ESY Helps Students Who Struggle to Maintain Skills and Access FAPE

A Brief Overview

  • Extended School Year (ESY) services help a student with a disability maintain skills in academic and/or functional areas, such as speech/language, occupational therapy, or behavior.
  • The team that administers the Individualized Education Program (IEP) determines what is needed for a student in special education to receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), and ESY might be needed to deliver FAPE.
  • ESY is provided when school is not normally in session. Typically, it’s provided during summer; ESY also can be provided during holiday breaks or as an extension of the typical school day.
  • Any student eligible to receive special education and related services may be eligible for ESY. The need for services is determined through evaluation.
  • Parents can keep notes about any loss of skill during a break from school. By tracking how long it takes to recover a skill, parents can provide data for a discussion about whether ESY is needed.
  • ESY services are provided at no cost to the family.
  • Districts may contract with a nearby district or private provider to support an eligible student.
  • Read on for more detail about what may qualify a student for ESY.

Full Article

With summer coming, some parents worry that a child’s progress at school might be erased by the break. Parents can request a meeting with the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team to review progress. The team uses existing data and can plan additional evaluations to decide whether the student needs extra instructional time. The student might need supplemental instruction in an academic subject or to maintain a skill in speech/language, occupational therapy, behavior or another area being served through the IEP.

The critical question for the IEP team: Will learning that occurred during the regular school year be significantly jeopardized if ESY services are not provided?

Extended School Year (ESY) is available for students in special education if there is evidence that without extra instruction they will fall significantly behind in specific skills. Falling behind is formally called regression. Recovery of those skills is called recoupment. A school will provide ESY if regression or likelihood of regression is significant and extra instructional time is needed for recoupment of skills. ESY services help a child maintain skills already being taught and are not provided to teach new skills.

Families often think of ESY as a summer program, but it’s not the same as summer school. ESY is provided when school is not normally in session. ESY also can be provided during holiday breaks or as an extension of the typical school day. A summer-school program can be structured to accommodate a student’s individualized ESY program.

Conversations about ESY can happen any time the IEP team meets to discuss progress and goal-setting. If ESY is determined necessary, the IEP document includes an amendment with specific ESY objectives. When an IEP team determines a child eligible for ESY, the school district alerts parents in a Prior Written Notice (PWN) before implementing ESY. If transportation is needed for delivery of ESY services, the district provides transportation.

ESY is not an enrichment program. It is not provided for credit recovery. It is also not a “compensatory service,” which is provided by the district when a student’s services have not met requirements for a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

A student who qualifies for special education services is protected by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The student is entitled to FAPE, and the school district is responsible for providing FAPE. Nearly every discussion about services relates to FAPE and what is needed to make a student’s individualized program appropriate. PAVE has an article about IDEA with more information about FAPE and other foundational principles in special education.

Each state administers the IDEA with its own more specific policies and guidelines. The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) includes detail about ESY in sections 392-172A-02020.

ESY services might include 1:1 instruction at home, at school or at a district office. A student could also receive ESY as part of “related services” at a provider’s office. (Occupational and speech therapy are examples of related services.) Computer- and home-based learning are additional ESY options. Like all IEP programming, ESY is individualized. Service delivery is designed by the IEP team, and sometimes creative problem-solving is needed.

If the IEP includes ESY services and the family moves during the summer, the new school district is responsible to provide the services as they are designed in the IEP or in a comparable way.

Who is eligible for ESY?

The IEP team decides whether a student requires ESY services by meeting to review the student’s progress toward IEP goals. PAVE has an article about goal-tracking. Parents or teachers may have notes about any loss of skill during a past break from school. By making notes about how long it takes to recover a skill after a break, parents can contribute important data. Sharing that information earlier in the school year is ideal, so there is ample time for a review of data and any additional testing. Attendance information also is helpful because some disabilities create illness conditions that keep a child out of school long enough to fall significantly behind.

The school and family discuss whether the lost skills and extra time required to regain them is likely to create a significant barrier to progress toward IEP goals and learning in the future. This will justify whether recoupment is required to reverse or prevent regression.

The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) has an article about ESY and lists the following as evidence that a school might consider:

  • Documented problems with working memory from assessments
  • Demonstrated need for constant reinforcement over time, even during the regular instructional day/year
  • History from a previous year of losing skills and struggling to regain them after a school break
  • Need for constant reinforcement of a behavior support program when a student is at risk of being moved to a more restrictive environment without substantial progress around behavior

What does LRE have to do with ESY?

Special Education has Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) as a primary feature. In accordance with the IDEA, a school district is responsible to provide instruction in the least restrictive setting to the maximum extent appropriate.

Accommodations and supports are provided to allow for LRE. Therefore, LRE is part of the school’s obligation to FAPE (see definition above). For some students, routine is paramount. Parents and teachers can discuss whether a break in routine might jeopardize the student’s ability to remain in the current classroom/placement. If yes, then ESY might be needed for the student to continue accessing school in the Least Restrictive Environment.

Parent participation is also a foundational principle of the IDEA. Parents who disagree with school decisions have the right to dispute those decisions. PAVE has an article about Procedural Safeguards and options when families and schools disagree.

Which students might be eligible for ESY?

ESY is not mandated for all students with disabilities and is not required for the convenience of the school or a parent who might need respite or daycare. There are no federal regulations on ESY eligibility. DREDF, a parent-information center in Berkeley, Calif., lists standards established by a range of legal rulings:  

  • Regression/Recoupment: Likelihood of regression or anticipating that it will take a long time to get a skill back can make a child eligible for ESY. A student doesn’t have to fully lose a skill or experience a long delay in recovering the skill to qualify.
  • Degree of Progress toward IEP Goals: Very slow progress toward IEP goals can meet criteria for ESY. Trivial progress toward goals does not meet the standard of FAPE, as established by a 2017 supreme court ruling.
  • Nature and/or Severity of Disability: Determination is not limited to a specific category of disability. However, students with more severe disabilities are more likely to be involved in ESY programs because their regression and recoupment time are likely to be greater than students with less severe disabilities.
  • Emerging Skills/Breakthrough Opportunities: If a critical life skill is not completely mastered or acquired, ESY services may ensure that the current level of skill is not lost over a break. A few examples of critical life skills: beginning to communicate, learning to read or write, self-care. 
  • Interfering Behaviors: Some students receive positive behavior support as part of the IEP. When considering ESY, the IEP team would determine whether interruption of such programming would jeopardize the student receiving FAPE.
  • Special Circumstances: Sometimes there are special circumstances that prevent a student from learning within the regular school schedule. Districts have different definitions of what constitutes a special circumstance. Parents can ask for a copy of district policy and refer to WAC 392-172A-02020.

No sole factor determines whether a student qualifies for ESY. IEP teams review a variety of data, including informed predictions about what is likely to happen in future based on past experiences. A student who has received ESY in a previous year is not automatically entitled to those services again, and a student who wasn’t eligible in the past is not automatically denied.

Summary and Additional Resources

Some students require special education and related services longer than the regular school year in order to receive FAPE. ESY can minimize regression, so a child can catch up or recoup those skills. Parents who have concerns can discuss eligibility criteria with the IEP team. The sooner ESY is discussed, the sooner data can be collected and reviewed. Parent may need time to consider all options and to collaborate with the school.

As part of its Model Forms, the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) provides a downloadable document that IEP teams can fill out and attach to the IEP when a student qualifies for ESY services. To access the PDF directly: Extended School Year (ESY) addendum.

A website called Great Schools.org provides additional information about ESY and downloadable forms about IDEA requirements.

Wrightslaw.com provides information about the IDEA and legal findings on a variety of topics.

I want the kind with the people and the pictures

By John O’Brien

After a Difficult Start…

Institutionalized from age three to twenty-three in a place where “they treated us like animals”– Mike has composed a good life, taking many valued roles: husband, father, worker, home owner, friend, organizer, advocate, mentor, teacher, neighbor.[1] Anticipating the changes that come with aging, Mike requested funding for a person-centered plan from his case manager (a service option in his state). The case manager said that it was unnecessary for him to spend any of his budget on a plan because a new Federal Rule requires that Mike’s annual plan of care meeting be a person-centered plan. Mike, who has participated in many person-centered plans organized through self-advocacy, asked some questions about the required plan and concluded, “I still want the kind with the people and the pictures.”

Regulations that require a person-centered plan as a condition of receiving Medicaid Waiver funds introduce a distinction between Want-to-plans and Have-to-plans. Each can make a positive contribution; both must creatively respond to constraints. A good Want-to-plan supports discovery of possibilities and life direction and mobilizes a person’s allies at important moments in their lives. A good Have-to plan gives a person effective control of the Medicaid waiver funded assistance they rely on. Committed and skilled facilitators with the time necessary to prepare and follow-up make a difference to the impact of both kinds of plan. How well either process works for a person depends on conditions outside the planning process: the extent, diversity and resourcefulness of the person’s social network; the openness of the person’s community; the flexibility and responsiveness of providers of necessary assistance; the sufficiency of public funds for necessary assistance and the means for people to control those funds. Good plans will identify the current reality of these conditions and consider how to engage them.

Mike’s is a want-to-plan. At his initiative, he and his invited allies (the people) collaborate to create a customized process to address his desire to deal proactively with the new responsibilities and increasing impairments that show up with aging. Mike chose Michele, an experienced facilitator, to guide the process. Their agreement makes it clear that Michele is responsible for facilitating a process of change over time, not just a meeting.[1] A graphic record (the pictures), created by Alex, provides an energizing memory of what emerges, a way to track and update action plans, and a way to orient new people to Mike’s intentions.[2] Occasional check-ins and revisions guide continuing action. One-to-one meetings assist Mike in sorting through all the suggestions and offers of help he receives to assure a good fit with who he is. Mike will bring some the information generated by this work to inform the required annual person-centered support plan, but his Want-to-Plan does not substitute for it.

Mike’s experience unfolds under highly favorable conditions for any person-centered plan. He has a strong desire to assure his wife and himself the best possible old age. Reciprocity for decades of generous neighborliness, concern for co-workers and leadership in advocacy give him a diverse network to call on. He is not inhibited in asking for help when he needs it. The help he needs is largely with navigating the unfamiliar territory of selling and buying property and preparing wills and other necessary documents and demands no change in his current paid services. Hard work and careful management has accumulated equity in family home. Many Want-to-plans will need to include provision for strengthening or establishing the social and material conditions for moving toward a desirable future.

Want-to-plans can also originate in a person’s positive response to an invitation to join a process of organizational change. This sort of plan poses a challenge that an organization must stretch its capacities to meet.

Have-to-plans are a necessary step in determining expenditure of Medicaid funds on services to meet the assessed needs of eligible people. They are the final responsibility of system staff assigned to coordinate services. While the process can vary to accommodate a person’s preferences, the process and resulting plan must comply with detailed standards. The New York OPWDD Person Centered Planning Regulation Checklist enumerates 23 requirements, 21 of which track US Federal Regulations.[3]

Have-to-plans serve a worthy purpose. The rules set conditions for the person to direct the meeting, understand the results and assure that the person-centered service plan documents the person’s needs strengths, preferences, goals and appropriate services.

This checklist item, based on a Federal requirement, identifies the intended result of Have-to plans:

2‐5. The plan documents the necessary and appropriate services and supports that are based on the individual’s preferences and needs and which will assist the person to achieve his/her identified goals. [Complies with CFR 441.301©(2)(v)]

This form of words sets Have-to-plans in the context of publicly funded disability services. Offering increased influence on which available provider(s) will serve a person and how those services will be of assistance is a clear benefit of Have-to-plans when there is a real choice among providers with a capacity to individualize supports.

This standard also locates a tension that constrains Have-to-plans as two impulses struggle with each other within the same sentence. One impulse, energized by commitment to self direction and the development of people’s strengths, expresses the life a person wants to live and the supports that they prefer to live that life. The other, tied to the historical anomaly of funding US disability support as if it were a medical service, aims to select necessary and appropriate services that are clearly linked to professionally assessed need. State policy can bias the struggle toward one impulse or the other. In some states[1] the person centered plan is bracketed between an assessment of need that involves an extensive inventory of a person’s deficiencies and writing an Individualized Service Plan (ISP) that must demonstrate a direct connection between assessed need and specified services and avoid public funding of “wants” or “lifestyle choices”. Without the skillful facilitation of an intentional shift in perspective, a Have-to-plan will be primed by a focus on deficiencies and develop within unconscious boundaries set by judgements of what can realistically be funded.

A Want-to-plan can safeguard a Have-to-plan. A person and those who care can choose to create a space outside the world of disability services for conversation about a person’s identity, gifts and capacities and the circumstances that offer the best life chances. Often, as with Mike, some action will result from this conversation that requires no change in publicly funded services. When the sort of changes in services that require a Have-to-plan are necessary, a person and their allies have a foundation for negotiating what they need from publicly funded services.

____________________________________________________

[1] See for example, NJ Division of Developmental Disabilities (March 2016). Supports Program Policies & Procedures Manual (Version 3.0).

[1] Other agreements might suit other circumstances. A different person might agree to fill the necessary follow up role.

[2] Denigrating graphic records has become a cliche criticism of person-centered planning (“people have colorful pictures on their walls but their lives are unchanged”). Lack of commitment or capacity for creative action seem to me more likely causes of inaction than a vivid record of people’s thinking does.

[3] http://www.opwdd.ny.gov/sites/default/files/documents/PCPChecklist.pdfThe 22nd standard, specific to New York, defines a person-centered planning process as a right and requires written notice of that right. The 23d assures that all relevant attachments are filed with the plan. The rule itself, Medicaid Program; State Plan Home and Community-Based Services, 5-Year Period for Waivers, Provider Payment

Reassignment, and Home and Community-Based Setting Requirements for Community First Choice (Section 1915(k) of the Act) and Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) Waivers (Section 1915(c) of the Act), was published in the Federal Register on January 16, 2014.

[1] You can view Mike’s witness to growing up in an institution and a snapshot of his life today in this 2015 TV investigation into his state’s continuing operation of institutions: http://www.king5.com/news/local/ investigations/wash-decades-behind-in-serving-developmentally-disabled-1/48265785

 

Get SMART About Tracking Progress and Updating Goals with Your IEP Team

Holiday break is a good time to check on your student’s progress in school. You can take another look at the Individualized Education Program (IEP) and compare the goals to current progress. If you don’t have a current progress reports on IEP goals, mid-year is a good time to ask school staff to provide them.

If you don’t believe the student’s progress is on track, you can request an IEP team meeting to discuss the program and what might need to change. If you request an IEP meeting that isn’t a required annual review, you can formalize your request with a letter that describes your reason. Concern about progress toward goals might be why you want to meet. PAVE has a letter template to help with your written request.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that schools provide students who are eligible for special education services with access to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The Supreme Court  in 2017 determined that in order to meet the requirements of FAPE, schools must provide students with opportunities to make meaningful progress toward IEP goals. Schools also must provide clear explanation for their decisions about services, according to federal standards.

An acronym that can help you determine whether the annual goals in your student’s IEP are appropriately robust is SMART. PAVE provides a handout to help you use this acronym when participating in the IEP process.

S = Specific

M = Measurable

A = Achievable

R = Relevant

T = Time-Bound

Goals are based on educational evaluations, which determine where a student is strong and needs more help. The data from an evaluation will help the IEP team write statements called Present Levels of Performance (PLOP), and these statements form the basis for goal-setting and program design.

As you review goals you might think about your student’s placement—the locations where education is provided. The IDEA requires students receive education in the Least Restrictive Environment to the maximum extent appropriate. A student’s lack of progress might be related to where the student is placed. This could be a topic for the IEP team to discuss when goals are reviewed.

The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), which oversees all school districts in Washington State, provides a variety of “model forms,” guidance documents for schools and families, including a downloadable “Parent Input Form” that can help you makes notes to share with the IEP team.

For additional resources about IEP goals, you can visit the following websites:

Parent Center Hub.org

Understood.org

IEP Goal Tracker from Understood.org

OSPI Special Education Guidance for Families

 

SMART Goals

In general, goals:

  • Are required as part of the Individualized Education Program (IEP)
  • Are designed to help a student make meaningful progress in light of the circumstances
  • Encourage a student’s progress toward grade-level standards and participation with peers
  • May focus on academics, Social Emotional Learning or skills for everyday living, called Functional Skills

Present Levels of Performance (PLOP): Goals flop without good PLOP!

Not every school uses the term PLOP, but this acronym refers to the part of the IEP where a student’s achievements and challenges are described. A lot of this information comes from evaluation, but parents, teachers and providers can add information. The goals get built from this information, so it’s important. We need to know where we are to figure out where we’re going!

This section of the IEP describe what’s going on with the student in specific areas: cognitive, adaptive, and developmental/functional. The statements include two required elements, dependent on the age of a child.

  • How the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and progress in general education​
  • For preschoolers, how the disability affects the child’s participation in appropriate activities within the natural environment​

These statements impact a child’s placement and how “Least Restrictive Environment is provided to the maximum extent appropriate,” as it’s written in special education law.

Parents can make sure that the strengths and interests of a child are described. Knowing how to teach skills and encourage growth based on a child’s natural talents and curiosity sets up an important collaboration between the child and the team and can inspire everyone toward progress!  ​

Determine whether the IEP Goals are SMART:

S             Specific … Is the targeted skill clearly named or described? How will it be taught?

M          Measurable… How will progress toward the goal be observed or measured? 

A            Achievable… Is this goal realistic for the student, considering current abilities?

R            Relevant… Is the skill something that is useful and necessary for the student’s success in school and life?

T             Time-Bound… What specific date is set to determine whether the goal is met?

What is Person Centered Planning?

What it is?

Person Centered Planning is a process focused on celebrating the gifts, talents, and dreams of a person, and on helping that person develop action steps to move closer to their dreams and goals. It involves 4-5 gatherings, usually in the person’s home, where friends, family, and others chosen by the family, brainstorm together about how to enrich the life of the person with special needs.

Gatherings are facilitated by people who listen, ask questions and draw pictures
and words that represent the desires of the focus person.

What makes it special?

Person Centered Planning is deeply personal. It is done specifically to listen to a person’s feelings and goals without judgment. It is done in a sensitive way that truly honors who that person is; Person Centered Planning explores all life domains, and future dreams. It is done to empower a person and his or her family to develop action steps that will support that focus person, and enrich his or her relationships.

How you can find out more about person-centered planning?

Workshops are sponsored yearly by Parent to Parent and local school districts. Anyone is welcome to attend. At the workshops, young people and adults who have experienced Person Centered Planning share their experiences about how
Person Centered Planning has affected their lives.

For more information about workshops, or to learn more about how you can develop a Person Centered Plan for yourself or a loved one,
please call Michele Lehosky 253-565-2266; mlehosky@wapave.org

Sponsored by Pierce County Parent to Parent in partnership with PAVE,
Peninsula, Franklin Pierce and Clover Park, School Districts.