Reply to Is this an adequate goals-based IEP goal??

Forum Index » Kids With Special Needs and Disabilities

Reply to "Is this an adequate goals-based IEP goal??"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]The teacher has a point. For her, it doesn't matter because it won't change the instruction a child receives. That is her domain- instruction. You, as a parent, operate in a different domain, and, as such, believe that goals need to be broken out. I happen to disagree with you, but rather than coming here and telling you you make no sense, I can either try to expand your point of view, or I can stay quiet. (I choose to stay quiet in this case about the actual reading comprehension example.)

Point is, as long as you see teachers as making no sense just because you operate in a different domain doesn't do anything for trying to increase understanding all around to get the most effective IEP for your child. Teachers are experts in learning in a way that parents cannot be expected to be. We all have something to bring to the table. We are all on the same side, even when we disagree about how to get there.[/quote]

I find your attitude and that of the school psychologist to be common in IEP teams.  While claiming parents have something to contribute, you are dismissive of their input into the IEP.  You don't have to be in education to understand how to define performance goals and measures - which is what we're talking about here.  No one is saying the purpose of the IEP is to define [b]how [/b]a child is instructed.  The discussion is [b]what [/b]the goals/objective should be.   Reading comprehension is NOT a goal.  It is an area of need.  Weaknesses in that area must be identified.  After identifying the weakness, a goal should be written stating where that student should be in one year and how progress/achievement will be measured.  Even a lay person can identify components of reading comprehension.  According to OP, her DS's area of need is reading comprehnesion and weaknesses are in vocabulary, sequencing and making connections. Even a lay person knows you can't a single measure for all three of those weaknesses.  They must be broken out or you won't have an accurate method of assessing achievement. The goal also doesn't specify how many times the student must have 80% accuracy over the quarter.  Is it once, twice, ten times, every single time? Also, the DRA by itself isn't a sufficient measure.  As OP noted, high performance in one area will compensate for poor performance in another and it also doesn't assess all areas of need.

I find it incredibly disturbing and frustrating that a special ed teacher says "Yes, the goal is poorly written, but what possible difference does it make?" and that a school psychologist agrees!  The goal should tell anyone reading the IEP exactly what the challenges a child has, what that child should do in one year and how progress should be measured.  It's the teacher's job to determine how the child should be instructed but how in the world would you know if that instruction is effective or if the goal is appropriate unless it's well defined?  How do you know if additional interventions are needed or instruction approach changed?  You can't if the goals are poorly written.  You both should go to the director of special education in your district and tell her you don't think poorly written goals make a difference.  There's a ton of case law to the contrary.
[/quote]

You quoted the wrong person. I am the PP -school psychologist and that is not what I wrote. I wrote that that the emphasis should be on reading decoding and fluency, and separate oral language/listening comprehension goal should be written first. You kept getting bogged down with reading comprehension. The student is currently in kindergarten. I wouldn't work on reading comprehension for a kinder student who is not reading fluently. The precursor to reading comprehension is reading decoding/fluency plus adequate listening comprehension/oral language.  I agreed with the special education teacher that fine- you can divide up the goal in three but if the child can't decode and read fluenctly you never will be able to tell if the child can use the proper vocabulary, sequencing, and making connections.  A speech and language therapist needs to be involved if vocabulary and sequencing are weak.  So that is what I mean by who cares if the goal is divided, I don't think it is an appropriate goal for a [b]student who is currently in kindergarten. [/b] The speech therapist mentioned more services, is the child getting speech and language services?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics