Early Childhood Education/Special Education (ECSE) Program – Undergraduate

Assessment #2

IEP Case Study (IEP) Directions

1
Outcomes: Candidates will demonstrate an understanding of the individualized decision-making process through the initiation of the
IEP process, collaborative planning with individuals with exceptionalities, families, professional colleagues, and personnel from other
agencies as appropriate, in order to develop an IEP document.

CEC/InTASC/NAEYC Standards Addressed: This activity is designed to assess the following CEC/InTASC/NAEYC standards:

CEC Preparation Standards
A. Learners and Learning
1. Learner Development and
Individual Learning Differences
2. Learning Environments
B. Content
3. Curricular Content Knowledge
C. Instructional Pedagogy
4. Assessment
5. Instructional Planning and
Strategies
D. Professionalism and Collaboration
6. Professional Learning and Ethical 6. Professional Learning & Ethical
Practice
7. Collaboration
CEC Specialty: ECSE
1. Learner Development &
Individual Learning Differences
3. Curricular Content Knowledge
2. Learning Environments
4. Assessment
5. Instructional Planning &
Strategies
Practice
7. Collaboration
InTASC Teacher Standards
1. Learner Development
2. Learning Differences
3. Learning Environments
4. Content Knowledge
5. Applications of Content
6. Assessment
7. Planning for Instruction
8. Instructional Strategies
9. Professional Learning and
Ethical Practice
10. Leadership and
Collaboration
NAEYC Standards
1. Relationships
3. Teaching
2. Curriculum
4. Assessment of Child
Progress
6. Staff Competencies,
Preparation & Support
7. Families
8. Community Relationships
10. Leadership & Management

*Primary Focus – Standards: CEC 1, 3, 6, 7 / ECSE 1 – 7 / InTASC 1, 2, 4, 9, 10 / NAEYC 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10

Candidate Directions for the Completion of the IEP Case Study

 Early Childhood Education/Special Education (ECSE) Program – Undergraduate
Assessment #2

IEP Case Study (IEP) Directions

2
The IEP Case Study is a project that is required for all undergraduate teacher candidates enrolled in the Department of Special
Education’s single certification special education major and dual certification special education majors, as well as the initial
certification teacher candidates enrolled in the Department of Special Education’s graduate programs. Each candidate, in
collaboration with the mentor teacher, must select a student who is scheduled for an annual IEP review and complete the requirements
below. Candidates should use these directions in conjunction with the rubric to complete the project, planning in advance to ensure
that they are actively involved in planning and developing the IEP, and taking an active role during the team meeting.

Part I: Student Background

The candidate employs the guidance of the mentor teacher in order to discuss and summarize the individual learning and
behavioral needs of the student selected for the case study, as related to his/her disability and need for special education and
related services. In order to prepare a detailed profile of the student for whom an IEP will be developed, the candidate will:
 conduct at least two informal observations of the student;
 review pertinent student files;
 obtain information by interviewing the mentor teacher, other key service providers, and family members to gain
information about the student’s needs.

The student profile that the candidate develops must include:

 reason for referral;
 any pre-referral strategies used;
 timeline of the process (date and basis for eligibility determination/);
 category of disability;
 date special education and related services were implemented and types of services provided;
 a summary of relevant family and medical history;
 a summary of the student’s learning and behavioral characteristics;
 a summary including language, cultural and family background; and
 a summary of other relevant factors that influence the learning and needs of the individual with exceptionalities.
 Early Childhood Education/Special Education (ECSE) Program – Undergraduate
Assessment #2

IEP Case Study (IEP) Directions

3
Part II: IEP Process.
After interviewing and reviewing pertinent notification documents with the IEP chairperson and the mentor teacher, the
candidate will provide a detailed description of the IEP process at the school. This description must address
 scheduling procedures of the IEP team process;
 the roles of the special educator and other team members in this process;
 collaboration with parents/guardians prior to the annual review team meeting;
 preparation and responsibilities of team members in preparing for the annual review; and;
 how the IEP team process at the school aligns with IDEA, laws, policies and ethical principles.

Part III: IEP Content

Working with the guidance of the mentor teacher, the candidate is responsible for writing the IEP. Each section must contain
the following:
A. Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance
 grade level standards;
 information related to the student’s strengths and needs;
 family input;
 language that is understandable to parents or family members; and
 impact of the exceptionality on the learning and needs of the individual with exceptionalities.

B. Instructional and Testing Accommodations

 justify the selections of accommodations; and
 clarify how each accommodation will be implemented to enable the student to access instruction and
assessment.

C. IEP Goals and Objectives

 be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant to the needs of the student, and time-bound);
 incorporate the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL);
 Early Childhood Education/Special Education (ECSE) Program – Undergraduate
Assessment #2

IEP Case Study (IEP) Directions

4
 align with the grade level Maryland College and Career Ready Standards (MCCRS);
 align with the assessment data; and
 include present levels statements from the PLAAFP.

D. Supplementary Aids and Services, Program Modifications, and Supports

The candidate clearly describes the circumstances and manner in which supplementary aids and services, program
modifications, and supports will be provided to enable the student with exceptionalities to access general and
specialized curricula.
 supplementary aids and services;
 program modifications; and
 supports which are clearly aligned to the student’s needs and impact of the exceptionality, as outlined in the
PLAAFP.

*Each section of the IEP will be evaluated for its adherence to IDEA and alignment to the Maryland College and Career
Ready Standards (MCCRS). Specific requirements for each section are contained in the scoring rubric; please review this
information carefully.

In advance of the IEP meeting, the candidate will discuss with the mentor teacher his or her active role during the meeting. The
candidate must submit a copy of the completed IEP according to directions provided by the supervisor.

Part IV: Reflection

Generate a narrative that outlines your preparation for and participation in the student’s annual review. In addition, summarize
the events that occurred during the meeting, including the decisions that were made and the involvement of team members.
Your summary must address the following:

 the extent to which required procedures were followed in accordance with IDEA (i.e. related to prior written notice, procedural
safeguards, timelines, and IEP development);
 the decision-making process;
 Early Childhood Education/Special Education (ECSE) Program – Undergraduate
Assessment #2

IEP Case Study (IEP) Directions

5
 decisions that were made;
 collaborative practices with families, other educators, related service providers, individuals with exceptionalities in culturally
responsive ways to address the needs of individuals with exceptionalities; and
 a critique of the candidate’s role in the process
(maximum of 2 pages).
 Early Childhood Education/Special Education (ECSE) Program – Undergraduate
Assessment #2

IEP Case Study (IEP) Directions

6
Towson University
College of Education
Department of Special Education
Student Case Study and IEP Development Project Rubric

This rubric outlines both the processes that the candidate must perform in order to demonstrate mastery of CEC standards and elements, as well as
specific program expectations for the candidate to successfully complete the assignment.

Candidate: Refer to the attached instruction sheet for a specific explanation of requirements for this assessment. Responses to components and requirements
should be completed in narrative format.

Candidate: _______________________________________ Date: ____________________________________

3 points 2 points 1 point Candidate’s

Components and Requirements Proficient Developing Unsatisfactory Score
I. Student Background The candidate The candidate The candidate develops
The candidate reviews student records, obtains develops a written develops a written a written summary of
information from team and family members, and summary of the summary of the the student’s
conducts informal observations to provide background student’s student’s background, background, which does
information about the case study student. The candidate background, which which addresses some not include all required
includes the following information: addresses all of the of the components information and does
 the reason for the referral; components listed, listed, but only not discuss how these
 any pre-referral strategies; and discusses how discusses how these factors influence the
 timeline for identification; these factors identified factors learning and needs of
 category of the disability; influence the influence the the individual with
 dates and types of services; learning and needs learning and needs of exceptionalities.
 relevant family and medical history; of the the
 learning characteristics; individual with individual with
exceptionalities. exceptionalities.
 language, culture and family
background; and
 other relevant factors that influence the
learning and needs of the individual
with exceptionalities.

Revised 4 – 19 – 2018 pg. 6

 Early Childhood Education/Special Education (ECSE) Program – Undergraduate
Assessment #2

IEP Case Study (IEP) Directions

7
3 points 2 points 1 point Candidate’s
Components and Requirements Proficient Developing Unsatisfactory Score
CEC 1 (1.1) - IGC.1.K1-12, IGC.1.S1
ECSE.1.K3, 1.K8, 2.K1, 7.S6
InTASC 1,2
NAEYC 4, 7
II. IEP Process The candidate The candidate The candidate develops
The candidate interviews special education develops a written develops a written a written summary of
professionals, other educators and related service summary of the IEP summary of the IEP the IEP process and
providers, reviews pertinent documents and creates a process and process and preparation for the
description of the IEP process used at the case study preparation for the preparation for the annual review, which
school, including: annual review, which annual review, which does not include all
 scheduling procedures; addresses all of the addresses some of the required components
 collaboration with parents/guardians prior to components listed, components listed, but listed, and does not
the annual review team meeting; and discusses how uses only those discuss how this
 preparation and responsibilities of team this process aligns identified components process aligns with
members in the annual review; and with the IDEA, to discuss how this IDEA, laws and ethical
 discussion of how this process aligns with the laws, policies and process aligns with principles.
IDEA, laws, policies and ethical principles. ethical principles. IDEA, laws and
ethical principles.
CEC 6 (6.1, 6.2) - IGC.6.K1,4,5,6,8,9,10, IGC.6.S2
InTASC 1, 2
ECSE 4.K1, 4.K2, 4.S6, 6.S7, 6.K3
NAEYC 6, 7
III. A. Present Levels of Academic Achievement and The candidate The candidate The candidate develops
Performance (PLAAFP) develops a written develops a written a written summary of
The candidate writes each PLAAFP statement which summary of the summary of the the student’s PLAAFP,
contains a narrative of current assessment data from student’s PLAAFP, student’s PLAAFP, which does not include
multiple assessment sources and reflects the student’s which addresses all which addresses some all required information
current performance in relation to: of the components of the components and does not discuss
 grade level standards; listed, and discusses listed but uses only how these factors
 information related to the student’s strengths how these factors those identified influence the learning
and needs; influence the components to discuss and needs of the
 family input; how these factors

Revised 4 – 19 – 2018 pg. 7

 Early Childhood Education/Special Education (ECSE) Program – Undergraduate
Assessment #2

IEP Case Study (IEP) Directions

8
3 points 2 points 1 point Candidate’s
Components and Requirements Proficient Developing Unsatisfactory Score
 language that is understandable to parents or learning and needs influence the individual with
family members; and of the learning and needs of exceptionalities.
 impact of the exceptionality on the learning individual with the
and needs of the individual with exceptionalities. individual with
exceptionalities. exceptionalities.

CEC 1 (1.2) - IGC.1.K2,4,9,10,12

ECSE 4.K1, 4.K4, 4.S6, S7
InTASC 1, 2
NAEYC 3, 4, 7
III. B. Instructional and Testing Accommodations The candidate selects The candidate selects The candidate selects
The candidate selects instructional and testing and justifies the and justifies the and justifies the
accommodations in the IEP, which are accompanied by selection of selection of selection of instructional
clarifying statements that: instructional and instructional and and testing
 justify the selections of accommodations; and testing testing accommodations that
 clarify how each accommodation will be accommodations accommodations that are not aligned with the
implemented to enable the student to access based on the are not directly student’s needs and does
instruction and assessment. student’s needs and aligned with the not generate a complete
generates a statement student’s needs and statement that discusses
CEC 3 (3.2) - ICSI.3.K3,K4, ICSI.3.S1 that discusses how generates a statement how the
ECSE 1.K8, 2.S2 the accommodations that discusses how the accommodations will be
InTASC 4 will be implemented. accommodations will implemented.
NAEYC 2, 3 be implemented.
III. C. IEP Goals and Objectives The candidate The candidate The candidate develops
The candidate develops IEP goals which are designed develops goals, develops goals, which goals, but they are not
to make curricula accessible to the student with which incorporate all incorporate some of aligned to the MCCRS
exceptionalities. Goals must: components listed the components listed and/or do not
 be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, and are designed to and are designed to incorporate other
relevant to the needs of the student, and time- make curricular make curricular components listed.
bound); accessible to the accessible to the
 incorporate the principles of Universal Design student with student with
for Learning (UDL); exceptionalities. exceptionalities.

Revised 4 – 19 – 2018 pg. 8

 Early Childhood Education/Special Education (ECSE) Program – Undergraduate
Assessment #2

IEP Case Study (IEP) Directions

9
3 points 2 points 1 point Candidate’s
Components and Requirements Proficient Developing Unsatisfactory Score
 align with the grade level Maryland College
and Career Ready Standards (MCCRS);
 align with the assessment data; and
 include present levels statements from the
PLAAFP.

CEC 3 (3.2) (3.3) - ICSI.3.K2,K3, ICSI.3.S1,S2

ECSE 4.K4, 5.S7, 5.S10, 5.S11, 5.S12
InTASC 4
NAEYC 2, 3, 6

III. D. Supplementary Aids and Services, Program The candidate selects The candidate selects The candidate the
Modifications, and Supports supplementary aids supplementary aids selects and justifies
The candidate clearly describes the circumstances and and services, program and services, program supplementary aids and
manner in which supports will be provided to enable modifications, and modifications, and services, program
the student with exceptionalities to access general supports based on the supports that are not modifications, and
and specialized curricula to include: student’s needs and sufficiently and/or supports that are
 supplementary aids and services; generates a statement directly aligned with insufficient and/or not
 program modifications; and that discusses how the student’s needs aligned with the
 supports which are clearly aligned to the they will be and generates a student’s needs and does
student’s needs and impact of the implemented. statement that not generate a statement
exceptionality, as outlined in the PLAAFP. discusses how the that discusses how the
accommodations will accommodations will be
CEC 3 (3.1, 3.2, 3.3) - ISCI.3.K2, 4; ISCI.3.S2 be implemented. implemented.
ECSE 2.K1, 4.K4, 5.S10
InTASC 4
NAEYC 2, 3
IV. Reflection The candidate The candidate The candidate develops
The candidate includes a reflective narrative which develops a reflective develops a reflective a reflective narrative
demonstrates a strong foundational knowledge of narrative which narrative which which fails to address
professional ethical principles and practice addresses all of the addresses some of the components listed and
components listed components listed and does not make specific

Revised 4 – 19 – 2018 pg. 9

 Early Childhood Education/Special Education (ECSE) Program – Undergraduate
Assessment #2

IEP Case Study (IEP) Directions

10
3 points 2 points 1 point Candidate’s
Components and Requirements Proficient Developing Unsatisfactory Score
standards. The narrative must also address the events and references IDEA, limited knowledge of references to IDEA,
that occurred during the IEP meeting, including: laws, policies, and IDEA, laws, policies, laws, policies, and
 the extent to which required procedures were ethical principles. and ethical ethical principles.
followed in accordance with IDEA (i.e. related principles.
to prior written notice, procedural safeguards,
timelines, and IEP development);
 the decision-making process;
 decisions that were made;
 collaborative practices with families, other
educators, related service providers,
individuals with exceptionalities in
culturally responsive ways to address the
needs of individuals with exceptionalities;
and
 a critique of the candidate’s role in the process
(maximum of 2 pages).

CEC 7 (7.1, 7.2, 7.3) IGC.7.S2, 4

ECSE 1.K3, 4.K2, 4.S8, 5.S7, 6.K3, 7.S6
InTASC 9, 10
NAEYC 6, 7, 10

Revised 4 – 19 – 2018 pg. 10

 Early Childhood Education/Special Education (ECSE) Program – Undergraduate
Assessment #2

IEP Case Study (IEP) Directions

11
V. Professional Writing The IEP is submitted The IEP is submitted The IEP is submitted
The assignment is submitted on the due date, free of on time and is free of on time and has 1-2 late and has 3 or more
grammatical or typographical errors and writing is of a grammatical or grammatical or grammatical or
high professional quality. Information throughout the typographical errors typographical errors typographical errors and
IEP is free of educational jargon and acronyms are and educational and may include may include educational
defined. jargon. educational jargon. jargon.

CEC 6 (6.1)
ECSE 6.S5
InTASC 9
NAEYC 6

*Students must earn 79% or higher for minimum passage rate. Must obtain 19 or more overall points and cannot score lower than a 2 on any section to
pass this signature assignment.

KEY
Points/Score
Minimum passing score = 19/24 = 79% (3)

Revised 4 – 19 – 2018 pg. 11