November 3, 2021

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Louisiana Department of Education
Attn: Legal Division
1201 North Third Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
DisputeResolution.DOE@la.gov

RE: First Amended Complaint Against the Office of Juvenile Justice and the Special
School District for Failure to Provide General and Special Education Services to Students
Detained at Acadiana Center for Youth – St. Martinville

To the Louisiana Department of Education:

The Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights (“LCCR”) and the Stuart H. Smith Law
Clinic & Center for Social Justice at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law (“Loyola
Law Clinic”) bring this Formal Written Complaint against the Office of Juvenile Justice (“OJJ”)
and the Special School District (“SSD”) under §§ 151 through 153 of Louisiana Bulletin 1706.
Together, we seek to vindicate the educational rights of students with disabilities who are
detained at OJJ’s Acadiana Center for Youth – St. Martinville facility (“St. Martinville”). Since
OJJ opened St. Martinville in July 2021, OJJ and SSD (collectively, “the defendants”) have been
systemically denying all students—including students with disabilities—access to
comprehensive general and special education during the entirety of their detention at St.
Martinville. The defendants’ failure to provide the children at St. Martinville with adequate
special and general education violates their obligations under state and federal law, including the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (“IDEA”), and
corresponding federal and state regulations. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.2(b)(iv); Louisiana Bulletin
1706 § 902.

Children in custody urgently require high-quality, consistent, and individualized

education while incarcerated. The stakes are high: Without access to meaningful learning
opportunities, children in custody are at risk of dropping out of school upon release, isolating
them from the programs, services, and supportive adults that can help them build ties to their
community and establish economic and life security. 1 These risks are particularly high for the
students at St. Martinville, a facility that exclusively serves children with significant behavioral
and mental health concerns. The children detained at St. Martinville are among the most
vulnerable students in Louisiana, and their need for intensive academic and behavioral supports

1
See Southern Educ. Found., Just Learning: The Imperative to Transform Juvenile Justice Systems into Effective
Educational Systems, 18, 27 (2014), https://tinyurl.com/fvmpw286 (explaining that as many as two thirds of
children who leave the juvenile justice system drop out of school).
in a supportive and individualized classroom setting is especially acute. By depriving them of
their right to receive general and special education, the defendants are also denying them the
means to succeed upon release.

We request that the Louisiana Department of Education (“LDE”) commence an

investigation and issue a written finding, pursuant to § 153 of Louisiana Bulletin 1706, that the
defendants systemically deprived the children at St. Martinville of their legal right to a free
appropriate public education (“FAPE”) by failing to provide special educational services to
children detained at St. Martinville. Because the right to receive FAPE under the IDEA
necessarily implicates the right to receive general education services in a stable and inclusive
school environment, this complaint raises concerns about the lack of comprehensive general
education at St. Martinville in addition to defendants’ failure to provide special education and
related services to students with disabilities at St. Martinville since July 2021. The defendants’
responsibility to provide education to children in custody is even more imperative given the
population of students served at St. Martinville. A child’s behavior and challenges do not
diminish defendants’ responsibility to provide education to students with disabilities. The IDEA
and its regulations apply with full force to children in juvenile detention, and the children
detained at St. Martinville deserve consistent, individualized, and ambitious special education
and related services no matter their location.

We ask LDE to mandate that defendants immediately comply with the IDEA and all
applicable state and federal laws and regulations regarding the provision of general and special
education to students in custody. We further request that LDE require defendants to provide
compensatory education to all students with disabilities who have been placed at St. Martinville
since the facility was opened and were denied special education services during that time.
Additionally, we request that LDE require defendants to develop a tracking system to identify
the children with disabilities in OJJ’s custody at each of its schools and to ensure that defendants
are aware of the needs of all students regardless of their placement within OJJ’s facilities.
Finally, we request that LDE require defendants to develop a plan for ensuring no OJJ facility is
established or used to detain children unless and until defendants have made arrangements to
ensure that educational services will be immediately provided upon entry. To effectuate these
remedies, we request that LDE contract with an independent monitor who can ensure that the
defendants meet their legal obligations to students with disabilities at all facilities in the future.

I. The Parties
LCCR is a nonprofit law office that represents children who are charged with
delinquency and status-based (“FINS”) offenses in New Orleans. Using a holistic advocacy
model, we represent our clients until their cases close, including during any time that they spend
in the custody of OJJ. In addition to providing other supports to our clients in OJJ custody, we
help our clients request and obtain appropriate educational services, including special education
services for students with disabilities. Through a partnership with the East Baton Rouge Office
of the Public Defender, we also work with children charged with delinquency and FINS offenses
in East Baton Rouge.

The Loyola Law Clinic is a legal clinic that represents indigent clients as part of the
mission of the non-profit institution of higher education. The Loyola Law Clinic gives third-year

Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights 2

law students the opportunity to be sworn in to practice law under the Louisiana Supreme Court
Student Practice Rule and put their classroom knowledge to work in representing those in need
under the supervision of clinic faculty. The Youth Justice section of the Loyola Law Clinic
focuses on advocating for the special education rights of students with disabilities, as well as
defending youth in delinquency proceedings.

OJJ is the agency responsible for “the care, custody, security, and treatment of children
adjudicated delinquent . . . and committed to the custody of . . . the office of juvenile justice” in
the state of Louisiana. La. R.S. § 36:408(H)(1). By statute, OJJ maintains facilities for children
who are placed in the custody of OJJ and who are determined by OJJ to require care and
treatment in a restrictive and secure setting. Id. § 36:408(H)(2)(d). There are currently five
secure care facilities operated by OJJ in Louisiana: Acadiana Center for Youth, Acadiana Center
for Youth – St. Martinville, Bridge City Center for Youth, Swanson Center for Youth –
Columbia, and Swanson Center for Youth – Monroe. 2 OJJ is responsible for providing all
educational services to students detained at secure care facilities. See La. R.S. §§ 17:10.9,
17:100.1. OJJ works with SSD to provide special education and related services to students
detained at OJJ’s secure care facilities. See La. R.S. § 17:1945(C). As a public agency educating
high-school aged students, OJJ is responsible for complying with the IDEA and Louisiana
regulations that require the provision of special education for youth with disabilities through
their twenty-first birthday. 3 Regardless of the manner in which the services are delivered, OJJ is
responsible for ensuring that students with disabilities receive special education and related
services under the IDEA. 34 C.F.R. § 300.2(b)(iv) (providing that the provisions of the IDEA
apply to all political subdivisions of the State, including “[s]tate and local juvenile and adult
correctional facilities”).

SSD is an educational service agency that provides special education to “any student with
disabilities who is enrolled in any state-operated facility as a resident of the facility.” Louisiana
Bulletin 1706, § 404. SSD provides special education and related services to students with
disabilities in OJJ’s secure care schools. See id.; La. R.S. § 17:1945(C).

II. Statement of Facts

In July 2021, OJJ opened the Acadiana Center for Youth – St. Martinville, a new secure
care facility designed as a behavioral treatment program for youth in the custody of OJJ. The St.
Martinville facility was established by OJJ with the stated purpose of providing specialized
supports for children who demonstrate severe behavioral health needs that jeopardize their ability
to benefit from programming at OJJ’s other secure facilities. 4

2
See Office of Juvenile Justice, Youth in Secure Care Facilities, https://tinyurl.com/x62vb8y3. St. Martinville is not
identified as an OJJ facility on the OJJ website, but a September 23, 2021, Youth Services Policy identifies the St.
Martinville facility as a newly-established “Transitional Treatment Unit” for children with severe behavioral health
needs. See Office of Juvenile Justice, Youth Services Policy: Transitional Treatment Unit (TTU), 3 (2021),
https://tinyurl.com/ex2wchw2 (identifying Acadiana Center for Youth – St. Martinville as a “maximum custody unit
for youth”).
3
“A free appropriate public education shall be available to all students residing in the state between the ages of 3
and 21, inclusive, including students with disabilities who have been suspended or expelled from school.” Bulletin
1706, § 101.
4
See Youth Services Policy: Transitional Treatment Unit (TTU), supra note 2, at 3.

Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights 3

 At least two months after OJJ began placing children at the St. Martinville facility, OJJ
promulgated a new Youth Services policy (“September 23 Policy” or “Policy”) pursuant to the
Deputy Secretary’s authority under La. R.S. § 36:405. The September 23 Policy establishes
program objectives and criteria for the placement of children at St. Martinville. 5 According to the
September 23 Policy, St. Martinville is a Transitional Treatment Unit, or TTU, designed to treat
and care for children with a documented need for intensive behavioral supports. 6 The Policy
explains that children are placed at St. Martinville only if they display significant behavioral
needs or violations, including a pattern of behavioral disruptions that have not responded to prior
intervention efforts. 7 In addition to serving youth in OJJ custody who have “significant
delinquency issues,” the Policy also provides that up to four spaces at St. Martinville are
reserved for children classified as “Seriously Mentally Ill,” a phrase the Policy defines to include
children with mood and cognitive disorders that “significantly interfere with functioning in at
least one essential sphere of the youth’s life.” 8 OJJ describes St. Martinville as a “specialty
program that ensures coordinated programming” for children with the highest needs. 9 Children
that are administratively placed at St. Martinville remain there for the entirety of a three-phase
treatment program that may last for at least four weeks, though it can also be extended
“depending on specific circumstances” that are not named or outlined in the Policy. 10 LCCR
represents clients who have spent over two months at St. Martinville during the course of the
treatment program. See Michael Grey Decl., Exhibit A.

The Policy makes several references to the educational programming that will be
provided at St. Martinville. According to OJJ, youth at St. Martinville will receive “the same
level of basic care services,” including educational services, as OJJ provides to youth at other
secure facilities. 11 The Policy explains that students will complete all coursework “via online
learning with the assistance of a teacher/facilitator.” 12 The Policy also states that the academic
program will be individualized according to each student’s “graduation plan, learning plan and
IEP requirements.” 13 It does not outline the manner in which OJJ will ensure that IEPs are
amended and implemented upon a student’s placement at St. Martinville, nor does it explain how
staff members at St. Martinville will ensure that students with IEPs receive individualized
instruction if they are limited to online learning—a manner of education that is not appropriate
for many children and can lead to significant regression and learning loss. 14

The Policy also provides information about OJJ’s staffing plans for St. Martinville. At a
minimum, OJJ plans to hire one “para educator or facilitator to provide academic assistance to

5
Id.
6
Id.
7
Id. at 5.
8
Id. at 3, 6.
9
Id. at 4.
10
Id. at 13–15.
11
Id. at 50.
12
Id.
13
Id. at 12.
14
See Sara Pagones, “She is regressing something fierce.” Special ed parents confront daunting coronavirus
challenges, NOLA.COM (Aug. 17, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/4w8y7zed (describing the challenges of virtual learning
for students with disabilities).

Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights 4

students” in the virtual learning program. 15 The Policy, which was written at least two months
after OJJ began placing children at St. Martinville, does not make clear whether these minimal
staffing requirements had been met at the time that St. Martinville began serving children in OJJ
custody. The Policy does not require OJJ to hire trained and certified teachers—only a single
“para educator” or “facilitator,” neither of which are defined in the Policy. In addition to
providing the minimal staffing requirements, the Policy outlines the preferred staffing structure
at St. Martinville. Whenever feasible, the Policy requires OJJ to hire up to three teachers and
“one special education aide whenever needed.” 16 The Policy makes no reference to related
service providers, including school-based counselors, speech therapists, or physical therapists, or
how these services will be provided to students whose IEPs mandate related services at St.
Martinville. The Policy also does not reference SSD or SSD’s role in providing special education
to students with disabilities in OJJ facilities.

Despite the Policy’s description of educational services, children at St. Martinville report
that they have not received any educational services—including general or special educational
programming—during the entirety of their time at St. Martinville. See Michael Grey Decl.,
Exhibit A. They report that they are confined to cells for the vast majority of their day—up to 23
hours per day—and that they do not have the opportunity to meet with teaching staff, related
service providers, or any other adults providing educational programming. Id. Although OJJ has
claimed that students are being provided worksheets, written work without the support of trained
and certified general and special educators is not sufficient to satisfy OJJ’s obligation to provide
education. In fact, as recently as the last week of October 2021, OJJ staff members have stated
on the record during two separate hearings in juvenile court that there is no educational
programming being provided at St. Martinville. Id.

OJJ’s responses to LCCR’s inquiries about educational programming at St. Martinville

further confirm our belief that OJJ is not providing appropriate and comprehensive educational
services at the St. Martinville facility. On August 19, 2021, LCCR requested educational records
for a client placed at St. Martinville, including transcripts, report cards, course schedules, and
special education records. See 8.19.21 Records Request, Exhibit B. Pursuant to state law, OJJ is
required to maintain cumulative education records for students in its custody, including special
education records for students with disabilities. See Bulletin 111, § 3611. After numerous follow-
up requests, OJJ finally provided educational records for LCCR’s client on September 14, 2021.
See 9.14.21 OJJ Response to Records Request, Exhibit C. Even though LCCR’s client was
transferred to St. Martinville at the end of July 2021, see Judgment, Exhibit D, all of the records
OJJ provided in September 2021 documented educational services that our client received at his
previous OJJ school, Riverside Alternative High School at Bridge City Center for Youth. 9.14.21
OJJ Response to Records Request, Exhibit C. When LCCR requested clarification, OJJ
confirmed that the records they shared were the only educational records on file for our client. 17
See OJJ Clarification Response, Exhibit E. More recently, we requested records on behalf of
another LCCR client who is a special education student currently detained at St. Martinville. The

15
See Youth Services Policy: Transitional Treatment Unit (TTU), supra note 2, at 38.
16
Id.
17
The response referred to another set of records shared on May 6, 2021, well before our client was moved to St.
Martinville. Like the records shared on September 14, 2021, the May 6, 2021 records described educational
activities at Bridge City and not at St. Martinville.

Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights 5

records provided by OJJ, which represent the “most recent education records” for our client,
describe our client’s educational program and progress at Southside Alternative High School, his
previous educational placement, and not at St. Martinville. See OJJ Response to Records Request
2, Exhibit F.

Beyond our work with individual clients, we have also sought policies and records from
OJJ regarding the general and special education programs provided to all students at St.
Martinville. See LPRA St. Martinville Request 1, Exhibit G. On October 1, LCCR submitted a
request for records under the Louisiana Public Records Act (“LPRA”) seeking the following
information from OJJ:

1. Any and all calendars, service logs, progress reports, or other records or
documents demonstrating all school sessions that have taken place at St.
Martinsville since the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year, including days when
school has not taken place.
2. A list of all school staff at St. Martinsville, including role, subjects taught,
credentials, and years employed by the Office of Juvenile Justice.
3. Redacted and anonymized list of students enrolled in school at St. Martinsville,
including race, disability status, classification under the IDEA, if applicable, grade,
and age.
4. Redacted and anonymized versions of school schedules for all students attending
school at St. Martinsville.
5. Any and all curricula utilized to teach students detained at St. Martinsville since
the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year.
6. Any and all training documents used to train school staff at St. Martinsville in
providing an appropriate education to all children enrolled at St. Martinsville,
including all documents used to ensure that children suspected of having a disability
are identified and evaluated.
7. Any and all electronic or written communications between St. Martinsville and
the schools at other OJJ facilities regarding the transfer and collection of student
school records, the determination of student course assignments at St. Martinsville,
and reporting on student academic progress.

On October 7, OJJ responded to inform LCCR that “no responsive documents exist.” See
OJJ LPRA Response, Exhibit H. LCCR sent a second public records request on October 25
seeking the same items as well as other related communications, policies, and curriculum
information pertaining to general and special education programming at St. Martinville. See
LPRA St. Martinville Request 2, Exhibit I. We specifically requested information from OJJ
regarding communications between SSD about St. Martinville and the students with disabilities
at the St. Martinville facility. Though OJJ confirmed receipt of the second request, we have not
received any documents or another response to our second request for information as of the time
of this filing.

On November 1, 2021, we learned that OJJ has taken steps to begin implementing a
general education program at St. Martinville, including hiring a general education teacher. OJJ

Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights 6

claims to have plans to hire an additional teacher later this week. Despite these efforts, OJJ has
not demonstrated that any educational services have actually been provided to children at St.
Martinville since July 2021. In particular, the defendants have not yet hired or taken steps to hire
or contract with special education teachers and other instructional staff who can implement the
IEPs of students with disabilities at St. Martinville. OJJ’s failure to respond to LCCR’s second
public records request, combined with the other facts described above, make it clear that the
defendants have not yet provided any special education or related services to the students with
disabilities detained at St. Martinville. Recent efforts to begin providing education over three
months after opening a facility without a school or teaching staff are inadequate to comply with
the defendants’ obligations under federal and state law.

III. Claims
The defendants’ failure to provide students detained at St. Martinville with consistent and
individualized general and special education services violates their legal obligation to provide
FAPE under the IDEA. For some students, this serious deprivation has persisted for more than
two months, causing them to fall behind their peers in learning, jeopardizing their ability to meet
end of course and IEP goals, and increasing the risk that they will fail to gain the necessary skills
and knowledge to pass required standardized tests, earn course credits, and obtain their high
school diplomas upon release. Students with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to adverse
academic consequences caused by inconsistent access to educational services. 18 Because St.
Martinville was explicitly established by OJJ to serve students with significant mental and
behavioral challenges, we believe that many students detained at St. Martinville have either
already been found eligible for special education services or should have been evaluated for a
disability. The defendants are responsible for providing the students at St. Martinville with
special education and general education regardless of the behaviors and circumstances that led
OJJ to place children at this facility; there is no exception to the IDEA for children detained in
juvenile jails or prisons. The defendants’ failure to provide educational programming to students
with the most significant behavioral and mental health needs violates their legal obligations as
the educators of vulnerable children in Louisiana.

We are aware that there have been claims that students at St. Martinville are provided
with educational worksheets to complete in their cells. We are also aware that OJJ claims to have
hired a teacher at the beginning of November 2021 who will begin providing general education
services to students at St. Martinville. These minimal efforts are inadequate to meet the general
and special education needs of students at St. Martinville. Providing worksheets is not one of the
specified educational services outlined in the September 23 Policy, which asserts that all children
at St. Martinville will receive a virtual learning environment, that they will be provided with the
services outlined in their IEPs, and that they will receive educational services that are
comparable to those provided at other OJJ facilities. More importantly, for students with
disabilities, neither non-individualized worksheets nor a general education program alone are
sufficient to provide FAPE. Without the assistance of trained special education teachers, students
with disabilities cannot gain an educational benefit and will fail to progress academically.

18
Education in a Pandemic: The Disparate Impacts of COVID-19 on America’s Students, U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC.
(June 9, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/3z4bh7d4.

Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights 7

Students with disabilities require support from skilled and certified special education teachers,
not a one-size-fits-all series of worksheets.

Finally, any steps that the defendants have recently taken to rectify this situation cannot
change the fact that an unknown number of students have been detained at St. Martinville over
the course of more than three months without receiving educational services. OJJ’s decision to
open a facility to serve youth with significant needs before arranging for educational
programming is indicative of systemic failures to make education a priority for children in
custody. Through this complaint, we seek to ensure that students with disabilities who are served
by SSD and OJJ are never again deprived of their educational rights.

The defendants’ failure to provide education to students with disabilities at St.

Martinville violates several provisions of the IDEA and related state regulations. Specifically, the
defendants have failed to (1) develop and implement “child find” services; (2) provide an
“appropriate secondary education” to students with disabilities; (3) provide students with
disabilities a “meaningful educational benefit,” (4) implement the IEPs of students with
disabilities; (5) abide by procedural protections under the IDEA; (6) hire teachers and other staff
with appropriate certifications; and (7) provide compensatory education to students with
disabilities who have been denied special education and related services during their time at St.
Martinville.

1. Failure to Develop and Implement Child Find Protections

The defendants’ failure to provide educational programming to students detained at St.
Martinville makes it impossible for defendants to develop and adhere to procedures for
identifying, locating, and evaluating all students suspected of having a disability—a key
requirement of the IDEA.

Under federal law, agencies responsible for educating children have an affirmative
obligation to identify, locate, and evaluate students with disabilities, also known as the agency’s
“child find” obligations. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.111(a)(1)(i). The IDEA
further requires public agencies to develop and implement “a practical method . . . to determine
which students are currently receiving needed special education and related services.” 34 C.F.R.
§ 300.111(a)(1)(ii). In Louisiana, state regulations require public agencies to document all
activities used to “identify, locate, and evaluate each student who is suspected of having an
exceptionality” that would entitle the student to special education and related services. Louisiana
Bulletin 1508, § 103(A)(2).

Both federal and state guidance clarify that agencies responsible for providing care and
treatment to children adjudicated delinquent have the same child find obligations as schools in
the community. Section 103(A)(2)(a) of Louisiana Bulletin 1508 explains that a public agency’s
child find obligations extend to children who are “enrolled in an educational program operated
by or under the jurisdiction of a public agency.” The IDEA includes “state and local juvenile and
adult correctional facilities” in its list of public agencies that are responsible for abiding by the
provisions of the statute. 34 C.F.R. § 300.2(b)(iv). The United States Department of Education
has explicitly reminded states that all provisions of the IDEA, with limited exceptions not
applicable in the context of juvenile secure care facilities, apply to agencies responsible for

Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights 8

educating children in juvenile facilities. 19 “It is not sufficient to assume that a student who enters
a correctional facility is not a student with a disability simply because he or she has not yet been
identified as such.” 20 If an agency suspects that a student has a disability, it must seek parental
consent and initiate an evaluation “even if the student will not be in [the] facility long enough to
complete the evaluation.” 21 Thus, the fact that St. Martinville is a “transitional” facility does not
relieve the defendants of their obligations under federal and state law.

The defendants’ failure to provide comprehensive educational services to students

detained at St. Martinville is a direct violation of its child find responsibilities. In order to
comply with the child find requirements of the IDEA and state and federal regulations, the
defendants must continuously monitor students in an academic setting to determine whether their
academic progress and performance lead to a suspicion that they may have a disability. Although
there is no bright-line rule, courts in the Fifth Circuit have held that a public agency’s child find
duty is generally triggered if the school “is aware of facts suggesting the child has a disability
and that the child is struggling academically.” D.C. v. Klein Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 20-20339,
2021 WL 2492842, at *12 (5th Cir. June 17, 2021). Because defendants are not providing
children at St. Martinville with educational programming that is monitored and delivered by
trained educators who are evaluating student progress and academic concerns, the defendants
cannot possibly maintain effective systems or procedures for identifying and locating students in
need of a special education evaluation. When asked for documentation related to education at St.
Martinville, OJJ stated that “no responsive documents” exist, and OJJ representatives later stated
on the record at the Orleans Parish Juvenile Court that no school is being provided at St.
Martinville. Even if students are receiving worksheets, those worksheets are not regularly
reviewed or graded by educators who have the training and experience to identify student needs
and determine whether a student’s progress or failure to progress raises a concern that they may
have a qualifying disability under the IDEA.

The defendants’ failure to comply with their child find obligations is particularly
egregious given that all students who are placed at St. Martinville have significant behavioral
and mental health conditions that could serve as child find triggers under the law. A district may
be required to evaluate a student for special education if it is “on notice of acts or behavior likely
to indicate a disability.” Spring Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. v. O.W., 961 F.3d 781, 794 (2020)
(emphasis added). OJJ’s September 23 Policy explains that students will only be placed at St.
Martinville if they have serious behavioral concerns or are determined to be seriously mentally
ill. The particular population served by St. Martinville is therefore likely to have an even higher
incidence of IDEA-qualifying disabilities than the general OJJ population, which already

19
“Absent a specific exception, IDEA protections apply to students with disabilities in correctional facilities.” Dear
Colleague Letter, OSEP, 114 L.R.P. 51903 (Dec. 5, 2014), at 1 (citing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, “which prohibits disability discrimination in programs . . . such as correctional facilities, that receive Federal
financial assistance”; and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, “which prohibits disability
discrimination by public entities, including public schools and correctional agencies, regardless of whether they
receive Federal financial assistance”).
20
Id. at 11.
21
Id.at 3–4 (emphasis added).

Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights 9

includes a disproportionately large population of children with disabilities. 22 Yet despite the high
needs of the population served by the St. Martinville facility, we are not aware of any special
education evaluations that have been initiated for students detained at St. Martinville since the
facility opened in July 2021. OJJ’s responses to LCCR’s records request further confirm that the
defendants are not maintaining regular or comprehensive child find procedures at St.
Martinville. 23 As a result, we believe that the defendants have failed to develop procedures for
ensuring data is collected to fulfill their child find obligations at St. Martinville, and defendants
are therefore in violation of the IDEA.

2. Denial of FAPE by Failing to Provide an “Appropriate Secondary Education” to

Students at St. Martinville
The IDEA requires that students between the ages of three and twenty-one be afforded a
“free appropriate public education,” or FAPE. In addition to providing special education and
related services, a FAPE “[i]nclude[s] an appropriate . . . secondary school education in the State
involved.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.17. State law determines the contours of an “appropriate secondary
education.” 24 Under Louisiana law, all students—including students with disabilities and
students in a general education program—are entitled to receive at least 360 minutes (6 hours) of
instructional time, exclusive of recess, lunch, and teacher planning periods, each day. La. R.S. §
17:154.1(A)(1); see also Bulletin 741, §§ 117(A), 705(B). Federal regulations state that the term
“school day” has the same meaning for all children in school, including children with disabilities.
34 C.F.R. § 300.11(c)(2). There is no exception for children, with disabilities or without, who are
being held in custody. And, indeed, attendance in school is compulsory for all youth who are
seventeen and under in Louisiana. La. R.S. § 17:221.

Because students at St. Martinville are not receiving consistent and comprehensive
educational programming, the defendants are not providing students at St. Martinville an
appropriate secondary education under Louisiana state law or the IDEA. Delivering worksheets
to students does not meet defendants’ significant obligation to provide six hours of school per
day to all students, including students with disabilities. Additionally, all high school students in
Louisiana, including students with disabilities, take a curriculum that is aligned with the national
Common Core Curriculum, and high school students take End of Course tests (EOCs) and earn
Carnegie Units toward graduation. 25 Without a comprehensive educational program that is

22
According to the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, up to 70% of children in the juvenile legal system have mental
health, sensory, or learning disabilities that impact their performance in school. Youth with Undiagnosed or
Mistreated Disabilities, COALITION FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE, https://tinyurl.com/9unje2cb.
23
LCCR requested information about communications between SSD and OJJ pertaining to students placed at St.
Martinville. As of the time of this filing, OJJ has not responded to that request, but it has previously said that no
responsive documents exist regarding the provision of general or special education to students at St. Martinville.
24
Cf. Letter to Cort, 110 L.R.P 73615 (May 14, 2010) (explaining that students who voluntarily enroll in GED test
preparation programs are not entitled to special education unless the state considers such programs to be
“appropriate secondary” programs).
25
Louisiana Dep’t of Educ.,Common Core State Standards Frequently Asked Questions, available at
https://tinyurl.com/fb7zt5kh; Louisiana Dep’t of Educ., End-of-Course Tests, available at
https://tinyurl.com/zf57jddm; see also Bulletin 741, § 1103 (“[T]o be eligible to receive grades, high school students
shall be in attendance a minimum of 30,060 minutes (equivalent to 83.5 six-hour school days), per semester or
60,120 minutes (equivalent to 167 six-hour school days) a school year for schools not operating on a semester
basis.”).

Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights 10

aligned to course standards, students detained at St. Martinville cannot obtain the knowledge
necessary to meet these rigorous goals. As a result, all students at St. Martinville, including
students with disabilities, are necessarily being denied an “appropriate secondary education”
under the IDEA during any time that defendants fail to ensure that a regular education program is
provided to students at St. Martinville in accordance with Louisiana state law.

3. Denial of FAPE to Students with Disabilities

Every student with a disability who is eligible for services under the IDEA has an IEP,
the “cornerstone” of the IDEA. White v. Ascension Parish Sch. Bd., 343 F.3d 373, 378 (5th Cir.
2003). Each student’s IEP must be “reasonably calculated” to confer an educational benefit on
the child and “to enable [the] child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s
circumstances.” Endrew F. v. Douglad Cnty. Sch. Dist., RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 999 (2017). Under
the IDEA, each child with a disability must be provided with individually tailored educational
services to enable them to receive a free appropriate public education. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(8)(D). A
child’s IEP identifies the special education and related services that will be necessary to provide
the child with FAPE. Both special education and related services, including programming like
speech therapy and counseling, are provided to the child so that the child may “advance
appropriately toward attaining . . . annual goals” and, when possible, “make progress in the
general education curriculum.” Id. at 994 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV)). IEPs must
contain annual goals and describe the manner in which the public agency will provide reports
“on the progress the student is making toward meeting the annual goals” on the IEP. 34 C.F.R. §
300.320(a)(3)(ii). Additionally, students with disabilities are entitled to receive transition
services once they reach their sixteenth birthday. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII); Bulletin
1706, § 320(B). Transition services are defined as a “coordinated set of activities for a child with
a disability” that will help “facilitate the child’s movement from school to post-school activities,
including postsecondary education, vocational education, integrated employment . . . [and]
independent living.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.43(a). Transition services are considered special education
when they are provided as “specially designed instruction,” or related services when they are
required “to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education.” Id. § 300.43(b).

Public agencies responsible for complying with the IDEA are obligated to provide the
education and related services outlined in each student’s IEP. Likewise, public agencies are
responsible for ensuring that transition plans are included in each child’s IEP and that transition
services are provided to assist the child in reaching individualized post-secondary goals. “A State
covered by the IDEA must provide a disabled child with such special education and related
services ‘in conformity with the [child’s] . . . IEP.” Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 994 (citing 20
U.S.C. § 1401(9)(D)). If a public agency fails to implement “substantial or significant provisions
of the IEP,” the school has denied the student a FAPE and must provide compensatory education
to address the learning that was lost as a result of the deprivation. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v.
Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341, 349 (5th Cir. 2000). The United States Department of Education has
affirmed that public agencies serving students in custodial settings are under the same obligation
as community schools to implement and comply with the services in each student’s IEP. 26
Supportive special education services are necessary to help children in custody make a “smooth

26
Letter to Chief State School Officers and State Attorneys General, 114 L.R.P. 26961 (June 9, 2014).

Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights 11

transition back into their communities,” and consistent IEP implementation ensures that students
receive the support they need without gaps or disruptions. 27

The defendants’ failure to provide educational services to students at St. Martinville

necessarily means that they are not providing FAPE to students with disabilities who are
detained at St. Martinville. As stated above, the specific needs of the students placed at St.
Martinville suggests that many students administratively transferred from other OJJ facilities to
St. Martinville have IEPs that entitle them to special education and related services. Failing to
follow those IEPs and provide the services outlined in them is a direct and clear violation of the
IDEA. When asked for progress reports, service logs, and other documents demonstrating the
dates on which education has been provided to students at St. Martinville, OJJ responded that no
responsive documents exist. OJJ’s inability to provide documentation of school programming
demonstrates that transition services are also not being provided to students with disabilities at
St. Martinville, and OJJ is not complying with its obligation to provide regular progress reports
to students and families regarding progress towards annual goals. 28 Because OJJ was not able to
provide documents demonstrating that student educational records had been shared between
OJJ’s other secure facilities and St. Martinville, it is not clear that St. Martinville staff are even
aware that individual students may have IEPs, and the September 23 Policy provides no
explanation of the mechanism for providing these records to staff at St. Martinville. Indeed,
OJJ’s inability to provide a list of school staff members that have been hired at St. Martinville
suggests that—at least until November 1, 2021—there were no school staff available to receive
educational records for students detained at the facility even if those records had been shared. If
St. Martinville is unaware “of the existence of [students’] IEP[s] or [their] content, it is self-
evident that they cannot implement [them].”29

Though a public agency may hold an IEP meeting to amend a student’s special education
programming if required by the child’s individual needs, the defendants did not comply with the
procedural steps necessary to amend each student’s IEP. First, there are no special education
teachers at St. Martinville, as evidenced by OJJ’s inability to provide a list of teachers in
response to LCCR’s public records request. In order to hold a valid IEP meeting under the IDEA,
the defendants must ensure that special education teachers are included in the meeting. See 34
C.F.R. § 300.321(a)(3). Moreover, even if the defendants held IEP meetings for every student
with a disability who was moved to St. Martinville, a public agency has an obligation to ensure
that each child’s IEP is “appropriately ambitious” and “reasonably calculated to enable [the]
child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F., 137 S. Ct.
at 999, 1000. Removing all special education services simply because of the lack of staff and
resources at the facility is not appropriate under the IDEA. The defendants cannot deprive
students of their legal right to receive individualized special education based on factors unrelated
to individual student needs.

27
Id.
28
Quarterly progress reporting is provided every nine weeks during the school year. Upon information and belief,
some students with disabilities have been at St. Martinville for over nine weeks this school year, but they have not
received special education or related services or been provided progress monitoring during that time.
29
Mississippi Dep’t of Educ., 116 L.R.P. 1277 (Jan. 12, 2016) (holding that the Mississippi Department of
Education denied FAPE to students with disabilities in a juvenile correctional facility by failing to timely obtain
students’ IEPs upon transfer).

Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights 12

 Finally, even if the defendants are providing non-individualized worksheets to students at
St. Martinville, that minimal effort is not sufficient to meet their obligations under the IDEA.
The IDEA requires defendants to provide the unique combination of special education and
related services, including individualized transition services, outlined in each student’s IEP. In
the context of the Mississippi Detention Center’s use of an exclusively virtual education
program, the Department of Justice recently reiterated that a “one-size-fits all” approach to
children’s special education needs violates the IDEA. 30 Worksheets are even less supportive and
responsive than a virtual learning program, and neither alone can satisfy the IDEA’s stringent
mandate to provide individualized programming to students with disabilities. Because defendants
are not implementing the IEPs of students with disabilities at St. Martinville—including
providing special education, related services, transition services, and programming that is
individualized and appropriately ambitious for each student—they have failed to provide
students with disabilities an educational benefit and has therefore failed to provide FAPE.

4. Failure to Abide by Procedural Protections Before Changing the Educational

Placement of Students with Disabilities
When a public agency proposes to change the educational placement of a child with a
disability, the agency must follow specific procedural safeguards, including providing prior
written notice to parents before the change goes into effect. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(a). A
change of placement occurs if the educational services and program provided to the child are
substantially or materially changed. See, e.g., Veazey v. Ascension Parish Sch. Bd., 121 F. App’x
552, 553 (5th Cir. 2005). There are additional protections for students with disabilities whose
placement is changed as a result of school-based behavior. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.536; Louisiana
Bulletin 1706, § 536. Within ten school days of any decision to change the placement of a child
with a disability due to a behavioral violation, the public agency must conduct a manifestation
determination review. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e). During a manifestation determination review,
parents and other members of the IEP team review the student’s records and information about
the behavior and answer two questions: (1) whether the conduct in question was “caused by, or
had a direct and substantial relationship to the child’s disability,” and (2) whether “the conduct in
question was the direct result” of the school’s “failure to implement the IEP.” Id. If the answer to
either of those questions is yes, the behavior was a manifestation of the child’s disability and the
school must return the child to the previously agreed-upon educational placement. 31

Based on OJJ’s inability to provide documents indicating that meetings were held for
students who were transferred to St. Martinville, the defendants did not notify parents before
removing children from their previous educational setting. For students who are 18 or over, the
defendants were required to provide notice and hold meetings with the individual students before
changing their placement. See Bulletin 1706, §§ 520, 905 (describing the transfer of parental

30
Id.
31
There are exceptions to this rule if the child was in possession of a weapon or drugs on school premises or
inflicted serious bodily injury upon another person at school. 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(g). Even if that is the case,
however, students may not be excluded from school for more than forty-five school days, and school personnel can
only remove the student “to an interim alternative educational setting”—not remove them from school altogether.
Id.; Bulletin 1706, § 530(G). Additionally, public agencies must still provide notice to parents or students who have
reached the age of majority on the date of the change of placement decision even if one of the exceptions apply.
Bulletin 1706, § 530(H).

Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights 13

rights at the age of majority). To the extent that the removal was the result of school-based
behaviors, the defendants have not complied with their obligation to hold manifestation
determination reviews for children with disabilities before excluding them from school.
Depriving children of educational services and the support of teachers is a substantial and
material alteration to every child’s school programming, and therefore requires compliance with
procedural protections.

The fact that OJJ established St. Martinville to provide treatment for students with
significant behavioral concerns does not alter these procedural requirements. Under the IDEA,
schools are entitled to hold IEP meetings to make changes to students’ IEPs when they are
warranted by the student’s needs, but they may not eliminate or alter services without notice and
compliance with procedures. The defendants did not hold any meetings or provide notice to
families before eliminating all services for the children detained at St. Martinville. There is no
security or safety exception to the IDEA for students with disabilities in juvenile detention
facilities: Students with disabilities are protected by all of the IDEA’s protections even when
they engage in behavior that requires intervention and treatment. By failing to abide by these
laws, the defendants deprived students with disabilities of their procedural protections under the
IDEA.

5. Failure to Hire Qualified Special Education Teachers

The IDEA requires state education agencies to establish and maintain personnel
qualifications and certification requirements for related services providers and special education
teachers. See 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(14)(C); Bulletin 1706, § 156. Specifically, all special education
teachers who are employed by secondary schools must have obtained “full State certification as a
special education teacher” or “passed the State special education teacher licensing examination,”
and they must hold a “license to teach in the State as a special education teacher.” 20 U.S.C.
1412(a)(14)(C). Likewise, related service providers must be licensed or certified under
applicable professional rules established by the State. 34 C.F.R. 300.156(b)(1). The Louisiana
Department of Education establishes and maintains qualifications for special education teachers
in Bulletin 746 and requires local education agencies to “take measurable steps to recruit, hire,
train, and retain highly qualified personnel to provide special education and related services” to
students with disabilities. See Bulletin 1706, § 156.

Public agencies that provide education to children with disabilities must ensure that
special education teachers are employed at their schools and available to provide services to
children with disabilities. IDEA regulations require public agencies to ensure that a special
education teacher with knowledge of the child’s needs is included in all IEP team meetings. See
34 C.F.R. § 300.321(a)(3). Parents or staff may also request the attendance of other members of
the team with “knowledge or special expertise regarding the child,” including related services
providers, at IEP meetings. Id. § 300.321(a)(6). Additionally, public agencies are responsible for
providing each student’s IEP to special education teachers and other staff members who are
responsible for implementing and enforcing them. See Bulletin 1706, § 1320.

When asked for a list of staff responsible for providing education at St. Martinville, OJJ
informed LCCR that no responsive documents exist. Though OJJ now claims to have hired a
general education teacher to serve children at St. Martinville, the defendants’ failure to ensure

Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights 14

that special education teachers are employed at St. Martinville means that they are out of
compliance with the IDEA. Our work on behalf of individual students further confirms that
defendants have not ensured that there are any certified or licensed teachers at St. Martinville, in
violation of the IDEA and its regulations. Lack of adequate staff does not relieve the defendants
of their obligations to provide special education and related services to students with disabilities
at St. Martinville. 32 Defendants must immediately hire special education teachers and related
service providers who are certified and licensed according to State requirements.

6. Failure to Provide Compensatory Education to Address Learning Losses Caused

by FAPE Deprivations
When a public agency fails to provide special education and related services in
accordance with a child’s IEP, the proper remedy is compensatory education. Compensatory
education is designed to “place children in the position they would have been in but for the
violation of the [IDEA].” 33 Compensatory education is intended to remedy a district’s failure to
provide the education and related services mandated in a student’s IEP, all of which must be
reasonably calculated to provide an educational benefit. 34

Because the defendants have not provided special education to any student with a
disability at St. Martinville since the facility opened, they must provide compensatory education
to all students who have been denied special education and related services as a result of this
failure. Upon information and belief, the defendants do not currently have a process for
providing compensatory education to students with disabilities who have been or are currently
placed at St. Martinville. Students in OJJ custody have been forced to remain at St. Martinville
for months, far exceeding the stated timeline of the three-phase program in the September 23
Policy. During this time, students are not receiving special education services and are regressing.
The defendants must provide compensatory education to all of these students as quickly as
possible to allow them to regain learning losses and maintain academic progress.

To the extent that the defendants have begun to provide special education and related
services in a comprehensive and consistent manner at any time since opening the facility in July
2021, they remain responsible for providing compensatory services to students who spent any
period of time at St. Martinville without these necessary services.

IV. Remedy Requested

Considering the violations identified in this complaint, we request that LDE commence
an investigation and issue a written finding, pursuant to § 153 of Louisiana Bulletin 1706, that
the defendants systemically deprived the children detained at St. Martinville of their legal right
to FAPE by failing to provide educational services since the facility was opened in July 2021.

32
See Baltimore Cnty. Pub. Schs., 119 L.R.P. 14627 (Jan. 31, 2019) (instructing a correctional institution that it
must ensure sufficient “staffing” to provide each student with a disability with a FAPE).
33
Spring Branch, 961 F.3d at 800 (citing Draper, 518 F.3d at 1280).
34
See id.; Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 525 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (explaining that
compensatory education must do more than provide “some benefit”—it must “compensate” for a district’s failure to
provide the services in the first instance (emphasis added)).

Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights 15

We further request that LDE impose a Correction Action Plan that includes, but is not limited to,
the following:

1. Compel defendants to immediately comply with the IDEA and all applicable state and
federal laws and regulations regarding the provision of general and special education to
students in custody, including but not limited to:
a. Abiding by child-find obligations to identify, locate, and evaluate students
suspected of having a disability;
b. Providing an appropriate secondary education to all children detained at St.
Martinville;
c. Providing FAPE to all students with disabilities detained at St. Martinville,
including implementing IEPs, providing special education, related services, and
transition services, and developing programs that are appropriately ambitious in
light of each child’s individual circumstances;
d. Complying with procedural protections for students with disabilities, including
providing prior written notice and holding manifestation determination reviews;
and
e. Hiring and training certified special education teachers and related service
providers.
2. Compel defendants to provide compensatory education to all students with disabilities
currently or previously detained at St. Martinville who were deprived of FAPE during
their time at St. Martinville.
3. Compel defendnats to develop a plan for ensuring no OJJ facility is established or used to
detain children unless and until OJJ has made arrangements to ensure that educational
services will be immediately provided upon entry.
4. Compel defendants to develop a tracking system to identify which children in the custody
of each OJJ facility h a disability under the IDEA and utilize the tracking system when
children are transferred between facilities.

To effectuate these remedies, we request that LDE contract with a mutually-agreeable

independent monitor who specializes in the provision of special education and related services in
correctional facilities. Independent monitoring and oversight is necessary to ensure that the
defendants implement the Corrective Action Plan and comply with all federal and state laws in
the future.

The violations described above are both serious and ongoing, and they reflect endemic
challenges in the provision of education at OJJ’s secure care facilities. In July 2021, OJJ opened
and has continued to maintain a facility for children with significant mental health and
behavioral needs that fails to provide a comprehensive educational program or to comply with
federal and state special education laws. If children at the deepest end of the juvenile legal
system—those in state custody—are to have the opportunity to succeed in their communities and
gain productive and meaningful employment upon release, they must have access to education.
We ask LDE, as the monitor of the defendants’ compliance with federal and state educational
laws, to ensure that defendants prioritize the education of students in custody at all of OJJ’s
facilities.

Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights 16

 Respectfully Submitted,

Allison Zimmer
Staff Attorney, Skadden Fellow

Ariel Test
Director of Civil Legal Services and Special Projects
Louisiana Center of Children’s Rights
1100-B Milton Street
New Orleans, LA

Sara Godchaux
Staff Attorney

Hector Linares
Edward J. Womac, Jr. Distinguished Clinic Professor
Director of Skills & Experiential Learning
Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
7214 St. Charles Avenue, Box 902
New Orleans, LA 70118

cc:
Angelic Keller, General Counsel
Office of Juvenile Justice
7919 Independence Blvd.
Baton Rouge, LA 70806
Angelic.Keller@la.gov

Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights 17

Board of Directors
Special School District
2888 Brightside Drive
Baton Rouge, LA 70820
Ernest.Garrett@la.gov

Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights 18