EAP Validation and Verification

The QTU has raised members’ concerns about changes to the Education Adjustment Program (EAP) validation and verification process with the Department of Education and Training. [read the Text of email message sent to DET from the QTU on 27 October 2009] 

Validation

Outcomes of discussions include:

  • The Disability Services Support Unit (DSSU) will provide clear and detailed information to the QTU and schools about the new validation process (these have been posted on the QTU website).
  • The process must assist, not audit, schools, and be supportive, not investigative.
  • Teachers, HOSES and principals are encouraged to offer feedback to the validator and the DSSU.
  • Validators will be made aware that collaboration with teachers is central to teachers’ support of, and faith in, the process.
  • The process will be used to monitor EAP data in a variety of areas – not just to check up on statistical inconsistencies. Over 12 months, the validators will look at schools with both high and low reporting of EAP support needs. Also, they will still conduct validation of randomly selected schools. 
  • Data analysis will be done in consultation with school staff. School consultation remains an important aspect of the validation process, and this will be clear in the DSSU’s communications with principals and HOSES. 
  • The DSSU will inform schools in a timely manner when they are to participate in validation, giving them enough time to prepare the documentation.
  • Schools will get clear and unambiguous information about the documents required. The documentation will not be excessive – current programming documentation does not need to be modified to be suitable.
    Excessively detailed adjustments are not needed. Key documents such as term overviews with clear reference to adjustments being made in addition to timetables of support time given and dot points of adjustments made in a weekly plan, will suffice.
  • School context will be considered during data analysis.

Information provided by the Department

(current October 2009)

Verification

Members concerns included the time taken to complete the documents, the need for liaison about the student and the lack of TRS.

QTU enquiries indicated that teachers were taking four to eight hours to collate information. 

Points clarified included the need for teachers to use the correct forms for the reviews (without adding to their workloads.) In particular, confusion over the difference between a verification review and profile review must be addressed.

Verification for students with disabilities will take place a number of times, including:

  1. initial verification (no previous verification)
  2. verification review – not all students will require a verification review. 

    The state verifier will determine if it is required and when it will occur. 

    This is not to be confused with a profile review, which is done over three years for all students (one third of students have a profile review a year) through the AIMS profile. 

    The verification review documents must not be used for a profile review. 

    AIMS profiles have a new (slightly shorter) format. 

    Once all students have been moved to the new AIMS profile, the profile review will involve copying from the old form and making any adjustment required.
  3. adding a new category
  4. deleting a category

DSSU staff believe the new verification review forms should not take too much time, and information schools have on students from existing team meetings should form the basis of the documents. The case manager can pull together recent information gathered by OTs, speech therapists and other specialists, and use this to complete the verification documentation. If there are any concerns over what is on the forms, the verifiers will refer back to the case managers before decisions are made.

DSSU will send information about these points to schools.

Feedback to the QTU does not reflect the Department’s depiction of the workload implications of the new forms.

The QTU believes that the process requires considerable time and effort and it will to continue to monitor the situation.  

The QTU also took the opportunity to outline long-term, on-going concerns about other aspects of the EAP process – in particular the lack of TRS – as well as the lack of clarity around regional distribution of special education funding/staffing and provision of facilities.

The DSSU undertook to provide the QTU with information on the regional guidelines for disseminating funds for students with disabilities. (View the information provided by the Department - by clicking on title)

Lin Esders
Acting Research Officer

Source: Queensland Teachers' Journal. Vol. 32, no.8, Nov 2009