An Individual Education Program is the backbone of Special Education.

This plan is a
legal document, one the helps ensure that all members of a students team are working towards
progress and in the best interest of the student. It is how the case manager is able to advocate for
the student and how the parents know that their child is being educated with their needs in the
forefront. This review will be broken down page by page.
The IEP reviewed is that of a child aged 3. We will call her Amy. Amy was initially
evaluated on 12/3/2013, through the initial assessment it was determined that Amys primary
disability is Emotional/Behavior Disorder, with a secondary disability of Developmental Delay.
The initial IEP meeting date was also 12/3/2013. This is a common practice in our district, to
write an IEP on the same date as an evaluation meeting. The IEP meeting could have waited 30
school days and the team could have reconvened at that time to write the IEP, giving the team
time to observe and learn about Amy if needed. Amys federal setting is 31, which indicates that
Amy Participates in an early childhood or kindergarten program (non-special education) at least
10 hours per week and receives the majority of Special Education services in this setting.
(spedforms.org). Amys progress will be reported after a period of 6 months and then again at the
annual review. In the elementary the progress notes are written twice a year, during the
trimesters that the teams do not convene, at the secondary level the progress notes are written
three times a year, during the quarters the IEP team does not convene. Finally, the IEP team
consisted of parent, special education teacher, qualified district representative, school
psychologist, and a general education teacher. All the correct members were listed on the IEP
front page.
Amy has three goals. Her Present Levels of Academic Achievements and Functional
Performance (PLAAFP) were listed on each of the three goal pages. When I write an IEP I tend
to write the majority of the PLAAFP on a separate page, so I can cover all the evaluation
information as well as all the updates. I will indicate specific present levels for each individual
goal in the goal page PLAAFP section. Goal 1 revolves around Amys speech needs. The
PLAAFP refers to evaluation results and that she needs to practice initial speech sounds in
isolation. There is one goal and the typical three objectives. The page indicates which sounds
and that there will be data collection through weekly therapy, and observation. Goal 2 revolves
around Amys behavioral and social skills needs. The PLAAFP indicates that Amy prefers adult
interaction and that her behavior is indicated in a variety of settings, which is a qualifier for
E/BD. This goal does not have a time line, and the objectives tell me what will happen and
HOW Amy will be taught her replacement behavior. It is indicated that the progress will be
measured through classroom observations. Goal 3 indicates that Amy cannot play near a peer
without disrupting their play or play cooperatively. This goal and objective tell what she will do,
but does not indicate how she will be taught the replacement behavior.
The Services page is the final page of this IEP. This page indicated that Amy will get
direct services from the DD teacher twice weekly for 30 minutes and the S/LP teacher three
times monthly with for 30 minutes and 30 minutes indirect weekly. She will not have a
paraprofessional, assistive technology, special transportation, interpreter, or ESY. I wonder
about the ESY services. How does the team know at this point, when the child is 3 and its an
initial placement? Why wasnt the more data needed box marked? The Least Restrictive
Environment indicates that Amy requires specialized instruction and for what reason, this is how
I also write my LRE statements. The LRE also indicates that Amy will miss non-structured free
play with his non disabled peers.
Upon review of this IEP, without ever meeting the student or reading the evaluation
report I would have to assume that it is an appropriate plan for Amy. The IEP team appears to
have followed all timelines as set forth through law and best practices. If the goals remain the
focus and the interventions are effective the student should grow in her speech abilities and her
social skills, thus improving her opportunities for learning. My concerns are with the behavioral
goals, while Goal 2 does indicate how the student will learn to transition (using verbal and
picture cues) Goal 3 does not indicate the HOW the replacement behavior will be taught. I also
would have liked to see a rundown of evaluation results in the PLAAFP, as the IEP indicated a
secondary disability of DD, but there does not seem to be any indication of her IQ or cognitive
abilities. Other than those two things this IEP appears to be written with fidelity and the
students specific needs in mind.
As an administrator, I plan on taking file reviews seriously. I would like to use this IEP
as an example of what to do right and how minor changes can make this a solid and strong
foundation for a young student as she travels through her academic career.