Presentation (Transcript)

Presentation (Transcript)

IEPs

Transcript for Lesson 1 Presentation:
IEP Fundamentals

Introduction
This too-real letter was sent to Brent's mother by Brent's first grade teacher on January 11, 1977, just a few months before the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) became effective.

1-11-77

Mrs. H,

Brent came into my reading group for the first time today and was very inattentive. He is a very poor listener, I will give him a chance to straighten up and make an effort to learn to read like the other children - but if he doesn't, after a fair period of time, then I will not waste my time and will concentrate on those children who are more interested and have a desire to learn.

Thank you,
Mrs. L.

Brent may have been immature, or disadvantaged by moving early in his first grade year, or perhaps he had ADHD and/or a learning disability, or perhaps all four. What is clear is that now, under IDEA, Brent would be entitled to a radically different approach, including a thorough evaluation and perhaps an Individualized Education Program (IEP). IDEA has markedly changed the education scene for the Brents of this nation. In this lesson we look briefly at IDEA and then focus on the centerpiece of IDEA, the IEP.

Before 1975 children who had disabilities had no federal right to an education, and school boards in most states had the right to exclude any child from school. Even the few states that had mandatory special education programs for some children with disabilities were free to exclude other children such as those with severe or complex or rare disabilities.

With the passage in 1975 of the federal law now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), all that changed. If a state wished to receive federal money under IDEA (then called P.L. 94-142), it had to ensure that every child with a disability would have a free appropriate public education (FAPE) available. In the years since IDEA was passed, all states and territories have agreed to comply with IDEA and to provide FAPE for every child who has a disability.

A FAPE is legally defined as an individualized education which is reasonably calculated to allow a child to receive educational benefit. It must be available at no cost to the parents and be developed and delivered in accordance with the procedures required by IDEA. A major IDEA provision governing FAPE gives every student with a disability the right to a written individualized education program (IEP). Under IDEA, each child receives a thorough, individualized evaluation to determine both IDEA eligibility and all of the child's unique educational needs. From that evaluation, the IEP is developed. Then, just as the IEP is based on the evaluation, the placement decision (i.e., where the child will receive the needed special education and related services) is based on the IEP. The bottom crust of the P-I-E (see Fig. 1) is the evaluation, the filling is the IEP, and the top crust is the placement decision. Just as in baking a pie, the bottom crust (evaluation) goes in the pie tin first, then the filling (IEP) and lastly, the top crust (the placement). The order is essential.

Legal Compliance and Educational Utility
The first and foremost purpose of the IDEA is to ensure that every child with a disability has available a FAPE which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet the child's unique needs (20 U.S.C .1400(d)(1)(A)). Another purpose of IDEA is to assess and insure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities. The primary vehicle for accomplishing both of these is the individualized education program (IEP) (20 USC 1400 (d)(4)). The short way to say this is that IDEA mandates an IEP as the means to deliver FAPE - a vital concept.

In this module, you will learn IDEA's requirements (Lesson 1) related to IEPs, how to develop an IEP (Lessons 2 - 4), and how to ensure that the IEP offers FAPE for a child with a disability (Lesson 5). IEPs must be both legally correct and educationally useful. Neither alone will suffice. Legal correctness of the IEP is not by itself sufficient to guarantee FAPE. That IEP also has to be implemented and effective in the real world. It is also possible that a child could be receiving an educationally adequate program and yet not be receiving FAPE because vital legal requirements had not been met. For example, if parents are not allowed to participate fully in developing the IEP, then FAPE has been denied, even if the school personnel unilaterally developed an otherwise adequate program (Rowley, Hall). This, too, can be said concisely - IEPs must be both procedurally and substantively sufficient in order to provide FAPE.

Purposes of the IEP Document and Meetings
The two main parts of the IEP requirements of IDEA deal with the IEP meetings and with the content of the written document itself. In 1981, the U.S. Office of Education enumerated the purposes and functions of the overall IEP requirements. Foremost among them were these:

The IEP serves as a communication vehicle between parents and school personnel and enables them, as equal participants, to jointly decide what the child's needs are, what services will be provided to meet those needs, and what the anticipated outcomes may be ...

The IEP sets forth in writing a commitment of resources...

The IEP serves as an evaluation device for use in determining the extent of the child's progress toward meeting the projected outcomes ... (1981 Appendix C to 34 CFR Part 300; hereinafter 1981 Appendix C)

These three purposes contain five ingredients - (a) the child's unique needs, (b) the special education and related services to meet those needs, (c) the goals and objectives of the services provided, (d) the necessary resources, and (e) the extent of the child's progress. They are central to developing and implementing IEPs. We will return to each, as well as revisiting the other elements of the IEP itself and the IEP process. But first we examine the team membership and the required IEP content.

lEP Team Membership and Responsibilities

The IEP team is the group charged with creating the IEP. IDEA mandates the membership of the IEP team:

The parents of a child with a disability (or legal guardian or assigned surrogate parents);
At least one regular education teacher of such child (if the child is or may be participating in the regular education environment);
At least one special education teacher, or, if appropriate, special education provider of such child;
A representative of the LEA (local education agency) who is qualified to provide or supervise special education, knowledgeable about the general curriculum and availability of LEA resources;
An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results (may be the same person as in 2, 3, or 4 above);
At the discretion of the parent or agency, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child;
Whenever appropriate, the child with a disability; and
For transition components of the IEP, the student and representatives from other agencies to be involved in the transition must be invited. They may or may not attend. (20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(B). (See also 34 CFR 300.344)

If parents fail to attend a properly scheduled IEP meeting, i.e., at a mutually agreed upon time and place, or fail to respond to scheduling efforts, the meeting may proceed without them if the school can document sufficient efforts to reach the parents. Parent participation may be by phone, fax, e-mail, etc. if that is agreed upon, but would never be a recommended practice for a first IEP, a complicated IEP, or a contentious situation.

The regular education teacher is a member of the team as specified, but may not need to participate in all of each and every meeting, as the majority of many meetings will relate only to special education services (1999 Appendix A to 34 CFR Part 300, Question 24; hereinafter Appendix A). By far, the most problematic team member is the LEA (local education agency or district) representative. That representative must have the "authority to commit agency resources and be able to ensure that whatever services are set out in the IEP will actually be provided" (Appendix A, Question 22).

The requirement that someone on the team be able to interpret the instructional implications of evaluation was newly added in the 1997 Amendments and has not been widely implemented or interpreted. Some districts are clearly uncomfortable with parents exercising their right to bring other people to the IEP meeting without previously informing the district. These districts routinely refuse to conduct the meeting--a practice not yet challenged in the courts.

It is important to note that the description of "other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child" is not a way to exclude a person invited either by parent or district. The fact that the parent or district wants someone there is sufficient. "...the determination as to whether an individual has knowledge or special expertise... shall be made by the parent or public agency who has invited the individual to be a member of the lEP team." (Appendix A, Question 28)

The responsibilities of the IEP team include:

As part of every evaluation of a child, review existing evaluation data and identify what additional data, if any, are needed to determine whether the child has a disability, the present levels of performance and educational needs of the child, whether the child needs special education and related services, and whether additions or modifications to services are needed to enable the child to meet the measurable annual goals and participate, as appropriate, in the general curriculum. 20 U.S.C. �1414(d)(3)
Develop the IEP. 20 U.S.C. � 1414(d)(3)
Review and revise the IEP. 20 U.S.C. � 1414(d)(4)
Develop an assessment plan to address behavior that led to suspension, if the district has not implemented a behavioral intervention plan for the student. 20 U.S.C. � 1415 (k)(1)(B)(i).
Review and modify an existing behavioral intervention plan, as necessary to address the behavior leading to the suspension. 20 U.S.C. �1415 (k)(1)(B)(ii).
Determine the alternative educational setting to which school personnel may order a student. 20 U.S.C. �1415 (k)(3)(A).
Conduct the manifestation determination review to establish the relationship between the child's disability and the behavior subject to disciplinary action. 20 U.S.C. �1415 (k)(4)(B)

The IEP team is to determine what is needed by way of evaluation for a student. Regrettably, in many districts what is to be done in an evaluation--what assessments, interview, work samples, are to be included--is determined either by district policy or by a school psychologist. It should be noted that a school psychologist is not a named or required member of an IEP team. One may, of course, be included on a team if the district or the parent so desires, or if the psychologist serves as the interpreter of the educational implications of the evaluation.

Required Components of All IEPs
The IEP must contain all the elements mandated by law. Failure to include all could result in a denial of FAPE, with possibly serious educational consequences to the student and legal consequences to the school district. The 1999 IDEA regulations (34 CFR 300.347) describe the required contents of each IEP:

A statement of the child's present levels of educational performance, including-

how the child's disability affects the child's involvement and progress in the general curriculum; or
for preschool children, as appropriate, how the disability affects the child's participation in appropriate activities.

A statement of measurable annual goals, including benchmarks or short-term objectives, related to -

meeting the child's needs that result from the child's disability to enable the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum; and
meeting each of the child's other educational needs that result from the child's disability.

A statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or support for school personnel that will be provided for the child:

to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals;
to be involved and progress in the general curriculum in accordance with clause (1) and to participate in extracurricular and other non-academic activities; and
to be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled children in the activities described in this paragraph.

An explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child will not participate with nondisabled children in the regular class and in the activities described in (3).

A statement of any individual modifications in the administration of State or districtwide assessment of student achievement that are needed in order for the child to participate in such assessment; and if the IEP team determines that the child will not participate in a particular State or districtwide assessment of student achievement (or part of such an assessment), a statement of:
1. why that assessment is not appropriate for the child; and
2. how the child will be assessed.

The projected date for the beginning of the services and modifications described in clause (3), and the anticipated frequency, location, and duration of those services and modifications.

A statement of
1. how the child's progress toward the annual goals described in clause (ii) will be measured and
2. how the child's parents will be regularly informed (by such means as periodic reports cards), at least as often as parents are informed of their nondisabled children's progress, of:
  1. their child's progress toward the annual goals described above; and
  2. the extent to which that progress is sufficient to enable the child to achieve the goals by the end of the year.
Beginning at age 14, and updated annually, a statement of the transition service needs of the child under the applicable components of the child's IEP that focuses on the child's course of study (such as participation in advance-placement courses or a vocational education program);
1. beginning at age 16 ( or younger, if determined appropriate by the IEP team), a statement of needed transition services for the child, including, when appropriate, a statement of the interagency responsibilities or any needed linkages; and
2. beginning at least one year before the child reaches the age of majority under State law, a statement that the child has been informed of his or her rights under this title, if any, that will transfer to the child on reaching the age of majority ... ).

Access to the General Curriculum
In the 1997 amendments to IDEA itself and in the 1999 IDEA regulations, additional emphasis was placed on the IEP addressing the special services, modifications, or accommodations required to allow the child to access and progress in the general curriculum (Appendix A). This is not to say the general curriculum per se is to appear on IEPs. Rather, the services necessary to allow the child to access the curriculum are to be included in the IEP. For example, if a student who is deaf needs sign language instruction to participate in the general curriculum, then that instruction, not the curriculum, is to appear on the IEP. This is an important distinction, too often overlooked.

"General curriculum" means the curriculum that is used with non-disabled children. Contrary to what many believe, "general curriculum" has nothing to do with regular classes or with placement. It can be offered anywhere - in a special education class or a cow pasture or anywhere else.

The IEP does not need to include goals that relate to areas of the general curriculum where (a) the disability does not affect performance, or (b) where only modifications or accommodations are required. The modifications or accommodations themselves would be listed on the IEP, but no goals or objectives would be needed (Appendix A, Question 4). This is totally consistent with 1981 Appendix C, Question 40 which says that IEP goals and objectives are to be directed toward special education and related services and are not required to cover other areas of the child's education.

Goals are needed only for the special education a child receives. But what is special education? Special education is "specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability" (34 CFR 330.26(a)). Specially-designed instruction means "adapting ... the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction" (34 CFR 300.26(b)(3)).

Many IEPs, perhaps most, include goals for related services. This is not necessary since related services, by definition, are "required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education" (34 CFR 300.24(a)). That is, the needed goals are the goals for the special education (the specially designed instruction) which is supported by the related services, not for the related services per se. If a service isn't required to assist a child to benefit from special education, then it is not a related service at all and the child is not entitled to it. Consistent with this is the fact that related services personnel do not, and never did, need to be present at IEP meetings where goals and objectives are to be developed. Of course, they may be present and their input to the IEP team is always desirable, but they have never been required members of the IEP team.

The following example illustrates what services do need goals and what services do not need them on an IEP. Eli is a middle school student who has average intelligence, does well in academics that don't require reading, but needs special education to address his low 2^nd grade reading level. He needs the accommodations of taped texts and oral tests in all subjects where reading is required. Those accommodations do not need goals or objectives, but the accommodations themselves do need to be listed on the IEP. Similarly, Eli needs the related service of phonological training. That, too, needs no goals or objectives but must be listed on the IEP. Only his special education (specially designed instruction) in reading requires a goal. And it needs no more than one well-conceptualized goal. For example, Eli's goal might be:

Given 3^rd grade material, Eli will read it orally at a rate of 120 words per minute with no more than 2 errors.

No additional reading goal would be necessary. After all, the IEP is not and should not be an instructional plan. It sets the "general direction" and is the basis for developing a detailed instructional plan (1981, Appendix C, Question 41).

One of the major ways to improve the quality (the legal correctness and educational utility) of the IEP is to limit the goals to one for each distinct aspect of special education which the student receives and to refrain from writing goals for related services, accommodations or modifications, or general curriculum areas. Do not confuse IEP goals with lesson plans or other detailed instructional guides. Think instead of (1) what special education instruction is being provided, and (2) what does the IEP team believe the special education instruction will enable the student to do by the end of the year? A student who is receiving special education reading instruction and a behavior intervention plan related to absences should have 2 goals on his or her IEP--one for reading and one for attendance.

A student whose disability is in written expression would have modifications and accommodations in all or almost all subjects, but no goals are required except for the specially designed instruction (i.e., special education) in written expression. If the special education involves specially designed keyboarding instruction, there should be a goal for that, unless keyboarding instruction is a related service, in which case no goal would be required. States have some authority to define services as either special education or related services, thus keyboarding or phonological training or even speech therapy might be a related service in one state and not in another.

If we suppose our student is a 7^th grader whose written expression, given a topic of her choice or a "story starter", produces 10 words a minute (present level of performance), we might set a goal such as, "Given a story starter or a familiar topic, Maria will write 30 words per minutes for a minimum of 3 minutes." If keyboarding instruction is deemed "special education" because it must be "specially designed" for Maria, then a keyboarding goal of 30 typed words per minute (given a present rate of 10 words per minute) might be appropriate.

To summarize, the IEP must contain goals for the special education services to be provided, not for the general curriculum per se or for related services. The IEP must detail the needed related services, accommodations, and modification to be provided, but need not and, therefore, should not include goals or objectives for anything other than special education per se.

The "bottom line" is that goals and objectives need only be written for special education, not for the general curriculum, related services, or modifications and accommodations. The IEP is a special education document and it is to deal with special education services - no more and no less.

Having said this, it is important to remember that an IEP must address the services necessary to enable the special education student to access the general curriculum whether that general curriculum is offered to the student in a regular class, a special class, a special school, home, hospital, or institution. The difference between a goal for a service a student needs in order to access the general curriculum and a goal for a student's performance in the general curriculum is huge. The special education services which are necessary for a student to access the general curriculum require goals related to such skills as reading, following teacher directions, paying attention in class, asking relevant questions, raising one's hand before speaking, etc. Goals related to performance in the general curriculum itself and not needed on an IEP would include such elements as comparing Greek and Roman literature, government, or architecture, or enumerating 5 reasons that clear cutting forests is detrimental to the welfare of Earth and its inhabitants.

Additional Components and Considerations
In developing every IEP the team must consider additional items: (1) strengths of the child; (2) concerns of the parent for enhancing their child's education; (3) whether the child requires assistive technology services and/or devices; (4) communication needs of the child, and (5) the initial or most recent evaluation of the child (34 CFR 300.346). The IEP form should provide, at a minimum, a checklist to indicate that each was considered.

In certain cases, IDEA also requires that the IEP team shall: (1) in the case of a child whose behavior impedes his or her learning or that of others, consider, when appropriate, strategies, including positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports to address that behavior; (2) in the case of a child with limited English proficiency, consider the language needs of the child as such needs relate to the child's IEP; (3) in the case of a child who is blind or visually impaired, provide for instruction in Braille and the use of Braille unless the IEP team determines, after an evaluation of the child's reading and writing skills, needs, and appropriate reading and writing media (including an evaluation of the child's future needs for instruction in Braille or the use of Braille, that instruction in Braille is not appropriate for the child; (4) and in the case of a child who is deaf or hard of hearing, consider the child's language and communication needs, opportunities for direct communication with peers and professional personnel in the child's language and communication mode, academic level, and full range of needs, including opportunities for direct instruction in the child's language and communication mode.

Two common failures in executing these IEP requirements are (1) not adequately considering assistive technology needs and (2) not developing adequate behavior intervention plans for all students who need one. Many parents also feel that their concerns, even though heard, are not given adequate weight by the remainder of the team. An IEP was reviewed recently in which two parent concerns were that the child is drawn to and emulating bullies and that his self-esteem is inadequate. Neither of these concerns was in any way addressed in the IEP itself. These failures are serious pitfalls and they should be avoided.

IDEA requires that an extended school year (ESY) be made available to every student who needs it for FAPE. The school may not limit ESY to children who have particular disabilities, nor may it limit the type, duration or amount of ESY services (34 CFR 300.309). The common district practice of offering "summer school" as a one-size-fits-all ESY is a clear violation of IDEA. One child might need a weekend ESY services, another a Wednesday evening recreation program, yet another a residential program 365 days/nights a year. ESY services, when needed must be as individualized as all other IDEA services.

Minimizing Paperwork and Maximizing Results
Excessive paperwork is considered by many to be a major problem in implementing IDEA. Some special educators have left the field because of it. Others have been relegated to doing only paperwork while aides do whatever teaching gets done. This is clearly a huge issue. To resolve this issue we must, on the one hand, minimize the paperwork to only that which is actually required by IDEA, and on the other hand, we must maximize the benefit that results from that paperwork.

Minimizing Paperwork

Two complementary approaches special educators can take to minimize IDEA paperwork are (a) to reduce the length of an IEP by including only those elements that are actually required by law, and (b) for districts and special education teachers to better manage the paperwork that is in fact necessary.

In 1981, Appendix C to the IDEA regulations was made available by the U.S. Office of Education. In that appendix we were told that the federal IEP requirements can be met in a one to three page form and that the IEP is not intended to be a detailed instructional plan (1981 Appendix C, Question 56). The 1997 Amendments to IDEA added somewhat to the earlier IEP requirements. However, it still is the case that most IEPs need not and should not be more than 3 to 5 pages long. Sadly, it is not at all unusual to see IEPs ten times or more that length. In some states almost as many pages of IEP meeting notes are attached to the IER Other abuses include having many, many IEP meetings, each with a "draft" prepared before the meeting as well as lengthy conference notes, multiple invitations to the many meetings, and untold reams of correspondence between the increasingly frustrated participants. All of this could be reduced by more than half and often by 90% if the IEP team only knew how it is supposed to deal with disagreements that cannot be resolved during an IEP meeting. Appendix A explains:

The IEP team should work toward consensus, but the public agency has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the IEP includes the services that the child needs in order to receive FAPE. It is not appropriate to make IEP decisions based upon majority "vote". If the team cannot reach consensus, the public agency must provide the parents with prior written notice of the agency's proposals or refusals, or both, regarding the child's educational program, and the parents have the right to seek resolution of any disagreement by initiating an impartial due process hearing. (Appendix A, Question 9)

Surely, preparing the one required notice is less burdensome than holding an additional half-dozen or more IEP meetings.

Another key paperwork reducing technique is making a team decision to prioritize goals and include only the most important on the IEP at any one time. We must remember also that school personnel are free to provide individualization and other support beyond what is included on the IEP. The IEP is the minimum that must be provided, not the maximum.

Another paperwork reduction strategy involves states and districts reviewing their paperwork requirements to ensure that they exceed federal requirements only when they intend to! Many IEP forms require far more than is required by IDEA.

An important question to ask is whether we want special education teachers to teach. If the answer is "Yes" (and tragically it isn't always), then we ask whether some paperwork duties could be handled by a trained clerk, a volunteer, an aide, a computer, etc. When this answer is also "yes", then the alternative should be arranged.

A little time spent training staff in how to write good IEPs during the IEP meeting could and should eliminate countless hours teachers spend preparing "draft" IEPs which are probably illegal and definitely unnecessary and inappropriate.

Maximizing results

A successful IEP will guide and prioritize instruction, provide helpful, effective reminders to all staff who work with the student, and enable parents, teachers, and the student to monitor progress. It will not gather dust in a locked drawer.

The school must ensure that

"the child's IEP is accessible to each regular education teacher, special education teacher, related service provider, and other service provider who is responsible for its implementation; and each teacher and provider ... is informed of his or her specific responsibilities related to implementing the child's IEP; and the specific accommodations, modifications, and supports that must be provided for the child in accordance with the IEP." (34 CFR 300.342(b)(2,3))

The IEP is an "education record" and as such it may be shared with school personnel who have a legitimate educational interest in it, even without the parental consent that is ordinarily required for sharing education records.

The IEP should be written so that a substitute or a new teacher can readily see what individualized considerations the student needs and is entitled to receive. For example, a list of needed modifications is far easier to scan than if the accommodations are buried in paragraphs of text. The same is true for present levels of performance and more.

One of the most important functions of the IEP is that it tells the parents precisely what services the child is receiving and what results may reasonably be expected. This requires goals and short term objectives that are written plainly, clearly, and measurably. Which of the following would be useful to a parent?

Jan will improve her reading

By the end of the year, Jan will be able to read 5^th grade material at 180 wpm with no more than 2 errors

A well-written, understandable IEP can be the basis for open and trusting communication between school personnel and parents. Just the opposite results from an obscure, hedged, vague or jargon-filled IEP which the parents sense is not truly a useful or to-be-used guideline.

In short, the IEP should be clear, simple, and direct. Only then can it be useful for teachers, parents, and students.

Technology and IEPs
There are two major ways technology may be used in the IEP process: (1) school personnel may use word processing and/or database software to facilitate the process of documenting decisions made by IEP teams and for recording both information about a student and the PLOPs, goals and objectives which the IEP team designs for that student, and (2) school personnel may create or purchase IEP software which includes a catalog of curriculum goals and objectives from which individual goals and objectives can be selected and customized for a selected student. The primary purpose of both of these methods is to make the process of creating the actual IEP document more efficient and less burdensome to IEP teams.

The first use of technology in the IEP process is simply a clerical one: word processing software or database software is used to create the final version of a student's IEP. The IEP team member responsible for recording the decisions of the IEP team such as the statement of PLOPs, goals, and objectives, could even do this at the IEP meeting with a laptop computer, and if the school personnel have access to a projector that can be connected to a computer, it would even be possible for the entire team to view what is being recorded during the meeting. This process is simply a technological alternative to using chalkboards or butcher paper to record team decisions at the IEP meeting. The advantage of the technological approach is the ease with which revisions can be made. All members of the IEP team could see how statements of PLOPs, goals and objectives, and services were being written and could make suggestions for changes or enhancements. When the meeting was over, the IEP would be complete and ready to be printed out with as many copies as needed readily available.

The second use of technology in the IEP process involves the creation or acquisition of database software into which a bank of objectives and goals have been entered. Commercial software such as this is available (e.g., IdeaPro IEP Software, I.E.P. Tracker). Please note that we are not in any way recommending these software packages. We are simply noting that they exist. This type of software contains a catalog of objectives and goals in numerous academic and non-academic areas. An IEP team can choose appropriate goals and objectives from those in the catalog which match a particular students needs. There are several cautions school personnel must observe if they are going to purchase and use such software. First, the software program must be flexible enough to allow revisions to be made to any of the goals and objectives in the catalog. Software programs which limit the number of objectives or dont allow modifications are useless for creating legally correct and educationally useful IEPs. Second, IEP software programs which require a percentage figure as the criteria for mastering an objective are also fairly useless. Many well-written, measurable objectives do not require the inclusion of a percent criteria. In fact, as we point out in Lesson 3, a percent criteria may be inappropriate for some skills. Third, school personnel must be very cautious and aware of the impression they may create when they use IEP software. Parents may believe that the only goals and objectives which are acceptable are those that can be found in the softwares catalog of goals and objectives. School personnel who hesitate to add goals and objectives to a students IEP that are not listed in the software catalog will also send a strong message to parents that the school is not interested in truly individualizing the IEP process for the student. This must be avoided at all costs.

The most important question that school personnel should keep in mind when considering the use of technology in the creation of IEPs is, "Will the use of this technology save time at the expense of meeting the spirit of IDEA which is to provide an appropriate, individualized program which meets the unique needs of the child?" If the answer is that using the technology sacrifices in any way the spirit or the letter of the law, then the appropriate response is to not use the technology.