|

November - December 2000
Think "Positive"! Creating Positive
Present Level of Educational Performance (PLOP) Statements
The Present Level of Educational Performance (PLOP)
section of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) is a
written description of the students strengths, areas of concern
and learning styles (Virginia Department of Education, 1998,
p. 14). The PLOP should focus on what the student can do now
and outline the unique needs of the student that must be met and
supported (Improving Special Education Experiences Project,
1998, p. 21). The PLOP sets the tone for the IEP process and product.
Because the IEP team considers this information at the outset of
an IEP meeting, it is important to phrase the information positively.
PLOP statements must include a description of how
the students disability affects the students involvement
and progress in the general curriculum
[20 U.S.C. Section
1414 (d) (1) (A)]. They should describe the students strengths,
especially in areas of concern. A description of the students
functioning in all areas is no longer required. Only the areas impacted
by the students disability need to be included. PLOP statements
should:
- be positively stated (IEP Team Guide, 1999, p. 34)
- sample words: well-groomed, goal-directed, adaptable, cooperative,
well-mannered, consistent, attentive, spontaneous, animated
- sample phrases: spells creatively, requires visual or auditory
cues, follows one-step directions, is willing to try again,
completes directions when they are repeated, requires transitions
with preparation
- represent student behaviors that can be seen, heard, measured,
or counted
- be specific, complete, accurate (IEP Team Guide, 1999, pp. 33-34),
and current (within a year)
- specific: Jay multiplies two-digit numbers correctly
90% of the time using a calculator.
- complete: Elizabeth copies simple shapes (circles,
squares, and triangles) with a crayon.
- accurate: When given the utensils, Darren can set
up to four place settings at a table with minimal verbal prompting.
- be based on current information gathered from a variety of sources,
such as
- portfolios of work
- observations of classroom performance, behavior, and/or
social interactions
- test results, including standardized and authentic measures
- interviews with parents, teachers, therapists, administrators,
and/or the student
- address academic areas (e.g., reading, math, oral communication,
writing, vocational); non-academic areas (e.g., mobility, daily
life skills, social/emotional, medical, sensory, adaptive behavior);
and transition, if applicable
- incorporate information about the students learning style
- describe techniques and/or materials that have proven effective
or ineffective
Although there is great variability in the way PLOPs
are written, consider the following guidelines to improve clarity.
- Use a narrative style.
- Use language that parents understand.
- Begin with the students strengths in the areas of concern
and conclude with the needs.
- Document each source of information, including the name of the
tools used and assessment dates. For example,
- from the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement, Revised,
given on 9-7-00
- based on a classroom observation of 10-11-00
- Explain scores, ratings, and interview formats.
The following excerpts are included as examples of
positively worded PLOP statements that focus on a students
area of concern.
Rita, age 10, with fine-motor concerns:
Rita is able to produce all upper- and lower- case manuscript letters
of the alphabet at the rate of 15 letters per minute by using a
model and self-correction skills (based on teacher interview and
classroom observation on 11-16-00). Rita writes three-word sentences
unassisted with great effort and limited clarity (based on a parent
questionnaire and interview completed on 11-3-00). Rita reports
that her hand hurts after five minutes of writing, and she wishes
that she could make all the letters stay on the line and not pile
up on each other (student interview completed on 11-13-00). She
also says that using the computer for story writing in school is
fun, and she gets her work done. Rita appears to learn handwriting
through tracing a model and verbalizing the order of the strokes.
Practice is most effective in short, intense segments with student
self-evaluation of the written product. Rita needs to increase speed
and legibility for manuscript handwriting.
Lance, age 14, with math calculation concerns:
Lance attends class regularly, attempts all in-class assignments,
and completes homework assigned in math class. Mr. Lee, Lances
math teacher, reports that when Lance uses a calculator his computation
accuracy is between 50 and 60 percent for most assignments. Without
a calculator, his computation accuracy is 20 percent. Additionally,
Mr. Lee reports that Lance is off-task as much as 60 percent of
a class period (data chart, November 8-19). Using the Parental Checklist,
Lances father indicates that Lance brings home materials for
assignments three out of five times a week and spends more than
1.5 hours on most math assignments. Lance scored at the 6.8 grade
equivalent, with a standard score of 38, and at the 21st percentile
on the math portion of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement,
Revised , administered on 9/15/00. Lance needs to learn basic math
facts for all four processes.
You may wish to evaluate your IEP drafts using
the Checklist for Present Level of Performance Descriptions included
on the insert of this newsletter. In addition, please see the Check-It-Out column for T/TAC library resources
related to IEPs.
References
Council for Exceptional Children. (1999). IEP team
guide. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Improving Special Education Experiences Project. (1998).
Creating collaborative IEPs: A handbook. Richmond: Virginia
Commonwealth University, Virginia Institute for Developmental Disabilities.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments
of 1997. P.L. 105-17. 20 U.S.C.
Virginia Department of Education. (1998). Individualized
education program IEP process: The cornerstone of special education.
Draft document. Richmond: Virginia Department of Education.
|