2.1 IEP Process UPDATED.docx - Running head 2.1 IEP PROCESS 2.1 IEP Process SPD 616 Law Collaboration and Transition Instructor Jason Siegel Bryan

2.1 IEP Process UPDATED.docx - Running head 2.1 IEP PROCESS...

This preview shows page 1 - 4 out of 16 pages.

Running head: 2.1 IEP PROCESS12.1 IEP ProcessFebruary 18, 2017SPD 616 - Law, Collaboration, and TransitionInstructor: Jason SiegelBryan Flores, Lisa Gonzales, Nora HernandezNational University
Background image
2.1 IEP PROCESS2AbstractThis paper begins with a summary of two different IEP meetings. One meeting has all members working collaboratively and the other is an unsuccessful attempt at collaboration. The meetings are between the parents of Reed, a deaf student, the Director of Special Education, and two teachers from two different schools. The authors continue this paper with an explanation of the IEP process and how it pertains to the two different IEP meetings. The successful IEP meeting has most, if not all of the nine elements being discussed. The non-collaborative IEP has very little components discussed. This paper then continues to compare and contrast the compliance and non-compliance of the IEP meetings. The authors then go on to discuss recommendations on how to improve the IEP process. Tips are discussed on how to prevent any compliance issues and trying to avoid any procedural and substantive violations. This paper concludes with a summary from the author about the collaboration process for the week.
Background image
2.1 IEP PROCESS32.1 IEP ProcessNon-Collaborative Meeting SummaryIn the non-collaborative meeting relevant information about the child was not shared at the beginning of the meeting nor specifically made any other time. The only time that one is aware of the grade level of the student is when the Director of Special Education asked Mrs. Griebler, “At Jones Elementary, in the first grade, how large can that class be?” The talk of placement at the correct school was discussed but there was nothing mentioned about the main areas in which the disability impaired the student’s ability to fully participate in general education. The only thing that was mentioned was that Reed has a communication disorder and one can infer that Reed must be deaf or hard of hearing.Current placement was discussed but in vague detail. The discussion of Kennedy Elementary being designed for kids with hearing loss was briefly touched upon. The Speech Language Pathologist at Kennedy reiterated that 55 students attended there with some type of communication disorder but did not detail the program. SES was not discussed, nor the grades that were served, nor the ethnic makeup of the school, nor the school wide performance and API scores.The description of the school Reed attends was discussed but again was in vague detail. The only comment that was made about Reed’s current placement was from the Director of Special Education when he said he was concerned about Reed being placed in a large class setting at the mainstream school when he came from a small class setting at a private school.
Background image
Image of page 4

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture