The School also squarely addressed this matter in a CIP submitted to the TEA on January 14, 2011.Through this CIP, the School developed a strategy to “[p]rovide ongoing training to all campus staff on ARD committee decision-making processes related to state assessment[s]” by analyzing “TAKS,TAKS-Accom., and TAKS-M test data and conduct[ing] ARD folder reviews to determine if appropriate rationale was selected based on [the] type of instruction that the student is receiving.”
Exhibit 1.1.1 (January 14, 2011 CIP). The CIP also incorporates several sources from which theSchool develops its training strategy, including an ARD Committee Decision-Making ProcessManual, TAKS Accommodation Manual, ESC trainings, and guidance from the TEA.
Exhibit 1.1.1 (January 14, 2011 CIP).As demonstrated in the CIP, the School has completed all Required Actions under this topic.Accordingly, we ask that this Required Action on training for ARD committee decision-making beomitted from the Final Report or, in the alternative, an acknowledgment that the School has properlyaddressed this concern.
Training on Use of Performance Level Data and the Alignment of Accommodations
The TEA Team cites to folder reviews for two students with disabilities to conclude that, with regardto those two folders, “the TAKS participation decisions documented in the ARD did not includeconsideration of the students’ present level of performance” as required by 34 CFR§ 300.324(a)(1).The Preliminary Report also states that the TEA Team “found through folder reviews that for twostudents with disabilities, accommodations for assessments were not routinely provided duringclassroom instruction,” as required by 34 CFR § 300.320(a)(6)(i) and 19 TAC § 89.1055(b).As such, the Preliminary Report then requires the School to “[p]rovide training to all specialeducation teachers related to the required use of present levels of performance data and the alignmentof instructional accommodations and testing accommodations when making state assessmentdecisions.”
The School recognizes that IEP and ARD documentation must reflect aconsideration of a student’s present level of performance.
34 CFR § 300.320(a)(1).
Thisrequirement is present in the forms used by the School’s ARD committees when reviewing studentIEPs.
Exhibit 1.1.2 (2009–2010 ARD Committee IEP Report); Exhibit 1.1.3 (2010–2011/2011– 2012 ARD Committee IEP Report). Unfortunately, WACS must agree that two of the foldersreviewed by the TEA Team did not reflect this consideration.The School’s January 14, 2011 CIP addressed this concern by requiring the School to “[p]rovidetraining to all ARD Coordinators and special education teachers related to the use of present levels of performance data and the alignment of instruction accommodations and testing accommodations.”
Exhibit 1.1.1 (January 14, 2011 CIP). As shown by the training agendas, sign-in sheets, training presentations, and Regional Service Center training certificates provided with this Response, theSchool provides regular training to special education teachers on the ARD decision-making process,
It appears that the TEA Team inadvertently cited 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(1) as the legal basis for the consideration of present level of performance. However, § 300.324(a)(1) requires an IEP Team to consider the “strengths of the child”when developing an IEP, while 34 CFR § 300.320(a)(1) references “the child’s present levels of academic achievementand functional performance.”