Running head: CASE STUDY REVIEW 1

The IEP Meeting

Eh Na

Ivy Tech Community College

CASE STUDY REVIEW 2

In scenario one, Anna is a student whose teacher Ms. Liu referred her for a special

education evaluation. Ms. Liu recommended Anna for this evaluation due to her constant

struggles with reading. Anna cannot complete independent assignments that are assigned because

of her poor reading ability. Annas assignments are always turned in partially completed. Ms.

Liu asks Anna if she needs help and Anna declines. Due to the other twenty-five students in Ms.

Lius class, sadly she cannot devote the time needed to aid Anna with reading.

Mr. Stevens is assigned to meet Annas family his report stated that Anna lives with her

mother. Annas father left when she was three. Anna has not experienced any physical problems

out of the ordinary. She also passed a vision and hearing test. Annas mother, Mrs. Kowalski,

works long hours outside the home and does not arrive home until after 6pm. Anna does have

responsibilities at home and seems to be diligent in completing them including her homework.

She does not receive help from her mother due to Mrs. Kowalskis work schedule. However,

Mrs. Kowalski did not speak at the IEP meeting, but the social worker did include that Annas

mother is concerned about her daughters progress in school.

Mr. Kiena, the school psychologist, evaluated and tested Anna. Even though Anna

scored below average on a standardized intelligence test including being tested on the four

indexes, which once again Anna tested below average. Anna also took an achievement test where

not surprisingly, she tested below average. Since there was no significant difference between

any of her scores, the psychologist stated Anna just seems to learn slower than most students

thus concluding that she does not have a learning disability.

I am not a supporter of standardized tests. They do not measure creativity, diversity, and

they occur in an artificial environment. A human is not grading these tests, a machine is. How

can a machine determine a creative response when the response does not follow the test format?
CASE STUDY REVIEW 3

It cannot. Most students have different cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds yet the tests

treat students as if they are all identical. These tests are also timed and the students cannot talk,

ask questions, or use references. This is not how the real world works. Anna does not have the

same help at home as another student who may if their parent was there to aid them. How is this

fair? How does a test take this information into consideration? It does not. Therefore, the tests

that were administered to Anna may have offered false readings. Annas socioeconomic

situation has affected time with her mother. Her mother may have been able to help with Anna

with her studies.

In scenario two, the IEP team reconvenes for another meeting about Annas progress.

The team begins to discuss that they have been working with Anna since the end of first grade

and began targeted interventions in reading to track her progress. The IEP team also met several

times to change or alter interventions where needed for Anna. The team working with Anna

noticed Anna had difficulty with oral reading fluency, nonsense word fluency, and phonemic

segment fluency. The team even assigned Anna to a six-week summer school program. Anna

showed some improvement in certain areas but she still struggled with reading.

Ms. Liu, Annas teacher, did mention that in addition to the team at school that works

with Anna, Annas mom has begun helping Anna whenever she can while continuing to work

long hours. Mrs. Kowalski spoke at the meeting this time and agreed that her daughter needed

more help. Anna was finally approved for special learning disability (Weishaar, 2007).

The difference in this meeting is that there was evidence that tracked Annas progress,

which continued to show she was still in need of specialized services. People, not machines were

able to track Annas growth. Annas mother, not only initiated an additional meeting, but she

spoke up in the second meeting by providing information that she has been working with the
CASE STUDY REVIEW 4

team as well as helping Anna at home even if it were just for Ten minutes. Mrs. Kowalski could

conclude that her daughter needed more help. This indicates to the IEP team that even with the

parents aid at home and cooperation with the team along with Annas development tracked with

little improvement, Annas weaknesses were evident. Therefore, this time the IEP team could

work on a specific area that Anna struggled with the most.

After reading the scenarios the IEP (Individualized Education Program) bases its

information on tests along with evaluation to help determine a childs eligibility for additional

assistance. It is certainly a process. After evaluation of said There was no significant difference

between any of the scores (Weishaar, 2007). If there is not a significant discrepancy between

scores, even when the student continues to struggle in the classroom, eligibility for additional

assistance may be denied. Thankfully, actual people monitor the students progress and

admissibility can be revisited.

In attendance at the IEP meetings were, the special education administrator, Ms. Denman.

She assembled the team of specialists along with the students parent to come together for an

evaluation. Annas teacher, Ms. Liu was present. Liu initiated the original IEP meeting and could

help oversee Annas progress. The school social worker, Mr. Stevens was in attendance. He

interviewed Annas mom and inquired about Annas home life. The school psychologist, Mr.

Kiena was there. Mr. Kiena administered the intelligence and achievement tests on Anna. Also,

Annas mother, Mrs. Kowalski was present and did not say much at the first meeting. One

additional person was mentioned in the second meeting, Mr. Scott, a special education teacher

who was to aid Anna with individualized reading instruction but was not in attendance.

I stand by my original statement when it comes to standardized tests. I understand a need

to guide a teacher or specialist using a test but tests should be used as such, guidelines. Using
CASE STUDY REVIEW 5

data gathered in regard to upbringing, socioeconomic background, health records, and social

skills that should be sufficient evidence to make a claim about additional educational services

that a student may need. I do understand the actual process of an IEP meeting now though. It is

based on tests and progress of a student to be determined for eligibility for supplementary special

education services. Childs right to a free, appropriate education (Wright, P. & Wright, D

2014). In United States, the law was protected the children with disability are have the right

under the federal Disabilities Education Act. The Disabilities Education Act provides children in

need of special education with she special accommodations to ensure they receive the same

education as their peers.

CASE STUDY REVIEW 6

Reference

Weishaar, M.K. (2007). Case studies in special education law: No Child Left Behind

Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.]

Wright, P.W., & Wright, P. D. (2014). Wrighrslaw: Special Education Law. Hartfield,

VA: Harbor House Law Press, Inc.