State Officials Pleased with Steady Gains on MAP Tests
End-of-course Tests Debut; Fewer Schools Meet AYP Targets.
State education officials say they are pleased with new “end-of-course tests” in English, biology and algebra that will be used to measure the academic progress of Missouri high school students.
Results from the new end-of-course (EOC) exams were released today by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education along with its annual report of Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) test results for all public schools in Missouri.
In grades 3-8, students posted small to moderate gains in math and English at every level except one (grade 6 math), continuing the trend of slow but steady improvement in the academic performance of elementary-grade students.
That growth, however, is not sufficient to help schools meet the rising standards of “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) as required by federal law. As a result, the number of schools in the state that did not meet AYP targets this year increased again. (See chart.)
Commissioner of Education Chris L. Nicastro said that she favored the transition to end-of-course tests and believes the new exams will be beneficial to students and schools.
“The first year of testing with the EOC program went smoothly. These tests will provide increased accountability for students and valuable information for schools to support instructional improvement,” Dr. Nicastro said.
About 63,000 students took each of the new EOC exams during 2008-09. The statewide results are:
• English II – 72.6% of student scored proficient or advanced
• Algebra I – 52.7% of students scored proficient or advanced
• Biology – 55.1% of students scored proficient or advanced
With EOC exams, students take the test over the specific course content at the end of the class. In the past, all students took a math test in tenth grade and a communication arts test in eleventh grade.
The EOC exams also are intended to increase students’ motivation to perform well on the tests. A portion of each student’s final course grade is now based on the results of the EOC exam. In the past, there were no consequences for students if they scored poorly on a MAP test.
Adequate Yearly Progress
About two-thirds of all school buildings in Missouri did not meet federal AYP targets this year, compared to about 58% in 2008.
“Adequate Yearly Progress is just one piece of a much-larger picture that displays how well our students are doing,” Nicastro said. “We have seen gains in our state test scores and progress in closing achievement gaps between groups of students. Factors such as formative assessments, student and parent engagement, attendance rates, and graduation rates are all part of the picture when looking at student achievement,” she said.
Here is a breakdown of districts and schools meeting AYP in 2009:
Title I Schools in “School Improvement”
Total Number of Public Schools 2,210
Total Number of Title I Schools 1,165
Title I Schools in School Improvement: 350
School Improvement Level 1 198
School Improvement Level 1, Delayed 39
School Improvement Level 2 100
School Improvement Level 2, Delayed 13
Title I Schools in Corrective Action: 70
School Improvement Level 3, Corrective Action Year 1 69
School Improvement Level 3, Corrective Action, Delayed 1
Title I Schools in Restructuring: 75
School Improvement Level 4, Restructuring, Planning 19
School Improvement Level 5, Restructuring, Implementation 42
School Improvement Level 5, Restructuring, Continuing 14
Title I Schools Receiving Sanctions: 495
State Summary of MAP Results
District by District Results
Preliminary List of Title I Schools Receiving Sanctions
My Son
Showing posts with label school district. Show all posts
Showing posts with label school district. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Jeff Grisamore States District Will Only Work With Autism Group If They Go Through Him
As for a committee on autism and special needs in R-7, I have spoken to the Superintendent and Board, which relates to why he spoke to you. If that committee is formed, you will have one voice, although I would like to see D on it too, along with others, such as J. That will be up to R-7. Given your antagonism toward me and them, you are most fortunate you are being considered to be on such a committee. I would encourage you to consider changing your approach for the sake of LSASG's credibility and influence with R-7 and beyond. Your current approach is only isolating and alienating yourself from me and others who are doing much to help children with autism and their families.
This is in response to my email where I asked the Superintendent if Jeff Grisamore was setting up these meetings and if the district will only work through him.
"Rep grisamore is getting ahead of himself. There have been no follow up discussions about any ideas that may have been mentioned in some setting. Honestly, I do not recall discussing this committee but I may have forgotten. It happens. My invitation to discuss the issues is for you only at this time. You and I can discuss together where all of this goes from there. I hope this clarifies my intention. I do not go into this knowing where we will end up but do feel our dialogue has the potential to make us a better district and help you better understand our challenges. I am really looking forward to our meetings."
This is in response to my email where I asked the Superintendent if Jeff Grisamore was setting up these meetings and if the district will only work through him.
"Rep grisamore is getting ahead of himself. There have been no follow up discussions about any ideas that may have been mentioned in some setting. Honestly, I do not recall discussing this committee but I may have forgotten. It happens. My invitation to discuss the issues is for you only at this time. You and I can discuss together where all of this goes from there. I hope this clarifies my intention. I do not go into this knowing where we will end up but do feel our dialogue has the potential to make us a better district and help you better understand our challenges. I am really looking forward to our meetings."
Monday, March 30, 2009
Is This Really The Best That We Can Do?
As a citizen of Lee's Summit I believe the time has come for change. Wouldn’t you agree that it is time for the Lee's Summit R7 School District to get back to the business of education and out of the construction business? Do we really need a $12 million pool, $100,000 band uniforms, a $15 million elementary school that is going to have empty classrooms?
Mr. McGehee’s articles seem to appear everywhere boasting the district’s performance awards from the state of Missouri, Money Magazine, etc. Sounds great until you research the real facts! School Board Candidate, Sherri Tucker did just that to discover the United States Department of Education ranked Missouri as 45th in the country with a grade of “C-” and a “D” for K-12 Achievement. Missouri received a status of “F” for spending, a “D-” in accountability and an “F” in college readiness. The Lee’s Summit R7 District is ranked 27th in the State of Missouri. Lee’s Summit High School is ranked 12th in the State, Lee’s Summit North 24th and Lee’s Summit West 57th.
Out of 523 districts this year, the state’s education department handed out Distinction in Performance awards to 330 districts, one of which was Lee’s Summit. Ironically, Lee’s Summit is also one of the districts that received federal sanctions this year for not making enough progress, yet they received a state award for distinction in performance? So some districts that received criticism when Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) results were released in August are now celebrating their state distinction? While students on average met the standards qualifying the district for the state award, subgroups of students (special education, black or those receiving free or reduced-price lunch which comprise 25% of our student population) did not. Is that acceptable? Sherri Tucker does not think so and neither do many other Lee’s Summit residents, myself included.
In addition, our tax levy is the second highest in Jackson County. According to the Lee's Summit District Newsletter, we spend the least amount on our students. We are 4th out of 6 school districts for teacher's salaries and we are 3rd out of 6 school districts for administrator's salaries. Where is all of that money going? Could it be continued construction of new and expensive facilities that we don’t really need?
Lately it seems the current board feels that we need to make Jackson County raise the assessments on our houses. I agree with Sherri Tucker’s viewpoint of cutting back on unnecessary expenses and put the focus back on the business of education. These cuts need to affect all departments including administration. We need to educate all of our children and not just the ones that make us look good. It is not just important to have a good reputation, but to live up to it as well.
I would ask the people of Lee's Summit to do their homework. Get the real facts and then vote for Sherri Tucker. No matter what you may read, Ms. Tucker is not a single-issue candidate. Sherri knows her facts as well, if not better than the other candidates or those currently seated on the board. We desperately need Sherri Tucker representing all of our children. We cannot continue in the direction that we are currently headed. Our children’s’ lives depend on decisions that our board makes. Right now they are not making decisions in the best interest of all of our children
Mr. McGehee’s articles seem to appear everywhere boasting the district’s performance awards from the state of Missouri, Money Magazine, etc. Sounds great until you research the real facts! School Board Candidate, Sherri Tucker did just that to discover the United States Department of Education ranked Missouri as 45th in the country with a grade of “C-” and a “D” for K-12 Achievement. Missouri received a status of “F” for spending, a “D-” in accountability and an “F” in college readiness. The Lee’s Summit R7 District is ranked 27th in the State of Missouri. Lee’s Summit High School is ranked 12th in the State, Lee’s Summit North 24th and Lee’s Summit West 57th.
Out of 523 districts this year, the state’s education department handed out Distinction in Performance awards to 330 districts, one of which was Lee’s Summit. Ironically, Lee’s Summit is also one of the districts that received federal sanctions this year for not making enough progress, yet they received a state award for distinction in performance? So some districts that received criticism when Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) results were released in August are now celebrating their state distinction? While students on average met the standards qualifying the district for the state award, subgroups of students (special education, black or those receiving free or reduced-price lunch which comprise 25% of our student population) did not. Is that acceptable? Sherri Tucker does not think so and neither do many other Lee’s Summit residents, myself included.
In addition, our tax levy is the second highest in Jackson County. According to the Lee's Summit District Newsletter, we spend the least amount on our students. We are 4th out of 6 school districts for teacher's salaries and we are 3rd out of 6 school districts for administrator's salaries. Where is all of that money going? Could it be continued construction of new and expensive facilities that we don’t really need?
Lately it seems the current board feels that we need to make Jackson County raise the assessments on our houses. I agree with Sherri Tucker’s viewpoint of cutting back on unnecessary expenses and put the focus back on the business of education. These cuts need to affect all departments including administration. We need to educate all of our children and not just the ones that make us look good. It is not just important to have a good reputation, but to live up to it as well.
I would ask the people of Lee's Summit to do their homework. Get the real facts and then vote for Sherri Tucker. No matter what you may read, Ms. Tucker is not a single-issue candidate. Sherri knows her facts as well, if not better than the other candidates or those currently seated on the board. We desperately need Sherri Tucker representing all of our children. We cannot continue in the direction that we are currently headed. Our children’s’ lives depend on decisions that our board makes. Right now they are not making decisions in the best interest of all of our children
How Missouri Handles Child Complaints
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
- Making a positive difference through education and service -
March 23,2009
Dr. David McGehee
Superintendent
Lee's Summit R-VII School District
301 N.E. Tudor Road
Lee's Summit, MO 64086-5702
Curtis and Sherri Tucker
1200 SE London Way
Lee's Summit, MO 64081
Re: Jacob Tucker
Dear Dr. McGehee and Mr. and Ms. Tucker:
The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has completed its investigation of the child complaint filed against the Lee's Summit R-VII School District by Curtis and Sherri Tucker on behalf of Jacob Tucker. The complaint was received on January 22,2009.
The attached decision, containing findings and conclusions, shall constitute the final decision of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Bert Schulte
Interim Commissioner of Education
c: Mr. Jerry Keimig, Special Education Contact,
Lee's Summit R-VII School District
Ms. Janet Hoskins, Assistant Director, Special Education Compliance
Ms. Julie Bower, Supervisor, Special Education Compliance
Ms. Jackie Bruner, Director, Special Education Compliance
Ms. Pamela A. Williams, Coordinator, Special Education Services
Ms. Cynthia Quetsch, Legal Counsel, Division of Special Education
Ms. Heidi Atkins Lieberman, Assistant Commissioner, Division of Special Education
Child Complaint Decision
Re: Jacob Tucker
Findings and Conclusions
1. Allegation: March 23, 2009
The Lee's Summit R-VII School District, in violation of state and federal regulations implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), failed to develop an Individualized Education Program (IEP) with appropriate goals to address Jacob Tucker's needs.
Findings:
Curtis and Sherri Tucker, parents of Jacob Tucker, allege the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team did not develop appropriate IEP goals that address Jacob's needs. Ms. Tucker opines that Jacob's goals do not state how Jacob will achieve the goals, what the method of therapy or services will be used to help him achieve the goals, who will perform those services, how often those services will be provided, and what the services are. In addition, she opines that the goals
developed for Jacob are not appropriate or achievable given his disability.
Jerry Keimig, director of special education, indicated the IEP team met on December 15, 2008, and developed IEP goals based upon Jacob's evaluation data and current educational performance. (Jerry Keimig was not a part of the IEP team) Conference notes reflect a discussion among IEP team members regarding the appropriateness of Jacob's goals.
The present level of academic and functional performance (PLAAFP) of Jacob's IEP dated December 15,2008, states that Jacob's disability affects his functional and academic involvement and progress in regular education curriculum in the following manner: class participation, staying on task, understanding and following directions, completing and turning in work on time, organization, self advocating for make-up work, taking notes, expressing himself through lengthy forms of written expression, test taking skills, understanding emotions of peers and teachers, and general social skills. In addition, the PLAAFP indicates that Jacob continues
to need improvement with the following skills: following written directions, self advocacy, organization, study skills, pragmatic language, coping skills, and social skills. Jacob's IEP has five (5) goals which address increasing self advocacy, organization and study skills, pragmatic social skills for maintaining conversations, identifying the impression he makes, and inferring meaning from different social scenarios. The goals are measurable as they include specific numbers to record level of attainment. (These goals are not measurable and they are not appropriate)
Decision:
State and federal regulations implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) require Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams to develop measurable annual goals (including academic and functional goals) to meet the child's needs resulting from the child's disability, enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum, and meet each of the child's other educational needs that result from the child's disability. Jacob's IEP dated December 15,2008, includes IEP goals that are related to the areas identified as skill deficits in the present level of academic achievement and functional
performance (PLAAFP) and the areas in which Jacob's disability affects his functional and academic involvement and his progress in the general education curriculum. (His goals will not meet his needs, enable him to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculu, or meet other educational needs that result from his disability.)
Goal #1 Increase self-advocacy by asking for help at least 2 times in each class per semester
Goal #2 Increase organization/study skills by independently following written directions and completing task 2 times in each class per semester
Goal #3 Jacob will increase pragmatic/social language skills by maintaining a conversation using concise and relevant information with peers/adults with no more than one prompt on 3 consecutive days.
Goal #4 Jacob will improve pragmatic skills by identifying the impression he feels he is making in an interaction with peers/adults and adjusting his behavior appropriately in a structured small-group setting in 4/5 opportunities on 3 consecutive data days.
Goal #5 Jacob will improve pragmatic skills by inferring meaning from different social scenarios and identifying appropriate responses to the emotions of others in these situations with 80% accuracy on 3 consecutive data days. The state and federal regulations do not require that goals state how a student will achieve the goal, the method of therapy or services, and who will provide the services. The services summary of the IEP must include how often the services are provided and what the services are but that information is not required to be written in the IEP goals. The service summary of Jacob's IEP includes that information.
It is an IEP team's responsibility to develop appropriate goals on an individual basis based on the academic and functional needs of the child. In this case, the IEP team met and developed goals based upon Jacob's evaluation data and current academic achievement and functional performance. Goals must be measurable. Jacob's goals were measurable. Based on the foregoing, the Lee's Summit R-VII School District is found not out of compliance.
2. Allegation:
The Lee's Summit R-VII School District, in violation of state and federal regulations implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), failed to include areas of weakness and current evaluation results in Jacob Tucker's Individualized Education Program (IEP).
Findings:
Curtis and Sherri Tucker, parents of Jacob Tucker, allege the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team failed to address any of Jacob's areas of weakness and refused to put his current evaluation scores in the present level of academic achievement.and functional performance section of the IEP, therefore, resulting in Jacob's IEP not addressing his real needs.
Jacob's IEP dated December 15,2008, states that Jacob's disability affects his functional and academic involvement and progress in the general education curriculum in the following manner: class participation, staying on task, understanding and following instructions, completing and turning in work on time, organization, self-advocacy for make-up work, taking notes, expressing himself through lengthy forms of written expression, testing-taking skills, understanding the
emotions of peers and teachers, and general social skills. Jacob's IEP also states that Jacob continues to need improvement with the following skills: following written directions, selfadvocacy, organization, study skills, pragmatic language, coping skills, and social skills. Jacob's IEP dated December 15, 2008, states that the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - 4th Edition (WISC-IV) indicated that Jacob's abilities to sustain attention, concentration, and exert mental control are a weakness relative to his nonverbal reasoning skills. Jacob's ability to process visual material quickly is also a weakness relative to his nonverbal reasoning skills.
Jacob's reevaluation dated December 2,2008, which is included in the December 15, 2008, IEP, states that his overall cognitive ability is within the average range as tested by the WISC-IV. The Wechsler Non-Verbal Scale of Ability (WNV) indicated that Jacob's cognitive ability was at the superior range. The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test - 2nd Edition (WIA T-II) indicated that Jacob's reading and written language skills are in the high average range, while math appears to be within the average range. The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales - 2nd Edition, indicates moderately low to adequate adaptive skills observed at school.
Decision:
State and federal regulations implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) require Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams to consider the strengths of the child and the results of initial or most recent reevaluation results. In this case, the IEP team considered Jacob's strengths, weaknesses, and test scores; and the IEP includes strengths, weaknesses, and the most recent reevaluation results. Therefore, the Lee's Summit R-VII School District is found not out of compliance.
3. Allegation:
The Lee's Summit R-VII School District, in violation of state and federal regulations implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), failed to allow Jacob Tucker's parents to be an equal participant in the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team process.
Findings:
Curtis and Sherri Tucker, parents of Jacob Tucker, allege the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team failed to make Ms. Tucker an equal partner on the IEP team. Ms. Tucker reports that she was told by the school district that she is the expert at horne and the district is the expert on Jacob at school. Ms. Tucker contends that the Lee's Summit R-VII School District's failure to allow her to tape record meetings and include her conference notes with the district's conference notes, indicates that she was not a full participant on her son's IEP team.
Documentation indicates that Mr. and Ms. Tucker were invited to and attended the IEP meetings on May 5, 2008, and December 15, 2008.
Jacob's IEP was amended on August 27,2008, and February 2,2009. The August 27,2008, IEP amendment indicates that Ms. Tucker was present and agreed to the changes made to Jacob's IEP. The February 2,2009, IEP amendment indicates that Ms. Tucker agreed to the IEP amendment via email. (This is a complete lie)
From: Sherri Tucker [mailto:autism@kc.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 11:21 AMTo: Jerry Keimig; David McGehee; Bower, Julie; Hoskins, JanetSubject: Letter About IEP
Below please find the letter that I received from the district and the changes that have been made to Jake's IEP.
It also included a Notice of Action and a note to sign and return the consent form. I don't believe that any of this was discussed or that I was included in these decisions. It states that these changes represent our views of Jacob's academic and functional performance and they modified the PLAAFP to accommodate some of my suggestions. How did we complete the IEP on 12-15-08 when I didn't agree to it?
Many of the items state that parents report. The district has a copy of the report from Jake's psychologist. He is on the district's list of approved independent evaluators. It was he that reported that Jake has an issue with visual-motor integration. His report is available in Jake's file.
February 2, 2009
Dear Sherri,
As you requested, please find attached Amendment of the IEP that we completed 12-15-08. We have reviewed your suggestions and modified the PLAAFP to accommodate some of your suggestions. These changes represent our view of Jacob's academic and functional performance. Please also find attached Notice of Action for these changes.
Respectfully yours,
Joy Rose
SPED Process Coordinator
Here are the changes in the schools part of the PLAAFP:
WISC-IV scores indicate that Jacob's abilities to sustain attention, concentrate, and exert mental control are a weakness relative to his nonverbal reasoning abilities. Jacob's ability to process visual material quickly is also a weakness relative to his nonverbal reasoning ability.
Here are the changes in the parent's concerns:
Parents note that while Jacob has shown improvement in writing grammatically correct sentences, paragraph construction, and written expression, he still has deficits in these areas. Parents report that they and psychiatrist do not see improvement in initiating, maintain, and ending conversations appropriately, nor identifying the emotions of others. They feel this is a major area of weakness for Jacob. Parents state that they feel that Jacob continues to need improvement in math reasoning. Parents also show a diagnosis of Early Infantile Autism with Kanner's Syndrome. Mr./Mrs. Tucker report that Jacob's skin picking is due to the anxiety that he experiences because of school and he can no longer take medication for it. They report that he was taking medication for it, but it damaged his liver. He is currently seeing a psychiatrist and he believes this to be the case. Parents also note concerns for visual-motor integration being lower than cognitive and academic functioning, citing slowness in dominant and non-dominant hands. Parents want the PLAAFP to include all of the diagnostic data. The district will not repeat all of the voluminous data here, because the information is available in Jacob's school file and is incorporated by this reference.
Parent concerns are set forth in Jacob's IEP. In addition, Joy Rose, special education process coordinator, informed Ms. Tucker on October 13, 2008, that all of Ms. Tucker's communications, including parent conference notes from IEP meetings, are placed in Jacob's special education file.
Documentation indicates there are multiple emails and correspondence dated January 23,2008, to January 27,2009, between Ms. Tucker and various district personnel. There were numerous communications about Jacob's progress, goals, and implementation of the IEP. Some of the parent's requests for evaluation were granted and some refused. Ms. Tucker was provided with draft IEPs prior to each IEP meeting. Ms. Tucker submitted a classroom observation report to
the IEP team with suggestions prior to the December 15, 2008, IEP meeting. The district responded to numerous issues raised by Ms. Tucker, but did not always provide the relief Ms. Tucker requested. The district offered to meet with her to discuss her concerns.
The Lee's Summit Board of Education policy states that the use of audio, video, or other recording devices at IEP meetings or Section 504 meetings is strictly prohibited in accordance with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The policy also states that exceptions to this policy will only be made when such recordings are necessary to ensure parental rights that are guaranteed under Part B of the_IDEA. These requests must be made within a-reasonable-period oftime prior to the scheduled meetings.
Decision:
State and federal regulations implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) require that input be considered from all IEP team members when developing a student's Individualized Education Program (IEP) and that the district take steps to ensure that parents are present and given an opportunity to participate. There is no requirement that parents be an "equal" decision-maker nor is there any standard to determine the quantity or quality of participation. Considering input and allowing participation does not require the team to include all the input in the student's IEP. In this case, documentation reflects that Ms. Tucker was given an opportunity to participate as a member of the IEP team. Therefore, the Lee's Summit R-VII School District is found not out of compliance.
January 17, 2009
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (SEAP)
Division of Special Education Compliance
C/O Child Complaint Coordinator – Ms. Jackie Bruner
P.O. Box 480
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480
Dear Ms. Bruner,
This child complaint is written regarding my son, Jacob Edward Tucker. I am unable to resolve issues with our school district, Lee’s Summit R-7. I have written to the IEP team and the district’s superintendent and have not been able to get a response from them about my concerns.
My concerns revolve around the goals that the team have for him. I don’t think that they are appropriate and do not address all of his needs. He recently had a reevaluation and he had quite a scatter of scores. His IEP doesn’t address many of the areas of his weaknesses. The District refused to put his evaluation scores in his Present Level and therefore the IEP doesn’t address his real needs.
My son's PLAAP is just what the district brought to the table and hardly any of my input was used. That does not make me an equal partner on the IEP team. While the composite test scores might give a picture of what Jake can or can't do, the subtests give the real picture of his strengths and weaknesses. To make a statement such as, "he performed within the average" does not address his strengths and weaknesses.
Present Level of Educational Performance (PLEP) - The present level determines approaches for ensuring involvement in, or adaptations or modifications to, the general curriculum. Each area of identified educational need must be addressed in at least one of the following: annual goals, supplementary aids/services/supports, or secondary transition services.
The PLEP should accurately describe the student’s performance in all areas of education that are affected by the student’s disability [R340.1721e(2)(a)]. It is helpful to consider the key role of present level of performance in the overall development of the IEP.
Present level of performance information supports the IEP Team’s determination of supplementary aids/services/personnel supports, annual goals and short-term objectives, and state- and district-wide assessments on the IEP [34 CFR §300.347(a)]. The PLEP statement(s) should include four elements (in no particular order):
1. A narrative summary of the baseline data. In understandable terms, explain the data, areas of need, and how the disability affects progress in the general curriculum. The narrative summary must be sufficient to provide a foundation for education planning (a starting point for instruction).
2. Baseline data may be obtained from criterion referenced tests, standardized achievement tests, diagnostic tests, classroom performance, systematic observations, state or district-wide assessments, checklists, progress reports, report cards, student input, parent input, or any combination of the above.
3. A statement of how the disability impacts the student’s involvement/progress in the general curriculum.
4. A description of area(s) of educational need.
Previously, IEPs were required to include "a statement of the child's present levels of educational performance ..." Under IDEA 2004, the IEP must include "a statement of the child's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance ..." Present levels of academic achievement and functional performance require objective data from assessments.
If the school insists on using subjective teacher observations, an independent observer (the hearing officer, for example) will conclude that the school is not interested in monitoring the child's educational progress. This is exactly the conclusion you want this person to draw.
I asked for an ADOS to be performed. The Autism Coordinator suggested that the Autism Social Skills Profile would be a better tool. I agreed to that test, but I stated that I didn’t want my scores averaged in with the teacher’s scores. My son is in high school and his teachers aren’t familiar with his disability and they only see him one hour a day. To use their observations, and to average them with mine, would not give an accurate picture. The District agreed to do that.
The District had twelve teachers and me fill out the profile. There was no test score for this instrument. Instead, there was a summary at the end of the evaluation. I made my own graph to make it easier to read. This information was not available at the meeting to discuss the evaluations. There was only a rough draft without the summary or any explanation of how the data would be used. The class observation was not available either. Instead, the evaluator had written notes on notebook paper and read them aloud at the meeting. The following is the summary that was provided by the district.
Following are the items which at least 7 of the 13 raters indicated as being "never" observed (items 1-36): invites peers to join him in activities, interacts with peers during unstructured activities, asks questions to request information about a person, requests assistance from others, offers assistance to others, initiates greetings with others, introduces self to others, politely asks others to move out of his way. Following are the itemswhich at least 7 of the 13 raters indicated as being "often/very often"(items 37-49) observed as a concern: engages in solitary interests and hobbies, engages in solitary activities in the presence of others.
My son’s evaluations show some serious deficits. These are not truly addressed in his present IEP. The following are his goals:
1. Goal #1 Increase self-advocacy by asking for help at least 2 times in each class per semester.
2. Goal #2 Increase organization/study skills by independently following written directions and completing task 2 times in each class per semester.
3. Goal #3 Jacob will increase pragmatic/social language skills by maintaining a conversation using concise and relevant information with peers/adults with no more than one prompt on 3 consecutive days.
4. Goal #4 Jacob will improve pragmatic skills by identifying the impressions he feels he is making in an interaction with peers/adults and adjusting his behavior appropriately in a structured small-group setting in 4/5 opportunities on 3 consecutive data days.
5. Goal #5 Jacob will improve pragmatic skills by inferring meaning from different social scenarios and identifying appropriate responses to the emotions of other in these situations with 80% accuracy on 3 consecutive data days.
These goals do not state how he will do these things, what the method of therapy or services will be to help him do these things, who will perform these services, how often these services will be provided, and what the services are. How can a goal be achieved when there is nothing in place to achieve it?
1. Goal # 1 What does this mean? Who is he to ask? What phrasing will he use? What kind of help can he expect? What is the time frame for the response?
2. Goal #2 This goal would allow him to fail. If he only completes a task 2 times per semester, he would fail.
3. Goal #3 So if they prompt him, he will concisely say, “Hi. How are you?” This is not a measurable goal. What is relevant or irrelevant information? Who measures this? Who decides? What is the relevance meter?
4. Goal #4 How can he self reflect and self repair language? Is his impression measurable? He is being expected to remember to adjust his disability.
5. Goal #5 How will he improve? How will you know which he is doing on which of three days?
How are they going to help him achieve these goals because it looks like they're making him responsible for everything (ie he'll ask for help; he'll maintain the conversation")What are THEY going to do to help HIM be successful?What do they mean by "maintaining a conversation using concise and relevant information?" Who defines what's "concise" or "relevant"? What are his disabilities and known areas of need? For example, can he identify what "impression" he "feels" he's making? Will he be able to "adjust his behaviors accordingly" once he "recognizes his impressions"? How will he master that goal? By teacher observation of his interactions? Is there going to be someone there to "moderate" his interactions with others? For example, will a teacher or therapist stop to ask him, "What impression do you think you're making on your peers?" either after the interaction is over or would they ask him in front of his peers? What is his baseline for "inferring meaning" in social situations now? Does he have one? How do they know this is an area of need?What "social situations" are they going to use to try to teach him to infer meaning?Can he identify an "appropriate response to the emotions of others"? What specifically do they mean by an "appropriate response" to emotions of others? Are they trying to teach compassion, sympathy, how to diffuse someone who is angry with him? It seems like they want him to tailor his actions to someone else's "reactions." Can he do this? How are they even measuring 80% accuracy over 3 consecutive days? They haven't defined what their criteria are yet (i.e. He'll engage in a 5 minute give and take conversation about some social situation - I don't know, say, how to act in a restaurant - so, maybe how to interact with a waiter when ordering a meal).
Because there are no evaluations in the Present Level we don’t even know what his areas of deficits are. We only know that sometimes he is average, sometimes he is above average, sometimes he is below average, but overall he seems to be quite average.
I asked for an independent evaluation in hopes that I would be able to get more information about my son’s deficits and have someone to help me with analyzing the data. The district did not send me the same information, about providers, that they send other parents. The list that they sent me was inaccurate and forced me to find the updated information on my own. I notified the district of this. I have received no response from them.
INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL EVALUATIONS
34 CFR §300.502
General
As described below, you have the right to obtain an independent educational evaluation (IEE) of
your child if you disagree with the evaluation of your child that was obtained by your school
district.
If you request an independent educational evaluation, the school district must provide you with information about where you may obtain an independent educational evaluation and about the school district’s criteria that apply to independent educational evaluations.
My son’s evaluations show that he has a weakness in oral expression. His standard score in that area was an 80. His full scale IQ is 102. Our district standard states that a 20-point difference qualifies you for services. This is per Jerry Keimig. This area needs a goal. His standard score for Pragmatic Language Usage Index was an 86. This area needs a goal. His standard score for Contextual Conventions was a 90. This is not a solid skill and this area needs a goal. His standard score for Sentence Assembly was 80. This area needs a goal. His standard score for Language Memory was an 88. This area needs a goal and accommodations. His age equivalent score for the Interpersonal Relationships subtest of the Vineland II was <3:0. His age equivalent score for the Expressive was 6:10. His age equivalent for Play and Leisure Time was 3:6. His age equivalent for Coping Skills was 3:2. These were observations from a teacher that sees him one hour a day. The Vineland II scores that come from the parent rating report are: Receptive, age equivalent 1:6, Expressive, age equivalent 5:4, Personal, age equivalent 5:10, Domestic, age equivalent 5:6, Interpersonal Relationships, age equivalent 0:1, Play and Leisure Time, age equivalent 1:10, Coping Skills, age equivalent 3:10. His Internalizing was at the Clinically Significant Level, his externalizing was at the Elevated Level, and his Maladaptive Behavior Index was at the Clinically Significant Level. He needs help to improve in all of these areas. His standard score for Working Memory Index was 88. He needs goals and accommodations in this area.
I don’t believe that his deficits are being addressed and the District seems to be complacent about this. His overall scores aren’t that significant and they are not addressing the subtest scores.
I have attached documentation in support of my claims listed above. I request a copy of all responses that the District provides and the opportunity to submit a rebuttal. I feel that the described events are a clear violation of my rights to participation in my son’s education and his right to a free and appropriate education. I ask that DESE intervene in this situation and mandate the Lee’s Summit R-7 School District to comply with the law. I believe that compensatory services are warranted as the district has prohibited my son from making progress and receiving the free and appropriate education that is federally mandated.
Respectfully,
Curtis and Sherri Tucker
1200 SE London Way
Lee’s Summit, MO 64081
816-554-3017
autism@kc.rr.com
Enclosures
Attachment 1 – Autism Social Skills Profile
Attachment 2 – Email Discussing Social Skills Program, dated December 28, 2008
Attachment 3 – Graph of Autism Social Skills Profile
Attachment 4 – Email stating evaluator list is inaccurate, dated December 26, 2008
Attachment 5 – Email requesting IEE, dated December 19, 2008
Attachment 6 – Email with amended evaluator list, dated December 29, 2008
Attachment 7 – Email with information from psychologist, dated December 30, 2008
Attachment 8 – Email re: Modification Changed, dated January 7, 2009
Attachment 9 – Secondary School Experiences of Students With Autism
Attachment 10 – Vineland Comparison Graph
Attachment 11 – Full Scale IQ vs. Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test
Attachment 12 - Full Scale IQ vs. CELF-4
Attachment 13 – Full Scale IQ vs. TOPL-2)
Attachment 14 – Full Scale IQ vs. TLC-E)
Attachment 15 – WISC-IV
Attachment 16 – Full Scale IQ vs. WNV
Attachment 17 – Full Scale IQ vs. WIATT-II
Attachment 18 – Full Scale IQ vs. TOWL-3
Attachment 19 – Child Complaint Model Form
January16, 2009
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (SEAP)
Division of Special Education Compliance
C/O Child Complaint Coordinator – Ms. Jackie Bruner
P.O. Box 480
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480
Dear Ms. Bruner,
This child complaint is written regarding my son, Jacob Edward Tucker. I am unable to resolve issues with our school district, Lee’s Summit R-7. I have written to the IEP team and the district’s superintendent and have not been able to get a response from them about my concerns.
My concerns revolve around parent participation. During meetings, my comments are either ignored and no changes are made or they listen to my concerns and state that they don’t agree and no changes are made. Any suggestions that I have made regarding Present Level are ignored. I state that I don’t agree with their description of the Present Level and they tell me that I may include that in the Parent Concerns. I submit my concerns to be included in the Parent Concerns and they edit this document. I asked for tests score to be placed in the Present Level to guide services proposed and I am refused. I was allowed no input in relation to the goals and/or services. My son has an eligibility category of Educational Autism. He is in regular education classes with no supports besides 40 minutes of speech per week. I feel that decisions have been made prior to the meeting regarding my child’s IEP. The district has removed items from the Modifications/Accommodations page without my approval. It was discussed in the meeting and the decision was made to change the frequency from As Needed to Daily; not to delete it entirely. The meeting notes taken by the District were incomplete and rarely reported the discussions held in the meeting. I specifically wrote the Superintendent asking to record the meeting due to the fact that the recorder could not accurately describe the events as tape recording is against District policy, although legal in Missouri. I have not received an answer to this request to date. I requested a notice of action refused for the District’s refusal to include my changes in the Present Level and for editing my Parent Concerns without my approval. The district responded to this request on January 6 in an e-mail but I have received no such document.
Applicable sections of IDEA law are described below:
Integral to the design of IDEA is the substantive involvement of parents in assessing student needs and planning how to address those needs. In its Finding section, IDEA 2004 states that:
(5) Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by...
(B) strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at school and at home... (20 U.S.C. $ 1400 (c) (5) (B).)
State education agencies and local school districts must have in place policies and procedures that ensure the opportunity for parents to participate in meetings related to the identification, evaluation, program and placement of their children (20 U.S.C. $ 1415 (b) (1)). Participate is the operative term. The school must enable meaningful participation in discussion and decision-making. Mere attendance at meetings satisfies neither the spirit nor the letter of the law. The requirement applies to all meetings in which decisions will be made except for routine meetings among staff to discuss day-to-day instructional planning necessary to implement an existing IEP.
Recent decisions affirm the essential role of parents in designing their children's special education. Precluding parent participation through staff predetermination of services or placement egregiously violates IDEA. School districts should be aware that courts have become more alert to this problem and less likely to excuse it (Deal v. Hamilton Co. Bd. of Ed.; Knable v. Bexley City Sch. Dist.).
Also see attached documentation in support of my claims listed above. I request a copy of all responses that the District provides and the opportunity to submit a rebuttal. I feel that the described events are a clear violation of my rights to participation in my son’s education. I ask that DESE intervene in this situation and mandate the Lee’s Summit R-7 School District to comply with the law. I believe that compensatory services are warranted as the district prohibited my participation thus meaningfully impeding my son’s education.
Respectfully,
Curtis and Sherri Tucker
1200 SE London Way
Lee’s Summit, MO 64081
816.554.3017 Home
E-mail: autism@kc.rr.com
Enclosures
Attachment 1 – Child Complaint – Model Form
Attachment 2 – Letter to District re: Parent Participation, dated December 22, 2008
Attachment 3 – Letter to District re: My Parent Concerns, dated December 23, 2008
Attachment 4 – Letter from Joy Rose re: Notice of Action, dated January 6, 2009
Attachment 5 – Letter to District re: Modification Changed, dated January 7, 2009
Attachment 6 – Copy of District Notes, dated August 27, 2008
Attachment 7 – Request to Tape Record, dated January 7, 2009
Attachment 8 – Parent’s Meeting Notes, dated August 27, 2008
Attachment 9 – District Refusal to Include Parent’s Notes, dated October 13, 2008
Attachment 10-Request for Notice of Action, dated December 30, 2008
Attachment 11-Request for Changes in Present Level, dated December 30, 2008
- Making a positive difference through education and service -
March 23,2009
Dr. David McGehee
Superintendent
Lee's Summit R-VII School District
301 N.E. Tudor Road
Lee's Summit, MO 64086-5702
Curtis and Sherri Tucker
1200 SE London Way
Lee's Summit, MO 64081
Re: Jacob Tucker
Dear Dr. McGehee and Mr. and Ms. Tucker:
The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has completed its investigation of the child complaint filed against the Lee's Summit R-VII School District by Curtis and Sherri Tucker on behalf of Jacob Tucker. The complaint was received on January 22,2009.
The attached decision, containing findings and conclusions, shall constitute the final decision of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Bert Schulte
Interim Commissioner of Education
c: Mr. Jerry Keimig, Special Education Contact,
Lee's Summit R-VII School District
Ms. Janet Hoskins, Assistant Director, Special Education Compliance
Ms. Julie Bower, Supervisor, Special Education Compliance
Ms. Jackie Bruner, Director, Special Education Compliance
Ms. Pamela A. Williams, Coordinator, Special Education Services
Ms. Cynthia Quetsch, Legal Counsel, Division of Special Education
Ms. Heidi Atkins Lieberman, Assistant Commissioner, Division of Special Education
Child Complaint Decision
Re: Jacob Tucker
Findings and Conclusions
1. Allegation: March 23, 2009
The Lee's Summit R-VII School District, in violation of state and federal regulations implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), failed to develop an Individualized Education Program (IEP) with appropriate goals to address Jacob Tucker's needs.
Findings:
Curtis and Sherri Tucker, parents of Jacob Tucker, allege the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team did not develop appropriate IEP goals that address Jacob's needs. Ms. Tucker opines that Jacob's goals do not state how Jacob will achieve the goals, what the method of therapy or services will be used to help him achieve the goals, who will perform those services, how often those services will be provided, and what the services are. In addition, she opines that the goals
developed for Jacob are not appropriate or achievable given his disability.
Jerry Keimig, director of special education, indicated the IEP team met on December 15, 2008, and developed IEP goals based upon Jacob's evaluation data and current educational performance. (Jerry Keimig was not a part of the IEP team) Conference notes reflect a discussion among IEP team members regarding the appropriateness of Jacob's goals.
The present level of academic and functional performance (PLAAFP) of Jacob's IEP dated December 15,2008, states that Jacob's disability affects his functional and academic involvement and progress in regular education curriculum in the following manner: class participation, staying on task, understanding and following directions, completing and turning in work on time, organization, self advocating for make-up work, taking notes, expressing himself through lengthy forms of written expression, test taking skills, understanding emotions of peers and teachers, and general social skills. In addition, the PLAAFP indicates that Jacob continues
to need improvement with the following skills: following written directions, self advocacy, organization, study skills, pragmatic language, coping skills, and social skills. Jacob's IEP has five (5) goals which address increasing self advocacy, organization and study skills, pragmatic social skills for maintaining conversations, identifying the impression he makes, and inferring meaning from different social scenarios. The goals are measurable as they include specific numbers to record level of attainment. (These goals are not measurable and they are not appropriate)
Decision:
State and federal regulations implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) require Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams to develop measurable annual goals (including academic and functional goals) to meet the child's needs resulting from the child's disability, enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum, and meet each of the child's other educational needs that result from the child's disability. Jacob's IEP dated December 15,2008, includes IEP goals that are related to the areas identified as skill deficits in the present level of academic achievement and functional
performance (PLAAFP) and the areas in which Jacob's disability affects his functional and academic involvement and his progress in the general education curriculum. (His goals will not meet his needs, enable him to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculu, or meet other educational needs that result from his disability.)
Goal #1 Increase self-advocacy by asking for help at least 2 times in each class per semester
Goal #2 Increase organization/study skills by independently following written directions and completing task 2 times in each class per semester
Goal #3 Jacob will increase pragmatic/social language skills by maintaining a conversation using concise and relevant information with peers/adults with no more than one prompt on 3 consecutive days.
Goal #4 Jacob will improve pragmatic skills by identifying the impression he feels he is making in an interaction with peers/adults and adjusting his behavior appropriately in a structured small-group setting in 4/5 opportunities on 3 consecutive data days.
Goal #5 Jacob will improve pragmatic skills by inferring meaning from different social scenarios and identifying appropriate responses to the emotions of others in these situations with 80% accuracy on 3 consecutive data days. The state and federal regulations do not require that goals state how a student will achieve the goal, the method of therapy or services, and who will provide the services. The services summary of the IEP must include how often the services are provided and what the services are but that information is not required to be written in the IEP goals. The service summary of Jacob's IEP includes that information.
It is an IEP team's responsibility to develop appropriate goals on an individual basis based on the academic and functional needs of the child. In this case, the IEP team met and developed goals based upon Jacob's evaluation data and current academic achievement and functional performance. Goals must be measurable. Jacob's goals were measurable. Based on the foregoing, the Lee's Summit R-VII School District is found not out of compliance.
2. Allegation:
The Lee's Summit R-VII School District, in violation of state and federal regulations implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), failed to include areas of weakness and current evaluation results in Jacob Tucker's Individualized Education Program (IEP).
Findings:
Curtis and Sherri Tucker, parents of Jacob Tucker, allege the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team failed to address any of Jacob's areas of weakness and refused to put his current evaluation scores in the present level of academic achievement.and functional performance section of the IEP, therefore, resulting in Jacob's IEP not addressing his real needs.
Jacob's IEP dated December 15,2008, states that Jacob's disability affects his functional and academic involvement and progress in the general education curriculum in the following manner: class participation, staying on task, understanding and following instructions, completing and turning in work on time, organization, self-advocacy for make-up work, taking notes, expressing himself through lengthy forms of written expression, testing-taking skills, understanding the
emotions of peers and teachers, and general social skills. Jacob's IEP also states that Jacob continues to need improvement with the following skills: following written directions, selfadvocacy, organization, study skills, pragmatic language, coping skills, and social skills. Jacob's IEP dated December 15, 2008, states that the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - 4th Edition (WISC-IV) indicated that Jacob's abilities to sustain attention, concentration, and exert mental control are a weakness relative to his nonverbal reasoning skills. Jacob's ability to process visual material quickly is also a weakness relative to his nonverbal reasoning skills.
Jacob's reevaluation dated December 2,2008, which is included in the December 15, 2008, IEP, states that his overall cognitive ability is within the average range as tested by the WISC-IV. The Wechsler Non-Verbal Scale of Ability (WNV) indicated that Jacob's cognitive ability was at the superior range. The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test - 2nd Edition (WIA T-II) indicated that Jacob's reading and written language skills are in the high average range, while math appears to be within the average range. The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales - 2nd Edition, indicates moderately low to adequate adaptive skills observed at school.
Decision:
State and federal regulations implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) require Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams to consider the strengths of the child and the results of initial or most recent reevaluation results. In this case, the IEP team considered Jacob's strengths, weaknesses, and test scores; and the IEP includes strengths, weaknesses, and the most recent reevaluation results. Therefore, the Lee's Summit R-VII School District is found not out of compliance.
3. Allegation:
The Lee's Summit R-VII School District, in violation of state and federal regulations implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), failed to allow Jacob Tucker's parents to be an equal participant in the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team process.
Findings:
Curtis and Sherri Tucker, parents of Jacob Tucker, allege the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team failed to make Ms. Tucker an equal partner on the IEP team. Ms. Tucker reports that she was told by the school district that she is the expert at horne and the district is the expert on Jacob at school. Ms. Tucker contends that the Lee's Summit R-VII School District's failure to allow her to tape record meetings and include her conference notes with the district's conference notes, indicates that she was not a full participant on her son's IEP team.
Documentation indicates that Mr. and Ms. Tucker were invited to and attended the IEP meetings on May 5, 2008, and December 15, 2008.
Jacob's IEP was amended on August 27,2008, and February 2,2009. The August 27,2008, IEP amendment indicates that Ms. Tucker was present and agreed to the changes made to Jacob's IEP. The February 2,2009, IEP amendment indicates that Ms. Tucker agreed to the IEP amendment via email. (This is a complete lie)
From: Sherri Tucker [mailto:autism@kc.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 11:21 AMTo: Jerry Keimig; David McGehee; Bower, Julie; Hoskins, JanetSubject: Letter About IEP
Below please find the letter that I received from the district and the changes that have been made to Jake's IEP.
It also included a Notice of Action and a note to sign and return the consent form. I don't believe that any of this was discussed or that I was included in these decisions. It states that these changes represent our views of Jacob's academic and functional performance and they modified the PLAAFP to accommodate some of my suggestions. How did we complete the IEP on 12-15-08 when I didn't agree to it?
Many of the items state that parents report. The district has a copy of the report from Jake's psychologist. He is on the district's list of approved independent evaluators. It was he that reported that Jake has an issue with visual-motor integration. His report is available in Jake's file.
February 2, 2009
Dear Sherri,
As you requested, please find attached Amendment of the IEP that we completed 12-15-08. We have reviewed your suggestions and modified the PLAAFP to accommodate some of your suggestions. These changes represent our view of Jacob's academic and functional performance. Please also find attached Notice of Action for these changes.
Respectfully yours,
Joy Rose
SPED Process Coordinator
Here are the changes in the schools part of the PLAAFP:
WISC-IV scores indicate that Jacob's abilities to sustain attention, concentrate, and exert mental control are a weakness relative to his nonverbal reasoning abilities. Jacob's ability to process visual material quickly is also a weakness relative to his nonverbal reasoning ability.
Here are the changes in the parent's concerns:
Parents note that while Jacob has shown improvement in writing grammatically correct sentences, paragraph construction, and written expression, he still has deficits in these areas. Parents report that they and psychiatrist do not see improvement in initiating, maintain, and ending conversations appropriately, nor identifying the emotions of others. They feel this is a major area of weakness for Jacob. Parents state that they feel that Jacob continues to need improvement in math reasoning. Parents also show a diagnosis of Early Infantile Autism with Kanner's Syndrome. Mr./Mrs. Tucker report that Jacob's skin picking is due to the anxiety that he experiences because of school and he can no longer take medication for it. They report that he was taking medication for it, but it damaged his liver. He is currently seeing a psychiatrist and he believes this to be the case. Parents also note concerns for visual-motor integration being lower than cognitive and academic functioning, citing slowness in dominant and non-dominant hands. Parents want the PLAAFP to include all of the diagnostic data. The district will not repeat all of the voluminous data here, because the information is available in Jacob's school file and is incorporated by this reference.
Parent concerns are set forth in Jacob's IEP. In addition, Joy Rose, special education process coordinator, informed Ms. Tucker on October 13, 2008, that all of Ms. Tucker's communications, including parent conference notes from IEP meetings, are placed in Jacob's special education file.
Documentation indicates there are multiple emails and correspondence dated January 23,2008, to January 27,2009, between Ms. Tucker and various district personnel. There were numerous communications about Jacob's progress, goals, and implementation of the IEP. Some of the parent's requests for evaluation were granted and some refused. Ms. Tucker was provided with draft IEPs prior to each IEP meeting. Ms. Tucker submitted a classroom observation report to
the IEP team with suggestions prior to the December 15, 2008, IEP meeting. The district responded to numerous issues raised by Ms. Tucker, but did not always provide the relief Ms. Tucker requested. The district offered to meet with her to discuss her concerns.
The Lee's Summit Board of Education policy states that the use of audio, video, or other recording devices at IEP meetings or Section 504 meetings is strictly prohibited in accordance with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The policy also states that exceptions to this policy will only be made when such recordings are necessary to ensure parental rights that are guaranteed under Part B of the_IDEA. These requests must be made within a-reasonable-period oftime prior to the scheduled meetings.
Decision:
State and federal regulations implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) require that input be considered from all IEP team members when developing a student's Individualized Education Program (IEP) and that the district take steps to ensure that parents are present and given an opportunity to participate. There is no requirement that parents be an "equal" decision-maker nor is there any standard to determine the quantity or quality of participation. Considering input and allowing participation does not require the team to include all the input in the student's IEP. In this case, documentation reflects that Ms. Tucker was given an opportunity to participate as a member of the IEP team. Therefore, the Lee's Summit R-VII School District is found not out of compliance.
January 17, 2009
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (SEAP)
Division of Special Education Compliance
C/O Child Complaint Coordinator – Ms. Jackie Bruner
P.O. Box 480
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480
Dear Ms. Bruner,
This child complaint is written regarding my son, Jacob Edward Tucker. I am unable to resolve issues with our school district, Lee’s Summit R-7. I have written to the IEP team and the district’s superintendent and have not been able to get a response from them about my concerns.
My concerns revolve around the goals that the team have for him. I don’t think that they are appropriate and do not address all of his needs. He recently had a reevaluation and he had quite a scatter of scores. His IEP doesn’t address many of the areas of his weaknesses. The District refused to put his evaluation scores in his Present Level and therefore the IEP doesn’t address his real needs.
My son's PLAAP is just what the district brought to the table and hardly any of my input was used. That does not make me an equal partner on the IEP team. While the composite test scores might give a picture of what Jake can or can't do, the subtests give the real picture of his strengths and weaknesses. To make a statement such as, "he performed within the average" does not address his strengths and weaknesses.
Present Level of Educational Performance (PLEP) - The present level determines approaches for ensuring involvement in, or adaptations or modifications to, the general curriculum. Each area of identified educational need must be addressed in at least one of the following: annual goals, supplementary aids/services/supports, or secondary transition services.
The PLEP should accurately describe the student’s performance in all areas of education that are affected by the student’s disability [R340.1721e(2)(a)]. It is helpful to consider the key role of present level of performance in the overall development of the IEP.
Present level of performance information supports the IEP Team’s determination of supplementary aids/services/personnel supports, annual goals and short-term objectives, and state- and district-wide assessments on the IEP [34 CFR §300.347(a)]. The PLEP statement(s) should include four elements (in no particular order):
1. A narrative summary of the baseline data. In understandable terms, explain the data, areas of need, and how the disability affects progress in the general curriculum. The narrative summary must be sufficient to provide a foundation for education planning (a starting point for instruction).
2. Baseline data may be obtained from criterion referenced tests, standardized achievement tests, diagnostic tests, classroom performance, systematic observations, state or district-wide assessments, checklists, progress reports, report cards, student input, parent input, or any combination of the above.
3. A statement of how the disability impacts the student’s involvement/progress in the general curriculum.
4. A description of area(s) of educational need.
Previously, IEPs were required to include "a statement of the child's present levels of educational performance ..." Under IDEA 2004, the IEP must include "a statement of the child's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance ..." Present levels of academic achievement and functional performance require objective data from assessments.
If the school insists on using subjective teacher observations, an independent observer (the hearing officer, for example) will conclude that the school is not interested in monitoring the child's educational progress. This is exactly the conclusion you want this person to draw.
I asked for an ADOS to be performed. The Autism Coordinator suggested that the Autism Social Skills Profile would be a better tool. I agreed to that test, but I stated that I didn’t want my scores averaged in with the teacher’s scores. My son is in high school and his teachers aren’t familiar with his disability and they only see him one hour a day. To use their observations, and to average them with mine, would not give an accurate picture. The District agreed to do that.
The District had twelve teachers and me fill out the profile. There was no test score for this instrument. Instead, there was a summary at the end of the evaluation. I made my own graph to make it easier to read. This information was not available at the meeting to discuss the evaluations. There was only a rough draft without the summary or any explanation of how the data would be used. The class observation was not available either. Instead, the evaluator had written notes on notebook paper and read them aloud at the meeting. The following is the summary that was provided by the district.
Following are the items which at least 7 of the 13 raters indicated as being "never" observed (items 1-36): invites peers to join him in activities, interacts with peers during unstructured activities, asks questions to request information about a person, requests assistance from others, offers assistance to others, initiates greetings with others, introduces self to others, politely asks others to move out of his way. Following are the itemswhich at least 7 of the 13 raters indicated as being "often/very often"(items 37-49) observed as a concern: engages in solitary interests and hobbies, engages in solitary activities in the presence of others.
My son’s evaluations show some serious deficits. These are not truly addressed in his present IEP. The following are his goals:
1. Goal #1 Increase self-advocacy by asking for help at least 2 times in each class per semester.
2. Goal #2 Increase organization/study skills by independently following written directions and completing task 2 times in each class per semester.
3. Goal #3 Jacob will increase pragmatic/social language skills by maintaining a conversation using concise and relevant information with peers/adults with no more than one prompt on 3 consecutive days.
4. Goal #4 Jacob will improve pragmatic skills by identifying the impressions he feels he is making in an interaction with peers/adults and adjusting his behavior appropriately in a structured small-group setting in 4/5 opportunities on 3 consecutive data days.
5. Goal #5 Jacob will improve pragmatic skills by inferring meaning from different social scenarios and identifying appropriate responses to the emotions of other in these situations with 80% accuracy on 3 consecutive data days.
These goals do not state how he will do these things, what the method of therapy or services will be to help him do these things, who will perform these services, how often these services will be provided, and what the services are. How can a goal be achieved when there is nothing in place to achieve it?
1. Goal # 1 What does this mean? Who is he to ask? What phrasing will he use? What kind of help can he expect? What is the time frame for the response?
2. Goal #2 This goal would allow him to fail. If he only completes a task 2 times per semester, he would fail.
3. Goal #3 So if they prompt him, he will concisely say, “Hi. How are you?” This is not a measurable goal. What is relevant or irrelevant information? Who measures this? Who decides? What is the relevance meter?
4. Goal #4 How can he self reflect and self repair language? Is his impression measurable? He is being expected to remember to adjust his disability.
5. Goal #5 How will he improve? How will you know which he is doing on which of three days?
How are they going to help him achieve these goals because it looks like they're making him responsible for everything (ie he'll ask for help; he'll maintain the conversation")What are THEY going to do to help HIM be successful?What do they mean by "maintaining a conversation using concise and relevant information?" Who defines what's "concise" or "relevant"? What are his disabilities and known areas of need? For example, can he identify what "impression" he "feels" he's making? Will he be able to "adjust his behaviors accordingly" once he "recognizes his impressions"? How will he master that goal? By teacher observation of his interactions? Is there going to be someone there to "moderate" his interactions with others? For example, will a teacher or therapist stop to ask him, "What impression do you think you're making on your peers?" either after the interaction is over or would they ask him in front of his peers? What is his baseline for "inferring meaning" in social situations now? Does he have one? How do they know this is an area of need?What "social situations" are they going to use to try to teach him to infer meaning?Can he identify an "appropriate response to the emotions of others"? What specifically do they mean by an "appropriate response" to emotions of others? Are they trying to teach compassion, sympathy, how to diffuse someone who is angry with him? It seems like they want him to tailor his actions to someone else's "reactions." Can he do this? How are they even measuring 80% accuracy over 3 consecutive days? They haven't defined what their criteria are yet (i.e. He'll engage in a 5 minute give and take conversation about some social situation - I don't know, say, how to act in a restaurant - so, maybe how to interact with a waiter when ordering a meal).
Because there are no evaluations in the Present Level we don’t even know what his areas of deficits are. We only know that sometimes he is average, sometimes he is above average, sometimes he is below average, but overall he seems to be quite average.
I asked for an independent evaluation in hopes that I would be able to get more information about my son’s deficits and have someone to help me with analyzing the data. The district did not send me the same information, about providers, that they send other parents. The list that they sent me was inaccurate and forced me to find the updated information on my own. I notified the district of this. I have received no response from them.
INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL EVALUATIONS
34 CFR §300.502
General
As described below, you have the right to obtain an independent educational evaluation (IEE) of
your child if you disagree with the evaluation of your child that was obtained by your school
district.
If you request an independent educational evaluation, the school district must provide you with information about where you may obtain an independent educational evaluation and about the school district’s criteria that apply to independent educational evaluations.
My son’s evaluations show that he has a weakness in oral expression. His standard score in that area was an 80. His full scale IQ is 102. Our district standard states that a 20-point difference qualifies you for services. This is per Jerry Keimig. This area needs a goal. His standard score for Pragmatic Language Usage Index was an 86. This area needs a goal. His standard score for Contextual Conventions was a 90. This is not a solid skill and this area needs a goal. His standard score for Sentence Assembly was 80. This area needs a goal. His standard score for Language Memory was an 88. This area needs a goal and accommodations. His age equivalent score for the Interpersonal Relationships subtest of the Vineland II was <3:0. His age equivalent score for the Expressive was 6:10. His age equivalent for Play and Leisure Time was 3:6. His age equivalent for Coping Skills was 3:2. These were observations from a teacher that sees him one hour a day. The Vineland II scores that come from the parent rating report are: Receptive, age equivalent 1:6, Expressive, age equivalent 5:4, Personal, age equivalent 5:10, Domestic, age equivalent 5:6, Interpersonal Relationships, age equivalent 0:1, Play and Leisure Time, age equivalent 1:10, Coping Skills, age equivalent 3:10. His Internalizing was at the Clinically Significant Level, his externalizing was at the Elevated Level, and his Maladaptive Behavior Index was at the Clinically Significant Level. He needs help to improve in all of these areas. His standard score for Working Memory Index was 88. He needs goals and accommodations in this area.
I don’t believe that his deficits are being addressed and the District seems to be complacent about this. His overall scores aren’t that significant and they are not addressing the subtest scores.
I have attached documentation in support of my claims listed above. I request a copy of all responses that the District provides and the opportunity to submit a rebuttal. I feel that the described events are a clear violation of my rights to participation in my son’s education and his right to a free and appropriate education. I ask that DESE intervene in this situation and mandate the Lee’s Summit R-7 School District to comply with the law. I believe that compensatory services are warranted as the district has prohibited my son from making progress and receiving the free and appropriate education that is federally mandated.
Respectfully,
Curtis and Sherri Tucker
1200 SE London Way
Lee’s Summit, MO 64081
816-554-3017
autism@kc.rr.com
Enclosures
Attachment 1 – Autism Social Skills Profile
Attachment 2 – Email Discussing Social Skills Program, dated December 28, 2008
Attachment 3 – Graph of Autism Social Skills Profile
Attachment 4 – Email stating evaluator list is inaccurate, dated December 26, 2008
Attachment 5 – Email requesting IEE, dated December 19, 2008
Attachment 6 – Email with amended evaluator list, dated December 29, 2008
Attachment 7 – Email with information from psychologist, dated December 30, 2008
Attachment 8 – Email re: Modification Changed, dated January 7, 2009
Attachment 9 – Secondary School Experiences of Students With Autism
Attachment 10 – Vineland Comparison Graph
Attachment 11 – Full Scale IQ vs. Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test
Attachment 12 - Full Scale IQ vs. CELF-4
Attachment 13 – Full Scale IQ vs. TOPL-2)
Attachment 14 – Full Scale IQ vs. TLC-E)
Attachment 15 – WISC-IV
Attachment 16 – Full Scale IQ vs. WNV
Attachment 17 – Full Scale IQ vs. WIATT-II
Attachment 18 – Full Scale IQ vs. TOWL-3
Attachment 19 – Child Complaint Model Form
January16, 2009
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (SEAP)
Division of Special Education Compliance
C/O Child Complaint Coordinator – Ms. Jackie Bruner
P.O. Box 480
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480
Dear Ms. Bruner,
This child complaint is written regarding my son, Jacob Edward Tucker. I am unable to resolve issues with our school district, Lee’s Summit R-7. I have written to the IEP team and the district’s superintendent and have not been able to get a response from them about my concerns.
My concerns revolve around parent participation. During meetings, my comments are either ignored and no changes are made or they listen to my concerns and state that they don’t agree and no changes are made. Any suggestions that I have made regarding Present Level are ignored. I state that I don’t agree with their description of the Present Level and they tell me that I may include that in the Parent Concerns. I submit my concerns to be included in the Parent Concerns and they edit this document. I asked for tests score to be placed in the Present Level to guide services proposed and I am refused. I was allowed no input in relation to the goals and/or services. My son has an eligibility category of Educational Autism. He is in regular education classes with no supports besides 40 minutes of speech per week. I feel that decisions have been made prior to the meeting regarding my child’s IEP. The district has removed items from the Modifications/Accommodations page without my approval. It was discussed in the meeting and the decision was made to change the frequency from As Needed to Daily; not to delete it entirely. The meeting notes taken by the District were incomplete and rarely reported the discussions held in the meeting. I specifically wrote the Superintendent asking to record the meeting due to the fact that the recorder could not accurately describe the events as tape recording is against District policy, although legal in Missouri. I have not received an answer to this request to date. I requested a notice of action refused for the District’s refusal to include my changes in the Present Level and for editing my Parent Concerns without my approval. The district responded to this request on January 6 in an e-mail but I have received no such document.
Applicable sections of IDEA law are described below:
Integral to the design of IDEA is the substantive involvement of parents in assessing student needs and planning how to address those needs. In its Finding section, IDEA 2004 states that:
(5) Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by...
(B) strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at school and at home... (20 U.S.C. $ 1400 (c) (5) (B).)
State education agencies and local school districts must have in place policies and procedures that ensure the opportunity for parents to participate in meetings related to the identification, evaluation, program and placement of their children (20 U.S.C. $ 1415 (b) (1)). Participate is the operative term. The school must enable meaningful participation in discussion and decision-making. Mere attendance at meetings satisfies neither the spirit nor the letter of the law. The requirement applies to all meetings in which decisions will be made except for routine meetings among staff to discuss day-to-day instructional planning necessary to implement an existing IEP.
Recent decisions affirm the essential role of parents in designing their children's special education. Precluding parent participation through staff predetermination of services or placement egregiously violates IDEA. School districts should be aware that courts have become more alert to this problem and less likely to excuse it (Deal v. Hamilton Co. Bd. of Ed.; Knable v. Bexley City Sch. Dist.).
Also see attached documentation in support of my claims listed above. I request a copy of all responses that the District provides and the opportunity to submit a rebuttal. I feel that the described events are a clear violation of my rights to participation in my son’s education. I ask that DESE intervene in this situation and mandate the Lee’s Summit R-7 School District to comply with the law. I believe that compensatory services are warranted as the district prohibited my participation thus meaningfully impeding my son’s education.
Respectfully,
Curtis and Sherri Tucker
1200 SE London Way
Lee’s Summit, MO 64081
816.554.3017 Home
E-mail: autism@kc.rr.com
Enclosures
Attachment 1 – Child Complaint – Model Form
Attachment 2 – Letter to District re: Parent Participation, dated December 22, 2008
Attachment 3 – Letter to District re: My Parent Concerns, dated December 23, 2008
Attachment 4 – Letter from Joy Rose re: Notice of Action, dated January 6, 2009
Attachment 5 – Letter to District re: Modification Changed, dated January 7, 2009
Attachment 6 – Copy of District Notes, dated August 27, 2008
Attachment 7 – Request to Tape Record, dated January 7, 2009
Attachment 8 – Parent’s Meeting Notes, dated August 27, 2008
Attachment 9 – District Refusal to Include Parent’s Notes, dated October 13, 2008
Attachment 10-Request for Notice of Action, dated December 30, 2008
Attachment 11-Request for Changes in Present Level, dated December 30, 2008
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Special Education: Is IDEA Being Implemented As Congress Intended?"
http://www.wrightslaw.com/news/2001/diaz_hearing.htm
Special Education: Is IDEA Being Implemented as Congress Intended?” Congress of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform February 28, 2001
Prepared by Lilliam Rangel-Diaz Center for Education Advocacy Miami, Florida 33156 305-279-2428, Ext. 211 E-mail address: lillyrdiaz@aol.com
God blessed me with the opportunity to attend the Congressional Hearing on IDEA with a 24-hour notice!
I encourage every child advocate and every parent to contact Congressman Burton’s office with recommendations to improve IDEA implementation and enforcement. The record will remain open until March 15, 2001.
Congressman Burton’s Personal Experiences
Congressman Burton is deeply committed to this cause, as he has been personally touched by a child with disability, his grandson, Christian, who has autism.
He related the struggles of his daughter in obtaining educational services for his grandson. He has attended IEPs with his daughter and was shocked to find the recalcitrant system that we have all grown so accustomed too. He stated that if this happens to a child who has a Congressman for a grandfather, he could not even begin to imagine what is happening to other families and other children. His experience with the special education system is what motivated him to investigate the implementation and enforcement of IDEA.
Contact information:
Hon. Dan Burton, Chairman Hose of Representatives Committee on Government Reform 2157 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-6143 Attn. Ms. Beth Clay Tel. 202-225-5074 E-mail address: beth.clay@mail.house.gov
The following are my personal impressions and observations of the Congressional Hearing and my own opinions:
Congressman Dan Burton from Indiana, Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, opened the hearing, which was titled, “Special Education: Is IDEA Being Implemented as Congress Intended?”
What follows are excerpts of his opening statement:
“Why do families have to go to court to receive services?"
“ . . . Why is it that, when we have federal law that requires that every child receive a free and appropriate public education, many families are having to go to court to receive these services?”
“The committee received thousands of e-mails, telephone calls, letters and faxes from families, teachers, administrators, and organizations about the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) . . . Are teachers and administrators trained in the changes in the Federal laws regarding special education? Are families fully informed early in the process about their rights?” The “Federal Role in Education: To Serve the Children not the System”
He quoted President Bush, “The federal role in education is not to serve the system. It is to serve the children,” and stated that he was in 100% agreement with that statement. He stated:
"We repeatedly heard that parents do not want their children to be ‘warehoused,’ or placed in classes where they are not intellectually challenged."
"We repeatedly heard from the disability community and families about the need for accountability for schools that do not comply with the law.”
"Families across the country do not feel that their schools are following the IDEA law. A majority of over 2,500 families we heard from had to fight for services. We repeatedly heard from families that the schools did not inform them of the programs available to their children or of their rights under the law."
"We also learned that families spend tens of thousands of dollars out-of-pocket to obtain educational services for their children, as well as to hire lawyers to fight for their children’s educational needs . . . "
"It was never Congressional intent that taxpayer dollars be spent on hiring attorneys to fight parents in long and expensive court battles that will keep children from getting services.
"The role of Special Education Directors, teachers, and administrators is to serve the children, not to serve the system. The new mantra at the Department of Education is that “No Child Be Left Behind.’ It is very important that no child be left behind, including any child with a disability . . ."
When Congress passed legislation to require a free and appropriate public education to all children with disabilities, we never envisioned that parents would have to fight for these services.
We never envisioned that schools would refuse to accept the diagnosis of a doctor and then not evaluate a child for six months or a year – delaying all services until the school evaluation is obtained. A six-month delay can have a detrimental effect on the child for years…
When Congress passed IDEA we never envisioned that schools would tell parents, ‘if we provide it for your child, then we will have to provide it for everyone!’
We repeated heard from families that schools used this as an excuse not to provide services. If the service is an appropriate service to meet the educational needs of a disabled child, any child with the same disability in the school should be offered access to that appropriate service…
Marca Bristo, Chairperson of the National Council on Disability, beautifully delivered the major findings and major recommendations of NCD’s Back to School on Civil Rights Report regarding the poor implementation of IDEA and the lack of enforcement actions.
Back to School on Civil Rights was entered into the Congressional Record.
How to Improve Implementation of IDEA? OSEP Has No Recommendations
Patricia Guard, Acting Director, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, testified. Congressman Burton interrupted her testimony reminding her that what she was stating was what IDEA law says and that Congress is fully aware of what IDEA says, that what they want to know is why is not being implemented and what needs to be done to improve it.
He asked her for specific recommendations from OSEP, but OSEP was unable to provide any, aside from increase in funding. Ms. Guard indicated that she had to get back to the Committee with specific recommendations.
It’s hard for me to resist offering my editorials, so I’m not going to resist the temptation . . . for OSEP not to have recommendations to improve IDEA implementation and enforcement is so tragic that is almost comical!
For me, the highlight was . . .
For me, the absolute highlight of the hearing was the testimony of Melinda (Maloney) Baird, Esq. From Knoxville, Tennessee, now in private practice previously involved with the Weatherly Law Firm, followed by the testimony from Mr. Gary Mayerson, Esq. from New York, a parent attorney.
I wish I had a video camera so that we could all relive the moment together . . . I will do my best to describe what I observed . . .
Excerpts from Testimony of Melinda (Maloney) Baird, Esq., school board attorney
The following are excerpts from Ms. Baird’s testimony:
I am an attorney in private practice in Knoxville, Tennessee, and have been working in the field of special education law for almost sixteen years. My practice is devoted exclusively to the representation of school districts in special education matters. I formerly served as an attorney in the Office of Special Education Programs for the Tennessee Department of Education and as Associate Publisher for Education and Disability Publications for LRP Publications.
Over the past twelve years, I have provided hundreds of workshops and in-service training seminars for thousands of teachers, administrators, and parents of students with disabilities…. For the past four-and-a-half years, I have represented school districts in Tennessee, Alabama, and Florida in litigation concerning the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973… Despite the best efforts and good intentions of lawmakers, the paperwork burden for special education has increased rather than decreased…
In my opinion and based on my experience, local school districts are doing an ADMIRABLE (emphasis added) job of providing appropriate special education and related services to these students, and are rising to the challenge of meeting the mandate and increasing expectations of the law…. I annually prepare a yearly summary of federal and state court decisions affecting special education, which I have attached for your information and review . . .
I think it is remarkable that, on average, less than one hundred lawsuits are filed in federal and state court out of a total of more than six million students receiving special education and related services. The Committee members should remember that in each state there is a federally funded agency providing free or low-cost legal representation to parents of students with disabilities.
Therefore, families of students with disabilities are able to initiate a legal action against their local school district either at no cost or low cost whenever their child’s rights have been violated. Parents also have the option of filing a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights and their State Department of Education, and of requesting formal mediation at no cost to them….
The law provides a complex scheme of procedural rights and the availability of free or low-cost legal representation for parents of students with disabilities. I can testify that the parents I encounter are well aware of their legal rights and freely take advantage of the legal process. My husband is a retired educator with twenty-eight years of experience as a special education teacher and administrator…
It would be wrong to assume that all complains filed against school districts are without merit. It would also be wrong to assume that all complaints filed against schools have merit. The fact that we have disputes between school districts and parents of children with disabilities is proof that the system is working, not proof that the system is flawed… Excerpts from Testimony of Gary Mayerson, Esq., parent attorney
The hero of the day, Mr. Gary Mayerson from New York (who by the way was borne and raised in Miami, Florida), provided the accurate information regarding the state of affairs regarding special education litigation. He stated:
Unfortunately, while there apparently are enough lawyers and law firms prepared to work on a steady retainer basis for school districts (or the insurance companies which insure school districts), there are relatively few lawyers in the country who are ready, willing and able to represent children . . .
The subject matter is complicated, the learning curve is steep, the pay is uncertain and erratic, and the risks of failure can be catastrophic to the child and the child’s family. There clearly are easier ways to earn a living . . . “Private” Conferences for School Board Attorneys Funded by Taxpayers?
Mr. Mayerson included as Appendices to his written testimony, a seminar brochure entitled “Special Education and The Law" a private briefing designed for school board members, central office administrators, special education directors, etc.” Page 2 of the Program agenda announced a session titled “Special Education for Early Childhood Autistic Students – How to Avoid Parent Demands for Lovaas/Teach Methodologies,” and another session titled, “How to Avoid Liability in Lovaas Cases.”
Mr. Mayerson also attached a copy of “workshop” brochure from our esteemed LRP Publications entiled “Building a Blueprint from Defensible Autism Programs,” with Melinda (Maloney) Baird as the workshop’s presenter. He also testified to Ms. Baird’s presentation in Tennessee back in November 2000, titled “The New Reauthorization – Back into Hell?”
We are all too familiar with these workshops and “private” conferences at taxpayers’ expense.
Congressman Burton and Congresswoman Maloney from New York did not find Ms. Baird’s “catchy” titles amusing at all. As one observed Congressman Burton’s increase in facial color, becoming redder by the second, Ms. Baird was asked several questions regarding Mr. Mayerson’s appendices and testimony.
Among the questions asked of Ms. Baird, was an explanation of how could she put on “private” conferences with taxpayer dollars designed to teach school people how to break the law and get away with it.
OK, we can all relish the moment now . . . SMILE, SMILE, SMILE . . .
Of course, this refers to the infamous “National Institute on Legal Issues of Educating Individuals with Disabilities” by LRP, which caters to school boards and school board attorneys who attend these conferences at taxpayers expense to learn how to win against parents in court.
Congresswoman Maloney from New York literally yelled at Ms. Baird, stating that this practice could not be legal and that she would get this under the Sunshine Law.
Ms. Baird was not a happy camper.
OSEP Staff Comfort School Board Attorney
At the end of the hearing, it was observed that Ms. Baird found refuge and comfort among her friends from OSEP, Ms. Patty Guard, Ms. Joleta Reynolds and Ms. Ruth Ryder, who were all there.
Whose interest is OSEP protecting? Do we have any doubts left?
How could anyone in their right mind expect that OSEP would ever enforce IDEA, much less sanction state education agencies that allow its local school districts to violate the law?
“The Cat Is Out of the Bag”
For the first time I feel confident that IDEA is getting the attention it deserves (THE CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG).
“Thank God for Little Boys Like Christian”
Thank God for little boys and little girls like Christian, Congressman Burton’s grandson, who through the miracles of their existence, raise the level of awareness of those who are in a position to make a difference. What would the rest of us do without them?
I encourage all parents and advocates for children with disabilities to make recommendations to improve IDEA.
Please Make Your Voice Heard
It is scary to hear the recommendations that I heard at the hearing from school people and from uninformed legislators. The school people complain bitterly about the burden of paperwork and about the discipline of children with disabilities.
What they really mean is that paperwork makes them somewhat accountable and they just don’t like that. They also stated that they miss the days when the parents “trust” them.
Accountability & Measurable Student Outcomes
We need to demand accountability, not necessarily through “paperwork” (I’m not interested in killing trees), but through technology (instead of paper and pencil tasks) and through measurable student outcomes.
Please feel free to contact me for additional information.
Lilliam Rangel-Diaz
Center for Education Advocacy
8600 S.W. 92nd Street Suite 204
Miami, Florida 33156 305-279-2428, Ext. 211
E-mail address: lillyrdiaz@aol.com
IDEA Compliance Links at Wrightslaw:
Summary of Findings & News Release by National Council on Disability.
Table of Contents, IDEA Compliance Report ("Back to School on Civil Rights")
Recommendations from IDEA Compliance Report ("Back to School on Civil Rights")
Search Tips -- Find Information in IDEA Compliance Report
Keynote Speech by Lilliam Rangel Diaz, 3rd Annual Conference of Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Houston, TX
Other Links
National Council on Disability
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates
NOTE: The 4th Annual Conference of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates is at the Hyatt Crystal City, Washington DC, March 8-11, 2001. For more information, please visit the COPAA site.
Special Education: Is IDEA Being Implemented as Congress Intended?” Congress of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform February 28, 2001
Prepared by Lilliam Rangel-Diaz Center for Education Advocacy Miami, Florida 33156 305-279-2428, Ext. 211 E-mail address: lillyrdiaz@aol.com
God blessed me with the opportunity to attend the Congressional Hearing on IDEA with a 24-hour notice!
I encourage every child advocate and every parent to contact Congressman Burton’s office with recommendations to improve IDEA implementation and enforcement. The record will remain open until March 15, 2001.
Congressman Burton’s Personal Experiences
Congressman Burton is deeply committed to this cause, as he has been personally touched by a child with disability, his grandson, Christian, who has autism.
He related the struggles of his daughter in obtaining educational services for his grandson. He has attended IEPs with his daughter and was shocked to find the recalcitrant system that we have all grown so accustomed too. He stated that if this happens to a child who has a Congressman for a grandfather, he could not even begin to imagine what is happening to other families and other children. His experience with the special education system is what motivated him to investigate the implementation and enforcement of IDEA.
Contact information:
Hon. Dan Burton, Chairman Hose of Representatives Committee on Government Reform 2157 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-6143 Attn. Ms. Beth Clay Tel. 202-225-5074 E-mail address: beth.clay@mail.house.gov
The following are my personal impressions and observations of the Congressional Hearing and my own opinions:
Congressman Dan Burton from Indiana, Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, opened the hearing, which was titled, “Special Education: Is IDEA Being Implemented as Congress Intended?”
What follows are excerpts of his opening statement:
“Why do families have to go to court to receive services?"
“ . . . Why is it that, when we have federal law that requires that every child receive a free and appropriate public education, many families are having to go to court to receive these services?”
“The committee received thousands of e-mails, telephone calls, letters and faxes from families, teachers, administrators, and organizations about the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) . . . Are teachers and administrators trained in the changes in the Federal laws regarding special education? Are families fully informed early in the process about their rights?” The “Federal Role in Education: To Serve the Children not the System”
He quoted President Bush, “The federal role in education is not to serve the system. It is to serve the children,” and stated that he was in 100% agreement with that statement. He stated:
"We repeatedly heard that parents do not want their children to be ‘warehoused,’ or placed in classes where they are not intellectually challenged."
"We repeatedly heard from the disability community and families about the need for accountability for schools that do not comply with the law.”
"Families across the country do not feel that their schools are following the IDEA law. A majority of over 2,500 families we heard from had to fight for services. We repeatedly heard from families that the schools did not inform them of the programs available to their children or of their rights under the law."
"We also learned that families spend tens of thousands of dollars out-of-pocket to obtain educational services for their children, as well as to hire lawyers to fight for their children’s educational needs . . . "
"It was never Congressional intent that taxpayer dollars be spent on hiring attorneys to fight parents in long and expensive court battles that will keep children from getting services.
"The role of Special Education Directors, teachers, and administrators is to serve the children, not to serve the system. The new mantra at the Department of Education is that “No Child Be Left Behind.’ It is very important that no child be left behind, including any child with a disability . . ."
When Congress passed legislation to require a free and appropriate public education to all children with disabilities, we never envisioned that parents would have to fight for these services.
We never envisioned that schools would refuse to accept the diagnosis of a doctor and then not evaluate a child for six months or a year – delaying all services until the school evaluation is obtained. A six-month delay can have a detrimental effect on the child for years…
When Congress passed IDEA we never envisioned that schools would tell parents, ‘if we provide it for your child, then we will have to provide it for everyone!’
We repeated heard from families that schools used this as an excuse not to provide services. If the service is an appropriate service to meet the educational needs of a disabled child, any child with the same disability in the school should be offered access to that appropriate service…
Marca Bristo, Chairperson of the National Council on Disability, beautifully delivered the major findings and major recommendations of NCD’s Back to School on Civil Rights Report regarding the poor implementation of IDEA and the lack of enforcement actions.
Back to School on Civil Rights was entered into the Congressional Record.
How to Improve Implementation of IDEA? OSEP Has No Recommendations
Patricia Guard, Acting Director, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, testified. Congressman Burton interrupted her testimony reminding her that what she was stating was what IDEA law says and that Congress is fully aware of what IDEA says, that what they want to know is why is not being implemented and what needs to be done to improve it.
He asked her for specific recommendations from OSEP, but OSEP was unable to provide any, aside from increase in funding. Ms. Guard indicated that she had to get back to the Committee with specific recommendations.
It’s hard for me to resist offering my editorials, so I’m not going to resist the temptation . . . for OSEP not to have recommendations to improve IDEA implementation and enforcement is so tragic that is almost comical!
For me, the highlight was . . .
For me, the absolute highlight of the hearing was the testimony of Melinda (Maloney) Baird, Esq. From Knoxville, Tennessee, now in private practice previously involved with the Weatherly Law Firm, followed by the testimony from Mr. Gary Mayerson, Esq. from New York, a parent attorney.
I wish I had a video camera so that we could all relive the moment together . . . I will do my best to describe what I observed . . .
Excerpts from Testimony of Melinda (Maloney) Baird, Esq., school board attorney
The following are excerpts from Ms. Baird’s testimony:
I am an attorney in private practice in Knoxville, Tennessee, and have been working in the field of special education law for almost sixteen years. My practice is devoted exclusively to the representation of school districts in special education matters. I formerly served as an attorney in the Office of Special Education Programs for the Tennessee Department of Education and as Associate Publisher for Education and Disability Publications for LRP Publications.
Over the past twelve years, I have provided hundreds of workshops and in-service training seminars for thousands of teachers, administrators, and parents of students with disabilities…. For the past four-and-a-half years, I have represented school districts in Tennessee, Alabama, and Florida in litigation concerning the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973… Despite the best efforts and good intentions of lawmakers, the paperwork burden for special education has increased rather than decreased…
In my opinion and based on my experience, local school districts are doing an ADMIRABLE (emphasis added) job of providing appropriate special education and related services to these students, and are rising to the challenge of meeting the mandate and increasing expectations of the law…. I annually prepare a yearly summary of federal and state court decisions affecting special education, which I have attached for your information and review . . .
I think it is remarkable that, on average, less than one hundred lawsuits are filed in federal and state court out of a total of more than six million students receiving special education and related services. The Committee members should remember that in each state there is a federally funded agency providing free or low-cost legal representation to parents of students with disabilities.
Therefore, families of students with disabilities are able to initiate a legal action against their local school district either at no cost or low cost whenever their child’s rights have been violated. Parents also have the option of filing a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights and their State Department of Education, and of requesting formal mediation at no cost to them….
The law provides a complex scheme of procedural rights and the availability of free or low-cost legal representation for parents of students with disabilities. I can testify that the parents I encounter are well aware of their legal rights and freely take advantage of the legal process. My husband is a retired educator with twenty-eight years of experience as a special education teacher and administrator…
It would be wrong to assume that all complains filed against school districts are without merit. It would also be wrong to assume that all complaints filed against schools have merit. The fact that we have disputes between school districts and parents of children with disabilities is proof that the system is working, not proof that the system is flawed… Excerpts from Testimony of Gary Mayerson, Esq., parent attorney
The hero of the day, Mr. Gary Mayerson from New York (who by the way was borne and raised in Miami, Florida), provided the accurate information regarding the state of affairs regarding special education litigation. He stated:
Unfortunately, while there apparently are enough lawyers and law firms prepared to work on a steady retainer basis for school districts (or the insurance companies which insure school districts), there are relatively few lawyers in the country who are ready, willing and able to represent children . . .
The subject matter is complicated, the learning curve is steep, the pay is uncertain and erratic, and the risks of failure can be catastrophic to the child and the child’s family. There clearly are easier ways to earn a living . . . “Private” Conferences for School Board Attorneys Funded by Taxpayers?
Mr. Mayerson included as Appendices to his written testimony, a seminar brochure entitled “Special Education and The Law" a private briefing designed for school board members, central office administrators, special education directors, etc.” Page 2 of the Program agenda announced a session titled “Special Education for Early Childhood Autistic Students – How to Avoid Parent Demands for Lovaas/Teach Methodologies,” and another session titled, “How to Avoid Liability in Lovaas Cases.”
Mr. Mayerson also attached a copy of “workshop” brochure from our esteemed LRP Publications entiled “Building a Blueprint from Defensible Autism Programs,” with Melinda (Maloney) Baird as the workshop’s presenter. He also testified to Ms. Baird’s presentation in Tennessee back in November 2000, titled “The New Reauthorization – Back into Hell?”
We are all too familiar with these workshops and “private” conferences at taxpayers’ expense.
Congressman Burton and Congresswoman Maloney from New York did not find Ms. Baird’s “catchy” titles amusing at all. As one observed Congressman Burton’s increase in facial color, becoming redder by the second, Ms. Baird was asked several questions regarding Mr. Mayerson’s appendices and testimony.
Among the questions asked of Ms. Baird, was an explanation of how could she put on “private” conferences with taxpayer dollars designed to teach school people how to break the law and get away with it.
OK, we can all relish the moment now . . . SMILE, SMILE, SMILE . . .
Of course, this refers to the infamous “National Institute on Legal Issues of Educating Individuals with Disabilities” by LRP, which caters to school boards and school board attorneys who attend these conferences at taxpayers expense to learn how to win against parents in court.
Congresswoman Maloney from New York literally yelled at Ms. Baird, stating that this practice could not be legal and that she would get this under the Sunshine Law.
Ms. Baird was not a happy camper.
OSEP Staff Comfort School Board Attorney
At the end of the hearing, it was observed that Ms. Baird found refuge and comfort among her friends from OSEP, Ms. Patty Guard, Ms. Joleta Reynolds and Ms. Ruth Ryder, who were all there.
Whose interest is OSEP protecting? Do we have any doubts left?
How could anyone in their right mind expect that OSEP would ever enforce IDEA, much less sanction state education agencies that allow its local school districts to violate the law?
“The Cat Is Out of the Bag”
For the first time I feel confident that IDEA is getting the attention it deserves (THE CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG).
“Thank God for Little Boys Like Christian”
Thank God for little boys and little girls like Christian, Congressman Burton’s grandson, who through the miracles of their existence, raise the level of awareness of those who are in a position to make a difference. What would the rest of us do without them?
I encourage all parents and advocates for children with disabilities to make recommendations to improve IDEA.
Please Make Your Voice Heard
It is scary to hear the recommendations that I heard at the hearing from school people and from uninformed legislators. The school people complain bitterly about the burden of paperwork and about the discipline of children with disabilities.
What they really mean is that paperwork makes them somewhat accountable and they just don’t like that. They also stated that they miss the days when the parents “trust” them.
Accountability & Measurable Student Outcomes
We need to demand accountability, not necessarily through “paperwork” (I’m not interested in killing trees), but through technology (instead of paper and pencil tasks) and through measurable student outcomes.
Please feel free to contact me for additional information.
Lilliam Rangel-Diaz
Center for Education Advocacy
8600 S.W. 92nd Street Suite 204
Miami, Florida 33156 305-279-2428, Ext. 211
E-mail address: lillyrdiaz@aol.com
IDEA Compliance Links at Wrightslaw:
Summary of Findings & News Release by National Council on Disability.
Table of Contents, IDEA Compliance Report ("Back to School on Civil Rights")
Recommendations from IDEA Compliance Report ("Back to School on Civil Rights")
Search Tips -- Find Information in IDEA Compliance Report
Keynote Speech by Lilliam Rangel Diaz, 3rd Annual Conference of Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Houston, TX
Other Links
National Council on Disability
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates
NOTE: The 4th Annual Conference of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates is at the Hyatt Crystal City, Washington DC, March 8-11, 2001. For more information, please visit the COPAA site.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Some Area School Districts Receive Sanction and Awards
http://www.semissourian.com/article/20081215/NEWS01/712159918
Some area school districts receive sanctions and awards
Monday, December 15, 2008
By Lindy Bavolek
Southeast Missourian
Some school districts that received federal sanctions this year for not making enough progress are now receiving a state award for distinction in performance.
That's because the state looks at a broader range of data, including ACT scores, college placement rates and availability of advanced courses, while the federal government focuses mainly on test scores, holding all subgroups of students accountable.
So some districts that received criticism when Missouri Assessment Program results were released in August are now celebrating their state distinction.
The state's education department doled out awards to 330 districts out of 523 this year. Chaffee, Delta, Jackson, Leopold, Oak Ridge, Oran, Kelly, Woodland, Zalma, Altenburg, Kelso and Nell Holcomb made the list. Absent from the list are Cape Girardeau, Meadow Heights, Perryville and Scott City. All the districts are fully accredited. For Jackson, this is the 11th year for the district to receive the award.
"I think it's having a faculty and staff that understand that we're always trying to improve. We're not satisfied to just remain where we are," said assistant superintendent Dr. Rita Fisher.
The accolade comes four months after the district was placed in the first level of sanctions under No Child Left Behind. The district as a whole did not meet targets in math or reading for two consecutive years. While students on average met the standards, qualifying the district for the state award, subgroups of students did not. Those subgroups include students classified as special education, black or receiving free or reduced-price lunch.
Similar situations, where a district received the state award but moved into improvement status under the federal government, occurred in Oran, Kelly and Woodland.
Jim Morris, spokesman for the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, referred in an e-mail to No Child Left Behind mandates and Distinction in Performance indicators as "two different galaxies." No Child Left Behind is largely building focused, he said, while the state's accreditation mechanism recognizes districts.
Jackson superintendent Dr. Ron Anderson said he supports "the accountability standard," but thinks some of No Child Left Behind's requirements are unobtainable."With some of those [subgroup] populations, it's not realistic. With this, you have a better chance. The subgroups are more of a bonus category," Fisher said.
388-3627
Does this affect you?
Have a comment?
Log on to semissourian.com
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Writing An IEP
I. Introduction
The post-school success rates of students who have learning disabilities, as a group, have not been what we would all hope even though many individuals have been highly successful. A recent focus on greater school responsibility for the post-school life of students who have disabilities has resulted in new transition requirements. The purpose of this discussion is to present a different approach to writing IEPs, with special attention to the transition component This approach results in IEPs which, unlike most IEPs, are both educationally useful and legally correct.
The Promise
After nearly seventeen years of life the Individual Education Program (IEP)-- the heart and soul of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) -- is still in it's infancy, it's great potential unrealized and unappreciated. The IEP process and product frequently have been distorted beyond recognition. The purpose of this discussion is to show how the IEP process can work to produce IEPs that are both educationally useful and legally correct. The essence of legal correctness is that the IEP is tailored precisely to all the unique needs of the individual student. The core of educational utility is that the IEP spells out precisely how the school district will address each and every unique need and how it will determine whether and when a change in strategy or service is required. The IEP process must determine:
(a) which needs or characteristics of the student require special education, i.e., individualization of services;
(b) Precisely how the district will address each need, i.e., "what special education, related services or modifications it will provide; and
(c) how and when the efficacy of those services will be evaluated.
The IEP process must include the parent (or parent/student) as a full and equal partner, and a student whose IEP addresses "transition" must be invited to participate in the IEP process and must have her or his preferences and interests considered. These transition concerns and processes are a special focus of this discussion.
The Practice
Most IEPs are useless or slightly worse, and too many teachers experience the IEP process as always time consuming, sometimes threatening, and, too often, a pointless bureaucratic requirement. The result is a quasi-legal document to be filed away with the expectation it won't be seen again except, heaven forbid, by a monitor or compliance officer. The point of the IEP exercise seems to be to complete the given form in a way that commit the district to as little as possible, and which precludes, as much as possible, any meaningful discussion or evaluation of the student's real progress.
Parents too often experience the IEP process as an overgrown parent-teacher conference in which the school personnel present some previously prepared papers and request a signature. They may be told a few things about some "rights." Parents who attempt to participate as equals are often intimidated into acquiescence. They are frequently given false and outrageous distortions such as, "We (the district) don't provide individual tutoring"; or "Speech therapy is always done by the regular classroom teacher and the speech therapist provides consultation services to her"; or "We are a full inclusion school and have no special classes or resource rooms because we don't believe in pull-out programs." When such limiting and blatantly illegal practices are presented as if they are simple fact few parents are adequately prepared to challenge the district.
A Better Way
The IEP process and product can be both educationally useful and legally correct. The first step toward that end is for the district to provide an appropriate time and place for the IEP meeting, The place should be physically comfortable and the meeting time and length appropriate. The law requires the meeting be at a mutually agreed on time and place. Too often parents are not aware they have any say in either. Districts must also be careful to avoid unrealistically short meetings, especially for initial, complex or disputed IEPs.
The only legitimate focus of an IEP meeting is on the special needs of the student and how those are to be addressed. There may be a temptation for district personnel to sidestep into policy explanations or justifications or into what the parents have done or not done. If the student is not present at the IEP meeting a strategically placed photo of the youngster can serve to help all participants stay focused on the needs of that student. Many IEP meetings lose this essential focus and wander, becoming inefficient and frustrating for all.
The single most important principle of the IEP process is that the school must appropriately address all the student's unique needs without regard to the availability of needed services. Prior to the passage of IDEA (then P.L. 94-142) in 1975, schools were legally free to offer only the programs or services, if any, they had available. Parents were supposed to be grateful for anything at all that was provided. The primary purpose of the law was to turn that squarely around and entitle the student who has a disability to a free appropriate education individually designed to meet her or his unique needs. Educators who have entered the field in the last twenty years lack this historical perspective and too easily revert to the pre-IDEA mentality of trying to stretch existing programs and services to fit the students. Instead they must start with the student and design services to fit the student's needs, however unique they may be.
The Participants
Sometimes parents report that only a teacher was at the IEP meeting; other times a seeming army of district personnel confront them. The law specifies that in addition to the parent and student (if the parent so wishes) a teacher of the student and a district representative must be present. The IDEA regulations allow the district substantial discretion in determining which teacher will be at the IEP meeting. Since, in theory, the IEP team is addressing the student's needs above all, it would seem reasonable to select a teacher who knows the student well. In addition, at least one team member must be qualified (by state standards) in the area of the student's disability. If this is not the teacher, it must be the district representative (Mcintire, 16 EHLR 163, (OSEP, 1990)). Students at middle school or high school most often have several teachers. The law does not require that they all attend, but good special education practice suggests their input should be sought and they most certainly should be informed of the IEP's provisions.
The district representative must provide or be qualified to supervise special education, have the authority to allocate district resources, and be able to guarantee no administrative veto of the IEP team's decisions (34 CFR Part 300 Appendix C, 13). These qualifications are the law's way of insuring that the IEP team, and it alone, has the power to determine what services the student needs and, therefore, will receive. The evaluation team, often called the multi-disciplinary team, determines eligibility, but only recommends services.
All members of the IEP team should remember the enormous power and responsibility that is theirs. When the IEP specifies a service is needed, the district must provide it. Too often parents are given a very different impression, i.e., that only what is already available can be provided and often in smaller than needed amounts. This critical difference between the law and practice is typified by the common situation, e.g., where the parent believes the student who has a learning disability needs intensive, individual, daily language therapy and is told by the speech therapist that since the therapist is only in that building on Mondays and Wednesdays the student will be included in an ongoing 20 minute speech therapy group on those two days.
In addition to the parent (and perhaps student), teacher, and the district representative, the first IEP meeting for a given student must be attended by a member of the evaluation team or someone familiar with the evaluation. In addition, either the district or the parent may invite anyone else. The district must, however, inform the parent ahead of time of all district invited persons who will be at the IEP meeting. There is no similar requirement for parents to inform the district of anyone they may invite.
The fact the law does not require related services personnel to be present may be highly significant. The IDEA regulations (34 CFR Part 300 Appendix A) advise that related service personnel provide written recommendations to the IEP team about the nature, frequency and amount of service to be provided. Arguably, there is no requirement that goals and objectives are necessary for related services. If related service goals and objectives are required they may be of the sort a teacher and parent could write. Since related services include only those necessary to enable the student to benefit from special education it stands to reason that the goals and objectives to be accomplished by the related services would appear as goals for the special education services. The focus on the related services components of the IEP is on specifying the amount of service and the outcome is reflected in the goals and objectives for special education. The related services are not ends in themselves, but rather enablers.
Contents of the IEP
The federal requirements for the contents of the IEP are straightforward. The individualized education program for each child must include:
(a) A statement of the student's present levels of education performance;
(b) A statement of annual goals, including short term instructional objectives;
(c) A statement of the specific special education and related services to be provided to the student, and the extent to which the student will be able to participate in regular educational programs;
(d) A statement of the needed transition services for students beginning no later than age 16 and annually thereafter (and if determined appropriate for an individual student, beginning at age 14, or younger), including, if appropriate, a statement of each public agency's and each participating agency's responsibilities or linkages, or both, before the student leaves the school setting;
(e) The projected dates for initiation of services and the anticipated duration of the services; and
(f) Appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures and schedules for determining, on at least an annual basis, whether the short term instructional objectives are being achieved. (34-CFR 300.346).
Legal Rulings on IEPs
These five general principles, among others, emerge clearly from a review of the hundreds of past IEP rulings from agencies and courts:
(1) All of a student's unique needs must be addressed, not just her or his academic needs, e.g., Russell v. Jefferson Sch. Dist., 609 F. Supp. 605, (N.D. CA 1985); Abrahamson v. Hershman, 701 F.2nd 223, (1st Cir. 1983). Arguably, no "non-unique" needs have to be addressed.
(2) The availability of services may not be considered in writing the IEP. If a service is needed it must be written on the IEP and if the district does not have it available, it must be provided by another agency. One of the earliest of all the agency rulings mandated that availability of services be disregarded in writing the IEP (Leconte, EHLR 211:146, OSEP, 1979). This principle has been reiterated repeatedly by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) and the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and virtually ignored by the field.
(3) The IEP is a firm, legally binding "commitment of resources." The district must provide the services listed or the IEP must be amended (Beck, EHLR 211:145 (OSEP 1979)).
(4) IEPs must be individualized. The same goals, same content areas, same discipline or the same amounts of therapy on many IEPs (e.g., every student who receives speech therapy in a particular building receives 30 minutes daily) reveals a violation of this individualization requirement (Tucson, AZ Unified Sch. Dist. #1, EHLR 352.547 (OCR 1987)).
(5) All of the components of the IEP required by law (e.g., goals and objectives, specific special education and related services) must be present.
II. Developing the IEP
The proper team has assembled, the student's photo is prominently placed, the calming herbal tea has been served, the tape recorder is on and the newsprint is on the easel. It is time to begin developing the IEP. A three-step IEP development process is strongly recommended:
(a) List the student's unique characteristics or needs that require individualization (and which entitle the student to individualized services);
(b) Determine and specify the district-provided services and modifications that will appropriately address each need; and
(c) Write the goals and objectives that will be accomplished by the student if the services and modifications are appropriate and effective.
An IEP "Non-Form" consisting solely of a blank piece of paper oriented horizontally can accommodate this process far better than existing forms. Divide the paper into thirds and label the three columns something like:
(1) Student's Needs;
(2) Services; and
(3) Evaluation of Services. Other headings that work well are
(a) Individualize because.....;
(b) What the district will do;
(c) How we'll know it is working.
The Student's Unique Characteristics or NeedsFirst, the IEP team must determine the student's unique characteristics or needs to which the special services will be directed. One helpful way to learn to think in terms of these essential characteristics is to imagine that you are describing the student to a volunteer who has never met the student and is going to take him or her camping for a week. The IEP is required to address only the portions or aspects of the student's education that need to be individualized. The student should be visible in the IEP. Too many IEPs reveal only the academic program available in the resource room and show nothing whatsoever about the student. The primary focus of the IEP is going to be the specification of services. This initial step is to determine what is necessitating the services.
If we complete the statement, "We are individualizing Johnny's program because "_______" those "because" are his unique needs. The "because" may be such things as:
(a) he is reading several years behind where he should be;
(b) he is unable to organize his assignments, homework; or
(c) his attention is too easily distracted away from work, etc. These are the exact needs to be addressed in the next column.
When a legal dispute arises about a student's program, a common concern is whether the services provided addressed all the student's special needs. Those special needs are what must be specified in this first stage of IEP development. It is difficult to imagine how one could either attack or defend the services offered to meet unique needs unless those needs had been specified. In addition to the real world knowledge the IEP team members have about the student's characteristics/needs, it may be helpful to consult any current evaluations. This is particularly important for the first IEP which immediately follows the evaluation which found the student to be IDEA eligible. Some evaluations fail to address a student's special needs; others can be very helpful.
Characteristics or needs will often "cluster." The team may well decide in the next stage that one service will address more than one characteristic or need. However, at this point it is important to just "brainstorm" and list all the unique characteristics that require individualized attention. Sometimes the natural flow seems to be to work "across" the IEP Non-Form, i.e., when a characteristic has been identified, to then decide what service or accommodation will address it and finally determine the goals and objectives for that service that will indicate its appropriateness. Other times it may be better to list all the characteristics first, then move to services and then to goals. Either way, or a combination, is perfectly OK.
Examples of characteristics (not all from the same student) in both academic and social-emotional-behavioral areas follow. Remember that for each, the next inquiry will be, "What will the district do about this?" Some examples of unique characteristics or needs in academic areas are:
(a) Handwriting that is slow, labored, "drawn," nearly illegible due to improper size and spacing of letters and words;
(b) Lacks understanding of place value and regrouping in both addition and subtraction;
(c) Attributes literal, concrete meaning to everything he hears and reads; doesn't get jokes or slang;
(d) Understands spoken language, decodes words accurately, but does not comprehend material read independently; oral reading reveals severe lack of expression and no attention to punctuation;
(e) Works very slowly, becomes upset if he makes a mistake, quits and refuses to continue if paper is "messy",
(f) Answers before thinking, both in oral and written work; work is impulsive; many "careless" errors; and
(g) Gets arithmetic problems `"messed up" and copies them incorrectly off board and out of book. Lines up problems incorrectly and also lines up answers wrong in multiplication and division.
The law requires that the Present Level of Performance (PLOP) in these areas of need be indicated in a way that is readily understandable and is precise enough to allow us to measure progress. The PLOP can appear either as an elaboration of the characteristic or need or as the chronological beginning point in a succession of PLOP, behavioral objectives, and annual goal. The PLOP is now, the objectives are short-term goals, and the goal is where the student is headed by the end of a year.
If the PLOP is treated as a quantification of the characteristic or need, then a PLOP for the slow, barely legible handwriting in example (a) above might be "copies 5 words per minute with 1 or 2 of the words illegible."
Some characteristics or needs are sufficiently descriptive as they are and need no quantification, e.g., lacks understanding of place value and regrouping. To say that the student performs zero regrouping problems correctly adds little to the description.
Sometimes a present level of performance can be best described by a work sample. A picture can speak very loudly, as in a timed handwriting sample which could be attached to the IEP as a PLOP. Such a sample can reveal both quality (content) of written expression as well as mechanics of handwriting.
Some examples of unique characteristics or needs in social-emotional- behavioral areas would be:
(a) Shy; no friends; never volunteers in class; never initiates social contact with other children;
(b) Bully; doesn't know how to play with other children; physically aggressive with smaller children;
(c) Over-reacts and has temper outbursts; is noncompliant; pouts and whines; is sullen and negative when suggestions are made; and
(d) Short attention span; easily distracted by sounds.
These characteristics would be treated just the same as academic needs. A PLOP would be added if necessary and then the team would ask what the district will do about the bullying or the shyness or short attention span.
The Special Education, Related Services and Modifications- the District "Will Do's" The second inquiry the team should make is, "How will the district respond to each of the student's needs? What will we do about Joe's need for help in making friends? What will we do about Toni's tendency to work rapidly and carelessly? What will we do about Manuel's anger problem?" The special education, related services or modifications the district will provide can be conveniently thought of as the "district do's." The "do's" are listed in the middle column of the Non-Form. They may be as creative, flexible, innovative, and often inexpensive as the team's brainstorming and combined wisdom allow. This listing of services becomes the "Special Education and Related Services" which the law requires be on the IEP and which is too often omitted or simply perverted into a mere check mark or a percentage of time in special education. The amount of related services such as speech therapy or physical therapy that is needed must be shown, along with the date the service is to begin and the anticipated duration of the service.
One of the interesting issues about services is the question of whether methodology need be specified. If, for example, the service is remedial reading, must the method be spelled out? In general the answer is "no". In 1977, when the IDEA rules were first proposed, they would have mandated that methodology and instructional materials were to be included in IEPs. However, when the rules became final that requirement had been dropped. In the meantime, some states and districts had moved quickly and already had forms that included methods and materials. It is not unusual to find those forms still in use. One disadvantage of including method is that so doing means an IEP meeting would have to be called to change the method. If method isn't on the IEP it can be changed unilaterally as the teacher sees fit.
Methodology becomes a source of conflict when parents are convinced their child will receive benefit from a particular method and will not benefit from the method the district wants to use. The most frequently sought methods are a particular method of communication for students who are deaf and direct instruction and/or phonics based reading programs for students who are learning disabled. Almost all courts agree that schools may usually select the method. However, in rare cases parents have been able to show that a particular method is necessary to allow the IEP to be "reasonably calculated" to allow benefit, e.g., Hawaii Dept. of Education v. Tara H., Civ. No. 86-1161, (D.HI 1987). It is extremely important to note, as no court has yet done, that when the U.S. Supreme Court said methodology should be left to the state (school) it said so in the context of presuming the school had expertise in all relevant, effective methods (Board of Ed. v. Rowley, 102 S.Ct. 3034, (1982)). This is not usually the case.
A common and interesting question related to these "District Do" services relates to in-service training for teachers. Rob, e.g., has Tourette's Syndrome and needs a teacher who is knowledgeable about how his involuntary vocalizations are affected by stress. The agreed upon service to be provided by the district is inservice training by the local physician for all the school staff. Does that "district do" belong on Rob's IEP? Yes, it does. It is a service to meet his unique need. One concern is that such a service doesn't lend itself directly to a goal formulated in terms of Rob's behavior. This concern is easily addressed by looking to what we hope to see in Rob's behavior as a result of having an informed, sympathetic teacher who assists him in avoiding unnecessary stress. One obvious answer is improved academic performance. Other outcomes could be a direct decrease in frequency and severity of his symptoms and an increase in socialization.
Another issue is that the service is not being provided directly to Rob. Legally, an important question is whether Rob is receiving some special education, i.e., some specially designed instruction to meet his unique needs, which is delivered by qualified special education personnel. If he is not receiving any special education, as defined in the law, he is either not eligible under IDEA or he is not receiving the free appropriate education to which he is entitled. If he is receiving special education then it does not matter how the in-service training for his teachers is conceptualized. Logically, in-service staff training is perfectly analogous to parent training and is, therefore, a related service. If so, it is important to specify, as for all related services, how much in-service is to be provided and when.
For many years some districts resisted including on IEPs the modifications needed in the regular classroom. However, it is well settled law that they must be included. A checklist of types of modifications (e.g., in grading, discipline, assignments, texts, tests, etc.) can be helpful to insure all necessary modifications are addressed.
The Present Levels of Performance, Goals and Objectives - Evaluating the District "Do's" The third step, after the needs have been delineated and the services specified, is to write the required annual goal and behavioral objectives for each special education service or cluster of services. The clustering of services can be very efficient as well as conceptually illuminating. For example, think of a secondary student who has a severe learning disability affecting his written expression. He might need several services including keyboarding instruction, tutoring in writing, modifications in test-taking and length of written assignments, substitution of oral presentations for some term papers, and modified grading. The entire service cluster could be reasonably evaluated in terms of his improved rates of successful course completion and attendance. Other goals could also be very appropriate. The point is that just as characteristics or needs can be clustered to provide one service, so services can be clustered to be assessed by a common, single goal.
Writing goals and objectives begins with asking, "If the service we are providing is effective, what will we see in Todd's behavior that tells us so?" The purpose of the mandated goals and objectives is to evaluate the service. We need to know when or if to change what we're doing, to change the service we are providing. As long as we're on track and the child is making reasonable progress we just keep going. That's why objectives are to be statements of how far the student will progress toward the annual goal (12 month objective) by when.
One of the common and major problems with goals and objectives is that they are not taken seriously by their writers who have no intention of actually checking whether the student has reached them or not. It is as if we never understood the most basic tenet of the IEP, i.e., that we are going to try the listed services and see if they work for that student. The goals and objectives are to be real. They are to be used to evaluate program effectiveness. They are not just legal requirements to be completed and filed. The contrast can be seen easily.
The post-school success rates of students who have learning disabilities, as a group, have not been what we would all hope even though many individuals have been highly successful. A recent focus on greater school responsibility for the post-school life of students who have disabilities has resulted in new transition requirements. The purpose of this discussion is to present a different approach to writing IEPs, with special attention to the transition component This approach results in IEPs which, unlike most IEPs, are both educationally useful and legally correct.
The Promise
After nearly seventeen years of life the Individual Education Program (IEP)-- the heart and soul of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) -- is still in it's infancy, it's great potential unrealized and unappreciated. The IEP process and product frequently have been distorted beyond recognition. The purpose of this discussion is to show how the IEP process can work to produce IEPs that are both educationally useful and legally correct. The essence of legal correctness is that the IEP is tailored precisely to all the unique needs of the individual student. The core of educational utility is that the IEP spells out precisely how the school district will address each and every unique need and how it will determine whether and when a change in strategy or service is required. The IEP process must determine:
(a) which needs or characteristics of the student require special education, i.e., individualization of services;
(b) Precisely how the district will address each need, i.e., "what special education, related services or modifications it will provide; and
(c) how and when the efficacy of those services will be evaluated.
The IEP process must include the parent (or parent/student) as a full and equal partner, and a student whose IEP addresses "transition" must be invited to participate in the IEP process and must have her or his preferences and interests considered. These transition concerns and processes are a special focus of this discussion.
The Practice
Most IEPs are useless or slightly worse, and too many teachers experience the IEP process as always time consuming, sometimes threatening, and, too often, a pointless bureaucratic requirement. The result is a quasi-legal document to be filed away with the expectation it won't be seen again except, heaven forbid, by a monitor or compliance officer. The point of the IEP exercise seems to be to complete the given form in a way that commit the district to as little as possible, and which precludes, as much as possible, any meaningful discussion or evaluation of the student's real progress.
Parents too often experience the IEP process as an overgrown parent-teacher conference in which the school personnel present some previously prepared papers and request a signature. They may be told a few things about some "rights." Parents who attempt to participate as equals are often intimidated into acquiescence. They are frequently given false and outrageous distortions such as, "We (the district) don't provide individual tutoring"; or "Speech therapy is always done by the regular classroom teacher and the speech therapist provides consultation services to her"; or "We are a full inclusion school and have no special classes or resource rooms because we don't believe in pull-out programs." When such limiting and blatantly illegal practices are presented as if they are simple fact few parents are adequately prepared to challenge the district.
A Better Way
The IEP process and product can be both educationally useful and legally correct. The first step toward that end is for the district to provide an appropriate time and place for the IEP meeting, The place should be physically comfortable and the meeting time and length appropriate. The law requires the meeting be at a mutually agreed on time and place. Too often parents are not aware they have any say in either. Districts must also be careful to avoid unrealistically short meetings, especially for initial, complex or disputed IEPs.
The only legitimate focus of an IEP meeting is on the special needs of the student and how those are to be addressed. There may be a temptation for district personnel to sidestep into policy explanations or justifications or into what the parents have done or not done. If the student is not present at the IEP meeting a strategically placed photo of the youngster can serve to help all participants stay focused on the needs of that student. Many IEP meetings lose this essential focus and wander, becoming inefficient and frustrating for all.
The single most important principle of the IEP process is that the school must appropriately address all the student's unique needs without regard to the availability of needed services. Prior to the passage of IDEA (then P.L. 94-142) in 1975, schools were legally free to offer only the programs or services, if any, they had available. Parents were supposed to be grateful for anything at all that was provided. The primary purpose of the law was to turn that squarely around and entitle the student who has a disability to a free appropriate education individually designed to meet her or his unique needs. Educators who have entered the field in the last twenty years lack this historical perspective and too easily revert to the pre-IDEA mentality of trying to stretch existing programs and services to fit the students. Instead they must start with the student and design services to fit the student's needs, however unique they may be.
The Participants
Sometimes parents report that only a teacher was at the IEP meeting; other times a seeming army of district personnel confront them. The law specifies that in addition to the parent and student (if the parent so wishes) a teacher of the student and a district representative must be present. The IDEA regulations allow the district substantial discretion in determining which teacher will be at the IEP meeting. Since, in theory, the IEP team is addressing the student's needs above all, it would seem reasonable to select a teacher who knows the student well. In addition, at least one team member must be qualified (by state standards) in the area of the student's disability. If this is not the teacher, it must be the district representative (Mcintire, 16 EHLR 163, (OSEP, 1990)). Students at middle school or high school most often have several teachers. The law does not require that they all attend, but good special education practice suggests their input should be sought and they most certainly should be informed of the IEP's provisions.
The district representative must provide or be qualified to supervise special education, have the authority to allocate district resources, and be able to guarantee no administrative veto of the IEP team's decisions (34 CFR Part 300 Appendix C, 13). These qualifications are the law's way of insuring that the IEP team, and it alone, has the power to determine what services the student needs and, therefore, will receive. The evaluation team, often called the multi-disciplinary team, determines eligibility, but only recommends services.
All members of the IEP team should remember the enormous power and responsibility that is theirs. When the IEP specifies a service is needed, the district must provide it. Too often parents are given a very different impression, i.e., that only what is already available can be provided and often in smaller than needed amounts. This critical difference between the law and practice is typified by the common situation, e.g., where the parent believes the student who has a learning disability needs intensive, individual, daily language therapy and is told by the speech therapist that since the therapist is only in that building on Mondays and Wednesdays the student will be included in an ongoing 20 minute speech therapy group on those two days.
In addition to the parent (and perhaps student), teacher, and the district representative, the first IEP meeting for a given student must be attended by a member of the evaluation team or someone familiar with the evaluation. In addition, either the district or the parent may invite anyone else. The district must, however, inform the parent ahead of time of all district invited persons who will be at the IEP meeting. There is no similar requirement for parents to inform the district of anyone they may invite.
The fact the law does not require related services personnel to be present may be highly significant. The IDEA regulations (34 CFR Part 300 Appendix A) advise that related service personnel provide written recommendations to the IEP team about the nature, frequency and amount of service to be provided. Arguably, there is no requirement that goals and objectives are necessary for related services. If related service goals and objectives are required they may be of the sort a teacher and parent could write. Since related services include only those necessary to enable the student to benefit from special education it stands to reason that the goals and objectives to be accomplished by the related services would appear as goals for the special education services. The focus on the related services components of the IEP is on specifying the amount of service and the outcome is reflected in the goals and objectives for special education. The related services are not ends in themselves, but rather enablers.
Contents of the IEP
The federal requirements for the contents of the IEP are straightforward. The individualized education program for each child must include:
(a) A statement of the student's present levels of education performance;
(b) A statement of annual goals, including short term instructional objectives;
(c) A statement of the specific special education and related services to be provided to the student, and the extent to which the student will be able to participate in regular educational programs;
(d) A statement of the needed transition services for students beginning no later than age 16 and annually thereafter (and if determined appropriate for an individual student, beginning at age 14, or younger), including, if appropriate, a statement of each public agency's and each participating agency's responsibilities or linkages, or both, before the student leaves the school setting;
(e) The projected dates for initiation of services and the anticipated duration of the services; and
(f) Appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures and schedules for determining, on at least an annual basis, whether the short term instructional objectives are being achieved. (34-CFR 300.346).
Legal Rulings on IEPs
These five general principles, among others, emerge clearly from a review of the hundreds of past IEP rulings from agencies and courts:
(1) All of a student's unique needs must be addressed, not just her or his academic needs, e.g., Russell v. Jefferson Sch. Dist., 609 F. Supp. 605, (N.D. CA 1985); Abrahamson v. Hershman, 701 F.2nd 223, (1st Cir. 1983). Arguably, no "non-unique" needs have to be addressed.
(2) The availability of services may not be considered in writing the IEP. If a service is needed it must be written on the IEP and if the district does not have it available, it must be provided by another agency. One of the earliest of all the agency rulings mandated that availability of services be disregarded in writing the IEP (Leconte, EHLR 211:146, OSEP, 1979). This principle has been reiterated repeatedly by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) and the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and virtually ignored by the field.
(3) The IEP is a firm, legally binding "commitment of resources." The district must provide the services listed or the IEP must be amended (Beck, EHLR 211:145 (OSEP 1979)).
(4) IEPs must be individualized. The same goals, same content areas, same discipline or the same amounts of therapy on many IEPs (e.g., every student who receives speech therapy in a particular building receives 30 minutes daily) reveals a violation of this individualization requirement (Tucson, AZ Unified Sch. Dist. #1, EHLR 352.547 (OCR 1987)).
(5) All of the components of the IEP required by law (e.g., goals and objectives, specific special education and related services) must be present.
II. Developing the IEP
The proper team has assembled, the student's photo is prominently placed, the calming herbal tea has been served, the tape recorder is on and the newsprint is on the easel. It is time to begin developing the IEP. A three-step IEP development process is strongly recommended:
(a) List the student's unique characteristics or needs that require individualization (and which entitle the student to individualized services);
(b) Determine and specify the district-provided services and modifications that will appropriately address each need; and
(c) Write the goals and objectives that will be accomplished by the student if the services and modifications are appropriate and effective.
An IEP "Non-Form" consisting solely of a blank piece of paper oriented horizontally can accommodate this process far better than existing forms. Divide the paper into thirds and label the three columns something like:
(1) Student's Needs;
(2) Services; and
(3) Evaluation of Services. Other headings that work well are
(a) Individualize because.....;
(b) What the district will do;
(c) How we'll know it is working.
The Student's Unique Characteristics or NeedsFirst, the IEP team must determine the student's unique characteristics or needs to which the special services will be directed. One helpful way to learn to think in terms of these essential characteristics is to imagine that you are describing the student to a volunteer who has never met the student and is going to take him or her camping for a week. The IEP is required to address only the portions or aspects of the student's education that need to be individualized. The student should be visible in the IEP. Too many IEPs reveal only the academic program available in the resource room and show nothing whatsoever about the student. The primary focus of the IEP is going to be the specification of services. This initial step is to determine what is necessitating the services.
If we complete the statement, "We are individualizing Johnny's program because "_______" those "because" are his unique needs. The "because" may be such things as:
(a) he is reading several years behind where he should be;
(b) he is unable to organize his assignments, homework; or
(c) his attention is too easily distracted away from work, etc. These are the exact needs to be addressed in the next column.
When a legal dispute arises about a student's program, a common concern is whether the services provided addressed all the student's special needs. Those special needs are what must be specified in this first stage of IEP development. It is difficult to imagine how one could either attack or defend the services offered to meet unique needs unless those needs had been specified. In addition to the real world knowledge the IEP team members have about the student's characteristics/needs, it may be helpful to consult any current evaluations. This is particularly important for the first IEP which immediately follows the evaluation which found the student to be IDEA eligible. Some evaluations fail to address a student's special needs; others can be very helpful.
Characteristics or needs will often "cluster." The team may well decide in the next stage that one service will address more than one characteristic or need. However, at this point it is important to just "brainstorm" and list all the unique characteristics that require individualized attention. Sometimes the natural flow seems to be to work "across" the IEP Non-Form, i.e., when a characteristic has been identified, to then decide what service or accommodation will address it and finally determine the goals and objectives for that service that will indicate its appropriateness. Other times it may be better to list all the characteristics first, then move to services and then to goals. Either way, or a combination, is perfectly OK.
Examples of characteristics (not all from the same student) in both academic and social-emotional-behavioral areas follow. Remember that for each, the next inquiry will be, "What will the district do about this?" Some examples of unique characteristics or needs in academic areas are:
(a) Handwriting that is slow, labored, "drawn," nearly illegible due to improper size and spacing of letters and words;
(b) Lacks understanding of place value and regrouping in both addition and subtraction;
(c) Attributes literal, concrete meaning to everything he hears and reads; doesn't get jokes or slang;
(d) Understands spoken language, decodes words accurately, but does not comprehend material read independently; oral reading reveals severe lack of expression and no attention to punctuation;
(e) Works very slowly, becomes upset if he makes a mistake, quits and refuses to continue if paper is "messy",
(f) Answers before thinking, both in oral and written work; work is impulsive; many "careless" errors; and
(g) Gets arithmetic problems `"messed up" and copies them incorrectly off board and out of book. Lines up problems incorrectly and also lines up answers wrong in multiplication and division.
The law requires that the Present Level of Performance (PLOP) in these areas of need be indicated in a way that is readily understandable and is precise enough to allow us to measure progress. The PLOP can appear either as an elaboration of the characteristic or need or as the chronological beginning point in a succession of PLOP, behavioral objectives, and annual goal. The PLOP is now, the objectives are short-term goals, and the goal is where the student is headed by the end of a year.
If the PLOP is treated as a quantification of the characteristic or need, then a PLOP for the slow, barely legible handwriting in example (a) above might be "copies 5 words per minute with 1 or 2 of the words illegible."
Some characteristics or needs are sufficiently descriptive as they are and need no quantification, e.g., lacks understanding of place value and regrouping. To say that the student performs zero regrouping problems correctly adds little to the description.
Sometimes a present level of performance can be best described by a work sample. A picture can speak very loudly, as in a timed handwriting sample which could be attached to the IEP as a PLOP. Such a sample can reveal both quality (content) of written expression as well as mechanics of handwriting.
Some examples of unique characteristics or needs in social-emotional- behavioral areas would be:
(a) Shy; no friends; never volunteers in class; never initiates social contact with other children;
(b) Bully; doesn't know how to play with other children; physically aggressive with smaller children;
(c) Over-reacts and has temper outbursts; is noncompliant; pouts and whines; is sullen and negative when suggestions are made; and
(d) Short attention span; easily distracted by sounds.
These characteristics would be treated just the same as academic needs. A PLOP would be added if necessary and then the team would ask what the district will do about the bullying or the shyness or short attention span.
The Special Education, Related Services and Modifications- the District "Will Do's" The second inquiry the team should make is, "How will the district respond to each of the student's needs? What will we do about Joe's need for help in making friends? What will we do about Toni's tendency to work rapidly and carelessly? What will we do about Manuel's anger problem?" The special education, related services or modifications the district will provide can be conveniently thought of as the "district do's." The "do's" are listed in the middle column of the Non-Form. They may be as creative, flexible, innovative, and often inexpensive as the team's brainstorming and combined wisdom allow. This listing of services becomes the "Special Education and Related Services" which the law requires be on the IEP and which is too often omitted or simply perverted into a mere check mark or a percentage of time in special education. The amount of related services such as speech therapy or physical therapy that is needed must be shown, along with the date the service is to begin and the anticipated duration of the service.
One of the interesting issues about services is the question of whether methodology need be specified. If, for example, the service is remedial reading, must the method be spelled out? In general the answer is "no". In 1977, when the IDEA rules were first proposed, they would have mandated that methodology and instructional materials were to be included in IEPs. However, when the rules became final that requirement had been dropped. In the meantime, some states and districts had moved quickly and already had forms that included methods and materials. It is not unusual to find those forms still in use. One disadvantage of including method is that so doing means an IEP meeting would have to be called to change the method. If method isn't on the IEP it can be changed unilaterally as the teacher sees fit.
Methodology becomes a source of conflict when parents are convinced their child will receive benefit from a particular method and will not benefit from the method the district wants to use. The most frequently sought methods are a particular method of communication for students who are deaf and direct instruction and/or phonics based reading programs for students who are learning disabled. Almost all courts agree that schools may usually select the method. However, in rare cases parents have been able to show that a particular method is necessary to allow the IEP to be "reasonably calculated" to allow benefit, e.g., Hawaii Dept. of Education v. Tara H., Civ. No. 86-1161, (D.HI 1987). It is extremely important to note, as no court has yet done, that when the U.S. Supreme Court said methodology should be left to the state (school) it said so in the context of presuming the school had expertise in all relevant, effective methods (Board of Ed. v. Rowley, 102 S.Ct. 3034, (1982)). This is not usually the case.
A common and interesting question related to these "District Do" services relates to in-service training for teachers. Rob, e.g., has Tourette's Syndrome and needs a teacher who is knowledgeable about how his involuntary vocalizations are affected by stress. The agreed upon service to be provided by the district is inservice training by the local physician for all the school staff. Does that "district do" belong on Rob's IEP? Yes, it does. It is a service to meet his unique need. One concern is that such a service doesn't lend itself directly to a goal formulated in terms of Rob's behavior. This concern is easily addressed by looking to what we hope to see in Rob's behavior as a result of having an informed, sympathetic teacher who assists him in avoiding unnecessary stress. One obvious answer is improved academic performance. Other outcomes could be a direct decrease in frequency and severity of his symptoms and an increase in socialization.
Another issue is that the service is not being provided directly to Rob. Legally, an important question is whether Rob is receiving some special education, i.e., some specially designed instruction to meet his unique needs, which is delivered by qualified special education personnel. If he is not receiving any special education, as defined in the law, he is either not eligible under IDEA or he is not receiving the free appropriate education to which he is entitled. If he is receiving special education then it does not matter how the in-service training for his teachers is conceptualized. Logically, in-service staff training is perfectly analogous to parent training and is, therefore, a related service. If so, it is important to specify, as for all related services, how much in-service is to be provided and when.
For many years some districts resisted including on IEPs the modifications needed in the regular classroom. However, it is well settled law that they must be included. A checklist of types of modifications (e.g., in grading, discipline, assignments, texts, tests, etc.) can be helpful to insure all necessary modifications are addressed.
The Present Levels of Performance, Goals and Objectives - Evaluating the District "Do's" The third step, after the needs have been delineated and the services specified, is to write the required annual goal and behavioral objectives for each special education service or cluster of services. The clustering of services can be very efficient as well as conceptually illuminating. For example, think of a secondary student who has a severe learning disability affecting his written expression. He might need several services including keyboarding instruction, tutoring in writing, modifications in test-taking and length of written assignments, substitution of oral presentations for some term papers, and modified grading. The entire service cluster could be reasonably evaluated in terms of his improved rates of successful course completion and attendance. Other goals could also be very appropriate. The point is that just as characteristics or needs can be clustered to provide one service, so services can be clustered to be assessed by a common, single goal.
Writing goals and objectives begins with asking, "If the service we are providing is effective, what will we see in Todd's behavior that tells us so?" The purpose of the mandated goals and objectives is to evaluate the service. We need to know when or if to change what we're doing, to change the service we are providing. As long as we're on track and the child is making reasonable progress we just keep going. That's why objectives are to be statements of how far the student will progress toward the annual goal (12 month objective) by when.
One of the common and major problems with goals and objectives is that they are not taken seriously by their writers who have no intention of actually checking whether the student has reached them or not. It is as if we never understood the most basic tenet of the IEP, i.e., that we are going to try the listed services and see if they work for that student. The goals and objectives are to be real. They are to be used to evaluate program effectiveness. They are not just legal requirements to be completed and filed. The contrast can be seen easily.
Present Level of Performance
Section 300.347(a)(1)
Section 4: Present Level of Performance andAnnual Goals and Short-Term Objectives
Present Level of Performance
Present Level of Educational Performance (Including how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and expected progress in the general curriculum): (For preschool children, describe how the disability affects the student’s participation in appropriate activities.) ______________________________________________________________________________
Present Level of Educational Performance (PLEP) - The present level determines approaches for ensuring involvement in, or adaptations or modifications to, the general curriculum. Each area of identified educational need must be addressed in at least one of the following: annual goals, supplementary aids/services/supports, or secondary transition services.
The PLEP should accurately describe the student’s performance in all areas of education that are affected by the student’s disability [R340.1721e(2)(a)]. For preschool children, the present level of educational performance should describe how the disability affects the child’s participation in appropriate activities [34 CFR §300.347(a)(1)]. It is helpful to consider the key role of present level of performance in the overall development of the IEP.
Present level of performance information supports the IEP Team’s determination of supplementary aids/services/personnel supports, annual goals and short-term objectives, and state- and district-wide assessments on the IEP [34 CFR §300.347(a)]. The PLEP statement(s) should include four elements (in no particular order):
1. A narrative summary of the baseline data. In understandable terms, explain the data, areas of need, and how the disability affects progress in the general curriculum. The narrative summary must be sufficient to provide a foundation for education planning (a starting point for instruction).
Example: Charlie knows how to compute math problems, but is unable to meet the 5th grade standards (80% on math benchmarks) for understanding and applying problem solving strategies to story problems. He does not understand the relationship between a description and a mathematical solution. Charlie scored at the 2.8 level on the solving section of the Key Math test, and 4.8 on the Computation section. He completes word problems with 50% accuracy.
2. Baseline data may be obtained from criterion referenced tests, standardized achievement tests, diagnostic tests, classroom performance, systematic observations, state or district-wide assessments, checklists, progress reports, report cards, student input, parent input, or any combination of the above.
Example (baseline data in italics): Charlie knows how to compute math problems, but is unable to meet the 5thgrade standards (80% on math benchmarks) for understanding and applying problem solving strategies to story problems. He does not understand the relationship between a description and a mathematical solution. Charlie scored at the 2.8 level on the solving section of the Key Math test , and 4.8 on the Computation section. He completes word problems with 50% accuracy.
3. A statement of how the disability impacts the student’s involvement/progress in the general curriculum. Such as:
"needs skills to perform independent tasks required for daily living""auditory processing needs affects ability to take notes during lectures""needs organizational skills for completing work on time""requires assistance to interact with other children during group play""need for reading skills impedes completion of work at grade level""has difficulty participating in general physical education class""needs skills to pass classes required for graduation by year’s end""behavior prevents independent work on general education assignments"
Example of how the disability impacts the student’s involvement/progress in the general curriculum (in italics): Charlie knows how to compute math problems, but is unable to meet the 5thgrade standards (80% on math benchmarks) for understanding and applying problem solving strategies to story problems. He does not understand the relationship between a description and a mathematical solution. Charlie scored at the 2.8 level on the solving section of the Key Math test, and 4.8 on the Computation section. He completes word problems with 50% accuracy.
4. A description of area(s) of educational need.
"Areas" may refer to:
An academic subject area such as math, reading, social studies, language arts
A functional area such as self-care, social skills, behavior, adaptive functioning
An area of disability such as speech/language behavior, motor functioning
Example of area(s) of educational needs (in italics): Charlie knows how to compute math problems, but is unable to meet the 5thgrade standards (80% on math benchmarks) for understanding and applying problem solving strategies to story problems. He does not understand the relationship between a description and a mathematical solution. Charlie scored at the 2.8 level on the solving section of the Key Math test, and 4.8 on the Computation section. He completes word problems with 50% accuracy.
More examples of PLEP narratives:
"Teacher records show that John turns in a weekly average of 60% of his math assignments, and 50% of his English assignments (100% expected). Fewer than 75% of assignments turned in are complete. He appears capable of completing the work as given. This performance jeopardizes completion of his coursework for graduation."
"In unstructured settings and transitional times of the day, Joanne’s activity level increases and she more likely violates school rules, or becomes agitated and angry. Joanne does not de-escalate behavior and is not willing to discuss situations afterward. Disciplinary records indicate 8 disciplinary removals in the past 10 school days and 27 in 3 previous months, causing her to fall behind in her schoolwork. Joanne’s reading fluency is interrupted by substitutions. Joanne does not efficiently use context or phonics clues which affect her progress in reading as indicated by her performance on third grade classroom oral reading benchmark tests."
Physical Education - Physical education services, specially designed if necessary, must be made available to every student with a disability [34 CFR §§300.24(b)(2), 300.307]. If modifications are needed for the student to be able to participate in a general physical education program, those modifications must be described in the IEP. If a student with a disability needs a specially designed physical education program provided by special education, that program must be addressed in all applicable areas of the IEP (present levels of educational performance, annual goals and short-term objectives, and services to be provided).
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
http://www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/articles/iep_guidance.html
What Should be in my child's IEP?
The IEP should accurately describe your child’s learning problems and how these problems are going to be dealt with.
Present Levels of Educational Performance
One of the best and clearest ways to describe your child’s unique problems is to include information from the evaluations. The IEP document should contain a statement of the child’s present levels of educational performance. If your child has reading problems, the IEP should include reading subtest scores. If your child has problems in math calculation, the IEP should include the math calculation subtest scores. To help you understand what these scores mean, you should read our article "Understanding Tests and Measurements."
Measuring Progress: Subjective Observations or Objective Testing?
Let’s return to our medical example. Your son John complained that his throat was sore. You see that his throat is red. His skin is hot to the touch. He is sleepy and lethargic. These are your observations.
Based on concerns raised by your subjective observations, you take John to the doctor. After the examination, the doctor will add subjective observations to yours. Objective testing will be done. When John’s temperature is measured, it is 104. Preliminary lab work shows that John has an elevated white count. A strep test is positive. These objective tests suggest that John has an infection.
Based on information from subjective observations and objective tests, the doctor develops a treatment plan—including a course of antibiotics. Later, you and John return—and you share your ongoing observations with the doctor. John’s temperature returned to normal a few days ago. His throat appears normal. These are your subjective observations.
Subjective observations provide valuable information—but in many cases, they will not provide sufficient evidence that John’s infection is gone. After John’s doctor makes additional observations—she may order additional objective testing. Why?
You cannot see disease-causing bacteria. To test for the presence of bacteria, you must do objective testing. Unless you get objective testing, you cannot know if John’s infection has dissipated.
By the same token, you will not always know that your child is acquiring skills in reading, writing or arithmetic—unless you get objective testing of these skills.
How will you know if the IEP plan is working? Should you rely on your subjective observations? The teacher’s subjective observations? Or should you get additional information from objective testing?
Section 4: Present Level of Performance andAnnual Goals and Short-Term Objectives
Present Level of Performance
Present Level of Educational Performance (Including how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and expected progress in the general curriculum): (For preschool children, describe how the disability affects the student’s participation in appropriate activities.) ______________________________________________________________________________
Present Level of Educational Performance (PLEP) - The present level determines approaches for ensuring involvement in, or adaptations or modifications to, the general curriculum. Each area of identified educational need must be addressed in at least one of the following: annual goals, supplementary aids/services/supports, or secondary transition services.
The PLEP should accurately describe the student’s performance in all areas of education that are affected by the student’s disability [R340.1721e(2)(a)]. For preschool children, the present level of educational performance should describe how the disability affects the child’s participation in appropriate activities [34 CFR §300.347(a)(1)]. It is helpful to consider the key role of present level of performance in the overall development of the IEP.
Present level of performance information supports the IEP Team’s determination of supplementary aids/services/personnel supports, annual goals and short-term objectives, and state- and district-wide assessments on the IEP [34 CFR §300.347(a)]. The PLEP statement(s) should include four elements (in no particular order):
1. A narrative summary of the baseline data. In understandable terms, explain the data, areas of need, and how the disability affects progress in the general curriculum. The narrative summary must be sufficient to provide a foundation for education planning (a starting point for instruction).
Example: Charlie knows how to compute math problems, but is unable to meet the 5th grade standards (80% on math benchmarks) for understanding and applying problem solving strategies to story problems. He does not understand the relationship between a description and a mathematical solution. Charlie scored at the 2.8 level on the solving section of the Key Math test, and 4.8 on the Computation section. He completes word problems with 50% accuracy.
2. Baseline data may be obtained from criterion referenced tests, standardized achievement tests, diagnostic tests, classroom performance, systematic observations, state or district-wide assessments, checklists, progress reports, report cards, student input, parent input, or any combination of the above.
Example (baseline data in italics): Charlie knows how to compute math problems, but is unable to meet the 5thgrade standards (80% on math benchmarks) for understanding and applying problem solving strategies to story problems. He does not understand the relationship between a description and a mathematical solution. Charlie scored at the 2.8 level on the solving section of the Key Math test , and 4.8 on the Computation section. He completes word problems with 50% accuracy.
3. A statement of how the disability impacts the student’s involvement/progress in the general curriculum. Such as:
"needs skills to perform independent tasks required for daily living""auditory processing needs affects ability to take notes during lectures""needs organizational skills for completing work on time""requires assistance to interact with other children during group play""need for reading skills impedes completion of work at grade level""has difficulty participating in general physical education class""needs skills to pass classes required for graduation by year’s end""behavior prevents independent work on general education assignments"
Example of how the disability impacts the student’s involvement/progress in the general curriculum (in italics): Charlie knows how to compute math problems, but is unable to meet the 5thgrade standards (80% on math benchmarks) for understanding and applying problem solving strategies to story problems. He does not understand the relationship between a description and a mathematical solution. Charlie scored at the 2.8 level on the solving section of the Key Math test, and 4.8 on the Computation section. He completes word problems with 50% accuracy.
4. A description of area(s) of educational need.
"Areas" may refer to:
An academic subject area such as math, reading, social studies, language arts
A functional area such as self-care, social skills, behavior, adaptive functioning
An area of disability such as speech/language behavior, motor functioning
Example of area(s) of educational needs (in italics): Charlie knows how to compute math problems, but is unable to meet the 5thgrade standards (80% on math benchmarks) for understanding and applying problem solving strategies to story problems. He does not understand the relationship between a description and a mathematical solution. Charlie scored at the 2.8 level on the solving section of the Key Math test, and 4.8 on the Computation section. He completes word problems with 50% accuracy.
More examples of PLEP narratives:
"Teacher records show that John turns in a weekly average of 60% of his math assignments, and 50% of his English assignments (100% expected). Fewer than 75% of assignments turned in are complete. He appears capable of completing the work as given. This performance jeopardizes completion of his coursework for graduation."
"In unstructured settings and transitional times of the day, Joanne’s activity level increases and she more likely violates school rules, or becomes agitated and angry. Joanne does not de-escalate behavior and is not willing to discuss situations afterward. Disciplinary records indicate 8 disciplinary removals in the past 10 school days and 27 in 3 previous months, causing her to fall behind in her schoolwork. Joanne’s reading fluency is interrupted by substitutions. Joanne does not efficiently use context or phonics clues which affect her progress in reading as indicated by her performance on third grade classroom oral reading benchmark tests."
Physical Education - Physical education services, specially designed if necessary, must be made available to every student with a disability [34 CFR §§300.24(b)(2), 300.307]. If modifications are needed for the student to be able to participate in a general physical education program, those modifications must be described in the IEP. If a student with a disability needs a specially designed physical education program provided by special education, that program must be addressed in all applicable areas of the IEP (present levels of educational performance, annual goals and short-term objectives, and services to be provided).
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
http://www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/articles/iep_guidance.html
What Should be in my child's IEP?
The IEP should accurately describe your child’s learning problems and how these problems are going to be dealt with.
Present Levels of Educational Performance
One of the best and clearest ways to describe your child’s unique problems is to include information from the evaluations. The IEP document should contain a statement of the child’s present levels of educational performance. If your child has reading problems, the IEP should include reading subtest scores. If your child has problems in math calculation, the IEP should include the math calculation subtest scores. To help you understand what these scores mean, you should read our article "Understanding Tests and Measurements."
Measuring Progress: Subjective Observations or Objective Testing?
Let’s return to our medical example. Your son John complained that his throat was sore. You see that his throat is red. His skin is hot to the touch. He is sleepy and lethargic. These are your observations.
Based on concerns raised by your subjective observations, you take John to the doctor. After the examination, the doctor will add subjective observations to yours. Objective testing will be done. When John’s temperature is measured, it is 104. Preliminary lab work shows that John has an elevated white count. A strep test is positive. These objective tests suggest that John has an infection.
Based on information from subjective observations and objective tests, the doctor develops a treatment plan—including a course of antibiotics. Later, you and John return—and you share your ongoing observations with the doctor. John’s temperature returned to normal a few days ago. His throat appears normal. These are your subjective observations.
Subjective observations provide valuable information—but in many cases, they will not provide sufficient evidence that John’s infection is gone. After John’s doctor makes additional observations—she may order additional objective testing. Why?
You cannot see disease-causing bacteria. To test for the presence of bacteria, you must do objective testing. Unless you get objective testing, you cannot know if John’s infection has dissipated.
By the same token, you will not always know that your child is acquiring skills in reading, writing or arithmetic—unless you get objective testing of these skills.
How will you know if the IEP plan is working? Should you rely on your subjective observations? The teacher’s subjective observations? Or should you get additional information from objective testing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)