Judd Bleser

IEP Case Study

Part I: IEP Process
Since Sollers Point Technical High School is not a comprehensive high school, the IEP
process is unique. Since every student at Sollers Point has a home school where they take their
core classes, IEP meetings are typically held at that home school. In terms of documentation, all
official documentation goes through the home school. For this reason, Sollers Point keeps its
own files for each student.
The role of the Special Education chair at Sollers Point demands flexibility and
dedication. For students who are failing their classes at Sollers Point, the Special Education
chair has to travel to the home school for IEP meetings. For students who arent failing their
classes at Sollers Point, the Special Education chair will keep in contact with the home school.
The one exception to this rule is that students who are co-enrolled at Dundalk High School will
have the benefit of having the Sollers Point Special Education chair at the meetings, since the
two schools are connected. Additionally, the Special Education chair at Sollers Point is the
primary case manager for all students who use accommodations there.
Since Sollers Point is physically connected to Dundalk High School, I had the benefit of
going to IEP meetings for a couple of our students that are co-enrolled between Sollers Point and
Dundalk. The first IEP team that I went to was to review a Funtional Behavior Assessment and
implement a Behavior Intervention Plan, which I had the opportunity to co-write. Overall, I
thought that the meeting went well. The communication between the parent and the team
members was cordial but direct. Since the meeting was to review an FBA and implement a BIP,
1

I came into the meeting expecting a little tension between the parent and the team members.
However, the parent was supportive of the steps taken and made it clear that she is on board with
changing her sons behaviors. Since I teach this student in my Study Skills class at Sollers Point,
I was able to add some of my own input to the meeting. The only part of the meeting that I
thought could have been better was the students participation. While I know its not easy to sit
through an IEP meeting about your own concerning behaviors, it would have been nice for the
student to seem more interested. However, I can understand why the student may have felt
intimidated at the meeting.
The second IEP meeting that I attended was for an annual review of another student that
is co-enrolled between Sollers Point and Dundalk. This is another student that I teach, so I was
once again able to meaningfully contribute to the meeting. Overall, I thought that the meeting
went fairly well. Although the student was not in attendance, his mother was there, and she
seemed to be a strong advocate for her childs education. Most of the meeting consisted of going
over the students grades for each of his classes and walking the parent through the updated IEP.
Upon reviewing his grades, it was evident that he struggled mightily in the most recent marking
period. However, his mother notified the team that he had been going through a lot of personal
turmoil, including the passing of his grandmother a month ago. The team did a good job
sympathizing for the parent, but also reminded her that this upcoming quarter is a make-or-break
situation for many of her sons classes. The meeting ended on a positive note, with the mother
ensuring us that she is going to monitor her sons homework by signing a daily homework sheet
that the student will take home.
Overall, I was encouraged by both meetings. I felt that they were promising because I
got a good look at what a successful and efficient IEP meeting looks like. I also saw a nice
2

balance between being respectful of the parents wishes while also doing what the school thinks
is best for the student.
Upon reviewing these two meetings with my teacher, it was evident that, while the first
meeting was in compliance, the second meeting had some compliance issues. First, in the
second meeting, there was no signature for the transition document. Second, there were some
issues with the case manager and his actions during the meeting. I didnt like how the case
manager wrote the goals in relation to the students grades. For example, the case manager
spoke about having 60% mastery on each of the goals because 60% is passing. However, goals
should not be related to grades. Additionally, the case manager generally did not seem to know
the student very well. Third, neither the student nor the transition facilitator was invited. Lastly,
the Special Education chair, who was taking place of the IEP chair that day, made no comment
about parental rights and also didnt take any notes during the entirety of the meeting. While it
was a little unsettling to see so many compliance issues in the second IEP meeting, it was helpful
to see what not to do in an IEP meeting.
Part II: IEP Content
This student first received special education services in June of 2010, under the code of
Other Health Impairments. This students disability impacts his abilities in Math, Reading, and
Behavior. The reason for referral for the IEP meeting was to review the Functional Behavior
Assessment and implement the Behavior Intervention Plan. The pre-referral strategies included
observations during instruction and conversations with the students parents, and conversations
with the students teachers in order to conduct the FBA and complete the BIP.

After going through my students cumulative files, speaking with his mother and some of
his general education teachers, and informally observing him during instruction, I found out that
he has a unique past. My student had extensive psychological evaluations throughout his
elementary school years. One test indicated that he was originally coded as emotionally
disturbed, but his behavior improved and he had that coding lifted. Another evaluation described
this student as an extreme rule-breaker with high probability of psychopathic features. While I
found some of this information to be alarming at first, I also discovered that this student
underwent several traumatic experiences that may have contributed to these findings. For
example, at one point during his childhood, he was forced into a closet with his mother while his
house was robbed. Additionally, he experienced the sudden loss of his grandmother, whom he
was very close with. Lastly, this students father was not very involved in his sons life from an
early age, which may have contributed to the students defiance toward male authority figures.
In terms of academic achievement, this student is capable. While he scored basic in reading
and math, my informal observations of him in class as well as statements from his teachers tell
me that he is capable of getting good grades. My observations have also shown me that, despite
attempting to be a class clown from time to time, I see classroom leadership capabilities in this
student.

PLAAFP:

Goals:

10

Services:

11

Part III: Reflection

Two weeks prior to the IEP meeting, a parent notification form was sent to remind the
parent where, when, and why the meeting is taking place. All of the appropriate team members
were invited to the meeting. They were as follows: the IEP chair, a special educator, a general
educator, the student, both parents, and the transition facilitator. All of the timelines for
evaluation, eligibility, and IEP development were followed. A copy of the procedural safeguards
was indeed shared with the family before the meeting and confirmed at the meeting. While all of
the staff members were ready to start the meeting on time, it started about ten minutes late
because the parent was having trouble getting to the school. The meeting was held in a
designated IEP conference room, away from any other distractions. The team members were all
sitting around a rectangular table, with the IEP chair at the head of the table so that she could
scroll through the IEP on the projector as well as lead the discussion. The agenda was followed
and the meeting itself went rather smoothly. Overall, I felt that the meeting had a strong sense of
collaboration. The parentand even the studentbought into the BIP and acknowledged that
the student has some behaviors that need to be addressed. The parent was supportive of all of the
teams decisions, as she had trust in them. I later learned that it took a while to loosen this parent
up and help her understand that everyone is on the same team, but as far as I could tell, she was
supportive of the decisions.
I felt that my role could have been stronger, but I really wanted to be able to soak in all of
the information and take sufficient notes. While this wasnt my first ever IEP meeting, it was the
first one in which I knew I would have an active role, so it was a new experience for me. I spent
most of the meeting taking notes and mainly chimed in when I was asked for my opinion, since I
teach this student. When I did chime in, I made sure to keep it positive. Since it was recognized
12

that this student has leadership capabilities, I made sure to reiterate that sentiment and remind the
student that he has serious leadership potential. I also spoke about parts of the BIP, since I cowrote it with my mentor teacher. Overall, I was pretty happy with my role. Next time, I will
probably be a little bit more of an active participant, but for my first big IEP meeting, I thought
that it went well.

13