1 of 44

Presenter Notes

Hidden slides are included as background for the presenter and can be included in the presentation at the discretion of the presenter.
Slides contain presenter notes, to help convey the flow and information to be shared.
The trainer will need a sample IEP to use for practice charting in Step 1.
Supplemental Handouts

Facilitator’s Guide

2 of 44

�Facilitator Introduction: Preparation for Leading an EBR Group

EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT REVIEW (EBR)

3 of 44

An Educational Benefit Review (EBR)…

… is a systematic approach to reviewing a student’s IEP to better understand how the design of the IEP leads to educational benefit and through that review identifies ways the system can better support IEP teams in their design.

4 of 44

�Educational Benefit Review (EBR)�

Individual Student Level

Systematic approach to review a student’s IEPs to determine whether the design of the IEPs was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit across (typically) three years of consecutive IEPs.

System Level

Process to assist a district/LEA to systemically evaluate the special education services offered with the intent to use the information to improve practices and outcomes for students with exceptionalities.

4

Presenter Notes

An EBR can be done for multiple purposes at both the individual student and system levels.

At the individual student level, it is a systematic approach to review a student’s IEPs to determine whether the design of the IEPs was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit across (typically) three years of consecutive IEPs. While it says to review “typically” three consecutive IEPs for a student to determine educational benefit, IEP teams could also apply aspects of this process to proactively preparing for annual IEP review and/or to analyze services when progress has been limited.

While analyzing the individual student level of programming is an important use of an EBR, examining a district/LEA system to determine areas of strength and concern is critical for long term improvement within the system. The EBR provides an opportunity for the district/LEA to systemically evaluate the special education services offered and use that information to improve practices and outcomes across the system – beyond the student level.

It is important to keep in mind this process focuses on what is documented in an IEP and progress reports, it doesn’t analyze or look at what was implemented for the student. It is also important that districts/LEAs have a system to ensure effective implementation of IEPs and processes to assess whether there is fidelity of implementation within the system, however it would be apart from this review process.

5 of 44

What is FAPE?�

Free appropriate public education or FAPE means special education and related services that

Are provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge;
Meet the standards of the SEA, including the requirements of this part;
Include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and
Are provided in conformity with an individualized education program (IEP) that meets the requirements of §§300.320 through 300.324.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(9))

5

6 of 44

Rowley (1982) �Standard for FAPE

The Rowley “Two-Prong Test”

Has the school complied with the procedural requirements of IDEA? (Procedural Prong), AND
Is the IEP, developed through IDEA’s procedures, reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit? (Substantive Prong)

Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)

6

Presenter Notes

In 1982 Rowley established a substantive standard for FAPE that courts and states would apply for 35 years...

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, the legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 28, 1982, held (6–3) that the Education of the Handicapped Act of 1974 (EHA; renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] in 1990), as amended by the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, did not require that the special instruction and supportive services provided under the law by state governments to students with disabilities be designed to help them achieve their full potential as learners. It established the standard that it was sufficient that the instruction and services be such as “to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction.” The ruling marked the first time that the court had interpreted any portion of the EHA.

It is relatively easy to determine that a school correctly followed the procedural prong for special education.

It is more challenging to determine educational benefit… Is it meaningful benefit? is it minimal benefit? How do we measure benefit? How do we determine “progress” in special education? Because this second prong was more difficult to determine, there was most emphasis placed on the procedural prong.

7 of 44

Endrew F. (2017) �Standard for FAPE

The standard established by the Endrew F. case built on the Rowley substantive prong, setting a single standard for educational benefit:

“progress appropriate in light of a child’s unique circumstances.”

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1, 137 S. Ct. 988

7

8 of 44

��Endrew F. (2017) �Standard for FAPE�

Key Holdings

“every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives”
“adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created”

8

Endrew F. (2017) Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1, 137 S. Ct. 988

9 of 44

How does this Standard Apply to EBR?

The EBR Process is about whether a district/LEA is

“… able to offer a cogent and responsive explanation for their decisions that shows the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress in light of his circumstances…”

9

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1, 137 S. Ct. 988

Image from Redbubble.com

Presenter Notes

An EBR is a reflective process designed to help teams answer the substantive prong of the FAPE standard, was the design of a student’s IEP was reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit.

If a hearing officer were to ask a director or principal, how did you reach the opinion that this IEP was reasonably calculated to result in student progress… could he or she offer a cogent and reasoned explanation?

Is there good data (evidence) for the student’s progress?

The explanation should involve 4 key areas:

PLAAFP
Good solid assessments and baseline data in PLAAFP
Measurable goals linked to the documented needs and impact of disability
Progress monitoring data

The needs should match the goals and goals should link to services.

If there is no data, it is hard to ”prove“ substantive benefit or defend the design of an IEP.

10 of 44

Goals of the EBR Process

10

Goal 2 - Individual student reviews will assist the district to answer the question as to whether, as a whole, the system ensures exceptional students within the district are making progress and receiving an appropriate education.

Goal 1- Evaluate provision of FAPE to individual students in order to achieve improved outcomes and inform teams of needed changes in services for the student.

Presenter Notes:

A type of educational benefit review process such as this is being used increasingly in more states across the country.

One of the aspects that is most intriguing about how Kansas is choosing to use the EBR process is that it can support systems and provide data at two different levels.

Goal 1: The process helps a district not only determine if FAPE was provided (was the IEP “reasonably calculated to enable the student to make progress in light of his circumstances…”) but also identify what changes or adjustments may need to be considered for that student’s program.

Goal 2: More importantly, it can help provide helpful information about areas of strength and needs related to district/LEA IEP (i.e., information about the quality of IEP goals, district-wide improvements that need to be addressed regarding the way IEP’s are written). An EBR provides an opportunity for a district/LEA to systematically evaluate the special education services offered and use that information to improve practices and outcomes across the system – beyond the student level.

It is important to keep in mind this process focuses on what is documented in an IEP and progress reports, it doesn’t analyze or look at what was implemented for the student. It is also important districts/LEAs have a system to ensure effective implementation of IEPs and processes to assess whether there is fidelity of implementation within the system, however it would be apart from this review process.

11 of 44

Uses for an Educational Benefit Review

11

PD

Impact and build capacity as a professional development activity to improve the quality of IEP development.

Aid

Aid teams when a parent shares a concern about their child not making progress or progress has been limited for a student.

Support

Support the transition of a student from one environment to another

Prepare

Prepare individual IEP team for an annual IEP review.

Assist

Assist building/district/LEAs to collect data regarding the impact and quality of the IEP services being offered and implemented.

Identify

Identify areas of need related to policy, practice, and procedure.

Analyze

Analyze services across a district/LEA to discover strengths and needs.

Jodi, can you align the left boxes with the right boxes? (Note esp the Assist line – but maybe check them all)

Presenter Notes

Once district/LEA teams learn this process they will find a variety of different purposes for this process.

The EBR can be used to

Analyze services across a district/LEA to discover strengths and needs. From a district/LEA perspective, it is a tool that can be used at any time to self-analyze and look at the quality of IEP components (e.g., data or goal selection, quality, IEP connections, services, etc.).
Identify areas of need related to policy, practice, and procedure.
Assist buildings/districts/LEAs to collect data regarding the impact and quality of the IEP services being offered and implemented. The process could be a regular approach used to monitor IEPs and develop action plans for improvement.
Prepare an individual IEP team for an annual IEP review.
Support the transition of a student from one environment to another (i.e., early childhood to kindergarten, upper elementary to middle school, middle school to high school).
Aid teams when a parent shares a concern about their child not making progress or progress has been limited for a student.
Impact and build capacity as a professional development activity to improve the quality of IEP development. The EBR process could be useful for not only special educators, but also general educators – both teachers and administrators to help them understand and participate more fully in the development of an IEP. It could be used as training for new staff

This level of analysis allows participants to look at the IEP process differently… how the IEP flows and how the components connect, both within a single IEP and those same components over time for a student’s special education program.

12 of 44

Framework for the EBR Process

What (Insight)

So What (Impact)

Now What (Action)

12

Presenter Notes

The EBR process can be thought of a three phases.

What (Insight): First teams look at what has been documented to more deeply understand the plan for the student. By charting a student’s IEP information, it is organized to highlight the present levels of performance, needs, goals, programming, services, supports, and goal progress (Step 1). This is the “insight.”

So What (Impact): Next teams analyze each IEP to uncover the relationships between the IEP components to determine if they are aligned, connected, and address all identified needs. Teams then compare the IEP with prior IEP(s) to determine if decisions made were based on progress or lack of progress on goals. As a team they determine whether educational benefit was provided, using data evidence from the analysis (Steps 2, 3, & 4) This is the “impact.”

Now What (Action): Lastly, and most importantly, teams reflect on what they learned and identify important next steps at both the individual student and system level (Step 5). This is the “action.”

13 of 44

District/LEA Goals

Add district/LEA goal(s) here

14 of 44

The EBR Process

INSIGHT, IMPACT, ACTION

15 of 44

�EBR Logistics

Several EBR Teams of 4 to 6 individuals

Each EBR Team has a facilitator

IEP Sets (three-year consecutive cycle) with accompanying progress reports. Each team will review a different student’s IEP set.

15

16 of 44

Step 1

GATHERING IEP DATA FOR INSIGHT (What)

Chart a student’s IEP information within each year for present levels of performance, needs, goals, programming, services, supports, and goal progress.

17 of 44

Educational Benefit Review Chart for IEP #1, 2, or 3 (circle) Date of IEP____�Student ID _______________ Student Initials_____ Grade_____ Exceptionality____

17

Present Levels of Educational Performance by Curriculum Areas	Impact on Progress in Curriculum Area	Annual Goals and Benchmarks/ Objectives including Accom. & Mods	Service Delivery and Placement	Progress on Goals and Objectives


				Additional considerations/notes in the IEP?

Form 1

Presenter Notes:

Copies of forms and steps can be found in the Facilitator’s Guide. Form 1 is a blank chart that highlights the information teams will need to organize. Each of the three IEPs will be charted separately.

IEP charting considerations

Charting should be verbatim phrases/key information from IEP. Teams should not paraphrase or summarize taking care not to change the meaning of what has been documented
Organize by area section across the chart (e.g., academic, social, physical) or content areas (ELA, Math…) depending on how the IEP is written
Capture progress data from progress reports
When charting, it is helpful for team to use a single color. Later in the process, the teams will use different colors to highlight relationships and connections.

Team members should each have a handout packet with all forms to use as a reference. Step 1 will take a big chunk of the time during the EBR meeting, but the facilitator will want to ensure there is adequate time for the team discussions in later steps. Therefore, it will be important to keep the team focused and moving forward during this step. As teams look at the IEPs, there will be questions and connections they will want to discuss. Use the other considerations column to note any of these observations/questions, but let team know they will have an opportunity to dig deeper into them in later steps.

Information to be charted and questions to consider as this IEP review chart is completed

Column A - What were the present levels of academic and functional performance (PLAAFP) for the student? The PLAAFP should include good usable data (levels, scores, assessment results), including baseline for goal and progress reports. Does the PLAAFP identify all the student’s needs, including transition needs?

Column B - What is the impact of the needs on the student's progress in general curriculum? These are the prioritized needs that require specially designed instruction, and may also require accommodations and modifications.

Column C - What are the goals (or other supports) for each identified need? Do they align with the needs and impact?

Column D - What are the services and supports planned (including frequency and duration information) and the location of where they are they provided? These services should be selected to support progress toward the goals and progress in the general education curriculum standards as well as participation with non-disabled peers.

Column E - What does the data from IEP progress reports (PR) indicate? Use the most recent PRs available for the IEP reviewed, and document the data reported for as many quarters as available. This area is key in determining if student is receiving educational benefit. Note also that educational benefit can be measured in other ways, such as generalizing a skill successfully to enable student to move from more restrictive to less restrictive settings.

Additional Considerations/notes

On chart paper, this could be a 6^th column. Teams should make notes about the things they observe or questions they may have as they are charting (e.g., whether IEP was adjusted because goal was met or because progress was insufficient, if the records indicate student missed extensive days due to some factor). Note: this process can take time, so caution teams to document questions or observations but to wait for discussion until later in the process.

Examples

Was the IEP (goals, services, amount of time in general education, etc. ) adjusted from the previous year to assist the student to make progress on goals and in the general education curriculum? It should be noted that within a given year, some students will make progress on a goal, some will maintain or plateau, and others may even regress for various factors. The important issue is whether the IEP team took the status of progress into account for planning and responding, and then adjusted appropriately the IEP to develop a plan calculated to result in FAPE.
Does the succession of the goals make sense over time as student progresses (i.e., for students taking DLM, do goals move from distal to proximal as the student improves performance)?
What do reviewers observe about the amount of progress made within the IEP year, quality of goals and progress data provided, or other important observations?

Sample note

This is first of 3 IEPs reviewed, the student is making minimal progress after 3 quarters. However, case notes indicates student was in quarantine for 4 weeks over the course of first semester, and received remote sped support. Student did not participate for 6 of 20 sessions in special education. Team notes show discussion and decision to maintain current level of support to be provided onsite (student transported to school) for 3^rd 9 weeks.

18 of 44

Charting/Recording

Option A: Facilitator (or recorder) charts input and information on large wall chart as team provides it verbally, and facilitator leads review discussion and analysis.

Option B: Each team member reviews one IEP and will add/summarize the content onto a large sheet of paper posted on the wall during the review meeting prior to full review team discussion lead by facilitator.

Option C: Wall/electronic charts are prepopulated with IEP information for each of the three years or completed IEP review charts projected onto screen for team members to review and discuss together.

Jodi, I think the line spacing might be funky on this one.

Presenter Notes

Revise to include the specific process and options available to facilitators

There are a variety of ways the IEP information could be charted depending on the preference of the district. It is important for all team members to see the information as it is being charted. Charting could be done on chart paper, using a projection devise, and/or virtually (the following link is to an electronic version of Form A - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oTBk-UNIy72-ZI5i6M7FxQorATL5n90bkxO5zKXJRgU/edit?usp=sharing ).

Charting Options

Option A: Facilitator (or recorder) charts input and information on large wall chart or easel, as team provides it verbally, and facilitator leads review discussion and analysis.

Option B: Team members review different IEPs and will add/summarize the content onto a large sheet of paper posted on the wall during the review meeting prior to full review team discussion lead by facilitator.

Combination of A and B: Whole team reviews and charts the most current IEP together. Then teams are divided into groups to complete the other 2 IEPs separately prior to a full review team discussion lead by facilitator.

Option C: Wall/electronic charts are prepopulated with IEP information for each of the three years or completed IEP review charts are projected onto screen for team members to review and discuss together. If this is a team’s first EBR, it is highly recommended that the charting be done during the EBR meeting not prior to the meeting. While this part of the process takes time, teams have told us that it was an important part of their understanding and analysis. Pre-charting might be an option for teams that are familiar with the process when limited time is available.

19 of 44

Let’s Practice Step 1

20 of 44

Step 2

ANALYZING INFORMATION WITHIN EACH IEP: IMPACT (So What)

For each IEP, analyze the relationship between IEP components to determine if they are aligned, connected, and address all identified needs.

Confirm page number from Facilitator Guide once the Guide is final.

21 of 44

Teams Analyze the Relationships on Each Individual IEP

The facilitator queries the team to examine the relationships between information charted for each IEP.
Information that is connected is circled (use different color pen per subject area) and a line drawn between the information connected across columns.
Unconnected information (e.g., a need without a service) could be designated with a question mark or empty circle and requires further discussion by team.

21

Presenter Notes

Form B, IEP Data Chart

Teams begin by considering and collecting data from each IEP separately. Looking for connections and information that may be missing.

The facilitator queries the team to examine the relationships between information charted for each IEP.
Information that is connected is circled (use different color pen per subject area) and a line drawn between the information connected across columns.
Unconnected information (e.g., a need without a service) could be designated with a question mark or empty circle and requires further discussion by team.

Teams consider

Alignment within each COMPONENT of each IEP to determine if there are clear relationships between needs, goals, and services, or if there are possible gaps or broken chains across these elements.
Patterns that run across content areas
Quality of the information in each component (i.e., was there a standard phrase used for impact or was impact for each content area clearly described)
Was the IEP adjusted? Why or why not? Is the review team able to determine this?

22 of 44

Presenter Notes

Talk through at least one example. The remaining examples are optional and up to the presenter’s discretion. The first two examples are included on Form B.

Note: These are not perfect examples but are typical of what teams might see. The blue circles show how each component connects and aligns. If there is no connection, then the reviewer would draw an empty circle in that column. Reviewers use different colors to designate different academic or social emotional needs.

This is a literacy need identified in the present levels of the IEP - retelling the main idea of a story. In this example, the impact column does not appear to include information about the deficit in retelling. The PLAAFP contains no baseline data and the progress indicates the objective is met.

PLAAFP: Retelling includes main idea or problem, most significant events, and some details: generally organized and sequenced.
Impact:
Goals: Using 3^rd grade level text, the student will retell a story with main idea or problem, all significant events, and may include supporting details in proper sequence, achieving a DRA rubric score of 4.
Service: Reading (OS) 90 minutes per week.
Progress: DRA retelling score = 4.

Note: This example was pulled from the national RB training ppt for April 2021

23 of 44

Presenter Notes

This slide is optional

This is the same student, and the team used a different color for a different need. This sample is showing that the student has a deficit in reading.

PLAAFP: The data includes a Woodcock achievement score in word attack (which cannot be used to assess goal progress quarterly), the DRA (Diagnostic Reading Assessment), and a Correct Words Per Minute (CWPM) fluency probe. These scores support the specific area of word attack as need (baseline at 12^th percentile, beginning 2^nd grade level for DRA, and CWPM at 10^th percentile).
Impact: this deficit in word attack impacts the student’s ability to read grade level text
Goals: Selected are to apply phonics skills to decode, and to accurately identify consonant clusters. A peer assisted accommodation for reading is to be provided.
Services and placement: Include daily classroom support for 90 minutes in reading with inclusion reading support in social studies and science, and with additional pullout reading instruction weekly for 90 minutes. (Additional detail including the specific specialized instruction description can be very helpful in the IEP and may also be present in some IEPs.)
Progress: Reported on the DRA and reading probes including CWPM.

Note: This example was pulled from the national RB training ppt for April 2021

24 of 44

25 of 44

26 of 44

Let’s Practice Step 2

27 of 44

Step 3

ANALYZING INFORMATION ACROSS IEPS: IMPACT (So What)

Compare most current IEP with prior IEPs to analyze the relationship between IEPs, looking for alignment and connections. Determine if decisions made were based on progress or lack of progress on goals.

Confirm page number from Facilitator Guide once the Guide is final.

28 of 44

�Team Compares Relationships Across IEPs

Facilitator queries team to determine relationships between IEP components across three consecutive years.
One purpose of the year-to-year comparison is to establish if the following increased, decreased, or stayed the same:

Student’s level of performance and need (PLAAFP & data)
Student’s goals (and goal complexity)
Student’s services, supplementary aids, accommodations, modifications, and time in general education
Progress report data

28

29 of 44

Presenter Notes

This is an example of one curricular area across three IEPs. IEP #3 is the most current. IEP #1 is first grade. Highlight or have the Director highlight some of the things that stand out looking across time at these goals.

IEP #1 - (1^stgrade) The baseline does not match the measurement of the goals. The impact statement does not explain the impact. No progress information available in documentation.

IEP #2 - (2^nd grade) It is unclear whether progress was made between IEP #1 and #2, instructional focus remains the same. No baseline measurement in PLAAFP, no changes made to services. Little progress was made during year #2.

IEP #3 - (3^rd grade) Even though there is little information about progress and progress reports from IEP #2 indicates little progress was made, the instructional focus has shifted to decoding words. Baseline and goal measurement do not match, change in services to more pull out and less in class support.

Based on this documentation

It is unclear whether the student’s present levels have changed significantly.
Little information about changes to instruction documented.
Measurement of goals and baseline missing.
Unclear how more pull out services will impact instruction.
Impact statement does not describe ways in which the student’s lack of decoding skills is impacting the student academically.

Google Doc version https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WOempC1TZZV7RAEsLRJwUWj5yrrn_6IyFVRY9Fpes14/edit?usp=sharing

30 of 44

Form 3

Jodi, insert edited/final Form 3 here, please.

31 of 44

Let’s Practice Step 3

32 of 44

Presenter Notes

This is an optional slide.

This is an example of one curricular area across three IEPs. IEP #3 is the most current. IEP #1 is Kindergarten. Highlight or have the Director highlight what stands out when looking across time at these goals.

IEP #1 - (K) Does not describe impact. No progress data available in documentation.

IEP #2 – (1^stgrade) Link to previous goal is unclear. No description of impact. No progress data is available.

IEP #3 – (2^nd grade) Link from previous IEP unclear. Impact statement has changed, but not highly descriptive. Increase in pull out services.

Based on this documentation

Unclear whether identify and count are the same or different skills
Baseline measures do relate to goal measurement
No progress information, unclear how much progress the student has made
Impact statement does not describe ways in which the the student’s math abilities are impacting them academically
Unclear why there was an increase in pull out special education services

Google Doc version https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WOempC1TZZV7RAEsLRJwUWj5yrrn_6IyFVRY9Fpes14/edit?usp=sharing

33 of 44

Step 4

ANALYZING EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT:

IMPACT (So What)

Team decides whether the most current IEP was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit

Confirm page number from Facilitator Guide once the Guide is final.

34 of 44

Conclusion of Team Analysis: Educational Benefit

Using the data and analysis from the EBR Process for each student, the teams compare the current IEP to the prior two IEPs and provide overall opinions as to whether the student’s current IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit – to make progress in light of his/her unique circumstances.

34

Presenter Notes

Form 4, EBR Process Step 4: Analyzing Educational Benefit includes these questions.

Does the team believe the student received FAPE?
If yes, what were the data points/documentation that led to that conclusion?
If no, what were the data points/documentation, or factors, that led to that conclusion?

Consider and discuss…

What does team believe FAPE is for this student?
Does the data reviewed indicate the student’s IEPs are reasonably calculated to provide FAPE?
What is the evidence that the IEPs were reasonably calculated to result in FAPE benefit? Examples might include the following:

a. assessed needs, quality goals, and specially designed supports and services are aligned within the IEP

b. multiple adjustments were considered, documented, and implemented if little/no goal progress was observed, or if goals met

c. IEP documents increase with regard to student’s progress on goals, complexity of goals, increased time with general education peers, or other factors appropriate to the individual needs of the student

35 of 44

Jodi, insert edited/final Form 4 here, please.

36 of 44

Step 5

Whole Group �Reflection and System Analysis: Action (Now What)

All teams come together to reflect on what they learned and identify important recommendations at both the individual student and system level.

37 of 44

��All Teams Come Together for System Analysis and Reflection at the

Student level
Team member level
System level

37

Presenter Notes

This portion of the EBR will include all teams, not an individual team groups and is not facilitated by the team facilitator. This is a district/LEA leader or TA facilitator led discussion.

Handout 5 “EBR Participant Reflection Form” provides a place for individual reflection.

It is important to note that the group can think at the system level with just a few or even one student, however they might need to gather more data to confirm systems-level reflections before acting on those.

Student level

What strengths or quality components did we see in the IEPs?
What, if any, adjustments or revisions need to be made to this student’s program?
What was the specially designed instruction this student received?
What questions would I have for the team who drafted the IEP?
Additional questions/comments

Team member level

What is one thing I can do or think about differently at the next IEP meeting I participate in?
Additional questions/comments

System level

What are specific practices to continue?
What practices need to be added (in our system) to improve alignment of IEP development?
What areas of our IEPs need to be specifically addressed for improvement?
What should be our next steps?
Think about how these reviews may apply to current district practices and policy. In what areas may we need to make district practice changes or provide PD. For example, does our district allow amendments and if so, what is the process to adjust an IEP within the annal cycle? If a student is not making progress, is the team required to address it, and what is the process?

38 of 44

Sample EBR Meeting Agenda – 3 hours

12:30 pm Overview of EBR Whole Group (15 min)
12:45 pm Step 1, Charting IEP Information (1 hour)
1:15 pm Step 2, Analyzing Information within each IEP (35 min)
1:50 pm Step 3, Analyzing Information across IEPs (30 min)
2:20 pm Step 4, Analyzing Educational Benefit (30 min)
2:50 pm Whole Group Reflection (40 min)
3:30 pm Closing

39 of 44

Sample EBR Meeting Agenda – 4 hours

8:00 am Overview of EBR Whole Group (30 min)
8:30 am Step 1, Charting IEP Information (1 hour)
9:30 am Step 2, Analyzing Information within each IEP (40 min)
10:10 am Step 3, Analyzing Information across IEPs (30 min)
10:40 am Step 4, Analyzing Educational Benefit (30 min)
11:10 am Whole Group Reflection (50 min)
12:00 pm Closing

40 of 44

Sample EBR Meeting Agenda – 6 hours

AM

9:00 - Overview of EBR Whole Group and group practice (1 hr.)
10:00 - Step 1 Charting IEP Information (1.5 hour)
10:30 - Step 2 Analyzing Information within each IEP (45 min.)
11:15 - Step 3 Analyzing Information across IEPs (30 min.)

PM
11:45 - Lunch
12:45 - Step 4 Analyzing Educational Benefit (1 hr.)
1:45 – Break
2:00 - Whole Group Reflection and action planning (1 hr.)
3:00 - Closing

41 of 44

Questions? �

42 of 44

Resources and References

KSDE. (2017). Considerations for specially designed instruction. Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE). https://www.ksde.org/Portals/0/SES/pubs/ConsiderationsForSpeciallyDesignedInstruction.pdf

Mearman, K. A. (2015). Educational benefit review process: A reflective process to examine the quality of IEPs. State Education Resource Center of Connecticut (SERC). https://ctserc.org/documents/news/2013-11-20-serc-edbenefit.pdf

NCSI. (2021). Fast five: Five questions answered about Educational Benefit Review. National Center for Systemic Improvement (NCSI). https://ncsi-library.wested.org/resources/738

43 of 44

Resources and References

Parent Network. (2021). Educational benefit review: IEP toolkit. https://www.matrixparents.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/IEP_Toolkit_02_Ed_Bene_Review_4.12.2021_ENG.pdf

PaTTAN. (2019). Education leader: Educational Benefit Review (EBR). Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network. https://www.pattan.net/CMSPages/GetAmazonFile.aspx?path=~%5Cpattan%5Cmedia%5Cmaterials%5Cpublications%5Cfiles%5Cldr-2-1-edbenrev-8-28-19wba.pdf&hash=c7c2e018119b484f1c47fde7157024dfecaa8a475e4a59e9f3b447b7bbcd86c4&ext=.pdf

44 of 44

THANK YOU

In closing, we would like to thank all of the states that have been engaged in this process for many years and who have paved the way for other states exploring this area. We adapted the content and materials in this training after reviewing the educational benefit review processes used in California, Connecticut, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania. We also thank the National Center for Systemic Improvement for the training and materials shared. We appreciate the work that has come before us!