Case Brief 7.

1 (Appropriate Education and IEP) In this case, Ali Young, a special education teacher, discusses Thomas Ross IEP and the reasons for which she does not believe that it is adequate. Thomas a high school student with moderate to severe disabilities. This includes visual impairment (that continually worsens as a result of a congenital condition), a signicant cognitive delay, a central auditory processing disorder, speech and language delay, and occasional seizures. Thomas is fully integrated in a regular classroom environment, with a full-time aid, but follows general education curriculum, as agreed upon and encouraged by Thomas parents. The problem, as Young states, is that Thomas IEP does not provide an appropriate education, and she believes that Thomas would be better suited in a more specialized environment in order to prepare him for life after graduation. The average grades (As and Bs), Young believes, are not an accurate measurement of his knowledge, and he is not being given adequate transition services for post-graduate life. I believe that Youngs assessment of Thomas IEP is correct, especially when looking at the IEPs goal statements and the current levels of performance.The rst goal reads that Thomas should be reading literature appropriate for high school aged students, but current levels of performance reveals that Thomas is currently only able to function on a 2nd-grade level in reading. Another goal statement says that Thomas should be able to complete addition and subtraction problems using 3 and 4 digits, while he is currently only able to do problems with 2 digits. The IEP also shows that Thomas current level of independent functioning is low, stating that he needs the support of an aide or adult at all times for both academic tasks and general maneuvering. The IEP may have been written individually to meet Thomas needs, but it is outdated and not giving goals that will give him success later in life. The reason behind the current IEP make sense. His parents desire that he is able to socially interact with his peers and be in as normal and least restrictive environment as possible. This is a legitimate request, and has apparently paid off according to the social/emotional current level of performance. This issue now, though, is that Thomas has nothing in his plan regarding his transition to postgraduate life. According to his current level of performance, Thomas is not currently engaged in any vocational activities. He is also incapable of independent functioning at this time. All evaluation is based on academics, including yearly reports and normal testing (with some accommodations). Under the post-school vision, the IEP reads, Thomas does not know what he wants to do when he leaves school. The parents want him fully

integrated with non-disabled peers. According to law, IEPs must consider post-grad plans and integrate a plan. The vision statement does not provide that. The IEP also shows that Thomas currently has no community experiences, no employment or other post-school adult living objectives, and no daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation. However, Thomas is approaching sixteen years of age, meaning that he is not being provided for adequately. By 16, Thomas IEP should shift focus for postsecondary success. At this point, none of that is provided for. According to Young, the IEP goals have not changed since the 4th grade. Thomas is showing effort, much of which accounts for his above-average grades, but is not showing skills necessary to be successful after graduation. The special education teacher, in this case, I believe is correct. While having Thomas integrated socially is good, it is of much higher priority at this point to shift the focus of his educational program to postgraduate success. His current grades are not accurately depicting his knowledge. The IEP, as it is written, does not comply with the correct procedures, because the special education teacher is the only one present. A regular classroom teacher should be present, as well as a parent and other representatives from the school and school district (school psychologist, etc.). The IEP needs to be adapted and performed with proper procedures in order to have the best outcome for the child.