Category: Advocacy Resources

You Asked! Question 24

Posted on by

Download a PDF version of this You Asked question and answer HERE.

Q24:  My student is not performing at grade-level in certain areas.  I’m being told by the IEP team that IEP goals have to be aligned with grade-level Common Core State Standards.  Is this correct?

A:  A standards-based IEP is one in which the IEP team has aligned grade level Common Core State Standards (CCSS)1 in its development of the IEP and IEP goals.1

In November 2015, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) released a guidance letter that included the following:

To help make certain that children with disabilities are held to high expectations and have meaningful access to a State’s academic content standards, we write to clarify that an individualized education program (IEP) for an eligible child with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) must be aligned with the State’s academic content standards for the grade in which the child is enrolled. 2

In a situation where a child is performing significantly below the level of the grade in which the child is enrolled, an IEP Team should determine annual goals that are ambitious but achievable. In other words, the annual goals need not necessarily result in the child’s reaching grade-level within the year covered by the IEP, but the goals should be sufficiently ambitious to help close the gap. The IEP must also include the specialized instruction to address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability necessary to ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the state academic content standards that apply to all children in the State.3

What does this mean?

Whenever it is reasonable to do so, goals should reflect grade level CCSS. However, if the child’s present level of performance in a certain area is well below their grade level, then the IEP team can write goals at the grade level that would be appropriate. That is, goals can also be written to align with CCSS at a level below the grade level in which the child is enrolled.4

Click HERE for sample goals.

1 Common Core State Standards Educational standards describe what students should know and be able to do in each subject in each grade. In California, the State Board of Education decides on the standards for all students, from kindergarten through high school. http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/

2 OSEP’s Dear Colleague Letter on Free Appropriate Public Education, p.1, released November 16, 2015.

 3 Ibid., p5.

4 “Such a practice flies in the face of the purpose and goals of the IDEA, which require the district to develop an individualized program with measurable goals. While some children attending 9th grade and requiring special education are capable of meeting the state 9th grade goals with help, others, like M.S., are so far below grade reading level that expecting them to reach the state goals, even with help, is unrealistic.” E.g., Jefferson County Board of Educ. v. Lolita S., 581 Fed Appx. 760 (11th Cir. 2014)

*Students that have below grade level IEP goals may still participate in the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP). Only eligible students may participate in the administration of the California Alternate Assessments (CAAs). Any student identified for alternate testing takes the alternate versions of all tests. Individualized education program (IEP) teams “shall determine when a child with a significant cognitive disability shall participate in an alternate assessment aligned with the alternate academic achievement standards.” (Title 1, Part A, Subpart 1, Sec. 1111(b)(2)(D)(ii)(I)—Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015) https://www.calstat.org/publications/pdfs/2014winterSpringedge.pdf

Local educational agencies (LEAs) are required to notify the California Department of Education if they believe that they will exceed 1 percent of its total assessed student population taking California Alternate Assessments; however, there are no repercussions to LEAs for exceeding this threshold. The 1 Percent Threshold on Alternate Assessments

Authored by: Lori Chang, Parent Advocate/non-attorney advocate

For more YOU ASKED questions and answers click HERE.

Breaking News:  Judge denies Berkeley Unified School District’s motion to dismiss dyslexia case!

Posted on by

Breaking News:  Judge denies Berkeley Unified School District’s motion to dismiss dyslexia case!

October 12, 2017 – BUSD (“Defendants”) had previously filed a motion, in part, to have this federal dyslexia case (Student A, et al v. Berkeley Unified School District – Case No. 17-cv-02510-JST) dismissed arguing that the individual families involved had failed to “exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing suit” (i.e. each individual family going through due process hearings first).  Plaintiffs successfully argued that they should “be excused from exhausting their administrative remedies because it was futile and inadequate to do so”.  Judge ruled, in part, in favor of the Plaintiffs.

Many of you have been closely following the complaint filed in federal court on May 2, 2017 against Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD), the BUSD Superintendent, the BUSD Board of Education, and the Directors of the BUSD Board of Education, for systemically failing to educate students with reading disorders, and students who are suspected to have reading disorders.

It should be noted that complaints regarding the systemic and unlawful practices and policies at BUSD had been previously filed with the CA Department of Education and that BUSD did not sufficiently change its policies in response to these complaints.

Plaintiffs successfully argued that the issue regarding BUSD failing to educate students with dyslexia was a systemic one and not limited to the students involved in this federal lawsuit and that they are seeking relief on behalf of all similarly situated students at BUSD.

The judge did grant the Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss claims against individual BUSD board members. This dismissal has no real impact on the case.

Thanks to all DDCA volunteers who attended the Motion to Dismiss hearing on August 24, 2017!

Click here to read the original complaint filed on May 2, 2017.

Click here to read the May 2, 2017 press release issued by Plaintiff’s co-counsel: Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF), Jacobson Education Law, Inc. & Goodwin.

Click here to read the “Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss” filed on October 12, 2017.