Individualized Education Program Team Research Articles

Determining Need for School-Based Physical Therapy Under IDEA: Commonalities Across Practice Guidelines.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) includes physical therapy (PT) as a related service that may be provided to help students with disabilities benefit from their education. However, the IDEA does not provide specific guidance for the provision of school-based PT, resulting in variations in practice across the United States. The authors examined 22 state and local education agency guidelines available online to find commonalities related to the determination of a student's need for PT. Seven commonalities found: educational benefit, team decision, need for PT expertise, establishment of Individualized Education Program (IEP) goal before determining need for PT, distinction between medical and educational PT, the student's disability adversely affects education, and the student's potential for improvement. These commonalities are discussed in relation to current PT and special education literature. This article suggests applying these commonalities as procedural requirements and questions for discussion during an IEP team meeting.

Improving Outcomes of Behavioral Intervention Plans

According to federal mandates, if a student’s behavior impedes their learning or the learning of others, the individualized education program team is required to address this with a functional behavioral assessment (FBA). The intent of the FBA is to determine the function, or reason, of the impeding behavior for the development of a behavioral intervention plan (BIP). The BIP process is a team-based approach that includes goals and interventions that result in positive behavior change. Procedural fidelity, or compliance with the plan, is of utmost importance to success of this process. Unfortunately, such integrity is often lacking, particularly when teachers carry the responsibility of implementing BIPs in the classroom. Therefore, capacity building within the school team is imperative to increase implementation fidelity of BIPs. This article provides practitioners with the tools to organize the monitoring and implementation of BIPs in classroom settings.

Assistive Technology for Students With Disabilities

Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams are required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to consider a student’s need for assistive technology (AT). Despite this legal requirement, AT supports are often not available to students with disabilities. Many students with disabilities and their families have addressed the failure to consider and provide AT supports through litigation. The purpose of this article is to examine the case law pertaining to the assessment, selection, and provision of AT learning supports for students with disabilities. A legal analysis was conducted to determine litigation themes. Based on these results, several recommendations for IEP teams are proposed.

장애유아 통합교육기관 유아특수교사의 개별화교육지원팀 참여 경험에 대한 연구

장애유아 통합교육기관 유아특수교사의 개별화교육지원팀 참여 경험에 대한 연구

Which Procedural Parts of the IEP Process Are the Most Judicially Vulnerable?

To provide a missing piece to the legal foundation of professional development and practice for the individualized education program (IEP) process, the authors report the results of a comprehensive systematic analysis of court decisions specific to IEP-related procedural violations after the 2004 amendments of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Research questions focused on the frequency and outcomes of alleged procedural violations in the following categories: (a) IEP components, (b) IEP team, (c) parent participation, and (d) IEP development. Procedural violations in the parent participation category were the most frequently adjudicated; the outcomes ratio in court averaged approximately 3:1 in favor of school districts for cases across all four categories. Implications for practice include reconsideration of current policies and practices to whatever extent that they were based on case law rather than proactive priorities, per the lack of differentiation in prevailing publications and presentations in special education.

Overcoming Common Misunderstandings About Students With Disabilities Who Are English Language Learners

Special education programs are increasingly serving students with disabilities who are English language learners and their families. Facilitating bilingualism is an effective practice and aligns with culturally responsive special education service provision. It is critical for special educators and service providers to learn about bilingualism, second language learning, and students with disabilities to responsibly participate in individualized education program team decision making. This column presents five misunderstandings about students who are English language learners with disabilities. Based on the research literature, responses to each misunderstanding are presented and include implications and recommendations for special educators.

Understanding the Everyday Practice of Individualized Education Program Team Members

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 states that individualized education program (IEP) teams are composed of members with distinct identities, roles, expertise, and histories. Although team members must work together to implement educational and related services for learners with special needs, little is known about how these members actually accomplish this throughout the school year. This study examined the practice of members on two elementary IEP teams through analysis of data from a yearlong case study using the communities of practice (CoP) framework. Contrary to idealized conceptualizations of IEP team practice as being equitable and occurring in meetings, the practice of members on both teams was controlled by a few team members and occurred during concise exchanges throughout the day. These findings underscore opportunities for innovating the practice of IEP team members to improve services for students with special needs.

Back to the Basics

The individualized education program (IEP) is the foundation for the provision of special education services for a child with a disability. While special education teachers learn about IEP writing in their teacher preparation programs, it can still be difficult to translate this knowledge into practice. Therefore, when faced with the task of leading the IEP team in drafting portions of this critical document, many special education teachers feel underprepared and overwhelmed. This article provides five practical tips to facilitate the process of IEP writing. The tips are: (a) gather input, (b) tell the child’s story, (c) incorporate data, (d) make it flow, and (e) utilize resources. By following these simple and practical suggestions, special education teachers can be well on their way to successful IEP writing.

IEP goals for school-age children with speech sound disorders

PurposeThe purpose of the current study was to describe the current state of practice for writing Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals for children with speech sound disorders (SSDs). MethodIEP goals for 146 children receiving services for SSDs within public school systems across two states were coded for their dominant theoretical framework and overall quality. A dichotomous scheme was used for theoretical framework coding: cognitive-linguistic or sensory-motor. Goal quality was determined by examining 7 specific indicators outlined by an empirically tested rating tool. In total, 147 long-term and 490 short-term goals were coded. ResultsThe results revealed no dominant theoretical framework for long-term goals, whereas short-term goals largely reflected a sensory-motor framework. In terms of quality, the majority of speech production goals were functional and generalizable in nature, but were not able to be easily targeted during common daily tasks or by other members of the IEP team. Short-term goals were consistently rated higher in quality domains when compared to long-term goals. ConclusionsThe current state of practice for writing IEP goals for children with SSDs indicates that theoretical framework may be eclectic in nature and likely written to support the individual needs of children with speech sound disorders. Further investigation is warranted to determine the relations between goal quality and child outcomes.Learning outcomes: (1) Identify two predominant theoretical frameworks and discuss how they apply to IEP goal writing. (2) Discuss quality indicators as they relate to IEP goals for children with speech sound disorders. (3) Discuss the relationship between long-term goals level of quality and related theoretical frameworks. (4) Identify the areas in which business-as-usual IEP goals exhibit strong quality.

Effective Assistive Technology Consideration and Implications for Diverse Students

Often the consideration of assistive technology devices and services during the individualized education program (IEP) process is overlooked. Because the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorized this consideration, IEP team members must be keenly aware of the importance they hold in providing this valuable input. Thus, IEP team members require expertise in the processes that lead to quality decision-making concerning using assistive technology for the diversity of students with disabilities. This article discusses models and procedures for implementing a system to effectively evaluate whether a student with a disability will benefit from assistive technology services and/or equipment as well as considers the implications for families from diverse cultures.

Guiding IEP Teams on Meeting the Least Restrictive Environment Mandate

Two diametrically opposed beliefs are held concerning the meaning of the least restrictive environment (LRE) when determining the class placements of students with disabilities. One group adheres to the placement philosophy that the LRE is always the general education setting. The other group believes that the LRE is where the students’ needs may best be met. The controversy concerning placement has resulted in a number of court cases that can provide guidance to individualized education program (IEP) teams when discussion of the LRE occurs. A checklist for use in IEP meetings is offered.

Age-Appropriate Transition Assessment

Age-appropriate transition assessment (TA) serves as the foundation for youth with disabilities to identify measurable postsecondary goals and to determine necessary transition services to pursue such goals during the secondary school years. This position paper provides guidelines for special educators, transition specialists, and other members of the Individualized Education Program team to work with youth with disabilities, their families, and interagency personnel in providing ongoing TA. The Division on Career Development and Transition endorses this position paper, which identifies federal policy; definitions, terms, and purposes; a conceptual framework and process; and competencies for personnel involved in age-appropriate TA.

This Mattered to Me

A Survey of the Current Status of Visually Impaired Students in Secondary Mathematics, by Donald W. Rapp and Audrey J. Rapp, originally published in the February 1992 issue of the Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, Volume 86, pp. 115-117. When I was asked to take on this project and pick one single article that mattered to me, I found it to be very difficult. I have read The series editor of This Mattered to Me is Stuart H. Wittenstein, Ed.D., superintendent of the California School for the Blind. hundreds of articles from the Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness (JVIB) that have had an impact on my professional career. Like many in the field of visual impairment, I have an array of professional teaching and research interests. Thus, picking just one article on one area of was quite difficult. After much thought, I decided to go back to my roots as an educator: secondary mathematics. My first job was at the Alabama School for the Blind as its secondary mathematics teacher, and it was during my time there that I began a never-ending search for any and all information related to teaching mathematics to students with visual impairments. During this search, I discovered the JVIB article, A Survey of the Current Status of Visually Impaired Students in Secondary Mathematics, by Donald W. Rapp and Audrey J. Rapp, which included the findings of a questionnaire that was answered by teachers of students with visual impairments. Timeless research When I first read the Rapp and Rapp article, it was already eight years old, but it was the only data that existed at that time that discussed the types of mathematics that were being taught to secondary students with visual impairments. The authors conducted a simple survey of teachers of students with visual impairments in six New England states. The survey included questions on which secondary mathematics courses the teachers' students were taking, how the students were aided in their general education mathematics courses, and what tools they utilized. The most profound aspect of the article was the finding that of the 40 students who were reported as using braille as their primary literacy medium, only 19 (over half) were not enrolled in typical secondary mathematics courses. From this finding, one can surmise that either a large proportion of the students studied had cognitive disabilities in addition to their visual impairment that inhibited their abilities to take secondary mathematics courses or that their IEP (Individualized Education Program) teams did not push them to enroll in higher mathematics courses. Although cognitive disabilities may have ruled out higher mathematics for a number of these students, I suspect the latter is true. In my experience in the field of visual impairment, unfortunately, I do not believe that conditions have improved since this article was published. Let this study serve as a reminder that students who are blind need to be encouraged to enroll in higher mathematics courses. The article also highlighted the need for increased teacher training in braille. I was moved by the fact that 73% of the teachers who responded to the survey expressed interest in a workshop to review concepts of algebra, geometry and algebra II, with application of the Nemeth Code (p. …

From Common Core State Standards to Standards-Based IEPs: A Brief Tutorial

Abstract Clinicians can use the Common Core State Standards (2010) along with requirements in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004) to create conditions that support standards-based goals and objectives in a student's individualized education program (IEP). The IEP is the blueprint for speech-language pathology services provided to and on behalf of students with disabilities that allow them to participate in and make progress in the general curriculum (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association [ASHA], 2007). The IEP is written to meet the unique needs of the individual child and to delineate the specially designed instruction the child needs to make progress in meeting grade level or course standards. School-based speech-language pathologists are important IEP team members as educators move into a system that uses IEP development as a problem-solving tool rather than a listing of skills that will be taught to the student with disabilities.

Special Education Eligibility: When Is a Speech-Language Impairment Also a Disability?

Special Education Eligibility: When Is a Speech-Language Impairment Also a Disability?

Individualized Education Program Team Decisions: A Preliminary Study of Conversations, Negotiations, and Power

Given the centrality of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) to services for students with disabilities, the decision-making process during the IEP meeting deserves attention in research and implementation. In this case study, IEP team decision-making is examined as a socially situated practice. Transcripts of an initial evaluation and IEP meeting and subsequent interviews with team members were analyzed in concert with the pertinent documents to understand the decision-making process and outcomes for a 5-year-old boy. The student's diagnosis, placement, and goal setting resulted in discussion and were pursued in postmeeting interviews. Further analysis was conducted regarding the proportion of interactions among participants. Results indicate that the turn-taking structure of the IEP meeting, the IEP template, and communication prior to the meeting influenced the decisions, and individual team members held opinions that they did not voice during the meeting.

How to Determine the Least Restrictive Environment for Students with Disabilities

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that students with disabilities be educated with peers without disabilities “to the maximum extent appropriate.” When the individualized education program (IEP) team is reviewing the student's current performance, establishing the student's goals, and determining the services that the student will require, they must also identify the least restrictive environment (LRE) in which these services can be provided. In this article, we (a) define LRE, (b) summarize the legislation and case law that impacts the selection of the LRE, and (c) offer a decision tree for IEP teams determining a student's LRE.

A Case Law Review of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for Children with Hearing Loss or Auditory Processing Disorders

In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142), and it has been revised and modified several times. At the time of this writing, this law was most recently amended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647, December 3, 2004), which took effect on July 1, 2005. Colloquially the law is still referred to as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Children with hearing loss or auditory processing disorder (APD) may qualify for services under IDEA. However, a review of the literature found no review of case law for such children. This article provides a comprehensive review of case law involving the IDEA and children with hearing loss or APD from the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. courts of appeals. We conducted a systematic review of case law. A LexisNexis search for cases involving IDEA and children with hearing loss or APDs was conducted. For the purpose of the present case review, all appellate decisions (cases accepted by the U.S. courts of appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court) were included if they found that the child had hearing loss or APD, regardless of the reason for the appeal under IDEA. In the instance of multiple cases that involved the same two parties, these cases are summarized together to provide the legal context. Brief explanations of IDEA and the federal judicial process as it pertains to IDEA disputes are presented. Following these explanations, a chronological review of IDEA appellate cases concerning students with hearing loss or APD is provided. The IDEA cases reviewed focus on three main issues: placement of the child, methodology of teaching, and the provision of services. This case law review provides a helpful summary of higher court cases for educational audiologists and parents of children with hearing loss or APDs, as well as educators, individualized education program team members, school administrators, and legal representatives involved in IDEA cases.

Computer-Based Screening for the New Modified Alternate Assessment

The final regulations of the No Child Left Behind Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2007a, 2007b) indicate that a small group of students with disabilities can be counted as proficient through an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards. This new policy gives individualized education program teams the responsibility of identifying students eligible for this assessment. The Computer-Based Alternate Assessment Screening (C-BAAS) tests in reading and mathematics are designed to assist with this determination. A concurrent validity study with students ( n = 463) from Indiana indicates that the C-BAAS tests share large correlations with state general achievement tests and might be appropriate screening tools for predicting below proficient achievement. Predictive validity studies with students in Idaho ( n = 161) and Arizona ( n = 70), using a set of conditional probability indices, show that C-BAAS tests meet or exceed the performance of multiple published screening systems for academic problems. The implications of these findings for individualized education program teams, for the C-BAAS tests, and for computer-based screening in general are discussed.

Unique Considerations for Assessing the Learning Media of Students who are Deaf-Blind

The use of current assessment results is essential part of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process for students with disabilities. The results of assessments allow the IEP team to write accurate statements of present levels of performance and thus student-centered goals and objectives. For students with visual impairments, including students with deaf-blindness, three key assessments are performed: the functional vision assessment, the media assessment, and the expanded core curriculum assessment. For students who are deaf-blind, specialized assessment and instructional techniques are necessary because of the unique impact of a dual sensory impairment. A survey of teachers of students with visual impairments who were working with students who are deaf-blind found that only 23% conducted media assessments with these students (McKenzie, 2007). A similar study found that only 13.8% of the cumulative school records of students with deaf-blindness or visual and multiple impairments contained reports of media assessments (McKenzie, in press). McKenzie recommended that educational teams change their perception of the media assessment process to include its use with all students with visual impairments, including those who are deaf-blind, as well as to increase in-service and professional development opportunities for teachers of students with visual impairments regarding the use of media assessments with this student population. In this report, I present the unique considerations for conducting a media assessment with students who are deaf-blind, including the use of communication assessments as part of a comprehensive assessment. LEARNING MEDIA ASSESSMENT With the increased federal and state emphasis on the acquisition of literacy skills, a media assessment can provide the educational team with essential information about a student's potential or current literacy media. A media assessment is an objective process of systematically selecting media and literacy media; this assessment process guides the educational team in making deliberate and informed decisions on the total range of instructional media needed to facilitate learning (Koenig & Holbrook, 1995, p. 2). The main purpose of a media assessment is to evaluate a student's preferred use of sensory channels, general media (visual, tactile, or auditory), and literacy media (print, braille, or print and braille). This assessment can be initial assessment for young students or newly identified students with visual impairments or a continuing assessment for students who have already received initial media assessment. In either case, the media assessment is ongoing assessment that is conducted informally each year and formally at least every three years. Because of the ongoing national braille literacy crisis, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 includes a subsection on media assessments: In the case of a child who is blind or visually impaired, provide for instruction in braille and the use of braille unless the IEP Team determines, after evaluation of the child's reading and writing skills, needs, and appropriate reading and writing media (including evaluation of the child' s future needs for instruction in braille or the use of braille), that instruction in braille or the use of braille is not appropriate for the child (Section 614 (3)(B)(iii)). Many states' regulations also require the use of media assessments for students with visual impairments. For students who are deaf-blind, it is critical that the educational team consider the relationship between the development of communication and literacy skills. The fields of visual impairments and multiple impairments have embraced a broad definition of literacy that includes communication skills (Durando, 2008). …