Introduction to special education 2

Progress monitoring is essential to evaluating the appropriateness of a child’s individualized education program (IEP), yet many IEP teams fail to develop or imple- ment progress monitoring plans, improperly delegate such respon- sibilities, or use inappropriate measurements to determine stu- dent progress. Not all IEP teams plan or implement progress moni- toring for behavior intervention plans. Those teams that do include progress monitoring often do not meet federal requirements, or their practices do not provide meaningful data. How can we improve IEP progress monitoring for students with disabilities?

Both the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA) and the 2004 Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) require that a student’s individualized education program (IEP) include:

• A statement of the child’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance;

• A statement of measurable annual goals;

• A statement of the special education, related and supplemental services to be provided to the child;

• An explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child will not partici- pate with nondisabled children in the regular class and in the activities;

• A statement of any individual appro- priate accommodations that are nec- essary to measure the academic achievement and functional perform- ance of the child on state and dis- trict-wide assessments;

• A statement of dates and duration of services provided;

• Appropriate, measurable post- secondary goals and the transition services to be provided; and

• A statement of how the child’s progress toward the annual goals will be measured (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)).

The progress monitoring provision also requires that the IEP specify how the child’s parents will be regularly informed of the child’s progress toward the goals, and the extent to which progress is considered sufficient (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(III)). Pro- gress monitoring helps IEP teams address any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals of the Code of Federal Regulations (1999) (34 C.F.R. § 300.324(b)(1)) and make decisions concerning the effectiveness of curricu- lum delivery (Peck & Scarpati, 2005).

Progress monitoring is essential to evaluating the appropriateness of a child’s program, yet there is less com- pliance with this required component of the IEP than any other (Yell, 1998), and current progress monitoring practices often fail to produce vital and meaning- ful data (Pemberton, 2003).

Legal Decisions Several administrative and judicial deci- sions have focused on the absence of adequate progress monitoring. In gener- al, courts have been unwilling to accept school district assertions concerning the appropriateness of a student’s program absent proof in the form of data (Zelin, 2000). A review of recent decisions con- cerning progress monitoring reveals five primary areas of concern regarding progress monitoring:

56 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

T E A

C H

IN G

E xc

ep ti

on a l C h il d re

n ,

V o l. 3

8, N

o .

3, p

p .

56 –6

0. C

o p yr

ig h t

20 06

C E C

.

Progress Monitoring:

Legal Issues and Recommendations

for IEP Teams Susan K. Etscheidt

PROGRESS MONITORING IS

ESSENTIAL TO EVALUATING THE

APPROPRIATENESS OF A CHILD’S

PROGRAM, YET THERE IS LESS

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS REQUIRED

COMPONENT OF THE IEP THAN ANY

OTHER.

• The IEP team fails to develop or implement progress monitoring plans;

• Responsibilities for progress moni- toring are improperly delegated;

• The IEP team does not plan or imple- ment progress monitoring for behav- ior intervention plans (BIPs);

• The team uses inappropriate meas- ures to determine student progress towards graduation; or

• Progress monitoring is not frequent enough to meet the requirements of IDEA or to provide meaningful data to IEP teams.

Lack of Plans for Progress Monitoring

IDEA 1997 clearly required that a stu- dent’s IEP include a plan for progress monitoring, yet many IEPs have been deemed inadequate—to the extent of denying students with disabilities an appropriate education—because of a lack of such plans or a failure to imple- ment them.

In Pennsbury School District (2000), the hearing officer concluded that an IEP lacked “adequate statements regard- ing how [the student’s] progress toward the annual goals will be measured” (102 LRP 10466) and that the IEP was not reasonably calculated to provide educa- tional benefit to the student. The hear- ing officer in Escambia County Public School System (2004) issued a stronger decision, concluding:

The most glaring deficiency was the absence of a notation as to whether [the student] had mas- tered any of his benchmarks . . . without the dates of mastery of benchmarks indicated on the IEP a parent cannot determine the progress that the child has been making during the school year . . . it is crucial that a par- ent (or other IEP member) be able to examine the IEP docu- ment to see if satisfactory progress is being made toward the attainment of the student’s annual goals and if not, whether there is a need for adjustments to his program (42 IDELR 248).

Another state administrative review offi- cer noted that “simple checkmarks indi-

cating progress rather than regression or achievement of [the student’s] goals” did not meet the requirements of IDEA, and ordered the IEP team to reconvene and draft an IEP with “objective meas- ures of measuring progress” (Rio Rancho Public Schools, 2003, 40 IDELR 140).

IDEA 1997 CLEARLY REQUIRED

THAT A STUDENT’S IEP INCLUDE A

PLAN FOR PROGRESS MONITORING,

YET MANY IEPS HAVE BEEN DEEMED

INADEQUATE TO THE EXTENT OF

DENYING STUDENTS WITH

DISABILITIES AN APPROPRIATE

EDUCATION BECAUSE OF A LACK OF

SUCH PLANS OR A FAILURE TO

IMPLEMENT THEM.

Responsibility for Progress Monitoring

Progress monitoring is the responsibility of the IEP team. At the time an IEP is developed, it must specify and docu- ment plans for progress monitoring, including what will be monitored, who will monitor, when and where the mon- itoring will be conducted, and how the data will be reported.

Although paraprofessionals and aides may assist in data collection for progress monitoring, the IEP team is charged with determining if the child’s progress is sufficient. Two administra- tive decisions from Iowa highlighted the duties of IEP teams concerning progress monitoring. In Sioux City Community School District v. Western Hills Area Education Agency 12 (2003), the admin- istrative law judge concluded that the school district failed in its responsibility to monitor progress of a seven-year-old child with autism who was fully includ- ed in a general education first-grade classroom. Although the paraprofes- sional was involved in data collection, the special education teacher specified on the IEP to monitor progress did not

regularly observe in the general educa- tion classroom and did not monitor or record progress toward goals. The administrative law judge determined that the “confusion of roles and respon- sibilities of IEP implementation and progress monitoring” may have been an “artifact of insufficient planning” for the child’s full inclusion (103 LRP 37969). Similarly, in Linn-Mar Community School District v. Grant Wood Area Education Agency 10 (2004), a 19-year- old student with autism was placed with an associate who was responsible for instruction, behavior management, and data collection. Yet the IEP team failed to document his progress, although the parents provided extensive documentation of the student’s behav- ior deterioration and the inadequacy of his special education program. The administrative law judge (ALJ) conclud- ed that

The progress monitoring data presented by the school district is vague for certain IEP compo- nents and nonexistent for oth- ers. Few meaningful data are available to help the IEP team review progress or confidential- ly convince this ALJ that the programs offered to [the stu- dent] were calculated to provide meaningful benefit (41 IDELR 24).

The parents were awarded 3 years of compensatory education.

AT THE TIME AN IEP IS

DEVELOPED, IT MUST SPECIFY AND

DOCUMENT PLANS FOR PROGRESS

MONITORING, INCLUDING WHAT

WILL BE MONITORED, WHO WILL

MONITOR, WHEN AND WHERE THE

MONITORING WILL BE CONDUCTED,

AND HOW THE DATA WILL BE

REPORTED.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ JAN/FEB 2006 ■ 57

Behavior Intervention Plans

Both IDEA 1997 and the IDEIA of 2004 require IEP teams to consider factors including “in the case of a child whose behavior impedes his or her learning or that of others, consider, when appropri- ate, strategies, including positive behav- ioral interventions, strategies, and sup- ports to address that behavior” (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)(B)(i)). The intent of the provision is to develop proactive, preventive approaches to behavior problems rather than reactive or puni- tive responses such as time-out or sus- pension (Bartlett, Weisenstein, & Etscheidt, 2002).

Although neither IDEA nor federal regulations specified the components of a behavioral intervention plan (BIP), the administrative law judge in Mason City Community School District v. Northern Trails Area Education Agency 2 (2001) concluded that a BIP must be based on assessment data, be individu- alized to meet the child’s unique needs, include positive behavioral support strategies, be implemented as planned, and be monitored to determine the effect of the planned interventions. Another administrative law judge deter- mined that the lack of specificity and progress monitoring for a BIP for a young child with Asperger’s syndrome rendered the IEP inappropriate (West Des Moines Community School District v. Heartland Area Education Agency, 2002). The IEP team must “assess what is or is not working for [the student] whom everyone has agreed is dealing with significant behavioral challenges” (36 IDERL 222).

Progress Toward Graduation

Case law has clarified that in order to graduate a student with a disability under IDEA, the student must meet a district’s general graduation policies and achieve sufficient progress toward IEP goals and objectives (Kevin T. v. Elm- hurst Community School District No. 205, 2001).

In Black River Falls School District (2004), a hearing officer concluded that although the student met general gradu- ation requirements, he failed to make progress on IEP goals and objectives. No objective criteria were used to deter- mine progress, and the district failed to make a determination about the suffi- ciency of progress and the student’s readiness to graduate.

Frequency of Reporting Progress

IDEA requires that the IEP must include a statement of how the child’s parents will be regularly informed of both progress toward goals and the extent to which that progress is sufficient (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(viii)). Teams must also report progress “at least as often as parents are informed of their nondisabled child’s progress” (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(viii)(II)).

Two decisions found that the fre- quency of progress monitoring was inconsistent with IDEA’s requirements, or was not frequent enough to provide the IEP team with meaningful data. In Alta Loma Elementary School (2002), a school district failed to report a stu- dent’s progress toward IEP goals three times during the year, the frequency that parents of nondisabled children were informed. Although this did not result in denial of an appropriate pro- gram, the student’s parents argued that without such information, they were not able to participate fully in the devel- opment of their child’s IEP. The 19-year- old student with a progressive muscular disorder in Del Norte County Unified School District (2000) required frequent data collection and quarterly assess- ments of his communication skills. The hearing officer concluded that frequent assessment of communication progress would provide the IEP team “with the accurate assessment data needed to make any changes necessary in [the stu-

dent’s] communication devices and/or communication goals and objectives” (33 IDELR 50).

Improving Progress Monitoring for Students With Disabilities

Develop Plans for Progress Monitoring That Include Multiple Measures

The IEP team must select an appropriate progress monitoring approach for each student goal or objective. Simple check- marks or arrows as progress indicators are insufficient. If checkmark sum- maries are used, they must be based on data collected and accessible to the IEP team, and should include direct meas- ures, indirect measures, and authentic measures of progress.

Direct measures may include behav- ior observation or curriculum-based assessment (CBA). Behavior observa- tion is a valid index of student perform- ance and assists in progress monitoring; techniques include frequency recording, duration recording, interval recording, and time sampling (Maag, 2004). CBA is an evaluation of a student’s perform- ance in the specific curriculum employed by the school. The method involves direct observation of perform- ance and repeated recordings of student response (Hargrove, Church, Yssel, & Koch, 2002). Criterion-referenced tests (CRT) and curriculum-based measure- ment (CBM) are two types of CBA meas- ures. CRTs are teacher-constructed tests to assess student performance in a hier- archy of skills from the curriculum (Jones, 2001). A CBM is a set of stan- dard, simple, short-duration fluency measures of reading, spelling, written expression, and mathematics to assess key indicators of student achievement (Shinn & Shinn, 2001). Direct measures provide valid and reliable indications of student progress.

Student progress may also be moni- tored with indirect measures to supple- ment the direct, objective methods. Indirect measures include rubrics, goal attainment scaling, or student self-mon- itoring. Rubrics are useful measures of student performance for a variety of goals and objectives. A rubric describes performance competencies on a Likert-

58 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

type scale with both qualitative and quantitative descriptions. For example, a rubric for a writing goal may include a performance description ranging from “fresh and vigorous” to “nonspecific and immature” in evaluating word choice or from “clear descriptions and explanations” to “completely lacking” in evaluating story development (Schirmer & Bailey, 2000, p. 54). Varia- tions of rubric-based measures include T-charts (Stanford & Reeves, 2005), spelling rubrics (Loeffler, 2005), and mnemonic rubrics (Jackson & Larkin, 2002). Goal attainment scaling (GAS) is similar to a rubric approach; it involves rating student responses on a 5-point scale of best-to-worst outcomes. For example, the scale for a student goal of accuracy may include a range from totally correct to totally incorrect, and the scale for a goal concerning compli- ance to teacher directions may range from never to always. GAS provides a “time efficient and user-friendly” account of student progress (Roach & Elliott, 2005, p. 15). Teachers may use GAS daily as a repeated measure of stu- dent progress, or students might use the scale as a self-monitoring measure.

Student self-monitoring is another index of progress. Students can be cued to monitor behavior and to record the occurrence or nonoccurrence of the behavior. Self-monitoring has been used extensively in school settings (Wheeler & Richey, 2005), but is rarely considered as a source of progress monitoring data for IEPs.

Progress monitoring may also be enhanced by including authentic meas- ures of performance. Informal confer- ences with students help teachers assess student performance (Alexan- drin, 2003). Teachers may summarize the conversations in anecdotal notes included in a student’s IEP file. Portfolio approaches to progress monitoring might also be considered; student work samples may provide important indica- tors of progress toward IEP goals. Students should be involved in the con- struction and evaluation of their portfo- lio work (Kleinert, Green, Hurte, Clayton, & Oetinger, 2002). Assistive technology can be used to help con- struct portfolios for students with severe

disabilities (Denham & Lahm, 2001). Similarly, videotaping can effectively supplement other measures, and may be shared with parents to show a child’s level of performance and improve parental awareness of the child’s progress (Hundt, 2002).

Specify the Who, Where and When of Progress Monitoring

After identifying the IEP goals and set- tling on progress measures, the IEP team must specify how the progress monitoring plan will be implemented. This includes identifying the individuals responsible for data collection, along with the location, dates, and time of data collection. Although paraprofes- sionals and aides may assist in data col- lection, the IEP team is responsible for decisions concerning the adequacy of student progress. Certain members of the IEP team may be responsible for direct measures such as behavior obser- vation (e.g., a school psychologist), and teachers, parents, or students may col- lect indirect measures. Members of the IEP team who are responsible for imple- menting IEP goals should also be responsible for monitoring progress toward those goals. The team should also establish frequency of data collec- tion, to provide sufficient data for eval- uating the student’s progress.

THE IEP TEAM MUST SPECIFY HOW

THE PROGRESS MONITORING PLAN

WILL BE IMPLEMENTED, IDENTIFYING

THE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR

DATA COLLECTION, ALONG WITH

THE LOCATION, DATES, AND TIME OF

DATA COLLECTION.

Monitor Both Academic and Behavioral Goals

Often academic goals for students with disabilities are specified in the IEP doc- ument, and behavioral goals are includ- ed in a BIP. Plans for evaluating BIP effectiveness should include both direct and indirect measures (Wheeler &

Richey, 2005). As with academic goals, the BIP should clearly specify the “who, where, and when” for progress monitor- ing.

MEMBERS OF THE IEP TEAM WHO

ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR

IMPLEMENTING IEP GOALS SHOULD

ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR

MONITORING PROGRESS TOWARD

THOSE GOALS.

IEP teams must also recognize grad- uation as an academic goal, and plan to collect data supporting a student’s readiness for graduation. Importantly, IDEIA requires that appropriate, meas- urable postsecondary goals be devel- oped for students with disabilities (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII)). Pro- gress monitoring of postsecondary goals helps to ensure that transition plans and services are appropriate and that stu- dents with disabilities are “prepared to lead productive and independent adult lives” (20 U.S.C. § 1404(c)(5)(A)(ii)).

Final Thoughts The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA ensured that progress monitoring remain a required component of an IEP; other provisions mandated greater accountability for student progress. The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education highlighted the importance of adequate progress moni-

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ JAN/FEB 2006 ■ 59

Improving Progress Monitoring

• Develop plans for progress monitoring that include multiple measures.

• Specify the who, where, and when of progress monitoring.

• Monitor both academic and behavioral goals.

toring in several findings. One recom- mendation was to increase a focus on results: “IDEA will only fulfill its intend- ed purpose if it raises its expectations for students and becomes results-orient- ed . . . judged by the opportunities it provides and the outcomes achieved by each child” (President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002, p. 8).

Progress monitoring is a vital com- ponent of an IEP and essential to evalu- ating the appropriateness of a child’s program. By improving progress moni- toring, IEP teams will ensure that the educational programs developed for stu- dents with disabilities will be meaning- ful and beneficial.

References Alexandrin, J. R. (2003). Using continuous,

constructive classroom evaluations. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 36(1), 52–57.

Alta Loma Elementary School, 102 LRP 31876 (SEA CA 2002).

Bartlett, L. D., Weisenstein, G. R., & Etscheidt, S. (2002). Successful inclusion for educational leaders. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Black River Falls School District, 40 IDELR 163 (SEA WI 2004).

Code of Federal Regulations (1999). Assist- ance to States for the Education of Chil- dren with Disabilities and the Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities; Final Regula- tions. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.

Del Norte County Unified School District, 33 IDELR 50 (SEA CA 2000).

Denham, A., & Lahm, E. A. (2001). Using technology to construct alternate portfo- lios for students with moderate to severe disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 33(5), 10–17.

Escambia County Public School System, 42 IDELR 248 (SEA AL 2004).

Hargrove, L. J., Church, K. L., Yssel, N., & Koch, K. (2002). Curriculum-based assess- ment: Reading and state academic stan- dards. Preventing School Failure, 46(4), 48–51.

Hundt, T. A. (2002).Videotaping young chil- dren in the classroom: Parents as partners. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 34(3), 38–43.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 to 1491 (1997).

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 to 1482 (2004).

Jackson, C. W., & Larkin, M. J. (2002). RUBRIC: Teaching students to use grading

rubrics. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 35(1), 40–45.

Jones, C. J. (2001). Teacher-friendly curricu- lum-based assessment in spelling. TEACH- ING Exceptional Children, 34(2), 32–38.

Kevin T. v. Elmhurst Community School District No. 205, 36 IDELR 202 (ND IL 2001).

Kleinert, H., Green, P., Hurte, M., Clayton, J. & Oetinger, C. (2002). Creating and using meaningful alternate assessments. TEACH- ING Exceptional Children, 34(4), 40–47.

Linn-Mar Community School District v. Grant Wood Area Education Agency 10, 41 IDELR 24 (SEA IA 2004).

Loeffler, K. A. (2005). No more Friday spelling tests? An alternative spelling assessment for students with learning dis- abilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 37(4), 24–27.

Maag, J. W. (2004). Behavior management: From theoretical implications to practical applications (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Mason City Community School District v. Northern Trails Area Education Agency 2, 36 IDELR 50 (SEA IA 2001).

Peck, A., & Scarpati, S. (2005). Instruction and assessment. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 37(4), 7.

Pemberton, J. B. (2003). Communicating aca- demic progress as an integral part of assessment. TEACHING Exceptional Chil- dren, 35(4), 16-20.

Pennsbury School District, 102 LRP 10466 (SEA PA 2000).

President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Rio Rancho Public Schools, 40 IDELR 140 (SEA NM 2003).

Roach, A. T., & Elliott, S. N. (2005). Goal attainment scaling: An efficient and effec- tive approach to monitoring student progress. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 37(4), 8–17.

Schirmer, B. R., & Bailey, J. (2000). Writing assessment rubric: An instructional approach for struggling writers. TEACH- ING Exceptional Children, 33(1), 52–58.

Shinn, M. M., & Shinn, M. R. (2001). Curriculum-based measurement: Cheaper, faster, and better assessment of students with learning disabilities. In L. Denti and P. Tefft-Cousin (Eds.), New ways of look- ing at learning disabilities: Connections to classroom practice. Denver, CO: Love.

Sioux City Community School District v. Western Hills Area Education Agency 12, 103 LRP 37969 (SEA IA 2003).

Stanford, P., & Reeves, S. (2005). Assessment that drives instruction. TEACHING Excep- tional Children, 37(4), 18–22.

West Des Moines Community School District and Heartland Area Education Agency, 36 IDELR 222 (SEA IA 2002).

Wheeler, J. J., & Richey, D. D. (2005). Beha- vior management: Principles and practices of positive behavior supports. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.

Yell, M. (1998). The law and special educa- tion. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

Zelin, G. M. (2000). Educational benefit and meaningful progress under the new IDEA. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Iowa Special Education Law Conference, Des Moines, IA.

Susan K. Etscheidt (CEC IA Federation), Associate Professor, Department of Special Education, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls.

Address correspondence to Susan K. Etscheidt, University of Northern Iowa, 655 Schindler Education Center, Cedar Falls, IA 50614 (e-mail: [email protected]).

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 56–60

Copyright 2006 CEC.

60 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

University of Maryland Master’s Program in Special Education

(severe disabilities/autism spectrum disorders)

The University of Maryland (MD) Department of Special Education is inviting applicants interested in pursuing a master’s degree in special education with an emphasis in AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS and severe disabilities. The department is nationally ranked as one of the top ten programs in special education. Excellent opportunity for competitive funding (tuition & stipends) for full and part-time students is available. Applications are accepted on a continuous basis. For more information: Dr. Andrew Egel, Project Director, Autism Personnel Preparation Grant, Department of Special Education, University of Maryland, 1308 Benjamin Bldg., College Park, MD 20742.

Phone: (301) 405-6486 or (301) 405-6514 E-mail: [email protected]

The University of Maryland has a strong commitment to diversity and actively seeks applicants from underrepresented groups including individuals with disabilities.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ JAN/FEB 2006 ■ 61

Annual Convention and Expo April 5–8, 2006

Salt Lake City, Utah

the voice and vision of special education