Guidelines for Making Decisions about IEP Services

IEP Services 3 of 8

Team Practices

This series of slide shows is based on:Guidelines for Making

Decisions about IEP Services2001

Michael F. Giangreco, Ph.D.University of Vermont, Center on Disability and Community Inclusion

This document is available in a pdf (portable document format) on the internethttp://www.uvm.edu/~uapvt/iepservices/

http://www.state.vt.us/educ/Cses/sped/main.htmDistributed by the

Vermont Department of EducationFamily and Educational Support Team

Montpelier, VermontDevelopment of this material was supported by a grant from the Vermont Department of

Education, Montpelier, Vermont under the auspices of Vermont Act 117: An Act to Strengthen the Capacity of Vermont’s Education System to Meet the Needs of All Students, Section 7 (d) (5).

Learn about Team Members

Team members should be aware of each other’s specific skills, interests, and experiences, in addition to their professional training. Members without such training (parents or students for example) are equally valuable team members.

Knowing about each team member’s specialization can assist the team in deciding... how to support each

other,

what skills they need to learn, or

where they need to seek help beyond the existing team.

Acknowledge Varying Decision-Making Values

More-is-Better

Return-on-Investment

Only-as-Specialized-as- Necessary

Decision-making models are all based on underlying values. Sometimes these are clearly understood and agreed to by team members. When they are unclear or competing it is problematic because differences increase the probability that people will be working at cross-purposes (sometimes without realizing why).

More-is-Better This approach is

misguided because it confuses quantity with value.

It can have negative outcomes for students by interfering with participation in other school activities.

Providing more services than necessary may:

decrease time for participation with peers

disrupt the normal flow of class activities

interfere with class membership

cause disruption in acquiring, practicing, or generalizing skills

cause inequities in the distribution of scarce resources

overwhelm families with a large number of professionals

result in students with disabilities feeling stigmatized by “special” services

create dependencies unnecessarily

complicate communication and coordination

Return-on-Investment Places a high value on

serving students who have a favorable history and prognosis for being “fixed” and those likely to contribute the most economically to society

It fails to recognize the many non economic contributions made by even people with the most severe disabilities

Only-as-Specialized-as-Necessary Helps determine the

appropriate type and amount of service, but not more than is needed

Draws upon natural supports

Includes data collection on the impact of services

Takes precautions to avoid the drawbacks of well-intentioned over-service

The only-as-specialized-as-

necessary approach does not necessarily mean “less is always

best” or “only a little is plenty. When used as intended, it results in

students receiving needed services. It is meant to be a value orientation agreed to by the team, which includes the family.

Develop a Shared Framework

A shared framework consists of a team’s common set of beliefs, values, or assumptions about education, children, families, and professionals to which they agree through ongoing discussion.

It is advisable to share differing perspectives openly among team

members. When beliefs, values, or assumptions are

unknown or hidden the team process is more

likely to be undermined.

Developing a shared framework provides a foundation upon which

a team can build effective educational

programs.

Clarify the Process Establish ground rules,

group expectations, and process steps from the outset, either before a meeting or at least at the beginning of a meeting.

Process steps need to be agreed to by group members and adhered to by the group.

Common Ground Rules & Group Expectations

Have a written agenda Make sure all members

have an opportunity to contribute to setting the agenda

Set an expectation that members will arrive on time, start on time, and come prepared

Establish and share roles (e.g., facilitator, recorder, timekeeper)

Make sure all members have an opportunity to participate (e.g., use round-robin)

Limit jargon No “put downs” Don’t criticize the

person, critique the idea

Build on each other’s ideas

Have a clear meeting process,here’s an example:

Present an agenda item Have a discussion ensuring opportunities to all Make a decision Identify and record tasks to be completed Name the persons responsible for task completion Establish timelines for task completion Spend time processing your teamwork practices

Seek Consensusand clarify procedures if consensus is not

achieved

The absence of team processes to help reach consensus about educationally necessary supports is a problem that continues to plague IEP services decision-making.

This problem takes two basic forms.

Some groups have no identifiable process.

Decisions are made based on intuition, clinical judgment, historical practices, or advocacy.

Although some teams might have good luck with this approach, most are not so lucky.

Some groups have identifiable processes designed for use by single disciplines; these have substantial limitations.

Without exploring the interrelationships among the other disciplines it increases the likelihood of service gaps, overlaps, and contradictions.

If consensus is not reached...

it is the responsibility of the Local Education Agency to make a service recommendation. If parents disagree, they have access to dispute resolution options including mediation, administrative complaints , and due process hearings. All of these options can be avoided or minimized by having a sound way to reach consensus.

Open the next slide show Open the next slide

show labeled:

IEP Services 4 of 8

Slide show 4 of 8 addresses, Learn About the Student and Learn About the Context