Fixing the Riser Process

Position Paper from the Special Education Advocacy and Advisory Committee
drafted by Lauren Feaux, 10/15/2012, revised 12/11/2012

Executive Summary:
The riser process is the natural transition between schools that occurs when students with disabilities graduate from one
school to the next. This process has been especially difficult in Seattle Public Schools because students with disabilities
are not part of the regular enrollment system, they are an exception. Special education programs have not been placed
reasonably in buildings, and often haven't been placed at all until all other students have been seated. Late program
placement has resulted in redlining students with disabilities into underenrolled and less desirable schools in
disproportionate numbers. This lack of planning for special education students is a multi-faceted problem: The district
fails to describe, disclose, or identify the services it has or intends to have. The district fails to count students
documented to have special education needs rising to new schools. For families and staff, multiple IEP meetings are
required, when a single meeting should do. Failure to plan means that IEP teams charged with the transition have the
wrong constituency, are conducted at the wrong time, and have inadequate information to complete their task of writing
an IEP. Once students' needs are identified, failure to place programs means that paperwork and information doesn't
follow the student in a timely manner. In short, failure to plan and provide basic information for students transitioning to
new schools is very stressful for families and is mostly avoidable. Finally, failure to conduct IEPs and disclose information
means that students may be more restrictively and inappropriately placed than need be.
To avoid the problems, SEAAC advises the adherence to the following timeline. All students will eventually be placed.
The process should be streamlined and made as easy as possible. Multiple and redundant IEP meetings do cost the
district. They are time consuming and stressful.
Information that should be provided to SEAAC is bolded in the timeline below. Details are provided in sections 3 and 4.

Timeline Summary of the Improved Riser Process

September.
Full accurate
disclosure of
programs and
services
provided to
SEAAC and
community.
Includes all
information
on program's
access to
general ed.

November.
All risers
counted.
New risers
anticipated
based on
past data.

January 1.
New
programs ,
or policy
disclosed to
SEAAC and
community.

Number of
risers per
program
reported
to SEAAC.

Closures
disclosed as
well. Special
education
tours are
ongoing.

January 15.
New
student IEPs
with
assignment
area school
begin.
Program
model
decisions
made
before
general
enrollment.

February.
School
Assignment
letters
mailed to
all students
at the same
time.

March - April
Open
Enrollment
for those
seeking
optional
assignments.
April - Final
School
Assignments

April.
New school
caseload
managers are
assigned.
Transitions
IEPs to new
schools are
made for
secondary
risers.

***

*** SEAAC recommends that ALL secondary schools support students recommended for ALL programming models.
Inclusion programs are missing at about 1/2 of the secondary schools including: Nathan HS, Ingraham HS, Franklin HS,
Ranier Beach HS, West Seattle HS, Sealth HS, Whitman MS, Washington MS, Mercer MS, Denny MS, Hamilton MS,
and at ALL option secondary schools.
SEAAC strongly suggests that ALL elementary students be assigned to their assignment area school if it has the program
outlined on their IEP. Currently, if a program is full, the student isn't guaranteed a seat. It should be guaranteed.
The above are recommendations of the ICS Task Force and have long been recognized as best practice as well as
1
aligned with NSAP.

June - August
Students with
disabilities are
scheduled first
in secondary
master
schedules.
Report given to
SEAAC.
Students with
disabilities are
scheduled first
in elementaries.
Caseload
managers
receive "Top 10
List"

1. Issue Statement:
Each year students in Seattle Public Schools transition out of schools serving one age range and into schools
serving the next age range up. This process is called "the Riser Process" by SPS. School transitions are a
challenge for everyone. For students and families of students with disabilities, the process is complicated by a
range of issues. Many issues are not really about change but are created by the school district. One family
transitioning into SPS for the first time from a developmental preschool reported that this process was the
single most stressful event in their lives. That is, rising into SPS was even more traumatic than receiving the
diagnosis of a lifelong disability for their child! There is no reason for this process to be so problematic.

2. Consultation:
This work was done in consultation with a number of people. Here are a few who collaborated prior to the
first draft: Pam Davis, Stacia Hawkinson, Brooke Freeburg, Jen Spanswick, Tom Ledcke, Katherine

Meyer, Susan Sturms, Lauren Feaux, Deana Metteer, Phyllis Campano

3. Problem Scope:
The "Riser" process has been problematic in SPS for at least 10 years. The problems change from year to year,
and have slowly improved somewhat over the years. A big relief was the introduction of the guaranteed
linked school assignment plan for secondary students with disabilities. However, the main focal point of the
problem is that SPS fails to systematically prepare for students with disabilities. The idea is that students with
disabilities should be placed in programs, in "at capacity" packets, hopefully nearby their homes, in a school
with some vacant classrooms available for use by the special education program.

1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Outline of problems.
Failure to clearly identify schools with programs for students with disabilities.
Failure to accurately describe programs.
Program location and viewing access to special education programs is limited.
Inadequate and incompliant IEP process determining placement.
a. IEP occurs at the wrong time. Placement is illegally determined before the IEP. Placement is
required to be the last part of the IEP, not the first.
b. Too many IEPs happen to families in 1 year, because they are at the wrong time.
c. IEPs have the wrong constituency, because they are at the wrong time.
d. Incomplete access to information about programs hampers IEP participation.
Information on the student is not sent to receiving schools in a timely manner.
Student assignment to programs based on a count, not on need.
Inadequate number of programs identified for known risers.
Students are not given an appropriate and equitable range of schools.
Late program placements in schools fails to meet the needs of students with disabilities

Discussion of Problem Scope:

1 & 2.Failure to Clearly Identify Existing Schools and Programs.
The first difficulty encountered by families is the disclosure of program locations. Where are the programs?
Families are told that there will be some IEP process for determining the placement of their child. To fully
participate in the programs, families need to observe a variety of programs to determine if the programs, or
even type of program, could possibly serve the needs of their student.
The next obstacle is that there is nobody who is willing to disclose the location of current program locations.
This lack of information is remedied by savvy parents who can usually find this information either by using
online information or by using advocacy groups that have many members who know the program locations.
The next obstacle is the reluctance to correctly describe the programs. There is confusion as to what types of
programs are available, who they serve, and how they serve them. Programs serving students with very
different needs are lumped together in a system of nomenclature (SMx) that neither describes a consistent
level of need, nor a consistent type of service. Inclusion programs are lumped together with self-contained
programs. A one of kind program at the UW, with intensive support is lumped together with resource rooms.
3 & 7. Program Viewing Problems and Inadequate Number of Programs for Known Risers.
The next obstacle is observing the special education programs. Families encounter roadblock after roadblock
when they try to observe schools. Some principals think special education "central staff" must accompany
families. Others think school tours are the appropriate venue for observation. Most do not recognize that
observation is required for full parental participation in the IEP process. It is also important for current
teachers to observe classrooms so they may fully participation in the IEP process of their students. The most
challenging problem parents discover is there is no commitment to program location or program existence, in
any school or by any staff for the coming school year. Many parents are dismayed to discover that there IS NO
PROGRAM for their child anywhere in the district at open enrollment, even though their kids have been
identified with disabilities for many years, sometimes more than a decade. In some years, programs are not
opened up until August for students with disabilities. How are those families to make school connections with
only days of advanced notice? Every other child in the district has a known school location for their child at the
time of open enrollment. Students with disabilities deserve the same consideration.
4. Inadequate IEP Process.
The next obstacle for risers is the triplicate IEP process for students first entering the district in elementary
schools. No other district we know of has a triplicate IEP process for rising students with disabilities. As a first
cut, families are told to choose from a very small menu: general education or self contained. This decision, is
the first IEP of the process. It is couched as an "IEP" meeting to give it some legitimacy to the required
decision. In fact, it really doesn't meet the standard for an IEP meeting. There is no general educator present.
There are no goals, or SDI, or accommodations discussed. There is no "continuum of alternate placements"
considered at this meeting. Only the choice. A bi-modal choice is not a continuum. And a meeting to make
a single choice, without the right constituents isn't an IEP meeting.
Students receive school assignments based on that menu selection. Students in self-contained settings
sometimes do not receive an assignment. After the assignment is made, a second IEP meeting is held to
3

change the goals for the new, actual school. This is more like an actual IEP meeting because goals and
accommodations are discussed. However, this meeting lacks the general educator from the receiving school,
and often lacks anybody at all from the receiving school. Without access to the correct staff, this is also not a
truly valid IEP meeting. The third IEP occurs once the student has arrived in the new school. Since nobody
from the new school participated in the transition IEP, the goals often don't align with the service the new
school is prepared to deliver. In this case, a third IEP is required, perhaps with another transition for the
child.
Students rising in to kindergarten, wishing a placement at the EEU encounter even more problems. In order
to even be considered for the EEU, a family must often deny the full extent of their child's needs. They must
choose general ed resource room in its bi-modal choice phase of the "riser process": SM1. EEU is not a
resource room program, and it is resourced far more richly. Despite that, it is categorized as resource room
level (SM1) program by the district. Students who otherwise might need more support can be served at EEU
because EEU provides at least 4 times the support that students receive in other district SM1 programs. To get
around this district imposed obstacle, students needing high level of support choose SM1 even if that is
inadequate to meet their needs anywhere but at the EEU. If they receive an EEU placement they are fine. If
they do not, they must request yet ANOTHER IEP and change their placement at that IEP to the actual level of
need.
In addition to the incompliant IEP process, this hurdle is highly inequitable because only those well versed in
IEPs have a chance. It also means that students who would be able to attend the EEU are forced into more
restrictive placements than they actually need.
5. Receiving Schools Do Not Receive Paper Work.
The next set of problems for the risers occurs after the riser process has been completed. This is the lack of
transfer of appropriate paperwork to the receiving school. Evaluations, IEPs, and BIPs, are not made
available to receiving schools. It is not even clear in some cases that students with IEPs are even identified to
receiving schools and case managers. In secondary schools, if students with disabilities are the last ones
placed in a building, then classes may not be available to students, especially if support is also required for
those classes. At all levels, staffing levels of all special education personnel is not available at the start of
school. OSPI has been notified of the chronic lack of readiness in many schools, particularly with related
services. We note that this year, a huge number of IA positions were unfilled this year at the start of the
school year.

6. Students are Assigned by Number, not Needs.

On a related path is the issue of program authenticity. In recent years, this issue has arisen because of the
district's supposed cancellation of inclusion programs. In point of fact, there are still inclusion programs, and
other program types, based on a student's actual divergent needs, not simply on the level of support.
However, when there is a space crunch, the district places students based on its need to fill seats, even if in
the wrong type of program instead of based on student need. For some secondary students - transfers to
inclusion or self-contained programs are made based on student needs. For those with less sophisticated
parents, placement is simply done based on a staffing ratio without regard to need.
4

8 & 9. Inequitable Program Placement with Limited Range of Options.

Equitable location of programs, and acknowledgement of true program types is also problematic for families.
Leaving program placement to the end of the school year, or to the summer means that programs will only be
placed in under enrolled, and usually, underperforming schools. Students with disabilities are entitled to the
same broad range of schools that other students attend. Option, alternative, and special programs need to
be available to students with disabilities. Requisite programs that make those schools and school programs
available and accessible need to exist. For example, many secondary alternative schools are chronically
unavailable to selection. Center School is at capacity now and will not be admitting any student with a
significant disability for many years. Salmon Bay has entire years where no students with disabilities are
served. Families who ask about school admission to Salmon Bay on school tours, are told the middle school
only serves two grades. Central staff tells families there are programs available, but the principals and
teachers at the schools tell families a different story. Namely, that their child won't and can't be served
because it is full. Who is the family to believe?

And finally, failure you to prepare for special education programs well in advance of the coming year is highly
inequitable to all families. The results of this delay means that special education programs wind up in schools
with space. Schools with space are generally ones that are the least desirable, and ones that have the most
existing challenges. Adding to that burden is the fact that it is inequitable to all students. Planning ahead is
the best way to address equity.

4. Recommendations and Solutions:

Since the problem of transition is large, the solution is multi-faceted. Luckily, many of the most pressing
problems are relatively easy to solve. Since all students with disabilities do wind up being served, an
organization and planning on a tighter schedule go a long way to solving the problems and reducing the stress
for families. At a minimum, steps 1 - 5 would solve most of the current problems and create an IDEA
compliant process where individual student needs are considered before placement in the least restrictive
environment for each given student.

1. All special education programs and schools should be clearly identified to everyone. All programs
should be authentically described. If a program is an inclusion program, then it should be described
that way. If a program is self-contained, that should be disclosed, along with the access available to
general education students. Special programs like EEU, that do not fit neatly into the SMx model,
should be accurately described and made available to everyone who could benefit from them. EEU is
best described as a reverse-inclusion kindergarten. Programs who are not alike should not be labeled
the same. Locations of programs should be disclosed.
2. All risers should be identified in November. Under the NSAP, all students have an assignment school.
Secondary students served in program models have a linked school assignment plan.
3. Linked Student Assignment Plan is retained for secondary school. ALL Elementary students may attend
a program in their reference if it contains a program they need. Failure to make that provision is
incompliant with IDEA.
4. After receipt of riser enrollment information the district should place programs in schools. This
process should be completed in December. Special education program placement needs to happen
WELL IN ADVANCE of general enrollment so that special education students don't get squeezed out of
schools.
Program placement in schools should be based on the following information.
a. Number of risers.
b. Current program of risers, overwhelmingly, these are known and do not change when a
student graduates to a new program.
c. If the programming needs of new students are not known, the district should use historical
data to estimate the program placement.
d. Variety of schools. Option schools should be as available to students with significant/severe
needs as they are to all other students. Option schools should not ever be "full" to new risers.
e. Community input.
5. All available programs should be announced in January.
6. Starting in January, all schools and special education programs should be available to for families and
riser staff to view. This is necessary to facilitate full participation in IEPs. The district may decide to
facilitate tours which are convenient for families. If that is impractical, the district should direct
principals to allow parents to observe their schools and special education programs.
7. Transition IEPs for students NEW to SPS commences in January. IEPs should be done before
enrollment. To facilitate those IEPs the following must occur:
6

a. Students meet the teacher at the assignment area school.

b. General education teachers in the assignment area school attend the IEP meetings.
c. Programs are available for viewing by true IEP teams, including parents, teachers, and
community members.
d. Staff at assignment school is available for true IEP meetings.
e. Central staff is available to discuss actual program availability, program authenticity, and
participate as LEA representatives in IEPs
f. Secondary linked school staff is available for student observation.
g. Secondary linked school staff is available for IEP meetings at the secondary level. If a range of
alternate placements is considered for NEW elementary students with disabilities, the staff in
the alternate placement is considered.
8. Students are assigned to schools in the same timeline as other students.
9. Families may also participate in OPEN ENROLLMENT, to change their placements if they do not like
them. Further tweaking to program placement may occur during this timeframe.
10. District assigns students to caseload. IEP manager is known for all students. All paperwork is sent to
the new IEP case manager. This includes all evaluations, IEPs, and BIPs.
11. New school receives transition information.

a.
b.
c.
d.

General education teacher need to have IEP/Top 10 list *

What are the students skills?
What a day in the new school looks like.
What does the student need to be successful?

12. TRANSITION planning continues - the IEP case manager is different than the teacher who participated
in the IEP meeting above.

a.
b.
c.
d.

Receiving teacher going to observe the student in current classroom environment

Receiving teacher meets the student, and their family.
Parent and student visit next school.
Attend a recap of the IEP meeting for students moving up the next year.

13. Students with IEPs are assigned FIRST in secondary class schedules.
14. Elementary class scheduling, including classroom assignments, should occur at the end of the year.
Students with IEPs should be considered FIRST so that their service may begin when school starts.
15. Programs birth to 5 should be anticipated and made available as need arises. Locations for these
should be anticipated when a student FIRST is identified for special education, and reviewed quarterly.

Sample Top 10 list, for Roosevelt High School.

1. Transportation: metro, drop off, walk, little yellow bus/ how does the student handle changes
or unexpected occurrences
2. Social networking: does the student use/have a cell phone, Facebook, email,- and can they
use; what are their computer skills
3. Does the student know parents phone #s, emails, home address, emergency contacts
These 1st 3 they will be asked to use/know on the 1st day of school
4. Transitions: expected and unexpected, level of adult supervision and prompting needed.
5. Adaptive: students comfort level with $, making snacks, lunches; clothing and hygiene
independence and awareness.
6. Independence in general education: does student need support in independent work, small
group, structured work, or unstructured work?
7. Prompting levels: duration student will remain on task when student has 1:1, when in small
group, when in large group, when faced with distractions; will they ask for help? Student
preferences and parent preferences in this area? What does off task look like for this student?
8. Behavior concerns if any; when and where do they occur? Structure or unstructured time?
With adults or students? Work dependent? Location? Any red flags?
9. Does the student do homework? Willing to attend homework clubs/tutors?
10. Home structure and communication: who/when/where does the student live with? Does the
student have chores, study time? Does student need to complete things to earn items? Where
are the tv/ video games/computers? Does student participate in after school activities?