DRAFT 2/17/2016
Developing High Quality IEPs
Barbara Slone, SERC Consultant slone@ctserc.org
Kimberly Mearman, SERC Consultant mearman@ctserc.org
25 Industrial Park Road, Middletown, CT 06457-1520 · (860) 632-1485
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Session Objectives:
Participants will understand that:
Participants will know:
Participants will be able to:
Essential Questions:
SERC
2
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Educational Benefit of IEPs
The intent of a “free appropriate public education” for individuals with disabilities is to design individualized instruction with the sufficient
supports and services needed to enable the student to achieve educational benefit. Board of Education v Rowely (1982) had defined a
two pronged test to determine if an IEP has been appropriately developed:
o Does the IEP meet procedural compliance?
o Was the IEP reasonably calculated to promote educational benefit?
Ways to assess if an IEP has been reasonably developed in order to increase educational benefit:
SERC

Analyze Relationships-Is there a clear relationship between the identified needs, goals, and services?
Analyze the relationship and alignment between the identified needs, goals, and services and how they result in progress
for annual review in a three-year cycle (Drouin, 2004; Youtsey, 2006)

Compare to Prior Year-Are subsequent goals and services/placement consistent with progress made?
Compare progress from year to year in order to determine if changes to goals and services were made based on the
results of progress (Drouin, 2004; Youtsey, 2006)

Compare Conditions for Learning to Non-Disabled Peers-Are the materials or tasks the same as those that nondisabled, age-appropriate peers are using?
Look for the materials and tasks listed in IEP goals and objectives. Determine if these mirror those materials and tasks of
non-disabled peers. (Hunt, Goetz, & Anderson, 1986)

Discuss Overall Educational Benefit-Was the student's program reasonably planned to result in educational benefit?
Use the analysis to determine if there are any patterns in the development of the individual education program for the
student and determine if the student’s individual education program was reasonably planned to result in educational
benefit (Drouin, 2004; Youtsey, 2006)
3
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Analyze Relationships
Is there a clear relationship between the identified needs, goals, and services?

For each IEP
 Determine the alignment between each component
 Draw circles and arrows to show alignment
For Example:
Present Level of
Achievement/ Function
Academic/Cognitive
Language Arts:
KTEA Reading 3.4
G.E.
Oral Reading
Inventory 3.2 G.E
Needs/Concerns
+ Comp. is sig.
below grade
level
Goals & Objectives/ Accommodations &
Modifications
0
Improve comp of read material
from 3.2 to 5.0
Given passage state 2 details
Given passage answer correctly 5/6
W questions
Services/Placement
+
Learning center
3.75 hrs/wk
Progress
0
S
Was IEP
Adjusted?
+ No
M
S
(Drouin, 2004; Youtsey, 2006)
SERC
4
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Compare to Prior Year
Are subsequent goals and services/placement consistent with progress made?

Comparing the IEPs for the increase or decrease of complexity and progress for each component
 Determine if there was a change from the previous IEP to the next IEP
 Note the changes in between the columns
 0 = No change from prior year
 + = Increased complexity, progress, or LRE
 - = Decreased complexity, progress, or LRE
For Example:
Present Level of
Achievement/ Function
Academic/Cognitive
Language Arts:
KTEA Reading 3.4
G.E.
Oral Reading
Inventory 3.2 G.E
Needs/Concerns
+ Comp. is sig.
below grade
level
+
Goals & Objectives/ Accommodations &
Modifications
0
Services/Placement
Improve comp of read material
from 3.2 to 5.0
0
Given passage state 2 details
+
Given passage answer correctly 5/6
W questions
-
Learning center
3.75 hrs/wk
Progress
0
Was IEP
Adjusted?
S
0 No
M
+
S
0
(Drouin, 2004; Youtsey, 2006)
SERC
5
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Educational Benefit of IEPs
Present Level of
Achievement/ Function
Needs/Concerns
Goals & Objectives/
Accommodations &
Modifications
Services/Placement
Progress
Was IEP
Adjusted?
Academic/Cognitive
Language Arts:
Academic/Cognitive: Math:
Other Academic/
Nonacademic Areas:
(Drouin, 2004; Youtsey, 2006)
SERC
6
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Educational Benefit of IEPs
Present Level of
Achievement/ Function
Needs/Concerns
Goals & Objectives/
Accommodations &
Modifications
Services/Placement
Progress
Was IEP
Adjusted?
Behavioral/Social/ Emotional:
Communication:
Vocational/Transition:
Health and Development
including Vision & Hearing:
Fine and Gross Motor:
Activities of Daily Living:
Other: (Specify)
(Drouin, 2004; Youtsey, 2006)
SERC
7
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Compare Conditions for Learning to Non-Disabled Peers
Are the materials or tasks the same as those that non-disabled, age-appropriate peers are using?


For each goal and objective, list the condition stated.
Check the ones that mirror age-appropriate non-disabled peers.
List the condition(s)
Goal:
Objective 1:
Objective 2:
Objective 3:
SERC
8
What is the
same as nondisabled peers?
(Check all that
apply)
Materials Task
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Summary of Educational Benefit Review Process
Questions/Notes:
Circle One
Was there a clear relationship between the identified needs, goals, and services?
Y
N
Were subsequent goals and services/placement consistent with progress made?
Y
N
Were tasks and materials used that mirror those of age-appropriate non-disabled peers?
Y
N
Y
N
Areas to Keep
What were the patterns to the program planned for the student?
Areas to Change
Was the student's program reasonably planned to result in educational benefit?
(Youtsey, 2006)
SERC
9
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Decision-Making Values
SERC
10
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Generalizing Learning Across Settings and Situations
SERC
11
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Continuum of Supports Continuum of Services
Classroom Activity Analysis Worksheet
SERC
12
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Infusing IEP Goals, Accommodations, and Modifications
Purpose: To outline a plan of when to teach and reinforce IEP goals, as well as when to use specific accommodations and
modifications, it is essential to develop a matrix. The matrix will help communicate to each staff which portions of a student’s IEP they
are responsible for implementing. The matrix will also help school plan for the supports and services need to assist in implementing the
IEP. (Cushing, Clark, Carter, & Kennedy, 2005; Stetson, 2002)

List the student’s schedule, including non-academic areas, such as lunch or hallway.

List the student’s IEP goals, accommodations, and modifications.

Determine what the student will need to be directly taught, using IEP goals, including instruction on how to use accommodations.

Determine when this content can be taught.
o Determine when the content can be reinforced by providing extra practice.
o Determine when the content can be applied independently or with simple prompts by the student.

Determine when specific accommodations and modifications can be applied by staff.
Potential coding for an Infusing IEP Matrix can be:
 T = directly teach the concept or skill
 R = provide reinforcement and practice
 A= student applies the concept or skill independently or with prompts or the staff applies the accommodation or modification
SERC
13
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Infused IEP Matrix
Schedule
IEP Goals,
Accommodations,
Modifications
(Cushing, Clark, Carter, & Kennedy, 2005; Stetson, 2002)
SERC
14
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Examining Impact
Purpose: To determine if a selected strategy, accommodation, or modification will have an impact on the student’s access, participation,
and progress in general education, as well as foster a student’s independence

Examine the themes determined in the gap analysis

List possible strategies, accommodations, and modifications that could address the gaps

Use the color continuum to assess each one to determine the specific
o Impact on learning
o Access to general education curriculum
o Ability to foster independence

Remove strategies, accommodations, or modifications that are determined to fall in the red zone

Determine how items that fall in the yellow zone can be adjusted to fall into the green zone

Select strategies, accommodations, or modifications that have a potential impact on learning, access, and independence
SERC
15
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Examining Impact
High Impact on Learning
Low Impact on Learning
High Access to General
Education Curriculum
No Access to General
Education Curriculum
Fosters Independence
Fosters Dependence
State Education Resource Center, 2003
All Rights Reserved. This material is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to use it is not necessary, the source must be cited as the
State Education Resource Center (SERC), Middletown, CT (2003).
SERC
16
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Examining the Integration with Universal Practice
Purpose: To determine how a selected strategy, accommodation, or modification can be integrated into the universal practice in order
to benefit all students, as well as increase the incorporation of strategies, accommodations, and modifications into the daily instructional
practice of a general education classroom

Use the strategies, accommodations, or modifications that have a potential impact on learning, access, and independence to assess
how well each currently integrates with the universal practice

Use the color continuum to assess each one to determine how it is
o Like peers
o Impacts the learning of others
o Integrates into the present routine

Determine how items that fall in the yellow zone can be adjusted to fall into the green zone

Compare strategies, accommodations, or modifications on the feasibility of their integration into universal practice
o Discuss how two items may have the same level of impact, but one may more effectively integrate into the universal
practice
o Discuss what changes may need to occur in the universal practice to better integrate the strategy, accommodation, or
modification
o Determine which strategies, accommodations, modifications need greater support because they do not effectively
integrate into universal practice
SERC
17
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Examining the Integration with Universal Practice
Most Like Peers
Least Like Peers
Enriches Other’s Learning
Deters Other’s Learning
Difficult to Put into the
Routine
Easy to Put into the Routine
State Education Resource Center, 2003
All Rights Reserved. This material is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to use it is not necessary, the source must be cited as the
State Education Resource Center (SERC), Middletown, CT (2003).
SERC
18
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Fidelity
SERC
19
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Progress Monitoring
Purpose: In order to determine whether the student has mastered the goals & objectives, specific criteria for measurement should be
set. This allows for close monitoring of student learning and growth.

For the IEP goals and objectives, identify how student growth will be measured.
o What is the level of accuracy expected?
o How frequently or for what length of time will the student demonstrate the learning accurately?
o What assessment process will be used to prove the student has achieved mastery?

Determine how this performance criterion compares to the expected performance standard in the general education curriculum?
o Is the level of mastery the same as non-disabled peers?
o Is the assessment process the same as non-disabled peers?
To what degree will the student perform
this learning?
List the general education performance
standard/criteria
Accuracy:
Frequency or duration:
How will we prove the student achieved
mastery?
SERC
20
Are the performance criteria…
The same standard
Assessed the same
as non-disabled
way as non-disabled
peers?
peers?
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Key Terms:
o Educational benefit (as based on the Rowley decision) is the successful student outcomes as a result of a reasonably calculated
special education program and can be measured by
o Passing marks/grades
o Advancement from grade to grade
o Progress toward goals and objectives
o Improved scores on district/statewide assessments/ alternate assessment
o Passing the high school exit exam
o Additional court decisions have added to the definition of educational benefit (Bearden, 2005)
o Mather v. Hartford (1996) = grades, socialization skills, level of participation, consistency of effort
o Cypress-Fairbanks v. Michael F. (1997) = positive academic and non-academic benefits
o Reasonable calculation is based on procedural requirements of IDEA 04 and includes:
o A complete assessment
o Identified needs related to the child’s disability and involvement and progress in the general curriculum
o Goals and objectives in each need area
o Services to support goals and objectives
o Progress toward all goals and in the general curriculum
o Participation in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities
o Time with nondisabled peers
o Progress reviewed and IEP adjusted (Drouin, 2004)

“Bridge” is a match between what the curriculum and instructional demands and what the student is ready to learn or do with no
additional supports needed. (Moll, 2003) These themes become the components of the student’s instruction that can be met through
general education curriculum and instruction “as designed”. (Stetson, 2002) These “bridges” can also be considered as relative
strengths.

Gaps are when the curriculum and/or instructional demands call for something the student is not ready for without some level of
change (Moll, 2003)
Access Participation Progress
Defining Specially Designed Instruction

SERC
Accommodations (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000)
 A change made to the teaching or testing procedures in order to provide a student with access to information and to
create an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to demonstrate knowledge and skills (HOW)
 Do not change the instructional level, content, or performance criteria for meeting standards; they do not alter the
big idea or major learning outcomes expected of the instruction
21
DRAFT 2/17/2016


Three types of accommodations:
 Alternative Acquisition Modes = Ways of acquiring knowledge (Input)
 Content Enhancements = Ways to process content, such as organization, comprehension, and memorization
(Process)
 Alternative Response Modes = Ways of demonstrating learning (Output)
Modifications (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000)
 A change in what the student is expected to learn and/or demonstrate (WHAT)
 May alter the subject matter or the expected performance of the student
 While a student may be working on modified course content, the subject area remains the same as for the
rest of the class
 Two types of modifications:
o Change in the number of concepts/skills or performance expectations within the grade level standard
(fewer or more)
o Change of level of performance standard (lower or higher)
Location vs. Services vs Program
SERC
22
DRAFT 2/17/2016
Resources
Bearden, C. B. (2005). The application of the least restrictive environment provision as it relates to residential placement decisions
made under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky.
Cushing, L. S., Clark, N. M., Carter, E. W., & Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Access to the general education curriculum for students with
significant cognitive disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children, 38(2), 6-13.
Drouin, C. (2004). State and Local Processes for Monitoring Educational Benefit: California Sate Department of Education
Hunt, P., Goetz, L., & Anderson, J. (1986). The quality of IEP objectives associated with placement on integrated versus segregated
school sites. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 11(2), 125-130.
Moll, A. M. (2003). Differentiated Instruction Guide for Inclusive Teaching. New York: Dude Publishing.
Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2000). Accessing the General Curriculum: Including Students with Disabilities in Standards-Based
Reform. Thousand Oaks, CA Corwin Press, Inc.
Stetson, F. (2002). Step by Step Training for Inclusive Schools. Houston, Texas: Stetson and Associates.
Youtsey, D. K. (2006). Writing measurable annual goals and objectives: Benchmarks related to California content standards. IEP Online
Training from http://www.calstat.org/iep/2_reading.shtml
SERC
23