1

Running head: IEP CASE STUDY

IEP Case Study

Kristen White
Towson University

2
IEP CASE STUDY
Part I A- Student Background
Adrianna is a seven-year-old second grade student at Thomas Johnson Elementary and
Middle School. Her family is originally from Chicago, IL, but her mother moved Adrianna and
her older brother to Baltimore City in 2011. In April, 2012, Adrianna was initially referred
for an individualized education program (IEP) for an articulation disorder. However, the
pre-referral strategies are unknown because the school does not have them on record.
According to her current IEP, her primary disability is labeled as speech or language
impairment. Her disability significantly impacts her written expression, which includes fine
motor skills related to handwriting, her speech and language articulation, as well as her reading
comprehension and fluency, especially her ability to comprehend syllables and medial/final letter
sounds in words.
The timeline of her IEP process is as follows: After her initial referral in April, 2012,
Adriannas first IEP meeting was held at Thomas Johnson on May 13, 2012 with the focus
set on her speech impairments. At this time, she was only receiving services from a special
educator and a speech language pathologist. However, her subsequent test results indicated
that she would also benefit from academic support in both reading and writing. Both
academic and occupational therapy services were added to her IEP after a meeting that was
held on August 29, 2014. The IEP meeting discussed in this case study was Adriannas most
recent annual review; it took place on February 11, 2016. The reason for referral was that
it was her annual review during which her team was able to discuss her progress in specific
areas, along with the next steps to take toward addressing her specific needs. In addition,
this meeting was necessary because her IEP expires in June; the team plans to meet again in
January, 2017.

3
IEP CASE STUDY
Interestingly, her brother, who is a fifth-grade student at Thomas Johnson Elementary and
Middle School, also has an IEP, but his is for visual impairments. Other than her brothers
disorder, there is no other relevant medical history in her family. Adrianna does not
possess any cultural or linguistic differences that would significantly impact her success;
she is Caucasian and her native language is English. Furthermore, she does not exhibit any
behavior characteristics that would hinder her abilities and relationships. Her mother,
teachers, and service provides all describe Adrianna as happy, kind, and respectful, and state that
she gets along well with her peers. Overall, Adrianna is surrounded by positive support both at
home and at school.
Part I B- IEP Process
The IEP process at Thomas Johnson Elementary and Middle School strictly adheres
to the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004
(IDEA). Adriannas IEP team is comprised of her mother, general educator, special educator,
speech language pathologist, occupational therapist, and the IEP chair; all of these members are
consistent with the requirements of the law. At Thomas Johnson, the IEP chair is the head of
the special education department. In preparation for the annual review, the team collaborated
with one another about any pertinent information related to Adrianna and her progress. Together,
they reviewed assessment scores, observational data, and classwork to determine what should be
addressed during the meeting. The process at TJEMS followed the established timeline of
providing written notice by notifying Adriannas mother about the meeting twenty days before
the proposed date (she received notification on January 22nd with the meeting scheduled for
February 11th). Adriannas teachers provided her mother with a copy of her progress report in all
subjects, along with notes on her behavior, gross-motor functioning, current accommodations,

4
IEP CASE STUDY
and academic strengths and needs. In addition, her mother also received a draft of the IEP, a
speech report, and a copy of the procedural safeguards.
As aforementioned, the entire team collaborates and coordinates with one another to
ensure that Adrianna has the best chance at having her specific needs met. Adriannas
mother knows her daughter best, which the school personnel respect; her mothers leadership in
the team is evident by her daily interactions with the other members. Furthermore, Adriannas
educators and related service providers collaborate with one another continuously throughout the
day to assure that her developments are maintained and generalized. During the actual meeting,
each educator took turns speaking directly with Adriannas mother about her progress within
their area of expertise (Adriannas mother attended the meeting via speaker phone). She was
able to ask questions or bring up any potential concerns; nothing was off-limits. Moreover, each
team member was prepared and spoke in parent-friendly terms. Unfortunately, Adriannas
occupational therapist was unable attend, however, the therapist and her mother spoke separately
prior to the meeting.
In preparation for the meeting, each service provider upheld their roles and
responsibilities. The IEP chair insured that the date and time of the meeting was in accordance
to Adriannas mothers schedule. In addition, she provided the other team members with
multiple reminders about the agreed upon date, time, and purpose of the meeting. The speech
therapist discussed the specific letters, sounds, and parts of speech that Adrianna is either
struggling with or improving upon; she described how far along Adrianna has come since
receiving speech therapy. Both her general and special educator supplied detailed information on
her academic assessment results, along with her overall satisfactory progress in academics. All
members agreed that Adrianna is on the right path toward continued success. Most importantly,

5
IEP CASE STUDY
each member shared their adoration for Adrianna; it is obvious that the team truly cares for
Adrianna as a child and a student.
Part II A- Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP)
Multiple measures were used to develop the statements for Adriannas present levels
of academic achievement and functional performance. Adriannas team used parent/teacher
input, observations, classwork, records review, and both informal and formal assessments
to detail and describe her progress in many domains. The areas of academic achievement and
functional performance that were assessed include: reading phonemic awareness, reading
phonics, reading fluency, reading comprehension, written language mechanics, written language
expression, speech and language articulation, both speech and language receptive and expressive
language, and her fine motor mechanics. In addition to specifically describing her present levels
of performance in each assessed area, Adriannas IEP team also included whether or not each
area impacts her performance, along with her instructional grade level performance in each area.
Regarding her reading phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and comprehension,
Adriannas team used classwork and informal assessments to measure her present levels of
achievement. DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) is an informal
assessment that served as a measure for assessing her reading phonics and fluency. The TRC
(Text Reading and Comprehension) assessment was used for her comprehension. According to
both results, her disability has an impact on her phonics, fluency, and comprehension skills;
she is on a first grade instructional level. As for her reading phonemic awareness, she is
performing on grade level (second grade). In addition, her disability does not have an impact on
this area. To gauge her present levels of performance in written language mechanics and

6
IEP CASE STUDY
expression, the team used classwork and informal assessments, such as graphic organizers. Her
disability does have an impact on these disciplines; she is on a first grade instructional level
in this field.
To evaluate her speech and language articulation, the GFTA-2 (Goldman-Fristoe
Test of Articulation, 2nd edition) provided valid and reliable data indicating that Adriannas
disability interferes with her verbalizations. There is no grade equivalency in this area.
Parent input and clinical evaluations acted as the measures for determining her receptive and
expressive speech and language abilities. It has been determined that Adrianna has neither a
receptive, nor an expressive language disorder; she is performing within normal limits.
According to the WISC-V (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 5th edition), Adriannas full
scale IQ is 97; her scores ranged from the high end of the low average to the average range. Her
intelligence does not have a negative impact on her academic achievement or functional
performance. Adrianna does not require specialized instruction or services in mathematics, or
with her social and emotional functioning. She is on grade level in mathematics. Clinical
record reviews and observations were used to determine Adriannas fine motor development.
According to the assessments, she is below grade level, and her disability does have on
impact on her writing abilities.
As far as her strengths and needs are concerned, she has many strengths across the
board, but only demonstrates specific needs with her reading and writing. The following is a
list of the subject areas along with relevant strengths and weaknesses:

7
IEP CASE STUDY
1. Reading skills- Adrianna is able to sound out basic CVC words and some grade level
multi-syllable words. Adrianna needs to continue working on her fluency when reading
and sounding out more challenging words.
2. Reading comprehension- Adrianna is able to answer questions that are directly stated in
the text. She is reading on a middle of year first grade level. Adrianna needs to work on
drawing conclusions and making inferences about things that are not directly stated in the
text.
3. Written expression- Adrianna is able to complete a graphic organizer with teacher
assistance to help her organize her writing. Adrianna needs to improve with sentence
structure: spacing, capitalization, and punctuation. She also needs to work on her
legibility.
4. Spelling- Adrianna does well on her weekly spelling tests of words that follow a pattern.
Adrianna is only getting part of the spelling list that the whole class receives, so her team
wants to see her improve with the amount of words she gets each week.
5. Math calculation- Adrianna is able to solve addition and subtraction problems within
1000 by using a method of her choosing.
6. Math reasoning- Adrianna is able to identify how to solve addition and subtraction word
problems.
7. Fine-motor functioning- When writing, Adrianna has increased her copying speed and
accuracy. Although the consistency of her legibility fluctuates, she can accurately fix her
work. Adriannas frustration is the main factor that gets in her way. She benefits from
adapted paper with visual guides and spacing.
8. Social and emotional functioning- Adrianna gets along with others during class. She is
respectful and follows routines and procedures with minimal prompts. She learns best
when she can participate in hands-on activities where she can manipulate objects while
engaging in conversation.
Part II B- Instructional Testing and Accommodations

8
IEP CASE STUDY
Adrianna receives instructional and testing accommodations in many domains; she
currently does not require assistive technology devices or services. Her presentation
accommodations include a human reader or an audio recording for verbatim of an entire
test. She is reading below grade level on a level G (mid-first grade), and has difficulty
comprehending grade level text even when she is read to. Her response accommodations
include spelling and grammar devices, visual organizers, and monitored test responses.
Adrianna will be supplied with a word bank of necessary words to assist her with composing
sentences during instruction; visual organizers will help Adrianna follow along with a text and
focus on one question at a time, and monitored responses will allow her to stay on the correct
line when bubbling in answers. For timing and scheduling accommodations, Adrianna
receives extended time. She benefits from this accommodation because she has difficulty
comprehending grade level material. Furthermore, her fine motor deficits cause her to write
slower than her peers. For setting accommodations, it is recommended that distractions be
reduced; she would benefit from small group or one-on-one assistance to reduce outside
distractions. All of Adriannas instructional and testing accommodations will be
implemented by her general and special educators during instructional and testing times.
Part II C- IEP Goals and Objectives
The following are a few of the goals with their corresponding objectives that are
Universally Designed for Learning (UDL) to meet Adriannas specific instructional and
functional needs. The three principles of UDL are providing multiple means of representation,
multiple means of action and expression, and multiple means of engagement. Adriannas goals
and objectives provide multiple means of representation by modifying the display of
information; she has an adjusted workload and only has to focus on one question at a time. Her

9
IEP CASE STUDY
educators also chunk the text for her so she can understand the main ideas without having to read
as much as her peers. She is provided with visual organizers and a human reader when
necessary. Her goals and objectives provide multiple means of action and expression in that she
is able to communicate her answers to a scribe. She is also able to identify sight words by using
a word bank and manipulatives. Adriannas goals and objectives provide multiple means of
engagement by allowing her to take frequent breaks in order to maintain her motivation. In
addition, she is able to have directions repeated, have one-on-one assistance, and is provided
with preferential seating.
Academic Goals:
1. Reading Phonics
Goal: By February 2017, Adrianna will increase her reading foundational skills in the
area of reading phonics and word recognition by her ability to read familiar and
unfamiliar words to support fluency with 80% accuracy as measured by informal
assessments, classwork, and teacher observation.
Objective 1: Given a word containing a digraph (sh, ch, wh, th), Adrianna will correctly
make the sound of the digraph and/or identify the digraph with 80% accuracy.
Objective 2: Given a regularly spelled two-syllable word, Adrianna will decode the
word with 80% accuracy.
MCCRS: RF3 Know and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding
words.
PLAAFP: According to the PLAAFP in academics, this goal relates to her present level
of performance in reading phonics. Currently, she is able to decode many single-syllable

10
IEP CASE STUDY
words with over 80% accuracy, and is working on decoding digraphs. She is currently on
the first grade level in this area.
2. Written Language Mechanics
Goal: By February 2017, Adrianna will increase her language skills in the area of
conventions of Standard English as measured by her ability to correctly use verb tenses
and use correct capitalization and punctuation in 8 out of 10 trials.
Objective 1: Given a sentence with missing punctuation, Adrianna will correctly place a
period, question mark, or exclamation point at the end in 8 out of 10 trials.
Objective 2: Given a word she does not know how to spell, Adrianna will spell it
phonetically in 8 out of 10 trials.
Objective 3: Given a list of no less than 5 spelling words each week that have a common
pattern, Adrianna will spell them with 80% accuracy in 8 out of 10 trials.
MCCRS: L1 Demonstrate command of the conventions of Standard English grammar
and usage when writing or speaking. L2 Demonstrate command of the conventions of
Standard English capitalization, punctuation, and spelling when writing.
PLAAFP: According to the PLAAFP in academics, this goal relates to her present level
of performance in written language mechanics. She is currently doing well with a limited
number of spelling words. She is working daily on improving her capitalization and
punctuation through morning work activities. She is currently performing on a first grade
level.
3. Speech and Language Articulation

11
IEP CASE STUDY
Goal: By February 2017, given visual representations of target sounds, Adrianna will
improve speech intelligibility by producing /j/, /s/ and /z/ with minimal modeling and
cueing in the initial position of phrases and sentences with 80% accuracy as measured
by data collection, clinical notes, and observation.
Objective 1: Given visual representations of target sounds /s/, /z/ and /j/, Adrianna will
produce initial sounds in phrases with minimal modeling and cueing.
Objective 2: Given visual representations of target sounds /s/, /z/ and /j/, Adrianna will
produce initial sounds in sentences with minimal modeling and cueing.
MCCRS: No corresponding standard.
PLAAFP: According to the PLAAFP in academics, this goal relates to her present level
of performance in speech and language articulation. She is currently demonstrating
satisfactory progress in her articulation skills. Adrianna is able to produce the /s/, /z/ and
/j/ in isolation, syllables and words with at least 80% accuracy without modeling and
cueing. Her goal is to become more proficient with producing these target sounds in the
initial positions of phrases and sentences.
Physical Goal:
1. Fine Motor
Goal: By February 2017, Adrianna will demonstrate improved eye-hand
coordination and fine motor control to maximize independence in the school setting
with 80% accuracy.
Objective 1: Given a pencil and paper, Adrianna will write the lower/upper case
alphabet utilizing correct stroke sequencing for each letter.
Objective 2: Given a pencil and paper, Adrianna will write the lower/upper case
alphabet utilizing correct starting points for each letter.
Objective 3: Given a pencil and paper, Adrianna will copy 3 simple sentences
utilizing correct spacing between her words with no more than 2 verbal cues.
Objective 4: Given a maze with inch or less pathways, Adrianna will complete
the maze keeping her pencil within the pathway 100% of the time.
MCCRS: No corresponding standard.

12
IEP CASE STUDY
PLAAFP: According to the PLAAFP in physical, this goal relates to her present
fine motor functional performance. She has made significant progress from
approximately one year ago. However, it is recommended that Adrianna should
continue to receive OT services to address fine motor and visual perceptual motor
skills needed for improved independence and success within her classroom setting.
Her objectives should be continued because she has not yet demonstrated mastery of
these skills.
Part II D- Supplementary Aids and Services, Program Modifications, and Supports
Services- Special Education

Service

Location

Descriptio

Nature
Classroom

General

n
5 sessions;

Instruction

Education

3 hours and

Begin Date End Date

Provider(s

Summary

2/12/16

)
General

Total

Education

service

Teacher

time: 17

and Special

hours and

Education

30 minutes

30 minutes;

2/10/17

(36 weeks)

weekly

Teacher

Related Services
Service Nature

Location

Descriptio

Begin

End

Provider(s)

Summary

Occupational

Outside

n
1 session;

Date
2/12/16

Date
2/10/17

Occupationa

30 minutes

13
IEP CASE STUDY
Therapy

General

30 minutes;

Education

weekly

l Therapist
(36

and Certified

weeks)

Occupationa

per week

l Therapy
Speech/Languag

Outside

3 sessions;

e Therapy

General

30 minutes;

Education

weekly

2/12/16

2/10/17

(36

Assistant
Speech

1 hour and

Language

30 minutes

Pathologist

per week

weeks)

Based on assessment of current needs and professional judgment, service providers

determine mode of service delivery, such as large or small group. Special and general
educators co-teach and are both responsible for implementing the IEP.
Adrianna receives speech services for phonetic/decoding skills, communication with
others, and verbal participation in class; all of these skills may be significantly jeopardized by
her speech disorder.
Adrianna receives occupational therapy services because she is unable to write legibly.
She is spelling below grade level due to her articulation difficulties which cause her to not
produce sounds correctly when writing phonetically.
Supplementary Aids, Services, Program Modifications and Supports
Service Nature
Adjusted
Workload

Frequency
Weekly

Begin Date
2/12/16

End Date
2/10/17

Provider(s)
General
Education and

14
IEP CASE STUDY
(36 weeks)

Special
Education

Repetition of

Weekly

2/12/16

2/10/17

Directions

Teachers
General
Education and

(36 weeks)

Special
Education

Check for

Weekly

2/12/16

2/10/17

Understanding

Teachers
General
Education and

(36 weeks)

Special
Education

Chunking of

Weekly

2/12/16

2/10/17

Text(s)

Teachers
General
Education and

(36 weeks)

Special
Education

Preferential

Weekly

2/12/16

2/10/17

Seating

Teachers
General
Education and

(36 weeks)

Special
Education
Teachers

Adjusted workload is a supplementary aid needed to assist Adrianna with spelling and to
help her work on grade level. Her phonics skills are below grade level. Repetition of directions

15
IEP CASE STUDY
may help Adrianna understand the requirements of a given task. Chunking of text(s) is a
supplementary aid that is needed to help Adrianna reduce frustration when she has difficulty
working through a task. Preferential seating is a supplementary aid that is needed to minimize
distractions and to enable service providers to closely monitor Adriannas attention to task, and
speech/language learning needs.
Part III- Reflection
From this experience, I have gained extensive knowledge of the federally mandated
IEP requirements. I was able to witness the TJEMS IEP team collaborate with one another and
Adriannas mother to ensure that Adrianna was receiving the best instruction related to her
specific needs. Adriannas mother was notified about the meeting twenty days prior to the
scheduled date; her strengths and weaknesses in specific areas were discussed and noted; and the
appropriate members came to the meeting. However, her general educator was twenty minutes
late, which upset the IEP chair. The IEP chair delayed the meeting while she waited for the
general educator to arrive; she called down to the office twice, asking her whereabouts. When
the educator finally arrived, she stated that she was in a meeting with the principal, and that she
also forgot about the IEP meeting. If I were to do one thing differently as an IEP chair, I would
send out reminders of meetings on the day prior to the date; this may help with preventing this
type of confusion. The occupational therapist was not present at the meeting, but she spoke with
Adriannas mother on the previous day.
In terms of collaboration, all of the team members communicated often to ensure
that Adriannas needs were being met. During the meeting, it was evident that her mothers
concerns and opinions were respected and held in high regard; each member asked about her

16
IEP CASE STUDY
thoughts on each idea and rehabilitative method. In addition, every member was prepared with
the necessary data, suggestions, and feedback. Throughout this process, I was professional
and observant. I introduced myself to each team member prior to the meeting, and was able to
interview both the special educator and the IEP chair. Every member was friendly, encouraging
and inviting, making this a rewarding experience. I will use the knowledge gained from this
experience in my future career as a special educator.