Policy – Category 6000 (Instruction) BP 6003 – Extended School Year (ESY)
(f) In order to qualify for average daily attendance revenue for extended year pupils, all of the following conditions must be met:
(1) Extended year special education shall be the same length of time as the school day for pupils of the same age level attending summer school in the district in which the extended year program is provided, but not less than the minimum school day for that age unless otherwise specified in the IEP to meet a pupil’s unique needs. (2) The special education and related services offered during the extended year period are comparable in standards, scope and quality to the special education program offered during the regular academic year. (g) If during the regular academic year an individual’s IEP specifies integration in the regular classroom, a public education agency is not required to meet that component of the IEP if no regular summer school programs are being offered by that agency. NOTE: The regulation governing extended school year ("ESY") services has been amended to be consistent with federal law, which allows SEAs to set ESY standards for their states. The new regulation deletes obsolete language which set forth the maximum number of school days for reimbursement but keeps intact California’s ESY standard of a minimum of 20 instructional days. 3. Case Law Due process cases and court decisions have provided guidance in determining what constitutes FAPE and/or a child’s need for ESY services. In 1982, a landmark United States Supreme Court decision established a substantive standard for the provision of FAPE. Board of Education of the Hendrick-Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) . The Rowley decision required an LEA to provide a “‘basic floor of opportunity’ . . . [consisting] of access to specialized instruction and related services which are individually designed to provide educational benefit to the [child with a disability].” In a unanimous 2017 decision, the United States Supreme Court went beyond the Court in Rowley to interpret the scope of FAPE requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and overturned the Tenth Circuit’s decision regarding a child with autism being entitled only to an educational program that was calculated to provide “merely more than de minimis” educational benefit. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1, 137 S. Ct.
BP 6003 – Extended School Year (ESY)
Page 6
Desert Mountain Charter Special Education Local Plan Area (DMCS) (rev. 05/19)
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online