Enhancing Family Participation in the IFSP/IEP Process

Feel free to print and/or copy any original materials contained in this packet. KITS has purchased the right to reproduce any copyrighted material included in this packet. Any additional duplication should adhere to appropriate copyright law.

The example organizations, people, places, and events depicted herein are fictitious. No association with any real organization, person, places, or events is intended or should be inferred.

_{Kansas Inservice Training System}

₁₉₉₉

_{Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities}

_{Adapted for accessibility and transferred to new website October 2022}

_{Kansas Inservice Training System is supported though Part C, IDEA Funds from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.}

_{The University of Kansas is and Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer and does not discriminate in its programs and activities. Federal and state legislation prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, disability, and veteran status. In addition, University policies prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, marital status, and parental status.}

Table of Contents

Letter from the Director

Overview

Options for Family Participation

Preparing Families for the IFSP/IEP Process

The IFSP/IEP Meeting

Monitoring Progress with the Family

Resources

Packet Evaluation

Letter from the Director

Dear Colleague,

The importance of quality early childhood education has gained national attention with recent emphasis on learning in very young children in the popular press.  Providing educational services in an appropriate manner is no less important.  One component to providing quality services by early intervention and special education personnel is the way in which we involve families in the development of instructional plans and services.  This packet has been provided to you as the Director of Special Education services or the Coordinator for an Infant/Toddler network to enable you and your staff to understand the issues related to enhancing family participation in the IFSP/IEP process.  Please disseminate as appropriate

We hope that you will find that the packet contains helpful information. After you have examined the packet, please complete the evaluation found at the end of this packet. Thank you for your interest and your efforts toward the development of quality services and programs for young children and their families.

Sincerely,

David P. Lindeman, Ph.D.

KITS Director

Back to top of page

Overview

What do we know about family participation in the IFSP/IEP process?

Family Participation in the IFSP process

Research about family participation in the IFSP process has been primarily favorable.  Below are some highlights from this literature:

• Families feel valued as members of the multi-disciplinary team and they want to participate in their child’s educational plan (Able-Boone, 1993).
• Parent participation in the IFSP process is considered a vital part of the development of outcomes, goals and objectives (Campbell, 1992; Able-Boone, 1993).
• Families realize that their child with disabilities or delays is a vital part of their family (AbleBoone, 1993).
• Professionals in one study indicated they felt the IFSP process was too professionally focused and families were overwhelmed.  However, families felt the meetings went well (Able-Boone, 1993).
• More parent language is used on the IFSP after formal training of family members and service providers (Campbell, 1990).

Family Participation in the IEP Process

In spite of the requirements of PL 94-142 which mandated parental participation in IEP meetings, research demonstrates that many families do not actively participate in the IEP meetings (Turnbull & Turnbull, 1990).  Below is a brief summary of this literature:

• Parental contributions accounted for less than 25% of the total contributions of the IEP conference and the mean length of IEP conferences was 36 minutes (Goldstein, Strickland, Turnbull & Curry, 1980).
• When  parents  participated in IEP development, only 14% made suggestions and expressed opinions and a mere 6.3% understood everything that was said during the meeting. (Lynch & Stein, 1982).
• Seventy-six percent of family members indicated they were very satisfied or satisfied with their child’s special education program (Lynch & Stein, 1982).
• Parents participated 30% less in the conferences than the special educator  (Vacc, Vallecorsa, Parker, Bonner, Lester, Richardson, and Yates, 1985).
• The main activity in one study was securing the parents’ signature on the IEP documents rather than encouraging participation in the meeting.  Secondly, special education jargon was used throughout all the meetings (Harry, Allen & McLaughlin, 1995).

What Do These Research Findings Mean to Us?

The literature on the IFSP process suggests it is a more interactive, family-guided process, and yet there is evidence families are still participating in a passive manner  (Able-Boone, 1993).  The literature on the IEP process suggests after more than a decade of implementation, research and recommendations for change, significant progress in making families “partners” in the IEP process has not been evident.  Examining ways to increase family participation in both the IFSP and IEP process will assist in making the fields of early intervention and early childhood special education more effective in delivery services to young children with disabilities and their families.

Back to top of page

Options for Family Participation

Initiating a Family-Guided Approach

1. Emphasis is placed on choices for families.  Implementation of their decision-making role is encouraged from the beginning.  Initial decisions are easy choices for families to make but serve as basis for later, more complex decisions.
2. Information and resources that assist in making decisions are provided. Manageable amounts of information and choices to be made are given at any one time.  Decisions aren’t required immediately.
3. Families participate in concrete activities that have a practical and obvious use for program planning.  Activities include participating in assessments, choosing toys and materials for observation, or demonstrating skills their child can do.
4. Opportunities to share information are planned.  Each visit/contact includes both designated times to share information and spontaneous descriptions of what is occurring.  Families don't wait to hear the assessment results.
5. Examples from other families or connections with another, more experienced family, are integral parts of the process (at parent request and with permission).  Veteran parents from the program or parent-to-parent matches help support families in making choices.
6. Respect is shown for  parent choices and decisions.  Family  members gain confidence in their ability to make early intervention decisions when their decisions are supported rather than questioned or changed.
7. A structure or framework for active participation is embedded in the IEP or IFSP process.

How To Implement Family-Guided Values While Gathering Assessment Information

1. Ask only for information that has a specific purpose.
2. Assist families in identifying their interests, needs, and strengths through the use of conversations, checklists or in problem solving dialogues.
3. Provide opportunities for open ended comments or responses.  Let families "guide" how much and when they share sensitive information.
4. Focus on areas of family concerns, such as: child interests, family interests, and community interests.
5. Focus on strengths and wellness.   Present questions, comments, and information in a positive manner.
6. Adapt for differences in lifestyle, religion, beliefs, and coping strategies of the family.
7. Use instructions and language that are clear and understandable.  Explain any jargon used.
8. Include existing community resources in information and questions.  Identify informal supports.
9. Ask family members to determine who they want to participate in the information sharing, when and where it will occur, and types and amounts of information to be shared.
10. Have families review all written information and determine if accurate and acceptable. They determine what information will be shared and with whom it will be shared. (This includes verbal as well as written information.)
11. View information gathering as a continuing process rather than a discrete activity.
12. Systematically review, as a team, completeness of information gathered to reduce duplication of efforts and expedite intervention.

_{Family-guided Approaches to Collaborative Early Intervention Training and Services (FACETS), 1996, Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities at Parsons, 2601 Gabriel, Parsons, KS 67357.}

Back to top of page

Preparing Families for the IFSP/IEP Process

The following handouts will assist you in supporting families during the information gathering process before the IFSP/IEP meeting. Handout #1, the IFSP planning guide, has been included to assist teams in assuring a family’s concerns, priorities and resources are discussed and addressed during the IFSP meeting.  ECSE teams could also adapt this planning guide and use it as a guide for their IEP meetings.  This mechanism allows us to examine a family’s concerns related to their child and/or their family, what outcomes or goals they have for their child and family, the child’s strengths and the family’s resources.  Two options for using the IFSP planning guide include using it as an interview tool to initiate discussion with families or asking families to complete the planning guide and bring it to the meeting as part of their input in this process. Lastly, a combination of these options could be used with the family such as completing as much as they want on the form and then letting blanks initiate discussion with their family service coordinator or another professional on the team.

Handout #2 is a quick check list to insure that families and professionals alike are properly prepared for the IFSP/IEP meeting.  It is a great way to assist new teachers and  related service providers who are new to IFSP/IEP meetings.

Handout #3 assists teams in planning assessment and IFSP practices so they can better support families and team members.  This way they can make changes in their existing practices.

Lastly, Handout #4 is a tool to give families an opportunity to reflect upon what happened at the IFSP or IEP meeting.  This can assist them in determining if they were an integral part of the team and record specifics about what happened at the meeting.

Handouts have been adapted for accessibility for this website.

Southeast Kansas Birth to Three Program

IFSP Planning Guide (Example)

Who: Katie

Age: 2

When (Date of IFSP): February 22

Time: 4 PM

Where: Our House

Phone: 555-1234

Family/Friends/Professionals/Agency Representatives to attend meeting: Lou Ann, Jane, Julian

Concerns

• Child Concerns:
  • Katie is not eating good.
  • Her speech is slow. 
• Family Concerns (optional):
  • The kids don't play well together at home or at the babysitter's
  • We don't know how to help.

Priorities 

• Child Outcomes
  • More words and sentences.
  • Gaining weight.
  • Checking to see she develops right.
• Family Interests
  • Learning how to help Katie
  • Stopping the girl's fights

Resources

• Child Strengths: (Include recent progress or changes, favorite activities, special qualities)
  • Katie is curious, loving, likes books.
  • She can ride her new bike.
• Family Resources: (Include available resources, abilities, supports)
  • Jane is a good babysitter.
  • Our insurance covers Katie's basic medicinal needs.
  • We want to help Katie. 

Quick Checks:

• Have the family members identified who will be at their planning meeting?
• Does the time and location meet the needs of the family?
• Are attending team members aware of the meeting logistics?
• Has the family had an opportunity to complete the IFSP/IEP guide (see previous divider explanation)?
• Are the team members attending the IFSP/IEP planning meeting aware of what the family wants to discuss?
• Have community providers and resources had opportunities for input?
• Have the family members seen and approved the assessment results?
• Are copies of the assessment report available for their records?
• Has the family received their Parental Rights and had an opportunity for questions?
• Are team members familiar with child and family routines, activities, and schedules?
• Are there materials/plans/activities for other children attending the meeting?
• Do you have extra copies of any form you could possibly need (i.e. referrals to other agencies, information release, IFSP/IEP signature sheets, outcome plans)?

Planning for an IFSP: Team Reflections

• What strategies have facilitated family comfort and involvement during the assessment process?  What hasn't worked?
• What roles have the family identified for themselves in the IFSP process?  How and when can we assure opportunities for involvement?
• How/Where does the family define their community?  Who are their preferred providers? What sources do we want to be sure we include in our options?
• Who does the family include in their informal and formal supports?  Have we assured their involvement as requested by the family?
• How have we adapted our process to meet the family's culture, constellation, values and beliefs?
• What can we do to assure the focus is on positive contributions of the child and family?
• What options for Parent-to-Parent support or parent resources can be offered?
• What do we need to remember to support each other's expertise on the team?
• What accommodations for collaboration across community agencies may be necessary?

Family Member Observation of IFSP or IEP Meeting

• Date:
• Who were the members of the team, including yourself, involved in this meeting?
• What happened first?
• Then what did you do (what was your role)?
• How did the team respond to your words and/or actions?
• What were the results of the IFSP/IEP meeting?
• Do you think you or one of the team members could have done something better to make the meeting a more positive experience for you and your family?
• Why or why not?

_{Adapted from: Family-guided Approaches to Collaborative Early Intervention Training and Services (FACETS), 1996, Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities at Parsons, 2601 Gabriel, Parsons, KS 67357}

Back to top of page

The IFSP/IEP Meeting

• Planning the meeting
• Writing the plan
• DAP goals and objectives

The following handouts will assist you in preparing families for the IFSP or IEP meeting.  Handout #1 gives the family tips for preparing for the meeting and includes ideas such as writing down their child’s strengths and needs, deciding who else they would like at the meeting, and bringing any relevant files or documentation that the team doesn’t already have to the meeting.

Handout #2 gives families tips to assist them in participating fully at the IFSP/IEP meeting.  These tips include having service providers wear name tags, taking a tape recorder to the meeting and asking professionals to clarify terms or points they don’t understand.

Handout #1: A Guide for Families to Prepare for the IFSP/IEP Meeting

• Think about your child’s strengths and needs.
• Write down any outcomes, goals and objectives that are important to you.
• Think about your family’s concerns, priorities and resources.
• Write down your questions about your child’s services.
• Decide if you want someone with you at the meeting.
• Visit your child’s current or future learning environment.
• If necessary, obtain an outside assessment.
• Dress so that you will be comfortable with the service providers.
• Bring relevant files and other documentation to the meeting.
• Let the early intervention program or preschool know if you can’t attend due to problems with transportation, child care or a time conflict.

_{Beckman, P. J., Boyes, G. B., & Herres, A. (1993).  The IEP and IFSP meetings.  In P. J. Beckman & G. B. Boyes (Eds.),  Deciphering the system: A guide for families of young children with disabilities (pp. 87). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Reprinted with permission.}

Handout #2: IFSP/IEP Meeting Tips for Family Members

• Make sure you are introduced.
• Have service providers wear name tags or write down their name and position.
• Introduce anyone you have brought to the meeting.
• Take a tape recorder.
• Make it clear how you wish to be addressed.
• Try to stay calm and even-tempered.
• Get specific information on the assessment procedures used.
• Make sure your child’s strengths are acknowledged.
• Make sure professionals address your priorities for your child and family.
• Ask professionals to clarify terms or points you don’t understand.
• Recognize that you have knowledge that professionals do not.
• State your preferences about placement decisions.
• If time runs out too soon, ask for another meeting.
• Sign the document only if you feel comfortable with the plan.
• Work constructively with the program to resolve any differences.

_{Beckman, P. J., Boyes, G. B., & Herres, A. (1993).  The IEP and IFSP meetings.  In P. J. Beckman & G. B. Boyes (Eds.),  Deciphering the system: A guide for families of young children with disabilities (pp. 91). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Reprinted with permission.}

Comparison of the Required Components of the IFSP and the IEP

• Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP)
  1. A statement of the child’s present status in physical, cognitive, communication, social/emotional and adaptive skill development.
  2. A statement of the family’s resources, priorities, and concerns related to enhancing the child’s development.
  3. A statement of the expected intervention objectives (for the infant or toddler and the family) with schedules including the timelines used to determine progress.
  4. A description of specific early intervention services necessary to meet the unique needs of the child and family (i.e., frequency, intensity, and the method of delivering services).
  5. The projected dates for initiation of and expected duration of services.
  6. The name of the service coordinator (from the profession most immediately relevant to the child’s or family’s needs) who will be responsible for carrying out the plan and coordinating with other agencies and persons.
  7. Must include the steps to be taken to support the transition of the child to
     • Preschool services (Part B) to the extent which these services are appropriate or
     • other services that may be available if appropriate.
  8. A statement of natural environments that occur where early intervention services will be provided including a justification of the extent, if any, to which service will not be provided in a natural environment.
• Individualized Education Program (IEP)
  1. A statement of the child’s present levels of educational performance including how the disability affects the child’s participation in appropriate preschool activities.
  2. A statement of the special education and related services, supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child.
  3. A statement of measurable annual goals including benchmarks or short term objectives related to meeting the child’s needs, which are a result of his or her disability, in appropriate preschool activities or the general early childhood education curriculum.
  4. A statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for the child to:
     • advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals
     • be involved in and progress in the general early childhood curriculum and to participate in appropriate non-academic activities
     • be educated and participate with other children with and without  disabilities.
  5. The projected date for the beginning of services and modifications and the anticipated frequency, location, and duration of those services and modifications.
  6. A statement of how:
     • the child’s progress toward the annual goals will be measured in a way that is understandable to parents
     • the child’s parents will be regularly informed of this progress (same method if their child did not have a disability)
     • the child’s parent will understand how this progress will assist the child in achieving their goals within a year.
  7. No comparable requirement at the preschool level.
  8. An explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child will not participate with non-disabled children in appropriate activities for preschool children.

_{Adapted from:  Davis, M. D., Kilgo, J. L., & Gamel-McCormick, M. (1998). Young children with special needs: A developmentally appropriate approach, p. 111. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.  Reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this material is prohibited without permission from Allyn & Bacon.}

A Linked System Approach to IFSP/IEP Development

One key to the development of IFSP/IEP goals and objectives is the use of a programmatic or curriculum based assessment (Bricker, 1989).   All too often the IFSP/IEP document is based on the results of only standardized instruments that focus on isolated intellectual, motor or language abilities. Standardized instruments are developed to identify problems and delayed development or to diagnose a specific disorder through comparison to a normative sample of same-age children (Bailey & Wolery, 1992).  Items from standardized tests are inappropriate intervention targets because they have been included in the test because of their ability to discriminate between children of different ages and they are relatively unaffected by environmental experiences (Fewell, 1983).  In contrast, curriculum based assessments should include only items that can be taught in a natural environment and that will specifically enhance a child’s capacity for independent functioning.  While standardized tools are often arranged in age sequences, reflecting normal development, curriculum based measures are sequenced in a hierarchical, logical teaching order designed to facilitate the direct link between assessment and intervention (Notari & Bricker, 1992)  The hierarchical orientation also facilitates development of objectives to the long range goals.

In other words, in programmatic or curriculum based assessment, the children are assessed on objectives to be learned and then evaluated on the achievement of targeted objectives, rather than being compared to a norm or standardized sample.  The result is an increase in functional and generative skills rather than an increased age score.  Skills on curriculum based measures can be an easily integrated into intervention activities available in any setting (Bricker & Cripe, 1992).  In addition, some curriculum based assessment tools are available to assist the team in offering suggested sequences for the intervention. It is the team's responsibility to individualize for  child and family preferences and provide the most appropriate criteria that facilitates progress monitoring.

_{Cripe, J. W. (1993). A linked system approach to IFSP/IEP development.  Kansas Inservice Training System (KITS).  Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities, 2601 Gabriel, Parsons, KS 67357.}

Recommended Practice Indicators for IFSPs & IEPs

• Guiding Principles
  • Family as decision-makers
  • Importance of the process
• Other Principles for Development of Recommended Practice Indicator
  • A belief in the collaboration among families and service providers.
  • A desire to eliminate the redundancy and bureaucracy in the process.
  • Expectation of positive, growth-enhancing opportunities for all members.
  • A strong priority for quality, inclusive services.
  • Vision of choices for families in the sources and delivery of services.
• Components for Indicators
  • Teams should be broadly constituted and members prepared for their roles.
  • The process of IFSP/IEP development should be individualized.
  • The documents should be individualized and reflect the process used in their development.
  • The documents are dynamic and responsive to changes in child and family.
  • The documents belong to the family.
  • Evaluation and monitoring should be vehicles for constant improvement of services

Reproduced from: DEC Recommended Practices: Indicators of Quality in Programs for Infants and Young Children with Special Needs and Their Families. (1993). Division for Early Childhood, Council for Exceptional Children, p. 31.

Goal Setting:  The Critical Link in the Intervention Process

Goal Setting as a Team Process

PREMISE:  The outcomes targeted for a child should reflect that child’s unique abilities and needs, as these are demonstrated across all daily interactions and activities; and should be consistent with the values and priorities of that child’s family.  Further, the outcomes targeted for a child and family at any one point in time should be limited in number so that attention and resources can be focused on their attainment.  Thus, goal setting must be a team process, with all team members contributing to the identification and prioritization of outcomes for the child and family.

1. The family must be centrally and actively involved in this goal-setting process:
   • The family has information about the child’s skills and needs in home and community activities and interactions and is best able to determine relative priorities for the child’s program at any point in time.
   • The family is more likely to implement home programming and carryover activities in support of outcomes that they have prioritized.

Considerations regarding effective team functioning

1. Team members must be able to communicate with one another effectively.  This, in turn, requires:
   • Ability of each team member to explain or talk about own area of expertise in meaningful way — i.e., without relying on private jargon!
   • Shared knowledge and philosophy regarding most central components of program curriculum.
2. Team members must genuinely respect one another’s expertise and point of view.
   • Professionals on the team have an obligation to bring professional level competence and expertise in their discipline to the team.
   • All team members (including the child’s parents) must recognize that the parents are the ultimate experts on their child’s and family’s unique strengths, needs and values.
3. Both communication skills and mutual respect are essential to the goal setting process, because they allow the team to:
   • Consider relative priorities from the perspective of all team members
   • Negotiate and arrive at consensus re:  outcome priorities - a process that may require real compromise

Summary of Current “Best Practices” in Goal Setting

Service Delivery Values

1. Individualized:
   • Outcomes are specifically designed to address child’s individual needs (not selected from “canned” list of IEP objectives) and specify antecedents, conditions and mastery criteria appropriate for that child.
2. Comprehensive:
   • Outcomes address all aspects of child’s current and future environments and performance in which needs were identified and prioritized by the team.
3. Normalized/ Normalizing:
   • Outcomes focus on skills that are normalizing, not stigmatizing; team considers effects of outcomes on child’s perceived status in typical settings.
4. Community-based LRE:
   • Outcomes are selected that will specifically improve quality of child’s interactions in typical community and LRE program environments.
5. Interdisciplinary:
   • All members of the team, including family, contribute to the identification and prioritization of goals and outcomes for a child and family.
6. Collaborative:
   • All team members are aware of and involved in implementing outcomes; if multiple agencies are involved, information is coordinated so all are addressing same or compatible outcomes.
7. Family-centered Relationship-supportive:
   • Outcomes specifically address needs that will enhance child’s interactions with family members and significant others’; family is important contributor to process of selecting and prioritizing outcomes.
8. Culturally Competent:
   • Outcomes are appropriate to child’s family culture and are written in style (and language) that is meaningful to family.

_{Adapted from “Assessment and Curriculum:  Choosing a System That’s Right for Your Program,” By Lee K.S. McLean.  ECSE Summer Institute, Ames, Iowa (June, 1992).}

Developing Collaborative IEPs: Integrating Related Services and Therapies

• The IEP is most useful when it reflects an integrated approach to curriculum and intervention that emanates from the collaborative team process.
• Collaborative assessment is the first step in developing a team IEP.  The assessment tool(s) used should link directly to goal setting and subsequent intervention.
• Teams should adopt principles of effective group decision making (see Bolton, 1979; Johnson & Johnson, 1987).  Teams should also see the child as a “whole” rather than dividing the child’s needs by disciplines or domains.
• Before the IEP is developed, the team (including the family) must identify the integrated environments and activities in which the child’s participation is most important.
• Consensus on priorities is negotiated through a) generating a list of specific needs, b) establishing criteria to select the highest priorities, c) identifying as high priority those needs that meet more than one criteria, then ranking those needs, and d) writing goals and objectives that reflect the established criteria.  Sample criteria include:
• maintains health and vitality
  • enhances participation in current and future integrated environments
  • increases social integration including interactions with peers
  • has frequent/multiple applications across environments or activities
  • is a student or family priority
  • is a priority of a significant person in a target environment
• A collaborative and consensual approach to determining priorities and intervention strategies can be difficult because it frequently requires one or more team members to let go of what they view as important from their discipline’s perspective.
• Recommendations for related services should be determined by matching the child’s priority needs with the personnel who can meet those needs.  When team members have similar or overlapping skills for a specific need, the team should consider the child’s needs, the team member’s separate skills, the need to coordinate strategies, and therapist scheduling variables to determine a primary therapist for that need.
• Recommendations for related services should be in proportion to the priorities outlined in the IEP and with consideration of which team member can competently address each priority.
• Consider recommending blocks of therapist time to increase the therapists’ flexibility to work with a variety of children in routine activities (i.e., PT for 30 minutes twice a week can be translated into 4 hours per month to facilitate time used in integrated settings).  Intervention strategies can be imbedded in these routine activities.

_{Salisbury, C.  (1992).  Parents as team members: Inclusive teams, collaborative outcomes. In B. Rainforth, J. York & C. Macdonald, (Eds.), Collaborative teams for students with severe disabilities: Integrating therapy and educational services (pp. 43-66). Baltimore, MD:  Paul H. Brookes.}

Indicators of High-Quality IFSP/IEP Goals and Objectives for Infants and Young Children

• Functionality
  • Will the skill increase the child’s ability to interact with people and objects within the daily environment?
  • Will the skill have to be performed by someone else if the child cannot do it?
• Generality
  • Does the skill represent a general concept or class of responses?
  • Can the skill be adapted or modified for a variety of disabling conditions?
  • Can the skill be generalized across a variety of settings, materials, and/or people?
• Instructional Context
  • Can the skill be taught in a way that reflects the manner in which the skill will be used in daily environments?
  • Can the skill be elicited easily by the teacher, parent within classroom, or home activities?
• Measurability
  • Can the skill be seen and/or heard?
  • Can the skill be directly counted (e.g., by frequency, duration or measures of distance such as how far a child is able to ride a tricycle, throw a ball, or propel a wheelchair)?
  • Does the skill contain or lend itself to determination of performance criteria?
• Hierarchical Relations Between Long-Range Goal and Short-Term Objective
  • Is the short-term objective a developmental sub-skill or step thought to be critical to the achievement of the long-range goal?

_{Davis, M.D., Kilgo, J.L., & Gamel-McCormick, M. (1998). Using individualized plans as a basis for designing developmentally appropriate learning experiences for young children with special needs.  In Young children with special needs: A developmentally appropriate approach (p. 113). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this material is prohibited without permission from Allyn & Bacon.}

Illustration of IEP Characteristics with Alternative Practices

Problematic Characteristics

1. Sweeping statements:  “Jose will improve communication skills.”
2. Functional rhetoric without substance: “Gina will enlarge her circle of friends.”
3. Making promises that are hard to keep: IEPs filed away, lengthy, and not incorporated into general education activities.
4. Goals for staff rather than for children: “Mary Ann will have hearing aids checked daily by the audiologists” written as an IEP goal is actually a goal for the staff, not Mary Ann.
5. Discipline-referenced:  “Darren will improve articulation of bilabial sounds in speech therapy.”

Potential Alternatives

1. Individual learning outcomes:  “Jose will initiate the use of 15 new signs in interactions with peers in his preschool.”
2. Family-centered priorities based on valued life outcomes:  “Gina will initiate and maintain social interactions with her peers throughout activities encountered at preschool.”
3. Useful IEPs:  Use of a one-page “program-at-a-glance” to summarize a child’s individualized education program within the learning areas of a playcentered setting.
4. Goals for children are distinguished from supports provided by staff:  “A teacher assistant, taught by an audiologist, will check Mary Ann’s hearing aids daily” is written in the IEP as a support rather than a goal.
5. Discipline-free shared goals:  “Darren will increase intelligibility of speech in one-toone conversation with parents, siblings, peers, and teachers.”

_{Reprinted with permission from:}

_{Hull, K., Capone, A., Giangreco, M. F., & Ross-Allen, J. (1996). Through their eyes: Creating functional, child-sensitive individualized education programs. In Rethinking pull-out services in early intervention: A professional resource (p. 108). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.}

_{Giangreco, M.F., Dennis, R.E., Edelman, S.W., & Cloninger, C.J. (1994). Dressing your IEPs for the general education climate: Analysis of IEP goals and objectives for students with multiple disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 293. Copyright 1994 by PRO-Ed, Inc.}

Team Checklist for Developing Authentically Individualized Goals and Objectives

Use the following list items as a checklist.

The team has gathered information about the child from:

• Significant people in the child’s life (e.g., parents, caregivers, siblings)
• Observations conducted in natural settings (home, child care, play groups)
• Appropriate standardized/curriculum-based measures/checklists

The team has developed a knowledge of the child that includes:

• Knowledge of child’s preferences (e.g., favorite materials, activities, peers)
• Knowledge of child’s learning history (e.g., pace, context variables, modality preferences)
• A description of the ways the child integrates his or her skills in all domains during all play and daily routines

The team has engaged in discussions focusing on:

• Identifying family priorities
• Describing the activities, materials, and routines that are characteristic of a play-based environment
• Identifying the child’s educational needs
• Determining the naturally occurring activities or routines that support the accomplishment of the child’s identified educational needs
• Describing the supports or accommodations that will ensure that the child has access to all aspects of a play-based environment (e.g., peers, materials, activities)

The team has developed goals and objectives that:

• Reflect its holistic knowledge of the child
• Are linked to activities typically engaged by young children
• Support interaction with peers
• Lead to the development of more complex play schemes
• Are discipline-free

The team has prioritized goals and objectives based on

• Family priorities
• Immediate relevance
• Long-term benefit

_{Hull, K., Capone, A., Giangreco, M. F., & Ross-Allen, J. (1996). Through their eyes: Creating functional, child-sensitive individualized education programs. In Rethinking pull-out services in early intervention: A professional resource (pp. 103-120). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.}

Back to top of page

Monitoring Progress with the Family

The following handouts demonstrate ways in which IEP goals and objectives can be incorporated throughout the day in a preschool classroom.

Handout #1 graphs Anna’s goals and objectives in communication, cognition, motor, self care and social-emotional as well as her daily activities in her early childhood classroom.  The key at the bottom of the page delineates ways data will be collected on these goals and objectives and at what time during the day.  Choices include observation (which could include anecdotal records, frequency counts, probe data), products (which could include samples of  Anna’s work and pictures of Anna playing), video and tape recording.

Handout #2 examines the daily activities in the classroom and then gives specific examples of the types of objectives that can be incorporated into these activities. Important components essential to the development of the daily program are included at the bottom of the handout. These address fundamental components of the program such as family participation, including culturally diverse families, and time commitments of related service staff.

Format for Monitoring Goals and Objectives (Example)

Student's Name: Anna

Month: September

Goals and Objectives

• O = observation
• P = products
• V = video
• T = tape recording

_{Davis, M.D., Kilgo, J.L., & Gamel-McCormick, M. (1998). Using individualized plans as a basis for designing developmentally appropriate learning experiences for young children with special needs.  In Young children with special needs: A developmentally appropriate approach (pp. 122-123). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this material is prohibited without permission from Allyn & Bacon.}

Example of a Daily Plan: Infant Toddler Center (Example)

Teachers: B. Ammons

Physical Therapist: D. Tison

Assistants: A. McKall/C. Rodriguez

Speech Therapist: M. Briggs

Date: Sept. 20

Important Components Underlying Daily Program

1. Physical Therapists and Speech Therapists work in classrooms throughout the morning.
2. Parents participate in classroom or observe through one-way mirror or socialize with other parents in parent room.
3. Bilingual interactions throughout morning activities.
   • Spanish/English
   • Chinese/English
4. Each child has individual goals within daily activities.

_{Cook/Tessier/Klein, ADAPTING EARLY CHILDHOOD CURRICULA FOR CHILDREN 4/E,  1996 Reproduced by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.}

Back to top of page

Resources

Books

Bateman, B. D., & Linden, M. A. (1998).  Better IEPs:  How to develop legally correct and educationally useful programs (3rd. ed.), Longmont, CO:  Sopris West.

*Beckman, P. J., Boyes, G. B., & Herres, A. (1993).  The IEP and IFSP meetings.  In P. J. Beckman & G. B. Boyes (Eds.),  Deciphering the system: A guide for families of young children with disabilities (pp. 81-100). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Beckman, P., Newcomb, S., Frank, N., Brown, L., Stepanek, J., & Barnwell, D. (1996).  Preparing personnel to work with families.  In D. Bricker & A. Widerstrom (Eds.), Preparing personnel to work with infants and young children and their families: A team approach (pp. 273-294). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

*Bricker, D., & Cripe, J. (1992). Development of goals and objectives. In An activity-based approach to early intervention (pp. 87-105). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

*Bricker, D., Pretti-Frontczak, K., & McComas, N. (1998). A linked systems approach. In An activity-based approach to early intervention (2nd ed.) (pp. 23-54). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Cook, R. E., Tessier, A., & Klein, M. D. (1996). Implementing intervention and instructional strategies. In Adapting early childhood curricula for children in inclusive settings (pp. 175-206). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.

Davis, M. D., Kilgo, J. L., & Gamel-McCormick, M. (1998). Using individualized plans as a basis for designing developmentally appropriate learning experiences for young children with special needs. In Young children with special needs: A developmentally appropriate approach (pp. 105-146). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

*Division for Early Childhood Task Force on Recommended Practices. (1993).  DEC recommended best practices: Indicators of quality in programs for infants and young children with special needs and their families. Pittsburgh, PA: DEC Executive Office.

Fuchs, L., & Shinn, M. (1989). Writing CBM IEP objectives. In  Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 130-152). New York:  Guilford Press.

Gaylord-Ross, R., & Holvoet, J. (1985). Making the curriculum natural and functional.  In R. Gaylord-Ross & J. Holvoet (Eds.), Strategies for educating students with severe handicaps (pp. 89-124). Boston: Little, Brown, & Co.

*McWilliam, R. A. (1996). Rethinking pull-out services in early intervention: A professional resource. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

*Salisbury, C.  (1992).  Parents as team members: Inclusive teams, collaborative outcomes. In B. Rainforth, J. York & C. Macdonald, (Eds.), Collaborative teams for students with severe disabilities: Integrating therapy and educational services (pp. 43-66). Baltimore, MD:  Paul H. Brookes.

Safer, N., & Hamilton, J. (1993). Legislative context for early intervention services. In W. Brown, K. Thurman, & L. Pearl (Eds.),  Family centered early intervention with infants and toddlers: Innovative cross-disciplinary approaches (pp. 1-18). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R. (1990). Family participation in developing the IEP. In Families, professionals, and exceptionality: A  special partnership (2nd edition) (pp. 268-303).  Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Journal Articles

Able-Boone, H. (1993).  Family participation in the IFSP process:  Family or professionally driven.  Infant-Toddler Intervention:  A Transdisciplinary Journal, 3(1), 63-71.

Bailey, D. B., Jr. (1990).  Parent’s perspectives on a written survey of family needs. Journal of Early Intervention, 14(3), 196-203.

Bailey, D. B., Jr., Buysse, B., Smith, T., & Elam, J. (1992).  The effects and perceptions of family involvement in program decisions about family-centered practices. Evaluation and Program Planning, 15, 23-32.

Bailey, D. B., Jr., Winton, P. J., Rouse, L., & Turnbull, A. P. (1990).  Family goals in infant intervention: Analysis and issues. Journal of Early Intervention, 14(1), 15-26.

Beckman, P. J., & Bristol, M. (1991). Issues in developing the IFSP: A framework for establishing family outcomes. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11(3), 19-31.

Campbell, P. (1991). Evaluation and assessment in early intervention for infants and toddlers. Journal of Early Intervention, 15(1), 36-45.

Campbell, P., Strickland, B., & LaForme, C. (1992). Enhancing parent participation in the Individualized Family Service Plan. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11(4), 112-124.

Decker, B. (1992).  A comparison of the Individualized Education Plan and the Individualized Family Service Plan. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46(3), 247-252.

Dunst, C. J., Johanson, D., Trivette, C. M., & Hamby, D. (1991). Family-oriented early intervention policies and practices: Family-centered or not? Exceptional Children, 58, 115-126.

Fewell, R., Synder, P., Sexton, D., Bertrand, S., & Hockless, M. (1991). Implementing IFSPs in Louisiana: Different formats for family-centered practices under Part H. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11(3), 54-65.

Goodman, J. F., & Hover, S. A. (1992). The Individualized Family Service Plan:  Unresolved problems. Psychology in the Schools, 29, 140-151.

Lynch, E. W. (1982). Perspectives on parent participation in special education.  Exceptional Education Quarterly, 3 (2), 56-63.

Moroz, K. J., & Allen-Meares, P. (1991). Assessing adolescent parents and their infants:  Individualized family service planning. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 10(1), 461-467.

Nash, J. K. (1990). Public Law 99-457: Facilitating family participation on the multidisciplinary team. Journal of Early Intervention, 14(4), 318-326.

Notari, A., & Bricker, D. (1990). The utility of a curriculum-based assessment in the development of Individualized Education Plans for infants and young children.  Journal of Early Intervention, 14(2), 117-132.

Notari, A., & Drinkwater, S. (1991). Best practices for writing child outcomes: A evaluation of two methods. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 1(3), 92-106.

Notari-Syverson, A. R. & Shuster, S. L. (1995, Winter). Putting real-life skills into IEP/IFSPs for infants and young children. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27 (2), 29-32.

Pugach, M. (1982). Regular classroom teacher involvement in the development and utilization of IEPs. Exceptional Children, 48, 371-374.

Sexton, D., Synder, P., Rheams, T., Barron-Sharp, B., & Perez, J. (1991). Considerations in using written surveys to identify family strengths and needs during the IFSP process. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 1 1(3), 81-91.

Slentz, K. L., & Bricker, D. (1992). Family-guided assessment for IFSP development:  Jumping off the family assessment bandwagon. Journal of Early Intervention, 16(1), 11-19.

Smith, S. (1990). Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) in special education: From intent to acquiescence. Exceptional Children, 57 (1), 6-14.

Smith, S., & Simpson, R. (1989). An analysis of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for students with behavior disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 14, 107-116.

Summers, J. A., Dell’Oliver, C., Turnbull, A. P., Benson, H. A., Santelli, E., Campbell, M., & Sigel-Causey, E. (1990). Examining the Individualized Family Service Plan process: What are family and practitioner preferences? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10(1), 78-99.

Winton, P. J., & Bailey, D. B. (1988). The family-focused interview: A collaboration mechanism for family assessment and goal-setting. Journal for the Division of Early Childhood, 12(3), 197-207.

York, J., & Vandercook, T. (1991). Designing an integrated program for learners with severe disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 23(2), 22-28.

Videos

Cripe, J., & Graffeo, J. (1995). A family’ s guide to the Individualized Family Service Plan. [video tape and manual]. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Elsayed, S.S., Maddux, L.E., & Bay, C.S. (1993). Family and the IFSP Process. [video tape and manual]. Baltimore, MD: Kennedy Krieger Institute.

Kennedy Krieger Institute (1991). Delivering family-centered, home-based services: A training program. [video tape and facilitator’s guide]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

*These items are available from:

KITS Early Childhood Resource Center
2601 Gabriel, Parsons, KS 67357
Email: resourcecenter@ku.edu
Phone: 620-421-3067

Back to top of page

Packet Evaluation

Please take a few minutes to complete the brief online survey above. Your feedback is central to our evaluation of the services and materials provided by KITS.

Back to top of page