Presentation on theme: "Identification, Assessment, & Evaluation. 2 More Than Just Zero Reject: n Zero reject is a rule against exclusion. n However, once a student is admitted."— Presentation transcript:
Identification, Assessment, & Evaluation
2 More Than Just Zero Reject: n Zero reject is a rule against exclusion. n However, once a student is admitted into school system, need to assure BENEFIT…more is required. n “More” begins with an evaluation of student’s strengths and needs.
3 Pre-IDEA n Criticisms –Biased against culturally and linguistically diverse students –Misclassification: stigma of disability –IQ test alone used for decision n Court-ordered remedies –Couldn’t use tests to place kids in ability tracks –Forbade use of biased (unvalidated) tests –IQ tests couldn’t be used to place kids in EMR classes if it brought about racial imbalance –Burden of proof was on LEA –Couldn’t use IQ test alone
4 Purposes of Evaluation n Identify and evaluate to determine who qualifies n Measure results of sped services n Create educational opportunities n Classification useful to determine incidence and prevalence data used in planning of services n Testing can provide early warning of probable or possible future problems
5 Definitions of Assessment n Pre-Referral Decisions n Entitlement Decisions n Programming Decisions n Accountability Decisions
6 IDEA n Nondiscriminatory Evaluation Procedures –Requires multidisciplinary, multifaceted, nonbiased evaluation of a child before classifying and providing sped. –Individualization –Due process
7 IDEA n Evaluation Team –Student’s parents –At least one general education teacher (if student is or may be participating in gen. Ed.) –At least one special education teacher –A representative of the school district who is qualified to provide or supervise specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities and is knowledgeable about general curriculum and the availability of local educational resources (administrator) –Individual who can interpret instructional implications of evaluation –At parents’ or schools discretion, other individuals who may have special knowledge or expertise…and the student.
8 IDEA 2004 n Any member of team can be excused, with parental written permission and LEAs approval, under the following: If member’s curriculum area is not being discussed. If member prepares written input in lieu of attendance.
9 IDEA n Standards and Procedures –Student: Test & eval materials not be discriminatory on racial or cultural basis and Test & eval materials are administered in “the language and form most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally.” Test and eval materials for ELL measures whether child has a disability and need for sped RATHER than English language skills. –Tests’ Validity & Administration Validated for purpose to be used Administered b y trained & knowledgeable personnel Administered according to instructions from test producer.
10 IDEA n Standards and Procedures –Evaluation Process Variety of assessment tools & strategies: No single proced. Technically sound instruments Comprehensive evaluation Use assessment tools to determine student’s need Review existing data (classroom based assessments & obs) Review existing data: –Category of disability? Still have disability? –Present levels of performance, educational needs? –Does student need sped? –Additions and modifications to sped and related services needed to ensure meeting goals and objectives in IEP and participate in gen ed curriculum?
11 IDEA n Exclusion of Certain Students –IDEA: Evaluation team cannot conclude that student has a disability if determinant factor for the team’s eligibility determination is: Student’s lack of instruction or student’s Limited English Proficiency [20 U.S.C. § 1414 (b)(5)] –CA Code of Regs: The normal process of second-language acquisition, as well as manifestations of dialect and sociolinguistic variance shall not be diagnosed as a handicapping condition. [5 CCR 3023 (b)] Effects of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. [EC (g)]
12 Assessment Reports (56327) n Whether student may need sped and related services. n Basis for making the determination n Student’s relevant behaviors notes during obs. In appropriate settings. n Relationship of behaviors to academic and social functioning. n Relevant health, development, and medical findings. n For LD, discrepancy between achievement and ability that it cannot be corrected without sped. n Effects of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. n Need for specialized equipment, materials, and services for students with low incidence disabilities.
13 Independent Educational Evaluations (IEE) [EC 56329] n (b) A parent has the right to obtain, at public expense, an independent educational assessment of the pupil from qualified specialists, as defined by regulations of the board, if the parent disagrees with an assessment obtained by the public education agency. –Provide parents with information on where to obtain an IEE –Right to one IEE at public expense –If LEA evaluation is appropriate, the parents are entitled to an IEE, but not at public expense –Results of the IEE must be considered –IEE results may be presented at a hearing –A hearing officer may request an IEE
14 IDEA n Parent participation n Reevaluation (changed in IDEA “should not occur more than once per year…but should occur at least once every 3 years…”) n No placement without evaluation n IEP must address participation in statewide assessments –All children with disabilities participate in all assessments, with accommodations and alternate assessments. –LEA provide guidelines for district-wide assessments, alternate assessments aligned with state academic content and achievement standards.
15 IDEA 2004 definition: SLD Specific Learning Disabilities: (a). When determining if a child has SLD, the LEA “shall not be required to take into consideration whether [the] child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skills, reading comprehension, math calculation, or math reasoning.” (b) In making this determination, LEA may use “process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention” as part of the sped eval process.
16 SLD Definition (Cont’d) n For SPED eligibility in general: Child will not be determined a “child with a disability” if the determining factor is “lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including in the essential components of reading instruction” (as defined in NCLB). n For SLD: In making determination, LEA may use “a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention” as part of the regular sped eval process.
17 IDEA 2004 n Redefined SLD to include the following: –School districts do not have to find a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement to determine eligibility under SLD. –The law allows LEAs to try research-based interventions in the gen ed setting as part of the eval process. If interventions result in academic improvement, not SLD, just lack of proper instruction. If interventions fail to result in academic improvement, interventions can be used as part of the special education evaluation procedures.
18 Major Legal Restraints on Consequences of Classification n Standards n Procedures and notice n Access to records n Substitute consent n Participatory decision-making n Advocacy n Eligibility for benefits n Least restrictive alternative n Prohibiting discrimination n Accounting and sanctions
19 Case Law n Non-discriminatory evaluation –Larry P. v. Riles, 1979 –PASE v. Hannon, 1980 Federal District Court allowed IQ testing for African American students & could be used for placements in sped. –Crawford v. Honig, 1994 U.S. Court of Appeals for 9th. Circuit ruled in favor of allowing IQ testing for African American students to qualify for SPED under LD…but kept ban for qualifying under EMR
20 Classification n Dominance Theory n Who classifies n How we classify n Why we classify n Deference to professionals n Policy consequences
21 Timelines n CA Ed Code 56321& 30 EC Referral for Assessment Parent Consents to Assess IEP Parent receives Assessment Plan 15 days 15 days * 60 calendar days (minimum) * Not counting days between the student’s regular school session, terms, or days of school vacation in excess of 5 schooldays, from the date of receipt of parent’s written consent for assessment, unless parent agrees, in writing to an extension.
22 Timelines CA Ed. Code Section Consent to assess with less than 20 days left in school year Referral for Assessment Parent Consents to Assess IEP held Parent receives New Assessment Plan school year 15 days 15 days Less than 20 days 30 days (minimum) in school year left
23 Timelines Parent Request to review IEP Request IEP Meeting *30 Calendar days * Not counting days in July and August
24 Timelines n *Interim Transfers (k). Placement IEP 30 days * Pupils who transfer into LEA from LEA not operating programs under the same local plan in which the student was previously enrolled.
25 Timelines n Annual Review (a) Provide for the review of progress, appropriateness of placement, & making necessary revisions IEP Annual Review Less than 1 year
26 Timelines n Triennial Reassessment (a) To determine: (a) continues to have a disability, (b) present levels of performance & educational need, (c) continues to need special education (d) additions & modifications IEPReassessment No later than every 3 years
27 Parent Initiates Due Process (30 EC 56043) Parent Initiates Due Pr.Final Admin. Decision 45 days n (s) The Superintendent shall ensure that, within 45 calendar days after receipt of a written due process hearing request, the hearing is immediately commenced and completed, including any mediation requested at any point during the hearing process, and a final administrative decision is rendered, pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section n (t) If either party to a due process hearing intends to be represented by an attorney in the due process hearing, notice of that intent shall be given to the other party at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing, pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section