# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Case Studies for IEP Goals for Behavor, Social-Emotional Needs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Social-Emotional and Behavioral IEP Goal Examples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Special Education

Jim Stovall, International Humanitarian Award recipient and Olympic athlete, once said of teamwork, "You need to be aware of what others are doing, applaud their efforts, acknowledge their successes and encourage them in their pursuits. When we all help one another, everybody wins." For general education and special education teachers, the "everybody wins" payoff [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a well-written IEP with a well-executed process. Shift your mindset from focusing on a deficit-based approach to a strengths-based approach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Special Education

Jim Stovall, International Humanitarian Award recipient and Olympic athlete, once said of teamwork, "You need to be aware of what others are doing, applaud their efforts, acknowledge their successes and encourage them in their pursuits. When we all help one another, everybody wins." For general education and special education teachers, the "everybody wins" payoff [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a well-written IEP with a well-executed process. Shift your mindset from focusing on a deficit-based approach to a strengths-based approach

# data[].attributes.body
SDI padlet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Indiv Behavior Strats Quick Tips Handout

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Accoms-Mods Fast Facts, Quick Tips Handout

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inclusion for Parents Quick Tips Handout

# data[].attributes.body
for additional resources, tips and tools on accommodations and modifications, see this padlet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Specially Designed Instruction FINAL August 15 2013

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thank you

This live web event has ended. Thank you for attending.

Contributors

Dan Habib, International Filmmaker/University of New Hampshire Institute on Disability

Dan Habib is the creator of the award-winning documentary films Including Samuel, Who Cares About Kelsey?, Mr. Connolly Has ALS and many other films on disability-related topics. Habib is a filmmaker at the University of New Hampshire's Institute on Disability. He has recently released his new documentary, Intelligent Lives, which examines our society's narrow perceptions of intelligence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Session 4: Creating a Road Map For Inclusive IEPs | Association of Washington School Principals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thank you This live web event has ended. Thank you for attending. Contributors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
VDOE :: Special Education IEPs & Instructional Services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A student with a disability has the right to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). General education is the LRE.

Services are generally portable, and special education is delivered to the student to enable access to FAPE within the LRE to the maximum extent appropriate.

Federal law protects a student's right to FAPE within the LRE in light of a child's circumstances, not for convenience of resource allocation.

No student rights are waived due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The National Association of State Directors of Special Education provides a brief about LRE during the pandemic. The NASDSE brief includes examples of what LRE might look like for students doing distance learning or in a hybrid model of learning.

Full Article
An ill-informed conversation about special education might go something like this:

Is your child in special education?

Oh, so your student goes to school in that special classroom, by the office...in the portable...at the end of the hall...in a segregated Zoom room?

Regardless of whether education is happening in a school building or virtually, this conversation includes errors in understanding about what special education is, how it is delivered, and a student's right to be included with general education peers whenever and wherever possible.

This article intends to clear up confusion. An important concept to understand is in the headline:
Special Education is a service, not a place!
Services are portable, so special education is delivered to the student in the placement that works for the student to receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), in light of the child's circumstances. A student with a disability has the right to FAPE in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE).

General education is the Least Restrictive Environment. An alternative placement is discussed by the student's Individualized Education Program (IEP) team if access to FAPE is not working for the student in a general education setting with supplementary aids and supports.

Here is some vocabulary to further understanding:

FAPE: Free Appropriate Public Education. The entitlement of a student who is eligible for special education services.

IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The entitlement to FAPE is protected by this law that allocates federal funds to support eligible students.

LRE: Least Restrictive Environment. A student eligible for special education services has a right to FAPE in the LRE to the maximum extent appropriate. General education is the least restrictive, and an alternative placement is discussed when data indicate that supplementary aids and supports are not working to enable access to FAPE in general education.

IEP: Individualized Education Program. School staff and family caregivers make up an IEP team. The team is responsible to develop a program reasonably calculated to enable a student to make progress appropriate toward IEP goals and on grade-level curriculum, in light of the child's circumstances. Based on a student's strengths and needs (discovered through evaluation, observation, and review of data), the team collaborates to decide what services enable FAPE and how to deliver those services. Where services are delivered is the last part of the IEP process, and decisions are made by all team members, unless family caregivers choose to excuse some participants or waive the right to a full team process.

Equity: When access is achieved with supports so that a person with a disability has a more level or fair opportunity to benefit from the building, service, or program. For example, a student in a wheelchair can access a school with stairs if there is also a ramp. A person with a behavioral health condition might need a unique type of "ramp" to access equitable learning opportunities within general education.

Inclusion: When people of all abilities experience an opportunity together, and individuals with disabilities have supports they need to be contributing participants and to receive equal benefit. Although IDEA does not explicitly demand inclusion, the requirement for FAPE in the Least Restrictive Environment is how inclusion is built into special education process.

Placement: Where a student learns. Because the IDEA requires LRE, an IEP team considers equity and inclusion in discussions about where a student receives education. General education placement is the Least Restrictive Environment. An IEP team considers ways to offer supplementary aids and supports to enable access to LRE. If interventions fail to enable access to FAPE, the IEP team considers a continuum of placement alternatives-special education classrooms, alternative schools, home-bound instruction, day treatment, residential placement, or an alternative that is uniquely designed.

Supplementary Aids and Supports: The help and productivity enhancers a student needs. Under the IDEA, a student's unique program and services are intended to enable access to FAPE within LRE. Note that an aid or a support-a service that enables access-is not a place and therefore cannot be considered as an aspect of a restrictive placement. Having a 1:1 to support a student, for example, does not violate LRE. This topic was included in the resolution of a 2017 Citizen Complaint in Washington State.

Note that the IDEA protects a student's right to FAPE within LRE in light of a child's circumstances, not in light of the most convenient way to organize school district resources. Placement is individualized to support a student's strengths and abilities as well as the needs that are based in disability.

Tip: Families can remind the IEP team to Presume Competence and to boost a student from that position of faith. If the team presumes that a student can be competent in general education, how does it impact the team's conversation about access to FAPE and placement?
What does FAPE within LRE mean during COVID?
No student rights have been waived at the federal or state level due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Regardless of whether a student with an IEP receives learning from home, at school, or in a hybrid model that includes both, FAPE in the Least Restrictive Environment is a protected right under the IDEA.

The National Association of State Directors of Special Education ( NASDSE) provides a brief about LRE during the pandemic. The NASDSE brief includes examples of what LRE might look like for students doing distance learning and/or receiving some learning within school.

"The removal from the general education environment only occurs if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in the general education classes with the use of supplementary aides and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily," the NASDSE brief states.

"It is important to note that while the COVID-19 pandemic has not changed the individual student' right to LRE it has changed how the general education system operates. These operational changes require school systems to determine how they will maintain each individual student's LRE in the new context in which they are operating."

Tip: Family caregivers can ask what general education looks like for students in the environment of distance, in person, or hybrid learning and how a special education student is supported to access what all students are receiving.
LRE does not mean students with disabilities are on their own
To deliver FAPE, a school district provides lessons uniquely designed to address a student's strengths and struggles (specially designed instruction). In addition, the IEP team is responsible to design individualized accommodations and modifications.

Accommodations: Productivity enhancers. Examples: adjusted time to complete a task, assistive technology, a different mode for tracking an assignment or schedule, accessible reading materials with text-to-speech or videos embedded with sign language...

Modifications: Changes to a requirement. Examples: an alternative test, fewer problems on a worksheet, credit for a video presentation or vision board instead of a term paper.

Note that accommodations and modifications are not "special favors." Utilizing these is an exercise of disability rights that are protected by the IDEA and civil rights/anti-discrimination laws that include the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (particularly Section 504 as it relates to school) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA-particularly Title II).
Related Services may support LRE and other aspects of equitable access
An IEP may include related services (occupational therapy, speech, nursing, behavioral health support, parent training, etc.). For some students, related services may be part of the support structure to enable inclusion in the Least Restrictive Environment. If an IEP includes related services, then the IEP team discusses how and where they are delivered.

How related services are delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic requires an IEP team to consider medical concerns within the family and community and options for in-person, in-home and/or online delivery ( telehealth). If related services are included in the IEP, then the school district is responsible to provide them unless an IEP team determines an alternative way to enable access to FAPE.

Here are a few examples of related services during the pandemic:

A medically fragile student requires nursing support while accessing virtual classes with peers (synchronous learning) or while working through a curriculum packet (asynchronous learning). A nurse at home becomes part of the family's "COVID cohort" to meet health and safety guidelines.

A student with behavioral health needs struggles to access distance learning (school refusal), and parents lack skills to support behavior during learning time. The IEP is amended to include parent training for positive behavioral interventions and supports as a related service.

A student with receptive and expressive language deficits needs ongoing speech therapy to continue making meaningful progress on IEP goals and within the general education curriculum. Speech services are provided through telehealth.

A student in homeschool can receive Related Services from district
Note that a student enrolled in a homeschool can dually enroll in the local district to receive Related Services. A district is responsible under the IDEA's Child Find Mandate to seek out and evaluate children who have known or suspected disabilities that may significantly impact access to learning, regardless of whether they are enrolled in public school. Here are resources for more information about homeschool process and requirements:
Questions to consider
Here are a few questions IEP teams might consider when discussing LRE, inclusion, placement, and Related Services during COVID-19:

What does general education look like for same-age peers in the environment of distance, in person, or hybrid learning?

How is a special education student supported to access what all students are receiving?

Is an IEP team meeting needed to discuss the student's placement? (See PAVE's article: Sample Letter to Request an IEP Meeting)

If a student will not return to the school building even if the district opens for some in-person instruction, then does the IEP team need to discuss how to provide access to general education (LRE) and IEP services from a homebound placement?

Does service delivery make room for a flexible schedule? Guidance from the state's Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) provides for adaptability in how attendance is tracked and how a student can demonstrate participation. Likewise, Related Services may need to adapt to fit a schedule that works for a family with multiple considerations.

If delivery of an IEP service is not possible within health and safety guidelines, what else can the school district propose to provide access to learning/FAPE/LRE?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Special Education is a Service, Not a Place %

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No student rights have been waived at the federal or state level due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Regardless of whether a student with an IEP receives learning from home, at school, or in a hybrid model that includes both, FAPE in the Least Restrictive Environment is a protected right under the IDEA.

# data[].attributes.body
How to Find a School District's Least Restrictive Environment Percentage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Find a School District's Least Restrictive Environment Percentage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How do you find what percentages of students with disabilities in your school district are included over 80% of the time in general education?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LRE has been an aspect of special education law since 1975, when there was widespread public concern about children with disabilities historically being segregated and denied equitable education.

Research shows that children of all abilities learn social skills from one another when they learn side-by-side.

Some Washington schools struggle to support access to general education programs and settings for students with disabilities. In 2019, only 56 percent of students with disabilities are included in general education settings for 80-100 percent of the school day.

Under federal law, a student is placed in a more restrictive setting when the IEP team agrees that the student needs a different placement for education to be appropriately accessible.

Help from a paraeducator might be part of the support services that enable a student to access learning in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). Note that a paraeducator is a service, not a placement. Having a 1:1 to help in the classroom does not violate LRE. This topic was included in the resolution of a 2017 Citizen Complaint. Read on for more detail.

Full Article
Some other articles that might be of interest:
Evaluations Part 2: Next Steps if the School Says 'No' to Your Request Section 504: A Plan for Equity, Access and Accommodations
Schools are responsible to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for students with disabilities. One of the defining principles of special education law is that students with disabilities have access to general education, with nondisabled peers, to the maximum extent possible. That requirement is called Least Restrictive Environment (LRE).

LRE is a key feature of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and has been part of disability rights for students since 1975. PAVE has articles about special education history and key principles of the . The LRE requirements are a response to widespread public concern about children with disabilities historically being segregated in institutions, separated from peers and removed from neighborhood schools.

A student qualifies for the protections of the IDEA and special education services when a disabling condition severely impacts access to learning and specially designed instruction is needed. An eligible student is entitled to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), delivered through an Individualized Education Program (IEP).

The IEP includes specially designed instruction and goal monitoring, supplementary aids and services, accommodations and intentionally chosen spaces to meet the student's needs. Those thoughtfully chosen spaces are a student's "placement." A decision about placement is made after programming decisions are made by the IEP team.

Parents can learn this terminology to help in their advocacy. Here's a statement that incorporates key terms: Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is part of a school district's responsibility when providing a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for a student who receives special education services.
General Education is the first LRE option
The general education setting is the first LRE placement option, and how placement is designed is unique to a student's individualized needs. Research demonstrates that students with disabilities perform better academically and learn social skills when they have access to the general education setting with proper support.

According to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction ( OSPI), which provides guidance to schools in Washington State, "The body of research consistently supports the positive link between access to core instruction in general education settings and improved outcomes for students with disabilities.

"Inclusion is the belief and practice that all students have the right to meaningfully access academic and social opportunities in general education settings."

Still, some Washington schools struggle to provide meaningful access to general education programs and settings. In 2019, the state reports that only 56 percent of students with disabilities are included in general education settings for 80-100 percent of the school day.

The 2019 Washington Legislature passed House Bill 1109 to provide $25 million in 2020-21 to implement professional development in support of inclusionary practices, with an emphasis on coaching and mentoring. Information about the Inclusionary Practices Professional Development Project is available on OSPI's website.
What the law says
The IDEA states that schools are required to provide FAPE in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) "to the maximum extent appropriate." Each state is required to implement the IDEA. The U.S. Department of Education maintains a website that shares language directly from the federal law. According to Sec. 300.114:

"Each public agency must ensure that-

"To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and

"Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily."

LRE decisions follow a 4-part process
OSPI's website includes information directed toward parents: "Placement decisions are made by your student's IEP team after the IEP has been developed. The term "placement" in special education does not necessarily mean the precise physical building or location where your student will be educated. Rather, your student's "placement" refers to the range or continuum of educational settings available in the district to implement her/his IEP and the overall amount of time s/he will spend in the general education setting."

Selection of an appropriate placement includes 4 considerations:

IEP content (specialized instruction, goals, services, accommodations...)

LRE requirements (least restrictive "to the maximum extent appropriate")

The likelihood that the placement option provides a reasonably high probability of helping a student attain goals

Consideration of any potentially harmful effects the placement option might have on the student or the quality of services delivered

What if placement in general education isn't working?
If a student is unable to access learning in an appropriate way (FAPE) because of the nature or severity of the disability, then the IEP team considers alternative placement options. It's important to note that a student is placed in a more restrictive setting because the student needs a different location within the school, not because it's more convenient for adults or because it saves the school district money.

According to IDEA, Sec. 300.114, "A State must not use a funding mechanism by which the State distributes funds on the basis of the type of setting in which a child is served that will result in the failure to provide a child with a disability FAPE according to the unique needs of the child, as described in the child's IEP."
Placement options are vast
IEP teams consider a wide range of placement options. They may discuss whether there's a need for a small classroom setting, for example, or home-based instruction. For a child with a behavioral health condition, the team may discuss whether a "day treatment" school staffed with specialists in behavior management might provide the best access to FAPE.

The continuum of placement options includes, but is not limited to:

general education classes

general education classes with support services and/or modifications

a combination of general education and special education classes

self-contained special education classes

placements outside of a school district

home instruction

residential care or treatment facilities

School districts are not required to have a continuum available in every school building. A school district, for example, might have a self-contained setting or preschool services in some but not all locations. This gives districts some discretion for choosing a location to serve the placement chosen by an IEP team.
Placement and location are different
Note that the IEP team determines the placement, but the school district has discretion to choose a location to serve the IEP.

For example, an IEP team could determine that a student needs a day treatment/behavioral health-focused school in order to access FAPE-an appropriate education. If the IEP team chooses a Day Treatment placement, then the school district is responsible to find a location to provide that placement. Following this process, a public-school district might pay for transportation and tuition to send a student to a private or out-of-district facility. If a request for a specialized placement is initiated by the family, there are other considerations.

OSPI's website includes this information:

"... if you are requesting that your student be placed in a private school or residential facility because you believe the district is unable to provide FAPE, then you must make that request through a due process hearing."
Note: Due Process is part of the "procedural safeguards" available to family participants on the IEP team. PAVE has an 1:1 is a service, not a placement and a about options when family members disagree with the school.
The IDEA specifies that a more restrictive placement relies on data showing that "the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily."

Supplementary aids and services can include a wide variety of supports. The student might use assistive technology, for example, or teachers could craft unique ways to present the curriculum. The student may get individualized help from an adult.

The LRE requirement means that schools document efforts to enable a student to access general education, however that might be possible. General education access includes classrooms, programs like PE and art, extracurricular activities, recess.... IEP team members can get creative about how to help the student succeed. Some students design their own clever accommodations. Family members and outside therapists or behavioral specialists also contribute ideas.

A common conflict with families and schools is whether a 1:1 paraeducator might enable access to FAPE in general education. Some parents and schools may have conversations about whether a helper might "restrict" a student's ability to develop independence. Sometimes those conversations lead to misunderstanding about LRE. A 2017 case in Washington addressed the topic and clarified that a 1:1 is a service, not a placement.
"The District is incorrect in its belief that 1:1 paraeducator support is the most restrictive environment for all students. Paraeducator support is a supplementary aid and service, not a placement option on the continuum of alternative placements....
In response to a Citizen Complaint filed by parents in the Lake Washington School District, OSPI issued a public report, with a finding in favor of the family. The parents wanted their child to get help from a 1:1 aide and disagreed with the school that it would "restrict" the student. According to OSPI's report, parents had requested a 1:1 aide because they wanted the school to provide more support in order to increase the student's time in general education. School staff on the IEP team said no to the request, citing a belief that a 1:1 aide "is the most restrictive level of service..."
LRE does not mean students are on their own
OSPI rejected that argument, stating:

"Based on the documentation in this complaint, the District did not base its decision to deny the Parent's request for 1:1 aide support on the Student's individualized needs. The District erred in failing to properly consider if the Student could participate in a general education setting with the provision of 1:1 aide support."

The conversation about what creates "restriction" is complex, and sometimes school staff bring up the concept of "learned helplessness" if they believe that children learn better with less instead of more support. Each conversation and circumstance is unique, but parents can research the topic of learned helplessness to understand various ways that data are interpreted to generate opinions.

Generally, when someone receives help-including education provided by a teacher or a teacher's aide-that person learns how to do something and eventually models what is taught, with mastery over time. Revoking help before a person is ready to do something independently may create a help"less" situation. A person who cannot perform a task with success and doesn't get the needed help to get better at the skill may over time give up and become helpless. Some articles on the subject relate to individuals who have been unable to cope or problem-solve independently and therefore "learn" to be helpless.

Parents talking with the school about LRE and appropriate support can do their best to provide accurate and comprehensive information about a student's unique disability condition and what is needed to meet the student where he/she is ready to learn.

Following are a few additional resources:

An agency called Teaching Exceptional Children Plus features an article by a parent about the value of inclusion in general education. The January 2009 article by Beth L. Sweden is available for download online: Signs of an Inclusive School: A Parent's Perspective on the Meaning and Value of Authentic Inclusion.

Understood.org offers an article and a video about the benefits of inclusion.
Evaluations Part 2: Next Steps if the School Says 'No' to Your Request Section 504: A Plan for Equity, Access and Accommodations
An agency that promotes best-practice strategies for school staff implementing inclusive educational programming is the IRIS Center, a part of Peabody College at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

Some other articles that might be of interest:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Encourages Inclusion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Brief Overview LRE has been an aspect of special education law since 1975, when there was widespread public concern about children with disabilities historically being segregated and denied equitable education. Research shows that children of all abilities learn social skills from one another when they learn side-by-side.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Page 2: Person-Centered Planning

The staff members at Phelan Jr./ Sr. High use a person-centered planning approach to deliver transition services to students with disabilities. With a person-centered planning approach, the transition services a student receives are defined by the student's needs, focus on the student's individual strengths and capacities, and acknowledge disability-specific issues. The student and the student's family are highly involved in the transition process. Consideration must also be given to the family's cultural and ethnic heritage when using the person-centered approach to transition.

Active Participation in the IEP

Part of person-centered planning also entails the student's participation in the IEP meeting. In general, when students are encouraged to actively participate in their IEP meeting, they should:

Prepare for the IEP meeting

Receive support and encouragement during the IEP meeting

Be provided with follow-up after the IEP meeting

Share information about their disability and accommodations that they find useful.

Provide a summary of their learning strengths and weaknesses, as well as interests and goals

Participate in role-playing activities to help them feel more at ease

After the meeting, the school counselor (or other school personnel) and the student should discuss what he or she viewed as successful and what they would like to do differently in future meetings.

Amy Harris shares her thoughts about the ways in which counselors can help to make the transition process a more person-centered experience for students with disabilities (time: 1:14).

Transcript: Amy Harris

The most important thing is that I want counselors to know that my child is more like other children than different. I think my child has her own individual strengths and needs. She has her own mind and is able to make her own decisions. I think it's important for the counselors to give her choices, to explain the process to her, to include her as much as possible, and to respect her as an individual.

Counselors can start by informing the child about the IEP process. I think the more the child knows about what's going to happen and has the opportunity ahead of time to meet with the counselor so that they can be prepped and be able to share their thoughts--what they wanna talk about in the IEP, what's really important to them, what their goals are, and then an understanding what's going to happen, who's gonna be there, what the agenda's gonna be, how much time is gonna occur, and what the expectations of the students are--I think those should all be set up ahead of time, because otherwise I think you're gonna have a child who's floundering in a meeting and doesn't really understand their role in it.

Establishing Post-Secondary Goals
Transition Planning Domains

Education/ Training

College courses

College preparatory classes

General education and training considerations

On-the-job training

Employment

Employment setting

Military service

Supported employment

Independent Living

Child rearing

Daily living skills

Family life

Financial management

Home management

Transportation

Leisure Pursuits

Community and neighborhood activities

Entertainment

Indoor activities

Outdoor activities

Travel

Community Involvement

Citizenship

Community awareness

Services and resources

Physical and Emotional Health

Maintaining a healthy lifestyle

Scheduling and keeping healthcare-related appointments

Seeking help for emotional issues (e.g., depression) when appropriate

(Close this panel)
At Phelan Jr./ Sr. High School, students should begin the transition process by developing statements describing their future goals in all the major life domains. In some cases, students may require help to create their goal statements; in all cases, students will meet with school personnel to review their goals. School counselors, families, and other staff will use each student's post-secondary goals as a guide to help address his or her curricular and service needs.

Identifying Measurable Post-Secondary Goals

Once students have identified their future goals in the major life domains, they are ready to explore their post-high school choices. The secondary transition planning process should include measurable post-secondary goals for the required areas:

Education/ Training: Goals in this category address education or training for a specific vocation or career. This may include a vocational training program, an apprenticeship, on-the-job training, job corps, a technical training program or college, a two-year college, and a four-year college or university. Goals in this area may also address training for independent living.

Employment: Goals in this category address paid employment (e.g., competitive, sheltered, integrated or supported), unpaid employment (volunteer, in a training capacity), and military service.
integrated (or supported) employment
An employment setting in which the individual with a disability receives necessary support to learn and maintain a job. For example, a job coach would provide one-on-one training, modeling, and feedback to an employee with a disability while also providing the employer with necessary information.

Independent Living: When appropriate, these goals address living independently, managing finances, utilizing transportation, and accessing adult services.
adult services
Services available to individuals with disabilities who meet certain eligibility requirements and that typically include three categories: employment services, social security and health services, and community living and support services. Vocational rehabilitation services and supported employment are examples of adult services. In some cases, these services are provided through agencies that also serve persons without disabilities (e.g., Medicaid, food stamps).

For Your Information

Students should be asked to identify their post-school goals with increasing specificity each school year.

Achieving Measurable Post-Secondary Goals

The transition process typically focuses on academic, employment, and independent living skills. This is particularly important for adolescents or young adults with disabilities because the transition plan often requires:

Collaborative programming between the school and the community (or post-secondary setting)

Direct instruction in natural settings (e.g., job sites, bus stops)

Opportunities to problem-solve strategies and instructional plans

School counselors, teachers, family members, and other individuals contribute to students' attainment of their dreams and aspirations. When family members, significant role models, and school personnel support students with disabilities in developing measurable post-secondary goals for life, more of these goals are reached. Individuals involved in the transition process can help students successfully achieve their post-secondary goals by guiding them through the tasks outlined in the table below.

Deciding

Encourage each student to create goals for his or her life after high school. These goals should be stated in measurable terms. At a minimum, goals should address education/ training, employment, and independent living; however, they may also address other life domains.

Planning

Work with each student to develop a long-term plan that outlines the steps required to achieve his or her future goals.

Preparing

Help the student choose classes and other opportunities that enable the student to obtain needed skills (e.g., job skills, work-related social skills) and competencies needed to achieve his or her goals.

Carrying out the plan

Identify necessary post-school services, supports, or programs and connect the student and his or her family to these services before the student leaves the school system.

Transition Update - Sandra's Goals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The staff members at Phelan Jr./ Sr. High use a person-centered planning approach to deliver transition services to students with disabilities. With a person-centered planning approach, the transition services a student receives are defined by the student's needs, focus on the student's individual strengths and capacities, and acknowledge disability-specific issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At too many IEP meetings, educators focus on student deficits. They get stuck when it comes time to explore a student's strengths. Educators and families alike wonder why these meetings are tense and difficult.

Families are constantly fighting to discover and create inclusive spaces for their loved ones. IEP meetings should already be inclusive and safe for students with disabilities but they're traditionally difficult for teachers, families, and students. Hosting inclusive person-centered IEP meetings is crucial to a student's long-term success.

What Is a Person-Centered IEP?

IEPs, or Individualized Education Plans, are meant to be documents supporting the development of a student with disabilities. Required by law under IDEA ( Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), an IEP should track students' success in achieving learning goals. It also documents what services the student needs to succeed.

IDEA states that all children, with or without disabilities, have the right to an appropriate, free, and public education that meets the student's needs. Because of the requirement of an appropriate education, parents and educators meet to discuss student performance and goals.

To make an IEP person-centered, it is important to include students. From there, educators can develop plans based on the students' vision of their future. Read more for 3 ways families and teachers can put an inclusive person-centered IEP into practice.

No IEP meeting is easy. Working together with understanding and compassion can make the process better though.

Teachers can start by interviewing the family about how past meetings went. What could have been better? What conversations went well? This interview is all about how you can help increase positivity throughout the process.

For families, supporting your child's school team is important too. Try to spend some time reflecting on your past experiences. What do you need to feel secure about your student's education? Be clear and upfront with the education team and have goals of your own as your enter the room.

Remember why you are all at this meeting: to support and advocate for the student. Family members' main goal is to advocate for their loved one. But don't forget, as a family member, you can advocate for educators too. Schools, especially special education programs, need to be fully funded; teachers need to be paid living wages; and resources have to be allocated to support these goals.

Teachers can advocate for their students in the classroom, but don't forget to continue advocating the classroom. Have conversations with adults who live with disabilities - what is their daily life like? Teachers can also support the development of self-advocacy skills in their students. Read more about 3 ways you can teach self-advocacy skills to your students.

Practice Self-Determined Transition Planning

For this tip, teachers and family members can work together. Focus on the student. This may sound simple, but it is actually a much more involved process. Educators can focus on teaching students how to create their own measurable goals. Once the student understands the concept of self-determination, move on to helping them map out their dreams with action plans.

Families can help at home with these important skills. Bring your child along to their IEP meetings, and allow them to articulate their own future.

None of these solutions are easy to implement. However, both teachers and family members will find that these 3 ways to create an inclusive person-centered IEP will lead to better futures for students with disabilities.

Not an educator or family member? Forward this blog to someone who needs it!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Create Inclusive Person-Centered IEP - Center For Independent Futures

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At too many IEP meetings, educators focus on student deficits. They get stuck when it comes time to explore a student's strengths. Educators and families alike wonder why these meetings are tense and difficult. Families are constantly fighting to discover and create inclusive spaces for their loved ones.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
October 2008

Section 504 and Title II - Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance. Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities, including public elementary and secondary school systems, regardless of receipt of Federal financial assistance. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the United States Department of Education (Department) has enforcement responsibilities under both of these laws. As part of their disability nondiscrimination mandates, Section 504 and Title II require local education agencies (LEAs) to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to qualified individuals with disabilities in their jurisdiction. See 34 C.F.R. § 104.33 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.103(a).

Section 504 and Title II do not have specific provisions addressing report cards or transcripts. The regulations implementing Section 504 and Title II make clear that in general, Section 504 and Title II prohibit recipients and public entities from treating persons differently on the basis of disability in the provision of aid, benefits, or services. However, recipients and public entities may provide a different aid, benefit, or service to persons with disabilities where necessary to provide an aid, benefit, or service that is as effective as that provided to others. See 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(1)(i)-(iv) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(i)-(iv). Among the aid, benefits, and services provided to students and parents are report cards and transcripts. Section 504 and Title II do not contain specific confidentiality requirements, but do prohibit different treatment on the basis of disability. This generally would prohibit unnecessary disclosures of disability status to third parties.

Other federal laws are also relevant.

- Through the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), the Department of Education administers the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( IDEA), which provides funds to states to assist in making a free appropriate public education (FAPE) available to eligible children with disabilities. IDEA requirements apply to state education agencies (SEAs), school districts, and other public agencies that serve IDEA-eligible children.

IDEA does not have specific provisions on student report cards or transcripts, but does require that the individualized education program (IEP) for a child with a disability include a description of how the child's progress toward meeting the annual goals set forth in his or her IEP will be measured and when periodic reports on the child's progress toward meeting the annual goals will be provided (such as through the use of quarterly or other periodic reports, concurrent with the issuance of report cards). 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(III); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(3). These periodic progress reports may be separate from, or included as part of, the regular report cards of students with disabilities with an IEP. In general, the nondiscrimination principles of Section 504 and Title II would apply to report cards with or without such progress reports.

- The Department's Family Policy Compliance Office implements and enforces the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ( FERPA). FERPA protects the privacy interests of parents and students with regard to education records, and generally prohibits a policy or practice of disclosing personally identifiable information from education records without consent unless it is subject to a specific exception.

Disclosures of personally identifiable student information, including disability status, are subject to the protections of FERPA and IDEA. Generally, these statutes require consent prior to disclosures of personally identifiable information contained in education records unless a specific exception applies. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 99.30 - 99.31 of the FERPA regulations and 34 C.F.R. § 300.622 of the IDEA regulations. Both student report cards and student transcripts are considered "education records" under FERPA and IDEA.

While the primary focus of the following questions and answers are the requirements under Section 504 and Title II of the ADA, to the extent that IDEA applies, this law is briefly discussed as well.

Yes. Report cards are provided to parents to indicate their child's progress or level of achievement in specific classes, course content, or curriculum. Consistent with this purpose, it would be permissible under Section 504 and Title II for a report card to indicate that a student is receiving special education or related services, as long as the report card informs parents about their child's progress or level of achievement in specific classes, course content, or curriculum. For instance, a report card for a student with a disability may refer to an IEP or a plan for providing services under Section 504 in order to report on the student's progress on the specific goals in the IEP or plan developed under Section 504.

However, the mere designation that a student has an IEP or is receiving a related service, without any meaningful explanation of the student's progress, such as a grade or other evaluative standard established by an LEA and/or SEA, would be inconsistent with IDEA's periodic reporting requirements, as well as with Section 504 and Title II. Under Section 504 and Title II, in general, the LEA must provide students with disabilities report cards that are as informative and effective as the report cards provided for students without disabilities. See 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(1)(i)-(iv) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(i)-(iv). Without more meaningful information, a report card that indicates only special education status provides the student with a disability with a benefit or service that is different from and not as informative and effective as the benefit or service that is provided through the report card for students without disabilities.

In general, yes. LEAs frequently distinguish between general education curriculum classes and other types of programs and classes, such as advanced placement, honors, or remedial classes. Making similar distinctions on report cards would be consistent with the general requirements of Section 504 and Title II that individuals with disabilities may not unnecessarily be treated differently than individuals without disabilities.

See 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(1)(i)-(iv) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(i)-(iv). Under Section 504 and Title II, in order to properly reflect the progress of a student with a disability in a modified or alternate education curriculum, an LEA may distinguish between special education programs and
services provided under a modified or alternate education curriculum and regular education classes under the general education curriculum on the student's report card. For instance, where a student's IEP calls for a modified tenth grade literature curriculum to be provided through the special education program, it would be appropriate for the report card to indicate that the student's progress was measured based on the modified education curriculum. This distinction also may be achieved by using an asterisk or other symbol meant to reference the modified or alternate education curriculum as long as the statements on the report card, including the asterisks, symbols or other coding, provide an explanation of the student's progress that is as informative and effective as the explanation provided for students without disabilities.

Yes. Accommodations are generally understood to include aids or adjustments that are part of an IEP or plan developed under Section 504 and that enable the student with a disability to learn and demonstrate what the student knows. In general, accommodations do not affect course content or curriculum. Examples may include sign language interpreters in the classroom, the provision of materials in alternate formats, or extra time on tests. Accordingly, to the extent that the use of notations, asterisks, symbols, or other coding on a report card to indicate that a student with a disability received accommodations is part of the information given to parents about their child's progress or level of achievement in specific classes, course content, curriculum, the IEP, or the plan under Section 504, it is permissible under Section 504 and Title II.

Yes. Nothing in Section 504 or Title II requires that LEAs use any particular format or method to provide information to parents about their child's progress or level of achievement in specific classes, course content, curriculum, IEP, or plan under Section 504. As explained above, under Section 504 and Title II, the LEA must provide students with disabilities report cards that are as informative and effective as the report cards provided to students without disabilities. As noted above, there are also IDEA-specific provisions that require periodic reporting.

Yes. Assigning grades (i.e., achievement or "letter" grades) for a child with a disability based on the student's grade level (i.e., year-in-school) standards would not be inconsistent with Section 504 or Title II. Generally, Section 504 and Title II would require that students with and without disabilities in the same regular education classes in the general education curriculum be graded using the same standards. That is, if an LEA assigns grades to nondisabled students participating in regulareducation classes using grade level standards to reflect progress in the general education curriculum, then theLEAwould also use those standards to assign grades to students with disabilities in those same classes. See 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(1)(i)-(iv) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(i)-(iv). Nothing in Section 504 or Title II prohibits SEAs and LEAs from deciding how to establish standards to reflect the progress or level of achievement of students with disabilities who are taught using different course content or a modified or alternate education curriculum. To the extent that a student with a disability is not participating in regular education classes, but is receiving modified course content or is being taught under a modified or alternate curriculum, it would be up to the SEA and/or the LEA to determine the standards to be used to measure the student's progress or level of achievement.

No. A student's transcript generally is intended to inform postsecondary institutions or prospective employers of a student's academic credentials and achievements. Information that a student has a disability, or has received special education or related services due to having a disability, does not constitute information about the student's academic credentials and achievements. Under Section 504 and Title II, recipients and public entities may not provide different or separate aid, benefits, or services to individuals with disabilities, or to any class of individuals with disabilities, unless such action is necessary to provide those individuals with aid, benefits, or services that are as effective as those provided to others. See 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(1)(i)-(iv) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(i)-(iv). Notations that are used exclusively to identify a student as having a disability or identify education programs for students with disabilities unnecessarily provide these students with different educational benefits or services. Identifying programs as being only for students with disabilities also would be viewed as disclosure of disability status of enrollees and constitutes different treatment on the basis of disability. Therefore, it would be a violation of Section 504 and Title II for a student's transcript to indicate that a student has received special education or a related service or that the student has a disability.

In addition, prohibiting such preadmission and preemployment disclosures is consistent with the Section 504 regulatory requirements that, in general, postsecondary institutions may not make preadmission inquiries as to whether an applicant for admission has a disability prior to admission, 34 C.F.R. § 104.42(b)(4), nor may employers conduct preemployment medical examinations or make preemployment inquiries as to whether an applicant for employment has a disability prior to an offer of employment, 34 C.F.R. § 104.14.

In general, yes. While a transcript may not disclose that a student has a disability or has received special education or related services due to having a disability, a transcript may indicate that a student took classes with a modified or alternate education curriculum. This is consistent with the transcript's purpose of informing postsecondary institutions and prospective employers of a student's academic credentials and achievements. Transcript notations concerning enrollment in different classes, course content, or curriculum by students with disabilities would be consistent with similar transcript designations for classes such as advanced placement, honors, and basic and remedial instruction, which are provided for both students with and without disabilities, and thus would not violate Section 504 or Title II. This distinction may also be achieved by using an asterisk or other symbol meant to reference the modified or alternate education curriculum. These notations, asterisks, or other symbols indicating a modified or alternate education curriculum are permissible when they do not specifically disclose that a student has a disability, are not used for the purpose of identifying programs for students with disabilities, and are consistent with the purpose of a student transcript.

In general, no. Because the use of accommodations generally does not reflect a student's academic credentials and achievement, but does identify the student as having a disability, it would be a violation of Section 504 and Title II for a student's transcript to indicate that the student received accommodations in any classes. For example, a notation indicating the use of Braille materials is not related to whether that student mastered all the tenth grade objectives for her literature class. The only purpose of such a notation is to identify that student as having a visual impairment. Because accommodations are generally understood to include aids and adjustments to enable a student with a disability to learn and demonstrate knowledge, this notation could identify the student as having a disability and therefore constitute different treatment on the basis of disability.

A transcript for a student with a disability may indicate receipt of a certificate of attendance or a similar document, rather than a regular diploma, under certain circumstances. These circumstances are where this does not disclose that a student has received special education or related services, does not otherwise specifically disclose that a student has a disability (for example, because certificates of attendance are available to both students with disabilities and students without disabilities), is not used for the purpose of identifying programs for students with disabilities, and is consistent with the purpose of a student transcript -- to inform postsecondary institutions and prospective employers of a student's academic credentials and achievements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
civil rights; disabilities; special education; elementary secondary education; high schools; disabled student services; family educational rights and privacy (ferpa); americans with disabilities act; academic adjustments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Questions and Answers on Report Cards and Transcripts For Students with Disabilities Attending Public Elementary and Secondary Schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This letter provides State education agencies and local education agencies with information regarding disclosure of disability on report cards and transcripts for students with disabilities attending public elementary and secondary schools. Dated October 17, 2008.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Impact | Winter 2018/19 Volume 31, Number 2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From the Editors

In the past, students with the most significant cognitive disabilities were often taught only functional skills in our K-12 schools - how to do self-care, tell time, use money, carry out routine daily tasks. Today, growing numbers of families, educators, and students are advocating for higher expectations and a more inclusive educational experience.

What does it look like when schools transition to more inclusive and rigorous education for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities? In this Impact issue inclusive K-8 education is viewed from a variety of perspectives - researchers, classroom teachers, education administrators, students with and without disabilities, and families. They explore inclusion from the classroom to the school-wide community, and beyond.

The learning curve for adults is sometimes steep when more inclusive practices are introduced in schools. However, students - both those with cognitive disabilities and their peers without - often make the shift more easily. The key is for the needed and appropriate supports to be in place for students. And for the special and general education teachers, and school administrators who support them, to have the knowledge, skills, and quality curricular resources they need to confidently instruct all students. In these pages we share examples of such knowledge, skills, and resources from across the country with the hope that they can help K-8 schools increasingly support the learning of all students in inclusive settings.

Subscribe

For a free subscription to Impact, visit ici.umn.edu/products/impact/subscribe.html or call 612/624-4512. Provide your contact information and let us know whether you'd like a print or digital subscription, or both.

Inclusive Education: Additional Resources of Interest

Resources from National Centers

National Center on Accessible Educational Materials
( aem.cast.org)
Accessible educational materials or AEM are specialized formats of curricular content that can be used by and with students who are unable to read or use standard print materials. The AEM Center provides resources, training, and technical assistance for educators, parents, students, and others interested in learning more about and implementing AEM and the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS). In addition to the large collection of resources and information on its website, the center invites K-12 educators (especially those in their first three years of teaching) to participate in a free professional development course delivered online to improve the accessibility of the materials their students use for learning (for more information see http://aem.cast.org/about/new-educator-training.html#. XBwfVi2ZPMU). The AEM Center is based at CAST, Inc. (cast.org).

SWIFT Education Center
SWIFT is a national technical assistance center that builds whole system - state, district, school, and community - capacity to provide academic and behavioral support to improve outcomes for all students. Its website has extensive resources for education, including assessments, podcasts, guides and tools, and more to help transform education systems. It's based at the University of Kansas Life Span Institute.

The ALTELLA Project
( altella.wceruw.org/resources.html)
The Alternate English Language Learner Assessment (ALTELLA) project at the Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison, applies lessons learned from research on successful instructional practices, accommodations, and assessments for English learners (ELs) and students with cognitive disabilities to inform alternate English language proficiency assessments. On its website are reports, briefs, and conference presentations for educators, including the recently-released briefs, Individualized Education Programs for English Learners with Significant Cognitive Disabilities and Nonverbal Communication in Diverse Classrooms: Intercultural Competence Considerations for Supporting English Learners with Significant Cognitive Disabilities.

National Center on Educational Outcomes
( NCEO.info)
This technical assistance center at the University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, publishes over 200 resources online for educators, policymakers, and families focusing on assessments and accommodations. Among its reports, briefs, presentations, and tools are the recent report, Alternate Assessments for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Participation Guidelines and Definitions (Report #406) and the White Paper, Developing an Alternate ELPA21 for English Learners with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities.

Resources for Families

Resources for Schools, Districts, States

Supporting Inclusive Schools for the Success of Each Child: A Guide for States on Principal Leadership
( ccssoinclusiveprincipalsguide.org)
Principal development is a critical lever to drive school improvement efforts, achieve states' equity goals, and ultimately improve outcomes for each student, especially those with disabilities. The Council of Chief State School Officers has developed this online guide to help states establish a vision for, and advance policies and practices that support principals to lead, inclusive schools where each student excels and feels safe, supported, and valued

Volume 31 * Number 2
Winter 2018/19
Managing Editor: Vicki Gaylord

Issue Editors:

Terri Vandercook, Assistant Director, TIES Center, Institute on Community Integration (ICI), University of Minnesota (UMN)

Harold Kleinert, Director Emeritus, Human Development Institute, University of Kentucky, Lexington

Cheryl M. Jorgensen, Inclusive Education Consultant, South Acworth, New Hampshire

Sheryl Lazarus, Director, TIES Center, ICI, UMN

Kristin Liu, Co-Principal Investigator, TIES Center, ICI, UMN

Martha Thurlow, Director, National Center on Educational Outcomes, ICI, UMN

Graphic Designers: Sarah Hollerich

Web Developers: Shawn Lawler, Jonathon Walz

Impact is published by the Institute on Community Integration ( UCEDD), and the Research and Training Center on Community Living and Employment ( RTC), College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota. It is supported, in part, by Grant #90DDUC0070 from the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to the Institute; and Grant #90RTCP0003 from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR), HHS, to the RTC. Additional support for this issue was provided by the TIES Center through Cooperative Agreement #H326Y170004 from the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, US Department of Education; and by Grant #T73MC12835 from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, HHS, to the Minnesota LEND.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute, Centers or University. The content does not necessarily represent the policy of the US Department of Health and Human Services, or Department of Education, and endorsement by the Federal Government should not be assumed.

For print copies contact: Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota, 109 Pattee Hall, 150 Pillsbury Dr. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 * 612/624-4512 * icipub@umn.edu.

Impact is available in alternate formats upon request. The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity employer and educator.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inclusive Service Delivery: A Proactive Model for Better Educating ALL Students by Terri Vandercook, Deborah M. Telfer, Diane Ryndak, and Michael Giangreco

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the past, students with the most significant cognitive disabilities were often taught only functional skills in our K-12 schools - how to do self-care, tell time, use money, carry out routine daily tasks. Today, growing numbers of families, educators, and students are advocating for higher expectations and a more inclusive educational experience.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Implementation Strategies for Inclusive Service Delivery by Chelsea Tracy-Bronson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the past, students with the most significant cognitive disabilities were often taught only functional skills in our K-12 schools - how to do self-care, tell time, use money, carry out routine daily tasks. Today, growing numbers of families, educators, and students are advocating for higher expectations and a more inclusive educational experience.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Strategies for Transitioning to an Inclusive School Environment_0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Special Education - The Basics of an Individualized Education Program (IEP)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Despite years of research that concludes inclusion is best for students with AND without disabilities, there are STILL misconceptions about inclusive classrooms. In a recent discussion with Understood.org, I summarized 3 of those big misconceptions:

1. The first big misconception about inclusion is the concern that the student with disabilities will not be able to "keep up" with the class curriculum. Fortunately, inclusive classrooms recognize that not every child will be learning at the same rate, and at the same time.

Students also have the use of assistive technology to support their education program. In additon, paraeducators and other school professionals all work with the teacher to ensure that the student is learning to the best of their ability. Thus, in an inclusive classroom, students are not expected to "keep up" but to "keep learning".

2. The second big misconception about inclusion is that including a child with disabilities in a general education class will be distracting for the other children. Again, experience and research says otherwise.
As mentioned above, students with disabilities have significant supports in the classroom to help them access lessons and participate in class activities in an appropriate and meaningful way. Furthermore, we must remember that students come from all walks of life. ANY child in the classroom has the potential to distract others, depending on their needs and wants, family life, or social/emotional development.
With this in mind, inclusive classrooms establish social and emotional supports for all students. Teachers are responsive to student needs and have strategies to maintain a healthy learning environment. Below is an example of a teacher who uses Morning Meetings to check how her students are feeling before the start of the day:

3. Since it is rooted in the belief that students with and without disabilities have an equal right to a meaningful education, inclusion is also a Whether you are an educator, parent, or community member, knowing the truth about inclusion can help us develop school systems that truly prepare our children for a future in our diverse world. If you would like to know more about inclusion, you can read dozens of articles at Finally, the third big misconception I am going to mention is that some people think inclusion is a program. Inclusive education is not a program. It is an educational philosophy that values the participation and education of students with and without disablities in the same classroom.
This philosophy is the foundation of how a school system functions. Administrative decisions, staffing, training, resources, scheduling, and curriuclum are derived from inclusive beliefs about education.
social justice issue. Barriers in our communities and classrooms are removed so that every child can participate and learn to the fullest extent possible.

www.theinclusiveclass.com or pick up a copy of Inclusion in Action: Practical Strategies to Modify Your Curriculum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite years of research that concludes inclusion is best for students with AND without disabilities, there are STILL misconceptions about inclusive classrooms. In a recent discussion with Understood.org, I summarized 3 of those big misconceptions: 1. The first big misconception about inclusion is the concern that the student with disabilities will not be able to "keep up" with the class curriculum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

What are high expectations for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities? This question has been raised for decades, with the answers changing over time. Although the conclusion has been that all individuals deserve the chance to show what they know and can do, exactly what that means for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities is just emerging.

Evidence

Students with disabilities in the United States have a history of exclusion in education. Although it has been more than 40 years since the first laws were enacted to ensure that a child with any disability had access to school, the placement of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities in segregated settings continue (Morningstar, Kurth, & Johnson, 2017).

Legislation requires access to and assessment of student performance in grade-level academic content (IDEA 1997; ESEA 2001, 2015). Yet, there continues to be a mindset that students with intellectual disabilities should be taught an "alternate" curriculum, one that meets their functional skill needs rather than academics. Spooner and Brown (2011) noted that inclusive efforts for students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities have focused on the location of their learning, but continued the separate curriculum. The assumption was that this population of students could not learn academic content. Even though this myth has been debunked (Saunders & Wakeman, 2018/2019), it persists. Advocates and researchers continue to encourage practitioners to consider what is relevant for students in this population and plan for what they could do instead of assuming what they cannot do (e.g., Courtade, Spooner, Browder, & Jimenez, 2012; Quenemoen & Thurlow, 2017).

The least dangerous assumption was first proposed by Donnellan (1984). It is a concept that has guided the approach taken by some, but not all, educators who work with students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Still, there is evidence that when there is adherence to the least dangerous assumption, students with intellectual disabilities can make progress on the same academic content as their grade-level peers without disabilities (e.g., Heinrich, Collins, Knight, & Spriggs, 2016; Ruppar, Afacan, Yang, & Pickett, 2017).

The least restrictive environment (LRE) requirement in IDEA was designed to ensure that every child be educated with non-disabled peers to the greatest extent possible. Every Individualized Education Program (IEP) team makes decisions about placement based on the student's strengths and needs, so it is best practice that IEP teams remain up-to-date on current research for educating students in inclusive settings. Research findings indicate that:

Inclusive placements in general education classrooms for students with significant cognitive disabilities correlate positively with their achievement (Kleinert et al., 2015).

When students with intellectual disabilities are educated with their non-disabled peers they also make progress on social goals (e.g., Brock, Biggs, Carter, Cattey, & Raley, 2016; Henrick, Collins, Knight, & Spriggs, 2016).

When students without disabilities are educated in inclusive classrooms, they develop skills like empathy and advocacy, and there is no negative effect on their academic performance (Carter et al., 2016).

Definition

The least dangerous assumption is a theory developed in the early 1980s. According to Donnellan (1984), "The criterion of the least dangerous assumption holds that in the absence of conclusive data, educational decisions ought to be based on assumptions that, if incorrect, will have the least dangerous effect on the likelihood that students will be able to function independently as adults" (p. 141). Evidence gathered by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) indicated much earlier that teacher expectations could influence student achievement. In the current policy environment when so many expectations are created by test score data or disability label, it is vital that high expectations are set for all students.

Donnellan wrote about the need to practice the least dangerous assumption for students with disabilities. She suggested that if a student does not make progress, we should first assume it is due to a problem with the instruction or materials rather than a student deficit. Jorgensen (2005) outlined five reasons for presuming competence as the least dangerous assumption: (a) human intelligence is multi-faceted, (b) measuring intelligence is flawed, (c) communication and high-quality instruction are needed before we can determine capability, (d) presuming incompetence could be harmful, and (e) even if we are wrong, the consequence is not as harmful as the alternative.

Further information on expectations is provided in the following video clips of a parent and a general education teacher talking about the importance of high expectations from each of their perspectives:

Implementation

The ways in which expectations can play out for an individual student are shown in this case study of Leo. Leo has an intellectual disability and has been in a separate classroom for the past four years. His IEP includes goals for using Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) to make simple requests (e.g., more, drink, bathroom, eat), using behavioral self-management strategies, identifying simple sight words, and sorting objects by color or size. The IEP team is discussing the best placement for Leo. His parents have been pushing to have him included in general education classes. This is the conversation:

Parents: We have been attending trainings on building communication systems and using the least dangerous assumption. It seems that Leo's behavior outbursts are linked to the fact that he doesn't have a solid communication system yet. We also are worried because he has been coming home from school with the same types of work for years, and we think he would benefit from joining the regular class where the kids from our neighborhood are.

Principal: What has Leo been working on this past year?

Speech-language pathologist: He's been working with a new AAC system, but he still hasn't mastered the basic needs (asking for a drink, identifying his name, etc.). His IEP goals have been pretty similar since Kindergarten.

Teacher: Well, he has been working on many of the same IEP goals for awhile, but that is because he really struggles to remember anything from one day to the next. We do flashcards for sight words and he knows them one day, but then the next week he has forgotten them all. There is no way Leo can do grade-level work. His academics are not even close, and his behaviors would be detrimental to the rest of the students.

After quite a few meetings and discussions and some reading (e.g., Carter, 2018/2019; Jorgensen, 2018/2019), the IEP team realized that Leo seems more interested in his surroundings when he is with same-aged peers, including those without disabilities. His parents share that he finds ways to communicate with his brother's friends when they come over. Ultimately, on a trial basis, Leo is placed in a general education setting from the time of his arrival at school through lunch. Leo's parents asked that the educators who work with Leo be given some professional development to support planning for Leo's transition to the general education classroom. The principal and teachers agreed. During and after the training, everyone worked together to identify potential barriers to Leo's inclusion and access to the curriculum, and together they problem-solved ways to overcome them. For instance, rather than focusing on Leo having few sight words and a bad memory, the team thought about how to help him access information and show what he knows. Perhaps Leo may not master multiple sight words, but through a free technology, such as Bookshare, he could listen to the same text as his peers, and he could show his understanding using a response board with some choices rather than coming up with each answer on his own.

Leo's case provides examples of how the least dangerous assumption can be implemented. For each implementation example presented below, there is also the likely negative effect if the least dangerous assumption is ignored.

Teaching Life, Social, and Academic Skills

In Leo's inclusive math class, students are working on multi-step mathematical problems. Leo is using his task-analyzed support to complete problems similar to his peers. Leo uses his stamp to write his name, or his AAC to electronically sign, at the top of his math assignment. Like all the students in class, if Leo has a question he is supposed to ask two peers before he asks a teacher. Further, his AAC device is programmed to ask for help and has core words that can be combined to reflect a large number of concepts and ideas. Leo also has some fringe vocabulary for specific units. The math problems are connected to the science lesson being taught later that day.

What might have occurred if the least dangerous assumption had been ignored? Leo works alone at his desk. He circles numbers in isolation on a worksheet. He stamps his name five times in a row on a second worksheet. He staples the worksheets together before he turns them in to his teacher.

Instruction in Natural Contexts and Routines

Leo enters the inclusive classroom and says "hello" to his classroom teacher and friends. What might have occurred if the least dangerous assumption had been ignored? Leo is practicing activating his AAC device to say "hello" in a therapy session in four out of five trials.

More Challenging Content

In his inclusive classroom, Leo uses familiar playing cards to sequence numbers on a number line as part of multi-step math problems that the rest of the class is doing. He sorts information from two different stories to create a Venn Diagram. He uses his name and course subject to identify letter sounds.

What might have occurred if the least dangerous assumption had been ignored? Leo completes three tasks each morning when he arrives at school. These three tasks are his IEP goals related to matching colors and pictures of playing cards, sorting blocks, and circling his name. These tasks are not changed until he demonstrates mastery for five out of five days.

Addressing Barriers to Learning

Leo's inclusive classroom teacher plans a lesson related to comparing and contrasting states of matter. She plans using tangible objects so that Leo can touch, see, and hear the differences. She provides picture and object response options for concepts for Leo to use on his AAC device. She uses videos for Leo to see the melting and freezing process in a short period of time.

What might have occurred if the least dangerous assumption had been ignored? Leo's teacher sees Leo as the barrier to learning, and thus uses hand-over-hand support with Leo to sort pictures of hot and cold items because there is only 15 minutes of class time for science.

Focus of Instruction

Leo works on a subset of prioritized vocabulary for each chapter of the text the class is reading. He uses his AAC device for both word recognition and definition. Leo has picture supports that match each vocabulary word and has several opportunities each day to respond to questions using the vocabulary on his communication device. He repeats having the chapter read aloud to him and using his vocabulary as homework.

What might have occurred if the least dangerous assumption had been ignored? Leo's teacher regularly focuses on a narrow set of skills or topics. Thus, Leo's vocabulary instruction focuses on flashcard instruction. He works on five words in isolation each benchmark period.

Summary

The least dangerous assumption pushes us to consider all students as capable (Jorgensen, 2005). Our challenge is to not think in a deficit mindset but consider what can we do to support students in how they access, engage in, and respond not only to life skills content, but academic content, as well. By including students with the most significant cognitive disabilities in the instruction of all content, students and families are included in a community of learning that sets achievable high expectations.

Learning Activities

Least Dangerous Assumption Learning Activities for Educators: Activity 1

Watch the following video. Be prepared to note where you see evidence of considerations of least dangerous assumption and where there are potential ways to increase considerations of least dangerous assumption.

After watching the video, click here to see places to potentially improve considerations for LDA​.

Least Dangerous Assumption Learning Activities for Educators: Activity 2

The least dangerous assumption basically states that if we aren't 100% sure, we should make decisions that, if wrong, have the fewest negative repercussions against the person. At different times of a person's life, these decisions may include what someone should or shouldn't learn, where someone should learn, where someone should live, with whom someone should live, etc.

The least dangerous assumption is important because we know:

Having high expectations makes a difference

IQ is not destiny

Not talking is not the same as not having something to say

So, how do you create least dangerous assumption opportunities in your IEP meetings, your schools, and your life? Let's look at some possible scenarios.

"Shaquan has Down syndrome so I think this classroom may be best. He will learn the functional skills he'll need to get a job."

The assumptions being made:

All people with Down syndrome have the same needs.

Functional skills are often defined as "daily living skills" and typically include hygiene skills, making change, and following basic directions. "Academic" skills such as reading, writing, science, and math are not considered as a priority or achievable for some students.

What is a response that reflects a least dangerous assumption? Write one before moving on to see some possible responses.

See possible responses that reflect a least dangerous assumption in Shaquan's scenario.

"Down syndrome is only one part of who Shaquan is."

"Functional skills for Shaquan are reading, making friends, and learning how to advocate for himself."

"How can we support Shaquan learning all the skills he needs to help him get access to general education classroom and content?"

Kaitlyn needs to learn to better use her AAC system before she will benefit from a general education classroom.

What assumptions are being made?

Communication is taught in isolation.

Not talking is the same as not having anything to say.

What is a response that reflects the least dangerous assumption? Write one response before moving on to see some possible responses.

See possible responses that reflect a least dangerous assumption in Kaitlyn's scenario.

"Let's give Kaitlyn more opportunities to practice communication and more people to communicate with."

"Rather than waiting for Kaitlyn to 'prove herself' by communicating, let's begin by giving her things to communicate about."

"Since Kaitlyn doesn't yet have a strong communication system, we can't be sure what she does and doesn't understand. We must then give her access to as much as we can, in case her receptive language is stronger than her expressive currently is."

Daniel's behavior is not appropriate for a general education classroom. Once he learns better ways to handle his frustration then we can talk about moving him.

What assumptions are being made?

Behavior is a prerequisite for being allowed in a classroom.

Behavior is not communication.

What is a response that reflects the least dangerous assumption? Write one response before moving on to see some possible responses.

See possible responses that reflect a least dangerous assumption in Daniel's scenario.

"What is Daniel's behavior telling us? Is he engaged in the classroom environment?"

"How can we support Daniel to learn better ways to handle his frustration?"

"What strategies and supports can we put in place in a general education classroom to help Daniel?"

What assumptions are being made?

Shandra's IQ is 60. She won't be safe in a general education setting.

IQ is destiny.

Shandra will only be safe if adults take care of her and adults will always be around to take care of her.

Shandra's peers will be mean to her.

What is a response that reflects the least dangerous assumption? Write one response before moving on to see some possible responses.

See possible responses that reflect a least dangerous assumption in Shandra's scenario.

"What are supports that Shandra needs to access reading, writing, math, science, etc.?"

"How can we set up peer networks or a circle of friends for Shandra?"

"What strategies can we use to help Shandra build her advocacy skills?"

TIPS Series: Tip #6, July 2019

All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

Taub, D., Wakeman, S., Saunders, A., Thurlow, M. L., & Lazarus, S. S. (2019). Using the least dangerous assumption in educational decisions (TIPS Series: Tip #6). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, TIES Center.

TIES Center is supported through a Cooperative Agreement (#H326Y170004) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. The Center is affiliated with the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at the Institute on Community Integration (ICI), College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota. The contents of this report were developed under the Cooperative Agreement from the U.S. Department of Education, but do not necessarily represent the policy or opinions of the U.S. Department of Education or Offices within it. Readers should not assume endorsement by the federal government. Project Officer: Susan Weigert

The National Center on Educational Outcomes leads the TIES Center partnership. There are six additional collaborating partners: Arizona Department of Education, CAST, University of Cincinnati, University of Kentucky, University of North Carolina - Charlotte, and University of North Carolina - Greensboro.

TIES Center

University of Minnesota

Institute on Community Integration

2025 East River Parkway

Minneapolis, MN 55414

Phone: 612-626-1530
www.tiescenter.org
This document is available in alternate formats upon request.

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity employer and educator.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TIES TIPS | Foundations of Inclusion | TIP #6: Using the Least Dangerous Assumption in Educational Decisions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What are high expectations for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities? This question has been raised for decades, with the answers changing over time. Although the conclusion has been that all individuals deserve the chance to show what they know and can do, exactly what that means for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities is just emerging.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Comprehensive Inclusive Education: General Education and the Inclusive IEP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This resource is intended to guide IEP teams in a comprehensive inclusive education planning process based on the expectation that each student can actively participate, belong, contribute, and learn in the school and larger community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Special Education - The Basics of an Individualized Education Program (IEP)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Strategies for Transitioning to an Inclusive School Environment_0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Defusing Phrases to Use at IEP Meetings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kluth article on inclusion legal blunders