IEP process without formal training (Kupper, 2000; IDEA, 2004; and Zirkel & Hetrick, 2017). To assist parents in knowing their role and provide foundational support, State Departments of Education are charged with developing resource materials for parents to offer guidance as to best practices and minimum standards. Kupper (2000), developed IEP guidelines as a parent support in understanding the various aspects of the IEP document. Since then, states continue to expound on improved practices for IEP teaming. It is important for parents to have access to materials that are within their readability level which enables them to be more involved in their children’s education, which can have a powerful impact on their outcomes. The significance of comprehensible and accessible IEP materials for parents and guardians necessitates an exploration of what states are currently providing. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze the availability and readability level of informational materials on IEPs supporting parental rights and responsibilities published by State Departments of Education websites.

Smith (1984) offers that the Flesch Readability Scale is among the oldest and most widely recognized readability metric which speaks to the intuitive appeal and usefulness of reading ease based on sentence and word length. Its historical significance added to the credibility of its use. Given its significance as being the most tested and reliable formula in readability, the Flesch scale was incorporated in this study (DuBay, 2004). Flesch (1963) believed that no matter how complex the topic all writing should be conveyed in a manner that was easily read by the reader. Flesch developed his readability score by examining the average length of words and syllables in a sentence (Flesch, 1963; Smith, 1984). Easy-to-read texts have an average of eight words or less per sentence and standard writing has seventeen. The authors of this study utilized Flesch’s approach to examine the readability of the IEP resources available to parents to support their active engagement in the IEP development.   

Methodology

Given the importance of the IEP and resource materials, it is essential that state departments of education provide comprehensible and accessible materials to educate and train parents and guardians on IEPs and their rights and responsibilities in the special education process. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the availability and readability level of materials developed and published by state departments of education to inform parents and guardians about IEPs and their rights and responsibilities in the special education process. The following research questions guided this study:

1. What is the readability level of sample IEPs and materials on special education provided by state departments of education whose purpose is to provide training and education to parents and guardians who serve as advocates for children with disabilities?
2. What is the readability level of Parent Special Education Handbooks provided by State Departments of Education whose purpose is to provide training and education to parents and guardians who serve and advocate for children with disabilities?
3. Is there a difference in the readability level of IEPs vs. parent handbooks?
4. Are sample IEPs and information on special education available on state departments of education websites?­­
5. Do state departments of education provide IEP information in languages other than English?
6. Are IEPs and parent handbooks on state department websites easily accessible to consumers?

Research Design & Data Analysis

The research design of this study was descriptive and comparative. The researchers employed descriptive statistics to describe the readability levels of the IEP templates and parent special education handbooks available on the websites of 50 state departments of education.

           

The researchers located IEP templates and parent handbooks on special education from the websites of 50 state departments of education in the United States.  The websites were accessed in May and June of 2023 using a web browser.  The researchers randomly selected 500 words from each document.  The words were extracted from different sections of the document, such as introduction, eligibility, evaluation, IEP development, placement, services, rights, and resources.

Using the Flesch Reading online calculator, the researchers calculated the readability score of each 500-word sample. The Flesch Reading Calculator is an online tool for estimating the reading level of English-language content, based on the average length of words and sentences in the text. This calculator was developed by Rudolf Flesch in 1948 and has been widely used to measure readability levels of documents (Flesch, 1963; Smith, 1984).  The score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating easier readability.  The score can also be converted to a grade level equivalent, which indicates the minimum grade level required to understand the text. 

The researchers reordered the Flesch Reading Score and grade levels for each sample in a spreadsheet. They also noted whether the state department of education provided IEP information in languages other than English, and whether the IEPs and parent handbooks were easily accessible on their website.

Assumptions, Limitations, Delimitations. Assumptions are the beliefs or premises that the researchers hold to be true but cannot prove or verify. For this study, there are three assumptions that the researchers identified. First, the readability level of the materials is a crucial factor that affects parent­­s’ understanding, involvement, and satisfaction with the IEP process. A second assumption is that the Flesch Reading online calculator is a valid and reliable tool for measuring the readability level of the materials. The third assumption is that the 500-word samples are representative of the whole document in terms of readability level.

Limitations are the potential weaknesses or flaws of the study, based on factors that are outside of the researcher’s control. For this study, the researcher acknowledged three limitations.  First, the study only used one readability formula (Flesch Reading) to measure the readability level of the materials, which might not capture other aspects of readability, such as vocabulary, syntax, coherence, etc. Second, the study only focused on the readability level of the materials, and did not measure other factors that might influence parent understanding, involvement, and satisfaction, such as content, format, design, language, etc. Third, the study only analyzed the materials available on the websites of state departments of education and did not include other sources of information or training that parents might access or receive from other agencies or organizations.

Delimitations are the boundaries or scope of the study, based on the researcher’s choice of what to include and what to exclude. For this study, the researchers decided to delimit the study by including only IEP templates and parent special education handbooks as the types of materials to analyze, and excluded other types of materials, such as training modules, videos, etc. The researchers included only materials from fifty state departments of education in the United States and excluded materials from other countries or regions. Finally, readability levels were only included for those materials in English and excluded materials from other languages.

 

Summary

The researchers of this study conducted a descriptive and comparative analysis of the readability levels of IEP templates and parent handbooks on special education provided by 50 state departments of education in the US. They used the Flesch Reading Calculator (Flesch, 1963) to measure the readability scores and grade levels of 500-word samples extracted from different sections of each document. They also compared the mean readability scores and grade levels between the IEP templates and parent handbooks using a t-test. They also examined the availability, accessibility, and language diversity of the IEP templates and parent handbooks on the state department websites.

Findings

The purpose of this study was to explore the availability and readability level of materials developed and published by state departments of education to inform parents and guardians about IEPs and their rights and responsibilities in the special education process.

Readability Findings. Descriptive statistics were used to answer the following research questions.

• What is the readability level of sample IEPs and materials on special education provided by State Departments of Education whose purpose is to provide training and education to parents and guardians who serve as advocates for children with disabilities?

• What is the readability level of Parent Special Education Handbooks provided by State Departments of Education whose purpose is to provide training and education to parents and guardians who serve and advocatefor children with disabilities?

Readability was measured using two indicators: the Flesch Kincaid Easy Score and the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level. The Easy Score is a measure using a number ranging from 0 to 100 of how easy a text is to read, with higher scores indicating easier readability.  The Grade Level is a measure of the education level required to understand a text, with lower scores indicating easier readability. The readability sample consisted of 46 IEP and 49 Special Education Parent Handbooks documents obtained from State Department of Education websites.  Four State Departmentsof Education did not include IEPs and one State Department of Education did not include a Special Education Parent Handbook.  Table 1 provides the readability for the documents reviewed.

Table 1

Readability of Special Education State Department’s Documents

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Document Type                                                        Easy Score                       Grade Level

                                                                           n                M        SD                n          M         SD           

______________________________________________________________________________

 

IEP                                                                  46            30.64   15.71               47        14.77   5.56                       

 

Parent Handbook/Website                              49            37.28   13.45               49        13.28   3.07

______________________________________________________________________________

The results indicate that parent handbooks/websites had higher Easy Scores and lower Grade Levels than IEPs, suggesting that they were more readable and accessible for the public. However, both document types had low easy scores and high academic grade levels, indicating that they were difficult to read and understand for most people.

 

Difference in Readability. An independent t-test was used to compare the mean Easy Score and mean Grade Level of the readability of the parent handbooks and IEPs to answer the following research question: Is there a difference in the readability level of IEPs vs. parent handbooks? The null hypothesis (Ho) is that there is no difference between the mean readability scores or grade levels of IEPs and parent handbooks. The alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that there is a difference between the mean readability scores or grade levels of IEPs and parent handbooks. The significance level was set at 0.05 or 5%.

The results indicate that there was a significant difference between the mean Easy Score of the IEP documents (M = 30.64, SD = 15.71) and the Parent Handbook/Website documents (M = 37.28, SD = 13.45), t(93) = -2.36, p = 0.02, two-tailed. The parent handbook documents had a higher easy score than the IEP templates, indicating that they were more readable. These results suggest that there is a discrepancy in the readability of the special education state department’s documents, and that the IEP templates may be less accessible and understandable for parents than the parent handbook documents.

A two-sample t-test was conducted to compare the readability of the IEP templates and the parent handbook documents in terms of grade level. There was a significant difference in the grade level for the IEP templates (M = 14.77, SD = 5.56) and the parent handbook documents (M = 13.28, SD = 3.07); t(94) = 1.83, p = 0.04, one-tailed. The IEP templates had a higher grade level than the parent handbook documents, indicating that they required a higher level of education to comprehend. These results suggest that there is a discrepancy in the readability of the special education state department’s documents, and that the IEP templates may be less accessible and understandable for parents than the parent handbook documents. Therefore, we reject the Ho and accept Ha. The effect size is medium, indicating that the difference is meaningful.

Accessibility of Documents. Descriptive statistics were used to answer the following research questions:

• Are sample IEPs and information on special education available on state departments of education websites?
• Do state departments of education provide IEP information in languages other than English?
• Are IEPs and parent handbooks on state department websites easily accessible to consumers?

A review of all 50-state department of education websites revealed that only one state provided an example of an IEP. As shown in Table 2, eleven state departments of education provided IEPs in languages other than English, with a range of 1 to 11 languages per state (M = 4.9, SD = 3.38). Half of the U.S. state departments of education (n = 25) provided parent handbooks in languages other than English, with a range of 1 to 21 languages per state (M = 5.2, SD = 5.7).

Table 2

Available Multi-Language IEPs and Parent Handbooks from State Departments of Education

_____________________________________________________________________________

Document Type                      n          M         SD

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

IEP                                          11        4.9       3.38

 

Parent Handbook                    25        5.2       5.7

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Summary

The findings of this study revealed that the materials developed and published by state departments of education to inform parents and guardians about IEPs and their rights and responsibilities in the special education process were not very readable or accessible. The parent handbooks and websites were easier to read than the IEP templates, but both types of documents required an elevated level of education to understand. There was also a lack of availability, diversity, and quality of the materials on the state department websites. To access materials in languages other than English, parents first need to navigate the state websites in English to find the materials in other languages which further challenges the availability of these resources. These findings suggest that there is a need to improve the readability and accessibility of the materials for parents and guardians who serve as advocates for children with disabilities.

 

Discussion

A review of the U.S. Department of Commerce (2021), Census Bureau revealed that the majority of the US population 89.4% had a high school or higher degree. These findings initially suggest that IEPs and materials on special education were written at a grade level commensurate with the majority (89.4%) of the US population (White & McClosky, nd; Nord, et al, 2011).  However, in reviewing the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) study, only 13% of the population had the daily literacy skills of being proficient in understanding documents (Nord, et al, 2011; White & McClosky, nd).  Since the IEP forms are documents requiring complex and challenging literacy skills, when considering the results of the NAAL study, this suggests that the majority of the population (87%) do not have the necessary skills to actively participate in the development of the IEP document. In addition, since the materials developed by state departments of education fall under NAAL’s daily literacy skill of prose and according to NAAL’s study only 57% of the population would have the necessary reading skills to understand the training materials. Results of this study indicate that the IEPs and materials developed by state departments of education surpass the literacy level of most of the US’s population. These findings imply that most parents may face difficulties in understanding and participating in the IEP process, which is a key component of their educational rights under IDEA. The study found significant differences in readability between the IEP templates and the special education handbook, with the former being more challenging to comprehend than the latter. These findings suggest that there is a discrepancy in the quality and clarity of the information and documents provided by state departments of education to parents. Therefore, the results highlight the need for improving the accessibility and clarity of the IEP templates and the special education handbook for parents and students with disabilities.

The gap between parents’ reading grade levels and the readability levels of documents provided by state departments of education can create barriers for effective communication and collaboration between parents and school personnel, which may limit the parents’ adeptnessto advocate for their child’s best interests. Parental involvement is not only legally protected, but also beneficial for students’ academic and social outcomes.  Parents from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds may face additional challenges in accessing and comprehending the information and documents related to special education when documents are also not available in their home language. Therefore, state departments of education should re-examine the true accessibility of the resources available to families, especially in light of the changing demographics of the US and the increased need for students’ services as a result of the pandemic.

To minimize the involvement of parents in the educational decisions for their children not only denies parents their rights to full participation, which is legally protected, but establishes barriers which inhibit parents from becoming active members of their child’s educational team.  Such barriers can be even more problematic for families from culturally and linguistically different backgrounds who often have dissimilar perceptions of how decisions are made. Given the changing demographics of the United States and the increased need for students’ services as a result of the pandemic, State departments of education should re-examine the true accessibility of the resources available to families for the betterment of our student population.

Based on the results and implications of this study, the following recommendations are proposed to enhance the readability of the IEP templates and the special education handbooks for parents and students with disabilities:

• Use plain language that is clear and concise. Avoid using jargon, acronyms, or technical terms that may confuse or intimidate parents. If needed, provide definitions and examples in simple words.

 

• Use visual aids, such as charts, graphs, pictures, or symbols, to illustrate key points or concepts. Visual aids can help parents grasp information more easily and quickly.

 

• Use various tools and strategies to assess the readability level of your document, such as Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, SMOG Index, or Fry Graph. These tools can help determine if your document is too complex or too simple for your intended audience.

 

• Check with the students’ familieson preferred language use and secure qualified interpreter as needed (Rosas & Winterman, 2023).

 

• Schools, state agencies, and related services providers can provide interactive training (ie. face-to-face or webinars) for parents to better understand the process.

 

• Involve parents in the writing process and ask for their feedback. Parents are the experts on their children and their needs. Involving them in the writing processensures that the IEP reflects their perspectives and preferences.

 

• During the IEP development, periodically check to see if the parents/guardians understand the document and have questions or concerns. This can help identify and address any gaps or misunderstandings in the document.

 

• Check with family on effective use of interpreter (Rosas & Winterman, 2023).

 

Conclusions

The purpose of individualized education plans (IEPs) is to provide guidelines for the support and services that students with disabilities need to access the general education curriculum. State departments of education are responsible for monitoring the compliance of these programs in public schools and providing guidance to schools and families about the services offered. However, the materials that state departments use to inform parents and guardians about IEPs and their rights and responsibilities in the special education process are often too difficult to read and understand for most parents, which limits their capacity to advocate for their children. As a result, parents may not be able to participate effectively as members of the IEP team. This study examined the readability and accessibility of special education materials developed and published by state departments of education, including parent handbooks, websites, and IEP templates. The results revealed that the parent handbooks and websites were more readable than the IEP templates, but both types of documents required a high level of education to comprehend. The study also found that the state department websites had limited accessibility of comprehensible materials to inform parents and guardians of the special education process. The implications of these findings for improving communication and collaboration between schools and families are offered.

References

Blackwell, W., & Rossetti, Z. (2014). The development of Individualized Education

Programs: Where have we been and where should we go now? Sage, 20(4), 1–15.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244014530411

Cadieux, C., Crooks, C., & King, C. (2019). Parents’ experiences with an individualized

intervention designed to strengthen the family-school partnership: The parents in

partnership with educators (PIPE) program. Exceptionality Education International,

29(2), 1-17.

DuBay, W. H. (2004). The principles of readability. Online Submission.  https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED490073.pdf

Flesch, R. (1963). How to write, speak and think more effectively. Signet Books.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 118 U.S.C. § 2647.

Irwin, V., Wang, K., Tezil, T., Zhang, J., Filbey, A., Jung, J., Bullock Mann, F., Dilig, R., and

Parker, S. (2023). Report on the condition of education 2023 (NCES 2023-144). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved [date] from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2023144.

Kupper, L. (2000). A Guide to the Individualized Education Program. Office of Special

Education and Rehabilitative Services (ED), Washington, DC.; National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities, Washington, DC.

Martin, J.E., Van Dycke, J.L., Christensen, W.R., Greene, B.A., Gardner, J.E., & Lovett, D.L.

(2006). Increasing student participation in IEP meetings: Establishing the self-directed IEP as an evidenced-based practice. Exceptional Children, 72(3), 299-316.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2021). National Assessment of Adult Literacy.  

Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/achieve.aspx#2009_grade12.

Nord, C., Hicks, L., Hoover, K., Jones, M., Lin, A., Lyons, M., Perkins, R., Roey, S., Rust, K.,

and Sickles, D. (2011). The 2009 High School Transcript Study User’s Guide (NCES 2011–465). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Rosas, C. E., & Winterman, K.G. (2023). The IEP checklist: Your guide to creating meaningful

and compliant IEPs. (2nd ed.) Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Schaeffer, (2023). Striking findings from 2021. PEW Research Center.

Slade, N., Eisenhower, A., Carter, A.S., & Blacher, J. (2018). Satisfaction with individualized

education programs among parents of young children. Exceptional Children, 84(3), 242-

260.

Smith, R.F. (1984). How consistently do readability tests measure the difficulty of newswriting?

Newspaper Research Journal, 5(4), 1-8.

https://doi-org.xavier.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/073953298400500401

White, S., & McCloskey, M. (n.d). Framework for the 2003 National Assessment of   

Adult Literacy (NCES 2005-531). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC:

National Center for Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, U.S. Census of Population. (2021). Educational

Attainment in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/search-results.html?q=high+school+graduation+rate&page=1&stateGeo=none&searchtype=web&cssp=SERP&_charset_=UTF-8

Zirkel, P. A., & Hetrick, A. (2017). Which procedural parts of the IEP process are the most

judicially vulnerable? Exceptional Children, 83(2), 219-235.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916651849

About the Authors

Kathleen G. Winterman’s experiences in the field include teaching as an intervention specialist in inclusive settings, serving as an Elementary Principal, an Associate Professor, Program Director, Director of the School of Education, and Director of the Educational Centers at Xavier University while serving on multiple State of Ohio committees.  She holds an Ed.D in Special Education Leadership. As an educational advocate, research interests include teacher preparation, IEP development, family supports, Early Childhood Special Education, Autism, educational leadership, the use of instructional technology, and services for students with mental illnesses. Grant interests include incorporating evidence-based practices for program improvement and increasing opportunities for impactful growth through authentic experiences. Leading educational programs while providing instructional supports for program development, grant writing, management, technical assistance, and reporting are a means for continuous improvement while providing valid experiences which empower growth and development of all participants—learners and practitioners alike. 

Clarissa Rosas,is an equity-driven scholar-practitioner holding a Ph.D. in Multicultural Special Education from the University of New Mexico, and a master’s degree in special education from the University of San Diego. Extensive PreK-12 special education experience as a teacher, administrator, regional leader, and teacher educator in higher education across four states (CA, NM, OH, TX). Nationally/internationally recognized for advancing inclusive, culturally responsive practices to improve outcomes for diverse learners, including students with disabilities and emergent bi/multilinguals. Designed innovative teacher preparation programs centering equity-focused, evidence-based strategies for effectively serving marginalized populations and building capacity in IDEA compliance, OSEP guidance, technical assistance systems, and high-leverage pedagogies. Accomplished consultant providing professional development on key topics such as IDEA implementation, IEP development, and literacy for multilingual learners. Skilled presenter/facilitator and adult learning specialist proficient in virtual/in-person training delivery. Authored practice-oriented publications, proposals, and resources advocating for continuous improvement of special education policies and instruction. Dedicated to cross-sector collaboration transforming systems to ensure equitable, high-quality inclusive education upholding IDEA’s promise. Bridges research and practice to empower educators, equipping them with the skills and knowledge to effectively meet the diverse needs of all learners.

Author Guidelines for Submission to JAASEP

JAASEP welcomes manuscript submissions at any time.  Authors are completely responsible for the factual accuracy of their contributions and neither the Editorial Board of JAASEP nor the American Academy of Special Education Professionals accepts any responsibility for the assertions and opinions of contributors. Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to quote lengthy excerpts from previously-published articles.

Authors will be notified of the receipt of their manuscripts within 14 business days of their arrival and can expect to receive the results of the review process within 75 days.

All submissions must have a cover letter indicating that the manuscript has not been published, or is not being considered for publication anywhere else, in whole or in substantial part.  On the cover letter be sure to include your name, your address, your email address, and your phone number 

As much as possible, typescript should conform to the following:

• Method of Manuscript Submission:  Send Manuscripts should be submitted electronically with the words “Submission” in the subject line. 
• Language:  English
• Document:  Microsoft Word
• Font:  Times New Roman or Arial
• Size of Font:  12 Point
• Page Limit:  None
• Margins:  1” on all sides
• Title of paper: Top of page Capitals, bold, centered, 
• Author(s) Name: Centered under title of paper 
• Format:  Feature Manuscripts should follow the guidelines of fifth edition of the
• Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA). 
• Figures and Tables:  All should be integrated in the typescript. 
• Abstract:  An abstract of not more than 150 words should accompany each submission. 
• References:  Insert all references cited in the paper submitted on a Reference
• Page 

Submission of Articles:  Submissions should be forwarded by electronic mail to the Editor, Dr. George Giuliani at editor@aasep.org

Copyright and Reprint Rights of JAASEP

JAASEP retains copyright of all original materials; however, the author(s) retains the right to use, after publication in the journal, all or part of the contribution in a modified form as part of any subsequent publication.

JAASEP is published by the American Academy of Special Education Professionals. JAASEP retains copyright of all original materials; however, the author(s) retains the right to use, after publication in the journal, all or part of the contribution in a modified form as part of any subsequent publication.

If the author(s) use the materials in a subsequent publication, whether in whole or part, JAASEP must be acknowledged as the original publisher of the article. All other requests for use or re-publication in whole or part should be addressed to the Editor of JAASEP.

To top

Download this Issue

To Download a PDF file version of this Issue of the NASET’sIEP Components Series – CLICK HERE

To top