Lagniappe  Academies  of  New  Orleans  Monitoring  Report  –  CONFIDENTIAL  REPORT       March  3,  2015     Executive  Summary       Lagniappe  Academies  is  a  Type-­‐5  charter  school  operating  in  New  Orleans.    Lagniappe  is   currently  being  considered  for  renewal  of  its  charter  in  order  to  continue  operations  for  Fall   2015.    At  the  January  2015  Board  of  Elementary  and  Secondary  Education  (BESE)  meeting,  BESE   requested  that  prior  to  BESE  issuing  a  renewal  decision  for  Lagniappe  Academies,  the   Department  of  Education  compile  a  report  providing  more  context  for  the  November  2014   Lagniappe  Academies  IDEA  monitoring  report.     The  school  opened  in  2010  and  since  its  opening,  five  years  ago,  has  been  housed  in  a  modular   campus  in  the  Iberville  neighborhood.  The  grade  configuration  of  the  school  has  changed  each   year,  but  Lagniappe  has  served  no  more  than  200  students  in  any  given  school  year.    For  the   2014-­‐15  school  year,  Lagniappe  is  serving  180  students  as  of  October  1,  2014.       Through  the  compilation  of  this  report,  the  Department  has  developed  significant  concern  about   the  competence  of  the  school  leadership  to  manage  the  basic  operations  of  the  school.    A   preponderance  of  evidence  provided  by  families  and  teachers  and  collected  by  the  Department   of  Education  suggests  that  the  school  administration  is  not  able  to  adequately  manage  the   needs  of  the  students  within  the  building.    This  incompetence  has  manifested  in  the  set  of   findings  outlined  below.     The  findings  fall  into  four  main  categories.  Detailed  documentation  is  provided  in  the  pages  that   follow.     I.    Failure  to  Provide  an  Appropriate  Education  for  Students  with  Special  Needs   1. The  school  lacked  proper  protocols  for  identifying  students  with  special  needs  for   multiple  years.    The  administration  ignored  requests  for  student  evaluations  made  by   parents  and  failed  to  provide  any  notification  of  the  decision  to  not  conduct  the   evaluation.    The  administration  also  did  not  convene  the  School  Building  Level   Committee  to  make  decisions  about  which  students  would  or  would  not  receive   evaluations  per  Bulletin  741.   2. The  school  leadership  directed  teachers  not  to  provide  students  with  the  special   education  services  mandated  in  their  IEPs.   3. Families  of  students  with  identified  and  suspected  special  needs  were  discouraged  from   attending  school  and/or  returning  to  the  school  in  subsequent  years  by  the  school   leadership.       II.  Fraudulent  and  Inaccurate  Documentation  Related  to  Special  Education  Services         1     1. Lagniappe  staff  members  were  asked  to  produce  or  sign  documentation  confirming  they   provided  services  when  they  had  not.    Service  logs  were  submitted  by  Lagniappe  with   names  of  staff  alleging  that  these  staff  members  provided  services  that  were  not  in  fact   provided.     2. Multiple  Lagniappe  staff  members  were  asked  to  set  up  physical  space  within  the  school   to  suggest  that  a  classroom  was  available  for  small  group  instruction  prior  to  an  LDE   monitoring  visit.   3. The  school  submitted  service  logs  for  students  that  falsely  suggest  services  were   provided  to  students  on  days  when  the  school  was  on  Fall  Break  or  when  students  were   absent.       III.  Retention  of  Students  to  Prior  Grades   1. Lagniappe  retained  a  disproportionate  number  of  students  compared  to  schools  in  New   Orleans  and  around  the  state.     2. Lagniappe  retained  students  without  making  appropriate  adjustments  to  student  IEPs   per  Bulletin  1706.  Bulletin  1706  requires  that  an  IEP  team  revises  the  IEP  to  reflect  ‘any   lack  of  expected  progress  toward  the  annual  goals.’   3. Lagniappe  retained  students  without  notifying  families.     IV.  Testing  Violations   1. A  significant  number  of  students  were  assigned  504  read-­‐aloud  accommodations  who   did  not  receive  those  accommodations  during  the  school  year.       2. A  teacher  was  asked  to  fabricate  testing  data  for  three  kindergarten  students  to  report   to  the  state.               2     Process  for  Compiling  the  Report       In  compiling  this  report  the  Department  considered  the  following  pieces  of  evidence:     Prior  Reports/Site  Visit  Notes   • 2015  Site  Visit  Notes  –  Department  staff  conducted  a  site  visit  to  Lagniappe  Academies   to  review  additional  information.   • 2014  IDEA  Monitoring  Report  –  Department  of  Education  staff  conducted  an  IDEA   monitoring  site  visit  to  Lagniappe  Academies.   • 2014  Renewal  Report  –  Department  of  Education  staff  conducted  a  charter  renewal  visit   as  directed  in  the  Charter  School  Performance  Compact.   • 2011  Monitoring  Report  -­‐  Department  of  Education  staff  conducted  a  routine   monitoring  visit.       Data  Collected       See  Appendix  A  for  all  data  analyzed  and  used  in  this  report,  including:   • General  demographic  data  –  including  the  grade  levels  served  by  Lagniappe,  the  number   of  students  enrolled  at  Lagniappe  each  year  of  operation,  daily  attendance,  number  of   students  with  exceptionalities  and  number  of  students  with  Section  504   accommodation  plans.   • Student  stability  –  rate  at  which  students  returned  year-­‐over-­‐year  from  the  LDE’s  LEADS   (Louisiana  Educational  Accountability  Data  System)  database   • Student  retention  –  rate  at  which  students  are  retained  in  their  current  grade  (vs.   promoted  to  the  next  grade)  from  the  LDE’s  LEADS  database   • Student  transfer  summary  –  percentage  of  students  who  transferred/did  not  return,   including  the  percentage  of  those  students  who  had  IEPs/504  status  from  the  LDE’s   LEADS  database   • Testing  irregularities  –  Any  irregularities  identified  by  the  Department  at  the  school  in  its   routine  reviews  of  standardized  testing  data     Parent/Staff  Accounts   • 12  interviews  with  current  or  former  staff;  7  affidavits,  1  signed  statement   • 12  interviews  with  current  or  former  parents/guardians  of  students;  6  affidavits,  1   signed  statement             3     Findings     I.    Failure  to  Provide  an  Appropriate  Education  for  Students  with  Special  Needs.   Federal  IDEA  law  and  BESE  policy  (Bulletin  1508)  require  that  Local  Education  Agencies  (LEAs)   have  processes  for  identifying  students  with  disabilities.    IDEA  regulations  state  that  evaluations   may  be  requested  by  parents  and  must  be  completed  within  60  days  of  a  parent’s  consent.     Federal  IDEA  law  also  requires  that  students  receive  a  Free  and  Appropriate  Public  Education   (FAPE).    An  appropriate  education  is  defined  as  one  that  meets  the  individual  needs  of  students   with  disabilities  as  defined  by  their  Individualized  Education  Plan  (IEP).    In  addition,  the  School   Building  Level  Committee  (SBLC)  should  make  all  decisions  about  whether  a  student  will  receive   an  evaluation.    Bulletin  741  mandates  that  the  SBLC  be  comprised  of  a  principal/designee,  a   classroom  teacher  and  the  referring  teacher.     Statements  from  teachers  and  families  and  documentation  from  LDE  reports  suggest  that:   1. The  school  lacked  proper  protocols  for  identifying  students  with  special  needs  for   multiple  years.    The  administration  ignored  requests  for  student  evaluations  made  by   parents  and  failed  to  provide  any  notification  of  the  decision  to  not  conduct  the   evaluation  nor  the  process  for  appeal.    The  administration  also  did  not  convene  the   School  Building  Level  Committee  to  make  decisions  about  which  students  would  or   would  not  receive  evaluations  per  Bulletin  741.   2. The  school  leadership  directed  teachers  not  to  provide  students  with  the  special   education  services  mandated  in  their  IEPs.   3. Families  of  students  with  identified  and  suspected  special  needs  were  discouraged  from   attending  school  and/or  returning  to  the  school  in  subsequent  years  by  the  school   leadership.       The  school  lacked  proper  protocols  for  identifying  students  with  special  needs  for  multiple  years.     The  administration  ignored  requests  for  student  evaluations  made  by  parents  and  failed  to   provide  any  notification  of  the  decision  to  not  conduct  the  evaluation.    The  administration  also   did  not  convene  the  School  Building  Level  Committee  to  make  decisions  about  which  students   would  or  would  not  receive  evaluations  per  Bulletin  741.     • Prior  Reports     o A  2011  visit  by  LDE  staff  resulted  in  a  recommendation  that  “Lagniappe   Academies  should  formalize  their  Child  Find  process,  including  how  to  make   parents,  guardians,  and  the  community  aware  of  the  Child  Find  process  as  well   as  procedures  for  identifying  students  within  the  school  who  are  suspected  of   having  a  disability.”  [Appendix  D:  IV]   o In  a  subsequent  October  2014  IDEA  monitoring  visit,  the  Department  found  that   Lagniappe  Academies  did  not  have  a  Child  Find  process  in  place  to  identify  and   evaluate  students  suspected  of  having  disabilities.  [Appendix  D:  II]   • Parent  statements     o The  parent/guardian  of  three  students  that  attend  Lagniappe  Academies  was   contacted  multiple  times  this  year  during  the  day  and  asked  to  pick  up  Student   A,  a  kindergarten  student.  The  school  did  not  consistently  provide   documentation  for  the  suspensions  as  is  outlined  in  its  discipline  policy.   [Appendix  E:  V]  Repeatedly,  the  parent/guardian  requested  an  evaluation  for   Student  A,  who  had  previously  been  diagnosed  with  ADHD  and  bipolar  disorder         4     •   by  an  outside  professional.  The  parent  also  offered  to  have  the  Student  A’s   outside  social  worker  provide  him  with  services  at  the  school;  however,  this   offer  was  refused  by  the  school.      As  of  February  19th  2015,  Student  A  does  not   have  an  IEP  in  the  Special  Education  Reporting  database.  [Appendix  B:  V]   o The  parent/guardian  of  Student  B  reports  that  the  student  was  frequently  sent   home  early  from  school  without  proper  documentation  of  the  suspension  per   the  school’s  discipline  policy  and  without  prior  notice  of  due  process   procedures.  [Appendix  E:  V]  During  the  2012-­‐2013  school  year,  Student  B  was   removed  from  school  for  ten  school  days.  The  parent/guardian  of  Student  B  was   told  by  the  school  administration  that  the  student  could  not  return  to  school   until  the  student  obtained  a  blood  test  indicating  that  the  student  was   consistently  taking  medicine  for  the  student’s  behavior.  The  parent/guardian  of   Student  B  asked  that  the  student  be  evaluated  for  an  IEP  but  no  evaluation  was   completed  and  no  prior  written  notice  was  provided.  At  year’s  end,  Student  B   was  retained  after  having  not  passed  iLEAP  that  year,  but  also  having  missed  a   significant  number  of  instructional  days  that  year.  [Appendix  B:  II]     Staff  statements   o Staff  Member  1,  former  Special  Education  Coordinator  during  the  2014-­‐15   school  year  at  Lagniappe  reports:   § Staff  Member  1  was  told  by  Lagniappe’s  leadership  that  there  was  only   funding  for  five  evaluations  during  the  2014-­‐2015  school  year  and  that   the  teacher  must  limit  the  number  of  evaluations  to  that  amount.   [Appendix  C:  I]   o Staff  Member  2,  former  Lagniappe  teacher,  reports:     o Student  C  displayed  clear  speech  development  issues.  When  Student  C’s   parent/guardian  took  the  student  to  get  evaluated  by  a  physician,  the   physician  provided  the  parent/guardian  with  documentation  suggesting   the  student  be  evaluated  by  the  school  and  provided  with  speech   services.  That  request  was  ignored  by  the  administration  and  prior   written  notice  was  not  provided  to  the  parent.    The  SBLC  was  not   convened  per  Bulletin  741.    This  student  is  currently  repeating  the  first   grade  at  Lagniappe.   o Student  D  was  a  kindergarten  repeater  with  noticeable  development   delays.  The  student  displayed  severe  speech  challenges,  and  at  the  end   of  the  second  year  in  kindergarten  the  student  could  only  write  3   letters.    Student  D  also  showed  violent  behaviors  towards  other   students.    The  student’s  teacher  from  the  prior  year  repeatedly   requested  that  the  school  leadership  conduct  an  evaluation.  The   requests  were  not  met  and  prior  written  notice  was  not  provided.  Staff   Member  2  repeatedly  requested  support  and  was  ignored  despite  data   showing  limited  academic  growth.  An  IEP  was  developed  for  the  student   in  January  2014.  [Appendix  C:  IV]   o Staff  Member  3,  former  Lagniappe  teacher  reports;     o Student  E  was  a  student  with  clear  developmental  delay.  Prior  teachers   voiced  concerns  as  early  as  Kindergarten.  By  second  grade,  Student  E   was  still  not  receiving  any  services  nor  had  an  evaluation  been   completed.         5     No  formal  policies  for  referring,  tracking  or  evaluating  students  with   special  needs  were  observed.  [Appendix  C:  III]   o Staff  Member  4,  former  Lagniappe  teacher,  reports:   § Staff  Member  4  was  directed  by  Lagniappe’s  leadership  not  to  refer   students  for  evaluations.     § According  to  this  staff  member,  Lagniappe  failed  to  provide  evaluations   for  students  despite  repeated  requests  for  evaluation  from  teachers  and   parents.    The  administration  also  failed  to  convene  the  SBLC  to  make  a   formal  decision  about  evaluating  students.  [Appendix  C:  V]     o A  teacher  who  has  requested  to  remain  anonymous  reports  that  asking  for  two   students,  Student  E  and  Student  F,  to  be  evaluated.    This  teacher  claims  that   Student  F’s  parent/guardian  also  asked  for  the  student  to  be  evaluated.    The   administration  did  not  evaluate  the  students.     o Staff  Member  5,  former  Lagniappe  teacher  reports  that  Lagniappe  Academies   did  not  have  a  Response  to  Intervention  or  Child  Find  process  in  place  to  identify   students  suspected  of  having  disabilities.    This  teacher  says  that  students  were   referred  for  evaluations  and  teachers  were  never  notified  about  a  decision  to   not  conduct  an  evaluation.  BESE  Bulletin  1508,  Pupil  Appraisal  Handbook,   requires  that  the  SBLC  include  the  referring  teacher.  [Appendix  C:  VI]     The  school  leadership  directed  teachers  not  to  provide  students  with  the  special  education   services  mandated  in  their  IEPs.     • Prior  Reports  and  Site  Visits   o The  LDE’s  2014  IDEA  Monitoring  Visit  resulted  in  a  finding  of  non-­‐compliance   related  to  the  implementation  of  IEPs.  At  the  time  of  the  visit,  Lagniappe  had  8   students  with  special  needs.    Specifically:   § Five  of  eight  students  were  not  receiving  special  education  services  in   the  area  of  English/Language  Arts  as  determined  by  the  IEP  Team   committee.  (Student  G,  Student  H,  Student  I,  Student  E,  Student  J)     § Four  of  eight  students  were  not  receiving  special  education  services  in   the  area  of  mathematics  as  determined  by  the  IEP  Team  committee.   (Student  G,  Student  I,  Student  E,  Student  J)     § Eight  of  eight  students  were  not  receiving  Speech  Therapy  services  as   determined  by  the  IEP  Team.  (Student  G,  Student  K,  Student  H,  Student   I,  Student  M,  Student  E,  Student  J,  Student  L)     § One  of  eight  students  did  not  receive  Adapted  Physical  Education   services  as  determined  by  the  IEP  team.  (Student  G)     § Eight  of  eight  students  did  not  have  Special  Education  Progress  Reports   completed  every  9  weeks  and  sent  to  the  parents.    The  requirement  for   these  progress  reports  was  outlined  within  the  IEP.    (Student  G,  Student   K,  Student  H,  Student  I,  Student  M,  Student  E,  Student  J,  Student  L).   [Appendix  D:  II]   • Parent  statements   o The  parent/guardian  of  Student  N,  a  kindergarten  student  in  2013-­‐2014,  reports   that  the  student  had  an  IEP  that  required  individual  and  small  group  instruction,   modification  of  assignments,  breaks  during  work  periods,  speech  services  and   o       6     •   increased  time  to  complete  assignments  and  tests.  Student  N  was  not  provided   any  of  these  accommodations  while  at  Lagniappe  Academies  despite  being   listed  in  the  IEP  and  the  parent/guardian’s  requests  for  these  services  to  be   provided.  [Appendix  B:  III]     Staff  statements   o Staff  Member  6,  former  Lagniappe  teacher,  was  instructed  by  Lagniappe’s   leadership  not  to  modify  student  lessons  or  provide  accommodations  to  any   students.  This  staff  member  describes  one  specific  student,  Student  O,  who  was   not  receiving  accommodation  or  services.  This  staff  member  was  told  by   Lagniappe  leadership  that,  “Student  O  did  not  need  additional  accommodations   because  our  classes  were  small  with  approximately  twenty  (20)  students.”   [Appendix  C:  VII]   o Staff  Member  2,  former  Lagniappe  teacher,  reports:   § Lagniappe’s  leadership  consistently  failed  to  provide  Staff  Member  2   with  access  to  student  accommodation  pages  from  their  IEP  despite   repeated  requests.     § This  teacher  was  directed  by  Lagniappe’s  leadership  not  to  provide   accommodations  as  required  by  students’  IEPs.     § Student  K,  a  student  with  a  pre-­‐Kindergarten  IEP,  struggled  academically   throughout  the  year.  Each  time  this  teacher  raised  concerns  about   Student  K  not  receiving  the  appropriate  services,  the  teacher  was   ignored.  Ultimately,  Staff  Member  2  was  forced  to  sign  a  document   claiming  Lagniappe  had  provided  students  with  services  even  though   the  teacher  indicated  the  services  had  not  been  provided.     § The  teacher  was  not  provided  with  a  copy  of  Student  N’s   accommodations  page  from  the  student’s  IEP  for  several  months  into   the  school  year.  When  the  teacher  received  a  copy  of  the  IEP,  it  was   clear  that  Student  N  was  not  provided  any  of  the  services  required.   Lagniappe’s  leadership  ignored  the  staff  member’s  request  to  comply   with  the  accommodations  required  by  the  IEP.  [Appendix  C:  IV]   o Staff  Member  3  reports  being  assigned  to  teach  the  higher  achieving  of  two   leveled  2nd  grade  classes.    This  teacher  reports  that  three  students  were   removed  from  the  teacher’s  class  part  way  through  the  year  despite  the   teacher’s  protests.  These  students  were  removed  due  to  their  behavior   challenges  and  despite  their  high  academic  performance.    The  teacher  asked  for   behavioral  interventions  and  support  in  lieu  of  removal  of  the  students  from  the   class.    The  request  was  denied  and  the  students  were  moved.  In  2013-­‐2014,   Staff  Member  3  indicates  that  Student  P  was  placed  in  this  teacher’s  classroom   with  an  IEP  that  was  outdated  and  did  not  address  many  of  Student  P’s   suspected  needs.  Appendix  III]   o Staff  Member  4  was  directed  by  Lagniappe’s  leadership  not  to  provide   accommodations,  including  IEP  service  minutes,  for  Lagniappe  students  with   special  needs.  During  this  teacher’s  tenure  at  Lagniappe  Academies,  no   accommodations  or  inclusion  services  were  provided  for  any  students  in  the   teacher’s  classroom.  [Appendix  C:  V]   o Staff  Member  5  describes  multiple  students  with  IEPs  who  were  not  receiving   services  or  accommodations:       7     Student  P  was  not  receiving  mandated  speech  services  until  the  mother   repeatedly  complained  to  school  leadership.   § Student  Q,  an  8th  grade  special  needs  student  was  assigned  to  spend  all   day  in  a  2nd  grade  classroom  for  about  half  of  the  year.  The  teacher  was   not  provided  any  guidance  on  how  to  address  the  specific  needs  of  this   student  or  notified  of  what  the  student’s  educational  goals  were.   [Appendix  C:  VI]   o Staff  Member  1  reports:   § This  teacher  reports  that  Lagniappe’s  leadership  refused  to  secure  an   adaptive  physical  education  teacher  despite  one  student’s  IEP   mandating  that  adaptive  physical  education  services  be  provided.  This   student  did  not  receive  Adaptive  Physical  Education  for  the  duration  of   Staff  Member  1’s  time  at  the  school.   § The  staff  member  was  told  to  not  complete  behavior  plans  (BIPs  and   FBAs)  for  students  who  needed  these  types  of  plans.   § The  staff  member  was  in  charge  of  Response  to  Intervention  (RTI)  at  the   school  but  was  not  permitted  to  hold  meetings  to  address  the  needs  of   students  and  these  meetings  were  not  held  by  other  administrators.   § Staff  Member  1  was  instructed  by  the  school  administration  to  co-­‐teach   a  3rd  grade  class  that  did  not  have  more  than  1  special  education   student  in  the  class.   § Staff  Member  1  was  not  allowed  to  consistently  provide   accommodations  to  students  with  required  services  outlined  in  their   IEPs.  [Appendix  C:  I]   o Staff  member  7,  former  assistant  to  the  school  administration,  reports  that  two   students,  Student  R  and  Student  Q,  were  provided  no  instruction  for  an   extended  period  of  time  in  an  unsupervised  setting.    These  students  were   moved  to  various  locations  throughout  the  school  and  were  infrequently   provided  academic  assignments.  [Appendix  C:  II]     Families  of  students  with  identified  and  suspected  special  needs  were  discouraged  from   attending  school  and/or  returning  to  the  school  in  subsequent  years  by  the  school  leadership.       • Parent  Statements   o Parent/guardian  of  Student  P  reports  that  Lagniappe  deliberately  avoided   phone  calls  from  the  parent/guardian.  The  parent/guardian  would  call  from  the   number  on  file  with  the  school  and  receive  no  answer.  When  the   parent/guardian  would  then  call  from  another  number,  the  calls  were   answered.  This  is  consistent  with  staff  reports  that  the  school  maintained  a  list   of  parents  not  to  contact  or  from  whom  the  school  would  not  take  calls.   [Appendix  B:  IX]   o The  parent/guardian  of  Student  B,  reports  that  the  student  attended  Lagniappe   for  multiple  years.    The  student  had  behavioral  challenges  and  was  often  sent   home  for  poor  behavior  without  a  documented  suspension.    During  March   2014,  this  parent/guardian  re-­‐registered  the  student  to  return  to  Lagniappe  for   the  2014-­‐15  school  year.    In  July  the  parent/guardian  returned  to  the  school  and   was  told  by  the  school  administration  that  the  student  could  not  be  enrolled  at   Lagniappe  because  the  parent/guardian  was  not  the  student’s  legal  guardian.   §       8     The  student’s  folder  contained  documentation  granting  the  parent/guardian   authority  to  handle  the  student’s  school  needs.    The  student  has  since   transferred  to  another  school.  [Appendix  B:  II]     • Teacher  Statements   o Staff  Member  7  reports  that  a  “Do  Not  Call”  list  was  developed  by  the  school   administration.    According  to  this  staff  member,  this  was  a  list  of  families  that   the  school  administration  did  not  want  to  return  to  the  school.    Staff  Member  7   cites  specific  students  who  were  on  this  list.    This  staff  member  also  reports  that   the  school  administration  stated  that  if  these  parents  were  not  informed  of   Summer  Academy  and  registration  procedures,  they  would  accrue  enough   absences  to  warrant  disenrollment  from  the  school.  [Appendix  C:  II]   o Staff  Member  3  reports  that  students  who  likely  had  undiagnosed  special  needs   did  not  receive  needed  services  or  differentiated  instruction  and  subsequently   performed  poorly.  Lagniappe  often  retained  these  students.  Parents  who  asked   for  services  often  left  the  school.  [Appendix  C:  III]     II.  Fraudulent  and/or  Inaccurate  Documentation  related  to  Special  Education  Services     Statements  from  teachers  and  families,  documentation  from  Lagniappe’s  2014  Corrective  Action   Plan,  and  data  from  school/LDOE  databases  demonstrate  that:     1. Lagniappe  staff  members  were  asked  to  produce  or  sign  documentation  confirming  they   provided  services  when  they  had  not.    Service  logs  were  submitted  by  Lagniappe  with   names  of  staff  alleging  that  these  staff  members  provided  services  that  were  not  in  fact   provided.     2. Multiple  Lagniappe  staff  members  were  asked  to  set  up  physical  space  within  the  school   to  suggest  that  a  classroom  was  available  for  small  group  instruction  prior  to  an  LDE   monitoring  visit.   3. The  school  has  service  logs  for  students  that  falsely  suggest  services  were  provided  to   students  on  days  when  the  school  was  on  Fall  Break  or  when  students  were  absent.     Lagniappe  staff  members  were  asked  to  produce  or  sign  documentation  confirming  they   provided  services  when  they  had  not  and  service  logs  were  submitted  by  Lagniappe  with  staff   names  that  attest  to  providing  services.       • Teacher  statements     o Staff  Member  3  had  Student  P  placed  into  the  teacher’s  third  grade  class.    The   school  administration  asked  the  teacher  to  sign  an  IEP  that  was  two  years  old.     The  teacher  asked  that  the  IEP  be  updated  as  the  student  had  additional  needs   not  included  in  the  outdated  IEP.    The  teacher’s  concerns  were  not  addressed   and  the  teacher  did  not  sign  the  IEP.  [Appendix  C:  III]   o Staff  Member  8  was  asked  to  forge  service  logs  for  a  particular  student  for  the   previous  year,  during  a  time  this  teacher  was  not  employed  at  Lagniappe.    The   teacher  refused  and  turned  in  a  letter  of  resignation.  [Appendix  C:  VIII]   o In  addition,  Staff  Member  8  reviewed  a  set  of  special  education  documents   included  in  Appendix  E:  IV  that  indicate  Staff  Member  8  was  the  teacher  of         9     o o o record  for  multiple  years.    Staff  Member  8  only  worked  at  Lagniappe  for  a  short   period  of  time  and  here  are  periods  of  time  prior  to  the  teacher’s  employment   and  subsequent  to  the  teacher’s  employment  where  the  teacher  is  falsely  listed   as  the  teacher  of  record.   Staff  Member  5  was  instructed  by  Lagniappe’s  leadership  to  sign  a  form   acknowledging  that  the  teacher  had  provided  IDEA  services  after  only  4  weeks   of  providing  small  group  pull-­‐out  accommodations.    The  teacher  was  instructed   to  sign  the  form  in  December,  though  was  told  to  stop  providing  services  4   weeks  after  the  start  of  the  school  year.  [Appendix  C:  VI]   Staff  Member  2  was  asked  during  the  2012-­‐13  school  year  to  sign  a  document   stating  that  the  school  provided  special  education  services  to  Student  K  when   the  required  services  had  not  been  provided  for  the  student.  [Appendix  C:  IV]   Staff  Member  1  did  not  provide  services  for  Student  H,  Student  K  and  Student  L,   as  indicated  on  the  service  logs  submitted  to  the  Recovery  School  District  as   part  of  Lagniappe’s  Corrective  Action  Plan.  This  staff  member  was  instructed  by   the  school  administration  to  not  provide  services  for  these  students.  [Appendix   C:  I]       Multiple  Lagniappe  staff  members  were  asked  to  set  up  physical  space  within  the  school  to   suggest  that  a  classroom  was  available  for  small  group  instruction  prior  to  an  LDE  monitoring   visit.     • Staff  Member  2  and  Staff  Member  3  indicate  they  were  told  by  the  school   administration  to  convert  a  storage  space  to  look  like  it  was  being  used  as  a  special   education  pull  out  classroom  ahead  of  an  LDE  monitoring  visit.  [Appendix  C:  III]       The  school  has  IEP  documentation  and  service  logs  for  students  that  falsely  suggest  services   were  provided  to  students  when  this  was  not  possible     • Lagniappe  IDEA  monitoring  Corrective  Action  Plan:  Service  minutes  recorded  on   documents  submitted  for  students  on  dates  when  they  were  absent  or  school  was  not  in   session.  [Appendix  E:  I,  II,  III]   o Student  E  has  service  minutes  log  entries  for  10/1/14  and  10/3/14  on  days  in   which  attendance  records  show  the  student  as  absent.     o Student  L  has  service  minutes  log  entries  for  10/7/14  and  10/20/14  on  days  in   which  the  attendance  record  shows  the  student  as  absent.   o Student  I  has  service  minutes  log  (Kickboard  log)  entries  for  11/19/14  on  a  day   in  which  the  attendance  record  shows  the  student  as  absent.     o Student  M  has  service  minutes  log  (Kickboard  log)  entries  for  11/19/14  on  a  day   in  which  their  attendance  record  shows  the  student  as  absent.  Log  is  for  speech-­‐ language  pathology  with  Staff  Member  9-­‐  McCormick,  Speech  invoice  provided   indicates  student  was  absent.   o Student  E  and  Student  J  have  service  minutes  log  entries  for  10/10/14  on  a  day   in  which  the  school  (according  to  the  posted  school  calendar)  was  not  in  session   for  Fall  Break.           10     III.  Retention  of  Students  to  Prior  Grades     Statements  from  parents  and  teachers  and  data  from  LDE  databases  suggest  that:     1. Lagniappe  retained  a  disproportionate  number  of  students  compared  to  schools  RSD   schools  in  New  Orleans  all  schools  statewide.     2. Lagniappe  retained  students  without  making  appropriate  adjustments  to  student  IEPs   per  Bulletin  1706.  Bulletin  1706  requires  that  an  IEP  team  revises  the  IEP  to  reflect  ‘any   lack  of  expected  progress  toward  the  annual  goals.’   3. Lagniappe  retained  students  without  notifying  families.       Lagniappe  retained  a  disproportionate  number  of  students  compared  to  RSD  schools  in  New   Orleans,  and  all  schools  statewide.       • Students  retained  at  excessive  rates  compared  to  other  schools  in  the  RSD  and   statewide   o In  14-­‐15,  31.8%  of  students  were  retained  compared  to  5%  throughout  RSD  and   4%  statewide.   o In  13-­‐14,  10%  of  students  were  retained  compared  to  5%  of  students   throughout  RSD  and  5%  statewide.   o In  12-­‐13,  13%  of  students  were  retained  compared  to  6%  throughout  RSD  and   5%  statewide.   • Students  with  special  needs  retained  at  excessive  rates     o In  14-­‐15,  62.5%  of  SPED  students  were  retained.   o Of  the  49  students  retained  in  14-­‐15,  34.7%  were  SPED  students,  while  SPED   students  comprised  only  4.2%  of  the  overall  student  population  (as  of  Feb.  1,   2014)     • Students  who  were  retained  left  the  school  in  high  numbers   o In  14-­‐15,  55.1%  of  the  students  who  were  retained  in  the  same  grade  found  a   different  school  the  following  year.           Lagniappe  retained  students  without  making  appropriate  adjustments  to  student  IEPs  per   Bulletin  1706.  Bulletin  1706  requires  that  an  IEP  team  revises  the  IEP  to  reflect  ‘any  lack  of   expected  progress  toward  the  annual  goals.’     • Lagniappe  CAP  Verification  Findings  [Appendix  D:  I]   o Proper  documentation  missing  for  retention  process.   § Student  K  was  retained  in  1st  grade  for  2014-­‐15  school  year  and  IEP   meeting  was  not  held  to  reflect  any  lack  of  progress  toward  annual   goals.  Parent  conference  form  included  in  folder  and  signed  by  parent,   but  IEP  not  reconvened.   § Student  H  was  retained  in  Kindergarten  for  2014-­‐15  school  year  and  IEP   was  not  revised  to  reflect  lack  of  expected  progress.  Last  IEP  meeting   was  3/20/14.             11     Lagniappe  retained  students  without  notifying  families.  Families  who  were  dissatisfied  with  their   placement  were  not  provided  a  copy  of  their  rights  per  Bulletin  1508.         • Parent  statements   o The  parent/guardian  of  Student  N,  reports  the  student  had  an  IEP  that  made  the   student  eligible  for  a  variety  of  accommodations.  These  accommodations  and   services  were  never  provided  at  Lagniappe.  Instead,  Student  N  was  placed  in  a   regular  class  with  no  accommodations  or  services.  Student  N  was  retained  in   Kindergarten  for  the  2014-­‐2015  school  year  for  failure  to  make  adequate   academic  progress.  [Appendix  B:  III]   o The  parent/guardian  of  Student  S,  reports  that  Student  S  was  retained  after  1st   grade,  because  Lagniappe  claimed  the  student  was  not  meeting  expectations  for   a  1st  grader.  The  student  repeated  the  first  grade  and  then  was  promoted  to  the   second  grade.    When  Student  S  moved  to  the  second  grade,  the  student   received  a  report  card  from  Lagniappe  stating  that  Student  S  passed  2nd  grade   in  the  2013-­‐2014  school  year  and  would  be  promoted  to  third  grade,  Lagniappe   sent  the  parent/guardian  a  letter  in  September  2014  stating  that  Student  S   would  be  placed  back  in  2nd  grade  because  the  student  was  “not  learning.”  The   parent/guardian  transferred  Student  S  to  KIPP  NOLA  upon  receipt  of  the   retention  letter,  where  Student  S  was  placed  in  the  3rd  grade.  [Appendix  B:  VII]   o The  parent/guardian  of  Student  P,  reports  that  the  student  was  initially   promoted  to  3rd  grade  after  the  2012-­‐2013  school  year  and  then  returned  to  2nd   grade  at  the  beginning  of  the  2013-­‐2014  without  the  parent/guardian  being   consulted.  The  student’s  grades  and  report  cards  reflect  no  prior  problems.  The   parent/guardian  was  repeatedly  told  by  the  school  leadership  that  the  school   did  not  have  to  provide  the  parent/guardian  with  information.  After  the  student   was  retained,  the  parent/guardian  worked  with  the  teacher  to  receive  regular   updates  on  the  student’s  progress.  Eventually,  the  teacher  told  the   parent/guardian  that  the  teacher  was  no  longer  allowed,  per  instruction  from   the  school  administration,  to  provide  these  updates.  In  response  to  requests  for   updates  and  inquires  as  to  why  the  school  neglected  to  share  information,  the   school  administration  stated,  “we  don’t  have  to  tell  you  anything.”  Ultimately,   the  parent/guardian  had  the  student  transferred.  [Appendix  B:  IX]   o The  parent/guardian  of  Student  I,  reports  that  the  student  had  an  IEP  and   transferred  to  Lagniappe  Academies  for  the  2014-­‐2015  school  year.  At  the  prior   school,  Student  I  passed  kindergarten  and  was  to  be  promoted  to  the  1st  grade.   Once  at  Lagniappe,  Lagniappe  placed  Student  I  back  in  Kindergarten,  claiming   that  the  student  “was  unable  to  keep  still  that  [the  student]  had  behavioral   issues.”  Ultimately,  the  student  was  returned  to  1st  grade  after  the  parent   contacted  the  Louisiana  Department  of  Education.  [Appendix  B:  IV]   o The  parent/guardian  of  Student  A  was  told  by  the  school  administration  that  the   student  was  not  ready  for  Kindergarten  and  that  Lagniappe  could  not  serve  the   student  but  did  not  provide  interventions  or  differentiated  instruction  to  meet   the  student’s  needs.  The  parent/guardian  repeatedly  requested  an  evaluation   for  Student  A  but  did  not  receive  an  evaluation  or  prior  written  notice.   [Appendix  B:  V]   o The  parent/guardian  of  Student  J,  stated  that  the  student  completed  the  2nd   grade  at  Martin  Luther  King  Charter  School  and  transferred  to  Lagniappe  in  the         12     3rd  grade  for  the  2013-­‐14  school  year.  Student  J  was  retained  in  the  3rd  grade  for   the  2014-­‐15  school  year  without  the  parent/guardian’s  consent.  The   parent/guardian  was  notified  by  the  school  administration  that  Student  J  was   retained  because  the  student  was  not  ready  for  the  next  grade.  The  student  was   in  the  midst  of  an  evaluation  process  at  the  time  the  retention  decision  was   made.  [Appendix  B:  I]       IV.  Testing  Violations     Teachers  reported  additional  areas  of  concern  related  state  testing  protocols:         1. A  significant  number  of  students  were  assigned  504  read-­‐aloud  accommodations  who   did  not  receive  those  accommodations  during  the  school  year.       2. A  teacher  was  asked  to  fabricate  testing  data  for  three  kindergarten  students  to  report   to  the  state.       A  significant  number  of  students  were  assigned  504  read-­‐aloud  accommodations  who  did  not   receive  those  accommodations  during  the  school  year.       • Data   o In  2013-­‐14,  Lagniappe  had  4.2%  of  students  with  special  needs.    The  RSD   average  is  12.9%.   o In  2013-­‐2014,  of  the  38  students  who  took  the  iLEAP  exam  in  the  spring  of  2014,   22  of  the  students  were  given  504  accommodations.    100%  of  those  students   were  given  the  accommodation  of  read  aloud.     • Statements   o Staff  Member  7  reports  that  7th  grade  students  in  the  2013-­‐14  school  year  did   not  receive  read-­‐aloud  accommodations  during  the  school  year  but  all  of  them   received  read-­‐aloud  accommodations  on  the  iLEAP  test.  [Appendix  C:  II]   o Staff  Member  3  indicates  that  the  staff  member  was  asked  to  fill  out  paperwork   for  2  students  Student  T  and  Student  U,  so  that  they  could  receive  504  test   accommodations,  but  they  were  not  given  accommodations  throughout  the   school  year  prior  to  the  iLEAP  test.  [Appendix  C:  III]       A  teacher  was  asked  to  fabricate  testing  data  for  three  kindergarten  students  to  report  to  the   state.     • Staff  Member  2  reports  that  the  school  administration  asked  the  teacher  to  make  up   Diagnostic  Skill  Checklist  (DSC)  data  for  three  kindergarten  students.  The  teacher   refused  to  do  so.  [Appendix  C:  IV]                     13     Conclusion     After  carefully  considering  the  evidence  compiled  by  this  report  and  the  response  submitted  by   Lagniappe  Academies,  the  Department  has  significant  concern  about  the  ability  of  the  school   leadership  to  meet  the  needs  of  all  students,  particularly  students  with  special  needs.    A   preponderance  of  evidence  provided  by  families  and  teachers  and  collected  by  the  Department   of  Education  suggests  that  the  school  administration  is  not  able  to  adequately  manage  the   needs  of  the  students  within  the  building.         Lagniappe  Academies’  response  attempts  to  refute  details  outlined  in  affidavits  provided  by   teachers  and  staff  members,  primarily  explaining  evidence  from  statements  as   misunderstandings  and  incorrect  interpretations.    However,  the  school  does  not  provide  any   explanation  for  some  of  the  most  egregious  of  the  findings  including  the  failure  to  consistently   provide  appropriate  education  and  services  for  students  with  special  needs  and  a  student   retention  rate  that  is  six  times  that  of  the  state  and  city  average.    In  addition,  no  explanation  is   provided  for  the  ‘Do  Not  Call  List’  that  included  a  list  of  parents  that  the  school  did  not  want   attending  the  school  or  the  very  high  rate  of  students  receiving  504  testing  accommodations.         While  Lagniappe  has  asked  for  additional  time  to  respond  to  this  report,  the  Department  has   been  in  dialogue  with  Lagniappe  concerning  deficiencies  in  the  school’s  special  education   programs  since  November  of  2014  and  does  not  have  confidence  that  any  additional   information  would  change  the  overall  conclusion  regarding  the  competence  of  the  school   leadership  to  manage  the  challenges  of  running  a  school  in  New  Orleans.               Lagniappe  Academies  of  New  Orleans  Response       Please  see  Appendix  F  for  Lagniappe  Academies’  response.           14       Appendices     Appendix  A:  Lagniappe  Academy  Data     Appendix  B:  Statements  from  Parents     Appendix  C:  Statements  from  Staff     Appendix  D:  Prior  Lagniappe  Academies  Reports       Appendix  E:  Other  Supporting  Documentation     Appendix  F:  Lagniappe  Academies  of  New  Orleans  Response               15   Appendix  A:  Data  Collected   Demographic  Data:     Grade  Configuration  by  School  Year   Beginning  School   Grade   Year   Configuration   2010   K,  5   2011   K-­‐1,  5-­‐6   2012   K-­‐2,  6-­‐7   2013   K-­‐3,  7-­‐8   2014   K-­‐4     Number  of  Students  Enrolled  by  Grade   Beginning   K   1   2   3   School  Year   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014   20   25   35   41   47     30   20   36   42       35   29   42         34   27   4   5   6   7   8           22   41   15           45   13           28             16         Number  of  Students  with  Individualized  Education  Plans  by  Grade   Beginning   K   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   School  Year   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014                                                       Number  of  Students  with  504  Plans  by  Grade   Beginning   K   1   2   3   4   School  Year   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014                                               17               5                       6             8             7                       8                       Percent  of  Special  Education  Students  as  part  of  Total  Student  Population  (As  of  Feb  1,  2014)       Percent  Sped   Lagniappe   4.2%   Recovery  School   12.9%   District         Student  Stability:   Percent  of  Students  who  Returned  to  the  School  the  Following  Year  (October  1  enrollment  from   one  year  to  October  1  enrollment  from  the  next  year)   School  Year   Stability  Rate   2010-­‐11   85%   2011-­‐12   64%   2012-­‐13   56%   2013-­‐14   54%     Student  Retention     Percent  of  Students  Retained  in  their  Current  Grade  (vs.  not  Promoted  to  the  Next  Grade)*   School  Year   Retention  Rate   Counts     2011-­‐12   2%    out  of  54  retained     2012-­‐13   13%   12  out  of  90  retained     2013-­‐14   10%   11  out  of  113  retained     2014-­‐15   31.8%   49  out  of  154  retained     *This  data  reflects  the  most  current  information  in  the  Department’s  LEADS  Student   Information  System  database       2014-­‐15  Retention  Statistics:     Retained  Students:  Transfers   Total  Retained   Total  Transferred   %  Transferred   49   27   55.1%     Retained  Students:  Sped  and  504   Total  Retained   Total  Sped/504   %  Sped/504   49   17   34.7%     Retained  Students   Total  Students   Total  Retained   %  Retained   154   49   31.8%       Lagniappe  Student  Retention     (Students  retained  in  same  grade  from  2013-­‐14  to   2014-­‐15)   Not   Retained   68.2%   Retained   31%   Non-­‐SpEd/ 504   20%   SpEd/504   11%           Percent  of  Students  Retained  (%  of  regular  education  and  special  education  students  retained   in  the  same  grade  enrolled  in  the  previous  year)   2014-­‐15   2013-­‐14   2012-­‐13       Regular   Regular   Regular   Ed   Ed   Ed       Sped       Sped       Sped   K   37.5%   100.0%     K   9.4%   0.0%     K   21.1%   0.0%       1   30.3%   100.0%   1   0.0%   0.0%   1   12.5%   0.0%   2   24.1%   50.0%     2   19.2%   0.0%     5   23.1%   0.0%   3   35.7%   50.0%     6   18.2%   0.0%     6   3.7%   20.0%       7   40.0%   -­‐   7   5.0%   0.0%   Total   13.3%   14.3%       8   0.0%   0.0%   Total   10.3%   0.0%             Total   30.1%   62.5%       student  w   as  enrolled       at  Lagniappe       Note*:  "Students"  only  includes  r   ecords   where   Academies   at  end  of  previous  year  and  an  enrollment  exists  anywhere  in  state  in  current  year  (current   year  =  year  not  promoted).    Both  enrollments  are  necessary  to  determine  promotion  status.                         Student  Transfers:     Of  the  Students  who  Transferred  out  of  Lagniappe,  Percent  of  Students  with  IEPs  and  504  Plans   Year   Number   Transferred   2010-­‐2011   2011-­‐2012   2012-­‐2013   2013-­‐2014   18   58   59   90   Percent   with  IEPs   5.6%   10.3%   5.1%   5.6%   Percent  504   Percent  IEP   or  504   0.0%   3.4%   0.0%   0.0%   5.6%   13.8%   5.1%   5.6%       Testing:     Students  with  504  Plans  and  Accommodations,  Spring  2014     Number   of  504   Number  with   %  With  'Read   Students   'Read  Aloud'   Aloud'   Test   Tested   Accommodations   Accommodations   iLEAP   22   22   100%   LEAP             504  Students,  Spring  iLEAP  2014  Testing   Total  Enrolled  in   Total  504   Students  With  Read   Grade   Grade  Level   Students   Aloud   34   3   17   17     7           Appendix  B:  Parent  Statements   I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. Affidavit  of   Affidavit  of Affidavit  of Affidavit  of Affidavit  of Supporting  documentation: Affidavit  of Supporting  documentation: Statement  of Parent J Parent B Parent N Parent I Parent A Parent S Parent P Parent A Parent S Parent I STATE OF LOUZSIANA OF ORLEANS BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personain appeared: who, after being sworn, did attest as fotlows: 2. My name i_ 2 am a person of the ?ll} age of majority and reside in the Parish of Orteans, State of Louisiana. Student I 2. I am the parent o_ (hereinafter -), a 3m Grade student at Lagniappe Aeademies {hereinafter Lagniappe) in New Orieans, As seen, I have persona? knowiedge of at} of the facts and set forth in this af?davit. 3. -ompieted grade at Martin Luther King Charter in the sehooi year and transfetred to Laguiappe for 3"d grade in the sehooi year. 4. Lagniappe retained my daughter in 3rd grade for the sehoot year without my consent. During the 2023-2014 sehooi year, I received no prior notice from Lagniappe that-was headed towards retention. 5. On or about the end of the 2013-2134 sehoot year or going in the summer, Aiison MeConniek, an administrator, said Lagniappe was going to retain -beeanse she was not ready for the next grade. 6. While i disagreed with the tieoisioa to retair- Lagm'appe gave me no other option except reteati on. 2 feei that Lagaiappe retains many students. 8. -was going throagh the IEP process when she was retained by Lagniappe. 9. If to testify at his}, I woaid testify as set forth herein. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME this [1 day ofFebraaIy,2015. WW i ?W'I?INyiss Tease? Predato- NOTARY some: PAUL B. BJNKAUF Bar No. 1%16 AFFIBAVIT OF Parent STATE OF LOUISIANA PARISH OF ORLEANS BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personaiiy appeared: who, after being sworn, did attest as foilows: i. My name is_ I am a person of the fail age of majority and reside in the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. Student 2. 1 arr: the grandparent of _(hereinafter -) who was a student at Lagniappe Academies (hereinafter Lagniappe) in New Orieaas, Louisiana for three years. As such, I haVe personal knowledge of all of the facts and circumstances set forth in this af?davit. 3. Approximately two years ago, Lagniappe removed -from schooi for ten (30) days. -returu to schoot was conditioned upon a requirement for her to get a biood test to prove that she was taking her medication. -was taking her medicine the whole time. When i told KendaEl Petri, Principal of Lagniappe, they were vioiating - rights, Lagniappe iet her back in schooi. 4. At the end of the 2813-2814 school year, Lagniappe sent -home for behavior issues. I asked Lagniappe to begin an evaluation for an Education Program (IEP). Lagniappe did not evaiuate- 5. While attending Lagniappe,- had behavior problems and was frequently sent home from school. Occasionaliy-would be removed from class however, she received no other accommodations. 6. -was retained in the 3lrd grade for the 2813-2134 school year. - last report card said that she passed all of her classes. However, Lagniappe said-was going to be retained again because she did not pass the 7. registere-to return to Lagniappe for the 2814*2815 school year in March 20%. In July, I was told that Kendall Petri said-was not registered for this school year because i was not her legal guardian. _older contained written permission from her mother stating I have the authority to handle- school needs. Because of this situation-mother decided to place her at Craig for the 2014-2815 school year. 8. -s repeating the 3rd grade again this school year at Craig Elementary School. 9. If sailed to testify at trial, Zwonld testify as set forth herein. SWORN TO AND susscataao BEFORE ME this day of February, 201 5. . . a wrfj?ass Zfrf'm i?er?sw, <49 01/) MENESS me? -- NOTARY sneak PAUL B. UNKAUF Rail No. 19m AFFIDAVIT 0 Parent OF LOUISIANA PARISH OF ORLEANS BEFORE ME, tire andersigned authority, personally appeared: who, after being sworn, did attest as follows: 1. My name is_ i an: a person of the full age of majority and reside in the Parish of Orleans, State of Lonisiana. Student ant the parent of _1ereinafter-, 3. 2013-2014 school year Kindergarten student at Lagniappe Academies (hereinafter Lagniappe) in New Orleans, Louisiana. As seen, I have personal knowledge of ai] of the facts and circumstances set forth in this af?davit. In 20] l-gained eligibility for speciai needs services and accommodations during an evaluation and received an Individuaiized Edncaiion Program (hereinafter IEP). In subsequent iEPs,- received eligibility for individual and srnail group assignments, breaks during work periods, speech services and increased tirne to complete assignments and tests. While-was in Kindergarten at Lagniappe, none of the above mentioned IEP mandated accommodations and services were provided despite my requests to the Lagniappe school staff. 6. Contrary -ZEP, he was placed in reguiar class with no accommodations or services given by Leglzieppe. -did not receive eligible accommodations. or services while attending Lageiappe during the 2013u20I4 school year. 8. -did not receive IEP eligible thirty (30) minutes of speech services each week while attending Lagniappe during the 202 3?20] 4 school year. 9. -wes retained in Kindergarten at the end of the 2013-2131-51L school year. 10. I was very unhappy with Lsgl?appe and decided to transfer-to another school before the 2014-2025 school year started. 12. if cailed to testify at trial, would testify as set forth herein. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME this it day of Febmary, 2015. M2 mm W4 3/ NOTARY PU 1C Patti B. anf Ber Roll No. 19316 AFFIDAVET 0 Parent I STATE OF LOUISIANA PARISH OF ORLEANS BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personalty appeared: who, a?er being sworn, did attest as foilows: - Z. My name is I am a person of the full age of majority and reside in the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. Student I I am the parent {hereinafter ., a student at Lagniappe Academies (hereinafter Lagniappe) in New Orleans, Louisiana. As such, 1 have persona} knowledge of all of the facts and circumstances set forth in this af?davit, 3. -has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and has an individualized Education Program During the 2013?2014 school year. graduated from Kindergarten at Benjamin Banueker Elementary School in New Orteaus, Louisiana and was promoted to the 1?t grade. . During the 2014~2015 school year, -iransferred from Benjamin Banneker Elementary School to Lagniappe. Once- started schoci at iagniappc, an issue developed with him being in the grade levei. Alt:- 7. Ali McCormick, an administrator at Lagniappe, toid me that- needed to be retained in Kindergarten. 8. toid Ms. McCormick that i objected to retaininn Kindergarten and asked for an expianation. 9. Ms. McCormick toid me that-could not keep up. She aEso told me that because -was unabie to keep still that he had behavioral issues and needed to be retained in Kindergarten. 20. I contacted Ms. Kendall Petri, the Principe? and CEO at Lagniappe, who toid me that she wouid not change Ms McCormick?s decision to retain-n Kindergarten. After contacting Ms Kristine Barker of the Recovery Schooi District Charter Accountability Team-was pieced in the a? grade. 12. If caiied to testify at trial, wouid testify as set forth herein. SWORN TO ANE) SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME this 6?11 day of February, SS 2 a? Manet.ng We? ?anlB.Unk 1? Bar Roll No. 19816 AFFIDAVIT 0 Parent A STATE OF LOUISIANA OF ORLEANS ME, the undersigned authority, personaliy appeared: who, after being sworn, did attest as follows: 1. My name i I are a person of the full age of majority and reside in the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. 2. I am the parent of three children that attend Lagniappe Academies {hereinaiter Lagniappe) in New Orleans, Louisiana. My youngest c?ld??hereina?er - is a Kindergarten student at Lagr?appe. As such, there persona] knowiedge of at] of the facts and circumstances set forth in this af?davit. 3. - has Attention De?cit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) as well as bipolar tiisorder-has hart a number of problems with Lagniappe this school year. 4. Alison McConniek (hereinafter McCormick), an administrator, at Lagniappe has frequently caiieti me this schoot year to pick ap- When - was sent home, I was not provided suspension ?ocamentation for every incident. 5. McCormick told me that my son was not ready for Kindergarten and that Lagniappe cootd not sew-. 6. Lagniappe woutd not allow-outside sociai worker to work with him at the school. 7. I repeatediy asked Lagniappe for-1o receive an evaination. It took months for Lagniappe to complete the evaluation. 8. I an very concerned about the way I was treated as a parent by the administration at Lagniappe and very ?'ustrateti how the administration at Lagz?appe has treate- 9. In my opinion, Lagaiappe does not treat students with needs fairly. 13. if nailed to testify at triai, I would testify as set forth herein. SWORN TO AND BEFORE ME this 11W do. of Feb 2325. Ex? WITNESS Pra?rei PM '3 [,1an 3M 44a. mm At 1.0m Pmenh? among-rot 0 A Parent A . - A Patent szw'? CONFERENCE unzuw LN. ?luu-uv i u~ II 1 ?p?o'li? I Adm'nlSHO'Oth1c11H: . M. but". .. Parent A Friday,  February  2 0,  2 015  at  1 0:04:33  A M  Central  Standard  Time Subject: Re: Date: Monday,  October  13,  2014  at  8:57:45  AM  Central  Daylight  Time From: To: CC: KrisEne  Barker Kendall  Petri Ali  McCormick,  Troave'  Profice Thank  you  Ms.  Petri,   I  appreciate  your  response.  I  believe  the  parent  would  sEll  like  to  meet  with  you  in  parEcular  when  you  return.  Please   keep  me  updated  and  have  a  good  trip.   KrisEne   Kristine Barker Charter  Accountability   Louisiana  Department  of  EducaEon Mobile:  (225)  200-­‐3839 Office:  (504)  373-­‐6200,  x20106 Email:  krisEne.barker@la.gov www.louisianabelieves.com From:  Kendall  Petri   Date:  Friday,  October  10,  2014  at  2:47  PM To:  KrisEne  Barker   Cc:  Ali  McCormick  ,  Troave'  Profice   Subject:   KrisEne, Thanks  for  your  email.    I  am  out  of  town  meeEng  with  our  board  chair  and  fundraising  for  the  school’s  facility  this   week,  and  typically  Ali  McCormick,  our  2nd-­‐in-­‐command,  stands  in  for  me  when  I  am  unavailable.  Before  I  listened  to   your  VM  on  my  phone,  Ali  had  filled  me  in  on  her  conversaEon  with  you  and  neither  of  us  had  realized  that  you  were   sEll  seeking  to  speak  with  me  directly,  so  I  apologize  for  any  miscommunicaEon. I  am  unable  to  review  file  from  San  Francisco  and  don’t  want  to  respond  without  doing  so,  but  am  aware   that  school  administrators  and  teachers  have  been  working  on  plans  for  this  student  and  plans  to  meet  with  the   parent.    I  return  to  the  school  on  October  15  and  will  make  it  a  priority  to  review  the  file  and  meet  as  necessary  with   all  concerned  to  make  progress  on  this  maber.     Thanks, Kendall Hi  Ms.  Petri, I  wanted  to  loop  you  in  on  a  student  issue  and  make  sure  you  are  up  to  date  on  a  complaint  I  got  from   a  parent  earlier  this  week.  I  tried  to  get  in  touch  with  you  Tuesday  and  Wednesday  and  lee  messages   with  the  front  office  and  on  your  cell.  Yesterday  evening  I  called  Ms.  McCormick  and  she  was  able  to   speak  to  the  parent  concerns,  but  I  would  sEll  like  you  to  be  aware  of  the  situaEon.  I  know  you  have   been  involved  with  this  student  so  you  know  the  background  (I  abached  the  conference  leber  that  the Page  1  of  2 mother  sent  me).   I  received  a  call  from ,  the  parent    a  5  year  old  Kindergartener,  who  had   concerns  that  was  being  sent  home  most  days  around  8am  someEmes  as  a  result  of  a   suspension,  but  someEmes  not.  She  said  she  has  frequently  been  told  by  school  staff  that  the  school  is   not  able  to  serve  her  son  and  she  has  requested  an  evaluaEon  several  Emes  but  has  not  heard  any   updates  on  the  progress.  She  wants  to  make  sure  that    is  not  sent  home  frequently  and  that  he   has  an  evaluaEon  started.  She  understands  that  he  can  be  challenging,  but  wants  him  to  sEll  get   instrucEon.   When  I  spoke  to  Ms.  McCormick,  she  informed  me  that  there  was  a  BIP  being  developed  and   intervenEons  are  in  place  to  try  to  help  serve  him  but  it  is  challenging  because  he  acts  out  violently.   I  suggested  to  the  parent  and  Ms.  McCormick  that  they  sit  down  with  yourself  and  the  teacher  to  come   to  an  understanding  of  what  can  be  expected  of  both  parEes  (the  school  and  the  parent)  and  to  finalize   the  BIP  and  start  the  process  towards  an  evaluaEon.   The  mother  is  willing  to  give  that  plan  a  chance,  given  that  is  not  sent  home  without  first  going   through  the  discipline  process  and  being  suspended. Please  keep  me  updated  on  the  situaEon  and  let  me  know  if  I  can  help  in  any  way  to  make  sure  that   both  the  school  and  the  child  are  able  to  successful.  Please  feel  free  to  call  me  if  you  would  like  to   discuss  further.   Thank  you, KrisEne     Kristine Barker Charter  Accountability   Louisiana  Department  of  EducaEon Mobile:  (225)  200-­‐3839 Office:  (504)  373-­‐6200,  x20106 Email:  krisEne.barker@la.gov www.louisianabelieves.com Page  2  of  2 AFFIDAVIT 0F Parent 8 STATE OF LOUISIANA OF GRMEANS 2. U1 BEFORIE- ME, the undersigned authority, persoaaily appeared: who, after being swam, did attest as foiiows: My name is? i' am a person of the {1112 age of majority aad reside in the Parish of?rieaas, State of I__.ouisiana. i am the grandmother of (hereinafter a farmer student at 1.,agaiappe Academies (hereiea?er Lagniappe) in New ()rieans, As sad}, have persona? imowiedge ofall ofthe faets and eireurnstanees set forth in this affidavit, I . -attenc?ed Lagralappe until 2024. . -atteaded Kindergarten through 2m3 grade at . -was retained in. grade beeaose I._.agniappe eiairaed he was not meeting their standards ofa is: grader. For the seheoi ear ()1?2013- 2814, erformed Iooti work in Irade. 3? 1 received a report card from 1.1agniappe stating, that- gassed 2nd grade anti was promoted to 3rd grade. A copy is attae-hed hereto as Exhibit In at}? 2014, i received a Zetter from stating- was aetua?y retained in the 2nd grade beeaase he was eot iearning, A eopy is attachec? itereto as Exhibit 9. Subsequent ?0 recaipl of ?116: Zeiter from Lagniappc retaining-in 2mi grade, 1 regisierec- 311?? NOLA if}. ifcailed t0 waif}: a: iriah 1 weaid testify as set forth hemin. ?ay of Februarya101ka want: . . {'14 a; +31} - 5. Parent 8 Lagniappe Academies Student Repert Card 2nd Grader Jen 20, 20M- Siedeni academia gerfeirnan ee Math 61% 63% 52% Physical Edecation 80% 84% Reading 2? 51% 7?9% 78% Readingmi?riting 92% 84% 95% Science 68% 78% Sociai Siedies 78% 61% Student attendance Data Unexcnsed Absences 1 this period, 2 ibis year Unexcused Tardies 7 this period, 26 this year Excused Absences 4 this period, 5 this year Excused Tan?es 0 this period, 0 this year Math: 520/0 Readinngiiting: 90% Reading 2: 69% Science: 7?1 Secial Studies: 70% - a is: {31? energy to the ciassroorn, and he gets excited when he masteie a new energy can serpetirnes cause hire te pecorne dissected and he straggies tc turn his negative behavioi around. Please work with hire en learning te peenee back quickiy tiers srnaii setbacks. has reage a let oi impieverneni in rnath this year, and he was abie te learn scree basic 2nd grade skills like adding and subtracting wiih muttipie?digii numbers, rounding, and tires. in ELA,-struggies te read without stopping, but he is able te sneli his weeliie writes. in antenna. Hansen has that he nan exnisin niifiei'eni I I systems and scieoce processes like the water cycle, the tits cycle of insects, and the location of planets is car soEar system. in social studies? stiil struggies with the siting of continents Generai aria assess, and identifying basic geograchic iandmarks in Louisianaiwuid benetit Cornrnerris from writing about his behavior each clayi to recap how he car; turn negative behaviors into positive behaviors. Rise-seculo read everyday for 30 minutes. White rte is reading he shoaio have a dictioriary by him to toot: are unknown words, and to find the definitions of words. Physicai Eoocatiori: This trimester stodeats participated is a variety of physical activities inctooiog Cooperative Games, Body Management Tasks, Educational Dance, Physical Fitness Development, t?itoess?iram Physical Fiteess Testing, and Sports Motor Skill Tasks iri Hockey, Soccer, and Basketbat-ees being active and trying new skills and games. He is iearriirlg to work well with others during Cooperative Games. He has improved his sportsmanship and can often be touno cheering for others. He needs to continue to improve on following directions the first time. Student Grade Levei Piaoen'rerrt 3rd Grade for the Next Schooi Year Excessive Homework YES {Deficiencies Have a great summer! if our have questions or concerns re eroding your child?s performance or rode to el ?giacereerit for the next school ar, pt ase do act hesitate to contac the echo at (534) 35520950. Please note that the school office wit! he oiosed June 2347.. PARENT SEGNATURE academies 31. Lewis Street New {?xrleans. Ls. T5112 Poona: see-assesse Fart: access-095a ii: 6W3: Parent 8 m?m? Sime?gg?? E??xmc?ign Swen? Name: We: i'avae: Simier ievai: i 3 ?2 3 4 Type of Caraference: Simden?: in mfendance: Paren {3 Yea E3 NC: ?3 For portion Staff prawn? Ms. Fem and Ms, Oihews} present a: .- a? (immense requested meeting is; discusg was agree? in the previaus meeting, Site-p5 fndividua?s) Responsibile f?mpawc? fa?owiip Mee?ng T?g Brain?2: ?it? ?rmer: Miendaes: Summary: ?e?d?f xii? Adminisirqu Name {Eerie Omar Signamm Date 15%} SE. l'??rw {Miami 1-7 I3 1?2 ?r151: :faf?ce 53-..Erjen? 39:5. Fare?rs? ?e?ee: ?eai{? he??siekg Effie: he taster-?e eeme 3rd wage; M5. Peer? gage have eyeiueted-ee ere?e ewe; ek?i?e fer the ek-ng?e that hi5 peers egreeg ?e eiace-ie Effgre?e fer 393 deg with extre We eemeramfei_m fe?iee inciudine egwee Eele rm? we a Re?ex ?e??eemerweare Mine. and we} Week eed were minme he ec?yiw. M5. Rem expieEneg-geeheme-shes recently becomermme giydents exhibit challenging beheyier whenghey arenastruggling??th wghgigt Ms. Pejtmri 313 the chiidreg} are esslessei? duri?gj Summer Academy and eiacad Ms?etri expiained hexag?e week em minute sqiutieneggei reedEne f?ue?ee gramme; with correct werde reed per reignite, Use fagshcerde t9 support his autemetieite efmeth fact; Thig wi? weak tegether__with his Reflex Math? gig-to read 3 grade thenfnesk himwsome quegtiees ebeet the text :1 see Wig. Pete?s hand wrieen Hates} to Studyj?end a?dwerk er: Em. and may: Cemmgn {Jere ski?is and 2014:2615 retired. .. v. be pieced in Brigade fetal} dew then we reassess. I 'i imsie iirl -. - .. .E'r?jl? 5i; earn-g; we Of?ce Fix my. Does. Pare-re ?esmij?cx ?l?k?ib?ii? Parent 8 Bear Parent ar Lega? Geardiaa af Your chila eempieied iaily Fae?rs ln?rewenrrer?i heia Aug. 25?hw?3ep?r. 2m?? in review?e did no? eemale?fe the Marh dare, i? has been aerermmea the? add?fiena? infewenria IS 3 ea? needed. Beiaw are Fm {Regeense Ta rarerven?rien} groups and yeur Chi?cfs assignmen?s}: {1?3 Campu?rerrbasea irr?rervem?ian during breakfas?r EWSmaliwrGraep Pufiaur sessians chaaemre inrewearian during 4-5 pm Please fer as keaw if yer; have any questions? ?ease Sign ana? refera fhis lerrer at the beffem Eadiearirag rhai yew undersfand yaur chira WEE be receiving additieea! academic supper? during The seheef day The arrachea? data ghee-15 are far your records. Acaaeic iagniappe Academies ef New Orleans Sincerely? 1 Parent Name i Q/r/rrf ParentSigr?raree Dalte ?9 {33; Leaig {Eriear?za 'er ruin r: c: r" are Iu?i?aE?r. Lg.? 4'4 5 hi E. Kir?e?ef?ui?. LGGHEGQDEE . (ND Parent 8 eereni ?feeierence airw- On Sepierneer 23. seer 4 he Scnaai?s Academic Placemeni Tearn mei wilh yea fa discuss year childis academic aiacemeni far ine 2i}? 5 schaai year. We Academic Piacerneni ?learn iniarrned yea ?nai rise aparaariaie grade ievei piecemeal far your child far the 201 442015 scnaai year was grade. Based an academic aeriarmance daia caiiecied daring Sarnrner Academy inlewenlian, This is ihe grade ievei ai which year cniid waaid ides? be fa access inslraciian in Engiisn Language Aris, Main, Science and Sacial Mare infarmalian abaa?r apprapriaie siadenr aiacerneni can be fauna in ine scnaai?s Pupil Pra'gressian in iighi af yaar cancern regarding aparaariaie aiacernenis we have agreed inai year cniid wiEi ai?rena classes ai The 3rd grade level far line period frarri Sealerneer 3 - Sepierneer 2e 2031i. Al rne end ai inis ,aeriad, year cniid be reassessed using srandardizea resis and diner measures and lhe sradenrs piecemenr be adjusied as necessary and iinaiized ai ihal rirne, We have sanedaied a rnee?ring wiih you an Gciaber is 20% 4 at rear} AM fa discuss ine resails af re~assessmeni. We encourage yam la wark wiin year cniid re araviae ine faliawing academic supper? daring ine rnan?rn a? Searember. Pragress wi?rn esseniiai grade level wili maximize your child?s success and neia nirnr?ner ciase carrenf iearning gaes. Each Nigni far 38 minuies and ear: Weekend Days far 4 Hears Twenry minaies: wark wiin sabiraciian and ?ash cards 2. it} minaies: Oral reading frarn grade Eevei sex? I 3. i0 rninai'es: independenl reading in grade levei iexi 2mg; Praia Gm?ggw 3?5 ?rs? xi. Slady isiand aniine learning and Eeriex Main eraciice. Lagins?are {Add am available al ine scnaal. wr ?4 fee ?ve? Pe?ie?f; affair Kaminisrralars Marne {Bare i are Zmefp'? Parenl Signai Pareni Marne [jute - a?e am Si. Leslie Nil-h! l' "9'31 21': it'l'li'is'l?t: 1-7.1.sx: sewer; Lee me eer? are dram ies are mg Marti: (Caramel; Care} 13.134: Mane GEES made "mm 1" Hench mam 5' may 33 . .I I $essmn-s . '1 1 ?fe Ein {Qumran}: Care} - iipdataed Seasic-n WM Gama Tam] ?e?thmark B??g?m?rmi -. . Sessions .: - - 2'3 Tests Math (Retire: July 2015} Sealer} Type -. . Game HEDGE Rita? Hughmam Tears ma: -. Reading {Re?irez Juiy 2315} ?es?un ?gs-e - Gama Ma?a (:35 mm- Tm! 125:3 Benchmark Tm: Sessiema 4 {3 12 Tests ELA (Eurasian Care) (Retire: July 2915} ?esaima Type Frames Made Gama Ma?a CR3 him? TotaF ?enahmm Term; ?amhmm Total {Weraii ?e?ians 2% I 0 2T Tests Tami? ?rst-m ?143.12 mark?i: . {Emu Time Siam-t: -- wags; ?i?ime Span? .. {?3334 {waif-35's Time swat .- 39.9%} . Time Spam omit) 933:5 Tim? Spa rat Time Span! 10:35 35m? ?rm: Spent Time Spent 01:53:54 61:53:58 Time Spent fir-3:69 Paws! ham Grimm! 133a: Parent 8 - 537"?! airm? Paint:- 1 Tag! . . ComtITota! If}! 2J11 Points I Tutsi Comet (Tm! 6'61 .1253"- 12514 {m THEE Paints! Tate: 13 E3 Comic? Tom; 23? 234 1 1' If}! a 298: 335 Palms i Hal 0 1 3?0 {Em-ms! 143.3% 3% - 43.3% Earp?? Contact 153% 695353; met ?15: Earned "32$ turret: 32% '35: [5.3de 1% (Leia-met 106% (.1971 ".93 Earna? $2369 3,518 I - Gracie . . . . Guns Grazia malt Sess'mn hips Gama? Mom: 935' W56 - -- Tm! Es-enchmar}: Tea-Ea - man-3?, Ra? Time 5W3: '?a?zj??fai 1524?} @0391} .. Dir-5E1? Time; 55333 - Correct Heme-1 49.3.? 1'8 finial; I Tania: 4m: (tarmac: 515%}: ma?a? 1H. Eamm? Parent 8 individual Summary Subjaat} User?s Start GWEQZ E311 Date: [Dry at {ti ti? 3? 3' Emit Gracie - Lautsiana Stamiart?s Juiy ?ttat? a: $3 it E5 Reimrt Pertnd: ?gagmgagm Day Fitter: F'itt?tr': 32:0 e?wt t? 62 $5 at Reading mm :5 topic at {it E. 1. Pretest ?eadiftg i 2. Vocabuiafv (Standard 1} F?h?nics Expectation I Biead?ng Pre?xes am! Suffixes Exgectat?tan Synonyms anti amortva Exgectatian Hemenyms Expectaticn Aida Expectation 3. Elements of Text (standard 1) .53? 53?? f? 3 Characters Expectation -- Expectatien Story Events - Expectation Littera?rv anti Sauad DEVECES -- Expectati?n Sequence at Events ?xpectati?n Main 36% and Emmet?ting {Retaiis Expea?tattm Using, Pris}? Kawwledge Ex??tf?tatii?? 12 t} .. . Tatai Spent 35:6? 3?:23 88:60 138:00 86:90 88:50 OGIGG 88:99 Bit? Off} 0ft} {Eff} We am am am am Off} Gitrre?t 82% T3494: agate; View ?ess?ens ?5 view 5859:th 12/16/2014 To Whom it May Concern: My daughter attended Lagniappe Academies from her kindergarten gztelalr?lunlgil this current year, when I transferred her to a new school in DPSB. My daughter, was in second grade in 2012?13. At the end of that school year during an annual meeting with myself teacher Aliey McCormick [who aiso held a supervisory position}, and-?s speech therapist. {Juring the meeting we discussed progress, and goals for speech and academics for her upcoming 3Hi grade year. During the summer - attended Lagniappe?s mandatory "Summer Academy? in which she was in 3rd grade, however, on the ?rst day of schooi they put her in the second grade again. i tried to reach out to her teacher and the principal but no one would talk to me about why they heid her back. They did not teil me this was going to happen. When did get in touch with the schooi, they said that-was not ready for third grade. has an and her grades (ie report cards, nor A. McCormick at any time during the school year) did not reflect this change. There was no evidence to keep her back. was also toid- could not comprehend what she was being taught? that was never any evidence of this, nor was it brought to my attention. After a meeting with McCormick, and the principai (his. Petri)-was placed in the 3rd grade, yet from day 1 every move was noted and often times exaggerated, for exa mpie-s first day of in her 3rd grade class a note was sent home stating she was not ?sociai ready? for the third grade.- had never before shown signs of, nor was it ever mentioned or suggested tha-was sociaily delayed; and- knew ah the students in her class since the vast majority had been there since kindergarten. Her third grade teacher at this point was _who I immediately had a conference cal! With. Buring the cali stated that wanted to he kept abreast of-?s progress via weekly test grades, she agreed-and I spoke every week and sometimes her grades were sent through text messaging-at this point was doing fine. After a while the grades stopped and so did -answering when i caiied. i did finally speak with - to inquire why; she stated that she was not allowed to give me- grades anymore and that they were iocked in the office. When i asked why she could not give me-grades and more importantly why were they iocked up she responded ?i don?t know". During the first report card conference asked about-grades and why- stated 1 was not ailowed to see them,- stated she never made that statement and that the conversation had been recorded; I requested that she produce the recording so we could all hear it, she did not. McCormick poiitely stated that i could see -rades at any time yet they were never made available to me yet] would call the school with no answer ever unless I called from a number different from my ceil phone and then he placed on hold for 2838 minutes at a time until I hung up. i did scheduie numerous meetings with the principal that would he cancelled or they have no record of it. Throughout the schooi year various things went on i.e-was placed with a special education teacher for part of the day without prior hnowiedge or consent, and that she was placed in another 311i grade class. When 1 inquired why i wasn?t notified McCormick stated "we don?t have to tell you anything?. Because- has an i did solicit heip from a company called Families Helping Mathieu iefferson Of?ce, and Ranatta Harris Orleans Office} and because of my concerns about statements that had been made suggested that i have- reevaluated. did aiso solicit Alien Porter who works at RSI) for Lagniappe Academy. Mr. Porter never returned my numerous phones cali unless i contacted his supervisor Mr. Wright; even then Mr. Forter offered no help or steps to a resoiution, hut he wouid regurgitate what i toid him and then say feei free to call rue at any time". i beIieve Lagniappe Academy used whatever ewdenee they ceuld buiid to use against - -was not evaluated within 60 days of when i requested it as wen. I feel iike they created paper trails after she was held back. Parent ?ew Orieens, LA 7'02 19 Appendix  C:  Staff  Statements   I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. Affidavit  of   Affidavit  of   Affidavit  of   Affidavit  of   Affidavit   Affidavit  of   Affidavit  of   Statement  of     Staff Member 1 Staff Member 7 Staff Member 3 Staff Member 2 Staff Member 4 Staff Member 5 Staff Member 6 Staff Member 8 Aroma 0r_ StaffMembe. 1 STATE OF PARISH OF ORLEANS BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared: who, alter being sworn, did attest as foiiows: Z. My name i- I am a person of the fall age of majority,r and reside in the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. 2. was employed by Lagniappe Academies (hereinafter Lagniappe) in New Orteans, Louisiana from July 24, 2824 to October 7, 26% as the Speciat Education Coordinator. As such,l have personal knowiedge of all the facts and circumstances set forth in this affidavit. 3. When I started employment at Lagniappe, I was told by Kenda? Petri {hereinafter Petri), the Principal at Lagniappe, that my ?rst priority was to focus on LEAP test preparation for 3rd grade. My second priority was teaching a decoding class to students who struggle, but can still pass the test. My third priority was providing special education services to students. Ms. f?etri?s exact words were. ?Students with minutes can be squeezed in". 4. was instructed to conteach by Kendal Petri a third grade class that did not have more than one special education student in the class. 5. 0n multiple attempts, i had made a scheduie to provide services to all special education students that had to be approved by Petri {this was in the second week of September). Buring this time,l was not consistently giving minutes; rather 2 was used as a test administrator, giving the DEBELS to grades 1-3 and DSC to Kindergarten . 6. I was in charge of the Response to intervention program, but was not a?owed to have formal meetings and had to defer all decisions to Petri and Allison McCormick (hereinafter McCormick), an administrator at Lagniappe. 7. I was frequently told not to complete bebavior plans for students when I knew it was necessary. FEM and BIPs were to be compieted by McCormick. However, i started the process with some teachers and the Dean of Students. 8. During my time of empioyment, witnessed Individualized Education i?ians (IEPs) that were ?nished without completed evaiuatioas. On two accounts, Dr. _told me that the speech portion of the evaluation had not been completed because slze was waiting for that information to compiete the evaluation. 9. I was also informed by the school administration that there was only enough {unding in the budget for ?ve evaiuarions that year and therefore must limit the recommendations for evaiuations to no more than ?ve for the entire schooi year. i0. 2 was not given full access to the Speciai Education Reporting System to gather the information needed to provide services for students or update IEPs. Ii. There was only one student that the contracted Speech teacher was ahowed to work with and McCormick serviced ail the other students. 12. ?E?he Lagniappe administration would not hire an Adapted Physicai Education (hereinafter APE) teacher for a student whose required APE services. The Kendat Petri asked an encerttfied coach to provide the minutes. When the trncertitied coach told the Lagniappe administration that she was not quali?ed to do so, they asked why it wonld be necessary to even provide the service. 23. I was also frequently asked to type up notes from meetings with parents nnretated to Speciai education services. I also witnessed a very condescending manner of McConnick deating with families, using mostly edncationat jargon. was told to make sure to type these forms in a manner that clearly stated the agreed with the scheon decision nseally dealing with retention. 14.10:] Janeary 205 was shown service logs by Kristine Barker, ?epartment of Education, that had my name on there for and Students H, K, 2 did not provide services for any of the above students. Petri instrected me that! was not permitted to provide speciat education services to any of the above sake?4W! Latian ML ole-a Kitsmm.ME-W I (a Ads?; he: built? . .. nemesis H'va Ranting, Tanvriusstc ml with?; are.? 41?- STATE OF LGQISZANA PARISH Oi? ORLEANS BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared: who, after heing sworn, did attest as follows: 1. My name is i am a person of the fuii age of majority and reside in the Parish of Orieans, State of Louisiana. 2. From February 2013 tintii Octoher of 2014, I was ernpioyed by Lagaiappe Academies {hereinafter Lagniappe) in New Orleans, Louisiana, as an Executive Assistant to Kendal! Perri, CEO. As such, I have personal knowledge of all of the facts and circumstances set forth in this af?davit. 3. Kendali Perri taught rm and grade during the 20234014 school year. Some of my duties included assisting Ms. Petr-i with lesson plans and test preparation. During the 20134014 school year, her 7th grade students did not receive readnaloud accommodations in eiass or on tests. However, all of her grade students received readwaloud accommodations on the test, which is a vioiation of state testing poiiey. That same year, i reported severai testing irregularities to the school test coordinator, which included Ms. Petri?s failure to turn in her cell phone while proctoring the test, repeating test questions in detail to the students while administering the il?AP test, and writing and passing notes to are while she was preetoring the LEAP for 8* grade students. 4. In the spring of 2024, Ms. Perri created a ?Do Not Cali? iist indicating certain students and children ??otn certain that she did not want admitted to Lagniappe Academies for the upcoming scheoi year. Many of the students named on this list were signi?cantly heiow grade level andr?or had challenging behaviors. ?fhe list inciuded the following s?tudents?i Ms. i?etri directed staff not to cali the of these students or inforrn then] of rewenroiiment and Summer Academy, which requires students to attend a three-week session of school in July. Ms. Petri toid tne that if we did not inform the parents of re~enrolln1ent and Summer Academy, their children would miss enough days of Academy to warrant their disenrollment from Lagniappe due to absenteeism. S. Lagniappe placed middle schcei students,- an- in an ?Independent Study? program that provided almost no educational instruction. ?Z'hese chiidren were placed in continuously changing locations outside of classrooms and were seldom given academic assignments. - and- were often unsupervised and did not receive oneutouone time with a speciai education certi?ed teacher. Their assignments were seldom tracked or graded and they often slept or sat with nothing to do. 6. if called to testify at trial, 2 would testify as set forth herein. i have used the smdents' initiate to protect their privacy and maintain their con?dentiality. 2 SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME this 20 day of February, 2915. W3 mum/?gng x64 72/5 ,6 MA) Bar Roll 301925,? MEDAVIT OF Staff Member 3 OF LOUISIANA PARISH Oi? ORLEANS BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personaliy appeared: who, after being sworn, did attest as foilows: 1. My name is i am a person of the felt age of majority and reside in tbe Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. 2. From Juiy of 2012 until June of 2914, i was employed by Lagniappe Academies {hereina?er Iagniappe) in New Orieans, Louisiana, as a second and third grade teacher. As such, I have persona? knowiedge of all of the facts and circumstances set forth in this af?davit. 3. During nay tenure, I observed that Lagniappe did not have any formal policies for referring, necking, or evaluating students with specie? needs. 4. Lagniappe?s leadership team repeatediy toid me to email concerns that I had about specific students, but Lagniappe's leadership failed to foiiow up about the many students to which 2 alerted the administtation about academic and behavioral concerns. 5. When students who likely had undiagnosed speciai needs did not receive needed services and subsequently performed poorly, {agniappe often retained these students. Parents who protested the retention decisions often withdrew their students from the school. Data on the frequency of student retention and students leaving the school each year supports this claim. 6. In the summer of 2812, Lagniappe?s leadership assigned me to teach the higher of two leveled 2'?1 grade classes during the school?s Summer Academy. When explaining the rationale hehind creating two tiered classes, Allison McCormick, a member of the Lagniappe leadership team, told me and another 2??1 grade teacher that my class contained the students who would pass the exam in grade. As I continued to teach the higher 2??1 grade class in the fail, Ms. McCormick and CEO Kendall Perri removed three students horn rny class who exhihited extreme behaviors, despite their high academic performance and my protests and requests for behavior support or tracking instead. Ms. McCormick reiterated that my class was the class that would pass and the schooi conid not afi'ord to have any distractions in my classroom. 7. In December of 2012, I contacted the Recovery School District ahout my concerns for speci?c students who i felt were nnderserved at Lagniappe, including -1 Although -has a clear developmental delay and-?s former teachers had voiced conc?eans ahout 19?s early as kindergarten; I - a? Hermann? an jet'vtt?f. 35m .When con ted the SUNS Center about they I performance its .1 informed me that a case had been opened for. hut had not been completed at that time. - received read aloud accommodations prior to third grade testing. 2 I have used initials for student names to protect their privacy and maintain con?dentiaiity. 8. ED. Brazing the 2812-2813 school year, Lagniappe had its annual visit conducted by the state. Prior to the review, Ms. McCormick instructed me and other teachers to ciear out a small ciassroem that was being used for storage. We moved desks and tables into this room because, as McCormick instructed, it needed to look iike a special education puilout classroom. Lagniappe did not provide smali greup education puliouts for students and this classroom was only used as a model. At the beginning of the 2013-2814 school year, Ms. McCormick and Kendall Petri placed. in my third grade class. - had a speech for which. received services, but - had many other cballenges not addressed by Iii-1P. Based on academic perfonrrance, this child sbould have been placed in the lower of the two leveied third grade classes. However,- was placed in my higher ciass. Ms. McCormick provided me with and asked me to sign it. When 1 reviewed the IEP, I noted that it had been written when:- was in first grade and was out of date. i also expressed to Ms. McCormick that the document needed to be updated to better meet present needs. When Ms. McCormick did not address these concerns, Ire?rsed to sign the IEP. In early 2014, Ms. McCormick and a former special education teacher asked me to fill out paperwork for two of my students,- and -., so that they could receive 504 read aloud accommodations for the April exam. These students did not receive read aloud accorrunodations eariier in the year, because they did not have 504 documentation and I wanted to remain in compliance in my ciassroom. 12. if called to testify at trial, I wauld testify as set forth herein. 7:45. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE NIE thi? day 0f February, ZOIS. WITNESS WH- W33 OTAR MWM: EWW ?m?fL/g?/QS? 032' Staff Member 2 OF 0F ORLEANS BEFORE ME, the undersigned personaily appeared: and who, after being sworn, did attest as follows: Z. My name i- I am a person of the full age of majority and reside in the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. 2. Frorn July of 2912 until June of 2014, 2 was employed by Lagniappe Academies (hereinafter Lagniappe) in New Orleans, Louisiana, as a kindergarten teacher. As sash, 2 have personal knowledge of 3.12 of the facts and circumstances set forth in this af?davit. 3. At the beginning of the 2812-2813 aeademie school yearn-1 carne to Lagtiiappe with an Individualized Education Program (hereinafter . I did not see until the winter of that year. The only accommodation or service provided to .was weekly speech therapy. i raised concerns over-?s low level of academic gains and social-emotional struggies to Kendall Petri and Ali McCormick repeatediy throughout the year. Both Kendali Perri and Ali McCormick ignored my requests for support and provided no support to I or royself. At the end of the 2612-2913 school year, I was have used the of the students to protect their privacy and maintain their con?dentiality forced to sign a document stating that Lagniappe Academies provided special education services to -when, in fact, Lagniappe had not provided the required services {or that child. . Baring the 2812-2023 academic school year- another student with a tow level of academic performance, displayed clear speech development issues. .s mother had -evaiuated by a physician, which resulted in a written request for an evaluation to he conducted by the school and a request for speech services. This request was provided to Kenda11?etri and Ali McCormick. Kendal Petri and Ali McCornucit failed to provide the evaluation or the speech services for. despite the parent?s request. . Baring the 2612-2023 acadernic school year, -, was a kindergarten repeater with a noticeable developmental delay. The Lagniappe teacher front the previous year repeatedly requested an evaiaation for this child. Despite repeated requests {or an evaiuation supported by copious data and notes, Lagniappe ihiied to initiate an evaluation for this child. I also requested an evaluation for this child, which Lagniappe faiied to provide despite DIBELS, hountas &Pinneli Benchmark Assessments, and other sources of acadernic performance data showing little to no growth. . During the 2913?2914 school year, .ntered rny kindergarten class with an HER. After repeated requests spanning several months, Lagniappe?s leadership tearn failed to provide me with a copy of-?s IEP until several months into the school year. When i reviewed the IEP, I realized that- was not receiving the services outlined in the 113?. Lagniappe?s leadership ignored my requests to with-?s 113?. - received one month of ?special education minutes? as designated by Lagniappe. During those minutes,- was placed in a ciassrootn with three third grade students, given reiigious coloring sheets, and supervised by an uncertitied teacher. For the remainder of the year, Lagniappe did not attempt to provide-with smail-group special education instruction despite that accommodation on-s 21-31?. i was never included in the IEP process for. 0. Despite being their fuli time classroom teacher, I was not ailowed to attend their meetings or contribute to the process. 8. Ali McCormick repeatediy toid me that- and- ?wilt always be behind? whenever iraised concerns about their lack of academic growth. 9. -was both academicaliy substantially behind his peers and needed hehaviorai plan modi?cations. i worked with my Teach for America support staff, who is special education certified, to create a personal system for him in my classroom. When Ni McCormick observed my ciass, she took him from his table and put him hack with the rest of the ciass. He immediately started scribbiing all over the curricuimn-required worksheet. I toid McCormick that I was trying to meet his needs and she responded, has to do the worksheet even i_scrihhles. -wiil always he bebind.? it}. For the KHZ-2813 and 2813-2?i4 academic years, Kendaii Perri took ail of the sununer DSC and REBELS testing, and placed the students that scored in the bottom 58% of the kindergarten students in my classroom. 1 was not ailowed to deter from the planned i1. 12. 13. curricuiurn or give students any additional services despite HEP-required accommodatioos or other accommodations based on my assessment of student need. Kendalt Perri faiied to provide me with any professioan developmeot or support to heip meet the studeots? needs. Wheo I expressed concerns to Kendall Perri or McCormick about the academic growth of my class, Kendall i?etri and McCormick responded, ?Lagniappe is an Tier 1 school with smalt iS-student elass sizes.? During the two years I taught at Lagniappe, i never observed RTI documeotatioo for any students in my class. In addition, 1 oever trad less than 16 students in my classroom. During the 2813-2814 year, I had 23 students io my ciassroorn. While 2 was at Lagniappe, I was directed to admioister DSC, DIBELS, and Fonntas 3t i?innell Beociirnaric Assessments tests for reporting to the state without receiving any formal training. While i was at Lagniappe, three students did oot have BSC test scores front sutnrner rating. Ali McCormick directed me to ?make up? their test scores. I refused and she told me am your boss and are telting you to do something.? She relented after I toid her that i would report the incident to the state if forced to create the test scores. Those three students were oever pulled from the classroom for make-up testing. If called to testify at trial, I would testify as set forth herein. SWORN To AND suascatnno assess ME February, 2015. i?m g??w?m mM J8. Bar Roll Na jag?5; AFFIDAVET OF Staff Member4 OF LOUISIANA OF ORLEANS BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personaily appeared: who, after being sworn, did attest as foilows: i. My name is am a person of the fnli age of majority and reside in the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. iwas employed as a iSi grade teacher by Lagniappe Academies (hereinafter Lagniappe) in New Orieans, Louisiana from the 20i2-2103 school year until April 20M. As such, 2 have personal knowledge of all of the facts and circumstances set forth in this af?davit. I was expressly told by Kendall Petri, the Principal at Lagniappe, and Ali McCormick, an administrator at Lagniappe, not to provide accommodations, inciuding service minutes, for Lagniappe students with special needs. I was prohibited from referring Lagniappe students for Interventions. Evaluations for Lagniappe students were not provitted even when a famity requested an evaiaation for special education. At no time during my employment at Lagniappe were inclusion services provided in my classroom. 7. I witnessed teachers administering medication to students. 8. Kendall Petri?s mother was employed at Legnieppe and taught an intervention class. 9. If coiled to testify at trial, I would testify as set forth herein. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME this 4+4 day oh my, 2315. r34} NOTARY sue Paul B. Unk Be; Roi] No. Z9816 AFFIDAVIT Staff Member 5 STATE OF LOUISIANA PARISH OF ORLEANS BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared: who, after being sworn, did attest as foiiows: 1. My name is_ I am a person of ihe age of majority and reside in the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. I have been a teacher for over ten (10) years. i worked at Lagniappe Academies (hereinafter Lagniappe) in New Orleans, Louisiana for the 2013-2014 school year as a 2mg grade teacher in Sociai Studies, English, Language and Arts. As such, I have personal knowledge of ail of the facts and circumstances set forth in this af?davit. Initially, I was told that Lagniappe had a iot of students with Individualized Education Plans (hereinafter IEP) and was told that Lagniappe specialized in iEPs. Approximateiy four weeks a?eri commenced employment with Lagniappe, was toid to no ionger provide accommodations and services for students with special needs. {311 Becember 20, 2013, Minn Tran asked me to sign an ZDEA form verifying that I was providing services for Special education students. I originaily did not want to sign the form however, Ninh Tran told me that was how iagniappe got paid and my salary was tied to signing the form. 6. 7. I had students with severe learning disabilities in my classroom but was directed by Kendail Petri, Principe} at Lagniappe, not to provide of?ciai interventions or accommodations. Several students in my classroom were not getting their services, including but not limited to, who was not provided Speech therapy anti} her mother complained to Lagniappe. The speech therapist contracted with Lagniappe then temporarily provided speech services. 8. -hereinafter -, an 81" grader, was assigned to my 2mi grade classroom 10. ll. 12. for approximately one~half of the 20239014 schooi year. - was not provided 83&1 grade classroom materiai.-has an IEP with a placwnent determination of participation inside a regular ctass eighty percent or more a day. -L?s accorrnnodations were not met by Lagniappe. In my opinion, standardized test scores were not accurate. New employees with no experience were hired to administer the tests. Students told me they were upset because the administrators gave answers to some students during the test. I was not allowed to speak to parents of students at report cards nights. Lagniappe did not have a formal Chiid Find or Response to Intervention Process in place to identify students who needed additional support and accommodations. I was not invoived in any retention meetings for the students in my class. Kendail Petri, Principe! at Lagniappe, and Alison McCormick, an administrator at Lagniappe, were the only Lagniappe representatives ailowed in retention meetings. 3 was never asked for input on retention of students in my classroom. I3. Lagniappe had a high retention rate. It seeme? iike eniy the highest perfenning students were advanced ?e the next grade. 14. I referred zagl?appe students for evaiuations but no evaluations were initiate?. 15. if called to testify at trial, {would teetify as set forth herein. waded" Pro age an . 311 Bar Roll No. 29816 AFFIDAWT 0 Staff Member 6 OF LOGISEANA JEFFERSON 1. BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personaliy appeared: who, after being sworn, did attest as follows: My name is- 2 am a person of the fol! age of majority and reside in the State of Louisiana 1 was a 2?Mi grade teacher at {agaiappe Academies (hereina?er Lagniappe) is New Orieans, Louisiana from Jciy 2012 to October 2012. As such, I have personal knowiedge of all of the facts and circtanstaaces set forth in this af?davit. I voluntariiy left ray teactzing position at Lagniappe because, in my Opinion, students were being treated in as unethicai manner. 1 was not atiowed to modify iessoas or to provide accommodations for children with special needs. Even when accommodations were is a Lagaiappe stedeat?s individuatized Education Program, (ZEP), i was toid by Keadaii E?e?tri, tile i?rincipal at iagaiappe, and Alison McConnick, an administrator at [agaiappa not to modify student iessorzs and not to provide accommodations. I had a Lagtiiappe stodth is my class, with an requiring arr accommodation of smatl group instruction. it was toid by Lagsiappe schooi ieadership tha-id not need additionai because our 0233363 were Sinai] w?h ayproximaiely meaty (20) students. 7. If sailed t0 testify at trial, I woulci testify as set forth herein. SWORN To SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME this ?aw ofFebmary, 2015. My Wad: L, nae? - abs/2?5 NOTARY PM B. [311ka Bar R911 No. 19316 I walked at Lageiappe frem July 201.2. te- 2012. When I 'iira't arrived at there were many that 1were eat (if eempiianee. I waa aaited to 'l?tirge a phone leg and service- legs which i did not de. Upon being asked te de ihia, i eifiese it) leave the aeheel and. tamed in my resignation. Students were taken eut 0f their leaat' restrictive witl'ieat pmper cause? which weat. directly againai their TWO Students; in particular were pulled eat. for small great} instruction because (?if behairtier challengea. i waa not given te give special edtieatien Students; small greap individualized institietiea in their are-ea {if need. I was met able t0 aerve students in the way that they needed. In addition, I have the attached doeumealatien. was met the teacher as falaely reperted tn the state by the SC-fitiiel in 201 1, meat 01?2012, 2013 er Staff Member 8 Appendix  D:  Prior  Lagniappe  Academies  Reports     I. 2015  Site  Visit  Notes   II. 2014  IDEA  Monitoring  Report   III. 2014  Renewal  Report   IV. 2011  Monitoring  Report             2015  Site  Visit  Notes:   Review  of  information  submitted  by  Lagniappe  as  part  of  Corrective  Action  Plan  on   site  by  Charter  Accountability  Team  on  January  28th,  2015.        has  service  minutes  log  entries  for  10/1/14  and  10/3/14  on  days  in  which  her   attendance  record  shows  her  as  absent.        has  service  minutes  log  entries  for  10/7/14  and  10/20/14  on  days  in  which   her  attendance  record  shows  her  as  absent.     .  has  service  minutes  log  (Kickboard  log)  entries  for  11/19/14  on  a  day  in   which  his  attendance  record  shows  him  as  absent.        has  service  minutes  log  (Kickboard  log)  entries  for  11/19/14  on  a  day  in   which  her  attendance  record  shows  her  as  absent.  Log  is  for  SLP  with  K.  Eschman-­‐   McCormick,  Speech  invoice  provided  indicates  student  was  absent.        and  have  service  minutes  log  entries  for  10/10/14  on  a  day  in  which  the   school  (according  to  the  posted  school  calendar)  was  not  in  session  for  fall  break.         NOTICE OF ACTION November 12, 2014 Kendall Petri, School Leader Lagniappe Academies of New Orleans 1501 St. Louis Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70170 Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested Dear Ms. Petri : The Louisiana Department of Education pursuant to fulfilling the general supervision requirements under 20 U.S.C. Section 1412 conducted an on-site compliance monitoring visit of programs for students with disabilities at Lagniappe Academies on October 21, 2014. Enclosed is a report that includes a general summary of the visit and a description of each finding of noncompliance identified during the on-site visit. Results of the on-site monitoring visit revealed some specific and systemic areas of noncompliance. Upon receipt of the report, the LEA will have 20 business days from the date of receipt of the report to respond to any findings, and 15 additional business days to develop a plan of corrective action to address findings of non-compliance described in the summary. Included with this correspondence is a sample CAP format that can be used when developing your plan. The plan must address the activities the school will implement to correct all areas of identified non-compliance, as rapidly as possible, and in no case longer than one year from the date of this letter. The draft CAP will be reviewed by the appropriate staff in the Office of Statewide Monitoring to ensure the activities and timelines are systemic and measurable. The CAP shall be submitted for approval to the LDE within 35 business days of receipt of the monitoring report. However, upon receipt of the report, the LEA shall immediately begin correcting the findings of non-compliance documented in the report. The plan will address the activities the LEA will implement to correct the areas of non-compliance identified during the on-site visit as soon as possible, but in no case more than one year from the date of the notification report from the LDE. The monitoring staff will hold an exit conference call with your agency at your convenience to discuss the monitoring results. Please contact me at the address below to arrange an exit conference. Please note that Lagniappe Academies must immediately begin correcting the student-specific findings of non-compliance as well as systemic issues of non-compliance. Neither the 20-day period for review of the report nor the additional 15-day CAP development period should impede your progress in immediately taking steps to achieve compliant status on the student-specific and systemic areas identified as non-compliant. We appreciate your cooperation during the on-site visit, and we hope that the monitoring process will assist you in improving educational outcomes for students with disabilities and their families. If you have any questions about the enclosed report or how to achieve correction through your CAP, please contact me at (504) 920-6882 or via email at Patrick.walsh@la.gov. Sincerely, Patrick J. Walsh Executive Director, Statewide Monitoring PJW:ar Enclosure(s) c. Dan Henderson, Acting Chair, Lagniappe Academies of New Orleans Ninh Tran, Chief Operations Officer, Lagniappe Academies Kunjan Narechania, Chief Operating Officer, LA Department of Education Joan Hunt, Executive Counsel, LA Department of Education SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Lagniappe Academies of New Orleans Ms. Kendall Petri, School Leader Mr. Dan Henderson, Chair Date of On-Site Monitoring October 21, 2014 On-Site Monitoring Team Members Angela Randall Melodie Sparks Iris Jones Introduction A team of three monitors conducted an on-site visit on October 21, 2014 as part of the Department’s General Supervision responsibilities. Lagniappe Academies was selected under the Random category of special education monitoring. Monitoring Strategies, Methods and Activities      Review of 8 student records, including random and purposeful reviews of students’ IEPs, service logs, progress notes, evaluation reports, cumulative education folders, and other relevant documents. Interviews with 3 school-site personnel, including administrators and a general education teacher. Evidence of services being provided to students through classroom observations and student discussions. Evidence of Child Find activities through evidence provided and information shared during school-site personnel interviews. Interview by telephone with one parent. Pursuant to Bulletin 1706―Regulations for Implementation of the Children with Exceptionalities Act: Specific Evidence of Systemic Non-Compliance was found in the following areas:  §101 Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). A free appropriate public education shall be available to all students residing in the state between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive, including students with disabilities who have been suspended or expelled from school.  §111.A.2. Child Find. Each public agency, in accordance with the requirements of these regulations, shall document that on-going identification activities are conducted to identify, locate, and evaluate each student who is suspected of having a disability, in need of special education and related services.     Summary  of  Findings  Part  2  Lagniappe   Reg.  Ref.  #   Description  of  Findings   Supporting  Evidence   Comments     A   free   appropriate   public   education   shall   be   available   to   all   students   residing   in   the   state   between   the   ages   of   3   and   21,   inclusive,   including   students   with   disabilities   who   have   been   suspended   or  expelled  from  school.   Non-­‐compliance  was  found  relative  to  the  implementation  of  the   Individualized  Education  Programs  for  8/8  student  programs  currently   enrolled  at  Lagniappe  Academies:       § 5/8  students  were  not  receiving  special  education  services  in  the   area  of  Engl nguage  Arts  as  determined  by  the  IEP  Team   committee.   em  Bailey,  Mya  Johnson,  Terrill  Morris,  Diamonique   Dunn,  Keirr y)     § 4/8  students  were  not  receiving  special  education  services  in  the   area  of  Mathematics  as  determined  by  the  IEP  Team  committee.   (Hakeem  Bailey,  Terrill  Morris,  Diamonique  Dunn,  Keirra  Henry)       §      8/8   students   were   not   receiv   IEP   Team.   (   ris,   Katlyn         Lagniappe  Academies  does  not   have   a   dedicated   Special   Education   teacher   assigned   to   the   school.   Results   of   file   reviews,   interviews   with   School   leaders,   one   teacher,   students,   and   classroom   observations     revealed   that   students     have   not   been   consistently   receiving   special   education   and/or   related   during   the   2014-­‐2015   school   term.   No   evidence   of   progress   reports   or   service   logs   consistent   with   individualized   needs   as   indicated   on   the   IEP   was  available.     Bulletin  1706     §101   FAPE                                 § § 1/8  students  did  not  receive  Adapted  Physical  Education  services  as   determined  by  the  IEP  team.  (Hakeem  Bailey)       8/8  Students  did  not  have  Special  Education  Progr to  the  parents.  ( orris,  Katlyn  S e       § 1/8  triennial  evaluations  were  out  of  timelines.  (Hakeem  Bailey)   § 1/8  Individualized  Education  Programs  had  not  been  updated  within   the  annual  timeline.  (Kaylyn  Smith)                                     1       Summary  of  Findings  Part  2  Lagniappe   Reg.  Ref.  #   Description  of  Findings   Bulletin  1706   §111A.2.   Child  Find     The   public   agency   did   not,   in   accordance   with   the   requirements   of   these   regulations,   shall   document   that   on-­‐going   identification   activities   are   conducted   to   identify,   locate,   and   evaluate   each   student   who   is   suspected   of   having   a   disability,   in   need   of   special   education   and  related  services   Supporting  Evidence   § Lagniappe   Academies   was   unable   to   show   evidence   of   on-­‐going   identification   activities   to   identify,   locate,   and   evaluate   each   student   who   is   suspected   of   having   a   disability,   in   need   of   special   education   and/or  related  services       Comments   Results   of   an   interview   conducted   with   the   Lagniappe   Academies   School   Leader,   the   school  currently  does  not  have   Child  Find  Procedures  in  place.         2   .. micsPolicy and ?rocedure Audit LDE Representative: ?5choe = WKWDE '31 {to be compieted by [3 Extension XDRenewel B?l?ii?luaf Date: Document Submission Area of Concern Policy! Procedure Status 1 Outcome of Review Notes {Optional} Heelth and Safety Schooi provides izearing 8; vision as outlined ?gilleiie ?uiietie 1588, and Eiectronicaiiv @Bcview onwsite @J?oiicwprocedere in piece Policvarocedure game}; in eiece milliliter Schooi provides eursieg services as ootlined in 8.5.1123 and BEBE Poiicv BSubmitted Electronicaiiv ig?eview onwsife DPoiichProcedure in oiece moiicvfi?rocedure n_ot in oiece ??ther regeietions Schooi foilows immoeizetion mubmicted Electronically {Review on -site Weiicvfi?rocedure in phase E3?oiicyfi?rocedore go; in piece Elmer-3r ??sool Conducts background checks for emoiovees as outiined 13315 add RS. ESubmi?ed Eiecironiceilv meview on?si?ie ?l?oiicvfi?mcedure in place E?oiicvfi?rocedure ri_ot in piece {Ember School orevides foilows hes safety ?lSubmi?ed Electronically Weview onvsi?ie Woiicvfi?rocedure in place Seolicvfi?rocedore n_et in place Ember 5. Boa rd structure meets ?Submitted Electronically [3 Review onwsi?ie molicwemcedore in piece Poiicy/i?rocedure in place ??ther Charters Gnlv} Governance Wolic f?rocedure in lace Boa rd?s bvievvs adhere to molded-ii DSubmitied Eiecironicailv . - Epoiicvg?i?rocedure not in place Grade of ?shes. Elam? 0? we --1 Pol' :3 3 mm Hm School has developed and adheres to DSubmitied Electronicaiiv Lnofifeiace BEBE model Master Discipline Pies) [Efievlew on-site ?erollment Student Enrollment 3: Mums? . in piece 2 4 Perce i; ets contract BSmettEd ?eammcam DPoli ferocedure not in lace we age 8 B?eview can-site CV 9? specifications Other the; ?Pi. in: r. mi. .3 hat-'1 is .-: FECllitY Hm mm 4. 7 .School. ?ggca LDE ?epresentative. Kim-3&1 mm. Visit Type: [3 Extension J33 Renewal {Item/ma? Date: The items ttsted beiow witf not be considered in the Extension or Reoewat decision-making process. Area of Concern mm item States Notes (optional) Current i?erroit to Operate posted Tait-tested Not Posted Kitcheo Anso? statos Doreen Tag Dreiiow Tag B?ed Tag Service Date: PT I DHH InSpect?on Report posted Woosted ?eet Posted Site Alarm states $Greer: Tag Tag ?tted Tag Service D3: . ?m Sprioiriler System status E?reeo ?fag ?YeiEow Tag ?tted "fag Service Sate: . Fire Safe Uota ed: 5 Fire Extinguishers tagged 8: stamped w! service $365 I 3g date the past 12 months Expire? Service Date: l=rre Ftvacoetson Routes posted and Exrt @165 mm ttlomtneted Bathrooms ate cieao, in wotkiog order, 8: stocked w} supplies {soap toiiet eepet, oepet toweisi?hendw No drying device} Pablic Beau? Water Foonta'rns it: working order ,l??r?es Not Working: Lights In ciesstooms 3t staltwells are to working axes Nat wmking: ordet Elevator tn working order with curreot/ueitd permit DYes Shae 15? Anetta? Integrated Pest Management Plan ?fties ?No maintenanm Facilttv ts dean and free of debris -?Yes are free from eioekege or improperiy ohaioed Wes Elite How can the LDE of?ce hatter support you? {De-scribe- you? How are you ensuringthe needs of your students with'spectai needs are being-met re ELULEP'student population and how you?re most? og the needs of those students and amt 165- . What is your school doing to huiid cottons- among students aod'staff? - - tymemoars took like What {foes corn m-Unicatt What parent engagement strategi on W: th es and communi . i as are-you using 1?1: 3 What i 5 your or: ?mary area of focus :3 . What are you most proud of? - Extension 5' a enowal Annuai . .z 51.51.33: .. 21:3: Esra. .3 L21: . 1.: and. a .H 1.379%? x. ?92:5. Extension menewai 5? T?s-9e: 1? What are see most proud of? What is your primary area of focus? What parent engagement strategies are we using? What dees communicatien with families'end cemmunitv members loci: like? What isyeur scheol deing to build cuiture ameng students and staff? How ere-yen ensuring the needs of your students?with speciai needs are. being-met? Describe you?re Student eepulatioe and how'you?re meeting the needs of these students anti families. Haw can the ?35 ef?ce better support you? .. hi}, 33Eli-n21?4153?: 2k} 9* - - mi? Lea fess; eye, :2 .zw .. 5 .. x. w?rii Sui hm. . ?u Essa Beard Questions: ?ew weuid you describe the digersity ef?baekgmunds and expertise on the beard? r3. shribe your board?s vision alignment WIth that of Kendal}? 3 Extension ?nenewa; Rather:- afi? I ?E?ii?iW. gigiyd (?gmw?iw? Grade: Objective: Subject: - a {g TEache - 2 :5 ff??f??ws?f? fag? gigaz? ?gag m; I N: :l I NH, {imam 9.x} :3 - {pf-xi 3 FILE: I um Fifi-z? if 31%in 15% mpg-??3? 13 rm if I, I. i?gm? Extensian ??enewal E?nnuai Obfactiue: Subject: . ?wwm If?? a" I 5 Ew- ?a?m?fi 831%}; A I wf await-g; ?m?m 'jffii ., \{Sm 913;?; i WM fi?wagm $535339?? {RugEZJESW -- {Lu mars-L: if: <33ger??J?p? {gm-m ggfg?iy? Wm i Grade: Objective: Subject: Teacher: a f" A i [Arm aims-3:: 'mj?i?m "Jada" I i I .- f?Visitlj?vp?u: Exteasion Menewal EAnnual 1 Classroom Visit Irma? :ndo: afoot} gsmam/vfg wk 7N widL Lotto 14 '3 ?5 Pemlak?zs ?33" idif/ Wrai?ibn, 3w fkpiaag? of gamma g?e?r- gm? *Hbmj, 5 mm) gym-5.1% 32% .3 ?at-2) if (fam?giJ? 3d?) W/xfucst, 53.36;, ammjer?, 32? 5 {a 7m 5W, Wifkwf Fry)- 5 5 Foam Lt a. number525K I 0? EMT-BL :3 {:54 5% an. Eight? 59oz? dif?Li?. i911 Po Mm a M. aka-kg)? um. m/ 7 Classroom Visit mg (Sada; I shim-tine: Subiect: Teacher: a EH if$55? fii??m??yiqg i Exiensian manewai Dhjactiw: . "Egg - 3-. "b a - ??vi{Ei?fmy?a wt it; um.th ?x (a -3 3% ?x Grade: Qbieative: - i w. a 1-. Wham 2 1; .g 5 \u-vac 2 ,u uni-=2 5 ?53,204,- a, M-x 5 {3.335; :3 a: . ii; 35% ark gi?ztii-ga war-?H J- ?2 @3553" ?f'r??fm?ri; mg? 33%? f} yad??f "1:1 1.H333 2-1 {smash maxi LEE Representativerr .J . i Extensmn SREREWEF mAnnual BatezET-r-a: xi '1 a? ?am-,5 l- i Classroom Visit. Etugi?' ma. if) MEI its: Mir? 1?33 +1 avg Grade: I Object?veq?gi?= Tm gag-?g Wit/5 : Teacher:- Mi." *2 cw ?54. 9km Wi"%m _g - Lei gaunt? gy??l ~fm S?di?m WE huh-?t mu, Mai-{361* gm (1 9962523": 10 LGWU ?am LL- Ma?a-met jg @mia? may; Egg gamma} awmm (if? Jil- r?i "3 - ,1 it?, egmgm v. 4, mgm?yax {ii-{BM - 1 gm gfmim?? [kl-51mg mm mm mm guy-eta. m. Erwm $52.:wa Si I .f cm mag. gag-175?} Classroom Visit i TE dm'mgw wife; Team" .r ad Grade: i .mgi?h?i?arhg "a {mfg-{53? L531. {1.37; I - .3 . ?534m 1- .53? i L- mun?mm. dain- ?u in i. Lb {gm-J - I {Edgar-1:5 mm; KIM-gilt? v? 2? . ?an: -. - ku?w? '53, gun-w . - h: in Hg}: -. - 5? V032 Ii-' "m Visitryp?z' Exteesion wenewai mAnnuai Bate?" . 1th PM Classroom Visit Sega; amp ry??m mfg: ya i abjemwm?wg mamacmm 45? augmqus?aam {ma?snm??mm? 5 la] i Teacher: i {shingle-w i5i Eric-"i {13k- gift 515$ .555..- . :Wu?; 3194/ 9?15 m? ?assroom Visit Objective: a Subject: 3 Teacher: Lagniappe Academies Met with: 10/4/2011 Kellie Lee (Special Education Coordinator) Narrative Summary Strengths: Lagniappe Academies has related services support through contracted services with a licensed social worker, the Suns Center, and the Center for Developmental Learning. Universal screening in the areas of literacy and numeracy is in place. Lagniappe Academies is in the process of developing a Student Support Team (SST) to help teachers address academic and behavior concerns in the classroom. Well-defined discipline procedures are in place for all students at Lagniappe Academies. The school has some fundamentals of a school-wide positive behavior support program in place. Staff is provided with ongoing professional development. Recommendations: a. Lagniappe Academies should formalize their Child Find process, including how to make parents, guardians, and the community aware of the Child Find process as well as procedures for identifying students within the school who are suspected of having a disability. b. The staff could not produce any FBA/BIPs. Lagniappe Academies should provide staff with professional development in FBA/BIPs, including the purpose, scope, and links to students’ IEPs (if applicable). In addition, Lagniappe Academies should create and routinely use a customized checklist for the school that delineates all the necessary components as well as those individuals responsible for the completion of FBA/BIPs. c. Lagniappe Academies should develop and implement a process to monitor the integrity of all interventions in place for students through the use of intervention integrity checklists. d. A crisis intervention plan should be developed specifically for Lagniappe Academies. e. The staff explained the REACH rubric as part of the School-Wide Positive Behavior Support program. Lagniappe Academies would benefit from forming a School-Wide Positive Behavior Support team in order to develop a manual that outlines the process for students, teachers, and parents. The program’s written principles and processes should be easily accessible to families, students, and personnel of the school. Category of Questions Gatekeeper Questions Data Components Child Find Universal Screening Policies and Procedures Behavioral Components IEPs Related Services Professional Development Percentage 69 71 0 83 100 25 71 100 33 100 Percentage of Adherence 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Category Data Components Show me the data system school staff use in your school. Yes/No Y Show me data that indicates the current total enrollment of your school. Y Show me data that indicates the current total enrollment of students with disabilities of your school. Y Show me data that indicates the total number of students in each disability category. Y Show me data that indicates the total number of students that currently have FBAs in your school. N Show me data that indicates the total number of students that currently have BIPs in your school. N Show me data that indicates how many students applied for enrollment in your school for the 20112012 school year. Y Show me data that indicates how many students with disabilities applied for enrollment in your school for the 2011-2012 school year. Y Child Find Components Show me your school's procedures for child find. N Show me how you make parents, guardians, and the community aware of the child find process. Show me the form that teachers use to make a referral to the problem solving committee. Show me the form that the problem solving committee uses to document that a student’s concerns have been discussed. Show me an agenda of a problem solving committee meeting that has occurred. Show me how the SBLC progress monitors students who are in the Response to Intervention (RtI) process. Show me an example of how an identified student was referred through the school’s routine Child Find process. * Universal Screening Show me how you screen students for problems in school. Y Show me how you universally screen all students for literacy 3 times a year. Y Show me how you screen all students in numeracy 3 times a year. Y Show me how you screen all students for behavior concerns 3 times a year. N Show me the data system your school utilizes to keep track of behavior discipline referral data. Y Show me how your school’s data system tracks inschool suspensions. Y Show me how your school’s data system tracks outof-school suspensions. Y Policies and Procedures Show me your school's policies pertaining to all students. Y Show me how your school grants requests to make student records available to parents and/or guardians. Y Show me your school's written procedure for obtaining educational records of incoming students. Y Show me your school’s written policies and procedures concerning discipline. Y Show me your school’s written absentee policy. Y Show me your school’s written policies on the use of in-school suspension. Y Show me your school’s written policies on the use of out-of-school suspension. Y Show me your school’s policies pertaining to students with disabilities. Y Show me how your school grants requests to make student records available to parents and/or guardians. Y Show me your school's written procedure for obtaining educational records of incoming students. Y Show me your school’s procedure for ensuring appropriate teaching staff receive evaluations for students with disabilities. Y Show me your school’s procedure for ensuring appropriate teaching staff receive IEPs for students with disabilities. Y Show me where parents or guardians of students with disabilities are informed of their rights. Y Behavioral Components Show me the school-wide approach to managing student behavior. Show me posted school-wide expectations. Show me posted school-wide rules. Show me posted classroom rules. Y N N N Show me your school’s written policy for a system of reinforcement for appropriate behavior. N Show me your school’s written level of consequences for inappropriate behavior. Y Show me where expectations and rules are taught to students. Y Show me how you document violations of school rules. Y Show me the form(s) your school uses to document discipline referrals. Y Show me the form(s) your school uses to document in-school suspensions. Y Show me the form(s) your school uses to document out-of-school suspensions. Y Show me the form(s) your school uses to document Manifestation Determination reviews. Y Show me your school's crisis intervention plan. N Show me how your teachers know how to implement the school’s crisis intervention plan. Show me when you have implemented the school’s crisis intervention plan. Show me a student's completed Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) report. Show me who conducts FBAs for your school. Show me what training the individual responsible for conducting FBAs has received. N * * Show me any forms the individual responsible for conducting FBAs is currently using. Show me a teacher interview used to complete FBAs. Show me classroom observation(s) used to complete FBAs. Show me a student's completed Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP). N Show me who develops Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) for your school. * Show me any forms the individual responsible for conducting BIPs is currently using. * Show me how the individual responsible for conducting FBAs at your school has linked that assessment to the development of a BIP. Show me what training the individual responsible for conducting BIPs has received. Show me documentation how teachers are trained to implement interventions listed on a BIP. Show me intervention integrity checklists. Show me how data are collected to indicate intervention implementation. Individualized Education Program Show me the forms your school utilizes to write Individualized Education Programs (IEP). Show me how you use electronic IEPs. Show me a teacher of record’s individual caseload. Y Y Y Show me an IEP with a measurable goal. Y Show me how Multidisciplinary Evaluations are linked to a student’s IEP. Y Show me how BIPs are linked to a student’s behavior goal(s). N Show me how BIPs are linked to a student’s social goal(s). N Show me how a student’s IEP goals reflect a student’s educational placement. Y Related Services Show me a list of related services your school provides. Y Show me a schedule of one of your related services staff. Y Show me a sample caseload of your related services staff. Y Show me a student’s IEP that specifies the need for school psychological services. Y Show me evidence that school psychological services have been provided. Y Show me a student’s IEP that specifies the need for social work services. Y Show me how you provide social work services. Show me a student’s IEP that specifies the need for physical therapy services. Show me how you provide physical therapy services. Y Y Y Show me a student’s IEP that specifies the need for occupational therapy services. Y Show me how you provide occupational therapy services. Y Show me a student’s IEP that has an Individualized Health Plan. Y Show me how you provide services for a student’s health plan. Y Show me an IEP that specifies the need for speech therapy. Y Show me how you provide speech therapy services. Y Show me an IEP that specifies the need for counseling services. Show me how you provide counseling services. Professional Development Y Y Y Show me documentation of the professional development that the school has received in the past year. Y Show me how you account for individual teachers’ participation in professional development. Y Show me what kind of resources your school utilizes when creating academic programs for students with disabilities. N Show me what kind of resources your school utilizes when creating behavior and/or social programs for students with disabilities. N Appendix  E:  Supporting  Documentation   I. II. III. IV. V. Student  Attendance  Logs  (from  Lagniappe  local  Student  Information   System)  acquired  on  January  28th,  2015   Lagniappe  2014-­‐15  Calendar Special  Education  Logs Special  Education  Reporting  System  Logs  showing  teacher  of  record Lagniappe  Student  Code  of  Conduct Student I Behavior Absent - Unexcused Absent - Unexcused Absent Unexcused Absent Unexcused Tardy - Unexcused Early Check Out Tardy Unexcusad Tardy Unaxcused Absent a Unexcused Eariy Check Out Absent Unexcused Tardy Excused Tardy Unexcused ?farciy Unexeused Yardy Unexcused Tardy - Unexcused Early Check Out Absent ?nexcused Studen Behayiar Date? 2526x154 .. aw?; *1/31 1.51} 12/19/14 1211?;?24 131314 22 1 1119/12: 1111114 arm/mas "9 4 exam: 9112;14 9/11/14 sis/14 9! .14 {971 5! I Humvee Student Student Behavior Behavior Qate Absent Unexcused 3., Early Check Out 1122415 Absent Line-mused weigh Earty Check Out Absent - Excused $313333?) Early Check Out 1211 13: 141? {3 Absent Unexcused '11,!19124 Absent Unexcused Early Check Out 11/23124 ?tardy - Unexcnsed 11,;4324 Absent a Excused {18/38} Earty Check Out 10/231143 Absent Excused Absent - Unexcused Absent Excuses Tardy Unexcused Absent - Unexcused StudentIJ Behavter Absent - Unexcused Ea?y Check Out Absent Unexcused Absent Unexcusee Absent - Unexcused Absent - Unexcused Absent - Unexcused Absent - Unexcused Absent Unexcused Absent Unexcused Barty Check Out Tardy - Unexcused Absent Unexcused Student Behavior Date 3423115 1:22:15 mm; ?usn?j "1:555." 1mng meant; ,1 maul?a?) 1/05? IUZUIA 11 (5411;?) Student Student Behavior Absent Unexcused Absent - Unexcused Eariy CbeCk Out Ea?y Check Out Absent - Unexcusad Behavior. Date 10.33114 Lax-.7 10MB 9.130114 31291.14 31.231159, Student I Student Behavior Behavior Date Early Check Out zxzaas Absent - Tardy - Unexcused Absent - Unexcused Tardy Unexcused Ea?y Check Out 10/30/14 "Eardy Unexcused 10/2? 14 #1 Absent - Unexcused 20 K114th Wlk??b Absent - Unexcused .r "-13 ?g 652 mm Tardy Unexcused 9/23/14 Tardy - Unemused 9/12/14 LAGNIAPPE ACADEMIES 2014 – 2015* STUDENT CALENDAR July 2014 S M 7 14 T 1 8 15 W 2 9 16 T 3 10 17 F 4 11 18 S 5 12 19 6 13 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 August 2014 S M T W T 3 10 17 24 31 4 11 18 25 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 October 2014 S 5 12 19 26 M 6 13 20 27 T 7 14 21 28 T 2 F 3 S 4 S 8 15 22 29 9 16 23 30 10 17 24 31 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 M 3 10 17 24 T 4 11 18 25 W 5 12 19 26 January 2015 M T W 4 11 18 25 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 T 1 8 15 22 29 F 2 9 16 23 30 S 3 10 17 24 31 T M T 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 W 1 8 15 22 2 29 T 2 9 16 23 44 30 2 F 3 10 17 24 S 4 11 18 25 F 6 13 20 27 S M 1 T 2 W 3 T 4 F 5 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 7 14 21 28 S 1 8 15 22 29 December 2014 S 7 14 21 28 M 1 8 15 22 29 T 2 9 16 23 30 W 3 10 17 24 31 February 2015 S 1 8 15 22 M 2 9 16 23 T 3 10 17 24 W 4 11 18 25 T 5 12 19 26 April 2015 S S 2 9 16 23 30 November 2014 W 1 S F 1 8 15 22 29 F 6 13 20 27 S 7 14 21 28 M T W T 3 10 17 24 31 4 11 18 25 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 F 1 8 15 22 29 S 2 9 16 23 30 T 4 11 18 25 F 5 12 19 26 S 6 13 20 27 March 2015 S 1 8 15 22 29 M 2 9 16 23 30 T 3 10 17 24 31 W 4 11 18 25 May 2015 S Important Dates September 2014 T 5 12 19 26 F 6 13 20 27 S 7 14 21 28 SUMMER July 28: First Day Summer Term August 15: Last Day Summer Term August 14: Fall Orientation & Summer Celebration August 18 – Sept. 2: Summer Break FALL September 3: First Day Fall Term October 10 – 13: Fall Break November 14: Last Day Fall Term November 17: First Day Winter Term November 20: Report Card Night WINTER November 21: Early Dismissal (ED) 12:45PM November 24 – 28: Thanksgiving Break December 19: Holiday Celebration (ED: 12:45PM) December 22 – January 3: Winter Break January 5: No School January 19: Martin Luther King Day February 13: Mardi Gras Celebration (ED: 12:45PM) February 16 – 20: Mardi Gras Break February 27: Last Day Winter Term March 2: First Day Spring Term March 5: Report Card Night SPRING March 16 – 20: PARCC Phase I (Grades 3, 4) April 2: Spring Celebration (ED: 2PM) April 3: Good Friday (No School) April 14 – 15: iLEAP / LEAP testing April 17: Early Dismissal (ED) 12:45PM April 20 – 24: Spring Break May 4 – 8: PARCC Phase II May 22: No School May 25: Memorial Day June 4: Last Day Spring Term; Last Day of School June 2015 S 7 14 21 28 M 1 8 15 22 29 T 2 9 16 23 30 W 3 10 17 24 T 4 11 18 25 F 5 12 19 26 S 6 13 20 27 School Day School Closed 12:45 PM Dismissal Saturday School 3rd, 4th 2 PM Dismissals iLEAP/LEAP/ PARCC Testing *Note: Calendar is subject to change Student Lugniuppe Academies New erlsuns Special Education Depa?mens 59' Lewis, Sires? I New Christmas. Law?s?n? .E 594 355.99%: LAG HIHFFE 553*.? Speciai Educe?an Minutes Lag Memo! Suppod {Consu?oiicn} ?xsermi Support is cams-musics: heswean she gsnem: and Special education teaches its-Class S?ppon [Caliabomiinn] commutation is divest swine prov'ded to sfucisnis wii'r' the general educmian aluminum NAME swam; GRADE NO. 15}- SpEcs TEACHER GEN. ED. TEACHER .i Ms. WEEKLY SERWCE Magma: $5 PROVIDED 2 3 Speciai Education Supper! Services Pravidssd: 1. instruc?cnoi manning kccommodaiions 2. insimc?amsl De?very 8. Modi?cations 3. tnshucfionoi Supp-an Bibs-r: 4. Behavioral intervention as. ashes: 5. Mon?o?ng Student Progress 5. Observation/Data Coiledlun Directions: Compleie columns 'st when documan?ng services provided. DATE SEIMECIIGEN. EDJEACHER EDDHEGNAL ?Ili'lIU-t 30 a i 6 c: fairs! in. MW 2? 320 ?Zr rots-Hut 30 1M '1 3 ?Wm 30 22422! Us; 1 {7 I 40 Jamal?: #:9911912! Immoss Suppod {Coilobom?on} Coriobomiion is. west sown-e provloed Io Students th ?aool??es the gene-ml educahon classroom Student Lognioppe Academies New Orioons Speoio! Educa?on woodman: 159? St. Loo-is Swear. New ?roonso Loo. emu 72 Special Educo?on Minnie: Log Extomoi Support {Conso?o?on} Exiorour 5t:pr :5 convarsation Demo-or he genero' and ammo. education touchors M's r? - mm?- rm: swoam (312mg ID NO 5 Spa-o mama? GEN. Es. mans? w. {mom?s} M'uctiee? angle. suar n3, I A I SERVICE MINUTES TO 35 FRUWDEQ Special Educo?on Support Services Provided: I. Insituciionol?onning 7. Accommodo?ons 2. insiruc?onoi Do?very B. Modi?coiions 3. inwm?onmSunpu? 9. Other: Bohovioroi Intervention 10. Other: 5. Moniioring Studonf Progress Dbsewu?onfboi? Collection Directions: Compioio coiumns 1-3 when docomm?ng services provided. DATE I SERVICE CWEW 9/29 I i i I sumsmzom, EDJEACHER I Thomas Wooi?i?_ Mmeo i?EMank Md+h as (1-: 12.14? ?I&55r??m. M'mk?letg eagle. 5 . 6/30 452/ 5/3 @442 xii/7 5/5 I 9 I shin .. Student Lagniappe Academies New Orierms Special! Educ u?on Banana-sen! 150' LowSTrae? N9wOr'aQnahnms'anc 7U ?2 504.355.0956 un?l- 53.1 DE M155.- Speciai Education Minnie-s Log mLCEoss SUppo? {Cokinbnra?on} Exfernni Suppo? {Consu?a?nn} Coiianum?im is may ca deal :0 slmenis with Enema Sunm? '5 canva'sa?on between me genera disabli?as Erna 99mm. educo?nn 0055100?. am: spa-cia- Eaucaiian ienchers 5w STUSENT GRADE - :13 no. 5 - GEN Mr. (mama?) Date; 51.23.25 123; MA WEEKLY SERVICE MINUTES TO BE PROVIDED Species; Educafion Support Services frovided: 1. lnsimc?anol Planning T. 2. instruc?nnai Delivery 3. Mod?ica?ons a. Ensiwc?onaiSupporf 9. Other: 4. Behaviora! intervention 30. Oiher: 5. Mon?o?ng Student Progress 6. Observm?ionibmo (in?ection ?irec?ons: Compiefa coiumns 3?3 when documenting services provided. QATE i a? SUBJEQKGEN. EDJEACHER i A??m??hi CCIMMEMS We) a; $F?u1d? '1 n?ahuieHCM . . 2&5 1? thIA( ?163.53 I 5 M7 I Student iogn?oppo Aoodemios New Goa-on: I501 51.1.0235 Shoo? wowmmom. Lou?siona ACE 1 2 I 504.355.0956 Specioi Educo?on MEnz?es tog In-Closs Support (Colioborolion) d?aosl service moment to stodoots witn dimbi??es :ho genera! odoco?on Classroom Extomoi Support {Coosu?o?on} Extomol Support is commotion bow-fem mo gooem: and weeks! aoucmiaon mocha: Specia? Depo?moni WEEHI IS. NO. GRADE Psalm mom's NAME 7' - . yo. EEACEER SERVKZE MINUTES TO BE PROVIQED Insiruc?o?al Planning Modi?cations Instructional Doilvoy 4- Speciol Education Support Services Provided: other: Instuc?onai Support omen. EPPH Behavioral ?a?owon?ors Eton?!an Station! Progress Obsewo?onl?aiu 9999?? Biroo?ons: Complete columns 1.3 when dooumon?ng swine: previded. DATE it EDJEACHER /o 14 A?g? 3921?: a M553 57,4/5 5mg? 1 two-M 24/! 1 N?u'r? It: 5M5 - .. Student I Lognioppe Academies New Orleans Special Eooco?on 150? Lop-sStreE' Grooms .ous?mo 2 503.355.0955 I ammo: Special Education Minuies Log imCIoss Support {Coliobom?on} External Suppori (Consu?o?oo) Cohohora?on is dire? sow-co rammed 1: memo! Suppon is beware-3n 'ho germ-r5 disoofimos She gonarol gamma" 5 maroon" and Spock: 155mm w- swam 1 {me-i i? .. ?Eh. ?0 mama 1 far. hands) sue} I . wsaxov 55mm as PEOWDEQ Speciof Education Support Sowicqs Provided: ?mm?MM Mon?o?ng Station? Frogzess Obsowmionmoio Coliec?on I. irtshuc?onoi Homing If. Accommodations 2. ?nsi?ruc?onal Doiivety 3. modi?co?om 3. Instructional Supp-on 9. Other: 4. Behovioroi inforvon?on w. thor: 5. 6. Directions: Compieie columns 1-3 when documoniing services provided. more i sa?mcw i SUEJECTIGEN. EDIEACHEE Anni?nowm common I MW 114:3.on .Qmmig. Sakah 'Mswq?w. . :15: W?mfar 41455 Whof?/zo Student Lagnicppe Academic: New oceans Speciai Education Depress-Imam 1591 31. Louis 311cc! New One-ans. Louisiana :9112 504.355 0956 mun-Hts Special Education Minutes Log In-Cioss Support {Coilcbora?on} ixiamai (Consu?mion) Cage:me Is divas! service provided tc swam-:15 wiih mama; Supper: is cocversaiion bah-ween she genera. d'??bi'?iei the genera: ecung cicwa and special educatioc teachers {New 3313921413 we {13351} I swam i I GRADE 1. a; I if}. NO. I ER .. . CHER Ema Web-?9 192m A suajecrisi I EK swam MINUTES Specici Educaiion Supper? Services Provided: Accommodc?ocs instructional ?aming 2. in?ruc?onui Delivery B. Mod?ica?om 3. lns?vc?onal Supper? 9. other: 4. Behavimai Iniewen?on 10. Other: 5. Monfioiing Student ?cgress 5. Obsawa?cnmaia Coliac?on Directions: Complaie commas 1-3 when documcn?ng services provided. WEE 5ERV15E ma?mm 43M WM. 9132!?: 5M 6M Student I 4 - 122132014 121353114. 2 53 PM Ni ?Est Graders Data This week?s behaviors Mlnuias Mon 30 minutes [30) wifh KLEschman. - 30 11103 McCormick} Wed 30 minutes gulf-out?t} (30) (SLP with mammal}. 30 11195 McCormick) :15 minutes {45} (mil: Ms. Smith - Wed Augusi?awsaines} Y5 11(12 30 minutes Quit?out?t} {30} with KEschman. - McConniak) 5G minutes put?ucub?c {56) L. smith - Augusta- Gaines) Thu 45 n?nute$ gull-nuthC {45) (with L. Smith - Augusra- 146 11:13 Games) 45 minutaa {Justina-ERG {45} 3me - Augusta- Gabes) Mon 30 minutes puiE-ou?sc (30) (SLP wi?: K.Eschman. v~ 30 McCom?ek) 45 minutes puah-Enl?c {45} Ms. Smith Augusta- Games) Wed 45 minutes; miiwuvsc (45} {wf?da Smith - Augusta- 12!} ??19 Gafnaa) 30 minutes mii-ou?sc (30) with K.Esahman. McConnick} Tue 45 minutes pushninf?c {45) M3. Smith - Augusra- 45 12232 Gaines} Wed . 12m} 30 mtnutes push-inmc (3G) {Augusia-Gafnesminutes pumsnf?c ?30} {Augusta-Games) 30 Fri 12112 30 minutes push-NRC {30} (Augusta-Gaines} 30 Mon . W15 30 mmutas push-war: {so} {Augusta-Gahas} 30 Tue 121,18 30 minutes paIE-outISC {30} {Augusta?Gainersmirtutas yuan-mac {so} {Augusta-Gainesminutas pulMuUSC [30) {Augum?awaamas} 30 Page ?5 ?153 Student I Logoiopoo Now Education Dopodmont ?50 - New Grooms Loo-smut: 2 534.355 99:55 momma:- Spociol Educo?on Minufos Log in-Cioss Suppo? (Coiloboro?on) ?x?ornoi Supper? {Consultation} Col oboroiior .s dim-5* sowice ozovfow 'o s'udeois wifh worm. Sopoo? Ts convo'miion mew-oar the genera momma: mo gonoro and specio; ed- oofion mocha-:5 (M, mom GRADE if}. NO 3 751%: Mmmaf-Oagh 5U 333w SERVEE MINUTES '10 SE -- Spocio! Education Soppod Services Provided: insiroc?onoi manning 7. Accommodations 2. Ensimo?onoi Demon: B. Modifications 3. Other: 4. Bohovioroi Intervention 1G. otbor: 5. monitoring Siodont Pfogress Obsowo?onmoto Cotioo?oo Compieto columns L3 when documenting services provided. ours I sumovom summon-a . .. q/ Mk?? Thoma . mei.? Sam-? ?wswe?J?iww 25f M?iaKU-wgm ma Wgwiof" mam I M.) y?x/ . . Jib/z 1/6312 1 Mg xq/7 Zia/S? c/ 4/ Student 83M1f2?14 - 1212112014 1231914. 2:53 PM AH 1st Graders um ibis week's behaviar: Mtnuies Wed 30 minutes pail-Duvet} (30} services from KE 30 11:05 Meagan-nick} Man 3f) minutes puli?Gutf?c {30} with K. Emhman - 30 Tim} McConnmicmsnutes mii-ouzfsc: (30) (Mammka 39 Thu '1 1m 3 minutes puilmuUSG (Mamick) Mon at} minutes puii-aub?SC {30} (SLP My? K. Eschman - 39 am 7 Macaw;ka Wed 30 minutes pun-out?t) ?30] K?'schman - 30 1 2H 9 Wk) This Minute Tatal is 9 Minutes Your yearfung weekly average is 66 minutes Your weekly avarage far this period is 60 Minutes Your yearlong total is 18!} Minutes Parent Signature: Page of 8 Hang; neat 1123.ch {students mharactei- reparts Student msg#35393 Acaagmies New Orleans Specie? Education Depadmenf Lcu'is Sireai haw One-row Lows ant: 3?05 ?2 . Special Education minuies Log En-Cinss Support {C?iuburu?un} Exiemui Suppnn {Consu?niion} Caiiubnration is dimes: sarvice ?amed 30 519631115 with mama Supper! is convermmn me 99,, ea dhu?ai??es me genera. educa?on classrcam ant} specie; educmnn teachers swam (3mm53mins; i #1 waem SERWCE mamas :0 BE PROVIDED .2 3 0 I 3 Special Education Suppo? Services Provided: E. ln?rua?uml 7. Accummuda?ons 2* Delivery 3. Mod?ica?unx 3. Ensiwdiunnt Support 9* Other: 4. Seha?oml interven?on other: 5. Manifesting Student frogress a. Obsewa?liunmata Coiledicm medians: Campieie culumns Eva when ducumm?ng services pravided. DATE EDJEACHER ADDHIGNAL camems at! a La: 3Q all 23?! 2 I: 3 01123? mo 1 F31 41w; H4 1 c5? ?x QIZSI (5 In! 3 :22) I 3 3min.th 2.. . mviagan of Special? Child Gaunt 5:39ch Educatian Happening Louisiana a! ?mca?m Aiphahe?cai Student Listing by Teacher Count Datanm? Of?cial System: 366 - ?SD-Lagniappe Academies of New Orteam Teacher: MCGLE NE. SSH: A . . Plac?. . - Swami $0 I Schmi I . Aga as at . 9:35am ?aw iEFi?Servma . . . Name Lesa; Slade Dale of 8;th i?mam? Exeepkcna?ly {Waiver Pm? Base. Gigi? Frame Grade . 19;) Giada Spm?c Learning $231291 1 W11 5m - Fifth {Disaml?les Hun Bate: 9:03:20 AM Baum Run Daze: 19mm: Page 2 0f 4 Division of Special #opofa?oos State M51: Child Guam Louisiana ?epartmeor of Special Education Kept:an Count as oi GEIU1IEG12 O?iciai Aiphahotiooi Student Listing by Teacher smear 366 RSIlkiagnanpe Academies of New Orleans Toaohor: MELLER, NECOLE W3. SEN: ?ora ?ow. Plan UT Other Loco! ID 35:31:30! mm? 0! Bith Exooytionality Al?ono. "'57 Grade Smoeoi Pro?le Grade - 5th - 5mm male if} Name Number .. Wh 5m. Fifth Spoorro Learning Disability Run Daze: 3512915 9:05:15 AM Count Hon ?ats: Page 2 of 4 Division of Special: Papufa?ons I 1; Lauisiana await-Imam of Specie! 5mm?an ?mr?ng 95A 0 Ed Gun Educa?an Aiphabatical Student Listing by Teacher Count Date: Wat/2012 Officiai School Sysiem: 366 - R$D?Lagniappe Academies New Orteans ?asher: NICOLE m. SSN: . 1' "51qu 1- w?m; if i 11 ?h 'smz Isa}; Jr; 13"? 3' . am: 4416535:- I in HM - f? 353591 13 3WD Warning Enema BEHMME ?rm $ew?h am - Earth mummies; 12 Specific. Learning W11 I31 7th - Seventh 61h - Spamm- Leammg swam {39:132012 91 am: - Semnti and Semnd Bism??ns 15 ?peci?c Laan?ng Bfi?fz?? Gamma; GE 72?} Seventh - Seventh Disabili?ea Run Date: marzm? 9:03:20 AM Count Run Date: 10101f2012 Page 2 of 2 Division a! 5mm: Pair:an state shim count Louisiana of Spaciaf Edum?an Reporting Education Count as of 0391:2813 {Missal Alphabeticai Student Liming by Teacher Senna! System: 366 HSD-Lagmappe Academies at New Orteans Teacher: MILLER, NJCOLE M. SSN: f" Hf'S'tw 0; Speci?c Lasmirwg ?isabl?ty 69': - aim. 6131 Sixth 8:39ch Learning Disability mama ?tn- Sixth I?m - Emma: Spedfm Learning Disabi?ty 09H M012 2nd - Second 2nd 356093 Sgacm'c Leammg Emmy Wigwam 29in - Ewanm rm - Save-Hm Run ?ats: 2:6:2015 9:05:16 AM Count Run Date: 92:31:2{313 Page 2 0? 2 Lifa?erxrf 5 ?351% Chad Gaunt ans na pa mane Educa?an Alphabeticai Simian: Listing by Count Bate: 10mm? Of?ciai School System: 366 - HS?iagniappe Academies of New (Means Teacher: NICOLE. M. SSN: -- Walt-23? 4 1?s? . . as}; a? . ism? 1am ?w ar-T? . . . e: . 'Em??d.ulm ir?x?fl". ?153" fgrm??Sgacliic teaming W11 EH 8th Eight: T'th Seventh {33 3mm Leammg atmw gamma 61 3rd - mm 3rd - Tim! :5 Specific Learning 3:19:29? 39:94:2013 0: am Esgmh 8th . Eighth 1 Run Date: 2:6!2915 9:08:46 AM Count Run Date: 19:01:2013 Page 2 a? 2 Division of Spa-aim Speciai Education Reporting State MFP Chiid Count Count as a: tom-112013 Atyhabetiuai Student Listing by Teacher Louisiana Depadmani of Emma Schooi Symm' 366 - RSEJ-Lagmappe Academies of New Orleans Masher: NEEDLE M. ?zz-1t: . Em.f F2331 SSN: . :3 1? #313} gig; W1 I: Speci?c Learning Diaabii?y 35mm Speci?c Leamng Disabl?l'f 3655:}: Speci?c: Laarning {imamin J. 0. ?i aamuema ?th Savanth Eli": Eigh?lh E1911 MERE Bid - Third 3K3 - Thi?'i 82h Eighth 32:: Run Date: Zi?iZ?! 5 9:05:13? AM Count Hun ?ats: Page 2 of 2 Division of Ma! Pa Ia?ans 1. 3mm Edwina? m?fr?ng Siam MFP maid Count outsm Hepar?nem of Education Cnunzas a! Oi?cial Alphabeticai Studmt Listing by ?washer Sci-moi Syatem: 366 RSD?Lagmappe Academia 01 New Orteans . i 9.37. 4'21?- Teacher: NECGLE mg; :tmk? a 1m <2 J. . magiSpeci?c Learning D?fsabi?iy awmaa Savanm 31h Eth mum 355331 Epecu?c Lemma Damian; {19:12:2913 3rd - Thmi 3rd . ??11m: Speci?c: Laan?ng Uksahi?zy 99:94:2913 ?th - Eighih 8th - Eighth Run Date: 258f2615 920525? AM Conn! Run 33am: {311632014 Page 2 of 3 Student Code of Conduct INTRODUCTION i3eor Porentis), Weicorne to the 20i4a~2ui5 schoot yeori Lognioppe Acodernies' Student Code of Conduct is designed to foster positive teorning environment ior oti students by outiining cieor poticies ond expeciotions ior oti members of the schoot community. in this hondbooic, you witi ?nd iniorrnotion regording the schooi?s expectotions for student pehovior, interventions used to support positive pehovior, ond consequences for students who engoge in inoppropriote pehovior. The Code of Conduct oppties to students? octions on the woy to end from schoot, while on the schooi's compus, whiie riding in schoot?sponsored vehictes, ond white ottending schooi?sp0nsored events. Pleose ioke the tirne to reod this document ond discuss ii with your child. Lognioppe Acodernies? schoot teodership is ovoitopte to onswer ony questions you rnoy hove obout the Student Code of Conduct or ony other ospect of your chiid?s educotion. Pteose coit {504} 355-0959 with ony questions or to orronge to meet with the schooi?s odrninistrotion or focutty. We took torword to greot schoot yeor with your chiid. Kendoti Petri Principot Mission of iognidppe Acodemies of New Orleans The mission of Lognioppe Acodemies is to promote academic exceilence, resiilence, ond seifnoworeriess in New Orleons* children. By porinering with tomilies, community orgonizotions, ond other institutions thot shore our core Lognioppe Acodemies will inspire students to ceieorote their cuiturot heritoge ond embroce new opportunities. Lognioppe Acodemies hos unique cuiture focused on high ocodemic ond personol ochievement. Drowing on reseorch from the tield of positive the school olso seeks to promote weilbeing, heolthy relotionships, ond good hooits tor school ond life. As smoli schooi with highly structured progrom run by very dedicoted teom oi coring educotors, Lognioppe Acodemies offers fomilies unique educotionoi setting ond ?something extro" for children. 3? Scope of the Student Code of Conduct {Boois of the Student Code of Conduct Creoie cleor ond consistent set of high expectottons for siudent behovtor Outtine interventions ond consequences used when students engoge In inopprooriote behovior Exptoln the rights ond responsibitittes of oil members of the schooi community Engoge siodenis ond oorents in soie, post?ve, ond supportive environment the Student Code of Conduct outlines ronge of opproprtote responses io Enoppropriote behoviors hosed on core set of beitefs: Poor ocodemic ochievement is not on oct of misconduct. Therefore, the Student Code of Conduct is not intended to dtsciptine students for poor ocodemtc ochievement. Porents'?egoi goordlons' refosol or to soppori chitd?s edocotion opproprioteiv shouid not be considered misconduct on the port of the chiid. Ail students con Eeorn ond ochieve ond should be held to high stondords. for students with disobilities shoil be with empothv ond in occordonce with federot ond stote low. The Student Code of Conduct oppites to octions of students during school, on the wov to ond from schoot, whiie on schoot property, whiie troveting in vehtcies sponsored by Logotoppe Acodemies of New Orteons ond during oli schooi- sponsored events. 03? 02* TABLE OF CONTENTS AHENDANCE POLICY ..4 TRANSPORTATION POLICY "6 HOMEWORK POLICY ..9 MATEREALS POLECY ?10 UNEFORM POLZCY TECHNOLOGY POLZCY ?15 DESCIPUNE POUCEES PROCEDURES ?i 7 SCHOOL CONTACT INFORMATJON .34 APPENDJCES .35 A. BEHAVIOR FORM A ..35 B. BEHAVZOR FORM .36 C. 2014?20i5 SCHOOL CALENDAR .37 03? ATTENDANCE POLICY the Schooi {Day iogaioppe Academies? expects oti students to be present from 1?:45 AM - 5:00 PM Monday Thursday and from "?45 AM 2:00 PM on Fridays. For safety reasons. the schoot?s front gates are tacked after buses unload. Students who arrive late {otter 3?:45 must be signed in by a parent in the Main Office. Piease ring the intercom beii and wait for assistance with sing?in. Office personnet with coitect the student?s homework totder and escort the chiid to ciass. Breakfast is served from 7:45 AM 8:3 0 AM. Students wishing to eat breakfast must be in the cafeteria by 8:00 AM. Students are expected to remain in schaot untii the end of the schoot doy. Medical and other appointments shoutd be scheduted outside of schooi hours. Departures that occur before wilt resutt in an absence for the schaat day. A student who misses schaat far a medicoi appointment thot couid not be scheduted outside at school hours is excused for three hours uniess the physician?s notice indicates that notice that the student was unable {for medicot reasons} to report to school before or after the appointment. Ait medicot excuses must be submitted to the Main Office within 72 hours of the student?s absence. Onty porentlguordian or other authorized odutt who is iisted on the student?s Eorty Reiease Farm may sign a student out betore the end of the schaat day. Students may not sign out during the East minutes of the schooi day. An early reieose counts as iitordy?l? in coicutoting school attendance. 3 tordles (and/?0; Instances at early releases) a absence. so soACHzEyemem The tows ot the Stote oi Louisiono require the? oti children between the oges or ond t8 ottend schooi eoch dov. Porents who vioiote this tow i722?) mov be ?ned up to $250 or imprisoned up to 30 dogs or both. it is the porent*s to promote regutor ottendonce. Regular and punctoot schooi ottendonce is criticot to success in the ctossroom. Good ottendonce hobits olso prepare students tor tuture success in the working wortd. the schoot veor. Shoutd student occrue three unexcused obsences. the porent wiit be contacted in writing by the Deon ot Students to scheduie mondotorv conterence with the school?s odministrotion ond socioi worker in on effort to problem soive. Upon the occurrence ot student?s tifth unexcused obsence, School Attendonce Review ieom Meeting wiit be scheduied ioliowed by on outomotic reterrol to the Orleons Portsh Juveniie Court vio the Fomitv in Need ot Services process. Porents con teorn more obout the FINS process by (504] 6583590 or by visiting prog?FlNSosp. Excused Absences The Louisiono Deportment of Educotion distinguishes between excused end unexcused obsences. Oniy the toitowing obsences wiit be excused: litness or iniury (requires physicion?s signed note] - Medicot oppointment? {requires physicion*s signed note) - Funerot Services tor member ot the immediote {porent chitd, sibting. grondporent} {requires tunerot service progrom or obituorv notice} a Court proceeding {requires documentotion from the Cierk ot Courts} - Reiigious hofidoy {requires notice to the schooi in odvonce ot the hotidov) Schooi concetletion {by government ogencv or the schooi?s odministrotion} Excused Terdles the touisiono Deportment oi Educoiion distinguishes between excused end unexcused toteness. Lote dr?voi is excused oniv when the student iote due to medicoi oppointment. court proceeding or tuneroi service. Students who use the schooi's bus tronsportotton services are NEVER considered tordy even it the bus orrives otter 7:45. 0:0 ?0 TRANSPORTATION POLICY Bus Service lagniappe Academies provides bus transportation tree of charge tor alt students who live more than one mile from the school. A parent who desires bus transportation tor the 2?ii 5 school year must camptete on Application tar lranspartatian and file it with the Main Oitice betore Seprember 15. 253 4. Routes wiil be set by the bus company. BCH. during the last week of August. and stop information will be available beginning August 28. 2014. lt an application is completed afier August 23. but betore September 15. the student wiil be assigned to the closest existing stap. Betare the Fall Terrn begins. bath the sludent and lhe parent must sign a copy at the Transportation Poiicy: Student and Parent Acknowledgement beiore transportation services wilt be provided. Students musl wear the school?s unitarrn to ride Lagniappe?s school buses. Young Riders Students in Kindergarten and the i5! and 2M grades must be met by an adult or the bus stop each evening. The parent must arrive at the bus stop it) minutes before scheduled arrival time. The bus driver Wlii. NOT WAIT for a late parent. lithe parent is not wailing ot the bus stop when the bus arrives at the stop. the driver will continue with rhe route and the student will need ra be picked up at the 80-! bus yard. located at 3847 Desire Parkway. New Orleans. LA l9. BCl?i Dispatch may be reached at (584} 352-??52. A child who is not picked up iram the bus yord when the driver completes his route will be taken to the Fifth bistrict Police Station. tacated at 4035 Burgundy Sireet. New Orleans. LA 7011?. lt rite parent tails to meet the bus on a second occasion. the child wilt lase bus privileges tor 30 days. On the 3rd occurrence. ihe student wiil lose transportation privileges for the remainder at the school year. Safety The satety at our students is the schooi?s urmast priority. All students must comply with the Sludent Code at Conduct white iroveiing to and tram school an a Lagnioppe schooi bus or while traveling with the schan to a school-sponsored activity. children are expecred to follow the school's safety rutes at all limes when riding the bus. these ruies are outlined in the Transparraiian Poticy: Student and Parent Acknowledgement. a copy at which is included at the end at this section. To promote safety. Lagnioppe Academies' buses are equipped with vldea surveiliarrce. and the Dean at Studenrs regularly reviews taatoge. Ali disciplinary issues will be 0 6.. 03? ?t oddressed bv the Deon ond the schooi's odrrtinistrotion ofter video tooioge ond the Bus infroction Form hove been reviewed ond Consequences tor Mlsbehovior on iite Bus ti siudent misbehoves on the schooi bus, the bus driver wiil complete Bus Infraction Form ond give copy to the Deon of Students. The Deon of Students wiil contoct the porent ond. it conference is necessorv, scheduie telephone or in~?person conference with the porent. Foliure to otiend parent conference will result In loss at tronsporiotlon privileges. The iotlowing consequences typicoiiv oppty to behovior probiems in the bus. However, in ihe cose of serious infroction thot jeopordizes the sotety ot the student, other students or the driver, the school reserves the right to revoke tronsportotion priviieges tor the remoinder of the schooi veor. 15' infraction: Monootory Porent Conference 2mi loiroction: 3 schooi doys? suspension (morning ond evening route} :5rut Introctlon: doy?s suspension (morning ond evening route} 30 dov?s suspension (morning ond evening route] ond ossignment to "One Shot? Poss 5'ii Introc?on: LOSS OF FOR THE REMAINDER OF YEAR School Atlendonce boring i'erloct of Suspension Git the Bus it is ihe poreni's responsibiliiy io ironspori ihe student to schooi during onv period of suspension off the bus. Suspension off of the bus no? excuse school ohendonce. An obsence from school due io suspension off the bus is considered on essence in coicuioting the studeni?s otiendonce record. 03? ?r Transportation Paiicy: Student and Parent Acknawiedgement mess AS A STHDENT ACADEMIES. AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES WHEN RIDJNG THE SCHOOL 385 ANDIOR FROM SCHOOL. 1 undersiond that tolluse to comply with these rules will result in toss of privileges to slde. I wiil remoin in my ossigned seot ot oil times. wiil speok softly whiie on the bus. iwiti use oppropriote Eonguoge white on the bus. iwiiE keep my honds ond feet to myseii. wilt not eot. drink. or chew gum while riding the bus. iwili keep my heod ood orms inside the bus. 3 wili not throw objects oi ony kind on the schooi bus or out the windows. I respect tetiow bus riders. If i witness ony type of buliying. iwiil report it to on oduEt os soon or. bossibie. EMT AS A EARENT AGREE IO COMPLY WITH THE I understood that my own or my toiiure to comply with the rules llsted below resoit in a loss at priviieges to ride. ensure my chiid orrives to hisr'her stop on time for pickup in the morning. iwili orrive ot the stop 10 minutes before scheduied drop of? to pick up my child. iwili instruct my chiid to behove properiy while riding the bus. iwili be courteous ond use oppropriote ionguoge when interocting with the bus driver or school odministrotion regording bus service. iwiil iniorm the schooi immedioteiy oi ony chonge in my bhysicoi oddress or phone number. HOMEWORK POLICY Homework Policy: Student and Parent Acknowledgement Lagniappe Academies beiieves that Hamewark is cn?ticai to student success and mastery at concepts. The Lagniappe Academies Homework Faider system heEps students, parents, and schaai personnet wart: together to suppat?t students as they wart: ta became the best student they can be. Homework Faiders hetp students to achieve at high ieveis academicaiiy. deveiap great arganizatianal keep track at needed papers and take pride in their wark. Parents are expected to suppart students in campleting nightiy assignments and in retuming the i-lamevvark Fatder ta the schaai. Students must turn In their Homework Folders every mornteg when they get off the bus, before breakfast. Students wiil drap Hamewark Folders in their advisary graup?s bin when they enter the MFR. ?atders dropped in the bin after 1":50 AM are cansidered ?iate.? Advisers wili evaiuate Homewark using the failawing standards: - Comptetton {alt assignments must be campieted, with name and date in the upper right-hand carner} - Neotness {oli assignments must be recarded neatly in the i-lamewark Log, and work must be neothna scribbied. crumpled ar stained papers} {the faider and aft assignments were submitted by 7:50 i?orent signature (the parentlguardian signed the daiiy lag} if a student targets ar iases his/her fatder Ct!" doesn?t campiete an assignment. the parent be and the student wiEi need ta campiete the wark outside at ciass time {during recess, lunch or the enrichment black}. Last ar damaged taiders must be repiaced. An invoice for $3.09 will be sent hame, and the tee must be paid within ane week. this ensures that the schan can pravide a streamttned. unifarm system that suppan?s ail learners. Hamework scores factor into course grades in oil academic subjects. Students wha do nat campiete hamewark may therefore faii academic caurses. incampiete hamewark on two as more accasians during the some smday pertad result in the toss at Fn?day i=un and other priviteges. Lagniappe Academies recagnizes that certain students lack adequate hame support with hamewark campietian. Ta suppart these students and ensure that they progress academicaiiy, students with poar homework campEetian records ar wha appear ta be struggiing academicaliy wilt be assigned ta 46:00 PM Academic intervention (Homework Ciub}. SCHOOL-ISSUED MATERIALS POLICY Laghiappe Academ'es proy'des a mater'a and suppl'es to students for free. Parents do not need to purchase any new supplies for the first day of school. So shat we may continue to provide mater?als free of cost. students are heid accountable for supplies. The school encourages parents to talk with students about taking good care of all schoo. tools. The school wil rep?ace consumabe items {such as penotls or give) as necessary. if students lose or destroy non-oonsumaio'e supplies fsuppiies that are expected to last a year}. parents wili heed to replace 1lr'resefsems through oar School Store. Students may also be assigned certain textbooks. if students lose or damage these books. parehis wr'll toe charged the fol: repTacement cost the school apprecia?es promo? payment when school property lost or damaged. Students are considered Ine?gibie for ?eld trips and other prTyileges until payment Ts received. '30 ID UNIFORM POLICY Ali students must come to schooi in the Lognioppe Acodemies uniform every doy. School uniforms reinforce students' shored identity ond sense of purpose os students of iognioppe Acodemies. Uniforms de-emphosize individuoi differences ie.g., economic meons, neighborhood oftiliotion, notionoi bockground}. oliow students the opportunity to be occepted os the individuois they ore, ond encouroge schooi?wide focus on good conduct ond ieoming. Porentsr'guordions ore expected to monitor student dress to ensure compiionce with the uniform poiicy ond to moke sure the uniforms ore neot ond cieon. We oiso encouroge fomilies to guide their children in exercising good judgment in their choice of oppropriote Coloring or tempororily dyeing hoir in unnoiuroi coiors distrocts from the ieoming environment. Parents of students whose dross does not compty with the school's {tress Code wili be colted to bring in proper clothing. ?he Edi? - Spring Uniform for BOYS consists of the foilowing: i. SHOES: Soiid biock oxford-style shoes with biock shoestrings. 2. SOCKS: Solid white or now biue socks. No designer, potterned, or logo {Nike NBA or Foio} socks. 3. PANTS: The schools now blue uniform ponts. Ponis must fit properly oround the woist. The ponts should mointoin their new biue color ond hove belt loops. 4. SHORT PANTS: The schooi?s knee-iength now blue uniform shorts moy be wom from September 3 October 31 20i 4, ond from Morch to June 4, 21335 oniy. Uniform shorts must fit property oround the woist. 5. BELT: A solid bioct< or brown beit {no designer, potterns or iogo) is required. 6. Sl-iiRT: iong?sieeved or short-sleeved officioi iognioppe Acodemies goid poio shirt with iogo. Shirts must be tucked in before entering the gote in the moming ond must remoin tucked in throughout the doy, including during PE. ond Enrichment octivities. A solid gm coiloriess undershirt {no Under-Armour or Dndit) moy be wom under the shorh sleeved uniform shirt. On cold weother doys. students shouid weor iong?sleeved schooi uniform shiri. A soiid white coliortess long-steeve shirt moy be worn under the iong-sieeved uniforrn shirt {no Under-Armour or Uri-fit). Oniy soiid white undershirts moy be worn ond these must be tucked in olong with the school shirt. 7. Oniy schooi uniform outerweor {now iogo V-neck sweeter or now logo Veneck fieece} moy be worn inside during closses. The sweoterrcordigon must tit ?r it property. auterwear may be warn ta ar from schaai. but may nat be warn inche. 8. JEWELRY: Bays are nat aliawed ta wear jewelry. with the exception at a plain watch and REACH wristbands. Na chains. nectriaces. earrings or hats are permitted. 9. HAIR: Bays? hair must be ciean. dry. and neat in appearance. Lagniappe Academies strictty prahibits distracting hairstyies (dyes. catars. excessive designs ar accessaries}. i?tease address questions regarding permissible styies ta the sehaai?s administratian. "the Fat! - Spring Uniform for cansists at the fatiawing: LSHOES: Girls' saddie-vaxfard shaes {btack and white}. 2. SOCKS: Satid white ar navy btue sacks. Na designer. patterned. ar iaga (Nike. NBA ar Pata} sacks. 3. Lands? End kneemtength piaid iumper. available aniy at LANO ar at iandsend.r:am. 4. arouse: Satid white with painted cattar. tang ar shart sieeves. On caid weather days. students shauid wear a tang?sieeved schaai unitarm shirt. Any shirt ar undergarinent warn under the uniform shirt must be satid white. 5. Caid weather ONLY mNavember 1. 20M ia March is only. Giris may wear salid white at navy biae stackings. tights. ar farm-fitting ieggings ONLY. {Na sweatpants. designer. patterned ar iaga stackings ar tang SOCKS.) 6. Only schaal unifarm auterwear {navy taga V~?neek sweater ar navy taga V-neek tieece) may be warn inside during classes. The sweaterfcardigan must fit praperiy. Nan-unifarrn auterwear may be warn ta ar tram schaalctass. Earrings cannat be dangting ar iarger than the earlabe. The earrings MUST be studs - na heaps; this is far the safety at the student. NO EXCEPTIONS. Oniy ane pair at earrings may be warn at a time. Only ane watch [piainj may be warn atang with REACH wristbands. 3. POLISH: Absaiuteiy na make-up ar catared tingernaii paiish ailawed. ONLY clear nail paiish is ailawed. Naiis must be naturat arid unitarm in tength. Na acrylic naiis. piain ar calared. 9. HAIR: Hair must be clean. dry. and neat in appearance. t-tair dye. hightights ar catering must be naturat in caiar. Hair extensians must be na Ianger than shautder iength and must nat be naticeabie er a ditterent eatar than naturai hair. Other than '39 pfain panytaii eiastias. nu more than four accessaries fie. ribbans. serunchies. barrettes. hair baits. etc.) are aliewed. Beads are net allawed. Any bows. headbands. at ribbans shauld aarnpfernent the unitarm ar be a salid Lagntappe Academies uniform eater. Na hair ?making a statement" or distracting iterns. calars or scarves will be permitted. Diseipiine Procedures far Carrecting inappropriate Attire Verna! Warning: Mast inapprapriate attire issues are easily and quickly carreeted by immediate verbai warning by a staff rnember. When the issue is nai immediatetv carrected. we take the faliawing actians: incident: The student wiil receive a Parent Natice ai Dress Cade Viaiatian ta be signed by the parent and returned the iatlawing day. 2"ii The student wilt receive a Parent Natice af {Bress Cade Viaiatian ta be signed by the parent and returned the faliawing day. The paren?s?guardianis} be cailed far a conference. and the schaal's saciai warker may be advised. 3e Incident: The parentisilguardianis) wili be calied far a mandatarv canierehce with the Student Suapart Team and the student Jase priviieges. Schaat persannei wili determine if the schaai's saciai warker is needed to assist the chiid in abiaining a uniform andfar address related needs. it appraariate. administratar may refer ta Levei i infractian {i 0:9 13 Parent Notice of Dress Code Violation Date: Dear Parent/Guardian at ?r?aur child arrived at schan taday aut of ehtfarrn. in viotation at the Schoai Dress Code as set farrh in the 203 4 20} 5 Student Cade of Conduct the student was: {it nor dressed in schaot unitarm garments ar shaes missing or wearing an Inappropriate beit wearing inapprapriote sacks or tights wearing inoperapriote ar excessive hair accessories ?31335 Other: We ask that you earrect the prabiern. Your chitd?s comptianoe wtii prevent disctpiinory actian and/ar reterrat ta the Of?ce at Social?erviCes. Piease sign betavv ta acknowredge your receipt of this notice and return it tamarraw in yaur child?s Harnewark Faider. Shauld yau have any questiahs, piease cantaot the Dean at Students at {504} 3556956. Thank you. Rodney Brown Dean of Students theve received the abeve Perent Notice of Dress Code Visitation. Parent/Guardian Signature Date TECHNOLOGY POLICY 9:0 0.0 14 Lagniappe Academies is facused an creating an environment of learning tar students. As a schaaE. we are fuliy cammitted io ailering the advantages af technaiagy in the ciassraam. but recagnize the need far emphasis on its praper and ethicai usage. Because aur iechnoEogy chaices affect everyane. and because the use of technatagy is a privilege nat a right the eXpectatian is that students wiEl obide by and support this poEicy both in and aufr af schaai. Parents and students agree to the toticwingtechn res res wilE keep aEl personal Eaginfpassward iniormatian ta myself. iwiEE not share this iniormatian with athers. lwiEl use LANG technaEagy oniy for assigned and intended schaal purpases. if am unsure ar need i wiEE ask tar teacher apprayal. wiil use my schaaE emaiE accaunt sateEy ior assignments and apprapriate cammunicatian. understand that i have na right ar espectation ai privacy in these eiectranic cammunications. . wili dawnlaad anly under teacher directian. i wiIE immediateEy iniarrn my teacher ii there are any cancerns regarding software ar hardware. lwiEl act sateiy by keeping olE persanaE iniorrnatian atf oi the lntemet. understand that this includes any intarrnation that cauEd heEp sarneane Eacate ar cantact me in persan (my fomiEy name. emaiE address. hame address. identifying photosfvideas. etc.) wilE nat damage LANG hardwareisoitware. deEete ar madity schaoE tiles ar thase belanging ta ather students. use unautharized technalagies {ceEi phanes. music paners. USB drives. eth. ar attempt ta bypass any schooE filters. 2. Be respectigl gf athers a. iwiEl nat pariicipate in cyber?buEiying by spreading gossip. ?mess?. insuEts. or b. C. d. ony unkindness. wiEl nat access ony sacial mediaz?websitefblag with the purpose ai creating. viewing. or pariicipating in the humiEiatian ai athers. wilE nat make. access. at forward any materiaE that is abscene. pratane. vialent. discriminatory, ondrar depicts/describes any iElegal octiyities. wilE nat trespass in anather?s iaEders ar wart: tiEes, ar steaE someane's possward andfar identity. I wiEi treat all shared digitaE spaces as wouEd a classraam spoce. and wiEl use apprapriate and respectfui ianguage. 3. F'Ubiish gthicaEEy a. wiEl nat plagiarize by representing the wari< ai others as my awn. b. C. i wilE nat manipqute technalagy ta cheot cutfpaste ather?s writing}. i wilE abey ali capyrighi ond saitware Eicensing ans. '3 03? Technology ?olicy: Sivden? and ?arenf Acknowledgement My; have read. understand, and wt?! adhere ta Lagniappe Academies? Technatagy paticy, ireatize that yiataiians may resuit in my iass af access ra rechnaiagies, ar arher disciplinary aciians, and that there may be tegai cansequences beyand canirat. term i have read this techna?agy palicy and have discussed i? with my chitd. My signature represents pennissian far my student ta use the schaat?s netwarklhardware. and fa access the lntemer white an schaai graunds. i reatize rha?r am financiain respansibie far recrifying any and ait damages that may be caused by my student. 03* 02* 6.9 DISCIPLINE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Logoioppe Acodernies is dedicoted to providing schooi cuiture thot is soie. inviting. ond positive. ihrough the use of our REACH. voloes ond the school?s gools ond mission. we feel thot our students wili be successful ot onv Ievei. {Disciplinorv Procedures Lognicppe teachers use the following piece-dares: Non-verboi cues Verpol woinings iirne Out in the clossroom Student conference "time Gui or Coot Down in different ciossroom Recess Detention Office Referral and Student Re?ection Form Potent Conference Student Support Teom iognioppe Academic-3* Student Support team (SST) outiines systems and procedures. and processes to implement positive educational practices that support student success. This team meets periodically to address issues and concerns. Any porent wishing to meet with the Siudent Support Teom should conioct the school?s main office. Positive Behovior Trocking Lognioppe?s volues support the schoot?s Positive Behovior intervention System Students ore recognizecE tor demonstrating these volues ond receive or vorietv of rewards through the REACH. piogrom. 0.. 03? the Beach - Respect 0 Self-reSpect: take pride in how present mysett. sit up straight. wear my uniform correctiy. tuck my shirt in. put] my pants up. and keep my shoes tied. Respect tor others: treat my teachers with total respect ond never talk bock. treat my ctassmates as wish to be treated. don?t rotl my eyes or suck my teeth. never tease. laugh at or put down others. Respect tor ieorning: raise my hond to speak dozing class. contribute my thoughts and ideas. don't distract others. Respect to: things: i take care of out schooE. keep my desk organized and my Space clean. took otter books, papers. furniture and equipment. - Enthusiasm C) 0 {3 0 Jump to it: I tottow ott directions the ft_rs_t: time. Be focused: I commit two eyes. two ears. and one big brain to teaming. Decide to be greet: I give my best on everything do. betieve can do weEt if work horci at my tasks and goats. i?ind soiuttons: took for and ?nd sotutions to probtems. try out different woys to ?nd out what works. - Achievement 0 Be goo? driven: remember my goats and do everything can to achieve them. ostr for help it need it. Get smorl: i am constantty mastering new standards. My grades and test scores show dramatic gains. Moke It top quolity: never rush through my work. i take time to make sure my class work and homework ate always compiete and neat. Recognize success: celebrate and feet proud when ochieve my gan. I Community 0 0 - Hard 0.0 Toke responsibility: telt the truth. recognize when am wrong. consider the impact of my behavior on others. apologize to the people iet down. Be team member: am nice to others. give support where tt is needed. shore. make sure my teammates are never left out. forgive others when they apoEogize to me. Be good citizen: take my part in making my school a safe. clean and wetcoming ptace. 2 pick up trash any time see it. Cetebsote others: celebrate the achievements of others and our school. Work Be there: come to school every day. Be ready: come to ctass with at] the necessary materiats and my homework compteted. Keep at try as hard as 1 con. never give up even when things are stay positive and calm even when things are tough or don't go the woy want them to. Monoge yourself: can be trusted to work by mysett. I get my work done without remtnders. do the right even when no one is looking. o: Louisiana {aw on Buiiying De?nition of autlying Builying is a pattern at any ane or more of the toltowing: gestures. including but not timited to. obscene gestures and making toces; written. eiectronic. or verbot cammuniCatians. including but not iimited ta caliing names. threatening harrn. taunting. moticious teasing. or spreading untrue rumors: - etectranic communication, inciuding but not iimited to. a cammunicatian or image transmitted by emaii. instant message. text message. biog. or saciai networking website through the use at teiephane. mobile phone. pager. computer. or other electronic device; a: physical acts. including but not limited to hitting. kicking. pushing. tripping. choking. damaging persona: property. or unauthorized use at personoi property: repeatediy and purposetutty shunning ar excluding from activities: and where the pattern of behavior as provided above is exhibited toward a student. mare than ance. by another student or group of students and accurs. or is received by. a student white on schaai praperty. at school-spansored or schaat-retated functian or activity. in any school bus or van. at any designated schooi bus stop. in any other school or private vehicte used to transport students to and from schoais. or any schoaispansored activity or event. This behaviar can physicaliy harm a student. ptace a student in reasonobte fear of physical harm. damage a student?s property. pioce a student in reosanabie fear of damage to their praperty. or be suf?ciently severe. persistent. and pervasive enough ta either create an intimidating or threatening educationot environment. interfere with a student's in schoat. or have the effect of substantioily disrupting the arderiy operation of the so hoot. Builying hurts not anty the victim. but also bystanders. Children who witness butiying are more likely ta sicip or miss schooi. have increased mental heatth probtems. and ta have increased use at tobacco. aicohai. or other drugs. Reporting an Act of nutlying Procedure for students and l. Report buitying incidents to the Dean of Students or Principoi. 2. The Dean at Students ar Principal wiit then camplete the LDE Bultying Repart Form. 3. ?the Schoon wiit investigate the compioint and complete a written report. 02? 0.. A victim ot buliying. onyone who witnessed on oct ot buliying. or onyone who hos credibie iniormotion thot on oct ot buliying hos ioi