Is IEP appropriate for Math?

I would recommend that you base your goals and objectives on the standards and benchmarks of your state/local school district. All school districts and states have standards and benchmarks that a child must accomplish before they can progress from grade to grade. Your IEP team is basing their goals on third grade scores. They should be basing it on fourth grade scores or grade level. Even if she does acheive her goals she will still be considerably behind her “normal” peers. She is currently in 4th grade, but grade equivalent to a third grader. The school district is obligated to provide her with the intensive type of intervention needed to be able to attempt to bring her performance up to her grade level peers. You know your child better than anyone else, do you think that your child can produce grade level work? If so, then don’t expect anything less than the type of intervention necessary to bring her scores up to grade level. This may require some outside assistance such as bringing in an educational consultant paid for by the school district. Different type of methodology such as touch math.

Take a look at the sub test scores that the testing produced. Base the goals and objectives on the sub tests where she was below grade level. Your evaluations should also include objective testing such as the Woodcock Johnson. Teacher made tests are a good source of information, but are very subjective. You need objective tests to provide your present levels of performance. Take a look at the Wrightslaw website at www.wrightslaw.com. They have some great articles and tips that can help. Pay close attention to the Shannon Carter case since that is the case that resembles your child. The school district was not attempting to bring her grades up to grade level and she was making progress but based on her peers she was still considerably behind.

Good luck.

I suggest using caution when using grade equivalent scores. Also you are using two different tests and comparing a WJ-III achv and WIAT-II. An achievement test like the WIAT-II is looking at areas that are thought to mirror what is taught in the curriculum across the U.S., not just that one particular school district. Standard scores are more reliable. Do they have any type of curriculum based assessment in that district? That would give you more of an accurate picture if you are looking for “grade equivalents.” I also agree 100% is too high of a criteria.

Even those are two different tests, I hope the standard scores are both based on age. If so, it could be inferred that your child made no progress over the last year. I’d be questioning methods of instuction. They need to be basing the goals on the next skills she needs to obtain, but she needs to be gaining at least a year’s worth per year, not declining. Tell them that you expect greater gains or else you will have to send them the bill for private math tutoring or LD school. They need to give the WIAT II again next year so the scores can be compared adequately.

Janis

Making goals based on the state grade standards is only appropriate if that’s where the student should be, starting where they are. IMO, basically saying “Student will be at grade level for math” (only in more specific words) is not addressing the individual needs of the student.
I do not think that the student should automatically be considered unable to achieve grade level skills, but if a student is already behind then I would expect a description of how that student’s strengths will be tapped in order for him/her to make that kind of acceleration in progress.
I have seen the cost of hurrying students in math in order to “stay caught up.” It generally means they get to college being sure they are “retarded in math” and having extremely limited skills.

They’ve done a good job describing what she can do, and what they want her to be able to do.
What’s conspicuously missing is any indication how they’re going to impart the knowledge to her. What holds her back? How will this be addressed? Does she need more practice to achieve mastery? Does she need more hands-on connections and practice associating the numbers and symbols to what they mean? Does she have trouble with reversals?
This sounds like a computer wrote the IEP — though I could also imagine a decent teacher saying “okay, I think she could learn to do the regrouping & the 2-digit multiplication.”
I think that estimated gains for a year in grade levels are overrated in their importance. Schools cannot be held accountable for them anyway (which is a good thing IMO — don’t have a crystal ball, personally).

:x You can’t base goals on state standard unless that is the next progression for that child. That being the case, the child would not be deficient in the subject so there would be no need for the goal. You have to base the goal on the next progression toward grade level math. If you have a math goal, you had better have a class that will address that goal; example a basic skills class. We have kids in algebra who don’t know their multiplication tables but they use a calculator so don’t really need the tables. Would you write a goal for learning the tables? No unless he has a basic skills class in which he can learn them and a remediation program that will help him. We had all kinds of basic math goals that we had to delete because the student didn’t have a class to work on them. (high school)

Rushing does not work and makes the situation worse. You can often catch up by teaching skills one at a time and teaching them well — since the regular class is spiralling, they go over and over the same topic every year for ever and ever. Take the time and get it right. Start with the skills the student has — you say addition and one digit multiplication — and move to the next step, one digit times two digit multiplication, and/or division as “undoing” multiplication. Get that skill well learned and solid, and them move to the next.

I would recommend that you base your goals and objectives on the standards and benchmarks of your state/local school district. All school districts and states have standards and benchmarks that a child must accomplish before they can progress from grade to grade. Your IEP team is basing their goals on third grade scores. They should be basing it on fourth grade scores or grade level. Even if she does acheive her goals she will still be considerably behind her “normal” peers. She is currently in 4th grade, but grade equivalent to a third grader. The school district is obligated to provide her with the intensive type of intervention needed to be able to attempt to bring her performance up to her grade level peers. You know your child better than anyone else, do you think that your child can produce grade level work? If so, then don’t expect anything less than the type of intervention necessary to bring her scores up to grade level. This may require some outside assistance such as bringing in an educational consultant paid for by the school district. Different type of methodology such as touch math.

Take a look at the sub test scores that the testing produced. Base the goals and objectives on the sub tests where she was below grade level. Your evaluations should also include objective testing such as the Woodcock Johnson. Teacher made tests are a good source of information, but are very subjective. You need objective tests to provide your present levels of performance. Take a look at the Wrightslaw website at www.wrightslaw.com. They have some great articles and tips that can help. Pay close attention to the Shannon Carter case since that is the case that resembles your child. The school district was not attempting to bring her grades up to grade level and she was making progress but based on her peers she was still considerably behind.

Good luck.

I suggest using caution when using grade equivalent scores. Also you are using two different tests and comparing a WJ-III achv and WIAT-II. An achievement test like the WIAT-II is looking at areas that are thought to mirror what is taught in the curriculum across the U.S., not just that one particular school district. Standard scores are more reliable. Do they have any type of curriculum based assessment in that district? That would give you more of an accurate picture if you are looking for “grade equivalents.” I also agree 100% is too high of a criteria.

Even those are two different tests, I hope the standard scores are both based on age. If so, it could be inferred that your child made no progress over the last year. I’d be questioning methods of instuction. They need to be basing the goals on the next skills she needs to obtain, but she needs to be gaining at least a year’s worth per year, not declining. Tell them that you expect greater gains or else you will have to send them the bill for private math tutoring or LD school. They need to give the WIAT II again next year so the scores can be compared adequately.

Janis

Making goals based on the state grade standards is only appropriate if that’s where the student should be, starting where they are. IMO, basically saying “Student will be at grade level for math” (only in more specific words) is not addressing the individual needs of the student.
I do not think that the student should automatically be considered unable to achieve grade level skills, but if a student is already behind then I would expect a description of how that student’s strengths will be tapped in order for him/her to make that kind of acceleration in progress.
I have seen the cost of hurrying students in math in order to “stay caught up.” It generally means they get to college being sure they are “retarded in math” and having extremely limited skills.

They’ve done a good job describing what she can do, and what they want her to be able to do.
What’s conspicuously missing is any indication how they’re going to impart the knowledge to her. What holds her back? How will this be addressed? Does she need more practice to achieve mastery? Does she need more hands-on connections and practice associating the numbers and symbols to what they mean? Does she have trouble with reversals?
This sounds like a computer wrote the IEP — though I could also imagine a decent teacher saying “okay, I think she could learn to do the regrouping & the 2-digit multiplication.”
I think that estimated gains for a year in grade levels are overrated in their importance. Schools cannot be held accountable for them anyway (which is a good thing IMO — don’t have a crystal ball, personally).

:x You can’t base goals on state standard unless that is the next progression for that child. That being the case, the child would not be deficient in the subject so there would be no need for the goal. You have to base the goal on the next progression toward grade level math. If you have a math goal, you had better have a class that will address that goal; example a basic skills class. We have kids in algebra who don’t know their multiplication tables but they use a calculator so don’t really need the tables. Would you write a goal for learning the tables? No unless he has a basic skills class in which he can learn them and a remediation program that will help him. We had all kinds of basic math goals that we had to delete because the student didn’t have a class to work on them. (high school)

Rushing does not work and makes the situation worse. You can often catch up by teaching skills one at a time and teaching them well — since the regular class is spiralling, they go over and over the same topic every year for ever and ever. Take the time and get it right. Start with the skills the student has — you say addition and one digit multiplication — and move to the next step, one digit times two digit multiplication, and/or division as “undoing” multiplication. Get that skill well learned and solid, and them move to the next.