assessing the educational benefit for students with ieps a sharing of a new professional opportunity...

Assessing the Educational Benefit for Students with IEPs

A Sharing of a New

Professional Opportunity

25 Industrial Park Road, Middletown, CT 06457-1520 · (860) 632-1485

Connecticut State Department of Education · Division of Educational Programs and Services November 7, 2005

10/27/05SERC

2

What is “Educational Benefit”?

Determine with a Neighbor

What does this term mean to you?

10/27/05SERC

3

What is Educational Benefit?

“Successful student outcomes as a result of a reasonably calculated special education program citing the Rowley decision.”

NCSEAM (2004)

“Likely to produce meaningful progress” Bearden, 2005

10/27/05SERC

4

What is Educational Benefit?

Instruction that is reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade

Judge Rehnquist

BOE v. Rowley decision, June 28,1982

10/27/05SERC

5

BOE v Rowley

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Westchester County, et al. v. Rowley

Provision of a sign‑language interpreter for Amy Rowley, an 8 year old child who was deaf

District court found the IEP inappropriate Amy did not have opportunity to achieve her

full potential

Bearden, 2005

10/27/05SERC

6

BOE v Rowley

Supreme Court decision June 28, 1982

“FAPE is satisfied when personalized instruction with sufficient support services permit the child to benefit from instruction”

FAPE did not require state to maximize potential of children with disabilities

IEP was appropriate Better than average compared to peers Easily advancing grade to grade

www.faculty.piercelaw.edu/redfield/library/case-board.rowley.htm

10/27/05SERC

7

The Great Debate

What is considered “appropriate”?

“Congress expressly ‘recognize(d) …the process of providing special education and related services…is not guaranteed to produce any particular outcome.”

BOE v. Rowley decision, June 28, 1982

10/27/05SERC

8

History of Developing the Standard

PARC v Commonwealth (1971) “a free public program of education and

training appropriate to learning capabilities”

Mills v BOE (1972) “publicly supported education suited to needs”

ESEA Amendments (1974) Providing full educational opportunities

Deloney, 1997

10/27/05SERC

9

History of Developing the Standard

EAHCA (1975) FAPE

Rettig v Kent City School District (1981) Appropriate does not mean “best” Does mean individually tailored

Deloney, 1997

10/27/05SERC

10

“Rowley Standard”

Two Pronged:

1. Have the procedural requirements been met?

2. Is the IEP “reasonably calculated” to enable the child to benefit from instruction?

BOE v. Rowley, decision, June 28, 1982

10/27/05SERC

11

Expanding the Standard

Cypress-Fairbanks v. Michael F. (1997)

1. Assessment drives the IEP

2. IEP is implemented in the LRE

3. Services are collaborative and coordinated

4. Positive academic and non-academic benefits

Bearden, 2005

Does educational benefit outweigh LRE?

A New Debate

10/27/05SERC

13

Measuring Educational Benefit

Passing marks Advancement from grade to grade Progress toward goals and objectives Improved scores on district/statewide

assessments/ alternate assessment Passing the high school exit exam

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

10/27/05SERC

14

Reasonable Calculation

Is based on procedural requirements of IDEA

The IEP team identified needs related to: The child’s disability Involvement and progress in the general

curriculum

Goals and objectives/benchmarks were established in each need area


10/27/05SERC

15

Reasonable Calculation

Services were planned to support: Progress toward all goals Progress in the general curriculum Participation in extracurricular and other

nonacademic activities Education with other disabled and non-

disabled children


Assessing for Educational Benefit

A Process for Districts to Examine IEPs

10/27/05SERC

17

Educational Benefit Analysis

Reviewing IEP documentation for a 3-year cycle

Analyzing the relationship among needs, goals, and services

Comparing progress across annuals Looking for patterns in the planning process Discussing if the IEP was reasonably planned

to result in educational benefit Reviewing the child’s progress

10/27/05SERC

18

Steps for the Process

STEP 1Chart information about needs, present performance, goals and objectives, placement/services and progress.

STEP 2Analyze information to determine if needs, goals and services are complete and result in progress.

STEP 3Compare first year analysis to second year analysis and second year to third year – determine if modifications to goals and services were made based on progress (or lack of progress).


10/27/05SERC

19

NeedsPresent

PerformanceGoals/Objectives Services Progress

Academic

Purchase sw itch toy s using

low incidence funds

Imitates actions and gestures

Activ ates sw itch toy s,

computer

Attends to most tasks

Special Day Class - SH

Ex tended Year

Modified PE

Motor

* May need to be fitted for

new gait trainer

* Requires positioning to

increase muscle tone,

mobility and posture w hich

enhances ability to attend

* If acceptable to ****, hold

hands w ith her during certain

tasks to promote use of one

hand and diminish

Walks w ith trunk support

Walks independently in gait

trainer

Scoots on floor independently

Will tolerate standing in supine stander (set at

80degrees) for 40 minutes w ithout cry ing or

complaining w ith progressiv ely increasing

degrees and minutes tolerated w ithout cry ing

or complaining

Will sit and rock self independently w ithout

complaining (w hile secured w ith trunk strap)

in a rocking chair for 15 minutes w ith

progressiv ely increasing minutes w ithout

complaining

Will ambulate in a properly -fitted gait trainer for

a 20 minute period during recess one time per

w eek w ith progressiv ely increasing minutes

of ambulation w ithoug tiring or complaining

Will functionally use a v ariety of school/art

materials (e.g., pencils, pens, cray ons, etc.)

by independently holding and making mark

on paper 75% of time w ith progressiv ely

increasing percentage of independence

MOVE (OT) Consultation -

4x /y r. for 30 min.

MET

MET

NOT MET

NOT MET


10/27/05SERC

20

NeedsPresent


Academic


low incidence funds



computer



Ex tended Year

Modified PE

Motor


new gait trainer








hand and diminish



trainer






or complaining





complaining












MET

MET

NOT MET

NOT MET

Is the assessment complete and does it identify the student’s needs

Does the present performance include the needs identified in the assessment?


10/27/05SERC

21

NeedsPresent


Academic


low incidence funds



computer



Ex tended Year

Modified PE

Motor


new gait trainer








hand and diminish



trainer






or complaining





complaining












MET

MET

NOT MET

NOT MET

Are all of the student’s educational needs addressed by appropriate goals and objectives?


10/27/05SERC

22

NeedsPresent


Academic


low incidence funds



computer



Ex tended Year

Modified PE

Motor


new gait trainer








hand and diminish



trainer






or complaining





complaining












MET

MET

NOT MET

NOT MET

Do the services support the goals and objectives?


10/27/05SERC

23

NeedsPresent


Academic


low incidence funds



computer



Ex tended Year

Modified PE

Motor


new gait trainer








hand and diminish



trainer






or complaining





complaining












MET

MET

NOT MET

NOT MET


Did the student make yearly progress?

10/27/05SERC

24

Present Performance Goals/Objectives Placement/Services Progress

Academic

Imitates some actions and gestures Activates switch toys and other cause and effect toys Attends to many tasks for short periods

o o o

Special Day Class - SH Extended Year

o o

Motor

Walks holding on to staff's hand Walks in gait trainer with minimal staff assistance Scoots on floor independently

+ o o

Using a strider walker (to be purchased with Low Incidence funds) will walk independently for 6 feet within 3 minutes, with progressively decreasing levels of staff prompting given. Will functionally use a variety of school/art materials (e.g., pencils, pens, crayons, etc.) by independently holding and making marks on paper 75% of the time with progressively increasing percentage of independence Using the mobility vest attached to the Likorail lift system willwalk independently 30 feet within 4 minutes with progressively increasing levels of independence from staff prompts (necessary equipment to be purchased from Low Incidence).

o o +

MOVE (OT) Consultation -4x/yr. for 30 min. CCS as eligible (no service specified) *Notes - The team is looking forward increasing mobility with use of a new ceiling lift for gait training. Purchase of a proper vest will be pursued through low incidence (funds).

o ? +

NOT MET NOT MET NOT MET

o No change from prior year

+ Increased complexity or progress

- Decreased complexity or progress

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONJack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction


10/27/05SERC

25


Academic


o o o


o o

Motor


+ o o


o o +


o ? +


If the student did not make progress:a) Were the goals and

objectives changed in the next IEP to assist the student to make progress?

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONJack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction


10/27/05SERC

26


Academic


o o o


o o

Motor


+ o o


o o +


o ? +


If the student did not make progress:b) Were the services

changed in the next IEP to assist the student to make progress?


10/27/05SERC

27

Professional Development Opportunity Examining the Relationship of Quality

IEPs to Student Progress: A Reflective Process to Promote Reasonable Calculations for Educational Benefit

January 27, 2006 or April 4, 2006

Team members must bring IEPs on a specific student for a three-year period

assessing the educational benefit for students with ieps a sharing of a new professional opportunity...

Documents

rowley decision

sercdoes educational

grade progress

amy rowley

rowley provision

supported education

grade judge rehnquistboe

capabilitiesmills v