in this journey, however, is to recognize the students who are struggling significantly so that attempts to address their individual needs can be made by developing, designing, and implementing prereferral interventions.
Chapter 2 Stages of IEP Development Prereferral, Referral, Assessment, and Eligibility
If you’ve ever planned a trip, you are very much aware that before traveling the first mile, there is much to decide. Often there is research to be completed not only to decide on the most desired destination, but also to plan for food, lodging, and recreation. It all has to be decided, often calculated, before any final decisions can be made. To do otherwise would be reckless. Making educational and behavioral decisions without first taking some form of preliminary action is just as reckless for the IEP journey. A good starting point is to review and adhere to the basic steps in the IEP process.
Briefly stated, the steps in the IEP process include the following:
Identify the academic and behavioral issues that need specific attention.
Provide instructional or behavioral interventions designed to address identified issues.
If interventions fail to produce adequate results, a referral or request for evaluation is made.
The student is evaluated. The evaluation results will determine eligibility for special education and related services.
Eligibility is determined. An eligibility meeting is called to report the evaluation results to parents.
If the student meets the criteria for special education and related services (as stipulated by IDEA), an IEP Team meeting is called so the Individualized Education Plan can be written.
The IEP meeting convenes. The child’s specific, individual strengths and weaknesses are discussed. Present levels of academic achievement and functional performance are stipulated, goals are set and documented, and all components of the IEP are finalized.
It is important to note that, in an effort to maximize the use of time during the IEP meeting, some portions of the IEP can be completed prior to the actual meeting. The IEP cannot, however, be initiated without the consent of the parents.
Prereferral interventions provide the basis for the decisions you will make on behalf of the individual students who struggle with the content you teach or the behaviors you expect. Prereferral interventions should not be taken lightly—as they frequently are. Historically, prereferral interventions were sometimes used as a means to an end (i.e., special education eligibility and placement) instead of their intended and important function in the IEP process. For example, two frequently used, generic prereferral interventions are “extended time” and “preferential seating.” Each sounds helpful and each implies at least some measure of assistance for a struggling student; however, a closer inspection of what occurs as a result of poor interventions all too often reveals just how generic each is. For example, suppose you were offered $500 to complete the translation of the following statement:
Είναι όλα ελληνικά για μένα
Prereferral Intervention
Go ahead, take all the time you need. Unless you are fluent in Greek, the task is virtually impossible without instruction in the Greek language. Therein lies the problem. Extended time is useless if teachers fail to provide additional instruction that will assist the struggling student—much like choosing the grand hotel on your journey only to find you cannot afford any of the extras because you failed to understand what you needed in order to enjoy them.
Now consider the second example—preferential seating. What does that really mean? Is it that magical seat in the front of the room? Is it beside the teacher’s desk? Is it in the far back corner of the room? Just where should it be? For most, that seat is generally located near the teacher’s desk so that the student is typically in close proximity to the teacher—which all too often puts the teacher at a desk during instruction—a practice that limits the teacher’s interactions with the other students in the class. Preferential seating does not have to be ineffective; nor should it be. A strategically placed student in an area where he or she can be more appropriately engaged is not only practical but may also be highly effective in that individual’s ability to perform academic or behavioral tasks. Moving a student to a carefully selected seat is not the end result. The move must be thoughtfully and strategically made so that the struggling student can benefit, either academically or behaviorally. Above all, the move must be made with the benefits for the individual student as its justification.
Of course, these two examples are, in the broad scheme of things, all but meaningless. They are minor examples used to make the point that any and all prereferral interventions must be carefully selected and designed to meet the specific, individual needs of the student who may ultimately be referred for special education assessments. The fact of the matter is that prereferral interventions have, in recent years, become much more meaningful with such processes as response to intervention, which provides tiered instruction designed and differentiated to provide students with significant learning or behavior needs increasingly more intensive instruction prior to an actual referral for evaluation.
The process of selecting and implementing prereferral interventions or determining appropriate tiered instruction should always be driven by the individual needs of the students. The response to intervention (RTI) process is a frequently used process to not only identify students who struggle significantly, but also prepare and deliver instructional and behavioral interventions. Although RTI has no specific definition and has no specifically designed model of delivery, it is used to expose students to increasingly more intensive tiers of instructional interventions with ongoing progress monitoring. Because it provides instruction designed to address student needs, it also eliminates both the often arbitrary and meaningless nature of prereferral interventions and the possibility of inadequate instruction as the reason for a student’s poor academic or behavioral performance. The instruction provided in the RTI process consists of evidence-based, instructional practices that are delivered in at least three separate tiers.
Tier I—Primary Intervention is delivered in the general education environment by the general education teacher; consequently, all students receive Tier I instruction.
Tier II—Secondary Intervention is designed to address the needs of students who fail to respond to Tier I instruction. Tier II instruction is more intensive, supplemental instruction than Tier I instruction. Typically, Tier II instruction is delivered to a small group of students.
Tier III—Tertiary Intervention is the most intensive instruction provided for students who fail to respond adequately to Tier II instruction. These interventions are provided to a very small group of individuals.
Individuals who fail to respond appropriately to Tier III instruction are those individuals who are then typically evaluated for special education eligibility. Because students who have been through the RTI process have received several weeks of specially designed, evidence-based instruction prepared to address their individual academic or behavioral issues, there is generally little evidence to support ineffective or inadequate instruction as a reason for their poor progress and performance.
Activity 2.1: Intervention Planning
Visit the website Intervention Central at www.interventioncentral.com. Use
