Evaluating the Relationship between Individualized Education Program Compliance for Middle School Students with Specific Learning Disabilities and Academic Achievement Based Upon State Reading Summative Assessment Scores

Over the last 37 years, the Individualized Education Program (IEP) has been the guiding document that outlines the needs of a student who receives special education services. Washington State utilizes an IEP Review form as the means to determine if an IEP has been properly written and formulated. This information partially fulfills the Federal reporting requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.;The purpose of any large system such as the Federal reporting requirements is to ensure that recipients of services are receiving all that they are entitled. The IEP must meet compliance requirements, support educational benefit through proper construction of the document, and calculation of the amount of time a student spends in the general education classroom. Recent legislation under the No Child Left Behind Act which is also known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (2004) has stipulated that students who receive special education services must not only participate in the same curriculum as general education peers, but make progress on the same State academic standards as measured by the State outcome assessment. Although, compliance procedures and the determination of the appropriate Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) are used to measure educational benefit as established by the Rowley decision. This decision set the standard for evaluating a student's right to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).;The relationship between least restrictive environment and scores on the Washington State outcome reading assessment for students in grades 6, 7, and 8 with the Specific Learning Disability label and IEP goals in reading were investigated, as well as, significant difference based on IEP compliance. Correlation was used to determine if changes in LRE percentage influenced reading achievement. There was not a significant difference, r = .19, p = .11. Procedural compliance was evaluated using ANOVA. Compliance was determined at three levels: 0, 1, and 2. A score of 0 was noncompliant, 1 was compliant with weak evidence, and 2 was fully compliant. Results indicate that there was not a significant difference F(2, 75) = 1.47, p = .24. The compliance area of measurable annual goal was the most problematic for scores of 1. Moreover, IEPs demonstrated compliance, but provided information and description of student needs that were unclear and lacking in specificity.;Although, emphasis is placed on procedural compliance there was not a significant difference on academic achievement, nor did serving students in the LRE demonstrate a significant relationship. Additional research could focus on establishing reliability and validity for the State IEP compliance review form. This would foster quality professional development opportunities for educators to increase knowledge related to developing a system for monitoring quality IEPs and providing specific feedback.