Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sorry for the late response here Dawn!
This is great, you definitely understood the questions/directions. I’d add that for question 4, it meets the criteria (as you indicated) in particular because of the statement “Given a set of objects” that provides enough flexibility to use different objects and embed learning opportunities naturally to measure progress (in other words, this is generic enough), but also has enough specificity to know what we mean/the context.
It is challenging to fully evaluate an IEP worthy goal outside of the context of the background (e.g., assessment, PLAAFP) since technically we could meet all the criteria on the surface but miss the mark in terms of utilizing relevant data (as you are aware!).
That said, when we look at this hypothetical goal and consider each of the criteria, are there any circumstances under which a rating might change (e.g., from yes to no or 1 to 0) based on “missing” or unknown information about the child? For example, in the R-GORI document, they suggest rating the Measurability criteria as “0” if additional information is required about the child.
Also, why you do you imagine the directions for the R-GORI recommend rating Measurability as 1 (or yes) if environment information is missing, but as a 0 if child information is missing?
Sorry for the late response here Dawn!
This is great, you definitely understood the questions/directions. I’d add that for question 4, it meets the criteria (as you indicated) in particular because of the statement “Given a set of objects” that provides enough flexibility to use different objects and embed learning opportunities naturally to measure progress (in other words, this is generic enough), but also has enough specificity to know what we mean/the context.
It is challenging to fully evaluate an IEP worthy goal outside of the context of the background (e.g., assessment, PLAAFP) since technically we could meet all the criteria on the surface but miss the mark in terms of utilizing relevant data (as you are aware!).
That said, when we look at this hypothetical goal and consider each of the criteria, are there any circumstances under which a rating might change (e.g., from yes to no or 1 to 0) based on “missing” or unknown information about the child? For example, in the R-GORI document, they suggest rating the Measurability criteria as “0” if additional information is required about the child.
Also, why you do you imagine the directions for the R-GORI recommend rating Measurability as 1 (or yes) if environment information is missing, but as a 0 if child information is missing?
Well said! Early reading skills, and even print awareness, is a foundational skill that serves as a prerequisite for so many different academic and functional skills that children will need to utilize across the lifespan.
Districts and even schools within districts obviously have a variety of different policies with respect to their expectations for the development of IEP goals. We know that from a federal standpoint and through the lens of IDEA, however, IEP goals must be designed to address “a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals” (IDEA, 2004). The intent (if not the practice) is/was that child/student needs- as evidenced in the PLAAFP and related to their ability to access the general curriculum- should drive which goals (and how many!) are written.
That being said, what has been your experience regarding the development of academic and/or functional goals? Have you ever worked for a district/agency that had any particular expectations about when/the context under which you would include one or the other? Have you ever had the experience (or known anyone who has) where the expectation was to only include one kind or the other, or to ensure the inclusion of both? Has there even been a rule or expectation- written or unspoken but understood- that certain students should have more of one type of goal or the other? Or, alternatively, have you noticed certain students with similar needs benefiting more or less from one, the other, or some combination of these types of goals?
Well said.
I agree, most of these statements are neutral with respect to family-friendliness. As a parent of two children on IEPs, the one that I find troubling is “Damien’s attention problems result in failure to follow the teacher’s directions, talking out of turn and responding inappropriately during group activities.” In particular, I find that we (as teachers/educators) focus too heavily on compliance vs. functioning at times. I have had this experience with my youngest son’s PLAAFP before, where things focused exclusively on non-compliance as opposed to his difficulty with participating in large group routines, his distractibility, his need for emotional regulation tools and learning, etc. Thus, for this particular example, I would recommend it be adjusted to change the focus: “Damien struggles with maintaining his attention, which often results in challenges with following multiple step directions and difficulty with conversational turn-taking as well as participating fully during group activities.” These changes take the focus off compliance and on addressing the student’s need to improve his attention span, follow directions in general, communicate effectively, and participate with peers. It says the same thing, but the focus is on skills relevant to the student vs. relevant to school staff to make teaching him easier.
My suggestion is that even in a PLAAFP, we should do our best to balance showcasing a student’s strengths with documenting their specific needs. As you probably know, we can often use a child’s strengths to support areas of need, so painting a holistic picture- that remains clear on the IEP specific need(s)- can help achieve that end.
Exactly, I think this is yet another example of why a PLAAFP is so critical/central to the IEP process.
For Filter 2, you discussed how this goal example attempts to address academics, social skills, and perhaps independence and you provided illustrative points about how difficulty in these areas would affect a child’ access, participation, and progress.
That said, while Module 1.3 delves into functionality (and we haven’t broached that too much yet), what would you say about the extent to which this goal addresses functional (or meaningful) skills? While we do not have a PLAAFP to look at, are each of these goals (or objectives if we broke them up) likely to be important to a child’s access, participation, and progress across daily routines and activities (in addition to the general curriculum)? In what ways do you think there is a connection or relationship between the general curriculum and children’s ability to be a part of everyday routines and activities across settings, people, and time?
Thoughtful responses to each of the PLAAFP statement examples. I agree that it is incredibly difficult to get an accurate read as to whether any given statement is “green” or “red” without having the full PLAAFP in front of us. That said, sometimes the way we say things on a document like IEP should raise red flags, even in an otherwise thorough description of a child’s present level of performance.
Looking back at each of the short statements, can you find any that might be perceived negatively by a family? If there is a statement that fits, why might it be perceived that way? On the other hand, if you do not see any statements that are more likely to be perceived negatively, comment on why you feel these statements in general are family-friendly and relevant.
Just a note for everyone about our bonus resource on measuring behavior: if you do not have experience or background in identifying techniques to collect data, this resource will provide a number of specific techniques you can use depending on the dimension of behavior you are concerned with. Note, however, that the resource does not include all of the same dimensions of behavior that we do in this course- this is because when we consider identifying “IEP worthy” needs and goal development, these are very important considerations we should all keep in mind. Just wanted to clear that up for anyone that may wonder about the discrepancy.
