THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234 P120FFICE OF SPECIAL EOUCATION SPECIAL EOUCATION QUAlITY ASSURANCE, New Yor,k City Regional Office 55 Hanson Place, Room 545, Brooklyn, NY 112171580 Tel. (718) 722-4544, Fax (718) 7222032 www.p12.nysed.gov/specialedJ

March 28, 2014

Mr. John Elfrank-Dana U FT Chapter Leader 411 Pearl Street

y 10038

Ms. Debra Maldonado, Cluster Leader New York City Department of Education 131 Livingston Street, Room 210 Brooklyn, NY 11201

Dear Mr. Elfrank-Dana, Ms. Bradbury and Ms. Maldonado:

The New York State Education Department (NYSED) has completed its investigation of the State complaint filed by 10 members of the Instructional Support Staff (ISS) of the Murry Bergtraum High School on January 28, 2014, alleging violations of federal and State laws and regulations pertaining to the education of students with disabilities, enrolled at the school.

Enclosed is NYSED's written final decision that addresses each allegation in the d' _s of fa a d co clus'o s: a d sets forth e easo .

Upon any finding of failure to provide appropriate services to an individual student with a disability, Murry Bergtraum High School must take the identified correction to remediate the denial of services to the identified student and take appropriate actions to ensure the appropriate future provision of services for all students with disabilities.

The implementation of the enclosed Compliance Assurance Plan (CAP) will be monitored by Regional Associate Malvice Jefferson. All CAP submissions should be sent to Dr. Jefferson, who is assigned to work with Cluster 5.

For additional information on State complaint procedures, see:

http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/guality/complaintga.htm .

If you have any questions regarding NYSED's decision in this matter, please contact me at the number listed above .

Sincerely,

/ ~~ . Grace Talbot Regional Associate

so Nayana Bhattacha~ee Malvice Jefferson Corinne Rello-Anselmi Amy Jones Steven Albert Lynn Kandrac Gerard Beirne Niobe Hayes Lottie Almonte File

Findings of Complaint Investigation

State compla,int against: The New York City Department of Education's

Murry Bergtraum High School

Complainant's Name: Mr. John Elfrank - Dana, received January 28, 2014

Allegation #1:

Murry Bergtraum High School failed to provide Integrated Collaborative Teaching (ICT) s de ts . disabilities as per their Individualized Education Program (IEP

_.... __ -e--- ..,.....::

... ered ~ ~ , e Fa 2': J sc..... :e""'" as -0 ca:eo e school s 2013 Term 1-ICT Courses' list. Each course section rndlcates the subject and section of the ICT class, the general education and special education teachers assigned to the class, the number of general education students and students with disabilities listed in the class roster, the number of the room where the class is offered and the number of periods per week, the class is offered.

According to the roster of students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) that lists the name of the student, the IEP recommended ICT services including the subject and the number of periods recommended, 99 students were recommended to receive Integrated Collaborative Teaching (ICT) services for the Fall 2013 school term.

A review of the recommended special education programs and services on the students' IEPs for the 99 students and the roster revealed that for six students, the programs listed on the roster do not match their IEP recommended ICT servces

Ea- s e s assigned a program card WhIch lis s ne curse e. se c number, course name, teacher's name/s, room number, and cycle day which indicates how many days the services wi I be offered.

A review of the individual student program cards revealed that for 84 out of 99 students the ICT programs scheduled for the individual students did not correspond to the ICT recommendations listed in the roster of students with disabilities. The discrepancies were noted in the areas of subjects and courses assigned.

A review of the "2013 Term 1 - ICT Courses" list indicated that there is one course section with no teacher assigned, one course section with only the general education teacher assigned, three course sections with one teacher's

name listed for both "Touched by an IEP"(special education teacher) and "Gen Ed" (general education teacher).

Administrative and staff Interviews confirmed that teachers assigned to ICT courses for the Fall 2013 school term were often providing instruction to students without a co- teacher.

egation# 1: Conclusion and Reasons

s e aeterm natlo of this Office that the Murry Bergtraum High Scnool IS I c,at 0"" of Section 200.6(g)(2) Of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, since one course section has one teacher identified as both the special education teacher and the general education teacher which is contrary to the regulatory requirements that mandate each class must include, a special education teacher and a general education teacher.

Finding for Allegation#: 1 Sustained

~ Citation Language

Required Corrective Action #1

200.6(g)(2)

Allegation # 1

School personnel assigned to each class shall minimally include a special education teacher and a general education teacher.

s e : a .J sa . s a specIfied on the student s rEP to be necessary u unique needs.

Compliance Assurance Plan

Citation 200.6(g)(2), 200.6(a)(2)

Murry Bergtraum High School must submit evidence that all students with disabilities recommended to receive ICT services are programmed in accordance with the recommendations in their IEPs.

Murry Bergtraum High School must also ensure that each ICT Course Section is assigned a general education teacher and a special education teacher.

By April 25, 2014, Murry Bergtraum High School must submit the following to the NYSEO:

YOI:Iw-n~ ass rses

An 0 lIne of the schoors administrative structure indicating the individuals responsible for the accurate programming of the students as per the recommendations of their IEPs. This must also include the name and title of the person responsible for ensuring that the student programs correspond to the specific recommendations of their IEPs.

By May 25, 2014, the Regional Associate will determine compliance by a review of the documentation submitted.

Required Corrective Action #2

The principal will ensure that the Committee on Special Education (CSE) convenes for each of the 99 students with a recommendation for ICT services at Murry Bergtraum High School for the Fall 2013 school year to determine if the school's failure to provide the ICT services recommended on their IEPs had a negative impact on their progress and, if so, whether additional services are needed as a result.

By June 27, 2014 e P nClpa II S oml 0 the YSE e e ce '"'a: a conducted, including copies of:

All parental notices pertaining to the IEP including the invitations to the meetings indicating the purpose of the required IEP meeting and the prior written notices of the resulting IEP recommendation,

All assessment data considered at the reviews and documentation of efforts to obtain parental consent to conduct any new evaluations deemed necessary,

Any IEPs amended or developed, and The students' schedule for any additional services recommended .

By July 28, 2014, the Regional Associate will determine compliance by reviewing the documentation submitted.

Allegation #2:

Murry Bergtraum High School failed to provide Special Education Teacher Support Services (SETSS) to forty-four students with disabilities as per their IEP recommendation, for the Fall 2013 school term.

According to the student program cards, 23 of the 42 students recommended for SETSS were programmed for 1 period of SETSS during the 12th period for the Fall term of 2013. The student program cards did not indicate the days of the week, room number or the teacher assigned.

The student program card also indicates that 18 students recommended for SETSS were not programed for SETSS for the Fall 2013 school term.

A student program card indicates that only one student is programmed to receive SETSS the 12th period, Monday- Friday and has a teacher assigned and room number.

The principal of Murry Bergtraum High School, stated that due to a teacher shortage she was unable to secure a SETSS provider for the Fall 2013 school term.

Additionally, Murry Bergtraum High School has not yet secured teachers to provide SETTS services to date.

It is the determination of this Office that Murry Bergtraum High School is in violation of Section 200.6(a)(2) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, since there was a failure to provide the students with the SETSS services as recommended on the students' IEPs for the Fall 2013 school term.

Finding for Allegation #:2 Sustained

200.6(a)(2) A student with a disability shall be provided the special education specified on the student's IEP to be necessary to meet the student's unique needs.

Compliance Assurance Plan

Allegation # 2 Citation 200.6(a), (2) 200.6(f)(1) Required Corrective Action #1

Murry Bergtraum High School must submit evidence that all 42 students are receiving SETSS services as per the recommendations on their IEPs.

By April 25, 2014 Murry Bergtraum High School must submit the following to the

..... .-roy Be gtra High Schools administrative procedure for securing recommended special education services when assigned providers are on leave, or long term absence.

By May 25, 2014, the Regional Associate will determine compliance by a review of the documentation submitted.

Required Corrective Action #2

The principal will ensure that the Committee on Special Education (CSE) convenes for each of the 42 students with a recommendation for SETSS services at Murry Bergtraum High School for the Fall 2013 school year to determine if the school's failure to provide the SETSS services recommended on their IEPs had a negative impact on their progress and, if so , whether additional services are needed as a result.

11 submit to the NYSED evidence that a review was

All parental notices pertaining to the IEP including the invitations to the meetings indicating the purpose of the required IEP meeting and the prior written notices of the resulting IEP recommendation,

All assessment data considered at the reviews and documentation of efforts to obtain parental consent to conduct any new evaluations deemed necessary,

Any IEPs amended or developed, and The students' schedule for any additional services recommended.

By July 28, 2014, the Regional Associate will determine compliance by reviewing the documentation submitted.