CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT MONITORING PROCESS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM ON-SITE MONITORING
MAY 2-5, 2005
MOREHOUSE PARISH SCHOOL SYSTEM
RICHARD HARTLEY, SUPERINTENDENT
MARCIA HARRELL, SUPERVISOR OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
ON-SITE TEAM LEADER
SHARON M. CRARY
ON-SITE TEAM MEMBERS
BECKY ANDREPONT
VALLA JOHNSON
DIANA JONES
KITTY LEMING
JOYCE RUSSO
MELANIE VOGT
1
Introduction
A team of seven monitors conducted an on-site visit as a component of the Continuous
Improvement and Focused Monitoring Process. Morehouse Parish School System was selected
under the Focus categories of Exit (low percentage of high school diplomas) and LEAP (low
performance on statewide assessments). Because of other District Performance Profile data, the
team also reviewed the high percentage of pre-school students placed in the Early Childhood
Special Education setting (44.1%). Also investigated were the disproportionate percentage of
African American students identified with Mild Mental Disabilities (83.33%) and Specific
Learning Disabilities (77.60%), and the low percentage of African American students identified
as Gifted/Talented (21.74%). The visit was conducted May 2-5, 2005.
Parent Surveys were sent to students’ homes prior to the monitoring team’s on-site visit. The
results of the surveys were compiled by a staff member of the Families Helping Families of
Acadiana Resource Center. Issues of concern identified by parents in the completed surveys were
investigated during the on-site visit of May 2-5, 2005. A parent focus group meeting was
conducted on Tuesday, May 3, 2005. This meeting was only open to parents and monitoring
team members. Follow-up telephone interviews were also conducted. Comments from the
surveys and notes taken during the parent meeting and follow-up telephone interviews were
considered in the investigative process.
The monitoring team also investigated the status of the Extended School Year Program (ESYP)
in the Morehouse Parish School System. Out of the 24 records reviewed for ESYP eligibility, it
was determined that 23 records had the documentation and data to make a determination of
eligibility. Only one record indicated that the criteria for eligibility were not appropriately
applied in the screening and/or determination of eligibility for ESYP. No evidence of noncompliance in policies and procedures was found during the on-site monitoring visit.
Demographic and performance information regarding Morehouse Parish School System can be
found in the State Special Education Data Profile publication and School Performance Profiles
located on the Louisiana Department of Education website:
http://www.louisianaschools.net/lde/specialp/2115.html.
Strategies, Methods, and Activities Used During On-Site Visit





Review of 53 student records, including random 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.
Review of professional development activities.
Purposeful interviews with 53 school-site personnel, including as follows: 8
administrators (Disproportionality, Transition, LRE), 16 regular educators (Accessing
the General Curriculum, Classroom Accommodations), 13 special educators (Transition),
6 SBLC coordinators (Disproportionality), 3 counselors (Transition), in 12 schools in the
school system.
2






Purposeful interviews with 30 students at school sites.
Purposeful interviews with 9 central office personnel.
Observations of services being provided to 23 students through on-site visits to schools,
including 7 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, 2 high schools, and 1 alternative
school.
Review of 35 Parent Surveys sent to students’ homes.
Compilation of information from 25 parents who attended parent focus group meeting.
Interviews by telephone with 13 parents, including follow-up calls to parents who
attended the parent meeting or requested assistance on the Parent Survey.
Monitoring Priority: Exit
Seventeen Morehouse Parish School System personnel gave the following reasons why they
believe so few students with disabilities graduate with a diploma:
 Lack of student motivation.
 Students have not been mainstreamed enough.
 Low expectations in the past.
 Students cannot keep up, take in all the information and pass the test.
 Some students need more help than they can get in inclusion.
 In the past there were lower expectations; now, more will graduate because of earlier
inclusion.
 Not enough parental involvement.
 Problem of keeping students in school long enough to reach 12th grade level.
 Students' repeated failures result in their not caring; students don’t like the confining
structure of schools.
 Teacher quality, apathy of principal; at risk schools have fewer certified teachers.
 Low socio-economic level, high un-employment, low educational level of population in
general.
 Students now in high school were self-contained in elementary school; it will take a few
years for inclusion to make a difference.
 State criteria is so high, it is difficult for the learning disabled student to pass.
Three years of IEPs from ten students, who have dropped out, indicated the following
information:
 The General Student Information section is not yielding appropriate, meaningful
information about the student, and information about the student, i.e. continued failures
and not achieving goals, is not addressed in the goals for the student.
 The IEPs do not contain strategies to address students’ learning styles.
 Students are staying in school, in general, until the 10th, 11th, or 12th grades.
 Four of the students had been retained two or more times, one of those for three times.
At the time of the monitoring visit, of 160 total students participating in the Pre-GED/Options
Program at the Career Center located in the Special Services Center, 41 of the students were
students with disabilities.
3
Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality
The system provided the following information in explaining the disproportionate identification
of African American students:
 Poverty.
 Rural area with few opportunities for enrichment or varied experiences.
 School administrators not wanting to lose their best students to a magnet program.
The system also provided the following projects/programs to remedy the disproportionality:
 Support of early intervention programs.
 Support of and collaboration with Head Start.
 Grants for enrichment activities at several elementary schools.
 Computer/training technology support.
 Review of IOWA scores to target possible exceptional students.
 Review of magnet school referrals to target possible exceptional students.
 LINKS program.
 Support of professional development focusing on cultural differences, differentiated
instruction, higher order thinking skills, students from poverty.
 Support for special reading programs.
 Development of a brochure for Talented Programs (2005-06).
No specific evidence of non-compliance was found in the identification of minority students in
the categories of Mild Mental Disabilities or Specific Learning Disabilities, nor in the nonidentification of minorities in the categories of Gifted/Talented. However, in reviewing the
SBLC process in Morehouse Parish, there are several concerns. There is no standard form for
tracking information about referrals made to the SBLC. There is no central office person who has
the responsibility of reviewing these referrals. There seems to be a direct link between the SBLC
referral and special education services that gives the impression that the SBLC referral is the
first step in getting a child identified as special education rather than being a vehicle to address
individual student needs in the regular classroom setting. A tracking form from one elementary
school did not indicate that any interventions were tried. It is suggested that the Morehouse
Parish School System address this issue through the annual Special Education Self-Review and
through a combined effort between regular education personnel and special education personnel.
Monitoring Priority: Placement of Pre-School Students
No evidence of non-compliance was found concerning placement of pre-school students in
Morehouse Parish. According to documents and an interview with the Pre-K Coordinator,
Morehouse Parish School System has 38 students in three self-contained Early Childhood
Special Education classes this year out of a total of 133 Pre-K students, or about 28.5%. During
the 2003-04 school year, there were four Early Childhood Special Education classes. The
number of self-contained classrooms has been reduced to three for the 2004-05 school year.
4
Specific Evidence of Non-Compliance


Transition.
IEP Form and Content.
NOTE: The Student-Specific Findings of Non-Compliance section of this report contains
confidential information and should be deleted from the report when copies are made for
the general public.
5
FINDINGS OF NON-COMPLIANCE
MOREHOUSE PARISH SCHOOL SYSTEM
Reg.
Ref. #
§518.
A.1.,
441.A.
7.c.
Description of Finding
Transfer of rights to
students who have
reached age of majority
is not documented.
§261.A. The school system is not
making available to
disabled students
programs that are
available to non-disabled
students.
§441.A. Students are not invited
7.a.
to attend the IEP that
addresses transition
services.
Supporting Evidence
In 4 of 35 cases, IEPs had no documentation that
student or parent had received notification of
transfer of rights at age of majority.
In interviews with seven parents of students who
have dropped out, one stated that s(he) had not
received notification of Transfer of Rights. In
interviews, 2 out of 4 students who have dropped
out said they had not been notified of Transfer of
Rights.
In 5 of 5 interviews at the alternative school,
students said they did not participate in vocational
programs.
When interviewing persons in the central office, 1
of 9 persons said there were no vocational
programs at Bastrop High School or Delta High
School and that the alternative program had limited
spots and that special education students could be
put on a waiting list.
In 3 of 35 records, IEPs did not provide
documentation that the students had been invited to
the IEP meeting.
Comments
The Age of Majority notice requirement applies to
students who have reached the age of 17.
Elective Carnegie Unit classes in career/vocational
areas should be available to all students, provided
they meet criteria for the classes.
Of 30 students interviewed, 10 stated that they were
not invited to the transition IEP; the parents of 5 out
of 7 students who had dropped out of school stated
that their child was not invited to the transition IEP.
6
FINDINGS OF NON-COMPLIANCE
MOREHOUSE PARISH SCHOOL SYSTEM
Reg.
Ref. #
Description of Finding
Supporting Evidence
Comments
§441.
7.b.
Students’ preferences and In 3 of 35 cases, IEPs had no preferences or vision
interests are not being
statements.
considered.
Vision statements are required on the transition
service page of the IEP for students who are 16
years of age or older.
§441.
A.8.
Agencies are not being
invited to the transition
IEP.
In 4 of 16 interviews, special education teachers
stated that they do not invite or involve agencies
because the students are still living at home; in 2 of
16 interviews, special education teachers said that
they don’t invite an outside agency unless the
parent requests it or until the student is ready to age
out; of 4 students who had dropped out of school, 3
said that they did not participate in the transition
IEP and that no agencies attended; in interviews of
7 parents of students who had dropped out, 7 said
that there were no agencies at the IEP meetings.
An agency invitation must be attached to the IEP.
Team members are aware that drop out findings
documented from parents and students cannot be
corrected by re-convening corrective IEP meetings.
However, the information from these sources
should be helpful to the district in assessing the
effectiveness of their present transition procedures.
§442.A. Parents are not being
invited to the transition
IEP meeting.
In 4 of 7 cases, parents of students who had
dropped out stated that the parent didn’t participate
in the transition IEP.
The meeting notice to parents must indicate that the
6meeting would address transition for the student
and the notice must be attached to the student’s
IEP.
§444.
M.1.2.
Of 35 IEPs reviewed, 21 did not address transition,
made no statement of transition needs in the GSI,
stated no agency linkages as statements of
transition needs; of the 35 IEPs reviewed, 17
targeted no transition objectives; of 35 IEPs
Students 16 years of age or older must have a
Transition Service Page in their IEP.
IEPs do not contain
statements of transition
service needs of the
student.
Parent surveys indicated that 6 of 6 parents of
transition-age students were not satisfied with the
7
FINDINGS OF NON-COMPLIANCE
MOREHOUSE PARISH SCHOOL SYSTEM
Reg.
Ref. #
Description of Finding
Supporting Evidence
reviewed, 2 did not note any agency linkages.
Comments
transition services provided to their child.
Of 30 students interviewed, 5 stated that the school
is not doing any transition planning to help them
graduate; of 30 students interviewed, 8 had no
knowledge of agencies or their role; of 5 students
interviewed at the alternative school, 4 students
stated that they had received no transition services;
of four drop-out students interviewed, 1 stated that
s(he) had no help planning a high school program.
§440.
C.3.
IEP meetings are not
reconvened to address
lack of expected
progress.
§444.E. The IEPs did not contain
1., 2., 3. a statement of the
supports needed for
students to achieve goals,
In 7 of 35 cases, IEPs were not reconvened when
students were failing classes, failed LEAP, or had
very low IOWA scores.
The team found that 1 of 13 special education
teachers, 4 of 16 regular teachers, 1 of 8
administrators, and 2 of 2 regular alternative
program teachers did not know that an IEP should
be reconvened to address lack of student progress.
In 5 of 35 records reviewed, IEPs did not address
the support needed for school personnel since this
section was left blank.
It is difficult to tell if school personnel do not need
any support, or if the IEP team forgot to address
this issue.
8
FINDINGS OF NON-COMPLIANCE
MOREHOUSE PARISH SCHOOL SYSTEM
Reg.
Ref. #
§444.
B.2.,5.,
6.
444.D.
1.,2.
444.I.,
444.
L.1.,2.
§441.
A.1.,
441.
A.4.
Description of Finding
to progress in the general
curriculum and to be
educated and participate
with other students.
Prescribed IEP content is
not being addressed.
School system does not
assure that all IEP
participants are invited to
attend IEP meeting.
Supporting Evidence
In 3 of 35 records reviewed, IEPs did not indicate
specific current performance.
In 1 of 35 records reviewed, IEPs did not address
parents’ concerns.
In 2 of 35 records reviewed, IEPs omitted behavior
concerns and health needs.
In 6 of 35 records reviewed, IEPs did not have
appropriate, measurable annual goals or objectives.
In 4 of 35 records reviewed, IEPs did not indicate
whether any goals were achieved.
In 4 of 35 records reviewed, IEPs did not indicate
parent or student participation, with no parent or
student signatures or approval of IEP.
In 1 of 35 record reviews, IEPs did not have
documentation of prior notice.
In 2 of 35 records reviewed, IEPs did not have
signature/date of ODR on IEP.
Comments
On 34 of 35 parent surveys, parents indicated that
they had been invited to their child’s IEP.
9