special education program compliance review final report · the minnetonka public school district...

Special Education Program Compliance Review

Final Report

June 30, 2015

Minnetonka Public School District (0276-01)

Dr. Dennis Peterson, Superintendent

Deb Anderson, Director of Special Education

Minnetonka Public School District (0276-01) 2

Table of Contents

Introduction and Authority ....................................................................................................... 3

Scope of Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 3

Resulting Findings and Corrective Action ............................................................................ 3

Monitoring Findings by Area ................................................................................................... 4

Finding Area 1: Governance ............................................................................................... 4

Finding Area 2: Facilities and Environment ......................................................................... 8

Finding Area 3: Child Find and Evaluation .......................................................................... 9

Finding Area 4: IEP and IFSP Processes and Implementation ...........................................12

Summary of Corrective Action Required ................................................................................17

Appendix ...............................................................................................................................18

Acronyms ...........................................................................................................................18

Individual Student Record Noncompliance .........................................................................19

Complaint Decisions ..........................................................................................................19

Interviews and Surveys ......................................................................................................20

Federal Instructional Settings by Disability .........................................................................21

Race/Ethnicity by Disability ................................................................................................22

Age by Disability ................................................................................................................23


Introduction and Authority

The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE), as the state educational agency, is required by

federal law to monitor the education of children with disabilities pursuant to the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(11); 34 C.F.R. § 300.600. In addition,

state law requires that every school district ensure all students with disabilities are provided the

special instruction and services appropriate to their needs. Minn. Stat. § 125A.08(b)(1). Each

local educational agency (LEA) within the state, including educational programs administered by

any public agency, is under the general supervision of MDE. In order to evaluate special

education programs, MDE staff has the authority to review all relevant information necessary to

carry out the department’s oversight responsibilities.

Scope of Monitoring

One or more monitors from MDE’s Division of Compliance and Assistance conducted a full

compliance review of the special education program of Minnetonka Public School District (0276-

01). The monitoring process included a review of:

The district’s total special education system (TSES) plan and restrictive procedures plan (RPP)

10 district sites where special education services are provided

Interview responses from the special education director, general education administrators, special education teachers and paraprofessionals, related services personnel, and general education teachers

Previous monitoring and self-review reports

Formal complaint history

Eight Part B (students ages 3 – 21) and seven Part C (children from birth to age 3) student records

Resulting Findings and Corrective Action

The following report identifies individual student record noncompliance, findings of systemic

noncompliance, and corrective action requirements. Findings of systemic noncompliance are

identified based on an analysis of compliance data collected from the sources listed above. If an

area is identified as a finding of systemic noncompliance, the district is required to develop and

implement a corrective action plan (CAP) to address each finding within one year of the date of

this report.

Individual student record noncompliance occurs when a student file is cited for violation of any

state or federal special education law. Citations of individual student files must be corrected by

the district and verified by MDE by March 30, 2016. If individual student noncompliance is

identified for correction, tracking is completed through the Minnesota Continuous Improvement

Process: Self Review (MNCIMP:SR) system.


Monitoring Findings by Area

Finding Area 1: Governance

Topic Area: TSES

The district has a TSES plan that meets the requirements of Minn. R. 3525.1100.

Topic Area: Restrictive Procedures Plan (RPP)

The Minnetonka Public School District has an RPP that meets the requirements of Minnesota

Statutes §§ 125A.0941 and 125A.00942. One plan was submitted which addressed

requirements as a district.

Topic Area: Staffing

The Minnetonka Public School District employs 164 special education teachers and 142 special

education paraprofessionals who provide services at 10 sites in the district as well as the

Transition Plus Program located in St. Louis Park. Related services personnel are employed by

the district (speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, school psychologists, social

workers, developmental adaptive physical education (DAPE), and assistive technology services)

or through a contract with Intermediate School District 287 (audiologists, physical therapists,

vision therapist, providers for the hearing impaired, orientation and mobility instructor, and

services for the physically impaired). The Executive Director of Student Support Services,

Secondary Special Education Supervisor, and Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE)

Coordinator make up the special education leadership team.

Substitute teachers (reserve teachers) are sought when special education teachers are absent,

both short and long-term. When a long-term reserve is needed, the position is posted by the

Human Resources department. The district seeks qualified licensed candidates. At the early

childhood level, birth-2 teachers reschedule missed services. Long-term reserves are provided,

when available, for related services personnel. Again, absences of this type are addressed by

the Human Resources department. Special education administration noted that securing

reserve teachers is typically not a problem for the district. Substitutes are provided for special

education paraprofessionals and all long-term absences are posted by the Human Resources

department. The district utilizes an automated substitute placement and absence management

system.

Approximately 20 percent of general education teachers identified concerns regarding the

delivery of special education services or support when special education staff is absent. Specific

concerns were expressed when reserve teachers and paraprofessional substitutes are not

secured as groups are cancelled and services are not always made up. Some students do not

adjust well to substitutes, making the absence of special education personnel even harder.

About a quarter of the special education teachers and related service providers expressed

concerns when substitutes are not available. Especially concerning to commenters is when

paraprofessionals are involved in the provision of inclusive services and substitutes cannot be

secured. Still, the majority of special education paraprofessionals did not express concerns

regarding the delivery of special education services when providers are absent, although one


paraprofessional commented that substitutes often do not have knowledge and experience to

assist students with special needs.

Topic Area: Training

General education teachers responded they receive training through the district that ensures

they are appropriately and adequately prepared to support students with disabilities in their

classrooms. They also expressed an understanding of confidentiality requirements. Most

general education teachers also responded that if they have students whose IEPs include

assistive technology, they rely on special education personnel to ensure the service is being

provided. None could recall specific training in assistive technology devices or services.

All special education teachers and related service providers responded they receive training that

ensures they are appropriately and adequately prepared to provide services to students

receiving special education, including training in assistive technology and services. Knowledge

of procedures associated with confidentiality was acknowledged by special education licensed

personnel. Part C personnel agreed at 100 percent they are adequately prepared and trained to

carry out their responsibilities.

The majority of special education teachers, related service providers, and special education

paraprofessionals do not use restrictive procedures; yet many of them have been trained with

training dates reported over the last school year and into the 2014-2015 school year. While a

few training dates go back to 2008, those individuals may not have current responsibilities that

require the use of restrictive procedures.

Most paraprofessionals indicated they have received information about the following topics

either prior to employment or immediately upon employment: confidentiality, emergency

procedures, and vulnerability of students. Less than 70 percent of the paraprofessionals

responded they have received information about mandatory reporting of suspected abuse.

Special education paraprofessionals identified training needs in autism and technology usage

available to students (computer tablets) so they can more adequately help them in general

education classrooms.

Several training and in-service topics were identified by special education administration from

the past two years. Some of those trainings included Crisis Prevention Institute (Initial and

Refresher), Confidentiality, Social Thinking, Teaching Strategies GOLD Assessment and

Creative Curriculum, Cognitive Coaching/Reflective Practice, Mental Health Warning Signs and

Strategies for Working with Parents and Students, ADHD, Strategies for Working with Students

with Sensory Challenges, Evaluation Report Writing, and Easy IEP Training.

Concern: Training for all special education paraprofessionals should include information about

mandatory reporting of suspected abuse. The Minnetonka Public School District administrators

and the director of special education are encouraged to arrange training in the near future.


Topic Area: Special Education Advisory Council (SEAC)

The Minnetonka Public School District has an active Special Education Advisory Council

(SEAC). It meets four times a year and has a membership of 12 people, of which at least half

are parents of a student with a disability.

Topic Area: Service Delivery, Teaching Models, and Collaboration

The Minnetonka Public School District reports utilizing federal settings 1 through 4, which

means students with disabilities are outside their regular classrooms less than 21 percent of the

school day (setting 1), receive special education services in the resource room between 21

percent and 60 percent of the school day (setting 2), receive special education services in a

separate classroom more than 60 percent of the school day (setting 3), or receive services in a

public day school facility greater than 50 percent of the school day (setting 4). The district uses

all of the federal settings for ECSE students ages birth through two as well as for students aged

three through five.

The Minnetonka Public School District uses a variety of instructional models in the provision of

special education and related services, specifically pull-out, push-in, co-teaching, and indirect.

Special education teachers and related service providers also identified resource room, itinerant

services, and homebound as methods of service delivery being utilized. During the on-site visit,

the MDE monitor observed pull-out and co-teaching, as well as services at a setting 4 program.

Most general education teachers did not identify limitations to the methods of instruction

available to students receiving special education support; however, a general education teacher

commented about the high caseloads of special education teachers.

Special education personnel concerns focused on service delivery limitations as a result of

physical space. Staff stated that the district does not limit the way they teach or provide

services, but it is the physical space which is limiting. The respondent clarified that related

service providers are often put in offices with multiple other providers and have limited space to

pull students and work directly with them. Building schedules also sometimes impact the

clustering of students which limits service delivery.

Sixty percent of the general education teachers and about twenty-five percent of the special

education teachers/related service providers also expressed concern about inadequate time to

collaborate and review students’ needs, progress, and concerns with colleagues. Teachers

suggested more time and intentional structure towards collaborative grouping of professionals is

needed. An expansion of this suggestion included the desire for designated time, using reserve

teachers to cover classes during these meetings, based on the caseload of special education

students in a general education classroom. Teachers expressed they would like to discuss with

their colleagues ways to better support students. One comment was that receipt of IEP goals

and objectives is not enough to help students with disabilities achieve those goals and that there

needs to be collaboration. Special education paraprofessionals responded at thirty-three

percent they do not have adequate time to collaborate and review special education students’

needs, progress, and concerns.


Times were identified by various buildings' principals for collaboration, although most of the

focus was already established, i.e., staff development, professional learning communities

(PLCs), grade level meetings.

Concern: The Minnetonka Public School District general and special education staff reported

limited time for collaboration. While there are some pockets of time available, a system that

ensures regularly scheduled communication among general education and special education

personnel to discuss modifications and accommodations needed for students with IEPs is

unavailable. The director of special education is encouraged to work with district administrators

and building principals to identify ways to find time for collaboration to occur.

Topic Area: Resources and Supports for Staff

Most general education teachers (90%) replied they receive assistance and support with their

questions and concerns related to special education from administration or special education

staff. General education personnel indicated they would like to see more involvement from

building administrators, possibly checking in on the students with disabilities in their general

education classrooms.

Most special education teachers and related service providers (96%) responded they receive

sufficient support and resources to ensure appropriate provision of special education services,

related services, and supplemental aids and services. The same group of personnel strongly

expressed they receive assistance and support to their questions and concerns related to

special education from the building and special education administrators. The one program in

which personnel do not report the same level of support is the Transition Plus program, likely

relating to the complexity involved with three school districts co-leading the program.

Nearly all special education paraprofessionals (98%) report receipt of ongoing direction from a

special education teacher to ensure students receive an appropriate education. The need for

ongoing direction from a school nurse, where appropriate and when possible, continues to exist

for any paraprofessionals providing IEP health-related services. Paraprofessionals continued to

ask for more training regarding autism and technology devices used by students, but not

necessarily assistive technology.

Topic Area: Strengths and Concerns Identified by Minnetonka Public School District Staff

Recognition and appreciation was expressed regarding the manner in which the school district

has developed the special education program in which the elementary schools divide the

necessary programs among them and the middle and high schools continue to effectively

support and assist all the students with special needs. Comments evidenced strength in the

community of teachers in each building and their commitment to educating students with special

needs.

A couple of concerns emerged. First, the desire for dedicated collaboration time between

general education teachers and special education personnel as well as collaboration between

special education licensed personnel and paraprofessionals. Second, the need for trained

reserve teachers and substitute paraprofessionals.


Finding Area 2: Facilities and Environment

Topic Area: Facilities

The on-site visit at the Minnetonka Public School District was conducted over three days,

February 9 & 10, and February 20, 2015. The MDE monitor visited the Minnetonka Preschool

located in the Minnetonka Community Education Center, four elementary schools (Deephaven,

Groveland, Scenic Heights, and Excelsior), Middle School West, Minnetonka High School,

Transition Plus Program, off-site apartment as transition learning site, and the VANTAGE

Program.

As part of the facility tours it was evident some of the classrooms were crowded with materials

and the director of special education was going to work with building principals for solutions.

Some classrooms were smaller than others, often in older buildings. Again, organization of

materials may be helpful in those environments.

The tour of the ten Minnetonka Public School District facilities reveals that, for the most part,

adequate accommodations exist for students with disabilities. The buildings were accessible

with all of them having at least one set of restrooms which were wheelchair accessible, with the

exception of the off-site apartment. The classrooms were adequate and conducive to learning in

all facilities.

Transition Plus is a setting 4 18-21 program physically located outside the enrollment area of

the Minnetonka Public School District. The program, located in nearby St. Louis Park, is a joint

venture with the Hopkins and St. Louis Park school districts. Students from the Minnetonka

Public School District attend the program and the district employs 10 staff at the site: five

special education teachers and five special education paraprofessionals. Special education

teachers, related service providers, and special education paraprofessionals, as noted by their

responses to questions about equivalency, conduciveness to learning, and meeting students’

special physical, sensory, and emotional needs, typically indicated such was occurring outside

of multiple comments regarding dirty carpeting at the Transition Plus site.

Regarding knowledge of emergency procedures in place for students with physical impairments,

special education personnel responded there are evacuation plans in place or the buildings

were one level.

Topic Area: Equipment and Supplies

When general education teachers were asked if they are provided with the special equipment,

assistive technology, and instructional materials necessary to provide the specific

accommodations, modifications, and supports required by the students’ IEPs most responded

affirmatively.

Special education teachers, related service providers, and special education paraprofessionals

agreed unanimously they are provided with the special equipment, assistive technology, and

instructional materials necessary to provide instruction, related services, and supplementary

aids and services.


Topic Area: Rooms Used for Seclusion

The Minnetonka Public School District does not have a room used for seclusion registered with

the state and no such room was found through interviews or during the site visit.


A few of the numerous strengths identified by Minnetonka Public School District staff include

quick access to technology when needed by students, availability of a motor room, sound

system for hearing impaired students, 1:1 computer tablet initiative, great equipment to

accommodate students in physical education, and use of technology to not only teach but to

archive and document student learning. A respondent noted that the district is a leading

technology district in which special education is included.

Concerns identified by staff include not having a separate place for students to take tests in a pull-out environment or space for students to decompress from any emotional issues. One of the DCD rooms is quite small and does not have its own bathroom and functional skills area. Staff also suggested each teacher receive a computer tablet for teacher use, planning, etc.

Finding Area 3: Child Find and Evaluation

Topic Area: Pre-referral and Child Find Processes

Eighty-seven percent of the general education teacher respondents indicated they understood

the pre-referral process including their role in implementing and documenting pre-referral

interventions. Some teachers requested more guidance from the special education staff during

the pre-referral process. Special education personnel most often provide consultation and

resources to general education teachers regarding pre-referral interventions.

Most general education and special education teachers and related service providers indicated

a minimum of two interventions are implemented and documented prior to referring a student for

a special education evaluation. Exceptions involving ECSE and parent-made referrals were

explained.

General education teachers and special education teachers/related service providers indicated

child find meetings typically occur twice per month, while some staff reported meetings occur

weekly. Child find procedures vary slightly by building, as explained by the building principals.

Child study teams most often are comprised of the school psychologist, special education

teacher, general education teacher, related service provider, and general education

administrator. Other people are invited as can help with a particular child, including the reading

and math specialists, Section 504 coordinator, parents, Title One teacher, and school nurse.

The district has processes in place to ensure identification of home-schooled and private school

students.

Minnesota has developed a statewide system of public awareness/outreach, child find, and

early intervention services called Help Me Grow. The Minnetonka Public School District

participates in the Help Me Grow online system and in regional early childhood child find efforts.

In addition, there is information on the district's website; in Minnetonka Community Education

brochures; and outreach activities/materials are provided to area preschools, childcare, and


clinics. Presentations are given to Parent Education staff. County Social Service provider

attends monthly meeting and can refer any family at any time. Two ECSE staff members are

members of the Early Childhood Mental Health team.

Topic Area: Transfer Process

Minimal concerns were expressed by special education personnel regarding the provision of

comparable services to special education students who transfer to the Minnetonka Public

School District from another district, either in state or out-of-state. Staff shared there were some

misplacements in the fall of 2014 but noted not all services look the same from district to district.

Overall, the Minnetonka Public School District has processes in place to ensure smooth

transition of both in state and out-of-state transfer students that are in compliance with 34

C.F.R. § 300.323(e)–(f).

Topic Area: Exit Procedures

The majority of special education personnel responded a reevaluation is not conducted before a

student graduates from secondary school with a diploma or exceeds the age of 21. It is

important to note that completing a reevaluation is permitted but it is not required.

There is clear understanding by special education personnel who have recently exited students

from special education services that a reevaluation is conducted when a student no longer

demonstrates needs for special education services.

A variety of responses were provided when special education and related services personnel

were asked what documentation is provided to a student who graduates with a regular diploma

or ages out of special education and related services at age 21. Some of the responses include

provide the latest reevaluation, prior written notice (PWN), copy of the IEP, progress notes, and

diploma. Of the 55 staff who responded, only five referenced the completion of a summary

document. It appears several of the respondents do not work at the secondary level and may

not be familiar with this requirement.

Concern: The director of special education is encouraged to provide information to secondary-

level service providers regarding the need to complete a summary of performance for students

who graduate with a regular diploma or age out of special education and related services at age

21.

Topic Area: Evaluations

Nearly all general education teachers (95%) reported they understood their role as a team

member in the determination of eligibility for special education services for students being

evaluated.

The special education teachers and related service personnel report understanding when and

how to address concerns related to racial and cultural discrimination when evaluating students.

The Minnetonka Public School District has processes in place to ensure appropriate evaluation

and identification of students with disabilities including the use of nondiscriminatory evaluation

practices and using a variety of tools and strategies to identify educational as well as secondary

transition needs.


Special education and related service personnel described parental involvement in the

evaluation planning process, including numerous examples which demonstrate school

personnel encourage and support active involvement from parents. Examples included sharing

information with them, listening to their input and responding to their questions, seeking consent

to conduct their child’s comprehensive evaluation and making plans to reconvene to share the

results of the evaluation. Staff stressed that parents are involved in every step of the process.

Most of the special education personnel who completed the electronic interview noted they have

not been involved in a recent team override determination. Of those who have, the team

determined the student eligible despite not meeting specific eligibility criteria by reviewing

objective data in the student’s record including test scores, work products, self-reports, teacher

comments, medical data, observational data, developmental data, etc. Another factor

considered was why the standards and procedures used with the majority of students resulted

in invalid findings. When a team made an override determination, the student’s record included

signatures from all team members who agreed with the override decision. If any members

disagreed with the decision, their statement of why they disagreed with the decision and their

signature was included in the record.

Topic Area: Due Process Compliance

The results of the district’s self-review of records indicate the Minnetonka Public School District

is in compliance with Timeline and Eligibility Standards related to the evaluation process and

identification of special education needs and related services.

Minnetonka Public School District’s self-review of records indicate the district is not in

compliance with Notification and Evaluation Standards related to the evaluation process and

identification of special education needs and related services, specifically notice of evaluation,

functional behavioral assessment (FBA), and exit procedures.

Finding: Record review findings indicate noncompliance with federal and/or state special

education laws noted in special education due process documentation, as noted specifically in

the Appendix of this report. The Minnetonka Public School District must develop and implement

CAPs to ensure 100% compliance. See the Summary of Corrective Action Required in this

report.


Identified as a strength for the district is its thoroughness in following appropriate

procedures/processes regarding referrals, new students, and evaluation processes. A facilitated

evaluation process is now in place for at least part of the district. Knowledgeable and

experienced staff with multiple years of experience is helpful to the district. The Part C referral

and evaluation process typically seems to go smoothly and the birth-2 team works well together

and with families to conduct both in a timely manner.

Staff again expressed the desire for more collaborative time. Excessive special education

paperwork requirements were an identified concern.


Finding Area 4: IEP and IFSP Process and Implementation

Topic Area: Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

General education teachers, as noted by their interview responses, believe students are

provided special education services in the least restrictive environment, are integrated in the

general education classrooms, and participate in special activities such as field trips with their

classroom peers.

A few general education teachers expressed concerns regarding educational placement

decision or options available to students receiving special education in the Minnetonka Public

School District. One person shared the offerings for the high school mathematics courses are

perhaps too limited for students receiving special education services. Another person noted

students tend not to be distributed equally among classrooms. They are instead clustered –

most often because of limited paraprofessional support or schedules or that some classrooms

are not as hospitable to special education.

Nearly all special education teachers and related service providers agree at around 95 percent

that each child with a disability is educated with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent

possible, has equal access to extra-curricular and nonacademic activities and is removed from

the general education environment only if the nature and severity of the child’s disability

prevents the child from achieving satisfactorily with the use of supplementary aides and

services. Special education paraprofessional responses were similar to those of certified special

education personnel with a range of agreement between 89 and 98 percent.

A few concerns were expressed by special educators or related service providers regarding the

educational placement decisions or options available to students receiving special education in

the district. One teacher noted that students with significant academic concerns may not get

adequate services due to a high number of students with social/emotional problems who

consume a great deal of the special education teacher’s time. Another special education

teacher was concerned regarding students thought to be misidentified and subsequently placed

in the wrong program.

A Part C provider shared that early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities

are provided services, to the maximum extent appropriate, in their natural environments.

The Minnetonka Public School District provides a continuum of services for students with

special education needs. When a student is placed out of the district, the IEP Team has typically

met a number of times to discuss student progress, increase services, and to review student

data prior to a placement outside of the district. In addition, reasonable consideration has been

given to adapting the school setting in the neighborhood school building.

When the IEP determines a placement outside of the district is needed for the student to access

special education and related services, the IEP Team works in conjunction with members of the

new placement team to review and develop an IEP in the least restrictive environment. The

district continues to be involved with students placed outside of the district through attendance

and participation in all Team meetings.


The Minnetonka Public School District does not typically place students in care and treatment

programs or facilities, but district parents sometimes choose those placements. When students

are placed in care and treatment, the district participates in Team meetings and provides data

as requested by the care and treatment facility. When the student is ready to return to the

Minnetonka Public School District, the district works with the parents and the care and treatment

facility on a plan to transition the student back.

Topic Area: Communicating IEP Content

Most general education teachers reported special education staff either discussed IEPs with

providers at the beginning of each year and when appropriate or they were given a copy of the

entire IEP.

Special education personnel reported that each student’s IEP is accessible to each general

education teacher, special education teacher, related service provider, and to any other service

provider responsible for the implementation of the IEP. Eighty-one percent of the special

education teachers and related service providers noted they discuss IEPs with providers at the

beginning of each year and when appropriate. Special education personnel also noted they

distribute copies of the relevant portions of IEPs to providers.

Typically special education paraprofessionals obtain information about the content of students’

IEPs when special education staff discusses IEPs with them at the beginning of the school year

and when appropriate. They also reported they learn about the IEPs via a review of them but

they do not receive copies. A few of the paraprofessionals expressed concerns regarding the

method or frequency of communication regarding their specific duties and the accommodations,

modifications, and supports needed for the students with whom they work; indicating they would

like to have time to meet with the special education teachers.

Again, most general education teachers communicated understanding and receipt of adequate

support for the implementation of modifications and accommodations, including those required

for state and district-wide assessments.

Finally, the majority of general education teachers, as members of the IEP Team, and to the

extent appropriate, participate in the determination of supplemental aids and services and

program modifications and supports.

Overall, the Minnetonka Public School District has processes for special education licensed

providers to communicate student needs and IEP services with general education teachers and

to special education paraprofessionals working with students.

Topic Area: Team Members and Meetings

Ninety-two percent of the general education teachers who completed the electronic interview

reported they receive timely notice of IEP meetings for students assigned to their classrooms.

Ninety-five percent of the general education teachers noted they participate in the determination

of appropriate positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies for the

student. Slightly fewer general education teachers, at 85 percent, reported they actively

participate in determining additions or modifications to a student’s special education program as


well as to related services needed to enable the student to meet measurable annual goals set

out in the student’s IEP and to participate, as appropriate, in the general curriculum.

Most often the principal serves as the district representative at IEP Team meetings at the

elementary level and an assistant principal at the middle and high school levels. In the event

these people are unable to attend, each principal has a plan to designate a representative,

although it varies from building to building. The ECSE coordinator generally attends birth-5

meetings.

The district should ensure the district representative meets the requirements provided by federal

regulation, including familiarity with the general education curriculum, ability to provide or

supervise the provision of special education services, and ability to commit district resources.

Topic Area: Excusal Process

The Minnetonka Public School District has processes to ensure required IEP Team members

are excused from the meeting if unable to attend, in whole or in part. So many teachers

responded they never leave a meeting early that excusal processes and written input from

excused teachers are otherwise rarely necessary prior to leaving a meeting if the meeting

involves a modification to, or discussion of, the member's area of the curriculum or related

services.

Topic Area: Extended School Year (ESY)

A couple special education teachers and related service providers expressed concerns about

the duration of extended school year services for those students determined eligible for them,

commenting 36 hours does not seem like enough services for students with functional skills

needs. Staff also expressed concern about the timing of ESY services in the middle of the

summer as the time between the end of ESY and the beginning of the school year may be

enough that skills will already have been lost.

Concern: The director of special education is encouraged to consider the comments provided

by personnel when planning ESY services for the summer of 2016.

Topic Area: Progress Reporting

The Minnetonka Public School District employees review and revise students’ IEPs to address

insufficient progress toward meeting one or more goals. Most general education teachers

referenced a means of communication with the special education teacher to express concerns

and success regarding a student’s progress. The communication occurs at meetings, during

informal conversations, or by email. Many teachers identified daily or weekly communication.

Special education paraprofessionals also utilize in person conversations and email as means to

communicate with the case manager. Some also commented they use data and communication

sheets.

Part C personnel confirmed they hold periodic meetings (6 month reviews).

When insufficient progress is being made by a student to meet one or more goals, an IEP Team

meeting is often held resulting in goals and/or service delivery changes as well as instructional


strategy revisions. Many respondents identified the need to change instructional/behavioral

interventions.

Topic Area: Secondary Transition

The Minnetonka Public School District has a process to ensure students receive appropriate

transition services, activities and/or programming opportunities to address their postsecondary

goals.

The district provides transition services through the Transition Plus program. Transition Plus is a

joint program among the Hopkins, St. Louis Park, and Minnetonka school districts. Using the

IEP Team process, Transition Plus services help students achieve their goals by providing

specialized instruction, training, and support. Students have access to skill-development

activities designed to meet their individual needs in the five transition areas. Transition Plus is a

community-based program and outside partnerships include: community agencies, community

and technical colleges, Vocational Rehabilitative Services, Hennepin County Human Services,

and local business partners. Some students also attend secondary transition programs through

Intermediate School District 287.

Additionally, the Minnetonka Public School District provides transition services to students in a

center-based classroom where a life skills class is taught in 9th and 10th grades. In 11th and 12th

grade the students enter the community and work on life skills in all transition areas. They do

college visits, practice daily living at an apartment, cooking, volunteering, etc.

Topic Area: Due Process Compliance

The results of the district’s self-review of records indicate the Minnetonka Public School District

is in compliance with Timeline and Notification Standards related to the IEP/IFSP process and

provision of special education and related services.

The results of the Minnetonka Public School District’s self-review of records indicate the district

is not in compliance with IEP/IFSP Standards related to the IEP/IFSP process and provision of

special education and related services, specifically progress reporting and IFSP required

content.

Finding: Record review findings indicate noncompliance with federal and/or state special

education laws noted in special education due process documentation, as noted specifically in

the Appendix of this report. The Minnetonka Public School District must develop and implement

CAPs to ensure 100% compliance. See the Summary of Corrective Action Required in this

report.


Special education staff was recognized as doing a great job of relaying information, reporting

progress, forming teams, and helping students to transition. Effective skills in communicating

IEP content with families and general education teachers and support staff were noted and are

appreciated. Personnel promote and support professionalism.

Some staff suggested review of progress reporting frequency and that teachers should provide

more objective or measureable progress reporting instead of subjective comments. General


education teachers requested additional classroom coverage to allow them to attend the entire

IEP Team meeting.


Summary of Corrective Action Required

Formal findings of individual student record noncompliance were issued from five of the 15 files

reviewed. Individual student files must be corrected by the district and verified by MDE within

one year of the date that the district was notified of individual student noncompliance.

Minnetonka Public School District (0276-01) was notified of individual student noncompliance on

April 30, 2015. As of the date of this report, the district has demonstrated correction of 28.57

percent of those findings.

Noncompliance identified in this report must be corrected within one year of the date of this

report. Following is a summary of the noncompliance areas requiring a corrective action plan

(CAP):

Finding Area

Focus Area Regulatory Reference

1 No findings at the time of the report.

2 No findings at the time of the report.

3 Notification of Evaluation 34 C.F.R. § 300.503

Functional Behavioral Assessment Minn. R. 3525.0210, Subp. 22

Exit Procedures 34 C.F.R. § 300.305

4 Progress Reporting Minn. R. 3525.2810, Subp. 1

IFSP Required Content 34 C.F.R. § 303.344

The district must enter a proposed CAP into the MNCIMP:SR system for each finding within 45

calendar days from the date of this monitoring report. Please review the CAP Development

Guide enclosed with this report. For clarification of the issues in this report or assistance needed

prior to developing the CAPs, please contact the district’s lead monitor indicated below.

Linda Campbell-Laman

Compliance Specialist

Division of Compliance and Assistance

1500 West Highway 36

Roseville, MN 55113

651-582-8401

[email protected]

Appeal of any finding in this report must be submitted within 30 calendar days to Marikay

Canaga Litzau, J.D., at the address above. Appeals must be in writing and include the issues

being challenged along with documentation to support the disputed issues.


Appendix

The appendix includes special education child count data related to disability and federal

instructional setting, race/ethnicity, and age, as well as data on individual student record

noncompliance, complaint decisions, and interview and survey reliability.

Acronyms

Data sources

CC Child count

Srv Students served by District 0738-01

RR Students sampled for the record review

Disability categories

ASD Autism Spectrum Disorders

DB Deaf-Blind

DCD-MM Developmental Cognitive Disability: Mild to Moderate

DCD-SP Developmental Cognitive Disability: Severe to Profound

DD Development Delay

DHH Deaf and Hard of Hearing

EBD Emotional or Behavioral Disorders

OHD Other Health Disabilities

PI Physically Impaired

SLD Specific Learning Disability

SLI Speech or Language Impairments

SMI Severely Multiply Impaired

TBI Traumatic Brain Injury

VI Visually Impaired

Child Count

In the December 1, 2014, Part B federal child count, students identified as receiving special

education and related services are 8.9 percent (n = 884) of the district total enrollment

compared to the statewide average of 14.7 percent. Students receiving special education and

related services within 0276-01 represent 10.6 percent (n = 1059) of the district’s total

enrollment. This data may include students who are open enrolled into the district, but does not

include students in non-public educational settings unless the student receives special

education and related services from the district. The district’s Part C child count (children birth

through age 2) is 0.1 percent of the population compared to 2.5 percent statewide (preliminary).

The “population” used is based on census data reported by the district to MDE.

IDEA District (CC) District (Srv) Statewide

Part B 8.9 percent 10.6 percent 14.7 percent

Part C 0.1 percent 1.8 percent 2.5 percent


Individual Student Record Noncompliance

Individual citations of noncompliance are identified by student and reported through the web-

based MNCIMP:SR tracking system. The district was formally notified of five individual findings

on April 30, 2015. All individual student noncompliance must be corrected by the district and

verified by MDE within one year of the date of formal issuance of findings.

A summary of each area of identified individual student noncompliance is referenced in the

chart below. Column one indicates whether the compliance area is related to Part B or Part C of

IDEA. Column two identifies the compliance area for each citation. Column three provides the

legal reference for each citation. Column four indicates the number of student records cited

during the record review.

IDEA Part

Compliance Area General Citation(s) Records

Cited

B Notification: Notice of Evaluation

34 CFR § 300.503 Minn. R. 3525.3600

2

B Evaluation Standards: Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA)

Minn. R. 3525.0210, Subp. 22

1

B Evaluation Standards: Exit Procedures 34 CFR § 300.305 1

B IEP/IFSP Standards: Progress Reporting

Minn. R. 3525.2810, Subp. 1

1

C IEP/IFSP Standards: IFSP Required Content 34 CFR § 303.344 2

Complaint Decisions

Complaint files were reviewed for records of formal complaints filed regarding Minnetonka

Public School District (0276-01) opened during the relevant time period. Findings of

noncompliance were identified in the following areas, with corresponding complaint file

reference number. Column three indicates whether the district was required to complete

corrective action. The issues identified in the complaint have been resolved.

Area of Noncompliance Complaint Number

Corrective Action?

34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(4) Development, review, and revision of IEP

13-043-C Yes

34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(1) and (2) Definition of individualized education program

13-043-C Yes

34 C.F.R. § 300.17 Free appropriate public education (FAPE) 13-043-C Yes

34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(3(ii) Definition of individualized education program

13-043-C Yes


Interviews and Surveys

Online interviews were completed by special education staff, general education teachers, and

special education paraprofessionals. Two individual follow-up interviews were conducted on-site

with personnel. To ensure the reliability of the results, sample size was calculated with a

confidence interval of 10 and a confidence level of 90 percent. For those groups where the

minimal sample size was not reached, the results included in the report should be interpreted

with caution.

Group Sample Size

Number of Responses

StatisticallyReliable?

General education teachers 648 60 (needed 61)

no

Special education teachers and related service providers 219 53 (needed 52)

yes

Special education paraprofessionals 142 47 (needed 46)

yes


Federal Instructional Settings by Disability

The following table shows the distribution of students ages six through 21 receiving special education and related services across each of

the eight federal instructional settings. The federal instructional settings can be referenced using the following:

FS 1 – Outside of the regular class room less than 21 percent of the day

FS 2 – Resource room between 21 percent and 60 percent of the school day

FS 3 – Separate classroom more than 60 percent of the school day

FS 4 – Public separate day school facility greater than 50 percent of the school day

FS 5 – Private separate day school facility greater than 50 percent of the school day

FS 6 – Private residential facilities greater than 50 percent of the school day

FS 7 – Private residential facility greater than 50 percent of the school day

FS 8 – Homebound/hospital placement

Disability FS 1 CC

FS 1 Srv

FS 1 RR

FS 2 CC

FS 2 Srv

FS 2 RR

FS 3 CC

FS 3 Srv

FS 3 RR

FS 4 CC

FS 4 Srv

FS 4 RR

FS 5-8 CC

FS 5-8 Srv

FS 5-8 RR

ASD 56 62 “” 25 24 “” 15 14 “” 4 “” “” “” “” “” DB “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” DCD-MM 7 4 “” 37 44 “” 56 52 “” “” “” “” “” “” “”

DCD-SP 5 5 “” 20 19 “” 60 71 “” 15 5 “” “” “” “” DD 83 83 “” 17 17 “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “”

DHH 100 100 “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” EBD 62 72 “” 22 21 100 7 7 “” 9 “” “” “” “” “”

OHD 75 75 100 17 19 “” 8 6 “” 1 “” “” “” “” “” PI 23 24 “” 38 52 “” 31 24 “” 8 “” “” “” “” “”

SLD 72 71 “” 20 23 “” 8 6 “” “” “” “” “” “” “” SLI 99 100 “” 1 0 “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “”

SMI “” “” “” “” 9 “” 100 91 “” “” “” “” “” “” “” TBI 67 67 “” “” “” “” 33 33 100 “” “” “” “” “” “”

VI 67 67 “” 33 33 “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “”

Note: Each row will total approximately 100 percent (due to rounding) for each data source. Some cell values may have been suppressed

to protect data privacy.


Race/Ethnicity by Disability

The following table shows the distribution of students ages birth through 21 across racial/ethnic groups. The race/ethnicity can be

referenced using the following:

Amer. Indian – American Indian

Asian – Asian or Pacific Islander

Black – black, non-Hispanic

Hispanic – Hispanic, regardless of race

White – white, non-Hispanic

Disability Amer. Indian CC

Amer. Indian Srv

Amer. Indian RR

Asian CC

Asian Srv

Asian RR

Black CC

Black Srv

Black RR

Hisp. CC

Hisp. Srv

Hisp. RR

White CC

White Srv

White RR

ASD “” 10 “” 30 26 “” 19 9 “” 17 15 “” 21 20 15

DB “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” DCD-MM “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” 6 5 “” 3 3 “”

DCD-SP “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” 4 3 “” 2 2 “” DD “” “” “” 5 4 100 “” “” “” 2 3 “” 7 6 31

DHH “” “” “” 5 4 “” “” “” “” “” “” “” 2 2 “” EBD 20 20 “” 21 13 “” 5 3 “” 19 15 “” 7 6 8

OHD “” 10 “” 7 7 “” 29 31 100 15 15 “” 15 16 8 PI “” “” “” “” 2 “” “” 6 “” “” “” “” 2 2 “”

SLD 40 30 “” 2 9 “” 38 “” “” 21 22 “” 14 15 “” SLI 40 30 “” 28 33 “” 10 “” “” 12 17 “” 26 26 15

SMI “” “” “” 2 2 “” “” “” “” 4 3 “” 1 1 “” TBI “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” 0 0 8

VI “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” 1 1 8

Note: Each column will total approximately 100 percent (due to rounding) for each data source. Some cell values may have been

suppressed to protect data privacy.


Age by Disability

The following two tables show the distribution of students ages birth through 21 by disability.

Disability

0-2 CC

0-2 Srv)

0-2 RR

3-5 CC

3-5 Srv)

3-5 RR

6 CC

6 Srv

6 RR

7 CC

7 Srv

7 RR

8 CC

8 Srv

8 RR

9 CC

9 Srv

9 RR

10 CC

10 Srv

10 RR

11 CC

11 Srv

11 RR

12 CC

12 Srv

12 RR

ASD “” “” 14 11 11 25 19 15 “” 22 14 “” 25 25 “” 20 20 “” 22 22 “” 19 20 “” 28 28 “”

DB “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” DCD-MM “” “” “” “” “” “” 2 2 “” “” “” “” 2 1 “” 1 1 “” 3 2 “” “” “” “” 4 4 “”

DCD-SP “” “” “” “” “” “” 2 2 “” “” “” “” 2 1 “” 3 2 “” 1 2 “” 3 2 “” 2 1 “” DD 92 92 71 23 23 “” 14 11 “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “”

DHH “” “” “” 4 4 “” 5 4 “” 6 5 “” 2 1 “” 1 1 “” “” “” “” 1 2 “” “” 1 “” EBD “” “” “” 3 3 “” “” “” “” 2 3 “” 2 3 “” 9 8 “” 9 8 “” 12 13 “” 9 9 “”

OHD “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” 12 11 “” 9 7 “” 4 7 “” 10 16 “” 16 16 “” 24 24 “” PI “” “” “” “” “” “” “” 2 “” 2 5 “” 1 “” 1 1 “” 1 3 “” “” “” “” “” “” “”

SLD “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” 8 9 “” 5 6 “” 17 16 “” 13 13 “” 32 32 “” 15 18 “” SLI “” “” “” 59 58 50 55 63 “” 47 50 “” 54 54 “” 40 41 “” 37 32 “” 16 15 “” 17 12 “”

SMI “” “” “” 1 1 “” “” “” “” “” 1 “” “” “” “” 3 2 “” 1 1 “” 1 1 “” “” “” “” TBI “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “”

VI 8 8 14 “” “” “” 2 2 “” 2 1 “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” 2 1 “”

Disability

13 CC

13 Srv)

13 RR

14 CC

14 Srv)

14 RR

15 CC

15 Srv

15 RR

16 CC

16 Srv

16 RR

17 CC

17 Srv

17 RR

18 CC

18 Srv

18 RR

19 CC

19 Srv

19 RR

20 CC

20 Srv

20 RR

21 CC

21 Srv

21 RR

ASD 30 25 “” 18 21 “” 28 24 “” 24 18 “” 22 18 “” 23 26 “” 32 32 “” 50 43 “” “” “” “”

DB “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” DCD-MM “” “” “” 3 1 “” 4 4 “” 6 5 “” 5 5 “” 14 11 “” 24 27 “” “” “” “” 33 100 “”

DCD-SP 2 3 “” 1 1 “” “” 2 2 “” 5 4 “” 4 “” 20 18 “” 12 14 “” “” “” “” DD “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “”

DHH “” “” “” 1 1 “” “” “” “” 2 2 “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” EBD 9 5 “” 15 11 “” 9 6 25 15 14 “” 16 15 “” 5 4 “” 8 5 “” “” “” “” “” “” “”

OHD 26 28 “” 33 36 “” 32 33 50 22 27 “” 29 31 “” 18 19 “” 4 9 “” 12 14 “” 33 “” “” PI “” 2 “” 1 2 “” 4 4 “” 4 4 “” 4 4 “” “” “” “” 4 “” “” 25 29 “” “” “” “”

SLD 26 28 “” 22 21 “” 17 22 “” 24 27 “” 18 22 “” 36 33 “” 8 9 “” “” “” “” “” “” “” SLI 4 5 “” 3 2 “” 2 2 “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “”

SMI 4 3 “” 1 1 “” 2 2 “” 2 2 “” 2 “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” 33 “” “” TBI “” “” “” 1 1 “” 2 2 25 “” “” “” “” “” “” 5 4 “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “”

VI “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “” “”

Note: Each column will total approximately 100 percent (due to rounding) for each data source. Some cell values may have been

suppressed to protect data privacy.

special education program compliance review final report · the minnetonka public school district...

Documents