Parents of children with special educational needs know this abbreviation well. Professionals and educators know it even better.
An IDP (Individual Development Programme, the Ukrainian equivalent of an IEP – Individualised Education Programme) usually means that a support team has met, goals have been set, the child’s needs identified, accommodations and modifications defined, interventions planned, and all the required signatures collected. On paper, everything has been done correctly.
But what actually changes in that child’s life once the IDP is in place? Not in documents, reports or folders prepared for inspection, but on Monday morning at 9:15, during a maths lesson.
Does the teacher know that the child struggles to process long verbal instructions? Are they ready to break them into shorter, manageable steps? Do they know the child may need more time to complete a task? Do they recognise when support is needed—and when it is better to step back and allow the child to work independently? Do they understand what skill is being developed and why? Because this is the moment when an IDP stops being a document and becomes a tool for supporting a child.
In my view, one of the greatest risks in any system is when form gradually replaces substance. We can formulate excellent goals, hold support team meetings, complete every required form—and still change very little in a child’s everyday experience.
So who is the IDP really for?
I believe a good programme can be evaluated very simply—not by its length or the complexity of its wording, but by how it works in practice. Ask yourself: How will this goal help the child live, learn, communicate or become more independent? If the answer is difficult, the goal probably needs more thought.
Improving communication skills sounds appropriate. But what does it actually mean for this child? To learn to ask for help? To say they did not understand the task? To refuse appropriately? To approach a classmate? To tell someone they are scared or in pain?
Developing social skills is another good goal. But which skill do we actually want to see in everyday life? Waiting for a turn? Joining a game? Negotiating? Asking for help? The more precisely we answer these questions, the more likely it is that the IDP will work for the child rather than simply fulfil documentation requirements.
An IDP is not a list of everything a child cannot do. When we focus only on deficits, it becomes easy to lose sight of the child—their strengths, interests, motivation, what they can already do independently, and what we can build on as they learn new skills.
Nor can an IDP be the sole responsibility of the teaching assistant. If only the assistant understands the child’s needs while everyone else continues working as though the document did not exist, then there is no real Individual Development Programme. There is only a document—and one person trying to implement it alone.
That is why a support team is not a group of people who meet a few times a year to sign paperwork. It is a team that shares clear responsibility for supporting a child. Parents also play a vital role—not as people invited simply to read and sign the document, but as team members who know their child in a different environment and can offer insights the school cannot see.
So perhaps the question “Have we completed the IDP correctly?” should be replaced with “What has this programme made possible for the child today that was not possible yesterday?”
If we can answer that question, the IDP is working. If we cannot, it is time to revisit the document—not to rewrite a few lines, but to make sure it leads to real improvements in the child’s life. Because those changes—not the document itself—are the true measure of a successful IDP.
