PPD Task Force Meeting

1. PPD Task Force Meeting November 2013

2. 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

3. 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

4. HQ Qualifications for 3rd GG: • These teacher qualifications only apply to 3rdgrade teachers/intervention specialists teaching 3rdgrade • At least 1 year experience • HQ Options: • K-12 Reading Endorsement (if it was taken long ago before it was associated with this test – those will be grandfathered in) • Masters in Reading/Literacy • Ratedabove in value added for previous 2 years - (if the teacher was teaching in grades above 3rd this could be an important option) • Most Effective Teacher Rating (obtained a 5 in scale of 1-5 – on student growth measure) • 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

5. PARENT REFUSAL and 3rd GG: • Legislation does NOT permit parent refusal – for RIMP and interventions or any other components of the 3rdGG • 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

6. 3rd Grade Guarantee – Thanks Deborah Turner!

7. 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, allof 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.”

8. Coding OTA Service on IEP • OTAs who are delivering the Specially Designed Instruction/Related Servicesshould 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

9. 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).

10. Dismissals • Districts may not rely solely on a universally applicable standard (i.e. ASHA- plateau). • It is an individual determination based on individual needs. • 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. • The district would then provide the parent with a PR-01 documenting what they decided and why. • 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

11. Preparation for Dismissal • 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” • Documentation of Adverse Effect – forms from Sherry Walthers

12. 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

13. 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

14. Ohio Related Services Personnel Performance Evaluation Rubric • Send Feedback to Bernadette Laughlin at OEC

15. 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)

16. Update on Alternate Assessment

21. AASCD 2013 - 2014 So what is new?

22. Online systems • New Teacher (TE) user role- where 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

23. 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)

24. Key Dates 2013-2014 TIDE On-Time order window Dec. 2-13 TIDE Pre-ID window Jan. 13-24 SR assignments released Feb. 3

25. Key Dates 2013-2014 Materials arrive February 10 Testing window Feb. 24-Apr. 18 Paper Score Reports June 6

26. 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

27. PARRC Accommodation Manual – Draft 2 • Now Available • Twice the size of the first Draft • http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-draft-accommodations-manual

28. Special Education SLO’s • http://education.ohio.gov

29. Assistive Technology LEA’s Top Questions • 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. • Does the LEA have to purchase the device? No they have to provide it, so it could be a loaner, rental, etc… • 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.

30. 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. • 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. • 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. • Can an LEA pay for a warranty of the device? Yes, or they can take their chances and repair when necessary.

31. 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…. • Where would you list training for the parents or team? In support for school personnel • 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.

32. www.sst13.org

33. 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)

34. 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

35. Court Cases: Predetermination • Deal V Hamilton Cty. Bd. Of Ed 42 IDELR 109 (6thcir. 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).

36. 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)

37. 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).

38. 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 ___”

39. 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 participatein 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)}

40. 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)}

41. 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)

42. 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)

43. Court Cases: Secondary Transition • Student must be involved in transition planning -invited to attend IEPeven 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)

44. 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{Willamsv. 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)}

45. 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)}

46. Court Cases: Home Instruction • Home Instructionis the most restrictive setting on the continuum but as a last resort may be necessary on a short term basisnot 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)}

47. Comparison of JP and Autism Scholarships

48. 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%20flyer.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.