1. Assessing the Educational Benefit for Students with IEPs A Sharing of a New Professional Opportunity 25 Industrial Park Road, Middletown, CT 06457-1520 · (860) 632-1485 Connecticut State Department of Education · Division of Educational Programs and Services November 7, 2005

2. 10/27/05 SERC 2 What is “Educational Benefit”? Determine with a Neighbor What does this term mean to you?

3. 10/27/05 SERC 3 What is Educational Benefit? “Successful student outcomes as a result of a reasonably calculated special education program citing the Rowley decision.”  NCSEAM (2004) “Likely to produce meaningful progress”  Bearden, 2005

4. 10/27/05 SERC 4 What is Educational Benefit? Instruction that is reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade Judge Rehnquist BOE v. Rowley decision, June 28,1982

5. 10/27/05 SERC 5 BOE v Rowley Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Westchester County, et al. v. Rowley Provision of a sign ‑ language interpreter for Amy Rowley, an 8 year old child who was deaf District court found the IEP inappropriate Amy did not have opportunity to achieve her full potential Bearden, 2005

6. 10/27/05 SERC 6 BOE v Rowley Supreme Court decision June 28, 1982 “FAPE is satisfied when personalized instruction with sufficient support services permit the child to benefit from instruction” FAPE did not require state to maximize potential of children with disabilities IEP was appropriate Better than average compared to peers Easily advancing grade to grade www.faculty.piercelaw.edu/redfield/library/case-board.rowley.htm

7. 10/27/05 SERC 7 The Great Debate What is considered “appropriate”? “Congress expressly ‘recognize(d) …the process of providing special education and related services…is not guaranteed to produce any particular outcome.” BOE v. Rowley decision, June 28, 1982

8. 10/27/05 SERC 8 History of Developing the Standard PARC v Commonwealth (1971) “a free public program of education and training appropriate to learning capabilities” Mills v BOE (1972) “publicly supported education suited to needs” ESEA Amendments (1974) Providing full educational opportunities Deloney, 1997

9. 10/27/05 SERC 9 History of Developing the Standard EAHCA (1975) FAPE Rettig v Kent City School District (1981) Appropriate does not mean “best” Does mean individually tailored Deloney, 1997

10. 10/27/05 SERC 10 “Rowley Standard” Two Pronged: 1. Have the procedural requirements been met? 2. Is the IEP “reasonably calculated” to enable the child to benefit from instruction? BOE v. Rowley, decision, June 28, 1982

11. 10/27/05 SERC 11 Expanding the Standard Cypress-Fairbanks v. Michael F. (1997) 1. Assessment drives the IEP 2. IEP is implemented in the LRE 3. Services are collaborative and coordinated 4. Positive academic and non-academic benefits Bearden, 2005

12. Does educational benefit outweigh LRE? A New Debate

13. 10/27/05 SERC 13 Measuring Educational Benefit Passing marks Advancement from grade to grade Progress toward goals and objectives Improved scores on district/statewide assessments/ alternate assessment Passing the high school exit exam CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

14. 10/27/05 SERC 14 Reasonable Calculation Is based on procedural requirements of IDEA The IEP team identified needs related to: The child’s disability Involvement and progress in the general curriculum Goals and objectives/benchmarks were established in each need area CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

15. 10/27/05 SERC 15 Reasonable Calculation 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 non- disabled children CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

16. Assessing for Educational Benefit A Process for Districts to Examine IEPs

17. 10/27/05 SERC 17 Educational Benefit Analysis Reviewing IEP documentation for a 3-year cycle Analyzing the relationship among needs, goals, and services Comparing progress across annuals Looking for patterns in the planning process Discussing if the IEP was reasonably planned to result in educational benefit Reviewing the child’s progress

18. 10/27/05 SERC 18 Steps for the Process STEP 1 Chart information about needs, present performance, goals and objectives, placement/services and progress. STEP 2 Analyze information to determine if needs, goals and services are complete and result in 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). CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

19. 10/27/05 SERC 19 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

20. 10/27/05 SERC 20 Is the assessment complete and does it identify the student’s needs Does the present performance include the needs identified in the assessment? CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

21. 10/27/05 SERC 21 Are all of the student’s educational needs addressed by appropriate goals and objectives? CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

22. 10/27/05 SERC 22 Do the services support the goals and objectives? CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

23. 10/27/05 SERC 23 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Did the student make yearly progress?

24. 10/27/05 SERC 24 oNo change from prior year +Increased complexity or progress -Decreased complexity or progress CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

25. 10/27/05 SERC 25 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? CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

26. 10/27/05 SERC 26 If the student did not make progress: b)Were the services changed in the next IEP to assist the student to make progress? CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

27. 10/27/05 SERC 27 Professional Development Opportunity Examining the Relationship of Quality IEPs to Student Progress: A Reflective Process to Promote Reasonable Calculations for Educational Benefit January 27, 2006 or April 4, 2006 Team members must bring IEPs on a specific student for a three-year period