I was reviewing my daughter’s progress report and noticed that her STEM grade changed from Approaching (AP) in Term 1 to Limited Progress (LP) in Term 2. I reached out to the teacher, and a note was added stating “due to non-participation.”
Additionally, her World Language grade shifted from Proficient (PR) to Limited Progress (LP). I did not receive an explanation for this change, but I am assuming it may also be related to non-participation.
We have our annual IEP meeting scheduled for January 8th, and I would like to address these concerns during that meeting. Specifically, I’d like to consider adding goals that support engagement in non-preferred tasks, as I know this is an area where my daughter struggles. My goal is to ensure continuous progress in these subjects.
Could you share your thoughts on this approach?
Thank you,
Answer:
Apologies for the late reply. We were having some technical issues with the Ask a Coach platform.
Your approach is exactly what I would do.
First, I would explicitly clarify whether non-participation is the core reason for the LP in both subjects. Don’t assume. Get them to say it clearly. Then I’d ask them to define what “non-participation” actually looks like. What behaviors are they seeing? During what tasks? At what times of day?
From there, I would want ABC data around the behaviors that are interfering with learning. If participation is the issue, we need to know the antecedents, the behavior, and the consequence. Without data, this stays subjective and nothing meaningful changes.
If the data shows escape or avoidance of non-preferred tasks, that tells us exactly what needs to be targeted in the IEP. This is a skill gap, not a compliance issue.
I am a big fan of reward-based systems for non-preferred tasks when they are done correctly and consistently. I still use this with Julianna. Expecting engagement without motivation, scaffolding, or reinforcement is unrealistic, especially for kids who struggle with task initiation and persistence.
At the IEP meeting, I would push for goals and supports that explicitly teach and reinforce engagement in non-preferred tasks rather than penalizing her academically for a known area of need. Grades should reflect learning, not the absence of supports.
Below is a frame work I used for Julianna so you can reference:
Engagement in Non-Preferred Tasks
Given a non-preferred task, [Student] will engage and participate using supports and reinforcement in ___% of opportunities, as measured by staff data.
Task Initiation
When presented with a non-preferred task, [Student] will initiate within ___ minutes using prompts or visuals in ___ out of ___ opportunities.
Sustained Participation
With a reinforcement system in place, [Student] will remain engaged in a non-preferred task for ___ minutes in ___% of opportunities.
Functional Communication for Avoidance
When overwhelmed, [Student] will appropriately request a break or help in ___% of opportunities, reducing avoidance behaviors.
SUPPORTS TO REQUEST
Consistent reinforcement tied to participation
Repeating of instructions
Visuals and task breakdown
Choice when possible
Reduced workload with gradual increase
Scheduled breaks before high-demand tasks
Prompting for initiation with planned fading
Data collection on participation
Let me know if this is helpful and if you have any other questions.
Apologies for the late reply. We were having some technical issues with the Ask a Coach platform.
Your approach is exactly what I would do.
First, I would explicitly clarify whether non-participation is the core reason for the LP in both subjects. Don’t assume. Get them to say it clearly. Then I’d ask them to define what “non-participation” actually looks like. What behaviors are they seeing? During what tasks? At what times of day?
From there, I would want ABC data around the behaviors that are interfering with learning. If participation is the issue, we need to know the antecedents, the behavior, and the consequence. Without data, this stays subjective and nothing meaningful changes.
If the data shows escape or avoidance of non-preferred tasks, that tells us exactly what needs to be targeted in the IEP. This is a skill gap, not a compliance issue.
I am a big fan of reward-based systems for non-preferred tasks when they are done correctly and consistently. I still use this with Julianna. Expecting engagement without motivation, scaffolding, or reinforcement is unrealistic, especially for kids who struggle with task initiation and persistence.
At the IEP meeting, I would push for goals and supports that explicitly teach and reinforce engagement in non-preferred tasks rather than penalizing her academically for a known area of need. Grades should reflect learning, not the absence of supports.
Below is a frame work I used for Julianna so you can reference:
Engagement in Non-Preferred Tasks
Given a non-preferred task, [Student] will engage and participate using supports and reinforcement in ___% of opportunities, as measured by staff data.
Task Initiation
When presented with a non-preferred task, [Student] will initiate within ___ minutes using prompts or visuals in ___ out of ___ opportunities.
Sustained Participation
With a reinforcement system in place, [Student] will remain engaged in a non-preferred task for ___ minutes in ___% of opportunities.
Functional Communication for Avoidance
When overwhelmed, [Student] will appropriately request a break or help in ___% of opportunities, reducing avoidance behaviors.
SUPPORTS TO REQUEST
Consistent reinforcement tied to participation
Repeating of instructions
Visuals and task breakdown
Choice when possible
Reduced workload with gradual increase
Scheduled breaks before high-demand tasks
Prompting for initiation with planned fading
Data collection on participation
Let me know if this is helpful and if you have any other questions.