ACTION PLAN 1
Developing an Action Plan Assignment
Brittany Krieger
School of Education, Liberty University
Developing an Action Plan Assignment
Greendale Elementary School faces an ongoing organizational challenge involving the
inconsistent implementation of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for students with
disabilities. Although the school meets the legal requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities
ACTION PLAN 2
Education Act (IDEA), the quality and reliability of classroom implementation vary considerably
among teachers. Some educators consistently provide accommodations such as extended time,
modified assignments, or differentiated instruction, while others struggle to apply them or fail to
do so consistently. These inconsistencies have created uneven academic outcomes, contributed to
parent concerns, and heightened administrative anxiety about compliance and equitable service
delivery. Because the issue affects general and special education teachers, administrators, and
families, the solution requires a comprehensive plan that addresses multiple dimensions of
organizational functioning.
Multi-Dimensional Action Plan of Intervention
To effectively address the inconsistent implementation of IEPs at Greendale Elementary,
the intervention must move beyond isolated fixes and instead employ a coordinated set of
strategies informed by organizational theory. Bolman and Deal’s (2021) four-frame model offers
a structured approach for designing these improvements by examining the issue through
structural, systemic, cultural, and political perspectives. Using this framework, the following
action plan outlines the specific steps, responsibilities, timelines, and methods for monitoring and
communicating progress to ensure consistent, schoolwide implementation of IEP requirements.
Structural Lens Action Plan
Improving inconsistent IEP implementation begins with strengthening the structural
foundations of the school. In alignment with the structural frame (Bolman & Deal, 2021), the
principal launches an IEP Implementation Improvement Initiative at the start of the school year
by clearly articulating expectations for consistency across all classrooms. Immediately following
this announcement, the assistant principals and special education diagnostician collaborate to
produce grade-level implementation guides outlining required accommodations, examples of
ACTION PLAN 3
modifications, and documentation procedures. These guides are then uploaded to a shared digital
IEP Implementation Portal to ensure staff have continuous access to standardized information.
Clarifying professional roles is central to structural alignment. Updated role descriptions
outline responsibilities for general educators, special educators, administrators, and service
providers, emphasizing shared ownership of IEP implementation. Early-semester professional
development sessions reinforce these expectations by providing practical examples of IDEA
compliance, modeled instructional strategies, and scenario-based training. To monitor structural
effectiveness, administrators will conduct quarterly audits of IEP documentation and classroom
accommodation logs, providing feedback during staff meetings to ensure alignment and
continuous improvement. Communication regarding expectations and procedures will occur via
email updates, staff meetings, and the shared digital portal to ensure all personnel receive clear,
consistent guidance.
Systems Lens Action Plan
With clear roles, procedures, and access to resources in place, teachers can now
collaborate more effectively, ensuring that classroom strategies consistently meet the needs
outlined in each student’s IEP. Once structural clarity is established, systemic supports strengthen
collaboration and accountability. Beginning in early September, the assistant principals facilitate
biweekly collaborative planning meetings where general education and special education
teachers review IEP requirements, coordinate instructional plans, and identify accommodations
needed for upcoming units. The assistant principals attend initial sessions to model effective
collaboration and continue periodic check-ins to monitor progress.
Systemic accountability is reinforced through a monthly data review cycle involving the
instructional leadership team. Assessment data, accommodation logs, and student work samples
ACTION PLAN 4
are analyzed to identify trends and gaps that require immediate attention. Teachers receive
concise monthly summaries highlighting successes, concerns, and next steps, ensuring that
datadriven adjustments remain timely and relevant. Additional communication channels,
including a dedicated Teams channel and direct email access to the instructional coaches, allow
teachers to request support or report implementation barriers. Cross-departmental support teams
– including the special education diagnostician, instructional coaches, and special education staff
– provide targeted assistance, reflecting Bolman and Deal’s (2021) emphasis on interconnected
systems rather than isolated instructional practices. Progress is tracked through biannual surveys
measuring teacher confidence in IEP implementation and the percentage of accommodations
accurately applied.
Cultural Lens Action Plan
By fostering shared values and collective responsibility, these systemic routines are
reinforced culturally, motivating staff to consistently implement IEP accommodations that
directly benefit student learning and engagement. Because school culture strongly influences
attitudes, values, and professional identity, cultural interventions are essential for sustaining
change. Beginning in October, administrators reinforce a culture of inclusion by consistently
highlighting the importance of equitable access during faculty meetings, professional
development, and internal communications. This focus aligns with Bolman and Deal’s (2021)
cultural frame, which emphasizes shared meaning and collective commitment.
To strengthen cultural buy-in, staff who demonstrate exemplary IEP implementation
would receive recognition through faculty newsletters and public acknowledgments during staff
meetings. A mentorship structure further supports cultural development by pairing experienced
special educators with general educators who need additional guidance. Quarterly reflection
ACTION PLAN 5
sessions led by the instructional coaches encourage open discussion of challenges, successes, and
emerging insights. Anonymous surveys and focus groups provide the principal with ongoing
feedback about cultural barriers, such as unrealistic workload perceptions or misconceptions
about IEP requirements, allowing issues to be addressed proactively. Cultural progress will be
measured through staff engagement surveys and tracking participation in mentorship and
reflection sessions. These practices foster a schoolwide climate that views IEP implementation as
a shared moral and professional responsibility, reinforcing systemic collaboration and the
structural support mechanisms already in place.
Political Lens Action Plan
Cultural buy-in combined with structural and systemic supports creates a strong
foundation for political alignment, allowing teacher leaders and parents to advocate effectively
for practices that enhance student outcomes. Sustained progress also depends on political
alignment within the school, as power, influence, and competing priorities shape how initiatives
evolve. At the beginning of the year, the principal would embed IEP implementation expectations
into formal evaluation tools, observation protocols, and professional growth plans. This
alignment signals that meeting the needs of students with disabilities is both a legal mandate and
an organizational priority (Bolman & Deal, 2021).
Teacher leaders play a vital political role by serving as advocates for high-quality
implementation. Their informal influence helps reinforce expectations among peers and
reduces resistance to new routines. Parent involvement becomes another strategic source of
political support. The special education diagnostician provides quarterly updates to families
outlining progress and soliciting input, and parents are invited to participate in midyear and
end-of-year review sessions. Transparent communication fosters trust, strengthens shared
ACTION PLAN 6
responsibility, and reduces the likelihood of conflict. Progress will be tracked through
feedback from teacher leaders, parent survey responses, and evaluation of compliance trends
across classrooms, ensuring that political alignment sustains the initiative’s momentum
throughout the school year.
Conclusion
The inconsistent implementation of IEPs at Greendale Elementary requires a
comprehensive approach that aligns the school’s structural, systemic, cultural, and political
dimensions. Guided by Bolman and Deal’s (2021) four-frame model, this plan clarifies roles and
procedures, fosters collaboration, cultivates shared values, and ensures aligned expectations.
Progress will be monitored through structural audits, teacher surveys, mentorship participation,
and feedback from parents and teacher leaders, allowing timely adjustments as needed. Fully
implemented, these coordinated efforts will improve equity in academic outcomes, enhance staff
confidence, promote shared accountability, and strengthen trust among families, teachers, and
administrators. By connecting clarity, collaboration, culture, and alignment, Greendale
Elementary can sustain high-quality IEP implementation and support meaningful learning for all
students with disabilities.
References
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2021). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(7th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
