MICHIEEN ?WSFEducation student has low academic skills, describes behaviors that are interfering with the student?s learning and that of others. 8. The Manifestation Determination Review dated June 25, 2015 describes behavior that matches and exceeds the behavior described in the June 21, 2015 IEP. 9. The conclusion of the group conducting the Manifestation determination that the behavior in question was not a manifestation of the student's disability is not supported by the documented behavioral issues in the student's IEP. The district erred in making this determination. 10.There is no documentation that the student's IEP was implemented in terms of the school social work support, and no documentation that if the school social work support was provided, that it had any impact in improving the student?s behavior. 11.As of May 13, 2015, the removals exceeded 10 school days and constituted a pattern of removals. The manifestation determination review should have taken place within 10 school days of May 13, 2015, but did not. 12.The available documentation indicates that the student did not make progress in behavioral and academic performance. Instead, the student?s behavior continued to deteriorate during the ?rst part of the 2015-2016 school year. 13.The district did not review and revise the student?s IEP to address this lack of progress. 14.There is no documentation that the district formally or informally addressed the student's behavior by providing positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies. 15.The only documented response to the student's behavior was repeated removals from instruction. 16.During the 2015-2016 school year, the tenth day of removal took place on November 10, 2015. Within 10 school days of that date, another manifestation determination review should have taken place. There is no documentation that this occurred. Decision: Whether the District violated the IDEA and MARSE procedural requirements as follows: Issue Whether the district developed, reviewed and revised the IEP consistent with 34 CFR 300.324, specific to: a. Whether the District reconvened the IEP team to address a lack of progress toward goals consistent with 34 CFR b. Whether the District considered the use of positive behavior interventions and supports, and other strategies to address behavior that impedes learning consistent with 34 CFR Case Number 16-00191 Page 7 of 10 MICHIEEN ??"miiEducation The OSE determines that the District has violated 34 CFR and by failing to reconvene the IEP team to address the student's lack of progress and to consider the use of positive behavior interventions and supports and other strategies to address the student's behavior that is impeding learning. Issue Whether the district followed proper procedures regarding discipline as consistent with 34 CFR 300.530, speci?cally related to: a. Whether the District considered all relevant information with conducting a Manifestation Determination Review consistent with 34 CFR b. Whether the district provided the student a functional behavioral assessment, and behavioral intervention services and modi?cations, designed to address the behavior violation so that it does not recur consistent with 34 CFR c. Whether the district continued to provide educational services, as provided in 34 CFR 300.101(a) after a removal consistent with34 CFR The OSE determines that the District has: . Violated 34 CFR 300.530(e) by failing to consider all relevant information including the IEP. . Violated 34 CFR by failing to provide the student with a functional behavior assessment and intervention services and modifications designed to address the behavior violation so it does not recur. . Violated 34 CFR by failing to provide continuing educational services after the student was removed for more than 10 school days in a school year. Issue #3 In the event there are violations in Issue #1 and/or Issue then it is necessary to determine whether the students' right to a FAPE was denied based on a failure to develop and provide IEP services that were reasonably calculated to meet the Student's unique needs consistent with 34 CFR 300.17 and inclusive of 300.320 through 300.324. The OSE determines that the District has denied the student a FAPE in violation of 34 CFR 300.17(d) and The district did not develop and provide services that were reasonably calculated to meet the student?s unique educational needs. Case Number 16-00191 Page 8 of 10 ??"m?iEducation Corrective Actign Plan: 1. When the student returns to school the district must: a. Immediately provide the student with a b. Review the existing evaluation data and seek consent for a reevaluation; c. Conduct a reevaluation that minimally considers eligibility under speci?c learning disability, other health impairment and emotional impairment; d. This reevaluation must include a functional behavior assessment and suf?cient information and data to develop an IEP that is compliant with 34 CFR ??300.320 through 300.324; e. Complete the reevaluation and develop the IEP within the required timelines. 2. The district, in collaboration with the parent and members of the IEP team, shall develop a plan for providing 60 hours of compensatory services to the student (which shall be delivered over the course of the 2016-2017 school year through one year from the issue date of this ?nal decision, September 7, 2017). The compensatory services can include counseling and tutoring. Documentation of the plan shall be provided to the OSE within 30 days of the IEP team meeting. 3. Documentation for compensatory services provided to the student shall be provided to the OSE by September 7, 2017, and will include: a. A copy of the receipt(s) for services provided if a contractor is used. b. Service provider logs for the compensatory services indicating the dates, starting and ending times, length of sessions. If the student is absent on a scheduled day, this session does not need to be made up. Any staff absences require a make-up session. c. Transportation logs or reimbursement receipts (if applicable). 4. The district must review its discipline procedures and revise as necessary to document and ensure that: a. The use of positive behavioral interventions and other strategies are considered by the IEP team. b. If the use of positive behavioral interventions and other strategies is determined to be needed, it is addressed in the IEP. c. The district determines if a pattern of removals constitutes a change of placement for students that have been removed from their current placement for more than ten school days. d. The district noti?es the parents of the decision to make a removal that constitutes a change of placement on the date the decision is made. e. The district, the parents and relevant members of the IEP team (as determined by the parent and district) complete the manifestation determination review. f. The manifestation determination participants review all relevant information in the student's ?le, including the IEP, any teacher observations, and relevant information provided by the parents. g. If the manifestation determination review determines that the conduct was the direct result of the district's failure to implement the IEP, immediate steps are taken to remedy the failure. Case Number 16-00191 Page 9 of 10 0. ??"mi??iEducation If the manifestation determination review determines a manifestation of the student's disability, the student is returned to the placement from which the child was removed, unless the parent and the district agree to a change of placement as a part of the modi?cation of the behavior intervention plan. The district conducts a functional behavioral assessment and implements a behavioral intervention plan, if appropriate, for the student. The district reviews the existing behavior intervention plan, modifying it as necessary to address the behavior. The student receives, as appropriate, a functional behavioral assessment, behavioral intervention services, and modi?cations designed to address the behavior violation so that it does not recur. Services are provided and documented after the 10th school day of removal. .If the removal is a change of placement, the IEP team determines appropriate services. If the removal is not a change of placement, school personnel consulted with at least one of the student?s teachers to determine the needed services. The student is placed in an interim alternative educational setting for not more than 45 school days. 5. Provide professional development for all relevant staff regarding the discipline procedures. 6. Evidence of change in the local's practice must be provided and veri?ed by the USE through the CIMS workbook. Please direct evidence of timely compliance, required submissions, and questions regarding this complaint investigation to Joanne Winkelman at 517-335-0457 or winkelmanj@michigan.gov. All correspondence should be clearly marked as pertaining to case 16-00191. Joanne Winkelman, Supervisor Of?ce of Special Education Program Accountability Unit JW/jam CC: Toni Clover Deborah Ake Alycia Meriweather Karen Howey Randy Liepa Rose Mendola Case Number 16-00191 Page 10 of 10 4. Following disenrollment from the District on September 7, 2015, the Parent requested an emergency IEP team meeting on October 21, 2015 for the Student. The District scheduled an annual review IEP team meeting for the Student on November 17, 2015, which was never held. The District did not take steps to conduct a reevaluation until June 22, 2016. 5. The Parent refused to send the Student to school during the 2015-2016 school year due to perceived safety concerns on the part of the Parent. This limited the District?s ability to properly reevaluate the Student. 6. The Parent and the District have agreed to conduct reevaluations of the Student in the fall of 2016. Issue 1. The right to inspect and review education records includes the right to request the agency to provide copies of the records if doing so would effectively prevent the parent from exercising the right to inspect and review the records. 34 CFR 2. The District must permit Parents to inspect and review any education records relating to their child that are collected, maintained, or used by the District. The District must comply with a request to inspect and review any education records without unnecessary delay and in no case more than 45 calendar days after the request is made. OSEP Procedural Safeguards model form, June 2009 and 34 CFR 3. The Complainants requested records from the District on September 16, 2015. The ?rst records sent on October 26, 2015 were incomplete. The rest of the records were sent on December 11, 2015. This is outside the 45 day window indicated in the IDEA. Decision: Issue #1 Whether there was an IEP in place for the student, pursuant to 340.1721e(1) and 34 CFR The OSE determines that the District violated the IDEA and the MARSE because the District did not enact their affirmative obligation to revise the Student's IEP over the course of the 2015-2016 school year. Even though this responsibility was impacted by the Parent's refusals to send the Student to school, this obligation is not contingent on parental cooperation and the District must act on behalf of the Student. Furthermore, the District did not provide written notice once the decision was made to not revise the IEP or hold the November 17, 2015 IEP team meeting. Whether the District convened an IEP team meeting with the correct members on November 17, 2015 in accordance with 34 CFR 300.321. The OSE determines that the District did not hold an IEP team meeting for the Student on November 17, 2015 and there is no violation. In regards to the November 17, 2015 IEP team meeting, whether the placement decision for the Student was made in accordance with 340.1721e(4) and 34 CFR The OSE determines that the District did not hold an IEP team meeting for the Student on November 17, 2015 and there is no violation. Whether the District considered the need for extended school year services at the November 17, 2015 IEP team meeting consistent with Case Number 16-00208 Page 7 of 10 The OSE determines that the District did not hold an IEP team meeting for the Student on November 17, 2015 and there is no violation. Whether the district considered new information about the student at the IEP team meeting held November 17, 2015 consistent with 34 CFR The OSE determines that the District did not hold an IEP team meeting for the Student on November 17, 2015 and there is no violation. Whether the district met its obligations to the Student concerning the development, review, and revision of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) consistent with 34 CFR ?300.22 and pursuant to 34 CFR ??300.320 through 300.324 and 340.1721e based on the results of the above decisions: The OSE determines that the District violated the IDEA and the MARSE because the District did not take any further action with regard to the Student's outdated IEP, thus failing to properly revise the Student's IEP. Additionally the OSE determined the District violated the following IDEA requirements: 34 CFR and When the District disenrolled the Student following the repeated and continual absence of the Student, the District unilaterally changed the placement of the Student outside a valid process. The District should have immediately convened an IEP team meeting to address the lack of attendance of the Student and provided written notice to the Parent. In regard to revising the Student's IEP, by refusing to take any further action with the outdated status of the Student's IEP, the District violated its FAPE obligation to the Student. Issue #2 Whether the District, in conformity with 34 CFR 300.17, provided special education and related services to the student during the 2015-2016 school year pursuant with 34 CFR 300.101. The OSE determines that the District did not provide educational services to the Student because the District could not persuade the Parent to make the Student available for the services. Therefore, as the Parent repeatedly refused to send the Student to school, there is no violation. Issue #3 Whether the District re-evaluated the student every three years, consistent with 34 CFR The OSE determines that the District violated the IDEA and the MARSE because the District did not reevaluate the Student every three years. Case Number 16-00208 Page 8 of 10 Issue #4 Whether the district responded appropriately to a request for educational records pursuant to 34 CFR 300.613. The OSE determines that the District violated the IDEA because the District did not respond to the request for educational records within 45 days. Cgrrective Action Plan: Student Level: 1. 4. Obtain informed consent and conduct the comprehensive evaluations requested by the Complainants/Parent within the ?rst 30 school days of the 2016-2017 school yeah The time from receipt of parental consent for an evaluation to the notice of an offer of a FAPE or the determination of ineligibility shall be within 30 school days. Within seven school days from the date of the IEP team meeting, the public agency shall provide the parent with the notice of an offer of a FAPE or determination of ineligibility. Submit a copy of the IEP and the multidisciplinary evaluation team report to the OSE by November 1, 2016. 5. These activities are contingent upon the cooperation of the Parent in making the Student available for the evaluations/observations necessary in order for a valid offer of a FAPE to be made. Distrigt Level: 1. In collaboration with the Wayne RESA, develop, review and/or revise the district's written procedures to ensure that, for this and all students, the District implements the provision of the IDEA and the MARSE speci?c to the noncompliance's listed above: a. Obligations to provide a FAPE b. IEP review and revise, 340.1721e(1) and 34 CFR 300.323(a) c. Reevaluations, 34 CFR 300.303(b) d. Placement determinations using a valid process, 34 CFR 300.116 e. Response to records request, 34 CFR 300. 613 . Provide staff training to building administrators and special education staff who are involved in making special education decisions, regarding the legal requirements in the district's procedures speci?c to: Obligations to provide a FAPE IEP review and revise, 340.1721e(1) and 34 CFR 300.323(a) Reevaluations, 34 CFR 300.303(b) Placement determinations using a valid process, 34 CFR 300.116 e. Response to records request, 34 CFR 300.613 apes-o: 3. These activities will be addressed through a Corrective Action Plan in the next CIMS workbook. Case Number 16-00208 Page 9 of 10 Issue 1. The right to inspect and review education records includes the right to request the agency to provide c0pies of the records if doing so would effectively prevent the parent from exercising the right to inspect and review the records. 34 CFR 2. The District must permit Parents to inspect and review any education records relating to their child that are collected, maintained, or used by the District. The District must comply with a request to inspect and review any education records without unnecessary delay and in no case more than 45 calendar days after the request is made. OSEP Procedural Safeguards model form, June 2009 and 34 CFR 3. The Complainants requested records from the District on September 16, 2015. The ?rst records sent on October 26, 2015 were incomplete. The rest of the records were sent on December 11, 2015. This is outside the 45 day window indicated in the IDEA. Dggision: Issue #1 Whether there was an IEP in place for the student, pursuant to 340.1721e(1) and 34 CFR The OSE determines that the District had an IEP in place for the Student at the beginning of the 2015-2016 school year that was revised in a valid IEP team meeting on December 15, 2015 and there is no violation. Whether the District convened an IEP team meeting with the correct members on November 17, 2015 in accordance with 34 CFR 300.321. The OSE determines that the District held an IEP team meeting for the Student on both November 17, 2015 and December 15, 2015 with the correct IEP team members present and there is no violation. In regards to the November 17, 2015 IEP team meeting, whether the placement decision for the Student was made in accordance with 340.1721e(4) and 34 CFR The OSE determines that the placement of the Student was never in question at the November 17, 2015 and December 15, 2015 IEP team meetings, only the location of the services. School districts have the flexibility to choose the location for the provision of services within their respective district. As the District provided an offer of a FAPE indicating the placement and location of the Student's special education services, there is no violation. Whether the District considered the need for extended school year services at the November 17, 2015 IEP team meeting consistent with The OSE determines that the District discussed the extended school year services at the December 15, 2015 IEP team meeting, which was reconvened following the November 17, 2015 IEP team meeting. There is no violation. Whether the district considered new information about the student at the IEP team meeting held November 17, 2015 consistent with 34 CFR The OSE determines that the District considered new information concerning the Student at the December 15, 2015 IEP team meeting, which was Case Number 16-00214 Page 8 of 10 reconvened following the November 17, 2015 IEP team meeting. There is no violation. Whether the district met its obligations to the Student concerning the development, review, and revision of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) consistent with 34 CFR ?300.22 and pursuant to 34 CFR ??300.320 through 300.324 and 340.1721e based on the results of the above decisions: The OSE determines that the District revised the Student?s IEP and there is no violation. Issue #2 Whether the District, in conformity with 34 CFR 300.17, provided special education and related services to the student during the 2015-2016 school year pursuant with 34 CFR 300.101. The OSE determines that the District did not provide educational services to the Student because the District could not persuade the Parent to make the Student available for the services. Therefore, as the Parent repeatedly refused to send the Student to school, there is no violation. Issue #3 Whether the District re?evaluated the student every three years, consistent with 34 CFR The OSE determines that the District violated the IDEA and the MARSE because the District did not initiate the reevaluation process once the Parent made a verbal request at the December 15, 2015 IEP team meeting. This is a request made in the presence of multiple District staff, including administrative staff. This in effect puts the District on notice regarding the request to reevaluate the Student. Additionally the OSE determined the District violated the following IDEA requirements: 34 CFR and When the District disenrolled the Student following the repeated and continual absence of the Student, the District unilaterally changed the placement of the Student outside a valid process. The District should have immediately convened an IEP team meeting to address the lack of attendance of the Student and provided written notice to the Parent. ISSUE #4 Whether the district responded appropriately to a request for educational records pursuant to 34 CFR 300.613. The OSE determines that the District violated the IDEA because the District did not respond to the request for educational records within 45 days. Case Number 16-00214 Page 9 of 10 Cgrreggive Action Plan: Student Level: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Obtain informed consent and conduct the comprehensive evaluations requested by the Complainants/Parent within the ?rst 30 school days of the 2016-2017 school year. The time from receipt of parental consent for an evaluation to the notice of an offer of a FAPE or the determination of ineligibility shall be within 30 school days. Within seven school days from the date of the IEP team meeting, the public agency shall provide the parent with the notice of an offer of a FAPE or determination of ineligibility. Submit a copy of the IEP and the multidisciplinary evaluation team report to the USE by November 1, 2016. These activities are contingent upon the cooperation of the Parent in making the Student available for the evaluations/observations necessary in order for a valid offer of a FAPE to be made. Di?tri?t Level: 1. 3. In collaboration with the Wayne RESA, develop, review and/or revise the district's written procedures to ensure that, for this and all students, the District implements the provision of the IDEA and the MARSE speci?c to the noncompliance's listed above: a. Placement determinations using a valid process, 34 CFR 300.116 b. Response to records request, 34 CFR 300.613 Provide staff training to building administrators and special education staff who are involved in making special education decisions, regarding the legal requirements in the district's procedures speci?c to: a. Placement determinations using a valid process, 34 CFR 300.116 b. Response to records request, 34 CFR 300.613 These activities will be addressed through a Corrective Action Plan in the next CIMS workbook. Please direct evidence of timely compliance, required submissions, and questions regarding this complaint investigation to Joanne Winkelman at 517-335-0457. All correspondence should be clearly marked as pertaining to case 16-00214. Joanne Winkelman, Supervisor Of?ce of Special Education Program Accountability Unit JW/jam CC: Randy Liepa Karen Howey Toni Clover Rose Mendola Case Number 16-00214 Page 10 of 10 2. The right to inspect and review educational records includes the right to request the agency to provide copies of the records if doing so would effectively prevent the parent from exercising the right to inspect and review the records. 34 CFR 300.613( 3. A review of the documentation and interviews with the Complainant and the District indicate that the transition assessment requested by the Complainant did not exist and therefore could not be submitted to the Complainant upon request. Decision: Issue #1 Whether the District provided the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to 34 CFR 300.17 and 300.101. Specifically: 1. Whether the IEP was developed to addressed the Student's academic, developmental and functional needs pursuant to 34 CFR 300.320 through 300.324 and MARSE R340.1721e; including: a. Whether the correct team was assembled for the IEP team meeting; The OSE determines a violation. The District did not fully consider the need to invite an agency representative. b. Whether the IEP included a statement of measurable annual goals and short- term objectives; The OSE determines a violation. The IEPs that were active during the timeline for this complaint contained unmeasurable annual goals and short-term objectives that were carried over each successive IEP. c. Whether the IEP included a statement of postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments; and transition services were provided to reach those goals; The OSE determines a violation. The IEPs that were active during the timeline for this complaint contained transition plans that were not based on age- appropriate transition assessments and the transition plans contained vague statements of Student need and not actual transition services and or activities. d. Whether the IEP included special education and related services that will enable the Student to be educated and participate with other students with disabilities and nondisabled students; and The OSE determines a violation. The IEPs that were active during the timeline for this complaint were all very similar in their content and did not evidence a true consideration of the needs of the Student. e. Whether the IEP was reviewed and revised to address a lack of progress. The OSE determines a violation. The IEPs that were active during the timeline for this complaint were reviewed more than annually; however, they were not properly revised. Case Number 16-00324 Page 17 of 20 2. Whether the District followed disciplinary procedures pursuant to 34 CFR 300.530 including: a. Consideration of disciplinary removals, and b. Whether the manifestation determination review considered all relevant information in the Student's ?le. The OSE determines a violation. The January 7, 2016 manifestation determination review did not consider all the information from the Student's educational file and input from the Parent. 3. Whether the District followed the procedures regarding an independent educational evaluation pursuant to 34 CFR 300.502 and 340.1723c, including: a. Responding appropriately to a Parent's request, and The OSE determines a violation. The District did not respond to the Parents request for an independent educational evaluation within the seven-calendar day timeline. b. Consideration of the evaluation results. The District incorporated some of the results of the independent functional behavior assessment into the Student's September 14, 2016 behavior intervention plan. There is no violation. In reviewing the above issues, each of these violations amounts to a denial of a FAPE. Issue #2 Whether the District followed the procedures and processes required by the IDEA and the MARSE. Speci?cally: 1. Whether the District ensured that all personnel were appropriately and adequately trained and prepared to work with students with disabilities, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.156 and 300.207. The staff working with the Student at the District are appropriately and adequately trained and prepared to work with students with disabilities. There is no violation. 2. Whether the district responded appropriately to a request for educational records pursuant to 34 CFR 300.613. The District provided the Complainant with the educational records that existed at the time of the request. There is no violation. Action Plan: Student Level 1. By March 2017, in collaboration with the Parents and the members of the IEP team, the District must develop a plan for providing the following compensatory services by September 1, 2017: Case Number 16-00324 Page 18 of 20 a. 30 hours of behavior and transition-related instruction, which could include participation in SUpervised group activities and/or community based instruction. 2. Documentation for compensatory services provided to the Student shall be provided to the OSE by September 15, 2017, and will include: a. A copy of the receipt(s) for services provided if a contractor is used. b. Service provider logs for the compensatory services indicating the dates, starting and ending times, length of sessions. c. If the Student is absent on a scheduled day, this session does not need to be made up. Any staff absences require a make- u-p session. d. Transportation logs or reimbursement receipts (if applicable). 3. By February 24, 2017, the District must obtain Parental consent to conduct updated academic achievement testing and an age- appropriate transition assessment. 4. By March 4, 2017, the District must complete all the evaluations for which consent was provided. 5. By March 14, 2017, the District must, in collaboration with the Parent, develop, review and revise the Student?s IEP and transition plan to meet the requirements consistent with 34 CFR 300.320 through 300.324 and MARSE 340.1721e and to meet the Student's unique educational and behavioral needs, with particular focus on the violations from this complaint as outlined above. 6. The District must provide a copy of the evaluation report(s), IEP invitation, the IEP and written notice of the District's offer of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) no later than March 31, 2017. 7. By March 3, 2017, the District must attach a note to the January 7, 2016 manifestation determination review within the Student?s permanent educational record indicating that the January 7, 2016 manifestation determination review was incorrect and to refer to the manifestation determination review conducted on April 7, 2016. The District must provide OSE a copy of the note by the same date. District Level: 1. By June 1, 2017, in collaboration with the ISD, develop, review or revise the District's written procedures to ensure that, for this and all students, the District implements the provision of the IDEA and the MARSE speci?c to the noncompliance?s listed above: a. The IEP contains a statement of the consideration for inviting outside agency representatives. b. There is a statement of measurable annual goals and measurable short- term objectives, including academics and functional goals designed to meet the student's needs that result from the student?s disability and to enable the student to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum and meet each of the student's other educational needs. c. The IEP includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age- appropriate transition assessments. d. To the maximum extent appropriate, student with disabilities are educated with students who are nondisabled and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. Case Number 16-00324 Page 19 of 20 e. If the student is not making expected progress toward the annual goals and in the general education curriculum, the IEP team meets to review and revise the IEP as appropriate. f. The District reviews and considers all information in the students educational file, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parent. 9. Upon request for an independent educational evaluation, within seven calendar days, the District must either provide information about where an independent educational evaluation can be obtained, the agency criteria, procedures for reimbursement, reasonable expected costs, and noti?cation that the parent is not restricted to choosing from sources suggested by the District or a ?le a due process complaint. 2. By October 15, 2017, the District must provide professional development for all relevant staff at the Turning Point Academy regarding the new procedures. Please direct questions regarding this complaint investigation to Joanne Winkelman at 517-335-0457. All correspondence should be clearly marked as pertaining to case 16- 00324. Joanne Winkelman, Supervisor Of?ce of Special Education Program Accountability Unit JW/jam cc: Randy Liepa Karen Howey Rose Mendola Toni Clover Deb Ake Case Number 16-00324 Page 20 of 20 2012. The Student was reenrolled in District one on September 5, 2014, but never attended and was dropped. 9. District two made contact with the Complainant shortly after the complaint was ?led to begin the process of conducting a special education evaluation. Conclusions: 1. Pursuant to 34 CFR 300.111, all children with disabilities residing in the State, regardless of the severity of their disability, and who are in need of special education and related services, are identi?ed, located, and evaluated. 2. The Student had been at home since 2012, a period of five years. While it is important that all students in a district who need special education and related services are found, this Student was not the responsibility of District one because District one is not the resident district. Decision: 1. Whether the District provided the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to 34 CFR 300.17 and 300.101. Specifically: 1. Whether the District met their Child Find obligation to identify, locate and evaluate children who are in need of special education and related services pursuant to 34 CFR 300.111. The OSE finds the District is not in violation because the Student is not a resident of District 1. Please direct any questions regarding this complaint investigation to Joanne Winkelman at 517-335-0457 or winkelmanj@michigan.gov. All correspondence should be clearly marked as pertaining to case 17-0043. Joanne Winkelman, Supervisor Office of Special Education Program Accountability Unit cc: Toni Clover Karen Howey Randy Liepa Rose Mendola, Case Number: 17-0043 Page 3 of 3 per 340.1832(e) indicates that for elementary and secondary programs for students with mild cognitive impairment ?These programs shall serve not more than 18 different students on caseload and have no more than 15 students in the classroom at one time. When an elementary or secondary program for students with mild cognitive impairment has 12 or more students in the room at one time, an aide shall be assigned to the program, except when the program is part of a departmentalized program." 12. The program for students with mild cognitive impairment that the Student participates in was operating with a caseload over 12 students for three months with no aide. An aide was assigned on March 30, 2017, so from January to March 29, 2017, there were 15 students with only the teacher, and no aide had been available during that time. Decision: 1. Whether the District provided the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to 34 CFR 300.17 and 300.101. Specifically: a. Whether the District used a variety of assessment tools and relevant functional, developmental and academic information about the child, including information provided by the Parent, when conducting evaluations and determining the content of the Student's IEP consistent with 34 CFR The OSE determines a violation. The assessments were not given in the Student's native language and did not address all areas of need. 2. Whether the District followed the procedures and processes required by the IDEA and the MARSE. Speci?cally: a. Whether the District obtained informed parental consent prior to conducting a reevaluation consistent with 34 CFR The OSE determines no violation. Parental consent for re-evaluation was outside of the time line for this investigation. b. Whether the District met its obligations to the Student concerning the development, review and revision of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) with considering the concerns of the parent in accordance with 34 CFR The OSE determines a violation. The Parent was not given the opportunity to fully participate. c. Whether the District took actions to ensure that the parent understood the proceedings of the IEP consistent with 34 CFR The OSE determines a violation. Services for interpreters or translation of documents were not utilized by the District. d. Whether the District afforded the parent opportunity to examine records and participate in meetings consistent with 34 CFR 300.501. The OSE determines a violation. Services for interpreters or Case Number: 17-0044 Page 9 of 11 translation of documents were not utilized by the District. e. Whether the District is operating programs for student with mild cognitive impairments consistent with MARSE The OSE determines a violation The District did not provide programming consistent with the MARSE and the ISD plan. Student Level Corrective Action Plan: 1. The District shall complete a review of existing evaluation data plan within 30 school days of this ?nal decision and provide the Parent with a written proposal for the evaluation and the information necessary to seek the Parent?s informed consent. The plan needs to be provided to the Parent in an understandable format (using translation or interpreter services). The evaluation plan shall be sufficiently comprehensive and will include intellectual, academic, behavioral concerns.The evaluation shall minimally consider eligibility criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder and Emotional Impairment. In addition, the evaluation should include a functional behavior assessment. 2. Upon consent, the District shall conduct a comprehensive evaluation in Spanish based on the review of existing evaluation data plan and develop an IEP and behavior intervention plan prior to the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year. Corrective Action Plan: 1. The District must revise and/or develop procedures for communicating with parents who do not speak English by September 1, 2017 and will include: a. Translation of documents per the OSEP "Dear Colleague" Letter; Obtaining interpreters for meetings; c. Communication between school/teacher and the parent; Explaining disciplinary actions, including when a call home is needed for behavior incidents leading to suspension; and e. Providing interpreters for school events, such as parent teacher conferences. 2. Provide professional development to all relevant staff on the new or revised procedures by January 15, 2018. 3. Evidence of change in the District?s practice must be provided and veri?ed by the USE through the corrective action plan in the CIMS workbook. Evidence of timely compliance and required submissions for Corrective Action Plans and Student Level Corrective Action Plans must be documented in Catamaran. Please direct questions regarding this complaint investigation to Joanne Winkelman at 517-335-0457 or winkelmanj@michigan.gov, and any questions regarding the corrective action to Harmonee Costello at 517-241-7082 or costelloh1@michigan.gov. All correspondence should be clearly marked as pertaining to case 17-0044. Case Number: 17-0044 Page 10 of 11 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Angelo, 213 LRP 9074 (OSEP 1988) After a child with a disability has been removed from his/her current placement for 10 school days in the same year, during any subsequent days of removal, the public agency must provide services to the extent required under part (cl) of this section. 34 CFR The District did not document removals. In interviews with the District and the Complainant, both indicated that when behaviors escalated, the Student was taken home by the Guardian often enough to create a pattern of removals. Lack of documentation of removals eliminated the potential for the Student to receive protections afforded by the IDEA pursuant to 34 CFR 300.530. The March 17, 2016 indicates in supplementary aides and services that Student will be provided with an individual aide to support behaviors throughout the entire day in all academic areas. While the District indicated a lack of resources in employing a paraprofessional, there was still the obligation to obtain the resources for the required IEP services as outlined in the Student's IEP. In regard to the classroom teacher, the District indicated a lack of resources in employing quali?ed teachers and certi?ed personnel. The District has an obligation to provide quali?ed teachers and certi?ed personnel. The classroom paraprofessional provided instruction from January 9, 2017 to May 22, 2017. While the District indicated that a substitute teacher began instructing on May 22, 2017, there was no certi?ed teacher, or highly quali?ed special education provider, to provide instruction and services, per the Student's IEP. Progress reports indicated limited to no progress. In addition, interviews with the Guardian and the District indicated the Student?s behaviors had a negative impact on progress. The severity of the behaviors displayed by the Student resulted in a decrease in his access to general education curriculum, special education and related services. This should have prompted the IEP team to reconvene and address the Student's lack of educational progress consistent with the requirements of 34 CFR 300.320 through 300.324 and 340.1721e. Not only did the IEP team not review or reconvene the Student's IEP to address the lack of progress, the annual IEP was late. Decision: 1. Whether the District provided the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to 34 CFR 300.17 and 300.101. Specifically: a. Whether the District developed and implemented an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to address the Student's unique educational and behavioral needs consistent with the requirements Case Number: 17-0056 Page 9 of 11 of 34 CFR 300.320 through 300.324 and 340.1721e. The OSE determines a violation, as the Student's unique educational and behavioral needs were not addressed. The Student had not been provided with an individual paraprofessional, related services were not provided per IEP, and there was not a certified teacher to provide special education services and instruction for over five months in the 2016-2017 school year. b. Whether the District provided the Student with the procedural safeguards contained in the IDEA's discipline provisions consistent with 34 CFR 300.530 through 300.533 and 300.536 including the provision of education services that would enable the Student to continue to participate in the general education curriculum and to progress toward meeting the Student?s IEP goals. The 05E determines a violation. The Student was not able to participate in the curriculum and make progress toward IEP goals, due to the District having the Guardian take the Student home when behaviors escalated. Lack of documentation eliminated the potential for the Student to receive protections afforded by the IDEA. c. Whether the District reviewed the Student?s IEP to address his lack of educational progress consistent with 34 CFR The 05E determines a violation. The Student demonstrated a lack of academic and behavior progress throughout the 2016-2017 school year. There was no review or revision of the IEP to address the Student's needs. Student Level Corrective Action Plan: 1. Develop, review and revise the Student?s IEP to meet the requirements consistent with 34 CFR 300.320 through 300.324 and MARSE 340.1721e and to meet the Student?s unique educational and behavioral needs, with particular focus on the violations from this complaint. 2. The District must provide a copy of the IEP invitation, the IEP and written notice of the District's offer of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) within 30 school days of this decision. 3. The District, in collaboration with the Parent and members of the IEP team, shall develop a plan for providing compensatory services related to needs of the Student which shall be delivered over the course of year from the issue date of this ?nal decision to include: a. 5 hours of social work services; b. 1.5 hours of speech and language therapy services; c. 60 hours of instruction to address the Student's academic and behavioral needs. Corrective Action Plan: 1. By September 1, 2017, the District must revise or develop procedures to document and ensure: a. Individualized education programs (IEP) address students' unique Case Number: 17-0056 Page 10 of 11 educational and behavioral needs to enable each student to be involved in and make progress in the general curriculum. b. Individualized education programs (IEP) are implemented including: E. Special education and related services are made available to the student in accordance with the student's IEP. ii. Supplementary aides and services are made available to the student in accordance with the student's IEP. c. Behavior needs of students are addressed with implementation of appropriate positive behavior supports, functional behavior assessments are conducted and individual behavior intervention plans are developed. (1. IEPs are reconvened to address lack of educational and behavioral progress. 2. Disciplinary removals are documented and protections are afforded consistent with IDEA. 3. By January 15, 2018, the District must provide professional development to all relevant staff on the new procedures. Evidence of timely compliance and required submissions for Corrective Action Plans and Student Level Corrective Action Plans must be documented in Catamaran. Please direct questions regarding this complaint investigation to Joanne Winkelman at 517-335-0457 or winkelmanj?michigan.gov, and any questions regarding the corrective action to Harmonee Costello at 517-241-7082 or costelloh1@michigan.gov. All correspondence should be clearly marked as pertaining to case 17-0056. Joanne Winkelman, Supervisor Of?ce of Special Education Program Accountability Unit cc: Toni Clover, Hurks-Hill Karen Howey Randy Liepa Rose Mendola Case Number: 17-0056 Page 11 of 11 and services, related services and special education programs were provided as required by 9. There is insufficient evidence to indicate that the Student's IEP was made accessible to the Student's teacher and others consistent with 34 CFR Decision: 1. Whether the District provided the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to 34 CFR 300.17 and 300.101. Speci?cally: a. Whether the District provided the student with a FAPE consistent with 34 CFR 300.323(f) for a student who transferred from another state; The District failed to provide the Student with a FAPE consistent with the regulation and did not provide notice to the Parent of the significant changes in the Student's program. The OSE finds a violation. b. Whether the District met their Child Find obligations consistent with 34 CFR 300.111, 300.300 through 300.306, 300.320 through 300.324 and 340.1721b; The District did not meet their affirmative Child Find obligations by failing on multiple occasions to evaluate the Student and develop an IEP based on the Student's unique educational needs consistent with the regulation. The OSE finds a violation. c. Whether the 2015 and 2016 Individualized Education Programs (IEP) were developed based on the Student's unique educational needs consistent with 34 CFR 300.320 through 300.324 and 340.1721e; and The 2015 and 2016 IEPs were not developed according to the Student's unique educational needs, but rather were copied verbatim from the previous district. Though more than fourteen months went by, a new IEP was not developed that was reflective of the Student's current educational performance and needs. The OSE finds a violation. d. Whether services were provided to the student in the least restrictive environment consistent with 34 CFR 300.114 and 300.115. There is not sufficient evidence to indicate that a continuum of services and the least restrictive environment were adequately considered for this Student. The OSE finds a violation. 2. Whether the District followed the procedures and processes required by the IDEA and the MARSE. Speci?cally: a. Whether the District provided the services developed in the November 21, 2016 IEP consistent with 34 CFR 300.17 and and There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the services identified in the Student's IEP were provided. The OSE finds a violation. b. Whether the District made the Student's IEP accessible to the Case Number: 17-0079 Page 14 of 1.6 Student's teacher and others consistent with 34 CFR There is insufficient evidence that the Student's IEP was made accessible to the Student's teacher and others. The OSE finds a violation. Student Level Corrective Action Plan: 1. By July 21, 2017, the District, in collaboration with the Parent and members of the IEP team must complete a thorough review of existing evaluation data and develop an evaluation plan to assess the Student in all areas of suspected disability, minimally including assessments necessary to consider emotional impairment and autism spectrum disorder. By July 21, 2017, the District, in collaboration with the Parents and members of the IEP team, will determine a plan for compensatory education. By September 30, 2017, the District must complete the comprehensive evaluation of the Student and convene a multidisciplinary evaluation team to identify all the Student's educational and behavioral needs and recommend eligibility. The evaluations must be completed by quali?ed staff persons independent of the District. By September 30, 2017, the District must complete an IEP to address all of the Student's identi?ed needs. Considerations must include a continuum of programs and services. By June 19, 2018, the District must provide 54 hours of compensatory services to the Student. The hours may include academic, communication and/or socio-emotional services. Transportation must be provided by the District, if necessary at no cost to the Parents. Corrective Action Plan: 1. By October 1, 2017, the District must revise or develop procedures to document and ensure that: a. For students who transfer from another state, the student is provided a FAPE until the new public agency conducts an evaluation and develops, adopts, and implements a new and b. A student's IEP is accessible to teacher and others. By October 1, 2017, the District must provide professional development to all relevant staff on the new procedures. Evidence of change in the district?s practice must be provided and verified by the OSE. In addition to the corrective action plan activities directed in this ?nal decision, the District is completing a corrective action plan through Catamaran of the Michigan Department of Education, Of?ce of Special Education to address the following issue(s): Case Number: 17-0079 Page 15 of 16 1. The District's Child Find obligation to identify; locate and evaluate all students suspected of a disability; 2. IEPs are developed based on students unique educational needs; 3. Services are provided in the least restrictive environment; and 4. IEPs are implemented as written. Evidence of timely compliance and required submissions for Corrective Action Plans and Student Level Corrective Action Plans must be documented in Catamaran. Please direct questions regarding this complaint investigation to Joanne Winkelman at 517-335?0457 or winkelmanj@michigan.gov; and any questions regarding the corrective action to Harmonee Costello at 517-241?7082 or costelloh1@michigan.gov. All correspondence should be clearly marked as pertaining to case 17-0079. Joanne Winkelman; Supervisor Of?ce of Special Education Program Accountability Unit cc: Toni Clover, Hurks?Hill Karen Howey Randy Liepa Rose Mendola Case Number: 17-0079 Page 16 of 16 10. a person who has been evaluated according to the individual with disabilities education act and these rules, and is determined by an individualized education program team, an individualized family service plan team, or an administrative law judge to have 1 or more of the impairments speci?ed in this part that necessitates special education or related services, or both, who is not more than 25 years of age as of September 1 of the school year of enrollment, and who has not graduated from high school. The District failed to offer the Student an educational program beyond the 2015-2016 school year. The Student had not reached the age of 26 or received a high school diploma. In addition, at the May 20, 2016 IEP the Student had not met all IEP transition goals. The District did not offer a FAPE for the 2016-2017 school year. The District failed to address the transfer of the Student?s rights at the age of majority. 34 CFR 300.320 Each public agency must permit parents to inspect and review any education records relating to their children. 34 CFR 300.613. The Parent?. On February 13, 2017, a release of information was signed by the Guardian to release the Student's education records to Michigan Protection and Advocacy. On March 13, 2017 Michigan Protection and Advocacy sent a release of records request to the District. The District failed to release all education records to Michigan Protection and Advocacy. The legislative history of Public Law makes it clear that there should be as many meetings a year as any one child may need (121 Cong. Rec. (Nov. 19, 1975) (remarks of Senator Stafford?. Public agencies should grant any reasonable parent request for an IEP meeting. On behalf of the Student, Michigan Protection and Advocacy sent two requests for IEPs, March 13 and 29, 2017, and failed to receive a response from the District. Districts are responsible for development, review, and revision of the IEP. 34 CFR 300.324. Decision: 1. Whether the District provided the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to 34 CFR 300.17 and 300.101. Specifically: a. Whether the district developed, reviewed, revised, and implemented the individualized education plan (IEP) considering all needs consistent with its obligation in 34 CFR 300.320 through 300.324 and MARSE 340.1721e and 340.1722. The OSE determines a violation. The District failed to offer a FAPE and deveIOp an IEP to meet the student's unique education needs for the 2016-2017 school year. Whether the District followed the procedures and processes required by the IDEA and the MARSE. Specifically: a. Whether the district responded appropriately to a request for educational records pursuant to 34 CFR ?300.613. Case Number: 17-0084 Page 6 of 8 The OSE determines a violation.The District failed to adequately respond to requests for records. Student Level Corrective Action Plan: 1. By July 21, 2017, the District, in collaboration with the Parent, shall conduct a review of existing evaluation data and develop an evaluation plan to evaluate all identified areas of need and submit the plan to the OSE. 2. By September 15, 2017, the District will conduct a multidisciplinary evaluation team report to review evaluation and recommend eligibility. 3. By September 30, 2017, the District, in collaboration with the Parent, shall develop an IEP to provide the Student services and supports that will address the identi?ed areas of needs resulting from the Student's disability. Programs, services and supplementary aids and services must be designed to address the Student's unique educational and behavioral needs to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the Student's IEP. A full continuum of programs and services must be considered. By October 15, 2017, a copy of the completed IEP will be sent to OSE. 4. The District, in collaboration with the Parent and members of the IEP team, shall develop a plan for providing 50 hours of compensatory services related to the Student's unique educational needs which shall be delivered by June 1, 2018. a. Services must be designed to address the Student?s unique educational needs to enable the Student to make progress toward meeting the goal(s) set out in the Student's IEP. Corrective Action Plan: 1. By October 15, 2017, the District must review policies and procedures for students with IEPs between the ages of 18 and 26 that have not earned a high school diploma, and provide programs and services to meet their identi?ed educational needs. 2. By February 15, 2018, the District must provide professional development for all relevant staff regarding the new procedures. 3. Evidence of change in the District's practice must be provided and veri?ed by the OSE. In addition to the corrective action plan activities directed in this ?nal decision, the District is completing a corrective action plan through Catamaran of the Michigan Department of Education, Of?ce of Special Education to address the following issue(s): 1. Responding to requests for educational records in a timely manner. Evidence of timely compliance and required submissions for Corrective Action Plans and Student Level Corrective Action Plans must be documented in Catamaran. Please direct questions regarding this complaint investigation to Joanne Winkelman at 517-335?0457 or winkelmanj@michigan.gov, and any Case Number: 17-0084 Page 7 of 8 CFR and to review and revise a Student's IEP to address a lack of progress, consistent with 34 CFR In this case, progress reports were due concurrent with the report card periods provided to general education students. The District did not report on the Student?s progress after February 2017. In addition, when the progress reports and the Student's report cards identi?ed that the Student was failing classes, the IEP was not reviewed or revised, even after parent requests to do so. 7. A district is required to complete evaluations consistent with 34 CFR 300.303 through 300.306. The September 30, 2016 IEP identified a request for an assistive technology evaluation. To date, the assistive technology evaluation has not been completed. 8. A district must provide supplementary aids and services and programs and services in conformity with a student?s IEP, consistent with 340.1722(3) and 34 CFR If a Student needs large print or any other accommodations for assessments, then the Student would need equivalent accommodations in the general education setting. In this case, no supplementary aids and services were needed for? on state-wide assessments as there are no state-wide assessments given at the Student?s grade level. 9. There was insuf?cient evidence to indicate that the: a. District contacted the Parent regarding an IEP team meeting; b. School social work services were provided; c. The resource program hours were provided; and d. The supplementary aids and services were provided. 10. There was evidence to indicate that the: a. *services were provided in accordance with the Student's and b. Speech and language services were provided from October 2016 through February of 2017, however there is no start or end time to indicate the length of the sessions. Decision: 1. Whether the District provided the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to 34 CFR 300.17 and 300.101. Specifically: a. Whether the Student's Individualized Education Program (IEP) was developed based on the Student's unique educational needs consistent with 34 CFR 300.101 and 300.320 through 300.324 including: The District did not develop an IEP based on the Student's unique educational needs. The OSE finds a violation. i. Whether the district considered the use of positive behavior interventions and supports consistent with 34 CFR Although the district did not check the box on the IEP that lEase Number: 17-0096 Page 10 of 13 considered the use of positive behavior interventions and supports, the Student's behavioral concerns were addressed through school social work services. The OSE finds no violation. ii. Whether the district included the provision of supplementary aids and services for nonacademic and extracurricular activities consistent with 34 CFR 300.107; The District was not required to develop transition services as the Student will not turn sixteen during the current IEP. The OSE finds no violation. Whether the district provided progress reports consistent with 34 CFR and reviewed and revised the Student?s IEP to address a lack of progress, consistent with 34 CFR and The District did not provide progress reports in conformity with the Student's IEP. The OSE finds a violation. b. Whether the district completed evaluations identified in the September 30, 2016 IEP consistent with 34 CFR 300.303 through 300.306. The District did not complete the identified evaluation. The OSE finds a violation. Whether the District followed the procedures and processes required by the IDEA and the MARSE. Speci?cally: a. Whether the district provided the supplementary aids and services and programs and services outlined in the Student's IEP dated September 30, 2016 consistent with 340.1722(3) and 34 CFR and The District was not required to provide the accommodations for assessments as there were no state-wide assessments for the current IEP. The OSE finds no violation. There was not sufficient evidence to indicate that all of the Student's programs and services were provided. The OSE finds a violation. b. Whether the district included a representative of the public agency knowledgeable of the district's resources consistent with 34 CFR The District did include a representative of the public agency knowledgeable of the District's resources. The OSE finds no violation. Student Level Corrective Action Plan: 1. By July 28, 2017, in collaboration with the Parent and relevant members of the IEP team, develop and submit a plan to the OSE to provide a total of 37.5 (24 hours academic, 6.75 hours school social work and 6.75 hours speech and language services) hours of compensatory education services to the Student. Transportation must be provided by the District, if necessary, at no cost to the Student or Parent. Case Number: 17-0096 Page 11 of 13 2. By July 3, 2018, the District must provide the 37.5 hours of compensatory services to the Student. Veri?able documentation must include: date, start and end time, and a short summary of the services provided including the provider's dated signature. Student and provider absences must be noted in the documentation provided to the OSE. 3. By July 28, 2017, complete a review of existing evaluation data and evaluation plan and seek consent for conducting the assistive technology evaluation to identify the Student's educational assistive technology needs. If the Assistive Technology Training and Information Center does not conduct the evaluation, the District must either conduct the evaluation with quali?ed staff or contract with a quali?ed provider to conduct the evaluation. 4. By September 29, 2017, the District must develop an IEP that meets the unique needs of the Student including: a. An accurate present level of academic achievement and functional performance, including an explanation all of the assessment results; b. Supplementary aids and services designed to allow the Student to access the general education curriculum; c. Measurable annual goals and short-term objectives; d. Assistive technology needs identi?ed by the assistive technology evaluation; a. Special education and related services based on the Student's needs that considers a full continuum of programs and services; and f. Prior written notice that is reflective of all the considerations and changes to the District?s offer of a FAPE. 5. By October 6, 2017, the District must submit a copy of all evaluation documents, the IEP and prior written notice to the OSE. Corrective Action Plan: 1. By October 1, 2017, the District must revise or develop procedures to document and ensure that for all students: a. All Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) are developed based on the student's unique educational needs; b. Progress reports are provided to parents in conformity with the c. Supplementary aids and services and programs and services are provided in conformity with the student's and d. All evaluations are completed within state and federal timelines. 2. By October 1, 2017, the district must provide professional development to all diagnostic and building administrative and special education staff on the new procedures. 3. Evidence of change in the District?s practice must be provided and verified by the OSE. Case Number: 17-0096 Page 12 of 13 academic achievement and functional performance does not align to the level of difficulty the Student demonstrated in the disciplinary reports; i. Respond to the Student's behavior with a behavior intervention plan to adequately address the Student's behavioral needs. Despite a Parent request in January of 2017, the District did not develop a behavior intervention plan to address the Student's behavior until April of 2017; j. Respond in a timely manner to requests for evaluations and access to records and meetings. The District did not respond to the Parent?s records request until the fourth request and did not complete a behavioral evaluation until April 2017, when the parent made the original request in January; k. The District failed to consider all potential services in the least restrictive environment or to consider a continuum of alternative placements to meet the Student's unique educational needs. There is insuf?cient documentation to suggest that a full continuum of placements was considered. Decision: 1. Whether the District provided the Student 3 free appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to 34 CFR 300.17 and 300.101. Speci?cally: a. Whether the March 10, 2016 and March 8, 2017 Individualized Education Programs (IEP) were developed based on the Student's unique educational needs and considered the Parent's input consistent with 340.1701(c) and 34 CFR The March 10, 2016 and March 8, 2017 IEPs were not developed based on the Student's unique educational needs and did not consider the Parent's input. The OSE finds a violation. b. Whether the District provided disciplinary protections for a change of placement because of disciplinary removals including access to the general curriculum and the provision of services consistent with 34 CFR The District did not provide disciplinary protections for a change of placement because of disciplinary removals including access to the general curriculum and the provision of services. The OSE finds a violation. c. Whether the student was provided with services in the least restrictive environment consistent with 34 CFR 300.114; and The District did not consider a continuum of services when determining placement, therefore it is unclear whether the student received services in the LRE. The OSE finds a violation. d. Whether the District completed requested reevaluations consistent with 34 CFR 300.303-300.306. The District did not complete the occupational therapy or assistive technology evaluations. The OSE finds a violation. 2. Whether the District followed the procedures and processes required by Case Number: 17-0124 Page 14 of 17 the IDEA and the MARSE. Speci?cally: a. Whether the District implemented the March 10,. 2016 and March 8, 2017 IEPs with regard to: The District did not provide special education and related services and supplementary aids and services in conformity with the Student's IEP. The OSE finds a violation. i. Provision of special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, consistent with 340.1722(3) and 34 CFR and 300.324(a) The District did not provide special education and related services and supplementary aids and services in conformity with the Student's IEP. The OSE finds a violation. ii. Provision of progress reports consistent with 34 CFR The District did not provide progress reports for the March 8, 2017 and May 4, 2017 IEPs. The OSE finds a violation. Notification of the parent prior to meetings consistent with 34 CFR The District did notify the Parent prior to meetings as required. The OSE finds no violation. iv. Excusal of a required IEP team member consistent with 34 CFR The District did not excuse the general education teacher from the IEP team meetings. The OSE finds a violation. b. Whether the District provided access to records consistent with 34 CFR 300.613; and The District did not provide access to records the Parent requested. The OSE finds a violation. c. Whether the District provided instruction to the Student by an appropriately certi?cated teacher consistent with 34 CFR 300.18, 340.1781 and 340.1782. The District employed an appropriately certificated teacher according to state of Michigan certification rules. The OSE finds no violation. Student Level Corrective Action Plan: 1. By August 28, 2017, complete a review of existing evaluation data and evaluation plan and seek consent for conducting the assistive technology evaluation to identify the Student's education assistive technology needs. If the Assistive Technology Training and Information Center does not conduct the evaluation, the District must either conduct the evaluation with quali?ed staff or contract with a quali?ed provider to conduct the evaluation. 2. By August 28,. 2017, complete a review of existing evaluation data and evaluation plan and seek consent for conducting the occupational therapy evaluation to identify the Student?s occupational therapy needs. Case Number: 17-0124 Page 15 or 1? 3. By September 29, 2017, the District must develop an IEP that meets the unique needs of the Student including: a. h. Ensuring that all required IEP participants attend the IEP team meeting; Adequate consideration of parent input; A clear statement of how the Student's disability affects the Student's involvement in the general education curriculum in the present level of academic achievement and functional performance; Supplementary aids and services designed to allow the Student to access the general education curriculum; Measurable annual goals and short-term objectives; Assistive technology and occupational therapy needs identi?ed by the assistive echnology evaluation; Special education and related services based on the Student?s needs that consider a full continuum of programs and services; and Prior written notice that is reflective of all the considerations and changes to the District's offer of a FAPE. 4. By October 6, 2017, the District must submit a copy of all evaluation documents, the IEP and prior written notice to the OSE. Corrective Action Plan: 1. By November 1, 2017, the District must revise or develop procedures to document and ensure that for all students: a. b. c. j. k. All Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) are developed based on the student's unique educational needs; That all required members are in attendance at all Parental input is adequately considered; A clear statement of how the Student's disability affects the Student's involvement in the general education curriculum in the present level of academic achievement and functional performance is developed; That Student veri?able documentation exists for student speci?c accommodations, supplementary aids and services, special education and related services; Measurable annual goals and short-term objectives are developed; Documentation of progress on the annual goals and short-term objectives is provided for all Related services are appropriate for Student speci?c needs; The District responds appropriately to student behavioral needs with a behavior intervention plan to adequately address the Student's behavioral needs; Respond in a timely manner to requests for evaluations, access to records and meetings; Provide services and disciplinary protections; Case Number: 17-0124 Page 16 of 17 I. Consider a continuum of alternative placements; m. Ensure that reevaluations were completed a timely manner following the required processes. n. Progress reports are provided to parents in conformity with the 0. Supplementary aids and services and programs and services are provided in conformity with the student's and p. All evaluations are completed within state and federal timelines. 2. By March 15,. 2018, the District must provide professional development to all diagnostic and building administrative and special education staff on the new procedures. 3. Evidence of change in the District's practice must be provided and veri?ed by the USE. Evidence of timely compliance and required submissions for Corrective Action Plans and Student Level Corrective Action Plans must be documented in Catamaran. Please direct questions regarding this complaint investigation to Joanne Winkelman at 517-335-0457 or winkelmanj@michigan.gov, and any questions regarding the corrective action to Harmonee Costello at 517-241-7082 or costelloh1@michigan.gov. All correspondence should be clearly marked as pertaining to case 17-0124. Joanne Winkelman, Supervisor Office of Special Education Program Accountability Unit cc: Toni Clover, Hurks-Hills Karen Howey Randy Liepa Rose Mendola Case Number: 17-0124 Page 17 of 17 27. 28. initiate or change the identi?cation, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the provision of FAPE to the child. 34 CFR The District did not provide the Parent with prior written notice when the IEP team developed the April 3, 2017 IEP in which resource program was reduced from eight hours to two hours and social work services were reduced from 30 minutes two times per month to 30 minutes one time per month. Based on evidence in the conclusions above, the Student was denied a FAPE. Decision: 1. Whether the District provided the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to 34 CFR 300.17 and 300.101. Speci?cally: a. Whether the District conducted a comprehensive individual evaluation, considering all areas of suspected disability and using a variety of assessment tools, including information provided by the parent pursuant to 34 CFR 300.304 through 300.306. The OSE determines a violation. By failing to include required components, the District did not conduct a comprehensive individual evaluation. b. Whether the District developed an individual education program (IEP) that addressed the Student?s unique educational needs pursuant to 34 CFR 300.320 through 300.324 and 340.1721e. The OSE determines a violation. The IEP lacked several elements, including a statement that clearly described the Student's current academic and functional level and resulting needs, resulting in an IEP that did not address the Student's unique needs. c. Whether the District implemented the individual education program pursuant to 34 CFR 300.320 through 300.324 and The OSE determines a violation. Several components of the IEP were not implemented. Whether the District followed the procedures and processes required by the IDEA and the MARSE. Speci?cally: a. Whether the District responded to a Parent request for an independent educational evaluation pursuant to 34 CFR 300.502 and 340.1723c. The OSE determines no violation. The Parent's request for an independent educational evaluation falls outside the timeline of this complaint, preventing the OSE from addressing this issue. b. Whether the District provided prior written notice pursuant to 34 CFR 300.503. The OSE determines a violation. The District did not provide prior written notice to the Parent before reducing the Student's programs and services. Case Number: 17-0140 Page 20 of 22 Student Level Corrective Action Plan: 1. Within 30 school days, the District must conduct a comprehensive educational evaluation. The evaluation must consider other health impairment, emotional impairment, which will include a comprehensive social work evaluation and a full and thorough speech and language assessment including evaluation of receptive language skills. All aspects of each evaluation must meet MARSE standards. Upon the completion of the evaluations, the multidisciplinary team must consider all new assessment information in addition to previously completed evaluations, outside evaluations and parental input in making an eligibility recommendation. Within the same 30 school days and upon completion of the evaluations, the District must convene the IEP team and develop an IEP for the Student that redetermines eligibility, clearly identi?es all of the Student's needs, and addresses all needs in the IEP. The District, in collaboration with the Parent and other members of the IEP team, shall develop a plan for providing 125 hours of compensatory services to the Student to address the Student's academic and behavioral needs to be completed one year from the date of this ?nal decision. Documentation of the plan shall be provided to the OSE within 30 school days. Documentation for compensatory services provided to the Student shall be provided to the OSE within one year of this decision, and will include: a. A copy of the receipt(s) for services provided if a contractor is used. b. Service provider logs for the compensatory services indicating the dates, starting and ending times, and length of sessions. c. If the Student is absent on a scheduled day, this session does not need to be made up. Any staff absences require a make-up session. d. Transportation logs or reimbursement receipts (if applicable). Corrective Action Plan: 1. By December 1, 2017, the District must revise or develop procedures to document and ensure that: a. Prior written notice is provided to the Parent pursuant to 34 CFR 300.503. b. Comprehensive individual evaluations are conducted considering all areas of suspected disability and using a variety of assessment tools, including information provided by the Parent pursuant to 34 CFR 300.304 through 300.306. By December 1, 2017, the District must provide a description of the resource program to the Parent and to the OSE. By April 15, 2018, the District will provide professional development for all relevant staff regarding the new procedures. Case Number: 17-0140 Page 21 of 22 4. Evidence of change in the District's practice for district level corrective action must be provided and veri?ed by the OSE through the Continuous Improvement Monitoring System (CIMS). This corrective action will appear in the October 2017 workbook. In addition to the corrective action plan activities directed in this ?nal decision, the District is completing a corrective action plan through Catamaran of the Michigan Department of Education, Of?ce of Special Education to address the following issue(s): 1. Individualized education programs (IEP) address students' unique educational and behavioral needs to enable each student to be involved in and make progress in the general curriculum. 2. Supplementary aids and services and programs and services are provided in conformity with the student?s Evidence of timely compliance and required submissions for Corrective Action Plans and Student Level Corrective Action Plans must be documented in Catamaran. Please direct questions regarding this complaint investigation to Joanne Winkelman at 517-335-0457 or winkelmanj@michigan.gov, and any questions regarding the corrective action to Harmonee Costello at 517?241-7082 or costelloh1@michigan.gov. All correspondence should be clearly marked as pertaining to case 17-0140. Joanne Winkelman, Supervisor Office of Special Education Program Accountability Unit cc: Toni Clover Karen Howey Randy Liepa Rose Mendola Case Number: 17-0140 Page 22 of 22 10. 11. 12. by effectively supporting and responding to behavior, a ?planned consequence" for suspension or expulsion would not be appropriate. It is unclear how many times the Student may have been removed from the educational setting for behaviors. The Parent indicated this occurred weekly. The District did not make staff available for interviews to con?rm or deny this allegation. These removals would have resulted in a loss of instructional time. The Student was not provided school social work services in the fall of 2016 for a total loss of four hours of service time. The Rowley Court established a two-part test to decide whether a FAPE was provided: a. Has the state public agency) complied with the procedures set forth in the b. Is the IEP developed through the procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational bene?t? The Supreme Court ruled if the two?part test is satis?ed, then courts can expect no more. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. V. Rowley, 553 IDELR 656 (1982). Lack of suf?cient resources and personnel is not justification for the failure to provide FAPE. Letter to Anonymous, 30 IDELR 705 (OSEP 1998). As it relates to this case, the District did not comply with procedures set forth in IDEA and the IEP was not reasonably calculated to enable the Student to receive educational bene?t. Therefore, there was a denial of a FAPE. Decision: 1. Whether the District provided the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to 34 CFR 300.17 and 300.101. Specifically: a. Whether the District developed and implemented the individualized education program (IEP) and amendments, including consideration of the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies to address behavior, consistent with 34 CFR 300.320 through 300.324 and The Student was not provided social work services from the beginning of the 2016-2017 school year to mid-November. In addition, the IEP was not developed to adequately address positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies to address behavior. The OSE determines a violation. Student Level Corrective Action Plan: 1. Case Number: 17-0146 The District, in collaboration with the Parent and the current IEP team, shall develop a plan for providing 10 hours of compensatory services to the Student to address the Student's behavioral needs to be completed Page 9 of 10 one year from the date of this ?nal decision. This plan could include participation in supervised group programs and/or activities with same age peers that provide the student with the opportunity to work on social-emotional/behavioral skills. Services provided are to be in addition to the regular school day. The programs and activities must be paid for by the District. 2. Documentation of the plan shall be provided to the OSE within 30 school days. 3. Documentation for compensatory services provided to the Student shall be provided to the OSE within one year of this decision, and will include: a. A copy of the receipt(s) for services provided if a contractor is used. b. Service provider logs for the compensatory services indicating the dates, starting and ending times, and length of sessions. c. If the Student is absent on a scheduled day, this session does not need to be made up. Any staff absences require a make-up session. d. Transportation logs or reimbursement receipts (if applicable). As the District is currently completing a corrective action plan addressing the issues in this state complaint through Catamaran of the Michigan Department of Education, Of?ce of Special Education, no further district level corrective action is directed. Please direct any questions regarding this complaint investigation to Joanne Winkelman at 517-335-0457 or winkelmanj@michigan.gov, and any questions regarding the corrective action to Harmonee Costello at 517-241-7082 or costelloh1@michigan.gov. All correspondence should be clearly marked as pertaining to case 17-0146. Joanne Winkelman, Supervisor Office of Special Education Program Accountability Unit cc: Toni Clover, Hurks-Hill Karen Howey Randy Liepa Rose Mendola Case Number: 17-0146 Page 10 of 10 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Attempts to contact members of the IEP team to hear their recollection of the discussion of ESY were unsuccessful. The Parent indicated there was not a discussion of extended school years services at the IEP meetings. Pursuant to 34 CFR 300.323, the child's IEP must be accessible to each regular education teacher, related services provider, and any other service provider who is responsible for its implementation; and each teacher or provider is informed of his or her speci?c responsibilities related to implementing the IEP and the speci?c accommodations, modifications, and supports that must be provided for the child in accordance with the IEP. Emails and questionnaires sent to District staff were not returned. It could not be determined if the general education teachers and service providers were notified of the Student's IEP. Prior written notice is to be provided to the parents of a student with a disability when the public agency proposes or refuses to initiate or change the identi?cation, evaluation, or educational placement of the student or the provision of a free appropriate public education to the student, pursuant to 34 CFR 300.503. The District did not provide evidence of notice when changing the Student's placement in January 2017. The State Complaint system requires the SEA, in this case the OSE, to independently review and weigh evidence in order to make findings. Generally, this is done by reviewing student and school records, data, and other relevant information, and coming to a determination supported by relevant facts. Letter to Reilly, 64 IDELR 219. The District provided minimal records. Additional records requested were not received. District staff were not made available, either by questionnaires or phone interviews. The OSE lacked information to indicate the District was compliant with IDEA or therefore, the decision will be determined based on the information received. The District indicated in a previous ?nding that the errors were made by staff, that policies and procedures are in place, and the District is currently working on providing professional development for a corrective action plan in the following areas: providing discipline protections when students with disabilities and those who are not yet eligible but suspected of having disabilities, conducting functional behavior assessments and positive intervention plans when needed, providing notice for a change of placement, providing and documenting services for students after the 10th day of suspension and those who are placed in interim alternative educational settings, and keeping students in interim alternative educational settings for no longer than 45 days. Decision: 1. Whether the District provided the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to 34 CFR 300.17 and 300.101. Case Number: 17-0151 Page 11 of 14 Speci?cally: a. Whether the District ful?lled its Child Find obligation to locate, identify and evaluate all students with disabilities pursuant to 34 CFR 300.111 and 340.1721 and 340.1721b; The District did not provide notice within 10 days after receiving a written request for an initial special education evaluation. The OSE finds a violation. b. Whether the District considered extended school year services in accordance with 34 CFR 300.106 and MARSE The District did not consider extended school year services. The OSE finds a violation. c. Whether the District developed, reviewed, and revised the IEP that was reasonably calculated to meet the Student?s unique needs consistent with 34 CFR 300. 320 through 300. 324, including; i. Ensuring the IEP is accessible to each regular education teacher, related services provider, and any other service provider who is responsible for its implementation, and each teacher or provider described is informed of his or her speci?c responsibilities related to implementing the Student?s IEP and the speci?c accommodations, modi?cations, and supports that must be provided for the Student; and There was no evidence the District shared the Student's IEP with relevant staff. The OSE finds a violation. ii. Consideration of special factors, in the case of a student whose behavior impedes the Student's learning or that of others, consider the use of positive behavior interventions and supports, or other strategies, to address that behavior. The District did not consider positive behavior interventions and supports for the Student. The OSE finds a violation. d. Whether the District followed discipline procedures consistent with 34 CFR 300.530-300.536. The District did not follow discipline procedures when it was suspected that the Student may be eligible for special education or after the Student was determined to be a student with a disability. The OSE finds a violation. 2. Whether the District followed the procedures and processes required by the IDEA and the MARSE. Speci?cally: a. Whether the IEP was developed pursuant to 34 CFR 300.321 and 300.322 including: i. Whether the District ensured the required members of the IEP team were in attendance; and The required IEP team member did not attend the May 10, 2017 IEP. The OSE finds a violation. ii. Whether the District took steps to ensure the Parent was notified of the IEP meeting; The Parent was notified of the IEP meetings. The OSE does not find Case Number: 17-0151 Page 12 of 14 a violation. b. Whether the District issued prior written notice within seven days when making a change of placement pursuant to 34 CFR 300.503 and MARSE The District did not provide prior written notice when a change of placement was made. The OSE finds a violation. Student Level Corrective Action Plan: 1. The District will gain parental consent and conduct a functional behavior assessment and develop a behavior intervention plan within 30 school days from the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year. The District will hold an IEP within 30 school days from the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year to consider all the Student's needs, including those identi?ed by the functional behavior assessment. The District will collect data during the two week December break and spring break to determine eligibility for extended school year services. The District will consider eligibility for extended school year services in Spring 2018. The District, in collaboration with the Parent and members of the IEP team, shall develop a plan for providing 50 hours of compensatory services to the Student to address the Student's academic and behavioral needs. Documentation of the plan shall be provided to the OSE within 30 school days. Documentation for compensatory services provided to the Student shall be provided to the OSE within one year of this decision, and will include: a. A copy of the receipt(s) for services provided if a contractor is used. b. Service provider logs for the compensatory services indicating the dates, starting and ending times, and length of sessions. c. If the Student is absent on a scheduled day, this session does not need to be made up. Any staff absences require a make-up session. cl. Transportation logs or reimbursement receipts (if applicable). Corrective Action Plan: 1. By December 1, 2017, the District must revise or develop procedures to document and ensure that: a. All children with disabilities are identi?ed and evaluated within the designated timelines; b. IEPs are accessible to each general education teacher and provider; c. Special factors are considered for students whose behavior impedes students' learning or that of others is considered; d. Discipline procedures are followed for students who are not yet eligible but a disability is suspected; e. Discipline procedures are followed for those students with disabilities, who have been suspended more than 10 days, or placed in an interim Case Number: 17-0151 Page 13 of 14 alternative educational setting; f. Required members of IEP team attend IEP team meetings; 9. Prior written notice is provided within seven days when making a change of placement; and h. Data is collected and analyzed to determine if extended school year services are needed. 2. By April 15; 2018; the District will provide professional development for all relevant staff regarding the new procedures 3. Evidence of change in the District's practice for district level corrective action must be provided and veri?ed by the USE through the Continuous Improvement Monitoring System (CIMS). This corrective action will appear in the October 2017 workbook. Evidence of timely compliance and required submissions for Corrective Action Plans and Student Level Corrective Action Plans must be documented in Catamaran. Please direct questions regarding this complaint investigation to Joanne Winkelman at 517-335-0457 or winkelmanj@michigan.gov; and any questions regarding the corrective action to Harmonee Costello at 517-241-7082 or costelloh1@michigan.gov. All correspondence should be clearly marked as pertaining to case 17-0151. Joanne Winkelman; Supervisor Office of Special Education Program Accountability Unit cc: Toni Clover; Hurks-Hill Karen Howey Randy Liepa Rose Mendola Case Number: 17-0151 Page 14 of 14 been changed to sit in the principal?s of?ce and work independently on an online resource for blended learning. The Student missed out on a signi?cant amount of direct instruction in general education curriculum for writing. 12. Since the removals occurred during the nine-month timeframe that it took the District to complete the evaluation process for determining Special education eligibility, the Student should have been afforded the IDEA protections available. Decision: 1. Whether the District provided the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to 34 CFR 300.17 and 300.101. Specifically: a. Whether the District fulfilled its ongoing Child Find responsibility as required by 34 CFR 300.111, including conducting a comprehensive initial evaluation in all areas of suspected disability pursuant to 34 CFR 300.301 through 300.311, 340.1709a and 340.1721a. The OSE determines a violation, as the District failed to conduct a comprehensive initial evaluation. The data in the evaluation reports that indicated clinically significant ranges in four behavioral areas, poor grades and a pattern of removals for aggression and defiance that totaled to 22 days of out-of school suspension, as well as the student displaying inability to build and maintain satisfactory relationships interpersonal relationships within the school environment and inappropriate types of behavior under normal circumstances. However, the IEP team concluded that the Student did not meet the criteria for emotional impairment eligibility. The District was in receipt of the Student's medical diagnosis for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and indicated in the evaluation reports that hyperactivity negatively impacted the Student at school, yet the IEP team determined that the Student did not meet the criteria for other health impairment and therefore the student was ineligible for special education services. b. Whether the District provided the Student with the protections for students not determined eligible for special education consistent with 34 CFR 300.534. The OSE determines a violation, as the Student was not afforded IDEA protections, when the District was in the process of evaluating the Student for special education eligibility with the suspected disability of emotional impairment. 2. Whether the District followed the procedures and processes required by the IDEA and the MARSE. Speci?cally: a. Whether the District met timeline requirements for convening within 30 school days of the date of the signed parental consent to determine eligibility consistent with 340.1721b. The OSE determines a violation, as it took the District nearly nine months to complete the evaluation process. Case Number: 17-0155 Page 14 of IE Student Level Corrective Action Plan: 1. Upon completion of the IEE, the District shall complete the appropriate multidisciplinary evaluation team report and convene an IEP team meeting to determine eligibility and identify Student needs. The IEP team must determine the Student eligible as a Student with an emotional impairment or other health impairment. If the IEE did not include a functional behavioral assessment, then the District must conduct a functional behavioral assessment prior the to the IEP. The IEP must address all of the Student?s educational and behavioral needs, speci?cally including a plan for positive behavior intervention supports, supplementary aids and services, goals and objectives and programs and services to support the Student in the educational setting. In collaboration with the Parent, and the members of the IEP team, the District must develop a plan for providing 72 hours of compensatory services to address the Student's behavioral needs outlined in the IEP. Services provided are to be in addition to the regular school day and the requirements of the current IEP. The services can be directly provided by the District, or through private organizations, or agencies; however, they must be paid for by the District and focus on the Student's needs identi?ed in the IEP. A copy of the compensatory education plan must be provided to the OSE by November 1, 2017. Compensatory services must be delivered by one year from the date of this ?nal decision. Documentation for compensatory services will include: a. A copy of the receipt(s) for services provided if a contractor is used. b. Service provider logs for the compensatory services indicating the dates, starting and ending times, length of sessions. c. If the Student is absent on a scheduled day, this session does not need to be made up. Any staff absences require a make-up session. Transportation logs or reimbursement receipts (if applicable). Service providers must meet State of Michigan licensure or certi?cation requirements. Corrective Action Plan: 1. As there were a number of concerns throughout this investigation, the OSE is ordering the District, by December 1, 2017, to provide their procedures regarding child ?nd, behavior intervention plans, evaluation timelines, evaluation processes with speci?c focus on identification of students with emotional impairment, IDEA protections for students not yet determined eligible for special education, procedures for keeping disciplinary records and documenting/tracking removals and service logs. By April 15, 2018, the District must contract with an outside consultant (this could be through the RESA) to provide professional development for Case Number: 17-0155 Page 15 of 16 all relevant staff regarding the procedures. A separate and speci?c training must be conducted with school and school social workers regarding eligibility for emotional impairment. 3. Evidence of change in the District's practice for district level corrective action must be provided and veri?ed by the USE through the Continuous Improvement Monitoring System (CIMS). This corrective action will appear in the October 2017 workbook. Evidence of timely compliance and required submissions for Corrective Action Plans and Student Level Corrective Action Plans must be documented in Catamaran. Please direct questions regarding this complaint investigation to Joanne Winkelman at 517?335-0457 or winkelmanj@michigan.gov, and any questions regarding the corrective action to Harmonee Costello at 517?241?7082 or costelloh1@michigan.gov. All correspondence should be clearly marked as pertaining to case 17-0155. Joanne Winkelman, Supervisor Of?ce of Special Education Program Accountability Unit cc: Toni Clover, Hurks-Hill Karen Howey Randy Liepa Rose Mendola Case Number: 17-0155 Page 16 of 16 26. provided the Parent a copy of the report that day. Once the interim director of special education received the written request for the evaluation records from the Parent via email, the District responded that day, which was five days before the IEP team meeting. Decision: 1. Whether the District provided the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to 34 CFR 300.17 and 300.101. Specifically: a. Whether the District conducted a reevaluation of the Student that was suf?ciently comprehensive to identify all of the Student's special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the Student is eligible pursuant to 34 CFR 300.303 through 300.306 and The OSE determines a violation. The re-evaluation of the Student was not comprehensive for the other health impairment and specific learning disability eligibility areas. Overall, in regard to a FAPE, the exiting of the Student from special education at the end of the school year did not impact the overall educational benefit of the Student as the Student has moved from the District. There is no denial of a FAPE. Whether the District followed the procedures and processes required by the IDEA and the MARSE. Speci?cally: a. Whether the District responded appropriately to a request for educational records pursuant to 34 CFR 300.613 and The District provided the records that were available within a reasonable amount of time before the June 7, 2017 IEP team meeting. There is no violation. Student Level Corrective Action Plan: 1. As the re-evaluation of the Student was not valid, the Student must be re-instated as a Student in need of special education services within his educational records. The IEP dated June 7, 2017 must be revoked and the IEP dated November 14, 2016, including the amendment dated November 17, 2016, is to be identified as the most recent IEP/amendment for the Student within the Student's educational records at the District. The District must send a copy of this report and a letter outlining the invalid eligibility determination made on June 7, 2017, and the Student's need for special education programs and services to the Student's new district outside of the state via certi?ed letter. Certi?cation of the letter being sent and documentation of revocation of the June 7, 2017 IEP must be provided to the OSE by October 17, 2017. Case Number: 17-0138 Page 18 of 19 5. As the Student is no longer living in the State of Michigan, there is no further student level remedy ordered. Corrective Action Plan: 1. By January 1, 2018, develop, review or revise the District?s written procedures to ensure that, for this and all students, the District implements the provision of the IDEA and the MARSE speci?c to the areas of noncompliance listed above regarding: a. Provision of a FAPE for a Student that transfers from outside the state; and b. Reevaluation procedures to ensure evaluations are suf?ciently comprehensive to identify all the Student's special education and related services needs and to accurately determine eligibility. 2. By May 15, 2018, the District must provide professional development for all relevant staff regarding the new procedures. 3. Evidence of change in the District's practice for district level corrective action must be provided and verified by the OSE through the Catamaran System. This corrective action will appear in the December 2017 workbook. Evidence of timely compliance and required submissions for Corrective Action Plans and Student Level Corrective Action Plans must be documented in Catamaran. Please direct questions regarding this complaint investigation to Joanne Winkelman at 517-335-0457 or winkelmanj@michigan.gov, and any questions regarding the corrective action to Harmonee Costello at 517?241-7082 or costelloh1@michigan.gov. All correspondence should be clearly marked as pertaining to case 17?0138. Joanne Winkelman, Supervisor Office of Special Education Program Accountability Unit cc: Michelle DeJaeger Karen Howey Randy Liepa Case Number: 17-0138 Page 19 of 19 include a systematic observation of the behaviors of primary concern which interfere with educational and social needs; document intervention strategies used to improve the behaviors and the length of time the strategies were utilized; and note relevant medical information, if any. The determination of impairment must include a and a school social worker. 29. Following are the missing components of the emotional impairment evaluation: a involvement and intervention strategies. The report indicated that the Student refused social work services. 30. Michigan 340.1705 lists the following requirements to determine eligibility for cognitive impairment: manifested during the developmental period; development at a rate at or below approximately 2 standard deviations below the mean as determined through intellectual assessment; scores approximately within the lowest sixth percentiles on standardized testing in reading and arithmetic; lack of development primarily in the cognitive domain; impairment of adaptive behavior; adversely affects student?s educational performance; and is based on a full and individual evaluation by a multidisciplinary evaluation team, including a 31. Following are the missing components of the cognitive impairment evaluation: a school involvement; intellectual assessment; and standardized testing in reading and arithmetic. 32. Determination of autism spectrum disorder shall include all the following team members: a or an authorized provider of speech and language, and a school social worker, pursuant to 340. 1715. 33. Following are the missing components of the autism spectrum disorder evaluation: involvement of a or and speech and language provider; speech and language assessment. 34. The evaluation was conducted only by a school social worker and there is no evidence that any other team members were involved. 35. A report was not received from the occupational therapist. 36. Each district must permit parents to inspect or review any education records relating to their children that are collected, maintained, or used by the district. The right to inspect and review education records include the right to have a representative of the parent inspect and review the records, pursuant to 34 CFR 300.613. 37. Records were sent to the Complainant over a period of seven months. In comparing the records provided to the Of?ce of Special Education to the records received by the Complainant, the Complainant did not receive the Student's complete records. Decision: 1. Whether the District provided the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to 34 CFR 300.17 and 300.101. Case Number: 17-0176 Page 17 of 21 Speci?cally: a. Whether the Student was educated, to the maximum extent appropriate, in the least restrictive environment, pursuant to 34 CFR 300.114; The Student was not educated in the least restrictive environment clue to the District's change in the program without providing an IEP process that would include parental involvement, and lack of consideration of increased behavioral and academic supports in the previous program. The OSE finds a violation. b. Whether the District developed, implemented and reviewed the Student?s IEP considering the Student's academic and behavioral needs and progress, pursuant to 34 CFR 300.320-300.324 and and The District did not reconvene to revise the Student's IEP when he was not making progress. The District did not address all the Student's needs due to a lack of a positive behavioral intervention plan and lack of supplementary aids and accommodations to support the Student for the behavior displayed. The OSE finds a violation. c. Whether the District followed discipline procedures for a student with a disability who violated a code of student conduct consistent with 34 CFR 300.530-300.536. The District did not provide the required disciplinary protections. The OSE finds a violation. 2. Whether the District followed the procedures and processes required by the IDEA and the MARSE. Speci?cally: a. Whether the District followed the guidelines to determine eligibility for extended school year services pursuant to 34 CFR 300.106 and There is no evidence the District considered data to determine the Student's eligibility for extended school year services. The OSE finds a violation. b. Whether the District maintained personnel who were appropriately and adequately prepared and trained to serve children with disabilities, pursuant to 34 CFR 300.156 and 34 CFR 300.207; There was no evidence the substitute teacher used in the Student's classroom met the requirements set forth by the State. The OSE finds a violation. c. Whether the District provided written notice when a written request for an evaluation was received, and conducted a comprehensive evaluation, consistent with 34 CFR 300.303-300.306, 34 CFR 300.503 and MARSE 340.1721b; and The District did not provide prior written notice for a change of placement until two months after the Student began in the new program. The District did not conduct a sufficiently comprehensive evaluation. The OSE finds a violation. Case Number: 17-0176 Page 18 of 21 d. Whether the District followed procedures by allowing the Parent access to all the Student's records, pursuant to 34 CFR 300.613. The District sent the Student's records over an extended period of time and did not provide everything relevant from the Student's files. The OSE finds a violation. Student Level Corrective Action Plan: 1. 10. The District, in collaboration with the Parent and members of the IEP team, shall develop a plan for providing 80 hours of compensatory services to the Student to address the Student?s academic and behavioral needs. Documentation of the plan shall be provided to the OSE within 30 school days of this decision. Documentation for compensatory services provided to the Student shall be provided to the OSE within one year of this decision, and will include: a. A copy of the receipt(s) for services provided if a contractor is used. b. Service provider logs for the compensatory services indicating the dates, starting and ending times, and length of sessions. c. If the Student is absent on a scheduled day, this session does not need to be made up. Any staff absences require a make-up session. d. Transportation logs or reimbursement receipts (if applicable). The District shall contract with either the ISD or an independent and qualified individual to conduct a full and comprehensive evaluation including consideration of, but not limited to, autism spectrum disorder, emotional impairment, and cognitive impairment. Contract with a board certi?ed behavior analyst to conduct a functional behavior assessment for the Student. This is to be done concurrently with the comprehensive evaluation. If the occupational therapy evaluation was not completed, complete this concurrently with the other evaluations. Convene a new IEP after the comprehensive evaluation to consider all the Student's needs. Develop a behavior intervention plan, with the goal of increasing engagement and positive behavior supports and reducing Student su5pensions, within 10 days of completion of the functional behavior assessment. Attach a letter to the November 3, 2016 manifestation determination review indicating the errors cited in this final decision and place a copy in the CA-60 of the Student. The letter must indicate that it is attached per MDE directive. This letter will be submitted to the OSE. Use data collected after school breaks and review prior to May 1, 2018, to determine the Student's need for extended school year services. Corrective Action Plan: 1. By January 1, 2018, the District in collaboration with the Intermediate Case Number: 17-0176 Page 19 of 21 School District must revise or develop procedures to document and ensure that: a. The District will not determine a more restrictive placement before developing an IEP that meets all the student's needs and fully implements the IEP. b. The District will correctly count disciplinary removals. c. The District will conduct comprehensive evaluations and include the required multidisciplinary team members. d. The District will provide timely notice to parents when a program change is made. e. The District will follow the timelines for conducting evaluations. f. When records are requested, the District will either allow the individual to have access to the ?les, or provide all records as contained in the student's file. g. The IEP team will review date to determine if a student is eligible for extended school year services. h. The District will provide notice when a change of placement occurs. i. The District noti?es parents of the decision to make a removal that constitutes a change of placement on the date the decision is made. j. The manifestation determination participants review all relevant information in the student's ?le, including the IEP, any teacher observations, and relevant information provided by the parents. k. The District conducts a functional behavioral assessment and implements a behavior intervention plan, if appropriate, for the student. I. The use of positive behavioral interventions and other strategies are considered by the IEP team. m. The District will use certified substitute teachers. 2. By May 15, 2018, the District must provide professional development for all relevant staff regarding the new procedures. 3. Evidence of change in the District's practice must be provided and verified by the OSE through Catamaran. This corrective action will appear in the November 2017 workbook. In addition to the corrective action plan activities directed in this ?nal decision, the District is completing a corrective action plan through Catamaran of the Michigan Department of Education, Of?ce of Special Education to address the following issue(s): 1. All IEPs specify that services or programs as indicated in the IEP are delivered as written. 2. All IEP teams are reconvened to address a student's lack of progress. Evidence of timely compliance and required submissions for Corrective Action Plans and Student Level Corrective Action Plans must be documented in Case Number: 17-0176 Page 20 of 21 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. responsibility is to notify parents early enough to ensure the parents are able to attend and scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed upon time and place. 34 CFR The District called the Parent the day of the IEP team meeting on June 19, 2017 to invite her to the IEP team meeting. When the Parent indicated she could not attend, the District told her in error that she did not need to attend. Consistent with Section 380.1751(1) of the Revised School Code, the board of a local school district shall provide special education programs and services to each student with a disability in its district. Local educational agency personnel cannot require parents to obtain a prescription for controlled substances as a condition of the child attending school. 34 CFR The Parent indicated that she was told that the Student had to be on medication in order to attend school. While the District reported that this was never said, a letter from the principal included a statement that one of the interventions utilized to help improve the behavior of the Student was the Parent's commitment to provide the Student with his medication. This gives the impression that the need to medicate the Student was discussed and addressed in the fashion described by the Parent. The District cannot place conditions (the taking of medication) on the Student's ability to obtain a FAPE that are outside the IDEA. The Court explained that the requirement [for a substantively adequate program of education] is satis?ed, and a child has received a FAPE, if the child's IEP sets out an educational program that is ?reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. 69 IDELR 174 (U.S. 2017) (citing Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 US. 176 (1982)). According to the Sixth Circuit, the Rowley Court established a two-part test to decide whether a FAPE was provided: Has the state public agency) complied with the procedures set forth in the and Is the IEP developed through the IDEA's procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational bene?t. The Supreme Court ruled that if this two-part test is satis?ed, then courts can expect no more. Nack ex rel. Nack v. Orange City Sch. Dist.,454 F.3d 604, 614 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. V. Rowley, 553 IDELR 656 (1982). Given the faulty IEPs, the incomplete documentation, the requirements placed on the Parent that are outside the IDEA, and the impact of the Parent's inability to participate rises to the level of a denial of a FAPE. Decision: 1. Whether the District provided the Student a free appropriate public Case Number: 17-0208 Page 21 of 24 education (FAPE) pursuant to 34 CFR 300.17 and 300.101. Speci?cally: 3. Whether the District responded to disability-related behavior with a pattern of removals, rather than providing positive behavioral supports and interventions, consistent with 34 CFR 300.324(a) (2) and The OSE determines a violation. The District did not provide positive behavioral supports and interventions through the Student's IEP. b. Whether the District implemented the discipline protections for a student with a disability, pursuant to 34 CFR 300.530 through 300.536. The OSE determines a violation. The District did not implement the discipline protections for the Student. c. Whether the District provided educational services to the Student that would enable the Student to continue to participate in the general education curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the Student?s IEP, consistent with 34 CFR There is no indication that the Student had reached 10 days of removal warranting the provision of services. The concerns regarding the documentation are reflected above as a discipline protection failure. There is no violation. d. Whether the District addressed the unique educational and behavioral needs of the Student by developing, reviewing and revising an IEP, consistent with 340.1721e and 34 CFR 300.106, 300.114 and 300.320 through 300.324. The OSE determines a violation. The three IEPs developed by the District each failed to address the unique educational and behavioral needs of the Student. e. Whether the Parents were afforded the opportunity to participate in the development of the Student?s IEP, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.321 and 300.322. The OSE determines a violation. The Parent was not afforded the opportunity to participate in the development of the Student's June 19, 2017 IEP. f. Whether the District placed conditions on the Student's access to a FAPE that are outside the IDEA regulations and State law, consistent with 34 CFR 300.174(a) and Section 380.1751(1) of the Revised School Code. The OSE determines a violation. The District placed conditions on the Student's ability to access a FAPE that are outside the IDEA. Student Level Corrective Action Plan: 1. Consistent with the conclusions outlined in this ?nal decision, conduct a review of existing evaluation data to: a. Seek consent from the Parent to conduct a functional behavior Case Number: 17-0208 Page 22 of 24 assessment of the Student; Provide prior written notice to the parent for the evaluation; Conduct the evaluation after consent is given by the Parent by a behavior specialist; and d. Develop a behavior intervention plan that fully addresses the behavioral needs of the Student. 2. Consistent with the conclusions outlined in this ?nal decision, conduct an IEP team meeting for the purpose of developing an IEP that includes: a. A present level statement that accurately reflects the student's academic achievement and functional performance, including how the student?s disability affects the student's involvement and progress in the general education curriculum, being sure to include positive behavior supports and interventions to address the behavioral needs of the Student; b. Supplementary aids and services to be provided to the student, including the behavior intervention plan developed above, with a clear description of the frequency, location and duration of the supplementary aids and services; c. Measurable annual goals and short-term objectives designed to meet the student's needs that result from the disability to enable the student to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; d. Identi?cation of the special education programs and related services; and e. Written notice to the Parent of the District?s offer of a FAPE in clear and understandable language that meets all the requirements of 34 CFR 300.503. 3. By March 30, 2018, by upload into Catamaran, provide the USE with a copy of the review of existing evaluation data with written notice, the functional behavior assessment, the behavior intervention plan, the IEP invitation, IEP and written notice of the District's offer of a FAPE. Corrective Action Plan: 1. By April 1, 2018, in collaboration with the ISD speci?c to this school, develop, review or revise the District's written procedures to ensure that, for this and all students, the District implements the provision of the IDEA and the MARSE specific to the areas of noncompliance listed above regarding: a. Develop, review, and/or revise an IEP that addresses the unique educational and behavioral needs of a student with a disability; b. Discipline protections for a student with a disability; c. Parent participation, speci?cally proper invitation of the parent to the IEP team meeting; and d. Avoiding the use of requirements that are outside the IDEA. 2. By August 15, 2018, the District must provide professional development for all relevant staff regarding the new procedures. Case Number: 17-0208 Page 23 of 24 adequate program of education] is satis?ed, and a child has received a FAPE, if the child's IEP sets out an educational program that is ?reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. 69 IDELR 174 (US. 2017) (citing Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)). 7. According to the Sixth Circuit, the Rowley Court established a two-part test to decide whether a FAPE was provided: Has the state public agency) complied with the procedures set forth in the and Is the IEP developed through the procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational bene?t. The Supreme Court ruled that if this two-part test is satis?ed, then courts can expect no more. Nack ex rel. Nack v. Orange City Sch. Dist.,454 F.3d 604, 614 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. V. Rowley, 553 IDELR 656 (1982). 8. A FAPE means special education and related services that are provided in conformity with an IEP. 34 CFR 300.17. 9. The Student's IEP dated June 8, 2017 addressed the Student's unique educational needs and was implemented. Therefore, there is no denial of a FAPE. Decision: 1. Whether the District provided the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to 34 CFR 300.17 and 300.101. Specifically: a. Whether the District developed and implemented an individualized educational program (IEP) for the Student that addressed the unique educational needs of the Student consistent with 34 CFR 300.320 through 300.324 and of the and 340.1721e and 340.1722(3) of the MARSE. The District developed and implemented an IEP for the Student that addressed the unique educational needs of the Student. There is no violation. Overall, in regard to FAPE, there is no denial of a FAPE. Please direct any questions regarding this complaint investigation to Joanne Winkelman at 517-335-0457 or winkelmanj@michigan.gov. All correspondence should be clearly marked as pertaining to case 17?0219. Joanne Winkelman, Supervisor Of?ce of Special Education Program Accountability Unit cc: Michelle DeJaeger Case Number: 17-0219 Page 9 of 10 Decision: 1. Whether the District provided the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to 34 CFR 300.17 and 300.101. Speci?cally: a. Whether the District enacted their Child Find obligations and located, identi?ed, and evaluated the Student, in accordance with 34 CFR and 300.300(a) and 340.1721a. The OSE determines a violation. The District delayed the overall Child Find process due to a delay in obtaining consent to evaluate from the Parent and the flaws within the summary statement of the multidisciplinary evaluation team report. b. Whether the District addressed the unique educational needs of the Student by developing an IEP consistent with 34 CFR 300.1 and 300.320 through 300.324. The OSE determines a violation. The IEP developed by the District did not address the unique educational needs of the Student. Overall, in regard to FAPE, both violations above rise to the level of a denial of a FAPE. Whether the District followed the procedures and processes required by the IDEA and the MARSE. Speci?cally: a. Whether the District maintained timelines for an initial evaluation of the Student, consistent with 34 CFR 300.301(c) and 340.1721b. The timelines for the IEP were met and the IEP was developed within the modified timelines. There is no violation. Student Level Corrective Action Plan: 1. By February 9, 2018, in collaboration with the Parent and the members of the IEP team, the District must develop a plan for providing 50 hours of compensatory services to address the Student's social-emotional/behavioral, sensory, and/or academic needs. Services provided are to be in addition to the regular school day and the requirements of the current IEP. The plan must include speech-language services and school social work services; but could also include ABA therapy, summer programming, social skills training, participation in supervised group programs and/or activities with same age peers that provide the Student with the opportunity to work on social-emotionaI/behavioral, sensory and/or academic skills. Documentation for compensatory services provided to the Student shall be provided to the OSE by December 31, 2018, and will include: a. Service provider logs for the compensatory services indicating the dates, starting and ending times, length of sessions, student absences, make up sessions and a short summary of instruction completed for each session. b. If the Student is absent on a scheduled day, this session does not need to be made up. Any staff absences require a make-up Case Number: 1?-0223 Page 18 of ED session. c. Transportation logs or reimbursement receipts (if applicable). d. The services can be directly provided by the District, or through private organizations, or agencies; however, they must be paid for by the District and focus on the Student's sensory needs as outlined above. e. A copy of the receipt(s) for services provided if a contractor is used. f. Service providers must meet State of Michigan licensure or certi?cation requirements. 3. By February 15, 2018, consistent with the conclusions outlined in this final decision, conduct a multidisciplinary evaluation team meeting to revise the summary statement contained within the multidisciplinary evaluation team report dated May 22, 2017. 4. By April 6, 2018, in collaboration with the Parent, conduct an IEP team meeting for the purpose of developing an IEP that is consistent with the conclusions outlined in this final decision. Corrective Action Plan: 1. By May 1, 2018, in collaboration with the ISD, develop, review or revise the District?s written procedures to ensure that, for this and all students, the District implements the provision of the IDEA and the MARSE speci?c to the areas of noncompliance listed above regarding: a. Timelines related to obtaining consent to evaluate from a parent; b. Development of the summary statement within the multidisciplinary evaluation team report; and c. Developing an IEP that addresses the unique educational needs of a student with a disability. 2. By September 15, 2018, the District must provide professional development for all relevant staff regarding the new procedures. Evidence of timely compliance and required submissions for Corrective Action Plans and Student Level Corrective Action Plans must be documented in Catamaran. Please direct questions regarding this complaint investigation to Joanne Winkelman at 517-335-0457 or winkelmanj@michigan.gov, and any questions regarding the corrective action to Harmonee Costello at 517-241-7082 or costelloh1@michigan.gov. All correspondence should be clearly marked as pertaining to case 17-0223. Joanne Winkelman, Supervisor Of?ce of Special Education Program Accountability Unit cc: Michelle DeJaeger Case Number: 17-0223 Page 19 of 20 disability have protection under the procedural safeguards of this part. (5) sources for parents to contact to obtain assistance in understanding the provisions of this part; (7) a description of other factors that are relevant to the agency?s proposal or refusal. 34 CFR 300.503. 24. The Parent ?rst submitted a written request for an initial evaluation in January 2017, following up several times with the District inquiring about the status of the evaluation and renewing her request, as documented by the District. The District did not provide the Parent with notice after receiving the request to evaluate. Additional comments 25. Throughout the interviews District staff indicated a delay in the creation of a positive behavior support plan due to staff shortage. 26. There are many professionals who might play a role in developing and delivering positive behavioral intervention strategies. The standards for personnel who assist in developing and delivering positive behavioral intervention strategies will vary depending on the requirements of the State. Including the development and delivery of positive behavioral intervention strategies in the de?nition of services is not intended to imply that school are automatically quali?ed to perform these duties or to prohibit other quali?ed personnel from providing these services, consistent with state requirements. 71 Fed. Reg. 46,574 (2006). 27. The Michigan Revised School Code contains speci?c requirements about the circumstances under which school staff are permitted to restrain students. Although not covered under special education law and therefore not part of a state complaint, the OSE felt compelled to refer the District to the Revised School Code and Policy for the Emergency Use of Seclusion and Restraint, approved by the State Board of Education on March 14, 2017, due to documented incidents of seclusion and restraint shared as part of this investigation. Decision: 1. Whether the District provided the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to 34 CFR 300.17 and 300.101. Speci?cally: a. Whether the District ful?lled its Child Find responsibility as required by 34 CFR 300.111, including conducting a comprehensive initial evaluation in all areas of suspected disability pursuant to 34 CFR 300.301 through 300.305 and MARSE 340.1721a. The OSE determines a violation. The District did not fulfill its Child Find responsibility as the Student was not evaluated within the required timelines. The Parent requested an initial evaluation in January 2017 and renewed that request several times since. To date, the Student has still not been evaluated. Case Number: 17-0227 Page 19 of 22 b. Whether the District afforded the student protections as a student suspected of a disability pursuant to 34 CFR 300.534. The OSE determines a violation. The District did not document removals that were not suspensions. In addition, when the Student was suspended, both in-house and out of school, the District did not count as a removal the day the Student was sent home to begin the suspensions. While documentation of removals is incomplete, the existing documentation shows at a minimum, the Student was removed for more than 10 school days during each school year covered during the time frame of this complaint and the evaluation process was not expedited. Whether the District followed the procedures and processes required by the IDEA and the MARSE. Speci?cally: a. Whether the District provided prior written notice to the parent after receiving a written request for an initial evaluation consistent with 34 CFR 300.503 and MARSE 340.1721. The OSE determines a violation. The Parent was not provided written notice after any of the written requests for an initial evaluation. Student Level Corrective Action Plan: 1. The District must conduct a full and comprehensive evaluation of the Student, including required assessments for suspected disabilities of, at a minimum, other health impaired and emotional impairment. Included in this evaluation must be a functional behavioral assessment. The team must minimally include a school school social worker, and behavioral specialist. It is recommended that the team include the Spanish and the vocal music teachers, in addition to the Student's fourth grade teacher. This evaluation must be completed within 30 school days. If the Student is found eligible as a student with a disability, the IEP team must develop the IEP with appropriate special education programs and services including consideration of positive behavior supports and interventions and a positive behavioral support plan. If the Student is found eligible as a student with a disability, the District, in collaboration with the ISD, the Parent and the IEP team, develop a plan for providing compensatory education that is based on the needs of the Student determined at the IEP. Compensatory education will based on missed services dating back to March 20, 2017. Compensatory education must be delivered within one year of this final decision. Corrective Action Plan: 1. Conduct a ?le review of all students eligible for special education programs and services, who were to receive social work services from November 30, 2017 to the present. The ?le review shall be conducted by the ISD representative and one representative of the district. Case Number: 17-0227 Page 20 of 22 2. Within 30 school days from the date of this ?nal decision, by upload into catamaran, provide the USE with a copy of: a. Chart developed as a result of the ?le review, which shall include: i. Student name; ii. Amount of school social work services the student was required to receive as part of the student's and Service logs documenting the provision of services. 3. Inform parents of any missed sessions. In collaboration with each parent and the members of the IEP team, the District must develop an individual plan for each student for providing compensatory education based on the missed hours of social work services outlined in each student's IEP. 5. Acopy of the plan must be provided to the USE by upload into Catamaran 30 school days after the file review is uploaded into Catamaran. If a parent declines compensatory services, this decision must be documented and uploaded into Catamaran: a. Services provided are to be in addition to the regular school day and the requirements of the current IEP. b. Documentation for compensatory services provided to the Student shall be provided to the USE by September 30, 2018, and will include: i. Service provider logs for the compensatory services indicating the dates, starting and ending times, length of sessions, student absences, make up sessions and a short summary of activities completed for each session by upload into Catamaran. ii. If the Student is absent on a scheduled day, this session does not need to be made up. Any staff absences require a make-up session. Transportation logs or reimbursement receipts (if applicable). iv. The services can be directly provided by the District, or through private organizations, or agencies; however, they must be paid for by the District and focus on the Student's social work needs. v. A copy of the receipt(s) for services provided if a contractor is used. vi. Service providers must meet State of Michigan Iicensure or certi?cation requirements. 6. By May 1, 2018, compose a memo to be distributed to all special education staff, building principals, and others as appropriate detailing responsibilities of each staff when a parental request for an evaluation is received. Provide a copy to the OSE. Update the Evaluations section of the Standard Operating Procedures with the same information within the memo. 7. By May 1, 2018, review and revise policies and procedures regarding evaluation and eligibility for special education services. Attention should be given to the areas regarding referrals from parents and assigning staff Case Number: 170227 Page 21 of 22 to the Resource Coordinating Team. B. By September 15; 2018; in collaboration with the ISD, provide professional development on the policy changes including: a. Evaluation procedures; Child ?nd procedures; c. Documentation of removals; and cl Alternatives to suspensions. Evidence of timely compliance and required submissions for Corrective Action Plans and Student Level Corrective Action Plans must be documented in Catamaran. Please direct questions regarding this complaint investigation to Joanne Winkelman at 517-335-0457 or winkelmanj@michigan.gov; and any questions regarding the corrective action to Harmonee Costello at 517-241-7082 or costelloh1@michigan.gov. All correspondence should be clearly marked as pertaining to case 17-0227. Joanne Winkelman, Supervisor Of?ce of Special Education Program Accountability Unit cc: Michelle DeJaeger Karen Howey Randy Liepa Rose Mendola Case Number: 17-0227 Page 22 of 22 17. 18. 19. The Student was provided a report card for the ?rst quarter of the 2017-2018 school year. The grades were as follows: four A?s, one B, and two C's. One grade was in physical education. The District could not con?rm that all required IEP team members attended a September 13, 2017 IEP, even though the individual members' signatures were included within the IEP document. As of the date of the complaint, the Student had not returned to school and the evaluation was not completed. Conclusions: 1. 10. 11. Pursuant to 34 CFR 300.301 and a District has 30 school days to complete a comprehensive special education evaluation. The District agreed to complete the special education evaluation on September 13, 2017, and this had not been completed as of the date of this complaint. A Student?s IEP must be implemented by the District, pursuant to 34 CFR and Since the Student had not been in school since September 5, 2017, and no services were provided, and no written plan was developed for the Student, the IEP was not implemented. When a student with a disability receives a removal based on a violation of the District's code of conduct, protections must be afforded to the student and procedural safeguards must be provided to the family, pursuant to 34 CFR 300.530-300.536. The District did not provide any of the disciplinary protections for the Student because they removed him from school on the ?rst day of school and did not develop a plan to return the Student to school. Notice was not provided on the day the Student's placement was changed. A manifestation determination review was not convened because of the Student's change of placement. A plan for services for the Student while he was out of school was not developed by the IEP team. Pursuant to 34 CFR 300.321, the IEP team must include the parents, special education teacher, general education teacher, someone who can interpret test results, and a district representative. The District agreed that the required members were not in attendance at the September 13, 2017 IEP or that the IEP team had a meeting. Decision: 1. Whether the District provided the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to 34 CFR 300.17 and 300.101. Specifically: a. Whether the District completed a comprehensive evaluation of the Student within the timelines, pursuant to 34 CFR 300.301 and Case Number: 18-0007 Page 7 of 9 The District did not complete a comprehensive evaluation of the Student within the timelines. The OSE finds a violation. b. Whether the District implemented the Student's IEP, pursuant to 34 CFR and and The District did not implement the Student's IEP. The OSE finds a violation. c. Whether the District provided the disciplinary protections for a Student who was removed due to behavior, pursuant to 34 CFR 300.530-300.536. The District did not provide the disciplinary protections for the Student and removed him from school indefinitely. The OSE finds a violation. 2. Whether the District followed the procedures and processes required by the IDEA and the MARSE. Speci?cally: a. Whether the IEP team consisted of the required members, pursuant to 34 CFR 300.321. The required IEP members were not in attendance for a September 13, 2017 IEP meeting. The OSE finds a violation. Student Level Corrective Action Plan: 1. The District will work with the Complainant to have an independent evaluator complete the independent educational evaluation as soon as possible. Upon completion of the independent educational evaluation, the District will develop an IEP, in collaboration with the Parent, to address eligibility and the Student's programming and other unique educational and behavioral needs. 2. By April 1, 2018, in collaboration with the Parent and members of the IEP team, the District must develop a plan for providing 100 hours of compensatory services to address the Student's academic and behavioral needs outlined in the Student's revised IEP developed to meet all the Student's needs, and in the general education curriculum. 3. By February 28, 2019, documentation for compensatory services provided to the Student shall be provided to the OSE, and will include: a. A copy of the receipt(s) for services provided if a contractor is used. b. Service provider logs for the compensatory services including the dates, starting and ending times, and a description of the services provided. c. If the Student is absent on a scheduled day, the session does not need to be made up. Any staff absences require a make up session. d. Transportation logs or reimbursement receipts (if applicable). Corrective Action Plan: 1. By July 1, 2018, the District must review, revise or develop procedures to document and ensure that for all students: a. Mandatory IEP team members participate in the development of' Case Number: 18-0007 Page 8 of 9 b. IEPs are implemented as written; c. Special education evaluations are completed within the required timelines; d. Notice and procedural safeguards are provided when changing a student's placement based on a violation of the District's code of conduct; e. IEP teams determine services for a student who has a change of placement; f. Manifestation determination reviews are conducted before a disciplinary change of placement; and 2. By November 15, 2018; the District must provide professional development for all relevant staff regarding the District's procedures. Evidence of timely compliance and required submissions for Corrective Action Plans and Student Level Corrective Action Plans must be documented in Catamaran. Please direct questions regarding this complaint investigation to Joanne Winkelman at 517?335-0457 or winkelmanj@michigan.gov; and any questions regarding the corrective action to Harmonee Costello at 517?241-7082 or costelloh1@michigan.gov. All correspondence should be clearly marked as pertaining to case 18?0007. Joanne Winkelman, Supervisor Of?ce of Special Education Program Accountability Unit cc: Michelle Dejaeger Karen Howey Randy Liepa Rose Mendola Case Number: 18-0007 Page 9 of 9 academy in October 2017. b. The Complainant sent an email on November 27, 2017, to make the District aware that the Student needed to be enrolled. c. The Complainant called the District at least two more times between November and December 2017; dates unknown. d. In early December 2017, the Parent went to the local District elementary school to try to enroll her son. His enrollment was denied due to an "administrative transfer." The transfer was made when the Student had previously been a Student in the District, prior to September 2016. 9. The District enrolled the Student on January 9, 2018. 10. The District reported that a review of existing evaluation data was scheduled and the Parent would be asked to provide consent for a special education evaluation. Conclusions: 1. School districts are required to identify, locate, and evaluate any students suspected of having disabilities, pursuant to 34 CFR 300.111. 2. Pursuant to 34 CFR a district must ensure assessments of a student transferred from one district to another district in the same school year are coordinated with the student's prior and subsequent schools as expeditiously as possible to ensure initial evaluations are completed. 3. When the District received the report in January 2017, the report was clear that the Student was being evaluated for special education services. 4. Upon receiving the letter from the public school academy and becoming aware that the Student was not expelled, the District should have enrolled him right away, which was in January 2017. The report was enough information to trigger Child Find and the completion of the initial evaluation. Decision: 1. Whether the District followed the procedures and processes required by the IDEA and the MARSE. Speci?cally: a. Whether the District identified, located, and evaluated the Student, pursuant to 34 CFR 300.111; and The District did not complete the special education evaluation of the Student or begin a new evaluation when the Student was finally enrolled. The OSE finds a violation. b. Whether the District coordinated with the previous District and completed the comprehensive evaluation of the Student, pursuant to 34 CFR There was information in the Student's records to alert the District to develop a review of existing evaluation data and complete an evaluation and this was not done in a timely manner. The OSE finds a violation. Case Number: 18-0011 Page 4 of 6 Student Level Corrective Action Plan: 1. If not already completed, conduct a review of existing evaluation data to identify all of the Student's special education and related service needs and determine if the Student is eligible for special education services. Gain parental consent for the evaluation. If the review has been completed, provide a copy to the OSE. Conduct the special education evaluation within 30 school days of the date of Parental consent. The District will complete an IEP within the MARSE timelines. If the Student meets eligibility requirements for special education, the IEP team must develop the IEP with appropriate special education programs and services, including consideration of positive behavior supports and interventions. If the Student is found eligible as a student with a disability, the District, in collaboration with the Parent, must develop a plan for providing compensatory services to address the Student?s social emotional/behavioral and/or academic needs as determined at the IEP. Compensatory education will be provided based up on the following formula: Number of hours per day of service determined in the IEP 145 days missed .15. Services must be delivered by December 31, 2018. By December 31, 2018, documentation for compensatory services provided to the Student shall be provided to the OSE, and will include: a. A copy of the receipt(s) for services provided if a contractor is used. b. Service provider logs for the compensatory services indicating the dates, starting and ending times, length of sessions, student absences, make up sessions and a short summary of instruction completed for each session by upload into Catamaran. c. If the Student is absent on a scheduled day, this session does not need to be made up. Any staff absences require a make-up session. d. Transportation logs or reimbursement receipts (if applicable). Corrective Action Plan: 1. By July 1, 2018, the District must review, revise or develop procedures to document and ensure that for all students, the District: a. Ful?lls its Child Find responsibilities; and b. Thoroughly reviews student records to determine if a special education evaluation was in process upon the student enrolling in the district, or if information in contained within the student's records triggering the District's Child Find obligation. Evidence of timely compliance and required submissions for Corrective Action Plans and Student Level Corrective Action Plans must be documented in Case Number: 18-0011 Page 5 of 6