IEP Process

John is a 4th grade student who is in attendance at Vincent Farm Elementary School.
John will be the focus of this IEP Case Study as he moves through the initial IEP process. Johns
academics and speech/language deficits were first brought to the attention of the general
education teacher. She began observing and documenting Johns difficulties within the general
education classroom. She first began with a series of pre-referral intervention strategies. When
these interventions did not benefit the student, she began the IEP process by referring John to the
IEP Team.
The first IEP Team meeting concerned the initial evaluation. Johns mother was invited
to discuss areas of concern pertaining to Johns academics and speech/language. During this
time, Johns mother granted permission for John to be assessed in these areas.
The second IEP Team meeting, which was the first IEP Team meeting that I was able to
observe, reviewed Johns assessment results. The IEP Team chair lead the meeting and had all
participants sign-in. The participants included the IEP team chair, the special educator, the
speech/language pathologist, the counselor, the general educator, Johns mother, and myself.
All participants introduced themselves before reviewing the results of the Woodcock
Johnson III, the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals assessment, and a psychological
assessment. The IEP chair began by reviewing the results from the Woodcock Johnson III, which
she administered and completed. She began by praising Johns good character of being a well
behaved, sweet, and affectionate kid. She then broke down each battery of the Woodcock
Johnson III. She explained the purpose of each test in friendly terms that were easy to
understand. The scores were also interpreted for the parent as she explained whether John was
low average, average, etc. The IEP chair often paused to make sure the parent did not need any

clarification. She then concluded that these findings showed that John would be eligible for
special education services. The speech/language pathologist then began her summary of her
assessment of Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals. She also praised Johns positive
behaviors and cheerful personality. She then began to explicitly explain each part of the
assessment that proved that John would be eligible for speech and language services. The
counselor then explained that her findings suggested that Johns was functioning cognitively in
the average range. She emphasized on Johns strengths in visually scanning and working memory
and his weaknesses in his abstract verbal, visual problem solving and expressive vocabulary.
These findings supported the speech/language pathologists and IEP chairs findings. The general
education teacher then discussed her classroom observations and continued to praise Johns
character. Finally, the parent was asked for any additional information regarding Johns student
performance. She expressed her concerns of his illegible handwriting and his reading. She
commended John for the great effort he makes while completing homework.
Concluding the IEP team meeting, the IEP chair determined that an impairment does
exist and John does need special education and related services. An IEP will be developed and
reviewed during the next meeting.
The second IEP team meeting reviewed the IEP. The IEP chair lead the meeting and
clarified any and all concerns that the parent had. She also asked if the parent received the IEP
10 days prior to the meeting to review it. Again all participants signed in. The participants
included the IEP chair, special educator, myself, general education teacher, speech/language
pathologist, and the mother and older brother of John. The IEP chair facilitated the meeting by
cuing the special educator and speech/language pathologist to review the IEP in which they were
in charge of writing. Even though I assisted in writing the IEP, the special educator presented the

PLAPPF, accommodations, modifications, goals and objectives of all academic areas as well as
the identification of having a Specific Learning Disability to the parent. The speech/language
pathologist addressed all areas concerning speech services and that John would be pulled out of
class for these services. Along the way, participants asked Johns mother and son if they had any
questions. Johns mother and brother expressed concerns about John being in a LRE and
becoming dependent on such supports as a calculator. The IEP chair reassured them that John
would remain in the general education classroom for all subject areas except for when he was
pulled for thirty minutes a week for speech services. She also advised that the calculator was
there as a support and that it would not be used for areas in mathematics that were assessing
computation skills. The IEP chair concluded the team meeting by asking Johns mother if she
was in compliance with all aspects of the completed IEP. The IEP chair also emphasized that
once the IEP was signed by the mother that all services would immediately go into effect. The
mother agreed with all aspects of the IEP. The mother was given another copy of the IEP with all
signatures.
Background Information
Reason for Referral
John was referred to the Vincent Farm IEP Team by his English Language Arts teacher
and the speech/language pathologist. He was referred for concerns in reading, writing,
impulsivity, and speech and language. Johns teachers reported that John is enthusiastic in math
and for the most part attends to instruction. He tries his hardest on every problem but frustrates
easily. John has difficulty with basic facts and must rely on secondary strategies such as using
his fingers. He struggles with word problems and has a difficult time determining a course of
action. He is unable to make connections between skills and has difficulty recalling previous

lessons. Johns language development proves to give him trouble with explaining his thinking in
a clear manner either orally or on paper. John can be distracted at times during instruction and
while completing independent work. He often turns around to speak to classmates and struggles
to complete work successfully. Although he tries hard, John has had a great deal of difficulty
being successful in math.
Pre-referral strategies/learning and behavioral characteristics
In the general education classroom, John was given multiple interventions to address the
difficulties expressed in reading, writing, impulsivity, and speech/language. He was given
proximity to a positive peer and teacher, given small group instruction, provided after school
intervention for writing, and given one to one reading comprehension and writing
comprehension support.
These strategies demonstrated that his deficits in these areas deemed these interventions
unsuccessful. He continued to struggle to speak clearly when he participated in class. When
tested for reading, he tested at a 3.5 level and could not meet fourth grade curriculum standards
of highly complex materials that are well above the fourth grade reading level, during small
group instruction. John continued to rush through as he reads and writes. He continued to make
multiple errors to the point that his comprehension and expression were unclear. John found
following directions confusing. He did not understand written directions and often needed one on
one assistance in order to complete his classwork.
The general education English Language Arts teacher conducted a classroom observation
of Johns student performance on 12/08/2014 during reading. The observations purpose was to
assist in determining a need for additional educational services. During reading instruction,
students were sitting in groups of six. The objective on the board read We will create

PowerPoints to demonstrate why we believe a certain historical figure is memorable. Students

were asked to read a previous writing assignment. The title for the writing assignment was
Would I ever skip school for an exciting adventure? Students orally discussed the law of
diminishing returns as it applies to skipping school.
John did not complete the writing assignment or participate in the group or class
discussion. He continuously rocked back and forth in his seat. When the teacher instructed the
class to take out their vocabulary assignment, John put his dead on his desk. The counselor
moved across the room and asked John if she could provide any assistance. Johns response was,
no way. I dont need any help!
On 12/15/2014, the counselor returned to the classroom to observe John. The lesson was
on recognizing stress. John worked diligently with his group members to compete the handout.
During this observation, there was no oral communication to the class.
These documented observations assisted in Johns initial referral to the IEP Team. Both
the general education teacher and counselor concluded that these were accurate representations
of Johns performances in the general education classroom.
Timeline/Classification
John was first referred to the IEP Team on 11/11/2015. On 12/04/2015, Johns Initial
Evaluation took place. Parental consent for assessing John was given on that same day. He was
observed on 12/08/2015 by his general education English Language Arts teacher. He was then
observed to confirm he was a candidate for a referral to the IEP Team by the counselor.
Assessments were completed on 12/10/2014 and discussed during the initial IEP review meeting
on 1/29/2015, which reviewed the assessment findings of the Woodcock Johnson III, the Clinical
Evaluation of Language Fundamentals assessment, and a psychological assessment. The data

compiled from these assessments concluded that John was eligible for Special Education
Services as well as Speech/Language Services. The assessments assisted in identifying John as
having a Specific Learning Disability. The final IEP Annual/Initial Review meeting was on
2/27/2015 and discussed all sections of Johns IEP. Services discussed at this meeting went into
effect immediately after Johns mother granted permission and signed the IEP.
Services Provided
All of Johns special education services will take place inside the general education
setting. Services can be broken down as follows: five 30 minute sessions to address instruction in
math problem solving, five 30 minute sessions to address instruction in reading comprehension,
five 30 minute sessions to address instruction in written language. John would be required to be
provided a total of 15 sessions a week, totaling 7 hours and 30 minutes in the general education
classroom.
John will also receive speech and language pathology services outside of the general
education classroom. John will receive one thirty-minute session of speech language therapy
weekly in a small group or individual basis based on SLP judgment. Both special education and
speech and language pathology services will have a duration of 36 weeks until is annual review.
Services will be provided from 2/27/2015 to 2/27/2016.
Family and Medical History
Johns records do not display any significant medical history. He is cared for by a single
parent, his mother, and his older brother, whom is of legal age.
Learning and Behavioral Characteristics
Johns math teacher reports that John is enthusiastic in math and tries his hardest on
every problem but frustrates easily. He has difficulty with basic facts and relies on strategies

such as using his fingers. He struggles with word problems and has a hard time determining a
course of action. John has difficulty recalling previous lessons in order to develop new skills. He
also has difficulty explaining his thinking in a clear manner either orally or on paper. During
independent work, he is easily distracted and will often turn and talk to his classmates. Although
John tries hard, he has great difficulty being successful in math this year.
Johns English Language Arts teacher also boasts about his enthusiasm and eagerness to
participate in class. He completes homework and participates in an after school writing
enrichment program. She is concerned about how John struggles to speak clearly as he is
difficult to understand when he speaks quickly and does not enunciate. His expressive language
is confusing. He often goes off topic and forgets what he was talking about. John also rushes
when he reads and writes, making multiple errors to the point that his comprehension and
expression are unclear. He does not understand written directions and often needs one on one
assistance to complete his classwork.
Cultural and Linguistic Differences
John is an African American student and does not exhibit cultural or linguistic
differences. His native language is English and has attended public school in Baltimore County
his entire academic career thus far.
Language Development
The speech pathologist screened John for speech and language concerns. She shared that
when John slows down he is intelligible. She found that he was having trouble naming
vocabulary, multi-step directions, and was leaving out and/or substituting words in responses.
John struggled with naming things that belonged in the same category. If John was presented
with scrambled words and was asked to make a sentence, he has difficulties.

When given the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Assessment, John fell
below the range of normal limits in Expressive Language. He struggled to formulate sentences
when they were longer and more complex. The meaning became unclear. His errors consisted of
word omissions, substitutions, and additions. John also fell below the range of normal limits of
Language Memory. He had great difficulty when having to recall and follow spoken directions,
generate a sentence given one or two target words, and interpret sentences that make
comparisons.
These screenings and assessments provide evidence of how his language memory and
expressive memory affects his language development as he falls below the range of normal
limits. His language development greatly affects his ability to perform at grade level standards in
the general education classroom.
Determination of Eligibility
John has been determined as having a specific learning disability due to a processing
disorder. Johns displays evidence of a cognitive processing disorder in the following areas:
visual/spatial, association, and reasoning. The team considered the students achievement
relative to his age as well as meeting state-approved grade level standards. The team determined
that Johns cognitive processing disorder results in inadequate achievement in oral expression,
mathematics problem solving, reading comprehension, and written expression.
Present levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance
Academic: Reading
John is performing below grade level in the area of reading, especially in the area of
reading comprehension. John was administered the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Academic
Achievement. This assessment indicates that he is currently performing on a 2.7 grade level

equivalent in the area of broad reading. His difficulty with comprehending written texts impacts
his ability to demonstrate grade level proficiency in reading and other content areas requiring
comprehension of written texts.
Four reading sub tests were administered: Letter-Word Identification (SS 89), Reading
Fluency (SS 86), Passage Comprehension (SS 87), Word Attack (SS 97). These tests were
administered as a comprehensive measure of reading achievement, which includes reading
decoding, sight word vocabulary, reading speed, the ability to derive meaning from the printed
word and the ability to apply phonics and structural analysis in pronouncing orthographically
regular nonsense words. When John was asked to read a series of decodable and sight words, he
was able to read familiar words. Once the words became multi-syllabic and included more
advanced vowel patterns, he was unsuccessful. This indicates that John struggles with
vocabulary and/or word identification at times. The reading fluency test asked John to answer a
series of simple yes or no questions. John was able to complete 28 of these questions correctly in
three minutes. He read each one to himself and then circled the appropriate answer choice.
Results of this sub test indicate that Johns speed with processing text is in the low-average
range. On the passage comprehension sub test, John was able to identify like pictures and match
familiar words to pictures. Once the picture clues were removed, John became unsuccessful.
Johns performance in the classroom reflects similar skills as his performance on this sub test. He
comprehends passages more effectively when picture clues are present. He struggles with
comprehension of grade level text and longer passages. His skills with reading comprehension
are below grade level expectations. On the word attack sub test, John was able to match
consonant sounds to the printed letters, When the sub test asked John to decode nonsense words,
he was able to decode words with familiar vowel and consonant patterns. Decoding is a relative

strength for John. Johns problems with understanding written text negatively affects his ability
to interact and respond to grade level texts and may also impact his academic achievement in
other content areas requiring language comprehension.
In the classroom, John struggles with comprehending and responding to grade level texts.
He has difficulty understanding complex texts and responding to text-based questions. In Unit 1,
Johns score on the culminating event was 1/3, indicating a significant difficulty with reading
comprehension.
John has strengths in being able to effectively decode both real and nonsense words. He
is also able to recognize sight words. John shows need when he struggles with comprehension of
written texts. The area of reading impacts Johns academic achievement and functional
performance.
Academic: Writing
John is currently performing on a 3.9 grade level equivalent in the area of broad written
language.
Three writing sub tests of the Broad Written Language cluster were administered:
Spelling (SS 98), Writing Samples (SS 92), Writing Fluency (SS 111). These sub tests were
administered in order to assess Johns ability to communicate effectively and efficiently in
written form. On the spelling assessment, John was able to spell familiar sight words. Once the
words became multi-syllabic with vowel patterns, he was unsuccessful. On the writing fluency
assessment, John received a score of 111. This sub test asked him to create simple sentences
given word and picture prompts. John wrote simple sentences pertaining to the picture. His
sentences lack proper capitalization. John worded very quickly. On the Writing Samples sub test,
John was asked to answer in written form simple questions, both verbal and visual. John was

able to answer simple questions in a sentence pertaining to a picture clue. He struggled to create
responses to prompts when no picture clue was available. He also struggled to fill in missing
sentences in a short paragraph. Johns difficulty with composing complex sentences and written
responses impacts his ability to demonstrate proficiency in content areas that require writing.
In the classroom, John struggles with comprehending and responding to grade level texts.
He has difficulty composing organized responses to text-based questions, both in writing with
using proper sentence structure and with organization of ideas. In Unit 1, Johns score on the
culminating event was 2/3 for written expression and 1/3 for writing mechanics, indicating a
significant difficulty with writing.
Johns strengths in writing include being able to compose simple sentences quickly. His
needs are evident when he struggles with complex sentences and writing mechanics.
The area of writing impacts Johns academic achievement and functional performance.
Academic: Mathematics
John is currently performing on a 3.0 grade level equivalent in the area of broad
mathematics.
Three sub tests of the Broad Mathematics cluster were administered: Calculation (SS 90),
Math Fluency (SS 81), and Applied Problems (SS 90). These sub tests were administered in
order to assess Johns acquisition of math skills. On the calculation sub test, John was able to
complete simple addition and subtraction problems by recalling the basic facts or counting on his
fingers. He was able to complete only addition and subtraction problems that did not involve
regrouping. He was also to complete two one-digit multiplication problems. On the math fluency
sub test, John was only able to complete 33 problems in 3 minutes, and of these 33, all were
correct. When answering these problems, John recalled the basic facts. On the applied problems

sub test, John was asked to solve math problems by listening, recognizing procedures, and
deciding what information was relevant and which was extraneous. On this sub test, John was
able to answer simple problems when resented orally. For example, he was able to show the
appropriate number of shapes when some were taken away or added. He struggled with
questions pertaining to telling time and making change. Johns difficulties with solving math
word and applied problems impact his ability to demonstrate proficiency in any areas that require
math problem solving. In addition, his difficulty with understanding spoken and written language
impacts his ability to solve math problems.
In the classroom, Johns cumulative assessment scores reflect the data compiled from the
formative assessment. In Unite 1, Johns score on the culminating event was 4/14, with the class
average being 8.9. In Unit 2, Johns score on the culminating event was 4/14, with the class
average being 9.
Johns shows strength in being able to compute simple addition and subtraction problems.
He shows need in the area of problem solving. He also struggles with fluency in calculation,
which is addressed through the use of a calculation device.
The area of mathematics impacts Johns academic achievement and functional
performance.
Academic: Language
Johns expressive language skills are below age expectancies.
Five sub tests of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals were administered:
Receptive Language (SS 89), Expressive Language (SS 83), Language Content (SS87),
Language Memory (SS 80), Core Language (SS 84). John struggled with forming sentences. He

could form simple sentences, but when the sentences were complex, the meaning was unclear.
John also struggled with recalling information that was presented orally.
In the classroom, John also has trouble explaining his thinking in a clear manner either
orally or on paper.
John has strengths in his receptive language. He shows need in the ability to follow
complex directions and formulate meaningful sentences.
The area of language impacts Johns academic achievement and functional performance.
Involvement in the General Education Curriculum
John struggles with completing grade-level tasks within the allotted time. He also
struggles with comprehension of multi-page texts and responding to questions about texts in
written form. John often overlooks conventional spelling, capitalization, and punctuation when
writing. He needs small group assistance and reteaching, in order to complete higher-level and
multi-step word problems in mathematics. Johns language impairment in the area of expressive
language, language memory, and recalling orally presented material cause him to have difficulty
with verbal expression and comprehending and recalling verbally presented materials. This
impacts him in all performance areas.
Measurable Annual Goals, including Academic and Functional Goals.
Reading Goal:
Goal: RL1 Refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly
and when drawing inferences from the text.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 70% Accuracy
ESY Goal? No
Objective 1: Given an instructional level text, John will explain what is directly stated in the text
by citing specific details and examples from the text.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 80% Accuracy

Objective 2: Given a grade level text, John will explain what is directly stated in the text by
citing specific details and examples from the text.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 60% Accuracy
Objective 3: Given grade level text, John will summarize the text.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 70% Accuracy
How will the parent be notified of the students progress toward the IEP goals?
Progress reports
How often?
Quarterly
Written Expression Goal:
Goal: W4 Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development and organization are
appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 60% Accuracy
ESY Goal? No
Objective 1: Given direct instruction and practice, John will organize paragraphs effectively
(e.g., list, cause/effect, order of importance.)
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 60% Accuracy
Objective 2: Given a model, john will draft an introduction that orients the reader to the topic.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 60% Accuracy
Objective 3: Given an editing checklist, John will edit to correct in transitional words and
phrases.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 60% Accuracy
How will the parent be notified of the students progress toward the IEP goals?
Progress reports
How often?
Quarterly
Mathematics Goal:
Goal: 4.OA.3 Solve multi-step word problems posed with whole numbers and having wholenumber answers using the four operations, including problems in which remainders must be
interpreted. Represent these problems using equations with a letter standing for the unknown

quantity. Assess the reasonableness of answers using mental computation and estimation
strategies including rounding.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 70% Accuracy
ESY Goal? No
Objective 1: Given a word problem on grade level, John will be able to apply knowledge of
addition, subtraction, multiplication, and/or division appropriately to solve multi-step word
problems through the use of equations.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 60% Accuracy
Objective 2: Given a word problem on an instructional level, John will be able to apply
knowledge of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and/or division appropriately to solve multistep word problems through the use of equations.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 80% Accuracy
Objective 3: Given instruction and practice, John will put the remainder in a division word
problem in context and interpret it appropriately to determine if it should be discarded, replaced
with the next highest whole number answer, or used as the answer to the question.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 70% Accuracy
How will the parent be notified of the students progress toward the IEP goals?
Progress reports
How often?
Quarterly
Communication Goal:
Goal: Content: John will be able to use targeted vocabulary and language concepts.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 70% Accuracy
ESY Goal? No
Objective 1: Given a model and visual cues, John will use conjunctions to formulate sentences
and expand sentences (It is cloudy and rainy).
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 70% Accuracy
Objective 2: Given verbal cues, John will make predictions related to picture, event, activity, or
story.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 75%

Objective 3: Given visual and verbal cues, John will present information in logical
sequence/organized manner.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 75% Accuracy
How will the parent be notified of the students progress toward the IEP goals?
Progress reports
How often?
Quarterly
Communication Goal (2):
Goal: Content: John will be able to use targeted vocabulary and language concepts.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 70% Accuracy
ESY Goal? No
Objective 1: Given verbal and visual cues, John will follow 2 step directions with 1 critical
element.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 7 out of 10 targeted trials
Objective 2: Given verbal cues, John will follow directions containing temporal concepts.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 7 out of 10 targeted trials
Objective 3: Given an orally presented story, John will demonstrate recall of 2 events of a story
in correct sequence.
Evaluation Method: Informal Procedures
With: 60% Accuracy
How will the parent be notified of the students progress toward the IEP goals?
Progress reports
How often?
Quarterly
Special Education and Related Services and Supplementary Aids
Communication
John requires language support to make academic progress in the classroom
Instructional and Testing Accommodations
Presentation Accommodations: John will be given visuals to aid his understanding of material
on classroom assignments and classroom assessments.

Response Accommodations: John struggles with fluency and calculation in mathematics. Use
of a calculation device will allow John to complete grade- level tasks. It is difficult for John to
organize his thoughts due to his disability in the area of executive functioning. Graphic and
visual organizers will help John organize ideas and directions/procedures. Graphic organizers are
not permitted on PARCC assessment, but are permitted during instruction and MSA test.
Spelling and grammar devices will assist John with composing sentences that contain appropriate
conventions. He struggles with applying these conventions when writing. Test responses should
be monitored due to Johns struggle with visual/spatial perception to ensure that answers are
being recorded in the designated response areas.
Calculation devices should be used for all independent work in the classroom and for
testing purposes. Graphic organizers should be used prior to composing multi paragraph written
responses. Spelling and grammar devices should be sued when John is editing/revising written
work. Spelling and grammar devices may consist of, but are not limited to, word processing
programs, dictionaries, and word/vocabulary banks. An adult should monitor where John is
recording responses to support him with responding in the correct area. Visual organizers may be
used to accompany multi-step directions or to help clarify written works. Visual organizers and
concrete instructions should be emphasized and given in a specific manner by the teacher until
John is able to understand abstracts.
Timing and Scheduling Accommodations: Due to Johns communication needs, he needs
extended time to process information. In the classroom setting, John requires extra time to
understand the demands of a task and organize his thinking to compose a response. This will be
necessary when John participates in statewide testing.
Supplementary Aids, Services, Program Modification and Supports
Service Nature
(Indirect)

Service Description
Anticipated
Frequency

Begin
Date

End
Date

Duration

Provider(s)

Periodically

2/27/15

2/27/16

36 weeks

P 14 Gen Ed
O 01 Sp Ed
O 21 Instr Assist

Periodically

2/27/15

2/27/16

36 weeks

P 14 Gen Ed
O 01 Sp Ed
O 21 Instr Assist

Periodically

2/27/15

2/27/16

36 weeks

P 14 Gen Ed
O 01 Sp Ed
O 21 Instr Assist

Instructional Supports
Use of word bank to
reinforce vocabulary
and/or when extended
writing is required
Other instructional
supports: Sentence
starters and paragraph
frames
Have student repeat
and/or paraphrase
information

Clarify the location and manner in which Supplementary Aids, Services, Program Modifications and Supports to or,
on behalf of, the student will be provided:
John requires a word bank to help him recall unit vocabulary and text related words. This word bank should be
available when John is composing multi-paragraph drafts. In addition, John struggles with writing complex
sentences. Due to his struggles with communication, he requires prompting when responding to questions. Sentence
starters will address these issues and support John in developing the skills necessary to write effective simple and
complex sentences. Sentence starters should be provided for writing prompts that will be scored with a rubric. John

finds it difficult to organize his writing. Paragraph frames should be used for writing tasks that require a multiparagraph response. The use of these frames will help John develop organizational sills when writing paragraphs.
John has difficulty understanding multi-step directions. He should repeat/paraphrase directions in order to clarify
misconceptions and provide feedback.

Program Modification
Chunking of texts

Periodically

2/27/15

2/27/16

36 weeks

Altered/modified
assignments

Periodically

2/27/15

2/27/16

36 weeks

P 14 Gen Ed
O 01 Sp Ed
O 21Instr Assist
P 14 Gen Ed
O 01 Sp Ed
O 21 Instr Assist

Clarify the location and manner in which Supplementary Aids, Services, Program Modifications and Supports to or,
on behalf of, the student will be provided:
John struggles with comprehending longer texts. When reading texts longer than a few pages, the texts should be
chunked, and discussed in sections during instruction. This will help John develop strategies to approach longer
texts. In addition, Johns struggle with comprehending language and directions makes it difficult for him to be
successful on grade level classroom assessments. Classroom assessments can be modified to make them more
approachable for John. Modifications may include: providing answer choices when none are given, reducing the
number of answer choices, deleting extraneous information, providing clarifying directions/providing directions one
step at a time, and including graphic/visual organizers on the assessment.
Documentation to support decision(s): John requires modifications, supplementary aids, and supports to access
grade-level curriculum. He struggles with association between concepts and reasoning. These supports will help him
make connections between ideas and texts. To maximize understanding, it will be important to minimize
abstractions. This can be achieved through altering/modifying assignments, providing sentence starters to direct
Johns focus when writing, providing word banks to help him focus on important words, and chunking of texts to
help him understand each portion of the text. It is recommended that the concepts presented be as clear, direct, and
concrete as possible. Having John repeat/paraphrase directions will help make them more concrete and increase
understanding.

Services
Special Education Services
Service
Nature

Location

Number of
Sessions

Length
Time

Frequency

Begin
Date

End Date

Classroom
Instruction

In General Education

15

30 min

Weekly

2/27/2015

2/27/2016

Duration

Provider(s)/Agency
P=Primary O= Other

Summary of Service

36 weeks

P 14 Gen Ed
O 01 Sp Ed
O 21 Instr Assist

7Hrs. 30Min. Weekly

Discussion of service(s) delivery

All of Johns services will take place inside the general education setting. Services can be broken down as follows:
1. Five 30 minute sessions to address instruction in math problem solving
2. Five 30 minute sessions to address instruction in reading comprehension
3. Five 30 minute sessions to address instruction in written language

Related Services
Service
Nature

Location

Number of
Sessions

Length
Time

Frequency

Begin
Date

End Date

Speech and
Language

Outside General
Education

30 min

Weekly

2/27/2015

2/27/2016

Pathology
Services

Duration

Provider(s)/Agency
P=Primary O= Other

Summary of Service

36 weeks
P Speech/Language Pathologist
30Min. Weekly
Discussion of service(s) delivery including description of transportation services if provided
John will receive one thirty-minute session of speech language therapy weekly in a small group or individual basis
based on SLP judgment.

Least Restrictive Environment

John is a diploma bound student. He is able to access grade level curriculum with the
appropriate supports and accommodations. Placement inside the general education setting will
allow John to engage in grade level instruction. He will be inside the general education
environment 80% or more of the time.
Reflection
Observing the IEP team process at Vincent Farm Elementary allowed me the opportunity to
witness and experience the procedure involved in an Initial/Annual Review of an IEP. All
participants involved in the IEP process were both professional and friendly when working
with other education professionals, students, and parents.
Relevant information, including Parental Safeguards (given during the initial evaluation),
copies of assessment findings, and copies of the IEP were given within the appropriate time
frame for parents to review before entering IEP team meetings. All appropriate and necessary
participants were in attendance for all meetings. These participants included the IEP team chair,
the special educator, speech/language pathologist, counselor, general education teacher, parent,
and myself. Each of these participants had their own individual role in the IEP process. The IEP
team chair was the primary facilitator of each meeting. She reviewed assessment results,
answered tough questions as well as made sure the meeting remained on track. The special
educator presented all relevant information pertaining to the IEP including the PLAPPF,

accommodations, modifications, goals and objectives of all academic areas as well as the
identification of having a Specific Learning Disability to the parent. The speech/language
pathologists' role was to summarize her assessment of Clinical Evaluation of Language
Fundamentals as well as explain the language and communication portions of the IEP. The
counselors role was minimal, as John did not have behavioral problems. She reviewed the
psychological assessment. The general educators role was to discuss all observations she made
in the general education classroom environment. The parents role was to add any input that only
she would witness outside of the educational environment. She was also there to understand all
aspects of Johns IEP process and be an informed and involved parent. The significant
interactions during these meetings were with the parent. All IEP team members were always
asking if the parent had any questions or concerns as well as answering any questions the parent
had. They were patient and open minded when listening to the parents input during each
meeting.
The timelines for the evaluation, eligibility, and IEP development were followed. The Initial
Evaluation took place on 11/11/2014 where the John was initially referred to the IEP team after a
series of intervention strategies were deemed unsuccessful. On 12/04/2015, Johns mother gave
consent to assess John. The students results from the assessments were reviewed on 1/29/2015,
which concluded that John was eligible for an IEP. An IEP was then developed within that time
and presented on 2/27/2015, in which the parent signed to confirm that John would receive the
supports needed to be a successful student.
The meetings started on time with all participants present. All meetings were held in a private
conference room that was located in the front office of the school. Participants casually sat

where they felt comfortable around a table in the conference room. The IEP chair always
remained at the front of the table where she could be seen and heard by all other participants.
While there was not an agenda printed for participants, the meetings ran smoothly.
Participants first signed in and then introduced/reintroduced themselves before moving on to
review assessment results or the IEP. The team was comfortable and natural when speaking to
the parent. They were well rehearsed and extremely knowledgeable about all aspects of their
presentations.
My involvement during the IEP meetings were minimal, as the IEP chair deemed it
appropriate for the special educator to present relevant areas to the IEP team and parent. I
silently observed and spoke when spoken to. My mentor and I worked collaboratively as we
complete Johns IEP. She guided me through TieNet to complete each section of the IEP. While
I wrote the IEP, she reviewed and advised me of any necessary revisions. Baltimore County
Public Schools are in the process of changing how specific section are going to be written in the
future. We worked together in order to meet the new criteria expected from Baltimore County
Public Schools.
In the future, I would like to be more involved in presenting relevant information to IEP team
members as well as parents. This will take both practice and an in-depth understanding of all
sections of the IEP that will assist me in running a professional and structured IEP team meeting.