The Placement Request Before the IEP Meeting

A placement change is an IEP team decision, not a response to a single teacher's request, and the team must be able to show it considered less restrictive options with supplementary aids and services first.

Before deciding, the team should establish:

1. Whether the specially designed instruction was actually delivered as written-attendance, minutes, co-teaching roles, and whether M. received the resource support consistently. If implementation was uneven, the data do not indict the placement.
2. Whether the goal and measurement are sound. Eight flat probes could mean no progress, or could mean the probes sample too many skills at once. Check whether the probes align with the goal and whether the aim line was realistic.
3. Whether the behavior is related to the disability. A pattern of refusal only in math, in a student with a math disability, suggests task frustration and warrants an FBA and a behavior intervention plan rather than removal.
4. What supplementary aids and services could be added in the current setting-pre-teaching, chunked assignments, a reduced item set, a check-in routine.

The data are flat, not declining, and M. is performing above the initial baseline. That is a signal to change instruction, not automatically to change setting.

Flat progress on multi-step ratio problems usually means the goal is too composite. The team should consider:

• Task analysis: break multi-step problems into components (identify the quantities, set up the ratio, solve, label) and probe each separately to find where M. stalls.
• Concreteness fading: use ratio tables, tape diagrams, and double number lines before returning to symbolic equations.
• More supervised practice with immediate feedback, including worked examples and faded scaffolds, rather than more independent worksheets.
• Pre-teaching the vocabulary and setup of the day's problems in resource time so M. enters the co-taught class with a foothold-this also targets the frustration driving the call-outs.

Monitoring: probe twice weekly with fewer items drawn from a single component skill, so a change is visible within two weeks. Keep a clear aim line and an agreed decision rule (for example, if four consecutive probes fall below the aim line after the instructional change, reconvene). Document the change and the decision rule in the IEP notes.

Both parties bring relevant information, and the team's job is to weigh it against data rather than to pick a winner.

With the general education teacher: acknowledge the difficulty of managing refusal behavior during instruction and offer concrete supports-co-planning time, a shared behavior response routine, pre-teaching, and a signal system. Ask what the teacher has already tried and what specifically is unmanageable. This turns a placement demand into a problem-solving conversation and builds the teacher's investment.

With the parent: affirm the shared goal of inclusion and explain that the team will first check whether the current program was delivered as written and whether instruction needs to change. This is honest-the team is not promising to keep the placement regardless-and it respects the parent's preference for the least restrictive setting.

The decision rule: a more restrictive placement is justified only if the team has documented that instruction and supplementary supports were provided, progress was monitored, and the student still cannot make meaningful progress. If the team does later propose a change, it must document the basis and continue the continuum of services discussion with the parent as a full participant.