Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 1 of 15

Office of the Independent Monitors
P.B., et al., v. John White, et al. (Civil Case No. 2:10-cv-04049)
Fluency Plus, LLC
215 N. Bolivar Ave
Cleveland, MS 38732
www.fluencyplus.com
fluencyplusinfo@gmail.com
(662) 843-2322
TO:

Angela Randle, Director of Special Education Programs
Chris Fruge and Joan Hunt, Legal Counsel
Louisiana Department of Education
Wayne Stewart
Legal Counsel, Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB)
Neil Ranu, Victor Jones, Jasmine Bolton and Zoe Savitsky
Legal Counsel for Plaintiff Class

Cc:

Pam Starns
Career Law Clerk to the Honorable Jay C. Zainey

FROM:

Dale Bailey, Ken Swindol, William Swindol
Independent Monitors

DATE:

September 10, 2019

RE:

Summary of findings for IM concerns related to OPSB/NOLA charter schools selected
for targeted monitoring under the PB v White Consent Judgement for the fall, 2017
and fall 2018 monitoring cycles.

1

 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 2 of 15

Background
On May 21, 2019, the IMs received an email correspondence from Southern Poverty Law
Center (SPLC) legal counsel requesting information utilized by the LDOE for selecting
NOLA/OPSB charter schools for targeted monitoring during the fall, 2017 and fall, 2018
monitoring cycles. Specifically, SPLC counsel requested the following information:
1. The rates at which each LEA in NOLA identified new students eligible for services under the
IDEA and the student data used to calculate these rates as outlined in the Consent
Judgement (CJ) and in Addendum A of the CJ.
2. The rates at which each LEA in NOLA provided related services to students eligible for such
services under the IDEA and the student data used to calculate the rates as outlined in the
CJ and Addendum A of the CJ.
3. The rates at which each LEA in NOLA removed students with disabilities for disciplinary
purposes for more than ten (10) cumulative days in an academic year and the student data
used to calculate these rates as outlined in the CJ and the Addendum of the CJ.
4. The rate at which students with disabilities chose not to re-enroll at each LEA in NOLA each
school year and the student data used to calculate these rates as outlined in the CJ and the
Addendum of the CJ.
Upon conferring with LDOE legal counsel regarding the abovementioned request, the IMs
directed SPLC counsel, per LDOE data-sharing regulations, to file a formal public records
request directly with LDOE legal counsel.
In the meantime, to be prepared to respond to any questions posed by the Plaintiff’s counsel in
a timely manner, the IMs conducted a review of the school selection databases from 2015-2016
to 2017-2018 and to also gather information related to potential quantifiable data trends for (a)
new IDEA identification rates, (b) related service provisions (i.e. average number of minutes per
week/per pupil), (c) discipline removal rates (i.e. greater than ten (10) days of exclusionary
discipline removals) and (d) Enrollment Stability rates (i.e. rates of students choosing to not reenroll) across all NOLA/OPSB charter school sites from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018.
During our initial review, the IMs observed potential data errors on the 2017-2018 LDOE
database from which NOLA/OPSB schools were selected for targeted monitoring that would
have, if confirmed, likely resulted in charter school(s) being incorrectly selected for
2

 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 3 of 15

targeted monitoring in the area of Related Services in fall, 2018. Once these potential school
selection errors were observed, the IMs contacted Dr. Chauncey McElwee, LDOE Coordinator of
PB v White Consent Judgement (CJ) Monitoring, via phone on June 4, 2019, to discuss our initial
concerns. After a brief conversation regarding this matter, Dr. McElwee indicated that she
would contact Angela Randall, LDOE Director of Special Education Programs and members of
the LDOE Data Team to discuss our initial concerns. The IMs were then informed on June 10,
2019 that Mrs. Randall reported that the several key data-team members were at a conference
and that she would discuss the IMs concerns with the data-team members when they returned.
In the meantime, the IMs conducted a comprehensive review of all LDOE databases from
which NOLA/OPSB charter schools were selected for targeted monitoring for the fall, 2017 and
fall, 2018 school terms and discovered additional potential data errors that, if confirmed, would
have also resulted in incorrect selections for NOLA/OPSB charter schools required to undergo
targeted monitoring in the areas of Child Find, Related Services, and Enrollment Stability.
On June 18, 2019, the IMs received an email correspondence from Angela Randall, LDOE
Director of Special Education Programs, indicating that LDOE staff were ready to discuss our
initial concerns related to potential data errors and NOLA/OPSB school sites potentially being
incorrectly selected for targeted monitoring in the area of Related Services during the fall, 2018
school term.
As such, the IMs and LDOE monitoring staff and legal counsel held a conference call on June 20,
2019 to further discuss our initial concerns, as well as, the additional potential data errors
observed by the IMs which, if confirmed, would have likely resulted in subsequent errors in the
process of selecting schools for targeted monitoring as specified in Addendum A of the CJ.
During the June 20, 2019 conference call, LDOE staff confirmed the IMs initial data error/school
selection inquiry reported to the LDOE on June 4, 2019 (i.e. related service minutes calculated
using total student enrollment rather than IDEA enrollment). LDOE staff indicated the LDOE
monitoring staff and the LDOE data team staff would review and immediately correct any
errors in the database, identify NOLA/OPSB charter school(s) that were selected in error,
identify the charter schools that should have been initially selected for monitoring in Fall, 2018
and conduct additional on-site targeted monitoring for these charter school sites in the fall,
2019 school term. During the June 20, 2019 phone conference, the IMs also reported to LDOE
staff and Legal counsel that, after a thorough review of the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 LDOE
school selection datasets, other potential selection errors were observed for fall, 2017 targeted
monitoring selections in the areas of Child Find, Related Services and Enrollment Stability.

3

 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 4 of 15

After a brief discussion regarding the additional potential school selection errors, LDOE staff
requested, based on the complex nature of the IMs additional inquiries, that the IMs
summarize all additional school selection concerns in writing so that LDOE data department
could be consulted to further investigate the IMs specific concerns. As such, the IMs submitted
a summary overview of their inquiries related to numerous potential school selection errors to
all parties, via email, on June 25, 2019. The LDOE monitoring/data team staff conducted a
review of concerns submitted by the IMs and provided initial, as well as, follow-up responses
to the IMs, via email and/or phone conference, from July 11, 2019 to September 6, 2019.
After a thorough review of all school selection data and numerous communications with LDOE
staff via email and phone conferences, the IMs provide below a summary of each identified
concern discovered during our data and school selection inquiry along with any related
recommendations for corrective remedies.
Observed Concern 1. 2017-2018 LDOE school selection database for Related Service Minutes
contained enrollment figures for the total school population rather than
the IDEA student counts across all OPSB/NOLA school sites.
During a review of the LDOE database titled “2017-2018 Related Service Minutes Provided to
Eligible Students under the IDEA OPSB & New Orleans Parish”, the IMs observed that the
database appeared to reflect the enrollment figures for total school enrollment rather than
enrollment counts solely for students with disabilities across all NOLA and OPSB schools. The
IMs reported this potential error to LDOE staff and legal counsel and further indicated that if
these enrollment figures were, in fact, incorrect the schools selected for fall 2018 targeted
monitoring in the area of Related Services would be invalid.
After a brief phone conference, LDOE personnel indicated that an oversight did, in fact, occur
and the total student enrollment counts rather than enrollment figures for students with
disabilities was used to calculate the metric from which schools were selected for monitoring.
Further, the LDOE reported all enrollment figures would be corrected and the data would be recalculated to identify the schools that should have been selected for Related Services
monitoring in the fall of 2018.
LDOE legal counsel submitted an updated (corrected) database on June, 24, 2019 for the IMs
review. Based on a review of the updated LDOE 2017-2018 Related Services database and
follow-up communications with LDOE staff, the IMs confirmed that two charter schools (Robert
Moton Charter School and Lusher Charter School) were incorrectly chosen for targeted
monitoring during the Fall, 2018 targeted monitoring cycle.
4

 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 5 of 15

Recommended Corrective Remedies
The LDOE and IMs each reviewed the updated rankings on the “2017-2018 Related Service
Minutes Provided to Eligible Students under the IDEA OPSB & New Orleans Parish” database
and collaborated to identify the NOLA/OPSB charter schools that should have been selected for
targeted monitoring in the area of Related Services during the fall, 2018 monitoring cycle.
Based on our review, the LDOE staff and IMs agreed that New Orleans Charter Science and
Mathematics High School and International High School of New Orleans reported the lowest
related service (i.e. average minutes per week/per pupil) provision rates during the 2017-2018
school term and should have been selected for on-site targeted monitoring in the Fall, 2018.
However, given the fact that International High School had recently been monitored in the area
of Related Services in Spring, 2018, the IMs and LDOE staff agreed to select ReNew Accelerated
Academy, the OPSB/NOLA charter school reporting the next lowest ranking of related service
provisions during the 2017-2018 school term. The table below summarized the NOLA/OPSB
charter schools that were incorrectly chosen and the charter schools that should have been
selected for targeted monitoring in the area of Related Services during the fall, 2018 monitoring
cycle.
Charter schools monitored in the
area of Related Services during
Fall, 2018
Edna Karr High
Robert Moton
Lusher Charter School

Charter schools that should have been monitored in the
in Fall, 2018
Edna Karr High (correctly selected after data correction)
New Orleans Charter Science & Mathematics High School
ReNew Accelerated High School

As a remedy to address this situation, the LDOE proposed that the LDOE monitoring staff and
IMs conduct additional on-site targeted monitoring reviews for the abovementioned
NOLA/OPSB charter schools during September, 2019. As such, the LDOE submitted official
notifications to school leaders for New Orleans Charter Science and Mathematics High School
and ReNew Accelerated High School on August 22, 2019 of a mandated on-site monitoring visit
during the week of September 23-27, 2019.
In addition, to proactively address the concerns described above, the IMs recommended that
LDOE monitoring staff collaborate with the LDOE data team to develop a protocol for verifying
that all datasets used for future selections of NOLA/OPSB charter schools under the provisions
of the CJ include additional safeguards to ensure all data metrics (i.e. enrollment figures,
sorting/rankings) are appropriate and correct. After briefly discussing this matter, LDOE
monitoring staff agreed with this IM recommendation.
5

 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 6 of 15

As a final remedy for addressing the above-mentioned concern, prior to any school selections,
LDOE staff and the IMs have agreed to collectively reviewing all relevant annual school
selection datasets for potential concerns. Secondly, the LDOE staff and the IMs agreed to
collectively reviewing the annual LDOE datasets used to select schools for targeted (Related
Services) monitoring and mutually agreeing (via phone conference) on which current and future
NOLA/OPSB charter schools meet the criterion for targeted monitoring in the area of Related
Services as outlined in the CJ Addendum.
Please note that LDOE staff and IMs have previously collaborated to review and agree on school
selections prior to conducting targeted monitoring visits. However, for the fall, 2017 monitoring
cycle, the IMs were not provided with any of the school selection databases for the fall, 2017
monitoring cycle until the morning of December 4, 2017, the first day of targeted monitoring
for that cycle. As such, a member of the IM team did conduct a very brief cursory review of the
school selection database and, unfortunately, did not recognize the school selection errors at
that time.
Observed Concern 2. The incorrect Einstein Charter School was monitored in the area of
Enrollment Stability during the Fall, 2017 targeted monitoring cycle
The IMs review of the school selection database titled “Rates at Which Students with
Disabilities (SWD) Chose Not to Reenroll Between 2015-2016 to Oct. 1, 2016: OPSB & Charter
Schools in Orleans Parish” indicated that Einstein Charter School at Village De L’Est was selected
for targeted monitoring in the fall of the 2017-2018 school term as a result of enrollment
stability concerns (42.1% rate of students choosing not to reenroll). However, based on the IMs
review of schools actually monitored in Fall, 2017 in the area of Related Services indicated the
Einstein charter school site that was actually monitored (on-site) was Einstein Charter Middle
School at Sara Towles Reed.
Recommended Corrective Remedies
After inquiring about this concern, LDOE staff indicated this was an inadvertent error and
agreed that Einstein Charter School at Village De L’Est, rather than Einstein Charter Middle
School at Sara Towles Reed, should have undergone targeted monitoring in the area of
Enrollment Stability during the fall, 2017 school term. As such, the LDOE submitted official
notification letters to Einstein Charter School at Village De L’Est school leaders on August 22,
2019 informing them of an upcoming, mandatory on-site monitoring visit during the week of
September 24-27, 2019.

6

 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 7 of 15

As an additional remedy for addressing the above mentioned concern, LDOE staff and the IMs
agreed to collectively reviewing the annual LDOE datasets used to select schools for targeted
(Enrollment Stability) monitoring and mutually agreeing (via phone conference), prior to
monitoring, on which current and future NOLA/OPSB charter schools meet the criterion for
targeted monitoring in the area of Enrollment Stability as outlined in the CJ Addendum.
Observed Concern 3. Inaccurate enrollment figures for Audubon Charter School and ReNew
McDonogh City Park Academy; Audubon Charter School incorrectly
chosen for targeted monitoring during fall, 2018.
Based on the IMs review of the data set provided by the LDOE titled “Rates at Which Students
with Disabilities (SWD) Chose Not to Reenroll Between 2016-2017 to Oct. 1, 2017: OPSB &
Charter Schools in Orleans Parish”, Audubon Charter School (LEA/Site Code-036005) was listed
as having a total of only one (1) student with a disability who was enrolled on October 1, 2017.
Further, when considering that a reported 17 students did not reenroll as of October 1, 2017,
this resulted in a very unusual and highly elevated (1700%) non-reenrollment rate for the 20172018 school term. Further, a review of the 2015-2016 student data base (see LDOE database
titled “Rates at Which Students with Disabilities (SWD) Chose Not to Reenroll Between 20152016 to Oct. 1, 2016: OPSB & Charter Schools in Orleans Parish”) indicates that Audubon
Charter School had a total of 72 students enrolled with an IEP as of the October 1, 2016 Public
IDEA Student Count. As such, the IMs reported a concern to the LDOE suggesting that it
appeared very unlikely that Audubon Charter School had only one student with a disability as of
the October 1, 2017 Pubic IDEA Student Count.
After further investigation, the LDOE responded to the IMs indicating that school site code
changes were noted during the years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. As such, only one student
remained documented as enrolled at Audubon under their old or prior year site code 036005,
thus resulting in a 1700% rate of students choosing not to re-enroll. The additional students
were accounted for under Audubon’s new site code (WAZ001). LDOE staff acknowledged this
error and agreed that Audubon Charter School was incorrectly chosen to undergo on-site
monitoring in the area of Enrollment Stability based on an inaccurate non-enrollment rate.
An additional concern was reported to the LDOE regarding the unusual discrepancy observed
for the Renew McDonogh City Park Academy October 2016 IEP count and students choosing
not to re-enroll for the 2017 school term. More specifically, this charter school site reported a
total student count of 209 students with disabilities (October 1, 2016). However, the number of
students with disabilities who were reported as not re-enrolling as of October 2017 was 308.

7

 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 8 of 15

The LDOE submitted a response to the IMs indicating that ReNew McDonogh City Park
Academy was a school closure. Therefore, since this charter school closed and no students were
recorded as enrolled, this resulted in an unusually high rate of students choosing to not reenroll in the fall, 2017 school term. Further, in relation to the observation that more students
chose to not re-enroll in 2017 than were actually enrolled as of October 1, 2016, LDOE staff
noted that between Oct 1, 2016 and the end of the 2016-2017 school term McDonogh City Park
Academy enrolled an additional 100+ preschool students with disabilities, thus explaining the
enrollment discrepancy.
Recommended Corrective Remedies
LDOE staff and the IMs reviewed the enrollment database (i.e. “Rates at Which Students with
Disabilities (SWD) Chose Not to Reenroll Between 2016-2017 to Oct. 1, 2017: OPSB & Charter
Schools in Orleans Parish”) to determine which NOLA/OPSB charter school, rather than
Audubon Charter, should have been chosen for on-site targeted monitoring in the area of
Enrollment Stability. The table below summarizes the NOLA/OPSB charter school sites reporting
the highest rankings for students choosing to not-enroll from 2016-2017 to October 1, 2017:
OPSB/NOLA Charter School

2017 Non- Re-enrollment rate

55%

School Status and Reason
Not Selected for Targeted
Monitoring
Appropriately Selected and
Monitored in Fall, 2018
Appropriately Selected and
Monitored in Fall, 2018
School Closure

Menard Nelson Elementary
School
William J. Fischer
Accelerated Academy
Sylvanie William College
Preparatory Charter
Robert Russa Moten
McDonogh 32 Literacy
Charter School
Sophie B. Wright Charter
School
Einstein Charter School at
Village De L’Est

63.6%

50%
45.9%

Monitored in fall, 2018
School Closure

45.7%

Cleared ICAP-Spring 2019

42.9%

Already scheduled for onsite monitoring in the area
of enrollment in
September, 2019

62.2%

8

 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 9 of 15

Dr. Martin Luther King
Charter for
Science/Technology

38.2%

Selected for Targeted
Monitoring in the area of
Enrollment Stability in
September, 2019

As indicated in the table above, the five NOLA/Charter schools with the highest rates of
students choosing not to re-enroll during the 2017-2018 school term were not selected to
replace Audubon Charter School due to the following factors: (a) charter school closed, (b)
charter was monitored and cleared ICAP in spring 2018 and/or (c) the charter school was
previously selected for additional on-site monitoring in September, 2019 or December, 2019 in
the area of Enrollment Stability.
Therefore, after reviewing the database to determine which NOLA/OPSB charter reported the
next highest rates of students choosing not to re-enroll during the 2017-2018 school term,
LDOE staff and the IMs collectively agreed to select Dr. Martin Luther King Charter for
Science/Technology to undergo on-site targeted monitoring in the area of Enrollment Stability
in September, 2019. As such, LDOE staff submitted a monitoring notification letter to Martin
Luther King Charter for Science/Technology school officials on August 22, 2019 informing them
of an upcoming on-site targeted monitoring visit in the area of Enrollment Stability during the
week of September, 23, 2019.
To avoid such concerns in the future, LDOE officials reported that the LDOE data office has
begun adding a note to the bottom of the data files provided to explain such anomalies (i.e.
“OPSB sites reassigned site codes in 2017-18 SY will be under their new site code unless they
had any reported students under their old site code in the Oct 2017 IDEA count.”) LDOE officials
further indicated this type of data error has previously not represented a concern. Instead, this
data anomaly resulted in site code changes and the manner in which data was provided to
LDOE between school terms.
In addition, to proactively address the concerns described above, the IMs recommended that
LDOE monitoring staff collaborate with the LDOE data team to develop a protocol for verifying
that all datasets used for future selections of NOLA/OPSB charter schools under the provisions
of Addendum A of CJ include additional safeguards to ensure all data metrics (i.e. enrollment
figures, sorting/rankings) are appropriate and correct. After briefly discussing this matter, LDOE
monitoring staff agreed with this IM recommendation.
As a final remedy for addressing the above-mentioned concern, prior to any school selections,
LDOE staff and the IMs have agreed to collectively reviewing all relevant annual school
9

 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 10 of 15

selection datasets for potential concerns. The LDOE staff and the IMs have also agreed to
collectively reviewing the annual LDOE datasets used to select schools for targeted (Related
Services) monitoring and mutually agreeing (via phone conference) on which current and future
NOLA/OPSB charter schools meet the criterion for targeted monitoring in the area of Related
Services as outlined in the CJ Addendum.
Observed Concern 4. The 2016-2017 LDOE Child Find was observed by the IMs to be sorted by
LEA site code numbers (lowest to highest) rather than ranked by the
“New IDEA Identification Rates” (lowest to highest) reported by each
NOLA/OPSB charter school for the 2016-2017 term. As such, the
IMs investigated this potential concern to determine whether the
NOLA/OPSB elementary, middle and high school charter reporting the
lowest (2016-2017) new IDEA identification rate was correctly selected
for targeted monitoring during the fall, 2017 Child Find monitoring
cycle.
Following a thorough review of the LDOE Child Find dataset (i.e. “SPP Indicator 11 Data:
Summary by LEA and Site OPSB and Charter Schools in New Orleans”) and discussions with
LDOE officials regarding this specific issue, the IMs verified that NOLA/OPSB charter schools
were selected in error for the Fall, 2017 (Child Find) monitoring cycle. The school selection error
occurred as the result of the LDOE Child Find dataset being sorted by charter school ID codes
(from lowest to highest) rather than being sorted by “New IDEA Identification Rates” (lowest to
highest) reported by NOLA/OPSB charter schools for the 2016-2017 school term. That is, during
the school selection process, LDOE staff selected the first OPSB elementary, middle and high
school charter site listed on the database as requiring targeted monitoring in the area of Child
Find. As such, school selections were not based on the NOLA/OPSB elementary, middle and
high school charter site that reported the lowest “new IDEA identification rate” for the 20162017 school term as required under the Child Find school selection criteria outlined in the
Addendum A of the CJ.
In discussing the Child Find selections during several conference calls, LDOE staff acknowledged
and confirmed the selection error.
Recommended Corrective Remedies
To address the above-mentioned school selection error, the IMs and LDOE staff, after sorting
the 2016-2017 Child Find dataset to identify all NOLA/OPSB charter schools reporting the
lowest to highest “new IDEA identification” rates during the 2016-2017 school term, collectively
10

 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 11 of 15

reviewed the dataset and identified the NOLA/OSPB elementary, middle and charter school site
reporting the lowest annual (2016-2017) IDEA identification rates that should have been
selected for targeted monitoring in the area of Child Find during the Fall, 2017 monitoring cycle.
During our review, it should be noted there were numerous NOLA/OPSB charter high schools
reporting a 2016-2018 “new identification rate” of zero (0.0%). As such, the IMs and LDOE staff
agreed to select the NOLA/OPSB high school charter site reporting the lowest enrollment of
students with disabilities for on-site monitoring.
The table below summarizes the NOLA/OSPB charter school sites that were selected in error
and the NOLA/OPSB charters that should have been selected to participate in targeted
monitoring in the area of Child Find during the fall, 2017 monitoring cycle.
NOLA/OPSB Charter Schools Incorrectly
Selected for Targeted Monitoring (Child
Find-Fall, 2017)
Mary Bethune Elementary Charter

NOLA/OPSB Charter Schools that Should have
been Selected for Targeted Monitoring (Child
Find-Fall, 2017)
Alice M. Harte Elementary Charter School

(1.1% new identification rate-2016-17)
Audubon (Middle) Charter School

(0.1% new identification rate-2016-17)
KIPP Central City Academy (Middle School)

(1.8% new identification rate-2016-17)
Warren Easton High School

(0.0% new identification rate-2016-17)
Benjamin Franklin High School

(0.1% new identification rate 2016-17)

(0.0% new identification rate)

In an attempt to remedy this school selection error, the LDOE has also scheduled additional onsite targeted monitoring visits for Alice Harte Elementary Charter School, KIPP Central City
Academy (Middle) and Benjamin Franklin High School during the week of September 24-27,
2019.
Again, as an additional remedy for addressing the above-mentioned concern, LDOE staff and
the IMs have agreed to collectively review all relevant annual (Child Find) school selection
datasets for potential sorting/ranking errors. Secondly, the LDOE staff and the IMs agreed to
collectively reviewing the annual LDOE datasets used to select schools for targeted (Child Find)
monitoring and mutually agreeing (via phone conference) on which current and future
NOLA/OPSB charter schools meet the criterion for targeted monitoring in the area of Child Find
as outlined in the CJ Addendum.

11

 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 12 of 15

Observed Concern 5. The IMs observed that NOLA/OPSB charter schools were selected for
targeted monitoring based on the charter school sites reporting the
highest rather than the lowest related service provision rates (i.e.
average number of minutes per pupil/per week) as specified in the CJ.
As such, this observation represented a potential error in charter
schools selected for targeted monitoring in the area of Related Services
during the fall, 2017 monitoring cycle.
Based on the IMs review of the LDOE database (i.e. “2016-2017 Related Service Minutes Per
Student Provided to Eligible Students under the IDEA: OPSB & Charter Schools in New Orleans
Parish”), it appeared to the IMs that the list of NOLA/OPSB charter sites was rank ordered from
most-to-least rather than least-to-most in terms of related service minutes provided to
students with disabilities during the 2016-2017 school term. That is, the charter schools with
the least presumed risk (i.e. highest rates of service delivery) were selected for targeted
monitoring rather than the schools with the most presumed risk (i.e. lowest rates of Related
Service provisions). After discussion, this concern with school selections was confirmed by LDOE
staff. As such, this reflects an error in the NOLA/OPSB charter schools selected for Related
Services monitoring during the Fall, 2017 monitoring cycle. Again, LDOE staff described this
error as an inadvertent oversight as the result of the related service data (i.e. average minutes
per pupil/per week) across all NOLA/OPSB charter schools being sorted from highest to lowest
rather than lowest to highest.
Recommended Corrective Remedies
To address this error in school selection, the IMs and LDOE staff reviewed the LDOE database
(i.e., “2016-2017 Related Service Minutes Per Student Provided to Eligible Students under the
IDEA: OPSB & Charter Schools in New Orleans Parish” with all NOLA/OPSB charter schools
ranked from lowest to highest related service provision rates for the 2016-2017 school term
and collaborated (via phone conference) to make the correct selections for NOLA/OPSB
charters that should have been designated to participate in targeted (Related Service)
monitoring during the Fall, 2017 monitoring cycle.
The table below summarizes the NOLA/OPSB charter schools that were selected in error and
the charter sites that should have been selected to participate in targeted monitoring activities
in the area of Related Services.

12

 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 13 of 15

NOLA/OPSB Charter Schools Selected
NOLA/OPSB Charter Schools that Should have
Incorrectly for Targeted Monitoring in the
been Selected for Targeted Monitoring in the
area of Related Services-Fall, 2017
area of Related Services-Fall, 2017
Cypress Academy
Lusher Charter School*
218.0 average minutes per pupil/per week
3.86 average minutes per pupil/per week
Livingston Collegiate Charter School
Eleanor McMain Secondary Charter School
145.5 average minutes per pupil/per week
2.73 average minutes per pupil/per week
James M. Singleton Charter School
McDonogh 35 College Preparatory Charter**
116.9 average minutes per pupil/per week
0 minutes per pupil/per week
* Note: NOTE: Lusher Charter participated in Related Services targeted monitoring in Fall,
2018. As such, the charter site reporting the next lowest rate for related service provisions for
2016-2017 was Lake Forest Charter School. Therefore, this charter site was selected to
participate in additional Related Service monitoring in Fall, 2019.
** Note: McDonogh #35 Charter Academy was the school site that represented one of the
three NOLA/OPSB charters reporting the lowest related service provision rates for the 20162017 school term. However, this 9th grade charter has since merged with McDonogh #35
College Preparatory Charter School.
Again, to initially remedy this school selection error, the LDOE proposed that the LDOE
monitoring staff and IMs conduct additional on-site targeted monitoring reviews for the abovementioned NOLA/OPSB charter schools during September, 2019. As such, the LDOE submitted
official notifications to school leaders for Lake Forest Charter School, Eleanor McMain
Secondary Charter School, and McDonogh 35 College Preparatory Charter on August 22, 2019
informing them of a mandated on-site monitoring visit during the week of September 24-27,
2019.
Finally as mentioned previously, as an additional remedy for addressing the above-mentioned
concern, LDOE staff and the IMs have also agreed to collectively review all relevant annual
(Related Services) school selection datasets for potential sorting/ranking errors. Secondly, the
LDOE staff and the IMs agreed to collectively reviewing the annual LDOE datasets used to select
schools for targeted (Related Services) monitoring and mutually agreeing (via phone
conference) on which current and future NOLA/OPSB charter schools meet the criterion for
targeted monitoring in the area of Related Services consistent with the requirements outlined
in the Addendum A of the CJ.

13

 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 14 of 15

Summary
The IMs initial inquiry and follow-up investigation of potential errors in the process of selecting
schools for targeted monitoring revealed that a total of ten (10) NOLA/OPSB charter school
sites were selected in error for the fall, 2017 (eight charter school sites) and fall, 2018 (two
charter school sites). Based on a thorough review of LDOE databases/school selection
documents, along with numerous communications with LDOE officials (via email and phone
conference), the IMs believe these errors occurred as the result of inadvertent data oversights
(i.e. enrollment/sorting errors, technicalities in charter school site code changes, and human
error) rather than any attempt to circumvent the school selection process.
As noted previously, the LDOE Director of Special Education Programs/IDEA monitoring, LDOE
monitoring staff, and LDOE legal counsel have each acknowledged the abovementioned
oversights in making appropriate selections for NOLA/OPSB charter schools required to
undergo targeted monitoring during the fall, 2017 and fall, 2018 school terms. Further, in
addition to being cooperative and forthcoming regarding these issues, LDOE staff immediately
offered, what the IMs believe to be, a reasonable initial remedy for correcting these oversights
(i.e. broadening the overall scope of LDOE oversight by conducting additional monitoring for
the NOLA/OPSB charter sites that should have been originally selected for targeted
monitoring). The LDOE staff and legal counsel have also agreed with IM recommendations for
developing proactive safeguards for preventing any future school selection errors and
collectively reviewing and agreeing upon schools which NOLA/OPSB charters should be properly
selected for any targeted monitoring visits that may be conducted in the future.
In addition to the LDOE’s acknowledgment of their role in these oversights in proper school
selections summarized above, the IMs, too, equally acknowledge their role in failing to more
carefully review the NOLA/OPSB charter school sites selected for targeted monitoring in the
fall, 2017 and/or fall, 2018 monitoring cycles. As such, the IMs wish to express their sincere
regret to all parties and feel confident that the LDOE and IMs suggested remedies with prove to
be successful for avoiding such oversights in the future.
Finally, although these errors in did, in fact, result in numerous NOLA/OPSB charter school sites
being selected incorrectly for targeted monitoring, the IMs, do not judge these concerns, albeit
unfortunate, as compromising the integrity of the process of selecting schools for targeted
monitoring as outlined in the CJ. That is, with no intention or attempt whatsoever to minimize
the school selection errors that were committed, if the integrity of the school selection process
was seriously compromised, one could reasonably predict that the NOLA/OPSB charter schools
that were selected in error ( i.e. charters with the least presumed risk based on the highest (not
14

 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 15 of 15

lowest) related service rates, lowest (not highest) rate of enrollment stability and/or higher
rates of IDEA identification) would likely demonstrate a higher rate of acceptable IDEA
compliance upon initial review. To the contrary, however, when reviewing the fall, 2017 and
fall, 2018 compliance outcomes for the abovementioned charter schools selected in error, eight
(8) of ten (10) NOLA/OPSB charters (80%) that were verified as being incorrectly selected to
undergo targeted monitoring were placed on Corrective Action Plans as the result of systemic
noncompliance observed across various IDEA mandates across the areas of Child Find, Related
Services and/or Enrollment Stability. These NOLA/OPSB charter schools included:
1. James Singleton Charter School (Related Service- fall 2017)
2. Cypress Academy (Related Services - fall, 2017)
3. Livingston Collegiate Academy (Related Services – fall, 2017
4. Mary Bethune Charter School (Child Find- fall, 2017)
5. Warren Easton Charter High School (Child Find-fall, 2017)
6. Einstein Middle Charter at Sarah Towles Reed (Enrollment-fall 2017)
7. Audubon Charter School (Related Services-fall, 2018)
8. Lusher Charter School (Related Services-fall, 2018)
These findings are consistent with the overall findings of the systemic noncompliance observed
across NOLA/OPSB charter schools selected for initial targeted monitoring reviews during the
spring, 2016 and fall, 2016 monitoring cycles. Perhaps this unique observation may reflect
inherent concerns with the validity of the selection criterion metrics (i.e. non re-enrollment
rates, average related service minutes, new IDEA identification rates) as outlined in Addendum
A of the CJ for reliably predicting a charter schools’ actual level of risk for IDEA noncompliance
and/or further indicates the level of concerns that continue to exist among NOLA/OPSB schools
with regard to IDEA compliance, thus suggesting the continued need for LDOE oversight and
support under the provisions of the CJ.
In closing, although the IMs agree with the LDOE’s suggestion of conducting additional on-site
monitoring reviews, it should be noted that regardless of the view of the IMs, there are no
provisions outlined in the CJ for such activities (i.e. additional monitoring) serving as a
corrective remedy for addressing these unforeseen circumstances. As such, it is recommended
that counsel for the plaintiff’s class, LDOE legal counsel and OPSB legal counsel meet to discuss
this matter further and hopefully come to a reasonable resolution for how to best move
forward with completing the required activities outlined in the CJ.

15