CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT MONITORING PROCESS
ON-SITE FOCUSED MONITORING COMPONENT
MAY 9-12, 2005
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS REPORT
PREPARED FOR:
NATCHITOCHES PARISH SCHOOL SYSTEM
DR. ELWANDA MURPHY, SUPERINTENDENT
CYNTHIA WINSTON, DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
ON-SITE TEAM LEADERS
SHERLYN EZELL POWELL
DORETHA WOODFORK
ON-SITE TEAM MEMBERS
BRENDA BONDS
BONNIE BUCKELEW
ELLA FAIRCHILD
RINNIA GRIFFIN
JERI LAVESPERE
CATHERINE PERRY
ANN VERRET
DEBBIE ESTEVENS
INTRODUCTION
A team of ten monitors conducted an on-site visit to Natchitoches Parish School System on May
9-12, 2005, as a component of the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (CIMP).
Natchitoches Parish School System was selected under the Focus category of Free Appropriate
Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) because of its placement
data. The school system’s low percentage of special education students in general education
settings was of concern. The school system reported that 31 percent of its special education
students were placed in general education settings compared to the state average of 49.6 percent.
The system also had significant discipline issues as indicated by their relatively high number of
out-of-school suspensions when compared with the state average. The system’s out-of-school
suspension rate for special education students was 23.78 percent and the state average was 16.92
percent.
Specific data on the system’s relative standing can be found at
http:www.louisianaschools.net/lde/uploads/6358.pdf. The following link provides data and
reports
for
the
past
three
performance
profiles
and
data
books:
http:www.louisianaschools.net/lde/speciallp/2115.html.
STRATEGIES, METHODS AND ACTIVITIES DURING ON-SITE VISIT














Review of 46 student records, including random and purposeful reviews of students’
IEPs, evaluation reports, report cards, and class schedules.
Review of 50 student records pertaining to the Extended School Year Program (ESYP),
including records of both students who qualified and those who did not.
Review of the Special Education Policies and Procedures Handbook and forms currently
in use.
Review of disciplinary records at school sites and central office.
Review of records of special education students who have dropped out of school, with
addresses and phone numbers.
Review of records of suspended special education students and phone numbers.
Review of professional development activities.
Interviews with 26 school-site personnel, including administrators, regular educators,
special educators, and paraeducators in 7 schools in the school system.
Interviews with 6 central office personnel.
Review of teachers’ schedules.
Parent Focus Group Meeting attended by 53 parents to gather input.
Observations of services being provided to students through on-site visits to schools,
including 3 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, 2 high schools.
Parent Surveys, interviews by telephone with 12 parents, including follow-up calls to parents
who attended the Parent Focus Group Meeting or requested assistance on the Parent Survey.
The Natchitoches Education Center was not serving any suspended special education
students. It is the site of the system’s Options 3 program.
2
SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OF NON-COMPLIANCE
(Note: The system’s Self-Review corroborates non-compliant issues in the areas of Discipline
and IEP Procedural Safeguards.)






FAPE–lack of accommodations resulting in failing grades and low academic performance
on Statewide Assessment.
LRE.
Discipline.
IEP- Form and Content/Procedural Safeguards.
Talent-no screening/identification of students who are talented in art and drama.
Facilities (isolated finding).
The pages in this report that contain student-specific information are confidential and should
be deleted from the report when copies are made for the general public.
3
Findings of Non-Compliance
Natchitoches Parish School System
Note: The Student-Specific Findings of Non-Compliance pages of this report contain confidential information and should be deleted from the
report when copies are made for the general public.
Reg. Ref. #
Description of
Finding
§401.C.
§444. E.1.
E.2.
E.3.
FAPE/supports
and services
Some students are
not receiving
instruction with
supplementary aids
and services that
include
accommodations
and modifications
that enable students
to be involved in
and progress in the
general curriculum.
Supporting Evidence
Comments
Thirty records were purposefully reviewed to determine if students were
provided supplementary aids and services that enabled them to progress
in their general education classes. The records of 13 out of 30 students
indicated that the students were failing 3 or more classes. There was no
documented evidence that the IEP team or any of its members had
reconvened or met to address their lack of academic progress. There
was no evidence that there was any change in supplementary aids and
services to address student failure.
Students must be involved in
and making progress in the
general curriculum for them to
be able to make satisfactory
academic performance on
statewide assessment. There
must be an ongoing
collaboration between special
educators and general
Interviews were conducted with five special education teachers and four educators. Effective
general education teachers. In the interviews, 4 out of 5 special
accommodations and
education teachers and 4 out of 4 general education teachers indicated
modifications must be
that they had not requested a meeting to address students’ academic
provided to meet the
problems and had not provided alternate accommodations.
individual needs of each
student. The effectiveness of
Two teachers stated that administrators do not call substitute teachers for accommodations and
special education teachers when they are absent, which presents
modifications must be
problems for teachers providing supports and services to students in
determined. If
inclusive settings.
accommodations and
modifications are not effective,
Of the parents who answered the question on the parent survey
participants on the IEP team
concerning whether the accommodations and modifications prescribed
should reconvene or meet to
on the IEPs were implemented, 17 out of 33 indicated that they were
address the problems.
not appropriately implemented. In 6 out of 12 parent interviews, parents
also revealed a lack of utilization of appropriate accommodations and
modifications. Of the parents who attended the Parent Focus Group
Meeting, 38 of 53 indicated that modification and accommodations
4
Findings of Non-Compliance
Natchitoches Parish School System
Note: The Student-Specific Findings of Non-Compliance pages of this report contain confidential information and should be deleted from the
report when copies are made for the general public.
Reg. Ref. #
Description of
Finding
Supporting Evidence
Comments
were not appropriately provided.
An isolated finding involved a student with hearing loss. The student’s
IEP required closed captioning, but the student was not viewing closed
captions on instructional films and multimedia presentations. Interviews
with three teachers confirmed the finding that the student had not been
provided closed captioned films even though it was on her IEP.
§446.A.5.,6.
§446.B.1., 2.
FAPE/LRE
Each eligible
student with
disabilities is not
provided FAPE in
the LRE to the
maximum extent
possible.
Placement
decisions are not
always made by the
IEP team
When making
placement
decisions, general
educations classes
with the use of
supplementary
After investigating the placement determinations for students, monitors
determined that some students were not receiving instruction in their
LRE. Interviews with 11 special educators and 10 general educators
indicated that students with disabilities are often placed in a resource
rooms or self-contained rooms without first determining if their needs
could have been met in the general education classrooms with supports
and services from special education.
Purposeful interviews with 7 of 11 special education teachers indicated
that general education was not considered first when making placement
decisions. In interviews, 6 out of 11 special education teachers
indicated that once students are placed in a specific setting they stay in
that setting from year to year. According to 5 of the 11 special
education teachers, placement decisions are often made prior to IEP
meetings either for reasons of space considerations, directives from local
administration, or directives from central office.
In purposeful interviews with 10 general education teachers, 8 out of 10
indicated that the special education students that they taught could be
more successful in their classes if they had more or different
accommodations and modifications from what is provided by the special
5
Findings of Non-Compliance
Natchitoches Parish School System
Note: The Student-Specific Findings of Non-Compliance pages of this report contain confidential information and should be deleted from the
report when copies are made for the general public.
Reg. Ref. #
Description of
Finding
services are not
considered first.
Supporting Evidence
Comments
education teachers or paraprofessionals. In addition, 4 out of the 10
general education teachers indicated that they had not had any
professional development on how to provide accommodations and
modifications. Interview data shows that 7 out of 10 general education
teachers stated that general education was not the first consideration
when making placement decisions.
In 11 out of 17 IEPs purposefully reviewed, CIMP monitors found that
justifications for not placing student in less restrictive environments
were non-specific and vague. Examples: “This environment is not
conducive to learning; this environment can not meet the needs of the
child.”
Of 34 parents who answered the question on the Parent Survey
concerning general education classes as the first choice of placement, 15
indicated that consideration of the general education classroom with
supplementary services was not the first consideration.
Records of two students indicated that they had been placed in an
Interim Alternative Educational Setting (IAES) for more than 45 days.
Follow- up interviews with respective teachers and one administrator
corroborated the finding. The reasons offered included:
“They had been given enough chances.”
“Their behavior was such that they did not need to be on the regular
campus.”
“Administration does not want them back here.”
Investigation into the matter indicated that regulatory guidelines had not
been followed to determine if the students were eligible for extended
time in the IAES.
6
Findings of Non-Compliance
Natchitoches Parish School System
Note: The Student-Specific Findings of Non-Compliance pages of this report contain confidential information and should be deleted from the
report when copies are made for the general public.
Reg. Ref. #
Description of
Finding
§444. B.1.
Discipline
Strategies including
positive behavioral
intervention and
supports to address
behaviors that
impede special
needs students’
learning or that of
others are not
addressed through
the students’
instructional
program.
Supporting Evidence
Comments
Records were reviewed of 24 students who were suspended from school Strategies to include positive
during the present academic year. In 18 of the 24 records,
behavioral supports must be
noncompliance was found in issues of discipline.
provided in the case of a
Behavior plans were generic for 14 out of 24 students.
student whose behaviors
The behavior plans were punitive in nature and did not have positive
impede learning for self or
behavioral supports in place. The plans were all
others.
very similar with statements about the types of
punishment that would be used as consequences
for inappropriate behavior. Behavioral interventions
were not designed to change behavior using
positive, pro-active strategies. The behavior
plans did not deter inappropriate behavior for 16
of 24 students whose records were reviewed for repeated infractions for the
same or similar inappropriate behaviors.
Behavior plans were not current for 8 of the 24 students whose records
were reviewed. Four students who needed them had no behavior plans
at all.
No mention was made of behavior problems in the General Student
Information section of the IEP in 9 out of 24 records reviewed.
No social or behavioral goals and objectives were found in the records
of 6 out of 24 students.
Progress reports were examined for 20 of the 24 records reviewed. In
12 of the 20, behavior goals were not addressed in progress reports.
7
Findings of Non-Compliance
Natchitoches Parish School System
Note: The Student-Specific Findings of Non-Compliance pages of this report contain confidential information and should be deleted from the
report when copies are made for the general public.
Reg. Ref. #
Description of
Finding
Supporting Evidence
Comments
For 5 out of 24 students, there were no records of Functional Behavioral
Assessments (FBAs).
Of the on-site personnel who responded to questions about discipline
and high suspension rates, 20 out of 24 stated that suspensions usually
do not deter infractions as evidenced by repeat infractions. They also
expressed that students’ inappropriate classroom behaviors impede
students’ academic and social learning and that these behaviors are not
currently being addressed through the instructional program in a manner
that has resulted in behavior change; thus, the inappropriate behaviors
continue and student learning is impeded. The reasons that school
personnel offered for students’ lack of educational progress were the
high number of students with poor social skills and their low academic
performance. The school personnel stated that students who return from
suspensions often immediately engage in the same inappropriate
behaviors for which they were suspended because of lack of effective
positive supports in the instructional program.
During the Parent Focus Group Meeting, two parents stated that some
special needs students with behavior problems are told not to attend
school during statewide assessment. Purposeful follow-up interviews
with 1 of 2 administrators and 2 of 3 teachers indicated that,
“occasionally” special education students are encouraged to stay home
on days of testing because of possible behavior problems. In 3 of 4
purposeful telephone interviews, parents stated that their children with
special needs had been asked to stay home on days when statewide
assessments were conducted.
8
Findings of Non-Compliance
Natchitoches Parish School System
Note: The Student-Specific Findings of Non-Compliance pages of this report contain confidential information and should be deleted from the
report when copies are made for the general public.
Reg. Ref. #
Description of
Finding
§444.
IEPs were lacking
procedural
safeguards and
required content.
§1401.A., B.
System does not
locate, identify, and
evaluate students
suspected of being
talented.
§1411.A.
No documentation
was found to show
that the system had
conducted an ongoing effort of
identification
Supporting Evidence
Comments
At each school visited, documentation of procedural safeguards and IEP
content were lacking in various ways. Some of the areas of concern are
the following:
 Goals and objectives were vague and not measurable.
(example: Student will increase math skills.)
 Records lacked parent’s signature or date on receipt of Prior
Notice Letter of IEP meeting.
 General Student Information (GSI) did not contain all of the
required information.
 No dates of achievement were indicated on goals or objectives.
 No indication of general education teacher involvement.
There is no evidence that students with talents in art or drama are
located, identified, and provided an individualized FAPE.
Of the teachers and administrators purposefully interviewed, 15 out of
15 stated that the system has a Talent program in music but not in art or
drama. Of the 15 educators, 13 stated that they thought they knew of
students who had talents in art or drama that could benefit from an
individualized Talent program. When asked why students suspected of
having talents in art or drama were not referred to Special Education
Services for screening, all 13 teachers indicated that students were not
referred because there were no special programs in existence to serve
them.
9
Findings of Non-Compliance
Natchitoches Parish School System
Note: The Student-Specific Findings of Non-Compliance pages of this report contain confidential information and should be deleted from the
report when copies are made for the general public.
Reg. Ref. #
Description of
Finding
activities to locate
and identify each
student who is
under its
jurisdiction, who is
suspected of being
talented.
§465.A.
Facilities identified
as being for
students with
disabilities do not
meet the same
standards and level
of quality as do
facilities provided
to other students.
Supporting Evidence
Comments
The CIMP team reviewed Child Find documents but found no screening
documentation for talents in art or music.
Ten parents who attended the Parent Focus Group Meeting were
purposefully interviewed with regard to talented students in art or
drama. Of these, 6 out of 10 parents indicated that they were aware of
students who had talents in art or drama that could benefit from an
individualized talented program. In addition, 5 out of these 6 parents
stated that they had inquired about Talent programs in art and drama and
were told by school personnel that there were no special programs for
students with talents in these areas.
This was an isolated finding. Interviews with three parents and one
student indicated that in one school there existed an overcrowded
classroom that had been converted from an office into a special
education resource room. An observation of the classroom corroborated
the pronouncement that the classroom was overcrowded with students,
furniture, as well as stored materials. At the time of the observation,
there were six students, one teacher, and one paraprofessional in the
room. There was not adequate space for people to move about the
classroom without bumping into each other, the furniture, or the
accumulated materials housed there. An interview with a teacher
indicated that during peak attendance there were as many as eight
students, one teacher, and one paraprofessional in the room at one time.
Although none of the students remained in the classroom all day, the
limited space in the resource room was not conducive to learning for
students who received instruction in the classroom and not comparable
to the quality of the facilities provided to other students at this location.
10
11