Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

Artifact 5 Rationale

IEP Case Study


The IEP Case Study project required me to actively participate in the IEP team process. I
was required to observe IEP team meetings; determine the IEP team process; collect background
information and pertinent school related data regarding the IEP student; collaborate with IEP
team members; and prepare the contents of an IEP. This connects to CEC Standards 1 (Learner
Development and Individual Learning Differences), 3 (Curricular Content Knowledge), 6
(Professional Learning and Ethical Practice), and 7 (Collaboration).
I gained knowledge and skills in learner development and individual differences (CEC
Standard 1) throughout the completion of this artifact. The student I chose for this case study
exhibited academic weaknesses in the areas of reading and math. While administering the
informal assessments, prior to developing the draft IEP, I learned the specific areas of need for
this student in both reading and math. For example, the student appeared to have difficulty in the
area of phonics. These individual learning differences were taken into consideration during the
development of the IEP. I was able to use the information I gathered from the assessments to
design an IEP that met the unique learning needs of my student.
In addition, this artifact required me to gain knowledge and skills in curricular content
(CEC Standard 3). I gained the most knowledge in this area while writing the draft IEP for my
selected student. While developing the IEP, I created goals and objectives that followed the state
standards outlined in the Common Core State Curriculum. By following the state curriculum, I
learned the essential skills my student needed to acquire by the end of Kindergarten. Developing
the IEP around the specific standards increased my knowledge and understanding of the
curriculum.
My knowledge and skills in professional learning and ethical practices (CEC Standard 6)
were developed while completing this artifact. I used ethical principles by first obtaining
parental permission before participating in each of the IEP team meetings. I also kept all gained
knowledge about the IEP student confidential throughout the completion of this artifact. In
addition, I learned about the specific timelines that need to be followed during the IEP team
process.
Further, this artifact was designed to enhance my knowledge and mastery of
collaboration (CEC Standard 7). I learned the key role collaboration plays in the IEP team
process. I also learned the different types of collaboration that is required to successfully
complete a students IEP. For example, while completing this artifact, collaboration was needed
among the student, the students general education teacher, the special educator, the students
parents, and the related services team. Collaboration with each of these participants helped
develop an appropriate IEP for the student.
The student involved in this IEP Case Study was positively affected by my mastery of
CEC Standard 1 (Learning Development and Individual Learner Differences), CEC Standard 3
(Curricular Content), CEC Standard 6 (Professional Learning and Ethical Practices), and CEC
Standard 7 (Collaboration). With this mastery, the student was first evaluated and then was
provided with an appropriate IEP that met her individual and unique learning differences. The
students individualized education plan will help her continue to grow and develop as a learner.

PART I:
IEP Process & Summary of Meetings
At Vincent Farm Elementary School, I am given the opportunity to observe IEP team
meetings every week. The school dedicates one full day each week to team meetings. Most
weeks, IEP meetings occur on Thursdays at Vincent Farm. Observing the IEP team process has
been a great learning experience, in addition to great practice, for my future career in special
education.
Overall, the IEP process at Vincent Farm Elementary School appears to be extremely
organized and managed very effectively. Throughout the process, the IEP chair acts as the
teams leader, or director. The schedules for the team meetings are created by the IEP chair and
are completed months in advance. All team members receive a copy of the schedule as soon as it
is completed. Each schedule shows which team members are required to attend the meeting, as
well as a list of documents that need to be prepared. The schedule also highlights the date in
which the documents for the meetings are due. If documents are being reviewed at the meeting,
the school receptionist mails them to the parents at least five days prior to the meeting.
The majority of the team meetings I have observed, thus far, have been relatively small,
consisting of about five team members. Most often, included in the meetings are the IEP chair,
the special educator, the general educator, and the childs parent(s). Occasionally, the speechlanguage pathologist, occupational therapist, and/or school psychologist will also be included in
the meeting. The participants for each meeting depend on the specific case, and reason for
referral. At the beginning of each meeting, the IEP chair warmly greets the parents and begins
by stating the purpose of the meeting. A copy of the Procedural Safeguards Parental Rights
document is provided to the parents, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA). The IEP chair then introduces each of the team members,
and directs all members to sign in on the IEP sign in sheet. Once signed in, the meeting can
officially start. Most often, the general educator begins by sharing any updates from the
classroom. Then, depending on the purpose of the meeting, the other team members share.
Throughout the meetings, the IEP chair records team notes and parent input. At the end of
meetings, the IEP chair presents any documents that need to be signed to the team. If necessary,
the IEP chair then schedules the next meetings date and time. Copies of all signed documents
are provided to each of the team members.
My very first week at Vincent Farm School, I attended a meeting that began as a SST
(i.e., student support team) meeting and transitioned into an IEP team meeting. The team
members included in this meeting were the IEP chair, special educator, general educator, as well
as the students parents. The meeting was held for a Kindergarten boy student, who is having
difficulty in the area of reading. Prior to this STT meeting, the team had met on two separate
occasions discussing possible interventions and strategies to implement in the classroom. While
the strategies proved somewhat helpful, the child continues to need support during classroom
activities, such as literacy centers. The general education teacher mentioned that the student
often becomes frustrated and, ultimately, shuts down and refuse to complete his work. The
teacher expressed that she hated seeing the student so discouraged, and wanted to get more
information from the educational evaluation about the students specific areas of need.
The parents of the child were in complete agreement with the team, and gave their full
consent for an educational assessment. The parents shared that they observed many of the same
behaviors at home. After receiving consent from the parents, the special educator shared that she

was going to be the team member to assess the child. She informed the parents that she would be
using the YCAT assessment. The special educator explained that she would break up the
assessment for the child, as needed, and provide frequent breaks for the child. She then clarified
all questions from the parents.
Once the team reached an agreement, and the parents gave permission, the IEP chair
presented the documents that needed to be signed by all team members. The IEP chair provided
a copy of the permission to assess document to the parents, and explained what they were
signing. The IEP chair explained that the signed document gave permission for the child to be
assessed by the special educator. Each of the team members signed the document, after the
parents signed. The IEP chair then explained the process of assessment to the parents. She
explained that the team would meet again within sixty days to discuss the results of the
assessment. If the child qualified for special education services, the team would then write an
IEP for the student, based on the results from the assessment. Finally, the IEP chair scheduled
the next meeting, and provided the parents with a date and time. The parents appeared very
pleased and in agreement as this meeting ended.
The second meeting I attended was an annual IEP meeting for a Kindergarten student.
This student is the student I selected for my case study. The primary disability listed on her IEP
is speech and language impairment. She qualifies for speech and language therapy, in addition
to special education services. Specifically, her individual learning needs are in the areas of
reading and math. She also has specific behavioral needs. This student has difficulty staying on
task and is easily distracted in large group settings. She often needs repeated instructions and
clarifications on given tasks in the classroom. With the assistance of an additional adult, she is
currently participating in her Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) in the general education
classroom, with her typically developing, non-disabled peers.
The IEP chair began this meeting by first asking the team to introduce themselves to the
students parents. Team members included in this meeting were the general educator, special
educator, speech pathologist, and the parents. She then stated the purpose of the meeting and
provided the parents with a copy of the Procedural Safeguards Parental Rights document, as
required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA). She
also had each team member sign in. The IEP chair offered the parents an additional copy of the
draft IEP document, which was sent home ten days prior to the meeting. Then, she began
reviewing the draft IEP, page by page. First, she asked the parents if any information on the
student and school information page had changed within the last year. She then reviewed the
meeting and identifying information page, where the students primary disability is listed. The
student participation on statewide/district assessment and graduation information page was next
reviewed. Throughout this process, she paused frequently to address any of the parents
questions.
Next, the speech and language pathologist began reviewing the students speech and
language progress from the past year. She shared the students strengths and weaknesses, in
addition to the informal assessments results. She expressed that the students areas of need were
going to be targeted in the upcoming IEP year. The special educator also reviewed the students
present levels of achievement, both in the areas of reading and math. The special educator
indicated that the student met all but one of her objectives from the pervious IEP. She also
discussed the results from the Brigance, the informal assessment used to develop the new IEP.
Throughout the meeting, the general educator expressed her agreement with the team. When the
special educator was sharing the students present levels, the general educator also shared

relative information regarding the students classroom performance. After listening to the team
members share, the parents were given the opportunity to share their input. The IEP chair asked
the parents to share their thoughts and questions about their childs educational program at
Vincent Farm. Also, the parents were asked to share strengths, weaknesses, interest areas, and
personal attributes of their child. As the parents responded, the IEP chair recorded the
information in the present level section of the IEP.
The IEP chair then reviewed the next few pages of the IEP, including the special
considerations and accommodations pages. Most of information remained the same from the
previous IEP. After reviewing this section, the new goals and objectives were reviewed. The
speech therapist first began reviewing the students upcoming goals and objectives in the area of
communication. As she was reviewing the IEP goals and objectives, she provided various
examples to clarify any confusion. She also asked the parents several times if they had any
questions or comments about the goals. The parents were in agreement and expressed no
concerns. At that point, the meeting was turned over to the special educator. The special
educator shared upcoming IEP goals and objectives in the areas of math, reading, and phonics.
As the special educator was reviewing the goals and objectives, she provided the parents with
several examples of the new targeted skills. In addition, she paused frequently throughout the
meeting to address any parent questions and concerns.
Last, the IEP chair reviewed the final section of the IEP, the services page. This
information also remained the same from the previous year. She reviewed the frequency and
setting of both the speech and special education services. Before having the team members sign
the IEP, she asked if they had any questions or concerns about the new document. The parents
stated their agreement and signed the new document. A copy of the new IEP was provided to the
parents, in addition to each team member, as the meeting concluded.

PART II.B.1:
Content of IEP- Background Information
Kayla (pseudonym) is a 5-year old Kindergarten, female student at Vincent Farm
Elementary School. She has been enrolled in the Baltimore County Public School System since
the time she entered Pre-Kindergarten at Vincent Farm. Kayla is one of five children in her
family. She lives with her mother, father, two older sisters, and two younger twin sisters. Both
of Kaylas parents are from the United States. The primary language spoken at home is English;
there are no major linguistic differences. Kayla often expresses her love for her family members,
and states that she likes to help care for her younger sisters. She is a very sweet and hardworking student. She has no history of any medical complications at this time.
Kayla is currently diagnosed with a speech and language impairment. She was first
diagnosed in 2014, and began receiving services in March 2014. Kayla qualifies for speech and
language therapy, as well as special education services. She receives speech and language
therapy for her articulation needs as well as her language needs. She presents with a severe
articulation delay. Her speech sound errors negatively impact her in the classroom environment,
and she is often difficult to understand by her peers and teachers. Kayla receives special
education services in the areas of reading and math. Specifically, Kayla has difficulty in the
areas of phonological awareness and phonics. In math, she has difficulty with number concepts
and counting. She benefits from small group instruction as well as occasional individual
teaching sessions. Kayla sometimes has difficulty remaining on task, and often benefits from
redirection and prompts from her teacher to remain focused. In addition, Kayla benefits from
being seated near the teacher in order to sustain her attention during work tasks.
Kaylas language development is significantly delayed, compared to her typically
developing peers. She presents with a moderate language disorder that impacts her overall
performance in the classroom. Kaylas current language needs include: following multi-step
directions, recalling information that is orally presented, and applying grade-level appropriate
grammatical skills.
The IEP meeting discussed in this case study is Kaylas recent annual team meeting, held
on March 17th, 2015. The IEP needs to be completed within one year of the previous meeting.
The reason for referral of this meeting was that it was time for her annual meeting, where the
team would discuss her progress and educational program for the upcoming IEP year. Prereferral strategies and a timeline of the process are not noted, as this was not an initial IEP
meeting.

PART II.B.2:
Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance

Academic- SPEECH
Sources: Conversational sample, teacher input, clinical data
Instructional Grade Level Performance: delayed articulation skills
Summary of Assessment Findings
Assessment: Informal Observations/Clinical Data
Date: 02/02/2015
Results: Kayla presents with a severe articulation delay characterized by the following
phonological processes: final consonant deletion, fronting, and stopping. She uses these
processes 90% of the time in connected speech. Kaylas speech sound errors negatively impact
her in the classroom environment for she is often difficult to understand by her peers and adults.
Her speech also negatively impacts her participation and overall length of utterances.
Strengths:
Produces sounds at word and
phrase level

Needs:
Production of the sounds /k/, /g/,
/s/, /z/, /v/, and blends at the
sentence level

Academic-LANGUAGE
Source: Teacher input
Instructional Grade Level Performance: receptive language skills in mildy delayed range,
expressive language skills in the very low range
Summary of Assessment Findings
Assessment: Informal Observations/Clinical Data
Date: 02/02/2015
Results: Kayla presents with a moderate language disorder, which impacts her overall
performance in the classroom.
Strengths:
Receptive vocabulary skills
Understanding of sentence
structure
Understanding of most basic
concepts

Needs:
Ability to follow multistep
directions
Accurately recalling information
that is presented orally
Grammatical skills
Expressive vocabulary skills

Academic- READING
Sources: Informal assessments, classroom based observations
Instructional Grade Level Performance: below grade level expectations
Summary of Assessment Findings
Assessment: Brigance IED III
Date: 03/04/2015

Grade Equivalent: K-0

Results: Kayla is making progress in the area of reading since her initial IEP during the 20132014 school year. When given the informal assessment, Brigance IED III, Kayla was able to
identify 70% of upper and lower case letters in the alphabet. When asked to produce the sound
of each letter, Kayla was able to do so with 40% accuracy. Kayla was able to identify the
beginning sound of a picture with 92% accuracy. Kayla was given the mid-year informal
reading assessment, DIBELS, in January 2015. She was able to identify 21 upper and lower case
letters within a minute placing her in the at risk range. In the phoneme segment fluency
assessment, Kayla was able to segment sounds in words in the at risk range. When asked to
produce the sounds of letters in nonsense words (NWF), Kayla was able to say the sounds of 2
letters, placing her in the at risk range for the middle of Kindergarten.
Strengths:
Enjoys listening to books
Identifies letters and sounds

Needs:
Phonological awareness
Phonics

Academic- MATHEMATICS
Sources: Formal assessments, informal assessments
Instructional Grade Level Performance: mildy below grade level expectations
Summary of Assessment Findings
Assessment: Brigance IED III
Date: 03/04/2015
Grade Equivalent: K-0
Results: Kayla was given the informal assessment Brigance IED III on March 4th, 2015. She
was able to rote count from 1-39, identify numbers 1-5, 8, and 10. However, when asked to
write numbers 0-20, she had difficulty writing numbers 6, 7, 11-20. When asked to compare
different amounts by identifying which set was greater (up to 20), Kayla was able to do so with
100% accuracy. Kayla was able to identify 5/6 shapes (confused square for rectangle) and
identify 11/11 colors with 100% accuracy.
Strengths:
Able to identify 11/11 colors
Able to rote count 1-39
Able to count with 1:1
correspondence up to 20 objects

Needs:
Rote counting to 100
Reading and writing numerals 0-20

PARENTAL INPUT
How does Kaylas disability affect her involvement in the general education curriculum?
Kaylas disability in the area of speech intelligibility impacts her participation and
progress when communicating/socializing with adults and peers in everyday settings. This
manifests in Kaylas requiring support for speech intelligibility. Kaylas language impairment in
the area of language content, language use, and auditory processing cause her to have difficulty
following multi-step directions, understanding complex concepts, comprehending and recalling
verbally presented materials. This impacts her in all performance areas. Kaylas academic

deficits impact her in the areas of phonological awareness, phonics, and math. She has difficulty
demonstrating an understanding of phonological awareness and applying grade-level phonics
skills in order to decode words.

PART II.B.3:
Goals and Objectives
Communication GOALS
Goal: Articulation: Kayla will be able to use targeted phonological patterns to increase speech
intelligibility with 70% accuracy 3/3 consecutive sessions by 3/17/2016.
Evaluation Method: Observation Record Informal Procedures
With: 60% Accuracy
ESY Goal? No
Objective 1: Given 10 opportunities for practice, Kayla will produce final consonants in
words at the sentence level with 60% accuracy in 3/3 consecutive sessions by 3/17/2016.
Evaluation Method: Observation Record
With: 60% Accuracy
Objective 2: Given 10 opportunities for practice, Kayla will reduce fronting substitution by
appropriately producing /k/ and /g/ in all positions of words at the sentence level with 60%
accuracy in 3/3 consecutive sessions by 3/17/2016.
Evaluation Method: Observation Record
With: 60% Accuracy
Objective 3: Given 10 opportunities for practice, Kayla will produce sounds with
continuous airflow (e.g., /s/, /z/, /v/) and reduce stopping in all position of words at the
sentence level with 60% accuracy in 3/3 consecutive sessions by 3/17/2016.
Evaluation Method: Observation Record
With: 60% Accuracy
Goal: Grammatical Structures: Kayla will demonstrate the conventions of Standard English
grammar and usage when writing or speaking by 3/17/2016.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 70% Accuracy
ESY Goal? No
Objective 1: Given 10 structured opportunities to practice with supports (i.e., verbal cues,
pictures, sentence frames), Kayla will use regular form of plural nouns by adding /s/ or /es/
with 70% accuracy in 3/3 consecutive sessions by 3/17/2016.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 70% Accuracy
Objective 2: Given 10 structured opportunities to practice with supports (i.e., verbal cues,
pictures, sentence frames), Kayla will produce sentences with possessive /s/ with 70%
accuracy in 3/3 consecutive sessions by 3/17/2016.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 70% Accuracy

Objective 3: Given 10 structured opportunities to practice with supports (i.e., verbal cues,
pictures, sentence frames), Kayla will produce sentences by using first person singular /s/
(goes) or ing verbs with 70% accuracy in 3/3 consecutive sessions by 3/17/2016.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 75% Accuracy
Reading GOAL
Goal: Phonological Awareness: Kayla will demonstrate an understanding of spoken words,
syllables, and sounds (phonemes).
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 80% Accuracy
Objective 1: Given modeling and opportunities for practice, Kayla will isolate and
pronounce the initial, medial, and final sounds in spoken words.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 80% Accuracy
Objective 2: Given modeling and opportunities for practice, Kayla will orally blend
individual phonemes in three phoneme words.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 90% Accuracy
Objective 3: Given modeling and opportunities for practice, Kayla will orally segment
individual phonemes in three phoneme words.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 80% Accuracy
Phonics & Word Recognition GOAL
Goal: Kayla will be able to know and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in
decoding words.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 80% Accuracy
ESY Goal? No
Objective 1: Given prompting and support, Kayla will identify and name all uppercase and
lowercase letters of the alphabet.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 100% Accuracy
Objective 2: Given prompting and support, Kayla will recognize that a single vowel letter
stands for a short or long vowel sound.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 90% Accuracy

Objective 3: Given modeling and opportunities for practice, Kayla will recognize and read
high frequency words with increasing automaticity (e.g., the, of, to, you, she, my, is, are, do,
does).
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 80% Accuracy
Mathematics GOAL
Goal: Kayla will be able to know number names and the count sequence.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 90% Accuracy
ESY Goal? No
Objective 1: Given modeling and opportunities for practice, Kayla will rote count to 100 by
ones.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 90% Accuracy
Objective 2: Given flashcards and/or other visual aids, Kayla will be able to identify
numerals 0-20.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 100% Accuracy
Objective 3: Given modeling and opportunities for practice, Kayla will be able to write
numerals 0-20.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 90% Accuracy

Description of how childs progress will be measured:


As indicated in the goals and objectives, Kaylas performance will be evaluated by using
informal procedures and observation records. The criterion for measuring Kaylas performance
ranges from 60% accuracy to 100% accuracy.

When Periodic reports will be provided to parents:


Quarterly progress reports will be written and provided to Kaylas parents. The progress reports
will share information regarding Kaylas progress towards her IEP goals and objectives.

Projected date of services:


see charts in next section (including frequency, location, and duration)

PART II.B.4:
Statement of Special Education, Related Services, & Supplementary Aids
Special Education Services
Service
Nature

Location

Number
of
Sessions

Length of
Time

Frequency

Start to
End Date

Classroom
Instruction
(MATH)

In General
Education

30
minutes

Weekly

03/17/2015
to
03/17/2016

Classroom
Instruction
(READING)

In General
Education

30
minutes

Weekly

03/17/2015
to
03/17/2016

Provider
General Ed
Teacher
Special Ed
Teacher
Instructional
Assistant
General Ed
Teacher
Special Ed
Teacher
Instructional
Assistant

Related Services
Service
Nature

Location

Speech/Langu
age Pathology
Services

Outside
General
Education

Number Length Frequency


of
of
Sessions Time
2

30
minutes

Weekly

Start to
End Date

Provider

03/17/2015
to
03/17/2016

Speech/Language
Pathologist

Supplementary Aids/Services
Service Description
Service Nature (Indirect)
Begin Date End Date Duration Provider(s)
Anticipated Frequency
Instructional Supports
Other Instructional
Periodically
03/17/2015 03/17/2016 36 weeks GenEd
Supports
SpEd
Communication supports
InstrAssist
Have student repeat and/or
Periodically
03/17/2015 03/17/2016 36 weeks GenEd
paraphrase information
SpEd
InstrAssist
Clarify the location and manner in which Supplementary Aids, Services, Program Modifications and

Supports to or, on behalf of, the student will be provided:


Communication supports include comprehension checks, gain Kaylas attention prior to giving
directions, chunk information, pre-teach vocabulary, recast grammatical errors, and provide speech
therapy using multimodalities.
Physical/Environmental Supports
Preferential seating
Periodically
03/17/2015 03/17/2016 36 weeks GenEd
SpEd
InstrAssist
Clarify the location and manner in which Supplementary Aids, Services, Program Modifications and
Supports to or, on behalf of, the student will be provided:
Preferential Seating near the teacher in order to refocus and sustain Kaylas attention.

To enable the child to advance appropriately towards attaining annual goals: Kayla receives
speech/language therapy and special education services. To address her needs in reading and
phonics, Kayla receives 5, 30 minute sessions weekly of special education services inside the
general education setting. To address her needs in the area of mathematics, she receives 5, 30
minute sessions weekly of special education services inside the general education setting.
Kaylas speech and language therapy is delivered two times a week for a total of 30 minutes, in
an individual or small group environment.
To be involved in and make progress in the general curriculum and to participate in
extracurricular and other nonacademic activities, Kayla requires the following supports:
preferential seating near the teacher and communication supports (listed in chart). Also, Kayla is
often asked to repeat directions given by the teacher.
To be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled children:
Due to the nature, frequency, and length of time for service delivery required, Kaylas special
education services can be implemented in the general education environment. However, her
speech and language services are provided in a pull out manor to best address her needs in a
structured setting with less distractions and maximum opportunities for practice. With the
majority of her services being provided in the general education classroom, she has frequent
interaction with non-disabled peers.
Statement of individual accommodations that are necessary to measure academic achievement on
State and district-wide assessments: Kayla receives visual cues as an instructional and testing
accommodation. She requires visual cues in order to aid comprehension of material. At this
time, the IEP team has decided that Kayla will participate in district/statewide assessments. She
will not participate in an alternate assessment.

PART III:
IEP Procedures & Reflection
In my opinion, the IEP meeting was very effective and the required procedures for the
IEP process were followed. All of the participants who were involved in developing Kaylas
IEP, including the IEP chair, special educator, general educator, speech therapist, and parents,
were present and very active at the meeting. Each participant shared their role in the
development of Kaylas IEP, while collaborating with the other team members. In addition,
parent participation was also very active throughout the meeting. Kaylas parents arrived on
time to the meeting, stayed throughout the meeting, and shared their insight with the team
members throughout the meeting. Due to her young age, the student was not able to participate
in the meeting. Further, the timelines were also followed throughout this process. The timeline
for the development of the IEP was followed; the IEP was drafted by the required due date. All
required documents for this meeting were sent home to the parents a week prior to the meeting.
This gave the parents an opportunity to review the documents and prepare any questions or
concerns for the team. And, lastly, the parental procedural safeguards were followed and a copy
was provided for Kaylas parents at the meeting. Overall, the meeting was managed effectively
and appeared to run very smoothly for all team members.
Throughout this IEP process, I observed great team collaboration between the teachers
and parents. As mentioned in previous sections, the team members stopped frequently
throughout the meeting to answer the parents questions, concerns, and comments. Several times
throughout the meeting I observed the parents nodding their heads in agreement with the team
members. It appeared that they were in full agreement with much of what the team shared. The
teachers and therapist provided the parents with various opportunities to share their input, and
vice versa. Overall, it appeared that the team has built a strong relationship with each other and
have one main common goal, which is to provide Kayla with the best, most appropriate
education.
My presentation throughout this process was, in my opinion, very professional. Prior to
the meeting, I introduced myself to Kaylas parents and shared what my role as an intern is at
Vincent Farm. I asked her parents for permission to stay in and observe the meeting, and
expressed my appreciation when they agreed. In addition, I expressed how much I enjoy
working with Kayla with my mentor. This experience was a great learning experience for my
future career in early childhood special education.