By Betsy Hill and Roger Stark
Many parents and teachers feel the “individualized” in Individualized Education Program (IEP) is more nominal than real. While it isn’t literally true that every IEP is identical, a striking sameness has emerged: accommodations like extended time on tests and preferential seating are applied broadly rather than tailored to the student’s unique needs. That sameness undermines the promise of personalization that IEPs are supposed to deliver.
One major driver of similar IEPs is the system’s focus on standards — the specific knowledge and skills students are expected to demonstrate at each grade level. This focus has a reasonable purpose: if a student hasn’t mastered certain standards, we should identify those gaps and provide support. Yet two underlying assumptions of this approach rarely get questioned. First, the emphasis is almost entirely on the “what” of learning — the content and standards — rather than how each student learns. Second, the starting point for intervention is usually what a student cannot do, not what they already can do.
Another factor encouraging uniform IEPs is strict compliance with legal and procedural requirements. Compliance matters, of course, but training and discussion often center on following procedures rather than improving student outcomes. Many parents report that meetings focus more on checking boxes than on exploring the specific learning profile of their child. That procedural emphasis can drown out meaningful conversations about personalization and real progress.
A standards-driven approach also shapes IEP goals to read like inspection checklists. Consider these typical objectives:
- Aaron will decode CVCC and CCVC words (consonant-vowel patterns) with 80 percent accuracy.
- Janice will identify triangles, rectangles, circles and pentagons by the number of sides and vertices in 4 out of 5 opportunities.
These goals are measurable and specific, which is valuable, but they assume learning is a linear accumulation of discrete skills. They emphasize accuracy in isolated tasks rather than deeper understanding. For example, teaching Aaron to decode particular word patterns doesn’t guarantee he finds meaning in texts. Similarly, Janice’s ability to label shapes correctly four times out of five doesn’t necessarily show she understands those shapes or how to use that knowledge in real contexts.
The usual reaction when students don’t meet targets is more instruction and more practice. That may help in some cases, but it assumes repetition alone is the most effective or efficient path to mastery. It overlooks whether different strategies, adapted to a student’s cognitive profile, might produce better results with less effort. In other words, focusing only on “what” to teach ignores the equally important question of “how” the student learns.
The “how” of learning includes each student’s cognitive strengths and weaknesses. Every learner has a distinctive mix of abilities — memory, processing speed, attention, visual-spatial skills, language processing and more — that influence how they acquire and retain knowledge. Recognizing strengths first, then addressing challenges, empowers students and informs instructional choices that align with how they actually learn.
You’ll find many suggestions for empowering students in IEP practice. For example, generative AI tools often recommend student-led meetings, goal-setting, and regular self-reflection as ways to build ownership. Those strategies can be useful, but they assume students and teachers already know the student’s cognitive strengths and how to apply them. If they don’t, neither the student’s self-advocacy nor the teacher’s strategies will be optimally informed.
True empowerment starts with understanding how a student learns and then designing instruction and supports that leverage their strengths. When students know their learning profile, they can use strategies that help them progress more quickly and effectively than simply repeating the same instruction that works for others. This approach also opens the door to building the student’s learning capacity itself: strengthening cognitive skills — such as working memory, attention control, and processing speed — so the student becomes a more efficient learner overall.
For instance, if Janice struggles to identify shapes reliably, rather than endlessly reteaching sides and vertices, educators might use alternative strategies informed by her cognitive profile: multisensory activities, real-world problem solving, or visual scaffolds that align with her strengths. At the same time, targeted training to improve underlying cognitive skills can reduce the time and effort required for future learning across subjects.
The current trajectory toward student empowerment risks becoming another set of standardized practices unless we shift the emphasis from only what students must learn to how they learn best. Reimagining IEPs around both content and cognitive processes offers a better path — one that honors each learner’s uniqueness and can transform educational outcomes by making instruction more efficient, meaningful, and motivating.
About the authors
Betsy Hill is President of BrainWare Learning Company, which applies neuroscience to practical learning solutions for children and families. An experienced educator, she has studied the intersection of neuroscience and education with experts in the field, and she teaches strategic thinking in an MBA program. Betsy holds a Master of Arts in Teaching and an MBA from Northwestern University and is co-author of the book “Your Child Learns Differently, Now What?”
Roger Stark is Co-founder and CEO of BrainWare Learning Company. He has led efforts to make cognitive literacy training and assessment widely available, and guided development of BrainWare SAFARI, a comprehensive online cognitive training tool. Roger has focused on creating effective, affordable approaches grounded in decades of clinical experience. He is co-author of “Your Child Learns Differently, Now What?”