Better IEPs: Share Progress Data to Improve IEP Team Communication

By Jessica Lenhart

Progress monitoring is essential to ensuring that a student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is appropriate. Research reveals that sharing progress data is a best practice for improving IEP meetings. (i)  Yet, the failure to properly report and discuss student progress is a common pitfall that often derails the IEP process and team members’ relationships.

In some cases, the IEP team is doing a great job of implementing a student’s educational program, but the parent is not receiving data-based progress reports. This lack of information can result in the parent feeling confused and excluded. Without detailed progress reports, a parent may erroneously assume that progress is not being made. In other cases, a lack of data causes the IEP team to lose focus on the student’s current needs, resulting in lengthy meetings without a clear agenda. We can avoid these struggles by shifting the IEP team’s focus back to data: do we have enough of it, are we documenting it, and most importantly, are we communicating about it?

Progress Monitoring and Reporting is Required

The IDEA regulations require each child’s IEP contain:

“A description of … how the child’s progress toward meeting the annual goals … will be measured.” The regulations also require an IEP to state, “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.” 34 C.F.R.§300.320(a)(3)

New Jersey’s special education regulations require that all IEPs contain: “A statement of how the student’s parents will be regularly informed of their student’s progress toward the annual goals, and the extent to which that progress is sufficient to enable the student to achieve the goals by the end of the year.” The state regulations also require: “The parents of a student with a disability shall be informed of the progress of their child at least as often as parents of a non-disabled student are informed of their child’s progress…” N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.7(e).

In addition to the regulations, our courts make very clear that data-based progress monitoring is essential. See Endrew F. V. Douglas County School District, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017).

In 2017, the United States Office for Special Education (OSEP) offered schools and parents additional guidance on the Endrew decision in 2017, stating:

“Public agencies may find it useful to examine current practices for engaging and communicating with parents throughout the school year as IEP goals are evaluated and the IEP Team determines whether the child is making progress toward IEP goals. IEP Teams should use the periodic progress reporting required … to inform parents of their child’s progress. Parents and other IEP Team members should collaborate and partner to track progress appropriate to the child’s circumstances.” (ii)

For specific examples of what is expected when it comes to progress monitoring and reporting, review recent New Jersey special education due process hearing decisions. Many contain detailed discussion of how the student’s progress was assessed and reported. Courts make clear that reporting progress on IEP goals and objectives as “progressing” or “progressing inconsistently” without additional data is insufficient. Instead, progress reports should reflect the actual criteria for mastery listed in the IEP. For example, if an IEP goal states the student shall read 90 words per minute by the end of the year, then the progress report should show how many words per minute the student read during that period of assessment.

Practical Tips for using Data to Improve the IEP Process

In order to use progress reporting as a tool for better IEP team communication, make sure:

1. The IEP’s Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFPs) include detailed, up-to-date performance and achievement data. Intelligence scores or evaluative data from the tri-annual evaluation are not relevant if outdated.
2. The Annual Goals and/or Short Term Benchmarks are based on the student’s identified needs, are measurable and include a clearly stated method of evaluation. “Teacher observation,” without more detail, is not clear and leaves IEP teams at risk for misunderstanding.
3. IEP team members should consider how on-going assessment could be built into instruction and data easily collected.
4. The IEP team considers how progress data will be collected, documented and shared. This may seem like more work, but in the end will produce shorter, more focused IEP meetings, easier IEP updates and be a support for school personnel.

7 Tips for Communicating About Student Progress

• Progress data for the year should be maintained in a student’s special education record.
• Schools must share updated progress monitoring data with parents at least as often as report cards are issued, or more often as agreed by the IEP team.
• Schools should consider sharing progress monitoring data prior to an IEP meeting, so the parent has a chance to review it and ask questions at the meeting.
• Report student progress as it is measured in the IEP goal, not in broad terms such as “progressing,” or “progressing inconsistently.”
• IEP teams can and should consider using the current data as a starting point for all IEP meetings, including data and observations about how the student is doing socially and emotionally.
• If you are a parent who is confused about whether your child is making progress, request a meeting to learn more about how your child’s progress is being monitored and measured. The school district must respond to the request within 20 calendar days.
• Rather than allowing confusion about progress reporting to cause a dispute or conflict; see it as an opportunity to create a shared understanding of how a student’s education program is implemented.

© 2019 Advo-Kids, “All Rights Reserved”

i. See https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/CTJFXTX6I9HXI3CUAGB6/full.
ii. (U.S. DOE Questions and Answers (Q&A) on U. S. Supreme Court Case Decision Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District,
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/qa-endrewcase-12-07-2017.pdf#content).

About the author:

Jessica Lenhart is a Special Education Consultant with Advo-Kids, the Special Education Team at Posternock Apell in Moorestown, New Jersey. www.Advo-Kids.com. Jess is a former special education attorney who spent her early career representing schools in special education litigation. Jess worked closely with educators on taking proactive steps to implement student services under the IDEA, Section 504, FERPA and HIPAA. After seeing the often negative impact of litigation on educators, parents and students alike, she became passionate about early and collaborative dispute resolution. Jess later held a position with the United Way’s Community School initiative and, more recently, worked directly with students and parents at a small charter school, where she experienced firsthand the power of full inclusion. Jess received her Juris Doctorate cum laude from The University of Richmond T.C. Williams School of Law and graduated with honors from Penn State University.