What is the IEP process?
Page 4: Procedural Requirements: Guidelines & Common Errors
Legislation and Litigation 
[A]n IEP must be drafted in compliance with a detailed set of procedures (that) emphasize collaboration among parents and educators and require careful consideration of the child’s individual circumstances.
On the previous page, we introduced you to IDEA’s procedural requirements for providing special education services and supports to students with disabilities. On this page, we will begin to offer more specific guidance about how school personnel should actually implement these requirements in practice. We’ll also point out some common procedural errors to avoid.
Procedural Requirement Guidelines
Although not an exhaustive list, the practices outlined below can support the development of a technically sound IEP. School personnel who engage in these practices are also more likely to develop an educationally meaningful high-quality IEP that meets the needs of students with disabilities.
One major purpose of IDEA’s procedural requirements is to ensure that parents are meaningfully involved throughout the IEP process. The information presented in the table below details what this requirement involves in more specific terms.
| Step | Requirements |
| Referral | Parents must give informed, written consent before their child can be tested. Parents may also initiate a special education referral for their child. |
| Evaluation | The student must be assessed in all areas of concern and in areas of potential needs voiced by her parents. Parents also have the right to request an evaluation of their child. |
| Eligibility Determination | Parents must be part of the team that makes the eligibility decision, which is based on the evaluation results. |
| IEP Development | Parents are equal members of the IEP team and, as such, their input regarding all aspects of the IEP must be considered and respected. |
| IEP Implementation | Before the student’s IEP can be implemented, her parents must give informed, written consent. Following implementation of the IEP, the parents must be informed in an ongoing manner regarding their child’s progress toward meeting her IEP goals and objectives. |
| Annual Review | As part of the IEP team, parents are involved when the team re-convenes to review and revise the IEP. |
| Re-evaluation | As with the previous stages of the process, parental input as part of the IEP team is crucial. If the team determines that a full evaluation is required at this point, the parents must again give informed written consent. |
In addition, school personnel should:
- Make concerted efforts to schedule IEP team meetings at times when parents are able to attend. Work schedules, transportation issues, and lack of childcare are just some of the real-world issues that affect parents’ ability to take part in IEP meetings, and school personnel should not only be aware of them but they should also make plans to respond when they do occur.
- Send a written invitation to the parents that includes the date and time, location, purpose, and attendees. This invitation must also inform the parents about their right to invite individuals with special knowledge or expertise about their child (e.g., advocate, family friend, clergy) to be a member of the IEP team.
- Arrange to have trained translators present to assist parents who are not fluent English speakers.
- Avoid using educational jargon and acronyms that are likely to be unfamiliar to parents.
- Fully inform parents about their rights and procedural safeguards.
Did You Know?
Too often, the packet of procedural rights information received by parents during IEP meetings is characterized by legalistic jargon and small print. Common parental complaints are that this information is not explained, that time constraints prevent school-based team members from answering their questions, and that their participation is trivialized when school personnel note that parents “probably don’t want to waste meeting time going over it” or joke that, because parents receive a copy of it every year, they probably have enough copies to “wallpaper their house.” Parents are then asked to sign a form verifying that they have received the information. In addition to being procedurally unsound, such practices also diminish the parents’ role as an equal member of the IEP team. To better serve parents, consider having a parent-friendly version of this information, in addition to the full packet. The example below was developed through a collaboration between the Tennessee Department of Education and STEP (Support and Training for Exceptional Parents).
Quick Guide to Parent Rights and Responsibilities in Special Education
Recall from the previous guideline that parents must give written informed consent for the referral for evaluation, and that the subsequent evaluation must assess all areas of student needs, including those areas in which parents have voiced concerns. The evaluation should gather information on relevant functional, developmental, and academic skills. The information gathered should be sufficient to determine whether the student has one or more of the IDEA-stipulated disabilities and requires special education services. No single assessment or test can be used as the sole determinant of this eligibility. Using more than one assessment or test not only helps to avoid misidentification but the test results are also used to determine the content of the IEP.
The evaluation should incorporate multiple assessment tools that:
- Are not racially or culturally biased
- Are administered in the student’s native language or other form of communication (e.g., sign language) that will provide the most accurate information about the student’s performance, unless it is not feasible to do so
- Are technically sound (i.e., valid and reliable)
- Are administered by trained professionals in accordance with the test’s instructions
- Are individually selected to assess all areas of a student’s suspected disability (e.g., cognitive, behavioral, physical, social-emotional, and developmental), as well as those about which parents have concerns
- Collect relevant data on the student’s academic and functional skills
- Identify all of the student’s educational needs, particularly special education and related services
In addition, background information is collected from a variety of sources, including:
- Parents, to gain insight into student characteristics (e.g., developmental milestones, social skills)
- School personnel, to get a clearer picture of current academic and behavioral concerns
- School records, to obtain a history of the student’s school performance
- Medical records, when applicable
- Classroom observations, particularly when student behavior is of concern (e.g., the student is frequently off-task, the student exhibits high levels of frustration)
This information gathered during the student’s evaluation will guide IEP team decisions regarding needed special education and related services and when and where (e.g., LRE) these services will be provided.
For Your Information
- When students transfer from one public agency (e.g., school district) to another within the same school year, those agencies must coordinate to ensure prompt completion of the student’s full evaluation.
- The guidelines above also apply to the three-year reevaluation step of the IEP process.
IDEA provides specific timeframes within which key aspects of the IEP process must be completed. If states have state-specific timelines, IEP teams need to recognize and follow those. States are free to adjust the IDEA timeframes, but only to speed up the process. The only exception is the evaluation timeline, which states are permitted to extend.
| Step | Requirements |
| Referral | IDEA does not specify timelines for referral. |
| Evaluation | The evaluation must be conducted within 60 days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation or within state-established timelines. |
| Eligibility Determination | Although IDEA does not specify a timeline for making the eligibility decision, some states do. In the absence of a state timeline, the eligibility decision should be made as soon as possible after the evaluation is completed. |
| IEP Development | The meeting to develop the IEP must be conducted within 30 days of the determination that the child has a disability and is eligible for special education and related services. |
| IEP Implementation | The special education and related services identified in the IEP should be made available as soon as possible following the development of the IEP. Although no specific time constraints are provided, the expectation is that the services will start immediately (e.g., the next day), except when the IEP was developed during a school break (e.g., summer vacation) or when special circumstances (e.g., the need to arrange transportation) necessitate a short delay. |
| Annual Review | The IEP should be reviewed within 12 months after the previous IEP was developed. |
| Reevaluation | The student should be reevaluated at least once every three years. |
Every person on the IEP team has unique knowledge and expertise relevant to the IEP process. The absence of any one of these individuals creates a potential loss of that knowledge and expertise, jeopardizing the quality of the IEP and the subsequent provided services. As a result, the district’s ability to provide FAPE will have been compromised. A school-based team member need not attend an IEP meeting at which that person’s areas of curriculum or related services are not to be discussed or modified, but the parent and district must agree to their absence in writing. If the member’s area is being discussed, excusal may still be granted by a written agreement, provided that team member submits written input to the parent and district prior to the meeting.
IDEA clearly details the required components of the IEP document, which systematically build on each other to provide an individualized education for the student. If components are missing, the IEP can no longer represent a cohesive program. These IEP components, to be discussed more on the next page, include:
- Present levels of academic achievement and functional performance
- Measurable annual goals
- A description of how progress toward meeting goals will be measured and reported
- A statement of the needed special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel
- An explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child will not participate with non-disabled children in general education class
- A statement of accommodations, if any, necessary in assessments and/or in assessment standards
- The projected date, frequency, location and duration of services
School personnel must make concerted efforts to ensure that the student makes appropriate progress, and they do so by implementing the IEP as planned. Each person with instructional or service provision responsibilities must:
- Have access to the IEP
- Understand the information contained therein
- Understand their role in subsequent implementation
- Make concerted efforts to help the student achieve her goals
- Frequently and systematically monitor her progress
When the progress monitoring data indicate that the student is not making adequate progress, the IEP team must meet to determine:
- Whether the IEP is being adhered to
- Whether the supports and services are being implemented properly
- Possible reasons for the student’s lack of progress, and make adjustments accordingly
- How ongoing progress monitoring will be conducted and communicated to the parents
As noted earlier, the IEP is like a contract in that it reflects a written, signed commitment to carry out the services and supports outlined in its pages. School professionals must understand that failure to carry out the responsibilities and services outlined in the IEP puts the district, and potentially themselves, at legal risk.
These procedural guidelines should not only be followed during the full IEP process that starts when a student is initially referred for testing, but also when a student who is already receiving special education services has an upcoming annual review. In the interviews below, two teachers share some insights on the importance of positive parent engagement early in the annual review process.
Transcript: Waldrian Boyd
You have to build relationships. Building relationships is the key component to meeting the students’ needs, meeting the parents’ needs. Every year, that child needs some type of evaluation of that IEP. I want to meet with parents so we can discuss what this IEP entails, because parents might not know the questions to ask. The first thing that I ask them is, “What are your concerns, and what are the goals that you want for your child for this year?” And I feel like that allows the parent to open up, to say, “Yes, here are my concerns.” I just feel like that’s very important because they know their child better than we do. And they see different things at home than we do at school. They have that bird’s eye view of their child and can communicate that information to help develop that IEP.
Tamara McLean
So in the state of Tennessee, if a draft of the IEP was developed prior to the IEP meeting, parents should have access to that draft at least 48 hours prior to that meeting. I like that because I think parents walking in having no idea what we’re about to say, where we’re about to say their child is in terms of present levels and PLAAFPs, that’s a lot of information to take in, in that meeting, and then process. If they’re hit with something that they don’t expect, it can be so emotional that they don’t really hear anything else we say for the rest of that meeting and may not process it for a day or two after they’ve left the meeting, which makes it really hard for them to be a team member because they’re caught up in something that took them by surprise.
Common Procedural Errors
There are a number of serious procedural errors that IEP teams should avoid. Of particular concern are those that inhibit parental participation, compromise a student’s FAPE, or deprive the student of his or her educational benefits. A few of the more common procedural errors are described below.
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) and Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017) emphasized the importance of the collaboration between school personnel and a student’s parents throughout the IEP process, evidence that this procedural right is vigorously protected by the courts.
Program — The special education services and supports
Placement — The educational setting in which the services will be provided
Predetermination refers to situations in which school-based personnel on an IEP team make decisions (e.g., develop IEP goals, determine services and placement) prior to holding the IEP meeting. By doing so, they tacitly cut parents out of the decision-making process. School personnel can have informal discussions before the IEP meeting, and they can come to the meeting with suggestions and opinions. However, they cannot make final program or placement decisions until the actual meeting in which the student’s parents are involved.
Shoehorning — A term sometimes used to refer to the procedural error of selecting the student’s placement before her program has been determined.
Before determining placement, the IEP team must first gain a comprehensive picture of the student and develop her program (e.g., goals, services, and supports). Subsequently, “each child’s educational placement must be determined on an individual case-by-case basis depending on each child’s unique educational needs and circumstances, rather than by the child’s category of disability” (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F. R. §300.116(b)(2006)). In other words, once the student’s program has been determined, only then can the team use that information to determine the placement in which a student’s needs can best be met.
IDEA specifies the required members of a properly constituted IEP team. An IEP team that does not include the required members is not properly constituted and has failed to incorporate the expertise needed to develop a high-quality IEP.
To restate, all of the IEP’s components come together to create a cohesive program for the student. These are:
- Present levels of academic achievement and functional performance
- Measurable annual goals
- A description of how progress toward meeting goals will be measured and reported
- A statement of the needed special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel
- An explanation of the extent, if any, to which the student will not participate with non-disabled students in the general education classroom
- A statement of accommodations, if any, necessary in assessments and/or in assessment standards
- The projected date, frequency, location, and duration of services
When components are missing, the quality of the IEP is compromised. This is an easily avoidable procedural error.
In many cases, procedural errors can be addressed or corrected by re-convening the IEP team. In other situations, particularly those in which parents and school personnel disagree, either party can initiate dispute-resolution procedures (i.e., state complaints, mediation, resolution session, due process hearing). If the dispute advances to a due process hearing, an impartial hearing officer reviews the available evidence and makes a ruling. Of primary consideration is the degree of harm caused to the student’s special education program and her FAPE as a result of the procedural violation. More specifically, IDEA specifies that hearing officers can only rule against a school if procedural violations have resulted in one or more of the following:
- Impeded the student’s right to receive a FAPE
- Impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the educational decision-making process
- Caused a deprivation of educational benefits
Activity
Revisit the Challenge: Common Procedural Errors
As you saw in the Challenge, Mr. Anaya had some concerns about the way the IEP process was being handled at Washington County Elementary. For each of the examples below, decide whether a procedural error occurred and, if so, identify what type of error was committed.
Correct!
Select the type of procedural error:
Correct! Even though the IEP meeting has not yet occurred, the assistant principal, Mrs. Pederson, assumes that Sienna will be placed in Mrs. Esposito’s class because “She has an available slot in her classroom.” Only after the IEP team members review Sienna’s evaluation results, identify her needs, annual goals, and services should they determine where she will receive these services. Placement should not be determined based on classroom availability. This situation is an example of “shoehorning.”
Incorrect. Try again.
Incorrect. Try again.
Incorrect. Try again.
Correct!
Select the type of procedural error:
Incorrect. Try again.
Incorrect. Try again.
Correct! Every student’s IEP should be individualized to meet her unique needs. Though there may be some commonalities across broad goals for some students (e.g., to improve decoding skills), the rate of growth, level of mastery, and timelines for success should be individually determined after input and discussion with all members of the IEP team.
Larry Wexler, EdD
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Special Education Programs
Director, Research to Practice Division
My advice relative to canned electronic IEPs is there’s nothing inherently wrong with them as long as they, in fact, are meeting the unique needs of that child.
But just filling out the paperwork and putting a scope and sequence of goals and objectives that aren’t based on what the child needs, as well as not specifying the types of services and supports that the child needs to progress, a is not the way to go. And certainly parents ought to be aware of the fact that this should be unique to their child. And that’s the bottom line. It’s individualized, and if it’s not there’s something wrong with the IEP.
Incorrect. Try again.
Incorrect. Try again.
Correct! The IEP should be thought of as a tool, rather than as merely a document to be developed and filed away. Once an IEP is developed, teachers must use it to guide their instruction so that the student can meet her annual goals.
Correct!
Select the type of procedural error:
Correct! The general education and special education teachers are included on the IEP team because they have knowledge of the student, her strengths, and her areas of need. The general education teacher has expertise in the grade-level curriculum and can speak to the student’s performance in the general education classroom. The special education teacher has expertise in individualizing instruction and will be responsible for implementing and/or overseeing the services and supports needed to help the student achieve her goals. In this scenario, however, the initial IEP team meeting has not yet taken place, and the special education services have not been identified. However, if Mrs. Pederson thinks that Mrs. Esposito will be Sienna’s teacher, procedural error though it may be, then Mrs. Esposito should be the special education teacher at the IEP meeting. If scheduling conflicts are an issue, arrangements should be made to support her attendance. For example, if Mr. Anaya is free during the IEP meeting time period, rather than asking him to attend the IEP meeting, he could instead cover Mrs. Esposito’s class so that she can attend.
Incorrect. Try again.
Incorrect. Try again.
Incorrect. Try again.
Correct!
Select the type of procedural error:
Incorrect. Try again.
Correct! Parents must be actively involved in all aspects of the IEP development. Drafts of some IEP components can be developed prior to the meeting, but all IEP team members must understand that they are just that—drafts—and feel comfortable discussing it and making changes accordingly. A related concern in the Challenge scenario is that only 45 minutes were allotted for the IEP meeting. A short IEP meeting in itself does not necessarily constitute a procedural error. However, 45 minutes is not enough time to review and discuss the initial evaluation results with Sienna’s parents and develop an IEP based on that information. The IEP team members—which include the parents—must identify her needs, decide on her annual goals, and determine the necessary services and supports that she needs to achieve those goals. As a result, Mrs. Pederson’s intent to accomplish everything within the short timeframe, and the actions that she took to do so, denies the parents their guaranteed right to full involvement in the IEP development.
Incorrect. Try again.
Incorrect. Try again.
This toolbox describes additional resources related to the information presented on this page. These resources are provided for informational purposes only for those who wish to learn more about the topic(s). It is not necessary for those working through this module to read or refer to all of these additional resources to understand the content. This handout, also included on page 3, lists the members of the IEP team and their roles in the IEP process. The list includes those members whose participation is stipulated by IDEA and those whose role is determined by the individual needs of the student. IEP Implementation: School Personnel Responsibilities This form can be used by each team member during an IEP meeting to record a student’s IEP goals and the services and supports needed for the student to achieve those goals. Following the meeting, they can use it to help them understand their responsibilities to ensure the IEP is implemented as intended. |
