PPD Task Force Meeting
November 2013
State Updates
Third Grade Guarantee
• EXEMPTIONS:
– Exempt from the retention (but you still have to provide
the other components- diagnostic, teacher qualifications,
RIMP, instruction/reading interventions….)
– Exempt from the 3rd GG in entirety
• Most probably AASCD kids-kids being instructed in the
extended standards, essential life skills, etc….
• You are looking at the modes of communication/instruction
– (i.e. Precursors to reading such as communicative intent)
• Regardless of disability category (i.e. deaf) – there is no
disability category called “Severely Cognitive Disabled”
(AASCD)
• Is an annual IEP team decision for K, 1st, 2nd and 3rd grade
•
• You can NOT blanket exempt all students on an
IEP
• The exemption decision is an IEP team decision
• Exemptions need to be documented in the IEP – in
section 12 Testing section, and throughout the IEP
as to how you came to that decision/build the case –
PLOP, Profile, Goals
• You need to be able to explain what decision you
made and why to OEC
HQ Qualifications for 3rd GG:
•
•
•
•
•
These teacher qualifications only apply to 3rd grade
teachers/intervention specialists teaching 3rd grade
At least 1 year experience
HQ Options:
1. K-12 Reading Endorsement (if it was taken long ago before it was
associated with this test – those will be grandfathered in)
2. Masters in Reading/Literacy
3. Rated above in value added for previous 2 years - (if the teacher
was teaching in grades above 3rd this could be an important option)
4. Most Effective Teacher Rating (obtained a 5 in scale of 1-5 – on
student growth measure)
5. Rigorous Test of Reading Instruction – may be the easiest to come
by - $130 – called Teaching reading Elementary Ed 5203 - if passed
it is a one time shot and does not need to be passed each year. This is
not the same test as the Reading Endorsement.
Will be EMIS coded in the future that the teacher is HQ – but for now
there will be a survey to districts
In 2017 – all Pre K-3 Teaching Licenses – New Grads – will have the
credential
PARENT REFUSAL and 3rd GG:
• Legislation does NOT permit parent refusal – for
RIMP and interventions or any other
components of the 3rd GG
• Parents can NOT refuse the reading diagnostic
for 3rd GG (even though they can refuse the
OAA/OGT)
FOR MORE INFORMATION on the 3rd GG:
• Go to ODE website – Topics> Early Learning>
Under Related at the bottom click on 3rd GG>
District Resources
3rd Grade Guarantee – Thanks
Deborah Turner!
Compliance Updates –
Bernadette Laughlin
• Related Service Minutes – flexibility
“minutes/quarter”, “minutes /month” “minutes per
four-week period” (Months with holidays,
shortened months).
– Not meant for Intervention Specialists
• Related service provider minutes – “ in a twenty
minute speech-language therapy session, all of the
time is spent providing specially designed
instruction. Even in groups in which the students
may have different therapy goals (articulation,
language), the specially designed instruction is
structured so that all the students in the group
are receiving a benefit.”
Coding OTA Service on IEP
• OTAs who are delivering the Specially Designed
Instruction/Related Services should code the
provider as OTA… in section 7
• And in the Support For School Personnel there
should be a statement “The licensed OTA will
deliver the Plan of Care (PoC) under the direct
supervision of the licensed OT.”
From Catherine S. Csanyi, OT,PT Specialty
Consultant - Office for Exceptional Children
Intervention Services on an IEP for a
Child Identified as Speech-Language
Impaired (Bernadette Laughlin)
• Can intervention specialist
services be listed as a related
service on the IEP of a child
identified as speech-language
impaired? Technically, the
answer is “yes.”
• But, if another area of disability
is being suspected (e.g. “learning
disability”), then the IEP team
must evaluate the child in that
area.
– OEC drafted a guidance document
(see attachment).
Dismissals
1.
Districts may not rely solely on a
universally applicable standard (i.e.
ASHA- plateau).
2. It is an individual determination based on
individual needs.
3. It is a team decision – with parent input,
related service provider input, teacher
input….. If it is not a consensus the
district representative makes the final
decision.
4. The district would then provide the parent
with a PR-01 documenting what they
decided and why.
5. The parent if not in agreement, may enter
dispute resolution procedures.
OSEP Letter - 58 IDELR 168 112 LRP 9475
Letter to Koscielniak, December 19, 2011
Preparation for Dismissal
1. Lay the groundwork with
parents… “When the child
progresses to a level that his
communication skills no
longer have an adverse impact
on his academic performance,
the IEP team will consider
exiting him from Speech and
Language”
2. Documentation of Adverse
Effect – forms from Sherry
Walthers
ETR – Intervention Summary
• In Part 2 Team Summary Interventions Summary it
says “for all reevaluations provide a summary of
interventions routinely provided this child”.
• This is a mistake on the ETR form. Interventions
are only for initial evaluations.
• If you summarize the SDI on the IEP in this section
that is fine but not necessary.
From Bernadette Laughlin – ODE – Oct 24, 2013
Weekly Update letter
Ensuring Parent
Participation- Clarification
• PR-01 be sure to use the most up to date 8/2011
• Ensure reasonable attempts to contact the parent
– preferably 3 (dates)
– Don’t need 9 documented attempts (email, writing,
phone calls) use your common sense
• If parent says they don’t want to come– go ahead
and meet
• Be sure that you Don’t miss the compliance
timelines/deadlines
From Spec Meeting
Ohio Related Services Personnel
Performance Evaluation Rubric
• Send Feedback to Bernadette Laughlin at OEC
Talking Points for Service
Provider Ratios
• The bottom line is that the
needs of the students
must be met.
• Caseloads must be
determined based on:
– the severity of the needs of
the students
– as well as workload factors
of the service providers.
* 1.6 as a multiplier for MD,
Preschool, HI (What
Bernadette Does)
Update on
Alternate
Assessment
AASCD 2013 - 2014
So what is new?
Online systems
• New Teacher (TE) user rolewhere they can input data and
view scores as well
• Multiple user roles – SR and TE
for various districts
• As soon as the scores are entered
into the DEI – you will
immediately know the students
proficiency rate
New Procedures:
• Student Placement Questionnaire (SPQ) for
each subject and each grade band
• SPQ identifies the most appropriate starting
task (Student enters at task 1 or 3 or 6)
• Certain tasks are mandatory based on Entry
points (1-5, 3-9, 6-12) and all take task 13
which is field test task
• If fail the last item- Stop, if pass the last
item you continue on until a student fails a
task (less than 3 points)
Key Dates 2013-2014
TIDE On-Time order window
Dec. 2-13
TIDE Pre-ID window
Jan. 13-24
SR assignments released
Feb. 3
Key Dates 2013-2014
Materials arrive
February 10
Testing window
Feb. 24-Apr. 18
Paper Score Reports
June 6
Alternate Assessment Trainings
• Mandatory Trainings to
give the AASCD, or to
be a second rater
• ½ day update session if
previously trained for the
2013 yr.
• Full day training if never
have participated in the
training
PARRC Accommodation
Manual – Draft 2
• Now Available
• Twice the size of the first Draft
•
http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-draftaccommodations-manual
Special Education SLO’s
• http://education.ohio.gov
Assistive Technology
LEA’s Top Questions
1. Does the LEA have to provide AT devices? Yes
if it is needed for FAPE. The best practice is to
identify the features the student needs instead of
naming the device. That way you have flexibility
in how you provide that tool for FAPE. There are
lots of new products every week.
2. Does the LEA have to purchase the device? No
they have to provide it, so it could be a loaner,
rental, etc…
3. Does the LEA have to provide the AT device for
home use? On a case by case basis the team needs
to determine if access to the AT is needed at home
for FAPE.
4. Does the LEA have to provide AT Services
(Assessment, Training, Customizing…)? Yes, Each
LEA shall ensure that AT devices and services or
both are made available to the child.
5. Does the LEA have to repair the device? Yes, if it
needed to implement the IEP the LEA must provide
the device (or a like device- what is specified in the
IEP). In addition Repairing and Replacing are part
of the verbiage listed as an AT service.
6. What if it is not owned by the LEA but by the
parents – who repairs? It is the LEAs responsibility
to provide/repair the device if the student needs it for
FAPE. It doesn’t matter who purchased it.
7. Can an LEA pay for a warranty of the device?
Yes, or they can take their chances and repair when
necessary.
8. Do you have to provide something while the
device is being repaired? Yes, you must be sure
the child has FAPE. This however can be through
low tech simulations of a higher tech device,
loaners, etc….
9. Where would you list training for the parents or
team? In support for school personnel
10. The number one compliance error with AT is
that the child isn’t able to do some major school
function (reading, writing, communication….)
and there is no mention that AT/AT assessment
was ever considered, and why it isn’t on the
IEP.
www.sst13.org
Compliance
Recent Court Case Results
• Predetermination occurs when a school team makes a
determination prior to the ETR or IEP meeting for eligibility,
related services, IEP contents, placement, etc. and is unwilling
or fails to consider any other alternatives.
• Be careful of what you write in an ETR. The ETR
determines eligibility. The IEP team determines
services. Avoid statements under “Description of Educational
Needs” such as “speech-language therapy is needed” in an
ETR. Instead, put statements such as “the child needs to
develop expressive language skills.”
• Do not make a final decision at any pre-IEP meeting or
state a final decision in an email (see public record requests
below).
(Bernadette Laughlin)
• Document the IEP teams effort to obtain parent
input/participation & willingness to listen come
with open minds (IEP meeting notes, handwritten
changes on IEP, on PR01 be sure to well document
other options considered and why rejected)
• Drafts:
– Must be clearly marked as such,
– Do NOT pre fill out the team sections of the ETR (i.e.
eligibility)
– Do not have prefilled out PR-01s anticipating
disagreement
Court Cases: Predetermination
• Deal V Hamilton Cty. Bd. Of Ed 42 IDELR 109 (6th cir. 2004)Autistic kindergartener made progress with ABA in preschool parent
funded program. District refused to discuss the possibility of
providing an ABA program due to the districts “policy” to use
another different methodology (TEACCH) = predetermination.
Should have: considered, tried ABA, cite research to support
TEACCH
• Young V. State of Ohio, 60 IDELR 134 (S.D. Oh. 2013)- Failure
to consider ABA therapy for autistic 2 year old because there
were no ABA therapists in the geographic area = predetermination
• P.C. v. Milford Exempted Village Schools, 60 IDELR 129 (S.D.
Oh 2013) – the districts preplanning notes (stating the district was
prepared to go to due process over its program) reflected the IEP
team predetermined the decision to move a student into a public
school reading program (the district had firm opinions that a
particular reading methodology was where the student should be).
Court Cases: Identification
•
Identification cannot be determined solely on the basis of
“supposedly satisfactory grades” – “C” average. There was
documentation of depression and inappropriate types of behavior or
feelings at times. Because the student had above average IQ the
district should have concluded that his emotional difficulties were
negatively impacting his educational performance. The district:
should have identified the student as ED disability – and received
special education and related services. (Moore v. Hamilton
Southeastern Sch. District , 113 LRP35214 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 29, 2013).
• Dispute was over whether the child should have been classified as
Autistic or ED. The parents failed to prove that a different
classification would have significantly altered the provision of
educational services to the student. IDEA does not confer a
specific right to be classified under a particular disability
category, especially when there was no proof of a denial of FAPE.
(R. C. v. Keller Ind. Sch. Dist. 61 IDELR 221 (N.D. Texas July 31,
2013)
Court Cases: Identification
• Dispute over whether the child should have been classified as OHI or
Autistic. The court ruled that although the district did not identify the
student as OHI/ADHD its IEP clearly addressed his difficulties paying
attention, and provided him with accommodations, preferential
seating, low student-to-staff ratio, re-teaching and frequent redirection.
IDEA does not require districts to identify a specific disability
label for a student, but to develop an IEP that is tailored to meet a
student’s unique needs. (G.I. v. Lewsiville Ind. Sch. Dist. 113 LRP
3446 (E.D. Texas July 30,2013)
• A district was not at fault for failing to evaluate a student earlier,
because of the child’s young age, and the progress he was making
with informal accommodations and supports in the general
education program (RTI approach with progress monitoring). The
district did an assessment and concluded that the child was not in need
of special education and related services. Later the student was
diagnosed with ADHD. The parent sued that the district didn’t
make an eligibility determination earlier. (D.K. v. Abington Sch.
Dist., 59, IDELR 271 (3rd Cir. 2012).
Court Cases: Parent Participation
• The court held that the district violated the
parents right to “meaningful participation” in
the IEP, when it refused to reschedule and IEP
meeting to accommodate the parent’s wishes. The
court rejected the districts argument that it was
required to convene because the IEP was set to
expire. {J.T. v. Dept. of Education, State of Hawaii,
59 IDELR 4 (D. Hawaii 2012)
• Do NOT miss your timelines (IEP/ETR): Use a
PR-01 to: Parent involvement: i.e. “team met on
__ date, parent was in agreement but wanted to take
iep home and review. Team indicated that the
deadline for timelines was ___”
Court Cases: Parent Participation
• The court held that the district’s termination of tense
IEP meetings did not deny the parents a “meaningful
opportunity to participate in developing the students
IEP” because the district promptly scheduled follow
up meetings {R.P. v. Alamo Heights Ind. Sch. Dist, 60
IDELR 60 (5th Cir 2012)}
• Notes taken at an IEP meeting helped the district
prove it had appropriately considered the students
behavior needs (FBA & BIP), ESY, and several
placements before making a recommendation. It showed
the district had made several attempts to involve
parents in the IEP development, but could get no
response. {Ruffin V. Houston Ind. Sch. Dist., 58 IDELR
63 (5th Cir. 2012)}
Court Cases: Methodology
• Parent can not dictate the methodology to be used, there should
be a discussion about methodologies and open minds.
{Cleveland, SE 2702-2012 (SEA Ohio October 29, 2012)}
• Parents of a 3 yr old child with Autism were not entitled to public
funding for a full time 1:1 program of ABA therapy. The district
offered an eclectic program that would address the child’s needs by
offering 3 hrs/day of 1:1 ABA therapy and offer opportunities
for socialization. The court ruled that the time devoted to other
school activities would not be “wasted time”. {P.C. v. Harding
Township Bd. Of Ed. 61 IDELR 223 (D.N.J. July 31, 2013)}
• The court ruled that the district had failed to provide appropriate
educational services to a student with autism. While the student
made “some” progress, it was “minimal” compared to the
student’s potential. In the preceding 2 years the student
regressed in reading, writing and math. The court awarded 768
hrs of compensatory autism services (ABA).{Woods V.
Northport Pub. Sch., 59 IDELR 64 (6th Cir. 2012)}
Court Cases: Behavior
•
•
Failure to address behavior problems of a student resulted in
denial of FAPE. The parents and district indicated that there were
behavior issues and would be bringing in a behavior specialist to
address them. However in the IEP the plan did not address
behavior problems or contain a behavior management plan.
Dissatisfied the parent privately placed the student and the court
upheld tuition reimbursement for the parent. (Council Rock Sch.
Dist. V. M.W., 59 IDELR 132 (E.D. pa. 2012)
A charter school expelled a 17 yr old with ADHD for marijuana. The
school properly conducted a manifestation determination before it
expelled the boy, but failed to provide educational services
afterwards. Instead the school gave the mother a list of potential
alternative schools and told her that the charter school would pay for
6 hrs/week of individual instruction during his expulsion. The
mother privately placed the student and was awarded tuition
reimbursement. (If the student is a SWD they are entitled to FAPE
and can not be expelled except on paper). Fisher v. Friendship
public charter Sch., 58, IDELR 287 (D.D.C. 2012)
Court Cases: Secondary Transition
• IDEAs transition services requirements do not
require districts to ensure that every minute of
the school day, provides the maximum amount
of educational benefit. The court held that time
working in the guidance office (which parent
thought was “idle time and would not assist in
securing employment after high school) provided
the student with the required federal floor of
opportunity and contributed to his employability
after high school. (Maksym v. Strongsville City
School District, 113 LRP 34468 (N.D. Ohio August
22, 2013)
Court Cases: Secondary Transition
• Student must be involved in transition planning invited to attend IEP even if the student can not
comprehend the discussion due to their cognitive
ability. In addition the district failed to conduct
vocational preference assessments prior to
developing a transition plan. The court rejected
the notion that the student’s voluntary choices
between 3 classroom tasks (stapling, shredding,
wiping tables) provided an accurate picture of skills
and interests. (Gibson v. Forest Hills School
District, 61 IDELR 97 (S.D. June 11, 2013)
Court Cases: LRE/Progress
• The court held that the evidence showed that the
student required a more restrictive placement. The
court cited the district “extraordinary efforts” to
accommodate the young man at this school (numerous
special education services aimed at remediating his
escalating behavior problems). {H.D. v. Central Bucks
Sch.Dist.,59 IDELR 275 (E.D. Pa.2012)} and similar
to{Willams v. Milwaukeey Public Schs., 58 IDELR 252
(E.D. Wis 2012)}
• The student failed to make any academic progress in
a general ed class even with a modified curriculum
and a paraprofessional. The court approved the
districts proposal to place the student in a special ed
classroom, due to the lack of educational benefit in
general ed classes. {J.H. v. Fort Bend Ind. Sch. Dist., 59
IDELR 122 (5th Cir. 2012)}
Court Cases: LRE/Progress
• A student with SLD made “slow but
steady” progress in reading. The parent
wanted funding for a private Linda-Mood
Bell Reading program. The court
concluded that the district had provided a
“meaningful benefit” to the student, even
if her progress was less than that desired by
her parents. {K.K. v. Alta Loma Sch. Dist.,
60 IDELR 159 (C.D. Cal. 2013)}
Court Cases: Home Instruction
• Home Instruction is the most restrictive setting on the
continuum but as a last resort may be necessary on a short
term basis not to last for the entire school year. {Hudson City
Schools, SE 2802-2013 (SEA Ohio June 17, 2013) and
Vincent v. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dis., 59 IDELR 242 (E.D.
Wis. 2012)
• Shortening the school day for several years is not an
answer to behavior problems. While it could be acceptable as
a short-term measure, it was not appropriate to deprive the
student of his education as a method of addressing his
psychiatric issues. A two hour school day with no additional
services was not sufficient to provide the student with a
reasonable chance of making academic progress.{Plainfield
Bd. Of Education v. R.N., 58 IDELR 257 (D. Conn. 2012)}
Comparison of JP and
Autism Scholarships
Project LEA Focused on Preparing
Early Childhood Special Education
Supervisors Accepting Applications
•
•
The University of Toledo is pleased to announce Project LEA
(Leading Educators in Advancing Inclusive Early education), a grant
funded by USDOE which focuses on preparing Early Childhood
Education Special Education supervisors for leadership roles in their
district. Visit
http://www.utoledo.edu/education/grants/projectlea/forms/LEA%20fl
yer.pdf to review the flyer. The grant will support qualified
participants to obtain an Education Specialist degree via an online,
part-time program of study. We are currently accepting applications
for classes to begin spring semester, 2014.
Please visit the website (and especially the FAQs ) for details about
the program: http://www.utoledo.edu/education/grants/projectlea.
You can also contact Dr. Lyn Hale, Project Manager, at
lyn.hale@utoledo.edu or (419) 530-5292 for information.