RunningHead: CASE STUDY REVIEW OF THE IEP MEETING 1

Case Study Review of the IEP Meeting

Amelia Dyer

Ivy Tech Community College

 2
CASE STUDY REVIEW

Have you ever wondered how IEP meetings work or how they come up with their

decisions? “​The IEP is developed or revised annually by a group of key stakeholders called the IEP

team”(Blackwell 2014)​. ​ IEP meetings include a number of people who have been in the journey

of the child’s progress such as, the parent, the teacher, the school social worker or counselor and

the administrator of the special education service. Each person in this meeting has a separate

purpose for helping the child to make sure they get the assistance they need to succeed in their

education. Scenario one and scenario two are very different based on their decisions and IEP for

a child who seems to be in need for special services.

Scenario 1 Decision

Ms. Liu has been Anna’s third grade teacher for the past year; she is concerned about

Anna and thinks she needs more help with her reading; therefore she is sitting here in the team

meeting hoping to see good results. Ms. Liu says it is very hard to help Anna when she has

many other kids in her class; she is having a hard time getting her work done, so therefore Ms.

Liu thinks she could use more help than she can give her at this moment.

To help the team come to a final decision, Mr. Kiena had Anna participate in two

separate tests. One test was called the WISC(Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth

Edition); this test concentrates on her verbal comprehension, working memory and processing

speed. The second test is called WIAT(Wechsler Individual Achievement Test); this test focused

on observing her reading, mathematics, spelling, written expression, listening and oral

comprehension. The results determined that Anna scored below average in both of her tests.
 3
CASE STUDY REVIEW

“​The IEP regulations make it difficult to pursue a child-directed, highly interactive teaching

approach with ends left fluid”(Goodman1993).​ ​At the end of the meeting, it concluded with the

decision that Anna does not need Special education services. The reason that the team decided

against it was because based on her two tests she had participated in, the results of the two were

not far off from one another. Since these scores were not very different from one another, Mr.

Kiena believes that Anna does not have a disability and that she is just not learning as fast as the

other children; she is one and half to two years behind her classmates. Ms. Liu was not pleased

with the results that had been given and Anna’s mother did not have an opinion on their decision

about her daughter’s difficulty in her reading class.

Scenario 2 Decision

The Second Scenario resulted in a much different outcome than in the first. Anna had

been working with her IEP team and teachers since the first grade; they meet often to review her

progress and alter what she needs to work on at that time. The team noticed that Anna was not

making enough progress based on the goals they had set with her. Who decided to have the

meeting was Anna’s mom Ms. Kowalski, who noticed that Anna may need more intensive

individualized help. In first grade, Mr Kiena had given Anna an assessment called the DIBELS

(Dynamic Indicators of basic Early Literacy Skills). After this assessment, the team had noticed

that she was having trouble with reading fluency, nonsense fluency and phonemic segmentation

fluency.

The team had helped Anna throughout the year with reading. They have noticed that she

has improved throughout the year but still has much difficulty with her reading. Anna’s mother

and her teacher, Ms. Liu met and discussed Anna’s difficulty and what they could do to help her.
 4
CASE STUDY REVIEW

Ms. Kowalski and Ms. Liu came to an agreement and decided that Anna needs more intensive

assistance. After the meeting it was announced that Anna was to receive higher intensity level

services based on her individual needs.

Personal Application

The IEP process based on these two scenarios has taught me “Each one of these IEPs

reprs a real cost in educational opportunity, relationship building between families and schools,

time, and resource allocationesent”(Blackwell2014). These two scenarios differ by who has the

more stable relationship and support from the school. Teachers and parents who give their time

to their children in educational matters always make the biggest difference in the child’s life.

Starting the meeting was Ms. Denman, the administrator of special education; following

were Ms. Liu Anna’s teacher, Mr. Stevens the school Social Worker, Mr. Kiena, and finishing

with Anna’s mother Ms. Kowalski. These two scenarios went two different directions based on

who was present and the assessments Anna had taken. In the first scenario it was clear that Anna

was having a difficult time with her reading and turning in assignments due to having a hard time

reading them. Ms. Liu voiced that she thinks that Anna should have an evaluation done on her

learning abilities. It was clear that Ms. Liu seemed frustrated and made it clear that she was not

able to help her because she has many other kids in her class. In the second Scenario, Ms. Liu

seemed very concerned about Anna and voiced that she had been working with Anna throughout

the year, but still sees that Anna is having a difficult time. Ms. Liu met with Anna’s mother, Ms.

Kowalski to discuss what they can do for Anna.

These two scenarios seem very different because Ms. Liu in the first seemed very

irritable to the fact that Anna was having reading problems and did not know how to help her;
 5
CASE STUDY REVIEW

also in the first scenario Anna’s mother did not give an opinion or ask about them declining

Anna’s services. In the second scenario, Anna’s mother and Ms. Liu were working together and

focused on what they could do to help her. They both were very absorbed in the process and

were glad to be a part of the meeting.

One of the other differences I have noticed was that in the second scenario. Anna had

been receiving extra assistance since she was in the first grade and the first scenario, Anna was

just then being evaluated towards the end of her third grade year. These two being so different

may influence the fact of how these two meetings went.

Anna is a third grade student who is struggling with her reading as well as a few of her

other classes. In these two scenarios, it contains two different outcomes of Anna’s special

education services. In scenario number one, Anna did not receive extras services in her class and

in the second scenario, she did receive extra services in her class. It really does matter what

kind of support you receive from your teachers and from your parents. It was clear who wanted

to be there and be involved and who did not between these 2 scenarios. People who are intrigued

by helping a young child succeed, ends up with the child succeeding the most throughout their

educational and personal life.

 6
CASE STUDY REVIEW

References

Goodman, J. F., & Bond, L. (1993). The Individualized Education Program. ​The Journal of

Special Education,​ ​26(​ 4), 408-422. doi:10.1177/002246699302600405

Blackwell, W. H., & Rossetti, Z. S. (2014). The Development of Individualized Education

Programs. ​SAGE Open,​ ​4​(2), 215824401453041. doi:10.1177/2158244014530411