Accommodations Are Not Specially Designed Instruction
Algebra I at a suburban middle school has 28 students, 7 with IEPs. The general education teacher lectures for 35 of the 50-minute period and assigns problems 1-30 for homework. A co-teacher is present for the entire period, but most days she circulates and helps students who raise their hands. One student, Leah, has dyscalculia and ADHD. Her IEP lists a calculator, extended time, preferential seating, and reduced homework (problems 1-15). Her IEP goal is to solve two-step equations with 80% accuracy across three consecutive probes. Leah's last three unit tests were 52%, 48%, and 55%. She completes about 40% of homework. The co-teacher says Leah 'just needs more time' and suggests pulling her out for tests. The principal wants the co-teaching model to remain unchanged because the master schedule is fixed.
1. Evaluate whether Leah's current program provides specially designed instruction or mainly accommodations.
Read the worked answer
Leah's program is mostly accommodations. A calculator, extended time, preferential seating, and reduced homework remove barriers, but they do not teach her the mathematics she has not learned. The co-teacher's role is push-in support and hand-raising help, which is not explicit, systematic, specially designed instruction. Her test scores and homework completion suggest that access alone is not working. Reduced homework may also be a modification that limits practice, and the team should verify that it is in the IEP and still appropriate. Pulling her out only for tests would not fix the core problem. The IEP team should ask what SDI is being provided, by whom, how often, and how it is individualized for dyscalculia. If the answer is only accommodations, the district is not implementing the IEP's specialized instruction component.
2. How should the co-teaching team redesign instruction and delivery to provide SDI in the general education setting?
Read the worked answer
The team should redesign the 50-minute period using co-teaching models that create small-group instruction: station teaching, parallel teaching, or alternative teaching. Leah needs explicit instruction in concepts, not just procedures: concrete-representational-abstract sequencing, manipulatives, worked examples, schema-based instruction, error analysis, and metacognitive checklists. The co-teacher should pre-teach vocabulary, model two-step equations, and reteach based on exit tickets. The general educator should keep grade-level content and use universal design, such as visual models and guided notes. The paraprofessional, if any, should support practice, not replace instruction. Homework should be purposeful and aligned with the IEP; if reduced, the team should ensure sufficient practice occurs in class. Pull-out for tests may be permitted if the IEP says so, but it should not be the only specialized support.
3. What progress-monitoring and IEP-review steps should follow?
Read the worked answer
The team should collect weekly curriculum-based measures on two-step equations, plus biweekly probes on prerequisite skills, and graph the data. It should also track homework completion, test accuracy, and the fidelity of co-teaching and accommodations. After four to six data points, the team should compare Leah's trend to the IEP goal. If the trend is flat, the team should intensify instruction, change the co-teaching model, add a small-group intervention, or consider more intensive services. If progress is adequate, the team should continue and review at the annual IEP. The team must reconvene if the parent requests, if progress is insufficient, or if the service model changes. The principal's scheduling concern is relevant but cannot justify continuing a program that lacks SDI; the team can problem-solve staffing without lowering expectations.