TEXAS AGENCY lT til Nuithtunuim he at Austin Tcuixi?h?. H?Li?kfill i~4h3 34*l. FlZi-hii- 083 Siliupz' Robe rt Scott Commissioner INFORMATION February 26, 2008 240-901 2006-2007 Mrs. Veronica Guerra, Superintendent Laredo Independent School District 1702 Houston Street Laredo, Texas 78040 Dear Mrs. Guerra: The Laredo Independent School District (ISD) was selected for participation in the 2006?2007 Special education monitoring process at a Stage 4 level of intervention and was noti?ed that the Texas Education Agency (TEA) would conduct an on-site visit to the Laredo during the week of March 26-29, 2007. The purpose of the on-site visit from the Division of Program Monitoring and Interventions was to examine the origins of the local education agency?s continuing low performance and program effectiveness concerns. The special education on?site review was conducted in accordance with the procedures posted on the TEA website at Prior to the visit, TEA staff reviewed relevant data, including documents submitted by your LEA in completion of Stage 3 Intervention requirements for the 2005-2006 year. This included Focused Data Analysis (FDA) and Program Effectiveness Review templates, LEA Core Team Participant Template, LEA Public Meeting templates, Compliance Review templates, and a Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP). During the visit, agency staff evaluated program effectiveness and reviewed the data development and analysis processes and its development and implementation of the CIP. The on-site visit included focus group discussions and individual interviews with district personnel, classroom observations, document reviews, and student data reviews. Preliminary ?ndings from the on-site visit are enclosed in a document labeled Preliminary Orr?Sire Findings that includes areas for improvement, speci?c issues/trends identi?ed, sources of data that were reviewed, and LEA required actions. We request that the Laredo review the preliminary ?ndings and required actions contained in this letter and the enclosed report. The district has 10 business days in which to respond to the agency team?s ?ndings and required actions before the Preliminaij: On-Sire Findings becomes ?nal. A Receipt ofRepori form is enclosed for you to indicate your agreement or disagreement with the ?ndings and required actions. Please note the deadline indicated at the bottom ofthe form for return to the agency. As a result of ?ndings of the on-site visit, the LEA is required to conduct additional data-gathering and analysis activities. These additional activities are described in the LEA Required Actions section of the Preliminary Orr-Site Findings. Additionally, the LEA is required to seek outside support and technical assistance from an organization or entity of the choosing. It is expected that the technical assistance provider will support the LEA in a thorough review ofthe issues and ?ndings contained within this report and will support the LEA in cOrrecting issues of noncompliance. Mrs. Veronica Guerra, Superintendent Laredo ISD Page 2 The LEA, with the required participants, will revise the CIP to re?ect an integration of the analysis ofissues that were identified as a result ofthe on-site visit and the LEA required actions. The LEA will submit the required documents to the agency by March 31, 2008. During a review of documents, the TEA team identi?ed three areas of noncompliance that continue from the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 monitoring years. The three speci?c areas are: - Free Appropriate Public Education; I Full Individual and Initial Evaluation and 0 Intensive Program of Instruction. To ensure immediate correction of this ongoing area of nonCOmpliance, the Laredo will be subject to additional oversight and sanctions under 19 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) {5891076, Interventions and Sanctions. The LEA must take immediate steps to rectify the instances of continuing noncompliance as referenced above. As an initial step, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) will engage in escalated verification activities to ensure that compliance is documented. However, the TEA reserves the right to utilize any of the interventions and sanctions noted in federal law or 19 TAC ?89.1076 in order to obtain compliance with program requirements. Please note that all plans and activities related to correction of noncompliance identified in the report must be included in the CIP. Corrective actions for the noncompliance identified as a result of the on-site visit must be completed no later than one year a?er receipt of ?ndings. The areas of continuing noncompliance must be corrected immediately. Subsequent to submission and approval of the revised CIP, the TEA will monitor the implementation of all improvement plan activities and will continue to follow up with the LEA on an ongoing basis to review data and evidence of change and to verify implementation of the revised CIP, Additionally, the LEA will be required to provide written andlor oral updates to the TEA contact once a month regarding implementation activities undertaken. Decisions about future intervention requirements will be dependent upon LEA implementation of current intervention requirements, including implementation of the CIP, and student performance on state measures. If you have additional questions regarding the preliminary ?ndings or other attachments, please contact Jeanette Potts in this division at (512) 463?94 14. Sincerely, AWW Laura Taylor, Deputy Associate Commissioner for Program Monitoring and Interventions Enclosures cc: Jack Damron, Executive Director, Region I Education Service Center Kelly Solis, Special Education Contact, Region I Education Service Center Lisa Conner, Performance?Based Monitoring Contact, Region 1 Education Service Center Tracy Cartas, Special Education Director, Laredo ISD TEA Team: Jeanette Potts, Elyse Tarlton, Keith Sullivan, Texas Education Agency On-Site Monitoring Visit March 26?29, 2007 Susan Marek, Judy Struve Phone: (512)463-9414 Fax: (512) 463-9560 Email: jeanette.potts@tea.state.tx.us Email: Email: keith.sullivan@tea.state.tx.us Email: susan.marek@tea.state.tx.us Email: judy.struve@tea.state.bi.us Special Education Monitoring Unit Division of Program Monitoring Interventions Texas Education Agency 1701 North Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701?1494 Superintendent: Veronica Guerra, Interim Superintendent Email: vfguerra@laredoisd.org Phone: (956) 795-3409 District: Laredo ISD Address: 1702 Houston Street, Laredo, Texas 78040 LEA Contact: Tracy Cartas, Special Education Director Email: tcartas@laredoisd.org Phone: (956) 795-3420 Fax: (956) 795?3423 Region I ESC Contact: Kelly Solis Phone: (956)984-6180 Email: ksolis@esconett.org Monday Tuesday Wednes?ly Thursday March 26, 2007 March 27, 2007 March 28, 2007 March 29, 2007 1:00 1:15 PM: District Entry 1:30 2:30 PM: Administrator Focus Group 2:30 .. 3 :3 0 PM: Interview- Special Education Director 4:00 - 5:00 PM: Core Team Focus Group 6:00 7:00 PM: Parent Focus Group 8:30 - 9:30 AM: Assessment Personnel and Related Service Providers (SI, 07: PT, LSSP) Focus Group 9:45 10:45 AM: Bilingual eachers, ESL Teachers, LPAC Parent Representatives Focus Group 11:00 11:45 AM: Campus Visit 1313 by TEA sta?' 11:45 12:45 PM: Lunch 1:00 2:00 PM: Campus Visit TBD by TEA stafjr 2:30 3:30 PM: Campus Visit TBD by TEA sta?~ 4:00 5:00 PM: Special Education Teacher Focus Group 8:30 11:30 AM: Student Case Studies 8:30 9:30 AM: Campus Visit TBD by TEA .S't?a?r 11 :30 AM 12:30 PM: Lunch 9:30 10:30 AM: Data Clarification/ Verification with Special Education 12:30 3:30 PM: Student Case Director and Others, As Appropriate Studies 11:00 AM: District Exit 4:00 - 5 :00 PM: General Education Teacher Focus Group Laredo ISD indicator System curriculum alignment in i I 2006-2007 Texas Education Agency Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions Preliminary On-Site Findings 1 Areas for Speci?c Issueszrends Identi?ed Sources of Data LEA Required Actions I improvement Reviewed i State-Mandated State Assessment Decision Making . Academic Excellence Review the current i 1 Assessment Texas Assessment ofKnowledge and Skills (TAKS) Only Participation Rates for students with disabilities have been lower than the state rate for a four-year period, as re?ected in the following table: i LEA Sped State Sped i Data Source TAKS Participation TAKS Participation Rate Standard/Rate Ronni?2.005 PBMAS Report i a rate Standards not set in Special Education TAKS Passing Rates for math. reading. science. i Re ort i Report Oniy years 2006 PBMAS 7 i Report 1-4/0 20.0% i 2007 PBMAS i i Report 9.6% 20.0% 5 and social studies were lower than the state rate for four years as indicated in the following table: Page 1 of21 (AEIS) Report 2004? 2005 . AEIS Report 2005- 2006 in 2004-2005 Performance-Based Monitoring Analysis System (PBMAS) Report 0 2005 PBMAS Report a 2006 PBMAS Report . 2007 PBMAS Report - Student case studies 0 Focus group discussions: core analysis team. parents. general education teachers. special education teachers. administrator. Bilingual Education/ English as a Second Language focus group, ail core content areas. both vertically and horizontally and across all campuses. Develop a plan of action to revise curriculum alignment with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) and to eliminate gaps in curriculum between grade levels. Develop a timeline not to exceed two school years for completion of curriculum alignment. Document alignment activities. Evaluate the effectiveness classroom instructional practices through campus administration i i i Laredo ISD 2006?2007 Texas Education Agency Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions I 5 LEA Sp State Sped 355essment personnel. and teacher input. a ource AKS Passing Rate AKS Passing Rate and related set-Vice Compare current prov1dcrs practices with 1 .. 00/ . 3 10040005 Math 30 9/0 fl Math 35 0 0 Staff interviews reseamh'babed Reading 327% Reading 500% practice models Report Science 15.9% Science 250% including a Response to Social Studies 33.8% Social Studies 50.0% Intervention Math 7t 8% Math 35 0% model. Develop an action plan to ensure 2005 PBMAS Reading 29.7% Reading 50.0% implementation (it"best RCPOFI Science Science 25.0%) practices? and Rt] Social Studies 28.1% Social Studies 50.0% I districtwide. 2006 PBMAS Math 32.9% i 1 Reading 39.4% i Math 40.0% Reading 60.0% Develop a system to track student . .. Report Science 186% Science 350% performance through Social Studies 274% SOClal Studies 600% various methods and i Math 395% Math 450% grain personnel in data 1? 2007 PBMAS Reading 523% Reading 65.0% lsaggregation. Report Science 26.5% Science 40.0% Develop and implement SDCial StUdies 543% SOCial StUdieS 6500/04 written expectations and operating guidelines for monitoring student performance. Document ongoing monitoring efforts. State Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAAVSDAA Only Participation Rates have been higher than the state rates over a four-year period. as re?ected in the following table: Develop a program of staff development that addresses ?ndings in the report. as- Page 2 of2?l Laredo 2006?2007 Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions Texas Education Agency Data Source LEA SDAAISDAA it Only Participation State SDAAISDAA 7? Only Participation i Rate Standard? Rate a -7 - l! "004 48.4% 33.0% i - 50.6% state rate 7 -005Ri?illilAS 69.4% (Report Only) Standards not set in 1 Report Only years i 1 ?0035;?? 73.0% 56.0% 7 . i magpa?ms i 75.9% 56.0% Additionally. the number of students in Grades 3-8 participating in SDAA and-?or SDAA II on grade level or one grade level below in both reading and math was signi?cantly below the state standard over a three?year period. However. the 2007 PBMAS report indicates a significant increase in students beingtested on grade level or one tirade level below, as reflected in the following table: Data Source LEA Percentage of Students Testing on Grade Level or One State Standard for Students Testing on Grade Level or One Grade Level Below Grade Level Below ?ag/131225 Math 24.5% Math 48.1% a 0/ 0 Report Reading 17.6.0 Reading 43.1 /o 2005 PBMAS Math 23.3% Math 48.1% Report Reading 25.5% Reading 43.1% 2006 PBMAS Math 24.3% Readig 21.0% Math 48.1% Reading 43.1% Report i 2007' PBMAS Report I Math 54.4%) Reading 47.7% Math 48.1% Reading 43.1% Page 3 of21 Laredo 2006?2007 Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions Texas Education Agency Year-After-Exit Special Education TAKS Passing rates for 2005 and 2006 indicate a lower passing percentage than the state passing percentage. However, the 2007 PBMAS report re?ects a - signi?cant increase in passing rates, as indicated in the following table: Data Source LEA Year After Exit, State Year After Exit, Sped Passing Rate Passing Rate ReadiniJr 49.0% Reading 50.0% 200 . . EepirAg Sc1encc 21.2% Selence 25.0% 9 Social Studies 59.3% Social Studies 50.0% . ReadinU 51.4% Reading 60.0% 200 a . Selence 26.9% Selence 35.0% Social Studies 500% Social Studies 60.0% . Readinn 73.1% ReadinCl 65.0% . . ?3 . U7 PBMAS Selence 30.0% Selence 40.0% Report Social Studies 9i 7% Social Studies 65.0% State Assessment Exemption Rate for TAKS and/or II for students with disabilities was significantly higher than the state rate as indicated in the following AEIS table: Data Source LEA ARE) Exemption State ARD Rate Exemption Rate 2004-2005 AEIS 1' Repert 9.8 /e 2.10/0 2005-2006 AEIS 0 Report 5.6/0 0.7% Page 4 of21 I Laredo 3006?2007 Texas Education Agency Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions These data indicate that instruction/curriculum may not be aligned with assessment(s), some students may be participating in an inapprOpriate assessment, or the admission. review, and dismissal . (ARD) expectation for the 11 may be inappropriate. Discussions with administrators and staff indicated that, during the 2006-2007 school year, the LEA implemented the District Data Analyzer system. Assessment data from three previous school years were reviewed and analyzed by administrators and staff from each campus to determine signi?cant factors impacting state assessment decisions for students with disabilities. The agency team learned that, although LEA assessment data are more readily available, state assessment decision making appeared to be in?uenced more by administrative philosophy than by ARD committee decision making. For instance, interviews with special education staff indicated that the former LEA philosophy was to have all students with disabilities take the Although staff indicated that this philosophy has changed. most students with disabilities still took the SDAA II for 2006-2007, as re?ected in the 2007 PBMAS report. Additionally, the administrators indicated that they had received technical assistance from ?someone at the who suggested that all students with disabilities test at grade level on achievement level I in order to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Subsequently, the fact that students did not meet ARD expectations, coupled with the former impacted SDAA II participation rates and TAKS passing rates. Discussions with the BE-ESL focus group indicated that limited English pro?cient (LEP) students served in the special education program are encouraged to take the TAKS whenever possible. Page 5 on1 Laredo ISO 2006?2007 Texas Education Agency Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions However. focus group members expressed concern that a Spanish version ofthe SDAA 11 was not available. Interviews revealed that performance for LEP students with disabilities was being evaluated by the LEA. BE-ESL focus group members indicated that they primarily rely on the Region I Education Service Center (ESC) for data analysis. Discussions with administrators revealed that benchmark testing was conducted every six weeks at each campus. Additionally, curriculum- based assessments were conducted every two weeks to monitor . student success. Discussions with the core team indicated that benchmark scores seem to reflect a gap in the middle school and high school curriculum and instruction. Core team members indicated a need to bridge the curriculum specifically to incorporate re?teaching opportunities for struggling students. Additionally, the core team revealed a need to emphasize higher expectations for all students with disabilities. Discussions with administrators and staff indicated that the placement of students ages 12?21 in more restrictive environments is a possible factor impacting state assessment decisions. Participation and passing rates had not been analyzed at the time ofthe on-site visit. Discussions with members ofthe special education teacher focus group revealed that special education teachers are responsible for conducting all ARD committee meetings. Additionally. the agency team found reference to this responsibility in the Laredo Independent School District (ISD) Operating Guidelines for Special Education. Teachers expressed a need for more training on how to complete ARD papertvork and in making appropriate state assessment decisions, indicating that teachers facilitating ARDS may lack the knowledge and guidance to determine appropriate state assessments for students with disabilities. Page 6 of21 Laredo ISD 3006-2007 . 77,7. Texas Education Agency Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions Through student case studies. the agency team determined noncompliance related to state asseSSment decision making, as indicated below. . Content of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) 19 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) ?89.1055(b) Student Testing Requirements 19 TAC ?101.5(b) Speci?cally. the annual ARD for one student dated Marcl.2006. contained an IEP for writing and reading at the 2nd grade instructional level. At an annual ARD dated February. 2007. the student?s state assessment was changed to 6th grade math and reading with achievement levels of for both subjects even though the student did not have a math District-provided benchmark data showed a failing rate on the 6th grade reading/writing benchmark with a score of 19% and a failing rate fOr a 6th grade math benchmark with a score of 28%. .- For another student. the state assessment recommendation indicated a grade level assessment in 2006 for reading and math. In 2007. the student was required to take all state assessments at his enrolled grade level. grade 10. For one subject test, the student will not have been exposed to instruction in the required curriculum prior to the state assessment. For one student with a learning disability in reading and Writing. the student had participated in TAKS math with an oral administration in 2006. He did not pass the math assessment. The ARD committee documented that accommodations would invalidate TAKS: therefore. the ARD committee determined that the student would participate in th_e SDAA ii for math. However, this student did not have an IEP in Page 7 of 21 .l Laredo ISD 2006?2007 Texas Education Agency Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions math and received no accommodations that would invalidate a math exam as documented within the ARD. LEA staff reported that the student's benchmark scores were not passing, so the ARD committee decided the student would participate in the SDAA [1 for this subject. Through further interviews with LEA staff, the agency team learned that an oral administration was not provided during benchmark testing. Less Restrictive Environments Less Restrictive Environments A longitudinal revievx of PBMAS data indicates that during the 2004. 2005. 2006. and 2007 school years, the number of students with disabilities ages 3-1 1 and 12-21 placed in instructional settings of 40 or 41 was below the state standard, as reflected in the following tables: *Thc 2007 PBMAS report separates data for placement of3- to 5-year?olds and 6- to car-olds Percentage of LEA State Standard for Students with Students with Data Source Disabilities Ages Disabilities Ages 3-H Placed in a 40 or 341 Placed in a 40 4] Instructional or4l Instructional Setting Setting_ 2004-2005 0 ?1 PBMAS Report 41.1%: 25.0/o I 2005 PBMAS 0 a Report 21.3 A) . ?006 PBMAS 19.1% 25.0% Report 1 1 7007 PBMAS 3- to 5-year-olds 5.8% 11.0% 1 i Re ort* 6- to 1 1-year?olds 21.1% 25.0% 1 I i 2004?2005 PB MAS Report 2005 PBMAS Report 2006 PBMAS Report 2007 PBMAS Report 2005-2006 Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) data. Focus group discussions: core analysis team. parents. general education teachers. special education teachers. administrator. focus group. assessment personnel. and related service providers Analyze instructional arrangement trends over a three year period of time by campus. grade level. instructional arrangement. ethnicity. gender. and status. Report the results to the TEA. Analyze signi?cant factors that are impacting LRE issues identi?ed in this report. Develop a plan ofaction to address these factors. Revise the UP. Page 8 of21 Laredo 2006?2007 Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions Texas Education Agency I Percentage of LEA State Standard for . Students with Students with Disabilities Ages Disabilities Ages Data Source 12?21 Placed in a 12-21 Piaced in a i 40 or4l 40 or4l i instructional Instructional i Setting Setting i ?3 . -004 ,003 PBMAS 419% 46.5% Report 5 - 400:7 PBMAS 393% 465% Report ?006 PBMAS 37.0% 46.3% Report 2007 PBMAS 0 Report 41.7/0 46.5 2005-2006 PEIMS data indicate that LEP students constitute at least 60 percent or more ofthe total special education population and are served in potentially more restrictive settings as re?ected in the following table: Percentage of?l Average Percentage of 2005-2006 Sped LEP Percentage Sped LEP PEI MS students Sped LEP students served . Report students in code 40 ?wad in code 43/44 Elementary i 62.8% 4.9% 19.2% M'dd'e . 81.9% 10.7% 10.7% School 5 :L_High School i 76.46% 5.7% 9.1% i Page 9 of 21 Laredo 2006-2007 Texas Education Agency Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions Discussions with assessment personnel and related service providers revealed that the LEA is emphasizing the importance of placing students in less restrictive environments (LRE) by encouraging ARD committees to consider serving students in general education settings, when appropriate. Additionally, the agency team learned from assessment personnel that the LEA is taking action to reduce the number of students being referred for special education services and ultimately reduce the number of students who require special education services. Across all focus group discussions, the agency team learned that the LEA has provided extensive instructional technology support programs. Speci?cally, focus groups indicated that, for the 2006-2007 school year, the LEA implemented the District Data Analyzer that contains three years of assessment data to assist staff in making state assessment decisions for students with disabilities. Also, the LEA focus groups indicated that the ?Easy Program" is used for tracking implementation of student modi?cations and curriculum?based assessment data. Additionally, all focus group discussions indicated the availability of numerous campus/classroom instructional technology programs to support struggling learners, including: the Kurzweil Scanner Program, which provides student access to books on tape and is available at each campus library, Curriculum on Wheels (COWS), Creative Educational Initiative (CEI) Labs, Voyager, and Grand Central Station. Although focus group discussions indicated numerous technology?based interventions, as well as master teachers and bilingual strategists located on each campus, there was little evidence of program improvement for students with disabilities. Across all focus group discussions, the agency team learned of some commonly Page 10 of 21 Laredo ISI) 2006-2007 Texas Education Agency Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions L. stated concerns that may be impacting the LEA and may be contributing to continued issues related to LRE, student performance, and potential overidenti?cation. These concerns included: . Frequent turnover in central of?ce and campus administration resulting in a lack of shared vision for the 0 Low expectations for students, especially students coming from Mexico: . Truancy and other attendance issues; 0 Disconnect between middle school and high school curriculums; - A lack of consistency in the implementation ofthe prereferral process; and . The belief, as expressed by special education staff, that the requirement that all students perform at grade level is not a realistic expectation. The agency team could find no evidence ofdistrict-wide initiatives to address the above concerns. Disproportionality I Potential Overidentification of Students Served in the Special Education Program Special education identi?cation rates have been higher than the state standard for a four-year period, as indicated in the table below: . 2004-2005 PBMAS Report 0 2005 PBMAS Report a 2006 PBMAS Report 0 2007 PBMAS Report 0 Student Case Studies 0 Focus group discussions: core analysis team. parents. general education teachers, Special education teachers. administrator. Evaluate the effectiveness ofcurrent interventions available for struggling students in elementary schools. middle schools, and high schools. Use the findings to create campus intervention resource guides. implement the use of these resource guides at student support team meetings to ensure an intensive program of s. Page 11 of 21 Laredo 2006?2007 Texas Education Agency Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions in; Percentage of LEA PBMAS . . . State Indicator Data Source Specral Education Standard Performance Students . Level 2004?2005 7 PBMAS Report 13.6 /o 8.5/0 .. 7 . ?003? 12.5% 3.5% 2 Report 7 -006 PBMAS 11.7% 8.5% 1 Report 2007 PBMAS a Report i 1.0/0 3.5 A: 1 LEP Representation There is a potential overidenti?cation of LEP students receiving special education services resulting in a PBMAS indicaIOr performance level of 3 for 2006 and 2007. Although the status of this indicator for 2004 and 2005 was "Report Only.? the 2004-2005 and 2005 PBMAS data indicate a potential overrepresentation students as reflected in the following table: Page 12 of21 BE-ESL focus group. assessment personnel. and related service providers instruction for struggling students and for students with disabilities who have not been successful in passing all sections of the appropriate state assessment. Develop and implement a Response to Intervention model and establish written procedures, expectations. and operating guidelines for this program. Establish timelines and responsibilities to monitor the effectiveness of this model. Laredo [81) 2006-2007 Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions Texas Education Agency i Percentage i of LEA Percentage State 5 I Data Spec?! LEA Difference Source Education Student Difference Rate," 5 Students Body who Standard who are are LEP LEP 2004- _0_3 2005 (state ?ie- P133335 80.94% 62.07% 1 8.87pp* 3:153:1th (Report in report Only) only years) 2005 PBMAS _0 5 Report 80.9% 65.8% 15.2pp (state Sage) (Report Only) 2006 PBMAS 82.4% 68.3% 14. 1 pp 1.0pp Report 200? PBMAS 81.8% 68.5% 13.3pp 1.0pp Report *ppepercentage points Focus group discussions with administrators, BE-ESL personnel, and teacher focus groups revealed that students who have been identi?ed as requiring special education services may not have been appropriately identi?ed. For example, administrators expressed a concern that the LEA's geographic proximity to Mexico may have resulted in students being identi?ed for special education services due to language barriers. Administrators also stated that students coming Page 13 0f21 Laredo 2006-2007 Texas Education Agency Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions from Mexico "lack educational opportunities,? which might result in a referral for special education services, and, subsequently, these students are identified as needing special education services. Additionally. administrators noted that. in some cases, teacher aides were responsible for identifying students having language barriers. which may have resulted in referral/identification prior to the implementation ofinterventions. Moreover, identification of Spanish- speaking students as students with disabilities was expressed as a concern in all focus group discussions. 34 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) ?300.306(b) Determination of Eligibility An interview with the BE-ESL director revealed his concern regarding overrepresentation of LEP students in the special education program. He also noted that the Language Pro?ciency Advisory Committee (LPAC) administrator attends however, he expressed his belief that BE-ESL teachers need to attend ARDs. Moreover, the agency team learned from this interview that the prereferral process is not implemented consistently and is a contributing factor to the overidenti?cation of LEP students in special education. Discussions with the core analysis team indicated that a prereferral process that utilizes the Student Support Team (SST) concept is implemented in the district; however, core team members con?rmed that the prereferral process is not implemented consistently across all campuses in the LEA and among campuses within the same feeder pattern. Additionally, interviews and discussions with administrators and special education staffconfirmed inconsistencies in implementing the special education program across all campuses and among campuses within the same feeder pattern. Specifically. special education teachers assigned to elementary grades are supervised by the special education director, while secondary special education teachers Page 14 of2?l Laredo ISD 2006-2007 Texas Education Agency Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions are supervised by campus administration. Differences in program implementation and campus priorities may result in a lack ofa consistent prereferral process, inappropriate student identification, a failure to complete ARD paperwork, and a lack of program continuity. Discussions with members ofthe assessment personnel focus group indicated that a majority ofGrade 2 and Grade 3 referrals are made after the students have been retained. indicating that the LEA may need to implement and/or monitor the effectiveness of interventions provided to struggling students to address referral and retention issues. Discussions with members of the special education teacher focus group revealed that they are responsible for ARD preparation and conducting ARDs. This responsibility limits instructional preparation time and time spent in the classroom instructing students, which could impact student performance. The agency team learned through on-site focus group discussions that special education teachers feel a sense of frustration with not having enough time in the classroom to preperly instruct students with disabilities. The agency team determined through discussions with the director that bilingual strategists serve five elementary campuses, three middle school campuses, and two high school campuses. The bilingual strategists? roles, as described by the director, included working with classroom teachers to implement activities, modeling lessons for teachers, and collaborating with classroom teachers to implement BE-ESL interventions for struggling students. However. during a revievv of student documentation. the agency team learned from the bilingual strategists that they could provide little evidence of monitoring the progress of specific LEP students. The LEA had not evaluated the effectiveness ofthis support service at the time of the on-site visit. Page150f21 Laredo ISD 2006?2007 Texas Education Agency Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions Monitoring Student Progress Lack of Established Systems to Track and Monitor Students and Program Improvement 0 The agency team learned through focus group discussions, campus visitations, and staff interviews that the LEA Special Education Director has no supervisory reSponsibilities for special education teachers assigned to secondary campuses. Secondary campus administrators establish the role and responsibilities of special education teachers on these campuses; therefOrc, there is little evidence of program coordination between elementary and secondary campuses to assist in tracking, monitoring, and communicating data which may signi?cantly impact student performance, program improvement, and program compliance. 0 BE-ESL focus group members indicated a need for districtwide monitoring to ensure the provision of services across all special programs, including special education. Additionally, BE-ESL staff indicated that completion rates for LEP students with disabilities are problematic. Interviews with the high school administration indicated that a large number of students are retained in Grade 9, which could impact student dropout data. Additionally, BE-ESL focus group members indicated that there is high student mobility between campuses. Moreover, although BE-ESL staff make program improvement recommendations to LEA staff, members of this focus group indicated that campus administration needs to be accountable for monitoring student success and tracking all students. Discussions with the parent focus group indicated a need for better communication methods with central of?ce staff. Some parents indicated that they do not receive replies to their e?mails. Additionally, parents expressed a need for teachers to receive more training on how to modify lessons andi?or instruction to meet the needs - Focus group discussions: parents, core analysis team, general education teachers, special education teachers, administrator, BE-ESL focus group, assessment personnel, and related service providers 0 Campus staff interviews Develop a system to monitor student performance data across program areas and grade levels. Develop a system to evaluate the effectiveness ofthe provision of special education services throughout the LEA. Include stakeholder input in this system. Report the results to the agency. Develop a plan of action to address all areas in need of improvement. Develop a system to determine parent training needs, keep parents of students with disabilities informed, and address parental concerns. Page 16 of 21 1% Laredo 2006-2007 Texas Education Agency Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions of students with disabilities. Also. parents stated that. since some students move often within the district. the LEA needs to implement a tracking system to ensure students receive appropriate services without delay. Compliance lssues During student case studies, the agency review team determined areas of noncompliance that had not previously been identi?ed in PBM submissions to the agency. 34 CF Authority of School Personnel Speci?cally, for one student, a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) had been reviewed at three ARD committee meetings with little modi?cation. However. the student continued to have behavioral incidents that culminated in a discretionary placement in ajuvenile justice alternative education program (JJAEP). There was not evidence ot?a functional behavioral analysis being conducted. 34 CFR Development, Review, and Revision of IEP Speci?cally, or one student, no ARD meeting was held to discuss failures and lack of educational progress and revise goals after the student earned a total of two out ot?eight possible credits during the 2004-2005 school year. This student currently was ears old, and his transcript re?ected that he had earned no additional credits since the 2004-2005 school year. 34 CFR Prior Notice by the Public Agency; Content of Notice Speci?cally, the invitation for one student?s annual ARD did not identify that the ARD would discuss graduation. Page 17 of 21 0 Student folders Develop and implement a system to periodically audit student folders to ensure compliance with federal laws and regulations. Develop written operating guidelines and expectations for this system and provide these guidelines to all LEA and campus administrators. Provide training as appropriate and document the ?ndings from annual audits. Report these findings to the agency. Revise the UP. The LEA will conduct ARD committee meetings as necessary to ensure the provision ol?a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the students in question and consider compensatory services. if appropriate Laredo 2006-2007 Texas Education Agency Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions 34 CFR Child With a Disability 5 19 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Eligibility I Criteria Speci?cally, documents in one student?s eligibility folder indicated that this student was disabled in the areas of mental retardation, other health impairment, and multiple disabilities. However, the LEA was unable to provide an eligibility report for this student indicating that the student met the federal de?nition of a student with multiple disabilities. 34 CFR IEP Team Speci?cally. there was no general education representative who participated in the two most recent annual ARD meetings for one student. as required. A review of LEA documents conducted during the on-site visit revealed one issue of continuing noncompliance from the 2005- 2006 monitoring year. 34 CFR ?300.101 Free Public Education Specifically. for one student. the services as stated in the IEP did not match the services provided. The student had an IEP with goals and objectives related to geometry; however. the student was enrolled in an algebra class. Additionally, in an agency review ofdocumentation to verify correction ofthis issue of noncompliance from the 2005-2006 monitoring year, the agency team discovered that two students were not receiving homebound services per the lEPs. to the student?s:- inditidual circumstances. Page 18 of 21 Laredo ISD 2006?2007 Texas Education Agency Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions Additionally. the for one student speci?ed the student would participate in TAKS. However, this non-Spanish speaking student participated in a Spanish TAKS assessment. Continuing noncompliance was identi?ed as a result of document veri?cation for compliance issues identi?ed during the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 monitoring years Texas Education Code (TEC) ?29.004(a) Full Individual and Initial Evaluation (FIE) In a review of documentation submitted by the LEA. the agency team determined that FlEs are not conducted within the required 60-day timeline. This area of noncompliance was initially identi?ed in the 2004-2005 monitoring year. TEC Intensive Program of Instruction [n a review ofdocumentation submitted by the LEA, the agency team determined that. for students who took the SDAA II and did not pass, the ARD committee did not address intensive remediation. as required. Newly-identi?ed noncompliance was identi?ed as a result of 5 document veri?cation for compliance issues identi?ed during the 2005-2006 monitoring years: 34 CFR De?nition of IEP In a review of documentation submitted by the LEA, the agency team determined that the IEP for one student who required homebound Page 19 on1 Laredo 2006?2007 Texas Education Agency Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions services indicated that the student would receive those services on an intermittent basis. The LEA is required to correct any noncompliance items as soon as possible, but in no case may the correction take longer than one calendar year from the date of identi?cation of noncompliance. All instances of noncompliance found through on}; component of the special education monitoring system must be documented and addressed in the CIP. Corrective actions should be completed within one year of receipt of ?ndings. The agenei? also will require documentation verifying that: f' Required Corrective Actions for Noncompliance Issues i policies and procedures, including operating guidelines and practices, have been changed, as necessary; policies and procedures, including operating guidelines and practices, have been implemented as written; the LEA has notified the public of any changes to policies and procedures, including operating guidelines and practices, related to disproportionalitv; i the LEA has noth?ed the public of any changes to policies and procedures, including operating guidelines and practices, related to discipline issues; the LEA has notified the public of any changes to policies and procedures. including operating guidelines and practices, related to child find issues: have been implemented; the LEA has systems to ensure that students with disabilities are receiving related services, extended school year (138)) services. and hotnebound services consistent with the child ?3 needs; and the LEA conducts ARD cotmm'ttee meetings as necessary to ensure the provision ofa free appropriate public education to the students in question and considers conqiensatotjv services. if appropriate to the students individual circumstances. Next Steps: 5 The LEA is required to seek outside support and technical assistance from an organization or entity of the choosing. It is expected that the technical assistance provider will support the LEA in a thorough review of the issues and ?ndings contained within this report and will support the LEA in correcting the issues of noncompliance as reflected in this report. The LEA is required to report to the agency no later than March 14. 2008, with information related to the acquisition of external technical assistance. ,l The LEA will redevelop the Continuous Improvement Plan using current LEA data to update and revise the desired results, measurable evidence of change, activities. resources, and timelines. The redeveloped must include the development and implementation of all i systems activities listed in the LEA Required Actions column of this report. i Page 20 of 21 Laredo ISD 2006-2007 Texas Education Agency Department of Program Monitoring and Interventions The LEA will report to the agency each month on the implementation of activities in the oral descriptions of the data and implementation of activities. Lr The LEA will submit the redeveloped CIP to the agency by March 31. 2008, for review. Page 21 of21 . This report will consist of written as well as