IDEA and Gifted Requirements File Review Cohort 2 (SY2025-2026)
Agenda
Learning Objectives
Education Benefit Review Opportunity
Norms
KIAS
Kansas Integrated Accountability System (KIAS)
KIAS is both a process for monitoring federal programs and state requirements, and an authenticated web application used as a tool to report data.
Definition and Purpose
KIAS: The KSDE Web Application
Directory Updates
Who Should Conduct the Review?
KIAS: The IDEA and Gifted Requirements File Review Monitoring Process
Data Collection
Completed by all LEAs in the current Cohort (1, 2, or 3) Cohort 2 -Files completed between June 30, 2024, and July 1, 2025
Data & Compliance Verification
Completed by only LEAs reporting noncompliance and random sample of LEAs reporting 100% compliance in Data Collection phase
District & Individual Corrective Action
Completed by only LEAs who have noncompliance in Data & Compliance Verification phase
Updated Data
Incentives and Sanctions
Timeline
Why does the LEA have more KIDS IDs than the maximum pulled?
Virtual Schools
Timeframe for Self-Assessment Stage- Cohort 2
Data Verification (9/20/25-10/2/25) and Compliance Verification (10/10/25-10/24/25)
To Redact or Not to Redact? FERPA & IDEA exceptions
IDEA & Gifted File Review Continuous Improvement Monitoring Consideration Chart: A Technical Assistance Tool for LEAs Conducting KIAS IDEA & Gifted File Reviews and/or Internal System Reviews
File Review Question | Documentation Requirements | Acceptable Practices |
Question #1: Was a copy of parent rights/procedural safeguards provided to both of the student’s parents (or legal education decision-maker) and the student (if the student is 18 or older) in all required instances and in the native language of the parents/adult student or other mode of communication used by the parents/adult student? |
|
|
Question #2: Were evaluation materials selected and administered so as to not be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis? |
NOTE: A checkbox or boiler plate language does not meet this requirement. |
|
IDEA & Gifted File Review Continuous Improvement Monitoring Consideration Chart: Reviewing files of Students who graduated
IDEA & Gifted File Review Continuous Improvement Monitoring Consideration Chart: Move-in Students and review of existing data
Questions
Initial Data Collection
IDEA & Gifted File Review Self-Assessment: Parent Rights� �
METHOD:
First, determine the native language or other mode of communication used by the parents (or legal education decision-maker) and student (if 18 years or older).
Next, check the student’s file to determine whether a copy of parent rights/procedural safeguards was provided to both parents (or legal education decision-maker) if they do not reside in the same household and the student (if 18 or older) in all required instances and in their native language or other mode of communication. To do this, determine all instances when the provision of parent rights/procedural safeguards was required. Parent rights/procedural safeguards must be provided one time each school year AND in EACH of the following instances:
*SPECIAL NOTE: If a copy of the parent rights/procedural safeguards was not sent to both student’s parents, then the student’s file should contain documentation indicating why (e.g., one parent’s rights have been terminated or despite documented reasonable efforts to locate a parent, school staff are unable to, etc.).
When Are Parent Rights Given? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
Select YES if documentation shows ALL of the following:
• A copy of parent rights/procedural safeguards was provided to both of the student’s parents (or legal education decision-maker) and student (if 18 or older) in ALL required instances.
AND
• The parent rights/procedural safeguards provided were written in the native language or other mode of communication used by the parents/adult student.
NO
Select NO if documentation DOES NOT show ALL of the following:
AND
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 1, Sections B., C., H., Questions and Answers – Q.3.United States, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. 71 Federal Register 46,568 (Aug. 14, 2006).
Process Pitfalls from Julie Weatherly (JW) Legally Defensible IEPs (CEC 2023)
Failure to properly notify parents of their rights/safeguards. Recommendations
Acceptable Documentation Q1
OR
Additionally required:
Q1 Examples
Missing Primary language
IDEA & Gifted File Review Self-Assessment: �Evaluation and Eligibility
Responding to Scenarios
If a school district has not conducted any initial evaluation or reevaluation for a student selected for file review because the student transferred in after their initial evaluation or the most recent reevaluation was completed by a previous district and the student’s 3-year reevaluation has not yet come due, the school district will not be held responsible for an evaluation conducted in another district.
Responding to Scenarios - continued
If the student’s initial evaluation or most recent reevaluation was conducted by a previous district and the current school district and parent agreed that the 3-year reevaluation was not necessary (waiver) for the student when it came due, the school district will use the most recent evaluation or reevaluation to answer the self-assessment questions. Further, the district may use any other data it relied on to determine that the reevaluation was unnecessary.
A district may consider conducting a reevaluation using currently available information. This approach may provide documentation for File Review Questions. If the team reviews the student’s file and other currently available information, and documents they considered the requirements of the File Review Questions when completing the review, then the documentation may meet File Review requirements. The reevaluation does not need to include assessments, unless otherwise indicated upon review of the student’s file and data.
Please note a review of existing evaluation data is not a waiver of a reevaluation. See 34 C.F.R. 300.305 and K.S.A. 72-3428(i) and (k). In addition, such review of existing evaluation data alone may constitute a complete reevaluation if the IEP Team and other appropriate, qualified professionals determine, on the basis of the review and input from the parents, that no additional data are needed to establish continuing eligibility and to determine the child’s current educational needs See OSEP Letter to Redacted, Question 3, Feb. 6 2007. If the IEP team makes this determination, the parents must be provided with notification of the determination, the reasons for the determination and the right of the parents to request an assessment See 34 C.F.R. 300.305(d)(1) and K.S.A. 72-3428(k).
2. Were the assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess the student (for an initial evaluation or reevaluation) selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis? 34 C.F.R. 300.304(c)(1)(i); K.A.R. 91-40-9(a)(1)(A)��METHOD: Review the education record to determine whether there is evidence that the group of people responsible for conducting the student’s most recent evaluation/reevaluation selected and administered assessments and other evaluation materials so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis. There must be documentation to show that elimination of racial and cultural discrimination was considered when selecting and administering evaluation materials. This information could be found in assessment technical manuals, a prior written notice form, an evaluation/eligibility report, teacher/provider notes, or other documentation in the education record. Staff who conduct assessments could cite relevant information from the assessment technical manual, or refer to that information in professional notes, or provide some other type of documentation about how those findings were taken into consideration.
YES
Select YES if documentation shows that the assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess the student, for the initial evaluation or most recent reevaluation, were selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis.
NO
Select NO if documentation DOES NOT show that the assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess the student, for the initial evaluation or most recent reevaluation, were selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis.
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 3, Section E.1. and Questions and Answers Section, Q&A 5.; Chapter 7, Section E.
Acceptable Documentation Q2
Evaluation teams need to consider potential racial or cultural bias in relation to the student’s similar peers, so that it is clear what the needs are due to the presence of the exceptionality and what are needs due to the student’s difference in racial or cultural circumstances….(IDEA & Gifted Requirements File Review: Frequently Asked Questions)
Question prompt
How were the assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess the student (for an initial evaluation or reevaluation) selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis?
….XXX was assessed in her native language, which is YYY. The standardized assessment ZZZ was selected as part of this evaluation and was determined to be nondiscriminatory on a racial and cultural basis for this student based on professional understanding of the assessment and bias mitigation as noted in the ZZZ technical manual ...Multiple measures were used to mitigate the impact of bias in this evaluation and will be further described in this report. Any limitations that may exist and result in bias due to racial or cultural factors were reviewed and considered as part of this evaluation and determined to not be a significant factor in current eligibility determination.
Compliant District Examples Q2
Compliant District Example Q2
Minimally Approved District Example Cohort 2
District Example
Sample Process For Question 2: �What might this process look like in evaluation/reevaluation?
Step 1: MDT gathers and documents information regarding student's demographics and background as part of evaluation/reevaluation process.
Demographic information includes relevant information about the student's racial and cultural characteristics, native language, KELPA scores and language proficiency levels (if not a native English speaker), school attendance/moves, etc.
Step 2: MDT reviews the student's demographic information and background and considers how team will address potential cultural and racial bias in the evaluation/reevaluation process. (E.g., team considers specifically how they will select and administer assessments and evaluation materials for this student, in light of this student’s demographics.) �
Step 3: MDT documents how the team will use/did use the student's demographic information to guide the selection and administration of assessments and tools to ensure non-biased evaluation. This documentation of approach should be included in the education record (e.g., PWN for evaluation consent, evaluation/reevaluation report, case notes for planning the evaluation, PWN for placement, or other places in the student's record).
Examples for Question 2
Because the technical manuals for nationally normed tests showed group mean differences for this student’s racial/cultural group, it was decided to conduct the initial evaluation using non-verbal culture-free tests…
Because the professional literature regarding nationally normed tests (or because the district's placement data) show biased outcomes for this student’s racial/cultural group, it was decided to conduct the initial evaluation using authentic assessment practices…
Because of the impact of this student’s cultural background on opportunities for prior learning, it was decided to conduct the initial evaluation using a Response to Intervention (RTI) approach…
OR
The multidisciplinary team members considered the student's demographics in selecting and
administering the evaluation assessments and materials. Because this student’s racial/cultural background (as described previously in this report) is the same as the majority of the population on which these cognitive and academic assessments were normed, the battery of tests selected should not result in a biased evaluation.
3. Were the assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess the student (for an initial evaluation or reevaluation) provided and administered in the student’s native language or other mode of communication? 34 C.F.R. 300.304(c)(1)(ii); K.A.R. 91-40-9(a)(1)(B) ��METHOD: First, review the education record to determine the student’s native language or other mode of communication. Next, review the education record to determine whether the assessments and other evaluation materials used for the student’s most recent evaluation or reevaluation were provided and administered in the student’s native language or other mode of communication. If the assessments and other evaluation materials were not provided and administered in the native language or other mode of communication, review the education record for information showing that it was clearly not feasible to do so. This information could be found in a prior written notice form, an evaluation/eligibility report, teacher/provider notes, or other documentation in the education record.
YES
Select YES if documentation shows that the assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess the student, for the initial evaluation or most recent reevaluation, were provided and administered in the student’s native language or other mode of communication.
OR
Select YES if documentation shows that it was clearly not feasible to provide or administer the assessments and other evaluation materials in the student’s native language or other mode of communication
NO
Select NO if documentation DOES NOT show that the assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess the student, for the initial evaluation or most recent reevaluation, were provided and administered in the student’s native language or other mode of communication.
KSDE Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 3, Section and E.1, Chapter 7, Section E.
Past findings
Approved District Example from Cohort 2
Examples of documentation for Q3
Definitions
Breakout Discussion�and Question
25 minutes
4. During the most recent evaluation or reevaluation of the student, was the student assessed in ALL areas related to the suspected exceptionality, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities? 34 C.F.R. 300.304(c)(4); K.A.R. 91-40-9(b)(1)(A)-(H)��METHOD: First, review the education record to determine the student’s suspected needs and areas of concern that were observed or contemplated at the time of the referral for evaluation or reevaluation. This information could be found in communications or information provided by the parent, teacher notes and observations, Student Intervention Team (SIT) notes/documents, discipline records, emergency safety intervention (ESI) records, health and vision screenings, etc. Next, review the education record to determine whether the evaluation assessed the student in ALL suspected needs and areas of concern that were observed or contemplated at the time of the referral for evaluation or reevaluation, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the child has been classified. If ALL areas were not assessed, review the education record for information showing which areas were selected and why those not selected were not assessed. This information could be found in a prior written notice form, an evaluation/eligibility report, teacher/provider notes, or other documentation in the education record.
YES
Select YES if documentation shows that during the most recent evaluation or reevaluation, the student was assessed in ALL areas related to the suspected exceptionality, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities.
NO
Select NO if documentation DOES NOT show that during the most recent evaluation or reevaluation, the student was assessed in ALL areas related to the suspected exceptionality, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities.
SPECIAL NOTE: The list of areas in the question (health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities) is not an exhaustive list of areas that must be assessed. Decisions regarding the areas to be assessed are determined by the suspected needs of the child.
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 3, Section E.1.; Chapter 7, Section E.
5. If the school required the parent to obtain a medical diagnosis as part of the evaluation or re-evaluation, did the public agency pay for it? 34 C.F.R. 300.17(a), 300.34(c)(5); K.A.R. 91-40-1(z)(1), 91-40-1(nn)��METHOD: First review the education record for documentation indicating whether the parent was required to obtain a medical diagnosis for the student as part of the evaluation or re-evaluation. If documentation shows that a medical diagnosis was required, review the education record for documentation that the public agency paid for the medical diagnosis or reimbursed the parent for the cost of obtaining the medical diagnosis.
YES
Select YES if documentation shows that the parent was required to obtain a medical diagnosis AND the public agency paid for it.
NO
Select NO if documentation shows that the parent was required to obtain a medical diagnosis and the public agency did NOT pay for it.
N/A
N/A Select N/A if documentation shows:
• This is a file for a gifted-only student.
OR
• The public agency did not require the parent to obtain a medical diagnosis for the student as part of the evaluation or re-evaluation.
SPECIAL NOTE: A medical diagnosis may be considered as supporting information. However, a diagnosis is not required by law, nor necessarily determinative, in eligibility decisions. If the parent elected to unilaterally obtain a medical diagnosis at any time, the public agency is not required to reimburse the parent.
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 3, Questions and Answers Section, Q. 13. Kansas State Department of Education Eligibility Indicators
.
6. Upon completing the most recent evaluation or reevaluation of the student, did a team of qualified professionals AND the parent determine whether the student is a student with an exceptionality? 34 C.F.R. 300.306(a)(1); K.S.A. 72-3428(e)(1)��METHOD: Review the education record for documentation indicating who was included as part of the group responsible for determining the student’s initial or continued eligibility. This information could be found in the evaluation/eligibility report, a meeting attendance record, meeting notes, etc. Note that K.A.R. 91-40-10(a)(2) requires each member of the team of qualified professionals (but not the parent) to certify in writing whether the evaluation report reflects the team member’s conclusion; this certification document would serve as evidence of who was on the team. Documentation must show that all professionals on the team provided input and contributed to the decision. For evidence of the parent’s involvement in the eligibility determination, look for documentation that they had the opportunity to provide input in the preparation of the evaluation report and at the eligibility meeting.
YES
Select YES if documentation shows that the most recent (initial or continued) eligibility determination was made by ALL of the following:
• A team of qualified professionals
AND
• The parent
NO
Select NO if documentation DOES NOT show that the most recent (initial or continued) eligibility determination was made by ALL of the following:
• A team of qualified professionals
AND
• The parent
SPECIAL NOTE: A team of qualified professionals – refer to pg 40 of the Process Handbook for definition of “Evaluation Team” member
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 3, Sections C. and F.; Chapter 7, Sections D. and F.
.
N/A
Select N/A if documentation shows:
File is for a student that is suspected to have a specific learning disability.
Question 7
7. If the student was suspected to have a specific learning disability, did the group responsible for determining (initial or continued) eligibility include ALL of the following?: 34 C.F.R. 300.308; K.A.R. 91-40-11(a)��• The student’s parents; and�• The student’s regular teacher; or if the student does not have a regular teacher, a regular classroom teacher qualified to teach a student of his or her age; or for a child of less than school age, an individual qualified by the SEA to teach a child of his or her age; and�• At least one person qualified to conduct individual diagnostic examinations of children, such as school psychologist, speech-language pathologist, or reading specialist
METHOD: First, review the education record to determine if the student was suspected to have a specific learning disability when the evaluation or reevaluation was conducted. This information could be found in a parent’s or teacher’s/provider’s referral, Student Intervention Team (SIT) notes/documents, a prior written notice form, an evaluation/eligibility report, the IEP, etc. Next, review the education record for documentation indicating who was included as part of the group responsible for determining the student’s initial or continued eligibility. This information could be found in the evaluation/eligibility report, a meeting attendance record, meeting notes, etc. Note that K.A.R. 91-40-10(a)(2) requires each member of the team of qualified professionals (but not the parent) to certify in writing whether the evaluation report reflects the team member’s conclusion; this certification document would serve as evidence of who was on the team. For evidence of the parent’s involvement in the eligibility determination, look for documentation that they had the opportunity to provide input in the preparation of the evaluation report and at the eligibility meeting.
Question 7 Continued
YES
Select YES if documentation shows that the group responsible for determining initial or continued eligibility included ALL of the following:
• The student’s parents;
AND
• The student’s regular teacher, or if the student does not have a regular teacher, a regular classroom teacher qualified to teach a student of his or her age, or for a child of less than school age, an individual qualified by the SEA to teach a child of his or her age;
AND
• At least one person qualified to conduct individual diagnostic examinations of children, such as school psychologist, speech-language pathologist, or remedial reading teacher.
NO
Select NO if documentation DOES NOT show that the group responsible for determining initial or continued eligibility included ALL of the following:
• The student’s parents;
AND
• The student’s regular teacher, or if the student does not have a regular teacher, a regular classroom teacher qualified to teach a student of his or her age, or for a child of less than school age, an individual qualified by the SEA to teach a child of his or her age;
AND
• At least one person qualified to conduct individual diagnostic examinations of children, such as a school psychologist, speech-language pathologist, or remedial reading teacher.
N/A
Select N/A if documentation shows:
• This is a file for a gifted-only student.
OR
• This is a file for a student who was not suspected to have a specific learning disability.
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 3, Sections C. and F (pg 40-41)., Chapter 7, Sections D. and F..
8. When interpreting evaluation data to determine if the student is or continues to be a student with an exceptionality and the educational needs of the student, did the team of qualified professionals and the parent draw upon, document, and carefully consider information from a variety of sources including aptitude and achievement tests, parent input, teacher recommendations, physical condition, social or cultural background, and adaptive behavior? 34 C.F.R. 300.306(c)(1)(i)-(ii); K.A.R. 91-40-10(d)(1)-(2)��METHOD: Review the evaluation/eligibility report, team meeting notes, prior written notice forms, and other documentation in the education record to determine if the team and the parent drew upon, documented, and carefully considered information from a variety of sources when determining eligibility and the educational needs of the student. A checklist of these sources alone would not be sufficient to show that the information was carefully considered and documented.
YES
Select YES if documentation shows that when determining initial or continued eligibility and the educational needs of the student, the team of qualified professionals and the parent drew upon, documented, and carefully considered information from a variety of sources.
NO
Select NO if documentation DOES NOT show that when determining initial or continued eligibility and the educational needs of the student, the team of qualified professionals and the parent drew upon, documented, and carefully considered information from a variety of sources.
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 3, Section E.1.; Chapter 7, Section E.
.
SPECIAL NOTE: The list of sources in the question (aptitude and achievement tests, parent input, teacher recommendations, physical condition, social or cultural background, and adaptive behavior) is not an exhaustive list of sources that must be drawn upon, documented and carefully considered. The point of 34 C.F.R. 300.306(c)(1)(i)-(ii) and K.A.R. 91-40-10(d)(1)-(2) is to ensure that more than one source is used in interpreting evaluation data and making these determinations, and although these regulations include a list of examples of sources that may be used, the public agency would not have to use all the sources in every instance. 64 Federal Register 12,636 (Mar. 12, 1999).
9. Did the group responsible for determining the student’s (initial or continued) eligibility ensure that NONE of the following were the determinant factor? 34 C.F.R. 300.306(b)(1)(i)-(iii); K.A.R. 91-40-10(c)��• Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (as defined in section 1208(3) of the ESEA as such section was in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act (December 9, 2015)); or� o “The term ‘essential components of reading instruction’ means explicit and systematic instruction in-- (A) Phonemic awareness; (B) Phonics; (C) Vocabulary development; (D) Reading fluency, including oral reading skills; and (E) Reading comprehension strategies” Federal Register, Vol. 71, August 14, 2006, p.46646.��• Lack of appropriate instruction in math; or�• Limited English proficiency��METHOD: Review the evaluation/eligibility report to determine whether the team and the parent examined ALL of these exclusionary factors before determining the student is or continues to be a student with an exceptionality.
YES
Select YES if documentation shows that NONE of the following were a determinant factor when determining the student’s initial or continued eligibility:
• Lack of appropriate instruction in reading including explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, oral reading skills, and reading comprehension strategies.
OR
• Lack of appropriate instruction in math.
OR
• Limited English proficiency.
Select YES if student is gifted only.
NO
Select NO if documentation DOES NOT show that NONE of the following were a determinant factor when determining the student’s initial or continued eligibility:
• Lack of appropriate instruction in reading including explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, oral reading skills, and reading comprehension strategies.
OR
• Lack of appropriate instruction in math.
OR
• Limited English proficiency.
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 3, Section F.1.(a)-(b); Chapter 7, Section F.
.
Q 9-did the group responsible for determining the student’s (initial or continued) eligibility ensure that NONE of the following were DETERMINANT factor?
These factors are sometimes referred to simply as “exclusionary factors”.
Q9 Examples
Q9 Strategies
Breakout Discussion�and Question
25 minutes
Lunch
11:30-12:30
IDEA & Gifted File Review Self-Assessment: IEP Development, Revision, & Review��
IEP content pitfalls- PLAAFPs (JW)
Failure to Ensure the Gathering of Sufficient and Current Evaluative Data
IEP content pitfalls - PLAAFPs(cont.)
Failure to include appropriate/meaningful student profile and present levels statements.
PLAAFP Example�
In January 2019, G.H. was identified as a student with a learning disability in the area of math calculation. Current data, indicate that G.H. continues to need specially designed instruction in the areas of math calculation to benefit from grade level math curriculum. On recent standardized math benchmark tests conducted in January 2022, G.H. scored at the 9th percentile, which is well below average. On three standardized measures of mixed-math fact fluency administered on 2/7 and 2/8, G.H. accurately recalled, on average, 18 facts compared with grade-level expectations of 75 facts in 2 minutes. Specifically, G.H. recalled about three multiplication mixed facts (0–9), 15 addition facts (0–9), and 0 division and subtraction facts (0–9) in the 2 minutes. This affects his ability to complete sixth-grade math assignments at the same rate as his peers and efficiently use mental math calculation skills to complete word problems. To complete grade-level math assignments, G.H. currently benefits from shortened assignments, peer support, and the use of a calculator. Increasing his math fact proficiency would increase his ability to independently access and benefit from grade-level math instruction. Review of current intervention implementation data suggests that G.H. benefits from daily direct one-on-one instruction distributed across the school day. G.H. would like to graduate with his peers and attend college.
example taken from the recent Prepping for Progress 2023 Conference on the ABC’s of IEPs
Sample PLAAFP Statement Structure
Data from (sample source) indicates Student (performs in this way (objective data)) which affects (must include impact on involvement and progress in the general education curriculum). As a result, the student needs (justifies proposed services and supports).
example taken from the recent Prepping for Progress 2023 Conference on the ABC’s of IEPs
Connecting the PLAAFP to the Parts of the IEP
68
PLAAFP
Annual Goals
Measuring Progress Toward Annual Goals
Date, Frequency, Duration, and Location of Services
Statement of Special Education and Aids and Services
Participation Outside Regular Education and in State and Districtwide Assessments
“There should be a direct relationship between the present levels of performance and the other components of the IEP. Thus, if the statement describes a problem with the child’s reading level and points to a deficiency in reading skills, the problem should be addressed under both goals and specific special education and related services provided to the child.” [U.S. Department of Education, Code of Federal Regulations, 1999, Appendix C, Question 36. emphasis added]
10. Does the IEP include a description of the student’s present level of academic achievement as part of the Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFPs)? 34 C.F.R. 300.320(a)(1); K.S.A. 72-3429(c)(1)��METHOD: Review the IEP to determine if it includes information about the student’s current academic achievement.
Examples of What Current Performance Could Include:
Standardized Assessments | Instructional Preferences |
Screening Data | Learning Rate & Strengths |
Progress Monitoring Data | Diagnostic Assessments |
Writing rubric | Results of recent re-evaluation |
YES
Select YES if the IEP includes a description of the student’s current level of academic achievement.
NO
Select NO if the IEP DOES NOT include a description of the student’s current level of academic achievement.
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 4, Section E.2.a..
Example of Current Academic Achievement and Functional Performance
11. Does the IEP include a description of the student’s present level of functional performance as part of the PLAAFPs? 34 C.F.R. 300.320(a)(1); K.S.A. 72-3429(c)(1)��METHOD: Review the IEP to determine if it includes information about the student’s current functional performance. If there are no current concerns about functional performance, the IEP must include a statement that functional performance was considered.
Examples of What Functional Performance Could Include:
Social/Emotional Skills | Motor Skills/Mobility |
Communication | Memory |
Perception or Attention Abilities | Vocational/Career Interests |
Task Persistence/Completion | Independent Living Skills |
YES
Select YES if the IEP includes a description of the student’s current level of functional performance or a statement that functional performance was considered and there are no current concerns.
NO
Select NO if the IEP DOES NOT include a description of the student’s current level of functional performance or a statement that functional performance was considered and there are no current concerns.
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 4, Section E.2.a.
What might functional performance include for Gifted-Only IEP?
The IEP Boot Camp for Gifted (on the TASN website) provides these examples of functional performance in the slides:
The handout for IEP Boot Camp for Gifted lists the following examples on page 4:
Examples of information related to Functional Performance
12. Does the IEP describe how the student’s disability or giftedness affects the student’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum as part of the PLAAFPs? For preschool children, as appropriate, does the IEP describe how the disability affects the child’s participation in appropriate activities as part of the PLAAFPs? 34 C.F.R. 300.320(a)(1)(i); K.S.A. 72-3429(c)(1)(A)-(B)��METHOD: Review the IEP for a specific description of how the student’s disability or giftedness affects the student’s involvement and progress in the general curriculum. For preschool children, review the IEP for a description of how the disability affects the child’s participation in appropriate activities.
YES
Select YES if the IEP includes a specific description of how the student’s disability or giftedness affects the student's involvement and progress in the general curriculum.
For preschool children, select YES if the IEP describes how the disability affects the child’s participation in appropriate activities.
NO
Select NO if the IEP DOES NOT include a specific description of how the student’s disability or giftedness affects the student's involvement and progress in the general curriculum.
For preschool children, select NO if the IEP DOES NOT describe how the disability affects the child’s participation in appropriate activities.
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 4, Section E.2.a..
.
Examples of What Impact of Exceptionality Could Look Like:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impact of Exceptionality
13. Are all of the annual goals in the IEP designed to meet the student’s needs that result from the student’s disability or giftedness, to enable the student to be involved in and make progress in the general education or advanced curriculum? 34 C.F.R. 300.320(a)(2)(i)(A); K.S.A. 72-3429(c)(2)(A)��METHOD: First review the PLAAFP section of the IEP for information about the student’s needs and how the student’s exceptionality affects involvement and progress in the general education curriculum. Then review all of the annual goals in the IEP. Determine if each of the annual goals is related to meeting the student’s needs that result from the student’s exceptionality, to enable the student to be involved and progress in the general or advanced curriculum. There should be a direct relationship between the annual goal and the needs identified in the PLAAFPs.
YES
Select YES if EVERY annual goal in the IEP is designed to meet the student’s needs that result from the student’s disability or giftedness, to enable the student to be involved in and make progress in the general education or advanced curriculum.
NO
Select NO if:
• The IEP DOES NOT contain at least one annual goal.
OR
• One or more of the annual goals in the IEP is/are NOT designed to meet the student’s needs that result from the student’s disability or giftedness, to enable the student to be involved in and make progress in the general education or advanced curriculum.
SPECIAL NOTE: Students who take the alternate assessment must have annual goals that enable them to be involved in and make appropriate progress in the general education curriculum. Any separate curriculum is supplementary, not an alternate to Tier 1 grade-aligned standards-based instruction. Alternate achievement standards are performance standards that align to the general education content standards at a reduced depth, breadth, and complexity.
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 4, Section E.2.b.
.
.
Questions
14. Are all of the annual goals in the IEP measurable? 34 C.F.R. 300.320(a)(2)(i); K.S.A. 72-3429(c)(2)��METHOD: Review all of the annual goals in the IEP. Determine if each of the annual goals is measurable. Read about the four critical components of a well-written goal in the Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 4, Section E.2.b.
A Measurable Annual Goal Includes: |
Behavior: Identify the performance to be measured. |
Condition: Specify how progress will be measured. |
Criteria: Determine to what level the behavior must occur. |
Timeframe: Specify time required to attain the criterion. |
YES
Select YES if EVERY annual goal in the IEP is measurable.
NO
Select NO if:
• The IEP DOES NOT contain at least one annual goal.
OR
• One or more of the annual goals in the IEP is/are NOT measurable.
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 4, Section E.2.b..
General goal reminders
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook Guidance (Chapter 4)
Measurable Annual Goals Measurable annual goals are descriptions of what a child can reasonably be expected to accomplish within a 12- month period with the provision of special education (specially designed instruction) and related services.
Measurable annual goals must be related to meeting the child’s needs that result from the child’s exceptionality, to enable the child to be involved and progress in the general or advanced curriculum. In addition, they must meet each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s exceptionality (K.S.A. 72-3429(c)(2))
There is a direct relationship between the measurable annual goal, baseline data, and the needs identified in the PLAAFPs. Because the PLAAFPs are baseline data for the development of measurable annual goals, the same criteria used in establishing the PLAAFPs must also be used in setting the annual goal.
Four critical components of a well-written goal are:
Timeframe is usually specified in the number of weeks or a certain date for completion. A year is the maximum allowed length for the timeframe. * In 36 instructional weeks… * By November 19, 2018… * By the end of the 2018–19 school year…
Conditions specify the manner in which progress toward the goal is measured. Conditions are dependent on the behavior being measured and involve the application of skills or knowledge. * When presented with 2nd-grade-level text… * Given a mixed, 4th-grade-level math calculation probe… * Given a story prompt and 30 minutes to write… * When given a directive…
Behavior clearly identifies the performance that is being monitored, usually reflects an action or can be directly observed, and is measurable. * Sarah will read… * Claude will correctly solve… * Mary will score… * Rex will follow a one-step direction
Criterion identifies how much, how often, or to what standards the behavior must occur in order to demonstrate that the goal has been reached. The goal criterion specifies the amount of growth the child is expected to make by the end of the annual goal period. * 96 words per minute with 5 or fewer errors. * 85% or more correct for all problems presented. * 4 or better when graded according to the 6-trait writing rubric. *Within one minute without help, 3 times a day, for 2 weeks
SMART
Practical Progress Monitoring Strategies for Efficient Data Collection and Reporting (CEC 2023)
Example Q14
Example Q14: Gifted Goals
Content Pitfall – Failure to Include Appropriate and Measurable Annual Goals (JW)- Recommendations
15. Was the student’s progress toward meeting each annual IEP goal measured and reported using the method and frequency described in the IEP? 34 C.F.R. 300.320(a)(3); K.S.A. 72-3429(c)(3)��METHOD: First, review the IEP to determine if the IEP includes a description of how the student’s progress toward meeting each of the annual goals will be measured. This information could be contained within each goal or in a separate section of the IEP. Next, review the IEP to determine if the IEP includes a description of when periodic reports on the progress the student is making toward meeting each of the annual goals will be provided. Finally, compare these descriptions in the IEP to progress reports in the education record to determine if there is documentation to show a) the student’s progress toward meeting each annual IEP goal was measured as described in the IEP, and b) periodic reports on the progress were provided to the parents (or legal education decision-maker) at the times/intervals required by the IEP.
YES
Select YES if documentation shows ALL of the following:
The IEP includes a description of how the student’s progress toward meeting EACH annual IEP goal will be measured.
AND
The IEP includes a description of when periodic reports on the progress the student is making toward meeting each of the annual goals will be provided.
AND
The goal, the baseline, and the progress reports used the same method of measuring the student’s performance.
AND
Progress was reported to the parent (or education decision-maker) according to the frequency/intervals described in the IEP.
NO
Select NO if documentation DOES NOT show ALL of the following:
The IEP includes a description of how the student’s progress toward meeting EACH annual IEP goal will be measured.
OR
The IEP includes a description of when periodic reports on the progress the student is making toward meeting each of the annual goals will be provided.
OR
The goal, the baseline, and the progress reports didn’t used the same method of measuring the student’s performance.
OR
Progress wasn’t reported to the parent (or education decision-maker) according to the frequency/intervals described in the IEP.
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 4, Section E.2.d..
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook Guidance
Measuring and Reporting Progress on Annual Goals (Chapter 4)
What is progress monitoring
A set of techniques and methods for assessing student performance on a regular and frequent bases so that instructional decisions will be made that result in improved outcomes for students.
Why is Progress Monitoring Important?
Progress Monitoring Process
Before
During
After
Responsive
Continue Plan
Non-Responsive
Make a Change
Practical Progress Monitoring (CEC 2023)
Techniques for Progress Monitoring
Resources for Progress Monitoring
Resource |
Graphing and Interpreting
Common findings Q15
Compliant Example Q15
Noncompliant Example Q15
Breakout Discussion�and Question
20 minutes
16. If the IEP team has determined that the student with a disability must take an alternate assessment instead of a particular state or districtwide assessment, was that determination made in alignment with the KSDE Dynamic Learning Maps Participation Guidelines for Kansas and does the IEP include BOTH of the following?: (A) A statement of why the student cannot participate in the general state or district assessment; and (B) A statement of why the particular alternate assessment selected is appropriate for the student. 34 C.F.R. 300.320(a)(6)(ii), 300.160(c); K.S.A. 72-3429(c)(6)(B)��METHOD: First, review the IEP to determine if the student must take an alternate assessment or regular state/districtwide assessment. Next, if the IEP states the student must take an alternative assessment, next review the education record for documentation that the student meets all of the criteria listed in the KSDE Dynamic Learning Maps Participation Guidelines for Kansas. This documentation could be in the IEP, evaluation/eligibility report, IEP Team meeting notes, a prior written notice, etc. Finally, review the IEP to determine if it includes a statement of why the student cannot participate in the general state or districtwide assessment, and a statement of why the particular alternate assessment selected is appropriate for the student. Every goal must have at least 2 benchmarks/objectives.
YES
Select YES if documentation shows ALL of the following:
• The student meets all of the criteria listed in the KSDE Dynamic Learning Maps Participation Guidelines for Kansas;
AND
• The IEP includes a statement of why the student cannot participate in the general state or district assessment;
AND
• The IEP includes a statement of why the particular alternate assessment selected is appropriate for the student.
NO
Select NO if documentation DOES NOT show ALL of the following:
• The student meets all of the criteria listed in the KSDE Dynamic Learning Maps Participation Guidelines for Kansas;
AND
• The IEP includes a statement of why the student cannot participate in the general state or district assessment;
AND
• The IEP includes a statement of why the particular alternate assessment selected is appropriate for the student.
N/A
Select N/A if:
• This is a file for a gifted-only student;
OR
• This is a file for a student who is convicted as an adult under State law and incarcerated in an adult prison (34 C.F.R. 300.324(d)(1)(i); K.A.R. 91-40-5(c)(2)(A));
OR
• The IEP Team determined that the student with a disability will take a regular State or districtwide assessment.
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 4, Section E.2.e.
KSDE Dynamic Learning Maps Participation Guidelines for Kansas
KSDE Rubric for Determining Student Eligibility for the Kansas Alternate Assessment (DLM) for Students with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities
17. Does the IEP include the projected date for the beginning of special education and related services, supplementary aids and services (including accommodations), program modifications and supports for school personnel? 34 C.F.R. 300.320(a)(7); K.S.A. 72-3429(c)(7)��METHOD: Review the IEP to determine whether it contains a projected beginning date for EACH of the special education and related services, the supplementary aids and services (including accommodations), program modifications and supports for school personnel that will be provided.
For Each and Every Service
|
|
YES
Select YES if the IEP contains a projected beginning date for EACH of the special education and related services, supplementary aids and services (including accommodations, program modifications, and supports for school personnel that will be provided.
NO
Select NO if the IEP DOES NOT contain a projected beginning date for EACH of the special education and related services, supplementary aids and services (including accommodations, program modifications, and supports for school personnel that will be provided.
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 4, Section E.2.h..
18. Does the IEP include anticipated frequency, location and duration of special education and related services, supplementary aids and services (including accommodations), program modifications and supports for school personnel? 34 C.F.R. 300.320(a)(7); K.S.A. 72-3429(c)(7)��METHOD: Review the IEP to determine whether it contains the anticipated frequency, location, and duration for EACH of the special education and related services, supplementary aids and services (including accommodations), program modifications and supports for school personnel.
Examples of Frequency, Location, Durations for Related Services
Transportation | Counseling Services | Occupational Therapy |
Frequency: Every day when school is in session | Frequency: Three Days per week | Frequency: Once per week |
Location: In district special education vehicle | Location: Counselor’s Office | Location: Resource Room |
Duration: Travel time from home to school/school to home via bus route | Duration: A total of 600 minutes per semester | Duration: Twenty minutes per week |
YES
Select YES if the IEP contains the anticipated frequency, location, and duration for EACH of the special education and related services, supplementary aids and services (including accommodations), program modifications, and supports for school personnel.
NO
Select NO if the IEP DOES NOT contain the anticipated frequency, location, and duration for EACH of the special education and related services, supplementary aids and services (including accommodations), program modifications, and supports for school personnel.
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 4, Section E.2.h..
Documenting Accommodations
Examples: Accommodations and Modifications (Q17 & Q18)
ACCOMMODATION EXAMPLES:
Accommodation | Start Date | Location | Frequency | Duration |
Extended time for assignments | 3/3/22 | In all core classes (social studies, science, math, and language arts) | Whenever written assignments are given | Todd will receive a time extension of 1 ½ of the required assignment time to complete the assignment |
Text read aloud via human or electronic reader | 8/15/22 | In all settings, both general and special education | When given material above a second-grade level | Until reading of assigned text is completed |
Use of calculator | 9/9/22 | In general education math class | Whenever assignment requires math calculation | For duration of math class |
Provide copy of notes, study guide, or cloze activity to be used for review | 9/9/22 | Across all general education classrooms | For each chapter or unit of study | Notes, study guide, or cloze activity provided at least 4 days before any chapter or unit test |
MODIFICATION EXAMPLES:
Modification | Start Date | Location | Frequency | Duration |
Jolinda will be provided with fewer answer options for all classroom multiple choice tests (e.g., 3 answer options instead of 4). | 1/5/22 | In all core classes | Whenever multiple choice assessments are given | For the multiple-choice portion of all classroom assessments |
During her general education math class, Linda will be asked to complete multiplication and division problems with no more than two digits. | 2/2/22 | In core math class | Whenever a math assignment or classroom math assessment is given that involves multiplication or division. | For the duration of all math assignments and classroom math assessments. |
Monitoring State Assessment Accommodations
19. Did the IEP team consider parent concerns for enhancing the education of their student in developing, reviewing and revising the IEP? 34 C.F.R. 300.324(a)(1)(ii); K.S.A. 72-3404(r); 72-3429(d)(1)��METHOD: This information could be found in the Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP) statements or another IEP section or other documentation in the student’s file indicating the IEP team requested and considered the concerns the parent had for enhancing the education of their student in developing, reviewing and revising the IEP.
YES
Select YES if the IEP or the education record contains documentation that the IEP team considered the concerns of the parent for enhancing the education of their student in developing, reviewing and revising the IEP.
NO
Select NO if the IEP or the education record DOES NOT contain documentation that the IEP team considered the concerns of the parent for enhancing the education of their student in developing, reviewing and revising the IEP.
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 4, Section E.1.b. and Section F..
Parent Input Recommendations (JW)
20. If the student’s behavior impedes the student’s learning or that of others, did the IEP Team consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior when developing, reviewing or revising the IEP? 34 C.F.R. 300.324(a)(2)(i), (b)(2); K.S.A. 72-3429(d)(4)��METHOD: First, review the education record for documentation indicating whether the student displays behavior that impedes the student’s or others’ learning. If the student’s behavior impedes learning (of self or others), then review the education record for documentation showing that the IEP Team considered the use of positive behavior interventions and supports and other strategies when developing the initial IEP, conducting the annual IEP review, or revising the IEP. This information can be found in the IEP, a prior written notice form, IEP Team meeting notes, and IEP amendment form, or other documentation in the education record.
YES
Select YES if documentation shows that when developing, reviewing or revising the IEP, the IEP Team considered the use of positive behavior interventions and supports and other strategies to address the student’s behavior that impedes the student’s or others’ learning.
NO
Select NO if documentation DOES NOT show that when developing, reviewing or revising the IEP, the IEP Team considered the use of positive behavior interventions and supports and other strategies to address the student’s behavior that impedes the student’s or others’ learning.
N/A
Select N/A if documentation shows that the student DOES NOT have behavior that impedes the student’s or others’ learning.
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 4, Section E.1.e.
IEP Content Pitfall - Failure to Appropriately Address the “Special Instructional Factor” of Behavior (JW)
21. When developing, reviewing or revising the IEP, in the case of a student who has limited English proficiency, did the IEP Team consider the language needs of the student as those needs relate to the student’s IEP? 34 C.F.R. 300.324(a)(2)(ii), (b)(2); K.S.A. 72-3429(d)(5)��METHOD: First, review the education record for documentation indicating whether the student has limited English proficiency. If the student has limited English proficiency, then review the education record for documentation showing that the IEP Team considered the student’s language needs as those needs relate to the IEP when developing, reviewing, or revising the IEP. This information can be found in the IEP, a prior written notice form, IEP Team meeting notes, and IEP amendment form, or other documentation in the education record.
YES
Select YES if documentation shows that when developing, reviewing or revising the IEP, the IEP Team considered the language needs of the student as those needs relate to the student’s IEP.
NO
Select NO if documentation DOES NOT show that when developing, reviewing or revising the IEP, the IEP Team considered the language needs of the student as those needs relate to the student’s IEP.
N/A
Select N/A if documentation shows that the student DOES NOT have limited English proficiency.
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 3, Sections C. and F., Chapter 7, Sections D. and F..
Question 21: When developing, reviewing or revising the IEP, in the case of a student who has limited English proficiency, did the IEP team consider the language needs of the student as those needs relate to the IEP?
The education record for a student should indicate whether the student has limited English proficiency. If so, documentation should be found (in IEP, PWN, IEP team meeting notes, IEP amendment, or other location in the record) that shows when the IEP team develops, reviews and/or revises IEP, they considered language needs.
For example, a team might include something such as…
While the student needs direct special education services to address his learning disability, he is an English Learner and continues to need services from a language acquisition program to address those needs. His current language performance is described within the communication area of this IEP. It is critical that the EL teacher and the SPED teacher work closely to address all the student’s needs in a coordinated way. (This statement would need to be in the IEP somewhere, and the IEP would reflect both direct and consultative services from the SPED teacher. It needs to be clear in the IEP that the student will continue to receive EL).
Breakout Discussion�and Question
20 minutes
IDEA & Gifted File Review Self-Assessment: Placement�
22. Was the student’s educational placement determined at least annually? 34 C.F.R. 300.116(b)(1); K.A.R. 91-40-21(e)(1)��METHOD: Review the education record for documentation that the exceptional student’s educational placement was determined at least annually. Compare dates of placement decisions documented in the student’s IEP or prior written notice documents. Review meeting records for evidence that the student’s placement was discussed and determined within one year of the previous placement determination.
YES
Select YES if the education record contains documentation that the student’s educational placement was determined at least annually.
NO
Select NO if the education record DOES NOT contain documentation that the student’s educational placement was determined at least annually.
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 6, Section B.
FAQ Guidance
QUESTION: Regarding Self-Assessment Question 22, if a school district always provides the parent with a PWN at the IEP annual review, does that documentation show that placement was determined annually?
ANSWER: Providing a PWN at the IEP meeting COULD show that placement was determined annually depending on the content of the PWN and whether it addresses the placement determination.
QUESTION: What are some examples of how to better document the LRE continuum when making changes?
ANSWER: See the Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 6 Section C. Also see the LRE Decision Tree and accompanying chart at the end of the chapter.
LRE Decision Tree
Pre-determination of Placement is the “Big Kahuna” of Process Mistakes (JW)
Failure to focus on the “I” in IEP and IDEA during decision-making (JW)
23. If the student’s LRE (least restrictive environment) placement is outside of the regular education environment for any part of the school day (including nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities), did the team first determine that the nature or severity of the disability is such that placement in the regular education environment with the use of supplementary aids and services could not be achieved satisfactorily? 34 C.F.R. 300.114(a)(2)(ii), 300.117; K.S.A. 72-3420(a); K.A.R. 91-40-21(i)��METHOD: First, review the education record to determine whether the student with a disability is placed in the regular education environment for the whole school day or in a more restrictive environment for any part of the school day. If the student is placed in a more restrictive environment for any part of the school day (including nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities – i.e. meals, recess, transportation, assemblies, clubs, athletics, etc.), next review the education record for documentation showing that the team first considered or implemented placement in the regular environment with the use of supplementary aids and services before considering more restrictive environments. Finally, review the education record for documentation showing that the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
YES
Select YES if:
• The education record contains documentation showing the student is placed in the regular education environment for the entire school day, including nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities.
OR
• The education record contains documentation showing a) the team first considered placement in the regular environment with supplementary aids and services, AND b) when placing the student outside of the regular environment the team determined that the nature or severity of the student’s disability is such that placement in the regular education environment with supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
NO
Select NO if the education record DOES NOT contain documentation showing a) the team first considered placement in the regular environment with supplementary aids and services, AND b) when placing the student outside of the regular environment the team determined that the nature or severity of the student’s disability is such that placement in the regular education environment with supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
N/A
Select N/A if:
• This is a file for a gifted-only student.
OR
• This is a file for a student who: (a) has been convicted as an adult under state law and is incarcerated in an adult prison; AND (b) the student’s IEP team has modified the student’s IEP or placement because the State has demonstrated a bona fide security or compelling penological interest that cannot otherwise be accommodated (34 C.F.R. 300.324(d)(2)).
Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Chapter 3, Sections C. and F., Chapter 7, Sections D. and F..
Content Pitfalls – Making Inappropriate/Unsupported Recommendations Regarding LRE (JW)
Common findings
LRE Sample Statements
Question 24 – cohort 2
24. This question only applies to students in early childhood (3–5-year-olds). If this student is an early childhood student, did the student receive early intervention services under an individualized family service plan (IFSP)? 34 C.F.R. § 303.13 [34 CFR §300.124(c)]
Question 24 continued
METHOD: Review the education record for documentation that the student received early intervention services. If the student received early intervention services, select yes.
If yes continue. If no you’re finished.
YES Select YES if the education record contains documentation showing the student received early intervention services.
| NO Select NO if the education record DOES NOT contain documentation showing the student received early intervention service OR this isn’t an early childhood student. |
Question 24a
24a. Was there LEA representation at the 90-day transition conference? [34 CFR §303.209 ] [34 CFR §300.124(c)]
Question 24a - methodology
METHOD: Review the file to see if a LEA representative was at the 90-day conference? This could be located in:
YES Select YES if the education record contains documentation that the LEA representative was present at the 90-day conference. | NO Select NO if the education record DOES NOT contain documentation that the LEA representative was present at the 90-day conference. |
Q24a – Documentation
Question 24b- methodology
24b. Did the IEP Team consider the child’s transition plan when developing the child’s initial Part B IEP? (K.S.A. 72-3428(b)(1))
METHOD: Review the file to see if there was a transition plan in place. This could be located in the evaluation report, meeting notes, PWN, or IEP. The team could document the IFSP information (Including goal progress) and relevant information from the transition conference in the evaluation report as well as note that both were data sources considered within the PWN.
YES Select YES if the education record contains documentation that the transition plan was considered when developing the child’s initial Part B IEP. | NO Select NO if the education record DOES NOT contain documentation that the transition plan was considered when developing the child’s initial Part B IEP. |
Q24b - Documentation
Breakout Discussion�and Question
10 minutes
Non-Compliance
OSEP QA 23-01
Non-Compliance
Levels of Determination (LOD)
District Corrective Action Plans (DCAPs)
Root Cause Analysis
Question 1 DCAP Example
Question 2 DCAP Example
Question 13 DCAP Example
Question 14 DCAP Example
Question 15 DCAP Example
Question 18 DCAP Example
Individual Corrective Action (ICAs)
ICA Example Question 1
ICA Example Question 15
ICA Example Question 23
Q23- Initial file review indicated that the LRE determination lacked discussion regarding the consideration of less restrictive environments and reasons for rejecting these options. Training and resources were provided to the teacher to ensure understanding of the components of LRE consideration. A new draft IEP was written by the teacher and submitted for compliance review by the IEP monitor. An IEP meeting was held on 09/28/2022 and parents signed the IEP. PWN EXCERPT A DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION PROPOSED OR REFUSED: During his 7th grade year, xxxx will receive specialized instruction for 30 minutes x 5 days a week of support in the interrelated classroom in the class of Study Hall for remediation/reteaching of concepts from the general education curriculum, direct instruction to work on his individual education goals outlined in his current individual education plan and work completion support from his general education English/Language Arts, Science, Social Studies, and Math classes during the current IEP year. xxxx will also receive special education inclusion support for 160 minutes x 5 days a week in the general education classrooms of English/Language Arts, Science, and Math. During his 8th grade year, xxxx will receive specialized instruction for 30 minutes x 5 days a week of support in the interrelated classroom in the class of Study Hall for remediation/reteaching of concepts from the general education curriculum, direct instruction to work on his individual education goals outlined in his current individual education plan and work completion support from his general education English/Language Arts, Science, Social Studies, and Math classes during the current IEP year. xxxx will also receive special education inclusion support for 115 minutes x 5 days a week in the general education classrooms of English/Language Arts, Science, and Math. EXPLANATION OF WHY THE ACTION IS PROPOSED OR REFUSED: xxxx meets the criteria for these actions, because, based on his most recent evaluation, as well as Aims Web, KAP, STAR Reading Assessment, and Goalbook assessments, xxxx meets the critieria of a student with a specific learning disability. These supports are proposed to provide xxxx support in the areas where he needs services to continue to advance in the general education curriculum. OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND WHY THE OPTIONS WERE REJECTED: The option to provide only support within the general education classroom. However, this was rejected as student currently requires additional opportunities to practice and reinforce skills with immediate teacher feedback in a smaller group setting. Additionally, this amount of pull-out support allows student to preview some skills that will be presented in the general education setting. DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA USED AS BASIS FOR THE PROPOSED OR REFUSED ACTION (including each evaluation procedure, assessment, record or report used as a basis for the proposed or refused action): Evaluation Data, Aims Web, STAR Reading Report, Goalbook Assessments, Parent/IEP team input, and observation.
What is Updated Data?
Updated Data
Continued Non-Compliance on Updated Data
Failure to Correct Non-Compliance within One Year
Resources
KIAS flags/alerts
Additional Resources
Technical Assistance Team (TAT)
Contact Information
Cary Rogers�Education Program Consultant�Special Education & Title Services�(785) 296-0916�cary.rogers@ksde.gov
Josie McClendon�Education Program Consultant�Special Education & Title Services�(785) 296-5608�josie.mcclendon@ksde.gov
Dr. Crista Grimwood�Education Program Consultant�Special Education & Title Services�(785) 296-7262�crista.grimwood@ksde.gov
The Kansas State Department of Education does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability or age in its programs and activities and provides equal access to the Boy Scouts and other designated youth groups. The following person has been designated to handle inquiries regarding the nondiscrimination policies: KSDE General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, KSDE, Landon State Office Building, 900 S.W. Jackson, Suite 102, Topeka, KS 66612, (785) 296-3201.