Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Floyd

    Uploaded by

    Macy Obernuefemann
    2K views88 pages
    Floyd County School Report finds possible violations.

    Original Title

    floyd

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Floyd County School Report finds possible violations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2K views88 pages

    Floyd

    Uploaded by

    Macy Obernuefemann
    Floyd County School Report finds possible violations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 88
    Derrick Ramsey Matthew 6. Bevin Secretary Governor Education and Workforce Development Cabinet Wayne 0, Lewis, Ph.D. Interim Commissfoner of Education KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 300 Sower Boulevard « Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 ‘Phone: (602) 38-3141 + ww education Ny. gov June 27, 2018 Superintendent Adkins Floyd County Pubic Schools 106N Front Ave. Presionsburg, KY 41653, Dear Superintendent Adkins: Enclosed is the Report of Findings from the onsite monitoring visit conducted during January and February 2018, ‘The Division of Learning Services (DLS) conducted the intial onsite vist during the weck of January 23- 25,2018 asa result of complains from parens and other agencies that work wth tudons inthe district. ‘The complaints alleged the distet was not complying with the Individuals with Disabilities Education ‘Act (IDEA) and its implementing regulations. The DLS lso received allegations that alternate feiites ‘within the district were not providing special education and related services o students with Individual Education Programs (EPs). {A retum visit occurring during the week of February 21-23, 2018 a8 a result ofa lete sent othe Kentucky Department of Education's Office of Legal, Legislative and Communication Services (OLLCS) alleging addtional violations ofthe IDEA across the dist. ‘The Report reflects Findings of Fact and Conclusions ofthe DLS. The Conclusions are specific to the Distt Ifyou have questions or concems please contact Erma White at Erna. White@education ky.2oy or (502)$64.4970 extension 4108, Sixperely, ila Amylin Greta Hylton, Director, Division of Learning Services Ce: Debbie Mays, Program Manager Diverse Learners Branch, DLS ‘eronic Sullivan Ast. Director, Division of Learning Services ‘April Pieper, Differentiated Learning Program Manager, DLS LaCheera Carothers, Program Consultant, DSS [Rady Manin, Director of Special Education Patsy Kemer, Office of Legal and Legislative Services ‘Amsanda Elis, EAD., Associate Commissioner, Office of Teaching and Learning Kelly Foster, Office of Continuous Improvement and Support David Wickersham, Office of Educational Accountability er FOMUTRG® —soyenes ees REE \TED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DIVISION OF LEARNING SERVICES AUDIT SUMMARY FLOYD COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: ‘The Floyd County School District, hereafter reered to 2s Floyd County, was identified for an onsite ‘monitoring visit by the Kentucky Department of Edseation (KDE) in January 2018. The tial onsite ‘monitoring visit resulted asa result of complains from parents and othe local agencies leging the Aitict was fling to comply withthe Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (DEA) ad its limplementing regulations, specifically pursuant to the provision of special education and related services ‘nd plasement decisions for students with disabilities in the lest restrictive environment KDE’s inital vist occurred Jansary 23-25, 2018, A team from the DLS"s Diverse Lamers Branch reviewed the distrits implementation ofthe IDEA ineluding the review of tudent due process folders. A consultant from the Office of Continuous improvement and Suppon’s (OCIS) Division o Student ‘Success (DSS) accompanied the IDEA team and conducted a review ofthe dstret'saltemative programs. ‘A return visit was prompted by an anoaymous letter set tothe Kentucky Department of Education's Office of Legal, Legislative and Communication Services (OLLCS) alleging fraudulent ratices that include: ‘over identification of students for special education services under the IDEA in arto receive ‘accommodations on state and district assessments; + file ofthe district to ensure appropriate evaluation procedires were implemented prior to ‘determining eligibility under the [DEA; 1 lure ofthe district to provide appropriate intervention services; and 1+ failure ofthe district to provide special education and relate services to students with an TEP. Because the atonal allegations inclode the provision of interventions (or lack thereo), the etun vist included DLS sa from the Differentiated Leaers Branch that have experise with Ri. ‘Onsite team member included ‘+ Debbie Mays, Team Lead, IDEA April Pieper, Team Lead, Ri Erma White, IDEA ‘Susan Farr, IDEA Jeff Coles, IDEA “Tania Sharp, IDEA Jarod Stone, Ril Pam Pickens, al Lori Shepherd, Rul ‘LaCheena Carothes,altemative school programs 627.18 KDE:OTL:DLS:DM/AP OCIS:LC a[Page EVIDENCE CONSIDERED: ‘The DLS and the DSS conducted onsite visits to the Floyd County central office and seven ‘elementary, middle, and high schools. The team also visited five facilities and alternative rograms. ‘The district has alternate facilities and programs within the district. Rising Point Treatment Facility (RPTF) isa residential placement facility and Renaissance Learning Center (RLC) is an altemative educational placement. There are addtional alternative programs within several schools (referred to as SIGHTS) and these programs focus on behavior management using an instructional and intervention program unigue to SIGHTS. ‘The following investigation activities occured: ‘¢ Formal interviews with Floyd County staff including: (© six central office employees © 19 school employees © eight students (© one staff from an alternate facility not operated by the district ‘+ Record reviews for 59 individual students with TEPs including: ‘© due process folders forthe 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years ‘+ admission and Release Commitee (ARC) mesting proceedings + all elated documents Record reviews for 30 individual students Ril files including: © Rif plans (© Ril meeting notes (academic and behavior) (© progress monitoring documentation (academic and behavior) (© referral documentation (academic and behavior) including universal and diagnostic sereener data = Areview of © the master schedule foreach school inthe district (© 2016-17 and 2017-18 district calendar (including days missed and days in session) © district special education policies and procedures (© school and district discipline policies and procedures, including the policies and procedures for the altemative programs RL + alternative programs within several schools (referred to as SIGHTS) + RETF © the district's website the Comprehensive District Improvement Plan (CDIP) and School Improvement Plans (CSIPs) (December 2017) Home Hospital sign-in sheets that document the time when a teacher is present to provide instruction in the home / hospital setting 2015-16 data from the KDE Alternative Schools Report 2014-15 and 2015-16 IDEA Child Count Data 2014-15 and 2015-16 student withdrawal data ‘istrict and school Ril and Extended School Services policies and procedures a listing of al district and schoo! administrators responsible for: 627.18 KDE:OTL:DLS:DW/AP OCIS:LC 2Paxe Rit Extended School Services (ESS) Mathicnatics Achieveaent Pain (MAF) Read To Achieve (RTA) Special education and related services + IDEA eligibility determination process (© 2017-2018 special education caseload summaries © distict caseload waiver requests EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: For clarity purposes, the DLS has divided the repor into three sections: Rtl, IDEA, and altemative programs ‘Based on an analysis of data reviewed by the DLS, the DLS has substantiated systemic findings ‘of noncompliance under the IDEA. Additional findings of noncompliance in altemative programs have been identified by the OCIS, DSS and are identified inthe Alternative Programs section of this repor. Because KDE identified numerous IDEA violations, an IDEA Corrective Action Plan (CAP) is, required. The district and DLS will work together to develop a CAP to set out activities that ‘address the root causes ofthe noncompliance atthe systems level. CAP activites will be {developed that may bring Floyd County into compliance fr its systemic violations. ‘The DLS discovered noncertfied staff supervise and instruct students who are placed in ltemative programs and altemate facilities within the district. There are situations where there is ‘no involvement or oversight of certified staff forthe delivery of instruction to students. The DLS is referring these concems tothe Office of Educational Accountability for Further examination 627.18 KDE:OTL:DLS:DM/AP OCIS:LC alPace RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION (RTD FLOYD COUNTY Response to intervention (Rel) isa mult jered approach for supporting ll students in both academic and behavior ares. It is designed to provide universal sereenirg, high quality instruction with tiered interventions, ongoing progress monitoring and data-based decision ‘making to maximize student achievement and minimize behavior problens. Even though interventions must be provided prior to, or as part ofthe special education referral process, Re is ‘good instruction forall students ‘The DLS included Rifas pat of ts onsite Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) monitoring visit due toa series of complaints received by the KDE that lleged the district failed to provide appropriate intervention services to students prior to or during areferal for special education and falsification of Rel data to ensure students were determined eligible for special education in order to receive special accommodations on state assessment DATA RESULTS FROM RTI FOLDER REVIEW Response to Intervention (RTI) Folders Reviewed by School: ‘Adams Middle School 6.8") ‘Allen Elementary School (K-8") Betsy Layne Elementary Schoo! (K-8) Betsy Layne High School (9 Duff-Allen Central Elementary School (K-") Floyd County High School (9-128) Home Instruction High School (9-12) John M. Stumbo Elementary School (K-§") May Valley Elementary School (K-5*) Prestonsburg Elementary School (K-5") Prestonsburg High School (9"-12") Renaissance Leaming Center (9-12!) South Floyd Elementary School (K-5*) Current Status of Student Percentage from Red RTT only 83% Previously RTT, but exited Ril tir 2 or ter 3 services 210% Referral for special education in progress 128% Referred, but student did ot qualify for special education 6.4% Determined eligible for special education services| s11% Other (moved from school, withdrew, ete) 3% 627.18 KDEOTI:DLS:DM/AP OCIS apage High Quality Instruction Indicators Reviewed Indicator Prevent | S26 | Absent ‘Need Kdentification + One or mor scademis/ behavior need i ened 1m | sore |e «Dita deserting eurent and expcied levee of a ears pefrmnce or ogress : 7 dene of dna analy wo determine he appropne tier of intervention me Oe | a: ‘Need Analysis ~ Bvideceofhypathees development scrasmiliple | = o sa | sao | nidene of iypotieses development to dtennine the stot was not rogresing deo perfomaneeandor | 0% sm atm sll dete ~ Data were wiedo deemine viable or acive ypotires |__y for why the set wasnt promresing Be NRE s 5), ae Tatervention Development and tmplementaton 7) Shot and lenge gels were only zed a elaion |, See asc | 19% | mam + Iteretoa were develope addres ties ; ‘identified by verified hypotheses ” 154% 6% + Anintrvenion plan seiying the louis othe imervention(s) selected was provided 1 “ ue) Gi Dan were provide denoting he intervention plan ; ‘was implemented with integrity 51% aaa 7 nerveation apport plan wih pmonnel vas developed | 0% 176% | eave Program Evaluation/Response to Intervention + Ciera for posive behavioral RT were deine im | me | Mom «+ Progress monitoring data wer coleied/seheduled 50% | 255% | ms% 7 Adeson gating ts meas RTT we dooumewed | 19% | 1S [83% «A plan or conning, modifying o terminating the rn imervetion plan was provided 627.18 KDE:OTL:DLS:DM/AP OCIS:LC siPage “Indicator Definitions: Present = Quantifiable data were provided demonstrating that the iatervntion was implemented as intended. Some Evidence ~ Information was provided to support claims tha! the intervention was implemented, bat litle to no quantifiable data was present [Absent =No information on the degree o which the itervetion was implemented a intended or there ‘vas no information provided. DATA RESULTS FROM CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS Data collection in the district included classroom observations and dato coding, performed by trained staff. The data was collected using an electronic application that identified High-Quality, Instruction Indicators present during the observation period. Classrooms Observed by School: ‘Adams Middle School - Allen Elementary School - Bessy Layne Elementary School - Betsy Layne High School - Floyd County High School - May Valley Elementary School - Prestonsburg Elementary School - District Total - 3 ‘High-Quality Instruction Indicators ‘On-tasiactively engaged students ‘Offaask/nat stvely engaged stndens| Learning targets oe posted Teaming target are walten in student ienly ors Learning targets are related to lesson Lessonsloiivilies are grade level appropriate and aligned to cureat standards Positive classroom expecta sare posted =TS/=)7)5)9°]= > Classroom expesations are followed ‘Classroom routines are beneficial o aden Tearing and reduce brie Wo 8 produstive learning environment ee i. Student behaviors are monitored 65% [Response to student behaviors are appropriate 78% L._Teacher student relationships appear mutually respectil and produtive 77% 627.18 KDE:OTL:DLS:DM/AP OCIS:LC 6|Pace — ———— IM Peer relationships appear mutually respectful and productive 7% FN. Gonmects new learning and class discussions to learning targeis/goals/previous ry leaminglete. [O._Diferentitescurreulumvinstructon/assesment 35% Tncorporates culturally responsive teaching 26%, Real-world applicaticns aod connections are used in the classroort 32%, ‘A variety of higher onder thinking and questioning techniques are used in the clasroom | 26% Provides high-quality authentic Feedback a6 ‘Beat practice strategies for teaching and learing are uscd 48% 1627.18 KDE:OTL:DLS:DM/AP OCIS:LC TiPage HINDINGS OF FACT: A review ofthe distit’s Ril poicy revealed the district provides writen guidance on Ril implementation, 2. Interviews and the eview of student folders indicated the cists oversight of Ril across the district was inconsistent 3, Some schol staf felt that Re procedures were dictated bythe dist taf, other school Saf said they could not get assistance fom the district taf. "A. The distiet RU poliey requires documentation of + parent contact Ruinterventons (specific instructional strategies and not accommodations) continuing Ril services when studens didnot demonsirate progress o progress nunitning 4. Ril folder reviews and interviews revesled only afew schools were following the district, policy 2 writen. 5. Rilisa facilitate process of targeted ered intervention services used forall students who fall shor of grade level academic and behavior benchmsarls. IDEA incorporated the use of an effective Ril sytem to help reduce the over-dentifeation of student for special education. 6. However, interviews wth staff consistently revealed a lack of understanding for the purpose of Rl 7, Many staff said Riis just a requirement the state department makes us do” ois primarily a pathway to ensure a student qualifies for special educatien services 8, Many student Rt folders did not contain evidence of: ‘A. intervention planning examples of interventions provided CC. formative assessment result D,_ Rif student meeting notes , anecdotal intervention noes 9, Most classrooms observed included whole group instruction and teacher-cenered lessons 10, Most classrooms observed didnot incorporate diferente instrtion or activities to meet the various levels and need of students 11, Interviews revealed some schools provided intervention services solely through computer biased instracton, with no direct instruction provided to stidens 12, The eollection of progress monitoring data was the same fr every student folder reviewed, For example, the dates ofthe progress monitoring occurred over a five to six ‘Week period and included a total of four datapoints 13, None of the student Ril folders reviewed included documentation showing parents were informed of inital Ril services being provided. 14, None of the student Rt folders reviewed contained evidence that parents were provided ‘with ongoing progress monitoring result 15, Behavior interventions were razely documented in the Ril folder. 16. Folder reviews revealed Ril services ceased for a student when a special education referral vas initiated 17, Ril services did not resume, regardless ofthe outcome ofthe refer 18, Staff iterviews indicated tat retention is used as an “intervention” for kindergarten and first grade students 627.18 KDEOTL:DLS:DM/AP OCIS:LC BiPace 19. 20, Staff interviews indicated fixed ability grouping was en approved instructicnl approach in. elementary schools. Ability grouping is the approach that groups students by ability in reading end math, and forces students to remain together asa group, resulting inthe district refering to this as “traveling resource classes”. CONCLUSIONS: ‘ B. c. D. “The district is not implementing Ril as written in its polices. ‘There is no evidence of effective implementation or documentation of Rtl provided to students. ‘There is need forthe district to implement a districtwide proactive, positive approach to effective Ril interventions. For effective distict-wide implementation of Ril to occur and be sustained there must be a shared, accurate understanding of the RU process and ongoing support from the superintendent and district leadership team. ‘School leadership must follow the same Ril protocol and a dstrict-wide solation for adequate documentation of interventions must be developed. ‘The absence of Rif has resulted inthe district failing to implement appropriate child find activities. *This is discussed later in the IDEA Report under Issue I 627.18 KDE:OTL:DLS:DM/AP OCIS:LC a| Page INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA) FLOYD COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ‘The IDEA portion ofthe audit resulted from a number of complaints received by the Division of Learning Services (DLS) and review of district-level Jaa. Aw put oT its gencral supervision responsibilty under the IDEA to ensure all school districts within te state comply with the IDEA, the KDE conducted an onsite IDEA audit of Floyd County. ‘The series of complains included allegations that special education services are not provided to students in alternate facilites; placement decisions for students with IEPs are not made in ‘conformity with the last restrictive environment; the provision of special education services for Students with IEPs are not provided as required under the IDEA; over identifying students for an IEP so they ean receive accommodations on state assessments; inappropiate evaluation procedures under the IDEA; and «lack of intervention. EINDINGS OF FACT: “Monitoring Issues Identified for Review ld Find, Evaluation and Eligibility [707 KAR 1:300 Section 3 and 4 707 KAR 1:30 Section 2 Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Memo [1-07 707 KAR 1-320 Section | and’S 707 KAR 1380 Seaton 1 Restrictive Environment (LRE) under the IDEA 704 KAR 7:120 Section 2 Issue Alternate Setings for Students with Disabilities [707 KAR 1:320 Seaton | and 2 707 KAR 1380 Section 1 and 2 707 KAR 1:290 Section 4 Issue Sz Provision of Services at Rising Point Treatment 707 KAR 1320 Section 3 Facility 707 KAR 1:380 Section 9 (1) 707 KAR 1:320 Seaton 1 707 KAR 1:320 Sesion 6 3) 707 KAR 1:320 Section 9 Issue 26; Provision ofa Free Appropriate Public Education | 707 KAR 1:290 Sesion 1 (FAPE) 627.18 KDE:OTL:DLS:DM/AP OCIS:LC rolPage EINDINGS OF EACT (ISSUE A Child Find, Evaluation and Egil ndethe IDEA 2 Ail the above findings are incorporated herein by reference. Interviews indicated parents of kindergarten students with challenging behaviors were frequently encouraged to withdraw thir child so thet he or she could “mature” before entering frst grade rather than providing behavioral interventions. A review of data from the Kentucky Student Information System (KSIS), known as Infinite Campus (IC) indicated 60 kindergarten students were withdrawn during the 2017-18 school year. ‘The district utilized what it called an “extended year" system to retain students during the kindergarten through second grade years based on academic performance. Interviews indicated the following practices occurred in the district a. Admissions and Release Committers (ARCs) failed to consider the attendance ofthe ‘student when determining eligibility for special education services. ', Ifstudents did not initially qualify fora suspected disability, they were repeatedly ‘evaluated for special education within a school year. ¢. Elementary school principals frequently sent behavior rating seales home and asked Parents to complete the rating scales outside ofthe ARC meeting and without an ‘explanation of how to compete 4. Ifa student scores novice on stat assessments, schools send a letter to parents requesting permission to evaluate the student for special education, This is done outside of an ARC meeting. . Itwas reported that principals tell parents to request a referral for special education in order to skip the Ril process. £. Schools were told by district staff to submit referrals in a timely manner to assist with cligibilty of students for special education services before the annual K-PREP assessment window. 18 Atleast one school turned in a “stack of about 50 referals® tothe district office at one time in an effort to identify students for special education before the K-PREP assessment window. Muliple student due process record reviews indicated intervention data were not sufficiently collected and analyzed prior to or during the referral process to determine a suspected disability ‘The district's Specific Leaming Disabilities (SLD) policies and procedures require the use of discrepancy tables when determining eligibility ‘Two due process files indicated students met eligibility requirements for SLD using incorrect pairings ofthe diserepancy tables. Interviews and due process recard reviews indicated students were determined eligible in the category of SLD through the use of Rt, even though the discrepancy method is required by district policy. CONCLUSIONS (ISSUE #1): Child Find, Evaluation and Eligibility under the IDEA A. Under 707 KAR 1:300 Section 3: Districts are required to have policies and procedures in effect that plan and {implement a child fin system to locate, identify, and evaluate each child who may have a disability ». Prior to, oras part of the referal process, students must be provided appropriate, relevant research-based instruction and intervention services in regular education settings, with the instruction provided by qualified persoanel, 627.18 KDE:OTL:DLS:DM/AP OCIS:LC u[Page ©. Date-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement or measures of behavior must be collected and evaluated at reasonable intervals, reflecting systematic assessment of student progress during instruction, the results of which ‘were provided the student's parents. (Emphasis added.) BB, _Itis concluded the referral system inthe district isnot being implemented to ensue: Each student has been provided appropriate instruction and intervention services prior to, or as part ofthe referral process; and ce documentation exists of repeated assessments of achievement or behavior collected and evaluated at reasonable interval, with esuls being provided tothe student's ‘parents. Thus, the district is in violation of 707 KAR 1:300 Section 3, C. _ Sulficient evidence exists to conclude the district has employed numerous inappropriate practices to identity students for special education services, including: providing evaluation tools to parents outside of the ARC mecting and without planning for and obtaining consent forthe evaluation ‘a. referring students who seored “novice” on assessments for special education |. sending letters to parents requesting o evaluate students rather than conducting an ARC meeting to discuss a referal and plan an evaluation outside of th: ARC process i. informing parens to request special education evaluation to “bypass irterventions” . The purpose of the inappropriate evaluation practices was to qualify students for accommodations so students can receive accommodations through an TEP for state assessments, even though the students may not be truly eligible for IDEA services E. Under 707 KAR 1:300 Section 4 (14), assessment tools and strategies musi be used that provide information that directly assist and are used tn the determinarton ofthe ‘educational needs of the student. (Emphasis added.) F, Assessment tools and strategies applied by the district were not used for determining the ‘educational needs of students. Rather, special education was sought asa substitute for ‘appropriate instruction so that accommodations could be fo be used during statewide testing in the district, Thus, the district isin violation of 707 KAR 1:300 Section 4 (14). G. Allegations related to inappropriate state assessment practices fll outside tke scope ofthe IDEA. Consequently, the contents of tis eport wil be forwarded to the KDE Testing Board of Review for its consideration. H, The district failed to follow its board-approved policies and procedures regarding IDEA eligibility by utilizing the Rt! method for eligibility, when the procedures require use of the discrepancy model only. |. Byinapproprately using the discrepancy tables to determine students egibie for services ‘under the SLD eligibility category, the district isin violation of 707 KAR 1:310 Section 2 @. 4. As previously cited in the Response to Intervention report above, by fulingto provide ‘students with appropriate, relevant evidence-based instruction prior to, or as apart ofthe referral process for special education services, the district is in violation of 707 KAR. Section 3. K. Note: Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Memo 11-07, FINDINGS OF FACT (ISSUE #2): Individual Education Program (IEP) '9. All the above findings are incorporated herein by reference. 10, Tables outlining all student-specifc findings from the Compliance Record Review Document are included in Appendix A at the end of this report. 627.18 KDE:OTL:DLS:DM/AP OCIS:LC 2 Page 11, In edition to the above Findings of Facts and student-speific findings, IDEA due process files revesled multiple issues of noncompliance in the following areas: ‘a, The Present Levels of Academie Achievement and Functional Performance sections Of IEPs, hereafter referred as Present Level, didnot contain recent evaluation oF assessment data and did not include stengths ofthe students, 'ARCs did not consider if transition needs were an area of concer. ©. The Present Levels did not explain how the student performs significantly and consistently below same-age peers, 4, The Consideration of Special Factors section of IEPs were not addressed ort information conflicted with other information within the IEP. ‘e Anaual goals didnot meet al standards of measurability £ Ongoing progress data of LEP goals were not collected, analyzed and used tomake decisions. 1B Annual goals did not contain Specially Designed Instruction (SDI). Ih, ARCs did not consider Supplementary Aids and Services (SAS) fo students, i. ARCs did not include a statement of decisions and reasons for meeting the requirements for the Alternate Assessment Programs, |i Statements of program modifications and supports for school personnel were ‘incomplete, inconsistent with other documentation or listed as SAS instead. k. ARCs failed to consider the least restrictive environment (LRE) for students. |. Students were removed from the general education environment without the provision of SAS and without documenting the reasons for the removal. 1m, IEPs did not include special education service minutes or locaton, or the information provided was inconsistent with documentation in other parts of the IEP and Conference Summary. 1, _ Students need for extended schoo! year services (ESY) was not addressed by ARCs. ©. Public agencies responsible for providing or paying for transition services were not invited to ARC meetings. . ARCs did not document a multi-year course of study or, instead of listing specific courses, lsted “elective 44. Annual goals were nt related to transition sevice needs in educationtaining and ‘employment or independent living 1. When behavior concerns were noted, IEPs did not include considerations for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). CONCLUSIONS (ISSUE #2): I iducation Program (IEP) ‘A. The review of IDEA due process files revealed systemic compliance issues in the evelopment and implementation of IEPs. Consequently, the districts in violation of 707 KAR 1:320 Section 1(1) for fuling to ensure each student with a disability has an IEP (appropriately) developed and implemented, B, Thedistrict is further in violation of 707 KAR 1:320 Section 5, pertaining to the required contents of IEPs. C. Evidence confirmed removals from the general education setting were not made in accordance with the LRE provision, in violation of 707 KAR 1:350 Section I 627.18 KDE:OTL:DLS:DM/AP OCIS:LC a) Page FINDINGS OF FACT SSUE AD) Con of Eduatona eng under the IDEA ‘ll above findings are incorporated herein by reference. 15, School stafepertd they had been od by diet personnel fo provide oly co-aching instructional settings for students with IEPs. 14, According to interviews, most schools in the district provided only co-teaching. instructional settings. 15. Interviews indicate that, due to litigation at the high schoo! level, one high school had transitioned to some resource setings while the other schools had not. 16, Some staff reported that, when placing a student in the home! hospital setting for instruction, principals request permission from the Central Office, Human Resources. 17, Interviews revealed a recommendation of home/hospital instruction by a physician is required; however, ARC meetings are not conducted to determine whether home / hospital was the LRE. 18, Interviews with staff also indicated, “sometimes home/hospital is wilized while waiting for SIGHTS placement.” Note: SIGHTS is a day treatment option discussed in Issue Four of this report. 19, Staff interviews revealed that some principals called parents to offer a home / hospital fnstructional setting without contacting the district office or convening an ARC. 20. According to interviews and due process folders, home / hospital settings were used asa tool to remove students with behavior concems from the school setting and also used for students with needs that were difficult to serve inthe school setting. Due process folder reviews revealed the followin ‘a. A student with autism was receiving home / hospital instruction on the ‘recommendation of a physician solely due tothe students eligibility of “Autism and our. A student was placed in home /hosptal instruction because the district did not have ‘an accessible school bus forthe student. The mother requested home / hospital instruction because she was notable to lift him into a regular bus ‘cA student was placed in home / hospital instruction because the district filed to have medical personnel that could assist the student with his medical needs. A nurse was needed to provide services inthe school setting but had not beer located. 21, Interviews indicated in most eases home / hospital instruction isa six to eight week placement 22, Interviews also revealed that special education students must provide clearance by a mental health profesional before being allowed to return tothe school setting ~ the reascn forthe home / hospital placement did not matter. ARC meetings were not convened forts ‘purpose ~ the mental health “bill of health” was provided to district leadership who would then permit the student to retum to school. 23. [fo clearance by the mental health professional was given atthe end of the six to eight ‘week period, the district would refuse to allow the student back in the school setting and the student continued withthe home /hospital placement. No ARC mectings were convened to make these decisions. 627.18 KDE:OTLDLS:DM/AP OCIS:LC aalpace ONCLUSIONS ASSUE #3: Continuum of Edina Seng under the IDEA "The IDEA requires school districts to provide students who have IEPs with incividualized, appropriate educational settings. B. The continuum of educational seuings must begin wit Ue last xetretive educational setting (the general education classroom) to the most restrictive educational seting (residential placement), ©. ARCS have the legal responsibilty to determine appropriate settings for students on an individual basis. D. The district's practice of routinely placing students with behavioral concems on home hospital instruction ean largely be attributed to two factors a. the absence of PBIS implementation and appropriate supplementary sides and services being provided throughout the district; and 'b._the unavailability of resource room seitings for students who need additional supports. E. tis concluded the district isin violation of 707 KAR 1:350 Section 1 (1) for failure to censure that to the maximum extent appropriate, students with disabilities are educated with students who are not disabled and that removal of students from the regular education, environment occurs only if education in the regular environment with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be satisfactorily achieved due tothe nature or severity ofthe disability. F, [tis further concluded the distrit is in violation of 707 KAR 1:380 Section 1(2)(3) for its failure to ensure a full continuum of altemative placements is available to meet the nneods of students with disabilities for special education and related services. G. ARC decisions for home’ hospital instructional services eligibility were not made in accordance with the IEP, withthe services being determined tobe inthe least estrctive environment in violation of 707 KAR 1:120 Section 2(3. EIDINGS OF FACT (ISSUE #3}: Alternate Serings for Students with Disabi 24, All he above findings are incorporated herein by reference. ‘The Renaissance Learning Center (RLC): 25. The RLC isan alternate program option for all students. 26. The RLC currently serves students in grades 9-12 from the thre high schools in the distil, 27, The RLC has copacity for 108 students. 28. Students are placed atthe RLC through a referal process started atthe student's home school 29, Student due process files indicated ARC meetings are held and parents are invited with the purpose ofthe meeting being o “transition” the student to the RLC. 30, Interviews indicated: Student placements al the RLC vary from int weeks ( all yea ._ Placement continues during the school year until the student reaches the level of| ‘academics set in the transition meeting c. All students attending the RLC (including students with disabilities) are automatically ‘sent back to the home school atthe end ofthe school year. 4. The program handbook did not address the reason that all students are transitioned back to their home schools atthe end ofeach school year. 627.18 KDE:OTL-DLS:DM/AP OCIS:LC al Page The referal process tothe RLC may begin again during the next school year ifthe student is stil behind academically. Staff reported a night school program is available for students who do not attend dlring the schoo! day, due to work schedules or other responsibilities. ‘p Students with IEPs were enrolled inthis program and special education staff were available to provide specially designed instruction, 1h. Allenrolled students, including students with IEPs, are provided packets of work and some online work to help them receive a diploma. i. Certified teachers oversee this program. ji One student with a disability was transfered to the RLC lacking five credits necessary {or graduation. These five credits were obtained within one month of being atthe RLC. The student was then transitioned to attend only night school until graduation k, Staffat the RLC reported they don’t accept students with IEPs because special ‘education caseloads are full and that they do not have enough staff to take all the referrals |. Interviews indicated the interim superintendent suggested the teacher of record for due ‘process folders be staff from the student's comprehensive high school even though the student(s) attended the RLC. However, the principal refused this suggestion, ‘m, Data indicated a central office personnel, who is nota staff person at RLC, holds @ caseload of 21 students a the RLC, in addition to district job requirements, 1, Even though the caseload exceeded the maximum of 20, no caseload waiver was on file with the EPSB. 0, When asked who was providing IEP services for students that were placed on the caseloads of district staff, no one knew, Supportive Instructive Helping Teach Students (SIGHTS) 31. SIGHTS is a Mountain Comprehensive Care (MCC) program, run in collaboration with the distiet, 32, According to the MCC website, “the mission ofthe SIGHTS /INSIGHTS Day Treatment Program is to nurture and support children identified as having serious emotional disturbance (SED) that is affecting their functioning t school.” 33. Interviews with district staff indicated that there are four SIGHTS programs in Floyd County in the following locations: ‘May Valley Elementary Schoo! ’. Prestonsburg Elementary School . James D. Adams Middle School 4. RLC Educational Services ‘Note: Only one classroom within the RLC is a SIGHTS program. 34, Each SIGHTS program is staffed with one full-time special education teacher provided by the district, « paraeducator provided by the district and two staff employed by MCC who provide behavior therapy. 35. All studens in the SIGHTS program are students with disbilities and ae identified under the IDEA category of emotional-behavioral disability (EBD). 36. The MCC director approves program placement in SIGHTS only if students demonstrate “numerous behavior incidents across all settings". 37. Ifthe program placement is not approved by the MCC director, the student must remain at the home school. 627.18 KDE:OTL:DLS:DM/AP OCIS:LC wl Page 38. ARC meetings are not convened to determine the placement of students referred to SIGHTS, 39, The day at SIGHTS is structured so students spent 50% of their instructional day focused ‘on academic curticulum instruction andthe other $0% on “behavior therapy” froma program of instruction and intervention developed by SIGHTS. 40. The PLATO computer-based learning program isthe only method used to provide instruction, No direct instruction was observed or reported, 41, SIGHTS uses a points system for behavior incentives: a, Level | (orientation takes 2 weeks) ‘Student has the opportunity to begin to eam privileges, ‘© Mountain Comprehensive Care provided a “store” fora token economy and student is able to begin to utilize the store b. Level? ‘+ Student has the opportunity to eam privileges. ‘© Student is able o utilize the stor, Level 3and4 ‘Students lead groups, run errands and transition back into the school that is housing the SIGHTS program. A SIGHTS staff member accompanies the student NA NIA NA tem 32 Item 33a Item 33b Item 33¢ tem 334 tem 33¢ tem 33 Item 33g «l<|<|<|z|<|<|< ~«|<|<|<|<|

    You might also like