Joanna Lin/California Watch | http://bit.ly/JW04L0
pixdeluxe/istockphoto.com
May 3, 2012 :: After failing for the eighth straight year to meet service delivery targets for special education, Los Angeles Unified School District has begun interviewing staff to understand why records indicate thousands of students with disabilities are not receiving their prescribed services.
The effort, led by the district's Office of the Independent Monitor, seeks to determine whether the shortcomings are due to documentation problems, actual failures to serve students or both. Jaime Hernandez, the office's research director, said the goal to show a student received any service was "really a very low bar to meet."
"We would have expected some more progress," said Hernandez, who believes the problem is likely both bad data and lack of services.
Attorneys who represent special education students and their families said many children with special needs receive few or no services and that the true service delivery rate in LA Unified, which enrolled more than 82,000 special education students in 2010-11, could be worse than records show.
My guess is about 60 percent of services are being delivered," said Valerie Vanaman, an attorney with Newman Aaronson Vanaman, a Los Angeles firm that joined the American Civil Liberties Union in filing a 1993 class-action lawsuit that led to independent oversight of LA Unified's special education program.
Under the terms of the lawsuit's "modified consent decree" – a settlement enforced by court order – the independent monitor tracks the district's progress toward 18 goals [following] designed to bring the district into compliance with federal special education law. The goals were supposed to be achieved in 2006. The district has met all but three, including delivery of special education services.
To meet the service delivery target, the district must show 93 percent of special education students receive service at least once in an eight-week study period. It reached 91 percent for students with a specific learning disability and 95 percent for those with other disabilities in 2010-11.
LA Unified also seeks to have 85 percent of its services meet the frequency and duration prescribed in a student's individualized education plan, also known as an IEP. An IEP is a federally mandated document that identifies a student's disability, sets goals and guides related services. In 2010-11, 82 percent of services were delivered as frequently as prescribed and 69 percent for the required length of time.
The independent monitor in April published focus group findings [PDF] to begin identifying areas to study for next year's service delivery report.
The participants – 39 special education managers, supervisors, providers and information technology staff – said inaccurate or lack of documentation, a buggy web-based software system used to monitor and track IEPs and services, and other demands of their jobs, such as more and longer IEP meetings, were challenging their ability to meet service requirements.
Beginning this month, the independent monitor will send surveys to all the district's special education providers to better understand service delivery roadblocks. Hernandez said he anticipates the results, to be published in October, will indicate problems similar to those found by focus groups.
The district also plans this month to assemble a working group of 12 to 15 providers, particularly resource specialist teachers, to begin a deeper examination of service delivery challenges, said Sharyn Howell, executive director of the district's special education division.
Howell said she believes providers "are probably giving far more service than is showing up on this tracking system." Still, she said, there probably are some special education students who really are not receiving services. Staffing shortages and caseloads that must juggle different student schedules make it difficult to serve all students as prescribed, she said.
"It is difficult to keep fully staffed, there's no doubt about that," Howell said, noting that LA Unified contracts with many private agencies to provide services. "There's not enough speech and language specialists coming out of universities to adequately staff all of us, not enough occupational therapists or physical therapists."
The district has no substitutes for any of its providers, with the exception of adapted physical education providers, site-based resource specialist teachers and contractors from private agencies. One supervisor in the focus groups said 15 schools did not have an assigned occupational therapist because 15 providers were on maternity leave.
In such instances, if no providers can be hired or contracted and caseloads cannot be redistributed among existing staff, students are provided compensatory services another time, such as after school or over the summer, Howell said.
To meet special education service needs, the district over the last few years has increasingly allowed IEPs to prescribe broader ranges of service frequency. So, for example, instead of an IEP calling for one hour of speech therapy a week, it may prescribe four hours over a month.
"We're trying to provide flexibility so staff can actually implement services for the students, even if a day is missed for some reason – like say a student is on a field trip or something – there's a flexibility for someone to give those services," Howell said.
Services must still be offered in a timely manner, Howell said, noting that the district has not had problems with providers waiting until the end of the year to give services.
But attorneys for special education students worry that using broader ranges for service frequency undermines services' effectiveness.
"We think it actually has a bad effect," said Maronel Barajas, a senior staff attorney with the Disability Rights Legal Center in Los Angeles. "What's clear when I speak with the different providers … (is) the best practice is for them to be delivering (services) on a weekly basis."
Vanaman said LA Unified's flexible service prescriptions are an outgrowth of the modified consent decree's compliance demands rather than a true effort to meet the needs of students.
"What they're trying to do is reduce services so they can look like they're more in compliance, and they've found a clever way to do it," she said. "And it's tragedy."
Howell said the district's use of broader ranges for service frequency was a response to provider feedback.
"The providers years ago felt that it gave them more flexibility," she said. "Over time you have to go back and look at things again. This is an opportunity for us to go back and look. Are the ranges the most effective way or not? If not, then we'll change it."
18 Goals/Outcomes
The Modified Consent Decree initially established twelve agreed-upon outcomes. During the course of the 2003-2004, the OIM provided an analysis of the six outstanding outcomes, that contributed to the development of six new agreed-upon outcomes. All outcomes are designed to meet compliance with the federal special education law of IDEA.
Outcome #1
Participation in the Statewide Assessment ProgramBy June 30, 2006, 75% of students with disabilities in state-identified grade levels will participate in the statewide assessment program with no accommodations or standard accommodations. The percentage of students with disabilities participating in the statewide assessment program will be comparable to the percentage of non-disabled students participating in the statewide assessment program. The IEP for every student with disabilities shall identify how the student will participate in the statewide assessment program: (a) no accommodations or standard accommodations; (b) nonstandard accommodations; or (c) alternate assessment.
Outcome #2
Performance in the Statewide Assessment ProgramBy June 30, 2006, the percentage of students with disabilities in Grades 2-11 participating in the California Standards Test (CST) whose scores place them in the combined rankings of Basic, Proficient and Advanced will increase to at least 27.5% in English Language Arts and at least 30.2% in Mathematics. By agreement of the parties, the Independent Monitor will evaluate the performance of students with disabilities in the District on the 2003-04 California Standards Test to determine if the above outcome represents a sufficient increase in performance over the current baseline. If the Independent Monitor makes this determination, he can reopen negotiations between the parties over Outcome No. 2.
Outcome #3
Graduation RateThe District shall increase the number of grade 12 students with disabilities who receive diplomas based on the 2001-02 data by at least 5% (no less than 42.01% of grade 12 students with disabilities) during the 2003-04 school year, at least 5% (no less than 44.11% of grade 12 students with disabilities) during the 2004-05 school year, and at least 5% (no less than 46.32% of grade 12 students with disabilities) during the 2005-06 school year. This outcome is based on current diploma requirements. If the State’s diploma requirements change, the Independent Monitor shall meet with the parties to discuss the impact of the change and may revise this outcome if appropriate.
Outcome #4
Completion RateThe District's completion rate shall increase based on an increase in the number of students who graduate with a diploma, receive a certificate of completion, or age out, as compared to the total number of students with disabilities who graduate with a diploma, receive a certificate of completion, age out, or drop out (grades 7-12).
Outcome #5
Reduction of Long-Term SuspensionsBy June 30, 2006, the District will reduce the percent of students with disabilities suspended 6 or more cumulative days from 9.14% of the total suspensions of students with disabilities occurring in the 2001-2002 school year to 2% of the total suspension of students with disabilities.
The Division of Special Education shall review all suspensions of six or more cumulative days for compliance with District policy. The Division of Special Education shall report to the Independent Monitor all cumulative suspensions of 10 or more days with its analysis of the legality of such suspensions. The Division of Special Education will determine if the suspensions are lawful and, if not, direct the schools and Local Districts to take corrective action.
Outcome #5b
Other SuspensionsBy June 30, 2006, the District will reduce the risk of suspension for the population of students with disabilities by 30% from the rate of 14.7% in the 2002-03 school to a rate lower than 10.3% By June 30, 2006, the District will reduce disproportionality in the District-wide rate of suspension of students with disabilities in comparison to their nondisabled peers to a relative risk ratio of no more than 1.75X discrepant, such that the population of students with disabilities is no more than 1.75 times more likely to be suspended than the population of their nondisabled peers.
Outcome #6
Placement of Students with Disabilities (ages 6-22) with Eligibilities of SLD and SLIBy June 30, 2006, the District will demonstrate a ratio of not less than 73% of students placed in the combined categories of 0-20% and 21-60% and not more than 27% of students placed in the 61-100% category according to Federal placement reporting requirements.
Outcome #7
Placement of Students with Disabilities (ages 6-22) with All Other DisabilitiesBy June 30, 2006, the District will demonstrate a ratio of not less than 52% of students placed in the combined categories of 0-20% and 21-60% and not more than 48% students placed in the 61-100% category according to Federal placement reporting requirements. In determining whether the District has achieved this outcome, any fractional percentage of .51 or above shall be rounded up to its nearest whole number.
Outcome #8
Home SchoolThe District will ensure that the percentage of students with disabilities with the eligibilities of specific learning disabilities (SLD) and speech and language impaired (SLI) who are in their home school does not fall below 92.9% by June 30, 2006.
By June 30, 2006, the District will increase the percentage of students with disabilities with all other eligibilities in kindergarten and sixth grade to 65% and the percentage of students with disabilities with all other eligibilities in ninth grade to 60%.
By June 30, 2006, the District will increase the percentage of students with disabilities with all other eligibilities in the elementary grades one through five in their home school to 62.0%. By June 30, 2006, the District will increase the percentage of students with disabilities in middle school grades seven and eight in their home school to 55.2%. By June 30, 2006, the District will increase the percentage of students with in high school grades ten through twelve in their home school to 36.4%.Outcome #9
Individual Transition PlanBy June 30, 2006, 98% of all students with disabilities as defined in IDEA age 14 and over shall have an Individual Transition Plan developed in accordance with federal law.
Outcome #10
Timely Completion of EvaluationsBy the end of the 2005-2006 school year: a. 90% of all initial evaluations shall be completed within 50 days. b. 95% of all initial evaluations shall be completed within 65 days. c. 98% of all initial evaluations shall be completed within 80 days.
An initial evaluation is any evaluation other than a District initiated three-year reevaluation. Completion means that the evaluation has been completed and an IEP meeting convened. If the evaluation or IEP meeting is delayed because of parent request or the child is unavailable for testing, the completion period shall be extended by the period of such parental request or unavailability. Beginning with the 2003-2004 school year, initial evaluations not completed within 80 days shall be referred promptly to Independent Monitor for review and appropriate action.Outcome #11
Complaint Response TimeThe District will provide lawful responses to parents filing complaints in accordance with the following performance standards: 25% of complaints will be responded to within 5 working days. 50% of complaints will be responded to within 10 working days. 75% of complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. 90% of complaints will be responded to within 30 working days.
The District will be required to report to the Independent Monitor on the status of each complaint not resolved within 30 working days, at 5 working day intervals, until the complaint is resolved.Outcome #12
Informal Dispute ResolutionBy June 30, 2006, the District will increase reliance on informal dispute resolution of disputes by increasing its ability to timely resolve disputes by concluding its informal dispute resolution process within 20 working days in 60% of cases.
The parties anticipate that the outcomes set forth in this Modified Consent Decree will improve the quality of special education services to children with disabilities and that as a result the number of due process filings will be reduced. The Independent Monitor shall analyze the number of due process filings and, if necessary, take appropriate actions to address problems in this area.Outcome #13
Delivery of ServicesBy June 30, 2006, 93% of the services identified on the IEPs of students with disabilities in all disability categories except specific learning disability will show evidence of service provision. In addition, by June 30, 2006, 93% of the services identified on the IEPs of students with specific learning disability will show evidence of service provision.
By June 30, 2006, the District will provide evidence that at least 85% of the services identified on the IEPs of students with disabilities have a frequency and duration that meets IEP compliance. For the purposes of assessment of frequency, provider absences will not constitute evidence of non-provision of service if such absence is the result of short-term (maximum two consecutive weeks) illness, family emergency or jury duty. Student absences/no shows will not constitute evidence of non-provision of service. For the purposes of assessment of duration, sessions not completed as the result of conflicts with a student’s school schedule or late arrival/early departure by student will not constitute evidence of an incomplete session.Outcome #14
Increased Parent ParticipationBy June 30, 2006, the District will increase the rate of parent participation in IEP meetings in the area of attendance to 75%.
By June 30, 2006, 95% of the records of IEP meetings in which the parent does not attend will provide evidence of recorded attempts to convince the parent to attend the IEP meeting in accordance with Section 300.345(d) of the IDEA regulations.
Evidence of compliance with this objective will be based on criteria determined by the Independent Monitor defining “recorded attempts to convince” and be assessed through a scientific sample of those records of IEP meetings in which the parent did not attend.Outcome # 15
Timely Completion of Future TranslationsBy June 30, 2006, the District shall complete IEP translations requested since July 2003 in the District's seven primary languages as follows:a. 85% within 30 days. b. 95% within 45 days. c. 98% within 60 days.
Beginning on July 1, 2003, any IEP translations not completed within 60 days will be referred to the Independent Monitor for review and appropriate resolution. Any request for translation in other than the seven primary languages shall be referred to the Division of Special Education for appropriate action.Outcome #16
Increase in Qualified ProvidersBy June 30, 2006, the disparity between qualified regular education teachers and qualified special education teachers will decrease from 10.4%, which is the disparity in 2002-2003, to 3.4%.
Outcome #17
Team Consideration of Special Factors - Behavioral Interventions, Strategies and SupportsBy June 30, 2006, the percentage of students with autism with a behavior support plan will increase to 40% and the percentage of students with emotional disturbance with a behavior support plan will increase to 72%
Outcome #18
African-American Students Identified as Emotionally DisturbedBy June 30, 2006, 90% of African American students identified as emotionally disturbed during an initial or triennial evaluation, will demonstrate evidence of a comprehensive evaluation as defined by the Independent Monitor and consideration for placement in the least restrictive environment as determined by Independent Monitor.
No comments:
Post a Comment