Concerns from a School Board member

During the June 27, 2017 TUSD Board meeting, the administration presented their report regarding the Critical Incident Review (CIR) of the TUSD by the California Department of Education (CDE), Special Education Division (SED). This was an on-site review from October 24-28, 2016. This review was a result “of a number of phone calls from parents expressing complaints and concerns with the District.”

Subsequent to this meeting, I was contacted by several constituents asking for my position to the administration’s interpretation/presentation of the CIR report. Considering the board had not been provided a copy of the administration’s presentation in advance or during the meeting, it precluded the opportunity to examine their presentation in detail. After reviewing a later provided copy of the presentation, a number of concerns and issues evolved. As I was limited during the board meeting in expressing those concerns, I was encouraged to use this format to report back to the people in the community who have an interest in this matter.

In the spirit of transparency:

My initial concern regarding the CIR was the manner it was brought to the Board’s attention. The administration received this report May 5, 2017. The Board was advised five weeks later during the June 13, 2017 meeting through Public Comment of this fact. Only after that pronouncement and my request for a copy of the CIR and that this matter be placed on the next agenda (June 27,2017), was this report acknowledged.

The information I have included in this response can be fact checked against the complete CIR report attached to the June 27, 2017 agenda found under “SCHOOL BOARD” at the TUSD website.

After the administration’s presentation, which was, essentially, a surgically crafted outline of the CIR report, I, euphemistically, characterized their response as being ”cherry picked.” I fully expected a complete balanced and fair report. But, when I later compared the CIR report against the administration’s presentation, it became evident of how many aspects of this CIR, such as critical details, were either omitted or minimized.

Some of those missing/minimized critical details are identified as:

“ANNUAL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REPORT

Every year, the CDE calculates performance indicator data and makes a COMPLIANCE determination for each district. These indicators are required by federal law and include COMPLIANCE and PERFORMANCE issues. THE DISTRICT DID NOT MEET THE STATEWIDE TARGETS FOR INDICATORS 1,3,5,6,7,11,and 12. Although targets for indicators 8 and 13 were met, they were added to the Monitoring Plan as a result of parent concerns.” (Details of each of these indicators can be found in the CIR attachment June 27, 2017 agenda)

“COMPLIANCE HISTORY

A REVIEW OF THE DISTRICT’S COMPLIANCE HISTORY FROM 2013-14 THROUGH 2015-16 RESULTED IN THE FOLLOWING NONCOMPLIANT FINDINGS:

* FAILURE to schedule the IEP (Individualized Educational Plan) meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place.

* FAILURE to adhere to the IEP team meeting notification requirements.

* FAILURE to ensure that the IEP team reviews the child’s IEP periodically, but not less than annually.

* FAILURE of the IEP team to consider the strengths of the child; parent concerns; and the academic,developmental and functional needs of the child in developing the IEP.

* FAILURE to provide required written notice before refusing, initiating, or changing the identification, evaluation or educational placement (occupational therapy, home hospital).

THE ABOVE INFORMATION WAS CONSISTENT WITH THEMES DERIVED FROM PARENT INTERVIEWS”.

“COMPLIANCE HISTORY: OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

A review of complaints filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in 2015 and 2016 resulted in the following areas of NONCOMPLIANCE:

* FAILURE to use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional and developmental,and academic information about the child to assist in determining eligibility.

* FAILURE to assess in all areas related to the suspected disability.

* FAILURE to develop, review and revise the IEP in a meeting.

* FAILURE to ensure that the child’s placement is based on the child’s IEP.

* FAILURE to provide appropriate behavioral supports.

* FAILURE to provide the student with a behavioral intervention plan.

* FAILURE to offer home/hospital instructional services.

* FAILURE to ensure the parent’s right to present information at the IEP team meeting, in person or through a representative,and the right to participate in meetings.

* FAILURE to ensure an IEP is in effect for the student at the beginning of the year.”

“AREAS OF INVESTIGATION: PARENT CONCERNS”

There are fourteen areas of “Parent Concerns” detailed in the 6/27/2017 agenda attachment. These 14 areas were included in the CIR as “Areas of Investigation.” These areas of “Parent Concerns” reflect compliance/noncompliance determinations. (Included in 6/27/2017 CIR agenda attachment).

“COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW ACTIVITIES

The CDE tested 138 compliance items for 40 sets of records.”

“AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

There were a total of 348 noncompliant student level findings recorded over the course of the CIR in the 40 sets of records.(The discussion of these items can be found in the 6/27/2017 CIR agenda attachment.)

I share Trustee Markam’s stated concern regarding the likelihood of other noncompliance findings in the 450+ IEP’S that weren’t reviewed by the CDE team.

“EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT REVIEW

During the Educational Benefit Review, five student files were reviewed in order to determine if the IEP’s were reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit to each student....In four of the five IEP’s, or 80 percent, item 4-1-5, which asks if the District has assisted the student to achieve the goals listed in the IEP, was found OUT OF COMPLIANCE.

THIS FINDING IS CONSISTENT WITH PARENT CONCERNS REGARDING A PERCEIVED LACK OF SUPPORT FOR STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS.”

“INDIVIDUAL EDUCATION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

During the IEP implementation review, 18 student files were selected to review for the provision of services as specified in the IEP. Eleven files (61.1 percent) were found OUT OF COMPLIANCE for NOT DELIVERING SERVICES STATED IN THE IEP.

THESE FINDINGS ARE CONSISTENT WITH PARENT CONCERNS REGARDING SERVICES AND MODIFICATIONS NOT BEING PROVIDED AS WRITTEN IN THE IEP.”

“DISTRICT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

The CDE reviewed 40 items related to District policies and procedures, of which 25 were found to be OUT OF COMPLIANCE.”

“SUMMARY

While the District has attempted to put systems in place to ensure that students are receiving appropriate services in a timely manner and in the least restrictive environment, MANY OF THE PARENTS CONCERNS WERE CONFIRMED BY THE LACK OF DOCUMENTATION AND DISTRICT PRACTICES FOUND BY THE TEAM.” (Complete summary including required improvements can be read in CIR 6/27/17 agenda attachment.)

The above issues speak for themselves and need no commentary.

The most disheartening aspect of the administration’s presentation of the CIR report, was the lack of any outreach to our SPED families impacted by this investigation.

During the 2 1/2 years I have served on this Board I have listened to our special education families petition us for assistance and help regarding their SPED concerns that were not addressed by the administration. Many of these same concerns have been repeatedly affirmed and validated in the CIR report.

It is most unfortunate that the CDE was required to help our SPED families and not our own District.

Unacceptable. We need to take care of our own.

The Board has oversight and is responsible for tolerating the lack of attention that all of our special education families deserve.

Changes are needed.

It takes more than a lone voice in the wilderness to make a difference.

THE BUCK STOPS WITH US.

Joe Wallek, Trustee,

Retired Special Education Teacher,

Tehachapi Unified School District

Any questions, concerns, or comments regarding this column can be sent to

[email protected], include “Attention Joe Wallek” in the subject area.