Reported Policies,Guidance,and Related Resources for the Determination of Special Education and Related Services

Abstract

The Individualized Education Program (IEP) contains information that is critical to ensuring that a student with a disability (SWD) is receiving specially designed instruction as well as the appropriate related services and supports to make meaningful progress in the educational system. With varied practices across states, with some practices characterized by a formulaic approach rather than a student-centered decision-making process, the purpose of this review is to summarize the findings of currently available guidance related to determining the type and amount of special education and related services. This review aims to counteract practices that are not in alignment with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and to ensure that state and district guidance for IEP development promotes individualized development of special education and related services based on the unique needs of each student. The themes emphasize the importance of individualized, team-based, and flexible decision-making, the application of evidence-based practices, and ensuring clarity within the IEP. The article further presents the complexity of determining special education and related services while also recognizing the true constraints that exist and encroach upon student-centered and data-driven decisions made within IEP Teams.

Keywords

Individualized Education Program specially designed instruction related services

The purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is to ensure children with disabilities have access to a free appropriate public education (FAPE), through special education and related services that are designed to meet their unique needs. An Individualized Education Program (IEP) outlines what constitutes FAPE for each child and is a critical lever for closing the achievement gap between students with disabilities (SWDs) and their peers. A defining principle of the IDEA is the requirement that SWDs be educated with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate, in their Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). As such, the removal of children with disabilities from the regular education classroom should only occur if the nature and severity of a child’s disabilities cannot be achieved through the use of supplementary aids and services (IDEA, 2004). However, the removal of children with disabilities from general education is quite common in the United States. Out of the approximately 6.4 million school-age students with IEPs nationwide in 2020, only 66% were included in the general education classroom for 80% or more of the day (LRE A) (NCES, 2023), leaving a third of students with IEPs largely segregated from learning experiences with nondisabled peers. Although discourse may refer to inclusion as increasingly common, this discourse has not been wholly accurate, as the number of students served in LRE A has not changed substantially over time. From 2010 to 2021, the percentage of school-age SWDs in LRE A rose only 6 percentage points nationally, from 61% to 67% (NCES, 2023). These data provide a compelling reason to revisit state and local guidance and related research on the determination of students’ special education and related services in the IEP. While originally intended to be a tailored document describing specially designed instruction, some states and districts have adopted IEP practices characterized by a formulaic approach to the recommendation of service hours for SWDs rather than a customized discussion of a student’s needs based on present levels of academic achievement and functional performance. When determining the types and amounts of special education and related services, the IEP Team is required to consider a child’s evaluation results, including curriculum-based measures and classroom performance (USDE, 2000). The purpose of this review is to summarize the findings of currently available guidance related to determining the type and amount of special education and related services, to counteract practices that are not in alignment with the IDEA, and to ensure that state and district guidance for IEP development promotes individualized development of special education and related services based on the unique needs of each student. The results of this review are intended to support state and local leaders responsible for implementing special education policies that promote the education of SWDs in the LRE, in alignment with the IDEA. These results may also be instructive to those responsible for providing professional learning to service providers in high-quality IEP development, such as resource specialists, coaches, mentors, and teacher educators. The results of this review provide an opportunity for improvement of practices associated with IEP development; specifically, the effective use of student data to drive individualized LRE decision-making practices within IEP Teams.

Specially Designed Instruction and Related Services Within the IEP

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) indicates that an IEP must include sufficient information about the amount of services that will be provided so that the level of commitment to necessary resources is clear by all involved in the development and implementation of the IEP (71 Fed. Reg., 2006, p. 4667). As such, the IEP Team needs to develop

a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, which would be based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided for the child or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided to enable the child: (a) to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals; (b) to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum, and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; and (c) to be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled children. (IDEA Regulations, 2012, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320 [a] [4])

The hallmark of special education is specially designed instruction. Specially designed instruction is individualized and combines evidence-based practices, intensive instruction, accommodations, supplementary aids and services, program modifications, and personnel support to ensure access to the general curriculum (IDEA Regulations, 2012, 34 C.F.R. § 300.39 [b] [3]). Related services help students with disabilities benefit from their special education by providing extra help and support in needed areas. The definition of related services by IDEA provides examples such as speech-language pathology and audiology services, interpreting services, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy (IDEA Regulations, 2012, 34 C.F.R. § 300.34 [a]). IDEA requires that the IEP contain information on frequency, duration, and location when documenting the provision of related services:

Implications of Endrew F. V. Douglas County School District (2017)

As the cornerstone of IDEA, the importance of the IEP document is emphasized as the center of most special education disputes and court cases (Bateman, 2011). In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017), the Supreme Court of the United States sought to answer the following question: What is the level of educational benefit school districts must confer on children with disabilities to provide them with a FAPE guaranteed by the IDEA? According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the educational benefit requirement of IDEA is satisfied, and a student has received a FAPE if the student’s IEP sets out an educational program that is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of his circumstance” (Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 2017, p. 16). This was a landmark ruling and the concepts of “educational benefit” and “reasonable calculation” provide a general guideline for making decisions regarding the appropriate level of services for SWDs.

Purpose of the Review of Policies, Guidance, and Related Resources

The article presents the findings of a review of the currently available guidance related to determining the type and amount of special education and related services. The review includes publications, existing policies at the federal and state level, and other related resources (hereafter referred to as literature). A presentation of the available literature on the decision-making process is necessary to ensure that IEP Teams do not rely on a formulaic approach, depend on the school building schedule or the preferences of service providers, and critically examine practices of delivering services in specific, unexplained increments of duration and frequency. Such practices may be completed unintentionally by the IEP Team, when, in fact, the process for determining the type and amount of special education and related services must be individualized based on the student’s needs. Student needs are determined through assessment data in conjunction with the information they have regarding the nature of a student’s disability and the potential impact of that disability on participation in the general education classroom to identify the frequency, duration, and location of services (United States Department of Education, 2000). Ultimately, the review of the literature allows for the discovery of gaps in understanding and information, which can be further investigated to improve upon current practices.

The article condenses the findings from a full report developed by the authors (Kouo et al., 2022) for the Special Education Division of the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI). This article serves as a method to further disseminate the findings of the report to a broader audience of school district leaders and IEP Teams seeking additional guidance, structure, and supports.

Method

The methodology was grounded in the framework outlined by Arksey and O’Malley (2005), which includes the following phases: (a) identifying the research question; (b) identifying relevant studies; (c) study selection; (d) charting the data; and (e) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. The literature search process is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Flowchart of Literature Selection.

The subsequent stage led to a preliminary review consisting of manual scanning of the file titles, abstracts, headings and subheadings, and the content of the identified literature. Using a coding process, the first and third authors included literature related to determining the amount and types of special education and related services contained in students’ IEPs and excluded literature that did not address this issue. Continual consensus discussions occurred between the first and third authors to resolve any disagreements and ensure fidelity in applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Levac et al., 2010). Using NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software, each piece of literature was identified as a file. Therefore, 642 files identified as relevant based on the previous preliminary review stage were imported into NVivo. Broad codes and subcodes were created to support the sifting and organization of relevant data related to calculating the amount and type of special education and related services.

Results

IDEA governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services. Each state interprets IDEA to create policies and regulations that support and guide the implementation of special education services but must meet the minimum requirements set forth by IDEA. Interpretation of IDEA and guidance also changes over time based on legislation, regulations, and litigations. The results presented in this article provide a snapshot of the present guidance on determining special education and related services for SWDs in various states across the country. A total of 187 files were coded with one or more codes. The subsequent sections organize the data by themes and subthemes. Following these themes, guiding questions and considerations from the literature are presented.

Individualized Decisions-Making

The literature makes clear that the process of identifying and determining the amount of special education and related services within the IEP must be reflective of all the student’s unique needs. Implications of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017) emphasize that the individualized decision-making process must be based on the needs of the student and that providing a quality education with high expectations “enable[s] the child to make progress appropriate in light of his circumstances” (p. 16). Remaining student-focused ensures that special education, related services, and other supports not only allow a student to make progress in the general education curriculum but also advance toward student-specific academic and/or functional annual goals; participate in extracurricular and nonacademic activities; and be educated alongside other students, including peers without disabilities (Connecticut Department of Education, n.d.; IRIS Center, 2022). However, decisions should not be made based solely on the student’s category of eligibility (i.e., the needs commonly associated with the disability), which would narrowly and inaccurately place parameters around the type and amount of special education and related services (Arizona Department of Education, 2017; Beech, 2015; Washington D. C. Office of the State Superintendent of Education, n.d.).

Teams are advised to consider the interconnectedness of the present level statements on academic and functional performance and the annual goals and objectives within the IEP. Information within these sections, which is detailed below, is critical in determining the effectiveness of current special education and related services for the individual student and what, if any, changes related to the type and intensity of services should occur (Arizona Department of Education, 2017; Beech, 2015; IDEA Regulations, 2012 34 C.F.R. § 300.320 [a]; Washington D. C. Office of the State Superintendent of Education, n.d.).

Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance

This anchoring section of the IEP forms the foundation for all subsequent decisions by presenting a clear description of (a) the student’s academic achievement and functional performance strengths, preferences, and interests; (b) how the student’s disability impacts the student’s involvement in the general education curriculum and identification of areas of concern; (c) a summary of input from parents and the student; and (d) a synthesis of a variety of assessment data (Mississippi Department of Education, 2020, p. 13). The development of the present levels, as with subsequent sections of the IEP, should be collaborative, with each team member having recent and sufficient information and evaluation data on the individual student that can be used to drive service decisions (Easterseals Outreach Program & Technology Services, 2020; Maine Department of Education, 2021).

Annual Goals

The literature establishes the connection between goals and services and emphasizes the importance of identifying the annual goals of the IEP prior to determining the type and amount of special education and related services (Colorado Department of Education, 2017; Gibb & Dyches, 2016; New York City Department of Education, 2021; State of New Mexico Public Education Department, 2020; Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 2021). To remain student-centered, goals and the connecting amount of specially designed instruction and related services should be designed to narrow the gap between the student’s current performance and the grade-level standards so that the student can progress toward the outcomes identified in the IEP (Maine Department of Education, 2020; Maryland State Department of Education, 2019; Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, n.d.). Guidelines for the alignment of goals and services should, at the heart, be data-centered and student-centered.

Progress Monitoring

IDEA requires a description of how a student’s progress toward meeting the annual goals will be measured and when periodic progress reports will be shared with parents (20 U.S.C. § 1414 [d] [1][A][i][III]). Giangreco (2001) emphasizes the importance of reviewing data in a timely manner to make use of this information through responsive, data-driven decisions. Relevant and current data, including formal and informal assessments, progress reports, observations, and other relevant sources of information collected by various members of the IEP Team are essential in determining whether services are needed or should be altered to increase the student’s accessibility to the general education curriculum and to ensure benefit from their special education program (State of New Mexico Public Education Department, 2020; Washington D.C. Office of the State Superintendent of Education, n.d.).

In addition, progress monitoring should occur across a variety of contexts, as services should be delivered in various educational environments. For example, students may learn social skills in small groups in a pull-out setting with the speech-language pathologist. Additional practice and generalization may occur during other academic periods, lunch, and recess with the support of a special education teacher or paraprofessional.

The importance of progress monitoring and responsiveness to collected data, which may necessitate adjustments to interventions and services, shifts the concept of the IEP process being a document that is revised annually. Instead, for progress monitoring and action to effectively occur, the IEP document should be iterative in nature. The IEP is not static, and IEP Teams should consider whether strategically reviewing and updating and IEP may better support students and ensure that interventions and services being provided are based on progress monitoring data.

Reasonably Calculated

The educational benefit requirement of IDEA is satisfied, and a student has received FAPE if the student’s IEP sets out an educational program that is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of his circumstance” (Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 2017, p. 16). In a module developed by the IRIS Center (2022), Yell, a University of South Carolina professor in Special Education, states that IEP Teams must use their expertise as a team to make a prediction of reasonable growth or progress for the student. This best estimate is based on recent, relevant, and meaningful assessment data that addresses all needs, as well as the input of that child’s family members. When considering progress appropriate in light of a child’s circumstances, it is imperative that the IEP Team develop reasonable but ambitious goals that are reflective of the assessment data and family input.

Evidence-Based Practices

Evidence-based practices should be considered when determining services and support for students with disabilities based on their needs. As mandated by IDEA, teachers and service providers should select academic and behavioral interventions that have research to indicate effectiveness. In addition, teachers and service providers should be knowledgeable in explaining the research evidence behind proposed special education interventions and related services to the team, including family members (Yell et al., 2013).

Clarity Within the IEP

The U.S. Department of Education has directed school districts to provide sufficient detail in IEPs to ensure that the resources the district will commit are clear to all members of the IEP Team, including families (71 F.R. 46540). The precision of the language is especially needed so that educators and service providers clearly understand their responsibilities and expectations in implementing the specific services to which a student is entitled based on assessments of the student’s needs (California Department of Education, 2021; Maryland State Department of Education, 2019). Such clarity in the IEP helps ensure proper IEP implementation and supports future decisions for continuing, revising, or discontinuing services (Arizona Department of Education, 2017; Arizona Department of Education, 2019; California Department of Education, 2021).

State-by-state guidance in specifying the amount of service hours in an IEP varies. Generally, ambiguity in IEP service delivery should be avoided. Therefore, prescribing a service “as needed” or providing a range of services does not constitute best practice (Arizona Department of Education, 2019; California Department of Education, 2021). This practice is of particular concern because it prevents the team from planning and organizing the delivery of specially designed instruction in advance (California Department of Education, 2021). However, Wisconsin’s Department of Public Instruction (2010) and Brown (2010) permit the indication of a range for special education or related services to be provided to the student to meet unique needs. Both states caution that a range should not be used for administrative conveniences, such as personnel shortages and availability or budgetary constraints. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2010) clarifies that “the range also cannot be unreasonably wide (generally more than 15 minutes) because this does not provide a clear commitment of resources” (p. 8). Brown (2010) for the New York City Department of Education provides the example of “30-40 minutes per day as determined by the student’s evidence of fatigue” (p. 1).

Team Decision-Making

IEP development requires collaboration, which includes general education classroom teachers, special education teachers, related service providers, parents, and the student. All members have a role in developing goals and objectives, measuring progress, and making decisions. Collaboration and consideration of the interrelated knowledge and disciplinary expertise of the IEP Team are important in determining special education and related services (Giangreco, 2001). Each team member must be prepared to share information about the student’s unique circumstances and the types of services that would best address the student’s needs (Idaho State Department of Education, 2019). Together, team members should review and make decisions based on the student’s data, including past progress and rate of growth; past delivery of specially designed instruction, interventions, and services or supports; and the effectiveness of those past services (Maryland State Department of Education, 2019; Wrightslaw, 2021).

Partnering With Families

As integral members of the IEP Team, the information and perspectives shared by families are crucial in ensuring that decisions on special education and related services are based on the child’s unique needs. Families should be encouraged to participate in IEP Team meetings and provided with opportunities to share information related to the circumstances of their child. Parental voice and involvement can shed light on why the child’s needs warrant specific services and how services can benefit the child. As discussed earlier, the IEP process is collaborative, and other members of the IEP Team should clarify decisions regarding special education and related services, and explain the research foundations supporting certain interventions and services.

Engagement of Related Service Providers

Providers will guide decisions on the delivery of services and “how therapy may be reinforced by teachers, paraeducators, parents, and other staff; equipment management; and what training may be necessary to enable others (e.g., staff, parents, and peers) to implement and support the therapy goals” (Arizona Department of Education, 2008, p. 16). Related service providers may remove barriers by integrating therapies across school settings and in naturally occurring opportunities (Arizona Department of Education, 2008; Kentucky Department of Education, 2021). As outlined in the following sections, this may increase the implementation and effectiveness of inclusive practices, and this may lead to increased collaboration amongst staff across the school (Giangreco, 2001).

Thinking Creatively as a Team

The IEP Team may need to creatively develop a plan for how services will be delivered based on a student’s strengths, needs, interests, and preferences. Thinking creatively as a team may afford related service providers the opportunity to increase the impact of therapies; increase collaboration and progress monitoring with other educators; minimize disruptions within the classroom; and increase opportunities for students to remain with their peers (Arizona Department of Education, 2019). These discussions and decisions should always be made by the IEP Team, with the student remaining the central focus.

Flexibility in Frequency and Duration of Services

Flexibility may be necessary to remain responsive to the needs of the student and allow for added opportunities for meaningful delivery. Flexibility supports student progress and, as an added benefit, provides the most efficient use of a provider’s time (Arizona Department of Education, 2019). However, service delivery decisions should not be based on administrative convenience, such as student course schedules (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2021). Flexible scheduling may be warranted if the team anticipates the student will achieve goals at varying rates. For instance, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (2021) suggests that the team may enter in services with different duration dates when the team anticipates the student will achieve some goals sooner than others. Similarly, “it may be appropriate to specify in the IEP more intense therapy services early in the school year, fading to less intense services as the year passes and routines are established across programs and activities of the school day” (Arizona Department of Education, 2008, p. 21). This approach can support a student to learn a new skill and then provide the student with more time to practice other curricula or classroom demands as the year progresses (Arizona Department of Education, 2019; Kentucky Department of Education, 2021).

Delivery Models

Flexible scheduling permits a combination of delivery models (e.g., direct, integrated/collaboration indirect, and consultation) to be provided to or on behalf of the student, ensuring that the student’s needs are being addressed. A direct delivery model involves the educational professional providing interventions directly to the student to make progress. An integrated or collaborative delivery model involves the educational professional developing and providing interventions during naturally occurring activities alongside the student’s classroom peers. This delivery model emphasizes the integration and generalization of skills into actual school activities. Consultation involves the educational professional providing training and technical assistance to school personnel and families. This delivery model can also lead to troubleshooting and optimization, such as identifying approaches to embedding skills and generalization during naturally occurring opportunities. Considering more than one delivery model may lead to increased collaboration among team members, with providers working together to implement interventions and strategies with consistency across settings and disciplines. This may also lead team members to share the responsibility of data collection and analysis (Kentucky Department of Education, 2021). IEP Teams may also decide that a service will be provided concurrently. Concurrent services occur simultaneously and should be used sparingly and thoughtfully based on the needs of the student. It is important for all team members to understand how the concurrent services will be delivered (i.e., manner and location) and to make this transparent for parents and other IEP Team members through documentation. Although the IEP does not require the documentation of the delivery model, it is imperative that IEP Team members consider and decide together the delivery model to ensure that it meets the needs of the student (Giangreco, 2001; Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2019).

Across Settings

Student-centered decision-making may necessitate interventions to be provided in a variety of settings (e.g., academics, lunch, recess, and specials). Arizona Department of Education (2008) provides an example of variable, month-to-month time schedules:

For example, on an IEP that calls for one hour of occupational therapy per month, one month may include: 20 minutes of hands-on intervention during handwriting in the classroom (week one); 10 minutes of intervention in the classroom, and consultation with the teacher (week two); 15 minutes intervention during art (week three); 10 minutes intervention during PE and 5 minutes intervention during transitions in the hallway, going from the bus to the classroom. Month two may include: 30 minutes intervention in the classroom (week one) and 15 minutes intervention in art (week two), and another 15 minutes intervention in the classroom (week four). (p. 21)

Providing Services to a Student Individually or Within a Group

The IEP Team may also consider whether related services will be provided to a student individually or within a group. The Board of Education of the City of New York (n.d.) provides recommendations for delivering services within a group, which include considering whether practicing skills with others is beneficial and peer relationships, interests, values, or skills to create an optimal context for learning. Some considerations for services to be delivered individually include whether the skills require privacy or intensive treatment and repetition. If services are to be provided within a group, the IEP Team should determine the maximum group size. The Board of Education of the City of New York (n.d.) recommends that

services may be provided to a group of two or more students, with the maximum group size not to exceed eight students. Where services are provided to a mixed group that consists of both SWDs and nondisabled students, the combined group size may not exceed the group size maximum for any individual student with a disability in the group. (p. 21)

Overall, the IEP Team’s decision should be based on the individualized needs of the student as described by the student data.

Discussion and Implications

The themes emerging from the literature emphasize that the student must be at the center of the collaborative decision-making process. The results present the complexity of determining specially designed instruction and related services while also recognizing the true constraints that exist and how these affect decisions made within IEP Teams.

Limitations

Limitations of the review include the searching capabilities and parameters. The authors were only able to access and analyze policies, guidance, and related resources publicly available within each state. Therefore, any guidance focused on determining the amount and type of services that is behind a state or school system’s password-protected site or content management system is not presented in this article. This limitation may also be a rationale for there not being full representation of all states in this article. The lack of information from all states is a concern with regard to the transparency of this information for state and local leaders, and SWDs and their families.

Implications for Practice

The literature includes guidance and prompts for IEP Teams to consider and discuss to determine the amount and type of services. These guiding questions and prompts are compiled and outlined below and were collected from the following sources: Board of Education of the City of New York (n.d.), Maryland State Department of Education (2021), Giangreco (2001), IRIS Center (2022), Kentucky Department of Education (2021), and Mississippi Department of Education (2020).

Table 1 provides guiding questions which emphasize student-centered discussions and clear expectations of the data collection progress.

Table 1.

Student-Centered and Data-Informed Decisions.

1. What type and amount of developmental, corrective, and supportive services are needed to ensure that (a) the student’s areas of concern and specific needs are addressed and (b) the student benefits from general and special education?
2. Do the services consider the student’s history and current progress data with previous general education, special education, and related services?
3. Has current data been collected by multiple members of the team?
4. Is there a clear relationship between the student’s annual IEP goals and objectives (e.g., academic, functional, and behavior), the services, and the gap between the student’s current performance and the grade level standards such that the student can be expected to make reasonable progress in the general education curriculum considering the student’s circumstance?
5. Will the services employ evidence-based practices whenever feasible?
6. Is the frequency and duration of services sufficiently intensive to support an accelerated rate of skill acquisition, the potential for progress, or the level of function?

Note. IEP = Individualized Education Program.

Table 2 provides guiding questions for the IEP Team to consider the types of specially designed instruction and related services to match the student’s skill set and needs and ensure meaningful progress in their education.

Table 2

Educational Programming and Access.

1. Will the services contribute to the student’s access, involvement, and progress in the general education curriculum?
2. Will the services maximize student participation with nondisabled peers? Is the rationale for decisions leading to a student’s services being delivered outside the general education classroom well-documented?
3. Are services provided during the student’s daily educational routine? Are services planned to optimize the student’s ability to practice skills taught across all educational settings, including future employment and independent living environments?
4. Will the services be nonintrusive (i.e., most in keeping with the general practices of the classroom)?
5. Does the proposed service present any undesirable or unnecessary gaps, overlaps, or contradictions with other proposed services or opportunities (i.e., consideration of what the student would miss when receiving this service)?
6. Are services provided through a variety of service delivery models to meet the unique needs of the student and not based solely on service availability? What combination of service models is appropriate given the purpose to be served?
7. Will therapeutic services be provided through a team approach, with team members sharing information, strategies, and techniques to promote consistency in program implementation and generalization of the skill by the student?

Table 3 provides guiding questions on whether related services should continue or be modified based on their student’s academic progress.

Table 3.

Considerations for Discontinuing Related Services.

1. Does the student no longer require the related service provider’s knowledge and expertise as a necessary component of the student’s educational program?
2. Does the student no longer require the related service to access and/or participate in the general curriculum?
3. Is the student able to integrate their acquired skills into the everyday environment and successfully participate?
4. In their primary program without services or with declassification services for up to 12 months?
5. Can the student’s needs be effectively addressed through classroom accommodations or modifications?
6. Has the student met all goals that might have required the support of an education professional?

The purpose of the guiding questions and prompts is to encourage IEP Teams to reflect and make decisions to meet the specific needs of their students and find services that will help their current academic performance. However, there are many precautions that IEP Teams need to take into consideration before making decisions about calculating special education and related services within the IEP. First, IEP Teams should not make decisions solely on the student’s disability (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, n.d.; Indiana Department of Education, 2021). In addition, the convenience of school or program scheduling, class periods and bell schedules, availability of the service provider, or other administrative reasons should not drive IEP Team decisions (Arkansas Department of Education, n.d.; Albuquerque Public Schools, 2012; Indiana Department of Education, 2021; Maine Department of Education, 2021; New York City Department of Education, 2021; South Dakota Department of Education, 2020; State of New Mexico Public Education Department, 2020). Finally, delivering services with fidelity, including frequency, duration, and setting, as well as implementing interventions with fidelity, is crucial.

Implications for State Departments of Education and Local Education Agencies

State Departments of Education and local education agencies are encouraged to revisit the true intention of the IEP and its implementation. An exceeding focus on compliance may shift an IEP Team’s focus away from developing a student-centered educational program and thinking creatively to maximize opportunities for inclusion and collaboration. Likewise, an IEP service matrix within an IEP platform or software system may be a mechanism that may be leveraged to support IEP Teams in making individualized decisions on the amount and type of services using best practices. This may include prompts and added flexibility to clarify decisions and encourage an increased level of collaboration and co-planning to deliver specially designed instruction and services within the general education setting. Finally, State Departments of Education and local education agencies should continue to build the capacity of educators and future educators by partnering with institutions of higher education and research institutes to provide training and technical assistance on IEP development.

Implications for State and Local Leaders

Remaining intentionally focused on the student is pivotal for leaders as they support IEP Teams. Furthermore, state and local leaders are encouraged to continually seek opportunities to increase students’ access to the general education setting and peers without disabilities. By presuming competence and holding high expectations for students, leaders must think creatively and broaden the idea of who can provide services and where services can be delivered (i.e., different academic and social environments, naturally occurring opportunities). Leaders are encouraged to review the guiding questions and considerations in the previous section to hold discussion with IEP Teams. As noted, leaders should challenge practices that do not lead to student-centered decisions, which include examining whether the school schedule is a barrier.

Collaboration remains pivotal in the development and implementation of the IEP. In addition, data collection should be done collaboratively. IEP Teams must ensure that the data is meaningful and helps to determine the effectiveness of services and inform the team on whether adjustments to instructional programming are necessary. Collaboratively collected data necessitates meeting together to analyze the data and make immediate, responsive changes to the IEP. Data and changes to the IEP should also be meaningfully communicated with families to ensure that they remain informed members of the IEP Team. This approach emphasizes the iterative nature of the IEP as it continually changes based on student progress and needs.

Implications for Higher Education Teacher Preparation Programs

These results hold critical implications for teacher educators who reside in preparation programs, including those providing preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Preparing future or current educators to develop high-quality IEPs, requires that teacher educators have advanced knowledge of state and local policies that govern how teachers will complete these tasks. Therefore, it is critical that teacher educators who engage in this scope of the preparation program’s curriculum partner with state leaders and/or local district leaders to learn about IEP development expectations and provide their students with authentic, competency-based approaches to practicing various facets of IEP development, such as using case studies or problem-based scenarios that ready them for these tasks. In addition, when working with in-service educators, those responsible for professional learning may find that their students report ongoing practices in a local district that are not in alignment with the best practices outlined in this review. In these instances, teacher educators must endeavor to communicate the intent of IDEA and provide their students with plausible strategies for advocating how and in what ways the practices and procedures in their school or district be improved in light of what they are learning. When teacher educators, in-service educators, and local leaders collaborate, center discourse on effective IEP development, and emphasize why certain approaches are enacted in the IEP process, it is likely to lead to more student-centered IEPs with increased opportunities for inclusion for SWDs.

Implications for Policy Implementation and Research

Policy analysts argue that interpreting educational policy often involves nuanced understandings, which can have both intended and unintended consequences, regardless of the words written on the page (Hardy & Woodcock, 2015; Taylor et al., 2020). This means implementing policy, such as the IDEA, is not always straightforward. Specifically, the interpretation and subsequent implementation of principles such as LRE in the IDEA are value-laden, deeply contextual, and have been shown through research to be directly impacted by the attitudes and beliefs of professionals involved in decision-making. The IDEA, as written, offers benefits and limitations to the inclusive education of SWDs. While the law provides a great deal of procedural and process-oriented specificity, the IDEA places far greater emphasis on procedural due process and procedurally driven compliance than it does on the quality of services provided to students. The law fails to provide specific guidelines for exactly how IEP Teams should arrive at the amount, type, frequency, and duration of special education and related services for SWDs. This leaves the responsibility of interpretative guidance and technical assistance to states and local school districts, and, as this review has shown, this guidance varies from state to state.

The reauthorization of the IDEA is long overdue, and those in the field of special education have advocated that revisions must incorporate research findings, address common implementation challenges, and integrate court decisions. It may be problematic to incorporate research, as trends have shown that only a small portion of research studies published in the United States relate findings to the IDEA. For example, Lewis et al. (2021) conducted a systematic review of articles within a 10-year period in the top three American special education journals. They found that less than one-quarter of the published studies addressed implications for the IDEA, and of the small percentage of studies that did discuss IDEA, most only referred to procedural or compliance-oriented implications (Lewis et al., 2021). To achieve maximum effectiveness, Lewis et al. (2021) argued that the IDEA must be grounded in diverse methodological approaches. Still, other scholars have criticized the United States legal system for its overly complicated nature, which is led predominantly by adherence to procedural compliance rather than measuring the quality or impact of special education and related services provided to SWDs (i.e., Turnbull & Turnbull, 2003; Wolf, 2006).

While action is needed to improve the IDEA, scholars such as Turnbull and Turnbull (2003) have suggested that the greatest challenge we face is addressing the systemic structures that exist in states and local districts. Such systems allow for the insufficient implementation of any version of the IDEA, such as the ability to circumvent its main principles, like LRE. To achieve effective implementation and the intended spirit of the law, practitioners need written guidance that is understandable, easy to follow, and written in a way that is customizable to any SWD. This guidance must be coupled with future research that supports professional development and practical, ongoing support, to help teams navigate student-centered decisions at IEP Teams regarding the amount, type, frequency, and duration of special education and related services that a SWD receives. Finally, once these services have been determined, there must be research and guidance for local accountability measures, such as fidelity checks and ongoing monitoring, to ensure that SWDs are consistently receiving the services outlined in the IEP and deriving benefits from these services.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This review was supported by the partnership with and funding from the Special Education Division of the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) as part of the Every Minute Counts: Calculating IEP Services to Improve Student Outcomes in Washington State project.

ORCID iD

Jennifer L. Kouo

References

*34 C.F.R. Part 300, Analysis of Comments and Changes, Subpart D–Evaluation, Eligibility, IEP, Educational Placement, Federal Register, Vol.71, No. 156, p. 46667 (August 2006).

*Albuquerque Public Schools. (2012, October 12). 6H – Special education and related services – October 2012 Revision. https://www.aps.edu/about-us/old-policies-and-procedural-directives/old-procedural-directives/i-instruction-special-education/6h-special-education-and-related-services-october-2012-revision

*American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). IDEA Part B: Continuum of service delivery options. https://www.asha.org/advocacy/federal/idea/idea-part-b-issue-brief-continuum-of-service-delivery-options/

*Arizona Department of Education. (2008). Occupational and physical therapy: Processes and procedures for best practices in Arizona’s. Arizona Promising Practices. https://www.azed.gov/sites/default/files/2018/12/OT-PT-AZ-TAS-Document-12-18.pdf?id=5c1d17151dcb250598108cd6

*Arizona Department of Education. (2017, August). Arizona technical system AZ-TAS: Process for developing individualized education programs. https://www.azed.gov/sites/default/files/2017/09/AZTAS%20IEP%202017%20FINAL.pdf?id=59ce6b003217e11164cae4b9

*Arizona Department of Education. (2019, February 28). Speech-language services in Arizona’s schools: Guidelines for best practices. https://www.azed.gov/sites/default/files/2016/11/Speech%20AZ-TAS%20revised%2002%2028-2019.pdf?id=5829c468aadebe159cb26332

*Arkansas Department of Education. (n.d.). Division of elementary and secondary education guidance for special education for extended AMI. https://dese.ade.arkansas.gov/Files/20201026125046_Arkansas_AMI_Guidance_for_Special_Education.pdf

Arksey

O’Malley

(2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

*Bateman

B. D.

(2011). Individualized education programs for children with disabilities. In Kauffman

J. M.

Hallahan

D. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 77–90). Taylor & Francis; Routledge.

10.

*Beech

(2015). Developing quality individual education plans: A guide for instructional personnel and families (4th ed.). Florida Department of Education. https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7690/urlt/0070122-qualityieps.pdf

11.

*Board of Education of the City of New York. (n.d.). Special education services: As part of a unified service delivery system. United Federation of Teachers. http://www.uft.org/files/attachments/unified-service-delivery-system.pdf

12.

*Brown

(2010, May 26). Related services: Frequency, duration, and location of related services [Memorandum]. The New York City Department of Education. https://www.uft.org/sites/default/files/attachments/doe-memo-related-services.pdf

13.

*Connecticut Department of Education. (n.d.) . Understanding the basics of the planning and placement team meeting [PowerPoint slides]. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/SDE/Special-Education/PPT101.pdf

14.

*Colorado Department of Education. (2017). Writing standards-aligned individualized education programs (IEPs): A supplemental guidance document for designing effective formal educational plans. https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/guidance_ieps

15.

*California Department of Education. (2021, September 9). The IEP module 3– Requirements for local educational agencies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Individual Education Program Development. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/ac/iepmodule3engtext.asp

16.

*Easterseals Outreach Program & Technology Services. (2020). Guidance document for occupational therapy in Arkansas public schools. Division of Elementary and Secondary Education/Special Education Unit. https://eastersealsopts.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/OT-Guidance-12.16.20_accessible.pdf

17.

*Endrew

F. v.

Douglas County School District RE–1, 137 S.Ct 988, 580 U.S (2017)

18.

*Giangreco

M. F.

(2001). Guidelines for making decisions about I.E.P. services. Vermont Department of Education. https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/cessfac/7/

19.

*Gibb

G. S.

Dyches

T. T.

(2016). IEPs: Writing quality individualized education programs (3rd ed.). Pearson.

20.

Hardy

Woodcock

(2015). Inclusive education policies: Discourses of difference, diversity, and deficit. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(2), 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.908965

21.

*Idaho State Department of Education. (2019, May 17). Idaho special education manual: 2017–2018 revision. https://www.sde.idaho.gov/sped/files/shared/SPED-Manual-2018-Change-Log.pdf

22.

*Indiana Department of Education. (2021, October 27). Preschool Child’s Development. IN.gov. https://www.in.gov/doe/files/evaluation-flow-chart.pdf

23.

*Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300 (2012).

24.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

25.

*IRIS Center. (2022). IEPs: Developing high-quality individualized education programs. Vanderbilt University. https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/iep01/#content

26.

*Kentucky Department of Education. (2021). Guidance for special education related services: Occupational therapy, physical therapy and speech-language therapy. https://education.ky.gov/specialed/excep/forms/Documents/GuidanceSpecialEducationRelatedServicesOccupationalTherapy.pdf

27.

Kouo

J. L.

Harkins-Brown

Phung

(2022) Every minute counts: Calculating IEP services to improve student outcomes–Report of the existing policies, guidance, and related resources. https://ospi.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/specialed/pubdocs/EMC_LitReviewReport.pdf

28.

Levac

Colquhoun

O’Brien

K. K.

(2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(69), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

29.

Lewis

M. M.

Burke

M. M.

Decker

J. R.

(2021). The relation between the individuals with disabilities education act and special education research: A systematic review. American Journal of Education, 127, 345–368. https://doi.org/10.1086/713825

30.

*Maine Department of Education. (2020). IEP training. https://www.maine.gov/doe/sites/maine.gov.doe/files/inline-files/8.11.20%20-%208.20.20%20CDS%20IEP%20Training.pdf

31.

*Maine Department of Education. (2021, October 19). This training is being recorded. https://www.maine.gov/doe/sites/maine.gov.doe/files/inline-files/IEP%20Training%20with%20Prompts%20UD%2010-19-21%20%282%29_0.pdf

32.

*Maryland State Department of Education. (2019). Technical assistance bulletin #19-01 improving outcomes for students with disabilities curriculum, instruction, and assessment. https://marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Documents/Special-Ed/TAB/19-01_Curriculum_Instruction_and_Assessment_Final-508.pdf

33.

Maryland State Department of Education. (2021). Statewide Individualized Education Program process guide. http://cte.jhu.edu/IEP/MarylandIEPProcessGuideJanuary2021.pdf

34.

*Mississippi Department of Education. (2020). Individualized Education Program (IEP) development guidance: Creating a program to benefit children with disabilities. https://www.mdek12.org/sites/default/files/iep_guidance_final_3.3.20.pdf

35.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Students with Disabilities. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved June 25, 2023, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg

36.

*New York City Department of Education. (2021, November 16). Special education standard operating procedures manual. https://infohub.nyced.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/specialeducationstandardoperatingproceduresmanualmarch.pdf?sfvrsn=4cdb05a0_2

37.

*North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2021, May 7). Annual IEP video companion document. https://www.dpi.nc.gov/media/10655/open

38.

*South Dakota Department of Education. (2020, August 13). Individual Education Program (IEP): A technical assistance guide. https://doe.sd.gov/sped/documents/IEP-TA-20.pdf

39.

*State of New Mexico Public Education Department. (2020, September 24). Clarification of special education and related services in New Mexico related to the eligibility category of Developmental Delay (DD). New Mexico Public Education Department. https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Final-NMPED-DD-Memo-FINAL-9-24-20.pdf

40.

Taylor

J. P.

Rooney-Kron

Whittenburg

H. N.

Thoma

C. A.

Avellone

Seward

(2020). Inclusion of students with intellectual and developmental disabilities and postsecondary outcomes: A systematic literature review. Inclusion, 8(4), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-8.4.303

41.

Turnbull

H. R.

Turnbull

A. P.

(2003). Reaching the ideal. Education Next, 3(1), 32–37. https://www.educationnext.org/reachingtheideal/

42.

*United States Department of Education. (2000). A guide to the Individualized Education Program (IEP). Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. https://www2.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/index.html#writing

43.

*Washington D. C. Office of the State Superintendent of Education. (n.d.). Policy in practice webinar series: Related services under IDEA [PowerPoint slides]. https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/documents/Related%20Services%20Policy%20Webinar.pdf

44.

*Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2019). November 2019 special education update. https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/specialed/monthlyupdates/Nov2019Updates.pdf

45.

*Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (n.d.). College and Career Ready Individualized Education Program (CCR IEP): Improving outcomes for students 3 through 21. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/sped/pdf/rda-ccr-iep-five-step-process.pdf

46.

*Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2010, October). Information update bulletin 10.07. https://dpi.wi.gov/sped/laws-procedures-bulletins/bulletins/10-07

47.

*Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2021). Guide to special education forms. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/sped/pdf/forms-guide.pdf

48.

Wolf

P. J.

(2006). Sisyphean tasks. Education Next, 3(1), 24–32. https://www.educationnext.org/sisypheantasks/

49.

*Wrightslaw. (2021). FAQs: Related services. Wrightslaw. https://www.wrightslaw.com/info/relsvcs.faqs.htm

50.

*Yell

M. L.

Conroy

Katsiyannis

Conroy

(2013). Individualized education programs and special education programming for students with disabilities in Urban Schools. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 41(2), 669–714.