Perhaps surprising, I generally take a backseat during the IEP process for my children. There are a few reasons for this, but they pretty much boil down to
"What's the point?"
When my eldest was first diagnosed, I threw myself enthusiastically into the IEP process, hoping it would be an opportunity to support both the teachers and my child. But I quickly realised that my input wasn't welcome. At best, it was tolerated. I was frustrated and disappointed, but I decided to let it go. My eldest had no real "issues" at school and I resigned myself to the fact that for the school creating an IEP for my child was merely a box ticking exercise. This is despite the fact schools are legally obligated to consult with students or their representatives prior to the selection/implementation of accommodations.
The vastly different school experience of my youngest meant that I had to take the lead. Starting with creating a plan for his Kindy teacher when it became clear that she wouldn't (he had no diagnosis at the time). However, once again it was clear my efforts weren't appreciated. In pre-primary, I made sure his psychologist and paediatrician were involved in the planning process, hoping the opinion of professionals might hold more weight. Outwardly, the school appeared supportive. In reality, they ignored everything we said - and my son now has PTSD from the way the school treated him.
A new principal arrived for the start of year 1 and I decided to give them the benefit of the doubt. Things did begin to improve (slowly) and I gradually reduced my involvement. Late last year (year 2), things started to go downhill again. We were back to constant early pick-ups, suspensions and school refusal. It was impossible to get things back on track so late in the year and I couldn't let that happen again this year. I knew I needed to step in as soon as I saw warning signs of trouble. However, I wasn't expecting this to happen less than a month into the school year.
When I was given my son's IEP late last week, I didn't even look at it. It sat on the kitchen counter while I was busy with other things (specifically, fighting the suspension he received after being in school for only18 days). When I finally sat down to look at the IEP I was shocked. It is unbelievably - breathtakingly - problematic on every level. And I don't just mean from a Neurodiversity Affirming perspective. Even looked at from a traditional, deficit-based, medical-model approach it is wildly inappropriate. I am in the process of addressing this with the school, but I realised
that this would be a good opportunity to provide teachers with an example of how NOT to write an IEP.
Fundamental Problems
Before getting into the problems with the specific goals of this plan, I want to highlight some fundamental problems with how this IEP is written and what is/isn't included.
There are far too many goals on the IEP (14 on my son's) and/or there are multiple sub-goals within the goals.
The goals are not SMART goals. (Specific, Measurable, Agreed/achievable, Relevant/realistic, and Time bound). When IEP goals do not follow this format:
The language is ambiguous and subjective - i.e. the meaning of the goal, what is expected of the student, and/or how it will be measured is open to interpretation
There is no way of accurately measuring the student's progress towards the goal (or the measurement is subjective).
Goals that are not relevant or realistic are inappropriate and set the student up to fail.
The IEP is being used to document standard, whole-class quality differentiated teaching practices that should apply to all students. Several goals relate to where areas my son at grade level - presumably because he requires differentiated activities.
If specific, individualised strategies are not needed to address a goal then there is no point including the goal on an IEP
The "strategies' listed are not strategies at all. Related to the above, the IEP lists strategies that are standard teaching practice, or that simply state "EA support".
Strategies should specifically address the student's individual support needs. It is not enough to simply list standard school or classroom approaches.
Differentiation is not synonymous with "accommodations" - just because a student engages in the curriculum using differentiated activities does not mean an IEP goal is necessary.
Differentiating the level of work is not an appropriate, strategy especially for students who are working at grade level. This lowers expectations and is based on assumptions of incompetence.
Differentiation (if needed) should be to the mode and/or method of presentation, engagement, and re-presentation/assessment.
There is no indication of how a strategy will be implemented or what it looks like in practice
Whilst the issues I detail below regarding specific IEP goals could potentially be debated, there is no debating the fact that an IEP with fundamental issues like the ones above is inadequate.
The following examples are taken directly from my son's (de-identified) IEP, They illustrate the issues identified above, as well as highlighting some extremely problematic assumptions and misconceptions about dis/ability, neurodiversity, and inclusion.
Problematic Goals and Strategies
This is NOT an appropriate goal for a Neurodivergent student.
This expectation adds to the working memory load that should be being directed towards the completion of the actual task
Repeating instructions in a way that has been determined "correct" based on neurotypical communication norms show a complete disregard for neurodivergent communication styles and norms
This is NOT actually an appropriate goal for ANY student - There is no relevant link whatsoever between this goal and the Year 3 WA Curriculum achievement standards for speaking and listening.
These goals lack any indication of how achievement will be measured and the language used in these goals is ambiguous.
What does "engagement" look like?
How will you determine if the student is engaged?
If you intend to use neurotypical norms as indicators of level of engagement, you are setting the student up for failure.
Additionally, these strategies are vague and only partially relevant.
What does "engaging lessons developed" mean and what does this look like?
Who determines whether it is engaging? Surely if the student isn't engaging then by definition the strategy has not been implemented correctly?
What scaffolds will be used?
How will activities be differentiated?
What does build on "inclusive environment" mean? What is your definition of an "inclusive environment"? How will you achieve this?
Beyond the obvious fact that this goal in no way meets the criteria for a SMART goal, this goal is EXTREMELY PROBLEMATIC on multiple levels:
This is not "a" goal - it is 5 different goals
The language is vague and ambiguous
What does "responsibly and respectfully" look like?
How will the student be taught what this looks like?
How will achievement be determined and measured?
The language is subjective and based problematic assumptions about what is considered to be "appropriate language and manners"
What is considered to be "appropriate manners" is culturally constructed and determined by dominant social norms.
These norms are based on white, middle-class, able-bodies/minded ideas of what is acceptable and are inherently racist, ableist, sexist and classist.
Neurodivergent people do not have a communication DEFICIT that needs to be corrected. ND people communicate *differently*
Neurotypical people often communicate in way that a neurodivergent person would not consider to be "appropriate language and manners" - will all students and teachers be expected to learn how to communicate in the appropriate ND way?
Beyond these (major!) concerns with the expectation to use appropriate manners and language, there is absolutely no indication of how the student will be taught these (apparently) appropriate skills.
Why is the student expected to sit?
Giving options of where to sit is a good start, but why does this even need to be a requirement?
Many ND people NEED to move frequently - standing/walking etc does not impact their ability to listen or engage. However, being repeatedly told to "sit down" will definitely affect engagement.
Once again, beyond the obvious lack of SMART goal structure, this goal is BREATHTAKINGLY PROBLEMATIC and highly inappropriate on multiple levels
Not only is this is not "a" goal - it is 6 goals - absolutely NONE of these 6 goals are IN ANY WAY appropriate.
These goals reflect an absolute, complete, and utter lack of knowledge about autism, even from a standard deficit-based medical model perspective. Even if you know nothing about autism from a neurodiversity perspective, I would expect anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of autism to appreciate exactly why these goals are - frankly - ridiculous.
Autism is fundamentally a different way of communicating and interacting with people and the environment. This makes it difficult to navigate non-autistic interactions and environments.
This goal is essentially just a list of things that are widely known to be difficult for autistic people to do because of differences in social-communication and interest/attentional styles.
To be blunt, this goal may as well read "By the end of term 1, the student will no longer be autistic".
In addition to the fact that these goals are basically a wish list of how to make an autistic student neurotypical, there are also the following problems with these goals:
Ambiguous and subjective language
"Communicate with peers in a friendly manner"
What is a "friendly manner"? What does it look/sound like? Who determines this?
Under what conditions - even when they are not respecting him and being "friendly" towards him?
Does this expectation not also apply to ALL children on the playground?
As per the previous discussion regarding "appropriate manners" - this goal reflects a Eurocentric, neurotypical, and classist understanding of "friendly"
This language also reflects EXTREMELY ableist assumptions about what counts as "communication” - what it looks/sounds like and what is acceptable.
"He will seek input from peers on the game" and "He will attempt to include others interests and likes during recess and lunch games"
Once again, this highly ambiguous and subjective language. What do "seek input" and "include others interests and likes" actually mean/look like/sound like?
Again, this is based on ableist assumptions about communication - how do you know if he is or isn't seeking input? It may not be verbal and will almost certainly not look the same as a neurotypical child seeking input.
Will other children be expected to seek this student's input and include their interests in their games? Or is the expectation solely on the autistic student to conform to neurotypical interests?
"He will keep his hands and feet to himself 100% of the time"
Do I even have to point out how absolutely ridiculous this is??? For ANY child...Especially as there is absolutely no indication of how this will be achieved.
"He will use playground equipment appropriately and [for] the intended purpose of the equipment."
Once again, what is 'appropriate'? What is the 'intended' purpose?
Who decided what is appropriate or intended? Why did they decide that?
Aren't we supposed to be developing children's critical and creative thinking? How do we expect them to develop this if they are restricted to playing in a predetermined way?
If this is about safety, it should SAY that - and detail exactly what "safe" means and looks like, and how the student can demonstrate this.
There are also absolutely no strategies listed for how any of these goals will be achieve (if any of them were even achievable).
How exactly is "EA supervision" going to - basically - enable an autistic kid to become neurotypical?
I am cautiously hopeful that this will prove to be a positive learning experience for the school, and that they will listen to my concerns in good faith. However, based on previous experience, I may find myself once again dismissed and disregarded. Whatever the outcome is for me and my son, maybe this experience will help other teachers work with parents to create better IEPs for their students.
Comentarios