Individualized Academic Needs for Special Needs Students

¶ … Optimal Individualized Education Program for a Special Needs Student Special education leaders today are required to fully understand the optimal approaches to developing individualized education programs (IEPs) in general and IEPs for special needs students in particular. Developing optimal IEPs also requires a comprehension of the team operation, eligibility criteria, assessment procedures, and community support systems. To determine the facts about these issues, this paper reviews the relevant literature as it applies to a young learner in a middle school who is struggling to overcome his behavioral and learning deficits.

This review is followed by a summary of the research and important findings concerning IEP development in the conclusion. Discussion concerning the student, current placement, and the school Like a growing number of other young learners, 12-year-old Johnny Morris, a sixth-grade student, is experiencing behavioral and learning problems that have required special accommodations in the classroom. To date, though, these interventions have proven largely ineffective.

Specifically, the existing individualized education program (IEP) for Johnny addressed his articulation difficulties with limited success, but has virtually ignored his behavioral issues that have detracted from his ability to learn as well as causing a disruptive influence on the rest of his mainstream middle school classmates. The fact that Johnny has been forced to repeat two grades is also evidence of his ongoing need for special educational interventions (McBride & Dumont, 2011).

Notwithstanding the efforts by Johnny's teachers to provide him with the academic support he needs to overcome these learning deficits, it is clear that his existing IEP fails to take into account the full range of his needs as discussed below.

Evaluation of the compliant points of the plan with respect to relevant laws, state and local code of regulations, IDEA, and case law, being followed The IDEA mandates that IEPs for all public school students in the United States must contain measureable goals and the failure to include quantifiable goals in the IEP would mean that a school system had also failed to provide students with free appropriate public education (FAPE) (McBride & Durmont, 2011).

In Johnny's case, the existing measureable goals and method of measurement are as follows: Measurable Academic/Functional Goal: Johnny will demonstrate competence in speaking and listening as tools for learning and communicating by producing targeted phonemes with 80% percent accuracy. Short-term Objective: Johnny will speak intelligibly when producing targeted phonemes in sentences with 80% accuracy.

Method of Measurement: Observational Data As can be seen from the above-listed goals and measurement method, Johnny's current IEP fails to address his behavioral problems that are likely related to his clinically diagnosed but untreated Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder that are adversely affecting his ability to learn (Darden, 2013). Moreover, the observational data does not include a specific quantifiable element that can be used to track this student's progress in achieving this academic/functional goal and these issues are discussed further below with respect to controlling legislation and best academic practices.

Evaluation of the noncompliant points of the plan to include procedural and substantive issues while specifying laws, state and local codes of regulations, IDEA, and case law To their credit, Johnny's teachers have developed the type of IEP that is specifically intended to address his learning deficits in demonstrable ways and have used an appropriate type of measurement to gauge his progress. It is important to note, though, that the measurement requirement includes some type of quantifiable element that is currently missing.

In this regard, McBride and Dumont (2011) emphasize that, "The kind of data collected varies based on the goals (and the kinds of measurements needed to measure the child's progress). Goals measured with such scientific precision as 'teacher observation' are often the downfall of otherwise adequate IEPs" (p. 34). The U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in on this specific issue in Houston Independent School District (HISD) v. Bobby R., Joyce R., & Caius R., 200 F.3d 341 No. 98-20546 (5th Cir. 2000).

In the Caius case, the Supreme Court set forth a series of factors that can provide evidence that a student's IEP is reasonably intended to produce meaningful educational benefits as follows: 1. The program is individualized on the basis of the student's assessment and performance; 2. The program is administered in the least restrictive environment; 3. The services are provided in a coordinated and collaborative manner by the key "stakeholders"; and, 4. Positive academic and nonacademic benefits are demonstrated (cited in McBride & Dumont, 2011, p. 34).

Because Johnny attends educational services in regular classrooms 80% of the time, his program is administered in the least restrictive environment, but there remains a gap in his IEP with respect to a coordinated and collaborative approach by the key stakeholders (most notably his parents) as well as his behavioral disorders that can be supplemented with community-based resources as discussed below.

Identification of the community (wrap-around) support systems within the plan The existing IEP for Johnny does not include any community-based support systems that could facilitate his academic progress and help address his behavioral disorders. Because Johnny's special needs are complex, they require a complex approach.