The only scores approaching “average to low average” are Processing Speed (80, Low Average), Working Memory (97, Average) and basic word reading (decoding). The PWN appears to selectively cite these isolated scores while ignoring the overwhelming body of evaluation data documenting significant deficits across all academically relevant domains. They are framing GAA 2.0 Eligibility and Modified Curriculum like they are one in the same (can't get modified because she doesn't qualify for GAA 2.0). They are referencing passing grades (that are routinely "curved" up) & "data", which I assume to be progress monitoring as holding more weight than all consistent evaluations. After digging into her progress monitoring, absolutely none of them demonstrate progress toward independent mastery. Two of her goals are not even being monitored in a way that would address the goal! For example, she has a goal to "rewrite a sentence with grammatical errors correctly". To monitor this, she is being given a multi-choice worksheet with 3 possible answers per sentence. She is simply guessing with a 33% chance of being correct and is not writing anything at all. Four of her goals note the condition: one one one with special education staff, no minutes are provided for 1:1 instruction, only small group and co-teaching in general education. I will continue to research what route to take in what is now a whole host of concerns.. from what I understand, all of these concerns justify a state complaint, I'm just not sure the best route.

Be prepared that they're going to talk in circles about the "one-on-one." They will argue that she has one-on-one support, and that's what they mean when it's mentioned in the goals. However, goals require INSTRUCTION and speak to INSTRUCTION, so don't let them talk their way out of that. Your order of operations looks pretty good. Not sure what you mean by "dismantle" the PWN, but I assume writing on it regarding with what you disagree. Also, I don't think they'll agree to your approach to "starting from scratch" regarding the IEP, especially if you don't have an advocate. A couple of other options are: 1. Request a facilitated IEP meeting if your state provides those. 2. Call your state department of education to see if they have any recommendations in this scenario and/or low-cost advocate referrals. 3. File a state complaint to get compensatory minutes for the one-on-one instruction she did not receive. (However, state complaints are tough to win because the state will bend over backwards to side with or accept the interpretation of the school district. So sometimes it's best NOT to get a formal answer, because then you're stuck with it. Mediation might prove more beneficial.) The reading scores are troublesome. She is "very low" in basic reading and and phonological processing, and "extremely low" in phonemic proficiency. She needs a basic reading goal! If these underlying foundational skills are not mastered, she will struggle even more in later grades. They only have a goal for reading comprehension and although this is a "higher level" skill and the assumption is often made that this means the lower level skills have already been mastered, students with learning differences often score higher in this area than in the phonological processing because they have memorized a lot of words and can figure out meanings and inferences from context. You need to make sure they go back and get the foundational skills mastered.

I can't believe I've read this document 821 times and never realized the discrepancy between "one on one with special education staff" and then.. no one on one with special education staff. I'm certain she has never received this service since the IEP was implemented in May 2025. I have to imagine this provides me with more leverage toward modification. Are there compensatory measures I should expect of the district is/since four of her goals stated "1:1" but her support has been provided in small group and co-teaching only? I have the next document cued up but I'll hold it. Hopefully they just agree to modification and we can start from scratch.

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.