1. April 14 th, 2015

2.  End of Year Checklists- cleaning things up!- Brian Cinnamon  Extended School Year- Lenore Kilgore  IEPs- Services/Schedules- Lenore Kilgore and Brian Cinnamon  RTI/LD- Another review of the process- Paula Nickels, Kim Scalf, and Jessica Koon

3.  Bus transportation needs and requests for Fall 2015 (these absolutely must be as accurate as possible, we need to know where the child will attend next year, and all current phone numbers and addresses.) Please complete electronically and email to Brian Cinnamon by May 22, 2015.  All updates must be current in EasyIEP by May 22, 2015. Copy and paste your caseload from EasyIEP in a word document, with compliance symbols and attach to email (if you have a red stop sign and can’t clear it before the end of the school year please indicate why). Reminder: No other changes can be made to EasyIEP until after July 1, 2015, due to reporting.  Deliver notebooks and other appropriate items (including inactive files) to next school/case manager.

4.  If you have equipment checked out by students/parents, please make sure this is returned before the last day of school. This includes any Assistive Technology equipment checked out through ASC.  Verify that options of services from EasyIEP match Special Programs data in Power School (Special Education Department Chairs). This must be completed and correct by May 22, 2015.  Send list of teachers no longer employed with Kingsport City Schools at your school. (Special Education Department Chairs)  If you have late referrals that will necessitate a summer meeting please send the names of the students along with the plan for making sure that all required people are at the meeting.

5.  Dates of EYS: June 15 through July 10, 2015  Elementary program housed at Johnson- Kelly Hernandez  Secondary program housed at RNR- April Hite  Speech- Lisa Hazlett  Please send all ESY information to Lenore Kilgore- We will want the reason the student needs an extended school year program and the specific goals (related to skill deficits) that will need to be addressed during the summer program.  The teachers will send out an ESY letter welcoming the students and parents along with permission forms and any other pertinent student information.

7.  A review of all pertinent evaluation data is used to determine skill deficits of eligible students.  Present levels of performance are used to determine goals and interventions.  Goals are written to address areas of skill deficit only (related to eligibility). Example: Student is LD in Basic Reading, math goals and or additional math services should not be included in the IEP.  Interventions will be determined based on skill deficit. As a special education teacher you will be providing a focused intervention and progress monitoring that intervention to determine it's effectiveness.

8.  Service times are determined based on the interventions. Example: A student with a skill deficit in Basic Reading (decoding issues) might have a 30 minute intervention daily.  Service times are not based on content area blocks. Example: Because the literacy block is 90 minutes, 90 minutes of service shouldn’t be the default service in the IEP.  Special Education teachers should maintain a master list of their students for each grade level listing disability, areas of skill deficit, and interventions needed to close the achievement gap.

9.  Understanding Progress Monitoring  Rate of Improvement (ROI)  Gap Analysis  For General Ed Students in the RTI process  For Special Ed Students with SLD

10.  Progress Monitoring- Progress monitoring is used to assess students’ academic performance, to quantify a student rate of improvement or responsiveness to instruction, and to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction.  Required part of RTI process for general education students receiving RTI: bi-weekly at Tier 2; weekly at Tier 3.  Required part of on-going monitoring for LD students to determine a student's rate of improvement in meeting IEP goals and closing the achievement gap, and to determine whether special education interventions are effective or are ineffective and should be changed.  Data gathered is also used to determine continued eligibility and need for special education services, or readiness to return to a less intensive intervention, e.g. Tier 2 or Tier 3 support through RTI. 10

11.  Rate of Improvement (ROI)- The student's rate of improvement on a progress monitoring assessment is the number of units of gain (or decrease) a child has made on average per week since the beginning of the intervention (e.g., average increase in number of words read correctly on Word Reading Fluency; average increase weekly in correct responses on MCRC, etc.). EasyCBM data is entered into a state graphing calculator that automatically calculates the student's ROI using all data points collected. The student's ROI is compared to the typical ROI for students at the 25th percentile on the progress monitoring assessment used.  If the student's ROI is 1.5 times greater than the typical ROI for those at the 25th percentile, it is "reasonable" and the intervention is effective and should be continued.  If the student's ROI is 2.0 times greater than the typical ROI for those at the 25th percenile, it is "aggressive" and the intervention is very effective and should be continued.  If the student's ROI is not at least 1.5 to 2.0 times greater than the typical ROI, progress is not adequate; the intervention is not effective and should be changed.

12. Click to add text

13.  Third grade student with skill deficit in reading fluency; RTI Team thought a possible sped referral  Progress monitoring began at Grade 1 - this level was too easy for the student  Grade 2 Passage Reading Fluency; student's ROI is 2.333 (compared to typical ROI 0.889) and is considered "aggressive," i.e. more than 2.0 times the typical rate; intervention was effective; data points went above 25th percentile so teacher began using Grade 3 Passage Reading Fluency to progress monitor

14.  Grade 3 Passage Reading Fluency: Student's ROI is 2.120 (compared to typical ROI 0.583 for third grade peers at 25th percentile); student's ROI is considered "aggressive," i.e. at least 2.0 times greater than that of typical peers at 25th percentile; the intervention remains every effective and is continued.  Gap Analysis was then completed by the School Psychologist to determined possible need for referral

15.  Gap Analysis is conducted based on progress monitoring data gathered at the student's grade level - i.e. from fall/winter benchmark grade level scores in EasyCBM and/or weekly progress monitoring scores on grade level assessments  Answers the question: Is the Gap significant?  If No, continue RTI intervention and do not refer, OR if student is already in special ed due to LD, consider dismissal to a less intensive intervention.  If Yes, calculate how many weeks it will take the student to close the achievement gap at his/her current ROI?  Is this amount of time "reasonable"? If not reasonable, refer for an initial evaluation; or if student is already in sped as LD, continue eligibility.

16.  How  When  Why  Graphing ROI to assist with data-based decision making

17.  Step One: Determine Typical Rate of Improvement (ROI)  Step Two: Determine Goal Rate of Improvement (ROI)  Step Three: Calculate Student Goal Now you are ready to write an annual goal statement. Let's Practice!

18.  Recent webinar regarding code errors in EIEP and EIS with the following findings:  IEP start date should be the day after the IEP and not back-dated to beginning of year or semester  shouldn't have two IEP dates with the same date ranges  caution with deleting IEPs (don't delete an original IEP, create an addendum with a new start date); very few reasons why we should delete an IEP  It is imperative that codes are current and match in EIEP and PowerSchool - funding is associated with this

19.  Sevier- Paula Nickels  RNR- Jessica Koon  Adams- Kim Scalf  Jackson- Paula Nickels  Jefferson- Kim Scalf  Johnson- Paula Nickels  Kennedy-Paula Nickels  Lincoln- Kim Scalf  Roosevelt- Jessica Koon  Washington- Jessica Koon

20.  PLEPs are out of date and/or not related to disability- example: Student is LD in math yet has reading or written expression goals, not based on disability or data  Annual Goals are not based on skill deficit  Service times continue to include inclusion time in Science and Social Studies  Service times are not based on intervention  Student is LD in math calculation yet has reading goals  Not sharing progress monitoring data with parents- progress monitoring data should inform decision making  Not having the appropriate IEP team members present at an IEP meeting (can’t have a meeting without members present)  Not uploading the appropriate documents in Easy IEP  Do not conduct drive-by IEP meetings (simply carrying over goals, not having goals in draft form, glossing over the goal section)  Services aren’t customized to indicate the skill deficit area, services are generically indicated as “academics”  Telling the parent you don’t know anything about the student even though you are the case manager