Specially Designed Instruction

Specially Designed Instruction (SDI)

What SDI is, who delivers it, and the para's role

For paraprofessionals and supervising teachers; central to scope of practice

| |

| :-: |

| The frameSpecially Designed Instruction is the legal core of what a special education teacher does. It cannot be delegated to a paraprofessional -- not because paras aren't capable, but because IDEA reserves it for licensed personnel who are accountable for educational outcomes. Understanding what SDI is, and what your role in supporting it looks like, is fundamental to working within your scope of practice. |

Why this brief

Scope-of-practice confusion in special education often comes down to SDI. When paras are asked to design the lesson, choose the strategy, or decide how to adapt the content -- they're being asked to do SDI, even if nobody calls it that. And when they do it without a teacher designing and overseeing it, the student's FAPE may be compromised.

This brief explains what SDI is in plain language, why it matters legally, where paras fit, and what scope-creep looks like in practice.

Who this brief is for

Paraprofessionals supporting students with IEPs in any setting

Supervising teachers who need a framework for explaining para roles to their teams

Administrators and coaches working on scope-of-practice clarity

Anyone who has wondered: 'Is what I'm being asked to do my job?'

What Specially Designed Instruction is

IDEA defines Specially Designed Instruction (SDI) as adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs of the child that result from the child's disability. It must ensure access to the general curriculum so the child can meet the educational standards that apply to all children.

Three key words in that definition deserve attention:

| | |

| :-: | :-: |

| Term | What it means in practice |

| Adapting | Changing how something is taught -- the pacing, the materials, the format, the level of abstraction -- based on what this specific student needs because of their disability. |

| Content, methodology, or delivery | SDI can change what is taught, how it is taught, or how it is presented. It is not just about accommodations (tools to access unchanged content) -- it can change the content itself. |

| Unique needs that result from the disability | The adaptation must be driven by the disability-related need documented in the IEP, not just general difficulty or preference. |

SDI vs. accommodations vs. modifications

These three terms are related but distinct:

Accommodations: changes to how a student accesses or demonstrates learning -- without changing the content or standards. Extended time, a quiet setting, a text-to-speech tool. See brief 02.07.

Modifications: changes to what is expected -- reduced content, altered grade-level standards. A modification changes the learning target.

SDI: the designed instructional approach that drives both. SDI is the plan; accommodations and modifications are elements of it.

SDI encompasses both accommodations and modifications -- but it also includes the instructional strategies, the methodology, the sequence of teaching. It's the whole designed approach, not just the adjustment checklist.

Who must design and deliver SDI

IDEA is clear that SDI must be designed and primarily delivered by licensed special education personnel. Specifically:

SDI must be designed by a licensed special educator (or team including one)

SDI must be delivered by, or under the direct and close supervision of, a licensed special educator

Paraprofessionals can assist in delivering SDI -- but they cannot design it, and they cannot be the primary person responsible for it

This requirement isn't incidental. It reflects the legal framework of FAPE: students are entitled to instruction designed by someone with the training to make evidence-based decisions about how to teach them given their specific disability-related needs.

Why paras cannot be primary SDI providers

This is worth understanding beyond just 'because the law says so.' The reasons are substantive:

SDI requires ongoing data-based decision-making: adjusting the approach based on what's working, updating the IEP, changing goals. That's a licensed function.

SDI requires knowing the research base: which instructional methodologies have evidence for which disability profiles. That's what special education certification covers.

SDI requires legal accountability: the teacher is responsible for the student's IEP progress. That accountability can't transfer to an unlicensed employee.

When a para is the de facto SDI provider, the student's entitlement to trained instruction is being replaced by proximity. Courts and OCR have found this to violate FAPE.

Districts have lost due process cases and faced compliance findings specifically because paraprofessionals were substituting for certified teachers in SDI delivery. This is not theoretical.

The para's role in SDI

The para's role is to support and supplement SDI -- not to design or lead it. In practice, that means:

What paras DO in SDI

Implement lesson plans and activities the teacher has designed

Deliver practice and reinforcement for skills the teacher has introduced

Provide prompting, modeling, and support during instruction, per the teacher's plan

Collect data on student performance per the teacher's data collection system

Provide accommodations as specified in the IEP

Assist with one-on-one or small group practice of concepts the teacher has taught

Report observations and data to the teacher so decisions can be made

What paras do NOT do in SDI

Design the lesson or decide what to teach next

Choose the instructional methodology

Decide how to adapt the curriculum to the student's disability

Write or modify IEP goals

Conduct the IEP meeting or determine services

Be the primary instructor when the teacher is consistently absent or uninvolved

The line is design and decision-making authority. Paras implement; teachers design and decide.

Where SDI shows up across content areas

SDI isn't limited to pull-out reading intervention. It appears across all subject areas and settings:

Reading: structured literacy using a specific evidence-based program (e.g., Orton-Gillingham, Wilson), with explicit sequence determined by the teacher based on assessment

Math: concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) sequence adapted to the student's current level; teacher determines entry point and progression

Writing: process and product adaptations based on assessed writing deficits; teacher designs the scaffold sequence

Behavior: SDI-like principles apply to social-emotional and behavioral skill-building in a BIP; the BCBA or behavior specialist designs the intervention

Communication: AAC implementation, FCT, language facilitation strategies -- designed by the SLP and implemented with para support

In each case, the specialist or teacher designs the approach. The para implements it.

Common scope-creep patterns

Scope creep into SDI territory often happens gradually and without malicious intent. Watch for these patterns:

The chronic substitute

A teacher is frequently absent, at IEP meetings, doing evaluations, or managing other students. The para runs the group because 'she knows what to do.' Over time, the para is the de facto teacher. The teacher signs off on things without real involvement.

This is a common and serious scope-of-practice problem. The para may be skilled and well-intentioned -- but the student is no longer receiving SDI from a licensed provider.

The planning para

No lesson plan arrives, or arrives late, or is too vague to use. The para improvises and makes it work. The teacher gives positive feedback and stops planning because 'you've got it handled.' The para is now designing the instruction.

The fix isn't to refuse to work -- it's to document the gap and escalate to the supervising teacher or administrator. The para shouldn't be in this position.

The independent decision-maker

A student isn't responding to the current approach. The para changes the strategy, the materials, or the difficulty level without consulting the teacher. The intent is good -- the student needed something different. But the para has just made an SDI decision.

The correct response: flag the concern to the teacher immediately. Share the data or observation. Let the teacher make the instructional decision.

The IEP runner

The para attends IEP meetings, explains the student's progress, recommends goals, and the teacher signs off without meaningful participation. The para may be the most knowledgeable person in the room about the student's daily functioning -- but the para should not be driving the IEP.

How to navigate scope-of-practice concerns

If you're regularly being asked to do things that feel like SDI design -- planning, deciding methodology, running instruction without teacher direction -- here's a practical framework:

Document: keep a log of what you were asked to do and when

Ask: 'Can you write out the plan for today so I know what you want me to do?' -- this makes the expectation explicit

Escalate: if the teacher isn't providing direction, raise it with the teacher directly, then with the special education director if needed

Name it: you can say 'I want to make sure I'm supporting what you've planned -- can you walk me through the lesson?'

Know your district's scope-of-practice policy: many districts have written policies you can reference

Common misconceptions

'The para knows the student best, so she should lead instruction'

Knowing a student well is an asset -- and paras often do know students better than anyone. But instructional decision-making requires training in evidence-based methodology, IEP development, and legal accountability. Knowledge of the student doesn't substitute for that training.

'If the teacher approves what I'm doing, it's fine'

Approval after the fact doesn't make para-designed instruction SDI. FAPE requires that SDI be designed by a qualified person -- retroactive approval doesn't meet that standard.

'We're a team -- there's no strict line'

Collaboration is real and valuable. But the legal framework does have a line: design and primary delivery of SDI is a licensed function. Teams can and should collaborate closely within that structure.

Pitfalls

| | |

| :-: | :-: |

| Try this | Watch out for |

| Ask for a written lesson plan or clear direction before each instructional session | Improvise instruction when the teacher hasn't provided a plan |

| Report to the teacher when a student is not responding -- share data, let the teacher decide | Change the instructional approach independently because it seems like the right call |

| Flag it when you are being asked to design instruction, not just deliver it | Accept the de facto teacher role because it feels like helping |

| Know your district's scope-of-practice policy and refer to it when needed | Assume teacher approval of your improvisation makes it appropriate |

| Recognize that being good at supporting SDI is a professional strength -- not a reason to expand scope | Conflate 'I know this student' with 'I should design this student's program' |

Scenarios

Scenario 1: The teacher leaves a vague plan

Your lesson plan says 'work on reading goals with Marcus.' No materials, no strategy, no objective. The teacher is in a meeting.

Use what you know from prior sessions to do something productive -- but document that the plan was insufficient. When the teacher returns, raise it: 'I wasn't sure what you wanted me to focus on today. Can we build a clearer plan together for next week?' If this is a pattern, escalate to the special education coordinator.

Scenario 2: A new strategy isn't working

You're using a phonics approach the teacher designed. After three sessions, it's clearly not landing. You've seen another approach work with similar students.

Your job is to collect and report the data, not to switch approaches. Tell the teacher: 'I've been tracking his responses -- he's getting fewer than 40% correct on the segmentation tasks. Do you want to adjust the approach?' The teacher makes the call.

Scenario 3: You're asked to run the IEP meeting portion

The teacher asks you to present the student's progress at the IEP meeting because 'you spend more time with him and know him better.'

You can share observations and data -- that's appropriate. But the teacher should be leading the instructional discussion, presenting goals, and making recommendations. You might say: 'I'm happy to share what I've observed day-to-day, but I want to make sure you're leading the conversation about the program and goals.'

Scenario 4: A teacher is absent and no sub has a plan

Your teacher is out sick, the sub has no idea what's going on, and the students need instruction. You know what the plans have been. What do you do?

Continue implementing the existing lesson plans as you understand them -- that's appropriate. Do not design new instruction or make curricular decisions. Document what you did and what guidance was absent. Notify the special education coordinator that students received instruction without a licensed supervisor that day.

Closing thought

The SDI framework isn't about limiting what paras can do -- it's about protecting what students are entitled to. A student with an IEP has a legal right to instruction designed by someone trained to make those decisions. Paras who understand that framework, work within it, and advocate when it's being violated are the ones who truly serve their students well.

Being asked to do SDI work that belongs to a licensed teacher is usually a systems failure, not a personal one. The right response isn't to refuse to work -- it's to keep doing your best while making the gap visible to the people who can fix it.

Related briefs

02.01 IDEA Overview for Paras

02.02 ESSA and Title I Para Qualifications

02.05 IEPs -- How to Read One

04.01 Instructional Roles of the Para

04.02 Prompting Hierarchies

13.06 Scope of Practice

03.01 CEC Specialty Set in Practice

| |

| :-: |

| Bottom lineSDI is instruction adapted to a student's disability-related needs -- it must be designed and primarily delivered by a licensed special educator. Paras support and supplement SDI by implementing teacher-designed plans, delivering practice, and collecting data. Design, methodology decisions, and primary instructional responsibility belong to the licensed teacher. Scope creep happens when paras plan, improvise instruction, or lead programs without teacher direction -- often due to systems failures, not bad intent. |

Page