Molly Craig

20 January 2015
IEP Meeting Write-Up: Primary
I attended an IEP meeting for Student A on January 13, 2015. The case
conference was called for a manifestation determination. Student A had been
suspended for a total of 7 days. The meeting was called to determine
whether the students disability was the cause of his behavior or not.
Student A is in grade 2 and has an IEP for specific learning disability
and language impairment. The student also has a BIP in place. In December,
the student picked up his chair, growled at the other students, and clenched
his fists in the late afternoon. Before they left for dismissal, the student
started pushing over other students chairs and acted as if he was going to
throw one of the chairs. The teacher blocked his attempts to go at the other
students. When the teacher guided the student out into the hallway, the
student began pounding on the door with his fist.
The student has sickle cell anemia and takes medication for it each
morning. The student also had cataract surgery a year ago and wears
glasses. The student has outbursts most frequently in his general education
classroom and during transitions to and from specials. The case conference
was brought together to discuss a change in the childs listed disability, a
request for an assistant, a request for a shortened day, and overall to
determine the cause of the students behavior.
The meeting started at 2:00pm once Student As mother, the principal
of the school, the students general education teacher, the students special
education teacher, a behavior specialist from Kaleidoscope, the public
agency representative, and the students speech and language pathologist

were present. The mother was asked beforehand if I could attend the
meeting and she confirmed the request. I only observed the meeting by
listening and was not involved in any other way. Each of these people was
present at the meeting because each had observed or interacted with
Student A in different ways. The students mother sees his behavior at home
with his family. The principal had seen him during some outbursts. The
general education teacher sees him when he has positive and negative
behavior. The special education teacher and speech and language
pathologist interact with him in small group and one-on-one settings. The
behavior specialist had observed him throughout one full day. The public
agency representative was there to supervise the case conference.
The students mother was quietly involved in the meeting. She quietly
confirmed or denied answers to questions. She listened quietly to the
members experiences with her son and explained whether she saw certain
behaviors at home or not. She voiced her concerns about his LRE and
requested he spend more time in the general education classroom to push
himself to learn what his peers are learning. Currently, Student A is two
grade levels behind in math and reading. The mother also requested that she
push into his classroom once a week or every other week to keep him on
task and push him to participate academically and have positive behavior.
The mother was very concerned with her son falling further behind
academically because of his behavior.

The documentation involved was the students IEP, FBA/BIP, MET

report, and documentation of the students behavior from the general
education teacher.
The topics addressed were the strengths and success of the student,
the reason for the manifestation determination, and each members
experiences with the student and his behavior. The general education
teacher and special education teacher provided documentation as evidence
of the students behavior. The group also discussed the environments in
which the student is successful. They determined his negative behaviors
happened less frequently in a small group setting and more frequently in his
general education classrooms whole group setting. The group discussed the
possible impact of the students medication on his behavior because the
students negative behavior occurs most frequently in the afternoon.
There was complexity in the meeting when the group was discussing
the reasoning behind the students behavior. It was unanimous amongst the
group members that the student understands right from wrong. They were
uncertain as to whether the student understood the consequences or effects
of his behavior during the incidents. Some of the students actions were a
way for him to communicate his discomfort or unhappiness. They determined
the child is not malicious, but his actions can be destructive. There was also
complexity when determining the appropriate LRE for the student. The
special education teacher believes the student is more successful in a small
group or individualized setting outside of the general education classroom.
The mother was concerned about the student falling further behind

academically, while the public agency representative was concerned with the
child not interacting with his peers socially.
The special education teacher requested that the student receive
constant one-on-one attention from an assistant, but the public agency
representative concluded that the group did not have enough documentation
on the students behavior to support that request. The public agency
representative suggested that the general education teacher, speech
teacher, and special education teacher document the dates and times of the
students outbursts or moments where the student is feeling overwhelmed.
This would help them determine the cause of the students behavior. With
this more specified documentation, they might be able to request an
assistant in the future.
After that discussion, the special education teacher suggested that the
students day be shortened due to his negative behavior occurring frequently
in the afternoon. It was suggested by the public agency representative, the
speech pathologist, the principal, and the special education teacher that his
negative behavior may increase in the afternoon due to his medicine wearing
off. The request for a shortened day was granted. The students new
dismissal time is 1:30pm instead of 3:40pm.
The special education teacher guided the meeting. Her leadership was
effective. She spoke to the members of the case conference in a sincere
manner. She spoke clearly and positively about the student. She made sure
the requests of each member of the case conference were discussed. She
answered each question and request made by the supervisor and her goals

for the student were mostly reached. What was best for the student was at
the forefront of the discussion.
The student will have a shortened day and in a general education
classroom for 40%-79% of his shortened day. A request has also been in the
system to change the students disability from specific learning disability to
OHI and/or autism spectrum disorder.
From this meeting, I learned what a manifestation determination
meeting looks like. The reasoning for the students behavior could have been
a number of things like a reaction to his medication, the environment he is
in, a want or need to have things his way, a disruption of his schedule,
transitions, or a desire to be alone. As a group, they had a hard time
determining what exactly caused his behavior and whether or not his
disability caused it. I learned that sometimes coming to a common
conclusion can be hard, when members of the meeting have interacted with
the student at different times and in different settings. It can be hard to
come to an agreement when so many aspects of the students behavior are
under question. As the special education teacher, its important to always
keep the students best interest in mind and be an advocate for what will
best support that student. As a first year teacher next year, this observation
will help me in terms of knowing how to respond to tough requests and
questions, as well as to always keep the students best interest at the
forefront of the discussion.
I liked this project because I think its important to be a part of all
different kinds of IEP meetings. Not only was attending the meeting

important, but the write-up has helped me review what I learned from the
case conference and what I can take away from it. I would keep the
questions that are asked for the write-up. I think they are all relevant and
help guide the students response. If I were to make any suggestion, I would
suggest that the student teacher attend multiple case conferences of
different kinds, like a manifest, ACR, original, etc. I wouldnt have the student
turn in a write-up for each one, but the experience is obviously important. I
understand that some students would never have the opportunity to attend
some of these so you cant technically assign them. I just think the
experience was important for me to observe. Even though Ive already
completed a write-up, I look forward to attending more and learning more
from them.