1

Running Header: IEP CASE STUDY

The Individualized Education Plan Case Study

Betsy Trainer
Towson University

Running Header: IEP CASE STUDY

Part 1 A: Background Information

Sue Smith (name has been changed to preserve confidentiality) is a fourteen-year-old
eighth grader at HCMS in the Howard County Public School System (HCPSS) with a primary
disability of autism. Sue lives in Columbia, Maryland with both of her parents and no siblings. It
was noted in her records that Sues mother reported that her pregnancy, labor and delivery were
typical with no complications. She also indicated that Sue achieved developmental milestones
by the appropriate ages. Sue attended the same Elementary from kindergarten through 5th grade
and has attended the same middle school since 6th grade.
Sue has had an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) since December of 2011. In second
grade, during the fall of 2009, at the request of her parents Sue was evaluated to determine if she
was eligible for a section 504 plan. At this time her doctor had diagnosed Sue with Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and had prescribed a section 504 plan. However, the
team that included the assistant principal, a general education teacher, the school psychologist at
the elementary school and her parent determined Sues ADHD had a mild to moderate impact on
her educational performance and therefore deemed her not eligible for a section 504 plan. The
following May, this time at the request of her parents and the same general education teacher, the
team re-opened the discussion of Sues eligibility for a section 504 plan. At this time the team
concluded that Sues ADHD did have a significant impact on her educational performance and
did see accommodations that were needed for school. The team determined her disability was
substantially impairing her performance and therefore she was eligible for a section 504 plan.
The accommodations on her 504 included extra time for work completion, use of graphic
organizers and visual rubrics, frequent reminders to stay on task, preferential seating and access
to quiet space to complete work and lastly private discussions regarding social conflicts.

Running Header: IEP CASE STUDY

Sues section 504 plan remained in effect with annual updates until fall of 2011 when at
the request of her parents she was referred for an evaluation to the schools IEP team. The
purpose of the evaluation was to determine her intellectual functioning, social
emotional/functioning and attention skills to then determine whether she meet the criteria of a
student with an educational disability of Other Health Impairment due to ADHD, Emotional
Disability due to an anxiety based disorder, or Autism due to a pervasive developmental
disorder. The team used a multitude of evaluation tools and techniques. They included the
Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children,
Behavioral Assessment System for Children, Aspergers Syndrome Diagnostic Scale, Gilliam
Aspergers Disorder Scale, Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children, and classroom
observations. A special education teacher performed and scored the Woodcock Johnson III
Tests of Achievement. The other tests and assessments were coordinated and evaluated by the
school psychologist. Input from Sue, both of her parents and three of her classroom teachers was
used for the various assessments.
At the time Sue was described as an intelligent, creative, caring student with a strong
vocabulary. Sue was marked above grade level in reading although she was failing reading due
to missing assignments and on grade level for math and earning a C. In the area of language arts
it was noted she had trouble following instructions on writing assignments causing her to not
pass the assignment. All of her teachers indicated she had difficulties listening to and
understanding instructions and staying on task during assignments. Sues mother had shared she
was currently medicated for ADHD and that at home it took her hours to complete her
homework.

Running Header: IEP CASE STUDY

The Woodcock Johnson III - Tests of Achievement that was administered by a special
educator highlighted strengths and weaknesses for Sue. Her scores in the Broad Reading Cluster
were in the average range of achievement for students of her age. She also scored in the average
range for all of the subtests with the exception of one, reading vocabulary where she scored in
the high average range. The teachers input was that Sue was reading above grade level and
noted she would sometimes participate during a reading group to verbally demonstrate her
comprehension. They also noted though she had difficulty completing independent work related
to the reading in the allotted time or her extended time. Her Broad Math Cluster score was in the
low average range. Her subtest indicated her strengths in Math Reasoning were significantly
offset by her fluency in both Broad Mathematics and Math Calculation Skills. Her teachers also
supported these results indicating she had a good number sense and understanding of the
objectives of what was being taught. They indicated her difficulties in math stemmed from her
math facts and solving problems in a timely basis. In the area of written language Sues Broad
Written Language Cluster score placed her in bottom of the average range of achievement.
Within this cluster she scored in the average or high average on all the subtests with the
exception of Punctuation and Capitalization where she scored low average and Writing Fluency
where she scored in the very low range. These too were consistent with the input given by her
teachers. They noted Sue finds working under time constraints in a classroom extremely
challenging. Overall, when grouped for Special Purpose Clusters Sues Academic Skills were in
the average range of achievement while her Academic Fluency was in the low range of
achievement for students of her age.
The school psychologist administered the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children that is
a standardized measure of cognitive ability. The test consists of several subtest that yield an

Running Header: IEP CASE STUDY

overall score, Full Scale IQ, and four sub-scores, indexes, measuring Verbal Comprehension
(VCI), Perceptual Reasoning (PRI), Working Memory (WMI), Processing Speed (PSI). Sues
overall score, the Full Scale IQ, fell within the average range however the four indexes had
significant deviation indicating the Full Scale IQ may not be the best indicator of her abilities.
This discrepancy lead the school psychologist to calculate the General Ability Index (GAI), an
index that is an estimate of the individuals verbal and visual problem solving skills is isolation
from working memory and processing speed. Sues cognitive ability estimated by the GAI fell
with a 95% certainty between high average and superior. Both the standard score for VCI and
PRI fell at the 90th percentile while the WMI and PSI fell at the 21st and 4th percentile
respectively.
The school psychologist used several assessments to measure Sues social, emotional and
behavioral functioning. One of the tools used was the Behavior Assessment System for
Children, second addition (BASC-2). This tool uses input from Sue, her parents and teachers to
identify problem behaviors at home and at school. Behaviors are identified as falling in an
average, at-risk, or clinically significant range. Both Sues parents and her teachers input
indicated Adaptability, Social Skills and Atypicality fell into the clinically significant range.
Other areas of concern that were either at-risk or clinically significant were Functional
Communication, Attention Problems, Depression and Anxiety. Sues self-response indicated
concerns with Attention Problems, Interpersonal Relations and Self-Esteem were in the clinically
significant range.
The school psychologist used the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC)
to assess Sues level of anxiety. Based on Sues responses, she was experiencing physical

Running Header: IEP CASE STUDY

symptoms of anxiety and social anxiety. Her overall scores were considered much above
average.
Sues parents and teachers completed Gilliam Aspergers Disorder Scale (GADS) and
Sues parents completed the Aspergers Syndrome Diagnostic Scale (ASDS) both of which are
used to help determine if an individual has Aspergers Syndrome. Sues parents responses on the
GADS suggested a high probability of Aspergers Syndrome while the teachers responses
suggested a borderline probability. The parents response on the ASDS only suggested an
indicator of possibly that Sue has Aspergers Syndrome.
In addition to the assessments, Sue was observed and data was collected in five different
classroom settings. Particular attention was given to her time on task relative to other students in
the classroom. In addition to recording percent of time spent on task, what Sue was doing when
she was off-task was also noted.
Based on a culmination of data, including a review of her history, observations and input
from parents and teachers, and the rating scales, it was determined Sue met the criteria for
Autism due to Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS). It was
also determined she met the criteria for Other Health Impairment due to ADHD. It was
determined her anxiety symptoms were related to PDD-NOS and the data did not support
meeting the criteria for an Emotional Disability. At that point, an IEP was developed for Sue
with goals in the areas of Self-Management/Behavior, Social Interaction Skills,
Social/Emotional, Math Calculation and Written Language.
Part 1 B: The IEP Process
An IEP has been in place for Sue since December 1, 2011 and a re-evaluation occurred in
September of 2014. March 1, 2016 was the date of her annual IEP meeting. The date and time

Running Header: IEP CASE STUDY

of the meeting is scheduled at the beginning of the school year, well in advance, by the Special
Education Instructional Team Leader (ITL)/ IEP chairperson for the building. The parents were
notified when the schedule was created for the year and then reminder of the date, time and
participants is sent to the parents two to three weeks prior to the meeting. The IEP team for Sue
consists of the IEP chairperson, her IEP case manager (my mentor teacher), the school
psychologist, both of her parents and me, her general educator. I am both Sues math teacher
and homeroom teacher. I first got to know Sue when she was in 6th grade when she attended an
after school program that was held in my room once a week. While I was not part of the
program Sue and I would sometimes have conversations prior to the program beginning. Since
Sue is now 14 years old she was invited to attend the meeting and did attend at the end of the
meeting.
In preparation for her annual review input was gathered from all of Sues current
teachers, both general education and special education teachers. We also reviewed the quarterly
and end of school year reports for her goals and objectives from seventh grade and the two thus
far for 8th grade. The special educator and I also meet with Sue prior to her annual review to
start the discussion of transition since she is 14 years old. The school psychologist in addition to
providing input for the Present Level of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance
(PLAAFP) for the Behavioral: Social/Emotional contributed in the determination of the proposed
goals and objectives. Sues English/Language Arts (ELA) special education co-teacher was
heavily relied upon for the PLAAFP in Written Language and for the goals and objectives and
also had contributions towards her IEP in the other areas too.
The draft of the new IEP, besides updating the PLAAFP and the Goal and Objectives in
each area, adjusted some of the services and accommodations from the previous IEP. Under

Running Header: IEP CASE STUDY

Special Considerations and Accommodations a Scribe was removed from the Response
Accommodations. This is an accommodation that has not been used since 6th grade. Also the
Psychological Service hours were adjusted from two to one 30-minute session monthly and the
school psychologist was removed from the weekly home-school communication system. These
were the only changes to the services, supports and accommodations that were made prior to the
meeting although additional changes were made during the meeting. The draft of the updated
IEP was sent to the parents on February 22nd for them to review prior to the meeting.
At the start of the annual meeting the parents were offered copies of The Parental Rights:
Maryland Procedural Safeguards Notice and several other brochures and newsletters. All areas
of the IEP were reviewed, the content of which will be outlined in the next section of this paper.
Highlighting some of the changes however, after considering the transition to high school, the
Psychological Service hours were adjusted again to two 15-minute sessions monthly. Therefore,
still reducing the total hours but recognizing Sues need to build a relationship with the new
school psychologist so maintaining the same frequency of meeting. The other change that the
team incorporated was the use of assistive technology with the use of Sues cell phone or another
device to record assignments and use the calendar feature to assist with organization. Sue has
been unsuccessful with the use of a paper agenda book to track her assignments so the team
decided to try a different tool.
In addition to the annual review of the IEP, the team also discussed Sues eligibility for
Extended School Year (ESY). After a discussion it was determined Sue was eligible for ESY
service concluding the benefits she receives from her educational program during the regular
school year will be significantly jeopardized if she is not provided ESY. Sue was brought into
the meeting at this time to discuss the decision regarding ESY and to also discuss the transition

Running Header: IEP CASE STUDY

portion of the IEP. She shared with the team what she had previously shared with the special
educator and me that she loves reading and drawing and her goal is to become writer. She
enjoys writing short stories but did say she needed to work on finishing them because she
struggles with the best ending. The meeting concluded with the team setting a date of May 9th
for a transition meeting with the high school. The final annual review of IEP was then sent to the
parents on April 2, 2016.
Part II A: Content of the IEP -Present Level of Academic Achievement and
Functional Performance
Sues primary area of disability of Autism and her diagnosis of Other Health Impairment
due to ADHD impact her Academic Achievement and Functional Performance in several areas
and her IEP identifies the five main areas that are affected. They include the Academic areas of
Social Interaction Skills, Study/Organizational Skill, Math Reasoning and Application and
Written Language and the Behavioral area of Social/Emotional. It was noted in general Sue is an
intelligent, outgoing, funny, creative and caring young lady with a strong vocabulary and reading
fluency and comprehension. However, her disability impacts her ability to communicate
effectively with peers and teachers. Typical patterns of communication such as spontaneous
conversation, taking turns in conversation or compromising in a conversation are difficult for
Sue. She also has difficulty with events that are unexpected or out of the ordinary and has a
tendency to overreact. She also exhibits symptoms of anxiety in these types of situations or in
test taking situations. Sues other disability of ADHD impacts her ability to focus on and sustain
attention to a particular task. All content areas are impacted by this disability. Also, while not
addressed in the IEP, based on an occupational therapy evaluation from Kennedy Krieger
Institute, Sue also displays difficulties in her sensory processing skills.

Running Header: IEP CASE STUDY

10

In the area of Written Language there are several data pieces contributing to her
PLAAFP. As noted Sue is an avid reader and overall her PARCC scores for English Language
Arts/Literacy Performance were on the borderline between a two and a three, below the school
and state average. Her reading score was a 45, the same as the school and the state average and
five points below the score of 50, the average scored for just meeting the expectations. For each
of the components; Literary Text, Informational Text and Vocabulary her results were grouped
as Nearly Meets Expectations. For the writing component of the score Sue scored a 23, well
below the school average of 28 and state average of 30 and 12 points below the score of 25, the
average scored for just meeting the expectations. In both components; Writing Expression and
Knowledge and Use of Language Conventions her scores were grouped as Below Expectations.
Sues strengths in reading offset her difficulties in writing in her ELA classes where she
consistently earns Bs or Cs on her report cards. Her Instructional Grade Level Performance as
reported on her IEP indicates that Sue continues to mature in the area of written language and
evidenced in her increased willingness to complete non-preferred writing assignments. Her
writing is strong in creativity and rich language but elements of grammar and punctuation are
often left out. Her preference remains towards informal writing and has a lack of interest in
proofreading. Her utilization of graphic organizers is sporadic and she prefers to organize her
writing without assistance leading to writing pieces that are less structured than required.
However, her natural writing abilities compensate for the areas that are lacking.
Similarly in the area of Math there are several data pieces contributing to her PLAAFP.
As noted Sue does very well in math class and overall her PARCC scores for Mathematics
Performance were on the high end of a two and below the school and state average. For three of
the four components; Major Content, Additional Supporting Content and Expressing

Running Header: IEP CASE STUDY

11

Mathematical Reasoning her results were grouped as Below Expectations. But for the Modeling
and Application component her score was grouped as Meets or Exceeds Expectations. Sue does
well in math class earning Bs and Cs with her grade being impacted by missing work or her
reluctance to check her work. Her Instructional Grade Level Performance indicates when given
a multi-step problem or a word problem she has made progress in her ability to organize and
develop a plan to solve and will two out of three time persevere to come up with a solution. Sue
can be unwilling to attempt work that is unfamiliar to her however when she is focused she can
be a hard worker and she excels.
Sues progress toward her goals in the area of Study/Organizational Skills was reported
to be sporadic. Her innate intelligence helps her compensate for her difficulties in this area. Her
PLAAFP has improved in several aspects. Sue has displayed a marked improvement in her
ability to remain engaged during class time and accepting redirection to task when needed. Her
level of organization of her binder and papers has also improved. However, she still continues to
refuse to use her agenda book so some assignments and required work are still not completed. It
was also noted that at times she chooses to not complete an assignment and it can be very
difficult to convince her to do otherwise.
The last academic PLAAFP, Social Interaction Skills, also indicates Sue has displayed
solid growth. She is increasingly willing to accept others perspectives, listen while other are
speaking and actively interact with others in general. Although she occasionally dominates
conversation and at times perseverates on certain topics, she is displaying a greater level of social
maturity when interacting with her peers. She has fewer times when she is unable to handle her
fatigue or frustration levels in class and is showing some ability to utilize coping skills to get
back on track.

Running Header: IEP CASE STUDY

12

Sues last PLAAFP is for a Behavioral Goal of Social/Emotional. Sue continues to make
progress in her ability to regulate her feelings on daily basis as she matures. Her ability to use
independently use calming strategies when have negative feeling has increased and the need for
these strategies has also decreased too. She appears to be able to think through the concern that
caused the negative feeling, brainstorm solutions and chose one to successfully implement. This
strategy does not seem to work as well in math class when faced with learning new concepts
when she quite often shuts down and refuses to work. Also with problems in social interactions
there may be the occasion where she is able to brainstorm solutions but unable to choose one
solution to implement.
Part II B: Content of the IEP Instructional and Testing Accommodations
Sue has six Instructional and Testing Accommodations most of which are designed to
address the educational impact of her disability of Other Health Impairment ADHD. The first
two accommodations are response accommodations; one is to Monitor Test Response and the
other is to allow for Mathematics Tools and Calculation Devices. The Monitoring Test
Response is needed to address the impact ADHD has on her ability to stay on task. The
implementation of this accommodation is to prompt Sue when needed while testing and to
quickly review the test to make sure all items have been completed. The use of a mathematics
tool or calculation device is needed to address the objectives in the mathematics area impacted
by her disabilities. The use of a calculator allows Sue to focus on demonstrating her knowledge
of the content without attempting to stay on task to complete the numerical calculations that
could easily be done with a calculator.
The next two instructional and testing accommodations are timing and scheduling
accommodations. The one is for Extended Time and the other is for Multiple or Frequent

Running Header: IEP CASE STUDY

13

Breaks. These accommodations go hand in hand; Sue is allowed to and in more cases may be
encouraged to take breaks while working or testing in turn is allowed additional time to complete
her assignments or tests. These accommodations are used to reduce the impact of being a
student with ADHD and Autism has on her academic performance due to the difficulty she may
have to start an activity, to stay on task or to not become too anxious during an assignment.
The last two accommodations are setting accommodations; one is to Reduce
Distractions to the Student and the other is to Reduce Distractions to Other Students. Due to
Sues inability to stay on task due to her ADHD reducing distractions will tend to improve her
academic performance. Given she is allowed frequent breaks and her work response to be
monitored, it is important for the success of other students and to mitigate Sues tendency to
become anxious to reduce distractions to other students. All six of the accommodations for Sue
fit together nicely to help lessen the impact of her disabilities.
Part II C: Content of the IEP IEP Goals and Objectives
Sue has five goals on her IEP to address of the areas affected by her disability. Her goals
are in the areas of Social Interaction Skills, Social Emotional, Written Language,
Study/Organizations Skills and Math Reasoning and Applications. For each goal there are two
to four objectives.
The goal for Social Interaction is that Sue will use language to communicate feelings,
information, needs, and attitudes in order to complete interpersonal activities of daily living. For
this goal there are two objectives.
In all academic settings, Sue will listen to others ideas/perspectives without interrupting,
offer her ideas/perspective without perseverating on a topic, work collaboratively with her
partner/small group and fulfill her assigned role 80% of the time.

Running Header: IEP CASE STUDY

14

When Sue is experiencing a negative feeling or is fatigued; she will appropriately

communicate her feelings while keeping her tone of voice and volume at a calm/appropriate
level 80% of the time.
The goal for Social/Emotional is Sue will recognize and respond appropriately to
environmental factors that could trigger negative feelings (i.e. problem solve the situation and
refocus back onto task). There are two objectives for this goal also:
Sue will use learned calming/break strategies to reduce her level of negative feelings and
return to the task that she left or other tasks as assigned within a 2 -3 minute timeframe 80%
of the time.
When presented with a situation/concern that causes a negative feeling Sue will brainstorm
solutions to the situation and choose one of the solutions to implement 80% of the time.
The goal for Written Language is Sue will compose written presentations that express
personal ideas, support claims, and inform using relevant support and appropriate organizational
structures. There are three objectives supporting this goal.
Given a topic, Sue will complete a graphic organizer (i.e. outline, web, etc.) independently,
as pre-writing to organize ideas before drafting 80% of the time.
Given a writing prompt, Sue will be able to produce effective writings of various lengths
containing appropriate claims and on-topic credible supporting details (where applicable
meeting the expectations of a rubric) with 80% accuracy.
With minimal prompting, Sue will be able to revise her writing for clarity and make
necessary corrections with 80% accuracy.

15

Running Header: IEP CASE STUDY

The goal for Study/Organizational Skills is that given an organizational tool and minimal
adult supports, Sue will demonstrate the necessary organizational skills to be successful
academically in the general education setting. There are four objectives to support this goal.
Sue will submit class work and homework assignments with 80% accuracy.
Given minimal prompts, Sue will remain engaged during instructional times 80% of the time.
Given minimal prompts, Sue will maintain an organized binder on a daily basis 80% of the
time.
Given minimal prompts, Sue will record all of her homework assignments in her agenda
book (or other method) 80% of the time.
The last goal is for Math Reasoning and Application and is that given a word or multistep problems, Sue will make sense of the problem and persevere in solving. There are three
objectives to support this goal.
Given a work or multi-step problem, Sue will organize and develop a plan to solve with 80%
accuracy.
Given a word or multi-step problem, Sue will construct a viable argument to justify her
mathematical reasoning with 80% accuracy.
Given a word or multi-step problem, Sue will check her answer 3 out of 5 occasions.
Part II D: Content of the IEP Supplemental Aids and Services, Program Modifications
and Supports
Sue has several support and modifications outlined in her IEP used on a daily or with
other frequency to help ensure her success in the general education environment. The
Instructional Supports that are to be done daily are to 1) Monitor independent work, 2)
Repetition of instructions and 3) Limit the amount to be copied from the board. Sue benefits

Running Header: IEP CASE STUDY

16

from adults monitoring her independent work to ensure she remains on focused, on task and is
not becoming frustrated. Sue requires repetition of instructions due to inattentiveness. Lastly
reducing the amount to be copied from the board reduces her anxiety and allows her to focus on
the content being taught.
There are two program modifications included in her IEP. The first is a daily
modification to break down the assignments into smaller units. This is to help reduce anxiety
and to help her stay on task by chunking the material. The other program modification is a
periodic modification designed to work on her social interaction skills in an academic setting.
This modification is that when given a choice to work alone, with a partner or in a small group
Sue will be encouraged to work with a peer or in small group of peers.
Sue has several social behavior supports to help her to be successful in the general
education classroom and with her peers or adults. First, is that on a daily basis her teachers and
instructional assistants will encourage/reinforce appropriate behavior in academic and nonacademic setting. This will be done to help support her social/emotional goals and growth. The
next two supports are in place to help her access the curriculum due to Sues inattentiveness. The
supports are that adults will use strategies to initiate and to sustain her attention and will also
check for understanding. To help reduce Sues anxiety the next support is that she will be given
advance preparation for schedule changes. The next support written in her IEP is that she will
also be encouraged daily to ask for assistance when needed. This support touches upon most of
her goals but specially her study organizational skill and social interaction skills. The last
support in this section is a weekly-home school communication system. This will continue with
an email sent home by the special education teacher with input from the general education
teacher regarding Sues progress weekly. The use of a cell phone or another device was added as

17

Running Header: IEP CASE STUDY

a support to record assignments and to use the calendar feature for organizational purposes since
Sue continues to be reluctant to use her agenda book for tracking her assignments.
The last support documented on her IEP is a physical/environmental support. Sue is to be
given preferential seating. Sue benefits from preferential seating in the classroom in order to
maintain focus on the teacher due to her ADHD and to help ease her anxiety while working on
assignments. Sues modifications and supports are provided by all staff members throughout
her school day in order for her to access the grade level curriculum and make progress toward
her IEP goals.
Part III: Reflection
In middle schools in HCPSS the Special Education ITL schedules all of the IEP
meetings, initial evaluations, re-evaluations, annual and transition meetings. She is responsible
for sending all the appropriate notices and that all timelines are followed in accordance with
IDEA. As the Special Education ITL she meets with her team on a weekly basis and as part of
her meetings she help the case managers and other service providers prepare for the meetings.
She also attends the weekly grade level team meetings to keep the team informed and to also
coordinate the IEP teams in preparation for any upcoming meetings.
It was the case managers responsibility to gather the necessary input from the teachers
that work with Sue in order to do an annual review. The input is gathered using a customized
questionnaire to Sues teachers and we then followed up with any specific questions. Significant
input was provided for writing the Written Language PLAAFP and Goals from the special
educator co-teacher for Sues ELA class. He also had input in the Study/Organization Skills
area. The school psychologist worked with the case manager to create the PLAAFP for the

Running Header: IEP CASE STUDY

18

Behavioral: Social/Emotional and the proposed goals and objectives. The annual review was a
collaborative effort taking into consideration input from all of those that with Sue.
The IEP team consisted of the IEP Chairperson, her IEP case manager, the school
psychologist, both of her parents and me, the general educator. The meeting was scheduled for
and started at 9:00 AM in a conference area that is part of the office and workroom of the
Special Ed. ITL. The room allows for an oval table that sat us in the following order; IEP
Chairperson, school psychologist, case manager, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Smith, and me. The setting is
professional while comfortable and is conducive for open discussions. Although the parents
know all of us, formal introductions were made. The IEP chairperson offered the Smiths the
documents outlining the parental rights. They had reviewed the draft of the IEP and were eager
to discuss the progress Sue had made and discuss her new goals and objectives.
There was no formal agenda. The IEP chairperson asked if the parents had any
information to share or questions prior to getting started and they did not. She verified none the
student information had changed. The PLAAFP I presented was math. I was very comfortable
with this since I have contributed to this portion for IEP meetings in the past. The case manager
talked to the other academic PLAAFP and as these were discussed I was able to contribute. I
was able to do this from first hand knowledge and from working with the case manager to gather
input to prepare the annual review. The school psychologist took the lead for the
Social/Emotional area but again the whole team contributed to the discussion on Sues progress.
The next areas that were presented were the goals and objectives for the upcoming year.
The case manager reviewed all of the academic goals and objectives. With the math goals and
objectives I was able to tie them to the Maryland College and Career Readiness Standards for
Mathematics and what will be expected of Sue the remainder of this in CC 8 and next year in

Running Header: IEP CASE STUDY

19

Algebra 1. The school psychologist spoke to the behavioral social/emotional goals and
objective. At this time we also discussed the importance of the teachers establishing a
relationship with Sue to support her with her cooping strategies. It was noted this will be an
important area to discuss at the transition to high school meeting. After agreeing upon the goals
and objectives the team discussed the Instructional and Testing Accommodations, and the
Supplementary Aids, Services, Program Modifications and Supports. As mentioned before, as a
team we eliminated ones that were not being used and adjusted others to better support Sues
needs. Sue joined us at the end of the meeting when ESY and transition were discussed.
The team collaborated very well prior and throughout the meeting and were respectful
opinions and ideas shared. The parents appear comfortable with all the members of the team and
are happy with the progress and are excited for Sues future. I felt an integral part of the team
both learning a lot through being involved in the whole the process and also adding to the
outcomes with my knowledge and perspective.