How Do You Play?

The IEP Game is about configuring the best fit between the five essential elements of all IEPs

Best Fit

The best fit between categories is a much more simple task than sitting in an IEP meeting with four or five different specialists each speaking professional jargon. Fitting the IEP Game cateogies together begins with Deficits.

Interactive training player's choose the Deficits that apply to the sample case used during the training session. Parents with a self-advocacy kit choose the deficits that apply to their child. Next, a player chooses all the Evidence cards that identify the types of evidence, found in the student's file, that support or prove the existance of the problems chosen from the deficit cards. Experts cards then help rank the evidence by level of credibility or importance. Ranking the importance of evidence is an important step in building a case for the existance or severity of an impact, caused by a deficit, upon functional performance or academic achievement. Players then choose all the applicable Needs created by the deficit. Needs cards help identify the different options available for addressing (which could be assessments, accommodations, modifications or interventions) the deficit or the impact of the deficit. Finally, players choose all the Rights associated with the deficit or the Rights associated with the child's unique needs.

For parent advocacy training, players focus on moving into the documentation phase. When a parent has configured the best fit between categories, it is time to create a "parent concerns" letter documenting a child's deficits and evidence, the created needs and applicable rights. The fit between the different categories provides a systematic assessment of the child with a written report by the parent.

No other parent training or special education self-help tool employs the use of playing cards that provide parents with a research based systematic method for:

assessing the impact of a child's deficits through observation and data collection
easily identifying evidence and data supporting the impacts of a deficit within a student's school records
identifying options for intervention
using rights that apply to all steps of the process including:
1. assessing the impact of a child's deficits
2. identifying evidence
3. choosing options for intervention

Deficits and Strengths

The IEP Game categories are based on the elements of all Individual Education Plans. Qualification for Special Education and an IEP is based on disability. Therefore, the IEP Game begins with the category of Deficit. In Rogers dissertation research, every parent interviewed was concerned with the impacts deficits were having on their child's ability to succeed in school. The IEP Game recognizes that these problems need to be dealt with and organizes Evidence, Experts, Needs and Rights to address the impacts deficits are having on a child's school experience. Strengths are important and the IEP Game does incorporate a child's strengths into the construction of an appropriate IEP. However, the IEP Game is based on the assumption that parents and teachers are confronted with problems that need effective solutions.

IEP Game Categories

There are 5 categories of IEP Game Cards including:

26 Deficit Cards (white): cover a range of Deficits from Language and ADD/ADHD to Learning Disabilities and Behavior Problems
16 Evidence Cards (blue): encompass a variety of forms of evidence found in special education cases, including parent observations
8 Experts Cards (green): are a ranking category and include all the different types of experts included in the construction of individual education plans, including independent experts
18 Needs Cards (pink): cover a wide variety of assessments and interventions that address specific problems caused by deficits
34 Rights Cards (yellow): include a wide range of rights from disability definitions to assessment, intervention and procedural laws

Deficits: A deficit in the IEP Game is a problem a child is experiencing. This category includes a range of deficit types listed as headlines on each card. Underneath the deficit type headline, different impacts caused by the deficit are listed. The impacts the deficit has upon the child's performance can also be understood as problems the deficit causes. For example, many students struggle with reading because of a reading deficit. Only some students have a problem identifying the sounds associated with letters.

The deficit is a reading deficit. The impact or problem is the inability to associate sounds with letters of the alphabet. Choose one deficit card at a time. Then, identify the applicable impact the deficit has upon the child. When all the deficits applicable to the student have been chosen, move on to the evidence category. Deficit types are based on research. The deficits included in the Volume 1, Number 1 IEP Game Training and Self-Advocacy Kit National Assortment are based upon common type deficits found in ADD/ADHD, mild Autism, Learning Disabilities, Speech and Language related disorders. Users will find a full reference list and discussion about each deficit type in the IEP Reference Guide.

Evidence: Evidence is observable events and documentary material that tend to prove or disprove a fact. In special education, as in law, all evidence is not created equal. Some types of evidence are more reliable than others and have more credibility in an IEP meeting. For example, A diagnosis by a medical doctor proving that the child indeed has ADHD is an "...authoritative opinion by one qualified to make it, concluding that ADD or a specific learning disability is present. Legally speaking that also establishes the existence of an impairment under the ADA..." (Americans with Disabilities Act).

A diagnosis is only one level of evidence. "An evaluation of impact demonstrates how the diagnosed impairment affects the individual...[and] recommendations may suggest strategies for the individuals and services or accommodations appropriate for the individual." In my experience on IEP teams, a variety of evidence is necessary to prove that both a deficit exists and support the claims of impact upon educational performance. Claims of existing deficits and their severity are most reliable and difficult to dispute when a variety of evidence either spans a long period of time or volumes of evidence are produced in a short period of time. Use the evidence cards to track and record the types of available evidence in a case. In the Evidence section of the IEP Reference Guide, you will find a table that has a reliability/credibility ranking for different types of evidence and suggestions on how to organize and prioritize evidence.

Experts: An expert is someone recognized as a reliable source of knowledge about the student. An expert's judgment is accorded some measure of authority and status by members of an IEP team or the judge in a due process hearing. Experts have prolonged or intense experience, practice or education in a particular field. Experts can validate: the existence of a deficit, the impact of that deficit upon the individual's ability to access the curriculum, validate the importance of specific types of evidence in assessing impacts, and recommend specific interventions. Experts cards can be used to judge the value of types of evidence and help ascertain the value of different types of interventions.

All experts are not created equal. Like evidence, some experts have more credible and reliable than others. A table ranking the general standards of credibility among doctors and professionals and a complete discussion of the reliability and validity of experts is included in the Experts section of the IEP Game Reference Guide.

Needs: The needs category represents what the student needs as a result of deficits. Needs can also be thought of as solutions to problems. One of the words used to describe the Deficit category is problem. If deficits can be understood as problems, Needs can be seen as solutions.

The needs category also includes "capitalization of strengths." We recognize that the strengths of a student are important in any individualized education plan. The IEP Game training method has incorporated strengths into the deck as part of the configuration of an appropriate IEP.

Each student has a set of unique needs and this category addresses the most common methods for addressing those needs. For example, a fourth grade student with a reading deficit resulting in a first grade reading level needs something. That student surely needs a diagnostic assessment. That student might also need individual one-on-one remediation. In the IEP Game, both assessment and remediation are needs. The aforementioned example opens the door for debate. There are many ways to address a student's deficits. During the training sessions, IEP Game administrators should lead a discussion of the different ways to meet a students needs. A discussion and references for each card will illuminate some popular debates on Needs and provide guidance in aligning needs with deficits. Match the appropriate Needs cards with associated deficits and evidence to make a case for intervention.

Rights: The Rights category contains cards that summarize the law regarding topics covered by Deficit and Needs cards. There are two types of Rights Cards: substantive (1-23) and procedural (24-34). Substantive rights are like entitlements and cover the "substance" of the topic; substance is subject to interpretation and debate (e.g. an entitlement is general; the particular form it takes is subject to debate). Procedural rights cover the rules of the IEP process and are less subject to debate. Rights and law apply to every aspect of the IEP because it is a legal construction. During IEP Game training sessions, administrators should discuss how substantive law is interpreted and how the evidence of the deficit and its relationship to needs influences the interpretation of applicable rights. Procedural rights may come up as a topic for discussion during training as they pertain to the deficits and general IEP format. Use Rights cards to support claims of Deficits and Needs.

Footnotes
---Latham, P. and Latham D (1996). Page 64.
---Latham, P. and Latham D (1996). Page 64.
Guernsey, T. F. a. K., Kathe (1993). Special Education Law . Durham, Carolina Academic Press.

©2005 Brenda Rogers
Patent Pending #9014