special education program compliance review final report€¦ · emergency. because the special...

Special Education Program Compliance Review

Final Report

June 8, 2018

Albert Lea Public School District (0241-01)

Dr. Mike Funk, Superintendent

Tamera J Alphs, Director of Special Education

Albert Lea Public School District (0241-01) 2

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 .......................................................................................................................... 21

Interviews ........................................................................................................................................... 21

Federal Instructional Settings by Disability ....................................................................................... 22

Race/Ethnicity by Disability ............................................................................................................... 23

Age by Disability ................................................................................................................................ 24


Introduction and Authority

The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE), as the state educational agency, is required by federal law to

monitor the education of children with disabilities pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA). 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(11); 34 C.F.R. § 300.600. Additionally, state law requires every local educational

agency (LEA) to ensure all students with disabilities are provided specialized instruction and services appropriate

to their needs. Minn. Stat. § 125A.08(b)(1). Each LEA within the state, including educational programs

administered by any public agency, is under the general supervision of MDE. In order to evaluate special

education programs, MDE staff has the authority to review all relevant information necessary to carry out the

department’s oversight responsibilities.

Scope of Monitoring

Monitors from MDE’s Division of Compliance and Assistance conducted a full compliance review of the special

education program of Albert Lea Public School District (0241-01). The monitoring process included a review of:

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

• Six 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

• 12 Part B (students ages 3 through 21) and 7 Part C (children from birth to age 3) student records

Resulting Findings and Corrective Action

The following report identifies individual student record noncompliance, findings of systemic noncompliance

and corrective action requirements. Findings of systemic noncompliance are identified based on an analysis of

compliance data collected from the sources listed above. If an area is identified as a finding of systemic

noncompliance, the district is required to develop and implement a corrective action plan (CAP) to address each

finding within one year of the date of this report.

Individual student record noncompliance occurs when a student file is cited for violation of any state or federal

special education law. Citations of individual student files must be corrected by the district by March 30, 2019. If

individual student noncompliance is identified for correction, tracking is completed through the Minnesota

Continuous Improvement Process: Self Review (MNCIMP:SR) system and the district may be required to develop

and implement a CAP to address findings of noncompliance.


District Overview

Albert Lea Public School District is located in southern Minnesota and comprised of an early childhood program,

four elementary schools, one middle school, one high school and alternative sites. Albert Lea Public School

District is currently in a joint powers agreement with Austin Public School District under which the two districts

have access to a Federal Setting IV program (programs in which special education students receive special

education services at a separate site for the entire school day). Austin Public School District staff provide special

education services at the shared program site; Albert Lea school psychologists and special education teachers

participate in reevaluation procedures for Albert Lea students who are placed there. The compliance review

included in this report will analyze the district’s approach to offering special education programming, training,

resources and other related service efforts.

Monitoring Findings by Area

Area 1: Governance

Topic Area: Total Special Education System

A total special education system (TSES) is a plan describing a district’s special education policies, procedures and

programs. A plan for a single district identifies the district’s responsibilities regarding child study procedures,

methods of providing the special education services for identified pupils, administration and management plans

to assure effective and efficient results, operating procedures of interagency committees and any interagency

agreements into which the district has entered.

After conducting a self-review, the special education director provided MDE with an assurance that the district’s

TSES demonstrates 100% compliance with Minnesota Rule 3525.1100.

Corrective Action: None

Topic Area: Restrictive Procedures Plan

“Restrictive procedures” means the use of physical holding or seclusion of children with disabilities in an

emergency. Because the special education director reported the district intends to continue the use of physically

holding children with disabilities in an emergency, the district is required to maintain and make publicly

accessible a restrictive procedures plan (RPP) for children with disabilities. Minnesota Statute requires that the

plan must, at least, list the restrictive procedures the school intends to use; describe how the school will monitor

and review the use of restrictive procedures; and include a written description and documentation of the

training school personnel completed.

After conducting a self-review, the special education director provided MDE with an assurance that the district’s

RPP demonstrates 100% compliance with Minnesota Statute, sections 125A.0941 and 125A.0942.



Topic Area: Staffing

The district’s special education administrative staffing includes a special education director and assistant special

education director. A superintendent and six building principals provide district-level administrative leadership.

The district is staffed with special education personnel consisting of 58 special education teachers, 19 related

service providers and 104 special education paraprofessionals. Related service providers include speech

language pathology, Developmental Adapted Physical Education (DAPE), school psychologists, school nurse and

social work services. The special education director reported that having lead teachers at each building is an

asset. Lead teachers are responsible for evaluations, testing, writing reports, scheduling meetings with families

and facilitating meetings.

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. Special

education administration reported that obtaining both full-time teachers and substitutes during absence is

difficult for the district. Albert Lea staff requests leave through an online absence management system. Often,

short term substitutes are not licensed in the area of disability because of teacher availability in the area. Special

education teachers and designated lead teachers provide support for substitutes. Long-term absences are

posted through the local newspaper, on a teacher job-posting website or may be hired through a contracted

company. When related service providers are absent in short term, a substitute is not provided to cover the

absence. If the absence is more than a few days, compensatory services will be provided. Other district

providers also may step in to cover service minutes. Long-term related service provider absences are posted, but

difficulty in finding individuals with correct licensure may result in the district hiring contracted providers

instead. Paraprofessionals also use the online absence management system. Other paraprofessionals may shift

schedules to cover necessary student services during absences. In the case of a long-term absence,

paraprofessional positions would be posted. Special education providers leave substitutes notes and

information outlining schedules and student needs. Case managers share paraprofessional information with the

paraprofessional substitute.

Interview responses confirmed sufficient procedures related to short- and long-term absences and the process

for informing substitutes about relevant IEP information. Some concerns were reported by 27% of special

education providers, 17% of paraprofessionals and 15% of general education teachers regarding the delivery of

special education services or support when special education providers or paraprofessionals are absent. General

education teachers indicated particular concern for when paraprofessionals are absent; they also noted the

district is short staffed and needs to hire more paraprofessionals. Middle school paraprofessionals reported that

communication on roles and responsibilities needs to be improved, including clear schedules and details

regarding specific shifts in responsibilities. In follow-up interviews, the special education director clarified that

the district has utilized Region 10 as another resource to fill absences, along with universities located in Winona.

Special education paraprofessionals and general education teachers are encouraged by the district to obtain

special education licensure. Community experts are another avenue to fill positions by enrolling in a licensure

program. Early childhood and elementary caseloads have increased and additional staff will be hired for next

school year to meet those needs.


The district is commended in the many attempts currently used to improve the issue and is encouraged to

continue expanding these actions and pursuing further strategies to cover full-time positions and short and long-

term absence in special education.


Topic Area: Training

Special education professional development initiatives have been offered to licensed and non-licensed district

personnel over the past two years including Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI), due process compliance, cultural

awareness, and literacy (reading development, pedagogy, diagnostic assessments and reading instruction) for

secondary staff. Other than via district-led trainings, licensed and non-licensed staff is informed of special

education policies and procedures or changes to special education policies and procedures through meetings

and updates. Building administrators have monthly cabinet meetings where information is shared. Lead special

education teachers meet monthly with the special education director; the lead shares updates from these

meetings with special education teachers, related service providers and general education teachers. Lead

teachers meet monthly with paraprofessionals and information is provided during those regular meetings. Staff

meetings occur once or twice per month, depending on site, and updates also are shared at these meetings.

Special education administration and building administration identify training needs based on monthly learning

team meetings. The majority of staff professional development is planned by the learning team. The team is

made up of administrators (including principals, curriculum directors, the superintendent and the director of

special services), lead special education teachers and instructional coaches. Additionally, staff completes surveys

indicating training topic interests shared with the team.

Interview responses suggest that special education providers are adequately prepared to provide services and

support to students receiving special education, including training in the use of assistive technology (e.g., tablet

computers, communication devices, software, recorders, timers, reading guides, seat cushions, calculators,

graphic organizers and writing supports). Most special education paraprofessionals agree, although 25% of

paraprofessionals indicated they do not receive necessary training on assistive technology and that more

training in this area is needed. 20% of general education teachers also reported they are not adequately

prepared to support special education students in the mainstream classroom. They noted they do not receive

necessary information regarding accommodations or that this information is not received in a timely manner; in

some occasions they are unaware of which students have IEPs in order to provide supports to meet their needs.

Special education teachers suggested training for staff on disability awareness, strategies, the referral process

and supports for functional skills.

Building administrators, special education teachers and special education paraprofessionals using restrictive

procedures have received the necessary training on the use of seclusion and physical holds/restraint. District

personnel confirmed the confidentiality of any personally identifiable data, information and records of students

is also maintained.

Minnesota Statute requires that for all paraprofessionals employed to work in special education programs, the

district shall ensure each paraprofessional has sufficient knowledge and skills in emergency procedures, building

orientation, roles and responsibilities, confidentiality, vulnerability of students and mandatory reporting of


suspected abuse before or beginning at the time of employment. Building administrators reported and recently

hired paraprofessionals confirmed, they receive sufficient information from the district in order to meet

students’ needs. Most paraprofessionals reported that annual training opportunities also are made available to

paraprofessionals to further develop the knowledge and skills that are specific to the students with whom they

work, including understanding disabilities, following lesson plans and implementing follow-up instructional

procedures and activities. 21% indicated that training received is not specific to students with whom they work;

they again noted needing training about technology and disabilities. Early childhood staff indicated that, while

paraprofessionals received training on roles and responsibilities, this is still an area of concern. Paraprofessionals

suggested training on strategies to deescalate behavior, specific disability categories and how to use tablet

technology. Paraprofessionals also requested time to collaborate with special education teachers. Follow-up

interviews with the special education director confirmed that paraprofessionals receive training; all

paraprofessionals are informed and trainings are mandatory. Despite some concerns reported, most

paraprofessionals indicated they 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

Minnesota Statute, section 125A.24, requires school districts establish a special education advisory council

(SEAC) to increase the involvement of parents of children with disabilities in district policy making and decision

making. The special education director confirmed Albert Lea has a SEAC that meets regularly, most recently in

October 2017, and has a membership of which at least half are parents of a student with a disability.


Topic Area: Service Delivery, Teaching Models and Collaboration

Children ages birth through two receive early intervention services in the child’s home or daycare settings.

School-aged children with disabilities at Albert Lea receive special education services via pull-out, push-in, co-

teaching, resource room, indirect, itinerant instruction and homebound instruction in federal instructional

settings 1, 2 and 3, which describe the location and the amount of time that a student with an IEP receives

special education services. As noted previously, Albert Lea is currently in a joint powers agreement with Austin

Public School District under which the two districts have access to a setting 4 program located in Austin.

Special education service delivery occurring outside of the public school setting in alternative sites located

within the district’s boundaries also was described in interviews. Home school students receive services at their

neighborhood school. Students attending private schools receive services at the public school with the exception

of speech, which is provided at the private school.

Special education and building administration, special education teachers and related service providers did not

describe any specific limitations to the variety of teaching models or types of service delivery options available

to students receiving special education or related services. Special education teachers and related service

providers reported receipt of indirect services, including consultation from appropriately licensed providers, if


they are not licensed in a student’s category of disability and responsible for implementing an IEP. As noted

above, paraprofessionals reported and during follow-up interviews several staff across district sites confirmed,

the district should increase collaboration time between special education and general education staff to discuss

students and provide necessary supports. Other staff reported that communication could be strengthened

amongst staff within the district.


Topic Area: Resources and Supports for Staff

Building administrators receive adequate assistance and support from special education administrators

regarding questions and concerns related to special education. Correspondingly, most special education

providers, special education paraprofessionals and general education teachers also receive adequate assistance

and support with questions and concerns related to special education from building administration and special

education administration. However, several concerns were reported by special education providers including

inconsistent support, lack of follow through and need for improved communication amongst staff. Concerns also

were expressed regarding mental health resources, particularly at early childhood and high school levels. Special

education paraprofessionals reported that receiving supports is dependent on the case manager. This issue will

be discussed further under Communicating IEP Content below.

In follow-up interviews, the special education director detailed the number of counselors and social workers

retained at district sites in order to support mental health needs. The early childhood program has three social

workers, each elementary school has a counselor and social worker employed, the middle school has two social

workers and a counselor, while the high school has four counselors and three social workers. These numbers will

be maintained for next school year.


Area 2: Facilities, Equipment and Materials

Topic Area: Facilities

During the week of April 16, 2018, an MDE monitor conducted an onsite review of the special education

programs and facilities at Albert Lea Public Schools. The monitor visited the following sites: Brookside Early

Childhood, Hawthorne Elementary, Lakeview Elementary, Southwest Middle School, Albert Lea Area Learning

Center (ALC) and Albert Lea High School. 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.

Results of the onsite review and interviews completed by building administration, special education service

providers, paraprofessionals and general education teachers conclude that the majority of classrooms and other

facilities in which students receive instruction, related services and supplementary aids and services overall

meet the requirements outlined in Minnesota Rule 3525.1400. Building administrators, special education

teachers, special education paraprofessionals and general education teachers did report concerns regarding


shared classrooms in several district sites and the limited availability of sensory rooms in the setting 3 program.

At the ALC, students share the classroom with the Academic Support Center, which is part of the Riverland

Community College where the ALC is located. Sharing this space with another program often is distracting for

ALC students.

During follow-up interviews, the special education director acknowledged that student numbers are increasing,

thus resulting in some crowding. Building and special education administration collaborate and problem solve

regarding district sites in order to meet student needs. For example, a setting 3 program in the district will be

moving to a different school to better utilize facilities and ensure students receive necessary supports. Currently,

administration is discussing relocating the ALC classroom for next year; in which case students would no longer

share a room with other groups.

Hawthorne Elementary has independently-accessible doors, although some front entrance doors were not

working or were locked at the time of the onsite review. This situation was shared with the special education

director who planned to follow-up with school maintenance staff to resolve the problem.

Special education and building administration described sufficient procedures, including timelines and

individuals involved, when determining classroom needs or locations of classrooms for special education and

related services. District directors and superintendents meet weekly in administration meetings. Space issues

are discussed frequently during these meetings as they occur. Each spring, the team discusses staffing and space

for the following school year to confirm facility assignments. Several sites also request recommendations from

special education teachers regarding classroom assignments.


Concern: As reported through interviews and observed during tours, some rooms in both general and special

education are cramped. Multiple groups sometimes share rooms, which could potentially result in distractions for

learners. The district also is advised to reevaluate accessibility at the sites, rooms used for special education

throughout the buildings and formulate plans to ensure that special education students are receiving instruction

to meet special physical, sensory and emotional needs in facilities that are conducive to learning.

Topic Area: Equipment and Supplies

Minnesota Rule requires districts supply special equipment and instructional materials necessary to provide

instruction, related services and supplementary aids and services. Most special education service providers,

paraprofessionals and general education teachers confirmed they are adequately equipped with special

equipment and instructional materials to provide instruction and supports to students receiving special

education services, including the use of assistive technology. Some staff from Hawthorne Elementary reported

that general education often receives materials and technology before special education receives similar

materials. This concern was discussed with the special education director who plans to address the issue.

Staff sufficiently described in interviews steps and procedures special education teachers and related service

providers follow in order to obtain special equipment, instructional materials, consumables, etc. necessary to

implement IEPs in both general and special education settings. Staff are required to submit requisitions for

needs and include rationale that supports the request. Additional district individuals may be included in


discussion of materials, such as curriculum needs. Requests submitted are reviewed by the assistant special

education director, special education director and finally the business administrator for approval prior to

purchase.


Topic Area: Room Used for Seclusion

The district has a room used for seclusion at Albert Lea Public Schools located at Lakeview Elementary, which is

registered on the Minnesota Department of Education’s website and was observed by an MDE monitor during

the onsite review. The room meets the requirements outlined in Minnesota Statute, section 125A.0942,

subdivision 3, paragraph (a)(6)(i)-(vi).


Area 3: Child Find and Evaluation

Topic Area: Child Find Process

“Child find” under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act refers to the local education agency’s obligation

to locate, identify and evaluate all children with disabilities.

As part of Minnesota’s statewide comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary interagency system to provide

early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families, districts must have in

place specific pre-referral, referral and post-referral policies and procedures. As confirmed by the special

education director and early childhood special education (ECSE) staff, the district’s child find system for children

ages birth to three include the following components:

• A public awareness program which prepares, shares and assists primary referral sources in disseminating to parents and families required information describing the availability of early intervention services, the district’s child-find system and how to refer a child under the age of three for an evaluation or for early intervention services. One of the early childhood special education teachers is a member of the Interagency Family Intervention Committee. This group forms committees, including an outreach group. The committee provides brochures outlining the process to medical facilities, daycares and other appropriate settings in the community involved with young children. The early childhood program also coordinates a family fun fest in the spring of each year; this event is well attended and allows parents to connect with early intervention services for their children.

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

• A variety of primary referral sources including physicians, parents, child care programs, local educational agencies, public health agencies and hospitals.


• Post-referral screening procedures (i.e., screening instead of immediately conducting an initial evaluation for early intervention services, which is distinct from preschool screening) using Ages and Stages Questionnaire.

• Steps and services to support the smooth transition of children from Part C to Part B (or to other appropriate services).

The district’s child find system for locating, identifying and evaluating children and preschoolers ages 3 to 6

under Part B (including children on Indian reservations, who are homeless, in foster care, or are wards of the

state) includes:

• A public awareness program which prepares, shares and assists primary referral sources in disseminating to parents and families required information describing the availability of early intervention services, the district’s child-find system and how to refer a preschool-aged child for an evaluation. The outreach committee discussed above provides training to local entities on child find for preschool-aged children.

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

During follow-up interviews, early childhood staff reported concerns about lapsed time between referral and

start of service taking up to four to five months. They also indicated staff confusion regarding referral. The

special education director clarified that contacting parents can be a challenge in order to begin assessments, and

once identified, to schedule home services. The lead teacher is assigned to contact parents about home services

and communicate with parents. The district plans to add staff next year that would support the lead teacher and

assist with completing assessments.

Kindergarten teachers reported inconsistency of preschool screening information being provided about

students. The special education director indicated that information previously was passed to elementary

schools, although this year information was provided only if asked. The special education director acknowledged

the system for sharing this information should be reevaluated. Minnesota Rule requires that before a school-

aged student is referred for a special education evaluation, the district must conduct and document at least two

instructional strategies, alternatives or interventions (i.e., “pre-referral interventions”) while the student is in

the regular classroom. General and special education teachers at Albert Lea confirmed students are receiving

and teachers are documenting at least two pre-referral interventions in the regular classroom. General

education teachers at Albert Lea described participation in a variety of pre-referral process activities including

60% that participate in meetings to discuss interventions, 55% that receive resources for collecting data on

interventions and 45% that meet regularly to discuss student concerns. Several general education teachers

reported that the referral process is informal and they discuss concerns with special education staff.

The district has designated child find teams to discuss students participating in the child find process. The

process varies depending on the site. All elementary schools have problem solving teams that meet weekly.

Student concerns are discussed during these meetings and interventions are implemented as necessary. The

middle school also has a Problem Solving Team (PST) model. Each grade level has a representative that attends


the PST meeting and has access to online forms to compile and track student concerns. The PST monitors and

advises teachers through implementing interventions and next steps. At the high school, teachers recommend

student concerns to PST; the team includes an administrator, guidance counselor and the child’s teachers. Most

district PSTs meet weekly, with the exception of the high school and ALC that meet as needed. Often the high

school team meets monthly and may meet more frequently depending on the number of students being

discussed. Members of PSTs typically include general education administrators, general education teachers, the

lead teacher, special education teachers and school social worker. Special education administrators, special

education paraprofessionals, instructional coaches and school psychologists also may attend the meeting.

If the interventions are unsuccessful, the student is referred to child study to complete an evaluation report in

order to determine special education eligibility. In most cases, the child find team includes the same members as

the child study team. Child study teams also typically include general education administrators, special

education teachers and usually includes the school psychologist. In some cases, related service providers, social

workers and special education paraprofessionals may attend. Child study meets weekly at most sites and as

needed at the high school.

With the understanding that identifying students potentially in need of special education assistance takes time,

almost half of general education teachers reported that pre-referral interventions do result in an unreasonable

delay of initial evaluation for special education services. Several indicated the process is extensive and it may

take a full school year or multiple years to complete interventions before evaluating for special education.

General education teachers requested clarification on the referral process and support on implementing

effective interventions. High school general education teachers added they either would like regularly scheduled

child study team meetings to be reinstated rather than meeting as needed or receive better communication

regarding the referral process.

Interview responses did not describe a policy or practice of delaying initial special education evaluations of

English language learner students based on his or her English language learner status. However, some general

education staff noted that, while there is no specific policy, the district is reluctant to refer English learners or

teachers are told to wait until the student has been in the country at least a year. Although the district child

count is at almost 19%, more than the state average, over half of general education teachers reported

unreasonable delays in the identification process as well as significant confusion regarding restrictions on

referrals for a special education evaluation (e.g., may only submit referrals the 1st of each month or must

submit the referral by April 1st). Others clarified a date near the end of the school year by which referrals must

be submitted.

While the district child count is above the state average, teachers evidenced confusion regarding the district’s

child find process and misunderstanding processes reported by special administration. Despite compliant

policies, enough general education teachers reported procedures that can result in an unreasonable delay for

identification, including cut-off dates for referrals.

Public school districts are also required to have in place child find processes for home schooled students, private

school students and students in alternative sites. The special education director reported that home school

students are required to be registered with their local district; a letter is sent to home school families at the


beginning of the year that includes referral information. There are two private schools within district

boundaries. District administration contacts the schools regarding referral information; in kind, private school

administration contacts the school district with any specific student concerns. Elementary lead teachers are

assigned to each school.

The district also utilizes school-wide positive approaches to behavioral interventions so all students acquire

appropriate behaviors and skills including Responsive Classroom in the elementary schools. At the middle

school, advisory time is used to build relationships and provide social-emotional learning. High school staff

received social-emotional training to provide student supports.

Corrective Action: The district must develop and implement a CAP to ensure compliance with pre-referral and

identification standards relating to restricting student referrals at the end of the school year, as required by 34

C.F.R. § 300.111.

Topic Area: Transfer Process

Interview responses from special education teachers and related service providers suggest that Albert Lea has

sufficient processes in place to ensure the provision of comparable services to special education students who

transfer to the district from another district (in-state or out-of-state), as required by federal regulation.

Interview responses offered no concerns regarding the prompt transmittal and request of records as well as

immediate provision of services upon enrollment.


Topic Area: Evaluations

Federal regulation requires that assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a student are

provided and administered in the student’s native language or other mode of communication and in the form

most likely to yield accurate information on what the student knows and can do academically, developmentally

and functionally, unless it is clearly not feasible to so provide or administer; are used for the purposes for which

the assessments or measures are valid and reliable; are administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel;

and are administered in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of the assessments.

Federal regulation also requires districts to ensure assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a

student are not discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis. Interview responses affirm that special education

teachers and related service providers know when and how to address concerns related to racial or cultural

discrimination when evaluating students. Special education providers reported that having lead teachers

facilitate evaluations is a strength. Still, the district had student record review findings relating to evaluations, as

discussed below in Due Process Compliance.



Topic Area: Exit Procedures

Federal regulation requires districts to evaluate a child with a disability before determining that the child is no

longer a child with a disability. Special education teachers and related service providers described compliant

procedures for exiting a student from special education services when he or she has made adequate progress

such that continuing need for services no longer exists.

An evaluation is not required before the termination of a child’s eligibility due to graduation from secondary

school with a regular diploma, or due to exceeding the age eligibility for a free and appropriate public education

(FAPE) under state law. For a student whose eligibility terminates under these circumstances, the district must

provide him or her with a summary of the student’s academic achievement and functional performance,

including recommendations on how to assist the student in meeting his or her postsecondary goals. Again,

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


Topic Area: Due Process Compliance

The Albert Lea Public School District’s 2011-12 Final Report was completed following the district’s last onsite

visit. It included 10 findings of noncompliance through a review of student records for Timeline, Evaluation and

Eligibility Standards involving 14 Part B and 7 Part C student records. The district completed corrective action

regarding evaluation reports. In 2014-15, Albert Lea Public School District was notified of 2 findings of

noncompliance associated with Timeline, Evaluation and Eligibility Standards following its Self-Review and

completed corrective action for IFSP referral timelines.

This school year, the district was required to review 19 special education records (12 Part B and 7 Part C) and

report the compliance results to MDE for Timeline, Evaluation and Eligibility Standards related to the evaluation

process and identification of special education needs and related services.

The results reported by the district indicate records were noncompliant with an Evaluation Standard. Of concern

was continued noncompliance with Part B Evaluation Report and noncompliance with Part C Evaluation

Materials and Procedures.

Corrective Action: The district must develop and implement CAPs to address systemic noncompliance regarding

Part B Evaluation Report and Part C Evaluation Materials and Procedures. All citations of individual student files

also must be corrected by the district and verified by MDE by March 30, 2019.

Area 4: IEP and IFSP Process and Implementation

Topic Area: Least Restrictive Environment

Early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities are provided, to the maximum extent

appropriate, in the child’s natural environment. Interview responses suggested that each school-aged child with

a disability is educated with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent possible, has equal access to extra-

curricular and nonacademic activities (e.g. counseling services, athletics, transportation, health services, district-


sponsored clubs, recess, meals, etc.) available to non-disabled peers and is fully integrated with non-disabled

peers to the maximum extent appropriate. If a student is removed from the general education environment, the

removal occurs only if the nature or severity of the child’s disability is such that education in regular classes with

the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. Most special education staff did

not report concerns regarding educational placement decisions or options available to students receiving special

education. 20% of general education staff, however, indicated placement decisions occasionally were based on

staff and scheduling needs, rather than student needs. Furthermore, they noted that lack of support in general

education impacts student success. Suggestions to improve these concerns included additional paraprofessional

support within general education. During follow-up interviews, the special education director confirmed that a

continuum of service is available throughout the district.

The special education director described sufficient procedures that ensures a student placed outside of the

district by an IEP team receives an appropriate IEP, the student is placed in the least restrictive environment

(LRE) and due process procedures associated with these responsibilities are followed.


Topic Area: Communicating IEP Content

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

General education teachers, related service providers, paraprofessionals and special education teachers

reportedly have access to the IEP of each school-aged student with a disability for whom they are responsible

via relevant portions of the IEP or through discussion of IEP content with service providers at the beginning of

the school year and when appropriate. Some special education providers noted individuals are given the entire

IEP. Most paraprofessionals and general education teachers indicated they are sufficiently informed of their

specific responsibilities and the specific accommodations, modifications and supports required by the IEPs of the

students with whom they work. However, some staff from each site noted they do not receive necessary

information or must seek out the information on their own. Again, paraprofessionals indicated receiving

information is dependent upon the case manager.

While special education teachers indicated that staff is given necessary information from IEPs to work with

students for whom they are assigned and most special education paraprofessionals and general education

teachers agreed, concerns still were reported. Therefore, the district is recommended to solidify the process of

distributing details to those involved in IEP implementation.


Topic Area: Team Members and Meetings

Each IEP team must include a representative of the public agency (i.e., “district representative”). The district

representative must be qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet

the unique needs of children with disabilities; knowledgeable about the general education curriculum; and

knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the public agency. Building administration, special

education teachers and related service providers confirmed that the district representatives at IEP meetings

held at Albert Lea meet these qualifications. Most general education teachers receive timely notice of IEP


meetings; as members of the IEP team, general education teachers also fully participate in the determination of

IEP services such as supplemental aids and services, behavioral supports and program modifications.


Topic Area: Extended School Year

Federal and state regulations require school districts provide extended school year (ESY) services as necessary to

ensure FAPE as determined by a student’s IEP team on an individual basis. Based on interview responses from

building administration, special education teachers and related service providers, ESY services are made

available as appropriate. Additionally, the district does not limit ESY services to particular categories of disability

or unilaterally limit the type, amount, or duration of those services.


Topic Area: Progress Reporting

For preschool-aged children, early childhood special education providers ensure periodic reviews are held at

least every six months, as required by federal regulation.

Each district also must ensure an IEP team reviews a school-aged child’s IEP periodically, but not less than

annually, to determine whether the student is achieving annual goals; and revise the IEP, as appropriate, to

address any lack of expected progress, the results of any reevaluation or information about the student, or the

student’s anticipated needs. The district’s special education teachers and related service providers described

existing practices that satisfy progress reporting requirements. Although staff reported no concerns, the district

had findings of noncompliance in its student records. Corrective action on progress reporting is described in Due

Process Compliance below.


Topic Area: Secondary Transition

Transition services are coordinated activities for a student with a disability that are focused on improving the

academic and functional achievement of the student to assist the student’s shift from school to post-school

activities, including postsecondary education, vocational education, integrated employment (including

supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community

participation. Transition services are based on the individual student’s needs, taking into account the student’s

strengths, preferences and interests.

The special education director, special education teachers and related service providers at Albert Lea described

secondary transition services, activities or programming opportunities provided or available to students with a

disability, including work experience programs, courses of study available specific to students’ needs,

partnerships with community agencies to support employment, post-secondary education, independent living

skills and some college visits. The district employs a work coordinator to provide supports and has a Practical

Assessment Exploration System (PAES) lab for transition functional skills at the high school. The special


education director acknowledged that additional training regarding transition is needed, particularly on how to

support all 18-21 students. In addition, the district had record review findings in the area of secondary transition

and will complete corrective action as outlined in Due Process Compliance below.


Topic Area: Due Process Compliance

The Albert Lea School District’s 2011-12 Final Report was completed following the district’s last onsite visit. It

included 15 findings of noncompliance through a review of student records for Timeline and IEP/IFSP Standards

involving 14 Part B and 7 Part C student records. The district completed corrective action for Present Levels of

Academic and Functional Performance (PLAAFP), short and long term goals and objectives, LRE, progress

reporting, special education and related services, secondary transition, IEP team, content for IFSP and IEP

timelines. In 2014-15, the Albert Lea School District was notified of 6 findings of noncompliance associated with

Timeline and IEP/IFSP Standards following its Self-Review and completed corrective action for IEP timelines.

This school year, the district was required to review 19 special education records (12 Part B and 7 Part C) and

report the compliance results to MDE for Timeline and IEP/IFSP Standards related to the IEP/IFSP process and

provision of special education and related services.

The results reported by the district indicate noncompliance in the areas of post referral timelines, IFSP periodic

review, IFSP development, team members and review and revision of an IEP; continued noncompliance was

found in short and long term goals and objectives, LRE, special education and related services, progress

reporting and secondary transition.

Not all areas arise to a level of systemic concern; however, some have been identified by MDE as requiring

corrective action following the individual student record review process, including short and long term goals and

objectives, special education and related services, secondary transition and progress reporting.

The special education director reported concerns regarding staff completing IEPs with fidelity. In order to

address these concerns, the director implemented due process supports including regular review of new special

education provider paperwork and scheduled “paperwork celebration” evenings when special education

teachers meet to complete due process; special education administration attends these evenings to answer

questions and problem solve with staff. The district is commended on these efforts to address due process

concerns. Continued efforts will be provided through the ordered corrective action as outlined below.

Corrective Action: The district must develop and implement CAPs to address systemic noncompliance regarding

Short and Long Term Goals and Objectives, Special Education and Related Services, Secondary Transition and

Progress Reporting. All citations of individual student files also must be corrected by the district and verified by

MDE by March 30, 2019.


Summary of Corrective Action Required

Formal findings of individual student record noncompliance were issued from 17 of the 19 files reviewed.

Individual student files must be corrected by the district and verified by MDE within one year of the date that

the district was notified of individual student noncompliance. Albert Lea Public School District (0241-01) was

notified of individual student noncompliance on April 30, 2018. As of the date of this report, the district has

demonstrated correction of 81.25 percent of those findings.

Noncompliance identified in this report must be corrected within one year of the date of this report. Following is

a summary of the noncompliance areas requiring a corrective action plan (CAP):

Area Focus Area Regulatory Reference

1 No findings at the time of the report

2 No findings at the time of the report

3 Address Part B Evaluation Materials Procedures

and 34 C.F.R. § 300.304

3 Address Part Procedures

C Evaluation Materials and 34 C.F.R. § 303.321

3 Address Identification of Pupils with Disabilities

Minn. R. 3525.0750

4 Address Short and Long Term Goals and Objectives, Special Education and Related Services and Secondary Transition

34 C.F.R. § 300.320

4 Address Progress Reporting Minn. R. 3525.2810

The district must enter a proposed CAP into the MNCIMP:SR system for each finding within 45 calendar days

from the date of this monitoring report. Please review the CAP Development Guide enclosed with this report.

For clarification of the issues in this report or assistance needed prior to developing the CAPs, please contact the

district’s lead monitor indicated below.

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

Nicole Dardis

Compliance Specialist

Division of Compliance and Assistance

1500 West Highway 36

Roseville, MN 55113

651-582-8343

[email protected]


Appendix

The appendix includes special education child count data related to disability and federal instructional setting,

race/ethnicity and age, as well as data on individual student record noncompliance, complaint decisions and

interview and survey reliability.

Acronyms

Data sources

CC Child count

Srv Students served by the district

RR Students sampled for the record review

Disability categories

ASD Autism Spectrum Disorders

DB Deaf-Blind

DCD-MM Developmental Cognitive Disability: Mild to Moderate

DCD-SP Developmental Cognitive Disability: Severe to Profound

DD Development Delay

DHH Deaf and Hard of Hearing

EBD Emotional or Behavioral Disorders

OHD Other Health Disabilities

PI Physically Impaired

SLD Specific Learning Disability

SLI Speech or Language Impairments

SMI Severely Multiply Impaired

TBI Traumatic Brain Injury

VI Visually Impaired

Child Count

In the December 1, 2017, Part B and Part C federal child count, students identified as receiving special education

and related services are 18.9 percent (n = 687) of the district total enrollment compared to the statewide

average of 15.5 percent. Students receiving special education and related services within 0241-01 represent

17.3 percent (n = 633) 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 3.3 percent of the population compared to 2.8 percent statewide (preliminary). The “population” used

is based on census data reported by the district to MDE.


Individual Student Record Noncompliance

Individual citations of noncompliance are identified by student and reported through the web-based

MNCIMP:SR tracking system. The district was formally notified of 17 individual findings on April 30, 2018. All

individual student noncompliance must be corrected by the district and verified by MDE within one year of the

date of formal issuance of findings.

A summary of each area of identified individual student noncompliance is referenced in the chart below. Column

one indicates whether the compliance area is related to Part B or Part C of IDEA. Column two identifies the

compliance area for each citation. Column three provides the legal reference for each citation. Column four

indicates the number of student records cited during the record review.

IDEA Part Compliance Area General Citation(s)

Records Cited

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

Minn. R. 3525.2550 1

B Evaluation Standards: Evaluation Materials and Procedures

34 CFR § 300.305 2

B Evaluation Standards: Evaluation Report 34 CFR § 300.305 2

B Evaluation Standards: Evaluation Report Minn. R. 3525.2710, Subp. 6

3

B IEP/IFSP Standards: Team Members 34 CFR § 300.321 1

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

34 CFR § 300.320 7

B IEP/IFSP Standards: Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) 34 CFR § 300.320 3

B IEP/IFSP Standards: Special Education and Related Services

34 CFR § 300.320 1

B IEP/IFSP Standards: Special Education and Related Services

34 CFR § 300.320 Minn. R. 3525.0850

5

B IEP/IFSP Standards: Progress Reporting 34 CFR § 76.731 Minn. R. 3525.2810, Subp. 1

4

B IEP/IFSP Standards: Secondary Transition 34 CFR § 300.320(a) 34 CFR § 300.320(b) 34 CFR § 300.43

7

B IEP/IFSP Standards: Review and Revision of an IEP for Students in Public School

34 CFR § 300.324 1

C Timelines: Post Referral Timelines 34 CFR § 303.310 2

C Timelines: IFSP Periodic Review 34 CFR § 303.342 34 CFR § 76.731

2

C Timelines: IFSP Development 34 CFR § 76.731 1

C Evaluation Standards: Evaluation Materials and Procedures

34 CFR § 303.321 4

C IEP/IFSP Standards: Periodic Review 34 CFR § 76.731 2


Complaint Decisions

Complaint files were reviewed for records of formal complaints filed regarding Albert Lea Public School District

(0241-01) opened during the relevant time period. Findings of noncompliance were identified in the following

areas, with corresponding complaint file reference number. Column three indicates whether the district was

required to complete corrective action.

Area of Noncompliance Complaint Number

Corrective Action?

Extended School Year (ESY) 17-0008C Yes

Parent Participation and Access to Records 18-035 No

The corrective action ordered through the 17-008C complaint was related to the failure of the district to provide

ESY and proper prior written notice of the change in provision of FAPE with regard to ESY services. The district

completed required corrective action. There is no indication the issues are ongoing as concerns were not

reported through stakeholder interviews and there were no findings during student record review.

Interviews

Online interviews were completed by building administrators, special education staff, general education

teachers and special education paraprofessionals, with follow-up telephone and on-site interviews completed as

deemed necessary.

Albert Lea Public School District - Special Education Program Compliance Review Final Report - 2017-18 22

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 46 48 0 23 23 100 28 30 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCD-MM 3 8 0 40 38 0 57 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCD-SP 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DD 88 100 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DHH 78 80 0 22 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBD 49 45 100 16 22 0 26 33 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 OHD 71 69 100 26 29 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PI 67 67 0 0 0 0 33 33 100 0 0 0 0 0 0

SLD 59 62 33 40 38 67 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLI 96 97 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SMI 0 0 0 33 14 0 67 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBI 0 0 0 50 50 0 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VI 50 50 0 50 50 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 CSTSR CSTSR 0 35 35 0 10 10 0 14 16 0 27 27 33 DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCD-MM 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 0 4 4 0 DCD-SP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 DD 0 0 0 25 25 100 18 19 20 19 21 0 9 9 8 DHH 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 EBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 0 14 11 0 12 11 17

OHD 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 14 16 0 13 13 17 PI 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 20 5 5 0 1 1 0 SLD CSTSR CSTSR 0 30 30 0 30 29 40 19 21 100 15 15 0 SLI 0 0 0 5 5 0 13 14 20 5 5 0 16 16 8 SMI 0 0 0 5 5 0 1 1 0 5 5 0 1 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 1 1 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

6CC

6Srv

6RR

7CC

7Srv

7RR

8CC

8Srv

8RR

9CC

9Srv

9RR

10 CC

10 Srv

10 RR

11 CC

11 Srv

11 RR

12 CC

12 Srv

12 RR

ASD 9 9 14 27 28 67 29 29 0 26 24 0 23 22 0 31 31 0 20 20 0 19 14 0 15 17 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 1 1 0 0 2 0 3 3 0 6 5 0 2 2 0 10 11 0 7 6 0 2 0 0

DCD-SP 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 DD 87 87 43 50 50 0 18 17 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 4 5 0 2 2 0 0 3 0 2 2 0 2 3 0 EBD 0 0 0 3 3 0 2 0 0 8 6 0 2 0 0 6 6 0 22 20 0 4 6 0 15 14 0 OHD 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 13 15 0 6 10 0 13 10 0 7 6 0 14 14 0 18 20 100 PI 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLD 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 10 0 8 6 0 21 20 0 22 22 0 27 29 0 33 37 0 35 31 0 SLI 4 4 14 17 16 33 33 32 0 37 41 0 33 37 0 24 25 0 10 9 0 14 14 0 12 14 0 SMI 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0

TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0

Disability 13CC

13 Srv

13 RR

14 CC

14 Srv

14 RR

15 CC

15 Srv

15 RR

16 CC

16 Srv

16RR

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 21 21 0 25 30 0 23 28 20 21 20 0 14 13 0 20 20 0 25 20 0 33 25 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 5 5 0 5 2 0 6 6 0 3 3 0 16 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 50 0 0 0 0 DCD-SP 0 0 0 4 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 40 0 33 25 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 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBD 13 8 0 13 7 0 30 26 40 24 20 0 22 26 0 13 13 0 50 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OHD 26 24 0 25 23 0 13 15 20 15 20 0 16 21 0 27 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PI 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 20 3 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLD 26 32 0 22 27 0 25 23 0 26 23 100 30 23 0 27 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLI 5 5 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SMI 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 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 7 7 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

C

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€¦ · emergency. because the special...

Documents