Extended School Year (ESY)
The start of the school year can be the time to schedule those meetings with your schools to discuss ESY. Do not let the schools jump past the ESY portion in your IEP meeting and merely tell you your child doesn’t qualify (no regression), so no need for ESY. Regression is NOT the only requirement for ESY, I’ve bolded important information below.
From The Late Talker book
“Many children with severe speech impairments regress without continued therapy, so make sure your child gets enrolled in the Extended School Year (ESY) program, especially for the long summer break. ESY services must be considered at the annual IEP meeting and documented in the IEP. The ESY also has to be the same as what your child receives during the regular school year. For example, if he normally has a ten hour a week schedule, his ESY should also be for ten hours a week.”
The Late Talker book 2003 Agin, Geng, Nicholl
EXTENDED SCHOOL YEAR (ESY) IS:
- Based only on the individual student’s specific critical skills that are critical to his/her overall educational progress as determined by the IEP committee.
- Designed to maintain student mastery of critical skills and objectives represented on the IEP and achieved during the regular school year.
- Designed to maintain a reasonable readiness to begin the next year.
- Based on multi-criteria and not solely on regression.
- Considered as a strategy for minimizing the regression of skill, thus shortening the time needed to gain back the same level of skill proficiency that existed at the end of the school year.
- Deliverable in a variety of environments and structures such as:
- (a) Home with the parent teaching, and staff consulting
(b) School based
(c) School based with community activities
(d) Related services alone or in tandem with the above.
EXTENDED SCHOOL YEAR (ESY) IS NOT:
- It is not a mandated 12-months service for all students with disabilities.
- It is not required for the convenience of the school or parents and, therefore, cannot serve as a day care or respite care service.
- It is not required or intended to maximize educational opportunities for any student with disabilities.
- It is not necessary to continue instruction on all of the previous year’s IEP goals during the ESY period; rather, the focus should be on those specific, critical skills where regression, due to an extended vacation period, may occur.
- It is not to be considered to help students with disabilities advance in relation to their peers.
- It is not for those students with disabilities who exhibit regression, which is solely related to medical problems resulting in degeneration, or transitional life situations such as divorce or death of a family member. This type of regression is not due to the interruption of summer vacation.
- It is not required solely when a child fails to achieve IEP goals and objectives during the school year.
- It is not to provide a child with education beyond that is prescribed in his/her IEP goals and objectives.
EXTENDED SCHOOL YEAR (ESY) STANDARDS
Legal Basis
The principle that each student with a disability is entitled to an individually designed education was established in a series of court cases that led to the adaptation, in 1975, of the federal law now known as IDEA. A subsequent series of court cases and policy clarifications established that providing special education services beyond the usual school year is a part of the guarantee of the free, appropriate public education (FAPE) clause of the IDEA. These decisions have prescribed the basic requirements for ESY program eligibility and defined some related ESY elements, such as the length and type of the ESY program, and funding matters, including transportation. In addition, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Education ruled that even students regarded as disabled under Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, and not eligible for services under IDEA, have to be considered for ESY services. A letter of finding, issued by OCR regarding the Baltimore city public schools, states that “Section 504 regulations require that the individual needs of every child be examined, considered, and met. While 180 days of school may be adequate for some handicapped students, it may not be adequate for others…”.
Eligibility for ESY services at no cost to parents is determined by the child’s Individual Education Program (IEP) team. This IEP team must consider, as appropriate, whether a child needs extended school year services in order to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Clearly, this determination must be done on an individual basis.
The program of ESY as part of the IEP is not simply an extension of time in school, nor is it required for every student. Nevertheless, it is the function of the school district to evaluate the need for ESY services correctly and fairly. This issue is made more difficult by the fact that there are no comprehensive eligibility criteria in the law, and only general standards have been mentioned by the courts for including ESY in the student’s program.” Read more.
Information from Carol Sadler Special Education Consultant/Advocate
Also, don’t let the school tell you ESY is traditional summer school, it is not, although it can be if it is appropriate to meet the child’s IEP goals.
I often use ESY services to negotiate additional services for children where the school has “Failed to Identify”, appropriately remediate a child’s learning problem, and/or failed to provide identified spec. ed. support or related services. I’ve used it to give the school one more chance to teach a child to read or to teach a child appropriate social skills, before pulling out and privately placing the child at public expense. The school system can pay for traditional summer school classes as ESY services for instance, if a school failed to identify a child with a disability, and the child failed the first semester of High School, and now needs to make up courses during Summer School.
Extended School Year can look at many things. Don’t let the schools tell you no automatically, and don’t let them tell you it is only for the severely disabled. NOT TRUE! Talk with an advocate, attorney, or disability organization to find out more information.
Carol Sadler
Special Education Consultant/Advocate
GA Advocacy Office PLSP I Graduate
770-442-8357
1105 Rock Pointe Look
Woodstock, GA 30188
http://iepadvocate4you.blogspot.com/
Extended School Year (ESY)
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations require that ESY services be considered annually for every child with a disability.An ESY Program of services in the summer or weekends must be provided if needed to make a student’s education program appropriate. “Under the law, a school district may not limit ESY services for children with particular categories of disabilities, and may not limit the type, amount or duration of ESY.” (Ed Law Center – PA)
A school system cannot use a “lack of available funds” argument to deny ESY services to a child with a disability.School districts must look at issues beyond regression or recoupment when determining ESY eligibility.
ESY is NOT traditional summer school, but rather an extension of an individual child’s education plan!
The following is a summary of judicial decisions regarding ESY.
Extended School Year
by Rose Kraft
Since the precedent for extended school year programming was set in the Armstrong v. Kline case in Philadelphia, in a large number of instances the courts have been asked to determine the eligibility of individual children for extended school year services. This summary looks at the judicial decisions that have been rendered regarding this issue.
Judges and lawmakers have made significant decisions during the last 20 years, which define extended school year (ESY) services for children with disabilities. Several district court cases, beginning with Armstrong v. Kline (1979) and culminating with Reusch v. Fountain (1994), shaped the current federal regulations. For the first time in the history of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), these regulations require that ESY services be considered annually for every child with a disability. Each team that develops an individual education plan (IEP) for a child must decide if ESY services are necessary so that the child can avoid regression, a lengthy recoupment of lost skills, or other difficulties that could interfere with the education plan.
The first significant case in this arena was the Armstrong case, in which the judge ruled that a mandated 180-day school year violated a child’s right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE), specifically in reference to children with severe and profound impairments or severe emotional disturbances. The court stated that, “By its terms, the Act (meaning the Education for All Handicapped Children Act) appears to demand that the state supply instruction designed to meet all of the handicapped child’s “unique needs” without limitation.” The court also required state and local school districts “to provide an education to handicapped children in excess of 180 days,” as determined by each child’s needs.
This case defined that a school system’s goal for these severely affected children should be self-sufficiency, which could require providing more than the same 180 days to disabled children that is provided to nondisabled children. This case was upheld on appeal by the circuit court, which agreed that, “For some, but not all, SPI and SED children, standing in the way of the attainment of some of these objectives (for self-sufficiency) is the effect of breaks in the educational program which are created, at least in part, by the 180 day rule.” The court also noted that recoupment time for lost skills is “usually much greater” for children with disabilities.
Once the courts ordered state and local school systems to provide more than 180 days of school per year to some children with disabilities, families across the nation began taking their school systems to court. In Stacey G.v. Pasadena Independent School District (1982), a 12-month program without major breaks was ruled necessary for a child with autism and severe mental retardation. In Georgia Association for Retarded Citizens v. McDaniel (1983), the court ruled that a school system cannot use a “lack of available funds” argument to deny ESY services to a child with a disability. A school system must look at the child’s needs, rather than at its budget, when determining summer services for a child. The judge in Alamo Heights Independent School District v. State Board of Education (1986) noted that transportation services must be part of the ESY package for a child, even if the bus must get that child from a babysitter’s out-of-district home.
The case of Bucks County Public Schools v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1987) showed that academic regression isn’t the only qualification for ESY eligibility. The judge in the Bucks County case stated that regression in emotional development for severely emotionally disturbed children is often “caused by interruptions in the educational programming,” and ordered that prediction of regression in emotional development qualifies as a need for ESY. Holmes v. Sobol (1988) was a significant case because it found that physical therapy was a related service that could be provided for ESY, and further ruled that a related service can be a sole special education program. This case stated that without the maintenance of physical strength through therapy, the child would not be able to benefit from his general education. In Williams v. Gering Public Schools (1990), the parents of a child with multiple disabilities believed that a 12-month program could only be provided for their child in a residential placement. This court agreed that the child needed a 12-month school program in order to receive a free appropriate public education, but did not require that it be provided in a residential facility. The court ordered the school district to provide the the12-month program at a local facility for multi-handicapped children, specifying that an interruption from one school to another just for a summer program would provide an unacceptable level of regression for the child.
Reusch v. Fountain (1994) blasted a Maryland school district for deceptive and purposeful policies which sought to deprive children of ESY services.The school district had (a) refused to notify parents of a child’s eligibility for ESY services, (b) written misleading letters recommending a summer program that required tuition from the parents, (c) told school administrators to refer parents to central administration when they asked for ESY services, (d) purposely didn’t mention ESY services until it was too late to deliver them, and (e) never told parents they had a right to request ESY services. The judge used strong language as he set the parameters for ESY policies for children with disabilities. “The MCPS practice of inadequate and untimely ESY notice must cease. Notice of ESY designed to fully explain such services must be provided to parents of disabled children in a timely fashion before annual review meetings. The notice must not disguise or downplay the true nature of ESY or attempt to confuse parents between free extended year services and tuition-charging summer enrichment programs.” The court went further and required that additional criteria be considered in addition to regression and recoupment time when considering a child for ESY services. The court decided that “emerging skills” and”breakthrough opportunities” (as when a child is on the brink of learning to read) — can and should be incorporated into the eligibility analysis.” A fixed-length program was also ruled illegal by this court, which ordered the school district to “make individualized determinations of the number of weeks, days per week, and hours per day that each student receiving ESY should be provided.
“While litigation continued in courtrooms across the country, the Office of Special Education Programs and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services wrote policy letters, which provided interpretation of the federal regulations for school districts. The Office of Civil Rights wrote letters of finding which defined when the denial of ESY services violated a person’s civil rights. Together these letters provided parallel support for the court decisions by (a) defining ESY criteria and related services in an ESY program, (b) requiring school districts to look at issues beyond regression or recoupment when determining ESY eligibility, (c)emphasizing the need to set higher ESY standards than simply working toward self-sufficiency, (d) refusing to allow school districts to offer ESY programs that were available only to the most severely disabled children,and (e) requiring that integration with nondisabled peers be provided in ESY programs if required by the IEP.
The result of the court cases and substantive letters has led to the written federal regulations, which describe how ESY services are to be implemented according to IDEA. The regulations define ESY as “special education and related services” which (a) go beyond the normal school year, (b) are addressed and mandated by the IEP, and (c) are free to the parents. The regulations also require that ESY services are available to each child with a disability and, “The determination of whether a child with a disability needs extended school year services must be made on an individual basis by the child’s IEP team.” 34 CFR ? 300.309 (1997).
The regulations also add two notes clarifying these definitions. The first note states that school districts cannot limit ESY services to “particular categories of disability or unilaterally limit the duration of services.”The second note gives states the authority to set standards for use in determining ESY eligibility “on an individual basis,” suggesting the consideration of factors such as the “likelihood of regression, slow recoupment, and predictive data based on the opinion of professionals.
Extended School Year Services (ESY) – Info from www.Wrightslaw.com
Many parents have questions about extended school year services. If you have questions about a legal issue, you should do your own legal research. Do not accept legal advice from school personnel. While they may tell you what they believe is true, in many cases, they have not read the law and regulations for themselves. You need to know what the law and regulations say!
Read what the IDEA statute says about your issue. Next read the federal regulations and your state special ed regulations about your issue. (the IDEA statute and regulations are in Wrightslaw: Special Education Law and in the Statute and Regs section of the Wrightslaw site)
Next, read a case or two about your issue (check the Caselaw Library). If you take these steps, you will have a clear understanding of the issues and variables.
You will find that extended school year (ESY) is not mentioned in the IDEA statute, but is in the IDEA regulations. Read the IDEA regulation about ESYat 34 CFR Section 300.309 (page 165, Wrightslaw: Special Education Law).
We selected two cases about ESY to help you understand these issues: Daniel Lawyer v. Chesterfield and Reusch v. Fountain. For more information, check the Topics Pages – especially the FAPE and IEP pages.
“Windows of Opportunity”: Lawyer v. Chesterfield School Board (1993)Danny Lawyer is a young child with autism. At age six, he had expressive language and phonological processing problems. The experts who evaluated and treated Danny advised his parents that his ability to be self-sufficient and independent later in life would depend on his ability to communicate. During the summer, Danny regressed in his ability to communicate. His behavior deteriorated. His school district refused to provide any speech language therapy during the summer months – and refused to reimburse his parents for the services they purchased for their son. The parents requested a special education due process hearing and prevailed. The school district appealed. The Review Officer overturned the Hearing Officer’s decision. The case was appealed to Federal Court.
After reviewing the record and hearing new testimony, Judge Spencer concluded, “Regression is not the only factor” in deciding if a child needs ESY services. The judge listed several additional factors that IEP teams should consider in making ESY decisions:
Recoupment in the Fall;
Child’s rate of progress;
Child’s behavioral or physical problems;
Availability of alternative resources;
Areas of the child’s curriculum that need continuous attention;
Child’s vocational needs.
In “Lawyer,” Judge Spencer discussed regression and recoupment. He also discussed the need to take advantage of “windows of opportunity” in educating children with disabilities: “Danny’s regression in the summer, coupled with nominal recoupment, severely limits the educational benefits he receives from instruction during the school year. His rate of progress is minimized by the interplay of continuous regression and recoupment.””Moreover, Danny’s behavioral problems are compounded by his severe language deficit. His inability to effectively communicate triggers unacceptable behavior. Therefore, it is critical that Danny be provided with continuous speech and communication services.” “Finally, the evidence provided by expert witnesses indicates that for children who suffer from moderate to severe childhood autism, there is a small, but vital, window of opportunity in which they can effectively learn. Such period is generally between the ages of five and eight years old….The Court concludes that it is extremely important that at this critical stage of development, Danny receive uninterrupted speech language therapy.
“Read the decision in Lawyer v. Chesterfield.
Hostility to Providing ESY: Reusch v. Fountain (1994) In Reusch v. Fountain, 872 F.Supp. 1421 (D. MD 1994), a federal court addressed the school districts “hostility to providing ESY.” In this case,the court found that parents were prevented from advocating for their children by the districts refusal to provide parents with notice about their right to request these services. The district also engaged in delaying tactics by requiring parents to attend futile meetings. The court found that, in this district, administrative convenience took precedence over providing FAPE to children with disabilities. Educational decisions were not individualized according to the needs of the child.
Six Factors for IEP Teams to Consider
In Reusch v. Fountain, the court listed six factors that the IEP team should consider in deciding if the child is eligible for ESY as a related service:
1. Regression and recoupment – is the child likely to lose critical skills or fail to recover these skills within in a reasonable time;
2. Degree of progress toward IEP goals and objectives;
3. Emerging skills/breakthrough opportunities – Will a lengthy summer break cause significant problems for a child who is learning a key skill, like reading;
4. Interfering Behavior – does the child/s behavior interfere with his or her ability to benefit from special education;
5. Nature and/or severity of disability;
6. Special circumstances that interfere with child’s ability to benefit from special education.
Citing Pete’s case, Florence County School District Four v. Shannon Carter, the District Court found that: “In any contest between systematic efficiency and the provision of FAPE to a disabled child, Congress and the Supreme Court have made it clear that the child must prevail.”
Other findings:
Notice and Timing – The importance of making a decision about ESY early enough in the school year to allow the parents adequate time to exercisetheir rights administrative review or appeal in a timely fashion. That the explanation about ESY contained in a brochure distributed to all studentswas not sufficient and ordered that the student’s eligibility for ESY be considered at each annual review meeting, and the parents sign a form acknowledging their receipt of this information. The district must documentthe discussion and the decision reached after consideration of ESYeligibilty at each annual review meeting.
Content and Duration – The content of child’s ESY program must be determined on an individual basis. The duration is also based on individualized determinations of the number of weeks, days per week,and hours per day that each student receiving ESY should be provided.
Copyright 1999-2002, Peter W. D. Wright and Pamela Darr Wright.
All rights reserved. www.wrightlaw.com
_______________________________________________
TO:Sp. Ed. Teachers
FR:Nissan B. Bar-Lev, Director of Special Education
RE:Extended School Year Standards Specialed.us
Please review this memo and use it as a resource guide in determining ESY services
EXTENDED SCHOOL YEAR (ESY) STANDARDS
Legal Basis
The principle that each student with a disability is entitled to an individually designed education was established in a series of court cases that led to the adaptation, in 1975, of the federal law now known as IDEA. A subsequent series of court cases and policy clarifications established that providing special education services beyond the usual school year is a part of the guarantee of the free, appropriate public education (FAPE) clause of the IDEA. These decisions have prescribed the basic requirements for ESY program eligibility and defined some related ESY elements, such as the length and type of the ESY program, and funding matters, including transportation. In addition, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Education ruled that even students regarded as disabled under Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, and not eligible for services under IDEA, have to be considered for ESY services. A letter of finding, issued by OCR regarding the Baltimore city public schools, states that “Section 504 regulations require that the individual needs of every child be examined, considered, and met. While 180 days of school may be adequate for some handicapped students, it may not be adequate for others…”.
Eligibility for ESY services at no cost to parents is determined by the child’s Individual Education Program (IEP) team. This IEP team must consider, as appropriate, whether a child needs extended school year services in order to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Clearly, this determination must be done on an individual basis.
The program of ESY as part of the IEP is not simply an extension of time in school, nor is it required for every student. Nevertheless, it is the function of the school district to evaluate the need for ESY services correctly and fairly. This issue is made more difficult by the fact that there are no comprehensive eligibility criteria in the law, and only general standards have been mentioned by the courts for including ESY in the student’s program.
What follows is a compilation of ESY standards discussed by various federal courts throughout the country (At the time of this writing, no ESY case has been decided by the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit which includes Wisconsin). These ESY standards could become part of the school district’s comprehensive staff training on this issue.
STANDARD #1: NO SINGLE CRITERION
The first standard that has been mentioned by many federal courts is that no single criterion can be used as a sole qualifying factor. For example, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (Johnson v. Independent School District No. 4 ) concluded that a single standard could not be used as the sole criterion for the provision of ESY services. Also, in a recent case, Ruesch V. Fountain (1994), cited a Maryland school district for “…the use of a standard for ESY eligibility which was incorrectly limited to a regression / recoupment analysis and did not consider other factors which were relevant in the ESY determination.” The decision said that this standard may be used, but only as one part of a multi-faceted inquiry.
STANDARD #2: REGRESSION / RECOUPMENT
Judicial decisions have outlined various areas of considerations for determining eligibility, starting with the concept of regression / recoupment first established in Battle v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1980). Regression refers to a decline in knowledge and skills that can result from an interruption in education; recoupment is the amount of time it takes to regain the prior level of functioning. The issue is whether the benefits derived by the child during the regular school year will be significantly jeopardized if he is not provided an educational program during the summer months. This criterion for eligibility, although it is a primary consideration to be used by IEP teams, is still only one of several criteria to be considered in making ESY decisions. It covers both instructional and related services for the prevention (or reduction) of academic and physical regression.
For some students, the skill regression during the summer months, coupled with their limited recoupment ability, is such that their basic educational needs cannot be met in a traditional 180 day program.
As one example or referent point, the IEP committee could determine that more than 45 school days (9 weeks) will be required to return the student to the former level of achievement because of the interruption of summer vacation.
The determination of ESY eligibility must be based on empirical and qualitative data collected by the IEP committee for individual skills. The IEP committee must take into account not only retrospective data, but also predictive data on recoupment abilities (will the recoupment take 9 weeks or more?). The key question before the IEP committee is whether the child needs services in the summer in order to secure the minimum benefits of a free and appropriate public education in the fall.
STANDARD #3: EMERGING SKILLS
A more recent case, Ruesch V. Fountain (1994), noted that “… ‘emerging skills’ and ‘breakthrough opportunities’ (as when a child is on the brink of learning to read) – can and should be incorporated into the eligibility analysis.” The child is in a critical stage of developing a skill which has great potential for increasing his/her self-sufficiency. If such a skill is not completely acquired and mastered, it is likely that the current level of acquisition will be lost due to the interruption of summer vacation.
STANDARD #4: NATURE AND SEVERITY OF THE CHILD’S DISABILITY
Another criterion usually included in the eligibility determination is the nature and severity of the child’s disability. Although no disability category may be excluded from consideration for ESY, the nature and severity is a key factor in the ESY eligibility determination . Children with severe disabilities are more likely to be involved in ESY programs, since their regression may be more significant, and their recoupment abilities may extend over longer time.
STANDARD # 5: NOTICE AND TIMING
Another point made by the court in the Ruesch v. Fountain case was the importance of making a decision about ESY early enough in the year to allow the parents adequate time to exercise their right to administrative review or appeal in a timely fashion. That decision of the U.S. District Court in Maryland prescribed very specific requirements relative to ESY procedures. The court found that the explanation about ESY contained a brochure distributed to all students was not sufficient and ordered additional explanation to be provided to parents. The court also ordered that the student’s eligibility for ESY be considered at each annual review meeting, and that parents sign a form acknowledging their receipt of this information. The district must document the discussion and the decision reached after consideration of ESY eligibility at each annual review meeting.
STANDARD #6: CONTENT AND DURATION OF ESY SERVICES
Some ESY services may extend over the summer, while others provide only for periodic contact with professionals, or assistance to parents in providing instruction or reinforcement to their children. OSEP issued a policy letter stating that limiting the duration of summer programs for students with disabilities “…would violate the basic requirement that programs be designed to meet the individual needs of each child” (Letter to Baugh, 1987). Requirements for specifying the content and duration of ESY programs were also strongly stated in the Ruesch v. Fountain decision. The court mandated “…individualized determinations of the number of weeks, days per week, and hours per day that each student receiving ESY should be provided”. Also, the content of the child’s ESY program must be determined on an individual basis. In response to an inquiry: “May LEAs refuse to provide related services, including transportation and therapy services, to students who are in need of and receiving such services during the regular school year?” OSEP responded: “No”.
STANDARD #7: ABILITY OF PARENTS TO PROVIDE AN EDUCATIONAL STRUCTURE AT HOME
A number of federal courts ( Johnson v. Bixby, 10th federal circuit court, 1990; Battle v. Pennsylvania, 3rd federal circuit court, 1980) mentioned that one of the standards that needs to be considered in determining need for ESY is the ability of the parents to provide an educational structure at home. If parents can provide the proper structure at home, the regression and recoupment issue will not be as severe, thus ESY services through the school staff may not be necessary.
Interventions during the summer may be provided by other than school staff. For example, parents may be able to provide structured opportunities for their children to practice specific skills. Perhaps the student’s utilization of a computer software program will be sufficient to maintain a critical skill. Perhaps accessing an existing community resource, such as a summer recreation program, will meet the need. If so, the provision of such parental services will not necessitate an ESY program. The IEP committee may recommend ESY services after concluding that (a) parents are not able or willing to provide home structured opportunities, or (b) the involvement of EEN staff during the summer is necessary to offset the impact of regression and recoupment.
EXTENDED SCHOOL YEAR (ESY) IS:
Based only on the individual student’s specific critical skills that are critical to his/her overall educational progress as determined by the IEP committee.
Designed to maintain student mastery of critical skills and objectives represented on the IEP and achieved during the regular school year.
Designed to maintain a reasonable readiness to begin the next year.
Based on multi-criteria and not solely on regression.
Considered as a strategy for minimizing the regression of skill, thus shortening the time needed to gain back the same level of skill proficiency that existed at the end of the school year.
Deliverable in a variety of environments and structures such as:
(a) Home with the parent teaching, and staff consulting
(b) School based
(c) School based with community activities
(d) Related services alone or in tandem with the above.
EXTENDED SCHOOL YEAR (ESY) IS NOT:
It is not a mandated 12-months service for all students with disabilities.
It is not required for the convenience of the school or parents and, therefore, cannot serve as a day care or respite care service.
It is not required or intended to maximize educational opportunities for any student with disabilities.
It is not necessary to continue instruction on all of the previous year’s IEP goals during the ESY period; rather, the focus should be on those specific, critical skills where regression, due to an extended vacation period, may occur.
It is not to be considered to help students with disabilities advance in relation to their peers.
It is not for those students with disabilities who exhibit regression, which is solely related to medical problems resulting in degeneration, or transitional life situations such as divorce or death of a family member. This type of regression is not due to the interruption of summer vacation.
It is not required solely when a child fails to achieve IEP goals and objectives during the school year.
It is not to provide a child with education beyond that is prescribed in his/her IEP goals and objectives.
Services Beyond the School Year for Students With IEPs
Some students in special education are eligible for Extended School Year (ESY) services.
By Candace Cortiella, The Advocacy Institute
If your child receives special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), did you know he may be eligible for a program of special education and/or services beyond the normal school year? Such services are commonly referred to as extended school year (ESY) services. Read on to learn how ESY might help your child, the types of services it might include, and how his Individualized Education Program (IEP) team would determine if he’s eligible.
What Are Extended School Year (ESY) Services?
ESY services are individualized special education and/or related services (such as speech/language therapy or occupational therapy) that are uniquely designed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to a student with disabilities (as mandated by IDEA). Need for ESY services is determined by the student’s IEP team. ESY services are provided beyond the normal school year of a school district — that includes both the days of the school year and the hours of the school day. ESY services must be provided at no cost to the parents. It’s important to understand that ESY services are not the same as:
- summer school
- compensatory services
- enrichment programs
ESY services are not limited to the summer break. While this is generally the longest break from the normal school year, ESY services may be needed during shorter breaks (such as winter and spring holiday breaks) of one or two weeks in length. ESY services can even be an extension of the student’s normal school day, such as a special tutoring program.
ESY services are not necessarily a continuation of the student’s entire special education program. Some students may need only certain instruction and/or related services (such as reading instruction or speech/language therapy) outside of the normal school year.
IDEA Regulations and Extended School Year Services
The IDEA regulations define “extended school year services” as special education and related services that:
Are provided to a child with a disability…
- Beyond the normal school year of the public agency (typically the school district);
- In accordance with a child’s IEP;
- At no cost to the parents of the child; and
- Meet the standards of the State Educational Agency.
Who Is Eligible for ESY Services?
Any student who is eligible to receive special education and related services may be eligible for ESY. A student’s need — or eligibility — for ESY is determined by his IEP team, including the parent(s). The decision is based solely on the individual needs of the student.
While federal IDEA regulations provide little specific guidance about how to determine a student’s eligibility for ESY, they do offer a few general requirements. These are:
- All school districts must ensure that ESY services are available as necessary to provide FAPE to eligible students. This doesn’t mean that every school district must provide the services, but rather, each district must ensure availability. So, for example, a district might provide ESY services to eligible students by contracting with a nearby district or a private provider.
- The student’s specific type of disability does not determine eligibility. School districts are not allowed to limit ESY services to particular categories of disability. So, for example, a school district cannot have a policy that prohibits ESY services for all students with learning disabilities.
- School districts may not unilaterally limit the type, amount or duration of ESY services. So, for example, a school district may not have a policy that restricts ESY services to the same period of time that it conducts its regular summer school program for all students.
- A school district may not use a lack of resources as a reason for not examining a student’s possible need for ESY services or for not providing ESY services to an eligible student.
How Is Eligibility for ESY Determined?
As noted earlier, the federal IDEA law and regulations provide little guidance on how to determine the need for ESY services. Therefore, the eligibility procedures and considerations have evolved from case law — the body of law created by judges’ written opinions in cases involving ESY services.
Determining a student’s need for ESY services must be part of the IEP process. Ideally, the IEP team should consider the need for ESY services at the initial IEP meeting for a student who is newly eligible for special education and at each IEP meeting thereafter — generally annually. This makes the consideration of ESY an integral part of any IEP meeting. However, if necessary, an IEP meeting can be called for the express purpose of considering the student’s need for ESY services.
Criteria Used to Determine Eligibility
The most widely used criteria for determining the need for ESY services are regression and recoupment. This involves two findings:
- The IEP team must determine if the student is likely to lose critical skills during the time when services are not delivered — called regression.
- If the likelihood of regression is established, then the IEP team must determine whether the time the student will require to re-learn the skills lost — called recoupment — is excessive, particularly when compared to the time it takes a nondisabled student to regain skills lost during a school break.
Many students lose some skills over school breaks, and then must relearn those skills when back in school. This applies to short breaks like holidays as well as the traditional long summer break. The important distinction is whether the student with a disability will experience significantly more regression and will take significantly more time to recoup lost skills than the student without disabilities.
Determinations about regression and recoupment can be either retrospective (looking back at documentation of a student’s previous rates of regression and recoupment) or prospective (looking forward at the potential rate of regression and recoupment based on such information as expert judgments and observations regarding the student’s performance after very short breaks such as long weekends). It’s not necessary for a student to demonstrate previous regression in order to be eligible for ESY services. However, the determination should be based on objective data from a variety of sources.
Several states continue to use a regression and recoupment model for ESY eligibility. The U.S. Department of Education has clarified that states have the option of using recoupment and retention as their sole criterion in ESY eligibility decisions, but do not have to do so. Many states have established additional criteria based on cases in their respective circuit courts.
Along with regression and recoupment, the IEP team might consider:
- The nature and severity of the student’s disability. While the student’s type of disability alone does not determine whether or not there is a need for ESY services, the IEP team should examine whether the nature and severity of his disability are likely to significantly jeopardize his ability to benefit from the instructional program if he experiences a lapse in instructional support.
- The student’s degree of progress toward IEP goals. How quickly is the student progressing from year to year without ESY services? Will the loss of services during the school break significantly jeopardize the student’s progress toward the goals? Failure to achieve one or more IEP goals does not necessarily mean that the student is eligible for ESY services.
- The student’s emerging skills and breakthrough opportunities. Is the student at a breakthrough point in a critical skill or skills, such as reading? Will the interruption of services and instruction significantly jeopardize the educational benefit the student is receiving from the specialized instruction or related service(s)?
- The student’s behavior(s). Does the student exhibit interfering behaviors — such as aggressive, violent or self-injurious behaviors – that prevent him from receiving education benefit from the instructional program during the normal school year? If so, he may need ESY services to keep the interfering behaviors from significantly jeopardizing the educational benefit he can derive from his instructional program during the next school year. Management of such behaviors should be part of the student’s current IEP.
- Special circumstances or other factors. Are there other special circumstances or factors that will significantly jeopardize the student’s receipt of educational benefit during the normal school year?
These factors might include:
- The student’s opportunity to interact with children without disabilities in what IDEA calls the “least restrictive environment.” In other words, will a break in services set him back so much that, once school resumes, he’ll need to spend less time in the general education classroom and more time receiving intensive/specialized instruction elsewhere?
- The specific areas of the student’s curriculum that need continuous attention.
- The educational structure in the student’s home (e.g., having parents who are willing and able to give the child adequate learning support and reinforcement).
Several types of information should be reviewed, such as:
- Current and previous IEP goals
- Classroom tests and grades
- Classroom observations (by qualified professionals such as a school psychologist or social worker)
- Standardized tests, including statewide assessments in key academic subjects such as reading and math
- Student work samples
- Progress monitoring data
- Attendance information (e.g., frequent illness that has kept the student out of school, causing him to lose ground academically)
- Parent interviews and input
- Expert opinions from professionals outside the school
Some additional factors to keep in mind are:
- The determination of whether a student is eligible for ESY should not be made so late in the normal school year that the family would not be able to exercise its due process rights to challenge the decision.
- Eligibility for ESY services one year does not guarantee future eligibility. The determination is made every year — preferably as part of the student’s annual IEP meeting.
- Eligibility for ESY services includes the provision of transportation to and from the location of the services. If the IEP team determines the student needs specialized transportation from home to the location where the child receives ESY services, such transportation must be provided.
- ESY services are not required in order to maximize a student’s potential. Just as students without disabilities do not have a right to an education designed to maximize their potential, neither are school districts required by IDEA to maximize the potential of students with disabilities.
What Might ESY Services Look Like?
As noted earlier, ESY services are not necessarily a continuation of the same instructional program and related services the student receives during the normal school year as prescribed by his IEP. IEP teams have flexibility in determining what ESY services might be needed. For example, ESY services may take the form of teachers and parents working together by providing materials for home use with progress monitored by the teacher. Independent service providers or agencies – such as those used by the school district to provide supplemental educational services (SES) under Title I of No Child Left Behind — might be used to deliver ESY services, such as individualized reading instruction.
Once the IEP team agrees upon ESY services, specifics about those services, where the student will receive the services, and how his progress will be measured and reported should be included in the student’s IEP.
Action Tips for Parents
- Obtain a copy of any ESY determination guidelines issued by your school district and/or state. Most states have policies or guidelines regarding ESY. These should be made available to you upon request. Familiarize yourself with the guidelines and ask questions. Contact your state’s Parent Training and Information (PTI) Center for additional assistance.
- Don’t wait until late in the normal school year to discuss your child’s potential need for ESY services during the summer break. If necessary, request an IEP meeting specifically for the purpose of determining ESY eligibility for your child. Be sure to put this request in writing to the school principal or school district special education director and specify the purpose of the meeting. Make certain that important school personnel – those who know your child best – will attend the IEP team meeting.
- List all of the factors you think should be taken into consideration when determining your child’s need for ESY services. Refer to the types of information listed earlier to help compile your list. Take your list to the IEP team meeting. Remember that the determination should be based on a broad range of factors and an array of information.
Ensuring Accommodations in Non-ESY Programs
Many parents take advantage of school offerings outside of the regular school year, such as summer school and enrichment programs. Parents may be required to pay an additional fee for such programs. While such programs aren’t ESY, schools are required by non-discrimination laws such as Section 504 to provide any accommodations a student with an IEP may need to fully participate in them. The student may need a Section 504 Plan to ensure that needed accommodations are provided.
The author wishes to thank Scott F. Johnson, Esq., Professor of Law, Concord University School of Law and founder of NHEdLaw, LLC, and the Education Law Resource Center, for his assistance with this article.
Extended School Year Services for Students with Disabilities: A Guide for IEP Teams
This guide provides assistance to individual educational plan (IEP) teams making decisions about the extended school year needs of each child with a disability. Based on the requirements of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the implementing regulations at 34 CFR
300.309, extended school year (ESY) services must be considered by the IEP team as part of the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for students with disabilities. Establishing an individual student’s need for ESY services involves determining whether or not FAPE for that student would be in jeopardy if such services were not provided.
A central element of the provision of FAPE is the IEP team’s determination of what services are appropriate. Based on the student’s present level of educational development and the effect of the disability on the child’s learning process, the IEP team develops a plan that considers all of the student’s unique needs. The plan the team develops must be reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit. If the plan is appropriate, it is considered that the student has been provided with FAPE.
ESY services may include direct or indirect
special education services, related services
or some combination of these. ESY services may be provided for all or part of scheduled school breaks and may follow a daily or an intermittent schedule.
The specific services to be provided depend upon the unique needs of the individual student. ESY services can be provided in a variety of places, including school, home, or community settings. The IEP team determines the least restrictive environment (LRE) in which the ESY services can be provided based on the specific critical life skills targeted.
The information provided here is intended as a starting point for IEP teams involved in the ESY decision-making process. It is important to remember that, while data collected about the student’s performance should be used to frame the discussion, ultimately the determination of need for ESY services is an IEP team decision based on the individual needs of the student.
|
What should the IEP team consider when determining the need for ESY services?
In addition to the questions for IEP teams provided on the back page, teams need to consider factors such as these:
✓ Does the targeted skill represent a barrier to continuous progress or self-sufficiency?
✓ Is continuous or year-round treatment an integral part of the methodology deemed necessary for the student?
✓ Without ESY services in the identified critical life skills, will the student be unable to receive some reasonable level of benefit from his or her educational services during the regular school year?
✓ Would the benefits to be derived from extended educational services outweigh the positive benefits of a summer break?
✓ Have other options that would meet the needs of the student been considered and determined to be of less benefit than an extended school year?
|
What do ESY services look like?
When determining an individual student’s need for ESY services, the IEP team reviews all the
goals, including short-term objectives that are included on the current IEP. The team may determine that ESY services are needed in all of the areas addressed on the IEP or in only some of the areas. Here are some examples of possible ESY services:
- daily instruction in all academic areas for six (6) weeks
- behavioral or other training for parents or program staff before or during the instructional break
- take-home packets (with or without periodic consultation)
- intensive, small-group instruction in math, 3 times per week for 5 weeks
- speech/language therapy provided onsite to a small group of students enrolled by their parents in a community recreation program/YMCA/ Daycare center
- weekly consultation by a job coach/ transition coordinator with staff at a job site for a high school student
Critical life skills—Skills that are essential for the promotion and maintenance of the student’s self-sufficiency. Skills such as toileting and eating are essential for minimal independence; stable relationships, impulse control, and appropriate peer interactions are necessary for community living. Some communication skills and academic skills such as reading may be considered critical life skills for certain students.
Emerging skills—Skills that the student has
just begun to learn and, therefore, may not
display consistently.
Emerging skills– Skills that the student has just begun to learn and, therefore, may not display consistently.
Enrichment—Programming that provides additional curriculum or services designed to advance a student beyond the regular curriculum. This is not the intention of ESY.
Impact of the disability—The degree or manner in which the disability affects the student’s performance. The more severely a disability affects a student’s performance or functioning, the more likely it is that breaks in instruction will adversely affect the student’s learning overall. One example is a student with severe emotional disturbance who reverts to a significantly lower functioning level or who exhibits increased inappropriate behaviors when his or her program is interrupted. Another example is a student who needs intensive and concentrated work on independent functioning skills in order to maintain self-sufficiency and independence from caregivers and who needs additional or continuous support to reach his or her annual IEP goals.
LRE— The acronym for “least restrictive environment,” cited in IDEA. The LRE provision requires that children with disabilities receive their education, to the maximum extent appropriate, with nondisabled peers and that they not be removed from regular classes
unless, even with supplemental aids and services, education in regular classes cannot be achieved satisfactorily. LRE is based on the needs of the child and the targeted skills.
Depending on individual needs, the LRE for
a particular student might be the regular class, part-time or full-time placement in a separate class, or a separate school. LRE is not synonymous with inclusion or mainstreaming.
Rate of progress—The rate at which the student learns specific skills or behaviors. If, after reviewing the student’s progress on
IEP goals targeting critical life skills, the IEP team determines that the student’s rate of progress is likely to prevent the student from receiving educational benefit from his or her program during the regular school year, ESY services may be indicated.
Regression/recoupment—Loss of skills during extended breaks in instruction and the period of time it takes for the student to regain those skills once instruction begins again.
All students are expected to regress somewhat after a break in instruction, with a reasonable period of recoupment upon return to instruction.
However, for some students with disabilities, the loss of critical life skills in one or more areas may be substantial, and the period of time required to recoup the skills may be unreasonable.
The recoupment period considered reasonable differs based on the skill or behavior in question.
Self-sufficiency— The ability to function as independently as possible. The goal of instruction related to basic life skills is to reduce the student’s reliance on caregivers.
ESY Services: Questions for IEP Teams
Extended school year (ESY) services are required if the IEP team has reason to believe that the provision of FAPE for an individual student would be jeopardized without such services.
These guidelines are intended to assist IEP teams in making decisions regarding the necessity for ESY services. Parents, teachers, and other qualified professionals are all useful sources of information. Appropriate data to be reviewed include, but are not limited to, the following:
- pattern of regression after breaks
- pre-/post-tests before/after breaks
- reports of progress toward annual goals
- report cards
- teacher-made checklists
- work samples
- therapy logs
- anecdotal records
- point sheets
- probes/running records
- frequency charts
- referrals/discipline file
- documentation related to extenuating circumstances
It is important to remember that the questions below are only starting points for discussion.
Data collected over the course of the school year, including before and after scheduled breaks in instruction, should be used to frame the determination of need. However, the determination of whether an individual student should receive ESY services is ultimately an IEP team decision based on the unique needs of the student.
- Do all children with disabilities require ESY services?
No. The decision regarding the need for ESY services must be made on an individual basis, see 34 CFR 300.309 (a)(2). The decision must also address whether ESY services are necessary in order for the child to receive FAPE. Determination of the need for ESY services is an IEP team decision designed to ensure the provision of FAPE. The need for ESY services must be reviewed annually for every student with a disability.
ESY is not intended to provide education beyond that which has been determined necessary by the IEP team to ensure FAPE. In many cases, not all of the services specified in an individual student’s IEP for the 180-day school year need to be provided as part of ESY services. Parental requests for ESY services must be considered. However, if ESY services are requested by the parent but the IEP team does not see the provision of the requested ESY services as necessary for the provision of
FAPE, then Written Notice to Parents of the refusal must be provided.
- If a child is determined to need ESY services one year, are such services automatically required thereafter?
No. According to federal regulations at 34 CFR § 300.343(c), the LEA must ensure that the IEP team reviews a child’s IEP at least once annually or more often as needed. This would include a review of IEP annual goals, ESY services previously provided, and areas which may need continued attention. A review of the IEP could be scheduled as often as deemed necessary and appropriate. Since a child’s individual needs may change, so may a determination by the team regarding a child’s need for ESY services to ensure FAPE.
In considering the need for ESY services, the IEP team may decide to postpone a decision until a later date. In such circumstances, the district should ensure that the team reconvenes within a timely manner. A determination may be considered timely if there were sufficient time to allow for resolution of disputes regarding ESY services before the break in services occurs.
- Must ESY services be restricted to certain groups of children with disabilities, such as those with multiple disabilities?
No. Such a decision must be made on an individual basis by the IEP team and not limited exclusively to particular categorical disabilities. Such a practice, would violate the IDEA requirement that special education and related services, including ESY services, be provided in accordance with a child’s individualized educational needs for provision of FAPE. In development, review, and revision of the IEP, team members will need to consider relevant data and evaluation information.
- Must preschool-aged children with disabilities receive ESY services?
Preschool-aged children (3 – 5 years) may require ESY services if these services are determined to be necessary by the child’s IEP team. The IEP team will determine whether the child needs ESY services based on relevant and developmentally appropriate data, including background information, current evaluations, and information. If a child transitioning from Part C, Early Intervention is determined to be eligible as a child with a disability under Part B and will reach his/her third birthday when the normal school year is not in session, the IEP team must consider whether ESY services are necessary for the provision of FAPE.
- In practical terms, how might regression and recoupment be considered?
A child with a disability may need ESY services if the IEP team determines that the severity of regression caused by interruption of the child’s educational program (such as school breaks) together with limited recoupment capacity, make it unlikely or impossible that the child will recover previously acquired skills within a reasonable period of time. If an agency maintains, regularly reviews, and updates existing information, then collecting additional data to assess regression-recoupment and the
child’s rate of progress may not always be needed. Examples of practical strategies for collecting and using such data are:
(1) parent, teacher, and service provider interviews and staffing regarding the extent of regression during summer months or otherwise beyond the normal school year and the rate of recoupment following breaks in programming;
(2) analysis of daily or weekly notes/logs and data collected on a regular basis, progress reports on annual goals provided to parents as often as for nondisabled students;
(3) review of the IEP present levels, needs, and annual goals; and
(4) comparison of relevant test results and/or functional assessment of skill levels during the beginning of the current year with skill levels at the end of the preceding school year. Assessment of progress towards the IEP annual goals could be continued at regular intervals (e.g., weekly, monthly, or quarterly) after the normal school year is resumed. The regression recoupment analysis is not the only measure used to determine the need for ESY.
- May parents be included in the provision of ESY services?
Yes. After affirming a parent’s ability to provide educational structure at home, an IEP team may determine that appropriate ESY services would consist totally or partially of such parental support. For example, as a result of parent counseling and training, parents may be assisted in acquiring the necessary skills that would allow them to support the implementation of their child’s IEP [see 34 CFR § 300.24 (b)(7])].
- What are some alternative ESY service delivery arrangements?
A wide variety of ESY services and service delivery arrangements are possible to address IEP annual goals for specific needs (e.g., behavior, speech, physical therapy, vocational/rehabilitation, or recreational). Provision of special education and related services for ESY may include alternative resources and services provided in community settings and facilities; home training, which focuses on training the primary caregiver/parents to work with the child; summer camp and other recreational programs; and contracts or arrangements for programs in conjunction with other agencies. Such alternative arrangements may provide opportunities for interactions with nondisabled children.
- May schools be obligated to provide transportation to children and youth receiving ESY services?
Yes. Federal regulations at 34 CFR § 300.24(b)(15) define transportation as a “related service” to be provided, if necessary, to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education. If a child’s IEP team determines that transportation is necessary for the child to receive FAPE, then transportation must be provided at no cost to parents. The determination of the child’s individual needs and specific arrangements for transportation as a related service will be made by the IEP team.
9. How are ESY services to be described on the IEP?
ESY services need to be described in such a manner that all parties to the IEP process are clear about the services to be provided. Therefore, it is necessary to document the goals and/or short-term objectives to be addressed during ESY services, including the type, amount (including time and frequency), duration (including beginning and ending dates), and least restrictive environment (LRE) considerations of such services.
- How does the LRE requirement of IDEA apply to ESY services?
ESY services, like all other special education services, must be provided in the least restrictive environment in which the IEP can be implemented. The federal regulations comments section referencing 34 CFR § 300.309 states that “. . . public agencies are not required to create new programs as a means of providing ESY services to students in integrated settings if the public agency does not provide services at that time for its nondisabled children.” A district is not required to create a program for the sole reason of providing LRE; however, it may be necessary to provide services in alternative settings if the most appropriate setting determined by the IEP team is not available.
The LRE for the duration of a student’s ESY services may differ from the LRE for the duration of the portion of the IEP in effect during the traditional school year. Not all goals from the current year are automatically carried over for ESY services. The IEP team targets specific goals to be addressed, and the LRE determination must be based on the most appropriate setting in which to address those goals.
ESY Services: Talking Points with Parent/Guardian
Say to Parents: “Each year our team identifies specific skills your son/daughter needs to develop and sets goal(s) for him/her to work on throughout the year.”
“Data is collected and progress toward achieving the annual goals is reviewed to help us make a decision as to whether or not Extended School Year (ESY) services are necessary/required during the upcoming summer break in instruction so that he/she can achieve the goals that have been set.”
Review All Goals: Take time to review the data collected for each goal. Examples of practical strategies for collecting and using data include:
- pattern of regression after breaks • pre-/post-tests before/after breaks
- report cards • teacher-made checklists
- work samples • therapy logs
- anecdotal records • point sheets
- probes/running records • frequency charts
- referrals/discipline file • documentation related to extenuating
circumstances
Review Criteria:
_____ A. There will be significant regression of a skill or acquired knowledge from the pupil’s level of performance on an annual goal that requires more than the length of the break in instruction to recoup unless the IEP team determines a shorter time for recoupment is more appropriate;
_____ B. Services are necessary for the pupil to attain and maintain self-sufficiency because of the critical nature of the skill addressed by an annual goal, the pupil’s age and level of development, and the timeliness for teaching the skill;
_____ C. The IEP team otherwise determines, given the pupil’s unique needs, that ESY services are necessary to ensure that pupil receives a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
Determine Need: Review ESY criteria and if data supports the need for ESY services then determine the goal(s) to be addressed during ESY services, including:
- The type (direct or indirect),
- Location (school, home, and/or community settings)
- Amount (including time and frequency),
- Duration (including beginning and ending date), and
- Least restrictive environment (LRE) considerations of such services.
If we determine that transportation is necessary for your son/daughter to receive FAPE (i.e. access ESY), then transportation will be provided at no cost to you (parents) and will be documented on the IEP.
Helpful PDFs about ESY
And when it comes down to it- that’s all that matters is that we as parents are advocating for what is most appropriate for our child’s future school career based on diagnosis and severity….a child that can’t yet speak for themselves.
And again as a parent of a teenager -I can tell you that once they are able to talk they have SO much to say…and they are able to advocate for themselves if we do our jobs early on. And in Tanner’s case I am thankful for his therapists, doctors, fish oils and “NV”!!! Being an advocate went against my grain prior to being a parent -but each of us has that ability to channel our inner advocate. And to be that advocate just keep thinking that while the school only needs to provide by law what is “appropriate”…once you know what is accepted as appropriate placement and therapy for your child’s diagnosis and severity level- advocate for that.
“References:
Alamo Heights Independent School District v. State Board of Education,
Education for the Handicapped Law Report 554:315 (5th Cir. 1986).
Armstrong v. Kline, Education for the Handicapped Law Report 551:195 (E.D.Pa.1979). Baltimore (MD) City Public Schools (1986).
Office of Civil Rights Letter of Finding, Education for the Handicapped Law
Review 352:185.Battle v. Commonwealth,
Education for the Handicapped Law Report 551:647(3rd Cir. 1980).
Bucks County Public Schools v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Education forthe
Handicapped Law Report 559:153 (Commonwealth Ct. of Pa. 1987).
Davila, R. R. (1990, Nov.).
Office of Special Education and RehabilitativeServices Policy Letter, 17
Education for the Handicapped Law Review 419.
Georgia Association for Retarted Citizens v. McDaniel, Education for
theHandicapped Law Report 555:251 (11th Cir. 1983).
Holmes v. Sobol, Education of the Handicapped Law Report 559:463 (W.D. Ny.1988).
Mesa (AZ) Public Schools (1989).
Office of Civil Rights Letter of Finding,16 Education for the Handicapped Law Review 316.
Reusch v. Fountain, 21 Individuals with Disabilities Education Law Report1107 (D. Md. 1994).
Schrag, J. A. (1989, Aug.). Office of Special Education Programs Policy Letter,
Education for the Handicapped Law Review 213:255.
Stacey G. v. Pasadena Indep endent School District, Education for the Handicapped
Law Report 554:206 (S.D. Tx. 1982).
Turnbull, H.R. III, & Turnbull, A.P. (1998).
Free appropriate public education: The law and children with disabilities (5th ed.).
Denver, CO:Love Publishing Company.Will, M. (1987, Aug.).
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Policy Letter, Education for the Handicapped Law Review 211:481.
Williams v. Gering Public Schools, 17 Education ofthe Handicapped Law Report427 (Ne. S. Ct. 1990).
Dealing with IEPs for a Speech Impaired Child
IEP Goals, Objectives, and Sample Letters to Teachers
Guideline for Speech-Language Eligibility Criteria/Severity Intervention Matrix for Schools
Insurance Coverage Tips For Speech And Other Special Needs Therapies
LISA GENG
Lisa Geng is an accomplished author, mother, founder, and president of the CHERAB Foundation. She is a patented inventor and creator in the fashion, toy, and film industries. After the early diagnosis of her two young children with severe apraxia, hypotonia, sensory processing disorder, ADHD, and CAPD, she dedicated her life to nonprofit work and pilot studies. Lisa is the co-author of the highly acclaimed book “The Late Talker” (St Martin’s Press 2003). She has hosted numerous conferences, including one overseen by a medical director from the NIH for her protocol using fish oils as a therapeutic intervention. Lisa currently holds four patents and patents pending on a nutritional composition. She is a co-author of a study that used her proprietary nutritional composition published in a National Institute of Health-based, peer-reviewed medical journal.
Additionally, Lisa has been serving as an AAN Immunization Panel parent advocate since 2015 and is a member of CUE through Cochrane US. Currently working on her second book, “The Late Talker Grows Up,” she also serves as an executive producer of “Late Talkers Silent Voices.” Lisa Geng lives on the Treasure Coast of Florida.