CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT MONITORING PROCESS
ON-SITE FOCUSED MONITORING COMPONENT
APRIL 11-15, 2005
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS REPORT
PRODUCED FOR:
ASCENSION PARISH SCHOOL SYSTEM
ROBERT J. CLOUATRE, SUPERINTENDENT
SUSAN VAUGHN, SUPERVISOR OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
ON-SITE TEAM LEADER
SHARON M. CRARY
ON-SITE TEAM MEMBERS
DONNIE FAYE HULL, ESYP MONITOR
LILLIE ANDERSON
SUSAN BATSON
KITTY LEMING
PATRICIA MCELROY
LAURA NATA
CAROLYN SEIGEL
LORAN TERMINE
1
Introduction
A team of nine monitors conducted an on-site visit April 11-15, 2005, as a component of the
Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process. Ascension Parish School System was selected
under the Focus category of Exit because of its high dropout rate for students with disabilities.
Data from the school system’s Performance Profile for the school year 2003-2004 led team
members to also monitor the following three areas: (1) placement settings for 3-5 year old
special education students because of a low percentage of students in the Early Childhood
Regular Education Setting; (2) the disproportionality of minorities in special education and
gifted/talented because of a high percentage of African American students identified as Mild
Mentally Disabled and Specific Learning Disabled and a low percentage of African American
students identified as Gifted/Talented; (3) disciplinary procedures and programs for students
with disabilities because of a higher number of out-of-school suspensions for students with
disabilities than for those students without disabilities.
Demographic and performance information regarding Ascension Parish School System can be
found in the State Special Education Data Profile publication and the School Performance
Profile located on the Louisiana Department of Education website:
http://www.louisianaschools.net/lde/specialp/2115.html.
Strategies, Methods and Activities During On-Site Visit
After reviewing the school system’s dropout information prior to the visit, the monitoring team
determined the focus for the on-site activities would be on students identified as having Specific
Learning Disabilities who were placed in regular education and special education resource
settings at the middle/high school level and in the PreGED/Options Program. Team members
reviewed IEPs of suspended students and conducted interviews with those students, their parents,
administrators, and special education staff members. For monitoring the placement of students
ages 3-5 years, the team conducted purposeful interviews with PreK teachers, parents and central
staff personnel, reviewed PreK IEPs and observed PreK settings. To address disproportionality,
the team reviewed referral, screening and evaluation documents and procedures, and they
interviewed school, central office, and pupil appraisal personnel.
The team leader reviewed the most recent Complaint Log, which is maintained by the Louisiana
Department of Education as part of its responsibility regarding exceptional students in the state.
For Ascension Parish School System, there have been seven complaints filed from September
18, 2003, to March 1, 2004. Of those seven, three were withdrawn, one was settled in mediation,
and three resulted in no violation.
Other on-site monitoring activities included:

Review of 65 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.

Interviews with 60 school-site personnel in 16 schools in Ascension Parish School
System, including: 17 administrators (regarding disproportionality, discipline, transition,
2






LRE), 14 regular educators (regarding accessing the general curriculum, accommodations
and modifications), 21 special educators (regarding transition), 4 School Building Level
Committee Coordinators (regarding disproportionality), and 4 counselors (regarding
transition).
Interviews with 35 students at school sites and 9 telephone interviews with students who
dropped out of school.
Interviews with 18 central office personnel.
Observations of services being provided to students through on-site school visits,
including 3 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, 3 high schools, and 1 alternative
school.
Review of 204 Parent Surveys sent to students’ homes.
Compiling information from 37 parents’ comments that attended the Parent Focus Group
Meeting.
Interviews by telephone with 34 parents, including follow-up calls to parents who
attended the parent meeting or requested assistance on the Parent Survey; calls to parents
of 11 suspended students; calls to 9 parents of pre-school students; and calls to 8 parents
of students who had dropped out of school.
Parent surveys were sent to students’ homes prior to the monitoring team’s on-site visit. The
results of the surveys were compiled by the staff of Families Helping Families of Greater New
Orleans Resource Center, and issues of concern to parents were investigated during the on-site
visit. There were a total of 204 surveys returned, including those from the parents of 29 PreK or
Kindergarten children, 99 students in elementary grades 1-5, 49 students in middle school grades
6-8, and 28 students in high school grades 9-12. Of the total 204 surveys returned, 35 surveys
were completed by parents of gifted/talented students at the elementary and middle school level.
Some surveys did not indicate age or grade level of student.
A Parent Focus Group meeting was conducted on Tuesday, April 12, 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
subsequent phone calls were considered in the investigative process.
In preparation for the on-site monitoring of the school system’s out-of-school suspension data,
the team leader contacted a staff member at the Louisiana Department of Education’s Student
Information System, who confirmed that the school system reports the number of incidences of
out-of-school suspension, not the number of students given out-of-school suspension. Therefore,
the practice of suspending students with disabilities for shorter periods of time inflates the
number of incidences but allows students more opportunities to correct their behaviors.
Evidence of non-compliance was not found concerning the higher percentage of out-of-school
suspensions for students with disabilities as compared to the percentage for students in regular
education.
At the time of the monitoring visit, of 35 students identified with emotional disturbance, 25 had
counseling as a related service documented on their IEPs.
No evidence of non-compliance was found in Ascension Parish School System’s policies,
procedures, and practices regarding the identification of minorities with Mild Mental
Disabilities, Specific Learning Disabilities or as Gifted/Talented. However, it is suggested that
3
the system review its use of the WISC-IV evaluation instrument and the publisher’s technical
report on the validity and reliability for identifying giftedness in children.
There was no evidence of non-compliance in the support for students with disabilities in
accessing the general curriculum. Observations, IEP record reviews and interviews that focused
on the accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities indicated that teachers
were aware of and responding to student needs in the classroom. However, the accommodations
and modifications provided to students were similar and limited. The system should review this
area in their annual self-review and investigate research-based interventions, particularly for
those students with specific learning disabilities.
Even though one principal and three parents commented about the lack of gifted/talented
services at the high school level, Ascension Parish School System does provide honors courses
and classes in the arts, music and drama to meet the needs of students. It is suggested that
Ascension Parish Special Services personnel review the high school program in their annual selfreview to assure that the needs of potentially gifted/talented exceptional students are being met.
In reviewing data and comments from interviews conducted by monitoring team members, it
appears that by the time school personnel counsel fifteen or sixteen year old students about the
PreGED/Skills Options program, the students have experienced a series of failures throughout
their school years, and their enrolling in the PreGED/Skills Options program is a “last chance.”
Some students see this as a step closer to dropping out of school, and not really a choice. The
system should consider focusing on early identification of potential dropouts, and initiate more
timely discussions of options and vocational opportunities with at-risk students.
Report for the State Legislature
The Louisiana State Legislature has requested that monitors collect information concerning
services provided to special education students. The following information on the Ascension
Parish Schools has been provided for the 2004-2005 Performance Indicator Report:

Of 35 IEPs monitored for transition, 32 provided a free appropriate public
education (FAPE), including transition services.
Monitoring of the Extended School Year Program
One monitoring team member was assigned the responsibility of examining the school system’s
Extended School Year Program. There were 63 records reviewed, and it was determined there
was no evidence of systemic noncompliance impacting the delivery of ESYP services. A high
percentage of students with disabilities qualified for the LEAP 21 summer program and elected
to attend it rather than participate in ESY programming provided through the Special Services
Department.
4
Specific Evidence of Non-Compliance Was Found in the Following Areas:


Transition
Pre-School Placement
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.
5
FINDINGS OF NON-COMPLIANCE
ASCENSION PARISH SCHOOL SYSTEM
Reg. Ref. #
§444.M.1.
§441.A.7.
§442.C.
§444.M.2.
§441.A.8.
Description of
Finding
Students are not
invited to a
Transition IEP to
help plan a high
school program and
develop a vision for
the future as
documented by IEP
statements.
Transition IEP
meeting do not
address agency
linkages or
interagency
responsibilities, nor
were agencies invited
to the transition IEP.
Supporting Evidence
Comments
In interviews, 1 of 8 dropout students stated that no
one helped plan a high school program.
In interviews, 3 of 8 parents of dropout students
stated that their child had not participated in
developing a vision for the future that would lead to
an educational plan for them.
In 10 of 32 IEP records reviewed, the IEP
committees did not document that students had
been properly invited to transition meetings at
sixteen years of age.
In 3 of 32 IEP records reviewed, the IEP committee
did not target any transition objectives.
In 5 of 32 IEP records reviewed, there was no
transition statement in the General Student
Information (GSI) section.
Although the total number of individual findings
concerning transition is not great, there appears to
be a general lack of knowledge among parents and
students and, therefore, the need to emphasize to
teachers and administrators how to communicate to
the parents and students what a transition plan is, its
purpose and how the plan benefits students. Part of
this lack of knowledge may be because students are
dropping out either at the beginning of their
transition planning or before a plan is fully
implemented.
Team members are aware that dropout 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.
In interviews, 1of 8 principals did not know how
students or parents are informed about agencies that
could provide transition services.
In interviews, 3 of 35 students stated they were
unaware of agency transition services.
In interviews, 1 of 21 special education teachers did
not know what should take place if the agency
doesn’t attend the transition IEP meeting.
In interviews, 2 of 35 students stated that there had
been no discussion about their career or study
direction at an IEP meeting and a review of their
IEPs indicated that no transition plan had been
completed.
6
FINDINGS OF NON-COMPLIANCE
ASCENSION PARISH SCHOOL SYSTEM
Reg. Ref. #
Description of
Finding
Supporting Evidence
Comments
In 2 of 32 IEP records reviewed, the IEP committee
did not indicate any agency linkages.
Transition plan was
not put in place.
§441.A.7.
Students are not
invited to a transition
IEP.
§441.A.2.
Regular education
teachers do not attend
IEP meetings.
PreK program and
method of service
delivery is made by
administrative
decision.
The full
multidisciplinary
team does not meet
with the parents to
determine the
student’s disability.
§446.C.
§435.B.
In interviews, 3 out of 8 dropout students stated that
the transition supports they were informed of were
not put it place.
In interviews, 3 out of 8 parents of dropout students
who were eligible for transition services stated that
their children were not invited to transition IEP
meetings.
In regard to one parent of a dropout student, it was
noted on that student’s transition IEP that he had
been invited by letter and oral invitation, and the
parent subsequently refused special education
services.
No regular education teachers had attended their
children’s IEP meetings, according to 6 of 9 parents
of pre-school students.
In 6 of 9 cases, parents of PreK students stated that
they were not informed about any variety of
preschool service delivery options and did not
participate in deciding the program for their child.
In interviews, 5 of 5 pupil appraisal personnel
stated that the eligibility meeting with a parent is
not attended by all members of the
multidisciplinary team.
7