How to Collect Useful Evidence for an ESY Decision

Start with defined questions

For Theo, write the skill, access, service, or support question the IEP team must answer. Define the observable response, eligible opportunity, setting, ordinary support, data source, and period. Separate academic, communication, health, safety, social, daily-living, mobility, and related-service questions when they use different measures or qualified decision makers.

Track interruptions and recovery accurately

Record Theo's level before an interruption, the actual length and conditions of the break, performance after return, supports used, opportunities observed, and time to the defined recovery point. Keep missing data visible. Avoid reconstructing precise percentages from vague recall or comparing one supported measure with another collected under different conditions.

Include other individualized evidence

Document emerging skills, critical learning periods, rate of progress, severity and nature of need, independence, access to communication, support intensity, and how a long break may affect FAPE under current state criteria. 34 CFR 300.106 itself does not name one regression-recoupment test. Ask the school to cite the current criterion it applies.

Report limits beside findings

State who collected each Theo measure, the number of opportunities, dates, setting, prompts, exclusions, changes, and missing periods. Family observations and private-provider data can inform the IEP team while retaining their source and limits. A small sample can justify another assessment step without predicting the full summer or deciding ESY by itself.

Prepare Theo's evidence review

Organize evidence for extended school year decision by Theo's defined skills and needs. Show the pre-break, break, return, recovery, support, opportunity, and source fields together. Add emerging and critical needs under the applicable state criteria. Ask the IEP team to identify the evidence it relied on, explain unresolved conflicts, and name any additional collection before the decision date.

Build Theo's source-attributed ESY record

Create a restricted ESY evidence matrix for Theo's skill, opportunity, baseline, progress, break, change, recovery, support, emerging need, critical need, source, student input, and limitation. Give every field a source, event or observation date, author, status, owner, next action, due date, correction, and closure evidence. Keep Theo's direct statement, family report, school record, private-provider observation, transport record, and interpretation separately attributed.

Within the ESY evidence matrix, 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 Theo's access and ordinary needs

Give Theo 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 Theo'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 Theo

Use these questions in the ESY evidence matrix:

• Which student need and FAPE question is the IEP team deciding?
• What does Theo 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 Theo'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 Theo

Theo is fictional and involved in three school breaks and one summer-planning window. Reviewers freeze 30 evidence and interpretation fields and complete 24 of 30 by the checkpoint. Missing student, school, provider, transport, AAC, health, privacy, or implementation evidence remains in Theo's denominator with an owner, age, and next action.

The ESY evidence matrix 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 Theo

For Theo's ESY evidence matrix, 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 Theo'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 Theo's dated ESY path

List Theo'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 Theo

For Theo, 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 Theo'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 2 in this cluster. Give Theo 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.