Beyond Lunch Bunch:
Meeting the Social and Learning-toLearn Needs of Students with High
Functioning Autism through
Innovative Programming and
Specialized Services
Brandie Rosen, Program Specialist
Las Virgenes Unified School District
Wes Parsons, Esq.
Fagen Friedman Fulfrost, LLP
1
Today’s Agenda


What Is “FAPE” and What is the Role of the Assessor?
Eligibility for Special Education Under the IDEA


The Legal Standards
Qualifying Disabilities: Focus on Autism




The Need for “Special Education and Related Services”
IEP Development and Connecting the Dots…




The “New” California Regulations and Assessing for Autism
Issues to Consider When Assessing for Eligibility Under Autism
Identifying “Needs” of the High-Functioning Population
Goal Development
Program and Services
Defending Your Program
2
I. What is a FAPE and
What is the Role of the
Assessor?
3
WHAT IS “FAPE”? ETC…
TWO PRONGS:
 Procedural FAPE

 Has
the school district complied with the
procedures set forth in the IDEA?

Substantive FAPE
 Is
the IEP reasonably calculated to enable the
student to receive an educational benefit?
4
Procedural FAPE
Over 800 possible procedural requirements:
•
•
Meeting Timelines
Predetermination
•
•
Failing to Share Information With Parents
•
•
•
(“We only do quarterly progress reports!”)
Failing to Make a Clear and Specific Offer
Failing to Make an Individualized Offer
•
•
(“We don’t need Parent’s input!”)
(“We don’t do that here!”)
Failing to Have All Required Members at the IEP Team Meeting
5
Procedural FAPE


Not every procedural misstep results in a denial
of FAPE
Procedural violations result in a denial of FAPE
only where the procedural inadequacy:
Impeded the child's right to a FAPE;
 Significantly impeded the parent's opportunity to
participate in the decision-making process regarding
the provision of a FAPE to the parent's child; or
 Caused a deprivation of educational benefit

6
Substantive FAPE
Services offered to the student
 Services provided to the student
 The IEP is the vehicle we use to deliver a
substantive FAPE

7
Substantive FAPE:
The Rowley Test
An IEP Provides a Substantive FAPE if it is:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Designed to meet unique needs;
Reasonably calculated to provide educational
benefit;
Services comport with IEP;
Student is educated in the least restrictive
environment
8
The Rachel H. Balancing Test
Four factors:
1. Academic benefit
2. Non-academic
benefit
3. Effect on
teacher/students
4. Cost
Sacramento City USD v. Rachel H. (9th Cir.1994)
9
Substantive FAPE:
Building an Appropriate IEP


IEP development is a linear process
“Connect the Dots” from one step to the next
Child find
 Assessment
 The IEP Team Meeting

 Determining
Eligibility
 Areas of need
 Goals
 Accommodations/modifications
 Placement & Services
10
Substantive FAPE:
Child Find


IDEA requires that…
A district must:
Actively locate;
 Identify;
 and assess
 all students within their
boundaries who may require
special education services…

11
Substantive FAPE:
The IEP Process
Assessment
Offer of
Placement
and Services
Draft
Appropriate
Goals
Determine
Eligibility
Determine
Present
Levels and
Areas of
Need
12
Autism – Redefined!
13
Definition of Eligible Student

To be eligible under IDEA and California law,
student must:
1.
2.
Meet the definition of at least one of 13
identified disabilities; and
Require special education and related services
as a result of such disability
(34 C.F.R. §300.8; Ed. Code, §56026)
14
The 13 Eligibility Categories
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Autism
Deaf-Blindness
Deafness
Emotional Disturbance
Hearing Impairment
Intellectual Disability
Multiple Disabilities
8. Orthopedic Impairment
9. Other Health Impairment
10. Specific Learning Disability
11. Speech or Language
Impairment
12. Traumatic Brain Injury
13. Visual Impairment,
including blindness
(34 C.F.R. §300.8;
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, §3030)
15
Eligibility: Focus on Autism


State and Federal Law defines each of the 13 disabilities
Autism: California law changed on July 1, 2014 to align
with Federal Regulations:
OLD Definition
If a student exhibits any combination of the following
autistic-like behaviors, s/he shall qualify as an
individual with exceptional needs:
(1) An inability to use oral language for appropriate
communication.
(2) A history of extreme withdrawal or relating to
people inappropriately and continued impairment in
social interaction from infancy through early
childhood.
(3) An obsession to maintain sameness.
(4) Extreme preoccupation with objects and/or
inappropriate use of objects.
(5) Extreme resistance to controls.
(6) Displays peculiar motoric mannerisms and motility
patterns.
(7) Self-stimulating, ritualistic behavior.
Assessors also look for unusual responses to sensory
experiences.
Definition
(1) Autism means a developmental disability
significantly
affecting
verbal
and
nonverbal
communication and social interaction, generally evident
before age three, and adversely affecting a child's
educational performance. Other characteristics often
associated with autism are engagement in repetitive
activities and stereotyped movements, resistance to
environmental change or change in daily routines, and
unusual responses to sensory experiences.
(A) Autism does not apply if a child's educational
performance is adversely affected primarily because the
child has an emotional disturbance, as defined in
subdivision (b)(4) of this section.
(B) A child who manifests the characteristics of autism
after age three could be identified as having autism if
the criteria in subdivision (b)(1) of this section are
satisfied.
(34 C.F.R. §300.8; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, §3030)
16
Eligibility: Focus on Autism

Has this definition changed how we identify a student
under “autistic-like behaviors” versus “autism”?



Must a student demonstrate a verbal, non-verbal and social
impairment to be a “student with autism”?
Are we still looking for autistic-like behaviors when we assess?
What about “characteristics often associated with autism”?




engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements,
resistance to environmental change or change in daily routines, and
unusual responses to sensory experiences
Are these really just the same thing as the list of autistic-like
behaviors we had under the previous definition?
17
Here’s What the California Dept. of
Education Had to Say:


Some commenters objected to the change, saying that school
psychologists can only assess for “autistic-like behaviors” and not
“autism.”
The CDE responded:




“There is no eligibility category for a student’s being ‘autistic like,’ only for
being autistic.”
“Autistic-like” is an adjective used to modify behavior. This is being
replaced by “characteristics of autism.”
Psychologists who can assess only for “autistic-like behaviors” will also be
able to assess for “characteristics often associated with autism.”
Take Away: Just as there isn’t a category for “ED-like” or “OHIlike,” the new regulations recognize that the eligibility category is
“autism” not “autistic-like.” But you are still not diagnosing a
student with autism, you are determining whether the student
meets the educational definition of autism.
Final Statement of Reasons: SUMMARY AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
18
RECEIVED DURING THE INITIAL NOTICE PERIOD OF MAY 25, 2013 THROUGH JULY 8, 2013.
Eligibility: Focus on Autism



So, assessors are still looking at behavior and assessing
whether a child exhibits “characteristics often associated
with autism” (or autistic-like behaviors).
But, to be eligible as a student with autism under the IDEA,
a student will need to do more than just exhibit these
behaviors.
Let’s break down the educational definition of autism.
(34 C.F.R. §300.8; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, §3030)
19
Eligibility: Focus on Autism



Autism means a developmental disability significantly
affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social
interaction… adversely affecting a child’s educational
performance.
Does it need to be all three?
OAH cases so far indicate, that yes, it does. We will go
through some of those cases today.
20
Eligibility: Focus on Autism



Generally evident before age three… (but) … a child who
manifests the characteristics of autism after age three could
be identified as having autism if the other criteria are
satisfied.
Why is this important? Should the team consider it? Yes!
It wouldn’t be included if it shouldn’t be considered.
If behaviors are just starting to manifest in the 8th grade,
then it could be due to autism, but it could be due to other
factors too. This could be telling you, as an assessor, to
take the time to look critically at other factors. For
example, are there environmental issues impacting peer
relationships or are there ED or OHI issues to consider?
21
Eligibility: Focus on Autism



Other characteristics often associated with autism are
engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped
movements, resistance to environmental change or change
in daily routines, and unusual responses to sensory
experiences.
What about these “Other Characteristics”? If we have
these other characteristics, but we do not have impaired
verbal and nonverbal communication or social interaction,
then does that rule out autism?
Consider a student with, for example, ODD or ED… could
they engage in all of these “other characteristics” and have
impaired social interaction (but have intact verbal and non
verbal communication)?
22
Eligibility: Focus on Autism

A student does not qualify as a child with autism if his
educational performance is adversely affected primarily because
the child has an emotional disturbance.

Think critically about what is driving behaviors – if anxiety is
causing behaviors, is the anxiety secondary to the autism (or
perhaps, is the anxiety resulting from the student’s poor peer
relations which are the result of the student’s autism?)
Remember… a student can have a secondary eligibility of ED
(with a primary of AUT). For example, a student may be autistic,
and also have depression (leading to a secondary eligibility of
ED).
Now let’s look at a post-July 2014 case about verbal and nonverbal communication, social interaction and the new
regulations.


23
Eligibility: Focus on Autism
Parents v. Hacienda La Puente Unified School District



At the time of the hearing, Student was nine-years-old and
not eligible for special education under the IDEA.
First grade teacher reported that he was happy, got along
with peers, was not hyperactive, not sensitive to sound or
loud noises, and was very bright academically. He read
and wrote very well. Sometimes he did not complete
assignments, but this was usually related to more
challenging work. He sometimes talked out of turn, but
this behavior was typical for his age.
At six-years-old, Student had a private evaluation.
Evaluator did not observe Student in the school setting and
gave a diagnosis of “Asperger’s Disorder.”
24
Eligibility: Focus on Autism
Parents v. Hacienda La Puente Unified School District



Further private assessments confirmed Student to be very
bright and advanced academically.
Second grade teacher testified that Student had difficulties
making friendships, did not participate in group projects
and could not stay on task. Though she did not report it,
teacher testified that Student had poor communication
skills.
During the same time, District school psychologist observed
Student and saw him attending and interacting with peers.
ALJ found the psychologist to be more credible than the
teacher. Academic assessor’s observations were consistent
with the school psychologist.
25
Eligibility: Focus on Autism
Parents v. Hacienda La Puente Unified School District


Throughout the remainder of second grade, district staff
implemented general education interventions and other
staff members observed Student to be happy, to like school
and to play with others and reciprocally communicate, and
use appropriate language with classmates and language.
He did not exhibit autistic-like behaviors.
In third grade, he was engaged in class, did not disturb
others, followed directions, did not react to loud noises,
would daydream like others (but not inappropriately so),
was occasionally shy, but engaged with his peers, and
made direct eye contact and relished oral presentations.
26
Eligibility: Focus on Autism
Parents v. Hacienda La Puente Unified School District



District SLP observed over nine different days in class and on
the playground. Student was fully engaged and regularly
initiated short conversational exchanges with classmates, told
jokes during his oral presentation, and engaged in chats
about a number of topics including books, frozen treats and
bunnies. He lined up well and transitioned well. SLP
documented this all in her report.
SLP also administered standardized tests (CASL, CELF) to test
expressive and receptive language skills and the pragmatics
profile, and utilized additional instruments – the test of
Pragmatic Language – 2. She also interviewed Student.
ALJ described SLP report as “meticulous and comprehensive.”
27
Eligibility: Focus on Autism
Parents v. Hacienda La Puente Unified School District

In determining eligibility, the ALJ used the new standard, and
set it forth as follows:




Autism means a developmental disability significantly affecting
verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction…
The italics on the “and” indicates that, in order to be eligible
under autism, a student would need have a developmental
disability that significantly affects all three areas, not just one
area.
Therefore, if there is a question or concern about
communication, the speech and language assessment is a
vital part of an autism eligibility determination.
In this case, the ALJ held for the District, and again,
praised the speech and language report for its thoroughness.
28
OAH Case No. 2014120050
Eligibility: Focus on Autism
Parents v. Hacienda La Puente Unified School District



This case showed the importance of observations – across
settings, by all assessors, and during different times of day.
What do we do if a child isn’t attending school?
For example, if a parent has taken the child out of school and
is in the home setting?


Or if a child is unilaterally placed?


Assessing peer interaction is vital – how can we observe that?
How can we make sure we get to observe the student?
What about interviews?
29
OAH Case No. 2014120050
Assessing for Autism/Autism-Like Needs

Multidisciplinary Team
 Psychologist,
Behaviorist, Speech Pathologist,
Special Education Teacher, Occupational
Therapist, General Education Teacher
 Any Combination of the Above

Three key areas:
 Communication
 Social
 Behavior
30
Assessing for Autism/Autism-Like Needs

Communication
 Standardized
pragmatic)
 Beware
(expressive, receptive and
the high-scoring “trap”!
 Non-standardized
 Observation
(multiple observers, settings and
situations)
 Teacher interview – scratch the surface!
 Parent/private interview and input
 Language sample
31
Assessing for Autism/Autism-Like Needs

Social – encompasses more than
“communication”
 Standardized
– beware the high-scoring “trap”!
 Non-standardized
 Observation
– during structured and non-structured,
preferred and non-preferred peers and activities,
adult versus peer interaction
 Teacher interview – scratch the surface!
 Parent/private interview and input
32
Assessing for Autism/Autism-Like Needs

Behavior – requires a critical eye for the
high-functioning student
 Standardized
– rating scales as appropriate from
teacher(s), staff, parents/private, and student
 With and without support?
 Non-standardized
 Observation
– structured/non-structured,
with/without support, preferred/non-preferred peers
and activities, over extended time-frame
 Teacher/staff interview
 Parent/private interview and input
33
Remember…

Assessment process is:
 Collection of information
 Variety of sources and multidisciplinary – expect
overlap
 Compilation of that information
 Analysis of that information
 Address commonalities and differences in findings
 Develop your thesis/story of the child
 Conclusions based on that analysis
 Eligibility, strengths, academic and functional levels,
needs
 Documented into IEP
34
Assessment: Child Find
Orange Unified School District v. C.K.



Parents informed district that they believed that their 6year old son displayed some symptoms consistent with
autism. For example, he was not toilet trained, he did not
make eye contact, and he had a vocabulary of zero to three
words.
District speech and language pathologist found during the
preschool assessment that Student needed frequent
prompts and displayed poor attending skills.
Student was made eligible at initial IEP under “speech and
language impairment” but district did not assess for
behavioral disorders. District offered two 90 minute group
speech and language sessions per week.
35
Assessment: Child Find
Orange Unified School District v. C.K.



Student did not make progress in speech therapy. Three
months following the initial IEP, the District changed
Student’s eligibility to autism after Student scored in the
“Severely Autistic Range” on the Childhood Autism Rating
Scale. District then offered placement in an SDC.
Parents alleged a denial of FAPE for many reasons,
including a failure to timely assess to determine eligibility
under the category of “autistic-like behaviors.”
The District claimed that it was not required to initially
assess for autism because Parents indicated that their
primary concern related to Student’s expressive language.
36
Assessment: Child Find
Orange Unified School District v. C.K.

The court held for the Parent:




Parent responded to many questions during the assessment that
indicated the presence of autistic-like symptoms.
Parents also indicated a concern that their son was autistic.
The speech and language pathologist noted that the student was
largely non-responsive, had poor attention and motivation, required
frequent prompts and avoided eye contact.
According to the court, these observations by the speech and
language pathologist, along with Parents’ concerns, were enough to
meet the “relatively low” threshold of suspicion that the Student
might be autistic. Therefore, as of the initial IEP team meeting, the
District was on notice that it was legally required to assess Student
for autism before any initial placement.
Orange Unified School District v. C.K. (C.D. Cal. 2012) Case No, SACV 11-1253, 59 IDELR 74
37
Assessment: Child Find
Orange Unified School District v. C.K.

What can we take away from this case?





The court upheld an award of private placement reimbursement and
provision of a one-to-one aide. Although the district may have been
able to provide a FAPE – had they assessed – due to the failure, the
district had to pay for a private placement. This could be a costly
error.
Child find requires a district to assess in all areas of suspected
disability, not just in areas “requested by parent.”
While assessing to answer the initial referral question, you may see
behaviors or have concerns which go beyond that initial question.
This may become another “area of suspected disability” which then
requires assessment.
Would the outcome had been different if the district offered the
right services, but the “wrong” eligibility?
38
A Word About The DSM-V and
Medical Diagnoses


A medical diagnosis of autism will not, standing alone,
entitle a student to receive special education and related
services. A student must still meet the criteria under the
IDEA. OAH does not apply the DSM criteria.
Be prepared for parents’ questions! Anticipate questions
you will receive from parents whose children who are
receiving services from private providers.


What are the educational standards versus the DSM-V standards?
Have a copy of the DSM-V handy so that you can point out the
differences.
39
So, the assessment data shows that a student
meets the definition of a student with autism.
Is the student now eligible under the IDEA for
an IEP?
40
Remember, in order to be IDEA eligible, the
child must also require special education
services as a result of the student's particular
disability.
When Does a Student “Need” Special Education?
41
The Need for Special Education


Assessment results must show that the degree of
the impairment is such that the student requires
“instruction and services which cannot be provided
with modification of the regular school program” in
order to ensure the provision of a FAPE.
What exactly are these “instruction and services”?
42
The Need for Special Education:
What is special education?

IDEA defines special education as:
 “Specially
designed instruction”
 Provided “at no cost” to parents
 Intended to meet “unique needs” of student
(34 C.F.R. §300.39(a)(1))
43
Need for Special Education:
Student v. Monrovia School District



8-year-old Student had above-average and superior
cognitive skills, with deficits in social, behavioral, writing
and fine-motor skills. He showed unusual responses to
sensory input.
Various doctors and assessors had determined him to be on
the autism spectrum. Others described attentional deficits,
hypersensitivity to stimulation, aggressive behavior,
impulsivity and hyperactivity.
Student did not have an IEP but had a 504 Plan which
provided for a “shadow aide” and O/T services.
44
Need for Special Education:
Student v. Monrovia School District



Accommodations included taking Student to a quiet place
to calm down when he showed signs of fidgeting or loss of
emotional control; cuing to use anxiety-reducing
interventions; cuing to put his arm on the table to stabilize;
and, if all else failed, evacuating the classroom in the event
of a serious “meltdown.”
In Fall 2001 District assessed per request of Parent and
found Student not eligible; District and Parent then agreed
to have private assessor evaluate Student in late 2001.
At IEP team meeting in Feb. 2002, private assessor
recommended social skills training, which was a general
education intervention. Still no consensus on eligibility.
45
Need for Special Education:
Student v. Monrovia School District



Beginning in February 2002, Principal was called 10-12
times to assist with Student and parents were called 5
times. Student would throw things at aide and other
students (and once, a desk at a teacher), refuse to
come out from under his desk for up to one-half-hour.
Student was estimated to be on task about ½ the time
and District assessments identified attentional issues.
Student was observed seeking sensory input, including
spinning, “banging in to other students, and walls, in
relation to impulsive behavior.”
46
Need for Special Education:
Student v. Monrovia School District

The ALJ held for the Student:



The evidence established that, as a result of Student’s
disabilities, he missed school, caused danger to himself and
others and had difficulty with written expression.
The 504 Plan was “no longer sufficient to meet Student’s
needs” and the Student required “special education to
address social, behavioral, and written expression needs.”
The ALJ noted that the private assessor was competent to
offer an opinion regarding eligibility and recommendations,
but that, his opinion was “made without the benefit of more
contemporary information regarding Student’s behavior at
school, which had arguably gotten worse."
47
38 IDELR 84
Need for Special Education:
Student v. Monrovia School District

What We Can Take Away From This Case:




Needs of students with autism can change from year to year or
even month to month. General education accommodations may be
sufficient today, but they may not be tomorrow.
It is important to monitor the effectiveness of accommodations
carefully and review multiple sources.
Be especially careful to monitor where a student has a medical
diagnosis of autism! (Stanislaus Union School Dist. v. Student (OAH
2013) Case No. 2013050308)
Stale evaluations aren’t defensible. The independent evaluator
wasn’t credible because so much of the Student’s behavior had
occurred after the evaluation. If a student’s behavior begins to
change dramatically, consider whether there has been a change in
circumstances and further evaluation is necessary.
48
The “Need” for Special Education:
Just Related Services


NOT JUST ACADEMIC
If student meets definition of one or more
disabilities identified at 34 C.F.R. § 300.8,
but only needs related services and not special
education:
 Student is not eligible under IDEA.
 Except
if related service that student requires
is considered “special education” under state
standards (e.g., speech and language therapy).
49
Time to Connect the Dots!
Present Levels
Goals
Accommodations
Placement and
Services
50
Needs/Deficit Areas












Identify needs – baselines (common
“themes” we see in this population)
Noncompliant
Social Initiation
Social Maintenance
Rigidity/Inflexibility
Control
Attention Seeking
Provocativeness
Body Space Issues
Learning to Learn Skills
Executive Functioning
Limited Interests
51
Needs/Deficit Areas
Who are these kids?
 No single “box” – but we can see “profiles”
emerge





Noncompliant, social initiation and rigid
Provocative, controlling and attention seeking
Learning to learn, inattentive, executive functioning
Just starting points and every child is
different!
52
Topic Hog
Likes to talk about what they like to talk
about
 Knows a lot about a few things (often not
age appropriate)
 Uses others as a sounding board- not true
social interest
 Lack of reciprocity
 Changes the topic mid conversation
 Often likes to talk to adults

53
The Wallflower
Quiet
 Often peripheral of social groups
 Not involved in games/activities
 Prefers solitary activities and uncomfortable
with group activities
 May be overlooked
 Not a traditional “behavior” problem
 Deficit/nonfunctional versus shy/functional

54
The Mover







This is the student that can’t sit or stand still
Always bumping into others and getting into their
space.
Makes too much noise when others are quiet
Often touches other kids in ways that bother them
Has difficulty “hanging”
Often touches materials on others desk
Tends to take things a bit too far – and left holding
the bag
55
The Hail to the Chief-er






Always wants things to go his/her way.
Has a hard time (behavior) when someone else makes the
rules
Struggles with group work
Struggles with taking another's opinion that is different
than theirs
Often feels that they are right and others are wrong
Often expends a great deal of energy trying to keep control
of things
56
The Enforcer







In everyone’s business
Very aware of what others should be doingnot much self-awareness
Rule follower (for others)
Often inflexible
Makes natural social flow difficult
Gives others corrective feedback
Often makes excuses for their own behavior
but rarely for others
57
The Babysitter






Often likes to be with younger kids
Struggles with same age peers
Will search out other “weaker” kids that they
can take care of or tell what to do.
Difficulty maintaining legitimate friendships
Often see this as kids mature and they can’t
“keep up”
Often as an escape to challenging social
situations
58
Connecting Dots: Goal Development
59
Connecting Dots: Goal Development





Meaningful - based on a student’s
assessed/identified areas of need
Academic, Vocational, Social and Behavioral
Goals must be measurable and developed from
student’s present levels
Designed to meet the child’s needs (not
guaranteed!)
Help the child be involved in the general education
curriculum
60
Connection Dots: Goal Development





Break down goals into meaningful parts.
Kids with Autism learn differently and goals need to reflect this.
Is the goal important and necessary for this student’s success?
Break skills down into more discrete learning to avoid “robotic
appearance” with holes in learning:
 NO: “When initiating a conversation with a peer, will say hello and
introduce self….”
Social Skills versus Skill Specific Goal:
 NO: “Will display appropriate social skills during…”
 YES: “In a structured learning environment (e.g. social skills group),
Student will initiate a social-interaction with a peer in an ageappropriate manner (e.g. orient to peer, ask question/make
comment, join activity)…
61
Connection Dots: Goal Development

The Shift to Common Core and Children with
Autism











The “why” and the “how”
Informational Texts
More Complex Texts
Increased Writing
Oral Presentation
Collaborative Group-work
Application/Word-Problems
Conflict Resolution
Executive Functioning
Perspective Taking
Inferences
62
Connecting Dots: Goal Development

Tips/Red Flags

Responsible Personnel – embrace overlap!


Prompting




Meaningful collaboration
What are the pitfalls when used in goals?
Can the goal/skill area be broken-down and written for a
“prerequisite” skill?
How can a goal be written to ensure independence?
Compound Goals – too many areas addressed


Can each skill within goal be measured separately?
May result in many “partially met” (i.e. NOT MET) goals
63
Connecting Dots: Goal Development

Tips/Red Flags

Don’t be Vague



“will improve their social skills in 2 out of 3 opportunities…”
Can data be collected by someone who does not know the
student?
No “Prospective” Deficit Goals


Guaranteed to fail
Current deficits only!
TIPS – keep a bank, but individualize
 Student v. Las Virgenes Unified School District (OAH
2013)

64
Connecting Dots: Goal Development
District prevailed in defending its Elementary
Social-Communication Program
 IEP in question had 14 goals
 ALJ cited verbatim, all 14 goals to show
District developed an appropriate IEP
 Goal Example:


“Across the school setting, Student will display knowledge of five different age
appropriate topics, and will engage in a five minute conversation about the topic and
include five different facts about the topic during the conversation in four out of five
trials over a two week period…”
65
Connecting Dots: Goal Development

Goals – the Bad, the Good and the Better

At school, Student will take turns and play nicely with his peers 90% of the
time.

In a large-group setting, Student will be able to identify a peer’s feelings
(i.e. happy or sad) and will act appropriately with 80% accuracy in 2 out of
4 trials as measured by teacher observations.

In a large-group setting, when interacting with peers, Student will be able
to identify social perspective (e.g. identify another’s point of view,
understand the topic being talked about) and act accordingly based on the
social situation (e.g. wait for a break in conversation, stay on topic, match
the energy level of the group) in 80% of opportunities over a 4-week
period as measured by data collection.
66
Connecting the Dots: Program and Services




Districts typically operate RSP/SDC or SAI model
Historically, lower-functioning Autism population served in SDC or selfcontained special education classrooms with other students with varied
moderate to severe needs.
High functioning students didn’t really fit in with severe program or
RSP-SAI/SLD population.
By default, higher functioning population often placed in general
education with 1:1 aide/behavior support:



Often via NPA support and/or disjointed, reactive intervention
Can result in prompt dependence, student isolation and lack of meaningful growth
Artificial appearance of independence and student progress
67
Connecting the Dots: Program and Services

What we saw:
 Preschool – integrated specialized programs – kids generally did
well,
 gap between typical and special education not as pronounced;
easier for kids to “blend in” and be overlooked
 Elementary - hanging in there – but gaps beginning to show
 Smart only gets them so far – executive functioning issues begin
to impact learning
 Social gaps start to widen
 Kids start to “blend out”


“That’s just who they are!”
Social emotional issues may emerge –


May look behavioral in nature
May stem from frustration, inattention, control and/or inflexibility
68
Connecting the Dots: Program and Services

What we saw:


Middle School - beginning to fall apart – too little, too late?
 Peers less forgiving
 Social and Academic demands skyrocket
 Added demands of adolescence, not “just who they were” –
social emotional issues more pronounced and “emotional” (i.e.
depression, anxiety, etc…)
High School - complete disaster “I want my NPS/RTC!”
 Grades plummet, complete social disengagement or isolation,
almost look ED
 Can fall in with the “wrong” crowd and display anti-social
behaviors.
69
Connecting the Dots: Program and Services
What we did: Buttercup Preschool





Developed to build capacity within our own district and reduce requests for private
preschool funding;
A full-inclusion, ABA-based program that meets the individual needs of special education
students and typically developing peers, side-by-side, in a range of classroom options;
Collaboration between all staff:
 Special educators and general education teachers
 Psychologists, behaviorists, speech and language specialists, occupational therapists,
adaptive physical education teachers and trained instructional assistants.
All staff receives ongoing specialized training in ABA;
Range of placement options:
 Intensive: taught by special education teacher with 2:1 ratio of adults to students;
 50/50 SDC: taught by credentialed special education teacher with 50% special
education students and 50% typically developing peers;
 ECE: taught by an ECE certified teacher with 20% special education students and
80% typically developing peers.
70
Connecting the Dots: Program and Services
What we did: Buttercup Preschool

Ongoing program development:





Preschool program was almost “too good”
Students “looked great” in the preschool setting, but deficits
appeared upon matriculation into Kindergarten and early
elementary.
Restructured the 4-year old classes with a stronger focus on
independence, executive functioning and learning to learn skills
Provided additional training to all staff in identifying and addressing
the “more subtle” social and learning to learn skills (goals and
services)
Transition into Kindergarten facilitated through attendance in
elementary social-communication ESY program.
71
Connecting the Dots: Program and Services
What we did:

Social Skills and ABA





District adopted ABA as guiding principle in educating students with
Autism
District applied an ABA-based model in the development and
instruction of social skills.
This means – skills are systematically broken down in to teachable
parts and taught to generalization before moving on to the next
skill.
Proactive instruction is individualized for each student’s specific skill
deficit as opposed to “a one size fits all” curriculum
Social instruction versus social support (moving beyond a traditional
“lunch bunch” approach).
72
Connecting the Dots: Program and Services
What we did:

District’s SAI model “adjusted” at all school sites:



Moved beyond “lunch bunch” and “small-group” speech, and
implemented systematic teaching of Social and Learning to Learn
Skills throughout the school day with strong generalization plans.
This is instruction like Language Arts and Math!
Developed and implemented systematic District-wide behavioral
(ABA) training for all staff (administrators, teachers and aides)
collaboratively with Autism Partnership, the District’s consulting
nonpublic agency.
73
Connecting the Dots: Program and Services
What we did:

Developed District’s Behavior Team
Provide direct ABA based services to students
 Provide consultation to staff in the area of behavior
 Ensure District expertise in meeting students’ needs
 Ensure District expertise at IEP team meetings.
 Trained the trainers:


2-day didactic and 4-day hands-on
74
Behavior
Capacity
Model
Director
of
Special
Ed
Expert &/or
Program
Coordinator
Behaviorist(s)
TOSA / Psych
District
Level
Instructional Specialists
Behavior
Principal
Teachers - Gen. & Sped.
Instructional Aides
School
Site
75
Connecting the Dots: Program and Services
What we did: Social-Communication Programs


Even with additional training and support at each school
site, some students required a greater level of intervention
Expanded Social Communication Program (Elementary,
Middle School and High School)






Specialized Programs
“Elective” (Middle and High School)
Prosocial versus deficit driven
Specialized Aide support
Staff training
School-wide “buy-in” and training
76
Connecting the Dots: Program and Services
What we did: Social-Communication Programs










Daily systematic social skills instruction with strong generalizations plans
 More than lunch bunch
 More than 30 minutes a week of social skills
Small group setting
Layers of support (from administration, to speech, to psych, behavior….)
School-wide training and support for the general education grade-level teams
Systematic instruction throughout the school day
 Individualized goals addressed across all settings (e.g.: compliance, flexibility, staying
on topic)
Group goals embedded through the school day
Teacher that is highly trained in social/behavioral instruction (i.e. not an “add-on”)
Highly trained support-staff to support program(s) throughout the school day
Meaningful access to typical peers in a systematic way
Parent training to support school-to-home generalization of skills
77
Connecting the Dots: Program and Services
What we did: Social-Communication Programs

Social and behavioral curriculum – “lesson plans”
Systematic plans for targeted skills
 Developed in writing – and can be used, adapted and
tailored to different students based on need
 Data driven
 Ex. Expanding Interests (Goal Based)
 May need 20 skills to be taught/learned
 Programs work on each of these skills

78
Social and Behavioral Program
79
Social and Behavioral Program
Engaging in a Game
Objective: To appropriately play a game with peers without interfering, annoying or
disruptive behaviors:
Playing collaboratively (e.g., not controlling the game, not dictating,
playing the way that the group wants to play, compromising with the group)
Blending in (e.g., doing what everyone else is doing, no extreme
reactions, appropriate voice volume, no repetitive
behavior/commenting)
Paying Attention (e.g., to the game and taking turns, to peers and the
conversation that occurs during the game)
Task Analysis: Questions to ask yourself when playing with friends:
1.
Am I following the rules that the group wants to play?
2.
Am I being repetitive, loud and/or annoying?
3.
Am I focused on what my friends are focused on
80
Defending Your Program
Student v. LVUSD (OAH 2013)






High-functioning Student with Autism/OHI attended District programs
preschool through Kindergarten
During 1nd grade, Parents alleged escalating behaviors and lack of
progress, disputed District’s SAI placement offer and unilaterally placed
Student at NPS/Autism Program
Student remained at NPS for 2nd and 3rd grade
District developed Elementary Social Communication Program during
Student’s 2nd grade year and fully implemented during Student’s 3rd
grade year
District reassessed and IEP convened at the end of Student’s 3rd grade
year to develop program for following year
District assessments included extensive observations by all assessors
81
Defending Your Program
Student v. LVUSD (OAH 2013)

IEP team recommended transition to less restrictive setting and offered
placement in Social Communication Program for 4th grade year.

Offered Social Communication Program included:






SAI for social skills, language arts, math, social studies, library, computer and PE
General education for science, art music, lunch and recess
Aide support 1:2 during general education times
OT, SL, direct District behavior services (including social skills), District behavior
supervision, NPA behavior supervision and consultation among all service providers
Additional behavior services by District and NPA provider offered to assist with
transition from NPS to District program included
Parents disputed assessments and placement offer and filed for due
process.
82
Defending Your Program
Student v. LVUSD (OAH 2013)

ALJ held for the District:
 District’s multi-disciplinary assessment determined comprehensive
and thorough
 District witnesses found highly credible, “thoughtful, enthusiastic,
and established their competencies to tailor the program to
Student’s needs.”
 District’s adoption of ABA-based programming (methodology)
developed with consulting agency was reasonable and based on
peer-reviewed research
 Student’s prior “negative” experiences in the District was not
predictive of how the current program would be implemented
 Offered program permitted a “continuum of environments … that
could either pull things back if not working or expand if successful.”
 District prevailed on all issues heard and decided
83
A few words about ESY…






Address social and learning-to-learn skills with the
regression/recoupment “analysis”
For all grade levels
“Camp-like” approach – theme based
Focus on fun – with systematic instruction embedded
for the full school day
Emphasis on group-learning, expanding interests, and
problem solving
An investment that “pays off”.
84
Defending Your Program
Student v. LVUSD (OAH 2014)





Fully-included 4th grade, high-functioning student with Autism
transferred into District (mid-summer transferee)
Student’s IEP included NPA behavioral aide
District offered and implemented comparable program with Districttrained IA support and District-provided behavioral supervision
Subsequent IEP recommended placement in District Social
Communication Program (60 minutes per day to directly target social
and learning to learn skills), behavior and SL services (direct and
consultation) District IA support (“not 1:1”) for general education.
Parent disputed District’s placement offer and filed for due process
challenging Social Communication Program placement and District
provided IA support
85
Defending Your Program
Student v. LVUSD (OAH 2014)

ALJ held for the District:




ALJ found District’s witnesses to be sincere, genuine, persuasive, thoughtful and professional
“The Social Communication Program was taught … to third through fifth grade students who
were generally at grade level academically but weak in social communication skills. Students of
different grades went in and out of the classroom, some for only the direct instruction of a one
hour social skills class, and the class usually had 10 to 12 students at any one time. The social
skills class incorporated a curriculum that systematically taught both "learning to learn" and social
skills. Aides in the Social Communication Program followed social skills students throughout the
day, in the general education classrooms and on the playground, to reinforce acquired skills.”
“Learning to learn skills are necessary to function in a school environment, and include such skills
as how to raise a hand to appropriately gain attention, wait to be called upon, sit appropriately,
keep an organized binder, bring books to school, be prepared, pick a partner for group activities,
and follow instructions. A student who lacks learning to learn skills can be affected socially.”
“The social skills component … focused on social interaction skills in which a student had a deficit
and taught them in small, learnable parts. For example, before a student could master frustration
tolerance, he needed to first learn how his body felt under stress, to identify what stressed or
calmed him, and how and when to apply calming techniques. Conversation skills lessons included
not only greetings, but how to join a conversation appropriately, and conversational turn taking
(how to be less "robotic," or to avoid monopolizing conversation).”
86
Defending Your Program
Student v. LVUSD (OAH 2014)




“The social skills curriculum also included engaging in play activities, as play is the primary means by
which elementary school children form meaningful peer relationships. Students learned the rules of
common games (e.g., the ball bounces twice in handball), common terms of the games (e.g.,
"rainbow" and "cross-country" in handball), how to be flexible if peers want to change the rules, and
how to physically participate (e.g., how to hit the ball and where to aim). In contrast to physical
education classes, the social skills class allowed students to learn the rules and physical skills
necessary to play a game in a safe environment. Those skills were then generalized to the playground.
The Social Communications Program had instructional aides … who worked with the program's
students on the playground during lunch and recess.”
“District provides ABA training to all instructional aides who work with students on the autism
spectrum. ABA is an instructional technique that breaks down skills into measurable, learnable parts
that are initially worked on in a small structured environment, and then practiced in increasingly less
structured settings. If the skills are learned in a progressive and systematic way, they should transfer
to other settings. District's ABA training program was designed by, and is run in collaboration with …
an NPA that serves children with autism.”
“The training program consists of two days of lecture, and four days of hands-on training with
preschool children. District's ABA training is comparable to, if not better than, that provided by most
NPA's in the field. District instructional aides are supervised by District's behavior intervention team,
who in turn collaborate with [consulting NPA]”.
District prevailed on all issues heard and decided.
87
88