CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND FOCUSED MONITORING PROCESS
DIVISION OF EDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMENT AND ASSISTANCE
OFFICE OF STUDENT AND SCHOOL PERFORMANCE
RANDOM MONITORING COMPONENT
DATE OF ON-SITE MONITORING:
January 22-25, 2007
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Iberville Parish School System
Martin Bera, Superintendent
Kathy D’Albor, Supervisor of Special Education
ON-SITE TEAM LEADERS
Dr. Sherlyn Ezell Powell
Patricia McElroy
ON-SITE TEAM MEMBERS
Noah Wartelle
Brenda Bond
Bonnie Bucklelew
Mylinda Elliott
Edward Tebbe
Introduction
A team of seven monitors conducted an on-site visit to Iberville Parish School System on
January 22-25, 2007, as a component of the state’s Continuous Improvement and Focused
Monitoring Process. Iberville Parish School System was selected for on-site monitoring among
the local education agencies (LEAs) included in the state monitoring system’s Population Group
3 (LEAs with an October 1 general education student count of 7,000-17,599) under the Random
category of monitoring.
Demographic and performance information regarding Iberville 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.
Monitoring Strategies, Methods and Activities
Review of 85 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 (for data validation purposes).
Interviews with 31 school-site personnel, including administrators, regular educators, special
educators, and paraeducators in 8 schools in the school system.
Interviews with 5 central office personnel.
Observations of services being provided to students through on-site visits to schools, including 1
elementary school, 1 elementary-junior high, 1 middle school, 2 elementary-high schools, 2 high
schools, and 1 alternative school.
Information gathered from 7 parents who attended parent focus meeting.
Interviews by telephone with 14 parents, including follow-up calls to parents who attended the
parent meeting. (A parent focus group meeting was conducted on January 22, 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 Iberville Parish,
100% (37 of 37) 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 Iberville
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 3 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:

§444B1 Discipline

§444E 1,2 FAPE- Progress and benefit from the general curriculum

FAPE Homebound services

FAPE- Counseling as a related service

Health Plans
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
Iberville Parish School System
Reg. Ref. #
Description of Finding
§444.E.1-2.
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
Comments
Review of 31 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-eight of the 31 records had no
documentation that the students’ failures had been addressed. 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.
Purposeful interviews with 12 of 15 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 as follows: too many inclusion students to
adequately address all their IEP needs; lack of time to collaborate with
general education teachers; lack of interest of some general education
teachers to collaborate; absenteeism; and student motivation.
Five of 8 general education teachers interviewed revealed that they were
aware that the students were failing but did not know that they could
request additional accommodations or modifications to assist students to
be successful in their general education classes. The 5 teachers expressed
that no new accommodations or modifications had been tried. All 8
teachers stated that they were presently using all the prescribed
accommodations and modifications such as preferential seating, extended
time, proximity control, and going to special education teacher to take
tests. Reasons given for lack of student success were as follows: lack of
student effort; lack of support from home/homework completion; lack of
services from special services due to large number of students in
4
Findings of Non-Compliance
Iberville Parish School System
Reg. Ref. #
Description of Finding
Supporting Evidence
Comments
inclusion; absenteeism.
Four parent interviews also revealed a lack of utilization of appropriate
accommodations and modifications to address student failures.
§444B.1.
§519E.2.
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
programs.
Records of Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) were reviewed for 38
students who had been suspended from school during the present
academic year. While positive behavioral supports were indicated in the
Behavior Intervention Plans, there was no documentation that the positive
behavioral supports written in the plans had been implemented in 26 of
the 38 plans.
After thorough examination of the 26 records and interviewing 14 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 Behavior
Intervention Plans were not revised as students’ inappropriate behavior
continued and/or escalated.
Twelve records had no documentation that the Behavior Intervention
Plans had been implemented at all. Ten of the 14 on-site personnel
interviewed corroborated that the Behavior Intervention Plans are usually
not implemented across settings. When asked questions about discipline
and high suspension rates, 9 of the 14 on-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 results in behavior change; thus, the inappropriate behaviors continue
and student learning is impeded. The school personnel expressed that
5
Findings of Non-Compliance
Iberville Parish School System
Reg. Ref. #
Description of Finding
Supporting Evidence
students who return from suspensions will often immediately engage in
the inappropriate behavior that they were suspended for because of lack of
effective positive supports in place through the instructional program.
Comments
Nine parents of students who exhibited behavior problems were
interviewed. All 9 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.B.C.1.
§904.
Counseling;
Related
Services
Counseling as a related
service is not provided
through the IEP process.
Twenty-two of 22 purposeful record reviews indicated that students
identified as having Emotional Disturbances were not receiving
counseling as a related service through the IEP process.
Purposeful interviews with 7 of 7 administrators, supervisors, and
teachers revealed that counseling is not provided as a related service for
students with behavior or emotional disturbances through the IEP process.
All 7 system personnel expressed that these students could benefit from
counseling.
Purposeful interviews with 8 of 8 parents of students with emotional or
behavioral disturbances indicated that counseling as a related service was
not provided for their children through the IEP process.
§446.A.4.
Some students on
Homebound placement are
Four of 12 purposeful record reviews revealed that students placed on
Homebound instruction were not provided instructional services as
Homebound services
must be provided for
6
Findings of Non-Compliance
Iberville Parish School System
Reg. Ref. #
Description of Finding
not provided FAPE
according to their IEPs.
Supporting Evidence
indicated on the students’ IEPs. It was noted that Homebound services
for some students were scheduled to be delivered at a location other than
the home (i.e., a library) based on an agreement with parents to provide
transportation to the agreed upon location.
Comments
all students who are
placed on homebound.
When students failed to report to the alternative location, there were
attempts at communication with parents, but ultimately, services were not
offered in the home even if it was determined that the parents could not
get students to the alternative location.
Purposeful interviews with 3 of 3 supervisors and teachers indicated that
Homebound services are not always delivered as described in the IEP.
Three of 5 purposeful interviews with parents whose children were
receiving Homebound services indicated that their children were not
receiving services as described in their IEPs.
§444.B.6.
Some students with
medical needs had no
Health Plans.
Six of 6 students with medical needs had no Health Plans included in their
IEPs.
Purposeful interviews with 4 of 4 special education teachers indicated that
Health Plans were not written for these students.
7