Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Findings

2021 Tiered Focus Monitoring Report

A review of student records indicated that the district does not consistently complete all required assessments, specifically an educational assessment that includes a history of the student's educational progress in the general curriculum.

A review of student records and staff interviews indicated that beginning no later than when the student is 14 years old, the Team discusses the student's transition needs annually. However, students are not consistently invited to and encouraged to attend part or all of Team meetings at which transition services are discussed or proposed and IEPs do not consistently include transition services, as appropriate.

A review of student records and staff interviews indicated that at least one year prior to the student reaching age 18, the district does not consistently inform the student and parents of the rights that will transfer from the parents to the student upon the student's 18th birthday. Record review and staff interviews also indicated that, upon reaching the age of majority, the district does not always obtain consent from the student with decision-making authority to continue the student's special education program.

A review of student records indicated that the district does not always maintain documentation regarding IEP Team meeting attendees. A review of student records also indicated that the district does not document in writing agreement with the parent to excuse the attendance of a Team member. Furthermore, when the Team member's attendance is required, the district does not ensure that the Team member provides written input into the development of the IEP to the parent and the IEP Team prior to the meeting.

A review of student records indicated that within forty-five school working days after receipt of the parent's written consent to an initial evaluation or re-evaluation, the district does not consistently determine whether the student is eligible for special education and does not provide to the parent either a proposed IEP and proposed placement or a written explanation of the finding of no eligibility.

A review of student records indicated that re-evaluations are not consistently conducted every three years; in such cases, the parent and district did not agree that the re-evaluation was unnecessary.

A review of student records indicated that progress reports do not always include written information on the student's progress towards the annual goals in the IEP, and parents do not always receive reports on the student's progress towards reaching the goals set in the IEP at least as often as parents are informed of the progress of non-disabled students.

A review of student records indicated that when an early childhood or elementary special education evaluation sets forth that a student's disability affects social skills development, or when the student's disability makes the student vulnerable to bullying, harassment, or teasing, the IEP does not consistently address the skills and the proficiencies needed to avoid and respond to bullying, harassment, or teasing.

An analysis of data and staff interviews indicated that IEP Teams do not always consider the least restrictive environment for students, with consideration given to any potential harmful effect on the student or on the quality of services that he or she needs. Data demonstrated the following:

· Approximately 63.9% of students are in full inclusion or partial inclusion placements, a rate lower than the state rate at approximately 79.9%.

· Approximately 29.6% of eligible students are enrolled in substantially separate placements, a rate more than twice that of the state at approximately 13.5%.

An analysis of data also demonstrated high rates of placements of eligible students of color in substantially separate programs:

· African American students: 36.3%

· Hispanic students: 27.3%

· Asian students: 30.0%

· White students: 19.5%

A review of student records indicated that if a student is removed from the general education classroom at any time, the Team does not always state in the IEP Nonparticipation Justification statement why the removal is considered critical to the student's program and the basis for its conclusion that education of the student in a less restrictive environment, with the use of supplementary aids and services, could not be achieved satisfactorily.

Staff interviews indicated that when the IEP has been accepted in whole or in part by the student's parent, the district does not always provide the mutually agreed upon services without delay. Staff interviews indicated that each teacher and provider described in the IEP is not always informed of his or her specific responsibilities related to the implementation of the student's IEP and the specific accommodations, modifications, and supports that must be provided to the student under it.

A review of student records and staff interviews indicated that when parental consent to the services proposed on a student's IEP is required, and the parent fails or refuses to consent, the district does not routinely secure consent from the parent through multiple attempts using a variety of methods or consistently document its efforts to obtain consent.

A review of student records and staff interviews indicated that written communications, including IEP summary notes, annual review academic reports, Educational Assessments A and B, psychological reports, and specific learning disability components, are not consistently translated for parents in the primary language of the home.

A review of student records and staff interviews indicated that the IEP Team does not always consider the communication needs of all students, and for students who cannot communicate effectively through oral speech, the Team does not always consider augmentative and alternative communication.

A review of documentation indicated that the district has not developed procedures to ensure the provision of services to eligible students enrolled in private schools at private expense.

A review of documents indicated that several classrooms throughout the district exceed the maximum instructional grouping student to staff ratios for eligible students receiving services outside the general education classroom. In such cases, the district did not provide written notification to the Department or parents of all group members of the decision to increase the instructional group size and the reasons for such decision.

A review of documents indicated that in many instructional groupings throughout the district, the ages of the youngest and oldest students differ by more than 48 months. In such cases, the district did not submit written requests for approval of a wider age range to the Department.

A review of documents indicated that 17 inclusionary preschool programs and one substantially separate preschool program exceed the maximum instructional grouping student to staff ratios.

A review of student records and staff interviews indicated that for a student whose behavior impedes his or her learning or the learning of others, the district does not consistently consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports to address that behavior.

A review of documents and staff interviews indicated that although the district developed a curriculum accommodation plan, staff are not familiar with the plan, and it is not consistently implemented across the district. Furthermore, staff interviews indicated that students are not always provided with appropriate services and support within the general education classroom including, but not limited to, direct and systematic instruction in reading and services to address the needs of children whose behavior may interfere with learning.