Balanced Research After studying Module 2: Lecture Materials & Resources, discuss the following: ?What was the problem you identified in your lite

image1.png

image2.png

image3.png

• • • •

Introduction

Empowering Speech-Language Pathologists: Strategies for Effective Individualized Education Program Navigation and Inclusive Practice in Schools Marie C. Irelanda and Shannon Hall-Millsb

a School of Arts and Education, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Australia b School of Communication Science and Disorders, Florida State University, Tallahassee

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article History: Received March 7, 2024 Revision received March 11, 2024 Accepted March 11, 2024

Editor-in-Chief: Kelly Farquharson

https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_LSHSS-24-00026

Correspondence to Marie C. Ireland: [email protected]. Pub- lisher Note: This article is part of the Forum: Developing and Imple- menting IEPs for Children With Disabilities in Schools: Current Pro- cesses, Models, and Research. Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing financial or nonfinancial interests existed at the time of publication.

This forum for Language, Speech, and Hearing Ser- vices in Schools, focusing on the Individualized Education Program (IEP), presents a unique opportunity to provide a series of curated research articles, viewpoints, clinical focus articles, and tutorials about translational research that can be used immediately by school speech-language patholo- gists (SLPs), school administrators, and university faculty providing preservice training. Some articles provide a proof of concept, while others explore feasibility of approaches or provide a model to follow with explicit information on implementation within the context of the current education landscape and awareness of the requirements of the Indi- viduals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA; U.S. Department of Education, 2016).

IDEA and IEPs

The IDEA requires each child with an identified dis- ability have an IEP that includes specific information. The IEP should serve as a roadmap for educators and families, including the student, and provide information to assist the IEP team and educators in meeting the student’s indi- vidual needs. An IEP is required for every student with a disability under the IDEA, which makes available a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and ensures special education and related services are available to eligible chil- dren with disabilities.

IEPs are the foundation of special education services and should serve as the guiding document for teams including SLPs. Federal regulations require that the IEP be developed with input from general and special educa- tors, SLPs, other related service providers as needed, plus the student and their family members. The document should provide a robust description of the student’s strengths and weaknesses as well as goals, supports, transi- tion plans, and statements about how student progress will be monitored. The practices reflected in the goals and ser- vices outlined in IEPs should be evidence-based. In addition to federal regulations, each state education agency (SEA) promulgates regulations addressing special education and may publish guidance to assist in the implementation of the regulations. Local education agencies (LEAs) are required to implement both federal and state regulations and may adopt additional policies or procedures at the local level.

Procedural compliance means adhering to the fed- eral, state, and local rules for IEP development, such as meeting timelines, IEP team composition, and ensuring all parts of the IEP are included. Substantive compliance

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools Vol. 55 225–230 April 2024 Copyright © 2024 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 225

• • •

means developing an IEP that focuses on the student’s unique needs. IEPs should target high expectations and meaningful progress to ensure educational benefit (Yell et al., 2020). There should be alignment between parts of the IEP (Hott et al., 2021) to create “meaningful educa- tional experiences” (Blackwell & Rossetti, 2014, p. 12). IEPs should be high quality, objective, and ambitious (Turnbull et al., 2018) and include quality indicators. Without genuine individualization, the focus on compli- ance alone may result in poorly written IEPs that under- mine student outcomes.

SLPs in Public School Settings

Over 50% of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association’s 223,000 members work in the public school setting (ASHA, 2022) providing services to students as mandated by the student’s IEP. In 2022, over 7.2 million students in public schools in the United States received spe- cial education services. Speech-language impairment is the second largest primary disability category (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). SLPs must be aware of state and local requirements to ensure consistent development of IEPs and be aware of changes in public policy and current evidence-based practices to ensure the development of an IEP that is both procedurally and substantively compliant.

The Changing Education Landscape and IEPs

Since the initial legislation that mandated educational services for children with disabilities, approaches to edu- cating children with disabilities have changed significantly. Inclusion and meaningful experiences have replaced segre- gated and more restrictive educational environments. Additionally, the climate of accountability in public education has heightened due to additional focus on ade- quate yearly progress (Twachtman-Cullen & Twachtman- Bassett, 2011) in No Child Left Behind (NCLB; United States Congress, 2015). The 2004 changes to IDEA increased focus on inclusive settings and narrowing the achievement gap and introduced federal monitoring of spe- cial education outcomes (U.S. Department of Education, n. d.). Annual reporting of disproportionality, inclusive prac- tices in the least restrictive environment (LRE), and out- comes including graduation rates and other measures of student success are now required. Subsequent reauthoriza- tion introduced multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) tar- geting instructional effectiveness. This, combined with efforts to address misidentification, requires increased col- laboration between general and special education staff.

Advances in technology have shifted the development of IEP from paper forms to computerized applications that

may contain goal banks, robust information menus, and audit rules to improve compliance with state and federal regula- tions. While most IEPs are written using computerized sys- tems to increase procedural compliance, the use of technology does not guarantee a quality IEP. The quality and appropri- ateness of content (substantive compliance) is more difficult to analyze than procedural compliance such as signature checks or automated date calculations. Professional collabo- ration is needed across work settings (e.g., LEA, SEA, and researchers) to examine processes and implement evidence- based practice within the context of special education.

Enduring Issues and IEPs

The IDEA requires services that provide a FAPE, which is very different from a family’s desire to have the best services for their child. This juxtaposition of appro- priate versus best results in frequent disagreements and tensions between families and IEP teams. Unfortunately, the litigious nature of special education and high cost of resolving disputes has heightened the emphasis on com- pliance, drawing focus away from the IEP as a tool for educational planning. IEP teams must refocus on curriculum-relevant collaborative services and monitor- ing of student progress that results in meaningful educa- tional benefit. SLPs must be prepared to deal with this enduring conflict and share with the team specific regula- tory requirements and individualized student data to sup- port their recommendations.

Focus of This Forum

This forum actively supports the IEP process by providing articles on various topics, from gathering data to monitoring progress. It also emphasizes engaging with students and families. The articles highlight specific infor- mation regarding how to engage with conflict and work with others to address concerns in the implementation of children’s IEPs. Authors describe models and case studies to inform thinking on IEP practices and use of data for program improvement and showcase current research related to IEP development and implementation.

While spanning a variety of topics related to the IEP, this forum addresses four major areas: (a) consider- ations for before the IEP is developed, (b) approaches and considerations for use during the IEP team meeting, (c) strategies for the development of the IEP document to increase educational relevance and outcomes, and (d) use of an IEP as a data source for program improvement. Highlights from each article that align with the major focus areas are provided in Table 1. Individuals and edu- cation agencies may apply information from these articles

226 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools Vol. 55 225–230 April 2024

Table 1. Focus areas and highlights of articles in this forum on Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).

Focus area Article title Highlights

Before the IEP Meeting A Balancing Act: How School-Based Speech- Language Pathologists Navigate Their Efforts Related to Individual Education Plans and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (Sylvan et al., 2024)

• A research article examining SLPs’ involvement in the MTSS framework and direct support to students with disabilities through IEPs

• Addresses the multifaceted roles of SLPs in public schools, including as pivotal members of collaborative teams

• Highlights SLP responsibilities in assessment, intervention, program design, compliance, and prevention

Special Education Assessment: Practices That Support Eligibility and Intervention (Power-deFur, 2024)

• A tutorial providing an overview of requirements for assessment, eligibility determination, and IEP development

• Explains the vital role of SLPs in conducting assessments to gauge students’ skills in academic and functional domains

• Discusses challenges that arise from conflicts between best assessment practices and the preference for standardized assessments by special education teams

IEP Meeting Approaches Using a Social Model to Guide Individualized Education Program Development and Change Educational Paradigms to Be Critically Inclusive (Murza & Buckley, 2024)

• A tutorial reviewing of opportunities to shift thinking and approach IEP development using inclusive student-centered approaches

• Provides a social model of disability framework to guide IEP development

Student-Led Individualized Education Programs: A Gateway to Self-Determination (McNaught et al., 2024)

• Clinical focus article on methods of development in transition IEP planning based on postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities

• Provides qualitative data from the “I’m Determined” program in Virginia highlighting students’ experiences about student-led IEPs

• Underscores the importance of an individualized approach to transition IEP planning with a focus on the student’s postschool goals

Conflict Engagement for Individualized Education Program Team Members (Abell, 2024)

• Viewpoint about effective and intentional conflict engagement practices IEP teams can engage with to build trust and increase opportunities for innovation to address complex challenges in the implementation of IEPs

IEP Development Maximizing Student Outcomes in Schools: Data-Driven Individualized Education Program Goals and Objectives Aligned to the Standards (Powell et al., 2024)

• Clinical focus article to guide SLPs in using their state and local curriculum to link IEP goals to academic impact

• Discusses considerations for what the student must do to be successful in the curriculum

Exploring Speech-Language Pathologists’ Perception of and Individualized Education Program Goals for Vocabulary Intervention With School-Age Children With Language Disorders (Marante & Hall-Mills, 2024)

• Research article examining SLPs’ beliefs and expectations regarding vocabulary instruction and the content of IEP goals

• Divergent views and practices persisted in the vocabulary intervention SLPs provide for students with IEPs

• Qualitative analysis of IEP goals for vocabulary revealed the range and frequency of strategies and intervention targets as an artifact of implementation of robust vocabulary instruction

How Inclusive Practice Increases the Educational Relevance of Individualized Education Programs (Heilmann et al., 2024)

• Clinical focus article on the importance of prioritizing general education content and contexts, involving collaboration between special and general educators

(table continues)

Ireland & Hall-Mills: Introduction: Forum on IEPs 227

Table 1. (Continued).

• • •

Focus area Article title Highlights

• Discusses shifting to an inclusive framework to ensure meaningful experiences and engaging with an inclusive mindset, focusing on academic and social performance within the general education environment for development of educationally relevant IEPs

to develop solutions for their own context. The samples and resources included in these articles may assist profes- sionals in developing and implementing new approaches but may need to be adjusted to comply with state regula- tory and procedural differences.

Using IEP Data to Improve Practice

Workload Versus Caseload: An Exploratory Comparison Study of Individualized Education Program Progress and Other Outcomes (Carlin, 2024)

• Clinical focus article highlighting the limitations of the caseload approach for SLPs

• Advocates for the more effective workload approach that allows dedicated time for direct and indirect services, ensuring compliance and avoiding procedural violations

Go Beyond Compliance: Use Individualized Education Programs to Answer Strategic Questions and Improve Programs (Woods et al., 2024)

• Clinical focus article highlighting opportunities for SEA, LEA, school administrators, and SLPs to use IEP data for program improvement

• Provides sample data analysis questions and results from state-level data analysis

Note. MTSS = multi-tiered systems of support; SLP = speech-language pathologist; SEA = state education agency; LEA = local education agency.

Before the IEP Meeting

Prior to focusing attention on the development of the IEP, professionals must consider the processes and sys- tems used to instruct, refer, evaluate, and identify students with disabilities (Ireland et al., 2020). SLPs evaluate stu- dents with suspected disabilities and provide services to those who are found eligible if the IEP team determines that services are required. SLPs may target academic and/ or functional domains. Tensions between SLPs and school teams related to evaluation and decision making (Ireland et al., 2024) may involve assessment practices or applica- tion of eligibility criteria.

Focusing on student needs outside of special educa- tion, MTSS provide an opportunity to reshape the role of the school SLP. Use of MTSS to support students may address longstanding concerns with overidentification, high caseloads, and paperwork issues. Alongside educators, SLPs may assist students prior to referral, reducing the opportunities for misidentification and possibly preventing the need for special education and related services.

IEP Meeting Approaches

There have been significant changes in views on dis- abilities and education since the inception of the IDEA. Focusing on student strengths and abilities and inclusive

opportunities to interact with meaningful participation have replaced outdated approaches, such as segregated education settings. The IDEA specifically names the stu- dent as a member of the IEP team whose input is valuable in drafting an appropriate educational plan. Students as young as kindergarten age can effectively participate in their own IEPs and help parents and educators understand the impact of a disability on the student. Programs such as “I’m Determined” (Virginia Training and Technical Assistance Center, n.d.) provide information and tools to support student involvement in IEP meetings.

Professionals may recognize that the mismatch between the IDEA’s requirement for FAPE and a family’s desire for the best services often results in disagreements between IEP team members and contentious IEP meetings. SLPs and educators must be prepared to deal with conflict and work proactively with families and students to address concerns that arise. A clear understanding of the IDEA regulations strengthens this vital skill, ensuring smooth nav- igation from referral to IEP decisions (goals, service amount/type). Articles in the “Before the IEP Meeting,” “IEP Meeting Approaches,” and “IEP Development” sec- tions provide additional information and context to address questions and concerns that may surface as disagreement among team members.

IEP Development

Developing educationally relevant goals and effi- cient, effective services ensures IEPs are both substantively and procedurally compliant. IEP teams should target stu- dent participation in appropriate activities and focus on inclusive practices aimed at meaningful participation.

228 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools Vol. 55 225–230 April 2024

Development of efficient and effective goals and service approaches should be informed by current research evi- dence. Additionally, use of data-driven goals and objec- tives aligned to curricular standards expand the educa- tional relevance of SLP services. SLPs working collabora- tively with special education teams are pivotal members of the team developing IEPs that allow students with disabil- ities to thrive functionally and academically.

Using IEP Data to Improve Practice

The use of computerized systems affords an unprece- dented opportunity to analyze data from IEPs to inform educational practice and target improved outcomes. At the state and local levels, these data may inform manage- ment of caseloads, staffing decisions, compliance efforts, and the identification of professional development topics for staff and families. It may also provide real-time data about student outcomes and the effectiveness of educational programming for both individual students and aggregated groups. The development of efficient approaches that harness the IEP as a data source is impacted by state and local differences in special education practices and state documentation requirements (Morgan et al., 2016). Profes- sionals need to make efforts to utilize aggregated IEP data as a tool for improving educational programs.

Rethinking Your Relationship With IEPs

In light of changes to educational policy, technol- ogy, and practices in U.S. public schools, rethinking your understanding and relationship to IEPs is a much-needed step for professionals practicing in myriad work settings. Practicing SLPs and school administrators must consider the impact of policy changes within general education such as MTSS and the increased federal focus on overiden- tification and disproportionate representation in special edu- cation (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). University instructors must stay current with practice patterns and changes in public education to ensure preservice coursework and school-based practicum experiences adequately prepare students for the ever-changing landscape in public educa- tion. Program administrators in higher education must con- sider a range of educational and training experiences for communication sciences and disorders students to be pre- pared for work in the schools, including the development and implementation of IEPs (Marante & Hall-Mills, 2019). To reduce the research-to-practice gap, researchers may uti- lize the current context of special education to inform study design and increase efforts to partner with SEAs and LEAs to analyze the wealth of data in state and local IEP and other data systems. Policymakers at the state and federal level may consider leveraging robust data provided by IEP

software to reveal opportunities and issues that impact stu- dent outcomes. Parents have a unique opportunity, as members of the IEP team, to help shift the focus from pro- cedural to meaningful substantive compliance.

Conclusion

This forum provides much-needed information to address the paucity of current literature promoting specific practices related to the development and implementation of the IEP. Articles address special education and provide context for services provided under the IDEA in U.S. public schools with a particular focus on the SLP’s role in development and use of the IEP.

Descriptions of model programs and innovative practices support expanding the educational relevance of SLP services. These articles advance SLPs’ knowledge and provide much-needed information to support advocacy and changes to practice. New research included in this forum illuminates future directions for research focused on IEPs and school SLP practice. Ultimately, the responsibil- ity to deepen the understanding and use of IEP data and foster collaborative relationships to leverage these data sources to improve outcomes for all students rests with all of us, regardless of our work setting.

References

Asterisks (*) indicate articles in the forum *Abell, G. (2024). Conflict engagement for Individualized Educa-

tion Program team members. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 55(2), 381–388. https://doi.org/10.1044/ 2023_LSHSS-23-00093

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2022). 2021 member and affiliate profile. https://www.asha.org/siteassets/ surveys/2021-member-affiliate-profile.pdf [PDF]

Blackwell, W. H., & Rossetti, Z. S. (2014). The development of Individualized Education Programs: Where have we been and where should we go now? SAGE Open, 4(2). https://doi.org/ 10.1177/2158244014530411

*Carlin, C. H. (2024). Workload versus caseload: An exploratory comparison study of Individualized Education Program prog- ress and other outcomes. Language, Speech, and Hearing Ser- vices in Schools, 55(2), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_ LSHSS-23-00075

*Heilmann, J. J., Bertone, A., & Wojtyna, A. (2024). How inclusive practice increases the educational relevance of Individualized Education Programs. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 55(2), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_LSHSS- 23-00088

Hott, B. L., Jones, B. A., Rodriguez, J., Brigham, F. J., Martin, A., & Mirafuentes, M. (2021). Are rural students receiving FAPE? A descriptive review of IEPs for students with social, emotional, or behavioral needs. Behavior Modification, 45(1), 13–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445518825107

Ireland & Hall-Mills: Introduction: Forum on IEPs 229

• • •

Ireland, M. C., McLeod, S. L., Karquharson, K., & Crowe, K. (2020). Evaluating children in U.S. public schools with speech sounds disorders: Considering federal and state laws, guid- ance, and research. To

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.