IEP CASE STUDY

IEP Case Study

Leah Gruber
Towson University

IEP CASE STUDY

2
Part I: Background Information:

Casey is a six-year old student who attends West Towson Elementary School. She
is in 1st grade and is in a General Education setting. Casey lives at home with her parents
and her younger brother and was born with eczema. On her records, Caseys ethnicity
reads that she is Asian, but her parents speak Urdu at home which is a language spoken in
India, specifically Pakistan. Casey understands Urdu but does not speak it. Her primary
language is English and when her parents started to realize she was struggling with her
language development, they began speaking English at home instead of Urdu. Caseys
primary disability is a developmental delay and the areas affected by this disability are
her behavior, her communication skills, and her reading. Based on formal and informal
assessments she has demonstrated developmental delays in language-based literacy, oral
expression, listening comprehension and pragmatic language skills. The reason for her
referral is to conduct an annual review of Caseys IEP (Individualized Education Plan)
and to discuss the need for extended school year services. The pre-referral strategies
initially used to refer Casey in 2013-2014 were the YCAT (Young Childrens
Achievement Test), formal and informal assessments at Child Find, and parent/teacher
interview/checklists. The pre-referral strategies used for this annual review were informal
observations and work samples provided by her teachers, and the test results of the
Brigance Diagnostic Assessment given by the Special Educator.
When interviewed, her General Education teacher and her other service providers
agreed upon her progress and her academic behavior. Caseys General Education teacher
informed me that she has on and off days. Her behavior is usually attentive to
instruction and she is a verbal learner. Caseys seat is at the front of the class because

IEP CASE STUDY

Mrs. R, the General Education teacher, knows that keeping Caseys attention can and has
been an issue in the past. Although, she told me that Casey is eager to learn, is a visual
learner, and often raises her hand to share her thoughts during class. She is very social
and gets along with a lot of her peers and has a best friend in the class who she
participates in imaginative- normal play with during recess and throughout the day. In the
beginning of the year, Casey wrote random disorganized answers to questions if she
was not monitored and asked directly what she was trying to say in a sequential manner.
At times, some of her answers still do not make sense and she goes off topic during her
writing. This occurs the most when Casey is reading stories, and is talking out loud. She
loses her thought process and sometimes needs to be re-directed but is progressing in
class and with her reading level. The skill that Casey struggles with the most is
comprehension.
During one of my informal observations of Casey I noticed some of the same
mannerisms that Mrs. R had told me about. I observed that at times Casey loses her place
while reading and has trouble pronouncing some words. I also saw that when Casey was
in class answering a question in her journal she didnt answer it in a complete sentence.
For instance, when trying to give the answer They all have noses she wrote: they all
noses. Casey also sometimes forgets to capitalize the first word in her sentence, but she
is confident when giving her answers during class, even if they are wrong. During the
second informal observation I noticed some of her actions during class that showed her
lack of confidence due to her developmental delays. Casey was looking around
constantly at her peers during the announcements and copied the motions of them,
especially of her best friend Gabbie. For example, Gabbie was waving her hands in the

IEP CASE STUDY

air and Casey copied the motion numerous times. I also looked at Caseys warm up for
that day and noticed that she only got two out of the five correct on her worksheet. When
I looked further into why she barely got any of the answers correct, I realized it was
because she was not focused and did not follow the directions because her attention was
focused elsewhere. During group instruction, Casey was faced forward, was paying
attention, and was eager to answer and to read out loud. She was following the directions
given by her teacher right away and was looking onto the book while another classmate
was reading. Even though Casey is not at the same level as her peers, she was attentive
and excited about participating.
In class, Casey has demonstrated emotional, social, and academic behaviors that
have been seen as delayed when compared to her peers. She also demonstrates a mild
language/communication delay. Caseys delays in her receptive/expressive language
skills and language use negatively impact her communication with her peers and teachers
as well as in the classroom. At age four, members of the Child Find Referrals Team
referred Casey for evaluation in order to determine her current level(s) of performance in
academic readiness. There were concerns about Caseys communication, focus,
comprehension, and social interaction. At first, she attended Towson Presbyterian
Preschool for five days a week for half of the day, every day.
Caseys eligibility was pre-determined before this annual review. The category of
her disability is a developmental delay coded (15). The services she currently requires/
receives are Special Education services in the General Education setting, and
Speech/Language Pathology services outside of the General Education setting. These
services were implemented on February 17th, 2016 once her IEP was finalized. Her

IEP CASE STUDY

Special Education services occur three times every week for fifteen minutes per meeting.
These days are Monday, Wednesday and Friday and she receives learning support in the
classroom to develop reading comprehension skills. Her Speech/Language Pathology
services occur three times, monthly, for thirty minutes per meeting. Previously, Casey had
five sessions of Special Education services for fifteen minutes every week instead of
three, and her Speech/Language services have stayed the same.
Caseys learning and behavioral characteristics are true to what her General
Education teacher described. She is progressing in reading and writing and is very eager
and excited to learn every day. She is an active listener and always wants to volunteer to
answer questions during class. Casey interacts nicely with her peers and communicates
well with them. She is cooperative and follows directions during class and loves to talk.
Sometimes Caseys ideas are not clear and she struggles with verbalizing and organizing
her thoughts clearly during writing. When Casey was younger and was still an only child,
Caseys parents did not take her to day care and she did not get that additional social
interaction needed as a child before going to Towson Presbyterian Preschool. Her cultural
and linguistic differences are that she has grown up in a household where two languages
are spoken, both Urdu and English. English has always been Caseys primary language
and she never learned how to speak Urdu, even though she understands it. Since Casey
has been attending West Towson Elementary School she has had the same
Speech/Language Pathology services every year. The areas impacted by Caseys
suspected disability were communication, and academic readiness for language-based
literacy and social communication. Her English proficiency was and is not limited and

IEP CASE STUDY

her determination of eligibility was identified based upon assessments and observations
done.
IEP Process:
At West Towson Elementary School, the IEP process varies depending on what
type of meeting it is. For an annual review of an IEP, which is what Caseys team meeting
was for, it must occur at least 364 days from the previous IEP date. The Special Educator
is given four weeks to conduct the informal assessments, such as the Brigance, and uses
this time to form the draft. During these weeks, the General Education teacher is also
filling out his/her classroom teacher report and the other key service providers are
conducting their informal observations/assessments of the student and gathering their
data. Two weeks before the IEP meeting, the office staff or Assistant Principal sends out
the parental notification to the students home. If the parents/ guardians are not able to
attend on the given date, the staff asks if they would be able to conference on the phone
while the meeting is in progress, or whether they would want to reschedule. Then, at least
ten days prior to the meeting, the draft and all of the information gathered about the
student is sent to the Assistant Principal. All of the documents are due to the Assistant
Principal, which include the IEP draft, the classroom teacher report, and any other work
samples/behavior charts from the key service providers. In order for anything to legally
be discussed at the team, it must be sent home at least five business days prior to the team
occurring for viewing.
Once the Assistant Principal has gone over and organized everything, she sends
the draft home to the parents/guardians. If the IEP meeting is not an annual review and is
a triennial evaluation the team meets with the students guardians and asks for permission

IEP CASE STUDY

to test the child. Once the testing agreement has been signed off on, the Special Educator
has ninety days to give the assessment. After the assessment has been given and the
report has been written up, the team has another meeting to discuss the results of the
assessment. Once this step occurs and the team has talked about the results, the Special
Educator and key service providers have thirty days to create the draft IEP. During this
time, the same coordination with parents, preparation for the team, and process for
providing prior written notice occurs. If the team is a triennial review its best practice to
call the students parents ahead of time to informally summarize what will be going on in
the meeting, and to discuss any major changes if needed.
This IEP process aligns with the IDEA requirements and regulations in more ways
than one. As a whole, West Towson Elementary Schools IEP process follows the legal
requirements that IDEA specifies. There are specific timelines that they follow such as
the dates for providing prior written notice, giving assessments, and turning in the IEP
draft. One of the IDEA regulations about the IEP process is that the school or public
agency must identify the members of the IEP team. Some of these individuals include
having at least one regular education teacher of the child, a representative of the public
agency or school, one special education teacher of the child, and the parents. West
Towson Elementary makes sure that all of these individuals are present at the team
meetings each time, if possible. All of the required appropriate individuals were at
Caseys team and followed the IDEA regulations.
During the time the team is collecting their data and creating the IEP draft, the
parental notification is sent out two weeks prior to the team occurring. If the parents are
not able to attend the meeting on the given day, they are offered alternate means of

IEP CASE STUDY

meeting participation to choose from, such as a phone conference. Two of the regulations
of IDEA are that the parent notification of the team informs the parents/guardians of the
IEP team participants and that if needed, an alternate form of the meeting is presented.
This is always made clear when the prior written notice is sent out and was made clear to
Caseys parents when they were informed about the IEP date.
Through the process of this annual review, and all other annual reviews, the
encouragement of consolidation of IEP meetings occurs. Caseys parents were made
aware of the process and the timeline of reevaluation during the meeting which aligned
with one of the requirements of IDEA. The IEP process that West Towson Elementary
follows also ensures that the students IEP is reviewed periodically and annually. When
they do this, they determine whether the annual goals for the student are being achieved
and they revise the IEP if needed. Since this was Caseys annual review, this is what
occurred at her team. IDEA requires the team to review and revise the IEP annually and
address the students progress toward their annual goals in the general education
curriculum. It also requires the team to review the results of any assessments for
reevaluation, the information about the student, the students anticipated needs, and any
other matters that are relevant. Once the IEP has been finalized by the team, a copy of the
IEP is given out to all of the students teachers and related service providers and is made
accessible for its implementation that day. All of these steps are requirements and
regulations of IDEA and are followed through West Towson Elementary Schools IEP
process.

Part II: IEP Content:

IEP CASE STUDY

9
PLAAFP Part 1:

Caseys annual IEP meeting was scheduled for February 17th, 2016. On Caseys
Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Performance (PLAAFP) page there were
three statements discussed and documented. The first present level statement was Caseys
Behavioral level which was measured through informal classroom observations. During
these informal observations, Casey demonstrated social, emotional and academic
behaviors that were considered to be delayed when compared to her same-age peers.
These observations were done throughout the final weeks of the second quarter and data
was collected on her abilities to demonstrate time on task behaviors, and interactions with
peers both in structured and non-structured times during the school day. During these
observations, Casey demonstrated on-task behaviors which included keeping her eyes on
the speaker 70% of the time and participating on topic 60% of the time during class.
While Casey was participating in structured work with her peers at their assigned
tables/seats she demonstrated on-task comprehension of the assignments 80% of the time.
Whereas during non-structured interaction with her peers Casey demonstrated social
interaction skills such as acknowledging personal space, giving/ taking materials, and
conversation during 60% of the targeted trials. These informal observations were
conducted during structured and non-structured times throughout the day and included
prompts from her teacher as well as sometimes having the support of preferential seating
in the class.
Caseys strengths from her behavioral present level statements are that she is
personable, she responds to routines within the classroom, and she demonstrates
compliance with adult directions when participating in instruction. Her needs are that

IEP CASE STUDY

10

Casey demonstrates a continued required support with refocusing during class and during
peer interactions. Caseys behaviors have improved tremendously during her time at West
Towson and her needs can be met through supplemental aids and services.
The next PLAAFP statement in Caseys IEP were her communication levels.
These levels were measured through informal assessment tools such as therapy log
documentation and teacher/parent input. When compared to her same-age peers, Casey
demonstrated a mild language/communication delay. These delays in language-use and
receptive/expressive language skills negatively impact her and her communication with
peers/teachers in the classroom. Since Casey is such a personable student, she is talkative
during class and friendly towards others. During class, Caseys explanations to questions
can be wordy and lengthy and she often needs guidance to organize her thoughts and
expand her ideas. Casey also needs support to answer/discuss ideas that require more
creative thinking/higher level thinking and reasoning skills. She does contribute on-topic
ideas during conversations and class discussions but they are not always relevant.
Through the informal assessment tools that were used to assess Caseys
communication levels, it was determined that she has trouble answering when, why,
how questions when there is no visual prompt issued. Casey benefits from using graphic
organizers to keep her thoughts in order. During the informal screening of Caseys skills,
she had 60% accuracy when answering why questions from a book, 40% accuracy
when answering what would you do? questions related to problems, and 75% accuracy
when answering yes/no questions. Her strengths include her vocabulary development,
how she uses language for various purposes, how she generates sentences in spontaneous
interactions, how she answers factual questions on topics, and how shes eager,

IEP CASE STUDY

11

enthusiastic, and inquisitive and follows classroom expectations. Caseys needs are that
she requires improvement with her pragmatic language skills such as during
conversations, problem solving, and generating questions. She also needs to develop
better expressive/receptive language skills when she is providing sequential and coherent
explanations, elaborating on her responses, answering open-ended questions, and
reasoning either out loud or during her responses to questions. Caseys present
communication levels do impact her academic achievement and/or functional
performance, but they are improving.
Caseys last PLAAFP statement is about her reading levels. This present level
statement was measured by using the Brigance Diagnostic: Comprehensive Inventory of
Basic Skills Assessment, and informal assessments/observations. From the Brigance, it
was determined that Casey is reading on a first grade level and she demonstrated Grade
three word recognition as well as reading vocabulary comprehension. This was
demonstrated on the Word Recognition Grade Placement Test-Form A and the Reading
Vocabulary Comprehension Test-Form A. Casey read fluently with 100% accuracy on the
upper-first grade level text and demonstrated 80% accuracy on a second grade level
reading fluency text. Casey also demonstrated reading strategies and 60% comprehension
accuracy on short-passages at an upper first grade level and a 60% comprehension level
with a second grade level text. Her strengths are that she is very good with reading her
sight words and when presented with a text she is excited about reading and not hesitant.
Casey read fluently and made text to self-connections as she read and independently
made use of tracking and word scoping strategies. Her needs are that her comprehension

IEP CASE STUDY

12

level is still at a 60% and could be improved. Caseys present reading levels do impact
her academic achievement and/or functional performance.
PLAAFP Part 2:
When asked about her educational program, Caseys parents said that they have
seen an increased improvement from last year. They have noticed that she is improving in
verbal communication and her sentences have been making more sense compared to last
year. There are still times that they notice Caseys sentences are not phrased properly or
do not make sense because they are out of context. Caseys parents also said that she is
still having difficulty with her comprehension skills, especially during reading for
meaning and math word problems. She also sometimes does not understand what is being
asked in the question which makes it more difficult for her to solve problems, but overall
they said they see an improvement and her skills are stronger than last year.
Caseys parents described her as a hard-working little girl, and that hands-on
activities help her to learn and understand the content better. They said that she strives to
provide an answer even if it is not the correct one and that she has an excellent memory,
which often helps her solve problems when she finally understands what the memorized
lessons or cues are. They said that Casey is a visual learner and she loves bright colors
and singing. When they were asked their opinion about whether they think her disability
affects her involvement in the General Education curriculum, they said that her reduced
language development does negatively impact her ability to communicate effectively
with her peers and teachers. This includes when she is explaining and generating
questions/comments on topics, reasoning/problem solving, and answering questions.

IEP CASE STUDY

13

Caseys parents were involved and very helpful during the IEP meeting with their
information and useful inputs/opinions about their daughters growth.
Instructional and Testing Accommodations
Caseys accommodations include reduced distractions to herself, and reduced
distractions to other students in the classroom. These accommodations were selected
because Casey requires reduced distractions for completing independent tasks in order to
focus and process the language required of the grade level task. She requires this in all
academic areas and classes. Reduced distractions to others is required in order to provide
Casey with the opportunities to verbally process the steps and reasoning needed to
complete the assigned tests and tasks. An example of what Casey could use to reduce
distractions to herself and to others is a privacy wall at her desk.
IEP Goals and Objectives
Caseys first goal is a communication goal for her expressive/receptive language.
This goal states that: by 2/17/17, after a teacher read aloud of a short story, Casey will
produce complete sentences to describe 2-3 events in the story, in sequential order, in 4 of
5 oral response. The goal is that Casey will do this with 75% accuracy and there are
three objectives that go with it. The first objective is that Casey will describe a 4-5 part
event in sequence and with adequate detail with and without visual references, given
pacing cues, with 80% accuracy. The second objective is that Casey will answer why
and how questions related to picture scenes and stories, given opportunities for
repetitive review, with 80% accuracy. The third objective for Casey is that she will
compare and describe various features of items by telling two similarities and two
differences, with and without visual references, with 80% accuracy. These goals and

IEP CASE STUDY

14

objectives are appropriate for Casey because they are her needs that are described in her
PLAAFP statements for communication and are what her parents have also noticed that
she is still struggling with in school. Caseys progress will be monitored through
quarterly progress reports and the evaluation method is going to be an observation record.
The second goal on Caseys IEP is also a communication goal for pragmatic
language. This goal states that: by 2/17/17 after listening to a speakers presentation on
grade-level topic (e.g. vertebrates), Casey will demonstrate understanding by orally
answering at least two questions on the topic, in three out of four opportunities, given
visual materials. The goal is that Casey will do this with 80% accuracy and there are two
objectives that align with this goal. The first objective for Casey is that she will generate
two relevant comments and one question on a given topic during structured
conversations, with 80% accuracy. The second objective is that Casey will describe a
solution for a given problem by telling what she would say or do, given verbal
prompts, with 80% accuracy. These objectives are aligned with the PLAAFP statements
because Casey is still having trouble with expressing her ideas orally and staying on
topic. She also needs to work on answering why questions and what would you do?
questions relating to problems. Caseys progress for this goal will be monitored quarterly
through progress reports.
There is no behavior goal for Casey because the team decided that her progress
behaviorally has shown and that there is no need for one. Her next goal is for reading.
This reading goal states that: Casey will be able to use strategies to demonstrate
understanding of the text (after reading) at grade level. The goal is for Casey to be able
to do this with 80% accuracy and there are three objectives that align with the reading

IEP CASE STUDY

15

goal. The first objective is that when given a chunked grade level text, Casey will be
able to periodically summarize while reading with 80% accuracy. The second objective
is that when given the opportunity for look backs with a grade level text, Casey will be
able to respond to text by speaking, dramatizing or writing with 80% accuracy. The last
objective for this reading goal is that when given the opportunity for look backs with
grade level text, Casey will be able to connect events, characters, and actions in stories to
specific life experiences with 80% accuracy. These objectives are measureable and align
with her PLAAFP statements because Casey is still struggling with her comprehension
skills and on the Brigance only had 60% accuracy with a grade level text. Caseys
progress will also be monitored by a quarterly progress report.
The last goal on Caseys IEP is a written language goal. This goal states that
Casey will compose oral, written, and visual presentations that express personal ideas,
inform, and persuade at grade level. The goal of this is for it to be done with 80%
accuracy. One of the objectives for Casey is that when she is given the choice of
previously taught organizers, she will be able to generate ideas and topics and make a
plan for writing with 80% accuracy. The next objective for this written language goal is
that when given a familiar topic or text, Casey will be able to compose to inform using
major points and examples to support a main idea, with 80% accuracy. These objectives
and the written language goal will be monitored through quarterly progress reports and
are appropriate because Casey often goes off topic when writing responses or cannot
form her ideas into complete sentences. When she is given graphic organizers or a
familiar topic or text, especially when she has a visual prompt or representation, she
benefits from this greatly. These goals and objectives for Casey align with the MCCRS

IEP CASE STUDY

16

standards and are individualized for her needs based on her PLAAFP statements. They
also incorporate the principles of UDL by providing multiple means of representation,
action and expression, and engagement to Casey.
Supplementary Aids and Services, Program Modifications, and Supports
Casey has two instructional supports and two program modifications. The two
instructional supports are that Casey is allowed the use of organizational aids, and she
will be asked to repeat and/or rephrase information when said during class. The
anticipated frequency of both of these supports are daily, and the begin date was 2/17/16
and the end date will be 2/27/17 for a duration of thirty six weeks in total. The service
providers of this will be the General Educator, the Special Educator, and the Instructional
Assistant. These instructional supports were selected because Casey requires the
opportunity to restate or rephrase directions and expectations given in the classroom
because without it she is often unclear of what is being expected of her and will produce
work samples that are often off topic. Having her repeat this information would benefit
her because this would remind her of what is expected and it will be a reinforcement of
the directions. Casey also requires organizational tools such as oral planning, or charts
and/or webs that she has been previously taught to help with organizing her thoughts
prior to answering the question or providing on topic sentences. Casey has struggled with
keeping her thoughts organized and staying on-topic with her answers which is why she
requires this tool and it would help her in the classroom.
The two program modifications that Casey requires are the breakdown of
assignments into smaller units, and the use of pictures to support reading passages
whenever possible. Both of these modifications should be used daily and are going to be

IEP CASE STUDY

17

put in place for thirty six weeks which began on 2/17/16 and are going to end in a year on
2/17/17. The service providers of these modifications are going to be the General
Educator, the Special Educator and the Instructional Assistant. These program
modifications were chosen because they will help Casey solidify the information
presented to her during class as she processes the new learning in all academic areas.
Casey sometimes struggles with answering questions or does not understand the question
that is being asked. To assist Casey with attending to details in a text the written passages
should always be paired with a visual representation or prompt whenever possible.
Caseys assignments need to be chunked in order for her to maintain her focus
appropriately on assigned tasks. These modifications are necessary for Casey and will be
delivered through classroom instruction and while giving Casey her assignments and
directions in smaller pieces with the support of a visual. With these program
modifications, Caseys answers, participation in class, and classwork will hopefully be
positively affected.
Part III: Reflection:
For Caseys annual IEP meeting that was scheduled to be on February 17th, 2016,
my mentor teacher, Mrs. Kerrigan, and I worked on the IEP together and created/ made
appropriate changes to it. The timelines for evaluation, eligibility, and IEP development
were followed in accordance with IDEA. Mrs. Kerrigan gave Casey the Brigance as I
watched and we compiled the data needed from her scores. About two weeks prior to the
IEP draft being due to the Assistant Principal, we created new goals and objectives for
Casey based on her progress, informal observations, and assessment scores. When it was
time to write the IEP, we decided that Casey did not require a behavioral goal anymore

IEP CASE STUDY

18

because she had achieved her previous goals pertaining to her behavior in the classroom.
Before the meeting, the prior written notice, procedural safeguards, timelines, and the
overall IEP development were all followed in accordance with IDEA. The Assistant
Principal sent out the prior written notice of the IEP meeting two weeks prior to the
meeting and a copy of the procedural safeguards. All of the documents and the draft were
turned in at least ten days before the meeting to the Assistant Principal and they were sent
out to Caseys parents five business days ahead of time. During this time, I also
personally sent out the PLAAFP Part two page to the parents before the IEP meeting and
input their information myself. All of the timelines were followed accordingly for the IEP
development process and the team was very professional. Mrs. Kerrigan worked on all
parts of the IEP except for the PLAAFP statements about Caseys behavior and
communication. We made Caseys reading and written language goals and objectives for
this IEP and performed the testing needed to obtain her present levels.
On the day of the meeting, there was another IEP meeting scheduled ahead of
Caseys that was running late. This IEP meetings time ran over to the time of Caseys
meeting which was scheduled to begin at 12:30 p.m. that afternoon. Instead of starting on
time, the previous IEP meeting did not finish until 12:53 p.m. and Caseys did not start
until 12:55 p.m. When this happened, the parents patiently waited outside in the office
with me before their daughters IEP meeting could begin. Once the conference door room
opened and we were allowed it, I noticed that both the team and the environment were
warm, positive, and inviting. The conference room is in the main office and is private.
The window looking into the room had a shade over it so that the public could not see
inside and there was a long table in the middle of the room that could fit about eight or

IEP CASE STUDY

19

nine chairs around it. Once the parents came into the room they were greeted warmly but
no one stood up. Since one of IEP meetings were running over, some of the staff
members were still eating while the parents came in and no one introduced themselves
formerly. I was the only one introduced verbally at the table.
When the parents entered they said hello and sat down next to Mrs. Kerrigan.
At the meeting, all of the appropriate individuals that were expected to be there were in
attendance. The professionals there were the General Educator, Mrs. R., the Special
Educator, Mrs. Kerrigan, the Assistant Principal, Mrs. H., the Speech Pathologist, Mrs. S,
and myself. Caseys parents sat at the head of one side of the table and everyone else sat
circled around the perimeter of the table. As everyone was still getting settled, Mrs.
Kerrigan took the time to update Caseys parents on her brain breakfast folder, the
activities that she has been doing every morning, and the progress she has been making.
Once the IEP was brought up onto the projector, which the parents were facing, the
meeting began.
Caseys mother did not need to take off work for this meeting, but her father did.
The parents were given a copy of the procedural safeguards at the beginning of the
meeting before we began. Even though they did not need or want an extra copy, they
signed off that they were offered one. Once the meeting began, there didnt seem as if
there was an agenda being followed. There was not one printed out and given to the
parents, but the team members seemed to have their own schedule and routine of who
was to share what information first. The first one to speak about Casey and her progress/
schoolwork and reading progress was her General Education teacher, Mrs. R. She talked
with Caseys parents about her schoolwork and her work at home, and any questions and

IEP CASE STUDY

20

comments/suggestions they had. As Mrs. R. spoke, the parents interjected their thoughts
and asked questions freely. The conversation was very open, honest, and safe.
The roles of the team members varied throughout the meeting. Mrs. Rs role was
to speak about Casey, what they were doing in class, and about her progress. She talked
directly to the parents about what Casey has been continuing to work on with her and
about her writing and math work. Since Mrs. R. was the first at the table to speak and is
Caseys primary teacher, her parents had a lot of questions for her. A main concern of
theirs was how to motivate Casey to do her work at home. They showed Mrs. R. and the
teamwork samples that they had brought from home proving that Casey had been
struggling with her homework. They also asked if Mrs. R. could start giving Casey
specific reminders on some of her worksheets and explained why they thought their
daughter was getting the information incorrect.
Caseys parents explained that getting Casey to do her homework is often a
struggle, and they were able to discuss with Mrs. R. some possible incentives to use to
help with this. As the parents and the primary teacher spoke openly about Casey, Mrs.
Kerrigan was able to interject with some examples and suggestions pertaining to Caseys
motivation at home. Both teachers and the parents spoke about Casey in an open and
collaborative fashion. There were turns being taken and the parents seemed to feel
comfortable with asking any questions they had. As this was going on, the Assistant
Principal was typing very quickly on her computer documenting the meeting and not
making a lot of comments about the student.
After the Mrs. R. and Mrs. Kerrigan had finished talking with the parents, the
roles of the team members shifted and the IEP meeting went in a different direction. The

IEP CASE STUDY

21

next part of the meeting was discussing the actual IEP. Since the parents were facing the
IEP on the projector, it made it easy for them to follow along as Mrs. Kerrigan went
through it. As she talked about the IEP, she made sure to directly talk to the parents and
check that they were comfortable with all of the information and/or changes. First, she
went over the cover sheet with the parents and from there continued on to each one of the
sections. Once the team had gotten to the PLAAFP statements, each appropriate
individual went over their portion of the IEP that they had covered. The Speech
Pathologist, Mrs. S., discussed Caseys present communication levels and asked the
parents if they had any questions. She also discussed with them her progress and what
they had been working on in Speech. Since there was a present level of behavior for
Casey but not a goal/objective the school psychologist was not present for the meeting
and that part of the IEP was not talked about much.
When the team was on the PLAAFP statements, Mrs. Kerrigan spoke about
Caseys present reading levels. She explained that she did not have a present level for
writing but that there was a goal for Casey on this IEP. She went over the second
PLAAFP page as well, briefly since the parents knew what they had replied to the
questions. After that, we moved on to the Special Considerations and Accommodations
page quickly since nothing had changed, and the Instructional and Testing
Accommodations page. On this page, Mrs. Kerrigan explained each accommodation and
why they were necessary/ why we put them on Caseys IEP. After the Supplementary
Aids, Services, Program Modifications and Supports section was discussed with the
parents, the team moved onto the ESY (Extended School Year) page and decided that
Casey did not qualify and is not eligible for it. Mrs. Kerrigan reminded the parents that

IEP CASE STUDY

22

they would be testing Casey again in December and that it was possible for this to
change, but that it seems as if Casey did not need it. Hearing this information the parents
were not upset and agreed that it was not necessary at the time.
Once all of the sections of the IEP had been discussed with the parents the team
moved onto the Goals and Objectives page. The first person to speak about this was the
Speech Pathologist, Mrs. S. who covered the communication goal and objectives for
Casey. After she had gone over each piece of the goal/objectives she asked the parents if
they had any questions, which they did not. The parents agreed with the communication
goal as a whole when Mrs. S. talked about it and were happy with the IEP objectives for
Casey. The reading and writing goals/objectives that Mrs. Kerrigan and I had created
together were presented and discussed by Mrs. Kerrigan. After she had talked about them
she asked the parents if they had any questions which they did not because they agreed
with these as well. As a final copy of the IEP was agreed upon and printed out by the
Assistant Principal, the team members, including the parents all discussed Casey more
and talked about the IEP very casually. Once the IEP had been printed, everyone at the
table signed a copy.
This IEP meeting seemed to go very well and was very positive. The agenda that
the team had followed worked perfectly with the parents and the time management that
they were trying to accomplish. All of the interactions between the team members and the
parents were collaborative and beneficial. Personally, I thought this IEP meeting went
very smoothly and accomplished all of the goals. Overall, this meeting was based around
Casey and her success both in and out of the classroom. It was a meeting truly about how
to help her and the steps needed to be taken to reach her goals. The collaboration at the

IEP CASE STUDY

23

IEP meeting was very strong and constructive. The conversation was always back and
forth between the parents and the team and was open to any comments, concerns or
questions. When Caseys parents had a question, the team provided them with
information right away about it. When the meeting first began the team asked the parents
if they had any questions or if they wanted to share anything which started the open
communication system right away. Whenever the team was talking to the parents,
answering a question, or giving a suggestion they spoke directly to the parent(s) making
eye contact the whole time. There were a few instances where the team members gave
examples and referred to their own children when talking about Casey. For instance, Mrs.
Kerrigan gave the parents examples of incentives she uses with her own children at home
to help give them an idea of what to do and what has worked for her. I noticed that this
made it personal and more inviting for the parents because the team members were
speaking to them in a more relaxed fashion. There were many suggestions given for
Casey, and everyone in the room was constantly giving constructive and positive
feedback throughout the meeting.
Unfortunately, during Caseys IEP meeting I did not have the chance to interject
what I had done and prepared. Since the previous IEP meeting had run over their time
slot and Caseys had started late, the team was trying to compensate for time and were
going in auto pilot to try and get through the meeting. I was fully prepared to discuss
the reading and writing goals/objectives for Casey and her present levels page for
reading. As Mrs. Kerrigan and I created the IEP and discussed/agreed upon the goals and
objectives, I input them into the document. I also put in the PLAAFP part two page and
was in contact with the parents. At first, Mrs. Kerrigan did not include a written language

IEP CASE STUDY

24

goal for Caseys IEP because it had not been there previously. Seeing this, and
knowing/observing Casey, I asked her if we could add one because I thought that Casey
may benefit from this. Even though I did not present during the IEP meeting I was
prepared to and tried to give my input as much as possible to the parents.
I believe that I could have been more involved in the IEP process and I take
responsibility for not presenting regardless of the timing. My preparation did help me to
ensure my capability as a team member because I was able to help with the IEP and
include my thoughts and suggestions. From my preparation, I was able to discuss with
Mrs. Kerrigan ways to ensure Caseys success and how the goals/objectives we made for
her could help in the next year. I wanted talk about Caseys case with her parents but I did
not want to over step my boundaries with the team since it was a busy day and everyone
was going through the meeting quickly. From this experience I now know what to do for
the next time and how to complete an IEP and the steps that need to be taken. I was ready
to be open and give positive feedback to the parents from my observations of Casey and
suggestions in any way I could. I also learned what to do in an IEP meeting and what one
should look like. I have gathered information about what I would do differently and what
I thought had gone great. This meeting was very positive and I took a lot from the
experience, even though I was not able to present the information that I had gathered and
prepared.

IEP CASE STUDY

25