This is such a helpful perspective for me, you're absolutely right. I'm going to spend time educating myself on Tier 3 supports vs specialized construction because the team has been talking about them as one in the same. The math goal: "math instruction outside of the gen ed classroom with spec ed teacher" is the small group T3 math.. I've never caught that the goal states 1:1 which isn't happening, she's in a small group. I've sent the follow-up email awaiting the PWN re: denying my request for modified curriculum. I don't know what to do with these crap goals because I feel the whole IEP is foundationally flawed due to not modifying the curriculum to meet her abilities. I don't want to tweak these goals because they're meant to have her working at the grade standard, which is inappropriate.. I want the whole thing wiped clean, agreeing to modify her curriculum to K-3rd grade in various areas, and build goals from there. In my head, order of operations is: 1) Wait for PWN 2) Dismantle PWN or go to mediation if needed 3) Advocate for building a whole new IEP, based on modified curriculum, which would eliminate all of these shitty goals Is that what you would do at this point? I am so appreciative of your time.

I'm a little confused about the math instruction. You call it Tier-3 math support in gen ed. This is NOT specialized instruction. Tier-3 is provided to gen ed students who qualify. Specialized instruction is provided to students who qualify for an IEP. It is a higher level of service/instruction. The IEP states that she is receiving the math instruction outside of the gen ed classroom with the spec ed teacher. If this is not occurring, you need to hold them to the IEP document. It is unbelievable and unacceptable that she has no minutes in the special education setting for all of her other deficits. As for the goals, they are also confusing (and very BAD, in my opinion). The math goal states she is to receive "one-on-one instruction with special education staff," yet the service is listed as "small group." As for reading, she only has a goal for comprehension, which is also supposed to be "one-on-one with special education staff," yet there are no one-on-one services minutes listed. They may be counting the co-taught minutes in the Language Arts class, but this is NOT one-on-one instruction. It's one-on-one SUPPORT. She needs instruction. Even though she only has a goal for reading comprehension, my guess is she is also low in both basic reading and reading fluency. Unfortunately, you don't show any data on these subcategories - only reading comprehension. I would ask for data on these very important underlying skills. Basic reading would include phonemic awareness and phonics. With the qualification that I haven't been in any meetings or reviewed any documents in full, this appears to be a very inadequate IEP.

These are her current goals.

She is currently in gen. ed. with Tier-3 math support so if I'm understanding everything correctly, math is the only class she is receiving specialized instruction. Her T3 math teacher, by the way, described in-detail that she is providing SO much "support" that any common person would call that spoon-feeding. She described how my daughter will simply point to a problem on the paper and nod when asked if she needs help. It's so far over her head that there isn't a specific 'part' of the problem or step that she needs help on.. it's the whole dang thing. Teacher will 'remind' her of the steps and then basically play a cat and mouse question game where I know my daughter is using the process of elimination to eventually land on an action or answer. And she has a 42% with THAT level of scaffolding.. All other deficits are being 'addressed' through accommodations only. In my opinion, they are acknowledging her deficits when grading / passing her rather than providing services to bridge those gaps.

I'm sorry the meeting did not go well. I would strongly urge you to bring an advocate to your next meeting. (I can't remember what state you're in, but advocates can attend IEP meetings virtually from anywhere in the country. If you cannot afford one, I would ask your state department of education for information on low-cost or pro bono advocacy services.) In lieu of or in addition to getting an advocate, I would request a mediation. Before addressing your draft, some questions. I'm confused as to what special education instruction and minutes she is receiving in the special education setting for reading, math, and written expression. The school stated they have no "Tier 3 ELA Classroom." You're spot on when you state lack of a program, etc., is not a reason to deny services needed. However, your daughter needs specialized instruction in the spec ed classroom, not Tier 3 interventions - she's way too far behind in reading for that. The school offered Math180 and Reading180 classes in the gen ed setting, but what is she receiving in terms of specialized instruction in the spec ed setting, which is what she actually needs?!? Speaking of special education minutes, those minutes are more important than what is considered by i-Ready to be a lesson and that's what you look to for enforcement of the IEP. How many minutes does the IEP state are to be spent on specialized instruction in reading? If she is not getting those full minutes (regardless of what instruction they use), it is a violation of the IEP (and something for which a state complaint could be filed). [Another thing you could ask for is a log of minutes for all specialized instruction received in the spec ed room over the course of the IEP year. Then match that up with what the IEP requires.] I personally don't like i-Ready as a form of instruction. I assume it's online and no one is with her as she completes the lessons? She needs individualized, intensive instruction, which i-Ready cannot provide. Now to address your draft. Here are my suggested revisions/additions: 1. CONCERNS NOT RESOLVED. For their "IQ score does not fall within the range required for modified curriculum" argument, ask them to show you where this is stated in school policy, state law, or federal law. And how being in the first percentile for IQ doesn't meet this criteria?? 2. FORMAL REQUESTS. Regarding your request for progress monitoring, I would ask for all raw data collection and screeners/assessments used to monitor progress. But I think the best way to handle this is to make sure the goals are written that she is to achieve them independently without accommodations or support. Regarding the i-Ready math data, again, I would not focus on i-Ready specifically, but rather what the IEP (goals) states. If she has goals for all the deficits you list above, she has to meet those regardless of whether a particular instruction allows her to "move on." If she doesn't have these as goals, ask that they be added. Lastly, regarding your request for a copy of this email to be placed inside the IEP, I would ask that a copy be placed in your daughter's educational file. With respect to the IEP, I would review what is currently in the "parent concerns" section and ask that to be replaced with something you draft that is similar to the email, but does not include requests for documents, etc., that would not be appropriate for a "parents concerns" statement.

We had another IEP meeting yesterday as I continue to fight for modified curriculum for my intellectually disabled 5th grader. This time, I brought the psychologist that provided the most recent (third) educational assessment. The meeting lasted 3.5hrs and we both left astounded. Below is the summary / follow-up that I have drafted to send the team. I would be so appreciative if you'd read it and tell me what on earth to do next. I am writing to document the concerns discussed during Zyriel Machovec’s IEP meeting and to request specific actions and documentation as outlined below. CONCERNS NOT RESOLVED Despite comprehensive evaluation data provided to the team, including the December 2, 2025 Educational Assessment by Dr. Dara Delancy, Psy.D., and the January 30, 2026 Written Expression Evaluation by Casey Edwards, M.S., CSP, the IEP team’s position is that modified curriculum is either not necessary or cannot be provided to Zyriel. It was shared that her IQ score does not fall within the range required for modified curriculum. Exhaustive data demonstrates that Zyriel’s academic performance is significantly below grade-level expectations: • Full Scale IQ: 67 (1st percentile) - Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence • Reading Comprehension: 71 (3rd percentile) - 2nd grade equivalency • Math Problem Solving: 62 (0.6th percentile) - 1st grade equivalency • Numerical Operations: 63 (0.7th percentile) - 1st grade equivalency • Written Expression: 48 (<0.1 percentile) - Very Low range • Listening Comprehension: 68 (2nd percentile) - Extremely Low range • Adaptive Behavior Composite: 66 (1st percentile) - Low range Despite these documented deficits, Zyriel is expected to access 6th-grade curriculum with accommodations only. Our ongoing concern is that she is being provided content that is immediately beyond her comprehension, supported through intensive teacher assistance to complete assignments, continually retaught the same material and then unable to retain or generalize this information. This does not constitute meaningful educational progress and does not provide Zyriel with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) as required under IDEA. This educational path does not do justice to Zyriel's needs or abilities. FORMAL REQUESTS 1. Prior Written Notice (PWN) I await a Prior Written Notice documenting the decision to keep Zyriel at sixth grade standard curriculum and reasoning, reasonably by February 20, 2026. 2. Progress Monitoring Documentation I request copies of all rubrics currently being used to measure Zyriel’s progress monitoring, along with any scripts or instructional supports being utilized. The progress monitoring data appears to reflect “supported” performance rather than independent mastery. This supported data does not accurately represent what Zyriel truly knows and can do independently, which is essential information for appropriate educational planning and measuring meaningful progress toward IEP goals. 3. i-Ready Data and Analysis I was provided with i-Ready summaries during the meeting. Upon review, I have identified the following concerns: Mathematics i-Ready Data: • February 9, 2026: Zyriel spent 40 minutes on “Writing fractions greater than 1 as a mixed number” - 0/4 correct • January 29-30, 2026: Zyriel spent a combined 52 minutes on “Finding a fraction of a whole number (Parts 1 & 2)” - 2/8 correct • September 29, 2025: “Tell if a difference is less than or greater than 10 and make a 10 to subtract” - 60% after 2 attempts I do not see evidence that the program returned to reteach these skills despite inadequate mastery. This raises concerns about whether i-Ready is appropriately responsive to Zyriel’s learning needs and whether skill gaps are being systematically addressed. ELA i-Ready Data: I understood during the meeting that each lesson should require approximately 20+ minutes for adequate instruction and practice. Zyriel is spending less than 8 minutes on nearly all ELA lessons, which suggests inadequate time for meaningful learning. I request digital copies of both the Mathematics and ELA i-Ready summaries, along with an explanation of how lesson completion time and accuracy data are being used to inform instruction and determine whether skills have been mastered. 4. Math180 and Reading180 Programming The option was presented for Zyriel to participate in Math180 and Reading180 interventions; however, this would require her to forfeit both elective courses. While I recognize these may be valuable interventions given our limited options, I want it documented that requiring a student with multiple disabilities to sacrifice all enrichment, social, and creative opportunities in order to access appropriate academic instruction is inequitable and potentially restrictive. Students should not have to choose between access to grade-level peers in non-academic settings and receiving instruction at their instructional level. This is an obviously unfair option for Zyriel. 5. Current Grade Data Zyriel currently has a 70% in ELA, which the team relied upon heavily to justify continuing the 6th grade standards course of action. As I shared during our meeting, grades are not equally weighted in validity as objective, full scale neuropsychological evaluations, of which we have three. Grades can be used to supplement concrete data-based documentation, not to override it. From IDEA Section 300.101(c)(1): Each state must ensure that FAPE is available to any child with a disability who needs special education and related services even if the child has not failed, been retained, or is advancing from grade to grade. No additional data was provided during this meeting that contradicts the documented academic and adaptive deficits outlined in Zyriel’s three psycho-educational evaluations. The Written Language Evaluation completed by the school psychometrist on January 14, 2026, was consistent with all previous evaluation data, further supporting the need for significantly modified curriculum. PARENT DECISION REGARDING IEP GOAL I am requesting removal of the “homework log” goal from Zyriel’s IEP. Zyriel will not be required to complete homework that is inappropriate for her current skill level and does not align with her documented educational needs. SUMMARY The evaluation data is unequivocal: Zyriel’s cognitive abilities (1st percentile), academic achievement (ranging from <0.1 percentile to 3rd percentile in core academic areas), and adaptive functioning (1st percentile) indicate that she requires specialized instruction with modified curriculum focused on functional academics and life skills. Providing grade-level content with accommodations has not resulted in meaningful progress and does not meet the standard of FAPE. During the meeting, it was mentioned that the school “doesn’t have a Tier-3 ELA classroom.” Of course, this is not an acceptable justification under IDEA for denying appropriate services. The lack of an existing program does not negate the school district’s obligation to provide FAPE. Additionally, even if such a classroom existed, placement in a 6th-grade Tier-3 ELA classroom would be inappropriate given Zyriel’s reading comprehension at 2nd-grade equivalency. It is the district’s obligation is to provide programming appropriate to Zyriel’s documented needs. Unfortunately, I did not hear at yesterday's how the district plans to provide Zyriel with an educational program that is truly appropriate to her abilities and will result in meaningful, measurable learning that is individualized to her future goals. Please confirm receipt of this email and place a copy inside Zyriel’s IEP. Please also provide a timeline for when the requested documentation will be available.