Iep Specially Designed Instruction Examples

Writing SDI That Actually Gets Implemented

Specially designed instruction is the part of an IEP that gets most poorly written and even more poorly executed. The law requires it. The parents usually don't understand what it is. The general education teachers rarely see it clearly. What follows is how I've learned to write it so it actually survives contact with a real classroom. Here are examples that have worked in practice across multiple districts over the past several years: Reading fluency deficit: Student receives explicit phonics instruction 4 days per week for 30 minutes in a small group of 3 students, using the Wilson Reading System curriculum. Teacher will use decodable texts at student's instructional level and monitor progress weekly using oral reading fluency probes with running records. Instruction targets grade-level text access through remediation of foundational skills.

Math computation deficit: Student receives direct instruction in multi-digit multiplication and division procedures using concrete-representational-abstract sequence, 5 days per week for 25 minutes. Teacher will provide scaffolded problem-solving templates and check for understanding every 5 problems. Progress monitored biweekly using curriculum-based measurement math probes. Written expression deficit: Student receives explicit instruction in paragraph structure and revision strategies 4 days per week for 30 minutes using the Write From the Beginning curriculum. Teacher will model planning and revising alongside student and provide graphic organizers as scribe support until student demonstrates independent organization of 5-paragraph essays at least 3 out of 4 trials. Executive functioning deficit: Student receives direct instruction in task initiation, time management, and organizational skills 3 days per week for 20 minutes during designated study hall. Teacher will use implementation intentions ("If X happens, then I will Y"), checklists with visual prompts, and student self-monitoring logs. Goals measured by percentage of assignments submitted on time over a 6-week period.

The problem most people encounter is that these examples sound good but fall apart when you try to implement them. I learned this the hard way with a student whose IEP said the teacher would provide "modified assignments with reduced quantity." That's not specially designed instruction. That's a accommodation or modification, which belongs elsewhere in the document. The SDI needed to describe the actual instruction the special education teacher would deliver — explicit teaching of the underlying skill gap that caused the assignment difficulty in the first place.

What Makes SDI Different from Accommodations

SDI addresses the skill gap. Accommodations address the access gap. They are not interchangeable and putting them in the wrong section of the IEP creates compliance issues during audits. SDI must describe: - What specific skill or knowledge area the student cannot access at grade level

- How the special education teacher will explicitly teach that skill - The frequency and duration of that instruction - The format (individual, small group, co-taught)

- How progress will be measured Aaccommodations like extended time, text-to-speech software, or a preferential seating location go in the accommodations section. They remove barriers. SDI builds missing skills. When both are needed — and they usually are — they need to live in their proper sections.

The Component Approach Most IEP Teams Miss

Many practitioners write SDI as a single broad statement. This fails because it becomes impossible to measure whether the instruction is actually effective. The better approach breaks SDI into components tied to each annual goal. If a student has three annual goals, they should have three corresponding SDI components described in the IEP. Each one explains how the special education teacher will directly instruct the skill needed to achieve that specific goal. This creates a clear audit trail from present levels through goals to instruction to progress monitoring. I've seen IEPs where the SDI section was one paragraph covering all four goals. When the district received a state complaint about lack of procedural compliance, that vague language couldn't defend itself. Specificity matters more than you'd think in a dispute.

Measurement and Data Collection Reality

Every SDI component needs a progress monitoring method built into its description. Vague monitoring phrases like "teacher will track progress" won't hold up during a due process hearing. You need specific tools and frequencies. For academic SDI, curriculum-based measurement is standard. Decoding probes for reading, fact fluency probes for math, writing samples scored with a rubric for written expression. These are quick to administer — most take under 3 minutes — and produce data points you can graph. For behavioral or executive function SDI, percentage-based data works better. Percentage of assignments completed, percentage of target behaviors absent per day, checklist completion rates. Track these daily or weekly depending on the frequency of the target behavior.

The frequency of data collection should match the pace of instruction. If you're providing 5 days per week of reading intervention, you should be collecting data at least weekly, ideally twice weekly for the first month to establish a baseline trend before extending to biweekly collections.

A Real Problem I Encountered

I had a case where a student's IEP listed SDI for reading comprehension, but the general education teacher was required to use a basal reading program that didn't align with the intervention approach. The special education teacher was pulling the student out three times a week for 30 minutes, teaching skills that never transferred back to the general education setting. The student's progress monitor data showed slow growth — maybe one raw score point per week — and the annual goal looked unachievable. The fix was adding a co-teaching component to the SDI. Instead of pull-out only, the special education teacher and general education teacher planned 20 minutes per week together to align the comprehension strategies being taught in intervention with the comprehension instruction happening in the general education classroom. Progress jumped to roughly 3 points per week within six weeks. The SDI language needed to change from "pull-out reading intervention" to "integrated reading instruction with co-teaching model supporting transfer of comprehension strategies."

Common Pitfalls in SDI Writing

Pitfall one: describing accommodation language as SDI. "Student will use audiobooks for all grade-level texts" is an accommodation. "Student will receive explicit instruction in vocabulary acquisition strategies using morphological analysis, 4 days per week for 25 minutes" is SDI. One reduces the barrier. The other builds a missing skill. Pitfall two: omitting the who, what, when, and how of instruction. Every SDI component should answer these questions explicitly. Who delivers it? What curriculum or methodology is used? How often and for how long? In what setting? Pitfall three: writing SDI for goals that don't need it. Not every annual goal requires specially designed instruction. Some goals can be met through accommodations, modifications, or supplemental aids and services. If the student can reach the goal with the right support structures that don't require direct skill instruction from the special education teacher, that belongs in a different section.

Pitfall four: ignoring transfer. Skills taught in isolation don't generalize. If your SDI describes intervention that only happens during the intervention block, ask yourself whether the student will use that skill in the general education classroom. If the answer is no, either adjust the SDI to include co-teaching or embedded instruction, or acknowledge that the goal addresses a separate skill area.

When SDI Alone Isn't Enough

There are scenarios where even well-written SDI won't produce adequate progress. If a student has a significant cognitive disability and the grade-level standards are fundamentally inaccessible despite systematic instruction, the IEP team should consider alternative assessment options and modified curriculum rather than continuing to write SDI aimed at grade-level standards the student cannot reach. Another scenario: a student with severe language processing disorders may benefit more from a communication-based intervention model than traditional academic SDI. In these cases, the SDI should reflect the actual service model — speech-language pathologist delivered language intervention, for example — rather than forcing it into a standard academic framework.

Quality Check Before Signing

Before an IEP goes out for parent signature, run the SDI section through this checklist: Each annual goal has a corresponding SDI component described. Each SDI component specifies the instructor, methodology, frequency, duration, and setting.

Progress monitoring methods are named and scheduled within each SDI component. No accommodation language appears in the SDI section. The instruction described would actually address the skill deficit identified in the present levels.

Transfer to the general education setting is addressed either through co-teaching, embedded instruction, or explicit statement that transfer is not a target of this particular SDI. Spending 15 minutes on this review prevents months of implementation drift and potential compliance issues down the line.