Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Part I: IEP Process

The student that was chosen for an IEP case study is an eigth-grader at Pine Grove
Middle School. The student who was chosen is in an eighth-grade CALS (Communication and
Learning Support Class) in Mrs. Campbells class. The IEP process at Pine Grove can be
described after attending two meetings for the student chosen for this case study.
The first IEP meeting that was observed at Pine Grove Middle School was on February 5,
2015 and was for permission to assess. The meeting was first started by an introduction by
everyone in attendance. The parents and student were invited to the meeting as IDEA States they
should be, however; neither attended. The parents were also provided with a procedural
safeguard parental rights document before the meeting occurred. The CALS special education
teacher, the special educators intern/student teacher, speech language pathologist, psychologist,
art teacher (taking the place of the general educator), and the IEP chair were present at the
meeting. According to IDEA, all members necessary were in attendance at the meeting: a special
educator, a general educator, a representative of the public agency, and someone who can
interpret instructional implications of evaluation results. The meeting started on time and went as
follows: first, each person in attendance shared information that they had regarding the student as
well as the students present levels, then testing procedures were discussed to determine which
would be appropriate to use in assessing the student. Some things that were shared by those in
attendance relative to the students present levels were that the student: had trouble with choices,
helped to clean up, wrote his name for the first time, was becoming more gentle, was starting to
say his name, could accurately pick a choice given two options 80% of the time, and could
accurately pick a choice given three options 60% of the time, was trying to talk more and could

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

say one-syllable approximations, struggled with prepositional directions without a model,

struggled with touching things and then letting them go, and was afraid of making mistakes. The
only testing procedure that was decided upon was the PEP-R, which would be administered by
the special educator. It was decided at the meeting by the team that the student did not need to be
reassessed in his speech, occupational, or psychological evaluations, because not much had
changed since the last assessments had taken place. The last assessment that was given to the
student was the Stanford Binet in 2012. At the end of the IEP meeting, everyone at the meeting
signed the attendance sheet, and a copy of the meeting notes as well as the permission to assess
form were sent home to the parents of the student.
The second meeting that was observed for this case study was on March 26, 2015 and
had the purpose of sharing the results of the assessments given to the student as discussed at the
previous IEP meeting. Once again, the parents and students were invited to the meeting as IDEA
requires, however; neither showed up. The parents were also provided with a procedural
safeguard parental rights document before the meeting occurred. The CALS special educator,
special educators intern/student teacher, speech language pathologist, IEP chair, psychologist,
and music teacher (taking the role of the general educator) were present at the meeting. Everyone
who needed to be present at the IEP meeting was in attendance according to IDEA. An IEP
program team summary was provided to the intern following this meeting. This meeting
followed a similar agenda to the first meeting that was observed regarding this student. At the
second meeting: first, introductions were given, then, once again present levels and information
known about the student were briefly shared, next, the results of the assessments were shared,
and finally, the IEP was finalized and sent home. At the meeting, the music teacher shared that
the student had a rhythm and that was starting to repeat others. The music teacher also shared

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

that the student could match, did not know his name, and was successful at following directions.
The music teacher shared his present levels and observations of the student due to the fact that he
was the only one not in attendance at the previous meeting in February. The special education
teacher ended up giving the student a different assessment than had been previously discussed at
the first IEP meeting in February. The special educator gave the student the SIB-R instead of the
PEP-R as discussed at the previous meeting due to the fact that the SIB-R better met his
assessment needs and would produce more valid results of the students abilities. The special
educator shared that according to the results of the SIB-R, grade level tasks were difficult to nonexistent for the student to complete. The SIB-R also showed that the student was at a 1.2 age
equivalent. After sharing the results of the SIB-R, the team discussed strategies that they could
use and were working on the help the student progress towards his academic goals. One support
that was mentioned was a name stamp that the student could use instead of trying to trace or
write his name. At the end of the meeting, everyone who was present signed the attendance
sheet, the IEP was finalized, and a copy of the meeting notes/IEP were sent home to the parents
of the student.
Part II: IEP Content-Background Information
Background Information
The student that was chosen for this IEP case study was referred to the two IEP meetings
that were observed for a tri-annual review. The pre-referral strategies that were used were the
SIB-R and the use of intensive communication and classroom supports such as physical and
picture prompts. The most recent date of eligibility for this student was March 26, 2015. The
basis for eligibility determination for this student is that, This students cognitive and learning

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

disabilities cause him to have difficulty with instrucitonal tasks across the curriculum. This
student could not make academic progress in the general education environment even with
supplementary aids, services, programs, modifications, and supports. This student requires a
special education program with extensive supports and modifications that will be designed to
meet the complex functional academic learning, communication, social/emotional, and adaptive
functioning needs of the student. The student is categorized as having Autism, and special
education services were implemented on March 26, 2015 after the IEP annual review and
evaluation. The student is fourteen years old, of African American decent, and is in 8th grade. The
student is in a CALS (Communication and Learning Support) classroom with four other students.
The students previous family history was that the grandmother was the schools point of contact,
but currently the schools main points of contact are his father and mother. The types of services
that were provided to this student were speech language and occupational therapy. The students
learning characteristics are that he benefits from the use of structure, routine and repetition. The
student does well with matching activities, uses a few signs to communicate, attempts to imitate
basic gestures/signs, and can use common objects appropriately. The students behavioral
characteristics are that he is cooperative during structured activities, has a sense of humor and
will play along with the teacher during instruction, and follows directions when given a verbal
and/or physical prompt. The student speaks English when he repeats words and phrases and has
complex communication needs. The student mostly speaks with gestures and imitations and is
performing significantly below his age level in language development. The fact that the student
is performing significantly below his age level in linguistic and language development is the
reason that the student was determined to be eligible for special education services in a
Communication and Learning Support classroom setting.

Amber Breckenridge
Content

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

Part C: Reflection
After observing two IEP meetings for the student relative to this case study as well as
creating an IEP for this student, it can be noted that the IEP notice included all of the relevant
information. The IEP notice was sent out in advance to each of the students parental guardians
for each meeting. Each of the students parental guardians as well and the student were invited to
attend the meeting. The parents were also given a permission to assess paper before the student
was assesssed by the special educator as well a copy of the IEP when it was finalized. The
appropriate persons were in attendance at each meeting. According to IDEA, all members
necessary were in attendance at each IEP meeting: a special educator (CALS classroom teacher),
a general educator (the music or art teacher in this students case), a representative of the public
agency (the IEP chair), someone who can interpret instructional implications of evaluation
results (school psychologist), and other persons who were able to share information about the
student (speech language pathologist and student teacher/intern). The timelines for evaluation,
eligibility, and IEP development were followed. The student was up for another evaluation due to
the fact that he had not been assessed in three years (since 2012); the IEP team decided on an
assessment that was most appropriate for the student and then assessed him. According to IDEA,
a student needs to be reevaluated every three years. The IEP was reevaluated at the second

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

meeting that was observed. IDEA also states that a team needs to meet every year to reevaluate,
review, and update (if necessary), a students IEP. A copy of the procedural safeguards, such as:
the right to participate in all meetings, examine all educational records, obtain an independent
educational evaluation, and the right to written notice when the school proposes to change or
refuses to change a childs identification placement, or evaluation, was sent home to each of the
students parental guardians before the IEP meeting took place. The procedural safeguards were
sent home along with the notice/invitation of the IEP meeting in advance. Both IEP meetings that
were observed for this student started on time with all members in attendance at the start of the
meetings. The meetings were held in a relaxed environment upstairs in the conference room at a
rectangular table. During the first meeting, the IEP chair sat at the head of the chair with the
special educator and school psychologist next to the IEP chair. The intern/student teacher sat next
to the special educator and the speech language pathologist. The art teacher sat next to the school
psychologist. During the second meeting, the seating arrangements were the same, however; the
music teacher was sitting in the place of the art teacher at the first meeting. There was not a
physical agenda provided at each of the two IEP meetings, however; the IEP chair stated before
each meeting started what the team would be covering or discussing at the meeting. At the start
of the first meeting, the IEP chair stated that the team would first give introductions, then share
present levels of performance/information that was known about the student, and lastly discuss
options for assessing the student. The first meeting directly followed the verbal agenda that was
stated by the IEP chair. At the start of the second meeting, the IEP chair stated that the team
would first give introductions, then share any updates or information known about the student,
next share results of the assessment given by the special educator, and lastly discuss/finalize any
changes that needed to be made to the students IEP. The agenda during the second meeting also

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

directly followed the agenda that the IEP chair had stated for the team. Each team member had a
similar role during the IEP meetings. Each team member had the role of sharing present levels of
performance for the student, information known about the student, and discussing assessment
strategies as well as results of assessments. The special educator had a larger role in the second
meeting than other members, due to the fact that she was the only one present who had given the
student a recent assessment to be shared at the meeting. At the second meeting, the special
educator shared her results of the SIB-R, and the team then discussed these results and any
strategies or updates that needed to be included in the IEP. The IEP chair played the lead role in
both of the meetings; the IEP chair provided a verbal agenda for the meetings, facilitated the
meetings, and finalized the students IEP at the end of the second meeting. The IEP chair also
printed out the attendance sheets for the meetings and made sure that everyone who was present
signed it. Lastly, the IEP chair sent home notice/invitiations of the meetings as well as the
permission to assess, team notes, and the finalized IEP. The interactions between the special
educator and general educators were significant. The interactions between the special educator
and general educator were significant because when sharing present levels of achievement,
having input from the general educator along with the special educator, made for a great basis of
comparison on how well the student was doing across subject areas as well as in different
classroom settings and environments. The collaboration at the meeting was very successful and
effective. Each member of the IEP team was actively listening to what one another had to say
about the student. Each member of the IEP team asked each other questions about the student
and was able to share a strategy that they found effective in working with the student that another
team member might not have thought of or might want to use. Also, everyone was in agreeance
with the students present levels of academic functioning as well as what methods would be best

Amber Breckenridge

IEP Case Study

SPED 498.001

4/19/2015

in assessing the student. Overall, the degree of collaboration at the IEP meeting was positive and
was truly beneficial to best meeting the needs of the student. At both IEP meetings, as the intern,
I did not share much information, however; I was able to discuss what observations I had made
about the students performance thus far during my time at internship with him. I discussed that
the student struggled in following verbal directions without multiple prompts. I also shared that I
observed that the student was able to recognize himself as, Me but was working on answering
the question, Whats your name? by chunking his name into two separate syllables, such as,
Den-zel. At the meeting I also agreed with the present levels of achievement and known
information, such as strengths and weaknessess of the student that different members of the team
were sharing.