CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND FOCUSED MONITORING PROCESS
DIVISION OF EDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMENT AND ASSISTANCE
OFFICE OF STUDENT AND SCHOOL PERFORMANCE
FOCUS MONITORING COMPONENT
DATE OF ON-SITE MONITORING:
March 5-8, 2007
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Caddo Parish School System
Ollie Tyler, Superintendent
Nadalie Thomas, Director of Special Education
ON-SITE TEAM LEADERS
Sherlyn Ezell Powell and Kay Rone
ON-SITE TEAM MEMBERS
Laura Nettles
Lisa Robinson
Becky Burney
Barbara McGuffee
Cynthia Ramagos
June Street
Introduction
A team of eight monitors conducted an on-site visit to Caddo Parish School System on March 58, 2007 as a component of the state’s Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring Process.
Caddo Parish School System was selected for on-site monitoring under the “Focus” category due
to a low High School Diploma rate. The team also followed up on two issues from a previous
monitoring visit: 1) Denial of FAPE during In-school Suspension and 2) Previous IEP Goals not
addressed/closed-out at the annual IEP review conference.
Data reviews prior to the on-site visit indicated that investigations should also be conducted in
the areas of Drop-out Rate, FAPE in the LRE, Discipline, and Performance on Statewide
Assessment. The percentage of students with disabilities who drop out of school is more than
double the state average. The percentage of suspensions, both out-of-school and in-school, is
above the state average. Students’ performance on assessment is below the state average for
LEAP, ELA and Math in both 4th and 8th grades. The GEE ELA student performance is also
below the state average.
Demographic and performance information regarding Caddo Parish School System can be found
in the State Special Education Data Profile publication and the school performance profiles
located on the department’s website at www.louisianaschools.net/lde/specialp/2115.html.
Monitoring Strategies, Methods and Activities
Review of 105 student records, including focused and purposeful reviews of students’ IEPs,
evaluation reports, report cards, and class schedules.
Review of the Special Education Policies and Procedures Handbook and forms currently in use.
Review of disciplinary records at school sites and central office (for data validation purposes).
Interviews with 42 school-site personnel, including administrators, regular educators, special
educators, and paraeducators in 12 schools in the school system.
Interviews with 7 central office personnel.
Observations of services being provided to students through on-site visits to schools, including 1
preschool, 3 elementary schools, 5 junior high schools, and 3 high schools.
Gather information from 38 parents who attended a parent focus meeting.
Interviews by telephone with 73 parents, including follow-up calls to parents who attended the
parent meeting. (A parent focus group meeting was conducted on March 5, 2007. This meeting
was open to parents of students with disabilities and monitoring team members. Notes taken
during the parent meeting were considered in the investigative process.)
The Louisiana Department of Education collects data on adolescent transition services for
reporting in the 2008 Annual Performance Report (APR) to the federal government and reporting
for a 2006-07 Performance Indicator to the Louisiana State Legislature. In Caddo Parish, 100%
(35 of 35) of the records reviewed of students ages 16 and above were found to have
coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that should reasonably enable
students to meet post-secondary goals.
Validation on site of data being reported to the state and federal government by the Caddo
Parish School System was also a monitoring activity. Data on the removal of students with
disabilities for code of conduct violations showed no inconsistencies in tracking in 4 of the 8
schools in the sample. The Annual Report of Children Served, Table 5, Section B, Columns 3A,
3B, and 3C were accurate.
2
Specific Evidence of Non-Compliance was found in the following areas:

§401.C; §444.E.1-2; FAPE – IEP Content and Format. Progress and benefit from the
general curriculum-effective supports and services

§401.C; §519.E.2; §444.B.1; FAPE – Discipline – IEP Content and Form

§401.C; §445.A-B; §904 Assistive Technology Service 4-6; §904 Audiology 3.,5; FAPE –
IEP Accountability, Related Services - Assistive Technology for Students with Hearing
Impairments, Audiology Services

§401.C; §446.A-C; §464.B; FAPE – Least Restrict Environment – Program Accessibility

§490.A. Special Education Student Data are not recorded and/or maintained accurately
for some students with disabilities.
Note: The Student-Specific Findings of Non-Compliance pages in this report contain
confidential information and should be deleted from the report when copies are made for
the general public.
3
Findings of Non-Compliance
Caddo Parish School System
Reg. Ref. #
§401.C.
§444.E.1-2.
Description of Finding
FAPE –
IEP Content and Format –
Students are not receiving
effective supports and
services with
accommodations, which
enable them to benefit
from and make progress in
the general curriculum.
Supporting Evidence
Review of 49 records of students who were currently failing 2 or more
subjects in the general curriculum were purposefully reviewed to examine
the effectiveness of supports and services with accommodations that were
provided for the students. Twenty of the 49 records had no
documentation that the students’ failures had been addressed in any way.
There was no indication that meetings, conferences, written or oral
communications of any kind had been utilized. There was no
documentation that accommodations or modifications were examined or
adjusted to deal with student failure. Seven of the 49 records had
evidence that there had been meetings, but the only change made to the
IEP was a new IEP date.
Comments
Purposeful interviews with 13 of 17 special education teachers expressed
that student failures had not been appropriately monitored nor had
accommodations been changed to address the problem. Reasons given for
the lack of services were: time constraints for collaborating with general
education teachers; excessive absenteeism; students’ reading and math
levels too low for them to be successful in general education classes; and
students’ lack of motivation.
Nine of 12 general education teachers interviewed revealed that they were
aware that the students were failing but had not requested additional
accommodations or modifications to assist students to be successful in
their general education classes. The nine teachers expressed that no new
accommodations or modifications had been tried. All nine teachers stated
that they were presently using all the prescribed accommodations and
modifications such as preferential seating, extended time, proximity
control, and allowing students to go to a special education teacher to take
tests. Reasons given for lack of student success were: failure to address
students’ needs early enough for them to catch up; lack of student effort;
4
Findings of Non-Compliance
Caddo Parish School System
Reg. Ref. #
Description of Finding
Supporting Evidence
lack of support from home/homework completion; not enough one-on-one
instruction from special services; students in classes four or more years
above their academic instructional level; excessive absenteeism.
Comments
Eleven parent interviews also revealed a lack of utilization of appropriate
accommodations and modifications to address student failures.
§401.C.
§519.E.2.
§444.B.1.
FAPE –
Discipline –
IEP Content and Form –
Effective strategies
including positive
behavioral intervention
strategies and supports to
address behaviors that
impede students’ progress
in the general curriculum
and IEP implementation
are not addressed through
the students’ instructional
program.
Records of Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) were reviewed for 35
students who had been suspended from school during the present
academic year. While positive behavioral supports were indicated in the
BIPs, there was no documentation that the positive behavioral supports
written in the plans had been implemented in 21of the 35 plans. Weekly
progress reports were not maintained to reflect the implementation of
interventions identified on the plans.
After thorough examination of the 21 records and interviewing 15 school
personnel concerning this matter it was determined that inappropriate
student behaviors were not changed as a result of the behavior plans for
these students. The records reviewed indicated that the BIPs were not
effectively revised when students’ inappropriate behaviors continued
and/or escalated.
Twelve records had no documentation that the BIPs had been
implemented at all. Even when IEP teams documented that the IEPs had
been reconvened, there was no evidence of any changes in the BIPs even
though changes were warranted.
Ten of the 11 on-site personnel purposefully interviewed corroborated
that the BIPs are usually not implemented across settings. When asked
questions about discipline and high suspension rates, eight of the 11 on5
Findings of Non-Compliance
Caddo Parish School System
Reg. Ref. #
Description of Finding
Supporting Evidence
site personnel expressed that suspensions did not deter infractions as
evidenced by repeat infractions. They also stated that students’
inappropriate classroom behaviors impede their academic and social
learning and that these behaviors are not currently being addressed
through the instructional program in a manner that has results in behavior
change; thus, the inappropriate behaviors continue and student learning is
impeded. The school personnel expressed that students who return from
suspensions often immediately engage in the inappropriate behaviors for
which they were suspended because there are a lack of effective positive
supports in place through the instructional program.
Comments
Seven parents of students who exhibited behavior problems were
interviewed. All seven parents reported that they felt that the behavior
interventions conducted by the school system were not effective based on
repeat infractions of the children.
The team determined that effective strategies including positive
behavioral intervention strategies and supports to address behaviors that
impede students learning are not addressed through the students’
instructional program for all students.
§401.C.
§445.A-B.
§904
Assistive
Technology
4-6.
§904
Audiology
3., 5.
FAPE –
IEP Accountability –
Assistive Technology
Services and Audiology
Services are not provided
to some students with
Hearing Impairments that
would enable students to
IEPs are not implemented in one preschool class because there is a longterm substitute providing instruction. According to an interview with the
substitute teacher, she only has a high school diploma and does not know
sign language.
Purposeful interviews with three of three teachers expressed that students
with hearing impairments in other preschool and elementary classes are
not served at a level that would allow students to make adequate
educational progress.
6
Findings of Non-Compliance
Caddo Parish School System
Reg. Ref. #
Description of Finding
make adequate educational
progress.
Supporting Evidence
Upon investigation, interviews revealed that assistive technologies such as
FM sound field systems are not made available to students, not even for
some students whose IEPs state: “FM system available at school.”
Comments
Interviews also revealed that audiologists’ support is lacking for some
students who have ear molds ordered for them; the audiologists have
never fit the ear molds for the children so they could be used as intended.
§401.
§446.A-C.
§464.B.
FAPE –
Least Restrictive
Environment (LRE) –
Program Accessibility –
Students 3-5 were not
placed in their LRE.
Purposeful interviews with 6 school personnel (three special educators,
one administrator, two general educators) were conducted to gather
information about placement /LRE decisions for preschool students. Each
of the six interviewees expressed that there were pre-school children who
were in self-contained settings who could benefit from more interactions
with their non-disabled peers, especially in the area of communication.
Reasons stated for lack of integration were: “Central office Title I
personnel will not allow special education children in regular education
classes;” Students who are not fully potty trained are asked to leave the
general education program; General education teachers are not trained to
“deal” with students with special needs; “Staffing issues no longer allow
us to team-teach as we once were able to do.”
In interviews, five of six parents of preschool children expressed that they
felt that their children could benefit from spending time with non-disabled
peers, but they were told that there was no place or “spot” for him/her in
general education classes.
Three of three Site Determination forms examined were marked to
indicate that the placement sites were comparable to and integrated with
regular classes for students, although according to teachers, these three
students were not integrated with their non-disabled peers.
7
Findings of Non-Compliance
Caddo Parish School System
Reg. Ref. #
Description of Finding
Supporting Evidence
Twenty-five records of preschool students who were placed in selfcontained special education classrooms were examined. Interviews with
their teachers revealed they thought 20 of the 25 children would benefit
from integration with their non disabled peers if staffing arrangements
were made to accommodate the students’ needs.
§490.A.
Maintenance of Special
Education Student Data
Seventeen of 20 records randomly selected had excessive White-Out
Liquid Paper used to cover portions of the records. Some of these records
had pages which were ½ to ¾ covered with the White-Out substance.
Interviews with seven of seven school personnel revealed that the use of
White-Out is an acceptable, common practice in Caddo schools.
Special Education Student
Data are not recorded
and/or maintained
accurately for some
students with disabilities.
Comments
§490.A.
Randomly selected student information data sheets had incorrect contact
information for 100% of the students listed on the data forms. Upon
investigation, hundreds of students had incorrect contact information
listed on their data forms.
There is no standard of acceptability evident for student records.
8