Running head: Analysis of an IEP

Analysis of an IEP
Troy J. Willemssen
Minnesota State University, Mankato

Running head: Analysis of an IEP

2

The intention of this paper is to analyze the IEP process of Minnesota Transitions Charter
School. To narrow the focus, this paper will also examine the child study process of an 8th grade
student and whether the process resulted in effective service and the needs of the student being
met. Finally, a conclusion will be made on the school districts ability to state/ federal laws and
statutes.
Minnesota Transitions Charter Middle School (MTCS Middle) child study process
includes four phases for staff to follow when referring a student. Phase one includes teachers
identifying students with behavior and academic needs. After identification, the teacher will then
communicate their concerns to their parents. After completing portions of the referral form, the
staff member will contact Special Services Coordinator Mrs. Amanda Wilmot to schedule a
meeting with the child study team (CST). During the CST meeting, the team will complete the
referral form with the help of the general education teacher. The conclusion of the CST meeting
will be the implementation of a research based strategy. The teacher will use this strategy for
four weeks and return to the CST meeting to present data. Phase 2 concludes with the analysis of
the teachers four week findings. If the intervention was successful, the teacher will continue to
use the strategy. If not, the student will be referred to phase 3 and another meeting will be
scheduled. Phase 3 includes the discussion and implementation of another research based
strategy. The teacher will implement the new strategy over 4 weeks and report back to the CST
with their data. If this intervention does not succeed, the students move into the fourth phase of
the child study process. With the last phase, a designated member of the special education team
will contact the family to schedule an evaluation determination meeting.

Running head: Analysis of an IEP

3

Team Members may include: general education teacher, social worker, school
psychologist, special education rep, related service providers if applicable, as well as the district
administrator. If appropriate, the team will create an evaluation plan to explore disability
criteria. Once the plan is signed, the district will complete the evaluation within 30 school days.
A meeting will be scheduled to share the evaluation results with the family. (Personal
communication, March 30th, 2015)
To conclude the first stage of analysis, the author will analyze the child study process by
using Ruedel and MClaughlins The School Leaders Guide to Special Education. The criteria
selected will be parent consent, team conducting evaluation, and intervention strategies.
Parental consent should be sought but is not the final determination on whether or not a student
could be evaluated. Parents are notified of a concern in phase 1 and determination to evaluate in
phase 4. The second criterion is to determine if the correct personnel are in attendance for child
study meetings. Every Tuesday from 8am to 9am, MTCS Middle CST meets. This team
consists of Program Director, Dean of Students, Special Services Coordinator, two special
education teachers, and one general education teacher. If needed, school social workers and
counsellors will be invited. The third criterion will analyze the intervention strategies proposed
by the CST. According to Ruedel and MClaughlin, the intervention strategy model must be
research based and implemented by general education. Also, the general education is responsible
for monitoring the effectiveness of this intervention. The MTCS Middle CST is using the
problem-solving model. This model provides a qualified team to analyze the effectiveness of
intervention strategy. From this analysis, the team will determine whether or not to continue the
process. (MClaughlin & Ruedel, 2012) The child study process at MTCS Middle appears to be
well planned and shows clear expectations for teachers. The issue is, the CST is currently

Running head: Analysis of an IEP

4

responsible for creating and advising teachers to implement RTI. General educators should be
researching and implementing RTI without the consent of CST. The CST should not be directly
involved until a students needs have not been addressed by Tier 1 & 2 interventions.
(MClaughlin & Ruedel, 2012)
The second stage of analysis will include the child study process involving an 8th grade
student. In October of 2014, 8th grade math teacher emailed the Special Services Coordinator
with a concern. The teachers concern involved the academic needs of an 8th grade male student.
The student had been failing the first quarter of math class. These failing grades were largely
due to a lack of understanding and organizational skills. The student had issues completing
assignments, turning in homework, and understanding new math concepts. The teacher called
the parents expressed the concerns he was having and explained the child study process. The
parent responded to the phone call positively and thanked the teacher for expressing his
concerns. For the next eight weeks, the eighth grade student was involved in the child study
process. During this time, two interventions were implemented. The first strategy was to
address organizational skills and second strategy offered teacher one-on-one help during lunch
time twice per week. The goal of these interventions was to ensure the student completed all
work, turned the work in, and provided reinforcement of new math concepts. The interventions
had shown minimal growth but with NWEA math scores ranging in the 3rd to 4th grade level, the
team decided to start the evaluation process.
The Program Director invited the parent to school to discuss the child study process and
the teams decision to evaluate the student. Initially, the parent was resistant to having her child
involved with any special programming. After further discussion, the Program Director came to

Running head: Analysis of an IEP

5

the understanding that the parent had special programming in school and did not want her child
thinking he was dumb or incapable. After much discussion, the Program Director ensured the
parent that special education services have changed a lot over time and that her son would
benefit from the services being provided. The Program Director explained the role she would
have as an IEP team member. The parent appeared to be comfortable and at ease with the
evaluation process. The parent signed the paper and the evaluation began.
Special education teacher Mr. Codey Miller began the evaluation process. According to
Ruedel & MClaughlin, the evaluation must include a wide selection of tools to better understand
the strengths and areas of growth. Mr. Miller used the NWEA scores of the previous two school
years, WoodCock-Johnson test to interpret cognitive abilities, classroom observations, along with
both parental and general education surveys. When the evaluation concluded, Mr. Miller called
the parent to setup a meeting to discuss the evaluation results. According to Mr. Miller, the
parent expressed concerns with the testing approach and was not happy about her son being
subjected to this evaluation. (Personal communication, March 20th 2015) After speaking to
Mr. Miller, the Program Director called the parent directly to further discuss her concerns. The
Director reiterated the importance of the evaluation and reminded the parent that she was notified
of the evaluation process prior to it taking the place. The parent became angry and told the
Director, I do not want my son to be treated different! The parent hung up on the Director
after telling him that she does not to discuss the matter anymore. (MClaughlin & Ruedel, 2012)
The third stage of analysis will include the evaluation of the 8th grade student and parental
consent. Since the Program Director is also the author of this paper; reflection will be used to
examine suggested improvements for the child study process and evaluation determination.

Running head: Analysis of an IEP

6

According to Ruedel & MClaughlin, As the principal of the school, you will need to foster
opportunities for parents to share their knowledge and their concerns about the child with a
disability. It is through regular communication, open dialogue, and respect that a trusting
relationship will form between the school and the parents. (pg. 56) As the lead administrator in
this program, I feel that I have failed this family. Meaning, I cannot assume that one or two
conversations would be enough to build the trust with a parent. I should have instructed my
special education teacher to communicate frequently throughout the evaluation process. By the
conclusion of the evaluation, the parent felt that she was being forced to except these results.
The dialogue was not open, it was one sided with the school telling the parent what had already
occurred. As a team, we should have walked the parent through each evaluation tool before
using it. In the future, the Program Director will not make the mistake of assuming
understanding and acceptance through a single conversation. As an administrator, I need to
provide more opportunities for informing my parents on the special education process and all
that is involved. These information sessions can be offered during parent teacher conferences.
While parents are visiting teachers, they will have the chance to meet with myself and the
Special Services Coordinator to discuss the special education services we provide. (MClaughlin
& Ruedel, 2012)
The last stage of analysis will discuss the districts ability to comply with state and
federal mandates. The main focus of MTCS District is to implement and carryout 12 Corrective
Action Plans (CAPS). Last year, MDE pulled our files and cited MTCs District for noncompliance. Special Services Coordinator Mrs. Wilmot, I spend about 80% of my day
monitoring our CAPS and ensuring my case managers are in compliance. (Personal
communication, March 30th, 2015) The recommendation to avoid future CAPS is to provide the

Running head: Analysis of an IEP

7

appropriate resources to our case managers. Through staff development, coaching, and
guidance, case managers will be better equipped to avoid issues of non-compliance.
The authors recommendation is to have MTCS Middle create a new procedure for the
implementation of RTI. Students are being referred to the child study process before the
intervention strategies are implemented. RTI is implemented by general educators, with the
support or input from specialists, and is not considered special education. (MClaughlin &
Ruedel, pg. 23) Currently, MTCS Middle only has 7 general education teachers and this has led
to the CTS being involved in Tier 1 & Tier 2. The authors recommendation is to have weekly
general educator meetings to discuss RTI models and student needs. If a students needs are not
met by Tier 1 & 2 interventions, the student will then be referred to the CST. The general
educators will use the social worker and psychologist as resource specialists. The general
educators will need on-going staff development on research based strategies, effective
implementation, and the progress monitoring of RTI models. (MClaughlin & Ruedel, 2012)
The author spoke with Special Education Coordinator Mrs. Wilmot a second time to
discuss CST role in RTI. Mrs. Wilmot was very understanding of my concerns and explained her
reasoning to the CST being involved in Tier 1 & Tier 2 interventions. Mrs Wilmot said, Due to
the low number of general education teachers and staff members performing many different roles
within the school, the CST has blended with RTI. (Personal communication, April 17th, 2015)
The author and Mrs. Wilmot then decided to schedule a meeting with our Director of Special
Education to discuss the Child Study Process for the 2015/16 school year. The authors
recommendation is that RTI and Child Study are separated for Tier 1 & 2 interventions.

Running head: Analysis of an IEP

8

Having a toolkit of assessments that teachers and other teachers and other specialists can
use to identify specific academic or behavioral areas in need of remediation or support is critical
to RTI implementation process. (MClaughlin & Ruedel, pg. 23) The author is wondering,
What is our toolkit? How were the interventions proposed research based? What evidence did
the CST use before implementing the two interventions? The CST had the best interests in
mind when creating implementing the interventions, but what research was used to ensure best
practices? The recommendation of the author is to create a staff development plan for RTI
models. This training needs to include the RTI process, types of models, implementation,
progress monitoring, data collection & family involvement. The goal of this development is to
build capacity for RTI systems. With the help of our Curriculum Director, MTCS Middle should
create an action plan for professional development. The plan needs to consider funding, timeframe, and resources. (Duran, Grace Zamora & Diamond, Tina. 2010)
In conclusion, MTCS District needs to resolve their compliance issues most importantly!
Mrs. Wilomt is confident that with time, training, and support MTCs District will be in
compliance. MTCS Middle School is not operating the proper procedures for RTI and Child
Study. Staff development training and parental involvement will be instrumental in the future
planning of MTCS Middle. The Program Director will need the support of the Special Education
& Curriculum Director to ensure the success of these changes.

Running head: Analysis of an IEP

9

References
Duran, Grace Zamora & Diamond, Tina. (2010) Developing an RTI Professional Plan.
Things
to
Consider.
[Powerpoint
slides]
retrieved
from
http://www.rti4success.org/resource/developing-rti-professionaldevelopment-plan-things-consider
Ruedel, Kristin, MClaughlin, Margaret J. (2012) School Leaders Guide to Special
Education. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press
Miller, Codey, personal communication, March 20th 2015
Wilmot, Amanda, personal communication, March 30th & April 17th 2015