Table of Contents
July 14, 2021. CDC Guidance for COVID 19 Prevention in K-12 Schools (Updated July 9, 2021)
Key Takeaways
- Students benefit from in-person learning, and safely returning to in-person instruction in the fall 2021 is a priority.
- Vaccination is currently the leading public health prevention strategy to end the COVID-19 pandemic. Promoting vaccination can help schools safely return to in-person learning as well as extracurricular activities and sports.
- Masks should be worn indoors by all individuals (age 2 and older) who are not fully vaccinated. Consistent and correct mask use by people who are not fully vaccinated is especially important indoors and in crowded settings, when physical distancing cannot be maintained.
- CDC recommends schools maintain at least 3 feet of physical distance between students within classrooms, combined with indoor mask wearing by people who are not fully vaccinated, to reduce transmission risk. When it is not possible to maintain a physical distance of at least 3 feet, such as when schools cannot fully re-open while maintaining these distances, it is especially important to layer multiple other prevention strategies, such as indoor masking.
- Screening testing, ventilation, handwashing and respiratory etiquette, staying home when sick and getting tested, contact tracing in combination with quarantine and isolation, and cleaning and disinfection are also important layers of prevention to keep schools safe.
- Students, teachers, and staff should stay home when they have signs of any infectious illness and be referred to their healthcare provider for testing and care.
- Many schools serve children under the age of 12 who are not eligible for vaccination at this time. Therefore, this guidance emphasizes implementing layered prevention strategies (e.g., using multiple prevention strategies together consistently) to protect people who are not fully vaccinated, including students, teachers, staff, and other members of their households.
- COVID-19 prevention strategies remain critical to protect people, including students, teachers, and staff, who are not fully vaccinated, especially in areas of moderate-to-high community transmission levels.
- Localities should monitor community transmission, vaccination coverage, screening testing, and occurrence of outbreaks to guide decisions on the level of layered prevention strategies (e.g., physical distancing, screening testing).
For the complete guidance click on the above link.
October 1, 2020
New Q and A from OCR (9/28/2020)
On the same day OSERS issued the following Q and A on children’s rights under the IDEA during the 2020 COVID 19 pandemic, OCR issued the following Q and A reprinted here in its 9 page entirety.
On the same day that OSERS issued its Q and A on the IDEA and COVID OCR issued the following 9 page Q and A on Section 504
In the Q and A OCR reinforces its position that districts are as responsible for ensuring children with disabilities receive FAPE as they were before COVID 19, even if a school district ibegins the school year by only offering distance learning.
September 29, 2020
NEW!
OSEP COVID-19 Questions & Answers:
Implementation of IDEA Part B Provision of Services
Colleagues:
The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services’ Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) released a Questions and Answers (Q&A) document in response to inquiries concerning implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B provision of services in the current COVID-19 environment:
| IDEA Part B Provision of Services |
OSERS/OSEP will continue to work with state and local leaders to identify any additional areas where it can provide information to support stakeholders in their important work.
For more information about COVID-19, please visit:
ED COVID-19 Information and Resources
www.ed.gov/coronavirus
U.S. Government COVID-19 Information and Resources
www.coronavirus.gov
September 27, 2020
Online Accommodations during the Pandemic
Online resources providing suggestions for 504/IDEA accommodations for online reading and Zoom have been sparse. Those listed here are passed on in the hope they will be helpful but without our “official” endorsement.
This one from Pandemic Parenting was recently shared on the School Psychology Listserv. “Some kids are really struggling with online/zoom type learning, particularly those with attention, sensory and other related issues. There are a lot of kids out there who loathe Zoom and online classes. If your child struggles with some of these issues in a typical classroom, it’s not realistic to think that they would not face similar or related issues as they transition to online learning. If a student cannot focus on the teacher in the classroom, they might be able to ignore the distracting classmate who sits behind them while at school. In a Zoom classroom, all of their classmates are right there in front of them. “
Don’t IEP Alone: A Day in Our Shoes
Also see IEP Accommodations During Distance Learning from a web page entitled “Understanding Differences.”
IEP Accommodations during Distance Learning
“To make accommodations work in an online setting, you’ll need some innovative thinking and an understanding of the tools available to you and your students. Take a look at the charts below for some examples of how commonly used accommodations can transfer to a virtual setting.”
Accommodations, Modifications, and Interventions at a Distance
“As we’re already seeing, the move to remote learning exacerbates preexisting issues of equity in schools. Delivering instruction at a distance isn’t simple, even when students have no difficulties with learning, a dedicated device in a quiet space, a household with low stress levels, and parents able to support learning. But this ideal situation is far from ubiquitous. The proportion of families who are currently unemployed or underemployed, food insecure, and experiencing high levels of stress is higher than we’ve ever seen. We have students who require accommodations, modifications, and intervention now at home with their families—many of whom are unsure of how to provide the support they need.”
NASP: The Pandemic’s Impact on Special Education Evaluations and SLD Identification (Reproduced here in its entirety.)September 19, 2020
School psychologists spend almost 60% of their time assessing and serving students with special needs (Benson et al., 2019), which does not stop in the face of a global pandemic. Thus, it is likely that the single issue about which school psychologists are most concerned is how to continue or begin a special education disability identification assessment during or immediately following a lengthy school closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this paper and the accompanying webinar for NASP members, we will offer guidance regarding how school psychologists can address issues regarding the identification of students with specific learning disabilities (SLDs) when schools reopen after the extended school closures necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Because many schools use response to intervention (RTI) as part of the evaluation of SLD, and because all SLD evaluations must consider whether the student’s academic concerns are a function of a lack of instruction rather than an SLD, we will start with the need to reestablish core instruction for all and evidence-based interventions for students who might be identified as having SLD. We will then address how and when to refer a student for an evaluation and how those evaluations might best proceed in this unusual and unprecedented situation. (The full Return to School academic webinar series is available at the NASP website at https://www.nasponline.org/covid-19-webinar-series.)
Realigning the Order of SLD Identification Criteria to Mitigate the COVID-19 Effect
As school psychologists know, the 2006 IDEA Regulations specify that, for a student to be identified with an SLD, four criteria must be fulfilled, and the student must also display a significant degree of need to qualify for special education. The criteria are: (a) the student must fail to meet age- or grade-level standards in one of eight academic areas, (b) the student must either display a lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction (i.e., RTI) or display a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance and/or achievement, (c) other disabilities or situational conditions must be ruled out as the primary cause of the student’s academic difficulties, and (d) the student’s academic difficulties must not be primarily a function of a lack of instruction. Our colleagues in North Carolina recognize the unique circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2020) and have rendered these criteria plus the degree of need in a unique way (see Figure 1). This depiction has particular relevance to how the evaluation for SLD is carried out after the pandemic school closure because it envisions the process as starting with the rule-outs of lack of instruction and other factors, rather than concluding with it. That is, it emphasizes the need to establish (or in this case, reestablish) core instruction and evidence-based interventions as the first and most important task not only for all students but particularly for students who might be considered for SLD identification.
Reestablishing Core Instruction and Supplemental Interventions
The first rule-out factor in any SLD identification is lack of appropriate instruction, which seems especially important given the 5- to 6-month break from face-to-face instruction. Most students were offered optional hard-copy packets and online instructional activities, but most were intended to review or apply previously learned material rather than teach anything new (St. George et al., 2020). Moreover, there was considerable variability in access to these learning opportunities based on available internet connectivity. In other words, even if schools return to in-person instruction in the fall, it will be almost impossible to rule out a lack of appropriate instruction as a causal factor in learning difficulties, which makes reestablishing effective core instruction a top priority.
Figure 1. [See PDF]
The second way in which core instruction will need to be modified is to implement class-wide reading intervention immediately when school begins. VanDerHeyden recommended using class-wide interventions prior to universal screenings in the fall in order to increase screening decision accuracy, and Burns and Runge both discussed its implications for student learning (National Association of School Psychologists, 2020). Given that class-wide interventions were discussed elsewhere, we will not revisit them here except to emphasize their importance for reestablishing core instruction when schools return to in-person instruction.
Students are likely to return to school with even larger deficits between skill and their new grade-level expectations, which makes class-wide intervention so important. However, there will still be a number of students whose academic deficit persists after class-wide interventions occur. Because student skills may be lower, Tier 2 interventions that seemed effective last year may not be effective this year. As discussed in the previous webinar on the implications of the pandemic on reading intervention, school personnel should more closely match Tier 2 interventions to student needs. The assessment-to-intervention model outlined in Figure 2 can be used to target intervention efforts.
Considerations for Identifying Students for Evaluation for SLD
Having established the essential step of reestablishing core instruction and supplemental interventions, a practical consideration is when it will be prudent to refer a student for an evaluation for SLD after schooling continues. Child find requirements have long been a federal requirement, and it has further been stipulated that procedures such as RTI must not create an unreasonable delay in identifying students with SLD (Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 2007). Nonetheless, students who have not been in school for extended periods, especially those with academic deficiencies, will likely have fallen further behind during the pandemic-related school closures and summer break. This situation embodies a conflict between the child find and lack of instruction requirements and creates potential problems with both overidentification and underidentification of SLD.
Overidentification can occur if sufficient time is not taken to reestablish core instruction, reassess the student’s skill levels after the extended school closures and summer break, intervene quickly and incisively with an intervention matched to the student’s need, and assess the student’s progress. This is especially critical for students who are economically disadvantaged, who may have been particularly limited in access to online instruction during the break in formal schooling, and for students who have limited English proficiency (both specific rule-outs for SLD). This concern is exacerbated by the likelihood that many students will need a period of time to emotionally readjust when returning to school, particularly elementary-age students who are most often identified with SLD. Parents who are understandably concerned about their children’s academic struggles may add to the push for early special education evaluations. Underidentification of SLD can occur for those students who had been receiving intensive (Tier 3) supports and displaying a significant lack of progress before the extended school closure due to the pandemic. While some readjustment to school and reestablishment of interventions are still needed, it may be inappropriate to unduly extend the readjustment period prior to making a formal referral for evaluation.
As with all such decisions, the data collected on the student’s RTI during supplemental intervention are the best resource for deciding when to initiate the formal evaluation. In this case, it is important to review data on the student’s growth both before and after the extended school closure and summer break. For example, as displayed in Figure 3, the student was displaying a poor rate of improvement (ROI) during Tier 3 supports before the extended school closure and continued to show meager growth when Tier 3 supports were reestablished when the student returned to school. Thus, the combination of a very deficient level of performance along with a poor RTI that has not closed the gap with peers in spite of the use of an intervention that is carefully matched to the student’s needs would signal the need to proceed with an evaluation (Kovaleski, VanDerHeyden, & Shapiro, 2013).
The Special Education Eligibility Evaluation After COVID-19 School Closures
The extended school closure due to COVID-19 creates two problems for conducting SLD identification evaluations in addition to the inability to rule out a lack of appropriate instruction. First, what do school psychologists do with evaluations that started before the school closure? Second, how we complete new initial evaluations after in-person instruction begins? We will comment on both below.
Figure 3. Graph of Progress Monitoring Data Before and After COVID-19 School Closure [See PDF]
In Process Evaluations
Schools are required by federal law to complete special education evaluations within 60 calendar days, but many states have different requirements (e.g., 40 school days). If the state requires school days, then school teams may be able to argue that the timeline for the evaluation stops during the extended school closure. If the state uses calendar days, then school personnel can request that parents grant an extension to the deadline. An extension may also be appropriate for other reasons due to the extended school closure, but school personnel cannot request an extension to implement RTI. Readers are referred to their state departments of education websites for additional information about timeline extensions due to COVID-19.
In the event that an extension cannot be granted, school teams should have a conversation about what assessments are needed to identify a disability, and those that are not absolutely necessary can be eliminated. For example, it is common practice for school psychologists to complete a behavioral rating scale and an intelligence test for every evaluation (Benson et al., 2019). Intelligence tests are not required for SLD identification, and behavioral scales may only be needed if there is a behavioral concern. Thus, school teams may decide to forego intelligence testing and behavioral ratings, among other possibilities, to expedite the assessment process as appropriate (e.g., intellectual disability is not suspected and there are no behavioral difficulties). Moreover, many aspects of an identification evaluation can be conducted when school is not in session (e.g., developmental history, review of existing data), and teams can conduct those aspects prior to a return to in-person instruction.
New Initial Evaluations
All states must allow the use of RTI to identify SLD, but it is not required by federal law. However, there has never been a time when determining if a child responds to scientific, research-based interventions as part of the SLD identification process was more important, because the validity of SLD identification could be seriously questioned in schools following the pandemic.
One reason why SLD identification could be questioned is that the norms for standardized tests may not apply. Some states and school districts are utilizing alternative research-based approaches to identifying SLD, commonly referred to as a pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW), as an alternative to RTI or the discredited ability–achievement discrepancy model. PSW relies on interpreting subscales of IQ tests, and research has consistently questioned the validity of decisions made with IQ subtest scores (McGill, Dombrowski, & Canivez, 2018). The American Psychological Association (APA) provided guidelines for virtual assessments during the pandemic in which they reminded psychologists that tests are normed on face-to-face assessments, which makes comparisons to the norm group questionable (see https://www.apaservices.org/practice/reimbursement/health-codes/testing/psychological-telehealth). As a result, the APA suggested that practitioners focus on more robust full-scale scores rather than subscales. Even if the assessments were not conducted virtually, they were not normed after a 5- to 6-month disruption in school, which again questions comparisons to norms and suggests extreme caution in interpreting subtest scores. It may also be wise to use grade norms on achievement tests with considerable caution, too.
A full and individual evaluation of students for SLD must consist of a complete appraisal of the five criteria displayed in Figure 1. The student must display a failure to achieve proficiency in one of the designated academic areas, as indicated by significant deficits on recently administered curriculum-based and/or norm-referenced assessments (Criterion 3 in the figure). When using RTI (Criterion 4 in the figure), an analysis of the student’s progress (or lack thereof) both before and after the COVID-19 school closure is key. How poor the student’s RTI needs to be to qualify for SLD identification under these criteria is an important consideration, and is particularly salient in this situation. In this case, the postclosure ROI is most important, because it can be used to project the student’s current progress into future performance. As described by Kovaleski et al. (2013), if the trajectory of student’s current attained ROI does not close the achievement gap with typically performing peers in a reasonable amount of time, the
student would qualify under this criterion. This projection must include a consideration of the likelihood that the student made no progress or lost skills during the extended school closure and summer break.
In addition to these inclusionary criteria, the evaluation team will also need to consider whether the student’s deficient level of performance and poor RTI is a function of another condition other than SLD (Criterion 2 in Figure 1) or is a result of a lack of instruction (Criterion 1 in the figure). This latter exclusionary factor is particularly important in postclosure evaluations, because there should be evidence that goes beyond the typical considerations of whether the student was exposed to a rigorous core curriculum and evidence-based interventions. Because all students lacked instruction for up to half a year, the evaluation team should appraise the efforts made to reestablish high quality instruction and individualized supplemental interventions that we described above. Finally, whether the student who qualifies under the first four criteria also needs special education in order to make meaningful progress must be evaluated. A student who qualifies for special education must need a level of intensification that can only be delivered through specially designed instruction and supportive services.
Conclusion
Although a return to in-person instruction would likely be a welcomed semblance of normalcy, it will bring unique challenges. Continuing to identify SLD the way we always have before, without reestablishing core instruction and intervention, without rethinking our assessment practices, and without carefully considering exclusionary criteria, will likely result in a greater disparity between high and low achievers that over- or underidentifies SLD. None of these outcomes are desirable for the children that we serve. This is also a unique opportunity to reconceptualize SLD, which has been a controversial construct since it was first institutionalized in federal law so that identifying a child as learning disabled will lead to positive results for that child.
Resources
- Acadience Learning K–6 reading assessment guidance, https://acadiencelearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Spring2020_COVID-19_AcadienceReadingK-6_Guidance.pdf
- Videos of virtual reading interventions, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0ad1ei6p_HOHHhc-T-JnZg/videos?
- Department of Education COVID-19 resources page, https://ed.gov/coronavirus
- National Association of School Psychologists Ask the Experts Return to School Academic Series, https://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/resources-and-podcasts/covid-19-resource-center/return-to-school
References
Benson, N. F., Floyd, R. G., Kranzler, J. H., Eckert, T. L., Fefer, S. A., & Morgan, G. B. (2019). Test use and assessment practices of school psychologists in the United States: Findings from the 2017 national survey. Journal of School Psychology, 72, 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.12.004
Kovaleski, J. F., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (2013). The RTI approach to evaluating learning disabilities. Guilford Press.
McGill, R. J., Dombrowski, S. C., & Canivez, G. L. (2018). Cognitive profile analysis in school psychology: History, issues, and continued concerns. Journal of School Psychology, 71, 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.007
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2020). MTSS Implementation Guide. Author. Available at https://www.livebinders.com/play/play/2052295?tabid=2538aab9-8272-13b4-916d-9fcaabd1e97c
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2007). Questions and answers on response to intervention (RTI) and early intervening services (EIS). Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/07-0021.RTI_.pdf.
Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12–19, 39. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ971753.pdf
St. George, D., Natanson, H., Stein, P., & Lumpkin, L. (2020, March 22). Schools are shut, so how will kids learn amid the COVID-19 pandemic? Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/schools-are-shut-so-how-will-kids-learn-amid-the-covid-19-pandemic/2020/03/22/dac4742e-6ab7-11ea-9923-57073adce27c_story.html.
Advice for Parents During the Pandemic (9/13/2020)
Wrightslaw offers parents advice in dealing with their school’s approach to services for children with disabilities when the services being offered (e.g., instruction via their virtual learning platform) do not meet their needs. School Psychologists and school professionals should be aware of some of the advice parents are receiving and what demands they might make prior to holding an IEP team. Just one of the topics covered in this document:
If you have questions about resolving problems with the school, take a look at the Resolving Disputes Pop-Up Tool.
The Resolving Disputes Pop-Up Tool.Resolving Disputes Pop-Up Tool has 12 Questions and Answers.
Online Resources for Teachers of Children with Disabilities (Source: North Carolina DPI)
September 6, 2020
The listing of resources is updated periodically by NCDPI. Click on the link above for the most recent resources.
September 5, 2020
Pearson has provided updated information on using its assessment tools online.
Pearson has a growing number of products that may be appropriately used for telepractice under certain conditions. Please keep in mind that local laws and regulations apply and must be considered first in each case. Any specific guidance available for a given test can be found below. If you don’t see information on a particular product, please contact us for assistance.
The page above only lists one cognitive assessment, the K-BIT 2, which was validated for use as a screening tool only. However, the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment System (RIAS) 2 has been adapted for online use and is designed to provide cognitive data that may be used in making high stakes eligibility decisions under the IDEA.
Potetial users should according to the publisher review its white paper on online administrations entitled:
In-Person Administration versus Remote Administration
Brief Excerpt
“Remote administration occurs when you and the examinee are atseparate locations. You and the examinee are both using your desktop computer, laptop, or tablet screen to view the stimulus materials, which are designed for remote administration via a videoconferencing platform. We strongly encourage you to review the administration procedures
for the remote test you select and test your setup with a videoconferencing platform prior to meeting with a client. For some remote tests (e.g., RIAS-2 Remote; RIST-2 Remote), you will need to choose a videoconferencing platform
that has tools that allow the examinee to pick the correct response (see Figure 5). }
For additional information, visit the PAR web page on the RIAS or see our page on the RIAS 2 on this website.
Additional information on online testing (telepractice) is also available from WPS, Pro-Ed and Riverside
Click to access WPS%20Tele-assessment%20Statement.pdf
Pro ED
“Due to current restrictions in travel and personal interaction associated with the COVID-19 Pandemic and
to support expanded capabilities for all service providers in their delivery of tele-health services, PRO-ED
is issuing these guidelines for tele-assessment and an associated statement of No Objection to permit the
following use of our copyrighted materials.”
“Riverside Insights’ clinical assessments are all designed to be administered individually in
person. However, in extenuating circumstances where that is not possible, such as the current
pandemic, there are alternative options to collect data on tests within our portfolio*. Riverside
currently offers two solutions for remote administration: our Standard Solution and our
Premium Solution, which can be purchased through PresenceLearning.”
July 9, 2020 Latest information from the United States Department of Education with a link to its resources.
Civil Rights and COVID-19 Webinar
U.S. Department of Education sent this bulletin at 07/09/2020 11:40 AM EDT
|
Online Assessments and Service Delivery
A cautionary introduction. Educators are responsible for using evidence based interventions. School psychologists, however, are required to use reliable tools that have been validated for the purpose for which they are being applied. (Section 300.304(c)(1).) Just because a tool appears on a publisher’s web site and makes grandiose claims does not necessarily mean it isn’t garbage. Publishers do not publish all the tests and tools that they sell because they will yield educationally relevant results designed to help a child. They publish them because you, the consumer, buy them. Buy wisely. Also, when you do find a test that meets professional criteria for reliability and validity and administer it online, that in and of itself would not meet federal requirements mandating that each child suspected of a disability receive a comprehensive evaluation (300(c)(4) designed not only to determine eligibility but also is sufficient to identify all of a child’s special educational and related service needs. (300.304(c)(6). Also see Section 300.305 (a) for additional federally mandated requirements on additional information to be reviewed.
Basically, cutting to the chase, the advice following is that if you can complete a a comprehensive evaluation online in accordance with the publishers’ administrative instructions, you must do it, but if the evaluation would require one to one contact, you should not do it. The devil (as always) is in the details.
A recent posting on the School Psychology Listserv shared information about an intellectual ability test that could be administered online. (See the final paragraphs of this section.) While a major focus of this website has been on special education and spedlaw, these times are unprecedented at least in our lifetime. It may therefore seem disingenuous of this writer to advise readers to put their concerns about possible litigation (inevitable litigation?) in the background while focusing on what we can do in these trying times to address the needs of children with disabilities when our schools have been closed. One lesson can be learned, however, from a long history of spedlaw litigation. Putting aside basic rights, such as the right to a comprehensive evaluation as defined in the 2006 FR for Part B,just to meet federal and/or state timelines is a recipe for disaster in any adversarial proceeding. A timeline violation is only significant if it results in a loss of FAPE. Failing to provide parents with the opportunity for meaningful participation in their child’s IEP development or basing a child’s IEP on a flawed, obviously inadequate evaluation could be construed by courts in and of themselves as fatal flaws .
A comprehensive evaluation, of course, requires more than a intellectual assessment, and DeVos had as of this writing( (5/21/2020) not asked for any waivers pertaining to the IDEA other than funding waivers (see below.) States, however, may have issued their own waivers. In New York State for example, “The timeline for any evaluation that would require in-person contact is waived until the schools re-open.” The federal requirements for a comprehensive evaluation are considerably more detailed than we need to address here but are defined by reference to sections 300.304 (Evaluation Procedures) and section 300.305 (Additional requirements)
[DeVos did recommend a relatively narrow waiver that she said would extend the evaluation timeline for children making the transition from federal special education services for infants and toddlers (under Part C of IDEA) to those for school-age children (Part B). ‘Without this flexibility, a toddler with a disability will lose access to services once he or she turns 3 years old,’ the report states.”
There have been a number of position papers issued from front line organizations addressing this issue. While excerpts from some of those resources are quoted below, anyone, including any school psychologist, who is actively involved in meeting this obligation during the Pandemic is encouraged to read the entire article.
California Association of School Psychologists Position Paper (Added 5/15/2020)
1. Question: Should school psychologists be conducting any initial or triennial testing that has
been designed and normed to be administered in person?
Answer: No. In an effort to ensure public safety, California has instituted a shelter in place order and
public schools are to remain closed for the rest of this academic school year. While distance learning
can and should take place, standardized testing should not. The instruments used by school
psychologists (cognitive ability/intelligence tests, processing tests, neuropsychological tests,
achievement tests, etc.), have not been normed or validated to be used under these conditions.
Telehealth testing that has been validated requires a trained on-site proctor to be in the room with
the student to:
1. Verify the positioning and functioning of the technological requirements;
2. Verify the ambient environmental conditions;
3. Verify confidentiality/privacy condition; and
4. Properly proctor the exam.
New York: Fact Shee t
MASP: Special Education Evaluations and Virtual Assessments
Recommends postponing assessments that require one to one contact until schools reopen.
AASP: Best Practices in Completing Educational Evaluations During School Closure
“School psychologists around Arizona are concerned about the expectation that multidisciplinary
evaluations will be completed to the extent possible during the COVID-19 school closure.
Federal and state guidelines regarding timelines for current evaluations in special education
offer no flexibility beyond what exists in the law (the procedures for a 30-day extension).
However, these guidelines intimate that missing deadlines is understandable considering the
current exceptional circumstances and therefore LEAs may not be significantly penalized when
timelines are not met.”
NASP: Telehealth: Virtual Service Delivery Updated Recommendations
“Consider your competence and the best interests of students. Clearly, individual practitioners need to consider the limits of their own competence in deciding whether they can ethically provide services remotely and the nature of the services they can provide in this format (Standard II: Professional Competence and Responsibility). Practitioners must also consider the best interests of the children they serve (Principle IV.1: Promoting Healthy School, Family, and Community Environments), which includes not abandoning clients in times of need. There are many considerations in assuring that students’ best interests are served when working remotely.” Detailed examples follow this paragraph.
Psychologists of Pennsylvania re Special Education Evaluations and Virtual Assessment
“The preponderance of standardized tests (i.e., IQ tests, formal achievement tests) used in such evaluations are not dAssociation of School esigned to be administered virtually. The administration of such tests must be given through the means in which they were developed and standardized. Deviations from standardization must be reported and, at times, can invalidate test results which could potentially impact eligibility determinations. Therefore,evaluations that require in-person testing or observations should be postponed until school reopens. For those few measures that could be administered virtually, additional factors would need to be considered to maintain test integrity. If the evaluation or reevaluation does not require in-person testing or observation, it may be completed while school is closed, with parent consent, and in accordance with your LEA guidance.
Washington State Association of School Psychologists Guidance for Special Education
“Much of our typical work as school psychologists involves observing students in their natural
environment in the classroom and working with them one-to-one in order to understand their
strengths and challenges cognitively, academically, and in social/emotional/behavioral areas.
School psychologists are now trying to develop new ways to gather this same information
indirectly from parents/guardians and teachers. School psychologists in Washington are taking
into account guidance from the U.S. Department of Education (US DOE), the Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP), the Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(OSPI), and the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) to inform their practice.
School psychologists must be mindful of the legal mandates, ethical requirements, requirements
and limitations of confidentiality, issues of equity, and the need to make decisions based on
valid and reliable data. WSASP encourages all school psychologists to continue to take our
Child Find obligation seriously and ensure that students with disabilities are identified and
provided the services they need, while maintaining the health and safety of students, staff, and
families during this exceptional time.”
With respect to online intellectual assessment, Dr. Cecil Reynolds posted the following on the school psychology listserve:
On Wednesday, May 13, 2020, 06:32:50 PM EDT, ‘Cecil Reynolds wrote:
For persons ages 10 and over, the RAIT and the TOGRA, both IQ measures and available via PAR iConnect, were both standardized via remote administration—we also did P&P testing, and then equated the 2 versions—and it turns out there was very, very minimal equating to do as the 2 versions were nearly identical but the equating reduces the error terms due to the enhanced N, so we did it anyway. So, no normative issues with remote admin of either of these. They are easily administered via any screen sharing app such as Zoom, bluejeans, Microsoft teams, etc.
General information about the Reynolds Adaptable Intelligence Test which can be administered to groups or individuals can be found on a number of publishers’ websites, e.g., PAR.
Clicking on the PAR link above will lead a reader to a more detailed description of the test including one publisher’s pricing information.
Although claims regarding the validity of test can be found on a number of websites, this reviewer again reminds readers that school psychologists are responsible for determining the validity and reliability of each of the tests they use. Detailed information regarding validity and reliability coefficients could not be found by this reviewer on any of the publishers’ websites. This writer would recommend, if a relevant online review cannot be found, calling the publisher for hard reliability and validity data before making a decision to purchase the tool.
Test of General Reasoning Ability. Also available from a number of publishers, this test takes sixteen minutes to administer. The publisher presented no reliability or validity data in its online blurb. Probably irrelevant (although the admonition above would still apply), because while the RAIT is designed for educators, the TOGRA’s aimed at human resources personnel and its purpose is to evaluate job candidates’ qualifications.
The 2006 FR for Part B requires test users to only use tests for the purpose for which they are reliable and valid.
Looking for more information from the Department of Education? Sign Up For Email Updates
 |
Questions? Contact |
4/13/2020. COVID-19 and K-12 Students with Disabilities_ A Second Legal Look – Perry A. Zirkel
“Since my first supplement, dated March 20, the U.S. Department of
Education (USDE) has issued one more guidance document specic to
students with disabilities in P–12 schools, which addresses the “serious
misunderstanding” that “federal disability law presents insurmountable
barriers to distance education.” This guidance counsels school personnel
to engage in creative collaboration with parents to deliver IEP services
technologically with the understanding that effective individualization is
often feasible”
4/13/2020. Supplemental Fact Sheet from OCR
Supplemental Fact Sheet 3.21.20 FINAL
“At the outset, OCR and OSERS must address a serious misunderstanding that has recently circulated within the
educational community. As school districts nationwide take necessary steps to protect the health and safety of their
students, many are moving to virtual or online education (distance instruction). Some educators, however, have been
reluctant to provide any distance instruction because they believe that federal disability law presents insurmountable
barriers to remote education. This is simply not true. ” (Emphasis theirs)
How Children with Disabilities are Getting Left Behind
The Huffington Post (4/5/2020) discusses the special problems being faced by children and the parents of children with disabilities during this particularly troubled time in our nation. Unfortunately no solutions are advanced. A brief quote follows, but for the complete article click on “Getting Left Behind.”
“Schools have struggled to educate the 7 million students who receive special education services in the absence of physical classrooms. In mid-March, the U.S. Department of Education fueled confusion when it suggested that schools that cut off academic services for all students would not be required to serve students with disabilities. Some schools ended academic services amid concerns they would run afoul of federal law if they could not serve disabled students with the same rigor as everyone else. Later in March, the department clarified schools “should not opt to close or decline to provide distance instruction” to address equity concerns.
Still, in recent weeks, parents of students with disabilities report receiving only a fraction of the services to which they’re entitled. Schools have canceled meetings to devise or update individualized education programs ― or IEPs, the legal document that outlines necessary services for each disabled student. Classwork isn’t tailored to students’ disabilities. And in some cases, the adults who work most closely with students with disabilities, like paraprofessionals, are losing their jobs, cutting off a crucial line to these kids.”
OSERS Update (3/31/2020) With Links
UPDATED The Latest Newsletters
Including COVID-19 Resources
OSEP Update (Correction: link to March OSEP Update)
The March OSEP Update features information about COVID-19 resources, the CARES Act and IDEA, Results Driven Accountability, and more.
RSA NCRTM Newsletter
The March RSA NCRTM Newsletter highlights transition resources during COVID-19 outbreak, sign language interpreter learning opportunities, certification programs, webinars and more.
Early Learning Newsletter
The March Early Learning Newsletter features information on COVID-19 resources related to children and early childhood education from across the department, other federal agencies and grant recipients, and more.
For more information about COVID-19, please visit:
www.coronavirus.gov
 |
 |
 |
4/7/2020 Secretary DeVos Authorizes New Funding Flexibilities
Although not specifically aimed at special education students, this new initiative will obvious affect the delivery of services to children with special educational needs as well. Click on this link to the complete press release; a brief excerpt is provided below.
“Across the country, students, teachers and families are proving that learning can and does happen anywhere,” said Secretary DeVos. “By extending additional funding flexibility to schools, we are helping to ensure student learning continues and supporting teachers as they transition to virtual classrooms. Local leaders have asked for the ability to steer more resources to local needs, and these new tools will help them do just that.”
Waivers must be requested by the state SEA, not local LEAs.
More Resources for Parents added April 1, 2020
NASP – Helping Children Cope with Changes Resulting from COVID 19
“It is very important to remember that children look to adults for guidance on how to react to stressful events. Acknowledging some level of concern, without panicking, is appropriate and can result in taking the necessary actions that reduce the risk of illness. Teaching children positive preventive measures, talking with them about their fears, and giving them a sense of some control over their risk of infection can help reduce anxiety.”
Center for Disease Control — Talking with Children about COVID 19
CDC **NOTE: We have recently updated our resources to be in easier-to-navigate sections. If you came here looking for the full list, visit our COVID-19 homepage to help find specific categories of resources (including food access, transitioning to online learning, and resources for keeping healthy and active).* “As public conversations around coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) increase, children may worry about themselves, their family, and friends getting ill with COVID-19. Parents, family members, school staff, and other trusted adults can play an important role in helping children make sense of what they hear in a way that is honest, accurate, and minimizes anxiety or fear.”
Action for Healthy Kids – School Closures and Food Access
Includes more than seven additional links to resources for parents and schools
Resources for Parents
A link to a web page maintained by Ari Yares with coronavirus resources for parents.
Note: Inclusion of content from external resources does not imply our endorsement and we assume no responsibility for the content.
NCDPI issues update on NASP statements:
NCDPI School Psychology Subscriber:
As a follow up to the communication sent earlier today, some additional guidance was released from NASP this evening regarding Virtual Service Delivery in Response to COVID-19 Disruptions.
This information is available online and through a downloadable PDF version on NASP’s Health Crisis Resources page that is also currently linked within the NC School Psychology COVID-19 page.
Perry Zirkel’s Legal Update on COVID 19 (Provided by ECTA)
Click here: Zirjel COVID-19 and K-12 Students with Disabilities 032020
The COVID-19 pandemic and its legal implications for students with disabilities are subject to not only
changes from day to day but variance among both the states and the school districts within them. Thus
far the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) has issued various guidance documents
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Updates: New guidance from the Department of Education
Dear Colleagues,
Over the weekend, we received additional guidance from the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) has provided a Supplemental Fact Sheet Addressing the Risk of COVID-19 in Preschool, Elementary and Secondary Schools While Serving Children with Disabilities.
As mentioned in the fact sheet, the ECTA Center will serve as a hub for IDEA early childhood best practices and alternate models for providing early intervention and preschool special education and related services, including through distance services and supports. We recognize it has been an extraordinary few weeks and our communities face historic challenges. Our team at ECTA is committed to bringing you the latest information and resources pertinent to your work with infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with special needs and their families. We will be collaborating with OSEP and our TA partners to provide you with the most current and relevant information via our new and growing page on the Coronavirus:
Additional Comments from Perry:
March 20, 2020
The COVID-19 pandemic and its legal implications for students with disabilities are subject to not only changes from day to day but variance among both the states and the school districts within them. Thus far the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) has issued various guidance documents (see https://www.ed.gov/coronavirus), which include the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) interpretations regarding the IDEA and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) interpretations regarding § 504/ADA. In addition, some state education agencies (SEAs) have issued their own guidance, which in some cases extends beyond the federal guidance for students with disabilities in elementary and secondary schools.¹
In response to stakeholder requests for my feedback, I offer my following initial impressions from an outside and impartial perspective. For legal advice, however, interested individuals should consult with an attorney in their state.
First, the most recent guidance from USDE,² the more recent OCR guidance,³ and any SEA guidance are all just that—guidance, or interpretations by the agencies responsible for administering the IDEA, § 504/ADA, and corollary state laws, respectively. None of these documents has the force of law; whether courts will find them persuasive is an “it depends” matter. ⁴
Second, my impression is that the OCR guidance does not conflict with the USDE guidance, instead extending more broadly based on OCR’s responsibility for not only §504/ADA (for discrimination based on disability) but other federal civil rights laws, such as Title VI (for discrimination based on race or national origin).
Third, the cumulative federal guidance understandably addresses three typical alternative situations:
(a) schools are open but a student with an IEP or 504 plan is absent for an extended period of time per public health authorities or physician directive
(b) schools are closed but continue to offer services via remote technology
(c) schools are closed with no services to students in the general population
For the first and last situations, the guidance is rather clear and persuasive as far as it goes: (a) FAPE follows the IDEA child, thus invoking the same sort of obligation that would apply to a student with an IEP who requires instruction in the home⁵; and (c) neither the child with an IEP nor the child with a 504 plan is entitled to FAPE. Although these two situations raise more limited and nuanced questions, including the extent of any compensatory education obligation, they are not the major issue right now.
To me, the priority issue at present is situation (b), especially in light of the current focus of many school systems on providing online instruction. For this situation, USDE’s interpretation is as follows:
If an LEA continues to provide educational opportunities to the general student population during a school closure, the school must ensure that students with disabilities also have equal access to the same opportunities, including the provision of FAPE.⁶
This interpretation is based primarily on § 504/ADA and it adds the subsequent and significant qualifier – “to the greatest extent possible.”⁷ Even with this feasibility-based qualifier, practical implementation is bound to be a daunting challenge particularly in relation to students with disabilities that are severe, those with particular communication needs, and/or those requiring related services, such as physical or occupational therapy. However, as a legal matter, despite OCR interpretations, the courts have generally adopted the standard of reasonable accommodations, with the prevailing ultimate prerequisite of gross misjudgment, bad faith, or deliberate indifference.⁸ Correspondingly, under the IDEA the ultimate FAPE standard is being “reasonably calculated to enable [the] child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”⁹
Finally, in light of a declared national emergency with public health/safety being the overriding priority, more USDE guidance is imminent, Congressional action is being considered, and courts ultimately will take into account the practical limits of compliance with the IDEA and §504/ADA. The imminent guidance will address many other questions, such as the timelines for evaluation, the procedures for IEP reviews, and the implementation of alternate ESSA assessments. Congressional action may extend to adjustments or waivers of the regulatory requirement. And courts will continue to formulate and apply standards that consider the applicable circumstances and that are generally lower than professional norms. For example, the prevailing judicial standard for FAPE implementation is already notably less than 100%.10
In these trying times, school district special education leaders need to apply common-sense proactive measures, as is their admirable norm and as our government is advocating for dealing more generally with COVID-19. Rather than fixating on perceived mixed messages, focusing on overly nuanced questions, or confusing well-intended guidance with binding legal requirements, local special education leaders should continue to use their particular forte in being creative, constructive, and collaborative, with due consultation with local legal counsel where needed. Rather than emotion-laden legalism, the key factors during this unusual crisis start with health/safety and, within this overriding consideration, what is essential and what is practicable.
² Questions and Answers on Providing Services to Children with Disabilities during the Corona Virus Disease 2019 Outbreak (March 12, 2020), https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/q-and-a-providing-services-to-children-with-disabilities-during-the-coronavirus-disease-2019-outbreak/ (and also at https://www.ed.gov/coronavirus).
³ Fact Sheet: Addressing the Risk of COVID-19 in Schools While Protecting the Civil Rights of Students (March 16, 2020), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/newsroom.html (and also at https://www.ed.gov/coronavirus).
⁴ E.g., Perry A. Zirkel, The Courts’ Use of OCR Policy Interpretations in Section 504/ADA K-12 Student Education Cases, 349 Educ. L. Rep. 7 (2017), https://perryzirkel.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/the-courts-use-of-ocr-policy-interpretations-in-section-504ada-student-k-12-edu1.pdf; Perry A. Zirkel, The Courts’ Use of OSEP Policy Interpretations in IDEA Cases, 344 Educ. L. Rep. 671 (2017), https://perryzirkel.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/zirkel-2017-article-on-osep-letters.pdf
⁵ E.g., 34 C.F.R. § 300.115(b)(1) (“home instruction” – cross referring to the IDEA regulation defining special education as including “instruction … in the home”). This IDEA placement is not to be confused with home schooling or homebound instruction under state law.
⁶ Supra note 1, at item A-1.
⁷ Id.
⁸ E.g., Perry A. Zirkel, Do Courts Require a Heightened, Intent Standard for Students’ Section 504 and ADA Claims Against School Districts? 47 J.L. & Educ. 109 (2018), https://perryzirkel.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/zirkel-504_ada-article-in-jle-2018.pdf
⁹ Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 999 & 1001 (2017) (emphasis added).
10 E.g., Perry A. Zirkel & Edward T. Bauer, The Third Dimension of FAPE under the IDEA: IEP Implementation, 36 J. Nat’l Ass’n Admin. L. Judiciary 409 (2016); see also Perry A. Zirkel, An Adjudicative Checklist of the Four Criteria for FAPE under the IDEA, 346 Educ. L. Rep. 18 (2017), https://perryzirkel.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/zirkel-bauer-article.pdf
North Carolina School Psychology Repository Page
March 17, 2020 OCR Guidance
|
||
|
|
||
|
