Presentation (Transcript)

Presentation (Transcript)

IEPs

Transcript for Lesson 2 Presentation:
Initiating IEP Development

In theory, state education agencies and the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs are to monitor and enforce school district compliance with IDEA. For a variety of reasons, this good intention has not been widely, rigorously or successfully implemented. Therefore, the reality is that enforcement of IDEA at the local level is largely left to parents of special education students.

Very few parents actually obtain their own copies of the IDEA regulations or their state special education regulations. Therefore, they may know little about IDEA beyond what is contained in the "Rights" statements they are given by the school. And very frequently they do not find those statements particularly readable or useful. In an ideal situation, each parent would become comfortably knowledgeable about IDEA, about their rights and responsibilities under the law, and above all, about their child's entitlements. Again, in theory, schools are the agency designated under IDEA to fully inform parents about their rights, but to the extent that doesn't happen, parents must educate themselves and each one another.

Rock (2000) mentions two barriers, among others, that frequently sabotage parental participation in the IEP process--menu-driven district approaches and "teachers know best" mind sets. These are both very widespread and detrimental. When parents are truly knowledgeable about IDEA, they will know that menu-driven approaches (e.g., For LD students we have a resource room, for speech-impaired students we have 30 minutes of group speech therapy a week, and for students with mild mental retardation we have a collaboration model) are a violation of the law and that teachers know best about some things, parents know best about others, and the best IEPs are cooperatively designed. When we talk about parental roles and responsibilities under IDEA, we must assume, contrary to reality, that the parents are well informed about their IDEA rights and their child's IDEA entitlements.

Overview of Parents' Roles

Parents are team members and "equal participants" with school personnel in decision-making about their child. This parental role was strengthened in the 1997 Amendments. In Question 5 of Appendix A, parents' anticipated roles in the IEP process are explained:

The parents of a child with a disability are expected to be equal participants along with school personnel, in developing, reviewing, and revising the IEP for their child. This is an active role in which the parents

provide critical information regarding the strengths of their child and express their concerns for enhancing the education of their child;

participate in discussions about the child's need for special education and related services and supplementary aids and services; and

join with the other participants in deciding how the child will be involved and progress in the general curriculum and participate in State and district-wide assessments, and what services the agency will provide to the child and in what setting.

... Part B specifically provides that parents of children with disabilities--Have an opportunity to participate in meetings with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of their child and the provision of FAPE to the child (including IEP meetings) (Secs. 300.501(b), 300.344(a)(1), and 300.517)

Be part of the groups that determine what additional data are needed as part of an evaluation of their child (Sec. 300.534(a)(1)) and educational placement (Sec. 300.501(c));

Have their concerns and the information that they provide regarding their child considered in developing and reviewing their child's IEP (Secs. 300.343(c)(iii) and 300.346(a)(1)(i) and (b)); and

Be regularly informed (by such means as period report cards), as specified in their child's IEP, at least as often as parents are informed of their nondisabled children's progress, of their child's progress toward the annual goals in the IEP and the extent to which that progress is sufficient to enable the child to achieve the goals by the end of the year (Sec. 300.347(a)(7)).

When a parent first suspects his or her child might have a disability, the parent may initiate a referral for evaluation of the child. If the district refuses to perform the evaluation, the parent may request mediation, file a complaint with the state education agency, or request a hearing to compel the evaluation. If the parent disagrees with an evaluation done by the district, the parent is entitled to an independent evaluation of the child at public expense. The district may avoid paying for the independent evaluation only by going to a hearing and proving its own evaluation was appropriate.

The parent is a member of the team which determines, based on the evaluation, whether the child is IDEA eligible. Parents are able to contribute valuable information about their child's developmental history, learning outside of school, and other such personal information to which the school may not have access through their evaluation. Some parents want the child to be found eligible because of what they perceive to be the benefits; other parents want to avoid eligibility. Interestingly, district personnel also frequently lean strongly one way or the other, for a variety of reasons.

If the student is IDEA eligible, the next step is IEP development, of course with full parent participation. After the IEP is completed, the placement decision should be made, again with the parental as a full and equal participant.

When a special education student is involved in misconduct that could result in more than 10 days of suspension, the IEP team must conduct a "manifestation determination" (MD) to ascertain whether the disability was related to the misconduct. This is one of the most important times for full and knowledgeable parent participation because the outcome of the MD meeting can greatly affect the child's status and opportunity to continue to attend school. In some states parents are not even invited to participate in the MD meetings and in others, the parents have little voice in the MD decision. All parents should know that the IEP team, of which they are full members, conducts the MD.

The parent also has a right, as does the district, to request mediation or a hearing over any disputed matter related to identification, evaluation, program or placement of the child. The parent may also file a complaint with the state education agency.

Parents' Roles in the IEP Process

However, of all these parental rights and responsibilities, none is more important than being an active contributor to the IEP process. It is the IEP that governs what special education, related services, accommodations, supports, and modification the child actually receives. The parent should be clear about what the child needs, about expected progress for the child, and above all, about exactly how and when progress will be measured.

Every annual goal and short term objective or benchmark must be measurable and actually be measured. Common sense is the essential guide for a parent to use in determining whether the goal or objective is measurable and whether someone will actually measure it. A benchmark or objective that says a student will improve his behavior 85% of the time is totally, 100% useless and meaningless. First, it is impossible for anyone to measure a student's behavior 100% of the school day, every day, so how could anyone reliably know if the student met the goal of improvement 85% of the time? Second, the word "improve" is not measurable. What one person defines as improvement in behavior is not necessarily the same as any other person might define improvement. However, a goal of zero disciplinary referrals during the last six weeks of school is easily understood and is measurable.

The best question for parents to ask about IEP goals and objectives is simply, "How would I measure whether my child has accomplished the goal/objective?" Similarly, are all services and accommodations spelled out clearly enough that I could tell, yes or no, whether they are being delivered or implemented as promised? These questions are extremely valuable contributions to the IEP process and parents should ask them without hesitation.

Communication and Trust
Imagine that you are a parent receiving one of these invitations to your child's first IEP meeting.

(A)

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Stein,

As you know, you [were recently a part of the team that] determined that your daughter Abigail is eligible for an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to meet her special academic, social, behavioral, physical, or other needs. She is now legally entitled to: (1) special education, which is specially designed instruction to meet those unique needs; (2) related services such as transportation or physical therapy, which may be necessary to enable her to benefit from her special education; and (3) any necessary services, aids, modifications, or accommodations if and when she is in regular education classes, including support for the personnel working with her.

We need to have a meeting to plan Abigail's IEP. At this meeting, we will discuss her strengths, her unique characteristics and needs, the services appropriate to address these, and the ways we should judge how well the services are helping Abigail to make progress at school. You are a full and equal partner with the school personnel in deciding what will be included in Abigail's IEP. The enclosed sample IEP for a fictional child will give you an idea of what kinds of things an IEP might include. Please give some thought to these matters ahead of time, so we can exchange ideas at the meeting.

You are welcome to bring anyone you wish who is knowledgeable about your child to the meeting. Some parent groups (e.g., Learning Disabilities Association, Association for Retarded Citizens) have advocates available to attend IEP meetings with parents. You may choose to have Abigail present for all or part of the meeting. It is often useful for the student to participate, and she may feel more involved with and committed to her IEP objectives if she does so. If you decide Abigail won't be at the meeting, please consider bringing a picture of her to remind us all that the only purpose of the meeting is to plan an educational program just for her. Pam Brown, who helped evaluate Abigail, and Nancy Janes, her regular education teacher will be at this first IEP meeting. The principal, Denise Smith, will attend the IEP meeting as the district representative, and I will be there as Abigail's special education teacher.

We have tentatively scheduled this meeting for Feb. 2 at 3:30 PM here at McAuliffe Elementary. If this is not convenient, please call and we will arrange another time. In addition to the sample IEP, I have enclosed a brochure explaining your legal rights. Please look it over. If you have any questions, we can discuss them at the meeting.

Sincerely,

Anita Hall
Abigail's Special Education Teacher

(Bateman and Linden, 1998, p. 93)

(B)

There will be an IEP meeting for Child's name held Wednesday, March 1 at 2:00 PM at Washington Elementary School. Please let us know if this is not satisfactory and we will reschedule. Attendees from the district will include Mr. Smith, Ms. Jones, and Ms. Anderson.

Which would you prefer to receive before your first IEP meeting?

As important as the "stage-setting" invitation is to the IEP process, often the tone between school and parent has already been established by the events prior to the IEP meeting. A child's involvement with special education almost always begins on a note of concern over the child's performance--academic, behavioral, linguistic, or other. It is all too easy for the concerns of parent and/or school to slip into defensiveness and accusations. It is all too difficult for many school personnel to speak candidly about the child's performance and disability and for parents to hear clearly and objectively what has been said. Misunderstandings and fears can arise over assessment issues, over statements of present levels of performance, over appropriate goal setting and more. Emotions such as denial, frustration, and hope come and go throughout school-parent interactions.

By the time the first IEP is to be developed, communication and trust may need attention. Under the best of circumstances, the IEP meeting can provide an opportunity to clear up past confusion or misunderstanding and begin a fresh, cooperative endeavor. From the beginning, both parents and schools need to have the same understanding of the IDEA ground rules for IEP development. These vital ground rules include:

Parents are full and equal participants with school personnel;

Parents and school both have the right to invite others to the IEP meeting; the school must inform parents about anyone it has invited, but parents have no such obligation. Many schools refuse to hold a scheduled IEP meeting if the parent arrives with an advocate or attorney--a highly suspect practice on the school's part and one which is bound to convey to the parent that the school has a questionable agenda.

The services which are written into the IEP must be based on the child's needs, not on the present availability of services; if the child needs a service, it must be written on the IEP and must then be made available.

Neither "We don't have the money" nor "We don't have the qualified staff" is a legitimate reason for the school to fail to provide a needed service. By accepting IDEA funds, every state has guaranteed the federal government that each disabled child within that state will receive a FAPE. Furthermore, the legal consequences of not providing a needed service can be far more expensive to the district than providing the service would have been.

A child is entitled to a "Chevrolet" FAPE, not a "Cadillac." The fact that a child might benefit from a related service does not entitle her to that service; entitlement arises from that related service being necessary to enable her to benefit from special education.

The parent has the right to determine whether or how the child should participate in the IEP meeting until the child reaches the age of 14 when the child must be invited to participate in the IEP meeting. For children younger than 14, school personnel should help parents come to a comfortable decision that is right for parents and their child.

IDEA is silent about tape recording IEP meetings and, consequently, a state or district has the option to regulate the use of taping. However, if the parent needs the taping in order to participate fully, e.g., due to a learning disability, then any policy must allow for that. Experience suggests that, ideally, every IEP meeting should be taped, inasmuch as it has a highly beneficial effect on the civility of all parties and on the knowledgeability of school officials. For example, statements such as "We'd love to provide that for your child, but we can't afford it" are heard frequently in meetings not being taped and almost never in those that are taped.

In addition to having a common understanding of the IEP process, parents and school personnel need to have a common understanding of the child's needs and present levels of performance. This requires a common language. Could we forbid the use of any words or concepts that the user can't define/explain with ease and clarity? And if a term can be readily explained, why use the jargon at all?

Once the IEP process has begun, many parents experience further frustration and mistrust, often due to not understanding the basis for the school's refusal to incorporate their requests into the IEP. A related problem which frustrates both school personnel and parents is the practice of scheduling repeated IEP meetings when one should have sufficed. The difficulty which leads to the highly undesirable practice of having meeting after meeting is most frequently the failure of district personnel to deal properly with the disagreements which inevitably arise. Another error that results in too many meetings is the failure to have all necessary people present at the initial meeting or at least participating by telephone, fax, email, or some other method. In Lesson 4, we will deal with how these matters should be handled.

Creating the Atmosphere
Before the meeting begins, it is important for the school staff to consider the setting and atmosphere of the meeting. For example, in one instance, an IEP was held in an elementary school cafeteria after school hours. Nine people--the parents, their advocate and six school staff members--sat at one small cafeteria style, fixed-bench table which had been moved away from the other tables. Several custodians were in and out many times each during the 2 hour meeting. The room was very hot and stuffy, there were no refreshments available, and the nine adults sat five on one side of the tiny table, knee to knee, and four on the other. Both parents were over 6 feet tall and their knees not only brushed their neighbors' knees, but also supported their own chins. There was no chalkboard, easel or other writing surface that all parties could easily see. Needless to say, the meeting did not go well.

A physically comfortable and pleasant atmosphere bespeaks respect for the persons at the meeting and acknowledges the importance of the meeting. Less does the opposite. Sometimes parents have the impression that school people view the IEP meeting as a highly undesirable burden unreasonably imposed upon them by the law--a nuisance to be dispatched with as quickly as possible. However, the parents may see the IEP meeting as the single hour of the year set aside to focus exclusively on their child's individual needs and program.

"Draft" IEPs are often prepared before the IEP meeting and then, according to district personnel, introduced at the meeting as a starting point for discussion. However, parents often perceive that they are presented with a completed IEP and simply asked to sign it.

In response to this situation, Appendix A now asks, "Is it permissible for any agency to have the IEP completed before the IEP meeting begins?" (Question 32) and answers, "No." It is acceptable for staff to come to the meeting with evaluation findings and IEP content suggestions, and parents should bring their questions and recommendations. But to bring in a completed several-page form with the word "draft" stamped on the first page is not good practice even if the intent is to start discussion.

In a middle or secondary school where a student has more than one regular education teacher, the case manager for the IEP meeting should ensure that all of those teachers have prior input, usually in writing. One underutilized but helpful format for IEP preparation is a simple listing of the student's most important, urgent unique needs. If all parties who know the student will think about these needs before the meeting, it is usually fairly easy to reach agreement on a prioritized list of the child's needs when the meeting starts. And that--a prioritized listing of the child's unique needs--is the best starting place for the meeting itself.

Conducting the Meeting
Once all the appropriate people are present, are physically comfortable, and have been offered a calming herbal tea, introductions should be completed. The ideal team consists of a handful of people who know the child well. Often, for a variety of reasons, a half dozen, dozen, or even more school people are there. Serious thought should be given, at the district policy level, to distinguishing between people who have specific, limited information to give to the team, and the core people--teachers, parents, district representative and evaluation interpreter--who are the legally required team members with decision making power. There is no legal need for everyone who has input to the IEP to be a full-fledged member of the team. If those who have a brief, specific contribution to make could do so at the beginning of the meeting and leave (or contribute in writing, by speaker phone, by fax, or by email), the more difficult deliberating and decision making could then be done by the small group, the core IEP team. Parents would find this less intimidating, and school personnel could well use the saved time.

The chairperson of the IEP meetings needs to be skilled in walking a fine line between moving the discussion along efficiently and being sure the parents are fully heard and understood--an important task, but not always easy.

There are at least three kinds of IEP meetings--first time meetings (no parent or child has more than one of these), routine annual review meetings, and "revise because all isn't going as expected" meetings. These three are not the same, nor should they be conducted identically.

At the first-ever meeting, attention may need to be given to the ground rules for IEP development, to good communication processes, and to clearing up possible past miscommunications and misperceptions. At routine annual reviews of existing IEPs, the meeting can focus on what's working well and can we do even more of it, and on what isn't working so well and how can we change it.

Other meetings are typically requested by parent or school when either or both want something to change--either what is on the IEP or how the IEP is being implemented. These non-routine meetings can require in-depth communication skills and knowledge of IDEA. Common examples of issues raised are parent requests for more of a service, for additional services, or for implementation guarantees. Parents are often frustrated or angry, believing their child's needs are not being addressed properly. School personnel often believe they are already doing all that is required or more, or perhaps they, too, are frustrated by a perceived insufficiency of resources to do what they would like. Often added into the mixture is confusion about what the law actually requires, with parents and districts frequently having different beliefs about IDEA's mandates. Frequently, both parties are mistaken in whole or part.

The job of conducting IEP meetings can be as complex as it is important. At times a person trained in mediation skills would be an ideal chairperson for the meeting. Large districts could perhaps consider obtaining or training someone to handle the unusual or difficult IEP meetings. Such a person would need a thorough knowledge of IDEA, well-honed communication skills, meeting management know-how, and a broad, deep special education background in order to fully understand the needs of the child. Some might suggest that the "district representative," who must be a member of each IEP team, is the person in this role. There are undoubtedly times when this is true. But when it is not the case, help is needed.

Evaluation of the Student's Unique Educational Needs
An IEP rests solidly on the evaluation of the child's needs, just as the pie filling rests on the bottom crust. Evaluations, in general, are done for several reasons, including screening, eligibility, or program evaluation. A question frequently asked is "Is X test a good evaluation instrument?" The proper answer is another question: "For what purpose?" Evaluations under IDEA have two primary purposes: (1) to determine whether the child is IDEA-eligible, i.e., whether he or she has a disability as defined in the law and needs special education and related services, and (2) to determine the content of the IEP by identifying "all of the child's special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the child has been classified" (34 CFR 300.532).

Unfortunately, the first purpose has received almost all the attention and the second none at all, or close to none. Some people appear to assume that the tests used to assess eligibility provide all the information necessary to plan the child's program. In fact, this is almost never the case, and the IEP team members are left to struggle with what a standard score of 92 on the XYZ test tells them about IEP content. Certainly when there is useful information in the eligibility evaluation, it should be used. But much more information is usually required in order to begin proper IEP development. The initial question the IEP team needs to ask is, "What are this child's unique needs?" The teacher and parent are likely to know the most urgent needs, e.g., he needs to learn to play cooperatively with other children without hitting, to improve his rote counting skills and one-to-one number-numeral correspondence, to learn to print his name more legibly, and to state his name and address when asked. Or, for another child, her needs may include the needs to get to class on time, to stop "mouthing off" to the math teacher, to complete and turn in homework assignments, and to read better. These observations and others like them are at the line where evaluation and IEP development intersect. Some of the observations need to be described objectively, e.g., "mouthing off" to the teacher. When the observation is quantified, such as "inappropriately mouths off to the teacher 3-5 times daily," it becomes a present level of performance and, as such, is put on the IEP. Similarly, a "need" for better handwriting becomes "copies 10 words a minute with 2-4 words illegible." (Note: if the issue is handwriting, we don't want to confound it by including ideation, so we use copying rather than story or sentence generation.)

In sum, evaluation has two major functions under IDEA: (1) to determine whether a student is IDEA eligible, and, if so, (2) to determine all of his or her unique educational needs. The last step in evaluation is the first step in IEP development--to convert needs to present levels of performance. The next lesson is Developing the IEP, and it begins with developing the present levels of performances.