Special Education Program Compliance Review Final Report

Special Education Program Compliance Review

Final Report April 30, 2018

Bright Water Elementary (4189-07)

Mike Spangenberg, Interim Director

Jennifer C Heieie, Director of Special Education

Table of Contents Introduction and Authority .................................................................................................................. 3

Scope of Monitoring........................................................................................................................ 3

Resulting Findings and Corrective Action ....................................................................................... 3

District Overview............................................................................................................................. 4

Monitoring Findings by Area............................................................................................................... 4

Area 1: Governance........................................................................................................................ 4

Area 2: Facilities, Equipment and Materials .................................................................................... 8

Area 3: Child Find and Evaluation................................................................................................. 10

Area 4: IEP and IFSP Process and Implementation...................................................................... 13

Summary of Corrective Action Required........................................................................................... 17

Appendix .......................................................................................................................................... 18

Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... 18

Individual Student Record Noncompliance.................................................................................... 19

Complaint Decisions ..................................................................................................................... 19

Interviews ..................................................................................................................................... 19

Federal Instructional Settings by Disability.................................................................................... 20

Race/Ethnicity by Disability........................................................................................................... 21

Age by Disability ........................................................................................................................... 22

Bright Water Elementary (4189-07) 2

Introduction and Authority

The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE), as the state educational agency, is required by federal law to monitor the education of children with disabilities pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(11); 34 C.F.R. § 300.600. Additionally, state law requires every local educational agency (LEA) to ensure all students with disabilities are provided specialized instruction and services appropriate to their needs. Minn. Stat. § 125A.08(b)(1). Each LEA within the state, including educational programs administered by any public agency, is under the general supervision of MDE. In order to evaluate special education programs, MDE staff has the authority to review all relevant information necessary to carry out the department’s oversight responsibilities.

Scope of Monitoring

Monitors from MDE’s Division of Compliance and Assistance conducted a full compliance review of the special education program of Bright Water Elementary. The monitoring process included a review of:

• The district’s total special education system (TSES) plan, restrictive procedures plans (RPPs) and new student enrollment form

• One district site where special education services are provided • Interview responses from the special education director, general education administrators,

special education teachers and paraprofessionals, related services personnel and general education teachers

• Previous monitoring and self-review reports • Formal complaint history • Five Part B (students ages 3 through 21) student records

Resulting Findings and Corrective Action

The following report identifies individual student record noncompliance, findings of systemic noncompliance and corrective action requirements. Findings of systemic noncompliance are identified based on an analysis of compliance data collected from the sources listed above. If an area is identified as a finding of systemic noncompliance, the district is required to develop and implement a corrective action plan (CAP) to address each finding within one year of the date of this report.

Individual student record noncompliance occurs when a student file is cited for violation of any state or federal special education law. Citations of individual student files must be corrected by the district by January 1, 2019. If individual student noncompliance is identified for correction, tracking is completed through the Minnesota Continuous Improvement Process: Self Review (MNCIMP:SR) system and the district may be required to develop and implement a CAP to address findings of noncompliance.


District Overview

Bright Water Elementary is a charter school located in North Minneapolis for students in kindergarten through grade 6; the district uses the Montessori model. According to the district website, all Montessori classrooms include a multi-year range of students: kindergarten with the pre-school program; children in grades one through three together in a lower elementary classroom and grades four to six together in an upper elementary classroom. Students are encouraged to become independent learners and to be part of a larger community. The program builds social interaction and problem solving by working in collaborative groups.

Monitoring Findings by Area

Area 1: Governance

Topic Area: Total Special Education System

A total special education system (TSES) is a plan describing a district’s special education policies, procedures and programs. A plan for a single district identifies the district’s responsibilities regarding child study procedures, methods of providing the special education services for identified pupils, administration and management plans to assure effective and efficient results, operating procedures of interagency committees and any interagency agreements into which the district has entered.

After conducting a self-review, the special education director provided MDE with an assurance that the district’s TSES demonstrates 100% compliance with Minnesota Rule 3525.1100.

Corrective Action: None

Topic Area: Charter School Application

A review of the charter school application, as shared by the director of special education and located on the charter school’s website, determined that the district does not require applicants to disclose more information than permitted by state law and is therefore considered compliant.


Topic Area: Restrictive Procedures Plan

“Restrictive procedures” means the use of physical holding or seclusion of children with disabilities in an emergency. Because the special education director reported the district intends to continue the use of physically holding children with disabilities in an emergency, the district is required to maintain and make publicly accessible a restrictive procedures plan (RPP) for children with disabilities. Minnesota Statute requires that the plan must, at least, list the restrictive procedures the school intends to use; describe how the school will monitor and review the use of restrictive procedures; and include a written description and documentation of the training school personnel completed.


After conducting a self-review, the special education director provided MDE with an assurance that the district’s RPP demonstrates 100% compliance with Minnesota Statute, sections 125A.0941 and 125A.0942.


Topic Area: Staffing

The district’s special education administrative staffing includes a special education director contacted through an outside agency and an in-house special education coordinator employed by the district. An executive director provides district-level administrative leadership. The district is staffed with district special education personnel consisting of three special education teachers, six related service providers and nine special education paraprofessionals. Related service providers include speech-language pathology, Developmental Adapted Physical Education (DAPE), school psychology, occupational therapy and social work. Special education teachers reported that the coordinator is an asset for the district.

Special education and building administration were asked to describe the delivery of special education services or support when special education teachers, related service providers or paraprofessionals are absent. Interview responses confirmed procedures related to short- and long-term absences and the process for informing substitutes about relevant IEP information. The district reported that staff contacts the Director of Operations to request a substitute. This individual utilizes an outside agency and/or substitute list to cover the short or long-term absence. Staff prepare substitute plans to include schedules, important student information related to services and has a contact assigned to support that individual. The special education coordinator is the contact for substitute special education teachers and related service providers. The case manager provides supports for paraprofessional substitutes.

Concerns were reported through online interviews and confirmed during follow-up onsite, by the special education director and general education teachers regarding filling substitute positions and the delivery of special education services or support when special education teachers, related service providers or paraprofessionals are absent. 60% of general education teachers indicated that often there is not a substitute provided because qualified special education substitute teachers are not available. A few noted that the school already is short-staffed for both general and special education. The special education director detailed it is often a challenge to find a substitute, so other staff will cover the position or adjust schedules to provide services. Related service providers may supply compensatory minutes to cover missed services, while during paraprofessional absence other paraprofessionals will shift or adjust schedules to provide needed support. As it is difficult to find a substitute for paraprofessionals, staff often need to adjust schedules. Special education staff have a brief daily meeting to discuss needs for the day, including any relevant absence.

Building administration also reported that substitute coverage is provided for that day by contracting with outside vendors to provide substitutes. If one cannot be obtained, the special education coordinator creates a plan to meet those demands. In some cases, building administration will cover roles as necessary. Administration echoed difficulty in obtaining adequately licensed substitutes due to a teacher shortage.

Despite district procedures related to the substitute shortage, staff and administration still report concerns. The district is encouraged to expand these actions and pursue further strategies to cover short and long-term absence in special education.



Topic Area: Training

Special education professional development initiatives have been offered to licensed and non-licensed district personnel over the past two years including equity and diversity training, mental health, academic support in Montessori classrooms for paraprofessionals and collaboration between paraprofessionals and general education teachers. Some special education teachers attended an optional special education conference provided by the outside agency that employs the special education director. Topics at the conference included effective communication, collaboration, Minnesota Department of Education due process updates, strategies for data collection and supports for learning disabilities.

Other than via district-led trainings, licensed and non-licensed staff is informed of special education policies and procedures or changes to special education policies and procedures through regular meetings, emails and phone calls. Building administration meets monthly with special education administration while special education teachers meet twice monthly with the special education director and coordinator. Typically, related service providers also attend the special education meetings, but if a meeting occurs when the provider is not scheduled at the district, the special education coordinator shares the information with them. General education teachers receive necessary information on special education policies through faculty or professional learning community (PLC) meetings. Paraprofessionals meet with special education administration as necessary; if specific issues warrant discussion, the special education coordinator or director will discuss details with paraprofessionals. Case managers are another contact to share any required updates.

Special education administration and building administration identify training needs based on results of student file reviews, staff understanding of due process requirements or if teachers request specific training topics. Data is collected from review of these components to inform future training needs. The special education director reported that special education staff would benefit from continued training on interventions, data collection, writing measurable goals and effective progress reporting.

Interview responses suggest that special education teachers, related service providers and paraprofessionals are adequately prepared to provide services and support to students receiving special education. 60% of general education teachers reported through online interviews they are not adequately prepared to support special education students. During onsite follow-up with general education staff, teachers again stated they often do not feel prepared to support students. Comments indicated they were not prepared to provide IEP accommodations for students in their classrooms, lacked necessary resources and had difficulty dealing with students’ social and emotional needs. General education teachers noted, as they are not experts in special education, they need more assistance from special education teachers to provide necessary services and accommodations for special education students.

Most special education and general education teachers reported they do not work with students that use assistive technology, so training in this area is unnecessary.

Building administrators, special education teachers and special education paraprofessionals using restrictive procedures have received the necessary training on the use of restrictive procedures. District personnel


confirmed the confidentiality of any personally identifiable data, information and records of students are also maintained.

Minnesota Statute requires that for all paraprofessionals employed to work in special education programs, the district shall ensure each paraprofessional has sufficient knowledge and skills in emergency procedures, building orientation, roles and responsibilities, confidentiality, vulnerability of students and mandatory reporting of suspected abuse before or beginning at the time of employment. Building administrators reported paraprofessionals receive sufficient information from the district in order to meet students’ needs. Annual training opportunities also are made available to paraprofessionals to further develop the knowledge and skills that are specific to the students with whom they work, including understanding disabilities, following lesson plans and implementing follow-up instructional procedures and activities. Recently hired paraprofessionals agreed that training was provided regarding emergency procedures and roles and responsibilities. Some indicated receiving training on building orientation, confidentiality and vulnerability of students. Only one identified receiving training on mandatory reporting. During additional interviews while onsite, the special education director confirmed that special education paraprofessionals receive all necessary training. Despite varied interview responses by paraprofessionals, all reportedly receive sufficient ongoing direction from a licensed teacher; none of the paraprofessionals provide IEP health-related services for a student receiving special education. Paraprofessionals noted that monthly staff training days are a strength for the district.

Concern: Although administration provides training opportunities and continues to find ways to facilitate more training, staff report it often is inadequate for them to successfully support special education students in their classrooms. The district is encouraged to continue pursuing better support and guidance in the areas of accommodations, effective interventions, mental health resources and students with social and emotional needs.


Topic Area: Special Education Advisory Council

Minnesota Statute, section 125A.24, requires school districts establish a special education advisory council (SEAC) to increase the involvement of parents of children with disabilities in district policy making and decision making. The special education director confirmed the district has a SEAC that meets regularly and has a membership of which at least half are parents of a student with a disability. The last SEAC meeting occurred in April 2017.


Topic Area: Service Delivery, Teaching Models and Collaboration

The special education director reported that school-aged children with disabilities at Bright Water Elementary receive special education services via pull-out, push-in, resource room and indirect service in federal instructional settings 1, 2 and 3, which describe the location and the amount of time that a student with an IEP receives special education services.

Special education and building administration did not describe any specific limitations to the variety of teaching models or types of service delivery options available to students receiving special education or related services.


Most special education teachers agreed, although some indicated that only the pull-out model is offered and students would benefit from push-in services. General education teachers also reported students would benefit from having more push-in services available. Special education teachers and related service providers reported receipt of indirect services, including consultation from appropriately licensed providers, if they are not licensed in a student’s category of disability and responsible for implementing an IEP.

The special education director reported that collaboration among the special education team and related service providers is strong. They meet weekly to discuss due process, student needs and concerns. Special education teachers agreed that the team is committed to supporting students and each other, along with having a broad base of knowledge and experience. General education teachers confirmed that staff members are well qualified. While collaboration is strong among special education providers, special teachers requested more time to meet with paraprofessionals.


Topic Area: Resources and Supports for Staff

Building administrators receive adequate assistance and support from special education administrators regarding questions and concerns related to special education. Correspondingly, special education teachers, related service providers and general education teachers also receive adequate assistance and support with questions and concerns related to special education from building administration and special education administration.


Area 2: Facilities, Equipment and Materials

Topic Area: Facilities

On February 22, an MDE monitor conducted an onsite review of the special education programs and facilities at Bright Water Elementary. The purpose of the review is to verify that the classrooms and other facilities in which students receive instruction, related services and supplementary aids and services are accessible; are essentially equivalent to the regular education program; provide an atmosphere that is generally conducive to learning and usually meet the students’ special physical, sensory and emotional needs.

The district provides the majority of special education services in one resource room shared by all three special education teachers. An additional classroom, used largely by the social worker, is another possible classroom in which to provide service. The school psychologist and speech provider use a small office to complete testing and services. Small groups also may work in the hallway when necessary.

Results of the onsite review and interviews completed by building administration, special education service providers, paraprofessionals and general education teachers typically conclude that classrooms and other facilities in which students receive instruction, related services and supplementary aids and services overall meet the requirements outlined in Minnesota Rule 3525.1400. Staff and administration reported the facility has space limitations for both special and general education students. The special education director indicated more


areas for sensory or quiet space would be beneficial. General education staff reported concerns regarding the resource room space being conducive to learning because of noise volume and disruptions. Through onsite follow-up interviews, special education teachers indicated they adjust service location to ensure the space is conducive for all students.

District staff reported that accessibility is a concern. An elevator is available, although the path to and from the elevator is not always free because of objects often stored nearby. Staff shared these concerns with building maintenance and improvements were made. At the time of the facility review, tables and desks were stored by the elevator, although there was open access to and from the elevator. Also of concern, lunch and physical education (P.E.) occur in the school gymnasium and the elevator does not have access to this area. To gain entrance for these activities, students with physical or mobility needs take the elevator to the main floor, exit outside to the parking lot and need a staff member to hold open the door in order to access lunch or P.E. The office used for speech services and by the school psychologist also is up a short flight of stairs, but administration reported that the conference room was an alternative if necessary. Currently no students with physical impairments attend the school, but the district should be prepared to address any eventualities.

Special education and building administration described sufficient procedures, including timelines and individuals involved, when determining classroom needs or locations of classrooms for special education and related services. The special education director systematically reviews special education data regularly, including caseload assignments, in order to determine and communicate space needs with building administration. Last year, programming needs were discussed in January to determine locations of special education spaces, caseloads, student needs and suggestions for the best use of space and staff. The discussion was revisited in the spring to confirm space assignments. The special education director plans to follow the same process this school year when determining these needs. Building administration added that special education teachers also are involved in the discussion and share space recommendations with administration.

Concern: While district facilities are cramped in both general and special education classrooms, it is evident that there are overcrowded spaces, multiple groups using locations that may result in distractions for learners, and areas that potentially are not conducive to learning for special education students. The district is advised to reevaluate current space used for special education to ensure students are receiving instruction to meet special physical, sensory and emotional needs in spaces that are conducive to learning.


Topic Area: Equipment and Supplies

Minnesota Rule requires districts supply special equipment and instructional materials necessary to provide instruction, related services and supplementary aids and services. Special education service providers, paraprofessionals and general education teachers confirmed they are adequately equipped with special equipment and instructional materials to provide instruction and supports to students receiving special education services.

Staff sufficiently described in interviews steps and procedures special education teachers and related service providers follow in order to obtain special equipment, instructional materials, consumables, etc. necessary to implement IEPs in both general and special education settings. Special education teachers and related service


providers follow the district requisition process by completing the required form to outline items needed, along with rationale for purchase. The completed form is routed to the special education coordinator for review, then sent to the executive director for approval. The approved request is passed to the business manager for ordering and final completion of paperwork.


Topic Area: Room Used for Seclusion

The district does not have a room used for seclusion registered on the Minnesota Department of Education’s website. No such room was reported in interviews or observed by the MDE monitor during the onsite review.


Area 3: Child Find and Evaluation

Topic Area: Child Find Process

“Child find” under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act refers to the local education agency’s obligation to locate, identify and evaluate all children with disabilities.

Minnesota Rule requires that before a school-aged student is referred for a special education evaluation, the district must conduct and document at least two instructional strategies, alternatives or interventions (i.e., “pre-referral interventions”) while the student is in the regular classroom. General and special education teachers at Bright Water Elementary confirmed students are receiving and teachers are documenting at least two pre-referral interventions in the regular classroom. General education teachers at Bright Water Elementary described participation in a variety of pre-referral process activities. 80% of general education teachers receive resources for collecting data, recording progress and documenting pre-referral information. 60% indicated that they participate in regularly scheduled meetings to discuss concerns regarding students who may need pre-referral interventions, receive consultation and resources regarding interventions, and review data to determine if interventions are success. In contrast, 60% reported that the referral process is informal and instead of scheduled meetings they discuss concerns with special education staff. General education teachers indicated they need more resources for interventions. Despite follow-up onsite, teachers gave varied responses regarding regularly scheduled meetings versus an informal process. It is possible that terminology regarding the child find process may be the reason behind different responses from general education teachers. As outlined below, teachers regularly meet in grade level teams to discuss students’ concerns.

Building administration reported that child find occurs at weekly team level meetings. Lower elementary and upper elementary classrooms meet regularly and during those meetings review assessment data, academic work and behavior concerns to identify which students may need additional support. Special education teachers reported that general education teachers receive handouts to share student concerns discussed at the grade level weekly meetings, which function as a child find/problem solving team. General education teachers also reported attending grade level meetings and confirmed that handouts are provided to share student concerns. Concerns are brought to the Child Study Team; team members include the student’s general education teachers, the general education administrator, special education coordinator, special education teachers and social


worker. The special education coordinator facilitates the referral process and shares intervention ideas. Interventions are identified and implemented. The special education coordinator is tasked to decide if additional interventions are warranted or if there is need of a special education evaluation. The special education team meets weekly to discuss initial evaluations, reevaluations and transfer students. The special education team includes the special education coordinator, special education teachers and the school social worker.

With the understanding that identifying students potentially in need of special education assistance takes time, most general education teachers reported through interviews and during the onsite visit that pre-referral interventions do result in an unreasonable delay of initial evaluation for special education services. They believe that 4-6 weeks is a long time to complete additional interventions after several already have been provided in the classroom. They indicated particular concern regarding aggressive and violent behavior in the classroom that poses safety risks. General education teachers outlined that child study meeting notes are to be distributed and shared with general education teachers; they reported this process frequently does not happen. Oftentimes, special education teachers are to provide accommodation materials in order to complete interventions, such as a creating a visual aid, but follow-through is inconsistent. Also noted was concern when students are not responding to interventions, but additional interventions still are required and students are not receiving supports during this extended period. Comments included that because of the large numbers going through the child find process it takes a long time for students to be evaluated. Special education teachers agreed that the process takes a long time and reported they would like to see interventions completed earlier to address student concerns. Special education staff indicated that there is not a designated person facilitating the grade level meetings to ensure the referral process is being followed and interventions are completed in general education. It is reasonable to assume that the communication breakdown and need for further training may result in general education teachers not understanding how to document interventions that already are being completed in the general education classroom; hence further delaying the commencement of evaluations to determine special education eligibility.

Most interview responses did not describe a policy or practice of delaying initial special education evaluations of English language learner students based in his or her English language learner status, although comments indicated that English language learners need interventions related to lack of language before they can be referred to special education. The majority of general education teachers reported that the district does not have a policy or practice restricting the timing of referral for a special education evaluation; however, 20% of general education teachers indicated through initial interviews and reiterated confusion onsite that they were unsure if there were limitations.

Through initial and follow-up interviews, general education teachers expressed confusion and uncertainty on the referral process. They indicated high numbers of students waiting to be discussed at child find or evaluated for special education. In addition, general education teachers detailed there is a breakdown in communication regarding the referral process with intervention supports and sharing necessary meeting information. Both special education providers and general education teachers reported more training is needed for general education teachers regarding interventions and referral. The special education director also reported implementing more intervention training as outlined above in the training topic area.

The district has a specific process defined which administration believes is clear for all staff; however, as determined in this report, contradictory statements were made in interviews regarding current district policies


depending on which group of stakeholders was being interviewed. The district must ensure that consistent information is provided to special education teachers, related service providers, and general education teachers to ensure there are no unnecessary delays in identification.

The district also utilizes school-wide positive approaches to behavioral interventions through the Conscious Discipline framework so all students acquire appropriate behaviors and skills. The model is based on adults concentrating on their states of mind; being aware of their survival, emotional and executive mental states, and then helping students develop awareness of their own emotions. According to the model, adults must first acquire the ability to self-regulate their behavior in order to teach child social emotional skills. Students are trained on strategies to improve their behavior such as breathing techniques and effective communication. Focus is centered on how behavior impacts the school and broader community.

Corrective Action: The district must develop and implement a CAP to ensure compliance for referral and child find processes by providing training to special education teachers, related service providers, and general education teachers regarding the referral process to avoid delays for referrals or delay for special education identification.

Topic Area: Transfer Process

Interview responses from special education teachers and related service providers suggest that Bright Water Elementary has sufficient processes in place to ensure the provision of comparable services to special education students who transfer to the district from another district (in-state or out-of-state), as required by federal regulation. Interview responses offered no concerns regarding the prompt transmittal and request of records as well as immediate provision of services upon enrollment.


Topic Area: Evaluations

Federal regulation requires that assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a student are provided and administered in the student’s native language or other mode of communication and in the form most likely to yield accurate information on what the student knows and can do academically, developmentally and functionally, unless it is clearly not feasible to so provide or administer; are used for the purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid and reliable; are administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel; and are administered in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of the assessments.

Federal regulation also requires districts to ensure assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a student are not discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis. Interview responses affirm that special education teachers and related service providers know when and how to address concerns related to racial or cultural discrimination when evaluating students.



Topic Area: Exit Procedures

Federal regulation requires districts to evaluate a child with a disability before determining that the child is no longer a child with a disability. Special education teachers and related service providers described compliant procedures for exiting a student from special education services when he or she has made adequate progress such that continuing need for services no longer exists.

An evaluation is not required before the termination of a child’s eligibility due to graduation from secondary school with a regular diploma, or due to exceeding the age eligibility for a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) under state law. For a student whose eligibility terminates under these circumstances, the district must provide him or her with a summary of the student’s academic achievement and functional performance, including recommendations on how to assist the student in meeting his or her postsecondary goals. The district provides services for students in grades kindergarten through sixth grade, therefore, the district is not required to complete a summary of performance for any students.


Topic Area: Due Process Compliance

The Bright Water Elementary Public School District’s Final Report, dated June 11, 2013, was completed following the district’s last onsite visit. It included 14 findings of noncompliance through a review of student records for Timeline, Evaluation and Eligibility Standards involving 11 student records. Noncompliance was identified for Evaluation Timelines, Frequency of Reevaluation Timelines, Evaluation Report, SLD Written Report, Functional Behavioral Assessment and Eligibility. Self-Review formal notification of findings from 2016 indicated continued noncompliance with Frequency of Reevaluation Timelines and the Evaluation Report.

This school year, the district was required to review five Part B special education records and report the compliance results to MDE for Timeline, Evaluation and Eligibility Standards related to the evaluation process and identification of special education needs and related services. The results reported indicate noncompliance with Evaluation 30 Day Timelines and Evaluation Report. While systemic concerns did not arise necessary to order corrective action plans for the district in the area of Evaluation 30 Day Timelines, continued noncompliance for Evaluation Report has been identified by MDE as an area requiring corrective action following the individual student record review process.

Corrective Action: The district must develop and implement CAPs to address systemic noncompliance regarding Evaluation Report requirements. All citations of individual student files also must be corrected by the district and verified by MDE by January 1, 2019.

Area 4: IEP and IFSP Process and Implementation

Topic Area: Least Restrictive Environment

Interview responses suggested that each school-aged child with a disability is educated with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent possible, has equal access to extra-curricular and nonacademic activities (e.g. counseling services, athletics, transportation, health services, district-sponsored clubs, recess, meals, etc.) available to non-


disabled peers and is fully integrated with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate. If a student is removed from the general education environment, the removal occurs only if the nature or severity of the child’s disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. Building administration and general education teachers all reported that the special education team is diligent in supporting special education students so students can remain in the general setting to the maximum extent possible.


Topic Area: Communicating IEP Content

Special education providers and special education paraprofessionals reportedly have access to the IEP of each school-aged student with a disability for whom they are responsible by receiving an entire copy or relevant portions of the IEP. Special education providers indicated they discuss IEP content with special education paraprofessionals and general education teachers at the beginning of the school year and throughout the year with updates. IEP information also is made available in a binder. Teachers share updates with staff at monthly development days, meet frequently through bi-monthly check-ins with general education and review information informally with special education paraprofessionals. Paraprofessionals agreed they are sufficiently informed of their specific responsibilities and the specific accommodations, modifications and supports required by the IEPs of the students with whom they work by emails and verbal communication. They noted that special education providers are approachable for any questions. However, general education teachers reported that collaboration time is limited and formal meetings do not occur. They detailed how IEP accommodations included for students are quite typical for all students using the Montessori model and they need support on additional accommodations necessary for students on IEPs. General education teachers indicated they are unsure how to implement accommodations and do not have access to materials or resources for identified accommodations. All agreed that information is shared in a more consistent manner at the beginning of the school year; however, during the school year this information is not always provided.

While special education teachers indicated that staff is given necessary information from IEPs to work with students for which staff is assigned, general education teachers reported concerns in this area. The district should solidify the process of distributing details to all staff involved in IEP implementation.


Topic Area: Team Members and Meetings

Each IEP team must include a representative of the public agency (i.e., “district representative”). The district representative must be qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities; knowledgeable about the general education curriculum; and knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the public agency. Building administration confirmed that the district representatives at IEP meetings held at Bright Water Elementary meet these qualifications. Many special education providers agreed, however, almost half indicated they were unsure if these requirements are met. Follow-up interviews during the onsite visit confirmed that all requirements are met.


General education teachers typically receive timely notice of IEP meetings, although general education teachers reported this is dependent upon the case manager: those in grades 1-3 often do not receive timely notice, while teachers for grades 4-6 reported they do. Additionally, the DAPE teacher reported that timely notification of meetings for related service providers is inconsistent and only infrequently shared with all providers. The district is advised to evaluate the process for providing notice of IEP meetings to ensure that all special education providers and general education teachers for each grade level receive timely notification. As members of the IEP team, general education teachers fully participate in the determination of IEP services such as supplemental aids and services, behavioral supports and program modifications.


Topic Area: Extended School Year

Federal and state regulations require school districts provide extended school year (ESY) services as necessary to ensure FAPE as determined by a student’s IEP team on an individual basis. While building administration indicated that ESY services are made available as appropriate, over half of special education teachers and related service providers reported that they are unsure if ESY is available or if there are limitations to particular categories of disability or that limit the type, amount, or duration of those services. Follow-up interviews with special education administration indicated that ESY is available and there are no limitations to those services. The district is advised to ensure that all special education providers have a clear understanding of ESY requirements.


Topic Area: Progress Reporting

Each district also must ensure an IEP team reviews a school-aged child’s IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine whether the student is achieving annual goals; and revise the IEP, as appropriate, to address any lack of expected progress, the results of any reevaluation or information about the student, or the student’s anticipated needs. The district’s special education teachers and related service providers described existing practices that satisfy progress reporting requirements.


Topic Area: Secondary Transition

Transition services are coordinated activities for a student with a disability that are focused on improving the academic and functional achievement of the student to assist the student’s shift from school to post-school activities, including postsecondary education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation. Transition services are based on the individual student’s needs, taking into account the student’s strengths, preferences and interests.

Bright Water Elementary is a K-6 school. Secondary transition requirements are not applicable for the district.



Topic Area: Due Process Compliance

The Bright Water Elementary 2013 final report was completed following the district’s last onsite visit. It included one finding of noncompliance for Team Members through a review for IEP Standards involving 11 student records. In 2016, Bright Water Elementary was notified of five findings of noncompliance associated with IEP Standards following its Self-Review including Present Levels, Short and Long Term Goals and Objectives, Progress Reporting and Modification of Assessment.

This school year, the district was required to review five Part B special education records and report the compliance results to MDE for Timeline and IEP/IFSP Standards related to the IEP process and provision of special education and related services. While systemic concerns did not arise to order corrective action plans for the district in the areas of Team Members, Special Education and Related Services and Progress Reporting; three IEP Standards have been identified by MDE as areas requiring corrective action following individual student record review. These areas include Annual Review of IEP cited twice in student records and continued noncompliance for Present Levels and Short and Long Term Goals and Objectives, both cited in all records reviewed.

Corrective Action: The district must develop and implement CAPs to address systemic noncompliance regarding Annual Review of IEP Timelines, Present Levels and Short and Long Term Goals and objectives. All citations of individual student files also must be corrected by the district and verified by MDE by January 1, 2019.


Summary of Corrective Action Required

Formal findings of individual student record noncompliance were issued from 5 of the 5 files reviewed. Individual student files must be corrected by the district and verified by MDE within one year of the date that the district was notified of individual student noncompliance. Bright Water Elementary (4189-07) was notified of individual student noncompliance on February 1, 2018. As of the date of this report, the district has demonstrated correction of 5 percent of those findings.

Noncompliance identified in this report must be corrected within one year of the date of this report. Following is a summary of the noncompliance areas requiring a corrective action plan (CAP):

Area Focus Area Regulatory Reference 1 No findings at time of report 2 No findings at time of report 3 Identification of Pupils with Disabilities

Address Pre-referral and Child Find Process Minn. R. 3525.0750

3 Address Evaluation Report components including materials and procedures and comprehensive reports

Minn. R. 3525.2710

4 Annual IEP Timelines 34 C.F.R. § 300.324 4 Address Present Levels of Academic

Achievement and Functional Performance and Short and Long Term Goals and Objectives

34 C.F.R. § 300.320

The district must enter a proposed CAP into the MNCIMP:SR system for each finding within 45 calendar days from the date of this monitoring report. Please review the CAP Development Guide enclosed with this report. For clarification of the issues in this report or assistance needed prior to developing the CAPs, please contact the district’s lead monitor indicated below.

For questions regarding the content of this report, please contact the district’s lead monitor:

Nicole Dardis Compliance Specialist Division of Compliance and Assistance 1500 West Highway 36 Roseville, MN 55113 651-582-8343 [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]

Appendix

The appendix includes special education child count data related to disability and federal instructional setting, race/ethnicity and age, as well as data on individual student record noncompliance, complaint decisions and interview and survey reliability.

Acronyms

Data sources

CC Child count Srv Students served by the district RR Students sampled for the record review

Disability categories

ASD Autism Spectrum Disorders DB Deaf-Blind DCD-MM Developmental Cognitive Disability: Mild to Moderate DCD-SP Developmental Cognitive Disability: Severe to Profound DD Development Delay DHH Deaf and Hard of Hearing EBD Emotional or Behavioral Disorders OHD Other Health Disabilities PI Physically Impaired SLD Specific Learning Disability SLI Speech or Language Impairments SMI Severely Multiply Impaired TBI Traumatic Brain Injury VI Visually Impaired

Child Count

In the December 1, 2017, Part B and Part C federal child count, students identified as receiving special education and related services are 17.9 percent (n = 32) of the district total enrollment compared to the statewide average of 15.5 percent.


Individual Student Record Noncompliance

Individual citations of noncompliance are identified by student and reported through the web-based MNCIMP:SR tracking system. The district was formally notified of 8 individual findings on February 1, 2018. All individual student noncompliance must be corrected by the district and verified by MDE within one year of the date of formal issuance of findings.

A summary of each area of identified individual student noncompliance is referenced in the chart below. Column one indicates whether the compliance area is related to Part B or Part C of IDEA. Column two identifies the compliance area for each citation. Column three provides the legal reference for each citation. Column four indicates the number of student records cited during the record review.

IDEA Part Compliance Area General Citation(s)

Records Cited

B Timelines: Evaluation Timelines (if evaluation completed after child turned 3)

34 CFR § 76.731 1

B Timelines: Annual Review of IEP 34 CFR § 300.324 2 B Evaluation Standards: Evaluation Report Minn. R. 3525.2710,

Subp. 6 4

B IEP/IFSP Standards: Team Members 34 CFR § 300.321 1 B IEP/IFSP Standards: Present Levels of Academic

Achievement and Functional Performance (PLP) 34 CFR § 300.320 5

B IEP/IFSP Standards: Short and Long Term Goals and Objectives

34 CFR § 300.320 5

B IEP/IFSP Standards: Special Education and Related Services

34 CFR § 300.320 1

B IEP/IFSP Standards: Progress Reporting 34 CFR § 76.731 1

Complaint Decisions

Complaint files were reviewed for records of formal complaints filed regarding Bright Water Elementary (4189-07) and no formal complaints were opened during the relevant time period.

Interviews

Online interviews were completed by building administrators, special education staff, general education teachers and special education paraprofessionals, with follow-up telephone and on-site interviews completed as deemed necessary.


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Federal Instructional Settings by Disability

The following table shows the distribution of students ages six through 21 receiving special education and related services across each of the eight federal instructional settings. The federal instructional settings can be referenced using the following:

FS 1 – Outside of the regular class room less than 21 percent of the day FS 2 – Resource room between 21 percent and 60 percent of the school day FS 3 – Separate classroom more than 60 percent of the school day FS 4 – Public separate day school facility greater than 50 percent of the school day FS 5 – Private separate day school facility greater than 50 percent of the school day FS 6 – Private residential facilities greater than 50 percent of the school day FS 7 – Private residential facility greater than 50 percent of the school day FS 8 – Homebound/hospital placement

Disability FS 1 CC

FS 1 Srv

FS 1 RR

FS 2 CC

FS 2 Srv

FS 2 RR

FS 3 CC

FS 3 Srv

FS 3 RR

FS 4 CC

FS 4 Srv

FS 4 RR

FS 5-8 CC

FS 5-8 Srv

FS 5-8 RR

ASD 100 100 100 DB DCD-MM DCD-SP DD DHH EBD 67 67 100 33 33 OHD 86 86 100 14 14 PI SLD 100 100 100 SLI 100 100 SMI TBI VI 100 100

Note: Each row will total approximately 100 percent (due to rounding) for each data source. Some cell values may have been suppressed to protect data privacy.

Bright Water Elementary - Special Education Program Compliance Review Final Report - 2017-18 20

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0CSTSR CSTSR CSTSR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0CSTSR CSTSR 0 0 0 0 CSTSR CSTSR CSTSR 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Race/Ethnicity by Disability

The following table shows the distribution of students ages birth through 21 across racial/ethnic groups. The race/ethnicity can be referenced using the following:

Amer. Indian – American Indian Asian – Asian or Pacific Islander Black – black, non-Hispanic Hisp. – Hispanic, regardless of race White – white, non-Hispanic

Disability Amer. Indian CC

Amer. Indian Srv

Amer. Indian RR

Asian CC

Asian Srv

Asian RR

Hisp. CC

Hisp. Srv

Hisp. RR

Black CC

Black Srv

Black RR

White CC

White Srv

White RR

ASD 7 7 33 33 50 DB DCD-MM DCD-SP DD DHH EBD 14 14 OHD 14 14 33 33 50 PI SLD 57 57 100 13 13 SLI 7 7 13 13 SMI TBI VI 7 7

Note: Each column will total approximately 100 percent (due to rounding) for each data source. Some cell values may have been suppressed to protect data privacy.


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Age by Disability

The following two tables show the distribution of students ages birth through 21 by disability.

Disability 0-2 CC

0-2 Srv

0-2 RR

3-5 CC

3-5 Srv

3-5 RR

6 CC

6 Srv

6 RR

7 CC

7 Srv

7 RR

8 CC

8 Srv

8 RR

9 CC

9 Srv

9 RR

10 CC

10 Srv

10 RR

11 CC

11 Srv

11 RR

12 CC

12 Srv

12 RR

ASD 50 50 100 100 20 20 100 25 25 20 20 DB DCD-MM DCD-SP DD DHH EBD 33 33 40 40 50 OHD 33 33 25 25 50 43 43 20 20 PI SLD 60 60 33 33 38 38 50 43 43 20 20 50 100 100 SLI 50 50 20 20 14 14 SMI TBI VI 12 12

Disability 13 CC

13 Srv

13 RR

14 CC

14 Srv

14 RR

15 CC

15 Srv

15 RR

16 CC

16 Srv

16 RR

17 CC

17 Srv

17 RR

18 CC

18 Srv

18 RR

19 CC

19 Srv

19 RR

20 CC

20 Srv

20 RR

21 CC

21 Srv

21 RR

ASD DB DCD-MM DCD-SP DD DHH EBD OHD PI SLD SLI SMI TBI VI

Note: Each column will total approximately 100 percent (due to rounding) for each data source. Some cell values may have been suppressed to protect data privacy.


Special Education Program Compliance Review Final Report

Documents

Transcript of Special Education Program Compliance Review Final Report