EVALUATION BEYOND ELIGIBILITY: Using Formative and ... · SUMMATIVE •Summative evaluation has...

EVALUATION BEYOND ELIGIBILITY: Using Formative and Summative Assessments &

Standards Based IEPs

Lenore Knudtson

PingoraConsulting.com

2016

THREE LINKS

2016 2

SPECIAL EDUCATION EVALUATIONS

What do we want evaluations

to tell us?

3

IDEA’S PURPOSE

IDEA Disability

Educational Needs

ComprehensiveEvaluation

4

INITIAL EVALUATION34 C.F.R. §300.301

• The school must conduct a “full and

individual evaluation” before the provision

of special education and related services.

• The evaluation must consist of procedures

• To determine if the child is a child with a

disability; and

• To determine the educational needs of the child.

5

REEVALUATION34 C.F.R. §300.305(a)

• After review of existing data, determine

what, if any additional data is needed to

determine

• Whether the student continues to have a

disability; and

• The educational needs of the student.

6

REEVALUATION34 C.F.R. §300.303(a)

• A school must ensure that a reevaluation of

each child with a disability is conducted

• If the school determines that the educational or

related services needs, including improved

academic achievement and functional

performance, of the child warrant a reevaluation;

or

• If the child’s parent or teacher requests a

reevaluation. 7

COURT INTERPRETATION

• The "Summary of Existing Data" prepared in response to a guardian's request for an updated psychological assessment did not fulfill the district's obligation to reevaluate the student.

• Explaining that the IEP team needed more extensive information about the student's needs, the District Court ordered the district to provide and fund a comprehensive psychological evaluation.

James v. District of

Columbia, 116 LRP

26933 (D.D.C. 2016).

8

COURT INTERPRETATION

• The parents of a high schooler who believed that a district's examination of their son's report cards, an earlier evaluation, and teacher observations wasn't sufficient to identify his needs didn't have the right to seek a publicly funded IEE on that basis.

• The District Court held that the district's review of existing data didn't constitute an "evaluation" with which the parents disagreed.

• An "evaluation" under the IDEA includes not only a review of existing data, but other steps as well, such as using "a variety of assessment tools and strategies" to gather relevant information. Thus, the district's review wasn't an evaluation, the court held.

F.C. v. Montgomery

County Pub. Schs., 116

LRP 27740 (D.C. Md.

2016).

9

COURT INTERPRETATION

• The IDEA requires a district to

conduct a "full and individual"

initial evaluation of a student

suspected of having a disability;

the district must use a variety

of assessment tools and

strategies to gather relevant

information about the student's

functional, developmental, and

academic needs.

A.W. v. Middletown

Area Sch. Dist., 65

IDELR 16 (M.D. Pa.

2015).

10

COURT INTERPRETATION

• The district only sought

consent for a psychiatric

evaluation of the student.

"Absent from the evaluation

was information from which the

District could develop a positive

behavior plan, craft IEP goals, or

rule out a specific learning

disability.”

A.W. v. Middletown

Area Sch. Dist., 65

IDELR 16 (M.D. Pa.

2015).

11

COURT INTERPRETATION

• The court found that the district

knew from the outset that the

psychiatric evaluation would not

address educational matters. The

district should have known that it

would need to conduct

additional assessments to

determine the full scope of the

student's needs.

A.W. v. Middletown

Area Sch. Dist., 65

IDELR 16 (M.D. Pa.

2015).

12

COURT INTERPRETATION

• The court pointed out that the evaluator collected relatively little data about the consequences of the child's aggression.

• The IEP team needed information about the aftermath of the child's tantrums to identify the function of his behaviors.

• "Without this information, the district cannot determine [the child's] educational needs or develop an effective IEP."

Cobb County Sch. Dist.

v. D.B., 66 IDELR 134

(N.D. Ga. 2015).

13

RELATION TO AN IEE

• When an evaluation is conducted in accordance with 34 CFR §§300.304 through 300.311 and a parent disagrees with the evaluation because a child was not assessed in a particular area, the parent has the right to request an IEE to assess the child in that area to determine whether the child has a disability and the nature and extent of the special education and related services that child needs.

Letter to Baus, 65

IDELR 81 (OSEP

2015).

14

FORMATIVE & SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENTS

Relate back to the general

curriculum.

15

FORMATIVE

• Scholars have characterized formative

evaluation as data collected before

instruction occurs as compared to

summative evaluation, which occurs after

instruction (Linn & Gronlund, 2000; Salvia et

al., 2007).

16

FORMATIVE

• While this temporal definition likely holds

true, the essential attribute of formative

evaluation is that the data are used to

identify student needs and to plan

instruction that will better meet those

needs (William, 2006 and Burns 2010).

17

EVIDENCE BASED

Many IEPs measure

progress using

“teacher

observation.”

18

SUMMATIVE

• Summative evaluation has been defined as

the collection of data after instruction

occurs to make judgments about the

instruction such as “grading, certification,

evaluation of progress, or research on

effectiveness” (Bloom et al., 1971, p. 117).

19

SUMMATIVE

• Thus, any assessment that examines what a

child has learned or did not learn from

previous instruction could be

conceptualized as part of a summative

evaluation. (Burns, 2010).

20

21

FORMATIVE & SUMMATIVE

• Both are tied to instruction.

• Ask: What instruction is this special

education student receiving?

• Ask: Can we expect the student to perform

well on assessments if instruction is missing?

22

SPECIAL EDUCATION

EVALUATION?

Formative or

Summative?

2016 23

STATE & DISTRICT WIDE

ASSESSMENTS?

Formative or

Summative?

2016 24

25

STANDARDS BASED IEPS

The top three reasons to

develop them.

26

#1IT’S THE LAW

• IDEA relates back to the

general curriculum.

• Instruction in the general

curriculum supports mastery

of the core standards

expected for all students.

• Therefore, IDEA expects a

connection between IEPs and

the state’s core standards.

Kind of. Really, it is.

I’ll explain.

27

LET’S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK

28

34 C.F.R. §300.39

• Specially designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction—

• To address the unique needs of the child that result from the child's disability; and

• To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children.

29

34 C.F.R. §300.320(a)

• IEP means a written statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in a meeting in accordance with §§ 300.320 through 300.324, and that must include—

• A statement of the child's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, including—

• How the child's disability affects the child's involvement and progress in the general education curriculum (i.e., the same curriculum as for nondisabled children)

30

34 C.F.R. §300.320(a)

• A statement of measurable annual goals, including

academic and functional goals designed to—

• Meet the child's needs that result from the child's disability to

enable the child to be involved in and make progress in

the general education curriculum; and

• Meet each of the child's other educational needs that result

from the child's disability;

31

34 C.F.R. §300.320(a)

• A statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided to enable the child—

• To advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals;

• To be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; and

• To be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled children in the activities described in this section;

32

34 C.F.R. §300.530(d)

• Disciplinary removals:

• Services. (1) A child with a disability who is removed from the

child's current placement pursuant to paragraphs (c), or (g) of

this section must—

• Continue to receive educational services, as provided in § 300.101(a),

so as to enable the child to continue to participate in the

general education curriculum, although in another setting, and to

progress toward meeting the goals set out in the child's IEP.

33

EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT (ESSA)

• (A) IN GENERAL.--Each State, in the plan it files under subsection

(a), shall provide an assurance that the State has adopted challenging

academic content standards andaligned academic achievement

standards (referred to in this Act as 'challenging State academic

standards'), which achievement standards shall include not less than 3

levels of achievement, that will be used by the State, its local

educational agencies, and its schools to carry out this part. A State

shall not be required to submit such challenging State academic

standards to the Secretary.

34

ESSA

• (B) SAME STANDARDS.--Except as provided in subparagraph

(E), the standards required by subparagraph (A) shall--

• (i) apply to all public schools and public school students in the State; and

• (ii) with respect to academic achievement standards, include the same

knowledge, skills, and levels of achievement expected of all public school

students in the State.

35

ESSA

• (E) The State may, through a documented and validated standards-setting process, adopt alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, provided those standards--

• "(I) are aligned with the challenging State academic content standards under subparagraph (A);

36

ACCESS TO THE GENERAL CURRICULUM

IS NOT THE SAME AS

INCLUSION

General Curriculum Inclusion

37

#2OSEP GUIDANCE

…we write to clarify that

an IEP for an eligible child

with a disability under

IDEA must be aligned

with the State's academic

content standards for the

grade in which the child

is enrolled.

Dear Colleague Letter,

66 IDELR 227

(OSERS and OSEP

2015).

38

STANDARDS BASED IEPS

• The Department interprets "the same

curriculum as for nondisabled children" to

be the curriculum that is based on a State's

academic content standards for the grade in

which a child is enrolled.

39

STANDARDS BASED IEPS

• Based on the interpretation of "general education curriculum" set forth in this letter, we expect annual IEP goals to be aligned with State academic content standards for the grade in which a child is enrolled.

• This alignment, however, must guide but not replace the individualized decision-making required in the IEP process.

40

STANDARDS BASED IEPS

• Based on the interpretation of "general

education curriculum" set forth in this letter,

we expect annual IEP goals to be aligned

with State academic content standards for

the grade in which a child is enrolled.

41

#3CLOSING THE

GAP

• Base IEP team decisions

on individualized student

needs with the provision

of special education and

related services to

support achievement in

the Utah Core Standards

in the Least Restrictive

Environment (LRE).

USOE SSIP 2013.

Kids with disabilities

experience better

outcomes!

42

IDEA & THE GENERAL CURRICULUM

The vast majority of special education

students (80–85%) can meet the same

achievement standards as other students

if they are given specially designed instruction,

appropriate access, supports, and

accommodations, as required by IDEA.

Meeting the Needs of Special Education Students: Recommendations for

the Race to the Top Consortia States (2015).

43

WHAT IS HAPPENING IN UTAH?

Check out the 2015 SAGE results.

45

10.3%14.6% 16.0%

Students

with

Disabilities

46

TEST!

47

EXPOSURE TO THE GENERAL CURRICULUM

• Half of you will be exposed to the general

curriculum.

• Half of you will be exposed to a special

education curriculum.

• Now, answer the following question:

48

SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT

Explain how a square root is related to the

square of that root.

49

PONDER THIS:

• If we don’t expose and

immerse students with

disabilities in the general

curriculum, how can we

expect them to perform

well on grade-level

summative assessments?

Turn to the next slide

for the answer.

50

WE CAN’T!

52

CLOSING THE GAP

1. Have a clear understanding of the

student’s educational needs through

comprehensive evaluations.

53

CLOSING THE GAP

2. Instruct students in the general curriculum

(to the maximum extent appropriate).

54

CLOSING THE GAP

3. Use formative and summative assessments

to inform instruction and measure

progress.

55

CLOSING THE GAP

4. Keep students on the path toward

achieving state core standards.

56

CLOSING THE GAP

5. Remain laser focused on

improving outcomes for

students with disabilities.

57

IN CLOSING

2016 58

FOLLOW THE LINKS

Evaluations

Formative &Summative

Assessments

Standards Based IEPs

59

QUESTIONS

Thank you.

LENORE KNUDTSON

LenoreK@PingoraConsulting.com

928.897.1785

2016 61