How to Compare Extended School Year and Summer ABA Services

Compare authority and purpose

Place Ravi's ESY and ABA proposals in separate columns. The IEP team decides whether ESY is necessary for FAPE under 34 CFR 300.106. A qualified private clinician recommends ABA within professional and legal scope. A health plan or other funder decides coverage under its own rules. None of those decisions automatically answers another column.

Compare goals and evidence

List the exact school IEP content and the private treatment-plan goals, their authors, settings, baselines, opportunity definitions, supports, data sources, and review dates. Similar wording may support coordination. It does not make a school service billable to a health plan or turn private care into the school's ESY obligation.

Model the combined schedule

Map Ravi's travel, transition, meals, medication, AAC, rest, sleep, family time, preferred activities, and transportation around each proposed service. Ask Ravi which parts feel useful or too demanding. A technically available slot can still be a poor fit. Adjust timing or intensity through the authorized team rather than silently reducing an approved service.

Keep records and billing separate

Use the proper record, authorization, claim, and attendance path for each service. The joint FERPA-HIPAA guidance explains that records are governed by holder and capacity. Avoid duplicate billing, cloned notes, or representing one team's work as another's. Share focused information only through an applicable disclosure route.

Prepare Ravi's service comparison

For extended school year versus summer ABA, show Ravi's two proposals side by side with their goals, authors, authority, eligibility, funding, provider, setting, schedule, transportation, record, measure, and review path. Mark coordination points and duplicated burden. Ask each team to confirm only its own decision and record any approved changes through its governing process.

Build Ravi's source-attributed ESY record

Create a restricted ESY and ABA boundary table for Ravi's purpose, authority, eligibility, goal, service, provider, setting, schedule, funding, authorization, record, measure, appeal, and outcome. Give every field a source, event or observation date, author, status, owner, next action, due date, correction, and closure evidence. Keep Ravi's direct statement, family report, school record, private-provider observation, transport record, and interpretation separately attributed.

Within the ESY and ABA boundary table, 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 Ravi's access and ordinary needs

Give Ravi 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 Ravi'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 Ravi

Use these questions in the ESY and ABA boundary table:

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

Ravi is fictional and involved in a proposed ESY morning and private ABA afternoon schedule. Reviewers freeze 28 service-boundary fields and complete 22 of 28 by the checkpoint. Missing student, school, provider, transport, AAC, health, privacy, or implementation evidence remains in Ravi's denominator with an owner, age, and next action.

The ESY and ABA boundary table 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 Ravi

For Ravi's ESY and ABA boundary table, 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 Ravi'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 Ravi's dated ESY path

List Ravi'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 Ravi

For Ravi, 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 Ravi'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 3 in this cluster. Give Ravi 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.