IEP Case Study

Part 1.A: Background Information

For this assignment, I have chosen Coby, a 4th grade student on my mentors caseload at

Milbrook Elementary. I have had the pleasure of working with Coby on a daily basis as he

currently attends our small group phonics sessions. Coby was referred to the IEP team in 2012

when he was attending pre-kindergarten due to concerns about his academic performance.

At that time, he had not been making sufficient academic progress so he was referred to

determine his levels of performance. The pre-referral strategies used at that time included:

preferential seating, small group instruction, multisensory instruction, modeling and repetition,

peer tutoring and coaching, chunking of content, shorter phrasing and repetition of directions and

participation in speech class.

After the referral was made on 4/10/12, the timeline progressed as follows: Coby was

assessed on 5/8/12 and an initial IEP meeting was held on 5/28/12. During this meeting, Coby

was determined eligible for IEP services as a student with a developmental delay. The IEP was

written to include both special education and speech/language services to address the students

areas of need. There was no data in the file regarding service implementation dates. As Coby

approached eight years old he was reassessed because he would no longer be eligible for

services as a student with a developmental delay. As a result of this testing which took place on

5/8/14; Coby was reclassified as a student with a Specific Learning Disability.

Further review of Cobys records reveals no significant medical concerns. He has a

younger brother who also attends Milbrook and has an IEP but no other significant family

history is noted. Coby has continued to perform below grade expectations in the areas of

mathematics, reading, writing and communication thus making him eligible to continue with IEP

services. There are no behavioral concerns for this student; he is very compliant and perseveres

LaShell Wallace
 IEP Case Study

even when a task is difficult for him. Cobys native language is English and there are no

known cultural differences that have impacted the decision to determine him eligible or

implement the services written in his IEP.

Currently, Coby is still developing necessary skills in the areas of reading, writing,

mathematics and communication all of which will be addressed at his upcoming annual review

meeting. Additionally, this is the re-evaluation year for Coby so updated assessments will be

used to revise the IEP and determine current levels of academic performance.

Part 1.B.: Provide information relevant to the IEP process.

The development of a students IEP cannot be accomplished without input from all

members of the team and requires several steps to keep everyone informed throughout the

process. The IEP team consists of: parent/guardian of the student referred, IEP facilitator (at

Milbrook it is the Assistant Principal), special educator, school psychologist, general educator,

school counselor and other related service providers (OT, SLP, PT, etc.) as needed based upon

the reason for referral. When a referral is made a meeting is held for all members of the team

to discuss the referral and any pre-referral strategies that have been used prior to referral

submission. The team will also decide what testing if any should be completed. If the team

decides to evaluate, they will obtain written permission from the parent/guardian. Once

permission is received, the school has 60 days to complete testing and meet again to discuss

the results and determine if the student is eligible for services. If the student is eligible, the

school has 30 days to write the IEP. Another meeting will be held to review the draft IEP and

receive parental input including written permission to implement the IEP. At a minimum the

team will reconvene annually to review the students IEP. During this meeting any necessary

updates will be recommended to address the students needs. At least once every three years or

LaShell Wallace
 IEP Case Study

as requested by the parent or other team member the student will be re-evaluated to determine if

he/she continues to qualify for special education services. Anytime a meeting is to be held, the

parents must be notified at least 10 days in advance. Additionally, they are to receive copies

of any documents to be reviewed at the meeting (i.e. assessment reports, draft IEPs, etc.) at least

5 days in advance.

In order to prepare for Cobys meeting, the case manager collected all documents from

participating team members and issued a notice of documents to accompany the reports so that

parents can see what is enclosed for their review on the cover page. A meeting notice was also

sent home by the secretary to notify the parents of the upcoming meeting. The meeting is

scheduled for April 19th and will be facilitated by the assistant principal. She generates a report

on Tienet which displays each students annual review and re-evaluation due dates and uses this

to plan when the team meeting will be held. In Cobys case, his annual review and re-evaluation

dates are due within weeks of each other, so the annual review meeting will be held first while

testing is completed, then another meeting will be held to review the testing results and revise the

IEP based upon this information in May.

Currently, Coby receives small group instruction for phonics, mathematics and

speech/language therapy. In order to update the IEP, both special educators (one works with

him for math, the other for phonics) and the speech/language pathologist collaborated to

discuss Cobys progress and needs. I was able to share my observations and administer some

informal assessments to assist with this process. During the meeting, at least one of Cobys

classroom teachers will attend to provide info regarding his performance and any concerns in

the class; the special educator and speech/language pathologist will share information

regarding Cobys progress toward his IEP goals as well as recommendations for amendments to

LaShell Wallace
 IEP Case Study

those goals or suggestions for new goals; additionally the special educator will provide input

regarding updates to instructional and testing accommodations, supplementary aids and services,

program modifications, and supports as needed; and the parent/guardian will provide

information regarding their view of Cobys performance, progress and any concerns they may

have.

At Milbrook, the IEP process they have implemented follows the federal regulations

put in place by the IDEA 2004. I have even noticed that when I am in attendance at a meeting

the IEP facilitator asks the parents permission for me to stay since I was not on the meeting

invitation. They are flexible and have many parents who participate by phone when they cannot

attend the meeting in person to ensure that they are receiving parent input. They have substitutes

cover the teachers class to make sure they can attend to discuss the child and answer questions

and when any suggestion is made that requires approval from the team, they pose a question to

make sure that all members have an opportunity to participate in the decision making

process. Additionally, both the annual review and re-evaluation meetings for Coby are scheduled

within the required timeline and documents were sent home before spring break to make sure

that parents have them in advance of the meeting.

Part 2.A.: Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Performance (PLAAFP)

Each year, the students IEP must be updated to meet their current needs. In order to

determine what those needs are, informal assessments are administered to the student to ensure

that recommendations are data-based. Since Coby has needs in multiple content areas, a

variety of assessments were given. To assess Cobys ability to decode words, he was given

the Beginning Decoding Survey which is used to assess the students ability to read sight words

and apply phonics skills such as reading CVC words, words with digraphs, blends and short

LaShell Wallace
 IEP Case Study

vowels in isolation, reading short sentences and reading nonsense words. Coby was able to

complete these tasks with 90% accuracy, 96% is the minimum passing score. There is an

accompanying Advanced Decoding Survey that assesses a students ability to apply more

complex phonics patterns such as reading words with vowel teams, r-controlled vowels, long

vowels, multisyllabic words and trigraphs. On this survey, Coby earned a score of 43% accuracy,

80% is the minimum passing score.

In order to assess Cobys passage comprehension, he was given the Brigance. For this

assessment, Coby read passages independently and then answered questions about the text. He

was able to answer 2nd grade level questions with 80% accuracy, and earned a score of 20%

accuracy when attempting 4th grade level text. Coby was given the third grade Dolch word list to

assess word recognition; he was able to read 100% of the words accurately. However, when

given the Brigance word recognition list, he was able to read 80% of the 3rd grade list accurately

and 20% of the 4th grade list. Based on the results of these assessments, Cobys strengths are

reading sight words through the 3rd grade level and decoding two-syllable words with long and

short vowel patterns. His needs include reading comprehension and reading multisyllabic words.

In order to determine Cobys current level of performance in the area of mathematics, he

was given the calculation test from the Woodcock-Johnson III-C, an abbreviated and informal

comprehensive assessment. On this assessment, he earned a grade equivalent of 3.4. Cobys

strengths include basic calculation when adding and subtracting without regrouping and one-

digit multiplication facts. He needs to improve in the areas of solving word problems and

calculation beyond the basic facts. Coby has needs in the area of writing as well but they were

not assessed. Since this is Cobys re-evaluation year and he is in the process of being formally

tested using the Woodcock-Johnson IV, we did not give him the informal Woodcock-Johnson III-

LaShell Wallace
 IEP Case Study

C in this area as the questions and format are very similar. Even though he was given the WJIII-

C calculation test, this is similar to math facts drills that he routinely completes during his small

group math lessons. However, we know that Coby is able to spell familiar sight words, but does

need to improve his overall written expression.

Coby currently receives speech/language therapy so the communication section of the

PLAAFP was completed by the speech/language pathologist who will also formally evaluate

Coby in the coming weeks. Based on her report, Cobys strengths are: naming and identifying

categories, explaining the similarities and differences between related words, answering verbal

analogies, following directions with sequential and temporal concepts and expressing his

opinion. His needs are to improve language processing, grammar and syntax.

When Cobys annual IEP review meeting takes place, all of this information will be

shared with his family and the team will receive their input regarding Cobys education, the

IEP and the services delineated therein as well as how they feel about the progress he has made

during the past year. The disability continues to impact Cobys performance in the areas of

reading, mathematics, writing and communication. When formal testing is completed, the team

will meet again to review the assessment results, thus determining the extent to which each area

continues to be impacted and revise his IEP to address his ongoing needs.

2. B.: Instructional and Testing Accommodations

Based on Cobys current needs as identified via the administration of informal assessment

tools and anecdotal notes, Coby is eligible for several accommodations. Due to Cobys deficits

in the area of reading comprehension, he needs to have text read to him in order for him to

understand what he is reading and what he is being asked to do. He is reading below grade level

LaShell Wallace
 IEP Case Study

at a guided reading level N, which is beginning 3rd grade and he also needs to improve reading

fluency before he can be expected to read and comprehend the grade level text presented in the

classroom and included in the PARCC assessments. For this reason, text to speech is

recommended for the entire PARCC assessment including graphic aids for the mathematics

assessments as available. As this test is a computer based test, this accommodation will be

provided via the software that Coby will use to access the assessment. In the classroom, Coby

requires a human reader to read to him, this accommodation will be provided by the general

educator. Additionally, because Coby is eligible for this accommodation it is recommended that

he be tested in a small group setting so that other students will not be disturbed while he is read

to.

Coby has limited ability to solve and calculate math problems beyond basic

calculations at this time. For this reason, calculation device and mathematics tools are

recommended for Coby to complete grade-level mathematics tasks during testing. He will be

provided with a calculator or other math tools when the calculator is prohibited to assist him in

solving the grade-level content delivered in the classroom and included in the PARCC

assessment. Since Coby has difficulties processing information and is receiving

speech/language services to help him improve in this area, extended time is being

recommended. In order for Coby to adequately access and respond to information, he requires

additional time to process that information and express himself. These accommodations are to

be implemented by the classroom teacher for all assignments and assessments as well as by

a proctor during standardized tests such as the PARCC.

2. C.: IEP Goals and Objectives

LaShell Wallace
 IEP Case Study

After reviewing the PLAAFP page and the goals currently on Cobys IEP, we were able

to focus our attention on the skills that we would like Coby to gain over the next year as a result

of receiving the individualized services included in his plan. A template for the goal is required

to be selected from an approved list of goals from a database called Goalbook and is based on

the content area of need and the grade level of the student. Each goal is then modified to fit

the needs of the student and the evaluation method toward the goal process is selected. This goal

is then broken down into objectives whereby the student is evaluated on his progress toward each

component as he works toward mastery of the overall goal. This progress is documented

quarterly on a progress report which is shared with families when report cards are distributed.

Cobys reading comprehension goal is as follows: By April 2018, after reading a text at

Cobys instructional level, then discussing the main idea and key details, Coby will verbally

provide a summary of the text in (3-5 sentences) including the main idea and an explanation of

how (2) key details support the main idea as measured by a (teacher-made rubric).

Evaluation Method: Informal procedures

With: 2 out of 3 targeted trials

Objective 1: After reading an instructional level text then discussing the main idea and

key details, Coby will verbally provide a summary of the text (3-5 sentences) and state

the main idea.

Evaluation Method: Informal procedures

With: 2 out of 3 targeted trials

Objective 2: After reading an instructional level text then discussing the main idea and

key details, Coby will verbally explain how (2) key details support the main idea.
Evaluation Method: Informal procedures

LaShell Wallace
 IEP Case Study

With: 2 out of 3 targeted trials

Cobys reading phonics goal is as follows: By April 2018, when given a list of (10)

grade level multisyllable words, Coby will independently orally read and pronounce each word

with 80% accuracy in (4 out of 5) trials.

Evaluation Method: Informal procedures

With: 4 out of 5 targeted trials
Objective 1: By April 2018, when given a list of (10) grade level multisyllable words

with the words separated visually by syllable, Coby will correctly decode the word orally

with 80% accuracy.

Evaluation Method: Informal procedures

With: 4 out of 5 targeted trials

Objective 2: By April 2018, when given a list of (10) grade level multisyllable words,

Coby will independently orally read and pronounce each word with 80% accuracy.

Evaluation Method: Informal procedures

With: 4 out of 5 targeted trials
Cobys mathematics/word problems goal is as follows: By 4/22/2018, when given 10

word problems within 1000 that include a picture of sets of objects that represent the information

given in each problem, Coby will correctly choose the appropriate operation write the

mathematical expression (e.g. 4 x 5), and write the answer scoring 6/10 correct written

responses in 3 out of 5 word problem activities.

Evaluation Method: Informal procedures

With: 60% accuracy
Objective 1: Given accommodations and instruction, Coby will be able to identify the

question in a word problem and what strategy to use to solve the problem.

LaShell Wallace
 IEP Case Study

Evaluation Method: Informal procedures

With: 70% accuracy
Objective 2: Given accommodations and instruction, Coby will be able to apply

strategies to solve word problems.

Evaluation Method: Informal procedures

With: 70% accuracy
Objective 3: Coby will be able to accurately compute a solution.

Evaluation Method: Informal procedures

With: 70% accuracy
Cobys math calculation goal is as follows: By 4/22/2018, when given 20 addition,

subtraction, multiplication and/or division problems with answers within 100, Coby will

correctly write the numerical sum scoring 10 out of 15 correct written responses in 4 out of 5

activities.

Evaluation Method: Informal procedures

With: 70 % accuracy
Objective 1: Given direct instruction, Coby will be able to add and subtract accurately to

100.

Evaluation Method: Informal procedures

With: 75% accuracy
Objective 2: Given direct instruction, Coby will be able to multiply accurately to 100.

Evaluation Method: Informal procedures

With: 65% accuracy
Cobys communication goal is as follows: By April 2018, after listening to the teacher

read a grade-level oral narrative, Coby will demonstrate understanding by orally answering (3)

LaShell Wallace
 IEP Case Study

closed-ended questions (e.g. who, what, where, when) on the oral narrative, in (4 out of 5)

questions asked.

Evaluation Method: other charting

With: 70% accuracy
Objective 1: Given a short story and fading prompts, Coby will answer wh questions in a

complete sentence.

Evaluation Method: other charting

With: 70% accuracy
Objective 2: Given a short story and fading prompts, Coby will answer inferential

questions.

Evaluation Method: other charting

With: 70% accuracy
Objective 3: Given a short story and fading prompts, Coby will identify the main idea

and three supporting details.

Evaluation Method: other charting

With: 70% accuracy
Objective 4: Given a short story and fading prompts, Coby will sequence and retell a

story.

Evaluation Method: other charting

With: 70% accuracy

In order to update this IEP, collaboration with other service providers was sought as they

have more knowledge about the skills that they are helping Coby to improve. The other special

educator at Milbrook works with Coby in a small group for math lessons, so his input was sought

for the writing of the mathematics goals. Also, the speech/language therapist developed the

LaShell Wallace
 IEP Case Study

communication goals based on her experiences working with Coby and the assessments of his

skills that she conducted. As services are provided, educators can utilize UDL principles to

allow Coby to receive the information in different ways to give him the best chance for success

and retention. Additionally, this will give Coby the opportunity to demonstrate his understanding

of the content in various ways. These goals are aligned with the MCCRS standards, they

include grade level skills, but the objectives are written to allow growth over time to in order for

Coby to work toward mastery of those skills.

2. D. Supplementary Aids and Services, Program Modifications, and Supports

In order for Coby to access curriculum materials, he requires additional supports and

modifications in the classroom. The supplementary aids that he requires are divided into three

categories. The first category is Instructional Supports and the recommendations in this area

are as follows:

a. Have student repeat and/or paraphrase information

b. Use of word bank to reinforce vocabulary and/or when extended writing is required
c. Allow use of manipulatives
d. Other instructional supports such as graphic organizers, sentence starters, paragraph

template

Since Coby has difficulty with language processing he needs to repeat or paraphrase

information so that his teacher knows whether he understands or if he needs the information

presented again or in a different format. The use of manipulatives gives Coby a visual

representation that he can use to solve word problems or represent abstract concepts to help

him understand. As Coby is still working toward grade-level expectations in the areas of

writing and communication, the use of a word bank, sentence starters, paragraph template and

LaShell Wallace
 IEP Case Study

graphic organizers need to be offered to assist Coby with organizing his thoughts and

demonstrating understanding.

The second category is Program Modifications and the recommendations for Coby

include:

a. Break down assignments into smaller units

b. Use pictures to support reading passages whenever possible

Chunking assignments gives Coby direction on which tasks to focus on at a given time to

reduce the frustration caused when he is overwhelmed. This also gives him more time to

process information since he has difficulties with short and long term memory. The visual

support provided to Coby while reading passages, word problems, etc. can help him with

comprehension of the text since this is also an area of need.

The third category is Physical/Environmental Supports, there is just one

recommendation in this area:

a. Preferential seating

To ensure that Coby is closer to the teacher to receive clarification of assignments/tasks

as needed and to give him the opportunity to participate during instruction, he should receive

preferential seating. The general educator needs to consider this support when preparing or

varying the room arrangement as well as during all instruction to make sure he/she is accessible

to Coby to provide necessary prompting and support.

The supplementary aids, instructional supports, and program modifications recommended

above are essential for Coby to give him an opportunity to succeed in the general education

classroom. These supports will be delivered primarily by the general educator, but will

provided to Coby when he works with the special educator or other instructional assistant as

LaShell Wallace
 IEP Case Study

appropriate. All educators will provide access to the supports/tools and deliver instruction in

accordance with the program modifications described in this IEP. At the next IEP meeting, if the

results of formal assessments provide any new information, additional recommendations for

further support will be suggested at that time.

Part 3. Reflection

Throughout the process of collecting data and updating Cobys IEP for the annual review

meeting, I have worked closely with my mentor. I administered and scored several informal

assessments and reported the findings to my mentor teacher. I have also been in discussions

with her regarding Cobys performance, sharing my observations and comparing them to

hers to see if my recommendations where appropriate. Currently, I am in the process of

completing the formal assessment for Cobys upcoming meeting. Due to this less common

scenario with the evaluations being completed at the same time the annual review is due, my

work with Coby and my mentor to update this IEP is not complete. Therefore, two meetings are

needed; one to complete the annual review and one to review formal assessment data and revise

the IEP based upon said data. With the guidance of my mentor, I will add the assessment

results to the IEP, review the IEP to see what amendments should be recommended as well

as present the findings and recommendations to the team at the meeting.

During the annual review meeting, the assistant principal was present and facilitated

the meeting, the speech/language therapist, general educator, special educator and I were also

present. Cobys mother stated that she would attend, but she did not come. The general educator

shared information regarding Cobys progress in the classroom and asked questions to the team

about what they notice when working with Coby in small groups. I shared feedback based on

my experiences both during instruction and in the recent testing sessions weve had. The

LaShell Wallace
 IEP Case Study

special educator briefly reviewed the IEP and obtained their feedback regarding a change she

thought was necessary. The speech/language therapist briefly discussed the goals she had written.

Since mom was not in attendance at the meeting, the team discussed trying to obtain her input in

person at dismissal time and the assistant principal decided that she would call the parent on the

day of the next meeting to encourage her to attend. (Historically, no one from Cobys family

regularly attends the IEP meetings.) The team members collaborated before the meeting to

prepare the draft IEP and during the meeting to make educational decisions for Coby.

During the meeting, several decisions were made regarding Cobys IEP. The team

decided that Coby is making sufficient progress, so does not qualify for Extended School Year

services. However, in an attempt to prevent regression and loss of information, it was

recommended that Coby be made eligible for the schools summer program. Coby has

demonstrated that he is able to sustain attention, so the Social/Behavior support for this need

was removed. Also, the amount of outside general education service hours for phonics was

decreased from one hour to 30 minutes/4 times weekly, but the team decided to keep outside

general education math service hours at 1 hour/4 times weekly and speech/language services at

30 minutes, once per week. Each decision was made by the team as a whole. All

recommendations for changes to this IEP were presented to the team, then the team discussed

and decided what to do as a group. Since mom was not present, the IEP team notes were sent to

her for review (she was previously sent a copy of the draft IEP). If she agrees, she is asked to

sign off on the IEP, if she does not, she is asked to contact the school to share her opinions and

request any changes she would like to see.

The IEP team at Milbrook followed the required procedures to comply with IDEA.

Before the meeting prior written notice and the draft IEP were sent to the family to ensure that

LaShell Wallace
 IEP Case Study

they were aware of the meeting and had ample time to review the information that would be

discussed. Timelines were followed for scheduling the review meeting as well as the assessment

review meeting. The assessment review meeting could not be held prior to the annual review

meeting because the parents did not return the permission to assess right away and it had to be

sent home several times. No formal testing could begin without the parents written consent.

However, the testing and assessment review meetings are still taking place within the allotted

timeline. Since Cobys parents did not attend the meeting, procedural safeguards were sent

home along with the IEP team notes for the parent to review. Although it is not ideal for

parents/guardians not to participate in the IEP team meeting, the staff at Milbrook are doing what

they can to try to encourage participation as well as remind parents about the meeting via a

courtesy phone call.

As a result of participating in this case study I was able to learn about the data entry

programs used in Baltimore County as well as county specific requirements for the writing of the

IEP itself. I had the opportunity to participate in data collection and analyze the data in order to

make recommendations based upon the needs of the student. This is an important part of the

special educators job and I am glad that I was able to experience it in this way.

LaShell Wallace