IEP & Self-reflection 1

INDIVIDUALISED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMM

Riana Michalaki

AP6075

Prof. Despina Paizi

Department of Psychology, Deree, the American College of Greece

20 July 2021
IEP & Self-reflection 2

INDIVIDUALISED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMM

Date of IEP Committee meeting: 14/07/21

Instructor Name: Riana Mihalaki

Instructor Title: Educational Psychologist

Student Name: HP

Date of birth: 20/04/2012

Age: 9y 3m

Gender: Male

Ethnicity: Greek

Grade: 3rd

School: Hogwarts Elementary School

Parent name: MM

Country of Residence: Greece

Disability classification: HP is found to be at very high risk for developing a learning

disability in Mathematics and therefore he is considered to be eligible for special education.

Since this was HP’s first assessment, a reassessment, that should take place after a year, is

highly recommended so that the IEP committee can gain a better insight on the level and the

persistence of HP’s disabilities in Math by evaluating the progress made after following the

suggested intervention plan.

Date of Initiation of Services: 01/09/2021

Projected date of Review: 15/04/2022

Date for Reassessment: May 2022

IEP & Self-reflection 3

The IEP planning team is individualizing this student’s education program because of

his unique needs related to his low performance in Mathematics affecting the areas of

computation and problem solving demonstrated in class and highlighted by the borderline

scores in the Mathematics Cluster of Woodcock Johnson IV Achievement Test, which was

administered to the student.

Present levels of performance

HP is currently functioning below his chronological age on the area of academic

ability. Given HP’s functional level, his disability affects his involvement and progress in the

general education program.

Mathematics

HP scored very low in all subtests of the Mathematics Cluster of WJ IV Achievement

test. His scores range between 4-8% and indicate that his performance in all mathematical

domain is lower than 4-8% of his peers. These scores are consistent with HP’ school grades

and teacher’s information about his performance in class. The results of the standardized

testing show that HP’s basic mathematical skills are at a beginning 2nd grade level.

 HP cannot compare and order 3-digit numbers. He is more successful with 2-digit

numbers, which he orders with 50% accuracy.

 HP cannot compose and decompose numbers above 50. He answers correctly only 1

exercise out of 5.

 HP finds it difficult to perform accurate and fluent calculations on time. He needs

50% more time than his peers to finish a mathematical calculation.

IEP & Self-reflection 4

 HP depends on his fingers to add or subtract and he has not learnt the multiplication

tables.

 HP’s answers are correct most of the times with 2-digit numbers but he makes

mistakes with bigger numbers in 3 out of 5 exercises.

 HP can currently solve one-step math problems involving addition and subtraction but

cannot solve problems with more than two steps consistently. He can answer correctly

only 1 to 2 problems out of 5.

 HP confuses addition and subtraction problem types if unknowns are placed in

different positions. When HP tries to solve these problems, he will add or subtract

numbers in any order without being able to provide reasoning for his action.

 HP cannot relate new math facts to previously taught facts and concepts.

Long-term Retrieval, Short-term Working Memory and Cognitive Efficiency

HP scored very low in the Long-Term Retrieval and Short-Term Working Memory

and Cognitive Efficiency subtests of WJ IV Cognitive Test. His scores in the administered

subtests range between 3-9%, (Numbers Reversed 3%, Verbal Attention 4%, Visual-Auditory

Learning 6% and Story Recall 9%) which means that he performs lower than 3-9% of his

peers in these domains. These scores indicate his difficulties in processing information and

storing and retrieving facts from memory. HP needs to develop self-monitoring skills as a

means of avoiding carelessness and focusing attention to details.

Writing, Reading and Comprehension

HP’s strengths lie in writing, reading and comprehension. His percentile scores in the

subtests of Reading and Written Language Cluster are all in the average range and fall
IEP & Self-reflection 5

between 25-61% (Sentence Reading Fluency 25%, Writing samples 25%, Sentence Writing

Fluency 30%, Passage Comprehension 30%, Letter-Word Identification 61%). Given a word

problem, HP does not need assistance reading it. HP can identify words quickly and

accurately and he is able to read fluently and understand small passages. HP is able to write

sentences, passages and numbers correctly, however he seems to need more time than his

peers to finish the task.

Learning style

HP learns best through pairing visual-auditory instructions with written work, short

instructions followed by repetition, use of attention catching manipulatives, no time limit and

one-to-one instruction. He learns better when working in a small group. He tends to imitate

other children and learns from them. HP needs a quiet, separate place to do individual work

with minimum level of distraction.

Physical and Social development

HP is a healthy child, who met his developmental milestones within the normal limits.

No medical issues for HP are reported. HP was never diagnosed with a health condition that

would impair learning. His family has no history of learning disabilities. HP’s activity levels,

sleeping, and eating patterns are all regular.

HP is described as a very active child, playful and sociable with friends both inside

and outside school. He has a vivid imagination and he is frequently caught in daydreaming.

HP demonstrates low self-esteem in relation to school, however, he is motivated it to learn

and excel at school. Both parents and the teacher do not report any behavior issues.
IEP & Self-reflection 6

Measurable Annual and Short-term Goals

Annual Goal: HP will achieve mathematics score at the 3rd grade level or above at

the end of the 4th grade as measured by the 3rd grade curriculum. HP will increase his

attentiveness and concentration skills.

Short-term Objectives

Goals Criteria Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation

Criterion Procedure date
Place-value Understanding the concept of 80% Classwork 20/12/2021
understanding zero. accuracy and
homework
Comparing and ordering 2- & assignments
3-digit numbers.

Rounding to nearest 10 or 100,

estimate numbers to near
benchmark.

Count numbers from any

starting point by 1’s, 2’s,
5’s, and 10’s.

Increase and decrease numbers

to and from 100 by tens.

Build number Compose and decompose 80% Classwork 20/12/2021

sense numbers over 50. accuracy and
homework
Understanding 2- & 3-digit assignments
number as represented by
amounts of hundreds, tens,
and ones.

Reading and writing numbers

correctly.

Application of Identification of operations 70% Quizzes, 20/01/2022

properties of accuracy tests
operations Finding of missing factor

Identification of rules

Computation Sorting numbers using a range 70% Curriculum 20/01/2022

fluency of strategies for addition and accuracy materials
IEP & Self-reflection 7

subtraction (doubles and and tests

near doubles to work out facts
to 9, and then extend these
strategies into decades).

Grouping by 5’s and 10’s to

add or subtract more
efficiently.

Identification of relationships
between operations.

Understanding that in adding or

subtracting 3-digit numbers,
you add or subtract hundreds
with hundreds, tens with tens,
ones with ones.

Multiply and divide 2-digit

numbers.

Problem Identification of problem 80% Observation 20/01/2022

identification category and of familiar accuracy
problem types

Understanding of features that

change a problem without
affecting its structure or
solution (i.e. different
formation of the problem, use
of unfamiliar keyword or
different form of question)

Problem Solve 2-3 step problems with 70% Curriculum 15/03/2022

solving all 4 operations, with or accuracy materials
without regrouping, using and school
various computational methods tests
and applying learned solutions.

Fractions’ Understanding of part/whole 70% Curriculum 15/03/2022

computation relationship and of equivalent accuracy materials
and estimation fractions and school
assessment
Comparing fractions

Performing addition and

subtraction with proper
IEP & Self-reflection 8

fractions having like

denominators of 10 or less.

Fractions’ Solve single-step problems 70% Quizzes 15/04/2022

problem involving addition and accuracy and school
solving subtraction of fractions and tests
mixed numbers with like and
unlike denominators.

Recommended Services

Services Service Frequency Location Beginning

delivery & duration of service

Explicit classroom instruction Classroom Daily for Classroom 15/09/2021

with increased use of examples, teacher 20’
practice, opportunities to respond
and immediate corrective feedback
to increase generalization and
transfer along with self-regulated
learning strategies for addressing
computation and problem solving.

(Fuchs et al., 2004)

Pair visual representations with Classroom Daily Classroom 15/09/2021

oral and/or written when teaching teacher
and use a think aloud strategy
when explaining how to solve a
problem and how to make
justifications, conclusions and
connections between
representations to facilitate student
understanding and attention.

(Edugains, 2012)

Providing opportunities to Classroom Once a Classroom 01/09/2021

participate in games that teacher week
emphasize strategies for counting
(such as games that involve the use
of money)
Building counting activities into
everyday events (fund-raising,
IEP & Self-reflection 9

organizing school feast, preparing

for a field trip)

Use real-life situations as contexts

for problems.

(The Learning Exchange, 2016)

Peer assisted tutoring & practice Peers/ Twice a Classroom 15/09/2021

opportunities supervised by the classroom week for
classroom teacher. Each student teacher 20’
pair works on a task, on which the
lower-performing student in the
pair requires support and practice.

(Fuchs et al., 1997).

One-to-one instruction including Special Twice a Agency 01/09/2021

explicit and clear explanations, educator week for
repetitions, monitoring success, 30’
rewarding motivation and praising
achievement.

Practice with counting objects, on

number lines, or on hundreds
charts.

(Fuchs et al., 2008)

Multi-sensory approach of Special Twice a Agency 01/09/2021

instruction, using posters, songs, educator week for
chants, and stories, to facilitate 30’
acquisition of information and
linking of new knowledge with
previously learned with the aim to
build long-term associations in
memory and reinforce automatic
retrieval of answers.

Use of flash cards and

computerized practice to enable
classification of problem types and
understanding of number line,
decimals and fractions.

(Kucian et von Aster, 2015; Mather

& Jaffe, 2016)
IEP & Self-reflection 10

Teaching of simple strategies Special Daily Agency & 01/09/2021

such as highlighting, making a educator & school
circle around the symbol, or classroom
naming it, to emphasize attention to teacher
symbols before performing the
operation.

Teaching the use of mnemonics

(e.g. drawing, visualization,
compare and contrast, repetition)
that develop conceptual
understanding of mathematical
concepts.

Guiding the student in monitoring

his learning, to help him identify
and communicate his own
strategies for solving problems.

Timed practice with corrective

feedback

(Edugains, 2012; Mather & Jaffe,

2016)

Use of manipulatives such as Base Special Twice a Agency 01/09/2021

10 blocks, geoboards, paintings, educator week
pictures, fraction pieces, 3D
models, apps to connect abstract
mathematical concepts to concrete
models and experiences.

(Edugains, 2012)

Attention and performance self- Classroom Daily School 01/09/2021

monitoring checklists to facilitate teacher & and
student’s self-regulation paired special agency
with rewards based on the student’s educator
likes to increase motivation to work
hard.

(Montague, 2017)

Testing and Classwork Accommodation

IEP & Self-reflection 11

Testing accommodation Conditions Specifications

Extended time for classroom tasks and All tasks and 1,5-2 times the time his peers
tests (Fletcher et al., 2018) tests need

Preferential seating with minimal All tasks and Quiet corner in the classroom
distractions to facilitate attention (Fletcher tests or different room at school
et al., 2018)

Reporting Progress to Parents

HP’s performance would be reported to parents within a week after the schedule date

of each goal achievement. Textbook tests, quizzes, and standardized tests will be presented to

parents as well as a review of report card grades. Contact with classroom teachers and special

educator will be provided on an ongoing basis.

Self-reflection on IEP
IEP & Self-reflection 12

Explicit instruction is, according to literature, the first principle of effective

intervention in mathematics. Typically developing students may be able to come in terms

with the general education program in mathematics and perform successfully during their

learning process without needing further assistance or differentiated instructions. However,

those students who are at risk for developing serious mathematics deficits or are diagnosed

with learning disability in mathematics fail to benefit from standard instruction plans, when

they try to understand structure, concepts, meanings and operational requirements of math

(Fuchs et al., 2003). These students need a differentiated teaching plan to be able to establish

the necessary connections between the facts and concepts.

Instructions towards students with learning difficulties should be designed in a way

that eases the learning challenge and foresees and minimizes misconceptions and possibilities

for errors or misunderstandings by providing precise explanations and using carefully

sequenced and integrated instruction. Customizing the instruction to meet the student’s skill

level on a task is necessary in order to meet the individual student’s needs (Theodore, L. A.,

2017). The educator is responsible for providing the student with explicit teaching of the

foundational mathematic skills such as counting up, performing two-digit calculations and

solving algebraic equations before exposing the student to more difficult and complicated

concepts (Fuchs et al., 2018). Mastering the basic four operations is also crucial for the

development of children’s later math skills. Findings showing that most students with math

learning disabilities leave elementary school without developing the capacity to understand

and perform them correctly (Kroesbergen et Van Luit, 2003), illuminate the need for a well

thought customized plan of instructions.

Educators should perform an explicit task analysis of each operation and then model

and explain it to students. Once the students are capable of mastering the skills, strategies
IEP & Self-reflection 13

should be presented to facilitate step integration and application in different contexts. After

the students reach the level of mastering transfer, self-instruction techniques are supposed to

be introduced (Fletcher et al., 2018). Think aloud, self-talk, step drawing and verbalization of

the necessary steps can be taught through detailed explanation, modelling and rehearsal to

increase student’s engagement and self-effort. The self-instruction techniques have been

supported by research as being increasingly useful and effective especially with elementary-

age students and crucial for mastering higher order math skills. This method can also help a

student regulate his behavior and increases attention and concentration levels (Theodore, L.

A., 2017).

Opportunities for practice need to be provided until the student manages to apply the

newly acquired knowledge efficiently across different contexts and then proceed with more

difficult domains of mathematics such as problem solving (Fuchs et al., 2003). Research

findings illustrate the fact that acknowledging relations of number facts set the basis for math

facts fluency (Barrody et al., 2009). Practice can lead the student to discover patterns or

relations. Fuchs et al. (2008) demonstrated in their study that practice is critical for students

with mathematic difficulties and it should always be an essential component of an effective

intervention. Their study suggested that when drill and practice is paired with modeling and

self-management, it produces the largest treatment effects compared to interventions leaving

out or not focusing on each one of these components. Increased opportunities for practice

should be followed by immediate corrective feedback to facilitate a successful outcome

(Theodore, L. A., 2017).

Research on problem solving interventions highlights the necessity of focusing on

teaching the student how to recognize a new problem as a problem type that the student is

already familiar with, by using categories for problem types and common features
IEP & Self-reflection 14

identification techniques. These techniques reinforce the student’s ability to identify the new

problem as known and facilitate the acknowledgment of solution rules already learnt,

modeled and practiced for this type of problems. Completing this process the student is able

to make the necessary steps to solve the problem (Fuchs et al., 2003).

Peer-assisted instruction is considered to be very helpful for children with learning

disabilities. The collaboration of a low performing student with a stronger one increases

opportunities for practice and promotes engagement and confidence (Fuchs et al., 2002;

Fletcher et al., 2018). A metanalysis of several studies about interventions making use of peer

tutoring has brought different results showing that it is not as effective as other interventions.

This outcome was explained by the inability of peers to perceive the needs of other students

and by the fact that younger students are not good collaborators (Kroesbergen et Van Luit,

2003). My personal opinion is that a child always benefits from a peer, therefore, I decided to

include peer tutoring in the individualized educational plan for HP.

Teacher’s multisensory demonstrations and modelling of calculation algorithms and

procedural steps have been found to be effective in increasing both calculation and problem-

solving skills (Fletcher et al., 2018; Scott K.S., 1993). Manipulatives, pictures or other visual

representations can make abstract concepts more comprehensive. The more specific the visual

representation is to the problem, the more impact it has on the understanding of the

mathematical concept (Theodore, L. A., 2017).

Mathematics interventions should also help students regulate their attention and

facilitate their motivation to work hard. Having experienced failure multiple times in their

academic achievement, students may tend to avoid the emotional stress stemming from

mathematics by no longer trying to learn or practice. Systematic self-regulation and

motivators, including tangible reinforcers are required to bring the student with learning
IEP & Self-reflection 15

difficulties back on track. Self-regulation strategies in the context of the math activity are

essential for promoting student’s engagement in the learning process and enhancing attention.

Research has indicated that not only students with learning disabilities but also the whole

class can benefit from this intervention (Fuchs et al., 2006; Montague, 2007).

Self-monitoring of attention teaches students to assess whether or not they are

attending to the task. Performance self-monitoring helps students evaluate their academic

performance. The students themselves can complete a log with data about the number of

calculations and math problems completed during a certain period of time, the number of

computations and math problems answered correctly and the consistency of the use of the

steps taught for each. Research shows that the use of self-monitoring assists students in

reaching mastery of a skill, becoming less distracted when solving problems, and transferring

the strategy to another setting (Fuchs et al., 2004)

Kroesbergen and Van Luit (2003) demonstrated in their study that direct one to one

instruction is much more effective when teaching basic skills in mathematics compared to

either mediated or assisted instruction. Powell, Fuchs, Fuchs, Cirino, and Fletcher (2009)

illuminated in their study that intervention combinations aiming to ameliorate automatic fact

retrieval that included direct practice on retrieval, timed practice with corrective feedback,

either computerized or paper and pencil, and counting strategies were more effective that

interventions omitting these features. Persisting deficits with fact retrieval at the beginning of

third grade are a strong indicator for the necessity of including all these aspects in the

individualized educational plan to achieve remediation. Research findings support the use of

greater number of intervention tools for a larger effect on student’s performance sizes were

found. Another important information coming from a study that investigated the effectiveness

of interventions addressing mathematic disabilities is the multiagent factor. Benefits seem to

IEP & Self-reflection 16

be greater when the student receives support from multiple sources instead of only one. This

finding is attributed to treatment integrity (Codding et al., 2011).

Building on the literature supporting the immediate need for effective and intensive

intervention for students with learning disabilities I tried to design an educational plan that

will address the major deficits in Mathematics that HP is already demonstrating at the end of

the 3rd grade. I thought that involving many agents and intervention types will lead to a better

outcome in terms of learning progress, attention reinforcement and stress alleviation.

Evaluation of the suggested interventions will provide the IEP meeting with more insight on

what works better for this student at the time of reassessment. I hope that the goal of the

individualized educational plan I designed for HP will be met, and that it will close his

achievement gap as quickly as possible and prevent HP from having life-long difficulties at

school and later in his workplace.

Reference
IEP & Self-reflection 17

Baroody, A. J., Bajwa, N. P., & Eiland, M. (2009). Why can't johnny remember the

basic facts? Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 15(1), 69–79.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ddrr.45

Codding, R. S., Burns, M. K., & Lukito, G. (2011). Meta-analysis of mathematic

basic-fact fluency interventions: a component analysis. Learning Disabilities Research &

Practice, 26(1), 36–47.

Edugains, Supporting Students with Learning Disabilities in Mathematics, (2012).

http://www.edugains.ca/resourcesSpecEd/IEP&Transitions/BoardDevelopedResources/IEP/

SupportGuides/Supporting_Students_Learning_Disabilities_Mathematics_Ycdsb.pdf

Fletcher, J., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L., & Barnes, M. A. (2018). Learning disabilities:

from identification to intervention (Second). Guilford Press https://ebookcentral-proquest-

com.acg.idm.oclc.org/lib/acggr/detail.action?docID=5508451

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C.L., Katzaroff, M., & Dutka, S. (1997).

Effects of task-focused goals on low-achieving students with and without learning

disabilities. American Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 513-544.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., & Paulsen, K. (2002). Hot math:

promoting mathematical problem solving among third-grade students with disabilities.

Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(1), 70–73.

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., Hamlett, C.L., Owen, R., & Schroeter,

K. (2003). Enhancing third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving with self-regulated

learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 306-315.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Prentice, K. (2004). Responsiveness to mathematical

problem-solving instruction: comparing students at risk of mathematics disability with and

IEP & Self-reflection 18

without risk of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, V37 N4 P293-306 Jul

2004.

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D.L., Powell, S.R., Seethaler, P.M., Capizzi, A.M.,

Schatschneider, C., & Fletcher, J.M. (2006). The cognitive correlates of third-grade skill in

arithmetic, algorithmic computation, and arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 98, 29-43.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M.

(2008). Intensive intervention for students with mathematics disabilities: seven principles of

effective practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(2), 79–92.

Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2003). Mathematics interventions for

children with special needs: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97–114.

Kucian, K., & von Aster, M. (2015). Developmental dyscalculia. European Journal of

Pediatrics, 174(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-014-2455-7

Mather, Nancy, and Lynne E. Jaffe. Woodcock-Johnson IV: Reports,

Recommendations, and Strategies, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, (2016). ProQuest

Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/acggr/detail.action?docID=4356794.

Montague, M. (2007). Self-regulation and mathematics instruction. Learning

Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 75–83.

National Centre on Intensive Intervention, (n.d.). Place-Value Concepts-

Considerations. https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/Place-Value%20Concepts-

Considerations.pdf

Powell, S. R., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. (2009). Effects

of fact retrieval tutoring on third-grade students with math difficulties with and without

reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(1), 1–11.

IEP & Self-reflection 19

Scott, K. S. (1993). Multisensory Mathematics for Children with Mild Disabilities.

Exceptionality, 4(2), 97–111. doi:10.1207/s15327035ex0402_3

Theodore, L. A. (Ed.). (2017). Handbook of evidence-based interventions for children

and adolescents. Springer Publishing Company.

The Learning Exchange, Guides to Effective Instruction in Mathematics, Grades 1 to

3, (2016). https://thelearningexchange.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Number-Sense-and-

Numeration-1-3-Revised.pdf