How to Audit Extended School Year Services

Freeze the audit cohorts

Define Harper's included students, IEPs, ESY decisions, services, programs, locations, scheduled dates, transportation routes, and follow-up window before sampling. Preserve the state criteria, local procedures, and IEP versions that applied. Keep denied, declined, canceled, transferred, partially delivered, and missing-record cases in the workflow cohort with an accurate state.

Test individualized decisions

Inspect whether the IEP team used student-specific evidence, considered relevant needs and requested options, and documented the actual decision. Under 34 CFR 300.106, the agency cannot limit ESY to a disability category or unilaterally limit type, amount, or duration. Audit current state criteria without inventing a single federal scoring formula.

Test implementation and access

Compare each approved service with staffing, provider responsibility, schedule, setting, transportation, AAC, assistive technology, health supports, attendance, actual delivery, progress evidence, and student feedback. A completed schedule field does not show that the student arrived, communicated, received the planned service, or benefited. Record system-caused missed access separately.

Validate corrections and handoffs

Give each Harper audit defect an interim safeguard, owner, due date, affected cohort, and retest. Verify corrections in source records and practice, then reconcile the handoff into the regular year. Have a second reviewer reproduce denominators and high-risk findings. Publish privacy-safe aggregates while preserving authorized case-level evidence for IEP and corrective-action owners.

Prepare Harper's audit evidence map

For audit extended school year services, map each Harper control to its source, cohort, record, owner, date, failure consequence, and retest. Sample across schools, programs, services, disability categories, communication modes, transportation needs, and decision outcomes where lawful and useful. Keep small public cells suppressed while authorized reviewers can trace every finding to the original record.

Build Harper's source-attributed ESY record

Create a restricted ESY implementation audit for Harper's cohort, decision, notice, IEP, service, staff, AAC, transport, attendance, delivery, progress, student experience, handoff, correction, and retest. Give every field a source, event or observation date, author, status, owner, next action, due date, correction, and closure evidence. Keep Harper's direct statement, family report, school record, private-provider observation, transport record, and interpretation separately attributed.

Within the ESY implementation audit, separate individualized ESY need, IEP content, school implementation, private clinical recommendation, health-plan authorization, provider capacity, family or student choice, records disclosure, transportation, and delivered service. A shared schedule or goal never combines those authorities.

Protect Harper's access and ordinary needs

Give Harper accessible information, AAC or another communication mode, privacy, enough time, useful choices, breaks, and a way to decline or correct a nonemergency discussion. The ASHA AAC portal says AAC users should always have access to communication tools or devices. Record the student's message separately from adult prediction or interpretation.

Preserve Harper's food, water, bathroom access, mobility, prescribed care, rest, relationships, preferred activities, and emergency help. The BACB Ethics Code guides covered behavior analysts on communication, consent and assent when applicable, competence, assessment, documentation, risk, and referral. It does not assign IEP, school, payer, transportation, or legal authority.

Ask eight ESY evidence questions for Harper

Use these questions in the ESY implementation audit:

• Which student need and FAPE question is the IEP team deciding?
• What does Harper want, value, question, or decline?
• Which current state criterion and record supports the decision?
• What service, schedule, setting, staff, transport, and technology are required?
• Which opportunity, support, prompt, source, and period produced the evidence?
• Which school, clinical, payer, family, or transport owner controls each action?
• What current access or interim support is needed while a decision remains open?
• What evidence and student feedback will close or revise the action?

Classify Harper's fields as complete, failed, pending, declined, disputed, or inapplicable with a reason. Pending work stays visible and blocks only the dependent action.

A fictional ESY example for Harper

Harper is fictional and involved in a district audit across two summer programs. Reviewers freeze 63 sampled ESY records and controls and complete 49 of 63 by the checkpoint. Missing student, school, provider, transport, AAC, health, privacy, or implementation evidence remains in Harper's denominator with an owner, age, and next action.

The ESY implementation audit reports evidence completion separately from IDEA compliance, FAPE, clinical quality, coverage, student choice, service delivery, educational benefit, and satisfaction. Reviewers preserve the original cohort and all failed or pending states. They do not infer that ESY or one support caused change when instruction, health, access, schedule, experience, and time changed together.

Use compatible ESY denominators for Harper

For Harper's ESY implementation audit, report completed decisions divided by decisions due; required IEP elements documented divided by elements reviewed; service minutes delivered divided by approved service minutes due; accessible communication checks passed divided by checks due; transport arrivals completed by target divided by scheduled rides; and validated corrections divided by corrections due.

Segment Harper's results by school, program, service, setting, provider, communication access, transportation, decision state, missed-service reason, and source version when useful. Publish raw counts with percentages and age open items. Keep different definitions, service units, and maturity windows in separate measures.

Create Harper's dated ESY path

List Harper's request, evidence cutoff, IEP review, decision, notice, IEP update, staffing, transport, AAC readiness, health handoff, first service, missed service, progress review, correction, last service, fall handoff, and retest in chronological order. Distinguish proposed, scheduled, event, entry, receipt, decision, and effective dates.

The joint FERPA-HIPAA guidance classifies records by holder and capacity. Use the current school, state, provider, payer, and student-specific source for each decision. Share purpose-needed information through the applicable route and preserve authorship, receipt, corrections, and privacy.

Explain ESY source scope for Harper

For Harper, 34 CFR 300.106 provides the federal ESY rule: services must be available as necessary for FAPE, the IEP team decides individually, and the public agency cannot use the prohibited categorical or unilateral limits. The general FAPE rule supports this educational duty; it neither authorizes private care nor decides Harper's individualized ESY plan. Current state criteria, procedures, calendars, and dispute routes can add important detail and require direct verification.

The CASP organizational overview supplies broad operations and risk framing for page 10 in this cluster. Give Harper and the authorized adult an accessible summary of decisions, evidence, owners, dates, limits, and review triggers. Keep the page draft and noindex pending named review.