IEP Observation Reflection

Tuesday, April 6, 2021

1. Name of the observed meeting?

--------- Eligibility Meeting

2. What was the purpose of the meeting?

The purpose of the meeting was to look at data collected by professionals on the
IEP team to determine if the said student was still eligible for receiving special education
services.

3. Who was present at the meeting? Was the student involved in the process?
The meeting consisted of the student’s mother, the classroom teacher, the
special education teacher, an occupational therapist, a speech pathologist, the assistant
director of special services, the case manager, and the school psychologist. The
meeting was on Zoom, and the mother was in the home at the time of the meeting. The
student was present and could hear what was being said, but he wasn’t involved in the
meeting. The student’s father was invited to the meeting, but he did not attend.

4. Who led the meeting and what was the agenda?

The meeting was originally supposed to be led by the speech pathologist, but
when her technology was not working, the Assistant Director of special services took
over and led the meeting. The meeting started with asking the mother if she had any
concerns or questions to begin with. She voiced them, and they were addressed in later
conversations. The meeting then shifted to the student’s classroom progress. My
mentor talked about how the student is doing in math, reading, and writing. I was also
involved in this process and explained some of my observations.
Then the speech pathologist shared results of her testing and how the student is
progressing with speech and language. The school psychologist then presented data
about the psychological evaluation that was done on the student. The occupational
therapist went next and discussed the results of some of her testing and the areas the
student needs to improve in.
Lastly, the group talked about the student’s eligibility based on the data
presented by each professional. Together we began to fill out an “adverse effects on
education” form. Once this form was filled out, the team made a verdict on whether or
not to continue the IEP and special services for this student.

5. Describe what you observed during the meeting.

One thing I observed during the meeting was that there seemed to be a lot of
discrepancies between the students' home behavior and progress, and what his
behavior and progress is in school. The mother described behaviors of defiance and
aggression that neither my mentor teacher or I have ever seen in the classroom.
Because of this, the mother was hoping for additional services, but that was not
possible due to the fact that the concerning behavior and lack of progress was not seen
at school or while testing. The team determined that the progress he is making in school
academically has probably not generalized to all aspects of his life. This means that he
does well in the school setting but his knowledge and progress hasn’t transferred to his
home life. This seemed to be especially true with the student’s speech and language
development.
Along this same line, it was also explained that it is possible that the student has
compartmentalized his behaviors at school and home. The case manager explained
that it is common with students, especially with autism, that they follow rules and
expectations at school, but unravel when they get home and begin to exhibit concerning
behaviors. This can come from the student’s comfort level with the home environment. I
also observed the testing results from the occupational therapist and discovered that my
student’s motor coordination is much lower than I had realized. The occupational
therapist explained that there are dimples on the student’s hand which is a sign of
physical weakness in the hand.
I also observed that much of the data was from December, which was three
months ago. The survey from the school psychologist was done in December and tests
done with the occupational therapist were done in December as well. The student’s
mother also did not give a direct answer to say she agreed with discharging her student
from special services even though the Special Services Assistant Director said that she
needed to give that consent.
Lastly, I observed the process of determining eligibility on the adverse effects
form. I had never seen this before and discovered that to be eligible for services, the
student’s impairment must show an adverse effect on education. The special services
assistant director took the lead on this activity and expressed her thoughts and asked if
the team was in agreement before filling it out. I observed that each time she asked only
about half of the team spoke up in agreement, and the student’s mother spoke up about
two times out of the five times that the team was asked.

6. What was the classroom teacher expected to contribute? By way of discussion? By

way of student work samples?
The classroom teacher was expected to provide Star 360 data which included
math and reading scores from tests that were given to the student throughout the year.
The teacher also provided classroom observations of the student based on behavior
and academic achievement. She was asked to share these at the beginning of the
meeting to get everyone on the same page before they continued to look at other
observations and test outcomes done by outside professionals.
As each professional presernted their data, they asked the the classroom teacher
how the student was doing in that particular area in school. This was important
considering the student is in the classroom fullt time and doesn’t receive any pull-oit
services. These observations and discussions revealed if the student’s difficulties had
any adverse effects on education. This is what would determine eligibility.
The teacher had also been previously asked to fill out a survey about the
student’s behavior in the classroom which was collected by the school psychologist
earlier in the year. This was used to determine his behavior differences in school and in
the home.

7. What did other participants contribute?

 The other participants contributed test results and professional opinions based
on the student’s progress. The speech pathologist shared the student’s speech and
language test results and progress. She also explained that the student fell into the
median range in his age level for his speech and language.
The school psychologist provided results of a survey done by the mother and the
classroom teacher. She explained the vast differences between the two which then
brought on a discussion from the case manager. The case manager provided insights to
the behavior differences and her experiences with other children with autism.
The occupational therapist shared some motor coordination tests and some
vision tests. She explained that the student’s motor coordination is very low and that it
was hard for him to focus on small details in images. She also shared some samples of
his handwriting on two separate occasions which revealed that when the thinking
process and his handwriting are combined, that’s when he begins to have difficulty
writing fluently.
The mother of the student was there to advocate for her son. She described his
behavior and actions at home that differed from the test results and classroom
observations. She also voiced her concerns about the student’s rhyming and ability to
use words correctly in conversations at home.

8. What was done to make all participants comfortable with the meeting and the
process? As an observer, do you have suggestions or recommendations you might
make in this regard?
One thing that was done to make participants comfortable was that introductions
were made by each person. They stated their name and their title. This helped me
figure out who the participants were and helped me understand what types of data they
were sharing.
To me it seemed that the meeting was fairly robotic and just went through the
motions. There was not a lot of conversation about the student which I felt would’ve
made the process more comfortable and would’ve allowed participants to feel more
comfortable. Along with this, it seemed as though participants were there to just present
their data and were done. I think there could’ve been more collaboration amongst the
participants.
I also felt that the mother looked upset by the outcome of the meeting and by the
types of testing that were done. I think the special services assistant director should’ve
recognized this and supported the mother in any way possible or offered to meet with
her at another time to discuss options.
Another thing that may have been helpful would’ve been to have the title of each
person next to their name on Zoom. This would’ve helped me understand who was
talking and what data they were presenting on. I ended up figuring it out, but this might
have helped those in the meeting who don’t really have contact with one another.

9. What kind of preparation will you do as a teacher to be ready to be an active

participant in similar kinds of meetings?
One thing I would do is keep running records of student progress, test scores,
academic achievement, and observations. I think these tools would be helpful for me to
bring to the conversation at an IEP meeting. I also think it would be important to review
this information and reflect on it prior to the meeting. This way, I would be able to be an
active participant and make meaningful contributions to the conversation. Another thing
I would definitely do is become familiar with the student’s IEP and the goals in it. I think
this is important because then I know what to observe and measure leading up to the
meeting.

10. How did the meeting conclude? What will be done as follow up?
The meeting concluded with a final verdict on the student’s eligibility for special
services. The student was deemed ineligible for services because no adverse effects on
his education were found. The student made great progress in speech and his behavior
does not impact his education in the classroom. This meant the student would be
discharged from special services, but his mom was still concerned about his mobility
and fine motor skills. This would be addressed in occupational therapy, but because
occupational therapy is a related service, not a special service, the student wouldn’t
receive any more assistance. The special services assistant director explained to the
mother that a 504 plan could be put into place and made a plan to follow up with the
mother with paperwork for it.

11. What questions, ideas, or thoughts did this observation raise? How will you follow up
on what you learned or what you might need to learn?
Now that I have seen how students are found to be ineligible, I’m curious about
what happens when a student is found eligible. Is there a change in IEP goals? And if
so, how is that process carried out. I’d also like to know how a 504 plan is created and if
there is classroom teacher involvement in that team as well. I plan to talk to my mentor
teacher about this and ask what experiences she has had with a 504 plan.
After the meeting, I talked to my student about the meeting. I asked him how he
felt about the meetings because he was there, but not participating. He said the
meetings were weird and that they made him uncomfortable because he was listening
to people talk about him. This makes me wonder if the student should be more or less
involved with meetings like this.
Lastly, I thought it was really upsetting that the mother seemed to want more
occupational therapy services, but couldn’t receive them because occupational therapy
is a related service and not a special service. I feel for this parent and can’t imagine how
frustrated that must feel, especially because he is already comfortable with the school’s
occupational therapist. I think it would be in the student’s best interest to continue
working with her, but it doesn’t seem possible due to his progress with his speech and
language.