Sie sind auf Seite 1von 21

IEPCASESTUDY

IEP Case Study


Katherine Reck
Towson University

IEPCASESTUDY

Student Background
This IEP was written for a 4rd grade student in Ellicott City, Maryland. For the purposes
of this assignment, I will refer to the student as John. At the time of the IEP meeting and
evaluation, John was 10 years and one month old. To better understand any student, an educator
must begin by looking into the data and files that have been gathered about the student since they
have been working with a school or schools. John is in fourth grade so his file has enough data
and information that has been collected to give me a good picture of what kind of child he is and
what his educational journey has been like for him. In his file, John has a psychological
evaluation done by a psychologist that met with him and evaluated him upon his parents
request. This evaluation is about 90 days old and was given to the administration of his
school about two weeks after its completion. The evaluation notes that John was born at 37
weeks and required a brief treatment using a CPAP because of inadequate suction that occurred
during this birth. After that treatment course was completed, John met all of his developmental
milestones as an infant, toddler and child and is not currently diagnosed with any medical
conditions. He has no issues with sleeping or eating that his parents have reported. He does see
a pediatrician regularly. John has a very active social life and his parents report that he has many
close friends inside and outside of school. His parents describe him as very sociable, affectionate
and happy child. John takes part in chess club, baseball teams and viola lessons. He has also
been working with a tutor outside of school on his reading and writing skills. John began this

IEPCASESTUDY

process in the summer of 2014, continued through that school year and before stopping at the
end of the year. He resumed with the tutor at the beginning of the school year in 2015. The tutor
has noted he has significant difficulties with tracking while reading, decoding words, spelling
and comprehension. He is a people pleaser but has also shown that he has been dealing with
anxiety issues since he was young. He started showing these symptoms when he was young, by
focusing on issues of safety (checking locked doors, bad weather), separating from his family
members and when he was in unfamiliar settings. John presents with stomach issues and
excessive headaches when he is especially anxious in a situation. In November of 2014 teachers
and parents decided that they would like to have John evaluated for his speech and language.
During that evaluation he was identified as having articulation difficulties with the phonetic
variations of the letter /r/. An IEP was written to aid John in his speech and language
development and his therapy began mid-December in 2014. His annual review meeting was on
November 30, 2015 to review his progress and it was decided that even though he was making
positive progress, he would continue to benefit from continued speech and language therapy at
school. Before any of Johns testing took place, there were several informal interventions
that his teacher and parents were implementing to help him in the classroom. Some where used
to help in while he was reading and writing and some were used to help reduce anxiety that he
was experiencing.
As John has gotten older, his parents and teachers have both noticed that he seems like a
very bright and confident student and earns As, Bs and Cs in school. Johns teachers have
noted that he is a very strong math and science student, working above grade level in
both subjects. He does not show the same success in Language Arts and reading that he does

IEPCASESTUDY

in math and science. His struggles have been noted on his report card from his teachers in
writing, proofreading skills, and time needed to complete his work. John labors over his writing
in the classroom, it usually takes him twice as long to complete an assignment as most other
students of the same age. He finds the process very overwhelming if there is writing involved.
If the assignment is completed verbally, John can answer the questions with details and include
all of the pieces that he would need to include in the writing, but as soon as the actual writing is
involved, he becomes very anxious and exhausted by the inability to meet the expectations that
are set for him. Even though he has very strong learning behaviors, the entire process is very
drawn out and overwhelming for him and teachers that are working with him. His processing
and decoding skills make seemingly simple writing tasks an obstacle that John has not been able
to complete as of yet. He completes most of his work, only if he is given extended time and
additional help from teachers. His learning behaviors keep him on task but the skills he is
lacking are keeping him from being able to complete assignments in the time that is given by the
classroom teacher. He shines in math and science and is currently in the above grade level math
class. The skills that his teacher see as being his weakest are his writing skills (spelling,
handwriting, proofreading) and his reading and decoding skills (sounding out words, blends,
diagraphs, vowel patterns, diphthongs, etc.). This gap in his abilities, is especially evident when
John is required to read a passage and then respond to the reading with a piece of writing.
As John has progressed through elementary school, the skills that he is missing have
become more evident in both reading and language arts which prompted his parents to have him
evaluated by an outside psychologist and look for issues beyond what teachers were able to see
in the classroom. Both parents and teachers made recommendations that John be tested and
evaluated to better assist him in his classroom. The special educator at the school had the chance

IEPCASESTUDY

to review the evaluation done by the psychologist that took place during two sessions, December
9, 2015 and December 28, 2015. She begun her observations of John in the classroom and speak
to his teachers as soon as she had gotten word from his parents that he had been assessed and she
received the evaluation on January 13, 2016 from the parents.
Part 1: IEP Process
Across Howard County Public School System, each school has a slightly different
process for referring children for the IEP process but once that process has begun, there is a very
streamlined series of events that must take place to determine whether or not the student is in
need of special education services. At NES, the process begins with one or both of two separate
groups of people: the parents or the teachers. If a parent contacts a childs teacher or the special
education teacher directly and requests that their child be tested or an intervention be put into
place, then the teachers and special education teacher will meet to discuss the classroom
implications for the student and teacher alike. If the childs teachers come together and
meet to discuss issues that the child may be having in the classroom, that meeting is
labeled as an IIT or Instructional Intervention Team. At these meetings, teachers
discuss students that may be having academic or behavioral issues in the classroom that are
adversely effecting the childs ability to function. During this time, teachers will review data
that has been collected and talk about any informal interventions that may be in place
and their effectiveness for the child. There are typically one of these meetings held a month
and they include all of the members of an instructional team. If the same student is brought up
several months in a row and there are interventions put into place that are not providing the

IEPCASESTUDY

change that is necessary for the student, then the students name will then be given to the
special education team leader to be discussed further. If a parent has already had a
child tested by outside sources or they are requesting that the child be tested without the
recommendation of the teaching team, then the special education department will already have
information that the teaching team may not have. All of the information that is shared between
the classroom teachers, special education teachers, parents and para-educators, the better. If
there is additional data that is gathered by special educators, administrators or other professional
that are helping with the case, all of that should be pulled together when attempting to make
academic or behavioral decisions for the student. Parents are always informed if a student is
being assessed for any reason, and in most cases, parents have met with their childs teacher
multiple times before any mention of assessments or evaluations are made. These are
the points when teachers and staff are working on providing unofficial interventions with the
student to see if they will be effective at addressing their struggles. The parents will be made
aware before any interventions will take place inside of the classroom. If a child has been
assessed and there are needs that will be written into an IEP for the student, the parents are
highly encourage to attend the initial meeting to give their input and share their feelings about
their children and the process that has taken place. At the initial special education meeting takes
place, the parents will be informed and should be present at this meeting. A notice was sent
home to the parents informing them of the meeting, five days ahead of time, giving them time to
confirm and make sure that their schedules work. This five-day protocol is always observed at
NES, ensuring that parents will be able to attend the meeting. This meeting should include as
many people as possible who work with the student or who will work with them in the future.

IEPCASESTUDY

Having all of these people present will ensure that all of the new goals, objectives and
interventions are chosen with the understanding of how they will effect this student each day. All
of the input that can be made at this point is much more effective because it is the beginning of
the process and changes are more flexible. At this point in the process, procedures across the
county, and even the state, become much more streamlined to fit within the mandated timelines
for parents and teachers to gather data, write IEP goals and objectives and meet about the
changes that will take place in the students day, if any. When preparing for the initial IEP
meeting, each of the members of the team have things that they will be responsible for before the
meeting happens as well as while the meeting is happening. Some of these responsibilities
happen naturally and are more about input that they will provide while the meeting is taking
place. Classroom teachers are responsible for bringing all of the data that they have collected
during the time that the student has been in their class as well as the records that previous years
teachers have passed on to them. The special educator is responsible for bringing all of the
assessments that have been administered and the data that they have gathered through
observations or work samples that they have completed with the student. They are also
responsible for bringing forms that they have sent home to parents, other records that are in the
childs file, the current draft of the IEP and any other pertinent records or forms that
could be used in the meeting. At NES, the assistant principal or the principal are
required to be at the meeting. This is more of a safe guard for the members of the staff,
especially if the family is coming to the meeting with a lawyer or an educational advocate. They
are also in attendance to make sure that all of the due dates, deadlines and laws are being
followed. Depending on the needs of each particular child, other members of the meeting need

IEPCASESTUDY

to bring materials that they have used to assess the child, curriculums that are going to be used
when working with the student in the future and maybe work samples that have been collected to
show parents what they are referring to when they are discussing the capabilities of the student.
All of the dates meet IDEA guidelines within state and national rules. In accordance with the
IDEA regulations, the content that is written in each individuals IEP ensure that the student is
being set up with access to the least restrictive environment possible. Each plan is written with
the knowledge that this student is only being pulled as little as possible from their general
education classroom. They will have as much time as they can to interact with age appropriate
peers and be able to see those children model behavior and academic skills for them. Also, in
accordance with IDEA regulations, all of the goals written into the IEP make sure that the student
has access to the general education curriculum but still with access to the educational needs of
that specific child. All of the listed goals are measurable and trackable for parents and teachers.
This IEP process also includes statements about appropriate accommodations, services and
supplements that are to be provided on the students behalf to ensure they are able to have equal
access to presented curriculum material.
Part II: IEP Content
PLAAP
In this IEP, there were several assessments administered to John to determine his present
levels of academic achievement and functional performance. John was given the Wachsler
Intelligence Scale for Children- Fifth Edition (WISC-V), Wechsler Individual Achievement TestThird Edition (WAIT-III) with subtests Math Problem Solving (SS122), Numerical Operations
(SS112), Spelling (SS87), Math Fluency- Addition (SS102), Math Fluency- Subtraction (SS100),
Math Fluency- Multiplication (SS111) and composite Mathematics (SS119) and Math Fluency

IEPCASESTUDY

(SS105). John was also administered the Feifer Assessment of Reading (FAR) with subtests
Phonemic Awareness (SS85), Nonsense Word Decoding (SS88), Isolated Word Reading Fluency
(SS72), Oral Reading Fluency (SS77), Positioning Sounds (SS105), Phonological Index (SS83),
Visual Perception (SS78), Irregular Word Reading Fluency (SS79), Orthographical Processing
(SS78), Silent Reading Fluency: Comprehension (SS81) and Silent Reading Fluency: Rate
(SS80). John also took the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing- Second Edition
(CTOPP-2). All of the assessment scores are listed below and areas highlighted in yellow are
cause for concern that were identified by the special educator who reviewed the scores.
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Fifth Edition (WISC-V)
Subtest and Index
Full Scale IQ
General Ability
Verbal Comprehension
Visual Spatial
Fluid Reasoning
Working Memory
Processing Speed

Standard/Scaled
Score
120
127
121
119
123
85
100

Percentile

Classification

91
96
92
90
90
16
50

Superior
Superior
Superior
High Average
Superior
Low Average
Average

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test- Third Edition (WAIT-III)


Subtest
Math Problem Solving
Numerical Operations
Spelling
Math Fluency- Addition
Math Fluency- Subtraction
Math FluencyMultiplication
Composite
Mathematics
Math Fluency

Standard Score
122
112
87
102
100
111

Per.
93
79
19
55
50
77

Grade Eq.
7.2
5.5
2.8
4.7
4.4
5.4

Classification
Superior
High Average
Low Average
Average
Average
High Average

Standard Score
119
105

Per.
90
63

--------------------

Classification
High Average
Average

Feifer Assessment of Reading (FAR)

IEPCASESTUDY

10

Subtest
Phonemic Awareness
Nonsense Word Decoding
Isolated Word Reading Fluency
Oral Reading Fluency
Positioning Sounds
Phonological Index
Visual Perception
Irregular Word Reading Fluency
Orthographical Processing
Silent Reading Fluency:
Comprehension
Silent Reading Fluency: Rate

Scaled Score
85
88
72
77
105
83
78
79
78
81

Per.
16
21
3
6
63
13
7
8
7
10

Grade Eq.
2.9
1.9
K.5
K.9
5.1
-----Pre-K
1.9
1.9
Pre-K

Classification
Low Average
Low Average
Boarderline
Boarderline
Average
Low Average
Boarderline
Boarderline
Boarderline
Low Average

80

1.1

Low Average

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing- Second Edition (CTOPP-2)


Subtest
Elision
Blending Words
Phoneme Isolation
Non-word Repetition

Scaled Score
10
2
6
4

Per.
50
1
9
2

Grade Eq.
5.2
<K
1.7
<K

Classification
Average
Extremely Low
Low Average
Boarderline

IEP Goals and Objectives


John also has several goals and objectives that are listed in his IEP. His initial IEP that
was written at the end of 2014 only included one Reading Foundational Skills Goal for
articulation that states John will produce speech sounds correctly and use effective strategies to
improve speech intelligibility during conversation. John has two objectives listed under this
goal. The first is, John will accurately and independently produce consonantal /r/ at the
conversational level with 80% accuracy. The second objective is, John will accurately and
independently produce vocalic /r/ at the sentence level with 80% accuracy. Both of these goals
will be addressed by the speech and language pathologist and Johns progress will be
assessed quarterly and parents will receive progress reports during the report time frame.
Even though those goals were written into Johns IEP at the end of 2014, they were

IEPCASESTUDY

11

revaluated and updated on November 30, 2015 by all members of the IEP team and
Johns parents. Johns second Reading Foundational Skills goal is a General Reading
Processes: Phonics goal. The goals states that John will apply their knowledge of letter/sound
relationships and word structure to decode and encode familiar and unfamiliar words. Under that
goal John has three objectives. The first objective is, John will encode and decode known and
unknown words by demonstrating his knowledge of phonics elements with at least 75%
accuracy. *Read and write short vowels (a, e, i, o, u) with initial blends/diagraphs and final
blends/diagraphs. The second objective for the general reading processes goal is, John will
encode and decode known and unknown words by demonstrating his knowledge of phonics
elements for the following skills with at least 75% accuracy. *John will read two syllable words
that include closed syllables and V-ce syllables. The third objective is that John will encode and
decode known and unknown words by demonstrating his knowledge of phonics elements for the
following skills with at least 75% accuracy. *Read and write the long VCE vowel pattern words
with initial blends and diagraphs. All three of these objectives are to be assessed by the reading
specialist and the special educator that is working with John. His progress will be indicated to
his parents through an IEP report during the report card time frame, quarterly.
Instructional and Testing Accommodations
In the IEP there are several instructional and testing accommodations that are listed to
help John meet his goals and objectives. As a fourth grader in Howard County Public Schools,
John is required to take the MAP and the PARCC a multiples times a year. These assessments
are taken using a computer happen in the classroom as part of a whole group. He will not be
required to take any MSA science assessments until he is in fifth grade. During those state
mandated assessments, John will be given timing and scheduling accommodations, 5a: Extended

IEPCASESTUDY

12

Time. This accommodation gives students until the end of the school day to complete a single
test unit administered during the prescribed testing window. It is advised in the IEP that students
with extended time take the test in a separate setting to minimize distractions to other students
and to schedule the assessment for the morning so that the student will have adequate time to
complete the test. During the PARCC test there are accommodations that are available to all
students while taking the test. Because these accommodations are available to all students, the
specific ones that would be utilized by John during the test, do not need to be selected and named
in the IEP.
Supplementary Aids and Services, Program Modifications and Supports
To achieve those goals, the speech pathologist and the reading specialist have both made
instructional decisions about which supplementary aids, supports, services and modifications will
be most useful for John in and outside of the classroom. His instructional supports include a
proofreading checklist, a spell checker, content notes, a highlighter to note important directions
or information, paraphrasing information and additional monitors of independent work, chunking
of text and extended time when working on all of these instructional modifications are to be
provided by the general education teacher, the special education teacher and the instructional
assistant. The proofreading checklist will be used for writing assignments and will give hints as
to how to check his own work while he is working. He will have one to take home to develop
the practice that he will need to use. The same concept will be applicable for using a spell
checker and extended time. He will have access to all supplemental supports at home and at
school. He will receive notes from the content time during the classroom when notes are
extensive and the time that he will have taken to record the notes will take away from the content
of the curriculum. The saved time will be used for comprehension and focus on other concepts

IEPCASESTUDY

13

of writing. His parents and teachers did say that this tool will only be used if the notes are
extensive and they want to avoid making this a constant in his day. The notes that he will be
provided will be used in the same way that chunking and paraphrasing will be utilized. They
will be there for use by John when assignments are larger or use many of the skills that he is still
developing but his parents and teachers have expressed that they are concerned he will expect
them and they will become a crutch for him. The use of these supplements will be
monitored by both teachers and parents. For his speech goals, John receives program
modifications from the speech and language pathologist that include; errorless models, target
sound in isolation prior to or after target sound is produced in a word and/or at the phrase level,
specific cues related to tongue and jaw replacement as well as lip placement/tension level and
airflow, audio/video recording and extended time when working on speech involved
assignments.
Part III: Reflection
To prepare for the annual review meeting for this students, there were several steps
that had to be followed to ensure that parents and teachers were all prepared to meet at
the given time. The notice that was sent home to parents, was done so seven school
days before the meeting was to be held, it was very important that they were in attendance of this
meeting since there were new goals to be added and discussed. At NES, the special education
department and the administration recognize the significant nature of these meetings and the
impact that they have on parents and children alike. They have found that the most successful
students have the support of the school staff and their parents and guardians. The notice that went
home to Johns parents on February 29, 2016, included all of the necessary information as

IEPCASESTUDY

14

required by IDEA. At this meeting, the following people were in attendance: Mr. Ludwig
(speech and language pathologist), Mrs. Foster (special education teacher and case manager),
Mrs. Wilson (reading specialist), Mrs. Grim (classroom teacher), Mrs. Golden (assistant
principal) and myself (technology teacher/intern). All of these people were involved in the
writing and updating of the goals that were being presented at the meeting and have some stake
in the IEP. In addition to the notice being sent home to the parents to give them enough time to
ensure their attendance, we reviewed the timelines and milestones to ensure that we had met all
of the necessary dates in accordance with IDEA. With the hard work and dedication of all of the
members involved, all dates were met with time to spare. Johns assessment was completed
and submitted to NES staff on January 13, 2016 and the data was reviewed by the SLP
and special educators immediately after. An additional goal was added into Johns IEP with
four additional objectives that were all discussed at the meeting on March 16, 2016.
The meeting was schedule to begin at 10:00 a.m. and started then. The meeting took
place in a conference room that is attached to the front office of the NES building. The room is
well lit with natural light and has a large oval table in the middle of it. There are printers,
screens that are available to presenters but they are often not used in IEP meetings to keep
information confidential. Before the parents arrived at the meeting, the school staff that was
attending came together and discussed some final points that they wanted to make sure were
covered during the time. The teachers made sure to sit around the table but not to be only on one
side of the table. Mrs. Foster and Mrs. Golden sat across from the parents and everyone filled in
around the sides. Since Mrs. Foster is the case manager for Johns IEP, she made sure to be
in a place that was close to them but still gave them some space at the table to write and

IEPCASESTUDY

15

review the papers. I sat next to Mrs. Foster since I was going to be interacting with the parents
as well. Both of Johns parents were at the meeting, so they sat next to each other when
they came in. The agenda of the meeting was not set before but the typical procedure at NES is
that the document is gone through as a whole and all areas are covered. Parents are encouraged
to ask questions as they have them as the team covers all of the material in the IEP. To be sure
that no material is overlooked, Mrs. Foster marks her own copy of the IEP as it is reviewed with
all of the notes that she thinks are important and Mrs. Golden takes notes on her personal
computer. This is a good safe guard for the special education team that no material is over
looked and all questions noted. This is also the time where any changes will be made in the
TIENET system by Mrs. Foster during the meeting if she has the time and after the meeting if
need be. If there are any changes that are made to the document that the parents must sign off
on, they will be sent home with a new copy of the IEP at the finish of the meeting. At the start of
the meeting, all procedural safeguards were reiterated with parents, even though they had been
sent all of the material during Johns annual review in November of 2015. These were
reviewed to make sure they were aware that all of their rights that would be applicable to the
meeting were reviewed to ensure that they were aware of them and their significance in this
process. During the meeting, each of the members of the team had their role that they played to
give parents the most information possible. At the meeting, Mrs. Foster lead the way for all of
the team members and each time that their information was covered. After Mrs. Foster went
over the procedural safeguards and rights, she stated the purpose of the meeting and reviewed
information that is listed in the beginning of the meeting, such as name, parents and other
personal information. At this time, Mrs. Foster also reviewed the notes from the previous
meeting in November of 2015 and what information was covered in that time. The purpose of

IEPCASESTUDY

16

this meeting was to change the identification in Johns IEP and to confirm the new goals and
objectives that he will be working toward. We also discussed that John will be seeking a
diploma and not an alternate form of graduation. The meeting started with a review of the
previous goal that John had listed in his IEP and since this was a speech goal, Mr. Ludwig, the
speech and language pathologist shared Johns progress and how he was feeling about the
goals that are in the IEP. He stated that he was very happy with the way that John has
been doing but he did not think he was ready to be released from speech at this time. He
also shared that he would love to see John finished with his speech and language goals by the
time that he is ready to go to middle school because it begins to interfere with scheduling and
makes things difficult for students who have SLP goals. Right now, his progress indicates that he
is progressing through all of his objectives at or above 80% so everyone was very happy to hear
about such positive progress. After discussing the speech and language goals, it was time to
move onto the addition of the reading foundational goals that were added because of new
information gathered by parents, teachers and outside sources. We lead the parents through the
new assessment scores that were added into the document and the significance that it held when
adding new goals and objectives for the student. The parents agreed with all of the information
that they saw from the assessments and commented that they were happy that John was now
going to be getting the help that he needed. They also reviewed information about his present
level of performance and double checked with his classroom teacher and parents that this was
what they were seeing at home and in the classroom. At this point, I went over with the parents
the main statement in the IEP about how Johns disability affects him in the classroom and with
his current presented curriculum. The parents agreed. We also reviewed that John has no need

IEPCASESTUDY

17

for assistive technology, is not deaf or hard of hearing and does not need or currently have a
behavior plan. At this time, we moved onto the part of the IEP where we discussed the testing
accommodations that John would receive when he took standardized tests at school. In addition
to all of the tools that are available to all students, John will have extended time. His parents
asked that to be clarified and Mrs. Foster informed that he would have as long as he needed to
complete the PARCC or MAP test as long as it was within the same school day that the test
started. I also was able to interject additional information about what tools are available to all
students, including John, that help students when taking these tests. Since I am the technology
teacher, I am the original person that taught all of the students how to take the PARCC and MAP
assessments so I was able to speak fully about these resources. Mrs. Grim made additional
comments about how she sees John perform on the assessments and she believes that this extra
time will help him greatly. This accommodation is listed on the IEP. At this time, we moved
onto the instructional accommodations and supplementary services that John would be receiving
in the classroom on a daily basis. Those tools included proofreading checklists, content notes
and additional time on classroom assignments that are given by the classroom teacher. The
parents asked the about checklists, if they were able to get copies to have at home and if each of
the checklists would be specific to the assignment. Mrs. Grim explained to them that each of the
lists would be different, depending on what was expected of John during his assignment and she
would send home a copy that they could use when working on homework. After all of the
supplementary services were explained and covered to the parents, Mrs. Foster began to go over
the new goals that were added into the IEP under his reading foundational skills and the
objectives that correlate under the goal. This was the time that Mrs. Foster explained the new
hours that John has now on his IEP. She explained to parents that he would be still receiving

IEPCASESTUDY

18

two, thirty-minute speech and language sessions a week with Mr. Ludwig but now he will be
going with Mrs. Foster or Mrs. Wilson for thirty minutes everyday, totaling two and a half hours
a week with a reading specialist or special education teacher. His parents ask whether this time
will be spent inside or outside of the regular education classroom and what it means for Johns
schedule as a whole. This is the point in the meeting when Mrs. Wilson steps in and
explains how the pull-out will work for John. At this time, she also walks Johns parents
through the specifically chosen curriculum that she will be using while working with John
and the skills that they will be emphasizing to help develop the skills that are missing. During
this point of the meeting, Mrs. Wilson has an open dialogue with Johns parents and answers
many questions about what he will be learning and how the program will be able to
integrate with his tutor that the works with outside of school one day a week.
Information is exchanged so that the tutor, Mrs. Wilson and Mrs. Foster can all coordinate their
instruction and John can use his time with each teacher most effectively. Mrs. Grim also
becomes part of the conversation when it shifts to discussing his homework load and how his
time will be best spent at home after school. By using the recommendations from Mrs. Foster,
Mrs. Grim, Mrs. Wilson, Mrs. Golden and Johns parents, a plan for homework is reached
and written down in the meeting minutes. After all of the issues about his upcoming pull
outs will work and the idea of his homework is ironed out, Mrs. Foster makes sure to check with
parents that they understand that he will be pulled a total of three and a half hours a week, one
for speech and two and a half for specialized reading instruction. Since this is the end of the
review of the information in the IEP, I ask the parents if they have any more questions or

IEPCASESTUDY

19

concerns about the information that has been covered since the beginning of the meeting and
they respond, no, they are comfortable with all of the things that were discussed and are excited
for Johns program too begin.
The collaboration during the IEP meeting was very positive and useful for parents and
other teachers. Each of the specialists were able to speak to their specific role in Johns
development and that expertise and teamwork seemed to comfort his parents. They
could tell that everyone was very invested in seeing John succeed inside and outside of
the classroom. Each member of the team was also very open and helpful with his parents,
they all provided their information to them in case they had any additional questions once the
program began. The high level of collaboration among the team will benefit John and his
development in the long and short term to ensure that all of his needs are met. My role during
this IEP meeting was to help answer any questions that the parents may have had about any of
the assessment scores or how those scores lead to the development of any of his goals and
objectives. I was also available to answer questions about the tools that are useful in PARCC
and how state mandated tests will be affected by his extended time accommodation. For the rest
of the meeting, I was an observer to the different team members and how they were interacting
with parents. I also took notes for the team and parents to have when the meeting was
concluded. I prepared for this role by meeting with Mrs. Foster and discussing all of the
assessments and scores. I looked at a copy of the assessment and we analyzed the scores
together and came to conclusions about how that interpreted information could help in the
development of Johns goals and objectives. I also observed John multiple times in his
classroom and was able to speak to his current abilities in the classroom and how he would

IEPCASESTUDY

20

specifically benefit from the services and accommodations that were being put into place. I
delivered this information to parents in the friendliest and helpful way that I could. I made sure
to emphasize all of the positives that John brings to the table as well as covering the areas that he
is struggling and where he would need the most development. Since his parents are not
educators, I made sure to take the interpreted information and put it into words and phrasing that
they could understand best and provide examples to them whenever possible. In this process, all
of the preparation that I took part in while collaborating with my mentor teacher helped me to
feel prepared and knowledgeable about the assessments and present levels of performance that I
was presenting to the parents. Getting to know the assessments that he took and being able to
interpret the scores was a very helpful exercise when they asked questions about how he was
being evaluated and which skills he will need to focus on if there were some that were lacking
more than others. I felt as though I was able to provide as much information as the parents
needed without overwhelming them with information that was not pertinent to the IEP process. I
do wish that I could have had more time to observe John in his classroom setting to get a better
picture of what his full capabilities are, maybe have even been able to observe the assessment
process. Unfortunately, with scheduling and placement issues, this was not possible with this
student. From the observations that I did take part in, I was able to get a good picture of what he
is able to do and where his struggles lie. Ideally, there would have been more time to make those
observations. Being able to be a part of this IEP process for this particular student was a great
introduction into the steps that it takes to assess, qualify and write an IEP that would provide the
least restrictive environment and benefit the student the most. I was able to participate when it
was appropriate and observe when we felt that it was time. I am very grateful for this

IEPCASESTUDY

21

opportunity that was afforded to me by his parents and my cooperating teacher at NES, as well as
the hardworking special education team.