1. Wyoming Department of Education Special Programs Division
Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance and Annual Measurable Goals
December 2010
Thank you for joining us for the WDE TA presentation December 2010 on present levels of academic achievement and functional performance and annual measurable goals. As you know this the second in a training series on the components of FAPE.
Wyoming Department of Education Special Programs Division

2. Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
Evaluation
What are the needs as determined from the Multidisciplinary Team evaluation reports?
IEP Needs
What are the student’s needs according to the IEP Team? These should include all of the needs as determined through the evaluation process.
IEP Goals
Does the IEP contain specific, measurable annual goals that address all of the student’s areas of need? They should be ambitious yet reasonable.
Services
Is the student receiving adequate special education, related services, and supplementary aids and services to enable the student to meet his or her annual goals?
Educational Benefit
Could include: measurable progress on IEP goals, attainment of goals, proficiency on assessments, passing grades, increases in diagnostic test scores, etc.
You will also recall that we began by addressing the evaluation process in the first module because this is the foundation step for providing FAPE. Now, we will move on to the discussion of identifying the student’s needs and current levels of performance, as well as the importance of clearly stating them in the present levels of academic achievement and functional performance section of the IEP. This slide outlines the location of “IEP needs” within the greater context of FAPE.
December 1, 2010

3. The Pertinent Federal Regulations
34 C.F.R. § (a)(1): …IEP means a written statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in a meeting in accordance with §§ through , and that must include-
On this slide you see the federal regulations that pertain to present levels of academic achievement and functional performance. The regulations continue on the following two slides.
December 1, 2010

4. (1) A statement of the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, including –
(i) how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum (i.e., the same curriculum as for nondisabled children); or
(ii) for preschool children, as appropriate, how the disability affects the child’s participation in appropriate activities;
December 1, 2010

5. 34 C.F.R. §300.324(a): In developing each child’s IEP, the IEP team must consider –
(i) The strengths of the child;
(ii)The concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child;
(iii) The results of the initial or most recent evaluation of the child; and
(iv) The academic, developmental and functional needs of the child.
Several key components need to be considered. As you can see in this slide a variety of sources are necessary when gathering information for developing the IEP.
December 1, 2010

6. What is academic achievement?
Academic achievement generally refers to a child’s performance in academic areas (e.g., reading or language arts, math, science, and history). 71 Federal Register
In the comments to the federal regulations the term academic achievement is further defined.
December 1, 2010

7. What does functional mean?
Functional is a term that is generally understood to refer to skills or activities that are not considered academic or related to a child’s academic achievement. Instead, functional is often used in the context of routine activities in everyday life. See 71 Federal Register
This is also true for the term “functional performance”. This is a reminder to teams that when capturing information for present levels it is not solely academic, but also functional performance.
December 1, 2010

8. The PLAAFP section of the WDE IEP model form
For districts using the WDE model IEP forms, you will recognize this as the PLAAFP section.
December 1, 2010

9. Sources of Information for Present Levels
Progress monitoring (Curriculum Based Measures)
Classroom performance
District and statewide assessments
Tests and observations done during the child’s evaluation for eligibility
Evaluations conducted during the year including any independent evaluations
Teacher input on day-to-day school routine
Information from parents
Other
The description of the child's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance must contain sufficient detail to allow the IEP team to determine the extent of the child's abilities and educational needs. This is not an exhaustive list of sources, for instance, an appropriate PLAAFP for some students might contain office discipline referrals, input from related service providers or para-professionals, outside service providers, and others.
December 1, 2010

10. Practice Tip
Present levels of performance should describe the child with specificity across environments and up to the moment. It should be a culmination of past and current performance.
Read the tip.
December 1, 2010

11. Quality PLAAFPs: Are specific and individualized.
Address all relevant domains:
Academic
Social emotional (including behavior)
Communication
Recreation and leisure (extracurricular)
Health/Physical/Medical (including hearing and vision information)
Assistive Technology (use and potential need)
Post-secondary transition (Jobs and job training, post-secondary education, community participation, home/independent living.
Include statements that are supported with data from one of the previously mentioned sources.
Here you will find some key considerations to keep in mind when crafting present levels of performance. It is important for the PLAAFP to provide current levels of performance in relevant areas of the child’s educational experience, focusing on the whole child and allowing the entire team to gain a clear picture of the child’s current levels of functioning.
December 1, 2010

12. Problematic PLAAFPs:
Include subjective comments without a clear description or supporting data.
List test scores with no context or relevant information included.
Fail to consider all relevant educational domains.
Contain generic “cookie-cutter” language, failing to individualize.
Fail to consider performance across settings.
These are some areas with which districts in Wyoming and around the country have struggled when drafting PLAAFPs. A problematic PLAAFP can lead to denial of FAPE
December 1, 2010

13. What About Special Factors?
See 34 C.F.R. § (a)(2)
Another area in the IEP which documents specific areas of student need.
Behavior
Limited English Proficiency
Blind or Visually Impaired
Communication
Assistive Technology
If there are student needs in these areas, they will need to be addressed in the IEP.
The Special Factors section should accurately represent the needs of the individual child and is a source of meaningful information for the PLAAFP.
This section calls attention to certain areas of need that are often neglected by IEP teams.
December 1, 2010

14. Above is the Special Factors section of the WDE model IEP form
Above is the Special Factors section of the WDE model IEP form. Items checked “yes” in this section must be addressed in the student’s PLAAPF, goals, and/or services of the IEP.
December 1, 2010

15. Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
Evaluation
What are the needs as determined from the Multidisciplinary Team evaluation reports?
IEP Needs
What are the student’s needs according to the IEP Team? These should include all of the needs as determined through the evaluation process.
IEP Goals
Does the IEP contain specific, measurable annual goals that address all of the student’s areas of need? They should be ambitious yet reasonable.
Services
Is the student receiving adequate special education, related services, and supplementary aids and services to enable the student to meet his or her annual goals?
Educational Benefit
Could include: measurable progress on IEP goals, attainment of goals, proficiency on assessments, passing grades, increases in diagnostic test scores, etc.
As we begin to talk about the importance of writing measurable goals we want to refer back to the FAPE progression and how present levels directly connect to the crafting of measurable annual goals.
December 1, 2010

16. The Pertinent Federal Regulations
34 C.F.R (a)(2)
(a) General. As used in this part, the term individualized education program or IEP means a written statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in a meeting in accordance with §§ through that must include
(2)(i) A statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals designed to-
(A) Meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education and curriculum; and
(B) Meet each of the child’s other education needs that result from the child’s disability
As you can see from this citation the goals directly follow the section of the law that discusses identifying student needs and documenting them in the PLAAFP.
December 1, 2010

17. Identifying Goal Areas
Goals are crafted in response to identified areas of need/skill deficits as documented in the present levels.
In most cases every identified need/skill deficit will be addressed through a goal.
While it is true that a team may decide not to address every single one of a student’s discrete needs in a given year’s IEP, the team absolutely must address the student’s relevant needs in every affected educational domain. In other words, if a hypothetical student has social-emotional, reading, math, gross motor, and speech articulation needs, each of those domain areas must be addressed in the IEP. However, within each of these domains, the team may choose to focus on discrete, specific needs rather than all of the relevant needs within the domain.
December 1, 2010

18. What does measurable mean?
The regulations are clear on the requirements for IEP goals. IEP goals must be measurable and designed to meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum, and to meet each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability Federal Register
At its core a measurable goal contains three parts – baseline, target, and method of measurement. Simply including a percentage in the goal does not automatically confer measurability.
December 1, 2010

19. This the measurable annual goal page of the WDE IEP model form.

20. Quality Goals:
Sufficiently use objective criteria for measuring progress.
Need to be specific.
Must consider the unique needs of the child.
Include baseline, target and method of measurement.
Here you will find some key considerations to keep in mind when crafting measurable annual goals. It is important that the team participates in the formation of measurable annual goals. Because goals are based on the full scope of the student needs, goal writing is a team activity.
December 1, 2010

21. Problematic Goals:
Are lacking one or more components to ensure measurability.
Are broad or vague to permit clear measurement of the student’s progress.
Do not consider the unique needs of the child.
Ignore relevant areas of the PLAAFP.
Describe expectations for all students in the class, not targeting the specific needs of the child (“Johnny will pass all core classes with 70% or better”).
Once again, here are some areas that pose a challenge to districts in Wyoming and around the country. You will see some these same challenges reflected in the following slides.
December 1, 2010

22. Amending of Goals
Goals in their very nature are “fluid”. As students progress or show a lack of progress on goals, these goals need to be amended, when appropriate between annual IEPs.
Keep in mind that as students meet or fail to progress towards goals, IEP teams need to amend, in writing, previous goals to reflect the student’s current levels. These goals may be amended between annual IEPs if appropriate and do not necessarily mean a reconvening of the IEP team. There does need to be agreement between all parties and amending requires prior written notice.
December 1, 2010

23. Practice Tip:
The statement of present levels and annual goals should pass the “Stranger Test.” Can the unfamiliar reader understand the student’s current skill level, the skill to be attained in the annual goal, and how progress will be measured?
Remember that these sections of the IEP need to tell the story of the child and if the child moves out of the area, you want the new district to have all the information that they need to implement the IEP accurately. Not only do new districts need to be able to understand and enact the incoming IEP, present levels and annual goals should be clear for parents, teachers, and schools within district, in order to support involvement and implementation.
December 1, 2010

24. Case Law
The following slides are case law that support the topic we have discussed today and provide additional evidence of the necessity for accurate and clear PLAAFPs and measurable goals.
Read the slide
December 1, 2010

25. Case Law
Evans v. Board of Education of the Rhinebeck Central School District, 24 IDELR 338 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
In 1996 the Southern District Court of New York required the school district to pay for the parent’s placement of their child in a private school because the district failed to clearly identify the needs of the student. The district used outdated information and solely used evaluative data to identify the needs of the student and it was determined insufficient for educational programming.
December 1, 2010

26. Case Law Kuszewski v. Chippewa Valley Schs.,
34 IDELR 59 (E.D. Mich. 2001),
aff'd,
38 IDELR 63 (6th Cir. 2003).
In 2001 the Eastern District of Michigan found that the parent’s allegations that their son was not receiving FAPE were unfounded and ruled in favor of the district . One of the parent’s allegations was that the goals were immeasurable, however the court found the goals to contain "sufficiently objective criteria" for measuring progress. The decision was also upheld in 2003 by the 6th Circuit Court upon appeal.
December 1, 2010

27. Case Law Independent Sch. Dist. No. 701 v. J.T.,
45 IDELR 92 (D. Minn. 2006).
In 2006 the District Court of Minnesota found that the district failed to provide the student with FAPE because they failed to address all areas of need and IEP goals were "so vague and general as to fail to demonstrate that the IEP was reasonably calculated to result in educational benefit”.
December 1, 2010

28. Case Law Friedman v. Vance, 24 IDELR 654 (D. Md. 1996).
In 1996 the District Court of Maryland ordered the school district to pay for a parental private placement because the IEP was not reasonably calculated to result in educational benefit. The student was identified as Speech/Language, but the student also had a learning disability and the district failed to program for those needs in the IEP.
December 1, 2010

29. Case Law
E.S. v. Katonah-Lewisboro Sch. Dist., 55 IDELR 130 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), citing D.D. v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 46 IDELR 181 (2nd Cir. 2006).
In 2010 the Southern District Court of New York, observing that a district essentially recycled a teenager's last IEP, determined that the district denied the student FAPE and cited a case from the 2nd Circuit Court in 2006 that had similar findings involving preschoolers. It was found that the IEP goals and objectives were not based on the student's current academic performance, which had improved substantially, the program was not adequately individualized. An IEP must be tailored to offer benefit based on improving a student's present educational performance. The IEP team should have designed a new program to take into account the objectives the student had already met, as well as the objectives that continued to challenge him, rather than resurrecting the old one.
December 1, 2010

30. In Summary:
A quality, legally compliant IEP starts with descriptive present levels of academic achievement and functional performance.
The present levels statement connects to crafting measurable annual goals.
In order to be measurable, an annual goal should contain the student’s current skill level (baseline), the skill level to be attained (target), and how the progress will be measured (method of measurement).
IEPs that do not contain these elements or are not measurable may result in a denial of FAPE.
Read the summary.
December 1, 2010

31. Q & A Session
The Q & A session will begin at 3pm on December 16th, 2010.
December 1, 2010