IV. IEPs
At this critical time when states, districts and schools are being held accountable for improved student achievement, there is no justification for weakening the IEP content or process. The Individualized Education Program (IEP) is a parent’s strongest tool for holding schools accountable for their child’s learning to high standards. Without effective instruction the achievement gap will grow between our children and non-disabled students.
Specifically, we recommend that the following sections be addressed:
1. Individual Education Program
Change Sec. 614(d)(II) in H.R. 1350 to add the requirement that the IEP include a description of the instructional objectives used to measure each student’s progress toward reaching annual academic and functional goals in order to provide meaningful quarterly or other periodic reports to teachers and parents.
Exception to the Elimination of Benchmarks or Short Term Objectives
We recommend that Sec. 614(D)(1)(cc) in H.R. 1350 be expanded to
require short term instructional objectives or benchmarks for
children with disabilities who take alternate assessments aligned
to alternate achievement standards and for those students with
disabilities whose performance in one year or more below grade
level
Rationale: It is important to report progress on a regular basis and to describe how progress is measured, but without identified instructional objectives, it is very difficult to determine what is being measured. This is of particular concern for those students who are working below grade level and whose IEPs contain functional goals related to social, communication, movement, self-help and other important areas of skill development.
2. IEP Team Attendance
We oppose Sec. 614(d)(3) in H.R. 1350 and Sec. 614(d)(1) in S. 1248 because they allow the general education teachers to be opted out of attendance and active participation in the development of the IEP.
Rationale: The majority of students receiving special education spend more than half their school day or week in general education classrooms where the primary teacher is the general educator. It is critical for their teachers to be active members of the IEP team so that effective academic and functional curriculum accommodations and supports can be developed.
3. Consideration of special factors
We support Sec. 614(d)(3)(B)(i) in S. 1248 which states that in the case of a child whose behavior impedes the child’s learning or that of others, the IEP team should “provide for” positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies to address that behavior. To make this language stronger, CCD urges conferees to add “based on a functional behavioral assessment.”
Rationale: For students who have disabilities that can mitigate their social and communication skill development, it is essential that those students receive evidence based interventions as early and frequently as possible, before concerns develop in the classroom and before behaviors escalate into disciplinary actions. The development of a Positive Behavioral Intervention plan based on a functional behavioral assessment should be considered a fundamental component of the “specially designed instruction” needed by students with disabilities and should not be relegated to an “add on” service.
Change Sec. 614(d)(3)(B)(iv) in S. 1248 and H.R. 1350 from “consider” to “provide” for communication needs of the child, and, in the case of a child who is deaf and hard of hearing provide for the child’s language and communication needs, opportunities for direct communications with peers and professional personnel in the child’s language and communication mode, academic level, and full range of needs, including opportunities for direct instruction in the child’s language and communication mode.
Rationale: Language and communication are the areas impacted by hearing loss. Unless schools help students who are deaf and hard of hearing to acquire age appropriate language and communication skills, these students will remain behind their hearing peers.
In Sec. 614(d)(3)(B)(v) provide for required assistive technology devices and services.
Rationale: Virtually all students use some form of technology in today’s classrooms. For students with disabilities, assistive technology devices and services often make the difference between attainment of literacy, communication skills, enhanced academic achievement, ability to perform everyday self-help tasks and continued failure of students with disabilities to achieve grade level standards and post-secondary education and employment.
4. Three Year IEP
We support Sec. 614(d)(5) in S. 1248 that adds procedures for the development of a three-year IEP which may be offered to a student with a disability who has reached the age of 18 and which is designed to serve the student during the student’s final 3-year transition period.
Rationale: We do not support a three year IEP as an option for all students. It is simply not possible to adequately measure the progress of students with disabilities without an annual review of the goals set for that student’s age, level of development and the need to continue or change the supports and services supporting that student’s specially designed instruction. However, for a student who has reached the age of 18, the development of a comprehensive three-year IEP could be acceptable.
5. Alternative Means for IEP Team to Meet
We support Sec. 614(f) in H.R. 1350 and S. 1248 that states “when conducting IEP team meetings and placement meetings, the parent and the LEA may agree to use alternative means of meeting participation, such as video conferences and conference calls.”
Rationale: Alternative means for conducting IEP and placement meetings such as video-conferences and conference calls are good practices that are supportive of parents and teachers. These sorts of alternatives have proven to be an effective and efficient way to make good use of time and reduce travel for education professionals invited by schools and parents to participate in IEP meetings.
6. Transition Services
We support Sec. 612(d)(VIII) in S. 1248 that requires transition planning to become a part of the child’s Individual Education Program no later than the first IEP to be in effect when the child turns 14, to be updated annually.
Rationale: It is essential that students with disabilities, their teachers and their parents begin developing a vision and a plan for that young person’s transition from school. Requiring formal transition planning at age 14 allows school districts to bring additional state and local agencies to the table to share expertise and services.
 Previous |
Next  |
Top  |
|---|
