Special Education Program Compliance Review Final Report

Special Education Program Compliance Review

Final Report June 29, 2018

Forest Lake Public School District (0831-01)

Steve Massey, Superintendent

Kelly J. Lessman, Director of Special Education

Forest Lake Public School District (0831-01) 2

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 .................................................................................. 12

Area 3: Child Find and Evaluation ................................................................................................. 16

Area 4: IEP and IFSP Process and Implementation ...................................................................... 21

Summary of Corrective Action Required ........................................................................................... 26

Appendix .......................................................................................................................................... 27

Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... 27

Individual Student Record Noncompliance.................................................................................... 28

Complaint Decisions ..................................................................................................................... 29

Interviews ..................................................................................................................................... 29

Federal Instructional Settings by Disability .................................................................................... 30

Race/Ethnicity by Disability ........................................................................................................... 31

Age by Disability ........................................................................................................................... 32


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 Forest Lake Public School District (0831-01). The monitoring process included a review of:

• The district’s total special education system (TSES) plan and restrictive procedures plan (RPP)

• Eight district sites 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

• 14 Part B (students ages 3 through 21) and six Part C (children from birth to age 3) 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 April 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

Forest Lake Public Schools is a district located approximately twenty-five miles northeast of the twin cities metro area encompassing twelve suburban and more rural communities. Currently, the school district has eight elementary schools, two junior high schools, one high school, and various alternative educational sites. 2018 enrollment data indicates the district serves over 6,200 students; approximately 15% are students identified with a disability, 2% of the population is identified as English language learners and 22% are identified as eligible for free/reduced price lunch under federal guidelines.

Over the past several years, Forest Lake Public Schools has undergone several transformations and changes continue within the district. The district has faced massive budget shortfalls requiring budget cuts including but not limited to the removal of various staffing positions, reconfiguring the junior and senior high schools into a “secondary campus,” and most recently, closing one elementary school. In 2015, Forest Lake school district voters passed a $143 million bond proposal that includes facility improvements and reconfiguring the secondary campus starting in 2015 and ending in 2020. The MDE compliance review analyzes the district’s approach to offering special education programming, training, resources and other related service efforts. Areas of special education affected by the budget cuts as well as the bond approval are discussed, as relevant, in various sections of this report.

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 or for the member districts of a formal special education cooperative 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: 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 physically holds children with disabilities in an emergency and because the currently has two active seclusion rooms registered with MDE, 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 schools


intend 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.

The district maintains a RPP on its website; however, the plan lacks required specificity in the following areas:

• Identification of the specific schools that use restrictive procedures and the type of restrictive procedure(s) used in each school.

• How each school will implement a range of positive behavior strategies.

During the 2017-18 school year, an MDE special education complaint decision found the district in violation of restrictive procedures requirements when it failed to document and report a physical hold of a student and because an administrator participated in the physical hold of a student without having completed required training. MDE-required corrective action included the development and implementation of a training plan to ensure that all staff receive training on de-escalation techniques, all certified staff receive training on nonviolent crisis intervention, and all principals regularly discuss the use of restrictive procedures. The training plan was completed during the 2017-18 school year.

Corrective Action: The district must develop a CAP to ensure its RPP (for each school or district-wide) includes all required components and specificity described in Minnesota Statute § 125A.0942.

Topic Area: Staffing

The district’s special education administrative staffing includes a special education director, two special education coordinators and one special education administrative assistant. A superintendent, ten building principals, four assistant principals, and six deans provide district-level administrative leadership. The district is staffed with district special education personnel consisting of 69 special education teachers, 28 related service providers and 106 special education paraprofessionals.

Interview feedback from various special education teachers, paraprofessionals and general education teachers concurred that special education teachers’ caseloads are high and there is not enough paraprofessional support in some buildings. Staff expressed concern that special education staffing shortages will result in staff burn-out or turnover, diminished capacity for meeting multiple special education students’ needs simultaneously (in general or special education setting), and demanding schedules that limit the potential of service delivery options. The special education director noted that budget cuts within the district have impacted all programs and the increase of class sizes and the decrease of resources overall have heightened the demands for special education staff (teaching and paraprofessional staff). The district also is seeing an increase in students with challenging behaviors and mental health issues making it even more difficult to meet the needs of all students using current staff resources.

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 there are sufficient procedures related to short- and long-term absences and the process for informing substitutes about relevant IEP information. The district’s special education director, and all responding building administrators reported substitutes both for licensed teachers and paraprofessionals are hired using a local substitute call service. In addition to the call service, school administrative support will assist


with filling positions. Several building principals reported having “go to” substitutes that are familiar with the school and program routines. Building administrators reported looking first for licensed special education teachers and second looking for licensed teachers who are familiar with the school and its special education programs. The special education director and building administrators reported all staff are expected to have detailed substitute folders that include lesson plans, program and teacher schedules, notes outlining student needs, and other detailed information to minimize the impact of the staff absence. Special education coordinators and other program staff also may provide support for the substitutes. Several building administrators commented there is a shortage of qualified licensed teacher substitutes and difficulty with finding paraprofessional substitutes as well. When schools are unable to fill teacher or paraprofessional absences with qualified substitutes, adjustments are made internally. Program staff reportedly work together to provide coverage, paraprofessionals are reassigned to ensure service is provided to students with the most significant needs, and students may be rescheduled to a different special education classroom or teacher for support.

Thirty-six percent of special education teachers and related service providers, 30% of paraprofessionals and 18% of general education teachers reported concerns regarding the delivery of special education services or support when special education teachers, related service providers or paraprofessionals are absent. Across all staff groups, concerns included students who are not receiving services in conformity with his/her IEP on days when special education staff are absent and a substitute is not available (which can often amount to many days throughout the school year). Several special education teachers, general education teachers and paraprofessionals’ concerns also encompassed the quality of substitutes, including substitutes’ lack of knowledge or experience to fully support students’ needs resulting in increased behavioral issues for some students, particularly when substitutes are assigned to cover for veteran/experienced teachers of students identified with Emotional or Behavioral Disorders (EBD) or Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Special education staff reportedly shift responsibilities and make schedule changes to attempt to meet students’ needs with the least amount of disruption to classrooms and programs, but that may entail pulling paraprofessional support in general education classrooms in order to provide support for students with more significant needs or even periodically closing a building’s resource room due to lack of paraprofessionals available to provide coverage there. Staff across groups commented that personnel are stretched thin as it is and the pattern of shifting responsibilities decreases the support for students with disabilities participating in general education and raises the stress and workload for all involved. Interview responses also noted that the district does not fill short-term absences for related service providers and since caseloads for many related service providers is relatively high, providers sometimes are unable to make up missed related service time with students.

Interview responses confirm a pattern exists of frequent special education absences without replacement support, replacement support which may not be appropriately qualified/trained, and/or adding or shifting responsibilities of special education staff to cover absences. This pattern of practice and staff members’ credible concerns may feasibly result in special education and related services not being provided in conformity with the IEP, in the district inadvertently making unilateral decisions regarding students’ placements and/or denial of FAPE.

Concerns and recommendations: Due to the issues noted by some special education providers, general education teachers, and the special education director regarding relatively high special education teacher caseloads,


increasing class sizes, increasing number of students with complex needs, and decreasing staff resources, the district is advised to conduct a comprehensive caseload analysis to determine if the hiring or contracting of additional paraprofessionals or licensed special education providers is warranted in order to ensure a continuum of service delivery options are available to provide FAPE to students in the least restrictive environment.

Corrective Action: The district must develop a CAP to ensure services and support from qualified individuals is provided, in conformity with students’ IEPs, when special education staffing absences occur. Interview responses indicate a pattern exists of special education personnel absences occurring without replacement support or that special education staff frequently must shift responsibilities to cover for absent team members. This pattern, confirmed by staff members’ credible concerns, results in special education and related services not being provided in conformity with students’ IEPs and also may result in the district inadvertently making unilateral decisions regarding students’ placements.

Topic Area: Training

Special education professional development initiatives have been offered to licensed and non-licensed district personnel over the past two years. Professional development for special education staff that occurred during the 2015-16 school year included due process compliance; special education updates; behavioral supports and strategies; reading interventions using science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) materials; review of the Olmstead Act; standardized practices and review of the discrepancy model. Throughout the 2016-17 school year, special education professional development focused on due process documentation requirements and the development of student individualized education programs (IEPs), the implementation of behavioral change, nonviolent crisis prevention and intervention training, and data collection practices.

The superintendent, special education director and building principals are all part of the Forest Lake Public Schools administrative council. The council meets weekly; any special education updates are added to the agenda and discussed at the weekly meetings. Building principals bring back information from the council meetings and share with their building staff as appropriate. Information sharing usually takes place during building staff meetings which typically include both licensed and non-licensed staff. When there are specific questions regarding special education law as it relates to district practices and building procedures, the special education director or a special education coordinator will attend the meeting to provide information and resources. In addition to information shared following the administrative council meetings, the district’s superintendent meets monthly with each building’s administration. Almost half of special education teachers and related service providers confirmed the district provides multiple staff trainings throughout the year; consistently planned staff meetings allow time for personnel to discuss questions, share ideas and problem-solve issues.

Special education information or updates also are shared with special education teachers, related service providers and paraprofessionals during district staff development days or through emails from special education department administrators. Non-licensed personnel such as bus drivers and food service staff receive district updates from their department director based on relevant information discussed at departmental meetings. The special education department sends out annual training surveys to building principals, teachers and paraprofessionals to seek input regarding current needs and interest in special education training opportunities. Special requests for building-specific training are worked out on a case-by-case basis with building


administrators and special education coordinator. The district also has a special education workforce committee for teachers to discuss professional development for licensed teachers, related service providers and paraprofessionals.

Ninety percent of special education teachers and related service providers and 88% of paraprofessionals agree they know how to support students’ use of assistive technology (e.g., tablet computers, communication device, software, recorders, reading guides, seat cushions, timers, calculators, graphic organizers and writing supports), though more ongoing training would be beneficial due to how quickly technology is changing.

Building administrators, special education teachers and paraprofessionals using restrictive procedures have confirmed they receive the necessary training on the use of seclusion/confining students alone in a room from which they are prevented from leaving and physical holds/restraint. District personnel confirmed the confidentiality of any personally identifiable data, information and records of students also are maintained.

Minnesota Statute requires districts to ensure that before or beginning at the time of employment, all paraprofessionals employed to work in special education programs have 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, in order to begin meeting the needs (especially disability-specific and behavioral needs) of the students with whom the paraprofessional works. Though almost all building administrators reported the required training occurs with all recently hired paraprofessionals, of the eight recently hired paraprofessionals interviewed, none reported receiving training in all of the aforementioned areas (though all confirmed receipt of training in at least three areas). The great majority of paraprofessionals agreed annual training opportunities are made available to them to further develop the knowledge and skills related to various disabilities, with certain buildings offering paraprofessionals full-day workshops or other group training multiple times per year. Special education teachers also confirmed paraprofessionals receive two hours of training per week building-wide. However, approximately 25% of responding paraprofessionals indicated the training offered is not consistently relevant to the specific students to whom they are assigned or to the specific program(s) at which they provide support. Many paraprofessionals indicated they would greatly benefit from training targeted to their assigned roles. Almost 90% of paraprofessionals reported receiving sufficient ongoing direction from a licensed teacher; all paraprofessionals providing IEP health-related services for a student receiving special education receive ongoing direction from a school nurse where appropriate and when possible.

Corrective Action: The district must develop a CAP to ensure all newly hired paraprofessionals receive timely training in required areas and that annual training opportunities for paraprofessionals are designed to improve paraprofessionals’ understanding of disabilities and the unique and individual needs of each student, as required by Minnesota Statute § 125A.08.

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. Although parent attendance can be inconsistent, the most recent SEAC meeting was held September 21, 2017.


Topic Area: Service Delivery, Teaching Models and Collaboration

Children ages birth through two receive early intervention services in the child’s home, at service provider locations, i.e. a center or clinic, in programs designed for children with developmental delay or disabilities, and in programs designed for typically developing children. School-aged children with disabilities receive special education services via pull-out, push-in, co-teaching, resource room, indirect, itinerant instruction, homebound instruction and instruction in a hospital or other care and treatment facilities. The district provides special education and related services for school-age children in federal instructional settings 1 through 4, which describe the location and the amount of time that a student with an IEP receives special education services away from their nondisabled peers.

Special education service delivery occurring outside of the public school setting in alternative sites located within the district’s boundaries also was described in interviews. The district has an Alternative Learning Center (ALC) and a transition program for students with disabilities aged 18-21; Forest Lake Public Schools provides licensed teachers and paraprofessional staff for these programs, as appropriate. Special education service delivery for homeschooled students typically is provided in a school setting based on decisions agreed to by an IEP team. The district has one private school within the district catchment; to meet the special education and related service needs of private school students, the district provides a part-time special education teacher along with a designated school psychologist and various other related service providers as necessary.

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. However, approximately 25% of special education teachers and related service providers described several issues that are seen as obstacles to providing a wider range of teaching models or service delivery options available within all buildings. First, in some buildings, because of the limited number of special education personnel and high number or wide-ranging needs of special education students, push-in and co-teaching options either are not possible or are very limited. Second, curriculum and technology supports targeting the specific academic needs and IEP goals of students is lacking (licensed providers specifically mentioned lacking curriculum within setting 3 programs and within the domain of reading/phonics/decoding). Third, the master schedule within some buildings (again combined with a high number of students with ranging disabilities) presents major challenges to “fitting in” direct instruction with general education classes since certain general education courses are offered only during specific periods of the day. For example, there reportedly are no co-taught or modified classes in the sciences or history (classes in which many students struggle) and band/orchestra/choir are offered only during a certain period during the day, so it can be very challenging to arrange a student’s schedule – or many students’ schedules – to include core and elective general education classes, special education support needed in general education, and direct services in the special education setting. Despite these challenges, several special education providers who had expressed concerns added that they use a variety of teaching methods and provide as much differentiation and individualized attention as possible within the classroom(s) in which a student is assigned. A few special education teachers shared that


Forest Lake Public Schools has always been exceptional at customizing programming and service to meet students’ unique needs, yet because of the increasingly diverse needs of students and decreasing resources, such customization has become more and more difficult. In some buildings it was reported that flexible grouping of students is allowing for more push-in support of special education students in the general education setting.

Overall, 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.

Concerns and recommendations: The district is advised to further investigate the issues (including staffing, classroom resources and scheduling) described by some staff that may be limiting the teaching models and/or service delivery options available in certain buildings to determine priorities and action steps to decrease obstacles in this regard.


Topic Area: Resources and Supports for Staff

Almost all building administrators reported they receive adequate assistance and support from special education administrators regarding questions and concerns related to special education. Correspondingly, 90% of special education teachers and related service providers and 92% of general education teachers agreed they also receive adequate assistance and support with questions and concerns related to special education from general education administrators, special education administrators, and/or special education colleagues. In many buildings, staff reported assistance and support typically comes first from special education teachers or the special education coordinator. General education teachers shared that building administrators are sometimes not able to answer special education questions so teachers seek out special education colleagues in the building for answers instead. Special education teachers agreed they often consult with colleagues to problem-solve or obtain resources and paraprofessionals reported they seek assistance primarily from special education teachers. Overall, staff from all groups agreed they receive a good level of support from administrators and special education personnel.


Topic Area: Strengths and Concerns

Strengths identified by district personnel related to staffing, training, resources and support and instructional delivery models include the following:

• The special education director described strengths to include special education leadership (one director and two special education coordinators) who guide special education staff in programming and special education due process. The school psychologists also support special education staff with required procedures and processes. The special education director reported the greatest strength of Forest Lake Public Schools related to special education is the principal/administration collaboration with special education staff and understanding students with disabilities are general education students first.


• Building administrators described special education staff as collaborative, hard-working, creative with resources, and dedicated to supporting and advocating for students. Administrators expressed pride in the work being done to ensure students meet IEP goals and the level of communication with families dedicated to providing robust special education programs.

• Building administrators also highlighted the social skills, functional skills, and transition skills support offered district-wide in collaboration with outside agencies. Administrators also emphasized the implementation of exemplary school-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS).

• Paraprofessionals representing several buildings highlighted the teaming amongst staff and the strong communication between paraprofessionals and teachers. Paraprofessionals also agreed they feel comfortable asking questions of colleagues and timely feedback is provided.

• Special education teachers and related service providers working in various buildings described the team members with whom they work, including administrators, as supportive of new ideas, cooperative, and student-centered.

• ECSE staff noted that special education teachers, paraprofessionals and general education teachers working within early childhood programs have access to ongoing training and regular collaboration time.

• General education teachers from particular buildings praised paraprofessionals for “bridging the gap” between general and special education, i.e. acting as a communication liaison between general and special education teachers to share daily updates and schedule changes.

• Many general education teachers expressed appreciation for the highly collaborative special education staff with whom they work, noting special education staff are accessible and always willing to problem-solve or answer questions.

Concerns or suggestions for improvement identified by district personnel included the following:

• Some building administrators expressed frustration over the lack of financial resources available to provide the level of training, staffing, and other special education resources needed within the district and which would better support the increasing population of students with complex and very challenging needs.

• Several paraprofessionals suggested all personnel should be trained in CPR and first aid as well as crisis prevention and that training (including curriculum training) should be specific to grade levels, i.e. separate training for staff working at early childhood, elementary, and secondary levels to improve the relevancy and specificity of training.

• Paraprofessionals would like to be more involved in special education meetings such as team meetings, child study meetings, professional learning communities, and collaboration time between general education teachers and case managers.

• A few special education teachers indicated more guidance is needed within certain buildings from special education leadership regarding scheduling of services and service locations throughout the day, sharing information to all special education staff regarding building changes, i.e. changing locations of classrooms or programs within facilities due to remodeling and construction, and soliciting more feedback from special education staff to ensure the special education department has a “voice” in decision-making regarding training, building or grade level-wide decisions, facilities, etc.

• Licensed special education providers indicated they need more training related to general education curriculum (including access to curriculum teaching manuals) and student mental health.


Area 2: Facilities, Equipment and Materials

Topic Area: Facilities

During March 21-23, 2018, an MDE monitor conducted an onsite review of the special education programs and facilities at Forest Lake Public School District. 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.

At the time of the site visit, Forest Lake Public Schools included eight elementary schools, two junior high schools, one high school and several alternative sites. Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) services are provided at the Central Learning Center (CLC), space shared by Central Montessori Elementary, though additional ECSE programs also exist in each of the elementary schools. At the end of the 2017-18 school year one junior high school, Southwest Junior High, will be closing and the district will then have two secondary buildings, Forest Lake Area Middle School (formerly Century Junior High) and Forest Lake High School. These buildings are adjacent to each other and will become a “secondary campus.” The former Southwest Junior High building will be remodeled over the summer of 2018 and ECSE programs will then move from the CLC to the updated building. In May 2018, the Forest Lake School Board voted to close Central Montessori Elementary at the end of the 2017-18 school year as well. School closures are due in large part to an extensive budget shortfall for next year, although a bond referendum recently was passed for a five-year construction plan in order to complete necessary repairs and upgrades (including security, heating, air conditioning and overall ventilation) to many school buildings throughout the district. Construction began in 2015 and is slated to end in 2020. The lead monitor conducted facility visits of the ECSE programs at the CLC, Lino Lakes Elementary, Forest Lake Elementary, Forest View Elementary, Century Junior High, Forest Lake High school, the Forest Lake Alternative Learning Center (ALC) and the Student Transition Education Program (STEP) transition program.

The CLC is a one-level building; within the interior of one section of the shared building are several early childhood classrooms, two ECSE resource rooms and a sensory room. Since natural light from windows is not available in the interior classrooms, special education staff have brought in additional lighting sources to accommodate the needs of students. Special education services primarily are provided via a co-taught or push in model with services for students with more significant needs typically taking place in one of the two special education resource rooms. The classroom set-up and various options reportedly allow for flexibility in scheduling direct service minutes and service delivery options.

The Forest Lake Alternative Learning Center (ALC) currently is located in a wing of the CLC. Following completion of construction at Southwest Junior High, the ALC will move to this location. One special education teacher provides pullout and resource room services for students with disabilities while paraprofessionals otherwise assist and support students in general education classes.

The three elementary schools visited by the lead monitor are each one-level buildings that include accessible entrances, exits and restrooms; buildings will undergo accessibility upgrades as part of construction plans. The elementary facilities overall were reported by staff to have some outdated classrooms and needed repairs


throughout the building, i.e. a leaking roof, so staff commented that the construction overhaul underway or planned in the near future for these buildings is much needed.

Lino Lakes Elementary is currently under significant construction that began last summer. The large central section of the building is being remodeled, resulting in a temporary but significant reduction in classroom space. Because many of the special education classrooms were previously located around the central section, three temporary special education classrooms were created in part of the media center and, though smaller than general education classrooms, the temporary rooms were observed to be of sufficient size considering the number and needs of students served in the rooms. Ongoing construction noise reportedly causes distractions for all students, sometimes decreasing the overall conduciveness to learning, yet teachers reported making accommodations to the extent possible until the remodel is complete. The next phase of construction will begin this summer and will include the reconfiguring the building layout, installing communication technology throughout the school, and significantly upgrading security and safety systems.

As with Lino Lakes Elementary, Forest View and Forest Lake Elementary buildings are slated in the construction schedule; the facilities’ remodeling plans reportedly are designed to improve the learning environment and functionality of classrooms; renovate the restrooms; improve accessibility; and install updates to safety, security and mechanicals (i.e. heating system) as well as repairs to various parts of the building which have declined over the years. Forest View’s special education facilities include a suite of classrooms and office-like rooms that are interconnected to support the needs of students placed in Setting 3 programs. The suite, located in a central section of the building across from a small gymnasium, offers space designed to address the unique sensory, emotional/behavioral and personal care needs of students identified with a Developmental Cognitive Disability (DCD), Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and/or Other Health Disability (OHD). The Forest Lake Elementary special education classrooms are located throughout the building and include smaller classrooms for the provision of speech-language (SPL), occupational therapy (OT), and/or physical therapy (PT) services. Forest Lake Elementary currently is configured as a large square building with a center courtyard and part of the construction plans include closing in the courtyard to use it for new mechanical systems instead.

Century Junior High (soon to be Forest Lake Area Middle School) serves students in grades seven and eight. This building is part of a district change planned to create a comprehensive secondary campus for students in grades seven through twelve. Century Junior High is a single-story building with a long central corridor and three wings that branch off the center. Along with offices and general education classrooms, there are music rooms (general music, choir, and band) a media center, and industrial arts classrooms (metal shop and woodshop). The majority of special education classrooms are found along the central hallway; however, because of the various wings, special education classrooms are spread throughout the building rather than in one central location. There are two classrooms designated to support students identified with a Specific Learning Disability (SLD) located at opposite ends of the building and designated ASD (Settings 1-3), EBD and OHD program classrooms that connect, as well as two DCD classrooms with adjoining office space between them.

Forest Lake Area High School is a multi-level building equipped with two elevators to allow access to all areas, grade level exits around all sides of the main floor, and a mezzanine and classrooms on the second floor. As indicated by student need, the special education coordinator works with building special education staff to develop exit plans for all students with mobility and/or unique sensory needs and to support students during both drills and real emergencies. In certain cases, students’ classes are scheduled entirely on the main floor of


the building to ensure special physical or mobility needs are met and safety is prioritized. Some special education classrooms at the high school are located nearby the school office and across from the building media center. This particular location was reportedly chosen because of its interconnecting “suite-like” classrooms that allow for flexibility in staff coverage, use of paraprofessionals, and co-teaching options. Special education classrooms at the high school are found in the interior of the building, so filters for overhead lights and table or floor lamps have been added. Like many of the school buildings in the district, the high school is under construction, which began last summer. Building changes will include a field house, gymnasium, and a two-story classroom addition, as well repairs and updates to existing classrooms, including the restructuring of various classrooms to better program for students’ needs. The special education director, special education coordinator and building special education staff provided input regarding special education facilities needs as part of construction planning. In general, facilities at Forest Lake Area High School were observed to be conducive to learning and equitable to general education. The interior location of special education classrooms and lack of natural lighting is not ideal, yet classrooms (which may be relocating) were observed to include basic accommodations to address sensory needs.

The STEP program, a transition program for students with disabilities aged 18-21 who have post-secondary needs, is housed in a one-level building that includes classrooms along the exterior and an open office space in the center of the building. Restroom facilities, a kitchen training area, a primary office for the special education coordinator, and a few spaces designated as calming areas are part of the facility as well. Classroom spaces were designed specifically to be different than a typical high school classroom and to offer a more adult-like atmosphere; students work on IEP transition-related goals within the classroom and in training areas which were observed to be conducive to learning and able to meet the unique needs of students served in the program.

The few but commonly noted facility-related concerns noted by staff included some classrooms which can become overcrowded due to the number of students scheduled to receive instruction at the same time (which adds to distractions and increased behavioral issues), and lack of natural lighting and/or temperature issues (particularly problematic for students with sensory processing needs) within the smaller or interior special education classrooms. Several special education teachers noted some buildings need more or better-equipped sensory rooms. There were some special education providers who expressed frustration over having to “defend” the facility needs of special education students and programs in particular buildings as the perception is that general education needs take precedence when facility decisions are being made. While staff are willing to self-advocate for facility needs, they indicated back-up from special education administrators is needed as well. Building administrators noted a few drawbacks in certain buildings such as not having a setting 3 program in the building which results in going through a longer process to place the student in a district level setting 3 program or buildings that may lack a resource room or other designated space in the building (aside from the special education classroom where instruction is occurring).

The vast majority of special education teachers, related service providers, and paraprofessionals agreed special education facilities provide an atmosphere that generally is conducive to learning, are essentially equivalent to those in general education, and usually meet the special education students’ special physical, sensory, and emotional needs. Results of the onsite review and interviews completed by building administration, special education service providers, paraprofessionals and general education teachers conclude that overall, 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.

The completed or planned remodels, upgrades and repairs to buildings and classrooms are reportedly much-needed and those already done have remedied many issues and provided benefit to staff and students; staff from all groups are eager to see the results as construction efforts are completed over the next couple of years.

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.


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, including the use of assistive technology. Paraprofessionals reported that newly remodeled buildings include increased access to updated technology and other equipment; special education teachers reported they have access to knowledgeable and helpful technology specialists and building technology teams when questions about technology or its use arise. Several general education teachers also expressed appreciation for the Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing (DHH) teachers in the district who support others in use of specific technology needed to support DHH students. ECSE staff have access to an augmentative communication specialist who provides needed support in this area as well.

Eighty-nine percent of special education teachers and related service providers for school-agers, 100% of ECSE providers, 84% of paraprofessionals, and 90% of general education teachers agreed they have sufficient access to special equipment, assistive technology, and instructional materials necessary to implement students’ IEPs. The few issues noted by the remaining 10-15% of staff included concerns that special education classrooms’ furniture, technology and physical space are often the “left-overs” or “hand-me-downs” from general education, adding that there is seems to be a disparity in that it is primarily general education classrooms that have been moved to renovated sections of buildings thus far. A few special education staff suggested special education students would benefit from additional seating options within special education classrooms, i.e. standing desks, rolling chairs, etc. A small percentage of special and general education teachers also noted that special education classrooms are in need of more technology (specifically computers, tablets and software applications) to support student learning, and as noted previously, additional modified curriculum is needed in some classrooms as well.

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. Prior to making a request to purchase new materials or equipment, general and special education teachers discuss needs with building administration to determine what is available in the building and district. If necessary supplies are not available in the district,


special education teachers then check with the school psychologist and related service providers to determine if the materials or equipment is available through the special education library. If not, special education teachers and related service staff submit a requisition to the special education administrative assistant, which is then sent to the special education director for review and approval prior to ordering.


Topic Area: Room Used for Seclusion

The district has record of two schools, Forest Lake Elementary and Forest View Elementary, that each have one room actively used for seclusion. Two schools that previously included a room for seclusion, Southwest Junior High and Scandia Elementary, were reported as inactive in December, 2011 and November, 2017 respectively. Based on discussions with special education administrators, the seclusion rooms have not been used since the first couple months of the school year. The two seclusions rooms were observed by an MDE monitor during the onsite review and appeared to meet the requirements outlined in Minnesota Statute, section 125A.0942, subdivision 3, paragraph (a)(6)(i)-(vi). Staff did not report any concerns regarding the use of rooms used for seclusion and many confirmed the rooms are rarely used.


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.

Children ages birth to three:

As part of Minnesota’s statewide comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary interagency system to provide early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families, districts must have in place specific pre-referral, referral and post-referral policies and procedures. As confirmed by the special education director and ECSE staff, the district’s child find system for children ages birth to three include the following components:

• A public awareness program which prepares, shares and assists primary referral sources in disseminating to parents and families required information describing the availability of early intervention services, the district’s child-find system and how to refer a child under the age of three for an evaluation or for early intervention services. The district shares this information in child care centers, community agencies, with social workers and local hospitals/physicians, and on its website.

• A comprehensive child find system which includes a process for making referrals, provides for participation by the primary referral sources and ensures all infants and toddlers (including those who reside on Indian reservations, are homeless, in foster care, or are wards of the state) are identified, located and evaluated. The district provides professional development to general education staff and


private community preschools and child care centers about how to refer a child or how a parent can refer a child. ECSE staff also provide education and information to local medical providers through in-person meetings or by sending informational materials that outline the referral process and include district contacts.

• A variety of primary referral sources including Help Me Grow, hospitals (including prenatal and postnatal care facilities), physicians, parents, child care programs and early learning programs, local educational agencies, public health facilities, social service agencies, public agencies and staff in the child welfare system, and other clinics and health care providers.

• Post-referral screening procedures (i.e., screening instead of immediately conducting an initial evaluation for early intervention services, which is distinct from preschool screening) including the Ages and Stages questionnaire, observations and parent interviews.

• Steps and services to support the smooth transition of children from Part C to Part B (or to other appropriate services). IFSP and IEP team members meet to discuss evaluation results, educational needs, accommodations and other supports needed by students who are transitioning from Part C to Part B services and from early childhood to kindergarten as well.

• Additional outreach by the early childhood department includes home visits, hospital visits with new parents at Fairview (Wyoming location) to provide early childhood family education (ECFE) and referral information, mailing out welcome packets to new parents after notification of birth by Department of Human Services, offering parenting-related community education classes, and participating in community events to spread the word about ECFE and ECSE.

Forest Lake Public Schools includes staff representation on the Region 11 Interagency Early Intervention Committee (IEIC) which is responsible for the implementation of Help Me Grow’s child find and public awareness procedures in the 7-county metro area. Help Me Grow is a statewide initiative that conducts outreach and public awareness activities to connect young children who have developmental delays or disabilities and their families to free early intervention services. Help Me Grow offers information on child development and a way to refer an infant, toddler or preschooler for free help when there are developmental concerns. A few ECSE staff mentioned that at times there can be a bit of a delay in the district receiving a referral from Help Me Grow, which can make it challenging to meet due process timelines.

Children ages three to six:

The district’s child find system for locating, identifying and evaluating children and preschoolers ages 3 to 6 under Part B (including children on Indian reservations, who are homeless, in foster care, or are wards of the state) includes a Forest Lake Area Schools has a preschool screening process.

• A public awareness program which prepares, shares and assists primary referral sources in disseminating to parents and families required information describing the availability of early intervention services, the district’s child-find system and how to refer a preschool-aged child for an evaluation. Similar to its efforts at sharing information for referral of infants and toddlers, the district connects with a variety of referral sources in the local area to share information and training about the referral and special education process. Information is shared in person, via mail, advertising (in local establishments, agencies, child care centers, clinics, etc.) and the


district’s web site. District early childhood teachers are provided with professional development about special education procedures as well.

• A comprehensive child find system which includes a process for making referrals, provides for participation by the primary referral sources and ensures preschool-aged children (including those who reside on Indian reservations, are homeless, in foster care or are wards of the state) are identified, located and evaluated.

Once a referral is received, a trained professional in Forest Lake Area Schools calls the family to gather more detailed information about child’s developmental status. Depending on the nature of the concerns, a licensed special education teacher facilitates the assessment process, starting with proposing an evaluation plan and followed by coordinating the testing and results meeting. The educational team and families review the assessment results and determine if the student is eligible for special education and related services. If eligible, an Individual Education Program (IEP) is proposed to the family. If they are not eligible for services, the educational team discusses resources that the family can pursue to help support continued development.

School-aged students:

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 Forest Lake Area Schools confirmed students are receiving and teachers are documenting at least two pre-referral interventions in the regular classroom, though the level of consistency of implementation at the high school level is not as strong as within elementary buildings. General education teachers at Forest Lake Area Schools described participation in a variety of pre-referral process activities including implementing multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) in classrooms building-wide, participating in action-oriented discussions during professional learning communities (PLC) regarding students that are struggling, engaging in building problem solving teams (PST) to discuss and develop pre-referral interventions, and meeting with a variety of staff to determine if interventions are working, if additional interventions are warranted, or if a special education evaluation should be considered.

Across the district there are differences from building to building regarding the name of child find and child study teams, as well as each teams’ membership and the specific responsibilities of each team. For instance, several buildings refer to grade level team meetings as “huddle” meetings; during huddle meetings student concerns and tier 1 interventions are discussed, followed up by data collection and meetings to discuss progress. If concerns or a lack of progress continues after tier 1 interventions are implemented, the student and relevant data is discussed at PLC meetings to determine the next level of response. Finally, if a student is not responding positively to tier 1-2 interventions (part of the district’s MTSS), the student is put on the agenda for the PST who determine pre-referral interventions. So, the child study framework allows for teaming and flexibility within individual buildings but typically follows a similar flow of staff discussion and progressive interventions. When pre-referral interventions are not effective, the student is referred to the SST where special education staff and building administration determine whether a special education evaluation is should be considered, and if so, plan the evaluation. Many special education teachers, related service providers and general education teachers described the pre-referral process as streamlined and consistent, adding that staff receive ongoing training and


mentoring regarding referral procedures, and observe that the child find process has become more efficient, organized and clear over the past several years, particularly within elementary buildings.

The district also utilizes school-wide positive approaches to behavioral interventions so all students acquire appropriate behaviors and skills, including participation in school-wide PBIS. The various buildings teach to and discuss a building matrix of rules, providing group instruction and posting expectations (academic, behavioral, and social-emotional), in classrooms and throughout buildings. Social skills instruction district-wide is designed to address positive behavior skills to be exhibited at home and in the community as well as in school. Building staff incorporate the use of behavioral tracking and rating tools, implementing positive reinforcement in the form of rewards and student recognition. Students aged 18 through 21 participating in the district’s STEP program are taught soft skills that mirror social skills they learned in high school so learning can transfer to the work environment.

The various Forest Lake Area School buildings each have a designated child find team that meets at least twice per month, if not weekly, to discuss students participating in the child find process. The child find team typically includes a building administrator, school psychologist, related service providers when appropriate, special education teachers and a school social worker. With the understanding that identifying students potentially in need of special education assistance takes time, 75% of general education teachers still agreed that pre-referral interventions do not result in an unreasonable delay of initial evaluation for special education services. The remaining 25% perceive the length of time for interventions (up to six weeks each for two interventions) as too long, primarily because in most cases the general education teacher has already implemented interventions prior to taking concerns to one of the child study teams. A few teachers also see pre-referral interventions as a delay in necessary support for a student whose needs appear obvious or urgent.

Interview responses did not describe a policy or practice of delaying initial special education evaluations of English language learner students based on his or her English language learner status. When general education teachers were asked if there are any restrictions on the timing of referral for a special education evaluations, 35% responded no, 56% responded as unsure, and 9% responded yes. Of the 9% who indicated there are restrictions on the timing of referrals, some said referrals must be submitted by April 1, and others did not know the exact date but were certain there was a deadline.

Public school districts are also required to have in place child find processes for homeschooled students, private school students and students in alternative sites that include but are not limited to ALCs, alternative learning programs (ALPs) and care and treatment facilities. For students being homeschooled, the district provides notification that goes to all residents of Forest Lake area schools. In this communication, there is an explanation as to how a parent can find support for his or her child. For students who are in private schools, the director of special education meets with the private school building principal on an annual basis to discuss how special education will support the school. Forest Lake Area Schools provide a special education teacher, school psychologist, and related service staff to support private school students on IEPs, as appropriate. The team works with the private school teachers to ensure that students with disabilities are receiving appropriate services.

Concerns and recommendations: Over half of general education teachers are unsure or under the assumption there is a cut-off date by which a referral for a special education evaluation may be submitted. Since delaying a


special education evaluation based on an arbitrary calendar date potentially may result in a denial of FAPE, the district is advised to communicate this standard with all staff involved in the referral and child find processes to ensure consistent understanding district-wide.

Corrective Action: None.

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. Based on the district’s self-review of student records, the district appropriately uses evaluation materials and procedures first to determine if a student is a student with a disability as well as the educational needs of the student. Many special education teachers and related service providers reported that the establishment of evaluation teams across the district has streamlined the evaluation process and improved the comprehensiveness of evaluation reports.

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. Special education teachers reported when they have questions or need clarification in this regard they also can consult with the district’s equity team and various other district-level administration or support staff.


Topic Area: Transfer Process

Interview responses from special education teachers and related service providers suggest that Forest Lake Area Schools 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.

According to the special education director, for a student placed in care and treatment by the district, the district ensures the student receives an appropriate educational program. One of the two special education coordinators for the school district attends IEP meetings to ensure the student is afforded due process rights and that they will receive FAPE. The two coordinators continue to follow the student’s care and treatment educational programming and provide support for the student to ensure successful transition back into the district.


When a student requiring special education is placed for care and treatment, instruction begins within three business days after the student enters the care and treatment facility. If a student is enrolled in the educational program without an educational record or an IEP, phone contact is made with the resident district within one business day to determine if the student has been identified as disabled. If a student has been placed in a residential facility for 15 or more days, an exit report summarizing the regular education, special education (including the student’s IEP), evaluation, educational progress and service information is prepared and sent to the resident district and to the next providing district (if different), to the parent or legal guardian and to any appropriate social service agency.


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. Again, special education teachers and related service providers described compliant procedures in this regard.


Topic Area: Due Process Compliance

As part of the MDE Review process, the district reviewed a sample of special education records and reported the results to MDE. The results reported by the district and verified by MDE indicate that those records are in 100% compliance with Timeline, Evaluation and Eligibility Standards related to the evaluation process and identification of special education needs and related services. Notably, the district’s self-review of special education records during the Self-Review year of the program monitoring cycle also resulted in no findings. The district is commended for these ongoing compliance efforts.

Area 4: IEP and IFSP Process and Implementation

Topic Area: Least Restrictive Environment

Early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities are provided, to the maximum extent appropriate, in the child’s natural 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. Over one-third of special education teachers and related service providers highlighted the high level of consideration given by IEP teams when discussing the least restrictive environment for each student to ensure placement is individualized to the needs of the student. Many special education staff, including ECSE providers, noted teams do an excellent job of ensuring students with disabilities are integrated with general education peers to the maximum extent possible and with the level of support needed to be successful in the general education setting. A large number of general education teachers concurred that special and general education staff work together, i.e. team teaching, implementing accommodations, etc. within general education classrooms to support LRE.

The majority of staff reported no concerns regarding educational placement decisions or options available to students. Approximately 15% of special education teachers and related service providers, 18% of paraprofessionals and 15% of general education teachers shared concerns that certain students demonstrate the need for a more restrictive placement than the one in which the student is currently placed due to significant behavioral/safety needs. Reportedly, limited space within a federal setting 4 (separate special education site) can delay a student’s placement there despite his or her significant needs. In other cases, general education teachers noted there are some students who are very far behind academically, i.e. several grade levels behind peers, yet there is neither an equivalent academic special education class nor enough staffing support in the mainstream classroom to ensure materials are modified to the extent needed but still challenge the student.

The special education director described sufficient procedures that ensures a student placed outside of the district by an IEP team receives an appropriate IEP, the student is placed in the least restrictive environment and due process procedures associated with these responsibilities are followed.

Based on interview responses from the special education director and special education teachers, IEPs developed for students placed in care and treatment placement include provisions for coordinating the student’s care and treatment with special education services. When a student is placed for care and treatment and has an IEP in the resident district, an IEP team meeting is held to reach an agreement about continuing or modifying special education services in accordance with the current IEP’s goals and objectives and to determine if additional evaluations are necessary. Determinations of the amount and site of integrated services are a joint decision between the student’s parents or legal guardians and the treatment and education personnel. When applicable, educational placement decisions are made by the IEP team of the providing district.


Topic Area: Communicating IEP Content

Early childhood special education teachers and related service providers responsible for service coordination reported a range of services made available to infants and toddlers with disabilities and communicated to parents including facilitating and participating in the coordination of evaluations and assessments, facilitating and participating in the development and review of IFSPs, monitoring the delivery of services required to ensure services are provided in a timely manner, and assisting parents in obtaining access to needed early interventions


services. Early childhood special education staff reported no need to develop an interim IFSP within the last two years.

General education teachers, related service providers, paraprofessionals and special education teachers reportedly have access to the IEP of each school-aged student with a disability for whom they are responsible via receipt of or request to review of an entire copy or relevant portions of the IEP or through discussion of IEP content with service providers at the beginning of the school year and when appropriate. IEPs are maintained both in the students’ cumulative file and on the district’s secure electronic due process file system; service providers are given access to these files by the case manager, as appropriate. General education teachers and paraprofessionals are typically given a copy of modifications, accommodations and specific duties of paraprofessionals as relevant to the staff member’s role in implementing the IEP.

The overwhelming majority of paraprofessionals and general education teachers agreed that, despite licensed special education providers having high caseloads, case managers sufficiently inform IEP team members of their specific responsibilities and the specific accommodations, modifications and supports required by the IEPs of the students with whom they work. Many paraprofessionals shared that they talk daily with case managers and other IEP team members about student-specific goals, progress and concerns as well as to share updates when IEPs are revised. IEP team meetings and other staff meetings include group discussion of needs, modifications and accommodations to facilitate a smooth transition, with comparable services, in kindergarten. Overall, timely, frequent and thorough communication amongst teams was reported as a strength by all staff groups.


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. Overall, building administration, special education teachers and related service providers confirmed that the district representatives at IEP meetings held in Forest Lake Area Schools meet these qualifications. Approximately 10% of special education teachers and related service providers reported that when an administrative designee is assigned to this role, the designee does not meet all requirements. For example, a school counselor or dean often is asked to be an administrative designee, yet the counselors have not had this role or expectations of this role explained. In addition, neither counselors nor deans are clear if they have the authority to commit district resources during the IEP team meeting. From most staff reports, if an IEP team anticipates complex issues or decisions will need to be addressed during a team meeting, the building principal or other qualified administrator is notified so his or her attendance at the meeting is secured instead of a designee’s. General education teachers receive timely notice of IEP meetings; as members of the IEP team, general education teachers also fully participate in the determination of IEP services such as supplemental aids and services, behavioral supports and program modifications.

Concerns and recommendations: Staff reports indicate that not all administrative designees assigned to attend IEP team meetings have a clear understanding of the role and responsibilities of a district representative, and it is


not certain administrative designees have been given the authority to commit district resources at the time of the meeting. Therefore, the district is advised to ensure building administrators and all staff who potentially may be assigned as administrative designees are provided with the requirements of a district representative and relevant information and authority pertaining to this role.


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. Based on interview responses from building administration, special education teachers and related service providers, ESY services are made available as appropriate. Additionally, the district does not limit ESY services to particular categories of disability or unilaterally limit the type, amount, or duration of those services. Due to construction slated for this summer, ESY services typically located at the Forest Lake High school will occur at the CLC building.


Topic Area: Progress Reporting

For preschool-aged children, early childhood special education providers ensure periodic reviews are held at least every six months, as required by federal regulation.

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, though a few case managers indicated more training on this topic is needed in order to implement consistent procedures district-wide.


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.

The special education director and secondary coordinator, special education teachers and related service providers at Forest Lake Area Schools described secondary transition services, activities or programming opportunities provided or available to students with a disability, including work experience programs, courses of study available specific to students’ needs, college visits, partnerships with community agencies to support


employment, post-secondary education, and independent living skills as indicated by each student’s unique needs.

The STEP program provides transition services to students aged 18-21 that have post-secondary special education needs related to employment, education and independent living. The program provides for hands-on learning experiences on and off site in such areas as cooking, shopping, transportation and employment skills. Students with disabilities aged 18-21 also have the opportunity to participate in Project SEARCH, a partnership amongst business, education, vocational rehabilitation, a community rehabilitation partner, a local developmental disability organization and families. The goal of Project SEARCH is to provide on-site internship experiences so students with disabilities acquire marketable skills that can lead to competitive employment. Forest Lake Area Schools has been a part of Project SEARCH programs since 2009, hosting the Project SEARCH Fairview Lakes Medical Center of Wyoming site since January 2014 and the state of Minnesota program in St. Paul since September 2016.


Topic Area: Due Process Compliance

As part of the MDE Review process, the district reviewed a sample of special education records and reported the results to MDE. The results reported by the district and verified by MDE indicate that all records except one were found to be in 100% compliance with Timeline and IEP/IFSP Standards related to the IEP/IFSP process and provision of special education and related services. One IFSP was cited for noncompliance due to the periodic review not being held within required timelines. The finding was not systemic.

Notably, the district’s self-review of special education records during the Self-Review year of the program monitoring cycle resulted in no findings. The district is commended for its successful compliance efforts.


Topic Area: Strengths and Concerns

Strengths identified by the special education director, district administration, special education teachers, related service personnel, paraprofessionals and general education teachers regarding special education related to least restrictive environment, IFSP/IEP teams, communicating IFSP/IEP content, periodic reviews/progress reporting, or transition included the following:

• Paraprofessionals highlighted inclusive early childhood classrooms and comprehensive teaming within early childhood programs.

• Paraprofessionals also indicated students with disabilities are treated with dignity and respect and integrated to the fullest extent possible in general education.


Summary of Corrective Action Required

Formal findings of individual student record noncompliance were issued from 1 of the 20 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. Forest Lake Public School District (0831-01) was notified of individual student noncompliance on May 1, 2018. The sole citation of noncompliance has since been released from correction. No further action regarding individual student record noncompliance is required.

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 Restrictive Procedures Plan

Substitute Staffing Paraprofessional Training

Minnesota Stat. § 125A.0942 34 C.F.R. § 300.17

Minnesota Stat. § 125A.08 2 None N/A 3 None N/A 4 None N/A

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 interim lead monitor:

Rachael Arndt, Compliance Specialist Division of Compliance and Assistance 1500 West Highway 36 Roseville, MN 55113 651-582-8296 [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 16.3 percent (n = 1053) of the district total enrollment compared to the statewide average of 15.5 percent. Students receiving special education and related services within 0831-01 represent 15.1 percent (n = 975) of the district’s total enrollment. This data may include students who are open enrolled into the district, but does not include students in non-public educational settings unless the student receives special education and related services from the district. The district’s Part C child count (children birth through age 2) is 2.0 percent of the population compared to 2.8 percent statewide (preliminary). The “population” used is based on census data reported by the district to MDE.


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 1 individual finding on May 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

C Timelines: IFSP Periodic Review 34 CFR § 303.342 1


Complaint Decisions

Complaint files were reviewed for records of formal complaints filed regarding Forest Lake Public School District (0831-01) opened during the relevant time period. Findings of noncompliance were identified in the following areas, with corresponding complaint file reference number. Column three indicates whether the district was required to complete corrective action.

Area of Noncompliance Complaint Number

Corrective Action?

34 CFR § 300.324(b): Development, review, and revision of IEP 18-012-C Yes Minnesota Rule 3525.2810, subp. 1(10).: Development of individualized education program plan 18-012-C Yes Minnesota Statute § 125A.0942: Standards for Restrictive Procedures 18-012-C Yes

The corrective action ordered due through the above complaint for violation of Minnesota Rule 3525.2810, subp. 1(10) was related to the failure to include in the student’s IEP a statement of his need for, and the specific responsibilities of, a paraprofessional. Required corrective action included submitting a training plan for approval by MDE and implementation of training to ensure relevant staff include in IEPs a statement of students’ need for, and the specific responsibilities of, paraprofessionals. Evidence of completion of corrective action was submitted to MDE by the deadline date of December 15, 2017.

The corrective action ordered through the above complaint for violation of 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(b) was related to failure to conduct a timely review and revision of the student’s IEP to address the student’s attendance-related behavior during the 2016-17 school year. Required corrective action included the development or revision, as appropriate, of district practices and procedures for informing special education staff (e.g. IEP managers) when a student’s number of absences reaches a predetermined level, ensure relevant staff are knowledgeable about the practices and procedures, and that staff understand the need to address through the IEP process any attendance-related behavior that impedes a student’s learning. Evidence demonstrating required corrective action had been completed was submitted to MDE by the deadline of December 15, 2017.

The corrective action ordered through the above complaint for violation of Minnesota Statute § 125A.0942, subd. 3(a)(5), was related to failure to document and report a physical hold of the student and due to an administrator participating in the physical hold of the student without completing required training. Required corrective action included a the development and implementation of a training plan to ensure that all staff receive training on de-escalation techniques, that certified staff receive training on nonviolent crisis intervention, and that principals regularly discuss the use of restrictive procedures. The training plan was completed successfully during the 2017-18 school year.

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.

Forest Lake Public School District - Special Education Program Compliance Review Final Report - 2017-18 30

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 51 53 0 18 20 100 21 23 0 10 4 0 0 0 0 DB 0 0 0 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCD-MM 6 13 0 35 35 0 44 39 0 15 13 0 0 0 0 DCD-SP 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DD 67 64 0 33 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DHH 73 77 0 13 8 0 13 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBD 51 57 0 25 27 0 13 16 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 OHD 66 64 100 24 30 0 6 5 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 PI 70 79 0 20 14 0 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLD 66 68 67 32 30 33 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 SLI 99 99 100 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SMI 0 0 0 9 8 0 55 58 0 27 25 0 9 8 0 TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 VI 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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.


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 19 5 0 21 14 0 13 13 0 9 10 50 16 17 6 DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 50 0 0 0 DCD-MM 0 0 0 6 7 0 7 7 0 5 4 0 5 5 0 DCD-SP 0 0 0 3 4 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 DD 4 5 0 3 4 100 3 3 0 15 20 0 9 10 25 DHH 0 0 0 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 EBD 19 26 0 6 4 0 7 10 0 29 25 0 10 9 0 OHD 23 26 0 0 0 0 13 10 0 18 16 0 16 16 19 PI 0 0 0 9 11 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 SLD 12 16 0 32 36 0 50 50 100 15 16 0 19 19 12 SLI 19 21 0 12 14 0 0 0 0 6 8 0 19 19 19 SMI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 TBI 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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.


Age by Disability

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

Disability 0-2CC

0-2Srv

0-2 RR

3-5CC

3-5 Srv

3-5RR

6CC

6Srv

6RR

7CC

7Srv

7RR

8CC

8Srv

8RR

9CC

9Srv

9RR

10 CC

10 Srv

10 RR

11 CC

11 Srv

11 RR

12 CC

12 Srv

12 RR

ASD 0 0 0 18 21 0 20 20 0 25 21 0 12 11 0 11 12 0 14 10 0 19 18 0 13 11 0 DB 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 DCD-MM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 8 7 0 3 3 0 6 5 0 DCD-SP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 DD 97 97 67 44 45 33 21 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DHH 3 3 17 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 EBD 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 6 0 16 16 0 10 11 0 17 18 0 17 19 0 7 8 0 7 8 0 OHD 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 4 0 13 13 0 13 14 0 19 17 0 10 11 0 22 21 0 25 26 0 PI 0 0 0 3 3 33 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLD 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 13 16 0 23 21 0 19 21 0 20 21 0 26 26 0 38 39 0 SLI 0 0 0 31 28 33 41 43 0 32 29 0 37 39 0 30 27 100 28 28 0 16 18 0 7 8 0 SMI 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 TBI 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 VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disability 13CC

13Srv

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 18 16 0 14 15 0 25 23 14 12 15 50 16 17 0 6 10 0 25 27 0 50 44 0 25 33 0 DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCD-MM 8 9 0 8 8 0 5 5 0 8 7 0 4 2 0 16 17 0 8 9 0 25 22 0 75 67 0 DCD-SP 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 3 3 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DD 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 DHH 0 0 0 5 5 0 1 2 0 3 2 0 4 4 0 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBD 22 20 0 14 11 0 8 5 0 22 18 0 7 7 0 13 10 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OHD 18 20 0 19 19 0 26 30 43 22 25 0 32 26 0 32 28 0 8 9 0 25 11 0 0 0 0 PI 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 7 9 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 SLD 22 23 0 34 35 0 30 30 43 26 25 0 27 30 0 16 14 0 33 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLI 7 7 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SMI 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 0 17 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI 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

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