a one page iep: the case for the communicative individualized education program
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
1/127
AONE PAGE IEPThe Case for the Communicative Individualized
Education Program
ByRICHARD JAMES LUCIDO PH.D.
East Detroit Educational Press
Maple Forest, Michigan
U.S.A
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
2/127
Copyright 2013 Richard James Lucido
All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book
may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in
the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.
ISBN: 148107265X
ISBN 13: 978-1481072656
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
3/127
For Samuel, James, and Jack
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
4/127
Table of Contents
Chapter 1
Introduction __________________________________________ 3Chapter 2
The Legal IEP Paradigm _________________________________9Chapter 3
Legality in IEPs is Unnecessary ___________________________27Chapter 4
What is a Plan? ______________________________________33Chapter 5
Introduction to the Communicative IEP ___________________39Chapter 6
Where is the Form? ___________________________________52Chapter 7
Examples for Elementary Students _______________________ 61Chapter 8
Examples for Secondary Students ________________________75Chapter 9
Final Thoughts and Other Considerations __________________ 91
References ___________________________________________103Appendix ____________________________________________107Acknowledgements ____________________________________117About the Author ______________________________________119
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
5/127
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
6/127
3
Chapter 1
Introduction
he following was written to offer a simple solution to an often
illuminated problem in special education. That is, our Indi-
vidualized Education Program (IEP) documents have strayed
from their original functional purpose. Instead of being
designed to efficiently communicate the details of a childs educa-
tional programming to educators and parents, our IEPs are primarily
focused on legalities and the documentation of compliance with state
and federal law. This misplaced emphasis on legality has lessened
the practical utility of the IEP document to the classroom teacher. It
has also created a significant paperwork burden, which has siphonededucator resources away from service delivery.
The legal focus of IEPs is far from a new problem. Many in the
field have been expressing concern over this issue for years. Burns
(2006) notes that, The erosion of the IEP from a real educational
plan to legalistic document to show compliance has trivialized the
importance and use of the IEP (p. 9). IEP development researcher
Schick (2007) reports, The IEP, because of its legalistic nature and
complexity has further separated the education of children with
disabilities from the children without disabilities (p.6). Perhaps
most poignantly, the Presidents Commission Report on Special
T
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
7/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
4
Education Excellence (2002) came to the conclusion that, The
original concept of IEPs as an instructional framework for a defined
period of a childs education has been lost to the greater need to
document legal and procedural compliance (p.16).
These researchers argue, as do I, that our IEP documents are
not doing what they should. Instead of efficiently communicating the
details of a students educational plan, they are focused on legalities.
The documentation of compliance and the protection of the school
district have taken precedence over creating a document that has
practical value to those professionals charged with its implementa-
tion. This is done to the extent that in many places, such as in myhome county, IEPs are routinely up to 20 or more pages in length. A
20 page document designed to provide evidence of procedural com-
pliance is simply not helpful to teachers, parents, and students. On
the contrary, to the extent that an IEPs length and complexity lessen
the likelihood that it will be kept on hand and actually used by teach-
ers, it is damaging.
This book offers a broad solution to the problem, which is that
the field should reconceptualize the written IEP as a communicative
tool as opposed to a legal document. The central purpose of the
written IEP should be to communicate the details of a childs educa-
tional program to those responsible for its implementation, not to
protect the district from dissatisfied parents or to prove compliance
to the state. It will be argued that this reconceptualization will
produce IEP documents that are more useful in the classroom, as
well as result in a significant savings of educator resources that couldbe better prioritized toward service delivery.
As a practicing school psychologist, and parent of a child with
Severe Multiple Impairments, I have witnessed the negative effects of
the current legal IEP paradigm first hand. I have been a parent in a
90 minute IEP meeting and watched six other professionals arduous-
ly document their efforts in regards to my son in front of me. About
that, unfortunately, I cannot legitimately complain for I have done
the same to countless other parents over the span of my career.
I do not think my story is unique, but I want to share it so that
my perspective is made clear. As I mentioned, I am a school psy-
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
8/127
Introduction
5
chologist writing this during the summer break between my 10thand
11thyear on the job. About two years ago I crossed a threshold that I
had been approaching for some time. I found that I was spending
nearly as much time writing, proofing, and correcting IEPs (and
related paperwork) than meeting with kids. It is not a pleasant feel-
ing to know that such a large part of your workday is aimed at pro-
ducing a document whose only actual purpose seems to be to sit in a
filing cabinet and wait for an audit. The reality was that our IEPs
became so thick and complex that they were simply not read. They
became useless to staff. Crushed under the weight of their own
legality, they lost all communicative value.Over my career I have spent many days in county level profes-
sional development meetings going over the yearly changes in the
IEP document, learning what new compliance probes were going to
be used by auditors to monitor our IEPs. Then, being a school psy-
chologist and special education department leader, it was partly my
job to bring this information back to our special education staff
meetings and inform the teachers. I would present the changes in
how we were to document in order to be compliant and stay out of
trouble. The staff of course would groan, Why are we changing this
again? Why is this necessary? At first these complaints annoyed me
greatly. Do your job people, I thought. Grow up. You are sup-
posed to be professionals. Looking back at it now, I find that these
internal retorts were just my knee jerk reactions to being questioned.
The truth was that I had no satisfactory answers for them. Why were
we taking so much time away from kids to focus on the painstakingcreation and perfection of an ever changing legal document that
appeared to fulfill a solely bureaucratic purpose? What was the value
in expending so many resources on the task of proving compliance?
Since I did not yet know what to do about these nagging doubts,
I avoided letting them upset me. I rationalized, maybe this is com-
monplace, I thought, a function of large organizations. So 20 to
30 percent of my workday is spent on a largely meaningless activity.
I am just doing what I have been asked to do. I am following my
directives, doing my job. I cannot do anything to change our system
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
9/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
6
anyway. I reasoned this problem away. I traveled the path of least
resistance and life went on, at least for a little while.
Later that year I had a meeting with my friend Dena, a special
education teacher at the high school where I worked. It was the
change of the semester and she wanted to show me something. She
had written a single page information sheet for some of the students
on her caseload. This information sheet contained a description of
the students disability, a brief description of their needs, what ser-
vices they were getting, and what accommodations needed to be
implemented in the classroom. She was going to send these out to
the students teachers. She told me that she thought this was a goodidea because, other than the simple accommodation notice form that
our school used, the teachers had no way of knowing anything about
these kids. They needed a reference to give them sufficient back-
ground, to let them know what they needed to do for these students
in the classroom and why they needed to do it. I told her that I
thought it was a great idea. She sent her information sheets out to
the teachers and received positive feedback. This simple exercise
appeared to be really helpful.
It took me several months after this conversation to realize the
significance of what had happened. When Dena told me her plan,
there must have been a reason why I didnt simply suggest that she
just give teachers copies of her studentsIEPs. Doing so would have
saved her the time in writing these new one page documents. It
would have been the simplest solution. However, I realized, as I am
sure she did, that our 20 page IEPs didnt communicate anything.Instead of seeing them as a help, giving teachers a copy would be
seen as overwhelming them. In contrast, what was helpful was
Denas simple one page document that efficiently communicated
each students needs and services to their teachers. The teachers
liked it. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggested that accommo-
dations were being implemented with a higher fidelity.
My first impulse was to try and get everyone at our high school
to do the same thing, to write this one page communicative IEP to
give to other teachers. Initially this made sense to me. We will write
a 20 page legal IEP for the state (because we have to), and then a
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
10/127
Introduction
7
one page communicative IEP for the benefit of our teachers, as well
as our parents and students who would also appreciate it. One IEP
will keep us legally protected and in compliance, and the other will be
useful.
Now it likely goes without saying that suggesting that we write
another IEP for each student (even if it is only one page) is a good
way to keep yourself unpopular in the lunchroom. Fortunately, I
realized this before I ever suggested it to anyone that such an activity
ought to be mandatory. However, I soon started thinking that maybe
we dont have to do two. What if we could tinker with Denas infor-
mation sheet just enough so that it would become the actual IEP?Maybe, I thought, we could write a one page IEP that would satisfy
the state and be useful at the same time.
Armed with this hope I reexamined IDEA 2004. I read every-
thing I could: independent research studies, governmental reports,
every state model IEP form, and the law itself. I concluded that it
could be done. By making a broad conceptual shift, a recommitment
to the purpose of the document, we could write short, practical, IDEA
2004 compliant IEPs that have a high communicative facility. I wrote
this book to convey my findings on the matter. I have arrived at four
simple conclusions based on the available evidence regarding our
current IEP processes. These are as follows:
1.) The current legal IEP paradigm produces documents withlow communicative facility.
2.) The current legal IEP paradigm drains staff resources,which directly affects the service level available to stu-
dents.
3.) The current legal IEP paradigm is based on neither practi-cal nor legal necessity.
4.) Improving our IEPs will require a broad conceptual shiftfrom a legal/contractual underpinning to a communica-
tive purpose.
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
11/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
8
The rest of this book will concern itself with explaining each of these
conclusions further. It will also present my views of what a commu-
nicative IEP is and how to write one.
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
12/127
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
13/127
9
Chapter 2
The Legal IEP Paradigm
roadly speaking, our special education processes are ineffi-
cient and have conceptually drifted from their intended
purpose. What was conceived as a system to benefit studentsby encouraging high standards and parental cooperation has
become bogged down in legalities and the documentation of compli-
ance. This problem is not new. It has been recognized by the federal
government for years. For example, consider the findings from the
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education Report
(2002):
The current system often places process above results, andbureaucratic compliance above student achievement, excellence
and outcomes. The system is driven by complex regulations,
excessive paperwork, and ever-increasing administrative
demands at all levels (p. 7).
Congress attempted to address these concerns in the introduction to
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004. Theywrite:
B
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
14/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
10
Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated the
education of children with disabilities can be made more effective
by focusing resources on teaching and learning while reducing
paperwork and requirements that do not assist in improving
educational results (20 U. S. C. 1400 (c) (5)(G)).
Consider further the Senate Report on the Individuals with Disabili-
ties Education Act (2003); which concludes:
Lengthy and complex IEPs are not necessarily beneficial to
students if they create confusion and take teachers away frominstructional time with children (p. 30).
Although Congress has recognized this problem, over focus on the
documentation of compliance and litigious paperwork continues to
be detrimental to effective service delivery. Consider the conclusions
from the Texas Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (Ca-
ranikas-Walker et al, 2006):
Both special education teachers and other special education
professionals devoted many hours per month to non-teaching
tasks or tasks other than providing direct services to students. For
other special education professionals, it appears that more work
hours are spent on paperwork such as developing IEPs
(Individualized Education Programs), ARD (Admission, Review,
and Dismissal) committee work, and other administrative tasksthan on providing direct services to students. This directly
impacts the service level for special education students (p. 23).
While the general problem with legality in special education is
broader than any one process or aspect of the system, at the center of
all special education paperwork and process is the Individualized
Education Program (IEP), a yearly document created for each stu-
dent to guide their services within special education. Therefore, it is
this document that will be our focus.
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
15/127
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
16/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
12
individualized education; instead they are focused on legal
protection and compliance with regulatory processes..The
original concept of IEPs as an instructional framework for a
defined period of a childs education has been lost to the greater
need to document legal and procedural compliance (p. 16)
The above defines the counterproductive conceptualization that
exists regarding the purpose of the IEP document. That is, IEPs are
constructed as if they were legal documents, or contracts, formal
binding agreements between parents and schools regarding service
delivery and access to programs. Equal to this purpose in the cur-rent paradigm is the IEPs role in documenting compliance with
IDEA 2004 and specific state regulations. This legal focus detracts
from what ought to be the core purpose of the IEP document, effi-
ciently communicating the details of the education plan to school
staff, parents, and students so that it could be effectively implement-
ed. For the rest of this book, IEPs written with the primary aim of
being contracts and documentation of compliance will be termed
legal IEPs. In contrast, IEPs whose construction places the docu-
ments communicative facility above its purpose as a contract and
proof of compliance will be termed communicative IEPs.
Legal IEPs are not Communicative Documents
Legal IEPs are not designed as communicative tools that describe astudents educational program to those entrusted with its implemen-
tation. Instead they are technical documents designed as legal safe-
guards for schools and parents. Their content and layout appear to be
more a function of districtspiecemeal responses to state compliance
probes than a result of a serious consideration of how to produce a
document that has practical value to those working with students.
Addressing the reasons why Texas IEPs were often more than 20
pages long, Borreca (2011) gave the following testimony describing
how this defensive legality enters the process:
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
17/127
The Legal IEP Paradigm
13
One explanation is an unwarranted and unjustified fear of
litigation. Over the years, there has been litigation and it has been
emphasized to document, document, and document. Pages of
paperwork have been added to cover issues at the local or state
level. Local districts have been reported to have added elements
because the state has come in for review, and said, I dont see
documentation for this. (p. 4)
The above highlights a central issue in legal IEP construction. Be-
cause of pressure on districts to create ever more perfect legal docu-
ments, IEPs are often designed more for the audience of statecompliance monitors than they are for parents and general education
teachers. A document whose primary purpose is to demonstrate that
a district is in compliance and legally protected will not be designed
in such a way as to maximize its effectiveness as a communicative
reference for those involved with the student. These end points have
little overlap. The consequence of this legal first paradigm appears
to be the decreasing communicative value of our IEP documents in
inverse proportion to their legal sophistication.
Three central areas of content in legal IEPs appear to decrease
their communicative value. In order of importance, these are an over
documentation of the IEP development considerations, nonindividu-
alized content, such as inserted sections of special education law and
administrative statements, and protective statements documenting
that the district followed procedure. Because these content areas add
length and dilute the vital content, they limit the effectiveness of theIEP document as a communicative tool.
Let us first examine the over documentation of federal compli-
ance in regards to the considerations mandated to be taken into
account in the construction of each IEP. IDEA 2004 explicitly stipu-
lates that the IEP take into consideration multiple issues. Among
these are the concerns of the parents, the academic, developmental,
and functional needs of the student, the strengths of the student, the
results of past and current evaluations of the student, the impact of
the students behavior on their learning, thecommunication needs of
the student, the needs of english language learners, the needs of
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
18/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
14
students with visual impairments, and the students assistive tech-
nology needs. It is common in the design of legal IEP documents to
set aside a text box for most or all of these considerations. The IEP
team is then obligated to write stylized statements and perhaps
supply actual data for each consideration as documented proof that
the considerations were in fact considered. See the State of Dela-
wares (Delaware Department of Education, 2007) or the State of
Illinois (Illinois State Board of Education, 2010) model IEP forms
for typical examples of this practice.
Although it is common practice to produce statements for each
of the considerations in the IEP, it is not required by federal law.IDEA 2004 clearly stipulates what statements are necessary in the
IEP in section 1414(d)(1)(A)1. In section 614(d)(1)(A)(ii) the rule of
construction states that nothing else beyond what is explicitly re-
quired by this law is required. Therefore, statements in the IEP that
document each consideration are not required. It should be noted
that a proper IEP does consider all of the preceding issues. However,
to consider means to think and discuss. It does not mean to docu-
ment. This excessive documentation, apart from being a drain on
educator resources, unnecessarily adds to the length of the docu-
ment, making it more difficult to read. This reduces the IEPs com-
municative facility to teachers, parents, and students, the opposite of
what should be the goal.
It is further the case that many districts across many states are
asked to provide documentation for considerations that are not even
explicit in IDEA 2004. Most typically this documentation is in re-gards to the placement decision making process. An example of this
common practice can be seen in the following section from the New
Mexico model IEP form (New Mexico Public Education Department,
2012).
1The reader may review the sections of IDEA 2004 that govern IEP construction in
the appendix.
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
19/127
The Legal IEP Paradigm
15
Section of the New Mexico Model IEP FormFederal regulations and state rules require that all public agencies have a continuum of alternativeservice and setting options" available as needed in order to meet the needs of children with disabilities
for special education and related services.
At this IEP meeting, the public agency and/or the parent(s)/guardian(s) proposed the following itemsand options:
All Items Proposed
All Options Considered
Proposed
By
Accept()
Reject()
Reason for Acceptance orRejection (Must include a
description of each evalua-tion procedure, assessment,record or report used as a
basis for the proposed orrefused action)
#1 Regular Education classroom
with Special Education servicesspecified as:
(Setting 1: 80% or more of theday in regular classroom)
#2 Regular Education classroomcombined with Special Educa-
tion classroom and services
provided specified as:
(Setting 2: 40% to 79% of the
day in regular class setting)
#3 Regular Education classroomcombined with Special Educa-
tion classroom and servicesprovided specified as:
(Setting 3: less than 40% of theday in the regular class setting)
#4 Special Education servicesprovided all day or approachinga full day (Setting 4) specifiedas:
(Other setting: public/privateseparate schools, RTC, home-
bound/hospitals)
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
20/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
16
This section of the New Mexico Model IEP form requires the dis-
trict to document what options for programs and services were con-
sidered but not selected along with a rationale for them not being
selected. Plainly put, and perhaps difficult to believe, many IEPs
actually contain documentation for what is not in the plan, along
with an explanation for why it is not in the plan. One could only
speculate at the intended purpose of this, but a logical assumption
would be that it is meant to protect districts from parents coming
back after the IEP is completed and arguing that the district should
have selected another option for their childs programs and services.
This type of defensive documentation (communicating why some-thing is not in the plan) is of zero value in communicating what is in
the actual plan.
Another, admittedly more extreme, example of documentation
that serves no educational purpose can be found in the New Jersey
IEP model form (State of New Jersey Department of Education,
2007). See the following section of the IEP that requires three sepa-
rate areas of documentation regarding the rationale for why a stu-
dent is spending less than 20 percent of their time in general
education.
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
21/127
The Legal IEP Paradigm
17
Page 11 of the New Jersey Model IEP Form
RATIONALE FOR REMOVAL FROM GENERAL EDUCATION
Decisions regarding placement are based on the individual needs of students and must begin withconsideration of the general education setting. The purpose of this page is to document the discus-
sions that have occurred with respect to accommodations, modifications, and supplementary aids andservices in each academic or functional area that are necessary to educate the student in the generaleducation setting.
If the student will be included in the general education setting for more than 80% of the time, norationale is required. Items 1 through 3 of this section of the IEP need not be completed or includedin the students IEP.
If a student will not be included in the general education setting for more than 80% of the time, items1 through 3 below MUST be completed for each CONTENT/SUBJECT AREA.
1. Identify the supplementary aids and services that were considered to implement thestudents annual goals. [N.J.A.C. 6A:14-4.2(a)8i]. Explain why they are not appropriateto meet the students needs in the general education class:
2. Document the comparison of the benefits provided in the regular class and the benefitsprovided in the special education class [N.J.A.C. 6A:14-4.2(a)8ii].
3. Document the potentially beneficial or harmful effects which a placement (in the generaleducation class) may have on the student with disabilities or the other students in the class
[N.J.A.C. 6A:14-4.2(a)8iii].
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
22/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
18
The inclusion of this section would not only increase the time it
takes the teacher to write the IEP, but it alone would add several
pages (one for each content area) to the documents length. There-
fore we can see how the addition of this one section would simulta-
neously take teacher time away from students and decrease the
communicative value of their IEP documents by diluting vital con-
tent. For what educational benefit would this sacrifice be made?
This documentation of a rationale is entirely focused on protecting
the district. It is certainly not the case that this content provides
valuable information on how to work with a student to achieve suc-
cess. It does not describe the plan to those responsible for its imple-mentation. Its purpose, explicitly stated at the top of the page, is to
document the discussion regarding the decision making process, like
a type of quasi-legal due diligence. This kind of documentation is
not even suggested by IDEA 2004, let alone required.
In addition to unhelpful documentation, legal IEPs are charac-
terized by a large amount of nonindividualized content, such as
inserted sections of law and administrative statements. Similar to
the excessive documentation of the considerations, these additions
add length and lessen the communicative facility of the document.
Inserted sections of law continue to be found in IEPs that have been
simplified. For example, the U.S. Department of Educations Office
of Special Education Programs model IEP form (2006) has a copied
section of law above each textbox. The following section of law is
inserted above the text box for special education and related services:
A statement of the special education and related services and
supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research
to the extent practicable, to be provided to the child, or on behalf
of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or
supports for school personnel that will be provided to enable the
child: To advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals.
34 CFR 300.320(a)(4)(i)] To be involved in and make progress in
the general education curriculum and to participate in
extracurricular and other nonacademic activities.
[34 CFR 300.320(a)(4)(ii)] To be educated and participate with
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
23/127
The Legal IEP Paradigm
19
other children with disabilities and nondisabled children in
extracurricular and other nonacademic activities.
[34 CFR 300.320(a)(4)(iii)]
Along with inserted sections of law, legal IEPs often contain
what can be referred to as administrative statements regarding the
position of the educational agency on issues such as inclusion. For
example, see the following statement taken from Delawares Model
IEP form (Delaware Department of Education, 2007):
A student with a disability shall not be removed from educationin age appropriate regular classes solely because of needed
modifications in general education curriculum. Special classes,
separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities
from the regular educational environment occurs only if the
nature or severity of the disability is such that education in
regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services
cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
Other administrative statements are focused on spelling out appro-
priate special education procedures such as the statement below
taken from the Connecticut State Model IEP form (Connecticut State
Department of Education, 2006):
Parents please note: Under the procedural safeguards of IDEA,
a copy of the Procedural Safeguards in Special Education shall begiven to the parents of a child with a disability only one time per
year, except that a copy also shall be given to the parents: 1) upon
initial referral or parental request for evaluation, 2) upon the first
occurrence of the filing of a complaint under Section 615(b)(6), 3)
upon request by a parent, and 4) upon a change of placement
resulting from a disciplinary action. A copy of Procedural
Safeguards in Special Education which explains these protections
was made available previously this school year
(date)___________ is enclosed with this document. A
copy of Procedural Safeguards in Special Education is available on
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
24/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
20
school district website : http://www [Delete if not available on
line]. If you need assistance in understanding the provisions of
IDEA, please contact your childs principal,the districts special
education director or the CTs federally designated
Parent Training and Information Center (CPAC at 800- 445-
2722). For a copy of A Parents Guide to Special Education in CT
and other resources contact SERC (800-842-8678) or go to:
http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2678&Q=320730.
The addition of copied sections of law and administrative state-
ments in numerous areas throughout the IEP document appear to befor legal rather than communicative purposes. This type of content is
completely nonindividualized. It does nothing to improve the docu-
ments ability to efficiently communicate the details of a students
education plan to those entrusted with its implementation. In con-
trast, it detracts from it. Adding legal or administrative text above
every section in the IEP can easily double or triple the number of
pages. This makes the IEP less accessible to teachers, parents, and
students. Again, this is the direct opposite of what ought to be the
goal.
Lastly, we find that legal IEPs are characterized by numerous
protective statements. Rather than contribute to the communication
of the plan, these statements are focused on documenting that the
district followed procedure. For example, the Illinois model IEP
form contains a section on parental rights and involvement (Illinois
State Board of Education, 2010). When the parent is not in attend-ance the district must fill in a text box detailing the attempts to con-
tact the parent prior to the IEP meeting. There is another line which
documents the date and manner in which the parents were informed
about their procedural safeguards. Finally there is a section which
documents if the parents were given a copy of their childs evaluation
report and eligibility determination, the districts behavioral inter-
vention policies, their childs IEP, and the districts behavioral inter-
vention procedures.
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
25/127
The Legal IEP Paradigm
21
While it is important for the district to perform the actions re-
quired to be documented in this section, the inclusion of this type of
content in the IEP document itself is not aligned to what should be
its purpose: the communication of the plan. Protective statements
are an aspect of contracts, not communicative tools. They do not
help teachers to make the right accommodations or counselors make
the right schedules for their special education students. They do not
help parents understand their childs progress or the strategies the
school is using to address their disability. Protective statements
appear to be included for the safety of the district, not for the benefit
of teachers, parents, and students. Their effect when placedthroughout legal IEPs is to lower the overall communicative value of
the document.
Legal IEPs Drain Limited Educator Resources
The time it takes to create, proof, correct, and monitor the exacting
contracts that legal IEPs have become drains educator resourcesaway from their students. Special education teachers spend an inor-
dinate amount of time on paperwork unrelated to instruction. The
last large scale national survey found that the average special educa-
tion teacher spends five hours a week on paperwork (SPeNSE, 2001).
A more recent study found that the time special education teachers
spend on paperwork related to special education equals 60 percent of
their time spent on academic instruction (Vannest et al, 2011). Insome places, special education support staff (e.g., school psycholo-
gists, social workers) spend more time completing special education
paperwork and other administrative tasks than providing services to
students (Caranikas-Walker et al, 2006). These studies highlight the
inefficiencies in the system and the lack of appropriate prioritization
of resources. Special education leaders at the state level are noticing
the effects this burden has on teacher retention. A recent survey of
state directors of special education (Ahearn, 2011) cited concern thatexcessive amounts of paperwork are driving teachers out of the field,
and called for reductions in paperwork for teachers. Furthermore,
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
26/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
22
the report suggested that IEP requirements should be reviewed to see
what elements could be reduced in order to allow teachers increased
time for classroom activities. It appears that not much has changed
since the Presidents Commission Report (2002) cited that, special
educators spend more time on paperwork than grading papers,
communicating with parents, sharing expertise with colleagues,
supervising paraprofessionals and attending IEP meetings com-
bined (p. 17). For teachers, this time spent on paperwork directly
detracts focus from a variety of important activities such as instruc-
tional planning, case management, and working with parents, activi-
ties that we know can lead to improved student achievement. Itshould come as no surprise that 88 percent of special education
teachers report that the requirements of IDEA interfere with their
teaching duties (SPeNSE, 2001). Succinctly stated, overly litigious
IEPs have a cost that can be measured in lack of student achieve-
ment. This cost needs to be taken seriously. It is simply unconscion-
able to students, parents, and tax payers for schools to robotically
continue on with processes that we know are so vastly inefficient.
While there is a lot we do know about the cost of legality in our
IEPs, there is much that has still gone unmeasured. When we con-
sider the teacher time lost to the construction of legal IEPs we also
need to consider professional development. How much time is spent
in professional development talking about compliance issues rather
than learning skills applicable to teaching? What percentage of time
in district and county special education staff meetings is taken up
with issues regarding the documentation of compliance that could beput to practical use developing school wide systems to enhance
teaching and learning? Doing the research and finding the answers
to these questions may provide an even more serious picture of the
cost of the litigiousness of our current practices.
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
27/127
The Legal IEP Paradigm
23
The Legal IEP Process Affects Meeting Quality
So far the argument made here against the current legal IEP para-
digm has rested on two points, that legal IEPs are not communicative
documents and that their construction is a drain on educator re-
sources. However, a third point of contention with the legal IEP
paradigm can also be raised. That is, the potential for the emphasis
on legality and paperwork to affect the quality of the IEP meeting.
This point of contention is not as self-evident as the lack of commu-
nicative facility of legal IEPs, nor does it have the research support as
does the argument that the paperwork burden is detrimental toservice delivery. It is, however, an important point to raise here as
future research may support the hypothesis that the degree of legal
focus is inversely correlated with IEP meeting quality. Consider the
following narrative based on a collection of my less than optimal IEP
experiences; maybe as a parent or educator you can relate:
Several staff members, all facing the same way to look at a
projected image of a computer screen, are working together at
their task of diligently clicking selections and filling up text boxes
with stylized language. A large, often referred to, binder sits at the
table full of examples on what compliance monitoring probes will
be used to evaluate the IEP upon audit. The parent is in attend-
ance along with the sixteen year-old student for whom the IEP is
being written. The student appears bored. He is uninterested in
the project of text box completion that is consuming his teachers.The staff try to include him. The general ed gym teacher engages
with the student in idle conversation about sports, while the oth-
ers speak to each other regarding compliance issues. As always
there is much concern about making a mistake, English 10
resource is not departmentalized is it, I dont know what box to
check here? Do we need the grade equivalents, I know we had to
last year but didnt that change? The student asks if he really
needs to stay any longer. He wants to go back to class. The teacher
replies that he can leave in just a minute, after they ask a couple
questions about his after high school plans so they could be rec-
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
28/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
24
orded in the transition section of the IEP. Most of the questions
on the form are geared towards individuals with adaptive needs
and are not at all pertinent to the young man who has only a mild
learning disability in reading. By law we have to ask, the teacher
explains. The student provides the needed information. The staff
members wish him a good rest of the year and spend the remain-
ing time in the hour diligently focused on their project. After
resolving a few technical problems involving the determination of
the exact number of weekly minutes in special education and
finding out the date that school will start next year, the team has
finished their task. The legal IEP meeting is finished. The paperwork is mostly done. It will be submitted to the director of special
education in a couple of days. The team is hopeful that the docu-
ment will pass this inspection so that it could be laid to rest in a
file cabinet in the central office; if not, corrections will need to be
made (in case the file is pulled for compliance monitoring).
The preceding narrative admittedly portrays legal IEP meetings
in an overly negative light. While in my professional experience
educators regularly work to get vastly more out of their meetings
than what was described, the complexity and process of our legal
IEPs can act as an impediment to meeting quality. The task of doc-
umentation at times is on par with, or can even take precedence over,
the discussion and planning of the educational programming. I have
undoubtedly made this error myself at times throughout my career as
a school psychologist, and I have also witnesses it at times duringIEPs for my son. I am sure that most any parent or special education
professional can identify with at least some aspect of the above nar-
rative.
I want to be careful not to stretch this argument too far because
the research on satisfaction rates with the legal IEP meeting process,
although far from great, is generally more positive than negative
(e.g., Dildine, 2010; Lee-Tarver, 2006). However, we ought not to
interpret these findings as indicating that there is only modest room
for improvement. I believe that there is still vast room for improve-
ment.
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
29/127
The Legal IEP Paradigm
25
Technical and procedural progress frequently results from re-
placing something with which people are basically satisfied, with
something even better. Once that improvement has come along,
once people see that an alternative is possible, they may never want
to go back to the old way of doing things. In the time before automo-
biles, people were basically satisfied with using horses for transporta-
tion. That is all they knew, so they were happy with what they had.
However, once they had a better alternative in the automobile, few
people would rate the horse as a highly satisfactory means of trans-
portation. To me it seems obvious to propose that an IEP meeting
process focused on students rather than the documentation of proce-dure would likely be preferred by parents and teachers. This question
is well deserving of future empirical attention.
Conclusions
It has long been recognized that IEPs are excessively litigious andover-focused on compliance. This legal IEP paradigm has resulted in
a tragic misappropriation of educator resources towards paperwork
and away from service delivery, as well as IEP documents that have a
low communicative facility to those entrusted with their implementa-
tion. Solving this problem will require a broad conceptual shift
regarding the purpose of the IEP, a resolute determination that the
written IEP should be designed as a communicative rather than a
legal document. Standing in the way are our long held implicit as-
sumptions regarding why legality in IEPs is thought to be necessary.
These assumptions will need to be challenged in order for the field to
break out of the current paradigm. This will be the focus of the next
chapter.
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
30/127
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
31/127
27
Chapter 3
Legality in IEPs is Unnecessary
t has so far been presented that legal IEPs are not highly com-municative documents and that their construction drains educa-
tor resources to the detriment of the students most needing their
support. Regardless, those unwilling to move beyond the cur-
rent legal IEP paradigm could still argue that this legal focus is ful-
filling a vital purpose, and that shifting to a communicative purpose,
although helpful in some ways, would ultimately be detrimental to
students. But what could this vital purpose be? What could be so
necessary about inserted sections of education law, administrative
statements, detailed documentation of every consideration, protec-
tive statements, and the overall contractual nature of most IEP doc-
uments? Since we know that none of this is explicitly mandated in
IDEA 2004, this content cannot be considered a legal necessity. We
are left to assume that IEP designers must consider it to be a practi-
cal necessity, but why? Where does this thinking come from?
The idea that our current legal IEP paradigm is a practical neces-sity seems to stem from two widespread implicit assumptions about
the IEP. These are the assumption that the content of the IEP
I
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
32/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
28
document functions to protect students educational rights and the
assumption that it is necessary to contractualize education for stu-
dents with disabilities. The idea that the legal/contractual nature of
our IEPs is a practical necessity appears to directly follow from an
acceptance of these assumptions. In other words, if you believe that
an IEP document is a contract that protects rights, then logic would
obligate you to consider it necessary to include legal content (e.g.
protective statements, inserted sections of law). Even if you agree
that this content can be detrimental to the documents communica-
tive facility, you would still have to support its inclusion, maybe
considering it a necessary evil. Therefore, for our purposes both ofthese assumptions will need to be made explicit and critically ana-
lyzed. Unless it can be demonstrated that these assumptions are
somehow invalid, it will be impossible to break out of the current
legal IEP paradigm.
First, let us consider the implicit assumption that the contents of
the IEP document function to protect students educational rights.
Evidence for the breadth of this assumption can be found in the
inserted sections of law in the federal model form (OSEP, 2006) as
well as many state model forms. Having inserted sections of law, and
paraphrasing of law, in so many IEP forms gives the impression that
doing so is a practical necessity; why else would it be done with such
ubiquity? This naturally leads to the wider idea that a students
educational rights are somehow protected by the legal text within
their IEP. Once accepted, the implicit assumption that the IEP doc-
ument functions to protect student rights sets up a framework wherelegal content can only grow and never diminish. This is because any
calls for limiting the inclusion of additional legal content is like
suggesting that our students do not deserve the thorough protection
that a legally sophisticated IEP provides. Luckily there is a way out.
Stepping back and shining a light upon this assumption shows it to
be without sufficient foundation.
In general, legal protection against discrimination comes from
the law, not from a personal document or contract between parties.
Consider the rest of society; it is against the law for a person with a
disability to be denied service in a business establishment because of
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
33/127
Legality in IEPs is Unnecessary
29
their disability. To do so would be illegal. If and when it happens
individuals may find recourse and protection under the law. This
protection, however, stems from the law itself. It is not the result of a
personal document stating the needs and rights of the individual with
a disability. This protection is also not the result of a contract be-
tween that individual and the business establishment (if there was
one) where the establishment agreed in writing to provide access to
that individual. Such a contract or a personal document as a means
of ensuring civil rights would be absurd. Likewise, considering the
legal content in a childs IEP document as being essential to the
protection of their rights in education is equally absurd. UnlikeIEPs, rights are not individualized. Rights are universal in this coun-
try. They live everywhere and apply to everyone. The implicit as-
sumption that they are ensured by the text in a personal document
makes no sense.
The second assumption that drives the superfluous content in
legal IEPs is the idea that an IEP is a legal contract. Unfortunately
this idea is very wide spread. A typical example of this thinking can
be found in the following passage taken from A Parent's Guide to
Special Education (2010) A Joint Publication of the Federation for
Children with Special Needs and the Massachusetts Department of
Education:
Your child's Individualized Education Program (IEP) is developed
at the Team meeting and represents a formal agreement about
the services that the school will provide for your child's specialeducation needs. The IEP is a contract between you and the
school. As with any contract you should make sure you fully
understand the terms to which you are agreeing and make certain
that everything that was agreed to verbally is written in the
contract (p. 19)
By conceiving of the IEP this way we are in effect contractualizing
education, i.e., ensuring that every aspect, documented in fine detail,
of a students educational programming is negotiated and settled
upon between the parent and the district. In this contractual para-
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
34/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
30
digm, the IEP meeting functions as the negotiation session and the
IEP document acts as the finished contract. Conceived this way, the
purpose of the IEP document, from the perspective of both the par-
ents and the school district, naturally becomes protective rather than
communicative. From this protective purpose stems the majority of
the superfluous content found in most legal IEPs (e.g., excessive
documentation of considerations, administrative statements, and
protective statements). This is the heart of the problem.
But is it necessary for us to contractualize education for students
with disabilities in order to make it individualized? This language is
not in the law. IDEA 2004 states, the term `individualized educa-tion program' or `IEP' means a written statement for each child with
a disability [34CFR 300.320(a)]. The word statement in no way
implies contract. While IDEA 2004 requires schools to meet and
individualize an educational program for students with disabilities, it
does not require schools to contractualize education. This has
also been made explicit by recent case law (Van Duyn v. Baker School
District) where it was found that a schools failure to implement the
IEP was not the legal equivalent to breach of contract.
The fact that it is not a legal necessity for schools to contractual-
ize education for students with disabilities does not disqualify it from
being a practical necessity. This question will need to be addressed
separately. While I know of no direct formal argument supporting
the claim that contractualization is a practical requirement for indi-
vidualization, there is an abundance of evidence to the contrary
within general education. There are many instances in general edu-cation where studentsprograms and services are adjusted based on
their individualized needs. For example, consider grade retention.
The decision to have a student repeat a grade is made by the school
and the parents based on the students individual needs. In this
scenario, extra services are being provided (a whole year of educa-
tion) without the pretense of a legal contract. Secondly, class sched-
uling for secondary students is completed based on student interest
and needs (e.g., electives, remedial classes, credit recovery). Again,
educational programming is modified without the use of a contract.
Thirdly, many general education students with health problems
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
35/127
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
36/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
32
Consider that there was a period in American history, relatively
close in time to the origin of special education law, when armed
soldiers were needed to enforce the racial integration of public
schools. Today we do not keep the National Guard outside schools to
protect against a spontaneous resurgence of segregation. To do so
would be an absurd waste of resources. Although they were neces-
sary at one time, in todays world these measures are no longer re-
quired. Similarly, the conceptualization of an IEP as a legal safeguard
created to protect individual rights in education may have outlived its
purpose. Education for persons with disabilities has come a long
way. If we can allow ourselves to set down our swords we will be ableto fully reap the dividends the efforts of our forbearers provided for
our children. We should have confidence that shifting from the legal
focus of our IEPs will not send us back into the early 1970s.
In the following chapters, the framework for the communicative
IEP will be presented. However, if one continues to view the purpose
of the written IEP as a legal/contractual document created to protect
rights in education, then the following will seem woefully inadequate.
Moving past the idea that legally constructed IEP documents are
necessary will require a broad conceptual shift. This will be difficult.
Change is hard. However, such a change in the field is necessary to
move towards greater levels of efficiency and effectiveness.
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
37/127
33
Chapter 4
What is a Plan?
lthough we often say plan, the P in IEP technically stands
for program. However, in typical usage the word plan is the
actual meaning of our reference in that an IEP is the plan forthe educational program. Consequently, the terms program
and planare virtually synonymous for our purposes here, but what
is a plan? Dictionary.com (2012) defines it as, a scheme or method
of acting, doing, proceeding, making, etc., developed in advance. In
other words, a plan is what we are going to do. This should be the
focus of the IEP document, writing down what we are going to do.
This characterization of an IEP as, what we are going to do is a
general statement that broadly applies to both the document and the
meeting. In practice we may call them both IEPs, but they are dif-
ferent. The IEP meeting is the event, the discussion, where the deci-
sions on what we are going to do are made. In contrast the IEP
document exists as the written record of what we are going to do.
Focusing now just on the IEP document, it can be seen that when we
record what we are going to do, what we are really doing is creating
instructions for what to do. We write the document so that it couldbe referred to in the future. Whether it is an author of the IEP, or
another staff member who did not participate in the IEPs construc-
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
38/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
34
tion, the purpose of referring to it in the future would be the same, to
find out what to do. Therefore, the central purpose of the IEP docu-
ment should be to help school staff know what to do.
In nearly every human endeavor people write plans on paper so
that others will know what to do. Blueprints are written so builders
know what to do. The Xs and Os in football playbooks are
written so the players know what to do. Dieticians write out meal
plans so the dieters know what to do. Symphonies are written
down so the musicians know what to do. These plans are designed
in a manner that holds the consumers understanding of the plan in
the highest regard. In other words, the presentation of the plan isdesigned for the consumer of the plan not for its creator or a third
party. Sheet music is written for musicians, not composers or music
critics; football playbooks are written for players, not coaches, team
owners, or fans. Therefore the value of the design of any particular
written plan should be measured by how well the consumer of that
plan understands what to do. In the same manner the value of the
design of an IEP document can be determined by how well the school
staff understand it, specifically, how clearly and efficiently it com-
municates what to do.
Producing written IEPs that effectively communicate what to
do ought to be our highest priority. Other purposes of the document
that interfere with this purpose need to be discarded. Our problem
in special education is that we have lost this focus. Legal IEPs are
often constructed to serve several functions that are unrelated to the
communication of the plan (e.g., legal protection, documented proofof compliance). It is the attention paid to these other functions that
impede the communicative function of the document. Plainly put:
these distractions wreck the written plan.
An analogy may be helpful here to better illustrate the point.
Consider a pair of holiday shoppers preparing for a day after Thanks-
giving assault on the stores. They meet for coffee after dinner to plan
their attack. In the morning they will go to several stores to get the
door opening deals. It may be necessary for one of the pair to get in
line right away while the other picks up the desired items, or they
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
39/127
What is a Plan?
35
may have to separate to both pick up items and then wait for an
extended time in line. Planning is critical as they want to hit as many
store openings as possible to get the door buster deals. This can be
done because each store opens up at a different time.
So lets say that our pair of shoppers are extraordinarily orga-
nized and meticulous. They want to put their strategy to paper to be
sure they maximize the effectiveness of their early morning raid.
What would they write down? We would imagine that they would
make a simple list of the tasks to be done, the order and time that
they need to be done, and who is going to do what. This would make
the most sense. They may write something like this:
BLACK FRIDAY SHOPPING PLAN
4:30 meet at Dunkin Donuts for coffee, both bring vans (must beempty!)
4:45 get in line for 5:00am opening at Meijer
5:00 to 5:30 at Meijer get the Sony flat screen deal and the wallspeakers
5:35 drive to Best Buy wait in line till 6:00 opening
6:00 split up in Best Buy, Sarah gets tablet computer, Lisa gets inline
6:15 get to Walmart for the % off coupons for toys
7:15 leave to go to Macys (opens at 7:30; last store use % dis-count till done, clothes)
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
40/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
36
Let us now imagine what the preceding would look like if our
shoppers wrote their plan the way legal IEPs are written. Obviously
it would look much different and be much longer. To make a suffi-
cient parallel I would imagine that our shoppers would record many
extraneous details, such as their current level of disposable income
set aside for Christmas shopping, each of their family members
detailed input of what they want for Christmas and why, a narrative
explanation for why each shopping maneuver listed was chosen, as
well as documentation of evidence for why alternative shopping
maneuvers are not being planned, expenditure data from past shop-
ping trips, commitment signatures and checkboxes confirming thateach party understands the contents of the plan, protective state-
ments regarding responsibility for merchandise obtained while one
partner is standing in line alone, copied sections of each stores sale
and return policy, written documentation of the concerns of each
shoppers significant other regarding the trip, copies of Google maps
that support the feasibility of the travel time estimates between
stores, as well as written documentation regarding other anticipated
needs (e.g., gas and food money, truck space, traffic).
All of this extra information would not assist in the execution of
the plan in the least. In fact, the likely 20 pages that it would take to
document the preceding would obscure the vital directions, making
them less likely to be followed in the stores where it counts (who has
time to thumb through twenty pages while wrestling for the last
Tickle Me Elmo). Therefore, even though such a document could be
seen by some as being thorough and impressive, to the extentthat this extra content interferes with the primary goal of guiding
efficient shopping behavior, it is damaging to the entire endeavor.
Such a document would be worthy of no praise, and should be seen
as folly.
Less is more when it comes to the communication of a plan.
However, in special education we have fallen into the trap of neglect-
ing this obvious piece of common sense. The point of the argument
here is not to imply that that thorough documentation is always bad,
but merely that it is always bad when it exists as part of a plan, be-
cause it confuses the nature of the plan; it damages it. It turns a plan
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
41/127
What is a Plan?
37
into an argument, requiring evidentiary support. We need to keep
the plan pure. We need to protect it. Otherwise, it is of little value
outside of fulfilling a bureaucratic requirement, forms that need to be
completed before services can be provided. This is where we are at
now. This is what needs to change.
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
42/127
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
43/127
39
Chapter 5Introduction to the
Communicative IEP
communicative IEP will place the communicative facility of
the IEP document and educator resources above legalities. It
will read as a treatment plan rather than a legal contract. Its
primary purpose is to be a simple record of the educational planning
that occurred at the IEP meeting, written in such a way as to maxim-
ize its communicative facility to school staff, parents, and, when
appropriate, students. Brevity will be prized. For most students, the
goal is for the IEP document to be no longer than a single page.
More than a page takes away from its communicative facility, and in
this system, communication takes priority2.Referring back to the law, we find that IDEA 2004 defines an
IEP as a series of statements regarding a student s educational pro-
gramming. The following seven statements (plus a few more for
transition if the student is nearing 16 years of age) are to be included
in each IEP. By limiting their focus to these seven statements, a team
could produce a short IDEA 2004 compliant IEP. It should be noted
that this document structure is similar to the current OSEP model
2 Please note that proper individualization of the process will require some students
to have IEPs that are longer than a single page.
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
44/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
40
IEP form (OSEP, 2006), which basically consists of a series of text
boxes to address each statement. The list of required statements
below are taken from IDEA 2004 (20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(A))3.
(I) a statement of the child's present levels of academic
achievement and functional performance
(II) a statement of measurable annual goals
(III) a description of how the child's progress toward meeting
the annual goals described in sub clause (II) will be measured
(IV) a statement of the special education and related services
and supplementary aids and services
(V) an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child will
not participate with nondisabled children in the regular class
and in the activities described in sub clause (IV)
(VI) a statement of any individual appropriate accommodations
that are necessary to measure the academic achievement and
functional performance of the child on State and district wide
assessments
(VII) the projected date for the beginning of the services and
modifications described in sub clause (IV), and the anticipatedfrequency, location, and duration of those services and modifica-
tions
The communicative IEP takes as its starting principle the idea
that only two types of content ought to be included in the IEP docu-
ment. The first is the above statements that are explicitly required
by federal law, and the second is what the team determines to be of
3Please see the Appendix for an unabridged transcription of IEP requirements in
IDEA 2004
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
45/127
Introduction to the Communicative IEP
41
practical value to school staff, parents, and students. These two areas
of content will be presented in a communicative fashion directed
primarily at those entrusted with its implementation and in a man-
ner that is understandable to parents and students. Please see the
following two fictitious examples of communicative IEPs.
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
46/127
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
47/127
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
48/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
44
protective statements. In a communicative IEP the aim is to actively
resist including such content because it dilutes and distracts from the
vital content, such as the following important advice about her be-
havior:
Teachers should be advised thatHannahs aggressive behaviors
often stem from academic frustration (especially in not
understanding written seat work). In the past these behaviors
have been circumvented by teachers making sure that Hannah
knows how to complete the work. When Hannah does become
angry, teachers should prompt her to use her feelingsstrategies. If this does notwork teachers could ask if she needs
to use her break pass. Pleasecall (x547) to notify Mrs.
McEvoy (the social worker) if help is ever needed.
The above is vital content. It is prominent and undiluted in this IEP
precisely because restraint was used in documenting the perfor-
mance level and protective statements were resisted. If Hannah had
a legal IEP, this content, if included at all, could easily be stuck on
page 11 of a 16 page document. In that position it would not be readi-
ly seen, and therefore would not be able to do anyone any good.
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
49/127
Introduction to the Communicative IEP
45
Jacobs Communicative IEP
NAME:Jacob IEP DATE: 4/6/13 PROVIDER: Ms. Dickerhoff
DATE OF BIRTH:09/09/98 GRADE:9th SCHOOL: Elmwood High School
PERFORMANCE LEVEL/PROGRESS IN GENERAL EDUCATION/GOALS:
Jacob has a Learning Disability in reading. Although Jacob has Very High cognitive abilities(psychological from 2010) his basic reading skills are at a first grade level. To illustrate, he has
trouble recognizing words such as that, two, from, and because. This severe deficit in hisfunctional reading skills affects his performance in all areas of the curriculum. His math skills areadequate as long as the reading has been removed from the calculation tasks. Jacob has been through
many reading programs since he started receiving intervention while in the first grade. These
interventions aimed at improving his reading skills have been unsuccessful. Therefore the focus ofJacobsspecial education services has shifted from being intervention focused to accommodation
focused. His goal from last year was to be able to pass a full schedule of general education classes,which he did. This goal will continue for this next IEP year, and will be measured by his quarterlyreport cards.
PROGRAMS & SERVICESJacob will be enrolled in general education for the entire school day. He will meet with the teacherconsultant as needed, but not less than once per month for assistance and support in managing his
accommodations. The teacher consultant, Ms. Dickerhoff, will work with the teachers in theimplementation of Jacobs accommodations. Please call her with any questions (x343).
ACCOMODATIONS/SUPPLEMENTARY AIDSJacob has a tablet computer that he will be allowed to take with him to all classes. Most of the
schools text books have an e-text component. Jacob will be able to use his tablet ear phones to havethe digital text book read to him in class.
Jacob will have a peer note taker in each of his classes. The student who takes these notes will be
given the use of a Jacobs tablet to take notes for both of them. Jacobs tablet has a text readerso hecan listen to the notes as a means to study at home.
Jacob will have all tests and quizzes either read to him or given to him in a digital format so that hecould read and respond to them himself with the help of his text reader.
If material is required to be read that does not have a digital text option, Jacob will either be given analternative assignment with digital text, have the text read to him, or be excused from responsibility
from that assignment or material.
Jacob will be allowed to use his speech to text program on his tablet and email his work in or print itout in the library.
ASSESSMENTS
Jacob will take the regular assessments but will require the audio version or have the test read to him.He will be able to use his speech to text program for any writing assessments.
PARTICIPANTS: IEP START DATE:4/7/13
________________ ________________ ________________ _________________
________________ ________________ ________________ _________________
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
50/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
46
Jacob:
Jacob is a young man of exceptional intelligence who is chal-
lenged by a very significant processing problem that has limited his
reading skills from progressing beyond a first grade level. Since
elementary school, Jacob has received intervention from seemingly
every research-based program known. His reading problems have
resisted every attempt at intervention. Since Jacob is now in high
school, all parties agree that spending any more time in school labor-
ing over his inability to quickly recognize four and five letter words is
not the best use of his time. It may never happen. Therefore, in hisparticular case, instead of using special education as a means to
improve his reading, it will be used to help reduce, to the extent
possible, the negative impact that his status as a nonreader will have
on his ability to progress within the general education curriculum. In
others words, this IEP will be focused chiefly on accommodations as
opposed to remediation. With this in mind, Jacobs IEP is primarily
written for the benefit of the five general education teachers Jacob
currently has that were not at the IEP, as well as the six new teachers
he will have next semester, and the six new teachers he will have the
semester after that. These teachers will require instruction on Ja-
cobs situation and how it can be overcome.
The team has determined that a primary danger for Jacob is that
his teachers are not going to believe that his reading problems are
significant enough to require the listed accommodations. Communi-
cating this in the IEP is of the highest priority, because helping theteachers grasp the extent of his difficulties is essential to getting their
enthusiastic support. Therefore, Jacobs Performance Level state-
ment contains examples of the words that he has trouble recognizing
(that two from). Instead of writing a test score that most of his
teachers will not know how to interpret, or writing less than the first
percentile or Extremely Low Range, the team thought that the use
of these specific word examples would more forcefully explain the
severity of Jacobs reading problems to his high school teachers.
The team felt that another danger in Jacobs situation is that the
teachers may have the philosophy that all of the accommodations
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
51/127
Introduction to the Communicative IEP
47
may be interfering with his chances to improve his reading skills.
They may reason that Jacob will never learn to read if he always finds
short cuts to bypass reading. This may affect teacher support for his
accommodations. In order to address this inevitable concern, the
following extended explanation was offered in the Performance Level
section:
Jacob has been through many reading programs since he started
receiving intervention while in the first grade. These
interventions aimed at improving his reading skills have been
unsuccessful. Therefore the focus of Jacobs special educationservices has shifted from being intervention focused to
accommodation focused.
This statement about Jacobs school history is not required to be in
the IEP. However, it was a piece of information that the team felt
should be included so that the teachers would understand why Ja-
cobs services are focused on accommodations rather than remedia-
tion.
Everything in this particular IEP is focused on the audience of
Jacobs general education teachers, especially those who are not
familiar with his case. If you think back to our previous example of
Hannahs IEP, youwill remember that we were not writing it for staff
not in attendance at the meeting the way that we are here. Therefore,
this IEP is not only individualized as far as content, but it is also
individualized as far as style, as we are writing for a particular audi-ence. In this way a communicative IEP process trusts school staff to
produce a document that is individualized to each student s needs as
well as to their situation.
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
52/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
48
Checking for Statements Mandated in IDEA 2004
All of the statements mandated by IDEA 2004 have been included in
these two example IEPs. Their location may not be overtly obvious
because, unlike the legal IEPs that we are all used to, each mandated
statement is not perfectly cordoned off into its own little section.
Remember that the primary design aim of a communicative IEP
document is that it be easy to understand, not easy to audit. Never-
theless, the reader will find that the IDEA 2004 mandated state-
ments are systematically positioned in both of these two examples.
Therefore, it should not be too difficult to identify them and check forcompliance.
To demonstrate this, we will examine the IDEA 2004 mandated
statements in Hannahs IEP. Looking back you will find that the first
heading on her IEP (and in all the communicative IEPs presented in
this book) is entitled: Performance Level/Progress in General Educa-
tion/Goals. This section contains the first three required statements
in the order in which they are presented in the law. The first man-
dated statement pertains to the students performance level. Please
see this requirement below followed by the quote from Hannahs IEP
that fulfills this mandate.
IDEA 2004 Mandated Statement #1:
(I) a statement of the child's present levels of academic achieve-
ment and functional performance
Statement #1 from Hannahs IEP:
She has average cognitive ability and average math and
communication skills. She has a strength in athletics. Hannah
has deficits in the areas of basic reading skills (currently at a
level 12, first grade first month, on the districts readingassessment: 02/26/13), and anger management (8 discipline
referrals last year) that affects her performance in general
education.
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
53/127
Introduction to the Communicative IEP
49
Also under the first heading in the communicative IEP and immedi-
ately following the performance level statement are the statements
regarding goals and how progress towards them will be measured.
IDEA 2004 Mandated Statements #2 and #3:
(II) a statement of measurable annual goals
(III) a description of how the child's progress toward meeting the
annual goals described in sub clause (II) will be measured
Statements #2 and #3 from Hannahs IEP:
Hannahs goals for this time next school year are to be able to
read level 18, end of first grade, books with 95% accuracy and
have no more than two discipline referrals. A progress report on
her reading level/discipline will be sent home each quarter.
The next two required statements can be found under the next twoheadings: Programs and Services and Accommodations/Supplement-
ary Aids.
IDEA 2004 Mandated Statements #4 and #5:
(IV) a statement of the special education and related services
and supplementary aids and services(V) an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child will not
participate with nondisabled children in the regular class and in
the activities described in sub clause (IV)
Statements #4 and #5 from Hannahs IEP:
Hannah will receive special services in the Elmwood resourceroom for approximately one hour each day.. Hannah will
participate in general education for the rest of the day.Hannah
will participate in social work groups 2 to 4 times a month for 15
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
54/127
A ONE PAGE IEP
50
to 30 minutes.. Hannah will have tests read aloud in general
education. Hannah will have a break pass to social worker to
use when needed.
The next section in the communicative IEP is labeled: Assessments.
This section contains the 6thmandated statement in IDEA 2004.
IDEA 2004 Mandated Statement #6:
(VI) a statement of any individual appropriate accommodations
that are necessary to measure the academic achievement and
functional performance of the child on State and district wide
assessments
Statement #6 from Hannahs IEP:
For all state assessments Hannah is to have the questions read
aloud. Hannah will take assessments in a small group setting.
The last IDEA 2004 mandated statement does not have its own
section in the communicative IEP (other than the IEP start date
recorded in the bottom right).
IDEA 2004 Mandated Statement #7:
(VII) the projected date for the beginning of the services and
modifications described in sub clause (IV), and the anticipated
frequency, location, and duration of those services and
modifications
The information required in this statement is best presented as part
of mandated statement #4 which is addressed in both the Programs
and Services and Accommodations and Supplementary Aids section
of the communicative IEP. If you go back to that section you will find
that when Hannahs social work and resource room services are
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
55/127
Introduction to the Communicative IEP
51
described they are followed by statements that quantify their fre-
quency and duration. In regards to the location of the services, by
stating at the top of the IEP where the student attends school it is
clearly indicated that the default location for services is indeed that
school. If services are to be offered in a location other than the
school stated at the top of the page, it would then be the responsibil-
ity of the team to document that location within the body of the IEP.
-
8/12/2019 A One Page IEP: The case for the communicative individualized education program
56/127
52
Chapter 6
Where is the Form?
he communicative IEPs presented in the preceding chapter
were designed for simplicity; they were not written on com-
plex forms. If presented without individualized student con-
tent, they would consist only of four headings and blank space. The
communicative IEPs lack of form-like appearance is intentional.
There are two reasons for this bias against forms. The first being that
the expectation that the IEP be written on what is essentially a blank
page supports the idea that an IEP is plan that requires creation, as
opposed to a form that requires completion. This is meant to affect
teacher behavior. Keep in mind that it is possible for a team to com-plete an impressive looking legal IEP form without really writing
anything of consequence, without any creative consideration of a
childs unique set of circumstances and needs. Selecting from drop
down menus and filling in text boxes is by definition, pun intended,
limited to thinking in