special education program compliance review final report - … · 2020. 1. 4. · special education...

Special Education Program Compliance Review

Final Report

June 14, 2016

Kerkhoven-Murdock-Sunburg Public School District (0775-01)

Martin Heidelberger, Superintendent

Diane McCarron, Director of Special Education

KMS Public School District (0775-01) 2

Table of Contents

Introduction and Authority ....................................................................................................... 3

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

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

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

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

Area 2: Facilities and Environment ...................................................................................... 9

Area 3: Child Find and Evaluation ......................................................................................11

Area 4: IEP and IFSP Process and Implementation ...........................................................14

Summary of Corrective Action Required ............................................................................18

Appendix ...............................................................................................................................19

Acronyms ...........................................................................................................................19

Individual Student Record Noncompliance .........................................................................20

Complaint Decisions ..........................................................................................................20

Interviews and Surveys ......................................................................................................20

Federal Instructional Settings by Disability .........................................................................21

Race/Ethnicity by Disability ................................................................................................22

Age by Disability ................................................................................................................23


Introduction and Authority

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

Scope of Monitoring

One or more monitors from MDE’s Division of Compliance and Assistance conducted a full compliance review of the special education program of Kerkhoven-Murdock-Sunburg Public School District (0775-01). The monitoring process included a review of:

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

• Two district sites where special education services are provided

• Interview responses from the special education director, general education administrators, special education teachers and paraprofessionals, related services personnel, and general education teachers

• Previous monitoring and self-review reports

• Formal complaint history

• 6 Part B (students ages 3 through 21) student records

Resulting Findings and Corrective Action

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

Individual student record noncompliance occurs when a student file is cited for violation of any state or federal special education law. Citations of individual student files must be corrected by the district and verified by MDE by February 1, 2017. If individual student noncompliance is identified for correction, tracking is completed through the Minnesota Continuous Improvement Process: Self Review (MNCIMP:SR) system.


Kerkhoven-Murdock-Sunburg Public School District is located in rural southwest Minnesota. The district provides education services for birth through grade 12 at Murdock Elementary and Kerkhoven Secondary/Early Childhood. Special education supports are provided through the district’s member status with the Southwest West Central Service Cooperative (SWWC).

Monitoring Findings by Area

Area 1: Governance

Topic Area: Total Special Education System (TSES)

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

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

Corrective Action: No

Topic Area: Restrictive Procedures Plan (RPP)

“Restrictive procedures” means the use of physical holding or seclusion of children with disabilities in an emergency. Interviews completed by district’s staff suggest that the district is using physical holding of children with disabilities. The district is therefore required to maintain and make publicly accessible in an electronic format on a school or district Web site or make a paper copy available upon request describing a restrictive procedures plan (RPP) for children with disabilities. Minnesota Statute requires that the plan must, at least, list the restrictive procedures the school intends to use; describe how the school will monitor and review the use of restrictive procedures; and include a written description and documentation of the training staff completed.

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


Topic Area: Staffing

The district contracts with SWWC, which employs a director of special education and six assistant directors of special education. The district’s special education administrative staffing includes a SWWC special education director and a coordinator from SWWC who is on site once a month. The special education director works primarily with district principals, superintendents and business managers to ensure they understand and comply with regulations, processes, and


procedures and provides advice regarding budgets, district staffing and legal matters. The special education director also hires and supervises itinerant staff including occupational therapists (OTs), physical therapists (PTs), speech-language pathologists (SLPs), school psychologists, and deaf/hard of hearing (DHH) teachers who serve the district. The district special education coordinator ensures that the district has ordered materials, organized paraprofessional and teacher schedules, and reviews paperwork for students new to the district. Each month, the SWWC coordinator works with the district to inform the teaching staff on due process rules and procedures, provides support for some Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings, and provides trainings to teachers and staff.

The special education director reported that the district also employs or contracts with 8 special education teachers and 17 special education paraprofessionals, and also contracts with SWWC staff to provide related services and consultation in the following areas:

• SLP • OT • PT • Audiology Services • Psychological Services • Vision Therapy • Service for Hearing Impaired • Transportation Services • Social Work Services • Developmental Adaptive Physical Education (DAPE) • Mental Health Providers • School Health Services and School Nurse Services • Early Identification and Assessment • Counseling Services • Service Coordination Services • Nutrition Services

Elementary general education teachers expressed a need for additional paraprofessional support in the elementary school. In subsequent follow-up interviews, special education staff explained that the district had changed the structure of paraprofessional duties to reduce the 1:1 support for students by creating a resource room model. Staff reported that the district is still trying to work out the kinks in the new system, but they believe the district is now appropriately staffed.

Special education and building administration were asked to describe the delivery of special education services or support when special education teachers, related service providers, or paraprofessionals are absent. According to the special education director, SWWC provides substitute teacher folder templates. Districts, however, are responsible for contacting and hiring substitutes from the district substitute pool for absences. The special education director reports that SWWC staff are instructed to make up service time, if possible, when they are absent for single days.

Administrators provided sufficient procedures related to short-and long-term absences and the process for informing substitutes about relevant IEP information. Administrators reported they


ensure substitutes are provided for special education paraprofessional and special education teacher absences. Administrators reported the standard procedure is to cover absences internally or with a substitute, or the time is made up when the provider is available.

All special education teachers, general education teachers, and nearly all paraprofessionals reported no more than normal concerns regarding the delivery of special education services or support when special education teachers, related service providers, or paraprofessionals are absent.


Topic Area: Training

SWWC has offered special education professional development initiatives to licensed and non-licensed district staff over the past two years: New Teacher Cohort – monthly meetings of new special education teachers, Fall Early Childhood Special Education, Speech Language Pathologist, Evaluation Writing, IEP Writing, Fiscal Monitoring, Woodcock Johnson-IV Achievement & Oral Language, Pragmatic Organization Dynamics Display, Special Education Assistance Team Networking, Every Move Counts, Early Childhood Special Education Evaluation and Assessment, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, SpEd Forms, Strategies for Teaching Based on Autism Research, Visual Phonics, Co-Teaching Strategies, Tips for Talking with School Staff, Files, Files, Files, Part C Files, Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) Applied, CIP Refresher, CPI Full Training, CPI Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Specific, CPI De-escalation, School Psych 101, Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Community Transition Interagency Committee Training (CTIC), Transition Toolkit for Parents, Developmental Cognitive Disorder (DCD) Networking, Early Childhood Special Education Inclusion Workshop, Picture Exchange Communication System, DAPE/OT, Speech Networking, Cross Battery Assessment, and ASD Training and Work Sessions.

SWWC notifies districts of the trainings, allowing them to determine their individual needs. According to the director of special education, SWWC’s own staff who provide service to participating districts and attended the trainings include school psychologists, early childhood special education teachers, an orientation and mobility consultant, teachers of visually impaired, a teacher of DHH students, a teacher of ASD students, OTs, PTs, and an interpreter.

The district has procedures in place to inform staff of changes to policies and procedures and to ensure compliance. Building administrators, general education teachers, related service providers, special education paraprofessionals, contracted staff, and non-licensed staff are informed of special education policies and procedures or changes to special education policies and procedures through various means of communication including email, during monthly coordinator meetings, data meetings, workshops, Back-to-School trainings as well as during other activities requested by the district. Special education administration and building administration identify training needs for general and special education staff based on MDE information and training, district initiatives or individual district and building needs, changes to the curriculum, as well as following review of district and building data.

Building administrators reported, and special education teachers, related service providers, the majority of paraprofessionals, and nearly all general education teachers agreed, that staff are


adequately prepared to provide services and support to students receiving special education, including training in the use of assistive technology (e.g., computer tablet, communication device). Notably, however, nearly 15% of paraprofessionals in the high school pointed out that prior to working with the students, staff could be better trained to provide services to individual students and to work with student behaviors. In follow-up interviews, special education staff reported that weekly meetings are now held with paraprofessionals and special education teachers to ensure guidance and communication. Staff also maintain the confidentiality of any personally identifiable data, information, and records of students. Additionally, special education teachers and paraprofessionals using restrictive procedures receive the necessary training on the use of specific physical holds, restraints and/or seclusion (confining students alone in a room so they are prevented from leaving).

Either prior to or immediately upon employment, building administrators reported, and all recently hired paraprofessionals confirmed, that the district provides sufficient information to meet the needs of the students receiving special education services. All paraprofessionals also reported annual training opportunities to further develop the knowledge and skills specific to the students with whom they work, including understanding disabilities, following lesson plans, and implementing follow-up instructional procedures and activities. Paraprofessionals reportedly receive sufficient ongoing direction from a licensed teacher; those providing IEP health-related services for a student receiving special education receive ongoing direction from a school nurse where appropriate and when possible.


Topic Area: Special Education Advisory Council (SEAC)

According to the special education director, the district has a SEAC through the cooperative that meets regularly and has a membership of which at least half are parents of a student with a disability as required by Minnesota Statute § 125A.24. The district’s TSES Plan also includes a description of the SEAC’s operational procedures.


Topic Area: Service Delivery, Teaching Models, and Collaboration

The special education director described service delivery for home-schooled students, private school students, and students in alternative sites within the district’s boundaries. District administrators would assign staff to work with students who are home-schooled, and private school students are provided service at the public school buildings. Also, the special education director reported that the district actively uses its community relationships to reach out to children who are homeless. Students in alternative sites receive services on these sites and are transported by the district. The special education director also reports that the district does not have a policy or practice of limiting students to one type of service, such as prohibiting services for an English language learner (ELL) who also is receiving special education services.

Students with disabilities receive special education services in the following district buildings: Murdock Elementary, Kerkhoven Secondary/Junior High/Early Childhood. Early childhood special education teachers and related service providers currently serve children ages birth


through 2 in the following programs: Setting 12 (program designed for typically developing children), and Setting 13 (home).

Multiple methods are used for the delivery of special education across the district. Methods described are:

• Pull-out instruction: Direct services provided by a special education teacher or related service provider in the special education setting

• Push-in: direct services provided by a special education teacher or related service provider in the general education setting

• Delivering and evaluating instructional techniques for a group of students

• Co-teaching: general education teachers and special education teachers co-teach by sharing, planning, delivering, and evaluating instructional techniques for a group of students

• Resource room support that may include academic or behavioral remediation, assistance with assignments, organization, etc., from special education staff in the special education setting

• Indirect services provided in the general education setting includes ongoing progress reviews; cooperative planning; consultation; demonstration teaching; modification and adaptation of the environment, curriculum, materials, or equipment; and direct contact with the pupil to monitor and observe. Indirect services may be provided by a special education teacher or related service provider to a general education teacher, special education teacher, related services provider, paraprofessional, support staff, parents, and public and nonpublic agencies to the extent that the services are written in the student’s IEP and IFSP

• Itinerant instruction: service provider who travels to multiple buildings/districts to provide direct or indirect services to special education students

• Homebound instruction

When special education teachers are not licensed in a student’s category of disability, SWWC provides consultation and indirect services in order to sufficiently provide instruction. Also, while general education teachers reported no specific limitations to the variety of teaching models or types of service delivery options (e.g., no “dual services,” such as ELL services and special education services) available to students receiving special education, not all special education teachers were certain of a policy or practice of limiting students to one type of service. The district should ensure that all staff have this information.

According to special education and building administrators, the district helps students acquire appropriate behaviors and skills through school-wide positive approaches to behavioral interventions. The district plans to grow as a Planned Behavioral Intervention Systems (PBIS) affiliate, as it has recently joined the PBIS cohort, and to incorporate a district-wide code of conduct.


Topic Area: Resources and Supports for Staff


Building administrators receive adequate assistance and support with their questions and concerns related to special education from special education administrators. Correspondingly, special education teachers, related service providers, and general education teachers also indicate that adequate assistance and support with questions and concerns related to special education is received from building administration and/or special education administration.


Topic Area: Strengths and concerns or suggestions for improvement identified by district staff related to staffing, training, staff resources and support, and instructional delivery models

Some strengths identified by district staff include:

• Cooperation between special education staff and general education teachers • Very committed paraprofessionals • Weekly meetings of special education staff and paraprofessionals, and paraprofessional

binders containing information and expectations • Very strong communication from special education staff • Supportive, accessible, and knowledgeable special education staff • Variety of training provided by special education staff • Low student-to-teacher ratio and manageable caseloads

Some concerns or suggestions identified by district staff include:

• Need for more paraprofessionals and special education teachers • Desire for more training on differentiation and co-teaching • Need for paraprofessional training when working with new students (high school) • Desire for debriefing about special education students at the beginning of the school year

(elementary) • Desire for better communication among staff in the high school

*Note: The positive comments about the special education department are too numerous to list in this report.

Area 2: Facilities and Environment Topic Area: Facilities

On April 21, 2016, an MDE monitor conducted an onsite review of the district special education programs and facilities. The purpose of the review is to verify that the classrooms and other facilities in which students receive instruction, related services, and supplementary aids and services are accessible, are essentially equivalent to the regular education program, provide an atmosphere that is generally conducive to learning, and usually meet the students’ special physical, sensory, and emotional needs. The results of the onsite review and the interviews completed by building administration, special education service providers, paraprofessionals, and general education teachers conclude that the classrooms and other facilities in which students receive instruction, related services, and supplementary aids and services meet the requirements outlined in Minnesota Rule 3525.1400.

Special education and building administration described sufficient procedures, timelines, and individuals involved in the determination of needed space or locations of space for special


education and related services. The district administration and special education department determine space for location needs for special education and related services. Building administration reported that the district administration meets weekly with special education staff regarding student needs and also collaborates with district leadership and other staff to plan for special education instructional space and its location.

Paraprofessionals reported a number of concerns in the high school regarding an atmosphere that is not always conducive to learning, noting that sometimes the rooms in which special education is delivered get quite loud, or behaviors may interfere with student learning. In subsequent follow-up interviews, special education staff reported that the district has brought in a behaviorist to assist with these issues.


Topic Area: Equipment and Supplies

The MDE onsite review confirmed the reports from building administration, special education service providers, paraprofessionals, and general education teacher interviews that staff is provided with the special equipment, assistive technology, and instructional materials necessary to implement students’ IFSPs and IEPs. However, the onsite review revealed concerns regarding technology. In the elementary school, general education classrooms use interactive white boards; however, special education classrooms have none. Some special education teachers reported that instead they use projectors. Special education teachers reported that they had not been offered interactive white boards. At least one teacher noted she had requested one and was told the district was working on finding one but it was not yet provided. Multiple teachers reported they felt students could benefit from having an interactive white board in the classroom.

In the high school, although not all general education classrooms contained interactive white boards, none were found in special education classrooms. Special education teachers gave a number of responses on how they would access comparable general education curriculum. Some teachers said they did not want them because they were a distraction to students or because they did not think they would help for the subjects they taught, while others noted they had made requests that were not yet fulfilled. Overall, the district should ensure students in special education classes have access to curriculum used in the general education program.

Some staff reported that technology in the district is “very outdated.” Special education staff noted that the lack of applications for communication, transition lessons, and autism social training impedes the progress of students. Instead, the district “makes do” with paper and pencil. Multiple special education teachers also reported the need for computer tablets as there are only two in the entire high school, and that the request for them had been denied by the superintendent. Technology is an area of concern.

Special education administration and building administration described existing processes for obtaining special equipment, instructional materials, consumables, etc. necessary to implement IEPs in both general and special education settings. Staff reported that after IEP teams determine the supplies that are needed, the special education facilitator and the building administration submit a requisition to the business office.


Survey comments indicated a need for new curriculum in the high school. In follow-up interviews, special education staff agreed that the curriculum could be improved, but that staff first needed to request it. The district may wish to review the process for requesting needed items during training so that all staff are aware of the process.


Topic Area: Room Used for Seclusion

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


Topic Area: Strengths and concerns or suggestions identified by district staff regarding facilities, equipment, and technology

Some strengths identified by district staff:

• New resource room allowing for one-on-one time for students • Central location of special education classrooms • Up-to-date, available technology and the ability to purchase what is needed • Good facilities

Some concerns or suggestions identified by district staff:

• Desire for more quiet sensory space in the high school • Need to use technology more effectively in the high school

Area 3: Child Find and Evaluation

Topic Area: Pre-referral and Child Find Processes

“Child find” under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act refers to the local education agency’s obligation to identify all children with disabilities. Most local educational agencies have a designated child find team responsible for identifying students in the general education population who potentially may be eligible for special education and related services.

According to the director of special education director, the district has a public awareness program to identify, locate, and evaluate infants and toddlers with disabilities under Part C, including children who are on Indian reservations, homeless, in foster care, or wards of the state. The special education director reports that district early childhood providers actively collaborate with county and public health agencies through quarterly meetings of the regional, nine-county IEIC (Interagency Early Intervention Committee) to plan public awareness and child find activities and to share referral information with parents of infants and toddlers, medical professionals, day care providers, Head Start, food shelf, family members, and others serving this age group. The regional IEIC provides brochures, fliers, child development information, and trainings, and also accesses Grow With Me, a county early intervention assessment team, located in the district. Additionally, district general education teachers conduct preschool


screenings at least twice annually to identify students who are at risk as well as additional screenings or special education evaluation depending on the results of the initial screening.

The special education director reports further that each year the district issues a letter and brochure describing the district child find process to private schools and to alternative sites. The special education director reports that she has advised the district to describe the child find process on the district website, in newspapers, and in other local community resources such as physicians’ offices and libraries.

Children ages birth to three are referred by various sources: hospitals, prenatal and postnatal care facilities, physicians, parents, child care programs and early learning programs, local educational agencies, public health facilities, other public health or social service agencies, other clinics and health care providers and public agencies and staff in the child welfare system, including child protective service and foster care, homeless family shelters, and domestic violence shelters and agencies. Teachers report that post-referral screening procedures (i.e., screening instead of immediately conducting an initial evaluation for early intervention services, which is distinct from preschool screening), are employed generally using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire instrument or the Battelle Developmental Inventory-2 (BDI-2) depending on the child’s individual circumstances. Early childhood special education service providers described appropriate steps and services to support the smooth transition of children from Part C to Part B or to other appropriate services. Parents are contacted, evaluations conducted, and the child transitioned as appropriately determined by the IFSP team.

General education teachers reported participation in a variety of pre-referral process activities, including regularly scheduled meetings with an assortment of staff to discuss concerns regarding students in general education who may need pre-referral interventions and consultation with special education staff. Teachers also described their involvement in collecting data, recording progress, and participating in meetings to review data to determine if interventions were successful, if additional interventions are warranted, or if a special education evaluation should be considered.

Building administrators reported that the district has problem solving team (PST) and a child study team (CST), which meet weekly in both the elementary school and high school, and monthly in the ECSE program. During the PST meetings, staff discuss students demonstrating academic or behavioral concerns to determine appropriate interventions, which are implemented over the course of several weeks. If the student is unable to meet the intervention goals, then the CST considers if a special education evaluation is warranted.

The CST typically includes the general education administrator and general education teacher(s), special education teachers, social worker, as well as the following as needed: related service providers, special education administrator, special education teacher, social workers, the school psychologist, and paraprofessionals. Before a student is referred for a special education evaluation, students are receiving and teachers are documenting at least two instructional strategies, alternatives, or interventions in academics or behavior (i.e., “pre-referral interventions”), while the student is in the regular classroom.

With the understanding that identifying students potentially in need of special education assistance takes time, the majority of general education teachers still agreed that pre-referral


interventions do not result in an unreasonable delay of initial evaluations for special education. However, 18% of teachers expressed concerns about the delay inherent in the process, even though it may fall within state guidelines. In follow-up interviews, the special education teacher noted that general education teachers frequently are frustrated about conducting interventions. The district may wish to incorporate in its training the rationale behind the pre-referral process to ensure understanding between general education teachers and special education staff.

Building administrators and general education teachers reported no restrictions regarding the timing of referral for a special education evaluation (e.g., may only submit referrals the 1st of each month or must submit the referral by April 1st.). Also, building administrators, special education teachers, and general education teachers report no policy or district practice of delaying initial special education evaluations of ELL students based on ELL status.


Topic Area: Transfer Process

The district has processes in place to ensure the provision of comparable services to special education students who transfer to the district from another district (in-state or out-of-state) as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(e)-(f). Interview responses offered no concerns regarding the prompt transmittal and request of records as well as immediate provision of services upon enrollment.


Topic Area: Evaluations

Special education teachers and related service providers reportedly know when and how to address concerns related to racial or cultural discrimination when evaluating students.


Topic Area: Exit Procedures

Interviews described compliant procedures for exiting a student from special education services when a student has made adequate progress such that continuing need for services no longer exists. When a student nears high school graduation or ages out at 21, a summary of performance providing recommendations on how to assist the student in meeting postsecondary goals is provided to the student.


Topic Area: Due Process Compliance

The district was required to review a sample of special education records and report the results to MDE. The results reported by the district indicate that those records are in 100% compliance with Timeline, Notification, and IEP/IFSP Standards related to the IEP/IFSP process and provision of special education and related services. Notably, the district’s self-review of special education records during the Self-Review year of the program monitoring cycle also resulted in no findings. The district is again commended for its successful compliance efforts.



Topic Area: Strengths and concerns or suggestions identified by district staff regarding special education related to the referral, child find, transfer student, or evaluation processes.


• Weekly child study meetings • District interventionist and the variety of research-based interventions • Assistance with interventions • Strong, clear, and timely child find process • Value placed on general education input in the referral process • Policies that reinforce the process to remain consistent • ECSE referrals from a variety of sources


• Young students who do well enough to exit special education but immediately begin struggling

Area 4: IEP and IFSP Process and Implementation

Topic Area: Least Restrictive Environment

To the maximum extent appropriate, staff provide early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities in their natural environments. All building administrators and all special education teachers also suggest that each school-aged child with a disability is educated with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent possible. However, nearly a quarter of paraprofessionals and a minority of general education teachers disagreed.

All building administrators and all special education teachers affirm that students with disabilities have equal access to extra-curricular and nonacademic activities (e.g., counseling services, athletics, transportation, health services, district-sponsored clubs, recess, meals, etc.) available to non-disabled peers and are fully integrated with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate. Only a minority of paraprofessionals and general education teachers disagreed that students with disabilities have access to extra-curricular and nonacademic activities. However, nearly a quarter of paraprofessionals disagreed that students with disabilities are fully integrated with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent possible, with the majority of general education teachers also disagreeing. Also, when a student is removed from the general education environment, all building administrators and all special education teachers staff affirm the removal occurs only if the nature or severity of the child’s disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. However, nearly a quarter of paraprofessionals and a minority of general education teachers disagreed. Special education staff reported in follow-up interviews that the district strongly emphasizes LRE, and suggested the question was misunderstood, a likely explanation given the otherwise-excellent feedback from district staff in the surveys.

The special education director reported sufficient procedures to ensure that, for a student placed outside of the district by an IEP team, an appropriate IEP is developed, the student is


placed in the least restrictive environment, and due process procedures associated with these responsibilities are followed.


Topic Area: Communicating IEP Content

ECSE staff responsible for service coordination reported a range of services available to parents of infants and toddlers with disabilities. Interview responses indicated that ECSE staff have developed a compliant interim IFSP within the last two years. ECSE staff also reported extensive services, including assisting parents of infants and toddlers with disabilities in obtaining access to early intervention services; making referrals and appointments; coordinating the provision of early intervention services and other services (such as educational, social, and medical services that are not provided for diagnostic or evaluative purposes); coordinating evaluations and assessments; facilitating and participating in the development, review, and evaluation of IFSPs; informing families of their rights and of procedural safeguards; and facilitating the development of a transition plan to preschool, school, or if appropriate to other services.

All general education teachers, special education teachers, related service providers and paraprofessionals have access to the IEP of each school-aged student with a disability for whom they are responsible via receipt of an entire copy or relevant portions of the IEP, requesting to review a student’s IEP, or most typically by discussing IEP content with service providers at the beginning of the school year and when appropriate. Special education staff explained that paraprofessionals are able to look at the IEP provided to the general education teacher. Overall, paraprofessionals and general education teachers are sufficiently informed of their specific responsibilities and the specific accommodations, modifications, and supports required by the IEPs of the students with whom they work.


Topic Area: Team Members and Meetings

Each IEP team must have a representative of the public agency (i.e., “district representative”). The representative must be qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities; knowledgeable about the general education curriculum; and knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the public agency. Building administration, special education teachers, and related service providers confirm that the representatives at IEP meetings held at the district meet all of these qualifications.

General education teachers reportedly receive timely notice of IEP meetings. As members of the IEP team, and to the extent appropriate, general education teachers reported full participation in the determination of IEP services such as supplemental aids and services, behavioral supports, and program modifications.


Topic Area: Extended School Year (ESY)


The district ensures that ESY services are available as necessary to provide FAPE. Staff provide ESY services only if a student’s IEP team determines, on an individual basis, that the services are necessary for the provision of FAPE to the student. Also, according to district staff, the district does not limit extended school year services to particular categories of disability nor does it unilaterally limit the type, amount, or duration of those services.


Topic Area: Progress Reporting

Early childhood special education providers ensure periodic reviews are held at least every six months, as required by 34 C.F.R. § 303.342. The district ensures that the IEP team revises a school-aged student’s IEP, as appropriate, to address any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals. General education teachers, as members of the IEP team, participate in the review and revision of the student’s IEP to the extent appropriate.


Topic Area: Secondary Transition

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

Special education teachers, and related service providers described secondary transition services, activities, or programming opportunities that are provided or are available to students, including work experience programs, courses of study available specific to students’ needs, college visits, partnerships with community agencies to support employment, post-secondary education, and independent living skills. The special education director also described the following district transition program for students ages 18 to 21: Focus House, a two-year transition program following completion of high school graduation requirements designed for students capable of learning skills needed to live semi-independently or independently in their homes. Special education staff also reported district involvement with Community Transition Interagency Committee (CTIC), the Private Industry Council, Project Discovery, which is a state-approved “Transition Disabled Program” providing career exploration and assessments for special population high school students.


Topic Area: Strengths and concerns or suggestions identified by district staff regarding special education, least restrictive environment, IEP/IFSP teams, communicating IEP/IFSP content, progress reporting, or transition.



• Timeliness of evaluations and IEPs • Multiple strategies and variety of information provided to parents • Respect afforded parents in IEP meetings • The use of paraprofessionals and co-teaching strategies to maintain LRE • Helpfulness of special education teachers when crafting an IEP • Suggestions offered by special education teachers in IEP meetings to enable students to

be successful in the classroom • Excellent IEP meetings and strong staff participation • Distribution of IEP information in a timely manner • Monitoring of students’ class progress by case managers • CTIC, Private Industry Council, Project Discovery, and Vocational Rehabilitation Services


• Limited transition program opportunities in a small rural community


Summary of Corrective Action Required

No findings of individual student record noncompliance were issued from the six files reviewed by the district, one of which was also reviewed for verification by MDE. Kerkhoven-Murdock-Sunburg Public School District (0775-01) was notified of the compliance status regarding individual files on March 1, 2016. As a result, no individual correction is required. The district is commended for its efforts regarding compliance.

No systemic findings of noncompliance were identified as part of the MDE review of Kerkhoven-Murdock-Sunburg Public School District (0775-01) and no corrective action is required. The district administration and staff involved in special education programs are commended for their strong commitment to providing compliant services to children and families.

For clarification of the issues in this report, please contact the district’s lead monitor indicated below.

Nan McGrane Compliance Specialist Division of Compliance and Assistance 1500 West Highway 36 Roseville, MN 55113 651-582-8529 [email protected]

Appeal of any finding in this report must be submitted within 30 calendar days to Marikay Canaga Litzau, J.D., at the address above. Appeals must be in writing and include the issues being challenged along with documentation to support the disputed issues.


Appendix

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

Acronyms

Data sources

CC Child count Srv Students served by District 0775-01 RR Students sampled for the record review

Disability categories

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

Child Count

In the December 1, 2015, Part B federal child count, students identified as receiving special education and related services are 8.1 percent (n = 57) of the district total enrollment compared to the statewide average of 14.9 percent. Students receiving special education and related services within 0775-01 represent 12.1 percent (n = 86) of the district’s total enrollment. This data may include students who are open enrolled into the district, but does not include students in non-public educational settings unless the student receives special education and related services from the district. The district’s Part C child count (children birth through age 2) is 2.7 percent of the population compared to 2.6 percent statewide (preliminary). The “population” used is based on census data reported by the district to MDE.

IDEA District (CC) District (Srv) Statewide Part B 8.1 percent 12.1 percent 14.9 percent Part C 2.7 percent 4.5 percent 2.6 percent


Individual Student Record Noncompliance

Individual citations of noncompliance are identified by student and reported through the web-based MNCIMP:SR tracking system. The district had no findings of individual noncompliance as formally notified on March 1, 2016.

Complaint Decisions

Complaint files were reviewed for records of formal complaints filed regarding Kerkhoven-Murdock-Sunburg (0775-01) and no formal complaints were opened during the relevant time period.

Interviews and Surveys

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

Kerkhoven-Murdock-Sunburg (0775-01) 21

Federal Instructional Settings by Disability

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

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

Disability FS 1 CC

FS 1 Srv

FS 1 RR

FS 2 CC

FS 2 Srv

FS 2 RR

FS 3 CC

FS 3 Srv

FS 3 RR

FS 4 CC

FS 4 Srv

FS 4 RR

FS 5-8 CC

FS 5-8 Srv

FS 5-8 RR

ASD 25 71 0 50 29 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCD-MM 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCD-SP 0 0 0 50 100 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DD 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DHH 50 50 0 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBD 56 78 0 33 22 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 OHD 40 62 100 40 38 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 PI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLD 47 59 0 53 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLI 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SMI 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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


Race/Ethnicity by Disability

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

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

Disability Amer. Indian CC

Amer. Indian Srv

Amer. Indian RR

Asian CC

Asian Srv

Asian RR

Hisp. CC

Hisp. Srv

Hisp. RR

Black CC

Black Srv

Black RR

White CC

White Srv

White RR

ASD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 11 0 DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCD-MM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 DCD-SP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 DD 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 25 100 0 0 0 7 9 0 DHH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 EBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 13 0 OHD 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 17 0 0 0 0 7 9 20 PI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLD 0 0 0 100 33 0 55 58 0 0 20 26 0 SLI 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 24 80 SMI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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


Age by Disability

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

Disability 0-2 CC

0-2 Srv

0-2 RR

3-5 CC

3-5 Srv)

3-5 RR

6 CC

6 Srv

6 RR

7 CC

7 Srv

7 RR

8 CC

8 Srv

8 RR

9 CC

9 Srv

9 RR

10 CC

10 Srv

10 RR

11 CC

11 Srv

11 RR

12 CC

12 Srv

12 RR

ASD 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 20 33 0 DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCD-MM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 12 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCD-SP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DD 100 100 0 38 17 20 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DHH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 25 0 0 11 0 OHD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 33 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 11 0 PI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLD 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 40 0 17 25 0 0 14 0 50 67 0 100 50 0 33 50 0 60 33 0 SLI 0 0 0 62 75 80 50 20 0 50 62 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 25 0 20 11 0 SMI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disability 13 CC

13 Srv

13 RR

14 CC

14 Srv

14 RR

15 CC

15 Srv

15 RR

16 CC

16 Srv

16 RR

17 CC

17 Srv

17 RR

18 CC

18 Srv

18 RR

19 CC

19 Srv

19 RR

20 CC

20 Srv

20 RR

21 CC

21 Srv

21 RR

ASD 20 12 0 25 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCD-MM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCD-SP 20 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DHH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 20 0 20 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBD 0 0 0 25 33 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 33 0 0 40 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OHD 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 20 100 33 25 0 33 20 0 20 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLD 40 38 0 50 67 0 100 60 0 67 50 0 0 40 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SMI 20 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

special education program compliance review final report - … · 2020. 1. 4. · special education...

Documents