I. INTRODUCTION

II. WHAT SHOULD BE IN MY CHILD'S IEP?

III. LAW AND REGULATIONS

IV. PRACTICAL GUIDANCE FOR PARENTS

An Individualized Educational Program (IEP) is an educational plan for your child. If your child receives special education services, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that your child have an IEP!

If you are like many parents, when you receive a telephone call or letter inviting you to an IEP meeting, you respond with anxiety. Few parents look forward to attending IEP meetings. You may feel anxious, confused and inadequate at school meetings. What is your role? What do you have to offer? What should you do? Say? Not do?

Because they are not educators, most parents don’t understand that they have a unique role to play in the IEP process.

Parents are the experts on their child.

Think about it. You spend hours every week in the company of your child. You make casual observations about your child in hundreds of different situations. You are emotionally connected to and attuned to your child. You notice small but important changes in your child’s behavior and emotions that may be overlooked by others. You have very specialized knowledge about your child. This also helps to explain why your perspective about your child may be quite different from that of the educators who only observe your child in the school setting.

Why do parents feel so anxious, inadequate and intimidated in school meetings? Most parents seem to believe that because they are not "trained educators"—and don’t speak "education jargon"—they have little of value to contribute to discussions about their child’s education.
 

Perhaps we can explain "parental role" more clearly if we change the facts to illustrate our point.

Think back to the last time your child was sick and you saw a doctor for medical treatment. You provided the doctor or nurse with information about the child’s symptoms and general health. They asked you for your observations—because you are more familiar with your child.

Good health care providers elicit this kind of information from parents. They do not assume that unless parents have medical training, they have little of value to offer! When health care professionals diagnose and treat children, they gather information from different sources. Observations of the child are an important source of information. The doctor’s own medical observations and lab tests are added to the information you provide from your own personal observations.

Do you need to be medically trained before you have any valid or important information to offer the doctor about your child’s health? Of course not.
 

To diagnose a child’s problem and develop a good treatment plan, doctors need more than subjective observations. Regardless of their skill and experience, in most cases doctors need objective information about the child. Information from diagnostic tests provides them with objective information. When medical specialists confront a problem, they gather information—information from observations by themselves and others and from objective testing.

Special education decision-making is similar to medical decision-making. The principles are the same. Sound educational decision-making includes observations by people who know the child well and objective information from various tests and assessments.

In both medical and educational situations, a child is having problems that must be correctly identified. The Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is similar to a medical treatment plan. The IEP includes information about the child’s present levels of performance on various tests and measures. The IEP also includes information about goals and objectives for the child, specifically how educational problems will be addressed. The IEP should also include ways for parents and educators to measure the child’s progress toward the goals and objectives.
 

Now, think back to that last time your child was sick and needed medical attention. You left the doctor’s office with some sort of plan—and an appointment to return for a follow-up visit. When you returned for the follow-up visit, you were asked more questions about how your child was doing—again, you were asked about your observations. This information helped the doctor decide whether or not your child was responding appropriately to treatment. If you advised that your child was not responding to the treatment and continued to have problems, then the doctor knew that more diagnostic work was needed and that the treatment plan may need to be changed.

Special education situations are similar to medical situations - except that these decisions are made by a group of people called the IEP Team or IEP Committee. As the parent, you are a member of the IEP team. Before the IEP Team can develop an appropriate plan (IEP) for your child, the child’s problems must be accurately identified and described.

To make an accurate diagnosis, the IEP team will need to gather information from many sources. This information will include subjective observations of the child in various environments - including the home environment and the classroom. The information should also include objective testing. Objective testing needs to be done to measure the extent of the child’s problems and provide benchmarks to measure progress or lack of progress over time.

If your child receives special education services, you know that a new educational plan or IEP must be developed for your child at least once a year. Why is this?

Children grow and change rapidly. Their educational needs also change rapidly. In many cases, the IEP needs to be revised more often than once a year. Parents and educators can ask for a meeting to revise the IEP more often than once a year—and new IEPs can be developed as often as necessary.

The child’s educational plan, i.e. the IEP, should always include information from objective testing and information provided by people—including the parents and teachers—who observe the child frequently.
 

Back to Top

The IEP should accurately describe your child’s learning problems and how these problems are going to be dealt with.
 

One of the best and clearest ways to describe your child’s unique problems is to include information from the evaluations. The IEP document should contain a statement of the child’s present levels of educational performance. If your child has reading problems, the IEP should include reading subtest scores. If your child has problems in math calculation, the IEP should include the math calculation subtest scores. To help you understand what these scores mean, you should read our article "Understanding Tests and Measurements."
 

The IEP should also include a statement of measurable annual goals, including benchmarks and short- term objectives. The goals and objectives should be related to your child’s needs that result from the disability and should enable your child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum. The goals and objectives should meet other educational needs that result from your child’s disability.

The IEP goals should focus on reducing or eliminating the child’s problems. The short term objectives should provide you and the teacher with ways to measure educational progress. Are reading decoding skills being mastered? How do you know this? An IEP should include ways for you and the teacher to objectively measure your child’s progress or lack of progress (regression) in the special education program.

In our work, we see many IEPs that are not appropriate. These IEPs do not include goals and objectives that are relevant to the child’s educational problems. In one of our cases, the IEP for a dyslexic child with severe problems in reading and writing, included goals to improve his "higher level thinking skills," his "map reading skills" and his "assertiveness"—but no goals to improve his reading and written language skills. This is a common problem—IEP goals that sound good but don’t address the child’s real problems in reading, writing or arithmetic.

If you take your child to the doctor for a bad cough, you want the cough treated. You won’t have much confidence in a doctor who ignores the cough—and gives you a prescription for ulcer medicine!
 

Let’s return to our medical example. Your son John complained that his throat was sore. You see that his throat is red. His skin is hot to the touch. He is sleepy and lethargic. These are your observations.

Based on concerns raised by your subjective observations, you take John to the doctor. After the examination, the doctor will add subjective observations to yours. Objective testing will be done. When John’s temperature is measured, it is 104. Preliminary lab work shows that John has an elevated white count. A strep test is positive. These objective tests suggest that John has an infection.

Based on information from subjective observations and objective tests, the doctor develops a treatment plan—including a course of antibiotics. Later, you and John return—and you share your ongoing observations with the doctor. John’s temperature returned to normal a few days ago. His throat appears normal. These are your subjective observations.

Subjective observations provide valuable information—but in many cases, they will not provide sufficient evidence that John’s infection is gone. After John’s doctor makes additional observations—she may order additional objective testing. Why?

You cannot see disease-causing bacteria. To test for the presence of bacteria, you must do objective testing. Unless you get objective testing, you cannot know if John’s infection has dissipated.

By the same token, you will not always know that your child is acquiring skills in reading, writing or arithmetic—unless you get objective testing of these skills.

How will you know if the IEP plan is working? Should you rely on your subjective observations? The teacher’s subjective observations? Or should you get additional information from objective testing?
 

We have worked with hundreds of families who were assured that their child was "really making progress." Although the parents did not see evidence of this "progress," they placed their trust in the teachers. After their child was evaluated, these parents were horrified to learn that their suspicions were correct—and the professional educators were wrong.

In one of our cases, Jay, an eight year old boy with average intelligence, received special education services for two years -- through all of kindergarten and first grade. Jay’s parents felt that he was not learning how to read and write like other children his age. The regular education and special education teachers repeatedly assured the parents that Jay was "really making progress." The principal also told the parents that Jay was "really making progress."

After he completed first grade, the parents had Jay tested by a private sector diagnostician. The results of the private testing? Jay’s abilities were in the average to above average range. His skills in Reading and Written Language were at the early to mid-Kindergarten level. After two years of special education, Jay had not learned to read or write.

When teachers tell you that your child is "making progress," that teacher is giving you an opinion based on subjective observations. As you just saw in Jay’s case, opinions and subjective observations may not give you accurate information.

If you have questions or concerns about whether your child is really making progress, you need to get objective testing of the academic skills areas—reading, writing, arithmetic and spelling. After you get the results of objective testing, you will know whether or not your child is really making progress toward the goals in the IEP.
 

The IEP has been called the "centerpiece" of the special education law. As you read through this article, you will learn more about the law—and the rights that insure that all children who need special education receive appropriate services. You will read about cases that have been decided around the country. Each of these cases is having an impact on the special education system today—improving the quality of special education services for all handicapped children—including your child.

After you learn about the law, regulations and cases, you will know how to write an IEP. If the IEP is written properly, you will be able to measure your child’s progress.

We said this earlier—and it bears repeating. If you measure your child’s progress—using objective measures—you will know whether your child is actually learning and benefiting from the program. If objective testing shows that your child is not learning and progressing as expected, then you know that the educational plan is not appropriate and your child is regressing.

If your child is not learning and making progress—with this progress measured objectively—then the IEP needs to be changed.

It will help you to read this article several times. You should also read our companion article: Understanding Tests and Measurements for the Parent and Advocate. After you understand the information contained in both of these articles, you will be on your way to developing good quality IEPs for your child.
 

The present Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) discusses IEP’s in depth. This section is in the process of modification and new regulations are expected to be issued in the last week of April, 1998. We will post that information on our website and revise this article. The new statute, 20 U.S.C. § 1414, has emphasized the importance of measurable outcomes and benchmarks in IEP’s. In Volume 34, Section 300.346 in the present regulations, the section entitled: "Content of individualized education program" states that:

• • (a) General

    The IEP for each child must include-- (1) A statement of the child’s present levels of educational performance; (2) A statement of annual goals, including short-term instructional objectives; (3) A statement of the specific special education and related services to be provided to the child and the extent that the child will be able to participate in regular educational programs; (4) The projected dates for initiation of services and the anticipated duration of the services; and (5) Appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures and schedules for determining, on at least an annual basis, whether the short term instructional objectives are being achieved.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has been amended. The new version of the law includes significant changes in the section entitled "Individualized Educational Programs." That amendment is available at our website. You should become familiar with the specific changes in the statute and subsequent changes in the Code of Federal Regulations and possible changes in Appendix C.
 

To help educate you about IEPs and what they should include, we decided to include information about actual cases. Each of these cases were selected to illustrate specific points about the IEP. After you read this section, you will have a clear understanding about the law and IEPs.

In 1982, the United States Supreme Court issued its first special education decision in Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176 (1982).

When the Supreme Court heard her case, Amy Rowley was a first grade child who was also deaf. Before Amy entered first grade, her parents asked that Amy be provided with a sign language interpreter. Although Amy could lip read, the parents asserted that an interpreter would enhance her ability to learn.

The Supreme Court decided that Amy did not need a full- time sign language interpreter at that time. They wrote that Amy was "a remarkably well-adjusted child" who performed "better than the average child in her class and is advancing easily from grade to grade." Although Amy was not performing as well as she would if not for her handicap, the Court concluded that the law did not require public schools to furnish "every special service necessary to maximize each handicapped child’s potential."

Public schools often use the Rowley decision to justify their refusal to provide children with a program that does more than permit "grade to grade" advancement. All too often, schools lower expectations for special education children, "dummy down" the curriculum, and "socially promote" the children. Then, they assert that because the child is progressing from grade to grade, this proves that the child does not need more intensive services, including remediation in reading, writing and arithmetic.
 

In Rowley, the Supreme Court wrote that the child’s individualized educational program (IEP) should be "reasonably calculated" to enable the child to receive "educational benefit." Since the Rowley decision was issued in 1982, parents and school officials have often disagreed about "educational benefit"—and how much educational benefit is "enough." Courts have found that because children with disabilities have "unique" needs, decisions about "how much is enough" must be made on a case by case basis. As noted in the U.S. District Court’s opinion, (483 F. Supp 536. (S.D. NY 1980)) Amy Rowley’s standardized test scores were at the 70^th to 80^th percentile ranks in comparison to her peer group. Average is at the 50^th percentile rank. On the testing, she scored two to four grade levels above her peers.

Sometimes, disagreements about educational benefit are called "Cadillac-Chevrolet" disputes. Remember: In Rowley, the Supreme Court ruled that children are entitled to an appropriate education (i.e. a Chevrolet), not the best education money can buy (a Cadillac). One Ohio Hearing Officer wrote that the child was entitled to a Chevrolet—and the school district gave him a lemon! (Fayetteville-Perry Sch. District, 20 IDELR 1289 (SEA OH 1994))
 

In 1983, a landmark decision was issued in North Carolina. Later, this decision was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit.

In Hall v. Vance County Bd. of Education, (1983-1984 EHLR DEC. 555:437 (E.D. NC 1983), affirmed at 774 F.2d 629, (4^th. Cir. 1985)) Judge Dupree described the situation faced by young James Hall:

James A. Hall, IV is suffering from a severe learning disability known as dyslexia, a neurological disorder which manifests itself as a reading disability where the reader can neither decipher nor comprehend the symbols on a written page. There is presently no cure for dyslexia, rather, the leader must learn to cope with the disability and to develop alternate methods of unscrambling the symbols.

Beginning at the kindergarten level, James attended public school in Vance County, North Carolina for six years.

From the beginning, James had academic problems. The school district evaluated him and they found that although he had good intellectual ability, his reading skills were very poor. There was a big gap between James’ ability and his reading skills. The school district offered an IEP that provided James with 30 minutes of small group instruction twice a week.

Think back to our discussion of educational benefit. What do you think of this plan—to provide James with tutoring in a small group twice a week for 30 minutes? Will this provide James with educational benefit from which he could truly learn how to read?

In his decision, Judge Dupree wrote that although James received special education in his public school (the small group instruction twice a week), his academic problems did not improve—and he developed more problems. In his decision, the judge discussed these problems:

• • He was not only developing a "school phobia" characterized by frequent absences, but also was not mastering basic competency skills such as identifying which restroom was for "gentlemen" of "ladies" or the ability to go to the store to make small purchases at his mother’s request.

    In May, 1980, the end of James’ fourth grade year, James was again administered a battery of tests. The scores of this test compare with the December, 1978 test as follows:

 
Thus in three semesters of work under the IEP James had little or no grade improvement in his primary area of deficiency and had yet to improve over one-half a year total. However, during this time, he was promoted from the third grade to the fourth grade and then from the fourth grade to the fifth grade.

With the new results at hand, a new IEP was developed which employed similar procedures followed the past three semesters. At this stage James had been subjected to at least three sets of tests over several years all of which indicated that he had a high overall intelligence with good mathematical skills, yet was unable to read. With James still unable to read past the second grade level though promoted to the fifth grade with virtually the identical IEP which had been employed over the past three semesters, the parents, approaching desperation, decided to enroll James in a private school for the 1980-81 school year.
 

These paragraphs are taken from the actual decision in James’ case. As you can see, Judge Dupree used information from the educational achievement tests to measure educational benefit. He compared James’ scores on the December 1, 1978 test with the scores on the May 12, 1980 test—after about eighteen months of special education. Comparing these test scores, the judge concluded that:

• • . . . in three semesters of work under the IEP James had little or no grade improvement in his primary area of deficiency and had yet to improve over one-half a year total.

James’ scores on educational achievement tests provided Judge Dupree with proof that the child made little progress in the public school program—despite the fact that he "passed." In fact, although James was passed from the third grade to the fourth grade and on to the fifth grade, his reading skills remained at the second grade level. Passing from grade to grade did not mean that James Hall had learned how to read.

In despair, James’ parents withdrew him from the public school program and enrolled him in Oakland School. Oakland is a small special education school in Virginia that specializes in providing educational remediation to children like James—children who have learning disabilities. After James attended Oakland for a few months, he was re-tested. The new testing showed that his reading and spelling skills had increased by more than one grade level.

Judge Dupree awarded reimbursement to James’ parents for his education at Oakland. He found that the IEPs developed by Vance County did not provide James with an appropriate education—an education from which the child benefited. He also decided that James was receiving an appropriate education at Oakland School. What facts supported Judge Dupree’s decision?

After James enrolled at Oakland, his educational program changed. New educational testing a few months later showed that James was learning how to read. He made more than one year of progress after just a few months. Judge Dupree cited the new educational scores in his decision—James was receiving an appropriate education at Oakland School.

If your child receives special education, then your child should have been tested with educational achievement tests. Have you obtained a complete copy of your child’s file? Do you have all of the actual test scores and the written narrative that explains the scores? If you have the actual test scores, then you can do exactly what Judge Dupree did.

First, you need to make a list of all the different tests done on your child (most tests are made up of several subtests). Using a highlighter, mark any of the tests or subtests that have been given more than once. Some of the commonly administered educational achievement tests are the Woodcock-Johnson, the Kaufman (KTEA), the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT) and the Wide Range Achievement Tests (WRAT). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Third Edition (WISC-III) is the most commonly given intelligence test.

Next, make a list of repeated tests—any tests or subtests that have been given more than once. You will be charting out subtests that are the same or similar—tests of reading decoding skills or reading comprehension skills, math calculation skills, and so forth.

You need to understand that subtests or composite scores do not necessarily measure what they seem to measure. For example, the reading score on the Wide Range Achievement Test actually measures the child’s ability to recognize and pronounce individual words out of context. Many refer to it as a "word recognition" test.

On the Woodcock-Johnson achievement tests, the reading measures may actually measure the child’s ability to identify specific letters and words and fill in the blanks on words that may be missing from a paragraph. A score reported as "passage comprehension" may actually measure the child’s ability to intelligently "guess" what the passage of text is about by recognizing some of the words in the passage. The child may not being able to read many of these words.

In the Gray Oral Reading Test, the child reads a paragraph out loud. The evaluator assesses the rate, accuracy and comprehension. This provides a more accurate, meaningful assessment of the child’s actual reading abilities. It is important that you understand what tests are administered and what the tests truly measure.

Next, you need to chart out progress—using the repeated subtest scores. After you chart out your child’s educational scores, you will have a much clearer idea as to whether or not your child is benefiting from the special education program—and whether the IEP is providing an appropriate education.
 

In 1985, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in a special education case that originated in Massachusetts. Burlington (471 U.S. 359 (1985)) was the second important special education case heard by the Supreme Court. In Burlington, the Supreme Court decision addressed IEPs and what IEPs should include:

• • The free appropriate public education (FAPE) mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is designed for the specific needs of the child through the Individualized Educational Program (IEP) which is "a comprehensive statement of the educational needs of a handicapped child and the specially designed instruction and related services to be employed to meet those needs."

Case law supports our position that an adequate IEP is essential. But what is "adequate?" How much "benefit" is enough? Let’s take a look at some more case law.
 

In 1985, a Federal Judge in New York found that an IEP was adequate because:

• • . . . specific goals to which Glen’s grade level are to be raised are listed in all areas of reading, verbal skill and math. Romeo v. Ambach, 1984-1985 EHLR DEC. 556:488 (E.D. NY 1985).

Parents take note: In this case, the objective tests were changes in the child’s grade equivalent scores. The judge in James Hall’s case also used grade equivalent scores.
 

In 1988, the Idaho Supreme Court found that the Boise school system had not offered or provided a free, appropriate education (FAPE) because they did not develop an IEP that was "sufficient." The IEP was not "sufficient" because it did not specify the criteria and evaluation procedures that would be used to determine whether the IEP goals were being met. The Idaho Court noted that:

Above all else, Congress recognized that handicapped children are unique and that placement decisions must be made on an individual basis, by a multidisciplinary team, according to a variety of criteria ". . . The importance of the IEP cannot be understated. It is the decision making document. (Thornock v. Boise Independent School District #1, ___ Idaho Sup. Ct. ___, 767 P. 2d 1241, 1987-1988 EHLR DEC. 559:486 (1988)).

The Court found that the two IEPs proposed by the school district were not sufficient because they did not include " . . . goals, objectives and appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures and schedules for determining, on at least an annual basis, whether ‘instructional objectives are being achieved’ as required by 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(19) . . . Because of the flaws in Gabriel’s IEPs, the districts’ failure to acknowledge the deficiencies of the IEPs it promulgated . . . we affirm the decision of the district court . . . Without a valid IEP, there can be no FAPE, see 20 U. S. C. Sec. 1401 (18), and therefore 34 C. F. R. Sec. 300.403(a) indicates that (private school tuition) reimbursement is appropriate."
 

In 1985, New Jersey District Court Judge Sarokin reversed the decisions of two Administrative Law Judges in a case that involved a hearing impaired child. He found that the school district’s evaluations of Alisa fell "woefully short" because they relied on subjective "teacher observations," not objective or "scientific" test data:

They were based almost solely upon observation . . . assessment consisted of primarily non-standardized tasks and procedures . . . no scientific test results seem to have been considered . . .Thus, but one procedure - teacher evaluation - was utilized. Such procedures lacked scientific validity, in that they were not systematic, were limited to a narrow range of behavior and were not confirmed by recent test data, and thus tended toward discriminatory evaluation, i.e., evaluation that is biased, in this case against deaf children . . . The Court finds that this method of assessment does not meet the requirements of the EAHCA, or its regulations. (Bonadonna v. Cooperman, 619 F. Supp. 975, 1985-1986 EHLR DEC. 557:178, 183 (D. NJ 1985)).
 

In our work with parents and children, we have seen hundreds of IEPs that define "progress" by subjective teacher observations, not objective testing of the child’s skills. As you saw in Jay’s case, serious problems often come about when educational decisions are made on the basis of subjective observations. These problems have grave consequences for the child.

In 1989, the New Jersey Supreme Court awarded tuition reimbursement to parents of a child who had dyslexia. (see Lascari v. Board of Education of the Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School District, 560 A.2d. 1180, EHLR 441:565, (NJ 1989)) . This is what the Court had to say about the public school IEP:

• • As previously indicated, the purpose of the IEP is to guide teachers and to insure that the child receives the necessary education. (See 34 C.F.R. § 300.346) . . .

    Without an adequately drafted IEP, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to measure a child’s progress, a measurement that is necessary to determine changes to be made in the next IEP. Furthermore, an IEP that is incapable of review denies parents the opportunity to help shape their child’s education and hinders their ability to assure that their child will receive the education to which he or she is entitled.

    Consequently, the shortcomings that rendered John’s program incapable of review also rendered it inappropriate . . . [Quoting the classification officer] ‘Equally unclear is how any goals or progress was to be measured or decided.’ The officer continued: "All teacher remarks are found to be subjectively based . . . [T]he goals and objectives of the IEP for 1980-81 and the proposed plan for 1981-82 are so vague that they were meaningless."

In 1990, a federal court in Alabama court struck down another public school IEP. Why? The Judge wrote:

• • Like Cory’s previous IEP’s, the new plan included only broad, generic objectives and vague methods for monitoring Cory’s progress.

    (Reference to footnote 14, as follows) For example, the first objective in Cory’s new IEP, provided, in standard form: "The student will maintain a/an ___% average in math on the 3^rd grade level," with "80" written in the blank space, and stated that Cory would be evaluated by reference to his "Daily work" and "Chapter tests." (Chris D. and Cory M. v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 753 F. Supp. 922, 17 IDELR 267, 269, 273 (M.D. Ala. 1990))

A few months later, a Nebraska District Court upheld a public school IEP because the IEP did contain appropriate goals and objectives. (French v. Omaha Public Schools, 766 F. Supp. 765, 17 EHLR 811, (D. Neb. 1991))

This Nebraska case analyzes IEP goals and objectives in accordance with Appendix C. The Court noted that the IEP included very specific test data, including percentile ranks and grade equivalent scores to describe the child’s present levels of performance.

In 1993, a three judge panel in Pennsylvania reviewed a child’s IEP and found that:

• • The IEP did not meet substantive requirements because, even if it conferred some educational benefit for Hope . . . it was not individualized to meet her social and emotional needs.

The Appeals Panel listed the factors that Hope’s IEP lacked—including present levels of functioning, individualized behavior modification plan, objective criteria, assessment procedures or timeliness to determine when goals were achieved, annual goals written for Hope rather than general ones written for all students in the class, and related services to address Hope’s social and emotional needs.

The IEP was written in a general fashion for students attending LD classes and did not address Hope’s individual disability. (Big Beaver Falls Area School District v. Jackson, __ Pa. __, 615 A. 2d 910, 19 IDELR 371, 373 (Pa. Commw. 1993))
 

In 1991, a federal judge in South Carolina issued his decision in Shannon Carter’s case. In his decision, (Shannon Carter v. Florence County School District Four, 17 EHLR 452 (D. Ct. SC 1991)). Judge Houck wrote that:

• • This evaluation [of Shannon] indicates a serious learning disability, with a variance between Shannon’s verbal IQ and performance IQ of 36 points. Various subtests administered . . . yielded reading ability levels from 4.7 grade level equivalency to a 6.8 level. (at 453)

    Shannon suffers from a serious and significant learning disability . . . Shannon’s learning disability is on the severe end of the scale. According to Shannon’s parents and Dr. Grant, Shannon also suffered from significant emotional overlay manifested by depression, feelings of low self worth and self-esteem. Shannon entered Trident Academy in the fall term of 1985 as a functional illiterate. (at 453)

How did Shannon’s case begin?

First, the school district refused to provide Shannon with any help—they insisted that Shannon was lazy and unmotivated and that she was "choosing" not to read. After constant pressure from her parents and private sector experts, Florence County finally proposed an IEP for Shannon that would increase her reading from a 5.4 level to a 5.8 level and her mathematics from a 6.4 level to a 6.8 level—in one year. At that time, Shannon was about to enter 10^th grade.

In his ruling for Shannon and her parents, Judge Houck wrote that this IEP was not appropriate for Shannon:

• • Even if all of the goals of the document had been met, Shannon would continue to fall behind her classmates at an alarming rate . . . progress of only four months in her reading and math skills over an entire school year ensured the program’s inadequacy from its inception.

    There appears no doubt, then, that the Carters were entitled to withdraw their child from the public school because of its failure to provide a FAPE. (at 455)

The school district appealed the District Court decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. After the school district lost, they appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision issued just thirty-four days after oral argument, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court rulings and ordered that Shannon’s parents be reimbursed for her private school education at Trident Academy.
 

After the Supreme Court issued the decision in Carter, an interesting case arose in Columbia, Maryland.

This case involved Alex Gerstmyer, a 6 year old child who also had dyslexia. Although Alex had "red flag" problems in Kindergarten, the staff at Alex’s school waited before testing him—they thought that he might "grow out of his problems."

When Alex began first grade, he had still not been evaluated. There was no IEP in place for him. Alex quickly realized that he was different from the other children—he was not learning how to read. At home, he was distraught and said that he was "stupid." His alarmed parents had him evaluated by a private sector psychologist—this testing confirmed that Alex had dyslexia.

Later in the Fall, the public school did propose an IEP. The parents felt that the IEP was vague and did not provide Alex with the help he needed to overcome his dyslexia. Alex was becoming more upset by the day—saying that he was stupid and didn’t want to live. Presented with an inadequate IEP for their son, his parents removed him from the public school program and placed him into a Montessori school (non- special education school) and asked for tuition assistance. (Gerstmyer v. Howard County Public Schools, 850 F. Supp. 361, 20 IDELR 1327 (D. MD 1994)

In his decision, Judge Motz described the public school IEP as ". . . nothing more than a collection of forms prepared for other students stating only general goals and not at all tailored to Alex’s special needs."

Because the IEP was not tailored to Alex’s unique needs as a child with dyslexia, Judge Motz awarded Alex’ parents reimbursement for their son’s education at the Montessori school.
 

An excellent and frequently quoted case about IEPs comes from New York — and involves another child with dyslexia.

In Evans v. Board of Educ. of Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 930 F. Supp. 83, 24 IDELR 338, (S.D. N.Y. 1996), Judge Parker overturned earlier administrative rulings and awarded Frank’s parent with reimbursement for his tuition at The Kildonan School. In his decision, Judge Parker discussed dyslexia and the educational techniques used to treat this condition. Quoting Appendix C of the Code of Federal Regulations, he also addressed the problems of vague IEPs where the child’s progress cannot be measured objectively:

• • [The IEP] . . . wholly failed to identify his particular areas of deficit and was based on information that was at least ten months old, I still find that the IEPs did not adequately set forth strategies for evaluating progress, in violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(19) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.346(a)(2). The Act’s requirement of periodic and individualized assessments of each handicapped child evinces a recognition that children develop quickly and that a placement decision that may have been appropriate a year ago may no longer be appropriate today.

    Appendix C defines "short term instructional objectives" as "measurable, intermediate steps between a handicapped child’s present level of educational performance and the annual goals that are established for the child." The objectives are to "serve as milestones for measuring progress toward meeting the [annual] goals." They "provide a mechanism for determining . . . whether the child is progressing in the special education program . . . and whether the placement and services are appropriate to the child’s special learning needs. In effect, these requirements provide a way for the child’s teacher(s) and parents to be able to track the child’s progress in special education." 34 C.F.R. Chapter 3, Appendix C, question 37.

    The IEPs include only broad, generic objectives and vague, subjective methods for monitoring Frank’s progress. For example, the first goal in Frank’s October 1994 IEP provided that he would be evaluated on the listed objectives by reference to "teacher observation" and "80% accuracy." With reference to the second goal, the October 1994 IEP provided that Frank would be evaluated by "teacher observation" and "80% success."

    Although the IEP repeatedly incants these phrases—"teacher observation," "80% success"—because there is little indication of what Frank’s level of success was when the IEP was written, it fails to specify strategies for adequately evaluating Frank’s academic progress and determining which teaching methods are effective and which need to be revised . . . with regard to the June 1994 IEP, which used the same mantra to a large extent, that it did not set forth measurable criteria to assess progress. (at IDELR 345,346)

Top of Page

What do these cases mean to you—a typical, average parent—a parent who gets a knot in your stomach when you think about going to an IEP meeting?

First, you know that the IEP should include ways for you to measure your child’s progress in special education—and that this progress should be measured objectively.

You saw that Judge Dupree charted out James Hall’s educational achievement test scores to measure the boy’s progress in the public school special education program. After he charted out James’ scores, the judge realized that James’ test scores had not improved much in his weak academic areas—especially reading.

James’ failure to make progress—as shown by the educational achievement tests—proved that the public school program was not appropriate. After James transferred to Oakland School, his test scores rose. This improvement showed that James was receiving an appropriate education at Oakland School.

In Shannon Carter’s case, Florence County proposed an IEP where—after a year of special education—Shannon would make four months of progress in reading and mathematics. Judge Houck wrote that this goal was "wholly inadequate." The Fourth Circuit wrote that "a goal of four months’ progress over a period of more than one year was rather modest for a student such as Shannon and was unlikely to permit her to advance from grade to grade with passing marks."

And in Frank Z.’s case, Judge Parker’s decision shows that he was distressed to see that Frank’s "progress" was being measured by subjective teacher observations.

School districts often propose IEPs where the child’s progress is measured by subjective "teacher observation" and "teacher made tests." "Teacher observation" does not measure a child’s progress adequately.

Skills like reading, writing and math can and should be measured by objective testing.
 

In most cases, kind, well-meaning teachers work very hard to help their students. These teachers may believe that your child is "really making progress" when this is not the case. You saw how this affected Jay. After two full years of special education, Jay had not learned how to read or write. Yet, Jay’s teachers sincerely believed that he was "really making progress."

Teacher assessments of a child’s progress are subjective assessments by a person who has a strong personal and emotional interest in the outcome.
 

Your child is receiving passing grades - or good grades. As a parent, can’t you rely on grades to advise you about your child’s progress?

In 1994, the Department of Education released the results of studies about grading practices in public schools. What did they learn?

First, the average grade in middle school English and Math is not a "C." The average grade in middle school has crept up to a "B." Most middle school children receive grades of "C" or higher in English and Math.

Grade inflation is a serious problem. Parents cannot assume that "passing grades" shows that their child is making real academic progress. You must see that your child’s progress is measured objectively. When you compare the results of objective testing over time, you will know whether your child is making measurable progress toward his IEP goals.
 

Appendix C contains Questions and Answers about IEPs - who develops IEPs, how, what role parents should play - and what needs to be included in the IEP. Appendix C should answer many of your questions about your role. Let’s take a look at some of the Questions from Appendix C.

As a parent, what is your role in the IEP process? Appendix C tells you that at IEP meeting(s)

• • ". . . parents and school personnel jointly make decisions about an educational program for a child with a disability."

What is the purpose of the IEP? Appendix C tells you that "The IEP document . . . has a number of purposes and functions." What does this mean? Let’s read on.

• • The IEP sets forth in writing a commitment of resources necessary to enable a child with a disability to receive needed special education and related services.

    The IEP . . . serves as an evaluation device for use in determining the extent of the child’s progress toward meeting the projected outcomes.
     

As you read the Questions and Answers in Appendix C, you learn that the IEP should include "Appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures and schedules for determining, at least on an annual basis, whether the short term instructional objective are being achieved." (Sec. 300.346(a)(5)).

In other words, the IEP should provide you with a way to measure your child’s progress—"at least on an annual basis."

As you continue reading the Questions and Answers in Appendix C, you learn that objective measurements (as opposed to subjective teacher assessments) are supposed to "provide a mechanism for determining (1) whether the anticipated outcomes for the child are being met (i.e. whether the child is progressing in the special education program) and (2) whether the placement and services are appropriate to the child’s special learning needs.

Let’s look more closely at some of the Questions in Appendix C.

As a parent, you need to get a copy of Appendix C and read it several times. Appendix C is an excellent source of guidance for parents to use when developing your child’s IEP. Expect revisions to it in the new regulations.

You can call the National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities (NICHCY) at 1-800-695-0285 and ask them to send you their free publication about IEPs and Appendix C. NICHCY is an excellent source of educational information for parents. You should request a complete list of their special education publications. These articles are free.

Appendix C is also available on the Internet at NICHCY and Edlaw, Inc.

• • QUESTION 36: What should be included in the statement of the child’s present levels of educational performance?

    ANSWER: The following are some points that should be taken into account in writing this part of the IEP:

    b. The statement should be written in objective measurable terms . . .

    c. There should be a direct relationship between the present levels of educational performance and other components of the IEP.

    QUESTION 37: Why are goals and objectives required in the IEP?

    ANSWER: The statutory requirements for including annual goals and short term instructional objectives . . . provide a mechanism for determining (1) whether the anticipated outcomes for the child are being met (i.e. whether the child is progressing in the special education program) and (2) whether the placement and services are appropriate to the child’s special learning needs.

    In effect, these requirements provide a way for the child’s teacher(s) and parents to be able to track the child’s progress in special education.

    QUESTION 39: What are short term instructional objectives in an IEP?

    ANSWER: Short term instructional objectives (also called IEP objectives) are measurable, intermediate steps between the present levels of educational performance of a child with a disability and the annual goals that are established for the child. The objectives . . . can serve as milestones for measuring progress toward meeting the goals . . . to determine the extent that the child is progressing toward those accomplishments.

    ANSWER to QUESTION 40: ( which also deals with IEP goals and objectives)

    . . . Stated another way, the goals and objectives in the IEP should focus on offsetting or reducing the problems resulting from the child’s disability that interfere with learning and educational performance in school.

    For example, if a child with a learning disability is functioning several grades below the child’s indicated ability in reading and has a specific problem with word recognition, the IEP goals and objectives would be directed toward:

    (1) closing the gap between the child’s indicated ability and current level of functioning, and

    (2) helping the child increase the ability to use word attack skills effectively.

    ANSWER to QUESTION 38 states that "The annual goals in the IEP are statements that describe what the child can reasonably be expected to accomplish within a twelve month period . . . (and) there should be a direct relationship between the annual goals and the present levels of educational performance."

Written in the Code of Federal Regulations—and in Appendix C—is the following statement:

• • The IEP for each child must include . . . appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures and schedules for determining . . . whether the short term instructional objectives are being achieved.

This theme is repeated, over and over—that the IEP goals and objectives should be measured objectively to determine whether the child is making progress in the special education program. This theme is expected to intensify in the new Regulations.

As parents, you need to ask questions like these - - -

• • Does my child’s IEP include objective criteria, evaluation procedures, and schedules so that I can determine whether he is making progress?

    Will these objective measures tell me whether or not my child is benefiting from his special education placement?

    Is my child’s progress toward meeting his IEP goals being measured by objective evaluations, assessments and schedules—or by subjective assessments, estimates and evaluations—which are not recommended by Appendix C or the Code of Federal Regulations?

Question 37 of Appendix C, discusses the fact that goals and objectives should be included in the IEP to " . . . provide a mechanism for determining (1) whether the anticipated outcomes for the child are being met (i.e., whether the child is progressing in the special education program) and (2) whether the placement and services are appropriate to the child’s special learning needs."

When school districts do not develop IEPs that meet the requirements of the IDEA, this is grounds for holding that the district failed to provide the child with the free appropriate public education he is entitled to. This is what happened in James Hall’s case. It also happened with Shannon Carter, Alex Gerstmyer and Frank Evans.
 

You say—"I’m still confused. The IEPs that have been developed for my child don’t include objective measures of progress. How can they be written differently? How will I know whether he is actually making progress?"

To answer your question, let’s change the facts. Let’s assume that you have an 8 year old son named Mike. Mike just came home from school and told you that he didn’t pass the President’s Physical Fitness Test. He is very disappointed and tells you that he really wants to pass the test next year—and he asks you to help him.

First, you talk to Mike’s teacher about how he did on this year’s Fitness test. The teacher gives you his test results, along with the criteria for passing the President’s Physical Fitness Test. After you review this information, you see that although Mike ran the 50 yard dash in the specified time, he only completed 12 out of an expected 25 sit-ups—and he could not do any pull-ups.

Now, you and Mike know what he needs to do to accomplish his goal—to qualify for the President’s Physical Fitness Award. You can help him develop a training plan that includes short term objectives that focus on remedying his specific areas of weakness (i.e. sit-ups, pull-ups) while he maintains or improves his running ability.

When Mike takes the President’s Physical Fitness Test, his performance on the various tests will be measured objectively. His running speed over a specific distance will be measured with a stopwatch. His ability to do the required sit-ups and pull-ups will be measured by counting them. Because these measurements are objective, anyone who observes this testing will know if Mike meets the criteria for the Award.
 

Now, let’s look at an IEP goal where progress toward the goal is measured subjectively . . . and objectively.

Our IEP goal states that "Kevin will learn keyboarding [or typing] skills."

If Kevin’s progress toward this goal is measured subjectively, his IEP may state that Kevin’s progress toward learning keyboarding or typing will be determined by "Teacher Judgment" or "Teacher Observation" or "Teacher - made Tests" with a score of "80%" as the criteria for success.

If the IEP is written properly, i.e. using objective ways of measuring progress, the IEP might say "By the end of the first semester, Kevin will be able to touch-type a passage of text for 5 minutes at 15 words per minute with not more than 5 errors. By the end of this academic year, Kevin will be able to touch type a passage of text for 5 minutes at 35 words per minute with not more than 5 errors."
 

Now, let’s look at Megan—who is having difficulty learning how to read. Megan is in the fifth grade. Educational achievement testing shows that she is reading at the beginning second grade level. Megan’s parents request special education services to remediate their daughter’s reading problems. How will they know if she is actually benefiting from the special education services she receives?

If Megan is being appropriately educated, her test scores in reading should begin to improve as she goes through the process of remediation. An appropriately written IEP should indicate that after a year of remediation, Megan will make progress toward closing the gap between her ability and her specific problems in reading—and that her progress in reading will be measured objectively with educational achievement tests.

The IEP may state that after a year of specialized instruction "Megan will be reading at the 4^th grade level as measured by her scores on the Reading subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson Achievement Test." During the next year, Megan’s IEP should include more goals in reading—with the ultimate goal of closing the gap between Megan’s ability and her reading skills.

Parents can use percentile ranks in the IEPs, instead of grade equivalent scores.

Let’s assume that Megan’s reading test scores show that she is reading at the bottom 10^th percentile, when compared to other children her age. After a year of appropriate special education, Megan probably will not be reading at the 50^th percentile level (i.e. the "average" level for children her age). An objective may state that after a year of special education, "Megan will be reading at the 25^th percentile level" If Megan moves to the 25^th percentile level in reading, she be making progress toward closing the gap.

Although Megan’s reading skills are still below average, you see that she is making steady progress. Megan’s progress in reading is being measured objectively with standardized tests. Her progress is reported with numbers that can be compared over time.
 

First, write down your child’s present levels of performance in objective measurable terms. In other words:

• • Present Levels My child is reading a passage of text orally at the XYZ grade equivalent level as measured by the Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT).

    or

    My child is reading a passage of text orally at the XYZ percent level as measured by the GORT.

Do this for a number of the measures and areas of your child’s weaknesses, i.e., writing, arithmetic, spelling, typing, etc.

Remember, if something exists, it exists in some amount. If it exists in some amount, it is capable of being measured!

The examples cited above apply to all disabilities—learning disabilities, autism, speech language deficits, mental retardation, cerebral palsy or other disabilities. Assess what is to be measured, what behavior is to be changed, what skill is to be learned. Quantify the starting point as the level presently observed and measured in either percentile rank, grade equivalent, age equivalent or standard scores. Then assess where the skill, behavior or other area should be a year later. Use objective quantifiable terms, not subjective terms.

Next, write down the goal that should be achieved after a year of appropriate special education - which should be designed to remediate your child’s weaknesses.
 

• • By May 15, [one year later], my child will be able to read a passage of text orally at the XYZ [insert the appropriate increased level here] grade equivalent level as measured by the GORT.

    or

    By May 15, [one year later], my child will be able to read a passage of text orally at the XYZ [insert the appropriate increased level here] percent level as measured by the GORT.

Now, you have developed an objective measurable starting point and ending point, using norm referenced data. How will you get from Point A to Point B?

Your map from Point A to Point B includes the short term objectives. You will need to read publications that address your child’s specific disability. As you become more knowledgeable, you will be able to write short term objectives that will lead you to the goal. Learn about and think through the steps needed to reach the goal.
 

After seeing hundreds of cases like Jay, we do not recommend that parents rely on subjective assessments of their child’s progress in special education. If your child’s progress is being "measured" subjectively, you may be told that your child is making "progress" according to "teacher observation" and "teacher-made tests" with 75%-80% accuracy. You have learned that subjective statements often do not provide accurate information about the child’s progress or lack of academic progress.

Learning is change. Changes in academic skills can be measured objectively. Your child’s test scores are like a series of photographs—they show that the child is learning and acquiring new skills or knowledge.

Remember: Change can and should be measured objectively—whether the area being measured is physical fitness, strep throats—or educational progress.

Good Luck!

Pamela Darr Wright, MA, MSW
Peter W. D. Wright, Esq.
P. O. Box 1008
Deltaville, VA 23043

804-776-7008

mailto:pwright@wrightslaw.com
http://www.wrightslaw.com

About the authors:

Pamela Darr Wright has worked with children, adults and families for more than twenty-five years, first as a psychologist in North Carolina and currently as a clinical social worker in Virginia.

Peter W. D. Wright represented Shannon Carter in the November 9, 1993 U. S. Supreme Court case, Florence County School District Four v. Shannon Carter, which resulted in a unanimous decision in Shannon’s favor.
 
Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute this document provided it is for non-commercial purposes, no fee is charged beyond the cost of reproduction and that it is reproduced and distributed in its entirety without any editing or deletions whatsoever and credit is given to Pamela Darr Wright, LCSW, and Peter W. D. Wright, Esq., Deltaville, Virginia at The Special Ed Advocate, at wrightslaw on the net.

Copyright © 1998 by Peter W. D. Wright and Pamela Darr Wright, Deltaville, Virginia. All Rights Reserved.
 

Back to Special Education Papers