Artifact #5: IEP analysis.

My fifth artifact that I am including in the portfolio is an IEP analysis. Familiarizing

myself with and understanding all the different components of the IEP is a vital skill for a

professional teacher to have in order to best support the student. The IEP contains important

information about the student, their strengths, what they struggle with, and any accommodations,

services, or technologies that the student requires to be successful in the classroom. I think that it

is one of the teacher’s duties to advocate for the student if they are not receiving all the support

they need, or if the IEP should be adjusted to better serve the student. I will always ensure an

inclusive, caring, and supportive classroom environment for each and every student. While

completing this IEP analysis I also completed my own research regarding the student’s

condition, the therapies given, as well as the services and technologies provided to see if they are

best practices.

Connection to standards.

InTASC standards.

Standard #2: Learning Differences. The teacher uses understanding of individual

differences and diverse cultures and communities to ensure inclusive learning environments that

enable each learner to meet high standards.

Standard #3: Learning Environments. The teacher works with others to create

environments that support individual and collaborative learning, and that encourage positive

social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self motivation.

Standard #9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice. The teacher engages in ongoing

professional learning and uses evidence to continually evaluate his/her practice, particularly the
effects of his/her choices and actions on others (learners, families, other professionals, and the

community), and adapts practice to meet the needs of each learner.

Standard #10: Leadership and Collaboration. The teacher seeks appropriate leadership

roles and opportunities to take responsibility for student learning, to collaborate with learners,

families, colleagues, other school professionals, and community members to ensure learner

growth, and to advance the profession.

NYS Code of Ethics for Educators standards.

Principle 1: Educators nurture the intellectual, physical, emotional, social, and civic

potential of each student. Educators promote growth in all students through the integration of

intellectual, physical, emotional, social and civic learning. They respect the inherent dignity and

worth of each individual. Educators help students to value their own identity, learn more about

their cultural heritage, and practice social and civic responsibilities. They help students to reflect

on their own learning and connect it to their life experience. They engage students in activities

that encourage diverse approaches and solutions to issues, while providing a range of ways for

students to demonstrate their abilities and learning. They foster the development of students who

can analyze, synthesize, evaluate and communicate information effectively.

Principle 3: Educators commit to their own learning in order to develop their practice.

Educators recognize that professional knowledge and development are the foundations of their

practice. They know their subject matter, and they understand how students learn. Educators

respect the reciprocal nature of learning between educators and students. They engage in a

variety of individual and collaborative learning experiences essential to develop professionally

and to promote student learning. They draw on and contribute to various forms of educational

research to improve their own practice.

of student learning. Educators encourage and support their colleagues to build and maintain high

standards. They participate in decisions regarding curriculum, instruction and assessment

designs, and they share responsibility for the governance of schools. They cooperate with

community agencies in using resources and building comprehensive services in support of

students. Educators respect fellow professionals and believe that all have the right to teach and

learn in a professional and supportive environment. They participate in the preparation and

induction of new educators and in professional development for all staff.

Principle 5: Educators collaborate with parents and community, building trust and

respecting confidentiality. Educators partner with parents and other members of the community

to enhance school programs and to promote student learning. They also recognize how cultural

and linguistic heritage, gender, family and community shape experience and learning. Educators

respect the private nature of the special knowledge they have about students and their families

and use that knowledge only in the students' best interests. They advocate for fair opportunity for

all children.

Ontario Ethical Teacher standards.

The ethical standard of Care includes compassion, acceptance, interest and insight for

developing students' potential. Members express their commitment to students' well-being and

learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice.

Intrinsic to the ethical standard of Respect are trust and fair-mindedness. Members

honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development. In their professional

practice, they model respect for spiritual and cultural values, social justice, confidentiality,

freedom, democracy and the environment.

professional relationships with students, colleagues, parents, guardians and the public are based

on trust.

Honesty, reliability and moral action are embodied in the ethical standard of Integrity.

Continual reflection assists members in exercising integrity in their professional commitments

and responsibilities.

DOE claims.

Claim 2: Medaille College graduates meet the needs of diverse learners through

effective pedagogy and best teaching practices.

Claim 3: Medaille College graduates are caring educators.

ISTE standards

1. Learner- Educators continually improve their practice by learning from and with

others and exploring proven and promising practices that leverage technology to

improve student learning.

4. Collaborator- Educators dedicate time to collaborate with both colleagues and

students to improve practice, discover and share resources and ideas, and solve

problems.
IEP Analysis Assignment

Anna Dobrucki

ESP 600

Craig Centrie

April 23, 2020

Cai Davis is an eight-year-old boy with a learning disability that is enrolled in a typical

third grade classroom. Cai is currently instructed under the New York State Common Core

English Language Arts State Standards. He likes to read and discuss stories with his teacher and

peers in a classroom setting. Cai is able to orally give important details of a story with 95%

accuracy and can comprehend reading material that is appropriate for his grade level. Cai is

currently being instructed under New York State Common Core Math Standards for Grade 3. He

is performing very well in this academic area, as shown by a score of 380 on the New York State

Math Assessment (range of scale score 137 - 397). In the Fall and Spring marking periods, Cai

has maintained an average of 92% for homework assignments and 90% for math tests and

quizzes.

Cai scored below level on the 3 separate tests from the CORE Assessing Reading

Multiple Measures for K-8 (CORE), which means that he is not progressing sufficiently based

upon his grade level in the area of spelling. On 1/19/2018, Cai scored 40% on the CORE

Phoneme Deletion Test, placing him significantly below level for his grade level. On 1/26/2018

Cai scored significantly below level on the CORE Elementary Qualitative Spelling Inventory

Test with a score of 40% on the first segment and 0% on the second segment. The CORE

Phoneme Segmentation Test also took place on 1/26/2018 and Cai scored 33.33% which puts

him at a considerable delay in the area of spelling. Cai struggles with and is behind in phonemic,

orthographic, and morphological awareness.

Cai is an enthusiastic learner and always acts in socially appropriate ways among his

teachers and peers. Even though he struggles with some things, Cai is able to keep a positive
attitude throughout the school day, and always tries hard to do his best during all learning

segments of the school day. Cai's teachers all have positive things to say about having him in

their classes.

In the area of writing, Cai needs to develop grade level spelling abilities through the use

of appropriate spelling rules for written assignments and vocabulary tests/quizzes. In the area of

math, Cai is showing proficiency at a third-grade level, therefore, there are no concerns in this

area. In the area of reading, Cai needs to show improvement when answering questions in

written form by using full and complete sentences.

Cai exhibits age appropriate social/emotional skills and he is able to work well in both

small and large group activities. He is very helpful in the classroom, helping other students and

often volunteers to assist the teacher. Cai is in good physical health, with age appropriate

physical expectations and he fully participates in physical education, including being on the

soccer team. Cai has no physical development needs at this time.

Classroom/Program Accommodations/Modifications

Cai will be provided with an Electronic Speller to assist him with correcting his spelling

errors five times daily during writing assignments in the classroom. The device will also be for

use at home to assist with work not done during the school day. This accommodation aligns with

Cai’s needs since he is delayed in phonemic, orthographic, and morphological awareness which

results in difficulties with spelling. It is marked in his IEP that Cai will not have any testing

accommodations, which I do not think aligns with his needs. If he has access to an Electronic

Speller during class and for assignments, then I do not think it is equitable for his learning needs

to not allow him access to the device during testing. I would understand if there are certain

conditions for the testing accommodation, for example he can not use the device during spelling
tests, however his overall grade will suffer if he struggles with communicating the knowledge

that he has due to incorrect spelling.

Services

Cai is educationally classified as learning disabled and demonstrates delays in the area of

writing- specifically phonemic, orthographic, and morphological awareness. These delays

prevent Cai from fully participating in his academic program throughout all subjects. Due to his

delays, Cai requires spelling instruction with written assignments throughout the school day. In

order to maintain the least restrictive environment for learning, Cai will remain in his classroom

with typical peers. He will receive integrated co-teaching services five times per five-day cycle

for 40 minutes, daily. He will receive this service during English / Language arts class, social

studies class, math class, and science class. Additionally, the teacher will check with Cai for

understanding during lessons five times daily throughout the school day in the classroom. The

teacher will also highlight any words that Cai misspells for him to self-correct; he will correct

100% of the errors five times daily throughout the school day in the classroom. Cai is not to

receive any testing accommodations.

I believe that the integrated co-teaching services is effective for Cai’s needs, since he is

such a social child and enjoys being in the classroom with his peers and teachers. I think that if

he were to have to leave the classroom to receive support for his phonemic, orthographic, and

morphological awareness delays it would have a negative impact on him. The removal from his

teachers and peers may even cause him to delay more because he would feel left out. James M

Walsh wrote a study that, “improved special education student performance is associated with

increased access to general education classrooms through co-teaching support” (2012, pg 29),

which would support the decision to include co-teaching services for Cai. Supporting him
through integrated co-teaching services also allows for Cai to remain in the classroom which is

the Least Restrictive Environment for him.

Goals

Cai has one goal pertaining to reading: When presented with 10 words from reading

narratives or specific informational text from his content area subjects on the third-grade level,

Cai will correctly decode the words. The criteria for the goal is 4 out of 5 correct trials measured

over five weeks through weekly work samples. Cai has three goals pertaining to writing. The

first writing goal is: When given 10 words selected by the teacher from his reading literature and

content area subjects, Cai will spell them correctly upon request. The criteria for the goal is 90%

success over five weeks measured weekly through work samples. The second writing goal is:

When given 10 words selected by the teacher from his reading literature and content area

subjects, Cai will spell them correctly in written assignments. The criteria for the goal is 90%

success over five weeks measured weekly through writing samples. The third writing goal is:

When given a writing assignment, Cai will use the writing processes of revising and editing to

strengthen writing utilizing a writing rubric to evaluate and quantify the revision and editing

process. The criteria for the goal is 90% success over five weeks measured through weekly

writing samples.

I think overall the goals listed for Cai in his IEP align with his needs. Since he has a delay

in phonemic awareness, the goal for reading makes sense and I think the measurability is good. I

think the first two writing goals make sense for his orthographic and morphological awareness

delays, however I think they are so similar that they could have been combined into one goal,

and I also think the measurability is good for the goals. The third writing goal listed on Cai’s IEP

I think is a little tricky. I agree that it is beneficial for Cai to use the process of revising and
editing to improve his writing, but I think it may be quite challenging for him to also have to use

a rubric to evaluate and quantify the revision and editing process for himself, since he struggles

with reading as well. I think this goal may be difficult to actually observe and enforce.

Educational Strategies

Morphological awareness is the recognition, understanding, and use of word parts

that carry significance, but it is often overlooked in the learning process

(http://dyslexiahelp.umich.edu/professionals/dyslexia-school/morphological-awareness) .

Research is now reporting the importance of strong morphological teaching as early as first and

second grade, instead of focusing on it in the middle and high school years. Additionally, there is

evidence that students learn orthography (phonics), phonology, and morphology synchronously

rather than in stages, when learning how to read and write. Therefore, instruction and

intervention might also be most efficient when these skills are explicitly taught together.

Students who learn how to attach meaning to parts of words will be empowered to be better

readers and spellers. Here are some specific activities that would be beneficial for Cai:

• Find the Roots: Teach the concept of root words to students by saying, "A root word is

the 'main' word in a longer word." Give examples and then have students practice

identifying the root words; ask students to highlight the root words in complex words.

• Fix the Affixes: Explicitly teach students that affixes are extra parts that are "fixed on" to

the root word. The affixes at the beginning of words are called "prefixes" because "pre-"

means before, and a "suffix" comes at the end of a root word. Ask students to "fix" the

broken root words with the correct "affix."

• Word Sort: Ask students to sort words according to their affixes and then guess the

meaning of the affix based on their prior knowledge and the patterns they see.
 • Building Blocks: Make flash cards and ask students to make as many real words as they

can with these cards; make sure that the cards contain several root words and multiple

affixes.

Reflection

While writing this IEP analysis I used mostly information that I gained from the previous

weeks of this course, through completing IRIS modules, answering discussion posts, and reading

others’ posts. I thought that the course was laid out in a way that made the writing of this

analysis quite straight forward, there was not too much information being given all at once, each

week we learned a new piece of information that I was able to put together now. I actually

learned quite a lot from the other members of this course section as well, everyone has a different

perspective and opinion that they are able to share with the group. I enjoyed that not everyone

was looking at the same IEP so that after studying the one that I had picked, I was able to read

someone else’s post to a discussion question and learn something new and there were multiple

times that I thought to myself, that would be applicable for my student as well! When writing

this analysis, I tried to really keep the student in mind, as an eight-year-old, would Cai be able to

understand the IEP if he read it himself? Cai should be involved in the creation of his IEP and it

should contain things that he thinks are important and necessary for his education, this will help

him to develop self-determination skills that he will use in school and in other aspects of his life

(Konrad, 2008, pg 236). It has been shown that when students are able to choose their goals, they

are more invested in the process, therefore, more likely to pursue and reach the goals (Arndt,

Konrad, Test, 2006, pg 194). Cai’s teachers should also be very familiar with his IEP, so that

they know exactly what he needs from them and how they can best support him. If they are

unclear about what their role is, then he will not be able to succeed. When writing this analysis, I
looked at many resources- I looked up research articles, I looked at the grade 3 Standards that

Cai would be instructed under, and I referred back to certain IRIS modules that I had completed

in the past. Incorporating all these various resources I felt much better prepared to analyze Cai’s

IEP.
 References

Arndt, S. A., Konrad, M., & Test, D. W. (2006). Effects of the Self-Directed IEP on Student

Participation in Planning Meetings. Remedial and Special Education, 27(4), 194–207.

doi: 10.1177/07419325060270040101

Carlisle, J. F. (2010). Effects of Instruction in Morphological Awareness on Literacy

Achievement: An Integrative Review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 464–487. doi:

10.1598/RRQ.45.4.5

Konrad, M. (2008). Involve Students in the IEP Process. Intervention in School and

Clinic, 43(4), 236–239. doi: 10.1177/1053451208314910

Morphological Awareness. (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2020, from

http://dyslexiahelp.umich.edu/professionals/dyslexia-school/morphological-awareness

Walsh, J. M. (2012). Co-Teaching as a School System Strategy for Continuous

Improvement. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and

Youth, 56(1), 29–36. doi: 10.1080/1045988x.2011.555792