A Conversation For Arkansas Special Education Leaders: "What Hearing Officers Look for First"

Hi everyone, thank you so much for joining us for Parallel's first Arkansas Learn-a-Latte. We're so excited to be here today with Dr. David Bateman. I hope you liked the song choice for today. I'm normally stuck listening to dinosaur rap songs for my 7-year-old, so my music taste might be a little off. Really quick, I wanted to say thank you to Natalie for supporting Parallel as a partner through the Arkansas Case Team. We're excited to have you with us today and look forward to continuing our partnership. I wanted to start today with a fun poll because I know many of you are still thinking about your to-do list that's piling up right now. As some of you know, I was born and raised in Arkansas but moved away for 14 years to support my husband's military career. But following his retirement, we moved back home 3 weeks ago and don't have much time to squeeze in a proper vacation. If you were planning a quick weekend getaway in Arkansas, where would you go? In full transparency, I've been to all 4 of these locations and I love them all. But I'm usually a fan of the relaxation getaways. I feel like Hot Springs is so much more than that. You can definitely do a spa day, of course, but you can get adventure on the lake. Or hit up the Mid-America Museum if you have kids. If anyone has an alternative idea though, there might be some hidden gems of Arkansas that I don't know about yet, so feel free to send me an email with some more suggestions. Okay, before we turn this over to David, the star of our show, I want you to take a minute to reflect on the past year. We've just finished up the school year and now you're spending the summer preparing for next year. I want you to think about those final conversations that you had with your team for just a minute. Was your school psych burned out at the end of the year because she completed a record-breaking number of evals, and you're concerned that if they have to do that again this year, it might be their last year? Or maybe you have some new teachers that you'd like to spend a lot more time with or help support them with case management, but you just don't have enough hours in your day. Or my personal favorite, one of your SLPs is at maximum number of students for her caseload, But you know that the board is not going to approve another full-time SLP, and even if they do, it's not likely that you're going to find that person locally to fill the needs of your students. These are just a few of the scenarios that Parallel can help you with next school year to help prevent that burnout and keep your team happy and supported. So Parallel partners with districts around the state in these 4 areas. All of our services are delivered virtually, and that's very intentional. We've built our practice around the research done by experts in the field on the effectiveness of virtual supports, and our platform and service model were designed with those best practices in mind. Everything we do is research-based and legally defensible. So maybe you've tried virtual services in the past and it wasn't a great fit for the district, but we truly do things differently. We only hire the top providers for our network, and we work incredibly hard to provide the best provider and district experience. We offer support, mentorship, and systems that allow them to prioritize your students, and because of that, are able to retain 98% of our providers year over year. Another piece that sets us apart is Parallel's clinical difference. We often refer to it as the machine, meaning there's an entire system of support working behind the scenes to help ensure high-quality services. When other edtech companies are reducing their behind-the-scenes people, we are doubling down. The goal is really to create consistency, quality, and a true partnership, not just fill a vacancy and step away. We want to work in parallel with you. Our providers use Pathway. It's our FERPA-compliant proprietary platform that allows us to provide services more efficiently, continuously track progress, and maintain visibility on outcomes throughout the year. This is another key differentiator for Parallel. As Dr. Bateman would agree, good data is key to support your day-to-day decisions that will improve your outcomes. Speaking of outcomes, we pride ourselves on having the data to support that when virtual services are done the right way, students can meet or exceed their goals. Our white paper research was based on the 24-25 school year, and I'm happy to share that 98% of our students either met or exceeded their IEP goals across all service lines. Additionally, 78% were actually making faster than expected progress. So here's your local Arkansas team at Parallel. A little bit more about me personally. Excuse me. I grew up in Sheridan and now I'm living in Jacksonville. I'm a speech-language pathologist that specialized in school-based services, both in person and virtually, for close to 10 years. But at Parallel, I'm able to help districts support thousands of students instead of just my one caseload, and I'm really looking forward to partnering with you to help students across Arkansas. Thank you, Last thing before we turn it over to David, I'm going to give you a little bit of time to look at your calendar. I encourage you to book a meeting with me using the QR code on the slide. It will also be in the chat, but I would love to dive deeper and see where Parallel could support your team and your district's specific needs for next year.

Okay, you guys ready? Thank you, Ryan. I appreciate that. And just to let you know that my answer when you gave those 4 options was a different answer, is that Arkansas has—

is—

there's no surprise for people who are aware of this— is becoming the mountain bike capital of the world. So I would go mountain biking. And thanks in large part to large contributions of the Walton family that the amount of mountain bike trails in New York Fair State is phenomenal. So keep that in mind about this one. So good afternoon and thanks for joining us. One of the questions I most get often asked from special education directors is, what do hearing officers actually focus on when they review a case? Many administrators assume that hearing officers begin with the complicated legal issues. But that is rarely true. Instead, what they usually start with is very practical questions. What happened? When did the district know? What did the district do? And can the district prove it? 4 very basic questions. Today's presentation is built around these questions. The goal is not simply avoiding litigation. I wish I could say if I gave you this, you could avoid it. But the goal is to create systems that produce better educational decisions and stronger outcomes for students. The reality is that students— I'm sorry, districts make sound educational decisions. They do better legally. So keep that in mind as we address this one. All right. So I've given this to you previously. Do not hesitate to reach out to me. Feel free to contact me with questions about this one. Many of the examples I'm going to discuss and many of the examples I discussed when I was with you just a few weeks ago stem directly from due process hearing decisions, complaint investigations, mediations, or district reviews. I was testifying in federal court this morning. Yes, it's been a fun day all So if you have questions after today's session or want resources to share with staff, do not hesitate to reach out, and we will do everything we can to get you a timely answer so that you can address what's going on about this one. Okay, so let's start with this basic question. And I'm not doing this to piss you off. I'm probably gonna say other things that might later, but I want everyone to think about this question compared to last year. Are you more likely, less likely, or equally likely to face litigation? Many districts immediately think about parent attitudes. They think about attorneys, state complaints, staffing shortages, but hearing officers often see something very different. They see systems. The districts with the lowest litigation rates usually are not the perfect districts. They are districts, however, that identify problems early. Communicate consistently, monitor progress, and adjust when something is not working. You will hear variations on that throughout the next 45 minutes on this one. The question is not whether mistakes will happen. I in fact guarantee that they will. They will. They absolutely will. The question is whether your systems recognize these mistakes before parents hire an attorney. So keep that in mind as you adjust this one. All right, so our purpose. Just broadly, I mean, it's fairly self-explanatory as a part of our description as the title, but I want you to understand today we will focus on 3 major issues. First, what hearing officers examine first. Second, the patterns that increase legal vulnerability. Third, practical actions districts can take immediately, not tomorrow, but immediately. Many, many presentations— I have attended many of these legal presentations, I give some of these legal presentations— focus on legal theory. Today we'll focus on practical reality as a part of this one. What happens when a hearing officer opens a student's file? What does that person see? And what conclusions are they likely to— well, likely to follow and flow from that? So keep that in mind, seriously. Okay, so we got some learning objectives, right? By the end of this session, you should be able to do these 3 things.

Okay.

Recognize the questions hearing officers ask first. Identify documentation weaknesses and recognize implementation gaps. But then what we also gonna— we're gonna push you. We're gonna ask you to identify system improvements that reduce disputes before they become formal complaints. That's what we have to think about more, is what can we do to reduce these things so it doesn't happen again? My hope is that everyone leaves with at least one thing to stop doing, one thing to start doing, and one thing to strengthen. Because if you can identify where that is, then you are winning. And I mean this. Now, when I was with you a few weeks ago, one of the things I clarified, and I had wonderful discussions with people after the session when we were just standing in the hall. Yes, and yes, there was a lot of popcorn. But I want to emphasize is that a lot of what I'm saying may sound like what we refer to as CYA. I, again, I remember I highlighted, I don't remember what that abbreviation stands for, but what I'm talking about are things that are actually better for kids. So keep that, and keep that as what we're addressing is where— what the things we're talking about are better for kids. Keep that in mind as we address this one. So let's start with this one. Imagine a hearing officer opens up one of your files tomorrow morning, right? The hearing officer knows nothing about your district. Nothing.

All right?

They know nothing about your staff. They know nothing about your challenges. The file or the hearing officer becomes the district. The documents become the witnesses. The question becomes— and this is true— the question becomes, can these documents tell a coherent educational story? That is the vital part of what we're doing. And then the other thing, and this is what— this is one thing that I'm emphasizing, and I'll emphasize this multiple times. Can someone unfamiliar with a student understand the student's needs? Can they understand what the district identified? Can they understand what the district planned? Can they understand what the district implemented? And can they understand how the district measured success? If you can't identify the needs, how you identified it, what you planned, what you did, and how you measured it, you're immediately starting to lose credibility, and that's going to pose significant problems for you. And that's going to prevent you from articulating effectively what we can do to address the student's needs. So that's what we have to focus on. All right, let's go to the next one. All right, the fundamental reality. Pay attention to this one. And I hope you got some sense through the ebb and flow of what we talked about when we were together. Districts rarely, rarely lose because of a single error. And I mean this with all seriousness. Instead, hearing officers typically see a series of missed opportunities. Missed opportunities where something should have happened. For example, a parent raises a concern. You get notes from parents all the time. Okay? Or concerns are noted but not acted upon. Or progress stalls. No instructional changes occur. Meetings happen. We have meetings on these things. Okay? But we continue to make the same decisions. This is— then this is something that I addressed when we were together, is we have a program that's not working for a student. And we give the kid more of the same. How is that going to actually help them if we know it's not working? Okay, so the same decisions continue. Eventually a complaint is filed. The issue is not one mistake. The issue is the inability— and I mean this with all seriousness— the inability to demonstrate thoughtful decision-making over time. I want to highlight this for you, and there's something that I want to say. I don't think I say this enough, but I want to— and I said this, but I want to reiterate this one. We are not looking as hearing officers for perfection. We absolutely are not looking for perfection. What we're looking for is responsiveness. And I hope that you pay attention to that phrase throughout the next half hour or so as we're talking about this one, because I want you to pay attention to responsiveness.

Okay?

So hearing officers, they look for patterns. Okay? We think— they think in patterns is about this one. Okay? A single missed service may be unfortunate. Is there a single— kids miss things, teachers miss things. It happens. I'm well aware of this. But if one missed, one missed thing, no, that's, that's not a problem. That's— yeah, that's a problem, but it's not indicative of the whole district as a part of this one. Okay. Repeated missed services, however, suggest a system problem. Okay, so one system, one missed service is unfortunate. Repeated though, that's a problem. One forgotten accommodation, Maybe human error. The teacher forgets to give the kid extended time on a test one time. That's a forgotten thing. That happens. That happens. Or we didn't tell the substitute about this one. That happens. But several staff members unaware of accommodations suggests training and implementation failures. Were other teachers aware of this? Were others not aware of this? Did they not implement this? So keep these things in mind as we address this one. Patterns matter. Patterns matter because patterns reveal how districts operate. How a district operates is basically what we look for as a part of this one. Okay? So hearing officers constantly are asking, is this an isolated event or evidence of a larger problem? And that's what we're looking for here as a part of this one, is that's where we're going. Okay? So just pay attention. So, red flags. I would probably— I'll put these in red next time. All right. But several red flags immediately attract attention. And these— and we talked about behaviors as forms of communication. And when we have to address these behaviors and addressing, making sure what we're providing for the kids is addressing the specific problems that they're having. But you remember, we talked about this before, this is when I was with you, that the behaviors that they're demonstrating Our forms of communication. But there are several red flags that we need to pay attention to, and you have to think about these things as being waved in your face that something is not working for the child. Example, repeated parent complaints. Just repeated parent complaints. I highlighted this for you when it was— when I was there, when I told you that we needed to take a plane crash approach instead of a car crash approach. Some of you remember that story. We then talked about my plane crash. I didn't mean to divert it. Okay, but copy and paste IEPs. Copy and paste IEPs so that we are emphasizing that we have— that we move forward as part of this one. The Supreme Court talked about this in the Endrew case in 2017 because they were copying and pasting Endrew's IEP from one year to another. Goals that remain unchanged year after year. Another problem we often encounter where the kid has the same exact goal year after year after year. Interventions that continue despite little progress. We have no progress that these things are happening. Lack of follow-up documentation. Parent made a request about something, but no one followed up and no one documented this one. Staff who don't know how to— staff who do not know student supports, what they need to do about this one. Any of these ones may not determine a case, but several of these create a significance concern, and that's what we have to think about this one. And address this one. So let's just start from the get-go on this one. All right, let's just start from the get-go. Child Find. And I'm just going to walk through this one. Okay, this is often the very first substantive question that we deal with in hearings. And it's like, okay, the question is, and this I articulate, I'm just going to read it to you. I feel better saying this, but when did the district suspect a disability? I gave you the acronym KOSHK when I was there. Knew or should have known. And what we have to think about this one is, when did we suspect a disability? And it's not when eligibility occurred. It's not when consent was signed. When did the district first have reason to suspect a disability? That distinction matters enormously. Because what we have to think about is addressing what we can do to articulate for that student what we can address and help them as a part of this one. Many Child Find cases are lost because districts focus on eligibility dates rather than suspicion dates. Understand the difference? Because in order to get an eligibility date, there should have been suspicion. When was the suspicion, and did you react in a timely fashion, or did you wait multiple years? That's, that's, that's the adversity point about this one. Okay, so let's look at the Child Find evidence that we look at. Okay, a hearing officer will construct a timeline. It's standard practice. Having— I was testifying this morning. What I talked about is my methodology for writing my report as a part of this is what we do is we, as a neutral fact-finder, we are then expected to come up with our timeline and see if the timeline is consistent with what the testimony and evidence that's presented to us. So what we do, we review a timeline, okay? We review attendance records, we review grades, we review behavioral referrals, and some of these kids have all sorts of behavioral referrals. We review intervention data. Teacher reports, parent communication, outside evaluations. The question becomes this, and this is the question: when we have all this information, the question becomes, when should a reasonable district have recognized concern? That's the question, and that's what I testify a lot in as an expert witness. What I was testifying this morning on— when should a reasonable district have recognized concern as a part of this one? The district timeline must make sense. What a reasonable district should have done as a part of this one. So keep that in mind as we address that and pay attention to this. Okay, so let's talk about some red flags. Okay, again, the things being waved in your face addressing this. Common child-finding mistakes include waiting for failure. There are kids out there who are having significant problems in school who are not failing. Waiting for failure is going to just delay services for them due to social issues or behavioral issues that we need to pay attention to this one. Okay, second one, assuming that passing grades eliminate concern. The kid is passing, they must be doing fine. There are some kids who are passing, they're not doing fine. You understand this one. Third, ignore parent requests. There are parents out there who are making all sorts of requests. We need a better job of understanding what we can do to articulate what they are doing. Okay, then, but also, we did not spend a lot of time when we were together about talking about MTSS. But there are some districts that are treating MTSS as a prerequisite for evaluation. It's not. It's not a prerequisite for evaluation. It's a tool that we can use, but it's not a prerequisite. Okay, so let's remind yourselves about MTSS. MTSS can support Child Find. MTSS cannot replace Child Find. Understand the difference? It can support your Child Find obligations, but it can't replace your Child Find obligations. A student does not need to fail before evaluation becomes appropriate. So keep that in mind as we address Child Find issues about this one.

Okay.

Second question, moving on. You can see how we're going from Child Find to the evaluations here. The biggest question we often see on this one is the quality of the evaluations. Did the evaluation address all suspected disabilities? When I talked about this with you, I remember— I'm just going to reiterate this one. If the child has a reading disability, yes, I fully expect reading eval— reading disability evaluations on that child. Absolutely. But I want to hear how the kid's doing in reading. I want to hear how the kid's doing in math, spelling, social studies. I want to hear the other areas. And does the kid have any social skill deficits? Don't just give me the reading problems on this one. Second, did it answer the relevant educational questions? That's one thing we have to think about this one is what we have to address, because there are some kids who have disabilities and they— there's nothing in school we can do to support them. And that's typically when we do the 504s, and I forwarded that 504 document to you about this one. And then, did it provide useful information for IEP development? Do we— when we do these evaluations, does it help us write the IEP for the child? And that's what's important. And is it supposed to drive educational planning? An evaluation is not simply an eligibility document. Yes, we could talk about it as gatekeeping, getting the kid in the door, but without that, without a full evaluation of what's going on, And things like— so what, as I said, just to remind you, I want data. I want a statement from the bus driver. Doesn't have to be long. Doesn't have to be long. Just interview the bus driver. Tell me how the kid does on the bus. Talk to me. Talk to the playground supervisors. Give me all— anyone who observes this child. I want to make sure the evaluation is sufficient about this one. Okay, so what do we see? What do we see as errors? More evaluations. Okay, okay. Evaluation red flags. Okay. Common evaluation concerns. Okay, talk about this one. Overreliance on a single test. And there are, there are some good tests out there, but don't overrely on this one. Don't do this one. Failure to assess behavior. We need to make sure we're looking at not just academics, but we're focusing on behavior as well as social ability and their ability to adapt with the environment where they're functioning. Failing to assess social-emotional functioning and making sure we're addressing this social-emotional functioning is part of where we are with this. Or failing to address executive functioning. I absolutely guarantee that parents are going to ask you for more information and more guidance and supports relating to executive functioning. I absolutely guarantee, because if you look at the parent advocates' letters that we're seeing, we're seeing parents' advocate letters basically all saying 2 things. Well, 3 things. But first, they want a one-on-one aide to provide extensive supports for the kid. Then they want the kid to get executive functioning training as a part of this one. And third, they often ask for separate transportation. Okay, I'm seeing less of the third one, but absolutely the first 2 on these. So keep this in mind as we address this one. Okay. But also, fail— let's go back to the evaluation red flags. Ignoring private evaluations without explanation. Whenever a parent brings you a private evaluation, I don't care who it's from, certified or not, you give that private evaluation— you fully consider all the information. What is a part of that evaluation? Incorporate it into your evaluation if necessary, and any recommendations you pay attention to very specifically. Is it necessary for the child to receive an appropriate education?

Okay.

And then I'm understanding disagreement is acceptable. It's okay to disagree about things. It's okay to have a difference of opinion about where we're going with this one. Okay? But if you fail to explain your disagreement, it's much harder to defend on how we address this one. Okay? Keep that in mind. All right? So let's go to the next one. See how we're going through the system? Child find evaluation, IEP. Maybe you'll sense a story of where we are with this one.

Okay?

And that leads me to, does the IEP tell a story? I'm not going to be hyperbolic on this one, but bear with me. This may be the most important slide in this presentation. Second most. Second to the contact slide where you get $20 of Starbucks gift cards if you set up a meeting with Ryan. That's— this is the second most one. But a strong IEP tells a coherent story. A hearing officer should very clearly understand who the student is, What the student struggles with, the goals that were selected, why services were chosen, how progress will be measured. And the, the, the best IEPs are, again, they're, they're not lesson plans, but what they are is they're educational roadmaps. They tell a story about where we're expecting the kid to go over the next year. They're roadmaps. So keep this in mind as we address this one. And then keep in mind as we pay attention and it— all right, so let's talk about this alignment. Okay, okay, whoops, skipped, right, the alignment test. Okay, present levels lead to student needs. Okay, student needs lead to annual goals. And what's here? This is the alignment. Needs drive goals, goals drive instruction, instruction is monitored through progress data. Every link must connect. Most legal vulnerabilities occur when one of these links break. You may have a great present-level statement that identifies all the student needs they have, but if you have a crappy goal, you've got a weak link. If you have a great present-level statement and great goals, but you're not providing the student specially designed instruction, how do you progress monitor that? So it should be something we need to pay attention to as a part of this one. Okay, so 5 questions about IEPs that everyone should answer. What are the needs? The goals? Those needs? What goals address those needs? This, because this is what I do when I review IEPs. Identify the needs. Then I address what goals. Then I want to make sure what instruction occurs. And after that, who delivers this instruction? We talked about this previously. Just, I didn't use this phrase, but I'm going to use it with you right now, is that you guys right now are not in Rhode Island. Why I'm emphasizing this is in Rhode Island, only special education teachers can provide specially designed instruction. So general education teachers couldn't provide specially designed instruction. You're not in Rhode Island. That's a good thing, by the way.

Okay.

I'll be, I'll be there in Rhode Island later. I'll make fun of them at that point. Okay. How will success be measured? If you cannot answer these questions, you cannot answer these 5 questions quickly. Hearing officers cannot also answer these questions. And that's what we have to think about is we have to set it up. We have to tee it up for them so they can answer these questions. We have to basically lay it out for them. And as a hearing officer, when I was a hearing officer, a first-year hearing officer, I loved it when they would give me layups like this one. It's just step by step by step. There was a logical sequence, a logical consequence. You need to be able to demonstrate that as part of what you're doing. Okay? So next, let's go to the next one. Is the SDI actually described? We settle a lot of cases in special education because the teachers don't understand what SDI is. They don't understand what it is and they can't describe it. One of the biggest weaknesses I see involves basically the districts that describe the minutes. They describe the location. They describe the staffing. They describe the scheduling. But they can't— but they fail to describe the instruction. Hearing officers want to know, and I mean this with all seriousness, they want to know what is actually different about instruction because this student has a disability. What are we doing differently for this student? If you just say we're doing the next page in the book, we're just doing the next AIMSweb module, then you're not articulating what you're doing differently for these kids. I want to hear that answer, and it doesn't have to be a long answer. It's a 10-second answer. Typically, it doesn't have to be a long one, so we have to address this and pay attention to this one. Okay, so let's keep this in mind. Okay, a placement is not SDI. Service minute totals is not SDI. Small group instruction is not automatically SDI. A staffing assignment is not SDI. SDI describes instructional adaptations, not administrative arrangements. So keep this in mind as addresses. I will probably bring more information to you through this next year as I talk to you about SDI. I have a book on SDI that's out there that's wildly popular, and I want to— this is something I'm seeing. We wrote the book with my colleagues based on what I brought to them, that we were not seeing this as part of due process hearings, as that teachers could not identify what's going on. But teachers understand this. But this is something we need to pay attention to, as I— as is that General education staff and principals don't know what SDI is, so it poses a problem, right? So next one, was progress monitored? I spent some time talking with you about progress monitoring, but I want to hit on this one because I'll sleep better at this. I'm not going to sleep well because I testified this morning, but I'm not— but I want to emphasize this one. Progress monitoring is where cases become— many, most of my cases become vulnerable. The hearing officers very specifically want to know, Did the district know whether the student was making progress? I don't want to hear that we had hoped that the student was making progress. I don't want to assume that the student was making progress. I want to know, and I want to see some demonstration that you know that the student was making progress. And if progress was not occurring, what happened next? And I mean, this, this is probably— this is the 3rd most important slide. We've already talked about the first one.

Okay.

The first one was the slide where you get to hang out with Ryan with the Starbucks card. But the second one was the other one I showed you just a few minutes ago. This was, did the team know whether the student was making progress? And if the student was not making progress, well, let's go to the next one. I don't want to steal my thunder on this one. Progress monitoring red flags. But this is important. Narrative reports with no numbers. As you heard me say, and you probably understand when I talk with you, I love anecdotes. I love anecdotes. Anecdotes are my friends, but I want data. I want hard data. Data collected but never reviewed. No baseline, no decision rules, no instructional changes despite lack of progress. That last yellow line on their page, no changes despite lack of progress. This is probably the biggest problem that I see in school districts across the nation. When there's clear evidence there was lack of progress and they did nothing to alter the programming for the kid, they did nothing to change what was going on for the child. And that's what— so that was what they— that's not defensible. That's not defensible. And kids continue to suffer and have problems as a result of this. So what we have to think about is what we can do to change it so that they can be successful. That's what our obligation is, and keep that in mind as we address this one. Okay, so let's go to the next one. Okay, so this gets, gets to this question.

Okay.

What did the district do when the student was not making progress? Now, when progress was insufficient, it's not whether progress occurred. What actions followed when it did not? Earlier I said that there was a term that I was going to use, and the term is responsiveness. We have, we have expectation that the students will— we're going to change something, we're going to alter something based on what we're doing. We are not looking for perfection. What we're looking for is responsiveness. This is where educational decisions become visible. This is where educational decisions become vital, and this is what we need to pay attention to as a part of this one. So how do, how do we do this? All right.

Okay.

So ask these questions. Are your decisions data-based? Good districts— and when I define them as good districts, is the ones that can defend themselves in litigation and students make progress— good districts use data to make decisions. Great districts— there's a difference— great districts document those decisions. So there's a difference. Good districts have data. Great districts document this one. Hearing officers want evidence that data-informed decisions— actions. Did instruction change? Did services change? Did goals change? Did supports change? And is that documented? You need to demonstrate that you have a documentation of this one and that you understand precisely what's going on as a result of this one. That's what's vital as a part of this process, and we need to understand what we're doing as a part of this one and keep this in mind as we address this one. All right, so these are some basic questions. Not— not again. Many districts lose credibility because implementation cannot be demonstrated. Hearing officers often ask, can the district prove services? Did the district prove accommodations were provided? About this one, can the district prove staff knew their responsibilities? That's actually a fair question. The staff, they had responsibilities for implementation of the 504. Did anyone tell the staff member this is something they're obligated to do about this one? Do we have them sign off on a sheet that indicates this one? Okay, so we can, we can implement this and we can pay attention to this one. It can be through service logs. It can be through schedules. It can be through provider notes or communication records. Okay, these all become critical evidence. These all become very critical evidence in this process about this one. Similarly, And most importantly, responsiveness matters. I just want to make sure that you understand, parents do not have to agree with district decisions. Okay? But I'm betting this actually happens in your district. But hearing officers often examine whether concerns were generally considered and addressed. So were— did you actually listen to the parents? Did you fully consider what was being— the parent was asking for? And did you pay attention to this one? Reasonableness and responsiveness influence credibility. Okay, so let's look at some of the— I got some implementation evidence here for you. I've already addressed some of these things, but what it does is it clarifies what we're doing. These are things that I review. These are things that I review as a part of this. Okay, and these are things that we see as a part of whether we're actually doing what we're supposed to be doing with the kids. Wait, there's more implementation red flags. You have logs that don't indicate that the student was receiving the services they were supposed to get. Or you just don't have service logs. Do you don't have makeup plans when there's— when a teacher goes absent for a couple weeks and then there's no plan to make up the services? Staff unaware of accommodations or just information on this one. Those are all part of it. Okay, but last, as I highlighted, were the parents heard? This is vital. Were the parents heard?

Okay.

Again, you don't have to implement everything a parent asks for. What you do have to do is fully consider, is it necessary for the child to receive an appropriate education? That's what we've got to focus on. That's what we had to address about this one. Okay, so we have to address this one. Okay, but responsiveness matters. Hearing officers frequently examine whether the district acted reasonably. Okay, what, what, what, what? And I say this no matter what the parents ask for. What did you pay attention to? What they asked for? Did you address what they're doing? Did you understand what's going on? Okay, so keep this in mind as we pay attention to this one. Okay, so this is talk about what hearing officers want to see. Okay, and this is actually— think about every single one of these is not just good for defending a case, but this is good just for communication with parents. A recognition of the parent concerns. I don't— again, I don't care what the parent asks for. You recognize that concern, you've paid attention to that concern, and then you're addressing that concern in some manner. Second one, implementation fidelity. I talked about that when I was with you a few weeks ago. We, we, as I— yeah, I'm gonna say the phrase again. Pay attention to it. All right. We spend a lot of time on these IEPs, and I said implement the little suckers is what we have to do as a part of this one. Next, thoughtful evaluation. We look for this. Do we do a thoughtful evaluation of the services that child's receiving? Then data-driven decision-making. Are we making decisions based on data? Individualized planning, but then responsiveness to parents. Okay, so keep that in mind as what we emphasize as a part of this one. Keep that in mind as we pay attention here. Okay, so, all right, so these are the 8 questions that hearing officers look for first.

Good.

These, and these 8 questions form a very useful district self-audit. Okay, before litigation occurs, ask, would you be comfortable answering all questions under oath? And I'm gonna leave them up just for a second because I want you to pay attention to these ones. Okay, and I want you to pay attention to these. This is the analysis of what's going on. Okay, these are what hearing officers are being told to look for as a part of their due process hearings. I know this because I was the speaker at the hearing officers group intervention when they had their big training 8 weeks ago. I was the speaker. I talked about this. And this is a slide that basically summarized everything as a part of this one. And this is what we emphasize as part of this one. So I'm showing everyone. I'm going to show parents the same thing. I'm showing everyone because I want everyone to be fully informed about what's going on. So I want everyone to be fully informed and aware that we can do things that improve the services for kids. And what we have to emphasize is making sure we're addressing that.

Okay?

So these 8 questions are vital, as are this one. So let's take a moment, right? If a hearing officer reviewed one of your files tomorrow, what is the first weakness they would find? And I'm gonna go back, all right? Let's go back to this list. I want you to identify the weakness that they would define. I'm willing to bet, okay? I'm willing to bet that many, some of your teachers are not gonna be able to articulate very clearly What the SDI that the student is being received. I'm betting there's some building-level administrators who are not going to be able to say with confidence that the IEP was implemented. I'm betting that there's also some decisions were made based on the student's opportunities for interacting with others that were not based on data decisions. They're based more on administrative convenience. And the big one that I'm seeing, and the reason we settle most of the cases that I'm involved in, we often don't have data that progress is monitored. So look at this one. So what you have to think about is one practice to stop. Okay? What weakness would appear first about this one? What practice should you stop? What practice should you start? And what process should you strengthen within the next month? Go back to this slide again. You need to be able to— this is, this is what we're looking for. You need to make sure that your teams understand this. This is what your teams need to understand as a part of this one. Okay? So keep this in mind as we pay attention to this one. Let's go to the next slide and talk about this one. All right. Okay. Start auditing. Many districts audit paperwork. I talked to you about this one, but we have to think about this one. The question is, and it's not a bad question, by the way, I want— I don't want you to stop auditing implementation. I want you to audit implementation plus. Understand this. So yes, was the IEP implemented? I absolutely want the IEP implemented. It's vital for just understanding what the progress— it's vital for MDR meetings. But we have to think about this one. The real question— this is the question, okay? Fewer, fewer ask this question: do goals align to needs? Does instruction align to goals? Does monitoring align to instruction? Design weaknesses create implementation weaknesses. So keep that in mind as we address this one. But I talk about this one as a design protocol as a part of this one. So pay attention that we're implementing this one and addressing this more appropriately as we move forward. Okay? So wait, there's more. Stay seated. Okay? Okay. So what I want you to do is require every team to demonstrate. I want every team to be able to articulate this one. The disability That leads to the need, that leads to the instruction, that leads to the goal, that leads to the data. If any connection cannot be explained, I want you to revisit the IEP. Revisit that IEP. Okay, alignment is one of the strongest legal protections available, as long as it's consistent as a part of what we're doing. Because you can't— if you, if you're missing one of these things, you're going to have some serious problems, and you're not going to be able to identify very quickly, very clearly what's going on with that child. Nor will you be able to articulate the needs of that child to address what's going on. So keep that in mind as we pay attention to this one. All right, let's go on. Okay, require instructional methodology. And I'm not saying label a program. Let's talk about this one. Instruction should be described specifically, not merely reading supports. Describe the approach that you're going to use. You don't have to name the approach. Describe the approach. Describe the sequence that you're going to be using. Describe what instructional method you're going to be using and make sure that that's all tied to a specific skill. Because what I'm emphasizing about this one is I'm seeing all sorts of districts who are putting information on these as a part of this where they have— a kid has a problem, most notably a kid who has a problem in reading fluency, and the instruction and methodology they're using is working on comprehension. I'm a huge fan of comprehension. I really am. But without being able to teach the kid fluency, you're not going to get comprehension. So we have to understand what's going on about this one. Okay, wait, there's more. Okay, break down minutes into instructional time. Instruction should be described specifically. Okay, not merely— instead of just listing service minutes, describe what happens during those minutes. Talk to me so that you can say what's— because I can guarantee that Parents Council is going to ask you this question. What skills are you addressing? What are your instructional targets? What priorities? Minutes alone do not educate students. Just giving kids minutes is not the answer. You need to be able to articulate what you're doing during those minutes. I absolutely guarantee you're going to be asked that question because what I often say is, yeah, a kid gets 30 minutes daily. That doesn't tell me what the kid's getting. Is the kid getting 30 minutes of instruction? The kid getting 30 minutes of playtime? What's the kid getting during that playtime? So keep that in mind. So what I'm seeing is like in 30 minutes of instruction, 30 kids, kid gets 30 minutes, they often, they get 7 minutes of instruction and 23 minutes of seat work. So that's not what we're striving for as a part of this. Okay, more. Rewrite goals to measure the actual skills. Goals should measure the actual area of the disability where the child has a need. Avoid measuring peripheral tasks. Measure the skills that truly limit performance. What this does, what this does is this creates clearer instructional planning and stronger progress monitoring. So you can see from a sense of what we're hearing here is we're building a progress monitoring system. We're building a progress monitoring system as a part of what we're doing about this one. Okay, so just a few more slides before we turn it off, but we'll make sure you get a copy of this one. Okay. One of the most common understandings: accommodations provide access. They're not remediation. Instruction changes learning. Access alone does not remediate skill deficits. There are some students who typically need both, but too often what I'm seeing is we're giving kids accommodations, but we're not then providing them instruction on how to address this one. So, right? Wait, there's more. Build real progress monitoring systems. And how this is done is for every goal there should be a baseline, not just a present level statement, but a baseline where that kid is functioning on that goal. So at the end of the marking period, you can make the— use the same baseline measures and determine yes or no, has the kid made progress? So there should be a measurement method, a frequency of this, decision rules. Progress monitoring must become part of instructional decision-making rather than a compliance activity. This is vital, and this is something we need to emphasize as a part of what we're doing. This would drive everything. You're going to hear a lot more from me about progress monitoring in the future. I absolutely guarantee it. But then add decision rules. Data without action is meaningless. Most IEPs lack triggers for change. What I'm emphasizing is this one is how much progress is enough, right? How much progress? How, how much concern triggers reviews? Come up with a trigger about this one and emphasize this one. And then if they— if the kid has met these triggers, when will instruction change? What happens as a part of this one is decision rules create consistency and defensibility. By creating a level of consistency, what you're creating is a defensibility that will make it easier for someone to understand what's going on. And that's what we've got to emphasize. Emphasize is a part of where we're going, though, sir. Okay, so keep this. All right, so the questions. Okay, train staff to think like a hearing officer. Okay, every IEP. Okay, train staff. Could I explain this decision under oath? Having testified under oath this morning, it's a different level. I understand this. Okay, would another educator understand why we made this decision? Would the records support my explanation? What this does is this mindset proves Improves both practice and documentation. You're going to be documenting what we're doing as a part of this one. Okay, so keep this in mind as well. Okay, so remind you, hearing officers are not searching for the perfect districts. Perfect districts do not exist. But they're— what they do is they are looking for evidence that districts recognize concerns, evaluate it appropriately, Planned individually, implemented faithfully. I'm having fun with terms here, by the way. Monitored progress and responded reasonably. This is the standard. This is the standard. And I want to emphasize this one. We're not looking for perfection. So keep that in mind as we address this one. So what I want to do right now is I'm going to take some questions and happily take your questions as a part of this one and clarify this one. And I'm actually going to stop sharing my screen for a minute as we take these questions. Okay, so, all right, so Ryan, I'm going to turn it over to you to ask questions if you have questions. If— and see what— yeah.

We have a couple so far in the chat, and if anyone else has a question, make sure you go to that Q&A box. You can add that in there real quick. But the first one, which area do you see causes the greatest vulnerability for districts Child Find evaluations, IEP development, SDI progress monitoring implementation, or responsiveness to parents?

Okay, first, I love that question, by the way, and I'm going to try to keep it short enough that we can get to other questions. The first answer I see, this one is failure to provide specially designed instruction. This is the biggest vulnerability I see nationally. Districts often write good goals but never define that instruction or what will be actually different. Or, as I just articulated, they confuse accommodations with instruction. The hearing officers are going to ask what was different about instruction because the student has a disability. The second thing that I see— this is why we settle most of them— is lack of meaningful progress monitoring. Many districts collect data but do not use it. Problems— what I see, as I highlighted, no baseline data. Progress reports saying making progress without evidence, data that does not match IEP goals, or no decision rules when there's, when their progress stalls. The question comes down to what, how did the district know the student was making appropriate progress? Too often the answer is, we assumed they were. How about this one? So keep that in mind as we address this one. But the next one I see is often staffing shortages and service delivery failures. Districts cannot use staffing shortages as a legal defense. Vulnerabilities include missed speech services, unfilled positions, caseloads too large to implement IEPs. I come from a family of educators. I understand this one. Inadequate supervision. Okay. The parents' attorneys are increasingly asking, with the help of ChatGPT, by the way, as you knew services were not being delivered, what did you do about it? Those are the big things I'm seeing right now. All right, let's go to the next question.

So the next question, Kristen Dillard, she asked, when might I expect the resources would be sent out from the participants at the AASEA in Benton? I assume, Dr. Bateman, you will be able to connect and get those sent out to your contact there. But her next question was, where can I find specific examples of SDI Without reinventing the wheel?

So I actually provided those things, but I'll put my email in the chat, and if they don't come within a reasonable time, email me and I'll send them to you. And so happily, feel free to put my email in the chat for everyone as I'm answering this question. So where can you find any specific examples of SDI? There's actually, I think, there's a surprisingly shortage of good SDI examples. But what I've seen out of this one is one thing that I saw very specifically, and I don't often like to use Texas as an example, but what we have is a good example in Texas, and it's probably only on this one thing. They haven't done anything else right in Texas, but this one thing in Texas is they have what's called the Texas Education Agency, or TEA, SDI guide. It's probably one of the best state documents available because it clearly defines what SDI is, organizes around content, methodology, and delivery. I think if you use the Google, you might find that one. For example, I remember real specifically on reading fluency deficits, a possible SDI they gave was explicit instruction in phoneme-grapheme correspondence, daily repeated reading, systematic error collection. We looked at that when we were writing the SDI book about this one. But I wish every district had understanding what the difference is about this one, and I wish everyone understand more of what they can do about this one. I like your question and I appreciate you asking that. I wish that there was just better resources out there for you on this. Okay?

Okay. And one more question. As a hearing officer, is there something you look at first?

Yes. That's— I like that one. What I look for first, I look for— start with these questions. What is the student actually struggling with? I first want to understand what are the student's needs? What evaluations support those needs and how significant are the deficits? And then the question that aligns with that one is everyone operating from the same understanding of the student? Okay, so start with, what is the student actually struggling with? What are the problems? As I said when I was with you guys, I don't care about the disability label. I'm looking about what the student actually needs are. And then second, does the IEP directly address those needs? And evaluation to present levels is a part of this one. And you go to them. Okay. And then what is different because the student has a disability? I know this, you asked for one, but I'm going on 3. But what is different? Okay. But the big one, the big one, the big kahuna for me is, can the district prove the student was making progress? I look for baseline data and And progress monitoring data. Statements such as the student is making progress are not persuasive without evidence. So that's what we have to focus on is about this one. All right, so, all right, so I'm gonna go back. I'm gonna start, I'm gonna share my screen again and emphasize this one. Okay.

Okay.

Okay, it's not sharing. Sorry. Let's try it again. I can do these. I can do this. All right. I can do it.

Oh, you got it.

Okay. That's my contact information. You guys got it previously, but I'm gonna leave it here with, with Ryan to bring us home. Thanks, Ryan.

Thank you so much, David. Excellent webinar. I just wanted to give everyone one more chance, if you haven't yet, to book a time to chat with me. You know, the summer's flying by, so let's get connected and get you set up for success for next school year. But thank you so much, everyone, for coming. Have a wonderful day.