Lori Holloway

EDSP 5335
Houston Baptist University
Dr. Christine Woodbury
ARD Observation
April 5, 2016

On February 11, 2016 I observed an ARD that took place at an elementary school campus
in a large suburban school district. The ARD was scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m., but it did not
start until about 10:15 a.m. due to the students parent not being on time. The ARD lasted for
approximately one hour and thirty minutes. The members that were present at the ARD were the
students parents, the campus Assistant Principal, Special Education Teacher, General Education
Teacher, speech Therapist, district Physical Therapist and the campus Diagnostician. The ARD
invitation was signed by the parent, and five school days notice was given. The most recent
procedural safeguards were sent home with the ARD invitation.
The purpose of the ARD was an initial ARD for a kindergarten student. The student
qualified for special education services as a student with orthopedic impairment (OI), intellectual
disabilities (ID), and speech impairment (SI). It was proposed in the meeting that the student
would receive all academic instruction in the kindergarten general education classroom with
inclusive support, speech therapy, and physical therapy. It was also proposed that the student be
evaluated for adaptive PE in the future. The ARD committee agreed to inclusive support in the
areas of reading, math, and ELA for fifteen minutes daily, fifty five minutes of inclusive support
for PE one day per week, and recess/lunch support daily. The student would receive speech
therapy for thirty minutes, sixteen times per nine week grading period, which would break down
to two thirty minute sessions twice a week for the first eight weeks, and no services the ninth
week to monitor generalization of skills. The student qualified for physical and occupational
therapy as a related service. Physical therapy would be delivered for fifteen minutes, five times
per nine weeks. Occupational therapy would be delivered for thirty minute sessions six times per
nine weeks. There was some discussion about the amount of inclusive support that was being
given during academic instruction, some members that were present felt that it was not enough to

meet the students needs. If I had been a consensus member, I would have probably agreed with
them just by listening to the results of the FIE. In the end the members agreed to start with that
amount of time, and if there was data to support more in the future, the ARD committee could
reconvene to address it.
My overall impression of the ARD was that it was not organized, and it was not a wellrun ARD. Part of my job as a Campus Compliance Coordinator is to facilitate ARD meetings.
The campus Diagnostician was in the role of the ARD facilitator of this meeting. I could tell that
she was trying to complete documents that could have been drafted prior to the meeting. It is
general practice that during an initial ARD meeting, the FIE is explained to the parent(s) in detail
if needed. I felt that much of the information was skipped or not explained fully in terms that the
parents could understand. There was not an organized flow to the meeting, the Diagnostician
was jumping from one item to the next, and at times, it was confusing for me to understand. I
could only imagine how the parents felt. The General Education Teacher did a good job of trying
to answer questions that were asked of her. The IEPs that were written for the student, in my
opinion, were not in line with what the FIE recommended. It was obvious that the Special
Education Teacher did not review the FIE before they were written. The Speech Therapist and
Physical Therapist were very professional, and explained their portions of the FIE very well.
The IEPs they created complimented the FIE results. The Assistant Principal did a good job of
trying to keep the meeting on track, and answer questions that came up, but it is difficult when
the person running the meeting is not organized or prepared. I understand that issues will arise
before and during meetings, but if a facilitator is prepared ahead of time, it does alleviate issues
that could arise.

This meeting was an example of a meeting that I try very hard to avoid. Once I become a
Diagnostician, I will do much of the same as a I do now. I always try to be prepared and
professional. Those two things will go a long way in a meeting. It creates an atmosphere that
will lead to a productive meeting. It will also help to avoid making critical mistakes that may
result in having to convene another ARD meeting, or cause other issues that are much more
severe.