The Problems with Quarterly IEP Measurements

Waiting an entire quarter to find out there’s a problem can be a wait too long. If something isn’t working, if a student is not making progress or is regressing, why wait until the end of the quarter to make adjustments to a student’s IEP? The same holds true if a student is progressing and reaching the goal sooner than the end of the quarter. Why not raise the bar? Why wait until the end of the quarter to state the IEP needs tweaking, that the services and/or accommodations in place aren't working?

Think about it in terms of you, as an adult, attending an annual work review. Imagine your employer presents the evaluation filled out for you and states you underperformed for the year, that you failed to address the issues identified during the previous annual review, and/or that your managers have expressed concerns with your ability to perform at the level expected for your position.

Now imagine being shocked, because you received no feedback between the last and current annual review that would lead you to believe there were problems. Perhaps you thought you addressed concerns brought up at the previous review and were operating at the level expected. Perhaps you thought you were going into the review with the expectation of praise and a raise and instead find yourself entering a probationary period. Perhaps you ask for sources of the data collected, and when it was collected, so you can better understand what lead to the negative review. If your employer provides it, perhaps you wonder why it wasn't provided sooner. If your employer provides limited-to-no specifics, perhaps you wonder about the basis for the review.

Conversely, perhaps you knew you were struggling and reached out to your manager throughout the year for guidance. Maybe your manager said you were fine, not to worry, or perhaps your manager provided you some guidance. Perhaps your manager never circled back around with you and you thought you'd implemented the guidance appropriately.

Either way, you find yourself with data you didn't expect—and a feeling that you've all of a sudden got to hustle or face being fired and/or getting even more behind.

The same problems apply to students' IEP progress reports.

If teachers know something isn't working and/or have concerns, waiting until the end of the quarter can equate to nothing more than wasted time.

Imagine a student who has the following self-advocacy goal:

"Student will resolve concerns for which he self-advocates with staff on 75% of quarterly opportunities."

In the case of the advocacy goal above, if the student doesn't advocate within the first two weeks of the goal being implemented. Why wait to see what he does? Why not probe to see if different services are needed to support the goal?

Perhaps the student needs to have self-advocacy modeled for him before being expected to self-advocate on his own. Maybe he needs service hours to learn how to handle certain situations and then practice with a teacher he trusts before going out and trying it all on his own. Maybe he freezes up in other situations and needs to learn tools he can employ when this happens.

On the other end, maybe the student is flying along and nailing this right away. If this is the case, why not change the 75% to 100%? Why wait?

What Does IDEA Require?

The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) Section 300.324(b)(2) states the following:

the IEP Team—

(i) Reviews the child’s IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved; and

(ii) Revises the IEP, as appropriate, to address—

(A) Any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals described in §300.320(a)(2), and in the general education curriculum, if appropriate;

(B) The results of any reevaluation conducted under §300.303;

(C) Information about the child provided to, or by, the parents, as described under §300.305(a)(2);

(D) The child’s anticipated needs; or

(E) Other matters.

It does not state that the goals must be measured quarterly or monthly or weekly. It simply states that the IEP must be reviewed not less than annually and then makes it clear that lack of expected progress is an appropriate reason to revise the IEP.

For the goals themselves, IDEA Section 300.320(a)(2) states that the IEP must include the following:

(2)

(i) A statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals designed to—

(A) Meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and

(B) Meet each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability;

(ii) For children with disabilities who take alternate assessments aligned to alternate academic achievement standards, a description of benchmarks or short-term objectives;

(3) A description of—

(i) How the child’s progress toward meeting the annual goals described in paragraph (2) of this section will be measured; and

(ii) When periodic reports on the progress the child is making toward meeting the annual goals (such as through the use of quarterly or other periodic reports, concurrent with the issuance of report cards) will be provided;

It, too, does not state that the goals must be measured quarterly or monthly or weekly. In fact, it suggests different options for measurement timeframes, but doesn't specify a certain timeframe. It only requires periodic reports, which suggests at a minimum a few measurement reports a year. There's no maximum number.

If you feel strongly that one—or all goals—on your child's or student's IEP need to be measured with greater frequency, bring it up with the IEP team and provide your reasoning. It might be that other team members are setting measurements at quarterly intervals just because that's how it's always been done, rather than because that's what is in the best interest of the student.

Other Problems with the Goal

In the example goal provided above, there are a number of other problems.

There's no definition of self-advocacy or resolve or opportunities. What do these words mean? What constitutes self-advocacy? If something is resolved, is it temporarily or permanent? What are opportunities? When the student doesn't understand something or is in disagreement with the teacher? What about if there's a confrontation? Is that an opportunity, too? Maybe the student has no problem asking questions about directions, but if the teacher misunderstands something, the student won't say anything. Maybe the student can speak with easy-going teachers, but shuts down with teachers who behave in other ways. Yes, the student has the ability to advocate, just like he might have the ability to read, but, as with reading, if the student isn't fully advocating, that's a problem. Did someone assess the student to determine the exact areas in need of improvement? If not, a student might continue to advocate in areas that are strengths, while the rest continues to go unaddressed.

How will anyone determine the student advocates with staff on 75% of quarterly opportunities, unless someone shadows the student every minute of every day, since staff exist in all corners of the school?

For example, a Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS), Virginia, 8th grader was using headphones to listen to an audiobook in English. He asked to use the bathroom. After receiving permission from the teacher, he headed to the bathroom just across the hall while continuing to wear his headphones.

While the student was urinating, a teacher entered the bathroom in search of a different student. The teacher saw the student with the headphones instead and started pointing at the headphones and telling the student to remove them, because the school rule was "no headphones allowed". The teacher continued to stand there and tell the student to remove his headphones until after the student finished urinating, washed his hands, and then took off his headphones.

Did the student advocate for himself with this teacher, and tell the teacher he had an accommodation for headphones? No. The teacher turned what should be a safe place into a hostile environment and left the student stunned, upset, and feeling that teachers could do whatever they wanted to, so there was no point to advocating.

If the goal above had been in the student’s IEP at the time, the only way his failure to advocate could have been measured would have been for the student or someone shadowing the student to advise the school of what had happened. No IEP case manager would have been there to see what happened, document the type of advocacy employed (or not employed) against what was needed, and keep count for the quarterly reports.

It might be that, after the first few weeks of the school year, the goals will be fine and not need any other adjustments, but if you're a parent or educator seeing something that wouldn't be filed under fine, then you can speak up. There's no regulation limiting the amount of times measurements can occur or when they have to occur—or how many IEP meetings can be held to address the need for IEP changes.