Three IEP Red Flags That Parents Often Miss

Many IEPs contain language that sounds helpful on the surface but presents significant problems in practice. The IEP ends up being like a mirage. You think that your child is getting supported and learning helpful skills in school, but the reality is very different.

Three of the most common red flags I see are:

1. Compliance-based goals

2. Generic accommodations that are not tied to the student's actual needs

3. A focus on making the student appear typical rather than helping them access instruction and social opportunities in ways that work for them

These issues are very common. The language can be subtle and the problem can be difficult for an inexperienced eye to see.  The IEP can look good, but the child will still struggle in school.

Red Flag 1: Compliance-Based Goals

Compliance-based goals focus on making the student easier to manage rather than helping the student learn meaningful skills.

These goals often target behaviors such as:

• Following directions

• Remaining seated

• Maintaining eye contact

• Staying on task

• Raising a hand before speaking

• Working quietly

• Demonstrating appropriate classroom behavior

  
  

At first glance, these may seem reasonable. Schools require some degree of structure. The problem is that many of these goals measure obedience rather than educational progress.

Consider a student with ADHD who frequently leaves their seat. A compliance-focused goal might state:

"Student will remain seated during instruction for 20 consecutive minutes in 80% of opportunities."

The goal assumes that leaving the seat is the problem. It also assumes that a student who is sitting is engaged in learning. But what if the student leaves their seat because they need movement to regulate attention? What if they understand the lesson perfectly well while standing? What if sitting still for extended periods actually reduces their ability to learn?

In that case, the goal is not addressing the student's educational needs. It is addressing adult preferences about what the classroom should look like.

Similarly, consider an autistic student with a goal requiring eye contact during conversations.

Many autistic individuals report that eye contact increases cognitive load, is uncomfortable, and even painful. Instead of helping them attend to the conversation, it may make processing language more difficult.

The goal may improve the appearance of social engagement according to neurotypical expectations, but it makes actual communication harder.

A useful question to ask is, “What is the skill that my child is learning?” If you cannot identify a skill, there is a problem.

For example:

• Learning to ask for help or clarification is a skill.

• Learning to self-monitor being on task is a skill.

• Learning to advocate for sensory needs is a skill.

By contrast, behaviors like:

• Looking attentive

• Sitting in a particular posture

• Maintaining eye contact

• Appearing engaged

do not teach any specific skill except looking the way adults want a child to look.

What To Do Instead

The focus should be on specific skills that increase independence, access, communication, self-regulation, and participation.

Instead of:

"Remain seated during instruction."

Consider:

"Use self-regulation strategies to participate in classroom activities and complete assigned work."

Instead of:

"Maintain eye contact during conversations."

Consider:

"Demonstrate understanding of conversational exchanges by responding to questions, asking clarifying questions, and contributing relevant comments."

A compliance-based goal measures whether the student looks engaged. The alternative goal measures whether the student actually is engaged.

Red Flag 2: Generic Accommodations

Many accommodations sections look as though they were copied and pasted from another student's IEP.

Common examples include:

• Preferential seating

• Frequent breaks

• Check-ins with staff

• Reduced distractions

• Visual supports

• Sensory supports

None of these accommodations are inherently problematic. The issue is that they are often written so vaguely that nobody knows what they actually mean and how to implement them.

Take "preferential seating." Where? Near the teacher? Near peers? Away from windows? Away from fluorescent lighting? Away from distracting peers? The answer depends entirely on the student. For one student, sitting near the teacher may improve attention. For another, sitting near the teacher may increase anxiety because they constantly feel monitored. The accommodation needs to be much more specific because general education teachers need to understand why the accommodation is needed, and offer it in the right way, at the right time.

Similarly, "frequent breaks" tells us almost nothing. How often? For how long? Who initiates them? Can the student request them independently? What happens during the break? Is the purpose sensory regulation, emotional regulation, movement, or cognitive recovery? Without these details, teachers will often leave it up to the student to ask for a break and to figure out what to do. Many students are unable to identify when they need breaks and are too anxious to ask even if they can. They also might not know how to use the break time.

Why Generic Accommodations Can Be Harmful

Generic accommodations create the illusion of support. Parents read the document and see a lengthy accommodation list. It looks good to them. But the student continues to struggle. On paper, the supports are already in place. In reality, they are not. Often, these are the students who continue to struggle without improvement, are labeled as unmotivated and lazy, or have outbursts at home after school.

Generic accommodations also fail to address the actual barriers the student experiences. For example, an autistic student who struggles with auditory processing in noisy classrooms may not benefit from "preferential seating."

What they may need is:

• Written directions in addition to verbal directions

• Access to teacher notes

• Captioned instructional videos

• Advance access to instructional materials

These accommodations directly address the barrier to access. Generic accommodations do not.

What To Do Instead

Each accommodation should answer three questions:

1. What is the barrier to access?

2. How does this accommodation address the barrier?

3. What does implementation actually look like – who, when, and how?

For example:

Instead of:

"Frequent breaks."

Consider:

"Sensory breaks in the sensory gym before writing and reading blocks."

Instead of:

"Sensory supports."

Consider:

"Sensory supports such as supportive seating, band on the chair legs, standing desk, and fidgets."

Specificity increases the likelihood that the accommodation will actually help the student.

Red Flag 3: The IEP Focuses on Looking Neurotypical Rather Than Accessing Education

This is often the most subtle problem. Some IEPs appear to be built around helping the student blend in. The underlying assumption is that success means behaving as similarly as possible to neurotypical peers.

This approach often affects autistic students, students with ADHD, and students with other neurodevelopmental conditions.

The focus becomes:

• Looking attentive

• Looking social

• Looking organized

• Looking regulated

• Looking independent

rather than actually being able to learn, participate, and engage.

Consider an autistic student who frequently engages in fidgeting, hand-flapping, finger movements, rocking, or other forms of stimming. A team focused on normalization may view these behaviors as socially inappropriate or distracting. The IEP may include goals such as:

"Student will sit oriented to the teacher, without fidgeting, during morning circle."

or

"Student will keep hands still during instruction in 80% of observed opportunities."

The assumption is that the stimming itself is the problem. But stimming often serves an important purpose. It may help the student regulate sensory input, manage anxiety, maintain attention, process information, or cope with stress.

A student who rocks gently during a lesson may be fully engaged with the instruction. A student who fidgets with an object during a classroom discussion may be using that movement to maintain focus. Eliminating the behavior will not improve learning. In some cases, it can make learning more difficult.

When students are repeatedly taught to suppress harmless forms of stimming, they often learn that appearing neurotypical is more important than meeting their own regulatory needs. Some students become highly skilled at masking their differences while experiencing significantly greater stress, fatigue, and anxiety throughout the school day.

The focus should not be on stimming. The focus should be on the student’s ability to access instruction, participate in classroom activities, and engage with peers, while honoring their own neurology. If a particular behavior genuinely interferes with learning or creates a safety concern, the goal should focus on the underlying need rather than simply eliminating the visible behavior.

For example, instead of:

"Reduce hand-flapping during instruction."

Consider:

"Identify and independently use regulation strategies that support participation during classroom activities."

Or:

"Recognize signs of sensory overload and access agreed-upon supports when needed."

The first goal requires the student to hide a behavior that may be serving an important function. The second approach helps the student understand their needs and develop skills for managing them effectively.

Final Thoughts

IEP language matters because it determines the student's experience in school. When reviewing your child’s IEP, it is important to use critical thinking skills and look for specificity in what the IEP provides. Accommodations should address specific needs in a way that works for the student. Goals should focus on specific, useful skills. An IEP should not be focused on fixing a child's neurology. It should support the child’s access to the academic and social life of the school and teach the child how to learn and socialize well with their actual neurology.