| Domain | IF Condition | THEN Outcome | Legal Basis | FAPE Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IEP Def. | IF A student has a qualifying disability that adversely affects educational performance
Two-prong eligibility test: The student must (1) have one of IDEA's 13 recognized disability categories and (2) the disability must adversely affect educational performance. Both prongs must be satisfied before an IEP can be developed.
|
THEN The student is entitled to a written IEP — a collaboratively developed plan outlining present levels, annual goals, services, and progress monitoring |
IDEA §1414(d); 34 CFR §300.320(a) |
High |
| IEP Def. | IF A student is identified as eligible but does not receive a written IEP |
THEN The school is in direct violation of IDEA's FAPE mandate; an IEP is not optional once eligibility is established — it is the legal vehicle through which FAPE is delivered |
IDEA §1412(a)(1); Yell (2019) |
High |
| IEP Def. | IF An IEP is developed but not implemented as written
Third category of violation: Beyond procedural and substantive violations, implementation failure is a distinct FAPE concern. Courts have held that a school cannot claim FAPE when it fails to deliver the services it agreed to provide.
|
THEN An implementation failure exists — a third violation category that can constitute a FAPE denial even when the IEP is procedurally and substantively sound |
M.C. v. Antelope Valley (2017); Yell (2019) |
High |
| IEP Def. | IF All required IEP components under §300.320(a) are present and high quality |
THEN The IEP functions as its intended purpose: a legally binding roadmap that guides the student's entire special education program and ensures accountability across all team members |
34 CFR §300.320; Bateman & Linden (2006) |
Low |
No scenarios match your current filters or search.
| Domain | IF Condition | THEN Outcome | Legal Basis | FAPE Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural | IF An IEP is developed without required team members present
All three prongs are disjunctive — meaning any one is sufficient. Courts find FAPE denial when the violation: (1) impeded the child's right to FAPE, (2) significantly limited parental participation, or (3) caused a deprivation of educational benefit. The parent need only establish one. [IDEA §1415(f)(3)(E)(ii)]
|
THEN A procedural violation exists; it rises to FAPE denial only if it: (1) impeded the child's right to FAPE, (2) significantly limited parental participation, or (3) caused a deprivation of educational benefit — all three prongs are disjunctive |
IDEA §1415(f)(3)(E)(ii) |
Medium |
| Procedural | IF Parents do not receive prior written notice before a placement change |
THEN A serious procedural violation exists; it rises to FAPE denial only when one of the three §1415(f)(3)(E) prongs is met — not automatic, but significantly limiting parental participation is the most likely trigger here |
34 CFR §300.503; IDEA §1415(f)(3)(E) |
High |
| Substantive | IF An IEP meets all procedural requirements but goals are set at the student's current baseline |
THEN The IEP is substantively deficient — it fails the Endrew standard requiring it to be "reasonably calculated to enable progress." A goal targeting current performance expects no growth |
Endrew F. (2017), p. 999 |
High |
| Substantive | IF A court applies only the de minimis benefit standard from Rowley |
THEN The analysis is legally outdated; Endrew F. (2017) unanimously replaced that floor with a child-specific, meaningful-progress standard calibrated to each student's individual circumstances |
Rowley (1982); Endrew F. (2017) |
High |
| Substantive | IF A student with significant disabilities is compared to grade-level peers to determine appropriate progress |
THEN The comparison is inappropriate; Endrew requires progress calibrated to the individual student's profile — grade-level comparison is an inappropriate benchmark for students with more complex needs |
Endrew F. (2017) |
Medium |
| Domain | IF Condition | THEN Outcome | Authority | FAPE Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLAAFP | IF Assessment sources are not identified in the PLAAFP |
THEN Data cannot be verified or compared at future IEP meetings — the entire IEP rests on an unverifiable foundation, undermining the reliability of every goal and service built from it |
Yell (2019) |
High |
| PLAAFP | IF Oral reading accuracy is described qualitatively rather than quantified
Why the distinction matters: 100 wpm at 70% accuracy means 30 of every 100 words read incorrectly. 100 wpm at 95% accuracy means 5 errors per 100 words. These represent entirely different instructional profiles — one requires decoding intervention, the other fluency-building. Rate alone cannot distinguish them.
|
THEN The fluency profile is incomplete; both rate and accuracy must be documented — the same rate at different accuracy levels signals completely different instructional needs |
NRP (2000) |
High |
| PLAAFP | IF The PLAAFP omits underlying phonological or decoding skill deficits |
THEN The IEP team cannot select evidence-based interventions; addressing reading outcomes without identifying root causes produces services that are unlikely to close the achievement gap |
NRP (2000); Yell (2019) |
High |
| PLAAFP | IF The disability's impact on the general education curriculum is not explicitly stated |
THEN §300.320(a)(1)(i) is not met; the IEP must explain how the disability affects the child's involvement and progress in the general education curriculum — without this, the justification for services is legally weakened |
34 CFR §300.320 (a)(1)(i) |
High |
| PLAAFP | IF Student and family input are absent from the PLAAFP |
THEN The document is incomplete as a collaborative product; §300.322 requires meaningful parent participation throughout IEP development, and best practice anchors PLAAFP data in family knowledge of the student |
34 CFR §300.322; Bateman & Linden (2006) |
Medium |
| Domain | IF Condition | THEN Outcome | Authority | FAPE Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goal | IF An annual goal omits an accuracy criterion for oral reading fluency |
THEN The goal is not fully measurable; progress monitoring cannot confirm that growth — not just faster but inaccurate reading — has occurred |
Bateman & Linden (2006) |
High |
| Goal | IF The target criterion in a goal matches the student's current baseline |
THEN The goal violates Endrew; a target identical to present performance expects no growth — the IEP team must set an ambitious, achievable target above the student's current level |
Endrew F. (2017) |
High |
| Goal | IF Only one goal is written for a student with four distinct identified need areas |
THEN Three need areas remain unaddressed; IDEA requires measurable annual goals covering each academic and functional need identified in the PLAAFP — one goal cannot legally or educationally serve multiple independent need areas |
IDEA §1414(d); Yell (2019) |
High |
| Goal | IF A fluency goal is written but comprehension, inference, and main-idea needs are excluded |
THEN The IEP is substantively insufficient; fluency is a surface skill — the higher-order comprehension deficits affecting content-area performance remain unresolved and will continue to impede general education access |
Yell (2019); NRP (2000) |
High |
| Goal | IF A goal includes a condition, behavior, and timeline but no criterion for mastery
All four elements are required: (1) Condition — describes the context; (2) Student name; (3) Observable behavior or skill; (4) Measurable criterion — defines what mastery looks like. A goal missing any one element cannot be monitored or legally defended.
|
THEN One of four required goal elements is missing; all four — condition, student name, observable behavior, and measurable criterion — must be present for a goal to be legally defensible |
Bateman & Linden (2006) |
Medium |
| Domain | IF Condition | THEN Outcome | Authority | FAPE Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Services | IF The type of service is not specified in the IEP |
THEN The IEP is legally incomplete; without identifying the service category, providers cannot determine what instruction or support is authorized — the services statement is the binding commitment between school and family |
34 CFR §300.320(a)(4) |
High |
| Services | IF Frequency and duration of services are omitted |
THEN The total service intensity is undefined; schools can deliver inconsistent amounts without violating the document — eliminating the accountability that protects students from under-service |
34 CFR §300.320(a)(7); Yell (2019) |
High |
| Services | IF Service location is not specified or is inconsistent with the LRE determination |
THEN A dual violation may exist: §300.320(a)(7) requires location to be documented in the IEP, and §300.114 requires the placement to reflect the LRE principle — both provisions must be independently satisfied |
34 CFR §300.320(a)(7); §300.114 |
High |
| Services | IF The projected start date for services is not documented
Federal law requires only the start date. 34 CFR §300.320(a)(7) mandates the projected date for the beginning of services plus anticipated frequency, location, and duration. "Duration" means session length — not a service end date. End dates are common IEP form practice but are not a federal compliance requirement.
|
THEN §300.320(a)(7) is violated; note that a projected end date is not explicitly required by federal law — "duration" in the regulation refers to session length, not a service termination date |
34 CFR §300.320(a)(7) |
Medium |
| Services | IF All required service elements are present and operationally defined |
THEN The services statement is legally compliant and auditable — educators, families, and administrators share a verifiable record of what was agreed upon, and the document functions as the accountability tool it was designed to be |
34 CFR §300.320; Yell (2019) |
Low |
| Domain | IF Condition | THEN Outcome | Authority | FAPE Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Progress | IF The IEP does not describe how progress toward annual goals will be measured |
THEN §300.320(a)(3)(i) is violated; without a defined measurement method, there is no shared standard for what counts as progress and no mechanism to trigger corrective action when students fall behind |
34 CFR §300.320 (a)(3)(i) |
High |
| Progress | IF The IEP does not state when progress reports will be provided to parents |
THEN §300.320(a)(3)(ii) is violated; while IDEA does not mandate a specific schedule, it requires the IEP to specify reporting timing — parents cannot serve as equal partners without timely, regular information |
34 CFR §300.320 (a)(3)(ii) |
High |
| Progress | IF Monitoring data shows a student is not making expected progress midyear |
THEN The IEP team must act; §300.324(b) requires revision to address lack of expected progress — waiting until the annual review sacrifices instructional time that cannot be recovered and likely violates the Endrew meaningful-progress standard |
34 CFR §300.324(b); Endrew F. (2017) |
High |
| Progress | IF Progress is not monitored with objective, consistent data collection |
THEN The school cannot demonstrate whether the IEP is working, cannot identify when services need adjustment, and cannot show Endrew-level meaningful progress — the absence of data is itself an accountability failure |
34 CFR §300.320(a)(3); Yell (2019) |
High |
| Progress | IF Parents receive regular, data-based progress reports on each annual goal |
THEN IDEA's reporting requirement is met; parents can fulfill their role as equal partners, identify concerns early, request reviews if needed, and make informed decisions — the IEP's collaborative accountability function operates as designed |
34 CFR §300.320(a)(3); §300.324(b) |
Low |