1 / 34

IEP Implementation

IEP Implementation. TETN- RF Training Event # 31741 November 20, 2008. Reminders:. The deadline for the initial entry of data for RF Tracker was November 15, 2008 Continue to enter enrollments and withdrawals as the year progresses

vea
Download Presentation

IEP Implementation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IEP Implementation TETN- RF Training Event # 31741 November 20, 2008

  2. Reminders: • The deadline for the initial entry of data for RF Tracker was November 15, 2008 • Continue to enter enrollments and withdrawals as the year progresses • Maintain a system that tracks student changes that occur during the year (i.e., changes in instructional arrangement, disability, related services, etc.) • Changes will need to be entered into RF Tracker at the end of year or upon the student’s withdrawal from the LEA

  3. Individualized Education Program Implementation How is this investigatory topic reviewed during the monitoring visit? What are some of the common findings of noncompliance?

  4. What makes serving RF students challenging? Different types of residential facilities • State schools • Group homes • Therapeutic foster homes • Children’s homes • Nursing homes • Detention facilities • Correctional facilities (including jails) • Residential treatment facilities • Psychiatric hospitals

  5. What is RF Monitoring Looking For? The overall issue is to determine whether RF students’ IEPs have been implemented as developed by the ARD committee.

  6. Subtopic #1: Parental Consent for Services & Current IEP For students that have received initial evaluations and determined to be eligible for special education services, is there evidence that parental consent for services was obtained before the initial provision of services to the students? • Not RF staff or caseworkers

  7. OR For RF students previously determined to be eligible for special education and related services, is there evidence that their most recent IEPs are still in effect (i.e., developed within the last calendar year)?

  8. What Will RF Monitoring Look For? • Documentation of parental consent for the initial provision of services • Verification that IEPs of students previously determined eligible were developed within one calendar year

  9. Common Findings of RF Monitoring • No parental consent for services • RF staff sign as parent • Previous IEP was developed more than a year ago and is no longer “in effect”

  10. Subtopic #2: Timely Implementation of IEP For students who transferred into the LEA, is there evidence that their IEPs were implemented as soon as possible after adoption/development?

  11. For those RFs where students come and go quickly--- Don’t I have to have an ARD before I serve the student? How do I get all these transfer students “ARD-ed in” quickly? I need a surrogate parent and one has not been assigned yet!

  12. 34 CFR §300.323(g)To facilitate the transition for a child with a disability: • The new LEA in which the child enrolls must take reasonable steps to promptly obtain the child’s record from the previous LEA • IEP and supporting documents • Any other records relating to the provision of special education or related services to the child • The previous LEA in which the child was enrolled must take reasonable steps to promptly respond to such requests

  13. Student with a disability who transfers within the State 34 CFR §300.323(e) LEA must verify that the student: • Is a student with disability; • Transferred within the same academic year; and • Had an IEP in effect before the transfer.

  14. New LEA must provide the student with a FAPE— • including services comparable to those in the previous IEP; • In consultation with the parents; Until

  15. The LEA— • Adopts the previously held IEP; OR • Develops, adopts, and implements a new IEP. • Within 30 days

  16. What needs to happen if new LEA is not going to provide services comparable to those in the previous IEP? • An ARD committee meeting must be held as soon as possible to develop a new IEP • New evaluation data and appropriate justification must support the decision to provide a program that is significantly different from the student’s previous IEP

  17. What Will RF Monitoring Look For? • Verification of when students entered the RF and enrolled in the LEA and when IEPs were adopted/developed and implemented

  18. Common Findings of RF Monitoring • LEAs are not providing comparable services to those provided by the previous LEA and hold “temporary” ARD committee meetings and develop temporary IEPs that are significantly different from the previous IEPs • Previously- provided services are dropped or significantly reduced without new evaluation data and/or appropriate justification • Students are placed in instructional arrangements that are very different from their previous instructional arrangements without appropriate justification for the change

  19. Common Findings of RF Monitoring Con’t. • LEAs fail to complete their own evaluations when records are not received from the previous LEA • LEAs develop new IEPs that are not supported by new evaluation data • LEAs do not develop permanent IEPs within the 30-day timeline

  20. Subtopic #3: Class Schedules and IEP Schedules of Services Correspond Is there evidence that RF students’ individual class schedules correspond with the courses and other services outlined in the schedules of services in their IEPs?

  21. What Will RF Monitoring Look For? • Evidence that students’ individual class schedules match the schedules of services in IEPs

  22. Common Findings of RF Monitoring • Class schedules and IEP schedules of services do not match with regard to frequency, location, and duration of services • Students’ IEPs specify specific courses, but other courses were substituted without ARD committee approval

  23. Subtopic #4: Personnel Informed of Responsibilities Related to IEP Implementation Is there evidence that appropriate personnel have been provided relevant portions of IEPs for implementation and advised of their responsibilities with regard to implementation?

  24. What Will RF Monitoring Look For? • Evidence that appropriate personnel have been provided relevant portions of the IEP for implementation (e.g., goals, modifications/accommodations, BIPs, etc.) • Evidence that personnel are aware of their responsibilities with regard to implementation

  25. Common Findings of RF Monitoring • Interviews with teachers and providers reveal that they have not received relevant portions of IEPs • No documentation reflecting that teachers and providers received relevant portions of IEPs • No documentation of the provision of services and/or the provision of modifications/accommodations outlined in IEPs

  26. Subtopic #5: IEP Implemented as WrittenIs there evidence that IEPs are implemented as written, including in settings to which students have been removed for disciplinary reasons?

  27. What Will RF Monitoring Look For? • Verification through classroom observations and interviews that IEPs are being implemented as written • Documentation that modifications and accommodations are provided • Verification that IEPs include goals (and objectives, if needed) for all special education and related services outlined in the IEP • Verification that IEPs clearly describe the special education services to be provided

  28. Common Findings of RF Monitoring • Students’ IEPs are not implemented in the disciplinary setting • Students are not assigned to the courses outlined in their IEPs • No documentation of provision of services • Students are regularly pulled out of instruction for RF services and there is no evidence that the lost time is made up

  29. Common Findings of RF Monitoring Con’t. • Students are on a self-paced curriculum, and no ARD committee meetings are held to revise the IEPs when students finish a course and are ready to start a new one • No documentation that progress reports regarding IEP goals are sent to parents

  30. Common Findings of RF Monitoring Con’t. • IEPs do not include measurable goals for all special education and related services • IEPs contain vague or inconsistent statements that create problems with implementation (e.g., service to be provided “as needed,” student’s behavior impedes learning but no behavioral interventions or supports are included in the IEP, conflicting statements about student’s instructional arrangement, etc.)

  31. Questions?

  32. Future TETN RF Trainings • December—No training • January 28—1:00-3:00 • February 17—1:00-3:00 • March 35—10:00-12:00 • April 15—10:00-12:00 • May 11—1:00-3:00 • June 10—10:00-12:00

  33. For questions, please contact: Diana Nelson Margaret Christen Judy Struve rfmon@tea.state.tx.us (512) 463-5226 (512) 463-3136 (fax)

  34. Program Monitoring and Interventions, RF Monitoring Unit wishes all of you Happy Holidays

More Related