Reading & Other Learning Disabilities

On our website (www.reading2008.com), under Resources, is a mock Individualized Education Program (IEP) that was developed in 2001, before the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA-2004). Thus, it does not reflect IDEA-2004’s endorsement of Response to Intervention (RTI) and its other new provisions.

However, we believe that parents and teachers who examine this IEP for Eli can benefit from it. We suggest you examine (a) the Present Levels of Performance section, which covers all of pages A-2 and A-3, and includes the Evaluation Results and Description of Behavior Needs on page A-3; (b) the direct links between the information in the Present Levels section and the IEP’s goals and objectives, the specificity and measurability of its goals and objectives, and the comprehensiveness of services.

We realize that some people will look at Eli’s IEP and say, “He needs different services. For example, he needs a strong and comprehensive program of applied behavior analysis.” Once the IEP Team agrees to goals and objectives, it’s appropriate for the Team to discuss services. Different teams will make different decisions, decisions that might be influenced by the Team’s philosophy, its estimate of the staff’s competencies and preferences, and the research. In Eli’s case, counseling and the modification of tasks was thought to be sufficient and least intrusive. Only careful monitoring of progress would show if the decision was correct. Thus, the objectives had dates and criteria built in. The dates, however, should not suggest that data collection and analysis were limited to the end of marking periods.

Eli’s IEP has two weaknesses that reflected the mock situation for which it was created. First, insufficient data was available to create realistic goals and objectives for Eli’s Behavioral Deficits (page A-6); thus, improvement over baseline was used as a temporary solution. Data collection should be used to refine these goals and objectives. Second, “How Progress … Will Be Measured” (B-3) might be made more precise. Fortunately, the IEP’s goals and objectives help to compensate for this possible weakness.

This mock IEP was developed with a 2001 version of IEP Planner, a software program that offered a powerful set of goals and objectives and extensive flexibility. The new version, which reflects the provisions of IDEA-2004, is far more powerful and flexible. For more information on IEP Planner, visit Ednet Technologies at www.ednettechnologies.com.

Please feel free to comment on how IEP Teams might improve this IEP.

To learn more about goals and objectives, we suggest that you study chapters 7 and 11 of Reading Disabilities: Beating the Odds. Chapter 7, Monitoring, has a section on what you can do if your state does not require short-term objectives. Chapter 11, the IEP, discusses areas of IEPs that are critical to children with learning disabilities, but often get the short shrift.

Howard Margolis © Reading2008 & Beyond   www.reading2008.com/blog