Get documents about "MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Document Sample
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF ACADEMIC EDUCATION
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
Central High School Building
359 North West Street
P.O. Box 771
Jackson, MS 39205-0771
Phone (601) 359-3498
Fax (601) 359-1829
August 12, 2004
Revised Date
Focused Monitoring Report
on Services for Students with Disabilities
Senatobia School District
Mr. Mike Flynn
Superintendent of Schools
Mrs. Cecilia Leach
Director of Special Education
Approved by:
___________________________
Dr. Melody Bounds
State Director of Special Education
1
Senatobia School District
Summary of Focused Monitoring Process
Statutory Authority for State Department of Education Monitoring
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides federal funds to
assist states in educating children with disabilities and requires each participating
state to ensure that school districts and other publicly funded educational
agencies in the State comply with the requirements of the IDEA and its
implementing regulations. Mississippi State law requires local school districts to
provide appropriate special education and related services, and requires the
Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) to establish, monitor, and enforce
regulations governing special education programs in the Mississippi public
schools and in all institutions wholly or partly supported by the State. The MDE
has adopted regulations implementing those requirements. The Office of Special
Education (OSE) of the Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) supervises
and conducts the focused monitoring process in furtherance of the State’s
obligation under the IDEA and Mississippi law.
The Monitoring Team
The MDE authorized the following team of monitors and consultants to conduct
on-site monitoring in the Senatobia School District from May 10-12, 2004.
Team Leader
Cathey Aultman
Team Members Team Consultants
Marilyln Colyer Katherine Culpepper
Wanda Simmons Linda Greaux
Hollia Thompson
________________________________________________________________
Footnotes
1. The IDEA regulations require the State educational agency to ensure that the federal regulatory requirements are
carried out statewide and that all educational programs for children with disabilities in the State are under the general
supervision of the State educational agency and meet the state’s educational standards. 34 CFR Sec. 300.600
2. The Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) is authorized under 37-23-5 of Mississippi Code 1972, to “foster,
inspect, approve and administer a program of education for exceptional children.” It is the responsibility of the Mississippi
Department of Education, Office of Special Education (OSE) to ensure implementation of the mandates of federal and
State laws and regulations regarding the provision of programs, services, and protections to all Mississippi children and
youths with disabilities.
3. The current State special education regulations for Program Improvement Monitoring are included in the Mississippi
Department of Education (MDE) Policies and Procedures Regarding Children with Disabilities under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA 97), Attachment Z.
2
Introduction: Mississippi Program Improvement Monitoring
Mississippi Program Improvement Monitoring (MPIM) is a new way of
determining compliance with federal and State special education laws and
regulations while also addressing educational benefit. MPIM emphasizes two
major areas of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997:
access to the general curriculum and improved educational performance for
children with disabilities.
While MPIM includes some aspects of traditional monitoring of public schools,
such as on-site visits, file reviews, interviews with staff members, students and
parents, and corrective actions to address findings of noncompliance, it differs
from traditional in other aspects:
MPIM uses information from the Mississippi Student Information System
(MSIS) to select districts with wide variances from the state averages on key
indicators for students with disabilities. These variances cover the most
important compliance issues, as well as measurable aspects of educational
benefit.
Monitoring visits and corrective actions focus on the specific processes
related to the indicators selected from the District Data Profiles within each
Enrollment Group. The focus monitoring site-visits are geared toward helping
districts improve their performance on those specific indicators.
In 2003, a group of stakeholders identified three key focus areas for Mississippi
school districts. The focus areas are:
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE);
Disproportionality in the over-identification of Specific Learning Disability
(SLD); and
Under-identification of Emotional Disability (EmD).
The methodology and rankings for the selection of districts for focused
monitoring are explained on the Mississippi Department of Education, Office of
Special Education website at http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/special_education.
The site visit report can be viewed on the Office of Special Education website as
well.
3
Selection Criteria
The Senatobia School District was selected for focused monitoring during the
2003-2004 school year under the following category: Under-identification of
Emotional Disability (EmD). Data from the MDE, MSIS Accountability Data
System indicated the district did not have any students identified as EmD, during
the 2002-2003 school year.
Additional Data
Other district data reviewed and analyzed prior to or during the on-site visit
included the following:
Profile of General Demographic Characteristics for Senatobia;
District-level profiles, including enrollment and ethnicity, by school site;
District parent surveys;
District parent telephone interviews;
Input from the Parent Focus group meeting, May 10, 2004;
School ratings for November 21, 2003 under the Mississippi Statewide
System;
District suspension/expulsion files;
District files of the Alternative School (Optional Learning Center);
District Teacher Support Team (TST); including those students
referred for behavioral issues;
District professional development activities (2003-2004);
District referrals for evaluation procedures;
District Instructional Interventions;
District Professional Development Plan and professional development
activities (2003-2004);
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs);
District level administrators’ interviews including building principals;
Regular education teacher interviews;
Special education teacher interviews;
Related service staff interviews;
TST chairpersons interviews;
Counselor interviews;
School nurse interview; and
Observation of classrooms and facilities.
4
District Demographic Information
The Senatobia School District includes one (1) elementary school, one (1) middle
school, and one (1) high school. The district serves approximately 1,754
students including 357 students with disabilities. The district employs 120
teachers, of whom nineteen (19) are special education teachers, and three (3)
are related service staff to support students with disabilities. The ethnic makeup
of the district is 69% White, 30% Black, and 1% Other.
Dates and Sites Visited
May 10, 2004 Parent Focus Group Meeting
Northwest Community College
May 10, 2004 Central Office
May 11, 2004 Central Office, Senatobia Elementary School, and
Senatobia Optional Learning Center (OLC)
May 12, 2004 Central Office, Senatobia Middle School, and
Senatobia High School
Team Strategies, Methods, and Activities On-Site
In conducting the on-site visit, the team carried out the following activities:
Received input from one (1) administrator at the parent focus group meeting,
as no parents were in attendance;
Reviewed fourteen (14) student records which included IEPs, evaluation
reports, discipline files, screening team reports, instructional interventions,
behavioral interventions, alternative school records and LSC documentation;
Reviewed district professional development activities;
Interviewed two (2) district administrators including the Superintendent and
Program Director;
Interviewed twelve (12) school site personnel in three (3) schools and the
OLC, which included regular educators, special educators, principals and
support personnel;
Conducted phone interviews with five (5) parents; and
Observed the provision of services to students with disabilities in special
education and regular education classrooms;
5
Methodology for Identification of Findings of Noncompliance
The team gathered information from five (5) parent interviews, twelve staff
interviews, and fourteen record reviews which included cumulative folders, TST
information, standardized test scores, Local Survey Committee (LSC)
documentation, the 2003-2004 suspension list, and other documentation
provided by the district. Systemic noncompliance was established when
evidence was gathered from at least two (2) of the above mentioned sources.
A team leader compiled the monitoring team’s on-site findings and submitted
them for review to the MDE, Office of Special Education. A draft of this report
was prepared by the MDE focused monitoring team and has been reviewed,
revised, and approved by the MDE Office of Special Education.
Summary of On-Site Findings
District personnel do not fully understand the definition of EmD and due to a
lack of awareness of emotional disabilities and/or the benefits of addressing
them, they are reluctant to identify students with emotional disabilities.
Through careful record reviews, it was determined the referral to placement
procedures do not appear to be in accordance with Policies and Procedures;
therefore, appropriate services are not provided.
These findings and supporting evidence are discussed in the section on the
pages that follow. The report concludes with a framework for the district to
propose an improvement plan to address the identified areas of noncompliance.
6
On-Site Finding #1
Area of Noncompliance: District personnel do not fully
understand the definition of EmD and due to a lack of
awareness of emotional disabilities and/or the benefits of
addressing them; are reluctant to identify students with
emotional disabilities.
Description of Findings of Noncompliance:
The evidence demonstrates that the Senatobia School District has been reticent
to inform the teaching staff and support personnel of the IDEA disability
categories of students receiving special education services.
Applicable Regulations:
300.527
300.530 – 300.536
Supporting Evidence:
During an interview with the special education director, it was reported the
eligibility of students receiving special education services was not made known to
the district staff, and personnel concurred.
Four (4) of five (5) students with an EmD ruling do not have emotional and/or
behavioral issues addressed by a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) or by goals
and objectives on the 2003-2004 IEP. (These students were not included in the
2003 Data Profile, thus the 0% identification rate.)
Interviews with district personnel consistently reported the TST is in place, but
the consensus is the administrators and staff rely solely on the advice and
guidance of the special education director in lieu of the TST. It was the
consensus of the monitoring team that the staff doesn’t fully understand how to
address behavioral problems and issues related to EmD.
It was reported that anytime behavior is an issue for a child receiving special
education services, the special education director is alerted and provides
instructions as to the desired course of action to be taken by staff members.
Although an array of professional development activities was impressive, there
was no attention given to the topic of Emotional Disabilities.
7
Interviews with school personnel indicated disruptive behaviors or attention
seeking behaviors are not seen as possible emotional problems. There appears
to be no consistent process for ensuring that students receive the benefits of an
FBA or a referral to the TST. There was little evidence that an FBA or BIP had
ever been completed on most students exhibiting behavioral concerns. Students
were referred to the TST primarily for problems with grades, i.e., non-proficient.
In two (2) interviews and a conversation with the special education director, FBAs
were not described as occurring as an intervention prior to a referral for a
comprehensive assessment.
Administrators interviewed were knowledgeable of the terminology relative to
special education services; however, the standard procedure in place is to
contact the special education director whenever an issue or concern arises.
Comments and Discussion:
All members of the TST would benefit from additional training in instructional and
behavioral interventions as well as in the fundamental components of the
process. Attention should be directed toward identifying children who may be
demonstrating the characteristics of an emotional disability according to the
definition and eligibility criteria addressed in the MDE Policies and Procedures.
There is a system-wide lack of awareness of emotional disabilities and the need
to address the EmD category under IDEA. Training in the characteristics,
identification and evaluation of emotional disabilities should be provided for
district staff, school site personnel and parents.
It was reported that two (2) teachers are certified in EmD but they have not had
students identified with an Emotional Disability.
Reports and interviews indicated no collaboration among community agencies
and the school district or the mental health agency.
8
On-Site Finding #2
Area of Noncompliance: Record reviews indicated
referral to placement procedures were not implemented
in accordance with Policies and Procedures.
Description of Findings of Noncompliance:
Reports and interviews indicated no collaboration among community agencies
and the school district or the mental health agency.
Applicable Regulation:
300.343
300.346
Supporting Evidence:
IEPs do not adequately address factors related to the students’ eligibility
ruling(s);
Assessment timelines were significantly out of compliance for one (1) student;
Record reviews also indicated behavioral concerns found in the Present
Level(s) of Performance were not addressed other than indicating an FBA
would be conducted;
One (1) eligibility folder did not contain parental consent for testing;
Two (2) eligibility folders did not have parental consent for placement;
Twelve (12) of fourteen (14) instructional interventions were inappropriate
because they did not address behavior;
One (1) record did not contain the test protocol for the intelligence measure;
Two (2) of the records reviewed contained scoring errors on test protocols;
Eight (8) records lacked appropriate documentation of persons involved with
summary reports, test protocols, and MEET reports;
Two (2) of the records had no FBAs completed, although they were indicated;
Three (3) of five (5) parents interviewed stated they were not told of
placement options.
9
ADDITIONAL NON-COMPLIANT FINDINGS
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED FOR COMPLIANCE
Description of Finding:
The TST must function in accordance with Policies and Procedures.
The district must ensure that FBAs and manifestation determinations are
conducted appropriately.
IEPs must address behavioral concerns so as to allow the students to benefit
from special education.
Instructional interventions must address problem areas.
Assessment timelines were significantly out of compliance for one (1) student.
One (1) record did not contain the test protocol for the intelligence measure.
Two (2) of the records reviewed contained scoring errors on test protocols.
Two (2) eligibility folders did not have parental consent for placement.
10
Additional Professional Concerns
Attention must be directed toward ensuring student records are completed
appropriately.
11
Improvement Plan
For Students with Disabilities
in the
Senatobia School District
Required Evidence of
Area of Noncompliance Activities and Resources Timeline
Change
(The district will propose (The district will propose
improvement plan activities.) timeline.)
(The district will propose (The district will propose
improvement plan activities.) timeline.)
12
