Wren at The Canary Collective wrote an important reminder this week: spring IEP reviews should not be treated as an administrative wrap-up before summer. They are a chance to ask whether the IEP was actually implemented, whether progress was measured, whether barriers remain, and what needs to be ready before September.

That matters because many families leave the school year with vague reassurance instead of clear evidence.

• “Making progress.”
• “Working toward the goal.”
• “Continuing to develop.”
• “Doing well overall.”

These phrases may sound positive, but they do not answer the accountability question. What was actually provided? How often did it happen? What evidence shows it helped? What barriers are still there? What needs to change before the next school year starts?

An IEP should not disappear after September

An IEP is not meant to be a symbolic document that gets written in the fall and forgotten. It should guide what happens during the school day. It should identify barriers, name supports, describe how progress will be monitored, and help adults adjust when something is not working.

Wren’s post makes the point clearly: families have a right to ask what evidence supports the school’s conclusions about progress, whether goals were consistently addressed, and whether supports were affected by staffing, scheduling, or classroom demands.

Those are not unreasonable questions.

They are the questions that make an IEP real.

Overview

%%{init: {'theme': 'base', 'themeVariables': { 'primaryColor': '#fbfaf3', 'primaryBorderColor': '#e69632', 'lineColor': '#000000'}}}%%

flowchart TD
    A["Spring IEP review is coming"] --> B["Gather the current IEP<br>and any previous versions"]
    B --> C["Review each goal<br>and accommodation"]

    C --> D{"Was the support<br>actually provided?"}

    D -->|"Yes"| E["Ask for evidence:<br>How often?<br>Who provided it?<br>What changed?"]
    D -->|"No / unclear"| F["Name the gap:<br>The IEP says this,<br>but daily practice shows this"]

    E --> G{"Did the support<br>improve access?"}
    F --> H["Ask for an implementation plan:<br>Who will do what,<br>when, and how will it be tracked?"]

    G -->|"Yes"| I["Keep or strengthen the support<br>for next year"]
    G -->|"No / unclear"| J["Ask whether the barrier<br>was correctly identified"]

    J --> K["Revise the goal:<br>barrier + bridge + purpose + evidence"]
    H --> K
    I --> L["Plan for September"]
    K --> L

    L --> M["Confirm day-one supports:<br>staff responsibilities,<br>accommodations,<br>technology, sensory supports,<br>communication tools,<br>transition plan"]

    M --> N["Send written follow-up:<br>what was agreed,<br>who is responsible,<br>timeline,<br>review date"]

    N --> O{"Does the school confirm<br>the plan in writing?"}

    O -->|"Yes"| P["Save the record<br>and monitor implementation"]
    O -->|"No / vague response"| Q["Follow up with deadline<br>or escalate if access is affected"]

Ask what was actually implemented

Start with implementation.

For each goal or accommodation, ask:

• Was this support actually provided?
• Who provided it?
• How often did it happen?
• Was it consistent across classes and settings?
• Was it interrupted by staffing, scheduling, or classroom demands?
• How do we know it happened?

A support that appears in the IEP but does not happen during the school day is not functioning as accommodation.

Ask what evidence shows progress

Parents often hear broad progress statements without enough detail to understand what they mean.

Ask:

• What evidence shows progress?
• How was progress measured?
• What work samples, observations, assessments, or records support that conclusion?
• Did the IEP say how progress would be measured?
• Was my child actually given the support needed to work toward the goal?

If there was little or no progress, ask whether the plan needs to change.

Limited progress does not automatically mean the child failed. It may mean the goal was poorly written, the support was inconsistent, the environment remained inaccessible, or the plan was not implemented.

Ask whether the goals were the right goals

Many IEP goals are written as if the child is the whole problem.

They focus on what the student will do differently: self-regulate, self-advocate, tolerate transitions, reduce behaviour, comply with instructions, or work independently.

Sometimes those are real areas where a child needs support. But the IEP should also say what adults will do, what accommodations will be provided, and what environment will make success possible.

A useful goal should identify:

• the barrier;
• the bridge or support;
• the purpose;
• the evidence that will show whether it worked.

If the goal only describes what the child should do, ask what adults will do to make that goal possible.

Ask what needs to be ready for September

Spring IEP review should look forward, not only backward.

Too often, schools wait until September to “see how things go.” For disabled students, that can mean starting the year without the supports adults already knew were needed.

Before the year ends, ask:

• Which accommodations must be in place on day one?
• What information will be shared with next year’s teachers?
• Who will be responsible for the IEP next year?
• What transition planning is needed?
• What assistive technology, sensory supports, communication tools, or environmental changes need to be ready?
• What should happen if the plan is not ready in the first week?

A child should not have to fail in September before adults act on information they already had in June.

Put the review in writing

After the meeting, send a short summary.

Include:

• what was reviewed;
• what progress was reported;
• what evidence was provided;
• what supports were not implemented;
• what still needs to change;
• what must be ready for September;
• who is responsible.

This helps protect the record and reduces the chance that the same concerns will have to be raised again in the fall.

What to read next

• If you want help improving the wording of IEP goals, read Advocating for better IEP goals.
• If the IEP exists but supports are not happening, read The school is ignoring my child’s IEP.
• If you need to understand complaint pathways, read Solving problems at school: accommodation and IEP failures.
• If you need help keeping a record, read Documentation: building a record that matters.
• You can also read Wren’s full post at The Canary Collective, which prompted this reminder and lays out why spring IEP reviews matter for accountability, access, and September planning.

Bottom line

A spring IEP review is not just an end-of-year check-in.

It is a chance to ask whether supports were implemented, whether progress was measured, whether barriers remain, and what must be ready before September.

The goal is not more paperwork.

The goal is a child who can start the next year with access already planned, rather than having to struggle first before the adults respond.

Spring IEP review checklist

This checklist exists because families are often expected to do too much. Parents should not have to audit an IEP like a compliance officer to find out whether a disabled child received support. Schools should already be tracking implementation, measuring progress, planning transitions, and communicating clearly.

But when that does not happen, a checklist can help protect the record and keep the meeting focused on access, not reassurance.

IEP Spring checkin checklist→