Thompson, S. J., Thurlow, M. L., Quenemoen, R. F., Esler, A., & Whetstone, P. (2001). Addressing standards and assessments on the IEP (Synthesis Report 38). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis38.html

The purpose of this study was to examine state Individualized Education Program (IEP) forms to determine the extent to which they include documentation of standards and assessments. All 50 states were asked to send their IEP forms and to indicate whether they were required, recommended, or simply sample forms. Out of the 41 states with IEP forms, only 5 states specifically addressed educational standards on their forms; 31 states addressed the general curriculum on their IEP forms. IEP forms in 31 states listed three or more options for assessment participation, including standard participation in general state or district assessments, accommodated participation, and alternate assessment participation. Because IEP forms are a primary source of information to guide decisions during IEP team meetings, the way in which information appears on them is very important. We make several recommendations for IEP forms that will provide decision-making guidance to IEP teams.

For the past 25 years, since the passage of P.L. 94-142, those of us in special education have tended to understand the requirements and purposes of special education to be somehow separate from those of general education. We focused on the individual needs of the students we served as required, but sometimes we overlooked the importance of our services in helping students succeed in the general education curriculum. Almost as a reminder to us, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 97) specifically requires that all students must have access to the general education curriculum, and to the extent appropriate, be working toward the same goals and standards as all other students. We still must weigh carefully the needs of the individual student in designing appropriate services that will support that student’s progress toward standards, but we are reminded that ALL students must be included in the general education curriculum, working toward the same goals and standards as all other students.

IDEA 97 is not an isolated law. Its push for educational accountability is evident in other laws. The Improving America’s Schools Act, for example, requires that all students be included in the assessment of student progress toward standards and in reports and accountability processes leading to improved outcomes. The performance of students with disabilities (and other special populations) must be aggregated as part of the total performance measures, and also disaggregated so that the performance of groups of students can be compared and used for school improvement. Other laws, such as Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the School to Work Opportunities Act, also solidify the push to recognize that students with disabilities are part of the educational system and that states and districts must be accountable for their learning. All in all, there has been a clear directive that the public needs to know, and has a right to know, about the performance of students receiving special education services.

How does access to the general education curriculum, linkage to the same goals and standards expected of other children, and assessment and accountability requirements link to the Individualized Education Program (IEP)? In order to understand the range of approaches to IEP forms and processes, it is important to focus briefly once again on the requirements of IDEA 97. In the Final Regulations for the Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 105-17 (1999), it states that the purpose of special education is “to ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that he or she can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children” (300.2.6 (b)(3)(ii)). This is an important point, because IDEA does not specifically require documentation of educational standards in IEP forms or processes. Although IDEA does not address standards-based IEPs directly, the emphasis on the general curriculum is extremely strong. In addition, in every State, the general curriculum is defined by State or locally developed educational standards.

Similarly, though participation in alternate assessments is addressed in IDEA, it is only implied under how a child will be assessed. Once again, the Final Regulations state:

The IEP for each child with a disability must include a statement of:

Any individual modifications in the administration of State or district-wide assessments of student achievement that are needed in order for the child to participate in the assessment; and

(ii) If the IEP team determines that the child will not participate in a particular State or district-wide assessment of student achievement (or part of an assessment) a statement of

(A) Why that assessment is not appropriate for the child; and

(B) How the child will be assessed. (300.347(a)(1)(2))

Whether this is enough documentation on the IEP remains to be seen. However, the right to access to the general curriculum and opportunity to learn to high standards for all students is a basic assumption of the standards-based reform effort, embedded in all major Federal initiatives and in most State approaches. It is also inherent in civil rights legislation of the past 40 years. Most importantly, as IEP teams discover the power of increased expectations and standards-based instruction for EACH student with disabilities, there is growing evidence that these requirements, both stated and implied, result in better outcomes for EACH student.

IEP teams, consisting of parents, students, general and special educators, administrators and others, have been required to document special education services through Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for over 25 years. When IEPs were first required, both preservice and inservice training focused on compliance with the new law (P.L. 94-142) as special educators struggled to figure out what IEPs were and how to write them. There was a flurry of activity that included research, training, and the development of models and strategies.

Now, over 25 years later, IEP teams have been charged with a new responsibility, one that extends far beyond the process and proper verbiage of IEP goals and objectives. Teams are now required to “raise the bar” for students with disabilities, to focus on helping students learn to high standards, and to be accountable for what they are actually learning as a result of their “special” programs and services.

In this new era of standards-based reform, the emphasis on setting high standards for all students presents a significant challenge for IEP teams that were previously engaged in developing parallel programs or separate educational services for students with disabilities. Students with disabilities today are expected to work toward the same rigorous standards as their peers, with support from special education and related services. IEPs need to reflect goals and services that support students with disabilities in their learning toward high educational standards. Unfortunately, there is a lack of clarity about how IEPs fit with these new standards and confusion about how to consider standards-based reform when making educational decisions for students with disabilities, limiting the usefulness of many current IEPs (McDonnell, McLaughlin, & Morison, 1997).

IEPs Before IDEA 97

Smith (1990) recommended a reexamination of the IEP in the context of education reform. In a review of research and position papers from 1975 to 1989, Smith found a history of IEP inadequacies and passive compliance. Similarly, in 1994, Giangreco, Dennis, Edelman, and Cloninger analyzed the IEPs of 46 students with multiple disabilities who were placed primarily in general education classes. The authors expected to find IEP goals that related to the students’ education and support in the general education settings where they spent the majority of the school day, but were surprised and disappointed to find the following:

1.  IEP goals were broad, inconsistent and did not reflect what was happening in the classroom. For example, several goals were found that were similar to this one, “Peter will improve communication skills.”

2.  IEPs often listed goals for staff rather than for students. For example, “The student’s medication will be administered on a daily basis,” and “Hector will attend class with nondisabled peers.”

3.  IEPs were discipline referenced; in other words, they were based on the values and professional frameworks of specific disciplines, like occupational therapy or speech, rather than on the child’s education. For example, “Keisha will improve occupational therapy skills,” or, more complex, “The student will engage in sensory stimulation activities daily to improve overall sensory awareness skills for auditory proprioceptive, tactile and vestibular systems, kinesthetic and olfactory” (p. 292).

In a study by Sands, Adams, and Stout (1995) over half (55%) of the 341 elementary and secondary special educators surveyed believed that each student with disabilities should have his or her own curriculum, based on needs as documented on the IEP. Some of the educators (14%) thought that goals and directions for special education services should be generated by local school districts, with individual teachers responsible for the curriculum. Eleven percent of those surveyed thought special education teachers should be the sole source of determining student goals and the direction of their programs. Only 15% of the special educators surveyed believed that the general education curriculum should be the primary curriculum source for students with disabilities. When asked where the individualized curriculum came from, the following four sources were listed most often (starting with the most frequent): special educators’ professional judgment, the student’s IEP, student and teacher needs as determined on a daily basis, and the general education curriculum. The researchers concluded, “In the absence of a curriculum base that provides direction for special education programs, instructional decision making and procedures are often haphazard and widely divergent” (p.69).

IEPs Since IDEA 97

Despite problems identified prior to 1997, the assumption among framers of IDEA 97 was that IEPs provide the structure to set high standards and measure student outcomes. Recent guidance by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (July, 2000) charged IEP teams with the design of educational programs that would help students access and progress in the general curriculum, highlighting the IEP process as “one of the most critical elements to ensure effective teaching, learning, and better results for all children with disabilities” (p. 2). The question posed by Tindal and Fuchs (2000) remains: “Do methods exist to reorient the IEP process toward addressing substantive, in addition to procedural, compliance so that IEPs provide a framework for increasing expectations and monitoring student outcomes?” (p. 5).

McLaughlin, Nolet, Rhim, and Henderson (1999) were interested in studying the effects of general education reforms on students with disabilities. In-depth case studies were conducted in several districts across five eastern states. Special and general education teachers and administrators were interviewed about the ways in which high standards were affecting curriculum and instruction and how students with disabilities were participating in the standards. Overall, special education teachers believed that the inclusion of students with disabilities in the standards led to exposure to a variety of subject matter and felt that standards helped them focus instruction and be explicit about requirements that would lead to more challenging goals for students with disabilities. They also reported that the standards led to increased communication with each other. Special educators were concerned, however, about finding the instructional time and opportunities to help students with disabilities learn the new content as well as teaching them skills that would be functional for their own unique needs and learning styles.

It would be interesting to investigate whether teachers involved in the study by McLaughlin et al. (1999) document work toward standards on each student’s IEP. An extensive literature search revealed few studies addressing the content of IEPs since the passage of IDEA 97. Even with IDEA requirements to provide access to the general education curriculum, Tindal and Fuchs (2000) found it disturbing that the IEP “typically does not conform to the substantive spirit reflecting federal legislation. Rather, IEPs have served primarily as a tool for procedural compliance monitoring, whereby federal auditors make sure that a complete IEP exists for each student receiving special education services and that IEPs document how (i.e., where, when, and by whom) those services are delivered” (p. 4).

It seems that focusing on standards should shed new light on the entire planning process engaged in by IEP teams. In the past, teams would assess a student’s academic and functional skills, document problems and deficiencies on a form as a student’s present level of educational performance, and then write goals and objectives to help a student overcome those deficits. With standards, the process changes. Now, rather than focus on deficits, IEP teams have an opportunity to focus on helping students work toward high educational standards, beginning with, “What are we working toward? How far along is this child now? What can we do to help the child move closer to meeting the standard?” For students preparing for the important transition from school to adult life, we can ask, “How will this standard help this student prepare for a successful transition from school to adult life?”

While IDEA prescribes the information that must be included in IEPs, there is no single form or approach that is required. States can design their own IEP forms, and in some states, the IEP format is designed within school districts. Do IEP forms guide teams as they make decisions about the support students need to participate in state and district standards and assessments? The purpose of this analysis of IEPs was to examine the extent to which information on standards and assessments is documented on IEP forms across the United States. In conducting this analysis, our goal was to highlight the nature of IEPs that would be most useful to teams as they guide the provision of special education services for students with disabilities.

Method

Collection of IEP Forms

A search for state IEP forms was conducted across all 50 states. We did not limit the search to required forms only, but instead wanted to gather everything available. We began by searching each state department of education’s Web site for forms and then contacted state agency personnel in order to obtain forms that were not available on-line. For each form we collected, we asked the state to indicate whether it was required, recommended, or a sample form. The collection of IEP forms took place from June through September 2000. IEP forms were organized by state for analysis.

Analysis of IEP Forms

Each state’s IEP form was analyzed to determine the extent to which it included documentation of standards and assessments. We did not analyze the IEP forms that were under revision during the time we collected forms.

In the area of standards, we looked for specific documentation of the term “standards” on the IEP form. We also looked for requirements to address access to the general education curriculum within documentation of “present levels of educational performance” and “goals and objectives/benchmarks.” We asked these questions:

•     Are standards specifically addressed on the IEP form?

•     Does the IEP form address access to the general education curriculum within documentation requirements for “present levels of educational performance” and “goals and objectives/benchmarks?”

In the area of state and district assessments, we examined IEP forms for documentation of participation. We asked these questions:

•     What assessment participation options are addressed on the IEP form?

•     How do IEP forms address alternate assessment?

•     Is nonparticipation or exemption allowed?

As we began our analysis of IEP forms, we found that many states were engaged in a continual process of making corrections and improvements on their forms. Districts also have the liberty of changing the forms in states that do not require a particular state form. With this “moving target” in mind, it is possible that a state’s form has changed between the time we collected forms and the publication of this report.

Results

Thirty-four recommended or required IEP forms were found on state education agency Web sites. IEP forms from the remaining 16 states were requested from state agency personnel. Forms were obtained from seven of these states, and no forms were available in the remaining nine states. The states with no forms either provided instructions for IEP development (6 states), or were in the process of revising forms that were not available by the time data collection was completed in September 2000 (3 states). Table 1 summarizes the status of the availability of each state’s IEP form, including Web sites for those available on-line.

Table 1. Availability of State IEP Forms

Unable to locate form 

on state Web site

(7 states)

Alabama http://www.alsde.edu/ver1/documents.asp?section=65

Alaska http://www.eed.state.ak.us/tls/sped/handbook/99hndbk/hnbkhome.htm

Arkansas http://arkedu.state.ar.us/sp.htm

Arizona http://www.ade.state.az.us/ess/Census/Default.htm

Colorado http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/spIEP_Forms.htm

Delaware http://www.doe.state.de.us/exceptional_child/forms.htm

Florida http://www.firn.edu/doe/cgi-bin/doehome/menu.pl

Georgia http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/sla/exceptional/new.html

Illinois http://www.isbe.state.il.us/spec-ed/idea97.htm#IEPForms

Indiana http://web.indstate.edu/soe/iseas/dsehtm.html

Iowa http://www.state.ia.us/educate/programs/ecese/cfcs/elig_doc/index.html

Kansas http://ww2.nekesc.org/ksde/forms/iep.html

Kentucky http://www.kde.state.ky.us/osis/children/forms/doclist-1.asp

Louisiana http://www.louisianaschools.net/DOE/PDFs/Bulletins/1530.pdf

Massachusetts http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spr_conf00/toc.html

Michigan http://www.mde.state.mi.us/off/sped/LIBRARY/IEPT/*IEPT_index.html

Minnesota http://cfl.state.mn.us/SPECED/staterecommendedforms.html

Missouri http://services.dese.state.mo.us/divspeced/improve.html

Montana http://www.metnet.state.mt.us/Montana%20Education/OPI/ 

Special%20Education/spcl%20Ed%20Forms/

Nebraska http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SPED/forms/iepnew.html

North Carolina http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/ec/ecforms.html

North Dakota http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/speced/guide/iep/index.shtm

Ohio http://www.ode.state.oh.us/SE/IEP_imp.html

Washington http://www.k12.wa.us/specialed/document.asp

Wisconsin http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/een/seplan.html 

Wyoming http://www.k12.wy.us/speced/forms.html

When we asked state education personnel whether the IEP form was required or recommended, we found that how “required” a form was varied across states. The obligation for districts to use state forms varied from, “This is a sample to use as you desire,” to “Our monitoring team likes unified forms, so we recommend you use this one,” to “This form is recommended, but you need permission to change it,” to “This form is required by state law or rule.” It was most common to see that even though use of a particular form was not “required” by state law or rule, districts were “strongly” encouraged to use the state-designed form for ease of monitoring and compliance to state and federal requirements.

Standards and the General Curriculum

In our analysis of state IEP forms, we found that the forms in only five states addressed state and district standards (Alaska, Colorado, New Jersey, North Dakota, and Wyoming). Table 2 shows how standards are addressed on each of these state’s IEP form.

Table 2. How Standards are Addressed on IEP Forms in Five States

* PLEP = Present Level of Educational Performance

The forms in 29 states specifically reflect the IDEA regulations that require the statement of present levels of educational performance to include how the child’s disability might affect involvement and progress in the general curriculum (300.347(a)(1)). IEP forms in 15 states specifically address IDEA regulations requiring annual goals and objectives or benchmarks to enable the child to be involved and progress in the general curriculum (300.347(a)(2). IEP forms in 4 states did not address standards or the general curriculum at all. Table 3 summarizes the status of standards and the general curriculum on each state’s IEP form.

Table 3. Status of Standards and the General Curriculum on State IEP Forms

*PLEP = Present Level of Educational Performance
** In "General Student Information" section

Assessment Participation

Of the 41 states with current IEP forms, 31 listed three or more options for assessment participation, including standard participation in general state or district assessments, accommodated participation, or alternate assessment participation. Additional assessment participation options included test modification and out-of-level testing.

In eight states, the IEP forms specifically require that there be a statement of how a child who does not participate in state or district assessments will be assessed; alternate assessment is not listed as an option on the IEP forms in any of these eight states. One state has a space to check whether a student will participate in state or district assessments, but does not include options for the use of accommodations. Participation options across states are listed in Table 4. Appendix A contains IEP references to standards, general curriculum, and assessments across all states.

Table 4. Status of Assessment Participation Options on State IEP Forms

Missouri

Discussion

The guiding purpose of this discussion is to increase the usefulness of the IEP as a tool for IEP teams to use in documenting the provision of special education services that assist students in learning to high educational standards. Recommendations based on this purpose are focused in three areas: addressing standards on the IEP, addressing assessment on the IEP, and IEP format and use.

Addressing Standards on the IEP

Recommendation: Whenever access to the general curriculum is mentioned on IEP forms, add the reason from IDEA, “so that he or she can meet the educational standards that apply to all children.”

Since IDEA and Title I both require all students to be learning to high standards, we assumed that special education services designed to help individual students work toward high standards would be addressed on IEP forms across most states. We were surprised to find that only five states mentioned standards at all on their IEP forms. We suspect three primary reasons for this omission. The first is that IDEA 97 does not identify standards specifically under “Content of the IEP,” even though, according to the IDEA Final Regulations (300.2.6 (b)(3)(ii)), the purpose of Special Education is “to ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that he or she can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children.” In reducing paperwork to a minimum, many states have reduced their IEP forms to include only the exact minimum requirements of the law.

The second possible reason standards are identified on so few IEP forms is that standards are often equated with the general curriculum. An assumption is made that if students have access to the general curriculum, they will be working toward standards. We hope this dream will come true in the future, but currently many special educators do not know about standards or how they apply to students with disabilities (McDonnell et al., 1997; Tindal & Fuchs, 2000).

The third reason is a pervasive belief that high standards do not apply to students with disabilities—that these students should be working toward their own personal goals with an individualized curriculum that is not connected to general education’s high standards. This belief is underscored by the findings of Sands et al. (1995). Special education has been synonymous with a “special curriculum” that was different from the general curriculum, but has never been clearly defined.

Recommendation: Offer statewide training, ongoing technical assistance, and easily accessible information about standards-based IEPs.

Some states have done extensive work with many stakeholders at state and local levels to align goals common to the instruction of students with disabilities with state and district standards and assessments. For example, one state (Alaska) linked its on-line IEP form to the state standards so that IEP teams could have easy access to the state standards for all students.

At the local level, if a state requires a particular IEP format and decisions have been made about how to address standards, then training needs to be provided about how to develop standards-based IEPs that are beneficial to students. If a required state IEP form does not align goals to standards, then it is up to each district to make this link through information and training. Tindal and Fuchs (2000) pointed out that “the difficulty associated with implementing a professional development agenda necessary to retool special educators toward a reoriented IEP process, which is designed to increase expectations and measure meaningful outcomes, cannot be underestimated. In fact, such a professional development agenda parallels the task of reorienting the general education community to the high standards and outcomes orientation of the standards-based reform movement” (p. 5).

Addressing Assessment on the IEP

Recommendation: Develop clear, accessible, and effective participation decision-making processes for IEP teams.

It is important for IEP teams to have a process that drives their planning and decision-making, and not be driven by items in the order that they appear on the IEP form (see Thompson & Quenemoen [in press] for an example of an assessment decision-making process). In an attempt to meet, but not exceed state and federal requirements, many states have streamlined their IEP forms so that they include no more or less than the specific requirements of the law. This may increase, rather than reduce paperwork because without an IEP form that guides teams through a practical planning process, additional written forms and instructions that explain the process are needed. IEP meetings that simply engage people in checking boxes on a streamlined compliance document may not result in plans that truly enable students to work toward standards, or allow teams to make good decisions about participation in state and district assessments.

Recommendation: Include “alternate assessment” on the list of assessment participation options.

Most state and district assessment systems now have three options for the participation of students with disabilities – standard assessment, assessment with accommodations, and alternate assessment. Alternate assessments are administered to students who are unable to participate in general assessments even with accommodations. Because alternate assessments have only been required since July 1, 2000, it is critical that all IEP team members are aware of their existence.

Several states identify specific alternate assessments on their IEP form. For example, “The student will participate in MAP-A” is a participation option on Missouri’s IEP form. Some state forms also include a note about where additional information and assessment procedures may be obtained.

Recommendation: Specify important implications of assessment decisions on the IEP form.

IEP team members need to be aware of the implications of assessment decisions. For example, students who participate in alternate assessments may not have access to a general diploma. Another example is that, in some states, the scores of assessments that have been modified may not be reported or included in accountability indices. Placing these implications on the IEP form will ensure that decision makers are aware of them as they make decisions.

IEP Format and Use

Recommendation: Post state IEP forms in easily accessible locations on state education agency Web sites.

Nearly every state currently has a sample, recommended, or required IEP form or is in the process of developing one, and 34 states have posted their forms on their state agency Web sites. Forms were not always easy to find on-line, however. Some IEP forms took up to an hour of searching through a state education agency’s Web site to find. Some states posted forms only, while some embedded the forms within lengthy instruction manuals. The goal of posting IEP forms on-line (at both local and state levels) should be to increase availability to all IEP team members, including parents.

Recommendation: Clearly label IEP forms as sample, recommended, or required so that districts know their parameters in making local alterations.

We tried to find out whether IEP forms were required by states or whether districts had the option to revise them. In a very small number of states, the form was clearly marked “required,” “recommended” or “sample only.” However, in most states, this information was not available, even from state agency personnel. Because state forms may only include information required for minimum compliance to state and federal laws, districts may want to add information to help IEP teams develop useful plans with students.

Recommendation: Give IEP teams time to make thoughtful decisions.

As one special education teacher lamented, “Our IEP meetings are only 20 minutes long. By the time we finish the introductions our time is nearly up. We don’t have time to make thoughtful decisions!” Good decision-making tools are useless without time to think through decisions. Give IEP teams plenty of time to meet, develop an agenda to help stay on track, and use a good facilitator to increase efficiency so that informed and thoughtful decisions can be made that will guide a student’s special education services. Since parents and students are essential members of these teams, they also need the IEP form to serve as a tool that promotes understanding and good decision making. There are probably a whole host of additional issues that need to be dealt with here, including large caseloads, adequate time to involve parents, union rules about meeting outside school hours, and class coverage if meetings are held during the school day. These are tough issues that need to be addressed and cannot be solved simply by making IEP team meetings and forms shorter.

Summary

IEP forms are tools used to document educational programs for students with disabilities. States have streamlined IEP forms in an attempt to reduce paperwork, shorten IEP meetings, provide uniformity, and ensure compliance with the letter of the law. Streamlining IEP forms may ensure compliance, but does not provide IEP teams with the support needed to make well-informed decisions. In order to document and address standards and assessment decisions thoughtfully, attention must be paid to the ways that IEP forms lead teams through the decision-making process and ensure that all students with disabilities can participate in assessment systems that allow them to demonstrate what they know and can do.     

Increasing student achievement and success is what IDEA is all about, and the IEP can be a valuable tool for documenting our efforts. A good IEP form helps to reinforce a state’s training and policies. With this in mind, the development of an IEP form that meets the intent of state and federal laws AND guides IEP teams as they plan services and supports for students is critical. Yes, IEP development needs to be an efficient process, but the efficiency is lost if the process and documentation do not result in a plan that supports students in their work toward high educational standards.

References      

Giangreco, M. F., Dennis, R. E., Edelman, S.W. & Cloninger, C. J. (1994). Dressing your IEPs for the general education climate. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 288-296.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. section 1400 et seq.

McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morison, P. (Eds.). (1997). Educating one and all. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

McLaughlin, M. J., Nolet, V., Rhim, L. M., & Henderson, K. (1999). Integrating standards including all students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31 (3), 66-71.

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2000). A guide to the individualized education program. Washington, D.C.: National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities.

Sands, D. J., Adams, L., & Stout, D. M. (1995). A statewide exploration of the nature and use of curriculum in special education. Exceptional Children, 62 (1), 68-83.

Smith, S.W. (1990). Individualized education programs (IEPs) in special education – from intent to acquiescence. Exceptional Children, 57, 6-14.

Thompson, S. J., & Quenemoen, R. F. (in press). Eight steps to the effective implementation of alternate assessments. Diagnostique.

Tindal, G., & Fuchs, L. (2000). A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for defining accommodations. Lexington, KY: Mid-South Regional Resource Center.

Appendix A

State IEP Form References to Standards and Assessment

No reference to standards or the general curriculum.

No reference to state/district assessment.

Participate in Standard Administration of the CMT

IEP form currently under revision.

IEP form currently under revision