OP here, 21:08 is correct - DS is currently decoding at a first grade level. However, it doesn't seem he understands the big picture of what he reads or is read to him. He has an excellent visual memory, so he memorizes a lot. He does have speech goals to develop receptive vocabulary and pragmatic speech.

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 student who is currently in kindergarten. The speech therapist mentioned more services, is the child getting speech and language services?

Thank you for the clarification. When you wrote that you agreed with the special ed teacher, it seemed you were agreeing that poorly written goals were acceptable and that the parent should accept the way the goal is written - 'not get bogged down'. I'm saying that well written goals do make a difference and parents are capable of identifying poorly written ones.

OP's question specifically related to reading comprehension - vocabulary, sequencing and making connections. I'm not bogged down with it, I am responding to her specific question. You are assuming that OP's DS isn't reading fluently and decoding. You don't know that and without additional information regarding her child's current level of performance, there's no point in speculating what he needs or what is an appropriate goal for his grade level. A child can be above grade level and still have an IEP. You are also the only one who has mentioned a speech therapist. OP hasn't indicated whether one is involved or not.

Again, these exchanges reinforce our belief that we're best served by using a consultant - someone who really studies the evaluations, understands the challenges our children have, knows what the school can and should be doing and works to get what's best for the child - and understands the importance of well written, appropriate, relevant goals. As parents, we're too often dismissed as having insufficient expertise in or understanding of education. It's shame but it's seems pretty common.

PP (school psychologist) -- so when you say OP needs to focus on the "big picture" instead of getting bogged down in dividing the goal up into three -- your "big picture" is that the goal itself isn't an appropriate one for a kindergartener?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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 how a child is instructed. The discussion is what 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.

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 student who is currently in kindergarten. The speech therapist mentioned more services, is the child getting speech and language services?

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.

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 how a child is instructed. The discussion is what 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.

School psychologist here. I have to agree with the special Ed. Teacher that the OP should focus on the big picture and not get bogged down if the goal is divided into 3 parts or not. The problem with the goal is not about dividing the goal into sections, the problem is it is a reading comprehension goal for a kindergartner to master by 3/4 ths of first grade. You have to be able to decode to work on reading comprehension. What is the baseline for reading comprehension now? The goal is not clear "after reading a story at studen's instructional level, student will resell the story". Does this mean the student will read the story or the teacher? I think it means the student but the problem is most kindergartners and first graders with IEP's are not reading fluently enough to be able to read a long enough story to be able to use appropriate vocabulary and sequencing. Really a decoding goal is more important along with a listening comprehension and oral language goal that the speech and language therapist should also be working on. If a student is not able to listen to a story and retell it in order with proper vocabulary then the student won't be able to focus on decoding and reading comprehension. Make sure a baseline is noted so you can assess exactly where the student is today to be able to compare progresss in one year.
You want quality reading instruction, ask how that is going to happen? What DRA level should the child be at in one year? How will the child get there?

21:10 here. It's because of responses like this that we use a consultant. How the goal is written makes a huge difference and I'm disappointed that a special educator in particular doesn't recognize that. It won't change the instruction a child receives but it can tell you, among other things, how effective the instruction is and if the level of service hours provided is sufficient. The OP's example of reading, the goal should be broken out into objectives because vocabulary, sequencing and making connections are very different thing yet all are needed in order to be reading and retelling at an age appropriate manner. A student can easily have skill variation in those areas and it's important to note which areas are weak and which are strong in order to know what to address. Why wouldn't you break those out?

How in the world could a parent advocate for technology, more service hours or one-on-one instruction if there is no data to support those requests? Your post makes little sense.

PP, this isn't a fair response. I'm told that we in the SN forum are kinder, give each other the benefit of the doubt, and generally try to understand challenges that all of us who live/work with SN kids face.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a special education teacher. Yes, the goal is poorly written, but what possible difference does it make? Do parents think that wording a goal differently will change the instruction your child receives? It won't. Advocate for things that make a difference: the use of a word processor, if your child needs it, or more hours of service, or a one on one.

Also, an educator cannot rate a goal as mastered unless every part of the goal has been mastered. It's not a "best two out of three" situation.

21:10 here. It's because of responses like this that we use a consultant. How the goal is written makes a huge difference and I'm disappointed that a special educator in particular doesn't recognize that. It won't change the instruction a child receives but it can tell you, among other things, how effective the instruction is and if the level of service hours provided is sufficient. The OP's example of reading, the goal should be broken out into objectives because vocabulary, sequencing and making connections are very different thing yet all are needed in order to be reading and retelling at an age appropriate manner. A student can easily have skill variation in those areas and it's important to note which areas are weak and which are strong in order to know what to address. Why wouldn't you break those out?

How in the world could a parent advocate for technology, more service hours or one-on-one instruction if there is no data to support those requests? Your post makes little sense.

I'm a special education teacher. Yes, the goal is poorly written, but what possible difference does it make? Do parents think that wording a goal differently will change the instruction your child receives? It won't. Advocate for things that make a difference: the use of a word processor, if your child needs it, or more hours of service, or a one on one.

Also, an educator cannot rate a goal as mastered unless every part of the goal has been mastered. It's not a "best two out of three" situation.

21:10 here. Yes, our consultant comes with us to the meetings and, in fact, does the vast majority of talking for "our side", particularly when we don't have agreement. We've been using her now for 4 years for two kids. We hired her after being told by the school that nothing about our DS stood out despite extensive private testing (including from NIH) that showed significant challenges that affected his ability to learn. We were desperate to get assistance for him before he actually failed. Ironically, at the same time and at the same school, we were going through the IEP process for our youngest DS who was transitioning from Infant Toddler to Child Find and the Special Ed preschool. The experiences were radically different. It couldn't have been easier to get the youngest qualified and into the program.

Initially, there was tension at the IEP. Our consultant wasn't hostile or aggressive but she did challenge the school team and questioned them. Everyone was on the school team was guarded (don't blame them) but they were very professional and we were able to hammer out an excellent IEP. Each subsequent meeting was easier and easier. They became accustomed to working with our consultant (who is well known in the school system) and she freely recognized the excellent work they do and how collaborative they are with each other. So, while it may have been uncomfortable in the beginning, I think having a consultant has actually helped us maintain an excellent relationship with the school. Any annoyance is directed at our consultant, not us. We sit there, express our appreciation at the work the staff do and look attentive when the consultant speaks. I think having a positive relationship with the team makes a big difference. They're people first and foremost. They're under-paid, under-resourced and under-appreciated. They have to attend god knows how many of these meetings which require a lot of preparation and they have to do a lot of data collection on kids like mine. What they have to do, is not why they got into teaching in the first place so the more pleasant I can make my interactions with them, the less they resent having to do the crappy part of their job and dealing with me and my kid. By using a consultant, we get reassurance that what our kids need, they get. Our consultant helps us keep our emotions out of the discussions (that's so hard!) and to manage our expectations. When she tells us something isn't appropriate or not reasonable to ask the school, it's off the table. It keeps our IEP meetings operating at a much higher expertise level than most.

Once we brought her in for our oldest DS, the meetings have gotten easier and easier. We didn't bring her in for our youngest until his first annual review. By that time, we figured we needed someone to review the goals and assist us in getting related servcies because we didn't have a lot of confidence in his teacher. Those meetings got pretty tense with the teacher only and the procedural officer had to start attending because of the teachers lack of understanding of the many of the requirements. Things got worked out and the next year was easy. We're now back at a difficult point because we (parents and consultant) don't agree with what the school team is proposing for service hours. I wouldn't call the meeting tense because there's no rancor, no anger, no lack of goodwill. We just disagree. We understand why the school will not agree to more but disagree with the reason. Dont' know where this will lead eventually but I'm immensely grateful to have our consultant because we believe she is truly looking out for the best interest of our DS and working to get him what he needs and what is reasonable. The school team seems to appreciate our perspective even though they don't agree with us. Again, I think working with the consultant has helped us maintain a very positive relationship with the staff - and I think we've gotten better teachers because of it. The school doesn't want poor teachers in front of her, that's for sure!

Our consultant typically charges us 1 hour to review materials (but may be 2 hours the first time if you've got a lot of documentation) and travel time to and from school. She met with us with our DS prior to working for us. She doesn't work for any kid she hasn't met. Once we've got a good IEP in place, we typcially only use her once a year for the annual review. If something comes up between then, we do use her (oldest DS was having some anxiety and we asked her to come for an FBA discussion). It's been incredibly expensive for us but we feel we've gotten good value. If joke that we're spending our kids' college fund on her because if we don't they'll never get to college. If this doesn't answer your questions, please post back.

21:10, does your consultant come with you to the IEP meetings? I'd pay someone that an hour for a few hours workup with us ahead of time and then the time for the meeting.

And have you felt that it impacted your relationship with the IEP "Team"? In one sense, who cares? You need to get the services your kid needs. OTOH, maybe they work that much hard to prove their pre-judgments of you and your SN child?

Anonymous wrote:We've faced similar situations with our kids. You are correct that the this needs to be broken down into separate objectives. Because the goal defines where the student should be in one year, the DRA level should be defined. Your DS should be reading at a rate of X words per minute with Y level of comprehension as measured by Z. By defining the objectives, you are not narrowing the goal, you are defining it. You MUST know that all components of the goal are met. If your DS meets the goal/objectives prior to the next annual review, that doesn't mean the staff stop working with your DS, they work to enable him in meet grade level expectations.

I don't mean to sound like an advertisement for advocates/consultants, but this is one of the reasons we use one. Our concerns/objections are so often dismissed because we're the 'parents'. It's so frustrating. That's why we pay someone $250/hr to avoid this. It sucks but, for us, more acceptable than the alternative. I'm so tired of this.

This!

$250 and hour is expensive, until you compare it to the 10s of thousands worth of difference it could make for your child. I can't recommend an advocate highly enough.

Thanks PP, your suggestion is more in line with the types of goals and objectives DS has in his current IEP. I'm going to continue pushing for this in the next meeting. Thanks again

We've faced similar situations with our kids. You are correct that the this needs to be broken down into separate objectives. Because the goal defines where the student should be in one year, the DRA level should be defined. Your DS should be reading at a rate of X words per minute with Y level of comprehension as measured by Z. By defining the objectives, you are not narrowing the goal, you are defining it. You MUST know that all components of the goal are met. If your DS meets the goal/objectives prior to the next annual review, that doesn't mean the staff stop working with your DS, they work to enable him in meet grade level expectations.

I don't mean to sound like an advertisement for advocates/consultants, but this is one of the reasons we use one. Our concerns/objections are so often dismissed because we're the 'parents'. It's so frustrating. That's why we pay someone $250/hr to avoid this. It sucks but, for us, more acceptable than the alternative. I'm so tired of this.

I'm still getting used to the new "goals based" IEPs. I'm used to seeing a goal, with several objectives below it that go toward carrying out and measuring that goal.

This time around, our school is proposing the following goal for our DS, who will be in first grade next school year:

"Student will develop his skills in the area of reading comprehension. After reading a story at Student's instructional level, Student will retell the story in his own words using relevant vocabulary, order events in the correct sequence, and make connections to the text with 80% accuracy during a quarter grading period."

When I asked about separating each of the above (vocabulary, sequencing and making connections) into a separate objectives under this goal, I was told that under the goals-based IEP system, they include these in one goal, and they measure the goal with the DRA and/or QRI. My concern is that, if performance should be high in one area, it could mask a weakness in another of these areas, and thus make it look like the goal has been met (when really, it might only have been met for one or two of these three objectives).

The response was that including objectives like I proposed narrows the goal (ie, there is in fact more that goes into the goal than these three objectives) and in any event, we won't know until first grade how the teacher determines - based on how DS is doing at that time - to best go about implementing steps for DS to achieve this goal. Also, the expectation is that parents and teacher would be in touch on an ongoing basis during the school year regarding the IEP goals, and parents can call an IEP meeting at anytime if we have concerns.

Although I'm grateful for the services, and the school has been great with DS so far, I'm torn whether I should accept this at face value, or push for objectives to be written into the IEP. Has anyone else faced this type of issue with their child's IEP?