You are on page 1of 22

IEP

Case Study:
Student Case Study & IEP Development
Megan Crowder
Towson University























IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 2


Part I: IEP Process
The IEP process at Halstead Academy is professional, welcoming, and proactive.
Halsteads theory is to face each situation, accept what it is, and then actively plan future
steps to overcome the challenge. It is one thing to identify what is going wrong; it is a
whole other dimension to create a plan of action. Making decisions without establishing a
plan of how you will reach your goal is ineffective. Halstead has the right approach when
it comes to the IEP process.
In order for change to occur, there needs to be communication, collaboration, and
consistency across the team. If all team members are not on the same page, in agreement
with the plan, and following through with the rules or accommodations, the plan is not
being implemented and is therefore ineffective. The special educator, IEP chair, and
school psychologist at Halstead Academy often communicate with one-another. The
grade level teams also communicate with each other. Not all, but most of the general
education teachers do try to keep open communication with other departments in the
school, and those teachers are unsurprisingly the most effective.
To start each IEP meeting, all current team members are encouraged to come slightly
before in order to seem professional and prepared. Once the parents arrive in the school
building, they are to report to the secretary who signs them into the building and points
them to the IEP team room. When the parents arrive, the IEP chair welcomes them by
pointing to the available chairs and briefly making small talk. Then she re-introduces
herself and encourages everyone else to do the same in an effort to ease parental anxiety.
The meeting officially begins with the IEP chair, briefly describing the student, stating
his or her current academic and behavioral levels as documented with objective data

IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 3


collections. The IEP chair then opens the floor for the parents to discuss why the meeting
has been called. This introduction allows for the parents to describe their own feelings
about their child. After the parents express their concerns, the IEP chair decides on which
aspect to begin with and turns the lead to that designated team member. If a parent is not
in attendance, a phone call is made home in efforts to continue the communication. If the
parent does not answer, and the team has waited over 10 minutes to begin, the team
moves forward and discusses the childs needs in order to review the IEP. Overall, the
IEP chair is simply a facilitator of the meeting, ensuring that all objectives of the meeting
are accomplished and continuing conversations to transition smoothly.
For an IEP referral, only informal data may be collected prior to the meeting. This will
document the students current level of achievement and help inform future instructional
decisions. For the child to obtain an IEP, a parent must sign documentation, the child
must be formally assessed, and then the disability must be documented as impeding their
level of achievement. If a student scores two or more grade levels behind their current
standing, then they are eligible for an IEP.
The majority of the work in regards to the IEP should be done prior to the meeting.
The official meeting is simply a time to finalize the paperwork. A pre-team is the main
time to discuss concerns. Before the IEP meeting takes place, an SST meeting is usually
conducted by the IEP chair to ensure all staff members are on the same page and all
student needs are being met through the various stages of RTI. The team collaborates to
decide what needs to be accomplished and then create an action plan to achieve their
goals to meet the childs needs. The special educator uses informal and formal
assessments to measure the student needs. Formal assessments, such as the Woodcock

IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 4


Johnson Test of Achievement III, are conducted for initial IEPs and annual reviews. In
order to begin formally testing any child, a parent must sign a document agreeing, and
allowing permission for their son or daughter to be assessed. Once a signature is
obtained, the school may begin testing.
Informal assessments including the Brigance, Scott Foresman (Diagnosing Readiness
in Math), QRI, Running Record, and Miscue Analysis, are administered to progress
monitor IEP goals. These must be completed, scored, and analyzed by the special
educator as soon as possible. The IEP chair requires the PLAAFP and IEP documents to
be submitted weeks prior to the IEP meeting.

Student A
Introduction:
Student A is a vivacious third grade student at Halstead Academy. Her curiosity and
enthusiasm make her one of the most charismatic students at the school. Student As IEP
is classified as OHI (other health impairments) under IDEA 2004. She was born
prematurely and suffered a heart defect, requiring her to immediately endure open-heart
surgery. The cardiologists have done their best to repair the damage, but she will require
multiple operations throughout her lifetime. Unfortunately, the medication she is
currently taking is not working and therefore her heart condition has exacerbated this
year. There is a small leakage in one of the valves in her heart, preventing her to obtain
the proper amount of oxygen to her organs, most importantly, her brain. Due to the lack
of oxygen, Student As organs are unable to function properly. Since she cannot think
clearly with the lack of oxygen, she has many educational needs. Student A has

IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 5


significant needs in the areas or reading, writing, and mathematics. More specifically, she
needs support with grammar, handwriting, listening comprehension, reading
comprehension, reading-fluency, computation, and place value. Her condition also causes
her to struggle focusing, remaining on task, controlling impulses, sitting still, persevering
through challenges, and maintaining friendships. All of these behaviors inadvertently
impede on her educational growth. Student A has so much excess energy that she can
barely tolerate her own skin. The combination of her learning and behavioral needs have
significantly impacted her education but under FAPE, it is the schools responsibility to
take the appropriate actions in order to teach to her strengths in order for her to overcome
her needs. Since Student As disability and needs are so unique, she requires an IEP to
best ensure that she is receiving the most appropriate and effective education.

Student B
Meeting Date: 2/11/2015
Student B is another fifth grade student of ours. He currently resides at Villa Marias,
a specialized living facility, adapted for children and adolescents with severe EBDs,
which impede them from living at home. At the facility, every staff member is specially
trained in dealing with manipulative, violent, and overall sociably unacceptable behavior.
Student Bs biological parents are drug addicts and the Department of Social Services
took him from home and placed him with foster parents at a young age. No one was
capable to provide Student B with the strict, consistent environment, which he needed, so
he was enrolled in Villa Maria. Before Student Became to Halstead, he attended a
Baltimore City Public School, but due to a sexual harassment offense, he was expelled.

IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 6


He was then transferred to Halstead at the end of January, shortly after I began my
internship.
I was fortunate enough to begin my experience as a special educator, observing the
process of mid-year enrollment, and more specifically, for a student with an IEP. Before
Student B even arrived a team was called to review the current IEP and BIP set in place
by the Baltimore City Public School System. The IEP chair, behavior specialist, special
educator, general educator, social worker, adult assistant, assistant principal, and school
nurse attended the meeting. The IEP chair began by introducing us to who Student B had
been documented as. She summarized the behavioral and academic needs listed in the
paperwork. As a team, everyone communicated and collaborated in order decide an
appropriate plan for how to approach the new-incoming student. The meeting was
productive and very collaborative. Everyone in the meeting participated, but the social
worker, IEP chair, and assistant principal did most of the talking. Each decision was
made by asking the team members for their input, whether they had any other suggestions
or they agreed with the presented idea.
The team came to the decision that they would treat each issue as it appeared, but set
several back-up plans just in case Student B proved us wrong. He was assigned an AA to
escort him at all times throughout the school day in order to ensure no inappropriate
behavior took place. Student B was to be assessed by the special educator to acquire
current academic data and determine IEP goals. Student B was also to meet with his
assigned mentor, the school social worker, once a week to discuss his home life situation,
school progress, and peer interactions.
The assistant principal, social worker, and IEP chair had met the student briefly before

IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 7


the team but none of them expressed immediate or significant concern about the
behaviors they observed. Due to this fact, everyone agreed upon allowing him an
opportunity to begin with a clean slate. Everyone agreed that it was in Student Bs best
interest to start his time at Halstead on the right foot, providing him with a chance to
prove himself before serious behavioral interventions were put in place.
That being stated, several discrete, pre-cautionary actions were put into place
immediately, but as far as separate behavior management charts, or any other additional
conditions, he was to be respected like every other Halstead student.

Student C
Meeting Date: 2/10/2015
Student C is a fifth grade student who currently obtains an IEP with autism spectrum
disorder as his classified disability. Student C had taken a leave of absence earlier in the
school year and was put on home and hospital due to several psychological factors
interfering with his education. Some of the factors include anxiety, frustration, emotional
management, and paranoia.
The IEP meeting was held on February 10, 2015 to discuss Student Cs return to
Halstead Academy. The IEP chair, special educator, general educator, school
psychologist, assistant principal, people personnel worker, school nurse, behavior
interventionist, and Student Cs mother were all in attendance. The meeting began with
the IEP chair summarizing Student Cs history and sharing her brief visits with him at
home. The IEP chair then opened the floor for the mother to express where she thought
they should begin. The mother described Student Cs current level of behavioral needs

IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 8


and stated her concerns about his return. The team then collaborated, trying to figure out
the best plan of action to successfully transition him back to the public school setting.
The mother expressed her exhaustion and frustration with the situation and was resistant
to allow him back into the school environment at that point, in fear of exacerbating his
symptoms. With each concern the mother brought up, the special educator and IEP chair
brainstormed solutions together. The staff members then created a plan to service Student
C in the most effective manner as possible, breaking up the schedule into blocks where he
would be provided with one-to-one instruction from the special educator or IEP chair.
The team also decided it was in the childs best interest to assign him a one-to-one adult
assistant to provide him with consistent, individualized, adult support. The team then
came to an agreement on an appropriate transition and educational plan for Student Cs
individualized needs. The team then decided to set several follow up meetings in order to
review the plan and logistics for the structured breaks and anger management strategies,
closer to his date of arrival. Everyone in the team left with a better understanding of the
students current level of behavioral needs. The team was dismissed with the
encouragement to continue brainstorming efficient scheduling possibilities and
behavioral management strategies in order for him to succeed.
Part II
IEP Content: Student A
Student A, along with the majority of the Halstead population, is African American,
has limited respect for personal boundaries, is of low socioeconomic status, and
implements the use of Ebonics in her everyday communication. Student A resides in a
local apartment with her mother and sixth grade sister. Student As father has been absent

IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 9


from her life for the majority of the school year. She is close with her mother but has a
constant desire for attention, love, and acknowledgement, which aggravates her teenage
sister. Student A receives a free breakfast and a reduced priced lunch at school every day.
Her hair is nearly always out of place but she typically wears clean clothes, often rotating
the same several outfits each week.
Student A was originally referred for special services in second grade. Her fleeting
focus, hyper activity, and poor social skills have been a major contributing factor to her
lack of academic success. Student As behavioral needs have been a concern since
kindergarten, but due to the fact that she was not too far from the appropriate
developmental standards, her possibility of executive functioning needs were dismissed
until further interference with academic progress. In second grade, she failed to meet the
overarching academic goals so several supports through RTI were implemented. Student
A was unable to read, had limited phonics proficiency, struggled forming letters and was
unable to produce logical spelling. Student A also experienced difficulty in mathematics.
A special educator tried a multitude of intervention programs, pushing into the classroom
in efforts to reach Student A, but ultimately was unsuccessful which lead to SST. Student
A was supported with an IEP providing accommodations in mathematics, reading, and
behavior.
This year, Student A has displayed an increasing need for her IEP supports due to the
incline in academic and social expectations this year. Currently, she participates in both a
small phonics intervention group and a small guided-reading group consisting of
students, with and without IEPs, experiencing similar academic difficulties. Student A
has shown growth over the year but due to her increasing behavioral needs, she has not

IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 10


made the significant progress the team had hoped for.
Due to this decline in appropriate behavior, I have been implementing a behavior
intervention plan in order to explicitly instruct Student A on social skills in attempt to
strengthen her self-esteem, self-awareness, and self-control. The group consists of several
third grade girls in Student As classroom, varying in intra and interpersonal skills. The
group reviews emotions, management strategies, societal expectations, impulse control,
self-monitoring, social awareness and appropriate behaviors. In order to strengthen peer
relationships, possible conflict scenarios and resolutions are also discussed through roleplay, collaborative group analysis and brain storming communication techniques in order
to prevent or fix a possible future occurrence. The group has been meeting throughout the
quarter, but unfortunately due to several accounts, the intervention group was not
successfully able to meet enough prior to the IEP meeting to gather enough data to prove
whether it was or was not effective. Once the data has been sufficiently collected and
interpreted, the results will be shared with the team. To read more about this positive
behavior intervention plan, please refer to my PBSP tab on my teaching portfolio
(www.megancrowder.weebly.com).
The purpose of this IEP meeting was to perform an annual review in preparation for
fourth grade next year. At the meeting, we outlined Student As academic progress and
then analyzed the barriers, learning and behavioral needs, in order to create the most
efficient individualized plan to reach her unique needs.

IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 11


Student A
PLAAFP:
Student A is an energetic, creative, and vivacious student who is eager to promptly
move forward when presented with a task. On several testing sessions, Student A was
resistant to come with me to complete the informal assessments necessary to measure her
academic levels for the IEP. Despite her reluctance to leave the classroom, once in the
hallway she would inconsistently run or skip to the testing location. Student A displayed
a general negative attitude towards testing and was easily discouraged by the amount of
work put in front of her. Student A persistently tried to manipulate the test examiner, by
trying to negotiate the workload and rewards.
Student A could not complete any of the assessments successfully without me next to
her, prompting and reminding her to stay on task, take her time, and answer the question.
When I asked Student A the questions with exaggerated enthusiasm and occasionally
rewording the questions into kid-friendly terms, Student A showed more of an interest,
making eye contact, and happily re-answering. Each question was asked several times.
She was constantly reminded to listen carefully to all instructions and the given questions
due to her clear lack of focus and irrelevant responses. Student A mainly relied on
background information in order to answer comprehension questions, even when
redirected to explicitly use what was learned from the text.
Student A had a difficult time remaining on task, continuously asking me a variety of
questions ranging from when testing would be over, to when she would receive a break,
to about objects in the environment, to about my personal life.
Student A also displayed a significant amount of difficulty remaining in her seat. A

IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 12


multitude of seating was arranged for Student A to try during assessment. When Student
A worked on the floor she would quickly change positions from laying on her back, to
sitting up, to laying on her stomach and rolling around. A conventional chair was tried
with Student A, but she could not remain on her bottom, using her leg to prop her up, and
often getting out of her seat to move around the room. A swivel chair was tried and she
would rapidly spin in circles, or lean back and interrupt with mechanical questions about
the chair itself. Even a hokey stool was used with Student A. The hokey stool seemed to
be the most effective, allowing her to twist and fidget while remaining seated, but even
then, Student A required a one-minute sensory break in which she was able to play with
sand, after each assessment completed. This positive reinforcement motivated her to try
her best. When I reminded her, on multiple occasions, to listen to the question and stay
on task, she was also reminded about the sand reward. When she was reminded of her
sensory break, she would quickly scurry to answer the question, making eye contact,
sitting tall in her seat, and do her best to answer with an appropriate response.
Student A reads primarily word by word, skipping unfamiliar words and occasionally
substituting unfamiliar words with words beginning with the same first letter. When
Student A was presented with Pre-Primer 1, Pre-Primer 2, and Pre-Primer 3 material, she
was eager to read aloud, quickly beginning as soon as she saw the text material. She is
stronger at reading and comprehending narrative text as opposed to expository texts. Her
listening comprehension skills for narrative texts appear to be stronger than her reading
comprehension. Her independent listening comprehension level is at the kindergarten
level, but her frustrational listening comprehension level is at the 1st grade level, jumping
from 100% accuracy to 33% with just one grade level. When reading the 3rd grade level

IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 13


narrative text aloud, Student A displayed much struggle, taking over 5minutes to read
through 90 words. She was prompted to stop reading to avoid frustration, and could not
answer any of the comprehension questions. When I read the 3rd grade level narrative text
aloud to Student A, she was able to answer 3 out of the 8 comprehension questions
correctly, improving her score but still ranging in her frustrational level. Student As
independent reading fluency and comprehension level for narrative texts is at pre-primer
1. Student A scored in the frustrational level for both categories in the pre-primer 3 level,
but scored in the instructional comprehension level for grade level 1.
Expository texts prove to be the most challenging for Student A, scoring at a
frustrational level in reading fluency, comprehension, and listening comprehension in
grades 3 below Kindergarten level. All reading and listening comprehension questions
were asked multiple times, but Student A mainly relied on background knowledge to
answer the prompts as opposed to the information given in the text. Overall, explicit
questions proved to be the most challenging for Student A.
Student As inconsistent scores are reflective of her temperament and attention at the
given time of testing. When Student A felt motivated, positive, and focused, she was able
to accomplish more. I provided Student A with constant positive reinforcement
throughout testing, encouraging her she was doing a fantastic job, giving high-fives, and
allowing her a one-minute brain break after completing each assessment. When Student
A was presented with the brain-breaks she was able to focus better.
In mathematics, Student A has demonstrated difficulty with multiplication, division
regrouping, comprehending word problems, writing fractions, comparing fractions,
sequencing fractions, place value, doubles facts, mathematic vocabulary, computation,

IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 14


mathematic symbols, identifying types of quadrilaterals and triangles. For diagnosing
mathematics readiness, Student A achieved the instructional level for the middle of 1st
grade. For word problems Student A achieved the independent level for 1st grade, and for
the Brigance testing, she tested in her frustrational level. Student As overall instructional
level is currently in the middle of the 1st grade.
Student A was the most successful with word problems and problems accompanied by
pictures. I had to read each word problem aloud, with enthusiasm and a range of
inflection. I also pretended to be asking Student A the questions as if she were on a talk
show, referring to her as Miss followed by her first name. We each used microphones
to simulate a creative and engaging purpose for learning and participating. Student A
relied on using her fingers and making drawings in order to solve the problems. I changed
some of the names in the word problems to people she knows, as well as created cartoon
characters to represent each person in order to engage and sustain her attention. Student
A was extremely responsive to this technique, calming her fidgeting, taking the pencil
and working out calculations on the paper diligently. Even though Student A was
focused, she was unable to answer most of the second and third grade level questions
correctly due to misinterpreting the question.
Student A is eager to move and easily distracted, interrupting herself repeatedly. She
also has difficulty holding the pencil. All these factors make writing very difficult for
Student A. Her writing connects to the prompt but does not fully answer the question.
Her writing lacks focus, organization, supporting details. The sentences she writes are
short, simple and follow a similar structure. When writing she misspells words, omits
proper use of punctuation, capitalization and grammar. Because of Student As apparent

IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 15


struggle to get her idea down on paper, Student A was provided a scribe where she was
instructed to respond to the prompt orally. Student As score increased from 21% to 36%,
but still lacks significant supporting details, organization, and a variety of sentence
structure.

Part III:
Reflection
(Student A IEP Meeting & My Personal Growth)
The IEP meeting was scheduled one week in advanced and the IEP notice, including
all relevant information, was sent home two weeks prior to the meeting. All timelines for
evaluation, eligibility, and IEP development were followed. A copy of the procedural
safeguards was shared with the parent at the end of the meeting while other team
members were signing the IEP document. The IEP chair also printed out the completed
IEP document directly after the meeting and placed it in a large manila envelope for the
parent to take home.
The meeting was held in the IEP team room located in the main office. The door to the
team room is perpendicular to the main office door so the parents have to walk past first
in order to sign in with the raptor system. The mother walked in to the front desk to sign
in and the secretary pointed her in the direction of the room. Because the mother was
running late, all team members were present and prepared when she arrived. There were
four of us in the room, waiting for the parent; the IEP chair, special educator, general
educator, and I. The IEP chair was at the head of the table, covered beneath piles of
paperwork, computer wires, and snacks. The general educator and the mother sat side by

IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 16


side and the special educator and I sat across from the two of them.
All attendees of the meeting were appropriate team members. The people personnel
worker and Student As father were not present at the meeting, but the team agreed their
presence was not mandatory. The school nurse and school psychologist were not called to
the meeting because the team felt as if any additional members were unnecessary at this
time. I however, would have had the school nurse and school psychologist attend the
meeting to discuss the possibility of ADHD, since that is where the general and special
educator were leading. The psychologist would have been able to explain the diagnosis
and ensure her that medication is not the only form of treatment. I would have also had
the school nurse be present to discuss the medication and briefly answer any of the
mothers questions. I would still have recommended her to speak with her daughters
doctor, but I believe by having the professionals readily available to more adequately
answer any questions would have helped ease parental anxiety.
Student As mother was running late. The team waited 5 minutes and then called
home to ensure she still intended to be present. Each member of the team briefly
explained his or her concerns for Student A, taking turns in effort to communicate in a
collaborative manner. The mother arrived 10 minutes past the scheduled time, but all
members of the team were relaxed and patient. The mother began to get nervous once
Student As hyper activity and inattentiveness became topic of conversation. She tensed
her body, raised her shoulders, and leaned closer to the table. Most of the mothers
communication was nonverbal simply smiling and nodding in agreement, but this was
turning point where she began to verbalize her opinions about the matter. The mother was
defensive about her childs needs, and opposed to any additional medications due to her

IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 17


childs current health condition. Regardless of her disagreement, she remained composed
and pleasant while presenting her beliefs. The agenda for the meeting was followed,
everyone agreed with the accommodations put in place and the mother agreed to mention
Student As hyperactivity to the doctor.
I administered, scored, and analyzed all assessments in order to successfully monitor
Student As progress. Because I was the one assessing, I was the educator who had the
most recent insight into Student As current academic and behavioral achievement. Due
to this fact, I wrote the PLAAFP and then co-wrote the IEP with my mentor teacher.
During the meeting, the general educator briefly stated her main concerns with Student
A. Then, the special educator briefly reviewed the results of testing while scrolling
through the overwhelming IEP document projected on the screen. The IEP chair
summarized the results and prompted questions once the special educator was finished
presenting. The mother did not have any questions or comments related to the results, but
did speak once asked specific questions. As a team, Student As interests were
documented and the decisions about ESY were made.
The team room is small, cluttered, and crammed. A large oval table centered in the
room takes up the majority of the room. Mismatching chairs are scattered along the
perimeter of the table and for larger meetings, chairs need to be borrowed from the
assistant principals room, but there is hardly any place to put them other than behind the
chairs already in place.
As a special educator, one of the first tasks I would undertake with the IEP process,
after building rapport with families and students, is reorganize the team room. This is a
collaborative space so it is imperative that is presents as a welcoming, positive

IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 18


environment. If I needed bookshelves, I would buy curtain rods and hang tasteful, fun
fabric to cover the clutter. I would also rethink the size of the chairs. Because they are so
wide, it makes it difficult to hold large team meetings. I also feel as though if all
members are not sitting in the circle, some may feel left out, or inferior to the others. An
IEP team is called a team for a reason so it is imperative that everyone feels of equal
value and a positive, risk-free environment is established. I would also hide any other
clutter in the room by using attractive storage pieces. I would also love to paint the room
a more inviting, soothing color than stark white, but that of course would be the
principals decision. Regardless, I would be sure to decorate the room in a cheerful
manner, using childrens artwork, inspirational quotes, and a giant white board. I would
use the white board to establish goals collaboratively.
I would start the meeting the same way, but after having the parent dictate their
concerns, I would assist them in determining a goal for the meeting. I would then write
the goal either on a whiteboard, or somewhere projected in the room so that all team
members could see it. I would prefer a whiteboard because it is more inviting for other
team members to interact, allowing for more opportunities for participation. If there are
any other additional concerns that I need discussed, I will discuss them with the team and
then write another objective below it, almost like a checklist but created by the team and
for everyone to view.
All documents should be sent home prior to the meeting to allow parents a time to
process and schedule a meeting with any of the team members to discuss any concerns.
All results should be communicated with all team members prior to the IEP meeting. This
is often called a pre-team, where the team staff members meet before the team, preferably

IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 19


before the results are shared with the parents. I would do this because then once the
parent receives the information they may call to discuss the results and their concerns. By
holding a pre-team prior to the letter being sent home allows time for the entire team to
be prepared for any discussion that may arise. The purpose of a team is to create a plan of
action, not argue a childs needs. Many people do not understand this very fact. If a
parent has concerns, as the IEP chair, I would be their liaison in addressing them. I would
encourage parents to contact me directly at any time. I would also ensure them the
possibility in scheduling a meeting with any of the team members directly. They will
always be able to go through me first, but in reality they should feel comfortable enough
to reach out to the necessary members individually in order to address specific questions.
Many parents forget that their childs education is really in their hands, not the schools.
If a parent is unhappy or has brainstormed possible ideas, it is ultimately up to the parent
to take charge and advocate for their childs needs. It is then in return the teams
responsibility to respectfully and collaboratively contribute to discussion. At the end of
the day, the entire team is created with the same goal in mind: to help the student
succeed. Since everyone is working towards the same goal, it only makes sense that
everyone works cohesively. There should not be any tension amongst the members. It
should not feel as though blame is being thrown around because that is the reason why
teams are ineffective. Blame distracts from the purpose of the meetings. Pointing blame
contributes nothing to accomplish the goal of team. It simply wastes time, energy, and
relationships. All members must have faith and trust in each other. If it seems as though
one individual is slacking, it is everybodys responsibility as members of the team to pick
up the weight in order to accomplish the goal. It is difficult to change others; the two

IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 20


things you do have control over, however, are your attitude, and the environment in
which you create. If you build a friendly, welcoming meeting area it sets the tone right
from the beginning. I would also use a tablecloth or table runner. I would have a bowl of
assorted candies at the center of the table. I would keep a box of tissues in sight but not
on the table. I would fear that if the parents saw the tissues they may feel as though they
should have a reason to be upset, or that I am anticipating for them to act a certain way. I
would however keep them within my reach incase the parents do get emotional during
team. I would also be sure to have all staff team members ready and seated in the main
office to greet the parents. When the parent arrives I would encourage everyone to stand
up and greet them with genuine smiles. I would be sure to be the first to greet them and
assist them with signing in. Then I would have the team walk into the meeting room
together, allowing time for small talk to hopefully break the ice and subliminally build
rapport. I would also have the parents walk into the meeting room first to allow them a
choice of where they would like to sit which will make them feel in control, as well as a
valued and respected team member. Once everyone is seated, I would have everyone go
around to introduce, or re-introduce, themselves beginning our session on a positive note.
The way the American education system is currently set up, the team is correct in the
sense that success rates with untreated ADHD are very low. In order to succeed in public
education, one must be able to sit still for up to 7 hours, obey rules, listen for directions,
contain excitement, be quiet, and remain on task. This form of establishment is
completely backwards; it is unattainable for a child, especially a hyperactive student. But
learning shouldnt be judged on your ability to sit still, it should be judged on your ability
to learn, meaning your ability to prove your knowledge. The major shift in the curriculum

IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 21


has created a major dispute, but in reality, it is the way the education system should have
been running forever. Howard Gardner proved that there are eight different forms of
intelligences: verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, bodilykinesthetic, visual-spatial, musical, and naturalistic. So if that is true, why is the
foundation of success based upon just two of those? In order to be college and career
ready, you must obtain the skills to succeed in todays world. This includes the basics of
reading, writing, math, history, science, but it also requires the use of technology. The
education system today is set in such a way to have students learn how to think, as
opposed to what to think. Education today is not about remembering facts; its about
analyzing problems and creating solutions. Its critical thinking, problem solving,
checking for precision, perseverance, providing justification for your arguments, repeated
reasoning, reasoning abstractly, looking for and making use of structure, and using
appropriate tools. These factors all just so happen to be the eight math principles of the
common core and these keys to effective problem solving may be applied to any situation
in life.
The new education philosophy encourages the youth to be productive, to be critical,
to be pro-active, to be creative, to analyze the world and create the best possible solution
in order to achieve self-actualization for all. If we raise children who are innovators,
critical thinkers, problem-solvers, the future has hope. The United States will be able to
remain a super power, we will be able to remain globally competitive, and we will be
able to break through the barriers set by society. The common core is about going beyond
the expectations and exploring outside the limits. Curiosity and enthusiasm are the key
components to succeeding in life, to living a fulfilled, holistic lifestyle in which you are

IEP CASE STUDY Crowder 22


able to find happiness, or according to Abraham Maslow, self-actualization. These are the
skills that are being taught in the school system because these are the areas to lead the
children in creating their own success. Student A has the curiosity and enthusiasm it takes
to live a successful and self-actualized life, but it is the schools responsibility to be
flexible in adjusting to her academic needs so she is able to demonstrate her knowledge.
These foundations are the very reason in which Universal Design for Learning and
Individualized Education Plans are crucial in student success. Every child can learn, but
it is our responsibility to teach in such a way that they are able to understand.