Lack of Student Progress
The regulations for special education require that each IEP informs the parents how the student’s progress on each goal will be monitored. The importance of monitoring student progress has been enhanced due to the Endrew v. Douglas County decision by the Supreme Court.
WAC 392-172A-03090 Definition of individualized education program.
(1) The term IEP means a written statement for each student eligible for special education services that is developed, reviewed, and revised in a meeting in accordance with WAC 392-172A-03095 through 392-172A-03100, and that must include:
a) A statement of the student’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, including:
(i) How the student’s disability affects the student’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum (the same curriculum as for nondisabled students); or
(ii) For preschool children, as appropriate, how the disability affects the child’s participation in appropriate activities;
(b)(i) A statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals designed to:
(A) Meet the student’s needs that result from the student’s disability to enable the student to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and
(B) Meet each of the student’s other educational needs that result from the student’s disability;
In an analysis of Endrew v. Douglas County the US Dept. of Education Ques. 11 states, “The essential function of an IEP is to provide meaningful opportunities for appropriate academic and functional advancement, and to enable the child to make progress. The expectations of progress in the IEP must be appropriate in light of the child’s unique circumstances. This reflects the focus on the individualized needs of the particular child that is at the core of the IDEA. It also reflects States’ responsibility to offer instruction “specially designed” to meet a child’s unique needs through an IEP. (6)
While the Court did not specifically define “in light of the child’s circumstances,” the decision emphasized the individualized decision-making required in the IEP process and the need to ensure that every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives. The IDEA’s focus on the individual needs of each child with a disability is an essential consideration for IEP Teams. Individualized decision-making is particularly important when writing annual goals and other IEP content because “the IEP must aim to enable the child to make progress. (7)”
For example, the Court stated that the IEP Team, which must include the child’s parents (8) as Team members, must give “careful consideration to the child’s present levels of achievement, disability, and potential for growth.”
And in Question 13, the Department states: “In order to make FAPE available to each eligible child with a disability, the child’s IEP must be designed to enable the child to be involved in, and make progress in, the general education curriculum. (12) The term “general education curriculum” is “the same curriculum as for nondisabled children.” (13) We have previously clarified that the phrase “the same curriculum as for nondisabled children” is the curriculum that is based on a State’s academic content standards. This alignment, however, must guide, and not replace, the individualized decision-making required in the IEP process. This decision-making continues to “require careful consideration of the child’s present levels of achievement, disability, and potential for growth” as discussed in question #11.”
Further, the Department, in its analysis of Endrew stated in Ques. 15 stated, “ An IEP is not a guarantee of a specific educational or functional result for a child with a disability. However, the IDEA does provide for revisiting the IEP if the expected progress is not occurring. This is particularly important because of the Court’s decision in Endrew F., which clarifies that the standard for determining whether an IEP is sufficient to provide FAPE is whether the child is offered an IEP reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress that is appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances. At least once a year, IEP Teams must review the child’s IEP to determine whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved.