Educational Benefit Introductions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Educational Benefit Introductions ALISON ROSE KIRSTIN COMSTOCK Program Coordinator, Program Coordinator, El Dorado Charter SELPA El Dorado Charter SELPA Training Objectives Participants will learn the following • Legal requirements and history • The definition of • Best practices for documenting student attainment surrounding educational benefit educational benefit of educational benefit and how to refine a student's IEP if the student is not attaining educational benefit • Legal responsibility for providing a full • Gain practical experience completing continuum of special education related an Ed. Benefit file review for a services and placement options student on their caseload A History of Legal Cases A Discussion of Educational Benefit Historical Context • The Rowley Decision • Endrew F. Decision • The Holland Factors Facts: • Eight year old student with a significant hearing impairment, but an excellent lip reader. The Rowley • IEP for first grade called for general Decision education placement with an FM system in the classroom, tutoring one hour per day, A Discussion of LRE and speech therapy 3 times per week. • Parents agreed with IEP, but wanted student to be provided with a sign- language interpreter. Findings: Meet the procedural requirements of the IDEA • IDEA does not require that the States maximize the potential of students with disabilities. • Instead- they must: The Rowley Decision A Discussion of LRE Meet the Be reasonably calculated to procedural provide requirements of educational the IDEA benefit State provides: *personalized instruction *sufficient support services For the child to benefit educationally from that instruction The Rowley Decision Rowley is undoubtedly the most Implications important and influential case in special education law. http://www.harborhouselaw.com/articles/ rowley.reexamine.johnson.htm In Rowley, the Court said the progress noted must be more than "deminimis“ Since then, courts further refined the "some educational benefit" to achieve “meaningful benefit” or to make “meaningful progress” The Rowley Decision The questions we face today are: Implications • How much is enough? • How to show the progress made? Facts: • U.S. Supreme Court issued long-anticipated ruling reversing the Tenth Circuit’s use of “d minimis benefit” test when determining whether an IEP sets out appropriately challenging educational goals. Endrew F. A Discussion of LRE • Endrew F. held that an IEP must be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances”. Findings: • There is still no bright-line test. • Must be determined on a case-by-case basis because adequacy if the IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created. • Courts should give deference “based on the application of the expertise and the exercise of judgment by school authorities” and “cannot substitute their own notions of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which they review. Endrew F. A Discussion of LRE Endrew F. is more of a restatement than departure of existing FAPE standards. Local Educational Agencies must continue to emphasize compliance with the IDEA’s procedural requirements Endrew F. Local Educational Agencies must Implications continue to offer IEPs and programs that you can demonstrate will provide educational benefit and progress that is meaningful to each child with a disability, based upon that child’s circumstances. 9th Circuit may be edging toward a "maximization of potential" standard of FAPE, as evidenced by its statements interpreting Endrew F. In other words, the school must implement an IEP that is reasonably calculated to remediate and, if appropriate, accommodate the child's disabilities so that the child can make progress in the general education curriculum, commensurate with his non- disabled peers, taking into account the child's potential Endrew F. Decision Implications On December 7, 2017, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) released a Q&A document addressing the Endrew F. decision Facts: • Rachel Holland: Young girl with moderate cognitive impairment The • Parents requested full day inclusion in general Holland education Case • School stated student’s disability was too A Discussion of LRE severe and wanted special education for academics and general education for non- academics • Parents placed student in a private school and requested due process asking for full inclusion Findings: • 1st ruling was in favor of parents – The school failed to make an adequate effort to educate The the student in the general education Holland placement. Case • The school appealed and the district court A Discussion of LRE ruled again in favor of parents, listing the 4 factors (Holland test) to define LRE. • Rachel was placed in a full inclusion general education class with accommodations and support services. The Holland Factors • Consideration of Placement must ask the following questions: • Is the student’s disability so severe that The he/ she would not receive academic benefit from GE placement? Holland • Is the student’s disability so severe that he/ she would not receive non- academic Case benefit from GE placement? A Discussion of LRE • Does the student’s placement in the general education classroom have a negative impact on the learning of the other children? • Is the cost too burdensome for the district? Guiding questions for the IEP team Look at the whole The placement student Holland discussion Case Factors are not Discussion of cost A Discussion of LRE alone, they all is not appropriate need to be during an IEP addressed meeting • Even if a student is unable to participate in general education courses for academics, he/she may be able to participate in non- academic activities with his nondisabled peers. The • See Liscio v. Woodland Hills Sch. Dist., (W.D. Pa. Holland 1989) Case • The IEP team should also consider whether an extracurricular and non- academic activity Implications is appropriate for a student with a disability and, if so, to provide supplementary aids and services necessary for participation. • Independent Sch. Dist. No. 12, Centennial v. Minnesota Dep't of Educ.,(Minn. 2010). Educational Benefit Educational Benefit in the IEP Meeting The Board of Education v. Rowley 1982, was decisive in our understanding today of the term educational benefit. Defining Ultimately, the conversation is about Educational access to education, not guaranteeing a certain level of Benefit attainment of education. Programming for students should: Defining • Be analytical, thoughtful and consistently designed Educational • Be based on individual assessed needs and the growth made from one IEP to the next Benefit When you read an IEP you should be able to track threads through the document. Defining Educational Benefit Progress Towards Goals and GE Standards Assessment Data, Observation, Teacher Present Levels Academic and Special Input, Service of Behavioral Goals Education Provider Input and Related Parent Input Performance Services and Placement Defining Educational Benefit Progress Towards Goals and GE Standards Assessment Data, Special Education Observation, Teacher Present Levels Academic and Related Services Input, Service of Performance Behavioral Goals Provider Input and and Placement Parent Input Assessment Should Purpose Provide • An accurate and in-depth description of the child's • Estimates the student’s skills, abilities and functioning, capabilities, needs, and situational educational achievement levels challenges • Yields recommendations for educational • Diagnostic conclusions that focus intervention planning efforts and determine the range of available options • Insights and recommendations that improve the functioning and well-being of the child Assessment Components Broadband Assessments • Conducted by certified professional. Educational Performance • Look at behaviors and Narrowband Assessments skills that are manifested in school setting and Assessment impact educational performance. Components Interviews • We are not seeking nor offering diagnosis. Observations Data Collection Tailored to serve child-centered purposes Reports should support the recipients in their work or interactions with the child by emphasizing interpretation and recommendations Best Should be accessible to teachers and parents Practices For • Structure and Organization • Report Readability Reports • Length • Language consideration A Useful Report: • Is understandable by the consumer • Provides clear and feasibly individualized recommendations • Answers the referral questions Identifying Information Summary and Reason for Recommendati Referral ons Interpretation of Results Report Background •Data Summary Information •Narrative Structure Summary Components of a and Legally Defensible Assessment Health & Test Session Developmental Organization Observations History Previous Classroom Testing (if Observations applicable) Assessment Interview Procedures Doesn’t pass the “stranger Formatting or editing test” errors Testing does not address Common all areas of suspected disability Failure to follow testing protocols • i.e. social-emotional assessment Errors for student with suspected Emotional Disturbance Not having appropriate Not assessing in primary persons complete rating language or considering scales language/cultural • (i.e. divorced parents, foster differences in assessment parents, etc.) May be submitted by parent for consideration by team. Information gathered