Texas Education Agency Commissioner Special Education Complaint Investigative Report October 30, 2015 Dustin Rynders Terry Grier Sowmya Kumar Complainant Superintendent Special Education Director 1500 McGowen Suite 100 Houston ISD Houston Houston, TX 77004 4400 18th Street 4400 18th Street Houston, TX 77092 Houston, TX 77092 Local Educational Agency (LEA): Houston Co~Dist: 101-912 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510718 To the Individuals Addressed: The attached report to the LEA is the written decision of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) regarding the above-referenced complaint. In accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act TEA is providing a redacted copy of the investigative report to the complainants. Student Three is an adult student, and the complainants were not able to secure a signed consent from Student Three permitting TEA to provide his/her personally identifiable information to the complainants. Therefore, TEA has redacted Student Three's personally identifiable information from the copy of the report provided to the complainants. Allegations, Conclusions, and Reasons for Decision TEA investigated the following allegations. Allegation One: Did Student One?s and Student Two's attendance issues during the 2014- 2015 school year warrant the need for reevatuations, and, if so, did the LEA conduct the reevaluations?? [34 CFR ?300.303] Allegation Two: Did the LEA ensure that the three students? individualized education programs (IEPs) were developed, reviewed, andior revised to address their attendance issues between June 1, 2014, and June 1, 2015? [34 CFR ?300.324] Allegation Three: Did the LEA ensure that any changes in placement with regard to Student Two and Student Three during the 2014- 2015 school year were made by a properly constituted admission, review and dismissal (ARD) committee? [34 CFR ?300.116] [19 TAC Contact the Division of Federal and State Education Policy: (512) 463-9414 FAX: (512) 463-9560 Houston Co-Dist: 101?912 FY: 2014-2015 Compiaint: 201510718 Page 2 of 3 Aliegation Four: Did the LEA make a tree appropriate public education available to Student Two and Student Three after they were administratively withdrawn from the LEA on February 2, 2015? [34 CFR ?300.101] The following noncompliance was determined. The LEA does not always ensure that it reevaluates students in accordance with 34 CFR ?300.303. . The LEA does not always develop, review, and revise students? iEPs in accordance with 34 CFR ?300.324. The LEA does not always ensure that students' placements are made by properly constituted ARD committee meetings in accordance with 34 CFR ?300.116. The LEA does not always ensure that it makes a free appropriate public education available to students In accordance with 34 CFR ?300.101. Corrective actions were required. if a party to a complaint believes that written report includes an error that is material to the determination in the report, the party may submit a signed, written request for reconsideration to TEA by mail, hand-delivery, or facsimile within 15 calendar days of the date of the report. The party's reconsideration request must identify the asserted error and include any documentation to support the claim. The party filing a reconsideration request must forward a copy of the request to the other party at the same time that the request is filed with TEA. The other party may respond to the reconsideration request within five calendar days of the date on which TEA received the request. TEA will consider the reconsideration request and provide a written response to the parties within 45 calendar days of receipt of the request. The filing of a reconsideration request must not delay a public education agency's implementation of any corrective actions required by TEA. This concludes investigation. The investigative report is TEA's final written decision. Questions regarding this letter or the attached report may be directed to Ron Roberts or to me at (512) 463-9414. Respectfully, Keith Swink Division of Federal and State Education Policy Enclosure: satisfaction survey Houston 180 Co-Dist: 101?912 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510718 Page 3 of 3 cc: Texas Appleseed Deborah Fowler 1609 Shoal Creek Blvd, Ste. 201 Austin, TX 78701 National Center for Youth Law Michael Harris 405 14th Street, 15th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Houston County-District: 101-912 investigative Report FY: 2014-2015 October 30, 2015 Complaint No: 201510718 This report is the written decision of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) regarding the third-party complaint filed on behalf of multiple students, three of whom attended the Houston independent School District herein referred to as the local educational agency (LEA), during the 2014?2015 school year. The complaint alleges violations of federal and state special education laws and the implementing regulations pertaining to the individuals with Disabilities Education Act Texas Education Code (TEC), and/or the Texas Administrative Code (TAO). The specific allegations and TEA's findings of fact and conclusions, together with the reasons for final decision, are as follows. Allegation One Did Student One?s and Student Two?s attendance issues during the 2014-2015 school year warrant the need for reevaluations. and, if so, did the LEA conduct the reevaluations? [34 CF ?300.303] Allegation Two Did the LEA ensure that the three students? individualized education programs (iEPs) were develoned, reviewed, and/or revised to address their attendance issues between June 1, 2014', and June 1, 2015? [34 CFR ?300.324] Allegation Three Did the LEA ensure that any changes in placement with regard to Student Two and Student Three during the 2014-2015 school year were made by a properly constituted admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committee? [34 CFR ?300.116] Allegation Four - Did the LEA make a free appropriate public education (FAPE) available to Student Two and Student Three after they were administratively withdrawn from the LEA on February 2, 2015? [34 CFR ?300.101] Statement of the Complaint The complaint, which TEA received on June 2015, alleges that the LEA failed to reevaluate Students One and Two to identify the causes of their attendance issues. The complaint further alleges that all three students? ARD committees failed to address the students? attendance issues In their iEPs and, therefore, failed to provide the students with appropriate special education and related services. Finally, the complaint alleges that the LEA administratively withdrew Students Two and Three for excessive absences without involving the students? ARD committees and than failed to provide them with a FAPE. Findings of Fact Student One 1. The student was determined eligible for special education services in 2005. The student was reevaluated by the LEA in 2008 and by another school district in 2011. The student's 2008 and 2011 reevaluations do not reflect that the student had attendance issues. Houston Con-Dist: 101-912 FY: 20t4~2015 Complaint: 201510718 Page 2 of 24 2. 3. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. During the 2014-2015 school year, the student attended an LEA high school and was classified as a 10th grader. The first day of the 2014-2015 school year was August 25, 2014. The student?s attendance records reflect that the student attended all classes during the first week of the school year and began missing classes during the second week. The first six?week grading period ended on October 2, 2015. The student received five Cs and one F. The student's progress report for the period ending on October 24. 2014, reflects that the student had failing grades in ?ve classes and no grade for one class. The student's ARD committee met on October 29, 2014, primarily because the student?s triennial reevaluation was due. After reviewing the student?s existing data, the ARD committee determined that no additional evaluations were required and that the student continued to qualify for special education services on the basis of having a learning disability. The student?s IEP dated October 29, 2014, reflects that the student: . demonstrates cognitive processing deficits that affect his/her reading, math, and written expression; took the modified versions of the state assessments in grades 5, 6, 7, and 9 and failed the reading and writing portions of the grade assessment and all grade assessments;1 and 0 reads significantly below grade level. The IEP states that the student?s parent is very concerned about the student's lack of reading skills. The contains three annuai goats .. one for reading/Engtish language. arts, one for geometry, and one for transition. The reflects that a general education teacher will implement the academic goals and that special education and general education teachers will implement the transition goal. The IEP contains conflicting information regarding the student's educationai program and placement. Page 7 of the IEP reflects that the student's curriculum will be modified and that the student will receive instruction in a resource classroom for 70 minutes daily. The schedule of services on page 13 reflects that the student will take general education classes in the general education setting and wilt receive in-class support in some ctasses. Specifically, the reflects that the student will receive in-class support in history and physics during the first semester and in English during the second semester. The IEP reflects that the student will receive support facilitation in geometry during the second semester. According to the LEA, "in~class support" is a direct service, and ?support facilitation" is an indirect or consultative service. A document provided by the LEA re?ects that in-class support services and support facilitation services must be documented in the ?Related Services/Other instructional Services? section of an IEP and that the frequency, duration. and location of the services must be included. The document also indicates that a description of the specific supports to be provided must also be included. The IEP does not include information about the in~class support services and support facilitation services in the "Rotated Services/Other Instructional Services? section. 1The record re?ects that the student lived in another school district when sine was in 8?h grade and that the current LEA does not have the student's 81" grade state assessment resutls. Houston Co-Dlst: 1014322 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510718 Page 3 of 24 16. 17. . 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. The IEP also does not include the frequency and duration of the services or a description of the services. Page 14 of the IEP reflects that the student will receive Content Mastery for science and social students for 30 minutes twice per week in a special education setting. Page 16 of the student's reflects that the student is removed from the general education setting and explains the instifications for the removal. as follows: The efforts to modify [the student?s] participation in the general ed setting were not sufficient because of his/her significant deficits in reading comprehension, basic reading skills, math and written expression which require numerous accommodations for him/her to be successful. [The student] will not receive an educational benefit from full inclusion in the genera! ed setting due to the cognitive deficits in all areas which significantly affect his/her academics in all areas. Slhe requires extensive accommodations to allow him/her to be. successful. [The student] struggles in all inclusive Gen Ed setting as evidenced by hisiher grades and teacher reports. S/he tries very hard and is usually attentive, but s/he has been unsuccessful in meeting grade level [Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills in social studies and math. S/he is very uncomfortable and sometimes'feels inadequate in General Ed classrooms. Page 17 of the IEP reflects that the student's instructional setting is ?Mainstream with Direct, Indirect, andfor Support Services" and lists ?40" as the instructional arrangement code. Page 18 of the reflects that the student spends six hours in general education and zero hours in special education per day. The reflects that the student does not exhibit significant behavioral challenges that affect his/her educational performance or the iearning of others. The does not include any behavioral goals or a behavioral intervention plan. The IEP states that the student is pleasant and generally cooperative. The October 2014 ARD committee meeting was held approximately 45 days into the 2014?2015 school year. The student?s attendance records reflect that the student had 10 absences for state reporting purposes, seven of which were unexcused. The records further reflect that the student had a significant number of unexcused absences in some classes. For example, the student had 21 unexcused absences in Spanish 12 unexcused absences in history, and eight unexcused absences in geometry. There were only 13 days during this period when the student attended all of hislher classes. The ARD committee did not address the students attendance' issues in the Although the student?s most recent progress report reflected that the student had failing grades in five out of six classes. the IEP states that the students teachers reported that the student ?is performing adequately in the current circumstances. The also states that the student ?is making adequate progress in his/her courses? On November 3, 2014, the LEA sent a truancy notice to the students parents. The first semester of the 2014?2015 school year ended on December 19, 2014. The student passed an elective, received failing grades in two core content courses, and did not receive grades in three courses due to excessive unexcused absences. Houston Co-Dtst: 101-912 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510718 Page 4 of 24 26. On January 27, 2015, the LEA sent a second truancy notice to the student's parents. 27. On February 5, 2015, the special education department chair sent the student's teachers an email stating that the student would be receiving pullout services to provide him/her with more support. The email states that the student will report to each assigned class so that s/he wiil not be marked absent and then go to his/her support classes. The email reflects that tour teachers provide the student with pullout services throughout the school day. 28. The response to the complaint states that the student?s attendance issues began in mid~Novemben The response further states: On February 5, a group of teachers met and devised an attendance Intervention plan. ARDIIEP meeting was held on March 2, 2015 to implement [the] plan. 29. The student's ARD committee met on March 2, 2015, to address the student's absenteeism and its effects on his/her educational progress. 30. The dated March, 2, 2015, re?ects that the student has missed 60 days of school and will need to repeat several core courses due to failing grades or nona?endance. 31. The reflects that the student's parent expressed concerns about the student?s reading level. . 32. The states that the student is generally cooperative but ?currently appears ambivalent about doing well academically." 33. The states that the student?s ?disabilities affect his/her motivation to attend and participate in class which leads to poor academic performance.? 34. The ARD committee again determined that student does not exhibit significant behavioral challenges and did not develop any behavioral goals or a behavioral intervention plan to address the student?s attendance issues. 35. The statements in the October 2014 indicating that the student receives modified curriculum and instruction in a special education setting are not included in the revised 36. The ARD committee adjusted the dates in the student's annuai goats but did not significantly revise the goals. 37. Like the October 2104 the revised contains conflicting information regarding the student?s educational program and piacement. 38. The schedule of services was revised to provide in?ciass support in ail core courses, additional accommodations, and an accelerated instruction program due to the student's failure to pass the end-of?course assessments slhe had taken. Like the previous the revised does not details about the in-class support services that the student will receive. 39. The instructional setting and instructional arrangement code were not changed from those in the previous The revised however, re?ects that the student will spend 7.5 hours In general education and zero hours in special education per day. 40. The notes that after the previous ARD committee meeting, campus staff revised the student?s schedule to attend pullout tutorial sessions, provided the student with one?on-one tutoring, and provided the student extra materials in core content areas. 41. The reflects that the student agreed to follow the attendance rules and states that the student will check in with his/her regular education teachers at the start of every ciass and then go to hislher ?pullout tutor teacher or teacher." 42. The reflects that the student will be evaluated for dyslexia and Attention Deficit Disorders, but does not include a timeline for'the evaluations. Houston ISD (lo-Dist: 101-912 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 2015101718 Page March 2, 2015, the special education department chair sent a special education teacher an email requesting that the teacher set up PLATO for the student in English ill, physics, geometry, and US. history. On March 9, 2015, the special education department chair sent the student's teachers another email stating that the student should not be marked absent and will sheds in with them, pick up hislher assignments, and then report to support classes. The LEA's response to the complaint states that the student initially checked in with his/her teachers before going to his/her support classes, but later had difficulties following the plan. The response further states that the student would go straight to a special education resource class, and his/her regular education teachers marked him/her absent. - For the second semester of the 2014-2015 school year, the student received failing grades in five classes. The student did not receive a grade in one class due to excessive unexcused absences. A campus administrator provided - a statement explaining the procedures for addressing attendance issues. According to the administrator, the campus has a committee that monitors students? attendance, but the committee did not distinguish between students who receive special education services and those that do not. Therefore, the special education department was not directly advised of attendance problems relating to students who receive special education services. The administrator states that "a good faith effort will be made to ensure that special education students with [attendance] issues witl be appropriately identified to address their needs within the ARD process? beginning with the 2015?2016 school year. The student?s ARD committee met on July 1, 2015, to discuss the allegations raised in this complaint. The re?ects that an attorney representing the student's parent requested a full evaiuation of the student, including a evaluation and a functional behavioral assessment. The IEP reflects that the ARD committee agreed to conduct a full reevaluation. including a counseling evaluation, before September 30, 2015. The ARD committee agreed to reconvene after the student's reevaluation is completed. During the July 2015 ARD meeting, the student's parent stated that the student ?does not want to attend school because s/he is frustrated due to not being able to read.? The ARD commit-tee agreed to allow the student to take final exams for some of hislher 2014~2015 courses at the beginning of the 2015-2016 school year and to provide tutoring to the student before the exams. LEA staff advised the student?s parent that the student?s attendance records would be corrected to reflect the student?s attendance when slhe was in the resource room. The ARD committee offered to provide the student with 77 hours of compensatory reading instruction before or after school or on Saturdays. The LEA provided a reevaluation report dated October 9, 2015. The report states that the student would ?benefit from a functional behavioral analysis regarding his/her skipping and absences, and if necessary, an assessment for counseling as a related service.? The report further states that the student's behavior impedes his/her learning. The reevaluation report reflects the following: the student?s basic reading skills are in the extremely low range of ability at an elementary grade level equivalent; Houston Co?Dtst: 101-912 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510?18 Page 6 of 24 the student?s math calculation skills are in the extremely low range of ability for hislher age and grade: the student's spelling and writing skills are significantly below grade level; 0 the student displays academic deficits in all academic areas and is functioning more than three grade levels below his/her grade level; a the student meets the criteria for a speci?c teaming disability in basic reading, reading comprehension, math calculation, math reasoning, and written expression; and the student meets the criterial for dyslexia identification. 54. The reevaluation report reflects that the student missed 47 days during the 2013- 2014 school year and 94 days during the 2014-2015 school year. The report includes recommendations for addressing the student's attendance issues and problems with completing assignments. 55. The LEA provided a revised dated October 9, 2015. 56. The includes the three annual goals that were in the two previous IEPs and two new annual goals relating to US. government and environmental systems. 57. The reflects that the student is expected to graduate in 2016. 58. Page 7 of the current reflects that the student will have ?personal care services? to prevent "behavior." It further states that the student "will have available the services of in-class support facilitation as needed? and that ?special ed staff which includes co-teachers and case managers? will monitor the student?s progress and behavior The record does not indicate that the student requires personal care services toileting. feeding, etc.) 59. The contains a Behavior Support and intervention Plan The reflects the following: the student's parent explained that the student skips class because s/he cannot read and is embarrassed to participate in class; 0 the student works after school and stated that this also contributes to his/her reporting to school late; the students inability to read causes him/her to become frustrated; and the student has already missed 18 days of the 2015? 2016 schoot year 60. The seeks to address the student?s absentee behavior and his/her anxiety and frustration when given difficult assignments in class. To prevent these behaviors, teachers are to implement the student?s accommodations, and the student will receive services to increase his/her coping strategies. 61. The reflects that the student will receive services for 30 minutes every two weeks. 62. The schedule of services in the reflects that the student will take all core courses in the regular education setting and will receive in-class support. The does not reflect that the course curriculum will be modified. 63. The reflects that tutoring in US. history will be available one time per week for 50 minutes in the general education setting and that Content Mastery for science and social studies will be provided for two times per week for 30 minutes in a special education setting. Hooston ISD Co-Disl: 101-912 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510718 Page 7 of 24 64. Page 20 of the reflects that the student will receive an educational benefit from full inclusion in the general education setting but that the ARD committee recommends that the student not receive all instruction and services in the general education setting. 65. The IEP re?ects that the student?s instructional setting is "Mainstream with Direct, Indirect, and/or Support Services" and lists ?40? as the instructional arrangement code. 66. Page 22 of the IEP reflects that the student spends 7.5 hours in general education and zero hours in Special education per day. 67. The IEP reflects that the student declined after-school compensatory reading services due to his/her work schedule. 68. The IEP reflects that campus staff advised the student?s parent that the student will not be able to graduate at. the end of the school year and that the student and the parent want the student to graduate with his/her classmates. Campus staff advised the parent that the student received a ?No Grade? in four classes due to excessive absences and that an attendance appeal must be filed to receive credit for these courses. - 69. The reflects that the student's parent disagreed with the IEP "due to the require attendance appeal, credit recovery plan, amount of counseling services, inability of not having accommodation to have a cool down place, [and] goals not reflecting areas of weakness." Student Two 1. The student is diagnosed with severe attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and is eligible for special education services under the category of other health impairment (OHI). 2. The student's most recent evaluation was conducted in May 2012, when the student was in 8?h grade. The evaldation reflects that the student has dif?culty maintaining alertness in the general education setting and is below grade level in reading, writing, and math. The evaluation also reflects that the student is generally well?behaved and does not exhibit behaviors that impede learning. The evaluation states that the student ?almost always attends.? 3. Though the student entered high school during the 2012-2013 school year, slhe was technically still a 9th grader at the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year because s/he had only earned 2.5 course credits. The student?s academic achievement record reflects that the student was denied credit for all classes during the 2012~ 2013 school year due to excessive absences and that s/he failed several cfasses during the 2013-2014 school year. 4. The LEA filed a truancy complaint against the student toward the end of the 2013- 2014 school year. 5. The 2014-2015 school year began on August 24, 2014. Documentation in the record reflects that the student?s campus followed a "block schedule" whereby the students had eight classes and attended four classes on days and the other four classes on days. it appears that each class period vvas approximately 90 minutes long. 6. The first six-week grading period ended on October 2, 2014. The student failed five classes, barely passed three classes, and was absent from each class anywhere from two to nine times. On October 2, 2014, the LEA sent the student?s parent a truancy warning letter. The student?s ARD committee conducted an annual review of the student?s IEP on October 17, 2014. The reflects that the student: 902?? Houston Co-DIst: 301?912 FY: 2014?2015 Complaint: 201510718 Page 8 of 24 a has difficulty maintaining alertness in the general education setting; a is functioning at a deficit in reading, math, and written eXpression; exhibits significant behavioral challenges that adversely affect his/her educational performance or the learning of others; . took the accommodated version of the state assessment in 7lh grade and did not meet the passing standards in reading, writing, or math; 0 took the modified version of the state assessment in 8th grade;2 0 has failed the end?of-course exams that s/he has taken. 9. The and another document in the record reflect that student took the Stanford Achievement Test during the 2011?2012 school year (8lh grade) and received the following scores: reading 5.7; math 5.1, language 5.2, science 4.6, social studies 5.3; spelling 4.6; and total battery 4.6. These appear to be grade equivalent (GE) scores. Therefore, when the student was in the grade, s/he received a reading score equivalent to what a student in the seventh month of 5th grade would receive. 10. The reflects that the student requires short-term objectives because slhe requires modifications and accommodations to instruction, assignments, and assessments to demonstrate progress in the grade-level curriculum. 11. The includes annual goals for English, algebra, ?all academic areas," transition, and behavior. 12. Page 9 of the includes a ?Supplementary Aids and Personal Care Services? section that reflects that the student will receive "Instructional Accommodations- Personnel? for five sessions per two weeks of 90 minutes in the general education setting. This section also reflects that the student will receive ?instructional Modi?cations-Personnel" for five sessions per two weeks of 90 minutes in the general education setting. No provider for these services is listed, and there is no description of the services. The evidence in the record does not indicate that the student requires personal care services. 13. The schedule of services in the lists "General Education" as the only subject and re?ects that the student will receive 75 minutes of general education three times per week in the general education setting with support facilitation during'the first semester but not during the second semester. Given that the length of the student?s classes are 90 minutes, it is unclear why the schedule of services states that the student will receive general education for 75 minutes. 14. Page 20 of the IEP re?ects that the ARD committee recommends that the student receive all instruction and services in the general education setting. 15. The student's instructional setting is listed as ?Mainstream with Direct, Indirect, and/or Support Services? and the instructional arrangement code is listed as 16. Page 22 of the IEP reflects that the student will spend six hours in general education and zero hours in speciai education per day. 17. The ?Related Services/Other instructional Services" section of an does not describe the support facilitation services that the student will receive during the first semester. The section reflects that the student will receive tutorials for reading, math, and written expression for 60 minutes four times per week in the general education setting and will receive "More time on task Power Period" for 45 minutes five times 2The included the student?s scores on the modified l3lh grade state assessment, but did not state whether the student passed or failed each portion. It appears that the student passed the reading portion and faiied the math and science portions. The student received a borderiine score on the social studies portion, and whether sine passed depends on the form that was administered, which was not indicated in the Houston 180 Co-Dist: 1014312 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 20151 0?18 Page 9 0124 per week in the general education setting. The IEP does not describe what ?More time on task Power Period" ls. . 18. The ARD committee determined that no additional evaluations were needed. 19. The IEP includes a BSIP that appears to have been deveIOped during the 2012-2013 school year and then updated in October 2013. 20. The reflects that the student previousty had 14 disciplinary reterrals for various types of misconduct. A comment from the October 2013 ARD committee meeting reflects that that the student was not demonstrating these behaviors at the time of the meeting. There is no statement regarding whether the student had any disciplinary referrals or was exhibiting any of these behaviors when the ARD committee met in October 2014. 21. The BSIP reflects that the student previously had 13 excused absences and 9 unexcused absences, including 7 days of suspension. A comment from the October 2013 ARD committee meeting reflects that the student only had one absence at the time of the meeting. There is no statement regarding the student's attendance for the 2014-2015 school year; however, the student?s attendance records reflect that the student had 16 state reported unexcused absences at the time of the October 2014 meeting. 22. The BSIP lists the student's challenging behaviors as follows: being off task; not completing assignments; being unprepared; being disruptive inside and outside the classroom; tardiness; truancy; leaving the assigned area; noncompliance; negative verbalization; and verbal aggression. 23. The BSIP addresses two of the student's challenging behaviors: being off task in class and leaving the assigned area. With regard to the latter, the states that the student ?leaves his/her assigned areas without permission or staff supervision two or more times during a regular school day." The includes the following ?prevention" measures to address this behavior: With a Behavior Support Plan and the appropriate modification implemented by a collaboration between the general education teacher and the special education teacher [the student] will attend all classes as scheduled and enter the classroom on time with materials 90% of the time. S/he will also attend to the directives of the classroom teacher with no more than two redirects. 24. The BSIP does not include any specific strategies to increase the student?s ahendance. 25. The BSIP incorrectly states that the student's last evaiuation was conducted in May 2013. See Finding of Fact No. 2 for Student Two. 26. The IEP does not reflect that the ARD committee discussed the fact that the student had only earned 2.5 course credits. The second six-week grading period of the 2014-2015 school year ended on November 7. The student failed five classes, barely passed two classes, did not receive a grade in one class, and was absent from each class anywhere from 5 to 13 times. 28. On November 18, 2014, the LEA filed a truancy complaint against the student. 29. The LEA submitted only one progress report for the student. The progress report corresponds to the period from November 10 to November 25, 2014, and reflects that the student was failing seven classes and did not receive a grade for one class. Two teachers commented that absences were affecting the student's grades. Houston Co?Dtst: 101 -912 FY: 2014-20t5 Complaint: 201510718 Page the first semester of the 2014-2015 school year, the student failed 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. seven ctasses, did not receive a grade in one class, and did not earn any course credits. The student's absences per class for the semester ranged from 16 to 29. A majority of the absences were unexcused. On January 21, 2015, the student and the student's parent attended a truancy hearing. An Order Suspending Sentence and Defemng Final Disposition signed by the presiding judge reflects that the student was ordered to enroll in a general edUCatlonal development (GED) program and to present proof of such enrollment at a hearing on March 18, 2015. The student was further ordered to attend school with no unexcused absences until sihe enrolled in a GED program. On January 27, 2015, the LEA sent the student?s parent another truancy warning letter. The LEA truancy officer who filed the truancy complaint against the student and attended the truancy hearing provided a statement asserting that she did not recommend that the student enroll in a GED program. On February 2, 2015. the campus principal sent the student?s parent a letter stating that the student had been administratively withdrawn due to excessive absences in accordance with the Board Policy FEA (Local), which states that the LEA may withdraw a student under the age of 18 if the student has been absent 10 consecutive school days and repeated efforts by the attendance officer or principal have been unsuccessful. The HISD Guide to Attendance Procedures Policies - Attendance Improvement and Truancy Reduction includes the following statement on page 21 relating to students withdrawn under the LEA ?3 Board Policy FEA (Local): Students withdrawn under this policy may not be denied re-enrotlment as long as they meet the regular eligibility requirements. A document titled Dropout Recovery Form reflects that campus staff made three phone calls to the family's last known phone number between February 6 and March 9, 2015, but were unable to reach anyone. The form also reflects campus staff searched the state enrollment database multiple times during the second semester of the 2014-2015 school year to determine if the student had enrolled in another school district, and these searches indicated that s/he had not. Documentation reflects that on April 13, 2015, the student?s parent advised the LEA that the student had enrolled in one of the alternative schoois. However, the student?s enrollment record and no other evidence reflect that the student in fact attended the alternative school. Documentation reflects that on May 4, 2015, the student?s parent informed an LEA staff member that the student?s whereabouts were unknown. The campus has a Dropout Recovery and Intervention Program (DRIP) committee that meets weekly to develop interventions for students who are referred to the committee due to attendance policy violations. The campus principal?s statement reflects that in the case of a student who receives special education services, the DRIP committee is supposed to consutt with the special education department chair and the student's case manager. The statement further re?ects that an ARD committee meeting should be held to address the student's attendance issues. The principal's statement and the response to the complaint re?ect that the student was not referred to the DRIP committee before a truancy complaint was filed or before the student was administrativety withdrawn. The response to the complaint includes the following statement: Houston Co-Dist: 101-912 FY: 2814-2015 Complaint: 201510?18 Page 11 of 24 Students with disabilities who have been administratively removed due to failure to attend school can either reentoll in their zoned schools and participate in regular programming or Grad Labs, or they can enroll in one of HISD's alternative programs that specifically work with students who have dropped out or are in danger of dropping out. Any decisions made for students with disabilities are to be reviewed and determined by the Committee. 42. The response to the complaint reflects that campus staff did not refer the student?s attendance issues to the ARD committee and that an ARD committee meeting was not held to address the student's attendance issues. The response further states: Student Two was denied a Free Appropriate Public Education and is due compensatory educational services. An Committee will be convened to develop a plan for the provision of compensatory educational services to Student Two. The ARD-IEP Committee will consider the need to conduct an additional evaluation or reevaluation of Student Two. Student Three The stud t' nosedvvith -.-. -- The student entered - grade during the school year but lacked the course credits to Graduate with his/her classmates at the end of the schoolyear. 3. The LEA filed multiple truancy complaints against the student during the 2013-2014 Schoolyean 4. The student turned school year 5. The 2014- 2015 school year beganon August 24 2014. The student reenrolled at an LEA campus and was classified -. -. 6. The students ARD committee met on review of the IEP. 7. The reflects that the student: to conduct an annual . . .. 8. lnsomeptaces the IEP lists the date of the students last evaluation as .. .andin otherplacesitlistsitas . Houston ISD Co-Dist: 101?912 Complaint: 201510718 Page 12 of 24 description of the services The evidence in the record does not indicate that the stud requIres personal care services. . of the reflects that the students parent is concerned about the students attendance and the adverse effect that it has on the students grades. 12 The does not include any behavioral goals or a 13. The ?Related Services/Other the student will receive? - -- the general educatlon setting. The does not describe what 14. of the reflects that the student will not receive an educational benefit from full inclusion in the general education setting and requires -- - in a - .However further down the page the IEP reflects that the student receive alt inatructton in the generai education setting and. ?sts the studenes Instructionai and instructional arrangement code as 15. of the IEP reflects thatthe student will span 16. The ARD committee revrewed the student first progress report and noted that s/he was passing and failing .. The progress report does not include grades for .. 17. The reflects that the student has earned and needs -. The further reflects that the student was denIed credit for multiple . classes due to excessive absences and will need to go through the attendance appeals process. 18. Documentation reflects that the student successfuliy appealed some of the credit denials and was awarded three additionat credits. 19. The re?ects that the student will graduation under the Planbecauses/he 20. The first six? -week gradin period ended on October 2 2014. The student had passing grades 1n .The students absences per class ranged from and most ofthe absences were 21. The student's second progress report reflects that the student was 23. The students third progress report reflects that the student was and failing-One teacher commented that - 24. The third grading perlcdand the first semester ended onDecember 19 2014. The third grading period the student had unexcused absences per class. 25. On January I 2015 the LEA sent the students parent a truancy letter The letter reflects that the student had . state reported absences between 26. on February 2015, the campus principal sent the student' 3 parent a letter stating that the student had been administratively withdrawn in accordance with the LEA's Board Policy FEA (Legal), ates that the LEA may revoke the enrollment of a person who enrolls after if the person has more than five unexcused absences in a semester. Houston 180 Co-Dist: 101-912 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510718 Page 13 of 24 27. The HBO Guide to Attendance Procedures 8 Policies Attendance Improvement and Truancy Reduction states as follows on page 21: Similar to the decision to file truancy charges against students receiving Special Education services. the determination to withdraw an adult Speciai Education student tor non-attendance shouid take into consideration if the non-attendance is related to the student's disability as determined by the committee and if such a withdrawal will prohibit the full implementation of the student's IEP. This type of withdrawal is change In education setting and constitutes a campus decision to cease providing a Free Public Education (FAPE). Although, an accumulated five unexcused absences may not necessarily meet the definitlons of truancy (3 unexcused absences in 4 weeks; or 10 in 6 months), a referral should be made to the ARDIIEP committee before administrative action is taken. 28 The student's ARD committee was not consulted before the student was administratively w?hdrawn 29 On - -- the student enrolled in one of the LEAs that requnes four hours of daily attendance and offers online courses 30 On .: . .- the alternative school staff convened an ARD committee for the student. 31 The reflects that the student had attended school for I days and had I bsences' 32. The ARD committee develoned two new annual goals for the student and discontinued the goals that where in place when the student was enrolled at the regular campus. One goal relates to and the other relates to .Both goals were to be implemented by a general educatlon teacher 33. The IEP reflects that the student does not - -. . and -- - with 34 The reflects that the student will take accommodations. 35. The IEP reflects that the student will receive . some and will receive? - in the general education setting. 38 The student on or about 1 37. The response to the complaint states that the for the student to further staff 38. The response further states that an ARD committee meeting ?will be conducted to constder FAPE . - -- between the student's enrollment at - and a placement ARD IEP meeting." The reopense also states that a reevaluation to support the student's post? secondary goals and services will be recommended. Houston ISD Co-Dist: 101-912 FY: 20144015 Complaint: 201510718 Page 14 of 24 Conclusions and Reasons for Final Decision for Allegation One Authority: 34 CFR ?300.303 34 CFR ?300.303 requires an LEA to ensure that a reevaluation of each student with a disability is conducted in accordance with 34 CFR ??300.304 through 300.311 if the LEA determines that the educational or related services needs, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, of the student warrant a reevaluation or if the student?s parent or teacher requests a reevaluation. A reevaluation conducted under paragraph of this section may occur not more than once a year, unless the parent and the LEA agree otherwise and must occur at least once every 3 years, unless the parent and the LEA agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary. in the case of a student with chronic absenteeism, an LEA may need to reevaluate the student in order to properly address the matter in the In this report, "chronic absenteeism? refers to excessive absences during the school year for any reason while ?truancy" refers to a certain number or certain frequency of unexcused absences. In Texas, chronic absenteeism generally refers to a student who is absent for 10 percent or more of the days a class is offered.?i Thus, a student who is absent 18 or more times during a 180~day school year is considered chronically absent. Truent conduct is defined as failing to attend school without an excuse on 10 or more days or parts of days within a six?month period in the same school year.5 Chronic absenteeism can involve many factors, including an undiagnosed disability, emotional disturbance, academic difficulties, bullying, home problems, social maladjustment, drug problems, economic issues, and even boredom. TEA concludes that the LEA should have initiated a reevaluation of both Student One and Student Two during the 2014-2015 school year. With regard to Student One, the student?s ARD committee met on October 29, 2014, because the student's triennial reevaluation was due. Although the student had excessive absences and felting grades at the time, the ARD committee did not address these issues. When the ARD committee met on March 2, 2015, to address the student?s chronic absenteeism and low academic performance, it noted that the student?s attitude toward school had changed and that the student?s disabilities affected his/her motivation to attend and participate in school. Nevertheless, the ARD committee failed to refer the student for an evaluation. The students? 2008 and 2011 reevaluations do not indicate that the student had attendance issues. Therefore, the ARD committee. needed new data to appropriately address the student's attendance issues. While the LEA ultimately reevaluated the student at the beginning of the current school year in an attempt to resolve the issues in this complaint, its failure to reevaluate the student during the 2014?2015 schooi year caused educational harm to the student. When Student Two?s ARD committee met in October 2014 to conduct an annual review of the student?s IEP, the student was skipping classes, had accumulated 16 state reported unexcused absences, and was failing five out of eight classes. Despite all this, the ARD committee did not address the student?s attendance issues. Although the ARD 3893 West Lyon Cmty. Sch. Dist, 85-311, 48 232 (SEA IA 2007) (Noting that the student attended only three tuli days and seven half days of schooi between August and March, the hearing of?cer concluded that the LEA should have conducted a evaluation and revised the student?s IEP.). 4See TEX. EDUC. Coos ?25.092 (generally provides that a student may not be given credit or a final grade for a class unless the student is in attendance tor at ieasi 90 percent of the days the class is offered). 5See Tex. FAM. Coos Houston ISD Co-Dist: 101-912 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510'r'18 Page 15 of 24 committee kept the student's In the the BSIP does not include specific strategies designed to improve the student?s attendance. Evidence in the record reflects that the student has exhibited attendance problems off and on since entering high school but has never been referred for an evaluation to determine the underlying reasons for his/her absenteeism. The change in the student?s attendance since'his/her last annual ARD committee meeting and the student?s low academic performance should have triggered a reevaluation of the student. . Allegation One is substantiated. Conclusions and Reasons for Final Decision for Allegation Two Authority: 34 CFR ?300.324 34 CFR ?300.324 requires that, in developing each student?s the committee consider the of the student, the concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their student, the results of the initiat or most recent evaluation of the student, and the academic, developmental, and functional needs of the student. The ARD committee must In the case of a student whose behavior impedes the student's learning or that of others, consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior. The LEA must ensure that the ARD committee reviews the student?s periodically, but not less than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the student are being achieved and revise the as appropriate, to address any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals. For a student who is eligible under IDEA and whose chronic absenteeism adversely affects learning, the duty to address the absences in the may exist regardless of whether they stem from a disability.6 TEA concludes that the LEA failed to appropriately address attendance in all three students? lEPs. With regard to Student One, the ARC) committee did not address hislher attendance issues when it met on October 29, 2014, even though the student had excessive absences and failing grades at the time. Three months later, someone finally noticed a problem, and several teachers met outside of the ARD committee process to develoie an ?attendance intervention plan? for the student. A month later, the student?s ARD committee met to essentially approve the plan that had already been put in place. The that resulted from this meeting is both deficient and confusing. First and foremost, the does not implement any interventions to address the student?s absentee behavior. it does not inciude any behavioral goals, a behavior intervention plan, or any counseling or services. Second, the educational program in the IEP seems inconsistent with the student?s educational pro?le. The student reads at an elementary school level, has deficits In all academic areas, and has historicaliy 589s Larimer County Sch. Dist, Poudne, 2013: 502. 113 LRP 17986 (SEA CO truancy is a behavior that impedes learning, Student?s attendance problems could have resulted In liability under IDEA if the District had ignored or otherwise failed to address this behavior through the process?); Urban Charter Sch., 112 LRP 27526 (SEA PA Charter School was responsible for addressing Student's attendance issues through a study of the reasons behind the truancy, followed up with a positive behavior support plan to assist Student in achieving expected attendance. The behavior of truancy was affecting Student?s learning, as noted in the Charter School?s own progress reports?). See also Downingiown Area Sch. Dist. 113 LRP 34703 (SEA PA he hearing officer deniedthe parents' ciaims noting that the LEA took a variety of stops to secure the student's attendance long before it tiled truancy charges, including by developing multiple attendance plans. providing smaltgroup therapy, and having the parents call the assistant principal when the student was refusing to leave home). Houston ISD CdDist: i01-912 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510?18 Page 16 of 24 required modified curriculum. The student was unabie to pass the modified versions of the end-cf?course assessments. Despite all this, the student?s requires that the student participate in the general education curriculum with minimal modifications. Though the IEP provides in-class support, it does not describe the specific supports to be provided or the frequency and duration of the supports. Finally, the contains conflicting information regarding the student?s educational placement. In some places, the IEP indicates that the student will receive all instruction in the general education setting with supports, while in another place it reflects that the student will merely pick up assignments from the general education teachers and then report to other teachers for tutoring or to work on PLUTO classes. Evidence in the record reflects that the student likely received instruction in resource classes and/or self-contained classes, not in a mainstream setting. With regard to Student Two, the LEA acknowledges that campus staff did not refer the student?s attendance issues to the ARD committee and that an ARD committee meeting was not held to address the student's attendance issues. The student?s ARD committee met one time to conduct an annual review of the IEP. While the ARD committee left the previously develOped in the student?s IEP, the BSIP does not include any interventions to improve the student's attendance. Furthermore, there is no indication that the ARD committee addressed the fact that the student was in his third year of high school and had only earned 2.5 course credits. Like Student One's IEP, Student Two's IEP reflects that the student participates in the general education program with several support services that are not clearly described. For all of the above reasons, Allegation Two is substantiated. Conclusions and Reasons for TEA's Final Decision for Allegation Three Authority: 34 CFR ?300.116 34 CFR ?300.?l16 requires that, in determining the educational placement of a student with a disability, the LEA must ensure that the placement decision is made by a group of persons, inciuding the parents and other persons knowledgeable about the student, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options. In Texas. the ARE) committee is the group that determines a student's educational piacement. See 19 TAC The student?s placement decision must be made in conformity with the least restrictive environment provisions in 34 CFR ??300.1?l4 through 300.118. The student's placement must be determined at least annually, be based on the student?s Houston Co-Dist: 101-912 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510?18 Page 17 of 24 IEP, and be as close as possible to the student?s home. Unless the IEP requires some other arrangement, the student must be educated in the school that he or she would attend if nondisabled. Based on the record. TEA concludes that the LEA did not ensure Student Two's and Student Three?s placements during the 2014?2015 school year were made by the students' ARD committees. Specifically, a campus principal administratively withdrew both students for excessive absences without any involvement from the students' ARD committees. Allegation Three is substantiated. Conclusions and Reasons for Final Decision for Allegation Four Authority: 34 CFR ?300.101 34 CFR ?300.101 requires that a FAPE must be available to all children residing in the. State between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive, including children with disabilities who have been suspended or emailed from school, as provided for in The LEA acknowledges that it denied Student Two a FAPE. The LEA also denied Student Three a FAPE. In both cases, the students' chronic absenteeism and truancy issues were not referred to their ARD committees, and the administrative withdrawals ceased the provision of a FAPE to the students. The letters that the campus principal sent to the parents notifying them of the students administrative withdrawals failed to advise the parents that the students could re enroll or that the remained entitled to a FAPE. Although Student Three subsequently enrolied - -.-. ,the that was developed at I - - did not address the students attendance issues even though the student had a history of attendance problems and was continuing to miss school Allegation Four is substantiated. Required Corrective Actions As explained? above, TEA concludes that all four allegations are substantiated. In accordance with 34 CFR ?300.151, TEA must require corrective actions that address: (1) how to remediate the denial of services to the specific students based on their individual needs; and (2) appropriate future provision of services for all students with disabilities. For Student One: In order to properly provide special education and related services to a student with a disability, educators and service providers must thoroughly understand the instructions and provisions of the student's For that reason. an LEA must ensure that an is written clearly without any ambiguous or confusing statements. Student One's most recent is not suf?ciently clear and does not adequately address his/her needs. Therefore, The LEA must convene 'an ARD committee meeting for the student as soon as possible and no later than 10 school days from the date of this report, untess the student's parent agrees to a different timeline. The ARD committee must revise the student's IEP as follows: Houston (Jo-Dist: 101-912 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510?18 Page 18 of 24 1. Section Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance? of the student's October 2015 IEP is too general and carries over multiple statements from previous lEPs. The section must be revised to accurately reflect the student?s actual present levels of performance and needs as indicated by recent evaluations and information from other sources. For example, instead of stating that the student's "lexile scores are significantly below grade level," the section must state the grade level at which the student is currently reading. Instead of just stating that the student "struggles during testing,? the section should also include a description of what the student?s issues are with regard to testing. The section must also provide speci?c information about the writing skills and math concepts that the student does and does not possess. Overall, the PLAAFP must be revised so that it provides sufficient detail to enable the ARD committee to develop annual goals that address the student?s unique needs. . . . The reading goal In the current IEP is vague. It states that by the end of the school year, the student ?reads with fluency and understanding in increasingly demanding texts.? it further states that the student?s baseline score was 65 percent and that the student is expected to achieve 80 percent by the end of the year. It is unclear what level text the student was reading for the baseline score and whether s/he is will be tested at that same ievel at the end of the year or wilt be expected to achieve 80 percent reading a higher level of text. Based on the student's PLAAFP. the ARE) committee must develop one or more new reading goals for the student that is specific enough to allow LEA staff and the parent to understand the level at which the student is reading at the beginning of the period and whether the student made progress. The goal(s) should make clear which specific skills will be required in order to achieve the goal(s). Because the student has significant deficiencies in reading and is approaching graduation, the reading goal(s) must also include multiple benchmarks or short-term objectives that logically breakdown the major components of the annual gcai(s) and serve as milestones for measuring progress toward meeting the goai(s). The benchmarks or objectives should be written in a sequential order that reflects a progression through the various skills needed to meet the annual goai(s) and permit monitoring of progress throughout the year. The goal(s) and benchmarks or objectives must be measurable in that they contain evaiuative criteria. evaluation procedures, and schedules to be used to measure progress. . The student?s ARD committee must consider whether the student?s current includes at least one annual goal for each area of need. The current does not include a writing goal. If writing is an area of need, a writing goal should be added. In addition, the ARC) committee must revise all of the annual goals to contain evaluative criteria, evaluation procedures, and schedules to be used to measure progress. . The IEP must be revised to provide the student with at least one 30-minute session of direct services per week for the remainder of the 2015- 2016 school year to assist the student with his/her anxiety and school avoidance issues. The must also include consultation services with the student's general education and special education teachers so that they can assist the student with his behavior and goals. . Page 7 of the current IEP reflects that the student will have ?personal care services" to prevent ?behavior." it further states that the student ?wilt have available the services of in-class support facilitation as needed" and that ?special Houston Co?Dist: 101-912 FY: 2014-2015 Compialnt: 201510718 Page staff which includes couteachers and case managers? will monitor the student?s progress and behavior. The record does not indicate that the student requires personal care services toileting, feeding, etc). Therefore, this section of the was likely mistakenly completed. Any needs that relate to the student?s behavioral issues and instructional services should be clearly described in the annual goals, related services section, and/or BSIP. In accordance with the LEA's Easy IEP guidance, the student's IEP should describe the specific inwclass support services by a special education teacher that the student will receive in each general education class. The frequency and duration of the services must also be specified. For example, the couid state ?The student attends geometry for 50 minutes daily. A special education teacher will attend the student's geometry class for minutes (insert frequency and duration) and will mtdescribe instructional support to be provided)." Page 24 of the IEP reflects that the student will receive "facilitated support services? in government, English IV, and English lit. The schedule of services on Pages 16 and 1? reflect that the student will only receive in-ciass support. Page 25 of the states that Mr. Patterson and Ms. McAfee will be available for facilitated support services. If the student will receive support facilitation (an indirect service) in addition to in-class sopport (a direct service), the IEP must clearly describe the services. The ARD committee must clarify the accelerated instruction program for reading and US. history on page 17 of the For example, it is unclear when the student receives these services and the Specific supports that are provided. The ARD committee must clarify the Content Mastery services that the student will receive for science and social studies. For example, the should clarify whether the student is permitted to leave his/her science and social studies classes for individual assistance in the Content Mastery room for 30 minutes two times per week or whether s/he will reguiarly attendIContent Mastery for 30 minutes two times per week. in addition, the IEP should clarify whether the student receives one 30-minute session for science and one 30-minute session for social studies per week or whether there is some other arrangement. Finaliy, it is unclear whether the student goes to Content Mastery to work on science and social studies assignments or whether s/he receives reading assistance. Because the student struggles in all academic areas, the ARD committee must consider whether the student should have Content Mastery services for any other areas, such as math. Page 20 of the reflects that the student will benefit from full inclusion in the general education setting but also indicates that the ARD committee does not recommend that the student receive all instruction and services in the general education setting. The ARD committee must resolve this apparent confiict in the ER It is unclear whether the student is receiving some services in a speciai education setting. if the student is receiving special education services outside of the general education setting, the student's instructional arrangement should not be listed as mainstream. Given that the student is uncomfortable in some of hisfher general education classes due to hisfher tow reading ability, the ARD committee should carefully evaluate whether the student should continue to receive instruction in general education classes or whether s/he might do better with some instruction in a special education resource setting. Pages 12, 19, and 23 contain conflicting information about the state assessment that the student will take. The ARD committee shouid clarify whether the student Houston Co-Dlsl: 101~912 FY: 2014-20t5 Complaint: 201510718 Page 20 of 24 will be taking the STAAR. STAAR Accommodated, or STAAR Alternate 2 assessment. 13. The ARD committee should clarify whether the student is receiving any dyslexia services through special education and/or general education personnel. 14. The student is entitled to relief to compensate for the LEA's failure to address his/her attendance problems during the 2014-2015 school year. One-on-one educational tutoring must offered and made available to the student at a location convenient for the student through the end of the 2015-2016 school year. The amount and frequency of the tutoring must be determined by the ARD committee, considering the student's schedule and tolerance for additional services and the fact that the student?s IEP did not address the student's attendance issues during the 2014-2015 schoot year. The tutoring can be provided during or after school, but it must be in addition to the student?s educationat program. The ARD committee must determine the appropriate credentials for the tutor. The ARD committee must also consider whether other types of compensatory education. compensatory counseling services, and other types of compensatory related services must be made available to the student. If the student's parent declines the compensatory tutoring or other compensatory services, the LEA must provide evidence of that. For Student Two: Within 10 calendar days of the date of this report, the LEA must attempt to locate Student Two, who is approaching hislher 18?? birthday, and his/her parent to encourage the student to reenroll and to offer to reevaluate the student. The LEA must document its attempts to locate the student and the student's parent. Once the student is located. the LEA must provide prior written notice of its proposal to reevaluate the student. If the adult student (or legal guardian, if applicable) provides written consent for a reevaluation, the LEA must provide an independent reevaluation of the student that includes a assessment. The reevaluation must include an assessment of the undertying reasons for the student's chronic absenteeism. The LEA must provide the adult student/legal guardian with a written report of the reevaluation as soon as possible and not later than 30 calendar days following the date on which the LEA received consent, unless the aduit student/legal guardian agrees to a different timeline. After the reevaluation is compteted, the LEA must convene an ARD committee meeting as soon as possible and no later than 10 school days from the date of the completion of the reevaluation, untess the adult student/legal guardian agrees to a different timeline. The ARD committee must review the reevaluation report, the student?s IEP, and any other relevant information. If consent for a reevaluation is not provided, an ARD committee must meet no later than 20 calendar days from the date of this report, unless the adult student/legal guardian agrees to a different timeline, to review the student?s and any other relevant information. The ARD committee must revise the student?s to Include interventions to address the student?s attendance issues. The ARD committee must also consider whether the student?s attendance issues and current educational needs warrant revlsing the annual goals, supplementary aids and services, and educational placement. Finally, the ARD Houston ISD Clo-Dist: 101-912 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510?18 Page 21 of 24 committee must resolve any conflicts and deficiencies in the EIEP that are identified in this report. . The student is entitled to relief to compensate for the failure to address his/her attendance problems during the 2014-2015 school year. One~on?one educational tutoring must offered and made available to the student at a location convenient for the student through the end of the 2015-2016 school year. The amount and frequency of the tutoring must be determined by the ARD committee, considering the student's schedule - and tolerance for additional services and the fact that the student's did not address the student's attendance issues during the 2014?2015 school year. The tutoring can be provided during or after school, but it must be in addition to the student?s educational program. The ARD committee must determine the appropriate credentials for the tutor. The ARD committee must also consider whether other types of compensatory education, compensatory counseling services, and other types of compensatory related services must be made available to the student. For Student Three: Within 10 calendar days of the date of this report, the LEA must attempt to locate Student Three, and his/her parent to encourage the student to reenroll and to and to offer to reevaluate the student to support the student's post?secondary goals and services. The LEA must document its attempts to locate the adult student and the student's parent. Once the student is located, the LEA must provide prior written notice of its proposal to reevaluate the student. if the adult student (or legal guardian, if applicable) provides written consent for a reevaluation, the LEA must provide a reevaluation of the student. The LEA must provide the adult student/legal guardian with a written report of the reevaiuation as soon as possible and not tater than 30 calendar days following the date on which the LEA received consent, unless the adult student/legal guardian agrees to a different timeline. After the reevaluation is completed, the LEA must convene an ARD committee meeting as soon as possible and no later than 10 school days from the date of the completion of the reevaluation, unless the adult studentllegal guardian agrees to a different timeline, The ARD committee must review the reevaluation report. the student?s and any other reievant information. if consent for a reevaluation is not provided, an ARD committee must meet no tater than 20 calendar days from the date of this report. unless the adult student/legal guardian agrees to a different timeline, to review the student?s and any other relevant information. The ARD committee must revise the student?s to include interventions to address the student's attendance issues. The ARD committee must also consider whether the student?s attendance issues and current educational needs warrant revising the annual goals, supplementary aids and services, and educational placement. Finally, the ARD committee must resolve any conflicts and deficiencies in the that are identified in this report. The student is entitled to relief to compensate for the failure to address his/her attendance problems during the 2014~2015 school year. One-on-one educational tutoring must offered and made available to the student at a location convenient for the student through the end of the 2015-2016 school year. The amount and frequency of the Houston Co-Dist: 101-912 FY: 2614-2015 Complaint: 201510718 Page 22 of 24 tutoring must be determined by the ARD committee, considering the student?s schedule and tolerance for additional services and the fact that the student?s IEP did not address the' student's attendance issues during the 2014-2015 school year. The tutoring can be provided during or after school, but it must be in addition to the student?s educational program. The ARD committee must determine the appropriate credentials for the tutor. The ARC) committee must also consider whether other types of compensatory education, compensatory counseling services, and other types of compensatory related services must be made available to the student. For all students with disabilities in the LEA: The LEA has Updated its school guidelines document. The School Guidelines 2015?2016 document includes the following statement on page V-55 related to withdrawing special education students for non~attendancez An Committee meeting is required for students with disabilities who are being considered for withdrawal from school due to non-attendance. The Committee should review the reasons for non?attendance and needed special education and related services. All parents of students receiving special services are exempt from truancy court filings per the truancy statute. The Committee may recommend the withdrawal of students as indicated above for students with disabilities if it is determined that the placement of the student is appropriate, the absences are not due to the student's disability, and attendance referrals have been investigated by the attendance specialist or other person assigned to address attendance issues. Schools should send the ARDIIEP Committee decision to the adult student or the parent of a mlnor student along with a letter them of the right to re?enroli. These guidelines raise several concerns and must be revised to ensure that they are consistent with IDEA requirements. First, the first paragraph does not reflect that a student's absenteeism may trigger the need for an evaluation or a reevaluation. The reasons for the student?s non-attendance may not always be evident from reviewing the student's existing data. Second, the first paragraph indicates that the ARC) committee should review the services that the student currently receives but does not expressiy state that a student's attendance issues will generally give rise to the need to revise the student's Third, the second paragraph reflects that an ARD committee may recommend withdrawal of a student If the student?s current placement is appropriate and the student's absences are not due to the student?s disability. All student with disabilities. including those who are expelled, are entitled to a FAPE through age 21. Therefore, a district that administratively withdraws a student from a campus without placing the student in an alternative educational setting and developing an that will provide FAPE to the student in that setting runs the risk of a denial?of?FAPE claim. The LEA's response to the complaint reflects that it is aiso revising its Board policies, guidelines, and Special Education Department operating procedures to inciude statutory changes relating to truancy and guidelines for the withdrawal of students with disabilities who fall to attend school. The LEA must ensure that the revisions are consistent with IDEA requirements. Houston ISD Co-Dist: 1014312 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510718 Page 23 of 24 Once the LEA has revised all- relevant policies, guidelines, and operating procedures are consistent with requirements, the LEA must train all campus principals and assistant principals and key central administrative staff on these revised policies, guidelines, and operating procedures. The LEA must provide training on or written notice of the revised policies, operating procedures, and guidelines to all LEA staff who may be affected by the revisions, including, but not limited to. special education personnel, counselors, truancy officers, and attendance staff. The LEA must provide training to the attendance staff, truancy/?officers, campus administrators, special education personnel, general education personnel, DRIP committee members and others at Worthing High School, Sterling High School, and Advanced Virtual Academy on the procedures for addressing a student's attendance issues with the student's ARD committee. The LEA must provide training to staff at Worthing High School, Sterling High School, and Advanced Virtual Academy who develop, review, and revise lEPs. Specifically, the training must address: 1. when a student?s excessive absenteeism can trigger the duty to evaluate or reevaluate the student; 2. when a student?s excessive absenteeism can trigger a duty to revise the student?s . 3. strategies or interventions that may be included in an IEP and/or to address chronic absenteeism, truancy, and dropout prevention; 4. a student's entitlement to FAPE through age 21; 5. how supplementary aids and services, including, but not iimited to in-class support, support facilitation, and Content Mastery must be documented in an IEP so that the student's services are understandable to staff and parents; 6. the details that must be included in a student?s PLAAFP to enable the ARD committee to develop meaningful annual goals based on the student's needs; 7. the details that must be included in a student's annual goals, benchmarks, and short?term Objectives to allow staff and parents to understand whether the student is making progress; 8, when the ?Supplementary Aids and Personal Care Services" section of the IEP must be completed and the details that must be included in the section; 9. the need for all statements related to a student?s educational placement to be in alignment; and . 10. the requirement that changes to a student's educational placement and instructional programming and services only be made through the ARD committee process. By November 30 2015, the LEA must provide TEA with a proposed timeline for completing the corrective actions or must provide TEA with the following documentation to show completion of the corrective actions. 1. copies of each student?s documenting the corrective actions; 2. copies of service logs or other documentation showing the implementation of the compensatory services for each student; 3. copies of the revised portions of policies, operating procedures, and guidelines; 4. copies of memoranda and/or guidance letters issued to staff; and Houston 180 Co-Dist: 101-912 FY: 2014?2015 Compialnt: 201510718 Page 24 of 24 5. copies of the training agendas describing the information presented in the trainings and a list with the names and positions of the individuals who participated in the training. Further intervention by TEA may result if the LEA does not provide the requested information or respond within the required timeline. In accordance with 34 CFR TEA must ensure that the LEA corrects identified noncompliance "as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year after the State?s identification of the noncompliance." Therefore, all required corrective actions must be completed no later than October 30, 2016. Failure to correct the cited noncompliance by this date will resutt in an additional finding of noncompliance under 34 CFR ?300.600(e) and may result in additional sanctions against the LEA as outlined in 19 TAC ?89.1076. This concludes investigation of the complaint. Texas Education Agency Michael Williams Commissioner Special Education Complaint investigative Report October 15. 2015 Dustin Rynders Gregory Smith Short Complainant Superintendent Special Education Director 1500 McGowen, Suite 100 Clear Creek ISD Clear Creek Houston. TX 77004 PO. Box 799 2425 East Main Street League CityI TX 77574 League City, TX 77573 Local Educational Agency (LEA): Clear Creek Co-Dist: 084-910 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510710 To the Individuals Addressed: The attached report is the written decision of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) regarding the above-referenced complaint. Allegations, Conclusions, and Reasons for Decision TEA investigated the following allegations. Allegation One: Did the student?s attendance issues during the 2014-2015 school year warrant the need for a reevaluation. and. if so, did the LEA conduct the reevaluation? [34 CFR ?300.303] Allegation Two: Did the LEA ensure that the student?s individualized education program (IEP) was developed, reviewed. and revised to address the student's attendance issues between June 1. 2014, and June 1, 2015? [34 CFR ?300.324] Allegation Three: Did the LEA ensure that any changes in placement with regard to the student between June 1, 2014, and June 1, 2015, were made by a properly constituted admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committee? [34 CFR ?300.116. 19 TAC Allegation Four: Did the LEA ensure that it implemented the student's individualized education program (IEP) with regard to providing the student with transportation between the ?rst day of the LEA's 2014-2015 school year and October 13. 2014? [34 CFR {$300323} Contaclthe Division of Federal and State Education Policy: (512) 463-9414 FAX: (512) 463-9560 Ciear Creek Co-Dtsl: 084-910 FY: 2014-2015 Compiaini: 201510710 Page 2 of 2 The following noncompliance was determined. The LEA does not always ensure that it initiates reevaluations of students to address students' needs in accordance with 34 CFR ?300.303. The LEA does not always ensure that it develops, reviews, and revises students' lEPs to address students' needs in accordance with 34 CFR ?300.324. TEA required corrective actions of the LEA. if a party to a complaint believes that written report includes an error that is material to the determination in the report. the party may submit a signed. written request for reconsideration to TEA by mail, hand-delivery. or facsimile within 15 calendar days of the date of the report. The party's reconsideration request must identify the asserted error and include any documentation to support the claim. The party ?ling a reconsideration request must forward a copy of the request to the other party at the same time that the request is filed with TEA. The other party may respond to the reconsideration request within five calendar days of the date on which TEA received the request. TEA will consider the reconsideration request and provide a written response to the parties within 45 calendar days of receipt of the request. The ?ling of a reconsideration request must not delay a public education agency?s implementation of any corrective actions required by TEA. This concludes investigation. The attached investigative report is ?nal written decision. Questions regarding this letter or the attached report may be directed to me at (512) 463-9414. Respectfully, Keith Swink Division of Federai and State Education Policy enclosure: satisfaction survey cc: Texas Appleseed Deborah Fowler 1609 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Suite 201 Austin, TX 78701 National Center for Youth Law Michael Harris 405 14th Street. 15th Floor Oakland. CA 94612 Clear Creek ISD County-District: 084-910 Investigative Report FY: 2014?201 5 October 15. 2015 Complaint No: 201510710 This report is the written decision of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) regarding the third-party complaint filed on behalf of multiple students, one of whom attended the Clear Creek Independent School District (ISD). herein referred to as the local educational agency (LEA). during the 2014-2015 school year. For the purposes of confidentiality, student gender pronouns are made neutral. Brackets have been removed from quotes with regard to substituting gender pronouns for the purposes of readability. The complaint alleges violations of federal and state special education laws and the implementing regulations pertaining to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Texas Education Code (TEC), andior the Texas Administrative Code (TAO). The four specific allegations and TEA's findings of fact and conclusions, together with the reasons for ?nal decision, are as follows. Allegation One Did the student?s attendance issue during the 2014-2015 school year warrant the need for a reevaluation. and. if so. did the LEA conduct the reevaluation? [34 CFR ?300.303] Allegation TWO Did the LEA ensure that the student's individualized education program (IEP) was developed, reviewed, and revised to address the student?s attendance issues between June 1. 2014. and June 1, 2015? [34 CFR {$300324} Statement of the Complaint for Allegations One and Two The complaint. which was received by TEA on June 1. 2015. alleges that the LEA failed to provide the student with appropriate special education and related services to address the student's chronic absenteeism. The complaint alleges that. instead of convening an admission, review. dismissal (ARD) committee meeting to consider the student?s attendance issues and possible need for a reevaluation. the LEA attempted to force the student out of school and Into a general education development (GED) program by filing a truancy complaint against the student. Findings of Fact for Allegations One and Two 1. The student transferred to the LEA from an out-of?state district during the 2011-2012 school year when slhe was in grade. The student had previously been identified as eligible for special education services under the category of other health impairment (OHI). The previous district was in the process of reevaluating the student when slhe moved to Texas and provided the LEA with data it had collected. 2. The LEA completed an evaluation of the student. The full and individual evaluation (FIE) report dated June 1. 2012, reflects that the student has a long history of sedans behavioral dif?culties In the educational setting, including stealing, threatening peers and adults. bringing knives to school, starting a ?re in a school restroom, and exposing himself/herself to peers. 3. The FIE report reflects that there is a history of mental illness on both sides of the student's family and that both of the student's parents are disabled due to medical conditions. 4. The FIE report Includes the following information regarding the student?s hospitalizations and diagnoses: Clear Creek [80 Co-Dist: 084-910 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510710 Page 2 of 18 [The student] has been hospitalized several times over the last few years. Each time, s/he has received various diagnoses. including the following: Asperger?s Disorder (by three providers). attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) combined type (by four providers). conduct disorder (by three providers). Reactive Attachment Disorder (by one provider). . . [The student] has also been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder (Type-1 with The FIE report re?ects that the student takes multiple medications for ADHD and other conditions. The report states that the student transferred with good grades but that his/her grades have been problematic due to a lack of effort and attendance. The report provides no additional details regarding the student's attendance issues. The FIE report states that the student?s scores on the Attitude to School, Anxiety. and Somatization Scales of the Behavior Assessment System for Children Second Edition (BASCQ) fell in the ?clinically significant range.? The FIE report describes the student's results on the Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scales-2 (RCMAS-Z) as follows: Although no scales fell signi?cantly on this measure. . .[the student} also indicated that sfhe spent a lot of time feeling worried. sine worries that kids will laugh at him/her in class or tease him/her. and worries about something bad happening. . . [The student] also exhibited many physical difficulties including feeling sick. with both headaches and stomachaches, dif?culty sleeping. and feeling tired. The report states that the student?s difficulties in the educational setting appear to be attributable to his/her signi?cant dif?culties with attention. impulslvity. and over activity coupled with his/her anxiety and possible serious mental health issues. which have included type behaviors. The report concludes that the student appears to be eligible for special education services under the category of OHI based on hisfher ADHD diagnosis and also under the category of emotional disturbance (ED). The ED determination is based on the student?s exhibiting inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances as well as an inability to build and maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers. 10. The student failed to meet the passing standards for the reading and math portions 11. of the 8th grade state assessment. On May 1. 2013. the student?s ARD committee met to discuss the student?s assessment results and to consider accelerated instruction. The reflects that the student had been receiving instruction in the general education curriculum and had taken the general state assessment. The ARD committee revised the student?s to provide modified curriculum in the core subject areas and to require that the student take the modi?ed versions of the state assessments for the second administration of the grade assessment and for the next school year. Signi?cantly. the transition plan in the May 1, 2013 IEP reflects that the student?s are that s/he "has good attendance. gels to class on time. [and] has personal interests and hobbies." Clear Creek ISD Co-Dtst: 084-9t0 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510110 Page 3 of 13 13. During the 2013-2014 school year, the student was in grade at an LEA high school. The student?s disciplinary record reflects that the student engaged in various types of misconduct during the school year. including threatening to fight another student. ?ghting with another student. being disrespectful, having a verbal altercation with another student. leaving campus at lunch, selling cigarettes to another student. being in possession of cigarettes, and smoking. The student received detention. in- school suspension, and out-of-sohool suspension for some of these disciplinary infractions. 14. The student's first semester grades for the 2013-2014 school year were two As. four Cs. and one F. The student had 10 to 15 absences per class during the semester. 15. On January 13, 2014. the student was assigned to a disciplinary alternative education placement (DAEP) for 60 days for being under the influence of marijuana. 16. On March 20, 2014. the student's ARD committee conducted an annual review and revision of the student's IEP for the remainder of the 2013-2014 school year and for the 2014-2015 school year. The adopted reflects that the student would receive 60 percent or more of his/her instruction in the special education setting and would participate in two general education electives with "intensive [behavioral] support." The also indicates that the student would receive 60 minutes of services and 15 minutes of consultation services per nine weeks. 17. The student?s inciudes behavior goats and a behavior Intervention plan that target the student's non-compliant behaviors and verbal aggression. The does not include any goals or strategies to address the student's attendance issues. 18. The student?s reflects that the student passed six out of seven classes during the first semester and was passing six out of seven classes at the time of the ARD committee meeting. The also reflects that the student passed the modi?ed version of the 8?h grade reading assessment. but failed the modified version of the 8th grade math assessment. 19. The indicates that no additional evaluations were needed and that a reevaluation would be due on May 31. 2015. 20. The county district attorney's office sent the student?s parent a "warning letter" dated May 19. 2014, stating that the student had three unexcused absences In April and that additional unexcused absences would result in a criminal charge being filed. 21. During the spring semester. the student had 48 to 50 absences per piece. A majority of these absences were unexcused. 22.The student passed six out of seven classes during the 2013-2014 school year. However, second semester grades. six Cs and one F. were lower than hisfher first semester grades. The student?s art teacher included a comment on the student's report card that reads. "Excessive absences and/or [tardiness], zeroes on assignments." 23. The student enrolled in another LEA high school for the 2014-2015 school year. 24. The first day of the school year was August 25, 2014. The student attended the ?rst week of school and was absent one day during the second week. 25. During the third week of school. the student came to schooi only one day (September 11), but was sent home due to illness by the clinic aide. 26. The LEA's response to the complaint states that a campus administrator spoke with the student about his/her attendance issues on September 11. 2014. Emails from the administrator to the truancy officer on September 25 and October 16, 2014. conflict with this claim. See Findings of Fact 28 and 34. Clear Creek ISD Co-Dist1004-910 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510710 Page 4 of 10 28. The student's three-week progress report dated September 12. 2014. reflects that the student was passing physical education (PE). barely passing science. and failing art, math, English It. and English. No grade was included for history. One teacher commented that the student had excessive absences andior tardles. 29. On September 23. 2014. the campus attendance of?cer emailed several campus staff members stating that the student had not been to school. 30. An email exchange between the truancy of?cer and a campus administrator on September 25. 2014. re?ects that the truancy of?cer advised the administrator that the student had over 10 unexcused absences and asked if the administrator had any information regarding the student. The administrator responded that he did not have ?any Information on that student being absent for any reason.? The truancy officer stated that the student had a truancy case filed against himiher in May 2014. In a subsequent email. the truancy of?cer informed the administrator that she had called the student's parent and that the parent said the student had been ill since September 12. The truancy of?cer stated that she informed the parent that if a doctor's note does not cover all of the student?s absences. a truancy complaint would be filed. 31. The county district attorney's office sent the student?s parent a warning letter on September 25. 2014. stating that the student had three unexcused absences and that additional unexcused absences would result in a criminal charge being filed. 32. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the LEA and the county district attorney's office states that. within five days of the Issuance of a warning letter. the LEA agrees to attempt to meet with the student and the student's parents regarding the attendance problem. There is no evidence reflecting that the LEA complied with this term of the MOU. 33. The student went to the school clinic on September 30. 2014. and was dismissed from school due to Illness by the clinic aide.1 34. Attendance records show that the student had 18 state-reported absences during September 2014. 35. The student?s six-week progress report dated October 2. 2014. re?ects that the student was passing PE. barely passing science. and failing art. math. English II. and English. No grade was included for history. Two teachers commented that the student had excessive absences andlor tardles. 36. An email exchange between the truancy officer and a campus administrator on October 15 and 16. 2014. indicates that the student had over 10 unexcused absences. and the truancy of?cer was preparing to file a truancy complaint. The truancy officer asked whether the administrator had ever met with the student regarding his attendance. The administrator responded that he had spoken to the student. but could not remember when. The administrator further stated that the campus administrator?s statement claims that the student rarely attended class. but was often seen on campus. even on days when the student?s parent indicated the student was home sick. The administrator states that. On September 30. the tried to ?nd the student. The student was not In class. but had been seen on campus. The administrator implies that the student was skipping ciasses and that a doctor's note provided by the parent stating that the student had pharyngitis. a cough. nausea. and vomiting on September 30 through October 2 was untruthful. Attendance records re?ect that, on September 30. the student went to first period. missed second and third periods. attended tourih period. and than missed the remainder of the day. Records re?ect that the student went to the clinic at 10:47 AM, was dismissed from school due to iltness by a clinic aids. and was picked up by the parent. Though it Is unclear whether the student missed htsiher second and third period classes due to skipping or due to itiness. the doctor?s note is not inaccurate in stating that the student was ill on September 30. Clear Creek 160 Co-Disl: 084-910 FY: 2014.2015 Compieint: 201510710 Page 5 of 18 student was choosing not to attend school and directed the truancy of?cer to move forward with the ?ling of the truancy complaint. 37. The LEA's response to the complaint states that a campus administrator Spoke with the student about his/her attendance issues on October 16, 2014. An email from the administrator to the truancy officer on October 16, is inconsistent with this claim. See Finding of Fact 34. 38. The student's nine-week report card reflects that the student barely passed PE and had failing grades in all other classes. 39. On October 20. 2014, the student became til at school and was sent home by the school counselor. 40. On October 21, 2014, the LEA ?led a truancy complaint against the student. 41. The student's progress reports dated October 24, 2014. include general comments stating, "There is insufficient data to determine mastery due to [the student] missing 30 out of 43 days of school." 42. Attendance records show that the student had 16 state-reported absences during October 2014. 43. On November 5 . 2014. the student was suspended for three days. A discipline referral form indicates that the student was in possession of two baggies that contained a green leafy substance and that the student admitted to selling some of these baggies to another student. The form also reflects that the student was in possession of a folding knife. The form indicates that the student would be assigned to a DAEP. 44. On November 10, 2014, the campus special education team leader emailed the special education teacher who was assigned as the student?s caseworker stating that the teacher had put in a staf?ng request for Positive Approach to Student Success (PASS) support for the student and that the student's parent called on November 6 "to request more support for between classes (like someone walking him/her to class) and bus support (someone walking him/her to the bus and making sure sihe go on The team leader then asked whether she should schedule the PASS support in light of the student's upcoming manifestation determination meeting. 45. The special education teacher responded that she and a behavior specialist had discussed the possibility of additional support and then stated: We have attempted to do this and s/he has run from us or refuses to move from hisiher current position each time. Walking will also not solve him/her carrying weapons or drugs. Slhe is currently already PASS, my concern is how much more restriction are we needing to put on him/her because of not attending class. 46. On November 12, 2014, the student's ARD committee met to conduct a manifestation determination to determine whether the student?s bringing drugs and a knife to school had a direct or substantial relationship to his/her disabilities. The committee concluded that the student's misconduct did not appear to be related to his/her disabilities. 47. The ARD committee determined that the student's was appropriate and was appropriately Implemented when the student attended school. The ARD committee added of a behavior goal to the IEP to address the student?s disciplinary infractions. Though documentation from the meeting notes that the student had a high number of absences and had been to court for truancy, the ARD committee did not revise the IEP to address the student?s absenteeism. Clear Creek ISD Co-Dist: 084-910 Y: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510?10 Page 6 of 13 48. Attendance records reflect that the student had 45 state-reported absences out of the 60 days sine was enrolled during the 2014-2015 school year. Some of the absences were for the entire day. and some of them were for parts of the day. it appears that the student came to school on some days and attended some classes and skipped others. 49. The student?s parent submitted notes for some of the student?s absences. Some of the absences appear to be for valid reasons. but several do not. A campus administrator declined to excuse some of the absences. . 50. Approximately 15 of the student's absences appear to be due to acute illnesses such as diarrhea. nausea. vomiting. and upper respiratory infections. 51. On November ?it, 2014. the student was arrested for aggravated robbery. 52. On November 19, 2014. the student was withdrawn from the LEA and enrolled in the county Juvenile justice alternative education program (JJAEP). 53. On November 21, 2014, the student?s ARD committee conducted a manifestation determination to determine whether the student?s arresl for aggravated robbery had a direct or substantial relationship to the student's disabilities. The committee determined that the misconduct was unrelated to the student?s disabilities. 54. The ARD committee determined that the student?s should remain in effect with the addition of a behavior goal relating to the student?s illegal activities. Documentation from the meeting notes the student?s truant behavior. but the ARD committee did not revise the to address the student's absenteeism. 55. After the ARD committee meeting, the campus principal sent the student's parent an Order of Expulsion and Placement stating that she was ordering the student's expulsion and placement at the county JJAEP. The document also states that a student arrested, charged, or adjudicated for aggravated robbery may be subject to a JJAEP placement until the student graduates from high school, the charges are dismissed or reduced to a misdemeanor offense. or until the student completes the term of placement or Is assigned to another program. 56. The response to the complaint contains the following statement relating to Allegation One: The ARE) committee did not speci?cally consider whether [the student's} attendance issue warranted a new evaluation. The investigation by [campus staff] into [the student's] absences during the 2014-2015 school year, both before and after the truancy referral. did not reveal any reason to suspect that [the student?s] absences were related to a disability or an inappropriate education program/services. Because the LEA did not suspect an additional disability or that [the student's] educational. or related service needs warranted a reevaluation on the basis of histher attendance issues it did not request an ARD meeting to consider further evaluation. Similarity. [the student's] parent did not request or suggest additional assessments or a reevaluation to consider the attendance Issue. 57. The response to the complaint includes the following statements relating to Allegation Two: [Tjhe ARD committee [from the previous campus that met on March 20, 2014] considered the student?s behavior problems and recommended behavioral goals and positive behavioral supports and Ciear Creek Co-Dist: 064-910 FY: 2014~2015 Complaint: 201510710 Page 7 of 18 strategies to encourage [the student?s] compliance and appropriate interactions at school. The ARD committee also recommended counseling services. both direct and Indirect to support the student?s educational needs. The ARD committee did not recommend any particular supports [that] were needed related to [the student's] truancy problems. Although [the never proposed disciplinary action related to [the student?s] truancy, it was considered in detail at ARD meetings held [in November 2014]. At these meetings, It was not determined that [the student's or behavior goals needed to be modified to address his/her nonahendance. After [the student] began attending [the in November 2014. [the was no longer responsible for convening ARD meetings and providing {the student] with a [free appropriate public education 58. According to the LEA. the student's parent and the student no longer live in the LEA's geographic boundaries. Conclusions and Reasons for TEA's Final Decision for Allegation One Authority: 34 CFR ?300.303 34 CFR ?300.303 requires that an LEA ensure that a reevaluation of each student with a disability is conducted. in accordance with 34 CFR ??300.304 through 300.311. if the LEA determines that the educational or related services needs, Including improved academic achievement and functional performance, of the student warrant a reevaluation or if the student's parent or teacher requests a reevaluation? A reevaluation may occur not more than once a year, unless the parent and the LEA agree otherwise, and must occur at least once every three years unless the parent and the LEA agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary. to the case of a student with chronic absenteeism or truant behavior. an LEA may need to reevaluate the student in order to properly address the matter in the In this report. chronic absenteeism refers to excessive absences during the school year for any reason. In Texas, chronic absenteeism generally refers to a student who absent for 10 percent or more of the days a class is offered.?1 Thus, a student who is absent 18 or more times during a 180-day school year is considered chronically absent. Truancy refers to a certain number or certain frequency of unexcused absences. in Texas, iruant conduct is defined as falling to attend school without excuse on 10 or more days or parts of days within a six-month period In the same school year.5 9899 Sheiby S. by Kaihieen T. v. Conroe Indep. Sch. Dist. 454 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. IDEA states that a reevaluation is warranted when the schoot district requires evaluation materiais that are essential to assessing a child's special education needs?) 3899 West Lyon Cmty. Sch. Dist, 48 232 (SEA JA 2007) (Noting that the student attended only three foil days and seven half days of schooi between August and March. the hearing of?cer concluded that the LEA should have conducted a evaluation and revised the student's ?899 Tex. Eouc. Coos 1525.092 (generally provides that a student may not be given credit or a ?nal grade for a class unless the student is in attendance for at least 90 percent of the days the class is offered). 5889 Tex. FAM. Coos Clear Creek ISD Co-Dist: 084-910 FY: 2014.2015 Compiafnt: 201510210 Page 8 of 18 The student's 2012 FIE report notes that the student?s attendance adversely affected hislher grades in the past. but does not address the extent of the student's absenteeism or the extent to which it had affected the student's grades. The FIE report also reflects that the student suffers from anxiety and experiences physical difficulties. Including feeling sick. having difficulty sleeping. and feeling tired. but does not state whether these physical dif?culties would cause the student to be absent from school. Apparently. the student?s attendance was not considered a significant problem at that time the HE was conducted. During the 2012-2013 school year. the ARD committee noted that the student?s included his/her good attendance and punctuality. During the ?rst semester of the 2013-2014 school year. the student was absent from each class anywhere from 10 to 15 times. During the second semester, the student?s absence rate more than tripied. Despite the signi?cant decline in the student's attendance. the ARD committee did not address the matter when it revised the student?s IEP in March 2014. it also did not meet to discuss the student's absenteeism before or after a truancy complaint was ?led against the student In May 2014. Not long into the 2014-2015 school year. the student began missing school. Three weeks into the school year. the student was failing four classes. and one teacher noted in the student?s progress report that the student had excessive absences and/or tardies. Six weeks into the school year. two teachers commented In the student's progress report that the student had excessive absences and/or tardies. The student ultimately received falling grades in six out of seven classes for the ?rst nine-week grading period. The student had 18 state-reported absences by the end of September, which meant that slhe was already chronically absent for the school year and at risk of not earning credits. Though it was evident after the first grading period that the student's chronic absenteeism was affecting his/her educational progress. the LEA did not convene an ARD committee meeting. If the ARD committee had met. it should have determined that additional evaluative data were needed in order to revise the student's IEP. The 2012 HE report is not informative regarding the student's attendance issue. The student?s chronic absenteeism arose during the 2013-2014 school year; this change in the student's attendance coupled with the complex nature of the student's and behavioral Issues indicated a need for a reevaluation. For these reasons. TEA concludes that the LEA should have initiated a reevaluation of the student. Allegation One is substantiated. Conclusions and Reasons for Final Decision for Allegatlon Two Authority: 34 CFR ?300.324 34 CFR ?300.324 requires that. in developing each student?s the ARD committee consider the of the student. the concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their student. the results of the initial or most recent evaluation of the student. and the academic. developmental. and functional needs of the student. The ARD committee must in the case of a student whose behavior impedes the student's learning or that of others. consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports. and other strategies. to address that behavior. The LEA must ensure that the ARD committee reviews the student's periodically. but not less than annually. to determine whether the annual goals for the student are being achieved and revise the Clear Creek Co-Dist: 084-910 FY: 2014-20t5 Compteint: 201510710 Page 9 of 18 as appropriate. to address any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals. For a student who is eligible under and whose chronic absenteeism adversely affects learning. the duty to address the absences in the IEP may exist regardless of whether they stem from a disability.5 At the end of the first grading period of the 2014?2015 school year. the student had failing grades in six classes. Several of the student's teachers had commented in the student?s progress reports that the student had excessive absences or tardies. and the student's progress reports indicate that the student was not making progress toward hisiher goals due to his/her absenteeism. Despite all of this. the LEA did not convene an ARD committee meeting. Furthermore. when the student's parent contacted the school in November to request that the student he walked to class and the bus. the special education teacher who was assigned as the student's caseworker was dismissive of the request. The LEA also failed to meaningfully address the student?s absenteeism outside of the ARD committee process. The record reflects few contacts between LEA staff and the student's parent. The only phone cell that is documented is the call by the truancy officer on September 25. 2014. The only documented ?truancy prevention measures" are the phone call and the warning letter from the county attorney?s of?ce. it appears that the LEA failed to schedule a meeting with the student and hislher parents in accordance with its MOU with the county attorney's of?ce. It also appears that no LEA staff members requested a conference with the parent to address the student?s falling grades. Though the LEA claims that a campus administrator spoke with the student about hislher attendance on September 11, 2014 and on October 16. 2014, evidence in the record disputes this. Specifically. the administrator advised the truancy officer on September 25 that he did not have any Information on the student?s absences. On October 16, the administrator advised the truancy of?cer that he had spoken with the student once but could not recall when. The student's ARD committee met for the first time on November 12. 2014. to conduct a manifestation determination after the student brought marijuana and a folding knife to school. The ARD committee developed a new goal to address the student?s disciplinary infractions, but did not make any revisions to the IEP to address the student's chronic absenteeism. truant behavior. and lack of progress. The ARD committee met a second time in November to conduct another manifestation determination and again did not revise the to address the student?s absenteeism. truancy, and lack of progress. Following this meeting, the student was expelled and placed at the JJAEP. Sending the student to the JJAEP with an that failed to address behaviors that impeded the 5See Larimer County Sch. Dist.. Poudre. 2013: 502. 113 LRP 17986 (SEA CO truancy is a behavior that impedes learning. Student's attendance problems could have resuiteci in tiabitlty under it the District had ignored or otherwise failed to address this behavior through the IEP process?): Urban Pathways Charter Sch, 112 LRP 27526 (SEA PA Charter School was responsible for addressing Student's attendance issues through a study of the reasons behind the truancy. followed up with a positive behavior support plan to assist Student in achieving expected attendance. The behavior of truancy was affecting Student's learning. as noted in the Charter School's own progress reports?). See also Downingtown Area Sch. Dist, 13375112-13-KE. 113 LRP 34703 (SEA PA he hearing of?cer denied the parents' ciaims noting that the LEA took a variety of steps to secure the student's attendance tong before it fiied truancy charges. including by developing mullipte attendance plans. providing email-group therapy. and having the parents call the assistant principat when the student was refusing to leave home). Ciear Creek Co-Dist: 084-910 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510710 Page 10 of 1B student?s educational progress was a disservice primarily to the student and the student's parents, but also to the JJAEP.7 For these reasons, TEA concludes that the LEA failed to ensure that the ARD committee appropriately deveIOped, reviewed, and revised the student's Allegation Two is substantiated. Allegatlon Three Did the LEA ensure that any changes in placement with regard to the student between June 1, 2014. and June 1, 2015, were made by a duly constituted ARD committee? [34 CFR ?300.116] [19 TAC Statement of the Complaint for Allegation Three The complaint alleges that the student?s placement was changed from a self-contained behavior support classroom at one LEA campus to general education at another LEA campus outside of the ARD committee process. According to the complaint. the student's parent was noti?ed during the summer that the student would need to attend the other campus because the student resided within the attendance zone of that campus. The complaint further alleges that a truancy of?cer recommended that the court order the student to attend a GED program without the student?s ARE) committee discussing whether a GED program was appropriate for the student. Findings of Fact for Allegation Three 1. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year. the student?s parent lived within the attendance zone of Clear Falls High School ("Falls"). According to the LEA, the student's ARD committee determined that the student should attend Clear Creek High School (?Creek") for the 2013?2014 school year because it had a social development (SD) class that was not offered at Falls. 2. Documents in the record re?ect that the student lived at an address within the attendance zone of Clear Lake High School (?Lake") in March 2014. 3. The schedule of services page in the student's IEP dated March 20. 2014, indicates that the student would receive special education instruction in a special education setting for ?ve core classes with modified content for the remainder of the 2013~2014 schooi year and for the 2014-2015 school year. The IEP also re?ects that the student would receive SD behavior support for 80 minutes per week for the remainder of the 2013 2014 school year and PASS behavior support for 120 minutes per week for the 2014 2015 school year 4. The students IEP contains a section titled OF that reflects that the ARD committee determined that services would be provided at Creek for the remainder of the 2013-2014 school year and for the 2014-2015 school year. The instructional setting code listed is ?44-seli-contained Regular Campus more than The section incorrectly reflects that Creek is the campus that the student would attend If not disabled and Is as close as possible to the student?s home. 7Regarding the assertion that it was no longer obilgated to convene ARD committee meetings or provide a FAPE for the student after the student was placed in the JJAEP, TEA reminds the LEA ct its ongoing obligations to students with disabilities who are removed from their educational placements and pieced in alternative settings [or disciplinary reasons! Clear Creek Co-Dist: 084-910 FY: 2014-20t5 Complaint: 201510710 Page 11 of 18 6. 9. The student's reflects that the student's removal from the general education setting was based on the following reasons: (1) the modifications required for the student to achieve the goals in the cannot be implemented in the general education classroom without eliminating essential components of the general curriculum/activity; and (2) the student's behavior/needs are such that the student requires a structured/specialized environment for implementation of the IEP and SIP andfor that the student and/or other students would not benefit satisfactorily from instruction in the general education classroom. The student's IEP lists the following courses for the 2014-2015 school year: Special education English it, Special Education World History, Resource Geometry, Resource Integrated Physics and Chemistry Speciai Education Oral interpretation. and two general education electives with intense PASS support. A withdrawal form reflects that the student's parent withdrew the student from Creek on August 15, 2015. The form reflects that the student was moving to Lake. According to an LEA staff member. the student?s parent went to Creek in August 2014 and asked whether the student would be attending Greek or Lake. The staff member claims that she then contacted a "district specialist" who advised her that, If the student did not live in the Creek attendance zone, the student could go to his/her home campus since the program the student was enrolled in was offered at both campuses. The staff member further contends that the parent stated that the student had a cousin and sibling who attended Lake. The staff member then states "[tihe decision was made that [the parent] should enroll [the student] at hislher home campus." Admission forms re?ect that the student?s parent enrolled the student at Lake on August 22. 2014. 10. The student's 20144015 progress reports and report card reflect that the student took courses at Lake that were consistent with the IEP. 11. On November 7. 2014, a campus administrator informed the truancy of?cer of the student's DAEP placement via email. in the email. the administrator asked whether the truancy officer could ask for the court to order the student to attend a GED program and stated that the student ?does not need to be in school with this kind of track record." 12. The truancy officer responded to the email as follows: i requested a GED in court however I had never met the student. i had spoken to the parent on the phone. We have to be careful when we file on special ed students. There is a document we sign off on before we ?le. The ADA [assistant district attorney] was kind of upset with me because the student is not capable of passing a GED. [The student] Is bipolar and autistic and more. Slhe is aiready under MHMR [Mental Health and Mental Retardation] with case workers. The ADA placed [the student] on a contract and [the student] has to provide proof of ongoing counseling with MHMR and have no unexcused absences. Slhe had the same history at [the previous campus] last year. The only legal way for himlher to be withdrawn is if the parent decides to home school him/her. I am sorry. Ciear Creek Co-Dist; 084-910 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510710 Page 12 of 1B 14. A Diversion Agreement reflects that the assistant district attorney agreed to delay prosecution of the truancy charge until May 19, 2015, conditioned upon the student?s completion of the following requirements: Attend School Attend the school in which [the student] is enrolled on and during each school day as required by law. without unexcused absences for a whole day or part of a day, for 180 day, beginning on the 11/7i2014, and ending on the 5/19/15 [at time of day]. [The student] will not change school districts without prior permission of the Judge or the Assistant District Attorney. Comply with the following conditions: No unexcused absences, no tardies Follow school rules Provide proof of on-going counseling 15. On November 12. 2014, the student?s ARD committee conducted a manifestation determination. Documentation from the meeting reflects that the student?s parent informed the ARD committee that she disagreed with the court's recommendation that the student obtain a GED and asked the ARD committee members for their opinion. A campus administrator stated that it was difficult to make a certain recommendation since school staff did not know the student well due to hislher excessive absences. The administrator also stated that, because the student struggles to attend school, obtaining a GED may be a viable option for the student. The administrator discussed GED options and a homeschool program with the parent. 16. The campus administrator who attended the manifestation determination meeting was the same administrator who emailed the truancy of?cer on November 7 asking if she could request that the court order the student to attend a GED program. Conclusions and Reasons for Final Decision for Allegation Three Authority: 34 CFR ?300.116 34 CFR ?300.116 requires that, in determining the educational placement of a student with a disability. the LEA must ensure that the placement decision is made by a groun of persons. including the parents and other persons knowledgeable about the student, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options. The student?s placement decision must be made in conformity with the least restrictive environment provisions in 34 CFR ??300 114 through 300.118. The student?s placement must be determined at least annually, be based on the student's IEP, and be as close as possible to the student's home. Unless the IEP requires some other arrangement, the student must be educated in the school that he or she would attend if nondisabled. Although the complaint refers to a "piacement change." it actually alleges both a change in placement and a change in location. Generally. courts and hearing of?cers have said that a change in physical location does not amount to a change in placement unless the new location fundamentally changes the educational program in the student?s The B.?3ee. 9.9., Comb v. Benji's Special Educ. Aced.. 745 F. 2d. 755 769-70 (SD. Tex. 2010). Cisar Creek Coonlst: 084-910 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510710 Page 13 of 18 US. Department of Education has distinguished between ?placement" and "location? as follows: Historically, we have referred to "placement" as points along the continuum of placement options available for a child with a disability, and "location? as the physical surrounding, such as the classroom. in which a child with a disability receives special education and related services. Public agencies are strongly encouraged to place a child with a disability In the school and classroom the child would attend If the child did not have a disability. However, a public agency may have two or more equally appropriate locations that meet the child's special education and related services needs and school administrators should have the flexibility to assign the child to a particular school or classroom. provided that determination is consistent with the decision of the group determining placement.? Similarly, the Fifth Circuit has held that, while requires parental participation in educational placement decisions. such "placement? refers to educational programming. not the physical location or particular institution where the educational program is implemented.? The record does not support the complainants' claim that the LEA unilaterally changed the student?s educational placement from a self-contained behavior support class to general education classes for the 2014-2015 school year. Although the student had received instruction in the SD class during the 2013-2014 school year. the ARD committee did not select that placement for the 2014-2015 school year. instead. the ARD committee determined that the student would take into general education electives and five core courses in a special education setting with PASS support. The lists the courses that the student would take, and documentation reflects that the student took classes that were consistent with the IEP, although at a different campus than that speci?ed in the it is unclear why the PRU committee did not discuss a location change at the March 2014 meeting given that the student would not be in the SD class the following year and did not live in the Creek attendance zone. Nevertheless, there is no evidence reflecting that the change from Creek to Lake changed the student's educational program or resulted in a more restrictive environment. It is understandabie, though, that a parent might conclude that both the campus and the instructional setting speci?ed in the OF section of the IEP constitute the student?s "educational placement? and that neither should be changed outside of an ARD committee meeting. In order to avoid future misunderstandings, the LEA may want to consider revising its form or adopting some other measure to clarify to parents that the LEA has the flexibility to change a student's campus assignment as long as it does not change the educational program In the With regard to the allegation that the truancy of?cer recommended that the court order the student to attend a GED program, the claim does not state an IDEA violation. Nevertheless, it is very troubling that the truancy of?cer recommended that the court order the student to attend a GED program when, by her own admission, she did not 971 Fed. Reg. 46,588 (2006). ?White v. Ascension Parish Ed. 343 F.3d 373. 379 (5th Cir. 2003). Clear Creek Co-Dist: 884-910 FY: 2014-2015 Campiaint: 201510710 Page 14 of 13 know the student. It is also concerning that the campus administrator asked the truancy of?cer to recommend that the court order the student to attend a GED program. In the case of a student who is eligible under LEA staff should consult with the student's ARD committee before recommending alternative schooling options for the student. In the instant case, it seems unlikety that the student would have been able to obtain a GED certi?cate given hislher need for specialized instruction. modified curriculum. and behavioral supports. Moreover, the LEA is reminded that students who have been court- ordered to receive GED certi?cates. as well as students who have received GED certificates. are eligible to return to school if they meet the other eligibility requirements}1 Furthermore. a student with a disability remains eligible to receive special education and related services until slhe is no longer age-eligible or earns a regular high school diploma. The term "regular high school diploma" does not Include an alternative degree that is not fully aligned with the state's academic standards. such as a GED.12 For the reasons stated above. Allegation Three is not substantiated. Ailegation Four Did the LEA ensure that it implemented the student's with regard to providing the student with transportation between the first day of the 2014-2015 school year and October 13. 2014? [34 CFR ?300.323] Statement of the Complaint for Allegatlon Four The complaint alleges that the student's IEP required that the LEA provide the student with transportation and that campus staff felled to arrange transportation for the student until September 17, 2014. The complaint further alleges that the truancy complaint ?ied against the student on October 21. 2014. was partially based on absences that were due the failure to provide transportation. Findings of Fact for Allegation Four 1. The student's dated March 20. 2014. re?ects that the student would receive transportation to and from school. 2. The LEA's first day of school for the 2014-2015 school year was August 25, 2014. ?2014-2015 Student Attendance Accounting Handbook, which is adopted by reference in rute. includes the following statement on p.53: 3. 3. 10 Students Who Have Received a GED Certi?cate or Have Been Court-Ordered to Obtain a GED Certi?cate A student who has received a GED certi?cate or who has been court? ordered to obtain a GED certi?cate is still eligible to enroll in your district to complete the requirements for a high school diploma if the student chooses, provided all other eligibility requirements are met. if the student meets all other eligibility requirements. your district must not deny enrollment to the student. As with any other student. the ADA eligibility code assigned to the student depends on the number of hours the student is scheduled tor and provided instruction. or on whether the student is eligible for and tat-ring part in an atternative attendance program. 1"?3?4 CFR Clear Creek 180 Co-Dlst: 084-910 FY: 2014-2015 Compiainl: 201510?10 Page email from a Lake staff member to an LEA transportation supervisor on August 22, 2014, informed the transportation supervisor that the student had registered at Lake and that the staff member prepared a new "transportation ticket" (transportation services form). A transportation services form indicates that the student attends Lake. The second page of the form, however, Indicates that the student is to be dropped off at Creek. the campus the student attended during the 2013-2014 school year. A second email from the Lake staff member to the transportation supervisor on August 28, 2014, contains updated information for Lake students who require transportation services. The student's name is listed in the email. There is no evidence re?ecting that the student boarded a bus that took him/her or attempted to take himlher to Greek instead of Lake. A statement from the LEA transportation supervisor and other documents reflect that a special education bus was scheduled to pick up students from the student?s apartment complex and take them to Lake at the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year. According to the transportation supervisor?s statement. the error on the student's transportation services form did not disrupt in the student's transportation services. The transportation supervisor also claims that the student did not use the bus service. The student?s attendance records reflect that the student attended the ?rst week and most of the second week of the school year and was absent the third and fourth weeks, except that the student came to school for part of a day during the third week, but was sent home due to illness. A third email from the Lake staff member to the transportation supervisor on September 17, 2014, states that the second page of the student?s ticket listed the incorrect campus and was corrected. Another transportation services form indicates that the student is to be dropped off at Lake. The student?s parent provided three notes requesting that the student's absences during the fourth week of the school year be excused. The parent requested that the student?s absences on September 16. 18, and 19, 2014, be excused because the special education bus was not running and because her car was in the shop. There is no evidence in the record reflecting that the student or the student?s parent had previously advised the LEA that the student was not receiving transportation servrces. The record reflects that campus administration did not excuse any of the student?s absences during the fourth week of school. The truancy complaint filed against the student on October 21, 2014, was based on absences on September 16-19, October 6-10, and October 13. Conclusions and Reasons for TEA's Final Decision for Allegation Four Authority: 34 CFR ?300.323 34 CFR 5300.323 requires that, as soon as possible following development of the student's IEP, special education and related services are made available to the student in accordance with the student's IEP. It is undisputed that there was an error on the second page of the student's transportation services form until September 17, 2014. Nevertheless, the record does not demonstrate that the student was deprived of transportation services as a result of Ciear Creek ISD Co-Dist: 084-910 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510710 Page 16 of 18 the error. There is no Indication that the student boarded a bus that took him/her to Greek. At the beginning of the 2014~2015 school year, a special education bus was scheduled to pick up students at the apartment complex where the student resided and take them to Lake. The student got to school during the entire week. some of the second week. and one day of the third week either by riding the bus or by some other means. If the student had been unable to access the bus during this time period. presumably s/he or a parent would have alerted campus staff. The fourth week of school, the parent provided a note stating that three of the student?s absences that week were due to the special education bus not running. The parent?s failure to report the problem to campus staff on each day and the fact that the student?s transportation services form had been corrected before the test two absences, undermine the claim that the student lacked access to transportation. For all of these reasons. TEA concludes that Allegation Four Is not substantiated. identified Noncompiiance Based on the evidence and current state and federal requirements, the following noncompliance Is cited. The LEA does not always ensure that it initiates reevaluations of students to address students' needs in accordance with 34 CFR ?300.303. The LEA does not always ensure that it develops, reviews, and revises students? tEPs to address students? needs In accordance with 34 CFR ?300.324. Required Corrective Actions in accordance with 34 CFR ?300.151. TEA must address: (1) how to remediate the denial of those services based on the needs of the student and (2) appropriate future provision of services for alt students with disabilities when resolving a complaint in which appropriate services were not provided. Corrective actions to achieve compliance are required of the LEA as follows. For the student subject to this complaint: Within 10 calendar days of the date of this report, the LEA must provide the student's parent with prior written notice of its proposal to reevaluate the student and with a parental consent form. If the student?s parent provides written consent to reevaluate the student. the LEA must provide an independent reevaluation of the student that includes a assessment of the student. The reevaluation must include an assessment of the underlying reasons for the student's chronic absenteeism. The LEA must provide the parent with a written report of the reevaluation as soon as possible and not tater than 30 calendar days following the date on which the LEA received consent. unless the parent agrees to a different tlmeline. After the reevaluation is completed, the LEA must convene an ARD committee meeting as soon as possible and no later than 10 school days from the date of the completion of the reevaluation. unless the student?s parent agrees to a different timeline. The LEA must coordinate the ARD committee meeting with the student?s current school district. The ARD committee must review the reevaluation report, the student's current and any other relevant information. If the parent does not agree to a reevaluation. the ARD Clear Creek ISD Co-Disl: 084-910 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510710 Page 1? of to committee must meet within 20 calendar days of the date of this report. unless the parent agrees to a different timeline, in order to review the student?s and any other relevant information. The student is entitled to relief to compensate for the failure to address his/her attendance problems during the 2014-2015 school year. One-on-one educational tutoring must offered and made available to the student at a location convenient for the student through the end of the 2015?2016 school year. The amount and frequency of the tutoring must be determined by the ARD committee by considering the student's schedule and tolerance for additional services and the fact that the student's did not address the student?s attendance issues during the 2014-2015 school year. The tutoring can be provided during or after school. but it must be in addition to the student's educational program. The ARE) committee must determine the appropriate credentials for the tutor. The ARD committee must also consider whether other types of compensatory education, compensatory counseling services, and other types of compensatory reiated services must be made available to the student. For all students with disabilities in the LEA: The LEA must revise the and Clear Lake High Schooi's policies, operating procedures, and guidelines to include procedures for addressing chronic absenteeism and truant conduct with regard to students with disabilities. Consistent with 34 CFR ?300.324. the procedures must reflect that a student's chronic absenteeism and truant conduct generally impede the student?s learning and must be addressed in the student?s The procedures should also reflect that a student?s absenteeism may trigger a duty to reevaluate the student. The procedures must ensure that LEA staff, including truancy officers. do not recommend alternative schooling options, including GED programs, for a student who is eligible for special education services unless the student?s ARD committee has determined that the particular alternative schooling option is appropriate for the student. Finally. the procedures must state that students with disabilities who have been court-ordered to receive GED certificates, as well as students who have received GED certi?cates, are eligible to return to school if they meet the other eligibility requirements. The LEA must provide written notice of the revised policies, operating procedures, and guidelines to LEA staff who may be affected by the revisions, including, but not limited to, special education personnel, counselors, truancy of?cers, and campus administrators. The LEA must provide staff development training to the truancy officer. campus administrator, and all other individuals who were involved in or contributed to the noncompliance. Speci?cally. these individuals must receive training on when a student's excessive absenteeism can trigger the duty to reevaluate the student and/or the duty to revise the student's IEP to address the student's absenteeism. The individuals must also receive training on the procedures for addressing a student's attendance issues with the student's ARD committee. Clear Creek Co-Dtst? 064-910 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510710 Page 18 of 18 By November 12, 2015. the LEA must provide TEA with a proposed timeline for completing the corrective actions or must provide TEA with the following documentation to show completion of the corrective actions. Provide a copy of the prior written notice and consent form sent to the student's parent. Provide evidence of the parent's response to the request to reevaluate the student. Provide a copy of the student's reevaluation report, if applicable. Provide a copy of the ARD committee report documenting the compensatory services determinations. Provide a copy of service logs or other documentation showing the implementation of the compensatory services. Provide a copy of the revised policies, operating procedures, and guidelines. Provide a copy of any relevant guidance issued to staff. 0 Provide a copy of the agenda describing the information presented in the staff development training and a list with the names and positions of the individuals who participated in the training. Further intervention by TEA may result if the LEA does not provide the requested information or respond within the required tlmeline. In accordance with 34 CFR TEA must ensure that the LEA corrects identified noncompliance "as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year after the State's identification of the noncompliance." Therefore, all required corrective actions must be completed no later than October 15, 2016. Failure to correct the cited noncompiiance by this date will result in an additional ?nding of noncompliance under 34 CFR ?300.600(e) and may result In additional sanctions against the LEA as outlined in 19 TAC ?89.1076. This concludes TEA's investigation of the complaint. Texas Education Agency Michael Williams Commissioner Special Education Complaint Investigative Report September 30, 2015 Dustin Rynders Charles Dupre Deena Hill Complainant Superintendent Special Education Director 1500 McGowan, Suite 100 Fort Bend ISD Fort Bend Houston, TX 77004 16431 Lexington Boulevard 16431 Lexington Boulevard Sugar Land, TX 77479 Sugar Land, TX 77479 Local Educational Agency (LEA): Fort Bend ISD Co-Dlst: 079-907 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510713 To the Individuals Addressed: The attached report is the written decision of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) regarding the abovenreierenced complaint. Allegations, Conclusions, and Reasons for Decision TEA Investigated the following allegations. Allegatlon 1: Did the LEA ensure that it Identi?ed, located. and evaluated the student for special education services during the 2014-2015 school year? [34 CFR ?300.111] Allegallon 2: Does the LEA have policies or procedures that result in delaying or denying the identi?cation and evaluation of students eligible for special education and related services? [34 CFR menu The following noncompliance was determined, and TEA required corrective actions of the LEA. The LEA does not always ensure that it identi?es, locates. and evaluates students in accordance with 34 CFR ?300.111. If a party to a complaint believes that written report includes an error that is material to the determination in the report, the party may submit a signed, written request for reconsideration to TEA by mail, hand-delivery, or facsimile within 15 calendar days of the date of the report. The party's reconsideration request must Identify the asserted error and include any documentation to sopport the claim. The party ?ling a reconsideration request must forward a copy of the request to the other party at the same time that the request is ?led with TEA. The other party may respond to the reconsideration request within five calendar days of the date on which TEA received the request. TEA will consider the reconsideration request and provide a written response to the parties within 45 calendar Contact the Division of Federal and State Education Policy: (512) 463-9414 FAX: (512) 463-9560 Fort Band 160 Co-Dist: 079.907 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510713 Page 2 of 2 days of receipt of the request. The ?ling of a reconsideration request must not delay a public education agency's implementation of any corrective actions required by TEA. This concludes investigation. The attached investigative report is final written decision. Questions regarding this letter or the attached report may be directed to me at (512) 463-9414. ReSpectfuliy, Keith Swink Division of Federal and State Education Policy enclosure: satisfaction survey cc: i Texas Aplpleseed Deborah owler 1609 Sheet Creek Blvd. Ste. 201 Austin, TX 78701 National Center for Youth Law Michael Harris 405 14th Street, 15th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Fort Bend County-District: 079?907 investigative Report FY: 2014-2015 September 30, 2015 Complaint No: 201510713 This report is the written decision of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) regarding the third-party complaint filed on behalf of multiple students, one of whom attended the Fort Bend Independent School District (ISD), herein referred to as the local educational agency (LEA), during the 2014?2015 school year. The complaint alleges violations of federal and state special education laws and the implementing regulations pertaining to the individuals with Disabilities Education Act Texas Education Code (TEC), andior the Texas Administrative Code (TAC). The two speci?c allegations and TEA's ?ndings of fact and conclusions. together with the reasons for TEA's final decision, are as follows. Allegation One Did the LEA ensure that it identi?ed, located, and evaluated the student for special education services during the 2014-2015 school year? [34 CFR {5300.11 1] Statement of the Complaint for Allegation One The complaint, which TEA received on June 1, 2015, alleges that the student has never been evaluated for special education services deepite having a documented diagnosis of severe attention de?cit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The complaint further alleges that the student has failed multiple grades and has repeatedly been assigned to disciplinary alternative education programs (DAEPs). The complaint also alleges that the LEA referred the student to the Fort Bend Truancy Court twice during the 2014?2015 school year. Allegation Two Does the LEA have policies or procedures that result in delaying or denying the identi?cation and evaluation of students eligible for special education and related services? [34 CFR ?300.111) Statement of the Complaint for Allegation Two The complaint alleges that the current policies purposely delay special education evaluations in violation of IDEA. The complaint claims that LEA training materials suggest that students who are in kindergarten or ?rst grade do not have enough educational Opportunity to qualify for services. The complaint also alleges that the LEA instructs its staff to wait for fifth grade students to "age Up a year" before referring the students for an initial special education evaluation or for a reevaluation. Findings of Fact for Allegations One and Two 1. The student has never been evaluated for special education eligibility. 2. The student's health record reflects that she was diagnosed with ADHD In 2010 and has taken medicine for ADHD. This record also indicates that the LEA has not implemented a Section 504 plan based on the student's ADHD diagnosis. 3. The student's disciplinary record reflects that she has exhibited problem behaviors for multiple schooi years, Including inappropriate physical contact, disruptive behavior, Insubordlnaticn, cursing at teachers and peers, and fighting with peers. 4. During the 2012-2013 school year, the student was in grade and was placed in a DAEP for almost three months for assaulting a student in the gym. 5. The student failed all three portions of the 7th grade state assessment. Fort Bend Co-Dist: 079-907 FY: 20111?2015 Complaint: 201510?13 Page 2 of 9 6. During the 2013-2014 school year, the student was in grade. The student's disciplinary record reflects persistent misbehavior during the school year. The student was sent to detention and received in?schcoi and out-cf?school suspensions for various types of misconduct, including disruptive behavior in the classroom and the cafeteria, hitting and slapping students in the face, hitting a student with her boot, and using profanity toward teachers and students. The student also began having attendance problems. 7. On January 22, 2014, the LEA convened a Section 504 committee meeting to determine whether the student's persistent misconduct was a manifestation of her disability. The student's guardian participated in the meeting by phone. Notes from the meeting reflect that the committee determined that the student?s behavior did not have a direct or substantial relationship to her ADHD and was not a result of the failure to implement her Section 504 plan. The notes, however, do not explain the reasons for the committee?s determinations. The committee recommended a 45-day DAEP placement for the student. 8. The LEA did not provide a copy of the student's Section 504 plan for the 2013-2014 school year or any records reflecting the accommodations or interventions the student received for her ADH D. 9. The student?s DAEP placement began on February 6, 2014. 10. The student's discipline record reflects that the student engaged in misconduct while at the DAEP. She received out?of-school suspensions seven times for conduct such as attempting to provoke ?ghts with students, hitting a student. using profanity, and being disruptive in class. 11. Before the student was assigned to the DAEP. she was taking seven classes. At the end of the first semester. she was failing two classes, barely passing three classes, and had a 90 average in physical education (PE) and a 76 average in literacy. 12. The student had ?ve classes at the DAEP, and her grades were similar to the grades she received at the middle school campus the first semester. 13. The student?s academic record for the 2013-2014 school year reflects that the student failed English language arts, barely passed math, science, and history, and that she passed PE. 14. The student failed all ?ve portions of the 8th grade state assessment. Under state law, she was required to retake the math and reading portions of the assessment.? She ultimately passed the math portion, but did not pass the reading portion. 15. Because the student failed the reading portion of the grade state assessment, she was not eligible for promotion to the grade. The student presumably was promoted to 9"t grade on the basis of a grade placement committee decision.2 16. At the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year, the student enrolled in a different school district. The student withdrew from that district on October 31, 2014. A withdrawal form includes the classes that the student was taking and some of her grades. The student had failing grades in science, art, and geography and passing grades in English and team sports. The withdrawal form does not include grades for Spanish and Algebra I. ?Tex. Eouc. Cone 1528.021 103). 2Tex. and Fort Bend CoDist: ore-so? FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510713 Page 3 of 9 17. The student reenrolled in the LEA on November 11, 2014. The LEA has four ntne~ week grading periods. The student began attending a high school in the LEA approximately three weeks into the second grading period. 16. The student was pregnant at the time of her reenrollment. but the record reflects that the LEA was not advised of her pregnancy until several months later. The student suspended taking medicine for her ADHD when she was pregnant. 19. Records from the 2014~2015 school year reflect that the LEA Identified the student as a ?student at risk of dropping out of school." The reasons for this designation were the student's: (1) placement in a DAEP In 7th grade; (2) failure to maintain an average of 70 in two or more courses; (3) failure to pass the 7th grade state assessment: and (4) failure to advance to the next grade level in 4th grade.3 20. A record that the LEA provided to the complainants reflects that an individual accommodation plan was developed for the student on September 15. 2011. and that the student did not have an IAP during the 2014-2015 school year. This record also reflects that the student?s ADHD did not affect a major life activity. 21. The student's progress report for the second grading period reflects that she had a 95 average in PE. a 70 average In geography. and was failing her other five classes. 22. Not long after In the LEA. the student began having attendance problems. The student was caught skipping classes, was tardy to some classes. and had both excused and uneXCUSed absences. 23. On December 9. 2014. the LEA sent the student?s guardian a "warning letter? stating that the student had three unexcused absences. On December 16. 2014. the LEA sent the student?s guardian a second letter stating that the student and a parent or guardian were required to attend a Truancy Diversion Program meeting on February 11. 2015. because the student had three additional unexcused absences. 24. The LEA ?led a truancy complaint against the student on December 16. 2014. 25. The second grading period (and the first semester) ended on December 19. 2014. During this grading period. the student received failing grades in all classes except art. The student?s absences from each class varied from 7 to 12. Some of the absences were excused. The student was tardy to several of her classes from 1 to 3 times. 26. On January 26. 2015. the LEA ?led a second truancy complaint against the student based on 10 more unexcused absences. 27. The student's progress report for the third grading period re?ects that the student had a 90 average in art. an 81 average in English l. and was failing all of her other classes. 28. The student?s school health record contains a February 9. 2015 entry reflecting that the student was pregnant and went to the school clinic because she felt lightheaded. The student was given a medical referral. The referral was returned and stated that the student should eat small frequent meals and stay hydrated. 29. The LEA ?led a third truancy complaint against the student on March 3. 2015. as a result of the student?s accumulation of 10 more unexcused absences. 30. On March 10, 2015. the student?s doctor recommended homebound instruction for the student due to frequent nausea. 31. The third grading period ended on March 20. 2015. During this grading period. the student received failing grades in all of her classes. The student's absences from each class varied. The most she was absent from a class was 43 times. and the least she was absent from a class was 22 times. Some of the absences were excused. The student was also tardy to some of her classes from 2 to 13 times. 3This record has not been updated to re?ect that the student was placed in a DAEP in 6th grade and failed to pass four out of ?ve portions of the 8th grade state assessment. Fort Bend [SDCo-Dlst: ore-so? FY: 2034.2015 Compteint: 201510?? Page 4 of 9 32. The student's disciplinary record for the 2014-2015 school year reflects three referrals for skipping classes, one referral for walking out of ISS, and one referral for excessive iardies. The entry for one of the referrals Includes a comment stating, ?never wants to listen when asked to return to class and is always disrespectful." 33. The student began receiving homebound services on March 23, 2015. 34. On March 27, 2015, the LEA noti?ed the student?s guardian of an upcoming Attendance Intervention Team meeting to address the student?s truancy. However, the noti?cation does not include the date or time of the meeting. The student was on bedrest and receiving homebound instruction when the notice was sent. 35. The LEA filed a fourth truancy complaint against the student on March 30. 2015. 36. The student gave birth on April 28, 2015. 37. The student continued to receive homebound services through the end of the 2014-2015 school year. The student?s grades Improved in most subject areas while she received homebound instruction. During the fourth grading period, the student received passing grades in all classes but Algebra I. 38. The student?s grade report for the 2014-2015 school year reflects that the student passed art. just barely passed English I. reading, and geography, and failed Algebra i and Integrated Physics and Chemistry. The student failed a PE class during the first semester and Just barely passed a PE class during the second semester. 39. The evidence in the record does not reflect whether the student took the English and Algebra I end-of?course assessments during the 2014-2015 school year. 40. The LEA states in its response to the complaint that it provided the student with "support services, which included, but are not limited to, a 504 Plan and related evaluations. conferences, and services such as a behavior intervention plan [from the Section 504 manifestation determination] and homebound services.? However. the LEA did not provide a copy of a Section 504 plan or a BIP, and the record re?ects that homebound services were provided to the student based on her pregnancy. 41. The LEA did not provide any documentation reflecting that any academic or behavioral Interventions were implemented for the student under the response to intervention (Rtl) procedures during the 2014~2015 school year. 42. The only documentation that the LEA provided regarding truancy prevention measures are the letters notifying the student's guardian of the student's unexcused absences and of the requirement to attend meetings. 43. The record does not re?ect that the student?s guardian requested that the LEA evaluate the student for special education eligibility during the 2014-2015 school year. 44. There is no evidence in the record re?ecting that the student?s doctors advised the LEA that the student needed special education services. 45. The LEA provided copies of its most recent Response to Intervention (Rtl) training materials and its policies and procedures regarding students who have learning difficulties or who need special education services. These policies and procedures do not reflect any practices that would delay referrals for special education evaluations In violation of 46. The November 2013 training materials referenced in the complaint contain a page that reads: 2 Be careful about ESL referrals it Got one through last year?4th grader and ?nally they ruled out language problem. Fort Bend Co-Dist: ore-90? FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510713 Page 5 of 9 9 Was still a beginner. even though the family never spoke to any of the children in a foreign language. But they wrote it on the HLS, . Hard to qualify K11 students. a Not enough access to education opportunities. 47. The November 2013 training materials also contain a page that reads: a What to do about students who are flat liners?~40 of 70. 2-4 years behind in their DRA level or can't add and subtract and they are In 5th grade. Give them everything you can in Tier lIl. Let them age up at least a year. Retest before they head to Middle School. Pass everything on to Middle School where the adaptive behavior is done by the teacher, not the parentll a Give all your paperwork on these kinds of kids to the Middle School counselor and beg them to retest?often we have them qualifyii Conclusions and Reasons for Final Decision for Allegations One and Two Authority: 34 CFR ?300.111 34 CFR ?300.111 places an affirmative duty on the State and LEAs to have policies and procedures to ensure that all students with disabilities residing in the State and who are in need of special education and related services, are identified. located, and evaluated. This ?child find" provision applies to, among others. students who are suspected of being a student with a disability and in need of special education. even though they are advancing from grade to grade. LEAs are responsible for conducting child ?nd and identifying all IDEA-eligible students that reside in their jurisdiction. Because the child find duty is an af?rmative one. a parent is not required to request that an LEA evaluate a student.4 The child find duty is triggered when the LEA has reason to suspect a disability coupled with reason to suspect that special education services may be needed to address that disability.a The threshold for "suspicion" is relatively low. The inquiry is not whether the student actually qualifies for special education services, but rather, whether the student should be referred for an evaluation.3 The student who Is the subject of this complaint has ADHD, a history of behavioral problems, and a history of not meeting state academic standards. The record contains little information regarding the student?s ADHD. The record reflects that the student was diagnosed with ADHD In 2010 and that she has taken medicine for her ADHD. but lacks ?See QC. Jr. v. Beaumont lndep. Sch. Dist. 65 109 (ED. Tex. 2015. unpublished). 5See El Paso indep. Sch. Dist. v. Richard R, 567 F. Supp. 2d 918 (W.D. Tex. 2008). vacated in part on other grounds, 591 F.3d 417 (5th Cir. 2009). cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3467(citing Dept of Educ, State of Hawaii v. Cari Rae 8.. 158 F. Supp. 2d 1190. 1194 (D. How. 2001)). ?See Cari Res 8., 158 F. Supp. 2d at 1195; Orange Unified Sch. Dist. v. C.K.. 2012 US. Dist. 92423 59 74 (CD. Cal. June 4. 2012). Fort Bend ISD Co-Dist: ore-ac? FY: 2014-2015 Comptaint: 201510?t3 Page 6 of 9 information regarding how the student?s ADHD manifests itself. Though the LEA ctaims in its response to the complaint that the student had a Section 504 plan and a BIP during the 2014-2015 school year, it did not provide copies of the plans. and the record contains con?icting information regarding whether the student received any accommodations or interventions based on her ADHD. When the student reenroiied in the LEA in November of 2014. the LEA was aware of the student's ADHD. history of behavioral problems. and academic concerns. The LEA identified the student as a student who was at risk of dropping out of school based on some of her disciplinary issues and academic de?ciencies. Within the first month of the student?s reenroiiment. she was exhibiting behavioral problems. She was caught skipping a class and was sent to She then walked out of without permission and was suspended for three days. Shortly thereafter. she was again caught skipping classes and was disrespectful to a school staff member, which resulted in her being suspended again. The first progress report the student received reflects that the student was also struggling academically. She had falling grades in ?ve out of seven classes. By the and of the first semester on December 19. 2014. the student had failing grades in all classes except art. The LEA asserts that it had no duty to evaluate the student because there was no indication of an educational need for special education due to her ADHD and that the student made meaningful academic progress with her accommodations. The LEA further asserts that the student's low academic performance was attributable to her attendance issues and her eventual pregnancy, not to her ADHD or lack of special education services. The LEA's arguments are not persuasive for several reasons. First. the record contains no information regarding how the student's ADHD affects her. While ADHD is not a specific disabling condition under the a student with ADHD may be eligible under one of the specific disability categories by reason of his or her ADHD. ADHD can make it difficult for individuals to maintain focus or control their impulses. it can also involve dif?culty with organizational skills. maintaining focus across settings. and dif?culty controlling impulses across settings. it can manifest in behavior problems. including disruption in class and aggression. Therefore. It is possible that the student requires special education services based on her ADHD. Second. the record does not demonstrate that the student in fact received accommodations for her ADHD. if she did. it appears that the accommodations were not very effective. In addition to having a history of behavioral problems. the student has a history of not meeting grade-iavel standards. She failed all portions of the grade and the 8?'1 grade state assessments. While she was ultimately able to pass the math portion of the 8?h grade state assessment. she was never able to pass the reading portion. in grade. the student failed English language arts. and barely passed math. science. and history. The student was not eligible for promotion based on her failure to pass the reading portion of the grade state assessment and presumably advanced to 9"1 grade as the result of a grade placement committee decision. The student had many failing grades throughout her grade year and ended up failing two core courses and just barely passing three others. Third. the student?s history of academic de?ciencies makes it difficult to attribute her low performance during the 2014-2015 school year entirely to her attendance problems and pregnancy. Chronic absenteeism can involve many factors. including an undiagnosed disability, emotional disturbance. academic dif?culties. bullying. home problems. social Fort Bend Cc-Dist: 07990? FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510713 Page 7 of 9 maladjustment. drug problems. economic issues. and even boredom. The record reflects that the LEA has done little to determine the underlying reasons for the student?s attendance problems. During the 2014-2015 school year, some of the student?s absences were likely due to pregnancy-related illness. However. given that the student skipped classes and had excessive unexcused absences during the previous school year, when she was not pregnant, there are likely other factors that contributed to her attendance issues. There is no evidence reflecting that a Section 504 committee met to discuss whether the student's attendance problems were related to her ADHD or an undiagnosed disability. that any teachers implemented any interventions to address the student's truant behavior, or that school staff investigated the reasons for the student's attendance problems. The student's attendance issues appear to have been addressed solely through disciplinary referrals and truancy procedures. While the LEA argues that the student?s improved grades when she received homebound instruction demonstrate that her academic struggles were related to her absences, it is also very possible that the student?s progress was the result of having one-on-one instruction in a setting with few distractions. Based on the evidence in the record. TEA concludes that the LEA had reason to suspect that the student had a disability and might need special education services to address that disability. The student had a long-standing ADHD diagnosis and documented behavioral issues. Even if the LEA implemented accommodations and interventions to address the student?s ADHD. the student?s history of behavioral problems and poor academic performance indicate that those interventions have been ineffective. The student?s failing grades. behavioral problems. and worsening attendance problems should have prompted the LEA to refer the student for a special education evaluation after the first semester of the 2014-2015 school year."' Therefore, Allegatlon One is substantiated. With regard to Allegation Two. TEA concludes that the LEA's policies. procedures. and training materials do not reflect that the LEA purposely delays special education evaluations in violation of IDEA. The complainants? allegation that the LEA's training materials suggest that students in kindergarten or first grade do not have enough educational opportunity to quality for special education services is not entirely accurate. The page of the training materials referred to In the complaint addresses special education referrals for students who are English language learners. The point being made in the training is that teachers must be cautious when initiating referrals for these students because limited English proficiency must be ruled out as a factor when determining a student?s eligibility for special education. The complainants' allegation that the LEA instructs staff to wait for fifth grade students to age up a year before referring them for a special education evaluation is also not entirely accurate. The page of the training materials referred to in the complaint addresses students who have previously been found ineligible for special education but continue to struggle academically. The materials state that interventions should be continued and the students should be ?retested before they head to middle school.? The materials also advise teachers to "[g]ive all your paperwork on these kinds of kids to the Middle School counselor and beg them to retest." Allegation Two is not substantiated. 7899 MM. and LF. v. New York City Dep'f of Educ. 63 156 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)(The student?s prolonged absence. coupled with her {aliure to earn enough credits to move on to the next grade, should have prompted the LEA to tind her eligible for special education). Fort Band 150 Co-Dist: FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510713 Page 8 of 9 identified Noncomptiance Based on the evidence and current state and federal requirements, the following noncompliance was cited. The LEA does not always ensure that it identi?es, locates, and evaluates students in accordance with 34 CFR ?300.111. For the student subject to this complaint: Within 10 calendar days of the date of this report, the LEA must provide the student?s parent/guardian with prior written notice of its proposal to evaluate the student, a copy of the Notice of Procedural Safeguards. and a consent for evaluation form. If the parentlguardian provides the LEA with written consent to evaluate the student, the LEA must complete an expedited full Individual and initial evaluation that includes a evaluation. The evaluation must include the assessments and other measures needed for determining eligibility under categories including, but not limited to, other health impairment (OHI) and emotional disturbance (ED). The LEA must provide the parent/guardian with a written report of the evaluation as soon as possible and not later than 30 calendar days following the date on which the LEA received consent, unless the parent/guardian agrees to a different timeline. The LEA and must convene an admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committee meeting to review the evaluation and to determine if the student is eligible for special education and related services as soon as possible and no iaterthan 10 school days from the date of the completion of the evaluation report, unless the parent/guardian agrees to a different timeline. it the ARD committee determines that the student is eligible for special education and related services. the ARD committee must develop an individualized education program for the student for the 2015-2016 school year. If determined eligible, the student is also entitled to appropriate relief to compensate for the failure to identify the student during the spring semester of the 2014-2015 school year. One-on-one educational tutoring must be made available to the student through the end of the 2015-2016 school year in an amount and frequency to be determined by the ARD committee, considering the student?s schedule and tolerance for additional services and the fact that the student was denied special education and related services for approximately ?ve months during the last school year and did not have an in place at the beginning of this school year. The tutoring can be provided during or after school, but it must be in addition to the student's educational program. The ARD committee must determine the appropriate credentials for the tutor. The ARC) committee must also consider whether other types of compensatory education, compensatory counseling, or compensatory related services must be made available to the student. For all students with disabilities In the LEA: The LEA administration must review the district and campus child find policies, operating procedures, and guidelines to determine whether revisions are needed. if the LEA revises its policies, operating procedures, and guidelines, it must provide written notice of the revisions to LEA staff who may be affected by the revisions. Fort Bend CoeDist: 079-90? FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510713 Page 9 of 9 The LEA must provide focused technicai assistance to all special education. general education. and administrative personnel on the campus subject to the complaint to address the noncompliance cited in this report. Speci?cally, personnel must receive training on identifying when a student's behavioral issues. academic problems. and excessive absenteeism can trigger child find obligations. By October 30. 2015. the LEA must provide TEA with a proposed timeline for completing the corrective actions or must provide TEA with the following documentation to TEA to show completion of the corrective actions. . A copy of the prior written notice given to the parent. 3 copy of the written consent signed by the parent giving the LEA permission to evaluate the student. and copy of the student's Initial evaluation report. a A copy of the ARD committee report documenting the eligibility and compensatory services determination. . A copy of service logs or other documentation showing the implementation of the compensatory services. a A copy of any revised portions of policies. operating procedures. and guidelines. 0 A copy of any relevant memoranda andior guidance letters issued to staff. 0 A copy of the training agenda describing the information presented in the staff development and a listing of the individuals. indicating their positions. who participated in the staff development. Further intervention by TEA may result if the LEA does not provide the requested information or respond within the required timeline. In accordance with 34 CFR TEA must ensure that the LEA corrects identified noncompliance ?as soon as possible. and in no case later than one year after the State's identification of the noncompliance." Therefore. ail required corrective actions must be completed no later than September 30. 2016. Failure to correct the cited noncompliance by this date will result in an additional finding of noncompliance under 34 CFR ?300.600(e) and may result in additional sanctions against the LEA as outlined in 19 TAC {389.1076 This concludes investigation of the complaint. Texas Education Agency Michael Williams Commissioner Special Education Complaint investigative Report September 30, 2015 Dustin Rynders . Kirk Lewis Karen Complainant Superintendent Special Education Director 1500 McGowen, Suite 100 Pasadena ISD Pasadena ISD Houston, TX 77004 1515 Lane 1515 Lane Pasadena, TX 77502 Pasadena. TX 77503 Local Educational Agency (LEA): Pasadena ISD Co-Dist: 101?917. FY: 2014?2015 Complaint: 201510719 To the Individuals Addressed: The attached report is the written decision of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) regarding the above-referenced complaint. Allegations, Conclusions, and Reasons for Decision TEA investigated the following allegation. Did the LEA ensure that it identified, located, and evaluated the student for special education services during the 20142015 school year? [34 CFR ?300.111] TEA determined the following noncompliance and required corrective actions of the LEA. The LEA does not always ensure that it identifies, locates, and evaluates students in accordance with 34 CFR ?300.111. If a party to a complaint believes that TEA's written report includes an error that is material to the determination in the report, the party may submit a signed, written request for reconsideration to TEA by mail, hand-delivery, or facsimile within 15 calendar days of the date of the report. The party's reconsideration request must identify the asserted error and include any documentation to support the claim. The party filing a reconsideration request must forward a copy of the request to the other party at the same time that the request is filed with TEA. The other party may respond to the reconsideration request within five calendar days of the date on TEA received the request. TEA will consider the reconsideration request and provide a written response to the parties within 45 calendar days of receipt of the request. The filing of a reconsideration request must not delay a public education agency's implementation of any corrective actions required by TEA. Contact the Division of Federal and State Education Policy: (512) 463-9414 FAX: (512) 463-9560 Pasadena ISD Co?Dist: 101-917 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510719 Page 2 of 2 This concludes investigation. The attached investigative report is TEA's final written decision. Questions regarding this letter or the attached report may be directed to me at (512) 463-9414. Respectfully, may Keith Swink Division of Federal and State Education Policy enclosure: satisfaction survey cc: Texas Appleseed Deborah Fowler 1609 Shoal Creek Blvd, Ste. 201 Austin, TX 78701 - National Center for Youth Law Michael Harris 405 14th Street, 15th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Pasadena County-District: 101-917 Investigative Report FY: 2014-2015 September 30, 2015 . Complaint No: 201510719 This report is the written decision of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) regarding the third?party complaint filed on behalf of multiple students, one of whom attended the Pasadena Independent School District (ISD), herein referred to as the locai educational agency (LEA), during the 2014-2015 school year. For the purposes of confidentiality, student gender pronouns are made neutral. Brackets have been removed from quotes with regard to' substituting gender pronouns for the purposes of readability. The complaint alleges violations of federal and state special education laws and the implementing regulations pertaining to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Texas Education Code (TEC), andlor the Texas Administrative Code (TAC). The specific allegation and TEA's findings of fact and conclusions, together with the reasons for final decision, are as follows. Allegatlon Did the LEA ensure that it identified, located, and evaluated the student for special education services during the 2014?2015 school year? {34 CFR ?300.111] Statement of the Complaint The complaint, which TEA received on June 1, 2015, alleges that the student has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and depression. The complaint further alleges that. despite receiving documentation of the student's ADHD diagnosis and failing grades. the LEA has failed to evaluate the student for special education services. The complaint also alleges that the LEA has filed truancy charges against the student three times. Findings of Fact 1. The student has never been evaluated for special education eligibility. 2. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year, the parent completed a Health Inventory form for the student that indicates no medical issues. . 3. During the fall semester of the 2013-2014 school year, the student had more than 10 unexcused absences, and the LEA filed a truancy complaint against the student. 4. At a court hearing on November 12, 2013, the judge ordered the student to attend a assessment at what is now the Harris Center for Mental Health and IDD. 5. Truancy records reflect that, during a follow-up court hearing on April 15, 2014, the parent stated that the student had been diagnosed with ADHD. 6. There is no evidence in the record reflecting that the LEA requested a copy of the assessment or information regarding the student's ADHD diagnosis: The student passed all classes except math during the 2013-2014 school year. School health records include an entry from June 2014 reflecting that the student was receiving medication at home for ADHD. The student attended a different LEA campus for the 2014-2015 school year. 0. At the beginning of the 2014?2015 school year. the parent completed a new Health Inventory form that ihdicates that the student has a history of ADHD, but is not receiving medical care for the condition. The form also reflects that the student is not taking medication. ?59 53?:q Pasadena ISD Colest: 101-917 FY: 2014-2015 . Comptaint: 201510719 Page 2 of 7 11.The fall semester of the 2014-2015 school year ran from August 26, 2014, to December 19, 2014. The student had 13 unexcused absences during the semester. Some absences were for the entire day, and some were for portions of the day. 12. The student earned credit for all classes but Algebra during the fall semester. The student?s semester grades were two As, four Cs, and one F. 13. The spring semester of the 2014-2015 school year ran from January 6. 2015, to June 4, 2015. At the end of the first grading period of the semester, the student had 20 unexcused absences, and his/her grades were one A and six Fs. 14. Truancy records include a section titled ?Documentation of Truancy Prevention Measures" that documents a phone call between an assistant principal and the students parent on January 14, 2015. This record includes a comment stating' mom is upset because she brings student to school every day.? The record further reflects that the parent said "well we will let judge decide what to do with [him/had.? 15. The LEA filed a truancy complaint against the student on January 15, 2015. 16. Truancy records reflect that, during a February 17, 2015 court hearing, the student stated that slhe wakes up late, and the parent stated that she has to go to work in the morning The records further reflect that the parent stated that she cannot control the student. 17. The student?s 2014-2015 report card includes comments from two teachers. During the third grading period, one teacher entered the code indicating that behavior was affecting the student's work. During the fourth grading period, this same teacher entered codes indicating that more effort was needed, that absences were affecting the student?s work, and that the student had low test scores and/or incomplete assignments. A second? teacher also entered the code indicating that the student had low test scores and/or Incomplete assignments during the fourth grading period. 18. A GradeSpeed Monitor document reflects that a third teacher at some point entered the code indicating that absences Were affecting the student?s work. 19. Truancy records document a phone cali between the student?s theater arts teacher and the student's parent on February 25, 2015. The record includes a note reading, ?Mom is concerned student is depressed and is taking himiher to be evaluated next week.? 20. The LEA contends in its response to the complaint that, on February 27, 2015, a school counselor met with the student and does not recall the student saying anything about ADHD or depression or otherwise explaining his/her absences. There is no documentation in the record to support this ciairn. 21. The LEA also claims that the school counselor left a voicemail message for the student's parent but never heard back from her. There is no documentation in the record to support this ciaim 22. On or about April 8, 2015, complainant Disability Rights Texas, the federally designated legal protection and advocacy agency for peopie with in Texas, sent a ietter to the LEA stating that it was assisting the student?s parent and requesting copies of certain student records, inciuding documentation relating to the student?s medical conditions, any assessments and evaiuations, discipline and behavior records, report cards, and attendance records. 23. Along with its letter, complainant Disability Rights Texas provided an Authorization to Release Confidential Information form signed by the student's parent. The form indicates "Legal Purp see" as the reason for the parent?s release. 24. Truancy records incrude a section titled ?Documentation of Truancy Prevention Measures" that documents a second phone call between the assistant principal and the student's parent on April 27, 2015. This record includes a comment reflecting that Pasadena Co-?Dist: 101-917 FY: 2014-2015 Comptalnt: 201510718 Page 3 of 7 the student had missed 31 days since the last court hearing and that the parent stated that she was having trouble getting the student to listen to her and that she had the student in therapy. There are no comments reflecting. that the assistant principal inquired further about the student's therapy or about whether the student had been diagnosed with depression or any other condition. 25. The LEA filed another truancy complaint against the student on April 27,2015. 26. Truancy records reflects that during an April 28 2015 court hearing, the student?s 'parent stated that she had requested that the school test the student for ADHD. The LEA asserts that this is first time that it was notified that the parent wanted the student evaluated. 27. The record does not include any evidence reflecting that the student?s parent requested that the LEA evaluate the student for special education eligibility before the Aprit 28, 2015 court hearing. 28. The response to the complaint states that it did not request parental consent to evaluate the student for special education eligibility during the 2014? 2015 school year ?as there were no behavioral or academic reasons in the school setting that would justify such an evaluation.? 29. The LEA filed another. truancy complaint against the student on May 27, 2015. 30. The student had 81 absences during the spring semester and passed only one ciass. 31. The student?s 2014-2015 disciplinary record primary reflects attendance issues. The student spent several days in in-school suspension for tardies and spent one day in for truancy. Additionally, the student once brought a telecommunication device to school. 32. The LEA claims that it has made multiple efforts to contact the parent for additional information including medical information, and to request permission to consult with any professional working with the student but the parent has not responded. The LEA has not provided any documentation of these efforts. 33. There is no evidence In the record that reflects that LEA staff members met todiscuss the student?s attendance andior academic performance problems. There is also no evidence that any LEA staff members requested a conference with the parent to discuss the student?s attendance andlor academic performance problems. 34. The LEA provided a copy of an Overview training document. This document reflects that attendance is a behavior and that, if a student is absent three or more days in a six-weeks grading period, the teacher must call or contact the student?s parent. The document further states that the teacher must send an email to the attendance clerk and assistant principal with any notes the teacher received from the parent when contacted. 35. The LEA provided excerpts from an employee handbook that reflects that, if a student is absent from class, it is best practice forthe teacher to try to determine the student's whereabouts and to contact the student's parent. The document also reflects that a teacher shouid contact the student?s parent if the student has three or more absences. 36. The record reflects that the only contact the student's parent received from a teacher regarding the student's absences was the February 25, 2015 phone call described in Finding of Fact 19. Conclusions and Reasons for Final Decision Authority: 34 CFR ?300.111 34 CFR ?300.111 places; an affirmative duty on the State and LEAs to have policies and procedures to ensure that all students with disabilities residing in the State and who are in Pasadena Co?Dist: 101-91? FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510719 Page 4 of 7 need of special education and related services, are identified, located, and evaluated. This ?child find" provision applies to, among others, students who are suspected of being a student with a disability and in need of special education, even though they are advancing from grade to grade. LEAs are responsible for conducting child find and identifying all IDEA-eligible students that reside in their jurisdiction. Because the child find duty is an affirmative one, a parent is not required to request that an LEA evaluate a student} The threshold for "suspicion" is relatively low. The inquiry is not whether the student actually qualifies for special education services, but rather, whether the student should be referred for an evaluation. As explained below, TEA concludes that the LEA faiied to meet its child find obligation with regard to the student in the Instant complaint. The factthat a student is frequently absent from school does not automatically mean the LEA must refer the student for a special education .evaiuaticn. if a student?s absenteeism is accompanied by a decrease to academic performance and information connecting the absenteeism to a disability, an child find obligation may be triggered. 2 In this case, the LEA learned that the student had been diagnosed with ADHD near the end of the 2013 2014 school year The record reflects that the ADHD diagnosis may. have resulted from a evaluation ordered by a judge in a truancy proceeding. While ADHD is not a specific disabling condition under the IDEA, a student with ADHD may be eligible under one of~the specific disability categories by reason of his or her ADHD. There is no evidence in the record reflecting that the LEA requested any information about the student's ADHD diagnosis or that it considered whether the student?s ADHD may have contributed to the student?s absenteeism during the end of the 2013-2014 school year. During the fall semester of the 2014-2015 school year, the student had 13 absences and passed all classes except Algebra I. This may indicate that the student?s ADHD was not having a significant effect on his/her absenteeism or educational performance. On the other hand, it is also possible that the student?s ADHD played a role In his/her absenteeism, poor performance in Algebra l, and average grades in four classes. There is insufficient information to know whether, or to what extent, the student?s ADHD affected his/her learning or behavior during this time period. By the end of the first grading period of the spring semester of the 2014?201 5 school year, things changed. The student?s attendance and grades had plummeted. in fact, the student had more absences this grading period than sihe had the entire fail semester, and the student went from passing all but one class to failing all but one class. While it may seem logical to attribute the student's poor grades entirely to his/her lack of attendance, the matter is not.- that simple. Chronic absenteeism is complicated and can involve many factors, including an undiagnosed disability, emotional disturbance, academic difficulties, 1Sec 0.0. Jr. v. Beaumont indep. Sch. Dist, 65 IDELR 109 (ED. Tex. 2015, unpublished). 28cc 9.9., Broward County (FL) Sch. Dist, 61 265 (OCR concluded that an LEA that failed to evaluate two frequently absent klndergartners within a reasonable period after learning that they were being treated for bipolar disorder vioieted its child find duty); MM. and LF. v. New York City Dep't of Educstudent's prolonged absence, coupled with her failure to earn enough credits to move on to the next grade, should have prompted the LEA to ?nd her etigible for special education. City School District, 112 LRPE 53622 (SEA OH 2012)(An LEA that failed to refer a truant student for an evaluation despite having knovv'iedge that the student had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression, failed to meet its child tind obligation?) But see e..g Southwest indep. Sch. Dist. 39 203 (SEA TX 2003) (T he LEA did not violate chitd ?nd with respect to a student whose sociat and family circumstances caused her to attend Just 16 days of school from January to September 2002.). Pasadena ISD Co-Dist: tut-917 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510719 Page 5 of 7 bullying, home problems, social maladjustment, drug problems, economic issues, and even boredom. The record reflects that the LEA did little in terms of investigating the root cause of the student?s absenteeism. There were very few contacts between LEA staff and the student's parent. Only three phone calls are documented for the entire 2014?2015 school year despite the fact that the employee handbook and procedures reflect that teachers must contact a student?s parent if the student is absent for three or more days. The three phone calls are referred to as ?truancy prevention measures.? Given that two of the calls coincided. with the filing ofa truancy complaint, it is unclear how the calls could reasonably be expected to prevent truancy. in the one phone call made by a teacher, the student?s parent stated that she thought the studentwas depressed and that she was going to have him/her evatuated. Even if a school counselorSubsequently attempted to contact the parent and did not get a response, this does not .{explain why the school counselor or another LEA staff member did not make other attempts to contact the parent. The LEA also claims that the school counselor reached [cut to the student and that she ?does not recall" that the student said anything about ADHD or depression or other issues that may have contributed to his/her absences. Aside from the fact that it can reasonably be expected that many students would be reluctant to disclose information about their mental health issues or home lives, the reaponse suggests that the school counselor may not have even asked the student whether slhe Was depressed or tried to elicit information regarding the reasons the student was barely attending school. According to the LEA, there were no behavioral or academic reasons in the school setting that justified providing the student with support services or for referring the student for a special education evaluation. TEA disagrees. The student's chronic absenteeism was a behavioral problem that warranted some type of intervention other than the filing of truancy complaints. In addition, several teachers had documented that the student?s behavior and absences were affecting his/her academic performance. The student failed Algebra in the tall and was failing many classes in the spring. The student's ADHD diagnosis, worsening absenteeism, failing grades, and possible depression should have prompted the LEA to refer the student for an evaluation. Three events In particular stand out as times when the LEA should have referred the student for an evaiuation. The first is when the student?s parent disclosed that the student was going to be evaiuated for depression. The second is when the LEA received the letter from complainant Disability Rights Texas, which clearly reflects that the parent was seeking legal-assistance because she believed that the LEA had failed to address the student?s disabilities. And: the third event was when the parent stated in a court hearing that she had requested that the school test the student for ADHD. Even if the LEA firmly believed that the parent had not previously requested an evaluation, the parent?s statement in court reflected that she wanted an evaluation. For the reasons above, TEA concludes that the LEA violated its child find duty. TEA does not conclude that the student needs special education, only that the LEA had sufficient information to suspect that the student might be a student with a disability who required - special education and related services. Therefore, the allegation is substantiated. Pasadena ISD Co-Dist: 101-91? FY: 20144015 Complaint: 201510719 Page 6 of 7 Identified 'Noncompliance Based on the evidence and current state and federal requirements the following noncompliance was cited The LEA does not alwa 5 ensure that it identifies locates and evaluates students in accordance with 34 CFR 300.111 Required Corrective Actions In accordance with 34 CFR 531500.151, TEA must address: (1) how to remediate the denial of those services based on the needs of the student and (2) appropriate future provision of services for all students with disabilities when resolving a complaint In which apprOpriate services were not provided Corrective actions to achieve compliance are required of the LEA as follows. For the student subject to this complaint: Within 10 calendar days of the date of this report, the LEA must provide the student's parent with prior written notice of its proposal to evaluate the student, a copy of the Notice of Procedural Safeguards, and a consent for evaluation form. If the parent provides the LEA with written, consent to evaluate the student, the LEA must complete an expedited full individual and initial evaluation of the student that includes a evaluation and must provide the parent with a written report of the evaluation as soon as possible and no later than 30 calendar days following the date on which the LEA received consent unless the parent agrees to a different timeline. The LEA must convene an admission, review. and dismissal (ARD) committee meeting to review the evaluation and to determine if the student is eligible for special education and related services as soon as possible and no later than 10 school days from the date of the completion of the evaluation report unless the parent agrees to a different timeline. If the ARD committee determines that the student is eligible for special education and related services, the ARD committee must develop an Individualized education program (IEP) for the student for the 2015-2016 school year. If determined eligible, the student is also entitled to appropriate relief to compensate for the failure to identify the student during the spring semester of the 2014-2015 school year. One-on-one algebra tutoring must be made available to the student through the end of the 2015~2016 school year In an amount and frequency to be determined by the ARD committee, considering the student's schedule and tolerance for additional services and considering the fact that the student was denied special education and related services for approximately four months during the last school year and did not have an IEP in place at the beginning of this school year. The ARD'committee must determine the appropriate credentials for the tutor. The ARD committee must also consider whether compensatory education in any other academic subject area or compensatory counseling or other related services must be made available to the student. Pasadena ISD Co-Dist: 101-917 FY: 2014-2015 Complaint: 201510119 Page 7 of 7 For all students with disabilities in the LEA: The LEA's administration shall review the dist-riot and campus policies and rotated guidelines pertaining to the noncompliance cited in this report and determine whether revisions are needed. If the LEA revises its policies and related guidelines, the LEA must provide written notice of revised policy/guidelines to LEA staff who may be affected by the revisions. The LEA must provide focused technical assistance to all special education, general education, and administrative personnel on the campus subject to the complaint to address the noncompliance cited in this report. Specifically, personnel must receive training on the procedures for addressing student absences and on identifying when a student?s excessive absenteeism can trigger child tind obtigations. By October 30, 2015, the LEA must provide TEA with a proposed timeline for completing the corrective actions or must provide TEA with the following documentation to TEA to? show completion of the corrective actions. - A copy of the prior written notice given to the parent, a copy of thewritten consent signed by the parent giving the LEA permission to evaluate the student, and copy of the student?s initial evaluation report. . A copy of the ARD committee report documenting the eligibility and compensatory services determination. . A copy of service logs or other documentation showing the implementation of the compensatory services. A copy of any revised portions of special education policies and related guidelines. . A copy of any relevant memoranda and/or guidance letters issued to staff. . A copy of the training agenda describing the information presented in the staff development and a listing of the individuals, indicating their positions. who participated in the staff development. Further intervention by TEA may result if the LEA does not provide the requested information or respond within the required timeline. in accordance with 34 CFR TEA must ensure that the LEA corrects identified noncompliance ?as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year after the State's identification of the noncompliance.? Therefore, all required corrective actions must be completed no later than September 30, 2016. Failure to correct the cited noncompliance by this date will result in an additional finding of noncompiiance under 34 CFR ?300.600(e) and may result in additional sanctions against the LEA as outlined in 19 TAC ?89.1076. This concludes investigation of the complaint.