Part IA: Student Background

Sarah is a 9th grader at Lansdowne High School, a school located

in Southwest Baltimore County. She currently has an IEP with the
diagnosis of a Specific Learning Disability, which was identified when
she was in third grade.

She had been receiving Special Education

services since pre-kindergarten with Communication goals. The basis

for her initial referral in third grade was based upon three core
academic teachers observations regarding Sarahs ability to process
readings and answering comprehension questions appropriately.

team was held on October 16 regarding Sarahs eligibility for Special

Education services after three core academic teachers referred her.
The teachers concerns included Sarahs difficulty processing reading
assignments and her writing ability, as well as some deficits noted in
Math class. A Request for Permission to Assess was submitted on
October 27 and the Educational Assessment was completed on
November 17.

The assessor reported that Sarah was a friendly child

with willingness to persevere and work hard, despite deficits present in

reading, writing, and mathematics.
In addition to an Educational Assessment (Woodcock-Johnson III),
a Classroom Observation was completed by another Special Education
teacher. The teacher reported that Sarah was pulled to the back of the
room to have the assignment read to her to ensure comprehension and
then she completed the assignment with minimal difficulty. She

required additional time to complete the assignment when compared

to her peers.

Based upon the classroom observation and the

Educational Assessment report, it was suggested that Sarah receive

services in Reading, Writing, and Mathematics while in an inclusion
classroom, in addition to her Communication Services provided by the
Speech Language Pathologist.

Part IB: IEP Process

Since Sarahs third grade year, the IEP process has followed a
similar trajectory leading to the current school year. As required by
law, Sarah is formally assessed to determine her eligibility for
continued Special Education Services every three years, making her
ninth grade year the year she is formally assessed using the
Woodcock-Johnson IV, the assessment that replaced the WoodcockJohnson III. The first meeting for Sarah was held on October 7, 2015 to
receive permission to assess Sarah. A letter was sent home on
September 25, 2015 regarding the meeting and asking the custodial
guardian whether they would be available to participate in the
meeting. The custodial guardian contacted the school two days prior
to the meeting and stated she would be in attendance.
On the day of the team, the following members were present:
the case manager, a general educator, the school psychologist, the IEP
Chair, the student, and the custodial guardian. At the team, the IEP

Chair identified the purpose of the meeting (to receive permission to

administer Educational Assessment, a Psychological Assessment, and a
Classroom Observation by the case manager).
Next, the case manager provided a review of the case management
report which included Sarahs current progress and any notes provided
by Sarahs other teachers. Finally, one of Sarahs general education
teachers was invited to attend and provide her own account of Sarahs
behaviors and progress in her class.

After the custodial guardian

heard all of the information available at the team, she gave permission
for the assessments required to determine eligibility of need and the
meeting was concluded, with the condition that the team would meet
again after the assessments were completed to discuss implications of
the assessments no later than January 4, 2016, 90 days from the initial
team meeting.
A future team has been scheduled for November 12, 2015 for the
Review of Assessments. It is at this time that the Psychological
Assessment, Educational Assessment, and the Classroom Observation
will be reviewed by the team members identified in the previous
paragraph. To prepare for this meeting, the case manager is required
to conduct a classroom observation, identifying specific deficits that
may be present in the classroom. As the case manager, it is
recommended to observe the student in a core academic class,
although it is not required if scheduling does not permit.

The classroom observation was conducted on October 28 in

Sarahs Algebra class.

It was noted by the case manager that Sarah

arrived to class about 19 minutes late, a behavior that has been noted
by several of Sarahs teachers since the start of the school year.
Tardiness has not affected Sarahs performance in the classroom, but it
is a general consensus that the teachers have expressed concern to
Sarahs case manager regarding tardiness. Sarah arrived to class and
immediately moved to her seat to begin her classwork. Sarahs core
classes are co-taught inclusion classes, providing students with IEPs
additional adult support while in the classroom.
Another Special Educator at Lansdowne completes the
Educational Assessment, although the case manager can conduct the
Educational Assessment as well.

The Woodcock-Johnson IV is the

formal assessment used, and a report is provided to the custodial

guardian, the case manager, and the additional team members have
access to the report during the meeting. At the meeting scheduled for
November 12, it will be the responsibility of the case manager to
review key points with the team, so it is important that the case
manager reviews the report prior to the team. The report also includes
recommendations given by the assessor to help plan for the review of
the IEP.
The School Psychologist will review Sarahs file and meet with
her to determine what supports she may require in addition to

academic supports provided by the teachers.

He will share his report

with the team on the day of the meeting and provide a copy of his
report to be added to Sarahs file. The reports have been mailed home
to Sarahs custodial guardian on October 29, to allow for review prior to
the team and to provide time for her family to identify any questions
they may have for the team.
After the Review of Assessments, a meeting will be held around
December 8, 2015, the projected review date for her current IEP. At
this team, an updated IEP will be presented to the team and reviewed.
Sarahs custodial guardian will be provided with a copy of the IEP prior
to the meeting and be permitted to ask any questions she may have
regarding the process. She is also permitted to discuss any concerns
she may have with Sarahs academic progress.
This process complies with IDEA for several reasons. First, it
provides the opportunity to discuss free and appropriate education,
which Sarah currently receives at Lansdowne High School, as well as
the least restrictive environment. Sarah is currently in co-taught
inclusion classrooms for all of her core classes, which is the most
appropriate classroom setting for Sarah. Her IEP reflects that she
should be in inclusion classes, and the data from her formal and
informal assessment supports this team decision.
Sarahs IEP would also be compliant with IDEA because it is
reviewed and revised with an educational team consisting of the IEP

Chair, a Special Educator (case manager), a General Educator, the

School Psychologist, the custodial guardian, and the student. The IEP
also contains all of the required components, including, but not limited
to, the present level of performance, a manifestation statement,
measurable goals and objectives, supplementary services and
supports, program modifications and accommodations, transition
reports, and how the progress will be measured.

PART II: Content of the IEP

A. Present Levels of Academic Achievement and
Performance

Part one of the Present Levels of Academic Achievement and

Performance (PLAAFP) describes Sarahs academic achievement when
compared to her non-disabled peers. Since this is a Triennial
Assessment year, the Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ-IV) was used to help
create the new IEP. Sarahs Broad Reading Scores were noted on the
assessment portion of the PLAAFP. It is indicated that she has a 5.9
Instructional Level using the results of the WJ-IV, although the case
manager noted that Sarahs abilities have a broad range, from 3.5
grade equivalency in Word Attack skills to 6.2 in Passage
Comprehension. It is worth noting that in her previous IEP, Sarah had a
7.0 grade equivalency using the Brigance Assessment, the assessment
used during informal assessment years. Additionally, Sarah was tested
using an 8th grade reading comprehension probe during the 2014-2015
school year and scored a 70% with accommodations in place and a
40% without accommodations. Additionally, Sarahs previous IEP

stated her needs were passage comprehension but it is the area in

which she scored highest on the WJ-IV.
Sarahs Writing was assessed using the WJ-IV as well, and her
Broad Writing Score placed her at a 4.1 grade equivalency, although
other scores ranged from a 2.9 grade equivalency in Writing Fluency to
a 6.2 in Writing Samples. In her previous IEP, the Brigance Assessment
indicated her writing skills were closer to a 6.0 grade level, still
significantly below her non-disabled peers.
Finally, Sarahs Mathematics ability was assessed using the WJ-IV
and placed her at a 5.9 grade equivalency. The range in Mathematics
scores were most surprising; Sarah ranged from 4.4 grade equivalency
in Math Fluency to 17.9 grade equivalency for Applied Problems. The
Brigance Assessment completed in the prior year indicated a 5.0 grade
equivalency, making this assessment most similar to the WJ-IV results.
The second part of the PLAAFP is designed to indicate parental
involvement as well as whether the disability affects her involvement
in the general education setting. Sarahs custodial guardian has been
present at all meetings and has been easily accessible to the IEP team
thus far and the parental input statement reflects this fact. Her
custodial guardian does express concern for Sarahs ability to
successfully transition to high school from middle school and it is noted
in the statement.

Additionally, the PLAAFP discusses what Sarahs

individual interests and attributes are, in order to provide the team

with an accurate picture of Sarah as an individual while preparing the

IEP. Finally, a detailed description of how Sarahs disability affects her
involvement in the general education setting is described. Sarahs
deficits in the areas of academic performance (reading, writing, and
mathematics) have hindered her ability to be successful with
accommodations. Sarah struggles to complete assignments in the
time provided in a general education classroom, indicating the need for
additional time. She also struggles with passage comprehension and
calculations in the general education classroom without support.
B. Instructional and Testing Accommodations

The Instructional and Testing Accommodations section of the IEP

provides a list of accommodations that are recommended for Sarah in
order for her to access the curriculum in the general education setting.
Under the Response Accommodations heading, Sarahs
recommendations are to provide a calculation device (typically a

calculator) for all assessments in which mathematic calculation is

required. Additionally, Sarah should be provided graphic organizers to
complete notes and writing assignments. Finally, Sarah should be
provided time and a half for timing and scheduling accommodations.
The team then describes the basis for their decision based upon
assessments and teacher observation. The team indicated that a
calculation device should be provided to Sarah due to her deficits in
mathematic calculation as reported by her WJ-IV assessment scores.
The graphic organizers are provided due to her writing deficits, the
team citing that her writing fluency may make it difficult for Sarah to
accurately complete class notes. It is further suggested by the team
that fill-in worksheets could be provided as a form of graphic organizer,
because Sarahs fluency (speed of writing) is significantly below her
non-disabled peers. Finally, under the Timing and Scheduling
Accommodations, Extended Time is recommended because Sarah has
demonstrated low scores in both math and writing fluency.

It is also

significant to note that during the Psychological Assessment, the

School Psychologist indicated that Sarah has an average IQ so her
disability is not one that could be identified as one that limits her
ability to comprehend the content; rather, she struggles with
processing, making modifications less necessary.
C. Goals and Objectives

Sarahs Reading Goals have been written to reflect the goals

identified in the Maryland College and Career Readiness (MCCR)
standards for the ninth grade.

Since Sarah exhibits deficits in reading

comprehension, Sarahs goal states, that by the end of grade 9, Sarah

will determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in
figurative and connotative meanings with 80% accuracy. This is
reflective of RL 4 found in the MCCR. The objectives of her IEP have
been written to reflect her current grade equivalency. The objectives
are: Sarah will use context (e.g., cause/effect relationships and
comparisons in a text) as a clue to meaning of a word or phrase,
analyze how word choice affects meaning, and consult reference
materials (e.g., dictionaries, glossaries, and thesauruses), both print
and digital, to find the pronunciation and determine or clarify the
precise meaning of key words in context. Her objectives are also with
80% accuracy. These goals and objectives are reflective of Sarahs
current grade and her actual grade equivalency based upon formal
assessments.
Sarahs Writing Goal is also reflective of the MCCR, stating that
Sarah will write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey
complex information clearly and accurately through the effective
selection, organization and analysis of content with 80% accuracy,
which is reflective of W2 in the MCCR for 9th grade. Her objectives
have been written to reflect her ability, which, according to the WJ-IV,
is approximately 4th grade. Her goals are: given a topic, Sarah will
complete an idea by providing topic, support, and complete sentences;
Given a topic, Sarah will organize information logically; and given a
topic Sarah will verify the effectiveness of paragraph development by

modifying topic, support, and concluding sentences as necessary.

These objectives are with 80% accuracy. These goals and objectives
are reflective of Sarahs current grade and her actual grade
equivalency based upon formal assessments.
Sarahs Mathematic goal is focused on calculation and uses the
MCCR. Sarahs goal states that Sarah will create and solve equations
in two or more variables to represent relationships between quantities,
with 80% accuracy. This is reflective of the Algebra I curriculum, the
course that Sarah is taking as a ninth grader. The objectives are
reflective of her current grade equivalency as measured by the WJ-IV.
The objectives are: given a problem solving task, Sarah will be able to
identify the question in the problem; given a problem solving task,
Sarah will be able to make a plan to solve a problem; and given a
problem solving task, Sarah will be able to express mathematical ideas
using words, symbols, and appropriate technology. All of Sarahs
objectives are with 80% accuracy.
D. Supplementary Aids and Services, Program Modifications,
and Supports

The Supplementary Aids and Services section is relatively short

for Sarah. She only requires two specific aidsthe use of a word bank

to reinforce vocabulary when extended writing is required and

providing examples to the student when she asks for them. Both aids
are ones that can be provided by the general educator or special
educator in the general education setting, making a general education
classroom the Least Restrictive Environment for Sarah.

Sarahs need

for a word bank for vocabulary supports her Total Achievement score
on the WJ-IV, which is a 5.1, which is significantly lower than her actual
grade level.

Additionally, Sarah shows significant deficiency in both

reading and writing, skills that include vocabulary usage. In the

discussion area of this section, a specific length could be included to
clarify for general educators what is to be considered an extended
writing assignment, but it appears to be missing. When the IEP is
reviewed, a length should be provided.
The other aid, providing examples, is reflective of Sarahs scores
in her general Academic Skills and Academic Fluency on the WJ-IV, 4.1
and 4.5 respectively. Providing multiple means of expression and
presentation are also components of Universal Design for Learning
(UDL), a strategy utilized by both general and special educators. It is
noted in the discussion section that both of these aids are discussed
and it is noted by the team that based upon her assessments and
teacher observation that these aids are essential for Sarah to access
the curriculum with her non-disabled peers.
PART III: Reflection

The IEP process at Lansdowne High School is one filled with

many meetings, especially when compared to my previous
experiences. The process seems tedious to those unfamiliar with the
Special Education process and IDEA. For each student, several
meetings are scheduled at the beginning of the academic year to
ensure that all IEPs remain in compliance with the guidelines
established by IDEA. Typically about two months before the IEP is due,
a planning team is held in which the team gets permission to assess
the specific student. From there, a Review of Assessments meeting is
held, where the parent or guardian meets with team members to
discuss the implications of the assessments and how they affect the
IEP writing process. Finally, before the IEP is no longer compliant, a
new IEP is written and a team is held to discuss the new IEP.
Since this school year is a Triennial Assessment year for Sarah, at
the planning meeting we received permission to assess Sarah using
the Woodcock Johnson-IV as the Educational Assessment, the
Psychological Assessment (the WISC), and a formal classroom
observation completed by the case manager. Using this data, we
confirmed that Sarah was still eligible for Special Education services
due to discrepancies between Sarahs grade equivalency and her
actual grade. The Psychological Assessment helped to determine that
Sarahs IQ helped to identify that she did not have a problem with

cognition but her disability affects her processing, making her eligible
for Special Education services.
Based upon Sarahs current academic progress, the team
decided that it was best for Sarah to remain in the general education
setting with supports in the classroom as represented by a paraprofessional or special educator. This is her Least Restrictive
Environment, which is a component of IDEA and other federal
legislation protecting the rights of students with disabilities to receive a
Free and Appropriate Education. Other factors regarding IDEA
compliance is notification to parents being sent in a timely fashion
regarding upcoming team meetings. At Lansdowne, all of our case
management paperwork must be submitted at least two weeks prior to
the team to ensure it is mailed at least a week before the scheduled
meeting. Additionally, the case manager must contact the parent
within three days to be sure the parent is aware of the team and to
confirm whether they will be able to attend the team. Proper
notification is another aspect of IDEA.
As a case manager, I feel as though I play a significant role in the
team process. I am responsible for classroom observation and the
required report. A case management report showing most recent
academic progress is also required at each meeting, and it is my
responsibility to present this information to the parent. I must also
review the Educational Assessment with the parents, so prior review of

the Educational Assessment is necessary to ensure I understand what

must be presented. Additionally, I have to make contact with the
parent to confirm their attendance at every team meeting, sometimes
leaving multiple messages before feedback is obtained. Overall, I think
that my involvement has improved significantly since I began working
at Lansdowne 4 years ago; I have a better understanding of both the
collaborative process during the team and the meaning of the various
reports that are presented at each team.