Special ed process—Step 2: Planning an appropriate program

This is the third in a multi-part series of posts about essential processes in special education. For context, please see these previous posts: Special ed process—Overview and Special ed process—Step 1: Eligibility. In the US, students with disabilities who have been found eligible for special education must, by law, receive a free and appropriate education. The US laws ensuring FAPE began with Public Law 94-142 in 1975 which was known as “Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975” and continued through successor acts which have usually been known as “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.” The most recent incarnation of “IDEA” was passed in 2004 as P.L. 108-446 and was amended in 2015 as a part of the “Every Student Success Act” (P. L. 114-95).

Among the many aspects of the US laws, one of the central functions stipulates that a team of individuals—specifically assembled for each individual student with a disability, not a standing committee—will agree upon an individualized education program to meet that student’s unique educational needs. In the Bateman-Linden (2012) diagram, development of an IEP is the second leg of the triangle.

The second leg of the triangle is at once separate from but also can be influenced by the previous eligibility decision. It is separate in that the student’s identified disability does not expressly dictate the appropriate educational program. There should not be an “EBD Program,” an “Orthopedically Impaired Program,” a “Learning Disability Program,” or a program designed for a group of students. In a sense, once the decision about eligibility has been made, then that eligibility step is done, over, finished. The disability category becomes minimally important.

The eligibility question is about just (and only) that: Is the individual student eligible for special education services. The next question is different: Given that she’s eligible, what are this student’s strengths and weaknesses and what should educators do to ensure that she receives an appropriate education? It’s not “what does a student with an intellectual disability need?” It’s “what does this specific student need?” The IEP team’s responsibility is to create an individualized education program.

Share

The IEP team may (and very likely should) use evidence about the student gathered as a part of the eligibility evaluation. Was the student’s disability exacerbated when participating in large groups? Did she continue to fail to master computation even when receiving Tier-2 small-group, supplemental instruction twice a week? Was he still unable to complete independent work even when the tasks had been shortened and he had learned to monitor his own task completion? Eligibility data bearing on such problems should be useful to the IEP team in planning a program.

IDEA provided an explicit definition of “IEP” in section 300.320(a) of the law. Here is how it reads:

The term individualized education program or IEP means a written statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in a meeting.

This simple statement is followed by additional paragraphs that list what should be included in the IEP. The required inclusions are

1. A statement of the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, including—

   (i) How the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum (i.e., the same curriculum as for nondisabled children); or

   (ii) For preschool children, as appropriate, how the disability affects the child’s participation in appropriate activities;

2. (i) A statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals designed to—

   (A) Meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and

   (B) Meet each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability;

   (ii) For children with disabilities who take alternate assessments aligned to alternate academic achievement standards, a description of benchmarks or short-term objectives;

3. A description of—

   (i) How the child’s progress toward meeting the annual goals described in paragraph (2) of this section will be measured; and

   (ii) When periodic reports on the progress the child is making toward meeting the annual goals (such as through the use of quarterly or other periodic reports, concurrent with the issuance of report cards) will be provided;

4. A statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided to enable the child—

   (i) To advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals;

   (ii) To be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; and

   (iii) To be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled children in the activities described in this section;

5. An explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child will not participate with nondisabled children in the regular class and in the activities described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section;

6. (i) A statement of any individual appropriate accommodations that are necessary to measure the academic achievement and functional performance of the child on State and districtwide assessments consistent with section 612(a)(16) of the Act; and

   (ii) If the IEP Team determines that the child must take an alternate assessment instead of a particular regular State or districtwide assessment of student achievement, a statement of why—

   (A) The child cannot participate in the regular assessment; and

   (B) The particular alternate assessment selected is appropriate for the child; and

7. The projected date for the beginning of the services and modifications described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, and the anticipated frequency, location, and duration of those services and modifications.

(b) Transition services. Beginning not later than the first IEP to be in effect when the child turns 16, or younger if determined appropriate by the IEP Team, and updated annually, thereafter, the IEP must include—

1. Appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments related to training, education, employment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills; and

2. (2) The transition services (including courses of study) needed to assist the child in reaching those goals.

(c) Transfer of rights at age of majority. Beginning not later than one year before the child reaches the age of majority under State law, the IEP must include a statement that the child has been informed of the child’s rights under Part B of the Act, if any, that will transfer to the child on reaching the age of majority under §300.520.

(d) Construction. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require—

1. That additional information be included in a child’s IEP beyond what is explicitly required in section 614 of the Act; or

2. The IEP Team to include information under one component of a child’s IEP that is already contained under another component of the child’s IEP.

   [71 FR 46753, Aug. 14, 2006, as amended at 72 FR 61307, Oct. 30, 2007]

Although the language may seem daunting, this legal description of the IEP isn’t terribly opaque. If one simply reads it as a continuous statement, it’s clear. But let’s simplify and review.

There are three main questions that the IEP team needs to address:

1. What are this student’s unique educational needs?

2. What special education and related services do we need to provide to meet those unique educational needs?

3. How will we know whether those needs are being met?

UENs?

Just what does this student need? What are her present levels of performance? What are his strengths and weaknesses? Does the IEP need to address certain academic areas? Certain social-behavioral areas? Certain vocational areas? What are this child’s unique education needs?

Does she need to learn how to navigate the school building (go from classroom to restroom, office to gym, etc.) on her own? Is he struggling to complete essays on what he’s read in history books? Does she need to learn to dictate because her tremors are so substantial that she can’t write by hand or type? Does he need to learn how to compare prices for similar products? This catalog of needs could go on and on and on, because the needs of children with disabilities are plentiful.

For some situations, the law listed specific requirements. For students whose behavior “impedes the child’s learning or that of others,” the IEP team must consider whether to require positive behavioral interventions and supports. For students who have limited proficiency in understanding and speaking English, the team should consider how those needs influence the each student’s IEP; for students who have visual impairments, including blindness, the team should determine whether it is appropriate to teach the students to use Braille (maybe some assistive technology would be better).

For students who have been identified as having a disability that requires special education services, determining unique educational needs is a critical step in designing a program that will provide free and appropriate education. But, what is special education?

Special education means…

The US laws expressly define “special education” and “related services.” The definition is simple and clear:

Special education means specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including (i) Instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings; and (ii) Instruction in physical education.

“Specially designed instruction” obviously is not “general,” “ordinary,” “common,” or “regular.” It is different instruction from what everyone gets. It can’t mean just giving a student a chance to mature so that “he’ll come out of it.” It’s not just providing additional personal, teacher-student attention so “she’ll feel good about herself.” Such modifications are not only misunderstandings of “specially designed instruction,” but also pursuits of red-herrings (e.g., self-confidence) that have tenuous causal influences on students’ outcomes.

In a justly famous statement, Naomi Zigmond asserted that “special education is, first and foremost, instruction focused on individual need. It is carefully planned. It is intensive, urgent, relentless, and goal directed. It is empirically supported practice, drawn from research. To provide special education means to set priorities and select carefully what needs to be taught. It means teaching something special and teaching it in a special way. (1997; pp. 284-385).

Whether the subject or topic of special education is learning how to use navigation cues during orientation and mobility instruction, completing complex chemistry tasks, or learning how to write squiggles to represent spoken sounds, the instruction is special. That instruction may be special in simple ways—e.g., the number of practice opportunities it provides—or more complex ways—e.g., the type and salience of prompts it provides to scaffold accurate responding—but it should be predicated on research. It shouldn’t be more of the same-old-same-old. And it shouldn’t be special in nonsensical ways (e.g., because it’s based on the student’s “modality style”).

Monitoring progress

The IEP should explain how parents, teachers, and administrators—and, students, themselves—will know that they are moving toward the goals and objectives they have selected as foci of instruction. When an IEP team member says to herself, “Hmm, I wonder how Jesus is doing?,” there should be a readily accessible, objective way of answering the question. An answer like, “Oh, I think he’s doing great!” is not sufficient. How does one know “he’s doing great?” What does “doing” mean?

When IDEA first became law in the 1970s, many of the behaviorists among us were pretty excited about incorporating written objectives in IEPs. We would specify what the student would do under what conditions and at what level of proficiency. How far will she progress by when? Given grade-level passages, she’ll read them at > 100 wpm with no more than 2 mistakes by March? Whoohoo! We hoped that Mager’s (1962) view of instructional objectives would be like the camel poking its nose into the tent. Alas, it wasn’t to be. Maybe it was just too hard to identify conditions simply and clearly? Maybe folks just wanted kids to be able to do something, but not have the kids actually do that something. Maybe people just didn’t want to be that accountable? Probably we simply didn’t do a good job of teaching people how to Mager-style objectives. For whatever reason, these days the objectives part of IEPs seems to be emphasized less than it once was.

It’s critically important that special education works. There’s no sense in designing an IEP that isn’t going to provide benefits. When general education methods have been provided and the student isn’t learning adequately, there isn’t time to waste. The student needs the most efficient instruction available. How does on know what that instruction is? What if there are two or more alternatives…which works better? These are the topics of scholarly research and, just as Zigmond (1997) wrote, special education instruction should be based on evidence; it should be “empirically supported.” There is a wealth of empirically supported instructional practices; they’re available and one of the responsibilities of teachers and administrators on IEP teams is to do the professional work to locate them.

But, because there haven’t been tests of everything—every instructional practice, program, or procedure—and because no intervention (yes, I’m stating that in absolute terms) has been shown to work with each and every individual, it’s important to track whether specialized instruction provided under and IEP is working for this special student. That is to say that monitoring progress it way important. If some instruction is not working, get it out of there pronto and replace it with something the IEP team deems appropriate. If special instruction is working, rejoice!

There are additional considerations regarding IEPs that one should understand. Sometimes there are special circumstances that are the focus of IEPs. For example, there are two issues related to a student’s age: early childhood and adult life:

1. Individual Family Service Plans or IFSP—For very young children with disabilities, a broadly constituted team will develop guidance to help a family provide beneficial environments. The legal guidance about services for very young children (infants and toddlers) with disabilities was written into “Part C” of IDEA. In addition to parents, the team should include service providers (case coordinator from a social-services agency, medical personnel, early education specialist, and other specialists). The focus is less on academic and social learning and more on how a family provides appropriate developmental care for a child with a disability. Many of the general ideas from IEPs are included: What are the child’s strengths and weaknesses? What outcomes are important and needed? What services should be provided to aid in reaching those outcomes? What preparations should be made so the child can transition to preschool, community program, and an IEP? In the US, the PACER Center’s section on Early Childhood Family Information and Resources and the US ED-supported Center for Parent Information & Resources provided valuable content on IFSPs. Many US states also provide resources via their sites focused on early childhood (search for “early childhood disability services” with the name of your state in the search).

2. Transition—What will schools provide to prepare a student for future “real-life” activities such as work, independent living, post-secondary education, and so forth. Section 300.43 provided a brief introduction of transition services. For adolescents, IEPs should include discussions about plans for working, living in the community, and other post-secondary pursuits. The plan should be developed by a team and should be predicated on the individual student’s strengths and needs. It should specify goals for the student’s postsecondary live and the services that will provided to the student to help achieve those goals.
   OSERS of the US Department of Education published A Transition Guide to Postsecondary Education and Employment for Students and Youth with Disabilities that readers should consult. The US PACER Center’s National Parent Center on Transition and Employment has extensive resources about transition. One can also find help centers associated with the US National Network of University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities, which links to more local providers such as the Institute on Community Integration in Minnesota. Also, many US states have government offices focused on transition within their rehabilitative services agencies.

Some readers may find learning about IEPs confusing or overwhelming. There’s a lot to think about when one is concerned about securing FAPE for a student, whether you are a parent, teacher, or administrator. Even if one feels pretty knowledgeable about IEPs, it’s still pretty wise to consult a couple of go-to resources.

As anyone who has searched the Intertubes for “ieps” can probably attest, there are about a gazillion Web sites offering resources. I recommend that readers avoid pretty much any site that offers “20 Tips,” “Easy IEPs,” “IEP Hacks,” “IEPs for ‘SLPs’ | ‘Busy Principals’ | ‘Moms on the Go’ | ‘Anxious Kids’ | ‘Children with ‘ADHD’ | ‘Martians who Just Landed Here Yesterday,’” “IEP Survival Guide,” “Secrets of the IEP: What the Law Doesn’t Tell You,” or similar advice.

Instead of depending on Internet resources that too often provide incomplete and even erroneous guidance (like this very post!), get a good book. You can make notes about the parts of it that matter to you, underline in it, write in the margins of it, consult it about special topics, etc. Here is an image (not linked) of two books (see references to Bateman & Linden, 2012, and Yell et al., 2021).

Consult government documents about IEPs. There are US ED OSEP resources that can be quite helpful. I remember one from 20 years ago (A Guide to the Individualized Education Program) that I liked, but it’s now outdated and archived. There is a newer guide called “school-roadmap-development-and-implementation-of-ieps/” rel=””>Return to school Roadmap: Development and Implementation of Individualized Education Programs (Sept. 30, 2021)” that one can consult.

Individualized Education Programs are plans for meeting the needs of students with disabilities. In the US, they are based on federal (and state) laws regarding education of individuals with disabilities who need special education. They are negotiated by a team of people who have interests in the students educational development. They specify the student’s unique needs, how those needs will be met, and how people can tell whether the programmed services are working. They also explain the location where the services will be provided…but that’s a topic of another post about the next leg of the triangle.

Bateman, B. D., & Linden, M. A. (2012). Better IEPs: How to develop legally correct and educationally useful programs (5th ed.). Attainment. https://www.attainmentcompany.com/better-ieps

Heufner, D. S. (1997). The legalization and federalization of special education. In J. W. Lloyd, E. J. Kameenui, & D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 343-362). Erlbaum.

Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. Fearon.

Martin, E. W. (2013). Breakthrough: Federal special education legislation 1965-1981. Bardoff.

Yell, M.L., Bateman, D.F., & Shriner, J.G. (2021). Developing educationally meaningful and legally sound IEP. Rowman & Littlefield. https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781538138007/Developing-Educationally-Meaningful-and-Legally-Sound-IEPs

Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis, & Bradley, R. M. (2017). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: The evolution of special education law. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed.; pp. 55-70). Routledge.

Zigmond, N. (1997). Educating students with disabilities: The future of special education. In J. W. Lloyd, E. J. Kame’enui, & D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 325–342). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Footnotes