Enhancing Recognition of High Quality, Functional IEP...

A training activityfor Early Childhood

Special Education staff

Enhancing Recognitionof High Quality, Functional

IEP GoalsA training activity

for Early ChildhoodSpecial Education staff

Enhancing Recognitionof High Quality, Functional

IEP Goals

Anne LucasKathi Gillaspy

Mary Louise PetersJoicey Hurth

with support from Dathan Rush, M’Lisa Shelden,

Debbie Cate and Megan Vinh

Anne LucasKathi Gillaspy

Mary Louise PetersJoicey Hurth

with support from Dathan Rush, M’Lisa Shelden,

Debbie Cate and Megan Vinh

Enhancing Recognition of High Quality, Functional IEP Goals 2

The Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center

is a program of the

FPG Child Development Institute, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

June 2014 Enhancing Recognition of High Quality, Functional IEP Goals

A training activity for Early Childhood Special Education staff This resource is produced and distributed by the Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, funded through cooperative agreement number H326P120002 from the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the Department of Education's position or policy. The ECTA Center is committed to making the information it disseminates fully accessible to all individuals. If you require any of this information in an alternate format, please contact us at the address below. Additional copies of this document are available at cost from the ECTA Center. A complete list of ECTA Center resources is available at our website or upon request. Please cite as:

Lucas, A., Gillaspy, K., Peters, M. L., & Hurth, J. (2014). Enhancing recognition of high quality, functional IEP goals. Retrieved from http://www.ectacenter.org/~pdfs/pubs/rating-iep.pdf

Cover photo: Alex Lazara For more information about the ECTA Center, please contact us at: Campus Box 8040, UNC-CH Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8040 919-962-2001 • phone 919-966-7463 • fax [email protected] • email www.ectacenter.org • web Project Directors: Lynne Kahn & Christina Kasprzak Project Officer at OSEP: Julia Martin Eile


Enhancing Recognition of High Quality, Functional IEP Goals

A training activity for Early Childhood Special Education staff

Anne Lucas, Kathi Gillaspy, Mary Louise Peters and Joicey Hurth with support from Dathan Rush, M’Lisa Shelden, Debbie Cate and Megan Vinh

~ Table of Contents ~ Instructions

Background ........................................................................................................................... 3 Criteria Defining High Quality, Participation-Based IEP Goals ............................................. 4 IEP Goals Rating Activity ...................................................................................................... 6 Using the Rating Activity ....................................................................................................... 7 Alternate Activity ................................................................................................................... 8

Appendices

Appendix A: Criteria Defining High Quality, Participation-Based IEP Goals ......................... 9 Appendix B: IEP Goal Cards .............................................................................................. 11 Appendix C: IEP Goals Placemat ....................................................................................... 24 Appendix D: Answer Key to Rating IEP Goals ................................................................... 26 Appendix E: Worksheet for Rating IEP Goals .................................................................... 31 Appendix F: References ..................................................................................................... 36


Enhancing Recognition of High Quality, Functional IEP Goals

A training activity for Early Childhood Special Education staff

Anne Lucas, Kathi Gillaspy, Mary Louise Peters and Joicey Hurth with support from Dathan Rush, M’Lisa Shelden, Debbie Cate and Megan Vinh

Background

This training activity was created to support participants’ understanding of the criteria needed to develop and write high quality, participation-based Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals. The term “functional” is often used to describe what goals ought to be, yet many Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) staff (e.g., teachers and related services staff) struggle to define what makes a goal “functional.” Still others struggle with making goals meet the criteria set forth in regulations, as well as have meaning for families. Reviews of existing resources developed by national experts provided a framework for considering IEP goals to determine if the goals are high quality and support the child’s participation in everyday routines and activities.

The key to supporting the development of high quality, participation-based goals is creating a clear and deliberate link between every step of the IEP process, beginning with interactions with the family during initial contacts and referral through the development of the IEP, and beyond. Critical to this process is the fundamental belief that children learn best through their participation in everyday activities and routines with familiar people. Also critical to this process are three important skills for providers:

• The ability to understand how to gather information from families throughout the process,

• The ability to conduct a functional assessment that gives a clear picture of the child’s abilities and needs in the child’s natural, everyday settings, activities and routines, and;

• The ability to use the information to develop goals.

Throughout the process of gathering information from families, special attention should be paid to the information the family shares about what’s working well for them, as well as what is challenging. When paired with the ECSE staff's knowledge of early development and functional assessment occurring in multiple situations and settings, and over time, information from families provides all that is needed to develop high quality, participation-based goals.

An IFSP Outcome-oriented version of this activity is available at the following URL:

• http://www.ectacenter.org/~pdfs/pubs/rating-ifsp.pdf


Criteria Defining High Quality, Participation-Based IEP Goals

The Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center used nationally respected sources to identify six key criteria that define IEP Goals as high quality and participation-based:

• The goal is written in plain language and is jargon-free. This means that the goal is written so that is understandable by the family and the general public, and does not include professional jargon or practitioner “speak.” For example, the goal should describe how the child will move, such as reaching up or down for books, instead of using phrases like “range of motion.” Another example would be wording a goal so that it describes a child’s ability to speak words clearly to make herself understood, rather than using the term “articulation.”

• The goal emphasizes the positive. This means that the focus of the whole goal statement is positive, and states what the child will do, rather than what s/he will not do or stop doing. If there are any negative words within the statement, it is not a positively worded goal. For example, the goal should state, “John will chew and swallow food when eating” rather than “John will not spit out food when eating.”

• The goal describes the child’s involvement in age-appropriate activities to address academic and functional areas. This means that goals address developmentally appropriate routines and activities related to promoting the child’s positive social relationships, acquisition and use of knowledge and skills, and use of appropriate actions to meet needs. This includes academic areas that are appropriate for young children (i.e., early literacy and math) as well as activities and skills needed for functional independence. Specific isolated skills (e.g., test items that were missed during evaluation) or rote responses (e.g., memorizing days of the week or colors), are not considered age-appropriate, academic or functional for young children. The goal describes the conditions in which the child will demonstrate progress, and does not name a placement or educational environment.

• The goal is measurable and observable. Observable means that there is evidence available through hearing and/or seeing the child say or do the things described in the goal. Measurable means that the evidence is quantifiable (e.g., describes the level of performance that will be needed to achieve the goal and determine if progress has been made) and the evidence can be documented. Measurement criteria must be developmentally and individually appropriate. For example, observable goals include active words such as eat, play, talk, walk, etc. instead of passive words such as tolerate or receive, increase, decrease, improve or maintain. Statements of measurement include how many times (i.e., 4 of 5 times or “every time”), and length of time (i.e., “for five minutes”). Inadequate goals do not provide indication of measurement, or have progress criteria that aren’t appropriate for the individual child.

• The goal describes how the child will demonstrate what they know or can do. This means that the goal describes what the child will do and includes clear strategies and/or accommodations. An insufficient example is, “Alice will answer questions.” This example does not describe when or how Alice will answer


questions. A better example of this criteria is, “Using cards or pictures (this names a strategy), Alice will play games with an adult and child to both ask and answer questions” (this describes what the child will do).

• The goal describes the situations in which the child will demonstrate the goal, and does not name a placement or educational environment. This means that the goal describes the general routine or activity where the child completes the task without identifying the setting or a specific location. Goals should be written so that the child can accomplish them anywhere. For example, “Sally will be supported to stand while painting or drawing” rather than “Sally will be supported to stand while at the art table”. Another good example is, “Julia will hang up her coat when coming in from outdoors” instead of “Julia will hang up her coat in her locker when coming in from recess.”

When the child’s contextual information is available (e.g., assessment information, the child’s IEP), the following IEP Goal criteria should also be evaluated:

• The goal includes what the child is doing now and includes the family’s input and concerns.

• The goal is achievable in one year and specific timelines are noted. • The goal details special factors related to communication, assistive technology and

support specific to the child’s disability and/or English language learning. IEP Goals Rating Activity

A. Materials Preparation 1. Print the Criteria Defining High Quality, Participation-Based IEP Goals (Appendix A

on page 9) and the Answer Key to Rating High Quality, Participation-Based IEP Goals (Appendix E on page 26) for each participant.

2. The IEP Goal Cards (Appendix B on page 11) contains 24 IEP goal statements (2 per page). Print the goals statements on card stock and cut on lines indicated for a 4 x 6” card, or print on plain paper and glue to 4 x 6” index card.

3. Print the IEP Goals Placemat (Appendix C on page 24) on a white piece of 8½ x 11” paper and laminate.

NOTE: The placemat included in this publication is 8½ x 11” in size so that they may be printed on any standard printer. A larger placemat measuring 11 x 17” in size is available for download from the following URL:

• http://www.ectacenter.org/~pdfs/pubs/rating-ifsp-placemat-11x17.pdf

In instances where this activity will be used with IFSP-oriented groups as well, the IFSP placemat may be printed on the same paper (front and back) and/or laminated for durability.

4. One set of goal statements will make 24 cards. One set of 24 cards goes with each placemat. Make as many sets as needed for the groups completing the activity.


B. Activity Instructions

The rating activity is designed to be used in multiple ways with different kinds of groups. Groups that are either familiar with the IEP or in groups where participants are mixed in their experience may use it. In those situations, it is suggested that less familiar participants sit at tables with others who are familiar with the IEP, so that they can work through the criteria together. The recommended group size is 3-6 people. 1. Provide a copy of the Criteria Defining High Quality, Participation-Based IEP Goals

to each participant. 2. Give one placemat and one set of 24 IEP Goal Cards to each group. Be sure to

shuffle the cards so that goal statements are not in the order they are on the answer key.

3. Have each group put a card in the center of the placemat so that the printed grid on the card matches up with the placemat (shown below):

4. Within each small group, have the participants rate the statement by writing “yes” or

“no” in each quadrant, based on whether the statement meets each of the corresponding criteria. Encourage participants to refer to the Criteria Defining High Quality, Participation-Based IEP Goals while completing the ratings for each statement.

Place Card Here


5. Repeat for each card. 6. Have the participants separate the cards into “high quality” statements and

“substandard” statements. Statements that fail to meet all criteria (all those with a “no” in any quadrant) go into the “substandard” pile.

7. Distribute the Answer Key to Rating IEP Goals (Appendix D on page 26). Ask your participants to compare their answers with the answer key.

8. Debrief with the group, asking questions such as: • Where did you get stuck with a goal statement? (Listen for varying interpretations of

the criteria.) • How might this activity help you in your work and within your team? • What additional supports do you need to help you successfully identify whether or

not an IEP Goal is of high quality and is participation-based? Those using the activity to fit the context of the participants and their learning needs may add other questions to the debriefing.

NOTE: The criteria described in the bottom center box of the placemat should not be rated during the training activity. Be sure to tell participants that they are criteria to be considered when the child’s IEP and assessment information is available, but for the purposes of the activity, they are reference information only.

Alternate Activity

A blank Worksheet for Rating IEP Goals (Appendix E on page 31) of the activity has also been provided for the IEP Goal Cards. Provide copies of the worksheets to participants or groups with or without using the placemats or cards. Encourage participants to refer to the Criteria Defining High Quality, Participation-Based IEP Goals (Appendix A on page 9) while completing the ratings for each statement.

In this version of the rating activity, participants write “yes” or “no” in each box under the criteria to rate goals. Participants can then compare their answers with the Answer Key to Rating IEP Goals (Appendix D on page 26).

Tell us what you think.

If you used this training activity, consider evaluating it!

http://ectacenter.org/eval Your feedback is important to us.

Thank you for your time and attention!


Appendix A:

Criteria Defining High Quality, Participation-Based

IEP Goals

Crit

eria

Def

inin

g H

igh

Qua

lity,

Par

ticip

atio

n-B

ased

IEP

Goa

ls

ec

tace

nter

.org

/~pd

fs/p

ubs/

ratin

g-ie

p.pd

f

• Th

e go

al is

writ

ten

in p

lain

lang

uage

and

is ja

rgon

-free

. Thi

s m

eans

th

at th

e go

al is

writ

ten

so th

at is

und

erst

anda

ble

by th

e fa

mily

and

th

e ge

nera

l pub

lic, a

nd d

oes

not i

nclu

de p

rofe

ssio

nal j

argo

n or

pr

actit

ione

r “sp

eak.

” For

exa

mpl

e, th

e go

al s

houl

d de

scrib

e ho

w th

e ch

ild w

ill m

ove,

suc

h as

reac

hing

up

or d

own

for b

ooks

, ins

tead

of

usin

g ph

rase

s lik

e “r

ange

of m

otio

n.” A

noth

er e

xam

ple

wou

ld b

e w

ordi

ng a

goa

l so

that

it d

escr

ibes

a c

hild

’s a

bilit

y to

spe

ak w

ords

cl

early

to m

ake

hers

elf u

nder

stoo

d, ra

ther

than

usi

ng th

e te

rm

“arti

cula

tion.

”

• Th

e go

al e

mph

asiz

es th

e po

sitiv

e. T

his

mea

ns th

at th

e fo

cus

of th

e w

hole

goa

l sta

tem

ent i

s po

sitiv

e, a

nd s

tate

s w

hat t

he c

hild

will

do,

ra

ther

than

wha

t s/h

e w

ill n

ot d

o or

sto

p do

ing.

If th

ere

are

any

nega

tive

wor

ds w

ithin

the

stat

emen

t, it

is n

ot a

pos

itive

ly w

orde

d go

al. F

or e

xam

ple,

the

goal

sho

uld

stat

e, “J

ohn

will

che

w a

nd

swal

low

food

whe

n ea

ting”

rath

er th

an “J

ohn

will

not

spi

t out

food

w

hen

eatin

g.”

• Th

e go

al d

escr

ibes

the

child

’s in

volv

emen

t in

age-

appr

opria

te

activ

ities

to a

ddre

ss a

cade

mic

and

func

tiona

l are

as. T

his

mea

ns

that

goa

ls a

ddre

ss d

evel

opm

enta

lly a

ppro

pria

te ro

utin

es a

nd

activ

ities

rela

ted

to p

rom

otin

g th

e ch

ild’s

pos

itive

soc

ial

rela

tions

hips

, acq

uisi

tion

and

use

of k

now

ledg

e an

d sk

ills,

and

use

of

app

ropr

iate

act

ions

to m

eet n

eeds

. Thi

s in

clud

es a

cade

mic

are

as

that

are

app

ropr

iate

for y

oung

chi

ldre

n (i.

e., e

arly

lite

racy

and

mat

h)

as w

ell a

s ac

tiviti

es a

nd s

kills

nee

ded

for f

unct

iona

l ind

epen

denc

e.

Spe

cific

isol

ated

ski

lls (e

.g.,

test

item

s th

at w

ere

mis

sed

durin

g ev

alua

tion)

or r

ote

resp

onse

s (e

.g.,

mem

oriz

ing

days

of t

he w

eek

or

colo

rs),

are

not c

onsi

dere

d ag

e-ap

prop

riate

, aca

dem

ic o

r fun

ctio

nal

for y

oung

chi

ldre

n. T

he g

oal d

escr

ibes

the

cond

ition

s in

whi

ch th

e ch

ild w

ill d

emon

stra

te p

rogr

ess,

and

doe

s no

t nam

e a

plac

emen

t or

educ

atio

nal e

nviro

nmen

t.

• Th

e go

al is

mea

sura

ble

and

obse

rvab

le. O

bser

vabl

e m

eans

that

th

ere

is e

vide

nce

avai

labl

e th

roug

h he

arin

g an

d/or

see

ing

the

child

sa

y or

do

the

thin

gs d

escr

ibed

in th

e go

al. M

easu

rabl

e m

eans

that

th

e ev

iden

ce is

qua

ntifi

able

(e.g

., de

scrib

es th

e le

vel o

f per

form

ance

th

at w

ill b

e ne

eded

to a

chie

ve th

e go

al a

nd d

eter

min

e if

prog

ress

ha

s be

en m

ade)

and

the

evid

ence

can

be

docu

men

ted.

M

easu

rem

ent c

riter

ia m

ust b

e de

velo

pmen

tally

and

indi

vidu

ally

ap

prop

riate

. For

exa

mpl

e, o

bser

vabl

e go

als

incl

ude

activ

e w

ords

su

ch a

s ea

t, pl

ay, t

alk,

wal

k, e

tc. i

nste

ad o

f pas

sive

wor

ds s

uch

as

tole

rate

or r

ecei

ve, i

ncre

ase,

dec

reas

e, im

prov

e or

mai

ntai

n.

Sta

tem

ents

of m

easu

rem

ent i

nclu

de h

ow m

any

times

(i.e

., 4

of 5

tim

es o

r “ev

ery

time”

), an

d le

ngth

of t

ime

(i.e.

, “fo

r fiv

e m

inut

es”)

. In

adeq

uate

goa

ls d

o no

t pro

vide

indi

catio

n of

mea

sure

men

t, or

hav

e pr

ogre

ss c

riter

ia th

at a

ren’

t app

ropr

iate

for t

he in

divi

dual

chi

ld.

• Th

e go

al d

escr

ibes

how

the

child

will

dem

onst

rate

wha

t the

y kn

ow

or c

an d

o. T

his

mea

ns th

at th

e go

al d

escr

ibes

wha

t the

chi

ld w

ill

do, a

nd in

clud

es c

lear

stra

tegi

es a

nd/o

r acc

omm

odat

ions

. An

insu

ffici

ent e

xam

ple

is, “

Alic

e w

ill a

nsw

er q

uest

ions

.” Th

is e

xam

ple

does

not

des

crib

e w

hen

or h

ow A

lice

will

ans

wer

que

stio

ns. A

bet

ter

exam

ple

of th

is c

riter

ia is

, “U

sing

car

ds o

r pic

ture

s (th

is n

ames

a

stra

tegy

), A

lice

will

pla

y ga

mes

with

an

adul

t and

chi

ld to

bot

h as

k an

d an

swer

que

stio

ns” (

this

des

crib

es w

hat t

he c

hild

will

do)

.

• Th

e go

al d

escr

ibes

the

situ

atio

ns in

whi

ch th

e ch

ild w

ill

dem

onst

rate

the

goal

, and

doe

s no

t nam

e a

plac

emen

t or

educ

atio

nal e

nviro

nmen

t. Th

is m

eans

that

the

goal

des

crib

es th

e ge

nera

l rou

tine

or a

ctiv

ity w

here

the

child

com

plet

es th

e ta

sk,

with

out i

dent

ifyin

g th

e se

tting

or a

spe

cific

loca

tion.

Goa

ls s

houl

d be

w

ritte

n so

that

the

child

can

acc

ompl

ish

them

any

whe

re. F

or

exam

ple,

“Sal

ly w

ill b

e su

ppor

ted

to s

tand

whi

le p

aint

ing

or d

raw

ing”

ra

ther

than

“Sal

ly w

ill b

e su

ppor

ted

to s

tand

whi

le a

t the

art

tabl

e.”

Ano

ther

goo

d ex

ampl

e is

, “Ju

lia w

ill h

ang

up h

er c

oat w

hen

com

ing

in fr

om o

utdo

ors”

inst

ead

of “J

ulia

will

han

g up

her

coa

t in

her l

ocke

r w

hen

com

ing

in fr

om re

cess

.”

•


Appendix B:

IEP Goal Cards


IEP Goal Card 1

Carefully cut and detach these two cards to include them in the activity. The gridded lines on these cards match up with the IEP Placemat in Appendix B and are used to write in a “yes” or “no” answer.

On her own, Jayne will play with a variety of toys and materials (such as pretending to cook, playing with dolls, cars, or blocks, using paints or crayons) at least twice a day.

IEP Goal Card 2

" Cut here Each card is numbered to make it easy to review and match up with the worksheet in Appendix D and Answer Key in Appendix C.

When sitting in a chair with arms or other supports (pads and a footrest), Ellie will feed herself using a spoon or fork for at least half of her meal once a day.


IEP Goal Card 3


At least twice a week, Betsy will share details with adults and friends about recent activities using three to four complete sentences.

IEP Goal Card 4


When asked what he wants, Nathan will use words and/or gestures, including refusals (no, don’t like it) to convey needs and wants most of the time (4 out of 5 times) throughout his routines and activities each day.


IEP Goal Card 5


When given two items or tasks, Nathan will choose by reaching for the object or picture he wants 3 out of 4 times during play and mealtime each day.

IEP Goal Card 6


Mattie will play by selecting a toy, trying new ways to play with it, or exploring other toys for 5 minutes at a time at least once each day.


IEP Goal Card 7


Dianna will clear her plate from the table at the end of each meal or snack without reminders.

IEP Goal Card 8


Clarita will be safe when climbing up and down stairs and moving around obstacles by holding an adults hand every time during routines throughout the day.


IEP Goal Card 9


Efrat will use large crayons or thick markers by himself to draw pictures that tell a story.

IEP Goal Card 10


Kenny will respond to simple questions (e.g. “Do you want more?”, “What’s this?”) with appropriate words or actions most of the time (4 of 5 times) when looking at books each day.


IEP Goal Card 11


With a verbal reminder to do so, Juan will put on his jacket by himself each day before going outside.

IEP Goal Card 12


Gerardo will talk better and do things he likes throughout his day, similar to other 3 year olds.


IEP Goal Card 13


I want my child to talk more so that he is better understood by others.

IEP Goal Card 14


Gelada will play games with other children.


IEP Goal Card 15


Ethan will improve his visual and auditory attention to routine tasks.

IEP Goal Card 16


Chris will play in all play areas at Sunshine Child Care each day.


IEP Goal Card 17


Jay will play by himself for at least 15 minutes at Cherry Cheeks Preschool, choosing various types of toys (such as blocks, art materials, trucks, etc.).

IEP Goal Card 18


Abby will use pincer grasp whenever playing with small toys and eating.


IEP Goal Card 19


Daniel will make 3 choices four out of five days.

IEP Goal Card 20


Whenever verbally prompted, Melissa will give a 2-word response to a question without crying or displaying physical resistance during transition from one activity to another.


IEP Goal Card 21


Child will stop crying when separating from parents when coming into the child care center each day.

IEP Goal Card 22


Denny will use words to say what he needs and wants without reminders in a variety of daily routines and experiences at school.


IEP Goal Card 23


Henry will immediately come when told to do so.

IEP Goal Card 24


Ethan will complete all self-care routines with 2 or fewer verbal and picture symbol cues each day.


Appendix C:

IEP Goals Placemat

Crit

eria

Def

inin

gH

igh

Qua

lity,

Par

ticip

atio

n-B

ased

IEP

Goa

ls

The

goal

de

scrib

es th

e ch

ild’s

invo

lvem

ent

in a

ge-a

ppro

pria

te

activ

ities

to a

ddre

ss

acad

emic

and

fu

nctio

nal a

reas

.

The

goal

em

phas

izes

th

e po

sitiv

e.

The

goal

des

crib

es h

ow th

e ch

ild w

illde

mon

stra

tew

hat t

hey

know

or c

an d

o.

The

goal

des

crib

es th

e s

ituat

ion

in w

hich

the

chi

ld w

ill d

emon

stra

te th

e go

al, a

nd d

oes

not n

ame

a pl

acem

ent

or e

duca

tiona

l e

nviro

nmen

t.

The

goal

is m

easu

rabl

e an

dob

serv

able

.

The

goal

is w

ritte

n in

pla

in la

ngua

ge

and

is

jarg

on-fr

ee.

Plac

e C

ard

Her

e

ecta

cent

er.o

rg/~

pdfs

/pub

s/ra

ting-

iep.

pdf

Whe

n th

e ch

ild’s

con

text

ual i

nfor

mat

ion

is

avai

labl

e, th

e fo

llow

ing

IEP

goal

crit

eria

ca

n al

so b

e ev

alua

ted:

• Th

e go

al in

clud

es w

hat t

he c

hild

is d

oing

now

a

nd in

clud

es th

e fa

mily

’s in

put a

nd c

once

rns.

• Th

e go

al is

ach

ieva

ble

in o

ne y

ear a

nd s

peci

fic

tim

elin

es a

re n

oted

.•

The

goal

det

ails

Spe

cial

Fac

tors

rela

ted

to

com

mun

icat

ion,

ass

istiv

e te

chno

logy

and

s

uppo

rts s

peci

fic to

the

child

’s d

isab

ility

and

/or

E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge le

arni

ng.


Appendix D:

Answer Key to Rating IEP Goals

Ans

wer

Key

to R

atin

g IE

P G

oals

ec

tace

nter

.org

/~pd

fs/p

ubs/

ratin

g-ie

p.pd

f

Ans

wer

Key

to R

atin

g IE

P G

oals

P

artic

ipat

ion-

base

d, H

igh

Qua

lity

vs. S

kills

-bas

ed, S

ubst

anda

rd

Rat

ing

Crit

eria

:1 •

The

goal

is w

ritte

n in

pla

in la

ngua

ge a

nd is

jarg

on-fr

ee.

• Th

e go

al e

mph

asiz

es th

e po

sitiv

e.

• Th

e go

al d

escr

ibes

the

child

’s in

volv

emen

t in

age-

appr

opria

te a

ctiv

ities

to a

ddre

ss a

cade

mic

and

func

tiona

l are

as.

• Th

e go

al is

mea

sura

ble

and

obse

rvab

le.

• Th

e go

al d

escr

ibes

how

the

child

will

dem

onst

rate

wha

t the

y kn

ow o

r can

do.

•

The

goal

des

crib

es th

e si

tuat

ion

in w

hich

the

child

will

dem

onst

rate

the

goal

, and

doe

s no

t nam

e a

plac

emen

t or e

duca

tiona

l en

viro

nmen

t.

The

follo

win

g ta

ble

uses

the

wor

d “Y

es” t

o m

ean

that

the

goal

mee

ts th

e cr

iteria

list

ed, a

nd “N

o” to

mea

n th

at th

e go

al d

oes

not m

eet t

he

crite

ria li

sted

. A

par

ticip

atio

n-ba

sed,

hig

h qu

ality

goa

l is

one

that

mee

ts all

of th

e cr

iteria

. Sam

ple

IEP

GO

ALS

Mee

ts C

riter

ia?

— Yes

or No

Pla

in

lang

uage

; ja

rgon

fre

e

Pos

itive

W

ordi

ng

Age

-ap

prop

riate

ac

tiviti

es

Mea

sure

able

an

d ob

serv

able

Des

crib

es

how

the

child

will

de

mon

stra

te

wha

t the

y kn

ow

Des

crib

es

situ

atio

n;

does

not

na

me

plac

emen

t

1.

On

her o

wn,

Jay

ne w

ill p

lay

with

a v

arie

ty o

f toy

s an

d m

ater

ials

(suc

h as

pre

tend

ing

to c

ook,

pla

ying

with

do

lls, c

ars,

or b

lock

s, u

sing

pai

nts

or c

rayo

ns) a

t lea

st

twic

e a

day.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

2.

Whe

n si

tting

in a

cha

ir w

ith a

rms

or o

ther

sup

ports

(p

ads

and

a fo

otre

st),

Elli

e w

ill fe

ed h

erse

lf us

ing

a sp

oon

or fo

rk fo

r at l

east

hal

f of h

er m

eal o

nce

a da

y.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

1 Whe

n th

e ch

ild’s

con

text

ual i

nfor

mat

ion

(med

ical

or d

evel

opm

enta

l inf

orm

atio

n, e

valu

atio

n re

sults

, fam

ily in

form

atio

n, e

tc.)

is a

vaila

ble,

the

follo

win

g IE

P

goal

crit

eria

can

als

o be

eva

luat

ed:

•

The

GO

AL

incl

udes

wha

t the

chi

ld is

doi

ng n

ow a

nd in

clud

es th

e fa

mily

’s in

put a

nd c

once

rns.

•

The

GO

AL

is a

chie

vabl

e in

one

yea

r and

spe

cific

tim

elin

es a

re n

oted

. •

The

GO

AL

deta

ils S

peci

al F

acto

rs re

late

d to

com

mun

icat

ion,

ass

istiv

e te

chno

logy

and

sup

ports

spe

cific

to th

e ch

ild’s

dis

abili

ty a

nd/o

r Eng

lish

lang

uage

lear

ning

.

Ans

wer

Key

to R

atin

g IE

P G

oals

ec

tace

nter

.org

/~pd

fs/p

ubs/

ratin

g-ie

p.pd

f

Sam

ple

IEP

GO

ALS

Mee

ts C

riter

ia?

— Yes

or No

Pla

in

lang

uage

; ja

rgon

fre

e

Pos

itive

W

ordi

ng

Age

-ap

prop

riate

ac

tiviti

es

Mea

sure

able

an

d ob

serv

able

Des

crib

es

how

the

child

will

de

mon

stra

te

wha

t the

y kn

ow

Des

crib

es

situ

atio

n;

does

not

na

me

plac

emen

t

3.

At l

east

twic

e a

wee

k, B

etsy

will

sha

re d

etai

ls w

ith

adul

ts a

nd fr

iend

s ab

out r

ecen

t act

iviti

es u

sing

thre

e to

fo

ur c

ompl

ete

sent

ence

s.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

4.

Whe

n as

ked

wha

t he

wan

ts, N

atha

n w

ill u

se w

ords

an

d/or

ges

ture

s, in

clud

ing

refu

sals

(no,

don

’t lik

e it)

to

conv

ey n

eeds

and

wan

ts m

ost o

f the

tim

e (4

out

of 5

tim

es) t

hrou

ghou

t his

rout

ines

and

act

iviti

es e

ach

day.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

5.

Whe

n gi

ven

two

item

s or

task

s, N

atha

n w

ill c

hoos

e by

re

achi

ng fo

r the

obj

ect o

r pic

ture

he

wan

ts 3

out

of 4

tim

es d

urin

g pl

ay a

nd m

ealti

me

each

day

. Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

6.

Mat

tie w

ill p

lay

by s

elec

ting

a to

y, tr

ying

new

way

s to

pl

ay w

ith it

, or e

xplo

ring

othe

r toy

s fo

r 5 m

inut

es a

t a

time

at le

ast o

nce

each

day

. Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

7.

Dia

nna

will

cle

ar h

er p

late

from

the

tabl

e at

the

end

of

each

mea

l or s

nack

with

out r

emin

ders

. Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

8.

Cla

rita

will

be

safe

whe

n cl

imbi

ng u

p an

d do

wn

stai

rs

and

mov

ing

arou

nd o

bsta

cles

by

hold

ing

an a

dults

ha

nd e

very

tim

e du

ring

rout

ines

thro

ugho

ut th

e da

y.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

9.

Efra

t will

use

larg

e cr

ayon

s or

thic

k m

arke

rs b

y hi

mse

lf to

dra

w p

ictu

res

that

tell

a st

ory.

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

10. K

enny

will

resp

ond

to s

impl

e qu

estio

ns (e

.g. “

Do

you

wan

t mor

e?”,

“Wha

t’s th

is?”

) with

app

ropr

iate

wor

ds o

r ac

tions

mos

t of t

he ti

me

(4 o

f 5 ti

mes

) whe

n lo

okin

g at

bo

oks

each

day

.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Ans

wer

Key

to R

atin

g IE

P G

oals

ec

tace

nter

.org

/~pd

fs/p

ubs/

ratin

g-ie

p.pd

f

Sam

ple

IEP

GO

ALS

Mee

ts C

riter

ia?

— Yes

or No

Pla

in

lang

uage

; ja

rgon

fre

e

Pos

itive

W

ordi

ng

Age

-ap

prop

riate

ac

tiviti

es

Mea

sure

able

an

d ob

serv

able

Des

crib

es

how

the

child

will

de

mon

stra

te

wha

t the

y kn

ow

Des

crib

es

situ

atio

n;

does

not

na

me

plac

emen

t

11. W

ith a

ver

bal r

emin

der t

o do

so,

Jua

n w

ill p

ut o

n hi

s ja

cket

by

him

self

each

day

bef

ore

goin

g ou

tsid

e.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

12. G

erar

do w

ill ta

lk b

ette

r and

do

thin

gs h

e lik

es

thro

ugho

ut h

is d

ay, s

imila

r to

othe

r 3 y

ear o

lds.

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

No

No

No

13. I

wan

t my

child

to ta

lk m

ore

so th

at h

e is

bet

ter

unde

rsto

od b

y ot

hers

. Y

es

Yes

Y

es

No

No

No

14. G

elad

a w

ill p

lay

gam

es w

ith o

ther

chi

ldre

n.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

o N

o N

o

15. E

than

will

impr

ove

his

visu

al a

nd a

udito

ry a

ttent

ion

to

rout

ine

task

s.

No

Yes

Y

es

No

No

No

16. C

hris

will

pla

y in

all

play

are

as a

t Sun

shin

e C

hild

Car

e ea

ch d

ay.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

o N

o Y

es

17. J

ay w

ill p

lay

by h

imse

lf fo

r at l

east

15

min

utes

at

Che

rry

Che

eks

Pre

scho

ol, c

hoos

ing

vario

us ty

pes

of

toys

(suc

h as

blo

cks,

art

mat

eria

ls, t

ruck

s, e

tc.).

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

No

18. A

bby

will

use

pin

cer g

rasp

whe

neve

r pla

ying

with

sm

all

toys

and

eat

ing.

N

o Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

19. D

anie

l will

mak

e 3

choi

ces

four

out

of f

ive

days

. Y

es

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

No

20. W

hene

ver v

erba

lly p

rom

pted

, Mel

issa

will

giv

e a

2-w

ord

resp

onse

to a

que

stio

n w

ithou

t cry

ing

or

disp

layi

ng p

hysi

cal r

esis

tanc

e du

ring

trans

ition

from

on

e ac

tivity

to a

noth

er.

No

No

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

21. C

hild

will

sto

p cr

ying

whe

n se

para

ting

from

par

ents

w

hen

com

ing

into

the

child

car

e ce

nter

eac

h da

y.

Yes

N

o Y

es

Yes

N

o N

o

Ans

wer

Key

to R

atin

g IE

P G

oals

ec

tace

nter

.org

/~pd

fs/p

ubs/

ratin

g-ie

p.pd

f

Sam

ple

IEP

GO

ALS

Mee

ts C

riter

ia?

— Yes

or No

Pla

in

lang

uage

; ja

rgon

fre

e

Pos

itive

W

ordi

ng

Age

-ap

prop

riate

ac

tiviti

es

Mea

sure

able

an

d ob

serv

able

Des

crib

es

how

the

child

will

de

mon

stra

te

wha

t the

y kn

ow

Des

crib

es

situ

atio

n;

does

not

na

me

plac

emen

t

22. D

enny

will

use

wor

ds to

say

wha

t he

need

s an

d w

ants

w

ithou

t rem

inde

rs in

a v

arie

ty o

f dai

ly ro

utin

es a

nd

expe

rienc

es a

t sch

ool.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

23. H

enry

will

imm

edia

tely

com

e w

hen

told

to d

o so

.

Yes

Y

es

No

No

No

No

24. E

than

will

com

plet

e al

l sel

f-car

e ro

utin

es w

ith 2

or

few

er v

erba

l and

pic

ture

sym

bol c

ues

each

day

. N

o Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es


Appendix E:

Worksheet for Rating IEP Goals

Wor

kshe

et fo

r Rat

ing

IEP

Goa

ls

ecta

cent

er.o

rg/~

pdfs

/pub

s/ra

ting-

iep.

pdf

Ans

wer

Key

to R

atin

g IE

P G

oals

P

artic

ipat

ion-

base

d, H

igh

Qua

lity

vs. S

kills

-bas

ed, S

ubst

anda

rd

Rat

ing

Crit

eria

:1 •

The

goal

is w

ritte

n in

pla

in la

ngua

ge a

nd is

jarg

on-fr

ee.

• Th

e go

al e

mph

asiz

es th

e po

sitiv

e.

• Th

e go

al d

escr

ibes

the

child

’s in

volv

emen

t in

age-

appr

opria

te a

ctiv

ities

to a

ddre

ss a

cade

mic

and

func

tiona

l are

as.

• Th

e go

al is

mea

sura

ble

and

obse

rvab

le.

• Th

e go

al d

escr

ibes

how

the

child

will

dem

onst

rate

wha

t the

y kn

ow o

r can

do.

•

The

goal

des

crib

es th

e si

tuat

ion

in w

hich

the

child

will

dem

onst

rate

the

goal

, and

doe

s no

t nam

e a

plac

emen

t or e

duca

tiona

l en

viro

nmen

t.

The

follo

win

g ta

ble

uses

the

wor

d “Y

es” t

o m

ean

that

the

goal

mee

ts th

e cr

iteria

list

ed, a

nd “N

o” to

mea

n th

at th

e go

al d

oes

not m

eet t

he

crite

ria li

sted

. A

par

ticip

atio

n-ba

sed,

hig

h qu

ality

goa

l is

one

that

mee

ts all

of th

e cr

iteria

. Sam

ple

IEP

GO

ALS

Mee

ts C

riter

ia?

— Yes

or No

Pla

in

lang

uage

; ja

rgon

fre

e

Pos

itive

W

ordi

ng

Age

-ap

prop

riate

ac

tiviti

es

Mea

sure

able

an

d ob

serv

able

Des

crib

es

how

the

child

will

de

mon

stra

te

wha

t the

y kn

ow

Des

crib

es

situ

atio

n;

does

not

na

me

plac

emen

t

1.

On

her o

wn,

Jay

ne w

ill p

lay

with

a v

arie

ty o

f toy

s an

d m

ater

ials

(suc

h as

pre

tend

ing

to c

ook,

pla

ying

with

do

lls, c

ars,

or b

lock

s, u

sing

pai

nts

or c

rayo

ns) a

t lea

st

twic

e a

day.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

2.

Whe

n si

tting

in a

cha

ir w

ith a

rms

or o

ther

sup

ports

(p

ads

and

a fo

otre

st),

Elli

e w

ill fe

ed h

erse

lf us

ing

a sp

oon

or fo

rk fo

r at l

east

hal

f of h

er m

eal o

nce

a da

y.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

1 Whe

n th

e ch

ild’s

con

text

ual i

nfor

mat

ion

(med

ical

or d

evel

opm

enta

l inf

orm

atio

n, e

valu

atio

n re

sults

, fam

ily in

form

atio

n, e

tc.)

is a

vaila

ble,

the

follo

win

g IE

P

goal

crit

eria

can

als

o be

eva

luat

ed:

•

The

GO

AL

incl

udes

wha

t the

chi

ld is

doi

ng n

ow a

nd in

clud

es th

e fa

mily

’s in

put a

nd c

once

rns.

•

The

GO

AL

is a

chie

vabl

e in

one

yea

r and

spe

cific

tim

elin

es a

re n

oted

. •

The

GO

AL

deta

ils S

peci

al F

acto

rs re

late

d to

com

mun

icat

ion,

ass

istiv

e te

chno

logy

and

sup

ports

spe

cific

to th

e ch

ild’s

dis

abili

ty a

nd/o

r Eng

lish

lang

uage

lear

ning

.

Wor

kshe

et fo

r Rat

ing

IEP

Goa

ls

ecta

cent

er.o

rg/~

pdfs

/pub

s/ra

ting-

iep.

pdf

Sam

ple

IEP

GO

ALS

Mee

ts C

riter

ia?

— Yes

or No

Pla

in

lang

uage

; ja

rgon

fre

e

Pos

itive

W

ordi

ng

Age

-ap

prop

riate

ac

tiviti

es

Mea

sure

able

an

d ob

serv

able

Des

crib

es

how

the

child

will

de

mon

stra

te

wha

t the

y kn

ow

Des

crib

es

situ

atio

n;

does

not

na

me

plac

emen

t

3.

At l

east

twic

e a

wee

k, B

etsy

will

sha

re d

etai

ls w

ith

adul

ts a

nd fr

iend

s ab

out r

ecen

t act

iviti

es u

sing

thre

e to

fo

ur c

ompl

ete

sent

ence

s.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

4.

Whe

n as

ked

wha

t he

wan

ts, N

atha

n w

ill u

se w

ords

an

d/or

ges

ture

s, in

clud

ing

refu

sals

(no,

don

’t lik

e it)

to

conv

ey n

eeds

and

wan

ts m

ost o

f the

tim

e (4

out

of 5

tim

es) t

hrou

ghou

t his

rout

ines

and

act

iviti

es e

ach

day.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

5.

Whe

n gi

ven

two

item

s or

task

s, N

atha

n w

ill c

hoos

e by

re

achi

ng fo

r the

obj

ect o

r pic

ture

he

wan

ts 3

out

of 4

tim

es d

urin

g pl

ay a

nd m

ealti

me

each

day

. Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

6.

Mat

tie w

ill p

lay

by s

elec

ting

a to

y, tr

ying

new

way

s to

pl

ay w

ith it

, or e

xplo

ring

othe

r toy

s fo

r 5 m

inut

es a

t a

time

at le

ast o

nce

each

day

. Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

7.

Dia

nna

will

cle

ar h

er p

late

from

the

tabl

e at

the

end

of

each

mea

l or s

nack

with

out r

emin

ders

. Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

8.

Cla

rita

will

be

safe

whe

n cl

imbi

ng u

p an

d do

wn

stai

rs

and

mov

ing

arou

nd o

bsta

cles

by

hold

ing

an a

dults

ha

nd e

very

tim

e du

ring

rout

ines

thro

ugho

ut th

e da

y.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

9.

Efra

t will

use

larg

e cr

ayon

s or

thic

k m

arke

rs b

y hi

mse

lf to

dra

w p

ictu

res

that

tell

a st

ory.

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

10. K

enny

will

resp

ond

to s

impl

e qu

estio

ns (e

.g. “

Do

you

wan

t mor

e?”,

“Wha

t’s th

is?”

) with

app

ropr

iate

wor

ds o

r ac

tions

mos

t of t

he ti

me

(4 o

f 5 ti

mes

) whe

n lo

okin

g at

bo

oks

each

day

.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Wor

kshe

et fo

r Rat

ing

IEP

Goa

ls

ecta

cent

er.o

rg/~

pdfs

/pub

s/ra

ting-

iep.

pdf

Sam

ple

IEP

GO

ALS

Mee

ts C

riter

ia?

— Yes

or No

Pla

in

lang

uage

; ja

rgon

fre

e

Pos

itive

W

ordi

ng

Age

-ap

prop

riate

ac

tiviti

es

Mea

sure

able

an

d ob

serv

able

Des

crib

es

how

the

child

will

de

mon

stra

te

wha

t the

y kn

ow

Des

crib

es

situ

atio

n;

does

not

na

me

plac

emen

t

11. W

ith a

ver

bal r

emin

der t

o do

so,

Jua

n w

ill p

ut o

n hi

s ja

cket

by

him

self

each

day

bef

ore

goin

g ou

tsid

e.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

12. G

erar

do w

ill ta

lk b

ette

r and

do

thin

gs h

e lik

es

thro

ugho

ut h

is d

ay, s

imila

r to

othe

r 3 y

ear o

lds.

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

No

No

No

13. I

wan

t my

child

to ta

lk m

ore

so th

at h

e is

bet

ter

unde

rsto

od b

y ot

hers

. Y

es

Yes

Y

es

No

No

No

14. G

elad

a w

ill p

lay

gam

es w

ith o

ther

chi

ldre

n.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

o N

o N

o

15. E

than

will

impr

ove

his

visu

al a

nd a

udito

ry a

ttent

ion

to

rout

ine

task

s.

No

Yes

Y

es

No

No

No

16. C

hris

will

pla

y in

all

play

are

as a

t Sun

shin

e C

hild

Car

e ea

ch d

ay.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

o N

o Y

es

17. J

ay w

ill p

lay

by h

imse

lf fo

r at l

east

15

min

utes

at

Che

rry

Che

eks

Pre

scho

ol, c

hoos

ing

vario

us ty

pes

of

toys

(suc

h as

blo

cks,

art

mat

eria

ls, t

ruck

s, e

tc.).

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

No

18. A

bby

will

use

pin

cer g

rasp

whe

neve

r pla

ying

with

sm

all

toys

and

eat

ing.

N

o Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

19. D

anie

l will

mak

e 3

choi

ces

four

out

of f

ive

days

. Y

es

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

No

20. W

hene

ver v

erba

lly p

rom

pted

, Mel

issa

will

giv

e a

2-w

ord

resp

onse

to a

que

stio

n w

ithou

t cry

ing

or

disp

layi

ng p

hysi

cal r

esis

tanc

e du

ring

trans

ition

from

on

e ac

tivity

to a

noth

er.

No

No

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

21. C

hild

will

sto

p cr

ying

whe

n se

para

ting

from

par

ents

w

hen

com

ing

into

the

child

car

e ce

nter

eac

h da

y.

Yes

N

o Y

es

Yes

N

o N

o

Wor

kshe

et fo

r Rat

ing

IEP

Goa

ls

ecta

cent

er.o

rg/~

pdfs

/pub

s/ra

ting-

iep.

pdf

Sam

ple

IEP

GO

ALS

Mee

ts C

riter

ia?

— Yes

or No

Pla

in

lang

uage

; ja

rgon

fre

e

Pos

itive

W

ordi

ng

Age

-ap

prop

riate

ac

tiviti

es

Mea

sure

able

an

d ob

serv

able

Des

crib

es

how

the

child

will

de

mon

stra

te

wha

t the

y kn

ow

Des

crib

es

situ

atio

n;

does

not

na

me

plac

emen

t

22. D

enny

will

use

wor

ds to

say

wha

t he

need

s an

d w

ants

w

ithou

t rem

inde

rs in

a v

arie

ty o

f dai

ly ro

utin

es a

nd

expe

rienc

es a

t sch

ool.

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

23. H

enry

will

imm

edia

tely

com

e w

hen

told

to d

o so

.

Yes

Y

es

No

No

No

No

24. E

than

will

com

plet

e al

l sel

f-car

e ro

utin

es w

ith 2

or

few

er v

erba

l and

pic

ture

sym

bol c

ues

each

day

. N

o Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es


Appendix F:

References

1. McWilliam, R. A. (2006). Steps to build a functional outcome. Siskin Children’s Institute. Retrieved from http://www.siskin.org/downloads/ Steps_to_Build_a_Functional_Child_Outcome.pdf

2. McWilliam, R. A. (2009). Goal Functionality Scale III. Retrieved from http://www.nectac.org/~pdfs/topics/families/GoalFunctionalityScaleIII_2_.pdf

3. Rush, M. L., & Shelden, D. D. (2009). Tips and techniques for developing participation-based IFSP outcomes statements, BriefCASE, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.fippcase.org/briefcase/briefcase_vol2_no1.pdf

4. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2000). A guide to the Individualized Education Program. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/iepguide.pdf

5. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (n.d.). Model form: Individualized Education Plan. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/modelform-iep.pdf

6. Bar-Lev, N., Van Haren, B., Laffin, K., Wright, A., Derginer, M., Graves, T., Kubinski, E., & Bernt,. S. (2009). A guide to connecting academic standards and IEPs (draft). Retrieved from http://dpi.state.wi.us/sped/pdf/iepstandardsguide.pdf

7. OSEP TA Community of Practice, Workgroup on Principles and Practices in Natural Environments. (2008). Mission and key principles of early intervention services. Retrieved from http://www.nectac.org/~pdfs/topics/families/Finalmissionandprinciples3_11_08.pdf

8. OSEP TA Community of Practice, Workgroup on Principles and Practices in Natural Environments. (2008). Seven key principles: Looks like/doesn't look like. Retrieved from http://www.nectac.org/~pdfs/topics/families/ Principles_LooksLike_DoesntLookLike3_11_08.pdf

9. OSEP TA Community of Practice, Workgroup on Principles and Practices in Natural Environments. (2008). Agreed upon practices for providing early intervention services in natural environments. Retrieved from http://www.nectac.org/~pdfs/topics/families/ AgreedUponPractices_FinalDraft2_01_08.pdf

10. Early Childhood Outcomes Center. (2011). ECO resources: IFSP/IEP-outcomes integration. Retrieved from http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~eco/pages/integration.cfm

11. Early Childhood Outcomes Center, IFSP/IEP-Outcomes Integration Think Tank. (2010). Integrating child outcome measurement with the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process: Implementation Rating Scale. Retrieved from http://leadershipmega-conf-reg.tadnet.org/uploads/ file_assets/attachments/281/ original_Integrating_outcomes_IEP_rating.pdf?1280240466

Date post:	30-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lamthien
View:	218 times
Download:	2 times

Enhancing Recognition of High Quality, Functional IEP...

Documents