A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program

8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program

1/127

AONE PAGE IEPThe Case for the Communicative Individualized

Education Program

ByRICHARD JAMES LUCIDO PH.D.

East Detroit Educational Press

Maple Forest, Michigan

U.S.A


2/127

Copyright 2013 Richard James Lucido

All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book

may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in

the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

ISBN: 148107265X

ISBN 13: 978-1481072656


3/127

For Samuel, James, and Jack


4/127

Table of Contents

Chapter 1

Introduction __________________________________________ 3Chapter 2

The Legal IEP Paradigm _________________________________9Chapter 3

Legality in IEPs is Unnecessary ___________________________27Chapter 4

What is a Plan? ______________________________________33Chapter 5

Introduction to the Communicative IEP ___________________39Chapter 6

Where is the Form? ___________________________________52Chapter 7

Examples for Elementary Students _______________________ 61Chapter 8

Examples for Secondary Students ________________________75Chapter 9

Final Thoughts and Other Considerations __________________ 91

References ___________________________________________103Appendix ____________________________________________107Acknowledgements ____________________________________117About the Author ______________________________________119


5/127


6/127

3

Chapter 1

Introduction

he following was written to offer a simple solution to an often

illuminated problem in special education. That is, our Indi-

vidualized Education Program (IEP) documents have strayed

from their original functional purpose. Instead of being

designed to efficiently communicate the details of a childs educa-

tional programming to educators and parents, our IEPs are primarily

focused on legalities and the documentation of compliance with state

and federal law. This misplaced emphasis on legality has lessened

the practical utility of the IEP document to the classroom teacher. It

has also created a significant paperwork burden, which has siphonededucator resources away from service delivery.

The legal focus of IEPs is far from a new problem. Many in the

field have been expressing concern over this issue for years. Burns

(2006) notes that, The erosion of the IEP from a real educational

plan to legalistic document to show compliance has trivialized the

importance and use of the IEP (p. 9). IEP development researcher

Schick (2007) reports, The IEP, because of its legalistic nature and

complexity has further separated the education of children with

disabilities from the children without disabilities (p.6). Perhaps

most poignantly, the Presidents Commission Report on Special

T


7/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

4

Education Excellence (2002) came to the conclusion that, The

original concept of IEPs as an instructional framework for a defined

period of a childs education has been lost to the greater need to

document legal and procedural compliance (p.16).

These researchers argue, as do I, that our IEP documents are

not doing what they should. Instead of efficiently communicating the

details of a students educational plan, they are focused on legalities.

The documentation of compliance and the protection of the school

district have taken precedence over creating a document that has

practical value to those professionals charged with its implementa-

tion. This is done to the extent that in many places, such as in myhome county, IEPs are routinely up to 20 or more pages in length. A

20 page document designed to provide evidence of procedural com-

pliance is simply not helpful to teachers, parents, and students. On

the contrary, to the extent that an IEPs length and complexity lessen

the likelihood that it will be kept on hand and actually used by teach-

ers, it is damaging.

This book offers a broad solution to the problem, which is that

the field should reconceptualize the written IEP as a communicative

tool as opposed to a legal document. The central purpose of the

written IEP should be to communicate the details of a childs educa-

tional program to those responsible for its implementation, not to

protect the district from dissatisfied parents or to prove compliance

to the state. It will be argued that this reconceptualization will

produce IEP documents that are more useful in the classroom, as

well as result in a significant savings of educator resources that couldbe better prioritized toward service delivery.

As a practicing school psychologist, and parent of a child with

Severe Multiple Impairments, I have witnessed the negative effects of

the current legal IEP paradigm first hand. I have been a parent in a

90 minute IEP meeting and watched six other professionals arduous-

ly document their efforts in regards to my son in front of me. About

that, unfortunately, I cannot legitimately complain for I have done

the same to countless other parents over the span of my career.

I do not think my story is unique, but I want to share it so that

my perspective is made clear. As I mentioned, I am a school psy-


8/127

Introduction

5

chologist writing this during the summer break between my 10thand

11thyear on the job. About two years ago I crossed a threshold that I

had been approaching for some time. I found that I was spending

nearly as much time writing, proofing, and correcting IEPs (and

related paperwork) than meeting with kids. It is not a pleasant feel-

ing to know that such a large part of your workday is aimed at pro-

ducing a document whose only actual purpose seems to be to sit in a

filing cabinet and wait for an audit. The reality was that our IEPs

became so thick and complex that they were simply not read. They

became useless to staff. Crushed under the weight of their own

legality, they lost all communicative value.Over my career I have spent many days in county level profes-

sional development meetings going over the yearly changes in the

IEP document, learning what new compliance probes were going to

be used by auditors to monitor our IEPs. Then, being a school psy-

chologist and special education department leader, it was partly my

job to bring this information back to our special education staff

meetings and inform the teachers. I would present the changes in

how we were to document in order to be compliant and stay out of

trouble. The staff of course would groan, Why are we changing this

again? Why is this necessary? At first these complaints annoyed me

greatly. Do your job people, I thought. Grow up. You are sup-

posed to be professionals. Looking back at it now, I find that these

internal retorts were just my knee jerk reactions to being questioned.

The truth was that I had no satisfactory answers for them. Why were

we taking so much time away from kids to focus on the painstakingcreation and perfection of an ever changing legal document that

appeared to fulfill a solely bureaucratic purpose? What was the value

in expending so many resources on the task of proving compliance?

Since I did not yet know what to do about these nagging doubts,

I avoided letting them upset me. I rationalized, maybe this is com-

monplace, I thought, a function of large organizations. So 20 to

30 percent of my workday is spent on a largely meaningless activity.

I am just doing what I have been asked to do. I am following my

directives, doing my job. I cannot do anything to change our system


9/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

6

anyway. I reasoned this problem away. I traveled the path of least

resistance and life went on, at least for a little while.

Later that year I had a meeting with my friend Dena, a special

education teacher at the high school where I worked. It was the

change of the semester and she wanted to show me something. She

had written a single page information sheet for some of the students

on her caseload. This information sheet contained a description of

the students disability, a brief description of their needs, what ser-

vices they were getting, and what accommodations needed to be

implemented in the classroom. She was going to send these out to

the students teachers. She told me that she thought this was a goodidea because, other than the simple accommodation notice form that

our school used, the teachers had no way of knowing anything about

these kids. They needed a reference to give them sufficient back-

ground, to let them know what they needed to do for these students

in the classroom and why they needed to do it. I told her that I

thought it was a great idea. She sent her information sheets out to

the teachers and received positive feedback. This simple exercise

appeared to be really helpful.

It took me several months after this conversation to realize the

significance of what had happened. When Dena told me her plan,

there must have been a reason why I didnt simply suggest that she

just give teachers copies of her studentsIEPs. Doing so would have

saved her the time in writing these new one page documents. It

would have been the simplest solution. However, I realized, as I am

sure she did, that our 20 page IEPs didnt communicate anything.Instead of seeing them as a help, giving teachers a copy would be

seen as overwhelming them. In contrast, what was helpful was

Denas simple one page document that efficiently communicated

each students needs and services to their teachers. The teachers

liked it. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggested that accommo-

dations were being implemented with a higher fidelity.

My first impulse was to try and get everyone at our high school

to do the same thing, to write this one page communicative IEP to

give to other teachers. Initially this made sense to me. We will write

a 20 page legal IEP for the state (because we have to), and then a


10/127

Introduction

7

one page communicative IEP for the benefit of our teachers, as well

as our parents and students who would also appreciate it. One IEP

will keep us legally protected and in compliance, and the other will be

useful.

Now it likely goes without saying that suggesting that we write

another IEP for each student (even if it is only one page) is a good

way to keep yourself unpopular in the lunchroom. Fortunately, I

realized this before I ever suggested it to anyone that such an activity

ought to be mandatory. However, I soon started thinking that maybe

we dont have to do two. What if we could tinker with Denas infor-

mation sheet just enough so that it would become the actual IEP?Maybe, I thought, we could write a one page IEP that would satisfy

the state and be useful at the same time.

Armed with this hope I reexamined IDEA 2004. I read every-

thing I could: independent research studies, governmental reports,

every state model IEP form, and the law itself. I concluded that it

could be done. By making a broad conceptual shift, a recommitment

to the purpose of the document, we could write short, practical, IDEA

2004 compliant IEPs that have a high communicative facility. I wrote

this book to convey my findings on the matter. I have arrived at four

simple conclusions based on the available evidence regarding our

current IEP processes. These are as follows:

1.) The current legal IEP paradigm produces documents withlow communicative facility.

2.) The current legal IEP paradigm drains staff resources,which directly affects the service level available to stu-

dents.

3.) The current legal IEP paradigm is based on neither practi-cal nor legal necessity.

4.) Improving our IEPs will require a broad conceptual shiftfrom a legal/contractual underpinning to a communica-

tive purpose.


11/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

8

The rest of this book will concern itself with explaining each of these

conclusions further. It will also present my views of what a commu-

nicative IEP is and how to write one.


12/127


13/127

9

Chapter 2

The Legal IEP Paradigm

roadly speaking, our special education processes are ineffi-

cient and have conceptually drifted from their intended

purpose. What was conceived as a system to benefit studentsby encouraging high standards and parental cooperation has

become bogged down in legalities and the documentation of compli-

ance. This problem is not new. It has been recognized by the federal

government for years. For example, consider the findings from the

President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education Report

(2002):

The current system often places process above results, andbureaucratic compliance above student achievement, excellence

and outcomes. The system is driven by complex regulations,

excessive paperwork, and ever-increasing administrative

demands at all levels (p. 7).

Congress attempted to address these concerns in the introduction to

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004. Theywrite:

B


14/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

10

Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated the

education of children with disabilities can be made more effective

by focusing resources on teaching and learning while reducing

paperwork and requirements that do not assist in improving

educational results (20 U. S. C. 1400 (c) (5)(G)).

Consider further the Senate Report on the Individuals with Disabili-

ties Education Act (2003); which concludes:

Lengthy and complex IEPs are not necessarily beneficial to

students if they create confusion and take teachers away frominstructional time with children (p. 30).

Although Congress has recognized this problem, over focus on the

documentation of compliance and litigious paperwork continues to

be detrimental to effective service delivery. Consider the conclusions

from the Texas Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (Ca-

ranikas-Walker et al, 2006):

Both special education teachers and other special education

professionals devoted many hours per month to non-teaching

tasks or tasks other than providing direct services to students. For

other special education professionals, it appears that more work

hours are spent on paperwork such as developing IEPs

(Individualized Education Programs), ARD (Admission, Review,

and Dismissal) committee work, and other administrative tasksthan on providing direct services to students. This directly

impacts the service level for special education students (p. 23).

While the general problem with legality in special education is

broader than any one process or aspect of the system, at the center of

all special education paperwork and process is the Individualized

Education Program (IEP), a yearly document created for each stu-

dent to guide their services within special education. Therefore, it is

this document that will be our focus.


15/127


16/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

12

individualized education; instead they are focused on legal

protection and compliance with regulatory processes..The

original concept of IEPs as an instructional framework for a

defined period of a childs education has been lost to the greater

need to document legal and procedural compliance (p. 16)

The above defines the counterproductive conceptualization that

exists regarding the purpose of the IEP document. That is, IEPs are

constructed as if they were legal documents, or contracts, formal

binding agreements between parents and schools regarding service

delivery and access to programs. Equal to this purpose in the cur-rent paradigm is the IEPs role in documenting compliance with

IDEA 2004 and specific state regulations. This legal focus detracts

from what ought to be the core purpose of the IEP document, effi-

ciently communicating the details of the education plan to school

staff, parents, and students so that it could be effectively implement-

ed. For the rest of this book, IEPs written with the primary aim of

being contracts and documentation of compliance will be termed

legal IEPs. In contrast, IEPs whose construction places the docu-

ments communicative facility above its purpose as a contract and

proof of compliance will be termed communicative IEPs.

Legal IEPs are not Communicative Documents

Legal IEPs are not designed as communicative tools that describe astudents educational program to those entrusted with its implemen-

tation. Instead they are technical documents designed as legal safe-

guards for schools and parents. Their content and layout appear to be

more a function of districtspiecemeal responses to state compliance

probes than a result of a serious consideration of how to produce a

document that has practical value to those working with students.

Addressing the reasons why Texas IEPs were often more than 20

pages long, Borreca (2011) gave the following testimony describing

how this defensive legality enters the process:


17/127


13

One explanation is an unwarranted and unjustified fear of

litigation. Over the years, there has been litigation and it has been

emphasized to document, document, and document. Pages of

paperwork have been added to cover issues at the local or state

level. Local districts have been reported to have added elements

because the state has come in for review, and said, I dont see

documentation for this. (p. 4)

The above highlights a central issue in legal IEP construction. Be-

cause of pressure on districts to create ever more perfect legal docu-

ments, IEPs are often designed more for the audience of statecompliance monitors than they are for parents and general education

teachers. A document whose primary purpose is to demonstrate that

a district is in compliance and legally protected will not be designed

in such a way as to maximize its effectiveness as a communicative

reference for those involved with the student. These end points have

little overlap. The consequence of this legal first paradigm appears

to be the decreasing communicative value of our IEP documents in

inverse proportion to their legal sophistication.

Three central areas of content in legal IEPs appear to decrease

their communicative value. In order of importance, these are an over

documentation of the IEP development considerations, nonindividu-

alized content, such as inserted sections of special education law and

administrative statements, and protective statements documenting

that the district followed procedure. Because these content areas add

length and dilute the vital content, they limit the effectiveness of theIEP document as a communicative tool.

Let us first examine the over documentation of federal compli-

ance in regards to the considerations mandated to be taken into

account in the construction of each IEP. IDEA 2004 explicitly stipu-

lates that the IEP take into consideration multiple issues. Among

these are the concerns of the parents, the academic, developmental,

and functional needs of the student, the strengths of the student, the

results of past and current evaluations of the student, the impact of

the students behavior on their learning, thecommunication needs of

the student, the needs of english language learners, the needs of


18/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

14

students with visual impairments, and the students assistive tech-

nology needs. It is common in the design of legal IEP documents to

set aside a text box for most or all of these considerations. The IEP

team is then obligated to write stylized statements and perhaps

supply actual data for each consideration as documented proof that

the considerations were in fact considered. See the State of Dela-

wares (Delaware Department of Education, 2007) or the State of

Illinois (Illinois State Board of Education, 2010) model IEP forms

for typical examples of this practice.

Although it is common practice to produce statements for each

of the considerations in the IEP, it is not required by federal law.IDEA 2004 clearly stipulates what statements are necessary in the

IEP in section 1414(d)(1)(A)1. In section 614(d)(1)(A)(ii) the rule of

construction states that nothing else beyond what is explicitly re-

quired by this law is required. Therefore, statements in the IEP that

document each consideration are not required. It should be noted

that a proper IEP does consider all of the preceding issues. However,

to consider means to think and discuss. It does not mean to docu-

ment. This excessive documentation, apart from being a drain on

educator resources, unnecessarily adds to the length of the docu-

ment, making it more difficult to read. This reduces the IEPs com-

municative facility to teachers, parents, and students, the opposite of

what should be the goal.

It is further the case that many districts across many states are

asked to provide documentation for considerations that are not even

explicit in IDEA 2004. Most typically this documentation is in re-gards to the placement decision making process. An example of this

common practice can be seen in the following section from the New

Mexico model IEP form (New Mexico Public Education Department,

2012).

1The reader may review the sections of IDEA 2004 that govern IEP construction in

the appendix.


19/127


15

Section of the New Mexico Model IEP FormFederal regulations and state rules require that all public agencies have a continuum of alternativeservice and setting options" available as needed in order to meet the needs of children with disabilities

for special education and related services.

At this IEP meeting, the public agency and/or the parent(s)/guardian(s) proposed the following itemsand options:

All Items Proposed

All Options Considered

Proposed

By

Accept()

Reject()

Reason for Acceptance orRejection (Must include a

description of each evalua-tion procedure, assessment,record or report used as a

basis for the proposed orrefused action)

#1 Regular Education classroom

with Special Education servicesspecified as:

(Setting 1: 80% or more of theday in regular classroom)

#2 Regular Education classroomcombined with Special Educa-

tion classroom and services

provided specified as:

(Setting 2: 40% to 79% of the

day in regular class setting)

#3 Regular Education classroomcombined with Special Educa-

tion classroom and servicesprovided specified as:

(Setting 3: less than 40% of theday in the regular class setting)

#4 Special Education servicesprovided all day or approachinga full day (Setting 4) specifiedas:

(Other setting: public/privateseparate schools, RTC, home-

bound/hospitals)


20/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

16

This section of the New Mexico Model IEP form requires the dis-

trict to document what options for programs and services were con-

sidered but not selected along with a rationale for them not being

selected. Plainly put, and perhaps difficult to believe, many IEPs

actually contain documentation for what is not in the plan, along

with an explanation for why it is not in the plan. One could only

speculate at the intended purpose of this, but a logical assumption

would be that it is meant to protect districts from parents coming

back after the IEP is completed and arguing that the district should

have selected another option for their childs programs and services.

This type of defensive documentation (communicating why some-thing is not in the plan) is of zero value in communicating what is in

the actual plan.

Another, admittedly more extreme, example of documentation

that serves no educational purpose can be found in the New Jersey

IEP model form (State of New Jersey Department of Education,

2007). See the following section of the IEP that requires three sepa-

rate areas of documentation regarding the rationale for why a stu-

dent is spending less than 20 percent of their time in general

education.


21/127


17

Page 11 of the New Jersey Model IEP Form

RATIONALE FOR REMOVAL FROM GENERAL EDUCATION

Decisions regarding placement are based on the individual needs of students and must begin withconsideration of the general education setting. The purpose of this page is to document the discus-

sions that have occurred with respect to accommodations, modifications, and supplementary aids andservices in each academic or functional area that are necessary to educate the student in the generaleducation setting.

If the student will be included in the general education setting for more than 80% of the time, norationale is required. Items 1 through 3 of this section of the IEP need not be completed or includedin the students IEP.

If a student will not be included in the general education setting for more than 80% of the time, items1 through 3 below MUST be completed for each CONTENT/SUBJECT AREA.

1. Identify the supplementary aids and services that were considered to implement thestudents annual goals. [N.J.A.C. 6A:14-4.2(a)8i]. Explain why they are not appropriateto meet the students needs in the general education class:

2. Document the comparison of the benefits provided in the regular class and the benefitsprovided in the special education class [N.J.A.C. 6A:14-4.2(a)8ii].

3. Document the potentially beneficial or harmful effects which a placement (in the generaleducation class) may have on the student with disabilities or the other students in the class

[N.J.A.C. 6A:14-4.2(a)8iii].


22/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

18

The inclusion of this section would not only increase the time it

takes the teacher to write the IEP, but it alone would add several

pages (one for each content area) to the documents length. There-

fore we can see how the addition of this one section would simulta-

neously take teacher time away from students and decrease the

communicative value of their IEP documents by diluting vital con-

tent. For what educational benefit would this sacrifice be made?

This documentation of a rationale is entirely focused on protecting

the district. It is certainly not the case that this content provides

valuable information on how to work with a student to achieve suc-

cess. It does not describe the plan to those responsible for its imple-mentation. Its purpose, explicitly stated at the top of the page, is to

document the discussion regarding the decision making process, like

a type of quasi-legal due diligence. This kind of documentation is

not even suggested by IDEA 2004, let alone required.

In addition to unhelpful documentation, legal IEPs are charac-

terized by a large amount of nonindividualized content, such as

inserted sections of law and administrative statements. Similar to

the excessive documentation of the considerations, these additions

add length and lessen the communicative facility of the document.

Inserted sections of law continue to be found in IEPs that have been

simplified. For example, the U.S. Department of Educations Office

of Special Education Programs model IEP form (2006) has a copied

section of law above each textbox. The following section of law is

inserted above the text box for special education and related services:

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: To advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals.

34 CFR 300.320(a)(4)(i)] To be involved in and make progress in

the general education curriculum and to participate in

extracurricular and other nonacademic activities.

[34 CFR 300.320(a)(4)(ii)] To be educated and participate with


23/127


19

other children with disabilities and nondisabled children in

extracurricular and other nonacademic activities.

[34 CFR 300.320(a)(4)(iii)]

Along with inserted sections of law, legal IEPs often contain

what can be referred to as administrative statements regarding the

position of the educational agency on issues such as inclusion. For

example, see the following statement taken from Delawares Model

IEP form (Delaware Department of Education, 2007):

A student with a disability shall not be removed from educationin age appropriate regular classes solely because of needed

modifications in general education curriculum. Special classes,

separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities

from the regular educational environment occurs only if the

nature or severity of the disability is such that education in

regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services

cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

Other administrative statements are focused on spelling out appro-

priate special education procedures such as the statement below

taken from the Connecticut State Model IEP form (Connecticut State

Department of Education, 2006):

Parents please note: Under the procedural safeguards of IDEA,

a copy of the Procedural Safeguards in Special Education shall begiven to the parents of a child with a disability only one time per

year, except that a copy also shall be given to the parents: 1) upon

initial referral or parental request for evaluation, 2) upon the first

occurrence of the filing of a complaint under Section 615(b)(6), 3)

upon request by a parent, and 4) upon a change of placement

resulting from a disciplinary action. A copy of Procedural

Safeguards in Special Education which explains these protections

was made available previously this school year

(date)___________ is enclosed with this document. A

copy of Procedural Safeguards in Special Education is available on


24/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

20

school district website : http://www [Delete if not available on

line]. If you need assistance in understanding the provisions of

IDEA, please contact your childs principal,the districts special

education director or the CTs federally designated

Parent Training and Information Center (CPAC at 800- 445-

2722). For a copy of A Parents Guide to Special Education in CT

and other resources contact SERC (800-842-8678) or go to:

http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2678&Q=320730.

The addition of copied sections of law and administrative state-

ments in numerous areas throughout the IEP document appear to befor legal rather than communicative purposes. This type of content is

completely nonindividualized. It does nothing to improve the docu-

ments ability to efficiently communicate the details of a students

education plan to those entrusted with its implementation. In con-

trast, it detracts from it. Adding legal or administrative text above

every section in the IEP can easily double or triple the number of

pages. This makes the IEP less accessible to teachers, parents, and

students. Again, this is the direct opposite of what ought to be the

goal.

Lastly, we find that legal IEPs are characterized by numerous

protective statements. Rather than contribute to the communication

of the plan, these statements are focused on documenting that the

district followed procedure. For example, the Illinois model IEP

form contains a section on parental rights and involvement (Illinois

State Board of Education, 2010). When the parent is not in attend-ance the district must fill in a text box detailing the attempts to con-

tact the parent prior to the IEP meeting. There is another line which

documents the date and manner in which the parents were informed

about their procedural safeguards. Finally there is a section which

documents if the parents were given a copy of their childs evaluation

report and eligibility determination, the districts behavioral inter-

vention policies, their childs IEP, and the districts behavioral inter-

vention procedures.


25/127


21

While it is important for the district to perform the actions re-

quired to be documented in this section, the inclusion of this type of

content in the IEP document itself is not aligned to what should be

its purpose: the communication of the plan. Protective statements

are an aspect of contracts, not communicative tools. They do not

help teachers to make the right accommodations or counselors make

the right schedules for their special education students. They do not

help parents understand their childs progress or the strategies the

school is using to address their disability. Protective statements

appear to be included for the safety of the district, not for the benefit

of teachers, parents, and students. Their effect when placedthroughout legal IEPs is to lower the overall communicative value of

the document.

Legal IEPs Drain Limited Educator Resources

The time it takes to create, proof, correct, and monitor the exacting

contracts that legal IEPs have become drains educator resourcesaway from their students. Special education teachers spend an inor-

dinate amount of time on paperwork unrelated to instruction. The

last large scale national survey found that the average special educa-

tion teacher spends five hours a week on paperwork (SPeNSE, 2001).

A more recent study found that the time special education teachers

spend on paperwork related to special education equals 60 percent of

their time spent on academic instruction (Vannest et al, 2011). Insome places, special education support staff (e.g., school psycholo-

gists, social workers) spend more time completing special education

paperwork and other administrative tasks than providing services to

students (Caranikas-Walker et al, 2006). These studies highlight the

inefficiencies in the system and the lack of appropriate prioritization

of resources. Special education leaders at the state level are noticing

the effects this burden has on teacher retention. A recent survey of

state directors of special education (Ahearn, 2011) cited concern thatexcessive amounts of paperwork are driving teachers out of the field,

and called for reductions in paperwork for teachers. Furthermore,


26/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

22

the report suggested that IEP requirements should be reviewed to see

what elements could be reduced in order to allow teachers increased

time for classroom activities. It appears that not much has changed

since the Presidents Commission Report (2002) cited that, special

educators spend more time on paperwork than grading papers,

communicating with parents, sharing expertise with colleagues,

supervising paraprofessionals and attending IEP meetings com-

bined (p. 17). For teachers, this time spent on paperwork directly

detracts focus from a variety of important activities such as instruc-

tional planning, case management, and working with parents, activi-

ties that we know can lead to improved student achievement. Itshould come as no surprise that 88 percent of special education

teachers report that the requirements of IDEA interfere with their

teaching duties (SPeNSE, 2001). Succinctly stated, overly litigious

IEPs have a cost that can be measured in lack of student achieve-

ment. This cost needs to be taken seriously. It is simply unconscion-

able to students, parents, and tax payers for schools to robotically

continue on with processes that we know are so vastly inefficient.

While there is a lot we do know about the cost of legality in our

IEPs, there is much that has still gone unmeasured. When we con-

sider the teacher time lost to the construction of legal IEPs we also

need to consider professional development. How much time is spent

in professional development talking about compliance issues rather

than learning skills applicable to teaching? What percentage of time

in district and county special education staff meetings is taken up

with issues regarding the documentation of compliance that could beput to practical use developing school wide systems to enhance

teaching and learning? Doing the research and finding the answers

to these questions may provide an even more serious picture of the

cost of the litigiousness of our current practices.


27/127


23

The Legal IEP Process Affects Meeting Quality

So far the argument made here against the current legal IEP para-

digm has rested on two points, that legal IEPs are not communicative

documents and that their construction is a drain on educator re-

sources. However, a third point of contention with the legal IEP

paradigm can also be raised. That is, the potential for the emphasis

on legality and paperwork to affect the quality of the IEP meeting.

This point of contention is not as self-evident as the lack of commu-

nicative facility of legal IEPs, nor does it have the research support as

does the argument that the paperwork burden is detrimental toservice delivery. It is, however, an important point to raise here as

future research may support the hypothesis that the degree of legal

focus is inversely correlated with IEP meeting quality. Consider the

following narrative based on a collection of my less than optimal IEP

experiences; maybe as a parent or educator you can relate:

Several staff members, all facing the same way to look at a

projected image of a computer screen, are working together at

their task of diligently clicking selections and filling up text boxes

with stylized language. A large, often referred to, binder sits at the

table full of examples on what compliance monitoring probes will

be used to evaluate the IEP upon audit. The parent is in attend-

ance along with the sixteen year-old student for whom the IEP is

being written. The student appears bored. He is uninterested in

the project of text box completion that is consuming his teachers.The staff try to include him. The general ed gym teacher engages

with the student in idle conversation about sports, while the oth-

ers speak to each other regarding compliance issues. As always

there is much concern about making a mistake, English 10

resource is not departmentalized is it, I dont know what box to

check here? Do we need the grade equivalents, I know we had to

last year but didnt that change? The student asks if he really

needs to stay any longer. He wants to go back to class. The teacher

replies that he can leave in just a minute, after they ask a couple

questions about his after high school plans so they could be rec-


28/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

24

orded in the transition section of the IEP. Most of the questions

on the form are geared towards individuals with adaptive needs

and are not at all pertinent to the young man who has only a mild

learning disability in reading. By law we have to ask, the teacher

explains. The student provides the needed information. The staff

members wish him a good rest of the year and spend the remain-

ing time in the hour diligently focused on their project. After

resolving a few technical problems involving the determination of

the exact number of weekly minutes in special education and

finding out the date that school will start next year, the team has

finished their task. The legal IEP meeting is finished. The paperwork is mostly done. It will be submitted to the director of special

education in a couple of days. The team is hopeful that the docu-

ment will pass this inspection so that it could be laid to rest in a

file cabinet in the central office; if not, corrections will need to be

made (in case the file is pulled for compliance monitoring).

The preceding narrative admittedly portrays legal IEP meetings

in an overly negative light. While in my professional experience

educators regularly work to get vastly more out of their meetings

than what was described, the complexity and process of our legal

IEPs can act as an impediment to meeting quality. The task of doc-

umentation at times is on par with, or can even take precedence over,

the discussion and planning of the educational programming. I have

undoubtedly made this error myself at times throughout my career as

a school psychologist, and I have also witnesses it at times duringIEPs for my son. I am sure that most any parent or special education

professional can identify with at least some aspect of the above nar-

rative.

I want to be careful not to stretch this argument too far because

the research on satisfaction rates with the legal IEP meeting process,

although far from great, is generally more positive than negative

(e.g., Dildine, 2010; Lee-Tarver, 2006). However, we ought not to

interpret these findings as indicating that there is only modest room

for improvement. I believe that there is still vast room for improve-

ment.


29/127


25

Technical and procedural progress frequently results from re-

placing something with which people are basically satisfied, with

something even better. Once that improvement has come along,

once people see that an alternative is possible, they may never want

to go back to the old way of doing things. In the time before automo-

biles, people were basically satisfied with using horses for transporta-

tion. That is all they knew, so they were happy with what they had.

However, once they had a better alternative in the automobile, few

people would rate the horse as a highly satisfactory means of trans-

portation. To me it seems obvious to propose that an IEP meeting

process focused on students rather than the documentation of proce-dure would likely be preferred by parents and teachers. This question

is well deserving of future empirical attention.

Conclusions

It has long been recognized that IEPs are excessively litigious andover-focused on compliance. This legal IEP paradigm has resulted in

a tragic misappropriation of educator resources towards paperwork

and away from service delivery, as well as IEP documents that have a

low communicative facility to those entrusted with their implementa-

tion. Solving this problem will require a broad conceptual shift

regarding the purpose of the IEP, a resolute determination that the

written IEP should be designed as a communicative rather than a

legal document. Standing in the way are our long held implicit as-

sumptions regarding why legality in IEPs is thought to be necessary.

These assumptions will need to be challenged in order for the field to

break out of the current paradigm. This will be the focus of the next

chapter.


30/127


31/127

27

Chapter 3

Legality in IEPs is Unnecessary

t has so far been presented that legal IEPs are not highly com-municative documents and that their construction drains educa-

tor resources to the detriment of the students most needing their

support. Regardless, those unwilling to move beyond the cur-

rent legal IEP paradigm could still argue that this legal focus is ful-

filling a vital purpose, and that shifting to a communicative purpose,

although helpful in some ways, would ultimately be detrimental to

students. But what could this vital purpose be? What could be so

necessary about inserted sections of education law, administrative

statements, detailed documentation of every consideration, protec-

tive statements, and the overall contractual nature of most IEP doc-

uments? Since we know that none of this is explicitly mandated in

IDEA 2004, this content cannot be considered a legal necessity. We

are left to assume that IEP designers must consider it to be a practi-

cal necessity, but why? Where does this thinking come from?

The idea that our current legal IEP paradigm is a practical neces-sity seems to stem from two widespread implicit assumptions about

the IEP. These are the assumption that the content of the IEP

I


32/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

28

document functions to protect students educational rights and the

assumption that it is necessary to contractualize education for stu-

dents with disabilities. The idea that the legal/contractual nature of

our IEPs is a practical necessity appears to directly follow from an

acceptance of these assumptions. In other words, if you believe that

an IEP document is a contract that protects rights, then logic would

obligate you to consider it necessary to include legal content (e.g.

protective statements, inserted sections of law). Even if you agree

that this content can be detrimental to the documents communica-

tive facility, you would still have to support its inclusion, maybe

considering it a necessary evil. Therefore, for our purposes both ofthese assumptions will need to be made explicit and critically ana-

lyzed. Unless it can be demonstrated that these assumptions are

somehow invalid, it will be impossible to break out of the current

legal IEP paradigm.

First, let us consider the implicit assumption that the contents of

the IEP document function to protect students educational rights.

Evidence for the breadth of this assumption can be found in the

inserted sections of law in the federal model form (OSEP, 2006) as

well as many state model forms. Having inserted sections of law, and

paraphrasing of law, in so many IEP forms gives the impression that

doing so is a practical necessity; why else would it be done with such

ubiquity? This naturally leads to the wider idea that a students

educational rights are somehow protected by the legal text within

their IEP. Once accepted, the implicit assumption that the IEP doc-

ument functions to protect student rights sets up a framework wherelegal content can only grow and never diminish. This is because any

calls for limiting the inclusion of additional legal content is like

suggesting that our students do not deserve the thorough protection

that a legally sophisticated IEP provides. Luckily there is a way out.

Stepping back and shining a light upon this assumption shows it to

be without sufficient foundation.

In general, legal protection against discrimination comes from

the law, not from a personal document or contract between parties.

Consider the rest of society; it is against the law for a person with a

disability to be denied service in a business establishment because of


33/127

Legality in IEPs is Unnecessary

29

their disability. To do so would be illegal. If and when it happens

individuals may find recourse and protection under the law. This

protection, however, stems from the law itself. It is not the result of a

personal document stating the needs and rights of the individual with

a disability. This protection is also not the result of a contract be-

tween that individual and the business establishment (if there was

one) where the establishment agreed in writing to provide access to

that individual. Such a contract or a personal document as a means

of ensuring civil rights would be absurd. Likewise, considering the

legal content in a childs IEP document as being essential to the

protection of their rights in education is equally absurd. UnlikeIEPs, rights are not individualized. Rights are universal in this coun-

try. They live everywhere and apply to everyone. The implicit as-

sumption that they are ensured by the text in a personal document

makes no sense.

The second assumption that drives the superfluous content in

legal IEPs is the idea that an IEP is a legal contract. Unfortunately

this idea is very wide spread. A typical example of this thinking can

be found in the following passage taken from A Parent's Guide to

Special Education (2010) A Joint Publication of the Federation for

Children with Special Needs and the Massachusetts Department of

Education:

Your child's Individualized Education Program (IEP) is developed

at the Team meeting and represents a formal agreement about

the services that the school will provide for your child's specialeducation needs. The IEP is a contract between you and the

school. As with any contract you should make sure you fully

understand the terms to which you are agreeing and make certain

that everything that was agreed to verbally is written in the

contract (p. 19)

By conceiving of the IEP this way we are in effect contractualizing

education, i.e., ensuring that every aspect, documented in fine detail,

of a students educational programming is negotiated and settled

upon between the parent and the district. In this contractual para-


34/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

30

digm, the IEP meeting functions as the negotiation session and the

IEP document acts as the finished contract. Conceived this way, the

purpose of the IEP document, from the perspective of both the par-

ents and the school district, naturally becomes protective rather than

communicative. From this protective purpose stems the majority of

the superfluous content found in most legal IEPs (e.g., excessive

documentation of considerations, administrative statements, and

protective statements). This is the heart of the problem.

But is it necessary for us to contractualize education for students

with disabilities in order to make it individualized? This language is

not in the law. IDEA 2004 states, the term `individualized educa-tion program' or `IEP' means a written statement for each child with

a disability [34CFR 300.320(a)]. The word statement in no way

implies contract. While IDEA 2004 requires schools to meet and

individualize an educational program for students with disabilities, it

does not require schools to contractualize education. This has

also been made explicit by recent case law (Van Duyn v. Baker School

District) where it was found that a schools failure to implement the

IEP was not the legal equivalent to breach of contract.

The fact that it is not a legal necessity for schools to contractual-

ize education for students with disabilities does not disqualify it from

being a practical necessity. This question will need to be addressed

separately. While I know of no direct formal argument supporting

the claim that contractualization is a practical requirement for indi-

vidualization, there is an abundance of evidence to the contrary

within general education. There are many instances in general edu-cation where studentsprograms and services are adjusted based on

their individualized needs. For example, consider grade retention.

The decision to have a student repeat a grade is made by the school

and the parents based on the students individual needs. In this

scenario, extra services are being provided (a whole year of educa-

tion) without the pretense of a legal contract. Secondly, class sched-

uling for secondary students is completed based on student interest

and needs (e.g., electives, remedial classes, credit recovery). Again,

educational programming is modified without the use of a contract.

Thirdly, many general education students with health problems


35/127


36/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

32

Consider that there was a period in American history, relatively

close in time to the origin of special education law, when armed

soldiers were needed to enforce the racial integration of public

schools. Today we do not keep the National Guard outside schools to

protect against a spontaneous resurgence of segregation. To do so

would be an absurd waste of resources. Although they were neces-

sary at one time, in todays world these measures are no longer re-

quired. Similarly, the conceptualization of an IEP as a legal safeguard

created to protect individual rights in education may have outlived its

purpose. Education for persons with disabilities has come a long

way. If we can allow ourselves to set down our swords we will be ableto fully reap the dividends the efforts of our forbearers provided for

our children. We should have confidence that shifting from the legal

focus of our IEPs will not send us back into the early 1970s.

In the following chapters, the framework for the communicative

IEP will be presented. However, if one continues to view the purpose

of the written IEP as a legal/contractual document created to protect

rights in education, then the following will seem woefully inadequate.

Moving past the idea that legally constructed IEP documents are

necessary will require a broad conceptual shift. This will be difficult.

Change is hard. However, such a change in the field is necessary to

move towards greater levels of efficiency and effectiveness.


37/127

33

Chapter 4

What is a Plan?

lthough we often say plan, the P in IEP technically stands

for program. However, in typical usage the word plan is the

actual meaning of our reference in that an IEP is the plan forthe educational program. Consequently, the terms program

and planare virtually synonymous for our purposes here, but what

is a plan? Dictionary.com (2012) defines it as, a scheme or method

of acting, doing, proceeding, making, etc., developed in advance. In

other words, a plan is what we are going to do. This should be the

focus of the IEP document, writing down what we are going to do.

This characterization of an IEP as, what we are going to do is a

general statement that broadly applies to both the document and the

meeting. In practice we may call them both IEPs, but they are dif-

ferent. The IEP meeting is the event, the discussion, where the deci-

sions on what we are going to do are made. In contrast the IEP

document exists as the written record of what we are going to do.

Focusing now just on the IEP document, it can be seen that when we

record what we are going to do, what we are really doing is creating

instructions for what to do. We write the document so that it couldbe referred to in the future. Whether it is an author of the IEP, or

another staff member who did not participate in the IEPs construc-


38/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

34

tion, the purpose of referring to it in the future would be the same, to

find out what to do. Therefore, the central purpose of the IEP docu-

ment should be to help school staff know what to do.

In nearly every human endeavor people write plans on paper so

that others will know what to do. Blueprints are written so builders

know what to do. The Xs and Os in football playbooks are

written so the players know what to do. Dieticians write out meal

plans so the dieters know what to do. Symphonies are written

down so the musicians know what to do. These plans are designed

in a manner that holds the consumers understanding of the plan in

the highest regard. In other words, the presentation of the plan isdesigned for the consumer of the plan not for its creator or a third

party. Sheet music is written for musicians, not composers or music

critics; football playbooks are written for players, not coaches, team

owners, or fans. Therefore the value of the design of any particular

written plan should be measured by how well the consumer of that

plan understands what to do. In the same manner the value of the

design of an IEP document can be determined by how well the school

staff understand it, specifically, how clearly and efficiently it com-

municates what to do.

Producing written IEPs that effectively communicate what to

do ought to be our highest priority. Other purposes of the document

that interfere with this purpose need to be discarded. Our problem

in special education is that we have lost this focus. Legal IEPs are

often constructed to serve several functions that are unrelated to the

communication of the plan (e.g., legal protection, documented proofof compliance). It is the attention paid to these other functions that

impede the communicative function of the document. Plainly put:

these distractions wreck the written plan.

An analogy may be helpful here to better illustrate the point.

Consider a pair of holiday shoppers preparing for a day after Thanks-

giving assault on the stores. They meet for coffee after dinner to plan

their attack. In the morning they will go to several stores to get the

door opening deals. It may be necessary for one of the pair to get in

line right away while the other picks up the desired items, or they


39/127

What is a Plan?

35

may have to separate to both pick up items and then wait for an

extended time in line. Planning is critical as they want to hit as many

store openings as possible to get the door buster deals. This can be

done because each store opens up at a different time.

So lets say that our pair of shoppers are extraordinarily orga-

nized and meticulous. They want to put their strategy to paper to be

sure they maximize the effectiveness of their early morning raid.

What would they write down? We would imagine that they would

make a simple list of the tasks to be done, the order and time that

they need to be done, and who is going to do what. This would make

the most sense. They may write something like this:

BLACK FRIDAY SHOPPING PLAN

4:30 meet at Dunkin Donuts for coffee, both bring vans (must beempty!)

4:45 get in line for 5:00am opening at Meijer

5:00 to 5:30 at Meijer get the Sony flat screen deal and the wallspeakers

5:35 drive to Best Buy wait in line till 6:00 opening

6:00 split up in Best Buy, Sarah gets tablet computer, Lisa gets inline

6:15 get to Walmart for the % off coupons for toys

7:15 leave to go to Macys (opens at 7:30; last store use % dis-count till done, clothes)


40/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

36

Let us now imagine what the preceding would look like if our

shoppers wrote their plan the way legal IEPs are written. Obviously

it would look much different and be much longer. To make a suffi-

cient parallel I would imagine that our shoppers would record many

extraneous details, such as their current level of disposable income

set aside for Christmas shopping, each of their family members

detailed input of what they want for Christmas and why, a narrative

explanation for why each shopping maneuver listed was chosen, as

well as documentation of evidence for why alternative shopping

maneuvers are not being planned, expenditure data from past shop-

ping trips, commitment signatures and checkboxes confirming thateach party understands the contents of the plan, protective state-

ments regarding responsibility for merchandise obtained while one

partner is standing in line alone, copied sections of each stores sale

and return policy, written documentation of the concerns of each

shoppers significant other regarding the trip, copies of Google maps

that support the feasibility of the travel time estimates between

stores, as well as written documentation regarding other anticipated

needs (e.g., gas and food money, truck space, traffic).

All of this extra information would not assist in the execution of

the plan in the least. In fact, the likely 20 pages that it would take to

document the preceding would obscure the vital directions, making

them less likely to be followed in the stores where it counts (who has

time to thumb through twenty pages while wrestling for the last

Tickle Me Elmo). Therefore, even though such a document could be

seen by some as being thorough and impressive, to the extentthat this extra content interferes with the primary goal of guiding

efficient shopping behavior, it is damaging to the entire endeavor.

Such a document would be worthy of no praise, and should be seen

as folly.

Less is more when it comes to the communication of a plan.

However, in special education we have fallen into the trap of neglect-

ing this obvious piece of common sense. The point of the argument

here is not to imply that that thorough documentation is always bad,

but merely that it is always bad when it exists as part of a plan, be-

cause it confuses the nature of the plan; it damages it. It turns a plan


41/127

What is a Plan?

37

into an argument, requiring evidentiary support. We need to keep

the plan pure. We need to protect it. Otherwise, it is of little value

outside of fulfilling a bureaucratic requirement, forms that need to be

completed before services can be provided. This is where we are at

now. This is what needs to change.


42/127


43/127

39

Chapter 5Introduction to the

Communicative IEP

communicative IEP will place the communicative facility of

the IEP document and educator resources above legalities. It

will read as a treatment plan rather than a legal contract. Its

primary purpose is to be a simple record of the educational planning

that occurred at the IEP meeting, written in such a way as to maxim-

ize its communicative facility to school staff, parents, and, when

appropriate, students. Brevity will be prized. For most students, the

goal is for the IEP document to be no longer than a single page.

More than a page takes away from its communicative facility, and in

this system, communication takes priority2.Referring back to the law, we find that IDEA 2004 defines an

IEP as a series of statements regarding a student s educational pro-

gramming. The following seven statements (plus a few more for

transition if the student is nearing 16 years of age) are to be included

in each IEP. By limiting their focus to these seven statements, a team

could produce a short IDEA 2004 compliant IEP. It should be noted

that this document structure is similar to the current OSEP model

2 Please note that proper individualization of the process will require some students

to have IEPs that are longer than a single page.


44/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

40

IEP form (OSEP, 2006), which basically consists of a series of text

boxes to address each statement. The list of required statements

below are taken from IDEA 2004 (20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(A))3.

(I) a statement of the child's present levels of academic

achievement and functional performance

(II) a statement of measurable annual goals

(III) a description of how the child's progress toward meeting

the annual goals described in sub clause (II) will be measured

(IV) a statement of the special education and related services

and supplementary aids and services

(V) 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 sub clause (IV)

(VI) a statement of any individual appropriate accommodations

that are necessary to measure the academic achievement and

functional performance of the child on State and district wide

assessments

(VII) the projected date for the beginning of the services and

modifications described in sub clause (IV), and the anticipatedfrequency, location, and duration of those services and modifica-

tions

The communicative IEP takes as its starting principle the idea

that only two types of content ought to be included in the IEP docu-

ment. The first is the above statements that are explicitly required

by federal law, and the second is what the team determines to be of

3Please see the Appendix for an unabridged transcription of IEP requirements in

IDEA 2004


45/127

Introduction to the Communicative IEP

41

practical value to school staff, parents, and students. These two areas

of content will be presented in a communicative fashion directed

primarily at those entrusted with its implementation and in a man-

ner that is understandable to parents and students. Please see the

following two fictitious examples of communicative IEPs.


46/127


47/127


48/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

44

protective statements. In a communicative IEP the aim is to actively

resist including such content because it dilutes and distracts from the

vital content, such as the following important advice about her be-

havior:

Teachers should be advised thatHannahs aggressive behaviors

often stem from academic frustration (especially in not

understanding written seat work). In the past these behaviors

have been circumvented by teachers making sure that Hannah

knows how to complete the work. When Hannah does become

angry, teachers should prompt her to use her feelingsstrategies. If this does notwork teachers could ask if she needs

to use her break pass. Pleasecall (x547) to notify Mrs.

McEvoy (the social worker) if help is ever needed.

The above is vital content. It is prominent and undiluted in this IEP

precisely because restraint was used in documenting the perfor-

mance level and protective statements were resisted. If Hannah had

a legal IEP, this content, if included at all, could easily be stuck on

page 11 of a 16 page document. In that position it would not be readi-

ly seen, and therefore would not be able to do anyone any good.


49/127


45

Jacobs Communicative IEP

NAME:Jacob IEP DATE: 4/6/13 PROVIDER: Ms. Dickerhoff

DATE OF BIRTH:09/09/98 GRADE:9th SCHOOL: Elmwood High School

PERFORMANCE LEVEL/PROGRESS IN GENERAL EDUCATION/GOALS:

Jacob has a Learning Disability in reading. Although Jacob has Very High cognitive abilities(psychological from 2010) his basic reading skills are at a first grade level. To illustrate, he has

trouble recognizing words such as that, two, from, and because. This severe deficit in hisfunctional reading skills affects his performance in all areas of the curriculum. His math skills areadequate as long as the reading has been removed from the calculation tasks. Jacob has been through

many reading programs since he started receiving intervention while in the first grade. These

interventions aimed at improving his reading skills have been unsuccessful. Therefore the focus ofJacobsspecial education services has shifted from being intervention focused to accommodation

focused. His goal from last year was to be able to pass a full schedule of general education classes,which he did. This goal will continue for this next IEP year, and will be measured by his quarterlyreport cards.

PROGRAMS & SERVICESJacob will be enrolled in general education for the entire school day. He will meet with the teacherconsultant as needed, but not less than once per month for assistance and support in managing his

accommodations. The teacher consultant, Ms. Dickerhoff, will work with the teachers in theimplementation of Jacobs accommodations. Please call her with any questions (x343).

ACCOMODATIONS/SUPPLEMENTARY AIDSJacob has a tablet computer that he will be allowed to take with him to all classes. Most of the

schools text books have an e-text component. Jacob will be able to use his tablet ear phones to havethe digital text book read to him in class.

Jacob will have a peer note taker in each of his classes. The student who takes these notes will be

given the use of a Jacobs tablet to take notes for both of them. Jacobs tablet has a text readerso hecan listen to the notes as a means to study at home.

Jacob will have all tests and quizzes either read to him or given to him in a digital format so that hecould read and respond to them himself with the help of his text reader.

If material is required to be read that does not have a digital text option, Jacob will either be given analternative assignment with digital text, have the text read to him, or be excused from responsibility

from that assignment or material.

Jacob will be allowed to use his speech to text program on his tablet and email his work in or print itout in the library.

ASSESSMENTS

Jacob will take the regular assessments but will require the audio version or have the test read to him.He will be able to use his speech to text program for any writing assessments.

PARTICIPANTS: IEP START DATE:4/7/13

________________ ________________ ________________ _________________

________________ ________________ ________________ _________________


50/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

46

Jacob:

Jacob is a young man of exceptional intelligence who is chal-

lenged by a very significant processing problem that has limited his

reading skills from progressing beyond a first grade level. Since

elementary school, Jacob has received intervention from seemingly

every research-based program known. His reading problems have

resisted every attempt at intervention. Since Jacob is now in high

school, all parties agree that spending any more time in school labor-

ing over his inability to quickly recognize four and five letter words is

not the best use of his time. It may never happen. Therefore, in hisparticular case, instead of using special education as a means to

improve his reading, it will be used to help reduce, to the extent

possible, the negative impact that his status as a nonreader will have

on his ability to progress within the general education curriculum. In

others words, this IEP will be focused chiefly on accommodations as

opposed to remediation. With this in mind, Jacobs IEP is primarily

written for the benefit of the five general education teachers Jacob

currently has that were not at the IEP, as well as the six new teachers

he will have next semester, and the six new teachers he will have the

semester after that. These teachers will require instruction on Ja-

cobs situation and how it can be overcome.

The team has determined that a primary danger for Jacob is that

his teachers are not going to believe that his reading problems are

significant enough to require the listed accommodations. Communi-

cating this in the IEP is of the highest priority, because helping theteachers grasp the extent of his difficulties is essential to getting their

enthusiastic support. Therefore, Jacobs Performance Level state-

ment contains examples of the words that he has trouble recognizing

(that two from). Instead of writing a test score that most of his

teachers will not know how to interpret, or writing less than the first

percentile or Extremely Low Range, the team thought that the use

of these specific word examples would more forcefully explain the

severity of Jacobs reading problems to his high school teachers.

The team felt that another danger in Jacobs situation is that the

teachers may have the philosophy that all of the accommodations


51/127


47

may be interfering with his chances to improve his reading skills.

They may reason that Jacob will never learn to read if he always finds

short cuts to bypass reading. This may affect teacher support for his

accommodations. In order to address this inevitable concern, the

following extended explanation was offered in the Performance Level

section:

Jacob has been through many reading programs since he started

receiving intervention while in the first grade. These

interventions aimed at improving his reading skills have been

unsuccessful. Therefore the focus of Jacobs special educationservices has shifted from being intervention focused to

accommodation focused.

This statement about Jacobs school history is not required to be in

the IEP. However, it was a piece of information that the team felt

should be included so that the teachers would understand why Ja-

cobs services are focused on accommodations rather than remedia-

tion.

Everything in this particular IEP is focused on the audience of

Jacobs general education teachers, especially those who are not

familiar with his case. If you think back to our previous example of

Hannahs IEP, youwill remember that we were not writing it for staff

not in attendance at the meeting the way that we are here. Therefore,

this IEP is not only individualized as far as content, but it is also

individualized as far as style, as we are writing for a particular audi-ence. In this way a communicative IEP process trusts school staff to

produce a document that is individualized to each student s needs as

well as to their situation.


52/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

48

Checking for Statements Mandated in IDEA 2004

All of the statements mandated by IDEA 2004 have been included in

these two example IEPs. Their location may not be overtly obvious

because, unlike the legal IEPs that we are all used to, each mandated

statement is not perfectly cordoned off into its own little section.

Remember that the primary design aim of a communicative IEP

document is that it be easy to understand, not easy to audit. Never-

theless, the reader will find that the IDEA 2004 mandated state-

ments are systematically positioned in both of these two examples.

Therefore, it should not be too difficult to identify them and check forcompliance.

To demonstrate this, we will examine the IDEA 2004 mandated

statements in Hannahs IEP. Looking back you will find that the first

heading on her IEP (and in all the communicative IEPs presented in

this book) is entitled: Performance Level/Progress in General Educa-

tion/Goals. This section contains the first three required statements

in the order in which they are presented in the law. The first man-

dated statement pertains to the students performance level. Please

see this requirement below followed by the quote from Hannahs IEP

that fulfills this mandate.

IDEA 2004 Mandated Statement #1:

(I) a statement of the child's present levels of academic achieve-

ment and functional performance

Statement #1 from Hannahs IEP:

She has average cognitive ability and average math and

communication skills. She has a strength in athletics. Hannah

has deficits in the areas of basic reading skills (currently at a

level 12, first grade first month, on the districts readingassessment: 02/26/13), and anger management (8 discipline

referrals last year) that affects her performance in general

education.


53/127


49

Also under the first heading in the communicative IEP and immedi-

ately following the performance level statement are the statements

regarding goals and how progress towards them will be measured.

IDEA 2004 Mandated Statements #2 and #3:

(II) a statement of measurable annual goals

(III) a description of how the child's progress toward meeting the

annual goals described in sub clause (II) will be measured

Statements #2 and #3 from Hannahs IEP:

Hannahs goals for this time next school year are to be able to

read level 18, end of first grade, books with 95% accuracy and

have no more than two discipline referrals. A progress report on

her reading level/discipline will be sent home each quarter.

The next two required statements can be found under the next twoheadings: Programs and Services and Accommodations/Supplement-

ary Aids.

IDEA 2004 Mandated Statements #4 and #5:

(IV) a statement of the special education and related services

and supplementary aids and services(V) 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 sub clause (IV)

Statements #4 and #5 from Hannahs IEP:

Hannah will receive special services in the Elmwood resourceroom for approximately one hour each day.. Hannah will

participate in general education for the rest of the day.Hannah

will participate in social work groups 2 to 4 times a month for 15


54/127

A ONE PAGE IEP

50

to 30 minutes.. Hannah will have tests read aloud in general

education. Hannah will have a break pass to social worker to

use when needed.

The next section in the communicative IEP is labeled: Assessments.

This section contains the 6thmandated statement in IDEA 2004.


(VI) a statement of any individual appropriate accommodations

that are necessary to measure the academic achievement and

functional performance of the child on State and district wide

assessments

Statement #6 from Hannahs IEP:

For all state assessments Hannah is to have the questions read

aloud. Hannah will take assessments in a small group setting.

The last IDEA 2004 mandated statement does not have its own

section in the communicative IEP (other than the IEP start date

recorded in the bottom right).


(VII) the projected date for the beginning of the services and

modifications described in sub clause (IV), and the anticipated

frequency, location, and duration of those services and

modifications

The information required in this statement is best presented as part

of mandated statement #4 which is addressed in both the Programs

and Services and Accommodations and Supplementary Aids section

of the communicative IEP. If you go back to that section you will find

that when Hannahs social work and resource room services are


55/127


51

described they are followed by statements that quantify their fre-

quency and duration. In regards to the location of the services, by

stating at the top of the IEP where the student attends school it is

clearly indicated that the default location for services is indeed that

school. If services are to be offered in a location other than the

school stated at the top of the page, it would then be the responsibil-

ity of the team to document that location within the body of the IEP.


56/127

52

Chapter 6

Where is the Form?

he communicative IEPs presented in the preceding chapter

were designed for simplicity; they were not written on com-

plex forms. If presented without individualized student con-

tent, they would consist only of four headings and blank space. The

communicative IEPs lack of form-like appearance is intentional.

There are two reasons for this bias against forms. The first being that

the expectation that the IEP be written on what is essentially a blank

page supports the idea that an IEP is plan that requires creation, as

opposed to a form that requires completion. This is meant to affect

teacher behavior. Keep in mind that it is possible for a team to com-plete an impressive looking legal IEP form without really writing

anything of consequence, without any creative consideration of a

childs unique set of circumstances and needs. Selecting from drop

down menus and filling in text boxes is by definition, pun intended,

limited to thinking in

A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program

Documents

Transcript of A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program