Anda di halaman 1dari 20

Running head: IEP CASE STUDY

Dana Smilko
IEP Case Study
SPED 493.101-102 Internship Seminar
Towson University
April 12, 2016

IEP CASE STUDY

2
Background Information

Mike is a 13 year old male in the Special Education program at Sudbrook Magnet Middle
School. Mike is high function autism and takes classes in inclusion and the self-contained
Communication and Academic Learning Support (CALS) program. He receives special
education and related services because of his autism. Mike has IEP goals for behavior (selfmanagement and pro-social), reading goals that are aligned with the Common Core Anchor
Standards, a math goal that is aligned with the Common Core Standards, communication , and a
written language goal aligned with a Common Core Anchor Standard. Mike receives speech and
language therapy, occupational therapy, and social work services as well.
Mike was born full term at about 8lbs 9oz. His mother did not experience any pregnancy
complications. Mike has two older siblings and one younger sibling he enjoys playing with.
Mike also enjoys playing video games. He has no history of significant illness or injury and no
issues with hearing or vision. In Mike's first four years he did display concerns in motor skills,
temper tantrums, and separation from his parents. Mike also showed concern with delayed
speech and language development. At two and a half years old he was referred to the Baltimore
County Infants and Toddlers program. A psychological observation was performed and found
him to be eligible for Special Education Services. In school, sensory issues were discovered
along with issues with transition and limited purposeful language. Mike showed little interest in
peers and was reluctant to participate in his elementary school classroom (Reisterstown
Elementary). Mike's behaviors were found to be consistent with autism. During the 2006-2007
school year, Mike was put into the CLS program at Campfield Elementary Early Learning
Center. Mike's behaviors began to improve at this school.

IEP CASE STUDY

3
Interviews

Ms. Hanlon is my mentor teacher as well as Mikes Reading Resource teacher and
Special Education Department Chair/ IEP Chair. Ms. Hanlon discussed Mikes needs, concerns,
strengths, his future into high school, and his IEP with me. Ms. Hanlon shared that Mikes most
prominent needs are core reading, finding the main idea of a text and details, communication,
and completing multi-step problems. Mike has trouble with his core reading and is significantly
below grade level, so he needs to strengthen his core reading skills. Ms. Hanlon sees that Mike
has trouble with communication in the sense of holding a conversation with a peer or only
talking about what he wants to talk about. Ms. Hanlon is worried that Mikes peers will not want
to talk to him since he will only discuss topics he is interested in. In math particularly, Ms.
Hanlon has noticed that Mike needs to work on questions and problems that require more than
one step.
The concerns Ms. Hanlon shared are Mikes conversation skills again, his trouble
focusing, and his organizational skills. Mike is very energetic and has a hard time staying on task
or on topic. Ms. Hanlon is concerned that when Mike enters high school his focusing difficulties
will keep him from succeeding academically. She shared that Mike is a very bright kid and is
intelligent, but has such a difficult time staying focused he doesnt retain information as well as
he potentially could if he were able to focus. The other concern Ms. Hanlon had was Mikes
organizational skills. Mikes binder is disorganized. The concern Ms. Hanlon has is that she is
worried that Mikes high school teachers will not tolerate his disorganized binder and will not
give him time to find his work to turn in. Ms. Hanlon knows that if Mike does not get his
organizational skills together he will have consequences he will have to face that can be avoided.

IEP CASE STUDY

Ms. Hanlon sees the strengths that Mike possesses. She says that Mike is kind and
enthusiastic, self-motivated, does well with keyboarding, is good at drawing conclusions and
making inferences, and is a fund of knowledge. Mike is a sweet student and is enthusiastic about
many topics. The topics he is interested he is self-motivated to do research on them and he
becomes a fund of knowledge. Ms. Hanlon told me just a few topics Mike is passionate about.
For example, Mike is interested in sports (baseball, football, and basketball), the phases of the
moon and outer space, and maps and highways just to name a few. Since Mike does a lot of
research on his own he has become skilled in keyboarding, which is important for him since he is
being transitioned from writing to keyboarding.
On Mikes IEP, Ms. Hanlon said that she would like to see Mike not have a full time adult
support. Ms. Hanlon thinks that Mike should have situational adult support where he only needs
an adults help for some situations. Ms. Hanlon thinks Mikes supports should be more natural.
For example, using his peers, the teacher, and being in a non-distractive environment. Mike does
not need full time adult support, especially since he does not utilize it as much as he used to.
Dr. Roberta Schulman is Mike's speech and language pathologist. She meets with him
twice a month for 30 minutes. Dr. Schulman works with Mike on a number of different skills.
Mike has the most difficulty with pragmatic language. Dr. Schulman and Mike work on his
conversation skills, topic management, his adequate nonverbal language, tone of voice when he
disagrees with someone, ruminating, attention difficulty, and sportsmanship. Mike has a hard
time staying on topic and has to be brought back to it frequently. He will begin talking about his
own interests and relate everything back to it. When Mike disagrees with someone his voice will
become high pitched and he is reminded that he and his peers will not always going agree on the
same things. When Mike converses he does not provide the person he is talking to with

IEP CASE STUDY

background knowledge; he jumps right to them middle of the conversation. Mike also does not
always provide his peers an opportunity to contribute to the conversation. Mike loves the Seattle
Seahawks football team and the phases of the moon and will become fixated on it. These are the
topics he will ruminate on most frequently.
Dr. Schulman has tried various techniques to improve Mike's pragmatic skills. She has
shared with me that visual input helps, as well as, minimizing distractions as much as possible,
making him oriented to the speaker or listener, giving him a time limit on what he wants to talk
about to get it out of his system, and creating boundaries such as physical proximity to peers and
teachers, as well as making eye contact with those around him.
Observations
My first observation with Mike took place in the afternoon during his Science class
which was fourth period. My observation was from 1:35pm to 2:00pm. Mike had a lot of energy.
He ran around the room smiling and somewhat laughing to himself. He would jump and bite his
hands. He doesn't bite them hard, but he does have calluses on his hands from where he does bite
them. The teacher, Ms. Conigliaro (Ms. C), would have to tell Mike multiple times to have a
seat. The first couple of times Ms. C asked him it seemed as though he did not hear her. When
Mike finally sat down he was still energetic. He sat on the edge of his seat continuing to bite his
hands, laugh to himself, and look around the room. When Ms. C had finished explaining what
the class was going to do that day and move onto the next set of instructions, Mike stood up from
his seat and began to run around the classroom again.
My second observation on Mike also took place in the afternoon in his American History
class from 1:15pm to 1:30pm. Mike was calmer in this class than he was in the first observation.

IEP CASE STUDY

He did not run around and jump or bite his hands. Ms. Dudman was his teacher and when she
would ask him a question Mike would go off topic and she would have to bring him back. He
would start to talk about the Seattle Seahawks. For example, Ms. Dudman asked Mike who the
revolutionary war was between and Mike responded with a fact about the Seattle Seahawks.
When Ms, Dudman would ask him a question he wouldn't always look at her and he would
fiddle with his shirt or pencil. Mike would also frequently stretch. As he stretched he would enter
his classmate's personal space and Mike would have to be reminded of watching out for other so
he doesn't touch them while stretching.
IEP Process
When preparing for a team, Ms. Hanlon will write up the summary of the new IEP.
Others who have assessment results such as the SLP or the Case Manager will also have
documents that will need to be mailed. Ms. Hanlon will also email the parents or guardian of
student to let them know what they should be receiving in the mail soon. This is done ten days
before the IEP meeting. Once Ms. Hanlon has all of the documents together, Mrs. McCusker
(one of the para-educators) addresses and mails them. It is the responsibility of each service
provider to complete assessments or observations and have their results ready in the appropriate
time frame (ten days before the meeting). For example, Dr. Schulman needed to have her
clinically devised assessment results ready to be sent home to Mikes parents. Ms. C needed to
have Mikes Woodcock-Johnson scores and interpretations ready to be sent out. This also goes
for the assessments done by the Occupational Therapist and the school psychologist and the
observations conducted by the guidance counselor and the social worker. All of these service
providers are individually responsible for conducting assessments and observations on their own
and having the results or data interpreted to be mailed home ten days prior to the IEP meeting.

IEP CASE STUDY

The 2004 IDEA regulation requirements were met in this IEP meeting. In Regulation One
the members of the IEP Team were identified through the introductions at the beginning of the
meeting. The Second Regulation was met because there were instances that were a team member
was absent or had to leave. Ms. Dudman was absent and her notes were read and Mrs. Moore
(the Art teacher) had to leave to return to teaching, but both instances were addressed
appropriately. For Regulation Four, I was the only participate who was not on the notice of the
team members, but Ms. Hanlon asked Mikes mother if it was alright that I attend and participate
and Mikes mother did not have a problem with that. Regulation Seven was met through the
appropriate teachers being provided snapshots of Wills IEP and the special educators being able
to access and view his IEP through Tienet. The other regulations of IDEA were not applicable to
this meeting.
IEP Content
Present Level of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance
The reason for Mikes IEP meeting is due to it being his re-evaluation year to determine
if he continues to be eligible for his special education services and accommodations and
reviewing his IEP goals and progress. The pre-referral strategies used were assessments
conducted by Ms. Conigliaro (case manager), Dr. Schulman (SLP), Mrs. Zaleon (OT) and Mrs.
Weingard (school psychologist) and observations conducted by Mr. Tracey (guidance counselor)
and Ms. Millian (social worker).
Mikes behavior was assessed through classroom observation. The observation revealed
that Mikes strengths are responding to routines, participating in preferred activities, showing

IEP CASE STUDY

interest in peers, remembering rules and routines, and attendance. Mikes needs are that his
social skills need to improve 20% and his pro-social skills need to improve 60%.
To assess Mikes academic reading he was administered the Brigance. His overall grade
equivalency score was fourth grade. His degree of reading power was grade equivalency of 1.4.
Mikes comprehension score was a grade equivalency of 2.5. Mikes reading strengths are sight
words, short passage comprehension with picture clues, expression when reading, willingness to
read, re-reading difficult words with prompts, and re-reading difficult sections with adult
support. His needs are reading comprehension, decoding multi-syllabic words, concrete and
literal interpretation, reading fluency, and making inferences.
To assess Mikes academic writing he was administered the Brigance Sentence Writing
Grade Placement Test. Overall, Mikes grade equivalency score was third grade. Mike struggles
with fine motor writing, but is willing to write on his own. Mikes writing strengths are stating an
idea or topic, writing short and basic sentences, and using basic punctuation in sentences. Mikes
needs are fine motor control of his hand writing, writing detailed sentences, expressing a
complete thought, and staying on topic.
The Brigance was administered to Mike to assess his mathematic abilities as well. His
computation skills are at a 4.5 grade level without accommodations (a calculator), but is at an
eighth grade level with accommodations. For problem solving, Mike is at a third grade reading
level without accommodations and at a sixth grade level with accommodations. Mikes
mathematical strengths are addition and subtraction with and without regrouping, expressions
and equations, graphing, and computation skills. Mikes needs are increasing his problem solving
to 50% accuracy.

IEP CASE STUDY

To assess Mikes academic communication, Dr. Schulman created a clinically devised


pragmatic assessment. Dr. Schulman found that Mike has adequate language skills involving
vocabulary, following oral directions, and using age appropriate grammar. Mikes strengths also
include adequate social communication such as greeting people, taking conversational turns, and
asking and answering simple questions. Identified weaknesses are several deficient social
communication skills, such as bringing topics of conversation back to his own personal interests,
ruminating on a specific topic making him unable to effectively be engaged in an activity or
conversation, and he does not always effectively use or interpret nonverbal communication.
Wills needs are mainly to improve his pragmatic communication skills. They include topic
management, making predictions about social situations, and interpreting and using nonverbal
communication.
To assess Mikes physical and visual perceptual motor skills, an informal
observation was done by the OT, Mrs. Zaleon. The observation identified Mikes strengths to be
using scissors to cut for classroom use, being able to draw pre-writing shapes (circle, squares,
and cross), using a keyboard to type simple sentences, and independently write short answers.
Mikes primary need is functional handwriting for classroom use. Mikes handwriting improves
when he has a larger space to write in.
Instructional & Testing Accommodations
Mike has presentation, response, timing and scheduling, and setting accommodations as
well as assistive technology to solve or organize his responses. Mikes presentation
accommodations are PARCC human reader or human signer for mathematic assessments. His
other presentation accommodation is a human reader or audio recording for verbatim reading of

IEP CASE STUDY

10

the entire test for the MSA. Mikes response accommodations are a scribe and an electronic word
processor. His assistive technology to solve or organize responses is to monitor test response and
use of mathematic tools and calculation devices. Mikes timing and scheduling accommodations
include extended time 1.5 and multiple or frequent breaks. His setting accommodations are
reduced distractions to him and other students.
Goals
Mike has two behavior goals: self-management/impulsive behavior and pro-social skills.
His goal for self-management is that he will demonstrate positive self-management skills in two
out of four targeted traits by December 10, 2016. Mike has two objectives for this goal. The first
is that he will raise his hand and wait to be recognized. The second objective is that he will
maintain on-topic requests and comments. Mike will learn to achieve these goals through direct
instruction, modeling, cueing, and being reminded of classroom procedures and expectations.
Mike's pro-social goal is that he will increase positive pro-social interactions in 3 out of 4
targeted trials by December 10, 2016. There are two objectives that go with this goal. The first
objective is that he will be given a specific role in a cooperative learning group and will
perform/complete the assigned tasks. The second objective is when Mike is given direct
instruction in group expectations he will cooperate with group decisions despite disappointment
or disagreement.
Mike's first reading goal is aligned with the College and Career Ready Anchor Standard:
Read closely determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it, cite
specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text.
Mike's goal for this standard is that he will be able to cite textual evidence to support analysis of

IEP CASE STUDY

11

what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text on grade level with 40%
accuracy in three out of four targeted trials by December 10, 2016. Mike has four objectives for
this goal. The first objective states that Mike will be given direct instruction, one to two prompts,
and adult assistance to demonstrate comprehension of text by identifying what is directly stated
in the text. The second objective is when Mike is given direct instruction, two to three prompts,
and adult assistance he will demonstrate his comprehension of the text by drawing conclusions
and making inferences. Objective three says that Mike will be given direct instruction, one to
two prompts, and adult assistance to demonstrate comprehension of a text by paraphrasing and
summarizing what he has read. The fourth objective is that when Mike is given direct instruction,
two to three prompts, and adult assistance he will demonstrate comprehension of a text by
making connections between the text and himself.
Mike's second reading goal is aligned with College and Career Ready Standard: Read
closely to determine what the text says explicitly and make logical inferences from it; textual
evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text. His goal is to cite
several pieces of textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as
inferences drawn from the text on grade level with 50% accuracy in three out of four target trials
by December 10, 2016. There are four objectives for this goal. Objective one is that Mike will
select appropriate before reading strategies interacting with the text (previewing the text, setting
a purpose for reading, making predictions, and drawing connections). Objective two is that he
will apply during reading strategy of re-reading difficult parts of the text. The third objective is
that he will apply during reading strategies or paraphrasing or summarizing the text. The fourth
objective is that Mike will apply during reading strategies to explain the main idea.

IEP CASE STUDY

12

Mike's goal for mathematics is aligned with the Common Core Standard (Math.Content.
7.NS.A.3): Solve real-world and mathematical problems involving the four operations with
rational numbers. His goal is to solve real-world and mathematical problems involving the four
operations with rational numbers with 65% accuracy in three out of four targeted trials by
December 10, 2016. Mike's first objective for this goal is to be able to make a plan to solve a
grade level word problem when given a calculation device. The second objective is that when
Mike is given a calculation device he will be able to compute word problems on grade level.
The communication goal Mike has is targeted toward pragmatic social language. His goal
is that he will be able to use higher level language and conversation skills. Mike has two
objectives for this goal. The first objective that he will be able to make inferences and predictions
about spoken instructional material with minimal prompts. His second objective is that he will
use appropriate spoken language to express his opinion when disagreeing with a peer or adult
with minimal prompts. These objectives will be achieved by December 10, 2016.
Mike's written language goal is aligned to the College and Career Ready Standard:
Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are
appropriate to task, purpose, and evidence. Mike's goal is that he will support claims with logical
reasoning and relevant evidence using accurate, credible sources and demonstrating an
understanding of the topic or text in three out of four targeted trials by December 10, 2016. Mike
has three objectives for this goal. Objective one states that he will compose with attention to
effective organization of claims. The second objective is that he will compose with attention to
formation of complete sentences. The third objective is that he will compose with attention to
correct spelling. All of Mike's goal progress is done quarterly and notified to parents through
progress reports.

IEP CASE STUDY

13
Supplementary Aids & Services

In an adaptive and general education setting Mike receives many supplementary aids.
When given instructions he will be asked to paraphrase or repeat instructions before an activity,
but must be allowed time to process before responding. When Mike is taking notes copying from
the board, the notes must be limited. If necessary, provide notes and allow Mike to use a
highlighter for them. He also benefits from a word bank when completing activities. Extra
information should be deleted on assignments and assessments. Mike will receive modified
assignments and further modifications on reading comprehension assignments, as well as
modifications to eliminate distracters or extraneous information in a text.
Mike also as many aids for behavioral purposes. To help Mike with listening and
focusing skills he should be provided manipulatives and sensory activities. There should be use
of positive and concrete reinforcers. Mike should also receive social and behavioral supports and
frequent eye contact along with proximity control. If Mike gets agitated and becomes
unresponsive to any verbal prompting, crisis intervention is required. It is for this reason that
staff must be prepared at all times of the school day. To reduce the risk of this happening, Mike
benefits from frequent changes in activity (20 to 30 minutes) and frequent breaks where he is
allowed to move, as well as having a fidget for him to use. It is important to clearly and firmly
communicate expectations to Mike so he understands what is expected of him. Mike also
requires adult support and an occupational therapist consult who suggests that Mike switch to
keyboarding because of his poor handwriting.
The services Mike receives are special education, career and technology education, and
related services. Mike receives 12 special education sessions weekly for an hour and 30 minutes

IEP CASE STUDY

14

for 36 weeks. Career and technology education takes place in general education and is one
session that takes place yearly for 30 minutes. The discussion that takes place is about transition
and transition planning services are provided by the case manager, teacher, counselor, transition
facilitator, and additional relevant personnel.
The related services that Mike receives are speech and language therapy, occupational
therapy, and social work therapy. Mike's speech and language services happen twice a month for
30 minutes. One session happens outside the general education classroom and the other session
happens in the general education classroom. The occupational therapist sees Mike for one 30
minute session that occurs quarterly. Mike's social work services take place for 30 minutes three
times a month.
Reflection
The IEP meeting took place February 28th, 2016 in the schools conference room. The
meeting was supposed to start at 10:00 a.m., but a few teachers were running late so the meeting
started at 10:11 a.m. When the meeting formally began we went around the table and introduced
ourselves and positions. Mike's mother attended the meeting. She was asked if she would like
another copy of parental rights and procedural safeguards, but she declined it. The people who
attended the meeting were Ms. Hanlon (IEP Chair), Ms. Conigliaro (Case Manager and Special
Educator), Mrs. Moore (Art Teacher), Dr. Schulman (Speech/Language Pathologist), Mrs.
Zaleon (Occupational Therapist), Ms. Millian (Social Worker), Mrs. Weingard (School
Psychologist), Mike's mother, and myself. Other than Ms. Hanlon, who sat at the head of the
table with her laptop next to the projector, no one sat in any particular order. Mikes IEP was
projected onto a screen for everyone to see as we went through it and made any changes.

IEP CASE STUDY

15

After introductions Ms. Hanlon stated why we are having this meeting; it is Mike's reevaluation year to determine if he continues to be eligible for his special education services and
accommodations and reviewing his IEP goals and progress. After establishing why this meeting
is being held, Mike's teachers discussed what he is like in their classes and shared many positives
and few concerns. Mrs. Moore shared that Mike participates in her class by reading aloud,
displaying a positive attitude, putting effort into his artwork, getting along with classmates, and
asking for clarification on directions. After Mrs. Moore shared her piece she left the meeting to
return to teaching.
Ms. Hanlon was next to share and she has Mike for Reading Resource. She shared that he
participates as well and takes the i-Ready portion of the class seriously and has significantly
improved his reading skills since the beginning of the school year. Ms. Hanlon had noticed that
Mike does not utilize the use of a scribe as much anymore even though his handwriting has not
improved. She suggested that Mike switch from writing to keyboarding his classwork.
Ms. Conigliaro was next to share. She teaches Math and Science. She shared that Mike
does well and enjoys both classes, especially Science class when they learn about outer space.
Her main concern is Mike's struggling periods of not being able to focus. During the meeting
Ms. C had her device and took notes and made changes to Mikes IEP since she is his case
manager.
There were two teachers who were not present for the meeting, but had notes to share
about Mike: Ms. Dudman and Ms. Daily. Ms. Dudman teaches American History and Language
Arts. Her notes stated that Mike does well in her classes, but expressed concern on Mike's
periods of focusing. Ms. Daily teaches Physical Education. Her notes shared that Mike

IEP CASE STUDY

16

participates in class, but frequently forgets his point sheet. After this note was read, Mike's
mother expressed that she has a hard time understanding the point sheets. Ms. C explained the
point sheet and there was a decision made that Mike's mother would receive an email at the end
of the week to let her know how her son did in school that week.
After our discussion on the student we then transitioned to a discussion on assessment
results and observation findings. Ms. C started with her results from the Woodcock-Johnson IV.
Mikes scores were mostly at the second and third grade equivalency level. Ms. C also shared
that Mike got through four subtests before needing a ten minute break and that she thinks that
Mike's regression is due to his difficulty of maintaining attention.
Dr. Schulman then shared her results from a clinically devised assessment. Dr. Schulman
found that Mike has scored in the below average range on pragmatic skills. Dr. Schulman shared
that Mike has overall improved his pragmatic skills since 2013. Dr. Schulman also shared some
examples from her assessment where Mike would have to formulate sentences including specific
words. Mikes sentences did include what they needed to, but all of the sentences were about the
Seattle Seahawks or its players.
Mrs. Zaleon shared her occupational therapy assessment results next. Her assessment
found that Mike's upper body is low tone, he dislikes loud noises, is sensitive to smell, will run
and jump and forcibly throw his arms and hands, cuts well with scissors, and his handwriting
improves when he has a larger space to write. Mrs. Zaleon suggested that to improve Mikes
upper body low tone that he should lift low weight dumbbells at home. After Mrs. Zaleon was
finished, Ms. Millian shared her observation results from social work with Mike.

IEP CASE STUDY

17

Ms. Millian found that Mike participates well in groups and engages well in them. He is
congenial with his peers, but he needs to work on staying on topic, not interrupting, and waiting
to be recognized. Ms. Hanlon then shared Mr. Tracy's (Guidance Counselor) observation results
since he was not present at the meeting.
Mr. Tracy observed Mike in his American History class from 12:05 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Mr.
Tracy noticed that Mike needs breaks during class time, has a great memory on the order of the
states, is very knowledgeable on the phases of the moon, and has a hard time staying on topic.
At this time it was 11:30 a.m. and there was a fire drill. Therefore; we had to pause our
meeting and exit the building. We stood outside for about 15 minutes before we were allowed
back in the building. Once we were all back in the conference room we resumed our meeting.
Mrs. Weingard shared her assessment results once the meeting had resumed. She found
that Mike is often distracted, aware that he is different, cares about what other people think of
him, he is intelligent, and is afraid that because he is different he will not be accepted by his
peers. After Mrs. Weingard was finished she was the last to share her assessment findings. After
each assessment results were shared, Mike's mother was asked if she had any questions, but she
did not have any.
When assessment findings and observations were finished the team moved onto
reviewing Mike's IEP. At this point Mrs. Weingard left. Ms. C went through each page of the IEP.
Since we had just talked about assessment results, each person just briefly summarized their
section of the Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP)
and asked Mikes mother if she had any questions.

IEP CASE STUDY

18

When Ms. C went over Mike's accommodations there were two things that were
changed. The first was adding keyboarding. Mike's handwriting is not very legible and he has
more frequently been denying the use of a scribe. Therefore; it is more realistic for Mike to type
assignments and transition him to keyboarding as he enters high school next year. Mikes mother
agreed with this change. The second change was an accommodation that added a note taker. If
Mike is unable to type in class he may receive notes from a note taker. This accommodation may
also be used on some assessments such as PARCC.
After accommodations were added, Mike's mother shared that she would like to see
improvement in Mike's organizational skills and completion of homework. When Mike comes
home he states he does not have any homework. Mikes mother also, stated that even if he were
to look for his homework he would probably not be able to find it because his binder is
incredibly disorganized. This is the main organization item of improvement Mikes mother
would like to see.
After reviewing the IEP the conversation turned to focusing on where Mike will be
attending high school. His home high school is New Town High School. Mike is excited about
going to New Town and his mother wants to know more about the program he'll be in. Ms.
Hanlon and Ms. C gave Mike's mother advice on how to find out more information about the
program at New Town and other schools they are interested in, as well as what she should be
looking for and what questions she should ask. We also shared some last minute comments and
stories on how much we enjoy working with Mike.
My Role

IEP CASE STUDY

19

My role in the IEP meeting was to share my experiences on working with and teaching
Mike. I prepared for the meeting by writing up notes in my notebook about my experiences with
and observations of Mike. I also added to my notes as the meeting went along. The comments I
shared applied to Mikes behavior as well as academic performance in Reading Resource and
American History because those are the two classes I teach him. I shared my comments toward
the end of the meeting. I too expressed my concern about Mikes struggling periods of not being
able to focus and his reluctance to have a scribe when completing classwork. I truly enjoy
working with and teaching Mike. He is an interesting and fun student and I let my enthusiasm of
working with him show in the comments I made.
Before the meeting I also spent time with my other mentor, Ms. Dudman, discussing
Mikes goals and objectives, specifically his behavior and communication goals. After reading
Mikes IEP and conducting my interview with Dr. Schulman and Ms. Hanlon, I was able to
interact and observe Mike with his IEP goals in mind. Ms. Dudman and I talked about past
strategies and brainstormed some new ones that could help Mike meet his goals and objectives
with his behavior and communication. Ms. Dudman pulled up Mikes IEP and we discussed our
ideas further and where we could make changes. However; we did not make any changes
because I had not been with Mike long enough to feel comfortable to make changes to his IEP
and Ms. Dudman is not Mikes case manager. It was still a great learning experience to go
through Mikes IEP and have a discussion and share my ideas to help Mike and hear Ms.
Dudmans feedback.
I would critique my participation in the meeting by having classwork examples with me
to show his mother the work weve been doing in class. Not everyone brought examples of work
to the meeting, but for those that did Mikes mother enjoyed looking at them. I would also

IEP CASE STUDY

20

critique my participation in the meeting by being more confident and discussing my participation
more with my mentor. When I did share my comments I was hesitant because this is the first IEP
meeting where Ive gotten to participate and not just observe. I should have communicated more
with my mentor on my participation because there were times in the meeting where I thought I
would have been able to contribute, but didnt because I wasnt sure if I should. Especially since
this was the first IEP meeting where I got to share information and wasnt sure if it would be
appropriate. So, I should have clarified with Ms. Hanlon my participation in the meeting. I do
believe having my notes helped me be more prepared for the meeting and the delivering of
information because I was able to see what I wanted to say and keep track of what I had already
said.

Reference
IDEA Regulation Requirements retrieved from:
http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,dynamic,TopicalBrief,9,