Extended School Year Services ESYS

1
Extended School Year Services(ESYS)

• MS Department of Education
• ESY Guidelines
• 2003

2
Objectives for the Day

• Introduce and provide an overview of guideline
  development
  
• Discuss requirements associated with determining
  need for ESY
  
• Provide examples and sample cases
• Examine district sample case data and hold
  discussions
  

3
Training dates and sites

• October 13 Tunica
• October 14 Greenville
• November 18 Jackson
• November 20 Hattiesburg
• November 21 Biloxi

4
Process for Developing New Guidelines

• Standards adopted by MDE describing ESY that
  ensure FAPE
  
• Stakeholder Task Force convened JanSept. 2003
• Administrators of special education
• Superintendent
• MDE personnel
• Family members
• Instructional Personnel
• Consultants
• Task Force Members sought feedback from
  constituent groups

5
TASK Force job

• Need to ensure students receive FAPE
• Facilitate consistent implementation
• Make guidelines user-friendly part of ongoing
  educational program/ process (data collection,
  IEP, etc.)
  
• Encourage Family involvement
• Other????

6
ESY TASK FORCE MEMBERS
7

• Debra Bertucci,
• Director of Student Services
• Long Beach School District
• Anthony Brown,
• Special Program Coordinator
• Columbus Municipal Schools
• Marilyn Colyer,
• Director of Special Education
• North Tippah School District
• Pat Cooper,
• Superintendent of Schools
• McComb School District
• Pam Dollar,
• Member/Representative
• State Advisory Committee

• Laquita Moore,
• Special Education Teacher, LSC Chairperson
• Hattiesburg Public School District
• Jeanie Pigg,
• Director of Special Services
• Simpson County School District
• Mandy Rogers,
• President Parents United Together (PUT)
• Madison County School District
• Hollia Thompson,
• Arc/Mississippi
• Jackson
• Robin Wilkerson,
• Parent
• Madison County School District

8

• MDE Members
• Tanya Bradley
• Velva Haynes

• Consultants/
• Facilitators
• Margaret Lang
• Jane Nell Luster

9
Guideline Development
10
Federal Regulations

• Legal basis for - Federal Regulations define
  Extended School Year Services (ESYS) as
  
• special education and related services provided
  to a child with disabilities beyond the normal
  school year
  
• provided in accordance with the childs IEP
• available at no cost to the parent
• (34 C.F.R. 300.309)

11
Federal Regulations cont.

• Public agencies must ensure
• ESYS are available as necessary to provide a Free
  and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE),
  
• if a childs IEP team determines, on an
  individual basis, that such services are
  necessary.

12
Federal Regulations cont.

• Public Agencies MAY NOT
• Limit the type, amount, or duration of ESYS
• Limit ESYS to particular categories of
  disability
  

13
Federal Regulations cont.

• US Department of Education did not establish
  standards or guidelines
  
• States must establish standards and guidelines
  for ESYS

14
States Rely On

• Federal Regulations
• Department of Ed. policy statements
• Judicial interpretations due process hearings
• 3rd, 5th, 8th, and 11th Circuits
• states must provide a continuous education
  through the summer if appropriate given the
  childs needs

15
Themes from Due Process Hearings Judicial
Decisions

• Regression-recoupment a fundamental standard in
  determining the need for ESYS
  
• Must not wait for the child to regress
• History or data of past regression and rate of
  recoupment cannot be required for determining
  need (OSERS)
  
• When empirical data are not available, rely on
  expert judgment based on individual assessment
  
• Regression-Recoupment has been used with
  academic, social, emotional, and behavioral
  concerns

16
Themes from Due Process Hearings Judicial
Decisions cont

• A lack of progress toward goals vs. making
  consistent progress
  
• Need for acquisition and/or maintenance of
  critical skills
  
• Critical period of development
• Use of a variety of assessment tools, strategies,
  and data sources to determine need
  
• Alternative resources available to family

17
In summary, were in trouble WHEN

• availability of ESY is restricted to certain
  disability categories.
  
• teachers and family members are not a part of ESY
  decision-making.
  
• there is minimal data collection.
• there is only a cursory review of IEP without
  considering all objectives.
  
• district has broad-based policies that
  categorically deny or restrict ESYS.
  

18
A quick look at ESY in Mississippi in the past

• How many?
• What disability categories?
• What ages?
• Whos providing services?

19
Mississippi Number Served in ESY
20
Projection of the numbers

• Estimated 3-5 of 3-21 population of students
  with disabilities need ESY services
  
• For Mississippi this past summer would mean about
  ---1,911 to 3,184
  
• Of those in need, approximately 80-85 will
  actually attend
  
• For Mississippi this past summer would mean about
  ---1,625 to 2706

21
ESY Services Comparison by disability categories

• 2001
• DD
• SLD
• EMR
• PD
• LS

• 2002
• DD
• S/PR
• EMR
• SLD
• LS

22
ESY Services Comparison by ages

• 7 What Grades would
• 6 these ages
• 5 probably
• 8 represent?
• 10

23
What about service provision?

• From 1997-2002
• 9 districts have never served even one child
• In 2002
• 15 of districts served no children

24
Some Concerns and Issues
25
More (Paper)Work
Maybe, but
26

• Premise
• instructional personnel are currently collecting
  information on student performance

Challenge how to use what is currently requir
ed
27
More students

• Maybe, but

28
Mississippi Extended School Year
29
from 2002 Louisiana Special Education Data Report
30
Projection of the numbers(a review)

• Estimated 3-5 of students with disabilities ages
  3-21 will be in need of services
  
• Of those in need, approximately 80-85 will
  actually attend
  
• so what would that look like?

31
A Projection for Mississippi
32
More Money
Maybe, but
33

• Possibly for the State
• at least initially in
• Districts that havent been providing any
  services
  
• Districts that have limited service provision
• Districts that charged a fee
• Districts that had recreational programs

34
The Louisiana legislative allocation for ESY was
approximately 3.1 million during the initial
five year period of implementation of ESY
guidelines. Every year money was left unspent b
y school districts
35
Guidelines

• The Extended School Year Handbook
• 2003

36
MS ESY Standards

• Component 1 Qualifying Criteria

• S1 LEA shall ensure that ESY qualifying
  criteria are completed in accordance with State
  ESY guidelines.
  
• S2 Parents shall be advised of and involved in
  the ESY qualification process.

37
MS ESY Standards cont.

• Component 2 Planning

• S1 Program is individually designed, reflects
  high priority needs, includes necessary services
  to conduct program.
  
• S2 Parents actively involved in design
  implementation of ESY.
  
• S3 Ensure ongoing communication between regular
  school year staff ESY staff for program
  continuity.

38
MS ESY Standards cont.

• Component 3 Implementation

• S1 Continue to address LRE
• S2 Ensure services listed are provided
• S3 Ensure instructional activities are
  documented
  

39
MS ESY Standards cont.

• Component 4 Evaluation

• S1 Ensure that instructional personnel measure
  report student outcomes
  
• S2 LEA shall evaluate ESY outcome data to
  determine program effectiveness
  

40
Sections of ESY Guidelines

• Acknowledgements p.2
• Introduction p. 5
• Standards p. 6
• ESY Is Is Not p. 7
• Determining Need ESY Criteria pp. 8 -18
• ESY Program Planning Guidelines pp. 19-26
• Implementation Evaluation pp. 27-31
• Appendix A Mandatory Forms pp. 32-34
• Appendix B Optional Forms pp. 35-37

41
Is Is Not
ESY

• An opportunity for year round school
• Solely a program for students with
  severe/profound disabilities
  
• Service provided based on a decision by an
  individual

• Service provided beyond the traditional school
  year
  
• A program for which ALL students with
  disabilities must be considered
  
• A decision made by the IEP committee annually

42
Is Is Not
ESY

• Additional service time needed by a student to
  maintain or acquire critical skills
  
• Service based on the individual student need
  regardless of budgeted funds
  
• A program to ensure LRE and FAPE

• A time to introduce new IEP objectives or to
  complete IEP objectives not related to the
  criterion
  
• Student service that is determined based on the
  availability of funds
  
• A program that ensures students pass a class or
  remediates all deficits

43
Determining Need

• Some Old Ways
• Determined a year in advance
• ESY was not always considered as an option
• Only considered students with certain
  disabilities
  
• Program was fixed in length, time, services

• Some New Ways
• Determined based on current year data and
  performance
  
• All students with disabilities must be considered
  for ESY
  
• Program is based on the individual need of the
  student

44
Program Planning

• Some Old Ways
• Administrative convenience
• Fixed length
• Fixed services
• No services offered

• Some New Ways
• Individual decision making
• Length based on
• student need
• Services based on student need
• Services are provided to meet the need

45
An Overview of the ESY CriteriaSection I pp.
8-18

• Regression-Recoupment p. 10
• Critical Point of Instruction p. 11
• 1 Prevent loss of general education class time
  or prevent an increase in special education
  service time
  
• 2 prevent a loss of significant progress made
  toward the acquisition and/or maintenance of a
  critical skill
  
• Extenuating Circumstances p. 12

46
A Brief Look at ESY Program Planning Guidelines
Section II pp. 19-26

• PLANNING
• Individually Designed ESY Program
• ESY Page of the IEP pp. 22-23
• Parent Involvement
• ESY Fact Sheet p. 33
• Ongoing Communication

47
A Brief Look at Program ImplementationSection
III pp. 27-30

• Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
• Provision of Services
• Instructional Activities

48
A Brief Look at Program EvaluationSection III
cont. p. 31

• Program effectiveness is evaluated from the
  individual student perspective, as well as system
  wide.

49
BREAK
50
Annual IEP

• Pages 13-14 process
• What happens at the IEP meeting
• Spring IEP Meeting (ESY page may be completed at
  same time or convened at another time)
  
• IEP meeting in Fall or any other time
• Required documents
• ESY Fact Sheet families
• IEP(s)
• ESY page of the IEP - p. 23

51
Why are you collecting data?

• Report Cards Progress Reports
• Progress on benchmark mastery
• Performance on state tests/district tests
• Student Portfolios
• Instructional/behavioral interventions
• Reports of progress for IEP objectives
• Alternate Assessments
• Other?

52
What are Data? (p. 14)

• Grades
• Class/subject tests
• Performance based assessments
• Portfolio entries
• Student work samples
• Accountability tests
• Progress reports

• Behavior checklists
• Task analyses
• Teacher observation logs
• Tally sheets
• Therapy logs
• Benchmark tracking sheets
• Home notes/journals
• Other?

53
Moving from Data to Decision Making
54
Regression-Recoupment (p. 10)

• Definitions p. 10
• Decision-making
• required documentation p. 15
• Regression-Recoupment Tracking Form - Optional
  p. 37

55
An example (p. 15)

• Examine student performance data before and after
  at least two instructional breaks of at least
  five (5) consecutive instructional days
  
• Before break, average of the students
  performance on the last three (3) assessments or
  the last score on the assessment choose the
  higher
• After each break, average of the students
  performance on the first three (3) assessments or
  the first score on the assessment choose the
  higher.
• Compare before and after
• Did the student recoup within the same period as
  the break

56
Data Documentation Example 1
12/2(T) 12/4(Th) 12/9(T) 12/11(Th)
12/16(T) 12/18(Th) 88 78 77
91 65 82
Prebreak average (91 65 82) (238/3)
79
Or Prebreak score 82
1/5(T) 1/7(Th) 1/12(T) 1/14(Th) 1/19(T)
1/21(Th) 79 80 73 8
5
Postbreak average (79 80 73) (232/3)
77
Or Postbreak score 79
Did the student regress?
Did this student recoup or regain the
prebreak skill level? For this break, does it a
ppear there is a problems with regression and
recoupment?
57
Data Documentation Example 2
Postbreak average 34411/33.7 or
score 3/12
12/1(M) 5/12 12/3(W) 4/12 12/5(F) 6/12 12/8(M)
4/12 12/10(W) 7/12 12/12(F) 6/12 12/14(M) 7/12
12/16(W) 6/12 12/18(F) 6/12
Did this student recoup or regain the
prebreak skill level?

01/4(M) 3/12 01/6(W) 4/12 01/8(F) 4/12 01/11(M)
5/12 01/13(W) 7/12 01/15(F) 6/12 01/18(M) 5/12

12/20(W) 6/12 12/22(F) 6/12
Did the student regress?
Prebreak average 766 19/36.3/12 Or score
6/12
For this break, does it appear there is a
problems with regression and recoupment?
58
Critical Point of Instruction (p. 11)

• CPI1
• Definitions p. 11
• Decision making
• required documentation p. 16
• CPI2
• Definitions p. 11
• Decision making
• required documentation p. 17

59
CPI-1 Example 1

• Sherika is in third grade. She receives
  supplemental aids and services oral testing by
  the special educator, use of a calculator, and
  help from a peer tutor.

• Sherika received F in four areas on her last 2
  report cards. She has 24 absences, 15 in the last
  12 weeks of school. Teachers in all of her
  classes show she has turned in homework from 0
  to 25 of the time and in science the major
  project was not completed.

The IEP committee is asking whether she needs
more special education time?
What discussion should the IEP committee have
about Sherikas need for ESYS?
60
CPI-2 Example 1

• Jordan has been learning independent toileting
  skills. In the last three weeks he has been
  consistently completing 6 of 15 steps and has
  gained about 1 step each week.

• Is toileting a critical skill?
• Does it seem likely that Jordan could acquire
  this skill during ESY?

What discussion should the IEP committee have
about Jordans need for ESYS?
61
Extenuating Circumstances (p. 12)

• Definition p. 12
• Decision making
• Required documentation p. 17

62
Extenuating Circumstances Example 1

• Henri has changed schools four times this year.
  He has been in this school twice and in other
  school districts the other two times.
  

• Henri receives most educational services in a
  special education class. He also receives speech
  and language services.

• When he returned to this school in late January,
  he would not talk during speech therapy for the
  first ten sessions not one word. It is now
  mid-March and he has become a chatterbox and is
  making steady progress.

What discussion should the IEP committee have
about Henris need for ESYS?
63
Decision making (pp. 15-17)

• Instructional data
• IEP meeting
• Criteria
• Documentation must be able to show how the IEP
  decision was made, i.e., data
  
• Required form

64
A Quick Review

• Lets look at page 18

65
LUNCH BE BACK IN ONE HOUR
66
Sample Case Studies

• Identifying student information Present levels
• Supplementary Aids Services page
• Goals sheet
• Hypothetical Data
• Not a complete case
• NOTE IEP FORMS FOR EXAMPLE ONLY
• CERTAIN PORTIONS ARE NOT COMPLIANT

67
Case Studies

• What do the data indicate?
• Will ESY make a difference?
• Do we need to look at changing the curriculum?
• Do we need to look differently at supplementary
  aids services?
  
• Other?

68
Discussion of Sample Case Studies

• Regression-Recoupment
• Critical Point of Instruction
• Extenuating Circumstances

69
DISTRICT CASE STUDIES

• What do the data indicate relative to the
  criteria?
  
• Regression-recoupment?
• Critical Point of Instruction? 1 2?
• Extenuating Circumstances?
• Will ESY make a difference?
• Do we need to look at changing the curriculum?
• Do we need to look differently at supplementary
  aids services?
  
• Other?

70
Questions weve been asked
71
IEP meeting

• Yes No Deferred
• ESY Fact Sheet (p. 33)
• Why is it different than page 7
• Two meetings
• Copies of the IEP

72
Data - Documentation

• When you are looking at Regression-Recoupment
  will MDE be expecting to find documentation on
  ALL mastered objectives on the IEP or just those
  considered critical?
• When you look at the guidelines for determining
  whether a pattern of regression-recoupment
  exists, there will not necessarily be "scores" on
  assessments for your more involved children.
  What is MDE proposing you look at in that
  situation? (see p. 14)

73
Issues?

• Passing class/carnegie unit pp. 7, 16, 33
• Purpose of ESY to acquire, maintain critical
  skills based on IEP ensure provision of FAPE

74
Where do we go from here?

• Share information with instructional personnel,
  families, administrators
  
• Make sure there is ongoing instructional data
  collection
  
• Ensure ALL students are considered for ESYS in
  the spring (Jan 15-April 15)
  

75
Spring 2004

• Training on
• designing the ESY program
• evaluating the ESY program
• Your job is to support personnel family members
  in reviewing instructional data to determine the
  need for ESY services and design individualized
  ESY program

76
In summary

• Your task force has worked hard to
• ensure that students receive FAPE
• create guidelines that can be integrated within
  current procedures and data collection
  
• create guidelines that will provide direction in
  decision-making and consistent implementation
  

77
Phase II Training - 2004 (Tentative Dates
Places)

• January 20 - Tupelo
• January 22 Greenville
• January 26 Jackson
• January 27 - Meridian
• February 9 Biloxi
• February 11 Hattiesburg

Expect to receive information on final dates
locations by mid-December
78
Contact

• Tanya Bradley
• Velva Haynes
• Task Force Member Contact List