CENTRAL COMMUNITY SCHOOLS

SPECIAL EDUCATION QUALITY AUDIT

FINAL REPORT

June 4, 2010

Prepared by:

THE LAW OFFICES OF HAMMONDS & SILLS1111 S. Foster Drive, Suite C

Baton Rouge, LA 70806(225) 923-3462

SPECIAL EDUCATION QUALITY AUDIT

I. INTRODUCTION

The audit was conducted by a special education paralegal (consultant) employed by the LawOffices of Hammonds & Sills, 1111 South Foster Drive, Suite C, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The LawOffices of Hammonds & Sills has represented school districts across the state for over 20 years andserves as a legal resource to school districts regarding special education and other matters involvingpublic education. The audit was conducted by a single consultant with knowledge and experienceregarding the multiple and diverse needs of students with disabilities enrolled in public schoolsystems across the state. The audit took place at reasonable intervals during a three month period toallow for review of hundreds of pages of documents and educational records that were requested atvarious times throughout the audit process and in response to directed probes. The audit period alsoallowed for the consultant to accommodate the schedules of the participants and to rescheduleinterviews and site visits when unanticipated events interrupted planned activities.

The consultant holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Speech Defective and Hard of Hearingand Speech Education from Louisiana State University and a Master of Arts degree in SpeechPathology from Louisiana State University. She received her Legal Assistant/Paralegal Certificatefrom Boston University. Her areas of educational certification by the Louisiana Department ofEducation include: Speech Defective and Hard of Hearing, Speech Education, Hard of Hearing,Qualified Speech Pathologist, Supervisor of Student Teaching, Principal, Parish or City SchoolSupervisor of Instruction, and Parish or City School Supervisor/Director of Special Education. Sheholds a Certificate of Clinical Competence from the American Speech-Language-HearingAssociation. The consultant frequently provides inservice to school districts across the stateregarding the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and mattersrelated to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504).

The consultant worked for many years as an educational service provider and central officeadministrator in a large school district in Louisiana, worked in smaller school districts andcooperatives in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and served as an educational service providerand consultant for the U.S. Department of Defense Overseas School System. More recently, theconsultant, an attorney representing the Louisiana Department of Education, and an attorneyrepresenting the Advocacy Center in New Orleans, comprised the 3-person team charged with thetask of re-writing Louisiana Bulletin 1706A (Regulations for Implementation of the Children withExceptionalities Act) to comport with the 2006 IDEA regulations. In doing so, the consultantspecifically represented the interests of the Louisiana Association of School Superintendents and theLouisiana Association of Special Education Administrators in ensuring wide stake-holderparticipation in the development of Louisiana’s “special education” regulations, as amended onOctober 20, 2008.

3

II. CONTEXT AND PURPOSE

A. The Audit Overview

A functional educational quality audit (audit) of Special Education Programs and Servicesin the Central Community School System (CCBS or School System) commenced on March 1, 2010at the request of Superintendent Michael Faulk and members of the Central Community SchoolBoard (CCSB). The audit was commissioned for the purpose of examining the quality, efficiency,and overall effectiveness of available programs and services in fostering the educational progressof students with disabilities under the existing special education scheme currently operating in theCentral Community School System.

A functional educational quality audit provides an independent, objective means of reviewingthe internal operations of a department or program to examine organizational performance andaccountability, communication effectiveness, coordination of services, utilization of personnel andother resources, and the adequacy of policies and internal procedures.

The consultant recognizes that there are many types of audits (conducted for many differentpurposes) and considers it appropriate to clarify that the educational audit conducted for the CCSSwas neither financial nor forensic in scope or purpose. This educational audit report delineates theconsultant’s findings and provides constructive suggestions for improvement or enhancement, butit does not “name names” or attempt to establish evidence of “impropriety”.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) forms the basis forfederally-funded special education programs and services to students with disabilities. The IDEAand its attendant regulations contain numerous monitoring and enforcement responsibilities that fallwithin the purview of the Louisiana Department of Education, as well as numerous proceduralsafeguards and other legal rights available to parents of students with disabilities who may bedissatisfied with the special education services made available to their children. Thus, the auditconducted for the CCSS sought to examine overall operations of the special education departmentwith an eye toward improvements where indicated, mindful of the individual dispute resolutionmechanisms available to students with disabilities and their parents, and the continuous monitoringof special education programs and services by the Louisiana Department of Education, as requiredunder the IDEA. The consultant has, however, recommended an internal mechanism for resolutionof staff disputes.

B. Dissemination of the Audit Report

As indicated herein, the special education department of every school district is guided bythe extensive procedural requirements of federal and state laws and regulations relative to studentswith disabilities. Those laws and regulations have built-in mechanisms designed to addresscompliance issues and individual student complaints and need not be addressed in this report.Moreover, those same federal laws and regulations have stringent confidentiality considerations

4

which serve to constrain the access to, and release of sensitive, personally identifiable informationto protect the confidentiality rights of children with disabilities and their families in the Centralcommunity. Personally identifiable information is defined under the Family Educational Rights andPrivacy Act (FERPA) as, “the student’s name; the name of the student’s parent or other familymembers; the address of the student or student’s family; a personal identifier, such as the student’ssocial security number, student number, or biometric record; other indirect identifiers, such as thestudent’s date of birth, place of birth, and mother’s maiden name; other information that, alone orin combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person inthe school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, toidentify the student with reasonable certainty; or information requested by a person who theeducational agency or institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom theeducation record relates”. 34 CFR 99.3 (2008).

In a small community like Central, caution is advised to ensure that confidential studentinformation that a “reasonable person in the school community” may be able to readily identify, isnot released without the expressed written consent of the parent(s) of the student(s) whose identitiesmay be revealed, or the student(s) of majority age. Certain elements of this report pose a reasonablerisk of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information and should be treated accordingly.

C. Scope

This report is based upon the collective observations and conclusions of the consultant. Weshould note that the findings in this report address a small, but representative, cross-section ofprograms and services provided to students with and without disabilities by the Central CommunitySchool System and should not be regarded as an exhaustive analysis of all existing programs andservices available to students with disabilities in the parish. The audit focuses primarily on servicesto students with disabilities based on the concerns originally expressed by CCSS Board members;however, Gifted and Talented programs and services were incorporated into the audit when it waslater determined to be appropriate and necessary to do so.

D. Special Note

The CCSS was in the process of advertising for and interviewing prospective applicants forthe position of Special Education Director when this audit commenced. The audit was purposelylimited in scope to expedite the review of existing programs and services and to ensure that findingsand recommendations would be available for consideration prior to the start of the upcoming 2010-2011 school year.

III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As indicated herein, educational services to students with disabilities are guided by theIndividuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA or Act) and its implementingregulations, companion state laws and regulations, and other guidance provided by the Louisiana

5

Department of Education and internal procedures developed by the School District. The IDEA isa complex federal funding law with a primary focus on ensuring that states and local educationalagencies (LEA) make available to children with disabilities a free appropriate public education(FAPE) that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet the uniqueeducational needs of each such student with disabilities. The IDEA not only guides how each stateand local school system must provide special education and related services to children withdisabilities--it conditions the receipt of federal funds (made available through the Act) on assurancesby state and local school systems that policies, procedures, and programs for children withdisabilities are developed and provided in a manner that is consistent with the IDEA’s legalrequirements.

The IDEA was first authorized in 1975 as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act(EHCA) and served to open the doors of public education to children with disabilities. Since thattime, the IDEA has undergone a number of amendments and has evolved into one of the mostcomprehensive pieces of federal legislation protecting the educational rights of children withdisabilities. To effect the comprehensive provisions set forth in the Act, the United StatesDepartment of Education, through the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, ischarged with the responsibility for promulgating the extensive regulations governing implementationof the IDEA.

The merger of the IDEA with the “No Child Left Behind Act”and other educationalinitiatives has presented formidable challenges to states and local school districts across the countryas they endeavor to effectively merge programs and services at the local level while training regulareducation and special education professionals alike in their newly defined roles. Adding to theconfusion are the numerous changes to state laws, regulations, and administrative rules—some ofwhich became effective for the first time this school year and others of which are still awaitingrevision as this report is being prepared.

Of particular significance to all groups of educational stakeholders are the most recentamendments to the IDEA (2004) and the most recent companion regulations (2006 and 2008),requiring coordination of the Act with other local, state, and federal school improvement efforts andimposing an affirmative duty on the state to ensure the effectiveness of efforts being made by localschool districts to educate children with disabilities. Specifically, each state is obligated to exerciseits supervisory authority and to use available enforcement mechanisms (including the withholdingof funds) if it is ultimately determined that a local school system is not meeting the requirements ofthe IDEA.

The IDEA also makes available to children with disabilities and their parents certain“procedural safeguards”, including the right to file a State Complaint, request Mediation, or requesta Due Process Hearing relating to any matters about the location, identification, educationalplacement, and provision of a free appropriate public education to a child with a disability.According to a 2002 study funded by the U.S. Office of Education, school districts throughout thecountry spent, on average, between $8,160 and $12,200 during1999-2000 for administrative due

6

process hearings and other procedural safeguards under the IDEA. No current study is available todetermine the average costs of such actions today, but it is safe to assume that the costs would besubstantially higher in today’s economic market.

It is essential to note that, under the IDEA, a school system is prohibited from using IDEAfunds to pay attorney’s fees or costs related to any action or proceeding under the proceduralsafeguard provisions of the IDEA. Simply stated, attorney’s fees and other costs incurred by theCCSS in initiating an action or proceeding under the IDEA’s procedural safeguards, or defendingitself in an action or proceeding brought under the IDEA’s procedural safeguards, must be paid fromthe general fund of the CCSS and cannot be paid with federal dollars available under the IDEA.

We would also note that, although not required under the IDEA or other federal law, statelaw extends the vast majority of IDEA processes and protections to students in Louisiana who areidentified as Gifted and/or Talented. The specific requirements applicable to Gifted and Talentedstudents in the state are detailed in Louisiana Bulletin 1706B and also includes students identifiedas Gifted and/or Talented with identified disabilities. Like students with disabilities, studentsidentified as Gifted and/or Talented are entitled to a free appropriate public education in Louisianaand have available to them the procedural safeguards that are made available to students withdisabilities, including the right to file a state level complaint; request mediation; and request a dueprocess hearing to be heard by an LDE-appointed hearing officer. The term “exceptionality” is usedto describe the collective population of students with disabilities and students identified as giftedand/or talented in Louisiana

The IDEA applies equally to all eligible children with disabilities and it can present atremendous challenge for small, emerging school districts such as the CCSS to comply with itsextensive procedural requirements. A three-year old school system with proportionately limitedresources and limited access to educational service providers must meet the needs of students withdisabilities in its jurisdiction under the same demanding requirements that apply to larger, schooldistricts with unlimited professional staff and greater financial resources. The challenges faced bythe CCSS are not for the faint of heart. If a school district is determined ineligible for receipt offederal funds because it is unable to establish and maintain programs of sufficient size and scope toeffectively meet the needs of children with disabilities, the IDEA provides the state educationalagency with authority to establish that district’s “joint eligibility” with another school district. Insuch cases, both school systems would be required to assume “joint responsibility” for implementingthe IDEA’s requirements. By pulling together as an educational community (without the necessityfor intervention by the Louisiana Department of Education (LDE)), the CCSS and similarly-situatedrural and small school districts need not be placed in such an untenable position.

This executive summary is provided to alert interested parties to the complex legalframework surrounding the provision of special education and related services to children withdisabilities under the IDEA, as well as other federal laws applicable to children with disabilities (e.g.,Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, FamilyEducational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (as

7

amended by the No Child Left Behind Act). With ever changing “rules of the game”, the CCSS asa whole must exercise vigilance and cooperative teamwork in order to be responsive to the variedneeds of the students it serves and must remain cognizant of the legal mandates that protect them.

IV. PROCESS AND BOUNDARIES

With the above-referenced legal requirements and other such considerations in mind, thespecial education quality audit has sought to capture as much information as feasible and asexpeditiously as feasible, in an effort to identify strengths and weaknesses in the implementation ofspecial education programs and services in the Central Community School District.

To date, the audit has encompassed a review of hundreds of pages of documents, includingthe following:

1. School Board policies; 2. Special education policies and procedures;3. Special education forms;4. Educational service provider rolls;5. Student data reports;6. Student discipline reports;7. Randomly-selected student records, including: student referral records, educational

evaluations, Individualized Education Programs, progress reports, behaviorintervention plans, discipline reports, and miscellaneous other records pertinent tothe audit process; and

8. A compilation of educational program guides, state bulletins, sample job descriptionsand suggested interview questions, data reporting guides, service models, and otherinformation relative to the provision of special education services to students withdisabilities—organized by volunteers and special education professionals in thecommunity during the formation of the Central Community School District.

In addition, thirty-five (35) interviews have been conducted with a variety of educationalstakeholders, including parents, school board members, central office administrators, schoolprincipals and assistant principals, regular education teachers, special education teachers, relatedservice providers, support staff, and clerical personnel.

An interim report was prepared and provided to the CCSS on April 30, 2010 to inform theCCSS School Board and Superintendent Faulk of the activities that the consultant considerednecessary to complete prior to dissemination of the final report. Such activities primarily involvedfollow-up record reviews, interviews, and an examination of specific issues prompted by novelquestions or concerns raised by the stakeholders or revealed during the continued analysis of schoolsystem records. The consultant advised, via the interim report, that completion of the final report wasanticipated by May 31, 2010 or shortly thereafter.

8

FINDINGS

I. SPECIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT---ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Throughout the audit, the Central Community School System was operating its SpecialEducation administrative responsibilities through a patchwork of central office staff and school-based administrators (principals and assistant principals). Although not generally addressed as a keyelement of an educational quality audit, it became readily apparent to the consultant that confusionand frustration among educational service providers has been steadily building due to the absenceof a designated special education “leader” with the necessary knowledge and independent authorityto manage and monitor the implementation of special education programs and services for childrenwith disabilities in the school system. The purpose of highlighting this issue is not to second guessactions taken by the Superintendent or the Board, but rather to highlight concerns that may beimpacting the seamless delivery of student services and feeding unrest among the educationalcommunity.

It was clear that central office and school-based personnel wanted and needed a receptive “goto” person who could provide guidance or otherwise answer procedural questions or assist inproblem-solving for the benefit of the students served. In the absence of a clear line ofknowledgeable administrative authority, educational service providers were left to their owndevices—calling both the ancillary programs supervisor and acting special education operationsadministrator; calling Louisiana Department of Education staff who live in the community; relyingon others inside and outside of the district for input and guidance; and/or coming up with their ownsolutions and hoping that the outcome would be acceptable. The result has been a fractured systemof management that has proven to be frustrating to school administrators, service providers, andparents alike. The consultant learned this week that the CCSS has appointed a new SpecialEducation Supervisor. It is hoped that, with the permission of Superintendent Faulk and membersof the CCSS Board, there will be an opportunity for the consultant to meet personally with the newSpecial Education Supervisor to answer any questions regarding the report.

II. THE EFFECT OF SITE-BASED MANAGEMENT ON SPECIAL

EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

The CCSS currently operates under the principle of site-based management (sometimes alsocalled school-based management in educational realm). The concept of site-based managementemanated from the business world where management initiatives have included such philosophiesas “Total Quality Management” and “Participatory Decision-Making”—management styles that haveproduced positive outcomes for both business and its employees. Although the “customers” are notexactly the same, research shows that site-based management can work in the educationalenvironment, when implemented correctly. Unfortunately, site-based management has been observedto be “haphazardly” applied in educational systems across the country----often resulting infragmentation of the educational process that it seeks to improve.

9

Of particular concern for CCSS is the potential negative impact of mis-applied site-basedmanagement practices on professional staff. Research demonstrates that stakeholder resistance,primary concentration of authority in building principals, role confusion, lack of professionalsecurity, a diminished sense of professional value, added responsibilities and time constraints,teacher/staff burn-out, and a high turn-over of staff are all known consequences of site-basedmanagement gone awry. This report in no way implies that site-based management should not beused in the CCSS or that it presents the same cluster of concerns at all schools. However, it wasclear to this consultant that the concept of site-based management is not completely understood orapplied in all schools in the CCSS and that the effect of site-based management in its present formin the CCSS is having a deleterious effect on some student services, as well as staff performance andstaff retention.

Site-based management does not occur by designation. It is an evolutionary process thatmust begin with stakeholder “buy-in” and on-going training and development that generally occurover an extended period of time. Some academics who have examined site management in schoolsrecommend a gradual phase-in of the concept over a period of three to five years. Such phase-incannot occur, however, until there is clear support of the concept and a long-range plan for itsdevelopment across the school system.

The unique feature of site-based management is that it is distanced from external controlssuch as administration and community influences. Instead, a site managed school relies on its own“school team”, each of whom serve as equal partners in setting goals and making decisions. Suchshared practice of site-based management was not observed as such in the CCSS. In fact, concernwas expressed by educational service providers throughout the audit, regarding unilateral decision-making by school principals, the special education department, and other central office departmentsregarding student services and staff recommendations. School principals likewise expressed concernsabout educational service providers assigned to their schools, relating instances where such serviceproviders were perceived as exceeding their “authority”. In the world of effective site-basedmanagement, such tension over the authority of a principal versus the authority of anotherprofessional would not exist. The need for clear, unified direction regarding school managementpractices and a better understanding of the respective roles of all school system staff cannot be over-stated. Such unified direction and understanding are essential to the provision of a free appropriatepublic education to students with exceptionalities and to the school population as a whole.

While many individuals at the school level verbalized their support of “inclusive”educational programs and services for students with disabilities, those same individuals expressedconcerns about heavier workloads, concerns about the integrity of the teaching/learning process, andfailed to demonstrate that communication, coordination, and collaboration are occurring on a regularbasis to facilitate student progress.

School principals and assistant principals frequently expressed frustration regarding the“special education department” and its lack of responsiveness to the needs of special educationstudents as well as its lack of responsiveness to concerns expressed by the parents of special

10

education students. However, much of the frustration appeared to center around the misconceptionthat “special education” students and “special education” services are the sole responsibility of the“special education”department.

Principals serve as the instructional leaders at their assigned schools and are charged withthe responsibility for ensuring that appropriate educational services are being provided to all enrolledstudents, without exception. Principals are also charged with the responsibility of conductingevaluations or performance reviews of each such teacher or educational service provider and,through that mechanism, principals have the duty and the authority to compel staff to workcollaboratively in meeting the needs of all students. Unfortunately, such leadership was not observedor otherwise evident in all schools across the district. In fact, the audit revealed antiquated beliefsand practices and a continued reliance on the “old school” paradigm where special education andregular education functioned as separate entities. If the CCSS desires to improve its report card,coordinated services and shared responsibility for all students (including students with academic andbehavioral “problems”) will have to be the norm and not the exception.

Communication between and among regular and special education cannot be over-stated.Such communication is vital to effective educational practice, and the consultant observed thatfundamental communication deficits are not only readily apparent, but are having a negative impacton student services. Principals and others in positions of authority must accept that decisionsregarding educational services for students with disabilities/exceptionalities shall only be made byeach such student’s IEP Team, in accordance with applicable federal and state requirements.Recommended services for children with exceptionalities are not subject to veto by principals,supervisors, board members, others in positions of authority, or parents. That being said, schooladministrators must have unbiased authority to supervise the programs and services that have beenrecommended for the student with disabilities/exceptionalities and must exercise that authority whennecessary to ensure the interest of the student and compliance with the federal and state laws andregulations governing the IEP process and resulting recommendations.

In summary, effective site-based management has been observed to increase collaborationamong educational service providers, improve the satisfaction of parents, and improve the overallquality of educational services to children with and without disabilities. The CCSS is an excellentcandidate for effective site-based management, but it will take the commitment of schooladministrators, school board members, teachers, and other school personnel to endure the pain ofsystemic change in order to achieve the long term benefits of the process. The status quo is notproving to be effective, despite the hard work and sincere efforts of many throughout the schoolcommunity, including school principals and other school system administrators. Discussions aboutthe authority of school principals versus the authority imposed on special education service providersby federal and state laws and regulations, must take place soon—before the passage of timecompounds the problems for children with exceptionalities and further affects retention of certifiededucators.

During the course of the audit, the SBLC was also referenced as the Student1

Assistance Team (SAT). Whatever term is ultimately selected by the CCSS, it will be importantfor all school personnel to be familiar with the chosen acronym and the functions of the “SBLC”or “SAT”.

11

III. CHILD FIND AND PUPIL APPRAISAL SERVICES

The CCSS currently has three full-time pupil appraisal team members, two educationalconsultants, and a certified social worker. The team also consists of a school psychologist whodivides her time between appraisal duties and teaching responsibilities; and related service providersand adapted physical education teachers who participate or conduct educational assessments on anas-needed basis.

The Pupil Appraisal Services (PAS) team has responsibility for conducting initial educationalevaluations and reevaluations in accordance with Louisiana Bulletin 1508, and for providing supportservices to the schools via the School Building Level Committee (SBLC) . The consultant readily1

observed that there was no established manual of procedures for internal use by PAS. Such aninternal PAS handbook or procedural manual of some sort is desperately needed and will bewelcomed by the PAS team who were observed to be dedicated and professional in fulfilling theirresponsibilities—an unwritten but generally understood code of functional conduct that the teammembers devised out of necessity, in the absence of any other guidelines. The PAS team has alsodeveloped, borrowed, and modified forms from other districts in an effort to establish someconsistency throughout the evaluation process and to make it somewhat easier to obtain neededinformation from teachers, parents, and others with information about student performance andpotential needs of the students.

Adjunct professionals such as the PBS Coordinator, Gifted/Talented teachers, and schoolnurses also serve on the PAS evaluation team as needed and have juggled various responsibilitiesin order to fulfill all of those obligations. Small school systems must often ask its professional staffto fulfill multiple roles, but care should be taken not to take advantage of the dedication of theseindividuals, many of whom spend countless hours of their own time in order to “cover all of thebases”.

It was clear that all PAS team members are wearing multiple “hats”—attending SBLCmeetings, performing assessments, gathering information, conducting interviews with parents andteachers, staffing cases when possible, and typing the evaluation reports themselves. In addition, theteam members have been called upon to conduct the “Response to Intervention” (RTI) pre-referralrequirements that are now mandated by the Louisiana Department of Education (LDE). Thoughregarded as a regular education responsibility, RTI processes are not sufficiently developed orimplemented in all CCSS schools at this time, which poses a significant concern for the PAS teammembers in terms of compliance with federal and state regulations and the time commitments toother services. The requirement for RTI implementation, documentation, and measurement ofeffectiveness is a significant issue and is discussed more fully in a dedicated section of this report.

Duplicate copies of IEPs and evaluation reports are sent to parents and are2

maintained in cumulative folders in the schools, but test protocols and other evaluation-specificdocuments that are subject to extraordinary confidentiality measures are generally housed in aschool system’s central office or other location separate from the child’s cumulative records.

12

IV. STUDENT RECORDS

The consultant reviewed numerous IEPs of students of differing exceptionalities, at differentages and grade levels, and assigned to different schools. An initial observation of the consultant wasthe poor condition of student files in the PAS office location. Some student records were “inherited”from other surrounding school districts and remain in the manila folders in which the records wereoriginally sent. Some student records are housed in separate folders (one containing evaluationreports; the other containing IEP information). There was no consistency in the kind of folder(s)used; the manner in which information was organized; the use of “access forms” to document thename, date, signature, and purpose of individuals accessing individual student records; and no orderto the files (chronological or otherwise).

The consultant observed that student records were appropriately locked (in a “closet” withlimited shelving), but because so many student records (evaluation documents and IEPs) have notbeen filed in existing folders or do not have “official folders” in which they can be placed, the “fileroom” is rendered useless. If a student record cannot be readily located, it might as well not existat all. It is critical that this problem be remedied as soon as possible. As with any school system,students relocate with their parents to other school districts and records must be forwarded toreceiving districts as soon as possible, as a matter of law. Central office files are generallyconsidered to be the “official” copies of student evaluation documents and IEPs, records that areoften subpoenaed or otherwise needed for specific purposes that require certification that they are,in fact, true and correct copies of the student’s records . 2

As an immediate remedy to the problem, it is highly recommended that personnel beemployed to scan and save the documents to an electronic system in which the files can be organizedalphabetically by name and identification number and more readily retrieved when needed. If theCCSS technology infrastructure is unable to support the volume of records that require consolidationand organization, there are a number of companies that provide virtual data vaults that canaccommodate large numbers of student records and do so for school systems in the state and acrossthe country. In the alternative, staff should be assigned to suspend all other activities for at least 1hour per week during the summer for the purpose of creating file folders and filing student recordsthat are stacked in boxes, on chairs, and on the floor of the “file closet”. A file room filing blitzcould help to remedy the problem before the start of the upcoming school year.

V. INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAMS (IEPS)

Approximately 25 randomly-selected IEPs were reviewed by the consultant during the course

13

of the audit. The reviewed IEP documents revealed a number of issues that require attention in orderto avoid significant compliance and service concerns over time.

As an initial matter, it should be noted that the IEP development process has changed in somerespects since the CCSS was first established. IEPs are now electronically created, must be basedon state standards (standards-based IEPs), and must also address the functional and developmentalneeds of the student, as appropriate. IEP goals (and objectives where appropriate) must also bebased on data collected regarding the student’s progress toward prior IEP goals and othermeasurements of student progress. IEPs must also be developed by the child’s IEP team, whichincludes the parents, a special education teacher of the child, a regular education teacher of the child,an individual who can interpret the child’s educational evaluation, and an officially designatedrepresentative (ODR) of the school system is qualified to supervise or provide the recommendedservices to the child with a disability and whose responsibility is to commit the school system’sresources for implementation of the child’s IEP.

In a number of cases, there was no indication that a regular education teacher participated inthe IEP meetings. If a child is participating in regular classes or may be participating in regularclasses, the IDEA requires the participation of a regular education teacher unless the school systemand the parent mutually agree to excuse the teacher from the IEP meeting. No such documentationregarding teacher excusal was found for any of the records reviewed and those IEPs must beconsidered noncompliant. Some of the IEPs were developed in another parish; nevertheless, theCCSS must follow the IDEA’s transfer rules when a student transfers to the district from anotherschool system. The CCSS has the option to either adopt the IEP from the other parish or to honorthe IEP until such time as it develops its own IEP for the child by reconvening the IEP team.

A number of individuals reported being confused about transfer students and the properprocedure to follow regarding transfer students. This process should be included among the topicsand procedures recommended for the Special Education Handbook. In fact, the procedure shouldcover all aspects of determining which transfer students have IEPs or Individual AccommodationPlans (IAPs), the process for obtaining copies of the student’s IEP and evaluation if not availablefrom the parent, and the action to be taken when required elements of the IEP are missing orconsidered inappropriate by the IEP team.

Other IEPs appeared to be well-written, but a review of evaluation information, progressreports, and other information revealed that critical concerns expressed by teachers and evidence ofsignificant behavioral difficulties were not always documented in student IEPs. For instance, mathand reading were listed as the support needs of one student; however, no mention of behavioraldifficulties were noted despite the student’s significant history of behavioral difficulties andsuspensions. Still other IEPs were well conceived based on student information, but goals projectedwere too broad and not reasonable for the child to achieve within the period of a year.

Special education teachers and other special education service providers overwhelminglyvoiced concern about IEP compliance issues and the need for a “go to” person to assist IEP teams

14

in planning and making recommendations for particular students. The vast majority of educationalservice providers have worked in other school systems (large and small) where an IEP facilitator wasavailable to assist with “difficult” IEPs or otherwise provide needed support or assistance withrespect to IEP development. IEP development is critical to ensuring that the child with disabilitiesis receiving the services needed. The IEP document is essentially a contract between the schoolsystem and the parents of the student. Failure to properly develop the IEP and/or to implement theIEP as written can have dire consequences for the child and the school system.

It is strongly recommended that an IEP facilitator position be created to provide specificassistance to teachers and other service providers regarding the IEP development process and optionsfor consideration that may be helpful to the child.

VI. DISCIPLINE

The discipline of students with disabilities remains one of the most difficult issues for schoolsystems across the state. The IDEA places strict limitations on unilateral removals of students withdisabilities from their educational programs for more than 10 consecutive school days and thestudent code of conduct must often yield to the behavior intervention plans (BIPs) that have beendeveloped by IEP Teams to appropriately address the needs of such students. The IDEA’srequirements do not leave school administrators hamstrung, but its requirements do compel publicschool systems to first give consideration to the impact of a student’s disability on the infraction thatprompted disciplinary consideration. In addition, regardless of the impact of a student’s disabilityon his/her behavior, the student may only be removed/suspended for 10 cumulative school days inthe school year before it becomes necessary to provide the student with FAPE—regardless of theinfraction.

Students with disabilities in Louisiana and across the country have been shown to bedisproportionately removed from their instructional programs for more than 10 cumulative days ina school year, when compared to their nondisabled peers. As a result, there is close scrutiny of thenumbers and types of disciplinary removals of students with disabilities (for greater than 10 schooldays in a school year) and close scrutiny of alternative programs, discipline centers, and time outrooms (TOR). The primary concern is whether the disciplinary removals have resulted in a denialof a free appropriate education to the students, which is prohibited by law.

Students with disabilities who are subjected to a disciplinary change in educational placement(for more than 10 cumulative school days in a school year) and those who are subjected to adisciplinary change in placement due to multiple removals for 10 consecutive school days or less,must have a Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) to decide whether the behavior at issuewas a direct and substantial result of the student’s disability. The IDEA contains specific conditionsunder which such MDRs must be conducted. The consultant’s review of student records raisedserious concerns about the way MDRs were conducted in some schools and a more extensiveexamination of the process is required, as well as training of school administrators and staff.

It is not possible to cover in this report all of the many discipline provisions and individual

15

considerations that are unique to the IDEA, but the consultant considers it necessary to address thefollowing particular elements of the IDEA’s discipline requirements that were also found to belacking during the audit process.

A. Positive Behavior Intervention and Support

Another key feature of the IDEA is the requirement that students with disabilities whosebehavior interferes with their learning and that of others must have the behavioral concernsaddressed by their IEP Teams using Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS or PBS).PBS is a 3-tiered process of interventions that is evidence-based and has been demonstrated to behighly effective in addressing the needs of all students, with and without disabilities. PBS is not anintervention system that can be put into place overnight. It requires extensive training of all teachersand administrators at a school, and on-going data collection and oversight for effectiveimplementation and results.

While principals and teachers in the CCSS consider themselves to be implementing PBS, thereality is that they are not implementing PBS consistently and with rigorous data collection andanalysis of results as required. In fact, queries regarding PBS elicited responses that clearlydemonstrate that the PBS initiative is not a high priority in some of the schools. Some educationalservice providers even indicated that they do not agree with the concept and/or do not employ PBSin their schools and classrooms. PBS does not work in isolation and it will be necessary for school-wide application of the process to become a priority before positive results are demonstrated.

The CCSS has assigned coordination of PBS to a designated individual, but coordination ofthe program is one of many responsibilities of that individual and time constraints limit the pro-active training and implementation steps that the process requires. As one might expect, behavioralissues are most prevalent at the middle school and high school. Some efforts are being made toimplement PBS at those schools, but staff resistance and lack of understanding of the process areserving as significant barriers to acceptance and implementation. Federal and state laws andregulations guide the disciplinary process for students with disabilities, including implementationof PBS, and the process is not one that is subject to override by school principals, disciplinarians,or teachers.

It was observed that students with and without disabilities who violate the CCSS studentcode of conduct are subjected to the disciplinary sanctions outlined in the student handbook. Suchsanctions include assignment to a time out room (TOR). TOR serves as an in-school suspensionprogram and it directed by regular education staff, often a coach. Prior to March, 2010, studentsspent the day in TOR copying the student handbook or doing other written work unrelated to theirIEP objectives or access to the general curriculum. No special provisions were made for specialeducation students and special education teachers and other service providers did not pull thestudents or go to the TOR to provide IEP services to those students. Important to the analysis ofprograms and services made available during disciplinary suspensions is consideration of the numberof days that the student at issue has been removed from needed instruction. A tracking system forcounting the number of school days that each student with disabilities has been removed from

The needs of students with disabilities under Section 504 (only) are not addressed3

in the report in great detail because the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has generally followed theIDEA’s disciplinary provisions with respect to Section 504 students.

16

instructional services was only put into effect shortly before the audit commenced. The currentprocess is done manually at the school level and provides no opportunity for electronic monitoringfrom remote locations such as the central office. There is no doubt that the staff is making an effortto resolve past issues. The situation has improved, but it remains questionable whether each studentwith a disability assigned to TOR is receiving needed services in accordance with his/her IEP.

The consultant fully understands the responsibilities of school administrators to maintain thesafety of their schools and firmly believes that they must have the authority to do so. However, itis improper and a violation of the federal rights granted to students with disabilities to mete outdiscipline in a manner inconsistent with the procedures set forth under federal and state laws andregulations applicable to such students with disabilities.

School system administrators and disciplinarians were found to be generally concerned aboutall students and even requested assistance in better understanding and following the IDEA’sdisciplinary procedures for students with disabilities. A one-time approach will do little to assist inthat regard and it is strongly recommended that school administrators be involved in periodic trainingregarding the discipline of students with disabilities and that they take part in the development ofprocedures that will assist them in following the right path when a behavioral incident arises. It is,admittedly, a complex task because decisions must be made on the basis of individual studentcircumstances and cannot follow a one-size-fits-all approach such as the student code of conduct.However, the school personnel who are addressing student behavior are clearly willing to do whatis needed for the benefit of the students.

Disciplinary print-outs show that the CCSS has removed students with disabilities from theirclasses and from school for more than 10 school days in the school year and it is clear from therecords and verbal reports that all of those students did not receive FAPE following their 10 dayth

of disciplinary removal . This is a violation that must be remedied and addressed by the newly3

appointed Special Education Supervisor so that it does not recur. Training is also required to avoidaction against the school system relative to such disciplinary removals.

B. Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBAs) and Behavior Intervention Plans(BIPs)

As a technical matter, FBAs are only required under the IDEA in certain instances. As apractical matter, however, FBAs must often be conducted more frequently to guide development orreview of Behavior Intervention Plans.

Functional Behavior Assessments are conducted in a systematic manner using data collectionand analysis to establish a baseline for problem behavior and to examine the problem behavior across

17

time and settings in an effort to determine potential “triggers” of the behavior. The intent of the FBAis to gather sufficient data about the behavior to assist the IEP Team in developing appropriatebehavior interventions that take into consideration the factual information obtained from the FBA.By report and a review of student records, it is clear that school personnel need training inconducting FBAs and developing BIPs.

Baselines are not always established or documented in the FBA and data is not collected ona regular basis to inform decision-making with respect to targeted interventions. Teachers and othersat the school level do not feel fully competent to conduct FBAs or to develop BIPs. Moreover, therewas scant evidence of teacher monitoring of the effectiveness of such BIPs. Disciplinary proceduresfor students with disabilities are not clearly understood and/or implemented, and data tracking ofstudent discipline is not effectively being used to assist school administrators in making informedrecommendations and decisions regarding student discipline.

C. Discipline Center

The CCSS operates one alternative school (The Discipline Center) for students with andwithout disabilities who have been suspended or expelled. State law requires the operation of analternative program for suspended and expelled students; however, the current structure of theDiscipline Center in addressing student behavior and preparing assigned students for a successfulreturn to their home schools requires reexamination. As indicated, the CCSS has received sometraining in Positive Behavioral Supports (PBS), which is a structured whole-school approach tobehavior intervention based on the teaching of appropriate replacement behaviors and recognitionof student improvement. However, PBS does not appear to be effectively implemented in someschool locations as evidenced by the rate of student referrals to the Discipline Center and recidivism.

There is little documentation of consistent positive behavioral interventions and supports atthe school level prior to the suspension and expulsion of students to the Discipline Center, such asproactive anger management programs, social skills development, and counseling for students beforeand after assignment to the Discipline Center. Students are often referred to the Discipline Centerfor infractions such as dress code violations, tardies, and other such infractions. The criteria usedfor student assignment to the Discipline Center is not well understood by school administrators orteachers. Though school records reflect referral to the Discipline Center, the students themselvesare often not in attendance at school because they are prohibited from returning to their schools andare unable to get into the Discipline Center when it is functioning at maximum capacity. TheDiscipline Center can accommodate approximately 20 students. Once the limited space is filled,students are essentially placed on a “waiting list” for entry into the Discipline Center.

There is no effective “fall-back” educational plan of services for students with and withoutdisabilities who are awaiting an available slot at the Discipline Center. By the second week in April,2010, approximately 100 students were “homebased” (suspended to their homes) because there wasno room for them at the Discipline Center. The number of students with disabilities in that groupof 100 could not easily be determined and it is entirely possible that any such students withdisabilities have not been receiving FAPE. There was also no evidence that reevaluations were

18

conducted prior to student placement at the Discipline Center and IEPs were not convened to reflectthe placement or to document the reasons why students were assigned to the Discipline Center. Thisis unacceptable and the situation must be remedied for the upcoming school year to ensure thatstudents with disabilities receive FAPE beginning on the 11 cumulative day of their removal fromth

instruction.

There is an urgent need to examine the numbers of students who are being referred to theDiscipline Center and the reasons for such referrals. There is also a need to establish a dialoguebetween the schools and the Discipline Center administrator to establish the roles of each in meetingthe needs of students who are sent to the Center. The Discipline Center is effectively managingstudent behavior by providing needed structure and 1:1 assistance to students when needed. TheCenter does not, however, receive student IEPs which detail the services and accommodationsrequired for a student with disabilities to receive FAPE. In fact, it is often not revealed to theDiscipline Center whether a student is covered under an IEP or IAP. This, too, must be addressed.

Finally, community outreach and linkages are needed to establish a positive relationship andsecure needed assistance for students and their parents from the Office of Mental Health, the juvenilejustice system (including Families in Need of Services), local law enforcement, juvenile courtjudges, and other available community resources.

D. Restraint and Seclusion

It was revealed during the audit that students with severe aggressive behaviors are beingrestrained by staff to prevent them from injuring themselves or others. The issue of restraint andseclusion has recently been the focus of news reports and action by the USDOE because of thedeaths of students in other states that have been linked to the improper use of manual and otherrestraint procedures.

Studies conducted by the American Disabilities Council, the Government Accounting Office,and other sources revealed that Louisiana does not have a seclusion and restraint law and that mostschool districts have not adopted a policy regarding restraint and seclusion. Given the potential forliability and the potential for harm to the students being restrained, it is strongly recommended thatthe CCSS Board adopt a policy regarding the restraint and seclusion of students in the school system.

In addition, staff should obtain training by the Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI) or otheraccepted and certified training program that addresses the use of restraint when necessary to ensurethe safety of a violent student or that of other students. Specifically, training in these programsstresses de-escalation techniques and utilizes restraint only as a last resort when a student is inimminent danger. Staff use of restraint without such evidence of training (which must be renewedeach year), is a risk management nightmare for the school district and must be addressedimmediately.

There are three such trainings available in the state this summer and the CCSS is encouragedto enroll in such training or to obtain other such training before it is again placed in a position where

20

restraint of a student is needed for safety reasons.

VII. PROGRESS MONITORING AND USE OF DATA

The regular monitoring of student progress in the general curriculum is a requirement underthe No Child Left Behind Act. There is no less a requirement under the IDEA for monitoring studentprogress toward goals and objectives outlined in IEPs and BIPs. Tracking systems exist and arebeing used in the CCSS to monitor student progress under NCLB, but such systems are not alwayseffective in tracking student progress under IEPs and BIPs.

For example, not all schools are using the same tools for conducting universal screening orfor tracking student progress in all areas. Some tracking systems were not developed to capture thekinds of skills that may be the focus of IEPs for students with low cognitive abilities or undevelopedskills. JPAMS holds promise for tracking of student grades, but the system is not sensitive enoughin its current form to effectively track student progress on individual skills (functional and/ordevelopmental skills) that are not directly tied to grades. While it was clear that principals and otherschool administrators were well aware of progress monitoring requirements and knowledgeableabout the tools being used in their schools for that purpose, such awareness and knowledge was notobserved to be well understood by all educational service providers. In many cases, the collectionof data to monitor student progress toward IEP goals and objectives was not evident or remains amanual task that is time-intensive. There is renewed expectation by the U.S. Department ofEducation that data will be collected and used by all education disciplines to plan and developappropriate strategies to address student needs. School principals are responsible for supervision oftheir faculty to ensure that required processes are being followed. To assist them in that regard, itwill be necessary to more closely examine the capability and flexibility of JPAMS to meet the uniqueneeds of students with exceptionalities or to acquire some other data tracking system that can assistteachers and related service providers in monitoring student progress toward IEP goals andobjectives, including those contained in behavior plans.

VIII. Response To Intervention (RTI)

One of the laudable goals of public education is to make high quality educational servicesavailable to all children---regardless of ability, race, creed, national origin, or socioeconomic status.In order to meet that lofty goal, adequate processes must be in place to recognize and identify theoften diverse educational needs of children in the classroom, to address those educational needsbefore they are compounded by the passage of time, and to measure the effectiveness of theeducational programs and services being used to address student needs.

Effective educational programs do not wait for children to fail before educationalinterventions and supports are provided. Instead, effective educational programs are: proactive inthe early recognition of reading, math, behavior, and other struggles in the educational setting thataffect student success; provide differentiated instruction in specific target areas and providestructured practice in target areas; monitor student progress on a consistent basis; and use objectivedata to drive instruction. In many cases, the consultant was unable to objectively determine the

21

effectiveness of teaching practices because little or no documentation of individual interventions orstudent services was maintained by the service providers. Documentation is essential to an analysisof student progress, essential to informed decision-making, and must become an integral part of theteaching/learning repertoire in the CCS.

Out of recognition that some children who struggle academically and behaviorally do sobecause of rigid, one-size-fits-all educational practices, zero tolerance for disciplinary infractions,or a lack of appropriate instruction, Congress took affirmative steps to curb the over-identificationof such children as “children with disabilities” by restructuring the IDEA’s educational identificationand evaluation process.

In fact, a key outcome of the NCLB/IDEA merger is the requirement that “earlyintervening services” be made available to regular education students who are strugglingacademically and are in need additional academic and/or behavioral support in order to succeed inthe general curriculum. One means of addressing the needs of struggling students (as well as thechanging needs of students with disabilities) is a strategic educational approach commonly called“Response to Intervention” (RTI).

RTI models have been embraced at the federal level and by school systems across thecountry as a means of promptly and effectively addressing the educational needs of students who arefalling behind educationally and failing to meet the rigorous requirements of a challengingcurriculum. RTI is a systematic, data-driven, scientifically based, problem-solving process thatfosters the development of a cooperative and collaborative team relationship among all educationalservice providers for the purpose of addressing the unique needs of struggling or at-risk learners assoon as those needs become apparent. The process is also encouraged for use with students alreadyidentified as having a disability when expected progress is not being made.

Inasmuch as NCLB requires teachers to receive “instruction in the use of screening,diagnostic and classroom-based instructional reading assessments and other procedures thateffectively identify students who may be at risk for reading failure or who are having difficultyreading”, the implementation of the IDEA’s early intervening services/RTI model as a supplementto the NCLB requirements is a logical fit that utilizes the collective expertise of regular and specialeducators alike and promotes instructional team building and shared responsibility for all childrenin a way that has been demonstrated to have a direct and meaningful impact on the educationalperformance of children served. PAS cannot continue to run RTI in some schools and specialeducation teachers and related service providers cannot continue to run RTI in some schools. Thereis no doubt that these individuals are capable of doing the job, but the baton must be passed toregular education teachers so that use of strategies and interventions and monitoring of studentresponses to the strategies and interventions can become everyday practice.

In order to effectively expand the use of RTI to address academic and behavioral problemsin the school setting, it will be necessary to garner the collective support of the CCSS educationalcommunity and to provide needed training to better enable regular education teachers to deviseappropriate strategies and interventions to address concerns about students in their classrooms.

22

Ownership of the RTI process must be passed in the hands of regular educators who have thestudents in their classrooms for the majority of the school day and who are in the best position toformulate intervention processes and implement those processes throughout the school day.

The level of knowledge about RTI varies from school to school. Some teachers and othereducational service providers have come to the CCSS armed with extensive training in RTI; othershave been exposed to a 2-day training in the process. Such wide variance is producing equally variedresults and a comprehensive training of all staff in RTI is necessary. The consultant recentlyattended a conference where Alexa Posny, Assistant Secretary for U.S. Department of Education,made it clear that RTI must be used on a school-wide basis to decrease the unnecessary identificationof students as students with disabilities in order for such children to receive needed educationalsupport. Ms. Posny also made it clear that a multi-tiered system of supports must be made availableto children without disabilities so that all children are provided the help that they need.

The research is clear that the use of RTI is highly effective in reducing the identification ofchildren as children with disabilities and that the positive outcome of early intervening services usingRTI is the reduction in student drop-out rates. Research is also clear, however, in demonstrating thatsuch positive outcomes are not realized unless RTI is implemented with integrity. At least twoschools in the district are well on their way to successfully achieving implementation of RTIprocesses with the integrity needed. It is incumbent upon the CCSS to foster implementation ofappropriate RTI practices throughout the school system, supported by the training needed forteachers to better understand when students should move from tier to tier and when referrals ofstudents for PAS evaluations are appropriate.

IX. TRANSITION

There are two types of “transition” that require discussion with respect to the audit findings.The first type of transition is the movement of students from Bellingrath to Tanglewood; fromTanglewood to Central Intermediate School; from Central Intermediate to Central Middle; and fromCentral Middle to Central High. A common concern of all educators and parents is the transitionthat students must make from one school to the next. School administrators and special educationservice providers all described circumstances and situations that were viewed as impeding theseamless transition of students from one school to the next. A number of those transition concernscan be readily addressed through development of clear procedures and through open communicationamong the affected schools, service providers, and parents. The timeliness of student recordsexchange and information exchange topped the list of transition concerns, but student preparationfor what lies ahead at the next school was also considered a major concern of administrators,teachers, and related services staff. In some cases, out of date evaluations and IEPs were inheritedfrom the prior school. In addition, the differences in management style and expectations of theadministrators at each school level were concerns expressed by both parents and staff. The schoolscannot operate independent of each other; there must be candid dialogue among the buildingprincipals to eliminate or reduce the barriers to effective and seamless transition from one school tothe other and to better communicate the transition to parents of affected students, especially studentswith disabilities.

23

The second type of transition concerns the required planning for students with disabilities toprepare them for transition to post-school work experiences or other activities designed for adultliving. Central is a small community with lots of potential opportunities for students with disabilitieswho are approaching the end of IDEA services and entry into the world of work. Pre-vocationalservices appear to be available to students whose IEPs call for community-based services.Unfortunately, the opportunities for vocational experiences for students in alternate assessments arelimited to the vocational electives available at the high school. Right now, vocational courses areoffered primarily in wood-working and welding. Students with disabilities not interested in thosetrades often feel disenfranchised from the school. Staff reported that the students often express thatthey are bored, not getting anywhere, and see no options available at school or when they age out ofschool.

Some of the concerns expressed by the high school service providers are really concerns thatrelate to LDE policies and BESE action. For instance, a number of individuals (including parents)expressed frustration with the “college prep” diploma track that many students with disabilities findfrustrating and unattainable. The concerns relate to the absence of value for “blue collar” tradeexperiences that are essential to the community and needed by industry. Discussion took placeregarding LA 1 and LA 2 options, but the consensus of the group was less than favorable regardingthe applicability of those options for certain populations of students. Concern was also expressedregarding the need for a GED program.

Transition planning must begin for students with disabilities by age 16. A review of arandom sample of transition plans (which must be attached to IEPs) reveals few action steps by theschool district and written notice to other agency representatives was not always present. Transitionplanning is a target area for IDEA compliance at the federal level and it will be critical for the CCSSto make training available to teachers of students in that age group to better prepare them for meetingthe IDEA and state requirements for transition planning. Meaningful planning is necessary to enablestudents to take the coursework needed to prepare them for post-secondary school experiences.Participation of outside agencies may make a difference in a student’s outlook regarding post schoolexperiences and every effort should be made to encourage the participation of those agencies intransition planning.

X. COMMUNICATION

A. Defining the Roles and Responsibilities

The audit revealed a wide range of knowledge, understanding, and acceptance amongprincipals, assistant principals, and other administrators regarding the jointly shared responsibilitiesnow required under the NCLB and the IDEA. Confusion exists with respect to the roles andresponsibilities of school administrators (principals, assistant principals), the Special EducationSupervisor, other Central Office Supervisors, Regular Education Teachers, Special EducationTeachers, and Related Service Providers in addressing the individual needs of students----with andwithout disabilities.

24

While it may have been the practice in the past for regular education to be solely responsiblefor the education of “regular education students” and for special education to be solely responsiblefor the education of “special education students”, that dichotomy no longer exists under federal andstate law. Children with special needs may continue to receive specialized instruction provided byspecial education teachers and related service providers, but such children must be also be providedthe opportunity to access the regular education curriculum and to receive needed accommodations,modifications, and supports.

For the majority of children with special needs, access to the regular education curriculumwill take place in the regular education classroom with necessary accommodations provided by theregular education teacher. The legal requirements regarding student access to the general curriculumare well known at the school level, but implementation by teachers and other service providers andmonitoring of such implementation by school principals has not been well documented or enforcedto facilitate improved student achievement. A lack of training specific to strategies for implementinginclusive practices, resistance to change, and the absence of procedures for effectively utilizingexisting instructional staff and other resources were determined to be significant barriers to improvedstudent performance.

The consultant also determined that there is no comprehensive organizational chartdescribing all educational functions; job descriptions for central office staff and school-basedinstructors and support staff are outdated and do not necessarily reflect work that is being performed.School system administrators and teachers alike expressed a lack of understanding with respect tohow “special education” fits into the larger picture of ensuring that each student in the CCSS isprovided a meaningful opportunity for educational success. Specifically, concern was expressedregarding time management issues and allocation of staff relating to the provision ofaccommodations and modifications for children with disabilities (tests read aloud, extended time,highlighted materials, etc.) and other instructional concerns, whether real or perceived. In addition,there are the site-based management issues that call into question who has the authority to make afinal call about student services, MDR determinations, the contents of an IEP, and other such issueswhich directly affect students and, without appropriate dialogue and resolution, serve only to makeuncomfortable situations worse.

B. The Need for Respectful, Professional Dialogue

The consultant visited the schools and central office on a number of occasions—someannounced and some unannounced. It was apparent through interviews with the school systemcommunity as a whole, inclusive of parents, that the lack of productive communication between andamong educational service providers, central office administrators, and school board members hasimpacted the reputation of the CCSS. As indicated previously, the CCSS was in the process ofadvertising and interviewing for the position of Special Education Supervisor when the auditcommenced. It was disheartening for the consultant to hear unsolicited comments from professionalsoutside of the CCSS that they would not consider applying for a teaching or other position in theCCSS because of all the “negative” things that they had heard from various sources about internalconflict and poor working conditions in the district.

25

While it appears that there has been much discourse in the CCSS and in the community, suchdiscourse has apparently been laced with negativism and allegations of improper conduct, includingthreats of dismissal of employees and firing of central office officials. Under such conditions, it isnot surprising that some qualified professionals who may have considered applying for teaching orother positions in CCSS, have chosen not to do so under the circumstances.

It was reported to the consultant from a number of different individuals that teachers andother service providers were calling board members, contacting LDE employees who live in theCentral community, and engaging in “gripe sessions” among themselves and with others in theprofession who live and work outside of the CCSS community. To the extent that such reportsaccurately reflect the reality of the situation, it should be expected that the upcoming school year willbe a deciding factor in whether certified staff remain in the employ of the CCSS or seek a morestable, less divisive work environment, and whether the CCSS remains able to attract theprofessional cadre of individuals that it enjoyed when first established.

The consultant observed all stakeholders to be passionate and genuinely concerned about theschool district and the students. All are committed to doing the right thing for students and nonewere observed to be malicious or ill-meaning in their zeal to express their personal experiences andthe experiences shared with them by others. The consultant is confident that this dedicated group ofpeople can emerge from past experiences with an eye toward the future, leaving behind the devisivebaggage that has so permeated their communication with each other and so affected all corners ofthe CCSS.

School Board members must be allowed to make policy decisions and must refrain frommicro-management of administrative matters; school system administrators must be responsive tothe needs and concerns of employees and must be able to articulate the reasoning behind theirdecisions, if questioned. Educational service providers must first address concerns to their immediatesuperiors and must not attempt to manipulate situations or avoid following the chain of command.The consultant is not verifying that any of the above situations exist now or existed at all, and reliedonly on information freely provided by CCSS personnel. Regardless, it is instructive to all that theCCSS must cease the in-fighting and must find a way, as professionals and public servants, to workin harmony for the benefit of the children to whom they are committed.

To minimize the possibility of other communication breakdowns, the consultant wouldsuggest that serious consideration be given to the development of an employee grievance mechanismwhere employees of the CCSS are free to bring their concerns without fear of reprisal. Thismechanism should be implemented by an individual with the necessary interpersonal and disputeresolution skills to avoid conflict while addressing matters of concern to the individual employee(s).Such a mechanism should serve to minimize the need for an employee to go “outside of acceptedprotocol” to contact LDE staff, board members, or others to resolve a concern regarding theadministrative operations of the CCSS.

26

XI. FAPE FOR 3 YEAR OLDS

The IDEA conditions receipt of federal funds on assurances that a public school district willmake FAPE available to all children with disabilities, ages 3 through 21. Presently, the CCSS isserving students with disabilities who are 3 years old, only in home environments.

The USDOE has made it clear that it is not necessary to make school-based placementsavailable to students who are 3 years of age unless the school district makes such school-basedplacements available to nondisabled children. It is acceptable to serve the needs of 3 year oldchildren with disabilities in other federal programs, such as Head Start, and on elementary schoolcampuses.

Not every 3 year old child with a disability necessarily requires services to be provided ona school campus, but the CCSS must remain mindful that such services may be necessary for somechildren with disabilities and must be made available to meet the needs of such children. Therequirement to provide FAPE to children with disabilities begins at age 3 and the CCSS must takea close look at whether it is making available to this population of students a one-size-fits-allplacement that is administratively determined on the basis of school system resources.

XII. FAPE FOR GIFTED/TALENTED STUDENTS

As previously indicated, there is no federal requirement that FAPE be made available tostudents identified as gifted and/or talented; there is such a requirement under state law. It wasrevealed to the consultant that the Gifted/Talented program in the CCSS has had a rocky start andthat services to Talented students only recently became available to them. Talented services are notavailable in all areas, and there is an obligation on the part of the CCSS to address this deficiencyand to secure the services needed for this population of students.

There is also a grave need to conduct outreach activities in order to identify those studentswho may meet eligibility criteria for gifted and/or talented, so that challenging curriculum andenrichment programs can be made available to them. This will necessarily require increasedevaluation activities by PAS and consideration should be given to conducting such outreachactivities on a regular basis and to obtaining part-time evaluators during the summer or at other timesduring the year to supplement the work of existing PAS staff as may be needed.

It will also be necessary for the CCSS to be pro-active and responsive in order to address theneeds of students who are gifted and/or talented who transfer into the CCSS. The regulations requirethat the students be provided the same or similar services as they may have been receiving in anotherschool district until the CCSS adopts the former IEP of the student or develops its own plan.

XIII. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

The CCSS Special Education Department is in desperate need of revisions to its Special

27

Education Handbook (handbook) and a number of its forms. Special Education Handbooks are usedto consolidate information into a readily available source that delineates step-by-step procedures forspecial education activities, including IEP development, functional behavior assessments, Medicaidbilling, and other such internal procedures. The handbook can also contain needed forms, resources,communication protocol for resolving disputes, and other such information about the operations ofthe special education department. Some of the forms may be available via Blackboard electronicaccess, but a hard copy of the information is useful for ready reference and for sharing with parentsand administrators. School administrators and educational service providers sincerely want this kindof information and specifically requested step-by-step procedures to enable them to better performtheir respective roles.

The consultant also determined that related service providers and teachers are not usingconsistently developed data collection forms, data reporting forms, and service logs. It isrecommended that consideration be given to unification of the process of documenting studentservices as well as student performance to ease the transition between schools and to assist theservice providers by creating familiar documents that facilitate the provision of services to studentsand can be readily assumed when changes in service provider assignments become necessary. Theprocess would also facilitate familiarity for substitute teachers and paraprofessionals who arefrequently presented with information in varying forms that are difficult to decipher. The handbookmay also include information about travel in and around the school district, reimbursementprocedures, and data collection and reporting procedures. In addition, it may be helpful for thehandbook to contain some basic tips for IEP development; handling parent complaints and providingupdated directives from the LDE which can be used to update the handbook as required.

XIV. STAFF REQUESTS

The consultant recorded a number of “requests” from school administrators and educationalservice providers that deserve consideration. Among those requests were consideration of scheduledstaffing or planning time by discipline or by cross disciplines as needed. This request speaks to theneed and the desire of the school community to coordinate and collaborate about students withdisabilities to better assess and plan for their needs. The Coordination and Collaboration processis a mandate for public school systems in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, pursuant to a ruling thatincluded the process among the features of an IEP that is considered “reasonably calculated” toprovide educational benefit to a child with disabilities. The request by the service providers is arequired element of the program for children with special needs and every effort should be made atthe school level to accommodate the request. Given the extensive training that will be required toeffectively implement PBS and RTI in the schools, it makes sense that time would be set aside toassist the staff in their efforts to comply with those mandated initiatives.

XV. TRAINING NEEDS

The CCSS must commit to training its staff in a number of areas in order to adequately meetthe needs of students with disabilities and gifted and talented students in the district. The consultanthas prepared a list of the most critical of those needs, but would suggest that a survey of training

28

needs be developed and sent on an annual basis to all service providers and school staff to gaininsight about their concerns for meeting the needs of children with disabilities. The most criticaltraining needs include the following areas:

• Bulletin 1508 (as amended)• PBS• RTI• Discipline (including FBAs, BIPs, MDRs, and CPI)• Differentiated Instruction • Progress Monitoring• IDEA and Section 504 Requirements• FERPA/Confidentiality

XVI. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

• Training

Administrators and teachers must collaboratively participate in professionaldevelopment programs and activities that will provide them an opportunity toincrease their knowledge, understanding, and skills, and to improve the quality of theteaching/learning environment for all students. Topic areas recommended based onaudit findings include, but are not limited to: understanding shared responsibilitiesfor all children under the merger of NCLB and IDEA; organizational structures;specific training in mechanisms and strategies for implementation of an RTI processsystem-wide; use of PBS to improve disciplinary responses to student behavior;effective school administration and leadership; use of technology to monitor andimprove student results; educational support systems; and the legal requirements andimplications specific to students with disabilities.

• Communication and Clearly-Defined Written Procedures

School Building Level Committee (SBLC) procedures, the Response to Intervention(RTI) process, Section 504 policies and procedures, Special Education policies andprocedures, discipline procedures for students with disabilities, progress monitoring,and other procedures, practices, and guidelines must be clearly defined and madeavailable for staff review in order to provide consistency and appropriateimplementation. User-friendly “form guides” could be particularly helpful to schooladministrators and staff by delineating required procedures while also serving asdocumentation that such procedures have been followed.

• Staff Utilization and Roles

Organizational structures need to be examined with changes made as appropriate andnecessary and provided in written form for review by affected personnel. In addition,

29

job descriptions need to be updated to reflect new federal and state requirements andschool system goals. An annual review of staffing patterns is recommended to assistschools in meeting the diverse needs of students. Clear lines of authority need to beestablished, and new policies and procedures are needed to support school systemgoals. Personnel evaluations need to be re-written to reflect job expectations,including shared responsibilities between and among regular education and specialeducation and effective monitoring of staff implementation of school improvementand individualized student plans.

• Responsibility for All Students

A curriculum framework must be clearly defined and communicated to all schoolpersonnel. Teachers and other educational service providers need to be providedsufficient support to develop a cohesive community of practice and community ofresponsibility to address student attendance, student participation in programs andservices, student progress, and safe learning environments for all children.Transportation and food service administrators, bus drivers, food service workers,substitute teachers, and others should be included in training activities regardingconfidentiality, disability harassment, and other critical training areas as may berequired to meet the unique and diverse needs of students in the CCSS. Consideracquiring the services of outside consultants to train staff and model appropriateinterventions, differentiated instruction, and data collection processes. Establisheffective mechanisms for ensuring confidentiality of student information.

• Program Review and Development

Periodic reviews of programs and services need to be conducted to determineeffectiveness and to develop programs based on data-driven needs. Referrals to theDiscipline Center should be examined to determine effective ways to meet the needsof students using proactive solutions. It will be important to develop or expandinformation technology and other data systems to support progress monitoring andother performance-based initiatives across the district.

Effective communication and collaboration between and among central officecurriculum administrators and federal programs supervisors who meet on a regularbasis will facilitate appropriate planning of program initiatives by allowing for thecoordination of curriculum materials, supplemental instructional programs, andservice delivery to all students.

• Community Linkages

Available community offerings and community potential should be investigated andpursued by meeting with key community representatives and parents. In addition,grants and other funding sources should be aggressively sought to establish mutually

30

beneficial programs and services for families and children and the community as awhole.

XVII. FINAL COMMENTS AND COMMENDATIONS

It is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this educational audit was to examineexisting processes and to provide an outsider’s view of areas in need of improvement in the CCSSspecial education department. It is an extremely rare occurrence to find all operations functioningat maximum efficiency and effectiveness in any special education department and it was certainlynot unusual to find areas in need of improvement in the CCSS.

Although there were earnest endeavors to avoid the patterns of other school systems, this 3-years-young school district could not have anticipated some of the situations that it has faced sinceits inception. Out of necessity, the system had to design an educational structure that wouldaccommodate its relatively small population of students in the school plants available for its use.The structure works for the majority of the students it serves, including some built-in flexibility toprovide for the needs of students with disabilities. But system structure and degree of flexibility areaffected by a number of factors, many of which are beyond the control of the CCSS Board and theCCSS administration.

School districts across the state and across the country are struggling to establish functioningRTI and PBS systems which were mandated long before necessary training could be obtained priorto required implementation. Many school systems are learning the processes “on the fly”. Theseeducational initiatives take dedication, commitment, and support over a period of years before theybecome firmly established and can operate effectively---so deficiencies in these areas should not beregarded as negligence. What is important is that progress continues to build over time.

Other “special education” requirements at the federal and state levels have undergonechanges significant enough for one of the CCSS principals to remark that just when they get to thepoint where they feel that they are following the rules, the rules change. It is a refrain heardthroughout the country, not just in the CCSS. The special education process is complex and ever-changing and the CCSS can expect to continue to experience the growing pains of a new schoolsystem, along with the pains of change that are inherent in the field of special education.

Yes, there are a number of areas that need improvement—some more critical than others.But the Central Community School System, under the leadership of Superintendent Faulk andmembers of the Board is to be commended for its notable accomplishments to date. The game is notover; it has only just begun. There will be bumps in the road and just as many celebrations. TheCCSS is NOT a broken school system, but it is an emerging one and team work will continue to beits most effective tool.

There are many shining stars in the CCSS and all of you should share a sense of pride in aschool system that is poised to be one of the most desirable in the State.

31

CONCLUSION

The Central Community School System is rich in the potential to serve the diverse needs ofall children and youth residing and attending school within its jurisdiction, including children withdisabilities. We are honored to have played a small part in examining current educational practicesin the Central Community School System and trust that this report will provide meaningful insightinto existing programs and services for students with disabilities as well the population of studentswithout disabilities who are struggling academically and/or behaviorally. Recommendations thathave been included are intended to assist appropriate Central Community School System staff intheir continuous efforts to enable eligible students with disabilities the opportunity to receive a freeappropriate public education (FAPE) in accordance with State and Federal laws, regulations,administrative rules, and guidance provided by the Louisiana Department of Education (LDE),Division of Special Populations.

It has been a distinct pleasure to participate in the educational quality audit of the CentralCommunity School System. This report necessarily focused on issues and concerns that need to beaddressed by the CCSS; however, we would be remiss in not recognizing the many positiveprograms and services that were observed in the schools during the audit process.

First and foremost, the children who were encountered at each school served to remind uson every occasion just how important they are to the future of us all, particularly, the future of CCSS.They deserve unbridled support from the CCSS and the entire community so that they can grow intothe future leaders of the community and serve as role models for their children and their children’schildren.

Secondly, the educational staff members we met and interviewed were genuinely concernedabout doing what is best for the children. Children are entrusted to the CCSS by their parents forsix hours a day, five days a week. It is incumbent upon the educational staff to make wise use of thattime and incumbent upon the administration at the school and central office levels to ensure that timeis spent in productive educational activities. It is a difficult task, but there is no task more importantthan serving the children of the CCSS with dedication and integrity.

Just as important to the future of the CCSS is the involvement of the community and theboard members who represent that community. Without vision and support from such individuals,education in the CCSS would remain the same in a world where maintaining the status quoeffectively results in falling behind. We commend the tireless efforts of Superintendent Faulk andmembers of the Central Community School Board, as well as community leaders and we encouragetheir support as the CCSS continues its efforts to move forward in the interest of its most valuableresource---the children of the Central Community.

Many good things are going on in classrooms throughout the CCSS, but there are needs andalways room for improvement. We hope that the comments and recommendations made herein willserve to spark positive discussions and activities designed to assist with that improvement. Werealize that the system is only at the beginning of that process and that additional review of its

32

operations may be necessary, but we feel that the Central Community School Board should berecognized for having the courage and foresight to take this important step.

Thank you for your professionalism and for the courtesy that you have extended during themany days and weeks of the audit process. We look forward to working with the Central CommunitySchool District and will be happy to assist with any other endeavors related to special education andrelated services to children with disabilities in the district. If our office can be of any additionalassistance as your system continues to improve the quality of educational programming for itsstudents, please do not hesitate to contact us. We are available to answer any questions that you mayhave about the contents of this report.

Respectfully submitted,

Pamela L. DeLaune, M.A.Special Education Paralegal/SLP-CCCLaw Offices of Hammonds & Sills