| ||||
|
| ||||
|
 |
Transcript for Lesson 4 Presentation: Completing the IEP |
 |
One of the major new emphases in IDEA (1997) is on assessing and ensuring the effectiveness of educational services for children with disabilities (20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(4)). There is also increased emphasis on parental involvement, participation, and rights. These two emphases have coalesced in the new statutory requirement that every IEP must contain a statement of how progress toward the annual goals will be measured, how parents will be informed of the progress (at least as often as parents of nondisabled children are so informed), and the extent to which that progress is sufficient to enable the child to achieve the goals by the end of the IEP year (20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(viii)). A frequent complaint of parents of children receiving special education is that they are told for years that their child is making "good progress," but when they obtain an independent evaluation or other objective information, no such progress is seen. The new "progress-toward-measurable-outcome" IEP reporting requirement, if implemented correctly, will provide the meaningful, understandable information parents have long sought about their children's performance. One of the many advantages of the "measuring stick" approach to assessing progress that we showed in the last lesson is the ease with which it can be used to report progress to parents. Here is an example (in the last lesson we used sight vocabulary) of a high school sophomore who last year as a freshman had 107 unexcused absences during the school year of 185 days. Thus, he was present only 42% of the time. Last year these absences were not dealt with by his IEP team because it mistakenly believed that attendance was solely a family matter. Can the school provide a FAPE to a student who is absent more than he is present at school? Obviously, the IEP team needs to address this obstacle to FAPE. The PLOP is the most current information available, and the goal is obviously to have no unexcused absences. An interesting discussion could develop around setting the objectives. Someone might suggest that if a successful intervention is introduced, it will take care of the problem, or nearly so, by the end of the first nine weeks. Another team member might take a more conservative approach and suggest a gradual decline across all reporting periods would be acceptable. After discussion, it must be a team decision. However the team decides, the point is that the parents will have a crystal clear picture of the amount of progress made and the level reached in each reporting period. For example: |
||||||||||||
 |
One of the major advantages of this measuring stick approach for the school personnel is that once the PLOPs and goals/objectives have been established, as they must be, no further work beyond assessing whether an objective has been accomplished is necessary in order to report progress to the parents as required. |
||||||||||||
 |
The 1997 IDEA requires that every IEP contain: (5)(i) A statement of any individual modifications in the administration of State or district-wide assessments of student achievement that are needed in order for the child to participate in the assessment; andAn astounding amount of confusion has arisen over this seemingly straight forward, modest requirement. Several points need to be made:
|
||||||||||||
 |
As the IEP team members make these decisions related to achievement assessment, the primary focus should be on what is good for the student. We should all remember that by definition, the student's disability has had an adverse effect on her or his educational performance and has necessitated special education. In that fundamental sense, achievement test scores of special education students may reflect something different from scores of regular education students. We need not pretend otherwise. | ||||||||||||
 |
In recent years increased attention has been given to high school graduation requirements. Many states now require competency testing and specified performance levels as prerequisites to receiving a high school diploma. The implications of this for special education are complex and controversial. IDEA does not specifically require that graduation and diploma issues be dealt with on the IEP, but doing so is consistent with the transition requirements of IDEA and is certainly not prohibited. Graduation requirements are matters of state law. It is solely within a state's power to establish and enforce any and all reasonable graduation requirements. For example, if a state chose to require that every student demonstrate an 11th grade reading level on a standardized test before receiving a diploma, it could do so. A state may create any "alternative" diplomas or certificates it wishes, although it may not do so in a way that illegally discriminates on a prohibited basis such as gender or disability. For example, a state or district could not decide that only male students could obtain a "vocational" diploma. In most states the IEP team makes the decisions related to whether the student will attempt to earn a regular diploma. Great deference is usually given to parental wishes, but that deference should be accompanied by honest, clear communication about the student's abilities and the demands of the graduation requirements. It is proper for the IEP team to make these decisions, recognizing that program content and course selection may depend on them. |
||||||||||||
 |
Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) are mandated by IDEA whenever an IDEA-eligible student is known to have behaviors that impede his or her own learning or that of others (20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3)(B)(i)). If a BIP has not been developed and implemented prior to a disciplinary exclusion of a student, one must then be developed based upon a functional behavioral assessment (20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(B)). |
||||||||||||
 |
A BIP must first identify, with specificity, precisely the behavior to be changed--the unwanted target behavior. IEP teams should answer the following types of questions when writing a BIP. What triggers the inappropriate behavior? Does it occur when the student fears he may be called upon to read aloud in front of peers? When he lines up for recess? During library period? Between dismissal from class and getting on the bus? When he may be asked to do an arithmetic problem at the chalkboard? When a substitute teacher is present? During music and art on alternate Fridays? In other words, what are the antecedent events--the precursors, the situation, the triggers? When these can be changed or avoided, that must be done and the onus is on the district to change the situation that triggers the unwanted behavior, when possible. The behavior itself must be described and defined precisely. It is not sufficient to say, "Angela becomes insubordinate when the French teacher calls on her to translate a French paragraph into English." The behavior must be described objectively, for example, "Angela slams her French book closed, turns sideways in her seat, refuses to look at the teacher, mutters barely audible vulgarities, and ignores the teacher's request to do the translation." The target behavior must be described in the BIP with such specificity that a first day substitute teacher who reads the IEP (BIP) would recognize the behavior immediately. The consequence must also be spelled out clearly enough that it can be implemented consistently by all who need to do so. For example, let's say that the IEP team decides to target Angela's inappropriate response to being called on in French class. The BIP must designate how the French teacher should respond to Angela's inappropriate behavior. The sooner the French teacher can intervene when Angela begins to show signs of refusing to answer (e.g., slamming her book closed), the easier it will be to redirect Angela to a more appropriate behavior. The IEP team, including the French teacher, agree on the following plan: |
||||||||||||
 |
Angela's Undesirable Behavior
|
||||||||||||
 |
French Teacher's Response (Consequence)
The law requires that some positive interventions must be included in the BIP. Those, of course, would reward the desired alternative or replacement behavior, not the inappropriate behavior. In our example above, the positive intervention which the French teacher would provide could be something Angela enjoys such as a brief period of free time at the end of class to engage in an approved activity such as drawing or listening to a CD. Angela would earn this positive reward whenever she either answers immediately when called on in French class or when she responds to the teacher's early intervention by following the teacher's directions for redirecting her behavior and later doing the translation. |
||||||||||||
 |
So, we have a sequence in the BIP which is often abbreviated as ABC--the Antecedents (what comes before the behavior in question), the Behavior (described in appropriate detail so as to be clearly recognizable), and the Consequences (what happens following the inappropriate behavior). By changing the antecedents and/or the consequences, the rate of occurrence of the behavior can be increased or decreased. The BIP should also provide for crisis management and for review of its effectiveness, measured by a decrease in the problem behavior and an increase in the desired replacement behavior. An essential part of implementing a behavior plan is recording the occurrence of both the problem and replacement behaviors. Another essential element of the success of the BIP is discussing the plan with the student. The IEP team should determine who will take responsibility for discussing the plan with the student and who will be present. In most cases, the student's parents should be invited as well as the classroom teacher. The IEP team may be required to conduct a functional behavior analysis (FBA) as the basis for developing a behavior intervention plan (20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(b)). Early experience with this part of IDEA 1997 has shown that many IEP teams need help in planning and conducting a FBA. The key is the need to understand the function the undesired behavior services for the student. Some undesirable behaviors function to get something the student wants, such as attention or control. Other behaviors function to avoid something the student does not want, such as completing work or staying at school. The unwanted behavior may also function as a way for a student to avoid the embarrassment of not being able to do assigned work or answer questions when called on. The FBA assists the IEP team immeasurably in deciding what antecedents to change and how, and what alternative behaviors to reinforce positively and how to do that. |
||||||||||||
 |
IDEA requires that students' IEPs must include The IDEA regulations also require that students be invited to the IEP meetings if the purpose of the meeting is to discussion the student's needs for transition services (34 CFR §300.344(b)). This means that once students reach the age of 14, they must be invited to attend their IEP meetings whenever the topic of transition is likely to be discussed. At this point in time, parents no longer have the choice of whether or not the student attends the meeting. Students must be invited to the meetings, and it is the student's choice whether or not to attend. If a student chooses not to attend the IEP meeting, then the public agency, the school, must "take other steps to ensure that the student's preferences and interests are considered" (34 CFR §300.344(b)(2)). IDEA does not dictate how a student's preferences and interests should be obtained. School personnel are free to decide how they will gather this information in the event that a student chooses not to attend his or her IEP meeting. There are any number of published transition curricula available (e.g., NEXT S.T.E.P, 2000; Life Centered Career Education, 1997; Steps to Self-Determination, 1996) that school personnel might utilize both to assist students in thinking through their options for the future and to encourage students to express their preferences and interests related to making a successful transition to the adult world. |
||||||||||||
 |
In IDEA, transition services are defined as a coordinated set of activities for a student with a disability that-- |
||||||||||||
 |
The purpose of including statements of transition services in the IEP is to assist students in making a successful transition from school life to life as a young adult regardless of whether a student attends college or moves directly into employment after leaving high school. For students who are 14, or younger if the IEP team decides it is appropriate, the focus of transition discussions should be on a student's course of study--what courses will the student take in his or her remaining school years? Parents, students, and school personnel need to decide whether or not the goal of high school graduation will be a regular high school diploma. If so, then the student will need to take and pass certain required courses. An IEP team, including the student, may decide that it is not within the student's capabilities to complete all of the requirements for a high school diploma. In that situation, the IEP team should determine what course of study is appropriate. For students who are 16, or younger if the IEP team decides it is appropriate, the focus of transition discussions includes not only what course of study a student will pursue, but also what non-academic services a student may need in order to make a successful transition from high school. Some of the required services may be provided by community adult agencies in which case representatives of those agencies should be invited to the IEP meeting, and the IEP should contain a statement of any interagency agreements that are made during the IEP meeting. IDEA provides that transition services may be considered special education, if the services are provided as specially designed instruction, or they may be considered related services, if they are required in order for a student to benefit from special education. Any transition services which involve specially designed instruction should be treated as any other special education service on the IEP which means that the IEP team should develop measurable goals and objectives for the transition services. Transition services which are considered related services should be noted in a clear statement of the need for those services just as other related services are noted in a statement on the IEP. |
||||||||||||
 |
IDEA requires that the IEP contain an explanation of the extent, if any, that the child will not participate in the regular class with non-disabled children. Placement should be the last issue dealt with by the IEP team because placement must be based on the IEP (34 CFR 300.552(b)(2)). In all cases, placement decisions must be individually determined on the basis of each child's abilities and needs, and not solely on factors such as category of disability, significance of disability, availability of special education and related services, configuration of the delivery system, availability of space, or administrative convenience. Rather, each student's IEP forms the basis for the placement decision. (Appendix A, Question 1)Some parents and professionals believe that all of every disabled student's schooling should be with children who do not have disabilities. Others do not share that view. IDEA's requirement that an explanation be provided for any decision other than total inclusion may promote careful consideration of the individual child's situation and needs. However, a common way of "explaining" whatever placement is selected is simply to state that the "child's needs can't be met except by placement in X." Unfortunately, that kind of non-reason benefits no one. |
||||||||||||
 |
Hundreds of articles and thousands of speeches have dealt with placement and the so-called least restrictive environment provisions of IDEA. More are yet to come. The basic rule for placement--the bottom line--is that each placement decision should be individualized and should be selected from the mandated continuum of alternative placements which must be made available by every school district. | ||||||||||||
 |
In the 1997 Amendments , Congress considered certain problems that had been reported in the IEP process over the preceding many years, and responded by requiring these factors be considered in developing the IEP:
|
||||||||||||
 |
The operative word in this section of the law is that the IEP team must "consider" certain factors. IDEA does not, nor do the regulations, say that the considerations must be elaborately written out or that the substance of the considerations be documented. IDEA simply mandates that the team consider as required--common sense mandates that the team document that it did so. An initial or checkmark should suffice. In the past, some parents have perceived that district personnel tended to focus on their child's inadequacies and deficits, to the exclusion of any attention to the child's strengths. This provision of the new law ensures that the strengths of the child will be noted and, therefore, one hopes fully considered in the remainder of the IEP, as will the parents' concerns. Since, in developing each IEP, the team must consider the most recent evaluation, it follows that if a parent requests an IEP review just after an independent educational evaluation (IEE), the district would have to consider that IEE. And there is no reason it should not be considered. It might be accepted wholly, in part, or not at all, but it should be considered. |
||||||||||||
 |
The Need for Behavioral Interventions In terms of sheer numbers, the greatest impact of this new portion of IDEA is the requirement that behavioral interventions (see earlier discussion) be considered for every IDEA student whose behavior impedes his or her own learning or that of others. Because of other IDEA requirements related to disciplinary procedures, it is important that the behavior intervention plan (BIP) be written and incorporated into the IEP. This BIP requirement is a direct, focused response to what Congress believed was the some-times failure of educators to deal programmatically with behavior. Congress believed that in the past we too often simply excluded a child with behavior problems from school and did nothing to teach appropriate behaviors and replace the undesired behaviors with them. Listen to the United States Supreme Court speaking about an IDEA disciplinary procedure: "We think it clear, however, that Congress very much meant to strip schools of the unilateral authority they had traditionally employed to exclude disabled students, particularly emotionally disturbed students, from school" (Honig v. Doe). Given the critical importance of having a viable BIP in the IEP, it is incumbent on every district to be sure the necessary expertise is present when a BIP is developed. In a recent statewide study of special education disciplinary practices, Groves (2000) found "specific staff development in the area of functional behavioral analysis, behavior modification, classroom management strategies and classroom/instructional strategies and intervention were indicated as high needs in the schools" (p. 99). |
||||||||||||
 |
Limited English Proficiency While limited proficiency in English is not a basis for IDEA eligibility, some children who are IDEA eligible for other reasons do have limited English. When this happens, the IEP team must consider how to deal educationally with this crucial need. |
||||||||||||
 |
Instruction in Braille In recent years, many children who have visual impairments have not received needed and appropriate instruction in Braille. Therefore, Congress added this requirement to create a presumption that the student does need Braille. Only if the team determines that this is not the case for a particular child, may Braille be omitted from that child's program. Mode of Communication Just as not providing instruction and educational materials in Braille was an abuse, so it was an abuse for schools to select one mode of communication for all deaf or hard-of-hearing students. Nevertheless, that has been a widespread practice. For example, if a deaf student had learned cued-speech, his family had learned it, and they all used it, the school could nonetheless say "We don't use cued-speech; we use total language" and count on courts to say, "OK." No more. Now the school must take into account all the factors mentioned in the statute. It can be argued that under this 1997 statutory requirement, the famous Rowley case would have been decided differently. Be that as it may, the new requirement is what it is. Assistive Technology The new requirement that the IEP team consider, for every IDEA-eligible student, whether she or he requires assistive technology and devices is obviously of great potential benefit to students and perhaps, not so obviously, it will help schools keep on the cutting edge of educationally useful technology. It should be remembered that when a district provides technology devices for a student, the district retains ownership and regains possession when such devices are no longer needed to provide FAPE for that student. Taken as a whole, this new section of the law prevents specific past abuses, but more importantly, it focuses pointedly and specifically on what is necessary in order to provide FAPE for this child. |
||||||||||||
 |
Appendix A to the IDEA regulations provides many gems of information, several of which are reminders of points discussed earlier, that should be understood by all the participants in the IEP process. If all team members have the same understanding of these ten points, many potential disagreements will be avoided:
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||
 |
From years of experience in difficult IEP meetings, often in last-ditch efforts to avoid going to hearing, we have identified certain avoidable trouble spots that often emerge. Be alert to each, and don't let them become triggers for disputes.
|
||||||||||||
 |
Ideally, disagreements in the IEP process would be prevented from ever arising. However, in the real world they do arise. Too frequently, they are completely unnecessary. For example, disagreements over whether a child should be labeled learning disabled or emotionally disturbed or something else often go on and on, based on the false belief that different labels lead to different program and/or placement decisions by the IEP team. The law is that all program and placement decisions must be based on the child's unique needs and may not be based on his disability label. A significant number of disagreements arise over faulty (but usually not discussed) premises such as this presumed, but actually prohibited, link between label and service. A highly skilled and experienced IEP meeting chairperson or an advocate can detect and help clear up such misconceptions, thus defusing some potential conflicts. In most IEP meetings, the child's present levels of performance (PLOPs) are discussed first. Disagreements arise over what should be included and how it should be stated. Seldom is the issue actually the child's performance--rather it is a matter of word choice and how much should be put in the IEP. A common understanding of the purpose of the PLOPs would prevent many of these disagreements. From a federal law point of view, the PLOP requirement is minimal--all that is needed is a statement of "PLOPs," including how the disability affects a child's involvement and progress in the curriculum for non-disabled children. |
||||||||||||
 |
Conceptually, a PLOP is the beginning point from which progress will be measured--from the PLOP through the intermediate benchmarks or objectives and finally the annual goal. The law doesn't prohibit more being included, but it doesn't require it, either. If a district opts to have a three page, single-spaced summary of every bit of evaluation data, plus a social work report, plus teacher observations and a playground behavior report for every child, it may do so. However, a brief list of the levels related to the most pressing unique needs would suffice legally. The point is that both parent and district need to have a common understanding of what should be in the PLOPs. If a sample IEP, including PLOPs, for a fictional child were sent to a parent with the first invitation to an IEP meeting, that could prevent most of the PLOP problems, and many other disagreements which arise from differing beliefs about what "should" be on an IEP. Some of the most bitter disputes relate to services to be provided. Typically parents want more of a service than the district is offering, or they want a service the district isn't offering at all. The parents often want what they believe is best for their child. And the school personnel may be trying to stretch available resources as far as possible. Neither is using the correct standard. Under IDEA, the child is entitled to those services "necessary to provide FAPE." In the next and final lesson we will look at how to recognize FAPE. The question the IEP team should be asking about a disputed service or amount of service is whether it is necessary for FAPE. Asking this legally correct question doesn't resolve all disputes, but it is the essential starting point for resolution. The IEP meeting is also the scene of placement disputes although technically the placement decision is made after the IEP is complete rather than being part of the IEP. For this reason, placement disputes are outside the scope of our module. When efforts to prevent disagreements fail and a dispute has arisen about the IEP, it should be dealt with promptly so it doesn't spill over into other areas. As we've suggested, providing accurate information about legal requirements or district policy, so that all parties have the same understanding, can resolve some difficulties. |
||||||||||||
 |
Narrowing the scope of a disagreement as much as possible is important early. For example, it is easier to deal with "Joe's reading goal should be more than a year's gain so that he can eventually catch up to grade level" than it is to address "these goals are so low it shows you don't think Joe is capable of learning or maybe you just don't intend to give him the help he needs." When the area of disagreement has been pinpointed, each side should then state succinctly the major basis for its view. Perhaps the discussion can then resume on a more realistic, objective level, as people are clearer about the precise "what and why" that are at issue. Negotiation is far easier when the issue is narrow and clear. The parties might agree, for example, to try one way for a specified time period and then evaluate the situation afresh. Or they might agree to abide by the decision of a mutually respected third person. Or they could "split the difference" between the two proposals. Another major advantage of specifying the disagreement as narrowly as possible, in addition to easing negotiations, is that all of the IEP that is agreed to is to be implemented immediately. |
||||||||||||
 |
In the rare--we hope--event that a disagreement just can't be settled, the district has a clear legal duty to put its proposal (or refusal) in writing, including the basis for the decision (and more) and give that "prior written notice" to the parents (34 CFR 300.503, 504). Then, if the parents do not request a due process hearing, the district's proposal (or refusal) is put into place. This duty-notice requirement is very, very important and sadly ignored or not understood as it should be. There is no need, no justification and much detriment to the widespread practice of having meeting after meeting and yet another to try to convince the other side. Teachers, parents and other IEP team members already have full plates and really don't need unnecessary meetings. One of the main reasons for this requirement that the district put its position (and the basis for it) in writing is so that the parents know exactly what they are contesting should they decide to use IDEA's dispute resolution mechanisms. The parents may ask for mediation. However, many districts now routinely refuse to mediate, as is their right. Another option is for the parent to write a letter of complaint to the state education agency alleging the district is violating the IDEA. The state must investigate and impose corrective action if the district is found in violation. The third possibility is that the parents (or district) may request a due process hearing to resolve the dispute. Most people who have been involved in any of these procedures agree it is far preferable to resolve differences informally in the IEP process if at all possible. |
   |
