Sue!Gamm,!Esq.! Independent!Investigator!! for!theDarien ......and!the!growing!costs!ofproviding!special!education!to!students!with!disabilities.According!to!a!Board! of! Finance!

Darien Board of Education EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Special Education Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Procedures & Practices Relevant to the Administration & Operation of Instruction, Services,

& Support for Students with Disabilities

in the Darien Public Schools

For the 2012-‐13 School Year

Sue Gamm, Esq. Independent Investigator

for the Darien Board of Education

November 12, 2013, Revised December 16, 2013


Page i

Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Reflections ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 8 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Parent Meetings, Focus Groups & Interviews .......................................................................................... 9 Documents ............................................................................................................................................. 10 Parent & Staff Surveys ........................................................................................................................... 11 Data ....................................................................................................................................................... 13

Organization of the Executive Summary ............................................................................................. 13

I. CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS ..................................................................................... 15

II. OVERALL FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... 21 Legal Basis for Findings ...................................................................................................................... 21 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act & Americans with Disabilities Act ............................................. 21

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) .................................................................................. 22 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................................. 25 Table of Findings .................................................................................................................................... 26

1. Unlawful Systemic Procedures/Practices: Identification, Eligibility, Services/Supports ................... 26 Context for Systemic Changes in Procedure & Practice ......................................................................... 27 Scientific Research Based Intervention (“SRBI”) ..................................................................................... 28 Section 504 Standard Operating Procedures Manual ............................................................................ 32 Final & Comprehensive Special Education Standard Operating Procedures Manual (SOPM) ............... 33 Specially Designed Instruction ............................................................................................................... 33 Present Levels of Academic Achievement & Functional Performance ................................................... 34 Academic versus Nonacademic and Social/Emotional Goals ................................................................. 35 Other Health Impaired – Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (OHI-‐ADHD) .................................... 35 Developmental Delay (DD) ..................................................................................................................... 36 Adaptive Physical Education (“APE”) ..................................................................................................... 37 Extended School Year (“ESY”) ................................................................................................................ 37 Independent Educational Evaluations (“IEE”) and Outside Evaluations ................................................ 38 Individualized Services ........................................................................................................................... 39 Speech/Language Services ..................................................................................................................... 39

2. Lack of Meaningful Parental Involvement ...................................................................................... 42 Unified Front & Pre-‐PPT Discussions ...................................................................................................... 42 Prescriptive Directives ............................................................................................................................ 44 Time Frame for Providing IEPs to Parents Subsequent to the PPT Meeting ........................................... 46 Communication with Parents ................................................................................................................. 46 Therapeutic Learning Center (“TLC”) ..................................................................................................... 46 Parent Access To and Release of Information ........................................................................................ 47

3. Unlawful Predeterminations .......................................................................................................... 48 Amount of Time for Support to Personnel ............................................................................................. 48 Paraprofessional Support ....................................................................................................................... 51 Changes in Roles of Special Education/Related Services Personnel ....................................................... 52 Individualized Services ........................................................................................................................... 57


Page ii

Outside Consultant Contracts ................................................................................................................ 57 4. IEP Changes Outside PPT/Amendment Process .............................................................................. 60

Constructive Changes ............................................................................................................................. 62 Actual Changes ...................................................................................................................................... 63 SEDAC Upload & State Audit .................................................................................................................. 63 Notice to Parents ................................................................................................................................... 64 Types of Changes Made to Finalized IEP ................................................................................................ 65 Sufficiency of Edit Checks Available on IEP System ................................................................................ 66 IEP System Audit .................................................................................................................................... 67 SUMMARY: Actual IEP Changes ............................................................................................................. 68

5. Data Reporting ............................................................................................................................... 69 SEDAC Reporting .................................................................................................................................... 69 Documentation of Excess Costs ............................................................................................................. 69

III. RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 72

Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 80 Appendix A. Documents ..................................................................................................................... 80 Appendix B. Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 83 Appendix C. Issues by Documents & State Findings/Recommendations ............................................. 84

Darien Board of Education

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Special Education Report

Page 1

Introduction

In late July 2013, the Darien Board of Education (“Board” or “BOE”) executed a contract with me for the independent review and investigation of allegations that individuals employed by the Darien Public Schools (“Darien” or “DPS” or “District”) violated laws relevant to the education of students with disabilities during the 2012-‐13 school year. The allegations included the following:

1. Unlawful predeterminations regarding individual student programs.

2. Unlawful development and/or implementation of systemic procedures or practices designed to deprive students of identification or eligibility for special education services and/or educational services or supports.

3. Unlawful development and/or implementation of systematic procedures or practices designed to deprive parents of meaningful participation in the development of Individualized Education Programs (“IEPs”);

4. Unlawful changes to the IEPs of students outside of the Planning and Placement (“PPT”)/IEP Team and/or without the signed amendment permitting such changes outside the PPT/IEP Team;

5. Improper or unlawful activity regarding data reported to the Connecticut State Department of Education (“CSDE”) and/or the United Stated Department of Education; and

6. Any other issue determined by the Investigator and the Board.1

These allegations are to be considered under both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504”). I was also charged with providing the Board with recommendations, if appropriate, to ensure that policies, practices, and procedures are implemented in conformance with applicable federal and state requirements.

My Background Prior to my involvement with Darien, my only awareness of the Town and the special education controversy was based on glances of newspaper articles that were among the many “Google Search” alerts I receive daily on the topic of special education. My engagement was facilitated through a colleague who was aware of my background, and forwarded my contact information to Board representatives.

Over the 40+ years of my career, I was a special educator, and served as an attorney and division director for the Office for Civil Rights (U.S. Department of Education), and administrator and chief specialized services officer for the Chicago Public Schools. During the last decade, I used this unique experience to consult with more than 50 school districts and state educational agencies in more than 25 states, and to:

• Provide regular consultative services to the Council of the Great City Schools, the Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative, and the Public Consulting Group.

• Draft standard operating procedure manuals for the use of a multitiered system of supports (i.e., SRBI) and for procedures/practices relevant to students with disabilities;

1 For the purposes of my report, all findings are addressed within the first five specified above.



Page 2

• Provide recommendations for improving instruction and support for students with disabilities by studying districtwide policies, procedures, and practices;

• Testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension (HELP) Committee’s panel on the potential impact of the then-‐proposed Americans with Disabilities Act amendment on school districts;

• Provide training at national, state, and local special education conferences; and

• Author/co-‐author periodicals and publications, including: Common Core State Standards and Diverse Urban Students; Using Multi-‐Tiered Systems of Support (Council of the Great City Schools), and When OCR Comes Calling: An Insider’s Guide to Handling Disability Complaint Investigations and Compliance Reviews (LRP Publications, 2005).

I have drawn on this background as I assessed the voluminous and complex set of interrelated qualitative and quantitative data relevant to my investigation in Darien. This data is described more fully below. I have sought to provide findings that are fair, comprehensive, and based on a careful assessment of this information, and recommendations that are responsive to these findings and appropriate for Darien. I have cited individuals by name only when necessary to promote understanding and accountability. It is my sincere hope that this report will be useful to the Board, its school administration, and the Darien community to more fully understand the actions taken last school year within the context of applicable legal requirements, and to move forward.

Explanatory Comments Provided by Dr. Osypuk & Dr. Pandolfo In several letters and documents Dr. Osypuk provided feedback regarding various findings:

• April 3, 2013 draft letter to CSDE, which DPS did not send to the agency, provided an explanation for several documents DPS submitted to CSDE. (4/3/13 Draft Osypuk Letter to CSDE).

• June 24, 2013 letter to CSDE personnel who investigated the complaint, which according to Dr. Osypuk was to provide an explanation of the context and actual practice that informed the development of the submitted documents. (6/24/23 Osypuk Letter to CSDE).

• August 2, 2013 responding to Dr. Falcone’s July 26, 2013 request for a response to the CSDE report. (August 2, 2013 Osypuk Letter to Falcone).

• October 16, 2013 letter responding to Dr. Falcone’s request for a response to CSDE’s second report of September 25, 2013. (October 16, 2013 Osypuk Letter to Falcone).

• October 17, 2013 letter to me providing a response to the CSDE findings and to several posed questions. (October 17, 2013 Osypuk Letter to Gamm).

• November 12, 2013 response to me providing a response to my executive summary. (November 12, Osypuk Letter to Gamm).

• November 25, 2013 response to me regarding my draft report. (November 25, 2013 Osypuk Comments or Feedback to Gamm)

• November 25, 2013 letter to me regarding my draft report (November 25, 2013 Letter to Gamm).

• December 8, 2013 response to me regarding my draft report (December 8, 2013 Osypuk Comments or Feedback to Gamm).



Page 3

• December 10, 2013 response to me regarding my draft report (December 10, 2013 Comments or Feedback to Gamm).

In addition, Dr. Pandolfo provided me with feedback on the executive summary (November 11 and November 14, 2013) and on sections of the draft report that referenced her name (November 26, 2013.)

This Report refers to these letters and explanations in the discussion of relevant findings below and in the latest executive summary. None of the references impacted the overall findings of the Executive Summary or Report.

Background

As I learned, the small town of Darien, Connecticut is located in Lower Fairfield County, which is also known as the state’s “Gold Coast.” With a population of about 20,000 people, Darien has the highest proportion of children under the age of 18 years in the state. In August 2011, CNN Money’s List reported the community as being the ninth of “top-‐earing town” in the country, based on a median family income of $227,195, and median home price of $1,253,800.”2 Darien has four small parks, two public beaches on Long Island Sound, four country clubs, a hunt club, and two yacht clubs. The Darien Public Schools has a student population that is academically and athletically successful. Three of the system’s seven schools have received recognition: the high school was listed as being first in the state by US News & World Reports; and Hindley Elementary School and Middlesex Middle School have been recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as Blue Ribbon schools.

Darien, as in all other cities and towns across America, has been impacted by the economic recession and the growing costs of providing special education to students with disabilities. According to a Board of Finance member, financial concerns were first raised in 2008-‐09 when the local budgets were stressed. These concerns intensified over the next three years. During the 2010-‐11 school year, the first year that Dr. Stephen Falcone was superintendent, the District ran a deficit and attention was drawn to a large budget increase for special education and small increase for general education.

The superintendent and his then current special education director took several steps the following school year to reduce the escalation of special education service cost. For example, they took actions such as coordinating with other districts on transportation, better managing the use of paraprofessionals, and employing a Board Certified Behavior Analyst and an Assistant Analyst instead of relying on more costly contractual personnel.

Badway Report To obtain an independent review of Darien’s management of special education services, the Board commissioned a study by Thomas G. Badway, a former employee of CSDE’s Bureau of Special Education. In addition to making various recommendations for strengthening the district’s administration and operation in the area of special education, the January 7, 2010 report reflected the following survey of relevant Darien personnel:

• 53% of 100 respondents reported that IEP services were at least frequently based upon a parent/advocate request rather than another PPT members’ recommendations; 45% felt this was a rare occurrence.

2 http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/moneymag/1108/gallery.best_places_top_earning_towns.moneymag/9.html.



Page 4

• 78% of 97 respondents indicated that parental interests were at least frequently the driving factor in making least restrictive environment (LRE) placement decisions; 14% reported they were always the driving factor.

• 51% of 57 respondents indicated that parents always have a right to an independent education evaluation (“IEE”) at district expense.

• 55% of 101 respondents reported that DPS provides more supplementary aids and services than is necessary to provide students with the opportunity for meaningful benefit.

Escalation of Costs With this background, in March 2012, a finance board member reinforced prior warnings that the upcoming special education budget (2012-‐13) and future special education budgets “are increasing at an unsustainable rate.” Various school board members also voiced concern that the District’s special education budget exceeded other districts in the DRG A (DPS’s demographic reference group) although the number of students with disabilities was comparable. Requests to the Board for special education funds in excess of the budgeted amount, for reasons such as to address the needs of a student newly enrolled in the district or to resolve a parent’s complaint, became more challenging after the economy changed.

Increasing Negative Perceptions of Special Education Administration & Parent Advocacy The combination of rising costs and the Badway report fed the perception by some community members that special education had become a “run away train;” the special education director was “giving away the farm;” parents were “milking the system;” DPS had a reputation for unlimited special education services; and that these circumstances were encouraging other parents of children with special needs to move to Darien. It should be noted that while this last perspective was issued as a negative comment, the incentive for (prospective) parents to choose to move to Darien for its high performing schools has not been viewed negatively.

In addition to the above, numerous persons I interviewed were highly critical of Darien’s special education management during this time, and perceived that parents too aggressively advocated for their children. The following examples were shared:

• A lack of consistent special education protocols and process.

• An overreliance on compromise when parents disagreed with service recommendations, and that PPT consensus was overruled in the process.

• Payment for contractual services that sometimes exceeded authorized amounts.

• Parents controlling services later included in IEPs, PPT meetings becoming one of form over substance, and parents dictating IEP wording to a secretary, directed by former special education administration, to enter the edits into the IEP system after the IEP had already been written by staff.

Change in Special Education Leadership & Direction for Change When the special education director gave notice of her intention to retire at the end of the 2011-‐12 school year, the stage was set for the hiring of a new director to change the “special education culture” of the district. This anticipation was reflected in the email of one finance board member who wrote that the superintendent “…has done a lot to change the mindset and manage [special education] better but the biggest changes have to await the new [special education] administrator.” Similarly, the



Page 5

superintendent had conversations with the Board regarding the provision of services in a more efficient and economical manner.

Because changes were implemented immediately at the start of the 2012-‐13 school year, parents of special education students expressed their belief that the Board, through the superintendent, charged the new special education director, Dr. Deirdre Osypuk, with the task of dramatically reducing special education costs.

In Dr. Osypuk’s June 24, 2013 letter to CSDE personnel involved in the investigation of the March 20, 2013 complaint, she referred to her understanding of the direction she had received from the BOE and superintendent, and wrote the following:

… the Board of Education [BOE] made it very clear to me that "things were out of control" and they wanted change and they wanted it immediately. The BOE asked if I had read the Badway (2010) independent study, which provided insight into some of the issues of the special education department. The Superintendent made it very clear to me that I was hired to put processes and procedures in place, which I did….3

During my interviews with Board members and the superintendent, none acknowledged using such language to inform Dr. Osypuk of their expectations regarding her administration and operation of special education. The Board president, in particular, emphatically stated that the school system was “never under direction to cut services.” During an interview with me on October 18, 2013, Dr. Osypuk explained that she was expected to tighten up procedures, promote greater consistency across schools, and establish effective management practices. These expectations are common in school districts across the country, and were ones that I operated under during my eight years as the specialized services chief officer for the Chicago Public Schools.

Various finance and education board members strongly denied that their primary goal was to reduce costs. Finance Board members expressed that they were more concerned with effective management, including the IEP process, and one emailed that he wanted the school district to use better metrics and measures of performance. During separate interviews, BOE members stressed that they never communicated to the superintendent that services should be denied. They acknowledged an awareness of voices in the community that were upset about the high costs of special education but that concern did not drive Board action. It should be noted that unless one is very clear with the message, concerns of high special education costs and expectations for mitigation of increases in special education could reasonably be interpreted as a mandate to reduce services to reach that end. Given that most special education costs are related to personnel, the challenge is to manage special education effectively and efficiently, in a manner that respects the integrity and mandates of federal and state requirements, and is cost effective.

In her November 25, 2013 letter to me, Dr. Osypuk wrote that many of the problems noted (or not noted) in this report began prior to her tenure in Darien, and that she had tried to remedy areas the district perceived as problematic. She further stated:

Some we were able to fix, others still need more work. Some of these historical problems include:

3 Page 2. Dr. Osypuk included similar language in her October 17, 2013 letter to me.



Page 6

• IEP Direct programming issues. • Failure to notify parents of changes made to IEPs for purposes of Special Education Data

Application and Collection (“SEDAC”) reporting. • Insufficient documentation to support Excess Cost reimbursement. • “As needed” or “up to” in IEPs. • Structured process for determining eligibility for OHI-‐ADHD. • Being late with providing parents IEPs within 5 school days of the PPT meeting. • Inaccurate SEDAC reporting. • Noncompliance with transition programming. • Noncompliance with Evaluation Timeline Data reporting. • Lack of a Standard Operating Procedure Manual (“SOPM”) for IDEA and Section 504.

Current Contentious Environment In the wake of CSDE’s two sets of findings regarding Darien’s special education procedures and IEP practices during the 2012-‐13 school year, and the ongoing coverage by Darien media and posted comments from readers, there continues to be a contentious environment in the town.

There are those who have communicated their belief that students receiving special education services are draining money away from regular education. In a posted response to a Darien Time’s July 29, 2013 story, a Finance Board Member explained that the Board’s concern “. . . was that unexpected spending on Special Ed was crowding out spending on Regular Ed.” A particularly pejorative statement was posted on September 26, 2013, the day after CSDE issued its second report, which stated:

“… I do have questions about the integrity of people who pick out and demand an exclusive private school for their children, then contrive to squeeze the Darien taxpayers for all associated expenses including tuition, fees, materials, special resources, livery transportation, tutoring and more. … Much of that interpretation [of Federal law] comes from an organization in Massachusetts which specializes in this kind of money-‐grubbing to redistribute local tax money from I do have questions about the integrity to a small group seeking a free ride in the first-‐class cabin. Legal is one thing. Moral is something else.” (Emphasis added.)

Also, there continues to be a segment of the community that minimizes the import of the state findings, and consider them to be technical rather than substantive.

Darien personnel seem to comprise two groups with widely divergent views. In one group there are active supporters of Dr. Osypuk’s directives. They welcomed them as being necessary to change a culture that enabled unreasonable and unnecessary parental demands to flourish. The second group includes personnel that have been critical of and uncomfortable with the directives, and have taken cautious steps to ignore or work around them. Some have sought out a union representative to express concerns about being caught between following the directives and “doing the right thing.”

There are also two groups of parents. Based on parent survey results, a strong majority of them had positive responses to every survey question. A smaller group of parents have taken aggressive steps to expose Dr. Osypuk’s procedural and practice changes beginning in July 2012. They have asserted that these actions reflect impermissible restrictions of federal/state requirements for the administration and operation of special education, and that insensitive actions taken by some school administrators have



Page 7

made the past year extremely difficult for parents, families, and their children. Some feel betrayed by a Board of Education and a superintendent that did not act soon enough to stem the restrictive practices, and feel vindicated by the same state findings that others have marginalized.

Reflections

As I reflect on my findings, and four months of intensive involvement with the Darien community and documentation about occurrences over the past year, I offer the following reflections about what happened, what could have happened, and what could happen in the future.

As mentioned above, what is not different about Darien is the significant concerns raised about the “unsustainable growth” of special education costs. Especially with the ongoing impact of the nation’s sequestration of funding, which includes IDEA funding, and the threat of future funding cuts if our government does not resolve the matter, it is the unique school district that has fiscal agents who are not raising an alarm, and expecting special education directors to do “more with less.”

I have no doubt that Dr. Osypuk was directed to address the high costs of special education in Darien, and that she had her own perceptions (following her initial review of services and IEPs) that the level of services to students exceeded any in her experience. Given that most special education costs are related to personnel, the challenge to special education directors is to manage effectively and efficiently, and in a manner that respects the integrity and mandates of IDEA/state processes. There is ample information to show that Dr. Osypuk had the expressed support and positive reinforcement of her superiors throughout the school year for the actions she had designed and implemented.

When done properly, the process would have begun with the development of a standard operating procedure manual (SOPM) to document the lawful parameters for PPT decision-‐making, and other areas discussed in this Report. DPS and non-‐DPS experts and stakeholders would have contributed to a draft SOPM, and its contents would have been based on applicable federal and state guidance, and applicable research and literature. In addition, the process would include consideration of progress monitoring expectations; how student growth data is collected and shared with parents; and how personnel would problem-‐solve instruction for students not showing improvement. Furthermore, the process would have included consideration of on-‐going and accessible data reports necessary to measure whether students are learning; whether instruction/services are effective; and whether costs are commensurate with expectations and student academic and social/emotional outcomes. With legal review, and feedback from parent attorneys as well, the foundation would have been set for staff and parent training, and for a universal understanding of clear and comprehensive parameters for PPT decision-‐making and expected practices. In addition, there would have been a foundation for the meaningful involvement of parents and consensus building during PPT meetings.

One of the most perplexing circumstances of my review was the failure of either of Dr. Osypuk’s supervisors (Dr. Falcone and Dr. Pandolfo who shared supervision responsibilities of the director) to ask about and/or ensure that BOE counsel was actively involved in the review of the multitude of directives and changes that were occurring at the beginning of the school year and continuing through February. The failure of the superintendent to ensure the involvement of BOE counsel was especially questionable when the newly resigned and respected SLP coordinator, in a letter dated September 7, 2012, wrote about her concerns to the superintendent. Many of the procedures and practices referenced in the letter continued throughout the school year, and were the basis of some of the CSDE findings and my



Page 8

findings below. This letter was written with great risk that it would become public, as it has, and resulted in a recognition that was not requested, and with a great loss of privacy.

While I do not expect Dr. Falcone or any other superintendent to be able to sift through the many concerns expressed in the long detailed letter and on his own determine which had merit, he offered no reasonable explanation for not forwarding it to BOE counsel to investigate, make findings, and give any recommendations for action. The area of special education, which is unlike any other area of education, is based on a complex set of federal and state laws and regulations, guidance, and judicial and hearing officer opinions. It is not an area of expertise that one would expect district superintendents to possess. In a time of changing procedures and practices, the lack of BOE counsel was perhaps the canary in the coal mine. I believe that the 2012-‐13 school year may have proceeded differently if there had been legal guidance and a process was followed similar to the one described above. This perception was validated by the many DPS individuals with whom I spoke, including upper level district and school administrators, who all indicated that the major lesson learned from the prior school year is that there were too many changes too fast. As a result, as my full Report documents, the multitude of procedural and practice changes negatively impacted students and their services; parents experienced needless frustration and anxiety as they sought to address the changes; and staff members were caught between complying with their superiors’ expectations and following what they believed to be federal and state requirements.

The hard learned lessons from the 2012-‐13 school year, however, may enable the Town of Darien to pull together and set forth on a course of excellence for all of its students. Many steps have been taken. Dr. Dr. Lynne Pierson, the new Interim Superintendent, has over 35 years of experience in the field of education as a teacher and school leader (including special education) at all levels and in various types of school systems, including Connecticut. John Verre, the new Special Education Ombudsman, comes with a Connecticut background and a long history of special education instruction and administration. In addition, the involvement of Dr. Theresa DeFrancis to re-‐train staff and the initiation of various administrative procedures (e.g., retired hearing officer Mary H.B. Gelfman and facilitated PPT meetings) to address parent concerns are good actions going forward. I hope that with these findings and the recommendations I have offered, there is a will to put into place measures that not only provide a uniform understanding of special education related efficient and effective processes and practices, to focus attention back to teaching and learning, and to work to improve outcomes for all of Darien’s students.

Acknowledgements

There are many individuals who provided me with a substantial amount of assistance during the course of my investigation over the past few months. This investigation involved the coordination of many interview and focus group sessions, parent meetings, web-‐site postings, and information gathering. First, I commend Betsy Hagerty-‐Ross, Board Chairperson, and her fellow Board members for their decision to initiate this investigation. My role was truly independent, and I was provided with the resources necessary to execute my charge. It was obvious to me that this initiative was based in the single goal of the Board to have a comprehensive understanding of the procedures and practices in place during the 2012-‐13 school year relevant to the identification and education of students with disabilities, and relevant to compliance with applicable legal requirements. In this endeavor, the Board’s attorney, Andy Bellach, was an able facilitator and always accessible to answer questions and provide necessary information. For example, through her efforts, the IEP system audit was undertaken. Nadine Vasil, the superintendent’s assistant, was instrumental in making sure that individuals and focus groups



Page 9

were well scheduled and everyone had timely notice of their sessions; that my many requests for information during the course of the investigation were facilitated; and that parent and staff surveys were posted and accessible. I also thank the special education secretaries who responded to the bulk of my data requests.

I must express a heartfelt thanks to the many Darien staff persons and parents whom I have met over the last three months. Although there has been a high degree of tension and anxiety with respect to the issues I have been reviewing, all individuals have been helpful and generally forthright in responding to my many questions and requests for information. In particular, Katrina O’Connor and Courtney Darby (representing SEAC), along with Kit Savage and Molly Van Wagenen (representing SPEDucation), and attorney Andy Feinstein were steadfast in their communication of issues that they believed merited attention. Likewise, there were many Darien individuals (including the superintendent and assistant superintendent, finance directors, principals/assistant principals, special education administrators, and others) and persons outside of the district (including Board of Finance representatives, advocates, former employees, etc.) who shared their personal experiences and insights. The 216 interview/focus group participants and 541 survey respondents gave me the information necessary to investigate the specified allegations, and left me with the task of sifting through and analyzing complex and intersecting quantitative and qualitative data to prepare this Report. I also acknowledge the cooperation of Dr. Osypuk, who went out of her way to meet with me for several hours and always responded to my questions quickly and completely.

Methodology

The findings in this report are based on the following sources: documents provided by DPS and other sources; electronic student data provided by DPS staff and by the district’s IEP system vendor; group and individual interviews; email documents; parent and staff surveys; and legal sources, including federal and state relevant requirements, and guidance documents. DPS, parent, and other sources used for this report are documented separately to protect their privacy. DPS position titles are referenced when necessary to understand the source of procedures and other directives.

Parent Meetings, Focus Groups & Interviews

Through a combination of parent meetings, focus groups, and individual interviews, a broad community of about 215 individuals provided information relevant to this investigation.

Focus Groups Through focus groups with individuals selected through a random process, 4 53 persons were interviewed who represented the following areas: special education teachers (separate groups for elementary, middle, and high school); general education teachers; nurses; psychologists; speech/language pathologists; social workers; and SRBI specialists.

Small Groups Twenty-‐three people were interviewed in small groups: principals and assistant principals (each at the elementary, middle, and high school levels); parents who filed the CSDE complaint and parent leaders of the Special Education Advisory Committee; and three special education administrators.

4 www.random.org/lists.



Page 10

Parent Meetings Two parent meetings were held. The first was held in the morning of my September visit; and the second was held in the evening of my October visit. A total of about 85 parents provided information during these meetings in response to questions posed during a structured conversation.

Individual Interviews Individual interviews were conducted with DPS and non-‐DPS people.

• DPS Roles. Darien employees or contractual staff in the following areas were interviewed: all BOE members; superintendent; assistant superintendent for elementary schools; former and current finance directors; special education administrators; psychologists; speech/language pathologists; special educators; principals; assistant principals; BOE counsel; former contractual coordinator of occupational therapy; several Board of Finance members; and the contractual attorney developing and conducting professional development. In some cases, persons were interviewed individually to follow up on email references or relevant comments mentioned in other contexts. In addition, I met with Dr. Osypuk for several hours.

• Non-‐DPS Roles. Ten individuals were interviewed from the following groups: former DPS employees; parent advocates; and representatives of CSDE and of the CT Parent Advocacy Center.

Documents

The investigation included a review of relevant documents produced inside and outside of DPS. It also included a review of email correspondence involving DPS personnel; correspondence involving non-‐DPS personnel; and related documents from multiple sources including DPS and related documents, emails, and electronic student data. Appendix A contains documents that were used in this report.

DPS & Related Documents More than 65 documents provided by DPS and collected during the investigation were reviewed, including documents cited by CSDE in its July 18, 2013 report, documents reviewed by CSDE but not cited specifically, and various additional documents identified during the course of the investigation.

Emails & Mail Two types of email correspondence were reviewed: DPS correspondence was reviewed through a structured email search, and parents emailed me directly based on the public communication of my email address. In addition, some parents mailed information to my home.

• Structured Email Search. A stack of about 1,200 pages of email chains was reviewed based on searches conducted by DPS and BOE counsel. The searches pertained to emails forwarded to CSDE in response to a document demand,; and those sent by and received from key DPS current and former staff, administrators, and teachers. The process included obtaining, uploading and reviewing the email folders of certain key staff identified by a variety of individuals interviewed, including complainants. The review centered on searching for email communications relevant to the areas of investigation, including but not limited to, systemic practices and procedures that interfered with the PPT/Section 504 process, meaningful parental participation, the requirement for individualized determinations of student programming, and improper data reporting.

• Parents. More than 20 parents sent emails to me directly concerning issues that involved their children, and 9 parents mailed to me additional information. In response to some I initiated email



Page 11

correspondence and/or telephone conversations to have a better understanding of the information. In some cases and with parent consent, BOE counsel followed up as needed.

Parent & Staff Surveys

Overall, 540 responses were provided through one of two surveys, one for staff and one for parents. These surveys were developed to receive as much feedback as possible from the two groups of individuals about their 2012-‐13 school year DPS experiences in the following areas: Scientific Research-‐Based Instruction(“SRBI”) for the identification of students with disabilities, Section 504, and special education. The survey was housed on an independent server site and not accessible to DPS personnel. The survey was designed to be anonymous, but individuals could choose to provide their names and contact information. To further alleviate some concerns of privacy, notice was provided that individuals could download and print the survey and mail a completed copy to my home address; four individuals used this method to submit their surveys. When data from the survey is used in this report, respondents who reported a “do not know” were not included in the results. The narrative reporting the survey responses references that the data reflects respondents “with an opinion.”

Staff A total of 220 DPS general and special education teachers, and related services personnel (including counselors) responded to the survey. At the end of each section, survey respondents were provided the opportunity to describe succinctly other issues not addressed in the survey. Of the 203 staff persons who responded that they taught/supported students at one grade level, the proportion of representation was: 3% preschool; 42% elementary; 22% middle school; and 33% high school.

Percent of Staff Respondents by School Level

Of the 203 persons who provided relevant information, 188 reported having one of the following positions: general or special educator, psychologist, social worker, nurse, speech/language pathologist, occupational therapist (OT), physical therapist (PT), or related services in general.

• Of the 188 specific respondents, 64% were general educators, 21% were special educators, and 15% related services providers.

• When considering the number of DPS personnel in each of these areas, 33% of all general educators responded; 63% of all special educators responded; and 51% of all related services providers responded. These individuals represented an overall staff participation rate of 39%.

• In addition, 2 counselors responded and 10 did not report a specific position.

3%

42%

22%

33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Pre-‐School (age 3-‐5) Elementary School Middle School High School



Page 12

Percent Each Personnel Area Represents: Total Respondents; and Total DPS Personnel in Each Area

Parents A total of 321 responses from parents were received through the survey. Some parents may have responded for more than one child if the parent’s experiences or the circumstances were different for each child. Of the 316 parents who provided relevant information, 6% represented pre-‐school aged children, 49% represented children at an elementary school, 17% at the middle school, and 23% at the high school. The remaining 5% had children who were placed at a private school by DPS, \ because of a settlement agreement with DPS, or by the parent without any DPS involvement.

Percent of Parents Representing Children by Grade Level or Private School

Of the 232 parents that reported their child was receiving instruction/support pursuant to one of the following areas, 6% identified SRBI; 15% identified 504; 70% identified special education; and 9% reported that a child was in the evaluation process during the 2012-‐13 school year.

Percent of Parents by Type of Instruction/Support Received by Children

64%

21% 15%

33%

63%

51%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

General Educator Special Educator Related Service Provider

Percent of Respondents Percent of Each Personnel Area

6%

49%

17% 23%

5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Pre-‐school (age 3-‐5) Elementary School Middle School High School Private School

6% 15%

70%

9% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

SRBI 504 Special Educaqon In Evaluaqon Process



Page 13

Data

Two types of data were used to gain a better understanding of various aspects of the investigation: student data and Darien’s IEP system data to reflect any changes made after IEPs were finalized.

Student Data Student data was used to provide information relevant to student demographics, the types of services reflected on individualized education programs (IEPs) for students, etc. (See Appendix B for a full list of data requested.) Data determined to be relevant to specific issues are displayed in charts throughout this report.

IEP System Data Data from Darien’s IEP system was accessed to produce two reports.

• Late Finalized IEPs. The first was used as the basis for determining the number of IEPs that were finalized more than five school days from the date of the PPT meeting to develop the IEP. Although the state requirement is that parents receive the IEP within this time frame, the IEP system does not have an on-‐demand or other routine report with data showing this information. As requested, the IEP system vendor produced a customized report; however, it did not contain any summative data.

• Changes Subsequent to IEP Finalization. In its report of September 11, 2013, CSDE found that “[Bureau of Special Education] BSE staff confirmed that changes were made to IEPs after the documents were ‘finalized.’ While some changes appear to be allowable technical edits, other changes look to be substantive in nature.” Only DPS special education administrators have passwords that permit changes to be made after IEPs are finalized. During a telephone conversation, BSE staff shared that this finding was based on their review of a sample size of IEPs. To assess in a comprehensive manner the extent to which special education administrators made such changes and the specific type of changes that were made, DPS authorized the district’s electronic IEP vendor to develop a program that would compare for every student receiving special education services all IEP documents completed in 2012-‐13 to the previous school year’s 2011-‐12 document, and to identify any changes to the 2012-‐2013 documents made after finalization. The audit includes the same process of comparison and identification of changes relevant to multiple IEPs finalized for a student in 2012-‐13 to prior 2012-‐13 IEPs. This process was intended to ensure that all changes could be assessed to determine whether were substantive and the extent of any such changes. The results of this analysis are reported further below.

Organization of the Executive Summary

The Executive Summary has three sections:

I. Chronology of Major Events

II. Overall Findings

III. Recommendations

The full report provides more detailed information (including case studies) that support each finding. For clarity, the following terms used throughout this report are defined:



Page 14

• Students who have been found eligible to receive special education/related services under IDEA are referred to as “students receiving special education services” or “students with IEPs.”

• Students receiving services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act only are referred to as “students with disabilities.”

• Students receiving special education/related services under an IEP or under a Section 504 plan are referred to as “students with special needs.”

Most of the issues cited by CSDE were written in one of the of the following four documents:

• July 25, 2012, Special Education Administrator Meeting PowerPoint: used by Dr. Osypuk to organize discussion at a special education administrators’ meeting. (July Administrator Meeting).

• August 15-‐16, 2012, A Basic Understanding of IDEA PowerPoint training for all DPS administrators. (August IDEA Training).

• Late August 2012, Department of Special Education and Student Services PowerPoint trainings for special educators and related services personnel at three sessions for: elementary schools; middle/high schools; and the Early Learning Program. (August Training).

• Oct. 17, 2012, Building Consistency of Special Education Practices District Wide document was presented at the middle school and high school on October 18 and 19, 2012, emailed to elementary school and ELP staff on November 6, 2012, and presented through subsequent trainings to them between November 5, 2012, and December 20, 2012.5 (October Building Consistency).

5 The training for elementary schools and ELP was delayed due to Hurricane Sandy.



Page 15

I. CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS

To help understand the overall context of this report, the following is a chronology of major events.

June 14, 2012 Email from the then-‐current special education director to the superintendent regarding the upcoming request by the assistant superintendent (elementary) to the Board of Education (BOE) for approval to hire more special education teachers and reduce 10 aides for the 2012-‐13 school year. In her email, the special education director expresses concern that the assistant superintendent initiated the change without the director’s input and planning to address concerns regarding the reduction’s impact on support for students with very intensive needs at certain times during the school day.

July 1, 2012 New special education director’s first day of work.

July 13, 2012 Special education director emails finance director regarding outside occupational therapy (OT) agency and expresses a hope to “start scaling” this and other contracts down.

July 13, 2012 Special education director emails her superiors about the need for more professional development time to stop the “floodgates” of agreeing to IEP services she perceives are beyond the scope of the district’s responsibility.

July 25, 2012 Special Education Administrator Meeting PowerPoint used by the special education director to organize the presentation and discussion of processes with her three special education directors. The document includes immediate stop-‐gap measures with a directive to refrain from writing specific services/supports in IEPs, and a requirement for discussion with the director prior to recommending specific services. (2 CSDE citations that related to 8 different requirements.)

July-‐Sept. 2012 Emails reflect initial discussions regarding planning to transition students to home schools from the Therapeutic Learning Center (“TLC”) and the use of the teacher evaluation process to assist with the transition of students from the TLC to home schools.

Aug. 7, 2012 Special education director directs speech/language pathologist (SLP) coordinator to finish her consultation services for parents who have the understanding that she will be providing the services, “until next PPT” then transfer all SLP service to the building SLP.

Aug. 13, 2012 Special education director emails to the “Team” that a teacher with specialized training in a multi-‐sensory reading program would have “consultation” removed from her caseload and no longer support this type of reading instruction because she is not a certified “Reading Specialist.” The teacher is reassigned to a position in a school even though she was specifically named on at least one IEP; because of her reassignment, the teacher could not provide the IEP services to the student. This decision was made outside of the PPT meeting process, without proper notice to the



Page 16

parents, and without a description of the reason(s) for the decision to discontinue the teacher’s services.

Aug. 15-‐16, 2012 A Basic Understanding of IDEA PowerPoint presented by special education director to all DPS administrators. (2 CSDE Citations).

Aug. 27, 2012 DPS coordinator for speech/language pathologists resigns.

Late August 2012 Department of Special Education and Student Services PowerPoints presented to Early Learning Program (“ELP”), elementary, middle/high school principals, assistant

principals, special educators, and related services personnel. (11 CSDE citations and 1 recommendation). During the training sessions the two Autism/Inclusion Specialist first receive notice that their roles would be changing.

Early Sept. 2012 Special education director advises one of the Autism/Inclusion Specialists that her Student Learning Goal is to remove her service from IEPs and return to a special education teaching position by 2013-‐14. She is currently working as a DPS full-‐time substitute special education teacher.

Sept. 4, 2012 District Feeding and Swallowing Team disbands.

Sept. 7, 2012 Resigned SLP coordinator sends a detailed letter to the superintendent, which in addition to expressing numerous concerns, describes what she perceives to be a course of action taken by the special education director that was unethical and illegal, and decisions based on a “lack of understanding of speech-‐language pathology, communication disorders and the general nature of children with severe disabilities.”

Sept. 19, 2012 Special education director emails two administrators at a school and suggests that the movement of students to more inclusive educational settings could be tied to teacher evaluation professional goals. A fellow administrator cautions against this approach as it might be regarded as “non-‐individualized” for students with disabilities.

Sept. 24, 2012 Clarifying Questions for Persons Chairing [Planning and Placement Team] Meetings document presented at the Administrative Instructional Leadership Team meeting that addressed numerous issues relating to the PPT/IEP process. (1 CSDE citation addressing 2 areas, and 1 recommendation). The following day the document is sent to elementary principals and assistant principals.

Oct. 1, 2012 Student Learning Goal for the Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) performance evaluation contains evidence for demonstrating success that is linked to a 50% reduction of IEP-‐required staff support for 10 students. This aspect of the Student Learning Goal is the same for the Board Certified assistant Behavior Analyst (BCaBA). This email follows the Sept. 19th caution from a fellow administrator that this approach might be regarded as “non-‐individualized” for students with disabilities.



Page 17

Oct. 8, 2012 One Autism/Inclusion Specialist resigns.

Oct. 8/9, 2012 Special education director notifies staff that any future adaptive physical education (“APE”) evaluations must be discussed first with the relevant special education administrator and the athletic director; the directive is later reaffirmed in the Building Consistency document.

Oct. 14, 2012 Special education director engages in email discussions with the outside agency that provides occupational therapy (OT) to DPS. The agency’s representative is informed that the director has directed the OTs: 1) to move consultation to an “as needed” basis as IEPs come up for annual review; and 2) to not attend team meetings, except in rare circumstances. This move is expected to reduce the number of OTs from 7 to 6 full time equivalent (“FTE”) individuals.

Oct. 17, 2012 Building Consistency of Special Education Practices District Wide document addresses numerous issues regarding the management of PPTs, including the use of a United Front process to resolve school personnel differences prior to PPT team meetings. (CSDE determined that the document further restricts the PPT decision-‐making authority in five additional areas: extended school year (“ESY”), occupational therapy (“OT”), APE, assistive technology (“AT”), and roles of teachers of students who are hearing impaired (“THI”) and who are visually impaired (“TVI”)). The special education director emails the document to special education administrators for review. The document is presented at the middle school on October 18, 2012 and at the high school on October 19, 2012.

Oct. 17, 2012 Assistant superintendent for elementary emails her intent to observe a student who is receiving APE.

Oct. 18, 2012 Special education director, assistant director, and Ox Ridge principal and assistant principal present a vision regarding the Therapeutic Learning Center (“TLC”) in a meeting with parents. Some parents believe the vision reflects the district’s intent to disband the program, and other parents interpret it as an option for their children to attend their home schools.

Oct. 19, 2012 Email correspondence is sent between special education director and AT consultant about the AT consultant’s Student Learning Goals for performance evaluation. The director suggests that the coordinator’s evidence for demonstrating success be linked to the completion of all four strategies for achieving the goals by December 2012, and a pre-‐post measure of how many IEPs provide for AT consultation. This suggestion follows an October 17, 2012 email sent previously from Dr. Pandolfo to the coordinator indicating that over the next year the coordinator would begin shifting her current role to a more direct speech service to students, and serve as a substitute for absent speech language pathologists during the 2012-‐13 school year. Dr. Pandolfo also wrote that she and Dr. Osypuk would send out an email to administrators and staff outlining some parameters for AT including prior discussion with special education administrators for AT evaluations, that case managers should contact the AT coordinator for IEP consult services, and that time would not be scheduled regularly for the consultations.



Page 18

Oct. 23, 2012 Superintendent reaches out to the SPEDucated Parents group to attend their meeting along with other district personnel. A representative of the group notifies him that the meeting is open only to parents of children receiving special education services.

Fall, 2012 DPS receives about 20 parent requests for student records/documents.

Fall 2012 Director assigns the AT coordinator (DPS employee) to a 0.5 speech/language pathologist (SLP) position. At the time, the AT coordinator’s caseload is over “up to” 1000 hours for the current IEPs.

Nov.6, 2012 Building Consistency of Special Education Practices District Wide document, which was referred to above for Oct. 17, 2012, is emailed to elementary special educators and ELP staff, related services personnel, building principals, assistant principals, and the ELP and elementary special education administrators. Due to Hurricane Sandy, the November professional development meeting is cancelled and subsequent trainings are held at each elementary school between November 5th and December 20th. (6 CSDE citations).

Fall to Winter Parents begin to question the lack of discussion about ESY at PPTs held to develop new, or review current, IEPs. Parents report being told that decisions will not be made until data is collected and reviewed six to eight weeks after spring break.

11/14/12 Superintendent and other administrators meet with parents at the Ox Ridge Elementary School to explain that the TLC program was not being eliminated.

Late Fall Parents begin to hear about the “Building Consistency” document and SPEDucated Parents begin to meet to discuss concerns, e.g., staff not participating in PPTs, various IEP issues, nonreceipt of documents, etc. Dr. Falcone indicated that he did not think such a memorandum existed.

Jan. 4, 2013 SPEDucated Parents ask for a meeting to bring concerns about recent changes in directives of the special education administration to the BOE prior to press coverage.

Jan. 4, 2013 Board President asks parents for a list of issues that she will forward to the BOE and administration and, after review, determines their next steps.

Jan. 13, 2013 Freedom of Information (“FOIA”) Request made for any area of Darien's special education procedures and policies to the various employee populations (teachers, aides, related services, and outside consultants). The FOIA request references new policy emails and guidelines that have been disseminated by the special education department. The superintendent later acknowledges failure to provide materials responsive to FOIA request.

Feb. 26, 2013 Joint memoranda from assistant superintendent (elementary) and special education director to superintendent regarding the measurement and assessment of student and program progress. Data shared included a reduction (from 12% to 7%) in the percentage of students identified in Tiers 2 and 3 in the SRBI process (with no correlating data about growth in student achievement); and as of that date “only a



Page 19

couple of students” identified as LD using SRBI criteria. No evidence references student outcomes that reflect growth in academic and social/emotional outcomes.

Early March. SPEDucated Parents submit specific questions to the Board and ask for a response by March 11th.

March 20, 2013 Parents file a complaint with CSDE regarding the “systemic exclusion of parents from special education deliberations concerning their children.” Based on information from one parent, 25 parents signed the complaint at some point during the complaint process.

March 29, 2013 BOE public statement clarifies several matters, including its commitment to compliance with special education requirements, and assuring that children with disabilities receive appropriate special education services. The statement also reaffirms its “ongoing public responsibility to assure that all expeinditures, including those for special education, are appropritae and cost-‐effective. …. …[O]ver at least the last five years, Darien has spent an apprciably higher percentage of the school budget on special education services than comparable (DRG A) towns. That disparity has impelled the Superintendent and Adminsitration to review whether appropriate special education services are being provided in the most efficient manner.”

April 2, 2013 Superintendent emails to parents a 29-‐paragraph letter, which begins with a statement of disagreement that there have been systematic violations of parental rights under IDEA, and defends the district’s actions. In addition, the superintendent apologizes that the “Consistency Memo” had been inadvertently overlooked when providing FOIA documents to parents.

End of April, 2013 DPS provides CSDE with the agency’s request for training materials, Special Education Policy and Procedure Manual, and administration correspondence related to special education policies and procedures (July 1, 2012 to April 16, 2013). At the end of April, the BOE receives information about the questionable training materials.

April 25, 2013. Superintendent sends email to staff, reminding them of appropriate PPT decision-‐making processes, and to not rely on written statements to the contrary in materials presented in trainings provided after July 1, 2012. CSDE reviews and approves the statement to staff. In addition, CSDE instructs the superintendent to issue emails to staff and parents with notice that stakeholders may contact CSDE if stakeholders wish to share information with the agency.

April 29, 2013 Superintendent emails all Darien families, notifying them that DPS has hired a former CSDE educational consultant and attorney to review all 2012-‐13 training materials, and that staff should not rely on these materials.

June 10, 2013 CSDE’s investigation team of four education consultants conducts an onsite visit to Darien. The visit includes: interviews with the superintendent, special education director, three assistant directors, and building-‐based administrators; a review of IEP records; and a closed meeting with parents of children with disabilities.

June 10, 2013 CSDE meeting with parents, an attorney, and several advocates. Various board members attend; some learn about the various specific issues for the first time.



Page 20

Some BOE members express concern about prior administrative knowledge and a lack of communication with the Board. Thereafter, CSDE determines that its review will include allegations of changes to IEPs that were neither made at a PPT meeting nor with a valid amendment outside of a PPT meeting.

June 12, 2013 Special education director is placed on administrative leave.

July 18, 2013 CSDE issues its first report to DPS with findings of noncompliance.

July 30, 2013 BOE executes contract with Sue Gamm to investigate 2012-‐13 DPS procedures and practices and their compliance with relevant legal requirements, and to make recommendations.

Sept 25, 2013 CSDE issues its second report to DPS with additional findings of noncompliance.

Sept. 26, 2013 BOE announces details for an expedited complaint process involving Attorney Mary Gelfman that parents can access if they believe they are entitled to individual relief. Attorney Gelfman, DPS officials, Board counsel, parent attorney, and Mary Gelfman jointly develop the process.

Oct. 15, 2013 BOE appoints John Verre as Special Education Ombudsman for 12 months. His responsibilities include acting as a liaison between parent and staff regarding special education matters and making recommendations, as appropriate, to the BOE regarding educational matters.

October 22, 2013 Superintendent resigns and BOE accepts resignation effective October 22, 2013; assistant superintendent for secondary education named interim superintendent.



Page 21

II. OVERALL FINDINGS

This section describes my overall findings that are based on the detailed description of the relevant areas contained in the full report. To facilitate greater understanding of the five areas of findings, the wording has been modified to a small degree. Given the voluminous amount of detailed information reviewed, there may be small inaccuracies; however, the overall basis of each finding is substantial, comprehensive, and relies on a great many sources. The areas of findings are listed below.

1. Unlawful Systemic Procedures/Practices. Unlawful development/implementation of systemic procedures/ practices designed to deprive or having the effect of depriving students from identification/eligibility or individually designed appropriate services/supports;

2. Unlawful Deprivation of Meaningful Parent Participation. Unlawful development/implementation of systematic procedures/ practices designed to deprive parents of meaningful participation in the development of IEPs;

3. Unlawful Predetermination. Unlawful predeterminations regarding the design of IEPs to meet students’ individualized needs;

4. IEP Changes Outside PPT Meeting/Amendment. Unlawful changes to IEPs outside the PPT meeting process or without authorized amendments; and

5. Improper Data Reporting. Improper/unlawful activity regarding data reported to CSDE and/or the United Stated Department of Education.

Legal Basis for Findings

The findings described below are based on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504”) and its companion Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), the Regulation of Connecticut State Agencies (“RCSA”), and related guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education and Connecticut State Department of Education (“CSDE”).

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act & Americans with Disabilities Act

Section 504 and the ADA are additional federal laws that apply to students with disabilities. Unlike IDEA, Section 504 is not a funding statute. Rather, it is a civil rights act that applies to any recipient receiving Federal funds, such as the Darien Public Schools. Section 504 states:

No otherwise qualified individual with [disabilities] … shall, solely by reason of [disability], be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Definition of Disability The ADA and Section 504 are not like the IDEA, which defines disabilities in terms of categorical disability labels. The ADA, as recently amended, and Section 504 have the same criteria for determining



Page 22

disability and services. These two Acts cover persons who have, have a record of having, or are regarded as having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

While ADA/Section 504’s regulatory requirements are not as complex and comprehensive as are IDEA’s, they are similar in nature.6 For example, eligible students are entitled to a free appropriate public education; an evaluation process; an individualized written plan; parental notice and consent; impartial due process hearings, etc. However, while IDEA only covers students with disabilities that require special education services, Section 504/ADA is broader in scope in one major way. Students meeting the act criteria, including any who do not need special education services and require only accommodations or supplementary aids and services, are covered by the acts. For example, a student may have diabetes and not require any specific special education services but may need the periodic attention of a nurse. Such a student would not be covered under IDEA but would be under Section 504 and entitled to a Section 504 plan.

Requirements for Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) Section 504’s definition of FAPE, in pertinent part, is the provision of regular/special education and related aids and services that are designed to meet the individual educational needs of students with disabilities as adequately as the needs of students without disabilities are met. 7 There may be circumstances in which local norms are relevant to the decision-‐making process and they should not be excluded categorically in favor of state or national norms.

Unlawful Methods of Administration In addition, Section 504 prohibits the use of methods of administration that have the purpose or effect of substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of a school district’s programs/activities with respect to students with disabilities.8 Effective methods of administration would include access to a comprehensive special education operating procedures manual, and an accompanying program of professional development for staff and training for parents. In this way, all stakeholders would have the same understanding of relevant standards and expected practices, including those designed to ensure that services are designed and provided in an effective and efficient manner. Many of the issues discussed in this report have their source in the absence of a document and training for staff and parents that meet these parameters.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

The first two of three IDEA purposes are to ensure that:

• All students with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for employment and independent living; and

• The rights of students with disabilities and their parents are protected.

Right to FAPE IDEA’s requirements for the identification, evaluation and development of FAPE through the IEP process are detailed and complex. In an effort to maximize the likelihood of providing an appropriate education 6 34 C.F.R. §104 Part D. 7 34 C.F.R. §104.33(b). 8 34 C.F.R. §104.4(b)(4).



Page 23

for each student with a disability, the IDEA has established a procedure requiring input from and discussion among both professionals and the parents of the child. The contours of an appropriate education must be decided on a case-‐by-‐case basis, in light of an individualized consideration of the unique needs of each eligible student.9

The IEP is the mechanism used to describe FAPE for each student. The document includes a narrative description of the student and his/her present level of performance accurately to project what (s)he should be able to accomplish during the year. In addition to other specific details, the IEP states the special education, related services, supplementary aids and services (based on peer-‐reviewed research to the extent practicable), program modifications, or supports for school personnel to enable the student:

• To advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals;

• To be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; and

• To be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled children.10

In addition, the IDEA and state regulations, and federal/state guidelines reference a multitude of requirements for specific purposes, e.g., extended school year, adaptive physical education, feeding and swallowing, independent education evaluations, etc. These requirements are embedded in the findings below.

Procedural Protections for Parents One of IDEA’s core principles pertains to procedural safeguards available to parents, specifically their role in the educational decision-‐making process for their children. The provision regarding a hearing officer’s authority is illustrative of this regard. IDEA specifies that a hearing officer’s determination of whether a student received FAPE generally must be based on substantive grounds. However, a hearing officer may find that a student did not receive FAPE if procedural inadequacies significantly impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-‐making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the parent’s child.11 Two types of procedural protections that are relevant to these findings pertain to the issue of predetermined IEP decisions and meaningful participation in educational decision-‐making.

a. Unlawful Predetermination IDEA authorizes the use of preparatory activities that school district personnel engage in to develop a proposal or response to a parent proposal that will be discussed at a later meeting.12 The seminal case in this area is the 6th Circuit’s Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education.13 In that case, the Court found that the school district predetermined the results of an IEP meeting. Merely because the Deals were present and spoke at the various IEP meetings, they were not afforded adequate opportunity to participate in the conversation. Participation must be more than a mere form; it must be meaningful. Although school officials are permitted to form opinions and compile reports prior to IEP meetings, such

9 Board of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 553 IDELR 656 (U.S. 1982). 10 34 C.F.R. §300.320(a)(2). 11 34 C.F.R. §300.513(1)(2)(ii). 12 34 C.F.R. §300.501(b)(3). 13 42 IDELR 109 (6th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 110 LRP 46999 , 546 U.S. 936 (2005), on remand, 46 IDELR 45 (E.D. Tenn. 2006), aff'd, 49 IDELR 123.



Page 24

conduct is only harmless as long as school officials are "willing to listen to the parents."14 This requires school system representatives to “come to the meeting with suggestions and open minds, not a required course of action.” 15 Additional guidance from judicial and hearing officer decisions is summarized below.

• Meaningful participation includes parent’s opportunity to discuss the proposed IEP with team members who earnestly consider parent’s concerns. It also includes parent’s engagement in that discussion.16

• The ultimate question is whether school personnel came to the meetings with an open mind and discussed or considered several options before making a final recommendation.17

• Predetermination amounts to a denial of FAPE where parents are effectively deprived of meaningful participation in the IEP process, the court explained.18

b. Joint, Informed Decision-‐Making The IEP meeting serves as a communication vehicle between parents and school personnel, and enables them as equal participants to make joint, informed decisions regarding the:

• Student’s needs and appropriate goals;

• Extent to which the child will be involved in the general curriculum and participate in the regular education environment and State and district-‐wide assessments; and

• Services needed to support that involvement and participation and to achieve agreed-‐upon goals.

Parents are considered equal partners with school personnel in making these decisions, and the IEP team must consider the parents’ concerns and the information that they provide regarding their child in developing, reviewing, and revising IEPs.19 In the context of eligibility, the U.S. Department of Education wrote that the team should work toward consensus.20 However, equal participation does not mean that parents can veto proposals or compel a certain result in an IEP. If the parent disagrees with the school district’s determination, parents must be given prior written notice (“PWN”) and informed of the right to seek resolution of any disagreement through an impartial due process hearing, or voluntary mediation.21

IEP Accountability Mechanism The IEP also provides a mechanism to help ensure accountability in the planning and delivery of services to children with disabilities. It does so by:

• Setting forth in writing a commitment of resources necessary to enable a student with disabilities to receive needed special education and related services;

14 Knox County Sch., 315 F.3d at 693-‐94. 15 Id. at 694-‐95. 16 San Dieguito Union High School, California State Educational Agency, October 3, 2011. 17 Anne Arundel County Public Schools, Maryland State Educational Agency, March 31, 2011. 18 Fort Osage R-‐I School District v. Nichole and Brandon Sims, U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, September 30, 2010. 19 Appendix A, Question 9 to IDEA Regulation (1997); 34 C.F.R. §300.343(c)(iii) and §300.346(a)(1) and (b)). 20 Comments to IDEA Regulation (2006). 21 34 C.F.R. §300.503.



Page 25

• Serving as a management tool that is used to ensure that each student is provided special education and related services appropriate to the child's special learning needs;

• Serving as a compliance/monitoring document which may be used to determine whether a student is actually receiving the free appropriate public education agreed to by the parents and the school; and

• Serving as an evaluation device for use in determining the extent of the student's progress toward meeting projected outcomes.22

Summary of Findings

The five areas of findings have an interactive impact. If there are unlawful systemic procedures/practices in relevant areas, that circumstance creates a condition for unlawful predetermination of PPT decisions and limits meaningful parent participation in PPT meetings. Unlawful predeterminations also limit meaningful parent participation, and the absence of meaningful parent participation leads to unlawful predeterminations. Unlawful systemic procedures/practices lead to improper data reporting, and to changes outside of the PPT and/or IEP amendment process. The schematic illustration below reflects this interaction.

Schematic Illustration of Interactive Nature of Findings

The table on the following page displays the areas of review that formed the basis for each finding.

22 Appendix A to the IDEA Regulation (1981).



Page 26

Table of Findings

1. Unlawful Systemic Procedures & Practices

2. Unlawful Meaningful Parent Participation

3. Unlawful Predeterminations

• SRBI: inadequate procedures/ practices to support appropriate IDEA/504 referral

• No Section 504 standard operating procedures

• In absence of a special education operating procedural manual with legal review, overly restrictive criteria or incorrect procedures & practices: - Specially designed instruction inaccurately defined

- Present levels of academic achievement & functional performance (aka PLEPs)

- Academic versus nonacademic & social/ emotional goals

- Other health impaired – attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (OHI-‐ADHD)

- Developmental delay (DD) - Adaptive physical education (APE) - Extended school year (ESY) - Independent educational evaluations (IEEs)

- Individualized services - Speech/language services - Discipline: inadequate training of procedural safeguards

• United front: limitation of open & meaningful discussion

- Little if any focus on consensus building

- Quiet PPT meetings - DPS staff training insufficient focus on encouraging consensus

- Parent training absent - Parent/staff perceptions differ significantly

• Discussion overly restricted - “What to say when” & “More-‐is-‐better” decision-‐making

- Immediate stop gap measures - Pre-‐recommendation discussions

- Attendance at PPT meetings - Prior notice of attorneys & outside evaluations

- Number of PPT meetings

• Late IEPs given to parents subsequent to PPT meetings

• Communication with parents impacted by directives

• Therapeutic learning center (TLC) inadequate communication

• Parent access to records & release of information inadequate

• “As needed” support for personnel

- Assistive technology consultation

- Occupational therapy consultation

- Paraprofessional support for personnel

• Change in Roles

- Assistive technology coordinator

- Autism inclusion specialist role change

- Feeding/swallowing team end

- Speech/language coordinator role change

• Individual Services

• Outside consultant contracts eliminated

4. IEP Changes Outside PPT/Amendment 5. Improper Data Reporting to CSDE &/or USDE

Constructive Changes • Alignment of PPT meeting discussion & IEP

• Change by service design • CSDE Findings

Actual Changes • SEDAC upload process • Notice to parents • Types of changes made to finalized IEP • Sufficiency of edit checks on IEP system • IEP system audit

• SEDAC reporting • Documentation of excess costs



Page 27

1. Unlawful Systemic Procedures/Practices: Identification, Eligibility, Services/Supports

Based on the entirety of the information described below, systemic procedures and practices have been developed and implemented, which preclude the appropriate identification and determination of eligibility of students for Section 504 or IDEA services, and the provision of individually designed appropriate services and supports.

Context for Systemic Changes in Procedure & Practice

School year 2012-‐13 was a year of quick and dramatic changes in special education procedures and practices. These changes occurred within the context of Dr. Osypuk’s understanding of the expectations and her own investigation that supported a need for clearer directions and expectations for special education practices. The following chronology reflects the speed and comprehensiveness of change.

• July 1st. Dr. Osypuk’s first day serving as DPS’s director of special education was July 1, 2013. According to the director, she initially interviewed her superiors, her assistant directors and secretaries, principals, and staff and parents who were available. She also reported that she spent the first two months trying to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the special education department, and reviewed over 100 individualized education plans (“IEPs”).

• July 13th. By the 13th day of her employment, Dr. Osypuk had determined that IEPs contained “excessive services.” By email that day to Dr. Judith Pandolfo, assistant superintendent for elementary schools, the director asked for time for training with administrators and special education/related services personnel prior to school

“so that we can stop the ‘floodgates’ of agreeing to things in an IEP that are beyond the scope of our responsibility. Much of this school year will be honoring those excessive services we have already agreed to in an IEP, but I want to make sure that going forward we are only writing into IEPs what is appropriate.”23

• July 25th. By her July 25th meeting with special education administrators, Dr. Osypuk had identified twelve specific areas of concern, including: individualized special education/related services instruction; in-‐home services; before/after school services; use of internal/external consultants; individual aides; extensive testing; team and parent meetings; increasing staff; placement of students outside of DPS schools; DPS recommended outside evaluations; and use of specific academic/social programs. Most of these concerns formed the basis of future written special education procedures. In addition, she identified past practices that were perceived to enable “a small group of parents … to make decisions outside of the PPT meeting.”24 To address these and other concerns, Dr. Osypuk initiated a series of directives.

• July – March. Between the end of July 2012 and March 2013, the director addressed these and other concerns through written information that was provided to administrators, special educators and related services personnel through a series of about 25 documents and several professional development sessions. In addition, by the middle of August, Dr. Osypuk had changed various aspects

23 July 13, 2012 email from Dr. Osypuk to Dr. Pandolfo; copy to Dr. Pandolfo and Matt Byrnes, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools. 24 June 24, 2013 Osypuk letter to CSDE representatives.



Page 28

of the role of the district’s long-‐time speech/language pathologist and reading specialist; and by the end of August had changed the job parameters of DPS’s two autism/inclusion specialists.

The systemic procedures and practices that were developed and implemented, which support the first finding, are summarized below.

Scientific Research Based Intervention (“SRBI”)

Various individuals expressed concerns about the SRBI process, including the amount of time students receive support through SRBI and whether they are referred for Section 504 of special education evaluations in a timely manner. State guidelines changed in spring 2008 to require the use of SRBI as part of the identification procedures for learning disabilities.25 According to Dr. Pandolfo, the SRBI process was initially developed at the elementary level, and the secondary assistant superintendent was expected to address the process at the secondary level.

SRBI Handbook DPS does not have written finalized procedures for SRBI, which would include expected practices and their implementation with fidelity for areas such as the following: collection and reporting of progress; communication of meaningful student progress data with parents; and considerations for Section 504 or special education evaluations. In the absence of these and other practices, parents perceive their children are “lingering” in the SRBI process. As stated by one elementary school principal, “parents want information.” This is especially true when parents believe their children are struggling in school, and they want to ensure they are making progress. A parent is much more likely to be assured that school personnel are attentive to his/her children’s needs when provided with data that demonstrate progress; that meaningful problem-‐solving is occurring; and that interventions and supports are in place, changed, or added to support teaching and learning. Dr. Pandolfo reported that the district’s 2010 SRBI procedures are continuing to be developed, and would be posted on the district’s website when completed. The assistant superintendent emailed me a copy of the draft SRBI Handbook, and I was able to find a publicly available copy on the Web through a Google search on the Internet.26 School-‐based staff provided feedback that the draft is used “as if final.”27

Staff Survey Results Regarding Training At the suggestion of Dr. Pandolfo, I disaggregated the results of the SRBI survey by elementary and secondary personnel, and by parents of elementary and secondary children. When reviewing the results of the staff survey, one statement for which staff with an opinion expressed a high rate of strongly disagree or disagree, i.e., (strongly) disagree, pertained to adequacy of training about the SRBI process, including monitoring student progress, providing interventions, providing parents information about their child's progress, determining need for more intensive/different interventions, referrals for 504 or special education evaluation, etc. As illustrated in the following chart, half of the 53 elementary personnel and 59% of the 70 secondary personnel with an opinion, expressed (strong) disagreement with the referenced statement. As illustrated in the following chart, half of the 53 elementary personnel

25 http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/cali/srbi_executive_summary.pdf, page 9. 26http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdpssrbi.wikispaces.com%2Ffi

le%2Fview%2FDarien%2BPublic%2BSchools%2BSRBI%2BHandbook.dot&ei=_tFmUvzoMaaV2QW03YHgAg&usg=AFQjCNGp5LCO6AFgzMcT0f-‐C1gjRudkARg&sig2=WDAXEndxjnT_0cG7sZq8-‐w&bvm=bv.55123115,d.b2I. 27 Source 1.



Page 29

and 59% of the 70 secondary personnel with an opinion, expressed (strong) disagreement with the referenced statement.

Staff Survey: Effective SRBI Training

System for Data Collection Reportedly, Darien had planned to introduce an electronic software system to facilitate SRBI-‐related data collection and reporting. For a variety of reasons, the system was not implemented. As a result, SRBI data is neither consistently collected, nor is it easy to report. DPS data for SRBI that I requested at the beginning of the school year was not provided until November 8, 2013. This data showed the following numbers and percentages of DPS students receiving SRBI services by tier: 118 (5%) students with specific progress monitoring tracking at Tier 1; 75 (3%) students at Tier 2; and 33 (1%) students at Tier 3.

Progress Monitoring & Information to Parents According to Dr. Pandolfo, a student’s SRBI specialist and general educator determine the manner in which student progress is shared with parents, and there is no specified reporting system; rather it is viewed as an “ongoing dialogue.” She explained that communication with parents in Darien is so common that it does not need to be specified.

The draft SRBI Handbook (SRBI Handbook) 28 states that school personnel are to inform parents if their children are identified through universal assessment as not meeting benchmarks: the steps being taken to “bring students back up to grade level performance,” and that someone other than the classroom teacher will be working with their child. The form and content of communication depends on the type of support. The following instructions are specified with respect to sharing information with parents:

“In discussions and other communications with parents, refrain from identifying students by Tier. If they want more information about the support, simply describe the arrangements that are in place, e.g. three times a week in small group instruction in the classroom by the specialist in addition to regular instruction.”29

According to the SRBI Handbook, a form letter is provided for the purpose of sharing “very general information” regarding the progress students made through SRBI. This information reflects whether the

28 Dr. Pandolfo emailed me a copy of the SRBI Handbook. Although she indicated and I verified that the document is not publicly available on the DPS website, I was able to find it on the Web through a Google search. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdpssrbi.wikispaces.com%2Ffile%2Fview%2FDarien%2BPublic%2BSchools%2BSRBI%2BHandbook.dot&ei=qgmFUpKCNuL92QXty4GwAQ&usg=AFQjCNGp5LCO6AFgzMcT0f-‐C1gjRudkARg&sig2=r7rt-‐bLw5yUga11PXR8MWA&bvm=bv.56343320,d.b2I. 29 Communicating with Parents section; the draft document does not have page numbers.

50%

50%

59%

41%

(Strongly) Disagree

(Strongly) Agree

Elementary (N=53) Secondary (N=70)

I was provided adequate training about DPS's SRBI process (e.g., monitoring student progress, giving intervenqons, providing parents informaqon about their child's prgress, determining need for more intensive/different intervenqons, referrals for 504 or special educaqon evaluaqon, etc.)



Page 30

student made progress and achieved targeted benchmarks in a specified area, or has made some progress towards targeted benchmarks. Based on these results, the parent is notified that the student no longer requires additional support, or will continue to receive support and additional instruction from a designated instruction specialist. According to interviewees, e-‐copies of the forms are posted on DPS’s wiki. The provision of such general information to parents is counter to advice provided by CSDE:

During progress monitoring, educators should present data to families in both graphic and numerical formats they can understand easily and should elicit families’ views about the student’s progress or lack thereof. Data supplied to families should also reference expected grade level benchmarks so parents may better understand where their child’s skills are in relation to grade-‐ level expectations. Families should feel they are part of, not only the recipients of, the monitoring of a student’s progress.30

Information provided by school personnel and parents during interviews and meetings revealed that schools have inconsistent practices regarding communication about a student’s involvement in SRBI and information about that involvement. Although there is an internal tracking form, there is no districtwide expectation that its contents be shared with parents. Generally, a student’s lack of “progress” is considered to be a trigger for a Section 504 or special education referral. However, neither the SRBI Handbook nor other written information provides guidance for such important issues as sufficient progress, any problem-‐solving methodology for reviewing progress, and reasonable applicable time frames.

Staff Survey Regarding Progress Monitoring The parent and student surveys reflected the following information:

• Clear Guidelines. One survey statement concerned DPS’s provision of clear guidelines to help staff consider whether a student is making adequate progress within a reasonable period of time. Of staff responding with an opinion, 41% of 50 elementary and 60% of 63 secondary staff (strongly) disagreed with this statement.

• Periodic Written Notice. Regarding the provision of periodic written notice to parents, 24% of 47 elementary and 34% of 64 secondary staff with an opinion (strongly) disagreed that such notice is provided. For parents, half of the 20 elementary and 25% of the 4 secondary respondents with an opinion (strongly) disagreed with the statement.

Parent/Staff Survey: Adequate Student Progress & Notice to Parents

30 Guidelines for Identifying Children with Learning Disabilities, section on Identifying and Implementing Scientific Research-‐based & Evidence-‐based Practices – Families as Partners. http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/DEPS/Special/2010_Learning_Disability_Guidelines_Acc.pdf, page 12.

59% 40%

76% 66% 50% 75%

41% 60%

24% 34% 50% 25%

Elementary (N=50) Secondary (N=63) Elementary (N=47) Secondary (N=64) Elementary (N=20) Secondary (N=4)

STAFF: DPS provided clear guidelines to help me consider whether a student is making adequate progress within a reasonable

period of qme.

STAFF: I gave periodic wri}en noqce of my student progress to parents.

PARENTS: I was given periodic wri}en noqce of my child's progress.

(Strongly) Disagree (Strongly) Agree



Page 31

Use of SRBI & Relationship to LD Eligibility A BOE Report dated February 2013, which was prepared jointly by Drs. Pandolfo and Osypuk, showed that the implementation of learner-‐centered models in literacy and math resulted in a reduction in the number of students identified for SRBI Tiers 2 and 3; and “[s]o far this year] only a couple of students have been identified as [learning disability] LD using SRBI criteria.”31

According to DPS data obtained by and provided to me by the Darien Times, the reported rate of K-‐5 students receiving SRBI support in 2012-‐13 (11%) as of the end of that school year was the same as the prior school year’s rate; it was a little smaller than the 2009-‐10 (12%) rate; and much higher than the 2011-‐12 rate (7%). Furthermore, except for a high 53% of exiting students in 2011-‐12, the rate of students exiting in 2012-‐13 (40%) was about the same as rates from the other previous school years. Finally, the rate of students identified with LD has been the same (1%) for the last three school years; only in 2009-‐10 was the percentage a higher 2%.

Percent of K-‐5 Students Receiving SRBI Support, Exiting SRBI, and Identified as LD by Last Four School Years

Parent/Staff Survey A large percentage of parents and staff respondents with an opinion (strongly) disagreed with various statements relating to the consideration of referring students receiving SRBI services for Section 504 or special education evaluations.

• Referral Information. 58% of 49 elementary and 51% of secondary staff disagreed they received information that provided guidelines for implementing SRBI, including circumstances warranting referrals.

• Referral Regardless of SRBI Status. 49% of 52 elementary and 33% of 68 secondary staff disagreed they were able to refer a student regardless of his/her SRBI status; 79% of 15 elementary and all 3 parents of secondary level students disagreed they understood that at any time they could refer their child for a 504 or special education evaluation, even if their child did not start or complete the SRBI process.

• Reason to Believe Child Should Have Been Referred. Of the 13 parents of elementary children in the SRBI process believed their child should have been referred for a 504 or special education

31 February 26, 2013 memorandum from Pandolfo and Osypuk to Falcone.

12%

41%

2% 11%

42%

1% 7%

53%

1% 11%

40%

1% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

% of K-‐5 Enrollment Receiving SRBI Support

% Students Receiving SRBI Support who "Exited"

% K-‐5 Students Idenqfied as LD using SRBI Process

2009-‐10 2010-‐11 2011-‐12 2012-‐13



Page 32

evaluation during the SRBI process. No parents of secondary students responded with an opinion to this statement.

Parent/Staff Survey: Section 504/Special Education Referrals for Students Receiving SRBI Services

Section 504 Standard Operating Procedures Manual

In Darien, the assistant principals manage the Section 504 process.32 At the beginning of the 2012-‐13 school year, Dr. Osypuk offered to provide training on Section 504, and she developed the PowerPoint, Section 504 of the ADA Amendments Act (effective 7/1/09): As it Pertains to the Schools.33 In addition, there is a useful Section 504 Checklist; however, the document is not inclusive of all relevant information pertaining to Section 504 requirements. Although the district has developed and implemented the use of forms for the operation of Section 504, it does not have a single document that contains uniform standards, practices, and other information necessary for the effective administration and operation of Section 504. Such procedures would explain the obligations of school personnel to initiate a referral for a student suspected of having a disability under the Act.

In September 2012, Dr. Osypuk asked the superintendent to put the issue of Section 504 on the cabinet agenda because of her belief that there are students receiving special education services who should really “be 504.”34 Of note is that no concern was expressed that there may be students not receiving any services who may be eligible for Section 504 services. During a meeting with parents, 22 indicated that services under Section 504 were discussed for their children only if the parent initiated the conversation. Based on the responses to the parent/staff survey, 19 parents (57%) and 12 (21%) staff respondents with an opinion (strongly) disagreed with the statement that Section 504 eligibility is not conditioned on a child’s medical diagnosis or outside medical documentation.

32 Only Section 504 is referenced because the Act’s requirements pertaining to elementary and secondary schools match ADA requirements. 33 September 24, 2012. Note, Section 504 is not part of the ADA; it is a separate Act. 34 September 4, 2012 Osypuk email to Falcone.

42% 49% 51% 67%

21%

100%

25%

58% 51% 49% 33%

79%

0%

75%

Elementary (N=49)

Secondary (N=65)

Elementary (N=52)

Secondary (N=68)

Elementary (N=15)

Secondary (N=3) Elementary (N=13)

Secondary (N=0)

STAFF: I received wri}en informaqon that provided

guidelines for implemenqng DPS's SRBI process, including

circumstances warranqng the referral of a student for a 504 or special educaqon evaluaqon.

STAFF:I understand that at any qme I may refer a student for a

504 or special educaqon evaluaqon, even if the student did not start or complete the SRBI

process.

PARENTS: I understood that at any qme I could refer my child for a

504 or special educaqon evaluaqon, even if my child did not start or complete the SRBI

process.

PARENTS: I have no reason to believe my child should have been

referred for a 504 or special educaqon evaluaqon during the

SRBI process.

(Strongly) Disagree (Strongly) Agree



Page 33

As in the area of special education, to have effective administration of Section 504 provisions it is necessary to have a Section 504 SOPM that is publicly accessible, and companion training for staff and parents. Without a comprehensive single document, staff and parents do not have a common understanding of relevant requirements, including obligations for Section 504 child find in general and in relationship to SRBI; relevant forms; and implementation expectations.

Final & Comprehensive Special Education Standard Operating Procedures Manual (SOPM)

Darien did not have a final and comprehensive special education SOPM in place during the 2012-‐13 school year that contained all relevant requirements and expectations for efficient and effective practices. In its absence, there was no single document reflecting all of the procedures and processes necessary for the consistent administration and operation of special education. Instead, there was a series of separate PowerPoint trainings and handouts, and a series of separate documents that collectively contained a myriad of new procedures that were released over several months, and were sometimes contradictory. Focus group participants reported that it was difficult to keep track of all of the requirements because they were issued in separate documents that each contained many requirements. In the March 22, 2011 approved BOE minutes, a question was asked about why it is taking so long to complete the special education handbook. Dr. Pandolfo reported that the handbook was available in an electronic format and on a disc.35

The effective administration of special education is based in a highly accessible and comprehensive special education operating procedures manual, which receives legal review and feedback from representative stakeholders; and an accompanying program of professional development for staff, and training for parents. These ingredients enable all stakeholders to have the same understanding of relevant standards and expected practices, including those designed to ensure that services are designed and provided in an effective and efficient manner. Many of the issues discussed below, and further in this report, are rooted in the absence of a manual, and training meeting these parameters.

Specially Designed Instruction

CSDE’s July 18, 2013 letter of findings cited the district’s use of the term “specialized instruction” as incomplete and inconsistent with the IDEA’s definition.36 This citation applied to the PowerPoint documents used for training administrators and staff in August. In the February 26, 2013 BOE Report, reference was made to this training, and that “504 Plans are increasing as IEPs are decreasing due to a better understanding of the terms accommodations, modifications and specialized instruction.”

DPS’s slide, which describes “specialized instruction” in the training PowerPoints, refers to “[c]ontent that is modified (standards are lowered).” Specially designed instruction under IDEA is inclusive of content that is not modified; its goal is to provide “access” to content based on the general curriculum so that students have an opportunity to be proficient on regular statewide assessments, with or without IEP-‐specified accommodations.

35 Pages 7 and 8. 36 34 C.F.R. §300.39.



Page 34

The CSDE letter did not reference another problematic slide in the August training documents that asks “What Does Disability Mean?” by asking the question: “Would this child look disabled in another district?” This slide raises several concerns. Foremost, is the reference to the child and whether (s)he would “look disabled” in another district. Perhaps not intended, the language can be viewed as pejorative by projecting the thought that disability has a certain “look.” Whatever the intent, the determination of special education eligibility involves a complex decision-‐making process that is based on multidimensional information. Furthermore, the posed question does not take into consideration the definition of a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) under Section 504, which states in pertinent part that an appropriate education is the provision of regular/special education and related aids/services that are designed to meet the individual educational needs of students with disabilities as adequately as the needs of students without disabilities are met.37 There are circumstances in which local norms may be relevant to the decision-‐making process and should not be excluded categorically.

Specially designed instruction represents an essential core component of IDEA. A comprehensive special education SOPM would include the correct definition and application of specially designed instruction. The SOPM and related training need to be designed to enable staff (and parents) to have a working understanding of the term’s usage and its application to the decision-‐making process for determining student’s eligibility for special education.

Present Levels of Academic Achievement & Functional Performance

As part of its document submission to CSDE, Dr. Osypuk provided a Sample IEP that included examples for the consistent entry of information. CSDE noted that information reflecting a student’s Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (aka Present Levels of Educational Performance, PLEP) should be revised to be less specific and aligned with guidance provided in the agency’s document, IEP Manual and Forms. This comment refers to examples in the Sample IEP that contain only quantitative test scores under the heading, Concerns/Needs. For example, under Academic/Cognitive Language Arts, the sample illustrates the following data: <78, z-‐scores <1,5l T-‐scores <35 or >65.

Based on guidance from the U.S. Department of Education, PLEPs include test scores only if they are pertinent; and when such scores are noted, the significance of each score should be explained. The needs must be set forth in the IEP so that everyone working with the child knows the level at which the child is functioning, and can develop an IEP that will provide the child with an appropriate education.38 CSDE’s IEP manual provides similar guidance:

Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance should be used to provide a holistic view of the student through a variety of means, including current classroom-‐based assessments, district and/or state assessments, and classroom-‐based observations, which includes parent, student and general education teacher input in all relevant areas. … The PPT uses the information provided by the parents and student and the information provided in the first two columns of “Present Levels of Academic

37 34 C.F.R. §104.33(b). 38 Department of Education Interpretation: IEP Purpose and Requirements, 46 Fed. Reg. 5,460 (1981), question No. 36. See also Letter to Lybarger, 17 IDELR 54 (OSEP 1990).



Page 35

Achievement and Functional Performance” as the basis for making decisions related to Concerns/Needs to be addressed in the current IEP.39

Academic versus Nonacademic and Social/Emotional Goals

Several email chains concerned issues relating to a student’s continuing eligibility for special education when the IEP contains no academic goals. In one exchange, goals/objectives for study skills was not deemed to be sufficiently “academic.” Also, concern was expressed about the extent to which special educators could have input into the development of social/emotional goals.

• Study Skills. There is a body of research that supports the value of teaching students strategies for acquiring information from the printed word; organizing and memorizing information; solving math problems; and expressing information in writing (including on tests). Learning strategy instruction focuses on enabling students to be more active learners by teaching them how to learn and how to use what they have learned to solve problems and be successful. 40 Neither IDEA nor state regulations exclude study skills as an area of need from consideration as an appropriate special education goal for a student with PLEPs that reflect this need.

• Addressing Social/Emotional Goals. Various persons interviewed stated that during the 2012-‐13 school year a distinction was made with respect to personnel authorized to address academic goals (i.e., special educators), and social/emotional goals (i.e., psychologists, BCBA, BCaBA). Several special educators expressed concerned that their role excluded social/emotional goals because they needed to address these issues as part of their instruction. One reported being told by a psychologist that the teacher’s role is to focus on reading, writing, and math.41 According to a November 12, 2013 document submitted to me, Dr. Osypuk wrote that special educators were told they could help to implement social/emotional goals, but they could not serve as the person responsible on the IEP. She explained that one reason for this delineation of roles was to avoid prior confusion over responsibility for paperwork (i.e., entering goals/objectives into the IEP system, grading goals/objectives).42 She later wrote to me on November 25th that special educators were also told they could provide input into the development of social/emotional goals. Dr. Osypuk’s assertions, however, do not align with the above-‐referenced staff members’ reports.

Other Health Impaired – Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (OHI-‐ADHD)

CSDE’s July 19, 2013 letter of findings cites Darien for the overly specific January 15, 2013 Worksheet for Eligibility Under OHI-‐ADHD (ADHD Worksheet), and its inconsistency with IDEA eligibility determination procedures. The ADHD Worksheet has “Cutoff Scores” for assessing deficits in the following areas: inattention, hyperactivity-‐impulsivity, and combined types for teacher and parent surveys.

Although Dr. Osypuk intended to establish common practice for determining OHI-‐ADHD eligibility, the process produced a stand-‐alone document that some focus group participants believed overrelied on a rating scale and cutoff scores as the primary criteria for determining eligibility. As clearly stated in the

39 CSDE Bureau of Special Education IEP Manual and Forms, Revised March 2013, page 8. 40 The University of Kansas, Center for Research on Learning, Strategic Instruction Model at http://www.kucrl.org/sim/index.shtml. 41 Source 14. 42 November 12, 2013 Osypuk email to Gamm.



Page 36

CSDE Report on ADHD, “[r]ating scales … should not be used as the sole assessment instrument for determining special education eligibility, or for diagnosing ADHD.”43 However, the process produced a stand-‐alone document that respondents believed overrelied on a rating scale and cutoff scores or determining eligibility. This issue could have been avoided had the director resolved staff concerns and obtained legal review prior to finalizing and using the ADHD Worksheet.

Developmental Delay (DD)

Another worksheet cited by CSDE as being overly specific and inconsistent with IDEA eligibility determination requirements concerned the PPT Report of Eligibility for Special Education due to DD (DD Report of Eligibility). This document, which was dated February 21, 2013, set forth standard deviation specific cutoff scores for various combinations of five areas (physical, communication, social/emotional, adaptive and cognitive). According to the document, a child needed to meet these criteria to be considered for special education because of a developmental delay (DD).

According to Dr. Osypuk, this document was never implemented in Darien during the 2012-‐13 school year.44 The process for developing another DD worksheet, DD Eligibility Worksheet, began with a document provided by the director from her prior school district. Subsequently, the Early Learning Program (“ELP”) administrator and a school psychologist relied on a CSDE pamphlet to develop the DD Eligibility Worksheet, which the director then edited, removing the critical element of clinical judgment. ELP personnel emphasized that “in practice we did what we should” and continued to use clinical judgment to identify students with DD. Dr. Osypuk recognized that although the district’s “practice considers rule out factors and the use of professional judgment, it would be prudent to add these to the worksheet to ensure alignment among written documentation.”45

ELP representatives have concerns about the use of categorical disability areas for young children and indicate that there are advantages to the use of the broad noncategorical term, DD. In all cases, the evaluation process is to produce an understanding of the child that is sufficiently comprehensive for the PPT to describe his/her present levels of academic achievement and functional performance. From this platform, the team establishes goals/objectives, special education/related services, and supplementary aids/services. There is no part of this process that is dependent on a child having a particular categorical disability label. Reportedly, ELP personnel resisted practice that would exclude the consideration of clinical judgment for the determination of DD eligibility. In her December 8, 2013 response to me, Dr. Osypuk wrote: “… ELP personnel were told they could use clinical judgment but needed written evidence to support it, as is noted in CSDE’s handout on Developmental Delay.” However, there was no written documentation in this regard. Fewer children last year were identified in the area of DD than in the prior year; and more were identified with disabilities in three other specific areas. Although this may have not been the preference of personnel, there is no reason to believe that decisions were not based on appropriate criteria.

43 Report on Attention-‐Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD, 2005) Page 19. http://www.ctserc.org/initiatives/teachandlearn/ADHD_report_5-‐2-‐05.pdf; Note that the district’s autism worksheet, which was not cited by CSDE as problematic, states that the demonstration of adverse affect is evidenced by professional judgment and/or scores that fall significantly below average (-‐1.5 SDs) in one or more specified areas. 44 Although Dr. Osypuk submitted the DD Report of Eligibility to legal counsel for submission to CSDE, the director writes that the document was submitted inadvertently to the agency. 45 August 2, 2013 Osypuk letter to Falcone, page 6.



Page 37

Adaptive Physical Education (“APE”)

CSDE’s letter of findings cited the district’s November 8, 2012, Building Consistency document for its two requirements pertaining to APE: 1) that this specialized instruction should rarely be considered for any student who does not qualify for physical therapy (“PT”); and 2) if the student qualifies for PT or is an exceptional case and is being considered for APE, there must be a prior discussion with a special education administrator. In addition, the letter referenced the draft APE Eligibility Criteria Under the IDEA, which sets standard deviation cutoff scores for eligibility, as overly specific and inconsistent with IDEA eligibility determination procedures. The agency required for the first directive and recommended for the second that they be revised based on CSDE’s Guidelines for APE document.

Through separate communication occurring during this time with Dr. Pandolfo about Student A who as being considered for APE, personnel informed the assistant superintendent of Student B who was also receiving APE. On October 17, 2012, Dr. Pandolfo emailed her intent to observe Student B that morning and another student the following month.46 This intended observation raises the question of Darien’s assessment and observation process and relevant requirements for parental consent. Based on the publication of CSDE’s findings, Student B’s parent wrote to share concerns that a February 12, 2013 PPT improperly recommended to eliminate APE for her child. Given CSDE’s findings about APE, the parent expressed concern that the APE service may have been discontinued improperly.

Although the PT precondition for APE was lifted at the end of January, there was clear evidence that its intent caused at least some students not to receive this specially designed instruction. Dr. Osypuk apologized for the confusion and misunderstanding this directive caused; however, there is no indication that any effort was taken to identify students potentially impacted by the improper limitation. (Based on district data, 24 students received APE in 2010-‐11, compared to 6 in 2011-‐12 and 4 in 2012-‐13.) Furthermore, the director’s January 29th email to staff that clarified PT eligibility did so by stating there may be some cases where a student does not need PT but may still be eligible for APE. This characterization continues to limit APE absent any additional information or clarification. Although in an email of October 9th, Dr. Osypuk referred to a committee that was developing eligibility criteria, assessments, and professional development, the committee was still meeting according to the director’s August 2, 2013 letter to Dr. Falcone.47

Extended School Year (“ESY”)

Dr. Osypuk provided the following background regarding the relatively large proportion of Darien students receiving ESY services during the summer of 2012.

“An analysis of the district’s ESY population indicated that there had been a steady and significant growth in the number of students qualifying over the past few years. The most recent data from ESY 2012 was that approximately 42% of all identified students qualified for special education. These numbers appeared to be an outlier in comparison

46 In a November 14, 2013 email to me, Dr. Pandolfo explained that several individuals were observing the physical education (PE) teacher’s strategies for working with students with special needs. Dr. Pandolfo further explained that she mentioned the student’s initials to identify the class where a student received one session of APE, and one session of PE in the general education setting. She acknowledges that the correspondence should have identified the class by the teacher's name and not the student's initials. Her intent was to observe instructional practices; she wrote that she was not involved in any discussions about the child or any determinations about services. 47 August 2, 2013 Osypuk letter to Falcone, page 3.



Page 38

to other districts and thus, I felt it was my responsibility to question whether the ESY criteria were being applied. In speaking with various staff and administrators the answer seemed to be that occasionally criteria were applied, but very inconsistently across buildings. They also noted that parental pressure seemed to drive the decision-‐making at PPT meetings.”48

According to Dr. Osypuk, her poll of DRG A districts revealed a much higher percentage of DPS students were found in the past to be eligible for ESY compared to the other school districts. This result is a much higher percentage of DPS students were found in the past to be eligible for ESY compared to other school districts is consistent with my experience and with the statement in CSDE’s ESY Topical Brief, which refers to ESY services as the exception and not the rule for students with IEPs. Moreover, there were many supporting views that ESY standards had not been implemented in the past. However, the process that was used to promote the use of appropriate criteria failed to ensure that throughout the district staff members understood that factors other than regression/recoupment were “in play” for consideration, and that a meaningful and orderly process was in place for the following:

• The preparation of a comprehensive guidance document at the beginning of the 2012-‐13 school year that would be based on CSDE’s ESY Tropical Brief, and would clearly articulate the application of regression/recoupment, nonregression, and special circumstance factors.

• The use of appropriate time frames determining ESY eligibility to ensure they would be completed earlier in the year than at or soon before the end of the school year, and in sufficient time to enable a parent to address any concerns through a dispute resolution process.

• Communication of the new process with both school staff and parents at a time closer to the beginning of the school year, allowing for ample training and the distribution of written information to have a common understanding of the criteria and an opportunity to answer questions.

• An ESY service configuration that met the requirements of IDEA, which prohibits any unilateral limitation of the type, amount or duration of services.49

• Legal review to ensure the ESY criteria complies with applicable requirements.

Independent Educational Evaluations (“IEE”) and Outside Evaluations

The areas of IEEs and outside evaluations were included in one document that addresses many different procedures, two documents focusing on IEE procedures, and one draft document focusing on IEE procedures. CSDE’s July 18th letter made findings of noncompliance with respect to three of these documents, and one recommendation as to the fourth document. Darien has not had compliant requirements to guide personnel’s timely and appropriate review of or decisions relating to: a parent’s IEE request; IEE evaluations and their costs; and review of all IEEs. The area of IEE has specific IDEA requirements, and U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Program (“OSEP”) guidance, which is customarily followed by school districts. Although Dr. Osypuk made an effort to establish IEE criteria and procedures in 2012-‐13, there is no evidence that final procedures having legal review were disseminated to both staff and parents. In the absence of this information, there was a substantial amount of concern expressed by parents with respect to IEEs and their review by PPTs.

48 April 3, 2013 Osypuk draft letter to CSDE (not sent). 49 34 C.F.R. §300.106(a)(3).



Page 39

Dr. Osypuk directed her secretary to stop documenting IEE authorizations by district and parent request. The chart below shows the reduction of IEEs in number and cost in 2012-‐13 from 2011-‐12.

• 2011-‐12 School Year. The cost of all outside evaluations was $109,415; 61% were district-‐initiated IEEs. Of the 43 evaluations, 39% were parent-‐initiated IEEs.

• 2012-‐13 School Year. The cost of all outside evaluations was $65,060; and 26 evaluations were approved.

Without relevant documentation, it is not possible to discern the extent to which the district’s 2012-‐13 reduced usage of outside evaluations was based on parent or district initiated requests.

Outside Evaluations: Cost & Number for 2011-‐12 & 2011-‐13

Individualized Services

Three documents developed at the beginning of the school year, and the Sample IEP, contained incorrect standards for the consideration of a student’s need for individualize services, i.e., 1:1 services.

• Prior Discussion with Director. One of CSDE’s July 18th citations concerned the July 25, 2012 Special Education Administrators PowerPoint concerning one of the “Immediate Stop-‐Gap Measures” to discuss with the director a recommendation for 1:1 instruction prior to a PPT meeting; a similar directive in the August Training PowerPoint pertained to the need to discuss with an administrator a potential recommendation for 1:1 instruction prior to a PPT meeting.

• Prior Discussion with Administrator. The September 24, 2012 Clarifying Questions document and attached table asks school personnel to ask in response to a parent’s request for 1:1 services: “How is delivering 1:1 services going to provide the student the opportunity to develop independence and socialization skills?” Neither the document nor the table includes consideration of data regarding any benefits of 1:1 instruction, including the trajectory of learning anticipated as a result of this intensive model; and whether the anticipated growth is likely to facilitate a student’s increased independence and ability to interact positively with peers.

• Electronic IEP System. Reportedly, Dr. Osypuk initially streamlined the electronic IEP system by reducing the number of dropdown menu options. One option eliminated concerned 1:1 instruction as a delivery group. Two administrators later persuaded her to put the option back in the menu.

These directives and measures are discussed further below under the third finding relating to “Unlawful Predeterminations.”

Speech/Language Services

Two documents pertain to actions taken during the 2012-‐13 school year with respect to speech/language services:

IEE District Request Total

2011-‐12 Cost $60,000 $49,415 $109,415

Number 16 27 43

2012-‐13 Cost

Not Available $65,060

Number 26



Page 40

• Prior Discussion. The August Training PowerPoint includes the requirement for a prior discussion with an administrator before recommending 1:1 instruction (including speech/language) and the services of the speech/language pathologist (“SLP”) coordinator. As stated above, CSDE found this requirement to be overly restrictive; and that it undermined PPT authority.

Proposed 2013-‐14 Budget. The proposed budget document included the following relevant activity as a means for assigning staff effectively and efficiently: Ensure the primary role of all staff members is to work directly with students instead of being a consultant only. The document reflected the following budget implications: “Decrease Speech Therapist account from $1,664,151 to $1,537,909.” According to Dr. Osypuk’s comments to me of December 8, 2013, this decrease reflected the resignation of the SLP Coordinator. The data reflected in the chart below shows that the number of DPS students with a primary disability in the area of speech/language compared to all students with IEPs dropped from 123 (20%) in 2011-‐12’s to 107 (19%) as of October 28, 2013. The 2012-‐13 school year percentage of 18% was smaller than the nation’s 22%, and the same as the state’s 19%. For Darien students identified as having speech/language as a related service, the number steadily decreased from 247 (40%) in 2011-‐12 to 211 (37%) as of October 28, 2013. Publicly reported data is not available at the national or state level for students with a related service of speech/language so it was not possible to compare Darien data to state and national data. Overall, from 2011-‐12 to October 28, 2013, there was a decrease of 14% (370 to 318 students) of all students with IEPs identified as having speech/language as a primary disability or related service.

Rate of All Students with Speech/Language as a Primary or Related Service50

During the 2012-‐13 school year, the following actions were taken pertaining to the administration of speech/language services.

• Reduction of SLPs & Impact. In part based on the opinions of Dr. Pandolfo and the school principal, Dr. Osypuk decided just before the beginning of the 2012-‐13 school year not to fill an SLP position at an elementary school. The decision to cut SLP support to students by 25% was taken against the protestations of the SLP coordinator and school SLPs who did not believe schedules could be

50 US Data: 2009-‐10 Data: Table 46. Children 3 to 21 years old served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B, by type of disability: Selected years, 1976-‐77 through 2009-‐10, National Center for Education Statistics at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_046.asp?referrer=list; CT Data: 2010-‐11 Data: CSDE Connecticut Data and Research http://sdeportal.ct.gov/Cedar/WEB/ct_report/SpecialEducationDTViewer.aspx.

123 247 115 230 107 211

20%

40%

18%

37%

19%

37%

22% 19%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Primary Disability

Related Service

Primary Disability

Related Service

Primary Disability

Related Service

Primary Disability

Primary Disability

DPS 2011-‐12 DPS 2012-‐13 DPS 2013-‐14 US CT



Page 41

adjusted appropriately. The process used by the director and principal to unilaterally readjust caseloads, form student service groups, and develop student schedules predictably led to serious concerns and outcomes regarding the provision of IEP-‐required and appropriately managed speech/language services to students. In addition, it led to a year of unnecessary anxiety and stress for the SLPs who sought to deliver services in the most responsible and ethical ways. To the extent they were able, the SLPs readjusted their schedules to cure inappropriate student groupings. The AT coordinator provided part-‐time SLP support in November 2012, and a long-‐term substitute SLP was hired in the 2013-‐14 school year to fill in for an individual on leave. The principal has acknowledged that he and the director should have placed more trust in the judgment of the SLP coordinator and the school’s SLPs.

• Meetings & Matrices. Monthly meetings for SLPs were no longer used to have meaningful discussions about their students and their service needs. A significant amount of time was used to develop a set of seven matrices with quantitative and qualitative descriptions. The SLPs had varying understanding of the prescriptive nature of these matrices; however, none indicated that they were used in their daily practice. There was an expressed interest in developing meaningful standards that would better guide the eligibility and service decision-‐making process.

• Score-‐based PLEPs. The Sample IEP illustrates how the area of “Communication,” under the column of “Concerns/Needs,” is to be completed through the use of standardized scores. The expectation that PLEPs, which is the foundation for IEP goals/objectives and services, be based solely on standardized scores is not defendable. CSDE guidance, which addresses the need for formal and descriptive data in the context of student assessment, informs this issue as well:

“[S]tandardized test scores tend to examine discrete skills in a decontextualized manner (i.e., away from natural communicative environments). A comprehensive assessment should include an appropriate balance of formal and descriptive assessment instruments and procedures to identify areas of strength and weakness and to examine how the child functions communicatively in the environments in which he or she participates.”51

Discipline Training Materials The August 15-‐16, 2012 PowerPoint document, A Basic Understanding of IDEA (Understanding IDEA), essentially provides that when disciplining students with IEPs, school officials may impose the same discipline as they do for general education students unless a behavior intervention plan (“BIP “) indicates otherwise or the basis of the student’s misconduct is a manifestation of his/her disability. The February 26, 2013 BOE document reporting on the district’s implementation of recommendations resulting from the Badway Study provides the same information.52

These materials in the Understanding IDEA and BOE Report documents, however, do not accurately reflect complex and detailed IDEA requirements, and they give an incomplete explanation of discipline standards when there is a finding of no manifestation determination. One aspect of this insufficiency concerns steps that must be taken when a student with an IEP is suspended for more than 10 days in a calendar year. In this case, school officials must ensure that that the student continues to receive 51 CSDE Guidelines for Speech and Language Programs: Determining Eligibility for Special Education Speech and Language Services under IDEA, page 8 at http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/DEPS/Special/Speech_Language_2008.pdf. 52 BOE Reports 2/26/13 Appendix B. Implementation of Action Plan Resulting from Badway Study.



Page 42

educational services even when the student’s disruptive behavior is not a manifestation of his/her disability.53 These educational services must be designed so they 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. Thus, contrary to the two documents referenced above, school officials may not impose the same discipline for students with IEPs as they do for their typical peers when the student’s misconduct is not a manifestation of his/her disabilities, or the student does not have a controlling BIP.

2. Lack of Meaningful Parental Involvement

The combination of systemic directives and their consequences described below had the effect of depriving parents a meaningful opportunity to participate in the development of their children’s IEPs.

Unified Front & Pre-‐PPT Discussions

One of the first issues shared with me and a topic of frequent lively discussions during focus group sessions, parent meetings, and interviews concerned the November 6, 2013 Building Consistency document and its reference to the term, “Unified Front.” The document’s directives for PPT meetings included the following “Unified front – if changes are going to be recommended, differences among team members need to be worked out prior to the PPT.” The Building Consistency document was not a “transparent” document in that it was not shared with parents. Furthermore, some Darien officials and staff took issue with the fact that school personnel shared this and other documents with parents (even though they would have been available to parents through their Freedom of Information Act Request). These circumstances increased the mistrust and tension between the parents of some children with disabilities, and the BOE as a whole, and the DPS administration.

In several letters, Dr. Osypuk wrote that in hindsight she regretted using the term “unified front” because some parents have misinterpreted this to mean "us" versus "them" and/or predetermination of a PPT decision. “The intent was for staff who anticipated disagreement from a colleague to seek to understand their co-‐workers' differing opinions before the PPT, so that these disagreements could be addressed in a professional manner during a PPT meeting.”54 The director explained that this process was designed to address past practices by some staff members who had been disrespectful and unprofessional towards each other during PPT meetings. Further, Dr. Osypuk agreed that the term could be misinterpreted to be inconsistent with the requirement that decisions are made at PPT meetings. She recommended that the statement “be removed and that parents be provided with an explanation of the actual intent to help rebuild trust.”55 In spite of the term and its interpretation by some, Dr. Osypuk wrote: “… it was not our practice to require prior approval or predetermination. Anyone who had taken part in our PPT meetings knows that the process was dynamic with everyone having an opportunity to share their ideas.”56

There was a difference of opinion of individuals with whom I met during focus group sessions, interviews, parent meetings, and staff/parent surveys regarding the extent to which this statement

53 34 CFR §300.530. 54 June 24, 2013 letter from Osypuk to CSDE, page 11; August 4, 2013 letter from Osypuk to Falcone, page 3. 55 August 4, 2013 letter from Osypuk to Falcone, page 4. 56 October 17, 2013 letter from Osypuk to Gamm, page 12.



Page 43

reflected day-‐to-‐day practice across schools. DPS personnel and parents provided the following feedback regarding PPT meeting practices with respect to full discussion of DPS preliminary proposals; consideration of parent responses; and the existence of any consensus building among the participants to find common ground.

Quiet PPT Meetings Commonly, participants spoke about a new level of “quiet” in PPT meetings that occurred for a variety of reasons. Some parents shared that this “quietness” represented one of the biggest paradigm shifts during the 2012-‐13 school year. Their overarching perception was that school personnel would offer their proposals; parents would offer proposals; administrators would try to get parents to agree with their proposals; and then administrators would finalize their original proposals. About 23 of 28 parents present at one of the parent meetings I facilitated indicated they agreed with this perception. Another perspective was that meetings are quiet when parents have attorneys or advocates at the meeting. Staff indicated that they would be unsure about whether the parent was talking to a reporter and they felt they were under a spot light. They indicated also that staff would be quiet when parents were “contentious.”

Lack of Focus in Staff Training on Consensus Building A combination of teachers, school administrators, and related service personnel agreed that their training did not include information that focused on building consensus of participants in PPT meetings. In addition, there was no discussion about how additional information provided by parents would be considered fully by the PPT, including strategies to build on areas of common agreement. In all of the documents that were generated regarding PPT meetings and the various related issues, only the September 24th internal document How to Run a Pre-‐Meeting mentioned the word “consensus.” The document includes the following statement:

While the PPT always has as its goal of consensus, there are times when the school and parent may disagree. These disagreements will be documented on p.3 of the IEP.

While the document reflects the goal of consensus, there was no other mention in that or the other documents that provided any guidance about the process of building consensus.

Information to Parents about Changes While there were several sessions for school personnel regarding the many procedural changes for processes leading up to and including the management of PPT meetings, insufficient information was provided to parents in a proactive manner regarding all of the changes. The back door way in which parents found out about the changes did not help to support the facilitation of meaningful conversations at PPT meetings.

Parent/Staff Survey One survey statement indicated that chairpersons clarified at the outset of the PPT meeting that the areas proposed/discussed were preliminary and subject to review and discussion with parents. Of the survey respondents with an opinion, 48 (49%) parents and 20 (19%) staff members (strongly) disagreed with the statement. For another statement about chairpersons seeking to reach team consensus about various aspects of IEP services, 38 (42%) parents and 8 (7%) staff members (strongly) disagreed with the statement.



Page 44

Parent/Survey Staff: Proposals are Preliminary Recommendations & PPT Goal of Consensus

Prescriptive Directives

Dr. Osypuk produced the following directives that were restrictive rather than encouraging of meaningful parental participation in PPT meetings. Almost all of these directives were cited as noncompliant in CSDE’s July 18, 2013 letter of findings.

“What to Say When…” & “More-‐is-‐Better” Decision-‐Making Approach The August Training PowerPoint included two sets of slides that pertain to the director’s theme of excessive services: “What to Say When” and Decision-‐Making Approach “More-‐is-‐Better.”

• What to Say When... Two slides provided suggested district responses to parents when they made requests for “excessive services.” CSDE found that the content represented a violation of IDEA. Dr. Osypuk recognized that she could “understand how a parent reading this might misinterpret the information and therefore, [she suggested] removing these slides from the training materials in order to help rebuild trust.”57 The director did not address, however, the core IDEA concept of “consensus building” between all participants of PPTs, which is based on a discourse between the team members and parents. For parents to have meaningful participation there must be more than a parent request and stock administrative response.

• Decision-‐Making Approach “More-‐is-‐Better.” In a series of three slides, 11 specific areas are mentioned where it is asserted that one can confuse quantity with quality, and that this confusion could have potential unintended negative consequences. One specific consequence that was mentioned included “inequities in distribution of scarce resources.” In its July 18, 2013 report, CSDE wrote that the text associated with these slides “may be misinterpreted to mean there are no students who require extensive services.” It was recommended that the language be revised. This citation is based on the reality that some PowerPoint handouts and emailed copies survive training sessions. Standing alone, the slides reinforce the concepts of a “floodgate” of “excessive services” and a perceived direction to reduce services.

Immediate Stop Gap Measures The July 25th PowerPoint for the Special Education Administrator Meeting included slides for “Immediate Stop Gap Measures” to have prior discussions with the director about specific services before recommending them at PPT meetings; and to refrain from writing seven specified services in IEPs (e.g., specific consultation time; in-‐home service; team meetings, etc.). In its July 18th report, CSDE found the 57 Pages 12 and 13.

93%

58%

81%

51%

7%

42%

19%

49%

Overall, chairpersons sought to reach team consensus about various aspects of the IEPs. (N=112)

At the PPT, my opinion was meaningfully considered as a team member and the chairperson sought to reach team consensus about

my child's special educaqon services. (N=90)

Same as above. (N=108)

The chairperson clarified at the outset of the meeqng that areas proposed/discussed were preliminary recommendaqons for review/

discussion with me. (N=98)

Staff

Parents

Staff

Parents

Agree/Strongly Agree Disagree/Strongly Disagree



Page 45

statements “are overly restrictive and represent violations of IDEA by undermining the decision-‐making authority of the PPT.” Although the PowerPoint document was not intended for public distribution, other documents Dr. Osypuk issued subsequently contained directives for prior discussions with administrators about the issues, and emailed messages sent and received during the school year continued to reference this expectation. Although subsequent written information did not include a directive to refrain from writing certain services in IEPs, other directives were subsequently issued regarding the services that CSDE found to be noncompliant. The fact that these slides were prepared, even as a tool to facilitate discussion, reflects an impermissible mindset that requires significant interpretation to otherwise understand. Such language has fueled the perception of parents that services were determined, or excluded, prior to PPT meetings.

Potential Recommendations Requiring Discussion w/Administrator Prior to PPT The PowerPoint presentation used during the August training sessions also included a slide that required a discussion with an administrator for potential recommendations for specified services prior to a PPT. In its July 18, 2013 report, CSDE found the requirements to be “overly restrictive and represent violations of IDEA by undermining the decision-‐making authority of the PPT.”

Attendance at PPT Meetings CSDE also cited the November 6th Building Consistency document that restricts the attendance of the following related services personnel and special educators at PPT meetings, thereby potentially preventing individualization of a student’s program.

• OT Personnel. Will only be available to attend PPT 2 (Eligibility PPT), Annuals, Triennials

• AT Coordinator. Will only attend PPTs for which she is reporting on an evaluation.

• THI/TVI. Will only attend PPTs for students to whom they provide direct services.

Advanced Notice of Attorneys & Outside Evaluations School personnel were notified that parents must provide advanced notice of attorneys who will attend the PPT; their intent to record the PPT meeting; and an outside evaluation.58 IDEA’s implementing regulation gives parents discretion to include as part of the IEP team other individuals with knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, and specifies parameters for outside evaluations at public expense. These provisions are not conditioned on parent notice to the district. 59 In its July 18th letter, CSDE found that the requirements for parents to provide “prior notice of attorneys and outside evaluations” to be “inconsistent with the law as no such requirements exist.”

Number of PPT Meetings The February 26, 2013 BOE Report (Appendix B) presented by Dr. Osypuk in collaboration with Dr. Pandolfo reflected a rule that parents have the right to a “reasonable” number of PPT meetings per school year. This rule does not comport to IDEA’s clear legislative history that there should be as many meetings a year as any one child may need or state provisions requiring the number of meetings to be student-‐based. 60

58 August 15-‐16, 2013 PowerPoint presentation, A Basic Understanding of IDEA; and February 28, 2013 BOE Report, Appendix B. 59 34 C.F.R. §300.321(a)(6) and 34 C.F.R. §300.502(b). 60 Letter to Sheridan, 20 IDELR 1163 (1993), and Regulation of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) §10-‐76d-‐11(b).



Page 46

Time Frame for Providing IEPs to Parents Subsequent to the PPT Meeting

According to CSDE’s September 25, 2013 second set of findings, many IEPs were finalized after an excessive amount of time had passed from the PPT meeting date. This outcome did not meet the state’s requirement that parents receive a full and finalized copy of the IEP within five school days after the PPT meeting to develop, review, or revise the document. The agency opined that the delay might have been the result of the district’s procedures for processing IEP documents. Based on a review of the IEP system’s data showing for each PPT meeting held in 2012-‐13, the PPT/IEP meeting date and finalization of IEP date, there were 220 IEPs finalized more than five school days from the date of the PPT/IEP meeting. This analysis was based on a calendar that excluded school vacations, holidays and the days schools were closed due to Hurricane Sandy; and the count excluded amendments to IEPs. The delays were associated with all five DPS personnel who finalized IEPs.

Communication with Parents

Written documents, as well as parent and school personnel feedback reflected serious and sometimes contradictory concerns about use of the following methods for sharing information about students: • Use of parent meetings to discuss student progress and concerns; • Use of logs to communicate with parents; • Use of home services; and • Sharing progress-‐monitoring data with parents.

The literature is replete with research showing the value of parent/school partnerships and collaboration and its relationship to student outcomes. There is no question that Darien parents of children with special needs have a significant desire to be involved in the education of their children. This partnership for individual children, as reflected through IEPs with in-‐home services and/or written communication expectations, was negatively impacted by the combination of a restrictive written directive that was not intended for public viewing, its implementation, and a change in personnel roles. A special education SOPM that included appropriate standards for considering these issues would help to provide a uniform clarification of responsibilities and expectations, and help to promote reasonable and meaningful parent/school collaboration. Such collaboration would enable parents to have better information and more meaningfully participate in PPT/IEP meetings.

Therapeutic Learning Center (“TLC”)

During the first part of the 2012-‐13 school year, parents of children in the district’s TLC program became alarmed that the program was going to close, and that their children would be relocated to their neighborhood schools. The anatomy of the circumstances that gave rise to this alarm provides additional insight into the administration of special education last school year.

• July 23rd email from Dr. Osypuk to administrators at the school housing the TLC reflects an end goal for all TLC students to return to their home school with proper supports.

• September 19th email from Dr. Osypuk to the administrators about the possibility of using an evaluation performance goal to “’help’ TLC move in the direction we want to go in.”



Page 47

• October 17th email from Dr. Osypuk to Drs. Falcone and Pandolfo regarding the previous day’s cabinet discussion with an attachment of the current TLC student roster, including the names of students that are in bold that are less likely to transition to homeschools the following year.

• October meeting with six parents of students in TLC where the issue of students in the TLC program transitioning back to their home schools was discussed publicly for the first time. Parents were told that decisions would be made at PPT meetings throughout the year, and were informed about the transition process. Some parents had significant concerns that the director was unable to answer all questions fully, and some perceived that the issue was discussed prematurely. A few parents appreciated the new option for their children, but they understood the concerns of the other parents. Three students formerly in the TLC program are now in their home schools.

• Early November. Parents contact BOE members to share their concerns that the “TLC was going to be shut down.” Some parents had the perception that the BOE had already approved the change. The superintendent assured board members that some students would always need the TLC structure and an evening parent meeting was set up to reassure parents.

• November meeting for parents with students in TLC with the superintendent and director who reassured the parents that the TLC was not closing.

• November FAQs & TLC Fact Sheet provided clear information about Darien’s vision for the TLC that appeared to have ended the immediate parent concerns.

There are several important lessons to be learned from this TLC anatomy. While I am a strong proponent of inclusive education and the value of educating students in their home schools, transitioning from a system with a very strong and valued centralized program to a decentralized inclusive model requires leadership, and a comprehensive, collaborative planning process with parents and staff. The process does not begin in the backroom with a list of students, and an announcement of what will be done. Such an approach is designed for failure. Rather, parents and staff are valuable, effective, and necessary partners. For this purpose, they receive and help to produce background information about the benefits of this instructional approach, and contribute to a meaningful discussion of challenges, potential problems, service/resource considerations, and other issues commonly addressed in this process. For example, the Boston Public Schools has three of the country’s best inclusive schools, which have been refining their methodology for many years, and are the subject of a published book.61 Observations of these and other schools that model what many parents would like to see for all of their children could help to guide discussions and planning for effective inclusive schools. It would also enable parents to engage in relevant PPT discussions with more information and understanding.

Parent Access To and Release of Information

A combination of emails, documents, and feedback from parents and district representatives reveals that Darien does not have procedures and practices in place to ensure that –

• All education records, including electronic and paper documents pertaining to SRBI, other progress monitoring results, evaluation and other assessment data, etc., are maintained in a manner consistent with relevant federal and state requirements.

61 Effective Inclusive Schools: Designing Successful Schoolwide Programs, by Thomas Hehir and Lauren Katzman at http://www.amazon.com/Effective-‐Inclusive-‐Schools-‐Successful-‐Schoolwide/dp/0470880147.



Page 48

• Electronic and manual search functions enable retrievers of information to identify and collect all relevant education records in response to a FERPA or FOIA request.

• All DPS employees have knowledge of and are accountable for the maintenance of records and documents in the manner required by FERPA/state law (records retention schedule), and are organized in a manner that allows them to be retrieved when required to fully respond to a FERPA/FOIA request.

• All DPS employees have knowledge of and are accountable for releasing personally identifiable education records only with prior parent consent unless the release is authorized by and complies with FERPA provisions.

3. Unlawful Predeterminations

The use of a directive to provide support for personnel on an “as needed” basis, the change in special education/related services personnel roles, the reduction of outside contracts, and other actions led to IEPs with reduced services/supports. These circumstances amounted to a predetermination of services and support by restricting PPTs in their design of IEPs to meet students’ individualized needs. The actions and their impact are summarized below.

Amount of Time for Support to Personnel

Dr. Osypuk directed IEPs to be written with an “as needed” frequency for assistive technology (AT) and occupational therapy (OT) consultative services, and for paraprofessional support for personnel. This directive predetermined IEP services/supports and severely restricted PPT decision-‐making. The requirement for “as needed” frequency was referenced in three documents: the July Administrator Meeting PowerPoint (PPTs refrain from writing “specific consultation time” in the IEP); the Building Consistency document, which specifically addressed AT and OT consultation; and the Sample IEP that addressed paraprofessional support.

• AT Consultation. Consultation will be case manager driven.

• OT Consultation. Going forward, consult needs to be “as needed” and driven by case manager. There should be few, if any, regularly scheduled consult meeting times. Any current IEPs that have specified consult times will need to occur until IEP expires.

• Paraprofessional Support. Para support “as needed” for the duration of the IEP.” (Sample IEP).62

The February 2013 BOE Report, prepared by Drs. Pandolfo and Osypuk, referenced the “as needed” directive regarding paraprofessional support. The report stated that, as part of the evidence that

“[a]ll special ed teachers and related service staff were trained on how to write legally compliant IEPs that promote student independence and generalization of skills” .. “ [a]dult support is being written in ‘as needed’ to allow the case manager to use his/her discretion as to when the student requires this level of support.”63

62 Frequency and Duration of Supports Required for School Personnel to Implement this IEP, page 8. 63 February 26, 2013 Report, Appendix B. Implementation of Action Plan Resulting from Badway Study, page 3. Professional and Paraprofessional Staff, b. Professional Training, #2.



Page 49

The regulation implementing IDEA specifies that the IEP is to include a statement of the supports for school personnel that will be provided; and their anticipated frequency, location, and duration of these supports.64 Federal guidance reinforces the requirement that the IEP is to provide clear notice about the resources being committed; and state guidance provides examples that reflect notice of specific periods of time. 65 “As needed” provides neither notice nor specificity.

“Up To” Frequency Numerous references in this report, and my review of IEPs and the audit conducted by the IEP system vendor, shows that where support for personnel indicated a number of hours, they were written consistently with an “up to” a specific amount. There was no or little description of what circumstances would lead to a provision of “0” hours or minutes to 60 hours or more of support. The provision of a maximum amount of time with no reference to expectations does not provide the “clear notice” expected by the U.S. Department of Education or CSDE. For example, the AT coordinator developed her schedule for 2012-‐13 based on the maximums of her “up to” caseload. When she was directed to rely on case managers to initiate contact with her for support and she was assigned to a .5 SLP position, her support was reduced significantly. Data shows that her caseload had a total of 915 maximum hours yet she provided only 221.5 (25%) hours of service. In one dramatic case, she was able to provide only 4.59 hours during the year of support when “up to” 60 hours were authorized.

Parent/Staff Survey A survey statement referenced the following: If consultation/supports were described in the IEP as “as needed,” parents/staff understood specifically who would determine the need and the criteria/objective data that would be used to determine when the “need” was present. Of those respondents with opinions, 54 (71%) parents and 28 (39%) staff members (strongly) disagreed with the statement.

Parent/Staff Survey: Understand Need & Criteria Data to Determine when “As Needed” Prompted

AT Consultation Restrictions CSDE’s July 18, 2013 letter cited the district for the following AT management practices:

• The August Training PowerPoint presentation’s listing of potential recommendations relative to AT services/evaluations and expensive equipment/technology (e.g., iPads) that required discussion with an administrator prior to a PPT meeting was “overly restrictive.”

64 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4) and (7). 65 71 Fed. Reg, Vol 71 No. 156 p. 46,667 (2006); CSDE’s IEP Manual and Forms, October 2010, Revised August 20, 2009, page 8; and Texas document at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=2147496881.

61%

29%

39%

71%

Same as above (N=72)

If consultaqon or other supports were described as "as needed," I understood specifically who would determine the need and the criteria/objecqve data that would be used to

determine when the "need" was present. (N=76)

Staff

Parents

Agree/Strongly Agree Disagree/Strongly Disagree



Page 50

• The November 6, 2012, Building Consistency document’s requirement to speak with a special education administrator prior to requesting an AT evaluation was overly restrictive and was found to undermine PPT authority; and limiting the AT consultant’s attendance at PPTs to those in which she is reporting on an evaluation potentially prevented individualization of a student’s program.

In addition, the Building Consistency document restricted consultation to be “case manager driven.” This directive is linked to the discussion above regarding consultation to be an “as needed” service.

Occupational Therapy (“OT”) The November 6th Building Consistency document included various restrictive directives for OT. The pertinent directive for the instant discussion pertains to the requirement that “[g]oing forward, OT [therapy] consultation needs to be “as needed” and driven by the case manager. Most consultation should occur via phone and/or email. There should be few, if any, regularly scheduled consultation meeting times. Any current IEPs that have specified consultation times will need to occur until the IEP expires. According to Dr. Osypuk, “OTs were asked to consider consulting on an ‘as needed’ basis, to avoid having to go back to PPT if they needed more hours and to permit them to attend team meetings only when their area was on the agenda.”66 (Emphasis added.) This explanation, however, changes the verb used in the directive from the more emphatic consultation “needs to be as needed” to the gentler “consider” consultation on that basis. The director further wrote:

“[Consultation ‘as needed’] was put in place … because the concerns from OTs was that they were locked into a certain number of consult hours per IEP and were finding that sometimes more or less hours were actually needed. OTs and case managers were instructed to abide by the current IEPs but going forward to use a more ‘as needed’ approach. At no point, were the OTs ever instructed to eliminate consultation.”67

In response to the CSDE July 18th letter citation that the various directives limit and potentially prevent individuation, Dr. Osypuk agreed with the finding. In her August 2nd letter to the superintendent, she explained her intent for the “as needed” consultation and the previously referenced restriction on OT attendance at PPT meetings:

“The intent here was to promote efficient use of staff time, as some staff had raised the concern that they were being drawn away unnecessarily, from providing services to students due to attending PPT meetings where their area of expertise was not being discussed. In order to ensure that the PPT is properly constituted to individualize a student’s program, it should be left up to the team as to who is invited to the PPT meeting.”68

The prescription that OT consultation be “as needed” as determined by the case manager, and additional directives regarding the provision of OT services that is discussed further below, presumes that PPT members will write IEPs reflecting this service configuration. This expectation of PPT members results in an unlawful restriction of their decision-‐making authority and is based on a predetermination regarding how they will design a student’s IEP.

66 June 24, 2013 Osypuk letter to CSDE, page 10. 67 April 3, 2013 Osypuk draft letter to CSDE, page 3 (not sent). 68 Page 4.



Page 51

SUMMARY The regulations implementing the IDEA specify that the IEP is to include both a statement of the supports for school personnel that will be provided; and the anticipated frequency, location, and duration of these supports.69 Federal guidance reinforces the requirement that the IEP is to provide clear notice about the resources being committed; and state guidance provides examples that reflect notice of specific periods of time. Neither “as needed” nor “up to,” as practiced, provides the clear notice of resource commitment for a student anticipated by Federal and state guidance.

Paraprofessional Support

Several DPS documents addressed paraprofessional (i.e., aide) support to students and personnel.

• “As Needed” Usage in February 25, 2013 BOE Report and Sample IEP. The February 26, 2013 BOE Report (Appendix B) stated that “Adult support is being written in ‘as needed’ to allow the case manager to use his/her discretion to when the student requires this level of support.”70 The Sample IEP document illustrated how paraprofessional support required for school personnel to implement the IEP was to be written as “as needed.” The usage of IEPs in this manner was reinforced in a number of email messages that addressed the issue of paraprofessional allocation.

• Reallocation versus New Hires of Paraprofessionals. The proposed 2013-‐14 RC-‐24 Special Education Budget prepared by Dr. Osypuk and reviewed by Dr. Falcone and others specified that there would be consideration of whether a reallocation of teacher aides would be able to fulfill students’ IEP needs when attrition occurs instead of automatically filling the position with a new hire. It was estimated that the cost for teacher aides would decrease by $80,487 (from $2,514,968 to $2,434,481).

The following changes in practices for paraprofessionals had the effect of limiting PPT decision-‐making and/or the effective use of their support.

• An effective management of paraprofessional support for students includes an assessment of current resources prior to hiring additional staff. However, when considering needs for a new school year, the assessment should to be done early enough in the summer to ensure that services are in place for students at the beginning of the next school year. The timing of this process would better ensure that parents are provided notice about their children’s teachers/support staff at the same time as parents of children without IEPs, and avoid needless anxiety and concern. In one case study, it is questionable whether a student would have received the support he eventually received without his parent’s attention and advocacy.

• At one school, a general education teacher who was also certified to teach special education was deemed to be a student’s “special educator” so that a paraeducator (as IEP-‐specified) would not need to be assigned to support the teacher. According to feedback from a CSDE representative, a general educator cannot serve in a dual role as a student’s special education and general education teacher.

• When allocating paraprofessionals to meet IEP-‐designated services/supports, it is essential for this activity to be conducted in a manner that enables these personnel to provide the intended

69 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4) and (7). 70 Page 13.



Page 52

services/supports. Each school must be accountable for ensuring that services are implemented with fidelity.

• At one school, a paraeducator and parent were asked not to communicate about a child. Effective communication systems include reasonable discussion between paraprofessionals and parents to share important information. Standards for this communication would be relevant for a special education SOPM.

• Of those staff members with an opinion, 24 (33%) (strongly) disagreed that they were not restricted in making a PPT recommendation for a specific frequency of paraprofessional support and 26 (45%) parents had a similar belief.

Changes in Roles of Special Education/Related Services Personnel

At the beginning of the 2012-‐13 school year, Dr. Osypuk, in one case in collaboration with Dr. Pandolfo, initiated role changes for special education/related services personnel that occurred prior to, rather than as a result of, changes in student IEPs. These role changes applied to the AT coordinator, autism inclusion coordinators, reading specialist, feeding/swallowing team, and speech/language coordinator.

AT Coordinator The AT coordinator came to Darien with about 25 years of AT experience. During the 2011-‐12 school year, which was the first year the district had a full-‐time coordinator, the AT coordinator spent most of her time conducting evaluations and initiating services.

IDEA has an expansive definition of AT devices and services. Devices include any item that can be used to increase, maintain, or improve a student’s functional independence and capabilities. It refers to any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability.71 AT services are those that directly assist a child with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an AT device. The term includes:

• The evaluation of student needs, including a functional evaluation in the student’s customary environment;

• Purchasing, leasing, or otherwise acquiring AT devices;

• Selecting, designing, fitting, customizing, adapting, applying, maintaining, repairing, or replacing AT devices;

• Training or technical assistance for a student or, if appropriate, the family; and

• Training or technical assistance for professionals, employers, or other individuals who provide services to, employ, or are otherwise substantially involved in the major life functions of a student.72

As evident from the above provisions, IDEA’s AT requirements are substantial. As noted in CSDE’s prior AT Guidelines:

“It is important to note … that not all professionals who work with students with special needs are knowledgeable about, or capable of, conducting assistive technology

71 34 C.F.R. §300.5. 72 34 C.F.R. §300.6.



Page 53

evaluations. In fact, at the present time, the number of professionals who have any degree of expertise with assistive technology is relatively small. … The evaluation report should also contain clear expectations and sequences for training, including approximations of set-‐up and initial training time, as well as a complete listing of those who should be trained and how often the training should take place.”73

When Dr. Osypuk assumed her duties at the beginning of the 2012-‐13 school year, the AT coordinator agreed that AT services could be better managed in a way that would enable her to spend more time with students having significant AT service needs. However, during initial discussions the director informed the AT coordinator that she would be expected to transition to a full-‐time SLP position. Through a September 14, 2012 email to the director, the coordinator emailed her concerns about such a drastic change in her role:

“At this time, I am not sure how practical it is to commit to the same building 5 days a week when my consult time on IEPs totals “up to 1,095” hours in addition to at least 13 other students which I am on “as needed” as well as my 4 “consult-‐evaluations.” That averages to up to 30.42 consult hours weekly for a 180-‐day school year before consideration for the additional 13 “as needed” students, any new evaluations, as well as my other responsibilities.74

A month later on October 17, 2012, Dr. Pandolfo emailed the AT coordinator (with a copy to Dr. Osypuk), to document a prior meeting discussion and reinforce that the AT coordinator would begin to transition to an SPL role as follows: “Over this year, you will begin shifting from your current role to a more direct speech service to students next year. This year you will serve as a sub for speech teachers who are absent (unless you are asked to do [XX]’s maternity leave.)”

The change in the AT coordinator’s role had numerous negative consequences that affected students. These consequences were foreseeable based on the coordinator’s IEP-‐based AT consultative caseload that existed at the beginning of the 2012-‐13 school year, and the processes put into place to substantially reduce her caseload. It is noteworthy that:

• 2011-‐12 data shows the AT coordinator was to provide up to 989 hours of AT consultation or services to 55 students; 10 IEPs reflected AT support to personnel on an “as needed” basis.

• 2013-‐14 data shows the AT coordinator was to provide up to 20 hours of consultation/services to 33 students; 33 IEPs reflected AT support to personnel on an “as needed” basis.

In order to meet her superiors’ expectations that she transition from a full-‐time AT coordinator/consultative role to a part-‐time role, a substantial amount of IEP-‐related consultation services would have to either be reduced significantly or not provided. In this manner, there was a determination of student need prior to PPT determinations.

According to the September 24, 2012, Clarifying Questions for Persons Chairing PPT Meetings (Clarifying Questions), there was an expectation that teachers would identify the professional development they needed to carry out AT activities, and to facilitate a reduced reliance on the AT coordinator’s

73 http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/DEPS/Special/AT_Guidelines.pdf at pages 26 and 27. 74 Data from the AT coordinator’s caseload verifies services that are at least as high as those referenced in this email message.



Page 54

consultation. According to Dr. Osypuk, staff requests for AT workshops were granted to prepare them for this role. However, this process does not substitute for a comprehensive and proactive process for obtaining information about teacher needs, and for providing necessary training. Furthermore, it would be difficult for teachers to obtain the type of knowledge, expertise and skill for the area of AT that would substitute for access to an individual who specialized in this area.

Special Education Teacher Acting as Reading Specialist In an August 3, 2012 email to her team, Dr. Osypuk wrote that she was removing from a special education teacher’s caseload her IEP-‐related consultation as a “reading specialist” because she is not a “certified reading specialist.” She explained that this action was being taken “…to provide consistency for our students, empower our case managers, and be legally compliant with what is written in IEP’s.” She also wrote that the consulting hours written up to a certain amount would be acted on an “as needed” basis:

“I am of the understanding that you may have certified Reading Specialists/Teachers in your buildings who might be able to assume this ’consultant‘ role. All consulting hours are listed as ’up to‘ a certain number so they would not be tied into a specific amount, but would act more on an ’as needed‘ basis. If this is feasible, I think this would be a great opportunity to further ’blur‘ the lines between general ed and special ed. Below are the # of students at each school”.

At the time, the Darien reading specialist was specified on 16 students’ IEPs. Dr. Osypuk’s decision to remove consultation from the special educator’s caseload was based solely on the educator’s certification status as a certified special education teacher, not a certified reading specialist. The teacher’s consultancy was based on her on-‐going training in a highly recognized and specialized multi-‐sensory reading program, and parents of students receiving this service had an expectation of this specialized consultation. With this understanding, the director could have taken various follow-‐up actions to address any remaining concerns. In this vacuum, compensatory education has been required for two students, and may be appropriate for the 14 other students with IEPs reflecting this service. None of the email correspondence regarding this matter mentioned any notice to parents about the change in the role of the special educator. Various case studies illustrated the impact of this change, the lack of planning in advance of the change, or follow-‐up taken subsequent to the change. In addition, the elementary special education administrator advised a special educator that she could carry out the reading specialist role in the following informal and inappropriate manner:

“… the Consultations are conversations that illicit advice from someone who has a specific expertise, and these conversations can happen within PLCs, informal times, or scheduled times. Optimally, these conversations would happen in a natural collaboration time, like a PC meeting. Very often they may sound something like, ‘I’m noticing that XXX is having a hard time with ___, what’s your thinking on how best to approach that?’ And then the consultant provides suggestions and advice on instructional strategies, resources, or assessments to try. To be clear, consultation is not service hours.”

In this case, the change in the role of the special educator who had been providing specialized reading consultation without using other means to address any concerns about the consultation misnomer predetermined the nature of the services the students would be receiving. Also, this service was



Page 55

changed outside of a PPT meeting, and without any prior written notice to parents. This set of facts is relevant to the next finding regarding IEP changes outside of a PPT meeting or formal amendment process.

Autism Inclusion Specialists Prior to the 2012-‐13 school year, two autism inclusion specialists provided support to students pursuant to their IEPs. One specialist had been serving in this role for about 12 years and the second for about 6.5 years. The specialists consulted with school teams about students with autism or autism-‐like characteristics, or with other severe/emotional issues. They assisted with the development/ implementation of strategies for the use of effective instruction and supplementary aids/services that would enable the students to be successful in general education classrooms. In addition, they supported the provision of curricular modifications, social/emotional support and skill development, the development of functional behavior assessments/behavior intervention plans, and Social Thinking curriculum and they assessed students with the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (“ADOS”). The specialists also worked as liaisons with parents, helping them to understand and address issues related to their children’s disability.

Various documents contained directives or restrictions on the use of the autism inclusion specialists:

• The August Training PowerPoint presentation required a prior discussion with an administrator for PPT recommendations regarding use of the autism inclusion specialist. CSDE’s July letter cited this requirement as being “overly restrictive.”

• The September 24th Clarifying Questions document had PPT chairpersons ask, in pertinent part, when considering consultation with autism inclusion specialists: “What PD do you need to be able to provide that instruction?”

• By the beginning of the 2013-‐14 school year, the electronic IEP system no longer included the autism inclusion specialist as a menu option.

• The February BOE Report, prepared by Drs. Osypuk and Pandolfo, established that the primary role of all staff members is to work directly with students instead of as a consultant only.

• Although it has been asserted that the requirement for a discussion with administrators prior to a potential recommendation for the services/consultation of an autism inclusion specialist was not to predetermine PPT decisions, it is clear that by the end of the 2012-‐13 school year this this service/consultation was effectively eliminated. As discussed above, information provided did not establish that required procedures were followed (i.e., IEP amendments or PPT meetings) to address IEP changes. Also, it was reported that there was insufficient communication with Darien staff to discuss the impact of a potential personnel change and how it might effect the instruction and support for students. Furthermore, although there was evidence of two individuals who attended Social Thinking training and that one special educator is trained in this program, there was no indication that they had the time and ability to implement the Social Thinking curriculum districtwide. School districts frequently make personnel changes based on many circumstances. That flexibility changes when student IEPs are tied to specific personnel, even if they do not hold a “specialized certification.”



Page 56

Feeding/Swallowing Team Prior to the 2012-‐13 school year, Darien had a centralized feeding/swallowing multi-‐disciplinary team with a core of three SLPs and contributions from nursing, PT, and OT. Team members each had their own school-‐based caseloads but met or carried out a team role when necessary to screen children having complex oral motor needs. Reportedly, the team members were highly trained and considered to be “gurus” in this area. Prior to and at the beginning of the 2012-‐13 school year, two of the SLP team members left Darien for various reasons. The remaining team member emailed Dr. Osypuk that she does “not feel [she] can manage the entire team independently.” One of the former team members had hoped that the team would be reconstituted; but that did not happen. Instead, Dr. Osypuk created building-‐based teams based on qualified staff at each school. This school-‐based process, however, did not take into account the collaborative approach recommended in CSDE’s 2008 Guidelines for Feeding and Swallowing Programs in Schools, even for small districts, as being necessary to address the continuing and new complex needs of children.

When a student has an identified feeding/swallowing deficit, the potential for suffocation and other harmful effects is great. Because of this concern and issues that had surfaced in the State of Connecticut in the past, CSDE developed its Guidelines. The document is not for light reading. It is highly technical, replete with medical language and explanations, and it is evident that highly trained personnel are necessary to ensure the health and safety of impacted children. Although the Guidelines state that a team is not necessary for compliance, they stress the need for training, coordinated collaboration and available consultation. To address this issue, the director provided the name of a specific individual to contact with questions; indicated that another person would be hired (presumably by contract) if that individual was not available; and Dr. Osypuk wrote that she discussed this issue during monthly school-‐based special education team meetings. These activities, however, do not ensure the continuation of a districtwide coordinated and highly skilled approach to feeding/swallowing in spite of the lack of an identified team. Also, there was no indication of any attempt to recruit from current staff new team members and provide them the training necessary to continue the work of this team. Although there was no evidence of life-‐threatening harm to a child due to the changes, the practices created confusion for the school community and may have interfered with the meaningful consideration of such services for students.

SLP Coordinator In early August, the director notified the coordinator that she would be moving to a full-‐time SLP caseload, which dramatically differed from the superintendent’s prior communication that the coordinator’s role would not change. Under the new directive, the coordinator would continue with IEP-‐designated consulting services until they were phased out at subsequent PPT meetings, and would begin to provide speech/language services to students placed outside of the district. According to an August 17th email from Dr. Osypuk to the superintendent, the director’s goal to phase out the coordinator’s consultation was based on an assumption that she had “transferred skills to building based SLPs.” It is not clear, however, how the director expected an SLP with such a high level of experience, knowledge, and expertise to transfer in one school year this compilation of skills to other SLPs. According to the coordinator’s notes prepared for an August 24th meeting with the director and superintendent, Dr. Osypuk had instructed the coordinator to discontinue at the next PPT meeting her consultative services and any case management duties for five students; the relevant consultation totaled 250 hours, e.g., about 6 hours per week. The coordinator reported that her questions about the process for communicating these changes with parents and school staff were not answered. A directive based on an



Page 57

expectation that IEPs would no longer include a service regardless of need constitutes a wrongful predetermination that disregards the PPT’s decision-‐making authority.

Although there is no requirement that Darien have a coordinator for speech/language services, reportedly one is typically in place in other Connecticut school districts having more than 10 SLPs; Darien data at the beginning of the 2013-‐14 school year reflected 19.6 SLPs. The district’s coordinator resigned because of her concern about decisions being made without regard to her feedback, and her perception of the director’s lack of respect for her experience, knowledge, and expertise. By contrast, the many individuals with whom I spoke held the coordinator in high regard and, especially the SLPs, believed that they and Darien had lost a valuable resource.

Individualized Services

Various directives and measures were used to consider the extent to which services would be provided to students on a 1:1 basis.

• As cited by CSDE, prior discussions with administrators were required to recommend this service at a PPT meeting.

• Concerns were raised by SPLs and PTs regarding the realities of grouping students with similar needs.

• Concerns regarding ways to meet IEP-‐required 1:1 paraprofessional support in one school were not resolved until at least October, and it was reported that one teacher from another school could not recommend at a PPT meeting a young child’s need for 1:1 services.

• Initially the 1:1 electronic IEP dropdown menu option was deleted until the director was convinced by some administrators to have it reinstated.

• Based on the parent/staff survey, 43 (44%) parents (strongly) disagreed with a statement that the PPT meaningfully consider their opinion regarding a child’s need for 1:1 services; and 13 (14%) staff persons (strongly) disagreed that they were not limited in making a recommendation at the PPT for 1:1 services.

The documents and actions discussed above reflected an absence of carefully developed standards for determining a student’s need for individual or group services or the sharing of a paraprofessional with other students based on a schedule and severity of need. The impact of this process resulted in services provided to students based on prior decisions rather than by the PPT deliberative process. Appropriate guidance could have been developed in collaboration with experts within and outside of the district, with parent representatives, and by obtaining legal review. In this way, the consideration of this issue would have benefited from consensus and a buy-‐in from both Darien staff and parents.

Outside Consultant Contracts

Various decisions and considerations about the continued use of outside contractors took place outside of the PPT meeting/amendment process. These are discussed in more detail below.

OT Contract The RC-‐24 Special Education Proposed Budget for 2013-‐14 included an expectation that the contractual OT account would be reduced from $755,000 to $651,794. During negotiations with the OT private



Page 58

agency, Dr. Osypuk learned that the district’s OT services varied significantly from districts with similar demographics. According to the agency’s representative:

“The workload time requested by Darien has historically included a significant amount of ‘team time’ and additional time to support students within their general education environment. Darien has historically utilized a greater number of OT service hours than other districts in our geographic are of Lower Fairfield County, CT. As an example, and by way of comparison for the 2011-‐12 school year.”75

Comparison of Darien & Greenwich OT Services

District Total Number of DPS Students

Total Number of Students with IEPs

Number of OTR Positions (FTE)

Darien 4,820 541 7 Full time OT’s

Greenwich 8,842 915 6 Full time OT’s

According to the representative, it is hard to do a direct comparison of service hours because different districts with whom the agency work seek tailored expertise, programming, and staffing and the compliment of student complexities is often different.

Based on data and the information provided by the OT agency’s representative, there is reason to believe that it was reasonable for Dr. Osypuk to consider a change in the configuration of OT services. However, the process used to facilitate this change ignored the PPT meeting process with respect to directives for:

• Participation in the PPT meeting that precluded OT attendance absent exceptional circumstances and administrator approved;

• The prescription that OT consultation be “as needed” as determined by the case manager;

• The use of a consultation primarily by telephone and/or email, which was considered inappropriate by the agency representative; and

• An assumption that IEP-‐related consultation times would be eliminated at the expiration of the IEP.

Also, there was no evidence of any process or plan in place to notify parents of students receiving OT services of these changes and the meaning of consultation versus direct services; the discussion of changes that occurred at a school meeting with some parents did not meet this condition. Darien data shows that OT services dropped from 181 students in 2011-‐12; to 112 students in 2012-‐13; and 109 students in the current school year.

Consultation for Social/Emotional Support On July 26th, Dr. Osypuk emailed a principal indicating that she was “holding off signing any contracts” for two students. One of the students, Student NN, had a June 14, 2012 IEP that specified the name of Consultant A, and Agency C. Email communication shows the following chain of events that led up to the nonrenewal of Agency C’s contract for the 2012-‐13 school year.

75October 11, 2013 email from agency representative to Gamm.



Page 59

• In an August 1, 2013 email from Dr. Osypuk to Consultant B from Agency C, the director asked various questions about the credentials of Consultant A and Consultant B, their roles, and why district staff were not providing the relevant services. The director indicated that being new to the district, she was uncomfortable signing any contracts until she had a better understanding of the situation.

• On August 3rd Consultant B replied and addressed the director’s questions, referring several times to Consultant A in the letter. Also, the consultant reported that she could not address the teams’ decision-‐making process regarding the need for outside consultation.

• Dr. Osypuk responded later on August 3rd, and in pertinent part wrote that Student NN’s (undated) IEP states: “4hr/wk direct instruction from Achieve Fluency” on page 2. (Recommendations) Presumably, this citation refers to the student’s current June 14, 2012 IEP, which contains this same information. The director did not reference the more specific information in the IEP’s Support to School Personnel section: “[Consultant A]-‐6 hrs/wk (sch/home) + bank of 60 hours.” In another email that day, Dr. Osypuk notified Consultant B that that the district is able to meet the IEP hours for Student NN and another student with in-‐house staff, and would no longer require a 2012-‐13 contract with Agency C.

• Subsequently, Consultant A notified the parent about the contract nonrenewal. On August 7, 2013, the parent of Student NN emailed Dr. Falcone about the situation, reported that the IEP specified direct services by Agency C, and asked for his intervention. On August 9, 2012, when this and other issues were not resolved, the parent requested a due process hearing; according to the request, a copy was emailed to Dr. Osypuk. In an August 14th email, Consultant A confirmed she had received Dr. Osypuk’s voice mail that she would be sending a contract for Student NN’s services for the 2012-‐13 school year. A contract for the service reflected the agreement was “made” on August 20, 2013.

In a December 7, 2013 email to me, Dr. Osypuk reported that she had reviewed her documents and now realizes that she was aware of Consultant A’s affiliation with Agency C , and that and she did not review the page 8 Supports for School Personnel section that referenced Consultant A by name, and “she must have only reviewed page 11 at the time the contract was initially non-‐renewed.” Page 11 referenced the service provider as a “BCaBA.” She proceeded to not renew the contract because the district employed a BCaBA she saw no reason why an outside contractor would be required. She further wrote that after the contract was not renewed and she was informed that Consultant A was referenced on the IEP’s page 8, she “immediately renewed the [Agency C] contract for the 12-‐13 school year.”

As Dr. Osypuk indicated in her August 1st email to Consultant B, she was new to the district, and it was reasonable for her to ask questions about contractual circumstances prior to a renewal commitment. As part of this process, she did not ask Student NN’s principal or other personnel with knowledge about the student’s IEP and the role of Consultant A and Agency C prior to deciding not to renew the contract. Had she done so, she would have learned that the consultant was providing social/emotional support, direct instruction, and consultation to Student NN who had been placed out-‐of-‐district several years before, and was emotionally fragile. Consultant A was expected to provide support and training to school staff and direct instruction to the student to support a positive learning experience for the 2012-‐13 school year. Without the parent’s vigilance and advocacy, the director’s actions would have denied Student NN services that were specified in an IEP.

saf

Highlight



Page 60

SLP Consultant One contract that Dr. Osypuk discussed with a private consultant pertained to a student’s unique progress monitoring needs and involved a relatively small amount of funds ($1700). The following circumstances pertain to the termination of this contract.

• According to her August 7, 2013 email to Dr. Osypuk, the consultant agreed to provide 10 hours of services during the upcoming school year, even though the activity required more hours of work. This agreement in part was based on the consultant’s understanding from Dr. Osypuk that she would apply the consultant’s two-‐hour fee for a July 30th report to prior school year funds.76 The consultant’s ongoing commitment was based also on her anticipated assistance from the SLP coordinator.

• The student’s mother reported that in early August 2012 she received a telephone call from Dr. Osypuk who communicated that the consultant would no longer be involved with the child. Because the parent was assured that the SLP coordinator would take on the consultant’s benchmarking role, the parent was satisfied with the arrangement.77

• Unaware of this discussion, the consultant mailed a September 6, 2012 letter to Dr. Osypuk to provide notice that she was resigning her 10-‐year consultation role for the student. The consultant’s decision was based on two factors: 1) Her receipt that day of the district’s notice that the prior billing for two hours would apply to the 2012-‐13 school year contract, and only eight hours remained to fulfill her work; and 2) because of the SLP coordinator’s resignation she no longer was available to support the consultant’s abbreviated assignment. The consultant further wrote: “My professional relationship with the team and especially with [the SLP coordinator] was rewarding. Now, I do not see that commitment.”

• The day after the consultant mailed her letter, she received a telephone call indicating that the PPT met and removed her service from the student’s IEP. According to the consultant, if Dr. Osypuk had handled the matter with more thoughtfulness and respect, the consultant would have allowed the teachers to continue to use the monitoring protocol that had been developed specifically for the student to measure his very small demonstration of progress, regardless of the consultant’s continued involvement.

Although the PPT met on September 7th and IEP documentation shows that the consultant’s services were terminated, the mother informed me that the matter was decided prior to the meeting, and was not discussed at the PPT meeting. The anticipated benchmarking never took place for the child.

4. IEP Changes Outside PPT/Amendment Process

Concerns were raised that Darien IEPs have been changed outside of a PPT meeting process or by an amendment meeting IDEA/state requirements. To investigate this issue, I reviewed: CSDE’s September 25, 2013 second letter of findings, which addressed IEP changes outside the PPT/amendment process, information from parents (including IEP and related documents); notes from interviews and focus groups, emails; parent/staff survey responses; and the results of a report produced by Darien’s IEP system vender that provided data regarding IEP changes post finalization outside of the PPT/

76 September 7, 2012 letter from consultant to Dr. Osypuk. 77 November 15, 2013 telephone conversation between parent and Gamm.



Page 61

amendment process. In addition, I spoke with and communicated by email with CSDE representatives about the SEDAC audit and upload process and related information.

IDEA Standards for Changing/Amending IEPs The IDEA provides two methods for changing IEPs. The first method requires a PPT meeting that results in a changed IEP using IDEA-‐mandated procedures, including meaningful parental involvement and proper notice to parents about the IEP changes. The second method involves an amendment without a PPT meeting if the parents and school district representative agree.78 CSDE has a form that must be used to document the parent’s agreement to the amendment process, i.e., Agreement to Change an IEP Without Convening a PPT Meeting. When this process is used to amend an IEP, the form is to include the specific amendments to be made; have attached pages of the IEP that reflect the agreed upon changes; reflect a signed agreement by the parent and school district representative; and have attached a PWN.

Neither the IDEA nor Connecticut law/regulation permit school personnel to change IEPs outside of a full PPT meeting or without the described amendment process, including changes made for technical or “human error” reasons. As discussed further below, CSDE’s September 25, 2013 letter of findings to Darien made a distinction between substantive and technical changes, and found only substantive changes to be noncompliant. In an October 10, 2013 email to me, CSDE representatives clarified that any time district personnel change an IEP outside the PPT/amendment process for technical reasons, a copy of the changes would need to be sent home to parents.

Constructive versus Actual Changes

While investigating this issue, it became apparent that there are two types of circumstances to which the 4th finding (IEP changes outside the PPT/amendment process) could apply: constructive and actual changes. In either case, the change refers to one that is made outside of the requirements of law.

• Constructive Changes. IEPs changed “constructively” occur in two ways:

- Alignment of IEP Contents & Proper Notice. The IEP reflects a component that was changed outside of the PPT/amendment process without proper notice to parents. Proper notice means the provision to parents of IEP-‐documented minutes, recommendations or PWN. Any one of the three methods of communication can be used to fulfill IDEA’s prior written notice requirement. This pattern includes circumstances involving differences of opinion between parents and school personnel regarding the content of IEPs and meaningful parental involvement in the decision-‐making process. In such circumstances, especially, proper notice is necessary to ensure parents understand there are changes in the IEP to with? which they may disagree so they have an opportunity to initiate various procedural safeguards, e.g., mediation, due process, state complaint, etc.

- Change by Service Design. IEP-‐specified services/supports by design were changed from prior IEPs or not implemented.

Constructive IEP changes are as serious as actual IEP changes.

78 34 CFR §300.324(a)(4).



Page 62

• Actual Changes. The second circumstance pertains to finalized IEPs that are either altered by: 1) technical changes without providing parent copies of the changed documents; or 2) substantive changes without holding a PPT meeting or documenting a proper amendment.

IEP contents changed through either the constructive or actual mode have the same result: IEPs, including services/supports for children that parents expect, are changed without the provision of required IDEA or CSDE required procedural safeguards. The following information pertinent to these issues was gathered during the course of my investigation.

Constructive Changes

The most common circumstance raised by parents regarding concerns about changed IEP services involved constructive changes.

IEPs were changed constructively outside of the PPT process because: 1) parents were not always given proper notice of the changes; and 2) IEP-‐specified services/supports by design were changed from prior IEPs or not implemented. Although not actual changes to an IEP document made without a PPT meeting or proper amendment, constructive changes were made without required IDEA procedural safeguards. This finding is based on the following information.

• The PPT meeting process typically did not include:

- Consistent reference to a student’s current IEP when considering goals/objectives, services/supports, etc. that would be continued, changed, or eliminated in the IEP under consideration.

- Either a draft IEP to be edited or an IEP template that would be completed during the course of the meeting so that all PPT members would have a common understanding of the IEP contents as they were being decided.

- A methodology for identifying IEP changes to ensure proper notice of each would be provided to parents.

Darien’s process that relies on notes to document discussions and guide later completion of a complex IEP was ripe for error and miscommunication with parents. The decision to streamline IEP minutes (and to limit circumstances for parents to add their personal minutes) had the effect of providing a less comprehensive method of reporting parental disagreements and their resolution, which in the absence of another methodology diminished one of the district’s bases for documenting proper notice.

• Seven documented cases reflected IEPs that contained changes from prior IEPs without proper notice to parents.

• During my October 2013 open meeting with about 30 parents, about half indicated that they believed their child’s IEP was changed from a prior IEP without proper notice.

• Survey responses reflected that 34 (46%) parents and 11 (19%) staff with an opinion (strongly) disagreed with a statement that prior notice was given to parents (through PWNs, minutes or recommendations) for services the PPT did not accept.



Page 63

• Based on a report produced by Darien’s IEP system vendor, there were approximately 169 students with 2012-‐13 IEPs that reflect supports for school personnel that were changed from a prior IEP. Four of these students had two sets of service reductions. These changes were made pursuant to a PPT meeting or amendment. All of the changed services reflected services discussed in this report, e.g. feeding/swallowing services, autism inclusion support, paraprofessional support, OT consult, AT consult, other consultation, team meetings, etc. Given the information above, there is a reasonable basis for concluding that actual notice to parents was not provided each and every time supports for school personnel were reduced from the prior IEP.

In addition, when IEP-‐specified activities cannot be implemented or included in subsequent IEPs because of the district’s service design and outside the PPT decision-‐making or amendment process, the intent of IDEA is thwarted. This occurred, for example, when changes were made in IEPs because of prior and expected upcoming role changes of the inclusion specialist, special education reading specialist, and AT coordinator.

Actual Changes

According to CSDE, the IDEA regulation does not differentiate between technical edits and substantive changes. However, the agency’s letter to Darien states that CSDE recognizes a distinction between the two for compliance purposes:

“The CSDE considers a technical edit to be a change that does not alter the substance of the IEP or services to the child. Technical edits may be used to correct minor clerical errors such as misspelling. A substantive change is one that alters the substance of the IEP or services to the child, for example, changing the content of a student’s goals/objectives. Substantive changes may be made only by a PPT or through an IEP amendment.”

According to my October 22, 2013 conversation with a representative from CSDE’s Bureau of Data Collection, Research and Evaluation (“BDCRE”), special education directors have received training by BDCRE personnel about technical IEP changes that may be made to address "human error."

SEDAC Upload & State Audit

Two circumstances that occurred in early July and in October caused Dr. Osypuk to make actual changes in student IEPs after they were finalized. She made these changes to address what she considered to be “human error” and not substantive changes concerning services to students.79

SEDAC Audit During the 2011-‐12 school year, BDCRE randomly selected Darien for participation in CSDE’s Desk Audit System for SEDAC. The agency’s July 9th report found that Darien had inconsistent data reporting accuracy; however, the district’s data did “…not demonstrate a systemic failure to report and/or follow SEDAC reporting directions/guidelines. As a result, … the district did not receive a finding of noncompliance for [State Performance Plan] Indicator 10.” To address the inconsistent data reporting accuracy, Darien was ordered to receive technical assistance from CSDE and provide evidence of staff training by September 15th regarding the accurate and thorough completion of IEPs. CSDE closed out the audit upon its receipt of evidence that staff training had occurred. 79 October 17, 2013 Osypuk letter to Gamm.



Page 64

Representatives of BDCRE informed me that the SEDAC audit involved a paper review of 25 IEPs from the 2011-‐12 school year, and a comparison of them to the same IEPs in the district’s electronic IEP system.80 Dr. Osypuk was given notice of the specific errors identified; and she was told to consider the type of errors uncovered, determine whether current IEPs have similar errors, and to follow up with corrective action. Of the 25 IEPs reviewed, 13 had errors and SEDAC data did not match consistently information in the paper IEPs. According to the BDCRE representative, part of this process included a determination of whether any of the data were errors and could be corrected, or whether the data reflected noncompliant IEPs. In this respect, noncompliance referred to untimely completed initial evaluations and annual reviews. The timeliness of annual reviews was of particular concern for the 2012-‐13 school year because OSEP had notified CSDE that the interruption of education caused by Hurricane Sandy would not excuse any untimely actions; and CSDE had clarified that the annual review time frame was 365 calendar days from the last initial/annual IEP irrespective of weekends or holidays.

Dr. Osypuk explained that during her investigation to determine why CSDE had found so many errors in the Darien audit, she discovered that numerous persons were finalizing IEPs (including secretaries), and many of them had little understanding of the required timelines and the many different cells of an IEP with a potential for data-‐entry error. As a first step, the director changed the IEP finalization process to permit only the special education administrators and one special education department head to perform this task. She believed that if only those with the greatest understanding of the IEP process finalized IEPs, then it would be more likely that clerical errors would be corrected prior to finalization. However, errors continued to be identified after the IEP was finalized.81

SEDAC Upload & October 12th Reporting All IEPs entered into the district’s IEP system must be uploaded into the state’s SEDAC system to facilitate mandated state and federal reporting requirements. When Dr. Osypuk initiated this process in October 2012, the system’s electronic error checks revealed over 100+ records with 200+ errors. Given DPS’s recent CSDE finding of “inconsistent accuracy of reporting," the director reviewed each of the identified student records in the district’s IEP system to identify the basis for the errors, and whether they reflected data entry mistakes or a “real” untimely triennial or annual review time frame.82 Dr. Osypuk corrected the technical errors she found, and did not notify parents of the changes.

As discussed in more detail below, although the IEP system has a validation process to identify errors that must be corrected before a student’s IEP can be finalized the errors identified are not inclusive of all the errors SEDAC identifies through its validation process. This second validation process occurs when IEPs are uploaded into the state system.

Notice to Parents

Dr. Osypuk indicated that she did not believe it was necessary to notify parents of IEP corrections relating to the SEDAC upload process because the corrections did not impact student services and there was no written guidance fro the CSDE, including in the SEDAC User Guide. Furthermore, the director indicated that the process for notifying parents would have been very time-‐consuming because there were over 100 IEPs with errors. In addition, the department secretaries reported to the director that

80 October 22, 2013 telephone conversation with BDCRE representative. 81 June 24, 2013 Osypuk letter to CSDE representatives, page 4. 82 October 17, 2013 Osypuk letter to Gamm.



Page 65

notifying parents of these corrections had not been past practice. However, the director did not contact any CSDE representatives to discuss the fundamental parent notice issue.

Three of the secretaries confirmed that in the past IEPs changed pursuant to the SEDAC uploading validation process were filed in each student’s “blue book” at the serving school, and in the Central Office file. (If this does not get filed properly at the school, the paper IEP will not be identical to the SEDAC uploaded IEP). The secretaries confirmed that in the past they did not send a copy of the corrected IEP to parents.

Types of Changes Made to Finalized IEP

In various documents Dr. Osypuk provided examples of areas in which IEPs were changed in relationship to SEDAC, and her explanations for changes to IEPs.83 These are described below.

• Incorrect Meeting Purposes. There were several IEPs that had incorrect meeting purposes.

– Some IEPs were identified as completed in an untimely manner because the reason for the meeting was for a purpose other than an annual review. However, the IEP minutes indicated that the meeting was actually an annual review. In these cases, the director corrected the meeting reason to “Annual Review,” and corrected the related annual review and next annual review dates in the IEP system. These corrections were made to enable staff to easily identify the last annual review date without having to open each document, and to facilitate notice of and compliance with future annual review meeting dates.

– For other IEPs, staff had checked off “Review Evaluation/Reevaluation” as the meeting reason when the meeting was not held for this purpose; instead they were held to review an interim evaluation that was conducted by either the district or obtained by a parent. This incorrect date had then been used as the most recent evaluation date and the basis for the next reevaluation date. In the same manner described above, the director corrected the meeting reasons and the other referenced dates.

• Incorrect Next Annual Review. In several IEPs, staff calculated the next annual review date from the identified Implementation date or from the next projected meeting date, instead of from the annual review meeting date.

• Incorrect Next Annual and Next Triennial Dates. Staff incorrectly changed next annual review and triennial due dates to a school days instead of the correct calendar dates. Based on CSDE’s reminder that these dates are to be calculated based on calendar days, the director corrected the dates in error to reflect accurate dates. This correction enabled new IEP records to carry over correct next annual review dates and create an opportunity for timely annual reviews.

• Total Special Education Hours/Week. In some IEPs data was entered for “0” total special education hours/week even though data in other sections of the IEP reflected contradictory information. The electronic function for calculating total special education hours/week would show a “0” outcome in this circumstance and when multiple metrics were entered in the service grid (e.g., 3 hours/week; 30 minutes; one hour per eight-‐day cycle; etc.) The director used other information in the IEP (minutes, recommendations, PWN) to enter in the service grid correct data and/or changed data to a common metric (e.g., hours/week). She then either used the auto-‐calculation function to

83 June 24, 2013 Osypuk letter to CSDE representatives, and October 17, 2013 Osypuk letter to Gamm.



Page 66

redetermine total special education hours/week or calculated total special education hours/week manually, and then entered the correct information in SEDAC. In either case, Dr. Osypuk asserted that the actual time the student was to receive services in the various educational settings remained the same.

• Exit Dates. Reportedly, the IEP system will not permit a document to be finalized if the student’s exit date reflects a date after the meeting date. This edit check prevents a future exit date taking into account the mandatory delay in IEP implementation to provide prior PWN wait requirements. In this case, the document must be finalized with the wrong exit date and then finalized again with the correct date.

Multiple Annual Review Dates Although reasonable minds may disagree regarding the extent to which the above examples constitute technical changes, Dr. Osypuk provided a rationale that is not justified for one set of changes she made for students with multiple annual review dates. She wrote that these changes involved a few students who had annual review meetings that required several sessions over more than one day to complete. In these circumstances, staff correctly calculated the next annual review date based on the final annual review meeting date. The validation process tagged these annual reviews as “late” because the IEP was finalized more than one calendar year from the last annual review date. For these students, the director wrote that she changed the annual review meeting date from the final to the first annual review meeting date “… because the intent was to have completed the Annual Review during that first meeting, but due to time constraints this did not happen.”84 Dr. Osypuk further asserts that her rationale is justifiable because several other districts use the first day of a multi-‐day Annual Review as the date reported in SEDAC because the intent was to have completed the Annual Review in one day.

However, in my opinion, and as confirmed by representatives of CSDE in a November 13, 2013 email, the relevant date of a multi-‐day annual review meeting is not the first but the final meeting date for the purpose of determining if the one-‐year timeliness requirement has been met. As the director acknowledged, it is possible that the parents of children with IEPs changed in this manner may believe that the next annual review is based on the final and not the first date of the annual review meeting.

Sufficiency of Edit Checks Available on IEP System

Several of the illustrations used by Dr. Osypuk to communicate the type of changes she made that resulted from “human error” reflect data elements that a more robust electronic edit check could address in an IEP system so that more errors are corrected before a student’s IEP is finalized for the first time. For example, cells for entering service hours/week could be configured to only permit entry with a common format; this would ensure that total special education hours/week is calculated correctly. Additional edit checks could be set based on established parameters for expected dates/year; dates could be migrated or calculated from “like” fields; and dates could be updated automatically based on calendar year calculations. Overall, to the maximum extent possible, internal data could be used in “smart” ways to ensure that: data-‐entry is internally consistent with each other; alerts are issued when data does not appear to be entered correctly; and meeting purposes are logical based on internal logarithms. These and other processes would significantly reduce the type of errors referred to above.

84 June 24, 2013 Osypuk letter to CSDE, page 6 and 7.



Page 67

Moreover, the questionable complexity of the current system is best described by the following example that was found through the IEP system vendor’s audit report for a student’s 2012-‐13 IEP with autism inclusion consultative services that had been deleted and finalized without a PPT meeting or amendment. The follow-‐up investigation revealed the following chronology, and several procedurally cumbersome action steps that are italicized:

• On October 19, 2013, Dr. Osypuk notified staff that the autism inclusion specialist resigned and her position would not be filled. The director informed the special education administrator (secondary) that the director would notify the parents of students affected by the resignation, i.e., those with IEP-‐specified autism inclusion consultation, and discuss with them a possible amendment to the IEP.

• During the winter, the assistant director believed that this discussion had taken place and she created a draft amendment document (outside the PPT process) that reflected the removal of autism inclusion consultation from the IEP. During a subsequent conversation about the proposed amendment, the parent informed the administrator that there had been no prior discussion with the director and that the parent would not agree to the proposed amendment change.

• In March 2013, the case manager was preparing for the student's annual review but found that she could not create a new draft IEP while the draft amendment remained open (because it had not been approved by the parent). When notified about this circumstance, the administrator believed she had no other option other than to finalize the unsigned draft, which then permitted the creation of a new draft IEP.

• The finalization of the draft IEP amendment reflected a service that was removed from the IEP through an unauthorized amendment.

This example illustrates also the impact of Dr. Osypuk’s early 2011-‐12 school year decisions for special education staff role changes prior to any PPT meetings or other discussion with parents.

IEP System Audit

As mentioned above, a request was granted for the district’s IEP system vender to develop a computer program to compare for every student receiving special education services all IEP documents completed in 2012-‐13 to the previous school year’s 2011-‐12 document, and to identify IEPs with any 2012-‐13 changes after they were finalized. Based on this audit, about 147 students (representing 336 lines of changed data) appeared to be done outside the PPT and amendment process. All of these changes refer to the type of “technical” changes that were discussed above. The following are examples of these changes:

• Changed from "Review or Revise IEP, Review Eval/Reeval, Plan Eval/Reeval" to "Review Eval/Reeval, Conduct Annual Review"

• Changed from "03/28/2012" to "03/28/2013"

• Changed from "Conduct Annual Review" to "Conduct Annual Review, Plan Eval/Reeval"

• Changed from "Review or Revise IEP, Conduct Annual Review, Transition Planning, Plan Eval/Reeval" to "Review or Revise IEP, Transition Planning, Plan Eval/Reeval"

These changes appear to be similar to those explained by Dr. Osypuk in this section and do not reflect substantive service changes. It is not possible to determine from the report whether the changes were



Page 68

made after the document was finalized but before it was provided to the parent. In such a case, the individual who finalized the document may have caught an error and corrected it, requiring the document to be refinalized. Apart from technical edits made to IEPs pertaining to the SEDAC upload process, Dr. Osypuk reported that she expected parents to be given copies of pages that were edited, and that copies of the edited pages replace the incorrect pages in the school and central office files. She also reported that neither Darien nor CSDE has a written protocol for “how to handle technical edits made after the IEP had already gone out.”85

SUMMARY: Actual IEP Changes

In my experience, I have not been aware of any written guidance in any jurisdiction allowing IEPs to be changed outside of IDEA’s IEP development or amendment process. While this circumstance may exist, I have been unable to find anything in writing from typical sources, e.g., U.S. Department of Education guidance, references in the nation’s major special education reporting systems, or discussion with colleagues across the nation. My written conversation with another vendor for three IEP systems that reportedly supports about 20% of the nation’s students with IEPs revealed that none of the systems allow for any change after an IEP is finalized.86 Going forward, Dr. Osypuk indicated that until CSDE issues clear guidance on the difference between a substantive and technical change and relevant procedures, the special education department would ensure that any IEP changes be made through a PPT or IEP amendment.

Technical versus Substantive Changes Are Not Obvious Technical versus substantial changes are not readily obvious, and there may be reasonable disagreement about the category that applies to a specific example. In any regard, Dr. Osypuk’s decision to not provide parents with any notice of IEP changes made through the SEDAC upload process is inexcusable. Even though Darien personnel had not notified parents of changes in the past, a telephone call to CDSE representatives would have revealed their understanding that personnel must always give a parent notice of any IEP change regardless of its characterization as technical or substantive, the or amount of time and effort required. In hindsight, Dr. Osypuk indicated that she wished she had taken the time to notify parents as it may have avoided parents thinking that substantive changes were made. Furthermore, Darien does not have a written protocol regarding the need to notify parents about and provide copies of technical changes made to any IEP subsequent to parental receipt of the original document. Such a protocol would provide a clear statement of expectations and be appropriate for a special education operating procedural manual.

Insufficient Electronic Edit Checks Furthermore, although Dr. Osypuk had changed the finalization process to rely solely on special education administrators and one department head, she did not pursue action to initiate changes to the IEP operating system so it would have the most aggressive internal check possible to maximize error alerts and facilitate correction as part of the IEP’s initial validation process. While that action may have had to be coordinated with other school districts using the same vender or initiated independently through a consideration of other options available, such a front-‐end approach would most successfully reduce future SEDAC update errors on the backend. In addition, it would have enabled case managers to

85 December 5, 2013 Osypuk email to Gamm. 86 For the record, I provide consultation services to this vendor.



Page 69

finalize their own documents because of a higher confidence of fidelity and would have supported their accountability for completing the IEP and getting a copy to parents in a timely manner.

5. Data Reporting

The last finding addresses improper/unlawful activity regarding data reported to CSDE and/or the U.S. Department of Education. Several issues were considered in this regard. First, as found above, Darien’s use of data for SEDAC reporting did not follow agency (and IDEA) requirements pertaining to parent notice about IEP changes, even if made to correct technical errors; the basis of this data is used by CSDE to report required data to the federal government. Darien’s SEDAC reporting to CSDE included data that was entered without associated notice to parents. This issue is referred to CSDE for its review and any follow-‐up that may be required. Second, there is a potential that sufficient documentation did not exist or was not maintained to support Darien’s request for 2012-‐13 reimbursement under the Excess Cost Reimbursement Grant.

SEDAC Reporting

CSDE requires school districts to submit timely and accurate data for all areas CSDE must rely on to report data to the U.S. Department of Education for the State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report. For this compliance activity, states are required to submit 100% timely and accurate data to the federal agency. CSDE uses SEDAC reporting to obtain this information from school districts. In addition to its electronic validation process that is used at the time that districts upload SEDAC data, CSDE departments conduct periodic audits to ensure that all data entered in SEDAC is accurate and matches paper copies of student IEPs.

As discussed above Darien’s reporting of SEDAC data has been fraught with errors. Given the information found above (Finding 4) –that SEDAC data was changed to correct technical errors without any notice to parents – the reported data was not based on proper and lawful processes. This issue is referred to CSDE for further review and any follow-‐up that may be required

Documentation of Excess Costs

During the course of this investigation, a variety of issues surfaced regarding the documentation Darien used as the basis for its submission of special education expenses to CSDE for the Excess Cost Reimbursement Grant. According to the SEDAC-‐G User Guide, “Districts must maintain detailed, accurate documents for each student to support their claim.” The Guide further explains that “[t]he most challenging costs to report are for staff within the district. One formula may not work for all students.” The costs must be documented and based on those needed to provide services to students as outlined in their IEPs. 87

Generally, a review of documents and interviews with staff did not reflect the maintenance of detailed, accurate documents for each student to support claims for in-‐district costs throughout the 2012-‐13 school year. According to Dr. Osypuk, evidence of service provision was based on the “honor system,” which she asserted was aligned with past practice. She reported that it was her understanding that prior

87 Page 54.



Page 70

to July 1, 2012 provider caseloads were submitted only at the beginning of each school year.88 When she assumed her role as director, Dr. Osypuk wrote that she required monthly submissions to account for any changes made throughout the school year via the PPT/IEP Amendment process.89

According to interviewees, excess costs in some cases may have been projected for the school year based on caseloads developed at the beginning of the school year and in some cases did not appear to be updated to address such changes as IEP services changed from a specific frequency to “as needed”; personnel roles changes; personnel on leave or leaving the district; student group size changing from individual to group, or group to individual; change in sizes of groups; etc.

Based on these concerns, approval was granted for the investigation to include a data request for all excess cost reimbursement submissions. A review of these submissions resulted in additional questions or concerns regarding the accuracy of the submissions for reimbursement. Information from district support personnel about documentation maintained and processes followed for excess cost reimbursement submissions were reviewed. Based on this review, the examples below include but are not limited to concerns that appropriate documentation may not be available to support excess cost billing statements for Darien employees in based on the following circumstances:

• Psychological service costs for an employee may have exceeded the employee’s date of leave (shortly after the beginning of the school year);

• Inclusion service costs may have exceeded the date an employee that left the district in the fall of 2012;

• Feeding/swallowing services for students may have been provided by different personnel or possibly discontinued;

• AT consultation services may have been based on a caseload of projected services that were not updated to reflect IEPs with an “as needed” and “up to” frequency, and to reflect services actually provided. As noted above, due to directives that the AT coordinator only attend PPTs for which she was reporting on an evaluation, the coordinator reported that she did not always have notice of changes in IEP services relevant to AT consultation.

• SLP group-‐based services may not have been based on adjustments that occurred during the school year; and

• BCBA consultation services may not have been based on documentation of actual services provided and that was maintained.

This information was sufficient to support initial concerns regarding the basis of excess cost submissions to CSDE. On October 24, 2013, I informed BOE counsel of these concerns and requested that the concerns be forwarded to the BOE’s auditors. Later that day, BOE counsel contacted the auditors and reported the concerns for their review. On October 31st, the Darien Board of Selectmen and Board of Finance held a special session to order an audit of the town’s special education budget regarding

88 Ms. Pavia, Darien’s former special education director, informed me that she utilized various methods, e.g., every other week meetings with in-‐district consultants, to inform the special education secretary about modified caseloads. The former director reported also that she met every other week with accounting personnel and the superintendent to monitor students and their related excess cost information. 89 December 4, 2013 Osypuk email to Gamm.



Page 71

possible errors in the reporting for special education expenses submitted to the State of Connecticut for the Excess Cost Reimbursement Grant.

Dr. Osypuk provided two sample caseloads that she was able to retrieve through her email (a psychologist and special educator, each for one month) and offered to contact the Darien office to obtain all of them. Because this matter had been referred for a formal independent audit with an external audit firm, the director was asked not to proceed.



Page 72

III. RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are offered to address the above-‐referenced findings and to support an effective and efficient administration and operation of services for students with disabilities in the Darien Public Schools.

1. Complete an SRBI Standard Operating Procedure Manual.

a. Contents. Ensure the SOPM includes expected practices for the following areas: reporting of student progress; standards for the frequency of data collection for various tiers of support and purposes; meaningful communication of student interventions (including the tier of support) and student progress with parents, including the frequency and method of sharing information; and standards for determining when student progress has not been sufficient given the time and interventions attempted and related consideration for Section 504 or special education evaluations. In addition, clarify that a student may be referred for an evaluation as soon as there is a suspicion that the student may be eligible to receive Section 504 or special education services.

b. Progress Monitoring. For progress monitoring, consider the following CSDE guidance: During progress monitoring, educators should present data to families in both graphic and numerical formats they can readily understand and should elicit families’ views about the student’s progress or lack thereof. Data supplied to families should also reference expected grade level benchmarks so parents may better understand where their child’s skills are in relation to grade-‐ level expectations. Families should feel they are part of, not only the recipients of, the monitoring of a student’s progress90

c. Web-‐based Application. Use a web-‐based application so that the SOPM can be easily updated, include all relevant forms, and provide links to other relevant websites, literature, etc., relevant to SRBI. Post the webpage on the DPS website so that it is publicly accessible.

d. Training. Provide ongoing training opportunities for staff; work with parent organizations to provide training for parents. Differentiate the training based on different levels of knowledge.

e. Accountability. Establish a mechanism for ensuring that expected SRBI standards are implemented with fidelity.

f. Data System. Consider investing in a data system that would support the implementation of SRBI. To the extent possible, integrate data with Section 504 and special education data systems.

2. Complete a Section 504 Standard Operating Procedural Manual.

a. Contents. Ensure the SOPM includes expected practices for all relevant areas. Include procedures to follow for DPS staff to identify students who may meet the Section 504 eligibility criteria. Clarify that when a parent refers a child for Section 504 services and there is reason to

90 Guidelines for Identifying Children with Learning Disabilities, section on Identifying and Implementing Scientific Research-‐based & Evidence-‐based Practices – Families as Partners. http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/DEPS/Special/2010_Learning_Disability_Guidelines_Acc.pdf, page 12.



Page 73

suspect the child has a disability, the district is responsible for all aspects of the student’s assessment and the parent is not obligated to provide any medical information.

b. Web-‐based Application. Use a web-‐based application so that the SOPM can be easily updated, includes all relevant forms, and provides links to other relevant websites and information. Post the webpage on the DPS website so that it is publicly accessible.

c. Training. Provide ongoing training opportunities for staff; work with parent organizations to provide training for parents. Differentiate the training based on different levels of knowledge.

d. Accountability. Establish a mechanism for ensuring that expected Section 504 standards are implemented with fidelity.

e. Data System. Consider investing in a data system that would enable support the implementation of Section 504. To the extent possible, integrate data with SRBI and special education data systems.

3. Complete a Special Education Standard Operating Procedures Manual.

a. Contents. Ensure the SOPM includes compliant and appropriate standards and guidance, including the following areas:

Substantive Areas of Information

1) Specially Designed Instruction.* Immediately clarify the definition and application of specially designed instruction.

2) Support for Personnel.* Immediately clarify that the need for support for personnel in IEPs must reference a specific frequency (e.g., hours per month), location and duration; include clarification that the terms “as needed” and “up to” are not to be used to denote the frequency of services for support for personnel.

3) Clarification of Services.* Clarify the differences among support for personnel, special education, and related services.

4) Study Skills.* Immediately clarify that the area of study skills may be an appropriate annual goal for a student with PLEPs reflecting this need, and may be considered to be a specially designed instruction.

5) Social/Emotional Learning.* Immediately clarify that any personnel with appropriate qualifications may support a student in the area of social emotional learning, using an inclusive rather than exclusive approach. This broader approach recognizes that social/emotional issues impact many areas of a student’s performance and that an integrated and coordinated methodology is more likely to support a student in his/her different environments and learning situations. Different qualified personnel may be designated as “responsible staff” and/or “service implementer,” (depending on the student and personnel schedules/caseloads) to provide instruction/interventions and monitor student progress. It should be clear that these roles do not exclude the involvement of any PPT member when developing goals/objectives.

6) Other Health Impaired – Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (OHI-‐ADHD).* Include criteria for OHI-‐ADHD, including information from the CSDE Report on ADHD and other best practice documents. Immediately clarify that the criteria includes professional judgment.



Page 74

7) Developmental Delay (DD).* Include criteria for DD, taking into consideration best practice literature. Immediately clarify that a student’s eligibility for DD includes professional judgment.

8) Adaptive Physical Education (APE).* Include criteria for APE, including information from CSDE’s APE Guidelines. Immediately clarify that a student’s eligibility for APE is not conditioned on a student receiving physical therapy.

9) Extended School Year (ESY).* Include criteria for ESY, including information from CSDE’s ESY Topical Brief and the following:

i. Time Frame for Eligibility. Immediately establish appropriate time frames for determining ESY eligibility to ensure they will be completed earlier in the year than at or soon before the end of the school year, and in sufficient time to enable a parent to address any concerns through a dispute resolution process.

ii. Service Configuration. Ensure that the configuration meets the requirements of IDEA, which prohibits any unilateral limitation of the type, amount or duration of services.91

10) Independent Education Evaluations (IEE).* Include procedures for reviewing parent requests for IEEs, including reasonable time frames for the review, and criteria for funding IEEs approved at public expense. Include guidance from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Program (OSEP).

11) Individualized Services.* Include standards for considering a student’s need for individualized services, including but not limited to any benefits of 1:1 instruction; the trajectory of learning anticipated as a result of this intensive model; whether the anticipated growth is likely to facilitate a student’s increased independence and ability to interact positively with peers; and the benefits of more inclusive service models.

12) Speech/language Impairment.* Include criteria that allows for a combination of scores and description of student characteristics that would help to guide consistent and appropriate eligibility and service decision-‐making. Immediately clarify that criteria includes professional judgment.

13) Dual Certified Teachers.* Immediately clarify that a general educator (who is also a certified special educator) who is teaching a general education class may not be considered to be the special educator referenced in an IEP when paraprofessional support is required when not with a special educator, etc.

14) Progress Monitoring. Establish principles for collecting and sharing meaningful student progress monitoring data with parents, including data used for IDEA progress report and any local guidance for more frequent sharing of student progress with parents.

15) Discipline Procedural Safeguards.* Include an explanation of all IDEA procedural safeguards; and state requirements pertaining to seclusion and restraint. Immediately clarify that any student with an IEP suspended for more than 10 days in a school year must continue to receive educational services as specified in the IDEA.

91 34 C.F.R. §300.106(a)(3).



Page 75

Information about Managing PPT Meetings & Communication

16) Review a sample of IEPs reflecting students with different intensities of needs and grade levels to consider whether IEP contents are written in the most useful manner for both staff and parents, and whether the contents can be written differently to provide a better guide for teaching and learning (and still be compliant.)

17) Purpose of Meetings Held Prior To PPT.* Immediately Clarify the use of preparatory activities for DPS personnel to develop a proposal or response to a parent proposal that will be discussed at a later PPT meeting; clarify that although DPS personnel may form opinions and compile reports prior to PPT/IEP meetings, the personnel must be willing to listen to parents, come to the meeting with suggestions and open minds, not a required course of action, that meaningful participation includes a parent’s opportunity to discuss the proposed IEP with team members who earnestly consider the parent’s concerns and also includes the parent’s engagement in that discussion, and that when services are being considered beyond those normally available at a school that an individual with the authority to commit those resources is to be invited to participate in the PPT meeting.

18) Building Consensus. Include guidance based on best practices literature regarding how chairpersons are to facilitate PPTs in a way that encourages active discussion and builds consensus.

19) Attendance at PPT Meetings.* Immediately clarify that invitations to attend PPT meetings shall include any personnel having relevant information for the PPT’s consideration, and that no personnel area is to be categorically excluded from consideration for attendance.

20) Parent Notice.* Immediately clarify that parents may be asked but are not required to provide advance notice of any individuals (including attorneys, advocates, or outside evaluators) they choose to invite to the meeting with knowledge or special expertise regarding the student in question.

21) Number of PPT Meetings Per Year.* Immediately clarify that the number of PPT meetings held for a student is based on the needs of each student, and include standards for this consideration.

22) IEP Dates.* Immediately clarify that multi-‐day PPT meetings to develop or review/revise IEPs, particularly annual review meetings, are to reflect the meeting date that the document IEP was completed. In addition, based on any necessary discussion with CSDE, clarify the date to be associated with an amended IEP.

23) Parent/School Communication. Establish principles for supporting appropriate and meaningful communication between school staff and parents, including the reporting of student progress in a meaningful manner; sharing concerns; use of communication logs, meetings, emails, telephone calls, etc.; and when consent is required for student observations.

24) Paraprofessional/Parent Communication. Establish guidance to consider when establishing parameters for paraprofessional/parent communication.



Page 76

b. Process for Developing SOPM

1) Input. When developing the SOPM, consider hiring a consultant with the knowledge, expertise, and time available to support the completion of an expeditious draft. Make the process collaborative by involving DPS staff and others in the community with areas of expertise who can contribute relevant information. Once the draft is completed, have a group of DPS staff provide feedback; obtain BOE counsel legal review; and at an appropriate time ask a small group of parent attorney(s)/advocate(s) to give thoughtful feedback.

2) Web-‐based Application. Use a web-‐based application so that the SOPM can be easily updated, includes all relevant forms, and provides links to other relevant websites and information, e.g., training videos, etc. Post the webpage on DPS’s website so that it is publicly accessible.

3) Immediate Memorandum. Draft a memorandum addressing all the areas referenced above that requires immediate clarification; other areas may be included as appropriate. Distribute the document and post it on DPS’s website; and communicate its information based on an established plan. The term immediate means within one month of the date of this report.

4) Staff Training. With a small group of DPS representatives and the consultant if one is hired to draft the SOPM, develop a plan for John Verre’s review, including the parameters of differentiated training necessary for all district education administrators, school administrators, special educators, related services staff, paraprofessionals, etc., to carry out their roles and responsibilities. As part of the plan, include the time necessary for and the contents of differentiated training, and resources required. Have Mr. Verre consult with the superintendent to receive feedback about the plan and present it to the BOE for approval.

5) Parent Training. Collaboratively with parent representatives, plan for the provision of coordinated and on-‐going information for parents based on the representatives’ prioritized concerns. Differentiate the training to be responsive to audience’s different levels of knowledge.

6) Legal Review. Ensure that all relevant documents have legal review.

c. Accountability. Establish a mechanism for ensuring that expected IDEA/state standards are implemented with fidelity.

4. Establish guidance for the facilitation of PPT meetings and development of IEPs.

a. Chairperson & District Representative Roles. Consider establishing different roles for chairing PPTs and for district representatives, and having the chairperson be an IEP facilitator rather than a “decider.” This would enable the district representative to listen to the conversation and be an active participant. Consider training all potential chairpersons in the IEP facilitation process, which focuses on consensus building.

b. Use of Draft IEPs. Consider establishing a procedure whereby fully drafted IEPs are shared with parents before PPTs and are edited throughout the discussion. If this is not done electronically with an LCD projector, the editing can be done on a paper document for later input into the IEP system. The “official” edited document can be copied and shared with the parent at the end of the PPT, allowing for any concerns to be raised immediately. Because this process would enable



Page 77

more individuals to catch errors on the draft IEP, consider having appropriate school personnel finalize the IEP document.

c. Notes & Draft Document. Consider assigning a PPT participant who also does not have a primary participant role to take notes; and assign the most appropriate person to edit the IEP document during the meeting.

5. For the 2014-‐15 school year, establish a plan for timely and appropriate scheduling and notice to parents.

a. Personnel. Address related services personnel and paraprofessional schedules.

b. Notice to Parents. Provide notice to parents at the same time that parents are typically given notice of their children’s general education teachers.

c. Allocation of Paraprofessionals. Establish parameters for ensuring the appropriate allocation of paraprofessionals, including IEP-‐referenced needs, and that the process is followed with fidelity.

6. Engage in a conversation about how all schools can use Universal Design for Learning (“UDL”) principles and enhance supports for students to become highly effective inclusive schools.

a. Collaborative Discussions. Consider ways in which collaborative discussions with parents and school representatives can identify challenges to highly effective inclusive practices, including school-‐based challenges, and processes for addressing them proactively and effectively. Consider the use of students to help identify challenges and areas for improvement.

b. Observations & Learning. Consider visiting highly effective schools, including the three in Boston described in Dr. Tom Hehir’s book, Effective Inclusive Schools: Designing Successful Schoolwide Programs, and through observations, information in this book, as well as other information, use learning to inform the collaborative discussions referenced above.

c. Enhancing In-‐School Options for Students Currently Out-‐Placed. In collaboration with parents, consider the services and supports that would need to be in place to enable students to return to Darien schools for their education, and to enhance the effectiveness of Darien schools for students who would otherwise be out-‐placed. In this process, consider any needs for enhanced specialized reading and social/emotional supports.

7. Identify students who were potentially impacted by the various directives and changes in personnel roles for appropriate follow-‐up action.

a. Identification of Students & Follow-‐Up. Use student data and school personnel to identify the following: students terminated from or assessed but not eligible for APE; students not eligible/terminated in the area of OHI-‐ADHD; students evaluated and not eligible for DD92; students not eligible for ESY; students with 1:1 services that were terminated; and students terminated from feeding/swallowing support. Notify parents of the relevant issue and invite them to discuss any concerns with a district or school representative who can help them to determine any course of action that may be appropriate. In addition, include in the notice

92 The recommendation for reviewing decisions for children not eligible for DD is limited to a consideration of whether professional judgment was taken into consideration as part of this decision. Because staff indicated that they did not rely on any guidance to not do so, I did not reach a finding that they did so. However, CSDE did find noncompliance regarding DD eligibility guidance so such a review would be warranted.



Page 78

parents of students with reduced services to address any concerns about prior lack of notice and current concerns about their children.

b. Support for Personnel. Identify all students with supports for personnel having an “as needed” or “up to” frequency; in a coordinated manner, reconvene PPTs to consider any continuing need for the service and the specification of frequency if the service continues to be appropriate for personnel supporting the student. In addition, clarify the purpose of this section and that it does not relate to direct services to students.

c. Assessment of Personnel Roles. Reconsider appropriate roles for the AT coordinator, facilitating effective inclusive support, specialized reading support, and speech/language coordination; take any appropriate follow-‐up action.

8. Review and ensure that Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) procedures are effective and fully implemented in a timely manner. Ensure that:

a. Progress Monitoring Records. All education records, including electronic and paper documents pertaining to SRBI, other progress monitoring results, evaluation and other assessment data, etc., are maintained in a manner consistent with relevant federal and state requirements.

b. Search Functions. Electronic and manual search functions operate in a manner that enables the retrievers of information to identify and collect all relevant education records in response to a FERPA or document request under the state record retention schedule (state record law).

c. Maintenance of Records. All DPS employees have knowledge of and are accountable for the maintenance of records and documents in the manner required by FERPA/state record law, and are organized in a manner that allows them to be retrieved when required to fully respond to a FERPA/FOIA request.

d. Parent Consent. All DPS employees have knowledge of and are accountable for releasing personally identifiable education records only with prior parent consent unless the release is authorized by and complies with FERPA/state record law provisions.

e. Training. Ms. DeFrancis’s training program includes information about FERPA and student records/record retention procedures.

9. Take steps to improve edit checks for electronic IEPs, access to data reports, and service tracking software.

a. Edit Checks. Engage in discussions to determine the extent to which Darien’s current IEP system can be enhanced to include “smart” edit checks so they are aligned with SEDAC upload edit checks to substantially reduce entry and reporting errors. In addition, to the maximum extent appropriate, have them include edits for internally consistent data, e.g., ESY only including summer dates and not a yearlong date.

b. Data Reports. Explore improved access to data reports by school and district personnel to improve the management of and accountability for special education services, including timely finalization of IEPs and their provision to parents within established time frames; timely annual reviews and triennial evaluations; etc. Consider the extent to which software provides notice of dates about to be missed and notice to superiors for assistance and/or intervention. Also



Page 79

consider the extent to which the system can accommodate the monitoring of student performance and other outcomes. As part of this process, ensure that all services that would be beneficial to track or report are collected in a way that can be reported, and in a consistent manner.

c. Service Tracking. Explore available software used to track the provision of IEP services for use in managing and overseeing the provision of services, and supporting the billing of excess costs.

If not satisfied with the extent to which the current IEP system is able to accommodate improvements in these areas then consider other options available, including exploring the capacity of other systems.

10. Review and ensure an effective policy and procedure is in place for investigating complaints alleging noncompliance with Section 504 or IDEA. Consider expanding this to complaints about SRBI implementation.

11. Enable BOE meetings to include a session for public comment that is not linked to the night’s agenda. This process would enable the public to share information with the BOE. Typically, members of the BOE do not respond to public comment. (Note also that during the 2013-‐14 school year parents have the option of speaking with the special education ombudsman, which offers an additional avenue of communicating concerns regarding the special education process and practices.)



Page 80

Appendices

Appendix A. Documents

Documents Cited by CSDE by Finding Number 1. Special Education & Student Services (8/30/12) 2. Clarifying Questions for Persons Chairing PPT [Planning and Placement Team] Meetings (9/24/12) 3. Building Consistency of Sped Practices District Wide (11/6/12) 4. Worksheet for Eligibility under OHI-‐ADHD [Other Health Impaired – Attention Deficit Hyperactivity

Disorder] (1/15/13) (PPT) Report of Eligibility for Special Education due to Developmental Delay (2/21/13) Adaptive Physical Education (APE) Eligibility Criteria Under the IDEA (Draft)

5. District Guidance Regarding Requests to Complete Rating Scales from Outside Providers (3/17/13) 6. Parent Requests an IEE

Procedures for IEEs (1/28/13) 7. Criteria for Evaluators Conducting Independent Education Evaluations (IEEs) (Draft) 8. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – Darien Special Education 9. [Therapeutic Learning Center] TLC Fact Sheet 10. Special Education Administrator Meeting (ppt) 11. PPT. Department of Special Education and Student Services ppts (Elementary, Secondary, Preschool) 12. PPT. Department of Special Education and Student Services (General Education Teachers) 13. PPT. Special Education Instructional Aides – ELP: Helping to Foster Student Independence 14. PPT. A Basic Understanding of IDEA (8/15-‐16/12) 15. Sample IEP Document 16. Special Education Policies and Procedures Manual

Documents Submitted & Not Cited by CSDE • ADA Amendments Act: Section 504 – Understanding and Application to the Public School Setting • Administrator/Secretary Processing Initial Referrals to Sped (10/3/12) • Behavior Intervention Plan • CSDE IEP Manuals and Forms (Fourth Revision) (3/20/13) • E-‐mail communication from S. Falcone to Administrative Council – to cabinet: completion of

behavior rating scales -‐ • E-‐mail communication from S. Falcone to Administrative Council (4/19/13) • Functional Behavior Assessment (Draft) • How to Run a Pre-‐Meeting (to administrators) (9/24/12) • IEP Direct Dates (1/3/13) • Intellectual Disability Eligibility Documentation • Letter to ECS and First Student regarding bus restraint procedures (12/10/12) • Letter to parents regarding parents’ right to request meeting to review PPT process



Page 81

• PPT Checklist (2/25/13) • Procedures for Processing Newly Registered Sped students (3/16/13) • Procedures for Processing Students Exiting Special Ed in Darien • Procedures for Processing Students Initially Identified by District (1/9/13) • RC-‐24 Special Education Proposed Budget 2013-‐2014 • Related Services (Student and Educator Support Services), What is the meaning of “related’?;

Guidelines for making effective IEP Decisions (Sharon McCloskey, Director of Constellation School Based Services)

• Report to the BOE – February 26, 2013 (2/26/13) • Section 504 of the ADA Amendments Act (effective 7/1/09): As it Pertains to the Schools (9/24/12) • Staff Procedures for Processing Initial Referrals to Sped (10/3/12) • Strategy for Success Worksheet and Tracking • Worksheet for Determination of Eligibility for Special Education Services under the Classification of

Autism

Additional Documents • CT Model Procedures for Special Education

• CSDE letters of findings for individual students • Darien Financial/Budget Data • Darien Parent and Board of Education meeting by Theresa C. DeFrancis (10/8-‐10/13)

• Darien Professional Development for Staff by Theresa C. DeFrancis (8/22-‐23/13); for Administrative Retreat (8/15/13)

• Darien Public Schools SRBI Handbook • Letter of concern from a former employee to Stephen Falcone

• Overview of national and state laws and regulations that have influenced OT school-‐based practice in the Town of Darien, Dr. Sharon McCloskey, Constellation School Based Therapy (10/13)

• Parent group complaint & CSDE reports (7/18/13 and 9/25/13)

• Response of Dr. Deirdre Osypuk to Commissioner Pryor re: CSDE complaint DO response to complaint (6/24/13)

• Response of Dr. Deirdre Osypuk to Commissioner Pryor re: CSDE complaint (letter was not sent to CSDE, 10/3/13)

• Response of Dr. Deirdre Osypuk to Steve Falcone re: CSDE findings (undated, on or after 7/26/13) • SEPAC Minutes (7/11/13) • Speech/Language Matrices

• Various Darien Newspaper Articles • Response of Dr. Deirdre Osypuk to Executive Summary (November 12, 2013) • Response of Dr. Deirdre Osypuk to draft report (November 25, 2013 document and letter) • Response of Dr. Deirdre Osypuk to draft report (December 8, 2013) • Response of Dr. Deirdre Osypuk to draft report (December 11, 2013) • Response of Dr. Pandolfo to Executive Summary (November 11, 2013 and November 12, 2013)



Page 82

• Response of Dr. Pandolfo to various portions of draft report (November 26, 2013) • SEDAC User Guide • IEPs of more than 35 students, which includes those referenced in this report



Page 83

Appendix B. Data Analysis

The following types of data was requested and assessed:

• 2005-‐06 through 2011-‐12 Annual Progress Report Data

• Total number of all enrolled students • Total number of all enrolled students by elementary grade level/school, middle school, high

school, and placed by DPS in approved nonpublic schools • Total number of students with IEPs • Total number of students with IEPs by primary disability • For 2011-‐12 and 2012-‐13, the number of students:

- Enrolled in DPS - With 504 plans - Receiving SRBI services at Tiers 2 and 3 (This data was later provided on November 8, 2013.) - With IEPs by:

o Primary disability area o Primary disability upon exit from special education services o Related service or other service area on IEP service grids o Time with nondisabled peers

• Number of full time equivalent (FTE) personnel: special education teachers, paraprofessionals, speech/language pathologists, psychologists, social workers, nurses, OTs, PTs

• Outside contracts and IEEs



Page 84

Appendix C. Issues by Documents & State Findings/Recommendations

CSDE findings reflected by “NC” for noncompliance and “REC” for recommended actions. CSDE wrote that while the report “summarizes some of the particular issues with specific materials, it is meant to be a representative sample of the general areas of concern and is not an exhaustive analysis.” Additional issues I identified are noted with an “X.”

1. Spe

cial Edu

catio

n & Stude

nt

Services

2. Clarifying

Que

stions fo

r Persons

Chairin

g PP

T Mee

tings

3. Building Co

nsistency of Spe

d Practic

es District W

ide

4. W

orkshe

ets

5. District G

uida

nce Re

: Req

uests to

Complete Ra

ting Scales

6. Paren

t Req

uests

Proced

ures fo

r IEEs

7. Criteria fo

r IEE Evaluators

8. Frequ

ently

Asked

Que

stions

9. TLC Fact S

heet

10 PPT

: Spe

d Ad

ministrator M

eetin

g

11. 3 PPT

s: Dep

t of S

ped/Su

pport

12. P

PT: Spe

d/Su

pport (Gen

Ed)

13. P

PT: Spe

d Instruct. A

ides, ELP

14. P

PT: B

asic Und

erstan

ding

of IDEA

15. Sam

ple IEP

What does disability mean? Would child look disabled…? X X What is specialized instruction? What is not specialized? NC NC NC Related Services: access v benefit (Clarifying Questions) X X School-‐ v Clinical-‐based practice: implies 1:1 service is not school-‐based X More is Better: may be misinterpreted; causes scarce resource inequities Rec Rec PPT Agenda – missing components X Team Meetings: Refrain from writing in IEP NC PPT: United Front: work out differences prior to PPT NC PPT: Chairperson responsibilities exclusive of parental involvement X Parents (not in mission) Rec X X Parent Meetings: Refrain from writing in IEP NC Parents: Excessive services (What to Say When) PPT authority NC Parents: More IEP g/o than proposed (What to Say When) PPT author NC Parents give notice: attorney, record PPT, outside evaluation NC Parent right to “reasonable” number PPTs/year X Administrative decision when consensus not reached X Minutes X Prior Written Notice X PLEP: give examples Rec PLEP scores to exclusion of description Rec 1:1 instruction: questions to ask X 1:1 Instruction: prior discussion with director NC 1:1 Instruction & inclusion questions (Clarifying Questions) X X APE: PT requirement, prior discussion w/sped administrator NC APE draft overly specific worksheet Rec ADHD overly specific worksheet NC AT Coordinator: consult with AT coordinator X NC AT Evaluations: prior discussion/sped administrator X AT Consultant: attend PPT only when reporting on eval NC AT: Expensive Equipment: prior discussion w/administrator NC Autism Inclusion Specialist: consult w/specialist X Autism Inclusion Specialist: prior discussion w/administrator NC BC(a)BA: prior discussion w/staff NC



Page 85

CSDE findings reflected by “NC” for noncompliance and “REC” for recommended actions. CSDE wrote that while the report “summarizes some of the particular issues with specific materials, it is meant to be a representative sample of the general areas of concern and is not an exhaustive analysis.” Additional issues I identified are noted with an “X.”

1. Spe

cial Edu

catio

n & Stude

nt

Services

2. Clarifying

Que

stions fo

r Persons

Chairin

g PP

T Mee

tings

3. Building Co

nsistency of Spe

d Practic

es District W

ide

4. W

orkshe

ets

5. District G

uida

nce Re

: Req

uests to

Complete Ra

ting Scales

6. Paren

t Req

uests

Proced

ures fo

r IEEs

7. Criteria fo

r IEE Evaluators

8. Frequ

ently

Asked

Que

stions

9. TLC Fact S

heet

10 PPT

: Spe

d Ad

ministrator M

eetin

g

11. 3 PPT

s: Dep

t of S

ped/Su

pport

12. P

PT: Spe

d/Su

pport (Gen

Ed)

13. P

PT: Spe

d Instruct. A

ides, ELP

14. P

PT: B

asic Und

erstan

ding

of IDEA

15. Sam

ple IEP

BC(a)BA evaluation: prior discussion w/administrator NC Consultation time: refrain from writing specific time in IEP (as needed) NC Consultants (employees or outside): prior discussion w/director NC Developmental Delay: overly specific worksheet NC Extended School Year (ESY) NC R-‐9 Extended day; Refrain from writing in IEP NC Feeding/Swallowing Team: no longer have team X Frequency of Services Rec As Needed (support to personnel) X Homebound: direct to director; nurses no longer involved. X In-‐home Service: Refrain from writing in IEP NC IEE: What purpose would an outside evaluation serve? X IEE: PPT makes IEE determination NC X IEE: Criteria for evaluators (2a, 4b, 5c) Rec IEE: Outside evaluations: prior discussion w/director NC IEE: Outside evaluations: prior discussion w/administrator NC OT: attend PPT only w/sped admin approval; NC OT: Consult “as needed”; CM driven; consult by phone/email; ‘til IEP expires X Para Support (as needed) X Para 1:1 Support: prior discussion with administrator NC Rating Scales – Completed only when PPT recommends NC Social Thinking: Explanation of efforts to find overlap w/Second Steps” X SLP Coord consultation: prior discussion with administrator NC TVI/THI: prior discussion w/staff NC THI/TVI: prior discussion with THI/TVI X THI/VHI: attend PPT only when providing direct services NC THI/TVI: prior discussion with specialist NC TLC (inclusion standard; vision for TLC) *Inclusion vision X Rec Discipline: No mention of services>10 days X