State Strategies for Improving IEPs in the Endrew Era

1. State Strategies for Improving IEPs in the Endrew Era

2. OSEP Disclaimer 2019 OSEP Leadership Conference DISCLAIMER: The contents of this presentation were developed by the presenters for the 2019 OSEP Leadership Conference. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)

3. Welcome and Introductions Outcomes of session: • Clarify how Endrew impacts IEP development and implementation • Share how one state is implementing solutions to identified challenges to support LEAs. • Share NCII tools and resources created to support SEAs’ efforts in improving educators’ capacity to develop and implement high-quality IEPs.

4. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District’s Impact on IEPs Mitch Yell, Ph.D., University of South Carolina

5. Free Appropriate Public Education • The Essence of Special Education: To provide a special education that confers a free appropriate public education (FAPE) • “free appropriate public education' means special education and related services that--(A) have been provided at public expense…(B) meet the standards of the SEA…(C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary education…; and are provided in conformity with the individualized education program” IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 (9)(A-D)

6. The Individualized Education Program • “We in Congress did not define ‘appropriate’ but instead, we established a baseline mechanism, a written document called the Individualized Education Program” (Senator Robert Stafford, 1978, p. 75). • The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the crucial importance of the IEP, referring to the IEP as the “modus operandi” (Burlington)and “the primary vehicle” for implementing the law (Honig)

7. Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) • “Congress placed every bit as much emphasis upon compliance with procedures, giving parents and guardians a large measure of participation at every step as it did upon the measurement of the resulting IEP” (Rowley, p. 191) • Procedural and substantive requirements

8. The Rowley Two-Part Test • Has the state complied with the procedures set forth in the law? • Is the resulting IEP reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit?

9. Circuit Court FAPE Tests Lower Standard Lower Standard Confused Standard Lower Standard Higher Standard Lower Standard Lower Standard Higher Standard? Lower Standard 13

10. De MinimisEducational Benefit • Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District R1, 798 F.3d 1329, (10th Cir. 2014) • “The educational benefit mandated by the IDEA must merely be more than de minimis” (Endrew, 2015, p. 17)

11. Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court • On December 22, 2015 - Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court • Question Presented: What is the level of educational benefit school districts must confer on children with disabilities to provide them with the free appropriate public education guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? • Certiorari Granted on Sept. 29, 2016

12. Endrew v. Douglas County School District (2017) • “the progress contemplated by the IEP must be appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances should come as no surprise. A focus on the particular child is at the core of the IDEA…An IEP is not a form document.” (Endrew, 2017,p. 12) • “A substantive standard not focused on student progress would do little to remedy the pervasive and tragic academic stagnation that prompted Congress to act…. The IDEA demands more.” (Endrew, 2017, p. 11)

13. The Purpose of the IEP • “The IEP must aim to enable the child to make progress. After all, the essential function of an IEP isto set out a plan for pursuing academic and functional advancement” (Endrew F., 2017, p. 11) • “To meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriatein light of the child’s circumstances.” (Endrew, 2017,p.16)

14. What Does This Mean for IEP Teams? • Avoid procedural violationsin the development of the IEP that could, in and of themselves, constitute a denial of FAPE. • Ensure meaningful parent involvement in IEP meetings. • Base the present levels of academic achievement and functional performance on academic and functional assessments and other relevant and meaningful data. • Ensure that annual academic and functional IEP goals are challenging, appropriately ambitious, and measurable.

15. What Does This Mean for IEP Teams? • Develop and implement special education services, related services, and program modifications that are reasonably calculated to enable a student to make progress appropriate in light of his/her needs • Continuouslymonitor and measure a student’s progress using real data What other impact has or will Endrew have on IEP development and implementation in your state?

16. SEA Challenges Tessie Bailey, National Center on Intensive Intervention

17. Challenge 1: Communicating about Endrew to LEAs Questions to Consider • What should be communicated? • Who should receive that communication? • How can that communication be efficiently and effectively shared? • How do we know if the right message got to the right audience? Other Considerations for Communication • Pre-service teacher and leaders • Families • Policy makers • Hearing Officers

18. Challenge 2: Refining Existing Professional Learning Structures • To what extent does our PD/TA system prepare, teachers who understand and can develop measurable annual goals? • What changes are necessary, and how can we efficiently and effectively make those changes for new users? • How do we ensure existing teachers and IEP teams have access to the revised portions of the professional learning materials?

19. Challenge 3: Ensuring LEAs have Access to Tools and Resources • How do we ensure all LEAs have access to available tools? • How do we ensure LEAs use the appropriate tools and resources? • What support is necessary to support fidelity of use? • To what extent do we support modification and adaptations to available tools? • Do our tools and resources support teachers in efficiently collecting, understanding, and reacting correctly to progress monitoring data?

20. Discussion • What challenges are you facing in ensuring LEAs understand and are prepared to meet new substantive requirements resulting fromEndrew?

21. SEA Solution and Efforts:Developing and Implementing Reasonably Calculated Individualized Education Programs (RCIEPs) Lauren Holahan, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI)

22. NC Theory of Action • Students with disabilities meet age-/ grade-level standards and graduate

23. Project Acceleration Student on grade level provided HQ core instruction Grade Level Student with disability in low or no expectations environment SWD in high expectations environment provided HQ SDI

24. SEA Infrastructure for RCIEPs • Partnerships within NCDPI • Partnerships with stakeholders • Every Child Accountability and Tracking System (ECATS) • LEA Self-Assessment (LEASA) of Exceptional Children program; SSIP • SSIP-aligned annually: • Administrator Institute • Exceptional Children Conference • NC Policies Governing Services for Students with Disabilities, including SLD policy

25. SLD Policy Rationale “... need to root our classification systems in a ‘coherent psychology of helping’. We echo this call in a humble assertion that the best method for the identification of SLD is the one that helps the most children learn to read, write, and do math well.” The Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities: A Summary of Research on Best Practices Fletcher and Miciak, 2019

26. Revised IEP Structure • New IEP template as part of ECATS development • Data-rich Present Level of Academic and Functional Performance with direct connection to need for Specially-Designed Instruction (SDI) • Goals organized: • Progress monitoring plan

27. SEA Capacity for RCIEPs • Specially-designed Instruction within a Multi-tiered System of Support (SDI within an MTSS) professional learning series • MTSS resources re-minded, re-purposed, re-used • Content area experts in EC Division • Collaboration with NCII on data-based individualization for K-5 math • Enhanced: • acuity of diagnostic assessment  • learning progression knowledge  • targeted, evidence-based interventions  • sensitive, responsive progress monitoring  • rate of learning for SWDs

28. Layers of Resources and Supports SPECIAL EDUCATION Intensive Support Supplemental Support ALL EDUCATION !!! Differentiated Core

29. SDI/MTSS Course 1: Adaptive Leadership • Audience: • District MTSS Implementation Team • LEA and Building Administrators • Format: Distributed online information packages • Deliverables: Packaged tools for delivering “just-in-time” communication to district and school-level administrators • Content: Accessible Resources Removing Barriers for Implementation “System of Support” for All Role of SDI in School Improvement KASAB: SDI within MTSS

30. SDI/MTSS Course 2: Foundations of SDI • Audience: • Special Educators • General Educators • Related Services Providers • Format: flexible delivery option (online, in-person, hybrid) • Deliverables: resource library, planning tools • Content: Models of Service Delivery Putting it all Together Compelling Whys Connections with MTSS SDI & PM: Foundational Concepts

31. SDI/MTSS Course 3.1: Diagnostic Assessment • Audience: • Special educators • Related service providers • General educators (optional) • Format: flexible delivery options (online, in-person, hybrid) • Deliverables: case study example, application of learning and coaching • Content: IEP as a tool for design/ delivery of SDI Learning Progressions & Task Analysis Data-Rich PLAFFP Standards-Based Goals Diagnostic Assessment

32. Calculating IEP to Match Student Need Variable Intensity High Intensity Level of Support High Intensity; 80% successful Intensity of Skilled Service Moderate Intensity, 90% successful Exit Skill Proficiency

33. SDI/MTSS Course 3.2: Specially Designed Instruction • Audience: • Special educators • Related service providers • General educators (optional) • Format: flexible delivery options (online, in-person, hybrid) • Deliverables: Designing SDI Lesson Plan, Documentation of delivery of SDI • Content: Components of Explicit Instruction Design of SDI Delivery of SDI

34. SDI/MTSS Course 3.3: Progress Monitoring • Audience: • Special educators • Related service providers • General educators (optional) • Format: flexible delivery options (online, in-person, hybrid) • Deliverables: progress monitoring plan; record of data meeting/outcome • Content: Data-informed intervention changes & reporting PM Plan for IEP Goals PM Tools Analysis of movement on learning progression PM in Action

35. Regional Infrastructure and Capacity for RCIEPs

36. Discussion • What strategies are you using to ensure LEAs have the capacity to develop IEPs that meet IDEA procedural requirements as well as the clarified substantive requirements of Endrew? • What additional supports are needed?

37. Tools and Resources Tessie Rose Bailey, National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII)

38. Professional Development Resources • NCII DBI Professional Learning Series Module 3 - Monitoring Student Progress for Behavioral Interventions • NCII DBI Professional Learning Series Module 2 - Using Academic Progress Monitoring for Individualized Instructional Planning • IRIS Module- IEPs: Developing High-Quality Individualized Education Programs • IRIS Module - Intensive Intervention (Part 2): Collecting and Analyzing Data for Data-Based Individualization

39. IEP Goal Setting Tools and Resources Behavior Goals Using Direct Behavior Rating

40. IEP Implementation Resources Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity – Designing and Intensifying Individualized Instruction Student IEP Progress Monitoring Tool for Data Collection and Graphing (Excel)

41. IEP Implementation Monitoring Tools

42. NCII Tools Charts for Progress Monitoring Tool Selection

43. Questions or COmments Questions or Comments?

44. NCII Disclaimer • This presentation was produced under the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Award No. H326Q160001. Celia Rosenquist serves as the project officer. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned in this webinar is intended or should be inferred

45. OSEP Disclaimer 2019 OSEP Leadership Conference DISCLAIMER: The contents of this presentation were developed by the presenters for the 2019 OSEP Leadership Conference. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)