Individualized Education Plan
This Individualized Education Plan (IEP) webpage demonstrates my knowledge of U.S. public school educational protocols (C1) for an IEP and a 504 Plan. This knowledge influences the interpreting services and professional interactions I take part in within the school (C3 and C6) and how I collaborate with the IEP team (C4) in the service provision of Deaf and Hard of Hearing students.
School Interpreting Series (SIS) Standards
SIS Competency 1
Analyze educational laws, state regulations, and school protocols that influence U.S. public educational systems and structures, ultimately impacting deaf and hard of hearing students and the support provided by educational professionals. (Knowledge)
SIS Competency 3
Enact the roles and responsibilities of a school interpreter as a Related Service Provider guided by the educational plan that supports the deaf and hard of hearing student’s needs and under the guidance of assigned school personnel. (Knowledge & Skill)
SIS Competency 4
Collaborate with educational professionals, respecting the collective contribution of the different roles and responsibilities in schools, serving the unique educational needs of each deaf and hard of hearing student. (Knowledge & Skill)
SIS Competency 6
Implement decision-making as a Related Service Provider that is based on educational, professional, and ethical frameworks. (Skill)
​​
-
Individualized Education Plan
This page also includes an overarching reflection and references.​
This page includes a demonstration of an Individualized Education Plan for:​
This webpage demonstrates my competence in Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) and 504 plans by explaining how these plans support students, their legal requirements, and their relevance for deaf and hard of hearing students. Additionally, I address the implications for school interpreters and the roles of team members involved in creating and enforcing these plans. Finally, I identify three key takeaways regarding the differences between the plans identified through my research. The page concludes with a reflection on my learning process throughout its development.
​
A solid understanding of IEPs and 504 plans and how they operate within the school system is imperative for school interpreters. Because these plans outline legal requirements, accommodations, and goals, interpreters must understand how they shape access and define professional responsibilities in practice.
Individualized Education Plan (IEP)
An IEP is a written document established by the education team to guide the accommodations for a student eligible for special education services. It is reviewed at least annually but can be adjusted at any time. IEPs should state the student's current academic abilities and measurable annual goals. Specific accommodations that the student will receive and how the school district will measure progress are also included. An IEP should also outline modifications to general education and whether the student will participate in alternative forms of the state assessments. As students get older, plans for post-secondary services also become part of the meetings. Together, these components guide both instructional planning and student education accountability (Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction [OSPI], n.d.).
IEPs were first used in school systems after the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) in 1975. The EHA legally required public schools to allow students with disabilities to attend school in the least restrictive environment. Prior to this legislation, many students with disabilities were excluded from public education. In 1990, the EHA became the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA further refined the IEP process by including required parental approval for the program. (Education Alternatives, 2024)
​
IEPs are essential because they help create high-quality educational plans for students with disabilities. They promote collaboration between general education teachers, special education teachers, parents, and students to decide the best approach to a student's education. This collaboration is beneficial because it allows parents and teachers to share insight about how the student learns best across home and school settings. Additionally, the IEP provides legal protection for the student's educational rights. (DeLussey, 2020)
Legal protection is one of the most significant benefits for a deaf or hard of hearing student. It establishes the requirement that DHH students receive accommodations, such as interpreters, captioning, assisted listening devices, and CART services. This means that they will have visual access to their education. Additionally, it outlines goals that the education team must work toward to ensure a high-quality education for deaf and hard of hearing students. When done effectively, this means that these students can be set up for success rather than just being passed through each grade level. (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.) For school interpreters, familiarity with IEPs is essential, as they directly inform access, accommodations, and classroom collaboration. ​​
​
Interpreters must be aware of the IEPs of the deaf and hard of hearing students that they are working with. The IEP will include important information about the student's language preferences and the goals set by the education team. The interpreter can keep these goals in mind when working with the student. For example, if a goal of the IEP is for the student to gain independence and self-advocacy, the interpreter could support this by helping the student determine their language preferences for each subject. Additionally, the interpreter can participate in IEP meetings and contribute relevant information within their role. (Holt, 2024)
​​
For deaf and hard of hearing students, members of the IEP team include parents/caretakers, the student, the Teacher of the Deaf or special education teacher, an administrator, a school psychologist or specialist to interpret evaluation data, and related service providers such as speech-language pathologists, audiologists, and school interpreters. All of these members must work together to create and execute the IEP and to provide the most effective education possible. (PSI Project, 2023b)
IEP & The Interpreter's Contribution
The following artifact allowed me to delve deeper into the components of an IEP and apply what I have learned through a case study involving a 3rd-grade student named Rosie. Rosie uses hearing aids and experiences difficulty with expressive language; she primarily communicates through pointing and gesturing. An upcoming IEP meeting may include a discussion about whether Rosie's IEP should continue to include a school interpreter. Rosie has shown a positive response to working with an interpreter and to other interventions provided by members of the IEP team (Guardino et al., 2018).
​
The presentation includes an overview of IEP components, an example of what an IEP could look like in Washington state, and additional background information on Rosie’s case. It also describes how members of the IEP team and their goals for Rosie could impact the school interpreter, and concludes with suggestions for how a school interpreter may prepare for the IEP meeting. Together, these elements provided an opportunity to consider how IEP components and team dynamics intersect with the interpreter’s role. The presentation is available in the video below.
Video Language: ASL
To view the slide deck individually, please click here.
Applying my learning to a case study was a valuable experience that helped solidify what I have learned to this point. Before this presentation, I had read a lot about IEPs and understood their function and the role that school interpreters played on the IEP team, but I hadn't yet had the opportunity to apply that knowledge. Having a low-stakes space to explore how I might approach the case helped me connect the dots and gain a greater understanding and appreciation for the complexities and purpose of the IEP process, as well as the goals and roles of each member of the IEP team. In the same way that people say it helps to put a face to a name, it helped to put a student and a scenario to the information.
​
This particular artifact demonstrates proficiency in the 6th SIS Competency by showing consideration for the educational, professional, and ethical aspects of decision-making as a Related Service Provider. Through this presentation, I was reminded of how important it is to approach coworkers and IEP team members with curiosity, as we share the same goal. We will all want what is best for the students, even if we have different ideas of how to get there. Each team member brings their own expertise, making it essential to understand perspectives beyond our own in order to find the most effective solutions.
​
I look forward not only to bringing my skills and knowledge to future IEP teams, but also to bringing humility and an eagerness to collaborate, so that the students I work with will have IEPs that are thoughtful and supportive.
IEP Assessments
IEPs are built on data collected through assessments completed by members of the IEP team. Because IEPs must include measurable goals, ongoing data collection is necessary to track progress and inform future goals. One example of an evaluation an interpreter may be involved in is a communication assessment. This tracks a student’s current communication methods across home and classroom settings. It can help shape the interpreter's approach, as specified in the IEP (PSI Project, 2023a).
​
Another commonly used assessment is the PARC (Placement and Readiness Checklists for Students who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing). The PARC is a collection of checklists designed to help IEP teams determine a student’s readiness for various placements or accommodations within a school setting. This tool helps evaluate whether a student is prepared for a general education environment or whether another learning setting may be more appropriate (Johnson, 2011).
​
The PARC is divided into two parts. The first part consists of readiness checklists that outline the skills students need to participate effectively in the educational setting using their designated communication methods. These include the General Education Inclusion Readiness Checklist, the Interpreted/Transliterated Education Readiness Checklist, the Captioning/Transcribing Readiness Checklist, and the Instructional Communication Access Checklist. The second part contains the Placement Checklist, which evaluates the classroom environment and the teacher’s instructional style to determine how well they align with the DHH student's needs (Johnson, 2011).
​
Together, these checklists provide a dynamic tool that can be used and updated over time to support the student’s evolving needs.
For the following artifact, I completed a PARC assessment using an activity with the same sample student I worked with in the Child and Language Development of a Preschooler activity, which is available on the Child and Language Development Page. This continuity allowed me to apply assessment tools within a familiar case. The following information was provided as context for the PARC assessment.
Jo's language sample in ASl with English captions
Photo of Mrs. Chan's Classroom
Observations about Jo:
-
Jo is a Deaf preschooler who has had consistent access to visual language at home through Deaf family members. She is new to the school district and will be entering Mrs. Chan’s kindergarten class. Her first language is American Sign Language (ASL), and her language development in ASL falls well within age-appropriate norms. Socially, she is also developmentally on par with her peers, demonstrating eagerness to interact with others using ASL.
-
Because Jo is learning English as a second language, she will likely need additional support to develop her bilingual skills. Her IEP includes itinerant Teacher of the Deaf services to help provide this support. Jo does not use assistive listening technology such as hearing aids or cochlear implants, so classroom amplification systems (e.g., FM systems) will not be necessary.
-
Jo’s strengths include her rich language access at home, her solid linguistic foundation, and her enthusiasm for connecting with those around her. With these strengths—and with clear visual routines established in the classroom—she will be able to access interpreted instruction effectively.
​​
Classroom Observations:
-
Mrs. Chan has never taught a deaf or hard of hearing student or worked with an interpreter before, but she is eager to collaborate and adjust her instructional methods to create a supportive learning environment. Jo will be the only deaf and hard of hearing student in both the classroom and the entire school.
-
The class will include approximately 18 students, and the language of instruction will be English. Because of this, a qualified interpreter will need to be provided to ensure Jo has full access to instruction and can participate meaningfully in classroom activities.
-
The classroom itself is large and well-lit, which is beneficial for the interpreting process. However, the walls are filled with posters and visual aids, which could contribute to visual fatigue or make it more difficult for Jo to locate and follow the interpreter.
-
Mrs. Chan’s teaching style is highly engaging and animated. She speaks clearly, uses dynamic facial expressions, and incorporates a variety of instructional strategies. This includes inquiry-based learning, call-and-response activities, and the use of manipulatives to actively involve students in the lesson.​
​
The PARC assessment is provided below. Please note that some information was assumed or inferred for the purposes of this activity.
The PARC assessment differs from other evaluation tools in that it relies primarily on yes-or-no questions. In contrast, many other assessments require more narrative-style data, asking IEP team members to provide longer-form notes describing their observations. Completing the PARC assessment was a valuable experience, particularly because I had not previously worked directly with IEP materials. Although I have been learning about the IEP process, I initially felt quite nervous and unsure of what to expect. Having the opportunity to practice with an actual tool has given me greater confidence as I approach my first round of IEP meetings and assessments with a foundational understanding of the process.
​
Of course, each school district and educational team will have its own procedures, so I recognize that I will still need to remain adaptable and continue learning as I gain experience. Even so, this practice with the PARC has been an important step in my professional preparation.
​
This activity demonstrates my proficiency in SIS Competencies 3, 4, and 6. I was asked to analyze both the language sample and the classroom lesson to make informed observations for the PARC assessment. Based on those observations, I could then collaborate with the IEP team by contributing observations that support goal development. Engaging in this process also highlights the importance of ethical decision-making. As a professional, I cannot simply make up recommendations or rely on assumptions; I must base my contributions on accurate data, established assessment tools, and observable evidence. Using standardized tools such as the PARC ensures that the evaluation process maintains credibility, consistency, and reliability from year to year, while also supporting ethically sound, student-centered decision-making.
​
I look forward to learning even more when I see this process play out in real life for the first time. It is my hope to gain more experience during my internship; however, I am prepared to put in any extra work necessary to catch up and be an effective team member when that opportunity arises.
Decision-Making: The IEP Team
Drawing on information from Jo's case study, referenced above and on the Child and Language Development page, the scenario below provided an opportunity to demonstrate professional decision-making as a related service provider on the IEP team. In the scenario, I was positioned as the school interpreter and received the following email requesting interpretation for Jo’s IEP meeting (referred to as JHS in the email).
I decided to respond to CM Bernard via email as soon as possible to support administrative awareness of best practices for school interpreters. Because Jo is the school’s only deaf and hard of hearing student, I recognized the need to communicate proactively to protect the ethics of the interpreting process. My response is included below.
For this scenario, I practiced engaging in a conversation with an administrator in which I needed to justify my decision-making. The video below demonstrates my perspective in a conversation with CM Bernard. Central to this exchange was grounding my decisions in the NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct and the National Association of Interpreters in Education Code of Ethics, while also supporting the identification of another qualified interpreter.
Video Language: English with Captions
References in the Video: (NAIE, 2021; RID, 2005)
Finally, I followed up with CM Bernard to document the information discussed and provide a list of qualified interpreters who could support the IEP meeting. The email is included below.
This scenario continued with CM Bernard asking me to interpret the meeting because they were unable to secure an interpreter in time. This prompted my communication to the IEP team in a consultative role, as shown in the Consultant section of the Roles & Responsibilities page.
This scenario provided an opportunity to develop confidence in using my voice as a language expert and related service provider on the educational team. As a new practitioner, it can be challenging to uphold best practices when they differ from an administrator’s request. However, because the role of the school interpreter is often misunderstood, particularly in settings with limited experience working with deaf and hard of hearing students, it is essential that I am able to clearly explain my role and articulate what ethical practice requires.
​
This experience reinforced the importance of asserting myself professionally and grounding my communication in established standards and ethical frameworks. While these skills will continue to develop with experience, this scenario demonstrated my ability to navigate complex conversations, advocate for ethical practice, and collaborate effectively with team members. This reflects growing proficiency in SIS Competencies 3 and 4.
504 Plan
A 504 plan provides accommodations for students who need general education to be more accessible but do not qualify for special education services through an IEP. These plans allow students to receive necessary support while learning alongside their peers. They can include accommodations such as extended time for test-taking, extra materials for lessons, and the ability to move to a quieter environment for tests and individual work. For a student to receive accommodations through a 504 plan, there is no requirement for a formal evaluation or a standardized written plan. (Vierstra, 2024)
​504 plans are established under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Under the act, schools that receive federal funding must provide all students, regardless of disability, with a free and appropriate public education (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). 504s are vital because they provide legal protections for students who do not qualify for special education services. Some students have disabilities that do not require specialized instruction outside the general classroom. 504 plans provide accommodations that make learning in the general education classroom more accessible. 504 plans can provide accommodations for deaf and hard of hearing students, including an interpreter and CART services, even if they do not need support in a special education classroom. This allows deaf and hard of hearing students to learn alongside their peers while still receiving the support they need for an accessible education. If a deaf or hard of hearing student has a 504 plan, it can provide interpreters with guidance on how best to support access. This is especially helpful when a student has additional disabilities, such as ADHD, as it can inform the interpreter’s approach (Vierstra, 2024). ​​504 plans typically involve fewer team members in their development. The team includes the student, the parents/caregivers, general education and special education teachers, and the school principal (Rawe, 2024).
Key Comparisons of IEPs and 504 Plans
A great resource for comparing IEPs and 504 Plans is a chart created by Understood (Rawe, 2024), a nonprofit that provides resources to diverse learners. Below are 3 key takeaways I noted when comparing IEPs and 504 Plans.
#1: Goals and Progress
For IEPs, annual goals must be measured, and progress must be tracked. IEPs must also state the present level of skills and performance at the time the plan is written. 504 plans don't have the same requirement as they usually don't track progress or annual goals. This difference affects how each plan is created and implemented (Rawe, 2024). Understanding these differences helps clarify my role as a school interpreter. For example, in working with a student with an IEP, I may be asked to assist in tracking progress on specific goals. With a 504 plan, that is unlikely to be required. This understanding allows me to participate effectively as a member of the educational team across both plans.
#2: General Education or Special Education?
An IEP is for students with disabilities who require specialized instruction or services beyond what is typically provided in general education. This includes providing any services and special instruction needed to support the student and ensure access to their education. A 504 plan's goal is to provide support and accommodations for students with disabilities so they can continue learning alongside their peers in general education classrooms. Of course, a student with an IEP can still be in general education classrooms with their peers, but a student on a 504 plan would not receive specialized instruction outside the general education classroom (Rawe, 2024). This distinction informs my work as an interpreter, as the type of plan and its contents shape the kind of support a student may need. I would need to approach interpreting for a student on an IEP with a learning disability differently than I would if I were working with a student on a 504 plan with needs for additional time when completing work.
#3: Plan Construction
For an IEP, the plan must address various elements in writing to satisfy legal requirements. These items include related services that will be provided, how often the service will be provided, accommodations that will be made to the student's learning environment, assistive technology, modifications that will be made to course content for the student, and how the student will be integrated into general education classrooms and activities at the school. A 504 plan does not require a formal written document. Generally, 504 plans include accommodations and any assistive technology that will be used. Additionally, a 504 plan names a person responsible for ensuring the plan is followed. Other things that might be included but are less common include school-provided services (such as an interpreter) or modifications to course content. IEP plans are governed by more rigid construction requirements, and the content they must include differs accordingly (Understood, 2023). This is helpful for me to know as an interpreter because it clarifies my role on the education team. In any scenario, it is best if the interpreter is an active part of this team, but there is typically more formal structure around interpreter involvement, including participation in IEP meetings. When it comes to 504 plans, I may need to advocate more for interpreter involvement when it is necessary and appropriate.
​
As an interpreter, it is important for me to understand the specific content requirements of IEPs and integrate them into my practice. In contrast, a 504 plan may not have as much structure. If the 504 plan itself does not provide enough information to support accessible interpretation, I will need to remain in communication with other team members to ensure the student's needs are being met.
Overarching Reflection
Initially, approaching this page and its included artifacts was daunting. During one of my school-based observation opportunities, before the SIS curriculum gave me a clearer understanding of the IEP process, an interpreter gave me the chance to review a student’s IEP. While I only got a quick glance at it, I was very overwhelmed by how complex the paperwork was, given the responsibilities shared among all related service providers. It was clear that it required significant collaboration and coordination among the team to keep all the pieces moving.
After completing this page, I have a much more comprehensive understanding of the differences and purposes of IEPs versus 504 plans. Prior to this work, I realized that I did not have a clear understanding of what a 504 plan was or how it differed from an IEP. Through this process, I am now able to distinguish how one plan may better serve a particular student and what information I need to attend to as the interpreter supporting the implementation of each plan. I also have a clearer understanding of the legal implications associated with both plans and how my role as an interpreter fits within those requirements. For example, understanding these differences helps me anticipate the type of reporting I may be asked to provide to the team: typically more structured and goal-focused for a student with an IEP and more informal for a student with a 504 plan. This reflects my developing ability to understand educational systems, legal structures, and my role within them, aligning with the 1st SIS competency. Additionally, this work strengthened my understanding of how my role as a related service provider contributes to the creation and implementation of these plans through collaboration, preparation, and appropriate participation, demonstrating growth within the 6th SIS competency.
​​
Completing this page also reminded me that each student I work with will have their own needs, and that I cannot approach my work in a one-size-fits-all manner without doing a disservice to students. IEPs and 504 plans require me to make interpreting decisions based on documented goals, accommodations, and access needs rather than assumptions about what access should look like. While this responsibility can feel overwhelming at times as I continue developing both my interpreting skills and professional knowledge, this work reinforced that truly effective interpreting depends on responding to each student’s documented needs. Each student will experience their education differently, and being part of making that education accessible is meaningful work.
​
​Through gradually building my knowledge of the IEP process and completing a PARC assessment, I have gained experience that will support my transition into the field. While I am grateful for the learning opportunities provided through coursework, this page clarified that classroom instruction alone cannot fully prepare me for IEP participation. I now have an academic foundation that will allow me to enter my first IEP meetings with a working understanding of the process, while also recognizing that confidence and competence will continue to develop through firsthand experience. Completing the scenario-based artifacts also required me to articulate my role and ethical boundaries to administrators, reinforcing the importance of clear, confident communication when access and best practices are misunderstood.
​
I am committed to continuing to build my understanding of IEPs during my internship so that I can more effectively implement their requirements in my practice. This experience will allow me to apply what I have learned and continue building a real-world understanding of the IEP process as I transition into professional practice.
References
DeLussey, S. (2020, August 5). Why are IEPs Important? The intentional IEP. https://www.theintentionaliep.com/why-ieps-important/
​
Education Alternatives. (2024, April 2). History of the individualized education program (IEP). https://easchools.org/history-of-the-individualized-education program-
Guardino, C., Beal, J. S., Cannon, J. E., Voss, J., & Bergeron, J. P. (2018). Case studies in Deaf education: Inquiry, application, and resources. Gallaudet University
Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rr3g0g
​
Holt, G. (2024, July 11). The role of interpretation and translation in IEP and 504 plans. https://www.languageline.com/blog/the-role-of-interpretation-and-
translation-in-iep-and-504-plans
​
Johnson, C. D. (2011). PARC: Placement and readiness checklists [PDF]. https://handsandvoices.org/pdf/PARC_2011_ReadinessChecklists.pdf
​
National Association of Interpreters in Education. (2021). Educational interpreter code of ethics. www.naiedu.org/codeofethics/
​
PSI Project. (2023a). IEPs: Interpreters as team members [Google Slides]. University of Northern
​
PSI Project. (2023b). IEP team [Google Slides]. University of Northern Colorado.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1D8LgZJcpGY5SLdIyN6heOdSFTExklolG1Afi5ZvPYmM/edit#slide=id.p
​​
Rawe, J. (2024, May 18). The difference between IEPS and 504 plans. Understood. https://www.understood.org/en/articles/the-difference-between-ieps-and-
​
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. (2005). NAD-RID code of professional conduct. https://rid.org/programs/ethics/code-of-professional-conduct/
​​​
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Deaf students education services. https://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/hq9806.html
​​
Vierstra, G. (2024, May 31). What is a 504 plan? Understood. https://www.understood.org/en/articles/what-is-a-504-plan
​
Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (n.d.). Individualized education program (IEP). https://ospi.k12.wa.us/student-success/special-
education/family-engagement-and-guidance/individualized-education-program-iep
​