State and Local Processes for Monitoring Educational Benefit Educational Benefit Work Group, Connecticut Department of Education December 13-14,2004 State and Local Processes for Monitoring Educational Benefit

It all started in 1997… Alice Parker started as State Director of Special Education Brought a focus on educational outcomes Special Conditions imposed due to history of noncompliance CDE required to address procedural guarantees Continued to maintain focus on educational outcomes Released from special conditions in 2002

Educational Benefit in State Monitoring Processes Selection of Districts for Review District Level Review Process Selection of District Review Items Student Level Educational Benefit Review Process

Board of Education v. Rowley “We think more must be made of it than either respondents or the United States seems willing to admit…Thus, if personalized instruction is being provided with sufficient supportive services to permit the child to benefit from the instruction, and other items on the definitional checklist are satisfied, the child is receiving a ‘free appropriate public education’ as defined by the Act.” “Such instruction…if the child is being educated in the regular classrooms of the public education system, should be reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade” Justice Rhenquist

IDEA Reauthorization – Focused Monitoring 616(a)(2) FOCUSED MONITORING – The primary focus of Federal and State monitoring activities … shall be on – (A) improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities; and (B) ensuring that States meet the program requirements under this part, with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to improving educational results for children with disabilities

IDEA Reauthorization – Monitoring Priorities SEC 616 (a)(3) MONITORING PRIORITIES- The Secretary shall monitor the States, and shall require each State to monitor the local educational agencies …using quantifiable indicators in each of the following priority areas, and using such qualitative indicators as are needed to adequately measure performance in the following priority areas: (A) Provision of a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. ` (B) State exercise of general supervisory authority, including child find, effective monitoring, the use of resolution sessions, mediation, voluntary binding arbitration, and a system of transition services … (C) Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services…

Current Underlying Concept Compliance is made up of two, interrelated elements: Procedural Guarantees Educational Benefit

Key Definitions Educational Benefit Reasonably Planned

Educational Benefit - No specific benefit/outcome is guaranteed by IDEA Can be measured in a variety of ways including: Achieving passing marks Advancing from grade to grade Making progress toward meeting goals and objectives Improved scores on statewide or districtwide tests and alternate assessment measures Graduating with a diploma Passing the High School Exit Exam

Reasonable calculation is based on procedural requirements of IDEA and means – The assessment was complete The IEP team identified needs related to: The child’s disability Involvement and progress in the general curriculum Goals and objectives were established in each need area 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 nondisabled children The IEP Team reviewed the child’s progress and adjusted the child’s IEP if progress was not made and/or to address anticipated needs

The Bottom Line Compliance in the area of Educational Benefit means that – The IEP team used procedurally compliant information and processes to plan a program that was reasonably calculated to result in Educational Benefit. LEAs are not found noncompliant solely because a student failed to make progress

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

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

Is the assessment complete and does it identify the student’s needs Does the present performance include the needs identified in the assessment?

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

Do the services support the goals and objectives?

Did the student make yearly progress?

Step 3. Compare 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)

o + - No change from prior year Increased complexity or progress Decreased complexity or progress

6. 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?

6. If the student did not make progress: b) Were the services changed in the next IEP to assist the student to make progress?