Hello,
I hope your 2023 is off to a fantastic start. We kicked off the new year with our two follow-up webinars to our PSW series. We had our sessions on 1/17 addressing the use of the 'XBASS' (Dual Discrepancy Consistency) model and on January 31st we had two sessions on C-SEP. Hope you were able to join us, but if not look for follow-up sessions on these topics next year!
To further support you and your teams we will be offering what we will call 'Office Hours' hosted by our LSSP consultant, SLP consultant, and myself two Tuesday afternoons a month. We hope to provide a place and time for evaluators and ARD managers to log in to discuss cases and get questions answered while learning from each other. See the information below about registering to be on the listserv for these support opportunities.
In the meantime, if you ever have questions please don't hesitate to email or call. We know you are burning the candle at both ends most days, so please take advantage of the support we can offer you!
Amy
Conducting a Targeted SLD Assessment Using the Core‐selective
Evaluation Process (C‐SEP): Implications for Assessing English Learners
Virtual Lunch and Learn Series
The Virtual Lunch and Learn sessions will be offered from 11:30-1:30 and will cover a variety of topics critical to your success as an evaluator and will include interactive activities and group discussions. Attendees may opt to participate during the live session or asynchronously during the week following the live session.
3/29/2022 Session ID: 2649610 - Evaluation Personnel: ECI and ECSE Evaluation Considerations
5/17/2023 Session ID 2649611 - Evaluation Personnel: Utilizing the Cultural LIngustic Interpretive Matrix
LPAC and ARD Collaboration
The following information is highlighted on the Child Find Evaluation ARD Supports Network TEA website. Consider bookmarking this page for future reference when needed!
Identifying a Student as an Emergent Bilingual/English Learner
The LPAC in conjunction with the ARD committee will identify a student as an emergent bilingual if the student’s ability in English is so limited or the student’s disabilities are so severe that the English language proficiency assessment described in 19 TAC §89.1226(c) cannot be administered. Local education agencies (LEAs) shall implement assessment procedures that differentiate between language proficiency and disabling conditions in accordance with 19 TAC Subchapter AA (relating to Commissioner’s Rules Concerning Special Education Services) and shall establish placement procedures that ensure that placement in a bilingual education or ESL program is not refused solely because the student has a disability. Access to special education and bilingual or ESL services may not be restricted or denied due to limited staffing, scheduling, or other reasons of administrative convenience.
Reclassifying an Emergent Bilingual/English Learner as English Proficient
When a student with a disability is, or might be identified as an Emergent Bilingual (EB) the student's admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committee must work in conjunction with the language proficiency assessment committee (LPAC) to determine appropriate entry and exit criteria for a bilingual education or English as a Second Language (ESL) program. (19 TAC §§89.1226(h), (l), and (m)).
Here are links to two TEA documents that will assist teams in these collaborative processes between LPAC and ARD:
Guidance on Identification and Reclassification of Dual-Identified Students
Virtual Lunch and Learn Series for ARD Managers
The Virtual Lunch and Learn sessions will be offered from 11:30-1:30 and will cover a variety of topics critical to your success as an ARD Manager and will include interactive activities and group discussions. Attendees may opt to participate during the live session or asynchronously during the week following the live session.
ARD Managers: How to use the FIE to guide ARD Committee Decisions
4/5/2022 Session ID: 2649610
ON Demand TEA Course: Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) Committee Manager Training
This professional development session is a self-paced, online course that is intended to provide participants with best practices to ARD committee managers for local education agencies (LEAs) that choose to use this model. This course is intended to provide information, guidance, and best practice for successfully achieving the expectations, roles, and responsibilities of an ARD committee manager, including scheduling ARD committee meetings, preparing and finalizing required ARD committee paperwork, facilitating the ARD committee meeting, and supporting families and school personnel with the ARD committee processes. Participants who complete the course will receive 12 hours of professional learning credits.
Child Find Evaluation and ARD Supports Network: Updates and Resources
Registration is now open for the Aligned Conference! Participants will register through Region 4 and need to create an account in their system in order to sign up for the conference. Please note the conference is FREE to all attendees.
REPRINTED FROM JIM WALSH’S “DAILY DAWG” WITH PERMISSION FROM THE WALSH GALLEGOS LAW FIRM.
TOOLBOX TUESDAY: THE “SHOULDAKNOWN KIDS”
We’re using our Toolbox Tuesdays to review the Q and A released by the Department of Education regarding student discipline. This week we cover Section I—Protections for Children Not Yet Determined Eligible for Services Under IDEA. That’s a mouthful, which I have reduced to “the shouldaknown kids.” These are students who 1) are in your general education population; 2) have violated a provision in your Code of Conduct; and 3) are entitled to all of the legal safeguards that IDEA provides for students with disabilities. In other words, these are kids who are not in special ed, but must be treated as if they were when it comes to discipline.
Here at Daily Dawg HQ we often remind you of the importance of calling your lawyer to get help on specific situations. With regard to this issue, it needs to be put in a different font. CALL YOUR LAWYER!! This stuff gets way complicated. The Q and A from DOE basically spells out what the regulations say, so it’s not terribly helpful. However, there is one specific answer that they offer that may help. They tell us that “generally” a student’s participation in RTI or a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) does not mean that the student is a “shouldaknown kid.” That’s the “general rule” but you have to look at the facts. How did the kid get put into Tier Two of RTI? Was it due to a parent expression of concern? Was it because a teacher reported a “pattern of behavior”?
Let me explain why those facts would be important.
There are three categories of “shouldaknown kids” and three categories of students who are specifically excluded. Let me illustrate with a series of short hypotheticals. All six of these students are currently in general education. All six have committed an offense that would normally land them in DAEP. Let’s add that the offense happened on today’s date: January 17, 2023. But their situations differ. The first three are “shoudaknown kids.” The next three are not.
- The parent of Student #1 sent an email to the teacher last week that “expressed concern…that the child is in need of special education and related services.” That’s a “shouldaknown kid.”
- The parent of Student #2 “requested an evaluation of the child’s eligibility…under IDEA.” This happened last week, and was not in writing, but it was definitely a request for an evaluation. That’s a “shouldaknown kid.”
- Student #3’s teacher “expressed specific concerns” about “a pattern of behavior demonstrated by the child directly to” the special education director, or “other supervisory personnel” like the principal. This happened last week. Student #3 is a “shouldaknown kid.”
- Last semester the school sent a written notice proposing to evaluate Student #4, and the parent would not allow it. Student #4 is not a “shouldaknown kid” and the school can proceed with disciplinary action.
- The school did an evaluation of Student #5, determined the student was eligible and offered an IEP but the parent would not permit it. Not a “shouldaknown kid.”
- Student #6 was in the special education program until last week when the parent gave written notice of the revocation of consent to serve the student in special ed. Not a “shouldaknown kid.”
The most complicated part of dealing with these students is the completion of a manifestation determination when the school has not completed its evaluation, not determined eligibility and not identified any specific disability. How do you do that? The DOE says the school should focus on “the suspected disability” and use whatever evaluation data it has. Of course if the evaluation can be rushed to completion in time for the ARD meeting that will be helpful, but there is no extension of the deadline for the ARD. It must take place within 10 school days of the date when the change of placement is proposed.
Example: let’s consider Student #1. The student committed a DAEP offense today. But the student is a “shoudaknown kid.” The ARD must meet to complete the manifestation determination within ten school days—that means by February 1. Can you get the evaluation done in that time? If not, you deal with what you have and focus on the suspected disability.
DAWG BONE: WE LEAVE YOU WITH THIS: GOOD LUCK. AND CALL YOUR LAWYER.
Got a question or comment for the Dawg? Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com.
Amy Smith, Evaluation Consultant
Email: amy.smith@region10.org
Website: https://www.region10.org/programs/evaluation-special-education/overview/
Location: Region 10 Education Service Center, East Spring Valley Road, Richardson, TX, USA
Phone: 972-348-1784