Fill - Free fillable California Statewide Individualized Education PDF form

California Statewide Individualized Education

Program (IEP) Workgroup Report

Provided to the chairs of the relevant policy c

ommittees and budget

subcommittees of the Legislature, the Executive Director of the State

Board of Education, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the

Director of Finance

Authorized by the Budget Act of 2020, Senate Bill 74

October 1, 2021

Funded by the California Department of Education,

Special Education Division

This document contains both information and form fields. To read information, use the Down Arrow from a form field.

California Statewide Individualized Education

Program (IEP) Workgroup Report

Authorized by the Budget Act of 2020, Senate Bill 74

Provided to the the chairs of the relevant policy committees and budget subcommittees

of the Legislature, the executive director of the State Board of Education,

the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Director of Finance

1. Executive Summary 2 ..............................................................................................

2. Introduction 3 ...........................................................................................................

3. Workgroup Charge and Formation 4.......................................................................

4. Workgroup Vision: An IEP Process Designed to Improve Outcomes 6...................

5. IEP Template, System, Training, and Resources Framework 8 ..............................

6. Background and Literature Review 10 .....................................................................

7. Workgroup Process 18 ............................................................................................

8. Data that Informed the Recommendations and IEP Template Design 23...............

9. Recommendations in Response to the Workgroup’s Legislative Charge 32 ...........

10. Limitations 61..........................................................................................................

11. Conclusion 61 ..........................................................................................................

Appendix A. Acknowledgments 63 .....................................................................................

Appendix B. Related Considerations for Further Examination 65......................................

Appendix C. Summary of Statewide IEP Templates and Online IEP Systems,

by State 67 .........................................................................................................................

Appendix D. Survey Questions Used to Elicit Stakeholder Input 74 ...................................

Appendix E. Timeline for Implementation of the Workgroup’s

Recommendations 86 ........................................................................................................

Appendix F. Statewide IEP Template 91 ............................................................................

Appendix G. IEP Content Requirements 124 .....................................................................

Appendix H. Other Relevant Forms That are not Part of the IEP Template 132................

References 134 ..................................................................................................................

1. Executive Summary

The Statewide IEP Workgroup, authorized by the Budget Act of 2020, Senate Bill 74,

met from December 2020 to July 2021 to make recommendations to improve the

process for developing individualized education programs (IEPs) for students who are

eligible to receive special education and related services. The IEP for each student

should be designed to improve their long-term functional and academic outcomes by

capturing strengths and needs and informing learning strategies that support instruction.

The IEP template developed by the workgroup was driven by their vision that the IEP be

centered on the student and their long-term goals, with a focus on increasing

participation in general education for every student. Participating in high quality

instruction in the general education setting produces the best outcomes for students

with IEPs and to make that happen, the IEP must be a useful tool for general education

teachers, describing how the student best learns and the impact of their disability.

The IEP is more than just a form. The IEP process is ongoing and improving it, as well

as improving student outcomes, is dependent on systematic training and supports for all

IEP team members – students, parents/guardians, providers, and administrators – that

reinforces the state’s priorities for the IEP to be strengths-driven and student-centered.

The workgroup recommends the adoption of a statewide IEP template to increase

transparency for families and educators, support the successful inclusion of students

with IEPs in general education, and improve student outcomes. The workgroup

recommends an intentional transition to the statewide template advised by stakeholders

and in coordination with training and supports.

2. Introduction

In the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) statute, Congress wrote:

Disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the

right of individuals to participate in or contribute to society. Improving educational

results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national policy

of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and

economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities (IDEA at 20 U.S.C.

§1400 (c)(1)).

Each student who is eligible for special education and related services receives services

and supports to ensure their full participation as agreed upon in an Individualized

Education Program (IEP), a written plan developed collaboratively by an IEP team. The

IEP development process is an opportunity for students, teachers, parents/guardians,

school administrators, and related services providers to work together to create

opportunities to improve student outcomes. The IEP team looks closely at the student's

unique needs and pools their collective knowledge, experience, and commitment to

design an educational program that will help the student meaningfully participate and

progress in the general curriculum.

The IEP is the cornerstone of a quality education (Kupper, 2000). To provide that to

each student identified as having a disability, the IDEA mandates content to be

included in each child's IEP and what the IEP team must consider. The IDEA also

provides states and, at the discretion of states, local school systems the flexibility to

create their own processes for collecting and recording the required IEP information

and to include additional information in the IEP. At this time, California has not

required a statewide IEP template, which means each local

educational agency or LEA (i.e., school district, charter school, and in limited

circumstances county office of education (COE)), may adopt and modify its own

template.

In 2015, California’s Statewide Special Education Task Force (Task Force) reviewed the

lack of progress of students with IEPs toward improved outcomes including graduation

and post-school employment, and through its report, established the need to reform

California’s special education systems in order to improve outcomes for students with

IEPs and move to a unified system of education for all students. The Task Force’s

report (Task Force, 2015) recommended the IEP be as coherent as the system it

reflects; that IEP team discussions about student expectations, performance, and

progress be guided by the Common Core State Standard (CCSS); and that ultimately all

IEPs and the goals written for them be aligned with the CCSS. The Task Force’s final

report (2015) also recommended that samples of standards-aligned IEPs be created

and disseminated, along with comprehensive training on adapting those examples or

models for use in IEP meetings, and a common data-gathering system be created to

record and report on student IEP goals, monitor progress toward goals, and evaluate

implementation of standards-based IEPs statewide.

3. Workgroup Charge and Formation

Consistent with the 2015 Task Force recommendations, the state of California has

engaged in significant efforts to initiate thoughtful special education reform, investing

considerable funding in special education and creating technical assistance systems to

build LEA capacity to improve outcomes for students with IEPs. In June 2020, the

California State Legislature, through California’s SB-74 Budget Act of 2020, allocated

funds for the purpose of convening a workgroup to design a state standardized

individualized education program template with the following specifications:

The workgroup shall include, but not be limited to, representatives of the

State Department of Education, the Department of Rehabilitation, the

State Department of Developmental Services, local educational agencies,

special education local plan areas, legislative staff, and relevant state and

national policy experts. The workgroup shall do all of the following:

(1) Examine and make recommendations regarding the following

matters: ensuring the IEP development and periodic review processes

are designed to improve student outcomes by capturing student

strengths and needs and informing learning strategies that support

instruction aligned to state standards.

(2) Design a state standardized IEP template that provides information

about student strengths, needs, and learning strategies.

(3) Support transition planning with early learning and postsecondary

options.

(4) Assess the feasibility of a web-based statewide individualized

education program system to house a statewide template.

(5) Design a state standardized addendum to the individualized

education program that addresses distance learning modifications and

adaptations to the IEP necessitated by a state or local emergency,

including best practices recommendations.

The California Department of Education (CDE) contracted with the Sacramento County

Office of Education (SCOE), which worked with WestEd and the Glen Price Group

(GPG) to determine key roles and perspectives that should be represented by

workgroup members and to identify and invite workgroup members accordingly. In

November 2020, the workgroup was formed consisting of 38 members including

parents, K-12 and early learning special education and regular education teachers,

related services providers, school district administrators, Special Education Local Plan

Area (SELPA) representatives, higher education professionals, researchers, and state

agency representatives. In addition, many workgroup members have relevant lived

experience navigating the IEP process as parents, family members, or former students

with IEPs themselves. During the workgroup’s launch meeting in December 2020,

members estimated the number of IEP meetings they had attended (as parents/family

members, teachers, providers, administrators, advocates, and coaches). Altogether,

workgroup members estimated they had participated in nearly 20,000 IEP

meetings and most members had participated in more than one IEP team member

role. A full list of workgroup members, leadership and their organizational affiliations is

provided in appendix A.

4. Workgroup Vision: An IEP Process Designed to Improve

Outcomes

During the first two workgroup meetings, the workgroup established a vision to ground

and guide its work in designing a statewide IEP template and making recommendations

for an improved IEP process.

The workgroup envisions a future in which, for every student with an IEP:

● IEP outcomes are student-focused, strengths-based, aligned to standards, and

backwards mapped from long-term goals including gainful employment.

● General education teachers meaningfully participate in the IEP process,

contribute to plans to increase participation in general education, and find IEPs to

be a valuable tool for teaching and inclusion.

● Special education teachers and providers empower a student-led/driven IEP

process and develop IEPs that include information about student strengths,

needs, and learning strategies, including the supports needed for the student to

participate in general education.

● Families and students access information on the comprehensive services

available throughout a student’s life including integrated school supports (outside

of special education) aimed at long-term positive experiences and outcomes.

This vision represents a change from current practice and perception. The workgroup

acknowledges that significant work will be needed to guide the state and local education

systems though a mindset shift in order to realize this vision. However, the workgroup

also believes that a common statewide IEP template that is thoughtfully designed to

empower IEP teams to enact this vision can be a catalyst for change and help establish

the opportunity for full participation and improved achievement intended by the IDEA.

The workgroup has designed a strengths-driven, student-centered IEP template and

recommendations for policies, training, and resources that can empower all IEP team

members – specifically students, parents/guardians, and general education teachers –

to more meaningfully engage in the IEP process. Further, the template is structured to

lead to more meaningful discussions about the IEP goals, services, and support each

California student with an IEP needs to progress toward full participation, independent

living, and economic self-sufficiency (IDEA at 20 U.S.C. §1400 (c)(1)).

Workgroup members reported and confirmed through surveys of broad stakeholders, as

described in section 8, that many students, parents, and teachers do not currently report

that they feel they are part of a meaningful IEP experience.

Currently, California does not have a statewide IEP template, IEP system, or common

IEP training resources establishing the expectation for and building the capacity of IEP

teams to hold student-centered, strengths-based IEP meetings. IEP forms as well as

IEP development and revision processes vary significantly across the state. Many LEAs

use an IEP template adapted from the forms developed by the SELPA Administrators of

California’s Forms Committee. Nearly every LEA in California uses an online IEP

system from a vendor to house its template and complete IEPs and a few LEAs have in

house IEP systems. This report details how the workgroup envisions the state

meaningfully transitioning to a statewide IEP template surrounded by intentional,

relevant, and useful supports, including training and resources, that will contribute to

more equitable opportunity for improved student outcomes across LEAs, through the

IEP development and revision processes.

5. IEP Template, System, Training, and Resources Framework

The workgroup organized its work around the legislative charges (see section 3) and

developed recommendations designed to make progress toward the workgroup’s vision

(see section 4). Given the workgroup’s multiple charges related to the IEP template, IEP

system, and the IEP development and periodic review processes, the workgroup

developed a framework for organizing its work and differentiating between these

interrelated elements. As shown in figure 1, the framework is illustrated through four

concentric circles.

The student is at the center of the diagram to clarify that the IEP template, system, and

training and resources to support the IEP process should be designed and implemented

to maximize student support and benefit. The next layer is the IEP template consisting

of the forms that are completed during the IEP process to collect necessary data and

provide access to the student’s program throughout the year, followed by the IEP

system which refers to the mechanisms (technology and otherwise) the IEP team uses

to access and complete the IEP template. The outermost layer is IEP training and

resources which include various types of training (e.g., online modules, coaching,

workshops) and resources such as policy guidance, checklists, and other and tools

(e.g., written guides for each IEP team member, agendas) outside of the IEP template

and system to support the IEP process.

Figure 1. Framework for designing a student-centered IEP template with the necessary

systems, training, and resources needed to ensure the IEP processes improve student

outcomes.

These concentric circles rely on and interact with other aspects of special education

reform and components of the general education system including processes for

referring and evaluating students for special education, allocation of human and fiscal

resources to adequately support teachers and providers, provision of high-quality core

instruction supplemented by special education supports and services, and ensuring

adequate time for teachers and providers to collaboratively prepare for coordinated

instruction. The workgroup recognized there were additional challenges related to these

and other processes that must be solved to meaningfully improve outcomes for students

with IEPs. However, the workgroup agreed that the implementation and potential impact

of its recommendations and the statewide IEP template are not dependent on the

resolution of those challenges. Key questions that emerged in workgroup discussions

but that were ultimately determined to be beyond the scope of the workgroup’s charge

are noted in appendix B, Related Considerations for Further Examination.

6. Background and Literature Review

The purpose of IDEA is “to ensure that all students with disabilities have available to

them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related

services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education,

employment, and independent living” (IDEA regulations at 34 CFR §§300.1). IDEA lays

out requirements for IEP content but allows states discretion to choose or adopt a

particular form or template. States are given the mandate to both ensure compliance

with IDEA and use their general supervision authority to improve outcomes for students

with disabilities. Requirements and guidance around an IEP template and process are

one way the state establishes its priorities and communicates the expectation to

improve academic and functional outcomes and increase the delivery of services in the

least restrictive environment, which for most students is the general education setting.

To better understand how to operationalize the workgroup’s vision (see section 4) and

inform the development of actionable recommendations, research was reviewed on

strength-based and student-led IEPs; challenges to and strategies to encourage

meaningful participation of all IEP team members — specifically students,

parents/families, and general education teachers — in the development and

implementation of the IEP; and using the IEP to increase delivery of services and

supports in general education.

6.A. Student-centered, Strengths-based IEPs

The President’s Commission on Special Education (OSERS, 2002) found that many

parents, teachers, and educational administrators viewed IEPs as being “not actually

designed or used for individualized education; instead they are focused on legal

protection and compliance with regulatory processes” (p.16). The Commission went on

to comment that ‘the original concept of IEPs as an instructional framework…has been

lost to the greater need to document legal and procedural compliance” (pp.16-17).

While it may be difficult, collaborative problem-solving and decision-making focused on

the student through the IEP process has the potential to create fundamental change in

the ways that teachers teach, and students learn (Clark, 2000).

The shift to student-centered planning can certainly be encouraged through training and

development of resources, but as Price, Wolensky, and Mulligan found, “It takes self-

determined individuals (e.g., students, teachers, parents, paraprofessionals,

administrators) with collaboration and risk-taking skills, to be facilitators and not

enablers” in order to translate student-focused IEP rhetoric into action (2002, p.109).

One way to ensure IEP development is student focused and change the tone in IEP

meetings is through student participation; student participation results in a focus on

growth and strengths and greater parent participation (Arndt, Konrad, & Test, 2006;

Danneker & Bottge, 2009; Mason, Mcgahee-Kovac, Johnson, & Stillerman, 2002;

Mason, McGahee-Kovac, & Johnson, 2004; Price, Wolensky, and Mulligan, 2002; Test,

Mason, Hughes, Konrad, Neale, & Wood, 2004). Translating a belief in the importance

of student-centered IEPs into action requires planning and commitment but can be

done.

While not required until the team is planning for secondary transition, the President’s

Commission (OSERS, 2002) asserted that “it is always appropriate for students with

disabilities to be invited and present at IEP meetings” (p.46) and research has found a

positive relationship between student participation in IEP meetings and increases in

academic achievement (Barnard & Lechtenberger, 2010). Students learn confidence,

self-determination, and advocacy by participating in potentially the most important

discussions about their educational program (Mason et al. 2002; Hawbaker, 2007).

When a student is included in the IEP process, they learn that their voice matters, and

they are an active participant in important decisions. As one general education teacher

shared, “For a young adolescent who craves independence, a student-led IEP is one

more opportunity for him to be in control of his world” (Hawbaker, 2007). Students also

benefit from preparing to participate in the IEP process; engaging students in explicit

instruction on how to participate in the IEP process is an effective strategy for building

self-determination skills (Arndt et al., 2006; Danneker & Bottge, 2009; Hammer, 2004;

Kelley et al., 2013; Konrad & Test, 2007; Konrad et al., 2006; Martin, Van Dycke,

Christensen, et al., 2006; Neale & Test, 2010; Snyder, 2002; Test & Neale, 2004).

6.B. Meaningful Participation of IEP Team Members in IEP Development and

Implementation

IDEA intends to achieve a balance of power between parents/guardians and

professionals through collaboration as an IEP team, emphasizing mutual respect for the

contributions of all individuals working with a particular student, and an emphasis on

valuing the knowledge that parents/guardians bring to the team (20 U.S.C. §1400;

Skrtic, 1991). Collaborative meetings with increased parent involvement are related to

improved school performance (Goldman & Burke, 2017; Gomez Mandic, Rudd, Hehir, &

Acevedo-Garcia, 2010; Jasis & Ordonez-Jaisic, 2011; Lo, 2012). Unfortunately, this

collaboration can result in clashes of values and the spirit of collaboration is often pitted

against the “…value orientation of the professional bureaucracy in every way, given that

it is a performance organization in which individual professionals work alone to perfect

standard programs” (Skrtic, 1991, p.172). Special educators and administrators exert

considerable control over the direction of IEP meetings and content, while

families/guardians are frequently passive participants (Fish, 2008; Gaffney & Ruppar,

2011; Garriott, Wandry, & Snyder, 2000; Lo, 2008; Martin, Huber Marshall, & Sale,

2004; Salas, 2004; Zeitlin & Curcic, 2013).

In addition to addressing the power dynamics within the education system and between

the education system and families, IEP teams must also navigate cultural differences.

While many students with IEPs in California are culturally and linguistically diverse

learners, very few special education teachers and administrators are from diverse

cultures (Reiman, Beck, Coppola, & Englies, 2010). This imbalance often leads to a

language and cultural barrier between culturally and linguistically diverse

parents/guardians and school personnel (Lo, 2009; Reiman, Beck, Coppola, & Englies,

2010; Salas, 2004). Research on the role of Mexican American families (Salas, 2004),

Chinese American families (Lo, 2008), and families from a range of other racial/ethnic

groups (Fish, 2008; Garriott et al., 2000; Zeitlin & Curcic, 2013) all indicated that while

parents/guardians frequently attend IEP meetings, they are often not provided the

opportunity to make significant contributions to the content of their children’s IEPs.

While difficult, overcoming the barriers to increased parent engagement is also

manageable. Proven strategies for increasing parent engagement include making the

meetings more democratic and not completing the IEP in advance so that parents feel

they are equal contributors; being open to parental input regarding placement,

discipline, and instruction; valuing and listening to parental input; and educating parents

about the IEP process including by providing IEP forms in advance (Christle & Yell,

2010; Fish, 2006; Fish, 2008; Goldman & Burke, 2017; Platt, 2008; Simon, 2006).

6.C. The Role of the General Education Teacher in the IEP Process

“Teachers represent the largest and most knowledgeable resource in programming for

the needs of students. The quality of their relationship with parents and community

agencies plays a large part in the overall outcomes for students.” (Davis, 2008, p.3).

IDEA specifies that IEP teams ‘must include at least one regular education teacher of

the child (if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment)

(IDEA at 34 CFR §300.321(a)(2)). While some general education teachers are positively

engaged in increasing participation of students with IEPs in general education

(O’Rourke & Houghton, 2009; Ross-Hill, 2009), others have been described as having

more negative perspectives about the IEP process due to the time that inclusive

practices demand and the potential disruption to instructional routines and other

students they may cause (Cassady, 2011; Cipkin & Rizza, 2010; Horne & Timmons,

2009; Menlove, Hudson, & Suter, 2001; O’Rourke & Houghton, 2009; Orr, 2009). Other

barriers to general education teacher engagement include poor relationships between

teachers (Allison, 2011; Fuchs, 2010), lack of preparation to teach students with IEPs

(Allday, Neilsen-Gatti, & Hudson, 2013; Cipkin & Rizza, 2010), and lack of experience

with people with disabilities (Sze, 2009).

Increasing engagement of the general education teacher in the IEP process is critical

for discussions about placement and the supports needed for students with IEPs to

participate in general education. However, a 2019 study by the National Center for

Learning Disabilities (NCLD) and Understood (Galiatsos, Kruse, & Whittaker) surveyed

and conducted focus groups with general education teachers and found that only half of

teachers strongly believed that students with learning and attention issues could meet

grade-level expectations. “Only 56% of teachers surveyed believe IEPs provide value to

students, and just 38% believe IEPs help them be better teachers” (p. 14). While every

general education teacher will teach students with IEPs, Galiatsos, et al. (2019) found

nearly no states have aligned their credentialing systems to that reality, resulting in

teachers being unprepared to participate in the IEP process and confidently support

students with IEPs in their classrooms.

Increasing inclusion will require that general educators learn more about and become

more active participants in the IEP process. General education teacher capacity must

be built to leverage their knowledge of students, knowledge of the classroom context,

and knowledge of resources (content, strategies, accommodations, supports, etc.) to

develop more inclusive IEPs (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Ball, 2018). Increasing

general education teachers’ capacity and confidence to take more leadership in

developing instructional strategies for IEPs will take investments in professional learning

for general education teachers that includes coaching and mechanisms for ongoing

feedback.

6.D. Increasing Delivery of Special Education Services and Supports in General

Education

Federal and state special education policies direct California schools to increase access

to the general education setting for students with disabilities. The Least Restrictive

Environment (LRE) component of the IDEA is the legal impetus for establishing

inclusive schools that meet the needs of students with disabilities. The Elementary and

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) also increased the need for inclusive programs by

holding schools and districts accountable for student achievement, including for the

subgroup of students with IEPs. These policy requirements and potential interventions

when schools and districts fail to improve outcomes have established a context that

prompts districts to improve their special education programming. The improvement of

special education programming, for children with mild as well as severe disabilities, is

dependent on students with IEPs participating in effective general education instruction

in age-appropriate classrooms in their

neighborhood schools, with the needed supplementary aids and support services (Cole,

Waldron, & Majd, 2004; Downing, Spencer, & Cavallaro, 2004; Hall & Wolfe, 2003; Katz

& Mirenda, 2002; McDonnell & Hunt, 2014; Westling & Fox, 2009). A study conducted

by Cole et al. (2004) indicates that achievement outcomes in math and reading for

students with severe disabilities placed in 16 programs in general education settings in

the state of California increased when compared with students with severe disabilities

placed in separate special education settings.

Research also shows that inclusion in general education builds social and

communication skills (Katz & Mirenda, 2002; Westling &Fox, 2009) and Foreman,

Arthur-Kelly, Pascoe, and Smyth King (2004) indicate that even students with significant

disabilities experience more communicative interaction in inclusive settings than

students with significant disabilities in special education settings.

The positive impact of IDEA on inclusion is undeniable. Students with disabilities are

more likely to be included in general education than they would have been 30 years

ago, but there are still disparities in the placement of students with IEPs in general

education. The commitment of school systems and leaders to inclusion has been found

to vary tremendously from school to school, even in the same district (Carter & Hughes,

2006; Salisbury, 2006). Additionally, racial and socioeconomic backgrounds of students

remain factors leading to inequality in special education placements (Blanchett, 2009;

Harry & Klinger, 2006). More broadly, district-level policies and structures can create

structural biases and inequalities that contribute to disproportionality, misidentification,

and inequitable outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 1995; Harry & Klinger, 2006; Oakes,

Franke, Quartz, & Rodgers, 2002).

Some districts have successfully developed and implemented policies to prioritize

inclusion. In a study of California school districts serving high-poverty student

populations, Huberman, Navo, and Parish (2012) found that “each district that

significantly closed the achievement gap between students with IEPs and their peers

promoted inclusion at a district level by advocating for increased access to the general

education classroom and providing professional development support to schools.” A

2015 meta-analysis (Cobb) found three core special education-oriented domains to

foster inclusion: inclusive program delivery, staff collaboration, and parental

engagement.

7. Workgroup Process

7.A. Workgroup Meetings

Between December 2020 and July 2021, the workgroup convened for monthly video

meetings.

The December 2020 meeting focused on establishing the workgroup’s vision

(see section 4); subsequent meetings focused on specific topics directly related to the

workgroup’s legislative charge. These meetings were designed to maximize workgroup

member participation and input through individual reflection, paired conversations, and

small group discussions. As the work progressed, meeting activities evolved from

ideation and direction-setting to refinement of draft workgroup products such as the set

of recommendations and statewide IEP template.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and associated closures and travel and meeting

restrictions, all workgroup meetings were held remotely.

Beginning in March 2021, additional optional working meetings were scheduled

between the monthly meetings. During these meetings, workgroup members built on

key decisions and directions emerging from the monthly meetings, addressed specific

topics and questions identified for further and deeper discussion during the monthly

meetings, and informed the meeting objectives and agenda for the next monthly

meeting.

7.B. Information Collection, Review, and Analysis

The workgroup recognized the importance of rooting its work in student and system

data, state and local examples of success related to the workgroup’s charge, and the

perspectives of stakeholders including families, teachers, K-12 administrators, special

education service providers, and more. To inform its work accordingly, the workgroup

conducted the following activities:

Review of statewide data: The January 2021 workgroup meeting included a

presentation of student data from the CDE, including demographics of students with

disabilities in California, graduation information about students with disabilities in

California, and more.

Review, inventory, and comparison of commonly used IEP systems and

templates in California: The February 2021 workgroup meeting included a series of

presentations about the State SELPA Forms Committee template, SIRAS system and

template, and Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) system (Welligent) and

template. Note: The SEIS system uses the State SELPA Forms Committee template,

but SEIS staff did not respond to a request to participate in the meeting. During an

optional session between the February and March meetings, the workgroup reviewed a

crosswalk of the different sections and prompts in these widely used IEP templates in

California.

Synthesis of IEP template requirements by state: To identify examples of IEP

templates that embody the workgroup’s vision and some of the overall template

changes suggested by workgroup members, templates used and required by other

states were reviewed and synthesized. This synthesis, included in appendix C, served

as a valuable reference, alongside the inventory of commonly used IEP templates in

California, as the workgroup developed its proposed state standardized IEP template.

Survey of and interviews with state special education directors: In February, the

workgroup conducted a survey of state special education directors, receiving responses

from eight states. The survey focused on each state’s current IEP template and system

requirements and their experience developing and implementing these templates and

systems. In addition, to learn more about implementation of a statewide template,

interviews were conducted with nine state special education directors.

Survey of LEA and SELPA administrators: In February, the workgroup surveyed LEA

and SELPA administrators to gauge which IEP templates and systems they are

currently using and their level of satisfaction with them, benefits and limitations of the

IEP template they use, and their perspectives about a statewide IEP template and

potential statewide IEP system. The survey received 255 responses including 57

SELPA responses and 128 LEA Special Education Director responses.

Survey of family members of students with IEPs: In April, the workgroup surveyed

family members of students with IEPs to gather perspectives on the IEP process and

document, including what they find most and least helpful about the IEP process and

document. The survey received 59 responses including family members of at least one

student at every age from 3 years old to 19 years old.

Survey of teachers, school administrators, and special education service

providers: Alongside the survey of family members of students with IEP, the workgroup

surveyed teachers, administrators, and service providers in April to better understand

their experiences and perspectives related to the IEP process, templates, and systems.

A total of 430 respondents completed this survey.

Surveys were administered online through either Google Forms or SurveyMonkey. The

questions for each survey instruments are provided in appendix D. Key takeaways from

each survey are summarized in section 8.B.

7.C. Recommendation and Template Development

Over the course of the monthly and additional meetings described above, and through

an iterative process to review and provide feedback on drafts, the workgroup

collaboratively produced the recommendations and statewide IEP template. This work

was directly guided by the workgroup’s legislative charge, the vision that the workgroup

developed during its first meeting, the literature reviewed, and resources that workgroup

members presented to the workgroup.

7.D. Additional Stakeholder Engagement

A number of presentations and facilitated discussions were held with key stakeholder

groups, including:

● Presentations to the California Advisory Commission on Special Education

(ACSE): in April (4/21) to share and receive feedback on the workgroup’s

preliminary priorities and directions, and in August (8/18) to share draft

recommendations and key portions of the draft statewide IEP template.

● Focus groups in June (6/3 and 6/7) with two California Teachers Association

(CTA) councils

● A public webinar in June (6/7) to share work to date

● Presentation to the State SELPA Association membership in June (6/11) of the

emerging workgroup recommendations

●

A public survey in August to raise awareness of and gather broad perceptions on

the potential benefits of the proposed statewide IEP template. 280 stakeholders

including parents, guardians, and family members of students with a disability;

special and general education teachers; SELPA,LEA, and state agency staff;

school administrators; and school psychologists responded. There was broad

agreement from respondents that the draft template met the established goals.

Respondents appreciated the streamlined and more student-centered template,

while noting that some elements, particularly those required by state or federal

regulations, are not as student-centered as others. Respondents also agreed with

the need for accompanying guidance and to support the engagement of general

education teachers in the IEP process.

8. Data that Informed the Recommendations and IEP Template

Design

8.A. Data About Students with IEPs in California

Data about students with disabilities in California provided essential context for

workgroup discussions and planning efforts. As demonstrated in figure 2, between the

2014-15 and 2020-21 school years, the number of K-12 students with IEPs increased

by 16.75 percent, from 641,798 to 749,295 while the total number of K-12 students

remained relatively stable (decreased by 3.74 percent from 6.2 million to 6 million.). The

increase in both the number and proportion of students with IEPs confirms the

importance of examining how the state and LEAs can best administer special education

programs.

Figure 2. California public education enrollment data including for students with IEPs

(DataQuest).

Year

Total Statewide

Enrollment (percent

change from previous

year)

Total Enrollment of

Students with IEPs

(percent change from

previous year)

Percent of

Total

Enrollment

with IEPs

2020-21

6,002,523 (-2.60%) 749,295 (+3.90%)

12.48%

2019-20

6,163,001 (-0.38%)

721,198 (-0.58%)

11.70%

2018-19

6,186,278 (-0.55%)

725,412 (+3.05%)

11.73%

2017-18

6,220,413 (-0.13%)

703,977 (+3.60%)

11.32%

2016-17

6,228,235 (+0.02%)

679,525 (+11.16%)

10.91%

2015-16

6,226,737 (-0.14%)

611,293 (-4.75%)

9.82%

Year

Total Statewide

Enrollment (percent

change from previous

year)

Total Enrollment of

Students with IEPs

(percent change from

previous year)

Percent of

Total

Enrollment

with IEPs

2014-15

6,235,520

641,798

10.29%

The workgroup also looked to IDEA Part B indicator data provided in California’s State

Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report to provide overall context, including:

● Indicator 4 regarding rates of suspension and expulsion

● Indicators 5 and 6 related to Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

● Indicators 9 and 10 about disproportionality

● Indicator 13 on transition planning in support of post-secondary goals

● Indicator 14 about post-school employment and postsecondary education

outcomes

The workgroup found LRE and post-school outcome data to be very relevant to its

charge and agreed that the IEP process plays a substantial role in making placement

and services decisions, and indirectly influences the experiences of students with IEPs

including suspension and expulsion rates. LRE data is included in figure 3. California

can use the IEP template to communicate the priorities of inclusive practice and

encourage IEP teams to appropriately backwards map from post-school outcome when

developing the IEP goals and services.

Figure 3. California’s LRE data as reported in its February 1, 2021, APR (CDE, 2021).

School Year

Percent of

children with IEPs

aged 6 through 21

served inside the

regular class 80%

or more of the day

Percent of

children with IEPs

aged 6 through 21

served inside the

regular class less

than 40% of the

day

Percent of children

with IEPs aged 6

through 21 served

in a separate

setting.

2019-20

58.38%

18.21%

3.19%

2018-19

56.88%

19.54%

3.10%

2017-18

56.10%

19.82%

3.40%

2016-17

54.92%

20.70%

3.56%

2015-16

54.07%

21.54%

3.63%

2014-15

53.38%

22.01%

3.31%

While California’s LRE data are slowly improving, they continue to lag far behind the

national averages for LRE. For the 2019-20 school year, national data show that 66.3%

of students with IEPs were included in the regular class for 80% or more of the day and

only 12.9% of students were included less than 40% of the day (ED, 2021).

8.B. Stakeholder Perspectives and Input

As described in section 7, in addition to relying on the experiences and expertise of the

workgroup itself to inform the recommendations and template, the workgroup conducted

multiple stakeholder surveys, the results of which were reviewed and discussed during

workgroup meetings to directly inform the workgroup’s recommendations and design of

the statewide IEP template. Survey questions are provided in appendix D. Key

takeaways from the stakeholder surveys are described below.

SELPA and LEA survey respondents generally indicated satisfaction with the IEP

templates and systems they currently use, with many comments that they present no

barriers to meaningful participation by all IEP team members.

• 76 percent of SELPA and LEA respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with

their current IEP template. However, respondents did identify some limitations of

their templates such as lack of multiple language support, redundancy of

template sections, and confusing order and organization.

• Respondents indicated openness to a statewide IEP template with 84 percent

indicating they were neutral, likely, or very likely to adopt an optional statewide

template.

• Respondents noted some particularly helpful features of their current systems,

including the ability to run reports, ability to bring in content from past IEPs,

acceptance of digital signatures, and ability to communicate with local student

information systems.

• Respondents indicated openness to a state-provided and state-funded online IEP

system with 90 percent neutral or likely to adopt such a system. However, many

of the open-ended comments specified openness only to adopting such a system

if it was the system currently in place at the LEA.

Family members of children with IEPs shared their experiences, identified significant

concerns with, and made recommendations for improving the IEP template and

process.

• Most family member survey respondents indicated that they feel welcomed and

included at their child’s IEP meeting, understand their role during the IEP

meeting, and know their child’s IEP goals.

• More than half of families indicated that their child’s IEP is focused on their

weaknesses or deficits and that they did not understand how their child’s IEP

goals are connected to the California Common Core Standards.

• When asked about parts of the template that are most useful and clear, family

member survey respondents most commonly identified the goals. Goals and goal

setting were also identified as one of the most confusing sections, along with

assessment sections, and jargon and confusing language throughout the

template.

• Family member survey respondents offered a number of suggestions for

improving the IEP template, including:

o Adjust language to be more understandable for students and family

members

o Streamline the IEP template to make it clearer and more concise

o Make the IEP more child-focused and strengths-focused

o Add more open-ended fields to the IEP to allow for individualization

• Suggestions for improving the IEP process included:

o Share information with families in advance of the meeting

o Adopt a child-centered focus

o Provide a menu of service options

o Extend the meeting length

o Increase student voice

General education teachers, special education teachers, and school administrators

shared their experiences, perspectives, and recommendations regarding the IEP

template and process, as well as related training they have completed.

• Survey results revealed some substantial differences between the special

education teacher respondents and general education teacher respondents.

o Only 50 percent of general education teachers indicated they could easily

access the IEP for the students with disabilities they serve compared to 98

percent of special education teachers.

o Only 11 percent of general education teachers reported they attend at

least one professional development session addressing the IEP process

each school year compared to 42 percent of special education teachers.

o Similarly, more special education teacher respondents (82 percent)

indicated they feel safe sharing their opinion about the content of the IEP

compared to general education teacher respondents (42 percent).

• Across all teachers and school administrators, 45 percent responded neutrally

about whether parents find the IEP to be a useful tool, suggesting a need for

more and deeper family partnership.

• Only 35 percent of all respondents indicated that they meet with parents prior to

the IEP meeting to review what will be discussed during the meeting.

• Respondents’ suggestions for improving the IEP template included:

o Revise the IEP template to use more approachable language and add a

glossary of terms and acronyms

o Make the template shorter

o Add descriptions of each section and question

o Add an analysis of the extent to which prior year goals were attained

o Add space to indicate non-academic interests and motivations

o Emphasize student strengths

o Better document services

o Make forms available in multiple languages

• Suggestions for improving the IEP process included:

o Make IEPs more student-focused and strengths-based

o Engage parents and caregivers in advance of IEP meetings

o Have a neutral facilitator

o Remove pressure and concern about legal implications of what is said

during IEP meetings

8.C. Additional Data and Examples That Informed the Workgroup

As described in Section 7, the workgroup looked closely at IEP templates, systems,

processes, and requirements in California and other states across the country.

Of the 50 states, including California:

• 44 states have published a statewide IEP template on their state education

agency websites with varying amounts of guidance to support the IEP templates

• 23 states require use of the statewide IEP template

• 21 states provide an online system for developing IEPs and collecting IEP data

A table including this information, by state, and links to each state’s statewide template

is provided in appendix C.

While fewer than half of states (23 states) require use of a statewide IEP template, most

states (44 states) have published a model or sample IEP template and have

encouraged LEAs to use the statewide template through the provision of extensive

guidance and technical assistance resources that are based on the state’s IEP

template. The benefits of a statewide IEP template, as reported on state websites and in

interviews with state directors of special education include streamlined monitoring

processes, increased transferability of IEPs between LEAs, and ease in providing

technical assistance and guidance to LEAs and to families. States with optional IEP

templates do not see the same benefits as those where IEP templates are required

related to streamlined monitoring.

An increasing number of states are providing statewide online IEP systems for LEAs.

While most of the 21 states providing online IEP systems provide them at no cost to

LEAs, states without additional funding specifically for the purpose of an online IEP

system have used funds that would have been otherwise available for technical

assistance or discretionary grants to fund these online systems. States have

encouraged LEAs to participate in online systems by demonstrating how state

compliance monitoring is streamlined and by providing incentive grants for LEAs to train

staff and become trainers for other LEAs. Among states for which this information is

available, about half have developed in-house IEP systems and half have contracted

with vendors for IEP systems. In both cases, LEAs have been provided the option to

purchase their own online IEP system and provide data to be uploaded into the state

system to allow for state monitoring and reporting on various indicators.

Importantly, most states that have developed or contracted for the development of a

statewide online IEP system also have a statewide student information system. States

reported in interviews that the interaction between the statewide student information

system and the online IEP system is critical for encouraging adoption in local school

systems and for streamlining data reviews at the state level. Interaction with the student

information system allows the state to examine statewide trends related to referrals and

eligibility determinations as well as to track students who leave and re-enter special

education, including in different LEAs.

The workgroup regularly referenced state and federal laws (California Education Code,

IDEA, and ESSA) to clarify local and state requirements and ensure that the

workgroup’s recommendations, including the proposed statewide IEP template, align

with and ensure IEPs are compliant with state and federal law.

To help the workgroup better understand how the CDE reviews IEPs for compliance

and to determine whether IEPs are written to ensure improved academic and functional

student outcomes, CDE staff presented to the workgroup on the process for reviewing

IEPs to determine whether they are developed to provide educational benefit and that

their monitoring process has shifted to include the examination of a student’s IEPs over

multiple years to examine how the goals and services change over time to meet the

needs of the student, particularly when the student does not meet their IEP goals.

Finally, in addition to bringing their expertise, experience, and thought partnership to

meetings and other activities, workgroup members shared a wealth of informational

resources, example tools, and other materials related to the workgroup’s charge and

vision. These resources were compiled in a shared folder that all workgroup members

had access to and referenced during workgroup meetings and especially during the

development of the statewide IEP template and crafting of recommendations related to

training for IEP team members. These resources can be made available to the CDE and

its technical assistance providers upon request.

9. Recommendations in Response to the Workgroup’s Legislative

Charge

In response to its charge, the workgroup developed 25 recommendations to improve the

IEP process in California and ensure that IEPs are designed to improve student

outcomes, capture student needs, and inform learning strategies that support instruction

that is aligned to state standards and provided in the general education setting

whenever possible. The recommendations reflect special education research as

summarized in this report and respond to data about California’s students with IEPs and

their outcomes. The workgroup’s recommendations are organized by legislative charge

(see section 3) and context is provided for each set of recommendations.

It is important to note that the recommendations are not interdependent. That is, some

recommendations may be adopted even if all recommendations are not adopted. This is

especially true for the recommended training and resources on the IEP process. Those

recommendations may be adopted whether or not the state adopts and requires use of

the proposed statewide IEP template

Each recommendation includes specific actions to be taken by the CDE, the State

Board of Education, the California State Legislature, and other state agencies

responsible for the governance of California’s public education system. Recommended

state actions are classified into the following types, notated with the corresponding

icons:

• Policy change. Revision to existing policy or development of new

policy (i.e., changes to Education Code or State Board of Education

policy).

• Allocation of funds. Direction for the use of funding by the

California State Legislature, State Board of Education, or the CDE.

• Administrative action. Developing and issuing guidance,

disseminating materials, etc.

Timeline considerations for the complete set of recommendations are included in

appendix E.

9.A. IEP Process. Recommendations to ensure the IEP development and

periodic review processes are designed to improve student outcomes by

capturing student strengths, needs, and informing learning strategies that

support instruction aligned to state standards.

Context

The workgroup members strongly agreed that the necessary changes to the IEP

process to meet the vision of a student-focused, strength-driven IEP that is aligned to

state standards will require a shift in mindset for many members of IEP teams and

public education leaders about the role of IEPs in the general education system.

Significant work is needed to build the capacity of general education administrators and

teachers to take leadership in improving outcomes for students with IEPs as part of the

general education system.

The workgroup agreed that a statewide IEP template is a potential catalyst for a shift in

mindset. The workgroup also agreed that a change in mindset and in practice will

require extensive training, at all levels of the education system, on best practices for

student-focused, strengths-driven IEPs that increase inclusion in the general education

setting and access to the general education curriculum. The workgroup also recognized

the particular importance of providing training to administrators including the LEA

designees assigned to attend IEP meetings. As found in the research, workgroup

members confirmed that this IEP team member often sets the tone for the IEP. If the

administrator does not prioritize active parent/guardian and general education

participation and is more focused on the cost of services or compliance, they can be a

barrier to parent/guardian and teacher input.

One barrier to more meaningful IEP discussions about increasing access to general

education settings and curriculum identified by the workgroup is the lack of clear

assignment of every student with an IEP to at least one general education classroom.

While some LEAs have procedures for assigning every student to at least one general

education classroom, that practice is neither required nor consistent across the state.

The workgroup believes that participation of the student’s general education teacher —

meaning, for students not currently assigned a general education teacher, the teacher in

a class the student would be attending if they did not have an IEP — is essential to

determine the supports that are needed for increasing time in the general education

setting.

IEP Process Recommendation 1

The workgroup recommends the CDE, directly and through technical assistance

providers and System of Support

leads, develop and disseminate clear guidance

encouraging LEAs

and IEP team members

to adopt best practices for active

participation in a student-focused, strengths-driven IEP process designed to

improve meaningful access to the general education setting and curriculum and improve

outcomes for all students with IEPs.

Type of action: Administrative action

See https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/sw/t1/csss.asp for information about California’s

System of Support including the various types of Lead Agencies.

For the purpose of this report, LEAs include school districts, charter schools, and, in

limited circumstances, County Offices of Education that are responsible for developing

and implementing IEPs for eligible students.

For the purpose of this report, in accordance with IDEA, IEP team members include

students, families/guardians, teachers (general and special education), providers

(including interagency partners), and school and LEA administrators and administrative

designees.

a. Communicate why and how the state is prioritizing changes to the IEP process

(e.g., the actions the state is taking based on these recommendations).

b. Clearly and regularly update the CDE website to include current guidance and

recommended resources related to the IEP process and the statewide IEP

template, if adopted.

c. Recognize, highlight, and disseminate case studies, resources, tools, and other

examples of best practices that have resulted in a more student-focused,

strengths-driven IEP process as reported by LEAs and as identified through the

Statewide System of Support and through CDE monitoring activities.

d. Review and adjust, if needed, monitoring and technical assistance materials and

activities to ensure they are designed to encourage a student-focused, strengths-

driven IEP process. This includes continuing to review IEPs over time to examine

educational benefit and reviewing and providing technical assistance on not only

the IEP document, but the IEP process. This can be done through prioritizing

specific requirements of IDEA, such as more closely reviewing each team

member’s participation in the IEP process and evaluating implementation of IEPs

in the general education setting.

IEP Process Recommendation 2

The workgroup recommends the CDE increase engagement with, and guidance and

training for, LEAs and school site staff around the requirement to ensure the active

participation of each student’s general education teacher in the IEP process, and

particularly in placement decisions, in order to increase the provision of special

education and related services in the general education setting.

Type of action: Administrative action

a. Consistent with California Education Code,

regularly communicate, through

formal guidance and monitoring of LEA procedures and practices and student

IEPs, that the active participation of the student’s general education teacher in

the IEP process is not only legally required, but also integral to determining how

each student can more fully participate in general education.

b. Communicate the expectation that every student with an IEP may participate in

general education.

c. Provide guidance to the field that every student attending a public school where

there are general education settings should be enrolled in a general education

class at their grade level and assigned at least one general education teacher.

d. For students not currently attending a public school with general education

classrooms (e.g., in segregated or nonpublic settings), encourage LEAs and

school site staff to prioritize the meaningful participation of a general education

As specified in section 56341(b)(2):

Not less than one regular education teacher of the pupil, if the pupil is, or may be,

participating in the regular education environment. If more than one regular

education teacher is providing instructional services to the individual with

exceptional needs, one regular education teacher may be designated by the local

educational agency to represent the others.

The regular education teacher of an individual with exceptional needs, to the

extent appropriate, shall participate in the development, review, and revision of

the pupil’s individualized education program, including assisting in the

determination of appropriate positive behavioral interventions and supports, and

other strategies for the pupil, and the determination of supplementary aids and

services, program modifications, and supports for school personnel that will be

provided for the pupil, consistent with Section 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV) of Title 20 of

the United States Code.

teacher in the determination of the necessary supports and services to increase

participation in general education. Whenever possible, encourage IEP meeting

participation of a general education teacher whose class the student would be

participating in if they were participating in a grade-level general education class

in their neighborhood school.

e. When one general education teacher is selected to represent multiple teachers

who provide instruction to a student at an IEP meeting, encourage LEAs and

school site staff to invite the general education teacher who can most fully

participate in the discussion of the supports and services the student needs to

access the grade-level general education curriculum, which is most often a

teacher providing instruction in a core academic subject. Encourage LEAs and

school site staff to request input from each of the student’s general education

teachers prior to each IEP meeting. (See also IEP Process Recommendation 3

below.)

f. Disseminate examples of best practices implemented by LEAs to increase active

participation of general education teachers including examples of how LEAs

assign general education teachers to every enrolled student (e.g., based on their

school of residence or automatically through the student information system) and

how general education teachers lead IEP meeting discussions about the

supports and services that can be provided in their classrooms. Provide guidance

encouraging consideration of the full range of supports and services available to

promote access to general education.

IEP Process Recommendation 3

The workgroup recommends the California State Legislature revise California Education

Code Section 56341.5 to require LEAs to promote active engagement in a student

focused, strengths-driven process by eliciting input prior to any IEP meeting from

the student, family/guardians, teachers, providers, and case managers. LEAs may

use a locally determined process to elicit input that considers the ways

families/guardians prefer to interact with schools (e.g., a survey distributed with the

notice of meeting, interviews by parent liaisons, phone calls).

Types of actions: Policy change, allocation of

funds, administrative action

a. Define pre-meeting input to not be a pre-determination of the free and

appropriate education to be defined in the IEP and to include information about:

i. The student’s strengths

ii. Each team member’s hopes and expectations for the student and the IEP

b. Direct CDE to monitor, when reviewing IEPs as part of its regular monitoring

activities, whether LEAs elicited and provided a mechanism for IEP team

members to provide input, using culturally and linguistically responsive

approaches, but not whether IEP team members provided input. An LEA should

not be found out of compliance if the team member chooses not to provide input.

c. Allocate funds for technical assistance to LEAs on eliciting input and helping

families and other team members prepare to participate in the IEP process.

IEP Process Recommendation 4

The workgroup recommends the California State Legislature and CDE fund and build

capacity, through CDE, the Statewide System of Support, and technical assistance

contractors for the ongoing development and dissemination of resources and

training to build and sustain the capacity of each IEP team member to actively

participate in a student-focused, strengths-driven IEP process designed to improve

meaningful access to the general education setting and curriculum, and outcomes, for

all students with disabilities. This training should be provided in advance of, during, and

after implementation of the statewide IEP template.

Types of actions: Policy change,

allocation of funds, administrative action

a. Allocate funds to CDE for the development, or the oversight of a contract for the

development of, at a minimum, the following types of resources and support,

individualized as needed for each type of IEP team member (students,

families/guardians, teachers (general, special education, and pre-service),

providers (including interagency partners), and school and LEA administrators

and administrative designees):

i. Student-focused, strengths-based IEP guides including one-page process

overviews

ii. Interactive modules including multimedia examples of student-focused,

strengths-based IEP meetings

iii. Strengths-based IEP meeting agendas and standards-based progress

reporting templates

iv. Process guide and decision tree for making placement decisions that

considers all available supports in general education settings

v. Sample tools to support the student-focused IEP process (e.g., checklists,

templates for gathering and sharing information including pre-meeting

input documents)

vi. IEP meeting facilitation materials (e.g., scripts)

b. Consider how resources can be created as part of and incorporated into the

universal, or Tier 1, supports currently provided by Statewide System of Support

Leads including COE Content Leads, SELPA Improvement Leads, Geo Leads,

Community Family Engagement Leads, Equity Leads, and English Learner (EL)

Leads, as well as family support organizations including Parent Training and

Information Centers, (PTIs) Family Empowerment Centers (FECs), and Family

Resource Centers (FRCs). Leverage the Statewide System of Support Geo

Leads and COEs to widely disseminate and promote the use of resources related

to the IEP process and template in order to: model inclusive practices by

coordinating across general and special education, gain buy-in from and shift the

mindset of all teachers and administrators, increase meaningful inclusion of

students with disabilities, and improve experiences and outcomes for all

students.

c. To further build the capacity of all IEP team members to develop IEPs that will

lead to increased inclusion and improved outcomes, provide funding for and

encourage new and existing Statewide System of Support leads and CDE

technical assistance providers funded by IDEA funds to develop and provide

training on topics including, but not limited to: person-centered planning, disability

and countering ableism, self-determination, holding students to high expectations

and the soft bigotry of low expectations, meaningful post-secondary outcomes

including how students with disabilities can prepare to earn a family-sustaining

wage, and the intersectionality of disability, race, and poverty. This training

should be provided by System of Support leads to all administrators, educators,

and service providers, not only to special education professionals. Responsibility

for training could initially be assigned to existing Content Leads and then

explicitly included in the scope of work for future leads.

d. Require, through contracts or other agreements, that any future resources and

supports developed or funded by the state related to the IEP process are

student-focused, strengths-based, supported by evidence, and actionable.

Review existing resources and supports posted on CDE’s website or otherwise

provided to LEAs and discontinue the promotion of resources that do not meet

this expectation.

e. Provide state-developed or state-funded resources and supports for

families/guardians in at least the five most common languages spoken by

California students, in as many languages as needed when possible, written in

plain language

, and using images to support comprehension.

Plain language, as defined by the Plain Writing Act of 2010, is “writing that is clear,

concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or

field and intended audience.” Resources on plain language are available online at

https://www.plainlanguage.gov/.

9.B. IEP Template. Recommendations for a statewide IEP template that provides

information about student strengths, needs, and learning strategies. The

workgroup has designed a template. Successful implementation, leading to

improved outcomes for students with IEPs, will be dependent on the IEP

process recommendations in section 9.A to provide ongoing guidance,

training, resources, and support.

Context

The workgroup considered the benefits and drawbacks of requiring a statewide IEP

template versus providing a model form and encouraging LEAs to use the form.

Ultimately, the workgroup concluded that in order to realize the benefits of a statewide

IEP template including creating consistency and transparency for students and

families/guardians and to streamline IEP administration, specifically transfers between

LEAs, the statewide IEP template should be required. Requiring a statewide IEP

template sets a common expectation and will reduce potential duplication of efforts for

training and for state monitoring activities. Currently, many SELPAs and LEAs have

created trainings on the IEP process that, if there were a common IEP template, could

be scaled up and used throughout the state.

It is important to note that the workgroup’s charge was limited to the template for IEP

development and the periodic review process and did not include other special

education templates including those for providing prior written notice to families of

proposed actions related to the IEP and documenting initial and recurring eligibility

determinations. While some current IEP templates used by California LEAs include that

information, it is not required for the IEP template and the workgroup prioritized

information for inclusion in the template that would be most useful and current for the

benefit of teachers, the student, and the parents/guardians.

The proposed statewide IEP template developed by the workgroup is provided in

appendix F. The template in Appendix F includes: (1) the IEP information applicable to

all California students with IEPs as well as detail provided in expanded sections that will

apply to only a subset of students with IEPs and (2) samples showing the

recommended sections of the template for inclusion in IEP summaries for general

education teachers, for parents/guardians, and for use during emergency closures (see

Emergency Conditions IEP Recommendation 2). The template also includes references

the IDEA and Ed Code citations that justify each element of the template, supplemented

by appendix G which provides the IEP content requirements from IDEA and Ed Code,

cross walked to the sections of the proposed template that the workgroup proposes

meet each requirement.

Please note that the statewide IEP template captures the recommendations of the

workgroup. However, final implementation and adaptation will be completed by the

CDE.

IEP Template Recommendation 1

The workgroup recommends the California State Legislature, over time, require LEAs to

use the statewide IEP template (see appendix F) to create consistency and transparency

for students and families/guardians; ensure consistent guidance, resources, and support;

and streamline monitoring and technical assistance activities.

Types of actions: Policy change, allocation

of funds

a. Allow LEAs to add additional pages to the template but not to remove or modify

existing content in order to maintain integrity of the template and not compromise

the workgroup’s vision. Direct CDE to not consider information outside of the

required template to establish compliance and advise CDE to review any pages

or forms added by an LEA when it reviews that LEA’s IEPs to ensure the

additions do not conflict with or detract from the vision of the student-centered,

strengths-driven statewide IEP template.

b. Support statewide IEP template implementation with one-time funds for the

necessary modification of locally determined online IEP systems to adapt to

using the statewide IEP template.

IEP Template Recommendation 2

The workgroup recommends the CDE support LEAs to transition to the statewide

template in multiple phases over six years, leading to full implementation of the

statewide IEP template by the 2027-28 school year.

Types of actions: Policy change, allocation of

funds, administrative action

a. In year 1 (2022-23), develop guidance on the IEP process and template (see IEP

Process Recommendation 1) and contract for the development of training and

resources for the proposed IEP process (see IEP Process Recommendation 4)

and template.

b. In year 2 (2023–24), directly or through contracted agencies or Statewide System

of Support Lead Agencies, begin statewide training on the proposed IEP process

and template. Recruit pilot sites to begin using the new IEP template in the

2023–24 school year and transition to using the template for all students in

2024–25. Make the proposed IEP template available in the top five languages

spoken by California families/guardians, including in the most needed languages

for pilot sites. Continue training throughout the implementation of the template.

c. In year 3 (2024–25), pilot the template for all students with IEPs in 10 LEAs of

different sizes that voluntarily participate and receive ongoing training and

technical assistance. Collect ongoing feedback from pilot LEAs, incorporate the

feedback, and modify the template and training materials as needed.

d. In year 4 (2025–26), publish the final statewide IEP template and provide training

and supports to all LEAs in the state through Statewide System of Support Lead

Agencies.

e. Aim for full implementation (every IEP) by year 6 (2027–28). This will allow LEAs

time to transition to the statewide IEP template and implement the resources and

support described in IEP Process Recommendation 4.

IEP Template Recommendation 3

The workgroup recommends the State Board of Education and CDE establish a

Statewide IEP Advisory Board or assign the Advisory Commission on Special Education

(ACSE) to receive updates and provide input on the implementation of the IEP template

and changes to the IEP process.

Types of actions: Allocation of funds,

administrative action

a. The Statewide IEP Advisory Board should include students; families/guardians

(including PTIs/FECs/FRCs); teachers (general and special education); service

providers (including school psychologists, other related service providers,

providers that serve students with low incidence disabilities including deafness

and visual impairments, and interagency partners); school, LEA, COE, and

SELPA administrators; and representatives from institutions of higher education.

The Advisory Board should regularly report to the CDE, the State Board of

Education, Department of Finance, Legislative Analyst’s Office, and the

California State Legislature.

b. Allocate funds to support the Advisory Board and CDE administrative support for

the Advisory Board.

c. Initially, task the Advisory Board with providing input on the training developed by

the state (see IEP Process Recommendation 4), reviewing data and feedback

from LEAs piloting the statewide IEP template (see IEP Template

Recommendation 2) to evaluate the need for additional supports, revising the

template, and revising the statewide IEP template implementation plan.

d. Following the gradual implementation of the statewide IEP template, assign the

Advisory Board to receive feedback on the IEP template and recommend

revisions to the template in response to feedback or changes to federal or state

law.

IEP Template Recommendation 4

The workgroup recommends the California State Legislature direct the California

Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) to revise (as needed) credential

requirements to ensure newly credentialed general and special education teachers

and administrators are trained in using the statewide IEP template; prepared to

actively participate in a student-centered, strengths-driven IEP process; and

prepared to support and accommodate all students with IEPs in general education

settings, as appropriate. This may not require a change to credentialing requirements,

but to coursework expectations and accreditation reviews.

Type of action: Policy change

a. Encourage LEAs to leverage partnerships with institutions of higher education to

develop training on the IEP process and template that can be used for both pre-

service and in-service professional development.

9.C. Recommended IEP Design Elements

Context

The workgroup’s proposed statewide IEP template is included in appendix F. The

recommendations below describe aspects of the template that represent the greatest

change from current commonly-used templates across California and the highest

priorities of the workgroup. These recommendations do not require additional

policy change, allocation of funding, or administrative action beyond requiring

use of the statewide IEP template (IEP Template Recommendation 1) and

associated recommendations above. If the state does not require use of the IEP

template, it should consider whether there are separate actions to be taken that can

meet the intention of the workgroup, such as requiring each LEA to include specific

content in its IEP template.

While the workgroup agreed on these recommendations, some workgroup members

expressed concerns about not including information that, while not required, has

traditionally been included in the IEP related to the child’s disability category and the

formal evaluation data used to establish their eligibility for special education services.

Ultimately, the workgroup agreed that goals, instructional strategies, and most

importantly placement decisions should not be made based on disability category and

that the information about how the child was determined to be eligible can be stored in

the documentation of eligibility evaluations and reevaluations. If the IEP team agrees

that formal evaluation data is important to inform the present levels of performance and

IEP goals, it should be included in the present levels of performance section of the IEP

and could be included in the summary of the student’s learning needs and priorities in

section 1 of the proposed statewide IEP template.

IEP Design Recommendation 1

In order to shorten the document and make it more usable for families, teachers, and

providers, remove information from the annual IEP document that is not required

for the purpose of an annual IEP including demographic data and the data used to

establish and reestablish eligibility for special education services. Maintain and update

demographic data through the student information system and document eligibility

details separately from the annual IEP template.

IEP Design Recommendation 2

To set the tone for a student-driven, strengths-based IEP, record each student’s

strengths, interests, learning and communication preferences, and self

determined plan in the first section of the IEP. See section 1 of the proposed

Statewide IEP Template (appendix F).

IEP Design Recommendation 3

Begin the IEP with statements of the student and family/guardian’s vision for the

future and a projected date of graduation with a high school diploma to establish

high expectations and the ability to backwards map content in later sections to these

statements. See section 2 of the proposed Statewide IEP Template (appendix F).

IEP Design Recommendation 4

To encourage coordination and collaboration, add a section to describe the other

support services students are receiving at school outside of special education, and

outside of school. See section 6d of the proposed Statewide IEP Template (appendix

F).

IEP Design Recommendation 5

Create dedicated sections for: 1) academic needs, and 2) communication, social-

emotional, functional, and behavioral needs to ensure IEP teams consider each type

of need that must include present levels of performance and goals in relation to the

student’s needs. See separate sections of section 4 of the proposed Statewide IEP

Template (appendix F).

IEP Design Recommendation 6

Record specific instructional strategies that can be used, including in the general

education setting by the general education teacher(s), to support the student to

make progress toward their academic, communication, social-emotional, functional,

behavioral, and secondary transition goals. See section 4c of the proposed Statewide

IEP Template (appendix F).

IEP Design Recommendation 7

Record how the IEP team will engage and support the family, including strategies

to help the family support the student to make progress toward goals through actions

they might implement at home for the academic, communication, social-emotional,

functional, and behavioral, and secondary transition focus areas. See section 4d of the

proposed Statewide IEP Template (appendix F).

IEP Design Recommendation 8

Encourage more complete consideration of removal from general education and

planning for increased inclusion by requiring justifications not only for the overall

placement of a student outside of the general education setting, but also for when

students will not participate in nonacademic and extracurricular activities and for each

service that cannot be provided in the general education setting. See sections 5 and 7

of the proposed Statewide IEP Template (appendix F).

9.D. IEP Transitions. Recommendations to support transition planning with

early learning and postsecondary options.

Context

The workgroup recognized the need for the IEP template to specifically and explicitly

document transition planning for the many transitions that occur throughout a child’s

entire public education experience and not only the formal transitions of entering and

exiting school-age special education services. This includes documenting supports

needed as students transition to spending more time in general education, as

appropriate. The workgroup also recognized that secondary transition planning is often

focused on the goals for the student after they have exited school and neglects to focus

on the needed transition supports to finish school and achieve the goal of receiving a

high school diploma.

These recommendations also reflect the work of and preliminary findings from the

workgroup examining the transition from Part C early intervention to Part B school age

special education (established by the California Budget Act of 2019, SB 75) and the

work completed by the Alternative Pathways to a High School Diploma Workgroup

(established by the California Budget Act of 2020 and conducted concurrent to the

Statewide IEP Workgroup). The IEP template can help establish the expectation that

every student can earn a high school diploma and communicate that expectation to

families/guardians and teachers. The IEP team plays a substantial role in planning each

student's pathway to a diploma.

The recommendation to move the required transition planning age from 16 to 14 was

not a unanimous recommendation of the workgroup. Some members expressed

concern that this would create additional burden for teachers and case managers.

However, most U.S. states and territories (29 of 56) begin transition planning at age 14

and research studies demonstrate benefit for students (Suk, Martin, Mcconnell & Biles,

2020). Ultimately the significant majority of the workgroup supported the

recommendation.

As with the IEP Design Recommendations (section 9.C), the first two recommendations

in this section do not require additional action beyond requiring use of the statewide IEP

template (IEP Template Recommendation 1). If the state does not require the IEP

template, these recommendations may require separate, distinct actions.

IEP Transitions Recommendation 1

By requiring use of the statewide IEP template, the workgroup recommends that the

California State Legislature ensure that IEP teams identify the student’s readiness

for, and strengths related to many types of transitions in the IEP. IEP teams will

be required to document the supports related to these critical transitions to be

provided to the student, family/guardians, teachers, and providers as outlined in section

2 of the statewide IEP template designed by the workgroup (see appendix F).

a. Transitions to be considered by the IEP team and documented in the IEP, with

any needed supports and services, include:

i. To postsecondary activities (competitive employment, postsecondary

education, and independent living)

ii. From Part C early intervention to Part B school age special education

iii. To more time in the general education environment

iv. Between preschool, elementary, middle, and high school

v. From a nonpublic or other setting to the LEA

vi. Between distance, in-person, and hybrid learning

vii. Other (e.g., transition to using new technology, transition to new staff)

IEP Transitions Recommendation 2

By requiring use of the IEP template, the workgroup recommends the California State

Legislature promote a student-centered IEP that backwards maps from long term

goals as early as possible, as outlined in Sections 2, 5, 6, and 7 of the statewide IEP

template designed by the workgroup (see appendix F).

a. The optional prompts in the statewide IEP template encourage IEP teams to

begin conversations about the student’s pathway to a high school diploma and

post-school planning as early as preschool, or during the student’s first IEP.

IEP Transitions Recommendation 3

The workgroup recommends the California State Legislature revise California Education

Code Sections 56043(g) and 56345(a)(8) to adjust the required age for

postsecondary transition planning from 16 to 14. Require IEP teams to begin formal

post-secondary planning including setting measurable post-school outcome measures

no later than at the first IEP meeting following the student’s 14th birthday. IEP teams

may develop a secondary transition plan prior to the student turning 14. This is

consistent with California Education Code Section 56460(e) that “planning for transition

from school to postsecondary environments should begin in the school system well

before the student leaves the system.” Corresponding changes will be required to

California Education Code Sections 56043(e) and 56341.5(e).

Type of action: Policy change

IEP Transitions Recommendation 4

Consistent with the SB 75 Part C to Part B Transition Workgroup’s preliminary

recommendations, the workgroup recommends that the California State Legislature

revise California Education Code Section 56341(i) to require participation of the

child’s Part C service coordinator or Part C service provider in the first IEP

meeting for a three-year-old child transitioning to preschool. Currently, federal and

state law require the invitation of the service coordinator at the request of the

parent/guardian; this change would require the LEA to invite the service coordinator

unless the parent/guardian requests that they not be invited.

A corresponding change will be required to California Education Code Section 56341.5

(e).

Type of action: Policy change

9.E. Online IEP System. Recommendations resulting from the workgroup’s

assessment of the feasibility of a web-based statewide individualized

education program system to house a statewide template.

Context

As described in sections 7 and 8, a number of factors were used by the workgroup to

evaluate the feasibility of the implementation of a web-based a statewide online IEP

system for California. This included the review of other states’ IEP systems and

information from LEA and SELPA administrators about their satisfaction with the

systems they currently use and the embeddedness of the current systems within local

student information systems. Most states that offer a statewide web-based IEP system

developed that system around a statewide IEP template that was already established,

providing a rationale for delaying any potential development of a statewide online IEP

system for California.

In addition, most states that have developed or contracted for the development of a

statewide online IEP system also have a statewide student information system which

allows for greater feasibility of and benefits to development of a statewide online IEP

system. The lack of a statewide student information system is another consideration for

feasibility. The workgroup briefly discussed the California Cradle to Career data system

as another element that should be more fully explored before developing another

statewide student-level data system to house an IEP template.

The workgroup, through review of other states’ systems and interviews with state

special education directors, also evaluated the potential fiscal and human resources

needed to develop and maintain a statewide web-based IEP system including the

capacities that will be needed at CDE to maintain the system and review data in the

system. The state could be taking ownership for student-level data that is now district

data which has implications for data security and state responsibility for monitoring

those data. The cost of IEP systems varies; one state evaluation found costs for

operating the IEP system (not including initial development costs) varying between 11

and 30 dollars per student per year (VDOE, 2021), including students who are referred

for special education and not found eligible. This means that California would need to

plan to spend between 11 and 30 million dollars per year on a system, plus initial

development costs and other associated costs. States that have online systems also

recommended considering the capacity of the state to either develop and maintain a

web-based system internally or establish a long-term contract with a vendor. Each

option has potential benefits and drawbacks, but the most important consideration

identified by states was consistency across years.

Given these considerations related to feasibility of implementation, a more thorough

investigation should be completed closer to the time the state might be able to

implement a system and when there is greater understanding of the intended interaction

of that system with the other statewide systems in development.

While there are considerable challenges to development of a statewide online IEP

system for California, responses from the surveys conducted by the workgroup (see

section 8) identified certain IEP system features or functions that are particularly

important for engaging IEP team members (especially parents/guardians and general

education teachers). Having reviewed and discussed this information, the workgroup

determined it would recommend the state not pursue a statewide online IEP system at

this time but as an alternative incentivize and fund the development of certain features

or functions within locally funded and administered IEP systems.

Online IEP System Recommendation 1

Given the work needed and projected timeline for adoption of the statewide IEP

template, the workgroup recommends the California State Legislature and CDE not

pursue a statewide web-based IEP system to house the statewide template at this time.

Given its potential benefits, the workgroup recommends California reevaluate the

feasibility of a web-based IEP system when LEAs have successfully transitioned

to the proposed statewide IEP template, following the 2027-28 school year.

Online IEP System Recommendation 2

The workgroup recommends the CDE continue to use CALPADs to collect data from

each student’s IEP, including data for State Performance Plan and Annual

Performance Report (SPP/APR) indicators, and begin to collect additional data from

students’ IEPs through CALPADS to inform the state’s decision-making about meeting

the needs of students with IEPs statewide and streamline the state’s monitoring

procedures.

Types of actions: Administrative action

a. To better understand needs related to increasing access to general education,

collect the following fields related to decision-making about student placement

from sections 6 and 7 of the IEP template:

i. From section 6, continue to collect data on all services on a student’s IEP

including the provider, duration, frequency, and location for each service a

child receives.

ii. From section 7, collect responses to “Will the student attend the school they

would attend if not disabled?”

Online IEP System Recommendation 3

The workgroup recommends that rather than implementing a statewide IEP system at

this time, the California State Legislature recommend and provide funding to encourage

LEAs to improve and expand specific IEP system functions in their locally

administered IEP systems. The workgroup recommends LEAs include in their systems:

a. Parent/guardian portal/access that provides access to the most pertinent

information for families

b. General education teacher portal/access

c. A summary of the means by which the IEP will be provided under emergency

conditions (see also section 9.F Emergency Conditions IEP Recommendations).

A sample Emergency Conditions IEP Summary template, consisting of sections

of the proposed statewide IEP template, is provided in appendix F.

Types of actions: Policy change, allocation of

funds, administrative action

9.F. Emergency Conditions IEP. Recommendations for a state standardized

addendum to the IEP to address emergency closures and how special

education supports and services will be provided in the event of an

emergency closure, including best practices recommendations.

Context

The 2020 Budget Act amended California Education Code Section 56345 to require that

IEPs include a description of the means by which the IEP will be provided under

emergency conditions, in which instruction or services, or both, cannot be provided to

the pupil either at the school or in person for more than 10 school days. The

requirement applies to all initial and subsequent IEPs and the description must be a part

of the IEP to which parents provide consent. Given these requirements, the workgroup

did not design an addendum, but as described in the following recommendations,

designed the template to include these descriptions throughout the IEP.

Similar to earlier recommendations, if the state requires use of the IEP template, these

ecommendations do not require further action. If the state does not require the

statewide IEP template, it should consider whether there are additional actions it could

take to promote the priorities described in these recommendations.

Emergency Conditions IEP Recommendation 1

The workgroup recommends the California State Legislature, by requiring use of the

EP template, ensure that each IEP includes a description of the means by which the

IEP will be provided under emergency conditions as part of the sections of the IEP

documenting annual goals, special education and related services, supplementary aids

and services, transition services, and extended school year services. By including this

information throughout the IEP rather than in an addendum, the state will help

promote the priority that the plan be student-centered rather than emergency-

centered.

Emergency Conditions IEP Recommendation 2

The workgroup recommends that, by requiring use of the IEP template, the California

State Legislature ensure that a summary report can be created describing how the

IEP will be provided under emergency conditions. Locally-determined IEP systems

can create this report by pulling emergency closure information from each relevant

section of the IEP. A sample Emergency Conditions IEP Summary template, consisting

of sections of the proposed statewide IEP template, is provided in appendix F.

10. Limitations

While the workgroup included teachers, family members, and administrators who

regularly participate in IEP meetings, the workgroup recognizes that the proposed IEP

template has not yet been tested by IEP teams and that additional refinement may be

needed after the form has been piloted as described in this report.

11. Conclusion

While a template on its own will not likely change practices for supporting students with

IEPs, the California Statewide IEP Workgroup, authorized by the Budget Act of 2020,

Senate Bill 74, recommends implementation of a statewide template that clearly

communicates the priorities that IEPs be strengths-based and intended to increase

participation in general education and improve student outcomes.

The workgroup’s recommendations are intended to increase the capacity of all IEP

team members, and particularly general education teachers and parents/guardians, to

meaningfully participate in development of each student’s IEP and to benefit from the

strategies provided in the IEP. The proposed IEP template, supported by the

recommended training and resources, will leads to IEPs that continue to meet the

requirements of the IDEA and California Education Code and also shift IEP teams to be

more focused on student strengths and specific instructional strategies. By adopting a

statewide template, California will increase transferability of IEPs for students who move

from one LEA to another and streamline not only CDE monitoring of IEPs, but also the

training needed on the IEP process at many levels including in teacher preparation

programs and for family support centers that support families across LEAs.

The workgroup’s recommendations are intended to ensure more comprehensive

descriptions of each student’s strengths and needs, annual goals that are backwards

mapped from long-term goals including high school graduation and post-school

employment, and more comprehensive consideration of the supports and services

needed in general education and other less restrictive environments to increase

participation of students with IEPs.

Appendix A. Acknowledgments

We are incredibly thankful to the members of the Statewide Individualized Education

Plan Workgroup who generously devoted their time and shared their rich experiences

and expertise to make this work possible. The workgroup was facilitated by Sara

Doutre, WestEd, and Aaron Price and Genaro Mauricio, Glen Price Group.

Workgroup Members

Maricris Acon, California Department of Developmental Services

Wendi Aghily, Mt. Diablo Unified School District

Amber Alexander, California Department of Finance

Nancy Bargmann, California Department of Developmental Services

Shiyloh Becerril, Special Education Division, California Department of Education (CDE)

Elena Bramble, Rowell Family Empowerment of Northern CA

Patrick Brennan, UCSF Dyslexia Center

Heather Calomese, Special Education Division Director, CDE

Cindy Collado, Sacramento State Early Childhood

Mandy Corbin, SEACO/Sonoma County Office of Education

Ana DaSilva, Westside Family Resource Center

Mary Ann Dewan, Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools

Shawna Draxton, WISH Charter

Elizabeth Estes, Breaking Barriers, Advisory Commission on Special Education (ACSE)

Laila Fahimuddin, California State Board of Education

Vicki Graf, Loyola Marymount University

Amy Hanreddy, California State University, Northridge

Jessica Holmes, California Department of Finance

Meghann Hughes, California Teachers Association Caucus for Educators of Exceptional

Children

Tanya Lieberman, Assembly Committee on Education

Leo Mapagu, Santa Clara County SELPA

Liz Mai, California Department of Finance

Lynn Lorber, California State Senate Committee on Education

Julie Miller, Special Education Division, CDE

Deborah Montoya, Imperial County SELPA

Monica Pecarovich, Special Education Division, CDE

Heather Richardson, Eureka City Schools Director of Early Childhood Education

Sherry Rickenbach, Special Education Division, CDE

Kevin Schaefer, California Supporting Inclusive Practices (SIP) Project/El Dorado

County Office of Education

Deborah Schneider-Solis, California Teachers Association

Marco Tolj, Los Angeles Unified School District

Jeanine Topalian, California Association of School Psychologists, ACSE

Maria Turrubiartes, California Department of Rehabilitation

Stacey Wedin, Special Education Division, CDE

Joe Xavier, California Department of Rehabilitation

The Sacramento County Office of Education is honored to have led this work

under the direction of Brent Malicote, Connie Lee, David Chun, Kristin Wright,

and Superintendent David Gordon. Special thanks to the Advisory

Commission on Special Education (ACSE) for the opportunity to share

workgroup updates.

Appendix B. Related Considerations for Further Examination

In the course of the workgroup’s activities and discussions, a few key considerations

relevant to the achievement of the workgroup’s vision but beyond the scope of the

workgroup’s legislative charge emerged. These considerations may be of interest as the

focus for future research and recommendation development efforts.

Equity in the Special Education Referral and Eligibility Determinations Processes

This workgroup was tasked with making recommendations related to the IEP

development and review processes. However, there are many challenges related to

services with students with IEPs that begin with the referral and eligibility determinations

processes. The workgroup discussed the possibility that meeting their vision for an IEP

process that leads to more inclusive practices and improved academic and functional

student outcomes is dependent on ensuring equity in the special education referral and

eligibility determination process. This means that students who have not received

adequate instruction and support are not mislabeled as having a disability in order to

receive appropriate intervention.

As one potential area of work to help address this need, the state could study and

consider standardizing the processes and forms for documenting special education

referrals and the eligibility evaluation process. The state could also identify and

implement actions to ensure that additional culturally and linguistically appropriate

resources and supports are provided to students in their existing classes prior to

determining special education eligibility. This could be advanced in part through

additional training for teachers in linguistically and culturally responsive instruction to

address deficit-oriented views of students from historically marginalized backgrounds

and identities.

Impact of a Strengths-Based, Student-Centered Statewide IEP Template on

Workload

Some workgroup members shared a concern that implementing the proposed statewide

IEP template would require more time from special education teachers in particular;

other workgroup members suggested that the statewide IEP template would allow for

clearer and more effective IEPs that ultimately would result in a reduction in the amount

of time a special education teacher needs to dedicate to each student. Given the

unknown impact of the statewide IEP template on workload for special education

teachers as well as other members of the IEP team, the state could study this impact

and determine any necessary adjustments to workload policy and guidance on

caseloads.

Appendix C. Summary of Statewide IEP Templates and Online IEP Systems, by State

State IEP

template?

Statewide IEP Template Other Relevant Links Template

required?

Statewide Online

IEP System?

Alabama Yes

https://www.alsde.edu/sec/ses/Forms/In

dividualized%20Education%20Program.

docx

https://www.alsde.edu/sec/ses

/Pages/forms-all.aspx

Yes No

Alaska

No NA NA NA No

Arizona Yes https://www.azed.gov/sites/default/files/

2017/09/AZTAS%20IEP%202017%20FI

NAL.pdf?id=59ce6b003217e11164cae4

https://www.azed.gov/sites/def

ault/files/2017/09/AZTAS%20I

EP%202017%20FINAL.pdf?id

=59ce6b003217e11164cae4b

No No

Arkansas Yes School Age, Secondary Transition,

Early Childhood

https://dese.ade.arkansas.gov/

Offices/special-

education/early-childhood-

special-education/special-

education-forms

Yes

California No NA NA NA No

Colorado Yes https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/iep

forms

https://www.cde.state.co.us/cd

esped/iep_forms

No Yes

Connecticut

Yes https://portal.ct.gov/SDE/Special-

Education/Bureau-of-Special-

Education/New-IEP

https://portal.ct.gov/-

/media/SDE/Special-

Education/IEP-Manual-

REVISED-July-

2019.pdf?la=en

Yes Yes

Delaware Yes https://www.doe.k12.de.us/cms/lib/DE0

1922744/Centricity/Domain/78/Element

ary%20IEP.pdf

https://www.doe.k12.de.us/Pa

ge/2335

Unknown No

Florida No http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/

7690/urlt/0070122-qualityieps.pdf)

http://www.fldoe.org/core/filep

arse.php/7690/urlt/0070122-

qualityieps.pdf

No No

State

IEP

template?

Statewide IEP Template

Other Relevant Links

Template

required?

Statewide Online

IEP System?

Georgia Yes http://archives.gadoe.org/DMGetDocum

ent.aspx/IEP_Sample_Form_revised_8-

11.pdf?p=6CC6799F8C1371F627AE2C

D551A09910E0B264C00DA6A0D35BF

A5F5DFA41CADC&Type=D

https://www.gadoe.org/Curricul

um-Instruction-and-

Assessment/Special-

Education-

Services/Pages/Sample-

Special-Education-Forms.aspx

No Yes

Hawaii Yes https://ecsssonline.k12.hi.us/pages/webh

elp/Stage_4_-

Develop_Plan/Individualized_Education

Program_(IEP)/About_Individualized_E

ducation_Program_(IEP).htm

NA Yes Yes

Idaho Yes https://www.sde.idaho.gov/sped/sped-

forms/

NA No Yes

Illinois Yes https://www.isbe.net/Documents/34-54-

iep-forms.pdf

https://www.isbe.net/Documen

ts/34-54-iep-forms.pdf

No Yes

Indiana Yes https://www.indianaieprc.org/images/lc

mats/iiep/IEPBlankForm2018-19.pdf

https://www.indianaieprc.org/i

mages/lcmats/iiep/IEPBlankFo

rm2018-19.pdf

No Yes

Iowa Yes https://iowaideainformation.org/wp-

content/uploads/Area_Education_Agenc

y_Special_Education_Procedures_Doc

umentation_Guide.pdf

https://drive.google.com/drive/f

olders/1uTn6GLdkNOt4-

NmE7tTNEbfYlRhtZM0u (12

languages)

Yes Yes

Kansas No https://www.ksde.org/Agency/Division-

of-Learning-Services/Special-

Education-and-Title-Services/Special-

Education/Special-Education-Notices-

Forms

NA NA No

Kentucky Yes https://education.ky.gov/districts/tech/sis

/Documents/Standard-

Special_Education-IEP_PSP.pdf

NA Yes Yes

State

IEP

template?

Statewide IEP Template

Other Relevant Links

Template

required?

Statewide Online

IEP System?

Louisiana Yes https://louisianabelieves.com/docs/defa

ult-source/assessment/iep-

form.pdf?sfvrsn=a0e99d1f_8

https://www.louisianabelieves.

com/docs/default-

source/students-with-

disabilities/resources-for-

educators-of-students-with-

disabilities.pdf?sfvrsn=c5e89d

1f_2

Yes Yes

Maine Yes https://www.maine.gov/doe/sites/maine.

gov.doe/files/inline-files/IEP%20-

%20Effective%208-1-2020_0.docx

https://www.maine.gov/doe/lea

rning/specialed/data

Yes No

Maryland Yes http://olms.cte.jhu.edu//olms2/data/ck/sit

es/3915/files/IEP_Form_July_1_2020.p

Yes Yes

Massachusett

Yes https://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/iep/for

ms/english/iep1-8.pdf

https://www.doe.mass.edu/spe

d/iep/forms/english/

Yes

Michigan No https://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7

-140-6598_88186_88204---,00.html

Minnesota No Rubric provided of federal and state

laws:

https://education.mn.gov/mdeprod/idcpl

g?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=

055587&RevisionSelectionMethod=late

stReleased&Rendition=primary

Include OSEP model form,

nothing more

No No

Mississippi Yes https://www.mdek12.org/sites/default/fil

es/iep_fillable_form_4_13_2020.pdf

No No

Missouri Yes https://dese.mo.gov/special-

education/compliance/individualized-

education-program-iep

Yes No

Montana Yes http://opi.mt.gov/Portals/182/Page%20F

iles/Special%20Education/Forms/IEP%

20Plan%20for%20Informational%20Pur

http://opi.mt.gov/Educators/Sc

hool-Climate-Student-

Wellness/Special-

Yes Yes

State

IEP

template?

Statewide IEP Template

Other Relevant Links

Template

required?

Statewide Online

IEP System?

poses%20Only.pdf?ver=2021-02-12-

110755-087

Education/Special-Education-

Forms-Guides

Nebraska Yes https://www.education.ne.gov/wp-

content/uploads/2017/07/iep-form.pdf

https://www.education.ne.gov/

wp-

content/uploads/2017/07/iep-

form.pdf

No No

Nevada Yes https://doe.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/nde.do

e.nv.gov/content/Inclusive_Education/ID

EA_Forms_and_Docs/IEPForm(1).pdf

NA Yes No

New

Hampshire

Yes https://nextsteps-nh.org/wp-

content/uploads/IEP-Blank-from-

NHSEIS-4-11-16.pdf

https://nextsteps-nh.org/wp-

content/uploads/IEP-Blank-

from-NHSEIS-4-11-16.pdf

Yes Yes

New Jersey Yes https://www.nj.gov/education/specialed/f

orm/

NA No No

New Mexico Yes Preschool/Elementary School IEP:

https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/wp-

content/uploads/2019/08/PreSchool-

Elementary-School-Individualized-

Education-Program-IEP-Revised-

August-2019.docx Secondary School

IEP:

https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/wp-

content/uploads/2019/08/Secondary-

Indiviualized-Education-Program-IEP-

Revised-August-2019.docx

https://webnew.ped.state.nm.u

s/bureaus/special-

education/forms/

No No

New York Yes

http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/for

msnotices/IEP/IEPform.doc

http://www.p12.nysed.gov/spe

cialed/formsnotices/IEP/home.

html

Yes No

North

Carolina

Yes https://ec.ncpublicschools.gov/policies/f

orms/state-forms-directions/english-

directions/directions-iep.pdf

NA Yes Yes

State

IEP

template?

Statewide IEP Template

Other Relevant Links

Template

required?

Statewide Online

IEP System?

North

Dakota

Yes https://www.nd.gov/dpi/education-

programs/special-education

NA Yes Yes

Ohio Yes http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/

Topics/Special-Education/Federal-and-

State-Requirements/Ohio-Required-

and-Optional-Forms-Updated/iep-pr-07-

form-static.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US

http://education.ohio.gov/getatt

achment/Topics/Special-

Education/Federal-and-State-

Requirements/Ohio-Required-

and-Optional-Forms-

Updated/IEP-PR-07-form9-27-

18.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US

Yes No

Oklahoma

Yes https://sde.ok.gov/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/

Form%207%20IEP%20(web).pdf

https://sde.ok.gov/sites/ok.gov.

sde/files/Form%207%20IEP%

20(web).pdf

Yes Yes

Oregon

Yes https://www.oregon.gov/ode/students-

and-

family/SpecialEducation/publications/Or

egon%20Standard%20IEP/orstandardie

p.docx

https://www.oregon.gov/ode/st

udents-and-

family/SpecialEducation/public

ations/Pages/Oregon-

Standard-IEP.aspx

Yes No

Pennsylvania

Yes https://www.pattan.net/getattachment/F

orms/Individualized-Education-Plan-

IEP/Individualized-Education-Plan-

IEP/IEP-Feb-1-2020.docx?lang=en-

US&ext=.docx

https://www.pattan.net/Forms/I

ndividualized-Education-Plan-

IEP

No No

Rhode

Island

Yes For Ages 3-13:

https://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Upload

s/Documents/OSCAS/RI-Age-3-thru-13-

IEP-form_2.pdf Secondary:

https://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Upload

s/Documents/OSCAS/RI-Secondary-

IEP-form_4.pdf

https://www.ride.ri.gov/Student

sFamilies/SpecialEducation/IE

P%E2%80%93IndividualEduc

ationProgram.aspx#43711923

-iep-forms

Yes No

South

Carolina

Yes Not available online. https://ed.sc.gov/districts-

schools/special-education-

Yes Yes

State

IEP

template?

Statewide IEP Template

Other Relevant Links

Template

required?

Statewide Online

IEP System?

services/oversight-and-

assistance-o-a/south-carolina-

enrich-iep-system/

South

Dakota

Yes https://doe.sd.gov/sped/documents/IEP-

pln14.docx

https://doe.sd.gov/sped/IEP.as

No Yes

Tennessee Yes https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/educ

ation/forms/ed2998_iep_sample.pdf

https://www.tn.gov/content/da

m/tn/education/forms/ed2998_

iep_sample.pdf

Yes Yes

Texas Yes https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/IE

P%20MODEL%20FORM%20REVISED

%20Summer%202020%20English%20

Version.pdf

https://tea.texas.gov/academic

s/special-student-

populations/special-

education/programs-and-

services/iep-model-form

No No

Utah Yes https://www.google.com/url?client=inter

nal-element-

cse&cx=004767599214043181413:fbhn

nu9j_la&q=https://www.schools.utah.go

v/file/b0884b49-44af-4a51-873f-

706431e24d9d&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwj

EpfOl1ZLwAhUPIqwKHcDPCG0QFjAH

egQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3nNewyD64J

AZLuGxF4OBm4

https://schools.utah.gov/specia

leducation/resources/lawsrules

regulations?mid=942&tid=2

No No

Vermont Yes https://education.vermont.gov/sites/aoe/

files/documents/edu-form-5-

individualized-education-program-

iep.pdf

https://education.vermont.gov/

student-support/vermont-

special-education/special-

education-forms

No No

Virginia Yes https://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/

iep_instruct_svcs/iep/forms/sample_iep

form.doc

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/s

pecial_ed/iep_instruct_svcs/ie

No Yes

State

IEP

template?

Statewide IEP Template

Other Relevant Links

Template

required?

Statewide Online

IEP System?

Washington Yes https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files

/public/specialed/data/stateforms/6c-

iep-form-no-transition.docx

https://www.k12.wa.us/student

-success/special-

education/program-

improvement/model-forms-

services-students-special-

education

No No

West

Virginia

Yes https://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/compliance

/pdf-

fillable/IEP_PART_I_STUDENT_INFOR

MATION_and_PART_II_DOCUMENTA

TION_OF_ATTENDANCE.pdf

https://wvde.us/special-

education/individualized-

education-program/idea-forms/

Unclear Yes

Wisconsin Yes https://dpi.wi.gov/sped/laws-procedures-

bulletins/procedures/sample/forms

NA No No

Wyoming Yes https://edu.wyoming.gov/downloads/spe

cial-ed/speced_forms_i-

4_individualized_education_program_ie

p_july2013B15BBDE2F6B2.pdf

https://edu.wyoming.gov/for-

district-leadership/special-

programs/special-programs-

forms/

No No

Appendix D. Survey Questions Used to Elicit Stakeholder Input

The California IEP Workgroup conducted four surveys to inform development of its

recommendations:

1. Survey of State Special Education Directors

2. Survey of LEA and SELPA administrators

3. Survey of family members of students with IEPs

4. Survey of teachers, school administrators, and special education service

providers

The survey questions for each of these surveys are included in the corresponding

subsections below. The results from these surveys, summarized in section 8 of this

report, were shared with the workgroup members and used to inform the development

of the workgroup’s recommendations and the statewide IEP template.

IEP Workgroup Survey of State Special Education Directors – February 2021

1. State (dropdown)

2. Please provide your contact information (name and email fields)

3. Does your state have a statewide IEP template? (yes or no)

If yes:

a. Please share a copy of your template (document upload)

b. Please share a link to your template (open-ended)

c. Are LEAs required to use the IEP template? (yes or no)

If yes:

i. Are LEAs allowed to make revisions to the IEP template? (yes or

no)

ii. Is your IEP template translated into multiple languages? (yes or no)

1. If yes, which languages? (open-ended)

iii. What influenced LEA adoption of the statewide template? Did you

incentivize adoption? Were there any unanticipated barriers to

adoption? (open-ended)

d. What percentage of LEAs have adopted the statewide template? (open-

ended)

e. What do you think has influenced LEAs most to adopt or not adopt the

statewide template? (open-ended)

4. Does your state provide a statewide online IEP system for LEAs? (yes or no)

If yes:

a. Are LEAs required to use the online IEP system? (yes or no)

If yes:

i. Are LEAs allowed to add items or pages to the IEP system? (yes or

no)

ii. Who is the vendor for your current system (or is it run fully by the

state)? (open-ended)

iii. How satisfied are you with your current vendor? (5-point scale of

agreement from very dissatisfied to very satisfied)

iv. What accessibility features are available in your current system

(i.e., text to speech, speech to text, background color options,

electronic glossary, etc.)? (open-ended)

v. What is one thing about your current online IEP system you would

recommend another state adopt? (open-ended)

vi. What influenced LEA adoption of the statewide system (incentives,

challenges)? (open-ended)

vii. What lessons learned would you recommend another state

consider when evaluating the feasibility of a statewide online

system? (open-ended)

viii. Please share a link to the online IEP system and any further

information, guidance, and related tools (open-ended)

b. What percentage of LEAs use the statewide system? (open-ended)

c. What do you think has influenced LEAs most to adopt or not adopt the

statewide system? (open-ended)

5. Does your state have a template for distance learning plans as part of or as a

supplement to the IEP? (yes or no).

If yes:

a. Please share a copy of your template (if available)(document upload)

b. Please share a link to your template (if available)(open-ended)

c. Are LEAs required to use the template? (yes or no)

If yes:

i. Are LEAs allowed to make revisions to the template? (yes or no)

6. What are your most important lessons learned from considering, creating, or

implementing a statewide IEP template or system? (open-ended)

7. If you could change two things about your current IEP template, system, or the

processes surrounding their use, what would they be? (open-ended)

8. Does your state have alternate pathways for students with disabilities to earn

regular high school diplomas? (open-ended)

9. Does your state have a state defined alternate diploma for students with

significant cognitive disabilities as defined by ESSA? If yes, please describe

(open-ended)

10.Please share the best link(s) to learn more about your graduation pathways for

students with disabilities (open-ended)

IEP Workgroup Survey for LEAs & SELPAs - March 2021

1. Does your LEA or SELPA currently use: (single answer, options below)

a. SELPA forms committee IEP template, without modifications

b. SELPA forms committee IEP template, with modifications

c. IEP template provided by our online IEP provider

d. IEP template created by the LEA

e. Other (please specify)

2. What modifications have you made to the template? (open-ended)

3. How satisfied are you with your current IEP template? (5 point spectrum of

agreement from very dissatisfied to very satisfied)

4. What is one thing about your current IEP template you would recommend be

adopted for a statewide template? (open-ended)

5. Are there any parts of your current IEP template that you believe are barriers to

meaningful participation by all IEP team members including parents and general

education teachers? (open-ended)

6. How likely would you be to adopt an optional statewide IEP template? (5 point

scale of agreement from very unlikely to very likely)

7. What would be the most important considerations for you in making this

decision? (open-ended)

8. What do you believe are the greatest potential benefits of a statewide IEP

template? (open-ended)

9. What do you believe are the greatest potential challenges of a statewide IEP

template? (open-ended)

10.Do you currently use an online IEP system? (yes or no)

If yes:

a. Who is your current vendor? (open-ended)

b. How satisfied are you with your current vendor? (5 point spectrum of

agreement from very dissatisfied to very satisfied)

c. What is one thing about your current online IEP system you would

recommend be adopted in a statewide system? (open-ended)

d. Are there any lessons learned you would want the state to consider when

evaluating the feasibility of a statewide online system? (open-ended)

11. If the state offered an optional online IEP system, funded by the state, how likely

would you be to adopt that online IEP system? (5 point scale from very unlikely to

very likely)

12.What would be the most important considerations for you in making this

decision? (open-ended)

13.What do you believe are the greatest potential benefits of a statewide online IEP

system? (open-ended)

14.What do you believe are the greatest potential challenges of a statewide online

IEP system? (open-ended)

15.Please select the description that best describes your role: (single answer,

options below)

a. LEA Special Education Director

b. LEA Special Education Staff

c. SELPA Director

d. SELPA Staff

e. Teacher or Direct Service Provider

f. Other (please specify)

IEP Workgroup Survey for Family Members of Students with IEPs - May 2021

1. How old is your child? (open-ended)

2. Demographic information:

a. What is your family’s primary spoken language? (open-ended)

b. What is your family’s ZIP code? (open-ended)

3. What is your child’s primary disability category? (single answer, options below)

a. Autism

b. Deaf-blindness

c. Deafness

d. Emotional disturbance

e. Hard of hearing

f. Intellectual disabilities

g. Medical disability

h. Multiple disabilities

i. Orthopedic impairment

j. Other health impairment

k. Specific learning disability

l. Speech or language impairment

m. Traumatic brain injury

n. Visual impairment

o. I don't know

4. How many IEP meetings have you attended for your child? (single answer,

options below)

a. None

b. 1-3

c. 4-10

d. 11-20

e. 21 or more

5. Please rate your agreement with the following statements: (5 point spectrum of

agreement from strongly disagree to strongly agree)

a. I feel welcomed and included at my child’s IEP meetings

b. My child’s special education case manager (speech, resources or SDC

teachers) helps me prepare to be an active participant at IEP meetings

c. I understand my role during the IEP meeting

d. The members of my child’s IEP team fully understand my child’s needs

e. I know who my child’s general education teacher is or who it would be if

they were included in the general education classroom

f. A general education teacher attends and participates in my child’s IEP

meetings

g. I have a copy of my child’s current IEP

h. My child’s IEP accurately describes their strengths

i. My child’s IEP is focused on their weaknesses or deficits

j. I know my child’s IEP goals

k. I understand how my child’s IEP goals are connected to the CA Common

Core general education standards

l. I know what the long-term academic goals are for my child

m. My IEP team has discussed long-term goals for my child that are not only

academic

n. My child’s IEP is helping them meet their long term goals

o. I find the IEP to be a useful document

p. My child’s teachers use their IEP to make sure my child receives services

and learns like other students in school

q. I feel safe and heard sharing my opinion about the content of the IEP

r. I am comfortable asking clarifying questions during IEP meetings

s. I am comfortable waiting to sign the IEP after the IEP meeting if I don’t

understand something or want to think about it before signing

t. I am provided with an interpreter at my IEP meetings

6. Who leads your child’s IEP meetings? (open-ended)

7. Which part(s) of the IEP process and document do you find most useful and

clear? (open-ended)

8. Which part(s) of the IEP process and document do you find least useful or most

confusing? How would you improve that? (open-ended)

9. Please describe your most positive IEP meeting experience and what made it

most beneficial (open-ended)

10.Do you have any other input on the IEP process or on a future template for IEP

forms? (open-ended)

11.If you could change one thing about the IEP form, what would you change?

(open-ended)

12.If you could change one thing about your IEP meetings and the IEP process,

what would you change? (open-ended)

IEP Workgroup Survey for Teachers, Administrators, and Services Providers -

April 2021

1. Which of the following best describes your current position? (single answer,

options below). If participants select b, c, or d then show question 4.

a. School Administrator

b. Special Education Teacher

c. General Education Teacher

d. Related Services Provider

e. General/Special Education Teacher

f. Other (please specify)

2. Which positions have you previously worked in? (multiple answers, options

below)

a. Special Education Teacher

b. General Education Teacher

c. Related Service Provider

d. Pupil Personnel Services (Counselor or School Psychologist)

e. Other (please specify)

3. Which grade levels do you generally work with? (multiple answers, options

below)

a. Preschool

b. Elementary

c. Middle

d. High

e. Adult/post-high transitions

4. How long have you been teaching? (single answer, options below). Only shown if

participants responded b, c, or d to question 1.

a. This is my first year

b. 2 - 5 years

c. 6 - 10 year

d. 11+ years

5. How many IEP meetings did you lead or attend in the 2019-2020 school year?

(single answer, options below)

a. None

b. 1 - 3 meetings

c. 4 - 10 meetings

d. 11 - 20 meetings

e. 21 or more meetings

6. Please rate your agreement with the following statements: (5 point scale from

strongly disagree to strongly agree)

a. I know how to prepare to be an active participant in IEP meetings

b. I understand my role during the IEP meeting

c. I know how to actively engage parents in IEP meetings

d. I can easily access the IEP (whether hardcopy or electronic copy) for the

students with disabilities I serve

e. I regularly refer to the IEP to know what my students’ goals are

f. I know which classroom accommodations are on my students’ IEPs

g. I find the IEP to be a useful document

h. Parents find the IEP to be a useful tool

i. I meet with parents prior to the IEP meeting to go over what will be

discussed during the meeting

j. I attend at least one professional development session addressing the IEP

Process each school year

k. I feel safe sharing my opinion about the content of the IEP

l. I am comfortable asking clarifying questions during IEP meetings

m. I feel pressure at IEP meetings because of the potential for legal disputes

7. What types of training and professional development have you participated in to

assist you with IEP development? (open-ended)

8. What types of training, if any, have you participated in related to how to facilitate

or participate in IEP meetings? (open-ended)

9. Which part(s) of the IEP document do you find most useful and clear? (open-

ended)

10.Which part(s) of the IEP document do you find least useful or most confusing?

(open-ended)

11.Please describe the best IEP meeting you’ve attended and what happened that

worked well. (open-ended)

12.If you could change one thing about the IEP form, what is the one thing you

would add? (open-ended)

13.If you could change one thing about your IEP meetings, what would you change?

(open-ended)

14.Do you have any other input on the IEP process or on a future template for IEPs?

(open-ended)

15.Which school district or charter school do you work for (optional)? (open-ended)

16.If you are willing to provide additional information or participate in an interview

about your experience, please provide your name and contact information

(optional)(open-ended)

Appendix E. Timeline for Implementation of the Workgroup’s

Recommendations

Key action steps to implement the workgroup’s recommendations in each fiscal year

between 2022-23 and 2027-2028 are described below. At the end of each action step,

relevant recommendations are referenced in parentheses.

Beginning Fall 2022 and Ongoing Thereafter

• Statewide IEP Advisory Board:

o Fall 2022: CDE establishes a statewide IEP Advisory Board (IEP

Template Recommendation 3)

o Ongoing: CDE continues to staff and support regular meetings of the IEP

Advisory Board (IEP Template Recommendation 3)

• Guidance and Curated Resources:

o Fall 2022: CDE establishes an online location for posting current guidance

and a curated set of case studies, resources, tools, and other examples of

best practices (IEP Process Recommendations 1b, 1c, 2c)

o Ongoing: CDE gathers and curates case studies, resources, tools, and

other examples of best practices, including those related to increasing the

active participation of general education teachers. Following the

establishment of the Statewide IEP Advisory Board (see above), CDE

works with the Statewide IEP Advisory Board to institute a process

whereby LEAs can submit resources to the Advisory Board for

consideration and the Advisory Board determines whether submitted

resources should be included on the curated list (IEP Process

Recommendations 1c, 2c)

o Ongoing: CDE regularly updates posted guidance related to the IEP

template and process (IEP Process Recommendation 1b)

2022–23

• Communication: CDE communicates why and how the state is prioritizing

changes to the IEP process (IEP Process Recommendation 1a)

• Monitoring & TA: CDE reviews monitoring and TA materials and activities (IEP

Process Recommendation 1d) and ensures that formal guidance and monitoring

procedures communicate that the active participation of the student’s general

education teacher is required (IEP Process Recommendations 2a, 2b)

• IEP Pre-Meeting Input: CA Legislature defines pre-meeting input (IEP Process

Recommendation 3a) and requires associated monitoring by CDE (IEP Process

Recommendation 3b)

• IEP Pre-Meeting Input: CA Legislature revises California Education Code

Section 56341.5 to require LEAs to solicit pre-meeting input from students,

families/guardians, teachers, providers, and case managers, and allocates funds

for training LEAs to elicit input (IEP Process Recommendation 3)

• Resources & Training: CDE, informed by the Statewide IEP Advisory Board,

develops and/or contracts for the development of resources and training related

to the IEP process and template (IEP Process Recommendation 4, IEP Template

Recommendation 2)

• Statewide IEP Template: CA Legislature requires use of the statewide IEP

template by 2027-2028 school year (IEP Template Recommendations 1, 2)

• Required IEP Participants for Preschool Transition: CA Legislature revises

California Education Code Sections 56341(i) and 56341.5 to require participation

of the child’s Part C service coordinator or Part C service provider in the first IEP

meeting for a three-year-old child transitioning to preschool (IEP Transitions

Recommendation 4)

• Required Age for Postsecondary Planning: CA Legislature revises the

California Education Code Sections 56043(g), 56345(a)(8), 56043(e), and

56341.5(e) to adjust the required age for postsecondary transition planning from

16 to 14 (IEP Transitions Recommendation 3)

Fall 2023 Through Spring 2030

• Local IEP System Modification: CA Legislature provides one-time funds to

LEAs implementing the statewide IEP template for necessary modification of

locally operated online IEP systems to accommodate implementation of the

Statewide IEP Template (IEP Template Recommendation 1b) and to implement

specific IEP system functions including a parent portal, general education

teacher portal, and summary report of the means by which the IEP will be

provided under emergency conditions (Online IEP System Recommendation 3)

• Credential Requirements Review: CA Legislature directs the CTC to review

and revise as needed credential requirements to include training on the statewide

IEP template and student-centered, strengths driven IEP processes (IEP

Template Recommendation 4)

2023–24

• IEP Template Training: CDE begins statewide training on the proposed IEP

process and template (IEP Process Recommendation 4, IEP Template

Recommendation 2b)

• IEP Template Pilots: CDE, in collaboration with the Statewide IEP Advisory

Board, recruits 10 pilot LEAs to begin using the new IEP template in the 2023-

2024 school year (IEP Template Recommendation 2b)

• IEP Template Translation: CDE makes the proposed IEP template available in

the top five languages spoken by California families/guardians (IEP Template

Recommendation 2b)

2024–25

• IEP Template Pilots: CDE, in collaboration with the Statewide IEP Advisory

Board, coordinates the piloting of the new IEP template in 10 LEAs, provides

ongoing training and technical assistance to pilot LEAs, and collects feedback

from pilot LEAs to inform potential changes to the IEP template, resources, and

training content (IEP Template Recommendation 2c)

2025–26

• State Data Collection: CDE revises CALPADs to collect additional data from

each student’s IEP (Online IEP System Recommendation 2)

• IEP Template: CDE, in collaboration with the Statewide IEP Advisory Board,

publishes the final Statewide IEP Template and establishes a plan for providing

IEP process and template training and supports to all LEAs in the state (IEP

Template Recommendation 2d)

2026-27 and 2027–28

IEP Template Full Implementation: CDE, in collaboration with the Statewide IEP

Advisory Board, implements the plan to provide IEP process and template training and

supports to all LEAs in the state to achieve full implementation of the Statewide IEP

Template by the 2027-2028 school year (IEP Template Recommendation 2)

Appendix F. Statewide IEP Template

This appendix includes multiple versions of the recommended statewide IEP template:

1) Recommended IEP Template. This template includes all required IEP content for

all students with IEPs as well as items that will only be included for specific

populations of students including multilingual students and student participating

in alternate assessments. The workgroup estimated the IEP template for most

students with an IEP to be approximately 10 pages. This template also includes

the IDEA regulatory and California Education Code requirements that justify and

are met by each section of the template.

2) IEP Summaries. In order to make the IEP as useful a tool as possible beyond the

IEP meeting, the workgroup recommends the development of summaries of the

most relevant information from the IEP that can be individualized based on the

needs of the student (see Online IEP System Recommendation 3). Three sample

summaries are included:

a. IEP Summary for General Education Teachers

b. IEP Summary for Parents/Guardians

c. IEP Summary Describing how the IEP will be Implemented Under

Emergency Conditions.

Please note that the statewide IEP template captures the recommendations of the

workgroup. However, final implementation and adaptation will be completed by the

California Department of Education (CDE). The workgroup provided the CDE with an

additional annotated template including notes about implementation.

Page 1 of 16

Annual Individualized Education Program (IEP) IEP Dates: _________ to _________

Student name and pronouns: _________________

Student ID number: _________ Grade: _________

Student birthdate and age: ___________________

Primary language of the student: ______________

Primary language(s) of the family/guardian: ______

School district: _______________________

School of residence or choice: __________

School the student attends (if different): ___

IEP type (circle one):

Initial Annual Amendment

1. Student Strengths, Interests, Preferences, and Learning Needs

[34 CFR §§300.324(a)(1), (b)(3); EC sections 56341(b)(2), 56341.1(a), (f)]

1a. Strengths

(Student) I am particularly good at:

(Family/Guardian) Our child/young adult’s strengths are:

(Teachers and Service Providers) The student’s strengths at school and with their peers are:

1b. Interests

(Student) I am interested in and like to:

(Other Team Members) The student also has expressed interests in and preferences for:

1c. Learning and Communication Preferences

(Student) I learn and experience school best in these ways and with these supports:

(Student) I communicate in these ways:

1d. Learning Needs

(Family/Guardian) Our concerns and priorities for our child/young adult’s education this year are:

Page 2 of 16

(Teachers and Service Providers) Our priorities for the student’s learning and making progress in

the general education curriculum this year are:

(IEP Team) This information from formal and informal evaluations, including progress toward

previous goals, is most important to consider in developing this IEP and informing instructional

strategies:

2. Vision for the Future and Pathway to a High School Diploma

[34 CFR §§300.124, 320(b), 321(f); EC sections 56341(i), 56345(a)(8), (b)(1), (b)(4)]

2a. High School Graduation Date – Projected date of graduation with a high school diploma: _______

2b. Student Vision for the Future

Next week I want to / I want my child or young adult to:

In one year, I want to / I want my child or young adult to:

In three years, I want to / I want my child or young adult to:

In five to ten years, I want to / I want my child or young adult to:

After I leave high school, I want to / I want my child or young adult to: (required for students age

14 and older)

2c. Course of Study (required for students who will participate in 8

grade or higher during this IEP)

Course of study that will lead to a high school diploma.

Is this an alternate route to a high school diploma?  Yes  No

If yes, justification for the use of an alternate route to a high school diploma including why the

student could not meet the high school diploma requirements with appropriate accommodations

and modifications.

Total credits required for

graduation

Credits earned already

Remaining credits needed for

graduation

Page 3 of 16

2d. Important Transitions on the Pathway to a High School Diploma

 None

 Entering preschool from early intervention

 Entering elementary school (Kindergarten)

 Entering middle school

 Entering high school

 Leaving high school

 Transitioning to a new school

 Transitioning from a nonpublic placement

 Transitioning to more or less time in general

education

 Transitioning between available methods to

participate in school (e.g., independent study,

distance, hybrid, in-person learning

 Other (specify): ____________

How the student has been or will be prepared for any upcoming transitions and any supports

needed to ensure a smooth transition.

3. Special Factors

[34 CFR §300.324(a)(2); EC sections 56341.1(b), (c), 56345(a)(9), (b)(2), (b)(5)]

3a. Behavior

i. Are there behavioral interventions, supports, or other strategies, in addition to any schoolwide

or typical classroom supports, needed to address behavior that impedes the student’s learning

or the learning of others?  Yes  No

If yes, the student’s behavior needs must be further addressed in section 4 of this IEP.

ii. Does the student have or need a Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP)?  Yes  No

If yes, the BIP must be attached to this IEP.

3b. Blindness and Visual Impairments

i. Is the student blind or visually impaired?  Yes  No

ii. Does the IEP include instruction in Braille or the use of Braille?  Yes  No

Justification if no.

3c. Communication Needs and Deaf or Hard of Hearing

i. Does the student have communication needs?  Yes  No

ii. Is the student deaf or hard of hearing?  Yes  No

If yes to either, communication needs must be addressed in this IEP.

3d. Assistive Technology Devices and Services

i. Does the student need assistive technology devices and services?  Yes  No

3e. Individualized Health Plan

i. Does the student have medical conditions that require an Individualized Health Plan (IHP)?

 Yes  No

If yes, the IHP must be attached to this IEP.

Page 4 of 16

3f. Multilingual Learner

i. Is the student an emerging multilingual learner?  Yes  No

If yes, complete the remainder of this section.

ii. What is the student’s primary language? _________________________

iii. Does the student need primary language supports during integrated ELD (across content

areas)?

 Yes  No

Description of needed supports.

iv. Where will the student receive Designated ELD?

 General Education Classroom  Special Education Classroom  Other

If special education classroom or other are selected, justification and description of the

supports and services that would be needed to provide designated ELD in the general

education classroom.

v. Is the multilingual learner currently participating in:

 Structured English Immersion Program (SEI)

 Other, parent/guardian selected multilingual/ language acquisition program

 None

3g. Emergency Conditions

Considerations for how the student will receive any needed accommodations or services due

to special factors including ELD services under emergency conditions in which instruction or

services, or both, cannot be provided to the student either at the school or in person for more

than 10 school days during the board-approved instructional academic year.

Page 5 of 16

4. Plan for Achieving Academic, Functional, and Post-School Outcomes

[34 CFR §§300.320(a), (b), 324(a); EC sections 56341.1(a), (f), 56345(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(8), (b)(2)]

4a. Present Levels of Performance

Present levels of performance as determined using multiple measures across learning modalities and settings. Includes how the

udent’s disability affects their participation and progress in the general education curriculum (i.e., the same curriculum as for

nondisabled children) and for preschool children, as appropriate, how the disability affects the child's participation in appropriate

activities.

Academic performance Communication, social-emotional,

unctional, behavior, and other

performance

(required for students age 14 or older)

Results of transition assessment(s)

related to training or education,

competitive integrated employment, and

independent and/or supported living (as

appropriate)

To inform standards-based goals, the student’s status related to the grade-level content standards in the student’s current

grade and in the highest grade the student will participate in during the period of this IEP, including standards met, with and

without accommodations, and standards the student needs support to meet.

How the disability affects the child or student’s participation in routines and activities including those related to academic learning

including pre-literacy and pre-numeracy, inside and outside the classroom. (required for preschool children, optional for other students)

Routine or Activity

Impact of Disability (positive or negative)

Page 6 of 16

4b. Annual, Measurable IEP Goal(s)

Short-term objectives to meet each goal are required for students who take alternate assessments aligned to alternate academic

standards and optional for others.

Standards-based academic goal(s) Communication, social-emotional,

functional, behavior,

and other goal(s)

(required for students age 14 or older)

Post-school goal(s) for training or

education, competiti

ve integrated

employment, and independent and/or

supported living (as appropriate)

Confirm that each goal:

• Is grounded in the student’s strengths, priorities, and vision

• Maintains or increases the rate of progress based on past goals and progress

• Is connected to one or more grade-level standards, course requirements or developmental standards

• Is linguistically appropriate

Progress toward each goal. How and how frequently will the student’s progress toward each goal be measured and reported?

Goal #

Mechanism

Frequency

4c. Instructional Strategies to Meet Annual Goals

Strategies (e.g., embedded systematic instruction, peer supports, use of graphic organizers) to be used in the general education setting

to support the student to make progress toward their academic goals.

Academic strategies

Communication, social-emotional,

functional, behavior, and other strategies

(required for students age 14 or older)

Strategies related to secondary transition

Page 7 of 16

4d. Family Engagement and Partnership

How the IEP team will support the family, including strategies to help the family support the student.

Academic supports

Communication, social-emotional,

functional, behavior,

and other supports

(required for students age 14 or older)

Supports related to secondary transition

4e. Emergency Conditions

Considerations for how the student’s goals can be met under emergency conditions in which instruction or services, or both, cannot be

provided to the student either at the school or in person for more than 10 school days during the board-approved instructional academic

year.

Academic considerations

Communication, social-emotional,

functional, behavior, and other

considerations

(required for students age 14 or older)

Considerations related to secondary

transition

Page 8 of 16

5. Nonacademic, Extracurricular, and Social Activities

[34 CFR §§300.117, 320(a)(4)(ii); EC sections 56345(a)(4), (c)]

How the student will participate in nonacademic, extracurricular, and social activities with their

nondisabled peers, including any activities and community experiences to support post-school

goals.

If the child will not participate, justification that includes the types of supports that would make

participation possible and why they are not feasible at the current time.

Plan for maximizing participation and what resources will be provided.

5a. Emergency Conditions

Considerations for how the student will have access to nonacademic, extracurricular, and social

activities under emergency conditions in which instruction or services, or both, cannot be provided

to the student either at the school or in person for more than 10 school days during the board-

approved instructional academic year.

6. Accommodations, Special Education and Related Services, and Program Modifications

[34 CFR §§300.320(a)(4), (a)(7), (b), 324(b)(3); EC sections 56341(b)(2), 56345(a)(4), (7), (8)]

6a. Accommodations

Accommodation

Title(s) of

Professional

Staff

Responsible

Needed for

Assessment

s (Y/N)

Related Goal(s) and

Areas of Need

Addressed

Page 9 of 16

6b. Program Modifications

Program Modification

Title(s) of

Professional

Staff

Responsible

Related Goal(s) and

Areas of Need

Addressed

6c. Special Education and Related Services

Special Education or

Related Service

Title of

Professional

Staff

Responsible

Frequency and

Duration

Use only one column

for each service,

document by minutes.

Location

Dates of

Service

Goal(s) and

Areas of

Need

Addressed

Per

Day

Per

Week

Per

Month

Start

End

i. Consultation (Indirect Services to School Personnel and Parents/Guardians)

Total Minutes (Indirect Services)

ii. Special Education and Related Services in the General Education Classroom (Direct Services)

Total Minutes

iii. Special Education and Related Services in Other Settings (Direct Services)

Total Minutes

Total minutes of services provided in general education (a)

Total minutes of services provided outside general education (b)

Total minutes of school (c)

Percentage of special education and related services in general education (a) / (c)

Page 10 of 16

For each service provided outside of the general education classroom:

Justification.

Supports that would need to be in place to enable the service to be provided in the general

education classroom.

6d. Other Services and Agencies (required for students age 14 or older)

Services outside of special education the student is receiving at school that should be considered

as part of the student’s educational plan (e.g., supplemental tutoring, enrichment courses,

counseling)

Services outside of school (private or public) the student is currently receiving or needs to receive.

Agency or Provider Name

Service(s) Currently Receiving or Needed (if needed, how the

service will be accessed, or a referral provided)

6e. Emergency Conditions

Considerations for how the student will receive the accommodations, modifications, and special

education and related services in this IEP under emergency conditions in which instruction or

services, or both, cannot be provided to the student either at the school or in person for more than

10 school days during the board-approved instructional academic year.

7. Least Restrictive Environment

[34 CFR §§300.114, 116, 320(a)(5); EC sections 56040(b), 56040.1, 56342(b), 56342.1, 56345(a)(4)-

(5)]

7a. For Students in Elementary, Middle, or High School:

i. Will the student attend the school that is as close to their home as possible?  Yes  No

If no, justification including student/family/guardian choice.

ii. Will the student receive all special education services with nondisabled peers? Yes  No

If no, justification including a description of all options explored during the annual IEP

process, including provision of all special education services in the general education

classroom, or otherwise with nondisabled peers.

Page 11 of 16

If no, description of the additional supports or accommodations that would need to be in

place in the general education classroom for the student to receive all or more special

education and/or related services in the general education classroom.

7b. For Preschool Students:

i. Will the student attend a general education preschool or other regular early childhood

program?

 Yes  No

If yes, how many minutes does the student attend each week? _______

If no, justification for why the student is not attending this type of program.

ii. Will the student receive all their special education and related services embedded within

regular classroom routines and activities?  Yes  No

If no, description of all options explored for providing all special education services in a

regular early childhood setting.

If no, description of the additional supports or accommodations that would need to be in

place in the regular early childhood setting for the student to receive special education

and/or related services.

7c. For all Students

i. Is the placement based on the student’s educational needs documented in this IEP?

 Yes  No

ii. Is the provision of services outside of general education necessary based on the nature and

severity of the student’s disability and not on the need for modifications in the general

curriculum?

 Yes  No

7d. Emergency Conditions

Considerations for how the student will have access to general education instruction and general

education peers under emergency conditions in which instruction or services, or both, cannot be

provided to the student either at the school or in person for more than 10 school days during the

board-approved instructional academic year.

Page 12 of 16

8. Transportation as a Related Service

[34 CFR §300.34; EC Section 56342(a)]

Does the student need transportation to access and benefit from special education and related

rvices?  Yes  No

If Yes, transportation will be provided:

 On a regular transportation vehicle with the following modifications and/or specialized

equi

pment and precautions:

 On a special transportation vehicle with the following modifications and/or specialized

equipment and precautions:

Any accommodations or services needed during transportation including behavior supports must be

documented in Section 6.

9. Extended School Year

[34 CFR §300.106; EC Section 56345(b)(3); CCR Section 3043]

9a. Eligibility

Is the student eligible for extended school year?

 Yes, based on the following information or data reviewed by the IEP team:

 No, based on the following information or data reviewed by the IEP team:

 The team will need to collect further data and reconvene to make a decision. Date by which the

IEP team will reconvene and data to review:

9b. Extended School Year Goals and Services (for eligible students)

IEP goals and, when appropriate, short-term objectives from this IEP that will be addressed during

extended school year:

Extended School Year

Special Education and

Related Services

Title of

Professional Staff

Responsible

Frequency and

Duration

Use only one column

for each service,

document by minutes.

Location*

Dates of

Service

Per

Day

Per

Week

Per

Month

Start

End

Page 13 of 16

9c. Emergency Conditions

Considerations for how the student will have access to extended school year services under

emergency conditions in which instruction or services, or both, cannot be provided to the student

either at the school or in person for more than 10 school days during the board-approved

instructional academic year.

10. Participation in Local (e.g., Districtwide) and Statewide Assessments

[34 CFR §300.320(a)(6)(i); EC Section 56345(a)(6)]

Only accommodations listed in Section 6 of this IEP and used by the student for classroom instruction

and cl

assroom testing may be used during statewide or districtwide assessments.

10a. Local Assessments

 Local assessments are not administered at this student’s grade level.

 Student will participate in local assessments without accommodations.

 Student will participate in local assessments with the following accommodations or modifications:

 The student will take a local alternate assessment. The alternate assessment is appropriate, and

the student cannot participate in the local regular assessment for the following reasons:

10b. Statewide Assessments

The CA Assessment Accessibility Resources Matrix describes the embedded and non-embedded

universal tools, designated supports, and accommodations (UDAs) allowed as part of the CAASPP

and English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC).

i. Desired Results Developmental Profile (Preschool Only)

 Student will participate without adaptations.

 Student will participate with the following adaptations:

•

Sensory support

• Functional positioning

•

Alternative response mode

•

Assistive equipment or device

• Visual support

•

Other: ____________________

ii. California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP)

For each assessment, select the statement describing the student’s participation.

Page 14 of 16

SBAC -

English

Language

Arts

(Grades

3-8 & 11)

SBAC

- Math

(Grade

s 3-8 &

11)

CAST -

Science

(Grades

5, 8, &

High

School)

Physic

Fitness

Test

(Grade

s 5, 7,



Out of testing range



Participate without Designated Supports or

Accommodations



Participate with Designated Supports Embedded:



Participate with Accommodations Embedded:



Participate with Accommodations Non-embedded:



Participate with Accessibility Support (requires

CDE Approval):



Alternate Assessment without Designated

Supports or Accommodations



Alternate Assessment with Designated Supports

Embedded:



Alternate Assessment with Designated Supports

Non-embedded:



Alternate Assessment with Accommodations

Embedded:



Alternate Assessment with Accommodations Non-

embedded:



Alternate Assessment with Accessibility Support

(requires CDE Approval):

iii. English Language Proficiency Assessments of California (ELPAC; for multilingual learners

only, see Section 3f).

The student will participate in the:



Initial ELPAC

 Summative

ELPAC



Without designated supports (All domains)

 Designated supports (All domains):

 Without accommodations (All domains)

 Accommodations (All domains):

 Domain exemption

 Oral language composite

 Listening  Speaking

 Written language composite

 Reading  Writing

 Alternate ELPAC

 Expressive (Speaking & Writing)

 Receptive (Listening & Reading)

 Alternate ELPAC Designated Supports

Accommodations

Embedded:

Non-embedded:

Page 15 of 16

. Alternate Assessment. If the student will not participate in a regular state assessment (with or

thout accommodations), explain why the student cannot participate in the regular

assessment and why the selected assessment option is appropriate (see CDE Guidance for

IEP

teams regarding participation in the California Alternate Assessments and the Alternate

English Language Proficiency Assessments for California):

11. Meeting Participants

[34 CFR §300.321, 322, 324(b)(3); EC sections 56341(b)(1), (b)(2), (c)-(d), (f)-(i), 56341.5]

i. IEP meeting names and whether they were present for the development of this IEP.

Student: __________________________________________ • Yes • No

Student participation is required for students age 14 or older and highly recommended for all

udents.

If the student (age 14 or older) did not attend, steps to ensure the students preferences and

interests were considered.

Required for all students

Parent/Guardian or family member: _____________________________ • Yes • No

Student’s general education teacher(s): ________________ • Yes • No

Student’s special education teacher(s): ________________ • Yes • No

Student’s service provider(s): __________________________ • Yes • No

tudent’s service provider(s): __________________________ • Yes • No

LEA representative: ______________________________________ • Yes • No

Required for the first IEP meeting for a child transitioning from Early Start

art C service provider or coordinator: ____________________ • Yes • No

equired for students age 14 or older, recommended any student receiving other

servi

ces

Other agency representative: __________________________ • Yes • No

Other Participants (Name, Role): ______________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

For each “No” checkbox that is checked above for a required meeting participant,

written input has been provided and attached and an excusal form has been completed and

attached:

• Yes • No

Page 16 of 16

12. Parent/Guardian/Student Signature

[34 CFR §300.9]

A parent/guardian (or student age 18-21) may agree to all or some of the components of a proposed

EP.

• Parent/Guardian (or student age 18-21) agrees to all components of the proposed IEP

• Parent/Guardian (or student age 18-21) agrees to all components of the proposed IEP except for:

Items of disagreement.

• Parent/Guardian (or student age 18-21) does not agree with any of the components in the

proposed IEP

Signature : ___________________________________________ Date : _________

• Parent • Guardian • Surrogate Parent • Foster Parent

• Student age 18-21 • Emancipated Minor

13. Procedural Safeguards

[34 CFR §300.320(c), 56345(g)]

I have been provided the special education procedural safeguards in my native language or

other mode of communication.

• Offered and accepted • Offered and declined

Signature: ___________________________________________ Date: _________

13a. Transfer of Rights and Age of Majority (required for students age 18 or older)

I have been informed of the transfer of rights at the age of 18 years.

Signature of Student: _________________________________ Date: _________

_________________________________ Date: _________ Signature of Parent/Guardian:

14. Communication about the IEP

Agreed upon method for the school to communicate with the student and family about the IEP,

including under emergency conditions in which instruction or services, or both, cannot be provided

to the pupil either at the school or in person for more than 10 school days.

108

IEP Summaries

The workgroup recommended the development of summaries of the most relevant

information from the IEP that can be individualized based on the needs of the student

(see Online IEP System Recommendation 3). Three sample summaries are included,

but the intention of the workgroup is that the IEP team would determine which

information is useful for each member of the IEP team in a summary.

The summaries are intended to be in addition to the copy of the IEP each member

receives, removing information that was important for the development of the IEP but

that is less important for its implementation (e.g., the justifications behind decisions

made).

109

IEP Summary for General Education Teachers

Annual Individualized Education Program (IEP) IEP Dates:

________ to _______

General Education Teacher Summary

Student name and pronouns: _________________

Student ID number: _________ Grade:

_________

Student birthdate and age: ___________________

Primary language of the student: ______________

Primary language(s) of the family/guardian: ______

School district:

___________

School of residence or choice: __________

School the student attends (if different):

___

IEP type (circle one):

Initial Annual Amendment

____________

1. Student Strengths, Interests, Preferences, and Learning Needs

1a. Strengths

(Student) I am particularly good at:

(Family/Guardian) Our child/young adult’s strengths are:

(Teachers and Service Providers) The student’s strengths at school and with their peers are:

1b. Interests

(Student) I am interested in and like to:

(Other Team Members) The student also has expressed interests in and preferences for:

1c. Learning and Communication Preferences

(Student) I learn and experience school best in these ways and with these supports:

(Student) I communicate in these ways:

1d. Learning Needs

(Family/Guardian) Our concerns and priorities for our child/young adult’s education this year are:

(Teachers and Service Providers) Our priorities for the student’s learning and making progress in

the general education curriculum this year are:

(IEP Team) This information from formal and informal evaluations, including progress toward

previous goals, is most important to consider in developing this IEP and informing instructional

strategies:

110

4. Plan for Achieving Academic, Functional, and Post-School Outcomes

4a. Present Levels of Performance

Present levels of performance as determined using multiple measures across learning modalities and settings. Includes how the

student’s disability affects their participation and progress in the general education curriculum (i.e., the same curriculum as for

nondisabled children) and for preschool children, as appropriate, how the disability affects the child's participation in appropriate

activities.

Academic performance Communication, social-emotional,

functional, behavior, and other

performance

(required for students age 14 or older)

Results of transition assessment(s)

related to training or education,

competitive integrated employment, and

independent and/or supported living (as

appropriate)

To inform standards-based goals, the student’s status related to the grade-level content standards in the student’s current

grade and in the highest grade the student will participate in during the period of this IEP, including standards met, with and

without accommodations, and standards the student needs support to meet.

How the disability affects the child or student’s participation in routines and activities including those related to academic learning

including pre-literacy and pre-numeracy, inside and outside the classroom. (required for preschool children, optional for other students)

Routine or Activity

Impact of Disability (positive or negative)

111

4b. Annual, Measurable IEP Goal(s)

Short-term objectives to meet each goal are required for students who take alternate assessments aligned to alternate academic

standards and optional for others.

Standards-based academic goal(s) Communication, social-emotional,

functional, behavior, and other goal(s)

(required for students age 14 or older)

Post-school goal(s) for training or

education, competitive integrated

employment, and independent and/or

supported living (as appropriate)

Progress toward each goal. How and how frequently will the student’s progress toward each goal be measured and reported?

Goal #

Mechanism

Frequency

4c. Instructional Strategies to Meet Annual Goals

Strategies (e.g., embedded systematic instruction, peer supports, use of graphic organizers) to be used in the general education setting

to support the student to make progress toward their academic goals.

Academic strategies

Communication, social-emotional,

functional, behavior, and other strategies

(required for students age 14 or older)

Strategies related to secondary transition

112

4d. Family Engagement and Partnership

How the IEP team will support the family, including strategies to help the family support the student.

Academic supports

Communication, social-emotional,

functional, behavior, and other supports

(required for students age 14 or older)

Supports related to secondary transition

113

5. Nonacademic, Extracurricular, and Social Activities

How the student will participate in nonacademic, extracurricular, and social activities with their

nondisabled peers, including any activities and community experiences to support post-school

goals.

6. Accommodations, Special Education and Related Services, and Program Modifications

6a. Accommodations

Accommodation Title(s) of

Professional

Staff

Responsible

Needed for

Assessment

s (Y/N)

Related Goal(s) and

Areas of Need

Addressed

6b. Program Modifications

Program Modification Title(s) of

Professional

Staff

Responsible

Related Goal(s) and

Areas of Need

Addressed

6c. Special Education and Related Services

Special Education or

Related Service

Title of

Professional

Staff

Responsible

Frequency and

Duration

Use only one column

for each service,

document by minutes.

Location Dates of

Service

Goal(s) and

Areas of

Need

Addressed

Per

Day

Per

Week

Per

Month

Start End

i. Consultation (Indirect Services to School Personnel and Parents/Guardians)

Total Minutes (Indirect Services)

ii. Special Education and Related Services in the General Education Classroom (Direct Services)

Total Minutes

iii. Special Education and Related Services in Other Settings (Direct Services)

Total Minutes

114

6d. Other Services and Agencies (required for students age 14 or older)

Services outside of special education the student is receiving at school that should be considered

as part of the student’s educational plan (e.g., supplemental tutoring, enrichment courses,

counseling)

Services outside of school (private or public) the student is currently receiving or needs to receive.

Agency or Provider Name

Service(s) Currently Receiving or Needed (if needed, how the

service will be accessed, or a referral provided)

14. Communication about the IEP

Agreed upon method for the school to communicate with the student and family about the IEP,

including under emergency conditions in which instruction or services, or both, cannot be provided

to the pupil either at the school or in person for more than 10 school days.

115

IEP Summary for Parents/Guardians

Annual Individualized Education Program (IEP) IEP Dates: _______ to _______

Parent/Guardian Summary

Student name and pronouns: _________________

Student ID number: _________ Grade: _________

Student birthdate and age: ___________________

Primary language of the student: ______________

Primary language(s) of the family/guardian: ______

School district: _______________________

School of residence or choice: __________

School the student attends (if different): ___

IEP type (circle one):

Initial Annual Amendment

1. Student Strengths, Interests, Preferences, and Learning Needs

1a. Strengths

(Student) I am particularly good at:

(Family/Guardian) Our child/young adult’s strengths are:

(Teachers and Service Providers) The student’s strengths at school and with their peers are:

1b. Interests

(Student) I am interested in and like to:

(Other Team Members) The student also has expressed interests in and preferences for:

1c. Learning and Communication Preferences

(Student) I learn and experience school best in these ways and with these supports:

(Student) I communicate in these ways:

1d. Learning Needs

(Family/Guardian) Our concerns and priorities for our child/young adult’s education this year are:

(Teachers and Service Providers) Our priorities for the student’s learning and making progress in

the general education curriculum this year are:

(IEP Team) This information from formal and informal evaluations, including progress toward

previous goals, is most important to consider in developing this IEP and informing instructional

strategies:

116

2. Vision for the Future and Pathway to a High School Diploma

2a. High School Graduation Date – Projected date of graduation with a high school diploma: _______

2b. Student Vision for the Future

Next week I want to / I want my child or young adult to:

In one year, I want to / I want my child or young adult to:

In three years, I want to / I want my child or young adult to:

In five to ten years, I want to / I want my child or young adult to:

After I leave high school, I want to / I want my child or young adult to: (required for students age

14 and older)

2c. Course of Study (required for students who will participate in 8

grade or higher during this IEP)

Course of study that will lead to a high school diploma.

2d. Important Transitions on the Pathway to a High School Diploma

☐

None

☐ Entering preschool from early intervention

☐

Entering elementary school (Kindergarten)

☐ Entering middle school

☐ Entering high school

☐ Leaving high school

☐

Transitioning to a new school

☐

Transitioning from a nonpublic placement

☐ Transitioning to more or less time in general

education

☐ Transitioning between available methods to

participate in school (e.g., independent study,

distance, hybrid, in-person learning

☐ Other (specify): ____________

How the student has been or will be prepared for any upcoming transitions and any supports

needed to ensure a smooth transition.

117

4. Plan for Achieving Academic, Functional, and Post-School Outcomes

4a. Present Levels of Performance

Present levels of performance as determined using multiple measures across learning modalities and settings. Includes how the

tudent’s disability affects their participation and progress in the general education curriculum (i.e., the same curriculum as for

nondisabled children) and for preschool children, as appropriate, how the disability affects the child's participation in appropriate

activities.

Academic performance Communication, social-emotional,

functional, behavior, and other

performance

(required for students age 14 or older)

Results of transition assessment(s)

related to training or education,

competitive integrated employment, and

independent and/or supported living (as

appropriate)

To inform standards-based goals, the student’s status related to the grade-level content standards in the student’s current

grade and in the highest grade the student will participate in during the period of this IEP, including standards met, with and

without accommodations, and standards the student needs support to meet.

How the disability affects the child or student’s participation in routines and activities including those related to academic learning

including pre-literacy and pre-numeracy, inside and outside the classroom. (required for preschool children, optional for other students)

Routine or Activity Impact of Disability (positive or negative)

118

4b. Annual, Measurable IEP Goal(s)

Short-term objectives to meet each goal are required for students who take alternate assessments aligned to alternate academic

standards and optional for others.

Standards-based academic goal(s)

Communication, social-emotional,

functional, behavior, and other goal(s)

(required for students age 14 or older)

Post-school goal(s) for training or

education, competitive integrated

employment, and independent and/or

supported living (as appropriate)

Progress toward each goal. How and how frequently will the student’s progress toward each goal be measured and reported?

Goal #

Mechanism

Frequency

4d. Family Engagement and Partnership

How the IEP team will support the family, including strategies to help the family support the student.

Academic supports

Communication, social-emotional,

functional, behavior, and other supports

(required for students age 14 or older)

Supports related to secondary transition

119

5. Nonacademic, Extracurricular, and Social Activities

How the student will participate in nonacademic, extracurricular, and social activities with their

nondisabled peers, including any activities and community experiences to support post-school

goals.

6. Accommodations, Special Education and Related Services, and Program Modifications

6a. Accommodations

Accommodation

Title(s) of

Professional

Staff

Responsible

Needed for

Assessment

s (Y/N)

Related Goal(s) and

Areas of Need

Addressed

6b. Program Modifications

Program Modification Title(s) of

Professional

Staff

Responsible

Related Goal(s) and

Areas of Need

Addressed

6c. Special Education and Related Services

Special Education or

Related Service

Title of

Professional

Staff

Responsible

Frequency and

Duration

Use only one column

for each service,

document by minutes.

Location

Dates of

Service

Goal(s) and

Areas of

Need

Addressed

Per

Day

Per

Week

Per

Month

Start

End

i. Consultation (Indirect Services to School Personnel and Parents/Guardians)

Total Minutes (Indirect Services)

ii. Special Education and Related Services in the General Education Classroom (Direct Services)

Total Minutes

iii. Special Education and Related Services in Other Settings (Direct Services)

Total Minutes

120

6d. Other Services and Agencies (required for students age 14 or older)

Services outside of special education the student is receiving at school that should be considered

as part of the student’s educational plan (e.g., supplemental tutoring, enrichment courses,

counseling)

Services outside of school (private or public) the student is currently receiving or needs to receive.

Agency or Provider Name Service(s) Currently Receiving or Needed (if needed, how the

service will be accessed, or a referral provided)

8. Transportation as a Related Service

Does the student need transportation to access and benefit from special education and related

services? ◯ Yes ◯ No

If Yes, transportation will be provided:

◯ On a regular transportation vehicle with the following modifications and/or specialized

equipment and precautions:

◯ On a special transportation vehicle with the following modifications and/or specialized

equipment and precautions:

14. Communication about the IEP

Agreed upon method for the school to communicate with the student and family about the IEP,

including under emergency conditions in which instruction or services, or both, cannot be provided

to the pupil either at the school or in person for more than 10 school days.

121

IEP Summary Describing how the IEP will be Implemented Under Emergency Conditions

Annual Individualized Education Program (IEP) IEP Dates:

_______ to ______

Emergency Conditions Summary

Student name and pronouns: _________________

Student ID number: _________ Grade: _________

Student birthdate and age: ___________________

Primary language of the student: ______________

Primary language(s) of the family/guardian: ______

School district: _______________________

School of residence or choice: __________

School the student attends (if different): ___

IEP type (circle one):

Initial Annual Amendment

1. Student Strengths, Interests, Preferences, and Learning Needs

1c. Learning and Communication Preferences

(Student) I learn and experience school best in these ways and with these supports:

(Student) I communicate in these ways:

3. Special Factors

3a. Behavior. Are there behavioral interventions, supports, or other strategies, in addition to any

schoolwide or typical classroom supports, needed to address behavior that impedes the student’s

learning or the learning of others? ◯ Yes ◯ No

3b. Blindness and Visual Impairments. Is the student blind or visually impaired? ◯ Yes ◯ No

3c. Communication Needs and Deaf or Hard of Hearing. Does the student have communication

needs

? Is the student deaf or hard of hearing? ◯ Yes ◯ No

3d. Assistive Technology Devices and Services. Does the student need assistive technology devices

and services? ◯ Yes ◯ No

3e. Individualized Health Plan. Does the student have medical conditions that require an

ndividualized Health Plan (IHP)? ◯ Yes ◯ No

3f. Multilingual Learner. Is the student an emerging multilingual learner? ◯ Yes ◯ No

3g. Emergency Conditions

Considerations for how the student will receive any needed accommodations or services due to

special factors including ELD services under emergency conditions in which instruction or services,

or both, cannot be provided to the student either at the school or in person for more than 10 school

days during the board-approved instructional academic year.

122

4. Plan for Achieving Academic, Functional, and Post-School Outcomes

4b. Annual, Measurable IEP Goal(s)

Standards-based academic goal(s) Communication, social-emotional,

functional, behavior, and other goal(s)

(required for students age 14 or older)

Post-school goal(s) for training or

education, competitive integrated

employment, and independent and/or

supported living (as appropriate)

4d. Family Engagement and Partnership

How the IEP team will support the family, including strategies to help the family support the student.

Academic supports

Communication, social-emotional,

functional, behavior, and other supports

(required for students age 14 or older)

Supports related to secondary transition

4e. Emergency Conditions

Considerations for how the student’s goals can be met under emergency conditions in which instruction or services, or both, cannot be

provided to the student either at the school or in person for more than 10 school days during the board-approved instructional academic

year.

Academic considerations

Communication, social-emotional,

functional, behavior, and other

considerations

(required for students age 14 or older)

Considerations related to secondary

transition

123

5. Nonacademic, Extracurricular, and Social Activities

5e. Emergency Conditions

Considerations for how the student will have access to nonacademic, extracurricular, and social

activities under emergency conditions in which instruction or services, or both, cannot be provided

to the student either at the school or in person for more than 10 school days during the board

approved instructional academic year.

6. Accommodations, Special Education and Related Services, and Program Modifications

6e. Emergency Conditions

Considerations for how the student will receive the accommodations, modifications, and special

education and related services in this IEP under emergency conditions in which instruction or

services, or both, cannot be provided to the student either at the school or in person for more than

10 school days during the board-approved instructional academic year.

7. Least Restrictive Environment

7d. Emergency Conditions

Considerations for how the student will have access to general education instruction and general

education peers under emergency conditions in which instruction or services, or both, cannot be

provided to the student either at the school or in person for more than 10 school days during the

board-approved instructional academic year.

9. Extended School Year

9c. Emergency Conditions

Considerations for how the student will have access to extended school year services under

emergency conditions in which instruction or services, or both, cannot be provided to the student

either at the school or in person for more than 10 school days during the board-approved

instructional academic year.

14. Communication about the IEP

Agreed upon method for the school to communicate with the student and family about the IEP,

including under emergency conditions in which instruction or services, or both, cannot be provided

to the pupil either at the school or in person for more than 10 school days.

124

Appendix G. IEP Content Requirements

The table below includes the requirements in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations related to IEPs and indicates where California Education Code or the California Code of Regulations have

requirements that are different from or in addition to the IDEA requirements.

IDEA Regulatory Requirements (34 CFR §300) California Education Code Requirements (Title 2,

Division 4, Part 30)

California Code of Regulations

Requirements (Title 5, Division 1, Chapter

Corresponding Proposed

IEP Template Section(s)

None

Section 56341.1 (h) It is the intent of the Legislature that

the individualized education program team meetings be

nonadversarial and convened solely for the purpose of

making educational decisions for the good of the

individual with exceptional needs.

None All

§300.320 Definition of an IEP.

[IEP must include]

(a)(1)

A statement of the child's present levels of academic achievement and

functional performance, including—

(i) How the child's disability affects the child's involvement and progress in

the general education curriculum (i.e., the same curriculum as for

nondisabled children); or

(ii) For preschool children, as appropriate, how the disability affects the child's

participation in appropriate activities;

Section 56345(a)(1)

None

Section 4a. Present Levels

of Performance

[IEP must include]

(a)(2)(i)

A statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and

functional goals designed to—

(A) Meet the child's needs that result from the child's disability to enable the

child to be involved in and make progress in the general education

curriculum; and

(B) Meet each of the child's other educational needs that result from the

child's disability;

(ii) For children with disabilities who take alternate assessments aligned to

alternate academic achievement standards, a description of benchmarks or

short-term objectives;

Section 56345(a)(2)

None

Section 4b. Annual,

Measurable IEP Goal(s)

[IEP must include]

(a)(3)

A description of—

(i) How the child's progress toward meeting the annual goals described in

paragraph (2) of this section will be measured; and

(ii) When periodic reports on the progress the child is making toward meeting

the annual goals (such as through the use of quarterly or other periodic

reports, concurrent with the issuance of report cards) will be provided;

Section 56345(a)(3)

None

Section 4b. Annual,

Measurable IEP Goal(s)

125

IDEA Regulatory Requirements (34 CFR §300)

California Education Code Requirements (Title 2,

Division 4, Part 30)

California Code of Regulations

Requirements (Title 5, Division 1, Chapter

Corresponding Proposed

IEP Template Section(s)

[IEP must include]

(a)(4)

A statement of the special education and related services and

supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the

extent practicable, to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a

statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that

will be provided to enable the child—

(i) To advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals;

(ii) To be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum

in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and to participate in

extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; and

(iii) To be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and

nondisabled children in the activities described in this section;

Section 56345(a)(4)

None

Section 6c. Special

Education and Related

Services

Section 5. Nonacademic,

Extracurricular, and Social

Activities

Section 7. Least Restrictive

Environment

[IEP must include]

(a)(5) An explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child will not

participate with nondisabled children in the regular class and in the activities

described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section;

Section 56345(a)(5)

None

Section 7. Least Restrictive

Environment

[IEP must include]

(a)(6)(i)

A statement of any individual appropriate accommodations that are

necessary to measure the academic achievement and functional

performance of the child on State and districtwide assessments consistent

with section 612(a)(16) of the Act; and

(ii) If the IEP Team determines that the child must take an alternate

assessment instead of a particular regular State or districtwide assessment of

student achievement, a statement of why—

(A) The child cannot participate in the regular assessment; and

(B) The particular alternate assessment selected is appropriate for the child;

Section 56345(a)(6)

None

Section 10. Participation in

Local (e.g., Districtwide)

and Statewide Assessments

[IEP must include]

(a)(7) The projected date for the beginning of the services and modifications

described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, and the anticipated frequency,

location, and duration of those services and modifications.

Section 56345(a)(7)

None

Section 6.

Accommodations, Special

Education and Related

Services, and Program

Modifications

(b)

Transition services. Beginning not later than the first IEP to be in effect

when the child turns 16, or younger if determined appropriate by the IEP

Team, and updated annually, thereafter, the IEP must include—

(1) Appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age

appropriate transition assessments related to training, education,

employment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills;

(2) The transition services (including courses of study) needed to assist the

child in reaching those goals.

Section 56345(a)(8)

None

Section 4b. Annual,

Measurable IEP Goal(s)

Section 6.

Accommodations, Special

Education and Related

Services, and Program

Modifications

Section 2c. Course of Study

126

IDEA Regulatory Requirements (34 CFR §300)

California Education Code Requirements (Title 2,

Division 4, Part 30)

California Code of Regulations

Requirements (Title 5, Division 1, Chapter

Corresponding Proposed

IEP Template Section(s)

None

Section 56345(a)(9)

(A)

A description of the means by which the

individualized education program will be provided under

emergency conditions, as described in Section 46392, in

which instruction or services, or both, cannot be provided

to the pupil either at the school or in person for more

than 10 school days. The description shall include all of

the following:

(i) Special education and related services.

(ii) Supplementary aids and services.

(iii) Transition services, as defined in Section 56345.1

(iv) Extended school year services pursuant to Section

300.106 of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

(B) Subparagraph (A) shall apply, on or after the

operative date of this paragraph, to the development of

an initial individualized education program or the next

regularly scheduled revision of an individualized

education program that has not already met the

requirements of subparagraph (A).

implementing subparagraph (A).

None

Sections 3f.vi, 4e, 5a, 6e,

7d, 9c, and 14. Emergency

Conditions

None

Section 56345 (b)

If appropriate, the individualized education program shall

also include, but not be limited to, all of the following:

(1) For pupils in grades 7 to 12, inclusive, any alternative

means and modes necessary for the pupil to complete

the prescribed course of study of the district and to meet

or exceed proficiency standards for graduation.

None

Section 2a. High School

Graduation Date

Section 2c. Course of Study

None

Section 56345(b)(4) Provision for the transition into the

regular class program if the pupil is to be transferred

from a special class or nonpublic, nonsectarian school

into a regular class in a public school for any part of the

schoolday, including both of the following:

(A)

A description of activities provided to integrate the

pupil into the regular education program. The description

shall indicate the nature of each activity, and the time

spent on the activity each day or week.

(B) A description of the activities provided to support the

transition of pupils from the special education program

into the regular education program.

None Section 2d. Important

Transitions on the Pathway

to a High School Diploma

127

IDEA Regulatory Requirements (34 CFR §300)

California Education Code Requirements (Title 2,

Division 4, Part 30)

California Code of Regulations

Requirements (Title 5, Division 1, Chapter

Corresponding Proposed

IEP Template Section(s)

None

Section 56345(b)(5) For pupils with low-incidence

disabilities, specialized services, materials, and

equipment, consistent with guidelines established

pursuant to Section 56136.

None

Section 3b. Blindness and

Visual Impairments

Section 3c. Communication

Needs and Deaf or Hard of

Hearing

before the child reaches the age of majority under State law, the IEP must

include a statement that the child has been informed of the child's rights

under Part B of the Act, if any, that will transfer to the child on reaching the

age of majority under §300.520.

Section 56345(g)

None

Section 13a. Transfer of

Rights and Age of Majority

§300.321 IEP Team.

(a)

General. The public agency must ensure that the IEP Team for each child

with a disability includes—

(1) The parents of the child;

(2) Not less than one regular education teacher of the child (if the child is, or

may be, participating in the regular education environment);

(3) Not less than one special education teacher of the child, or where

appropriate, not less than one special education provider of the child;

(4) A representative of the public agency who—

(i) Is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed

instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities;

(ii) Is knowledgeable about the general education curriculum; and

(iii) Is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the public agency.

(5) An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation

results, who may be a member of the team described in paragraphs (a)(2)

through (a)(6) of this section;

(6) At the discretion of the parent or the agency, other individuals who have

knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related services

personnel as appropriate; and

(7) Whenever appropriate, the child with a disability.

Section 56341(b)

(1) One or both of the pupil’s parents, a representative

selected by a parent, or both…

(2)

Not less than one regular education teacher of the

pupil, if the pupil is, or may be, participating in the regular

education environment. If more than one regular

education teacher is providing instructional services to

the individual with exceptional needs, one regular

education teacher may be designated by the local

educational agency to represent the others.

Section 56341(c)

Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, for a pupil

suspected of having a specific learning disability, at least

one member of the individualized education program

team shall be qualified to conduct individual diagnostic

examinations of children, such as a school psychologist,

speech-language pathologist, or remedial reading

teacher. In accordance with Section 300.310 of Title 34

of the Code of Federal Regulations, at least one team

member shall observe the pupil’s academic performance

and behavior in the areas of difficulty in the pupil’s

learning environment, including in the regular classroom

setting. In the case of a child who is less than schoolage

or out of school, a team member shall observe the child

in an environment appropriate for a child of that age.

None

Section 11. Meeting

Participants

128

IDEA Regulatory Requirements (34 CFR §300)

California Education Code Requirements (Title 2,

Division 4, Part 30)

California Code of Regulations

Requirements (Title 5, Division 1, Chapter

Corresponding Proposed

IEP Template Section(s)

(b)

Transition services participants. (1) In accordance with paragraph (a)(7) of

this section, the public agency must invite a child with a disability to attend

the child's IEP Team meeting if a purpose of the meeting will be the

consideration of the postsecondary goals for the child and the transition

services needed to assist the child in reaching those goals under

§300.320(b).

(2) If the child does not attend the IEP Team meeting, the public agency must

take other steps to ensure that the child's preferences and interests are

considered.

(3) To the extent appropriate, with the consent of the parents or a child who

has reached the age of majority, in implementing the requirements of

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the public agency must invite a

representative of any participating agency that is likely to be responsible for

providing or paying for transition services.

Section 56341(d)

None

Section 11. Meeting

Participants

(e) IEP Team attendance. (1) A member of the IEP Team described in

paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(5) of this section is not required to attend an

IEP Team meeting, in whole or in part, if the parent of a child with a disability

and the public agency agree, in writing, that the attendance of the member is

not necessary because the member's area of the curriculum or related

services is not being modified or discussed in the meeting.

Section 56341(f)

None

Section 11. Meeting

Participants

(2)

A member of the IEP Team described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section

may be excused from attending an IEP Team meeting, in whole or in part,

when the meeting involves a modification to or discussion of the member's

area of the curriculum or related services, if—

(i) The parent, in writing, and the public agency consent to the excusal; and

(ii) The member submits, in writing to the parent and the IEP Team, input into

the development of the IEP prior to the meeting.

Section 56341(g)

Section 56341 (h) A parent’s agreement under

subdivision (f) and consent under subdivision (g) shall be

in writing.

None

Section 11. Meeting

Participants

(f) Initial IEP Team meeting for child under Part C. In the case of a child who

was previously served under Part C of the Act, an invitation to the initial IEP

Team meeting must, at the request of the parent, be sent to the Part C

service coordinator or other representatives of the Part C system to assist

with the smooth transition of services

Section 56341(i)

None

Section 2d. Important

Transitions on the Pathway

to a High School Diploma

Section 11. Meeting

Participants

§300.322 Parent participation.

(a)

Public agency responsibility—general. Each public agency must take

steps to ensure that one or both of the parents of a child with a disability are

present at each IEP Team meeting or are afforded the opportunity to

participate, including—

(1) Notifying parents of the meeting early enough to ensure that they will

have an opportunity to attend; and

(2) Scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place.

Section 56341.5

None

Section 11. Meeting

Participants

129

IDEA Regulatory Requirements (34 CFR §300)

California Education Code Requirements (Title 2,

Division 4, Part 30)

California Code of Regulations

Requirements (Title 5, Division 1, Chapter

Corresponding Proposed

IEP Template Section(s)

§300.324 Development, review, and revision of IEP.

(a)

Development of IEP—(1) General. In developing each child's IEP, the IEP

Team must consider—

(i) The strengths of the child;

(ii) The concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child;

(iii) The results of the initial or most recent evaluation of the child; and

(iv) The academic, developmental, and functional needs of the child.

Section 56341.1(a)

Section 56341.1 (f) The parent or guardian shall have the

right to present information to the individualized

education program team in person or through a

representative and the right to participate in meetings,

relating to eligibility for special education and related

services, recommendations, and program planning.

None

Section 1. Student

Strengths, Interests,

Preferences, and Learning

Needs

Section 4a. Present Levels

of Performance

(2)

Consideration of special factors. The IEP Team must—

(i) In the case of a child whose behavior impedes the child's learning or that

of others, consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports,

and other strategies, to address that behavior;

Section 56341.1(b)(1)

None

Section 3. Special Factors

(ii) In the case of a child with limited English proficiency, consider the

language needs of the child as those needs relate to the child's IEP;

Section 56341.1(b)(2)

Section 56345 (b)(2) For individuals whose native

language is a language other than English, linguistically

appropriate goals, objectives, programs, and services.

None

Section 3a. Behavior

(iii) In the case of a child who is blind or visually impaired, provide for

instruction in Braille and the use of Braille unless the IEP Team determines,

after an evaluation of the child's reading and writing skills, needs, and

appropriate reading and writing media (including an evaluation of the child's

future needs for instruction in Braille or the use of Braille), that instruction in

Braille or the use of Braille is not appropriate for the child;

Section 56341.1(b)(3)

None

Section 3b. Blindness and

Visual Impairments

(iv) Consider the communication needs of the child, and in the case of a child

who is deaf or hard of hearing, consider the child's language and

communication needs, opportunities for direct communications with peers

and professional personnel in the child's language and communication mode,

academic level, and full range of needs, including opportunities for direct

instruction in the child's language and communication mode;

Section 56341.1(b)(4)

None

Section 3c. Communication

Needs and Deaf or Hard of

Hearing

(v) Consider whether the child needs assistive technology devices and

services.

Section 56341.1(b)(5)

None

Section 3d. Assistive

Technology Devices and

Services

None

Section 56341.1(c) If, in considering the special factors

described in subdivisions (a) and (b), the individualized

education program team determines that a pupil needs a

particular device or service, including an intervention,

accommodation, or other program modification, in order

for the pupil to receive a free appropriate public

education, the individualized education program team

shall include a statement to that effect in the pupil’s

individualized education program.

None

Section 3. Special Factors

130

IDEA Regulatory Requirements (34 CFR §300)

California Education Code Requirements (Title 2,

Division 4, Part 30)

California Code of Regulations

Requirements (Title 5, Division 1, Chapter

Corresponding Proposed

IEP Template Section(s)

(3)

Requirement with respect to regular education teacher. A regular

education teacher of a child with a disability, as a member of the IEP Team,

must, to the extent appropriate, participate in the development of the IEP of

the child, including the determination of—

(i) Appropriate positive behavioral interventions and supports and other

strategies for the child;

(ii) Supplementary aids and services, program modifications, and support for

school personnel consistent with §300.320(a)(4).

Section 56341(b)(2)

None

Section 1. Student

Strengths, Interests,

Preferences, and Learning

Needs

Section 6.

Accommodations, Special

Education and Related

Services, and Program

Modifications

Section 11. Meeting

Participants

(b) Review and revision of IEPs—(1) General. Each public agency must

ensure that, subject to paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section, the IEP

Team—

(i)

Reviews the child's IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to

determine whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved; and

(ii) Revises the IEP, as appropriate, to address—

(A) Any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals described in

§300.320(a)(2), and in the general education curriculum, if appropriate;

(B) The results of any reevaluation conducted under §300.303;

under §300.305(a)(2);

(D) The child's anticipated needs; or

(E) Other matters.

Section 56341.1(d)

None

All Sections

§300.114 LRE requirements.

(a) General. (1)

Except as provided in §300.324(d)(2) (regarding children with

disabilities in adult prisons), the State must have in effect policies and

procedures to ensure that public agencies in the State meet the LRE

requirements of this section and §§300.115 through 300.120.

(2) Each public agency must ensure that—

(i) 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;

Section 56040.1

None

Section 7. Least Restrictive

Environment

(ii) 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.

Section 56040.b

None

Section 7. Least Restrictive

Environment

131

IDEA Regulatory Requirements (34 CFR §300)

California Education Code Requirements (Title 2,

Division 4, Part 30)

California Code of Regulations

Requirements (Title 5, Division 1, Chapter

Corresponding Proposed

IEP Template Section(s)

§300.116 Placements.

In determining the educational placement of a child with a disability, including

a preschool child with a disability, each public agency must ensure that—

(a)

The placement decision—

(1) Is made by a group of persons, including the parents, and other persons

knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the

placement options; and

(2) Is made in conformity with the LRE provisions of this subpart, including

§§300.114 through 300.118;

(b) The child's placement—

(1) Is determined at least annually;

(2) Is based on the child's IEP; and

(3) Is as close as possible to the child's home;

arrangement, the child is educated in the school that he or she would attend

if nondisabled;

(d) In selecting the LRE, consideration is given to any potential harmful effect

on the child or on the quality of services that he or she needs;

(e) A child with a disability is not removed from education in age-appropriate

regular classrooms solely because of needed modifications in the general

education curriculum.

Section 56342(b)

§ 3042. Placement.

(a)

Specific educational placement means

that unique combination of facilities,

personnel, location or equipment necessary

to provide instructional services to an

individual with exceptional needs, as

specified in the IEP, in any one or a

combination of public, private, home and

hospital, or residential settings.

(b) The IEP team shall document its rationale

for placement in other than the pupil's school

and classroom in which the pupil would

otherwise attend if the pupil were not

disabled. The documentation shall indicate

why the pupil's disability prevents his or her

needs from being met in a less restrictive

environment even with the use of

supplementary aids and services.

Section 7. Least Restrictive

Environment

None

Section 56342.1.

…An individual with exceptional needs shall not be

referred to, or placed in, a nonpublic, nonsectarian

school unless his or her individualized education

program specifies that the placement is appropriate.

None

Section 7. Least Restrictive

Environment

§300.117 Nonacademic settings.

In providing or arranging for the provision of nonacademic and extracurricular

services and activities, including meals, recess periods, and the services and

activities set forth in §300.107, each public agency must ensure that each

child with a disability participates with nondisabled children in the

extracurricular services and activities to the maximum extent appropriate to

the needs of that child. The public agency must ensure that each child with a

disability has the supplementary aids and services determined by the child's

IEP Team to be appropriate and necessary for the child to participate in

nonacademic settings.

Section 56345.2 (c)

Section 5. Nonacademic,

Extracurricular, and Social

Activities

§300.106 Extended school year services.

(a) General. (1)

Each public agency must ensure that extended school year

services are available as necessary to provide FAPE, consistent with

paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

(2) Extended school year services must be provided only if a child's IEP

Team determines, on an individual basis, in accordance with §§300.320

through 300.324, that the services are necessary for the provision of FAPE to

the child.

Section 56345 (b)(3)

Pursuant to Section 300.106 of Title 34 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, extended school year services shall

be included in the individualized education program and

provided to the pupil if the individualized education

program team of the pupil determines, on an individual

basis, that the services are necessary for the provision of

a free appropriate public education to the pupil.

§ 3043. Extended School Year.

(d) An extended year program shall be

provided for a minimum of 20 instructional

days, including holidays.

(e) An extended year program, when

needed, as determined by the IEP team,

shall be included in the pupil's IEP.

Section 9. Extended School

Year

132

Appendix H. Other Relevant Forms That are not Part of the IEP

Template

As described in the report, the IDEA lays out the content and structure for developing

the IEP. There are a number of forms that are commonly used, associated with, and

often included in the IEP that are not required to be part of the IEP itself. As a result, the

content and structure of these forms was considered to be beyond the scope of the

workgroup’s charge and those forms could continue to be determined locally. The

workgroup did not make a recommendation for the state to standardize any of these

forms, however the state could review these forms to determine whether there is value

in establishing statewide versions, sharing samples or model forms, or taking other

related actions. A sample of administrative data form is included in this appendix, but

the details of this form may not be amenable to standardization across the state due to

the lack of a statewide student information system and the overlap in data collected

about the student and from the parents/guardians.

These forms include:

• Pre-meeting Forms to Gather Input from IEP Team Members

• Administrative Data Form

• Documentation of the Eligibility Determination

• Documentation of the Need for and Consent for Reevaluation

• Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP)

• IEP Team Member Excusal Form

• Consent to Bill Public Insurance

133

Student Administrative Data

Sample form adapted from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s

Administrative Data Sheet, retrieved from

https://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/iep/forms/english/.

This form is a supplement to the annual IEP to ensure correct administrative data. The school district

may update this information directly in its student information system (SIS) and confirm with parents.

It is not a required section of the IEP document.

STUDENT INFORMATION

Full Name:

Student ID#: Birth Date:

Preferred Name:

Pronouns: _____________________Gender: Male Female  Nonbinary

Primary Language: Language of Instruction: Grade/Level:

Address: Home Telephone: If

18 or older:  Acting on Own Behalf  Court Appointed Guardian:

PARENT/GUARDIAN INFORMATION

Name: Relationship to Student:

Address:

Home Telephone: Other Telephone:

Primary Language of parent/guardian:

PARENT/GUARDIAN INFORMATION

Name: Relationship to Student:

Address:

Home Telephone: Other Telephone:

Primary Language of parent/guardian:

ELIGIBILITY AND IEP MEETING INFORMATION

Special Education Eligibility Category:

Date of Most Recent IEP: Next Scheduled IEP Review Meeting:

Date of Most Recent Evaluation: Next Planned Three-Year Reevaluation:

DISTRICT AND SCHOOL INFORMATION

School Name: Telephone:

Address:

Contact Person: Role: Telephone:

District Name: Telephone:

Address:

Contact Person: Role: Telephone:

134

References

Arndt, S. A., Konrad, M., & Test, D. W. (2006). Effects of the self-directed IEP on

student participation in planning meetings. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 194-

207. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/07419325060270040101

Allday, R. Allan, Shelley Neilsen-Gatti, and Tina M. Hudson. "Preparation for inclusion in

teacher education pre-service curricula." Teacher education and special education 36,

no. 4 (2013): 298-311.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0888406413497485

Allison, R. (2011). The lived experiences of general and special education teachers in

inclusion classrooms: A phenomenological study. Retrieved from

http://www.gcu.edu/KenBlanchard-College-of-Business/The-Canyon-Journal-of-

Interdisciplinary-Studies/TheLived-Experiences-of-General-and-Special-Education-

Teachers-in-InclusionClassrooms-a-Phenomenological-Study.php

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What

makes it special. Journal of teacher education, 59(5), 389-407.

https://www.ime.usp.br/~dpdias/2019/Ball%20Thames%20Phelps%202007.pdf

Barnard, B., & Lechtenberger, D. (2010). Student IEP participation and academic

achievement across time. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 343-349.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0741932509338382

135

Blanchett, W. J. (2009). A retrospective examination of urban education: From Brown to

the resegregation of African Americans in special education—It is time to “go for

broke”. Urban Education, 44(4), 370-388.

California Department of Education (CDE), 2021. State Performance Plan / Annual

Performance Report: Part B.

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/spp-apr-letters

California Statewide Special Education Task Force. (2015). One system: Reforming

education to serve all students: Report of California’s statewide task force on special

education. California Statewide Special Education Task Force.

https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/sr/taskforce2015.asp

Carter, E. W., & Hughes, C. (2006). Including high school students with severe

disabilities in general education classes: Perspectives of general and special educators,

paraprofessionals, and administrators. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe

Disabilities, 31(2), 174-185.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ756423

Cassady, J. (2011). Teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of students with autism and

emotional behavioral disorder. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 2(7), 1-23.

Retrieved from http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/

Christle, C & Yell, M. L. (2010). Individualized Education Programs: Legal requirements

and research findings, Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 18(3), 109-123.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ892138

Cipkin, G., & Rizza, F. T. (2010). The attitude of teachers on inclusion. Retrieved from

http://www.nummarius.com/The_Attitude_of_Teachers_on_Inclusion.pdf

136

Cobb, C. (2015) Principals play many parts: a review of the research on school

principals as special education leaders 2001–2011, International Journal of Inclusive

Education, 19:3, 213-234.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13603116.2014.916354

Cole, C. M., Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004). Academic progress of students across

inclusive and traditional settings. Mental retardation, 42(2), 136-144.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15008642/

Clark, S.G. (2000). The IEP process as a tool for collaboration. Teaching Exceptional

Children, 33(2), 56-66. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ614796

Danneker, J. E., & Bottge, B. A. (2009). Benefits of and barriers to elementary student-

led individualized education programs. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 225-233.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0741932508315650

Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Inequality and access to knowledge. In J. A. Banks & C.A

Banks (Eds.), The handbook of multicultural education (pp. 465-483). New York, NY:

Macmillan.

Davis, P. (2008). School management concerning collaboration with social resources in

the community: Its approaches and problems. Primary and Middle Years Educator, 6(2),

9-12. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ERIC-ED467082/pdf/ERIC-ED467082.pdf

Downing, J. E., Spencer, S., & Cavallaro, C. (2004). The development of an inclusive

charter elementary school: Lessons learned. Research and practice for persons with

137

severe disabilities, 29(1), 11-24.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2511/rpsd.29.1.11

Fish, W. W. (2006). Perceptions of parents of students with autism towards the IEP

meeting: A case study of one family support group chapter. Education, 127(1), 56–68.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ765801

Fish, W. W. (2008). The IEP meeting: Perceptions of parents of students who receive

special education services. Preventing School Failure, 53(1), 8–14.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ814416

Foreman, P., Arthur-Kelly, M., Pascoe, S., & King, B. S. (2004). Evaluating the

educational experiences of students with profound and multiple disabilities in inclusive

and segregated classroom settings: An Australian perspective. Research and Practice

for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(3), 183-193.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ756378

Fuchs, W. W. (2010). Examining Teachers' Perceived Barriers Associated with

Inclusion. SRATE journal, 19(1), 30-35. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ948685

Gaffney, J. S. & Ruppar, A. L. (2011). Individualized education program team decisions:

A preliminary study of conversations, negotiations, and power. Research and Practice

for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(1-2), 11-22.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2511/rpsd.36.1-2.11

Galiatsos, S., Kruse, L., & Whittaker, M. (2019). Forward together: Helping educators

unlock the power of students who learn differently. National Center for Learning

Disabilities. https://www.ncld.org/forward-together

138

Garriott, P. P., Wandry, D., & Snyder, L. (2000). Teachers as parents, parents as

children: What's wrong with this picture? Preventing School Failure: Alternative

Education for Children and Youth, 45(1), 37-43.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10459880109599814

Goldman, S.E. & Burke, M.M. (2017) The Effectiveness of Interventions to Increase

Parent Involvement in Special Education: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-

Analysis, Exceptionality, 25:2, 97-115.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09362835.2016.1196444?journalCode=he

xc20

Gomez Mandic, C., Rudd, R., Hehir, T., & Acevedo-Garcia, D. (2010). Readability of

special education procedural safeguards. The Journal of Special Education, 45(4), 195-

203. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022466910362774

Hammer, M. R. (2004). Using the self-advocacy strategy to increase student

participation in IEP conferences. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39, 295-380.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10534512040390050601

Harry, B., & Klinger, J. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special education?

Understanding race and disability in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Why_Are_So_Many_Minority_Students_in_Spe/

4b2_AwAAQBAJ

Hawbaker, B.W. (2007). Student-led IEP meetings: Planning and implementation

strategies. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 3(5) Article 4.

http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol3/iss5/art4

139

Horne, P. E., & Timmons, V. (2009). Making it work: Teachers’ perspectives on

inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(3), 26-41.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13603110701433964

Huberman, M., Navo, M., & Parrish, T. (2012). Effective practices in high performing

districts serving students in special education. Journal of Special Education Leadership,

25(2), 59-71. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ997647

Jasis, P.M., & Ordonez-Jasis, R. (2012). Latino parent involvement: Examining

commitment and empowerment in schools, Urban Education, 47(1), 65-89.

http://parented.wdfiles.com/local--files/latino/Latino%20Parent%20Involvement.pdf

Katz, J., & Mirenda, P. (2002). Including students with developmental disabilities in

general education classrooms: Educational benefits. International journal of special

education, 17(2), 14-24.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287680523_Including_students_with_develop

mental_disabilities_in_general_education_classrooms_Educational_benefits

Kelley, K. R., Bartholomew, A., & Test, D. W. (2013). Effects of the self-directed IEP

delivered using computer-assisted instruction on student participation in educational

planning meetings. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 67-77.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0741932511415864

Konrad, M., & Test, D. W. (2007). Effects of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction on

the written IEP goal articulation and paragraph-writing skills of middle school students

with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 277-291.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/07419325070280050301

140

Konrad, M., Trela, K., & Test, D. W. (2006). Using IEP goals and objectives to teach

paragraph writing to high school students with physical and cognitive disabilities.

Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 111-124.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ754200

Kupper, L. (2000). A Guide to the Individualized Education Program. Ed Pubs.

https://www2.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/index.html

Lo, L. (2008). Interactions between Chinese parents and special education

professionals in IEP meetings. Model minority myth revisited: An interdisciplinary

approach to demystifying Asian American educational experiences, 195-212.

Lo, L. (2009). Collaborating with Chinese families of children with hearing impairments.

Communication Disorders Quarterly, 30(2), 97–102.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1525740108324041

Lo, L. (2012). Demystifying the IEP Process for Diverse Parents of Children with

Disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(3), 14-20.

http://olms.cte.jhu.edu/olms2/data/ck/sites/271/files/Week03_Lo.pdf

Martin, J. E., Marshall, L. H., & Sale, P. (2004). A 3-year study of middle, junior high,

and high school IEP meetings. Exceptional Children, 70(3), 285-297.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ696072

Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. L., Christensen, W. R., Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E., &

Lovett, D. L. (2006). Increasing student participation in IEP meetings: Establishing the

self-directed IEP as an evidenced-based practice. Exceptional Children, 72, 299-316.

141

https://ou.edu/content/dam/Education/zarrow/ChoiceMaker%20materials/info.Self-

Directed%20IEP-rev.pdf

Mason, C. Y., McGahee-Kovac, M., & Johnson, L. (2004). How to help students lead

their IEP meetings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(3), 18-24.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299373935_How_to_Help_Students_Lead_Th

eir_IEP_Meetings

Mason, C. Y., Mcgahee-Kovac, M., Johnson, L., & Stillerman, S. (2002). Implementing

Student-Led IEPs: Student Participation and Student and Teacher Reactions. Career

Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25(2), 171–192.

https://doi.org/10.1177/088572880202500206

McDonnell, J., & Hunt, P. (2014). Inclusive education and meaningful school

outcomes. Equity and full participation for individuals with severe disabilities: A vision for

the future, 155-176.

https://aera2017.syr.edu/wp-

content/uploads/2017/10/McDonnell_2014_InclusiveEd.pdf

McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. (2012). Are we moving toward

educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings? The Journal of Special

Education, 46(3), 131-140.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022466910376670

Menlove, R.R., Hudson, P.J., & Suter, D. (2001). A field of IEP dreams: Increasing

general education teacher participation in the IEP development process. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 33(5), 28-33.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/004005990103300504

142

Mitchell, D. (2008). What really works in special and inclusive education: Using

evidence based teaching strategies. Chapter 6: Collaborative teaching. (pp. 60-67).

Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Mitchell, D., Morton, M., & Hornby, G. (2010). Review of the literature on individual

education plans: Report to the New Zealand Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry

of Education. https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/5766

Neale, M. H., & Test, D. W. (2010). Effects of the “I can use effort” strategy on quality of

student verbal contributions and individualized education program participation with

third- and fourth-grade students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 31,

184-194.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0741932508327462

Oakes, J., Franke, M. L., Quartz, K. H., & Rogers, J. (2002). Research for high-quality

urban teaching: Defining it, developing it, assessing it. Journal of Teacher

Education, 53(3), 228-234.

https://cxarchive.gseis.ucla.edu/xchange/multiple-measures-

of-good-teaching/xpress/research-for-high-quality-urban-teaching-defining-it-

developing-it-assessing-it

O’Rourke, J., & Houghton, S. (2009). The perceptions of secondary teachers and

students about the implementation of an inclusive classroom model for students with

mild disabilities. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 23-41.

https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol34/iss1/3/

Orr, A. C. (2009). New special educators reflect about inclusion: Preparation and K-12

current practice. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 3, 228-239. Retrieved

from http://www.cedarville.edu/event/eqrc/journal/journal.htm

143

Platt, R. (2008). Preparing For Your Child’s Special Education: Information of Interest to

People with Disabilities and Other Special Needs and Their Families. The Exceptional

Parent, 38(9), 84-88.

Price, L. A., Wolensky, D., & Mulligan, R. (2002). Self-determination in action in the

classroom. Remedial and Special Education, 23(2), 109-115.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ967458.pdf

Reiman, J. W., Beck, L., Coppola, T., & Engiles, A. (2010). Parents' Experiences with

the IEP Process: Considerations for Improving Practice. Center for Appropriate Dispute

Resolution in Special Education (CADRE).

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512611.pdf

Ross-Hill, R. (2009). Teacher attitude towards inclusion practices and special needs

students. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(3), 188-195.

https://nasenjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2009.01135.x

Ruppar, A. L., & Gaffney, J. S. (2011). Individualized education program team

decisions: A preliminary study of conversations, negotiations, and power. Research and

Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(1-2), 11-22.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ940747

Salas, L. (2004). Individualized educational plan (IEP) meetings and Mexican American

parents: Let’s talk about it. Journal of Latinos and Education, 3(3), 181–192.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s1532771xjle0303_4

144

Salisbury, C. L. (2006). Principals' perspectives on inclusive elementary

schools. Research and practice for persons with severe disabilities, 31(1), 70-82.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2511/rpsd.31.1.70

Simon, J. B. (2006). Perceptions of the IEP requirement. Teacher Education and

Special Education, 29(4), 17–27.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/088840640602900403

Skrtic, T.M. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as a way to excellence.

Harvard Educational Review, 61, 148-206.

https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.61.2.0q702751580h0617

Snyder, E. P. (2002). Teaching students with combined behavioral disorders and mental

retardation to lead their own IEP meetings. Behavioral Disorders, 27, 340-357

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/019874290202700411

Suk, Andrea & Martin, James & Mcconnell, Amber & Biles, Tiffany. (2020). States

Decrease Their Required Secondary Transition Planning Age: Federal Policy Must

Change. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 31.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1044207320915157

Sze, S. (2009). A literature review: pre-service teachers' attitudes toward students with

disabilities. Education, 130(1), 53+.

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A207643760/AONE?u=anon~85c5b2bf&sid=googleSchol

ar&xid=39b08f18

145

Test, D. W., Mason, C., Hughes, C., Konrad, M., Neale, M., & Wood, W. M. (2004).

Student Involvement in Individualized Education Program Meetings. Exceptional

Children, 70(4), 391–412.

https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407000401

Test, D. W., & Neale, M. (2004). Using the self-advocacy strategy to increase middle

graders’ IEP participation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13, 135-145.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:JOBE.0000023660.21195.c2

U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

(OSERS), (2002). A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their

Families.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED473830

Westling , D. & Fox, L. (2009). Teaching students with severe disabilities (4th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall

Wolfe, P. S., & Hall, T. E. (2003). Making inclusion a reality for students with severe

disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(4), 56-60.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F004005990303500409

Download
Save PDF to desktop

Email
Email completed PDF

Send for Signing
Email for others to sign

Print
Print document

NAME

California Statewide Individualized Education

View Audit Log
Print With Audit Log
Duplicate Document

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank California Statewide Individualized Education Form

Related forms

Fillable California Statewide Individualized Education

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank California Statewide Individualized Education Form

Related forms

First 20 documents completely FREE!